Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site shark.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!tektronix!tekgds!tekecs!shark!tims
From: tims@shark.UUCP (Tim Stoehr)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Re: die-hard anti-US activism about Grenada
Message-ID: <127@shark.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Nov-83 14:03:41 EST
Article-I.D.: shark.127
Posted: Mon Nov 28 14:03:41 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Dec-83 03:56:27 EST
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR.
Lines: 153

Tim Stoehr writes:

    A while ago, people on the net were crying for reporters to be let into
    Grenada.  Well, that has happened, and facts have been obtained.  But
    since these facts did not point to any US atrocities, but rather
    confirmed that the invasion was morally correct, I hear all kinds of
    whining and whimpering about a "fact-finding" mission, the quote marks
    suggesting that the reports were not factual.

Michael Turner writes

Ah, "facts have been obtained", eh?  You're not quite so certain of yourself
to say "*the* facts", for some reason.  As one of the "whiners", I scolded
someone back there for moralizing about the accidental hospital-bombing 
as if this were some intended atrocity.  I did not particularly expect U.S.
soldiers to engage in the kind of atrocities that are often associated with
being bottled up in intensely frustrating situations.  (Grenada hardly fits
that bill.)  But "no atrocities" is not equivalent to "morally correct".
And I'm surprised to hear you use morality as a criterion at all--usually,
apologists for U.S. foreign policy adventures prefer to speak in terms of
the essential amorality of international relations.

Tim Stoehr writes:

I didn't write "*the*" facts because all of the facts of any situation,
much less those of an international incident, are almost never known.
However, in the case of the Grenada invasion, enough facts have been
obtained for me to decide for myself about the invasion.  I didn't say
that "no atrocities" is equivalent to "morally correct", nor did I imply
that in any way, an inference of that type can only be an attempt to put
words into my mouth.  The point was that enough information about the
Grenada situation are known that the moral responsibility of the US
in this affair is not in question.  This, of course, is only my opinion.
Someone else may decide that other courses of action, or none at all
were called for, but I myself am glad the situation turned out the way
it did, which I don't think it could have by negotiation.

Tim Stoehr writes:

						    I suggest that if one
    reporter came back with no evidence or pictures and reported US soldiers
    were bayonetting women and children, that alot of net.flamers would be
    screaming "bloody murder!", willing to believe anything negative about
    US government and military.

Michael Turner writes:

Well, we would certainly have some history on our side, now wouldn't we?

Tim Stoehr writes:

The above response dodges, and is beside, the point.  Events in the past,
I assume Viet Nam was referenced, should not be a basis for judging the
Grenada invasion, although I'm sure alot of folks would love to look
at the Grenada invasion and call it "another Viet Nam", for the reason
that they cannot find sufficient fault with the Grenada invasion.

Tim Stoehr writes:

				 And when Tip O'Neil changes his mind about
    the invasion, after hearing more of the full story, nobody can believe
    that he changed his mind based on information he obtained, but would
    rather fabricate any other explanation.

Michael Turner writes:

Perhaps we read different newspapers.  The first official statement of his
that I read was to the effect that we should stand by our President.

Tim Stoehr writes:

Tip O'Neil does "not stand by the president." for the sake of "standing by
the president."  The point is that some people would grasp at this
explanation rather that accept that O'Neil made up his own mind in
favor of Reagan.

Tim Stoehr writes:

					     Even Ron Dellums, who went to
    Grenada to see for himself, had nothing bad to say about the invasion,
    only that military actions themselves are unfortunate anytime.

Michael Turner writes:

Again, we must be reading different newspapers.

Tim Stoehr writes:

I can't argue with that, I don't know what newspaper Mike reads.  This
bit of information was taken from US News and World Report, and is
restricted to Dellums' initial reaction after visiting Grenada.

Tim Stoehr writes:

   If Ron Dellums couldn't condemn Reagan for the invasion, then who could?

Michael Turner writes:

Ron Dellums condemns Reagan as a matter of course, and this event was no
exception.  Let me ask you this: do you know, for sure, that the members
of the fact-finding commission actually came away with more than they
already knew?  It surprised me that, when they returned, they had no facts
to report.  But then, military governments are not the best source of
facts.

Tim Stoehr writes:

Precisely my point, Ron Dellums, and some others, condemn Reagan as a
matter of course, not by rational judgement.
I think that if Ron Dellums, or anyone else who went to Grenada to
to obtain facts, had been denied access to the basic information they
were seeking, they would have complained openly and bitterly.  Maybe
they couldn't find absolutely everything they wanted, but they got
more than enough to make a responsible report.

Michael Turner writes:

I question the administration ABUSE of what facts they were willing to
release, and its contradictory interpretations of these facts, as well
as its use of outright LIES.  Are you (Tim Stoehr) denying that the
administration has acted in this manner?  Given its behavior, what would
you say about its ABILITY to cover up real atrocities?  Do you think
they would have the moral rectitude to own up to it?  You seem real big
on morality.  Is lying to the American people immoral?  I would like to
hear you address these questions, and not some false issues that I have
not involved myself with, except to object to their falseness.  If William
Safire can feel lied to, why not you?  Is it because you don't know?

Tim Stoehr writes:

I absolutely 100% believe that no country can cover up international
atrocities.  Was the US able to cover up what went on in Viet Nam?
Was the Soviet Union, the world's top cover up artist, able to cover
up what what they've done in Afghanistan?  Again, you strengthen the
point of my original article.  You would rather believe anything than
the fact that the US acted in a responsible manner.  When something
bad is reported about the US government, it is believed, but when the
truth about Grenada is reported, it is called lies.  Given the behavior
of the US government in the past, I cannot believe that it would be
able to cover up a fiasco in Grenada, if, indeed, there had been one.
No, lying to the American people is not moral, but such lies about
Grenada would be futile in that they could not stand up.  What I
would like to know is why you (Michael Turner) believe that the US
could cover up a bad situation in Grenada, given that it hasn't been
able to in the past in other parts of the world?

Well, now I've addressed these issues.  I apologize for posting such a
long and repetitive article.  Perhaps followups could be shortened
somehow without losing the main content.

---
Tim Stoehr
tektronix!tekecs!tims