Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
From: preece@uicsl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Common interests of countries - (nf)
Message-ID: <4095@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Nov-83 22:31:42 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.4095
Posted: Wed Nov 23 22:31:42 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Nov-83 06:32:11 EST
Lines: 30

#R:dciem:-48000:uicsl:16300034:000:1412
uicsl!preece    Nov 23 10:58:00 1983

It's pretty silly to spend a lot of time complaining about the
behavior of the British in India, South Africa, or wherever in a
much different world.  However we may feel about colonialism now,
in times gone by it was the rule that areas not under strong central
control were fair game.  We never did much in the way of colonies
for two obvious reasons: we weren't big enough and powerful enough during
the time that suitable places were available, and we had our own
private preserve stretching to the Pacific, which we colonized the
Hell out of.

We're not talking about anybody having been, or being now, angels.
Our interests and those of the British have generally been parallel
and we have generally supported each other's efforts. It's stupid
to knock the British for not perfectly aping our foreign policy;
their differences with us are limited but real.

As to the intelligence of the White House dwellers and the
Royal Family, I have no evidence.  One would, however, expect more
from the elected executive of a country than from the hereditary,
titular head of a country.  They don't pay the Queen for being
smart, they pay her for being Queen.  With luck, one day soon,
we won't pay Ronny for anything... [I know, I know, ex-Presidents
still get a bundle, and we'll still have to watch him on television,
etc., etc.; I was speaking only in abstract terms...]

scott preece
ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece