Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site rochester.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!rochester!leblanc From: leblanc@rochester.UUCP (Tom LeBlanc) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Correction Message-ID: <4178@rochester.UUCP> Date: Wed, 14-Dec-83 13:47:13 EST Article-I.D.: rocheste.4178 Posted: Wed Dec 14 13:47:13 1983 Date-Received: Fri, 16-Dec-83 02:27:27 EST Sender: leblanc@rocheste.UUCP Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept. Lines: 29 From: Tom LeBlanc ---------- Why is "Nicaragua is another Vietnam" accepted as gospel when the only thing they have in common is that the US supports the party in power from the right and the USSR supports the party not in power from the left, while "Greneda was a potential Iran" is ridiculed as nonsense by the same people. Reason: Reality is easy to imitate, but difficult to manufacture. ---------- The above submission had a Freudian slip; I meant El Salvador, not Nicaragua. This explains some of Jordan Pollacks cracks. As for the convenience of his analogy: I agree, but for different reasons. (His remarks are in quotes). "The dimensions of the analogy include the slow escalation of US involvement," You prefer rapid escalation? "the massive amounts of Propaganda fed into our media system," Most of which is yelling about Vietnam. "Iran and Vietnam are good targets for analogy because they serve up, respectively, patriotic and anti-patriotic sentiment." and because everyone carries a lot of convenient baggage of thought with respect to these two analogies, that allows us to ignore the particulars of each situation. Thus, for example, ANY jungle guerrilla war will fit in a nice cubbyhole called Vietnam and we don't have to give it another thought.