Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site erix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!mcvax!enea!erix!per
From: per@erix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.misc
Subject: Re: A International subject
Message-ID: <457@erix.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-May-84 02:52:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: erix.457
Posted: Mon May 28 02:52:56 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Jun-84 21:58:44 EDT
References: <410@erix.UUCP> <263@cepu.UUCP> <455@erix.UUCP>
Organization: L M Ericsson, Stockholm, Sweden
Lines: 17

My God! Is "it would be hard to get out again" really the best argument against
(US?) armed intervention we can produce? How about "international law"? One is
not *supposed* to come barging in, weapons raised, as soon as it would suit
ones interests. The fact that one has let oneself become dependent on some
product of the country/ies in question is not an excuse, nor that anyone can
tell that their leaders are in acute need of mental care and totally incapable
of acting in the best interest of their people.

Living in a supposedly non-alliance country, we should be especially careful to
take exception to any ideas of such enterprises, rather than tossing in our two
cents of pros and cons on invading country X. In another place and time, "X"
may very well stand for Sweden, and we're not very likely to get a say in that
discussion!

Per Hedeland             per@erix.UUCP

(PS: Any volunteers to gateway net.politics into net.misc out there? :-))