Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fisher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Grenada rescue & weakness
Message-ID: <378@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Oct-84 08:46:17 EST
Article-I.D.: fisher.378
Posted: Wed Oct 31 08:46:17 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Nov-84 04:48:17 EST
References: <29200162@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics
Lines: 106

"He who is ignorant of History is doomed to repeat it." 
		
		-approximate quote of Santanyana

>On the subject of Grenada:

>>As for the students, I would
>>not question protecting their safety, but I have yet to have heard
>>anything even suggesting they really were in danger.  Listen to the
>>students themselves.
>>David Rubin

>I *have* listened to the students, have you?  Just last Thursday, Bob Dean,
>one of the medical students rescued from Grenada, spoke here on our campus.  He
>told frightening stories of 24 hour SHOOT ON SIGHT curfews, no drinkable water
>supplies, rationed food, military patrols by Cuban "construction workers"
>carrying Soviet made AK 47 rifles, executions of political opponents and their
>relatives, and a "government" which told the world the students were free to
>leave while at the same time denying them access to all forms of air or sea
>evacuation facilities.  They had to boil what little water they had in storage
>to drink in order to stay alive.
>Fortunately, we have a president that believes in freedom and a military that
>is willing to die so that others may enjoy what, through their deaths, they
>lose. Too many people have died because of the mistakes of leaders like Walter
>Mondale and Neville "Peace in our time" Chamberlain.  History, anyone?
>A. Ray Miller

If you read ALL of the article I posted, you'd have noticed that I
said that the students had good reason to be damned scared.  However,
having to boil your water and go hungry for the period of the coup
does not present any real danger; as for the curfew, it was not
directed against Americans, but was applied to all of Grenada.
Political opponents were executed and curfew violators were shot, but
the same was true in Chile.  There, it was suggested that Americans
simply endure the discomfort and observe the curfews until the
situation stabilized.  

As far as charges for appeasement, let me state what should be
obvious: the threat to our prosperity and our freedom does not
originate in the social upheavals in Latin America, but from the
Soviet dictatorship.  In this regard, Reagan has not been firmer (in
action; he does bluster more, though) than the previous "vacillating"
Democratic administration.  Whereas Carter imposed a grain embargo and
boycotted the Soviet Olympics in response to the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan, Reagan lifted all restrictions and committed the US to
never taking these actions again, even as the Soviets were compelling
the crushing of Solidarity in Poland.  Whereas Carter placed primary
defensive emphasis on our conventional forces, the one area where we
really are behind the Soviets, the Reagan administration has actually
reduced expenditures for operations and supply, even as it races to
build weapons (e.g. the MX and the B-1) which do not make us more
secure.  Whereas Carter was able to get our NATO allies to reach a
consensus on real increases in defense spending and the deployment of
intermediate range missiles in Europe, Reagan nearly destroyed that
consensus with the weight of his bluster.  And to top it all off,
Reagan suggests turning over Star-Wars technology to the Soviets if it
proves to be succesful, as if the technology would have no application
to other systems, conventional and nuclear, which are not affected by
a Star Wars defense.  Tell me about appeasement.  Reagan may be
willing to flex those muscles against local revolutionaries, but with
the Soviets, it's always business as usual.

It is necessary for our nation to have troops brave enough and
capable enough to defend our freedom.  However, it is both a
squandering of our resources and an incredible injustice to them if
they die for a cause which does not serve freedom.  Such was the case
in Lebanon, and I am yet to be convinced it was not the case in
Grenada.  

Being "Communist" does not automatically mean that a country or
movement threatens our security or interests. China is Communist.
Yugoslavia is Communist.  In the final analysis, governments will act
in their perceived self-interest, and, if confronted with a CHOICE
between conflict with the US or the acceptance, by them and the US, of
national sovereignties, will usually choose the latter.  If they do
not, I will admit conflict is inevitable.  But if they are never given
the choice, because we insist all revolutions are Marxist and
therefore bad, they themselves will have no choice but to seek aid
from another power.  Then we will have brought about a real threat by
insisting upon an imaginary one, for the danger is not local
revolution but dependency upon the Soviets.  And remember: some of our
best allies our socialists. Why socialism is acceptable in Europe and
automatically equated with Communism and Soviet control in Latin
America remains an inpenetrable mystery for those who do not see
Soviet inspiration behind every objection to social inequity.

The history of the 1930's clearly illustrates the dangers of
appeasement.  We ought not to think, though, that history becan with
the Treaty of Versailles.  There are other lessons to be learned.
Just as appeasement encouraged the aggressor and led to WWII, jingoism
and unwillingness to compromise differences brought us WWI.  Both
extremes are to be avoided.  Being labeled a "liberal" is not an
indication that one is an appeaser (after all, it was those "liberals"
who saw enough of a threat in the Soviet Union to begin the cold war),
and Mondale is no Chamberlain.  I hope that Reagan is no Bethemann,
and will not involve us in a war not in our own interests, but in
those of a desperate "ally" and made possible by the granting of some
ill-considered "blank check".  Remember that the German political
establishment did not want war in 1914, but unwisely gave
unconditional assurances to an Austrian state which was probably
doomed anyway, and certainly desperate.  History is not an Aesop's
fable with a single moral; it holds many lessons and illustrative
examples.

					David Rubin
			{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david