Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lasspvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!lasspvax!gtaylor
From: gtaylor@lasspvax.UUCP (Greg Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: The United Nations
Message-ID: <277@lasspvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Apr-85 11:16:49 EST
Article-I.D.: lasspvax.277
Posted: Fri Apr  5 11:16:49 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 7-Apr-85 04:04:41 EST
References: <990@ratex.UUCP> <649@tty3b.UUCP> <513@harvard.ARPA> <110@ttrdc.UUCP> <>
Reply-To: gtaylor@lasspvax.UUCP (Greg Taylor)
Organization: LASSP, Cornell University
Lines: 15
Summary: 

In article <> matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) writes:

>	I have no love for the human rights practices of any of those
>countries; however, I believe that leaving those countries to revolution
>would give us the worst of both worlds: a country with equally bad or
>worse human rights policies *and* a government that isn't friendly (if not
>outright threatening) to the the U.S.  "Condemning the whole kit and
>kaboodle" is not a realistic option for a world power facing other, agressive
>world powers.
>
Yes, but that's precisely the argument. There is a point at which our NOT
exerting pressure on people like Pinochet creates precisely those conditions:
The authoritarian gov't assumes our lack of objection constitutes tacit
support, as does the opposition. In essence, this is Walter LeFevre's
argument in "Inevitable Revolutions".