Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site harvard.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!matthews From: matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: America: soft, rich, pacifist (how they perceive us) Message-ID: <19@harvard.ARPA> Date: Sun, 7-Apr-85 19:04:18 EST Article-I.D.: harvard.19 Posted: Sun Apr 7 19:04:18 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 9-Apr-85 03:19:41 EST References: <314@ssc-bee.UUCP> <567@whuxl.UUCP> <921@ihuxk.UUCP> <733@mhuxt.UUCP> <153@ubvax.UUCP> Organization: Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard Lines: 31 > If an army enters a country and attacks its government, it's an invader. > The intentions of such an army are irrelevant. The bolsheviks had as much > or more right to call themselves the government by the end of WWI as did > any other group. After all, they held all the major governmental centers > and a large part of the countryside (else they would have starved to > death). The Bolsheviks didn't starve to death because they carried out a war against the country's food producers, a war which killed 5-10 million people. That may make them the government, but it doesn't make them legitimate. > Anyone who invades a nation deserves the name "aggressor". Does this apply to the U.S., British, and Russian entry into Germany in 1945? The U.S. invasion of Vichy France? How about the Israeli mission into Uganda in 1976? Not all invasions are aggressive. > And what were US intentions in invading? The same as the other European > powers who entered into the civil war -- to preserve investments (not > necessarily US ones), and to snuff out an example to other dangerous workers' > movements. It surely didn't go in to preserve democracy. > > Tony Wuersch Nonetheless, the forces being supported by the Allies were the forces of democracy in that country. That they failed is a black mark on the history of this century, the consequences of which we will not soon escape. Jim Matthews matthews@harvard