Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttrdc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!ttrdc!mjk
From: mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: The United Nations
Message-ID: <110@ttrdc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 2-Apr-85 17:21:26 EST
Article-I.D.: ttrdc.110
Posted: Tue Apr  2 17:21:26 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 7-Apr-85 05:38:05 EST
References: <990@ratex.UUCP> <649@tty3b.UUCP>, <513@harvard.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Teletype Corp., Skokie, IL
Lines: 19


 >From: matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews)
 >	Can you name one totalitarian system that has fallen in the last fifty
 >years, without being invaded?  Authoritarian rule has fallen in Nicaragua,
 >Argentina, Uraguay, and Iran, and all that just in the last 6 years!
 >Argentina and Uraguay even instituted elections -- when was the last time
 >you saw a totalitarian state go that road?
 >All the tin-pot dictators in this century don't
 >add up to the Gulag, much less the Khmere Rouge, the Cultural Revolution,
 >and Castro.

I have no interest in defending totalitarian governments.  They are awful.
What I'm wondering is why Jeane Kirkpatrick and the Reagan Administration
defend their buddies in Chile, South Africa, and Turkey.  I'm willing to
condemn the whole kit and kaboodle; are you?  And, more to the point, why
*won't* the Reagan Administration?

Mike Kelly