Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame
Subject: Re: Re: Responsibility for the Holocaust: Reply to Saumya Debray
Message-ID: <622@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-May-85 08:53:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuxl.622
Posted: Mon May  6 08:53:39 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 8-May-85 00:14:17 EDT
References: <3655@alice.UUCP> <396@enmasse.UUCP> <255@sbcs.UUCP>, <620@whuxl.UUCP> <3691@alice.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 92
Xref: watmath net.politics:8870 net.flame:9744

>  From jj: 
> Of course, Tim.  All of us who want better relations with
> the Germans, etc, just want them so that we can put newer
> and better deadly weapons in their countries.
 
It has been explicitly stated by the Reagan administration and also
noted to a certain extent by the Press that *one* of the objectives
Reagan wanted out of the Economic Summit was support for his "Start Wars"
program.  Indeed the Summit did come out with a lukewarm endorsement of
the "Start Wars" concept except for Francois Mitterand who suggested
that Europe would be better served by the "Eureka" program for *civilian*
research rather than military research.  
> 
> I think you are totally blind to ideas outside of your own
> ethos, and you automatically (I'm assuming it's automatic 
> instead of malicious) assume the worst possible reason for
> anything you don't agree with.
> 
You should look at my posting on this matter from a long time ago in
which I stated that one *should* have sympathy for the soldiers killed
on both sides but that one should also honor the innocent civilians
who have been more the victims of modern warfare than any other group.
Personally I think the Press has blown the whole matter out of proportion
and focussed its attention on the wrong thing(as usual).
Certainly I do not think there is anything wrong with reconciliation or
even acknowledging that Adolph Hitler himself was human, even if he
was deranged.  I am tired however of the claim that the Holocaust was
"due to one man".  The Holocaust was the product of social forces and not
just one man.  It was supported by right-wing anti-semitism and anti-communism
that was endemic to German society.  
The question is: will we prevent another Holocaust which would destroy
the whole human race?  What are the nations of the world doing to stop
the current bloodshed between Iran and Iraq?  Since that war seems to play
into the hands of both superpowers there is little concern to stop it.
What are we doing to move away from a system which spends trillions on
war while hundreds of millions of people are starving?

> Frankly, that sort of behavior is offensive.  You MUST assume
> the other guy has SOME smarts, Tim.  While you, and others,
> have many times accused me of total idiocy, you also
> have accused me of manpulation, sophistry (although you never
> use the word, perhaps because it strikes too close to home),
> and the like.  By defination, an idiot cannot either manipulate
> or use rhetoric, so your representation of me is flawed.
 
I don't recall ever accusing you of being a "total idiot".  What I have said
is that your articles are long on emotion and short on facts.  This
article is yet another example.  I cannot accuse you of manipulation or
sophistry as such tactics require at least the attempt to present facts
or seeming facts to buttress an argument.  Since you very seldom present
facts (other than your own opinions) I do not think you are manipulative.
 
> You have also called Reagan (who I'm NOT, remember?) idiotic,
> and you have also accused HIM of the same.  Ditto...
> 
 
Well, what *do* you say about somebody who says "Hardly anyone is alive
to remember World War II" or "Trees pollute" or "There are more forests
today than in George Washington's time" or "the advantage of missiles
launched from submarines is that they can be recalled" or a person
who admits to a Congressional delegation that he has just been made aware
of the fact that the Soviets major strategic nuclear forces are
landbased while ours is not (2 years after being President!)......
Do you call such a person a "genius" with magnificent command of
the facts?
> 
> If you MUST spread hate, please don't call it hating for peace.
> 
 
I do not hate Ronald Reagan anymore than Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin
or Richard Nixon.  I do think that he is a liar and a hypocrite of
the worst sort who is promoting policies which are very bad for our own
country and the rest of the world.  I am determined to oppose Reagan's
policies and the lies which he uses repeatedly to support those policies.
I do not want any "revenge" against Reagan, I would just like to see
opposing policies to his put into effect.
When Nixon was forced to resign due to Watergate, I said "I told you so"
but I also did not agree with those who wished to lock him up and throw
away the key.  To be stripped of power was good enough as far as I was
concerned.  The same with Reagan: I wish he would just go back to his
ranch and make Borax commercials and leave us in peace.
 
Is it an expression of "hate" to point out that Reagan is spending more
on War than any leader in history? ($1.6 trillion he plans to spend)
That he has lied repeatedly?  Or should one just say "oh. but he seems
so nice on Television......"
 
Mahatma Gandhi said that it is one's duty to oppose evil in every way 
possible consistent with truth and nonviolence.  I personally think
Reagan and his policies are evil and I will continue to oppose them.
 
                 tim sevener whuxl!orb