Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decwrl!bottom@katadn.DEC From: bottom@katadn.DEC Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: to interfere or not to ..... Message-ID: <237@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Fri, 30-Aug-85 07:24:33 EDT Article-I.D.: decwrl.237 Posted: Fri Aug 30 07:24:33 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 1-Sep-85 05:09:34 EDT Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Lines: 30 It seems a little curious to me that some poeple who are vocal on this net seem to be trying to say that we should never have interfered in the current civil war in Lebanon. Ok I can buy that. Then these same people seem to favor the US helping start a civil war in South Africa. What gives? It's their civil war let them fight it. Or are *we* such defenders of civil rights unless it's religious civil rights? Selective interference is that it? The following reasoning seems to apply: If it's a racial issue then the US is morrally bound to step in and save from legislated discrimination. Even if the legal government would oppose us in this move. If it's a religious issue then we are morally corrupt if we attemp to interfere even if the legal government asks us to. Or is it that interfering in the civil war in Lebanon, a move that was intended to help the government there stop the war,(somewhat futile I'll admit) might expose the atrocities committed by the Israelies as well as the atrocities committed by the PLO an other equally radical groups? Seems to me there is a bit of hypocracy involved with these positions. Comments? Dave Bottom DEC Augusta Maine !dec-rhea!dec-katadn!bottom Turn off your TV's, turn off your TV's ahh.. that one is off for good!