Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780B.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!cca!ISM780B!jim
From: jim@ISM780B.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <39000004@ISM780B.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 24-Aug-85 01:15:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ISM780B.39000004
Posted: Sat Aug 24 01:15:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 20:27:34 EDT
References: <1042@ihlpg.UUCP>
Lines: 47
Nf-ID: #R:ihlpg:-104200:ISM780B:39000004:000:2629
Nf-From: ISM780B!jim    Aug 24 01:15:00 1985


> A distinction must be made between innocent bystanders and a group
> that deliberately places themselves in a dangerous situation.
> I have no sympathy for the latter when they get into trouble.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I get the impression that it is not merely
deliberately placing oneself in danger that results in you having no sympathy,
but that you in some way disapprove of the politics of those involved.
Surely you have sympathy for those who harbored jews in Nazi Germany,
or for those who rush into burning buildings to save people trapped inside?
If in fact the people involved here were conscientious and believed that by
their actions they were acting morally, and in fact that their actions were
demanded by their (religious) faith, would you have sympathy for them?
If in fact the people of Nicaragua were actually being unfairly attacked
by mercenaries backed by the U.S. government, that the situation were such
that the capturers were acting immorally and the captured persons were acting
morally, would you have sympathy?  Note that these are hypothetical questions;
I am asking you how you would feel *if in fact you accepted their
presumptions*.  Now, if you would say yes to any of these, would you consider
the possibility that your lack of sympathy is based upon your belief that
situation is not as indicated by these hypothetical questions?  If such a
disagreement is present, I suggest that it would be more direct and honest
to voice and justify those disagreements, rather than implying that the
persons involved deserve their fate on some sort of general grounds
independent of your biases.

>What bullying foreign policy?

Surely you don't deny that the U.S. uses its size and weight to *some*
advantage?  I don't see this sort of denial of the U.S. acting against
the interests of others as being very honest.

>Which country greets
>its citizens returning from abroad in coffins?

In many places they just collect them off the streets.  The number of
Americans killed in hostilities in this century is *relatively* quite small.
Your question does not address the complexities of political reality, or
the important questions of *why* Americans are responded to with hostility,
whether justified or not; it surely is not simply because we all wear white
hats and the others are all evil black hat wearers who are fundamentally
opposed to good; that should have gone out with Zoroastrianism.
Your question is designed to appeal to an emotional, nationalistic response;
the dangers of such an approach to world politics has been amply documented
and discussed elsewhere.

-- Jim Balter (ima!jim)