Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!bbnccv!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: (Orphan) Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <7800694@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Nov-85 19:24:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800694
Posted: Wed Nov 20 19:24:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Nov-85 21:35:16 EST
References: <7280@ucla-cs.UUCP>
Lines: 52
Nf-ID: #R:ucla-cs:-728000:inmet:7800694:000:2175
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Nov 20 19:24:00 1985



>[Jim Balter (ima!jim)]
>>/* Written  8:07 pm  Nov  2, 1985 by janw@inmet in ISM780B:net.politics */
>>An authoritative opinion, to put things in perspective:
>>
>>] ... over two decades ago, there was only Cuba in Latin America,
>>] today there are Nicaragua, Grenada, and a serious battle
>>] is going on in El Salvador.
>>
>>[Marshal N. V. Ogarkov, then Soviet Chief of Staff, writing
>>to his counterpart in Grenada, Major E. Louison]

>Have you ever heard of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?
>People quoted a lot from that juicy "document" too in order to
>support their views not supported by more reliable forms of evidence.

Comparaison n'est pas raison. Or do you have any particular reason to
compare the documentation captured in Grenada to the "Protocols"?
If so, out with it!

The view supported by this documentation - namely that  Cuba  and
Nicaragua are, as Grenada was, close Soviet allies - is supported
by lots of other reliable evidence. Which of it  is  likely  to
meet  your  approval, is hard to say. Is voting record in UN evi-
dence ?

>Even assuming that the quote is legitimate, it can easily be interpreted as
>a list of Latin American nations which are self-determined, free from
>American control.  Certainly these are the nations or movements
>opposed by the U.S.  If you think this quote *proves* something,
>I really pity you.

Oh, no, it does not *prove* anything by itself. Just, as I  said,
helps put things in perspective. Your interpretation of the quote
looks far-fetched to me. Surely Argentina, Brasil and Mexico  are
self-determined  ?  And  why  should  marshal  Ogarkov care about
self-determination?

>Everything you believe may be true, but if you are not capable of
>interpreting  information and evidence impartially, independently
>of the conclusion you wish to come to, then the conclusion itself
>is totally untrustworthy.

I agree 100% . This is an admirable methodological rule. I do not
think I have broken it; but if I did, please show me. In any case,
I'll accept it as a warning.

But are you sure *you* are not now dismissing valid evidence  be-
cause it does not fit *your* preconceptions ?

		Jan Wasilewsky