Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780B.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!mhuxv!mhuxh!mhuxj!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!bbnccv!ISM780B!jim From: jim@ISM780B.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: (Orphan) Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <39000020@ISM780B.UUCP> Date: Fri, 22-Nov-85 01:45:00 EST Article-I.D.: ISM780B.39000020 Posted: Fri Nov 22 01:45:00 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 20:59:20 EST References: <7280@ucla-cs.UUCP> Lines: 120 Nf-ID: #R:ucla-cs:-728000:ISM780B:39000020:000:6646 Nf-From: ISM780B!jim Nov 22 01:45:00 1985 >>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! Considering that stylistic analysis indicates that the State Department White Paper on Nicaraguan arm shipments to El Salvador was to a large degree forged, and that the U.S. was in total control of Grenada from day one, and that the U.S. agencies are masters of disinformation (I compliment their skill), I would not be surprised if material supporting the admistration's foreign policy was forged. However, I do admit that that differs from the Protocols, which are *known* to be forged. >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 ? Of Cuba there is of course no doubt since the Cuban economy is heavily subsidized by the Soviets; I worry that you are lumping them together in invalid ways. I also reject your ad hominem implications: present your evidence; I will try to base my "approval" on its strength. Can you be specific about the UN votes, and how they show Soviet influence over Nicaragua rather than just a lack of unreasonable hostility (many nations vote differently from the U.S., which doesn't necessarily mean they are voting badly if you don't assume that all U.S. actions are divinely inspired)? Certainly a vote to condemn U.S. mining of the harbor or support of the contras would be expected from the Soviets regardless of the actual relationship between them and the Nicaraguan government. >>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? Well, if you would provide the quote in context, maybe we could judge the interpretation better. I also said free from American control. Perhaps I should temper that and say free of heavy American economic influence. Perhaps Ogarkov just meant "not actively hostile to the USSR". Perhaps he meant that those three countries have received such hostile treatment from the U.S. that they have been forced to go to the Soviets for support, thus giving the USSR additional influence over them. This certainly is a reasonable interpretation, since Castro, Bishop, and Ortega all tried repeatedly to get support from the U.S.; Bishop and Ortega were both rebuffed by the Reagan adminstration when they came here several times. Their attempts to gain U.S. support are in the public record. They were rejected on ideological grounds *before* they turned to the USSR for help. So if Ogarkov has reason to rejoice, it is largely over our folly. >>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. I'm very glad that you accept the warning; a fine sign of integrity. But we all have trouble following this rule. Like many of us, if you just *hear* the word Nicaragua your blood pressure goes up and all your arguments and quotations start coming into focus and you get ready to defend your position. For example, when you hear that Ortega goes to the USSR, you probably immediately interpret that in terms of a world view of one commie seeking out another; how much serious and impartial credit do you give to the history of U.S. treatment of Nicaragua, of the administration's responses to overtures by Ortega (before you respond, be sure you are familiar with Ortega's trips to the U.S. and the kind of response he received), and to the economic realities of the U.S. war against Nicaragua ("humanitarian" aid to the contras now apparently includes F-86's)? To what degree do you take into account reports by visitors to Nicaragua who claim that it doesn't match the "totalitarian" view? How quickly do you label such visitors "bleeding heart liberals"? When you hear that there are Catholic priests among the Sandinista leadership, how quickly do you label them "liberation theologists" with a pejorative interpretation, or consider them pawns of the communists? Have you read the writings of the Nicaraguan leadership? When you interpret the Nicaraguan elections as a showcase and propaganda, have you read the reports of international observers of the elections? Have you sought out who supports the Nicaraguan government and what they have to say? I have read reports and analyses of the Nicaraguan situation from all sides. Have you? We are all partial. To some degree our partiality is based upon false beliefs. Only a continuous honest reappraisal of *all* our beliefs and assumptions can lead to truth. I really do try to do that; I often fail. If you honestly try to do it also, then I commend you and only quarrel with your interpretation of the available facts. But I find much of what you say so laden with presumption that I strongly question whether you go through this process. >But are you sure *you* are not now dismissing valid evidence be- >cause it does not fit *your* preconceptions ? I have great deal of trouble determining just what the fragment of a quote is evidence *of*. Even if it means that some Soviet marshal sees Nicaragua as a tool for Soviet foreign policy, I'm not sure what that says about the Nicaraguan government, if anything. The fact that Ortega went to the USSR with his hand out seems to me to mean far more than the quote, but I don't think an *impartial* interpretation of that fact says anything about the Nicaraguan government either, except that the U.S. is not friendly to it, which is hardly anything new. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)