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!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!cca!ISM780B!jim
From: jim@ISM780B.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: the Monolithic Communist Conspir
Message-ID: <39000032@ISM780B.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Nov-85 15:06:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ISM780B.39000032
Posted: Tue Nov 26 15:06:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 21:08:58 EST
References: <841@whuxl.UUCP>
Lines: 24
Nf-ID: #R:whuxl:-84100:ISM780B:39000032:000:1199
Nf-From: ISM780B!jim    Nov 26 15:06:00 1985


>[ tim sevener whuxn!orb]
>>> > If the Soviet Union is so set upon "world conquest" why is it that
>>> > they haven't invaded the small Communist countries of
>>> > Rumania, Yugoslavia, and Albania for the past 40 years?
>
>>> We will note that Tim omitted Hungary from his list.  [Tom Hill]
>
>As well as Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan.
 
Ok, Jan, I've changed my mind, you *are* stupid.  Obviously Tim didn't
include them because they *have* been invaded.  If he had included them
in the list, then his statement would have simply been factually false.
The *point* is that there is legitimate reason for honest, intelligent,
analysists to hypothesize reasons for Soviet aggressive behavior other
than "world conquest".  Tim asked a legitimate question: why did
the Soviet Union allow Austria its independence.  If you are
*intellectually honest*, if you are going apply the same principles
to the analysis of politics that you would to science, then you must
be prepared to reconcile that fact with the "world conquest" hypothesis.
Treating those who disagree with that interpretation as though they
are apologists for the USSR is ideologically driven dishonest rhetoric.

-- Jim Balter (ima!jim)