Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: World Conquest(?),Hegemony, US:USSR:re to Adams
Message-ID: <891@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Dec-85 09:07:35 EST
Article-I.D.: mmintl.891
Posted: Mon Dec 16 09:07:35 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Dec-85 19:18:46 EST
References: <756@whuxl.UUCP> <29200244@uiucdcs> <362@whuts.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 44
Summary: 


In article <867@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes:
>Frank Adams writes:
>> 
>> Actually, I think the desire for world conquest represents a minor part of
>> Soviet policy, adhered to by a minority even in the armed forces.  But the
>> desire for control of their neighbors is not a minor part of their policy.
>> This desire has historically and continues to result in the incorporation
>> of such areas into the state.  Then there are new set of neighbors to
>> dominate ...  If left unchecked, this will ultimately lead to world conquest.
>> The actions it produces are practically indistinguishable from those which
>> would be pursued if world conquest were the driving goal.
>> 
>> Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
>
>I am glad that you are willing to admit that "world conquest" is not a
>primary part of Soviet foreign policy.  Having gotten that far you then
>say that "contol of their neighbors" is an important part of their policy.
>I agree.  How is that *less* of a part of *any* nation's foreign policy?
>Let us look at our own checkered history of control of countries,
>neighbors or not.  
> 
> [list of US foreign interventions and alleged interventions]
> 
>Does this mean the US is set upon "world conquest"?

All countries have wanted enough power to feel safe, and usually a little
more, too.  Through history, most countries have taken as much power as they
thought they could get away with.  The U.S. has not.  We could (relatively)
easily have taken control of the entire Western hemisphere any time this
century.  We could probably have gotten effective control of the entire world
after WWII.

Russia has generally taken as much power as they thought they could get away
with.  The U.S. is today the only nation powerful enough to keep them from
taking it all.  Given the nature of their government, I think we have a moral
obligation to do so.  (We also have a right to defend ourselves.)

Most of the actions you cite (especially the more recent ones) are viewed by
those who support them as contributing to this defense.  One may doubt the
correctness of their assessment in many cases.  It is quite another matter
to doubt their sincerity.

Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108