Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cylixd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!akgub!cylixd!charli
From: charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: "Reds" vs "fascists":Reagan's remarks
Message-ID: <661@cylixd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-Jan-86 14:28:46 EST
Article-I.D.: cylixd.661
Posted: Mon Jan  6 14:28:46 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Jan-86 19:49:09 EST
References: <1783@teddy.UUCP> <39000044@ISM780B.UUCP> <449@whuts.UUCP> <351@cisden.UUCP> <459@whuts.UUCP>
Reply-To: charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips)
Organization: RCA Cylix Communications , Memphis, TN
Lines: 24
Summary: 

>Fr. Woolley, I maintain my consistency in opposition to war and violence
>by anyone whether it is the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or the
>French and American invasion of Indochina.  Reagan does not.
>          tim sevener   whuxn!orb

Tim, I'm not certain that a consistent opposition to "war and violence
by anyone" is a sound moral position, and I'm not even sure that it is
yours.  Let's take a couple of cases - WWII and the Ukranian famine.
(I'm even giving you the benefit of hindsight and history here.)  Would
you have opposed the use of war and violence had the French and British
invaded Germany to stop Hitler?  Would you have opposed the use of war
and violence to stop the Ukranian famine?  If you answer no to either
question, then you are not consistent in opposing "war and violence by
anyone;" like Reagan and most of the rest of us, you oppose them
selectively.  So now, if you answered no to either question, you might 
want to explain the grounds on which *you* oppose the use of war and
the grounds on which *you* would support it.

And, Tim, if you are a true pacifist and sincerely oppose all war and
violence, I'll gladly apologize for doubting your statement.  (And I'll
likely have some other questions, as well.)

	regards,
		Charli