Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 Tandy Xenix 02/17/86; site gilbbs.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!qantel!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 From: mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: In the Name of God Message-ID: <79@gilbbs.UUCP> Date: Sat, 15-Mar-86 01:07:21 EST Article-I.D.: gilbbs.79 Posted: Sat Mar 15 01:07:21 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 17-Mar-86 22:31:44 EST References: <1680@ihlpg.UUCP> <707@mtuxn.UUCP>, <356@gargoyle.UUCP> <725@mtuxn.UUCP> Organization: Gil's Place, Santa Rosa CA Lines: 135 In article <725@mtuxn.UUCP>, gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) writes: > > Nice try. Because Cambodia, China and the USSR are not democratic, > they are exempt from criticism? I'm sure you feel Chile is not democratic, > therefore no one should say anything, right? > > I feel that if you want to make _moral_ statements, you should > make those statements without regard to who is committing the 'wrong'. > If you oppose all US actions against the Communists and NEVER speak > out against the incredible crimes of the Communists, that is hypocrisy. Firstly, Guy, I disagree with your position categorically. As a citizen of this nation, I am partially responsible for any and all actions taken by this nation. I also have thge responsibility to express my concernes when I see this nation on what I consider to be the wrong course. Therefore, it is not only my privilege, but also my obligation to oppose actions of the U.S. which I believe to be in-humane and wrong. I believe that if I, and others who think as I do, speak loudly enough and often enough, we can affect American policy (this is, after all, the idea behind a democratic system). I have no such power to change the policies of communist regimes. Nor am I responsible for the actions of those regimes. I do not "owe" anyone equal time. Secondly, sir, you *ASSUME* that Mr. Sevener, myself, and others "never" speak out against the "incredible crimes" of the "communists". This is false. I know I do, and I have seen Mr. Sevener do so. Because, as I stated above, I am neither responsible for, nor capable of affecting the policies of, these "communists", I tend to concentrate my efforts on speaking to issues I consider to be both of import, and of a nature that they are open to my input. Thus, your argument is specious in both of its major points. > Hypocrisy, to me, means making statements that _appear_ to be based > on moral or ethical grounds, but a really based on political or economic > grounds. I think that anyone who is concerned enough about > human rights to participate in a demonstration has the responibilty to > inform themselves of the actual situation with respect to human rights. > Really? Yet, you are advocating the resistance to communism because it is "evil". Is not this a moralistic judgement? In fact, are not your objections to communism political and economic? Also, again, is it necessary to be actively aware of every human rights violation in the world, in order to protest those we see? Further, should we not in fact protest human rights violations committed by the U.S. ***MUCH*** more vociferously than those committed by the "evil communists" precisely *BECAUSE* America is supposedly above such atrocities? Should we then pattern our behaviour after that of the "communists"? > >Comments like this indicate the futility of discussion with a > >close-minded person, whose mind is already made up and who knows the > >answers already. I guess anyone who disagrees with Mr. Ferraiolo is > >self-evidently hypocritical. > > No, people who protest against one side only are hypocritical. I am > aware of some facts that not everyone knows, the Ukraine for one, that > influence my point of view. It doesn't make me closed minded. > See above comments. Try looking into the history of the White expansion of America, Guy. Then talk to me some more about the atrocities committed by Russia in the Ukraine. (yes, they committed atrocities, yes they were terrible, yes it reprehsnsible that they did so. This in no way abbrogates our responsibility for the atrocities we have committed) The fact that the Soviets (or any of those other "evil communists" are committing atrocities and promoting violence and bloodshed in no way justifies the U.S. doing the same. We are supposed to be better than they are, remember? So why pattern our behaviour after theirs? You remind me of the little kid who cries "But Janie did it too!" when caught and punished. > Since this group is dominated by postings against the policies of the US, > I wanted to make a few points. Incidentally, I don't believe that > my thought processes are infallible, but if you want to change my > mind you'll need at least some 'reasoned discussion'. Indeed, this newsgroup does appear, at present, to be dominated by postings deploring current U.S. policies. What better use for it? As I have stated repeatedly, by making *MUCH* noise about policies we consider harmful oor wrong, we have the opportunity to affect changes in those policies. As each of us, as citizens, are partially responsible for the results of these policies, this is incumbent upon us. Not being responsible for the results of the policies of any other nation, and not having the power or privilege of affecting changes in their policies, I choose not to expend much effort in discussing them here. Criticism is intended to improve the situation. My criticism of the U.S. *might* affect an improvement...my criticism of the "evil commiunists" will not. > By the way, was it just that you didn't like my posting, or did you > have some facts that disproved my claims? As you have offered no facts to support your claims, I for one feel no particular need to refute them. Many of them are obviously incorrect. Others are specious. Some are ridiculous. > > Finally, I do admit to being closed minded in one regard. I will > never accept the legitimacy of a self-appointed group which arrogates > to itself the right to do _anything_ it feels necessary to accomplish > its aims. That is (as far as I know it) the definition of a Leninist > party. > Odd. It seems to me that it also adequately describes the behaviour of the United States over the years. The frequency and manner in which we interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, the assisnations our C.I.A. has engineered, the puppet govenrments we have forced upon several nations all speak of a nation willing to do anything it feels necessary to further its goals. Remember, Mr. Ferraiolo, it was the United States which dropped the only two nuclear weapons ever used against human beings, to further its own goals. > Guy \ I am firmly convinced that the system of governance we have in the United States is the best system currently in use on this planet. That it is the *BEST* possible I do not believe. That it cannot stand considerable improvement, I do not believe. That it is, and should be, the focus of constant criticism and observation, I most firmly believe. I also believe that those who denigrate, those who accuse, those who viciously attack people who so believe, are not defending freedom, or the "American Way". They are fascists. Period. As someone once said: "The freedom to agree with you is no freedom at all." -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)