Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!oddjob!apak
From: apak@oddjob.UUCP (Admiral Dorothy Lamour)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Apology for EXPO posting.- actually S.A., Soviets, & Socialists
Message-ID: <1446@oddjob.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 17-Aug-86 20:49:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: oddjob.1446
Posted: Sun Aug 17 20:49:37 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Aug-86 03:02:13 EDT
References: <225@mdivax1.UUCP> <334@ubc-cs.UUCP> <2368@hcrvx2.UUCP> <353@ubc-cs.UUCP> <2375@hcrvx2.UUCP>
Reply-To: apak@oddjob.UUCP (Admiral Dorothy Lamour)
Organization: Aesthetes and Poets Against Karate
Lines: 43

In article <2375@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>     I would believe JBR's comments along these lines (of which he's made
>>many before) if he truly believed in doing anything about *either* South
>>Africa *or* Russia.  In fact he uses this feeble line of argument to
>>support taking no action at all.
>Not true. I merely find it ironic that after watching the Soviet Union
>treat its 275 million citizens in a decidedly undemocratic manner for 
>decades, I am suddenly supposed to get all worked up over 25 million 
>South Africans. If Canada is going to impose economic sanctions against
>S.A. because Apartheid is wrong, then it has a moral obligation to do
>likewise with the S.U. 

That's not true. There are many variables which affect the morality of
sanctions, of which the repugnance of the relevant government is only
one. The Soviet government is not going to be brought down by economic
or military force, and it would be both dangerous and counter-productive
to try. The South African government is going to be overthrown; the only
questions are when? and at what human cost? If you believe, as I do, that
the participation of the West in removing the present system will make it 
happen quicker and with less suffering, then you should support economic
and military action to that end. 

>Just out of curiosity how do the NDP and Britain's labour party differ.
>Are both not beholden to the labour unions? Are both not non-militaristic
>to the point of pacificism? Do both not believe in the nationalization
>of the major industries of their respective countries? Do both not strongly
>disdain capitalism?
>J.B. Robinson

I can only speak about the British labour party. No, though there are
certainly organic and emotional links. No: don't confuse a policy of
*nuclear* disarmament with a policy of pacificism. Partially; depends
on the industry.
As for `disdaining capitalism', what do you mean? If you mean that they
don't regard pure capitalism as a desirable way of running a society, 
I'll give you that one - but who does? 


-- 
                                ihnp4!oddjob!apak
         |                      oddjob!apak@lbl-csam.arpa
                                oddjob!apak@UChicago.bitnet
This is not a pipe              apak%uk.ac.cambridge.phoenix@ucl-cs.arpa