Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!think!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!mcnc!duke!rjn From: rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: A Pleasant Precedent Message-ID: <8704@duke.duke.UUCP> Date: Sun, 12-Oct-86 22:48:42 EDT Article-I.D.: duke.8704 Posted: Sun Oct 12 22:48:42 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 07:37:37 EDT References: <8675@duke.duke.UUCP> <117200223@inmet> Reply-To: rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) Organization: Duke University, Durham NC Lines: 137 > = jan >>> = jan >> = me In article <117200223@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >Commie blasting - yes... but that's not necessarily right-wing. >Look at it this way: I dislike monopolistic corporations - espe- >cially those that own whole countries and groups of countries - >these are called Communist governments. I also dislike theocracy >- and Communist rule is one. I also don't like militarism - >and Communists turn nations into military machines. These are not >right-wing causes. > I strongly disagree with your generalizations concerning communist governments. I do agree that the above description applies to the Soviet Union, but I would not apply it to China. The problem with people in your camp is there immediate condemnation of anything communist. All communist governments are not the same. Every government should be judged on how much support it has from those it governs. >>>The USA is the Jelly Giant, the paper tiger; >>>bashing it is safe, hence all the cries of bully, bully. To test >>>the charge of bullying small countries, consider their UN voting >>>records: even El Salvador agrees with the U.S. something like >>>20% of the time. So much for that myth. > >>Bullying takes many forms. > >And not bullying, only one form. Consider something much more >substantial than U.N. votes: the oil prices that have been crip- >pling Western economies for a decade - a vital interest if any- >thing is. U.S. surely had the raw power to bully the Saudis and >the Shah into concessions - but this wasn't seriously considered. > >Or consider the neighbors, Canada and Mexico - quite defenseless >if the USA was really a bully. The US and Cuba become enemies; >embargo is declared - do the neighbors feel constrained to follow >suit? On the contrary, Canada steps up its trade with Cuba, Mexi- >co becomes best friends with Castro - just to show these bullying >Yankees. Do they pay any price for the boldness? Of course not. > >It is simply amazing how non-bullying a superpower may be. > I define bullying as picking on a weaker country when we are sure of absolutely no harm coming to ourselves. Bullying is cowardice. The U.S. could not have forced the Saudis or the Shah without far reaching consequences in the Middle East. The same with Canada and Mexico. On the other hand we could and did bully Libya and Greneda, because the administration knew it would suffer no real harm or face any real consequences. The administration doesn't have the guts to tackle anything that may cause it to lose power. The U.S. bases its whole foreign policy on gaining and keeping world power. You obviously agree with this. I do not. The U.S. should base its foreign policy on supporting what is right and good for all the people of the world. I know this is pie-in-the-sky idealism to you, but I think it is possible. The U.S. has a tradition of winning all its battles (excepting Vietnam), but it is about time we realized that the Soviet Union and communism are not going to go away and we can not destroy them and keep the world intact. > >There is, however, an image to improve: that of a ready scape- >goat. If trashing the U.S. carried a price, it would be much more >scarce, and the image would improve. > The problem here is that I consider the trashing justified in many instances. You sound like the people who are trying to keep the 'The Africans' series of PBS because it has scenes of people speaking out against the U.S. I want to hear the complaints of people in other countries against the U.S., especially in Africa. We don't withhold welfare from people in the U.S. if they speak out against the government and I think the same principle should apply to people who desperately need aid. >>I also don't think we should give military aid to anyone who does not >>give its citizens basic human rights. > >There's no clear connection - unless the arms are used to >suppress human rights. I would certainly agree we shouldn't >give them handcuffs and tear gas... As for arms - what if the >country is an aggression victim, and we are likely to be next? > Then we should put our own asses on the line. We embarass and degrade ourselves by letting some repressive government do our fighting for us. >>Humanitarian aid should be given to anyone who needs it, no matter what. > >(1) There's not enough to go around. >(2) It is the people's money. Don't you think the government >needs the people's mandate to give it away? (At least the >majority's - I am arguing democracy now, not libertarianism). >And if the mandate is: help some of the needy but keep *our* in- >terests in sight when selecting them - don't you think that's >legit? > Certainly. What I'm really arguing is that I think the current administration is a bunch of twisted, power hungry little geeks who should be locked up as soon as possible. Unfortunately Ronnie was able to blind the people with his actor's charisma and get himself elected, thereby dragging his whole herd of kooks into the capitol. We have gone from a country that elects brilliant statesman and legal experts as its leaders, to one that elects actors. Unless people straighten up and take a little more interest in the political process, this country is in deep shit. >Yet there *is* a way we can, through government, help the needy >of the world so that the help won't be misused but will benefit >the giver and the receiver: relax immigration policy. As a rule, >immigrants work hard and take jobs Americans shun; they earn lit- >tle by U.S. standards and compared to how they benefit the econo- >my; but they earn much more than they did at home, anf they help >their relatives in the old country. All gain, no one loses. > > Jan Wasilewsky I agree with this entirely. Anyone who is not obviously dangerous should be let into this country with little or no hassles. Jim Nusbaum -- R. James Nusbaum, Duke University Computer Science Department, Durham NC 27706-2591. Phone (919)684-5110. CSNET: rjn@duke UUCP: {ihnp4!decvax}!duke!rjn ARPA: rjn%duke@csnet-relay