From: ez007856@hamlet.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.latin-america
Subject: Re: Latin Americans for Clinton?
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:15:36 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

In <1992Aug18.161727.13162@afit.af.mil> David L Sonnier writes:
[stuff deleted]

>>1.-Continue with the embargo against the Cuban dictatorship and assure that
>>communism really comes to an end in the world.

>Is this a joke?  After all the Democrats have done in the last 30 years
>to insure the survival of communist tyranny?  This is the same party
>that sat on the sidelines and jeered at those of us who dared to
>confront communist expansion in the world, particularly in Latin
>America.  So now you're going to reward them.

Now, lets be reasonable. Not al Democrats are "liberals", take for instance 
the current policy towards Cuba.  It was concieved and put in place by non 
other than our good old President Kennedy after showing his ambivalence (really 
not his fault but the CIA's) with the Bay of Pigs invasion.

>>2.-Grant hatians a right to assylum and restore democracy in Haiti with the
>>help of the 7th fleet (to be used later in Cuba).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Just because Field Marshall Wilhelm von Clinton deployed the Arkansas
>national guard doesn't mean he is in the least bit qualified to be the
>mmander in chief.  (What was that for, anyway?  To quell an uprising
>in Little Rock?)  His comments to date about the application of military
>force reveal him to be dangerously incompentent in this regard.  Of
>course, what would y expect from a draft-dodger, who has never had to
>consider the personal price paid for foolish decisions by an incompetent
>commander in chief.

Again lets, be reasonable.  Mr. Quayle, another draft dodger is a step away 
fromthe presidency and Mr. Bush feels perfectly happy with his choice.  
Furthermore Field Marshall Ronald Reagan had no military experience other than 
leading the National Guard in sunny California.  Perhaps thats why he got us 
into Lebanon.  In any event, no republican think Reagan did a bad job in 
foreign policy. Furthermore, Mr. Bush seems to be weak in military matters.  
For example he let the Serbian gestapo initiate a new holocaust instead of 
acting agressively from the begining, simply becasue we have no strategic 
intersts in Bosnia (a la Tibet) as we did in Kuwait. Result: the destablization 
of the Balkans, what got us precisely into the "great" war. 

>
>You left one out.

>5.  Increase government spending so that by 1996 the federal debt is
>$25,000,000,000,000.00 instead of just $4,000,000,000,000.00.

>Congress (Check bouncers, middle-of-the-night-pay-raises, etc.) spends
>money, not the president.  Congress opposed President Bush's balanced
>budget amendment, as well as every other attempt to reduce federal
>spending.  And congress is controlled by Democrats.  They can't wait
>to get their hands on a president who will go along with their tax-and-
>spend philosophy of solving problems with "programs" instead of through
>encouraging free enterprise.

Your 100% right about the crooks (of both parties) in Congress, but Mr. Bushes 
own budget proposals have never been balanced.  And his agencies are the #1 
spenders in the nation.  And I wonder, which administrations are the ones who 
got us into debt anyway: Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Roosevelt?  So perhaps 
instead of having a cold war military wich wants billions for building first 
strike strategic bombers but can't fight anything on the ground (i.e., Bosnia) 
we should streamline defense and put the money where its needed: deficit 
reduction. 

Edelmiro Salas