From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:01:45 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Dec13.050336.20784@athena.cs.uga.edu> milliken@athena.cs.uga.edu (Brewmeister) writes:
>>Cat, the Republican Party, contrary to your misconception, is not entirely
>>composed of Pat Robertson's followers (or Pat Buchanan's, for that matter.)
>No, not entirely.  Just mostly. 

Why do you libs spend so much time complaining about the Republican Party 
having the likes of Pat and Pat, when the Democratic Party has the likes
of the gay rights movement, NOW, NARL, Jesse Jackson (whose speech at the
Democratic convention was every bit as off base as either Pat's), etc.

The fact is, both parties have fringe groups, you just want to talk about 
ours.

>>  Although it is unfortunate that the troops will be away from their
>>families on Christmas (that's a God-fearing Christian holiday, I might
>	     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>No it's not.  Maybe at one time it was, but now, it is little more than a
>commercialized capitalistic orgy which runs from Halloween through Valentine's
>day.  

Unfortunately, there's too many folks like you, and not more of those who
still believe in the "real meaning of Christmas".  Just because you figure it's
a secular buying feast, doesn't mean there's still not a very large majority of
people who celebrate it for it's original reason.

And on top of that, I've heard and seen plenty of troops families who believe
this is a great way to really show the reason behind Christmas.  We have been
asked to send water supply guardsmen to Restore Hope, but only on a vlounteer
basis.  They only needed 20 people, and they had a stampede to sign up.

>How's this for an idea?  We stay out of other nations' affairs, keep our troops
>at home, and spend the money feeding _our_ hungry citizens at home.  The same
>money will feed a lot more people here, since a greater portion will be spent
>on the food itself, as opposed to the portion spent on (1) sending it over 
>there and (2) protecting it.

How many homeless have you seen in the condition of the 75% of the Somalies
you see on the news?  We guarantee schooling, feed the schoolkids breakfast,
give them a free lunch and then send them home, where AFDC, food stamps, and
other programs provide them supper.  We provide free or low cost housing,
energy assistance to pay heating bill, Medicaid to provide healthcare, you
name it.  There is absolutely NO reason why anyone has to live on the street
and starve.  Get off this kick about spending the money here, we are.  We are
paying farmers to grow the food, the military to insure it's safe arrival,
defense suppliers to provide the equipment, energy suppliers to provide the
fuel, etc.  The military provides one hell of an economic impact (positive)
here already.  And if you think not, just ask the laid off defense worker that
lost his job because of defense cutbacks.

>I think this makes perfect sense.  Here we are, with our own domestic problems,
>homeless, hungry, and unemployed people in all 50 states, and an insurmountable debt (what is it now, 4 trillion and change?) and we run the bill higher trying
>

We're (fortunately) not trying to export our way of life.  We don't need LA
street gangs to show they way, they already have "technicals".  All we're
trying to do is keep millions from starving to death.

>Lest anyone get the idea that I am unsympathetic toward the plight of the
>Somalian people, let me assure you that I am not.  Although I sympathize with
>their situation, I feel that America's priorities are out of whack.  

So, put up, or shut up.  Just EXACTLY what SHOULD we do?