From: buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY)
Subject: Re: [military] sending troops to the Middle East
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 13:34:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.012511@IASTATE.EDU> exodus@IASTATE.EDU writes:
>
>
>  I can't believe that I'm hearing this.......are you people really this out of
>
>touch with today's world or what? As a superpower, no as the superpower, we
>have
>
No, I'm not out of touch. Unlike you I have a very clear understanding of
what is involved in your version of a Pax Americana.

>certain responsibilities not only to ourselves, but to the world at large. Wake
>
>up to reality people- the world is not a place where you can shut yourselves
>off
>
No. but it is time the US finally quits blundering into situations without
clearly defining its purposes.

>from the rest and sit in idle bliss. We have specific interests abroad, as well
>
>as at home, and we sometimes defending those interests unfortunately requires
>
>the use of military force.

True. Now it is up to the people who support the intervention to define those
interests. If it no more than a dislike of the way things are run in another
country, that is not sufficient. All to often our specific interests were a
fantasy. The reasons for an intervention in Grenada were a farce. The reasons
given for intervention in Panama were not sufficient for intervention in 
another country. The reason that they were sufficient for use in Panama is that
Panama is of large strategic value to the US.

 Do you have any idea what the Middle East would look
>
>like today had Bush taken to the isolationist-like stance that you seem to
>
>support?

My isolationist stance is quite simple - If it is the US's interest to 
intervene, then do so. If it is not, then don't. I supported the invasion
of Kuwait. I also realize that that you are living in a fantasy world if
you do not think that there will not be a second Persian Gulf War.
 I am 
assuming that you are writing this post in response to my post about Somalia.
I am also assuming that you got brain lock when I mentioned the word 'isolation'
The Persian Gulf is of strategic value to the US and I will support the actions
needed to ensure that the oil is not cut off to the US.

 I prefer not to think of the dangerous implications of letting a
>
>ruthless dictator run roughshot over the enire Middle East. Seems like it
>wasn't
>
>too long ago when people like yourselves were arguing against our sending
>troops
>
I argued for sending troops to Kuwait. I operate on what I hope is a pragmatic
manner.

>abroad to help stop another ruthless dictator in Berlin. The same arguments
>were
>
>rampant then- 'how can we afford to do that when we're just recovering from a
>
>major economic depression? Our domestic needs should come first!'. When will
>
>people learn that freedom has a price?

The United States has been at war since 1940. This has been both a military and
economic war. We have barely won that war. It has cost the US a hundred thousand
lives and literally millions of other lives. What price would you have us pay?
At this point the US military can not mobilize the manpower that your scheme
would require.

 You cannot afford to make exceptions,
>
>not in any case. If you do not stand up to such agression, it will inevitably
>
>destroy you. Today's post-cold war world requires even more attention than it
>
>did 5 years ago.
>
> The problems in Yugoslavia are a prime example of the chaos
>
>that has resulted from the collapse of the Soviet Geo-Political Empire. It is
>
>true that our national interests are not on the line here. Does that mean we
>
>turn our backs? We are entering into a new political age, one in which human
>
>rights and a common sense of morality are beginning to become a more and more
>
>universally accepted standard of living. To let the brutal killing go on in
>
>Yugoslavia would be a serious setback to our new age. Although there are
>
>similar problems around the world that ideally should be dealt with just as
>
>quickly (but will ultimately be ignored), we still must push for world 
>
>intervention in this human rights nightmare. Because this conflict is in the
>
>spotlight worldwide it is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate to the world
>
>that this type of behavior not only is unacceptable, but that it will NOT be
>
>tolerated. We have the historic opportunity in this new age to reset the world-
>
>wide standards for human rights, as well as social and moral values. We cannot
>
>as a people afford to let this opportunity pass us by.
>
The only lesson that will be learned is that it is not smart to allow camera
crews into concentration camps. However, this is your best line of reasoning.
But I get the feeling that if things are do not progress the way you want, you
will be the first to jump ship. I also feel that these are only arguments to
justify what you already believe - that the US should conquer the world.
(reference your remark about being the world power).

>   I will end by asking one last question- how can you people possibly be
>
>willing to turn your heads when actual genocide- efforts to actually implement
>
>racial purification are going on in the Balkans right now? How can you be so
>
>brutally uncaring about the plight of those people?

Ask yourself this question: Which side will we intervene on? The genocide must
stop but when you consider that this is a condition of more than just one side,
it becomes a real question of where the moral high ground lies. Will we 
intervene in such a way to help one of the sides that are using these purifiaction methods? If so, then we are putting a stamp of approval on what has already 
occurred. Will the UN or the US take over control of Bosnia?

Charles Buckley

Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.war