From: minch@lotka.stanford.edu (Eric Minch)
Subject: Re: Bush For (Ex)President in '92!
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:49:17 GMT

Geoff Miller writes
> In article <1992Apr8.193928.22238@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com 
> (Don Baldwin) writes:
> 
> >Sure, we're not standing toe-to-toe with the former Soviet Union
> >anymore but look at all the awful things that the US did, in its  
fits
> >of anti-Communist frenzy.  How many people died through torture in
> >Chile, after a US-backed coup replaced Allende with the butcher  
Pinochet?
> >How many people died in Nicaragua, as a result of US-sponsored  
terrorist
> >activities?
> 
> Yeah, I agree that those were terrible things.  So what's the point?
> 

The point, my opic friend, is that these terrible things occurred  
because of our government's particular policy stance, viz. that it was  
in our own best interests, that we had the military might to back them  
up, and that the rest of the world may as well be our ashtray. Do you  
really want to agree with that stance?

SimplePeeve: People who can't see past the nose on their face, and  
assume everyone else wants to enjoy the same view. 

[DB continues...] 
> >IMO, the world will have become a sane place when international  
applies
> >EQUALLY all around:  when the extradition of CIA terrorists to  
Nicaragua
> >is as certain as the extradition of Libyan terrorists to the US.
> 
> You've been reading too much science fiction, Don.  What this rather 
> simplistic view fails to take into account is that nations will  
always 
> attempt to act in their own best interests.  And why shouldn't they?   
From
> what I've seen, the only thing the United Nations is good for is  
providing
> a decorous backdrop for calculated diplomatic maneuvering and  
theatrical, 
> self-serving righteous indignation. 
> 
> Might may not make right, but then, the engine of international  
relations
> doesn't run on morality; it runs on pragmatism, of which military  
power is
> a major component.  Call me cynical, but there it is.
> 

Of course you're right about all this, GM, if all we want to do is to  
make our way in the world as it is. Altruism doesn't pay, justice is  
for losers, etc etc. But if it's ever to change, it has to be the Big  
Guys like the US (this is known as "noblesse oblige"; do you think  
that's for chumps too?) who bring it about. If peace and freedom and  
justice are ever to be established as the norm of international  
behavior--and it's not only weepy wimps who want this, but many men  
greater than you or maybe even me, some of whom perhaps you  
admire--then why should we waste our chance? If we're in a position of  
strength, should we use it to aggrandize ourselves or to make the world  
a better place? What would you do in your neighborhood: swagger around  
intimidating everybody? I believe you had a peeve the other day about  
people being scared of you because of your size; is this how you want  
the rest of the world to perceive us? And what if we get a bit weaker  
(as our industrial and financial prospects currently indicate)? What  
will the neighborhood do with its bully when he gets old?

BoringPeeve: Having to repeat the obvious to people who will understand  
it on their own eventually, but too late and only after they've done  
their damage and perpetuated their attitudes.

!Peeve: ranting, gritting teeth, frothing at mouth...ah, that feels  
much better.

Eric Minch             Any resemblance to the opinions of persons
Epistemic Artisan      or organizations other than myself--living,
Stanford Genetics      dead, or imaginary--is purely fortuitous.
Newsgroups: alt.peeves