From: ABienek@acorn.co.uk (Alex Bienek)
Newsgroups: alt.angst
Subject: Re: A new source of Angst.....
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:10:13 GMT
Organization: Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge, England

In article <1992Aug26.220255.20884@utkux1.utk.edu> kovarik@utkux1.utk.edu (SaintMeechTheChaste) writes:


>What?  You don't think that classic examples of economic interference
>are catastrophic failures and a waste of money?  You mean having the
>U.S. finance the Contras, and send then into Nicaragua to blow up
>power stations, and factories, mine roads, burn crops, and terrorize
>farmers, to annihilate the economy so that it could be reported here that
>Nicaraguas economic system was a total failure did not frustrate ordinary
>Nicaraguans, and persuade them to say "Enough is enough! If we toss out
>the government, maybe the violence will stop"?
>

The Soviet economy was a failure all by itself, bled dry by the demands
of the arms race spurred on by megalomania more than US subterfuge.
Ironically, the failure of socialism in the Soviet Union could be
the greatest tragedy of this century rather than the greatest triumph
because its failure was not due to the system but to the greed of 
people implementing it. Generations from now people may be mature
enough to make the system work, but will it ever get another chance ? 

>Eh?  What sort of superiority are you talking about?   3 nuclear weapons
>to our 1?  Nonsense.  At their peak strength, they could have overrun
>Europe in a week.  The only way they could have been stopped is with 
>tactical nuclear weapons.  Clearly they had sufficient numerical superiority
>to pull that off, but they didn't. 

I think they were aware that their weapons technology was inferior and also
they could see that realistically it would rapidly escalate to a nuclear
exchange which no one would win. But if they could have seen a way.....

>The collapse of the Soviet Union did not cause them. But the Soviet
>Union did keep all these forces in check.  Sort of like a police force,

more like a Gestapo !

>If there had been a controlled transition of power in these countries,
>it is possible that a new strong source of authority could have developed,
>instead of allowing local warlords to run amok. 

Nice idea, but after being suppressed for so long the people wanted their
freedom, and they wanted it NOW. Anything less just wouldn't do. 

>Should Iraq be the only country in the Middle East WITHOUT weapons of
>mass distruction?  The Iranians, Syrians, and Israelis are stockpiling
>weapons of mass destruction of all sorts,

I think it's just the case the Saddam Hussien has reach the top of
the list of 'Mad Bastards Likely to Use Them' and for this reason
alone must be dealt with first.

>On the other hand, what do you suppose would have happened if we had
>possessed a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons, and Germany had not?
>We would have toasted them where they stood. 

Not necessarily. It would have been quite feasible to stop him in
'39 with conventional forces. It was just unfortunate that Britain
had run down its armed forces after WWI and the US was pursuing
an isolationist policy.

>There are better ways to solve problems than by blowing up people

I agree, but did you ever try negotiating with the school bully to
stop beating you up ?

Yeh, I wish good could triumph over evil every time, just like
the movies, but it ain't gonna happen just yet. In fact, looking
around this world, one would be sorely tempted to put ones money
on the bad guy.

Alex.

ObAngst: I just know I'm going to get flamed for this.
Newsgroups: alt.angst