From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: Somalia
Date: 18 Dec 1992 13:52:47 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: uhad2.admin.uh.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Dec18.021703.5516@newsgate.sps.mot.com> carlson@viking.sps.mot.com writes:

> Elizabeth G. Levy writes
> > In article <1992Dec17.003952.22847@newsgate.sps.mot.com>  

[just tons of stuff deleted]

> > However, this action is not solely
> > benefiting posterity.  We have an opportunity to use our resources
> > towards humanitarian ends, which may be worth deploying troops for.   
> > I
> > think so (though I'd rather have alternative organizations do this.
> > No such agencies exist right now, though.), and that is essentially  
> > my argument.
> 
> so the government decides that they need a war/police action/  
> whatever, and then they set about justifying it.  They can't justify  
> a war in eastern Europe, so they set about finding a police  
> action/war somewhere else.  Somalia seems ripe for the conquering, so  
> they start hyping the pictures of starving babies there.  soon, even  
> the birkenstocks and tie dye crowd is supporting Operation  
> Sweepsweek.  

  I have my problems with this paragraph.  You make it sound as if the folks
in gov. spend all their time looking for places to send in the tanks.  *IF*
you mean the pentagon is trying to find new things to do so its budget won't
be cut as much, then I might agree with you.  But the brass hats have generally
been leery of just going in any old place -- they're cautious by nature.  But
they follow orders and go where the suits tell them -- that's their job.  *IF*
the gov. can *justify* an action (be it military or otherwise) and the people
don't raise a major hue and cry -- well, that's democracy.

  I'm afraid I'm having a problem understanding your exact stance, here.  I
accept you're happy about people being fed and all, but you seem to oppose
the operation in general.  The primary reason being that (it seems) you suspect
the government of having ulterior motives.  Depending on the motives, I'm not
altogether certain that is a valid reason to oppose something if we also accept
that a Good Thing [tm] is being accomplished.  You have to weigh the Bad 
Things [tm] that country X gains against the Good Things being done by country
X for country Y.  Perhaps you could demonstrate this (or clear up my misconcep-
tions on your views of this matter).

> After we couldn't hate the Soviets anymore, we had the war on  
> illiteracy.  then we had the war on drugs.  then Noriega became the  
> most evil man in history.  then we had the war on flag burning.  then  
> we had the war on Iraq.  then we had the election/war on the economy.   
> now we have a war on world hunger.  

  I'm not altogether sure what you're intending to say here.  That the
attention span of the US is somewhat short?  Or that the "governement" manu-
factures these "wars" to keep us occupied?  I submit that in at least three
of those wars above they had outside help...


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia