From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Date: 4 Oct 92 16:39:53 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct4.052710.6197@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.221641.16071@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct2.135129.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>
>>>     You may change your opinion on our (the U.S.) relationship with
>>>previous Soviet regimes after reading the three volumes of
>>>_Western_Technology_and_Soviet_Economic_Development_ by
>>>Antony C. Sutton.  Sutton claims that Western governments and 
>>>firms have been responsible for the bulk of the technical "progress"
>>>made in the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1970 (the books were written
>>>in 1973) -- including the transfer of military technology against
>>>the wishes of the Department of Defense.
>>
>>Please clarify.  Do you have any details?
>
>	Well, ti start with, we were good buddies with Stalinist
>Russia, around the time of FDR.  That was when we had a common enemy.
>We seemed to ignore right then that Stalin was killing millions
>of his own people.

I'm quite aware of this.  For instance, the quintessential Soviet
weapon, the Kaysha (sp?) rocket launcher, had "Ford" on their back
fenders.

I was more interested in the Cold War period, say from '48 to '70.

>Saddam Hussein was another recipient of
>'balance of power' playing.  When a state threatens you, the enemies
>of that state become your friends in the sense that you have a common
>enemy. Iran was a big baddie, and we used Iraq to counterbalance it.
>By strengthening the enemies of our enemies we could weaken our enemies
>without undergoing direct conflict, which could escalate as the
>superpowers expanded the struggle in temperature states.(cold, hot)

Oh, joy, the realist school of foreign policy.

>	Even when the Soviet Union was a big baddie we still gave it
>grain and loans and whatnot.  I am not saying this was good or bad it merely
>was policy.

Wasn't this after Nixon's detente?  Or was this during Kruschev's thawing?
Again, I'm more interested in technology transfers by our government
during the height of the Cold War.  Also, grain transfers and tech
transfers aren't quite the same.

>To blame Bush for the government having given Saddam's
>governmnt aid is stretching it in the ole fanatic support area, even
>for you.

Er, what Bush did was turn a blind eye to Iraq's nuclear program.  Isn't
it a goal of US foreign policy the prevention of nuclear proliferation?

>Bush's policy, his 'New World Order,' was a reaction to
>agression between recognized autonimous states in a growing era of
>lack of superpower centralization.  As the superpowers remove their influence,
>wars grow from cold to hot.  There were wars before there were superpowers,
>you must remember, and the reasons for those wars have not been eliminated
>today.  America is acting like Teddy Roosevelt's 'American policeman' or
>whatever.  It was act as a monopole, which the scientists have not yet
>found but apparently Bush is trying to find.

Bush's foreign policy has been far more reactionary than anything
else.  Oh, wow, Soviet Union falling apart.  Let's sit around with
Gorby for a while.  Yugoslavia goes up in flames, let's sit around
some more.  And so on.  I think William Safire has called Bush foreign
policy a disaster this morning on one of those talk shows for these
reasons.

TR took policy initiatives.  Opening Japan, Panama, etc.  We may of
course question the morality of some of these actions, but it can't be
called a passive policy as Bush's has been.

>	Japan's emperor remains; we are friends with Japan; but
>could we not also say that Japan is at another time in our history,
>or pehaps even predictably, an enemy of the future? So what if it
>is possible that we are giving a future enemy aid? Is it not also
>possible that that aid can make the enemy into a friend?  And if it
>is possible that that aid can make a friend, is it not better to have
>that chance rather than a certain enemy?

One of the more amusing ironies of that last sentence is how liberals
have been accused by conservatives of taking a more accomodating
attitude towards enemies (i.e., Moscow, Hanoi and Managua)

I think the accusation is that Bush has bungled the situation with
Hussein, by totally misjudging him (w/ regard to intentions to
Kuwait), undermining US goals to prevent nuclear proliferation, or
emptying our foreign policy of morality (by allowing the Kurds to be
slaughtered with nary a whisper of protest).


--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Newsgroups: alt.activism