From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.sex,tor.general
Subject: Re: Surprise.  You've made the evening news again.
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:07:35 GMT
Organization: The Armory

In article <1992Jul27.062634.7543@bkj386.uucp> brian@bkj386.UUCP (Brian Jenkins) writes:
>In article <1992Jul18.141212.27368@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>>>
>>>True.  I think you should round up all those guys in the world that
>>>you disagree with and stick them in concentration....oops...prisons
>>>or military stockades (half a :)).
>>-------------------------
>>No, you idiot, people who kill other people and import cocaine, and
>>who rule fascistically without mandate. I have little interest in
>>making the world that much less interesting by jailing those I
>>disagree with.
>
>Sorry I missed the original reply to my response.  But I
>gather that it takes much this vein.
>
>I guess as the idiot I am that the proposal above is to
>arrest most of the military and the CIA involved in South
>East Asia as not only did they support a bloody minded,
>dictatorship in Vietnam, but the dealt almost exclusively
>with the heroin drug lords in Cambodia, Laos and Thailand
>to attempt to control the activities of the  natives to the
>area.  I gather a certain western nation provided military
>cover to these barons to get their drugs out through
>"hostile territory" -- often via the support of corrupt
>Vietnamese generals, now living comfortably in the US.
>
>I do not know if saturation bombing and free fire zones
>would count as human rights violations but I would guess
>so.  Definitely a violation of the Geneva convention.
>As is systematically pushing the enemy from helicopters
>and drowning them in buckets of water.  Or caging them
>in small cages for years.
>
>I think that also it is imperative that you start
>proceedings against US government officials who supported
>and ran the particular  drug baron that you are so upset
>with in Panama.  Can you run for president from jail?
>
>Would it not be nice if the world was so perfect?  But the
>stockades would be mighty crowded.  I would settle for a
>little civilization.
>from the basement of               brian@bkj386.uucp
--------------------------------
I admit that I almost put a smiley on that "idiot" remark, but I was
irritated and wished to show it. I wish there was a smiley for that.
Maybe a tongue, oh well. As far as Geneva Conventions go, saturation
bombing in a combat area is not a violation. SCUDding Israel was.
Hiroshima and Dresden were violations, but so was the bombing of
London and the death camps. I would settle for a little civilization
too, but not at Neville Chamberlain's cost. 

And I was mistaken to even mention cocaine, as I am in favor of
legalization of everything so that it is not profitable. Organized
crime can be shown to have backed anti-drug candidates right down the
line in the past. A legalized market and a "drug war" dividend could
pay for rehab centers and drug education, the best role of a
government. But I did like seeing that little fascist from Panama get
what's coming to him. He was killing his own people down there and
threatening ours. Anybody who does that with the 82nd airborne a four
hour flight away is a nut. The treaty that would have relinquished our
right to retract it hadn't even gone into effect at the time he
started acting badly. And that was foolish. If he had kept the canal
running and became a hideous dictator after we signed off on our
ownership of the canal and the final right to ownership of Panama, a
country which WE named and carved out of the jungle where no native
people's ever lived because of the malaria till us, since most
Panamanians are descended from people's in the north central america
and columbia. If he had only waited he could have had that country and
we wouldn't have had any right by treaty to stop him, as long as he
kept the canal open.

And yes, I'm no republican lover. By all means go after the people who
were acting beyond their charge in government, and for all we know,
serving those who make money from drugs right at the top. And go after
presidents who tacitly support "strong men" fascisti anywhere in the
world, just because they keep the third world industies going for our
rich. We're together on that. I could do with some civilization, but
it is my claim that we have never known it yet in the history of the
world, except in isolated pockets for short periods of time. And even
those are questionable to me.
- Steve Walz