From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Bush For (Ex)President in '92!
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:59:33 GMT
Followup-To: alt.peeves
Distribution: alt
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com



In article <1992Apr10.174917.16205@morrow.stanford.edu> 
minch@ivory.tower.stanford.edu (Eric "Supercilious" Minch) writes:

>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?

Yes.  Our government has been guilty of excess, and those particular 
instances are certainly worthy of condemnation.  But that doesn't imply
that the government is therefore wrong to act in what it perceives to
be the country's best interests.  If we can manipulate foreign governments
in ways that would be beneficial to America, and do it without supporting
death squads and such, then let's do it.  We'd be dumb not to.  Sure, we
fucked up by supporting repressive dickheads like Pinochet and the Shah, 
but that doesn't mean that the overall policy that that spawned those
decisions is necessarily a faulty one.  That policy can be served with 
other, less harmful and less shortsighted, methods.

The point of my asking "so what?" wasn't to justify or trivialize the
bad things that our government has done, but to ask Don what that had to
do with the topic at hand, which was nuclear proliferation.  It seems
that you saw a few key words and popped all your circuit breakers before
you had a chance to engage in much cogitation.

------

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

SimplePeeveCominBackAtcha:  Likewise.  That wisdom cuts both ways, my
whiny friend.

-----

>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. 

There's nothing like an emotional issue to turn people into semantic
absolutists, is there?  I don't recall saying anything about keeping
the world as it is.  Do you exist in some kind of binary mental universe,
in which there are only two extreme possibilites for everything, with no
middle ground?  I wrote that the US is perfectly justified in its overall
strategy of looking out for itself.  (Which, from what I've seen, is appar-
ently considered an acceptable policy for everybody except the United 
States.)

And even that was a digression from the original issue, which is the 
desirability of Third World governments gaining posession of atomic weapons.
Let's get back on track, shall we?  We're straying farther and farther 
afield and getting bogged down in irrelevant side issues.  I'm sure you're
having a grand time making a righteous lunge for the moral high ground, 
but you're really missing the point.

I see no reason why the world can't become a better place for all, with
the US (and other countries) still looking out for their own interests.
With peace, justic, altruism, bright sunshine and fluffy little bunnies
for all.  And plenty of state-of-the-art military hardware for us. 
Remember TR's famous words about spaeking softly and carrying a big stick?
They're as applicable now as ever.  But for some reason you're only 
choosing to focus on the stick.

------

>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? 

"Many men greater than you or maybe even me" -- ooh, I've been cut to
the quick!  Medic!  Medic!  :->

Sure, what the hey -- but let's do it with a strong America as first
among equals.  I just can't see this country emasculating itself and 
putting itself at the mercy of a bunch of pissant little fifth-rate
undeveloped countries in the arena of internal relations.  Screw them;
let `em build their *own* arsenals, and then, maybe, they can come play
with the big kids.  Until then they have zero credibility.

------

>If we're in a position of  strength, should we use it to aggrandize 
>ourselves or to make the world  a better place? 

Why do you assume that those goals are mutually exclusive?  

------

>What would you do in your neighborhood: swagger around  intimidating 
>everybody? 

Yeah.  And it gives me a *raging* hard-on, you can be sure.

------

>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? 

My peeve was about that phenomenon on an individual level, which doesn't
readily translate to the context of internations.  I've seen this sort
of argument before, and quite honestly, I think the people who use it are
blinkered simpletons.

You're attempting to connect an individual's physical size with the polit-
ical demeanor of a nation, and that's embarrasingly ludicrous.  The point
of that posting was that size alone is no indicator of one's mindset or 
intentions.  And as I'm sure even you would agree, how other nations
perceive us has nothing to do with the land area of our country.  I've 
known lots of small guys who were hostile assholes, and lots of big guys 
who were laid back and at peace with the world. Ergo, that was an awfully 
lame analogy.  Gee, maybe if we gave up a few states, the rest of the 
world wouldn't be quite so frightened of us.  Yeah, right.  

------

>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?

I don't understand why you equate diplomatic assertiveness with bullying.
That gives me a certain amount of insight into your apparent prejudices
about this country.

------

>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.

You, sir, are a smug, arrogant, muddleheaded twit.  Of course, I take a 
lot of comfort from the fact that there are a hell of a lot more people 
like me than there are people like you, and that politically speaking, 
our collective boot is planted quite firmly on your collective throat.




Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM  + + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-