From: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Reply-To: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 10:09:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.050336.20784@athena.cs.uga.edu> milliken@athena.cs.uga.edu (Brewmeister) writes:

I wrote:
>>Cat, the Republican Party, contrary to your misconception, is not entirely
>>composed of Pat Robertson's followers (or Pat Buchanan's, for that matter.)
>
>No, not entirely.  Just mostly. 
>

Sir, I have no knowledge of your background or your connections, but I
would guess that you know and understand the point of view of not
most, some, or any Republicans, other than what the media portrays.  I
used to be fairly liberal, and I couldn't understand what would
possess someone to be a Republican, based on what I read and heard
about them.  
   We can tell how many Republicans like Pat Buchanan, based on the
results of his bid for the presidency; he got perhaps 25% of the
Republicans to vote for him.  As for Pat Robertson, I would guess he
claims about the same.  The Religious Right, as it is called, does not
constitute a majority of the party, otherwise we would have seen Pat
R. come close to nomination at some point.  My personal experience,
having met a wide variety of Republicans, I can say maybe about 10%
felt a strong affinity with either man.



>>  Although it is unfortunate that the troops will be away from their
>>families on Christmas (that's a God-fearing Christian holiday, I might
>	     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>No it's not.  Maybe at one time it was, but now, it is little more than a
>commercialized capitalistic orgy which runs from Halloween through Valentine's
>day.  

This statement has brought me more flack than I anticipated.  It was
primarily in jest, for I thought funny the juxtaposition between Cat's
God-fearing Christian line about Republicans and her wish for the
troops to be home for Christmas, which, although having lost its
previously strong link with Christianity, is still predicated, I think
you would agree, on Christian ideas and rituals (manger scenes, Silent
Night, etc.)  Incidentally, I think capitalist's orgies are the best kind...



>
>>add,) some of us believe that oh, I don't know, ensuring that some
>>people don't die takes slight precedence over chestnuts roasting on an
>>open fire.
>
>I agree.  Let's ensure that some of our own citizens stay alive too.


Not to snap at you, but no one in our country dies of starvation
unless they really give it their best shot.  If you don't have a job,
the government will support you.  Here in New York, the capital of
homelessness, I see on a regular basis several bums.  Two of them just
bought new pairs of Nikes, and another a Walkman that he goes around
the corner and listens to on his _breaks_.  I've asked several of them
whether if I found them a job would they take it.  If they asked what
kind, I described several different possibilities ranging from manual
labor to food service to delivery, the sort of jobs I myself have
held.  None of them were interested when I showed them the part-time
employment classifieds.  They're not starving, they're lazy.



>When every American citizen has adequate food, clothing, shelter, access to
>education, and affordable medical care,

  Quite honestly, every citizen in this country has access to the
aforementioned list, because there is nothing in this country which
restricts the will of those who want to succeed.  It's impossible,
really, save at the point of a gun, for us to be kept by anyone
but ourselves from accomplishing what we wish.



>when there is no oppression of any
>person because of race, color, religion (or lack thereof), sex, sexual 
>orientation, country of origin, or any other attribute, then maybe we should
>consider involving ourselves in the affairs of other nations on a limited basis
>at that nation's request. 

What sort of timeframe are you working on?  When do you expect this to
come about?  I find it slightly unrealistic to purport that prejudice,
which is rooted in narrow-mindedness, will ever cease to exist.  Quite
simply, there will always be those who insist on willful ignorance of
the truth.  
   While you are waiting, the world outside of our country
will proceed, and our role in it as well.  It is always easy to point
out oppression when thrown in high relief by extremism and unusual
success (media exposure helps, too); Nazism and Stalin's game come to
mind.  
   But need it be as grand as that?  Simple pillaging, like in
Somalia, should appear as clear-cut.  The primary foreign policy
initiatives that the U.S. has made recently haven't been because we
enjoy paying $600.00 for a toilet seat. Surely you've heard what a
mess Russia and its neighbors are in--do you seriously believe it to
the benefit of the rest of the world to let other nations progress to
that extent?  
   Even in the harshest nationalist terms, it's clearly to
our advantage to have poor countries do better, because then they'll
buy our stuff, and put our people to work, so our nation gets richer,
so more people can become better off, so there are fewer people on the
street, so more people can become better educated, so fewer people
will cling to prejudice...



>My question is, what the hell is so important in Somalia that it necessitates
>our presence?  It's not just the starvation of the citizens, or we would be
>flying food into the inner-cities.  Did they recently strike oil?  Is the
>location of Somalia strategically important?  Somebody who knows, fill me
>in, because I'm no expert in military strategy.  I don't buy into the argument
>that it is for purely humanitarian purposes though.  That is not consistant 
>with our track record.


We are flying food into our inner-cities, in the form of social
spending.  Check out some of the thread on this in some of the
alt.politics.* threads.  This action I believe is primarily for
humanitarian purposes, because it is an attempt to redirect the fed.
gov.'s foreign policy; likely the trade routes in the area play some
role, too--important to the prosperity of those American citizens you
think we should concentrate on, as well as the rest of the world.


[a few lines deleted]
>>
>>And finally, do you really think George has that much libido?  
>
>According to several women who have worked closely with him in the past, he 
>does.


Perhaps, but that accusation has been leveled at just about every
politician I can name--and few are as irreparably enervated as George.<snigger>


David
dnm9@columbia.edu
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.org.un,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.british,alt.president.clinton