From: milliken@athena.cs.uga.edu (Brewmeister)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 05:03:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.215900.15450@news.columbia.edu> dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.004845.4092@athena.cs.uga.edu> stanton@athena.cs.uga.edu (Catherine Stanton) writes:
>>Ahhh the administration that holds Family Values (tm) at it's apex and
>>decries anyone who is not a God-Fearing Christian once again will see
>>to it that thousands of young men and women (and some older ones too)
>>won't be home with their families on Christmas.  
>>
>>Yes America, Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, sticking their fingers
>>in everyone else's pies.  Thankyou George Bush for once again letting your
>>libido get in the way of your international affairs.  Goodbye you old crag,
>>and good riddance.
>>
>>Cat
>>
>>-- 
>>_______________________________________________________________________________
>>    Cat Stanton
>>    stanton@athena.cs.uga.edu
>>_______________________________________________________________________________

[ Cat's posting left intact because one reading is not enough. ]

>
>
>
>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. 

>  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.  

How's this for an idea?  We stay out of other nations' affairs, keep our troops
at home, and spend the money feeding _our_ hungry citizens at home.  The same
money will feed a lot more people here, since a greater portion will be spent
on the food itself, as opposed to the portion spent on (1) sending it over 
there and (2) protecting it.

I think this makes perfect sense.  Here we are, with our own domestic problems,
homeless, hungry, and unemployed people in all 50 states, and an insurmountable debt (what is it now, 4 trillion and change?) and we run the bill higher trying
to export our way of life to the rest of the planet.

>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.

>  What, pray tell, would you suggest as an alternative solution to
>helping the Somalians? I know that this current action is not a

I said this in an earlier post, and the flame mail to support mail ratio was
19 to 1.  Still, I'll say it again:

When every American citizen has adequate food, clothing, shelter, access to
education, and affordable medical care, 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.  Until then, it it stupid to spend our tax revenues
interfering in the affairs of other countries when we have our own domestic
problems and an astronomical and ever-growing deficit.

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.

Lest anyone get the idea that I am unsympathetic toward the plight of the
Somalian people, let me assure you that I am not.  Although I sympathize with
their situation, I feel that America's priorities are out of whack.  

>long-term solution (the U.S., nor anyone save the Somalians
>themselves, can effect that sort of change,) but would you not prefer
>them to be alive so that they might do so?
>
>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.






-- 
Copy this .sig and just say noe to big-brother's monitoring of public bandwidth
*Bush Quayle conspiracy JFK cocaine LSD heroin marijuana AK-47 Iran Iraq Libya*
*Sandinista Contras Panama Noriega FBI CIA NSA Secret Service fixed-elections *
*Neil Bush S&L coverup potatoe wiretaps search & seizure bill of rights dead  *