From: kovarik@utkux1.utk.edu (SaintMeechTheChaste)
Subject: Re: A new source of Angst.....
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 15:54:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.061014.25124@daimi.aau.dk> rorschak@daimi.aau.dk (Jesper Lauridsen) writes:
>kovarik@utkux1.utk.edu (SaintMeechTheChaste) writes:
>
>>In article <18055@acorn.co.uk> ABienek@acorn.co.uk (Alex Bienek) writes:
>

>>  They may
>>have interfered in the domestic politics of neighbouring countries.
>>But don't we do that too?  What's the difference between the Soviets
>>funding rebel groups in El Salvador, while the U.S. funded the Contras?
>
>What's the difference between the Soviets controlling Poland while
>the US is allied with the UK?
>

Oh, and what's the difference between the Soviets controlling Poland,
and US invading Panama to depose a leader they didn't like?  Or 
other invasions of Central American countries in the past.  I saw a great 
photograph once of a US marine in Nicaragua,
posing with the head of a guerilla fighter.  The picture was taken
in the 1930's.  

So now you're going to say that Noriega was a bad man partaking in
illegal activities, and the people didn't like him?  Well, such excuses
have been used by Soviets in the past for invasions.  He may have been bad,
but that really is irrelevant. The new government is every bit as involved
in drug smuggling and money laundering as the previous one.  The one difference
is that Noriega was more independent that was desired.  The Panama Canal
is after all very important, and we cannot allow anyone to have anything other
than symbolic control of it.

Get real. The realtionship between the US and the UK is more like the
relationship between the Soviet Union, and Viet Nam. If you want to make
comparisons, make valid ones.

I'm not saying that it was right for the Soviet Union to have invaded
Eastern Europe.  I think it was wrong.  But there are  similar
examples on a smaller scale in our camp as well.

>>>And let's be clear that the collapse of the Soviet Union did not
>>>cause the ethnic conflicts now taking place, it merely removed
>>>the restrictions. These people had old scores to settle dating
>>>back to WWII and earlier, and they mean to settle them no matter
>>>who gets in the way.
>
>>The collapse of the Soviet Union did not cause them. But the Soviet
>>Union did keep all these forces in check.  Sort of like a police force,
>>they kept people from doing to each other what they might want to.
>>Is that so bad?  There are lots of people in various parts of the 
>>Soviet Bloc who probably wish things would go back to the way it used
>>to be. 
>
>Hitler stopped inflation and unemployment. Many of your problems will
>go away if get your brain removed. 
>

But he was elected because he promised that he would stop inflation, and
unemployment.  Remember, Hitler was initially democratically elected.

>[Saddam Hussein]
>
>>>  4) Nuke Israel, Iran, USA, Britain and France, not necessarily in that order.
>
>>C'mon, the only way he would actually nuke any of these countries is if
>>he were completely insane. He already miscalculated once.  Would he do it
>>again?  
>
>Have you been following the development in Iraq since the desertstorm?
>He is not aware that he lost!
>

Have you?  This business is pre-election grandstanding.  The media is helping
the Prez score points.  Saddam is doing what every other leader in that 
part of the world is doing, but we are only told what he is up to, to make
it seem like he is the only villain.

Maybe he hasn't lost yet.  Maybe the Prez screwed up.

>>Of course, if human life really is irrelevant, then blowing up people
>>doesn't matter.  By the way, you might think why there's so much interest
>>in preventing Iraq's Air Force from bombing the Shiite Muslims and the
>>Kurds, but nobody will make the same effort to stop the Serbs from using
>>the old Yugoslav airforce from bombing Muslims in Bosnia-Hercegovina,
>>and this, logistically would be extremely easy to do.  Clearly, there
>>is something extra special about Iraq.  What could it be?
>
>The situation is 18 month older.

Ah, but at this time, in said other example, plans were being made, not
excuses for no plans.  Maybe somebody will suddenly discover oil near
Sarajevo.

						M