From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Foul Words and False
Date: 5 Nov 92 08:25:45 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <5NOV199202465423@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.194250.14760@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes...
>>In article <griffinb.720791098@unix1.tcd.ie> griffinb@unix1.tcd.ie (brendan james griffin) writes:
>>>In <1992Nov2.175821.12287@news.columbia.edu> (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
 
>>Clinton seems to be one who desires government office to effect
>>positive change.  Remember that he grew up in the 1960's, saw JFK, who
>>exhorted "Ask not what your country can do for you...," as a hero.
>>Remember that he went back to Arkansas after his school years,
>>certainly not the most glamorous place to work in government.

>I don't recall hearing that JFK ever dodged the draft or demonstrated against
>his country from the safe haven of a foreign land while his "fellow
>Americans" were dying in combat to contain a foreign enemy though...

I don't recall hearing that Bill Clinton dodged the draft, either.
I DEFINITELY never heard of Bill Clinton "demonstrating against his
country," since I'm not even sure what that means.  He did demonstrate
against the Vietnam War, though.

>>>I would'nt like to think what Clnton would do if Iraq was pointing nuclear
>>>missiles at him. A man who was afraid of the draft, a man who can't decide
>>>on such concrete issues as abortion.

>Of course, it is much easier to send others to fight for you than to answer
>the call yourself...

No, that's Dan Quayle.  Bill Clinton didn't want ANYONE to go.  It was
Dan Quayle that wanted to send others.

>>One would think that Clinton wouldn't have helped arms Hussein, given
>>the latter's track record on human rights that the Reagan/Bush
>>administration conveniently ignored.  I think Clinton argues for a
>>more humanistic basis to foreign policy, and would not view statecraft
>>solely as a billiards game, where only the actions of nations, and not
>>their natures, are important.

>This is what scares me the most about Slickness.  It's the same airy-fairy
>idealism which led that other great Moral Force of our era, Jimmy Carter, into
>unmitigated humiliation and disgrace.

I think we were more humiliated and disgraced when it was revealed that we
were trading arms-for-hostages WHILE we were telling our allies not to do it.

I think we were more humiliated and disgraced when the World Court ruled
against us as we mined Nicaraguan harbors.

>By your moral criterion then, a more ethical FDR could never have conscienced
>aiding Stalin in the war against Hitler, since Stalin was not a nice person.
>The mere fact that he was willing to aid in the struggle against a common
>enemy who was perhaps only equally as evil (Hitler's evil being directed more
>outward than Stalin's, however) would be irrelevant under this view, since
>only the moral value of nations, not their impact on US national security,
>should be considered.

Did anyone ever say this?  Besides you, I mean?  What she said was "not
view statecraft SOLELY as a billiards game."

Now, a more ethical FDR could never have conscienced interning 
Japanese-Americans, but that's a separate issue.

>Look, in the early '80s Iran was the biggest threat to our security in the
>middle east.  Hussein was willing, for admittedly nefarious reasons of his
>own, to fight against them.  Compared to the extent he was armed by the
>Soviets, American contributions to the Iraqi military were insignificant. It

This isn't true.  We gave them lots of money, which enabled them to
*buy* the weapons from other countries.  Plus, we were one of the
largest suppliers of the Iraqi nuclear arms program, and we gave them
some of the most hi-tech stuff -- the stuff hardest for them to get
anywhere else.

Furthermore, we were still supplying the Iraqi nuclear weapons program
AFTER the Iran-Iraq war ended.

>is a credit to the Reagan administration that they were able to contain Iranian
>radicalism with something short of US military involvement.  At the time Jimmy
>Carter left office, we looked like we were headed for an armed confrontation.
>A US-Iranian war during the pre-Gorby years could have touched off a US/Soviet
>conflict.

Of course, most of this was based on the mistaken assumption that
Iranian radicalism was going to spread across the Arab world, that
somehow Shiite solidarity would take precedence over the long history of
Arab-Persian conflict.  But that's another issue.

>Look, the world is a *fucking dangerous* place, especially when you're the
>only superpower left and your so-called allies (France, Germany, Japan -
>Britain being the lone exception) have to be led by the hand every step of the
>way and told to put the seat down before taking a dump.

Maybe they didn't think we needed to bomb Libya for something the
Syrians did?

>The President of the United States is responsible first and foremost for
>protecting the security and interests of the US. When those interests coincide
>with doing some greater good in the world, so much the better.  But when
>confronted with a choice between defending the US with some less than sanitary
>instrument or jeopardizing the US in the name of some ethereal Moral Good,
>I hope, I really hope, he will put the interests of the nation first.  For all
>his faults, at least JFK understood this.  I have the gravest doubts that
>Slick Willy Clinton does.

Then you're not paying attention.
Not one of the examples you listed -- except WW2 -- was a case in which
the US would have been jeopardized.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13398 alt.politics.clinton:16186 alt.politics.elections:22952 talk.politics.misc:58592