From: ABienek@acorn.co.uk (Alex Bienek)
Newsgroups: alt.angst
Subject: Re: A new source of Angst.....
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:43:36 GMT
Organization: Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge, England

In article <1992Aug25.042756.13341@utkux1.utk.edu> kovarik@utkux1.utk.edu (SaintMeechTheChaste) writes:
>
>Alot of people will argue, as in the Republican convention,
>that an attitude of belligerence as personified by Reagan, in his
>confrontations with countries like Nicaragua, and Grenada, Bush's
>confrontations with Panama and Iraq, and Libya, spending a vast
>proportion of the nation's resources on the military, and forcing
>the opposition (ex-Soviet block) to bankrupt itself in trying to
>maintain parity, thus hastening its complete economic collapse
>is the path to follow.  And which now has resulted in catastrophic 
>ethnic conflicts in such places as Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,  
>Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan.  
>
>Would this have  been a Democrat approach?    Or would they have encouraged
>a more gradual approach of sustained sanctions of some sort, or other
>international cooperation that might have resulted in the demise of 
>our enemies in a less destructive way.  
>

Oh Yes, I saw them stand up in Houston and say "We won the cold war".
I'm sure many people in Eastern Europe would have a different
opinion, not least Lech Walesa. The Eastern Bloc fell apart due to
the contradiction in the need to appear fair and just to the outside
world in order to encourage trade, and the need to suppress free
speech within the bloc. It was the work of many dedicated activists
continually chipping away at the system which eventually resulted
in its downfall. I believe that maybe up until as late as 1980
the powers that be in the Soviet Union were not just trying to
maintain parity in the arms race but were hoping for superiority,
and had they achieved it they would have seriously thought about
using it.

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.
Sanctions wont stop them. Sanctions are continually being broken
both to former Yugoslavia and Iraq.
The conference just starting in London to discuss the Yugoslav
situation is a farce. No matter what they agree at the 
conference table, they will just keep right on doing what they
are doing.

Oh, and Saddam Hussien's agenda is:-

  1) Taunt and frustrate the UN and Bush as much as possible
  2) Hide as many weapons as possible
  3) Rebuild stock of weapons of mass destruction
  4) Nuke Israel, Iran, USA, Britain and France, not necessarily in that order.

And let's face it, there is very little incentive for him to change
it.

So what's my point ?
Well, it's _easy_ to be destructive. I don't defend Bush's actions,
but I am convinced that a liberal approach of appeasement or
sanctions will never work in such situations. What suffering may have
been avoided had we not tried to appease Hitler. 

I'm sorry if this is all sounding a bit right-wing because that
really isn't me. But I get fed-up with seeing so much suffering
in the world and all the EC can do is to announce a four point
plan to ask everyone to be nice to each other.

Alex.
Newsgroups: alt.angst