From: kovarik@utkux1.utk.edu (SaintMeechTheChaste)
Newsgroups: alt.angst
Subject: Re: A new source of Angst.....
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:02:55 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center

In article <18055@acorn.co.uk> ABienek@acorn.co.uk (Alex Bienek) writes:
>
>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. 

What?  You don't think that classic examples of economic interference
are catastrophic failures and a waste of money?  You mean having the
U.S. finance the Contras, and send then into Nicaragua to blow up
power stations, and factories, mine roads, burn crops, and terrorize
farmers, to annihilate the economy so that it could be reported here that
Nicaraguas economic system was a total failure did not frustrate ordinary
Nicaraguans, and persuade them to say "Enough is enough! If we toss out
the government, maybe the violence will stop"?

Dedicated activists aside, I think it is unlikely that the Eastern
block would have collapsed so fast had the standard of living not fallen
as low as it did there to pay for the military that the government thought
that it needed to defend itself.  Most ordinary people may care about free
speech, and freedom, but they are not going to be so keen to upset the
applecart, if they have the material things they need like, food, a place
to live, and a job.  It was the taking away of basic things like this as
the government spent money to build a bigger military that pushed enough
people over the edge.  

>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.

Eh?  What sort of superiority are you talking about?   3 nuclear weapons
to our 1?  Nonsense.  At their peak strength, they could have overrun
Europe in a week.  The only way they could have been stopped is with 
tactical nuclear weapons.  Clearly they had sufficient numerical superiority
to pull that off, but they didn't.  They had a numerical superority in
numbers of nuclear weapons, but didn't launch a first strike.  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?
So they help a Ghadaffi keep power in Libya, while the CIA installs
Pinochet in Chile?  What's the difference between the Viet Nam war, 
and Afghanistan. 

>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.  So when a new despot comes along and says, "If you give me power,
I will make the killing stop!" they will accept him willingly.  

>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.

If there had been a controlled transition of power in these countries,
it is possible that a new strong source of authority could have developed,
instead of allowing local warlords to run amok. 

>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

Should Iraq be the only country in the Middle East WITHOUT weapons of
mass distruction?  The Iranians, Syrians, and Israelis are stockpiling
weapons of mass destruction of all sorts, the Israelis are already thought
to have nuclear weapons, and now, Iran is buying nuclear weapons technology
and missiles from China, as well as expanding its conventional military.
Who, but an idiot, would not respond to that sort of perceived threat,
by trying to get any advantage.  

>  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?  

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

Yeah.  He's not very nice. But neither are his neigbours.

>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. 

On the other hand, what do you suppose would have happened if we had
possessed a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons, and Germany had not?
We would have toasted them where they stood.  Just like they would have
toasted us.  Besides, Hitler might never have been, if Germany had not
been economically punished after they lost the first world war.  And
look what a difference the Marshall Plan made after the second.  Think
Germany is going to be keen on fighting another war?  Japan, perhaps? 

There are better ways to solve problems than by blowing up people, and if
you do have to blow up people, there are ways of doing things to make
it less likely to have to blow up people again. 

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?
					Meech
Newsgroups: alt.angst