From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Date: 4 Oct 92 05:27:10 GMT
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Oct2.221641.16071@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.135129.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Oct2.153309.5990@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>> 
>>> We did not actively support the Soviet regime, at least in the
>>> pre-Yeltsin days.  This wasn't quite the same with Iraq.
>>> 
>>     You may change your opinion on our (the U.S.) relationship with
>>previous Soviet regimes after reading the three volumes of
>>_Western_Technology_and_Soviet_Economic_Development_ by
>>Antony C. Sutton.  Sutton claims that Western governments and 
>>firms have been responsible for the bulk of the technical "progress"
>>made in the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1970 (the books were written
>>in 1973) -- including the transfer of military technology against
>>the wishes of the Department of Defense.
>
>Please clarify.  Do you have any details?

	Well, ti start with, we were good buddies with Stalinist
Russia, around the time of FDR.  That was when we had a common enemy.
We seemed to ignore right then that Stalin was killing millions
of his own people. Saddam Hussein was another recipient of
'balance of power' playing.  When a state threatens you, the enemies
of that state become your friends in the sense that you have a common
enemy. Iran was a big baddie, and we used Iraq to counterbalance it.
By strengthening the enemies of our enemies we could weaken our enemies
without undergoing direct conflict, which could escalate as the
superpowers expanded the struggle in temperature states.(cold, hot)
	Even when the Soviet Union was a big baddie we still gave it
grain and loans and whatnot.  I am not saying this was good or bad it merely
was policy. To blame Bush for the government having given Saddam's
governmnt aid is stretching it in the ole fanatic support area, even
for you.  Bush's policy, his 'New World Order,' was a reaction to
agression between recognized autonimous states in a growing era of
lack of superpower centralization.  As the superpowers remove their influence,
wars grow from cold to hot.  There were wars before there were superpowers,
you must remember, and the reasons for those wars have not been eliminated
today.  America is acting like Teddy Roosevelt's 'American policeman' or
whatever.  It was act as a monopole, which the scientists have not yet
found but apparently Bush is trying to find.
	Japan's emperor remains; we are friends with Japan; but
could we not also say that Japan is at another time in our history,
or pehaps even predictably, an enemy of the future? So what if it
is possible that we are giving a future enemy aid? Is it not also
possible that that aid can make the enemy into a friend?  And if it
is possible that that aid can make a friend, is it not better to have
that chance rather than a certain enemy?

				Wagner\

**********************************************************************
The University of Chicago is a private institution and as such
is under no government compulsion as yet with regards to
censoring my opinion.
**********************************************************************