Iraqi Bombing: Unanswered Questions
Dan Epstein
The following is a summary of the questions/comments I raised and received
no response to. Initially they were posed to John McCarthy in response
to his thread: "Saddam should have been arrested by the U.N," hence the
conversant tone. (apologies for the redundancy if you've already
seen this)
On the "justification" for the US missile attack on the Iraqi capital:
Mr. McCarthy should refresh his memory about the "justifications"
that seem to conveniently crop up every few months. In addition, he
should recognize that of the other 170 odd States, it seems to be
practically only the US that continues the pursuit. Besides that,
the hypocrisy and double standards in evidence should be sufficient
to overwhelm even the most ideologically indoctrinated (see my other
references to Panama, and other comments about Castro, and Hussein
as a US target himself in other notes).
More on the "justification" for the US missile attack on the Iraqi capital:
As related to the aforementioned note, it appears that
Mr. McCarthy believes the results of a sham of a trial in the emirate
of Kuwait is sufficient "proof" that there was a conspiracy to
assassinate a US citizen and therefore warrants a State to launch
a missile attack on the capital of another State.
As even Mr. McCarthy, I presume, is aware, Kuwait is a family dictatorship
which is deeply indebted to the US government. The US government
is on the record in support for the demise of Hussein (and hopes
that he is replaced by an "iron-fisted dictator" who is a Saddam
Hussein clone who *obeys* orders - like the mass-murder Hussein prior
to August 1990).
Doesn't this make the results of a "trial" in Kuwait, and the
accusation in general, at least highly suspect? If the US weren't
the "global enforcer", would Mr. McCarthy accept the same standards
in evidence here to allow another global enforcer to "enforce" the
subjective judgements and pronouncements of another country
whose retributions were directed against the US?
On the US as objective party capable of determining responsibility AND
terrorism :
I see. Of course, the US has proven itself to be an objective
and dispassionate player in the whole Iraqi "affair", beginning with
millions of dollars in export subsidies thanks to the US taxpayer, followed
by a major military operation leaving tens of thousands of corpses (many
buried alive in the desert by US tanks retrofitted with plows, a major
violation of the Geneva accords - but, don't fear; We're the global
enforcer, so no one will exact a punishment as a result of this violation
of international standards that Mr. McCarthy believes we are
so committed to), in addition to 56? US citizens, and regular
military attacks, some tacitly "sanctioned" by the UN security council
(by no means a democratic body) and some explicitly NOT sanctioned
("no-fly zone in N. Iraq, bombing of Iraqi capital).
So, if the FBI and the CIA find "evidence" warranting military activity,
they are CLEARLY objective organizations capable of judging guilt
and responsibility. Should we lobby for the World Court in the Hague
to be replaced by the US FBI and the CIA?
On double standards and paradigm shift:
Again, I ask Mr. McCarthy to consider a paradigm shift. I know this
is a bit tricky, but it's nonetheless extremely important:
Consider that WE are at the other end of the barrel of a clearly superior
economic and military State at some point in the future. Consider that
a similar conflict arises (say, the US invades a country in Latin America,
possibly with some justification) and the world power "State X" has the
same preponderance of power and influence that the US has today
on the world stage. Consider that US power and influence is comparable to
Iraq's today, AND "State X" has been tacitly supporting the brutal military
dictator running the US.
Would Mr. McCarthy accept the same justification for retribution of the
same scale as directed by the US against Iraq, but in this case directed at
the US (and incurred by the US citizens, NOT the dictator)?
On the US opposition to Iraqi Democracy:
John McCarthy (j...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: 1. President Bush said he hoped the Iraqis would overthrow Hussein
: and replace him by a democratic government. Since he is no longer
: President, this is not necessarily the policy of the U.S. Government.
: Very likely, President Clinton has similar hopes.
That is a false statement. The US has absolutely NO interest in a
truly democratic government for a very simple reason: Democratic governments
are much more difficult to control and deal with than dictators, especially
the type of dictators that suppress domestic voices that might oppose the
interests of the US and the west in general (see Friedman below).
The US has no interest in a democracy in Saudi Arabia for the same reason.
Nor in Kuwait.
If Mr. McCarthy goes back and examines how the US dealt with those
Iraqis calling for a democratic Iraq during the Gulf conflict, he will see
that they were explicitly ignored by the US media AND the US government.
On US complicity in the invasion of Kuwait:
John McCarthy (j...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: 3. That Hussein obeyed U.S. orders is another fantasy.
Really? He got the green light to invade Kuwait from April Glaspie, the US
ambassador to Iraq.
Was Mr. McCarthy not aware of this minor detail? (didn't the
American Spectator cover these aspects?)
And, at the time the US was working in favour of an oil price rise (one of
the primary motivation for Iraq's aggression).
On Mr. McCarthy's misguided interpretation of my view of Kuwait:
John McCarthy (j...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: Mr. Epstein clearly hates the Kuwaitis.
and then again
John McCarthy (j...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: I read your words about Kuwait, but I find them an expression of hatred
: and not just an opinion about facts.
Again, Mr. McCarthy should very carefully reread my comments. His lack
of precision and basic comprehension of the following words is
quite telling of his deeply indoctrinated state:
The "trial" (and confessions) [of the accused] is being conducted in that
bastion of democracy, the kingdom of Kuwait, NOT in the nation
that (re)installed its vicious and murderous dictator (see Amnesty Int'l
and other human rights reports if you doubt this characterization).
So, Mr. McCarthy understands my disdain for murder, torture, and
dictatorship (re)installed by the US as "clear" proof of hatred for
"the Kuwaitis" by myself.
On our responsibility:
John McCarthy (j...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: I suppose that before Iraq invaded Kuwait, he had little opinion
: on the matter. It seems that when a victim is
: rescued by the U.S., the victim automatically becomes a criminal.
Interesting twist of words here by Mr. McCarthy. It indicates some
quite revealing aspects of a deeply indoctrinated individual.
[deleted quote from Noam Chomsky}
Does Mr. McCarthy now understand why it is universally understood
that our impact (and therefore responsibility) is greatest within our
own domains?
On Vietnam:
To make just a brief comment, the US has no right to meddle in the
affairs of any other state - neither does another state have the right
to meddle in the affairs of the American people.
Had the US been "successful" (as defined by Mr. McCarthy) in Vietnam,
Vietnam would most likely have been turned into another El Salvador
or (Somoza's) Nicaragua or Haiti (countries that exemplify US democratic
ideals).
THe US Pentagon Papers make explicitly clear that the US
kept overthrowing the S. Vietnamese regimes until it found one that
"invited" the US in - the US **NEVER** had the support of the people of
S. Vietnam. Therefore, the US in effect *invaded* South Vietnam in the
same manner that the USSR invaded Afghanastan (although it too claimed
it was *invited* in by the regime it had installed), and devastated
the countries in that region.
Again, please look at the US Government record (the US Pentagon Papers)
and it will help separate fact from fiction.
The the US Government's Pentagon Papers describe quite clearly the motives
for the US involvement in Vietnam - they had absolutely nothing to do
with concern for the Vietnamese. In addition, the tragedy of Pol Pot's
ascent to power and his subsequent genocidal policies are an indirect
result of US meddling in that region, including the murderous and
devastating carpet-bombing of villages of a peasant society by
US taxpayer-purchased B-52 bombers.
My Summary:
If Mr. McCarthy argued the Machiavellian dictum that "might makes right"
and that there *should* be no no morality in foreign policy, I could
understand (although not agree with) his view. But, when he looks
for *justification* in support of this dictum, he is grasping at straws.
Every Machiavellian act requires couching in moralistic rhetoric
in order to sell it to the domestic audience who in general do NOT
support morally vacuous policies, especially those in the interests
of someone else, AND are the ones that have to pay the costs. My concern
is when people believe the propaganda that compels people like Mr. McCarthy
to support these Machiavellian policies, while ACCEPTING the
*justification* churned out by the propaganda mills in support of the State
("national interest").
Dan Epstein
d...@hpbbn.bbn.hp.com
John McCarthy
point of view, the discussions we have had. I would suspect
that few have the energy to read long point-counterpoint discussions.
Anyway I don't want to interpolate a further point-by-point
discussion. Here are a few points, some of which are new.
1. I previously said that it would be nice if there were an effective
world court that would respond to complaints and an effective
enforcement of its decisions. Then we could have complained about the
assassination attempt, an investigation might have led to an
indictment, a police force might have arrested Saddam, a trial might
have led to a conviction and a sentence of imprisonment. Of course,
Saddam has done worse things than attempting to kill Bush.
There is no such court, every country must do the best it can
to protect its interests.
I need to qualify my previous statement wishing that there were an
effective world court. Unfortunately, any kind of world government
established in the next 100 years would probably be a tragedy for the
world that might not be overcome for thousands of years. I don't want
to take the space to elaborate the point fully, but imagine a world
government having the political character of the present government of
India, which is the closest analogy I can find. Imagine the
government of India in a world by itself and there being no successful
foreign countries with which to contrast its failures. Dynasties in
Egypt, China, the Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire developed into
stagnant patterns that persisted until they were overthrown from the
outside. If we had a world government, there would be no outside.
2. It was unfortunate for the Iraqis that Bush stopped the war
when he did. However, as I have said before, Bush keeping his
promise to Gorbachev may have had the enormous benefit of
helping persuade the Soviet generals not to support the
coup, and this will save us enormous defense costs.
However, it would have been better to have given more moral support
to those Iraqis demanding democracy. The wise guys in the Middle
Eastern desk of the State Department who purport to "know the Arab
mind" were probably wrong again, as they usually are.
The U.S. investigated the attack independently of the Kuwaitis.
Mr. Epstein is sure U.S. policy is never motivated by a desire to see
democracy prevail and takes the smallest indication as proof of this
view. He offers an explanation based on his idea of what motivates
U.S. policy, but doesn't see the need for actual evidence other than a
cynical remark by a New York Times diplomatic correspondent. There is
a whole mob of "independent minds" who believe that every U.S. policy
should be interpreted cynically. I believe U.S. presidents usually,
though not always, mean what they say, and regard my reading of the
news over many years as confirming this belief.
(Footnote about the New York Times. For many years the editor
of the editorial page of the New York Times was John B. Oakes.
He is a leftist and it was leftist. Then he retired, and the
viewpoint of the editorial page changed considerably. I thought
that maybe the point of view of the editorial board had changed,
or something.
Then Mrs. Sulzberger, the matriarch of the family, died a few years
ago. The story included a photograph of her wedding in 1917. In this
photo two little boys, maybe four years old, were holding the end of
the train of her bridal gown. One of these little boys was identified
as John B. Oakes. The light dawned. Oakes is an anglicization of
Ochs, the name of the founder of the newspaper. The New York Times
editorial page went lefist when a leftist family member rose to get
the job, and it changed when he retired. It's like Ron Dellums, an
enemy of defense, becoming Chairman of the House Armed Services
Committee. It's just seniority.
As for Thomas Friedman. How can one regard the New York Times
as a spokesman for U.S. policy if prominent positions in its
organization are determined by seniority and sometimes even
by family connections. End of digression.)
Yes, I knew about April Glaspie, and I regard it as just one
more State Department stupidity.
3. Did Mr. Epstein miss my message comparing Vietnam with Korea
as an example of the different consequences of U.S. success and
failure in defending a country from communist invasion? I
thought the difference between $1,500 a month and $50 a month
in wage costs was a relevant point.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Dave Kohr
>Did Mr. Epstein miss my message comparing Vietnam with Korea
>as an example of the different consequences of U.S. success and
>failure in defending a country from communist invasion?
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
"Defending a country from communist invasion."
This is a most amusing piece of revisionism in the case of Vietnam, as the
Communists had already nearly won the civil war in South Vietnam by the
time the U.S. invaded that country ("escalated the intervention" in
Washington-speak). And all of this was clearly recognized by the U.S.
government at the time, internally but not publicly.
Have a look at the Pentagon Papers, Prof. McCarthy. You will learn
something.
--
Dave Kohr CS Graduate Student Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Work: 3244 DCL, (217)333-6561 Home: (217)359-9350 E-mail: d...@cs.uiuc.edu
"One either has none or not enough."
John McCarthy
Xref: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU talk.politics.misc:193932 alt.activism.d:8224 alt.activism:47419
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism.d,alt.activism
Path: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!headwall.Stanford.EDU!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!cs.uiuc.edu!melodian.cs.uiuc.edu!drk
From: d...@melodian.cs.uiuc.edu (Dave Kohr)
Sender: ne...@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: CS Dept., Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
References: <C9r0M...@cup.hp.com> <JMC.93Ju...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 03:18:37 GMT
Lines: 21
The communists had also nearly conquered Korea before MacArthur made
the Inchon landing. However, the comparison was in terms of the
results of the two outcomes. It is typified by the fact that workers
in Vietnam, 17 years after the communist victory, make $30 to $50
per month, whereas workers in South Korea make $1,500 per month.
This is the difference between a communist victory and a capitalist
victory.
Some people in the U.S. Government said one thing; others said
something different. You leftists pick what you like as an admission
of the truth and call what you don't like Government lies. That civil
war in South Vietnam was a fiction was stated by General Giap after
the North Vietnamese victory. It was mainly an invasion from the
start, and American leftists helped the communists lie about it.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
Dave Kohr
>The communists had also nearly conquered Korea before MacArthur made
>the Inchon landing.
Yes, the North Korean communists.
But in contrast, the South Vietnamese Communists (the NLF), who comprised
the "largest mass-based political party in South Vietnam" (as Douglas Pike
of the USIA put it), had largely "conquered" their own country (what a
concept!), in many areas *without* violence (because they had extensive
popular support), before the U.S. decided to intensify its already
considerable effort to prop up its puppet regime in Saigon to the point of
openly invading South Vietnam to attack that political party. And the
decision for this intensification took place at a time (late 1964) when
there were *not* North Vietnamese Army units known to be operating in the
South.
Your analogy of "invasions" is obviously quite incorrect.
>It is typified by the fact that workers in Vietnam, 17 years after the
>communist victory, make $30 to $50 per month, whereas workers in South
>Korea make $1,500 per month.
>
>This is the difference between a communist victory and a capitalist
>victory.
It is also the difference between:
1. Having an embargo on aid, trade, and international loans enforced
against a country by the world's dominant economies since the end of the
war (as has Vietnam), versus not having an emabargo but instead receiving
quite considerable economic development aid and foreign investment (South
Korea).
2. Suffering massive war damage (enormous amounts of bombing, defoliation,
and desctruction of agriculture), with no reparations from the inflicting
country (the U.S.), as did Vietnam, versus suffering far less damage and,
again, receiving considerable aid for reconstruction (South Korea).
3. Being attacked only a few years later by 2 of one's neighbors,
resulting in further wars (Cambodia and China attacking Vietnam) and large
military expenditures, versus benefitting from the protection of a quite
substantial garrison of troops belonging to a superpower (as has South
Korea).
By failing utterly to mention these crucial points, your comparison is
immensely dishonest.
>Some people in the U.S. Government said one thing; others said
>something different. You leftists pick what you like as an admission
>of the truth and call what you don't like Government lies.
This is a highly facile but totally unconvincing refutation of the numerous
government statements and reports (many classified at the time--and with
good reason) which support the contention that the NLF was very popular in
the South.
>That civil war in South Vietnam was a fiction was stated by General Giap
>after the North Vietnamese victory.
Care to provide a reference for this?
>It was mainly an invasion from the start
Yes, by the U.S., and also by the North Vietnamese who entered the South
well after the U.S. forces had, but certainly not by the large numbers of
Communists who already lived in the South.
>and American leftists helped the communists lie about it.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
And apparently the "leftists" also managed to convince the government to
produce classified documents which tell this same "lie". Hardly.
Foxvog Douglas
>That civil war in South Vietnam was a fiction was stated by General Giap
>after the North Vietnamese victory.
Was the Civil war in the Confederate States of America a fiction?
>It was mainly an invasion from the start
Was the Union entry into the Confederate States an invasion from the
start?
Actually this analogy is weak because through at least the Tet
offensive, the majority of the fighting against the southern govt.
was by southerners. In the US case, the Northern troops moved in to
reconquor the territory which split off. In the Vietnamese case, the
southerners fought against the new govt. to overthrow it, receiving
help from the North. Only after massive foreign intervention (which did
not happen in the USA/CSA case) did the North send large quantities of
troops.
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
--
doug foxvog
douglas...@vtt.fi
John McCarthy
communist ruled countries. Indeed for the 20 or so communist ruled
countries, there are more than 20 excuses. There is the further
excuse that they aren't really communist.
I will not follow Dave Kohr into an argument about the amount of
popular support the Viet Cong had. This is because I haven't
read the books I should read to get the opposite point of view
to his, and I prefer to concentrate on other issues. Would someone
else take up the cudgels on Vietnam?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
Jym Dyer
cross-posted to both alt.activism and alt.activism.d.
=o= It's basic net etiquette not to cross post between a
newsgroup and its ".d" discussion group. Please help keep
this type of cross-posting down -- all it does is cause
flames to snowball.
<_Jym_>
(Sorry 'bout that mixed metaphor there.)
Mark Wilson
|In article <JMC.93Ju...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> j...@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
|>Did Mr. Epstein miss my message comparing Vietnam with Korea
|>as an example of the different consequences of U.S. success and
|>failure in defending a country from communist invasion?
|>--
|>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
|"Defending a country from communist invasion."
|This is a most amusing piece of revisionism in the case of Vietnam, as the
|Communists had already nearly won the civil war in South Vietnam by the
|time the U.S. invaded that country ("escalated the intervention" in
|Washington-speak). And all of this was clearly recognized by the U.S.
|government at the time, internally but not publicly.
|Have a look at the Pentagon Papers, Prof. McCarthy. You will learn
|something.
The North Koreans had also nearly won the war in Korea. By the time the
Americans arrived, the South Koreans only held a small area around the
capital.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
John McCarthy
Inchon landing was not around the capital Seoul. The North Koreans
had captured that in the first few days of their invasion. It
was a perimeter around the port of Pusan in the far Southeast.
Inchon is the port associated with Seoul and is in the Northwest
of South Korea. The landing, which MacArthur made against the
advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was the most brilliant
operation of his career. It led to cutting off and capturing
almost the whole North Korean army. If MacArthur had taken
the advice of the Joint Chiefs and built up his forces in the
Pusan perimeter and launched an offensive to enlarge the perimeter,
it would have cost large casualties, the North Koreans would have
driven the population ahead as they retreated, and we would have
been subjected to a communist peace offensive that we might not
have had the strength to withstand.
Alas, after conquering North Korea, MacArthur was not in a good
position to withstand the Chinese entry into the war and the
war ended up just about at the 38th parallel where the communists
invaded.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
Michael Friedman
>=o= Hey, folks, look at your headers. This thread is being
>cross-posted to both alt.activism and alt.activism.d.
Yeah. It's appropriate for both.
>=o= It's basic net etiquette not to cross post between a
>newsgroup and its ".d" discussion group. Please help keep
>this type of cross-posting down -- all it does is cause
>flames to snowball.
Wrong. It's something that Jym wants part of basic net etiquette, but
the rest of the world is not cooperating. You see, Jym doesn't want
"activists" to have to read those annoying posts that point out just
how stupid their causes are.
Dennis Allard
>something different. You leftists pick what you like as an admission
>of the truth and call what you don't like Government lies.
Have you read the Pentagon Papers or have you not?
Dennis Allard
d...@netcom.com
John McCarthy
Xref: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU talk.politics.misc:194224 alt.activism.d:8258 alt.activism:47538
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism.d,alt.activism
Path: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!morrow.stanford.edu!decwrl!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!dga
From: d...@netcom.com (Dennis Allard)
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <C9r0M...@cup.hp.com> <JMC.93Ju...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <C9ryJ...@cs.uiuc.edu> <JMC.93Ju...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 20:48:40 GMT
Lines: 8
Dennis Allard
d...@netcom.com
No. I have not and do not presently intend to read the Pentagon Papers.
Dennis Allard
> d...@netcom.com (Dennis Allard) writes:
> >Have you read the Pentagon Papers or have you not?
>No. I have not and do not presently intend to read the Pentagon Papers.
Thank you for your honest response.
From the preface of the Pentagon papers:
... the deep-felt need of the government insider for secrecy in
order to keep the machinery of state functioning smoothly and
to maintain a maximum ability to affect the public word.
From Document #15, describing CIA actions in 1954:
The first rumor campaign was to be a carefully planted story
of a Chinese Communist regiment in Tonkin taking reprisals
against a Vietminh village...
The northern team had spent the last days of Hanoi in contaminating
the oil supply of the bus company for a gradual wreckage of
engines in the buses...
Vietminh relations with the mass of the population during the
fighting had been exemplary, with a few exceptions; in contrast,
the Vietnamese National Army [our guys] had been like too many
Asian armies, adept at cowing a population into feeding them,
providing them with girls...
From Document #46, cable from Ambassador Lodge to President, 1963:
...I doubt that a public relations package will meet needs of
situation which seems particularly grave to me, notably in the
light of General Big Minh's opinion expressed very privately
yesterday that the Viet Cong are steadily gaining in strength;
have more of the population on their side than has the Government
of Vietnam; that arrests are continuing and that the prisons are
full; that more and more students are going over to the Viet Cong;
that there is great graft and corruption in the Vietnamese admin-
istration of our aid ...
...I still hope that I may be informed of methods ... which will
enable us to apply sanctions [to affect] Diem and Nhu without
precipitating an economic collapse ... If a way to do this were
found, it would be one of the greatest discoveries since the
Marshall Plan in 1947 because, so far as I know, the U.S. had
never yet been able to control any of the very unsatisfactory
governments through which we have had to work in our many very
successful attempts to make these countries strong enough to
stand alone.
I also believe that whatever sanctions we may discover should be
directly tied to a promising coup d'etat and should NOT be
applied without such a coup being in prospect. ... I particularly
think that the idea of supporting a Vietnamese Army independent of
the government should be energetically studied.
From Document #87: Briefing by Ambassador Taylor to U.S. Officials 11/64
After a year of changing and ineffective government, thej counter-
insurgency program country-wide is bogged down. ...
The ability of the Viet-Cong ['south' vietnamese who were revolting
against the Diem regime] continuously to rebuild their units and to
make good their losses is one of the mysteries of this guerrilla war.
[where there is mystery, there is lack of facts or invalid deduction]
... Not only do the Viet-Cong units have the recuperative powers of
the phoenix, but they have an amazing ability to maintain morale. ...
...We need to do three things: first, establish an adequate government
in SVN [South Vietnam]; second, improve the conduct of the counter-
insurgency campaign; and finally,persuade of force the DRV [Democratic
Repulic of Vietnam] to stop its aid to the Viet-Cong and to use its
directive powers to make the Viet-Cong desist from their efforts to
overthrow the government of South Vietnam...
These excerpts give a feel for the contents of the Pentagon Papers.
They provide important source material in support of the following view.
We supported a corrupt government which prosecuted its student protesters
and had lost the support of its own population in the countryside in
defending itself in a civil war conducted by Vietnamese in the South,
aided greatly by Vietnamese in the North. As we escalated the war,
cratering ten percent of the surface area of the country with our bombs,
a debate raged as to whether we were escalating fast enough or whether
whatever we did would be doomed to failure against a popular insurrection.
That debate continues to this day. What is sure is that we lost and
Vietnam was crippled and is struggling to this day to survive in a
capitalist dominated economy, their wounds from war against the French
and U.S. far from healed.
Dennis Allard
d...@netcom.com
John McCarthy
communists were very much worse. Agreed?
Dan Epstein
Have you read the Pentagon Papers or have you not?
John McCarthy (j...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) responds:
No. I have not and do not presently intend to read the Pentagon Papers.
I ask John McCarthy: Why?
Dan Epstein
: Did Mr. Epstein miss my message comparing Vietnam with Korea
: as an example of the different consequences of U.S. success and
: failure in defending a country from communist invasion?
: --
: |>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
In discussing South Korea as an example of a "U.S success", it appears
appropriate to understand the relationship between the Vietnam war and
the South Korean "economic miracle.", as some have termed it.
As most agree, the Vietnam war proved extremely costly (economic, and
human terms) to the US, and appears to have greatly benefited both
Japan and South Korea. Both countries enriched themselves by
exporting arms and services for the destruction of Indochina. I recall
that the trade deficit with Japan shifted significantly in 1965; in
addition, South Korean development was partially sparked by huge
payments for South Korean mercenaries in South Vietnam. (Does
anyone have specific references for how much money South Korea was
paid, and how many mercenaries there were?)
Understanding this might put a slight damper on the enthusiasm some
have shown for the "economic miracle" resulting from our "aid" to
South Korea.
Mr. McCarthy highlighted an economic metric. Forther consideration
should be made to quantifying the "costs" in human terms the South
Korean citizens have borne during the last half century as a
consequence of our "help." For example, the U.S. imposed a
repressive military dictatorship which deprived the South Koreans of
determining their own destiny. What "value" should be placed on
millions of people being deprived of their liberties? And, what about
the price paid for the violently crushed labour movements budding in
the '40's? How many millions of Koreans were killed in the Korean
war, yet another war prosecuted by the U.S. on someone elses soil
(would we ever accept such benevolent aid)? What about the cost to
the South Koreans of the right wing dictatorship installed after
"liberation" from Japan? The U.S. bombing and shelling of both South
and North Korea reduced the country to shambles in about 3 years, with
perhaps two million Korean lives lost. What price should be placed on
this?
The following is a description by a British BBC journalist who had the
dubious honor to witness one of the beneficiaries of our noble
intents:
In front of us a curious figure was standing, a little crouched, legs
straddled, arms held out from his sides. He had no eyes, and the
whole of his body, nearly all of which was visible through tatters of
burnt rags, was covered with a hard black crust speckled with yellow
pus. . .He had to stand because he was no long er covered with skin,
but with a crust-like crackling which broke easily. . . I thought of
the hundreds of villages reduced to ash which I personally had seen
and realized the sort of casualty list which must be mounting up along
the Korean front.
What macroeconomic statistics measure this?
In addition, many consider South Korea's current political system is
more akin to fascism than to a free-market capitalist democracy. What
weight is this given in the measurement of macroeconomic statistics?
With regards to Mr. McCarthy's selection of South Korea, why choose
South Korea? Why not pick what appear to be more appropriate examples
exemplifying our noble intents and adherence to Wilsonian democratic
ideals and our firm principles supporting free-markets, democracy, the
rule of law, freedom, self-determination, human rights, equality and
non-intervention? Take a look at Liberia, or perhaps Haiti and
Brazil. Or Mexico. Or the Philipines. El Salvador, Guatamala,
Nicaragua (under Somoza). And, examine more than just macroeconomic
statistics (look at human misery, starvation and disease, infant
mortality, environmental and other statistics with human impact).
Aren't these better examples of the "consequences of U.S. success and
failure in defending a country from communist invasion", among other
noble intents?
Mr. McCarthy states:
"You leftists pick what you like as an admission of
the truth and call what you don't like Government lies."
How would Mr. McCarthy express his "pick" of South Korea, given the
ample supply of countries which, due to length of our involvement, and
other historical considerations, appear much better candidates?
Do facts matter?
Dan Epstein
d...@hpbbn.bbn.hp.com
Ken Arromdee
>John McCarthy (j...@cs.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>Mr. McCarthy highlighted an economic metric. Forther consideration
>should be made to quantifying the "costs" in human terms the South
>Korean citizens have borne during the last half century as a
>consequence of our "help." For example, the U.S. imposed a
>repressive military dictatorship which deprived the South Koreans of
>determining their own destiny. What "value" should be placed on
>millions of people being deprived of their liberties?
We're comparing South Korea to Vietnam. Needless to say, liberties have been
deprived from the Vietnamese too. The argument is not "capitalist countries
work perfectly while Communist ones don't", but "capitalist countries work
*better*".
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Turkey Casserole
that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ... Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
-- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
John McCarthy
Xref: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU talk.politics.misc:194359 alt.activism.d:8271 alt.activism:47583
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism.d,alt.activism
Path: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!headwall.Stanford.EDU!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!news.dtc.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!cupnews0.cup.hp.com!de
From: d...@cup.hp.com (Dan Epstein)
Sender: ne...@cupnews0.cup.hp.com (News Admin)
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1993 12:59:27 GMT
References: <C9r0M...@cup.hp.com> <JMC.93Ju...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <JMC.93Ju...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Nntp-Posting-Host: capella.cup.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL0.7]
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism.d,alt.activism
Lines: 9
Dennis Allard (d...@netcom.com) writes:
John McCarthy (j...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) responds:
I have read a certain amount about Vietnam but mainly concentrate on
other issues. I take Mr. Epstein's questtion as suggesting that
reading the Pentagon papers is a requirement for having one's remarks
about Vietnam and its consequences taken seriously. Is Mr. Epstein
willing that I should give him a reading list, and he should stop
posting till he has read some of it. In the meantime, here's
an item on Vietnam that I saved. It's short, and I would like his
comments.
a047 0304 04 Jul 86
BC-Liberty Essay-Text,0208
11-Year-Old's Essay on Statue of Liberty
NEW YORK (AP) - Following is the text of the essay titled ''Our
Statue: Teacher of Liberty'' written by 11-year-old Hue Cao of Hawaii
for the Christa McAuliffe Liberty Essay Contest:
''I think the Statue of Liberty is the greatest symbol of freedom in
the world.
''My family and I are from Vietnam. After the war ended, the
Communists took over and they were very cruel, stern and
ill-tempered. They took away our freedom, and worst of all, they
could kill anyone. We had a very hard life under them.
''We wanted to live in America, a land where there is liberty and
justice. Everytime we saw a picture of the Statue of Liberty, my
mother would tell us that SHE is America. America is a place that
lends a hand to those in need. The Americans care for all people,
from hopeless to homeless people. After we arrived in America, we
promised our mother to love, care and protect the Statue of Liberty.
''In conclusion, I would like to say that America is truly my home.
I shall live in this country forever, because this nation has given
my family a brand new life.''
John McCarthy
South Korea (and I suppose also Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore)
to the Vietnam war is an invention. The exports of these countries
were never significantly in support of U.S. military action.
South Korea suffered significant costs, because it had a division
in Vietnam. It is a lie to refer them as mercenaries.
2. The U.S. did not maintain any government in South Korea. It is
another leftist invention to ascribe all bad aspects of foreign
governments to U.S. will. Backward countries have difficulty
maintaining democracy. South Korea did better than countries
whose politics was characterized by anti-U.S. slogans.
3. I selected South Korea, because that is the country where
we succeeded in rescuing from a communist invasion. There wasn't
any choice if this criterion was to be met.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
John McCarthy
Mr. Epstein is egotistical. Maybe he is, and maybe he isn't. The
accusation that he is egotistical seem to me to come from observing
some of his debating techniques. I shall mention three of them.
1. Defining the issue to suit his position and accusing the other
discussants of evading the issue. The most recent issue was
whether I had read the Pentagon papers. Not content with my
saying I hadn't and didn't intend to, he asked why.
2. The use of terminology that prejudges the issue under discussion.
Some examples are "South Korean mercenaries", "exporting arms and
services for the destruction of Indochina", "the Korean
war, yet another war prosecuted by the U.S. on someone elses soil",
etc.
3. The atrocity story. In this case, Mr. Epstein doesn't even bother
to say which army caused the injuries to the individual seen. It doesn't
matter to him. Even if he was burned by a communist weapon, it's the
U.S. fault anyway.
4. The ending "Do facts matter?"
I don't know whether Mr. Epstein got this debating technique from
Chomsky, who always starts a discussion of Vietnam with something
like "During the U.S. attack on the Vietnamese people". The originator
of the technique, so far as I know, was Stalin. An international
communist weekly in many languages was started in Belgrade right
after WWII with the name "For a Lasting Peace, For a People's
Democracy". Stalin told someone, Milovan Djilas maybe, that he
chose the name so that even enemies would have to repeat a communist
slogan in referring to the paper.
Anyway the technique works pretty well. The first time Chomsky used
it on me I was quite disconcerted. I thought, "Do I have to haggle
over terminology before we can even begin to discuss the issue?"
The answer was yes; it is necessary to haggle over terminology in
such cases. Normally, I refer to the Vietnam War as "the Vietnam
War", but learning from Chomsky, in dealing with Mr. Epstein I
refer to it as "the noble American effort to defeat the communist
invasion of South Vietnam". Then he has to haggle over terminology.
There is one new thing in this matter of debating technique.
Because Usenet permits unlimited replies, terminological ploys
are less effective than in, say, a radio broadcast where there
is no opportunity to answer, or even a face-to-face debate where
answering what it implicit in a phrase like "South Korean mercenaries"
takes at least a minute of one's limited debating time.
Here one can take the time to answer if one has the time and
is willing to take the trouble.
In future responses to Mr. Epstein's posts, I will merely
list phrases that presume what he should be trying to prove.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
rwl@temple
Gee Dan,
Since you appear to hold all things American in contempt, I am amazed
that you haven't moved to one of the enlightened governments (North Korea,
Vietnam, Iraq, etc.). Your interpretation of the Korean War is truely
amazing. The sixties were good for you weren't they.
Roger Carmichael
My dad was a 3-war vet attached to the Army Artillery Map Corps.
He says all the wars fought during the Cold War "extension of WWII"
were "Police Actions" to protect global corporate investments.
(Sorry but the REAL purpose of the "police" is to protect property)
Vietnam was partly to protect MICHILLIN TIRE CORP's vast holdings of
rubber tree plantations (1000's of acres) where no "fire fights" were
ever staged. Mapping So.Vietnam in 1967, one of his duties as survey
officer was to survey damage to MTC owned trees, then "do an estimate
of loss & sign-off documents authorizing US taxpayers to repay MTC."
War;n. 1.Contest of hostile force between 2 or more nations or states.
Contest;v. 1.To struggle to gain or hold (property or superiority).
End of Conflict usually comes when one side gains control of other.
So who won the COLD WAR? So far, looks like GERMANY & JAPAN, since the
BULK of mid-east OIL goes to BOTH of these 2 "WWII" nations, as in who
gain control of the property (OIL & other natural resources) in the
end? They don't even have to fight for it, but at least BUSH was smart
enough to "stage a property seizure" had global community force them
to "pay up" or lose their "police force". Oh yes, according to Sc.Am.:
"The BULK of US foreign OIL comes from one OPEC nation: VENEZUALA.
Granada Island is just off the coast of our industrial "feeding dish"
Starting to get the picture? Here's more: Reason for Contra activity
was to meet attempt of XSSR to extablish a "Carribean Curtain" from
anchored in Central America thru Cuba to the Granada Islands. Ruski's
are good Chess Players but our MI (Military Intelligence) is better.
Explains why w/Afghanastan invasion, we drilled all our oil fields,
capped & left them for ready access in event of war & loss of OIL.
Now we know what Pogo the possum cartoon meant when he said in late
50's: "We have met the enemy & he is US" Every 3 generations since the
discovery of Vitamin Defficiency & Smallpox Innoculation by Brits@1796
there has been major, global, socio-economic upheavel world-wide as
when the 4th generation appears, non-producing, consuming and the 1st
is still alive, also non-producing, but still consuming it puts a BIG
burden on the other 2 middle-generations! The magic number just
happens to be "...66.6yrs is a man's number" Sorry King James, your
scribes omitted the decimal, for it takes a wise Solar Astronemer to
figure that one out. Call him crazy as a LOON, but it's the TRUTH.
Sorry about that, roger (keep an open mind or believe what you're fed)
3 or 4 shots on target thru a bolt-action? maybe w/a semi-automatic,
but NO WAY w/a BOLT-ACTION, unless you got a concrete cheek. Now
that's the REAL ISSUE, side-stepped to this day by the "free-press"
What else don't we know? How about XSA (soon to be at next 66.6 point)
Sometime @ 2 or 3 yrs (Wall St Jour, Jul92) a historic moment will
occur as 51% of USA will be owned by institutions & global corp's.
Later------------------------------------------------------oger
Mark Wilson
|In article <CA0Ar...@cup.hp.com> d...@cup.hp.com (Dan Epstein) writes:
|>John McCarthy (j...@cs.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
|>Mr. McCarthy highlighted an economic metric. Forther consideration
|>should be made to quantifying the "costs" in human terms the South
|>Korean citizens have borne during the last half century as a
|>consequence of our "help." For example, the U.S. imposed a
|>repressive military dictatorship which deprived the South Koreans of
|>determining their own destiny. What "value" should be placed on
|>millions of people being deprived of their liberties?
|We're comparing South Korea to Vietnam. Needless to say, liberties have been
|deprived from the Vietnamese too. The argument is not "capitalist countries
|work perfectly while Communist ones don't", but "capitalist countries work
|*better*".
Dan, do you really believe that the South Koreans would have been better
off if the North Koreans had won.
I will state, though I can't prove, that the South Vietnamese would have
been better off had the US won there as well. For example, how many
boat people were there before or during the war.
Dennis Allard
>However bad the Vietnamese government was, it turned out that the
>communists were very much worse. Agreed?
>--
very much worse? I disagree.
worse? I have no evidence that is the case.
I know very little about Vietnam. I generalize based
on analogies with an area I do understand, Central
America. For that region, I would gladly debate you about
a comparison between countries U.S. captital supports
and coutries U.S. capital opposes.
If someday that debate happens, it should be under
a different subject heading.
Dennis Allard
d...@netcom.com
Dan Epstein
"I take Mr. Epstein's questtion as suggesting that reading the
Pentagon papers is a requirement for having one's remarks about
Vietnam and its consequences taken seriously."
to which I emphatically state, *absolutely not* in reference to
the below dialogue:
> Dennis Allard (d...@netcom.com) writes:
>
> Have you read the Pentagon Papers or have you not?
>
> John McCarthy (j...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) responds:
>
> No. I have not and do not presently intend to read the Pentagon Papers.
>
> Dan Epstein (d...@cup.hp.com) writes:
> I ask John McCarthy: Why?
>
>
> John McCarthy (j...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) responds:
> I have read a certain amount about Vietnam but mainly concentrate on
> other issues. I take Mr. Epstein's questtion as suggesting that
> reading the Pentagon papers is a requirement for having one's remarks
> about Vietnam and its consequences taken seriously.
Why do I and others question Mr. McCarthy as to whether he has read
the PP? The U.S. Government's Pentagon Papers is considered the
authoritative source on US involvement in Vietnam by many scholars -
it is cited in literally dozens of books, journals and scholarly
works, by virtually every serious examination of the US involvement in
Vietnam, due to the nature of its sources and the unrestricted access
of the authors to confidential documents and high level US government
and pentagon planners. Works that span the political spectrum cite
the Pentagon Papers as a consequence.
I was expecting a well thought out and reasoned response as to why Mr.
McCarthy *apparently* felt it of little or no value, as exemplified by
his reply to another poster:
> No. I have not and do not presently intend to read the Pentagon Papers.
This is why I asked him, "Why?" Frankly, I was disappointed in his
vacuous retort. I thought Mr. McCarthy might have some substantive
reasons as to why he hasn't read them as he appears to express an
interest in the subject.
> Is Mr. Epstein
> willing that I should give him a reading list, and he should stop
> posting till he has read some of it.
I'd be curious to see the list (especially in light of the opinions
expressed elsewhere by Mr. McCarthy that he thought the NYTimes was
(is?) a "leftist" newspaper, that the "left" was responsible for
stopping "US action" in Vietnam, and therefore the "left" was
responsible for the loss of millions of lives). I just might "trot
down" to the library look up some of the material from his reading
list.
Dan Epstein
d...@hpbbn.bbn.hp.com
Dan Epstein
with the intent, I *presume*, to stir the patriotic passions in
us.
A request on the part of Mr. McCarthy for my comments on an essay (by
an 11 year old child who fled Vietnam) raises a number
of interesting questions. I'll comment below *as requested* and raise
some aspects in speculating on what Mr. McCarthy is attempting to
indicate (frankly, I'm baffled). I would like to ask Mr. McCarthy to
clarify these. I am not attempting to be diversionary; I just don't
understand the point Mr. McCarthy is attempting to delineate.
To mention one, how *should* one interpret the opinions of one 11 year
old child literally *touching on* (and no more) complex concepts such
as freedom, political ideologies, immigration and justice (with *no*
elaboration), *regardless* of the nature of such views? Irrespective
of the views themselves, should one *expect* that they shed light on
US involvement in the Indochina wars over a 16? year period?
Therefore I am baffled as to Mr. McCarthy's "debating strategy."
If Mr. McCarthy's point is to indicate that people suffered as a
consequence of the route that events took, I presume this obvious and
not in dispute. If the point is to indicate that some of the people
fleeing Vietnam found a better life in the US, I don't doubt it, nor
have I ever implied this.
So, what is Mr. McCarthy's point? I again *speculate* that he
questions some of my views in presenting the essay, so I will attempt
to clarify a few perhaps unanswered questions. I would like to
request that Mr. McCarthy also address the questions I pose and answer
below, in order that myself and others better understand his positions
and views. Perhaps, our views have more in common than appears.
(I believe I have encountered multiple diversionary tactics on the part of
Mr. McCarthy. I attempt to answer his questions sincerely as requested,
when posed to me. I expect reciprocal courtesy.)
Do I believe in granting political asylum to people who are fleeing
suffering? Yes. Do I support repressive measures undertaken by the
Vietnamese, regardless of political persuasion? Absolutely not. Do I
consider being a US citizen a fortunate benefit for myself (given that
I am from a white, Jewish, upper-middle class family, and not from an
African American impoverished family of slave origins)? Hell yes. Do
I consider the US responsible for much of the suffering in the world
due to the nature of its preponderance of power and influence on the
world stage during the last 100+ years? Absolutely. Do I consider
that some US policies resulted in *benefiting* many thousands of
people (including all four of my grandparents)? Yes. Do I consider
humanitarian concerns and human consequences a driving force in US
foreign policy? Absolutely not.
Do I consider it an imperative that that we examine the motives of US
(and earlier, French and Japanese) involvement in Indochina and the
consequences thereof, including the loss of millions of Vietnamese
lives and thousands of American lives? Yes. And the same for Korea,
Philipines, South America and elsewhere.
Again, I don't understand the point Mr. McCarthy is attempting to make
in posting the opinions of 11 year old Hue Cao and in asking
for my comments, unless his intent is for me to clarify my positions
on the iessues one could infer from the essay, which I attempted to do
above (at the risk of being labeled egotistical by some attempting to
thwart discussion).
Dan Epstein
d...@hpbbn.bbn.hp.de
John McCarthy
assertions of the 11 year old refugee about communist Vietnam?
Just as a matter of checkding, I would also like to know Mr. Epstein's
opinion of how the Korean War got started.
If I were going to read even four books about Vietnam, the Pentagon
papers would be one of them. As I said before, Vietnam is not one of
the subjects on which I am attempting to become expert or even
well-read. Suppose Mr. Epstein were to say that if only I read the
Pentagon papers my opinions would become identical with his. I have
the counter-example that no book yet published has eliminated the
controversy about Vietnam.
Unfortunately, I don't even know the names of enough books on Vietnam
by authors I respect to offer him a list.
However, he might read _Political Pilgrims_ by Paul Hollander to
get an idea of human potentiality for self-delusion. Hollander's
_Anti-Americanism_ will tell Epstein probably more than he wants
to know about the sources of some of his ideas.
Dennis Allard
>Mr. McCarthy posts what is, in my opinion, a tear-jerker story ...
>Again, I don't understand the point Mr. McCarthy is attempting to make
>in posting the opinions of 11 year old Hue Cao and ...
He is trying to illustrate his belief that U.S. policy is good
because it would prevent situtions such as Hue Cao's from arising,
or, at least, reduce the frequency of those situations.
Mr. McCarthy is, as you know, incorrect in this conclusion.
There was a little girl on the cover of Time magazine in the 70s.
She was holding her arms out, fleeing a village which had been
napalmed or destroyed in some other manner. She had no clothes on.
I recall that her name is Kim Phuc (please someone post her correctly
spelled name). A few years ago she went on tour in the United States.
Hers was the story of a 'North' vietnamese who suffered from the war and
was now trying to make a good life in her country. She suffered far
worse than Hue Cao could ever imagine.
Now, did that emotionalistic appeal sway anyone on the right? Ha.
Dennis Allard
d...@netcom.com
Dennis Allard
>What I wanted to know was Mr. Epstein's opinion of the truth of the
>assertions of the 11 year old refugee about communist Vietnam?
Really? To an observer of this debate, Mr. Epstein's opinions about
the facts asserted by people of any age about Vietnam are rather
clear! Why should the assertions of a single 11 year old change
his opinions. I doubt your own self-model in your assertion that
your reason for posting the 11 year old's assertions were of such
a scientific nature. I suggest you were making an irrational
emotional appeal (not that there there is anything wrong with
irrational emotional appeals, by the way).
Dennis Allard
d...@netcom.com
Dan Epstein
Steven M. Ray (stev...@hudlink.hoboken.nj.us) wrote:
: While I don't have (much) of a quarrel with Dan Epstein over whose fault
: Vietnam was (If I remember correctly, the U.S. was so fixated on opposing
: communism that they squelched free elections in the 1950s because they
: knew Ho Chi Minh would win; on the other hand, the North Vietnamese were
: not exactly angels, and they provided a lot of support for the Viet
: Cong), his rave on North Korea is a real winner.
In my posting I make no rave on North Korea, nor would I. In reference
to the factoid posted by Mr. McCarthy which, I presume, he considers
somehow meaningful, I was making the following points (as Mr. McCarthy
requested my comment):
1. Mr. McCarthy presents a single economic statistic and that alone.
He considers, I presume, that this number is indicative of the
"salutary efficacy" of US "aid" to Korea reaping fruit. In
my post I was indicating that *other* factors require
consideration, factors he conveniently ignores - of course,
ignoring them makes a better case for Mr. McCarthy -
it does NOT, however, a good argument make.
In other words, his data is meaningless in the context in which he
presents it.
2. There are far better "candidates" that exemplify
U.S. "success" in protecting our "friends" from communism
than the country selected by Mr. McCarthy, candidates that make
strikingly clear the dedication to Wilsonian ideals and other
principles that we like to believe we profess. McCarthy
has yet to explain this discrepancy, except in making the
(what, in my opinion is a ridiculous and incredible) assertion
that South Korea is the *only* candidate country to present a
comparative statistic, in his words,
"because that is the country where we succeeded in
rescuing from a communist invasion."
I would like an explanation on the reasoning and logic
that went into this argument, but I somehow doubt one will
be forthcoming. (Didn't we successfully "rescue" many
countries from "communist invasions" by their indigenous
populations or is a major military conflict a *requirement*
for the concomitant salutary effect?)
Again, why does Mr. McCarthy present a single economic statistic,
while ignoring other crucial factors?
And why does Mr. McCarthy ignore far better candidates that have
recieved our "protection" from communism and should better reflect
our true democratic and Wilsonian ideals (as per the message below)?
I would like Mr. McCarthy to address these questions in the context
of the message below (and what about the Iraq issues he stated he
addressed, yet did not? It is not easy to "debate" with an opponent
that ignores the topic, focuses on ancillary details, and then
cries "blame the other person" when they find themselves with no case).
Dan Epstein
d...@hpbbn.bbn.hp.com
:
: John McCarthy (j...@cs.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: : Did Mr. Epstein miss my message comparing Vietnam with Korea
: : as an example of the different consequences of U.S. success and
: : failure in defending a country from communist invasion?
: : --
: : |>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
:
:
: In discussing South Korea as an example of a "U.S success", it appears
: appropriate to understand the relationship between the Vietnam war and
: the South Korean "economic miracle.", as some have termed it.
:
: As most agree, the Vietnam war proved extremely costly (economic, and
: human terms) to the US, and appears to have greatly benefited both
: Japan and South Korea. Both countries enriched themselves by
: exporting arms and services for the destruction of Indochina. I recall
: that the trade deficit with Japan shifted significantly in 1965; in
: addition, South Korean development was partially sparked by huge
: payments for South Korean mercenaries in South Vietnam. (Does
: anyone have specific references for how much money South Korea was
: paid, and how many mercenaries there were?)
:
: Understanding this might put a slight damper on the enthusiasm some
: have shown for the "economic miracle" resulting from our "aid" to
: South Korea.
:
: Mr. McCarthy highlighted an economic metric. Forther consideration
: should be made to quantifying the "costs" in human terms the South
: Korean citizens have borne during the last half century as a
: consequence of our "help." For example, the U.S. imposed a
: repressive military dictatorship which deprived the South Koreans of
: determining their own destiny. What "value" should be placed on
: millions of people being deprived of their liberties? And, what about
:
John McCarthy
factor of 30 more to employ a worker in the Republic of South Korea
than to employ one in the People's Republic of Vietnam. The leftists
posting to these newsgroups have all sorts of atrocity stories.
Probably some of them are true. There atrocity stories could
doubtless be matched, but unless there were some what of counting
them, then it is just a matter of whom the journalists side with.
What the fact about employment costs shows is that Republics are
a lot better for workers than Peeople's Republics. Both South
Korea and South Vietnam were conquered by the communists. South
Korea was liberated by MacArthur's brilliant Inchon landing and
its sequel. South Vietnam was lost.
It is 18 years since the communist victory in Vietnam. However,
American leftists still have their excuses for its poverty.
Admittedly it is 42 years since South Korea was liberated.
This is a direct comparison of the results of U.S. aid
succeeding and failing. Another divided country was Germany.
Do Mr. Epstein and Mr Allard want to compare East and West
Germany?
Mr. Epstein, for no stated reason, objects to comparing Korea
with Vietnam. We can also compare North Korea and South Korea.
How about that? The information is available, although checking
it is a bit hard, since nobody gets to travel in North Korea.
I suppose Epstein wouldn't like to compare the two Germanys,
either.
Don't forget my question to Mr. Epstein about how the Korean
War started. I'll pester him till he answers.
Here are some additions to his reading list. Gulag Archipelago by
Solzhenitsyn, The Great Terror and Harvest of Sorrow by Robert
Conquest. These explain why Soviet communism and its extensions to
other countries were bad enough and dangerous enough to the world to
justify extraordinary efforts to halt its expansion. The
Extraordinary Adventures of Private Ivan Chonkin by Vladimir Voinovich
give an idea of what Soviet ideology was like on the eve of the German
invasion in 1941 and is an extremely funny book.
As to the Vietnamese girl's story. What does Mr. Epstein think of
the truth of
After the war ended, the Communists took over and they were
very cruel, stern and ill-tempered. They took away our
freedom, and worst of all, they could kill anyone. We had a
very hard life under them.
Remember, this is Vietnam at peace.
Mr. Epstein accuses me of "focussing on a single economic statistic,
while ignoring other crucial factors". OK, what other comparisons
between South Korea and Vietnam today would he suggest. Preferably,
he should suggest factors in which it is actually possible to compare
the two countries.
Ah, here's one to put beside the economic statistic. In South Korea
people demonstrate against the Government and are sometimes arrested.
One of the demonstrators, who was imprisoned for a while, has been
elected President of the country. In Vietnam, no-one demonstrates;
they can only steal boats and set to sea where many drown or are
killed by pirates. Is that a fair comparison?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
Dennis Allard
I do not know enough about Korea and its history to compare what happened
there to what happened in Vietnam.
It is possible that it may be more appropriate to compare Vietnam with other
countries where our policies have succeeded, such as Guatemala, where we
managed the overthrow of the Arbenz regime in 1954, or in Chile where we
facilitated greatly the coup against the elected president Allende, or
in Nicaragua, where our economic boycott was partly responsible for
defeating the Sandinistas reeletion bid, or El Salvador, where fascist
is not an overused term to describe the regimes we have proped up there
over the past 15 years.~r
It may be that the historical and economic conditions of Vietnam match
better these other examples of our success better than our success in
Korea. If so, Professor McCarthy's arguments would be weakened greatly.
Dennis Allard
d...@netcom.com
John McCarthy
Xref: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU talk.politics.misc:194858 alt.activism.d:8316 alt.activism:47792
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism.d,alt.activism
Path: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!headwall.Stanford.EDU!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!csus.edu!netcom.com!dga
From: d...@netcom.com (Dennis Allard)
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <C9r0M...@cup.hp.com> <JMC.93Ju...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <JMC.93Ju...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <CA631...@cup.hp.com> <JMC.93Ju...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 09:16:07 GMT
Lines: 21
Dennis Allard
d...@netcom.com
Let us take Nicaragua. It isn't perfect, but the people aren't all dead.
What is it to be compared with? The U.S. itself? Cuba? South Korea
and Vietnam are as close a match as one can find, with the difference
being that one was saved from communism and the other fell to it.
West Germany and East Germany is the other case of a close match.
HALLAM-BAKER Phillip
In article <JMC.93Ju...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, j...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
|>Xref: dxcern talk.politics.misc:111700 alt.activism.d:7078 alt.activism:38211
John McCarthy's favorite comparison of East/West Germany is not as appropriate
as he may think. The Western half of Germany has always been richer with the
great industrial centers of the Rhur and the Hanseanic ports. The East was
agriculture with Berlin in the middle the major wealth spot. If one was to take
England and divide off the industrial heartland of Manchester, Birmingham,
Sheffield etc from London the results would almost certainly be the same.
It is interesting that despite John's laudible concern that we read works
such as the Gulag Archipelago etc he does not appear to apply the same
principle, namely Ciceros injunction to research ones opponent's case better
than ones own to himself. Binary morality of the simplistic kind that he
advocates does not in fact exist. Just because Stalinism was and evil and
repressive system does not mean that all systems that opposed it were good,
nor that all methods of opposition were justified. Despite protestations to
the contrary this is his principle argument.
The real world is much more complex. Those who read James Clavell's book
King Rat which describes his experiences in a Japaneese prisoner of war
camp might well assume that these experiences have made him entirely
contemptuous of Japaneese culture. This is not so, he is also the author
of Shogun. Great artists such as Solzhenitsyn can argue powerfully because
they understand the mechanisms at work. In Animal Farm Orwell does not
attack the ideals of Communism (as a socialist he could hardly do so)
what he attacks is the mechanism whereby ideals are subverted and turned
into excuses for despotism.
This latter mechanism should be familiar to us. It is the mechanism whereby
attaching the flag and reciting the Gettysberg address serves to justify
all and any actions performed by the US government. John Mcarthy was told as
a child that his government was the greatest in the world and could do no
wrong. It is an axiom of his system and attempting to argue with him over
it is quite pointless, he beleives it not as a conclusion but as the starting
point for all else. To admit that his country may be wrong is to diminish
himself.
This is of course the very mechanism of despotism. Those who critically examine
the government are not given their proper title of "patriot" but derided
as "leftists" or "capitalists" depending on which country you happen to
be in. In addition to false patriotism we also see false piety used to
the same effect in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran.
In Cuba, Vietnam and North Korea at this very minute the likes of John
McCarthy will be justifying the despicable acts of their government in very
similar terms. Only they will also trumpet the success of their government
in seeing off the worlds largest military power. It is hardly a coincidence
that the surviving communist regimes are those where the US bolstered the
ruling party by attacking it and thus uniting the country against the foreign
aggressor.
That the various wars the US has involved itself in were not fought for
altruism or the benefit of the indigenous population is easy enough to
discern. The total disinterest in the squalour in which their urban poor
is forced to live is enough to convince any unbiased observer that the
interest of the US in the welfare of foreigners is unlikely to be
very high.
Phill Hallam-Baker
Dan Epstein
be delighted to address them.
However, let's first exhibit some reciprocity, O.K. Mr. McCarthy?
(Note to steveray: I'll address your questions this week some time)
Here's a message I posted to another newsgroup, adding some new
data on US interests in Cuba, and requesting again that Mr. McCarthy
answer my questions. I am itching to address his. But,
we must be fair. Part of this exercise, from my perspective, is not
only to learn something, but to encourage Mr. McCarthy to address,
what I see as some ideologicall fixated and irrational ideas of his.
Or, does McCarthy not believe in rational inquiry?
I am genuinely interested in Mr. McCarthy's views on the matters.
I stared with a message from Mr. McCarthy and changed a few words as an
intro to my latest plea for him to answer questions.
------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Snapple boycott
SOMETHING *SIMILAR TO* the following was written by John McCarthy:
It seems that Cuba ** trades on the open market. People like me suspect
that Cuba's lack of subservience to the US is a substantial part
of the motivation for the current boycott of Cuba by the US.
I trust that all the extreme statist conservatives posting to
alt.activism.d will join John McCarthy in saying that to boycott
a sovereign nation because you don't agree with its opinions,
"is an illegitimate interference with free" trade.
===> Note: He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
** see note on Cuba below
By the way, Mr. McCarthy, did you know that the US boycott violated the UN
charter, and therefore international law?
And, while you're answering that question, here are a few more for you.
How does life for the average Cuban compare under (pro-US) Bastista
and under (anti-US) Castro?
How does life for the average Honduran, Guatamalan, Haitian, El Salvadoran,
Guatamalan compare to life for the average Cuban (Hint: I've compiled a
table *just for you*, for use in another message) What about the
interests of US multinationals**? What about the elites in these countries?
How do they fare in comparison to Cuba?
** Hint: Just prior to the Cuban revolution, US interests owned
over 90 per cent of telephone and electric facilities, 50 per cent
of public service railways, 40 per cent of raw sugar production,
most of the cattle ranches and major tourist facilities,
and together with the British, virtually the entire oil business.
Source: US Department of Commerce, Investment in Cuba, 1956, p. 10.
NO, Mr. McCarthy, I don't SUPPORT the dictatorship of Cuba!
Oh, and I'll gladly answer the Korea question. But, let's lay the groundwork.
Mr. McCarthy, why (and how) did the US get involved in Korea (let's
not neglect support from the collaborators with the Japanese occupation, now)?
Do countries have the right to get involved in the affairs of other states
in that same manner? Does, say, Japan, with substantial interests in the US
have the right to get involved in the same manner in US affairs, as did
the US in Vietnam, or in Korea?
Do the interests of the indigenous population count? If so, to what
extent? Even if "we" (or Japan for the paradigm shift) believe they're
( the indigenous population are) "wrong?"
Do principles or standards matter? How about international law?
How about facts, Mr. McCarthy?
As stated in a previous message, I attempted to answer *all* questions
posed to me by Mr. McCarthy. I EXPECT *reciprocal* courtesy.
Here's just a sampling of the questions from our previous "debates"
that McCarthy continues to neglect to address.
The exchange began with a posting from Mr. McCarthy requesting my comments
on an essay of an 11 yr old child (actually the exchange began before that
with more unanswered questions by Mr. McCarthy). I answered as per
his request (see below) and posed some counter questions. These questions
remain unanswered by Mr. McCarthy (see below).
So, please again, address the questions. I will *with pleasure*
address your questions at that time.
Reciprocity, Mr. McCarthy, is common courtesy. Let's not play childish games.
Off with your ideological blinders, Mr. McCarthy!
----------------
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 93 13:57:03 -0700
Subject: (fwd) Re: Iraqi Bombing: Unanswered Questions
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism.d,alt.activism
Mr. McCarthy posts what is, in my opinion, a tear-jerker story
with the intent, I *presume*, to stir the patriotic passions in
us.
A request on the part of Mr. McCarthy for my comments on an essay (by
an 11 year old child who fled Vietnam) the essay raises a number
Again, I don't understand the point Mr. McCarthy is attempting to make
in posting the opinions of 11 year old Hue Cao and in asking
for my comments, unless his intent is for me to clarify my positions
on the issues one could infer from the essay, which I attempted to do
above (at the risk of being labeled egotistical by some attempting to
thwart discussion).
----------------------
Did Mr. McCarthy figure out yet how to answer questions, and exhibit
some understanding of the notion of reciprocity?
Dan Epstein
d...@hpbbn.bbn.hp.de
Jym Dyer
> posts that point out just how stupid their causes are.
=o= Gosh golly wally gee whillikers, but you're just too
durned clever for me. You saw right through my evil plan.
Curses, foiled again!
<_Jym_>
P.S.: Could you point out which of these messages contain
this wisdom? Since I'm not a Super Genius like you are, I
can't seem to find anything but flaming in them. Thanks in
advance.
Michael Friedman
In article <Jym.21Jul1993.0855@naughty-peahen> j...@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>> Jym doesn't want "activists" to have to read those annoying
>> posts that point out just how stupid their causes are.
>=o= Gosh golly wally gee whillikers, but you're just too
>durned clever for me. You saw right through my evil plan.
> Curses, foiled again!
> <_Jym_>
Yup.
>P.S.: Could you point out which of these messages contain
>this wisdom? Since I'm not a Super Genius like you are, I
>can't seem to find anything but flaming in them. Thanks in
>advance.
Well, to respond...
1. Jym, if you so object to flames in substantive news groups then
what's this doing here?
2. Single example of such pearls of wisdom, my response to Nathan
Newman pointing out that his claim that 1 out of 5 workers who vote
for a union are fired before the union certification election was
impossible on its face.
Mike
Dan Herrin
[about an 11-year old's letter]
>
>Now, did that emotionalistic appeal sway anyone on the right? Ha.
No, it didn't, and it doesn't fit the usual seal-the-borders-Margaret-
they're-coming anti-immigration attitude so fashionable among American
Patriots these days.
Dan
Willia...@vos.stratus.com
=>In article <dgaCA5...@netcom.com> d...@netcom.com (Dennis Allard) writes:
=>[about an 11-year old's letter]
=>>
=>>Now, did that emotionalistic appeal sway anyone on the right? Ha.
=>
=>No, it didn't, and it doesn't fit the usual seal-the-borders-Margaret-
=>they're-coming anti-immigration attitude so fashionable among American
=>Patriots these days.
Agreed..., these so-called patriots should remember their roots. We all
(unless you are 100% American Indian) are immigrants. My ancestors came
here from Canada and Austria, they were immigrants. To seal the borders
is anti-American. I have no problem, with anyone, who wishes to seek
a happier life, in these United States, so long as he or she are able to
handle the financial burden.
=>Dan
Bill M.
Greg Otts
> Agreed..., these so-called patriots should remember their roots. We all
> (unless you are 100% American Indian) are immigrants. My ancestors came
> here from Canada and Austria, they were immigrants. To seal the borders
> is anti-American. I have no problem, with anyone, who wishes to seek
"Give me your poor and you unwashed masses". (Or something to that extent.)
Why did the U.S. do it? It was not (primarily) because of some noble idea.
No, the U.S. opened the borders in the 19th/ early 20th century because
there were too many resources and too few people to make use of it. How
did it get those resources in the first place? By taking the land away
from the Indians. Each policy (wiping out the Indians and allowing in
immigrants from Europe ) was designed to make the U.S. more economically and
militarly powerful. Today's immigration policy SHOULD be judged solely
on whether it will increase America's economic and military power.
> a happier life, in these United States, so long as he or she are able to
> handle the financial burden.
Poor, uneducated, non-English speaking people are a financial burden
in an increasingly high-tech, information age economy. These immigrants
cost 45 billion dollars a year to the government. Do they provide 45 billion
dollars a year in production? I read somewhere where almost 25% of the prison
population in California are illegal aliens. They are, of course, acting
rationally: it is probably wiser to be a criminal than take a low paying
job because you lack the language and educational skills to get a good
job.
The fathers of this nation took this land from the Indians. They allowed
immigrants from Europe into the country to make this nation strong and
prevent others from taking it from Americans. Our task must be to do
what's right for America. Doing what's right for America sometimes means
we have to say no to others even if it means their lives are miserable
as a result. That has always been, in the final analysis, the American
way. (Ask the indians.)
>=>Dan
> Bill M.
- Greg Otts
Willia...@vos.stratus.com
=>In article <22ot4j$7...@transfer.stratus.com> Willia...@vos.stratus.com writes:
=>> Agreed..., these so-called patriots should remember their roots. We all
=>> (unless you are 100% American Indian) are immigrants. My ancestors came
=>> here from Canada and Austria, they were immigrants. To seal the borders
=>> is anti-American. I have no problem, with anyone, who wishes to seek
=>
=>"Give me your poor and you unwashed masses". (Or something to that extent.)
=>Why did the U.S. do it? It was not (primarily) because of some noble idea.
=>No, the U.S. opened the borders in the 19th/ early 20th century because
=>there were too many resources and too few people to make use of it. How
=>did it get those resources in the first place? By taking the land away
=>from the Indians. Each policy (wiping out the Indians and allowing in
=>immigrants from Europe ) was designed to make the U.S. more economically and
=>militarly powerful. Today's immigration policy SHOULD be judged solely
=>on whether it will increase America's economic and military power.
Yes..., this is true. I still feel though, that there are still resourses
in this country. Granted, not like there were in the 1890's.
I believe in diversity, necessity is the mother of invention. I do not
condone the taking in of financialy strapped people. This is where we
can draw the immigration line at, as long as a person can afford to come
here, not become a burden to society, I have no problem with it.
=>
=>
=>> a happier life, in these United States, so long as he or she are able to
=>> handle the financial burden.
=>
=>Poor, uneducated, non-English speaking people are a financial burden
=>in an increasingly high-tech, information age economy. These immigrants
=>cost 45 billion dollars a year to the government. Do they provide 45 billion
=>dollars a year in production? I read somewhere where almost 25% of the prison
=>population in California are illegal aliens. They are, of course, acting
=>rationally: it is probably wiser to be a criminal than take a low paying
=>job because you lack the language and educational skills to get a good
=>job.
True, very true. My grandfather couldn't speak English, he spoke German,
and got along fine without any governmental support. This I understand
is a different case today, but it doesn't take a scientist to start a
business, my grandpa proved this, and quite well, might I add.
=>The fathers of this nation took this land from the Indians. They allowed
=>immigrants from Europe into the country to make this nation strong and
=>prevent others from taking it from Americans. Our task must be to do
=>what's right for America. Doing what's right for America sometimes means
=>we have to say no to others even if it means their lives are miserable
=>as a result. That has always been, in the final analysis, the American
=>way. (Ask the indians.)
True. I think the line on immigration should be drawn on these
boundries; 1) any immigrant coming to this country, should receive
no government support whatsoever.
2) that they remain law-abiding for a period of at least
5-years.
3) that a period of 10 years of total "financial independence"
be displayed before they can apply for any government
support (welfare).
It may sound harsh, but there are people in this world (including myself)
that are able to do this.
Bill M.
Nathan Newman
>Well, first off, thanks for the compliment in the subject line.
>
>In article <Jym.21Jul1993.0855@naughty-peahen> j...@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>>> Jym doesn't want "activists" to have to read those annoying
>>> posts that point out just how stupid their causes are.
>
>>this wisdom? Since I'm not a Super Genius like you are, I
>>can't seem to find anything but flaming in them. Thanks in
>>advance.
>
>Well, to respond...
>
>Newman pointing out that his claim that 1 out of 5 workers who vote
>for a union are fired before the union certification election was
>impossible on its face.
>
>Mike
That's not what I said. I was unclear and said that of everyone who votes
for a union, the employers will have fired one out of five supporters. I
was a bit unclear on the syntax (which you pushed me to clarify), but the
point remains:
Of union supporters in a recognition campaign, one out of five of the
union supporters are estimated to be fired. The source on this statistic
is CNN Moneyline, a generally pro-business newscast.
You evade the issue by pretending that as semantic question wasd a
substantive political point.
--
**************************************************
* Nathan Newman: new...@garnet.berkeley.edu *
* Council for a Democratic Economy *
* UC-Berkeley *
Blaine R. Mossburg
(Dan Herrin) writes:
B: In article <22ot4j$7...@transfer.stratus.com> Willia...@vos.stratus.com
writes:
G: In article <CAMoH...@spss.com> greg...@spss.com (Greg Otts) wrote:
A: In article <dgaCA5...@netcom.comD: d...@netcom.com (DennisAllard) writes:
A: [about an 11-year old's letter]
A: Now, did that emotionalistic appeal sway anyone on the right? Ha.
I am unfamiliar with the example given. It is Mr.Herring's response
that I address.
D: No, it didn't, and it doesn't fit the usualseal-the-borders-Margaret-
D: they're-coming anti-immigration attitude so fashionable among American
D: Patriots these days.
Advocates of stricter immigration laws and tougher enforcement of
those laws are not being "fashionable". Political ideology and social policies
should not be trivialized in such a manner.
Two examples of the "seal-the-borders attitude" can be found in both
conservative and liberal groups. On the (far) right is Pat Buchanan's notion
to literally seal the borders with a trench and guards. On the (shaky) left
is Bill Clinton, who during his '92 campaign promised to allow more Haitians
into the United States, wants the Immigration and Naturalization Service to
be even more active.
B: Agreed..., these so-called patriots should remember their roots. We all
B: (unless you are 100% American Indian) are immigrants.
That is a false statement. I am a natural-born citizen, not an
immigrant. I consider myself, and all natural-born Americans, "native
Americans".
B: My ancestors came here from Canada and Austria, they were immigrants. To
B: seal the borders is anti-American.
Modern America is undergoing severe social and political changes. What
is anti-American today might be patriotic tomorrow. For example, banning
prayer in public schools was (and still is by some groups) considered
un-American.
B: I have no problem, with anyone, who wishes to seek a happier life, in these
B: United States, so long as he or she are able to handle the financial burden.
I agree.
G: "Give me your poor and you unwashed masses". (Or something to that extent.)
I believe the exact quote is "Give me your poor and huddled masses".
No guarantees.
G: Why did the U.S. do it? It was not (primarily) because of some noble idea.
G: No, the U.S. opened the borders in the 19th/ early 20th century because
G: there were too many resources and too few people to make use of it.
This is true.
G: How did it get those resources in the first place? By taking the land away
G: from the Indians.
That is part of history. A foreign power invades and exploits the
native population. Alexander the Great and Chingis Khan used this fact to its
fullest extent.
G: Each policy (wiping out the Indians and allowing in immigrants from Europe )
G: was designed to make the U.S. more economically and militarly powerful.
G: Today's immigration policy SHOULD be judged solely on whether it will
G: increase America's economic and military power.
This is a utilitarian position - practical and the bane to all that is
liberal and sympathetic.
G: Poor, uneducated, non-English speaking people are a financial burden in an
G: increasingly high-tech, information age economy.
Unfortunately, the federal government is making it easier for
non-English speaking people to obtain citizenship and government aid - at the
tax payers'expense.
G: These immigrants cost 45 billion dollars a year to the government. Do the
G: provide 45 billion dollars a year in production? I read somewhere where
G: almost 25% of the prison population in California are illegal aliens. They
G: are, of course, acting rationally: it is probably wiser to be a criminal
G: than take a low paying job because you lack the language and educational
G: skills to get a good job.
The solution for the illegal immigrant population in the prison system
is simple: extradition. If tried and convicted under United States law, by all
rights an illegal can be sent back to his/her country of origin. Crime of this
sort cannot be defended as "rational".
G: The fathers
[and mothers]
G: of this nation took this land from the Indians. They allowed (lost in
G: conversion) from Europe into the country to make this nation strong and
G: prevent others from taking it from Americans. Our task must be to do what's
G: right for America. Doing what's right for America sometimes means we have
G: to say no to others even if it means their lives are miserable as a result.
G: That has always been, in the final analysis, the American way. (Ask the
G: indians.)
Hence the increasing popularity of socialism based upon class-warfare
ideology. I argue the United States has been one of the most progressive and
prosperous nations on earth since her founding in 1776.
D: Dan
B: Bill M.
G: - Greg Otts
Laurence James Edwards
I have a better idea, I think we should exile from this country all people,
whether they be immigrant or not, who are poor or do not speak english well.
Better yet we might as well just declare poor states such as Arkansas to be
un-american and kick em out of the union.
Oh forget that, I just had another idea, we'll let in everybody. Eventually,
this place will be so crowded that nobody will want to come here ... voila, no
more immigration problem! In fact people will probably start leaving after a
while.
While it might be in the best interest of current US citizens to damp the flow
of immigration, it also might be in the best interest of the majority of US
citizens to kick out some of the current US citizens ... borders seem kind of
arbitrary to me.
Larry Edwards
Mark O. Wilson
|=>No, it didn't, and it doesn't fit the usual seal-the-borders-Margaret-
|=>they're-coming anti-immigration attitude so fashionable among American
|=>Patriots these days.
| Agreed..., these so-called patriots should remember their roots. We all
| (unless you are 100% American Indian) are immigrants. My ancestors came
| here from Canada and Austria, they were immigrants. To seal the borders
| is anti-American. I have no problem, with anyone, who wishes to seek
| a happier life, in these United States, so long as he or she are able to
| handle the financial burden.
Actually even the Indians immigrated, they just did it longer ago than the
rest of us.
Also, the seal the border types tend to spread across the political
spectrum.
Greg Otts
[deletions]
>G: Each policy (wiping out the Indians and allowing in immigrants from Europe )
>G: was designed to make the U.S. more economically and militarly powerful.
>G: Today's immigration policy SHOULD be judged solely on whether it will
>G: increase America's economic and military power.
>
> This is a utilitarian position - practical and the bane to all that is
>liberal and sympathetic.
I strongely support a primarly utilitarian position when it comes to America's
relationship with foreign governments and their citizens. A nation must first
must be strong enough to protect its borders in order to preserve its citizens
and their culture. What, for example, will be the level of support for AFDC,
public housing, public schools, etc. if a large percent of its participants
are non-English speaking people? How will welfare communities (both black
and white) react if per capita AFDC, public housing, and public school subsidies
are cut because of the influx of both illegal and legal immigrants? I doubt
of their reactions would be liberal and sympathetic.
[deletions]
>G: - Greg Otts
- Greg Otts
Greg Otts
[deletions]
>G: increasingly high-tech, information age economy.
>
> Unfortunately, the federal government is making it easier for
>non-English speaking people to obtain citizenship and government aid - at the
>tax payers'expense.
People don't have to become citizens to get free health care in local
emergency rooms or send their kids to American schools. In addition,
any child born in America is a citizen according to the 14th Amendment
and is entitled to the same benefits as other children. I suspect this
means their parents (though illegals) can get AFDC payments in behalf
of their American-born children. I would prefer amending the
constitution to say that a child is an American citizen only if one
of its parents was an American citizen. This means we wouldn't have to
feed, house, educate, or give health care to people who don't belong
here.
>
>G: These immigrants cost 45 billion dollars a year to the government. Do the
>G: provide 45 billion dollars a year in production? I read somewhere where
>G: almost 25% of the prison population in California are illegal aliens. They
>G: are, of course, acting rationally: it is probably wiser to be a criminal
>G: than take a low paying job because you lack the language and educational
>G: skills to get a good job.
>
> The solution for the illegal immigrant population in the prison system
>is simple: extradition. If tried and convicted under United States law, by all
>rights an illegal can be sent back to his/her country of origin. Crime of this
>sort cannot be defended as "rational".
Kathleen Brown of California suggested this on This Week with David Brinkley.
The real question is whether the origin country will keep them in prison.
But I like the idea if the origin country did punish them: going to prison
in a Mexico, Hondurus, China, or Haiti is a much worse sentence than an
American prison.
>
>D: Dan
>B: Bill M.
>G: - Greg Otts
- Greg Otts
Greg Otts
[deletions]
>I have a better idea, I think we should exile from this country all people,
>whether they be immigrant or not, who are poor or do not speak english well.
The 14th Amendment would prevent us from kicking out native born citizens
this way unless they committed some crime in a nation with whom America
had an extradition treaty. Exiling illegals for whatever reasons we like
(bad hair color, "wrong" ancestory, poverty, etc.) is not neccessarily
unconstitution.
>Better yet we might as well just declare poor states such as Arkansas to be
>un-american and kick em out of the union.
I don't support this because the people of poor states - and poor Americans
in general - share the same history, values, and education that all
Americans share.
>
>Oh forget that, I just had another idea, we'll let in everybody. Eventually,
>this place will be so crowded that nobody will want to come here ... voila, no
>more immigration problem! In fact people will probably start leaving after a
>while.
No, I think people wouldn't start leaving peacefully. What would happen is
what happens everywhere where there is too many competitors for the good
things in life in any area: civil war. Look at Somalia, Yugoslavia, and
Punjab. Look at what's happening in Europe with the reaction to immigration.
Do you remember the reaction of blacks to Korean merchants during the
L.A. riots?
>
>While it might be in the best interest of current US citizens to damp the flow
>of immigration, it also might be in the best interest of the majority of US
>citizens to kick out some of the current US citizens ... borders seem kind of
>arbitrary to me.
Borders don't seem too arbitrary to Bosnias, Croats, and Serbs. They also
didn't seem to arbitrary to Indians or Pakistanis. Do you really think that
their would be a U.S. if 200 million Chinese / Indians moved here over the
next two decades as the result of open immigration policies? What would
happen if India and China went to war if we had 200 million foriegn
nationals from those two countries and only 250 million of native born
Americans? Could we stay out of the conflict? Could be chose sides
without creating a civil war in our own country?
>
>Larry Edwards
- Greg Otts
Blaine R. Mossburg
L: I have a better idea, I think we should exile from this country all people,
L: whether they be immigrant or not, who are poor or do not speak english well.
L: Better yet we might as well just declare poor states such as Arkansas to be
L: un-american and kick em out of the union.
The United States is still a land of opportunity. America's role in
global affairs is changing. The Cold War is over and she is free to focus
on a domestic agenda. Recent natural disasters (Hurricane Andrew and the
Flood of '93), social crises (the LA riots of '92 and decline in cohesive
values), and political upheavals (continued gridlock and brewing scandals)
drain resources and tax the public trust. Poor, uneducated immigrants are
a burden on recovery.
L: Oh forget that, I just had another idea, we'll let in everybody. Eventually,
L: this place will be so crowded that nobody will want to come here ... voila,
L: no more immigration problem! In fact people will probably start leaving
L: after a while.
Possibly, a population explosion would have such an effect. The U.S.
simply cannot let every applicant for asylum or citizenship in anymore.
American culture and society have been shaped for over 200 years, the public
and the government must recognize the U.S. is no longer a wild, untamed
land with gold on every coast but a durable, well-founded republic.
L: Larry Edwards
Greg Otts
>In article <CAMoH...@spss.com>, greg...@spss.com (Greg Otts) wrote:
[deletions]
>> dollars a year in production? I read somewhere where almost 25% of the prison
>> population in California are illegal aliens. They are, of course, acting
>> rationally: it is probably wiser to be a criminal than take a low paying
>> job because you lack the language and educational skills to get a good
>> job.
>
I did not say that people think being in prison is the best way to go.
What I said was being a criminal in America is probably more lucrative
than taking a low wage job. The only "tax" on criminal's income is a
is a rare jail sentence. Don't get me wrong, though: this also
applies to any American citizen who lacks the skills to get a good
job.
>go. Did you put as much thought into making this statement?
Gary Becker - a Nobel Prize-winning economist - has used economic
theory to show that being a robber can be the best economic
alternative for some people. I read somewhere that the average
robber only works 2 hours a day and collects much more than
would be made working a 40 hour a week at a minimum wage job.
The odds of being incarcerated are generally fairly low.
>
>> The fathers of this nation took this land from the Indians. They allowed
>> immigrants from Europe into the country to make this nation strong and
>> prevent others from taking it from Americans. Our task must be to do
>> what's right for America. Doing what's right for America sometimes means
>> we have to say no to others even if it means their lives are miserable
>> as a result. That has always been, in the final analysis, the American
>> way. (Ask the indians.)
>
>These staements are true for any group that is not willing to assimilate
>into American society. I think you'll find that the majority of immigrants
>are willing to work very hard at doing just that (economically, if not
>culturally).
Most Americans I've every known - rich or poor, black or white - are
as hard working as any of the immigrants I've known. There are many
Americans who are poor for educational, rather than motivational,
reasons. Do we need more immigrants who are no more hard working or
educated than these Americans? I think not. What we do need, IMO, is
to use job skills/ education as a basis for deciding who gets to be
an immigrant to this country.
>
>Wes Smith (Wes_...@ssc.gov)
- Greg Otts
Devin M Scherubel
so I hope I am not repeating anyone with this question. What, in the
opinion of the posters here, will be the effect of NAFTA on immigration as
a fact and on immigration law, and on migrant workers?
my impression is that the mood of US citizens and the laws are
becomming more restrictive, for many reasons. I also am told that NAFTA will
further the trend towards large scale farm ownership in both the US and in
Mexico, which will perhaps lead to more demand for migrant workers in the US
and more of a supply from Mexico as small farmers loose their ability to
compete in the world market and thus loose their land and look for
other employment.
Devin.
Laurence James Edwards
|> In article <1993Jul26.0...@leland.Stanford.EDU> ledw...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Laurence James Edwards) writes:
|> [deletions]
|> >I have a better idea, I think we should exile from this country all people,
|> >whether they be immigrant or not, who are poor or do not speak english well.
|>
|> The 14th Amendment would prevent us from kicking out native born citizens
|> this way unless they committed some crime in a nation with whom America
|> had an extradition treaty. Exiling illegals for whatever reasons we like
|> (bad hair color, "wrong" ancestory, poverty, etc.) is not neccessarily
|> unconstitution.
True, but beside the point (at least my point).
|> >Better yet we might as well just declare poor states such as Arkansas to be
|> >un-american and kick em out of the union.
|>
|> I don't support this because the people of poor states - and poor Americans
|> in general - share the same history, values, and education that all
|> Americans share.
Here you are getting closer to what I was getting at. To me the important thing
is not that the people I live with have exactly the same culture, but that they
uphold the constitution and are law abiding citizens. I feel no particularly
empathy with regard to my fellow Americans in excess of what I feel for other
people of the world, except for situations where Americans are being
discriminated against or harmed just because they are American.
This is not to ignore that cultural differences sometimes cause
misunderstanding and miscommunication. I prefer education rather than exclusion
as a means of minimizing these problems. I don't have much against limiting the
rate at which people immigrate to this country in order to minimize these
problems, but I don't think excluding poor people is a reasonable policy unless
of course one also makes it illegal to be poor in this country. In fact, just
from a practical standpoint, only admitting the wealthy will create even more
pressure for poor people to illegally immigrate to this country.
|> >Oh forget that, I just had another idea, we'll let in everybody. Eventually,
|> >this place will be so crowded that nobody will want to come here ... voila, no
|> >more immigration problem! In fact people will probably start leaving after a
|> >while.
|>
|> No, I think people wouldn't start leaving peacefully. What would happen is
|> what happens everywhere where there is too many competitors for the good
|> things in life in any area: civil war. Look at Somalia, Yugoslavia, and
|> Punjab. Look at what's happening in Europe with the reaction to immigration.
Well I'm no expert, but I don't think the civil wars mentioned had much to do
with too many competitors pursuing the good things in life. There haven't been
any recent civil wars in Mexico and people are leaving there in droves.
As far as Europe goes, sure people fear change and they fear people who are
different, the answer is education and leaders who don't pander to those fears
and prejudices. Note, that a sizable portion of the German populace still did
not want to restrict immigration.
|> Do you remember the reaction of blacks to Korean merchants during the
|> L.A. riots?
|>
|> >
|> >While it might be in the best interest of current US citizens to damp the flow
|> >of immigration, it also might be in the best interest of the majority of US
|> >citizens to kick out some of the current US citizens ... borders seem kind of
|> >arbitrary to me.
|>
|> Borders don't seem too arbitrary to Bosnias, Croats, and Serbs. They also
|> didn't seem to arbitrary to Indians or Pakistanis.
Yes, that's exactly the point. A lot of dead people as the result of such
thinking.
|> Do you really think that
|> their would be a U.S. if 200 million Chinese / Indians moved here over the
|> next two decades as the result of open immigration policies?
Sure, there's nothing to make me think that Chinese or Indians are inherently
unlawful.
|> What would
|> happen if India and China went to war if we had 200 million foriegn
|> nationals from those two countries and only 250 million of native born
|> Americans? Could we stay out of the conflict? Could be chose sides
|> without creating a civil war in our own country?
I would think that the Indians or Chinese that felt really strongly about it
would return to their land of origin to fight. I wasn't around at the time, but
did German nationals in America start committing sabotage en masse during WWII?
Did British nationals start attacking German nationals? I guess we'll never
know what would have happened with the Japanese nationals since they were
rounded up. Anyway sounds like a good reason to be neutral eh? Or better yet
try to prevent the conflict from happening in the first place.
Larry Edwards
Greg Otts
>
>> Most Americans I've every known - rich or poor, black or white - are
>> as hard working as any of the immigrants I've known. There are many
>> Americans who are poor for educational, rather than motivational,
>
>education system? Who forced these individuals to not apply themselves and
>not get that free education? Who forced them on welfare instead of the job
There are plenty of poor people who have high school degrees these days.
The public education system only qualifies one for very low wage jobs
such as being a sales clerk, hamburger flipper, or gas station attendant.
In addition, most poor people can't afford to send their children to college
to have a better life. Those that do fail to send their kids to college
(and many will - look at L.A.'s Hispanic community) will have children
and grandchildren who swell an already burdening welfare ranks and
expensive health care system.
>Wes Smith
- Greg Otts
Greg Otts
>surprised to learn that the last American born valdictorian or salutatorian
>at my immigrant wife's largely poor and minority high school was in her
>class ('80). The last 13 years Vietnamese, Indian, Thai, Cambodian, and
>Taiwanese immigrants ( or their children) have led their peers
>educationally. Makes you wonder who is really burdening American society.
I am not surprised that poor immigrants become validictorians. The fact
remains, however, that most of their parents are probably not adding
a lot of value to today's economy. We would be better off as a nation
if we limited immigration to those parents who have higher skill sets so
that they can help pay the taxes to better educate their highly motivated
children and the native born children who you seem to have written off.
>
>
>> reasons. Do we need more immigrants who are no more hard working or
>> educated than these Americans? I think not. What we do need, IMO, is
>
>The beef packing plant where my in-laws toiled for marginal wages (before
>they started their own businesses without loans, education, or the ability
>to speak English) thought they needed these hard working immigrants. Seems
>the Americans wouldn't work as hard or as happily as the immigrants, so
>they actually recruited immigrants. Immigrants are also much less likely
>to file fraudulent workman's compensation claims. Seems they have a
>different value system.
I would suggest that the vast majority of immigrants that are arriving in
America aren't likely to repeat your in-laws commendable success. Some
will, of course, but many others will end up in dead end jobs and join
the welfare ranks. Many will assimilate the "lazy" American attitudes
once they are assured they won't be deported.
>
>> to use job skills/ education as a basis for deciding who gets to be
>> an immigrant to this country.
>
>Find a way to measure work ethic and motivation, and apply that to
>immigrants. And while you are at it, use this new test on welfare
>applicants. Deport those who don't measure up to the minimum standard your
>test has set. Can't deport them? Then let them compete for the marginal
>income jobs (or more likely, let them starve).
You can't deny welfare to children who were born in America whether they
were born to natives, legal immigrants, or illegal immigrants. They are
citizens of America (14th Amendment) and have a "right" to welfare if
their illegal/legal immigrant parents are poor. Those that can't get
jobs will probably steal or kill like any other "good" American. Work
ethic, will important, is not nearly sufficent in today's society. My
Dad is a dedicated hard worker but earns nearly 1/3 what I do because
of educational differences.
Blaine R. Mossburg
> In article <CAsDo...@spss.com>, greg...@spss.com (Greg Otts) writes:
D: What would happen if India and China went to war if we had 200 million
D: foriegn nationals from those two countries and only 250 million of native
D: born Americans? Could we stay out of the conflict? Could be chose sides
D: without creating a civil war in our own country?
L: I would think that the Indians or Chinese that felt really strongly about it
L: would return to their land of origin to fight.
Kuwaiti nationals and naturalized American citizens enlisted in the
United States' armed forces to fight Iraq. Meanwhile, thousand of other
Kuwaitis in the United States were active in holding demonstrations and
petitioning the U.S. government to take action. Cuban and Haitian refugees
actively train in the United States in hopes of overthrowing their homelands'
present dictators. The terrorist attack and alleged conspiracy in New York
proves that America is vulnerable. In short, just because a situations are
volatile elsewhere does not mean the United States is uninvolved. There is
no reason why nationals and patriots of warring nations will not extend their
conflict to foreign soil.
L: I wasn't around at the time, but did German nationals in America start
L: committing sabotage en masse during WWII? Did British nationals start
L: attacking German nationals? I guess we'll never know what would have
L: happened with the Japanese nationals since they were rounded up.
After WWI the United States was expanding its role in global affairs.
During WWII, America was still not considered a player. A sound victory and
strong post-war presence have changed that image. For the Germans and English
to cause disturbances in the U.S. did not hold enough strategic value. One
account of Japanese efforts to undermine U.S. security was an isolated instance
in which lights were raised along a California beach. Aside from that, the
internment camps were a product of mass hysteria and xenophobia.
L: Anyway sounds like a good reason to be neutral eh?
Belgium was neutral before the start of WWII.
L: Or better yet try to prevent the conflict from happening in the first place.
It is not always easy to determine where the next hot spot (an
antiquated term since the death of the Cold War) will be. The best a country
can do is keep a military presence in strategic areas and make full use of
diplomacy and privileged information.
L: Larry Edwards
Blaine R. Mossburg
> In article <CAsDo...@spss.com>, greg...@spss.com (Greg Otts) writes:
Greg Otts
>In article <CAsDo...@spss.com>, greg...@spss.com (Greg Otts) writes:
>|> What would
>|> happen if India and China went to war if we had 200 million foriegn
>|> nationals from those two countries and only 250 million of native born
>|> Americans? Could we stay out of the conflict? Could be chose sides
>|> without creating a civil war in our own country?
>
>I would think that the Indians or Chinese that felt really strongly about it
>would return to their land of origin to fight. I wasn't around at the time, but
>did German nationals in America start committing sabotage en masse during WWII?
>Did British nationals start attacking German nationals? I guess we'll never
There was open debate about whether America should support Britain or
Germany during WWI. There was a debate only because we had a substantial
German immigration population (25%+ I believe) who felt an affinity with
their home country.
>know what would have happened with the Japanese nationals since they were
>rounded up. Anyway sounds like a good reason to be neutral eh? Or better yet
>try to prevent the conflict from happening in the first place.
Conflicts happen. America isn't generally able to stop wars. Neutrality
is difficult when a substantial percentage of people have memories of
living in the old country where the fighting is happening.
Greg Otts
>get. My immigrant inlaws (9 kids) couldn't afford to send their kids to
>college either, but thanks to loans they went anyway - two health techs, a
>business grad, a criminal justice major, three engineers, a nurse, and a
>future doctor (he's in med school). You just can't make blanket statements
You almost prove my point: your inlaws were able to use government subsidies
to get their children through school. (The student loan program is a
subsidy because private banks would charge high interest rates because
the loan isn't colateralized.) The government has been trying to cut the
student loan program because of the high default rate. (Translation:
not every will be able to get the loans.)
>that immigrant's children are doomed to fill the welfare lines. Granted,
>some immigrant groups are more motivated than others, but you can't
>rationalize all immigrants into the same stereotype.
I did not say ALL immigrants are lazy or likely to add little to the
economy. I'm only suggesting it would be better to pick those who
add the highest value to the economy in the short and long term.
- Greg Otts
Greg Otts
>
>> I would suggest that the vast majority of immigrants that are arriving in
>> America aren't likely to repeat your in-laws commendable success. Some
>> will, of course, but many others will end up in dead end jobs and join
>> the welfare ranks. Many will assimilate the "lazy" American attitudes
>> once they are assured they won't be deported.
>
>personally know of any immigrant family that couldn't be classified as a
>American "success story". I know literally 200-300 immigrants. (my in-laws
>were part of a large family, and I know many in their community) My
>roomate in college was the son of Mexican immigrants (after graduating, he
>helped start CompAdd). Ever notice who's stores got burned out in the LA
>riots? Korean immigrants, setting up shop to serve the ghettos and barrios
>filled with native born American welfare recipients. Why don't you cite
>some statistics or personal experiences to back up your views for a change?
1) 15% of all Californian prisoners are illegal aliens.
2) Something like 25% or more of L.A. public school students are the
offspring of illegal aliens
3) A recent Census Bureau study related that the median income for
Hispanics was $5,520 a year. Can the average Hispanic illegal
immigrant generate enough tax dollars to send 1 student through
a public school system where per pupil costs are about $5,000
a year? Could the average Hispanic illegal immigrant afford
to take their children to the doctor without going to emergency
rooms and not paying for the care?
Why, I ask, should American taxpayers pay almost the full costs
for giving illegal alien's children a better life? Why shouldn't
American voters be able to develop criteria so as to increase
the net short term and long term benefit of immigration?
> Any idiot can make sweeping stereotypical statements like yours.
I won't dignify this with a serious response.
Laurence James Edwards
|> ledw...@leland.Stanford.EDU writes:
|> > In article <CAsDo...@spss.com>, greg...@spss.com (Greg Otts) writes:
|>
|> D: What would happen if India and China went to war if we had 200 million
|> D: foriegn nationals from those two countries and only 250 million of native
|> D: born Americans? Could we stay out of the conflict? Could be chose sides
|> D: without creating a civil war in our own country?
|>
|> L: I would think that the Indians or Chinese that felt really strongly about it
|> L: would return to their land of origin to fight.
|>
|> Kuwaiti nationals and naturalized American citizens enlisted in the
|> United States' armed forces to fight Iraq. Meanwhile, thousand of other
|> Kuwaitis in the United States were active in holding demonstrations and
|> petitioning the U.S. government to take action.
Ok, but did Kuwaiti nationals start attacking Iraqi nationals in the U.S.
(other than embassies I mean)? I don't remember hearing anything about that. I
would think a better example would be attacks on Jewish activists in the U.S.
by pro-palestinian terrorists. Demonstrations are fine, if they turn violent,
put em in jail, or deport them if they're not yet citizens.
In any case if we did choose one side, the other side would be vastly
outnumbered. Any concerted direct attempt at civil war would be squashed. I
also have a hard time believing that people that have only been here a short
while would have access to any kind of serious weaponry on the scale you'd need
to fight a civil war. At worst I'd think we'd see something akin to what
happened in the 60s. Not good, but not a civil war.
|> L: I wasn't around at the time, but did German nationals in America start
|> L: committing sabotage en masse during WWII? Did British nationals start
|> L: attacking German nationals? I guess we'll never know what would have
|> L: happened with the Japanese nationals since they were rounded up.
|>
|> After WWI the United States was expanding its role in global affairs.
|> During WWII, America was still not considered a player. A sound victory and
|> strong post-war presence have changed that image. For the Germans and English
|> to cause disturbances in the U.S. did not hold enough strategic value.
|> [...]
I wasn't really addressing strateguic issues here, just emotional reactions,
and possibilities of violence arising therefrom.
|> L: Anyway sounds like a good reason to be neutral eh?
|>
|> Belgium was neutral before the start of WWII.
|> [...]
So was (and is) Switzerland.
In any case, I do not believe our neutrality in a conflict between China and
India would result in either country trying to invade this country.
Larry Edwards
Dave Griffith
> loan will be payed back in the event of a default. Would you be as willing
> to call the FDIC or FSLIC a government subsidy?
Of course. How could one not? Both involve a considerable amount of taxpayer
funds providing services that would cost a considerable amount of money if
purchased privately. The fact that they are dressed up as gaurantees rather
than direct grants doesn't change the fact that they are both subsidies.
--
Dave Griffith, Information Resources, University of Chicago,
Biological Sciences Division da...@delphi.bsd.uchicago.edu
"The faults in bad software can be so subtle as to be practically theological"
--Bruce Sterling
P. Nagarajan
>From: ro...@sunspot.noao.edu (Roger Carmichael)
>Subject: Re: Iraqi Bombing: Unanswered Questions
>Summary: Police Action
>Keywords: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq
>Date: 12 Jul 93 20:12:15 GMT
>Truthful;adj. 1.Rendering reality accurately. 2. Dumb & Illiterate.
>
>My dad was a 3-war vet attached to the Army Artillery Map Corps.
>
>He says all the wars fought during the Cold War "extension of WWII"
>were "Police Actions" to protect global corporate investments.
>(Sorry but the REAL purpose of the "police" is to protect property)
>
>Vietnam was partly to protect MICHILLIN TIRE CORP's vast holdings of
>rubber tree plantations (1000's of acres) where no "fire fights" were
>ever staged. Mapping So.Vietnam in 1967, one of his duties as survey
>officer was to survey damage to MTC owned trees, then "do an estimate
>of loss & sign-off documents authorizing US taxpayers to repay MTC."
>
>War;n. 1.Contest of hostile force between 2 or more nations or states.
>Contest;v. 1.To struggle to gain or hold (property or superiority).
>End of Conflict usually comes when one side gains control of other.
>
>So who won the COLD WAR? So far, looks like GERMANY & JAPAN, since the
>BULK of mid-east OIL goes to BOTH of these 2 "WWII" nations, as in who
>gain control of the property (OIL & other natural resources) in the
>end? They don't even have to fight for it, but at least BUSH was smart
>enough to "stage a property seizure" had global community force them
>to "pay up" or lose their "police force". Oh yes, according to Sc.Am.:
>"The BULK of US foreign OIL comes from one OPEC nation: VENEZUALA.
>Granada Island is just off the coast of our industrial "feeding dish"
>
>Starting to get the picture? Here's more: Reason for Contra activity
>was to meet attempt of XSSR to extablish a "Carribean Curtain" from
>anchored in Central America thru Cuba to the Granada Islands. Ruski's
>are good Chess Players but our MI (Military Intelligence) is better.
>Explains why w/Afghanastan invasion, we drilled all our oil fields,
>capped & left them for ready access in event of war & loss of OIL.
>
>Now we know what Pogo the possum cartoon meant when he said in late
>50's: "We have met the enemy & he is US" Every 3 generations since the
>discovery of Vitamin Defficiency & Smallpox Innoculation by Brits@1796
>there has been major, global, socio-economic upheavel world-wide as
>when the 4th generation appears, non-producing, consuming and the 1st
>is still alive, also non-producing, but still consuming it puts a BIG
>burden on the other 2 middle-generations! The magic number just
>happens to be "...66.6yrs is a man's number" Sorry King James, your
>scribes omitted the decimal, for it takes a wise Solar Astronemer to
>figure that one out. Call him crazy as a LOON, but it's the TRUTH.
>Sorry about that, roger (keep an open mind or believe what you're fed)
>
>3 or 4 shots on target thru a bolt-action? maybe w/a semi-automatic,
>but NO WAY w/a BOLT-ACTION, unless you got a concrete cheek. Now
>that's the REAL ISSUE, side-stepped to this day by the "free-press"
>
>What else don't we know? How about XSA (soon to be at next 66.6 point)
>Sometime @ 2 or 3 yrs (Wall St Jour, Jul92) a historic moment will
>occur as 51% of USA will be owned by institutions & global corp's.
>Later------------------------------------------------------oger
Hector Camacho
Robert J. Bickel
>In article <CAu0w...@spss.com>, greg...@spss.com (Greg Otts) writes...
>>In article <Wes_Smith-2...@143.202.70.13> Wes_...@ssc.gov (Wes Smith) writes:
>>>In article <CAsFz...@spss.com>, greg...@spss.com (Greg Otts) wrote:
>>[deletions]
>>
>>America aren't likely to repeat your in-laws commendable success. Some
>>will, of course, but many others will end up in dead end jobs and join
>>the welfare ranks. Many will assimilate the "lazy" American attitudes
>>once they are assured they won't be deported.
>>
There is a lot of immigrant bashing going on these days. Gov.
Wilson of California isn't helping matters any. This country
was founded with immigrants. Most everyone who is reading this
is immigrant several generations removed. There are figures
released about how much immigrants are costing our economy,
but I have never seen figures about how much they are
contributing. Where I live in the San Francisco Bay Area,
there are simply too many small businesses owned and
operated by immigrants for me to believe that the economic
contributions of recent immigrants is small. I'm not
sayuing that the immigration policy of the U.S. doesn't need
to be changed, but let's look at this from an objective
viewpoint.
Rob