Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site ucbvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!ucbvax!wall From: wall@ucbvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Reagan's Press Conference Message-ID: <56@ucbvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 5-Jul-83 05:00:58 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.56 Posted: Tue Jul 5 05:00:58 1983 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Jul-83 01:49:34 EDT References: <146@tty3b.UUCP> Organization: U. C. Berkeley Computer Science Lines: 49 I couldn't agree more with Mike Kelly's comment about the so-called liberals who are not even hesitating to approve more military aid to El Salvador. One really gets a sense of what those wishy-washy liberals are made of when looking back at Reagan's speech to the joint congress in late April. Every damn liberal in the house was up on his feet applauding Reagan throughout his entire speech, a sight that really makes you sick to your stomach. People like Ed (covert action is *illegal*) Boland and Clarence Long were up there kissing Reagan's toes. These are the same people who are **against** (?) more aid to El Salvador. Let's face it, these men see the cival war in El Salvador as a Russian-controlled act of communist aggression via Cuba and Nicaragua, and as long as they refuse to see the situation in El Salvador as a popular movement of the people of El Salvador against an ugly dictatorship, they will continue to funnel money to Central America. As a liberal, I feel a bit uneasy when these type of men also refer to them- selves as liberals. It's a disgrace to be associated with them. The only Democrat that has stuck his neck out and opposed Reagan's Central America policies is Christopher Dodd. It was Dodd who gave the follow-up speech to Reagan's speech to Congress, and what he said was pretty much on target. He understands that more military aid will not bring peace to Central America; what will bring peace to the region is the United States supporting negotiations with the FMLN-FDR, and throwing out the extreme right like Roberto D'Aubussian (spelling?). Another thing that is *totally* hypocritical in Reagan's Latin American policies is that on the one hand he calls for democratic rule in El Salvador and Nicaragua, but he never touches the *friendly* governments of Chile, Argentina, and Brazil. In Chile, General Pinochet is planning on holding presidential elections in 1990! If this is democracy in action then it is not surprising that the people of El Salvador say nay to democracy. The people of the United States (myself definately included) cannot understand the suffering in Latin America because we are fortunate enough to live in a country of relative freedom from persecution by our government and we also enjoy an extremely high standard of living. In much of Latin America the yearly income is under $1,000. And the sad thing is that much of our great wealth came from these people's countries, as our leaders worked closely with the old oligarchy to reap great wealth at the expense of the people of Latin America. But one thing that the American people *can* do is stop US support of the continued suffering of Latin Americans. If we are really going to be proud of being Americans, then we have to stop the suffering. Just a few thoughts from, Steve Wall wall@ucbarpa