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