Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site uokvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!vax135!houxz!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!lmaher From: lmaher@uokvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Communist Attrocities in Vietnam - (nf) Message-ID: <5000097@uokvax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 18-Jun-84 23:22:00 EDT Article-I.D.: uokvax.5000097 Posted: Mon Jun 18 23:22:00 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 22-Jun-84 05:46:30 EDT References: <325@ihuxu.UUCP> Lines: 57 Nf-ID: #R:ihuxu:-32500:uokvax:5000097:000:2760 Nf-From: uokvax!lmaher Jun 18 22:22:00 1984 #R:ihuxu:-32500:uokvax:5000097:000:2760 uokvax!lmaher Jun 18 22:22:00 1984 /***** uokvax:net.politics / ihuxq!ken / 3:18 am Jun 16, 1984 */ >> in the streets of Los Angeles because we missed a clean shot at stopping >> someone early on. Remember what happened when Germany marched into >> Austria, if France/GB had shown some gumption and called Hitlers bluff >> (and bluff it was) he would have marched right back out again. I don't >> forget the lessons of history, tyranny must be met and fought at every >> step along the way. If that means that we must use lesser tyrants to >> fight the greater, then so be it. At some point in time the lesser >> tyrants will be the next target. >> -- >> Stephen C. Woods > Ah, the "domino theory". For you young 'uns, that's the notion that > if we don't fight 'em there (wherever "there" is), next thing you > know, they'll be at the Golden Gate, and good ol' Pleasantville, USA > will get overrun, and renamed "Stalinville", and the cute kid with... > ken perlow ***** ***** /* ---------- */ The U.S. has never been in any danger of invasion (I think this was discussed a few months ago), except by Mexico or Canada, whose armies are insignificant. Everyone else would have to cross an Ocean to do so, and no one except the U.S. has the power projection capability (read that as "carriers, transport, and amphibious assault craft") to stage a trans-oceanic invasion. But the world is more interdependent than it once was, and the U.S. could not stand isolated against the entire world. If Western Europe were in the Soviet Bloc, for example, the balance of power would be tipped too far over. So the U.S. has a vital interest in maintaining Western Europe's freedom. The arguments for intervention outside Europe (and Japan and Israel) are on softer ground. A book by the Boston Studies Group, _Winding Down_, argued that the U.S. should strip itself of its third world interventionist capability, so that it couldn't be tempted to play global policeman. By so doing, the defense of the U.S. itself and its vital allies could be improved, while drastically reducing the cost. If anyone would like to discuss the actual proposals made, I'll post them to the net - quite short. I approve of Stephen's suggestion to aid lesser evils against greater evils, then turn on the lesser evils. Anyone who believes that loyalty should override national interests should re-read their Machiavelli, a much-maligned and brilliant political analyst. And I disapprove of ken's trivialization and distortion of the domino theory, although not of ken himself. (i.e. I'm kicking the ball, not the player.) Carl (formerly uok!crigney) ..!ctvax!uokvax!lmaher ..!duke!uok!uokvax!lmaher