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