Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!scgvaxd!pertec!kontron!cramer From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Re: America-bashing Message-ID: <436@kontron.UUCP> Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 12:13:57 EDT Article-I.D.: kontron.436 Posted: Fri Aug 2 12:13:57 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 22:24:09 EDT References: <3268@drutx.UUCP> <686@whuxl.UUCP> Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA Lines: 93 The following statements by Mr. Sevener may in fact be a valid statement of why the rest of the world hates America; however, many of the statements are false, misleading, or incomplete. > There are a number of reasons why the rest of the world hates America. > These have nothing to do with "image" or irrational hate but history > and current facts. > For one thing, the rest of the world sees the 6% of the world represented > by Americans consuming over 50% of the world's resources. (this has probably > shifted somewhat lately but the basic imbalance remains) Incomplete: We also *produce* a big chunk of the world's goods. > Third World countries and even European countries look around and what > do they see? American corporations everywhere extracting their resources. Incomplete: Many of the multinationals are European companies (like Shell). False: Many of the Third World countries have nationalized holdings by American companies. (OPEC countries, for example.) > The current trade deficit doesn't change the control by American-based > corporations - what has changed is that these corporations begin to > manufacture overseas instead of in America so they can get cheap, > non-union labor. But the ownership and control of these corporations > is still predominately American. Incomplete: And in the process of getting "cheap, non-union labor" those corporations are providing employment to people on the edge of starvation. (The people have been on the edge of starvation in many of those places since before the U.S. was settled.) If I have to choose between putting a few comfortable American union workers out of jobs, or putting out of work someone in the Third World who is struggling to put food on the table, I know who *I* will side with. > Countries like Nicaragua have vivid remembrances of being occupied by > US Marines for years to protect the holdings of the United Fruit Company. Questionable and incomplete: I've looked through contemporary news accounts of the U.S. occupation of Nicaraugua, and you could argue either way as to the motivations of the U.S. You shouldn't state as hard fact something that is properly labelled as "one of several explanations". You also ignore that a civil war was going on in Nicaraugua between a number of criminal bunches; the thugs we backed were no worse than a lot of other thugs in the country at the time. > The Vietnamese remember that the US came in to help the French > retain Indochina as a French colony after World War II. False: The U.S. should have provided assistance to Ho Chi Minh after World War II against the French, but the most we did before the 1954 partition was sit around stupidly, unsure what to do. The U.S. offered assistance to the French at Dien Bien Phu, but we never followed through. > The Iranians remember that the CIA deposed the democratically elected > Iranian president, Mossadegh in favor of the Shah in 1954. Correct. > Now the South Africans notice that the Reagan administration has been > shipping the South African government arms- arms which they see > used against their own struggle to eliminate apartheid. The Reagan Administration is shipping the South African government arms? Or are American companies selling arms? > People in Western Europe (as contrasted with their governments) see > more nuclear weapons being crammed down their throats to suit > American views of the nuclear balance - while Europeans see themselves > as most likely to be the first to be fried if such weapons were ever used. > > Over 100 countries signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact to voluntarily > agree not to develop their own nuclear weapons. Yet as part of that > agreement, the Soviet Union and U.S. agreed to limit their own nuclear > weapons. They haven't -- instead they have doubled their nuclear arsenals > in the last decade. If the superpowers decide to have a nuclear war > the whole world would pay the cost if the Nuclear Winter effect is valid. > Regardless the whole world would pay the cost of massive poisoning of > the whole ecosphere. Misleading: the number of warheads have increased significantly; the total yield of all those warheads has declined by 30%. Nuclear Winter theory is a classic example of "draw the curve, then plot the points". There are a great many assumptions made in the theory which are clearly false. See the article on the subject in the recent issue of Reason. > The fact that the rest of the world could be wiped out due to > either an American or Soviet unilateral decision to launch > a nuclear attack does not make either country well-loved. > > tim sevener whuxl!orb Bunk. There are big chunks of the world where the only way they will know a nuclear war has happened is because the shipments of food and guns from the West will stop.