Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site cwruecmp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!cwruecmp!decot
From: decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Dr. Spock the diplomat
Message-ID: <1020@cwruecmp.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Feb-84 01:10:20 EST
Article-I.D.: cwruecmp.1020
Posted: Thu Feb 16 01:10:20 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Feb-84 03:22:24 EST
Organization: CWRU Computer Engr. Cleveland, Ohio
Lines: 84

Thomas Ruschak:
    First, the permanent damage I was talking about was the destruction of
    topsoils, and the fact that we may ourselves need those reserves. 
    Sorry, but if it comes down to a choice between starving or having someone
    else starve, I will ... let them starve. Self preservation is a part of
    most everyone.

And it is of me.  Do you have any evidence that we are overtaxing our topsoils
with our current food production?  If so, we should reduce our production
so that we aren't.  But if we can produce enough for ourselves, any extra
land potential can be used for someone else.  Permanently damaging anyone's
resources is irrational.  Our current surplus is rotting, which is also
irrational.

    Well, with the availability of nukes, I don't want to go breaking up TOO
    many "petty fights between children". More than likely, we would wake up one
    day to find out that Washington had just been destroyed!  

My analogy was perhaps unclear.  When I speak of "children", I refer only to
their degree of economic and technical development.  The only country with
nuclear weapons I can think of that might be considered "underdeveloped"
is India.  I don't see how any other underdeveloped countries could destroy
Washington, even if they wanted to.  Note the following paragraph, where
I include the USSR in the set of "adults."

    D  If we don't responsibly help those in our care, they turn to other
    A  "adults" for help, like the USSR, who is more than happy to "take care
    V  of them", but for different reasons.  Beating a misbehaving child,
    E  like Nicaragua, is not good for you or the child.  It only makes her
       run to an apparently more understanding authority.

   A MISBEHAVING CHILD???!?!? Right. A misbehaving child with guns, and
   tanks, and planes, etc... 

*Yes*, a misbehaving child with guns, tanks, and planes.  These were
provided by "adults", and the analogy does not break down here.  Have you
ever heard news stories about children who somehow get hold of dangerous
implements and kill people?  Destructive power is not limited to responsible
adults.  I add that beating misbehaving adults is just as useless.

    D  This discussion of underdeveloped countries as "our children" may seem
    A  to smell of a nationalistic superiority complex.  This is not intended,
    V  because good parents treat their children as equals, keeping in mind
    E  the facts.  Good parents don't refuse to learn from their children,
       either.

    What facts are those? Those implied facts are that the parents are BETTER
    than the children, and so they can patronize them with impunity! Just what
    are you [advocating] with your BIG DADDY policy?? "No, Jimmy mustn't nuke
    his neighbors, that wouldn't be nice!" That we set ourselves up as the
    best and most intelligent nation in the world, well qualified to run their
    affairs?

The "facts" are that we have more technological and economic power than they
do, not that we are better.  We have much to learn from *each other*, as I
implied in the original article.  I also said that we should NOT run their
affairs, just advise them WHEN they asked for our advice.  I did NOT say that
we should patronize them, but killing one's neighbors ISN'T nice (or useful),
and we should discourage that in the countries who have requested our aid.
It's up to them, if they want our help.  We have a good system here, and we
should encourage (not force!) it to countries in trouble.

     DAVE: But if we gain the reputation as an authoritative power, they'll
 	   come to us if they need us.

    Surrre . . . we tell them that "We're much better than you, so if you see
    the errors of your ways, we'll help you" they'll come to us with open arms?
    Frankly, I do think calling other nations "Our Children" does smell, whether
    or not it is intended. Sorry, but if you're so superior, why aren't YOU 
    President?

We tell them no such thing.  We wait for countries to ask for help, keeping
our nose out of their business if they don't.  I do not consider myself or
my country to be generally superior, but the US is more technically powerful.
Don't you want your country to have a reputation as being a friendly,
knowledgeable, pleasant peacemaker?

As for why I am not President, I have insufficient connections to achieve
the office, and inadequate experience in domestic issues.  Doing the job
properly seems more demanding a career than I have the patience for.  But,
then again, I'm not 35, yet.

Dave Decot		 "Non-Americans are people, too."
decvax!cwruecmp!decot    (Decot.Case@rand-relay)