Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pur-ee.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!ecn-ee!kechkayl
From: kechkayl@ecn-ee.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Dr. Spock the Diplomat - (nf)
Message-ID: <1604@pur-ee.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 17-Feb-84 08:21:52 EST
Article-I.D.: pur-ee.1604
Posted: Fri Feb 17 08:21:52 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Feb-84 04:14:17 EST
Sender: notes@pur-ee.UUCP
Organization: Electrical Engineering Department , Purdue University
Lines: 95

#R:cwruecmp:-99600:ecn-ee:13400006:000:5066
ecn-ee!kechkayl    Feb 17 01:08:00 1984

[Dave Decot's Comments are *'rred]
    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."

Do you read the newspapers, or even watch television? If so, you will note
concern that security in areas where fissionable materials are handled. I
am not so confident as you that India is the ONLY underdeveloped country
with a nuclear bomb. I would say that if a country really wanted to make 1 bomb,
it would be able to. I do not want an American city destroyed by a make-shift
bomb smuggled in and set off.

    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.

I was simply laughing at your continuing, and condescending use of the word
`child`. I am sorry, but I do not consider the US to have `authority` over
undeveloped nations. We are simply a wealthy country with a lot of brute force
at our disposal. There are other countries almost as wealthy and powerful.
The only `authority`, where nations are concerned, is the U.N. (sigh.).

    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.

I suggest that if we definitely connect U.S. aid to `discouraging` other 
governments from doing what they want, we will merely force them to ally
with the U.S.S.R., who doesn't care too much about things like human
rights, land reforms, and world peace. They will get the things they need,
and we will lose allies.

     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?

Well, if we wait for countries to ask to be scolded about their policies, we
will wait an awful long time. Also, if we say "If you want our help, you will
do exactly as we say.", you will not be giving out much aid. (although that
would decrease the budget deficit :-)

					Thomas Ruschak
					pur-ee!kechkayl
					"Aiee! A toy robot!"