Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ubvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!hpda!fortune!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!tonyw From: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: America: soft, rich, pacifist (how they perceive us) Message-ID: <153@ubvax.UUCP> Date: Thu, 4-Apr-85 14:04:37 EST Article-I.D.: ubvax.153 Posted: Thu Apr 4 14:04:37 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 9-Apr-85 00:40:59 EST References: <314@ssc-bee.UUCP> <567@whuxl.UUCP> <921@ihuxk.UUCP> <733@mhuxt.UUCP> Organization: Ungermann-Bass, Inc., Santa Clara, CA Lines: 29 > I think Tim is again referring to the time during the russian revolution > when we sent troops *at the request of the russian government* in order to > help fight the bolsheviks. It was a case of 'too little, too late'. He > doesn't make this clear, presumably to help foster the > illusion that we were "imperialist agressors", sending our > troops to invade russia. > -- > Jeff Sonntag > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j If an army enters a country and attacks its government, it's an invader. The intentions of such an army are irrelevant. The bolsheviks had as much or more right to call themselves the government by the end of WWI as did any other group. After all, they held all the major governmental centers and a large part of the countryside (else they would have starved to death). Anyone who invades a nation deserves the name "aggressor". And what were US intentions in invading? The same as the other European powers who entered into the civil war -- to preserve investments (not necessarily US ones), and to snuff out an example to other dangerous workers' movements. It surely didn't go in to preserve democracy. The term "imperialist aggressors", especially when applied to us by the victor government in that civil war, is an understandable and probably justified description of what the US was doing and wanted to achieve. No illusion here. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw