How gullible can you be about Soviets?It was bad enough...

the Forum

February 28, 1991

How gullible can you be about Soviets?

It was bad enough that The Evening Sun adopted the idea o "moral equivalence" between the United States and the Soviet Union. It now is evident that in your mind the Soviets have become more moral than the United States. This is the conclusion to be drawn from your editorial, "New World Order" (Feb. 25).

Mikhail Gorbachev's "peace proposal" for the gulf war was characterized as motivated by his desire "to resolve disputes with minimum use of force." Bush's ideas on "new world order" are Bismarckian, based on "blood and iron." It is outrageous that an American newspaper more or less in the mainstream could formulate such an obscene comparison.

The Soviet peace plan was nothing more than a sham with three objectives: to preserve its client state, Iraq; to rebuild Soviet influence in the Arab world, which would be threatened if the United States came out on top, and to keep Iraq as a valuable purchaser of Soviet arms once the oil billions flow into that country again following the war and whatever rebuilding is necessary.

Not satisfied with that misunderstanding of what the Soviets are up to, your editorial goes on to perpetuate the myth that the gulf war has something to do with the Palestine problem. How gullible can you all be? What condition in the first Soviet proposal was the first to be jettisoned to make it more palatable to us? You're right ` the call for an international peace conference to please the Palestinians. It is obvious that Gorbachev and Saddam Hussein have never had anything in mind except the most vile of their perceived "national interests."

Joseph B. Rector


Not like Tibet

If there is one positive thing that comes out of the present conflict in the Persian Gulf, I hope it is a concerted national effort to conserve oil and gas at least equal to the military effort now being expended to protect our interest in these commodities.

If one believes that we are not in this conflict to protect these interests, one is following neither current nor past history.

If we were only in this to aid the Kuwaitis, where were we when Chinese forces marched into peace-loving Tibet in the 1950s and annexed it? We just let it happen. No American force intervened.

Dennis Stevens


Needed: new voters

It seems to me what Baltimore needs is not new lines from redistricting, but new voters. Candidates should be out there getting citizens to vote. If less than 50 percent of the people vote in a district, they deserve the representation they get. This means half the people don't care how effective their government is.

If more ordinary citizens also work to get out the vote talking to neighbors, knocking on doors, etc. we may accidentally take back the streets. Imagine neighbors stopping on the sidewalk to discuss issues of the day, opening doors to neighbors, not locking doors against them.

Let's not worry so much about lines on the map and work on getting lines at the polls.

Michael D. Sherk


Double standards

I feel that it is high time that African-Americans become aware of the double standards the U.S. is presently negotiating in the Persian Gulf war.

Just where was the U.S. when black South Africans were mercilessly and brutally shot by South African police when they demonstrated and demanded their civil rights -- peacefully?

The Sharpville massacre in Johannesburg during the 1960s is but one atrocity to which the U.S. reacted passively. Sixty-seven blacks lost their lives, many of whom were unarmed and shot in their backs!

It is also a fact that the U.S. and Israel are bed partners. What Israel is doing to the Palestinians is what the South African regime enforces on blacks in that country.

It is time for the U.S. to learn to control its war power and not to nose into other countries' domestic affairs violently. Technology doesn't kill; it is supposed to build a better future for our children.

Anti-U.S. feelings run high in the Arab world. Things will never be the same again, and all through blood for oil.

Frank T. Brown


Non-energy policy

Americans are in the Persian Gulf to preserve the region's oil supplies, not because of naked aggression or to protect American jobs or to destroy weapons of destruction or because we have a moral obligation to be there. Sen. Robert Dole said on the floor of the Senate that we are in the gulf because of oil.

The Bush administration is trying to put together an energy policy that is a continuation of the Reagan free-market policy. It translates to this: If you have the money, the market has the oil, and if you don't, you have to conserve.

After the invasion of Kuwait, Bush was asked by a reporter if he would ask the American people to conserve energy. One could see clearly that he was uncomfortable with the question and answered feebly.

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.