orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/06/86)
From Tom Albrecht: > The only thing worth working > for is a verifiable arms reduction treaty. And that's what Reagan is > doing. We have to keep an eye on those sneaky Communists or they'll try > to get the best of us every time. > If Reagan is truly interested in "arms reductions" why has he *always* opposed a bilateral Nuclear Freeze? It would seem to me that any *reductions* imply *stopping* the arms race at the very least. This Reagan has been totally unwilling to do. If Reagan is truly interested in "arms reductions" then why does he refuse to stop all American nuclear testing while the Soviets have stopped their nuclear testing for the past 6 months? If Reagan is truly interested in "arms reductions" then why did he refuse to meet representatives of the Nuclear Freeze bearing the signatures of 1.2 million Americans asking to stop nuclear testing and the nuclear arms race? He seems to have plenty of time to meet terrorists from other countries like Jonas Savimbi and the leaders of the contras. If Reagan is truly interested in "arms reductions" then why did he instruct the US to abstain from voting for the UN resolution calling on both sides to negotiate an end to the nuclear arms race in the Geneva Summit? As for Reagan being a pathological liar, one can simply circle just about every statement in his latest stump for more funds for the arms race. Besides innumerable distortions, the most crass and blatant lie was Reagan's statement that his defense budget proposal involved a mere 3% increase. In fact, his defense budget contains a 12% increase which remains at an 8% increase after adjusting for inflation. The New York Times previously had an editorial castigating Caspar Weinberger for precisely this lie - I cannot believe that White House staffers could be unaware of that editorial in the newspaper of record. Yet Reagan repeated it and will continue to repeat it until people believe it. James Reston, a moderately liberal columnist for the NYtimes, just recently had a column entitled "Lie Detectors" in which he says the press is fed up with Reagan administration lies on Nicaragua. Flora Lewis, another moderate columnist on International Affairs, says it has become quite obvious from the Reagan Administration's refusal to stop nuclear testing in spite of the Soviet moratorium, Soviet agreement to on-site inspections, proposals by the leaders of Sweden, India, Greece, and other nations to conduct on-site inspections of Soviet testing that the Reagan administration has no intention of stopping the nuclear arms race. These moderates like Reston are generally lackluster and slow to criticize whomever is in power. But they are getting fed up with Reagan's lies. tim sevener whuxn!orb
gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) (03/07/86)
>> From Tom Albrecht: >> The only thing worth working >> for is a verifiable arms reduction treaty. And that's what Reagan is >> doing. We have to keep an eye on those sneaky Communists or they'll try >> to get the best of us every time. >> >If Reagan is truly interested in "arms reductions" why has he >*always* opposed a bilateral Nuclear Freeze? It would seem to me >that any *reductions* imply *stopping* the arms race at the very >least. This Reagan has been totally unwilling to do. >If Reagan is truly interested in "arms reductions" then why does >he refuse to stop all American nuclear testing while the Soviets >have stopped their nuclear testing for the past 6 months? Maybe these things aren't in the best interests of the people of the US. Besides, why stop the race when the other guy is ahead? >If Reagan is truly interested in "arms reductions" then why did he >refuse to meet representatives of the Nuclear Freeze bearing the >signatures of 1.2 million Americans asking to stop nuclear testing >and the nuclear arms race? He seems to have plenty of time to >meet terrorists from other countries like Jonas Savimbi and the >leaders of the contras. Maybe because he is the President elected by something like 60 million votes and he doesn't want to meet with people who are pushing for something he thinks isn't good for the American people. I guess anyone who opposes the Communists by force is a terrorist, right? Actually, I use a very tight definition of terrorism and by my standards most people don't use the word correctly. >If Reagan is truly interested in "arms reductions" then why did he >instruct the US to abstain from voting for the UN resolution calling >on both sides to negotiate an end to the nuclear arms race in >the Geneva Summit? Maybe the resolution is meaningless. Maybe the resolution is merely another way to the Communists to press the US to make agreements that are not in the interests on the American people. >As for Reagan being a pathological liar, one can simply circle >just about every statement in his latest stump for more funds for >the arms race. Besides innumerable distortions, the most crass >and blatant lie was Reagan's statement that his defense budget >proposal involved a mere 3% increase. In fact, his defense budget >contains a 12% increase which remains at an 8% increase after >adjusting for inflation. The New York Times previously had an >editorial castigating Caspar Weinberger for precisely this lie - >I cannot believe that White House staffers could be unaware of >that editorial in the newspaper of record. Yet Reagan repeated >it and will continue to repeat it until people believe it. Imagine, someone actually _disagrees_ with the NY TIMES view of things. Obviously very sick. I believe the idea is that the current request is supposed to be 3% more than what Reagan wanted last year. He is just trying to get back what Congress took away last year. Perhaps this is not entirely clear, but it is within the normal bounds of political rhetoric in the US. It is not pathological lying. >James Reston, a moderately liberal columnist for the NYtimes, >just recently had a column entitled "Lie Detectors" in which >he says the press is fed up with Reagan administration lies >on Nicaragua. One person's moderate liberal is another's far leftist. That's a judgement call, not a fact. Maybe the American people a fed up with the lies of the Press. (Reston has taken to capitalizing press, along with Congress. Talk about arrogance). >Flora Lewis, another moderate columnist on >International Affairs, says it has become quite obvious from >the Reagan Administration's refusal to stop nuclear testing >in spite of the Soviet moratorium, Soviet agreement to on-site >inspections, proposals by the leaders of Sweden, India, Greece, >and other nations to conduct on-site inspections of Soviet testing >that the Reagan administration has no intention of stopping the > nuclear arms race. If Flora Lewis says it, it must be true! What if she is repeating Soviet disinformation? (In general, I'm not specifically claiming that in this case.) Has Flora (however inadvertently) served as a conduit for Soviet disinformation in the past? Can you say yes? (I'll be glad to provide documentation if asked). I do feel sorry for her, I don't think it was intentional. So, you see, it's all Ronnie's fault. Sweden, India and Greece are competent to preserve the safety of the people of the United States now I guess. And if the people of the US (through their elected leaders) don't go along with the latest Soviet ideas, shame on them. Stopping the arms race is the most important thing, right? Even if the USSR could cheat on any treaty, who cares, it's the agreement that matters, not the safety of the US. >These moderates like Reston are generally lackluster and >slow to criticize whomever is in power. But they are getting >fed up with Reagan's lies. As opposed to what? Do you think the press has ever supported Reagan? I feel that the press has tried very hard to prevent Reagan from getting elected. In particular, Reston has consistently opposed everything Reagan has done. He _is_ polite and actually wished Reagan happy birthday in his column recently. Of course he (properly) made clear his opposition to Reagan's policies in the same column. If a person isn't grossly insulting, do you think he is a toady? By the way your description of Reston as 'lackluster' is incorrect. I don't agree with Reston very much, but he is the dean of the Washington columnists. guy > tim sevener whuxn!orb
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/10/86)
> > >If Reagan is truly interested in "arms reductions" then why did he > >refuse to meet representatives of the Nuclear Freeze bearing the > >signatures of 1.2 million Americans asking to stop nuclear testing > >and the nuclear arms race? He seems to have plenty of time to > >meet terrorists from other countries like Jonas Savimbi and the > >leaders of the contras. > > Maybe because he is the President elected by something like 60 million > votes and he doesn't want to meet with people who are pushing for > something he thinks isn't good for the American people. > I didn't realize that the American people had elected Jonas Savmibi as their representative(??). On the other hand the nuclear freeze has been supported by 70% of Americans in virtually every poll I have ever seen on the subject. It has been endorsed by resolution in every state it has been placed on the ballot. It has been endorsed by hundreds of municipalities. It is no easy feat to obtain the signatures of 1.2 million Americans in a matter of months. Please explain why having both sides negotiate a halt to the nuclear arms race "is not good" for the American people. tim sevener whuxn!orb
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/10/86)
> > >As for Reagan being a pathological liar, one can simply circle > >just about every statement in his latest stump for more funds for > >the arms race. Besides innumerable distortions, the most crass > >and blatant lie was Reagan's statement that his defense budget > >proposal involved a mere 3% increase. In fact, his defense budget > >contains a 12% increase which remains at an 8% increase after > >adjusting for inflation. The New York Times previously had an > >editorial castigating Caspar Weinberger for precisely this lie - > >I cannot believe that White House staffers could be unaware of > >that editorial in the newspaper of record. Yet Reagan repeated > >it and will continue to repeat it until people believe it. > > Imagine, someone actually _disagrees_ with the NY TIMES view of things. > Obviously very sick. I believe the idea is that the current request > is supposed to be 3% more than what Reagan wanted last year. He is > just trying to get back what Congress took away last year. Perhaps > this is not entirely clear, but it is within the normal bounds of > political rhetoric in the US. It is not pathological lying. > 1)Congress did not take money away from Defense last year - what they did was to cut an exorbitant *increase* in funds for war preparations. 2)It is common practice when talking about percentage increases to compare to the previous year's actual expenditures, income or whatever is being compared. Reagan never talks about a mere small percentage increase in welfare spending on the basis of planned funds. Why should he do so when talking about the Pentagon? Moreover if one is going to accept such logic then what's to prevent planning a 200% increase the previous year and when such a ludicrous waste of funds is defeated then claiming a 50% increase the next year is *actually a reduction*? Or why not claim that a 10% reduction in student financial aid is *actually* an *increase* since the previous year one planned on decreasing student aid by 50%? Such playing with figures then becomes a ludicrous game of making up whatever figures you want. This is *why* it is common practice to talk about percentage changes based upon the previous year's *actual* figures. While many politicians jumble up categories and often fail to adjust for inflation they almost never make up figures as Reagan and Weinberger have done. Such a ploy is outright deception and woefully wrong. tim sevener whuxn!orb
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/10/86)
> > >If Reagan is truly interested in "arms reductions" then why did he > >instruct the US to abstain from voting for the UN resolution calling > >on both sides to negotiate an end to the nuclear arms race in > >the Geneva Summit? > > Maybe the resolution is meaningless. Maybe the resolution is merely > another way to the Communists to press the US to make agreements that > are not in the interests on the American people. > The resolution was overwhelmingly approved with virtually no dissent, including positive votes by US allies and nonaligned nations around the world. It was unfortunately merely a gesture of support for meaningful arms control agreements. But why couldn't the US support such a gesture? tim sevener whuxn!orb
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/10/86)
This is in response to the offer of Sweden, India, Greece and nations on five continents to verify Soviet compliance with a moratorium on all nuclear testing. : > > So, you see, it's all Ronnie's fault. Sweden, India and Greece are competent > to preserve the safety of the people of the United States now I guess. The people of Sewden, Greece, India and the whole rest of the world realize full well that if nuclear war occurs they themselves as well as every other person living on this planet is likely to be *dead*. For this reason they have a pressing national interest in seeing that the two superpowers do not destroy the planet in a nuclear holocaust. Do we have the right to kill every one else on this planet in a nuclear war? Do the Soviets have the right to kill every one else on this planet in a nuclear war? I don't think so. I think all steps must be taken to prevent nuclear war - and the best way to do that is to stop the nuclear arms race and then dismantle the doomsday machine that both sides have constructed in the last 40 years. Sweden, Greece and many other nations signed the nuclear non-proliferation pact and agreed to refrain from developing their own nuclear weapons with the stipulation that the existing nuclear powers would 1)stop all nuclear testing 2)stop their own increases in their nuclear arsenals 3)take steps to *reduce* nuclear weapons These nations are quite irate that the two superpowers have done *little* to comply with the provisions of the nuclear non-proliferation pact calling on the superpowers to stop the arms race while they have dutifully complied with the non-proliferation pact. The Soviet Union can at least argue to these nations that *they* have stopped their own nuclear testing - it is therefore the fault of the US for nuclear testing to continue among the two superpowers. (unfortunately France too continues testing and is also increasing her nuclear arsenal) Unless we take some action to comply with the provisions of the nuclear non-proliferation pact and take concrete steps to stop nuclear testing and nuclear weapons production and deployment, those signatories may come to feel no obligation to adhere to the pact. And then we will see the proliferation of nuclear weapons among other nations both large and small, both stable and unstable. The dangers of that should be obvious and scarey. Is that what you want? tim sevener whuxn!orb