orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/18/85)
"If you repeat something long enough, people will come to believe it." Joseph Goebbels Mike Stalnaker has a number of falsehoods in his defense of "spend and spend, borrow and borrow, arm and arm" Reagan: > > I love the way everybody blames Regan for the current defense > spending. If that Bleeding-heart-liberal bozo named Carter hadn't > played hack and slash for 4 years ,and if congress hadn't sat around > with it's head up it's ass for the past 13 years (since 1972) We would > not have to make these massive defense outlays all at once! In 1970 the U.S. had 4,000 strategic nuclear warheads In 1980 10,000 strategic nuclear warheads The U.S. spent more in 1980 than in 1970 in constant dollars for defense: despite the fact we were fighting a substantial war in Vietnam in 1970. > > Tim, when you say congress approved 95% of Reagan's requests, > was that by number of requests, or $??? that is by $$$, i.e. Congress approved 95% of the dollar requests for the budget presented by Reagan > Here we are, sitting back with > what probably amounts to the number 3 Armed Services in the world, faced > with bozos that have openly declared "WE WILL BURY YOU!" and people are > to blind to see that we have to maintain a strong defense. > --Stormcrow o Some elementary facts: U.S. U.S.S.R. strategic nuclear warheads 10,000+ 7400 all nuclear warheads 29,100 17,140 The U.S. has 600,000 times the explosive power of Hiroshima. I think a strong defense is quite different than mutual suicide. Kruschev *never* said "we will bury you." What he said was "we will survive you." This has an entirely different meaning. If the Soviet Union is so set upon "world conquest" why is it that they haven't invaded the small Communist countries of Rumania, Yugoslavia, and Albania for the past 40 years? Rumania had 30,000 people in a demonstration against missile deployments by both East and West. Why hasn't the Soviet Union nuked Rumania yet? Since Rumania, Yugoslavia, and Albania are not members of NATO the USSR would have no opposition to attack from NATO forces in these countries. Why did the Soviets agree to allow Austria to return to sovereignty decades ago? "Peace in the World, or the World in Pieces!" tim sevener whuxn!orb
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (11/20/85)
In article <828@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >If the Soviet Union is so set upon "world conquest" why is it that >they haven't invaded the small Communist countries of ^^^^^^^^^ >Rumania, Yugoslavia, and Albania for the past 40 years? >Rumania had 30,000 people in a demonstration against missile deployments >by both East and West. Why hasn't the Soviet Union nuked Rumania yet? >Since Rumania, Yugoslavia, and Albania are not members of NATO the >USSR would have no opposition to attack from NATO forces in these >countries. One doesn't usually preach to the converted. J.B. Robinson
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/04/85)
In article <828@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >If the Soviet Union is so set upon "world conquest" why is it that >they haven't invaded the small Communist countries of >Rumania, Yugoslavia, and Albania for the past 40 years? >Rumania had 30,000 people in a demonstration against missile deployments >by both East and West. Why hasn't the Soviet Union nuked Rumania yet? >Since Rumania, Yugoslavia, and Albania are not members of NATO the >USSR would have no opposition to attack from NATO forces in these >countries. >Why did the Soviets agree to allow Austria to return to sovereignty >decades ago? This is an obvious fallacy. Just because Rumania, Yugoslavia, and Albania are not members of NATO does not mean that their attack would produce no response from the west. Just because the Soviet Union is set upon world conquest doesn't mean they can't accept setbacks along the way. Just because they have the power to prevent certain (to them) undesirable events, doesn't mean that they can't forsee even worse consequences to the exercize of that power. Actually, I think the desire for world conquest represents a minor part of Soviet policy, adhered to by a minority even in the armed forces. But the desire for control of their neighbors is not a minor part of their policy. This desire has historically and continues to result in the incorporation of such areas into the state. Then there are new set of neighbors to dominate ... If left unchecked, this will ultimately lead to world conquest. The actions it produces are practically indistinguishable from those which would be pursued if world conquest were the driving goal. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108