mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/17/85)
> ... The USSR has >had six or seven new fighters in the last decade or so. We've had three, >going on four. Other NATO and allied nations and consortiums have had a few >more, but how many of these can they afford to build? And how many will they >build with socialists influential in government? What has it to do with socialists in Government? The last Labour Government in the UK ordered 13 warships, opposed to Thatcher's 3. The politician most influential in getting the controversial missiles into Europe was Helmut Schmidt (socialist). I think that comment was just a "knee-jerk red herring" (love that image problem). -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (03/18/85)
> > ... The USSR has > >had six or seven new fighters in the last decade or so. We've had three, > >going on four. Other NATO and allied nations and consortiums have had a few > >more, but how many of these can they afford to build? And how many will they > >build with socialists influential in government? > > What has it to do with socialists in Government? The last Labour Government > in the UK ordered 13 warships, opposed to Thatcher's 3. The politician > most influential in getting the controversial missiles into Europe was > Helmut Schmidt (socialist). I think that comment was just a > "knee-jerk red herring" (love that image problem). > > Martin Taylor Mr. Taylor isn't just whistling Dixie. Despite the common notion that Pershing II's are entirely Reagan's idea, the truth is that it was really due to Schmidt, Thatcher, Giscard, and perhaps Carter. Does anyone know why Helmut Schmidt's party now opposes these missiles, and when and how they changed their minds? --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "No Marxist can deny that the interests of socialism are higher than the interests of the right of nations to self-determination." -Lenin, 1918
mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) (03/21/85)
In article <366@talcott.UUCP> gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) writes: > Does anyone know >why Helmut Schmidt's party now opposes these missiles, and when and how >they changed their minds? Most NATO European countries have found that the placement of US missiles in their countries caused widespread popular disaproval. Maybe the Social Democrats in W Germany are responding to the views of the populace? It's much easier for a party which is not in power to do this. Let's see if they can withstand pressure from the US if they win the next election. It would be a nice test to see if democracy in W Germany works! Likewise let's see what happens if the Labour party in Britain win the next election. They have threatened to throw out the US bases in Britain!
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (03/25/85)
In article <366@talcott.UUCP> gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) writes: > Does anyone know >why Helmut Schmidt's party now opposes these missiles, and when and how >they changed their minds? The SPD also faces erosion of their base from Die Grunen (The Greens), an ecology and anti-nuclear party that has made some significant gains in traditionally SPD areas such as Hessen and West Berlin. SPD and Die Grunen are discussing a united front approach, so the SPD position may be considered part of that. Also remember that Schmidt represents the right wing of the SPD. Other important voices (e.g. Willy Brandt) have always opposed basing U.S. nuclear missiles in West Germany. I think they have seen the wisdom of (Ret.) Admiral Gene LaRoque's observation: "We fought World War I in Europe, we fought World War II in Europe and if you dummies will let us, we'll fight World War III in Europe, too ..." Mike Kelly