sigma@usl.UUCP (Spyridon Triantafyllopoulos) (02/22/85)
" " = Dave Rubin, >> = Spiros T*, >>>> = DR redux,-> Spiros T* again >> But there is no reason French and/or British missiles (I mean >> missiles belonging to the COUNTRY's armed forces and NOT to NATO >> armed forces) should land on Soviet (Oh stargate forgive me!) land. >> unless an Afganistan-like story occurs. (Soviets attack first). >> Then Uncle Sam would throw in its candies since its pals were hit, >> and "this is the end, my only friend". >>>> You have a greater confidence in American willingness for >>>> self-sacrifice than that possessed by the most blithe NATO >>>> supporter. -> well, the US has a pretty good record of getting into the action -> uninvited, with *little* reason. Was the Vietnam war (please no flames) or -> even the US aid to Central America out of self-sacrifice? What I believe -> and/or think makes *little* difference. >>>> Though you may find it difficult to believe, it was my contention >>>> that it was European interests that compelled the deployment of >>>> the missiles. -> NOT European Interests, but rather the interests of the rightish -> Margie et. al. that have the power to orchestrate the moves. Missiles -> *may* be good for Margie or Hans, but won't do any good for Greece -> or many other *small* European countries. Margie and Hans DO NOT -> represent Europe, although they feel that way.... >>>> ...... Nothing would go further toward providing security for the West >>>> and easing the burdens now placed on the US. However, ESOK is very >>>> much part of the problem....nationalism is its political currency. >>>> David Rubin -> So, the role of the US in Europe is of a guardian angel of sorts? -> "you can't protect yourselves from Ivan, here I come" logic worked -> ELSEWHERE (you know where, stargate) and will work again, eh!. -> Nationalism IS a problem that nobody thinks about. Maybe because we -> still want to be different, not like everyone else, with OUR opinions, -> and <> 2.4 children per household, unlike Joe Average. -- Spiros Triantafyllopoulos -- quote removed to save UUCP costs -- {ut-sally, akgua}!usl!sigma
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (02/25/85)
>> = Spiros T*, >>>> = DR redux, -> = Spiros T* again, " " = DR yet again >> But there is no reason French and/or British missiles (I mean >> missiles belonging to the COUNTRY's armed forces and NOT to NATO >> armed forces) should land on Soviet (Oh stargate forgive me!) land. >> unless an Afganistan-like story occurs. (Soviets attack first). >> Then Uncle Sam would throw in its candies since its pals were hit, >> and "this is the end, my only friend". >>>> You have a greater confidence in American willingness for >>>> self-sacrifice than that possessed by the most blithe NATO >>>> supporter. -> well, the US has a pretty good record of getting into the action -> uninvited, with *little* reason. Was the Vietnam war (please no flames) or -> even the US aid to Central America out of self-sacrifice? What I believe -> and/or think makes *little* difference. It would not suit American interests to actually force the Soviets to incinerate American cities if they are content with incinerating French and British cities. I defy you to demonstrate such an interest. It is irrelevant to the present discussion, but the US was invited into both Vietnam (by a faction just as large, and far less determined, then the Communists) and Central America. There was/is plenty of reason to get involved in both places, though it wasn't/isn't done/being done in the wisest ways. >>>> Though you may find it difficult to believe, it was my contention >>>> that it was European interests that compelled the deployment of >>>> the missiles. -> NOT European Interests, but rather the interests of the rightish -> Margie et. al. that have the power to orchestrate the moves. Missiles -> *may* be good for Margie or Hans, but won't do any good for Greece -> or many other *small* European countries. Margie and Hans DO NOT -> represent Europe, although they feel that way.... You choose to ignore my earlier posted points about the views of Francois and Bettino, and that Helmut was the one who first desired them and requested them from Jimmy. I'd think you'd concede Jimmy's centrism and leftist credentials of the other three, but you insist on the portraying the missiles as a right-wing construct. As for the interests of the SMALL countries, I will again say this: it is in their interests that the missiles be deployed, though preferably in other countries so that they may gain the security benefits ("linkage") without the security risks. >>>> ...... Nothing would go further toward providing security for the West >>>> and easing the burdens now placed on the US. However, ESOK is very >>>> much part of the problem....nationalism is its political currency. -> So, the role of the US in Europe is of a guardian angel of sorts? -> "you can't protect yourselves from Ivan, here I come" logic worked -> ELSEWHERE (you know where, stargate) and will work again, eh!. -> Nationalism IS a problem that nobody thinks about. Maybe because we -> still want to be different, not like everyone else, with OUR opinions, -> and <> 2.4 children per household, unlike Joe Average. Ahem, the quote of mine you took above was in response to YOUR note that silly nationalism was preventing the unification of Western Europe (a goal we both think desirable). Yet you defend the politics of ESOK (remember, this all began over our different views of US interests in Cyprus). Do you not see the contradiction, or do you just ignore it? As for the US defending Western Europe, I never claimed 100% altruistic motives. The fact is that Soviet domination of Europe would vitally threaten both US security and prosperity. Idealogical reasons do play a role, though; if the free world were to be reduced to North America, it would be in dire danger of extinction. Finally, none of what you imply is in anyway inconsistent with the proposition that the US would be as secure and more prosperous if the Europeans would defend themselves. They are not likely to do that so long as security remains a collection of national contributions (from which smaller countries possess financial incentive to defect) rather than the effort of a united Europe. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david