sigma@usl.UUCP (Spyridon Triantafyllopoulos) (01/27/85)
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) Message-ID: <500@fisher.UUCP> writes the following stuff: > Responsable government makes its decisions based on the national > INTEREST, not the national DESIRE. Well, it just happens that in a real Democracy, like some found in Europe, the national DESIRE (what the people want) is what the national INTEREST is all about. > that in the former two cases, the decision makers must answer for > their decisions (which, incidentally, they exercised under a > constitution which has popular consent for its methods) to both the > courts and the people. Jaruzelski did not have those constraints. Neither has Reagan. He may have to explain why he has to put the Euromissiles in <European Country>, but he never EVER explains it to the people that are immediately affected, i.e, the PEOPLE of the <European country>. > it is clear that the European governments do believe the cruise > missiles are in their best interests, and stated as much when there > was little public pressure. That is probably YOUR opinion. There have been more than enough protests against NATO arms over there... it is just that NATO has the blessed support of Thatcher and other similar people that these things happen. > Finally, equating Soviet control over the Warsaw Pact with US > "control" of NATO is a willful act of naivete. If the US "controlled" > NATO, there would have been cruise missiles in Denmark and the > Netherlands, the Belgians and especially the Dutch would deploy their > army units committed to NATO in West Germany, the West Germans would > abandon their doctrine of foward defense, the British would neglect > their nuclear capabilities in order to strenghten the BAOR, the French > and Greeks would be militarily integrated, the Turks would reconstitute > Cyprus, the Spanish would cease deploying their forces primarily against > Gibraltar, the Italians would raise their spending above their > near-Japanese levels, the Norwegians would permit the basing of US or > UK marines, etc., etc., etc. The fact is that NATO forces are > deployed in a far from optimal pattern because of the political facts of > life that the US must accept. > David Rubin The equation of NATO and the Warsaw Pact comes out of nowhere. The WP has as purpose domination of Eastern (and probably Western) Europe. NATO is trying to "unite" all remaining countries in an attempt to move the place of future arms conflicts as far away from the U.S as possible. Remember the missile accident in West Germany a while ago??? How many complained here? How many would if it happened in Austin, TX or some other US City? As about NATO's power, I have seen the results of NATO pressure on Turkey about Cyprus. Nothing happens. Where is the political power of NATO? These guys in Cyprus still call it a "Nation". As about Italian spending, it is much much better to build one's country than to build or keep weapons. The Italians don't have anything to worry about (except Albania :-)) except the falling Liretta. Having both Greek and Italian origins, I believe I have a better idea of the subject. Think about it Dave, you wouldn't like that missile ruin your Oldsmobile, would you??? -- Spiros Spiros Triantafyllopoulos <> USENET {ut-sally, akgua}!usl!sigma Computer Science Dept, USL <> CSNet TriantafyllopoulosS%usl@csnet-relay.ARPA "This file contains no opinions whatsoever"
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (01/29/85)
>> = David Rubin > = Spyridon Triantafyllopoulos = David Rubin redux >> Responsable government makes its decisions based on the national >> INTEREST, not the national DESIRE. >Well, it just happens that in a real Democracy, like some found >in Europe, the national DESIRE (what the people want) is what >the national INTEREST is all about. If this is your position, how then would you answer these questions? (1) If the people change their minds, does the national interest change with it? (2) If the people desire something morally wrong, does the national interest demand immorality? (3) If the people desire something patently stupid, does the fulfillment of that desire advance the national interest? (4) (For fans of self-reference): If the people should decide to terminate their nationhood, does national interest demand its own destruction? >> that in the former two cases, the decision makers must answer for >> their decisions (which, incidentally, they exercised under a >> constitution which has popular consent for its methods) to both the >> courts and the people. Jaruzelski did not have those constraints. >Neither has Reagan. He may have to explain why he has to put the >Euromissiles in <European Country>, but he never EVER explains it >to the people that are immediately affected, i.e, the PEOPLE of >the <European country>. You forget the European governments. They must face the people having made their decisions. Reagan does not have to face, say, the Spanish electorate because Gonzalez will. It is the responsability of Kohl, Thatcher, et. al. to explain the purpose of the missiles. >> it is clear that the European governments do believe the cruise >> missiles are in their best interests, and stated as much when there >> was little public pressure. >That is probably YOUR opinion. There have been more than enough >protests against NATO arms over there... it is just that NATO has the >blessed support of Thatcher and other similar people that these things >happen. The implication that it is the right wing exclusively which favors the deployment of the cruise missiles is false. The first leader to request the missiles was Helmut Schmidt; one of the strongest proponents of deployment now is Francois Mitterand. To dismiss it as a creation of Thatcher and her ilk is not borne out by fact. As far as it being my OPINION that the European governments, for the most part, feel the missile deployment is in their interest, consider this: if you are to claim that the missiles are overwhelmingly unpopular with the electorates, and you are to claim that the European governments do not believe the missiles are in their interest, why haven't the governments taken the politcally popular action which they themselves have no qualms about? Part of the premise must be false; while I presumed it was the assumption that European governments do not consider deployment in their interests, which was incorrect, the failure of the other assumption would do more damage to your argument. >> Finally, equating Soviet control over the Warsaw Pact with US >> "control" of NATO is a willful act of naivete. If the US "controlled" >> NATO, there would have been cruise missiles in Denmark and the >> Netherlands, the Belgians and especially the Dutch would deploy their >> army units committed to NATO in West Germany, the West Germans would >> abandon their doctrine of foward defense, the British would neglect >> their nuclear capabilities in order to strenghten the BAOR, the French >> and Greeks would be militarily integrated, the Turks would reconstitute >> Cyprus, the Spanish would cease deploying their forces primarily against >> Gibraltar, the Italians would raise their spending above their >> near-Japanese levels, the Norwegians would permit the basing of US or >> UK marines, etc., etc., etc. The fact is that NATO forces are >> deployed in a far from optimal pattern because of the political facts of >> life that the US must accept. >> David Rubin >The equation of NATO and the Warsaw Pact comes out of nowhere. The WP has >as purpose domination of Eastern (and probably Western) Europe. NATO >is trying to "unite" all remaining countries in an attempt to move the >place of future arms conflicts as far away from the U.S as possible. >Remember the missile accident in West Germany a while ago??? How many >complained here? How many would if it happened in Austin, TX or >some other US City? We do have missile accidents here, and we are fortunate enough (maybe even wise enough) to have them occur well-removed from major cities (remember the accident in Arkansas a few years ago?). The accident in West Germany was much less severe than the one in Arkansas (which involved an obsolete ICBM), so the implication that the US places all risk on its NATO allies is unfair. The purpose of NATO is to prevent the expansion of Soviet rule in Europe. To be quite frank, the deployment of the Euromissiles decreases the chance that the US could successfully limit a war to Europe (cf. "linkage"; if necessary, discussion could begin on this, too), which is why the European governments requested their deployment from the Carter administration. Of course, it is easy for a smaller NATO country (read Greece) to claim NATO serves exclusively American interests, secure in the knowledge that the British, Germans, and French would not be so foolish as to follow a course similar to their own and thus threatening to the small country's security. This is very much parallel to Adam Smith's light house: it is in the interests of all Western European nations to build a strong security system, but each nation has a financial and perhaps a political incentive to defect and let the others build it. The larger nations (France, West Germany, Great Britain, and Italy) cannot consider defection, as then the "light house" would not even be built if any one of them did so. However, defection is a plausible option for the smaller countries. >As about NATO's power, I have seen the results of NATO >pressure on Turkey about Cyprus. Nothing happens. Where is the political >power of NATO? These guys in Cyprus still call it a "Nation". No disagreement here. NATO is obviously ill-suited for controlling disputes among member countries. >As about Italian spending, it is much much better to build one's country >than to build or keep weapons. The Italians don't have anything to worry >about (except Albania :-)) except the falling Liretta. The destruction and occupation of the Federal Republic of Germany poses an even greater threat to the economy and politics of Italy than, say, Great Britain. Yet the British, despite the falling pound, despite an econmomy no stronger than Italy's, under both Labour and Tory governments have contributed to the general defense of Europe at levels far exceeding those of Italy. To pretend that the occupation of Northern Europe by the Warsaw Pact would not destroy Italian democracy requires incredible optimism. So would reliance upon Soviet respect for Austrian neutrality in the first place. >Having both Greek and Italian origins, I believe I have a better idea >of the subject. Anscestory does not provide automatic expertise. It does, however, automatically provide bias. Don't you see how wrong an argument such as this is? If you claim that not being Greek, or Italian, or whatever, somehow disqualifies what I have said, you have exempted every nation from external examination of its policies. It's the moral equivalent of an Afrikaaner answering an argument against aparthied by saying, "I am an Afrikaaner, and must live in South Africa, and therefore I have a better idea of the situation." >Think about it Dave, you wouldn't like that missile ruin your Oldsmobile, >would you??? >-- Spiros Both nuclear war and Soviet domination are unacceptable options. Therefore, I select the only remaining course--deterrence. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (01/30/85)
In article <229@usl.UUCP> sigma@usl.UUCP (Spyridon Triantafyllopoulos) writes: (after pasting NATO quite a bit)... >As about Italian spending, it is much much better to build one's country >than to build or keep weapons. The Italians don't have anything to worry >about (except Albania :-)) except the falling Liretta. >Having both Greek and Italian origins, I believe I have a better idea >of the subject. You are saying, therefore, that countries not in close proximity to any potential enemy, should not spend much on Defence (ie weaponry) Including Gt. Britain, USA etc? Leaving countries that feel threatened to bear the expense alone. It's just to prevent this that NATO exists, isn't it? ...that's my favourite interpretation of the purpose of NATO, anyway Nige Gale @ Merrye Olde
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (01/31/85)
>(2) If the people desire something morally wrong, does the > national interest demand immorality? >(3) If the people desire something patently stupid, does the > fulfillment of that desire advance the national interest? And who is going to decide whether or not something is morally wrong or patently stupid. Fortunately we don't have a dictator here to decide that for us. Is abortion morally wrong? A majority of people here don't think so. Is deploying cruise missiles in Europa patently stupid? Lots of people think so, yes, because it can threaten our very existence. So what is "national interest"? That's the interest of the *people*, not of those that happen to "rule" a country. -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam ...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet
mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) (02/01/85)
In article <435@mcvax.UUCP> piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) writes: >And who is going to decide whether or not something is morally wrong >or patently stupid. Fortunately we don't have a dictator here to decide >that for us. Is abortion morally wrong? A majority of people here don't >think so. Is deploying cruise missiles in Europa patently stupid? Lots >of people think so, yes, because it can threaten our very existence. > >So what is "national interest"? That's the interest of the *people*, not >of those that happen to "rule" a country. I agree. When the man on the feels that his views are taken into consideration by the people in power, he will start thinking realistically about important issues. When he knows that his views are largly disregarded by the politians in power, is it small wonder that he is liable to have extremist opinions (eg "nuke Iran" or "shoot all drug addicts" etc etc). Nor is it very suprising that many people - especially the really disregarded such as the unemployed - don't bother to vote. Perhaps the worse voting figures are in the countries with really undemocratic electoral systems, such as in the USA or Britain. I suspect that the situation is better in countries with proportional representation. (Proportional representation means that if a party gets X% of the TOTAL electoral vote in a national parliament (or whatever it is called) then it get X% of the seats) Mike Williams
ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (02/03/85)
-
The people of <nation> might want to know some embarrassing
activities of its secret service via the Press, which is
also availlable to <nation>'s enemies. Is it, therefore, in
<nation>'s interests to reveal all?
I know you readers in th'USA will have had much arguement
on the Freedom of Information issue.
Personally, I would say that USA's laws on it would come under
the 'patently stupid' entry.
My point is that:
<Nation>'s interests do not necessarily equate with
its people's interests.
Having said that, I don't want US cruise missiles on British soil.
-Nige Galesigma@usl.UUCP (Spyridon Triantafyllopoulos) (02/03/85)
" " = ME and > is Dave Rubin >If this is your position, how then would you answer these questions? > > (1) If the people change their minds, does the national > interest change with it? People have the right to change their minds. Then, if enough public pressure can be put on the government, the subject can be brought up on a PUBLIC, NATIONAL vote (not a Gallup poll). > (2) If the people desire something morally wrong, does the > national interest demand immorality? > (3) If the people desire something patently stupid, does the > fulfillment of that desire advance the national interest? > (4) (For fans of self-reference): If the people should decide > to terminate their nationhood, does national interest > demand its own destruction? See net.philosophy or something more poetic. How did you derive all these?? > The implication that it is the right wing exclusively which favors the > deployment of the cruise missiles is false. > ........ > why haven't the governments taken the politcally popular action which they > themselves have no qualms about? All antimissile supporters are viewed as extermists in Europe, something more of a novelty... Also, you forget the political and economic pressure put on to European countries, and the fear of Pierre L'Average or Hans Averagen (Our Joe Averages) of another war. They fear the Red Bear and instead of uniting they join forces UNDER NATO. > To be quite frank, the deployment of the Euromissiles > decreases the chance that the US could successfully limit a war to Europe... How did you get this? The current trend is "Limited Nuclear War" which could wipe out most Europe (east and west) before Uncles Sam & Ivan even notice it. How can the chances be decreased?? By putting more oil in the fire or by mutual threat caused by excessive arms buildup. As about the biased attitude caused by my origin, I HAVE LIVED there, I HAVE SEEN how MY people think about it, and, after all, it is MY country. What do you know about Greeks' opinions? As much as I know about US opinions. And, I did not disqualify you, unless you consider you already know more than me about Greece, Italy, their people, lifes and opinions.... Let's face it. The missiles will be put there. European countries will have to accept it due to inside and outside pressure. Then, why are we flaming each other? -- Spiros Triantafyllopoulos /* In the deaf man's door, -- USL Computer Science Dept. there is a bell with a light */ -- {ut-sally, akgua}!usl!sigma -- Old Greek Proverb ---
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (02/06/85)
">>" & " " me ; ">" = Spyridon Triantafyllopoulos >>If this is your position, how then would you answer these questions? >> >> (1) If the people change their minds, does the national >> interest change with it? >People have the right to change their minds. Then, if enough public >pressure can be put on the government, the subject can be brought up >on a PUBLIC, NATIONAL vote (not a Gallup poll). Agreed. But my point was that national interest is not as volatile as national desire, and thus the two are distinct. >> (2) If the people desire something morally wrong, does the >> national interest demand immorality? >> (3) If the people desire something patently stupid, does the >> fulfillment of that desire advance the national interest? >> (4) (For fans of self-reference): If the people should decide >> to terminate their nationhood, does national interest >> demand its own destruction? >See net.philosophy or something more poetic. How did you derive all these?? You had asserted that the national desire IS the national interest; I am attempting to explore what appear to be contradictions arising from such an assertion. >> The implication that it is the right wing exclusively which favors the >> deployment of the cruise missiles is false. >> ........ >> why haven't the governments taken the politcally popular action which they >> themselves have no qualms about? >All antimissile supporters are viewed as extermists in Europe, >something more of a novelty... Also, you forget the political and >economic pressure put on to European countries, and the fear of Pierre >L'Average or Hans Averagen (Our Joe Averages) of another war. >They fear the Red Bear and instead of uniting they join forces UNDER NATO. If all antimissile supporters are viewed as extremists, than the claim of national desire for non-deployment cannot hold. However, this is not the issue I was arguing. I am willing to grant, for the sake of argument, that the European electorates favor/oppose the deployment of the missiles. It is my thesis that it remains in the interests of the Western Europe (as a whole, though smaller states may seek a free ride on security) to deploy them. >> To be quite frank, the deployment of the Euromissiles >> decreases the chance that the US could successfully limit a war to Europe... >How did you get this? The current trend is "Limited Nuclear War" which could >wipe out most Europe (east and west) before Uncles Sam & Ivan even notice it. >How can the chances be decreased?? By putting more oil in the fire or by >mutual threat caused by excessive arms buildup. Ivan is not likely to turn the other cheek if US intermediate range missiles were to begin landing in European portions of the Soviet Union. Were there only French and/or British missiles so landing, Uncle Sam could realistically expect Ivan not to retaliate against North America. Thus, the deployment of US intermediate range missiles in Europe decreases the chance of a nuclear war being "limited" (cf. "linkage"). >As about the biased attitude caused by my origin, I HAVE LIVED there, >I HAVE SEEN how MY people think about it, and, after all, it is MY country. >What do you know about Greeks' opinions? As much as I know about US opinions. >And, I did not disqualify you, unless you consider you already know more >than me about Greece, Italy, their people, lifes and opinions.... I don't claim equal knowledge of Greek and Italian attitudes. However, I assert that discussion of Greek and Italian interests does not require such detailed knowledge, and to assert otherwise is to beg the issues of what does constitute their national interests. The latter should be arrived at through rational discourse, not an opinion poll. My objection was to having my carefully reasoned arguments dismissed, not by analysis or evidence, but by an argument which ran something like "Greeks know what is best for Greece, you are not Greek, therefore you cannot know what is best for Greece." The major premise requires a positive faith in the wisdom of the electorate which I do not possess. >Let's face it. The missiles will be put there. European countries will >have to accept it due to inside and outside pressure. Then, why are >we flaming each other? You have not flamed me in any way, and I apologize if I wrote in a way as to make you feel the need for asbestos. Politics demands both passion (i.e. to care what happens) and dispassion (i.e. to see the world as it is). I am strongly opinionated, and will choose forceful wordings for my arguments; I have not been insulting. In short, I didn't know we were flaming... The missiles (probably) will be installed pretty much in the numbers planned. However, the pressure from both the US and the USSR, from the electorate and the defense establishments, would have mattered little had not the interests of Western Europe demanded some strengthening of the linkage of US and European defenses in response to the Soviets' build-up. >-- Spiros Triantafyllopoulos /* In the deaf man's door, >-- USL Computer Science Dept. there is a bell with a light */ >-- {ut-sally, akgua}!usl!sigma -- Old Greek Proverb --- David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (02/06/85)
> >(2) If the people desire something morally wrong, does the > > national interest demand immorality? > >(3) If the people desire something patently stupid, does the > > fulfillment of that desire advance the national interest? >And who is going to decide whether or not something is morally wrong >or patently stupid. Fortunately we don't have a dictator here to decide >that for us. Is abortion morally wrong? A majority of people here don't >think so. Is deploying cruise missiles in Europa patently stupid? Lots >of people think so, yes, because it can threaten our very existence. >So what is "national interest"? That's the interest of the *people*, not >of those that happen to "rule" a country. >-- > Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam > ...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet I have no disagreement with you, except to note that the people often misjudge their own interests. Popular demand does not make a position wise, just, or moral, it just makes it ... popular. This does not mean I advocate a "dictatorship". It does mean I wish to have power once removed from popular will (power to be exercised by elected representatives answerable only to law, not public opinion, during their tenure, at the end of which public opinion again makes it effects felt). To paraphrase Churchill, Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. This accurately sums up my attitude. Who is to decide what is best? Why, the participants in net.politics discussions, of course. Here we are free from the constraints of both the popular will and the corruption of power. We can debate and discuss the issues to our own content. We need not adopt inferior policies here because "the people demand it" or "it is necessary if we are to rule". Hopefully, arguments will stand and fall in our electronic utopia on their MERIT rather than their POPULARITY. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (02/06/85)
>The people of <nation> might want to know some embarrassing >activities of its secret service via the Press, which is >also availlable to <nation>'s enemies. Is it, therefore, in ><nation>'s interests to reveal all? If they are embarassing (presumably because they violate the law), then the answer is yes. While enemies may gain some short-term comfort from adverse publicity, the greater threat to the nation is from law-breakers in public positions than from foreign nations. >I know you readers in th'USA will have had much arguement >on the Freedom of Information issue. >Personally, I would say that USA's laws on it would come under >the 'patently stupid' entry. >My point is that: > <Nation>'s interests do not necessarily equate with > its people's interests. The distinction you draw between national and people's interests is unclear. If you mean the people as a whole, I disagree, as the nation is precisely the collection of its people. To draw a distinction between them is semantically arbitrary, at best (unless you have confused national interest with ruler's interest). If you mean popular will, then you have confused the interests of the people with their desires, as they are not unerring judges of their long-term interests. If you mean personal (i.e. individual interests), you will be disputed by no one. Individuals' interests often conflict; to equate national interest with the collection of individual interests leads to contradiction. As for the US's laws being "patently stupid", I heartily disagree. Our primary national interest is to preserve our freedoms. To accept exemption of certain government agencies from the rule of law is the surest way to threaten that primary interest. The Freedom of Information Act is not a naive, self-inflicted wound in the arena of geopolitics, but rather a rational response to sensible priorities. >Having said that, I don't want US cruise missiles on British soil. >-Nige Gale Do you mean you think it is in violation of the national interest (or collective interest), national desire (popular will), or personal interest? David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
sigma@usl.UUCP (Spyridon Triantafyllopoulos) (02/11/85)
" " = Dave Rubin, >> = Spiros Triantafyllopoulos Ivan is not likely to turn the other cheek if US intermediate range missiles were to begin landing in European portions of the Soviet Union. Were there only French and/or British missiles so landing, Uncle Sam could realistically expect Ivan not to retaliate against North America. Thus, the deployment of US intermediate range missiles in Europe decreases the chance of a nuclear war being "limited" >> 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". I don't claim equal knowledge of Greek and Italian attitudes. However, I assert that discussion of Greek and Italian interests does not require such detailed knowledge, and to assert otherwise is to beg the issues of what does constitute their national interests. >> That is what we are talkin about, Dave. My national interests concerning >> the missiles. And probably the 8+ millions of Greeks and 40+ millions >> of Italians, that also have their OWN, more often than not, interests. My objection was to having my carefully reasoned arguments dismissed, not by analysis or evidence, but by an argument which ran something like "Greeks know what is best for Greece, you are not Greek, therefore you cannot know what is best for Greece." >> This is also an argument. Should I, without thorough knowledge of >> US politics, provoke a discussion of US affairs?? Or support a >> discussion based on news media information only?? Think about it, >> and you will see that it is an argument. I accept your view since >> it is parallel with US-based decisions on the missiles. However, >> I can understand the effects of these decisions on the parties >> affected better even than the people who MADE the decisions... >> After all, they do not consider our national interest, do they? The missiles (probably) will be installed pretty much in the numbers planned. However, the pressure from both the US and the USSR, from the electorate and the defense establishments, would have mattered little had not the interests of Western Europe demanded some strengthening of the linkage of US and European defenses in response to the Soviets' build-up. >> Talking about something is important, agreement comes later. >> I am pleased we get in agreement. (In Greece, flame and politics have >> the same properties :-)). But, the question, still open to other >> people as well, remains as "why europe??". If only United Europe >> was a reality and not a dream broken by the stupid nationalists... -- Spiros Triantafyllopoulos /* In the deaf man's door, -- USL Computer Science Dept. there is a bell with a light */ -- {ut-sally, akgua}!usl!sigma -- Old Greek Proverb ---
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (02/20/85)
" " = Dave Rubin, >> = Spiros Triantafyllopoulos, >>>> = DR redux Ivan is not likely to turn the other cheek if US intermediate range missiles were to begin landing in European portions of the Soviet Union. Were there only French and/or British missiles so landing, Uncle Sam could realistically expect Ivan not to retaliate against North America. Thus, the deployment of US intermediate range missiles in Europe decreases the chance of a nuclear war being "limited" >> 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. I don't claim equal knowledge of Greek and Italian attitudes. However, I assert that discussion of Greek and Italian interests does not require such detailed knowledge, and to assert otherwise is to beg the issues of what does constitute their national interests. >> That is what we are talkin about, Dave. My national interests concerning >> the missiles. And probably the 8+ millions of Greeks and 40+ millions >> of Italians, that also have their OWN, more often than not, interests. >>>> Though you may find it difficult to believe, it was my contention >>>> that it was European interests that compelled the deployment of >>>> the missiles. Greek and Italian interests in European security >>>> are similar, though it is important to note that the difference >>>> the two countries behavior springs from the fact that, as a major >>>> NATO member, Italy cannot defect from common European interests >>>> without damaging national ones, while Greece, as a smaller power, >>>> can entertain such a possibility. Greece's apparent failure to >>>> defect (as threatened) is probably due to it desired standing in >>>> Western Europe, and must be ascribed to a new-found willingness >>>> to share Continental problems (perhaps motivated by implicit >>>> political and economic pressures from Europe) rather than strong >>>> pressure from the US. My objection was to having my carefully reasoned arguments dismissed, not by analysis or evidence, but by an argument which ran something like "Greeks know what is best for Greece, you are not Greek, therefore you cannot know what is best for Greece." >> This is also an argument. Should I, without thorough knowledge of >> US politics, provoke a discussion of US affairs?? Or support a >> discussion based on news media information only?? Think about it, >> and you will see that it is an argument. I accept your view since >> it is parallel with US-based decisions on the missiles. However, >> I can understand the effects of these decisions on the parties >> affected better even than the people who MADE the decisions... >> After all, they do not consider our national interest, do they? >>>> The answer is yes, you should feel free to discuss US affairs without >>>> being an expert on US politics. Archane electoral dispute among >>>> politicians often has very little to do with national interest or >>>> enlightened behavior. As for the information used in such a >>>> discussion, we ought not be deterred by the fact that we cannot >>>> know everything. We'll just have to pool our information and do >>>> the best we can with what we have. If you get something wrong, I >>>> will not hesitate to rush to your aid (:-)). The missiles (probably) will be installed pretty much in the numbers planned. However, the pressure from both the US and the USSR, from the electorate and the defense establishments, would have mattered little had not the interests of Western Europe demanded some strengthening of the linkage of US and European defenses in response to the Soviets' build-up. >> Talking about something is important, agreement comes later. >> I am pleased we get in agreement. (In Greece, flame and politics have >> the same properties :-)). But, the question, still open to other >> people as well, remains as "why europe??". If only United Europe >> was a reality and not a dream broken by the stupid nationalists... >>>> Amen. 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 {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david