steven@mcvax.UUCP (Steven Pemberton) (11/21/84)
In article <116@talcott.UUCP> gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) writes: > I stand corrected: the majority of Europeans are indeed very concerned about > SS-20's. It happens to be the case, however, that those who choose to ignore > the existence of the SS-20's are more likely to be political loud-mouths. > Some of there so-called pacifists actually do not know that their own > governments actually *want* U.S. military support. Don't you remember who > originally drafted the plan to put Pershing II's and cruise missiles in > Europe? (Well, Thatcher, Schmidt, and Giscard all had a big part in it...) Just because European governments want US arms doesn't mean European people want them, as is well demonstrated in Holland among others, where the great majority of people don't want the wretched things. And it doesn't mean either that we won't complain about the governments wanting them! So there. Loud mouth yourself. Steven Pemberton, so-called pacifist.
mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) (11/22/84)
In article <6190@mcvax.UUCP> steven@mcvax.UUCP (Steven Pemberton) writes: >Just because European governments want US arms doesn't mean European people >want them, as is well demonstrated in Holland among others, where the great >majority of people don't want the wretched things. And it doesn't mean >either that we won't complain about the governments wanting them! I agree with you about the bombs, but I think your argument is a bit dangerous. What people want and what governments want are often two different things. Most representative democracies do not work on the basis that the people elected (Members of Parliament or what ever they are called) represent the views of the people. The principle seems more to be that the people elected should have the old "wise man" role and do what they think is appropriate. This has both advantages and disadvantages. One of the disadvantages is that they seemed to have been conned by the US polititians into thinking that US nuclear arms in Europe will contribute to European defence. One advantage is the their attitudes to capital punishment. For example in Britain hanging would have been re-introduced long ago since the vast majority of British electors support it. The problem about nuclear weapons in Europe is that it is very hard to make their existence a political issue which can affect the outcome of an election. Recent documentary films on TV about the consequences of nuclear war do seem to be having some effect - the only way to rid ourselves of the "beastly things" is to make people in Europe realise that the nuclear arms issue is the most important political issue in the world today. Mike Williams
steven@mcvax.UUCP (Steven Pemberton) (11/23/84)
In article <6190@mcvax.UUCP> I wrote: >Just because European governments want US arms doesn't mean European people >want them, as is well demonstrated in Holland among others, where the great >majority of people don't want the wretched things. And it doesn't mean >either that we won't complain about the governments wanting them! To which mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) replied: > I agree with you about the bombs, but I think your argument is a bit > dangerous. What people want and what governments want are often two different > things. Most representative democracies do not work on the basis that the > people elected (Members of Parliament or what ever they are called) represent > the views of the people. The principle seems more to be that the people > elected should have the old "wise man" role and do what they think is > appropriate. Well, exactly, but I don't see why the argument is dangerous. People of all persuasions complain about their governments, whether by writing to the papers, writing to their elected members, or demonstrating. Since the elected members don't represent your views, you have to try and convince them somehow to support/oppose your ideas. Steven Pemberton
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (11/26/84)
> In article <116@talcott.UUCP> gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) writes: > > > I stand corrected: the majority of Europeans are indeed very concerned about > > SS-20's. It happens to be the case, however, that those who choose to ignore > > the existence of the SS-20's are more likely to be political loud-mouths. > > Some of there so-called pacifists actually do not know that their own > > governments actually *want* U.S. military support. Don't you remember who > > originally drafted the plan to put Pershing II's and cruise missiles in > > Europe? (Well, Thatcher, Schmidt, and Giscard all had a big part in it...) > > Just because European governments want US arms doesn't mean European people > want them, as is well demonstrated in Holland among others, where the great > majority of people don't want the wretched things. And it doesn't mean > either that we won't complain about the governments wanting them! > So there. Loud mouth yourself. > > Steven Pemberton, so-called pacifist. And there you're simply wrong. The Steven Pembertons are indeed a minority in most (but not all!) Western European countries (source: Time Mag.). These countries are democracies, no? And liberals are loud-mouths. Here at Harvard, for example, the students are two to one against Reagan, while the political rallies were about ten to zero against Reagan.
steven@mcvax.UUCP (Steven Pemberton) (11/27/84)
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) wrote: > Some of there so-called pacifists actually do not know that their own > governments actually *want* U.S. military support. To which I (Steven Pemberton) replied: > Just because European governments want US arms doesn't mean European people > want them, as is well demonstrated in Holland among others, where the great > majority of people don't want the wretched things. And it doesn't mean > either that we won't complain about the governments wanting them! To which he replied: > And there you're simply wrong. The Steven Pembertons are indeed a > minority in most (but not all!) Western European countries (source: Time > Mag.). These countries are democracies, no? Indeed the Steven Pembertons are in a minority (I'm touched by Time's interest), but not the people who want to get rid of Cruise in many European countries. In both Holland and the UK for instance there are more people against the things than for them. These countries are democracies, yes? Then Cruise should go from them, no? > And liberals are loud-mouths. And all name-calling is ridiculous. Steven Pemberton, CWI, Amsterdam; steven@mcvax
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (11/30/84)
Steve Pemberton argues that since the majority of Dutch (and Britons) would rather not have Cruise missiles, they should go. After all, these are democracies, right? Steve misses the distinction between REPRESENTATIVE democracy and DIRECT democracy. His arguments imply the latter is to be preferred, as it is the most direct and efficient way of carrying out popular will. I, however, believe the partial isulation of national policy from popular (and often fleeting) passion is the wisest move modern democracies have made. David Rubin
steven@mcvax.UUCP (Steven Pemberton) (12/04/84)
In article <436@fisher.UUCP> david@fisher.UUCP (Dave Rubin) writes: > Steve Pemberton argues that since the majority of Dutch (and Britons) > would rather not have Cruise missiles, they should go. After all, > these are democracies, right? > > Steve misses the distinction between REPRESENTATIVE democracy and > DIRECT democracy. His arguments imply the latter is to be preferred, > as it is the most direct and efficient way of carrying out popular > will. I, however, believe the partial isulation of national policy > from popular (and often fleeting) passion is the wisest move modern > democracies have made. Dave quotes me out of context here. I'm quite aware of the distinction, and in the case in point, which of the two I support doesn't matter. I made the remark in reply to someone who used exactly the same argument to support Cruise missiles in Europe, and I just threw the argument back. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. However, I do support direct democracy, as a buffer against individuals' often fleeting passions. I personally feel that a chance every 5 (or so) years to influence who it is who decides for me what I should think, is a pretty weak form of democracy. Steven Pemberton, Amsterdam; steven@mcvax.