orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/07/84)
The American people have sent their verdict--as a friend of mine put it they voted for Ronald Reagan overwhelmingly with their fingers crossed. They are mesmerized by his charm but trying to keep a check on him by massive ticket-splitting. Will a Democratic House and slightly Republican Senate be enough to keep the brakes on the worst Reagan atrocities? I hope.......but I am not optimistic. Will Reagan's last minute shift towards a conciliatory arms posture actually lead to an agreement? Only if ALL Americans make it clear that they did not vote for Nuclear War. But it is not clear Americans are willing to support risks for Peace rather than War--so the arms race goes on..... The very day after the election the big news is a Soviet shipment of Mig's to Nicaragua. I think that is the worst possible thing the Soviets could do at this point. Peace groups planning civil disobedience against American actions might consider protests against this action as well. But it provides the perfect foil for Reagan--all he needs is to find his own Tonkin Gulf--it needn't be real anymore than Johnson's was. Even Mondale supporters I have talked to are being lulled into the War frenzy and supporting some "bold" action in response to Soviet migs. Alas, haven't we been through all this before? Twenty years ago exactly? I only hope and pray that we avoid a Nuclear War.............. all other catastrophes are temporary and recoverable, even the worst of all possibilities a collapse of the banking system again and Depression. I suggest seriously that all those afraid of Nuclear War and the arms race send Reagan letters expressing their hope and belief that his rhetoric about reducing nuclear arms was genuine. Even Republicans don't want a Nuclear War, do you? tim sevener whuxl!orb
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (11/09/84)
I happen to believe that it is the Reagan administration's diplomatic
ineptitude which has created a situation where the Sandistas would
apparently seriously consider deploying MiG-21's. However, botched or
not, that deployment would drastically shift the balance of power in
Central America in a fashion unacceptable to this country. Therefore,
while I would not support an invasion, nor will I applaud the
diplomatic weakness of the administration, if the Nicaraguans actually
deploy the aforementioned hardware, I would support a strike on their
(the MiG's) bases.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidrobertsb@ttidcb.UUCP (Robin Roberts) (11/09/84)
>From ttidca!philabs!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!orb Wed Nov 7 10:54:58 1984 >Subject: Election Result:More War in '84! >From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) >Path: ttidca!philabs!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!orb >Organization: Bell Labs >Newsgroups: net.politics >Date: Wed, 7-Nov-84 10:54:58 PST >Only if ALL Americans make it clear that they did not >vote for Nuclear War. But it is not clear Americans are willing to support >risks for Peace rather than War--so the arms race goes on..... Nobody ( not Reagan, not Bush ) believes that they DID. And perhaps others view the risks for Peace comment backwards like in "If you want peace, prepare for war". >The very day after the election the big news is a Soviet shipment of Mig's >to Nicaragua. I think that is the worst possible thing the Soviets could do >at this point. Peace groups planning civil disobedience against American >actions might consider protests against this action as well. Applause to you Sevener, I agree with this completely! Do you realize the damage to their credibility when they don't? It is this very thing that leads us conservatives to call them tools of the Soviet Union. Now granted they are well-meaning people ( I've met many of the active people ) but nonetheless they act a double standard which causes us to despise them. >Alas, haven't we been through all this before? Twenty years ago exactly? >I only hope and pray that we avoid a Nuclear War.............. Yes, last time with a now legendary DEMOCRATIC president, maybe the real constants are Soviet actions? Nah that would never fit your view of reality would it? :-). >all other catastrophes are temporary and recoverable, even the worst of all >possibilities a collapse of the banking system again and Depression. So is this one although not to the dead and crippled granted. That is the cost of ALL war conventional or otherwise. >tim sevener whuxl!orb robin d. roberts -- Robin D. Roberts (213) 450 9111 x 2916 TTI Zone V4 aka Buskirk the Valerian 3100 Ocean Park Blvd Death to Tyrants ! Santa Monica, CA 90405 UUCP: ..!ucbvax!ihnp4!vortex!ttidca!ttidcb!robertsb or {cadovax,flick,philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex,wtux2}!ttidca!ttidcb!robertsb or ttidca!ttidcb!robertsb@RAND-UNIX.ARPA
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (11/15/84)
<...> >The very day after the election the big news is a Soviet shipment >of Mig's to Nicaragua. I think that is the worst possible thing >the Soviets could do at this point. And guess who invented this "news"? >But it provides the perfect foil for Reagan--all he needs is to find >his own Tonkin Gulf--it needn't be real anymore than Johnson's was. You bet it won't! >all other catastrophes are temporary and recoverable, even the worst >of all possibilities a collapse of the banking system again and >Depression. Sure? You can't bring back someone to life who has been killed in the name of "freedom". Compared to that the mentioned "worst possibility" is only a minor inconvenience. >Even Republicans don't want a Nuclear War, do you? Direct your question to the Pentagon; no doubt the answer will be "no comment", meaning just a much as "yes". -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam ...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/17/84)
> > Even Republicans don't want a Nuclear War, do you? > Direct your question to the Pentagon; no doubt the answer will be > "no comment", meaning just a much as "yes". > > -- > Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam > ...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet "No doubt"? Maybe you have no doubts on this matter, but you haven't done a very good job of convincing anybody that your doubts are worth listening to. Look, NOBODY wants a nuclear war. Nothing good could possibly come out of such a thing, and if you look at US policy you will see nothing that indicates that anybody believes otherwise. What they do believe is that the policies they are following won't lead to nuclear war, and that is less certain. Sometimes I suspect that you and some other people on the net are actually CIA agents hired to discredit the entire peace movement... Wayne
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (11/19/84)
Piet has an extraordinarily misinformed view of the Pentagon. What
fuels their desire for the acquisition of more weapons is not the
warrior's desire for victory, but the bureaucrat's desire for status.
If the Pentagon were really interested in war, rather than prestige,
they wouldn't strip expenditures for "combat-readiness" and
maintainence in order to fund new systems of dubious reliability and
value.
Of course, Piet prefers to interpret the Pentagon's actions as
undiluted evil. This suggests to me that Piet may have something very
important in common with Reagan--the desire for the world to appear in
black and white. Ignoring those shades of gray is as dangerous as it
is emotionally satisfying.
conventionally. If Piet's country would merely fulfill its
obligations within NATO and station its troops where they might be
called upon to fight, the Netherlands could substantially contribute
to the prevention of nuclear (and conventional) war. Of course,
kicking the Pentagon is easier and far cheaper...
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!daviddavid@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (11/19/84)
Pardon the repost, but this may be easier to read:
Piet has an extraordinarily misinformed view of the Pentagon. What
fuels their desire for the acquisition of more weapons is not the
warrior's desire for victory, but the bureaucrat's desire for status.
If the Pentagon were really interested in war, rather than prestige,
they wouldn't strip expenditures for "combat-readiness" and
maintainence in order to fund new systems of dubious reliability and
value.
Of course, Piet prefers to interpret the Pentagon's actions as
undiluted evil. This suggests to me that Piet may have something very
important in common with Reagan--the desire for the world to appear in
black and white. Ignoring those shades of gray is as dangerous as it
is emotionally satisfying.
If the Netherlands were to deploy the Corps it has committed to the
defense of the FRG in the FRG, it could reduce the chance of nuclear
war by increasing the chance of containing a possible Soviet invasion
conventionally. If Piet's country would merely fulfill its
obligations within NATO and station its troops where they might be
called upon to fight, the Netherlands could substantially contribute
to the prevention of nuclear (and conventional) war. Of course,
kicking the Pentagon is easier and far cheaper...
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david