jr@taurus.UUCP (Jim R Oldroyd) (01/26/84)
Piet Beersma (sp?) makes an interesting point: Many european governments are going ahead with the deployment of american nuclear missiles against the overwhelming wishes of the majority of the people in their countries. This is apparent from the not insignificant rallies and demonstrations in major cities all around europe. As piet said: What happened to the idea of democracy? It seems to me that the politicians of our countries are encouraging an arms race against the soviet union, while at the same time letting us all think they are doing this BECAUSE the soviet union is building up it's arms. As I recall, the soviets have only recently announced major buildups of their arms, while cruise deployment has been in progress for some time now. What will it take to stop european governmments participating in this race and persuade them to resist the pressure from the USA to do so? -- ++jim <england>!ukc!hirst1!taurus!jr ++jim
plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (Scott Plunkett) (01/27/84)
Mr. Oldroyd, in London, is concerned about American missile deployment
in Europe "against the overwhelming wishes of the majority of the
people." He goes on to say that "this is apparent from the not
insignificant rallies and demonstrations in major cities all
around Europe."
What utter bosh. In Germany and England, the Governments were
recently re-elected with the clear understanding of the voting
public that they supported deployment. The fact that a bunch
of rabble rousers chant, scream, and generally frighten the
horses in the streets of "major cities" means nothing. Not
a thing, beyond demonstrating their own stupidity, and their
courteous assistance to the Kremlin's fondest hopes. Sensible
people everywhere rightly disregard these fringe lunatics for
what they are: bored, inexperienced, anarchic, youth (or old
fools who pine for their irresponsible youthhood).
"It seems to me that the politicians of our countries are encouraging an
arms race against the soviet union," he writes, "while at the same time
letting us all think they are doing this BECAUSE the soviet union is
building up it's arms."
Cruise deployment, Sir, is a very-long-awaited counter to the ever
increasing arsenal of SS-20's that, with room to spare, would
obliterate the old Mother Land. Now, you may join the freaks in
the street with their red-ink and placards encouraging a blithe
attitude toward the Soviets, but even if you don't care what the
Soviets could do to the British Isles, others--most--do. It is to
the credit of the majority of British citizens that, at least for
now, they reject appeasement. Could they be learning?
"What will it take to stop european governments participating in this
race and persuade them to resist the pressure from the USA to do so?"
Answer: When the Soviet regime is toppled.
...{allegra,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkettmjk@tty3b.UUCP (01/28/84)
Scott Plunkett in <1628@rlgvax.UUCP>: "In Germany and England, the Governments were recently re-elected with the clear understanding of the voting public that they supported deployment ... "The fact that a bunch of rabble rousers chant, scream, and generally frighten the horses in the streets of "major cities" means nothing ... "Now, you may join the freaks in the street with their red-ink and placards encouraging a blithe attitude toward the Soviets, but even if you don't care what the Soviets could do to the British Isles, others--most--do. It is to the credit of the majority of British citizens that, at least for now, they reject appeasement ... "What will it take to stop european governments participating in this race and persuade them to resist the pressure from the USA to do so?" Answer: When the Soviet regime is toppled." Is there any form of legitimate dissent in your view of democracy, Scott Plunkett, or does dissent merely give "courteous assistance to the Kremlin's fondest hopes"? If dissent is automatically irrelevant (or dangerous), then what is the difference between your view of democratic and totalitarian societies? It has always puzzled me that those who most strongly and fervently defend "democracy" (i.e. by which they usually mean capitalist democracy) are apparently so i gnorant of what democracy really means: that dissent is legitimate. After all, what is the real difference between Scott Plunkett's branding of millions of protesters as "fringe lunatics" and the Soviet leadership'sdescription of its dissidents as "insane"? Frighteningly little. I think that people who comment on European politics should at least be slightly aware of what they're talking about (e.g. more than you find in "USA Today" would be a good start). It's true that conservative governments were elected in Britian and Germany. But it's also true that a majority of people oppose the deployment of U.S. missiles in both those countries. That's not too terribly hard to understand. As I pointed out in a previous note, the same is true in the U.S.; while Reagan gets a 60% approval rating, large majorities of Americans oppose his military policies, and many of us contemplate with dread the prospect of another four years of Reagan. The reason is that people do not vote on single issues (usually) and both the British Labour Party and the German Social Democrats lost the elections on other issues. It seems possible (maybe likely) that the Democrats are about to face the same fate in November, despite the fact that on this issue at least, they are much more representative of Americans (if you believe Gallup and Harris). I don't think Mr. Plunkett is a "lunatic fringe". I think he represents the views of many in this country, a sort of combination of nationalistic macho and a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the arms race. People who suggest that the arms race will end "[w]hen the Soviet regime is toppled" are living in a dream world: a world where we are not faced every day with the danger of instant annihilation, and so have the luxury to wait for the "toppling" of one of the world's most powerful governments; a world where pristine good guys battle for honor with the "evil empire", and where co-existance is impossible, where co-operation is surrender, where it's all or nothing. They think it will be all; it's much more likely to be, simply, nothing. Mike Kelly ..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (renner ) (01/29/84)
#R:taurus:-15000:uiucdcs:29200066:000:1395 uiucdcs!renner Jan 28 11:32:00 1984 > /***** uiucdcs:net.politics / taurus!jr / 7:18 am Jan 27, 1984 */ > Many european governments are going ahead with the deployment of > american nuclear missiles against the overwhelming wishes of the > majority of the people in their countries. This is apparent from the > not insignificant rallies and demonstrations in major cities all around > europe. As piet said: What happened to the idea of democracy? > > As I recall, the soviets have only recently announced major buildups > of their arms, while cruise deployment has been in progress for some > time now. Sorry, but this analysis of cruise missiles/European politics just won't fly. The cruise missile/Pershing II program is a response to the Soviet deployment of SS-20 ballistic missiles aimed at the NATO powers. They have been turning these out on a regular basis since at least 1979. The cruise missiles are very definitely the newcomers. There is a very vocal opposition to the NATO missile program in Europe, but I don't believe it constitutes an overwhelming majority. Certainly the voters in the UK had a choice on the matter: if there truly was a majority "overwhelmingly opposed" to cruise missiles, they could have voted Labor (or SDP or Alliance). Did they? No. Just because the voters made the "wrong" choice is no reason to mourn the end of democracy. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
judd@umcp-cs.UUCP (01/29/84)
...........
I get the feeling that the europeans on this net don't read anything.
I have seen numerous articles in the US press (Time, Newsweek ..) conecting
the NATO deployment of theater nukes w/ the rather massive buildup of
CONVENTIONAL arms by the Warsaw Pact (read USSR). Since the European
governments have been unable to fund an increase in conventional arms for
NATO the only effictive action NATO command can take is to ask for and
deploy theater nukes.
It is silly to think that NATO is trying to coerce the SU into an arms race
as NATO is responding to the levels of conventional arms deployed by the
SU.
I am perfectly willing to admit that 'our' side is not doing a perfect job
at dealing w/ the Soviets. There is too much Cold War thinking in the West
and it is interfeering (sp) with our efforts to avoid glassing ourselves.
However, it is just plain DUMB to think the Soviets are a bunch of poor,
missunderstood fellows.
When there are no police to make everyone behave in a civilized fashion
you must be able to make the other guys behave and be willing to behave
yourself.
Also note, some time in early Jan I saw a small article in the Ft Worth
newspaper stating that the SU had just increased its SS-20 (which ever is
their equivalent to Pershings) force.
--
Spoken: Judd Rogers
Arpa: judd.umcp-cs@CSNet-relay
Uucp:...{allegra,seismo}!umcp-cs!juddjj@rabbit.UUCP (01/30/84)
Oh for heaven's sake, Mike. You demand the right of dissent, but nobody can complain about you without being a rightist censor. Please, Please, PLEASE, Mike, will you for ONCE apply the same test to yourself that you apply to others? -- TEDDY BEARS ARE PEOPLE, TOO! (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (Scott Plunkett) (02/01/84)
When the Soviet regime is toppled?????????
Are you holding your breath?
Are we all in touch with reality here?
Some folks have been waiting since 1917 !!!
------------------
I think peaceful co-existence is a more practical policy.
-Andy Berman
Sorry. No such thing. This defeatism and pessimism is sheer
cowardice and a total lack of gumption in facing up to what the
Leninist state in Russia has done since 1917, and is continuing
to do daily. One estimate put the cost at 60 Million lives.
But so long as *we're* safe.
...{allegra,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkettmyers@uwvax.ARPA (02/03/84)
Hypocrisy lives on in Mr. Plunkett's submissions. He berates others for not quoting their sources on public opionion polls and then makes a vague statement like "One estimate puts the figure at 60 million." Yea, the Soviet empire is the sole cause of evil in the world today (statement attributed to the leaders of the US, Haiti, El Salvador, Chile, ad infinitum).
judd@umcp-cs.UUCP (02/04/84)
..
What has the 'Lennist state been doing since 1917'??
What are you talking about???
--
Spoken: Judd Rogers
Arpa: judd.umcp-cs@CSNet-relay
Uucp:...{allegra,seismo}!umcp-cs!juddcourtney@hp-pcd.UUCP (02/12/84)
The only way that I see that the Soviet government could "fall" is if it loses the support of its populace to the degree that there is a revolution. It is obvious that military force is NOT going to terminate the Soviet government (NUKE THEM??? INVADE THEM??? HA!!!). Maybe we should go along and let them expand... after all, the Brittish empire fell as a result of a central government spreading itself too thin. So perhaps the long-term strategy is to continue to pressure their economy (at everybodies expense, the "guns versus butter" opportunity cost that the citizens of both the US and the USSR are victimized by) with stimulating the arms race and draining the oil resources adjacent to the USSR which, if conquered by the USSR, would give them too much economic power. It seems that a plan of peaceful co-existence is the only viable long-term solution to the current global predicament. Nothing else, short of global extermination, can be visualized as a positive alternative to the current game of "Russian Roulett" that we play with the nuclear arms race (how long will it be before some leader trips us into a nuclear catastrophe?). Courtney Loomis