berman@ihuxm.UUCP (berman) (02/02/84)
> 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!plunkett >> >> Plunkett goes beyond the Reaganites. At least they give lip service to peaceful coexistence. The harsh reality, whether we like it or not, is that there are NO alternatives to peaceful co-existence. Nuclear technology now assures the probable cessation of human life on this planet if war breaks out between the USSR and and the USA. Another harsh reality, I suggest the Plunketts of the world (at least of the net) consider concerns the Soviet Union. Whether we like it or not, that nation exists, is viable, internally stable and is very likely to remain so. All wishful thinking or fantasying will not make it otherwise. I would also suggest that history shows that any policy of confrontation or threats against the Soviet Union inevitably cause the Soviet people to rally even harder behind their leaders. A much more viable policy to promote more tolerance of dissent, more openness in Soviet society, would be instead of threats, (rhetorical or material), trade, cultural exchanges, and the like. Our ability to produce, food, industrial goods, and consumer goods, is far more awesome to the Soviets then the Pershing missile or rhetorical threats of our current Administration. If this be "cowardice", if this be "defeatism", if this be treason, then make the most of it! Andy Berman