plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (Scott Plunkett) (12/19/83)
Larry Kolodney observes widespread distrust and criticism of the Soviet
Union, and not enough for the Napalm-Bombing-USA. In particular, because
CBS was not beneath Soviet helicopters recording the spraying of an
Afghani village with yellow rain ("How does it feel?"), U.S. government
evidence indicating the occurrence of such tactics is suspect.
As George Will said when the Pope was shot, and the implication of
the KGB: One must disregard too much that is plausible, and believe
too much that is implausible in order to exonerate the KGB.
Yuri Andropov has had enough failures on his hand without adding
Afghanistan to them: why wouldn't he use chemical weapons? Wouldn't you?
..allegra!rlgvax!plunkettka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) (12/23/83)
The issue with yellow rain is not, "do you trust the U. S. government." I don't think it is at all likely that the samples of "yellow rain" are fake. The issue is whether the samples are actually samples of chemical waepons. As I understand it, the identity of the samples is not at all obvious. As to why the Soviet Union might refrain from using chemical weapons in Afghanistan, the Soviets have signed agreements not to use certain chemical weapons, and it is in their interest to appear to honor treaties made by them. The Soviets may not be able to squelch rebellion in Afghanistan, but it is clear that they can post their troups there indefinitely without being driven out. As for believing the implausable, isn't it improbable that the Soviets could use chemical weapons in Afghan- istan on a large scale without solid evidence of the use appearing? Kenneth Almquist
grw@ihuxi.UUCP (grw) (12/23/83)
>As George Will said when the Pope was shot, and the implication of >the KGB: One must disregard too much that is plausible, and believe >too much that is implausible in order to exonerate the KGB. > >Yuri Andropov has had enough failures on his hand without adding >Afghanistan to them: why wouldn't he use chemical weapons? Wouldn't you? I certainly would not. -- Glenda Wlosinski ihnp4!ihuxi!grw
plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (Scott Plunkett) (12/23/83)
No, the Soviet Union may not receive the benefit of the doubt on the usage of chemical weapons in Afghanistan on account of a putative desire to "honor treaties" that they have signed. When it comes to protecting the interests of the members of the Politburo, the very last consideration that would flicker through their minds would be a concern for Western opinion. This includes obeying treaties. The most recent incident to illustrate this characteristic is the attack on the KAL Boeing 747, which, apart from involving an infraction of international civil aviation law and treaties, included the deaths of 269 Western people. The Kremlin, so adept at cynical manipulation and encouragement of Western peace movements, was found incapable of doing the simplest thing to appease Western opinion. Instead they stoically maintained various ludicrous lies. The kernal of truth to be noted here is that such behavior is typical of Soviet man. Russians would rather lie than tell the truth; more so when they know of the gullible "open minded" liberal constituency in the West. ..allegra!rlgvax!plunkett
ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) (12/24/83)
In my previous article, I claimed that there was no solid evidence that the Soviet Union is using of has used chemical weapons in Afghanistan. The article I was following up tried to support the claim that the Soviet's were using chemical weapons in Afghanistan by arguing that it was in Andropov's interest to avoid defeat in Afghanistan. I should have dismissed this argument as silly. Even experts on the Soviet Union don't claim to predict what the Soviet Union will do with any degree of certainty, so an analysis by some- one who is not, as far as I know, an expert, hardly qualifies as solid proof. Instead, I pointed out two flaws in his reasoning. I pointed out that the Soviets did not need chemical weapons to avoid defeat in Afghanistan, and I claimed that it was in the Soviet Union's inter- est not to be caught violating treaties banning chemical weapons. Plunkett now objects to the second half of my argument because, "When it comes to protecting the interests of the members of the Politburo, the very last consideration that would flicker through their minds would be a concern for Western opinion." It's hard to see why the Soviet Union went to the trouble of thinking up lies if it was unconcerned about Western opinion. It's also hard to see what simple things the Soviet Union could have done to appease Western opinion. The reason for the Soviet behavior is obvious in hindsight. Like any huge bureaucracy, the Soviet government tends to err on the side of caution. Therefore, it took the "safest" path, which was to make no admissions that could be used by Western propagandists to hurt the Soviet Union. This analysis is a vast oversimplification of real events, and it would be foolish to pre- dict on this basis how the Soviet's will react in another situation. In short, I don't think that it is possible to prove that the Soviets are using chemical weapons by examining their motivations, and even if it were, Plunkett doesn't seem to have much talent at that sort of analysis. Kenneth Almquist
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/24/83)
Russians would rather lie than tell the truth; more so when they
know of the gullible "open minded" liberal constituency in the West.
..allegra!rlgvax!plunkett
==============
Russians, and, it would seem, plunketts.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt