ghost@psuvax1.UUCP (Anonymous) (12/17/85)
> > A CALL TO END THE THREAT OF WAR > > This statement has been endorsed by Pope John Paul II, the Secretary General > of the United Nations, over 125 members of the U.S. Congress, Physicians for > Social Responsibility and by 79 Nobel Laureates. > > We ask that you join us in this call to end the threat of war by endorsing > the principles of the Delhi Declaration: > > It is imperative to find a remedy to the existing situation where hundreds > > Let us raise our voices together in a call to end war. Only very naive people can think that any group of people (including the Pope, Congressman, Physicians, ...) can end war by raising their voices. As long as there is disagreement among the nations that have the power to destroy each other, it is in the best interests of each of these nations (and others) to do whatever possible to protect themselves. This protection, in the form of developing the nation's defense, seems ironic to some but makes plain sense to others who are driven by intellect (as opposed to emotions). Nobody wants a nuclear war, but, as long as there are nuclear weopons pointed at us, let's give the people whose finger is on the trigger a reason for not firing the first shot! Also, this political campaign is surely misuse of the net (or at least net.general), but some people don't consider the *means* when the have an *end* to accomplish.
harwood@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (12/19/85)
Response to a reply ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >From: ghost@psuvax1.UUCP (Anonymous) Newsgroups: net.general Subject: Re: Call for action on an Alternative to the Nuclear Dilemma Message-ID: <1928@psuvax1.UUCP> Date: 18 Dec 85 02:41:32 GMT > > A CALL TO END THE THREAT OF WAR > > This statement has been endorsed by Pope John Paul II, the Secretary General > of the United Nations, over 125 members of the U.S. Congress, Physicians for > Social Responsibility and by 79 Nobel Laureates. > > We ask that you join us in this call to end the threat of war by endorsing > the principles of the Delhi Declaration: > > It is imperative to find a remedy to the existing situation where hundreds > > Let us raise our voices together in a call to end war. Only very naive people can think that any group of people (including the Pope, Congressman, Physicians, ...) can end war by raising their voices. As long as there is disagreement among the nations that have the power to destroy each other, it is in the best interests of each of these nations (and others) to do whatever possible to protect themselves. This protection, in the form of developing the nation's defense, seems ironic to some but makes plain sense to others who are driven by intellect (as opposed to emotions). Nobody wants a nuclear war, but, as long as there are nuclear weopons pointed at us, let's give the people whose finger is on the trigger a reason for not firing the first shot! Also, this political campaign is surely misuse of the net (or at least net.general), but some people don't consider the *means* when the have an *end* to accomplish. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Only a blindly self-destructive mankind can have faith in 'Superpowers' who would indefinitely secure an incredible and unjust 'peace' with probable horror -- by threats of horrifying retaliation against hundreds of millions of the innocent, while exploiting the misery of the poor, poisoning our only and common planet, and profiting by mercenary violence all over the world -- 'religiously' appealing to the 'necessary evil' of an abomination whose ungodly light would leave our planet desolate. David Harwood
freed@aum.UUCP (Erik Freed) (12/20/85)
> > A CALL TO END THE THREAT OF WAR > > This statement has been endorsed by Pope John Paul II, the Secretary General > > of the United Nations, over 125 members of the U.S. Congress, Physicians for > > Social Responsibility and by 79 Nobel Laureates. > > We ask that you join us in this call to end the threat of war by endorsing > > the principles of the Delhi Declaration: > > It is imperative to find a remedy to the existing situation where hundreds > > Let us raise our voices together in a call to end war. > Only very naive people can think that any group of people (including the > Pope, Congressman, Physicians, ...) can end war by raising their voices. As > long as there is disagreement among the nations that have the power to destroy > each other, it is in the best interests of each of these nations (and others) > to do whatever possible to protect themselves. This protection, in the form > of developing the nation's defense, seems ironic to some but makes plain sense > to others who are driven by intellect (as opposed to emotions). Nobody wants > a nuclear war, but, as long as there are nuclear weopons pointed at us, let's > give the people whose finger is on the trigger a reason for not firing the > first shot! > > Also, this political campaign is surely misuse of the net (or at least > net.general), but some people don't consider the *means* when the have an > *end* to accomplish. Perhaps you didn't consider the means when you started adding your campaign to the net. He who is without sin hit the first f key. :-) I think that perhaps some re-examination of the situation would not hurt any of us... Certainly depending on a threat only works with some situations and only for so long. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik James Freed Aurora Systems San Francisco, CA {dual,ptsfa}!aum!freed
timothym@tekigm2.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) (12/21/85)
In article <1928@psuvax1.UUCP> ghost@psuvax1.UUCP (Anonymous) writes: >> >> A CALL TO END THE THREAT OF WAR >> >> This statement has been endorsed by Pope John Paul II, the Sec. Ge., etc. >> Social Responsibility and by 79 Nobel Laureates. >> >> We ask that you join us in this call to end the threat of war by endorsing >> the principles of the Delhi Declaration: >> >> Let us raise our voices together in a call to end war. > > Only very naive people can think that any group of people (including the >Pope, Congressman, Physicians, ...) can end war by raising their voices. As >long as there is disagreement among the nations that have the power to destroy > ........ etc........ >a nuclear war, but, as long as there are nuclear weopons pointed at us, let's >give the people whose finger is on the trigger a reason for not firing the >first shot! Why do we want to spend our time trying to defend against insurmountable odds? So we block off 90% of the incoming Soviet missile barrage, what do you think the remaining 500 megatons of nuclear devices will do to our homes? How do you suppose to protect the United States from the fallout from the missiles destroyed on reentry? There will be several thousand pounds of raw U-235 and U-238 unleased into the atmosphere along with many other heavy elements resulting from the explosions of the ACBM's, etc. Then, after you have figured what to do with the raw dust, how are we to deal with the 1000 megatons worth of yield we will deliver to the U.S.S.R. ( of course I assume the same 90% in atmosphere destruction of our missiles pointed at our enemies in Russia). And the eight thousand pounds of dirty elements so neatly deployed into the outer atmosphere, so as to filter down to our breathable air over the following three years? What do you suggest? Gas masks? Let's be realistic for a moment.... Why is is so terrible to think that we as human beings, the most intelligent life on this planet ( I am guessing here ), can not work together and find resonable and acceptable solutions to our very problems that we exhaust our every effort to find ways of killing ourselves for the satisfaction of knowing we are taking them with us when we go. Please, for our own sakes, why can't we at least give peace a chance? I am sure that our (read your's and my counterparts in our 'ENEMY' countries) fellow peoples in this world have no more desire to commit suicide than you or I. As I stated in another article, it won't be the sane people of this planet that start the conflagration, it will be the little guy next door, setting off one little device, with the major powers placing the blame on each other. Again, please, I beg of you all. Try to understand one another, and do not make the needless assumptions that lead to unwarranted resentment against those you know nothing of. Think of the wisdom we as a people possess, and try not to destroy what we prize so much. Thank you, -- Tim Margeson (206)253-5240 tektronix!tekigm2!timothym @@ 'Who said that?' PO Box 3500 d/s C1-465 Vancouver, WA. 98665
jc@sdcsvax.UUCP (John Cornelius) (12/23/85)
In the 200 years or so that this country has been engaged in international politics we have been in a fair number of wars. The Russian Empire has been invloved in only 3 or 4 of those and in all cases they have been our ally, not our enemy. Nonetheless, we have always been adversaries during times of peace. This is a trend that is likely to continue for another 200 years or so. John Cornelius Western Scientific
scw@ucla-cs.UUCP (01/01/86)
In article <1251@sdcsvax.UUCP> jc@sdcsvax.UUCP (John Cornelius) writes: >In the 200 years or so that this country has been engaged in international >politics we have been in a fair number of wars.... About 10 external wars actually (Revoultion, Undeclared Naval War with France 179?, War of 1812, Mexician War, Spanish-Americian War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam. > ... The Russian Empire has been >invloved in only 3 or 4 of those and in all cases they have been our ally, not >our enemy. Actually we've been on the other side from Russia once (1812-1814, Russia was an ally of Great Britian, against France) and the Soviet Union (In 1918-1919 the United States and Great Britian intervened in the Russ of the White Armys], In Korea, and in Vietnam) at least 3 times. > ...y. Nonetheless, we have always been adversaries during times of peace. >This is a trend that is likely to continue for another 200 years or so. John, I presume that you forgot your ':-)' key. <scw>
jc@sdcsvax.UUCP (John Cornelius) (01/06/86)
In the war of 1812 we were never at war with Russia, France was. During the Russian Revolution we were doing in Russia what we are doing in Nicaragua, supporting a faction. Again, no declaration of war. In Vietnam Russia returned the favor except they did not send troops. Russia's perception of Europe as a battleground is understandable albeit a bit paranoid. They have been invaded by every country in Europe at one time or another (except maybe Belgium and the Netherlands) and it has been expensive every time. The United States is not a part of that history of invasion. Russia and the United States are much more similar than they are different. The same statement might not be applicable to the United States and some other countries such as Japan, Iran, China, and India. John Cornelius Western Scientific
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (01/06/86)
In article <1251@sdcsvax.UUCP> jc@sdcsvax.UUCP (John Cornelius) writes: >In the 200 years or so that this country has been engaged in international >politics we have been in a fair number of wars.... > ... The Russian Empire has been >invloved in only 3 or 4 of those and in all cases they have been our ally, not >our enemy. Nice try. The Napoleonic Wars, The Russo-Japanese War, WWI, The Russian Revolution, WWII, various invasions of rebellious Eastern European countries, Afghanistan...sounds like more than "3 or 4" to me, bunky, and they were only allied with us in any meaningful sense in WWII, since the Czar abdicated about the time of the US entry in WWI. -- Robert Plamondon UUCP: {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert FidoNet: 10/624 robert plamondon
jmt@ecsvax.UUCP (Jerry M. Trott) (01/07/86)
John Cornelius writes.. >During the Russian Revolution we were doing in Russia what we are doing in >Nicaragua, supporting a faction. Again, no declaration of war. >In Vietnam Russia returned the favor except they did not send troops. It's important here to note that during the Russian Revolution the US did send troops to Archangel and Vladisvostok as part of the 1918-1921 effort with England and France to overthrow the Bolsheviks. As far as I know there are no US Troops in Nicaragua. >Russia's perception of Europe as a battleground is understandable albeit a bit >paranoid. They have been invaded by every country in Europe at one time or >another (except maybe Belgium and the Netherlands) and it has been expensive >every time. The United States is not a part of that history of invasion. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I may be splitting hairs(:/), but the US has sent troops across a Russian border for the purpose of removing the government in power. That action constitutes an invasion. Certainly Russia invaded Afghanistan, declaration of war or not. Russia may be worried about being invaded, but history supports that as a legitimate concern, not paranoia. Jerry Trott jmt@ecsvax.UUCP
oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev) (01/08/86)
In article <316@fear.UUCP> robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) writes: >In article <1251@sdcsvax.UUCP> jc@sdcsvax.UUCP (John Cornelius) writes: >>In the 200 years or so that this country has been engaged in international >>politics we have been in a fair number of wars.... >> ... The Russian Empire has been >>invloved in only 3 or 4 of those and in all cases they have been our ally, not >>our enemy. > >Nice try. > >The Napoleonic Wars, The Russo-Japanese War, WWI, The Russian >Revolution, WWII, various invasions of rebellious Eastern European >countries, Afghanistan...sounds like more than "3 or 4" to me, bunky, >and they were only allied with us in any meaningful sense in WWII, >since the Czar abdicated about the time of the US entry in WWI. Allow me to add a few : War with Finland, conquest of Poland, 2 invasion into France, war with Japan over China in the late 1930's( before WWII), conquest of what now are Asian republics of USSR, reclaiming the pieces of the Russian Empire after the communist revolution (against the desires of the local population). Plus : invasion of Hungary, Chechoslovakia, almost invasion of Poland, participation in wars in Vietnam, Campuchia, Laos, Cuba, Angola, Nicaragua, S. Yemen (sp?), Arab-Israeli wars (direct aid in military personel, advisors and technology to Egypt up to early '70s) No, US is not what one could call a pacifist country. Neither is USSR. -- Disclamer: I don't work here anymore - so they are not responsible for me. +-------------------------------+ Don't bother, I'll find the door! | STAY ALERT! TRUST NO ONE! | Oleg Kiselev. | KEEP YOUR LASER HANDY! |...!{trwrb|scgvaxd}!felix!birtch!oleg --------------------------------+...!{ihnp4|randvax}!ucla-cs!uclapic!oac6!oleg
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (01/08/86)
>In article <1251@sdcsvax.UUCP> jc@sdcsvax.UUCP (John Cornelius) writes: >>In the 200 years or so that this country has been engaged in international >>politics we have been in a fair number of wars.... >> ... The Russian Empire has been >>invloved in only 3 or 4 of those and in all cases they have been our ally, not >>our enemy. > >Nice try. Try reading. In the 200 years this country has been around, we have been involved in a fair number of wars, of which the Russians have been involved in three or four, always as our ally. That is the way it read to me. (Or at least your exerpting of it.) >The Napoleonic Wars, The Russo-Japanese War, WWI, The Russian >Revolution, WWII, various invasions of rebellious Eastern European >countries, Afghanistan...sounds like more than "3 or 4" to me, bunky, >and they were only allied with us in any meaningful sense in WWII, >since the Czar abdicated about the time of the US entry in WWI. To the best of my knowledge, we were not a participant in the Napoleonic Wars, Russo-Japanese War, interventions in Eastern Europe, or Afganistan. Russia did not leave WWI when the czar abdicated. With the exception of the Russian Revolution, US troops have never fought against Russian troops. -- James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa "It's a sort of mini-clone!" Who said them, what story?
mrl@oddjob.UUCP (Scott R. Anderson) (01/09/86)
>>Russia's perception of Europe as a battleground is understandable albeit a bit >>paranoid. They have been invaded by every country in Europe at one time or >>another (except maybe Belgium and the Netherlands) and it has been expensive >>every time. > >Russia may be worried about being invaded, but history supports that as >a legitimate concern, not paranoia. It should be pointed out that Russia hasn't been invaded any more than any other European country, and probably many fewer times. So paranoia should be considered relative to other European countries (not the US). Back in the 18th century, Russia was trying very hard to be a part of European society, and a world power. I don't think they quite understood what that would involve, and they still haven't recovered from the shock! -- Scott Anderson ihnp4!oddjob!kaos!sra
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (01/09/86)
In article <1043@abnji.UUCP> nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) writes: >To the best of my knowledge, we were not a participant in the Napoleonic >Wars, Russo-Japanese War, interventions in Eastern Europe, or Afganistan. The War of 1812 (US nomenclature) is reasonably classed as one of the Napoleonic Wars, since the US fought Britain, which was at war with France. One of the causes of the war was the British practice of stopping American vessels on the high seas and "drafting" sailors into the Royal Navy (claiming the ones they nicked were in fact English draft dodgers to begin with). So the US was fighting Britain which was fighting France which was (early in the war) invading Russia. That sort of indirectly puts the US at war with Russia (by a rather far-fetched logic). As for Afghanistan, the US is known to be aiding the Afghan patriots. >Russia did not leave WWI when the czar abdicated. True. The Tsar abdicated in March of 1917 but the war did not end until the peace of Brest-Litovsk one year later. The failure of the revolutionary government to end the hugely unpopular war was one of the reasons for the eventual Bolshevik takeover. -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (01/10/86)
>It should be pointed out that Russia hasn't been invaded any more than >any other European country, and probably many fewer times. So paranoia >should be considered relative to other European countries (not the US). In the last 500 years, Russia has been invaded more often than Great Britain. Since 1800 they have been invaded five times at least, Napoleon 1812, England 1856 in Crimea, Japan 1905, Germany 1914, and Germany again 1941. The last invasion of Great Britain was 1066. (Civil Wars do not count.) Switzerland hasn't even been involved in a war since 1800! -- James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa "It's a sort of mini-clone!" Who said them, what story?
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (01/13/86)
> In article <1043@abnji.UUCP> nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) writes: > >To the best of my knowledge, we were not a participant in the Napoleonic > >Wars, Russo-Japanese War, interventions in Eastern Europe, or Afganistan. > > -- > D Gary Grady > The War of 1812 (US nomenclature) is reasonably classed as one of the > Napoleonic Wars, since the US fought Britain, which was at war with > France. ... . So the US was fighting Britain which was > fighting France which was (early in the war) invading Russia. That sort > of indirectly puts the US at war with Russia (by a rather far-fetched > logic). As for Afghanistan, the US is known to be aiding the Afghan > patriots. I believe that when Patton entered Czechloslovakia at the end of the WWII, he got into a fire fight with the SU. He wanted to stomp thier asses but .. got ordered back. The Russians incidently were "given" the Czech uranium mines as a present for saving them from the Germans and there's a plaque "honoring" their tossing the Americans out of Czechloslovakia in a large square on a church with one of those fancy clocks in Prague. +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
wbruvold@udenva.UUCP (wbruvold) (01/22/86)
It is important to keep in mind that in any discussion of the Russian/Soviet Empire, the historical significance of their Western Border is kept in mind. By this I refer to the general unsettled nature of the Russian border. In fact, if I remember correctly, the period between 1945-1986 has represented the longest period of stability on their Western border since the riegn of Cathrine. Just thought I would put in two cents W. Erik Bruvold