luigi@hplabsc.UUCP (Luigi Semenzato) (11/28/83)
reed!dufa states:
Now, what the hell did he expect?! I wish he (Reagan) and people like
him would stop looking at the situation egocentrically and would ...
It seems to me that HE is looking at the situation egocentrically.
What about us Europeans? He continues:
To top it off, this country even has the gall to install many nuclear
bombs right next door, in West Germany. (...)
Well, maybe you didn't, but it's been a while now that WE had many nuclear
bombs right next door, not to mention a big conventional army that once in
a while chops out a little piece of free world. And to whoever argues that
even the USA have a policy of expansion and "capitalistic imperialism":
would you rather be conquered by a communist or a capitalist superpower?
Now, don't tell me they are equally bad: which one must close its borders
to people who wish to go out, and which one to people who wish to come in?
Luigi Semenzato
hplabs!luigicrandell@ut-sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell) (11/29/83)
Doesn't this belong in net.flame?
--
Jim ({ihnp4,kpno,ut-ngp}!ut-sally!crandell or crandell@ut-sally.UUCP)piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (11/30/83)
Well, I most hartedly agree with this article. Just a correction:
the US are not going to deploy 572 Pershings-2 in West Germany, but
a total of 572 Pershings AND cruise missiles THROUGHOUT Europe.
Effectively this means the following:
- No European country will have any control over the actual use of
these mass-destruction weapons.
- Germany will have nuclear arms on their territory; STILL they claim
they will stay a non-nuclear nation, because that are not THEIR arms!!!
I don't know how you Americans call that, but we do have some words
for it.
- The threat to the SU is immensely increased: the warning time for
missiles launched in Germany has dropped to a few minutes for them,
whereas the US still have a time of 15-20 minutes for a missile
launched from the SU; the obvious result will be that they simply
won't have time to find out whether a supposed attack from Europe
is real or not: they just HAVE to launch their missiles in such case.
- World War III has been brought a giant step closer; we all know that
the US once didn't hestitate to actually use nuclear bombs, but also
on more than one occasion have actually considered using them again
(Korea, Vietnam); the Soviet Union too knows that very well.
Besides, why is it that the NATO still doesn't want to declare it
will never be the first to use nuclear arms?
- In case of actual use of these US missiles, Europe is just as much
endangered by them as the SU: especially all those failing cruise
missiles will cause severe plutonium pollution.
Now if all of you Americans would look at the situation as indicated
in the original article, you would certainly understand why there is
such massive opposition in Europe against your missiles.
You would understand why the Peace Movement here in Europe is growing
and growing.
You would understand why in Britain a couple of thousand (UK and US!)
military and policemen are needed to keep a few hundred peace movement
women out of the Greenham Common base.
You would understand why those women stay there, even though their
government will give NO guarantee, that they will not SHOOT at them!!
You would understand why people that feel REALLY THREATENED, one day
will leave there attitude of non-violence; we all know what will be
the result of that.
You would understand what this war machine of yours is going to bring
on us: far worse than "The Day After" could show you.
I hope you WILL understand and make it clear to your President and his
Congress (yes, HIS Congress, it's just as war-minded as Reagan).
--
Piet Beertema
CWI (Center for Math. & Comp. Science), Amsterdam
...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!pietsater@tjalk.UUCP (Hans van Staveren) (11/30/83)
It is not so surprising that the Geneva-conference broke up, since during the disarmament talks the first cruise missiles were flown to England. NATO spokesmen stated that these should not interfere with the talks, since succesfull negotiations could always leed to their withdrawal. I was wondering what sort of life it would be, having to talk about disarmament with strict instructions from back home to have them fail... -- Hans van Staveren, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam ..!mcvax!vu44!tjalk!sater
dag@sultan.UUCP (Dan Glasser -- PRO 350 Graphics - ML) (12/01/83)
---------------- Although the US is not blameless, the Pershing II's and Cruise deployments were not initially the US's idea -- Western European allies requested them. I don't approve of the missles, but if we had not agreed finally to deploy them we would be accused of deserting our allies! "He who is burned by milk blows on ice-cream." -- Daniel Glasser [ One of those things that goes "BUMP!!! (ouch!)" in the night. ] ...!decvax!sultan!dag Digital Equipment Corp. MLO5-2/U46 146 Main Street Maynard, MA 01754
alle@ihuxb.UUCP (Allen England) (12/01/83)
Dismayed is not the same as surprised. I watched the MacNeil-Lehrer news Hour the night the W. Germans voted to accept the missiles. EVERY action the Soviets took in response to the US missile deployment was predicted by the 3 experts who were on the show. Reagan was expressing his disappointment over the Soviet reaction - not his surprise. In addition, basing the Pershings in W. Germany was not a unilateral decision by the US. It was a move demanded by the NATO leaders due to all the missiles the Soviets have in Europe. The Europeans did not feel secure that we would use our US based missiles in the event of a Soviet invasion in Europe. Allen England at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (12/06/83)
Piet Beertema asks:
Besides, why is it that the NATO still doesn't want to declare it
will never be the first to use nuclear arms?
The answer to this is very simple: because NATO would have a very hard
time defending Western Europe without them. NATO's fundamental reliance
on nuclear weapons is a result of Europe's unwillingness to commit
adequate resources to non-nuclear defences. And you are in a very poor
position to complain, Piet, because the Netherlands is one of the worst
offenders in this regard. (Just to make it clear that I am not saying
this out of any anti-Netherlands bias: Canada is another one.) If you
want nuclear weapons out of Europe -- a sensible idea -- you should be
campaigning for more money and resources for your army, navy, and air
force. When was the last time you made any effort toward this?
(If you want a specific example of military underspending and gross
unpreparedness: practically none of the European air forces give their
pilots the NATO recommended minimum flying time per year. The basic
cause is that the fuel costs too much. Nobody counts the cost of pilots
who simply don't have adequate practice to do their job in a crisis.)
"Now if all of you Americans would look at the situation as indicated
in the original article, you would certainly understand why there is
such massive opposition in Europe against your missiles...
You would understand why the Peace Movement here in Europe is growing
and growing.
You would understand why in Britain a couple of thousand (UK and US!)
military and policemen are needed to keep a few hundred peace movement
women out of the Greenham Common base..."
Well, I'm not an American, but I understand quite well why all this
is happening. Baby wants papa to give him the moon: he doesn't want
those nasty nuclear weapons, and he doesn't want to pay for reasonable
non-nuclear defences, so he pretends that he doesn't need any of these
things anyway, and that the people who claim otherwise are evil warmongers.
This sounds remarkably like what everybody (the US too, by the way) was
saying in the late 1930s. I'm sure that you can find people in the
Netherlands who were alive then and can tell you about it. And about
what happened next.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henryjudd@umcp-cs.UUCP (12/07/83)
They are OUR missiles! The US and most of Europe (not occupide by SU)
signed a MUTUAL treaty called NATO. If you don't want the missiles
there break the treaty. We will hate to see you go but you are free
and sovergn nations and can do as you please. I won't make any guess as
to how long you will remain free and sovergn w/out NATO. You could
go the route of Finland or Checkoslovakia. It would be up to SU.
Of course France and the UK have there OWN nukes so maybe the world would
get to see a modern nuclear exchange. Kind of like the Spanish Civil War.
You all would blow yourselves to hell and we'd find out how it all works out.
To bad. I like Europe. Lots of nice people.
--
Spoken: Judd Rogers
Arpa: judd.umcp-cs@CSNet-relay
Uucp:...{allegra,seismo}!umcp-cs!juddpiet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (12/07/83)
>>Piet Beertema asks: >>Besides, why is it that the NATO still doesn't want to >>declare it will never be the first to use nuclear arms? >The answer to this is very simple: because NATO would have a very hard >time defending Western Europe without them. The answer is even simpler: the NATO, which as far as nuclear arms are concerned, is identical with the US, doesn't want to have it's hands bound whenever they want to use them; and there's nothing to defend with nuclear weapons here in Europe, only to destroy! >...is a result of Europe's unwillingness to commit >adequate resources to non-nuclear defences.... >...the Netherlands is one of the worst offenders in this regard. True. Remember why the peace movement in Europe was first called "Hollanditis"? Because it started right here! >...you should be campaigning for more money and resources for >your army, navy, and air force... We ARE campaigning: to turn down military expenses; to convert military industry into civil. >This sounds remarkably like what everybody (the US too, by >the way) was saying in the late 1930s. The current situation has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the late 30's. I think that there's one fundamental point most Americans are missing when they're talking about war (or as they say: defence): within recent times America has never seen a war on it's own soil; that makes talking about it so much easier. But Europe has. And Russia has too: it took them 20 MILLION people to stop the Germans and thus initiate the collapse of the Third Reich. Therefore it will be a cold day in hell before the Russians will ever think about wasting that many lives (or even more) by starting a European conflict. And they know damn well that they won't gain a bit neither by invading Western Europe nor by using their nukes against it. -- Piet Beertema CWI (Center for Math. & Comp. Science), Amsterdam ...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (12/09/83)
I would really, really like to believe Piet Beertema that the Soviets would not invade Western Europe. But I don't. After all, they invaded Afghanistan recently, and settled things in Poland, and have not released (for example) the Ukraine. This seems to indicate that they are willing to run countries even if they are not wanted -- just as long as they think that they can get away with it. What is to keep them from thinking that the same Europeans who do not want war so much that they do not want American missiles will also prefer to become part of the USSR rather than fight? Note: it does not matter if they would be *wrong* in holding this belief -- just what is to keep them from holding it? Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
parnass@ihuxf.UUCP (Robert S. Parnass, AJ9S) (12/09/83)
x
"Therefore it will be a cold day in hell before
the Russians will ever think about wasting that
many lives (or even more) by starting a European
conflict. And they know damn well that they won't
gain a bit neither by invading Western Europe nor
by using their nukes against it."
Piet Beertema
---------------------
Wasn't someone in another news group collecting "famous last
words?"
--
============================================================================
Robert S. Parnass, AT&T Bell Laboratories, ihnp4!ihuxf!parnass (312)979-5760 woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (12/09/83)
I must disagree with Piet Beertema. The Russians will start a European
conflict as soon as they become convinced that they can win. Without US
missles, who is to stop them? Especially if the Europeans cut back even
further on their defense spending. I for one am tired of paying for the
defense of Europe, especially now when they no longer seem to appreciate it.
In the idealistic sense, I agree with you, Piet, but I don't think you are
being realistic. Are you really accusing the US of planning or even *thinking*
about starting an offensive war in Europe or Russia?
For the record, I lean more towards the liberal than conservative politi-
cally, and I detest Ronald Reagan. I also do not favor the Pershing missle
deployment in West Germany either, because I see it as a destabilizing
force. However, I am realistic enough not to favor unilateral disarmament
either. What do you think would happen in Western Europe if the US pulled
out all its defenses there?
GREG
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!kpno | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!kpno}
!hao!woodsignatz@ihuxx.UUCP (Dave Ihnat, Chicago, IL) (12/10/83)
"Therefore it will be a cold day in hell before the Russians will ever think about wasting that many lives (or even more) by starting a European conflict. And they know damn well that they won't gain a bit neither by invading Western Europe nor by using their nukes against it." Piet Beertema --------------------- Ah, well. I hate to step into this, because, being U. S. American, I doubt that anything I say will have credibility. Either I'll be a snivelling bleeding-heart liberal, or a nuke-waving, baby-killing right winger; and in any case, I'm from THAT country, that was in Viet Nam. Well, tough; I'm tired of being the bad guy in the world, and if that's not the way we're viewed by everybody, than somebody tell me. Because I'm getting damned tired of it. Our leaders are no saints. They screwed royally in Viet Nam, where *I'm* convinced that Ho Chi Minh was the man we should have backed, Communist or not. The whole MAD thing is. And they seem to have a penchant for getting our troops into situations where they can serve as convenient targets for whoever has anything from a .22 to a SAM-1. BUT. I'm sure Piet is a nice guy, and would probably forgive me for my nationality. Because he sure is gullible and forgiving of the Soviets. And I say this from the country---and the part of the world--where I can read anything from the Wall Street Journal to Mother Jones. (I get both.) I can--and have--read Pravda (although, true...I have to trust the translators) And, even suspiciously discounting our own propagandists, I have to say that what I see in their papers doesn't seem to corresond to even that which I can verify personally. Even worse than the National Enquirer. Face it. I don't trust the damn Russian government. The people, sure, one on one. The government, NFW. Of course, it's highly probable they wouldn't trust me, after what they've read. I'm Czech by descent; maybe it's just inherited. But I've at least one friend who *had* to leave Czechoslovakia in '68. I'm sure that you can find some Afghans who would agree that the Soviets don't mind sending people to fight and die, and to kill; how would Europe be different? They like you, maybe? I can understand their not trusting anyone in the world. Not only is this a fine, old Russian tradition, but people have been traipsing through the various lands that make up the USSR--or trying to--for centuries. And don't forget which country sent troops to support the Whites over the Reds in the Russian Civil War. (Three guesses, two don't count, and the North Vietnamese are the tiebreaker vote). But I don't forgive them their atrocities, their avowed goal of burying ME, and their continuous agitation throughout the world. I don't know what would finally make them happy, and lett them sit back and relax but I'm damn sure that I wouldn't like it. I'll still opt for our way of life, where, no matter what improprieties may be pulled off, I know that in the end, the government has to answer to the press and the public. THAT's what stopped Viet Nam, and that's what shut down Nixon's megalomania, to name a couple of items. And--I hope--that's what's going to change this silly MAD policy to something more rational. Finally, if I can be fired up like this--and I avoid this kind of thing like the plague--I suspect that there are many who are getting fed up. And I regret that, because that leads to nationalism and hard-line politics; neither of which are good or desirable today. Enough. Dave Ihnat ihuxx!ignatz
judd@umcp-cs.UUCP (12/11/83)
.......
The question is - what are you willing to bet on the idea that the SU will NOT
invade W. Europe ? Your freedom, your life?
Remeber Stalin killed 12 MILLION people and no one did anything about it but
try not to be one of the dead!! (nothing successful anyway)
--
Spoken: Judd Rogers
Arpa: judd.umcp-cs@CSNet-relay
Uucp:...{allegra,seismo}!umcp-cs!juddesj@ihuxl.UUCP (J. Johnson) (12/12/83)
Having read the various comments bouncing back and forth re: GLCM's & Pershings, an heretical thought came to me. Namely: Why not pull our missiles out of Europe and withdraw from NATO? If Piet and the "peaceniks" are correct, Western Europe is in no danger. If Yuri and the boys want Western Europe, they would still have to face the UK and France, who DO have nuclear weapons. The US wouldn't have to spend money on NATO, the defense of Europe would be (properly, I think) in the hands of the Europeans, nobody would have to worry about a false warning starting WWIII, the Soviets wouldn't have to worry about Leningrad being vaporized: everybody would be happy, yes? ihnp4!ihuxl!esj Jeff "I've always liked Vindicators" Johnson
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (12/13/83)
Stalin's Crimes are about as relevant to the current discussion as Slavery is to modern american politics. While the reults of both are still factors in each society, both governments have changed signifigantly since then, are must be judged on their current behavior only. -- Larry Kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) (USE) ..decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!lkk (ARPA) lkk@mit-ml
judd@umcp-cs.UUCP (12/14/83)
Some one stated that Stalin's crimes are no more relevant to current USSR than
slavery is to current USA.
Please note that the people currently running the SU were party members during
Stalin's reign of terror.
Also note that the political system in the SU has not changed a wit since
Stalin died.
--
Spoken: Judd Rogers
Arpa: judd.umcp-cs@CSNet-relay
Uucp:...{allegra,seismo}!umcp-cs!juddcaf@cdi.UUCP (caf) (12/16/83)
>Stalin's Crimes are about as relevant to the current discussion >as Slavery is to modern american politics. While the reults of >both are still factors in each society, both governments have >changed signifigantly since then, are must be judged on their >current behavior only. I'm sure the Afghans will be happy to hear that the next time they get Yellow Rain. What HAS changed is the Soviets' ability to keep the information out of the public eye. -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX CDI Portland OR (503)-646-1599 cdi!caf
howard@metheus.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) (12/18/83)
Calm down, Dave. While much has been made of Kruschev's "We will bury you" remark, I have heard that what he actually said was a common Russian idiom that means something like "We will dance on your grave", i.e., we will be around to celebrate when you have crumbled into dust. It did not imply that any action would be necessary on Russia's part to ensure this eventuality. Anyone out there who knows Russian well enough to verify or dispute this? Not that I place any particular faith in Russia's goodwill toward the U.S., but I hate popular misconceptions being spread through the net. Howard A. Landman ogcvax!metheus!howard
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (12/19/83)
>Stalin's Crimes are about as relevant to the current discussion >as Slavery is to modern american politics. While the reults of >both are still factors in each society, both governments have >changed signifigantly since then, are must be judged on their >current behavior only. I'm sure the Afghans will be happy to hear that the next time they get Yellow Rain. What HAS changed is the Soviets' ability to keep the information out of the public eye. -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX CDI Portland OR (503)-646-1599 cdi!caf Claims of 'yellow rain' use by the Soviets in Afghanistan are entirely unsbustantiated. The evidence that the Reagan admin. presented last year was shown to be quite inconclusive. Besides, Stalinism refers primarily to the internal working of the country, not to war strategy. Remember, the US used napalm in vietnam, were you up in arms them. Why are you so ready to beleive ANYTHING bad you hear about the SU? -- Larry Kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) (USE) ..decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!lkk (ARPA) lkk@mit-ml
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (12/19/83)
Larry, are You ready to dismiss everything said by the US Government?
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (12/22/83)
"We will bury you" specifically means "we will outlast you / we will
attend your funeral / we will be here and thriving long after you are
dead and gone". The original does not have the ominous connotations
that its literal translation into English does.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henrylkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (12/23/83)
From T C Wheeler: Larry, are You ready to dismiss everything said by the US Government? ---- No, but in the case of Yellow Rain, there has been lots of contradictory evidence, from such communist bastions as Harvard Medical School. -- Larry Kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) (USE) ..decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!lkk (ARPA) lkk@mit-ml