Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!ka
From: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: `Saber-Rattling' Considered Fictional (flame)
Message-ID: <403@hou3c.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 11-Mar-84 02:32:52 EST
Article-I.D.: hou3c.403
Posted: Sun Mar 11 02:32:52 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 11-Mar-84 07:07:35 EST
References: <1784@rlgvax.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 67

From Scott Plunkett:
- Apart from telling the truth about the Soviets, understandably an
  unsettling thing for Conventional-Wisdom-Liberals...

"The Truth" is sometimes very difficult to pin down.  Was Reagan
telling "the truth" during the campaign when he called the Soviet
Union the worst violator of human rights in the world, the country
where there are no human rights whatsoever?  Was he accurately
characterizing the Soviet Union in his "evil empire" speech?  When
Reagan during his most recent State of the Union speech claimed
that the U. S. had never fought against the Soviet Union, was he
coming forth with some sort of revealed "truth" that the history
book accounts of WW1 have never heard of?  I suppose the laws of
probability suggest that Reagan must have made a true statement
about the Soviet Union some time; forgive me if I can't recall an
occasion.  Back to Scott:

- the current administration has yet to deploy a single MX,
Dont' worry, it's working on it.

- the B1-B has yet to be commissioned,
Again, not through lack of support by Reagan.

- it has merely carried through to completion the Carter administrations'
  decision to deploy Pershing and Cruise missiles in Europe,
The Carter administration decided to deploy the missiles *only* if an
agreement could not be reached with the Soviet Union concerning Soviet
missiles in Europe.  It was the Reagan administration which failed to
reach such an agreement.

- has rescinded a (Carter) trade-embargo against the USSR,
Sure, it wasn't supposed to last forever.

- did nothing concrete in the face of the KAL-007 massacre,
OK.  (Although it was a Korean, not American, airliner that was shot
down.)

- has run away from the Lebanese conflict,
What a lovely term:  "run away."  Of course we wouldn't be "running away"
if we hadn't gotten involved in a futile policy of supporting one faction
in a civil war.  Too bad we had to loose 250 marines before the president
realised this.

- and has proposed several radical schemes for reducing the nuclear
  weapons stock of both countries.
I guess that the nuclear freeze proposal is too radical even for Reagan.
But yes, after a long period of disinterest in nuclear arms limitations
he finally responded to the pressure from the freeze groups by announ-
cing his "zero option" which he knew in advance that the Soviets would
reject.  It may be that he (now) wants the nuclear arms negotions to
succeed.

- This is "saber-rattling"?
I expect that the term refers to talk, such as the Reagan administration's
talk about "limited" nuclear wars and "winning" nuclear wars.  But if you
want to discuss actions, you might have mentioned
1. U. S. invasion of Grenada
2. Covert aid to Nicaragua
We fought one war and are fighting another by proxy.

	Calm down, chaps.

I guess I should apologise to the readers of this group for indulging
in this flame.  A serious attempt to catalogue all of Reagan's
deficiencies would overwhelm this newsgroup, but I can't resist the
temptation to intersperse some comments now and then.
				Kenneth Almquist