Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rlgvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rlgvax!plunkett
From: plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: US-USSR talks
Message-ID: <167@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Oct-84 10:13:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.167
Posted: Fri Oct  5 10:13:45 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 7-Oct-84 03:44:29 EDT
References: <557@ttds.UUCP> <388@vu44.UUCP> <566@ttds.UUCP>, <5976@mcvax.UUCP> <156@ttidcb.UUCP> <270@whuxl.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 37

T. Sevener (whuxl!orb) writes of the "intransigence" of Mr. Reagan,
and although claims not to excuse unspecified Soviet intransigence
nevertheless tells us:

- The Soviets stopped deploying SS-20s in Europe for "over a year";
	[what page of Isvestia did you read that on?]
- The Soviets were apparently obliged to continue deployment when
Mr. Reagan failed to "offer any reasonable negotiating position"
prior to U.S. Cruise Missile deployment;
	[probably the Style Section]
- The Soviets have ceased testing and deploying "space weapons",
with an implication that they are humbly awaiting Mr. Reagan's
response to this "initiative";
	[waiting for the disinformation to seep into the wood work]
- "Reagan's plans to break currently observed treaties is the worst of all-";
	[meaning they are reading the agreements as close to the bone as
	the Soviets always do]
- "Reagan has failed to acknowledge Soviet initiatives for arms control";
	[walking out of a negotiating conference is an "initiative"?]

As for the accurate statements made, viz:

- "Announcing" the break with (unratified) SALT 2;
- Initiating a Strategic Defense (so-called "Star Wars");
- Allowing "5 treaties" (only that many?) to "languish";
- Publicly "accusing" the Soviets of lying and cheating...

These eminently sensible policy decisions are--it is hard to believe--
apparently considered abhorent, despicable, and probably worse.

Now, such favortism for the Soviets is probably much appreciated by
them.  However, such communist advocacy does not advance the debate
in the U.S. concerning the most effective means of meeting the
Soviet threat.

Scott Plunkett,
..{ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett