Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site wucs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!mgnetp!we53!busch!wuphys!wucs!esk From: esk@wucs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Politics, morals and nukes Message-ID: <394@wucs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 3-Oct-84 14:52:24 EDT Article-I.D.: wucs.394 Posted: Wed Oct 3 14:52:24 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Oct-84 04:38:17 EDT Distribution: net Organization: Washington U. in St. Louis, CS Dept. Lines: 32 [] About 10 days ago, columnist Marianne Means attacked Reagan for statements such as that "politics and morality are inseparable". She goes on: >> The other day he [Reagan] claimed a "moral purpose" for his foreign >> policy and defended his plan to extend military defense into space by >> saying he had a "moral obligation" to do it. >> There it was again, the clear implication that those who oppose his >> policies are immoral or at least amoral. This implication exists only in Means's oversensitive mind. >> But national policies are legitimately the subject of debate and >> dissent ... And morals aren't?? >> The argument over Star Wars has nothing to do with morality. GAK!! I don't believe I'm actually reading this in a major newspaper! If the potential destruction of civilization is not a moral issue, what on earth is??!! If (contrary to fact) a Star Wars defense could guarantee that no cities or civilizations would die in nuclear war, we MOST CERTAINLY *WOULD* have an obligation to pursue it! "Politics and morality are inseparable." For once, Reagan was dead right. --The aspiring iconoclast, Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's. Thanks.