Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bmcg.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice
From: bprice@bmcg.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Defeating Reagan matters most
Message-ID: <1394@bmcg.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Sep-84 18:05:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: bmcg.1394
Posted: Thu Sep 27 18:05:07 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Sep-84 04:31:46 EDT
References: 
Reply-To: bprice@bmcg.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Organization: Burroughs Corporation, San Diego
Lines: 57
Summary: 

In article  jon@boulder.UUCP writes:
>	The point being made is that despite that fact that Mondale is a sad
>candidate by any standards, it is still worthwhile to vote for him, when
>he is compared to Reagan.  The reasons are:
>
>	- Nuclear war.  Mondale does not joke about bombing the USSR (at least,
>	  not where the public can hear...), he does not talk about winning
>	  nuclear wars.  Reagan and Bush do.
>-- 
>Jonathan Corbet
>National Center for Atmospheric Research

Now just a minute, here.  The danger is not joking about war--especially
nuclear.  The danger is getting us involved in one.  That possibility is what
this article is all about--it's also what Reagan is all about.

If you remember--or go learn--some history, you will see that war , typically, 
has a single trigger:

-The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand->WWI.
-"Remember the Maine"
-"Remember the Alamo"
-"Remember Pearl Harbor"
-Hitler's trumped-up attack on the Polish-border outpost->WWII in Europe.
-The US economic sanctions against Japan -> Pearl Harbor
-The Gulf of Tonkin incident-> real war in Viet Nam

The typical immediate cause of war, regardless of any underlying causes, is
simply revenge.  Indeed, as in W W II, revenge may also be the underlying cause
as well.  It is easy to see that if WWIII were to be triggered, it, too, would
likely be a case of revenge.  Somebody may point out wars that did not have an
element of revenge, or revenge actions that did not lead towards war.  The lack
of 1.0 correlation doesn't bother me, and does not affect what follows.

The urgency of this observation shook me as I watched the TV news the other
night.  The US Embassy Annex in Bierut had just been kamakazied, and the news
folk were giving their equal-time allotments to the Major Party Candidates.
Reagan's allotment went on a different subject, as did most of Farraro's.

Mondale was shown, in a speech clip, saying "All Americans, Democrat and
Republican, stand behind the President in any revenge he takes against these
monsters." [the quote is not exact in all detail, but is exact in meaning.]
Ferraro was paraphrased as parroting Mondale's line.

Bush was shown, likewise in a speech clip, saying "But terrorist actions like
this will not cause us to change our policy with respect to Lebanon, and we
will not respond in kind." [same note as above.]  In context, the impression
was given that Bush was speaking for Reagan, and for the administration.

The bottom line question--Who is more of a war risk, the one who eschews
warlike action in favour of jokes, or the one who assumes without question that
warstarting action is the desired behaviour?

--Bill Price
-- 
--Bill Price    uucp:   {decvax!ucbvax  philabs}!sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice
                arpa:?  sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice@nosc