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