Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 5/3/83; site ukc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!mcvax!ukc!ncg
From: ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Euromissiles in Belgium
Message-ID: <4801@ukc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 30-Jan-85 13:39:32 EST
Article-I.D.: ukc.4801
Posted: Wed Jan 30 13:39:32 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Feb-85 02:11:17 EST
References: <229@usl.UUCP>
Reply-To: ncg@ukc.UUCP  Nige Gale
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Kent at Canterbury, UK
Lines: 28
Xref: seismo net.politics:7543
Summary: 

In article <229@usl.UUCP> sigma@usl.UUCP (Spyridon Triantafyllopoulos) writes:
    (after pasting NATO quite a bit)...

>As about Italian spending, it is much much better to build one's country
>than to build or keep weapons. The Italians don't have anything to worry 
>about (except Albania :-)) except the falling Liretta. 
>Having both Greek and Italian origins, I believe I have a better idea 
>of the subject. 



You are saying, therefore, that countries not in close proximity
to any potential enemy, should not spend much on Defence (ie weaponry)

Including Gt. Britain, USA etc?

Leaving countries that feel threatened to bear the expense alone.



It's just to prevent this that NATO exists, isn't it?
...that's my favourite interpretation of the purpose of NATO, anyway



		Nige Gale @ Merrye Olde