Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site usl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!akgub!usl!sigma From: sigma@usl.UUCP (Spyridon Triantafyllopoulos) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Euromissiles in Belgium Message-ID: <229@usl.UUCP> Date: Sun, 27-Jan-85 15:57:05 EST Article-I.D.: usl.229 Posted: Sun Jan 27 15:57:05 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 29-Jan-85 07:32:18 EST Organization: USL, Lafayette, LA Lines: 71 david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) Message-ID: <500@fisher.UUCP> writes the following stuff: > Responsable government makes its decisions based on the national > INTEREST, not the national DESIRE. Well, it just happens that in a real Democracy, like some found in Europe, the national DESIRE (what the people want) is what the national INTEREST is all about. > that in the former two cases, the decision makers must answer for > their decisions (which, incidentally, they exercised under a > constitution which has popular consent for its methods) to both the > courts and the people. Jaruzelski did not have those constraints. Neither has Reagan. He may have to explain why he has to put the Euromissiles in , but he never EVER explains it to the people that are immediately affected, i.e, the PEOPLE of the . > it is clear that the European governments do believe the cruise > missiles are in their best interests, and stated as much when there > was little public pressure. That is probably YOUR opinion. There have been more than enough protests against NATO arms over there... it is just that NATO has the blessed support of Thatcher and other similar people that these things happen. > Finally, equating Soviet control over the Warsaw Pact with US > "control" of NATO is a willful act of naivete. If the US "controlled" > NATO, there would have been cruise missiles in Denmark and the > Netherlands, the Belgians and especially the Dutch would deploy their > army units committed to NATO in West Germany, the West Germans would > abandon their doctrine of foward defense, the British would neglect > their nuclear capabilities in order to strenghten the BAOR, the French > and Greeks would be militarily integrated, the Turks would reconstitute > Cyprus, the Spanish would cease deploying their forces primarily against > Gibraltar, the Italians would raise their spending above their > near-Japanese levels, the Norwegians would permit the basing of US or > UK marines, etc., etc., etc. The fact is that NATO forces are > deployed in a far from optimal pattern because of the political facts of > life that the US must accept. > David Rubin The equation of NATO and the Warsaw Pact comes out of nowhere. The WP has as purpose domination of Eastern (and probably Western) Europe. NATO is trying to "unite" all remaining countries in an attempt to move the place of future arms conflicts as far away from the U.S as possible. Remember the missile accident in West Germany a while ago??? How many complained here? How many would if it happened in Austin, TX or some other US City? As about NATO's power, I have seen the results of NATO pressure on Turkey about Cyprus. Nothing happens. Where is the political power of NATO? These guys in Cyprus still call it a "Nation". 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. Think about it Dave, you wouldn't like that missile ruin your Oldsmobile, would you??? -- Spiros Spiros Triantafyllopoulos <> USENET {ut-sally, akgua}!usl!sigma Computer Science Dept, USL <> CSNet TriantafyllopoulosS%usl@csnet-relay.ARPA "This file contains no opinions whatsoever"