Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site talcott.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!gjk From: gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: socialists and weapon acquisition Message-ID: <366@talcott.UUCP> Date: Sun, 17-Mar-85 19:37:27 EST Article-I.D.: talcott.366 Posted: Sun Mar 17 19:37:27 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 19-Mar-85 04:53:56 EST References: <680@sdcsvax.UUCP> <830@ames.UUCP> <1459@dciem.UUCP> Organization: Harvard Lines: 25 > > ... The USSR has > >had six or seven new fighters in the last decade or so. We've had three, > >going on four. Other NATO and allied nations and consortiums have had a few > >more, but how many of these can they afford to build? And how many will they > >build with socialists influential in government? > > What has it to do with socialists in Government? The last Labour Government > in the UK ordered 13 warships, opposed to Thatcher's 3. The politician > most influential in getting the controversial missiles into Europe was > Helmut Schmidt (socialist). I think that comment was just a > "knee-jerk red herring" (love that image problem). > > Martin Taylor Mr. Taylor isn't just whistling Dixie. Despite the common notion that Pershing II's are entirely Reagan's idea, the truth is that it was really due to Schmidt, Thatcher, Giscard, and perhaps Carter. Does anyone know why Helmut Schmidt's party now opposes these missiles, and when and how they changed their minds? --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "No Marxist can deny that the interests of socialism are higher than the interests of the right of nations to self-determination." -Lenin, 1918