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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!trwatf!rlgvax!plunkett
From: plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: America: soft, rich, pacifist (how they perceive us)
Message-ID: <608@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Apr-85 14:29:10 EST
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.608
Posted: Wed Apr  3 14:29:10 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Apr-85 04:30:29 EST
References: <314@ssc-bee.UUCP> <567@whuxl.UUCP> <383@talcott.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 37

> harvard!talcott!gjk Greg Kuperberg
> Yes, both sides are wrong.  But there are fundamental asymmetries in the
> arms race.  Furthermore, the arms race does not represent an attempt by
> either side to impose their way of life on the rest of the world.  The
> Soviets see it as their self-defense, while the Americans (well, the hawks
> in the Pentagon anyway) see American superiority in the arms race as
> essential to the preservation of peace.

No, the Soviets *say* it is for their self-defence.  Don't be so quick
to believe everything TASS tells you.  Secondly, since when are hawks
fond of peace?  I thought, by definition, they are the ones hankering
for war, and only kept from it by the lie-down-in-front-of-the-tanks
bunch called "doves."

As to the subject line: It would appear from the above article, and
others--they know who they are--that there is a prevailing pacifism.
Which is part of a soft, affluent, easy-going life.  Untroubled by
inconveniences now being suffered by all of the nations of the so-
called "Soviet Union", which inconveniences I won't bother enumerating
(a) because there are too many, and (b) most of the readership won't
accept them anyway.

But it may well come down to a simple lack of imagination.  Just as
the "pro-choicer" can be quite turned around at a viceral explanation--
with pictures--of an abortion, so "soft, rich, pacifists" would be
transformed into so many Atilla's if the Red Army came storming over
the beach.  Anything less (genocide in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, subversion
of democratic governments, suppression of religion, and on and on)
is merely of a theoretical, academic, interest.  Things for which
postures may be struck on Usenet.

Then again it isn't that simple: they have an enormously over-active
imagination when contemplating the usage of the nuclear arsenal.
Perhaps it is overdevelopment in this one area that stymies them in
others?

..{ihnp4,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett