Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ssc-bee.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!thill
From: thill@ssc-bee.UUCP (Tom Hill)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: A Review of "Hard Questions About Arms Control"
Message-ID: <315@ssc-bee.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 29-Mar-85 15:59:39 EST
Article-I.D.: ssc-bee.315
Posted: Fri Mar 29 15:59:39 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 31-Mar-85 04:04:23 EST
References: <659@tty3b.UUCP>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA
Lines: 44

> OK, I bought Reader's Digest and read the condensation of a Commentary
> article on arms control.  Tom Hill suggested that Tim and I do so in
> a previous article.  
> 
> I found the article vague and, at points, contradictory.  

This is how I have found your own articles.

> For example,
> Mr. Weiss (the author) says "If an agreement limits U.S. power to
> support friendly states that want to resist Soviet power, it has served
> an important Soviet objective."  Notice that he does not reference a
> single treaty that actually *does* this.

You are also quoting him out of context and then follow with an unrelated
example.  He did not say that the U.S. had signed such an agreement, only
only that we should avoid doing so.
> 
> "... the Soviet Union will sign arms-control agreements with the West only if
> such agreements are consistent with its fundamental political objectives..."
> Is this supposed to be some sort of revelation?  What kind of agreements 
> would any state sign except those that are consistent with its fundamental
> political objectives?

Once again you quote out of context.  He was answering the question "Isn't
arms control a practical imperative for both side?"  And then states "Not
for the Soviet Union."  He then state why he believe this to be true and
makes the statement that you quoted.  I find it funny that you replaced
"Consequently" with three dots so you would have to explain what he
actually said.
> 
> In short, Mr. Weiss cites few facts, and those he does cite seem almost
> purposefully deceptive.  He plays on jingoistic desires for "superiority"
> without explaining the enormous risks of pursuing such a policy.  
> 
> Mike Kelly

Simply put, you did not like the opinions stated and wrote your response
as a knee jerk reaction.  You both quoted and twisted what he said.  Again
I suggest that you read the article and maybe a bit more carefully this
time.  I don't care if you don't agree with what he said.  Try, however,
not to be "puposefully deceptive" the next time you quote an author.

Tom Hill