Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttrdc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!bellcore!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!ttrdc!mjk
From: mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Why not here?
Message-ID: <123@ttrdc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Apr-85 19:38:50 EST
Article-I.D.: ttrdc.123
Posted: Wed Apr 10 19:38:50 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Apr-85 03:14:10 EST
References: <536@abnji.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Teletype Corp., Skokie, IL
Lines: 27

Although I continue to believe that a comprehensive Freeze would be the
most progressive step taken towards nuclear sanity in forty years, I
think there's another question for those who denounce the Soviet offer
of a freeze on intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Europe:

	Why did the Reagan Administration respond so quickly
	and so vehemently in the negative?  Why not say, well,
	that may not be perfect, but let's make a reasonable
	counter-offer?   Instead, the official line from the
	White House was, "If they want to Freeze, fine."   What
	a snide remark.   What awful diplomacy.  Unless, of
	course, achieving an agreement is the furthest thing
	from your concerns....

Flora Lewis in the Times pointed out that Reagan's new approach to
foreign policy seems to be, OK, I'll talk and in return I get all
the "bargaining chips" I want.  Thus, I'll send a hawk to Geneva
to "negotiate"; in return, you vote for the MX or you're sabotaging
my negotiations.  I'll tell the contra's to "negotiate" with the
Nicaraguan government; in return, you'll vote for $14 million in
"humanitarian" aid (a new concept: humanitarian aid to terrorists;
next he'll be pleading for medicine and food for Islamic Jihad; and
surprise! the amount needed for medicine and food *just happens* to
be the same amount needed for guns and bullets last week.)

Mike Kelly