Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site burdvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!burdvax!devonst From: devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Reagan and Alternatives:re to jj Message-ID: <2384@burdvax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 3-Mar-86 10:21:54 EST Article-I.D.: burdvax.2384 Posted: Mon Mar 3 10:21:54 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 6-Mar-86 19:20:18 EST References: <155@jc3b21.UUCP> <1405@mhuxt.UUCP> <560@whuts.UUCP> <1410@mhuxt.UUCP> <5044@alice.uUCp> Reply-To: devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) Organization: Burroughs Corp. - SDG/Devon Lines: 48 In article orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > >2)Obviously Reagan is *not* responsible for everything nor even > for all the bad things done by his Administration. While > Reagan may wholeheartedly support many horrible policies, > it is other conservative groups and extreme right-wingers > who provide the legions in his army. For example, the > Committee to Promote the Future Danger was very successful > in mobilizing the Military-Industrial Complex against the > SALT II agreement and convincing the public that the Soviets > had achieved some sort of strategic superiority. They > helped create the public climate in which a militarist like > Reagan could be elected. But Reagan is the public symbol > of these policies. So long as he retains popularity he > and his staff argue his policies should be supported. > I am determined to see that they are *not* supported. > To do so requires pointing out Reagan for what he is: > namely a pathological liar. Reagan certainly *IS* responsible > for his own lies and distortions and for his own budgets. Oh, get off it Tim. Cut the histrionics. Reagan is no pathological liar. He happens to disagree with your point of view. You want us to believe that the majority of Americans who voted for him in the last election were simply deceived and couldn't see through the lies? SALT II was a bad treaty. All as it did was to provide a basis for controlled escalation of the superpowers nulcear arsenals. An it gave the Soviets a decided advantage in this regard; the politburo doesn't have to contend with a congress that may cut defense funding at the drop of a hat. Fortunately, the Senate saw that the Soviets weren't 'Mr. Niceguy' after all and they didn't ratify the silly thing. The only thing worth working for is a verifiable arms reduction treaty. And that's what Reagan is doing. We have to keep an eye on those sneaky Communists or they'll try to get the best of us every time. > ... Reagan is the first President in > 20 years to achieve absolutely NO arms control agreements. > During his 5 years the Soviets have deployed hundreds of > new nuclear weapons - are we safer? SALT I is still in effect and both the Soviets and the US agreed to abide by the language of SALT II even though the thing was never ratified. So how come the Soviets are deploying new weapons if they're the peacelovers you make them out to be? Arms control agreements are no good if either side has no intentions of living up to them. And apparently the Soviets have no intention. > tim sevener whuxn!orb