Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site tty3b.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!floyd!whuxle!pyuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!mhuxm!mhuxl!ihnp4!we13!tty3b!mjk
From: mjk@tty3b.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Cruise Missiles
Message-ID: <294@tty3b.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Jan-84 18:13:19 EST
Article-I.D.: tty3b.294
Posted: Fri Jan 27 18:13:19 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 31-Jan-84 02:34:47 EST
References: <1628@rlgvax.UUCP>
Organization: Teletype Corp., Skokie, Ill
Lines: 66

Scott Plunkett in <1628@rlgvax.UUCP>:
  "In Germany and England, the Governments were
   recently re-elected with the clear understanding of the voting
   public that they supported deployment ...

  "The fact that a bunch of rabble rousers chant,
   scream, and generally frighten the horses in the
   streets of "major cities" means nothing ...

  "Now, you may join the freaks in
   the street with their red-ink and placards encouraging a blithe
   attitude toward the Soviets, but even if you don't care what the
   Soviets could do to the British Isles, others--most--do.  It is to
   the credit of the majority of British citizens that, at least for
   now, they reject appeasement ...

  "What will it take to stop european governments participating in this
   race and persuade them to resist the pressure from the USA to do so?"
   Answer:  When the Soviet regime is toppled."


Is there any form of legitimate dissent in your view of democracy,
Scott Plunkett, or does dissent merely give "courteous assistance
to the Kremlin's fondest hopes"?  If dissent is automatically
irrelevant (or dangerous), then what is the difference between your 
view of democratic and totalitarian societies?  It has always puzzled 
me that those who most strongly and fervently defend "democracy" 
(i.e. by which they usually mean capitalist democracy) are apparently so i
gnorant of what democracy really means: that dissent is legitimate. 
After all, what is the real difference between Scott Plunkett's 
branding of millions of protesters as "fringe lunatics" and the 
Soviet leadership'sdescription of its dissidents as "insane"?
Frighteningly little.

I think that people who comment on European politics should
at least be slightly aware of what they're talking about (e.g. more
than you find in "USA Today" would be a good start).  It's true that
conservative governments were elected in Britian and Germany.  But
it's also true that a majority of people oppose the deployment of U.S.
missiles in both those countries.  That's not too terribly hard to 
understand.  As I pointed out in a previous note, the same is true in
the U.S.; while Reagan gets a 60% approval rating, large majorities of
Americans oppose his military policies, and many of us contemplate
with dread the prospect of another four years of Reagan.
The reason is that people do
not vote on single issues (usually) and both the British Labour
Party and the German Social Democrats lost the elections on other
issues.  It seems possible (maybe likely) that the Democrats are about
to face the same fate in November, despite the fact that on this issue
at least, they are much more representative of Americans (if you believe
Gallup and Harris).

I don't think Mr. Plunkett is a "lunatic fringe".  I think he represents
the views of many in this country, a sort of combination of
nationalistic macho and a profound misunderstanding
of the nature of the arms race.  People who suggest that the arms race
will end "[w]hen the Soviet regime is toppled" are living in a dream world:
a world where we are not faced every day with the danger of instant
annihilation, and so have the luxury to wait for the "toppling" of one of
the world's most powerful governments; a world where pristine good guys
battle for honor with the "evil empire", and where co-existance is
impossible, where co-operation is surrender, where it's all or nothing.
They think it will be all; it's much more likely to be, simply, nothing.

Mike Kelly
..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk