From: "Gary Britt" 


"John Beamish"  wrote in
message news:413b5c55{at}w3.nls.net...
> The Soviets had fewer missiles, fewer warheads and fewer delivery
platforms.
> It's not often that deficits like that are considered to be an advantage.


I don't think the above is correct.  I believe that by the 70's and 80's
when Reagan was elected that had as much or more mega tons of nuclear bombs
as the USA.  They had more soldiers in uniform, thousands more tanks, and
had deployed new rounds of new nuclear arms aimed at Europe that Reagan had
to counter with the Pershings.


>
> It appears that we liberal Canadians were correct:  the Soviets weren't
> worth fearing.

1.  Because Canada would surrender if the United States wasn't there to
defend it; and 2.  Because there just isn't much in Canada worth having. So
for both reasons 1. and 2. yeah Canada didn't neex its own defense because
as long as the  USA was around it didn't need one.  You're welcome by the
way.


> America, on the other hand, considering Grenada, Viet Nam,
> Iraq and Chile, for example, were and are to be feared.

LOL.  What a jerk, an ungrateful jerk at that.

Gary


>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:413b4b0f$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > And the fact that Kerry was wrong the same way a bunch of liberal
> Canadians
> > were wrong would be proof of not being wrong?  A nuclear freeze would
have
> > locked in the Soviet Advantage and taken the pressure off their finances
> > enough to keep them in power.  Fortunately Reagan understood about not
> > letting go once you have a grip on them.  Just like Zell said about Bush
> > when comparing to Kerry's mush.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5