The print., November 19, 1985, Page 3, Image 3

JIB
Do you expect the Superpower Summit will produce anything con­
crete? If you could, what message would you want Reagan to
deliver to Gorbachev?
Leaders should build
homes, no tN-bombs
Kelly O’Rourke, Sophmore, Milwaukie:
No. They may say they have accomplished something,
but their arguing has gon on so long that one conferene
won’t help. I would tell Gorbachev we want peace world
wide.
Christina Knutson, Freshman, Lake Oswego:
I think over many, many more meetings something
could be done. I do think the meeting is good. You
never accomplish anything through non­
communication.
Patti Cook, Sophmore, Hillsboro:
Probably not. They both want the same thing-power. I
couldn’t tell Gorbachev anything he doesn’t already
know..
Scott JBowman, Sophmore, Gladstone:
No, I don’t expect concrete results. I don’t think one
meeting will accomplish much. I would tell Gorbachev
that we aren’t giving up Star Wars.
Jim Starnes, Sophmore, Canby:
We have got two equal powers that don’t want to let
anything out of their grasps. They always are talking in
circles. Gorbachev should lay his cards on the table.
Norma Schwabauer, Freshman, Mollala:
I don’t really expect the conference to accomplish
much. I think it will take more meetings between them.
Gorbachev should stop the arms race. (More arms) are
not necessary. One bomb is enough.
By Dave Holmes
Copy Editor
The superpower summit which started to­
day should give us hope in at least two ma­
jor areas, military spending and decreased
military threat.
First, both leaders are going to have to
show some concern for their own economy
by making the effort to halt the horrific flow
of cash into the military sector.
Both countries could be using the dollars
or rubles they spend on military expen­
ditures on social programs that would help
to bring a better way of life for their
citizens. Housing the homeless sounds so
much better than building another bomb.
The other issue that hangs over our heads
is that of being wiped-out. And the summit
talks will be aimed in this general direction.
After all, what is each leader trying to pre­
vent? A first strike by the other. And as a
realistic person, I can’t see that the talks, in
themselves, are going to prevent such a
catastrophy.
What they might do is supply a deterent
for further Soviet imperialistic activity (e.g.
Afghanistan and Nicaragua) by President
Reagan making a “show of strength.”
In 1961, President Kennedy made what
the Soviets thought was a weak showing at a
summit conference and before you could say
“Bad show, old boy” the newspapers car­
ried headlines of Soviet troops in Berlin and
missiles in Cuba.
A show of strength may not be as easy for
President Reagan as a lot of people
speculate. Any national leader that has to
read State of the Union addresses off cue
cards might be in a bit of a spot. All that
can be done is hope and pray that Reagan
keeps a strong stance and the talks don’t bog
down in a river of trivialities and
preposterousness.
Perhaps the prayers of hope should be of­
fered on behalf of the President’s
speechwriter. I mean, the fate of U.S. arms
policy may very well rest on his shoulders.
The summit talks in Geneva won’t be the
cure for the threatening arms AND defense
policies of both countries. But it’s
something. They’re talking. And in this in­
stance talk will not be cheap.
Though he and his advisors have their
faults, and may bumble about a bit, I sup­
port the President’s efforts in what could be
a very important tete-a-tete. Though the
talks may not bring about a solution to the
world’s problems of aggressiveness, they
might help delay or prevent certain incidents
that could cause irreversable damage to the
human community.
page 3