Iraq steps up attack; Iran vows retaliation From AP and UPI BEIRUT, Lebanon-Iraq stepped up the war with Iran on two fronts yesterday, broke relations with three cotuntries for allegedly helping the enemy, and mounted what Iran described as "savage" attacks "killing many women, children, and old people and destroying thousands of homes." Iraq said it pushed tanks and troops across the rerun River yesterday in a surprise attack aimed at capturing Iran's major oil refinery at Abadan. It claimed Iranian defenders fleeing "in chaotic retreat." Iraq said waves of warplanes bombed and strafed Iranian positions near Abdan as troops and Soviet-made T-62 tanks crossed the river on pontoon bridges in a dusk-to-dawn offen- sive that overwhlemed Iranian defenders. IN A battle to win control of the Shatt al-Arab waterway at the northern tip of the Persian Gulf, Iraq said 50 Iranian soldiers were killed and 563 taken prisoner. It said only two Iraqi soldiers were killed. Iran said in a Tehran Radio broadcat monit'ored in London that Iraq used ground-to-ground missiles, planes, and ar- tillery to attack "defenseless towns." It said Iran hadn't at- tacked "defenseless and innocent Iraqis" so far, but "will do so in the future after having issued orders for evacuation of targets"should Iraq's "inhuman attacks" continue. MEANWHILE, IRAQ broke relations with three nations and King Hussein of Jordan flew to Saudi Arabia amid signs Arab governments are choosing up sides in the Persian Gulf conflict, with the bias in favor of Iraq. Baghdad broke off diplomatic relations with Syria, Libya, and North Korea, accusing them of actively aiding Iran in the fighting. Political analysts said the move placed new strains on Arab unity which already is showing signs of collapse under the pressures of the 20-day-old war. LIBYA, SYRIA, and Jordan are the only major Arab nations to date to indicate open support for the protagonists-Libya and Syria for Iran, Jordan for Iraq-but their proselytising efforts are putting other governments un- der strain. Political sources said the "neutrals" may soon find it ex- ceedingly difficult to maintain their position. Hussein flew to Saudi Arabia for a two-day visit and talks with King Khaled only hours after abruptly postponing-by mutual agreement-a scheduled visit to Moscow. POLITICAL SOURCES said he hoped to persuade the powerful Saudis to support Iraq too, but it was difficult to predict the results. The Michigan Daily-Sunday, October 12, 1980-Page 5 Solar panels tested on NorthCa (Continued from Page 3 as the "project personnel," collecting data and formalizing it into performan- ce reports. Sharon Wilke is a mechanical enginerring student currently conduc- ting research on the refrigerant system. She said the manufacturers of solar devices give information on collector performance, but nothing on the operation of the system as a whole. Wilke is gathering data now so she can make that performance evaluation. "I've learned a lot," said Wilke of her ,work on the project. "It's like creating your own lab experiment." THE WATER-HEATING refrigerant system is unique not only because of the apparent contradiction between refrigerant and heating, but because the system uses no pumps to circulate the refrigerant through the collector, Liquid refrigerant enters the bottom of the collector where it is heated by the sun. This heat causes the refrigerant to boil, and the combination of gas and liquid in the system produces a "ther- mal siphon" effect. The gas leaving the top of the collec- tor is directed to a heat exchanger where, in the process of heating a flow of water, it is condensed back into a liquid. The liquid flows back to the collector and the cycle is repeated. -Paid Political Advertisement- Casting a Vote for Anderson Reprinted with Permission from The Wall Street Journal of Friday, October 3, 1980 , By ARTHUR SCHLESINGER JR. As a lifelong Democrat, I have been watching the Reagan-Carter- Anderson contest with serene detachment. Confronted with a real Republican nominated by the Republicans, a crypto-Republican nominated by the Democrats and an ex-Republican nominated by him-, self, this Roosevelt-Truman- Kennedy/Democrat doesn't see an obvious way out. Any choice is difficult, and political disagree- ments in 1980 are not worth breaking friendships over. - I do not find it easy to abandon lifetime habits of Democratic regularity. But I cannot see tiiat on his reqord President Carter has ear- ned 20 more seconds-not to speak of four more years-in the White House. He has shown no steadfast purposes either in domestic or in foreign policy. This is the end of his term, but no one yet knows the direc- tion in which he wants to take the country. He'alters course with every prevailing wind. He has had half a dozen anti-inflation policies. His recent economic program is his third in eight months. He has no compunction about basing a policy on premises he had grandly rejected a short time before. Lacking any unifying vision, displaying no in- terest :in the way specific policies relate to each other, he ad hoes it all over the place, while the country sinks ever deeper into the morass. This waywardness is especially disturbing in foreign affairs. Yesterday's righteous dove has become today's -ighteous champion of limited nuclear war, the MX and the Rapid Deployment Force. Mr. Carter's rattled overreaction to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (the "gravest threat" to world peace sin- ce 1945, he solemnly told us) hardly inspires one to wish his finger on the button for another four years. Sen. Jackson has wisely warned us to beware of born-again hawks.- Incoherent and Incompetent The Carter administration is not only exceptionally incoherent. It is also exceptionally incompetent. ("Although he is a poor hitter, he is also a bad fielder.") Tom Wicker has accurately written that Mr. Carter's record of ineptitude stands unmatched since Warren G. Har- ding. One of Carter's few accom- plishments has been the rehabilitation of Gerald Ford: depicted by night-club .comedians four years ago.as a stumbling buf- foon, now elevated by the really im- pressive bungling of his successor into beloved elder statesmanship. n Incoherence and incompetence; might not be decisive disqualifications if Mr. Carter showedny signs of learning from his blunders. Quite the contrary, he gets worse every year. At this rate one shudders to think what four more years might do to the republic. Experience is a meaningless claim unless it implies a capacity to grow. * Instead of learning from error, Mr. Carter digs in all the deeper, withdraws all the more from face-to- face argument and attacks the motives of his critics. Underneath that brittle mask of control one sen- ses an uptight and agitated psyche, filled with repressed anger and, venom. His meanness of spirit and heart-has come out in the campaign, expecially in the pattern of cowar- dice displayed in his flight from debate and- in his truly Nixonian facility for piously saying nasty things while piously denying that he is saying them. His abiding theme is self: the justification of self, the celebration of self, the substitution of self )my sincerity, my piety, my never lying to you) for discussions of direction and policy. Re-election would come as the ultimate vindication of self and very likely produce a dangerous euphoria. The most deluded people in this campaign are those liberal Democrats who think that effort on Mr. Carter's behalf would be repaid by presidential attention to their concerns in a second term. As he would attribute defeat to their in- iquity, so he would attribute victory to his own virtue; and he would pay them no more heed after the election than he did before the convention. Mr. Carter's dismal presidency of- fered the Republicans a splendid op- portunity. Typically, they have bot- ched it. With their genius for self- destruction, they have found the one man capable of convincing the elec- torate that he is even more in- Board of Contributors I do not find it easy to abandon lifetime habits of Democratic regularity. But I cannot see that on his rec- ord President Carter has earned 20 more seconds in the White House.*w coherent and incompetent than Mr. Carter. Before the campaign began, a sort of case could be made for Mr. Reagan. There might be an advan-, tage, it could be argued, in replacing a tense; unstable, -unpredictable' President by an affable, relaxed, in- dolent 70-year-old with an accom- modating personality who talks wild but doesn't (or at least as governor of California didn't) do much about it. This was the theory of Mr. Reagan as a kind of sub- Eisenhower. But Eisenhower concealed astuteness and craft under surface imprecision. Mr. Reagan, it is evident, is shallow all the way down. His incurable penchant for gaffes almost ruined him until his staff put him under virtual house arrest and sealed him off from the press. Irresponsible babble might not have mattered in the White House in a time like the 1920s'. It will not do in the dangerous 1980s. Even in the 1920s, as Calvin Coolidge used to say, the first lesson a President has to learn is that every word he says weighs a ton. The single argument seriously ad- vanced for Mr. Carter is that Mr. Reagan would be worse. We must; return the President with all his in- firmities, we are told, because otherwise America will start sen- ding troops all around the world. The last time we heard that argument was in 1964, when people returned Lyndon Johnson in order to avert the escalation of the war in Vietnam. Or we must rally around Mr. Carter to save the Supreme Court. This is a more substantial argument. Still, the basic issues about the reach of federal power have long since been resolved, and a Senate Judiciary Committee led by Sep. Kennedy and (we trust) Sen. Bayh will be as capable of stopping bad appoin- tments as it was when Mr. Nixon came up with Judges Haynsworth and Carswell. Who can really know what the difference would be bet- ween this demonstrably poor President and this speculatively hopeless aspirant? "Sir," said Dr. Johnson, "there is no settling the point of precedency :beteen a louse and a flea." ,k f So we are left with John Anderson. Mr. Anderson is another one of those twice-born fellows. In public discourse he is often preachy. In private he seems a talker rather than a listener. Yet he is not without humor, and he is a man of high in- telligence. He rivals Mr. Carter in command of detail and, unlike Mr. Carter, sees particular policies as part of a larger framework. His foreign policy is sober and realistic. He is, moreover, a man of authen- tic independence. In a time when the country has moved to the right, he has moved to the left-not very far left, but definitely to the left of Mr. Carter and Mr. Reagan. His plat- form lacks the boldness of new ideas that has marked some other third party efforts in American history, but fit is unfailingly intelligent and thoughtful. Organized labor still af- fects to see Mr. Anderson as the right-winger he was when he first entered the House. Yet he is the only one of the three candidates with a Rooseveltian belief in affirmative government. Long before 1980 Mr. Anderson said of Mr. Carter's demagogic assault on the Roosevelt tradition, "He campaigned against Big Government and he has planted the seeds of doubt in the minds of the American people on the ability of. government to solve problems. It may be almost something that comes back to haunt him." People change and grow. The absurd con- stitutional amendment Mr. Ander- son proposed declaring the U.S. a Christian republic is as relevant to his present views as Hugo Black's membership in the Ku Klux Klan was to his work on the Supreme Court. Would Mr. Anderson .make a good President? One is reminded of the old case: Two friends meet after many years; one 'sks the other, "And how is your wife?"; he replies, "Compared to what?" Compared to Mr. Carter, a demonstrated failure, and to Mr. Reagan, a monumental gamble, Mr. Anderson looks pretty good. Guilty Party But he has little chance of win- ning. Can a lifelong Democrat sup- port him at the risk of electing Mr. Reagan? The ,Carter people are already trying to set up disaffected Democrats as the guilty parties if Mr. Reagan should win. This black- mail can be ignored. If Mr. Carter loses, there is only one man to blame; and that is himself. If after four years in the White House, with all the resources of incumbency, he has miserably failed to win the con- fidence of the electorate, and even of fellow Democrats, he is the guilty party. The invocation of 1968 is irrelevant. Mr. Carter is no Hubert Humphrey, and Mr. Reagan, even if he is no Eisenhower, is presumably not a Nixon either. And the worse Mi'. Reagan looks, the more Mr. An- derson will draw disaffected Republicans as well as disaffected' Democrats. Some think that a vote for a man who, is not likely to win is by definition a wasted vote. This is surely wrong. A vote for Mr. Ander- son is the only way to rebuke the major parties for offering us Mr. Carter and Mr. Reagan. Brooks Hays, for many years a Congressman from Arkansas and the best of political raconteurs, tells of an aged woman he encountered when running for re-election. "I hope you will vote for me," he said. "Nope," she replied. "Why not?" he asked. "I don't vote," she said. "I've never voted in my life." "You mean that you are 86 years old and have never once voted? Why in the world not?" "Because,": the old woman replied, "it only encourages 'em." If most Americans wearily accept the choice between Mr. Carter and Mr. Reagan, it will only encourage the major parties to believe that they can get away with nominating third-raters in the future. Non- voting is no remedy. The best way to discourage the major parties from imposing such ridiculous alter- natives on the country is to register a mighty outpouring of popular disgust through the Anderson-Lucey ticket. Mr. Schlesinger is Albert Sch- weitzer Professor of the Humanities at the City University of New York, winner of Pulitzer Prizes in history and biography and a member of the Wall Street Journal's Board of Contributors. ., {' 1 i i . t AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this day of 1980, between (hereinafter "Lender") of__ NATIONAL UNITY CAMPAIGN FOR JOHN B. ANDERSON, ("National Unity Campaign"), 3255 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007. WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, the Lender understands that loans to the National Unity Campaign are under 2 U.S.C. sub-section 431(8) (A), limited in amount to $1,000.00 per individual in the total amount of contributions, including loans, cannot exceed $1,000.00, WHEREAS, the Lender desires to aid the National Unity Campaign in its efforts by lending its funds, NOW THEREFORE, the Lender and the National Unity Campaign agree as follows: 1. Lender shall lend National Ufnity Campaign to be used in any lawful manner consistent with the objectives of the National Unity Campaign. 2. The National Unity Campaign agrees to repay Lender the full , plus interest at the rate of 8% per annum upon receipt of Federal funds for which it may be eligible pursuant to Section S-9004 of the Federal Election Laws. Lender understands and agrees that repayment of the loan amount shall be solely from Federal funds paid to the Campaign after the general election and then only upon the Campaign achieving 5% or more of the national popular vote in the Presidential election of 1980. Further it is understood and agreed that repayment from post election Federal funding is as follows: 1. Loans made by banks, 2. Debts owed vendors, 3. Loans made by individuals. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day first above written. NATIONAL UNITY CAMPAIGN FOR JOHN B. ANDERSON By As Agent for National Unity Campaign for John B. Anderson Lender Address: 1 * I Anderson Facts I 1 1 1 1. Fact: Anderson has received from the Federal Election Committee a 1 ruling that he will receive the following funding AFTER the 1 election if he receives the following percent of the total I popular vote in all states: 1 1 Dollars For Per Cent 1 $ 3,094,736 5% 1 6,533,333 10 I 1 10,500,000 15 ; 1 14,700,000 20 1 19,600,000 25 1 25,214,400 30 1 29,400,000 35 I 1 . 1 2. Fact: Anderson is not rich and has no collateral to he has not re- 1 1 ceived substantial bank loans. 3. Fact: Individuals cannot give or loan the Anderson Campaign more 1 than $1,000 each. 1 1 4. Fact: Many Americans support Anderson but cannot afford to make 1 a large contribution. 1 Show your support! Lend John Anderson up to One Thousand 1 1 Dollars and be repaid after the election. Would you rather risk I your money or risk 4 years of another incompetent President? U 1 Send your check for $1,000 or such lesser amount you choose to: 1 1 The National Unity Campaign 1 (Anderson National Loan Committee) 1 Sc/o Jon H. W. Clark I 1 Fisf t at nal. .ii.dina I I I