Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site SCINEWS.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!SCINEWS!todd
From: todd@SCINEWS.UUCP (Todd Jones)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame
Subject: Ronald Reagan's response to hijackers
Message-ID: <160@SCINEWS.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Jun-85 18:47:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: SCINEWS.160
Posted: Wed Jun 19 18:47:20 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 01:49:40 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: SCI Systems, Research Triangle Park, NC
Lines: 85
Xref: watmath net.politics:9506 net.flame:10679

Isn't it curious that Ronald Reagan won the 1980 election 
by declaring (among other equally neo-macho proposals)
that terrorism during his administration's reign
would be met with "swift and effective retribution", and yet
he appears to be sitting on his hands regarding the current
hostage situation?

Don't get me wrong, I don't favor nuking Beirut to convey the
image of a strong America, but Reagan's hypocrisy has reared
its ugly and all-too-familiar head in such a blatant way as
to *maybe* corrode his teflon a bit.

In the news conference I saw last night (6/18/85), Ronnie
tried to explain that the differences between our current hostage
situation and the Iranian hostage situation of 1979-1980 are:

	1) The Iranian situation was sanctioned by a government,
	   not by an unruly group of fanatics as is the case in
	   our current hostage situation.
 
	   My response:
	   Bullshit! Berri, an apparent(?) leader of Lebanon, is
	   actively assisting the terrorists by sheltering the
	   hostages and even ordering their transfer to a location
	   other than the Beirut airport. Berri is even joining
	   the terrorists in demanding the release of the Shiite
	   prisoners in Israel (scheduled for release anyway
	   (although it's true that Israel may be violating the 
	   Geneva convention in harboring them)).

	2) The situation in Beirut is one of anarchy, thus one
	   cannot honestly call any Lebanese group a "government."

	   My response:
	   Don't you think, Mr. Reagan, that Iran in 1979 was 
	   experiencing the same level of anarchy? Would it
	   not be fair to say the same level of disorganization
	   that exists in Beirut today existed in Iran in 1979
	   (or today for that matter)?

Would anyone care to explain the differences between the two events
that would tie Mr. Reagan's hands, while labelling Mr. Carter a
"wimp?" Can anyone defend Mr. Reagan's discrepancies of word and
action?

I personally find comfort (but only a bit) in Ronnie's apparent
reluctance to use force, but it sickens me that he cons Americans
into thinking he would "kick some ass" (adapted Bush quote) and
not be a wimpy Democrat and then he finds it's not so easy to
ride into Beirut with a pair of sixguns looking for the bad guy.
What scares me most is the scenario of Ronnie playing Mr. Helpless
while plotting some overblown rescue hostages/level Lebanon mission.

Don't get me wrong. I don't advocate giving in to terrorist demands.
I don't advocate turning our backs on innocent American citizens.
But I think Mr. Reagan is finding out that maybe Mr. Carter didn't
have a solveable predicament on his hands.

My prediction of the next Reagan ultimatum:

	Alright you evil terrorists, either you release the
	captive Americans immediately, or we'll invade another
	Caribbean hotbed of communism!


Fellow netters, from neo-commies to pistol-toting fascists,
tell me what you think. I can take *ANY* flame you can dish out!




The preceding opinions are, in all likelihood, those of Todd Jones.
However, these opinions will, in all certainty, bear scant resemblance 
to the opinions of SCI Systems, Inc., Mr. Jones' employer.
_____________
|           |
|   |||||   |
|  ||   ||  |
|  [ O-O ]  |    Todd Jones
|   \ ^ /   |    {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd      
|   | _ |   |
|   |___|   |
|___________| <------ Flame-Proof Shield

FLAME ME IF YOU DARE!