Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utai.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utai!seshadr
From: seshadr@utai.UUCP (Ven Seshadri)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: The new shame of the President
Message-ID: <575@utai.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Jun-85 09:47:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: utai.575
Posted: Wed Jun 19 09:47:54 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Jun-85 10:22:39 EDT
References: <1361@drusd.UUCP>
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 43

> 
> 
> 	"Let terrorists be aware that when the rules of international
> 	 behavior are violated, our policy will be one of swift and
> 	 effective retribution."
> 
> 					- Ronald Reagan
> 					  January, 1980
> 
> 
> 
> 	"So the president still holds to that principle, but I think
> 	 anyone recognizes the difficulties that one faces."
> 
> 					- Larry Speakes
> 					  June, 1985
> 
> 
> Isn't it a pity they didn't have this insight when they were crucifying Jimmy
> Carter for his "weakness and vacillation" during the Iranian hostage crisis?
> 
> At least, Jimmy Carter tried.
> 
> - Phil

	
	One must recognize the difference between the two situations here.
In the Iranian hostage crisis, the perpetrators of the act were very
" well defined ". In that situation, the target for retaliation was very
clear -- the government of Iran. Now, however, we must ask the following
question: if the United States were to retaliate to this act of terrorism,
who should the target be? Perhaps it should be the government of Lebanon,
or maybe just the Shiite community in Lebanon, or perhaps the governments
of Syria and Iran for encouraging terrorism of this sort. You can easily
see that no one particular party is directly and solely responsible for
this hijacking. Thus I must say that with respect to hitting back at the
source of terrorism, Reagan's hands are tied this time, whereas Jimmy
Carter's hands were not.


V. Seshadri
University of Toronto
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory