Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!amdahl!hplabs!hao!asp
From: asp@hao.UUCP (Advanced Studies Project)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: re: Death to baby killers, NOW!
Message-ID: <1912@hao.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-Jan-86 19:17:27 EST
Article-I.D.: hao.1912
Posted: Mon Jan 13 19:17:27 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Jan-86 03:33:12 EST
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 44

> > Micheal Lewis (afb@bucc-i) says:
> 
> >    I think the time has come for the US to stop pussy-footing around with 
> >the Khadaffy regime.  Let's stop bothering with calls for diplomatic and 
> >economic sanctions against Libya.  Khadaffy has been a major world hemmorhoid
> >for long enough.  We have an aircraft carrier there and the Israelis would be
> >more than happy (I'm sure) to help.  No need to reduce Tripoli to a heap of
> >radioactive slag, just take out the palace, the terrorist training camps, and
> >their army and air force, and let the Libyans sort out the mess.
> 
>  I second the motion. This guy Quadaffi is pure evil scum. Above plan
> sounds fine to me. I hope Reagan has the same idea.
> 
> -- 
> Name: Gary Kremen

These and at least one other posting I've read tell us to deal with the
terrorist problem with a military response.

While I rarely agree with Reagan, I think the actions taken are appropriate.
A military response at this point would be premature because
1) There are (over 1000?) Americans still in Libya, who could be
    endangered by a U.S. military attack,
2) U.S. casaulties in a Libyan conflict would probably be substantial;
    we're not talking about Grenada this time.  I said `conflict' not
    `attack' because the Libyans, and possibly some other Arab countries,
    won't just sit there after we "take out the palace."
3) The entire Arab community (including many nations which have good relations
    with the U.S.) is backing Libya.  A military attack now runs a sizable
    risk of a broadened conflict and/or economic measures against us by several
    countries which support Libya (but don't support terrorists).

What happens after the next Libyan-backed terrorist attack is another
matter. But first the U.S. needs to demonstrate that virtually every
non-military response has been attempted, if it expects to have the support
of its allies and weaken the support of nations now backing Libya.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
       allegra!nbires
      ucbvax!hplabs  \                  Chuck D'Ambra
                    \ \                 Advanced Study Program
      mcvax!seismo - hao!asp            National Center for Atmospheric Research
                    /                   P.O. Box 3000
 {decvax|ihnp4}!noao                    Boulder, CO 80307