Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!mnetor!clewis From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics Subject: Re: Air raid on Libya Message-ID: <3365@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Wed, 23-Apr-86 10:57:29 EST Article-I.D.: mnetor.3365 Posted: Wed Apr 23 10:57:29 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 23-Apr-86 19:02:37 EST References: <157@unido.UUCP> <141@drutx.UUCP> Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 143 Xref: lsuc net.followup:1697 net.politics:4783 Summary: This isn't really a flame, inspite of bep's invitation at the end, but I would like to both comment on the bombing, and reply to his comments. In article <141@drutx.UUCP> bep@drutx.UUCP (PuryearB) writes: >I was not glad to see President Reagan bomb Libya, but I would have to say that >I support him. I suppose I support him too, but I don't think it was a good idea for two reasons: 1) It assumes that Qaddaffi is the *only* reason for the anti-American (and anti- other countries too) terrorism. I think that this is a gross over-simplification (which politicians of every stripe are prone to - particularly w.r.t. public relations to their people). Certainly, the Americans (and other countries) may have very valid evidence that Libya/Qaddaffi are in support of, provides support to, and cheer-leads terrorist actions. But, nowhere can I see any justification in the suggestion that if Libya/Qaddaffi stopped supporting terrorism that there would be much difference. The causes that these terrorists are fighting for have nothing to do with Libya (they are related to Israel as a state, and foreign intervention in Lebanon to name a few). The bombings of Libya had no impact whatsover on these root causes. Thus, without Qaddaffi, the terrorism would still continue. Maybe a little less intensity, maybe with harder-to-obtain weapons, maybe with another cheer-leader, but it would *still* continue. Heck, most of the terrorist actions aren't done by Libyans! The solution to terrorism lies in a different direction. Which direction? I wish I knew that answer - one thing I can be certain of is that it includes negotiation and flexibility. The other thing I'm certain of is that the Palestinian issue (or any other Middle-east cause) will NEVER BE SOLVED purely by military action (not even if you genocide *every* Palestinian). There has to be some compromise and flexibility - I see very little on either side (with the notable exception of the Camp David Accord - Jimmy Carter for President again!) 2) Why, in the face of repeated examples to the contrary, do people continue to believe that retaliation (even if Qaddaffi was the *sole* perpetrator/instigator) would help any? While the Americans were in Lebanon, they incurred continuous *minor* attacks until they decided to retaliate by having the USS New Jersey fire its 18 inchers into the supposed "terrorist" strong-holds. What was the result? 300+ US dead in the bombing of the barracks to name just one response. An eye-for-an-eye (and especially the 10:1 doctrine which some Middle-East countries are so fond of) doesn't make things better, it makes things *WORSE*! All it results in is continuous escalation on both sides. What next? Air India all over again, except that this time it's Pan Am? Then what? US troops invade Libya? This is one scenario I hope we stay out of! I'm not going to do any flying on US airlines til further notice! [Which'll play merry hell with corporate travel arrangements] >It would seem to me that if you read history, when the world has >ignored aggression it did not go away. If Europe had had the backbone to stand >up to Hilter in the early days I dont think world war two would have happen. Certainly, ignoring aggression had something to do with WWII. But, surely you don't think a Rambo Reagan style bombing raid on Berlin in the late 30's would have avoided WWII do you? On the contrary, it would have simply started the war earlier. In retrospect, the only thing that Europe could have done that had any chance of avoiding WWII (if you ignore assassination attempts in the very early 30's, before people realized how dangerous Hitler would be), would have been to send troops into Czeckloslovakia (I always have trouble spelling that - sorry) on the invitation of that country *before* Hitler invaded it. And, at that point Europe wasn't ready for a military confrontation. They still weren't ready when they finally drew the line and followed through on Poland ("If you invade Poland, a state of war will exist between ..."), but they managed to hold on and develop their strength until they could effectively combat Germany (with assistance of course from the US later on). Surely you aren't suggesting that only the US stood up to Hitler are you? > Europe has shown in the >past that they will not do anything until some one actuality invades, and even >then they will runaround for months without doing anything. I'd hardly call what happened "running around". On the day war was declared England instituted attacks on Germany and Italy to the best of its ability at the time (Hamburg or Berlin I think (ineffective PR-type raid) and Taranto (moderately successful Italian Navy strike)). France and England were virtually incapable of mounting anything bigger than annoyance strikes at the time. There is no way that they could have done anything significant to prevent the invasion of France. The only thing that they could have done was fire most of their generals - then maybe the invasion wouldn't have succeeded. But they did start gearing up as fast as they could. It took longer for the US to respond militarily to Pearl Harbor (could be wrong - how soon was the Doolittle raid?), or Hitler's declaration of war on the US. >If Europe had joined >with America in doing some sort of economic sanctions things might not have >gotten so bad. When I think about this I do see some good out of it. I hope Maybe. I doubt it however. Sanctions haven't had much effect on the USSR w.r.t. Afghanistan... >I hope that America sees what type of friends we have in Europe and might >re-think out why we try to play the world polceman. I would just love to >see us pull evey troop we have in Europe back. I really wish Americans would realize that they really *do* have good friends in the rest of the world. The backbone of basic support for the US in Canada, Europe and the rest of the world (eg: Japan) is really staggering. Why do you think that they ask your support when needed? Why do you think many European countries are installing US nuclear weapons in spite of grave doubts as to whether it's a good idea or not? Why do you think that NATO, NORAD, and SEATO still exist? Why do you think that the Canadian Ambassador risked everything to hide Americans during the Iranian crisis? I remember quite well the reaction of the US to that - an outpouring of thanks, and *surprise* that anybody would risk anything for Americans. [How soon people forget...] There shouldn't be any surprise - most of the rest of the world *is* more or less on your side. Unfortunately, US media usually only publishes the down-side, and in its parochialism, prevents US citizens from seeing what foreign attitudes towards the US are really like. All you see is the raised fists in Libya, not how Americans are received (in general) throughout the world. [Have you ever done much foreign travelling?] Further, this parochialism leads towards the US applying simplistic (and oriented towards popularity with the US citizenry) solutions in the rest of the world. In Nicarauga, and Libya, at least, the US is *not* acting like a policeman (which would be "I'm in trouble - please help"), but more like a vigilante ("I know what's best for you") - the shift in American attitudes exemplified by the "Rambo" movies is scaring the hell out of me (and probably almost every non-American - I could just see it, a air-raid on Ottawa because our lumber exports might be hurting your lumber industry - that rates only half a smiley face!). Please, please, don't take your marbles and go home - stay around and work in concert with the rest of the world. Isolationism doesn't work. Vigilantism doesn't work either. Halfways reasonable and flexible diplomacy does! Unfortunately, the US has shown very little of that since Reagan took office. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321