Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site reed.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!reed!soren From: soren@reed.UUCP (Soren Petersen) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: Air raid on Libya Message-ID: <3212@reed.UUCP> Date: Fri, 25-Apr-86 17:20:18 EDT Article-I.D.: reed.3212 Posted: Fri Apr 25 17:20:18 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 28-Apr-86 04:50:43 EDT References: <157@unido.UUCP> <858@ihlpl.UUCP> <891@harvard.UUCP> Reply-To: soren@reed.UUCP (Soren Petersen) Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon Lines: 34 In article <891@harvard.UUCP> tomczak@harvard.UUCP (Bill tomczak) writes: >I am not a supporter of Reagan or his thinking. He >scares me because he seems too eager to use the military to bargain. >Something HAD to be done. . . It bothers me that this attitude, that Khadaffi is running roughshod over us, so we just have to do something, is being used as an excuse to do what seems to me to do something flashy just so we can congratulate ourselves upon being decisive. Instead of being orgasmic over the fact that we used our BIG STICK for a change, could the supporters of the action (of which I may or may not be one) please explain just what worthwhile was accomplished that made the cost--moral and material--justifiable. The bombing raid did not do anything to disrupt the Libyan terrorist industry. It did nothing to weaken Khadaffi's resolve to continue as he had before. It did not succeed in killing Khadaffi, and would have been immoral even if it had (the firing a crowd to kill a murderer syndrome mentioned in someone elses posting). What good did it do? I don't believe that it is right to engage in actions that will result in the deaths of innocents just so that American closet Rambos can "feel good about themselves", and I am somewhat at a loss to see just what else it did. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Have A Nice Day, Soren Petersen "But we named you Fred, what happenned?"