Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 SMI; site suneast.uucp
Path: utzoo!linus!security!sunne!suneast!geoff
From: geoff@suneast.uucp (Geoff Arnold)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Re: Air raid on Libya
Message-ID: <152@suneast.uucp>
Date: Sun, 27-Apr-86 11:49:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: suneast.152
Posted: Sun Apr 27 11:49:49 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Apr-86 06:25:10 EDT
References: <720@ark.UUCP> <4600001@qtecmuc.UUCP>
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc. - East Coast Division
Lines: 55

One problem with Reagan's Libyan action is that it either stands as
an isolated incident (which is suspicious - why is the death of one
US serviceman so much more heinous than all of the other deaths at
the hands of terrorists?) or it is intended as an invitation to everyone
else to walk down the slippery slope to global anarchy. Would the
good ol' son o' the sod Ronnie approve if Maggie Thatcher decided that
the best way of solving the IRA problem (which has involved the deaths
of vastly more innocent Britons than there have been US victims of
terrorism) would be a "sugical" strike on the Shankill Road or Bogside
by a couple of dozen Harriers and Tornados? Might kill a few innocent
civilians, but we all know that accidents happen (listen to Larry Speakes
on that one). Or maybe they should take out the US bases for IRA terrorism
(those Irish-American groups who, together with Libya, fund most of it).
Collateral damage? No problem.

[I feel strongly about that - as an expatriate Englishman I remember
the IRA bombings of the '70s, with politicians, soldiers, police, women,
and children - and fifteen-month old babies - getting killed right,
left and center, and the British attempts to deal with the terrorists
(remember internment?) provoking howls of protest over here.  One wonders
how intemperately Reagan would react if a U.S. Congressman got killed.
Probably nuke the first likely target.]

It's ironical, isn't it? Over the last year or so the "Great Communicater"
has presided over an absolutely disastrous slide in the world perception
of the U.S. Practically everyone believes that the biggest obstacle
to nuclear arms reductions is Reagan (or is it Weinberger? I can't
tell who's leading whom on that). A good indication of this is the fact
that last week the Soviets felt able to launch a massive series of air
strikes against the Afghan rebels, knowing that compared with the Libyan
raid it would be a non-event. 

When I first perceived the strength of the popular support for Reagan's
action (media reported, but probably correctly so), my first reaction
was "How the hell can I stay here? I could never feel a part of
such an amoral society?". (My disgust reached a peak when I read George
Will in the Boston Globe, saying how he could hardly feel regret about
bombs hitting the French Embassy.) But then as a few voices of reason
emerged, including several cautious but unambigous editorials in
the Globe, I realized that I was not alone. And after all, if you look
back, practically everything that Reagan has done in foreign policy has
got initially enthusiastic popular support followed by a rapid cooling off.
(One poll reported that most people now feel that Grenada was a mistake.)
But then, when you walk out of Rambo (yuk) you leave it in the theater -
you don't analyze the geopolitical impact down the years. 

A suggestion: Go out and buy Jackson Brown's latest album "Lives in the
Balance" and listen to what he says about patriotism and being American.
Says it all.

-- 
"To disclaim, or not to disclaim... "
<<<<<< Geoff Arnold, Sun Microsystems Inc. (East Coast Division) >>>>>>
SnailMail: One Cranberry Hill, Lexington, MA 02173; 617-863-8870 x136 
UUCP:      {hplabs,ihnp4,nsc,pyramid,decwrl}!sun!suneast!geoff