Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!mmm!mkr
From: mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Air raid on Libya
Message-ID: <774@mmm.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 29-Apr-86 12:13:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmm.774
Posted: Tue Apr 29 12:13:17 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 2-May-86 06:39:46 EDT
References: <157@unido.UUCP> <858@ihlpl.UUCP> <3194@reed.UUCP>
Reply-To: mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR)
Organization: none
Lines: 49

In article <3194@reed.UUCP> soren@reed.UUCP (Soren Petersen) writes:
>
>But that's ALL that Reagan did.  He gave Ghaddafi a slap on the
>wrist and NOTHING ELSE.  He is as free as before to dynamite baby
>carriages as he was before.  The bombing raid was spectacular and
>generated lots of publicity, and made Reagan look like he was doing
>something but it had no effect on the Libyan "War" effort.
>
>If Reagan were to send in an American Death Squad to take out
>Kjadafi, I would have a lot less of a problem since it would not
>involve the deaths of anonymous people who may or may not support
>Kadophi's program, but a bombing raid kills just as many random
>civilians as anything Qaddaphee could ever dream up.  The only
>difference,  is that an air strike was done by a legally recognized
>branch of the Government beaurocracy.
>
	Let's get something straight, here. One of the goals of the raid
was to make more sensible elements in Libya (moderate military leaders)
sit up and say to themselves, "Hey, this Qaddaffi guy is going to get
us involved in a war that we obviously cannot win. He's going to get us
all killed. Let's get rid of him ourselves." That is why we gave him 
only a taste of our military power. More at this time would have been
overkill and really would have been bad. Whether the raid will have
its intended effect remains to be seen. If not, *then* perhaps we can 
get tougher. If, on the other hand, Reagan opts for a slow escalation,
we're in trouble. 

	As far as killing Qaddaffi goes, do you *really* think that's
going to stop terrorism, or do you think maybe someone else will take
his place. Remember, Muammar has not pulled any triggers himself, and
he has not personally planted any bombs. If you think he is the only
problem, you are grossly mistaken. Killing Qaddaffi would be a feel-good
measure that would probably have little effect on the situation, other
to create a powerful martyr figure to inspire a huge increase in
terrorist activities.

	No, my friends, I hate to say it, but I think Reagan is right
so far on this one (god, I *hate* agreeing with Reagan). The best way
to defuse this situation is for Libyans to get rid of Qaddaffi themselves,
and the best thing we can do is convince them it would be a good idea.

	By the way, I was amused by your various spellings of Muammar's
name. If we want to grep for articles about the guy, how would we go
about it?


					--MKR
"There's nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot."
					-"Dirty" Harry Callahan