Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics Subject: Re: Air raid on Libya Message-ID: <755@kontron.UUCP> Date: Thu, 1-May-86 13:07:51 EDT Article-I.D.: kontron.755 Posted: Thu May 1 13:07:51 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 3-May-86 02:12:35 EDT References: <157@unido.UUCP> <720@ark.UUCP> <122@paisley.ac.uk> Organization: Kontron Electronics, Mt. View, CA Lines: 123 Xref: linus net.followup:5238 net.politics:14877 > I think that anyone who thinks that the bombing of > Libya was a good idea has a blinkered view of what > was achieved. Already 3 British hostages have been > murdered by Beruit terrorists, and the murder of 400 > passengers aboard an El Al plane was narrowly > avoided, all because the F1-11's were British based > planes. And just yesterday a British journalist in > Beruit was taken hostage; unconfirmed reports today > say that he to has been murdered. > And this sort of activity was going on all along. Tell me how it would be any better if the bombing raid hadn't happened. > Does the fact that Reagan has said that any country > has the right to attack countries ( killing innocent > citizens as well as military ) who engage in terrorism > suggests that Nicuragua has the right to attack CIA Langley > in Virginia because they are aiding terrorists to attack Groups sympathetic to the Sandinistas bombed the Capitol in Washington, and several other government buildings in the last several years. Maybe you didn't hear about it. > targets within Nicuragua ( which, by the way, has a > democratically elected government ). How much longer Time to read. The elections were held in a "stacked deck" situtation, much like Mussolini allowed elections be held, and opposition members to be seated in the Italian Parliament after he took over. > can the U.S.A. go on objecting to governments because > they are left-wing when they have supported right-wing > dictatorships for so long ( President Marcos is a good > example of someone who they kept in power ). If, as is Marcos was democratically elected as well. Double standard, anyone? > highly possible, Britain elects the Labour party at > the next election will the U.S. government give support > to terrorist organisations like the I.R.A. ? > Not likely (because of their ties to Kaddaffi), but a Labour Party government in England at this point can't be distinguished from a Communist government by any reasonable measure. > Thatcher must be extremely myopic if she did not > realise that letting Reagan use F1-11's based in > Britain would lead to the unnecessary deaths of many > Britons. Here in Britain she is not too popular right Kadaffi must have been prescient -- he *knew* the U.S. would bomb Libya last year, so he had that British policewoman shot. :-) > now, a poll the day after the bombing raid showed > that 65% of people in Britain were against Britain > being involved in such a provocative move. This is > the complete opposite of the views of the majority > of people in U.S.A. who are not in such a vulnerable > position as the people of Europe. > Anytime we travel to Europe, we are vunerable. There comes a point where killing those who are trying to kill you is the only solution. > By the way, I am not anti-American in any way (my > brother-in-law is in the U.S. Navy), rather, this is > view held by many people in Scotland. I would rather > have seen the U.S. retaliate ( as they surely had to > after the Berlin bombing ) in a way that would isolate > Libya rather than gaining them support in Arab states. > This have could been done by placing economic sanctions, > which I am sure the whole of Europe would have agreed > to if they had known the outcome of the bombing, on > Libya whose economy is already suffering greatly from > the fall in oil prices. > Except that just hours before the raid, the EEC *refused* to enact sanctions against Libya. That's why the bombing raid happened. > I do hope that no more lifes are lost because of this > action and that I am wrong in my assumption that > terrorist activities will increase rather than die out > because of the bombing. > Your belief that terrorism will increase, at least in the short run, is shared by the U.S. government. In spite of what the government says, the objective was to kill Kadaffi in hopes that someone more rational (not necessarily more friendly) would take his place. A *rational* enemy of the U.S. is preferable, since a *rational* leader would recognize that threatening the U.S. and provoking an incident in the Gulf of Sidra *might* get your country destroyed. > Please will people in the U.S. reply as, I am sure, > most people in Britain would like to here what your > views are on the subject. Let's try to bring an end > to all senseless killings, including those brought > about by Gadaffi's senseless utterings about the > worldwide revolution. When dealing with truly evil people (Soviet leadership), the threat of force is sometimes enough. When dealing with the truly crazy (Kadaffi, Hitler), nothing sort of destruction seems to work. Note: I'm not entirely happy about the action that was taken, and I'm willing to entertain arguments about better ways to have killed Kadaffi, and better ways to have discouraged Libya's support of terrorism. Arguments about its "immorality" are as valid as the Peace Movement of the 1930s. Clayton E. Cramer "Beyond gravity -- a new way of thinking."