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
Subject: Re: Re: Air raid on Libya
Message-ID: <764@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-May-86 13:20:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: kontron.764
Posted: Tue May  6 13:20:43 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 8-May-86 20:48:46 EDT
References: <720@ark.UUCP> <4600001@qtecmuc.UUCP> <152@suneast.uucp>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Mt. View, CA
Lines: 64

> 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.
> 

Invalid analogy.  The US government does not support terrorist activities
by the IRA, and within the limits of our laws, attempted to prevent US
gunrunning to the IRA.  The Libyan government was not only supporting
terrorist activities, but proud of it.

> [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.]
> 

The Soviets killed a U.S. Congressman a couple of years ago, and no war
resulted.  Larry McDonald of Georgia.  Remember?

> 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. 
> 

Prior Soviet massive bombing raids on the Afghan rebels have been non-events
as well -- because Western media aren't allowed to cover that war.

> 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.)

Really?  Which poll?  I find that hard to believe.  Certainly most
Grenadians don't feel that it was a mistake.

> <<<<<< Geoff Arnold, Sun Microsystems Inc. (East Coast Division) >>>>>>

Clayton E. Cramer