Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!mcvax!vmucnam!imag!pierre
From: pierre@imag.UUCP (Pierre L. LAFORGUE)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Air raid on Libya
Message-ID: <677@imag.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-May-86 16:35:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: imag.677
Posted: Tue May  6 16:35:44 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 11-May-86 16:42:25 EDT
References: <157@unido> <7300004@hpfclp>
Reply-To: pierre@imag.UUCP (Pierre L. LAFORGUE)
Organization: IMAG, Un. of Grenoble, France
Lines: 57

In article <7300004@hpfclp> you write:
>I object to the "state terrorism" label, because at least Reagan, unlike
>Khaddafi's terrorists, didn't intentionally TRY to kill innocent civilians.  

He did not try, but he did! I cannot see a great difference between these
two thesis:
1/ Khaddafi, Khomeiny, etc. :
I may shot this man, woman, child, because he has the same religion than my
enemy, or flies on a plane of an adverse country airline, or simply is walking
in a bad place ...
2/ Reagan:
I may shot this man, woman, child, because he lives in a bad place, or he is
a son, neighbour, ... of Khaddafi.
In fact, this is not really the problem FOR ANY OF THEM :
For Khaddafi/Reagan, it is first a matter of media; they have to be well
identified as valiant heralds of arab/cow-boy identities. Khaddafi was
no longer accepted by the other arab countries as their hero; I'm happy
they are enough mature not to change after the raid. But it seemed evident
that such a raid was able to increase terrorism, and in some way to give it a
moral absolution, rather than to reduce it. The only goal of Reagan appeared to
be improving his popularity for interior reasons. This play is not too dangerous
in fact; when there is a real danger, as in the Irak/Iran conflict,
Reagan's politics are more elaborated (but rather cynical, too), if
what is said about indirect arm deliveries is true.

>The strike was very carefully planned to damage Khaddafi's headquarters, 
>elite guard, and military installations.

I don't agree; if it was the real goal, a more important strike should
have been necessary. But for a publicity, it was sufficient ...
And it appears that even a "carefully planned" strike (by the most sophisticated
army in the world) kill more innocent victims than guilty soldiers.

>to rabid "anti-Commie" types) think of the USSR -- as an agressive, warlike
>nation that furthers its ideologies and political/economic needs by conquest
>(in Czechoslovakia, Afganistan, etc.).  (I am not sure how to interpret
>Russia's recent peaceful offers -- as genuine attemps to reduce the tension
>in the world, or as propagandistic moves that they know Reagan will reject.)

Yes
Reagan is really a gift for the USSR : he is so easy to forecast.
And objectively, he does not trouble too much the USSR; he is not as active 
(fortunately?) in Afganistan as in Lybian, because Afganistan was attributed 
to USSR a long time ago. For the Libyan strike, Reagan was polite enough to
warn the USSR to remote their boats a moment (fortunately!).
About the peaceful offers, it is possible that Gorbatchev wants sincerely
to reduce his military expenses, and Reagan wants to increase his ones (maybe
only because it is easier to distribute federal funds for scientific research
if they are labelled 'stars war' and so on), but of course nobody can be sure,
and it is not only a two men chat.

As a conclusion, the disagreement is not between the USA and the Europe people, 
but inside each country; a lot of french people approved the raid for instance.
-- 
Pierre Laforgue

pierre@imag.UUCP   or {seismo|mcvax|vmucnam|inria}!imag!pierre