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!ukc!stc!bruce
From: bruce@stc.co.uk
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Air raid on Libya (Really Economic Sanctions)
Message-ID: <973@bute.tcom.stc.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 6-May-86 15:36:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: bute.973
Posted: Tue May  6 15:36:35 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 11-May-86 16:44:24 EDT
References: <157@unido.UUCP> <2578@jhunix.UUCP> <638@argon.idec.stc.co.uk> <503@bu-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: bruce@stc.UUCP (The Drunk Monk)
Distribution: net
Organization: STC Telecoms, London N11 1HB.
Lines: 26
Keywords: sanctions feeble ineffective
Summary: American sanctions aren't

In article <503@bu-cs.UUCP> dml@bucsd.UUCP (David Matthew Lyle) writes:
>In article <638@argon.idec.stc.co.uk> howellg@idec.stc.co.uk (Gareth Howell) writes:
>| I don't see any economic retaliation from the US.  It still buys oil
>| from Lybia, which accounts for a great deal of their income.  If the
>| US really wants to bring Lybia to its knees, stop buying oil.  But I
>| suppose that might affect Reagans popularity.
>
>You are somewhat mis-informed then.  According to the Boston Globe
>of April 28, President Reagan had banned all trade with and travel
>to Libya.  What other economic retaliation could the US take???

It is you that is mis-informed David.  According to the BBC News the USA
stopped all trade with Libya apart from one minor exception.  OIL!!

The US Oil companies were allowed to continue working in Libya, and
although I wouldn't swear to it I seem to remember the reporter saying
that these companies provide Libya with 70% of its GNP!  That's a pretty
big exception!

I can't see these sort of sanctions bringing [QG]addafi to his knees.

-- 

Regards,
Bruce Munro.  <bruce@stc.UUCP>
...seismo!mcvax!ukc!stc!bruce