Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!hplabs!hpda!hpisoa2!hpitg!psc70!tos@psc70
From: tos%psc70@psc70.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Re: Air raid on Libya
Message-ID: <211@psc70>
Date: Sun, 27-Apr-86 05:40:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: psc70.211
Posted: Sun Apr 27 05:40:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 11-May-86 17:08:48 EDT
References: <720@ark>
Lines: 22


   This posting refers to the stopping of "aggression." So now Qaddafi
is being equated with Hitler in 1939-1941, and to Stalin in 1949-1950?
In Hitler's case, Germany, the central power in Europe was being
rearmed to the teeth in the face of relatively sleepy (though not
really disarmed like we) democracies. The US was militarily weak,
unprepared, trying to be aloof. Qaddafi is a very minor Middle East
desert chieftain (pop. 3 million) able to buy a lot of hardware
because the Soviets gets his (or our?) oil money that way. The NATO
countries and we are bristling with strength. The supposed aggression
was never clearly and unambiguously directed at the US (rather than at
Israel, ElAl, etc.) until we chose to make a big deal of the Gulf of
Sidra, and lay down the gauntlet. To associate that by connotation
with the kinds of themes usually evoked by the word aggression is
really to stretch things a lot, and mostly to succomb to the desire of
the Reagan bunch to get themselves out of the rhetorical corner that RR
keeps painting himself into with his rather big macho mouth.

Tom Schlesinger
Plymouth State College
Plymouth, N.H. 03264
decvax!dartvax!psc70!psc90!tos