Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site cad.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!cad!hijab From: hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: Re: Air raid on Libya Message-ID: <314@cad.UUCP> Date: Sat, 10-May-86 13:14:21 EDT Article-I.D.: cad.314 Posted: Sat May 10 13:14:21 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 13-May-86 00:35:26 EDT References: <720@ark> <6100002@hpclld> Organization: U. C. Berkeley CAD Group Lines: 24 Summary: Whose Freedom? In article <6100002@hpclld>, chip%hpclld@hpclld.UUCP writes: > Nevertheless, I think an equally [or perhaps more] important lesson of > history is that freedom will soon be lost without the willingness to > fight for it. We're talking HISTORY here, not "new age" wishful > thinking. As far as I can see from history, fighting (i.e. "violence") > IS, in fact a "necessity for freedom". I wish it were not that way. > ............................................. How much better if the > real threat to peace, criminal actions on an international scale, had > been dealt with sooner! This also applies to Khadafi (and all other > international criminals). Better to fight him now than to wait. Some would argue the same case for starting a war against the United States! ... My own feeling is that the United States *is* fighting for freedom: the freedom to pursue selfish policies unhindered, anywhere in the world, without regard to its impact on the 'natives'. Eqbal Ahmad, a well-known progressive political scientist, recently posed the question "What is a strategic country?" and he answered, "For the Iranians, for example, Iran is *always* strategic. When policy makers talk about strategic countries, they mean *other* peoples' countries being strategic for their (the policy makers') interests. Likewise, when Reagan speaks about fighting for freedom, he is talking about *his* freedom. From that perspective, if the freedom of other nations conflicts with this goal, it *must* be crushed.