Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!caip!nike!styx!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!strath-cs!jim
From: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics
Subject: Re: Air raid on Libya
Message-ID: <120@stracs.cs.strath.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 8-May-86 09:07:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: stracs.120
Posted: Thu May  8 09:07:20 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 14-May-86 00:37:34 EDT
References: <157@unido.UUCP> <720@ark.UUCP> <122@paisley.ac.uk> <755@kontron.UUCP>
Reply-To: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid)
Organization: Department of Computer Science at Strathclyde University, UK.
Lines: 169
Xref: linus net.followup:5259 net.politics:15000

In article <755@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes:
>>   I think that anyone who thinks that the bombing of 
>> Libya was a good idea has a blinkered view of what
>> was achieved. Already 3 British hostages have been
>> murdered by Beruit terrorists, and the murder of 400
>> passengers aboard an El Al plane was narrowly
>> avoided, all because the F1-11's were British based
>> planes. And just yesterday a British journalist in
>> Beruit was taken hostage; unconfirmed reports today
>> say that he to has been murdered.
>> 
>
>And this sort of activity was going on all along.  Tell me how
>it would be any better if the bombing raid hadn't happened.

If the bombing has made the world a better, safer place to live, why are many
Americans so sh*t-scared of that hotbed of murder and terrorism - Europe -
that they're cancelling their holidays (sorry vacations) here? They're in
more danger on the streets of New York or Los Angeles from their fellow
freedom-loving, gun-toting citizens.

Maybe the incidents above wouldn't have happened if the Americans didn't
bomb Libya, maybe they would. Who can tell? You don't need to be smart to
realise that there are a lot of crazy people who are itching to retaliate
for the US bombing. It'll hardly be surprising if there are more terrorist
acts and they're unlikely to occur on the shores on the US of A. Ronnie's
safely cooped up in the White House - who cares if a few Europeans get blown
up in Europe? It's a long, long way from the eastern seaboard... :-) [Sort of.]

>>   Does the fact that Reagan has said that any country
>> has the right to attack countries ( killing innocent
>> citizens as well as military ) who engage in terrorism
>> suggests that Nicuragua has the right to attack CIA Langley
>> in Virginia because they are aiding terrorists to attack
>
>Groups sympathetic to the Sandinistas bombed the Capitol in 
>Washington, and several other government buildings in the last
>several years.  Maybe you didn't hear about it.

I didn't. The perpetrators were wrong to do this and deserve to face
justice for these acts. If they were Sandanista supporters (something I
find a little hard to accept), the Reagan doctrine would justify their acts.
After all, he decided to bomb Libya in self-defence and he's trying to
wage war in Nicaragua. Furthermore, the Contras have been committing atrocities
and terrorist acts just like the Libyans... He who lives by the sword....

>> targets within Nicuragua ( which, by the way, has a
>> democratically elected government ). How much longer
>
>Time to read.  The elections were held in a "stacked deck"
>situtation, much like Mussolini allowed elections be held,
>and opposition members to be seated in the Italian Parliament
>after he took over.

This is nonsense. The elections in Nicaragua were free and fair, though
there may have been isolated incidents to contradict the overall picture.
The elections were open to all parties and the electorate had a secret ballot.
The Reagan-backed opposition declined to contest the election, no doubt so the
White House could attempt to give some credence to the opinion above. The fact
that these people (the remains of the old Somoza regime) would have had little
or no electoral success presumably had no bearing on their decision.

>> can the U.S.A. go on objecting to governments because
>> they are left-wing when they have supported right-wing
>> dictatorships for so long ( President Marcos is a good
>> example of someone who they kept in power ). If, as is
>
>Marcos was democratically elected as well.  Double standard, anyone?

Rubbish! Marcos was "democratically elected" by blatant systematic ballot
rigging and the murder or violent intimidation of political opponents.
(Remember Benino Acquino?) The Sandanistas have been at great pains to hold
elections that have been as fair as possible - witness the EEC and UN observers
who were invited to see the elections for themselves. The US were prepared
to give the nod to Marcos as a "defender of democracy"+ until they saw he
no longer had any semblance of support from the Phillipine people.
_____
+ Ronald Reagan, addressing the Marcoses at the White House a few years ago

It seems to me that US foreign policy is and has been to prop up nasty regimes
all over the world, provided these regimes support US interests, regardless of
how they treat their own citizens. Examples - the Shah in Iran, South Korea,
the generals in Argentina, Pinochet in Chile, Franco in Spain, Marcos, Somoza
and South Africa. Is this how the successors to George Washington, Lincoln and
Franklin should be behaving?

>...a Labour Party government in England at this point can't 
>be distinguished from a Communist government by any
>reasonable measure.

More garbage! I don't see the Labour party advocating a police state or
abolishing a free press. [A press that on the whole is owned by friends
and supporters of Mrs. Thatcher and is rather nasty in the way it reports
on the Labour Party.] I don't see the Labour party supporting the development
and deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons either. You can't
even identify the United Kingdom, so I'm not surprised you fail to see the
distinction between the Communists and the *British* Labour party. [I see
myself as a Scot, not a Briton BTW.]

>Anytime we travel to Europe, we are vunerable.  There comes
>a point where killing those who are trying to kill you is
>the only solution.

This defies common sense. Killing only begets killing. You kill me, my
brother kills you, your brother kills my brother...... There's nothing
better to nourish a sense of grievance as a martyr. [The IRA are quite
good at that...]

>Except that just hours before the raid, the EEC *refused*
>to enact sanctions against Libya.  That's why the bombing
>raid happened.

I don't think so. The bombing raid had more to do with US *domestic* policy.
[Look how tough our wonderful President is.] If the EEC meeting of foreign
ministers - a forum where nothing ever happens as a matter of course - had
known the US were serious about military action, I'm sure there would have
been a better response. The UK foreign secretary knew that the US were
planning a bombing mission, but he didn't tell the other ministers. He knew
of the US request to use the bases in the UK before the meeting took place.

>When dealing with truly evil people (Soviet leadership), 
>the threat of force is sometimes enough.  When dealing with
>the truly crazy (Kadaffi, Hitler), nothing sort of destruction 
>seems to work.

Can't you appreciate that the Soviets are using a similar argument about
the evil United States to justify their hegemony? The main problem is to
prevent the circumstances that allow the crazies to assume power in the
first place. The superpowers fail to use their power and influence properly
so it's hardly surprising that in places like the Middle East - or in
post-WW1 Germany - there is considerable antagonism towards the states who
were responsible for creating the conditions for unrest in the first place.
Examples would be the British and French bringing about economic ruin in
Germany after WW1, the partitioning in Ireland by Britain, and the unqualified
backing by the US of Israel who in some respects are behaving like Nazi
Germany - invading neighbouring states, annexing territory and oppressing the
Palestinian arabs.

Violence and destruction only causes violence and destruction in retaliation.
After a time, the participants forget what they're fighting about, except that
they're continuing to kill and be killed.

>Note: I'm not entirely happy about the action that was taken,
>and I'm willing to entertain arguments about better ways to
>have killed Kadaffi, and better ways to have discouraged 
>Libya's support of terrorism.  Arguments about its "immorality"
>are as valid as the Peace Movement of the 1930s.

Nobody has the right to kill anybody, even evil people like Gaddafi. If you
say killing someone who is evil is morally OK, what's to stop someone deciding
you are evil and then killing you? I find your statement above offensive. How
would you feel if some Libyans started discussing on the net how to go about
killing your President?

Your statement about the peace movement in the 30's is specious. The
"appeasers" of Hitler didn't bring about the war. War was inevitable when
he came to power. The allies of WW1 didn't care about Germany until it was
too late and the appeal of the myth of Nordic supremacy coupled to a convenient
scapegoat - the Jews - was too great for the downtrodden and desparate Germany
of the 20's and 30's. At least the US had the gumption not to make the same
mistake after WW2 when they instituted the Marshall Plan.

Being "soft on terrorism" is not the cause of terrorism. It is our apathy and
lack of respect for the condition of other human beings that is the cause of
terrorism by bringing about social and political conditions which encourage
people to pick up guns and start killing. Like it or not, we are all to blame.


		Jim