Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!caip!lll-crg!lll-lcc!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics
Subject: Re: Air raid on Libya
Message-ID: <783@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 14-May-86 18:14:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: kontron.783
Posted: Wed May 14 18:14:56 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 16-May-86 04:28:26 EDT
References: <157@unido.UUCP> <720@ark.UUCP> <122@paisley.ac.uk> <755@kontron.UUCP> <120@stracs.cs.strath.ac.uk>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Mt. View, CA
Lines: 147
Xref: linus net.followup:5342 net.politics:15149

> 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.
> 
Expressing displeasure with the lack of courage demonstrated by the
Europeans.

> >>   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.
> 
> >> 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.

Freedom of the press was turned on just before the election, and off just
after the election.  By their own admission, political use of food ration
cards has been going on for a long while in Nicaragua.  Sounds like a 
great way to encourage political opponents.

> 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.
> 

Because of the grossly unfair and violent tactics of the Sandinistas against
opposition parties.  The opposition is MOSTLY not old Somoza people -- lots
of the opposition are former Sandinistas.

> >> 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.

Wrong.  The last election was thoroughly corrupt.  Marcos originally
took power in free and fair elections.  You need to be better informed
about the world -- maybe you would understand my position better.

> >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...]
> 

It defies common sense to think that ignoring brutal creeps will make
them go away.

> >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.
> 

You seem to be arguing that there's no other difference.  Shows how
confused you really are.

> 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.
> 

I guess we should have just ignored Adolph Hitler.  (And the pacifists
of his day said what you are saying above to protect him until war was
too late to avoid.)

> >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?
> 

Only if they promise to get our Congress as well. :-)

> 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.
> 

Hitler would have fallen if anyone had stood up to him in 1936 when he
reoccupied the Ruhr.

> 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

Certainly true that there are legitimate problems and the U.S. policy of
being a whore to Israel has a lot to do with it -- but targetting innocent
non-combatants is ALWAYS wrong -- and killing them accidentally is something
to be avoided -- when possible.

Doesn't anyone in Europe ever READ?

Clayton E. Cramer