Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hpda!hpisoa2!hpitg!psivax!friesen@psivax
From: friesen@psivax
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Re: Air raid on Libya
Message-ID: <1138@psivax>
Date: Wed, 30-Apr-86 22:42:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.1138
Posted: Wed Apr 30 22:42:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 17-May-86 01:25:06 EDT
References: <720@ark>
Lines: 46

In article <7300004@hpfclp> fritz@hpfclp writes:
>
>Now, to be honest, I don't necessarily feel that attacking Libya (especially
>with a ""surgical"" strike like this) was a 100% wrong idea.  I don't know
>how else one gets the attention of a paranoid megalomaniac like Khaddafi.
>I agree with Reagan on one point:  Khaddafi is a dangerous man.  He
>harbors, trains, and encourages terrorists to strike around the world.
>I am truly grateful he doesn't have access to nuclear weapons.  However, 
>ALL OTHER POSSIBILITIES should have been exhausted before we went in with 
>guns blazing -- if for no other reason than to show that we really TRIED, 
>so that we wouldn't have looked quite so much like trigger-happy Rambo's 
>(or cowboys, or state terrorists, or whatever you want to call it).
>
	Well, it seems to me that we *did* try all other possibilities.
We have tried diplomatic protests, in fact we have been trying that
for years. We tried to set up a complete embargo on Libya, but our
allies refused to cooperate. We have protested to the UN. We have
expelled all Libyan diplomats. What else *could* we do? What else is
left except military action? I certainly cannot think of anything that
we have not tried.

>I object to the "state terrorism" label, because at least Reagan, unlike
>Khaddafi's terrorists, didn't intentionally TRY to kill innocent civilians.  
>The strike was very carefully planned to damage Khaddafi's headquarters, 
>elite guard, and military installations.  They even tried to miss the
>Libyan army installations that weren't fanatically loyal to Khaddafi!  
>I believe that much of the damage to civilian areas was caused by Libya's
>stray SAM-5 missiles.  (Even some of the pictures that Libya released
>showed Russian writing on the wreckage of the "American" bombs and
>"plane wreckage"!)  And if Khaddafi didn't hide behind innocent
>civilians by putting his military headquarters in the middle of a
>civilian area, perhaps NO civilians would have been hurt.
>
	Absolutely! In fact there are *very* few validated cases of US
misslies or bombs hitting non-military targets. In fact civilian
structures adjacent to totally demolished military sites have come out
almost undamaged. Many even think that the damage to the French
embassy was either due to Libyan anti-aircraft fire or to the wreck of
the single US plane to be lost. In short, it was the Libyans
themselves who caused almost all of the collateral damage.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ??