Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!greg From: greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg) Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Libyan Air-raid/ open letter to Message-ID: <955@harvard.UUCP> Date: Fri, 16-May-86 22:41:28 EDT Article-I.D.: harvard.955 Posted: Fri May 16 22:41:28 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 18-May-86 14:10:49 EDT References: <538@imsvax.UUCP> <8300002@unido.UUCP> <127@paisley.ac.uk> <800@mmm.UUCP> <136@paisley.ac.uk> <540@glasgow.glasgow.UUCP> Reply-To: greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg) Organization: Harvard Lines: 88 Xref: linus net.followup:5357 net.politics:15238 >In article <8300002@unido.UUCP> uh@unido.UUCP (Uwe Hoch) writes: >I think you should look at the people in your own country: >It is very simple to start a war with Lybia, if I'm so far away from the >country I attack, as you are to Lybia. >But we must live here and WE much more than YOU have to fear the >consequences for YOUR air attack of Tripoli. You should think about that! In article <800@mmm.UUCP> mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) writes: > This is just plain silly. If Libya were closer to the US, or if >these terrorist actions were happening in the US, we would have attacked >*long* ago, and probably would have rid the world of Qaddaffi very >quickly indeed. Just because Europeans quake and quiver with fear from >a blowhard bully, don't think for a minute that Americans are such wimps. >The only reason we haven't done more against Libya is because we're so >far away that Qaddafi's actions don't affect us enough to *really* piss >us off. You're not just whistling Dixie. According to my textbook on Japan, public opinion on the Pacific War was divided and uncertain until Pearl Harbor. The Japanese military really did sign its death warrant by attacking US soil. A terrorist attack on US soil would have a strong reaction precisely because we don't have as many terrorist attacks now. Our soil has been safe from attack, whether military or terrorist, for a long time, and we wish to keep it that way. (No, it hasn't been exempt from terrorist attack, but it has been relatively safe.) In article <127@paisley.ac.uk> andrew@cs.paisley.ac.uk (Andrew Fleming) writes: > So Europeans are wimps eh ? Can you then tell me why the big > macho Americans are cancelling holidays to Britain ? Why is the Rambo > man afraid to come to Europe ? As to statement only Americans are getting > blown up and killed, remember when Thatcher decided to support the > strike against Libya, she effectively signed the death warrant of two > British people, and endangered the lives of numerous other members of > Britain !!!! So you before you make any other simple-minded statements > kindly make sure you know what you are talking about. It is true that MKR is exaggerating when he says that the Europeans quake and quiver in the face of a political bully. Perhaps it is more appropriate to say that they don't know a bully when they see one. (The Austrians recently demonstrated that they don't know a Nazi when they see one either, but that's a different story.) The fact of the matter is that you guys let terrorists through *your* airports so that they can put bombs on *our* planes and hold *our* passengers hostage. No, Americans are not the only victims of terrorism, but they are a big target of international terrorism. I quote the Israeli Ambassador to the UN (from Time Mag.): "One third of [international] terrorism's victims since 1970 have been Americans." As to Americans cancelling holidays in Europe, I have several points to make. Firstly, the expected outcome of the raid on Tripoli was that international terrorism would increase some in the immediate future, but in the long run it would go down, especially if we continue our current policy. Secondly, don't call us "Rambo men". I refuse to be labelled by a violent and offensive which was made by some moron in Hollywood who tries to think with his muscles. Thirdly, Americans have cancelled trips to Europe not because of any special fear of terrorists, but rather because the public always overreacts to events in the national media. For example, many people have a fear of flying. This is partly due to the gruesome accounts by the national media of *all* plane crashes and other air disasters. Far fewer people have such a fear of automobiles, despite the fact that they are actually far more dangerous than planes. Lastly, your point is irrelevant. We are not discussing the American public, we are discussing American foreign policy. Our government, unlike your governments, has decided to take decisive action against terrorism. It is true that we should know we're talking about when we make any sort of statements, but it is also true that you should know what we're talking about if you decide to reply. In article <540@glasgow.glasgow.UUCP> hotchkis@glasgow.glasgow.UUCP (Graham Hotchkiss) writes: >Absolutely right.How much terrorism have Americans experienced on their own >soil compared to countries in Europe (which are much smaller). Perhaps the >fact that all these folks are staying clear of Europe is indicative of a >deep-seated Paranoia amongst many Americans. However little terrorism there has been on our soil, we have experienced a lot of terrorism on *your* soil. Why is it that these small European countries cannot protect their airports, while an even smaller and closer Israel can? You have this notion that America is now somehow responsible for terrorism because we have a policy against it, while Europe sits by and suffers the consequences. The fact is that incompetence in European airports is far more responsible for international terrorism than any attack on Tripoli. Why can't they get their acts together in Athens or Rome? If the Europeans are so dissatisfied with *our* solution to international terrorism, why aren't they pursuing any solution at all? -- gregregreg