Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!strath-cs!paisley!andrew From: andrew@cs.paisley.ac.uk (Andrew Fleming) Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics Subject: Re: Air raid on Libya Message-ID: <139@paisley.ac.uk> Date: Sun, 18-May-86 09:45:06 EDT Article-I.D.: paisley.139 Posted: Sun May 18 09:45:06 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 23-May-86 23:42:54 EDT References: <157@unido.UUCP> <720@ark.UUCP> <122@paisley.ac.uk> <755@kontron.UUCP> <120@stracs.cs.strath.ac.uk> <783@kontron.UUCP> Sender: andrew@paisley.ac.uk Reply-To: andrew@cs.paisley.ac.uk (Andrew Fleming) Organization: Paisley College of Technology Scotland. Lines: 115 Xref: linus net.followup:5391 net.politics:15430 In article <783@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: >> 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. > Strange I thought it was because they were scare to go to Europe because of the American action against Libya. Just a question is Britain also to be considered a nation with lack of courage ? >> >> 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. > I haven't heard that before, do this mean our press is ineffective > >> 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.) Agreed >> >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. :-) > I still think voting against them at elections is a better way of getting rid of them, but each to his own I suppose. >> 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. > Spectulation nobody knows what would have happen !!!! >> 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 When you say does "Doesn't anyone in Europe ever READ" do you mean read as in reading your postings or as in read history ? In either case the answer is yes I do read . One last point, if you are a typical american, I think it explains the problem in communications we appear to be having between our two peoples at the moment Are Americans paranoid ? Andrew Fleming