Xref: utzoo alt.flame:1705 talk.politics.misc:7554 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ncsuvx!gatech!udel!princeton!phoenix!pucc!Q2816 From: Q2816@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Creative Business Decisions) Newsgroups: alt.flame,talk.politics.misc Subject: Bullet-proof passports? Message-ID: <4568@pucc.Princeton.EDU> Date: 23 Feb 88 11:13:45 GMT References: <3096@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <792@athos.rutgers.edu> <9612@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> Reply-To: Q2816@pucc.Princeton.EDU Organization: Princeton University, NJ Lines: 121 Disclaimer: Author bears full responsibility for contents of this article In article <3096@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: >In article <9612@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> sunset!oconnor@steinmetz.UUCP writes: >>The IDIOTS who died in Lebanon were the Civilians. They didn't have >>to be there and should have left. Same for the damn civilian >>hostages : to hell with them, they knew the risks. >Here I disagree. They are Americans and there should not be any place >on Earth that an American cannot go to in reasonable safety. Is that because Americans have some special rights on earth, or because EVERYBODY should have those rights? >>I'm pretty >>god damn tired of our servicemen paying the price for these >>self-important assinine civilians who go to these war zones. >Yes, well the reason we have servicemen is to protect asinine >civilians. If an American wants to go to Lebanon he should be able to >do so knowing that if he is kidnapped he will be rescued or his >murders will pay a very high price. Nonsense. US troops are not trained as police, nor should they be. They are there to protect the WHOLE COUNTRY. They are not our protection against harm abroad. (Ever BEEN abroad, Michael?) If the State department issues a warning against travel, you should not expect Super-GI to come and rescue you if you go into the danger zone. Your protection abroad is our diplomatic relations with other govts. Since Lebanon bsically has no govt., it's a dicey proposition being over there. >>The Marines were ordered in there, ordered NOT to load their weapons, >>and NOT ordered to build proper defenses. They did what they were >>ordered to due. Obeying lawful orders is the essense of any >>military organization, but it's part of the pride of the Corps. >>Those men died because they were Marines, not idiots. >Definitely. They died because they were on a mission they were unprepared for. The CinC sent them there against the wishes of the Commandant and the heads of other services. They were untrained as peacekeepers. >>The IDIOTS who killed them where mainly CIVILIANS. >I agree here too. >>Assholes who wouldn't let the Marines shoot back. >Here you are getting a little off target. The people who wouldn't let >the Marines shoot back weren't afraid to kill a bunch of terrorists. >They were afraid of being hamstrung in the future by the kind of >Liberal idiots who called the Libya raid murder. Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant. They were doing a standard peacekeeping job; but without the proper preparation or training. The person who sent them there and gave them their orders was their Commander in Chief. >>Who told them to hold ground without fighting back. >Again, the blame here goes at least partially to those who would have >been protesting in Congress and in the streets if the Marines had >fought back. They weren't sent to fight. They were sent in to act as peacekeepers. (Which is pretty damn difficult when the Navy is shelling the country you're trying to keep peace in!) >>Who didn't have a foriegn >>policy that could have dealt with the situation more safely. This implies that Reagan had a foreign policy at all. The events surrounding the US presence in Lebanon suggest the opposite. >The only safe way to deal with the problem would have been to ignore >it. That would have made it worse. By not showing resolve we would >have encouraged our enemies. If we do not maintain a presence in the >Persian Gulf it will soon become the Soviet Gulf. PERSIAN GULF????? We were talking about Lebanon! What does this have to do with it? >>The principle IDIOT who got those good soldiers killed was Ronald Reagan. >No. The PRINCIPAL idiots who got those men killed were people like >George Bachrach and the idiots on the net who condemn the Libya raid. Huh? >Do you seriously believe that Reagan would have objected to the >Marines carrying loaded guns because it might have lead to a bit of >shooting? Bull. The people who would have objected are the same people >who are currently objecting to our presence in the Gulf. The people >who would have objected are America's isolationists. Like the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Like most of the Cabinet? >>So when a meally-mouthed half-baked ungrateful asshole opens >>his fat trap and calls those men IDIOTS, well DAMN IT sh*t like >>that can't be stood for. I politely suggest you RE-THINK >>you half-assed opinion, and then apologize to the memory >>of those men, to their families, and to the US Marine Corps. >Here once more I fully agree with you. Those men died in the line of >duty, doing their jobs. And we neither retaliated against their >murderers or obtained reparations for their families. I think that's >shameful. Shameful is that we trust a President who hasn't the foggiest idea of what foreign policy is, who thinks that Marines can keep peace while the Navy shells places 20 miles away. And by the way, the job of the Marines is amphibious landings. Not peacekeeping. Roger Lustig (Q2816@PUCC.BITNET) I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night, alive as you and me. "But Joe," says I, "you're ten years dead." "I never died," says he.