Xref: utzoo alt.flame:1712 talk.politics.misc:7590 Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ptsfa!ames!think!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!lazarus From: lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) Newsgroups: alt.flame,talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: Bullet-proof passports? Message-ID: <3184@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> Date: 24 Feb 88 07:20:10 GMT References: <3096@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <792@athos.rutgers.edu> <9612@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> <4568@pucc.Princeton.EDU> Sender: root@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU Reply-To: lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) Organization: Murder Inc. Lines: 173 In article <4568@pucc.Princeton.EDU> Q2816@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: >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? Everybody should have that right. It is only the US government's obligation to provide that right for Americans. >>>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. Yes, I've been abroad. I've been to Mexico, Canada, France, Spain, England, Andora, West Germany, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Morocco, Romania, and Hungary. I don't see what that proves, but if it makes you consider me an authority I won't complain. US troops are meant to protect the country and the citizens. Perhaps you have heard of the war we had with the Barbary pirates? That's the origin of the slogan "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.". The European nations paid off the Barbary pirates. We didn't. They kidnapped American citizens and attacked American ships. We went to war and kicked their butts. The purpose of a travel advisory should be to alert people to danger. It shouldn't mean "On your own head be it." >Your protection abroad is our diplomatic relations with other govts. >Since Lebanon bsically has no govt., it's a dicey proposition being >over there. Yes. That is why the US government should protect Americans in Lebanon but not in Italy, say. >>>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. There is no great trick to being a peacekeeper. All you do is put yourself between the warring factions and tell them "If you fight you die." It takes no special skills. >>>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. It doesn't take proper training. And who ever heard of doing a peacekeeping job with unloaded weapons? >>>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!) When peacekeeping troops come under attack they fight. The navy shelled artillery positions that were being used to bombard the Marines. >>>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. Perhaps it was too complicated for you to understand. The idea was to prevent Lebanon from going over to the Soviets by stopping the Syrians from taking control. How do you do that? Well, a few hundred marines make a good start. They can protect the Christians, who are the closest things to allies we've got in Lebanon. >>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? Ooops. Sorry. Should have said Middle East. >>>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. >>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? I understood that the Joint Chiefs of Staff objected to method. I agree that the method used was stupid. We should have sent in enough people to defend themselves. They should have dug in. And when people started shooting at them they should have shot back. >>>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. I. You don't reply to the argument. Do you agree that it is shameful that we didn't retaliate? II. Re Navy shelling, read my response. You are off base. >And by the way, the job of the Marines is amphibious landings. Not >peacekeeping. Wrong. The Marines are an elite force. You use them when you have a tough job. They are also a 'light' force. They don't carry arround heavy weapons. Therefore you use them when you don't want to be bogged down by artillery etc. Since we had the navy for artillery the Marines were probably the best choice for the job. These are the official opinions Mike Friedman of my organization. So, TOUGH!!