Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:7843 alt.flame:1752
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ptsfa!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!princeton!phoenix!pucc!Q2816
From: Q2816@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Creative Business Decisions)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Bullet-proof passports?
Message-ID: <4608@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 29 Feb 88 19:46:01 GMT
References: <7153@sol.ARPA> <3096@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <792@athos.rutgers.edu> <9612@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> <4568@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Reply-To: Q2816@pucc.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 63
Disclaimer: Author bears full responsibility for contents of this article

In article <7153@sol.ARPA>, ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank) writes:
 
>In article <4568@pucc.Princeton.EDU> Q2816@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes:
 
>>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!)
 
>Here it is first hand:  distortion of historical facts through half truths.
 
Half a loaf is better than none...
 
>Brought to you by that joe hill dreamer, Roger.
 
Thank you for the compliment!
 
>Roger, even you would agree that we eventually had to shell the
>terrorist positions in the hills overlooking the peacekeeping forces.
 
Nope.
 
>Remember,  our forces and those of other countries were sitting
>ducks for about four weeks.  Those unarmed peacekeeping forces had to
>endure incoming artilery shells 24 hours a day for four weeks.  They were
>being injured and killed.
 
How many of our peacekeeping forces were killed by those shells?
 
There were two options:  evacuate the peacekeeping
>forces and leave the whole of Lebanon to the terrorists or try and silence
>the terrorist gunners in the hills shooting at the unarmed and unprotected
>multi-national peacekeeping forces.  We did nothing for four weeks while
>our UNARMED forces were being unmercifully shelled.
>>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.
 
>You mean it was a shame that the president thought the Marines could keep
>the peace while remaining unarmed and being shelled 24 hours a day from
>terrorist positions in the hills above the marine's position.  Real brave
>these gunners were.  Sitting in the hills looking down on the marines and
>firing shells directly onto them.
 
Pay attention.  If you're shelling one side, you're not a peacekeeping
force.  If you can't command the respect of the combatants, you can't
keep the peace.  In that case, you must occupy in order to pacify.  We
were not prepared to occupay Lebanon, for dozens of reasons I have
outlined before.  By drawing fire, the peacekeeping force showed that
it would be unsuccessful.  The shelling of the mountains accomplished
the opposite of it porpose: it INTENSIFIED the attack on the Marines.
 
Typical Reagan policy blunder: raise the stakes unnecessarily.
 
>>And by the way, the job of the Marines is amphibious landings.  Not
>>peacekeeping.
 
>Says who Roger?
 
Everybody from the Commandant on down.
 
Roger Lustig (Q2816@PUCC.BITNET Q2816@pucc.princeton.edu)
 
Die Gedanken sind frei!  Wer kann sie erraten?