Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:7883 misc.legal:4135 alt.flame:1756
Path: utzoo!utgpu!tmsoft!spectrix!clewis
From: clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris R. Lewis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Historical and Geographic inaccuracies.
Summary: That's what they did
Message-ID: <487@spectrix.UUCP>
Date: 5 Mar 88 00:25:48 GMT
References: <2445@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <6385@oberon.USC.EDU> <995@stratus.UUCP> <3310@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Organization: Spectrix Microsystems Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 59

In article <3310@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes:
| Hey. I never suggested that the British should have stormed the
| Embassy or that they should have arrested that guy. What they should
| have done is they should have told Quadaffi "There are two possible
| explanations for what happened. The first is that this was a lone
| madman acting without your permission. In that case you will obviously
| waive diplomatic immunity and let us prosecute him. The alternative is
| that he was carrying out the policy of the Libyan government. We will
| assume that that is the case if you do not let us prosecute him. If it
| is the Libyan government's policy to kill British policemen then it
| will become the British govenment's policy to destroy some important
| Libyan assets in Libya. You have been warned."

If I recall correctly this is more or less what they DID do.  Quadaffi's
response was to claim that the whole thing was a put-on designed to embarrass
the Libyan people and threatened to kill British civilians in addition
to the embassy staff in Tripoli unless the British completely backed down.
Considering the situation, closing the embassy was the best compromise
possible.  Considering how Britain usually responds to these things, if
Libya *wasn't* holding British citizens (de-facto) hostage, they might
very well have done something considerably more spectacular.

| Considering what the British did to Argentina I think Quadaffi would
| have played ball if Thatcher had given him a face-saving out.

Considering the difficulties that Chad and France are having with Libya it
is unlikely that Britain would be able to mount any sort of successful
response in Libya that wouldn't immediately result in the death of
British citizens.  Quadaffi is a stubborn bugger and controls his country
phenomenally well.

The Falklands are *islands* - Argentina had a fair bit of difficulty 
assisting their own forces there (Britain of course had EXTREME difficulty).  
If Britain had attacked the Argentinian mainland, it would probably have 
been a completely different story.

Also remember, in the Falklands Britain attacked a territory that Argentina
claimed, but had virtually no Argentinian citizens.  Once the rabble-rousing
wore off, the Argentinian troops weren't too terribly thrilled about being
there.  Contrast that with a direct attack on the homeland of the Libyans.  
The Libyans would have fought back hard no matter what they *really* think 
of Quadaffi.

No matter how bad Gaultieri was/is, at least he's not an out-and-out
fruitcake like Quadaffi and wouldn't be likely to order the massacre of 
innocent bystanders.

As a last thought, consider this, what did your country do militarily about 
the Iranian US embassy seizure?  Not much (one aborted attempt).  [At least
Canada's covert but non-military action did rescue a couple Americans]

The US ran an enormous risk when they attacked Libya, considering the numbers
of US civilians working in the Libyan oilfields.  And frankly, when push
comes to shove, the US wields a far bigger stick than Britain (just a little
more rotten too perhaps).
-- 
Chris Lewis, Spectrix Microsystems Inc,
UUCP: {uunet!mnetor, utcsri!utzoo, lsuc, yunexus}!spectrix!clewis
Phone: (416)-474-1955