Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:8073 misc.legal:4193 alt.flame:1780 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!lazarus From: lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.flame Subject: Re: Historical and Geographic inaccuracies. Message-ID: <3637@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> Date: 10 Mar 88 21:21:50 GMT References: <2445@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <6385@oberon.USC.EDU> <995@stratus.UUCP> <3310@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <487@spectrix.UUCP> Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU Reply-To: lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) Organization: Murder Inc. Lines: 66 In article <487@spectrix.UUCP > clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris R. Lewis) writes: >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. You miss my point. They should never have surrounded that Embassy. They should have talked to Quadaffi privately. If that hadn't worked they should have broken relations, expelled the Libyan diplomats, and told their own people to return home or else. Then they should have attacked. >| 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. Yes, but I am not talking about an invasion. I am talking about bombing raids / naval bombardment. Much simpler and much easier. British citizens would have already been ordered to leave by their government. There would be an implied threat that actions taking against any who remained would be met with further death and destruction. >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). I would agree with every statement in your last two paragraphs. We should have immediately declared war. That would have let the Iranians know we were serious. We should have handed them target lists describing what would happen if our people were hurt or killed. And a LARGE naval task force should have headed towards Iran. The rest would have been up to Allah. These are the official opinions Mike Friedman of my organization. So, TOUGH!!