Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:8100 misc.legal:4205 alt.flame:1785
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: <3686@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: 12 Mar 88 09:27:21 GMT
References: <3637@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <2335@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman)
Distribution: na
Organization: Murder Inc.
Lines: 27

In article <2335@bsu-cs.UUCP> neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP (Paul Neubauer) writes:
 >In article <3637@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU > lazarus@athena.mit.edu 
 >(Michael Friedman) writes:
 > >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. 

 >Just as a footnote, Jimmy Carter was speaking here at BSU the evening before
 >last (Wed. 3/11).  He said that, in fact, that was more or less what was
 >done.  Khomeini had threatened to put the hostages on "trial" as spys and
 >Carter said that he had communicated to Khomeini via the Swiss embassy that
 >certain very undesirable things would happen to Iran if that were done and
 >that even worse things would happen if the hostages were harmed.  Carter
 >commented that this communication was kept private and although he did not
 >say much about why, I inferred that he thought it would carry more weight if
 >it was clearly not just public posturing.  I also imagine that by keeping
 >the threats quiet, they did not come across as a "dare".

Yes, yes, but why be satisfied with keeping the hostages unharmed? Why
not demand that they be freed?



These are the official opinions			Mike Friedman
of my organization. So, TOUGH!!