rmarti@sun.uucp (Bob Marti) (04/30/86)
> In article <748@kontron.UUCP>, Clayton Cramer @ Kontron Electronics writes: > >> I think you've hit the nail right on the head, I wonder if the >> American would have attacked if they were a lot closer to Libya, >> we in Europe will undoubtly suffer the consequences of Reagan's >> action. > > Fascinating: A attacks B, B defends himself by attacking A, so > A attacks C, and C blames B. No wonder the computer industry is > located here. There's a logic shortage in Europe. Polls show that most Americans (77% or so) back Reagan's decision to bomb Libya. I would conclude that this is because they believe that it will stop or at least diminish terrorism. There can't be any other reasons. After all, the US is a civilized country, right!? At the same time, the media abound with stories of how many Americans have canceled their trip to Europe, because they are scared of potential terrorist actions in Europe. In other words, they don't seem to believe that the rate of terrorism is decreasing. Seems a little paradox, doesn't it, unless of course all of the Americans who had planned a trip to Europe just happened to belong to the 23% who don't back their administration's actions. --Bob Marti
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (05/03/86)
In article <3614@sun.uucp> rmarti@sun.UUCP writes: >Polls show that most Americans (77% or so) back Reagan's decision to >bomb Libya. I would conclude that this is because they believe that >it will stop or at least diminish terrorism. There can't be any other >reasons. After all, the US is a civilized country, right!? At the >same time, the media abound with stories of how many Americans have >canceled their trip to Europe, because they are scared of potential >terrorist actions in Europe. In other words, they don't seem to >believe that the rate of terrorism is decreasing. Seems a little >paradox, doesn't it, unless of course all of the Americans who had planned >a trip to Europe just happened to belong to the 23% who don't back their >administration's actions. One can believe that the raids represent a step in the best strategy for fighting terrorism, without believing that the short term effect will be to diminish terrorism. In 1939, the best way to oppose German domination of Europe was to go to war with it; this did not make European travel any safer for the next few years. I don't necessarily agree with this analysis of the raids, but (1) it is much more reasonable than thinking that they will immediately end or diminish terrorism, (2) it accords with the public statements of the U.S. government, and (3) it accounts nicely for the behaviors noted above. I might add (4) it corresponds to the views I have heard people express. Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108