afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis) (01/09/86)
Well, it looks as though any US military retaliation against the Libyans
is ruled out by the Reagan Administration. I'm reading the State Department
report on Libya in the NY Times, and it contains some pretty tough talk. Why,
if what we read in this report is true and substantiated by hard facts, is the
US not retaliating? If it is not true or unsubstantiated then why is it even
published? The paltry economic sanctions ordered by the Administration amount
to much less than a "slap on the wrist". If our western European "Allies"
(particularly Italy, the site of the worst of the two terrorist attacks) don't
join in, then this step is utterly meaningless.
I remember some pretty tough talk about "state-supported terrorism" in the
last few years. Wasn't that one of the reasons people elected Reagan in the
first (and second) place? You'll notice that Ronnie isn't talking much about
a "mandate from the people" on this issue...
WHAT DOES KHADAFFY HAVE TO DO?
Mike Lewis @ Purdue Universityberman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (01/16/86)
> > Well, it looks as though any US military retaliation against the Libyans > is ruled out by the Reagan Administration. I'm reading the State Department > report on Libya in the NY Times, and it contains some pretty tough talk. Why, > if what we read in this report is true and substantiated by hard facts, is the > US not retaliating? If it is not true or unsubstantiated then why is it even > published? The paltry economic sanctions ordered by the Administration amount > to much less than a "slap on the wrist". If our western European "Allies" > (particularly Italy, the site of the worst of the two terrorist attacks) don't > join in, then this step is utterly meaningless. > > I remember some pretty tough talk about "state-supported terrorism" in the > last few years. Wasn't that one of the reasons people elected Reagan in the > first (and second) place? You'll notice that Ronnie isn't talking much about > a "mandate from the people" on this issue... > > WHAT DOES KHADAFFY HAVE TO DO? > > Mike Lewis @ Purdue University To add a point: the action of administration, ineffective as it is, is on high moral grouds. However,... The atrocities vere not connected to Libia directly, but to Abu Nidal's terrorist group, currently supported (no ironclad proof, but probably true) by Libia AND Syria. Since the administration wants to cut some deal with Assad, Syria is not mentioned. Now, where is the high moral ground? It just happens that Khaddafi, an inept bungler, is much better person to hate than the shrewd Assad. If only we could find a terrorist haven in a small Carrabean Island then ho!ho!ho!, America would stand tall again. (If you do not follow press, Assad has a crucial position in Lebanon and is the most formidable adversary of Israel, while Khaddafi (Qadafi?) keeps a strip of Sahara in Chad and is implicated in helping a coup attempts (usually unsuccesful) in places like Bourkima whatever (Upper Volta). Oil being inexpensive as it is, let us hate Khaddafi and spare more dangerous guys. Piotr Berman