mark@nvuxb.UUCP (Scum of Earth) (06/18/85)
I pissed as hell. I`m pissed because the U.S. is being held hostage
by a few Shiite Lebonanesse,<sp>. Reagan should have wnt in right
away and freed the hostages. Now it is to fuckin late, the hostages
are all hidden away in the slums of Beruit. I think its time America
puts it foot down and stops being the big brother to the rest of the
world.
I know its hard to be a democratic society and refrain from military
intervention. But that time has come !!! The US has been held hostage
by those barbaric`s in the middle east before. ANd its time we showed
them whose in charge. How and why are we letting ourselves be held
hostage by a group of people whose numbers equall no more than a 1000.
I am all for dialogue, but when one of our own gets killed needlessly
its time to step in.
Reagan should ask Isreal for the realease of the Shiite prisoners then
blow beruit off the face of the map. How can he even trust Berri, when
he himself is a Shiite.
It is my belief that Shiite stands for SHIT!!! {FLAME ON BABY}
Why is it okay for Russia or an other country to use military force, but
if the US does we get stepped on by the whole world?
Damn am I pissed: I hope when Reagan goes before the country tonight
he advises the Shiites that the US will not give into Terrorist Threats..
How do you feel?
--
suicide is punishable
>--------------------> Mark Friedman, Red Bank N.J.
by the death penalty lkk@teddy.UUCP (06/20/85)
In article <171@nvuxb.UUCP> mark@nvuxb.UUCP (Scum of Earth) writes: >I pissed as hell. I`m pissed because the U.S. is being held hostage >by a few Shiite Lebonanesse,<sp>. Reagan should have wnt in right >away and freed the hostages. Now it is to fuckin late, the hostages >are all hidden away in the slums of Beruit. I think its time America >puts it foot down and stops being the big brother to the rest of the >world. >I know its hard to be a democratic society and refrain from military >intervention. But that time has come !!! The US has been held hostage >by those barbaric`s in the middle east before. ANd its time we showed >them whose in charge. How and why are we letting ourselves be held >hostage by a group of people whose numbers equall no more than a 1000. >I am all for dialogue, but when one of our own gets killed needlessly >its time to step in. >Reagan should ask Isreal for the realease of the Shiite prisoners then >blow beruit off the face of the map. How can he even trust Berri, when >he himself is a Shiite. >It is my belief that Shiite stands for SHIT!!! {FLAME ON BABY} >Why is it okay for Russia or an other country to use military force, but >if the US does we get stepped on by the whole world? >Damn am I pissed: I hope when Reagan goes before the country tonight >he advises the Shiites that the US will not give into Terrorist Threats.. >How do you feel? > >-- > >suicide is punishable >>--------------------> Mark Friedman, Red Bank N.J. >by the death penalty Now, now, calm down, get off your pedestal, and remember, this is reality, not the A-team. The current hijacking crises IS quite appalling. It makes you sick to see innocent victims being terrorized for political reasons of which they are entirely ignorant. and selecting Jewish passengers for special treatment, etc. BUT, LET US KEEP OUR PERSPECTIVE... This hijacking did not happen in a vacuum. The overall situation in the middle east is very much the responsibilty of the United States govt., and the Amal is a product of that situation. According to the NYTimes, Nabih Berri used to be a moderate before the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. When the U.S. govt. wants to apply pressure against an adversary, they have many resources at their disposal to do so SUBTLY. The can apply economic pressure, or use the C.I.A or what have you. Dispossed groups like the lebanese Shiites have only one means at their disposal to prod the superpower U.S. to action, and that is terrorism. Hit them where they're vulnerable. I'm not condoning the hijacking. All I ask is that you cut the flag-waving jingoistic shit and realize that the US govt., in supporting contras, or random tinpot dictators, plays the exact same game as the Shiites. But since they only terrorize third-world peasants, we can conveniently turn a blind eye to THEIR terror. A plague on both houses. -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/20/85)
>/* mark@nvuxb.UUCP (Scum of Earth) / 3:23 pm Jun 18, 1985 */ >I think its time America >puts it foot down and stops being the big brother to the rest of the >world. Has it occurred to you that this might not have happened if the U.S. had not tried to be "the big brother to the rest of the world" for so long. (Note, I am not excusing the terrorists for their actions -- if we can, we should blow THEM up.) >I know its hard to be a democratic society and refrain from military >intervention. But that time has come !!! Direct military intervention by us in Asia Minor now would be foolish indeed. Let us learn a lesson from the Soviet Union's debacle in Afghanistan, if not from our own in Vietnam. >The US has been held hostage >by those barbaric`s in the middle east before. ANd its time we showed >them whose in charge. Unfortunately, it appears that the Ayatollah is. >I am all for dialogue, but when one of our own gets killed needlessly >its time to step in. The U.S. government should not presume to guarantee the safety of U.S. citizens outside of its borders, since (among other reasons) it can't. Furthermore, this may have the effect of rendering terrorism against U.S. citizens abroad useless. >Reagan should ask Isreal for the realease of the Shiite prisoners then >blow beruit off the face of the map. Right! It's ok to kill millions of the not guilty in order to eliminate thousands of the guilty! >How can he even trust Berri, when he himself is a Shiite. The only good Shiite is a dead Shiite! Right? We may not be able to trust Berri, but the mere fact that he is a Shiite does not demonstrate such a conclusion. >Why is it okay for Russia or an other country to use military force, but >if the US does we get stepped on by the whole world? Who says it's ok? The UN General Assembly? >>--------------------> Mark Friedman, Red Bank N.J. Mike Sykora
todd@SCINEWS.UUCP (Todd Jones) (06/21/85)
I never thought I would defend Reagan's actions (or in this case, lack of action) > I pissed as hell. I`m pissed because the U.S. is being held hostage Oh! You pissed as hell pissed? How does hell piss, anyway? > by a few Shiite Lebonanesse,<sp>. Reagan should have wnt in right Lebanebanebonese, I think. Reagan shouldn't have wnt, he shouldn't have even went, as a matter of fact he shouldn't even have GONE in to free the hostages. > away and freed the hostages. Now it is to fuckin late, the hostages It is not to fuckin late, but it has always been too late. > are all hidden away in the slums of Beruit. I think its time America it's > puts it foot down and stops being the big brother to the rest of the put its foot down and cease being... Wouldn't America be acting as the world's big brother by doing just that? > world. > I know its hard to be a democratic society and refrain from military > intervention. But that time has come !!! The US has been held hostage what time? > by those barbaric`s in the middle east before. ANd its time we showed barbarians it's > them whose in charge. How and why are we letting ourselves be held who's > hostage by a group of people whose numbers equall no more than a 1000. equal 1000. > I am all for dialogue, but when one of our own gets killed needlessly > its time to step in. ...and kill more, needfully. > Reagan should ask Isreal for the realease of the Shiite prisoners then I think it would be more appropriate to ask Israel to release them. ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ > blow beruit off the face of the map. How can he even trust Berri, when Beruit > he himself is a Shiite. > It is my belief that Shiite stands for SHIT!!! {FLAME ON BABY} Oh how clever! I think I see the connection! > Why is it okay for Russia or an other country to use military force, but Who said it's okay? Not me! > if the US does we get stepped on by the whole world? > Damn am I pissed: I hope when Reagan goes before the country tonight > he advises the Shiites that the US will not give into Terrorist Threats.. What kind of advice is telling someone your reaction? > How do you feel? > I FEEL LIKE FLAMIN'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You think it's sooooooooooooooooooooooooo easy to storm Beruit and grab some hostages out of a heavily guarded airplane? These Shiites consider it an honor to be martyrs for their beliefs, so you know the chances of staging a successful rescue (no American casualties) are very remote. For once Reagan appears to be exhibiting common sense, although he is motivated by his "teflon-preservation" instincts which nullifies any common sense as a real factor. Why is it so shameful to admit that a handful of religious hyper-zealots can hold our country at bay by preying on our love for our fellow countrymen? What will we show the world by attempting some macho ill-fated rescue attempt? We will reinforce beliefs that America is the hot-headed bully of international politics, willing to condemn our own citizens to exhibit our bravado. What I want to know is: Which Caribbean nation is Ronnie going to invade, to divert global attention from this recent mess? The preceding opinions are, in all likelihood, those of Todd Jones. However, these opinions will, in all certainty, bear scant resemblance to the opinions of SCI Systems, Inc., Mr. Jones' employer. ||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | _ | |___| FLAME ME IF YOU DARE! P.S. Mark- buy a dictionary and a book of style. I'll still flame ya', but I'll have to work a little harder.
akl@leopard.UUCP (Anita ) (06/21/85)
() > I pissed as hell. I`m pissed because the U.S. is being held hostage > by a few Shiite Lebonanesse,<sp>. .... > > How do you feel? > > >--------------------> Mark Friedman, Red Bank N.J. I feel that this discussion does not belong in net.women, and I also feel you have need of a dictionary. -- * From the musical keyboard of: ** * * Anita K. Laux leopard!akl * * Bell Communications Research **** 331 Newman Springs Road * * Red Bank, NJ 07701 * * ****
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (06/23/85)
>What I want to know is: Which Caribbean nation is Ronnie going to > invade, to divert global attention from this > recent mess? Well, Reagan has stated that he'll never send troops to Central America, so we know he'll never never invade Nicaragua. What about Cuba? We haven't invaded them for some time. Help solve Ronnie's image problem! Send your suggestions of countries to invade to: George Shultz State Dept. Foggy Bottom Washington DC G*d's Country --R. Carnes
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (06/23/85)
> I pissed as hell...
This is a plea to everyone who follows up on this topic to take net.women
and net.social out of the Newsgroups line. Flaming discussions on the
hostage crisis don't belong there. I will leave it up to net.politics readers
to decide whether they would rather not share articles on politics with
net.flame.
--
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
aka Swazoo Koolak
{amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff
{ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeffmarkr@garfield.UUCP (Mark R. Dawson) (06/24/85)
In letter <171@nvuxb.UUCP> mark@nvuxb.UUCP writes, > I pissed as hell. I`m pissed because the U.S. is being held hostage > by a few Shiite Lebonanesse,<sp>. Reagan should have wnt in right > away and freed the hostages. Now it is to fuckin late, the hostages > are all hidden away in the slums of Beruit. I think its time America > puts it foot down and stops being the big brother to the rest of the > world. Honestly mark, you have been watching to many of Ronnie's Westerns. You don't really believe that that the great U.S. Marines could just storm into Beirut and rescued the hostages, do you? The only result from that kind of action would be the deaths of the hostages, of marines, and of innocent bystanders. The only people who see U.S.A. as the world's big brother are you americains. If you ever did some travelling into the third world you would find that the United States along with the U.S.S.R. are two of the most hated countries in the world. I remember being told to state my country of origin as Canada and to never let people think that you are an americain. You shouldn't find these statements to susprising, your governments policies in Central and South America and the rest of the developing world do not tend to make to many friends. How do you expect a Nicaraguan women to accept your ideas of liberty and demo- cracy when her only son is killed by U.S. supported right wing scum from the Somoza era? > I know its hard to be a democratic society and refrain from military > intervention. But that time has come !!! The US has been held hostage > by those barbaric`s in the middle east before. ANd its time we showed > them whose in charge. How and why are we letting ourselves be held > hostage by a group of people whose numbers equall no more than a 1000. > I am all for dialogue, but when one of our own gets killed needlessly > its time to step in. The main problem with the U.S.A. is that it wants to be in charge of the whole damned world. You want to shove your psuedo-democracy down the world's throat. The reason americains were held hostage by those 'barbaric`s in the middle east' was because you stick your probing noses in other peoples affairs, you are hated by other nations because of you lust for power, those 'barbaric`s' know that you want to be in charge and that is why they strike out against you. This small group is trying to fight with a lumbering, festering , cancerous giant and the only way they can do that is through the use of t terror. The 'one of our own' that was killed was a marine, the most hated form of Americain intervention. 'The Green Beret' is definitely not one of the favorite songs of the third world. > Reagan should ask Isreal for the realease of the Shiite prisoners then > blow beruit off the face of the map. How can he even trust Berri, when > he himself is a Shiite. > It is my belief that Shiite stands for SHIT!!! {FLAME ON BABY} Why the hell doesn't he! The old moose is standing tall, he wants Israel to save the hostages and protect him from the press. Why not blow up Beirut, lets all do our part to advance world hatred of the U.S. of A. You americans are willing to sacrifice anything and anyone to get to your goals. It is my belief that American stands for AROGANCE!!! > Why is it okay for Russia or an other country to use military force, but > if the US does we get stepped on by the whole world? When the Russians invade Afghanistan horror stories are thrust on us for years, but when the U.S. of A. slaughters Nicaraguan citizens in order to protect their business interests I have to turn to foriegn news sources like 'Le Devoir' to read about it. Your media is eating out of the hand of the government. > Damn am I pissed: I hope when Reagan goes before the country tonight > he advises the Shiites that the US will not give into Terrorist Threats.. > How do you feel? > > -- > > suicide is punishable > >--------------------> Mark Friedman, Red Bank N.J. > by the death penalty I feel sick reading this crap. Mark Dawson markr@garfield.UUCP ps. my apologies to my relatives in Orono and San Diego.
sed408@ihlpg.UUCP (s. dugan) (06/25/85)
>I pissed as hell. I`m pissed because the U.S. is being held hostage >by a few Shiite Lebonanesse,<sp>. Reagan should have wnt in right >away and freed the hostages. It's really easy for us to sit here at our terminals and try to decide how our leaders are supposed to run things. The only trouble is that you and a lot of other people DEMAND that SOMETHING be done, but I don't see you offering any PRACTICAL, HUMANE solutions. I can just hear your response: "Why should we be humane if the Shiites aren't humane." My response is that if you expect others to treat you humanely, you must behave that way yourself. Two wrongs don't make a right and they usually lead to more wrongs! >Now it is to fuckin late, the hostages >are all hidden away in the slums of Beruit. I think its time America >puts it foot down and stops being the big brother to the rest of the >world. >I know its hard to be a democratic society and refrain from military >intervention. But that time has come !!! The US has been held hostage >by those barbaric`s in the middle east before. ANd its time we showed >them whose in charge. How and why are we letting ourselves be held >hostage by a group of people whose numbers equall no more than a 1000. I question your statistics. >I am all for dialogue, but when one of our own gets killed needlessly >its time to step in. What you're saying here is that it's alright if someone (anyone) else gets killed as long as it's not "our own". So the only solution is to kill someone else? >Reagan should ask Isreal for the realease of the Shiite prisoners then >blow beruit off the face of the map. What good would that do? Start a war? Have someone come over here and retalliate? How would you like it if they blew up your home-town? >How can he even trust Berri, when >he himself is a Shiite. >It is my belief that Shiite stands for SHIT!!! {FLAME ON BABY} >Why is it okay for Russia or an other country to use military force, but >if the US does we get stepped on by the whole world? >Damn am I pissed: I hope when Reagan goes before the country tonight >he advises the Shiites that the US will not give into Terrorist Threats.. >How do you feel? > -- Sarah E. Dugan "One Day At A Time" ########################################################################### # AT&T Bell Labs IH 1D-408 The Forest (home) # # Naperville-Wheaton Rd. 1353 Crab Apple Court Apt. 101 # # Naperville, Illinois 60566 Naperville, Illinois 60540 # # (312) 979 - 5545 (312) 355 - 0445 # ###########################################################################
cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (06/28/85)
In article <3185@garfield.UUCP> markr@garfield.UUCP (Mark R. Dawson) writes: >In letter <171@nvuxb.UUCP> mark@nvuxb.UUCP writes, >> I pissed as hell. I`m pissed because the U.S. is being held hostage >> by a few Shiite Lebanese. [...plus more knee-jerk xenophobia] >> Well, for one thing, the US is NOT being held hostage, some *Americans* are being held hostage. Tying the nation to this act is exactly what the Shi'ite terrorists want. It would be a very good idea if the gov't made it clear that foreign policy, etc. will in no way be affected by any terrorist act you care to name. Carter's biggest mistake was to make it look like that he was personally responsible for the Iran hostages' fate. It seriously looked as if the US was a pawn of a bunch of fanatics. Reagan would do better to avoid this. In article <3185@garfield.UUCP> markr@garfield.UUCP (Mark R. Dawson) writes: > The only people who see U.S.A. as the world's big brother are you americans. >If you ever did some traveling into the third world you would find that the >United States along with the U.S.S.R. are two of the most hated countries in >the world. I remember being told to state my country of origin as Canada and to >never let people think that you are an american. I remember being told to wear the maple leaf, too, especially when touring Europe. This is more from Europeans' experiences with the general run of US tourists than from a general & pervasive hatred for the US and all it stands for. As far as the mindless and baseless charge that the US is hated as much as the USSR goes, however, I'm afraid you'll have to back this up with facts instead of bile. >You shouldn't find these statements to surprising, your governments policies in >Central and South America and the rest of the developing world do not tend to >make to many friends. > How do you expect a Nicaraguan women to accept your ideas of liberty and demo- >cracy when her only son is killed by U.S. supported right wing scum from the >Somoza era? > Good point. But the fact remains that "blame it all on them" is a very easy way to win popular support. Hitler used this tactic to great effect. However, the accusation that "US policies as a whole turn the Third World off" is nonsense. The US policy of economic aid (not just handouts) to 3W countries is very effective in making friends abroad. Military-style aid is generally seen as a far less effective method of making friends. > > The main problem with the U.S.A. is that it wants to be in charge of the >whole damned world. You want to shove your pseudo-democracy down the >world's throat. The reason americans were held hostage by those 'barbarians >in the middle east' was because ... [continuing paragraph of obnoxiousness ] > It is all too easy to fall into the trap of believing the propaganda directed against your enemies. This paragraph of tripe above has the distinct ring of brainless hate about it. Admittedly, the US is guilty of wanting to re-create the world in its own image. Also, US vested business interests abroad *do* seem to figure rather large in the formulation of foreign policy. The real problem is that the US is too afraid of "the commies" to make a more rational and sensible foreign policy. However, "wanting to be in charge" is a foolish claim. The US has never installed puppet governments anywhere, nor has it ever questioned the right of locals to self-determination. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, DOES want to be in charge of the entire world, and has made definite strides in that direction by dictating to foreign countries how their governments are to work. The US has allies across the world, while the USSR has vassal states. different topic.. Why is this discussion in the last 2 groups listed here ? Newsgroups: net.politics,net.social,net.women,net.flame Chris Shaw watmath!watmum!cdshaw or cdshaw@watmath University of Waterloo No part of this message may reproduce, store itself in a retrieval system, or transmit disease, in any form, without the permissiveness of the author.
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (06/28/85)
THe fact that American citizens are being used as hostage to force
another coutry into action would seem to indicate that the people
responsible feel that the US has some sane influence on the 3rd country.
What has been advocated here is that the US involve itself in a
Vietnam style way.
The John Wayne approach to diplomacy and international relations only
works in the movies.
Any violent overt action at this point might have three possible outcomes:
1) The death of some or all of the hostages, innocent bystanders
and those guilty of the terrorist act before they can
be brought to trail for their illegal acts.
2) The loss of esteem (face if you will) of the US through
reason of having to stoop to the level of the violent
to achieve a solution to the situation.
3) The establishment of a precedent which would cause the US to
resort to violence at every turn in the furture which
begins the dominoe thought of retaliation and counter-
retaliation and the involvement of other aligned powers
to protect their interests and alliances.
(World War III if you will)
I find it hard to believe that give enven the potential for any one of these
points to become fact that anyone with a functioning brain and some common
sense would advocate instant action with deadly force.
The Isreali Army demonstrated the manner of operation against Idhi Amin
some years ago and most terrorists who care to take captives as a means
to an end are as aware of how that was done as most governments. I doubt
that such a tactic would ever again be succesfull ( I have been known to be
wrong .. wasn't that just last week (;=) _ )
jeanette l. zobjeck
ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie
================================================================================
These are my opinions!
I worked for them and I intend to enjoy them.
Handle carefully or else someone might think they are yours also.
================================================================================
~~~
(o o) *************************
|WMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWM /MWMW| * TO HELL WITH THE DOG *
|MWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMW | WMWM| * -*-*-*-*-*-*- *
_________I_I________|/_____ * WATCH OUT FOR THE *
* OWNER *
*************************don@umd5.UUCP (07/01/85)
In article <183@ihlpl.UUCP> zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) writes: > >Any violent overt action at this point might have three possible outcomes: > > 2) The loss of esteem (face if you will) of the US through > reason of having to stoop to the level of the violent > to achieve a solution to the situation. (From an editorial in the Washington Post, written by Alexander Haig,Jr. on this subject.) "...Second comes the moral fallacy that somehow counterterrorist action, which may risk innocent lives, 'dirties' our hands. This fallacy condemns us to paralysis and puts the terrorist and his victims - and the United States is a victim - on the same moral plane. The use of force may miscarry. Military operations do go awry. But the alternative to risking a few precious lives today may be to risk many more no less precious lives tomorrow, as terrorists and the governments that support them become convinced that we lack the moral strength to defend our values... ...We must deter terrorism by lowering the rewards and raising the penalties for those who encourage it..." No flames, please. I just felt that I should bring this article to your attention in order to enhance the current discussion. -- --==---==---==-- ___________ _____ ---- _____ \ //---- IDIC ----- _\______//_ ---- ---------- ARPA: don@umd5.ARPA BITNET: don%umd5@umd2 SPOKEN: Chris Sylvain UUCP: {seismo,rlgvax,allegra,brl-bmd,nrl-css}!umcp-cs!cvl!umd5!don
al@aurora.UUCP (Al Globus) (07/03/85)
> >I know its hard to be a democratic society and refrain from military > >intervention. But that time has come !!! Correct me if I am wrong, but a year or two back I distinctly remember news reports about U.S. naval vessels blasting Lebanese villages with high explosives. I think it was a battleship and a few destroyers. I can also remember TV pictures of Lebanese homes reduced to rubble. I don't remember the casualty figures, but given the general inaccuracy of unspotted naval gunfire they were probably quite large, and very likely civilian. Shelling people is an act of war. Shortly after we started pounding the people of Lebenon the marines were attacked, later the embassy was attacked, and most recently the TWA jet hijacked and a **US NAVY** man killed. I can't help but think that if we hadn't shelled the Lebanese they wouldn't have fought back. I can assure you that if the Lebanese navy shelled the Virginia hills I would be proud of any American that drove a truck loaded with explosivess into a Lebanese military compound or highjacked a Lebanese jet and killed a Lebanese navy man. We attacked them and now complain when they fight back the only way they can. I say we stop killing people without a congressional declaration of war as required by the Constitution.
sed408@ihlpg.UUCP (s. dugan) (07/08/85)
Will you folks please keep this out of net.women? It really doesn't belong! -- Sarah E. Dugan "Easy Does It, But *DO* It" ########################################################################### # AT&T Bell Labs IH 1D-408 The Forest (home) # # Naperville-Wheaton Rd. 1353 Crab Apple Court Apt. 101 # # Naperville, Illinois 60566 Naperville, Illinois 60540 # # (312) 979 - 5545 (312) 355 - 0445 # ###########################################################################
pwb@fritz.UUCP (Phil Bonesteele) (07/09/85)
In article <> al@aurora.UUCP (Al Globus) writes: >> >I know its hard to be a democratic society and refrain from military >> >intervention. But that time has come !!! > >Correct me if I am wrong, but a year or two back I distinctly remember >news reports about U.S. naval vessels blasting Lebanese villages with >high explosives. I think it was a battleship and a few destroyers. I >can also remember TV pictures of Lebanese homes reduced to rubble. I >don't remember the casualty figures, but given the general inaccuracy >of unspotted naval gunfire they were probably quite large, and very likely >civilian. Shelling people is an act of war. > > . . . > > (more justification of attacks on U.S. embassy, U.S. Marines, etc.) If my memory of those events serves me correctly, you are indeed wrong. The Battleship New Jersey and said destroyers fired on GUN EMPLACEMENTS ONLY, and with great accuracy at that (our modern naval vessels are equipped with automated means of determining trajectories of incoming rounds, and thus the exact coordinates of the firing gun emplacement ... of course these coordinates can be fed to automated fire control systems ... isn't it a wonder what computers have done for surgical warfare?). The rounds fired by the U.S. naval vessels were in RESPONSE to shells fired at the ground based Marines and/or the ships themselves from gun emplacements in the hills around Beirut and in the Bekka Valley. The objective was to silence the offending guns and the Navy was quite successful in achieving that objective with little loss of life (except for those stationed at the offending guns), a minimal number of rounds, and without "blasting Lebanese villages with high explosives". Never during the U.S.'s participation in the MULTINATIONAL peace keeping force did any U.S. military unit fire without having been fired upon. Remember, as a jesture of this policy, the Marines stationed at the Beirut airport were ordered to maintain their weapons unloaded. I would be pleased if Mr. Globus would attempt to restate his justifications of the bombing attacks on the U.S. Marines stationed at the Beirut airport and the U.S. Embassy, and the recent TWA hijacking in light of the above recollection of the past events. My opinion, briefly stated, is that the reasons for the various attacks on U.S. personnel, installations, and civilians is not as simple as Mr. Globus presents in his original article. Phil Bonesteele FileNet Corp. Costa Mesa, CA {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!trwrb!felix!pwb "Government after all is a very simple thing." - Warren G. Harding, 29th President of the U.S.
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/11/85)
>/* al@aurora.UUCP (Al Globus) / 9:16 pm Jul 2, 1985 */ >I say we stop killing people without a congressional declaration >of war as required by the Constitution. That would make shelling Lebanon OK?
al@aurora.UUCP (Al Globus) (07/16/85)
> >I say we stop killing people without a congressional declaration > >of war as required by the Constitution. > > That would make shelling Lebanon OK? The point is that Reagan couldn't have got a declaration of war so that there would have been no shelling. A declaration of war is a filter to prevent overuse of force. If we obeyed our constition we'd use force much less than we do today.
al@aurora.UUCP (Al Globus) (07/16/85)
>The Battleship New Jersey and said destroyers fired on GUN >EMPLACEMENTS ONLY, and with great accuracy at that (our modern naval >vessels are equipped with automated means of determining trajectories >of incoming rounds... According to an article in Aviation Week (sorry, can't remember the issue), US Naval gunfire in Lebanon was quite inaccurate do to poor spotting. Even with a lot of computers and sensors naval gunfire is not accurate without spotters due to wind, slight variations in shells, movement of the ship, etc. Spotting was poor because we have no RPVs (remote piloted vehicles), there were few ground spotters, and we didn't want to risk piloted aircraft. This was agravated since it seems the Moslems tended to put their artillery in populated areas. >The rounds fired by the U.S. naval vessels >were in RESPONSE to shells fired at the ground based Marines and/or >the ships themselves from gun emplacements in the hills around Beirut >and in the Bekka Valley. This was true at first. Later, the gunfire was used to support the Lebanese army against the Moslems. >I would be pleased if Mr. Globus would attempt to restate his >justifications of the bombing attacks on the U.S... I'm not trying to justify anything. I'd just like to point out that people get extremely upset when the are shelled, regardless of what justifications are given in editorials, and tend to shoot back. This is a fact, not a justification. If you send combat troops into civil wars, weapons loaded or not, they're going to get shot at. Responding by shelling populated areas is stupid. You will notice that the vast major of marine casualties came AFTER the naval shelling. If we had followed our constitution, Congress would never have declared war, no troops would have been sent, and no marines would have died. Perhaps there would have been no hijacking, but that cannot be said with confidence.