todd@SCINEWS.UUCP (Todd Jones) (06/20/85)
Isn't it curious that Ronald Reagan won the 1980 election by declaring (among other equally neo-macho proposals) that terrorism during his administration's reign would be met with "swift and effective retribution", and yet he appears to be sitting on his hands regarding the current hostage situation? Don't get me wrong, I don't favor nuking Beirut to convey the image of a strong America, but Reagan's hypocrisy has reared its ugly and all-too-familiar head in such a blatant way as to *maybe* corrode his teflon a bit. In the news conference I saw last night (6/18/85), Ronnie tried to explain that the differences between our current hostage situation and the Iranian hostage situation of 1979-1980 are: 1) The Iranian situation was sanctioned by a government, not by an unruly group of fanatics as is the case in our current hostage situation. My response: Bullshit! Berri, an apparent(?) leader of Lebanon, is actively assisting the terrorists by sheltering the hostages and even ordering their transfer to a location other than the Beirut airport. Berri is even joining the terrorists in demanding the release of the Shiite prisoners in Israel (scheduled for release anyway (although it's true that Israel may be violating the Geneva convention in harboring them)). 2) The situation in Beirut is one of anarchy, thus one cannot honestly call any Lebanese group a "government." My response: Don't you think, Mr. Reagan, that Iran in 1979 was experiencing the same level of anarchy? Would it not be fair to say the same level of disorganization that exists in Beirut today existed in Iran in 1979 (or today for that matter)? Would anyone care to explain the differences between the two events that would tie Mr. Reagan's hands, while labelling Mr. Carter a "wimp?" Can anyone defend Mr. Reagan's discrepancies of word and action? I personally find comfort (but only a bit) in Ronnie's apparent reluctance to use force, but it sickens me that he cons Americans into thinking he would "kick some ass" (adapted Bush quote) and not be a wimpy Democrat and then he finds it's not so easy to ride into Beirut with a pair of sixguns looking for the bad guy. What scares me most is the scenario of Ronnie playing Mr. Helpless while plotting some overblown rescue hostages/level Lebanon mission. Don't get me wrong. I don't advocate giving in to terrorist demands. I don't advocate turning our backs on innocent American citizens. But I think Mr. Reagan is finding out that maybe Mr. Carter didn't have a solveable predicament on his hands. My prediction of the next Reagan ultimatum: Alright you evil terrorists, either you release the captive Americans immediately, or we'll invade another Caribbean hotbed of communism! Fellow netters, from neo-commies to pistol-toting fascists, tell me what you think. I can take *ANY* flame you can dish out! 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-Proof Shield FLAME ME IF YOU DARE!
rafferty@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Colin Rafferty) (06/22/85)
> My prediction of the next Reagan ultimatum: > > Alright you evil terrorists, either you release the > captive Americans immediately, or we'll invade another > Caribbean hotbed of communism! > > | [ O-O ] | Todd Jones That would make lots of sense. How about this reply to a mugger: "If you rob me, I'm going to go home and beat my wife." Makes about as much sense as telling a Shiite that you're going to overthrow a Communist country. ---- Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University } "I suspect that CMU would deny ever knowing me, let alone sharing my views."
reza@ihuxb.UUCP (Reza Taheri) (06/25/85)
> 2) The situation in Beirut is one of anarchy, thus one > cannot honestly call any Lebanese group a "government." > > My response: > Don't you think, Mr. Reagan, that Iran in 1979 was > experiencing the same level of anarchy? Would it > not be fair to say the same level of disorganization > that exists in Beirut today existed in Iran in 1979 > (or today for that matter)? > > | [ O-O ] | Todd Jones > | \ ^ / | {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd Most Americans don't know this, but the Iranian hostage crisis started the same way. The students who stormed the embassy did that out of their own resolve. Then, there was total chaos for about two weeks while all the different political bodies aligned and re-aligned themselves with respect to the hostage taking. Interesting to note are that the prime minister officially and explicitly condemned the hostage taking and Khomeini did not take sides for about a couple of weeks. Once he did, the prime minister resigned and "Death to America" became the official national chant. Even after that, there was intense politicking going on behind the apparently unified front put up by the Iranians. There is nothing that Carter could do (negotiation AND military wise) that Reagan can't. There is a lot that Reagan can do (using the "friendly" (read puppet) government in Lebenon in the political end and the nearby airports available in Israel, etc. in the military end) that Carter couldn't. His actions are vindicating Carter. I love it! H. Reza Taheri ...!ihnp4!ihuxb!reza (312)-979-7473
todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (06/27/85)
> > My prediction of the next Reagan ultimatum: > > > > Alright you evil terrorists, either you release the > > captive Americans immediately, or we'll invade another > > Caribbean hotbed of communism! > > > > | [ O-O ] | Todd Jones > > That would make lots of sense. How about this reply to a mugger: "If you > rob me, I'm going to go home and beat my wife." Makes about as much sense > as telling a Shiite that you're going to overthrow a Communist country. > > ---- > Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University } Colin, that doesn't make any sense! that would be like me detonating a nuclear device because my officemate refused to return a pencil he borrowed. ||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | _ | |___| FLAME ME IF YOU DARE!
rafferty@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Colin Rafferty) (06/30/85)
>>> My prediction of the next Reagan ultimatum: >>> >>> Alright you evil terrorists, either you release the >>> captive Americans immediately, or we'll invade another >>> Caribbean hotbed of communism! >>> >>> | [ O-O ] | Todd Jones >> >> That would make lots of sense. How about this reply to a mugger: "If you >> rob me, I'm going to go home and beat my wife." Makes about as much sense >> as telling a Shiite that you're going to overthrow a Communist country. >> >> Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University } > > Colin, that doesn't make any sense! that would be like me detonating > a nuclear device because my officemate refused to return a pencil he > borrowed. > > [ O-O ] Todd Jones The point that I was trying to make was that by invading an innocent country because some terrorists took hostages, we would only be taking out our frustrations on something else, only because of our own feeling of impotence in this case. I admit that it was not a good analogy, but it wasn't meant to be one. It was meant to show how what you originally said was a non-sequitor by giving a worse one. To quote some utterly unreasonable fool, "Do I have to follow all my facetious responses with a sideways smiley face?" ---- Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University } "I suspect that CMU would deny ever knowing me, let alone sharing my views."
bill@persci.UUCP (07/01/85)
>> > My prediction of the next Reagan ultimatum: >> > [...senseless statements...] >> > | [ O-O ] | Todd Jones >> That would make lots of sense. How about this reply to a mugger: "If you >> rob me, I'm going to go home and beat my wife." Makes about as much sense >> as telling a Shiite that you're going to overthrow a Communist country. >> Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University } >Colin, that doesn't make any sense! that would be like me detonating >a nuclear device because my officemate refused to return a pencil he >borrowed. Ahem. I think that that's the point Colin was making. The original statement was senseless, and trying to place stupid remarks like that in some else's mouth only makes you look dumb. -- Bill Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill