arndt@lymph.DEC (06/21/85)
How interesting to see the nitwits come out of the woodwork with their statements against the tack the President is currently taking with the terrorist situation in Beirut. Everyone agrees that there is no one to shoot at and that even if one chose someone many innocent people would be killed as well. THEIR BLAMING HIM FOR NOT SHOOTING FROM THE HIP!!! Of course if he did act like a 'cowboy' they'ed fall all over themselves crying about THAT. The distinction that has been made between today in Beirut and yesterday in Iran is quite clear. There WAS a government policy involved and an identified group of officials, persons and property - an entire nation! - to address with 'force'. There is nothing like that today in Beirut. The latest word is that even the terrorists holding the hostages are falling out among themselves over what to do next. But no matter the nitwits are only a very small number of loudmouth techie twerps (on the net) and in the nation at large only a few members of the quickly melting Democratic party. If Reagan walked on water, (why not, he walks on sleeze) they'ed still have something to say against him. Jerks suffering from being rejected by their fellow countrymen with nothing new to say. Rave on. Regards, Ken Arndt
cgeiger@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (charles s. geiger) (06/24/85)
> The distinction that has been made between today in Beirut and > yesterday in Iran is quite clear. There WAS a government policy > involved and an identified group of officials, persons and property > - an entire nation! - to address with 'force'. There is nothing > like that today in Beirut. This isn't the way I remember the Iranian situation at all, nor is it the way things are in Lebanon. First of all, during the Iranian incident, the government officially insisted at all times that the students who seized the embassy were in control, not they. The government said that they were acting only as mediators. Of course, this probably wasn't true, but, although anti-Americanism was official policy, taking the hostages wasn't. Second, I don't know if you are aware of this, but Berri is saying exactly the same thing now: that he doesn't have control of the hostages; instead, he is just acting as a mediator between whomever and the hijackers, and that he *persuaded* the hijackers to move the hostages as a precaution for the hostages' safety, him fearing that a rescue attempt would wind up with the hostages getting killed. Again, his claims may not be true, but it sounds almost *exactly* the same, especially considering that Berri is Minister of Justice in the official government and de facto head of another. Charles S. Geiger University of Texas
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/24/85)
>/* cgeiger@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (charles s. geiger) / 10:50 am Jun 24, 1985 */ >Second, I don't know if you are aware of this, but Berri is saying >exactly the same thing now: that he doesn't have control of the >hostages; instead, he is just acting as a mediator between whomever >and the hijackers, and that he *persuaded* the hijackers to move the >hostages as a precaution for the hostages' safety, him fearing that >a rescue attempt would wind up with the hostages getting killed. >Charles S. Geiger Actually, in an interview in the NY Times very recently, Berri said that he had control of 30 or 31 of the hostages. Mike Sykora
west@sdcsla.UUCP (Larry West) (06/25/85)
Ah, Ken Arndt again... A brief digression (pregression?): Grammatical, spelling, and semantic errors are basically accepted fare on the net, so I'm not going to criticize Ken for that. We all make those little slips, though not all to such an extent. It is a sign of lack of both care and consideration for one's readers, but those are not high on everyone's agenda. And name-calling gets its own reward: people who read the message at all lower their opinions of the author and the author's argument. The latter may not be fair, but such is life. So, on to the more substantive, and fun parts: pulling apart an argument. Or what passes for an argument. Or what looks more like argumentation for the sake of argumentation... In article <2828@decwrl.UUCP> arndt@limp.WRIST writes:-> > How interesting to see the nitwits come out of the woodwork with their > statements against the tack the President is currently taking with the > terrorist situation in Beirut. Everyone agrees that there is no one > to shoot at and that even if one chose someone many innocent people would > be killed as well. THEIR BLAMING HIM FOR NOT SHOOTING FROM THE HIP!!! Ah, but you misunderstand. No one is criticizing Ronnie for avoiding Large-Scale-Death (his favorite drug). It is a mere case of Ronnie's words coming back to haunt him. He talks big, and waves a big stick. But he finds his hands are tied, just as Jimmy Carter's were. And so some of Ronnie's more flagrant boastings about "America now standing tall thanks to me" are being shoved down his throat. { By the way, did you read the excerpt from Reagan's news conference } { (which I posted several days ago, so it probably has reached you by } { now)? The man is not coherent. And that was a setting of his } { own choosing, with only established press allowed in (i.e., } { people whose jobs depend on some amount of good will at the White } { House -- Dan Rather [with Dick Nixon] was the last to buck that, } { and he had troubles). } > > Of course if he did act like a 'cowboy' they'ed fall all over themselves > crying about THAT. You bet. Some of us are wondering what military action Ronnie's gonna pull to salvage some political ego. Nicaragua? The country he declared an imminent danger to our safety? (What better way to shame the U.S.?) > The distinction that has been made between today in Beirut and yesterday > in Iran is quite clear. There WAS a government policy involved and an > identified group of officials, persons and property - an entire nation! - > to address with 'force'. There is nothing like that today in Beirut. > The latest word is that even the terrorists holding the hostages are falling > out among themselves over what to do next. You must be too young to remember the Iranian kidnappings clearly. Yes, it is true that those in government cooperated with the so-called "students" holding the American diplomats. But official government policy was very cleverly worded. And they claimed to be unable to influence the "students". And anyway, what would you have had Carter do? Bomb an oil field and get the captives killed? > But no matter the nitwits are only a very small number of loudmouth techie > twerps (on the net) and in the nation at large only a few members of the > quickly melting Democratic party. This only detracts from your "argument". One wonders why you would think a viewpoint valid if held only by a large number of people. Surely you must hold some opinions which are not currently popular [if not, I can loan you some:-]. > If Reagan walked on water, (why not, he walks on sleeze) they'ed still > have something to say against him. Jerks suffering from being rejected > by their fellow countrymen with nothing new to say. Look, I've walked on water thousands of times, and I don't expect special treatment. Why should a politician get better? { And the "fellow countrymen with nothing new to say" who form } { Ronnie's support are not really at issue here. They'll get } { theirs when the national debt (the selling of the U.S. to foreign } { capital) comes home to roost. (What, you mean you're already } { tired of 13% of the Federal budget going to pay off the interest } { on the debt?) } > Rave on. I'm sure you will. > Regards, > > Ken Arndt -- Larry West Institute for Cognitive Science (USA+619-)452-6220 UC San Diego (mailcode C-015) [x6220] ARPA: <west@nprdc.ARPA> La Jolla, CA 92093 U.S.A. UUCP: {ucbvax,sdcrdcf,decvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!sdcsla!west OR ulysses!sdcsla!west