mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/09/85)
According to our newpaper reports of the State of the Union address,
US media hid or ignored Reagan's use of Libyan rhetoric: that the <Nation>
had a right and duty to aid "freedom fighters" against the <oppressor
nation> wherever they might be fighting.
According to our newspapers, Congress cheered.
Sad, isn't it.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtplunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett) (02/13/85)
> Martin Taylor > {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt: > According to our newpaper reports of the State of the Union address, > US media hid or ignored Reagan's use of Libyan rhetoric: that the <Nation> > had a right and duty to aid "freedom fighters" against the <oppressor > nation> wherever they might be fighting. > According to our newspapers, Congress cheered. > Sad, isn't it. No, the President did not make that generalization. Very specifically, the U.S. has a right and a duty to it's citizens and other countries of the world that depend on U.S. security to help overthrow and destroy regimes that threaten said security. I also believe he is suggesting that "the enemy of our enemy is our friend." We all cheer at this. That the media is said to have "hidden" or "ignored" this call is silly: there is no consipiracy of silence; if it wasn't attacked with the usual venom it is probably because for once the media recognized and understood common sense. Generalizing the notion is the usual liberal trick to help confuse those who ought to know better. Sad, isn't it? Scott Plunkett, ..{ihnp4,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett
ix654@sdcc6.UUCP (ix654) (02/14/85)
> According to our newpaper reports of the State of the Union address, > US media hid or ignored Reagan's use of Libyan rhetoric: that the <Nation> > had a right and duty to aid "freedom fighters" against the <oppressor > nation> wherever they might be fighting. > According to our newspapers, Congress cheered. > Sad, isn't it. > -- > Martin Taylor > {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt > {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt If you ask me, I'd rather live in "freedom" as defined by R. R. than in the one constructed under Quadaffi's guidelines. Equating the two seems rather simplistic (and sad) to me. E.J. Behr, UCSD (sdcc6!ix654)
fetrow@entropy.UUCP (David Fetrow) (02/17/85)
> > If you ask me, I'd rather live in "freedom" as defined by > R. R. than in the one constructed under Quadaffi's guidelines. > Equating the two seems rather simplistic (and sad) to me. > > E.J. Behr, UCSD > (sdcc6!ix654) No arguement when it comes to the situation internal to the two countries, maybe no arguement that RR has a concept of freedom in mind that is better than Q but that doesn't mean the effects aren't exactly the same: a lot of dying, some high sounding words, and the establishment of a dictatorship inside another soverign state. Not to mention the equation: feedom fighter = antisocialist, seems to be invoked all to often. They aren't always the same thing. -- -"Daphnia Dave" Fetrow Kludgemaster of CQS { ihnp4, fluke, microsof, tektronix }!uw-beaver!entropy!fetrow