berman@ihopb.UUCP (Rational Chutzpah) (12/12/84)
Scott Renner writes: > >An attack against an embassy is an act of war. Retaliation against Iran >would have been in order under the circumstances. Carter sat on his hands >and did nothing. This can correctly be called impotence. > >The hijacking of a Kuwaiti airplane to Iran does not involve the United >States even if there are American citizens on board. No military action >was called for, and none was taken. This is not impotence by any useful >definition of the word. > >It's definitely time to rethink the myths, particularly the myth that >Reagan is some sort of a macho gunslinger just itching to get the US into >one war after another. The facts -- stubborn things that they are -- >simply won't support that point of view. > ---------------------------------------------------- Nonsense! When did the legalities ever stop a government bent on war? Any serious analysis by friends or opponents of the Reagan administration points out the relative ease with which this administration chooses the military or confrontational options: -Invasion of Grenada -Troops to the Middle East -Escalation of the war against Nicaragua -Escalation of military aid and training to El Salavdor -Massive troop maneuvers in Central America -Manuals on assassination -Escalated arms race with the Soviets There sure seems to be an "itch" to choose the military option. But, no they are not totally crazy. This administration only wants to fight wars it is sure it can win. The Grenada invasion was planned well in advance. They "itched" to find the opportunity to execute it. But they hesitate a little on Nicaragua. Somewhat bigger than Grenada. The "price" might be a bit too high, they're not sure just what to do. The US casualties might be too great. The response of the American people might not be favorable. So they continue to "itch" in Washington.... That's no myth, friend! -Andy Berman