plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (Scott Plunkett) (12/21/83)
Mike Kelly writes ".. no one has ever explained specifically why it was believed the students were in danger, and specifically why, if they were in danger, and invasion rather than a rescue mission was required. No one." Where were you Mr Kelly? Did you not listen to the Presidents' broadcast? To his Satuday-afternoon radio speech? To the comments of his advisers, the Secretary of Defense, independent commentators, news reports, the students themselves, the Governor General of Grenada, the Congressional fact-finding mission, even to inumerable submissions to this net? At this point your skepticism should be assuaged by the following incontrovertible points, supported and substantiated by the above sources: (1) The students were, as all residents of the island, under a "shoot on sight" curfew imposed by an unstable coup d'etat. That is sufficient danger for my liking. (2) Your quandry over "invasion" and "rescue mission" maybe one of semantics: those thankful for the mission call it a "rescue mission" (e.g., the students in question); those who are suspicious or overly critical of the motives behind the mission use the term "invasion" along with such words as "Afghanistan", "gun-boat", and "interference" (e.g., arm-chair Liberals, die-hard skeptics, Mr Castro). That a military action was required, call it what you like, was due to the fact that there were other things to do there apart from ensure the safety of the Americans. Like giving Mr Castro a figurative slapping about the face, the Soviets a moment of pause, and the Grenadians a shot at self-determination. Is this specific enough for you? Anyway, netland, I sense, is bored by Grenada now. It was a success. ..allegra!rlgvax!plunkett
cas@cvl.UUCP (Cliff Shaffer) (12/22/83)
I think any fair minded person, whether for or against the US action in
Grenada should admit that it stopped being a "rescue mission" the day
after the students left. And I agree, there has not been enough
explanation given by the government as to why the marines remained until
just a few days ago.
Cliff Shaffer
{seismo,allegra}!rlgvax!cvl!casjj@rabbit.UUCP (12/23/83)
"There has not been enough explaination of why the marines didn't leave unti a few days ago." I quote about three net users here, and I wonder where they have been for the last six weeks. You may remember then the "temporary" government of Grenada asked the marines to stay until they were sure they could handle things. That seems like enough of an explaination to me. Of course you didn't hear anything about Grenada in the last few weeks, and you didn't hear what the marines were doing. Why? The news media found out that the population of the US more or less AGREED with the "invasion", so they lost interest, since they (the new media) are simply unwilling to aid support to something that is well thought of. This is my Christmas Flame. Have a happy Midwinter's Day! -- -Diogenes stopped here- (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj