mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (11/18/83)
Allen England writes <439@ihuxb.UUCP> "... Reagan avoided a situation that was the downfall of Carter by invading Grenada, namely another potential hostage situation." WHY was there "another potential hostage situation"? The comparison to Iran is totally unjustified. In that case, there was an attack on the U.S. embassy nine months before the actual seizure, and both the Iranian government and our own embassy in Teheran warned Washington that the embassy and its personnel would be in danger if the Shah was admitted to the U.S. The U.S. committed a deliberately provocative act; to Iranians, this man was Hitler. He had tortured thousands to death. He had ruled the country with an iron fist for 25 years. And through it all, the U.S. had supported him: Jimmy Carter spent New Years 1979 in Teheran with the Shah and pledged support as the revolution was already in full swing. The U.S. was on pretty thin ice already, and then we admit this monster to the country for "humanitarian reasons". Where is the parallel in Grenada? What warnings were given? What possible reason was there to believe the students were about to be seized? An excellent New York Times editorial (11/10/83) on the subject said: "The testimony that American medical students in Grenada felt endangered comes either from students most frightened by the invasion itself or from officials who need to justify it. Contrary testimony, from the school's management, has been revised under the tutelage of officials who now control the school's assets. No hard evidence has been produced. "But assume, like a delegation of Congressmen did, that the students faced a 'potential' risk of being harmed or taken hostage. Why would the Marxists who had just seized power from other Marxists want to threaten Americans? The only reason could be to protect themselves from a feared American invasion. The pretext for the invasion, then, was a presumed danger posed by invasion. "Even so, grant the danger: assume diplomacy failed and a rescue was needed. Could 1,000 troops not have seized the school or brought the students out fast? Rescue did not require occupation." The editorial went on to question quite effectively every other reason the Administration has trotted out to justify what was basically an unjustified act. That the Grenadians WANTED to be invaded. That the Cubans were the problem. That the Soviets were the problem. Meanwhile, it's interesting to hear the stories coming back from Grenada now that the democratic liberators have decided to unleash the press somewhat. I remember someone writing, quite naively, in this group that if Grenadians want a Marxist government, hey, they can vote for it. Nope. An NPR story this morning reported that Marxists will not be participating in the elections (now expected to be a year distant) since many of them are locked up and the rest are in hiding. Americans have brought our great traditions, such as McCarthyism. People are being encouraged to report neighbors who were New Jewel Movement supporters, and they are arrested simply on the basis of such accusations. Significantly, the Chicago Tribune reported this morning: "[White House Press Secretary Larry] Speakes declined to answer questions about reports that U.S. troops have participated in summary arrests and roundups of Grenadians." The election, when it finally occurs, will be with a slate of no-lose candiates for the Americans. Leftists not invited. Mike Kelly ..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk