soreff (08/09/82)
"Remember: 'Discord among the ranks serves only the enemy' " -jj!rabbit
That's a wonderful rallying cry for stifling opinions with which one
disagrees. It presumes that "the enemy" is known and agreed upon. It
presumes that beating "the enemy" is more important than diversity of
opinion in "the ranks". It draws a distinction between "the ranks" and
others (presumably an elite in which disagreement is permissible).I don't
agree with ANY of these assumptions. I do not consider my arguments to be
"deliberately misleading" (which would require that jj!rabbit know my
motivations, which he/she does not). I am not convinced by the claim that
the Gulf of Sidra "has been considered "High Seas" ever since the original
pirate kingdoms were destroyed." . "Considered" by whom? By what right? By
what arguments? If a claim is to be substantiated those questions MUST be
answered, and jj!rabbit has NOT answered them.
As to the question of Reagan's sanity: I am sure that Reagan is capable of
formulating a plan and acting upon it. This makes him sane according to some
definitions, on the other hand it does not distinguish him from either
Hinckley or Khaddaffi. His consideration of limited nuclear war, (presumably
with some thought of "winning" it) seems so far from a realistic view of its
probable consequences as to deserve being considered insane. Admittedly, this
does not distinguish him from Carter (remember presidential directive 59).
I do not know what goes on in Reagan's (or Khaddaffi's, or Hinkley's) head.
I would far prefer it if none of those three had as much as a popgun at their
disposal. Unfortunately two of the three are armed and at large. I do not
regard Reagan and Khaddaffi as being intrinsically very different. Khaddaffi
back's murderers with his nation's funds in neighboring countries (and some
distant ones). Reagan back's murderers (in El Salvador, for instance) with
his nation's funds in neighboring countries (and some distant ones). Reagan
is, of couse, head of a bigger, more heavily armed nation than Khaddaffi is.
-Jeffrey Paul Soreffjj (08/11/82)
Oh baloney! I can take any statement out of context as well as you can. I just try not to do it.
jj (08/11/82)
Oh yes, Mr Soreff seems to have the misbegotten (actually, I think misconstrued) assumption that I support the QUOTE that I put at the end of my article. Who made it, I asked. I can see that HE clearly doesn't know, or he wouldn't have attacked it the way he did, since it tends to support him when taken in context. (Thank you, Col. Khaddaffi, for the quote!) As far as who "owns" the gulf, it's not MY opinion. See international sea treaties, international law, and so on. My good heavens, even the master machivellians of the age, (to me, at least, the Cubans government) agree with the US about the law of the sea. I hope that Mr. Soreff does some research before he says anything else about the Libyian incident. (Please use reasonable sources, also, sir.) As for limited nuclear war, etc., I didn't address the issue, and Mr S. decided to set up a straw man to knock down. I should do the same just to prove that I know how to use misleading rhetoric myself. BULLPUCKY!