ray (08/02/82)
#N:uiucdcs:10600005:000:2463
uiucdcs!ray Aug 2 12:13:00 1982
>From McGeer/JTR's is Reagan insane discussion and related replies...
I don't think the Gulf of Sidra incident was avoidable. If the US fleet
kept out of all areas claimed by all two-bit dictators like Kaddaffi, I expect
they would soon only be able to operate in Lake Michigan. There are laws,
customs, treaties, etc. governing the oceans recognized by most nations in the
U.N. I say again, Kaddaffi has no more right to claim the Gulf of Sidra as
territorial waters than we would to try and claim the Gulf of Mexico. They are
international waters. I know NEWSWEEK said the week before that we were
sending ships into the area as a provocation. Fortunately, NEWSWEEK does not
speak for the American Government. Why then, did we send ships into the area?
That question was raised in Congressional circles following the incident.
One of the answers given was: the same reason the USSR sends ships into the
Gulf of Mexico - precisely to make the point that these ARE international
waters, free and open to all. If someone wishes to take another country's
legal and free actions as a provocative incident, then perhaps that is a
problem with the second country's perspective, not the first's. For those of
you who disagree - do you really think the US should shoot at Soviet planes
in international airspace over the Gulf of Mexico, or sink Soviet subs off the
coast of Florida during space launches, or destroy Soviet "fishing trawlers"
watching deep sea manevuers (spelling?) of new US Naval vessels, or etc. etc.
etc. No, we all have to live in this world together, and the only way we can
do this is to respect each other's rights and freedoms - something that
paranoid Kaddaffi has a problem with. One final note: you may recall another
similar incident involving Kaddaffi. While Carter was still in office (you
can't blame this one on Reagan), a US AWACS was operating out over the
Mediteranian off the coast of Libya (again, in international airspace).
Kaddaffi, obviously annoyed at the AWACS' ability to electronically "see"
across his border, scrambled some jets with orders to attack the AWACS. This
was intercepted by the AWACS which (as the wire services described it):
"flipped a switch, causing the Libyan fighters to see more than a dozen AWACS
on their radar screens. Meanwhile, the real plane made its escape." Face it,
the current dictator of Libya has a problem. Don't try and blame that on us.
A. Ray Miller pur-ee!uiucdcs!raysoreff (08/03/82)
"There are laws, customs, treaties, etc. governing the oceans recognized by most nations in the U.N. ... They [the Gulf of Sidra] are international waters." - A. Ray Miller If most of the nations in the U.N. were to sign the current version of the law of the sea treaty would Reagan consider it binding on the U.S. ? By Miller's argument it would seem that Reagan should. The incident in the the Gulf of Sidra was NOT settled in a court of law, it was settled by force of arms. I do not regard the military capabilities of the U.S. navy to constitute a legal argument. If Libya's claim of the Gulf of Sidra was an offense against the international community then the appropriate response would seem to me to be an international one. If the point of the Gulf of Sidra incident (from Reagan's point of view) was to illustrate the force of U.S. arms then international law seems quite beside the point. Has Kaddaffi ever signed anything which declares the Gulf of Sidra to be international waters? If not, then why should a preponderance of force make that gulf international waters?
ray (08/05/82)
#R:hplabs:-60100:uiucdcs:10600007:000:700 uiucdcs!ray Aug 4 22:30:00 1982 "Has Kaddaffi ever signed anything which declares the Gulf of Sidra to be international waters?" - J. P. Soreff He doesn't HAVE to sign anything, they already ARE international waters, regardless of what Kaddaffi does or does not do/say/think/declare/sign. Has Reagan ever signed anything which declares the Gulf of Mexico to be international waters? The parallel is obvious. Almost no one would recognize a unilateral claim by the US to the Gulf of Mexico just as almost no one recognizes Kaddaffi's unilateral claim to the Gulf of Sidra. Come on, be sensible. You just can't go around grabbing things that don't belong to you, and Kaddaffi is no exception. A. Ray Miller pur-ee!uiucdcs!ray
jj (08/07/82)
I think we've seen enough arguement about the difference between Khaddafi and Reagan. While it is clear to any reasonable person that sailing through a part of the sea that has been considered open sea for 250 years (since tripoli, etc. was first destroyed) is a reasonable act, there are clearly a few people who will keep on posting deliberately misleading arguements otherwise. I don't know what they have to prove, but they are clearly willing to show their basic lack of reason in the process. For the record, the entire gulf has been considered "High Sea" ever since the original pirate kingdoms were destroyed. The fact that Khaddafi wants to reestablish a pirate state certainly doesn't change the fact that the rest of the world will ignore him, and resist if he trys to stake his claim by murder. Replying to the arguement that the act of sailing into the gulf was deliberate provocation: The provocation was ONLY in the mind of the (admittedly insane) person who was attempting to reestablish his pirate state. If that constitutes deliberate provocation, so does trying to hospitalize any other murderous paranoid, and we are all guilty for not allowing them to run loose among the rest of society. I suggest that the reasonable persons on the net just drop the arguement, since there is little more to be said, since this arguement has become nothing other than a recognized forum for unreason. Whatever your viewpoint of Reagan, making a comparison between him and an acknowleged madman is going to help no-one, including Reagan's detractors. Remember: "Discord among the ranks serves only the enemy." (Who said that, trivia lovers?)