uh@unido.UUCP (04/21/86)
I think you should look at the people in your own country:
Yesterday I saw in German TV interviews with american people, who were asked
whether they would fly to Europe for holidays this year.
ALL said: NO!!
And why? Because they fear Lybian attacks.
It is very simple to start a war with Lybia, if I'm so far away from the
country I attack, as you are to Lybia.
But we must live here and WE much more than YOU have to fear the
consequences for YOUR air attack of Tripolis. You should think about that!
Uwe Hoch
Computer Science Department, University of Dortmund
4600 Dortmund 50, P.O. Box 500500, W.-Germany
E-mail address: uh@unido.uucp, uh@unido.bitnetpmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (04/23/86)
In article <8300002@unido.UUCP> uh@unido.UUCP Uwe Hoch writes: >And why? Because they fear Lybian attacks. >It is very simple to start a war with Lybia, if I'm so far away from the >country I attack, as you are to Lybia. > What? Fear!.. Bull bisquits. The closer the danger, the harder we fight. Don't you dare to say that the leaders of Europe could be paralyzed from action by fear. My guess is that if they were not so polite the would barbecue and chew him up into little pieces before breakfast and spit him out into the Med. We have a saying here: "When things get tough, the tough get going." This means that the more difficult and dangerous something is the more it goads the strong and courageous to go into action to counter the threat. You and each and every one of us will die of one thing or another, so NEVER, NEVER, NEVER be numbed by a fear of death. Chances for survival go up if your leaders stand together against this scum bag. Can you imagine battles in WWII adding up to the death of 6 or 10 or 40 million from actual combat. But... those are the numbers of people that were murdered because of "scaredy cats" and people that looked the other way and didn't take a "nut" seriously. The 40 million was told to me by someone who thought that Stalin changed the population profile in Russian to suit his needs. Even so, shooting conventional wars are not nearly as lethal as as one "nut" (crazy person) with a set of ropes or factory of ovens and backed by a mob. Stand up and be brave about your country. It is very good as a conven- tional military defense power and I think could do very well in defending itself with your support. I hope you reconsider your initial "shock of the moment" and take courage, Uwe. +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
andrew@cs.paisley.ac.uk (Andrew Fleming) (04/23/86)
In article <8300002@unido.UUCP> uh@unido.UUCP writes: >I think you should look at the people in your own country: > >Yesterday I saw in German TV interviews with american people, who were asked >whether they would fly to Europe for holidays this year. >ALL said: NO!! >And why? Because they fear Lybian attacks. >It is very simple to start a war with Lybia, if I'm so far away from the >country I attack, as you are to Lybia. >But we must live here and WE much more than YOU have to fear the >consequences for YOUR air attack of Tripolis. You should think about that! > > Uwe Hoch > Computer Science Department, University of Dortmund > 4600 Dortmund 50, P.O. Box 500500, W.-Germany > E-mail address: uh@unido.uucp, uh@unido.bitnet I think you've hit the nail right on the head, I wonder if the American would have attacked if they were a lot closer to Libya, we in Europe will undoubtly suffer the consequences of Reagan's action.
robert@sri-spam.ARPA (Robert Allen) (04/26/86)
In article <127@paisley.ac.uk>, andrew@cs.paisley.ac.uk (Andrew Fleming) writes: > I think you've hit the nail right on the head, I wonder if the > American would have attacked if they were a lot closer to Libya, > we in Europe will undoubtly suffer the consequences of Reagan's > action. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think that Khadafy was lucky that we don't live closer to Libya. Because if we had, and had suffered more terrorism as a result, we would probably have done a more thorough job of the bombing to prevent any retaliation. I know that I sure would. Robert Allen, robert@sri-spam.ARPA Disclaimer: "These ideas are obviously my own, do you think anyone else thinks thi way?"
sanand@radha.UUCP (Sanand Patel) (04/29/86)
In article <8300002@unido.UUCP> uh@unido.UUCP writes: > ... >But we must live here and WE much more than YOU have to fear the >consequences for YOUR air attack of Tripolis. You should think about that! > > Uwe Hoch > Computer Science Department, University of Dortmund > 4600 Dortmund 50, P.O. Box 500500, W.-Germany > E-mail address: uh@unido.uucp, uh@unido.bitnet I can't let this go. Why the *HELL* do you not "fear" the Libyan terrorists (et al) as much as you fear the "consequences" of self defense. It's incredible to see (on TV) the (European) outrage against U.S. actions. Where is the (visible) outrage when bombs are exploded in crowds of INNOCENT people ? (PS. this is not a comment for/against the recent U.S. action, but a comment on the subsequent re-action (re: as included above). (PPS. If net.politics could be stomached by the European usenet, this whole discussion could be moved off of net.followup.) Whatever. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The above in no way reflects the opinions of my employer, etc etc etc.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/29/86)
> In article <8300002@unido.UUCP> uh@unido.UUCP writes: > >I think you should look at the people in your own country: > > > >Yesterday I saw in German TV interviews with american people, who were asked > >whether they would fly to Europe for holidays this year. > >ALL said: NO!! > >And why? Because they fear Lybian attacks. > >It is very simple to start a war with Lybia, if I'm so far away from the > >country I attack, as you are to Lybia. > >But we must live here and WE much more than YOU have to fear the > >consequences for YOUR air attack of Tripolis. You should think about that! > > > > Uwe Hoch > > Computer Science Department, University of Dortmund > > 4600 Dortmund 50, P.O. Box 500500, W.-Germany > > E-mail address: uh@unido.uucp, uh@unido.bitnet > > I think you've hit the nail right on the head, I wonder if the > American would have attacked if they were a lot closer to Libya, > we in Europe will undoubtly suffer the consequences of Reagan's > action. Fascinating: A attacks B, B defends himself by attacking A, so A attacks C, and C blames B. No wonder the computer industry is located here. There's a logic shortage in Europe. Clayton E. Cramer
mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (04/30/86)
In article <8300002@unido.UUCP> uh@unido.UUCP writes: >I think you should look at the people in your own country: > >Yesterday I saw in German TV interviews with american people, who were asked >whether they would fly to Europe for holidays this year. >ALL said: NO!! >And why? Because they fear Lybian attacks. >It is very simple to start a war with Lybia, if I'm so far away from the >country I attack, as you are to Lybia. >But we must live here and WE much more than YOU have to fear the >consequences for YOUR air attack of Tripolis. You should think about that! > > Uwe Hoch > 4600 Dortmund 50, P.O. Box 500500, W.-Germany I would like to point out, Uwe, that the Libyan attacks did not begin with the American raid on Tripoli. In fact, it was an attack in your very country which triggered the raid to begin with. The idea of the raid, believe it or not, was to *decrease* (in the long run) the likelihood of terrorist attacks. --MKR "There's nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot." -"Dirty" Harry Callahan
mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (05/01/86)
In article <127@paisley.ac.uk> andrew@cs.paisley.ac.uk (Andrew Fleming) writes: >In article <8300002@unido.UUCP> uh@unido.UUCP writes: >>I think you should look at the people in your own country: >> >>It is very simple to start a war with Lybia, if I'm so far away from the >>country I attack, as you are to Lybia. >>But we must live here and WE much more than YOU have to fear the >>consequences for YOUR air attack of Tripolis. You should think about that! >> >> Uwe Hoch > >I think you've hit the nail right on the head, I wonder if the >American would have attacked if they were a lot closer to Libya, >we in Europe will undoubtly suffer the consequences of Reagan's >action. This is just plain silly. If Libya were closer to the US, or if these terrorist actions were happening in the US, we would have attacked *long* ago, and probably would have rid the world of Qaddaffi very quickly indeed. Just because Europeans quake and quiver with fear from a blowhard bully, don't think for a minute that Americans are such wimps. The only reason we haven't done more against Libya is because we're so far away that Qaddafi's actions don't affect us enough to *really* piss us off. If you don't like getting your people blown up, why don't *you* do something about it? Bah!! --MKR "There's nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot." -"Dirty" Harry Callahan
db@cstvax.UUCP (Dave Berry) (05/09/86)
In article <114@radha.UUCP> sanand@radha.UUCP (Sanand Patel) writes: >I can't let this go. Why the *HELL* do you not "fear" the Libyan terrorists >(et al) as much as you fear the "consequences" of self defense. It's >incredible to see (on TV) the (European) outrage against U.S. actions. >Where is the (visible) outrage when bombs are exploded in crowds of INNOCENT >people ? Are you SERIOUS??!! Do you *really* think terrorists can bomb or machine gun civilians and the rest of us turn a blind eye?! These attacks cause immense outrage - eg. the airport massacre was news for weeks, EEC ministers met to sort out better co-operation against terrorism etc. Maybe Europeans expressing outrage against attacks isn't reported on USA TV. After all, outrage is to be expected, and could therefore be considered "not newsworthy". A similar argument is used to try & make CND & other pro-disarmament groups look pro-Soviet. People ask "why don't you object to Russian missiles?". They do, but it doesn't get reported, because everyone else is doing it too. Incidentally, the consequences of "self defense" ARE libyan terrorists. We do fear them. -- Dave Berry. CS postgrad, Univ. of Edinburgh ...mcvax!ukc!cstvax!db
andrew@cs.paisley.ac.uk (Andrew Fleming) (05/10/86)
In article <800@mmm.UUCP> mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) writes: >In article <127@paisley.ac.uk> andrew@cs.paisley.ac.uk (Andrew Fleming) writes: >>In article <8300002@unido.UUCP> uh@unido.UUCP writes: >>>I think you should look at the people in your own country: >>> >>>It is very simple to start a war with Lybia, if I'm so far away from the >>>country I attack, as you are to Lybia. >>>But we must live here and WE much more than YOU have to fear the >>>consequences for YOUR air attack of Tripolis. You should think about that! >>> >>> Uwe Hoch >> >>I think you've hit the nail right on the head, I wonder if the >>American would have attacked if they were a lot closer to Libya, >>we in Europe will undoubtly suffer the consequences of Reagan's >>action. > > This is just plain silly. If Libya were closer to the US, or if >these terrorist actions were happening in the US, we would have attacked >*long* ago, and probably would have rid the world of Qaddaffi very >quickly indeed. Just because Europeans quake and quiver with fear from >a blowhard bully, don't think for a minute that Americans are such wimps. >The only reason we haven't done more against Libya is because we're so >far away that Qaddafi's actions don't affect us enough to *really* piss >us off. > > If you don't like getting your people blown up, why don't *you* >do something about it? > >Bah!! > > > --MKR >"There's nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot." > -"Dirty" Harry Callahan So Europeans are wimps eh ? Can you then tell me why the big macho Americans are cancelling holidays to Britain ? Why is the Rambo man afraid to come to Europe ? As to statement only Americans are getting blown up and killed, remember when Thatcher decided to support the strike against Libya, she effectively signed the death warrant of two British people, and endangered the lives of numerous other members of Britain !!!! So you before you make any other simple-minded statements kindly make sure you know what you are talking about Andy
hotchkis@glasgow.glasgow.UUCP (Graham Hotchkiss) (05/14/86)
> In article <800@mmm.UUCP> mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) writes: > >In article <127@paisley.ac.uk> andrew@cs.paisley.ac.uk (Andrew Fleming) writes: > >>In article <8300002@unido.UUCP> uh@unido.UUCP writes: > >>>I think you should look at the people in your own country: > >>> > >>>It is very simple to start a war with Lybia, if I'm so far away from the > >>>country I attack, as you are to Lybia. > >>>But we must live here and WE much more than YOU have to fear the > >>>consequences for YOUR air attack of Tripolis. You should think about that! > >>> > >>> Uwe Hoch > >> > >>I think you've hit the nail right on the head, I wonder if the > >>American would have attacked if they were a lot closer to Libya, > >>we in Europe will undoubtly suffer the consequences of Reagan's > >>action. > > > > This is just plain silly. If Libya were closer to the US, or if > >these terrorist actions were happening in the US, we would have attacked > >*long* ago, and probably would have rid the world of Qaddaffi very > >quickly indeed. Just because Europeans quake and quiver with fear from > >a blowhard bully, don't think for a minute that Americans are such wimps. > >The only reason we haven't done more against Libya is because we're so > >far away that Qaddafi's actions don't affect us enough to *really* piss > >us off. > > > > If you don't like getting your people blown up, why don't *you* > >do something about it? > > > >Bah!! > > > > > > --MKR > >"There's nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot." > > -"Dirty" Harry Callahan > > So Europeans are wimps eh ? Can you then tell me why the big > macho Americans are cancelling holidays to Britain ? Why is the Rambo > man afraid to come to Europe ? As to statement only Americans are getting > blown up and killed, remember when Thatcher decided to support the > strike against Libya, she effectively signed the death warrant of two > British people, and endangered the lives of numerous other members of > Britain !!!! So you before you make any other simple-minded statements > kindly make sure you know what you are talking about > > > > > Andy Absolutely right.How much terrorism have Americans experienced on their own soilcompared to countries in Europe (which are much smaller). Perhaps the fact that all these folks are staying clear of Europe is indicative of a deep-seated Paranoia amongst many Americans (as was suggested to me by an American living over here!). Mind you there is a maxim which says "Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that everyone doesn't hate me!" Graham "Gossip - the only thing that travels faster than the speed of light "
greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg) (05/17/86)
>In article <8300002@unido.UUCP> uh@unido.UUCP (Uwe Hoch) writes: >I think you should look at the people in your own country: >It is very simple to start a war with Lybia, if I'm so far away from the >country I attack, as you are to Lybia. >But we must live here and WE much more than YOU have to fear the >consequences for YOUR air attack of Tripoli. You should think about that! In article <800@mmm.UUCP> mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) writes: > This is just plain silly. If Libya were closer to the US, or if >these terrorist actions were happening in the US, we would have attacked >*long* ago, and probably would have rid the world of Qaddaffi very >quickly indeed. Just because Europeans quake and quiver with fear from >a blowhard bully, don't think for a minute that Americans are such wimps. >The only reason we haven't done more against Libya is because we're so >far away that Qaddafi's actions don't affect us enough to *really* piss >us off. You're not just whistling Dixie. According to my textbook on Japan, public opinion on the Pacific War was divided and uncertain until Pearl Harbor. The Japanese military really did sign its death warrant by attacking US soil. A terrorist attack on US soil would have a strong reaction precisely because we don't have as many terrorist attacks now. Our soil has been safe from attack, whether military or terrorist, for a long time, and we wish to keep it that way. (No, it hasn't been exempt from terrorist attack, but it has been relatively safe.) In article <127@paisley.ac.uk> andrew@cs.paisley.ac.uk (Andrew Fleming) writes: > So Europeans are wimps eh ? Can you then tell me why the big > macho Americans are cancelling holidays to Britain ? Why is the Rambo > man afraid to come to Europe ? As to statement only Americans are getting > blown up and killed, remember when Thatcher decided to support the > strike against Libya, she effectively signed the death warrant of two > British people, and endangered the lives of numerous other members of > Britain !!!! So you before you make any other simple-minded statements > kindly make sure you know what you are talking about. It is true that MKR is exaggerating when he says that the Europeans quake and quiver in the face of a political bully. Perhaps it is more appropriate to say that they don't know a bully when they see one. (The Austrians recently demonstrated that they don't know a Nazi when they see one either, but that's a different story.) The fact of the matter is that you guys let terrorists through *your* airports so that they can put bombs on *our* planes and hold *our* passengers hostage. No, Americans are not the only victims of terrorism, but they are a big target of international terrorism. I quote the Israeli Ambassador to the UN (from Time Mag.): "One third of [international] terrorism's victims since 1970 have been Americans." As to Americans cancelling holidays in Europe, I have several points to make. Firstly, the expected outcome of the raid on Tripoli was that international terrorism would increase some in the immediate future, but in the long run it would go down, especially if we continue our current policy. Secondly, don't call us "Rambo men". I refuse to be labelled by a violent and offensive which was made by some moron in Hollywood who tries to think with his muscles. Thirdly, Americans have cancelled trips to Europe not because of any special fear of terrorists, but rather because the public always overreacts to events in the national media. For example, many people have a fear of flying. This is partly due to the gruesome accounts by the national media of *all* plane crashes and other air disasters. Far fewer people have such a fear of automobiles, despite the fact that they are actually far more dangerous than planes. Lastly, your point is irrelevant. We are not discussing the American public, we are discussing American foreign policy. Our government, unlike your governments, has decided to take decisive action against terrorism. It is true that we should know we're talking about when we make any sort of statements, but it is also true that you should know what we're talking about if you decide to reply. In article <540@glasgow.glasgow.UUCP> hotchkis@glasgow.glasgow.UUCP (Graham Hotchkiss) writes: >Absolutely right.How much terrorism have Americans experienced on their own >soil compared to countries in Europe (which are much smaller). Perhaps the >fact that all these folks are staying clear of Europe is indicative of a >deep-seated Paranoia amongst many Americans. However little terrorism there has been on our soil, we have experienced a lot of terrorism on *your* soil. Why is it that these small European countries cannot protect their airports, while an even smaller and closer Israel can? You have this notion that America is now somehow responsible for terrorism because we have a policy against it, while Europe sits by and suffers the consequences. The fact is that incompetence in European airports is far more responsible for international terrorism than any attack on Tripoli. Why can't they get their acts together in Athens or Rome? If the Europeans are so dissatisfied with *our* solution to international terrorism, why aren't they pursuing any solution at all? -- gregregreg
tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) (05/21/86)
>don't have as many terrorist attacks now. Our soil has been safe from attack, >whether military or terrorist, for a long time, and we wish to keep it that >way. (No, it hasn't been exempt from terrorist attack, but it has been >relatively safe.) That's right, it sure hasn't been as "exempt" as a lot of people have been led to believe. There have been Puerto Rican terrorist bomb attacks in New York for many, many years, and in all likelihood they will continue to occur. Tom Schlesinger, Plymouth State College, Plymouth, N.H. 03264 uucp: decvax!dartvax!psc70!psc90!tos
andrew@cs.paisley.ac.uk (Andrew Fleming) (05/22/86)
>In article <127@paisley.ac.uk> andrew@cs.paisley.ac.uk (Andrew Fleming) writes: >> So Europeans are wimps eh ? Can you then tell me why the big >> macho Americans are cancelling holidays to Britain ? Why is the Rambo >> man afraid to come to Europe ? As to statement only Americans are getting >> blown up and killed, remember when Thatcher decided to support the >> strike against Libya, she effectively signed the death warrant of two >> British people, and endangered the lives of numerous other members of >> Britain !!!! So you before you make any other simple-minded statements >> kindly make sure you know what you are talking about. > >It is true that MKR is exaggerating when he says that the Europeans quake and >quiver in the face of a political bully. Perhaps it is more appropriate to say >that they don't know a bully when they see one. (The Austrians recently >demonstrated that they don't know a Nazi when they see one either, but that's a >different story.) The fact of the matter is that you guys let terrorists >through *your* airports so that they can put bombs on *our* planes and hold >*our* passengers hostage. No, Americans are not the only victims of terrorism, >but they are a big target of international terrorism. I quote the Israeli >Ambassador to the UN (from Time Mag.): "One third of [international] >terrorism's victims since 1970 have been Americans." > >As to Americans cancelling holidays in Europe, I have several points to make. >Firstly, the expected outcome of the raid on Tripoli was that international >terrorism would increase some in the immediate future, but in the long run it >would go down, especially if we continue our current policy. Secondly, don't >call us "Rambo men". I refuse to be labelled by a violent and offensive which >was made by some moron in Hollywood who tries to think with his muscles. > If you had read the article you would have seen I said "Rambo man", not "Rambo men", I in no way intended to imply that the vast majority of American are anything like Rambo, apologies that if that's how it came across. Still I think Americans are cancelling holidays to Europe because of the Libyian affair Andrew Fleming