cher@ihlpm.UUCP (cherepov) (06/26/85)
I agree with puke about headlights, but behold:. > If the > US govt. is serious about getting the hostages released, it can > pressure the Israelis to release the hundreds of Lebanese civilians > (including women and children) that Israel has imprisoned in clear > violation of international law, and that Israel was planning to > release anyway. But no, that would cause people to question Reagan's > manhood, which seems to be the bottom line for the Administration. There is no need to pressure, Israel wants a request. So, US needs to pressure itself into issuing such. Did R. Carnes mean that US needs to request privately while denying requests publicly? Why? If no explanation is issued, then "pressure Israel" is knee-jerk leftist(or some other bad word) phrase, nothing else. Apart from the fact that Israel's stance against terrorism would be weakend by such blackmailed exchange - with serious danger to a lot of Israelis - (well, it's "their problem"), exchange would be a VERY bad deal for US. Here's why: R. Carnes talks about exchange, but it does not take a crystal ball to see how great an encouragement it would be to all the Khadaffis Husseins, Arafats, Jihads, Red Brigades, Gorbachevs of the world. I can not comment on how appropriate Israeli moves or US support for them are, but regardless of that, suggesting to reward terrorists (who beat and murdered a US passenger) so richly and sweetly is nothing short of idiotic. Even if in Carnes' opinion these people are "right". It appears that old old senile macho Ronnie (or his aides) sees that quite well. In my view interpreting administration's attempts to minimize rewards for such people as only a show of manhood is as stupid a statement as I have ever seen. Mike Cherepov P.S. Berri also said hostages would not be freed while US ships are around. "well, well, he's got a point! What are our ships doing there anyway?" But next group might ask US subs out of Atlantic. Or pressure England in conceding Falklands(sp?). US can not satisfy every group of extremists even if it plays dead. And tourists will pay their lives if US rewards terrorist acts against itselt
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (07/01/85)
> > I can not comment on how appropriate Israeli moves or US support > for them are, but regardless of that, suggesting to reward > terrorists (who beat and murdered a US passenger) so richly and sweetly is > nothing short of idiotic. > Even if in Carnes' opinion these people are "right". > > It appears that old old senile macho Ronnie (or his aides) sees that > quite well. In my view interpreting administration's attempts to > minimize rewards for such people as only a show of manhood > is as stupid a statement as I have ever seen. > > Mike Cherepov Senile old macho Ronnie shot his mouth off about never giving in to terrorists, then went ahead and did it. He should have kept his mouth shut. Public statements about revenge, never giving in, etc., serve no constructive purpose in the middle of an international crisis. In future crises (they *will* come), what credibility will he have should he have to make *real* threats? > P.S. Berri also said hostages would not be freed while US ships > are around. "well, well, he's got a point! What are our ships > doing there anyway?" But next group might ask US subs out of Atlantic. > Or pressure England in conceding Falklands(sp?). > US can not satisfy every group of extremists even if it plays dead. > And tourists will pay their lives if US rewards terrorist acts > against itselt When the crisis started, Reagan (or one of his people) ordered the ships to go near the coast of Lebanon. I suppose that this was supposed to frighten the hijackers into releasing the hostages, by reminding them of the previous shelling of Lebanon by American ships. This was foolish in several ways. First, one of the reasons the hijackers hate the U.S. is that they remember our shelling of a civilian population (yes, I know just about everyone and his brother has committed atrocities in Lebanon, but we're talking about the Shiite's perceptions of us); to remind them of this by ordering battleships to move in reminds them of the past, and inflames their hatred of us. Second, it's pretty well known that devout Moslems believe that to die in service to Islam gives them a direct ticket to heaven, and they have a pretty explicit view of heaven. Death threats do not deter them. Third, moving the ships in gives the hijackers something else to complain about. Why should we give them something else to make demands about? Suppose they had said they would start killing hostages if we didn't move our ships back? We would have had no choice, and would have ended up looking really foolish and powerless when we complied. Fourth, massive firepower is useless in solving the immediate problem (getting the hostages out alive), unless you assume that the hijackers can be bullied into submission. What could one do with those ships? I don't see any way they could be used without leading to the death of the hostages, and I don't think the hijackers would respond to threats of military force. If it were the case that the ships were there already, then I would agree with you, but they were ordered to move in after the crisis began. To me, this is another example of Reagan's foolishness. Macho posturing is counter- productive. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff