Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtech.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!unisoft!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
From: jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame,net.followup
Subject: Re: Carnes: myopic remarks - "pressure Israel" and Reagan-bashing
Message-ID: <520@rtech.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 1-Jul-85 02:14:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: rtech.520
Posted: Mon Jul  1 02:14:23 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 03:54:07 EDT
References: <327@ihlpm.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Relational Technology, Alameda CA
Lines: 66
Xref: watmath net.politics:9733 net.flame:10978 net.followup:5053

> 
> 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