From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Foreign policy musings
Organization: The World
	<Bt6Dw1.9CF@world.std.com> <2796988236@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com>
	<BZS.92Aug18195036@ussr.std.com>
	<JTURNER.92Aug21202104@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<BZS.92Aug21234633@ussr.std.c
	<JTURNER.92Aug22123019@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 09:02:01 GMT


From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) [responding to me]
>> Do you really mean there may have been reason for Hussein to believe
>> that the US wouldn't retaliate? That's hardly an invitation, and
>> hardly a good reason to invade another country.
>
>	The US has set itself up as policeman to the world, with that
>sort of hubris why wouldn't the US be able to invite an Iraqi invasion.

If this is true then why didn't Hussein pull out when we told him to?

You keep arguing yourself into corners.

>> Hey, ok, we'll accept your premise: We lied, we changed our mind, we
>> didn't think it was a very good idea to tolerate such behavior after
>> the fact. Does that make us wrong in the end? Does that make Saddam
>> Hussein right?
>
>	Thank you.  Yes, it does make us wrong in the end.  No,
>it doesn't make Saddem Hussein right.  If it was simply a matter
>of changing "our" mind why didn't we try to solve the matter
>diplomatically?  I mean if El Busho could change his mind why not
>a lesser tyrant like Hussein?

I don't see your reasoning why you think it makes us wrong in the end,
is this supposed to be accepted on faith? Because you said so?

We gave Hussein six months to pull out, do you believe there were no
diplomatic efforts (not just by the US, by countries Hussein would
feel more comfortable with, Qaddaffi warned him to withdraw for
example tho I have no idea what Hussein really thinks of Qaddaffi.)

The Saudis and the Egyptians were obviously displeased with the
situation and expressed that. Etc. It's hard to think of a country who
might have advised Hussein that staying put was a good idea in the
face of the resistance he had six months to assess.

Who was supposed to get through to Hussein?

Has it occurred to you that it's just possible he is a murderous
bastard and didn't care? I mean, it sure fits the facts.

>	It wasn't my claim, in fact I think it's ludicrous.  The
>national and international merits of going to war, at least for
>Bush and his cronies, far outweighed any other option.

Another "proof by assertion".

>We find out
>now, they must have known at the time, that there were only about
>250,000 troops in the invasion.  Why were 400,000 Americans needed
>to "defend" Saudi Arabia when an invasion would have needed much
>longer supply lines than Iraq had ever managed in ten years of 
>fighting with Iran?  The US invasion was decided on before the
>Iraqi invasion and everything else was just "justification".

I'm not sure I understand this paragraph, too many antecedents. Are
the 250K Iraqi troops? An invasion by which side would have needed
longer supply lines...I'll not comment as I'm 99% sure I don't
understand what you're saying here.

>	Hussein "backed off" by August 9 with his first effort
>to settle the dispute diplomatically.  The US systematically
>refused to engage in diplomacy and impeded/scuttled attempts by
>others (notably the Algerians) to do so.  If diplomacy works
>what good is our military-industrial complex?

What do you mean by "backed off"? You mean he offered to withdraw his
troops? You mean he withdrew his troops? As I remember he didn't
really offer much anything, certainly nothing that involved removing
troops and undoing the invasion.

Had Hussein simply withdrawn do you really think much would have
happened to him? Perhaps something, I won't discount that, but I doubt
the world could have justified broad military action if he withdrew.

It's all speculation of course.

Diplomacy works when diplomacy works. I don't understand what you
think diplomacy is capable of. If one side is intransigent and doesn't
care about the leverage used in diplomacy (economic sanctions, etc)
then how can it work? It takes two to tango.

>> Do you have a point to make? It's irrelevant whether they were buried
>> or not.
>
>	Yes.  The US using an excuse of torture or the murdering
>of civilians as justification for the invasion was blatant, self-
>serving twaddle.  Only 8 months before the US had murdered many
>(maybe 2000) Panamanian civilians in an invasion which installed a
>puppet whhite minority government.  I guess it's OK when "we"
>do it, eh?

I never attempted to justify what occurred in Panama, and I don't feel
at all comfortable with it.

But that does not prove that we were wrong in Iraq. Unless all you
think that is to be considered is consistency.

Given that as the only standard could we ever do the right thing?

It doesn't seem possible, does it?

>> Since you assume arbitrary power of diplomacy, what is it exactly that
>> we could not get via diplomacy that made us all get into a war over
>> it?
>
>	If diplomacy cannot settle problems then US military might
>is still important on the world stage and we might even be able to
>get our "allies" to finance it.  And we definitely still need to have
>the American people finance it.  We won this one for the generals and
>the MIC.

That's a nice hypothesis. Does the current trend in defense spending
back up your hypothesis? I don't think so.

>> And why couldn't Saddam Hussein see any reasons for backing off in the
>> 6 months after we all know he got full notice that the situation was
>> unnacceptable?
>
>	He did back off.  What he refused was unconditional surrender.

Unconditional surrender? You mean withdrawing his troops from Kuwait?

Oh well.

>> Indigenous people? To Saudi Arabia? You mean *not* the Saudis? Then
>> who?  The Kurds perhaps? Oops, sorry, that's Hussein's bailiwick...
>
>	The Sauds are only one family.  And US support for the
>far less wealthy Kurds was insignificant compared to that for
>the Kuwaiti ruling family.

Well, the Sauds are a tribe, a "family" of thousands.

But that still doesn't answer who you believe to be the indigenous
people to the area.

>> The odd thing is, they're not SO vital to the US. How much of the US's
>> oil consumption do you believe comes from the region?
>
>	The Japanese own Rockefeller Center, New York.  How much of
>their oil comes from the region?

Oh, I see, now the Japanese are pulling the strings.

Maybe we should stop here for a moment and you should explain exactly
who you think the players were in this game and what their relative
roles were?

>> The fact of the matter is, Saddam Hussein is a murderous and evil
>> person who's killing and oppression are well documented.
>
>	So is Bush though the New York Times will doubtless not
>document it.  But no one runs with CIA, two invasions and a
>couple "Low Intensity Conflicts" with clean hands.

So say Bush is a murderous bastard. Does that make Hussein right? Does
that make what happened wrong?

Is the prime minister of Japan also a murderous bastard? And the
French and British and Egyptians and everyone else who participated?

Or do you think Bush pulls all their strings? Or the Japanese?

>> But I am sure you'll forgive all that to make some point, that is if
>> you ever get to it.
>
>	It is not up to me to forgive Hussein.  Nor do I believe he's
>asked for forgiveness.  My point is that neither the story of the baby
>killings, nor any of the other rationalizations, were anything but window
>dressing for a fait accompli.

Which, regardless, may have been a very good result.

>	Your reasons are based on an assumption of US morality which
>has NEVER been demonstrated.  Unfortuneately the hogwash gospel you
>reiterate has been so oft repeated that people WILL take you seriously.

No, my reasons are based on simple observations of Hussein's behavior.

If a son-of-a-bitch corrupt cop nabs a dangerous son-of-a-bitch punk
who's been terrorizing people I can't follow the reasoning that says
therefore the punk is innocent or shouldn't have been nabbed.

But apparently you seem to think that is valid reasoning.


--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: ne.politics