From: Ed.Sterrett@f166.n363.z1.fidonet.org (Ed Sterrett)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re:Somalia
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 13:52:01 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:363/166

Hi Andrew,
      
 AV> we have is: was the US defending itself against a dangerous
 AV> aggressor in the gulf war (and in Somalia), or was 
 
 In the Gulf war?  Yes, the US was protecting it's interests.  Had 
Iraq been allowed to "annex" Kuwait, it would have been encouraged to 
continue on into Saudi Arabia, thus controlling (or disrupting) the 
flow of oil.  Had this occurred, the economy of the US would have 
ground to a dead halt, since so much of it is dependant on stable 
oil/gas prices.  (Remember the embargo under Carter?)
 
 AV> (1) Iraq was "defeated" in less than six
 AV> weeks; and (2) very few US military personel were killed. 
 AV> which they "defeated" Iraq. So if Iraq was really so dangerous, 
 AV> as dangerous as Nazi Germany like the mass media and Bush claimed,
 AV> then why was it so easy to "defeat" Iraq? It took the 
 
  True, Iraq was no match for the US, especially combined with the 
other nations allied against them.  Left to themselves, Iraq was a 
greater power than the other forces present in the Middle East, except 
for Israel.  Yes, Saudi Arabia has US aircraft, and *some* related 
arms, but not of the same quality and quantity as the US. The Saudis 
could not have withstood a full assault on their own.  If you are 
facing a bear with a slingshot, you have a bloody battle in store for 
yourself.  If you are given a hand grenade before the bear reaches 
you, the battle will be over pretty darn quick.  
 
   If your point is that Iraq was not dangerous simply because our 
military was better and stronger, you are mistaken.  Iraq was 
dangerous because their military was stronger than those it threatened 
physically, and because it had given unmistakeable proof that it had 
no respect for international laws.  
 
  Remember, it took six weeks to defeat Iraq, but it took only hours 
for Iraq to defeat Kuwait..
 
 AV> (1) Bush originally claimed that they were fighting 
 AV> this "war" to get rid of Hussein, but he is still in power
 AV> even after the US declared "victory". So just what were
 AV> Bush's true motivations then? 
 
Easy question..  Bush NEVER claimed we were fighting to "get rid of 
Hussein".  The reason we were there was to enforce the UN resolutions, 
chiefly to force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait.  Yes, he is still in 
power, but that power is greatly reduced.  As far as a "victory".. the 
operation is considered a success..  but the "victory" was proclaimed 
by the media, even though the only thing "declared" was a cease fire.
 
 AV> (2)  Hussein was an ally
 AV> of the US for about 10 years prior to the Gulf "war,"
 AV> receiving all kinds of trade credits and bank loans
 AV> to buy military hardware and other stuff from the US.
 AV> Both Reagan and Bush fought Congress hard to allow Hussein
 AV> to do this from 1980-90. Given this, don't the Reagan 
 AV> and Bush administrations bare at least some responsibility 
 AV> for Hussein's invasion of Kuwait?
 
True, Iraq was an ally..  they were fighting a war against Iran (who, 
in case you didn't hear, was anti-American and a big terrorist 
sponsor).  It was in the US interests to help Iraq, in hopes that they 
would prevail over Iran.  As far as who is responsible for Hussein 
invading Kuwait..  why, Hussein, of course.  It was his decision, he 
gave the order.  Hussein is responsible. 100%.
 
  If your employer gives you a Christmas bonus, and you take that 
bonus money and buy a weapon, then use that weapon to kill someone.. 
is your employer responsible for that murder?
 
 AV> support the action. In addition, opposition to the war
 AV> was very strong and obvious before the bombing started
 AV> (Dec.90 to early Jan. 91). But even if most people did
 
What happened to the opposition from  early Jan '91 thru the 
cease-fire?  
 
 AV> (4)  I read recently that US troops in Somalia have been
 AV> ordered to "shoot at anything they want to."  This 
 AV> is certainly not consistent with a supposed humanitarian
 
No, it isn't.  I would be highly suspect of the source of that 
statement.  I read once that Elvis was alive and living in the castle 
at WDW.  I checked, he wasn't there.
 
 AV> little, in fact. Why does Bush only become concerned
 AV> about humanitarian causes when he decides to deploy 
 
Bush has been concerned about humanitarian causes for a long time. 
Besides, the decision to deploy troops was made by the UN.
 
 AV> a foreign occupying army (the US army) be able to
 AV> more effectively distribute food, when the main
 AV> effect of sending troops there is to greatly
 AV> escalate the military conflict? There's no question
 AV> that whatever local military forces are already in 
 AV> Somalia are going to react to the newly arriving US
 AV> troops in a hostile way, escalating the
 AV> conflict. And even if more fighting doesn't take
 AV> place, the presence of a large foreign army certainly
 AV> increases tensions to an extreme degree. All of
 
Military conflict?  What military conflict?  The only conflict the 
marines face in Somalia are the bands of hoodlums running around with 
AK-47s trying to steal food and medical supplies.  As far as 
increasing tensions..  sheesh!  The citizens of Somalia for the most 
part are treating the marines the same way the citizens of Kuwait did.
 
 
 
 
...QWKRR128.V2.2 [R] - The child is father of the man..
--  
        Ed Sterrett  -  via FidoNet Node: 1:363/42
             UUCP:  -  ...tarpit!tous!business!166!Ed.Sterrett
             ARPA:  -  Ed.Sterrett@f166.n363.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh