HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andyw@meaddata.com (Andy Welter)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: Somalia
Date: 15 Dec 1992 18:43:57 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: world
Reply-To: andyw@meaddata.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: geronimo.meaddata.com

In article 13065@mogate.sps.mot.com, carlson@viking.sps.mot.com (Brett Carlson) writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
(bunch of stuff deleted)
>
>> Also, Bush probably wants to
>> leave on a positive note ("Gonna save some lil' brown ones.  Wouldn't
>> be prudent na ta."), and this is an excellent opportunity for this.
>> Bosnia would not be a good candidate.  As I believe a policy guy in
>> D.C. said, Somalia is easy, Bosnia isn't.
>
>This I mildly agree with....but if Bush is so concerned about his image, why  
>didn't he invade three months ago when he was so far behind in the election  
>polls??  If he is trying to build popularity, why didn't he do it when it could  
>have gotten him reelected??   Could he be deliberately leaving Clinton with a  
>Vietnam for the 90s??  Nah, he wouldn't do that.......
> 

How about the idea that Bush didn't get involved because he didn't want to look
like he was only focused on international problems?  If he had gone into Somalia
with force before the election, anything domestic he did would be overshadowed by
the news from Somalia.
 
Acctually, I think going in now actually makes things easier for Clinton.  If all
goes well, he can claim foriegn policy success, if all goes wrong, he can blame Bush
for getting the U.S. involved.

>> Now, this perhaps creates an interesting precedent.  I'm all for using
>> the US military for humanitarian reasons.  
>
>Wait a minute here!!  what kind of orwellian double-speak is this when we can  
>send in 50,000 trained killers armed with automatic weapons and with the  
>support of heavy artillery and advanced combat aircraft to fight off a bunch of  
>Somalian hillbillies carrying shotguns and riding around in pickup trucks while  
>calling the action "humanitarian"??!?!?!?  I don't get it!
>

Actually we have less than 5000 soldiers there now, little or no artillery, 
the Somalian "hillbillies" are riding in trucks and armored personel carriers with
machine guns and recoilless rifles, and the object isn't to fight off the warlords,
but to show an overwhelming force that will encourage them to not try to fight.
But if you are into orwellian double-speak, I suppose distorting facts is a good
trick too.

---
|Andrew Welter	     |  All views are mine and not |      (513) 865-6822   
|Mead Data Central   |    that of my employer      |      pd&o-ps-ts-dsp       
|P.O. Box 933        |                             |     andyw@meaddata.com
|Dayton, Ohio  45401 |          	           | ...!uunet!meaddata!andyw

Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.org.un,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.british,alt.president.clinton
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Followup-To: misc.test
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 01:30:02 GMT

---
Two random people wrote:
|>>Cat, the Republican Party, contrary to your misconception, is not entirely
|>>composed of Pat Robertson's followers (or Pat Buchanan's, for that matter.)
|>No, not entirely.  Just mostly. 

To which green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) splutters:
|Why do you libs spend so much time complaining about the Republican Party 
|having the likes of Pat and Pat, when the Democratic Party has the likes
|of 

|the gay rights movement, 
... a movement I'm proud to support

|NOW, 
...an organization I'm proud to support

|NARL, 
...assuming you mean NARAL, another organization I'm proud to support

|The fact is, both parties have fringe groups, you just want to talk about 
|ours. [...]

NOW is a fringe group?  Oh my.  Faludi is right.  

But you're quite correct that we'd rather talk about Republican 
loonies.  I mean, gay rights is boring next to the idea of building 
a wall between Mexico & the US.  Or next to Randall Terry's great 
insight that Christians shouldn't use birth control, and this will 
somehow prevent all those abortions he's so upset about.  Yep, gotta
admit it-- it's much more fun to snicker at Republicans proposing
to put AIDS victims in concentration camps than it is to nod in
agreement with Democrats proposing to give gay people equal
rights to employment & housing.

Keep your followups out of t.b, okay?  I've set up the
followup-to line just for you.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Oh, you're a bigot all right, you just feel that saying you have the 
right to be one means you're liberal.  If it didn't happen so often, 
it would be funny."  Mark Sobolewski, in talk.religion.misc
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.org.un,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: carlson@viking.sps.mot.com (Brett Carlson)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: SPS
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:19:08 GMT



Sorry for the multiple posts.  there seems to be a problem with our  
NNTP server at the moment.

--brett
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: CNN / All Reporters
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:06:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:

>And the military guy obviously had no respect for the press.  Nothing
>gave him the authority to order the press guy around and the press guy
>knew it.  The military is there to guard the shipments and that's it.

>It is insane that a guy with a gun would think that he would have the
>right to order someone around just because he has that gun.

The plain and simple fact is: He does.

The situation during the first few hours of the operation was
potentially very volitale.  That marine's job was to secure his area,
not knowing who might decide to take a shot at him or another soldier.

The yahoo with the camera knew he was interfering with that marine's
job, but he didn't care.  The fool was risking the lives of everyone
around him, but his own selfish goal of getting some good footage took
priority.

Now, I'd be the first to protest if the Pentagon decided that the
press had to ship out.  However, the reporters and camera crews have
to respect the fact that the military has a job to do.  Interfering
with that job not only risks lives, but it gives the Pentagon good
reason to disallow press coverage of future operations.
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
From: csmith@wizard.Berkeley.EDU (Cheryl Smith)
Subject: Re: Missed point was(CNN...)
Reply-To: csmith@1.com
Organization: Encore Computer Corp., Fort Lauderdale FL
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:22:10 GMT

In article <Bz3pu5.8An@encore.com>, csmith@wizard.Berkeley.EDU (Cheryl
Smith) writes:
 In article <1992Dec11.134730.11280@sunova.ssc.gov>,
 rocko@ireland.ssc.gov (Rick O'Leary) writes:
 > In article <1g5iegINN7t4@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU>, yarvin@cs.yale.edu
 (Norman Yarvin) writes:
 > |> idjohnst@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Ian Johnston) writes:
 > |> > I am amazed at the restraint the seals showed when confronted
 > |> >by the reporters. I would have been more upset.
 > |> 
 > |> Those guys hit the beach with the idea that at any moment they
 might be shot
 > |> at.  Compared to being shot at, even being interviewed by a reporter is
 > |> relatively mild.
 > |> 
 > |> --
 > |> Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
 > 
 > 
> > Hey Norm,
> > 
> > 	I do believe you have missed the point.  Let me point it out to you.
> > The interviewers GREATLY increased the odds of _being_ shot at AND
being hit.
> > Do you think this is o.k. Norm?  Have you ever been shot at Norm? 
Yale Norm?
> 
 Have you ever watched your son on TV yelling "get down, get down" as
 shots are being fired??  Well I did last night on CNN. A day with
 Echo Company was a news clip done by a reporter following that regiment
 of Marines around for a day.  In the middle of the clip I see my son
 full facial view talking with other Marines, then you here gunfire and
 he's yelling for everone to get down.  End of clip. For all those who
 think there is no danger think again and put yourselves in the postition
 of some us parents whose kids are over there trying to feed starving
 people. Right now all I want is him and all the others to home ALIVE.
 
> > How many Yalies have shot at you?  If you were thinking, each time
you walked
> > the campus, that you could be shot at, how happy would you be to have
> reporters
> > holding lights on you at night ???????
> > 
> > Did you get the point Norm?
> > 
> > 				Rocko
> 

Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.org.un,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:25:34 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

Boy, will this get me burned.  Just a though, mind you, not a belief, or
theory or anything else, JUST A THOUGHT.

Could what's happening is Somalia be nature's way of taking care of an
overpopulation problem?  Like war is a way of keeping the population under
control?

Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.org.un,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.british,alt.president.clinton
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:04:53 GMT

dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:

>By the way, can someone come up with a good substitute for the :) ?
>I hate using it--it reminds me of those damn Have a nice day buttons.

Sure.  Just add a verb in parentheses:  "Clinton will go down in
history as one of our greatest presidents.  (wink)"

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Lead Scout for the Baby Boomers    | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
From: cookinga@yukon.fishkill.ibm.com (Andy Cookingham)
Subject:  The mess WE created.	
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 21:42:39 GMT
Reply-To: cookinga@yukon.fishkill.ibm.com (Andy Cookingham)
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

I will assume that the cold war was responsible for all of the arms that
are in Somalia.

But....... Is everyone implying that the US has some sort of secret
weapon that can cause 
multi-year long droughts? Did we want to try it out on a small country
(field test) before
hitting USSR with it?

Maybe it's true, I heard that in the 30's the US government tried out a
crude version
and created the "Dust Bowl". They must have it perfected by now.



Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.org.un,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:02:50 GMT

Just noticed something as I was waiting for the message to send....

In article <1992Dec16.011312.19839@mogate.sps.mot.com> carlson@viking.sps.mot.com (Brett Carlson) writes:
>
>So you agree, then, that the cause of the war is something other than  
>humanitarianism??  That to me is enough reason to oppose the action right  
>there!

Hang on for a sec: deployment of troops does not a war make.  If that
were true, then the deployment of the 101st Airborne in Florida during
the aftermath of Hurricane Hugo was war against the residents of Dade
County.

Lemme get one thing straight:

Policy and the instruments of policy cannot be considered separately.
The Right has tended to concentrate only on the goals, the policy of
containment for instance, and ignore the implications of the actions
needed to achieve these goals.  Stamping out Communist insurgents
whereever they can be found without regard to human rights is clearly
wrong, no matter the patriotic rhetoric they may wrap themselves up
in.  Similarly, the automatic condemnation of any military action on
the part of some liberals is just as short-sighted.  You are judging
the tools without regard to the goals.  I follow Clausewitz's notion
that war is the continuation of policy by other means, and the army
may the instrument of these policy goals, for good or ill.  "What are
our policy goals, and are they worth using the tools available?"  That
is a better question to ask than, "Is the Pentagon involved?"



--
The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
arms of despotism.
			-- Tocqueville, 1852
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: U.S. Is Not Going to War in Somalia for any Good Reasons
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:53:57 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
NNTP-Posting-Host: uhad2.admin.uh.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1ghbfnINNilo@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu writes:
[deletions]
> In other words, you would have the UN try to achieve enough of a balance of
> power so that the war stops.  This would work, in the sense that they could
> achieve a balance of power in the short term.  But it would be a major
> operation without a fixed ending point.  Our military has shied away from
> such things ever since Vietnam, and for good reason.  The US simply does not
> have the political will to sustain a long war.  Our opponents know this,
> too; it was proven in Vietnam, where the military stalemate which was
> reached was not acceptable to us.  The Serbians would know that if they
> called our bluff by keeping the war going, eventually we would pull out.

  I would add a bit of a caveat -- the US will support a long war for suffi-
ciently good reasons.  Vietnam went on for several years, before the pullout, 
and the reasons were never all that good (well-defined) from the get-go.  WWII 
was certainly not short.

  The difference between Serbia and Vietnam is that the Serbs have no super-
power to back them up like the VC did.  Once the equipment and factories in
Serbia are gone, that's it, beyond a trickle from smuggling and such.  The
trick would be to force a "full-blast", main force action to wreck the Serbian
army as a fighting unit, destroying it's heavy equipment.  Then the Bosnians
could be armed with simpler gear (M-16's and mortars) so they could defend
themselves.

  This is not to suggest that any such operation would be easy -- the terrain
in the ruins of Yugoslavia is pretty rough, and casualties would be pretty
heavy, IMO.


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: WAR IN BOSNIA!!!!
Date: 18 Dec 1992 22:20:50 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: uhad2.admin.uh.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <BzH5sI.6nw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes:

> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
> 
> >That is, at minimum we would be enforcing the no-fly zone by
> >intercepting and possibly destroying Serbian fixed-wing aircraft
> >flying over Bosnia.  At maximum, we'd be using smart bombs and
> >anti-radiation missles to take out various targets.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> What the hell is an "anti-radiation missile!?!"  

  The technical term for the anti-radar missile.  It homes in on *radiated*
electronic emissions from radar sets (eg, the HARM).


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.org.un,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.british,alt.president.clinton
From: kirby@xerox.com (Mike Kirby)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: Going to Somalia
Date: 13 Dec 92 17:11:27 GMT
Reply-To: kirby@xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Corporation, Webster NY

In article 1933@nntp.hut.fi, jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
> In article <1992Dec9.155253.3292@spectrum.xerox.com>, kirby@xerox (Mike Kirby) writes:
> >How about this:
> >
> >If I were the praying type, I would prefer to pray that anyone who places our
> >forces in danger are neutralized as quickly as possible to discourage others from
> >taking similar action.
> >
> >Is that any better?
> 
> It's a bit better since it doesn't contain "meatballs".  But in the
> actual substance it isn't really any different.
> 
> You speak of "our forces".  To use that expression, your forces are
> going into a foreign country as intruders, supposedly to restore some
> order there.  It is only natural to expect some hostility.  If you
> shoot everyone who shows any signs of hostility towards you, the
> intruders, you will be the one causing the violence.
> 
> It shouldn't be some kind of a "mine is bigger than yours" game, or
> game of authority.
> 
> //Jyrki

Ahh,  But that is exactly what it is.  Ours *is* bigger than theirs, and we
are there to proove it.  Once they understand that, then (theoretically) the fighting
will die down (how's that for an oxymoron?) and the releif agencies will be able
to deliver the food.

And yes, if hostility is show toward any of the U.N (read U.S.) forces there will
be a clear and decisive response.  That is the whole idea.  At a later date, once
security is established, the U.S. will leave, and U.N. peacekeepers with much
more strict rules of engangement will come in.  

One more point.  Somolia is no longer a country (in the western sense...Of course the nation-state was invented by the west, so it is reasonable to assume that definition) therefore noone is being invaded.  A better way to express the action might be to
say that order is being established in a region of the world where thousands of people
have the potential to die from starvation because of a lack of order.  This isn't
US vs. THEM.  There is no THEM.

Mike Kirby
Xerox Corp
E-Mail: kirby.roch803@xerox.com
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.org.un,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.british,alt.president.clinton
From: awells@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Andrew V. Wells)
Subject: Somalia
Followup-To: alt.desert-storm
Keywords: no reply
Organization: Northeastern University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:53:58 GMT

Here's some more fan mail I've gotten from those lovely people who
are in love with war, because it is mass-murder they can cheerlead for:

>Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 11:40:58 MST
>From: valerio@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Valerio Franceschin)
>To: awells@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu
>Subject: Re: Somalia

>First of all, the Gulf war was a UN, international campaign, not just that
>of the US. 

Bush deployed troops to Saudi Arabia, and afterward the
UN began bowing to US demands. Member
countries of the UN were theatened, cajoled, and bribed by the US
into passing a resolution which said that "any country can do whatever
it likes" in response to the gulf crisis. That is hardly an approval
of the the aggression launched against Kuwait and Iraq.  Rather it
is the anguished cry of a UN being forced into letting the US and
Britain do what they damn pleased.  If you still doubt that the
attack against Iraq was a US-initiated assault (involving the
most intensive bombing in history), 90% of the troops were from
the US and Britain. There were token forces from other countries.
But the military command structure was entirely controlled by
the US.

 
>And yes, it was war.  Perhaps you're unhappy that the Coalition was
>successful.  
 ^^^^^^^^^^

And Hitler no doubt called the gassing of 6 million Jews "successful".
Why don't you go to Iraq and try saying that to someone caught 
underneath the bombs?

>Funny that you should accuse me of drivel, yet you chose 
>to resort to obscenty. 
              ^^^^^^^^ (correct spelling:obscenity)
I think strong language is a perfectly legitimate way of expressing
anger and revulsion when common moral sensibilities are so
hideously violated, for example, when people such as yourself
self-gratuitously cheerlead for whatever aggression the 
government undertakes. Think about this: the inescapable
result of the Gulf "war" was the cowardly killing of 
hundreds of thousands of defenseless innocent people.
That is the bottom line of war. Perhaps for you the bottom line
of war is "glory," "heroism," or some other macho bullshit. That is
a lie. And you scold me for cussing!
 
By the way, Schwartzkopf called the Gulf "war" a "turkey shoot."
And he's right: 200,000 dead Iraqis, and about 100 dead US
service people. I mourn them all. 

                                   andy wells
          ///\\\         awells@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu
        \\\\  ////        andyphys@nuhub.northeastern.edu
          / \ ooo            
          //  <<<              \oooooo---oooooo//-