Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:15:29 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: How Iraq was armed

>>>Seems like an appropriate time to raise (again) the question of how Iraq
>>>was armed in the first place.
>>
>>Maybe this time we'll find out why the question is relevant.
>
>It's relevant if you want to know the effectiveness of recent
>foreign policy, or if you care about criminal activity in
>the Administration.

I'll stipulate that it is no more effective than past US foreign
policy.  The interesting question is whether it is less effective.

An emphasis on criminal activity in the administration isn't
necessarily consistent with an interest in criminal activity in govt.
If Jamie wants to make the principled argument, he has to take the
principled stand; "I want to publicize criminal activity by Repubs"
isn't it.

BTW - Does the "it's time for a change" argument apply to congress?
If 12 years of repub administrations is too long, then congress or
even safe seats are overdue for a similar change.  (Changing all safe
seats would give congress to the repubs.)  Or, is it "change" is
"repubs are to be exchanged for demos"?

>>US foreign policy for the past few decades has been to pass out guns
>>to anyone with a uniform, especially if there's oil.  Occasionally we
>>go in and stomp recipients of said aid when they don't toe the line.
>>Maybe we should change that policy, but it's not new or secret, or
>>even all that unpopular among Congresscritters.  Selective carping
>>that ignores these "unpleasant details" is merely partisan whining.
>
>The first sentence is plainly false, and I have to wonder whether
>Andy actually believes it or whether he is trying to make some
>subtle point by lying.

False?  Jamie's claiming that we don't arm anyone and everyone?  Well,
we do try not to arm "commies", sometimes, but that's not much of an
exception.

>I also wonder what he has in mind by the second sentence. For example,
>in exactly which cases have U.S. armed forces "stomped" on
>recipients of military aid, other than in Iraq?

We don't always use the army; consider how the Shah came to power.
Still a stomping.  Usually our clients toe the line.  (Our friends in
Oz have an interesting view of US "stomp".)

>Andy then says that the military aid to Iraq was not secret. But,
>again, what he says is false. It WAS secret, and it became public
>only when Rep. Gonzalez got his hands on secret CIA documents.

It's not secret in the sense that anyone with >half a brain is
not surprised that we gave guns to Iraq.  That's what we do; it
would be surprising if we hadn't armed Iraq.

>The final sentence I will ignore, since the Big Build Up to it
>consisted of a string of falsehoods.

Since the buildup wasn't false, it still stands.

>>ps - Of course the Kurds are going to get hurt.  Every region has a
>>kick-dog and they get it no matter what we do.
>
>I see. Would Kurds have been massacred in the way they were if the
>U.S. policy had not been to urge them to rebel, then abandon them?

"Massacre the kurds" is the regional sport.  Given that history, it is
difficult to argue that our betrayal "caused" anything; it was merely
another convenient excuse in an area where they've got plenty of
excuses and don't care when they run out anyway.

In other words, the only thing we could have done to save the kurds is
to actually come through on our promise.  Not making it wouldn't have
hurt them any more than betraying them did.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU