Newsgroups: alt.overlords
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 12:12:15 -0500 
From: Mark Beirne Lively <ml5a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: U.N. Rehash
Distribution: usa

Excerpts from netnews.alt.overlords: 20-Jan-93 Re: U.N. Rehash Zamora
Rodrigo@ucs.usl.e (4575)
> In article <1993Jan18.160849.26437@news.unomaha.edu>
> werewolf@cwis.unomaha.edu (Eric E. Buckner) writes:
> >
> >That's it!!  You're correct!!  Forget about the loonies in the Middle
> East, who
> >are trying to build nukes.  Forget about the psycho's killing people because 
> >they come from a certain country (this also extends to racism).  And forget 
> >the Hitler wanna-be in Iraq...
> >
> I see so thats it, there seem to be an awful lot of Hitlers out there these
> days.  Anyone who seems to be against the U.S. policy is a Hitler.  There is
> a Hitler in Baghdad and there is a Hitler in the former Yugoslavia, oh wait
> lemme guess that Fidel Castro is also a Hitler.  There were too many Hitlers
> in Somalia to make the comparison effective to those naive enough to believe
> the official propaganda from Washington.  

No the reason why Hussien was a Hitleresque person is that he was a
genocidal maniac.  If you don't believe me ask the Kurds.  Castro is not
even a real communist.  he is more of an opportunist, dictator, and is
harmless. n Maybe we should call enemy dictators Zamora's?

> So they just called it a "relief"
> mission and that way we all look good while our government kills people. 

But we have not killed all that many people.  The soldiers in somalia
were told not to fire unless threatened and they haven't.

> But wait!  With all these Hitlers out there, why isn't it conceivable for
> a second that our government  is not fascist.  Oh no not our pure honest
> government.  After all we were not responsible for the brutal slaying of
> people in El Salvador all these years and of course the government there
> were not crazed lunatics.  No they were our FRIENDS.  

Situational ethics.  It was neccisarry at the time to put those people
into power to maintain a strategic advantage.  You are right that we
should have used a more permanent solution but russia would have gone
ape if we actually annexed central america.

> Come to think of it so was Saddam and Noriega.  

It was time rto take them down a notch and to inform them that since
they were no longer neccissary that we could and would dispose of them.

> We had nothing to do with what happened in Iran when the Shah took over.
>  Them damn Iranians just took our hostages for no reason, right??  

You are confusing two issues the Ayatollah took power and our hostages. 
I am unfamilar with what happened when the shah took over but that was
in the early cold war period as I remember.

> We were not the one who got ourselves in this
> mess by intervening in the Iraq and Iran war were we??  Military intervention,
> the very thing that I am against, is the reason you call Saddam Hitler now. 
> Furthermore since our government has commited acts of aggression also, and
> we seem to have nuclear weapons, does this mean that any nation that disagrees
> with us has the right to bomb us?  

Hmm.  interesting point.  I would say that yes.  They do have the right
to try.  Whether they will get any support is doubtful and whether they
will succeed is een less likely, but they can try.

> Probably won't happen right, but maybe
> you should consider what is the standard for lunatic.  When do you have the
> right to say somebody must die?  More importantly why should YOU say that?
> I understand that there is a point when in order to defend yourself you must
> use force, however the agression towards Iraq is just as immoral as was
> Hussien's invasion of Kuwait.  

Granted that two rwrongs don't make a right, but isn't letting a wrong
stand unchallenged being an excessory to that wrong and to every wrong
which follows it.  And doens't that make you just as guilty as the
person who commits that wrong.  Supposing we just invaded kuwait and
pushed Saddam back across the border. then left it at that.  He wopuld
be back in a month, a year 5 years.  With a bigger and better army. 
This cycle would repeat until finally we couldn't beat him.

> The reason I say this is because if you
> remember in December of 89 Hussien had agreed to talk with Bush before
> Lord Bush's first ultimatum.  However Bush is the one who changed his mind
> about talking with Hussien and he set another ultimatum which then led to
> the war.  Hussien before the war was willing to negotiate.

Yes but anything short of a total withdraw and return of all siezed and
destroyed property would have been a victory for him which means that it
is totally unallowable.

> >And if you don't believe the Hussein/Hitler comparison read the following.
> >
> >Hussein published a book with a title I can't exactly remember but was 
> >close to (in meaning) "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle)
> >
> Hussein is a nationalist and so was Hitler.  In my opinion thats the only
> similarity between the two.   Being nationalistic is not reason enough to 
> believe that Hussein is a Hitler type. Furthermore, Hussein has been more
> than willing to compromise with the U.S.  It has been Bush and the shithole
> called U.N. that have refused any compromise with the exception of the 
> removal of Hussein from power.  Now get real!

It is real.  We can't let him Win.  Break even is only a bearly suitable
option.  besides the press woul;d have crucified <Bush if he weasled out.

> What if the leader of a foreign nation said, "Excuse me Mr. Bush I don't
> like the way you are running your country, so if you don't step down I will
> kill you."  Hmmm, what do you think Bush would say??  

Problably something along the lines of  "bite me"

> Bush, somehow thinking
> that it is macho, has flatly refused to do the main job of a politician 
> which is to negotiate.  Do you think Hitler ever agreed to negotiate?

Yes he did negotiate.  With Chamberlin.  Right after he siezed
czechoslovakia.  Then again after Poland. and a couple of other times. 
We learned from history.  If someone is being overly agressive and has
the potential to get even worse.  "CUT HIM/HER OFF AT THE KNEES!"

> >Hussein took Kuwait with the overlaying lie that Kuwait was all he wanted.
> >Hitler took portions of Poland and Czechoslovakia with the same lie.  "We only
> >want a bit of lebensraum (living space)."
> >
> We went into Saudi Arabia with the overlaying lie that it would be a
> defensive operation.

And it was.  While we were negotiating.  I'll admit launching an attack
was not quite kosher (if you'll pardon my phrase.)  But it was neccisary

> >
> >Side note:  For those of you who find Nostradamus an interesting chap...He 
> >warned of the end of the world as we know it would come about from a man in
> >a blue turban...And guess who I saw a picture of on the side of a building
> >in Iraq (TV newsfeed)...Saddam Hussein in a blue turban (or hat, maybe).
> >-- 
> My God!! I hope this isn't the way our government is run! I know the
> Reagans were into astrology and all but this is too much. 

It was just a coincidence.  Besides Nostradamous is often a little to
accurate to be treated entirely as coincidence.


--
For the LAST TIME, I am not the ruler of the underworld. I told Satan and
Ba'alzebub that, and I don't have time to keep telling it to penny ante fallen
angels now stop bothering me and go back to hell or where ever you came from.
ML5A@andrew.cmu.edu Bear aka the Lord High Rulebender