HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: alt.music.progressive
Subject: Re: Nektar disc?
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:24:39 GMT
Distribution: alt.music.progressive
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep29.112439.20925@cs.tulane.edu> piscine@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu (henry bart) writes:
|-=> 
|-=> By the way, I have "A Tab in the Ocean" dated as 1972.
|
|I have never heard of _Man in the Moon_ nor seen it listed anywhere.  For 
|_Tab_ do you have the date on the album?  I got the info from a book since
|I don't have that album.

I have the album and it`s dated 1972.

-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira     | Auspex Systems | "Auspex does not share my opinions.  |
| johnf@auspex.com | Santa Clara CA |  So Why am I still working here?"    |
+==========================================================================+
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: The US Govt CARES about soldiers...NOT!
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:30:09 GMT

In article <1ahpvmINN8ja@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber) writes:


	*****Oh, look!  The prisoner of Cleveland is at it again****
		I take it you're just on the net to cause
		aggravation.

		Alec.

>
>Over 23,000 US soldiers were left behind during WWII -the
>Soviets sent them to Siberian camps.
>
>Over 1,000 soldiers left MIA in the Korean War, over 500 in the Vietnam war.
>Who know what consequences face the Gulf vets?
>
>The US government doesn't care about soldiers. They lie to us - the
>politicians only care to feed the war profits to their war business
>pals and to display their moral outrage for re-election purposes. They
>trick us by selling us patriotism - and you (pro-war) suckers buy it
>over & over...
>
>When ya gonna learn? Your enemy is not across the ocean - it's in Washington!


Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
From: dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: Another Cover-Up?
Date: 30 Sep 92 09:32:58 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu writes:


>Though I respect the  RED CROSS and AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, I guess they
>are not beyond the patriotism.  Amnesty International report during the
>Gulf War said that Iraqi soldiers went to maternity hospitals and threw
>the children out of the inhubator boxes (sorry for paraphasing).  Remem-
>ber Naira Al-Sabah? She deserved an Oscar for her Congressional hearing!

No they didn't. The news first broke when the young lady you mentioned
gave evidence to the congressional hearing. The initial Amnesty report
could find no evidence to support her claims. Where did you hear the
contrary?

Dave
-- 
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
From: dathomas@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dave Thomas)
Subject: Patriotism
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix (sponsored by U. of Denver Math/CS dept.)
Disclaimer1: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University of
Disclaimer2: Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
Disclaimer3: control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 12:33:47 GMT

There seems to have been a bit of confusion over my last posting. Probably
due to the fact that sarcasm isn't very easy with the written word.

The bit abvout the US troups killing some of the Destert-Rats was meant to
be sarcastic.

For the record, I ain't American, I am British, hence the dig at the
"Kicking Butt". I realise now that I should maybe have explained it a bit
more, such is the advantage of hindsight!

No hard feelings, and Sorry.

Dave

Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:55:32 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <BvFpv8.I4F@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk writes:

> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> 
> >In <1992Sep29.224443.14036@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com writes:
> 
> >  I'm not Mr. McCullough, but I hope you don't mind my interjecting a comment
> >or two.
> 
> >> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
> >> >a very major fundamental difference: Iraq was the aggressor.  They invaded
> >> >Kuwait.  The US intervened to stop this invasion.  For a better comparison,
> >> 
> >> Save me the party line. Think for yourself.
> 
> >  Actually, we intervened because we were concerned about the Kuwaiti and
> >Saudi oil, and what SH might do with the revenues from that oil.  We did not
> >intervene "just" to reverse the invasion for it's own sake.  I see nothing
> >wrong with this.  The US does not have the resources to go out and play world
> >policeman all the time.  It must pick and choose those areas where it feels its
> >vital interests are threatened. 
> 
> Oh great!
> Two years ago, the pro-war people were bending over backwards in this group
> and it's predescesor alt.desert-shield stressing that the anti-war lot had got
> it all wrong, this war was about 'freedom and democracy' and had absolutely
> nothing to do with oil. Even George Bush was following that line.
> 
> You've got to admire their brass neck!
> 
> Looks like all those neo-Red "No war for Oil" liberals had it right all along.
> Dave

  While I believe you are referring to the pro-war group in general, and not 
me in particular, I would prefer it if you were more careful in your accusa-
tions.  Only a bloody fool could not see that we intervened due to a concern 
for the oil in that region, which we currently still need and will for some
time.  That Saddam WAS a brutal dictator engaging in land piracy and threat-
ening a friendly Saudi regime was in fact just gravy.  *I* realized this the
day the whole thing started.

  Governmental motives in this were quite in line with national self-interest.
Getting to do something noble (rescuing a weaker nation from an agressor) was
a nice bonus.

  And if you're wondering where I was during the first round, I didn't have an
account back then.


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.desert-storm
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:29:30 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Sep30.152135.14728@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> bobh@troy.uucp writes:

> In article <1992Sep29.212747.17042@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> >
> >I didn't know the death of enemy soldiers in a war was such a tragedy.
> >Considering what they did to the people of Kuwait, why are we upset??
> >
> 
> Because they are human beings, and somehow it is disgusting to think that
> we killed more people than we had to or that we killed them more brutally
> than we had to (at least to me it is).
> -Bob

  Wake up folks, dead is dead.  There's not all that much difference between
getting from a fragmentation bomb that leaves you with a sucking chest wound
or from getting covered in sand.


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 		               *
********************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.desert-storm:1904 alt.activism:17223
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm,alt.activism
Subject: About those lies concerning Iraqi POWs...
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:05:55 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	The hole in the "anonymous poster's" arguments about Iraqi POWs is that
they were not held by US troops.  Saudis took care of all EPOWs.

	Oops.

	:)

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: Another Cover-Up?
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:35:17 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

More to the point, higher levels of civilian deaths (especially
among children) can be expected to result from _anything_ that
reduceds a country's gross economic product (GDP/GNP) and tech
level. 

This applies to ANY economic sanctions, ANY economic depression,
ANY destruction due to war.

This applies to the UN sanctions on Iraq, both before and after
the war. This applies to the UN sanctions on South Africa. It 
probably applies (within Serbia proper) to the UN sanctions there.
(Yes, such sanctions are intended to have a greater, favorable
effect in other ways and areas.) _Any_ coercive force applied to 
a nation will result in X thousand deaths of children.

Studies that show such effect should be no surprise, any more that
if I were to conduct a study showing that drug abuse shortened the
users' life expectancy. Such studies belong in the category of, 
"Aren't terrible things awful, and isn't war violent?"


Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Burying of POWs, not in Combat [was: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP ]
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:43:16 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Oct5.144949.18486@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@tko.vtt.fi writes:

> Is anyone out there willing to support the alleged activity, the burying
> of Prisoners of War?  Are pro-war people willing to label
> such activity, IF IT OCCURRED, a war crime?

  Yes.

>  Should such a charge be 
> investigated?

  I suppose, but only if the accusers can come up with something more substan-
tive than "I heard from somebody..."


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 		               *
********************************************************************************
From: juha.veijalainen@compart.fi (Juha Veijalainen)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP
Date: 3 Oct 92 18:09:00 GMT
Reply-To: juha.veijalainen@compart.fi (Juha Veijalainen)
Organization: ComPart BBS, Helsinki-Finland, +358 0 506 3329 (14 lines V.32bis)

Patrick Chester wrote:

PC>In article <1992Sep25.200750.23511@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> bobh@troy.
PC>>
PC>>I understand what you are saying, but let's be honest: if we bulldoze
PC>>Iraqi solders off the front lines when it was just as easy to capture
PC>>as prisoners of war, then are we really deserving of the moral high g
PC>>in the war?  Is it the kind of behavior that merits praise and ticker
PC>>parades?  
PC>I doubt that it would have been as easy to capture them in those posit
PC>As far as any company or battalion commander should have been concerne
PC>the Iraqi soldiers who came across the border before the assault were 
PC>only ones who wanted to surrender. All the soldiers remaining in Kuwai
PC>be considered hostile unless some other circumstances arised. Like hav

In my opinion you don't usually order military units to 'go and capture 
enemy', except for intelligence gathering purposes.  You 'destroy', 
'neutralise' or 'break' enemy units or positions.  Orders always set an 
objective for a unit, and unit tries to fullfill its orders.  There is 
nothing wrong in reaching your objective without killing a single enemy 
soldier.

I do not think UN troops were ordered to bury Iraqi soldiers.  The order 
was to break through their lines.  The fastest and safest way to do this 
was to fill in the dikes iraqis had dug.  If UN troops would have stopped 
to take prisoners - well, here are some options:  1) Iraqis had a lot of 
mines and boobytraps around 2) some iraqis would not surrender and UN 
troops would be sitting ducks for a while 3) iraqis could have got some 
indirect fire to these easy targets 4) recapture of Kuwait would have been 
delayed and iraqi troops in Kuwait would have had more time to prepare 
themselves 5) and so on.

Commanders main responsibility is for his own men, not the enemy's.

---
 . WinQwk 2.0 a#152 . Mielipiteet omiani/Opinions personal/Facts suspect
    
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:31:05 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Sep29.001623.25517@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com writes:

> During the Revolutionary War, we were the _underdog_.
> 
> During the Iraq War, we were the _overdogs_. The bullies. The better-equipped.
> ( No thanks to the bastions of the CIA who armed their buddies well. )

  Being better equipped does not make one a bully.  Just more intelligent.  
Iraq was the bully by pounding on a smaller, weaker, nation.

> Did we really _need_ to bury _anyone_ ?

  Well, I suppose we could have chucked them into the oil fires, but I'm sure
the EPA would have objected to the pollution.

> I suspect that we could have waited them out, no ?
> -- richard

  Indeed.  And when the EXACT SAME hardships began to be felt by the Iraqi 
common people around now or perhaps next year (not to mention the Jordanians 
and the Kuwaitis) and Saddam and his cronies continued to eat roast duck for
dinner every night, then what?  We are rather back where we started, are we 
not?


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 		               *
********************************************************************************
From: dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: Mike Royko Column
Date: 5 Oct 92 10:39:33 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:


>aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber) writes:

>>It doesn't matter how many women & kids,
>>we killed or how many Iraqis got buried alive.

>Why am I relieved that this person didn't have a finger on the
>button that could start WWIII?

If you read some of the Sunday papers here in the UK and some of the info
released via the Freedom of Information Act in the US recently, it appears
people considered in the west to be more moderate than the above were just
a few inches away from pushing the button (Jimmy Carter for one).
Scotland on Sunday was the one I saw it in, should be in most of the non
tabloid English papers too.
Scary stuff!!

>>This war was not
>>OUR doing! It was Saddam's - HE'S the BAD guy! We're the GOOD guys!

>Oh; how simple it seems when explained in such a way.

'Course it is - The Iraqis wore black hats and we wore white hats - easy!

>>War is hell! Let's thank God that HE supported US and not Iraq!

>I didn't actually notice God saying he supported the US; perhaps
>it was on a different channel.

Source:- Sunday Sport 20th December 1990
         Page 23

          The God Spot.
          ============

"Well, as you all know, I'm a white male caucasian with a long grey beard
and hair and I'd just like you people out there who are going into battle
with those heathens and their false god that I'm on your side.
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And remember, war is hell - and that's where I'd like you to send those
unbelieving Iraqis. Go to it boys"

              ==============
--
From: dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: Patriotism???
Date: 1 Oct 92 09:05:28 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

dworden@cwis.unomaha.edu (David Paul Worden) writes:

>I would just like to know if those who continue to rip on the U.S. government
>about the Gulf War, for whatever reason, have pride in their country.

In some matters yes, but not blindly so. (I'm assuming you're referring to
those who throw rocks at the US from outside and their opinions of their own
countries)

> Everyone
>is entitled to their own opinion, but, are these people active in politics.
>(i.e.  Do you vote????)

Somebody tell me he's kidding!!? Voting isn't 'active in politics' (well maybe
it's considered that in the US but certainly not here!) Voting involves taking
out 20 minutes of your time every 4 or 5 years to put a 'X' beside (usually)
the best of a bad lot.


[The oft posted 'war is hell' line deleted]

>said, I would rather die fighting for my country, proud of my country, than to
>die with my tail between my legs.

..and if you genuinly believed your country was quite wrong to go to war would
you still go and die for your country?

The point is, are you a follower of the "My country right or wrong" mentality
and an infallible government decision making process or do you think those
decisions merit some scrutiny, irrespective of which country you live in?

The former would appear to be the tendancy in the US from what I've seen
in this group.


Dave

--
From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: Mike Royko Column
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:47:51 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering

What a lovely sentiment, how noble, how nice, how pacifist, HOW STUPID!
First of all, never try and claim that an electrical plant is not a military
target.  It is a very important military target.  It aids the AA systems
that shoot down our aircraft.  Also, you will note that Hussein himself,
and his close friends aren't exactly suffering.  Just like the royal
Kuwaiti family always had fresh water and power, even though most of his
countrymen didn't, Hussein always has fresh water and power.  War may be hell,
but how can you even _imply_ that 46900 lives are more significant than
more than 100,000 lives?  Or whatever the current population of Kuwait is.
How can you claim that it is more important to allow a dictator to take
any country he wants, do anything he wants, than to stop him.  It is
unfortunute that this was a cost of war, but, it is war, better to stop
Hussein quickly, then let him absorb Kuwait because he wanted better sea
access and the advanced technology in Kuwait.  You have talked about 
the ulterior motives of the US for intervening, but what of Iraq?  Who was
to stop Iraq?  How can you justify standing back and just letting it happen?
That kind of isolationism led to WWII.  Do you really want to see any kind of
major war anywhere now?  When modern weapons (only conventional now), can
devastate a major military power in 6 weeks, what would be done in say
4 months?  Or a year?  This isolationist attitude that people have been
advocating leads directly into the cause of WWII.  Countries today are
interdependent.  We can't let them cut each other off, or to bits.  Maybe
Hussein should be removed from power, but once again, reality rears its
ugly head.  Who would replace him?  If the choice is in our hands, the ruler
is unlikely to be very popular and will probably suffer a similar fate as
the rulers of South Vietnam (while it existed as a country.)  If the choice
is in the hands of the current Iraqi government, the choice would be someone
less friendly to us than Hussein, and maybe a little more belligerent.
After all, what do they have to lose?

					Mark
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Source of the "bulldozer" lies
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 4 Oct 92 02:04:29 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	Apparently, Rich Winkle got his desired effect: to have the lie that US
soldiers bulldozed prisoners actually given serious merit.

	Can we stop propagating the lies now?  Please take up the issue
directly with Rich (rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu) as he is the one who posted
the article.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: Burying of POWs, not in Combat (which never happened)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:20:15 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct5.144949.18486@ousrvr.oulu.fi>, dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
> This discussion is getting way off course.  The original article which
> started it stated that the author had heard from four different DS
> veterans that Iraqi POWs had been ordered to lie in a trench/pit and 
> then they were buried.  This is a violation of Geneva Conventions on
> treatment of Prisoners of War.

	The original article is a figment of Rich's imagination.

	Posted so useful fools can ask "have you stopped beating your wife"
type questions.

> This is NOT the same as the burying of Iraqi troops in their trenches
> during their resistance, although the poster's later claim that
> thousands of Iraqis were so buried may refer (I hope!) to that.
> 
> Is anyone out there willing to support the alleged activity, the burying
> of Prisoners of War?  

	No such activities happened.  And if they had, I doubt that you'd find
any support here.

> Are pro-war people willing to label
> such activity, IF IT OCCURRED, a war crime?  Should such a charge be 

	Such activity is a war crime.  Prisoners of war are protected by the
Geneva Convention.

> investigated?  If not, is it because US troops should be allowed to
> murder prisoners (in certain circumstances), because we shouldn't make
> such activities public, because it isn't important, or because we refuse
> to believe that OUR BOYS would do such a thing so it must be a lie which
> we won't dignify with an investigation?  Or some other reason?

	It's Rich's fantasy.  Shall we investigate reports of aliens endorsing
Clinton because an anonymous post say they hear some friends of a
brother-in-law of a cousin heard it might be true?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm