From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush vs. facts
Date: 8 Nov 1992 21:53:55 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <1992Nov5.215031.760@blurt.oswego.edu> rmulvey@blurt.oswego.edu writes:
>	Do you remember what happened on December 7, 1941 when our defence 
>  was not so strong? The reason President Reagan, President Bush, and Mr. 
>  Limbaugh want a strong defense is so that something like Pearl Harbor 
>  does not happen again. Don't forget that those nuclear bombs in the 
>  former Soviet Union are still pointed at us. 

Do you really want to stand by this Dec 7, 1941 statement?
You are using 'fear tactics' to convince us.  You claim our defense is
was weak because we were subject to attack.  Think about these facts:
1) The US had no enemies to the north or south by land.
2) Any aggressors have to cost a big, wide ocean
3) The missile was a twinkle in the eyes of planners

We had a naval presence, but no need to 'protect' our colonies like the
brittish.  The supply lines from Japan are long, and the land has no 
natural resources to speak of.  The US only had to defend the 48 states
to be a 'military power' aka resources.  (energy, materials, people.)

I will make a counter statement:
The US had a VERY strong defense.  This is proven by the fact no
axis power attacked the 48 states.  

The war would have been much different if Germany would have 
succeded in the Russian campaign.  I feel the loss of life in the case
of the invasion of brittan and japan would have crippled both sides.

>	You aparently have not read "Stormin' Norman's" book or his article 
>  in the September issue of Newsweek. If you had you would have known that 
>  if we had invaded Iraq the coalition would have fallen apart. If we 
>  had gone in, then under the provisions of the Geneva and Hague conventions 
>  we would have been the occupying forces. So the whole thing would have 
>  been our responsibility. That would be very expensive and difficult.

And we put this coalition because we are moral leaders in the world right?

Where is this moral leadership when Saddam was gassing Kurds?  Doing
the SAME things we pointed out about how 'evil' this man is/was.  Yet
he got US $$$ in a foriegn policy that was supposed to 'reform' him
to the US way of thinking.....

At least Rush has been honest, where Bush was not.  Rush has said
the issue was OIL, not 'Freedom for the peace loving Kuaitties.'

>  private sector had more control over defence orders there would be more
>  people  like Hussein. He got his weapons from unscrupulous firms who care
>  more  about the almighty buck than world peace. 

Did you choose to ignore the US subsidies to Iraq allowing them to free
perto-dollars to BUY these arms?

The dollars from the US gonv. helped BUY the items from the 'unscrupulous
firms'  (A large portion of the weapons entered under the "punish the 
Iranians for taking US hostages.)

-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.