X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @VAL, @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 12:04:00 CST
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      "Gulf Notes: Round Two"
Comments: To: val-l@ucf1vm.BITNET, jwales@iubvm.BITNET, olsenj@stolaf.edu,
              shlyakhter@huhepl.harvard.edu, kousen@rayleigh.res.utc.com

"Gulf Notes: Second Round"

The "war" talk of the past two days leads me to take an unpopular
position. I do not believe that attacking Iraq (and not Saddam
Hussein, this "personalizing the enemy" ignores completely that the
most likely victims of an attack will the very Iraqi people Bush
claims he does not want to attack) and pillorying the "Bully of
Baghdad" makes it clear that we WANT war.

I agree that Iraq has not been cooperative with the "occupying" Un
monitoring teams. I also agree that after 17 months, there is a
reasonable view in Baghdad that their sovereignty IS being violated.
"how long must this go on? is the question. Compliance with the some
ten UN resolutions basically makes Iraq a subjegated nation for an
indefinite period, which makes both they and their neighbors quite
uneasy. Two stalwart nations of the "coalition (both of whom got debt
remissions in the billions of dollars, by the way) Egypt and Turkey
have both indicated an unwillingness to be involved in this latest
adventure.

70% of the populace (with a 3% error factor) reportedly favors
another "war," as opposed to only 24% who are opposed. Well, I think
this behavior is not going to win us friends, will not ensure Bush's
re-election, and will be a total distraction from the issues that
SHOULD be discussed during this election. We are at a generational
crossroads, I believe, where we choose to be led by the certain past
(Bush) or the uncertain future (Clinton). War is a great way to show
the flag, muscle recalcitrants who are not democratic (where is this
muscle when it comes to addressing the REAL aggressors of Belgrade?),
and hopefully jingo one's way back into the White House.

Yesterday, the President suggestd that we the electorate ought not to
switch from experience to an untried team in this time of crisis.
Well, we see how "experience" deals with the situation - force. Is
that REALLY the only option available?

As I have said before, I do not like the regime of Saddam Hussein,
nor do I see it as a positive force in Middle Eastern politics. But,
then, I remain not very fond of the other four undemocratic regimes
around Iraq, headed by the Demon of Damascus, the Terror of Tehran,
the Killer of Kuwait, and the Rat of Riyadh (see, that name-calling
is easy!). Not a one of them wants any more of us than to be THEIR
policeman/enforcer/weapons-purveyor, which they are perhaps willing
to pay for (did everyone pay their bills last time?), they are still
pursuing whatever hidden agendas that they have.

This possible war will damage American political life, and will brand
us a bully in the world community, no matter the rightness of our
complaints about Iraq's UN resolution violations. "The Bully of
Baghdad" is not worth that level of energy output, UNLESS we ARE
going to actually "make" the Hussein regime create a genuine
Kurdistan. That won't happen. We talk a good deal about
self-determination for peoples like the Kurds, but we don't mean it,
not even for "ally states" like Kuwait. So, the purpose is simply to
attempt to assassinate or remove the leader of Iraq, and aggrandize
George Bush so he does not have to address the REAL issues of the
campaign of '92 - housing for all, a better crack at education for
more people, restoration of a deecent US transit system, and health
care accessible for all the populace. These are the issues of the
future, not war with a second-rate Arab dictatorshio, which, after
all, are all over that part of the world. What is so different
between the "Bully of Baghdad" and the "Demon of Damascus?"  VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU