From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Foreign policy musings
Organization: The World
	<Bt6Dw1.9CF@world.std.com> <2796988236@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com>
	<BZS.92Aug18195036@ussr.std.com>
	<JTURNER.92Aug21202104@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 04:46:33 GMT


From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) [responding to me]
>> It is quite a leap to go from one questionable report (suddenly
>> classified as a "deciding factor") to ``The "rape of Kuwait" is quite
>> possibly all propaganda.''
>> Were the Iraqi troops there or not?
>
>	After the US practically gave them an invitation.  Why
>didn't the US try to dissuade the invasion _beforehand_???

This is not exactly new information. You are working forward from a
possibly unproveable position.

Besides, what position is the US in to invite Iraq to invade Kuwait?

Do you really mean there may have been reason for Hussein to believe
that the US wouldn't retaliate? That's hardly an invitation, and
hardly a good reason to invade another country.

Hey, ok, we'll accept your premise: We lied, we changed our mind, we
didn't think it was a very good idea to tolerate such behavior after
the fact. Does that make us wrong in the end? Does that make Saddam
Hussein right?

It's grasping for straws.

>> Who set all those oil wells on fire?
>
>	Ooooh.  Probably the most heinous war crime ever committed.

I didn't say it was.

I said that there are good reasons to not believe your claim that we
invaded only because of one nurse's report about the absconding of
incubators.

>Far outweighing "Allied" bombardment of Iraqi cities and 100 to
>200,000 dead Iraqis.

Where do you get your counts?

Perhaps Hussein should have backed off before this occurred, did he
not get sufficient warning?

Of course he did, but he blew off one million young men in a war
against Iran, what's another 100,000 when his ego is at stake?

>> What happened to the contents of those Kuwaiti museums?
>
>	Going to war over museum contents?  Gosh those Iraqis really
>rankled Amerikan sensibilities.  I'd bet most Americans rarely if ever
>go near museums.  At least after grade school.

Look friend, you claimed that the only thing the Allies had to go on
was one report from a nurse about Iraqi behavior in one hospital.

I think we have now scuttled that specious claim of yours. Stop trying
to change the subject.

>> Did we discover heaps of bodies of civilians when we entered Kuwait or
>> not?
>
>	Obviously they didn't have the time or inclination to bury
>them the way the US did in Panama.

Do you have a point to make? It's irrelevant whether they were buried
or not.

>> C'mon, it's not like that nurse/babies incident was the only event in
>> Kuwait.
>
>	But what really happened, as opposed to what we've been told
>happened we'll probably never know.  Again, it all could have been 
>averted diplomatically, either before or after the Iraqi invasion.

Ah, good, you finally acknowledge the question my post was responding
to.

What really happened? I don't know, what really happened?

I am glad you have decided that it all could have been averted
diplomatically.

Since you assume arbitrary power of diplomacy, what is it exactly that
we could not get via diplomacy that made us all get into a war over
it?

Either diplomacy is omnipotent, as you seem to claim, or it is not.

And why couldn't Saddam Hussein see any reasons for backing off in the
6 months after we all know he got full notice that the situation was
unnacceptable?

>> Why? Do you have reason to believe that Saddam Hussein would not have
>> sold the US (et al) oil? Or not sold it at market price?
>
>	That's not the point at all.  The US has the right to set
>or at least heavily influence the market price through the West's
>installed and supported surrogates in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.  We
>cannot go letting indigenous people control their resources when
>they are SO vital to the US.

Gee, what happened in 1974 when those US imposed surrogates (same
exact people pretty much, right, Sheikh Yamani still manages the Saudi
family's oil business as he did in 1974) and oil prices tripled in a
few weeks?

Indigenous people? To Saudi Arabia? You mean *not* the Saudis? Then
who?  The Kurds perhaps? Oops, sorry, that's Hussein's bailiwick...

The odd thing is, they're not SO vital to the US. How much of the US's
oil consumption do you believe comes from the region?

The fact of the matter is, Saddam Hussein is a murderous and evil
person who's killing and oppression are well documented.

But I am sure you'll forgive all that to make some point, that is if
you ever get to it.

>> I think it's quite obvious the reasons are not this easily cast off.
>
>	Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha.

Incisive.

And you probably wonder why no one will take you seriously?


--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: ne.politics