HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: U.S. Is Not Going to War in Somalia for any Good Reasons
Date: 17 Dec 1992 00:43:28 -0500
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: cathy.na.cs.yale.edu

scw@cirrus.seas.ucla.edu (Stephen C Woods) writes:
>In article <1ggi67INNhog@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>[...]
>}almost never going to be the case.  So what is the use of the UN
>}peacekeeping missions?  Propaganda of course.  The governments who send them
>}like to be seen "keeping the peace" while incurring relatively little risk
>}for doing so.  
>
>Except of course to the poor infantryman that they stick out there.

I was intending to mean that it was not much of a risk for the
_government_.  :-)  But even the Poor Bloody Infantryman is not usually
in danger.  Take the case of Cyprus: UN soldiers have been sitting
between the Greek and Turkish halves of the island for fifteen years,
without any casualties, and with precious few incidents.  Everybody
knows there will not be a war there, since the Greek Cypriot armed
forces are pitiful compared to the Turkish army, and the latter has
already taken as much land as it wants.


--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
 "Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future." -- Niels Bohr
Xref: sparky alt.current-events.somalia:414 alt.activism:19513
From: yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Going to Somalia
Date: 11 Dec 1992 20:17:14 -0500
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: cathy.na.cs.yale.edu

rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>>No, what makes it dangerous for U.S. citizens to travel around the world is
>>terrorism.  Done by terrorists.  The terrorists are usually armed and
>>financed by governments hostile to us.  For instance the Communist Bloc used
>>to be a heavy supporter of terrorists.
>
>And what _motivates_ them, dear boy ?

What motivates who?  You are either wondering about the terrorists, or about
the supporting nations.  I cannot tell which; you might consider being more
specific in the future.

What motivates the terrorists themselves:  Who cares?  They believe some
sort of anti-US propaganda, and sometimes they have been treated roughly by
us (we are no angels.)  But it is mainly the propaganda.  You can find
someone to do any sort of dirty work.  Shooting a President, blowing up a
building, whatever it is, there is some man who will do it.  The warped
minds of such men contain little of value.

What motivates the governments is our own restraint.  They know that through
terrorism they can damage us, whereas we are more civilized and will refrain
from retaliating in kind.  By damaging us they can make us seem to be wimps.
This is good for their anti-American propaganda.

jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>>  I just wish the hatred and violence would be
>>>targeted at the right target, ie. people like you, instead of any
>>>random U.S. citizen.  Perhaps if enough of people like you were
>>>killed, the rest would start doing something about the reasons.

You know, I wonder if Jyrki realizes that he is saying violent harm should
be done to me for expressing my beliefs.  That he is expressing his dislike
for freedom of speech.  That he is saying the beliefs of people like myself
should be changed not by persuasion, but by persecuting us, nay, killing us,
until we decide we were wrong.

In brief, he is a fascist.  He will no doubt protest mightily, but it is
true nevertheless.

>I think it's this 'us' business, as if we were different, as if our needs
>should always have priority, as if being an American placed one at the right
>hand of God.

I will hand that question right back to you.  Every other nation acts to
further its own interests; what is different about us that we should not?
You talk about freedom, but there has never been any freedom between
nations, only individual freedoms within a nation.


--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
	"Honesty is the rarest commodity in this university."
		- V. I. Fabrikant, (ex-)Concordia U.
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
From: mclno@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Jeffery Capt. Shue)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: somalia
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:42:12 GMT
Reply-To: mclno@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Jeffery Capt. Shue)
Followup-To: alt.current-events.somalia
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.current-events.somalia, awells@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Andrew V. Wells) writes:
>
>   Let's examine the assumption that Iraq was in fact a
>dangerous aggressor, bent on taking over the whole
>Mid East. There are two facts on which I'm
>sure we both agree that bare on this assumption:
>(1) Iraq was "defeated" in less than six
>weeks; and (2) very few US military personel were killed.
>Moreover, Schwartzkopt himself characterized the action
>as a "Turkey Shoot," apparently refering to the ease with
>which they "defeated" Iraq. So if Iraq was really so dangerous,
>as dangerous as Nazi Germany like the mass media and Bush claimed,
>then why was it so easy to "defeat" Iraq? It took the
>combined powers of the US Britain and Soviet Union 4 years
>to defeat Nazi Germany, not six weeks!
>
>Andy

Sarcasm on.
Sorry more of us didn't get killed to live up to your standards of fair
play. Could it be that the technological and doctrinal advantages that
the US enjoyed was the reason for the lopsided US victory. Do you think
the Iraqis using WW I tactics and the US using WW III tactics might
have had something to do with it?
Sarcasm off.

No matter how you look at it, Iraq was a significant regional power.
Militarily alot more powerful than Kuwait (which fell in about 48 hrs),
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, or Qatar. Iraq had the fourth largest
army in the world but there is a big difference between number 3 and
4. It is extremely difficult to predict how well an army will/can fight.

Somalia is not the Gulf War. The reasons for our intervention in both
are totally different. You may debate the reasons but to compare them
is like comparing apples to oranges.

JP SHUE
My opinions are my own. Standard disclaimers.
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.activism
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Rules of Engagement
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:25:46 GMT

meyer@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Meyer) writes:

>harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>>meyer@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Meyer) writes:

>>>The warning shots were at the airport, not at the beach where the lights 
>>>were.
>>>Actually, I think a few warning shots at the beach would have been quite 
>>>appropriate, given the situation.  (Into the beach, not into the air, 
>>>though.)

>>Yeah, but warning shots have to land somewhere.  In that case,
>>shooting over the heads of the reporters towards the airport and
>>downtown Mogadishu would be a Bad Thing (TM).  When you fire warning
>>shots you want them to either end up somewhere where people aren't or
>>you want them to strike some inanimate barrier.

>Greg,  you really should read more carefully -- I'm the one arguing against
>the warning shots, one reason being exactly what you mention.  (See above, 
>'Into the beach, not into the air".)  Also, I'm a certified firearm safety
>instructor - the last thing you'll catch me endorsing is firing anywhere
>where the shooter is not positive of the backstop.

You're right -- my apologies.

However, the beach wouldn't be a great option, either.  Given the
lighting conditions (bright spots scattered about in a dark area made
darker by the fact that the soldiers' eyes would be adjusted for the
lights) they couldn't be sure of their backstop anyway.
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:05:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.145023.23803@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>In article <1gabndINNf93@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>}In <1992Dec11.143819.29799@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com writes:
>}
>}> Now those checkpoint guards have done it -- they've shot and killed a
>}> truckload of Somalis for having bad brakes! The idiots! Don't they know
>}> killing people makes them vulnerable to the glare of the media?
>}  Ahem.  Those doing the shooting were members of the French Foreign Legion.
>}Last I checked, they were from France, whose president is a Socialist (though
>}perhaps not for much longer), not a Republican.
>}
>}  So far, "our boys" (US marines) haven't shot anybody...You may stop foaming
>}at the mouth now.
>
>Well, some (suicidal idiots?) decided to shoot at fully-armed cobra fighter chopters
>using recoilless rigles mounted on (what use to be) three trucks.
>
well. according to the Marine Corp spokesman, one of the "truck" was really
a M113 troop carrier...

>hint: these same weapons were quite useful at removing tanks in iraq.  Want to
>guess on the impact on a truck?
>
>
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Does Bush hate Xmas or What ?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 19:46:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.111044.15163@news.columbia.edu> dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:
>I agree.  Lose some administrators (the teacher's union is the largest
>and most powerful lobby group in the country,) gain some teachers (and
>pay them better.)


	It's worse than that.  I've noticed that a lot of the peopl ein 
	the teaching profession are wholly without morals (i.e. refusing
	to write recommendations as a form of striking?).  Furthermore,
	the teaching *quality* of a lot of teachers is rotten--these
	are people who were education and sociology majors--you know,
	the people who didn't belong in college so they took the
	easiest majors on the planet (other than art)?  

	These people are teaching all sorts of garbage, and the teachers
	union continually refuses and blocks any kind of teacher rating
	system to get rid of the real bozo's.  (And there are some doozies.)

	If they don't know the subject--fire'em.  



-- 
	"If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"

     all mail to --> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu <-- (please use if different above) 
 	I guess it doesn't really matter--it's tortoises all the way down.	
Xref: sparky alt.current-events.somalia:397 rec.radio.shortwave:8712
From: paulb@harley.tti.com (Paul Blumstein)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,rec.radio.shortwave
Subject: Re: HF radio frequencies for the Somalia action?
Date: 10 Dec 92 22:10:28 GMT
Organization: Black Belt Motorcyclists Association

In article <2932863812.0.p00020@psilink.com> "Jack Previdi" <p00020@psilink.com> writes:
+
+	I guess Jack Anderson subscribes to Intelligence Digest. They had
+	an excellent article on the subject in their latest issue. Same 
+	facts but more elegantly stated :-)

I'm glad that you posted this: I made a mistake.  I subscribe to both
publications and it was in Intelligence Digest that I read this.  My
issue was at home & I at work, which is why I got the attribution
incorrect and did not state it as elegant as they did.

BTW, I believe that Jack Anderson is a subscriber.  Sometimes, I see
the same stuff in his newsletter after it was in Intelligence Digest.
And the wording makes me think that ID was his source.
____________________________________________________________________________
There are three types of people in the world.  There are those that are
good at math and there are those that aren't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul Blumstein, paulb@harley.tti.com, DoD #36, ABATE, AMA, HOG, KD6LAA
            Transaction Technology, Inc., Santa Monica, CA
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.org.un,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.british,alt.president.clinton
From: srscnslt@telesciences.com (SRS Consultant)
Subject: Re: Smile-ia
Organization: TeleSciences CO Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:04:28 GMT

>In article <Bz65G7.Fvw@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes...
>> 
>>Sure.  Just add a verb in parentheses:  "Clinton will go down in
                                           ^^^^^^^
>>history as one of our greatest presidents.  (wink)"


	I first read this as "Clifton...."

	hom-hooom.
-- 
Mitch Gorman		srscnslt@telesciences.com	emrys@cellar.org
"You can tell he's doing well by the look in inhuman eyes,
	Better not compromise -
		It won't be easy!"
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
From: awells@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Andrew V. Wells)
Subject: Re: Really about the Gulf (was re: Somalia)
Summary: no reply
Organization: Northeastern University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:15:42 GMT

In article <1gksa5INNijn@menudo.uh.edu>, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> 
>   Actually, in the Gulf, the US was defending/liberating KUWAIT from an agres-
> sor force.  

         Liberating Kuwait!!!!!! Right, to restore their legitimate
         dictator, the emir!!! (Who puts his petro billions in US
         banks, thus propping up the US economy.)

>No one has claimed the the Somali warlords represent any sort of 
> threat to US security.
 
    Then since arms should only be used in self-defense,
    the US has no right to be there. Just as it has no right to have
    military bases anywhere else in the world. Or, if you don't
    agree with this reasoning, then perhaps we should allow Britain
    or Germany to have military bases in the US, right?
         Moreover, the 'somali warlords' no doubt buy there arms
    on an international market which is overwhelmingly dominated 
    by the US. 

>   Well, for one thing, Germany was lead by more competent people than Iraq.

  Well, if this were true, it would support my argument that Iraq
  was never the threat that they claimed it was.

>   Then Bush cleaned up his mess by freeing the Kuwaitis and smashing many of 
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^             
> the weapons.  

       Oh, so then you freely admit that Bush did what he did to cover 
       his own ass? "Cleaned up his mess" sounds a little like "ethnic
       cleansing" to me, and like Schwartzkopf's "turkey shoot." More
       euphemisms for mass slaughter of innocent people.


>   And arming someone against one enemy (Iran) does not generally include carte
> blanche to use the gear on someone your supplier is freinds with...

  Isn't this amazingly naive coming from someone who gives Bush a
  carte blanche?
                                   andy wells
          ///\\\         awells@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu
        \\\\  ////        andyphys@nuhub.northeastern.edu
         \\ o> ///           -//------ooo------\
          //  <<<              \oooooo---oooooo//-
From: dmorse@igc.apc.org (Dorothy Morse)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: The mess WE created.
Date: 12 Dec 92 17:45:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:1992Dec11.214239.26674@watson.ib:-1939994453:cdp:1766500003:000:683
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmorse    Dec 12 09:45:00 1992


My information is that Somalia has periodically had droughts
throughout its history, and had developed ways of coping with them
through centuries of experience.  But because their old society was
first uprooted by colonialism and then by superpower military aid, the
old ways of coping could no longer be used.  They have also had clan
warfare for centuries, but on a small scale that didn't disrupt their
ability to survive.

As for the present drought, one does have to wonder about global
warming, etc.  I believe "El Nino"--a sort of heat-wave producing
ocean current, is often credited with the present droughts
ravaging much of Africa.  (And yet some say, it was "El Gringo.")
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: Does Bush hate Xmas or What ?
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:04:16 GMT

In article <WCALDERW.92Dec9010325@dante.nmsu.EDU> wcalderw@nmsu.EDU (CALDERWOOD) writes:
>
>Why does Bush always want to do these things at christmas time?
>What did he have a bad childhood? May be he doesn't beleave
>in Santa.
>
>William A. Calderwood,
>wcalderw@nmsu.edu

I noticed this too...

Christmas 1989 he goes and invades Panama...
Christmas 1990 he decimates Iraq and nobody wants to run for President
against him...
Christmas 1991 we come within inches of a war with Lybia...
Christmas 1992... Bush sends troops to Somalia and nothing bad seems
to have happened...yet....

I guess he knows that the economy has us all BROKE, so instead of
worrying about getting people jobs so they can buy presents, he gives
the whole nation an annual Christmas War.

Peace on Earth and Mercy Mild

Lost Boy
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.org.un,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: andyw@meaddata.com (Andy Welter)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Canadian Peace Keepers
Date: 15 Dec 1992 19:08:13 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: world
Reply-To: andyw@meaddata.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: geronimo.meaddata.com

I got this from an AP story a week or so ago, just got around to posting it.

Quoted without permission.

Canada Keeps the Peace:

Canada is increasing its peacekeeping commitments even as it shrinks the
 military to provide a post-Cold War peace dividend.  Canadian soldiers 
are under fire in Bosnia, helping separate beligerents in Cyprus and on 
the lookout in the volatile Middle East. Although Canada's army ranks only 
100th in size, it soon will have 4100 peacekeepers on duty on four continents.  
The government is doubling its force in the former Yugoslavia to 2,200 and 
750 are scheduled for deployment to Somalia.  Peacekeeping does not come 
cheap.  The mission to Somalia and dispatching more soldiers to the Balkans 
have sent the Defense Department scrambling to find $75 million more than 
it expected to spend.  "You can't play hardball with a slow-pitch budget", 
says Maj. Gen Lewis MacKenzie, a former U.N. Protection Force commander.

---
|Andrew Welter	     |  All views are mine and not |      (513) 865-6822   
|Mead Data Central   |    that of my employer      |      pd&o-ps-ts-dsp       
|P.O. Box 933        |                             |     andyw@meaddata.com
|Dayton, Ohio  45401 |          	           | ...!uunet!meaddata!andyw

Xref: sparky alt.current-events.somalia:510 alt.activism:19590
From: yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Going to Somalia
Date: 15 Dec 1992 01:20:34 -0500
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: cathy.na.cs.yale.edu

jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>All I'm saying that I've heard of violence towards U.S. citizens
>peacefully traveling around the world, and while I do not agree with
>the violence I can understand some of the motivations for it, and
>think that if the violence exists it should at least be targetted at
>the right people, ie. people like Norman Yarvin who think that it is
>OK for U.S. troops to go anywhere for any reason whatsoever and shoot
>anyone who opposes them.

So as long as this violence "exists", you wouldn't mind enlisting it in your
own private intellectual crusade.

Well, I am sending you notice that the violence doesn't just "exist".  On
the contrary, it has to be conjured up by an effort of will each time it
occurs.  And if you were to "target it" at me, you would be helping to
create it where it was not previously.

Incidentally, you are tilting against windmills.  I have no moral objection
in general to people opposing our forces.  However if some individual takes
a potshot at one of our soldiers, as happened to our helicopter, it in no
way opposes us effectively.  That would require much more effort.  Instead
it falls into the category of senseless violence.  Even in wartime,
civilized people usually try to minimize senseless violence, and to use only
those forms of violence which are ultimately productive.  This idea is
embodied in the Geneva Convention.

>If "us" here means U.S. government, the difference is that it is more
>hypocritical than most governments and tends to be more aggressive and
>more violent in it's action than most.  Not to mention that the
>propaganda system seems to be more effective than in most countries,

Give me a break.  Our government propaganda system is _less_ effective than
that of hardly every other country.  That is why you have so many examples
of our government's infidelity.  If we had a propaganda system worth beans,
you would never have heard about them.

--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
 "Conservative, n.  A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as opposed
  to the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."
	-- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia