From: jdhebert@mtu.edu (JEFFREY D. HEBERT)
Subject: Re: GB's Foreign Policy Record? Gimme a Break!
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:41:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.194933.10398@odin.corp.sgi.com>, zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (JZ) writes:
> 
> I can't believe George Bush is using his handling of Desert Storm as
> an issue to win re-election. 
> 
> He claimed yesterday that he stopped the advance because we are not in
> the business of slaughter, but simply in the business of stopping aggression. 


Well, what other reason would one go to war.  Oh I forgot, OIL!
 
> I guess he failed to realize that Saddam Hussein is still in the business
> of slaughtering the Kurds and Shiites, whom George Bush encouraged to 
> rise up and revolt. They did, and George left them twisting in the wind. 
> I guess GB can only fight for those who have golden toilets. 
>

It is the right of any people to call for change within their government.
This does not mean they will realize this change, or that their cry will
be tolerated by the government.  The U.S. gained its independence because
of demands for change and independence.  There were no nations who were
willing to help such a cause back then, and we fought on our own.  The U.S.
is in the desirable position to encourage other peoples to call for 
change and independence.  However we also have responsibilities to remain
neutral.  (Though we so often are not!)

If the Kurds and Shiites want independence, they must obtain it themselves.
It cannot be any other way.  For the U.S. to fight the war, would be to
simply shift their rulers from Iraq to a "U.S. friendly" government.
 
> Even General Shwarzkopf was outraged, but as a good soldier, held his 
> tongue when ordered to by his Commander in Chief. 
> 
> Well, I'm not a soldier, and I don't have to remain silent. If that's 
> the best George can do with foreign policy, I'd rather have Bozo the Clown
> in there doing his job. 
> 

It sound like you favor a warmonger to someone who considers the political
ramifications of action.

> Of course, since George snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, the
> world has had to put up with Saddam making all kinds of trouble for the
> UN investigators, thumbing his nose at all of us since he knows 
> George doesn't have the balls to do anything about it. 
> 

Gee, and I thought Sadam was just blowing smoke to try to save face in the
aftermath of a terrible defeat.

> Now George realizes he's in trouble with this issue, so he's gone and
> declared a no-fly zone over the shiite areas. Nice work, George, too
> bad you didn't do that when it would have done some good. And when
> he was asked what he would do if the Iraqis used ground troops to 
> kill the shiites, he said "Well, we hope that won't happen." 
> 

What do you suggest.  Should we ignore their national boundaries and place 
U.S. troops within Iraq.  Don't you think that is the purpose of the U.N.
Keep peace with the use of international forces.  If it can be done, isn't 
that the way it should be done.  Why is it that the U.S. is responsible
for solving every international conflict.

> "We hope that won't happen" - that's a hell of a basis for foreign 
> policy. And this guy then turns to me and asks "Who do you trust?" 
> My answer is "Anyone but you, George." 
> 

I guess you really would vote for Bozo.

> You have to really *try* to fuck up as bad as he has. Today, Iraq could
> be under a new government, with a Constitution guaranteeing fundamental
> human rights and democracy, except for George's dithering. Kuwait could
> have a similar Constitution if George had been willing to demand it 
> in exchange for liberating the Emir's golden toilets. And he would have
> gotten it, too....what other choice did the Emir have?

Wow, you are some fortune teller.  Did you advise Nancy?  

So the only thing that matters is that every nation have a government to 
our (the U.S. governemnt) liking.  Well, there is something called freedom
of choice.  Those nations have the right to choose any type of government
they want.  If the government is opressing them, they can call out for
change, and they can obtain the resources and support to bring about
that change.  It is the people of those nations who must decide which 
government should rule.
 
> 
> And the situation in Yugoslavia is disgusting. And George sits and
> wrings his hands. Someone ought to sell him a peanut farm in Georgia. 
> This is a guy who would get laughed out of any bar in Texas....
> 
> I voted for Buchanan in the primary, but I'm voting for Clinton in the
> general election, on the "Anyone but Bush" ticket. 
> 

Buchanan!  That explains a lot.

> JZ



Me   (Jeff Hebert)			You may think you are unique,
jdhebert@chem9.chem.mtu.edu		But I am the only ME!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3354 alt.politics.clinton:3382