From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:37:36 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <26SEP199214593798@gergo.tamu.edu> dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin) writes:
%In article <1992Sep27.133908.28665@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>, kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes...
%}rdetweil@boi.hp.com (Richard Detweiler) writes:
%} 
%}>If some Iraqis were buried alive in the heat
%}>of combat, they can thank Mr. Hussein for that.
%} 
%}Yes... We did what was necessary to save American lives. That's why they called
%}this Another Cover-Up!
%
%Ah, but we put those same American lives in danger to begin with. We should
%never have been over there. I agree that, in wartime, anything goes (including
%chemical & nuclear warfare, petroleum spills, burning of crops and shelter,
%and so forth); I disagree that we had any business going over there, or that
%war was necessary at all. I was always taught that part of the conceptual
%image of America was that the military was there to DEFEND our nation, not
%participate in combat on foreign soil, much less initiate the hostilities.
The mission of the United States military is to defend the nation against all
enemies foreign and domestic. Sending troops abroad to fight enemies on their
own soil as opposed to ours is still defending the nation. This is especially 
true if resources vital to our economy are threatened. 
%
%Your statement above is akin to advertisements claiming that they will save
%you money if you buy their product -- you have to spend money to get that
%supposed savings. American lives were not in danger until there were Americans
%over there fighting. It's funny how calmly some people will face such things
%as burial alive of "the enemy" -- if they had done the same to even ONE of
%our soldiers you would be screaming for the nukes to turn Iraq into a glass
%parking lot.
Well of course, they are OUR people. Though I'd doubt I'd be screaming for
nuclear weapons use. I would be calling for harder strikes against enemy troop
positions, unless we were losing badly in which case I'd call for support to
cover a retreat. Call it a survival instinct: resist that which may destroy you
%The old "us" versus "them" attitude -- what we do to them in the
%name of our freedom (ha!) is acceptable, but what they do to us is taken as
%an abominable deed. Look at how people reacted to the petroleum spills and
%the threat of chemical warfare. The spill was a good tactical move to prevent
%attack from the sea, and the *threat* of chemical warfare in the Scuds was
%a move to ensure that their enemy (the allied forces) did whatever was needed
%to prevent the Scuds from reaching their target. I doubt that Saddam was
Bull. The oil spill had no tactical use. It was spread too thin to set afire
and our landing vehicles could easily cut through it. It was a good strategic 
move since it drifted south towards the desalination plants, threatening the
water supply of Saudi Arabia and the forces arrayed there. The Scuds were more
a political threat, but that proved militarily useful since it forced us to 
divert air assets to hunting down the launchers so we could appease Israel and
keep them from tearing into Iraq.
%even considering chemical agents except as a last-ditch option. But the threat
%sufficed, and was heavily frowned upon. Yet we turn away from condemning the
%brutal (even for war) actions of burial of the enemy and claim that it was
Brutal, like blowing them to bits? Oh, I guess it's more brutal than typical
warfare because it was a slow death, but I still believe breaching the barriers
in such a manner was needed to reduce casualties.
%done to *save American lives* in *defense of our country* and condemn those
%who find such acts intolerable.
So we should hold the lives of our current enemy at a level equal or higher
than our countrymen? Nor should we defend our country if it's found to require
intolerable acts? Friend, nations that does not care about its citizens or its
defenses will not be a nation for long. So yes, I would do whatever it takes
to defend my country and my people. No, don't even *think* about saying "Oh,
so you would deliberately butcher helpless children for your country." Every
rule has limits and attacking targets that bear no threat would not be needed
to win a war. Not even "psychological" effects would justify attacking such
targets as noted in WWII when bombing cities only made civilians mad. I will
wait for you to actually make a statement before I continue this thread.

%Perhaps we should let Bush in again, to play another battle in his holy "war",
*HOLY WAR*???!!! When did Bush call a holy war? He's not Pope, Imam, or
Patriarch. Oh, I see. Just adding in another inflammatory statement to rile
people up and get them to believe you. YAWN.
%and let fly the horsemen of apocolypse upon our enemies to bury them all in
%the desert sands, gasping for breath but finding no air, as sand enters the
%nostrils and presses between their lips, drowning their screams with the dry
Thanks for trying to remind us all about the horrors of war. But it's wasted
on me, of course. For reasons you'll never guess. Even if you did guess, you'd
probably think it was because I was a zombie for Bush or some other foolish
remark. You're entitled to your opinion.
%harshness of the barren soil. And so we follow blindly where Bush leads... 
Yep. Definitely will think I'm a brainwashed Bush follower. *sigh* Why do
I hate politics? Oh yeah. The BS level is too deep.
%
% -                                                                     -
% - Dave Martin - Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M - 
% - DAVE@GERGA[GERGO,GERGI].TAMU.EDU - BROOKS@TAMVXOCN.BITNET - AOL:DBM -
% -                                                                     -
%      "I knew Moses, and let me tell you, Bush is no Moses" -- God
See what I mean about politics? Dave could have just said that Bush is a slimy
politician who wants power; and I'd agree with him. But noooooooo.... He has
to be melodramatic. ARGGHHHHH.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Chester            |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Politically Incorrect      |"The meek shall inherit the earth. The rest of us
Future Lunar Colonist      |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm,alt.politics.clinton