From: kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi)
Subject: Stop spouting right-wing propaganda and have a beer!
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 02:38:40 GMT

/From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
/Subject: RE: Right-Wing Follies!!

/What does any of the above hysteria have to do with your original point 
/or my refutation of it? (To refresh your memory: Your point was that
/the liberals and Democrats were great humanitarians who did not believe
/in war for oil; and that they decided to support the war effort only after
/it became apparent that war was (supposedly) the only way to stop the Iraqis
/from butchering Kuwaitis -- both of which I refuted).

	More less that was what the debate was about.


/|> The above paragraph is hardly cogent. But I suspect you are trying to put 
/|> words into your mouth.  Nobody's asking American civilians to put their
	      ^^^^
/I think you mean "... my..." there. 

	Au contaire,  there was no typo.  I was just getting weary 
	of your simplistic and redundant refutations.  Perhaps I should
	have indicated my sarcasm in brackets.

/|> lives on the line. And it was Bush who urged American soldiers to Saudi
/|> Arabia, much like he urged them to Panama, not the Democrats.

/Pay a little closer attention to what you wrote and what I was refuting, willya?
/To refresh: Your point was that Democrats were willing to put American
/military trained soldiers' lives on the line  to prevent the butchery in
/Kuwait. I refuted that point saying that you misjudged their intentions,
/and that you were inadvertently doing them a disservice by suggesting that
/they considered it worth it to put ANY American lives in harm's way to save
/Kuwaiti (or ANY non-American) lives.

	Now just stop here.  Crank up that trimolecular thinking 
	apparatus of yours, willya.  I never said that Democrats
	wanted to sacrifice American for non-American lives.
	What I did say was that Democrats consider it more legitimate
	to wage war for humanitarian reasons than for materialistic
	ones.


/|> Their lives on the line?  What was it?  50 deaths among 500,000 troops? 
/|> (and many of those from friendly fire).  How many did the Americans kill?  
/|> I think the ratio will laugh in the face of your argument.  

/The fact that the Iraqi Army folded in the face of the American assault
/doesn't mean that the Am's weren't in harm's way when they launched the war.
/I am glad that no Americans died. I'd have been happier if NONE died. I admit
/I am not happy at the lopsided ratio of Iraqi dead to American dead, but
/my attitude is: Better theirs than ours. If indeed so many people had to die,
/better that the majority were Iraqis than that they were Americans. Incidentally,
/those deaths would have happened even if the Americans had been there to fulfill
/the purpose you believe that they should have been there for namely saving the 
/Kuwaitis.


	Yeah, and many Iraqi children "folded" too under the American
	bombing raids on Baghdad.  But then again, you consider
	American soldier lives as being worth more than the lives of
	young Iraqi children.  Heck, it must have been like Nintendo
	up there, dropping bombs from just beyond the reach of 
	anti-aircraft batteries.


/|> reasons, you might think they are there only to defend America (here, I 
/|> would disagree that Panama is the 51st state), and I might think their

/They were defending an American INTEREST in Panama too, though it did
/seem like an excessive use of force for the end result, I admit.

	...and they were defending an American interest in Vietnam
	...and they were defending an American interest in Granada
	...and they were defending an American interest called Saddam 
	   Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war aboard air-craft carriers and
	   destroyers, one of which shot down an Iranian passenger jet. 
	   Oops you had forgotten about Iran hadn't you? 
	   And of course, 5000?? gassed Kurds in northern Iraq didn't sound 
	   that interesting to vice-president Bush, did they?


/|> obligations include helping protect human lives all across the world
/|> (jointly with soldiers from other countries).  But in the end, soldiers
/|> get paid to risk their lives for civilian lives. That is the whole 
/|> point in being part of the military.

/Your definition of what a soldier's duty is, is shared by a minority,
/even in the ranks of "liberals." 

	And you certainly know what liberals think don't you?  My,
	you must've cranked that thing to 3rd gear.


/|>                                   *******************************************
/|>    Kumar Yelubandi                 **  I don't believe in a lot           **
/|>    (good wines > good times!)      **  of things. And I quit thinking     **
							   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
/That is quite apparent. In fact, given the nature of your posts,
/it is worth wondering if you have EVER engaged in the process of
/"thinking."

/|>    ...in the year 2525...          **  six years ago...so don't bother me ** 

/I won't. It's a waste of time anyway.
/Srinivas Sunder                                     


	Yeah, and I'll bet you never had a beer in your life.


	Kumar

ps:    	I got nothing a'inst republicans...just that they smell funny.

-- 
                                  *******************************************
   Kumar Yelubandi                 **  I don't believe in a lot           **
   (good wines > good times!)      **  of things. And I quit thinking     **
   ...in the year 2525...          **  six years ago...so don't bother me ** 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc