From: dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Bush Secretly Aided Saddam Until August 1990
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:12:23 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

aiesecrs@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (AIESEC - Ohio State) writes:

He! He!..someone coming in in the middle of a debate withou a clue what went
before.
You might want to tidy up your editor too, you've got the attribs mixed up
somehow.
[Mangled header deleted]

>>>necessarily imply that the Kurds were dominated by Marxists although I be-
>>>lieve that the predominant power within the Kurds residing in Turkey is
>>>hold by Marxists.

[Loadsa sarcasm deleted]

>>No Mr Pugleise, the predominant power within the Kurds in Turkey is NOT
>>held by the Marxists, it is held by the president who just happens to be of
>>Kurdish origin as does the foreign minister.


>What logic are you using?  General Powell is black and quite probably the
>highest ranking black in the U.S. government.  Therefore, the predominate power
>in the black civil rights movement is General Powell.  I challenge you to prove
>his loyalty to the Kurds.  Of course, the Turkish government's bombs have his
>apologies written on them.  My point is that your reply is flawed.

I suspect his reply is a parody, but in any case, the point remains. Phil
thinks the primary driving force behind whatever million Kurds there are in
Turkey is Marxist. 
It's quite clear Phil doesn't know what he's talking about and prfers a wild 
sweeping generalisation of an entire ethnic group.

>Good point, but it has been said that Kurd rebels have been bombed.  I think a 
>democracy has every right to fight rebels within its' own borders.  The Kurds 
>have no right to be killing people in Turkey.  Discrimination is not a good 
>enough excuse.

No disagreement here

>>Apparently you were unable to tear yourself away from the TV to check on
>>any of this.

>>I congratulate you on a spectacular public display of cultural illiteracy.

>I congratulate you on your spectacular display of hypocricy.  (Readers note:
>The tactic used above in debating has nothing to do with the issues, but we
>will assume he was trying to be funny.  If he was correct, it would have been
>hilarious (sp?) but alas...

Eh?

>>>> ii) Middle East troubles started with the arming of Nasser by the ex-USSR
>>
>>>I think you have misunderstood my point. A case can be made that the
>>>Mideast has been unstable since the rise of Mohammed but I was addressing
>>>the situation between the Israeli's & her arab neighbors specifically
>>>in theis case.
>>
>>Oh no Mr Pugleise, I understood your point perfectly. You drew an arbitary
>>line in time chosen no doubt to ensure the brunt of responsibility fell on
>>the ex Soviet Union and declared to the world that this is when the Middle
>>East troubles viz a viz Israel and her Arab neighbours started, conveniently
>>forgetting of course, that the initial formation of Israel might be an
>>equally if not more appealing line to draw if you wish to approach the problem
>>this way.
>>Of course if you do believe that this is an appropriate approach to the proble
>m
>>(which you appear to be advocating) you do run the risk of being challenged
>>with over-generalisation and a simplistic approach and that would never
>>do Mr Pugleise would it?
>>

>I cannot know what this arguement is about but I assume, it is about how the 
>trouble in the Middle East got started.  He blames the USSR for funding 
>totalitarian states, and you admit you think a better case could be made by 
>blaming the rise of the first Middle Eastern democracy.  I leave the readers to
>draw their own conclusions.

He didn't say anything of the sort. Read it again. He pointed out a rather
sizeable ommision on Phil's part. The debate centred around whether stability
or selling arms in the Middle East was the primary concern of the west.
He also pointed out if somewhat indirectly in the last para, that Phil's
approach would probably NOT be the one he took for the reasons listed.

>>I congaratulate you on a spectacular public display of double standards.

>What double standard?  You are the one who brought up Israel.

Phil brough Israel into it in the previous posting. Read the bit above
beginning >>>I think you misunderstood my point..' which is attrib'd to Phil
That's the first mention of Israel.

>>>> iii) Iraq has been breaking up since it was first formed.
>>
>>>You mean you think it hasn't! The Kurds have been agitating for an in-
>>>dependant Kurdistan ever since that goal was denied them by the settle-
>>>ments that ended WWI. The same settlements that created Iraq in the first
>>>place. That sounds like it's been pretty unstable all along to me.

>What are you trying to prove, that he's right?  I think you've got this 
>debating thing all wrong.  Your supposed to try and prove he is wrong, not show
>off what knowledge you learned in 8th grade.

The above is Phil's statement.

>>Dear oh dear, we have got our geography in a twist haven't we?
>>By your own definition, a lot more than Iraq would have "been breaking up sinc
>e
>>they were first formed.
>>Are you sure you know who the Kurds are and where they live? Why not tell
>>us then?.

>I don't even know how your drawing this conclusion.  Where is he defining 
>anything?

A previous posting, but I think he's poking fun at Phil.

>>Oh well, I guess you must have some sort of phobia about libraries so I
>>may as well give you a quick run down on the Kurdish population distribution.

[List deleted]

>>I congratulate you on a spectacular public display of cultural illiteracy.

>I very much doubt that not knowing the exact nationality breakup of the Kurdish
>population is a "spectacular public display of cultural illiteracy".

>>>> are an awful lot of B&W interpretations of what Mr Ross is saying.
>>>> "US is the root of all problems"?
>>>> "...that the US should bear the chief burden of blame for Iraq's actions"?

>>>That's because Mr. Ross makes an awful lot of B&W statements.

>>Mr Ross didn't make those statements above, you did.

>I have no knowlege of Mr. Ross' statements as related to your arguement, not 
>even enough to assume, so you win this one.

Well, that's what happens when you come into a debate halfway through.

[...]
>>
>>>Any minor blame that should be accorded is grossly overshadowed by the
>>>blame that Iraq must bear.
>>
>>Your being evasive, answer the question.
>>Was arming Iraq a significant factor in its abilities to invade Kuwait?

[Weird stuff about a knife company being liable for the death of a room-mate]

Read the title of this thread and some of the earlier postings on it. It
refers to various times through the eighties including the Iran-Iraq war

[Saddam in the intervening years]

>>Given the level of accuracy you've shown so far I'm beginning to seriously
>>doubt you even knew who Saddam Hussein was prior to August 1990 let alone what
>>he was up to.

>Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.  Also, you are really stretching 
>your assumptions to draw conclusions.  What the hell do you know about this
>man's education?  He has merely stated his opinion, which happens to be held by

If it was Phil's opinion, fine.. but Phil made a number of categoric 
statements about what he claimed were clear public declarations by the
coalition of its goals, none of which he's been able to back up with any
source other than a TV commentator saying words to the effect that
"Oh that's not right, he can't do that"

>>>I think that it's obvious that SH would've had an easier time with his
>>>opposition if he retained his full miltary capabilities. I also never
>>>said that he would have been eliminate the rebels. Just that he could've
>>>made things worse for them than he can now.
>>
>>Really? What a wonderful analysis of the situation. And might I ask Mr
>>"well aware of what he was up to" just what his military capabilities were
>>in 1988, 1989 and early 1990?

>Certainly less than they are now thanks to George Herbert Walker Bush.

>>It wouldn't have been 'full' by any chance would it?
>>
>>I congratulate you on a spectacular public failure to grasp even the basic
>>fundamentals of the English language.

>If your going to dodge the issues and insult you debating partner, at least be
>more creative.  Spectacular lack of this and spectacular lack of that is 
>running old.

...but its funny :-)

[List of decisions made and broadcast to the media]

>>That's right Mr Pugseile, and announced to the world's press and media by...?
>>Hence, in the eyes of the world became the spokesman for the US led coalition
>>and what the policies and objectives would be.

>So what, only whiners like you compained that Bush ran the show.  I for one am 
>glad.  Unfortunately, to many people who agree with me seem embarrassed (sp?) 
>to admit this fact.  I don't see why disagreeing with the likes of you is any 
>embarressment.  But, we did have U.N. approval so shut up.

I don't understand this point, are you saying "Yes, George Bush DID run the 
show"?
Phil was saying quite the opposite and getting quite het up by it.

>>But then again, you'd have us all believe that the real spokesman for the
>>coalition were network TV analysts.

>What the hell are you even blabbing about?

Phil quoted his sources as network TV gurus of some sort who were interpreting
what Bush was saying and claiming and contaradicting Bush when he said
Hussein would be called to account for war crimes.
You've missed the boat on this thread.

>>You might want to look a bit more closely at what Dick Cheney was up to
>>August 6 and also the "concensus decision" regarding why the war ended after
>>exactly 100 hours as well as the "concensus decision" on November 8

>>>Well your attitude simply reinforces by belief that you have little under-
>>>standing of the actual dynamics that went into the negotiations & that pro-
>>>the compromises necessary to forge an alliance amonst such a disparate group
>>>of nations. Instead you have opted for the simplistic, "the US just dictated
>>>everything" approach.

>>..and of course you are a master of understanding the dynamics of forging
>>alliances aren't you Mr Pugleise? ...with a deep understanding of the many
>>colors that go towards making a nation, its peoples and culture,and not
>>forgetting, of course, all the subtleties and nuances of diplomatic
>>language all provided for you via network TV. Ms Glaspie would be proud of
>>your clarity of thinking before acting.

>Your unjustly attacking Mr. Pugleise.  It his his opinion, and I for one also 
>share it.  Debate facts please.

The facts came earlier. Phil's "refutation" of them was a personal attack
on this guy. Hence the response.

>that deals with electricty?  Perhaps the most intriging question:  I DID NOT 
>SEE HIM QUOTE ONE TV SOURCE, WHERE ARE YOU COMING UP WITH THAT INANE IDEA.  

Perhaps a more intriguing question would be, When did you start reading this 
thread?

-- 
 ============================================================================
| Dave Morning                     | "Broon Hee Haw Maw"                     | 
|dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk             |                                         |
 ============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm