From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
Subject: Re: Bush Secretly Aided Saddam Until August 1990
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date:  9 Apr 92 22:26:12 GMT

AIESEC - Ohio State <aiesecrs@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:

>u.fi>       <1992Mar31.150654.25046@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> <1992Mar31.194207.6580
>@pimacc.pima.edu>
>Organization: The Ohio State University
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>In article <1992Apr3.130158.18934@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> you write:
>>ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes:

>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.

	Turkey, a "democracy"?  I wonder, do you know exactly how much
democracy the Kurds have been allowed to have in Turkey for the last 60 years?

	I think if you actually went and did a little research you'd realise
that armed insurrection is about the only avenue left to them WRT to being
able to express their democratic desires for an independent Kurdistan.

[...]

>>>> 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.

	Again a case of calling a Holden a Ford.  Israel is not a "democracy".
Have you ever considered if the Palestinians who are under Israeli occupation
have been given a chance to express their opinion democractically about
whether or not they want to become part of Israel?  Were the Palestinians
within Israel proper given a choice in the matter?
	Don't you think for a moment, that the surrounding Arab states just
might have a case for causis belli when they complain about the imposed
creation of a new, alien state in their midst by external, powers?

	BTW, don't think I'm justifying what has gone on since 1948 in that
part of the Middle-East, I'm not.  I am though at least attempting to 
apportion the blame a little more fairly that either Mr.ppugliese or this
latest poster seem interested in.


>>[..]
>>>> Then perhaps it might be a bit more constructive Mr Pugliese, if you
>>>> quantified what YOU believe a fair proportion of the blame the US should
>>>> shoulder. So far you've been remarkably quiet on this front.
>>
>>>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?
>>

>Of course, do you want me to give myself a spanking, seeing as how I am a 
>citizen of the USA.  I also have the ability to buy a knife and stab my 
>roomates.  Would the knife company be reliable, even if I was a known maniac.  
>But with all the numbers thrown around, I haven't heard of one soldier or Kurd 
>dying by the bullet of an American made weapon fired by an Iraqi.  If someone 
>can correct me please do.  Nobody died because Iraq posessed a seven month old 
>satellite photo.

	Perhaps you'd like to talk to the families of the Iranin soldiers
who did die as a consequence of those 7 month old satellite photos, the
weapons which were purchased with the funds which were freed by American
largess WRT to agricultural sales and the Kuwaitis who suffered because of
direct US encouragement towards Saddam?

[...]
>>>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.

	Que??????  Don't you mean "Certainly [more]..that they are now..."?

	The Iraqi military forces were much stronger during those periods
than they are now....

[...]
>>>> A simple question Mr Pugleise..
>>>> Who decided that troops should go to Saudi Arabia in the first instance?
>>>> Who decided that on the basis of a Un resolution that "all necessary means
>>>> be used to remove Iraq from Kuwait" to switch from the defensive mode of
>>>> Desert Sheild to the offensive Desert Storm?
>>>> Who decided when the air campaign should begin and announced it to the worl
>d.
>>>> Who, on the basis of military advice, decided when the ground war should
>>>> begin and again announce it to the world?
>>>> Who decided after 100 hours of war to end it?
>>
>>>These were all decisions arrived by consenus within the members of the
>>>coalition except the initial deployment to Saudi Arabia which was a
>>>consensus decision by the Saudis & the US gov.
>>
>>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.

	Oh, well, then you can't complain too much about what a lot of
other countries around the world have done over the years.  I mean the
Arabs had "U.N. approval", WRT to their policies towards Israel, now didn't
they?

	Perhaps you should rephrase that to be "we did have U.N. [security
council] approval..."  That is a slightly better reflection of the situation
than what you were claiming.

>>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?

	If you come into the middle of a thread, it might pay you to 
actually go back and the preceeding articles so that you might understand
what is being talked about....

>>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.

	He is.  Do you even _know_ what Ms.Glaspie's comments WRT to Iraq's
potentially aggressive acts were?

>>You know, any time I read read any of your postings I can't help but think
>>of the term "couch potato" with your many references to TV sources.
>>
>>Try reading a book first before posting, if nothing else it might help
>>prevent you coming across as a culturally illiterate empty windbag with nothin
>g
>>useful to add to a debate other than endless dreck gleaned from the TV.
>>
>>As to your debating style..
>>I think Mr Teed summed it up rather nicely when he said you appeared to be
>>incapable of your own thoughts, but merely echoed his parrot fashion, don't yo
>u?

>What the hell do you have against information broadcast by by electronic media?

	Could it be because its ephemerial, shallow and usually rather biased?
Could it be that quite often it gets its facts just plain wrong?  Could it be
that because of the time constraints of such a medium ("come on, hurry up,
`Cheers' is on next.....") it quite often fails to even attempt to delve
very far into the underlying root causes of a problem?

>Since when do authors of information over television airwaves become "more 
>fictional" than authors in books?  Do the airwaves put people under somekind
>of spell that makes them lie?  

	Books, because of their very nature, can spend a lot more time in
analysing the deep underlying reasons why something has occurred, particular
when compared with the electronic media.

>				What was wrong with his debating style?  

	He kept quoting, "A panel of TV experts" or "A TV program that nigh..."
and so on.

>									It
>focused on facts, and did not have some kind of irrational fears about media
>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.  

	Go back and read the rest of the thread before commenting will you?
It might make you appear less of a twit in future....



--
Brian Ross__________________________________________________________________
	"If it is dangerous to suppose that government is always right, it
will sooner or later be awkward for public administration if most people
suppose that it is always wrong."______________________________J.K.Galbraith
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines