From: aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Anisa Alnoor Aldoubosh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: How Much Did The U.S. Get?
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:33:03 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

In article <1992Sep10.180958.26254@discus.technion.ac.il> davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami) writes:
>In article <3755@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Anisa Alnoor Aldoubosh) writes:
>
>I think that the stupid and naive, Arabist policies of the United States
>is the reason for all these blunders and more.

Elaborate on this.


> The US did not believe 
>(as did Egyptians/Suadis or indeed the Kuwaitis themselves) that Saddam
>could be so ruthless and brutal.

Really?  You mean the U.S., Egyptians, Saudis, and Kuwaitis are
not at all aware of the Ba'ath Program?  Are not at all aware
of Saddam's ruthlessness towards his own people and especially
the Kurds?  And are not aware of nor supported in any way, Saddam's
destruction of his own country, Iran, and the several million people
as a result of it?

> I think that the US should have treated
>Arab dictatorships AND TERROR ORGANIZATIONS much more harshly all the
>time

The U.S. should have, but it doesn't.  Who said that the U.S. actions
and policies, in view of it's own interest and benefit, acts in any
moralistic or democratic fashion?  Shall we bring up the massacres in
Southern Lebanon and Israeli invasion and destruction of?  Where was
the U.S. then?  On peace-keeping missions?

> and I think that their greed and naivette (read Arabist tendencies)
>cause their blunders in the Iraq-Kuwait and cause them to their
>obsessiveness against WB settlement and Peace for Territory policies
>in regard to Isareli-Arab conflict.

Greed was one of the motives of Saddam to invade Kuwait, but to
suggest that everyone is naive as to what *really* happened (as
well as the real motivations by the West to intervene when convenient)
is ridiculous - as ridiculous as you saying that Ami Poper murdered
because he was raped by Arabs when he was young.  (As a matter of
fact, he was discharged from the army because he was mentally
instable.)  The point is that you can only excuse and justify to a
certain point.  Where facts and figures are may only be on a 
superficial level - what is beyond or behind that *is* the reality
and not your own perceptions.

>I think that not killing Saddam Husein (or at least trying the best to
>do it) was a MAJOR mistake , again motivated by stupid righteousness
>and incompetence.

On whose part?  No, it wasn't at all incompetence.  Are you really
that stupid?  Common, if they can plot assassinations of presidents
and stage coup de'tats, then what is to say that they would not
allow someone to remain in power - ruthlessness and inhumanitarian
actions aside - they don't care.  As long as there is a balance of
power, control over the populations, and agreement to follow a
certain political strategy; yes, they will allow that person to
remain in power.

>Since Anisa is so opposed to Saddam's rule but portrays any move to
>ruin and topple him as vicious and conspiratory. How do you suggest
>deposing of him? praying to Allah? crossing fingers?

Why do you say this?  I never said that I would not support his
destruction.  I understand the reality of the situation - it is
clear to those who understand and to others it is unbelievable
because they do not want to understand - we know that the U.S.
would not destroy Saddam because of above-stated reasons.  We
know how Hosni Mubarak, Fahed, King Hussein, and Yassir Arafat
are all players in the game ... they are all, and Saddam included,
valuable assets to the U.S.

No, I realize that it takes *a lot* more to deposing of such
people than "crossing fingers" or "praying to Allah" - only we
all know that Islamic movements are crushed to prevent this
from happening ... And where is Bush's promise to take Saddam
to the World Court after the War?  Where are all the promises
for so-called change and reform in Kuwait?  In Israel?
 
>Condemning Saddam and calling him names isn't unfortunately enough.
>(As many Israelis remember after the Scuds fell on their heads)
>You must counter power with power and evil with harsh measures, the
>appeasment methods do not work on Hitler/Saddam types.

So go tell that to Bush.

>I did not see any better "Moslem" policies to uproot Saddam. if you 
>had - maybe you should inform Bush about them.

You don't know about the "Moslem policies" ... if you had, you might
support it instead of condemning it and approving of its destruction
by such vicious dictators.

And Bush is the last person I would say confide anything to - I
might end up in prison and thousands of people might be killed.

Don't be blind to the truth.

Evil works two ways - don't always be so sure of one side and not the
other, which is cleverly hidden while the other is so apparant.

>>I think he only has two wives - and one mistress.  Maybe we can
>>examine the lifestyle of the Emir of Kuwait ... was is the count
>>now?
>
>Now, if that ain't reflexive defense on Saddam, what is? 
>(I guess it is unconcious with you Anisa) :-( 

No - it isn't defense ... just pointing out the truth since you
seem preoccupied with the 'lesser of the two evils' theory.  And
I was wrong - he only has one wife.  Shall we count the Emir's?
Why aren't you inquisitive?  Don't you condemn such flagrant
actions by these 'sexist' Arabs?

Anisa

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast