From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Foreign policy musings
Date: 22 Aug 92 16:30:19 GMT
	<Bt6Dw1.9CF@world.std.com> <2796988236@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com>
	<BZS.92Aug18195036@ussr.std.com>
	<JTURNER.92Aug21202104@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<BZS.92Aug21234633@ussr.std.c
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
In-reply-to: bzs@ussr.std.com's message of 22 Aug 92 04:46:33 GMT

In article <BZS.92Aug21234633@ussr.std.com> bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

>From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) [responding to me]
> >> Were the Iraqi troops there or not?
> >
> >	After the US practically gave them an invitation.  Why
> >didn't the US try to dissuade the invasion _beforehand_???

> This is not exactly new information. You are working forward from a
> possibly unproveable position.
> Besides, what position is the US in to invite Iraq to invade Kuwait?
> Do you really mean there may have been reason for Hussein to believe
> that the US wouldn't retaliate? That's hardly an invitation, and
> hardly a good reason to invade another country.

	The US has set itself up as policeman to the world, with that
sort of hubris why wouldn't the US be able to invite an Iraqi invasion.

> Hey, ok, we'll accept your premise: We lied, we changed our mind, we
> didn't think it was a very good idea to tolerate such behavior after
> the fact. Does that make us wrong in the end? Does that make Saddam
> Hussein right?

	Thank you.  Yes, it does make us wrong in the end.  No,
it doesn't make Saddem Hussein right.  If it was simply a matter
of changing "our" mind why didn't we try to solve the matter
diplomatically?  I mean if El Busho could change his mind why not
a lesser tyrant like Hussein?

> I said that there are good reasons to not believe your claim that we
> invaded only because of one nurse's report about the absconding of
> incubators.

	It wasn't my claim, in fact I think it's ludicrous.  The
national and international merits of going to war, at least for
Bush and his cronies, far outweighed any other option.  We find out
now, they must have known at the time, that there were only about
250,000 troops in the invasion.  Why were 400,000 Americans needed
to "defend" Saudi Arabia when an invasion would have needed much
longer supply lines than Iraq had ever managed in ten years of 
fighting with Iran?  The US invasion was decided on before the
Iraqi invasion and everything else was just "justification".

> >Far outweighing "Allied" bombardment of Iraqi cities and 100 to
> >200,000 dead Iraqis.
> Where do you get your counts?
> Perhaps Hussein should have backed off before this occurred, did he
> not get sufficient warning?
> Of course he did, but he blew off one million young men in a war
> against Iran, what's another 100,000 when his ego is at stake?

	Hussein "backed off" by August 9 with his first effort
to settle the dispute diplomatically.  The US systematically
refused to engage in diplomacy and impeded/scuttled attempts by
others (notably the Algerians) to do so.  If diplomacy works
what good is our military-industrial complex?

> >> What happened to the contents of those Kuwaiti museums?
> >
> >	Going to war over museum contents?  Gosh those Iraqis really
> >rankled Amerikan sensibilities.  I'd bet most Americans rarely if ever
> >go near museums.  At least after grade school.
> Look friend, you claimed that the only thing the Allies had to go on
> was one report from a nurse about Iraqi behavior in one hospital.
> I think we have now scuttled that specious claim of yours. Stop trying
> to change the subject.

	I never claimed any such thing.  That excuse was just as
specious as any of the nonsense you seem to feel were valid excuses
for the invasion.

> >> Did we discover heaps of bodies of civilians when we entered Kuwait or
> >> not?
> >
> >	Obviously they didn't have the time or inclination to bury
> >them the way the US did in Panama.
> Do you have a point to make? It's irrelevant whether they were buried
> or not.

	Yes.  The US using an excuse of torture or the murdering
of civilians as justification for the invasion was blatant, self-
serving twaddle.  Only 8 months before the US had murdered many
(maybe 2000) Panamanian civilians in an invasion which installed a
puppet whhite minority government.  I guess it's OK when "we"
do it, eh?

> Since you assume arbitrary power of diplomacy, what is it exactly that
> we could not get via diplomacy that made us all get into a war over
> it?

	If diplomacy cannot settle problems then US military might
is still important on the world stage and we might even be able to
get our "allies" to finance it.  And we definitely still need to have
the American people finance it.  We won this one for the generals and
the MIC.

> Either diplomacy is omnipotent, as you seem to claim, or it is not.

	Ah, but the best defense against diplomacy is a good offense.

> And why couldn't Saddam Hussein see any reasons for backing off in the
> 6 months after we all know he got full notice that the situation was
> unnacceptable?

	He did back off.  What he refused was unconditional surrender.

> Gee, what happened in 1974 when those US imposed surrogates (same
> exact people pretty much, right, Sheikh Yamani still manages the Saudi
> family's oil business as he did in 1974) and oil prices tripled in a
> few weeks?

	Same people but a lot more integrated into the West.
Before 1974 it was taken for granted that it was "our" oil,
since then the Sauds and the Kuwaiti ruling family have gotten
more respect from the West.  For instance there was the AWACS sale.

> Indigenous people? To Saudi Arabia? You mean *not* the Saudis? Then
> who?  The Kurds perhaps? Oops, sorry, that's Hussein's bailiwick...

	The Sauds are only one family.  And US support for the
far less wealthy Kurds was insignificant compared to that for
the Kuwaiti ruling family.

> The odd thing is, they're not SO vital to the US. How much of the US's
> oil consumption do you believe comes from the region?

	The Japanese own Rockefeller Center, New York.  How much of
their oil comes from the region?

> The fact of the matter is, Saddam Hussein is a murderous and evil
> person who's killing and oppression are well documented.

	So is Bush though the New York Times will doubtless not
document it.  But no one runs with CIA, two invasions and a
couple "Low Intensity Conflicts" with clean hands.

> But I am sure you'll forgive all that to make some point, that is if
> you ever get to it.

	It is not up to me to forgive Hussein.  Nor do I believe he's
asked for forgiveness.  My point is that neither the story of the baby
killings, nor any of the other rationalizations, were anything but window
dressing for a fait accompli.

> >> I think it's quite obvious the reasons are not this easily cast off.
> >
> >	Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha.
> Incisive.
> And you probably wonder why no one will take you seriously?

	Your reasons are based on an assumption of US morality which
has NEVER been demonstrated.  Unfortuneately the hogwash gospel you
reiterate has been so oft repeated that people WILL take you seriously.

					--Jeff Turner