From: houk@athena.cs.uga.edu (Joshua Houk)
Subject: Re: You Got it
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:24:51 GMT

In article <9211052323.aa05112@Bonnie.ics.uci.edu> davidl@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU writes:
>> In article <9211042149.aa21592@Bonnie.ics.uci.edu>, davidl@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU                                  writes...
>>>	Today on ABC Evening news with Peter Jennings...They showed
>>>	a Big Party In Bagdad because of Bush's lost....
>>>
>> I'd party too if the chances of my country getting bombed for political
>> gain just dropped.
>
>	You have got to be a fool not to recognize the fact that we went
>	to war not because of political gain...but because American
>	interests were threaten...First 1990 was not an election year for
>	Bush...Second, Bush has seen the horrors of war firsthand (unlike
>	Clinton) and knows the value of America's sons and daughters and
>	that's why he brought out our troops back home asap....
>	and kept American deaths to a minimum...Imagine such a large
>	military operations and less than 400 US dead...unparelleled in
>	American history.

I'd agree that political gain wasn't the reason we went to war.
I'd say Washington wanted to secure a foothold in the Middle East.
We're now trying to expand that foothold by badgering Iran.

Also, if Clinton protested against Vietnam, I would heartily argue that
he too knows the value of America's sons and daughters...

>>>	Well, my fellow Americans....Saddam is throwing a party today
>>>	and with Clinton's win...it ushers in a new era...an era in which
>>>	Saddam will be more aggressive.
>>
>> Against what? His country was almost flattened. He has been fighting a
>> civil uprising for a year now. He couldn't even beat Kuwait now.
>
>	Not true...He still has a military force of over 200,000 men
>	which is larger than Kuwait's....Also, only 50% of his
>	total military force was destroyed...with his remaining
>	50% he can still conquer Kuwait...he just need a little longer
>	than 24 hrs...

Agreed - but I *don't* think he'll be invading anyone anytime soon
Hussein would have to be an incompetent moron to try to invade
Kuwait again.

>>>	In Poland and the other fragile democracies in E. Europe and in Russia
>>>	the possibility of those countries to revert back to Communism and
>>>	to tyranny has just shot up..
>>
>> Why?
>
>	Because Clinton won't give the necessary aid packages to those
>	nations and the communists there may prevail because of this.

Hate to sound nationalist - but our country is falling apart
economically. We need to rebuild here - then we can help out other
countries. Whether Clinton will be successful in this remains
to be seen - I'm not getting my hopes up.

>>> and to those who are living in those
>>>	countries who wanted the USA to help them, I can only say, 'I'm sorry
>>>	and I wish you the best'

Same here. But for probably different reasons...

>> Why? What help have we given to countries that want our help in the last
>> 12 years, except to flatten third world countries, or help petty dictators?

Funny thing about rhetoric...it's not always true! We have supported
other countries with quite legitimate economic aid. Don't be so
blinded by leftist (or rightist) arguements that you can't see
reality...

>>>	Clinton I feel, does not want America to be the Leader of the Free
>>>	World and his party's platform reflects this:
>>>
>>>	In the passage about National Security, it states: "The burdens
>>>	of COLLECTIVE security in a new era must be SHARED..."

Oh - well gee golly darn! Can you come up with a good way to
pay for oneupmanship? We can't afford it anymore. So deal with it.
Sheesh... let other countries think for themselves!

Joshua Houk

-- 
houk@athena.cs.uga.edu * email for indie-list info!
Gimme the phone! Why do you keep picking it up when I can't? Who's
on the phone? Why can't I hear anything? What's going on? Shut up!
   - Lisa Suckdog
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc