From: dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Date: 5 Oct 92 11:32:40 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

>In <BvHp1K.L02@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk writes:

>> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>> 
>> >In <BvFpv8.I4F@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk writes:

>[How the justification for the war has changed from democracy and freedom to
>[national self-interest]

>> Bush was telling us it was all about 'punishing aggression' and had nothing
>> what-so-ever to do with oil or 'national interests' a line being persistently
>> touted in alt.desert-shield in particular and later in alt.desert-storm.

>  Well, that's at least two of us that wish I were president, but unfortunately
>I don't have a few million $$ to blow on a campaign right now (nor did I in 
>1988, but I think my chances would be better this year).  As for Bush, well, 
>now just *what* did you expect him to say (If you just stick "truth" here I'll
>be disappointed)?  Remember he's a politician, having to sell a political cause.

How about 'half-truths'? They're usually a lot more politically astute than
outrageous lies and are easier to fog over.

>Those more noble justifications are perfectly valid ones, I've little doubt
>they played their part in his decisions (as in mine).  If folks didn't look
>at the oil issue it was because they chose not to.  Zillions of talking heads
>discussed the need for the oil.  Oil was constantly being mentioned.

>> Now 2 years later after the dust has settled along comes Jimmy Millar and
>> announces to the net: 
>> "*I* realized this the day the whole thing started."

>  Is it so shocking to you an American might see the more cynical motives of his
>government but support a particular action anyway, because it's justified in
>its own right?  Come now, David this bit of childishness is beneath you.  Did
>you not see this very early on?  Your tone leads me to believe you did.  Many
>protesters against the war also saw it very early on.  Why shouldn't I have 
>also?

Shocking? No. Surprise maybe.
Cynical motives are something which has permeated US actions in the past.
On this occasion given the 'just cause' and 'punishing agression' and strenuous
denyals of the "War for Oil' line the protestors were taking coupled with the
fact that very little US oil (around 8%) came from Kuwait and that this was
a UN sanctioned mission, it looked like maybe for once the US was adopting
a higher moral plain thanthe usual self interest.
The oil issue was indeed discussed at great length - brought up by those
opposing military action and constantly dismissed by those running the
show with comments along the lines of - the US doesn't need Kuwaiti gas anyway.
Yes, I was cynical of US motives initially and have been particularly critical
of the actions of various western (not just US) politicians in the run up to
the August invasion by Iraq, I was prepared on this occasion to perhaps give
the US the benefit of the doubt and put it down to an attempt to salvage 
bodged pre-invasion diplomacy albeit a somewhat crude attempt.

It would appear, from your comments, that George Bush conned us all again
and perhaps he should have added the rejoiner "Watch my lips" to every public
statement he made to the world about this "Just War"

>> and that everyone else was: 
>> "a bloody fool".

>  Very well, "IMO", if you like.  Are you not calling them fools now, by 
>muttering about the about-faces shown by some of the pro-war folks?  And if
>you agree with me, why should you dislike my calling of these people fools?
>They were.

You are being smug, that's why.

Sitting in front of TV with a grin on your face while your president
lied through his teeth to the world about 'just causes' and 'punishing
must have made you feel real happy.

George Bush:- President of the most powerful nation on earth - and compulsive
              liar.

Wonderful! Who'd be a politician in the US?
Who'd be a politician anywhere?


>> So it *really* was all about American imperialism then was it?

>  Depends on what it is you mean by "imperialism".  If you take it to mean act-
>ing to protect something seen as important to the US, then okay fine, it's
>imperialism by your definition.  If you mean extending American hegemony, I 
>think you're mistaken.

Now if you *really* do want cynacism - how about a military foothold in the
Middle East where they have been denied up to the present?
No, I won't take this one on but there could be an ominous ring to this
particular conspiracy theory.


Dave

--