From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Iraq Murders
Date: 7 Nov 92 05:25:37 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering

In article <n0db6t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>Who: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
>ID: 1d8s4uINNcv3@gap.caltech.edu
>And: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
> 
>M> "You know, I have an awful lot of trouble sorting out this
>M> 'inhumane act' business.  Was the US Military's murder of
>M> several hundred thousand innocent Iraqi civilians an 
>M> 'inhumane act?' If not, why not?  And if so, are you
>M> suggesting that the military should all be sent to the
>M> electric chair?
> 
>KAS> "Iraq was given every possibility to back down. Also,
>KAS> the US made every attempt not to kill any civilians."

#define flame=TRUE; > 
>Sorry, you are wrong and Mathew is right. The US went out of its' way
>to encourace, and make inevitable, the war against the citizens of
>Iraq; the US also went out of its way to kill every Iraqi non-combatant
>it could get in its gun sights.
In what way?  This is not an appropriate topic for this newsgroup, if
you want to argue this, lets move over to alt.desert.storm and argue there.
It doesn't get much in the way of postings, but that would change with
this outragous post.  Problem is, many people with more knowledge on
the military action in the Persian Gulf region don't read this net.
> 
>The Washington Post published detailed minutes of meetings, in mid-
>August, between Baker's designated ambassator and Hussen. The US
>position was to let Hussen know that the US had "NO INTERESTS" in
>the comming war.
> 
>There are also detailed records of US actions that blocked Soviet
>efforts to end the crisis peacefully. There are also records that
>showed Bush ignored Hussen when the latter wanted to discuss terms
>of his withdrawl. TERMS FAVORABLE to the US.
Please post these so and so records.  Like a post in alt.desert.storm,
these kinds of posts don't get accepted as is.  Quote the Washington
Post, provide the date, and pages.  Define favorable to the US.  Show
me how this was not actually a chance for the US to withdraw in a similar
stink that happened in Vietnam.  (But leave that for alt.vietnam).
 > 
>BUSH WANTED THE WAR. There is massive evidence that proves this
>assertion, some reciently published in Los Angeles Times (the day
>before the Presidential election).
> 
>"Damnation Highway," the freeway leading out of Kuwait, was bombed
>by US forces, and every civilian vehicle on it was destroyed. Many
>hundreds of families, fleeing the city in station wagons, vans, and
>sedans, were straifed and bombed by US forces. The BBC showed a
>closeup of a blackened little child, burnt bones protruding from
>the sizzled fat, clutching a burned doll---- complements of the
>US air force. Just one of THOUSANDS.

Respectfully regret to inform you that most of the people in those civilian
vehicles were carrying AK-74's (The modern AK-47, it fires a different
caliber), and had extensive (for the region) military training.  Suspisiously,
many of these people had seen combat.  Some civilians.
 > 
>Just like the US invasion of Panama, the civilian dead outnumbers
>the combatant dead by an order of magnatude. The Harvard University
>study said 300,000 civilians, mostly children, women, and elderly,
>were killed out-right, and over one million are expected to die in
>the two years after the war.

The study you are referring to is due to the fact that Iraq has yet to
make serious attempts to restore water mains and proper sewage treatment.
The deaths are due to buildings like power stations being hit.  And YES,
THESE ARE MILITARY TARGETS!  DON'T TRY TO CLAIM OTHERWISE!
> 
>The deaths that are occuring now, as we speak, are related to
>diseases brought on by foul water, destroyed sewage plants,
>lack of electricity, starvation, and lack of shelter. ALL
>are a result of US forces bombing civilian support structures.

Civilian support includes military targets.  When Hussein starts suffering,
(he doesn't get caviar from Russia and fine wine each day), then I will
consider loosening my attitude.  WE CAN NOT TOLERATE THE CHAMBERLAIN ATTITUDE
OF PEACE AT ANY COST!!!!!  See the origins of WWII.  Hitler captured parts
of many countries before anyone declared war on him.  British Prime Minister
Chamberlain was very anxious to avoid a war, and let Hitler swallow parts
of countries whole, until Poland was invaded.
> 
>The US Department of Defense claims that less than 20% of its
>"smart bombs" actually hit their targets. The ones we all got to
>watch on TV were the exceptions, not the rules.

I have yet to hear that figure.  Do you know what smart bomb means?  It
means that there is a laser seeker on the bomb and a guidance package to
adjust the fins.  The laser seeker "sees" a laser beam reflecting off the
target and adjusts the fins to steer towards the target.  The explosions
on TV, (at least the ones I saw most), were detonations of AGM-65 Maverick's.
The LGBs ("smart bombs") lose all guidance when the laser beam reflection
is lost.  The point is that the hit ratio was higher than any other armed
conflict.  Even 10% is incredible in warfare.  Do you realize what 20%
means?  That 20% is still an incredible number of hits.  No war is a truly
surgical strike.  The Gulf Coalition went out and destroyed the effectiveness
of _half_ of the Iraqi military.  (The other half never was anywhere near
Kuwait, they were guarding the mountainous border of Iraq).
> 
>The British BBC covered the war to a MUCH greater degree than the
>US media was allowed to show. A great many British commentators
>have shown BUSH to be the evil despot, a twin to Hussen. The BBC
>showed the bombing, by American airforces, of a school. The bombs
>were meant for the power plant next to the school, and it took
>US forces half a dozen trys before hitting the target. Regreatably,
>the school and surrounding neighborhood, was destroyed.

Again, I have yet to hear of this, even from many british people I know.
Any British people care to comment on that?
> 
>There was a War Crimes Tribunal held in Los Angeles after the
>war, where many people from all over the Earth came to give
>testimony AGAINST the US. Japan was outraged that US forced
>them, against the threat of economic hardship, to send a token
>force "in support" WHICH IS AGAINST THEIR CONSTITUTION.

The US didn't force Japan.  The US requested monetary support.  NO JAPANESE
MILITARY UNITS WERE INVOLVED.  We wouldn't have wanted them anyways.  The
homegrown military equipment of the Japanese is inferior to what the
Iraqi's were using, and the Japanese don't have enough other equipment.
Russian equipment tends to be of poor construction by Western standards,
but the Japanese haven't focused on military power so they don't even have
the Russian standard for military equipment.  Look at the Japanese MBT if
you doubt me.  It is far inferior to the contemporary tanks of other nations,
including the Russian counterpart (T-80 or T-74, depending on what designation
you use.)  As to this War Crimes Tribunal, don't try to make up stories like
that unless you can back them up.  As for my support, it comes out of
the 91-92 edition of Jane's for Russian equipment, and another (I think
it was 90-91) edition for the Japanese stuff.
> 
[offending ridiculous and terrible prose deleted]

#define flame=FALSE

Let's move to the appropriate newsgroup, shall we?
:)M^2
Newsgroups: alt.atheism