Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 10:06:20 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: How Iraq was armed

>>I'll stipulate that it is no more effective than past US foreign
>>policy.  The interesting question is whether it is less effective.
>
>Only if your blinders prevent you from seeing any possible
>foreign policy plan other than whatever you mean by "past US
>foreign policy."
>One interesting question is whether it would be a good idea
>to re-install an Administration that armed Saddam Hussein,
>whether such an outlook bodes well for the future. My own
>feeling is that it does not.

It isn't obvious that the US can have an effective foreign policy.
We don't have useful goals.  We don't have agreement among the
relevant parties.

Sure, my dog can't sing very well, but that's not particularly
interesting as an argument for replacing him with another dog.  We
have to look at the specific dog replacement, not just say "Andy's dog
can't sing".

>>BTW - Does the "it's time for a change" argument apply to congress?
>>If 12 years of repub administrations is too long, then congress or
>>even safe seats are overdue for a similar change.  (Changing all safe
>>seats would give congress to the repubs.)  Or, is it "change" is
>>"repubs are to be exchanged for demos"?
>
>BTW, the relevance of this paragraph is obscure. Did someone misinform
>Andy? Does he think that I have been flying the banner of "It's time
>for a change"? Or that I personally want only to see Republicans
>removed from office?

It isn't a comment on Jamie at all.  It's a reference to a underlying
theme found in many political discussions.  I couldn't find anywhere
else to put it.

>>It's not secret in the sense that anyone with >half a brain is
>>not surprised that we gave guns to Iraq.  That's what we do; it
>>would be surprising if we hadn't armed Iraq.
>
>Well, the "half a brain" standard may be a bit too high.
>For example, Travis wrote just recently:
>>And of course we don't want nukes in the hands of the likes of Saddam.

So?  We can arm a country without giving it nukes.  (We arm
Egypt yet haven't given it nukes.)

>>"Massacre the kurds" is the regional sport.  Given that history, it is
>>difficult to argue that our betrayal "caused" anything; it was merely
>>another convenient excuse in an area where they've got plenty of
>>excuses and don't care when they run out anyway.
>
>This statement is so silly I would laugh if it wasn't so hideous.
>Massacring Kurds is not a regional sport. Saddam Hussein massacres
>enemies for a reason (perhaps Andy subscribes to the "madman"
>theory of Saddam's activities, but I do not). The resistance by
>Kurds and urged by the Bush Administration provided such a reason.

It is the regional sport.  Every country (in that region) with kurds
has done it.  Hussein did it both before and after we asked them to
revolt.  (If I remember the timing right, he stopped massacring them
and asked them for support right before we asked them to overthrow
him.  If he made that move because he couldn't afford to fight them
and US, then his survival, regardless of our request of them or any
action on their part to help us, would have been a bad thing for them
if his previous reasons for wanting them dead had still existed.)

Consider Turkey; why do they massacre the Kurds?  Why wouldn't Hussein
have the same reasons?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU