From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:57:37 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Sep25.200750.23511@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> bobh@troy.uucp (22131-hettmansperger) writes:
>
>I understand what you are saying, but let's be honest: if we bulldozed
>Iraqi solders off the front lines when it was just as easy to capture them
>as prisoners of war, then are we really deserving of the moral high ground
>in the war?  Is it the kind of behavior that merits praise and ticker tape
>parades?  
I doubt that it would have been as easy to capture them in those positions.
As far as any company or battalion commander should have been concerned all
the Iraqi soldiers who came across the border before the assault were the
only ones who wanted to surrender. All the soldiers remaining in Kuwait would
be considered hostile unless some other circumstances arised. Like having
everybody in a defensive position come out under a white flag with no weapons.
As long as one chucklehead was firing on our troops, our soldiers would be of
obligated to continue fighting the Iraqi soldiers; at least until that 
chucklehead died from our return fire or was taken out by Iraqi soldiers
willing to surrender. Not very fair to those soldiers unwilling to fight, but
they are not our responsibility. The lives of our own soldiers are who we are 
responsible for and exposing them to unnecessary risks would be unwise. Sorry
for rambling a bit but I think the above might have been the thoughts of 
unit commanders advancing into Kuwait,i.e. the lives of our soldiers are more
valuable than the enemy's soldiers.

We give praise and parades for our soldiers because they were willing to risk
their lives in service to our country. Not because of who they killed.
>
>If the only goal was simply to "win" regardless of the human cost, then 
>perhaps we should have taken all of our nuclear warheads, aimed them at 
>every city in Iraq and tried to kill every last citizen in the entire country.
This is a strawman's argument. Nuclear weapons were not needed to win the war.
Using them in the way you described would have been excessive to say the least.
If you are so hot to see nuclear warheads go off then take a trip to Nevada
and watch a test. If you want a REALLY close look at a nuke then go down the
shaft where you can sit on the weapon and salivate over the reaction to occur.
Otherwise, shut up about using nukes to win wars since you obviously don't
know what you are talking about. 
>We probably could have done it, but somehow most people would find that to 
>be pretty offensive.  War is strange that way.
We probably could have done it but we didn't for reasons above. Stop trying to
bring back the "nuke'em till they glow" mentality to this debate. It's as dumb
as the "Nintendo war" argument that I saw during and immediately after the
wars end. It won't help you win the debate, except maybe with those idiots
who think that the only people who supported the war were red-necked, 
jingoistic, beer drinking couch potatos who saw the war as a better version of
Monday Night Football. It's a gross exaggeration. 
>
>-Bob


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Chester            |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Politically Incorrect      |"The meek shall inherit the earth. The rest of us
Future Lunar Colonist      |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.activism:17023 news.admin:7854