HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Subject: Burying of POWs, not in Combat [was: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP ]
Organization: VTT
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:49:49 GMT

This discussion is getting way off course.  The original article which
started it stated that the author had heard from four different DS
veterans that Iraqi POWs had been ordered to lie in a trench/pit and 
then they were buried.  This is a violation of Geneva Conventions on
treatment of Prisoners of War.

This is NOT the same as the burying of Iraqi troops in their trenches
during their resistance, although the poster's later claim that
thousands of Iraqis were so buried may refer (I hope!) to that.

Is anyone out there willing to support the alleged activity, the burying
of Prisoners of War?  Are pro-war people willing to label
such activity, IF IT OCCURRED, a war crime?  Should such a charge be 
investigated?  If not, is it because US troops should be allowed to
murder prisoners (in certain circumstances), because we shouldn't make
such activities public, because it isn't important, or because we refuse
to believe that OUR BOYS would do such a thing so it must be a lie which
we won't dignify with an investigation?  Or some other reason?

-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi
From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:31:22 GMT
Organization: VTT

In article <223.1929.uupcb@compart.fi> juha.veijalainen@compart.fi (Juha Veijalainen)  writes:
>I do not think UN troops were ordered to bury Iraqi soldiers.  The order 

There were no UN troops involved in the war against Iraq.  So of course
the non-existant troops received no such orders.  This mislabeling of US
troops as UN (I have only heard that US units used this tactic, please
inform me if others did) is for purely propagandistic purposes.

>was to break through their lines.  The fastest and safest way to do this 
>was to fill in the dikes iraqis had dug.  If UN troops would have stopped 
>to take prisoners - well, here are some options:  1)...5).... 

> . WinQwk 2.0 a#152 . Mielipiteet omiani/Opinions personal/Facts suspect

It is interesting to find a Finn taking such a position as Finnish
troops are very often used as UN peacekeeping troops (because Finns want
to "kippis" -), wearing the blue helmet.  Juha, no Finns nor UN troops 
were involved in the war against Iraq, so your support for the blue helmets 
should not influence your opinions about this war.

-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi
From: dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Date: 2 Oct 92 10:27:20 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

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

>In <BvFpv8.I4F@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk writes:

>> Oh great!
>> Two years ago, the pro-war people were bending over backwards in this group
>> and it's predescesor alt.desert-shield stressing that the anti-war lot had got
>> it all wrong, this war was about 'freedom and democracy' and had absolutely
>> nothing to do with oil. Even George Bush was following that line.
>> 
>> You've got to admire their brass neck!
>> 
>> Looks like all those neo-Red "No war for Oil" liberals had it right all along.

>  While I believe you are referring to the pro-war group in general, and not 
>me in particular, I would prefer it if you were more careful in your accusa-
>tions.  

Why? The accusation is not levelled at you personally as you point out.
It's a general observation of an amazing about turn by the pro-war lobby,
you're not the only one who's made similar statements like this
recently.

>Only a bloody fool could not see that we intervened due to a concern 
>for the oil in that region, which we currently still need and will for some
>time.  That Saddam WAS a brutal dictator engaging in land piracy and threat-
>ening a friendly Saudi regime was in fact just gravy.  *I* realized this the
>day the whole thing started.

Well, maybe you should have been the president then since George 'bloody fool'
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.

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."

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

>  Governmental motives in this were quite in line with national self-interest.
>Getting to do something noble (rescuing a weaker nation from an agressor) was
>a nice bonus.

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

>  And if you're wondering where I was during the first round, I didn't have an
>account back then.

..and your views would have made *mighty* interesting reading if you had an
account then. I just wonder if you'd have broke ranks or stuck with the
masses.

Dave
--
From: biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:27:57 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <BvHpyq.LKC@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning) writes:
>biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow) writes:

>>In article <BvFpv8.I4F@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning) writes:

>>A perceived just cause is necessary for a democratic country to go to
>>war. It is not sufficient (e.g. Bosnia, Haiti, East Timor, etc.)

>>A percieved vital interest is necessary for a democratic country to 
>>go to war. It is not sufficient (e.g. we didn't invade Arab countries
>>to get oil in 1974, we pulled out of Viet Nam as the populace/gov't 
>>became convinced we lacked a just cause.)

>>Finally, there is no "one thing" that causes a democracy to go to
>>war, though elements in the above two categories must exist. With
>>emphasis on the word _perceived_.

>Oh no Chris, you've been in this group long enough to know what the general
>views of both sides have been. The 'national interest' card was pushed *way*
          ^^^^?
>down the pack for a long time with the 'just cause' flag being waved wildly.

Dave, there are as many "sides" to this question as there are people
involved in the debate. I've yet to see anyone (even right-wing loonies)
profess that the _sole_ reason we got involved was altruism. They may
exaggerate the relative importance of the just cause.

>Over the past six months in this group there has been a slow subtle movement
>of views with more than a few posters commenting now that the 'just cause'
>is just a convenient by-product of 'national interest'.

The cause was not "lilly white." If you wait around for a lilly white
cause, you will, effectively, be an apathetic (ref. G.K. Chesterton).
Life often consists of choosing the lesser of two evils (ref. Tom Paine).
To use the tired example, WWII started when one dictator (Hitler) invaded
the country of another (Pilsudski). At the time it was by no means clear
that Hitler was the worst of the two dictators. But his potential to
"keep on rolling" was clear. Ditto for Saddam.

Was our cause just? I think it is as clear as any real-world cause of 
war needs to be. 

Did we have a national interest? Less clear, but I strongly believe so.

Did we choose the most prudent course? At the time, I sympathised with
the US congressmen who voted against combat. I still do, but I realize
that such a course of action would have resulted in a far worse situation
(see my post from last Friday).

If you wish to pillory the US for _not_ intervening in dozens of other
just causes, feel free. I won't object, other than to note that it would
take a conversion to dictatorial gov't to cause the US to act where it
has no perceived national interest. I would consider that a step backward.
From: VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Another Cover-Up?
Date: 29 Sep 1992 10:01:33 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Anwar Mohammed writes: >"
>""Innocent" 250,000? Uniformed thugs and looters caught trying to
>"escape Kuwait in their stolen autos stuffed with loot is more like
>"it. There were civilian casualties of the bombing campaign, and that's
>"an unfortunate fact of war, but the bulk of the dead were on the road
>"out of Kuwait and in the entrenchments *inside* Kuwait and southern
>"Iraq.

Palmer writes: >>
>>FALSE! The majority of those who died were civilians who died as a result
>>of our bombing sewerage treatment plants and water plants. See RED CROSS
>>reports.

Anwar writes again: >
>I'm amazed that you still have the audacity to post after your lies.  Why
>don't you address the question?  Neither Amnesty International or
>Red Cross *ever* claimed that the U.S. killed 250,000 innocent people.
>

The records I have:

According to May 92 report of Green Peace, there were more than 200,000 
deaths (directly or indirectly).  Around 120,000 Iraqi soldiers died in
the 43 day war. Half of the above was killed in the 100 hour ground war.
There were civilian deaths in the range of 49,000 to 76,000. Because of
very Strict censorship by America, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, this shock-
ing news was covered-up.  

According to another volunteer organization, the child death in Iraq is
1500 per day and there would be 170,000 child deaths in the next 5 year
period.  Due to this a whole generation has been destroyed.  The modern
techniques of war create a long term effect.  Destruction  of hospitals  
and waste treatment facilities etc  were the main cause of the indirect
effect of war in Iraq.

Though I respect the  RED CROSS and AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, I guess they
are not beyond the patriotism.  Amnesty International report during the
Gulf War said that Iraqi soldiers went to maternity hospitals and threw
the children out of the inhubator boxes (sorry for paraphasing).  Remem-
ber Naira Al-Sabah? She deserved an Oscar for her Congressional hearing!

I know.  This is not the proper forum (alt.politics.clinton) for all of
these.  But I didn't want to leave this  unanswered.  I wouldn't do any
follow up in this forum.
 
>Anwar Mohammed                FREE THE KUWAITI POWS.

That's a good demand.  Don't you need a Democratic  Republic of Kuwait?
I wouldn't like to be a citizen of Kuwait, Inc., which has a membership
in UN.

Vicky:
UMass,
Sep 29
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: Mike Royko Column
Date: 2 Oct 92 11:41:27 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU


Oh dear; I think another freshling has discovered the net.

aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber) writes:

>Don't you liberals get it?

Definition: a "liberal" is one who questions government policy.  Hmm;
those conservatives and libertarians who weren't convinced that
the US should get involved with Iraq are now liberals...

>It doesn't matter how many women & kids,
>we killed or how many Iraqis got buried alive.

Why am I relieved that this person didn't have a finger on the
button that could start WWIII?

>This war was not
>OUR doing! It was Saddam's - HE'S the BAD guy! We're the GOOD guys!

Oh; how simple it seems when explained in such a way.

>War is hell! Let's thank God that HE supported US and not Iraq!

I didn't actually notice God saying he supported the US; perhaps
it was on a different channel.

>It took a MONTH of round-the clock night time bombing by our air
>crews to suppress the danger those Iraqis possed to the civilized
>world! We didn't use weapons of mass destruction! Saddam did!

We didn't use weapons of mass destruction; we just bombed them
for a month.  Of course, Dresden wasn't destroyed by weapons of
mass destruction either.

>If we didn't stop him, you'd be stranded on the highway with no
>gas in your car. We'd see how that'd change your leftist mind!

There was a perfectly good blockade going on before the bombing
started, so there wasn't a prayer that Saudi oil would stop
flowing.

On second thought, this person is probably just trying to parody
the posts of those who mindlessly defend US actions; my apologies
for falling for it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Still shone the candlelight on the empty screen, after the power went.
From: biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Date: 1 Oct 92 18:38:33 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <BvFpv8.I4F@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning) writes:

>Oh great!
>Two years ago, the pro-war people were bending over backwards in this group
>and it's predescesor alt.desert-shield stressing that the anti-war lot had got
>it all wrong, this war was about 'freedom and democracy' and had absolutely
>nothing to do with oil. Even George Bush was following that line.

>You've got to admire their brass neck!

This line of garbage uses the same logical mistake as, "All dogs have
legs, David Morning has legs, therefore David Morning is a dog." Namely,
it confuses "necessary" and "sufficient."

A perceived just cause is necessary for a democratic country to go to
war. It is not sufficient (e.g. Bosnia, Haiti, East Timor, etc.)

A percieved vital interest is necessary for a democratic country to 
go to war. It is not sufficient (e.g. we didn't invade Arab countries
to get oil in 1974, we pulled out of Viet Nam as the populace/gov't 
became convinced we lacked a just cause.)

Finally, there is no "one thing" that causes a democracy to go to
war, though elements in the above two categories must exist. With
emphasis on the word _perceived_.
From: dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Date: 2 Oct 92 10:47:11 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow) writes:

>In article <BvFpv8.I4F@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning) writes:

>>You've got to admire their brass neck!

>This line of garbage uses the same logical mistake as, "All dogs have
>legs, David Morning has legs, therefore David Morning is a dog." Namely,
>it confuses "necessary" and "sufficient."

>A perceived just cause is necessary for a democratic country to go to
>war. It is not sufficient (e.g. Bosnia, Haiti, East Timor, etc.)

>A percieved vital interest is necessary for a democratic country to 
>go to war. It is not sufficient (e.g. we didn't invade Arab countries
>to get oil in 1974, we pulled out of Viet Nam as the populace/gov't 
>became convinced we lacked a just cause.)

>Finally, there is no "one thing" that causes a democracy to go to
>war, though elements in the above two categories must exist. With
>emphasis on the word _perceived_.

Oh no Chris, you've been in this group long enough to know what the general
views of both sides have been. The 'national interest' card was pushed *way*
down the pack for a long time with the 'just cause' flag being waved wildly.

Over the past six months in this group there has been a slow subtle movement
of views with more than a few posters commenting now that the 'just cause'
is just a convenient by-product of 'national interest'.

Jimmy Millar may have put it rather more bluntly than the others but my comments
are a general observation of this shift in focus over the past six months.
At least Jimmy's being honest albeit a little late.

It's more subtle than "All dogs have legs..."

More like "Head..parapet...above...afraid"

or "Woodwork...crawl.."

Dave
-- 
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
From: dworden@cwis.unomaha.edu (David Paul Worden)
Subject: Patriotism???
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:19:39 GMT

I would just like to know if those who continue to rip on the U.S. government
about the Gulf War, for whatever reason, have pride in their country.  Everyone
is entitled to their own opinion, but, are these people active in politics.
(i.e.  Do you vote????)  You can make any decision as to the effectiveness and 
tactics of the war, but if the government thought that you could do a better 
job, then they would have made you commander of the forces.  An incident 
occured, many decisions were made, and the incident was solved and settled.
It's over. What's done is done and no amount of complaining and whining is 
going to change what happened.  No one said that war is supposed to be pleasant,
"War is Hell."  Death is death, no matter how you die.  As many soldiers have 
said, I would rather die fighting for my country, proud of my country, than to
die with my tail between my legs.

	David P. Worden
	

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David P. Worden                                        dworden@cwis.unomaha.edu

ALWAYS A MAN AHEAD OF HIS TIME.  At his Highland Park, Michigan auto plant, 
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: The US Govt CARES about soldiers...NOT!
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
Date: 2 Oct 92 11:43:40 CDT
Originator: mccullou@sun-16.cae.wisc.edu


In article <1ahpvmINN8ja@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber) writes:
|> 
|> Over 23,000 US soldiers were left behind during WWII -the
|> Soviets sent them to Siberian camps.
|> 
|> Over 1,000 soldiers left MIA in the Korean War, over 500 in the Vietnam war.
|> Who know what consequences face the Gulf vets?
|> 
|> The US government doesn't care about soldiers. They lie to us - the
|> politicians only care to feed the war profits to their war business
|> pals and to display their moral outrage for re-election purposes. They
|> trick us by selling us patriotism - and you (pro-war) suckers buy it
|> over & over...
|> 
|> When ya gonna learn? Your enemy is not across the ocean - it's in Washington!

I would like to see some references or evidence.  Your say so is quite
astonishing.  On Vietnam, do you realize how hard it is to change status
from MIA to KIA?  You must find and identify the body.  Not always easy.
Sure, Vietnam probably kept a few POWs, but if you want to argue about that,
shift over to the Vietnam newsgroup.

:)M^2
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Mike Royko Column
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:23:53 GMT

In article <1aeqfkINNj1n@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber) writes:

       *********************************************
       * Is this the same prisoner of Cleveland who*
       * was posting pseudo-liberal anti-American  *
       * flame bait a few months ago?  Indeed, I   *
       * believe it is.                            *
       *                                           *
       * Alec Chambers                             *
       *********************************************

>
>Don't you liberals get it? It doesn't matter how many women & kids,
>we killed or how many Iraqis got buried alive. This war was not
>OUR doing! It was Saddam's - HE'S the BAD guy! We're the GOOD guys!
>War is hell! Let's thank God that HE supported US and not Iraq!
>
>
>It took a MONTH of round-the clock night time bombing by our air
>crews to suppress the danger those Iraqis possed to the civilized
>world! We didn't use weapons of mass destruction! Saddam did!
>
>
>If we didn't stop him, you'd be stranded on the highway with no
>gas in your car. We'd see how that'd change your leftist mind!
From: juha.veijalainen@compart.fi (Juha Veijalainen)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: Another Cover-Up?
Date: 3 Oct 92 18:09:00 GMT
Reply-To: juha.veijalainen@compart.fi (Juha Veijalainen)
Organization: ComPart BBS, Helsinki-Finland, +358 0 506 3329 (14 lines V.32bis)

Miller, Jimmy A. wrote:

MJ>>the child death in Iraq is
MJ>> 1500 per day and there would be 170,000 child deaths in the next 5 y
MJ>> period.  Due to this a whole generation has been destroyed.  The mod
MJ>> techniques of war create a long term effect.
MJ>
MJ>  Incorrect.  Most such areas could be up and running today if not for
MJ>intransigence.  And his desire to kill Kurds and Shiites.

And the fact that Saddam is not willing to sell Iraqi oil even when UN 
would allow it for humanitarian purposes.  This is very good for Saddam, 
because then he can blame UN and specificly USA for all their problems.  
The lack of money for medicine and food is unfortunately very bad for the 
iraqi people.  No humanitarian aid can fill the gap, iraqis need to sell 
their oil and use the money, but Saddam does not allow it.

Also, the continuous harrasment of UN aid workers is making it difficult 
even to deliver aid to Iraq

---
 . WinQwk 2.0 a#152 . Mielipiteet omiani/Opinions personal/Facts suspect
                     
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
From: aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: The US Govt CARES about soldiers...NOT!
Date: 2 Oct 1992 15:31:02 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


Over 23,000 US soldiers were left behind during WWII -the
Soviets sent them to Siberian camps.

Over 1,000 soldiers left MIA in the Korean War, over 500 in the Vietnam war.
Who know what consequences face the Gulf vets?

The US government doesn't care about soldiers. They lie to us - the
politicians only care to feed the war profits to their war business
pals and to display their moral outrage for re-election purposes. They
trick us by selling us patriotism - and you (pro-war) suckers buy it
over & over...

When ya gonna learn? Your enemy is not across the ocean - it's in Washington!
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm