From: dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: somalia
Keywords: no reply
Date: 15 Dec 92 10:01:28 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

awells@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Andrew V. Wells) writes:

>This is a more detailed rebuttal to those who are trying to
>claim that the US was justified in what it did in the
>Gulf "war" just under two years ago, and what it is doing
>now, the military occupation of Somalia.

What 'military occupation of Somalia'??
If there is a 'military occupation of Somalia' what is it's purpose?
To secure sand supplies for the US?? There's nothing there!

[..]
>we have is: was the US defending itself against a dangerous
>aggressor in the gulf war (and in Somalia), or was 
>(and is) something else going on? 

This is very weird. Just who is the dangerous aggressor in Somalia?

>   Let's examine the assumption that Iraq was in fact a 
>dangerous aggressor, bent on taking over the whole
>Mid East. There are two facts on which I'm 
>sure we both agree that bare on this assumption: 
>(1) Iraq was "defeated" in less than six
>weeks; and (2) very few US military personel were killed. 
>Moreover, Schwartzkopt himself characterized the action
>as a "Turkey Shoot," apparently refering to the ease with
>which they "defeated" Iraq. So if Iraq was really so dangerous, 
>as dangerous as Nazi Germany like the mass media and Bush claimed,
>then why was it so easy to "defeat" Iraq? It took the 
>combined powers of the US Britain and Soviet Union 4 years
>to defeat Nazi Germany, not six weeks!

None of which was known at the time. The Iraqi army was being touted in the
world press as being the 4th largest in the world. It was only when the war
was kicked off did it become apparent that virtually all the front line
troops were conscripts - cannon fodder if you like. The *real* Iraqi army had
been held back, the airforce flying to Iran and the Republican Guard hidden
away. So that's why they were so 'easy' to defeat and so few coalition troops
killed. It wasn't the real Iraqi army, just a couple of hundred thousand
starving conscripts.

>(1) Bush originally claimed that they were fighting 
>this "war" to get rid of Hussein, but he is still in power
>even after the US declared "victory". So just what were
>Bush's true motivations then? 

No, that was not Bush's original claim, it was to 'Punish aggression' and
drive Iraq out of Kuwait.
The 'getting rid of Hussein" part came near the end of the war and even that
was couched in such veiled terms that there is disagreement as to what he really
meant. There was a call to the 'Iraqi people' to get rid of Hussein, not the
co-alition forces.

>(2)  Hussein was an ally
>of the US for about 10 years prior to the Gulf "war,"
>receiving all kinds of trade credits and bank loans
>(on a very large scale- billions of dollars worth)
>to buy military hardware and other stuff from the US.
>Both Reagan and Bush fought Congress hard to allow Hussein
>to do this from 1980-90. Given this, don't the Reagan 
>and Bush administrations bare at least some responsibility 
>for Hussein's invasion of Kuwait?

He was an ally of many countries. China and France were the main military 
suppliers. Many others chipped in to including UK, Germany, Holland...the
list is endless.

>(3)  There is apparently one other thing we disagree on. You
>say the majority of people in the US supported US actions
>in the Gulf "war".  But this support was very very thin.

I don't know enough about polls in the US to judge this.

>(4)  I read recently that US troops in Somalia have been
>ordered to "shoot at anything they want to."  This 

Where did you read this? National Enquirer?
They've been ordered to return fire if fired upon.

[...]
>increases tensions to an extreme degree. All of
>this makes it even MORE difficult to distribute
>food. And as a long term solution, the Somalians
>need a situation in which they can feed themselves,
>and escalating the military confrontation makes 
>this even more impossible.

 So what do you suggest? The UN forces there have been completely ineffective
being held to ransom by the local war lords.

Wait until the entire Somali population dies of malnutrition?

This is the wrong group for this discussion unless your trying to make some
link between US action in the Gulf War and US forces in Somalia.
Quite honestly I can't see one. In the Gulf it was about driving the Iraqi's
out of Kuwait and, perhaps (and I'm sure some will disagree) securing US
oil interests in that region.

The only thing that appears to be being driven in out in Somalia is food aid
from Mogadishu. Unless the US is suffering an acute shortage of sand I really
can't see what other reason the US troops are there for. Can you?

Dave

-- 
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton