HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: somalia
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:01:17 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Dec15.131705.14947@afit.af.mil> cbrooks@afit.af.mil (Christopher L Brooks) writes:
>awells@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Andrew V. Wells) writes:
>
>>(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? 
>
>It was my understanding that Bush's intent was to rid Kuwait
>of Hussein; he was succesful in this endeavor.  Would you have
>preferred a massacre in Baghdad to seek and destroy Hussein?
>
>--Chris   

    When it comes to Middle East, Bush simply follows orders from 
    King Fahd of Saudi Arabia and the likes.

    That is why he was, secretly and otherwise, arming Iraq
    after the Iran-Iraq war ended in a draw (read: the balance
    of power in the region had been restored) - the Saudis needed
    a bodyguard on steroids, and they did not care about the U.S. 
    strategic interests in the Gulf.

    That is why GWBH ordered the troops to let the Republican Guard
    off the hook along with some 700 T-72 tanks - the Saudis wanted
    Saddam to be strong enough to remain in power.  Hard to believe?  
    Well, did you notice that right after the elections King Fahd went 
    public warning Clinton about the danger from ... Iran (read: do not
    be too hard on Saddam's regime)?

    That is why the U.S. remained silent while the Kurds were gassed -
    why would the Saudis care about the Kurds who are not even Arabs?

    That is why the U.S. got in bed with Syria - the Saudis were
    forced to hedge their bets on Saddam, and the could care less
    about Syrians blowing U.S. airplanes off the sky, or taking
    over Lebanon.

    That is why the U.S. is intervening Somalia - a member of 
    the Arab League - so that the Saudis will not have to.

    If, in retrospect, you find it difficult to understand Bush's Middle 
    Eastern policies, try to interpret them from King Fahd's point
    of view, and you'll see that those policies make perfect sense...












-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Follow the money."                             Other opinions are mine.
 Deep Throat                                    Disclaimer: 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.org.un,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: somalia
Keywords: no reply
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:26:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.170728.6955@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> awells@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Andrew V. Wells) writes:
>WE MUST CONTINUE TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE US ARMY OCCUPATION
>OF SOMALIA, and the horrifying hi-tech killing machines they
>use to impose their control on all parts of the world.
>
>  For those of you that realize this, let's hear from you!!
>Don't let these gratuitous right-wing ideologues dominate
>the net the way they dominate the mass media!!!!!

I'm a right-wing ideologue?




--
The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
arms of despotism.
			-- Tocqueville, 1852
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.org.un,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.british,alt.president.clinton
From: st923459@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Subject: Re:  Reporters in Somalia
Reply-To: st923459@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:31:25 GMT

I don't know why everyone seems so surprised to see pictures of the media
taking pictures of the marines.  This war began because of a media effort;
they're damn proud of the work they've done.  They want to see their project
through.  If they hadn't had pictures from Somalia on the news, showing footage
of these starving people and the tragedy that is taking place there, we
wouldn't have troops over there in the first place.

Also, if the Pentagon hadn't wanted the troops there in the first place, they
would have been able to stop them.  We're talking the PENTAGON, here...they
can, despite what you may think, keep reporters from gallavanting all over the
globe, shooting bright lights into the eyes of their marines.  Truth is, folks,
the Pentagon wanted the media there.  Watching this marine landing during Prime
Time television is unbelievably good publicity.  What better way to start off a
nice little war?

Use your mentality, folks, and wake up to reality, to paraphrase Cole Porter.

					--------Todd
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: U.S. Is Not Going to War in Somalia for any Good Reasons
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:22:03 GMT

In article <1gqtc5INNrof@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>
>>No.  Western liberal democracies require hard work and patience.
>>Institutions most be formed and given legitimacy, and this is the work
>>of generations, not of a band of insurgents.  With Leninism, you have
>>the blueprint right there.  No assembly required.
>
>Yes, you are right about this.  It is thoroughly easier to destroy a country
>than to build it up.  But there are still cases where Western institutions
>have been imported successfully.  For instance in Turkey after the first
>world war.  Or in Japan during the late nineteenth century.  Today these
>countries are not liberal democracies, but they are not despotisms either.
>Turkey, even when under military leadership, is better governed than Syria.
>One does not have to import everything at once.  For instance the leaders of
>Singapore actively dislike democracy, yet have imported (or retained from
>the colonial days) plenty of other western institutions.

Quite true.  It also matters from which direction the importing of
foreign political institutions is coming from.  In the cases you
mentioned (most particularly Japan), it was the elites already in
power who initiated reforms (actually, in Japan's case, reform didn't
trickle down until the American occupation after WW2).  People in
power, seeing that their positions may be threatened and acting to
include the disenfranchised in the political process, will be more
likely to retain some influence than those we try to retain power by
exclusion.

Part of the point I was making about Communist insurgents is that they
have been most successful in countries where the existing elites have
tried to hold on.  The result, of course, is a bottom-up importation
of foreign institutions, more violent than elite-led reform because
these elites are forced to surrender all power, whether by death or
exile.




--
The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
arms of despotism.
			-- Tocqueville, 1852
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.org.un,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:08:17 GMT

green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>>I read this as "we shouldn't intervene when there's a problem, but we  
>>have to help out when there's a problem."   there's a lot of famine  
>>and genocide in the world, as there has been for many years (SE Asia,  
>>many african nations, many south american nations...)  And in fact  
>>the US caused a large portion of it.  
>That's interesting, I've been watching African leaders from the area
>for the last few days, and they place the blame on the clan leaders, not
>the US.  Jesse tried that line with a leading intellectual from the area
>tonight on Crossfire, and didn't get too far.
Well, Jesse is not the world's greatest debator of social issues.  An orator
he is, a social theorist or political historian he is not.  I have read many
a good book that would blame the U.S., Briatain, France, and basically most
of the Western world for shafting such countries as Somalia for national greed.
This is a long-debated issue.

>>Where do you draw the line??  We help Somalia today....we help  
>>ethiopia tomorrow...we help bosnia the day after that....and the  
>>sudan the day after that....meanwhile, homelessness in this nation is  
>>at an all-time high.  We need to stop being the world's  
>>policeman/landlord.
>I've addressed that line about helping our homeless before.  They aren't
>starving, and have the means to help themselves.
Wow.  So the people at the soups kitchen I work at who would starve without it
are actually engaging in some bizarre new weight loss program?

______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.test,alt.politics.org.un,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.british,alt.president.clinton
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:23:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.084120.24964@math.ucla.edu> getachew@yosemite.math.ucla.edu (getachew hagos) writes:
}Why are African wild animals does not starve to death? 

Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass and look.  In that area, they HAVE.

}	If you want to hear the answers, it's the US that created the whole
}mess in Somalia, it's that guilty concessions and possibly seeking advantage

Right.

}	I can talk more than a book if you want, about the US mischief to 

I have no doubt that you can.  And make even less sense.  You are one of the
reasons that talk is so cheap.

}I, on the other hand agree with the US gov't
}on accepting the fact that they were part of the problem out there and 

Where, when and by whom did this occur?

}trying to fix the mess they created, but not with your half-witted idea
}that the US being the policeman of the entire world, nor the fact that the 
}US is the only nation that can do this. Got it!

Ok.  Who?

And I don't think they need a policeman as much as a babysitter.


Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
From: awells@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Andrew V. Wells)
Subject: somalia
Keywords: no reply
Organization: Northeastern University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:07:28 GMT

WE MUST CONTINUE TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE US ARMY OCCUPATION
OF SOMALIA, and the horrifying hi-tech killing machines they
use to impose their control on all parts of the world.

  For those of you that realize this, let's hear from you!!
Don't let these gratuitous right-wing ideologues dominate
the net the way they dominate the mass media!!!!!

                                   andy wells
          ///\\\         awells@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu
        \\\\  ////        andyphys@nuhub.northeastern.edu
          //  <<<              \oooooo---oooooo//-



Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.activism
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Rules of Engagement
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 11:40:59 GMT
Followup-To: alt.current-events.somalia

As quoted from <1g4138INNa3s@neuro.usc.edu> by merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin):

> One of the major networks reported the rules of engagement in Somalia:
> 
>   If anyone shows hostile intent -- or
>   If anyone shows hostile capability
> 
>   Our forces may:
> 
>   (1)  Disarm them -- or --
>   (2)  "Vaporize" them
> 
> Somehow this seems a bit extreme for a mission of mercy.

It might seem somewhat less extreme after you've been shot at by a 12.7mm
DShK machinegun.  Just a thought....


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.org.un,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Somalia an Arab country??? no! [was: It's Blood for Oill, again.]
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:00:39 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Dec10.063330.4065@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>In article <ByyuBE.2G2@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>>    Somalia is an Arab country. a full-fledged member of the Arab League, 
>
>According to the CIA World Fact Book, about 0.5% of the population of
>Somalia is Arab (30,000 out of 6.x million).  Under Siad Barre the
>official language was Somali, which the vast majority of the people 
>speak.  Arabic, English and Italian are also spoken there.  If you have
>seen any photos of the feeding centers or the population of Mogadishu
>you would have been unable to see any Arab faces.  The people are
>standard sub-Saharan African, i.e. black.

    Don't let racial stereotypes interfere with the learning process:

    Here's a definition taken from The American Heritage Dictionary:

    Arab    1. A native or inhabitant of Arabia
            2. Any of a Semitic people originally from Arabia but later
               widely scattered throughout the Near East, North Africa,
               and the Arabian Peninsula [including Somalia].
            3. Any of a nomadic people living in in Near Estearn and
               North African desert regions.

    According to the Boston Globe (Dec. 6, 1992), Somali is the national
    language, Arabic is an official language, English and Italian are also 
    spoken.

    Finally, Somalia is a member of the Arab League.



-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Follow the money."                             Other opinions are mine.
 Deep Throat                                    Disclaimer: 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,soc.culture.arabic,soc.rights.human
From: yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: U.S. Is Not Going to War in Somalia for any Good Reasons
Date: 13 Dec 1992 18:49:27 -0500
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: cathy.na.cs.yale.edu

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>Yeah, but the UN so far has not had the means to do peacekeeping in,
>say, Angola: the guys in the blue hats didn't have the means to disarm
>one of the rival factions.  When they left, and the elections went
>against this faction, it simply re-armed.

Not to disparage your point, but rearming is in such cases not particularly
simple.  Unless you have just hidden your weapons rather than getting rid of
them.  The former is presumably what happened.  (We are not talking about
people with a lot of cash, or with easy means of importing purchased
weapons.)

"Peacekeeping" missions are of extremely marginal utility.  Mostly they
amount to having UN soldiers sit around in the demilitarized zone.  On the
rare occasions when one party decides to break the peace, the UN soldiers
run for cover.

The scenario I gather they are trying to prevent is one in which, say, a
sentry on one side decides to shoot his counterpart, and successively larger
groups of soldiers on either side become involved until it becomes a general
war.  But this scenario assumes extreme insubordination on the part of
commanders on both sides, and naivete of both commanders-in-chief.  Which is
almost never going to be the case.  So what is the use of the UN
peacekeeping missions?  Propaganda of course.  The governments who send them
like to be seen "keeping the peace" while incurring relatively little risk
for doing so.  

--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
 "Calamity, n.  A more than commonly plain and unmistakable reminder that
  the affairs of this life are not of our own ordering." -- Ambrose Bierce
From: dmorse@igc.apc.org (Dorothy Morse)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: The mess WE created.
Date: 15 Dec 92 13:08:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:1992Dec11.214239.26674@watson.ib:-1939994453:cdp:1766500004:000:1031
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmorse    Dec 15 05:08:00 1992


Pardon me for replying to the later post before the earlier one, but I
am still trying to get some hard facts about population and infant
mortality in pre-colonial Somalia.  I can tell you right off that the
khat was not used widely before Siad Barre came to power, and that
his regime at first encouraged it, as well as consumption of liquor,
and then tried to suppress it.  People who used khat were considered
to be outcasts and lazy--now lots of the male population use it, because
for one thing it is a hunger suppressant, and secondly, because the
drug is used by gang leaders to keep their armed followers loyal.  My
information comes from Fatima Jama Jibrell, a Somali woman who spoke
here last week and who discussed khat and the breakdown of Somali society
in detail.


Your tone suggests, perhaps unintentionally, a commitment to
contempt for Somali people, and that perhaps discussion with you is
in vain, but others do read the posts, and I think they should be
aware of what Somalis have to say in their own defense.
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
From: jellison@carina.unm.edu (Jan E Ellison)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 19:39:32 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Dec10.223308.18373@csus.edu> vpcsc11@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (student) writes:
>In article Randall Rhea writes:
>
>>I just can't believe that we're doing it to help starving people.
>>There must be another motivation.  If we really wanted to help
>>starving children, then we would have intervened several months
>>ago, before thousands of them died.  Or, we would feed our own
>>children here in the U.S.  No, I don't buy it.  Perhaps the
>>strategic location of Somalia on the horn of Africa is a better
>>explanation.
>>
>
> aaro (vpcsc11@sfsuvax1.sfs.edu) writes
>
>Good point.  If helping starving people is our primary motivation
>for this action, it seems like we would be taking stronger action
>domestically.
> ...
>On the other hand, it is hard to oppose feeding hungry people and it is
>hard to support a policy of non-involvement with respect to "ethnic
>cleansing" in Yugoslavia.  


Me, I just think we want to put a new 'subic bay' in place. What a 
woderful spot. Due south of the last middle east dance. And what
better pretense to initial development, there's no gov't locally to
oppose the op, and 'nothing' to tear down to be rebuilt...

-j
just an opinion, I'm don't know if I believe this as yet either...

Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
From: awells@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Andrew V. Wells)
Subject: Re: somalia
Keywords: no reply
Organization: Northeastern University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:06:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.172658.9903@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

> 
> I'm a right-wing ideologue?
> 

 Ah, yes, that indescribible moment of self-discovery!



Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.org.un,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: kirby@xerox.com (Mike Kirby)
Subject: Re: WAR IN BOSNIA!!!!
Reply-To: kirby@xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Corporation, Webster NY
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:13:05 GMT

In article K69@mentor.cc.purdue.edu, smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:
> According to the Thursday December 17, 1992 _Chicago Tribune_, George
> Bush and company has authorized United States involvement in Bosnia.
> 
> This is probably the biggest foreign-policy mistake we could make. Bosnia
> is an extremely dangerous region and sending US troops can only result in
> a great deal of American bloodshed. 
> 
[stuff deleted]
> 
> Merry Christmas
> Peace on Earth and Mercy Mild
> 
> Lost Boy


My biggest objection with american forces in bosnia is that the Europeans are just
as capable as we are in projecting their force their.  One of the big excuses/reasons
that the Europeans have given for not interveaning in force while the americans
do is that the Europeans don't have the ability to project their force over great
distances like the U.S. has.  That is not a factor in bosnia.  French and
german airbases can be used just as easily as American aircraft carriers.  French and
German truck convoys are probably more efficient that american airlifts of
personnel and equipment.

The Europeans have as technically advanced weapons as we do.  They have highly
trained forces (perhaps better trained) than we do.  There is no reason why
a European sponsered and European led military initiative cannot happen in
bosnia should it be decided that military force is necessary.  It seems only 
responsible for America to be involved, but make sure that it TRUELY is an
internation effort.  Not the fake "sort of" internation efforts like the
persian gulf war and bosnia.  It would be a great test of our ability to 
coordniate large numbers of troops.

Mike Kirby
Xerox Corp
E-Mail: kirby.roch803@xerox.com




Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.org.un,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: getachew@yosemite.math.ucla.edu (getachew hagos)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Dept.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 08:41:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec7.201122.14502@seachg.uucp> chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask) writes:
>In article <1992Dec4.174207.592@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC) writes:
>>
>>
>>Once again, the entire world turns its collective eyes towards the United
>>States of America to solve the worlds problems.  We are the only nation
>>who is able to do it, and has the balls to do it.  God bless the U.S. and
>>may God bless the men and women of our armed forces.
>>
>>When will the rest of the world ever get off of its collective ass and
>>do something worth while? <sigh>
>>
>>Don't mess with the U.S.
>
>Well, I have to agree and disagree with you.  
>
>-Chris Blask
--------------//---------------

	Again to add more from Chris Blask, I have to agree and disagree 
with you. 
	The most imprtant thing which your eyes missed, but clear to the 
entire world is 'who created the mess in Somalia?'. What an asshole! 
Why are African wild animals does not starve to death? 
	If you want to hear the answers, it's the US that created the whole
mess in Somalia, it's that guilty concessions and possibly seeking advantage
that drives the US to Somalia.  Do you know why animals in Africa 
does not starve to death, too? It's simply stated they do not buy the evil 
American guns. And more important they dont have those moron leaders that
kill its own people for their egoist interest and power.
	I can talk more than a book if you want, about the US mischief to 
the entire innocent African people who usually trust it, but it's 
worthless to say it here. I, on the other hand agree with the US gov't
on accepting the fact that they were part of the problem out there and 
trying to fix the mess they created, but not with your half-witted idea
that the US being the policeman of the entire world, nor the fact that the 
US is the only nation that can do this. Got it!

G.

Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
From: TREHARAJ@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: Somalia
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:03:05 GMT
Organization: The University of Birmingham, United Kingdom

==============================================================================
There are at least eight people sending their articles to a long list of
usergroups. Can't you cut it out, or are you too daft?

Andy