From: werewolf@cwis.unomaha.edu (Eric E. Buckner)
Subject: Re: U.N. Rehash
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:02:10 GMT

rxz1011@usl.edu  writes:
> <excessively long documentation deleted> 
> In article <YfM2fjm00awYM2JmgZ@andrew.cmu.edu> Mark Beirne Lively <ml5a+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> >
> >No the reason why Hussien was a Hitleresque person is that he was a
> >genocidal maniac.  If you don't believe me ask the Kurds.  Castro is not
> >even a real communist.  he is more of an opportunist, dictator, and is
> >harmless. n Maybe we should call enemy dictators Zamora's?
> >
> First of all, the Kurds are trying to take over the government. The 
> overthrowing of governments usually doesn't go too well with the 
> government that is being overthrown.

Imagine how Kuwait must have felt when Hussein invaded.  

> Secondly, I am not too sure
> that the gassing that the U.S. media claims, ever happened.  The
> reason I remain doubtfull is because at the time those pictures 
> were taken, I believe Iraq was still fighting with Iran.  Those
> people could have been killed by almost anyone.

Maybe it is all circumstantial, but a whole lot circumstances can be a little
more than your average coincidence.

> And finally I don't understand why
> you say dictators should be called Zamora's.  Why, because I disagree
> with you?  I don't recall calling anyone on this newsgroup anything
> because I disagreed with them.

I believe you were called a dictator because you seem to be telling us what we
should be thinking and calling us wrong and telling (me) to "Get Real!" when
we are stating what we percieve as our reality.

> >But we have not killed all that many people.  The soldiers in somalia
> 	I think i will quote that and use it for my .signature :)

Taken out of context it will do wonders for you, and make the original person 
look like a fool.  In a war, or any other confrontation, it is necessary to 
devalue the lives of those in combat.  It is wrong, but necessary.  If we cried
for every person who was lost in battle, we would only have enough energy to 
mourn those of WWI or maybe WWII.  After all, if everybody felt sorry for the 
children in third world countries, and sent money and food, what would happen
to Earth's population?  It would skyrocket, and the planet would be over-
crowded, and we wouldn't have enough food.  This is not pleasant, but some
degree of coldness is necessary.

> >Situational ethics.  It was neccisarry at the time to put those people
> >into power to maintain a strategic advantage.  You are right that we
> >should have used a more permanent solution but russia would have gone
> >ape if we actually annexed central america.
> 
> I NEVER SAID THAT!!! Please do not state things that I have not
> written.  You and Mr. Buckner seem to do this.

If I have responded to anything that you have not written, it has been through
logical (my version), and reasonable thought process.  It may be somewhat 
extreme (in your opinion), but then, I consider you somewhat extreme (besides,
an extreme is the best way to make a point).

> I would never say
> that there should have been a permanent solution by anexxing Central
> America.  This is very insulting to Central America may I add. (not
> that you care) 
> If this is the way you really feel, then I must say to you that
> you should not be surprised when terrorist try to kill innocent
> people.  It is kindof like the L.A. riots, I certainly don't 
> agree with them, but I can understand why it happened.  The
> U.S. government is creating deep resentments all over the world.
> Then you wonder why it is that everyone hates us.

"Us"?  So, you actually consider yourself an American.  I was wondering.  The 
way you talk (write) it sounds as if you hate the U.S. too.  If this is so, why
don't you change the system?
 
> 
> >You are confusing two issues the Ayatollah took power and our hostages. 
> >I am unfamilar with what happened when the shah took over but that was
> >in the early cold war period as I remember.
> >
> No, it is you who are confused.  The Shah was installed in Iran by 
> the U.S. government (big surprise hunh?).  When his government was
> overthrown the U.S. was harboring him.  This is the reason the hostages
> were taken.  I don't agree with this, but like I said before it was
> the U.S. government who created that situation.

Does this excuse the Ayatollah's action?  It seems as if you say that two 
wrongs make a right.  I thought the Shah hid in France.  But, if we did harbor
the Shah, it would seem he could make a legitimate claim for political 
asylum (sp?). 
  
> >It was just a coincidence.  Besides Nostradamous is often a little to
> >accurate to be treated entirely as coincidence.
> 
> *sigh*  If you believe in him that ok with me but I personally don't
> consider him an important political figure.

So why do you keep making an issue out of it?  I merely introduced N.'s 
prophecy to give you an alternate train of thought.  Besides, I have had 
"experiences" (mostly with Deja vu), that I cannot ignore.  More things are
a lot more real than you think...

> HEY, I AM NOT MAKING THIS STUFF UP.  IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME GO TO
> YOUR LIBRARY AND READ ABOUT IT YOURSELF.

I NEVER SAID YOU WERE.  WE EACH PERCIEVE OUR OWN REALITY AND OUR OWN UNIVERSES.
WHAT IS SIMPLE, AND TRUE TO ME; IS FANCIFUL AND FALSE TO OTHERS.

Eric, Lord of Vengeance Beyond Death
-- 
"Why should I have nightmares?  I give them to you." -- Stephen King

SIC GORGIAMUS ALLOS SUBJECTOS NUNC -- We gladly feast on those who would 
subdue us. -- Addams Family Motto (as heard in the movie)
Newsgroups: alt.overlords