HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.org.un,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Somalia
Date: 21 Dec 1992 19:32:27 -0500
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: cathy.na.cs.yale.edu

niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In <1h29tiINN69d@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) says:
>>And you still seem to think we will disarm the warlords.  Explicit
>>government statements to the contrary notwithstanding.  Even the fact that we
>>discovered a cache of weapons belonging to Aideed or one of the others, and
>>then withdrew without confiscating them, does not seem to have enlightened
>>you.
>
>But no one can say that this policy will continue; certainly not with a
>new president taking office.

There are good reasons for this policy.  Clinton will be informed of them; if
he ignores them, it will be at his own (political) peril.  One reason is the
ease of hiding weapons.  Burying AK-47s so that they cannot be found would be
trivial.  Tanks and artillery would be easier to find, but Somalia is the
size of Texas.  Air- or space-based reconnaissance would be necessary.  And
not just photo surveillance either; radar would be required.  The Somalis
would hide their weapons in the visible spectrum, but they would probably
not think to to hide them from radar, nor would they know how to do so.
So maybe we could confiscate all the heavy weapons, but it would take the
latest and greatest spy satellites and surveillance planes to do so.

Another reason is that the warlords would not agree to be disarmed.  We
would have to fight them if we tried.  We are not currently fighting them.

A third reason is that if we disarm them incompletely, we have just made the
groups we disarmed subject to the will of the remainder.  And if we disarm
them completely, we make the whole country subject to its neighbors.

So to sum up these three reasons, confiscating light weapons would be
impossible, would be dangerous, and would lead to even more social chaos.

All that said, it is still possible that Clinton will screw this one up.
After all, he is in favor of gun control in this country, and the reasons
why gun control would not work here are along the same lines as the reasons
it would not work in Somalia.  

>  UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali (sp?)
>is pushing for the US to disarm them.  Clinton may listen, if Bush doesn't.

Boutros-Boutros Ghali is not responsible for the welfare of American
soldiers.

--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
 "Generous, adj.  Originally this word meant noble by birth and was applied
  to a great multitude of persons.  It now means noble by nature and is
  taking a bit of a rest." -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: WHAT?!?!?!
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:55:45 GMT

In article <63023@mimsy.umd.edu> biow@cs.umd.edu (Christopher Biow) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.001351.4714@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec22.182540.5282@sunova.ssc.gov> rocko@ireland.ssc.gov (Rick O'Leary) writes:
>
>>>U.S.T.V. is the most LEFT_WING liberal loony bin in all the fruited planes.
>
>>TV is left-wing?  No, pardon, LEFT_WING?
>
>Seems its presentation is to the left of some observers,
>and to the right of others. All we need to answer this 
>question is a simple deliniation of exactly where on 
>the political spectrum the ultimate truth lies.
>
>

:-)

Quite true, though I'd say that a simple, one-dimensional "left-right"
probably isn't enough (Where do the Libertarians fit?  A wheat farmer
favoring price supports (i.e., gov't intervention) and "family
values"?  The New Paradigmists?).  Not to mention defining what "left"
and "right" actually mean for each issue (Where does censorship of
pornography lie, for instance?  Some feminists will ally with "family
value" conservatives.).


--
"What does not kill me only makes me stronger, right?"
	"Ooooh, no. You're weak as a kitten!"
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Survival of the fittest...
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:45:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.185308.13403@spectrum.xerox.com> powers@xerox.com writes:
}In article 20141@linus.mitre.org, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>In article <1992Dec18.211045.312@spectrum.xerox.com> powers@xerox.com writes:
}>}In article @byu.edu, jensen@baloo.ee.byu.edu (Curtis Jensen) writes:
}>}>Are we really HELPING these people, or are we just prolonging their
}>}>suffering and starvation?  Just GIVING these people food will
}>}>cause the somalians to do what they do best ... make MORE starving children.
}>}
}>}This is blatant racism Mr. Jensen.
}>
}>OK.  True or false, though?
}>
}>Poor argument technique.  If you have no counter for the instance, attack the messanger.
}>REAL old methodology...
}>
}
}Sure. I say your statement is false. 

Uh, not MY statement.  I was commenting upon the argument methodology, not the content.


Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,talk.politics.mideast
From: biow@cs.umd.edu (Christopher Biow)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: WHAT?!?!?!
Date: 23 Dec 92 01:33:28 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <1992Dec23.001351.4714@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.182540.5282@sunova.ssc.gov> rocko@ireland.ssc.gov (Rick O'Leary) writes:

>>U.S.T.V. is the most LEFT_WING liberal loony bin in all the fruited planes.

>TV is left-wing?  No, pardon, LEFT_WING?

Seems its presentation is to the left of some observers,
and to the right of others. All we need to answer this 
question is a simple deliniation of exactly where on 
the political spectrum the ultimate truth lies.


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
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 03:57:34 GMT

In article <1h5vnrINN9f2@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>
>>My argument is that this mission will fail and fail miserably if the
>>US or UN does not take this course of action, a reconcilliation
>>between the rival clan leaders seeming to be the more remote
>>possibility.
>
>The goals of the mission were defined to be the protection of the relief
>workers.  Thus the mission will succeed, in the sense that it will achieve,
>with few casualties, the goal set out for it.
>
>Did you ever think we were there to do more than that?  Then you can blame
>the media, which has been misconstruing the purpose of this intervention
>from day one.  I picked up a paper yesterday, and saw the headline
>"Disarmament Mission".  The fact is that disarmament is only a minor part of
>the mission: only a method of making certain areas more safe, and not an end
>in itself.

No, the mission will fail in the long-term because the relief workers
may not be sufficiently protected after we leave (depending on UN
deployments).  If you want success without some sort of disarmament,
then we may well be there for quite a while.

>
>I think the idea that we can "fix" Somalia is typical liberal hubris.  It is
>up to the Somalians to fix their nation, or to let it relapse into tribal
>boundaries.  And what if Somalia does disintegrate into a set of small
>nations?  Local government need not be particularly bad.  Look how well
>centralized government worked for them under Siad Barre.  Little wonder that
>they let it crumble.

Perhaps true, though if clan boundaries are overlapping, of if a clan
you disagree with controls the food producing regions, there may be
some problems later on.  <shrug>

>
>>I don't think we should remove all arms by force.  This risks shifting
>>Somali public opinion against us.  What may happen is an offer of
>>food/money for guns.  We'll have to see.
>
>Money for guns?  Hahaha.  They will sell you only their old and useless guns.
>Just look at what happened to various money-for-guns programs in the US.
>And the Somalians need their guns a lot more than US citizens do.

True, though it's arguable that the fewer guns there are in the
street, the better.

>
>Food for guns?  The people with guns have not had a problem getting food.

I thought this was the problem.


--
"What does not kill me only makes me stronger, right?"
	"Ooooh, no. You're weak as a kitten!"
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.org.un,talk.politics.misc
From: moncrg@rebecca.its.rpi.edu (Gregory Donald Moncreaff)
Subject: Somalia and Afganistan, parallels in chaos?
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:45:21 GMT

I was wondering if there had been any discussion of the process of
rebuilding a countries political institutions after it had 
fallen into the chaos of factional/clan disunity. I was thinking
that there might be some things in common between the situations
in Somalia, Afganistan, and perhaps Cambodia.
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
From: rocko@ireland.ssc.gov (Rick O'Leary)
Subject: WHAT?!?!?!
Reply-To: rocko@ireland.ssc.gov (Rick O'Leary)
Organization: 8-Track Museum of Technology
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:25:40 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!!!!!
|> 
|>                                    andy wells
|>           ///\\\         awells@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu
|>         \\\\  ////        andyphys@nuhub.northeastern.edu
|>           //  <<<              \oooooo---oooooo//-


Andy, 

Are you watching U.S. T.V.???????  Are you blind?

U.S.T.V. is the most LEFT_WING liberal loony bin in all the fruited planes.

If the U.S. hadn't done something you LEFT_WING NUTS would be screaming for

help.

Get a grip.

Rocko
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Today Somalia, Tomorrow the World
Date: 26 Dec 1992 00:18:40 GMT
Organization: Connectionists Against Homunculi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu


         Some Populations in Millions

China        1072       Vietnam        61
India         824       Egypt          52
USA           246       Ethiopia       49
Indonesia     175       South Africa   30
Russia        147       Iraq           17
Brazil        144       Cambodia        8
Japan         123       Somalia         6
Pakistan      105       El Salvador     5
Bangladesh    105       Nicaragua       4
Nigeria       102       Israel          4
Mexico         83       Bosnia-Herce.   4
Germany        78       Panama          2
Korea (N+S)    73       Grenada        .1

----

    --Brad Sherman

 And thus, Place, that great object which divides the wives of
 aldermen, is the end of half the labours of human life; and is
 the cause of all the tumult and bustle, all the rapine and injustice,
 which avarice and ambition have introduced into this world.
     --Adam Smith

Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
From: jbii@HDFS1.acd.com ( John O. Bell II )
Subject: Re: WAR IN BOSNIA!!!! (and a question about anti-radiation missiles)
Summary: this is what they are...
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:40:33 GMT

In article <BzH5sI.6nw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg ) writes:
>What the hell is an "anti-radiation missile!?!"  

An anti-radiation missile is a missile which is used to take out enemy radar
installations. It does this by homing in and locking onto the source of the
radar emissions. The purpose of this missile is to make ground defense units
think twice before they irradiate the sky to look for enemy aircraft. These
missiles are quite tricky; if you detect one coming at you and shut your
radar off, it memorizes the heading from which it last detected emissions
and continues on its way to the target. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

John Bell
Applied Computing Devices, Inc.
jbii@hdfs1.acd.com
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Survival of the fittest...
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:59:47 GMT

In article <BzoCyE.3EJ@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Alexander S. Goykhman) writes:
}In article <1992Dec21.185308.13403@spectrum.xerox.com> powers@xerox.com writes:
}>
}>.........................Somalians are PEOPLE who eat, sleep, make love, have
}>children, and work. Whether the children they have starve depends on the eco-political
}>environment, over which they have little control. ...
}
}    Somalis are people who, until the U.S. intervened, had had full control
}    over their political enviroment, of which civil war was, and had always been,
}    an integral part. 

And look h ow WELL it worked!

}    Think of it as a way of settling internal conflicts and/or 
}    electing the country's  political leadership.  Compare this to how 
}    the Europeans have been settling their differences throughout this century, 
}    and you might even come to appreciate the Somalian way.

Yup.  See who is starving and who isn't.  Makes you appreciate the Somalian
way, all right...

}>                                                         So JUST giving them food
}>is JUST a first step in what needs to be a rebuilding of Somalias infrastructure to
}>support life.  ...
}
}    Why are you so sure the Somalis want us to rebuild their infrastructure?
}    Yesterday, CNN ran a story on this subject:  it turns out that Somalis
}    spent the last couple of years annihilating whatever infrastructure
}    British, Soviets, and American had left behind.  For example, they
}    ripped electrical wires off the poles, undug water pipes, took apart
}    the phone system and dismantled their factories.  Apparently, the Somalis
}    do not want no Western-style infrastructure in their country.

But they seem to want the fruits of such a system.  Specifically, food.

}    As every other people on this planet, Somalis want to preserve their
}    way of life, and just because we think that ours is a superior one 
}    does not give us a right to shove it down other people's throats.

Their way of life recently has been mass graves.  It has not been mine.
As a first-order approximation, I'd say that makes mine "superior", in
the measure used by "mother nature".


Xref: sparky alt.current-events.somalia:704 alt.politics.org.un:207 alt.president.clinton:1227 talk.politics.misc:65065 alt.politics.bush:14853
From: yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.org.un,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Somalia
Date: 21 Dec 1992 21:49:31 -0500
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: cathy.na.cs.yale.edu

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1h29tiINN69d@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>>And you still seem to think we will disarm the warlords.  Explicit
>>government statements to the contrary notwithstanding.  Even the fact that we
>>discovered a cache of weapons belonging to Aideed or one of the others, and
>>then withdrew without confiscating them, does not seem to have enlightened
>>you.
>
>My argument is that this mission will fail and fail miserably if the
>US or UN does not take this course of action, a reconcilliation
>between the rival clan leaders seeming to be the more remote
>possibility.

The goals of the mission were defined to be the protection of the relief
workers.  Thus the mission will succeed, in the sense that it will achieve,
with few casualties, the goal set out for it.

Did you ever think we were there to do more than that?  Then you can blame
the media, which has been misconstruing the purpose of this intervention
from day one.  I picked up a paper yesterday, and saw the headline
"Disarmament Mission".  The fact is that disarmament is only a minor part of
the mission: only a method of making certain areas more safe, and not an end
in itself.

I think the idea that we can "fix" Somalia is typical liberal hubris.  It is
up to the Somalians to fix their nation, or to let it relapse into tribal
boundaries.  And what if Somalia does disintegrate into a set of small
nations?  Local government need not be particularly bad.  Look how well
centralized government worked for them under Siad Barre.  Little wonder that
they let it crumble.

>I don't think we should remove all arms by force.  This risks shifting
>Somali public opinion against us.  What may happen is an offer of
>food/money for guns.  We'll have to see.

Money for guns?  Hahaha.  They will sell you only their old and useless guns.
Just look at what happened to various money-for-guns programs in the US.
And the Somalians need their guns a lot more than US citizens do.

Food for guns?  The people with guns have not had a problem getting food.

--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
 "Zigzag, n. To move forward uncertainly, from side to side, as one carrying
  the white man's burden." -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
From: choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: WHAT?!?!?!
Date: 1 Jan 1993 16:42:58 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: skorpio.usask.ca

In article <1766500007@igc.apc.org>, Dorothy Morse <dmorse@igc.apc.org> writes:
|> 
|> I berli  believe you just described the fundamental orientatio of  the press
|> in your attempt to refute what I had said.  Pardon my sloppy typing,
|> I'm on an office computer with no erase function.

I find it hard to believe that an office computer doesn't have erase.
Unless you work for the Olympics.

|> There's a lot of stuff that would sell papers, by the way, that doesn't
|> make it because ti would be prej harmful to power--more money to be made
|> by keeoubh keeping quite quiet about it than by ws selling news about it.

What's the secret?

-- 

Henry Choy
choy@cs.usask.ca

  What rolls down stairs alone or in pairs
  Rolls over your neighbor's dog?
  What's great for a snack and fits on your back?
  It's Log, Log, Log!      -- "The Log Song", from Ren & Stimpy

  Math is tough!           -- Barbie
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: Somalia
Date: 30 Dec 1992 05:41:32 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) says:

>>The votes should be weighted according to how much income tax
>>the voter pays.  The way it is now, the have-nots vote to pick
>>the pockets of the haves.  We'll NEVER have peace that way.
>
>By this logic, people like Donald Trump or Michael Jackson have
>thousands of times as many votes as the average schmoe on the street.
>That's not what democracy means.  Nor is it fair.

You don't judge a proposal on its own merits; you judge
by comparing it to what you already have.  What other
peace proposal do you have?

-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Subject: Re: Really about the Gulf (was re: Somalia)
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:36:03 GMT

: >     Or, if you don't
: >     agree with this reasoning, then perhaps we should allow Britain
: >     or Germany to have military bases in the US, right?
: 
:   Well, I have no problem with the Brits or Germans putting a base in.  Good
: for the economy, and all that.  But I'll be hanged if I can see why they'd
: need any here.

Actually, the German air force used an air base in Texas for awhile.
I don't know if they still do.  Better weather than Europe allowed year round
training.  The Germans also trained their armor in Canada.  Large open areas
resembled what they would face in Western U.S.S.R.  Again, I don't know if
they still do this.

Also, one Japanese government official - I think their defense minister - 
seriously proposed stationing the Japanese air force in the U.S. northwest. 
The idea was to get it out of range of Soviet fighters based in Siberia.
From: yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.org.un,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Somalia
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:24:23 GMT
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: cathy.na.cs.yale.edu

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1h5vnrINN9f2@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>>  Thus the mission will succeed, in the sense that it will achieve,
>>with few casualties, the goal set out for it.
>
>No, the mission will fail in the long-term because the relief workers
>may not be sufficiently protected after we leave (depending on UN
>deployments).  If you want success without some sort of disarmament,
>then we may well be there for quite a while.

In other words: the mission will fail after the mission ends.  However the
mission has no goals set beyond the time of its departure, so it could hardly
fail in the sense of trying to accomplish something and not succeeding.

It may fail in the sense of trying to accomplish something and succeeding,
yet falling short of the media's definition of success.  Sort of like the
Gulf War.  It improved the situation, but it did not solve every single
problem in the region.

The situation is so bad in Somalia that it would take immense effort to
rectify, if indeed such a thing is possible.  Providing food may even be a
step in the wrong direction, since it encourages starving farmers to
converge on the cities.  But this, if a flaw, is a flaw of the relief
mission itself rather than of the efforts to protect it.

--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
From: "Gary A. Woodward" <p00140@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: somalia
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:29:50 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

Maybe the Marines can stop by Washington, DC on their way back to disarm 
the citizens and establish a government.


Regards. 


Gary
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: Somalia
Date: 1 Jan 1993 21:24:46 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, kirby@xerox.com (Mike Kirby) says:

>I would be willing to bet that you are for better government, 
>not necessarily less.  

No, I'm for less government, across-the-board.
If you can't drink without getting in trouble, the
answer is to drink less.  The same goes for gambling,
eating, and drugging.  No matter what you're doing,
if you can't do it and stay out of trouble, then the
answer is to cut down on what you're doing.  
The best thing we can do for Somalia, other countries,
and ourselves, is to declare our intention to reduce
the size and scope of government, and start doing it.
The next step is to see if other nations will follow.
If they don't, then they really don't want peace.
-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Xref: sparky alt.current-events.somalia:744 alt.conspiracy:13509