HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Tactics Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:43:39 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering

A lot of people have talked about the "bulldozing tanks" strategy lately,
and how moral it is.  While some people have claimed that war has no
morals, they go on right to say that we had no business over in Iraq.

No Morals?  If war has no morals, then why are their Geneva conventions?
Why do we react so strongly against the threat of certain weapons?  A more
accurate statement would be that war has very _few_ morals.  One of the
only morals that still exists is the treatment of POWs.  They aren't
fighting you anymore, so why be crueler than needed?  They are still people
regardless of the side they used to be fighting for.  They aren't fighting
any more.  The tactics used in actual warfare are fair, (all's fair in love
and war), but in war related activities, there are morals (POW treatment).

No business?  Who was going to stop Hussein?  For a good example of how long
sanctions would take to get anything done, look at South Africa.  The sanctions
were broken routinely by companies that wanted a profit, or countries that
didn't really care.  We knew that Jordan was breaking the sanctions on
Iraq by providing a route for supplies.  Like it or not, the US has become
the worlds policeman.  Reason?  We have the worlds largest Navy, and have
one of the worlds largest Armies. (North Korea, China, and ex-USSR are all
right up there.  How much help can you expect from them?)  The entire
idea behind the carrier task force is to project US power anywhere in the
world.  We are one of two (three now? or has China taken delivery of the
Varyag to bring it to 4?) countries with a full aviation carrier.  Compare
US carrier force with French: weak carrier aircraft, very few aircraft.
Who else can exert influence?  Or would you rather see Iraq freely take
Kuwait and absorb it?  Nevermind the thousands of people who would be
forced to live in fear, simply because their country didn't have a strong
enough military to fight off Iraq.  And where would Iraq have gone after that?
Surely you don't think that Iraq was going to stop?  Comparison: Hussein=
Hitler.  See a familiar pattern?  That is one of the reasons that the US
had to step in quickly.  I agree that more diplomatic work should have been
done to discourage the invasion of Kuwait in the first place but, once we
committed ground troops in November, both sides were committed to war.
Would you rather seen Hussein taken say Kuwait, then maybe chunks of other
countries as he continued to expand?  Or maybe he would capture whole countries.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:16805 news.admin:7772
From: lear@yeager.corp.sgi.com (Eliot Lear)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,news.admin
Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore Misusing Federal Computer Network Resources
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:56:03 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In <1992Sep28.110549.15228@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

>Ah, so they believe the ends justifies the means? They'll do whatever
>it takes, laws and existing regulations be damned.

Spare me.  They have just as much right to blather on the net as we
do.

>Interesting concept. Perhaps we should just allow every political
>organization in the country on the Internet, "for the good of the
>people" naturally.

And just who shall we elect to decide which printing presses are to
be closed down for `political' activities?
--
Eliot Lear
[lear@sgi.com]
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.atheism,alt.censorship,soc.college,talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: High costs of college education
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:21:14 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct2.154222.25212@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> tgpt_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tom Guptill) writes:
>In <BvHvp0.Kn0@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>  But note that this is nearly the same as demonstrating FOR more
>>  tax funding for higher education.    I hope the students who are
>>  doing this have done the numbers and have some specific suggestions
>>  about how this should be paid for.
>
>
>	Perhaps that's exactly the point:  education--at least through 4
>years of college--should be publicly financed, IMHO.  This seems to be the
>only way of insuring that all students, no matter what their economic
>background may be, have an equal chance to get an education.  


   WHAT's the point?  If "that's exactly the point" then why didn't
   you try addressing that exact point?!  

   Or do you consider "public financing" to be an answer to the
   question "how should this be paid for?"   Do you think the 
   "public" has some special money tree farms somewhere and the 
   bills are just plucked off the branches by convict labor or
   something?   

   "Public financing" is not an answer, it's just another set
   of questions, like:  what other programs should we cut to 
   pay for this, or should we raise taxes, and if so, then whose
   taxes, and which taxes?   Et cetera.    My wife graduated
   from the U. of R. and she always told me it was good school
   with smart people . . . I'm gonna have to tell her about this
   one, maybe she should have a word with the alumni association.


---peter

   
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm,alt.politics.clinton
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 03:13:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.201347.5778@cas.org> sdr57@cas.org writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.200750.23511@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> bobh@troy.uucp (22131-hettmansperger) writes:
>>In article <Bv57CD.DzK@mail.boi.hp.com> rdetweil@boi.hp.com (Richard Detweiler) writes:
>>>anouther's agression.  In this vain, I throw my lot with the previous
>>>posters - war is indeed hell and if you must fight it can't be halfway.
>>>Any agressor or agressor's apologist who denounces the cruelty or
>>>unfairness of an enemy's tactics doesn't get any sympathy here - "Welcome
>>>to the working week!".  If some Iraqis were buried alive in the heat
>>>of combat, they can thank Mr. Hussein for that.  The allies were only
>>>doing what anyone at war is attempting to do.  Win.  And hopefully with
>>>the fewest number of casualties to your own troops.  The enemy cannot be
>>>a concern.

I hate to mention this, but whether a soldier is killed by being buried
alive or shot, he is still dead. Arguing the morality of the different
techniques begs the real issues related to warfare.
 

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Xref: sparky alt.activism:16856 news.admin:7811
From: lear@yeager.corp.sgi.com (Eliot Lear)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,news.admin
Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore Misusing Federal Computer Network Resources
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:49:16 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In <1992Sep28.021820.9274@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

>Oh, so my company has the right to blather commercial information across the
>net too?

Mine does.

>"Free Speech" does not mean government-sponsored printing presses.

The government doesn't sponsor my printing press.  When you get UUCP
or IP service from a commercial provider, they shouldn't be asking you
what your bits will contain.  As time marches on, most commercial
sites are moving to non-subsidized networks.  As NREN is implemented,
all usage restrictions should evaporate.
--
Eliot Lear
[lear@sgi.com]
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Why The Statue of General Albert Pike Must be Destroyed
Date: 27 Sep 92 16:42:54 GMT
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

article <19ee6mINNck8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes:


[lengthy text deleted]


I found the mention of Warburg in this article of interest.  I understand
Warburg was in on the founding of the Federal Reserve and served as its
first director.  Also that he advanced 18 million dollars to Lenin to help
the Bolshevik revolution.  But what I really find intriguing is
that his brother had achieved similar stature in government under Germany's
Kaiser Wilhelm.  I've read that he was chief of the Kaiser's secret
police but I've seen his name connected with another position as well.
Perhaps someone out there could clarify exactly what position he held.

At any rate they were both in Paris at the signing of the treaty 
ending World War I, representing opposing governments.  It seems strange
that both governments would have afforded them such positions of
responsibility considering their own close relationship.

Can anyone suggest any well documented texts that might accurately
elaborate on this interesting pair?
Xref: sparky alt.activism:16859 alt.desert-storm:1800 alt.politics.clinton:7589
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm,alt.politics.clinton
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:16:23 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

dworden@cwis.unomaha.edu (David Paul Worden) writes:

>all of the allied forces that fought in it.  I am not a war monger, but I am
>very patriotic.  Love it or leave it; I am an citizen of the United States of 
>America and I would rather see a proclaimed enemy, in a war situation, die 

	( sounds of human being gagging on their own jingoism here )

>than a fellow citizen of my own country.  Everyone is entitled to their own
>opinion; but let's not forget our own war for independence.  I don't hear any-
>one complaining about how our own militia waited in the bushes for the British
>"Redcoats" to pass by in their columns and were ambushed by our militia.  That
>was an unorthodox way of fighting but we won didn't we.  

Just one small problem.

During the Revolutionary War, we were the _underdog_.

During the Iraq War, we were the _overdogs_. The bullies. The better-equipped.
( No thanks to the bastions of the CIA who armed their buddies well. )

Did we really _need_ to bury _anyone_ ?

I suspect that we could have waited them out, no ?

-- richard

-- 
=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore Misusing Federal Computer Network Resources
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 19:19:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.110549.15228@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>Interesting concept. Perhaps we should just allow every political
>organization in the country on the Internet, "for the good of the
>people" naturally. Including, naturally, groups like the NRA, Operation
>Rescue, and a whole slew of other groups. Hell, even Earth First could
>get on the 'net so they can plot tree-spiking.

Excuse me?

What they are doing (according the excerpts in the article you followed up
to and crossposted to news.admin, where I read it) is *no* different from
what thousands of companies which have email addresses on 'the net' do:
they are allowing people to get information, and are allowing people to send
them questions and comments.

And there is no prohibition, as far as I know, against using the NSFnet for
political gain, just commercial uses (although that's debatable, since it's
supposed to be to aid research, so one could make a case...).

Any of the groups you mention could get on 'the net'; it's not that
difficult, and only expensive if they want to be on the Internet, as opposed
to the larger 'the net' as a whole.

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "You can't get lost in one room, no matter how
sef@kithrup.COM  |  little effort you make to learn your way around."
-----------------+    -- William E Davidsen (william@crd.GE.COM)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm,alt.politics.clinton
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:21:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.174628.18196@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>Bush wasn't even in office when alot of the US help went to Iraq.
>
>I'm not saying it was a good thng, but think about what was going on
>during the 80's--Hussien or the Ayatollah(sp)--it would have been great
>to not deal with either one of them but it was the lesser of two evils


Ahhh excuse me there Simon but the US didn't chose between the lesser of
two evils. Instead we chose to deal with both of them. The US, along with
about a half dozen other countries, were supplying arms to BOTH sides during
the Iran-Iraqi war right up intil Kuwait was taken. The mentality at the time
was:Both countries are lead by fanaticly jerks, so if we give them both
enough weapons maybe they'll kill each other off so we won't have to deal
with them ourselves. 
Maybe you lived a different history. Once again let me urge you to find the 
library that's on your campus and find out what really happened while you were 
snoozing a few years back.

Stan Knight
|"He who controls the history controls the future."|
|		--George Orwell--                  |
                      (1984)
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Date: 2 Oct 92 10:13:42 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1a3j71INNocu@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes:
%
%In a post here some a**hole writes:
%
%"Even the loss of one American life is too many if we have the means 
%to prevent that  life being lost" (Quote approximate).
%
%Would this individual care to explain to us by what system of ethics
%or values he places "AMerican" lives on some different plane than
%those of other nationalities. Inquiring minds want to know. Strong
%stomachs can expect to read the response without vomiting.
%-Steve
Well Steve, it comes from very selfish motives of course. Most people find 
losing a friend or loved one to be more painful than hearing about a foreigner
dying. The thought of Americans dying usually gets a bad reaction from certain
groups of people in this country because they might know one of the people
who died. This is reprehensible, of course. To hold the lives of friends and
family as well as fellow citizens at a higher value than a total stranger is
selfishness. Until we can accept the deaths of loved ones in order to save the
lives of complete strangers we will not have a good ethics system. I will turn
my sarcasm off to give you a summary:

American lives are more valuable because not only are they fellow citizens
they are friends and family (if you are an American citizen, of course.)
Losing a friend or family member hurts more than a stranger's death because
we are more attached to friends and family. Therefore, to prevent feeling the
pain of loss we hold friends and family to a higher value than anyone else and
will do anything to protect their lives--even kill strangers trying to hurt
them. The impact of Americans dying hits closer to home because we can see 
the dead's friends and family grieve easier than ones halfway across the 
globe. Therefore to avoid witnessing that pain we hold American lives to a 
higher value and do what we can to protect their lives. If the State Department
lets us, of course.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Chester            |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Politically Incorrect      |"The meek shall inherit the earth. The rest of us
Future Lunar Colonist      |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.atheism,alt.censorship,soc.college,talk.politics.misc
From: fsmgs@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Michael Schmahl [Black-Robe Mage])
Subject: High costs of college education
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:28:19 GMT

>From the University of Alaska, Fairbanks Campus



Please Read This



        We are asking you to participate in a nationwide peaceful
demonstration against the high costs of college education.  Last
spring, over 5,000 students at the University of Alaska campuses
of Fairbanks, Anchorage, Kotzebue, Barrow, and Juneau
participated in a 60's style statewide peaceful demonstration
that had the support of local businesses, citizens, faculty and
administration.  We had local and statewide media coverage, and the
event was picked up by the Associated Press.

        We are now suggesting a nationwide peaceful protest against the
increasingly higher costs of college, the shrinking services,
dwindling faculty and overcrowded classrooms.  We ask the
students and faculty of your university to participate by
handing out bright green yarn or ribbon to be worn as armbands.
We encourage your campus to hold a protest on any day (of your
choice) during the second week of October, 1992.  You will be
joined by colleges across the nation in this exercise to
increase public awareness and cause the political candidates to
listen to our united voices.  Please inform your local media,
newspaper, TV and radio of your protest and reasons for it.
Please fax or send this letter to as many other college campus
radio stations, students, and newspapers as you can, as soon as possible.
Good luck and God bless.



                        Signed,

                        The Consolidated Students of the University of Alaska





Contacts: Miles Cobbett Box 902751 UAF Fairbanks AK  99775

          Kimberly Hope  Phone: (907) 474-7786;  FAX: (907) 474-5157

          Charles R. James: Internet FSCRJ@ACAD3.ALASKA.EDU

Pass this around to as many people as you can. The more people know of this
situation, hopefully, the more we can get done about it.

Xref: sparky alt.activism:16930 alt.desert-storm:1813 alt.politics.clinton:7808
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm,alt.politics.clinton
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:04:12 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>Did we really _need_ to bury _anyone_ ?
>>
>>I suspect that we could have waited them out, no ?

>Richard, maybe you weren't reading the papers when this all happened.

Maybe I didn't swallow what I was given to consume.

>Mind explaining why bombing would have been any more humane than the
>attack that we did launch?

What gives you the idea that it is ?

>Or are you suggesting that we should have stopped shooting at them
>altogether?  In that case they could have sat there for the next year.

Where would they go ?

-- richard

-- 
=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
From: bg055@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stewart Rowe)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: You gotta know who your friends are
Date: 1 Oct 1992 01:47:06 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


 ivler@mdcbbs.com (J.M. Ivler    ivler@mdcbbs.com)
quotes an interview with Perot:
 
Q: What about Clinton and the draft and Bush and Iran-Contra.
 
A: What we have is a decision made by an 18 year old boy some time ago, which 
shouldn't matter and the decisions made by a mature adult, a sitting 
Vice-President, the man in charge of counter-terrorism, which is a quastion 
that should be answered. But in neither instance is this important as an issue 
in the election of the President.
 
So perot thinks that possible complicity in an attempt to subvert the
law and the Constitution is not an important issue?
 
 -Stewart Rowe usr2210a@tso.uc.edu  srowe@igc.org
Xref: sparky alt.activism:17092 alt.desert-storm:1864 alt.politics.clinton:8269
From: mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Date: 3 Oct 92 00:15:06 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept.

In article <1992Oct2.174421.9745@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>I was refering more to Bush's decision to go to war in August.  This
>was against Powell's advice [Bob Woodward, _The Commanders_].  I'm
>also unhappy with the lack of real public debate over the war.  By the
>time Congress voted, the issue was almost fait accompli, with 500K
>troops in the region.

First of all, Powell is a military advisor only.  (Though at that level
the distinction begins to blur). The president determines the goals the
military is to meet.  Second, I don't think that Powell DID urge
that the sanctions alone continue.  He presented a case for that, but
did not personally commit to it.  According to Woodward, he would have
if one other advisor had spoken up; none did, so he did not personally
recommend it.  That's not very principled behavior for a military
advisor.  Third, the Congress did have oversight of the deployment
of troops.  I believe they were required to vote a number of times
to either support or reel in Bush in connection with the War Powers
formalities.  Finally, "no real public debate over the war?" It
was all there was in the papers, fer cryin' out loud!  Streets were
full of demonstrators, and copious coverage was given to the anti-war
position.


>And I won't mention the misinformation campaign
>by both the Administration and the Kuwaiti government

Public debate is rarely a pretty thing.  It's unrealistic to expect
it to be conducted on an olympian level; like anything else
a democracy argues about, it's full of silly arguments.  That
the anti-war people were unable to carry the day in spite of an
emotionaly charged issue says something about the strength of their
case.  (Were people dumping oil and blood on the capitol steps
conducting the debate on a "rational" basis?)

All in all, I'd say the administration had a cogent argument: 
the dangers of Saddam with X% of the world's oil reserves,
the income stream that derives from that, a military that 
overshadowed the rest of the region, and a budding nuclear
capability.  Particulars of Iraqi abuses, such as the incubator
flap, may have been wrong, but the overall impression was correct:
the Iraqis were killing and torturing Kuwatis.

-- 
Don McGregor             | "I..I blame society.  Society made me  
mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu|  what I am."
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"? Intrnat'l response wanted!
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:42:31 GMT

liam@alehaus.uucp (liam) writes:
: wendt@CS.ColoState.EDU (alan l wendt) writes:
: > 
: > Did you hear about the human cannonball that applied for a job to the
: > circus?  They told him they didn't have an opening for a man of his caliber.

Yeah. They heard that he was fired from his last job for not being a 
net asset to his employer.

Bill