From: lintz@fred.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz)
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:32:42 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.002048.3807@chinet.chi.il.us> pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:

>   I think describing Bush's only success as the Gulf War is incorrect.
>I agree about China and the Japanese "trade" trip, but I think
>his standing up to the Israel lobby and getting the Mid-East
>Peace conference is difficult to ignore.  (Of course, maybe you
>think he screwed up there too). 

Yes, I do think he screwed up there as well, by attaching the loan
guarantees to the settlements in the occupied lands. I agree that
Israel should stop settlements in the occupied lands, however Bush's
move hurt the peace process. The reason is the settlements are a
bargaining chip for Israel, just as the boycott is for the Arab states.
To try to force Israel to stop the settlements makes them go to the peace
talks with nothing to offer and makes peace almost impossible. If Bush
was going to do that, he should have put just as much pressure on the
Arab states to lift the boycott and recognize Israel's right to exist as
a nation.

>  Whether or not you agree with this issue,
>I would hope that you would concede that it takes skilled foreign policy
>to get it to happen.

Absolutely. It was an amazing feat just getting all the parties to sit
down together. I think the was more the results of James Baker than
George Bush. While I don't agree with Baker politically I do think
he has been a very skilled Secretary of State. I would say that Bush's
only good foreign policy move has been picking Baker.  

>  I think the Gulf War is oversimplified in general in this thread.  
>Hindsight is great, but perhaps someone can tell me what they would
>have done instead.  Feel free to start in 1988 and go from there (since
>we are talking about Bush.)  Also, bear in mind that Bush couldn't have
>operated from hindsight as we can now.  

Look, we knew what Saddam Hussein was like. We knew he gassed the Kurds
we knew he was responsible for numerous human rights abuses. Now, we
supported him in the Iran/Iraq war. Fine. But when the war was over,
we should have scaled back the aid and eventually cut it off completely.
But Bush, even as VP, was constantly pushing for more and more aid to
Iraq. And not just humanitarian aid, but weapons and weapon technology.
You don't need hindsight to know not to build up a guy whose dream is
to rule the Gulf. And guess what? Bush is making the same mistake
over again. Assad of Syria, is exactly the same type of person that
Saddam Hussein was. He even belongs the the same political party,
the Baath party. Assad wants to rule the Gulf as well. Syria is responsible
for training terrorists. We know all this, but Bush is backing him, 
because he was on our side in the Gulf War. 10 years down the road,
we'll have to take him out as well.

>  Also, no matter what you think of the Gulf War, I would think that
>you would concede that building an international coalition is tough work.

Hmmm... Well most of the people in the coaltion were already allies,
except Syria. The reason Syria joined was because Assad couldn't
waste a chance to get rid of his main rival and get in good with
the Americans at the same time. 

>Patrick Sugent                       
>
>pat@chinet.chi.il.us		     

Brian Lintz
lintz@udel.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:765 talk.politics.misc:17854