Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:35:08 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: How Iraq was armed

Gary has graciously defended my, um, honor, or something, but what
the hell, I'll take another crack at it too.

>From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

>>>Maybe this time we'll find out why the question is relevant.
>>
>>It's relevant if you want to know the effectiveness of recent
>>foreign policy, or if you care about criminal activity in
>>the Administration.
>
>I'll stipulate that it is no more effective than past US foreign
>policy.  The interesting question is whether it is less effective.

Only if your blinders prevent you from seeing any possible
foreign policy plan other than whatever you mean by "past US
foreign policy."
One interesting question is whether it would be a good idea
to re-install an Administration that armed Saddam Hussein,
whether such an outlook bodes well for the future. My own
feeling is that it does not.

>An emphasis on criminal activity in the administration isn't
>necessarily consistent with an interest in criminal activity in govt.
>If Jamie wants to make the principled argument, he has to take the
>principled stand; "I want to publicize criminal activity by Repubs"
>isn't it.

I will be happy to publicize any and all criminal activity by
government officials that meet the following conditions:
a) I know about them,
b) Others have not yet posted about them,
c) Some list readers are likely not to know about them.

Perhaps Andy would call my stand "unprincipled." Call it whatever
you want, as long as we keep the facts straight.

>BTW - Does the "it's time for a change" argument apply to congress?
>If 12 years of repub administrations is too long, then congress or
>even safe seats are overdue for a similar change.  (Changing all safe
>seats would give congress to the repubs.)  Or, is it "change" is
>"repubs are to be exchanged for demos"?

BTW, the relevance of this paragraph is obscure. Did someone misinform
Andy? Does he think that I have been flying the banner of "It's time
for a change"? Or that I personally want only to see Republicans
removed from office?

>>>US foreign policy for the past few decades has been to pass out guns
>>>to anyone with a uniform, especially if there's oil.  Occasionally we
>>>go in and stomp recipients of said aid when they don't toe the line.
>>>Maybe we should change that policy, but it's not new or secret, or
>>>even all that unpopular among Congresscritters.  Selective carping
>>>that ignores these "unpleasant details" is merely partisan whining.
>>
>>The first sentence is plainly false, and I have to wonder whether
>>Andy actually believes it or whether he is trying to make some
>>subtle point by lying.
>
>False?  Jamie's claiming that we don't arm anyone and everyone?  Well,
>we do try not to arm "commies", sometimes, but that's not much of an
>exception.

Yes, I am claiming that the United States government does NOT
arm everyone and anyone. Is Andy seriously claiming that it does?
If so, would he like an abridged list of those foreign governments
and insurgency movements whom the United States has not armed?

I think "false" is an accurate label for Andy's claim.

>>I also wonder what he has in mind by the second sentence. For example,
>>in exactly which cases have U.S. armed forces "stomped" on
>>recipients of military aid, other than in Iraq?
>
>We don't always use the army; consider how the Shah came to power.
>Still a stomping.  Usually our clients toe the line.  (Our friends in
>Oz have an interesting view of US "stomp".)

I don't follow the example. Is it supposed to be an example
in which the United States armed someone and then stomped
on them?

>>Andy then says that the military aid to Iraq was not secret. But,
>>again, what he says is false. It WAS secret, and it became public
>>only when Rep. Gonzalez got his hands on secret CIA documents.
>
>It's not secret in the sense that anyone with >half a brain is
>not surprised that we gave guns to Iraq.  That's what we do; it
>would be surprising if we hadn't armed Iraq.

Well, the "half a brain" standard may be a bit too high.
For example, Travis wrote just recently:
>And of course we don't want nukes in the hands of the likes of Saddam.

Let's take a poll, shall we? Who believes that the United States
armed Saddam? Sue Clark? If every list reader believes it, I won't
bother mentioning it again.

>"Massacre the kurds" is the regional sport.  Given that history, it is
>difficult to argue that our betrayal "caused" anything; it was merely
>another convenient excuse in an area where they've got plenty of
>excuses and don't care when they run out anyway.

This statement is so silly I would laugh if it wasn't so hideous.
Massacring Kurds is not a regional sport. Saddam Hussein massacres
enemies for a reason (perhaps Andy subscribes to the "madman"
theory of Saddam's activities, but I do not). The resistance by
Kurds and urged by the Bush Administration provided such a reason.

Hmm. Having browsed ahead, I see I will have to say a bit more,
but that will have to be in another post.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU