HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:01:10 CDT

In article <1992Sep29.001623.25517@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>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
Yea, it worked _real_ well with South Africa, no?  Just look at how fast
they leaped to toe the line.  And Iraq had oil, noone wants that...

Don't try and compare the revolutionary war to the Gulf War.  There is
a very major fundamental difference: Iraq was the aggressor.  They invaded
Kuwait.  The US intervened to stop this invasion.  For a better comparison,
try Hitler = Hussein, Gulf War vs. WWII.  The point on the tactics is,
they worked, and they minimized Allied casualties.  Any claims that 
we should not have done it, are arguing that we should have killed Allied
soldiers.  Okay, you can go to the hundreds of families and explain to
them why a certain soldier won't be coming home, because you were more
worried about using conventional strategies than minimizing casualties.
Why in some military groups, that idea could lose you your command, if
not all.  A commander with that attitude _should_ be relieved of command.

					Markk>
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,news.admin
Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore Misusing Federal Computer Network Resources
Date: 27 Sep 92 16:52:36 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

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.

1. What makes you think they aren't on the net already?

2. What do you mean "THE country"?


mathew
-- 
Bush/Quayle in '92!
God Bless America!
God Bless Family Values!
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm,alt.politics.clinton
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 02:56:41 GMT

dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin) writes:

>Ah, but we put those same American lives in danger to begin with. We should
>never have been over there. I agree that, in wartime, anything goes (including
>chemical & nuclear warfare, petroleum spills, burning of crops and shelter,
>and so forth);

I disagree with the concept of "anything goes". There are set rules for
combat and treatment of POWs, etc.

>I disagree that we had any business going over there, or that
>war was necessary at all. I was always taught that part of the conceptual
>image of America was that the military was there to DEFEND our nation, not
>participate in combat on foreign soil,

Sometimes it is in the best interest of America to take a position off
our soil to prevent a situation from occuring which will potentially
affect our position at a later time.

>much less initiate the hostilities.

You might want to tell the Kuwaitiis that it was really the US that
initiated the hostilities.

>American lives were not in danger until there were Americans
>over there fighting. It's funny how calmly some people will face such things
>as burial alive of "the enemy" -- if they had done the same to even ONE of
>our soldiers you would be screaming for the nukes to turn Iraq into a glass
>parking lot.

Of course. The loss of one American life is too many if we have the
means to prevent said life from being lost.

This is not to imply, however, that we shouldn't be there. Simply use all
acceptable means at our disposal within the rules of war to save American
lives and fulfill our objective.

>Look at how people reacted to the petroleum spills and
>the threat of chemical warfare. The spill was a good tactical move to prevent
>attack from the sea, and the *threat* of chemical warfare in the Scuds was
>a move to ensure that their enemy (the allied forces) did whatever was needed
>to prevent the Scuds from reaching their target.

Of course, when Exxon spilled millions of gallons of crude oil in Alaska,
you were equally sympathatic, right?


MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Date: 3 Oct 1992 07:37:49 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a post here Patrick Chester tries to justify placing a higher
value on American lives than those of other countries because it is
a normal human response to feel more grief for the death of a loved
one than a stranger. (This point, at least, is true). Sorry, it just 
doesn't cut it. Many Americans are strangers to me just as surely as
the Iraquis slaughtered in Desert Storm. On the other hand, nation of
immigrants that this is, many U.S. citizens of Iraqui extraction may well
have had kin in the Iraqui Army. 

Under Patrick's system of ethics, if I walk down a street in a poor part of
town, looking like I have money, is a mugger justified in taking my money,
assuming that his motive is not, as in most cases, to get drug money, but
in this case to provide necessities for his family?

The whole history of Civilization and the great ethical religions is, among
other things, the history of moving away from the particular emotionally
based loyalty toward "MY family, MY tribe, MY nation, etc. and toward the
realization that emotional bonds notwithstanding, people who I have not met
and may never meet are just as valuable as those toward whom I have personal
feelings.

Patrick's system of ethics would ultimately reduce us to the primitive state
in which strangers are automatically objects of fear and suspicion, and where
the only safe rule of conduct toward a stranger is "Do before you get done to."

However after 12 years of nonstop propaganda extolling the social value of
greed, I suppose I should not be surprised to find somebody who thinks like
this.
-Steve
From: cberlet@igc.apc.org (NLG Civil Liberties Committee)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: NLNS: CHRISTIAN IDENTITY (UPDATED V
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:09:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:9209301854.AA02095@igc.apc.org:-935955585:cdp:1296500391:000:1069
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!cberlet    Oct  1 19:09:00 1992



There are scores of thoughtful and devestating critiques of the Federal 
Reserve and its questionable policies. The views of Bo Gritz about the
Fed are drawn from a long-list of far-right attacks on the Fed that for
the most part track back to a conspiracy of Jewish-controlled bankers
held on Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia.
  You may choose to believe Gritz, a person even Soldier of Fortune
magazine in its September issue called a huckster. You may choose
to believe Gritz, who has written that super market bar codes are part
of a satanic plot. You may choose to believe Gritz, who has accepted
the nomination of the fascist Populist Party. Or you can get off your
ass and go to a library and spend a few hours reading the many books
on the Federal Reserve, paranoid right-wing conspiracy theories, and
fascist rhetoric.
  Gritz is a hero to the same people who thought Franco, Hitler and
Il Dulce were terific leaders. Congratulations for proving this
level of naive foolishness infects some leftists, just like it did
in the 20's and 30's.
-Chip Berlet
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:55:37 GMT
Subject: Re: LEONARD PELTIER's Life is in Danger
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.activism

In alt.activism, jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo) writes:

> the authorities have placed in Leonard Peltier's cell a homicidal 
> prisoner who has already murdered his past cellmate. 

This distresses me greatly. I think Leonard should be freed, yet he is being
persecuted by our governemnt. For you kind readers who aren't aware of
Leonard Peltier's story, he is a native American whose friends were attacked 
by federal agents on their reservation. They shot back and killed the federal
agaents. Leonard knows who shot the agents and won't tell, because (and I 
empathize) the agents were attacking his nation. He seems to be a man of 
integrity, unwilling to betray his friends. 60 Minutes had a good segment
on him. The prejudice and discrimination levied against Leonard remind me
of the genocide that has decimated other native Amercian nations. It is a 
shame.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:16910 alt.conspiracy:10859
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Weaver
Date: 29 Sep 92 09:53:55 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1296500377@igc.apc.org>, NLG Civil Liberties Committee <cberlet@igc.apc.org> writes:
[text deleted; see thread]



> been for nearly eight years. This is not the first fatal shoot-out. Weaver
> and others in the Christian Identity movement such as Bo Gritz, believe
> the federal government is controlled by Jewish banking interests in concert
> with a massive conspiracy of secret elites. Some, like Weaver, armed themselv

[text deleted]

	Bo Gritz is a Mormon.

> It's easy to be confused when so many people are lying.

	It certainly is.

> -Chip Berlet
> co-editor, Police Misconduct and Civil Rights Law Report
>
	For someone who has a fiduciary interest in finding fascists
under the bed and who claims to be a professional 'researcher', you
sure play fast and easy with the facts.

	I've been involved in research in times past, scientific and
otherwise, and suggest that you are using the term rather loosely.
To me, what you post is propaganda.  It might even at times be accurate
propaganda but one can't evaluate that on the lack of evidence.  Guilt
by association is often substituted for fact.  So far you come across
as a shill for a new American fascism that would scapegoat patriotic
Christians.
From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore Misusing Federal Computer Network Resources
Date: 28 Sep 1992 05:40:27 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a post here Michael Denignan asks why we don't just let all 
political organizations on the Internet. I know of nothing in the
NSF acceptable use policy which would prevent this, and if there
is such a clause, it should be removed. May I infer from the
sarcasm in Michael's tone that he would in fact be against this?

Do tell us why the last uncensored mass medium in existence should
be closed to political activity, if in fact you believe this.

-Steve
Xref: sparky alt.activism:16889 alt.desert-storm:1806
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor )
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: Another Cover-Up?
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:42:15 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com
Followup-To: alt.activism

In article <01GPCRMFHKPOG9L8C5@UMAECS> VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu writes:
> According to May 92 report of Green Peace, there were more than 200,000 
> deaths (directly or indirectly).  Around 120,000 Iraqi soldiers died in
> the 43 day war. Half of the above was killed in the 100 hour ground war.

By almost any account that's a grossly inflated estimate.  I believe the  
British estimate was on the order of 30,000 combatant deaths. Most  
independent estimates are in the 20-50K range. Swartzkopf tossed out a  
number of 100,000, but that was probably just a number to get people off  
his back on the "body count" issue.  The 100,000 figure is also not borne  
out by observers in postwar Iraq.  100,000 men killed would have caused  
far more societal impact.

Iraqi army deaths were low for a number of reasons, including widespread  
desertions and a certain eagerness to surrender on the part of the Iraqis.   
The US campaign centered on destroying the major combat assests of the  
Iraqi army, including tanks, artillery, APCs, etc.  Without the hardware  
the Iraqis were helpless in open terrain, but destroying the hardware was  
also caused (relatively) low casualties compared to many historical  
campaigns.

Civilan deaths are an open issue.  Should the Iraqi army's crushing of the  
postwar revolts be counted as part of the gulf war?  How about the Iraqis  
refusal to cooperate with the UN, which forces the embargo to continue?   
In any event, if GP inflated the combat deaths, I suspect that they  
inflated the civilian deaths too.

> Destruction  of hospitals  
> and waste treatment facilities etc  were the main cause of the indirect
> effect of war in Iraq.

Hospitals and waste treatment plants were not targeted.  Their failure was  
the indirect result of other infrastructre attacks on electric power  
generating facilities. 

--
Don McGregor|"Government isn't a philosophical concept,it's a utility, a
drm@esl.com |service industry-a way to get roads built and Iraqis killed."
Xref: sparky alt.activism:16919 news.admin:7838
From: rsnyder@atl.ge.com (Bob Snyder)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,news.admin
Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore Misusing Federal Computer Network Resources
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:46:43 GMT
Organization: GE Aerospace, Advanced Technology Labs

In article <1992Sep28.221929.6846@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

>No, but here in the US, passing their traffic over NSFnet is a violation
>of the Acceptable Use agreement. Political campaigning is not an 
>acceptable use.

So don't pass their traffic over NSFnet.  Usenet != Internet != NSFnet.

Bob
-- 
Bob Snyder, Computing Services, GE Aerospace, Advanced Technology Labs
rsnyder@atl.ge.com, (609) 866-6672, FAX: (609) 866-6397, DialComm 8*777-6672
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: NLNS: ANTI-RACIST SKINHEADS
Date: 5 Oct 92 11:42:54 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1amf4jINNorq@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes:
> 
> Did anybody here READ this??? What is being described here, with apparent
> approval, is the custom of beating people up for expressing racist
> opinions. Sure racism is wrong, and people who express racist opinions
> are fools, at best. But if we say it's O.K. to beat people up over it
> then how can we squawk if some other ideological gang wants to beat US up 
> our deviant views. Once ideological street violence becomes an accepted
> custom, the first amendment might as well be toilet paper.
> 
> -Steve

Steve, I read it with the same sense of shock you express so well.

Joe Gaut
From: an683@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dean C. Gelston)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Alcohol advertisments
Date: 3 Oct 1992 06:41:57 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cleveland.Freenet.Edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu



.	Should alcohol manufactures put warning labels in their advertisements?

This is an important question that needs addressing.

	Before I start to criticize the manufactures themselves,
I would like to point out a few good things about their advertisements. 
It is important that they are  playing commercials asking people that
 have been drinking to be responsible and not to drive.

	Now, it could be that they are doing this in order 
to avoid a possible law suite, So, should it be mandatory 
for the manufactures of low level alcohol products to put 
warning labels in their commercials. After all they are 
getting to the children at a very early age. Over glamorizing the
 use of the products by using sexy men and women, nice cars,
 popular music, and ex professional sports stars. 

	Furthermore, should these companies sponsor rehabilitation clinics 
for alcoholics for anyone who may need help with their alcohol consumption, 
and to have continuing commercials that at least make recommendations for 
good rehabilitation clinics to the general public. If the young children can 
see what alcohol abuse does to a life and the problems it can cause they 
may reconsider having that drink with their peers, especially if that 
message is coming from the manufacturer themselves. It is very important
that the manufactures help use in the need to educate on what alcohol 
abuse can do to young lives even though those young lives my not be the 
ones consuming the alcohol. How it can effect the society, employers 
and the employees of companies that have alcoholics at work in our 
schools, and finally at the very place that our children can not 
just walk away it, in the homes in which they live.

	Our government and not for profit organizations can not fight
 this problem alone, and we need the support of the manufactures 
themselves who can afford to produce support commercials for alcoholics 
and recovering alcoholics as well.

	Of course the manufactures do not wish to do anything that would
 could jeopardize the sales of their products, so they will continue to 
over glamorize the use of alcohol and continue to ignore the real dangers 
that their advertise-ments do to adults the general public and a complete 
lack of consideration to the children who are defenseless.
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: Plutonium Shipments around RSA
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:12:14 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:

>In article <1992Sep24.132951.202902@uctvax.uct.ac.za> vhspet01@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Peter van Heusden) writes:
>>As far as I know, as a South African, I'll probably still get the 'priveledge'
>>of seeing shipments of plutonium oxide (I think it was that) go around the 
>>Cape from France to Japan, once a month for the next 20 years, or something.
>>Does anyone have info on the status of the shipments, details about what is
>>being done to stop them, or something suchlike? I do not feel like ending up
>>with a glow in the dark skin, but so far I am not sure who are the people who
>>are acting against this madness.

>Mind telling us what's mad about it?

Yeah, mind telling Michael what's mad about it ?	(-:

-- richard

-- 
=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:39:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.001623.25517@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com  
(Richard Childers) writes:
> 
> 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. )

Oh really? Where were you when they were predicting that we would take tens of  
thousands of casualties to defeat the battle hardened vetrans of the Iran/Iraq  
war.  Those predictions were comming from both the left and right.

> 
> Did we really _need_ to bury _anyone_ ?
> 

Did they need to Invade in the first place? Did they need to stand and fight?  
They had real guns and real bullets.  Ask someone who knows what trench warfare  
is like and then ask the question.

--
Barry Wise
Xref: sparky alt.activism:17144 alt.politics.clinton:8381
From: gdsimpso@unix.amherst.edu (GILBERTO DANIEL SIMPSON)
Subject: Latino E-Mailing List
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 02:13:20 GMT
From: awair@igc.apc.org (Arab World and Islamic Resources)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Talk by Professor from Birzeit Univ
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:10:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1296500395:000:510
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!awair    Oct  2 13:10:00 1992


From: Arab World and Islamic Resources <awair>
Subject: Talk by Professor from Birzeit Univ., Palestine

PALESTINE & ISRAEL IN THE NEW WORLD ORDER

Talk by DR. AZMI BISHARA
Professor of Philosophy, political analyst, and author.
Birzeit University, Palestine

Wednesday, October 7, 1992
7:30 pm

La Pena Cultural Center
3105 Shattuck Ave.
Berkeley, CA

Sliding scale: $5 - 10

Sponsored by The Palestine Aid Society of America/SF Bay Area Chapter

For information please call: (415) 340-8978 or (415) 390-0949
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:46:28 GMT

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

Simon

Xref: sparky alt.activism:17079 alt.desert-storm:1859 alt.politics.clinton:8229
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Date: 2 Oct 92 10:20:48 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Oct2.020442.1944@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
%
%Those "human beings" massacred civilians in Kuwait.  The invasion was
%unprovoked.  When I read about what the Iraqi troops were doing to the
%civilian population, my sympathies wore thin quickly.
%
%You know, we could have used nuclear weapons--the 42 day war would have
%been a 30-minute war, and the Iraqis killed wouldn't have suffered-1 million
%degree heat does that.  But our policy wouldn't have allowed that--it's amazing
%the things our technology with allow us to do that our policy prohibits us
%from carrying out.
%Simon
We've used nuclear weapons twice before. We did it to end a war but the world
has condemned us since it happened because of the horrible effects of those
weapons. The Gulf War was winnable without using nukes anyway. Sometimes a
policy prevents use of certain technologies for good reasons. In this case, 
a policy of not using nukes on Iraq was a good idea. An example of a bad policy
limiting use of certain technologies is NASA's monopoly on spaceflight.
Amazing, isn't it?

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.activism:16807 alt.desert-storm:1789 alt.politics.clinton:7353