From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Foreign policy musings
Organization: The World
	<Bt6Dw1.9CF@world.std.com> <2796988236@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com>
	<BZS.92Aug18195036@ussr.std.com>
	<JTURNER.92Aug21202104@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<BZS.92Aug21234633@ussr.std.c
	<JTURNER.92Aug23093602@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 03:34:19 GMT


From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) [responing to me]
>> If this is true then why didn't Hussein pull out when we told him to?
>> You keep arguing yourself into corners.
>
>	Because he didn't want to.  There's a difference between
>accepting an invitation and following an order from someone lacking
>in authority.

So then why do you think "diplomacy" (I keep wondering what you mean
by that word) would have worked? Or wasn't tried?

I still don't accept your notion of the US "inviting" Hussein to
invade Kuwait.

At best you've jumped from metaphor to a literal use of the word, and
even at that this "invite" seemed to consist of nothing more than
leading him to believe the US wouldn't retaliate. Hardly an
invitation.

>> I don't see your reasoning why you think it makes us wrong in the end,
>> is this supposed to be accepted on faith? Because you said so?
>> We gave Hussein six months to pull out, do you believe there were no
>> diplomatic efforts (not just by the US, by countries Hussein would
>> feel more comfortable with, Qaddaffi warned him to withdraw for
>> example tho I have no idea what Hussein really thinks of Qaddaffi.)
>
>	Ah, you take the position that diplomacy is anything a
>diplomat does.  Issue orders, make toast, have sex, etc.,.

I take no such position, you're the one who uses the word without
definition, yet leading one to believe your definition is peculiar at
best.

>"WE" told Hussein to leave, Qaddafi TOLD Hussein to leave, that's
>diplomacy.  No discussion, no room for difference of view point.

At least as much as Hussein gave Kuwait, more actually.

Diplomacy is not always negotiation or compromise. It's often just a
matter of calling the other guy and warning ``pull that crap and off
with your head''.

Sorry if you don't like the way the world is put together, nothing I
can do about it. But redefining to suit your whimsy won't make it so.

>Diplomacy is not doing what the US says
>because they have the might and say their right.

It sure as hell is.

You need another word, diplomacy is not what you're talking about.

At least not international diplomacy as actually practiced. You seem
to be confused by the metaphorical use of ``be diplomatic'' in the
English language. That also covers, as the expression goes, saying
"nice doggy" while reaching for a stick.

And covering your silly ideas in lies is not helping you either: It
was hardly just the US who pointed out to Hussein that he would be
better off if he withdrew.

I realize you hold dear the view that everyone else in the world is
nothing but a bunch of gutless US sycophants. I happen to have more
respect for other nations.

>> The Saudis and the Egyptians were obviously displeased with the
>> situation and expressed that. Etc. It's hard to think of a country who
>> might have advised Hussein that staying put was a good idea in the
>> face of the resistance he had six months to assess.
>
>	Of course the Saudis were displeased, they are no more
>legitimate rulers than the Kuwaiti royals.  The Egyptians only
>get several billion dollars a year from Uncle Sam.

Ah there ya go with yer white man's burden, ``Dems lil brown brudders
ain't got da CIVILIZATION to resist the white man, stop busting on
dere woolly lil heads and realiz' deys too dumb and poor to have moral
fortitude''

If the Egyptians were displeased with the position they were asked to
take viz the Kuwaiti invasion I am sure they would have made that fact
known, several billions or no.

And the same can be said for Syria.

I realize you have no respect for any of those countries.

As counter-examples: India, who preferred to remain neutral and Spain
who mostly stayed out of it, and pretty much the same with Jordan.

>The USSR 
>did not object to blatant imperialism because they were trying to
>get loans/aid and World Bank membership.

...and just had no leverage whatsoever, you live in such a comic book
world, it must be quite frightening in there.

>How could Hussein be
>so insolent as to not do what the US wanted, how the US wanted
>after the US told him to do it.

It was the UN, not the US.

Funny how a few years ago the truism was that the UN universally
resisted the US via the third-world voting bloc. Now all of a sudden
the US has a ring through all their noses.

What changed? Not much.

Everyone saw Hussein was wrong, that's all.

>> Who was supposed to get through to Hussein?
>
>	I don't know.  I don't know how to get through to Bush.

So much for diplomacy.

>> Has it occurred to you that it's just possible he is a murderous
>> bastard and didn't care? I mean, it sure fits the facts.
>
>	Has it occurred to you that the US has so much blood on
>its hands that:  1. it has no moral authority to police the
>world.  2.  Hussein looks like Mother Theresa in comparison.

I don't accept nihilistic moral relativism, so don't bother. I find it
puerile and adolescent.

>> >	It wasn't my claim, in fact I think it's ludicrous.  The
>> >national and international merits of going to war, at least for
>> >Bush and his cronies, far outweighed any other option.
>
>> Another "proof by assertion".
>
>	Well, its pretty obvious that no other option was tried.

No, it's not obvious at all. He had six months to pull out, and faced
impossible odds and world-wide condemnation.

But Hussein tossed another lord knows how many young men's lives into
the fire to keep his ego warm.

Ho hum, murderous bastard is all.

>	The US's original "justification" for sending troops to
>the area was to defend Saudi Arabia.  If the US knew the Iraqis
>had only 250,000 troops in Kuwait there is no defensive reason
>to send 400,000 and later (just after the US elections) 800,000
>troops.

Oh, I see, now you're doing military strategy.

Vastly outpowering the other side tends to keep the peace. It's all
quite reasonable and rational.

Or would you swear that Hussein's next move wasn't to march into Saudi
Arabia? Qatar? UAE?

He sure didn't mind flinging his scuds at every nation he could reach,
whether there were allied troops there or not.

>An Iraqi invasion was implausible also for the fact
>that the supply lines they would have needed to reach significant
>Saudi oil fields were far longer than those they managed in
>Iran.

Oh c'mon, how much resistance would they have encountered had the
allies not parked themselves there?

This is silly, you're fabricating all this.

>A better reason for the US to send a larger number of
>troops was that they would be necessary for an invasion of
>Kuwait/Iraq.  800K to 250K easily makes the three to one
>ratio that students of war say is usually necessary to overcome
>defensive forces.

But we didn't invade, at least not in the military sense, we did march
in after they withdrew.

I have nothing against our having kept invasion as a possibility.

What happened was preferable, invasions can be bloody, bloodier even
than what happened. I would say that having 800K, an invasion level
force, was a very good idea. Obviously Mr. Hussein got the message
finally.

>	Your memory is only as good as the original reporting.
>Hussein made the first offer to negotiate a settlement of the
>border dispute and withdrawal of Iraqi troops on August 9, merely
>one week after the invasion.  This offer was met, as all subsequent
>attempts at real diplomacy were met, by total refusal on the part
>of Bush to discuss any such thing.  If Hussein didn't totally
>prostrate himself to American whims and interest, the US (Bush)
>wasn't interested.

His offer specified that they would not retreat from Kuwait, but
perhaps something else would work out.

There's nothing wrong with saying that was an unacceptable offer.

It was an unacceptable offer.

Again, I realize you toss off everyone living in Kuwait as just so
much dead meat so it's hard to appeal to "reason" here.

>> Had Hussein simply withdrawn do you really think much would have
>> happened to him? Perhaps something, I won't discount that, but I doubt
>> the world could have justified broad military action if he withdrew.
>
>	"The world" had precious little justification as it was.

In your own mind which defines everyone, internationally, who
disagrees with your views as a moral idiot.

It's the old ``the whole world is crazy but me'' argument.

>> Diplomacy works when diplomacy works. I don't understand what you
>> think diplomacy is capable of. If one side is intransigent and doesn't
>> care about the leverage used in diplomacy (economic sanctions, etc)
>> then how can it work? It takes two to tango.
>
>	I know that, we seem to disagree on which side was intransigent.

No, we disagree on which side was right.

I realize it's very difficult to argue with a moral relativist since
there's basically no level to which one will sink to recalibrate
standards for each situation.

>> I never attempted to justify what occurred in Panama, and I don't feel
>> at all comfortable with it.
>
>	Well how do you think the Panamanians feel?  Uncomfortable?

I think some feel it was a great thing, and some feel it was a lousy
thing. Noriega wasn't exactly loved, although he did have his fans and
perhaps good reason for that also.

I know Panamanians, they aren't pleased with the US invasion, but
they're ambivalent at best about the outcome, people knew Noriega was
a bad man, but like many such characters he knew how to reward many
people, he had a flair for populism, particularly among the working
middle class.

>> But that does not prove that we were wrong in Iraq. Unless all you
>> think that is to be considered is consistency.
>
>	If you insist that moral correctness is THE reason we
>invaded Iraq then examples of lack of same on the part of the
>US should be held as counter-evidence.

I've never heard of such a thing.

Even a total scum can do the right thing and it's still the right
thing.

Better to make up in one's own mind what's right and wrong, not use
silly standards like whether something done before can be
extrapolated.

>> Given that as the only standard could we ever do the right thing?
>> It doesn't seem possible, does it?
>
>	Have "we" ever tried?

Of course we have, but your asking that question reveals a certain
mindset.

>> That's a nice hypothesis. Does the current trend in defense spending
>> back up your hypothesis? I don't think so.
>
>	It may have been a short-lived victory in that regard,
>or things might have been worse without it.  It certainly removed
>much of the stigma from America's military interventionism and gave
>Bush a shot in the popularity arm.

Well, you speak with forked tongue. Either these various forces are
omnipotent or not.

And Bush is way behind in the polls.

For all their omnipotence things certainly didn't work out very well.

It might also just be what it seems to be.


--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD