HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jparkyn@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (James Parkyn)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: Avoidance of Civilan Casualties (Re: SAM ultimatum )
Date: 12 Jan 1993 17:00:14 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov

In article <726747659.19268@minster.york.ac.uk> aaron@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>
>But they did deliberately bomb civillian infrastructure (water
>distribution, sewage works, power supply) with a view to making conditions
>for civilians intolerable knowing full well that it would be likely 
>to indirectly cause hundreds to thousands of deaths.


Of course, we all know the Iraqui military was careful to avoid using any
facilities that civilians used and that any destruction to said facilities
caused no inconvenience to the Iraqui military whatsoever. The recent events
show how Hussein is going out of his way to recapture weapons and yet block 
food shipments to his starving people. I don't think you can argue that 
Hussein must shoulder his full share of the blame for where his leadership
has taken his country.


>A quote from a friend of mine who works for a defence analysis company
>which supplies much information to the UK press

OK, so don't embarass your friend, but just what "defence" information
supplier is this so we can evaluate the source ourselves. 


>"There is a notable assessment which was done by the US census just
>after the war which tried to estimate how many Iraqi civilians died
>due to the US destruction of Iraq's economic infrastructure (through
>precision bombing of bridges, power stations, and water supplies, etc).
>This report was squashed and the author fired. I think the figure was
>in the order of hundreds of thousands dead.  I think a more recent
>report by an international agency said on the order of 50,000 may
>have died (oops thats 50 000 children) as a result of Iraq ( a food
>importer) being knocked from the twentieth century into the Middle
>Ages. "


Well, a quote from an unidentified person from an unidentified company
is just the opinion of the quoter. No balancing "quotes" on the damage to 
ecology maliciously unleashed by the Iraquis nor any "facts" on the 
destruction of Kuwait's economic infrastructure. If there was a document
"squashed" I would hardly believe that the "fired" author would mind if 
Aaron publicized his plight. The report is lauded as a "notable assessment",
but if it was suppressed was it released through some leak and then received
proper attention?
 I can believe children died and as a parent I can appreciate the suffering,
but if you would back up your stereotypical anti-Desert Storm tirade with facts
I would find it much more stimulating to read and ponder.
 By the way, is it the fault of the U.S.A. that Iraq is a "food importer"
or is all the money Hussein spent on weapons some small factor?
 Please reply with specifics such as names, dates and so on. 
 Yes I am biased too, but information and not rhetoric is what I expect
from an intelligent person who  might accuse me of bias.
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
From: grayid@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (I. D. Gray)
Subject: Re: Avoidance of Civilan Casualties (Re: SAM ultimatum )
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:18:14 GMT

In article <726747659.19268@minster.york.ac.uk>, aaron@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
> Don McGregor (mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU) wrote:
> : >If history is any guide, they won't be particularly shy about civilian
> : >casualties either.
> : >
> :  Direct civilian casualties in the Gulf War were one of the lower totals
> :  in recent wars.  The USAF was quite careful to avoid bombing civilian
> :  targets, and the army did not fight in any built-up civilian areas.
> 
> But they did deliberately bomb civillian infrastructure (water
> distribution, sewage works, power supply) with a view to making conditions
> for civilians intolerable knowing full well that it would be likely 
> to indirectly cause hundreds to thousands of deaths.
> 
> A quote from a friend of mine who works for a defence analysis company
> which supplies much information to the UK press
> 
> "There is a notable assessment which was done by the US census just
> after the war which tried to estimate how many Iraqi civilians died
> due to the US destruction of Iraq's economic infrastructure (through
> precision bombing of bridges, power stations, and water supplies, etc).
> This report was squashed and the author fired. I think the figure was
> in the order of hundreds of thousands dead.  I think a more recent
> report by an international agency said on the order of 50,000 may
> have died (oops thats 50 000 children) as a result of Iraq ( a food
> importer) being knocked from the twentieth century into the Middle
> Ages. "
> 
> 		Aaron Turner		aaron@minster.york.ac.uk


Wars are not nice things, If Iraq wasn't ready for the big league they shouldent of got off the bench.

IGGY
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
From: mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: SAM ultimatum
Date: 9 Jan 93 01:40:54 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept.
NNTP-Posting-Host: prism.cs.orst.edu

In article <1993Jan8.214944.7231@csus.edu> vpcsc11@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (student) writes:
>
>If history is any guide, they won't be particularly shy about civilian
>casualties either.
>
 Direct civilian casualties in the Gulf War were one of the lower totals
 in recent wars.  The USAF was quite careful to avoid bombing civilian
 targets, and the army did not fight in any built-up civilian areas.

-- 
Don McGregor             | "Adventure without risk is Disneyland."
mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu|       --Douglas Coupland
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: Avoidance of Civilan Casualties (Re: SAM ultimatum )
Date: 12 Jan 93 09:28:28 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England


jac54@cas.org wrote:
: 	The military and the civilian community use the same power generating 
:	stations, water purification plants and so on.  By forcing the military
:	back on its independent short term systems and wearing them out, its 
:	ability to sustain battle is greatly eroded.

  The question is one of emphasis. Water purification plants are less likely 
  to affect the military effort in the short term than bombing bunkers and
  radars. The destruction of such apparently civillian structures would have
  been very unlikely to have directly weakened the Iraqis in Kuwait or on the
  borders during the conflict (admittedly it may eventually have had an effect
  but that would suggest that the allies we rather less confident in expelling
  the Iraqis from Kuwait within the 100 hours allotted for the ground war).

  This suggests that the purpose of the bombing of apparently civilian 
  infrastructure was for the purpose of demoralising the Iraqis and would
  be likely to severely affect the civilian population and was expected to 
  do so and was discovered to have done so.

: The theory of terror bombing [...] was largely discredited by bombing
: campaigns in Britain and Germany and it is generally considered
: a waste of ammunition. 

  As a historical note apparently the blitz more or less destroyed civilian
  morale in London and this required that many troops been evacuated lest
  they become affected by the same malaise. Don't believe the wartime
  'Cheery Cockney' propaganda.
 
: 	There were indeed mistakes in targetting, which, given the sortie
: 	rate and pressures on interpretation, are understandable but not
: 	excusable.  The same goes for equipment failures.

  This is not my point. 

: 	infrastructure could have been made good if the Ba'athists
: 	had stepped away from their claims

  Yes, I agree. The allies did not target civilians directly (as far as is 
  known the bunker being the only possible exception) but this does not
  excuse the targetting of cvivilan infrastructure unless the allies wish
  to lose the moral initiative. Considering that Hussein was partly created
  by the allies then they have lost a lot of that already.

: 	Remember, these are the people who delivered 3,000
: 	gas shells into Kurdish territory in a single barrage.  

  Utterly repugnant. We did nothing at the time. It is no worse than what 
  the Turkish are apparently still doing. (Not that I am using this to let
  the Iraqis off the hook, but simply exposing the fact that hipocrisy 
  abounds and a little integrity wouldn't go amiss).

		Aaron Turner
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: SAM ultimatum
Date: 8 Jan 1993 15:26:53 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: uhad2.admin.uh.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20


  Kind of surprised no one's talking about the latest face-off in Iraq, either
to protest American imperialism or jingoistically scream "nuke'em!"

  Anyway, it's looking like Saddam may leave his SAM's in place this time.  The
deadline is about 7-8 hours from the time I post this, or about 5pm CST in
America.  Given the Bush track record, I would hazard that any punitive strikes
would take place sooner rather than later.  Any guesses on the nature of the
attacks?  Certainly some radar suppression, and strikes on the SAM sites them-
selves might be expected.  Perhaps airfields as well?

  The US has a potent mix of aircraft in the area, including F-15's, F-16's,
F-117's, F-14's, F-18's and A-6's (I assume the _KItty Hawk_ has A-6's aboard).
This does not include any of the Saudi or other national aircraft in the region
though the Saudi's have F-15's as well.

  IMO, if Saddam doesn't give in like he has on other issues since the War 
ended, he's got to be certifiable.  Crazy like a fox?  To a certain extent, 
yes.  But the fox gets caught pretty often too.


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: Iraqi "incursion into Kuwait"
Date: 12 Jan 1993 13:55:43 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: uhad2.admin.uh.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1993Jan12.080116.13213@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@tko.vtt.fi writes:

> The UN passed a number of resolutions against Iraq to get them out of
> Kuwait.  The purpose of those resolutions was fulfilled when the forces
> were withdrawn under fire.  However the neo-occupiers act as if they are
> more important than ever willing to use high levels of military force
> until every clause of every sentence has been followed to the
> interpretation of the victors.

> There is no such insistance on the
> following of UN resolutions by other countries be they South Africa,
> Israel, the US, Indonesia, or any other nation.

  Simply put, because no one has the force of will and/or force of arms to
try.

  "Neo" simply means "new", by the way.  The "new" occupiers?  You might want
to come up with a better term of derision...


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.great-lakes
From: jeq@i88.isc.com (Jonathan E. Quist)
Subject: Re: What new innovation, software or products do you want to see?
Organization: Lachman Technology, Incorporated, Naperville, IL
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 14:40:48 GMT

Someone wrote:
>
>What type of new innovation, software or products do you want to be
>introduced to the market place.  No answer is stupid.  The things
>that might be unachievable to you, might be very easy to produce
>by others.  You could become part of history by initiating the process of
>innovation.
>
>Send your answers, along with it's possible applications to me via
>Email.  We might be able to produce things that you might never thought
>possible, for you. My Email Address is xxxxx@xxxxxx.edu.

And please be sure and send a copy to me as well.  It'd look great on
my annual performance appraisal to be able to say I had introduced 3 new
profitable products into the market...
-- 
Jonathan E. Quist                              Lachman Technology, Incorporated
jeq@i88.isc.com  '71 CL450-K4 "Gleep", DoD #094        Naperville, IL
 __       There's nothing quite like the pitter-patter of little feet,
 \/                   followed by the words "Daddy!  Yay!"
Newsgroups: alt.great-lakes
Subject: political daydreaming..
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1993 07:24:57 -0600

Hello steve hartwell (steve.hartwell@canrem.com ),

In ALT.GREAT.LAKES on <Jan 03 00:08> to All, you wrote:

 sh>  I guess I've got enough responses to warrant a posting...

gee, thanks!

 sh>  (Chuck says: )

UG>>This is NOT the proper forum for a sophomoric political 
UG>>discussion...

 sh>  Much as I wish it, I'll never be sophomore age again. 

Age has nothing to do with the word I used (look it up), and it seems even more
befitting now.  :-)


Newsgroups: alt.great-lakes
From: antonp@delfin.com (Anton Pintar)
Subject: Trout/Salmon food supply
Organization: Delfin Systems
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:26:56 GMT


I ran across the alt.great-lakes news group today and read a post 
indicating that beaver dams may play a critical role during the 
salmon spawning runs - i.e. they provide a habitat condusive to 
their successful spawning.

This leads me to ask three questions of this group:

1) Would an increase in the number of beaver dams also benifit the 
rainbow trout/steelhead?

2) I was wondering what is the primary food source for the trout/salmon
of the great lakes, and in specific, Lake Superior?

3) Is a there a sufficient food supply to support an increased
population level of the trout/salmon in the great lakes?

--------
Follwing are my impressions as to Q's 2 and 3:

In Lake Superior I was under the impression that the "smelt" (a 
silver colored schooling fish about 6-8 inches long) is a prime food source.

However, my view is that in Lake Superior the smelt population 
has been significantly reduced over the last 20 years.  I'm not citing 
any facts here - I'm basing this on my own observations made while I 
grew up in Michigan's Upper Penninsula.  

From what I remember, these fish enter Lake Superior tributaries to spawn.  
This occurs at some optimimum time (I assume determined by water 
temperature?) over a one to two week period during the spring and usually 
only after nightfall.  During this time it is legal to use dip nets to 
catch these fish.  About 20 years ago I can remember the runs being very 
heavy - people would catch several buckets full of smelt in less than half 
an hour when the run would hit it's peak (also that it was a popular social 
event - people would stand beer-can-to-beer-can waiting for the run to start).  I've been back in the U.P. during the "smelting" season several times in 
the last 10 years, each of which I would have to say were virtually 
non-existant.  You would be lucky to get a bucketful out of the entire 
season let alone in half an hour!

If my assumptions (smelt being a prime food source and that their numbers 
have indeed been significantly reduced) are correct, I would think that 
improving spawing grounds is would increase the hatch but not necessarily
the number that reach maturity.


Just wondering....

--
Anton J. Pintar             Delfin Systems            408-748-1200
antonp@delfin.com           Santa Clara, California
From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:42:02 GMT
Subject: Re: Trout/Salmon food supply
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.
Newsgroups: alt.great-lakes

I just saw one of those nature shows about beavers.. the beavers 
in this particular case were in Canada, near a large metropolitan
area.. I wish I could remember the city..

Anyway, it seems that the beaver dams can be quite destructive to 
those living downstream in event of a dam break and some examples
were shown.  The documentary revolved around a certain expert on 
beavers who successfully created a situation where the dam was
able to divert overflow and still allow the beavers their right
to exist. Beavers, it seems, go into action to plug any leaks 
when stimulated by the sound of rushing water any where along
the waterline.  The expert used a series of plastic flexible
conduit to divert water and confuse the beavers such that they
would not be able to find the source of the diversion even 
though the sound of running water was present.

Having visited Pennsylvania and seen these cool little units
at work, I hope that they are given special consideration when 
incidents arise which might cause their demise.  

The TV show didn't say anything about their relationship to 
trout or salmon, I don't think, but the idea behind building
a dam is to provide a deep water entrance safe from predators
and I can see how the rest of the varied fauna and wildlife
benefits as a result.   

I am confused though about how fish would move up and down 
the stream freely... 

Cool subject.

     v
Tony Zugec


Newsgroups: alt.great-lakes
From: kmcnabb@pcserver2.Naitc.Com (Keith McNabb)
Subject: MANCHUS / MACHUS
Organization: A. C. Nielsen Co., Bannockburn, IL
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 22:04:45 GMT

As already noted in a followup posting, the real Red Fox is indeed
spelled without an 'n'.  It's on Telegraph Road just south of Maple (15
Mile) Road.  You'd think that the two spellings are too similar to
mask the real place in fiction.

It's almost a given now that the John Kennedy assassination was in some
way tied to Bobby Kennedy's racqueteering investigations, which
naturally leads one to wonder whether the Hoffa disappearance was
to prevent incriminating revelations, and not just a turf war.
Everyone assumes as much, but no one has ever proved it (officially).
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: joel@ssd.intel.com (Joel Clark)
Subject: Re: child support over-payments
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 12:36:23 GMT

I have been doing something a little different. As long as she continues
to refuse to aid the courts in any support modification orders I continue
to give her additional cash so her total support is somewhat greater than
the minimum the court would require.  She can't prove I have made additional
payments and she appreciates the "extra" effort I have made to be involved.

joel

In article <1iimdpINNi8m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ci542@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Scott L. Underwood) writes:
>
>For the past year and a half or so I've been making overpayments to
>on the monthly child support I owe. I started doing this for a number
>of reasons -- the most general one is simply my desire to stay out
>of court. 
>     The overpayments I've made are not large, but they've added up
>quite nicely over the months.                
>     My question is two-fold: has anyone else (non-custodial parent,
>male or female) out there been doing this? and, are there any dis-
>advantages or legal problems that I might run into in the future
>if I continue to make overpayments? 
>
>    (The mechanics are quite simple: I pay the disrict court,
>     they send the full amount to the mother of my children, 
>     and the clerk gives me credit on the next month's payment)
>
>           ...tnx, scott (UCPL040@UNLVM) underwood


Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3183 alt.child-support:4186 soc.men:22272
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:40:34 GMT

<1993Jan6.131329.6442@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
><C0E0GM.86t@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>> On the record, Sue.  Just what are your principles?
>
>I have some.  YOU on the other hand, seem to have very little.
>BTW, I'm going back to leaving your sig. line on the end of my posts.
>I'll quit when you quit editing my posts to distort their meaning.

Well, now *there's* a responsible adult -- just what the
foster care system needs.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 11 Jan 93 13:15:17 CST

In article DKn@newcastle.ac.uk, Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>Fame at last; to have a drieux response.  I can die happy. :-)
>
>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>>]
>>] The "usual" definition of AA, as I have met it, is along the
>>] lines of:
>>]
>>]         If there has been systematic discrimination in filling
>>]         certain positions, on a basis that was not relevant to
>>]         suitability for those positions; and if this led to
>>]         underrepresentation of an underprivileged group; then
>>]         when there is a choice in filling future positions,
>>]         among those people of the necessary standard, there
>>]         should be a preference for those people of the
>>]         underrepresented group.
>
>>Sorta sounds like the basic case of awarding both
>>child custody, as well as child support awards.
>
>Doesn't bother me.  Now all you have to do is convince all
>those prejudiced judges.  But I thought the problem with
>child custody was that so few men wanted it...

 Your ignorance and prejudices are in line with Judges. 

>
>>I believe that Chris has put forward a clear case that
>>far too many child Custody Cases have been Explicitly
>>a violation of the general tenants of AA.
>
>Because so few men were willing to live within the necessary
>conditions?  [I don't know.]
>
You don't know. 

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Some ideas are frost giants: pouring cold water on them helps them to grow.



Affirmitive action is necessary for those who are inferior and will
never be able to be equal.

Feminists are inferior individuals. They need all the help they can get.
That is why they believe in A.A.

A.A. is for wimps and feminists.

Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men