HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:44:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.113855.1284@doug.cae.wisc.edu> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct2.024226.21341@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>|> No, no, no.  I tend to have this idea that bad things happen during a
>|> war.  That's inevitable: it's the nature of combat.  I've mentioned
>|> this previously: I go by Clausewitz formulation, that war is very very
>|> bad, and constraints on the violence is in some sense artifical
>|> (except where political necessity requires such constraints).  He
>|> emphasizes this throughout, with the aim of averting war, or at least
>|> casual war.  I do not feel that the Gulf War was in any way necessary,
>|> and that Bush had put blinders on us to wage it.  I also feel that
>|> once the war had started, we had no real choice in the matter but to
>|> conduct it as effectively as possible.
>
>Do me a favor, tell me what practical choice we had.  Should we have let
>Iraq absorb Kuwait?  Should we have continued on the ineffective policies
>of the past of saying naughty boy, let me slap your wrist, oh, you're hurt,
>let me make it up.  (remember China and Tietam Square massacre (sp?))  What
>should we have done?  The quarantine was not working, that was being well
>publicised, thanks to Jordan.  The quarantine would not have touched Hussein.
>To use someone elses example, he would still be eating roast duck when most
>people in his country would be fighting over water and bread.  I agree
>that once it started, we had to end it, and I am glad that we managed to
>so limit Allied casualties.  The air war had a little mentioned effect, it
>broke the spirits of many Iraqi soldiers.  We all remember the pictures 
>of surrendering soldiers.  Each soldier who surrendered was a life saved, and
>yet one more person who wouldn't be shooting at Allied soldiers.

I was refering more to Bush's decision to go to war in August.  This
was against Powell's advice [Bob Woodward, _The Commanders_].  I'm
also unhappy with the lack of real public debate over the war.  By the
time Congress voted, the issue was almost fait accompli, with 500K
troops in the region.  And I won't mention the misinformation campaign
by both the Administration and the Kuwaiti government [see MacArthur
for the references].  Perhaps in the end, we would have come to the
same decision after a clear presentation of the facts.  I don't know,
but I would have still like that opportunity.

I'm not disputing the conduct of the air campaign.  It was effective,
and accomplished its objectives.


--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
From: hank@netcom.com (Hank Roberts)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Racism and Humour
Date: 6 Oct 92 06:28:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


Several people have mentioned that telling 'white jokes' works to
defuse a session of racist joking; I've certainly found that works.

Being from the US South, I can drop into my original accent and
ask "Say, do y'all know why rednecks have sloping shoulders and slanty
foreheads?"


Waaaaalllllll ......

"You ask'em a question, and they .......   (shrug)"

"And you tell'em the answer, and they .....(slapping forehead)"

I've told that to people who I half suspected would hit me for it,
because it was either confront or walk off, and each time I've gotten
a flash of anger, then a moment of connection and something like
"I see where you're coming from."  And the jokes stop, and people feel okay.

(Oh yeh, blond and blue eyed here, sometimes clean cut, sometimes
in full hippie hair depending on the time of year)
Xref: sparky alt.activism:16926 alt.desert-storm:1812 alt.politics.clinton:7806
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm,alt.politics.clinton
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:44:43 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.

mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:

>>Did we really _need_ to bury _anyone_ ?
>>
>>I suspect that we could have waited them out, no ?
>>
>>-- richard

>Don't try and compare the revolutionary war to the Gulf War.

It wasn't my comparison, I'm afraid.

>a very major fundamental difference: Iraq was the aggressor.  They invaded
>Kuwait.  The US intervened to stop this invasion.  For a better comparison,

Save me the party line. Think for yourself.

>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.

I refer you to a military classic widely regarded throughout the world.
It's called _The Art Of War_, attributed to an individual named Sun Tzu,
whose existence cannot be authenticated but whose writings were revered by
American generals and Mao Tse Tung, alike.

He has some harsh things to say about your kind of attitude.

-- richard

-- 
=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
From: cberlet@igc.apc.org (NLG Civil Liberties Committee)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: growth of christian ident
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:14:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:1992Sep26.272.19669@execnet:1291224490:cdp:1296500387:000:2637
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!cberlet    Sep 29 18:14:00 1992



Randy Weaver told his neighbors and friends that he had embraced
Christian Identity, what he denied was that he had any conection
to the group Aryan Nations, run by Identity Pastor Richard Butler.
There are perhaps tens of thousands adherents of Christian
Identity in the U.S. Weaver has never disputed the description of
his beliefs as involving Christian Identity, what is disputed is
what does Christian Identity represent. To Weaver it is patriotic
Christianity based on the literal truth of the Bible as
interpreted by Identity pastors. To me it is a tragic scapegoating
ideology based on a re-packaging of neo-Nazi theories wedded to
ultra-right fundamentalism. Take your pick or read up and develop
your own attitude.
   That said, I re-iterate that Weaver's beliefs did not justify
the government response, and there is evidence that the government
attempted to coerce Weaver's cooperation in acting as an informant
against Aryan Nations.  This is an abuse of power that we all must
oppose. At the same time, both the government and the racist right
are not telling a straight story aboout the Weaver incident. The
following I posted in an earlier topic:

207.1 Topic 207WeaverResponse  1 of  1 cberletalt.activism 9:04 pm
Sep 22, 1992

Neither the mainstream media nor Spotlight newspaper are telling
the truth.  Both are misrepresenting the situation to fit their
political goals.  Weaver was part of an armed racist underground
movement in this country. He is, however, a victim of unjustified
deadly force by federal authorities.  Both Weaver and the
government are wrong. The government is using unconstitutional
tactics against the white supremacist movement, and has 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 themselves and moved to the pacific
northwest awaiting the final confrontation.  Spotlight, which
praises neo-Naziss and peddles the Jewish conspiracy theories] of
the fascist right, is attempting to use the Weaver incident, with
its murderous abuse of power by federal authorities, to recruit
people into its circle. We are in the middle of a propaganda war
between an authoritarian government and a fascist political
movement. It's easy to be confused when
-- Hit <RETURN> or <ENTER> for more (92% read) --Conf?
[Continued] Topic 207WeaverResponse  1 of  1

so many people are lying.
-Chip Berlet co-editor, Police Misconduct and Civil Rights Law
Report Conf?
Newsgroups: alt.activism,news.admin
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore Misusing Federal Computer Network Resources
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 02:18:20 GMT

lear@yeager.corp.sgi.com (Eliot Lear) writes:

>Spare me.  They have just as much right to blather on the net as we
>do.

Oh, so my company has the right to blather commercial information across the
net too?


>And just who shall we elect to decide which printing presses are to
>be closed down for `political' activities?

"Free Speech" does not mean government-sponsored printing presses.

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              /
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Another Cover-Up?
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:19:45 GMT

VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu writes:

>According to another volunteer organization, the child death in Iraq is
>1500 per day and there would be 170,000 child deaths in the next 5 year
>period.

1500 /day x 365 days/yr = 547,000 deaths/year  x 5 years = 2,737,500 deaths

So much for their credibility.


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: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 3 Oct 92 10:35:57 CDT

In article <14083.2acc9ef4@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.174628.18196@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>> 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
>> 
>
>Let's see, Bush became VP under Reagan in 1980 right? Lessee, the Iran-Iraq
>war began in October 1980. Nope, Bush wasn't in office (and clearly didn't
>know anything about it either :).
>
How useful is a VP under normal circumstances?  They are basically a speech
giver and extra diplomat.  There are many advisors, thought the VP can
advise, that is about all they can do.  They are the head of the Senate.
But the last time a VP took an active role in leading the Senate, their own
party leaders told them to get out.  So even in the Senate, they are only
useful if a tie occurs.  As to not knowing what was going on, are you implying
that the VP is told everything?  Probably not.  Truman was never told about
the Manhatten project (for a _real_ famous example) until he gained office.
As to the original quote "Bush wasn't even in office when a lot of the US help
went to Iraq," that is true, because the implied office is President, not 
any office.  Something to consider.

:)M^2
Xref: sparky alt.activism:17064 alt.desert-storm:1851 alt.politics.clinton:8166
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 19:07:47 GMT

In article <14083.2acc9ef4@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>
>Republiclone slime. Eat shit and die.

There, there.  We should at least try to maintain a reasonable
amount of civility in the discussion, something the Young Republicans
can't manage.  (Michael Lewis, in the New Republic sometime last month,
painted this, uh, unfriendly portrait of the YR in Houston.)



--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm,alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:33:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.143006.11714@cas.org> sdr57@cas.org () writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.024701.21604@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>
>>We've know that Hussein was evil for quite some time, and yet Bush had
>>consorted with him for years before the invasion.
>>
>
>We knew the Soviet Union was evil for quite some time, and
>yet many U.S. Presidents consorted with the leaders of the
>USSR. Is it your position that we should shoot anyone we
>disapprove of? That would certainly make the world a quieter
>place (after a few very noisy days). Unfortunately, it is
>not always practical to "send in the marines" as it seems
>you would have us do. Sometimes you have to go for peaceful
>coexistence, even if you don't like what's going on. It isn't
>right, of course - it would be much more satisfying if we
>could just send Rambo in and let him clean things up - but
>that's the real world for you - unfair from the get-go.

We did not actively support the Soviet regime, at least in the
pre-Yeltsin days.  This wasn't quite the same with Iraq.


--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Xref: sparky alt.activism:16844 news.admin:7796
From: ctwilson@rock.concert.net (Charles T Wilson -- Personal Account)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,news.admin
Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore Misusing Federal Computer Network Resources
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:33:10 GMT
Organization: CONCERT-CONNECT -- Public Access UNIX

Commercial blathering is perfectly acceptable in the *.biz groups.  that's
what they're there for.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:16802 alt.desert-storm:1788 alt.politics.clinton:7336
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: PAT Bill - an assault on our rights?
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 13:03:15 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <jt!pk2g.adamsr@netcom.com>

adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
 
>>>As we know, 1/2 of all households have a 
>>>firearm. Parents will be forced to choose between their guns and their 
>>>children!
>>
>>IS THIS A DIFFICULT CHOICE???  (HINT IF YOU ARE HAVING TROUBLE
>>CHOOSING, YOUR CHILDREN ***ARE*** AT GREAT RISK) :| (I'M NOT 
>>SMILING)
>>
>	I didn't write the above line, it was part of the quoted material.
>Despite this, I will respond as though I =did= write it:
>
>	It =would= be a difficult choice. Not because I'm a gun advocate - I
>don't even own a firearm, nor do I feel any personal need to own one. The
>choice, however, would be between relinquishing my Constitutional rights or
>my Parental ones - and =that= is a totally different matter!
>
>	Given =that= choice, if you AREN'T having trouble choosing, your
>FREEDOM is at great risk!

Hear!  Hear!


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Date: 6 Oct 92 06:44:49 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a post here Pactrick Chester says (approximately) "Not acceptable
toyyou? Fine. You can have your opinion, let me have mine. Or haven't
you heard of the first amendment."

Unless I missed something, this parting shot appears uncalled for. A
disagreement, even is strong terms, does not equal an attempt to silence
speech. Especially here on usenet where normal social disapproval
has little force and silencing a poster is virtually impossible.

-Steve
From: VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Another Cover-Up?
Date: 29 Sep 1992 10:01:37 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Anwar Mohammed writes: >"
>""Innocent" 250,000? Uniformed thugs and looters caught trying to
>"escape Kuwait in their stolen autos stuffed with loot is more like
>"it. There were civilian casualties of the bombing campaign, and that's
>"an unfortunate fact of war, but the bulk of the dead were on the road
>"out of Kuwait and in the entrenchments *inside* Kuwait and southern
>"Iraq.

Palmer writes: >>
>>FALSE! The majority of those who died were civilians who died as a result
>>of our bombing sewerage treatment plants and water plants. See RED CROSS
>>reports.

Anwar writes again: >
>I'm amazed that you still have the audacity to post after your lies.  Why
>don't you address the question?  Neither Amnesty International or
>Red Cross *ever* claimed that the U.S. killed 250,000 innocent people.
>

The records I have:

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.
There were civilian deaths in the range of 49,000 to 76,000. Because of
very Strict censorship by America, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, this shock-
ing news was covered-up.  

According to another volunteer organization, the child death in Iraq is
1500 per day and there would be 170,000 child deaths in the next 5 year
period.  Due to this a whole generation has been destroyed.  The modern
techniques of war create a long term effect.  Destruction  of hospitals  
and waste treatment facilities etc  were the main cause of the indirect
effect of war in Iraq.

Though I respect the  RED CROSS and AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, I guess they
are not beyond the patriotism.  Amnesty International report during the
Gulf War said that Iraqi soldiers went to maternity hospitals and threw
the children out of the inhubator boxes (sorry for paraphasing).  Remem-
ber Naira Al-Sabah? She deserved an Oscar for her Congressional hearing!

I know.  This is not the proper forum (alt.politics.clinton) for all of
these.  But I didn't want to leave this  unanswered.  I wouldn't do any
follow up in this forum.
 
>Anwar Mohammed                FREE THE KUWAITI POWS.

That's a good demand.  Don't you need a Democratic  Republic of Kuwait?
I wouldn't like to be a citizen of Kuwait, Inc., which has a membership
in UN.

Vicky:
UMass,
Sep 29
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY Technologies
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:43:52 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <81065@ut-emx.uucp>, wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester) writes:
> In article <1992Sep29.180411.1409@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
> 
> And now an announcement from Robert McElwaine, the world's greatest writer
> of pulp science ficiton. If only he knew..... :)
> 
> )                            FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
> )          
> )               For decades, the various energy companie$ have been 
> )          COLLUDING with each other, [and probably also with the 
> )          national and international banker$, governments, news media, 
> You would help your case if you would $TOP using "$" symbols for the letter
> "s". It is a very cheesy attempt to allude to the greed you attribute to these
> organizations. If you think they are greedy add this adjective in front of the 
> organization's name: greedy. Easy isn't it? Also, STOP using WORDS with ALL
> CAPS to AMPLIFY your statements. It is also VERY cheesy and gives the IMPRESSION
> to the reader that you are SCREAMING into their FACE like some BOORISH drunk.
> Do you UNDERSTAND ME ?! Good, then I will stop imitating you.

	I think his remark$ about the international banker$ are very
EXPRE$$IVE.


> )                                   Robert E. McElwaine
> )                                   B.S., Physics, UW-EC
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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


	Joe Gaut
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Date: 26 Sep 92 00:55:03 PST
Organization: BBS

>mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>
>>You seem to think that people don't die in wars, that war isn't bascially
>>about one group of people using violence against another. (Oversimplification
>>I know, but it works.)  The reason that the US was afraid of chemical warfare
>>is that chemical warfare has 1. been severely limited if not banned by
>>Geneva convention.  2. is impossible to detect without special equipment
>>3. is far deadlier than even a large bomb.  The methods used on the front
>>line on the Saudi-Iraq/Kuwait border, while unorthodox, have nothing really
>>wrong with them.  Do you think that is better to die bleeding of a thousand
>>wounds from that mine that you stepped on, then to be buried alive?  Both
>>of them, you were in an area, and something about the terrain killed you,
>>either the sand barricades you errected last month, or that mine that you
>>never saw.  How would you rather we had gone about clearing the front lines?
>>The method used minimized Allied casualties.  Would you rather killed several
>>hundred Allied soldiers (if not thousands, but I am assuming that most 
>>of the enemy soldiers surrender), just so that you can say that you only
>>shot the enemy to death, you didn't bury them?

the point is, the military/media _did_ say that.  this war was sanitized
so as to avoid unduly disturbing our collective conscience, jingoism --
and voting habit.

-dave
Newsgroups: alt.activism,news.admin
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore Misusing Federal Computer Network Resources
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:19:29 GMT

gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:

>Are you saying that a political organisation signing up for a commercial
>usenet/mail feed is breaking the law?

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.


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              /
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.atheism,alt.censorship,soc.college,talk.politics.misc