From: AIESEC - Ohio State <aiesecrs@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Bush Secretly Aided Saddam Until August 1990
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 07:40:28 GMT

u.fi>       <1992Mar31.150654.25046@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> <1992Mar31.194207.6580
@pimacc.pima.edu>
Organization: The Ohio State University
Cc:
Bcc:
In article <1992Apr3.130158.18934@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> you write:
>ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes:
>
>
>[...]
>
>>necessarily imply that the Kurds were dominated by Marxists although I be-
>>lieve that the predominant power within the Kurds residing in Turkey is
>>hold by Marxists.
>
>You "believe that the predominant power within the Kurds in Turkey is held
>by Marxists"??!
>Astounding, Mr Pugleise, truly astounding.
>My goodness, your analysis based on your many colored vision of the
>uniqueness of each individual situation really is coming to the fore here.
>Can I ask where you got this "belief" from? Network TV by any chance?
>A so-called "think-tank" maybe.
>
>No Mr Pugleise, the predominant power within the Kurds in Turkey is NOT
>held by the Marxists, it is held by the president who just happens to be of
>Kurdish origin as does the foreign minister.
>

What logic are you using?  General Powell is black and quite probably the
highest ranking black in the U.S. government.  Therefore, the predominate power
in the black civil rights movement is General Powell.  I challenge you to prove
his loyalty to the Kurds.  Of course, the Turkish government's bombs have his
apologies written on them.  My point is that your reply is flawed.


>It was also pointed out to you by another poster that the Marxist group
>within the Kurdish people are the PKK. While it's difficult to quantify
>the number of adherants to their philosophy the numbers appear to range
>anywhere between 10-50,000. The Kurdish population of Turkey is just over
>12 million [source: UCB symposium on Kurdish people 1988]
>The PKK have been responsible for a great many Kurdish and Turkish deaths
>in the region attacking both Kurds and Turks alike.
>The VAST majority of those 12 million Kurds do not support the PKK whatever
>your network TV 'experts' tell you. Many of them though, do share one
>common goal with the PKK, the creation of an independant Kurdistan.
>

Good point, but it has been said that Kurd rebels have been bombed.  I think a 
democracy has every right to fight rebels within its' own borders.  The Kurds 
have no right to be killing people in Turkey.  Discrimination is not a good 
enough excuse.

>Apparently you were unable to tear yourself away from the TV to check on
>any of this.
>
>I congratulate you on a spectacular public display of cultural illiteracy.
>

I congratulate you on your spectacular display of hypocricy.  (Readers note:
The tactic used above in debating has nothing to do with the issues, but we
will assume he was trying to be funny.  If he was correct, it would have been
hilarious (sp?) but alas...

>>> ii) Middle East troubles started with the arming of Nasser by the ex-USSR
>
>>I think you have misunderstood my point. A case can be made that the
>>Mideast has been unstable since the rise of Mohammed but I was addressing
>>the situation between the Israeli's & her arab neighbors specifically
>>in theis case.
>
>Oh no Mr Pugleise, I understood your point perfectly. You drew an arbitary
>line in time chosen no doubt to ensure the brunt of responsibility fell on
>the ex Soviet Union and declared to the world that this is when the Middle
>East troubles viz a viz Israel and her Arab neighbours started, conveniently
>forgetting of course, that the initial formation of Israel might be an
>equally if not more appealing line to draw if you wish to approach the problem
>this way.
>Of course if you do believe that this is an appropriate approach to the proble
m
>(which you appear to be advocating) you do run the risk of being challenged
>with over-generalisation and a simplistic approach and that would never
>do Mr Pugleise would it?
>

I cannot know what this arguement is about but I assume, it is about how the 
trouble in the Middle East got started.  He blames the USSR for funding 
totalitarian states, and you admit you think a better case could be made by 
blaming the rise of the first Middle Eastern democracy.  I leave the readers to
draw their own conclusions.

>I congaratulate you on a spectacular public display of double standards.
>

What double standard?  You are the one who brought up Israel.

>>> iii) Iraq has been breaking up since it was first formed.
>
>>You mean you think it hasn't! The Kurds have been agitating for an in-
>>dependant Kurdistan ever since that goal was denied them by the settle-
>>ments that ended WWI. The same settlements that created Iraq in the first
>>place. That sounds like it's been pretty unstable all along to me.
>

What are you trying to prove, that he's right?  I think you've got this 
debating thing all wrong.  Your supposed to try and prove he is wrong, not show
off what knowledge you learned in 8th grade.

>Dear oh dear, we have got our geography in a twist haven't we?
>By your own definition, a lot more than Iraq would have "been breaking up sinc
e
>they were first formed.
>Are you sure you know who the Kurds are and where they live? Why not tell
>us then?.
>

I don't even know how your drawing this conclusion.  Where is he defining 
anything?

>Oh well, I guess you must have some sort of phobia about libraries so I
>may as well give you a quick run down on the Kurdish population distribution.
>
>Total is >26 million
>Turkey..12 m.
>Iran....8m
>Iraq....4m
>Syria...1m
>USSR....1m
>

If your trying to prove that you go to libraries, hooray!  You even can find an
Encylopedia.  Princeton sure does put out the finest (this last comment is
simply, as I admit, a manifestation of my jealousy cummulating in a lashing out
at a superior institution to my own, The Ohio State University).

>...again ..
>
>I congratulate you on a spectacular public display of cultural illiteracy.
>

I very much doubt that not knowing the exact nationality breakup of the Kurdish
population is a "spectacular public display of cultural illiteracy".

>>> are an awful lot of B&W interpretations of what Mr Ross is saying.
>>> "US is the root of all problems"?
>>> "...that the US should bear the chief burden of blame for Iraq's actions"?
>
>>That's because Mr. Ross makes an awful lot of B&W statements.
>
>Mr Ross didn't make those statements above, you did.
>

I have no knowlege of Mr. Ross' statements as related to your arguement, not 
even enough to assume, so you win this one.

>[..]
>>> Then perhaps it might be a bit more constructive Mr Pugliese, if you
>>> quantified what YOU believe a fair proportion of the blame the US should
>>> shoulder. So far you've been remarkably quiet on this front.
>
>>Any minor blame that should be accorded is grossly overshadowed by the
>>blame that Iraq must bear.
>
>Your being evasive, answer the question.
>Was arming Iraq a significant factor in its abilities to invade Kuwait?
>

Of course, do you want me to give myself a spanking, seeing as how I am a 
citizen of the USA.  I also have the ability to buy a knife and stab my 
roomates.  Would the knife company be reliable, even if I was a known maniac.  
But with all the numbers thrown around, I haven't heard of one soldier or Kurd 
dying by the bullet of an American made weapon fired by an Iraqi.  If someone 
can correct me please do.  Nobody died because Iraq posessed a seven month old 
satellite photo.

>>>You may like to *think* they were exacerabted. I don't see any reason to
>>>>believe that it may not have been worse if Iraq had been allowed to retain
>>>>Kuwait & Saddam was still at full strength. He would've gotten around to
>>>>them in good time.
>
>>> I suggest you read up on what Saddam was up to in the intervening between
>>> the Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf conflict. He'd been trying to "get around"
>>> to them for quite a while without much luck.
>>> If you think he would have "gotten around to them" perhaps you should
>>> enlighten us as to why you think that.
>
>>I'm quite aware of what SH was up in the intervening time. I suggest
>
>Given the level of accuracy you've shown so far I'm beginning to seriously
>doubt you even knew who Saddam Hussein was prior to August 1990 let alone what
>he was up to.
>

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.  Also, you are really stretching 
your assumptions to draw conclusions.  What the hell do you know about this
man's education?  He has merely stated his opinion, which happens to be held by
a hell of alot of people in the intelligence community.  Why do you think 
Schwartzkopf said that they had been practicing similar war scenerios (sp?) in 
Tampa, {source --  60 Minutes}, for at least two years before the war broke 
out?

>>I think that it's obvious that SH would've had an easier time with his
>>opposition if he retained his full miltary capabilities. I also never
>>said that he would have been eliminate the rebels. Just that he could've
>>made things worse for them than he can now.
>
>Really? What a wonderful analysis of the situation. And might I ask Mr
>"well aware of what he was up to" just what his military capabilities were
>in 1988, 1989 and early 1990?

Certainly less than they are now thanks to George Herbert Walker Bush.

>It wouldn't have been 'full' by any chance would it?
>
>I congratulate you on a spectacular public failure to grasp even the basic
>fundamentals of the English language.
>

If your going to dodge the issues and insult you debating partner, at least be
more creative.  Spectacular lack of this and spectacular lack of that is 
running old.


>>> A simple question Mr Pugleise..
>>> Who decided that troops should go to Saudi Arabia in the first instance?
>>> Who decided that on the basis of a Un resolution that "all necessary means
>>> be used to remove Iraq from Kuwait" to switch from the defensive mode of
>>> Desert Sheild to the offensive Desert Storm?
>>> Who decided when the air campaign should begin and announced it to the worl
d.
>>> Who, on the basis of military advice, decided when the ground war should
>>> begin and again announce it to the world?
>>> Who decided after 100 hours of war to end it?
>
>>These were all decisions arrived by consenus within the members of the
>>coalition except the initial deployment to Saudi Arabia which was a
>>consensus decision by the Saudis & the US gov.
>
>That's right Mr Pugseile, and announced to the world's press and media by...?
>Hence, in the eyes of the world became the spokesman for the US led coalition
>and what the policies and objectives would be.

So what, only whiners like you compained that Bush ran the show.  I for one am 
glad.  Unfortunately, to many people who agree with me seem embarrassed (sp?) 
to admit this fact.  I don't see why disagreeing with the likes of you is any 
embarressment.  But, we did have U.N. approval so shut up.

>But then again, you'd have us all believe that the real spokesman for the
>coalition were network TV analysts.
>
What the hell are you even blabbing about?

>You might want to look a bit more closely at what Dick Cheney was up to
>August 6 and also the "concensus decision" regarding why the war ended after
>exactly 100 hours as well as the "concensus decision" on November 8
>
>>Well your attitude simply reinforces by belief that you have little under-
>>standing of the actual dynamics that went into the negotiations & that pro-
>>the compromises necessary to forge an alliance amonst such a disparate group
>>of nations. Instead you have opted for the simplistic, "the US just dictated
>>everything" approach.
>
>..and of course you are a master of understanding the dynamics of forging
>alliances aren't you Mr Pugleise? ...with a deep understanding of the many
>colors that go towards making a nation, its peoples and culture,and not
>forgetting, of course, all the subtleties and nuances of diplomatic
>language all provided for you via network TV. Ms Glaspie would be proud of
>your clarity of thinking before acting.
>

Your unjustly attacking Mr. Pugleise.  It his his opinion, and I for one also 
share it.  Debate facts please.

>You know, any time I read read any of your postings I can't help but think
>of the term "couch potato" with your many references to TV sources.
>
>Try reading a book first before posting, if nothing else it might help
>prevent you coming across as a culturally illiterate empty windbag with nothin
g
>useful to add to a debate other than endless dreck gleaned from the TV.
>
>As to your debating style..
>I think Mr Teed summed it up rather nicely when he said you appeared to be
>incapable of your own thoughts, but merely echoed his parrot fashion, don't yo
u?

What the hell do you have against information broadcast by by electronic media?
Since when do authors of information over television airwaves become "more 
fictional" than authors in books?  Do the airwaves put people under somekind
of spell that makes them lie?  What was wrong with his debating style?  It
focused on facts, and did not have some kind of irrational fears about media
that deals with electricty?  Perhaps the most intriging question:  I DID NOT 
SEE HIM QUOTE ONE TV SOURCE, WHERE ARE YOU COMING UP WITH THAT INANE IDEA.  


>

>David

Ryan C. Scharfy
Disgruntled, but now satisfied debater.
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm