From: dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Date: 6 Oct 92 10:09:15 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

>> >> >In <BvFpv8.I4F@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk writes:
>> 
>> >[How the justification for the war has changed from democracy and freedom to
>> >[national self-interest]
>> 
>> >> Now 2 years later after the dust has settled along comes Jimmy Millar and
>> >> announces to the net: 
>> >> "*I* realized this the day the whole thing started."
>> 
>> >  Is it so shocking to you an American might see the more cynical motives of
>> >his government but support a particular action anyway, because it's justi-
>> >fied in its own right?  Come now, David this bit of childishness is beneath 
>> >you.  Did you not see this very early on?  Your tone leads me to believe you
>> > did.  Many protesters against the war also saw it very early on.  Why 
>> >shouldn't I have also?
>> 
>> Shocking? No. Surprise maybe.
>[US has had cynical motives in other actions, David was willing to give US 
>[benefit of the doubt due to only 8% of the US oil coming from Kuwait, and 
>[numerous denials of War for Oil]
>> 
>> It would appear, from your comments, that George Bush conned us all again
>> and perhaps he should have added the rejoiner "Watch my lips" to every public
>> statement he made to the world about this "Just War"

>  Puh-lease.  Oil was involved, if not the threat to Saudi oil, then the con-
>cern over what Saddam might spend the Kuwaiti oil revenues on.  Nevertheless,
>the war WAS just in it's own right.  Kuwait was overrun by a brutal dictator
>with known expansionist desires.

No one is denying oil was involved. The question relates to what the US's
primary motives were. You appear to believe that it was indeed oil.
I heard *nothing* on the concerns of what he'd spend Kuwaiti oil revenues on
probably because he had enough of his own to rebuild his battered army in the 
2 years after the cessation of the Iran-Iraq wari although he did get some
assistance from Kuwait. I haven't got any figures with me (maybe someone could
confirm it though) but Iraq's oil output is a sizeable chunk of the Gulf oil
as a whole (I believe 20% of the total). That's a lot of oil, and a lot of
money to spend anyway. While adding Kuwait's output would indeed be a nice
little earner I would doubt that the additional revenue would have 
significantly altered his buying practises. He already had the funding for
the nuclear program, the chemical weapons production were in full swing and
the superguns were well on their way to completion.

Huseein is indeed a brutal dictator with known expansionist desires. So much
so, the US decided to help him 'expand' into Iran [ Ob flame bait]

>> >> and that everyone else was: 
>> >> "a bloody fool".
>> 
>> >  Very well, "IMO", if you like.  Are you not calling them fools now, by 
>> >muttering about the about-faces shown by some of the pro-war folks?  And if
>> >you agree with me, why should you dislike my calling of these people fools?
>> >They were.
>> 
>> You are being smug, that's why.
>> 
>> Sitting in front of TV with a grin on your face while your president
>> lied through his teeth to the world about 'just causes' and 'punishing
>> must have made you feel real happy.

>  I sat in front of my TV worried as Hell my cousin and a good friend over
>there might not come back.  Smug?  You do me no small disservice to say that.

You're misinterpreting (or maybe I wasn't too clear) what I said.
Smug in the sense that you're earlier comments that anyone who did not see
oil as the primary motive were "bloody fools" thus labelling a great many
people (dare I say the majority?) who did not take an extereme view and were
prepared to give the US the benefit of the doubt over its motives for launching
this campaign as "bloody fools" as well.

>I saw the need to act.  Bush's stated rationale was plenty valid on it's own
>merits -- but anyone who did not see the subtexts did so because they chose
>not to look.  I say those who did so were fools to ignore the obvious.  I
>do not feel "smug" that they chose to be "taken in", as you would have it.

Many people did not choose to ignore the oil factor, they were prepared to
put it down to maybe relativly unimportant to the US, particularly after
desert-shield was in place and Saudi oil was protected. They were prepared
to believe that maybe, just maybe for once, the US's motives were on a higher
moral plain than the usual Yankee dollar. They were prepared to believe that
there was a possibility of a 'new world order' and a 'global policeman'.
On the basis of those beliefs they sent their own contingent to assist in
establishment fo this "new order".
If only they'd known that the 'policeman' was bent!

>> George Bush:- President of the most powerful nation on earth - and compulsive
>>               liar.
>> 
>> Wonderful! Who'd be a politician in the US?
>> Who'd be a politician anywhere?

>  The type is universal, David.  I cannot even begin to tell what you're 
>talking about here.

It's a rhetorical question. But the point is, I really don't care what George
Bush tells the US public and pursuades them to do, but I *do* care when he
asks other nations to go and help him fight a war and put their own people
at risk on the basis of serving what is, essentially, US commercial interests
if the oil factor was the real primary motive, particularly when the initial
primary motives being touted, the 'just war' etc, appear to have been just
a convenient by-product. Do you think for one moment that countries such as
Senegal would have sent troops to aid in the Gulf had they been told:-
"Hey this war is mainly about protecting US oil - but we might get Hussein out
of Kuwait too as a nice little bonus"

I think not.

[Silly conspiracy theory of mine about motives being to establish ME base]

Ahh!! but there's more to establishing a military foothold than just dumping
weapons and sitting tight. Making friends and influencing them is usually
a precursor. Saudi Arabia is now a friend. No? The Gulf region is one area
where the US doesn't have much influence (until recently).
Oh all right!..it's a silly notion but given that the Middle East, and 
particularly the Gulf Region is a major oil supplier to the US, what better
way of establishing influence in the area than concocting a war then charging
over the horizon like the cavalry in some old John Wayne film to protect
the very interests you initially put at risk?

[ and I think this belongs in alt.conspiracy :-) ]

Dave

--