From: AIESEC - Ohio State <aiesecrs@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Bush Secretly Aided Saddam Until August 1990
Organization: The Ohio State University
 <9204090740.AA08939@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 03:36:46 GMT

In article <brian.702858372@coombs> you write:
>AIESEC - Ohio State <aiesecrs@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>
>
>>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.
>
>    Turkey, a "democracy"?  I wonder, do you know exactly how much
>democracy the Kurds have been allowed to have in Turkey for the last 60 years?
>
>    I think if you actually went and did a little research you'd realise
>that armed insurrection is about the only avenue left to them WRT to being
>able to express their democratic desires for an independent Kurdistan.
>

There are plenty of people who want independence in demococracies.  Look at
Quebec "Depending on how you put the question, you'll get anything from 52% to
62% (on the level of support for sovereignty from Canada)" Time April
13,1992 pg.38.  I have been hearing lately about Scottish attempts to get out
of the United Kingdon.  I have also heard of a small (very small) movement of
Native Hawaiians who wish to have independence.  The only difference, these
movements don't shoot people.  I just don't buy that the Kurds have no other
recourse or even that they deserve violent recourse.


[... an arguement to which I have been corrected on.  I missed the thread...I
apologize to those involved, but Brian's response opens up another can of
worm's.]
>
>>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.
>
>    Again a case of calling a Holden a Ford.  Israel is not a "democracy".
>Have you ever considered if the Palestinians who are under Israeli occupation
>have been given a chance to express their opinion democractically about
>whether or not they want to become part of Israel?  Were the Palestinians
>within Israel proper given a choice in the matter?
>    Don't you think for a moment, that the surrounding Arab states just
>might have a case for causis belli when they complain about the imposed
>creation of a new, alien state in their midst by external, powers?
>
>    BTW, don't think I'm justifying what has gone on since 1948 in that
>part of the Middle-East, I'm not.  I am though at least attempting to
>apportion the blame a little more fairly that either Mr.ppugliese or this
>latest poster seem interested in.
>

Israel is a democracy.  These Palistinians were at the heart of four wars with
Israel.  In case you have forgotten history, the Palestinians originally
contolled the West Bank.  By getting their Arab neighbors to attack Israel they
totally blew it.  It was the Palenstinians who couldn't live with Israel.  Not
the other way around.  Maybe by their actions, they don't deserve that choice.
Even I may not agree with this last statement totally, but it is something to
think about.

>>>[..]
>>>>> 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 Kur
d
>>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 ol
d
>>satellite photo.
>
>    Perhaps you'd like to talk to the families of the Iranin soldiers
>who did die as a consequence of those 7 month old satellite photos, the
>weapons which were purchased with the funds which were freed by American
>largess WRT to agricultural sales and the Kuwaitis who suffered because of
>direct US encouragement towards Saddam?

In case you have not read any current events, Iraq has had a cease fire with
Iran for three years now, but I understand your point.  Perhaps it would have
been better to answer me, by replacing Iranian families with Kuwaiti families.
This, I will admit, was a sad sad mistake.  I hope we never make it again.

>
>[...]
>>>>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.
>
>    Que??????  Don't you mean "Certainly [more]..that they are now..."?
>
>    The Iraqi military forces were much stronger during those periods
>than they are now....

I already corrected myself on the subsequent post.  Talk about missing the
thread, it wasn't even ten lines long.
>
>[...]
>>>>> 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 mean
s
>>>>> 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 wo
rl
>>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 coalitio
n
>>>and what the policies and objectives would be.
>
>>So what, only whiners like you compained that Bush ran the show.  I for one a
m
>>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.
>
>    Oh, well, then you can't complain too much about what a lot of
>other countries around the world have done over the years.  I mean the
>Arabs had "U.N. approval", WRT to their policies towards Israel, now didn't
>they?
>
>    Perhaps you should rephrase that to be "we did have U.N. [security
>council] approval..."  That is a slightly better reflection of the situation
>than what you were claiming.
>

As I said, you are the ones who even care.  Personally, the U.N. can suck me.

>>>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?
>
>    If you come into the middle of a thread, it might pay you to
>actually go back and the preceeding articles so that you might understand
>what is being talked about....

Point taken.  I will be more careful in the future.

>>>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 grou
p
>>>>of nations. Instead you have opted for the simplistic, "the US just dictate
d
>>>>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.
>
>    He is.  Do you even _know_ what Ms.Glaspie's comments WRT to Iraq's
>potentially aggressive acts were?

It doesn't matter.  If that is what was at issue then why was he making all
kinds of personal attacks?  Why didn't he simply say something to the effect of
"I think your comments on Iraq's potentially aggressive acts are wrong", and
then explain why?  And no, I don't know what his remarks were.  I will be more
diligent in trying to follow this knot you call a thread, in the future.

>
>>>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 noth
in
>>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 medi
a?
>
>    Could it be because its ephemerial, shallow and usually rather biased?
>Could it be that quite often it gets its facts just plain wrong?  Could it be
>that because of the time constraints of such a medium ("come on, hurry up,
>`Cheers' is on next.....") it quite often fails to even attempt to delve
>very far into the underlying root causes of a problem?
>

CNN is on 24 hours a day and has no time constraints.  Hell, they have two
different channels.  One for headline news, and one more in depth.  Books and
magazines can be just as biased.  The authors simply have more room to support
their bias.  I will admit, TV sometimes leaves out important facts because of
time constraints, but we are debating old issues that the average citizen of
information surplus societies have seen all important viewpoints and facts
regurgetated again and again.  TV's shortcomings have no bearing on anybody's
viewpoints with these specific issues.

>>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?
>
>    Books, because of their very nature, can spend a lot more time in
>analysing the deep underlying reasons why something has occurred, particular
>when compared with the electronic media.
>

See above response.

>>                  What was wrong with his debating style?
>
>    He kept quoting, "A panel of TV experts" or "A TV program that nigh..."
>and so on.
>

See above response.

>>                                           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.
>
>    Go back and read the rest of the thread before commenting will you?
>It might make you appear less of a twit in future....
>

Again I stand corrected, but I think this latest post makes up for any
percieved "twityness".

>
>--
>Brian Ross__________________________________________________________________
>    "If it is dangerous to suppose that government is always right, it
>will sooner or later be awkward for public administration if most people
>suppose that it is always wrong."______________________________J.K.Galbraith

Ryan C. Scharfy
The Ohio State University.

Joke:  Why don't blonds in San Fransisco where miniskirts?
       A.  Because their balls would show.
I know, lame but I had to repeat it.