HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amartin@ucs.indiana.edu (amartin)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: no-flyzone
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:08:51 GMT
Followup-To: alt.desert-storm
Organization: Indiana University

This is in response to the no fly zone....
What right does a country, or an organization, have to partition another
country
up & then tell its leaders they can not operate in that part of the
country.  
It is thier bloody country; not the UN's; not the US's.  It's time that the
 arab peoples gained full controll of their own land back.
    I don't condone the acts of Sadam Hussain but I can not support telling
another leader that he is not free to operate in his own country.
The US has too long of a history medeling in other countries affairs..
Signed...The pissed off Canadian
Xref: sparky alt.desert-storm:2124 talk.politics.misc:69221 su.etc:388
From: jon@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm,talk.politics.misc,su.etc
Subject: Dumbness redux
Date: 22 Jan 1993 08:45:45 -0800
Organization: Jon's Cafe Americain
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: lindy.stanford.edu

   Well, I see that the President has decided to continue the bombing.
But we should remember that he didn't start this war, he inherited it.
For good or for bad, we've made a commitment over there, and if we pull
out now, we'll lose all our credibility with our allies.  So as long as
the other side continues to be intransigent, we have no choice but to
... Oh, no! -- Not again!!!
-- 


Jon Corelis               jon@lindy.stanford.edu
Stanford University       BITNET:  BR.JGC@RLG.STANFORD.EDU
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: Raid Started
Date: 25 Jan 93 10:18:08 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Alan Sawyer (Alan.Sawyer@f158.n633.z3.fidonet.org) wrote:
:  Jan 5th '93:Iraq moved several SAM's into the Southern NO FLY ZONE. 

   The SAM's were already there and had been for several months. At this
   time they were moved into a new configuration with a concentration
   of missiles. Later Iraqi planes attracted the attention of allied planes
   and then when pursued made feints towards this concentration.
  
:  Jan 10th: Iraqi workers raid a Ammo  bunker in Kuwait territory. They 
:  also took Four Silkworm Missiles.(And don't say they didnot know what 
:  it was) 

   At the time the territory was under the auspices of UNIKOM and was not
   part of Kuwait and did not fully become so until 15th January. However
   it was over the ceasefire border and the incursion was a violation of
   this.

   Source - Guardian (UK newspaper)  16th January
 
		Aaron Turner
From: system@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: SAM Site hit in N. Iraq
Date: 22 Jan 93 14:10:23 MST

Passing this along.


Posted: Thu, Jan 21, 1993   5:51 PM PST              Msg: WPJD-5068-5235/20
To:     aerospace.daily/TRW
Subj:   IRAQI SAM SITE is hit by U.S. planes in first military action of
        Clinton
 
  IRAQI SAM SITE is hit by U.S. planes in first military action of Clinton
Administration.



U.S. planes, in first action of new Administration, hit Iraqi SAM site
     A pair of U.S. aircraft attacked an Iraqi surface-to-air missile
site yesterday in the first military action of the new Clinton
Administration.
     The Pentagon said that a "hunter-killer" team of an F-4G fighter and
an F-16 fighter struck the site at 5:09 a.m. EST Jan. 21, just over 17 hours
after President Clinton assumed office.
     Secretary of State Warren Christopher said the new Administration
will protect American pilots despite a cease-fire declared by Baghdad the day
before the presidential inauguration.
     The two aircraft were escorting a French Mirage F-1 in a "routine
monitoring mission" north of the 36th parallel near Mosul when the planes were
fired on by anti-aircraft artillery, the Pentagon said. Because they were out
of AAA range, they did not return fire.
     Minutes later, however, the planes were "painted" by the Iraqi SAM
radar. The F-4G immediately fired an AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile
(HARM) at the site. The F-16 then attacked the missile site with cluster
bombs, but the Pentagon didn't immediately know the effects of the attack.
     The planes continued their mission "without further incident."
     The F-4G and F-16 "hunter-killer" concept was first tested in the
1980s as a way to get more effect from a limited number of dedicated F-4G Wild
Weasels. While The F-4G uses its radar and electronic warfare equipment to
"tease" enemy radars into turning on, the F-16 escort provides both cover and
additional weapons to fire at enemy SAM and AAA sites.
     Rules of engagement for coalition aircraft flying over Iraq permit
them to attack any radar or missile site which threatens them within either of
the two "no-fly" zones.
 
 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stan Smith, Vax System Manager		|ssmith@oz.bmd.trw.com (801) 625-8163 |
TRW, Ogden Engineering Operations	+-------------------------------------+
1104 Country Hills Drive		| Opinions expressed, do not belong.  |
Ogden,  Utah       84403		| Defense, so we can have our Space.  |
					+-------------------------------------+
If we couldn't laugh, then we'd all go insane.                                |
				 Jimmy Bufffet (Changes in Latitudes)         |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Alan.Sawyer@f158.n633.z3.fidonet.org (Alan Sawyer)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Desert Storm 2?
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 18:00:52

To: seurer@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Bill Seurer) 
 On 01-13-93 BILLSEURER@VNET.IBM.COM wrote to ALL... 
 
 B > From: seurer@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Bill Seurer) 
 B > Organization: IBM Rochester 
 B >  
 B > I hate to start a rumor, but someone who just came in from lunch said 
 B > on 
 B > the news they were reporting massive numbers of warplanes took off 
 B > from 
 B > Saudi Arabia and other places thereabouts earlier today and attacked 
 B > Iraq. 
 B >  
 B > Anyone got any late breaking news?  Did some reporter get it all 
 B > wrong? 
 No that is correct as you would know by now. And it is not Desert Storm2 
 YET. Although it may be soon(Than depends on if Saddam will continue to 
 provoke the Allies and if Clinton will do anything about it) 
 
 
... OFFLINE 1.40 * Gulf War MkII.Coming to a TV near you. 
 * Origin: The Enterprise <Line 1>, Karingal, Vic, +61-3-776-7089 (3:633/158)
From: detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: no-flyzone
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:29:31 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

amartin@ucs.indiana.edu (amartin) writes:

>This is in response to the no fly zone....

It is also a protective zone.

>What right does a country, or an organization, have to partition another
>country
>up & then tell its leaders they can not operate in that part of the
>country.  

The leadership of the country in question here has maintained a policy of
killing certain ethnic groups within its borders.  It then attacked another
nation without cause or need, and committed similar acts on its population.

Outside of occupying Iraq, which would be neither practical or tolerable,
there is no other means at this time to protect the Kurds in Northern Iraq
and factions in Southern Iraq and the Kuwati border but by imposing a no-
fly zone.

>It is their bloody country; not the UN's; not the US's.  It's time that the
> arab peoples gained full control of their own land back.

If they can assure the UN they will adhere to the UN Resoultions and the
terms of the ceasefire, the overfly by Allied forces can be reduced and
then eliminated.  As long as there is a threat by Iraq and its military,
the flights will stay.  I also feel it is safe to say a lot of the Arab
world is not happy about Allied jets flying over Iraq, but would not like
to see Iraqi jets flying over THEIR country.

>    I don't condone the acts of Sadam Hussain but I can not support telling
>another leader that he is not free to operate in his own country.

It is not a position the UN and US takes lightly, but the situation and
conditions warrant it.

>The US has too long of a history medeling in other countries affairs..

This is the feeling of many, I do not share or agree with it, and it is
important to note the number of occasions the US has stepped in to assist
countries in time of need and crisis regardless of who or where they were.



-- 
David De Trolio                     (detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We can have increased revenue in the United States without punishing
those who have obtained economic success and personal achievement.
From: pic@igc.apc.org
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: =`|
Date: 27 Jan 93 00:47:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1300700004:000:68
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!pic    Jan 26 16:47:00 1993


Has anyone else seen the posting that says that UN lawyer said that
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: American Raids on Iraq
Date: 22 Jan 1993 13:22:10 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: uhad2.admin.uh.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <C198CM.D72@dcs.ed.ac.uk> mikef@dcs.ed.ac.uk writes:

> In article <1jkvfrINN5vu@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>, mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor) writes:
> > 
> > If you're going to bomb someone, make it hurt.  If you want to send
> > a message, call Western Union.  Colin Powell is probably right
> > on this one.
> 
> I suppose this was the "justification" for Dresden. Remember bombs kill 
> people.  War is not a game.
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  Exactly.  The point is not just fly over and make some noise.  Instead,
when using force, it must be sufficient to generate the political result
that is desired.  Any less is foolish and wasteful.

  And I doubt Powell was suggesting we carpet-bomb Baghdad.  Destruction
of population centers has been somwhat discredited since WWII.  It would
certainly not work here.


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
Subject: Re: Raid Started
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Date: 25 Jan 93 10:47:45 -0700
Distribution: usa

In article <1juu0nINNm1n@morrow.stanford.edu>, BL.JYC@forsythe.stanford.edu (Jon Corelis) writes:
> In article <727731421.AA08134@csource.oz.au>,
> Alan.Sawyer@f158.n633.z3.fidonet.org (Alan Sawyer) writes:
> 
> 
>    I think it's an index of how really indefensible our armed forces'
> actions in Iraq are that the only way people can figure out how to
> defend them is by coming up with two classic statements of moral
> cowardice: ......<deleted>
> 

Guess you haven't been paying veryclose attention to this list or the
media. A large number of other "defenses" have been offered.

>    I'm not a pacifist. There is legitimate need for waging war some
> times, but this is not one of them.  And there is a morally respectable
> defense for inflicting civilian casualties in time of necessary war.
> That defense is:  civilian deaths are regrettable and should be
> minimized, but they are acceptable and justifiable because they are an
> unavoidable consequence of military action which we must undertake to
> prevent our country from being ...  [supporters of the current vicious
         ^^^^^
         OUR country, as distinguished from "THOSE" people living in 
         "THOSE" other countries? You know, the ones that don't matter
	according to your statement.
	
> insanity are invited to try to complete this sentence for the present
> case in some way that makes convincing sense.]

Then there's the folks that will take any opportunity to create an excuse
to justify doing nothing. It's called "weaseling out", BTW.
From: vpcsc11@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (student)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: no-flyzone
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:51:09 GMT
Organization: San Francisco State University

In a previous article, Dan-King-Of-The-Ad-Hominim-Attack-Swartzendruber
responds to the argument that US attacks were not justified by the
UN resolutions by saying:

>
>So it's up to us to decide how to enforce it?  Doesn't sound very
>illegal to me.  So amartin can spell, and you can't apply basic
>logic.  Hmmmm, seems like a tough choice.
>

I don't know Dan.  Let's apply your logic to another situation in
the Middle East.  If Iraq decided to lob a few SCUDS at Israel to
"enforce" the recent UN resolutions concerning the deported
Palestinians, would you consider this to be illegal?
From: Alan.Sawyer@f158.n633.z3.fidonet.org (Alan Sawyer)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Iraq May Use Bio Weapons
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 17:54:52

To: py1djf@sunlab1.bath.ac.uk (D J Ford) 
 On 01-14-93 ALL wrote to ALL... 
 
 A >  
 A > In the referenced article, streb@ee.rochester.edu (Chuck S.) writes: 
 A > >Think about it what does he have to lose. Sadam has not tried 
 A > >A blatent attack against isreal. If they use Bio weapons what 
 A > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
 A >    When were his SCUD attacks ever non-blatent. 
 A >    Ive never heard of a subtle surface-surface missile :-> 
 A >  
 A > >do he have to loose. I bet Libya supplied them. They do not 
 A > >like US and this may turn ugly. Lets hope not. We do not have 
 A > >the force there we once had. So matters are not the same. Will 
 A > >Clinton send a Large force ... This is a YES-NO qeustion not 
 A > >a well maybe ... If...  . I just hope it doesn't get out of control 
 A > this 
 A > >time 
 A > >chuck :) 
 A >  
 A >    The trouble with escallating to a BIO attack on Israel 
 A >    is that Israel may then escallate it to a nuclear conflict. 
 I dont think Israel may. I think they WILL. After what they copped 
 during the Gulf War I hardly think they are going to put up with 
 Saddam again. 
 A >    Not even Saddam Husein would be that stupid. 
        DONT bet on it.d 
 
 
... OFFLINE 1.40 
 * Origin: The Enterprise <Line 1>, Karingal, Vic, +61-3-776-7089 (3:633/158)
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: Iraqi Aircraft Violations
Date: 26 Jan 93 10:21:52 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

TWZ101@psuvm.psu.edu wrote:
: 
:       Some people in this group seem to be saying that the U.S. is being too
:  rigid in its enforcment of the U.N. resolutions against Iraq, especially the
:  flight bans in the north and south, and the actions taken against the SAM
:  batteries and air defense assets in both zones.  In fact, the U.S. has been
:  far too lenient.

I think the phrase is 'too selective'
 
:      In April, 1992, after Iraq began flying combat air patrols in response to
:  an Iranian air raid on a rebel base camp inside Iraq, the U.S. and its
:  Coalition partners did ABSOLUTELY nothing to stop the blatant violation of
:  accord.

  Perhaps this is because the allies do not want a Greater Iran as much as
they don't want a Greater Iraq. It actually serves their purposes to play
them off against each other, neother becoming more powerful than can be 
controlled provided that any conflict does not unduly threaten oil supplies
or to drag in other nations (notably Israel). Hence the Western powers were
not that distressed from a foreign policy perspective by the Iran/Iraq war
and there is evidence to suggest that both sides were supplied with weapons
by Western powers (and others)

  The allies (essentially now a US led coalition of Western powers with
Kuwait and Saudi) are looking after their own regional interests.

		Aaron Turner
From: biow@cs.umd.edu (Christopher Biow)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: American Raids on Iraq
Date: 24 Jan 93 03:04:13 GMT
Followup-To: alt.pacifism
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <C198CM.D72@dcs.ed.ac.uk> mikef@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Mike Fourman) writes:
>In article <1jkvfrINN5vu@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>, mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor) writes:

>> If you're going to bomb someone, make it hurt.  If you want to send
>> a message, call Western Union.  Colin Powell is probably right
>> on this one.

>I suppose this was the "justification" for Dresden.

Sez who? There are many supposed justifications for Dresden, but 
arguments over whether or not to "send a message" were hardly a 
factor in that decision. The time for messages had passed at 
least five years prior to Dresden.

Few, if any posters on this newsgroup have ever suggested a Dresden
style bombing of any Iraqi city. The actions discussed beyond mere
"message sending" would still target legitimate military locations,
with effort made to _minimize_ direct civilian casualties.
 
> Remember bombs kill people.

Thanks for informing us. Next you're probably going to 
insinuate that war is violent and that terrible things
are awful. Or even that war is not a game.

>War is not a game.

See, I'm psychic.
From: Alan.Sawyer@f158.n633.z3.fidonet.org (Alan Sawyer)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Iraq May Use Bio Weapons
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 17:30:50

To: detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) 
 On 01-13-93 DETROLIO@ANDROMEDA.RUTGER wrote to ALL... 
 
 > From: detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) 
 > Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. 
 >  
 > If they drop one bomb, one SCUD missile, one anything, the 
 > Israeli Air Force will fly in and start bombing and will not 
 > stop until they run out of material to drop. 
 >  
 > They have wanted to do this since 1991, and there is no stopping 
 > them this time. 
 I hope so.They put up with enough so far. 
 
 
... OFFLINE 1.40 
 * Origin: The Enterprise <Line 1>, Karingal, Vic, +61-3-776-7089 (3:633/158)
From: dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: Raid Started
Date: 28 Jan 93 10:16:27 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

amartin@ucs.indiana.edu (amartin) writes:

>In article <727731421.AA08134@csource.oz.au>,
>Alan.Sawyer@f158.n633.z3.fidonet.org (Alan Sawyer) wrote:
>> 
>>      Well here is a few good reasons and Iraq has Violated UN resolutions. 
>>  about the no'flyzone...

Pray tell what UN Resolution implements the no-fly zone? Hint: None


>>  A > Secondly, how can Bush go ahead and wage war on another country 
>>  A > without  
>>  A > consulting the people of the U.S. ?  That's against the constitution 
>>  A > if you  
>>  A > ask me. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not an American you see, but isn't Bill Clinton
the President?

Dave

--
From: dswartz@redondo.sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: no-flyzone
Date: 28 Jan 93 04:21:41 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan27.232327.7899@csus.edu> vpcsc11@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (student) writes:
>In a previous message, a militarist named Dan Swartzendruber writes:

Fascinating.  Because I criticize a hodge-podge of badly constructed
sentences composed of misspelled words, I'm a militarist.

::Learn basic spelling and grammar skills.  Then you can come back and
::play with the big boys.
::
:
:Hey Dan,
:
:If you're such a "big boy" when it comes to engaging in articulate and
:informed debate, why don't you let us know how you can justify the
:illegality of U.S. actions in the gulf.  
:
:The following article (reprinted from the SF Chronicle) says that the
:U.S. exceeded UN resolutions in the attacks on Iraq.  How do "big boys"
:like you respond to this?
:
:***
:
:UN Lawyers Back Iraqi View - Attacks Not Authorized
:
:The United Nations' legal department says it sees no language in
:existing UN resolutions that would give the United States, Britain
:and France authority to enforce the no-fly zones they have imposed
:in Iraq - including the area involved in yesterday's [1/21/93]
:incident.
:
:The interpretation by the U.N legal staff, first reported
:Wednesday, on whether the allies have authority to enforce the no-
:fly zones came as a surprise and appears to bolster Iraq's case -
:at least technically - that the coalition's actions may be illegal.

Let's see.  In my dictionary, an illegal action is one which is
forbidden by law.  Okay, we're cool so far...

:The allies traditionally have based their enforcement actions on
:U.N. Security Council Resolution 688, which condemns the Iraqi
:government's repression of minorities like the Kurds and Shiites. 
:They argue that enforcement authority is inherent in the language
:there.
:
:But the UN interpretation is that because the resolution was not
:enacted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which authorizes the
:use of force to maintain international peace and security, it
:contains no enforcement power.
:
:Even so, U.N. officials conceded yesterday that the advisory ruling
:probably does not mean that the allies must stop using military
:power to enforce the resolution.
:
:"It's not our function... to tell a member state how to define a
:resolution," one official said.

So it's up to us to decide how to enforce it?  Doesn't sound very
illegal to me.  So amartin can spell, and you can't apply basic
logic.  Hmmmm, seems like a tough choice.

:(Reprinted from SF Chronicle, 1/23/93, p. 2)


-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Iraqi "incursion into Kuwait"
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:18:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan16.111010.4469@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>In article <1993Jan13.215821.8770@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan13.072708.24411@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>>[much stuff deleted]
>
>>>blindly by our militaristic govt.
>
>>Whose govt?  I thought you were Finnish?
>
>You thought wrong.  It should be clear from many of my postings that i
>am a US citizen.  The above phrase should have given it away.

I try not to assume, instead I ask (is not .fi from Finland?)

As far as our militaristic govt.  Hogwash.  If that was the case, Bill
Clinton wouldn't have taken office yesterday.  Instead the most powerful nation
in the world once against hands the reins of power from those that were in
to those that weren't.  That's the sweet taste of Democracy, which you can
thank 40 years of Cold War leadership and military strength for.

>doug foxvog     
>dfo@tko.vtt.fi   


-- 
"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
	Jefferson
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: no-flyzone
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:15:53 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <amartin-270193140413@lib102b-565556.lib.indiana.edu>, amartin@ucs.indiana.edu (amartin) writes:

[deleted]

Learn basic spelling and grammar skills.  Then you can come back and
play with the big boys.

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.