From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
Subject: Re: Bush Secretly Aided Saddam Until August 1990
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 12 Apr 92 03:03:04 GMT

AIESEC - Ohio State <aiesecrs@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:

>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.
	
	Do you know just how much repression the Kurds have put up with at
the hands of the Turks?  If you did, you wouldn't be suggesting that they had
anything else except armed insurrection to turn to.

	A country which deliberately destroyed the culture, language and 
institutions of a large proportion of its population over an extended period
hasn't exactly left many avenues of protest open to that part of the population.
Particularly when those people, the Kurds were not even allowed to speak their
own language for over 50 years, as it was outlawed!

	Sure, the resort to armed insurrection should be the last thing 
attempted, however I don't think you'll find too many Kurds who'd disagree
that all other avenues have either been blocked or tried before.

>[... 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.  

	Israel is a theocracy.  The Theocrats hold the balance of power in
the Knesset.

>			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.

	I'll ask my questions again, and lets see if you can answer them
this time, OK?

	Were the Palestinians given a choice in the matter of the establishment
of Israel?

	Have the Palestinians, in the Occupied Territories, been given a 
choice in the matter of their de facto annexation into Israel?

	Don't you think that perhaps the Arabs might have a causis belli in
the imposed establishment of an alien state in their region?  

>>>>[..]
>>>>>> 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.

	Why?  Are Iranian lives less valuable than Kuwaiti ones?  You seem to
forget that those satellite photos were vitally important to the success
not only of the invasion of Kuwait but of the war against Iran. 

>This, I will admit, was a sad sad mistake.  I hope we never make it again.

	Want to put some money on it?  I wouldn't recommend you doing so....

>>
>>[...]
>>>>>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.

	I read it _after_ I had posted this article.  I can't read ahead of
what my newsreader presents to me.  I didn't see any point in posting a
correction to your correction....
>>
>>[...]
>>>>>> 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.

	Que?  Is this some peculiar USspeak insult?
	
	As for being the only ones which really care, well, I think you
underestimate a large slice of the world's population Ryan.  Many people
around the world watched the events and like myself were not fooled in the
slightest.

>>>>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.

	Good.

>>>>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.

	Go back and read Mr.Ppugliese's debating style a little more fully
before condemning others Ryan.  Once you have done so, you might see why people
end up reacting the way they do.....

>>>>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.  

	I've watched CNN.  Its quite simply shallow rubbish IMO.  It simply
looks at "events" and makes no effort to really delve into the underlying
nature of things, just as does 90% of all television.

>								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.

	I think that you are missing the major point.  What is said on TV
is rather unimportant compared with what is written down WRT to political
decision making.  No historian will accept TV as a source, when compared to
the written record left by statespeople.  Whilst yes, books can be biased,
its much easier to filter out the bias of the written word than its is WRT
to images presented on TV.
	A perfect example of this is the video footage from the Gulf War of
PGM's striking their targets.  We were never shown the near misses, the
complete misses or the total failures of the systems in use.  As a consequence
a lot of people believed, and still do that because of the images presented
to them on TV (which were of course carefully selected for their effect) that
all PGM's are 100% accurate all of the time.  They aren't.  John Lehman, US
Secretary of the Navy testified to Congress in 1988, that such weapons only
struck their targets some 60% under ideal conditions on bombing ranges.  One
can well realise that if that is the case, that under real battle conditions,
indeed it is likely that the success rate was even less in real life.
	I'd challenge you to find one such report on your TV shows that tells
you interesting snippets like that during the Gulf War. That sort of 
information is only presented in books and journals.

>>>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.

	Ditto.

>>>                  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".

	It does, in part.

>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

	And mispell it.  "where"?  Don't you mean "wear"?  What do they
teach in US schools nowadays?


--
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
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines