From: dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: Iraqi "incursion into Kuwait"
Date: 12 Jan 93 11:33:32 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:

>Monday's news was filled with criticism of Iraqis going twice into
>Kuwait to remove Iraqi goods.  CNN cleared up some misimpressions that
>BBC left (! It usually is the other way round.)  Evidently a group of
>about 200 civilians (or "people dressed in civilian clothes" with no
>obvious weapons) went to a warehouse and removed Iraqi goods which
>were stored there, including 2 Silkworm missiles along with other 
>military supplies.

>The territory where this warehouse was located was part of Iraq until
>after the war against Iraq, at which point it was given to Kuwait as
>spoils of war.  Iraq claimed that it was given a deadline of January
>15 to remove all of its property from the zone that was taken from it
>(and CNN did not challenge the statement, so i presume it is correct),
>and merely hired a civilian contractor to do the work.

They were given a deadline to remove all *non-military* materials. Silkworms
are hardly non-military!!
The claim that it was a private contractor came from an official Iraqi statement
something I'd take with a big dose of salt. I also understand that the team
that removed the Silkworms was indeed armed, the later one wasn't.

There's been a 3rd incursion yesterday, unarmed again from what I understand.
've no idea what's been removed on this occasion.

>So it seems to me that the claims that this is an Iraqi incursion are
>specious.  None of the reports claims that this was a military mission
>or that any weapons were fired or used as threats.  It is just the same
>as someone who has been evicted from their home going back to pick up
>their property that remained.

>The US and Security Council seem to be trying to make a big deal about
>this.  I suppose the problem is that they crossed the newly defined
>border without authorization from the new owner, Kuwait.

No, the problem is that they removed materials that was excluded.

>The neo-occupiers have now ordered Iraq that it may not have defensive
>weapons (anti-aircraft missiles) in certain parts of its country.  They
>have previously declared zones of the country where Iraq may not fly its
>military (?) aircraft.  [With this new "crisis" about antiaircraft
>missiles i finally found an answer to a question that i posed to this
>group in the fall.  I asked what the restrictions the UN set when it
>declared the "no-fly" zone in Iraqi Kurdistan.  It turns out: NONE.  The
>UN did not declare any no-fly zone in Iraq; the neo-occupiers did,
>without any specific authorization from the UN.  I was surprized at the
>time that noone knew the answer.  Would those of you who actually knew,
>when i asked, that the UN did not define any no-fly zone please raise 
>your hands?]  

I knew. I also knew that the Iraqis were indulging themselves in wholesale
slaughter of the Kurds and the Shi'ites using air power. Given that situation
and the inability of the UN to do anything at speed what do you suggest
SHOULD have been done? Ask the Iraqis nicely to stop bombing the Kurds?
By the time the UN had got its act together and passed a resolution the Kurds
would have all been dead.
To me, it seemed there was no choice and a no fly zone was a lesser of two
evils. Do you have another suggestion?

>The UN passed a number of resolutions against Iraq to get them out of
>Kuwait.  The purpose of those resolutions was fulfilled when the forces
>were withdrawn under fire.  However the neo-occupiers act as if they are
>more important than ever willing to use high levels of military force
>until every clause of every sentence has been followed to the
>interpretation of the victors.  There is no such insistance on the
>following of UN resolutions by other countries be they South Africa,
>Israel, the US, Indonesia, or any other nation.

The last sentence has been beaten to death in this group and I'd certainly
go along with the sentiments (which I presume that your putting forward) that
the UN is inconsistent in actioning its resolutions in the wake of Desert
Storm.

neo-occupiers??? That's a new one on me. What does it mean?


Dave

--