From: dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Date: 27 Sep 92 15:53:00 GMT
Organization: Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep28.025641.9841@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>, kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes...
}dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin) writes:
} 
}>Ah, but we put those same American lives in danger to begin with. We should
}>never have been over there. I agree that, in wartime, anything goes (including
}>chemical & nuclear warfare, petroleum spills, burning of crops and shelter,
}>and so forth);
} 
}I disagree with the concept of "anything goes". There are set rules for
}combat and treatment of POWs, etc.

If there are rules then war is just another game. War is not a civilized
activity -- if you are going to have a war, then *ANYTHING* goes, regardless
of the "rules" that the other side claims you should play by. Despite the
Geneva Convention's attempt to make wars seem civilized, I'd have to say
that in a military situation there are no requirements in regards to the
treatment of prisoners or the weapons one can use on the enemy. Fine, so
we used bulldozer tanks to bury the enemy -- I'm just saying that you can't
condemn the actions of the other side during war without also condemning the
same brutal acts performed by our side. Again, war is not a game -- let's
stop playing like it is. There are *NO* rules in war.

}>I disagree that we had any business going over there, or that
}>war was necessary at all. I was always taught that part of the conceptual
}>image of America was that the military was there to DEFEND our nation, not
}>participate in combat on foreign soil,
} 
}Sometimes it is in the best interest of America to take a position off
}our soil to prevent a situation from occuring which will potentially
}affect our position at a later time.

No. It was not in this nation's best interests to go to war. Consider that
the only Americans who profitted from the war were the big oil companies
(that raised their prices far in advance of the hostilities, and kept them
high until long after they ended -- gee, didn't Bush used to work in the
oil industry?...). There were no attempts at negotiation made (certainly
not any real ones). Why hasn't the Bush administration done anything to
encourage the auto/oil industry to develop alternative fuels, so that we
have less dependence upon foreign petroleum products? Why didn't he freeze
gasoline prices to prevent the oil industry from gouging the entire population
of this nation (car owners; airlines, which raised fare prices to compensate
for the inflated fuel costs; home owners in the north buying heating oil;
the shipping industry (air, sea, rail, truck), which caused the prices of
shipped goods (food, etc.) to increase; etc.). I don't really think that this
war was in our best interest.

}>much less initiate the hostilities.
} 
}You might want to tell the Kuwaitiis that it was really the US that
}initiated the hostilities.

While we may not have directly encouraged Hussein in this, we certainly did
nothing to discourage his invasion of Kuwait. And why not tell the Kuwaitiis
that we may have prevented the hundreds of oil well fires if we had attempted
to negotiate rather than rushing in with our military might.

}>American lives were not in danger until there were Americans
}>over there fighting. It's funny how calmly some people will face such things
}>as burial alive of "the enemy" -- if they had done the same to even ONE of
}>our soldiers you would be screaming for the nukes to turn Iraq into a glass
}>parking lot.
} 
}Of course. The loss of one American life is too many if we have the
}means to prevent said life from being lost.
} 
}This is not to imply, however, that we shouldn't be there. Simply use all
}acceptable means at our disposal within the rules of war to save American
}lives and fulfill our objective.

Again, you assume that war is just a game. And we did have the means to prevent
the loss of all the American lives that were lost -- by not having gone, or
at the very least, to have taken the time to find another solution that did
not involve combat. Bush did not try for anything other than a forceful threat
of military attack -- I'd tend to believe that Bush was the one who encouraged
Reagan in his military responses (Grenada, Panama, the assassination attempt
in Libya...).

}>Look at how people reacted to the petroleum spills and
}>the threat of chemical warfare. The spill was a good tactical move to prevent
}>attack from the sea, and the *threat* of chemical warfare in the Scuds was
}>a move to ensure that their enemy (the allied forces) did whatever was needed
}>to prevent the Scuds from reaching their target.
} 
}Of course, when Exxon spilled millions of gallons of crude oil in Alaska,
}you were equally sympathatic, right?

No, that was a completely different situation. It was not a tactical move
in a war zone, it was incompetence by a drunken sailor. While it angers me
that we still let our leaders play at war games, and the environmental damage
that it causes, I still must admit that, as war tactics go, it was a good one.
Without Bush's threats and military presence, the spill may not have been
needed. May not, since it is possible that serious talks would not have been
productive, but I guess we'll never know. 

 -                                                                     -
 - Dave Martin - Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M - 
 - DAVE@GERGA[GERGO,GERGI].TAMU.EDU - BROOKS@TAMVXOCN.BITNET - AOL:DBM -
 -                                                                     -