From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: GB's Foreign Policy Record? Gimme a Break!
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:01:04 GMT
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <1992Aug28.214106.29256@mtu.edu>, JEFFREY D. HEBERT writes:
>Well, what other reason would one go to war.  Oh I forgot, OIL!

My point, dear namesake, was that if we were going to go to war for something
other than oil, we might not have stopped when we did. If I (in my alter ego 
as President of the U.S.) had been at the helm, I would not have left those
people out to dry after I, with my army at the border, exhorted them to 
rise up against someone I had equated to Mr. H. of Germany. (I didn't 
explicity mention his name, so I don't forfeit the argument!) 
 
>The U.S. gained its independence because
>of demands for change and independence.  There were no nations who were
>willing to help such a cause back then, and we fought on our own.

Good thing you're still at a .EDU site, so you can still go back and take U.S. 
History 101.  We had a little help from guys who talked funny back in 1781.
I submit that the rest of your opinions show the same depth of thought 
as your study of History. 
  
>The U.S.
>is in the desirable position to encourage other peoples to call for 
>change and independence.  However we also have responsibilities to remain
>neutral.  (Though we so often are not!)

Which responsibilities are those? I've never noticed any...and neither has 
any President since Washington. 

>If the Kurds and Shiites want independence, they must obtain it themselves.
>It cannot be any other way.  For the U.S. to fight the war, would be to
>simply shift their rulers from Iraq to a "U.S. friendly" government.

That's true. And that would have been a reasonable end to the war. As it is,
we have the worst of both possible endings. A government that is friendly
to none. (And lots of dead people who believed George Bush.)
 
>It sound like you favor a warmonger to someone who considers the political
>ramifications of action.

Oh for crying out loud. I would favor someone who, having considered the 
situation and decided to go to war, didn't turn out to be a miserable half-wank
about it. (A half-wank, fyi, is someone who doesn't have the guts or will to 
finish masturbating.) Once GB put all those people there, got the whole world up for
killing the new H*ler, and routed the army, he might have finished what he 
started, that's all. I'm not a warmonger, but I do believe that if you start one,
you damn well ought to finish it! 

>Gee, and I thought Sadam was just blowing smoke to try to save face in the
>aftermath of a terrible defeat.

Such a defeat. A bunch of other people died. I bet Saddam didn't so much as miss a
meal. 

>What do you suggest.  Should we ignore their national boundaries and place 
>U.S. troops within Iraq.

Yes. 
  
>Don't you think that is the purpose of the U.N.
>Keep peace with the use of international forces.  If it can be done, isn't 
>that the way it should be done.  Why is it that the U.S. is responsible
>for solving every international conflict.

We aren't necessarily responsible for every conflict, but GB placed us 
squarely in the middle of that one and then committed Kuwaitus Interruptus. 

>I guess you really would vote for Bozo.

No, I'm voting for Clinton. (No cheap predictable followups from the Republicans, please)

>Wow, you are some fortune teller.  Did you advise Nancy? 

No, I would have told Nancy she was a chucklehead.  

>So the only thing that matters is that every nation have a government to 
>our (the U.S. governemnt) liking.  Well, there is something called freedom
>of choice.  Those nations have the right to choose any type of government
>they want.  If the government is opressing them, they can call out for
>change, and they can obtain the resources and support to bring about
>that change.  It is the people of those nations who must decide which 
>government should rule.

Thank you Mr. Hamilton. Look, if we're going to be an empire, let's *be*
an empire. If not, we can sit back and let the others go as they will. But
let's just not be a half-assed empire. 
 
>Buchanan!  That explains a lot.

It was part of my "Stick it to George Bush Any Way I Can" campaign. 

JZ
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush