Conference quark::human_relations-v1

>         <<< Note 1132.0 by MORO::BEELER_JE "Baruch hashem, Israel" >>>
>                    -< How to handle the  A N G E R  .... >-

>    How do you handle it?

	The problem seems to be within you.  What is within you that
	those protesting the war provokes a response way out of line -
	e.g. `wanting to beat the stuffing out of them`?  It seems
	to me that the anger you feel towards the protesters is 
	really about something else.  I'd recommend finding a good
	therapist.

    I understand your feelings Jerry.  When I saw a woman on the news say
    that the war is "interferring with my life" I was so mad I started
    spitting.
    
    My way of handling it?  I let people know that it's a little late to
    debate the war - it's already started.  What's important now is to let
    the men and women know that we care and will be here for them when 
    they get home.  Personally I feel that the people protesting the war
    that are waving Iraqi flags (as was mentioned in another file) are with
    ones with the problem.
    
    Take a deep breath hun count to 10...or 100 if that doesn't work. 
    
    L
    

    
    Hi,
    
    	I understand how you feel.  I don't think there is any sane person
    who wants us to be in a war.  Unfortunatly, things being the way they
    are, we are.  I support the people over there and pray for their safe
    return.
    
    	I have a "friend" who is a "neutralist" (at least that's the term
    she used).  She said she thought it was wrong to be over there fighting
    and she didn't think we should be there ...  I told her that was her
    opinion and not everyone felt that way.  I told her that although I was
    against war, in general, I supported our troops over there.  She called
    me a few names...  I told her that if it weren't for our military
    strenght, it's quite possible she wouldn't be able to say what she was
    saying.  She got into a huff over that one and said "that's besides the
    point."  I told her THAT WAS THE POINT.
    
    	Of course, if she were really a "neutralist" wouldn't she have no
    opinion one way or the other?
    
    
    						jean
    

    re: .0
    
         There is lots that could be said here and I don't wish to 
    spend my "noting-life" in here expressing everything I believe,
    think or feel regarding this issue.  So to that end, I will 
    respond simplistically and without intention of being comprehensive.
         As .1 stated (even if "curt",) any feelings that you find
    difficult to deal with can be helped by seeking out a qualified
    facilitator.  I agree that in this case the anger you feel is
    rooted deeply...in resentments, rages, angers, hurts...it's pretty
    hard to say precisely where (which is where professional, qualified
    help can be of great value...I know from which I speak.)
         In this case, there is also an intricacy of a magnitude not
    usually dealt with.  We have lots of conflicting and contradictory
    factors at play.  We don't want war, but seemingly have no other
    option.  We want to support troops, but don't want them to kill 
    anyone.  We want to eliminate a threat, but don't want to make 
    ourselves vulnerable.  And there are more and more difficult issues
    here to deal with.  There is understandably a confusion potential
    and with that a screaming desire to want things to be simple...to
    make them black and white, to make the world something we can 
    understand.  
        In that understanding, it is obvious that if we choose between
    black and white, that we will be as polarized as the opposite 
    position.  Those protesting with a vengence are as equally polarized
    as those proselytizing war on the other side.  They, too, may have
    the same angers and confusion going on within, but choose according
    to their beliefs.  When they protest with violence, they really
    aren't exhibiting a true basis in their belief.  Similarly, those
    who fight aren't exhibiting a true demonstration of their stated
    beliefs in peace.  
         Life is not black or white.  It is a massive array of shadings.
    You must work on your beliefs to accommodate this reality.  Polarized
    beliefs will lead to a Saddam Hussein, who despotically believes
    in a holy mission, or to a George Bush, who in Crusader Rabbit
    fashion believes himself the savior of democracy.  Both are warriors
    and both are righteous.  Both are willing to do whatever it takes
    to demonstrate that righteousness.  You are free to accept either
    side...OR, you may look and see the polarities involved and work
    towards bringing those polarizations into a working, fluid harmony.
         Now that we have agreed (by the process of our democratic
    government) to a war, we cannot undo that damage.  The balance has
    shifted forever, from this point onwards.  So have can this 
    situation be redeemed?  How can we avoid killing more, on either
    side?  I don't have a solution, unfortunately, but what I can do
    is work on my understanding.
         It occurred to me yesterday that it seems incredible to me that
    the U.S. is willing to go to war, an extremely serious situation,
    and the "rest of the time" isn't willing to go to this SAME EXTREME
    to find a solution to the problems that instigated the war in the
    first place.  Why, why, why haven't we used our "brute strength"
    to force a solution to Palestinian needs?  Why haven't we been there
    listening to each side and "forcing" solutions?  Why do we force
    a solution now when the war has to do with pent up frustrations on
    the parts of those living there?  (We supported Hussein, after all,
    for our own motives...then dumped him when he had problems raising
    money.  Obviously, his violent tendencies haven't been in check, but
    couldn't we have forced him, Kuwait, Syria, etc., to some agreement?
    Seems to me that a country that can obliterate humanity is capable
    of doing lots more here...)
        Anyway, this could evolve into a book, and I don't want to do
    that (might make lousy reading anyway...;-) ) but what I'm trying
    to say is that you can only work on understanding.  Try to understand
    the other side.  Then work, in your own mind if no where else, on
    reaching a solution that will give both sides a way to undo their
    polarization.  In the meantime, if there are emotions that you cannot
    understand, get help in understanding them, too.  Honor your feelings,
    however (just continue to do so appropriately.)
    
         As a sidelight, my father was severely wounded in Iwo Jima during
    the WWII.  A consequence of that is that he always held certain 
    resentments towards Japanese (though mild, it seems to me.)  Several
    years ago there was an Iwo Jima reunion, where Americans and Japanese
    survivors of that big battle met, on that tiny island.  My father
    was there.  He has told me that he met some "old" Japanese (failing
    to acknowledge his own age, I think :-) ) men, shake hands, and 
    even hug and eventually cry with them.  I have only seen my father
    cry one time in my life (at my wedding...no comment...;-} )  It
    must have taken a great deal of strength and a real sense of 
    forgiveness for my father to cry in the arms of his former enemy.
        War is not Top Gun come to life.  It is not a bunch of Rambos
    living out fantasies.  Yes, those people are there.  But there are
    also lots of innocent men, women and children, who have no other
    desire than to live a happy, secure life.  Allowing themselves to
    be the pawns of those who have stronger ambitions is their greatest
    and most tragic error.  I hope that all of us can wrest this power
    back to see to it that our desires are carried out, and not allow
    desires of others, which may conflict with ours, speak for us.
    
        
    Frederick
     

Perhaps you can turn this anger energy into something positive, and do
something to help out.

Are there anti-Iraqi demonstrations? Join one of those...

I don't think your reactions are "way out of line"... I think its a natural
reaction to want to change anothers opinion when it doesn't agree with
your own.  

The main thing is to try not to let it eat away at you... do YOUR thing, for
YOUR "side"... and try and keep your mind off those others...

I feel really bad that there are at this moment people praying in British 
Mosques for an Iraqi victory...if we were attacked by anyone else these
people would expect to be protected by the British...

I feel strongly that if these people want to support Saddam Hussein then they
should be on the first boat out of here....


When in Rome and all that....



Xtine

    Hello,
    
       I can understand your bitterness about the war, but it is beyond our
    control.  I have three little cousins over in Kuwait, that last year
    were kidnapped from my cousin's estranged husband (whos parents live
    there, he met my cousin in 1978, married, and got divorced last year).
    He had visitation rights and one day when my cousin was out of the
    house, he made plane reservations and took the kids out of the country.
    My cousin has not seen them in about a year and has not heard from them
    since the crisis started in August.  I pray for their safety.
    
    
    It is tough for all of us.
    
    
    Lynne

    I can sure relate to what Jerry is saying in .0. It gets really
    hard sometimes. My wife has a mug that says, "STRESS: That problem
    caused when your mind prevents your body from beating up someone
    who really deserves it." As with Jerry I get upset with many of those
    protesting the UN and US involvement in Kuwait. Perhaps it is because
    I fail to understand how it could be interpreted as anything other then
    support of Iraq, their invasion of Kuwait and missile attacks on
    Israel. These are very bad things that are being supported by these
    protesters.

    We know from what the government of North Viet Nam that such protests
    greatly helped them. We know, not suppose, that such protests are
    likely to result in *more* American deaths. One is so tempted to want
    to grab these people and demand to know why they are trying to get our
    solders killed! We is tempted to want to try and shake some sense into
    their heads. It's one thing for people to be stupid it's quite an other
    to allow their stupid actions to be fatal for other people.

    So far I handle the stress by trying to keep my mind off the protests.
    I switch the channel when they come on TV. I read books, I do my job.
    I concentrate of the successes our troops are having. I pray for a
    swift and just peace.

    RE: .1 You're kidding right? .0 is so clear and natural I find it hard
    to take .1 as othr then a joke in poor taste.

    		Alfred

Re: .7

Alfred, I don't see any basis for your contention that protests cause
more deaths.  I do understand the natural hostility that arises when
there are people who state that a decision you support was foolish.

I do think there is one important point to make.  In every instance I have
seen, those who are protesting the US involvement in the Gulf war are
adamant in stating their full support of our men and women in uniform who
are over there.  The protests are aimed at government policy, not the
troops.

Some of what I read here is very scary.  People who want to go hunt down
some protestors and "knock their heads together"; people who would
weaken or destroy the very constiutional protections that define their
favorite word "freedom"; people who won't allow others to express a dissenting
opinion.  I might have hoped that we had left that sort of thing behind
in the 60's, but it seems it's still with us.

				Steve

Re:             <<< Note 1132.7 by CVG::THOMPSON "Semper Gumby" >>>

>    Perhaps it is because
>    I fail to understand how it could be interpreted as anything other then
>    support of Iraq, their invasion of Kuwait and missile attacks on
>    Israel. These are very bad things that are being supported by these
>    protesters.

	For me, I oppose the fact that we are at war.  Have I marched
	in the streets?  No. no yet, and I may not.  But I sympathize
	totally.  Yet I do not support Iraq, their invasion and
	subjugation of Kuwait, or the missle attacks on Israel.

	I support the goal of getting Iraq out of Kuwait.

	But I do not support the means.  And I most specifically don't
	support the role of the United States as the world's police 
	officer.

	I believe the sanctions should have been given an indefinite
	amount of time to work.  Years if need be...

	Why choose a terribly violent shooting war to sove this problem,
	when the less violent economic war is available as a tool?

	But if the member nations of the U.N. felt so strongly that
	force was necessary, then let's recruit support from all the
	member nations in equal share.  Where are the trops from
	Japan?  Germany?  Brasil?  USSR?  Norway?  Kenya?  India?

	Bob

	P.S.  However, then given that we have chosen this path, then
	let's go do what has to be done as quickly as possible.

	P.P.S. I wonder if "This will not be another Vietnam" will come
	home to haunt George Bush, and the American people, as much as
	"Read my lips - no new taxes"...

    RE: .8

>Alfred, I don't see any basis for your contention that protests cause
>more deaths.  

    The protests give the other side the idea that they can keep fighting
    and we'll get tired and go home. If the protests were not happening
    the more logical conclusion is that we will fight until we win and
    the other side is less likely to fight as long or as hard. Thus saving
    lives. The government of Viet Nam claims this is how it works and I
    see no basis for not believing them. My training is sociology tends
    to support this theory as well.

    			Alfred

    
    	Re .0-
    
    	It's okay to be angry and feel like you want to beat the bejeezers
    out of someone. It is inappropriate, however, to actually act out
    the beating just because you happen to feel that way.
    
    	The "what you do with it" is a difficult question - and, I might
    add - not something that is very well taught in our society. As
    shown by the number of suggestions here so far in 10 replies; go
    see a therapist or facilitator. Implying that you need a professional
    to discover ways of appropriately dispersing that energy.
    
    	Admittedly, it _was_ suggested to go and do the same as what's
    making you angry - but join the "other side". I'm reminded of the
    PBS commercials for that 60's documentary, showing these two folks
    screaming in each other face, people in fist fights with police...
    
    	I've also heard, just recently, that the public's attitude does
    in fact effect the attitude of the combatants. And when you go into
    combat with a less than optimal attitude about it, you may perform
    less than optimally; therefore may have a greater chance of getting
    killed.
    
    	Joe

    Jeryy,
    
    	I can certainly say that you and I are on the same track with this
    one.  See, my husband is on his way to the Persian Gulf War, in fact as
    of this writing he may very well be there already.
    
    	I have been *overwhelmed* with the urge to have a "Come to Jesus
    meeting" with some folks, not the least of which was a military wife
    who went on CNN to protest the fact that her Marine husband was leaving
    for Saudi.
    
    	All I can do is keep reminding myself that this is the U.S. of A.
    and we vest our citizens with the right to be a horses ass.  But heaven
    help the first one that gets in *my* face about it.  I respectfully
    reserve my right to conduct some wall-to-wall counseling in that case!
    
    Sue

    How is giving "sanctions an indefinite time to work" different from
    accepting that if they fail, we just accept the situation as it is?
    When do you draw the line? If Kennedy gave Kruschev an "indefinite
    amount of time" to remove his missiles, would they have been removed?
    If England gave Germany "an indefinite amount of time" to un-invade
    Poland, when would Hitler have withdrawn? If Georgie Porgie had given
    Noriega "an indefinite amount of time" to resign the presidency of
    Panama, would he still be president? If the British had given Argentina
    "an indefinite amount of time" to withdraw from the Falklands, would
    they be the Malvinas?
    
    

 	>   ANGER is just one letter different than DANGER


Yes, but ANGER is also one letter different than ANGEL

Waiting for someone to uninvade, or waiting for a president to resign, is
DIFFERENT than waiting for sanctions to work.

If sanctions are preventing Iraqis from getting food, they might very
well work.

    I feel strongly that dissent is essential to good government.  It
    creates another element in that we (the public) have to look at the
    dissent and determine if it is a just cause and get on the bandwagon.
    Boston being the scene of one of history's examples of organized
    dissent in The Boston Tea Party.
    
    The protestors that I have seen in Boston seem poorly organized and
    without any real mission.  I think that in certain cases a cause
    creates an opportunity to be heard.
    
    This weekend I met an acquaintance at a gathering in Boston....he said
    to me "Joyce, we have to stop the war will you support my protests?  I
    told him I would like to talk about his views but at the moment I was
    busy trying to find transportation for some left over food from our 
    luncheon.  Would he like to bring it to the Pine Street Inn?  He
    answered "no" he was on his way home.  It goes without saying his
    protest lost validity when he displayed a lack of interest in a very
    real war in his own back yard.
    
    I do not become angry at protests which do not agree with my politics
    but I do become annoyed when it appears that the protest doesn't
    address the issue and suggest resolutions and when the protestor enjoys
    the activity but does not seem sincere in resolving world issues.

    I should rewrite .18 but I think you get the gist of it.
    
    J

    re .16
    
    Iraq is a fertile country, the sanctions were not preventing Iraqis
    from getting food.
    
    Rich

    re: .13 (Sue)
    
    My, and I'm sure other's, thoughts and prayers are with both you and
    your husband.  May he come home safe and soon.
    
    Lynne
    

    Jerry,
    Ignore it these people are professional protestors when they are not
    doing the abortion circuit they play the anti-war circuit. Has anyone
    noticed they are all saying about the same thing 'no war for oil'
    when it is widely known that there is more at stake here like
    Sadman Insanes push to build a nuke. What's even more ironic is about
    half of them were probably attending an anti nuke rally when this
    little social event came up.
    
    My humble opinion is that they are more concerned with their right
    to protest than the issue they protest.
    
    
    -j (ready to get flamed)
    

    re .0
    
    I agree totally with your anger. I think that alot of folks out there
    in the REAL world feel the same anger. 
    
    I get the same feelings of hatred when I see the protestors yelling
    quite violently about peace...and no blood for oil and no killing
    poor Iraqi civilians etc etc....It is the mindless jibberish typical
    of the 'anti-anything-authoritarian' that we hear from the average
    'still not quite through puberty' individual out there. 
    Look at the protestors. College kids. How typical. If we were invaded
    by Saddam, they'd protest that we fired back in the streets. 
    It is typical of youngsters to band together and voice their opposition
    to anything that their fantasy world tells them isn't good...
    by fantasy world, I'm talking about the common belief in those dreamers
    who still feel that 'all human beings are basically good'.
    Well, I think that maybe one of those dreamers oughta maybe call up
    Saddam and tell him that torturing civilians, dumping chemical weapons
    on other human beings, putting his OWN civilian population at risk
    without batting an eye, isn't nice. I'm sure that he really is a
    nice person deep down....he just wasn't raised right.  Neither was
    Hitler, or Charles Manson...and we didn't give them much of a chance either
    
    
    As for letting the sanctions go on and on and on forever, so would his
    military buildup continue. SO would his stockpile of chmemical weapons
    grow, so would his toruring of Kuwaiti civilians continue. He would
    have continued to stall, while we continued to wait. 
    What would you have us wait for? He had nothing to lose. His country
    was doing just fine. His  military was well taken care of and that's
    all that matters to him...no one probably told him yet that the
    civilian population likes to eat too. 
    
    As for your needing a therapist......
    scary stuff. Once again, we're failing to see that, despite all the
    fairy tales and piano music background, Human Beings are basically
    emotional. One of those emotions is hatred. Violence. We can control
    it, most of us, most of the time, but there is nothing wrong with 
    feeling it. There are not always 'underlying reasons' why you feel
    the way you do. Sometimes you just hate. 
    Those 'higher forms of life' on this planet like to make you think that
    really 'good' people never hate....or never feel violent...
    of course, these are the same folks who would tell you to forgive the
    man who killed your family in their beds.
     We are HUMAN BEINGS for crying out loud. We are not 2 billion Mother
    Theresa's running around with love and joy in our hearts. We are
    animals. We are imperfect. ..at least most of us are...  
    
    But anyhow!
    Do what I do....watch TV, call them filthy names, yell at the TV set
    (do it when the kids are asleep!!). But mostly, think of how stupid
    YOU probably were at that age. Think of how stupid they'll feel when
    THEIR children are out on the streets with pins in their noses and
    purple hair, trying to tell the rest of the country what is right.
    
    More importantly, just remember that if YOU need to see a therapist,
    then so does 90% of the rest of the people of the free world. 
    
    cathy
    
    p.s  My brother is heading out to the Gulf in two days. He feels as I
    do....it was funny to hear him saying "they're just goXXammed stupid
    kids with nothing else to do but say no when anyone older says yes"
    ...I guess he's not my 'little brother' anymore! 

    Re:  .0


    	I understand how you feel, I admit I felt *some* of what you're
    feeling at one point.  Then I realized that over in Iraq they *can't*
    protest anything, and I would really like to know what percentage of
    the population over there is *really* behind Saddam Hussein and
    company.  It's not realistic to think that everyone in the same country
    is going to think alike, so to me it's a healthy sign that we have
    people expressing both views.


    	On the OTHER hand, I have a lot of problems with nearly all the
    protestors I've seen.  My problem lies in the fact that I think they
    are viewing this situation with their hearts only:  war is wrong,
    killing is wrong.  Of course they are, no one would disagree with that!
    No rational person anyway.  But the reasons and factors that go into
    this situation are varied and complex and you have to try to understand
    some of them before you start denouncing.  I struggled with this moral
    dilemma for about a month before I finally resolved it for myself.  But
    in that time I was busy trying to learn what I could about how things
    got to where they were.


    	Then they say that we should have let the sanctions work for awhile
    longer.  Well, there were reports that said the sanctions wouldn't
    drive him out, that he would let his people starve before his military.
    Based on what he's been doing recently and in the past, I agree whole-
    heartedly.  But even if that's not true, the sanctions would have taken
    a long time to work, at least a year.  I really don't believe that the
    coalition would have held up that long intact.  And if it hadn't, we'd
    be over there all by our lonesomes.  Is that such a great alternative?


    	My problem with the protestors is that they are yelling and
    screaming without first trying to learn what went into this situation.
    An uninformed decision is a scary thing to me (either way).  I have yet
    to agree with any of the protestors statements ("no blood for oil" is
    an extreme oversimplification which has no basis in fact).  I have on
    the other hand agreed with some of the statements made by the folks in
    congress during the debates.  On something this important, we cannot
    make our decisions solely on what our hearts tell us, and neither can
    we do it solely on facts and advice:  I think a balance of the two is
    the proper course to take.


    	If people think we're really over there for oil, they're crazy.
    While it would hurt us, it would hurt other countries far more.  If
    they think it's for the liberation of Kuwait, I don't think that's the
    largest reason either.  In *my* opinion, we're there because Saddam
    Hussein is a monster who happens to have the 4th largest army and the
    scruples of a sewer rat.  If you marry that situation with the power
    and money represented by the Kuwaiti oil and that could feed an even
    larger war machine you have the second coming of Hitler.  People ask if
    we can afford this war; I say, can we afford not to?


    	I understand that our government is making a list of war crimes
    committed by Hussein and his government, and that any post-war Iraq
    will of necessity be Saddam-less.  I was so completely outraged by the
    pictures of our airmen on TV yesterday I was shaking.  The only down
    side is that Saddam apparently lives with a cyanide capsule and his gun
    and has ordered his guards not to let him be taken alive; it's a shame
    that he might not pay for his crimes when this is all over.  I keep
    hoping that some high-ranking officer will assassinate him (as happened
    with Hitler in WWII, except they weren't successful) and end this
    problem for everyone quickly.


    	May our troops come home quickly and safely!


    Brian

    
    RE .23 -
    
    	About the kids protesting, my own feelings are they're out there
    because of fear.  If we end up instituting a draft, those are the folks
    on their way outta here...  So, don't be too harsh on the youth.  I
    truely believe they're afraid - and rightly so.
    
    RE .24 -
    
    	Yes, it's too bad that we won't get that madman alive.  I'd love to
    watch him squirm...  of course then once he gets convicted, he'd end up
    in some glorified prison for the rest of his life, which would be WAY
    too good for him.  So, the sooner he meets his maker the better, I
    think.  I truely believe there isn't anyone on earth who could hand out
    the sentence as well...
    
    	I heard on the t.v. that when Hussein dies the war *should* be
    pretty much over.  His troops are taught not to do anything without his
    commands!  Our troops are taught to take independant action as
    necessary.  So, basically his troops are lost without him.  (Of course
    they're also lost with him so it's a lose/lose situation!)
    
    	Anyway, I support our troops over there, wish for their safe return
    and sympathize with their families here.
    
    	
    						jean
    	

    
    	Well, now in 24 replies there's not much addressing the title
    of this note...
    
    	I'll attempt to make some suggestions of "how to handle it".
    These are "appropriate ways" to handle your anger arising from
    what you have that feeling about. At least, though you still may 
    feel angry, you'll dissipate much of the energy that goes along with 
    it:
    
    	1. Go to a gym, and work it out on the large punching bag there.
    	2. Buy a hacksaw and several blades, saw that old car in your
    	   backyard in half.
    	3. Chop down, cut, split and stack that old dead oak tree for
    	   your neighbor.
    	4. Go to a meeting, one of the kinds where people are allowed
	   to speak their minds freely without consequent judgement, and 
    	   talk about how you're feeling angry and why.
    	5. Write your feelings down on paper and why you feel that way,
    	   and mail it off to "any soldier" C/O the US Army.
	6. Take off for a weekend and plan a trip to visit a Memorial, such
    	   as the one you mentioned in Washington DC.
    
    	Conversely, things that are "inappropriate" actions: (Often
    the result of keeping your feelings stuffed until they come out of you 
    "sideways", perhaps at a loved one, other innocent person or even
    yourself):
        
    	1. Go to an anti war protest and work it out on one of the protesters.
    	2. Buy a hacksaw and several blades, saw your neighbor's car in half.
	3. Burn down the old dead oak tree.
       	4. Start driving your car offensively and recklessly.
    	5. Go and get good 'n drunk.

    	Hope this helps.
    
    	Joe

    Okay, looks like I get to reply to the base note...
    
    What do I do?  A lot of things already mentioned here, but I need some
    help on one thing:
    
    I do not know any service man or woman personally, but I have begun to 
    write letters.  I will *tell* these brave people how I feel about them,
    and that my prayers are with them.  What I need is:
    
    1.  What is the address to use?
    2.  How much postage does it require?
    3.  Is it a good idea to enclose a self-addressed stamped envelope, to 
    	make it easier to get a reply?  How much postage should the return
    	envelope have?
    
    Please, someone, get me this info.  It's not much, but it's one thing I
    *want* to do.
    
    						--Eric--
    
    P.S.  Re. .24  Your analysis of this crisis is the clearest one I've 
    seen - thank you.

	  The "any soldier/any airman" address from as of when it was
     Operation Desert Shield is:

	  Any Soldier (or Any Airman)
	  Operation Desert Shield
	  APO New York  09848

     Postage for letters and packages sent to this address is standard US
     domestic postage -- as far as the postal service is concerned, it is
     going to New York.  Packages must have a customs declaration, and may
     not contain contraband (pornography [e.g., TV Guide or Readers Digest
     -- they show "unveiled" women], religious materials, or unclean food
     [e.g., food made with alcohol, pork, or animal fat]).  The soldiers
     have recently shipped back home almost all their personal belongings,
     at the armed services' request; so any packages sent should contain
     consumables, rather than durables.  Homemade cookies (made with
     vegetable shortening, rather than lard, and that noted on the customs
     declaration) are, by the reports I have heard, popular.

	  I presume the same address, with "Operation Desert Storm" rather
     than "Operation Desert Shield," will work now.

	  There is an FPO address for "Any Sailor," but I don't have it.

	  The troops' return postage is free -- the armed services pick
     it up.

	  "Any soldier/airman" letters are generally given to the single
     enlisted men.  Also, the troops tend to be able to distinguish
     between "I support the troops" and "I support the war."

				 Brian Hetrick

    Re. .29
    
    Thanks, Brian.
    
    					--Eric--

    re .29..seems I heard on one of the many reports yesterday that a
    concern over here is that "people going through the trash pulling out
    discarded envelopes with return addresses on them" (in Saudi Arabia)
    
    ..presumably family members addresses
    ..may be targets of letter bombs...
    
    
    ..just a thought on the return address idea.
    
    cathy

     Re: .31

	  I love it.  If my countrymen don't kill me because I think cover-
     ing Iraq with eighteen inches of radioactive glass is a really stupid
     idea, then "people" will kill me because I have friends in the Army.

	  War.  What lovely things it does to us all.  Sometimes I wonder
     if the species deserves to survive.

				 Brian Hetrick

    re point .32
    
    sorry if I wasn't clear on my point...(re reading it, maybe I wasn't)
    
    The concern is the Iraqis getting addresses of family members of
    service men/women over there, and as a terrorist act, send nasties back
    through the mail.
    
    And, I haven't heard it yet suggested that we nuke Iraq. I think you
    underestimate those of us who are supportive of the actions of our
    government. Maybe you can compare it to starting small fires to stop
    the spread of a larger fire. No one wants ANY fires. But it is
    sometimes the ONLY solution. You do it, you get it done. You go on. 
    
    cathy

    I'm doing a lot better since I entered the base note ... for the most
    part the people in Beelersfield are  V E R Y  supportive of the
    President and the troops ...  I had the very unfortunate experience of
    encountering a few of the protesters on a local college campus, but,
    managed to do more harm by totally ignoring them as oppose to venting
    some of my anger ... there was a decided look of dismay when I took
    their literature ... set it afire with my cigarette lighter ... dropped
    it to the ground and stomped it out ... and just kept walking ....
    
    As for watching them on Television ... put out nearly $1,000 for a new
    monitor today and .. well ... I'm more prone to just switching channels
    as opposed to blowing the TV away  ..  :-)
    
    Now, I'm going to downtown Los Angeles on Thursday and Friday .. that
    just may be a different story ... my anger is still there ... it's very
    real ... it's seething ... I can feel it ... it still scares me ... and
    some events of the last few days have more than intensified my desire
    to do whatever is necessary and get my butt over there into the
    fighting.  I can't even get a $7.00 connector from Digital so that I
    can have a terminal on my desk .. at least the Marines would give me my
    M16 with no arguments .... 
    
    We'll see ... I'll let you know what happens in Los Angeles ...
    
    Jerry

    
    	Jerry, how you handle your anger is your business; you may go
    beat the crap out of some protester (in your different story), or go off 
    and get yourself unnecessarily killed over it. The choice is entirely 
    yours, as is the responsibility of whatever consequences happen. Perhaps
    you and others thought what I entered as "appropriate" alternatives
    to handling it was some kinda *joke*...it wasnt, and taken seriously,
    may save you a lot of trouble or even your life.
    
    	Joe

    Re:  --Eric--
    
>    P.S.  Re. .24  Your analysis of this crisis is the clearest one I've 
>    seen - thank you.


    	Thanks.  Actually, I think this is one of my biggest gripes with
    the government so far -- they *haven't* really made it clear to
    everyone about the reasons that go into this.  I think if they had
    there might be a few less protestors.  The fact is, the weekend before
    the war started (seems like ages now) I was leaning towards being
    against the war myself.  It wasn't until I found out some of the
    information I now know that it became clear to me.  Although I think
    Hussein himself is helping make it clear just how badly he needs to be
    stopped.


    	Something else I struggled with for a long time was the Palistinian
    issue.  I couldn't understand why our government wouldn't talk about
    this if it would save some lives.  Then I realized why:  think about
    terrorists taking over a plane.  Do we make deals and concessions with
    these people?  No.  And with good reason -- once you do, you set a
    precedent which tells terrorists that they can get what they want by
    committing acts of terror.  Not a good idea.  But again, our government
    should be more clear about *why* we don't want that linkage.


    	Furthermore, on PBS they had a real interesting special about
    Saddam Hussein and his rise to power.  Anwar Sadat's wife appeared on
    it and spoke at length (I forget her name).  She said that it's
    ridiculous for Hussein to make this linkage as Iraq was one of the few
    arab countries which never participated in the whole issue some years
    back!  Hussein doesn't give a hoot about them except as it relates to
    his own desires.


    	So I agree now, we shouldn't make any linkage between the two
    situations.  BUT, I think once this is all over we DO need to sit down
    resolve this once and for all.  Otherwise it's just going to haunt us
    forever.


    	On CNN this morning the military advisor (Perry Smith) gave out a
    list of 3 books for further reading about this war.  If anyone is
    interested I'll try to remember to bring the list in and post it here.



    Brian

    I read in the news recently that since the invasion there have been
    400+ new babies given the name Saddam Hussein (or maybe it was just
    Saddam). What happens when all these little clones grow up???

    It really depends on the world's view of the situation long after it's
    over.  There's a trivia question that's [see if I can phrasse it
    right]:
    
    "Of all the people who have had their names changed in the last 50
    years, what was the most common first name of the men changing their
    names?"
    
    (i.e., what were they changing it from."
    
    Were the 400+ babies born in Iraq?
    
    ed

re .37, .38

The report that I heard this morning (on NPR) stated that there were a large
number of babies being given the name "Saddam" in Jordan and the name was
essentially unused before.  It seems that Saddam Hussain is a "hero" to many
people in Jordan.

Rich

    As promised, here is the list of books I took down from CNN:


    "Desert Storm Fact Book"    (no author given or I wasn't quick enough)

    "If War Comes..."    (Trevor Dupuy)

    "The Air Campaign"  (John Warden)


    I get the sense that these are more about the war itself than about
    events leading to the war.


    Brian

    re:.40
    
    "5.  He has, and neither has his army fought in the desert."
    
    Is there a word missing?
    
    ed
    
    

    Last evening another "method" of handling the intense anger inside of
    me occured .....
    
    Just knowing that there are people over there who are from all external
    appearances doing a darned good job ....
    
    With respect to the Iraq troops dug in in Kuwait ...
    
    		"...our strategy is simple.  We're  going
    		to cut them off, then kill 'em...."
    
    				General Colin Powell
    
    

    
    
    Ok so now I'M REALLY ANGRY TOO....no, it's not the protestors....
    
    IT'S ISRAEL........
    
    20 BILLION DOLLARS??????????????
    
    WHAT NERVE. WHAT GALL......
    
    at over a half mil per Patriot missle, I'd say we're giving away more
    than enough already...
    
    does the rest of the world believe that we are all millionaires over 
    here and can just keep coughing up tax bucks every time they ask????
    
    Let them ask Japan for it. Let them get it from Suddam. Let them get
    it from KUWAIT....
    
    and then of course there's the Saudis....they are apparently making a
    tidy profit from the increased oil sales......and they still haven't
    coughed up for THEIR share of Desert Sheild (which I would hope would 
    be a LARGE SHARE).
    And what has KUWAIT chipped in for THEIR share of the bill? Or are we
    just gonna let them'owe us'.... like EGYPT owed us 7 billion dollars...
    
    Maybe it's just cause it's tax time...maybe I don't like the thought of
    sitting down at the kitchen table and writing out a big fat check
    payable to the ISRAELI government. 
    
    Cathy
    

    
    re .46
    
    I think you hit it right now. Peter Arnett is being used as a
    propaganda tool by Iraq. Anyone stupid enough to believe the baby
    formula factory (that was barb wired in and heavily guarded) story
    is scary...
    
    and the Ted Turner's wife thing....
    you're right...I'd almost forgotten. Good point!! Hanoi Jane is till
    alive and politically active....but quieter and much more powerfull
    this time around.
    
    cathy

I think some of the notes here are starting to stray over the line of
what is acceptable and what isn't.  I've been rather lenient about it so
far, because I understand the need for people to vent their feelings, but
some of the insults being bandied about are pushing my good nature.

If possible, I'd like to see the focus here be on how we deal with our
feelings about the war, and not a slugfest of political argument.  Thanks.

			Steve

    I've been watching the replies back and forth on this topic both here
    and in other notesfiles and electronic forums... seems like everywhere
    you turn there's a discussion of the war going on.
    
    Anyhow, .0 asks how to deal with his intense anger at the anti-war
    protesters... others chime in about how absolutely right or terribly
    wrong this war is...
    
    What I find interesting is that most everyone seems to have a VERY
    strong opinion one way or the other on this issue, and they just KNOW
    they're right.
    
    I've been thinking about this issue a lot over the past week... and the
    more I think about it the more I realize that I just don't know WHAT
    the h*ll to think.  The reason is that when I pull back and try to look
    at the big picture, not all the pieces seem to be in place.  When I
    look at George Bush's actions over the past few months, I get the
    feeling that he wanted absolutely nothing short of the war we're now
    in.  It seemed to me that he went through the motions of diplomacy and
    negotiations, but that he did so in such a way as to guarantee they'd
    fail.  When I listen to Bush's reasons for getting us into this mess,
    each one has a hollow ring to it:
    
    	"Combat naked aggression" -- why, then, was he willing to forgive
    	and forget Tiananmen Square in order to secure China's crucial
    	abstention in the UN Security Council?  For that matter, why is he
        currently soft-pedaling the "naked aggression" that's currently
        going on in the Baltics?
    
    	"Enforce the UN resolutions" -- there's plenty of OTHER unkept
        UN resolutions on the books that I don't see him peeing in his
        pants over...
    
    	"Saddam is a ruthless, expansionist Hitler-clone who must be
        stopped" -- if that's the case, then he could be neutralized
        with MUCH greater finesse than broadsiding him with half a
    	million troops (remember; Bush was once head of the CIA; he
    	can act with finesse when he has to!)
    
    	"Protect the oil supply" -- five months without Iraqi and Kuwaiti
    	oil doesn't seem to have affected the overall supply any...
    	besides; if we took the $billions that are being poured into
    	desert shield/storm and poured them into energy research instead,
    	I'm sure we could kiss the entire mideast goodbye...
    
    And on and on... I have a few more of these in my brain that I won't
    bore you with.  The point is, that while each point sounds good on the
    surface, in my mind none of them can account for Bush's single-minded
    determination to go to war.  The way he lobbied the UN, the
    international community, and the Congress to approve this war, it seems
    to me like he called in every favor he'd ever been owed and promised a
    few more to boot.
    
    Much as I don't like Bush, I don't believe he's an entirely irrational
    man.  Therefore, when I look at the big picture, I get the feeling that
    there are even bigger things afoot than we're being told about.  If it
    was a simple matter of getting Iraq unconditionally out of Kuwait, then
    what did Baker and Aziz talk about for seven hours a few weeks ago?
    If the two of them had simple, uncompromising positions, then the talks
    should've taken all of five minutes:
    
    	Baker: "Get your @ss out of Kuwait now!!"
    	Aziz:  "Go suck a camel"
    
    In short, I feel I have to reserve judgment on the whole issue until
    the big picture finally comes out... and that's not likely to happen
    for 20-30 years or more after the issue is settled...
    

    re: .49 (TALLIS::PARADIS)
    
          Thank you for an adult perspective.
    
          It is often difficult to accept that the adolescent (within)
    is the one who insists on seeing things in black and white.  The
    shades of gray are enormous, here.  Only the adult person is willing
    to consider that gray.  As I said earlier, if we all made an
    effort to be understanding, rather than in being understood, the
    world would become a radically different place.  No matter how
    bad a guy (i.e., a Hussein) is, this reality would never be allowed
    to fall into place.  No matter how many emotions we feel (anger
    being the apparently foremost one) we would find other ways of 
    expressing or releasing those emotions in a manner which wouldn't
    adversely affect others around.
    
    Frederick
    

	RE.-1
    
	NO,Thank you for an adult perspective Frederick!

	I have heard some pretty nasty comments in this last week. Like
"oh, lets just nuke them!"..... It sure scare me to see this kind of behavior
and gets my anger started.  I wish people would really think before they
speak.  So thank you, Frederick...it helps me with my anger..;-)

	peace,

	Mikki    

    I drum through my anger, (and other powerful emotions) with a plains 
    style Amerindian drum.  It's an especially transformative experience 
    with a group of people.  Include rattles and other percussion
    instruments.  If you really allow yourself to get deeply into it, there
    will be little, if any, anger left afterwards.  Mostly there will be 
    a deep level of vitality, and even laughter.  
    
    Karen           

    	Basenoter, I've been thinking about this a lot.  I've been trying
    to understand why it bothers me to see the protestors on TV.  Beyond
    the fact that it bothers me to see people shouting without offering
    alternatives, I think there's a deeper reason.  After having watched
    many Vietnam films, and having watched those soldiers go through SO
    MUCH for us only to see them treated worse than dirt when they got
    home...well, I think *that's* what's getting to me.  Now I know that
    most of the protestors are protesting the war and at the same time
    supporting our troops, but I just can't get those images out of my mind
    so easily.  I am hoping that over time those scenes will bother me less
    and less, because in my mind I know it's healthy to see them out there
    and in principle I agree with them totally (it's just this particular
    application of those principles that I can't support, at least at the
    moment).


    	If you want to do something, organize a peaceful rally yourself.
    Or show up alone with a poster that says something like "Offer
    alternatives not criticism".  And through it all, smile.  *Really*
    smile.  If they yell at you smile all the more, for you will have
    proved that they're not willing to live by the principles they're
    shouting for.  Frankly, I tend to ignore much of what they say because
    so much of it is simply pure emotion; "It is as the wind on a calm
    night and I do not hear it."  I think the news media would cover them
    more if they *had* something constructive to say or offer besides trite
    and inane little sayings which children could have thought up.  Based
    on the content, perhaps the children did.


    	In truth, I am considering attending a peace rally sometime in the
    near future.  I want to find out for myself if they don't have anything
    more to offer than what I've seen on TV.  If somewhere in there I find
    something which shows me the "error of my ways", I'll be the first to
    admit I was a fool and am willing to rally right along with them.  If
    on the other hand I don't find anything, I can have more faith in my
    arguments and beliefs.  I wonder how many protestors would be willing
    to do the same thing?


    	There were some Vietnam Vets on the news last night, and they said
    that if they had been treated with open arms when they got home that
    very likely the terrible things they're going through even now years
    later would never have happened.  Let's hope they're right.  I also
    think that as our soldiers won't have to shoot women and children as
    they did in Vietnam that that will make a large difference too.  So
    many of the nightmares I've heard about revolve around those themes.
    But there's no denying that this will change them in some way forever.


    	Before I get into the "meat" of my reply, I would just like to say
    that I enter this not with the intent of alienating anyone or offending
    the writers to whom I am responding.  I simply offer some alternative
    thoughts about some of what I've read.  In no way should this be taken
    as an "attack".


    Re:  .49


>    What I find interesting is that most everyone seems to have a VERY
>    strong opinion one way or the other on this issue, and they just KNOW
>    they're right.


    	Are you saying that people should *not* have convictions and act on
    them?  I hope not, for if you are, we'd have a pretty anarchistic
    world.  Not much would get done, or change.  Change usually happens
    because SOMEone had the courage and passion to start it.  However, I do
    agree that by the same token we should never become so confident of our
    beliefs and positions that we don't question them or reevaluate new
    evidence.


    	For myself, I don't *know* that I'm right -- but I do feel strongly
    and until someone comes up with an argument which convinces me that I'm
    wrong I will continue to support what I believe in.  And as strong as
    my words have been in here, I do believe I'm open to listening to
    reasonable, rational arguments which might change my mind.

        
>    I've been thinking about this issue a lot over the past week... and the
>    more I think about it the more I realize that I just don't know WHAT
>    the h*ll to think.  The reason is that when I pull back and try to look
>    at the big picture, not all the pieces seem to be in place.  When I
>    look at George Bush's actions over the past few months, I get the
>    feeling that he wanted absolutely nothing short of the war we're now
>    in.  It seemed to me that he went through the motions of diplomacy and
>    negotiations, but that he did so in such a way as to guarantee they'd
>    fail.  When I listen to Bush's reasons for getting us into this mess,
>    each one has a hollow ring to it:


    	I think this argument is nonsensical.  War is NEVER certain -- even
    if it were possible for Bush to have an ironclad guarantee that we
    would eventually win, there most certainly is *no* guarantee as to the
    length or cost.  Thus, Bush could never be certain that at some point
    the American public might not turn against him; that Congress might not
    turn against him.  And so on and so forth.  And don't think he wouldn't
    have thought of all this!  Hence if this situation goes against us he
    could easily be drummed right out of the Oval Office.

        
>    	"Combat naked aggression" -- why, then, was he willing to forgive
>    	and forget Tiananmen Square in order to secure China's crucial
>    	abstention in the UN Security Council?  For that matter, why is he
>        currently soft-pedaling the "naked aggression" that's currently
>        going on in the Baltics?


    	So you think we should fight all the battles there are out there?
    You think we should fight the #2 and #3 armies?  No one condones those
    situations, and neither does Bush.  Sanctions were imposed and our
    feelings known -- those are countries much more likely to listen to
    words.  I think we should pick and choose our battles carefully.

    
>    	"Enforce the UN resolutions" -- there's plenty of OTHER unkept
>        UN resolutions on the books that I don't see him peeing in his
>        pants over...


    	Same argument as above.

    
>    	"Saddam is a ruthless, expansionist Hitler-clone who must be
>        stopped" -- if that's the case, then he could be neutralized
>        with MUCH greater finesse than broadsiding him with half a
>    	million troops (remember; Bush was once head of the CIA; he
>    	can act with finesse when he has to!)


    	How?

    
>    	"Protect the oil supply" -- five months without Iraqi and Kuwaiti
>    	oil doesn't seem to have affected the overall supply any...
>    	besides; if we took the $billions that are being poured into
>    	desert shield/storm and poured them into energy research instead,
>    	I'm sure we could kiss the entire mideast goodbye...


    	I've already addressed this in a previous note.  We're more
    concerned with Hussein getting the oil than us *not* getting it.

    
>    In short, I feel I have to reserve judgment on the whole issue until
>    the big picture finally comes out... and that's not likely to happen
>    for 20-30 years or more after the issue is settled...


    	That's all well and good, but on something this important I don't
    think that's a viable solution for the president or our country.  I
    understand how you feel, because for a month before the war I labored
    over this question myself.  But when push comes to shove you need to
    take a stand on SOME side.  One of the players in the Super Bowl has a
    father over in the Gulf, and his father had some good words:  "You have
    to take a stand for something or you'll fall for anything".


    	I would like to believe that there *is* a better alternative out
    there to what we're doing, I really would.  But I can't see it, and I
    have yet to see anyone suggest one.  That's what bugs me the most,
    people who criticize without offering concrete alternatives.  We can't
    live our lives and our president can't guide our country on the
    principle that "somehow things will work out -- I'm not really sure how
    but you don't need to worry".  God helps them that helps themselves.

    
    Re:  .50


>          It is often difficult to accept that the adolescent (within)
>    is the one who insists on seeing things in black and white.  The
>    shades of gray are enormous, here.  Only the adult person is willing
>    to consider that gray.  As I said earlier, if we all made an
>    effort to be understanding, rather than in being understood, the
>    world would become a radically different place.  No matter how
>    bad a guy (i.e., a Hussein) is, this reality would never be allowed
>    to fall into place.  No matter how many emotions we feel (anger
>    being the apparently foremost one) we would find other ways of 
>    expressing or releasing those emotions in a manner which wouldn't
>    adversely affect others around.
    


    	I agree, many folks on both sides see this too simplistically.
    The sentiments you express are the best ones, and the ideal ones for
    the whole world.  But they are only effective if *both* sides are
    willing to negotiate in good faith and *both* sides are willing to play
    fair.  Failing that, SOMEthing has to be done.  It has become more and
    more clear that Hussein would have never negotiated in good faith or
    played fair -- all his acts prove this, but none more so than the
    ecological terror he has loosed on the Gulf.


    	The parallels between this situation and WWII are incredible.  Take
    for example Hitler's rise to power; there were a number of reasons it
    happened, but probably the biggest was that he gave Germany back her
    national pride.  Remember that in WWI Germany had been trounced and the
    limitations placed upon her (I believe they had a name but I forget it)
    were severe.  Hitler came along preaching the superiority of the
    Germans and their ability to take their place as world leaders.  I
    think Hussein sees himself in much the same role among the arabs.


    	There are also people who say that we shouldn't be over there in
    the first place.  Again, we tried that in WWII.  We tried like heck to
    stay away ("It's not our fight", "It doesn't concern us").  In the end,
    it found us.  Interpersonal relationships teach us that you can't
    ignore problems, they never go away.  I think this is analogous but on
    a bigger scale.


    	And let's assume for a moment that we had kept up with the
    sanctions, that the coalition *could* have gone on forever.
    Eventually, Hussein would have been forced to fight.  He has said and
    he has shown that he would rather fight and die than give up what he's
    taken, and I believe him.  So there we are, he waits until sometime in
    the summer when our guys are having a tough enough time with the heat
    and our machines are possibly breaking down more than normal and he
    hits us at a place and time of HIS choosing.  Those people who are
    worried about the body bags that might come should think about this,
    because it's almost a guarantee that this alternative is FAR scarier
    than what we've seen so far and may see in the future.  By choosing the
    time and place we gave ourselves the best opportunity to limit
    casualties.


    	There are people who say that war can never beget peace.  I
    disagree.  Look at the American Revolution and the War of 1812:  the
    British are our closest ally now.  Look at the Civil War:  the North
    and South are pretty much one big happy country (spare me the counter-
    examples).  Look at WWI and WWII:  Germany and Japan are very good
    allies now.  The whole point is that we weren't at war with the whole
    country but simply the leaders who had lead that country down the wrong
    path.  The same is true here:  we're not at war with the Iraqis, we're
    at war with Hussein.  This has been said time and again and has been
    proven time and again.  We're minimizing civilian casualties as much
    as possible and better than any previous war.  We're avoiding religious
    sites.  Even Peter Arnett, who has become the mouth of Hussien (I think
    he's a tremendous fool because he's only helping Hussein), said that
    the Iraqis no longer get that concerned about the air raids because
    they know they (the civilians) are not the target!  *This* from the
    "enemy" themselves!


    	If you don't learn from history you're doomed to repeat it.


    	I've heard reports on the news recently that Iraqi POW's are saying
    that the frontline troops are in their foxholes at gunpoint.  They are
    saying that they were tricked into going into Kuwait and don't really
    want to be there.  Everyone understands the critical positioning of the
    Republican Guard -- they will shoot anyone who attempts to retreat.
    Further, there was some talk that some high-ranking offical in Iraq is
    calling for a strike and a coup to overthrow Hussein, starting this
    Friday.  Who knows if this has any substance, but the fact that more
    and more talk like this is going on gives me hope that the Iraqi people
    will take care of their own problem in a much cleaner way than we
    could.


    	I have to wonder how many of the Iraqi people *really* want this
    war and are *really* behind Hussein.  Given the increasing reports and
    my own inclination I tend to believe that maybe not so many as Hussein
    would have us believe.  Time will tell.


    	And to be completely fair I don't mean to give the impression that
    I think our government is totally blameless; I wouldn't doubt if there
    were things we could have done better or could be doing better.  It is
    rare that "blame" is ever 100:0.  But based on what I know I think
    they've done pretty well with a very tough situation.


    	It's unfortunate, but sometimes you *have* to stand up to the bully
    with the only thing he recognizes:  force.  Running away or ignoring
    him will only make him worse.  Talking to him or attempts at reasoning
    with him are futile, he will take them as a sign of weakness and bully
    you the more.  Giving him a bloody nose is the only thing he
    understands.  History and experience teach us that much.


    	Now, before you think I'm a "war-monger", let me just say that I
    *long* for the days when wars and armies are no longer necessary.  I
    was just beginning to think we'd reached that point, which is probably
    why I had so much trouble accepting this at first.  But until we start
    to heal people and stop the inner hurt/pain that they grew up in it
    doesn't seem likely.  It seems that people from that situation either
    end up very sensitive to violence or very willing to perpetrating and
    continuing the violence (the extreme ends of the scale), but I am no
    expert and this is certainly a gross generalization on my part.


    	I'd like to thank the moderators for allowing us to "blow steam"
    like this.  I don't have the time these days to add more notesfiles on
    the war, and I'd much rather talk about it in here anyway.


    Brian

    re-.1
    Excellent reply!
    
    -j

    re: .53 (Brian)
    
         I agree with .54.  That was a well-delivered reply.
    Unfortunately (or fortunately  ;-) ) I don't have time to say
    all that could be...and we've all seen and heard tens of thousands
    of words over this already.  So I just want to add a couple of
    *thoughts* to some of what you've said.
         One thought has to do with the one you expressed about 
    civilian casualties...which also ties in with the idea you talked
    about concerning women and children.  I believe that we are all
    responsible.  This includes women.  Too often women are left to
    do little more than grieve.  But a man can grieve, too.  Would the
    women do more if they were actually involved in the fighting?  Are
    the women innocent?  Aren't there lots of innocent men, too?  Like
    the men you characterized who fear death at the hands of other men
    on *their own side*?  How many wars would be fought if the women
    had to fight, also?  Is torturing a woman somehow more sacred than
    torturing a man? 
          Interesting, but this is almost a contradictory rationale than
    what we are told about the beliefs of value of a man and a woman.
    In DEJAVU yesterday I entered some excerpts from a newspaper article
    on the value of men versus women in Saudi Arabia (our ally.)  Women
    are monetarily (legally) worth exactly half what a man is, and a man's
    value is determined by his religion.
          Moreover, those who wage war often seem oblivious to the horrors
    of it.  As long as it's just numbers and they don't have to see
    the blood and the ripped flesh, no problem (and don't make them look,
    it's disgusting and repugnant and somehow you're just exploitational
    to make them see what it really looks like.)  Then there are those
    who complain about having their afternoon "soaps" interrupted.  While
    some guy who represents them is sitting in the hot sand praying as
    hard as he can that he won't die, he/she complains about the
    interruption of their lackadaisical lifestyle by bulletins on the
    television.  But then this same person will complain about those
    who protest war (and it takes great courage, even if misguided, to
    stand against overwhelming numbers of those who support.)
         To this latter, let me add a bit of personal history.  I have
    never been a part of any formal peace protest.  I don't know if I ever
    will be.  Even if that is my position, it is just as effective, in my
    mind, to protest in other ways.  Back in my sophomore year of college,
    when VietNam was in full tilt and I worried about losing my college
    deferment (which I eventually lost) I took a very uncommon and
    unpopular stance.  My best friend and I agreed with the Lyndon
    Johnson position and so we made up a couple of placards (his said
    "Save the flower of our youth, don't draft pansies" and mine
    said something like, "Draft 'em, shave 'em, ship them to Vietnam.")
    We stood on the steps of the Student Union (and drew crowds, including
    the campus radio station.)  Lots of people shunned us, though a few
    (including a few football players, as I remember) offered to support
    us and to "protect" us.  We were unique, or so it seemed.
         Years later, while a member of the Air Force, I attended college
    and feared that my classmates would find out that I was in the 
    military.  THis was more difficult to disguise in those days since
    most, in not all, of my male classmates had long hair and I couldn't.
    It was in that four year time frame that the idiocy of war really
    hit home.  It was also clear that a war had better be an absolute
    last ditch effort to live.  I feared for my life and I didn't even
    have to shoot anything.  And I also suffered what most veterans
    had to...coming out four years later and being ridiculed for having
    been in the military.  I also felt the pain of not being credit for
    time served (e.g., not getting a promotion because I hadn't been
    there long enough, while the person who got the promotion hadn't had
    to sacrifice four years of his/her life.)  Yes, there is some
    bitterness, even for me, and my case is extremely mild.  
         Very recently Robert Bly wrote that war is often young men dying
    to fulfill old men's fantasies.  I agree completely.  The fantasies
    come from twisted, unresolved childhood and adolescent views of 
    reality.  We have a "noble" cause in this war, according to our
    President.  But the Iraquis believe they do, too, to the extent that
    it's a matter of good over evil (a Muslim Jihad over infidel
    devil-worshippers...how similar is this to the great Crusades of 
    the Dark Ages?)  No simple dialog is going to convince them.  
         What am I offering?  At this moment nothing more than a few
    thoughts, as I stated at the beginning.  But again, add these thoughts
    to the righteousness, add these ideas and others to the one-sided
    concepts of our side versus the other side.  Hopefully, if I implant
    anything at all, it will be a bit of hesitation.  Hestitation, if not
    for this war, for any succeeding event.  
         The body bags are starting to fill for "our side."  (Of course,
    the other side has probably not even had enough bags, probably just
    large trenches to fill with their dead.)  It has become more than
    an arcade video game.  Perhaps this will motivate Americans and others
    to do more to avoid these situations in the future.  Perhaps the
    discretionary wealth allowed by oil development and sales will be
    altered somehow; perhaps the production of weapons of war, as well
    as weapons for domestic use, will halt or will be severely analyzed
    and modified; perhaps we can spend our billions on resolving the
    issues that seem most important to the world (like hunger, like
    Palestinian homelands, like shelter...); perhaps we can focus on
    how to love rather than how to make war.  We must recognize that
    the jailor is just as jailed, often, as the jailee.  A policeman
    needs crime in order to exist.  A warrior needs war in order to
    exist.  It isn't just the criminal or the bad guy on the other
    side.  There are tons and tons of issues...why don't we as a nation
    do something about them instead of waiting to not ONLY give up the
    money we would spend anyway, which we spend on non-renewable, totally
    wasted endeavors such as bombs, but are eventually wasting the lives
    of lots of beautiful human beings?
    
         As I said, the dialog could continue, and should continue, but
    my time to say it here is done, for now at least.  I hope I have added
    a bit of information to encourage contemplation.
    
    Frederick
    

    Brian,
    
    That was one of the most eloquent replys I've seen yet...and, FWIW, I
    agree with you.
    
    Lynne
    

    Re. .53
    
    Great reply, Brian!
    
    Re. the topic in general
    
    I suppose the phrase that has been heard the most, from ALL sides, is
    "I support our troops in the Gulf."  I'm sure that it is always stated
    with the utmost sincerity, too; the lessons of Viet Nam are all too
    vivid in the collective American consciousness.  
    
    As a part of MY concern for our forces, I wish that everyone with an
    opinion to express (and who hasn't? ;^)....) would consider the
    following axiom:
    
    "Is what I'm doing aiding SH's cause in *any* way?  Is my expressing my
    opinion giving a boost to the Iraqi troops? "
    
    "If this is so, does this not logically mean our forces will have that
    much harder a job to do?"
    
    I am serious about this, people.  In yesterday's CNN interview, SH
    publicly thanked the "antiwar demonstrators" in America.  If they are
    good for Saddam and his morale, are they not bad for our forces?
    
    No flames, please.  I do not expect to change anybody's opinion.  I
    only suggest that people find ways to express themselves that does
    *not* endanger our people in the Gulf.  A letter to your representative
    or senator or president may not be as "easy" as a march or rally, but
    it can be just as eloquent and expressive - and less likely to give SH
    any psychological ammunition to help him keep this fight going. Let's
    not give our troops a harder row to hoe.
    
    					Peace be with you all,
    						--Eric--

    Re: .53
    
    As the author of .49, I'm not going to reply point-by-point; that will
    take up too much bandwidth.  However, I will say that I think you
    misunderstood me.
    
    When I pointed out the inconsistencies in Bush's position on the war,
    I was NOT trying to trivialize any of the concerns.  All of the reasons
    he talked about ARE extremely important.  HOWEVER: when I look at the
    apparent inconsistencies in Bush's world-view, I'm led to believe that
    he doesn't take any of his stated reasons SOOOO seriously that he'd
    bet the whole country on them alone.  This is what led me to believe that
    there's something ELSE afoot that Bush isn't telling us about. 
    Something REALLY big.
    
    It's kinda like when you're going through money or legal troubles, and
    your 8-year-old pipes up with a question about it... you may feel it's
    too difficult to try and explain it all to the kid, so you make up a
    story that "sort-of" explains your actions... and you hope the question
    doesn't come up again.  You ignore any observations the kid may make in 
    the framework of the "story", because you KNOW that they don't have any
    bearing on the REAL situation.
    
    It's also kinda like whan a magician pulls a trick on you; the magician
    succeeds because while you're concentrating on what one hand is
    doing, the other hand is doing the REAL trick.  
    
    I see Bush's stated reasons for going to war as a combination of both:
    simplification and diversion.  By channelling the public debate along 
    certain lines he avoids having to explain complex (and maybe even
    embarrassing) issues to the public; he also gets the public bickering
    among itself about the "stories", which makes it less likely that
    anyone will discover the real story.
    
    When I talked about withholding judgment, I was referring to my
    PERSONAL opinion on the subject.  I have no doubts that Bush has
    some very strong views on the subject, but his are backed up by FAR
    more information than any of us have been given.  His real reasons may
    be quite legitimate, in my opinion; but since I don't know them I can't
    pass judgment on them.  As for his stated reasons, they ARE extremely
    important, but if I were in his shoes, I would have SERIOUSLY persued 
    MANY other channels before going in there and kicking @ss!  (I'd also 
    try to make it a REAL U.N. effort flying the U.N. flag, rather than 
    the present situation where it's essentially a U.S. effort with enough 
    token foreign troops to call it a U.N. effort.  Bush musta learned this 
    trick from the makers of "fruit juice drinks"...)
    
    As .50 said: what disturbs me the most about this whole debate is the
    fact that everyone is so black and white about it.  Either you're 100%
    gung-ho and behind bush and the troops all the way, or you're 100%
    against the war and are therefore a Commu... I mean Iraqui sympathizer.
    Quick.  Decide.  Now.  Sorry, guys; I maintain that the whole situation
    is sort of a muddy color, made that way by centuries of tug-of-war over
    the Arab lands by various peoples and decades of imperialist colonial
    rule.  The question of who rightfully owns what pieces of land out
    there is LITERALLY impossible to answer.  After centuries of territory
    battles, nobody can tell who was where before the fighting started.
    (Another example of a gray area: this issue begs the question of what
    constitutes the rightful ownership of territory!)  The current borders 
    were imposed by the (non-Arab) Allies after WWII; they are no more 
    definitive than some Arab-drawn maps of the Middle East which omit 
    Israel...
    
    Re: .-1  [paraphrased]: "Don't protest publicly; it only gives
    Saddam support".
    
    Hmmm... I think the "support" provided by a few thousand anti-war
    protesters pales in comparison to the very real support provided to him
    by Western governments prior to Aug. 2.  Even if the US never did
    provide him with arms or money, we certainly did our part to shield him
    from international criticism while he committed his atrocities on the
    Iranians and the Kurds...
    
    BTW - I don't know how he got them, but I heard on the radio this
    morning that an awful lot of the land mines that our troops are going
    to have to tiptoe through are US-made...
    
    Besides; if it's of any "support" to us, Saddam has experienced
    dozens of assassination and coup attempts since he came to power...
    he's just been ruthless enough to "neutralize" these threats by force
    and other devious means.  He's terrorized his own people into staying
    quiet... do you want him to terrorize US into staying quiet as well?
    
    --jim
    

Re: .16 by HANNAH::OSMAN

> If sanctions are preventing Iraqis from getting food, they might
> very well work.

Rest assured that Saddam (or any other Iraqi even remotely close to
decision making position) is guaranteed all the food they can eat.
The sanctions would be hitting the Iraqis in the street - Saddam
couldn't care less if they lived or died. 

-- Ron

    This may not be the best place to put this, but what the heck!  Bear
    with me a minute, because this is longer and more confused than I
    intended.
    
     I'm angry too, Jerry; I'm angry that this damn war ever started. To me
    personally, this war is not about oil, its not about freedom, its not
    about "manhood", its not about a better world for our chikdren, its not
    even about Saddam Hussein and the evil that he does.
     To me, this war is "about" a conversation which I had tonight with a
    friend; a woman whose son is in the US Marines and is now stationed (as
    they say) somewhere in Saudi Arabia.  You heard about the skirmish
    today in which there were some two dozen allied casualties; well, her
    son is in one of the units which took damage. As I write this, she
    doesn't know whether he is dead, injured or alive.  She dreads hearing
    a car stop outside her house, she dreads any phone call or knock at the
    door.  How can I comfort her, how can I talk to her about this 'just'
    war??  Now I know that there are other mothers and fathers in the same
    situation; in America, in the UK, in Europe, and even amongst the
    Iraqis. But I don't have to deal with them.  This hit me tonight on a
    very personal level, and helped confuse me further. Somehow, talking
    about how "we" were fighting for a better world, how "we" were fighting
    to curb the evil intentions of a desert madman; somehow it all seemed
    sort of empty and trite -- platitudes and grand rhetoric against a
    woman in fear of her son's life.
    
     There are people whose opinions I respect and trust who are in favor
    of this war; there are people whose opinions I respect and trust who
    are opposed to this war.  Both sides have strong opinions, and neither
    side seems to have THE ANSWER. 
    
     So I'm confused and angry.  I feel anger towards Saddam Hussein and
    George Bush, for this god-damned chess game with human lives. I'm angry
    that diplomacy failed, or wasn't given a chance to succeed; I'm angry
    that "we" didn't just send in the SAS to assassinate Hussein; I'm angry
    at all the arguments about this war (is it good or is it bad?); I'm
    angry at all the "black or white" arguments where the drooling
    warmongers square off against the snivelling lovers of Hussein; I'm
    angry with all the propaganda (from all sides, damn it) because I KNOW
    that at we're not getting anything like all the facts; I'm angry that
    so many people are going to die AND THERE'S NOTHING I CAN DO ABOUT IT!
    
     I don't know.  My anger is less well focussed than yours, Jerry;
    you're only mad at one side of this situation (-:.  I'm very grateful
    that there are dedicated brave men and women who are willing to put
    their lives on the line for what they believe in; I'm appalled that WE
    have to ask them do so once more. I hope that this war is over quickly,
    and that not too many people die in it on either side.
    
     And I hope that the next time something like this "Crisis in the Gulf"
    happens, we (collective WE, that is the whole damn world) thinks long
    and hard about other options before the killing and bloodshed starts.
    
    					And may our gods help us
    					   	Nigel

I got rather PO-ed at something this weekend surrounding the situation in
the Gulf.

For those of you who haven't already sensed my views on the Gulf conflict
yet, either from this conference or others, I'll try to clarify my feelings
up front.

I'm 110% behind Bush's decision to launch this offensive. I have, since early
August, been 110% behind his actions to take our troops over there. I have
been, and continue to be, 120% behind our troops and support units in the
Gulf and the surrounding area. I am also fully behind the troops of all other
nations in the coalition supporting the efforts to free Kuwait. I fully believe
that we should be there and that we are there for the right reasons. I am fully
convinced that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous megalomaniac who should be removed
from power at all costs. And I am generally opposed to the anti-war protests
which are going on in this country and elsewhere, largely due to the lack of
support that they demonstrate.

However, this weekend I heard too much on the media that scared me. Too much
which reminded me all too vividly of what was going on in the late 60's.

I turned 18 and registered for the draft in 1966. I was vehemently opposed
to the war in Viet Nam. I was _not_ opposed to the US troops stationed there.
I was opposed to the _war_. I was opposed to the political leadership in this
country that got us there (Eisenhower and, to a larger extent, St. JFK), and
I was opposed to the senseless leadership that was keeping us there (LBJ) while
we continued to lose countless American lives fighting a losing war for
a nation of people who largely didn't care. I was opposed to the leadership
which prevented the United States Armed Forces from doing some of the
things which might have made a difference and which might have allowed us
to be victorious in that war rather than having things turn out as they did.
I was sickened by the treatment of US Veterans upon their return to the US
after their tours of duty were completed. I was opposed to the people who
treated them that way.

But I recall one thing that sickened me at least as much as, if not more than,
all of the poor leadership and bad political blunders and ignorance of Americans
who treated their returning servicemen with less than honor and respect.
I was sickened by the red-necked, narrow-minded imbeciles who had to take every
opportunity they could to wave their flags, and quote pithy sayings like
"America - Love it or leave it!" and "My country - Right or wrong!", and
sing "God Bless America" at every turn of a hat. Thank God my parents weren't
among these, but friends of my parents were, and parents of many of my
friends were as well. I always thought I inherited a relatively healthy
political outlook from my Dad who was a WWII veteran who didn't feel he
needed to wear his patriotism on his shirtsleeve.

And this weekend it started all over. I don't know how many times on the
radio and TV I heard reports about East Cowspill, Anywhere, USA where
the citizens were supporting the war effort. This didn't bother me. But
when they started interviewing Joe Cornsilk about this issue and he started
spouting off about how it was right for our youth to go off and "defend our
country" I nearly got sick. Now keep in mind, I support the war. What bothers
me is the general ignorance of people who think that what we're doing right now
is "defending our country". We as Americans are in the Gulf defending
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Israel, but the last time I checked there was no
defense of the USA going on over there. And if the ignorant are going
to start proffering a belief that we _ARE_ defending our country right
now, then God help us.

I support the president's policy in the Gulf. I support our troops and their
mission. But please excuse me if I don't jump up and sing the "Star Spangled
Banner" everytime someone turns on the radio. When, and if, someone declares
war on the USA we'll be in a position to "defend our country" and I'll
sing "America the Beautiful" right along with the rest of them. But for
now I'm saving my voice.

I can support our efforts in the Gulf without waving flags, thanks. Blind
faith in patriotism is a dangerous thing.

-Jack

    Regarding .62:  By your logic, we weren't defending our country during
    WWII in Europe either, and had no reason beign there (?).
    
    Regarding several back:
    
    The Tieneman Square, Baltic States, and even South Africa situations
    are all CIVIL disorders/revolts, quite different from on country
    invading capturing and slaughtering another country from a political
    perspective.  Quite different in eliciting political responses from
    neighboring countries who may be in fear for themselves, as well as
    from the United Nations, whose supposed role is to provide a forum for
    settling nation to nation disputes.
    
    The war in the Gulf is not a simple balck and white issue. I think we
    are in the unfortunate situation of doing something that has to be
    done.

 re .63

I'm not sure what of my "logic" you're referring to. I most certainly _do_
feel that we were defending our country in WWII in Europe. My father
was stationed in Newfoundland and Labrador during part of the war with
German subs and other naval vessels frequently off shore by only short
distances. Apparently I'm missing your point. Mine was that while troops
in the Gulf may be fighting for their country (as in "following their
commanders' orders"), that's not the same as "defending your country",
any more than it was in Korea or Viet Nam. My concern is that blind
patriotism and overzealousness has a sad tendency to whip people into
a frenzy of irrational behavior. Witness the treatment of Japanese-
Americans in California in the 40's.

As I said many times in .62, I support our involvement in the Gulf. I don't
know what more you'd like from me. If it's flag waving, forget it. I can
demonstrate my patriotism in ways which, to me, are much more sensible.

-Jack

    RE. -1
>As I said many times in .62, I support our involvement in the Gulf. I don't
>know what more you'd like from me. If it's flag waving, forget it. I can
>demonstrate my patriotism in ways which, to me, are much more sensible.
    
    Jack, we (the noters) are not *demanding* you do anything.  Your
    position on the issue is clearly defined, and that is sufficient.
    
    The polarization of the American public is, regretably, one of the
    symptoms of this conflict.  The "flag wavers" can be as extreme in
    expressing their viewpoints as the "flag-burners".
    
    Fortunately, in this case, the people with less extremist views seem to
    have a great deal of common ground: the need to wholeheartedly support
    the troops, and (recently) the acknowledgement that SH needs to be
    brought to justice. I think that it is this common ground that will
    help the tempers from becoming too frayed ... of course, the "cooler
    heads" approach isn't as newsworthy, so you'll see the less rational
    fringe on CNN instead.....:^|.......
    
    Lighten up, Jack....WE still love you! ;^)
    
    						--Eric--
    
     

    		? How to handle the  A N G E R ?
    
    	(1)  In dealing with any problem ask yourself what is the SOURCE
    and you will generally find it is not THEIR ACTION but our REactions.
    The anger may be driven by a sense of frustration that you cannot DO
    anything about people whose values differ from your own or that "they"
    simply will not not listen to your greater wisdom and information and
    change their views.
    
    	(2)  In the case of anti-war protestors it sometimes reduces one's
    on anger to realize that there are a lot of really simple-minded people
    out there who just do not understand (and never will) the cause/effect
    relationship you see between their actions and what is happening half
    a world away.  Also be aware of the possibility that some things we see
    as a very direct cause/effect relationship may in fact be a _theory_
    based on several assumptions about how _you_ would behave or how you
    think _Saddam_ might behave that are not in fact 100% true.
    
    	(3)  This leaves us with the idea that one can deal with  A N G E R
    by realizing and dis-associating logically the events and our personal
    emotional reaction to those same events.  One way to help un-link the
    semi-automatic reaction is to understand that the anger does nothing
    constructive and if "they" knew that their behavior was succeeding in
    making those with whom they disagree very uncomfortable ... they'd feel
    very pleased with themselves.  NO WAY do you want those others between
    whom such strong polarization exists to find joy in your frustration!
    So ... don't let 'em get to you emotionally.  Think of them as "Saddam
    Simps" and realize they are simple-minded enough to sympathize with an
    evil mad-man.  But don't be angry at them because that is letting them
    "win" emotionally.  You can win by feeling PITY toward them for being
    so mentally inferior to yourself because they can't see the linkage in
    what they see as anti-war protesting ...  Some people always seem to
    need some cause to protest about.  Last year the same people protested
    against failure to re-cycle the foam cups in the cafe ... remember ?
    
    ~--e--~  eagles watch protestors making fools of themselves on TV ...
            ... and then we change the channel to Geraldo or This Old House

    re.62 et alia
    
    is 'protesting the war' being equated with 'visibly demonstrating
    against the war' ?
    
    personally, I'm pretty angry that we're at war and I protest against it
    daily.  I write letters to legislators and diplomats and, yes, even
    soldiers telling that I wish them home safe and soon.  [some of them
    even write back and apparently don't mind that I think the war s*cks
    pond scum through a straw]
    
    I'm vocal, but not noisy.  I work when I can to organise efforts to try
    and mitigate some of the agony non-combatants, here and in the Gulf,
    will inevitably suffer as a result of this war.
    
    I'm persistent, but not televised...in truth, my form of protest is far
    too boring. [no, I do not wish to be televised or otherwise broadcast]
    
    I am not behind our president and his policies.  I have written and
    told him so.  Somehow, I do not think that he took it too personally.
    Perhaps he, too, thinks me simple-minded; but I am not.  My thinking on
    the war is _far_ from binary.
    
    To those that would find me simple or un-patriotic, I would ask what
    message it sends when people of good conscience who oppose the war
    remain silent?
    
      Annie

Re: 1132.67 

No one that I know of likes war. Personally, I hate it; and I ought
to know - I have actively taken part in a few. But... 

But, there are people who would avoid war at all cost, any cost. I
am glad Mr. Bush isn't one of them. 

There are two kinds of wars you cannot avoid. One is where an
enemy's goal is to annihilate you. Avoiding such a war is equivalent
to suicide. Israel's problem with the Arabs is an example. 

The other kind is where an adversary will take you to the cleaners
--virtually, suck you dry-- until you are close to death, anyway.
Putting off such a war is stupid. Regardless of what you do, you
will end up fighting it. If you put it off, you will simply fight it
at the convenience of the enemy. WWII was this kind of a war. 

In 1938 (I think...), Hitler demanded the Sudatenland. Chamberlain,
in his wisdom, gave it to him. Being British, he figured that giving
away a part of Czechoslovakia to appease a German madman was a good
deal for England. Which goes to show that even Prime Ministers can
make stupedous mistakes: madmen cannot be appeased and their appetite
cannot be satiated. 

After swallowing the Sudatenland, Hitler wanted Poland... and took
it. By that time, England realized that the rest of the world was on
Hitler's shopping list as well and entered the war. The rest is
history... all Chamberlain got for his country was a war against a
stronger, better prepared foe (Hitler was deranged, but not stupid).
England paid with many, many lives. 

This Gulf war is of the same type. Saddam Hussein isn't that
different from Hitler: a deranged, sadistic, totally amoral
dictator. This war, just like WWII, must be fought. Either now,
before he has nuclear weapons, of after. It's a case of 'pay me now
or pay me later'. 

So, what is this war about? Is it over the price of a tankful at the
pump? Don't believe it. It's about your life, the way you know it
now. It's about taking that life away from you, from the nation,
from most of the world. The US would have (and should have) entered
this fight even if we had absolutely no need for Mid Eastern oil. 

The point is that the rest of the free world **is** dependent on Mid
Eastern oil. If we let one dictator gain total control over that
resource, he controls the world. Because, the free world, as we
know it, couldn't survive a loss of 45% of its oil supply.

It would be nice if we could isolate ourselves from the rest of the
world, cut our consumption by 45% (it would be tough, not to say
painful, but doable), and let **them** deal with Saddam. Problem is,
he'd eat them alive. We need them (these are our markets, not to
mention our defense line against The East). Once they are gone,
we'll be in Iraq's pocket, exactly where Saddam wants us. 

So, Annie, I do not find you 'simple or un-patriotic', I simply
feel you haven't thought the situation through. If you did, it's 
possible you would have come up with a different opinion. 

-- Ron

    --Ron, there are many of us who have thought the situation through, and
    still do not believe in war.  It's just that simple.
    
    E Grace

    re: .68 (Ron)
    
         I do not wish to get into a major conflict with you, for 
    your talents at arguing are substantial (based on other entries
    of yours that I have read,) but like in .69, I think that other
    alternatives were possible, and at various steps along the way.
         I feel that both Saddam and George have "ego problems."
    Saddam, as we well know, for his huge "better than" ego (which is
    an outgrowth of his "worse than" ego,) the grade school bully, as it
    were, and lots more...(I would certainly not deny that this 
    character is dangerous and should be neutralized.)  But most of
    us are ignoring George's ego...the one that feels he's a wimp unless
    he acts, fast and furious...and, in my opinion, unfeelingly.  
         I find war to be very unimaginative, a solution which never
    produces a true winner.  I would have preferred a more creative
    solution, but none was ever even entertained.  I would not agree
    with your assessment that demolishing IRAQ was the best solution.
    What other solutions are available?  At this point, who knows?
    But lots and lots of damage has been done.  The politics involved
    are messy, to be sure, but I'd rather see $1 billion spent every
    day trying to resolve the politics by discussion, negotiation, etc.
    than by bombing, destroying, killing, etc.  The first choice has
    NEVER been offered as an option.  
        The excuses used for this conflict have not been presented in
    their honesty nor completeness (here's a hot button for you...why
    hasn't the U.S. insisted on Israel giving up occupied territories,
    e.g.?   Please don't answer...I'm sure you can, I'm just showing you
    that there is more to an action than is often visible on the 
    surface...but to insist that IRAQ give up KUWAIT is, *on appearances*,
    contradictory.)
        So as to not drag it out, I do not believe that historical 
    precedent is the best.  War, as a historical precedent, should have
    led us to a new order of love, but it hasn't.  IF we truly want
    peace and love to be the significant part of the reality we live
    in, then alternatives away from war must be implemented.  At what
    cost?  The cost of war is staggeringly counter-productive...anything
    has to be less expensive.
    
    Frederick
    

    RE: .70

    Yeah ... you're right ... we just gotta be consistent ... after this
    Iraq thing is over with we'll bomb Tel Aviv until they leave the
    occupied territories.

    I wonder why I started this note .. I get madder reading this note than
    I do at watching the anti-war adolescents.

    Jerry

   ...why hasn't the U.S. insisted on Israel giving up occupied territories,
    e.g.?  ...but to insist that IRAQ give up KUWAIT ...

I fail to see the parallel here. Israel was attacked she was not the agressor. I
f Kuwait had attacked Iraq then I would understand the logic as being consistant
 but what I read leave me somewhat confused.

    re: .73
    
        ...doesn't pay to fight, does it?!  Someone's always
    misinterpreting something...
    
    Frederick
    

    Re. last few
    
    Set MODE=Semi-MODERATOR
    
    People, this damn note is sounding more like SOAPBOX every minute;
    I suggest we either take this argument there, or get back to the base
    note, OK?
    
    						Cheers,
    						--Eric--

Re: .69,

>    ...there are many of us who have thought the situation through, and
>    still do not believe in war.

It's not a question of 'believing in war'. The question is, could
this war be avoided? The fact is, it could not. All we could do was
POSTPONE it for a few years; at which time, it will be substantially
more painful to us. 


Re: .70

>   I feel that both Saddam and George have "ego problems."

I sincerely doubt that this has any direct bearing on this war.
Saddam --as swollen as his ego is-- has political and economic
goals, possibly driven by his ego, but not **stemming** from it.

The US (not George Bush) needs to survive in the long term as a
world power. Bush's goal is to serve this need. He'd have the same
goal even if he was a meek, mellow man. 


>    I find war to be very unimaginative, a solution which never
>    produces a true winner.

History refutes this statement. Wars most certainly result in true
winners. 'Winners' are defined as those that achieved their goals.


>    I would have preferred a more creative solution ...

Like what? Here you have Iraq invading Kuwait. Citizens are killed
by the thousands in the streets, women are raped, the country
devastated. Iraq is looting hospitals, oil fields, public property,
shipping everything back to Iraq. Please offer a creative solution. 


>    I would not agree with your assessment that demolishing IRAQ was
>    the best solution.

Where did I say that? I never intended to. I do believe that
decimating Iraq's **war machine** is goodness. 


>    (here's a hot button for you...why
>    hasn't the U.S. insisted on Israel giving up occupied territories,

I think you are missing my point here - possibly, because I did not
make it very clearly. I did say the war is not about oil. I should
have also said: this war is not about Kuwait's rights (we didn't go
to war over the West Bank. We didn't go to war over Afghanistan. We
didn't go to war when the Russians invaded Finland or Hungary or
Czechoslovakia. We didn't go to war over Lithuania). This is simply
the open agenda, the excuse the Coalition needed. 

This war has nothing to do with justice or territorial rights or our
friendship with Kuwait. It is about The long term US survival as a
world power. It's about your and your children's life, not to
mention lifestyle.


>    IF we truly want peace and love to be the significant part of the
>    reality we live in, then alternatives away from war must be
>    implemented.

But there are situations where there are no 'alternatives away from 
war'. What do you do then?


Re: .71

>    I wonder why I started this note .. I get madder reading this
>    note than I do at watching the anti-war adolescents.

I think it's worth it. I don't know how to deal with the anger
(I've never been too good at that sort of thing), but a discussion
which explains this war and supports our fighters at The Gulf may
cause someone out there to re-think their stance. 

-- Ron

    The intent of this note, and this conference, is not to convince
    people one way or another about their position on the war.  I would
    appreciate it if further replies would deal only with the topic of
    the base note - dealing with the anger.  Leave the arguments
    for/against war for some other forum.
    
    Thanks.
    
    						Steve

        I am probably willing enough to state that suppressed, 
    repressed, depressed, oppressed, etc. angers are in large
    part why war exists in the first place.  (Not to mention
    similarly unresolved fears, hurts, etc.)  If humankind were
    properly "raised" to not only encounter but release whatever
    emotions they experienced, perhaps the putrification of these
    emotions, including all real emotions (for even love, if not handled
    properly, can stagnate and become negative and harmful,) would cease to 
    produce adversive results.
         This means starting children in life understanding that it
    is totally proper to express whatever it is that they are feeling
    emotionally (that they can be taught how to do so appropriately
    is the delicate and obviously more difficult step.)  But what we
    are experiencing as a global species is exactly the results of
    inappropriate emotions...the righteousness, greed, animalistic
    sadism, willingness to hurt, inability to be empathic, etc., all
    stem from previous hurts, abuses, lack of love, lack of respect,
    lack of abilities or willingnesses to be self-determined and
    self-loving.  The Saddams of the world (and there are many, many...)
    either would not exist (because they will have learned how to love
    themselves and respect others) or will not be allowed to operate in
    a disruptive way because *others* will respect and love *themselves*
    enough to twart those who would be willing to rob them of their
    individuality and rights to self-determination.  
        It's not just that the bully is bad.  It's that we, as individuals,
    allow ourselves to be victimized.  However, teach the potential bully
    how to love him/herself, and that option no longer becomes particularly
    accessible or viable.  Teach the potential victim how to avoid 
    manipulation and domination and *that* option soon becomes lost.
        How do you deal with these emotions?  Glad you asked...;-)
    Dealing with our emotions is perhaps the most difficult challenge
    we face as people.  Our society does not teach us how to do so in 
    any kind of enlightened manner, in fact, society is pretty much in 
    the dark in this arena.  Mostly, we learn to act as our parents have
    acted, as their parents acted upon them, etc.  But in so doing,
    we acquire not only their unintentional ignorance, but their hurts,
    their pains, their shames, their humiliations, etc.  So the burden
    falls upons us to break the cycle.  We cannot count on them or others,
    whether as individuals or institutions, to do it for us.  It's a
    difficult job, but a necessary one if we wish to avoid the traps and
    pitfalls of our collective history.  There is no other alternative.
    How do we deal with each specific emotion?  Each emotion has it
    particular components, and reason d'etre, and each emotion has
    therefore different means or methods for correction, or releasing.
    This reply is not going to attempt to do that.  In fact, some earlier
    replies *have* offered some suggestions for releasing this particular
    emotion (anger.)  They are valid suggestions...there are two
    difficulties, however.  One is that most people will dismiss the 
    suggestions (because they have a payoff in holding onto their
    particular emotion, perhaps) and the other is that the root/core
    of the emotion is not being dealt with.  The suggestions offered
    in the body of this note dealt with the first.  The earliest replies
    offered some suggestions (disparaged by later entries) for dealing
    with the root/core emotions.  
         The information has been offered.  There is more, no doubt.
    But it still comes down to an individual decision to do something
    about it.  Let me just say this much more...if your life is not
    working in a loving, harmonious fashion, if there are repeat patterns
    of unpleasantness and pain, then there are some core issues which 
    haven't been handled.  Once this core has been handled, then as the
    emotions are encountered (*NOT* confronted) they can be faced and
    acted upon with immediacy and efficiency.  
         We do not have to live in a particular emotional state of pain...
    releasing the blocks is mandatory to achieving harmony.  Learning to
    express ourselves and then HOW to express ourselves is the first step.
    We cannot retrain Saddam or George, but we can start practicing on
    ourselves and can enable the proper teaching of our children.  
         As long as we nobilize war and warrior attitudes, there will
    be no global peace.  As long as we nobilize our battles, there will
    be no inner peace, either.  No warrior really wins...and at best the
    win is superficial or transient.  Only the process of self-forgiveness
    can melt the scars and allow the transmutation of the negative energy
    into a true positive outcome.  But then that comes from a future and
    a present, not a past, and certainly not a historical past.
         
    
    Frederick
    
    

	re. -1    That was wonderful Frederick, thank you.
You are wasting your talents at DEC..... go write.....wow    
    

    I second .79.
    Frederick, you put it very clear... we as human beings are too full of
    negative feelings that we have failed to put to good use! all we do is
    use so many wrong feelings, so selfish, negative... it is really sad!
    
    We have a very poor society, with very low self-steem and respect for
    others, and as you put it so nicely, we carry in our shoulders the
    mistakes of our parents, their lonelyness, hurts, etc, etc, etc. but
    all along, there has always been SOMETHING GOOD that unhappily did not
    survive as well as the negative feelings of anger etc, shown, why?
    
    Whatever happened to the feelings of love, understanding, common sense,
    peace...
    what happens now that the war was not a terrible as everybody thought
    it would be?
    
    It happens that the was was carried about in a very intelligent way,
    with lots of preparation, lots of logistics, lots of wisdom, and a
    total victory, with the least of human life loss that enyone could
    expect....
    		WHAT HAPPENS NOW?  Can all those people that so openly
    showed their ANGER, come forth NOW and show their ENTHUSIASM or at
    least, their HAPPINESS at a job so well done?
    
    Isn't about time that we show a bit of some of those GOOD FEELINGS that we
    must also have got from our forebears?  It would be interesting to see
    the display of feelings, this time GOOD FEELINGS, of former writers and
    their reactions to this type of feelings, the OPPOSITE of ANGER.  ???
    

re: .7


>    It happens that the was was carried about in a very intelligent way,
>    with lots of preparation, lots of logistics, lots of wisdom, and a
>   total victory, with the least of human life loss that enyone could
>   expect....

Well, I probably don't belong in this discussion, but there's just one little
point I was wondering about here... How many people died, all together, as
a result of this war? (Remember to count all of the Iraqis, the Kurds, etc.)
Then tell me how that loss of life can be considered "least" *or* even 
acceptable. Or were there humans fighting only on one side of this war?

(As much as I have many emotions which get fired up in a discussion of this 
kind, I really *want* to understand the reasoning behind viewpoints which
are different from my own. I don't have to agree, but I'd like to understand.)

-Amy.

Re: .81 by RAZBRY::ASBURY,

> How many people died, all together, as
> a result of this war? (Remember to count all of the Iraqis, the
> Kurds, etc.)

I know this sounds awfully callous and cold, but the 150,000 dead
Iraqis don't count for much around here. It's the loss of 150 of our
guys that hurts. It's these 150 that are the 'least', as opposed to
what might have happened. 

Of course, the Iraqi mother that lost a son or a husband or a 
brother may have completely different sentiments. She's probably 
sorry it's 'only' 150.

-- Ron

>Then tell me how that loss of life can be considered "least" *or* even 
>acceptable. Or were there humans fighting only on one side of this war?
    
    The notion of loss of life somehow suggests that life is permanent
    rather than a transient state.  Life ends - we can consciously choose
    the ending or leave it the choice to the world outside ourselves.  I
    guess not choosing is a choice itself.  Death for a soldier is a
    natural consequence.  If the only way I can give my life meaning is to
    die for something, its difficult to see my death as a "loss" of life.
    How 'bout the innocents, you might ask.  I share your sense of remorse
    over the death of innocent bystanders, particularly when those people
    had made a different choice - to live for something.  However, I'm not
    sure how to tell the difference in participants and innocent bystanders
    without knowing the innards of their heart.
    
    

    re: 80 (::MAHONEY)
    
          I agree with the first half of your entry, but have a little
    more difficulty with the second half.  As .81 says, there was a 
    great deal of pain, suffering, loss of life, etc. all over...
    especially on "the other side."  
          I do not like nationalism, I believe it is not in the
    best interests of humankind.  It is simply another way to separate
    and alienate each other from other humans.  It is another
    path for our negative egos (the part of us that considers ourself
    to be "better than" others simply because we are more intelligent,
    better looking, taller, from the "right" religious group, from
    the "right" race, from the "right" city, from the "right" social
    class, better because we have more money, better because we
    are kinder, better than...etc., etc., ad nauseum.)  Being from
    the U.S.A. enables the flag-wavers to enact another "better than."
         I think that war's end is better than war.  I think further,
    however, that no war would have been better than war, too.  Happy,
    you say?  Well, I can be happier, but happiness to me is not watching
    thousands and thousands of people dying who might not have died
    had we not had a war.  
         As for anger, people are entitled to their anger.  That is,
    their anger is a legitimate emotion and needs to be expressed if
    they feel it.  That they can perhaps release it quickly and
    appropriately is more to the point.  But I do agree that looking
    for happiness (fulfillment of needs) and joy (fulfillment of
    preferences) is also important and ultimately a more reasonable
    objective.
    
    Frederick
    

    Here Here Frederick!
    
    You made me sit and think about some of my values.
    
    Skip