Conference quark::mennotes-v1

 Yep. I know the feeling. It's tough.

 The Doctah

Yes.  It is along the lines of "I'm so lucky that there were no wars 
from the time I was 17 until the time I turned 29, why do these 
younger men deserve to die (possibly) instead of me?"

I also wonder how much my opinions would change if my butt were 
actually on the line, and the frustration with knowing that I don't 
want to actually test that idea out.

Other things have felt strange to me: watching people play "war" video 
games, driving 70 down the highway last night, comparing my worries to 
"death in a war."

It's a weird feeling.


							--Gerry

    You could donate blood. Not the same, but something that would help.
    
    I did not go to VN and feel no guilt for it. Why should I? 
    
    Steve

    I never went to Nam.  I lost several friends there though.  Yeah, even
    though I was in the military at the time, I got lucky.  Guilt?  Some,
    sorta, but it is hard to explain.  Now? 'tis a different war.  I don't
    feel guilty about this one, but do feel it is a necessary war (please
    don't let the politicians screw our soldiers again lord).  
    
    Re: Vietnam - I was no gung ho killer, but I enlisted of my own free
    will and went where I was assigned.  Ain't it wonderful to live in a
    country where you can block traffic to protest the war without getting
    killed.  If you love your freedom...thank a vet.

    Like Gerry, I was too young for Vietnam and too old for this
    particiular police action.  I grew up watching Walter Cronkite
    list the number of killed and missing every night like a sports
    box score.  I knew I wouldn't go, even if I could.  However, I
    always wondered if I would have the courage to protest, sit-in,
    demostrate and perhaps be jailed for protesting the war.  It
    looks as though I may find out.
    
    More angry than guilty,
    LArry

    Now I *will* find out.
    
    LArry

   It's funny that you should mention this Alfred.

   Over the last couple of weeks, I have really been thinking about
   this because I joined the service to go to Nam, but they said I 
   was "crazy" for wanting to go over there.  Instead, I went to 
   Europe and became a S-2 official.  When they wanted me to get a TS
   Clearance, I told them no way and transferred to the medic's,
   hoping that I would eventually get over to Nam.

   You see, when I was a paper boy living up at Denver during the Nam
   crisis, my father was the Sgt Major of Fitzsimmons Med. Hosp., so I 
   used to go up to the wards and visit with the vet's who were medivac'd
   there.

   Whenever I finished my route, I would go to the hospital paper
   machine, open it up and take all of the papers out of it and distribute
   the papers to them.  Free obviously!  (I later quit because the
   rte manager found out what I was doing and told me to charge for
   them.  BS!)

   I would sit around with them and talk with them and how they felt
   about a war alot of peaceniks thought we should not be in.  The
   honor and courage of those men will always be in my memory.  Alot
   of the vets still wanted to go back because they felt they were
   protecting us.  Not because they were told to, but because they
   wanted too.

   No, war did not fascinate me.  Matter of fact, when it was my turn
   to join before being drafted, my father tried to bribe me with a
   brand new El Camino with a camper shell on it, NOT to enlist.  He
   had done 2 tours over there as a medic and wanted me to have nothing
   to do with it, being his only son at the time.  I told him why I wanted 
   to and he understood.

   Sorry about the rambling.  Yes, I do feel guilty at times.  Mainly
   because I had a close friend who didn't want to go, but they sent
   him over there anyway.  He knew it was his duty.  Unfortunately
   though, he was later killed in action.  3 months later, the war
   had been announced that it was officially over.

   Thanks Alfred for bringing this up...

   May God be with our soldiers who are over there and involved with
   this crisis and may He be with their families and friends.....

   Kenn

    
    
    Guilt?  Absolutely!  My grandfather, my father, my brother all saw
    action.
    
    My brother did two tours of Nam... spend 10 minutes talking to him
    and you'll know he did not come back untouched...  He was injured
    both physically and mentally...
    
    I did my time in the Air Force... my brother laughs and says this
    branch means nada... I humor him....
    
    But inside, I feel guilty.  I too was too young for Nam and too old
    for this (maybe?)...  I believe very strongly in our current actions
    and just feel I should help.
    
    I have been known to be a real cynic and basically hard-ass type of
    person... some say I have no compassion
    
    However, there is only one thing that can get to me....
    
    a veteran!
    
    

    Feel guilty. Nope. There is a job that needs to be done, there are 
    people who will do it, and you would do it if you had to...

    Yup.  I've definitely had this feeling.  It's not that one likes war
    onr wants war, it's more of a feeling that you want to do something to
    help your fellow countrymen and women (and one's country).  You want to
    do your part.  As for the protesters, I have a big problem with them. 
    Listening to most of them they don't have a clue as to what is going
    on.  All we can do is pray for peace,
    
    
    Mike

    I don't feel guilty, I just feel sad that the world keeps doing this
    over and over and over again, and men still rise to positions of
    power, men who are perfectly willing to sacrifice the lives of
    millions of other human beings to reform the world in the image they
    want it to have. It just never stops, and the human race never learns.
    
    -roger
    
    

    I *love* the protestors, not because I agree with them (I do and I
    don't) but because (1) it warms me to think that there are people who
    are caring enough and uncynical enough to protest, and (2) it is such a
    PERFECT symbol of what we're fighting for. In Iraq the protestors would
    be rounded up and beaten up or shot.
    
    IMO - Hoyt

Guilty,, no,,

Rather: Terrified for those who are now over there, in the air, on the 
ground, on the ships that are there,, 

THE question,, If I was in the service ?  And over there ?

I guess I'd just do what the half a million are doing right now.

Sucking it in, and going forward.

they have Courage,, A lot of courage..

They and the brave men and children of the Iraqi millitary are in my prayers.

Hussien is a mad man, a supreme evidence of evil.  The same words he
uses against the allied forces, that so accurately describe him.

Not being a violent person, I've a hard time dealing with the feeling
of wanting to see him utterly crushed.

I don't feel guilty, I feel sad.  Sad that so many people never question.
Sad that men and women will die to fight a war that WE created.  Sad that
so many people believe that if you're not gung-ho and "behind our president
100%", that you're somehow not really an American and don't care about
the men and women risking their lives for an old man's folly.

The people in the Gulf aren't fighting for our freedom.  They're pawns in
a political game that Reagan and Bush created, and now that Saddam didn't
play by the rules we set, he's gone from "our buddy" to "Hitler".  And
so many people just nod their heads.

Maybe I do feel guilty - guilty that I couldn't do more to stop this
from happening.  Goodness knows I tried with my votes.

				Steve

 I feel very angry when people ascribe all matter of the world's ills to the US.
It's ALWAYS our fault, no matter what. I cannot think of a single incident
since I've been alive that has not been described by at least some as either
directly caused by the US or aided and abetted by the US. This is a load.

 We are not perfect. We are not evil, either. I think that anyone who thinks
things could have been better with a different president has been inhaling
liquid wrench.

 RRRRRRRR

    I feel no guilt about not fighting in a war that I oppose my
    government's involvement in.
    
    -- Mike

    Hey Alfred, good note.
    
    I know I feel *something* when that question is put to me, but it isn't
    guilt.  I was part of the services for long enough, and the balloon
    didn't happen to go up when I was on active duty or in the reserves.
    What I feel, in watching the debate, in recalling histories of the
    region and of invasions, of appeasements and diplomacies, of protests
    against wars and confusion of officialdom...what I feel is a sense of
    irony.  There is some vast cosmic joke being played out.  Hundreds of
    thousands of people have trapped themselves into a situation that none
    of them are going to feel good about later.  Protestors are going to
    squirm when the full story of atrocities in Kuwait is told, when the
    survivors say, only the use of force saved them.  Supporters of the
    governments' actions are going to be voiceless in the face of widows,
    widowers, and young people who lost family in the operation.  45 years
    have not erased the shame of the West, that Hitler arose from a
    defeated wrecked country in the face of the appeasers of the 30s.  It
    is apparent to me that Bush believes he faces a similar situation, that
    if the United Nations do not remove Saddam for his agression now, that
    war at a much higher price will be inevitable in the next decade.  And
    while I agree with that assessment, the irony of our probable losses of
    thousands of our troops due to our history of incoherent policies in
    the Middle East is very real.  And very saddening.  And if I could
    string up all the congressional and executive types who have brought
    this about by their decades of individual shirking of responsibility,
    I'd do it in a heartbeat.  
    
    So I don't feel guilty.  I just shudder at all the misguided fanatics
    on all sides of this issue, and I wish I could prove, in some really
    compelling way, what Nietzche wrote so many years ago, what is so
    obvious on the face of it, in today's world.  God is dead.  The proof 
    is all around us.
    
    DougO

    I got out in '68 and was visiting a friend when her aunt said "Why
    aren't you in the Service."  COULDA SLUGGED HER.  As if 2yrs, 11mos,
    10days weren't enough.
    
    Tod bad my uniform doesn't fit, but they don't need over-the-hill
    13B4N's over there, or do they?  I guess I feel funny if not guilty,
    though.  I hope the ground guys don't have to go in, that would be bad.
    
    ed

    Re: 19.
    
    Excellent points, Doug.  It gives me much to think about on the drive
    home.  Thanks for the entry.  However, contrary to Nietzche, God is
    indeed alive, but he could use all the help s/he can get.
      
    LArry

    I hate to say it but I think those of you opposing this action are
    both uninformed and living in a false reality.
    
    I not only back this action 110% but say it is high time someone has
    taken a stand against him. The worldwide terrorism lead by Iraq and the
    PLO has gone on long enough just think what kind of terror Sadman
    Insane could start had he been allowed to complete his plans to own a
    nuke. I have no desire to see allied lives or the lives of iraq
    civilians lost but it has to stop and now.
    
    -j
    

    I don't think anyone should feel guilty about not fighting.  If felt
    you felt that way fine.
    
    But on the other side of the coin, many of those people who didn't go
    stayed home and protested the war.  That was fine also.  What they
    didn't, and still don't, have the right to protest againest the mem and
    women who went to Veitnam.  They don't have the right to protest
    againest the men and women who are fighting now.  They don't have the
    right to shoot at people as they have done in Calf., they don't have
    the right to harress people on there way to work.
    
    I guess what I am saying is being a person who did go fight, still
    don't know if that war was right or wrong, people don't have the right
    to haress me, call me names, throw things, spit or what ever.
    
    I have never said or will say anything about people who didn't go. That was
    their decision and they have to live with it, as I have to live with
    mine.
    
    Support the people who fight even if you don't agree with the reason. 
    They are following orders from our "Leaders" and I respect them for
    that.  Don't make the same mistakes that were made with the Vet's of
    Vietnam.  "FLAME OFF"
    
    Have a good day.
    
    

>They're pawns in
>a political game that Reagan and Bush created, and now that Saddam didn't
>play by the rules we set, he's gone from "our buddy" to "Hitler".  

This is a good point.  It didn't seem to be to difficult for us to 
sell him arms when he was fighting Iran.

I don't think that Saddam is "evil incarnate" or "Hitler."  I think 
that his level of viciousness and pettiness is a cut or two above our 
own.  For example, I saw this interesting article in Newsweek that 
referred to Saddam as a "henchman" (ever notice that the media rarely 
calls him "President," and prefers "psycho," "henchman," and "mad 
dog"?), and, in the same article, poses the question, "Is it okay for 
Bush to put a hit out on Saddam"?

We casually talk about "knocking off Saddam," as if we are some cowboy 
or mafia hit man, and then we have the gaul to imply that Saddam is 
significantly different than we are.

I think that we just have more "civilized" ways of stealing power, 
being hypocritical, being selfish, and pummeling others.  In the USA, 
we can pummel people with economics; we don't need to murder them with 
our own hands.


							--Gerry

    The conversion of Hussein from "buddy" to "Hitler" is analogous to the
    transformation of our WWII-ally Stalin into the Red Menace the instant
    WWII ended. And then there was the lightning speed with which the
    justification of the defense budget turned from fighting the Red Menace
    to fighting the Madman of Bahgdad. Our characterizations and theories
    are subject to spontaneous revision, to serve the larger purpose.
    
    - Hoyt

Re:-1

On Channel 4 in the UK there is a programme called 'Comment' which gives 10 mins
to anyone to talk on anything. Someone suggested the million dollar hit would be
an end to all wars. One country invades another, a friendly newspaper only has
to raise a million through public donations for the contract to be put out on 
the invading countries  president. (Of course, if they'd done this Bush wouldn't
be alive the day after Pananma so we may not be in the situation we are 
in today). Quite horrible/abusable etc. but at least the casualties stay in
single figures.

I thought Saddam had been declared an official non-target by the allies ?


> It didn't seem to be to difficult for us to 
> sell him arms when he was fighting Iran.

Too right.

>I think that we just have more "civilized" ways of stealing power, 
>being hypocritical, being selfish, and pummeling others.  In the USA, 
>we can pummel people with economics; we don't need to murder them with 
>our own hands.

I've forgotten all my CIA conspiracy theories but I recall certain bits of 
indirect murdering by the USA in Central America. At least its all out in the
open at the moment and vaguely justifiable, whatever the motivation that
differentiates this from all the other wars and acts of genocide that we all
usually ignore. Lord  knows whats happening with the Kmher Rouge these days.

Mark.

(Re: Note subject. Depends on your reason for not fighting.)

    "Guilt about *not* fighting"?
    
    I want to fight so bad that it's not funny ... It it only by the grace
    of some deity and a Hell of a lot of good Marines that my name is not
    on a long black wall in Washington, D.C.   Why was *I* spared?  Why was
    *I* allowed to live and so many died? I can only believe that it was so
    that I can fight again.  I originally went to 'Nam because I wanted to
    die - that was a long time ago and I've sense got my "act" together but
    BY GOD I want to fight - I have sent a Federal Express letter to the
    Commandant of the Marine Corps that I explicitly and without
    reservation volunteer for nothing less to combat command ... I think
    that I'm too damned old ... but ... I WANT TO FIGHT !!!!!
    
    If there is a God ... why can't I repay those who gave the "ultimate"
    that I may live?
    
    "Guilty"?  You bettcha !!!!
    
    Damn !!!

>    <<< Note 553.27 by MORO::BEELER_JE "this time...a mountain to climb" >>>
     
 >   If there is a God ... why can't I repay those who gave the "ultimate"
 >   that I may live?
  

	You have been repaying Jerry. Over and over again....each time
	you stand up for your country, each time your patriotism reaches
	out and touches someone.  

	Don't feel guilty.
  
	kits

>This is a good point.  It didn't seem to be to difficult for us to 
>sell him arms when he was fighting Iran.

 We did NOT sell him arms. Sorry.

>We casually talk about "knocking off Saddam," as if we are some cowboy 
>or mafia hit man, and then we have the gaul to imply that Saddam is 
>significantly different than we are.

 The gaul? :-) Is that the de Gaulle? :-)

 There is a huge moral distinction between the US and Iraq. I feel sorry for 
those who are blind to this fact.

 The Doctah

>>This is a good point.  It didn't seem to be to difficult for us to 
>>sell him arms when he was fighting Iran.
>
> We did NOT sell him arms. Sorry.

Educate me, please.  How did he get our ammunitions?  I assume through 
another country's third-party sales?  Or, I could have been fed 
completly wrong data.  Assist me?

> There is a huge moral distinction between the US and Iraq. I feel sorry for 
>those who are blind to this fact.

Actually, it's really difficult for me to comprehend a whole country's 
"moral character."  (I'm not being flip, I really mean this.)  My 
previous notes were targetting the behavior of our Presidents, which I 
don't equate to the moral character of the whole country.

And, I just wanted to say that I have intention of making Saddam out 
to be a good man.  I believe that he is probably a bad man.  

I guess I just find it more honest to look at this war in terms of our 
interests, and why, when we allow bad guys (sometimes even support 
them) to exist without our objection for years, we decide that the 
time is now right to attack this bad man's country and try to kill 
him.  When I look at it like that, I object to the timing of the 
attack (I would have liked to give sanctions more time to work), but, 
all-in-all, I don't feel so bad about our troops being involved.  I 
buy the "if we didn't give Hitler all that time to build up..." 
argument.

(As I mentioned earlier, my "guilt" feelings have to do with a whole 
other perspective on the war.  Like, "How did I get so lucky?" and 
"How do I fit into the for/against picture when I was never really 
personally tested?")

							--Gerry

    
    He bought mayhem creating goodies from that great paragon of moralism,
    France, from the great Socialist Motherland, the USSR, from the ancient
    seat of civilization, Italy, the lesser workers paradise Czechoslovakia
    (under the old regime), our hemispheric partner, Brazil, and China (the
    one commonly known as "red", though the other would just as readily
    have sold them)..
    
    US didn't sell him a single cartridge. So, you'll have to do much more 
    work to blacken our country's name than simply tossing out discredited
    canards from the professional lyberal dissident's script..

    RE.23
        THE MARINE RECRUITER WHO HAD BEEN SHOT AT WHILE DRIVING TO WORK
        IN SAN JOSE,CA.-TURNS OUTS HE SHOT UP HIS VAN,AND TO HIDE THE 
        MISHAP HE CAME UP WITH THE STORY ABOUT BEING FIRED UPON.HE MAY
        FACE COURT MARTIAL AS A RESULT.
            AS FAR AS MY OWN VIEWS ARE CONCERNED,WE NEED TO MORALLY
        SUPPORT OUR PEOPLE WHO ARE OVER THERE,REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE
        MAY THINK ABOUT THE POLICIES THAT HAVE BROUGHT US THERE.
    
    

RE .25                
    
>    The conversion of Hussein from "buddy" to "Hitler" is analogous to the
>    transformation of our WWII-ally Stalin into the Red Menace the instant
>    WWII ended. And then there was the lightning speed with which the
>    justification of the defense budget turned from fighting the Red Menace
>    to fighting the Madman of Bahgdad. Our characterizations and theories
>    are subject to spontaneous revision, to serve the larger purpose.
    
>    - Hoyt
    >
    REALLY! The LEFT in this country demanded that the US stay OUT of WWII or
    help the brits UNTIL Germany attacked the USSR then they DEMANDED that
    the US do everything possible to aid the USSR. Helping the USSR in WWII
    was a marriage of convienence. If we had let them fall, you might be
    speaking German now!
    	If Stalin, the butcher had not decimated his military command
    before WWII (sound familiar), he might have had a better showing.
    
    ***************Warning, Revisionist history follows**************
    
    	The US lowered the boom on the eastern european countries.
    	The US abrograted all the agreements on the eastern european countries.
    	The US imposed Authoritarian govt's in the eastern european countries.
    	The US imposed a blockade on Berlin
    	The US is the great satin and ther cause of all problems in the world
    
    
    RIGHT
    
    Ever heard of a history book? Try world history, not revisionist
    history, not leftist history, not peace at any price history!
    
    
    Sorry for the flames, but I cannot let this LIE lay.
    
    Steve, amateur WWII historian

    but even "history books" are subject to the revisionism of the author
    and his contemporary world.  I am not refuting anything you said other
    than the simple pointer to a "history book" -- they are all subject
    to minor or major influences of the author's perspective.
    
    ed

    re.33
    satin? Or did you mean Satan? If you meant the latter I'll go so far to
    say that I disagree but anything more would be a waste of my time.
    
    -j who also is a WWII history buff with 4 living relatives(lost3) in
       WWII
    

    I'd definately feel guilty about dodging any kind of call up. I would
    hate to go though.

    re .33 - would-be rebuttal to .25
    
    The history you recall for us only illustrates my point. Yes, it was a
    marriage of convenience, our alliance with the Soviet Union. The
    historical FACT is that WWII was marked by U.S. government propaganda
    informing U.S. citizens that Uncle Joe was a nice big Teddy-bear. Within
    months of V-E day, however, the government story was reversed and Uncle
    Joe was suddently the Evil Emperor. I'm not saying Stalin was a saint,
    rather he was the opposite. The point is that THE U.S. GOVERNMENT USES
    WHATEVER PROPAGANDA IS CONVENIENT.
    
    Similarly, Saddam Hussein was a semi-benevolent power, until he turned
    from beating up on the Iranians and threatened our friends the
    Kuwaitis, Saudis, and Israelis. Now he wears the guise of Evil
    Incarnate.
    
    There are two unfortunate aspects to this.
    
    One, the government (or military-industrial complex, pick your entity)
    finds it helpful to have a threat out there, to justify the defense
    budget.
    
    Two, we the American public are incredibly susceptible to manipulation.
    If our national leadership compares Hussein to Hitler, the national WE
    goes "Yup, yup, we're going to the war, uh-huh, we're going to the
    war, yup, yup [add Bill Cosby intonation, please]" Special-needs political
    analysis.
    
    Thus we spend our wealth and our best minds on war machinery, and our
    eighteen-year-olds spend their very lives.
    
    - Hoyt

.37> THE U.S. GOVERNMENT USES WHATEVER PROPAGANDA IS CONVENIENT.
   
    ...as does the government of Canada
    ...as does the government of Mexico
    ...as does the government of England
    ...as does the governemnt of Germany
    ...as does the government of South America
    ...as does the government of Italy
    ...as does the government of Spain
    ...as does the government of the USSR
    ...as does the government of Israel
    ...as does the government of Saudi Arabia
    ...as does the government of Australia
    ...as does the government of China
    ...as does the government of Egypt
    ...as does the government of .... well ... get the drift?

        re .-1,
        
        I notice you left out Iraq. :*)
        
        Dan

>Educate me, please.  How did he get our ammunitions?

 I am under the impression that Saddam Hussein does not possess US made
munitions, with the possible exception of some very old Hawk missiles that
may have been obtained through a third party. The United States certainly did
not sell him any weapons. Unlike the Soviet Union (SCUDs, tanks, MIGs, small
arms, artillery, etc), West Germany (chemical warheads, nuclear weapon 
technology), China, Czechoslovakia, France (the arms sluts of the world)...

>And, I just wanted to say that I have intention of making Saddam out 
>to be a good man.  I believe that he is probably a bad man.  

 How you can hedge at this point is beyond me. He has subjugated an entire 
country. He has murdered peple by the thousands in his own country. He has
killed people he _suspected_ might not be loyal. He has killed people who
have disagreed with his military ideas. He is overseeing the torture of
coalition POWs, and is using them for propaganda and is now using them as
human sheilds (All war crimes, BTW.) And the most potent statement you can make
is "he is probably a bad man." Amazing. What does he have to do to be definitely
a bad man, work for Jesse Helms?!!!

 The Doctah

    re .33   You have a lot of it right, but like many who use history only
    to make an ideological point for today, the errors you make undermine
    the legitimacy of what you *do* get right (i.e., Stalin's decimation of
    his officer corps, the far left's pathetic shift as Stalin changed
    sides) 
    
    In this case, your error is the implication that it was the left that
    was the primary source of domestic opposition to the US entering WWII.
    In fact, it was the right, the America First folks (of whom Charles
    Lindberg was the most famous spokesman), who most vigorously fought
    against any moves to counter-act Hitler (most particularly any efforts
    to aid Britain prior to Pearl Harbor).  This attitude came from the
    traditional American desire to keep out of "foreign entanglements" (as
    most famously set out by Washington in his farewell address), and by
    the traditional mid-western and western isolationism that flowed from
    that thread of history -- buttressed by distaste for effete "eastern"
    interests which were seen as too European-oriented.  Also, alas, the
    anti-war movement had strains of pro-Hitlerism in it; he was seen as an
    antidote to Communism, as the upholder of vigorous aryan culture, etc.
    
    Kit

    RE .41
    
    Believe me I am well aware of Lindberg et. al. Why the US mil let him
    'test fly' (the best description I can think of) a P-38 in the Pacific
    and shoot down a Japanese plane, I don't know.
    	Add to him Father Conklin (sp) and (rep) Hamilton Fish whose actions
    to me were treasonist.
    
    
    RE Stalin marriage of conveince:  (Hoyt I think)
    
    Would you rather  be speaking Germany now?
    
    
    I thought not

    It is true that the US has not sent arms directly to Iraq, but our
    government has supported Saddam in many other ways.  As one example,
    the State Department bent over backwards to get a supercomputer
    sent to Iraq, and this was after August 2!  We have given him money
    (not just for oil), and facilitated his purchase of US arms from
    other sources.
    
    As for invading Kuwait, Saddam had the US's permission to take over
    a couple of oil fields in northern Kuwait - we promised that we
    would take no action against him.  He then went ahead and took
    over the whole country, and that's when, with egg on our face, Bush
    proclaims Saddam to be "a second Hitler".
    
    If we're such fans of stamping out "naked aggression" wherever it
    appears, where were we in China?  Where were we in Lithuania?  Or
    Afghanistan?
    
    Make no mistake - I support our troops 100%.  I want every one of them
    to return safe and sound to a hero's welcome.  And at this point,
    there's no turning back - Bush made sure of that.  In my opinion, this
    conflagration did not have to happen, and probably would not have
    happened if US policy had been different.  But we're there now and
    we may as well make the best of it.  The lives of millions are at
    stake.
    
    						Steve

>    If we're such fans of stamping out "naked aggression" wherever it
>    appears, where were we in China?  Where were we in Lithuania?  Or
>    Afghanistan?
    
    	US failures to respond forcefully in those situation is, in my
    opinion, a failure to "do the right thing." The fact that we are
    doing the right thing for Kuwait in no way excuses the failure in
    other places. I would hope that this action indicates a new
    determination to be pro-active in the rest of the world.
    
    		Alfred

Re: .44

Or only when our gas tanks are at stake.

			Steve

    RE: .42, as an aside, Hamilton Fish, Sr.'s obit was in this weekends
    paper. Described him as an isolationist.
    
    RE: .27, I know where you are coming from Jerry. During Nam, I had my
    draft physical, classified 1H, and then didn't here from them again.
    Over the last 18 years, I have thought about those men who died so that
    my ass back home was safe. Enough that now that I want to do my part
    for this country, they won't take me bacause of age! And I haven't
    found a way to get around it either!!!!!
    
    Eric

    
>    So, you'll have to do much more 
>    work to blacken our country's name than simply tossing out discredited
>    canards from the professional lyberal dissident's script..

I sincerely did not mean any harm by the statement, and had no 
intention of blackening anything.  I'm sorry.

I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again.  I'm getting used to 
it.

Thanks for the information.


							--Gerry

>>And, I just wanted to say that I have intention of making Saddam out 
>>to be a good man.  I believe that he is probably a bad man.  
>
> How you can hedge at this point is beyond me. He has subjugated an entire 
>country. He has murdered peple by the thousands in his own country. He has
>killed people he _suspected_ might not be loyal. He has killed people who
>have disagreed with his military ideas. He is overseeing the torture of
>coalition POWs, and is using them for propaganda and is now using them as
>human sheilds (All war crimes, BTW.) And the most potent statement you can make
>is "he is probably a bad man." Amazing. What does he have to do to be definitely
>a bad man, work for Jesse Helms?!!!

Please cut me some slack, Mark.  You really have no clue as to what I
think and how I feel about Saddam and this war.  I've put very little
in this file about that. 

Digital doesn't pay me enough to key in all the background thought and 
feeling behind "I believe that he is probably a bad man."  Suffice it 
to say that, although I support our troops in the Middle East, I 
refuse to participate in the war-mongering technique of turning the 
enemy into Evil Incarnate.  

There are only human beings on both sides of this war.  If we're going
to bomb his country and kill him, then let's just not lie about what's
going on here.  He stands in our way (peaceful world order, and
control of oil), and we are tying to eliminate him.  We aren't doing 
this to eliminate Evil in this world.  Or, am I being overly cynical?

							--Gerry

    RE .48
    
    I think you have it wrong. As I understand it, we are NOT trying to
    kill him (SH). We are going to kill nnn numbers of US, Iraqi,...
    
    Steve

>Please cut me some slack, Mark.

 Considering the way you have described other people as being "bad" people who
have never engaged in the absolute villainy that Saddam Hussein has, I couldn't
let it slide.

>Suffice it 
>to say that, although I support our troops in the Middle East, I 
>refuse to participate in the war-mongering technique of turning the 
>enemy into Evil Incarnate.  

 Seems to me he was doing a fine job of that on his own.

 The Doctah

    Heard yesterday: We've dropped 80,000,000 (yes, million) pounds of
    explosives so far, in less than a week. What would you guess, a death
    per 10,000 pounds? Per 1000 pounds? Per 100 pounds? The math says "lots
    of dead people." 
    
    This is to (take your pick):
        - restore a feudal aristocracy (the Emir of Kuwait)
        - keep Hussein from controlling oil (though OPEC (!) couldn't do so)
        - secure the defense budget (heard "peace dividend" lately??)
        - raise the price of oil (good for the President's Texas buddies)
        
    None of these are MY cause. - Hoyt

    RE .51
>    Heard yesterday: We've dropped 80,000,000 (yes, million) pounds of
>    explosives so far, in less than a week. What would you guess, a death
>    per 10,000 pounds? Per 1000 pounds? Per 100 pounds? The math says "lots
>    of dead people." 
    
    This is about 11,000 #/sortie. That is a little steep I think, but no
    mind. We are using precision guided munitions on military targets 
    where colateral damage (civilian deaths) could be expected. The
    Republicand Guards, on the other hand....
    
        
>    This is to (take your pick):
>        - restore a feudal aristocracy (the Emir of Kuwait)
>        - keep Hussein from controlling oil (though OPEC (!) couldn't do so)
>        - secure the defense budget (heard "peace dividend" lately??)
>        - raise the price of oil (good for the President's Texas buddies)
>        
>    None of these are MY cause. - Hoyt
    >
    How about to stop an agressor? Is that a good cause?
    	BTW the $$ for oil is not $100/barrel like many doomsday predictions. 
    It will go down, probably below July 31, 1990 prices after this is 
    over. That otta make GB's friends happy. Sorry, that one doesn't work
    either.
    
    Steve

    re .27
    
>    on a long black wall in Washington, D.C.   Why was *I* spared?  Why was
>    *I* allowed to live and so many died? I can only believe that it was so
>    that I can fight again.
    
    Jerry, if this is your reason for wanting to fight again then I think
    you are wrong.
    
    At Australian Remembrance services an army bugler plays two things. 
    First, he plays the Last Post, which is normally played at sunset, and
    here it is to mourn the deaths of our soldiers.
    
    But second, and after only a slight pause, he plays Reveille, for the
    rising of the sun.
    
    The sequence is significant.  First we pay our respects, and remember
    the fallen.  But, in order to give meaning to their sacrifice, we have
    to go on with life.  We are saying, clearly, that they died _so that we
    might live_.  It is now up to us to pursue life, and quality of life,
    or else their deaths had no purpose.  We can honour them in no better
    way.
    
    There are other, better reasons for wanting to fight Iraq.  But I
    think, seriously and honestly, that a sense of guilt for having
    survived a previous combat isn't one of them.

    
>    I think you have it wrong. As I understand it, we are NOT trying to
>    kill him (SH). We are going to kill nnn numbers of US, Iraqi,...
    
I understand perfectly that the stated goal is to liberate Kuwait and 
not to overtake Iraq.   However, I have my doubts when I read in 
Newsweek an essay that debates whether George should "put a hit" on 
Saddam, and when a TV interview of a soldier pictures him saying, 
"We're here to neutralize Saddam's [butt]."

The official goal and public sentiment can be different, know what I 
mean?


							--Gerry

Hello,

	1 - Reminder from GEORGE BROTHERS and KENT ANDERSON

! It is our policy that:
!statements via notesfiles, electronic mails or any other business related
!media should not be made which might offend or be inflammatory to other
!employees.
!
!Corporate Personnel Policy 6.54 (4-Sep-1989) on Proper Use of Digital
!Computers, Systems and Networks states:
!
!"In addition, these conferences may not be used to promote behaviour which
!is contrary to the Company's values or policy (i.e. they may not promote
!discrimination, disrespect for the individual, violence, etc.)."
!
	2 - I was surprised by the sentence
	"great paragon of moralism FRANCE"
	
	If FRANCE is really one of the nicest country of the world, with a 
nice climat, everybody knows that GOD created the Frenchies to re-establish 
the balance.

	3 - May be my knowledge in english or not good enough but I don't 
understand the meaning of "The arms sluts of the world"

	
	4 - I would like to give you some more information that are not 
explained by the us media.  

4.1. In FRANCE we have a lot of immigrant people who are coming from arabian 
countries and are Muslims, we also have a lot of Jewishes and Armenians 
because of our laws on asylum (droit d'asile).
	Can you imagine what could be the situation today in the STATES if 
you had to declare the war against MEXICO. The population would be afraid 
of criminal attempts within the country.

4.2  We have already survived a lot of terrorism attacks from arabian 
extremists especially in autumn 1986. They wanted us to relax the 
terrorists we had arrested. In spite of the panic in the population, the 
government didn't give up.

4.3  We know how the situation is dangerous here because of the number of 
muslims we have in our country, that is why the government had to be very 
very careful and prepare the population to the war after showing that all 
the effort for the peace had been tried. 
No one in the STATES can remember what does war means in his town, in is 
garden, a bomb in his house. In EUROPE 50% of the population can remember 
that. And yet, today
 75% of the population supports the Presidents MITTERRAND and BUSH.


4.4  Do you know why FRANCE sold MIRAGE F1 and EXOCETS to IRAK ?

	Because FRANCE, as well as USA supported HUSSEIN during his war 
against IRAN. At that time HUSSEIN wanted arms, but not the same as the 
iranian one. In fact the iranian army was almost completely equipped with 
US fighters, bombers, missiles and tanks. Nobody complained agains the fact 
that USA had sold arms to IRAN.
	What will happen in the future with SYRIA and SAOUDI ARABIA? What 
will they do with your arms. 

4.5  Today the french army in the golf cannot use its MIRAGE F1 because the 
Allies could not recognize us from the enemy. We are using JAGUARS which 
are older and cannot do the same thing. We use them to bomb the enemy 
installations, mostly during the day.
     The majority of the french soldiers in the gulf are waitting for the 
second step of war with tanks and helicopters. It will not be easy.

4.6  In 1981, Israel bombed a nuclear powerstation in the south of BADGAD. 
SADDAM HUSSEIN asked FRANCE to rebuilt it with the french technology. 
Unlike other western countries FRANCE declined and never sold to IRAK 
neither nuclear technology nor computers nor gas installation.

	I, as 75% of the population in France, are 100% supporting this 
war, although it is dangerous because we must explain and explain again 
that it is not a war against ISLAM or ARABIAN population, but againt a 
dictator. Two French engineers has been killed yesterday in MAROCCO. The 
french embassy has been sacked in Constantine (ALGERIA).... we know it is 
just the beginning, same thing for GREAT-BRITAIN in Beyrouth. Did CNN show
that? 

	To judge we must be well informed, understand the situations and 
remember history.  

	Whatever the nationality they have, I support all the soldiers, it 
is one allied army fighting for the right, and for me it is as if they had 
the same nationality.  They will win together.

	THIERRY

    Thank you, Thierry, for showing us that there sides to this story 
    other than the US side.  Some of us tend to forget.
    
    Best wishes,
    Karen

  I too, thank you Theirry!  

  Kenn

It occurs to me that everyone seems to have a different interpretation of
WHY we are fighting.  In the current issue of LIFE, there is an article
about Lincoln.  Lincoln believed that before fighting a war, it was
imperative that the President have a clear understanding of the objective
and furthermore that he CLEARLY convey that message to those who would do
the fighting and also to the general population.  He understood that
there could be no success without these conditions.  (The author of the
article points out that our administrations during Vietnam failed to
convey a clear message to the military and to the people.)

I'm wondering if President Bush has the clear vision or if he is just not
getting it clearly across to the people.  I have never heard him say that
it has anything to do with oil (as is suggested by many of those
protesting the war), but I have heard him state that he believes that we
must take the lead in what he refers to as the new world order (i.e., the
post-cold war world).

I wonder how the readers of this conference would view this as a reason
for war.  Is it a viable reason to commit to war?

    Why?  The little monster marched into Kuwait ... this was interpreted
    by the world community as an act of aggression ... the UN told him to
    get his fat butt out of there ... he said "no" .. we're going to go in
    and kick his butt out.
    
    Clear enough?
    
    Fact of the matter ... we're in it up to our neck right now ... now,
    let's just hope to hell that we do it right, and, get it over with.
    
    Jerry

 Roger-

 I agree that the president has failed to properly convey the multitude of
reasons why we are currently engaged in a foreign conflict. He certainly is
not the communicator that his predecessor was.

>I'm wondering if President Bush has the clear vision or if he is just not
>getting it clearly across to the people.

 I believe that President Bush has the vision, but lacks the ability to 
communicate it in the manner to which the American people became accustomed 
to in the preceding 8 years.

 In my view, the reasons why the war is occuring are as follows (in no
particular order):

o The sovereignty of a peaceful nation was annihilated.

o Widespread war crimes and other vicious acts were perpetrated over a helpless
population.

o The Iraqi war machine is the 4th largest military force in the world and
is controlled by a megalomaniac who has plans to continue his aggressions
in an effort to control the entire middle east, its oil reserves, and to
destroy the state of Israel.

o Unchallenged aggression invites both an escalation of the aggression as
well as encouraging unrelated aggression in other theaters.

o Diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis, coupled with the most severe
economic sanctions we could muster failed to achieve the objective and did
not show any signs whatsoever of acheiving the objective in the near future
(12-24 months). As an aside, it is now abundantly clear that economic sanctions
would never have worked.

o The ability of the UN to deter future acts of aggression lies in its ability
to arrest current acts of aggression. Sometimes acts of aggression can be
stopped by diplomatic means or throught the use of sanctions. Not in this case.

o The safety of all nations is dependent upon the willingness and ability of
the world community to unite and repel aggression. Circumstances must be
such that an aggressor recognizes that any aggression perpetrated against the 
least nation is perpetrated against all nations.

o The ability for a hostile power to control such a precious commodity as oil
must be viewed with a very jaundiced eye. The world economy is dependent,
for better or worse, on oil as much as any other single element. To allow the
largest concentrations of the world's oil reserves to be controlled by a
hostile power invites mayhem in the world economy. Given that the health of
the world economy has a direct effect on the relative health and well-being of
all its members, one must realize that the implications of a collapse of the
world economy include intense human suffering felt by billions of people, 
especially in the third world. While we in the US may lose cars and homes,
others would lose food and medical supplies. A long, slow painful death
caused deliberately by someone else is as much murder as a quick and painless
one; the results are simply less obvious to the casual observer at a discrete
point in time.

 War is a terrible thing. Unfortunately, sometimes it's a necessary thing, to
acheive reduced human suffering over the long haul.

 The Doctah

    Last week my son Patrick, who is 21, called me to talk about his fears. 
    He is against the war, and he felt he knew I probably supported it. 
    But, he wanted to know how I felt, since I'd been in VN in '64/'65.
    
    I think he was really wondering how I'd feel about *him*.
    
    It was a good talk.  Nearly an hour.  And I love him for calling and
    sharing his feelings with me.
    
    He is still scared.  And so am I.  Not just because of him, but for all
    the other men and women (no they are not "kids" any more... any more
    than I was in '64) who are in the Middle East.
    
    Patrick is in a delimma.  As many young men and women are now.  If he
    enlists, or is drafted, he may fight, or he may not, (he doesn't
    know).  He is full aware of the dissenters of the Viet Nam era... those
    who fled to Canada and other places... and that option is still
    available, if the draft is re-instated, I suppose.  
    
    But, Patrick, like many his age, is now "growing up".  There are no
    easy answers, or easy decisions, when it comes to war.  It is a time
    for each of us, in our own hearts, to decide where we stand, and to
    take the action we are led to take.  
    
    Do I feel guilty?  No, I don't think so... but, I feel sad for him, and
    for others that we are once again shedding blood on foreign soil.  I am
    sad for all those young men and women, from France, from the US, from
    wherever they come.
    
    I am also PROUD of them.  I (as many others) have been there (so to
    speak), and know the feelings of fear and of rushing adrenalin, and of
    tension that they feel.  I support them from here, and there is no
    question that I would support them from there, should the need arise.
    
    tony

    Re: .61
    
    Tony, I feel your son is fortunate to have a father like you.
    
    LArry

    I am a Viet Vet and do feel guilty over not being in this war too.
    There is one part of me that says 'you did your part and took your
    risks in Viet Nam' don't sweat it you paid your dues', and then
    another part of me says 'yeah but, you should be over there anyway'.
    So I do feel a bit guilty over it.  DAMM wars.
    
    Jeff

    re. 553.15  I agree with .16 in part... its 'always' JUST the fault of
    the U.S., Reagan, Bush, whoever is Pres. Not that they are perfect.
    I see a BIG difference in motivitation between Bush and Saddam.
    
    Here we are on my hypothetical playground example again: The bully is
    beating up a little guy. What do YOU do? A. Ignore the situation (most
    do this). B. Join the bully so he won't come after YOU. C. Help the
    little guy out because what the bully is doing is wrong.
    
    Simplified, I see the U.S. in the role of C.  Yes we want the damm oil
    too but the situation is also being driven by Bush seeing himself at
    least in part in the role of C.
    
    I know, the U.S. is not perfect, what about Panama, and Grenada?
    
    Does the person in the role of C. have to be perfect before being
    qualifed to help out, or should we say since C beat up some little
    kid once before himself, he/she is not qualifed to help out this little
    guy? 
    
    I hate war too, I also 'hate' bullies, but they don't go away just
    because I don't want them to exist.  Sometimes you HAVE to stand and
    fight because the conditions which require the stand seem to be built
    into the inherent nature of mankind.  
    
    This inherent nature of man to be aggressive toward weaker individuals
    and countries IMO is one of the most hopeless aspects of mankind.
    
    Yes, even though I was in Nam and 'did my time' I feel guilty at not
    fighting in THIS war too. More guilty than if I had stayed out of
    vietnam because the principles this time are clearer to me.
    
    Jeff
    

    
>    I hate war too, I also 'hate' bullies, but they don't go away just
>    because I don't want them to exist.  Sometimes you HAVE to stand and
>    fight because the conditions which require the stand seem to be built
>    into the inherent nature of mankind.  
    
That is what is so interesting about what I hear a lot (not all, but some) 
of peace advocates (I wish I had a better label) saying.  They are 
saying, "Okay, we can't let this aggression go unchallenged, we are 
dependent on the oil, and we're already in the war.  So, let's keep 
going with this war, but let's try to figure out how we can prevent 
this from happening again."

If we really, _really_ hate war as much as we are fond of saying, I
wonder if we are willing to do some awesomely hard work in changing
the way we are living (reduced dependency on oil and oil products,
more and earlier negotiation, a hard look at our foreign policy, a
hard look at whom we sell arms to).

I think that what a lot of peace advocates are saying is that, yes, 
this war "makes sense."  But, it makes sense because our system is 
structured to make it almost inevitable.  Can we do some work (after 
the war) to change the system that makes armed aggression a viable 
alternative?  Or maybe another way to ask the question is, can we 
restructure our politics and our way of life so that war is still 
possible, but not as likely?

We now have the tools (the global village) to unite countries, to 
communicate, to share resources, and to make this happen.  It has been 
heartening to hear George Bush talk about the New World Order.  I just 
hope that he and the American people are willing to put in the hard 
work, patience, and sacrifice to make it happen, after we are out of 
this war.

Is this making any sense?


							--Gerry

    The global village aspect is heartening. As western Europe melds into a
    single economy, war between (say) France and Germany seems ever more
    unlikely. Can that process continue to include the rest of the world?
    
    The cultural differences highlighted by the reception of U.S. women in
    Saudi Arabia are STARK. No doubt similarly enormous differences exist
    between our culture and Africa's, Asia's, etc. Culture is a tremendous
    barrier to the integration that would overcome "us vs them."
    
    It's also not very clear that the long-term trend is toward
    integration. In eastern Europe, a taste of freedom has promoted
    separatism, as the Lithuanians attempt to break off from the U.S.S.R.,
    and now the Croats want independence from the Serbs. In the U.S., the
    Supreme Court has passed the ability to determine abortion laws back to
    the states. We humans LIKE territories and differences and groupings.
    
    I think there are a couple long-term trends that will help. One is the
    growth of media, esp. English-speaking media. I've heard that 80% of
    those studying a foreign language study English. This common speech and
    the exposure of western values in television and music will form a
    basis for improved understanding.
    
    The other trend is scary: over-population and destruction of the
    ecosphere. Right now in the Middle-east, oil wells are burning and
    oil tanks are leaking into the gulf. In the U.S. we use a vastly
    disproportionate share of the world's energy. In Africa, starvation has
    become endemic and will grow worse. Eastern Europe has used the rivers
    and sky as a sewer, unable to pay the price of environment clean-up.
    Eventually the world will agree that we cannot AFFORD the population
    growth, the spendthrift waste of energy, and the rank pollution of our
    ecosphere. When we're choking and our life-expectancy is falling and
    our children are sickly, we'll jointly take the measures to restore and
    preserve this single globe spinning through the void.
    
    - Hoyt

    Re: .60 (and .64, I think).  The point is that the last time most of
    the points you listed (bully wantonly attacks neigbhor in critical
    area, must be stopped etc.), the attacker was Saddam Hussein, the
    victim was Iran, and we supported Hussein -- food credits, diplomatic
    efforts, blind eye to arming, etc).  Suddenly, on Aug 2 (a week after
    the adminstration put the kybosh on a Senate attempt to establish
    sanctions because of human rights violations), we switch sides and
    embark on the road to war based on precisely the same activites that we
    overlooked and justified for the 8 years of the Irag-Iran war (not to
    mention the internal horrors visited on his people by SH).
    
    This is hypocrisy, plain and simple.
    
    As for sanctions, in five months that had halved the GNP -  far greater
    than such sanctions in any other instance -- once you get above a
    15-25% cut, history has shown the success rate is virtually assured. No
    one, least of all Bush, ever said in the beginning that 5 months would
    do the job -- that's preposterous.
    
    Guilt? No, no more than in Vietnam.  If, however, you believe in the
    rightness of his war, or did in Vietnam, then I think such feelings are
    understandable -- I think I would feel them under similar
    circumstances.
    
    Kit

    .18 Carriers.  I sure do know what you mean... I spent my time in the
    Tonkin Gulf on the carrier Franklin D. Roosevelt. I remember going to
    the aid of the burning carrier Oriskany which had a flare magazine fire
    which was spreading fast.... thank God they got it out just as we hove
    into view of them. Lots of us would have died, on both ships. Then
    there was the Forrestall (carrier) fire which killed lots MORE guys
    when a missle accidentally went off and into parked planes fueled,
    armed planes on the flight deck in front of it. They darn near lost
    the ship... they did lose lots of lives. There are SIX carriers over
    there running 24 hour flight ops... live ammo. tired aircrews........
    AND the threat of an Iraq missile hitting one of them.  I pray for
    those guys. Thank God I am not there this time... I still have
    dreams about it.
    
    Jeff
    

   Well, I see there's a hot and heavy discussion here.  Just tuned in.
   Haven't had time to read all the entries.

   I'm probably older than most here.  I grew up during the "good" war,
   WW II.  I couldn't get in due to health reasons.   I've never served
   in the armed services.

   I'm extremely opposed to this war.   I've taken the time to read people
   who are usually ignored by politicians: starting with de Toqueville, and
   ending with George Ball, Stanley Hoffmann, Zbignieu Brzezinski, Cyrus
   Vance, Roger Fisher (esp. Roger Fisher), and last but not least the "much
   reviled" Jimmy Carter.   No one can convince me this war was inevitable.
   Certainly not inevitable on January 15th, and most likely never.

   I'm not going over the arguments given by the above people.  They should
   be well known.   They of course weren't listened to by Bush and company.

   de Toqueville is amused in his grave.   Americans remain naive.   We are
   not, and cannot be the policemen of the world, and our own house is in
   serious disorder.   Yet we blunderbust ahead.

   I'm supporting the troops in the Gulf 100%.  I want to prevent Bush from
   sending them into a ground war, at any time.   The bombing may be necessary
   in order to route out the Iraqi missiles.    But we could maintain a severe
   type of sanctions on Iraq for a considerable period, a period in which
   cease fire plans could be constantly presented, over and over again.
   Something would give.   It would cost money.   But it would save countless
   needless deaths, especially on our side.

   Of course, that won't happen.    But it should happen.   

   Mardy

    Well, since the theme seems to have shifted here...
    
    I noticed this morning that Uncle wasn't the only one supporting SH
    in his war with Iran.  The Kuwaiti and Saudi Sheiks also supported
    him so I guess we all have to pay our dues.
    
    Something else occurred to me: I have known that there would be one
    or two Middle East wars in the 21st Century, this is just the first
    major one with worldwide participants., there will be more unless
    the world straightens out (which has little chance).  I mean, what
    do you think will happen when the world realizes there are only
    30 gigabarrels of oil left and they're all in one place?
    
    Sorry to say, this is not the last Middle East World War...
    
    ed

    I made a long reply on this subject over in HUMAN_RELATIONS; the short
    form of it is that when I pull back and try to take in the "big
    picture", some of the pieces seem to be missing.  The rationales for
    war given by Bush just don't quite seem commensurate with the 
    singleminded fervor with which he geared up for this war.  The conclusion 
    I came to is that there are probably bigger things afoot than ANYONE is 
    letting on to us, and I'm going to reserve my final judgment until the
    real story comes out.  Unfortunately, I'll be lucky if the whole story
    comes out in my lifetime...
    
    --jim
    

    .40 Right on Doctah.  Why is it the U.S./Allies have to be perfect
    before we have the 'right' to stop a brutal administration (Iraq) from
    holding the world at ransom with a nuke?  What about the obvious human
    rights violations which the Iraqui Government performs?  Rights
    violations which put the U.S. human rights violations to shame. Such
    as torture/maiming, summarily stringing people up from cranes in public
    squares? Oh, I know the U.S. does the equivalent but is so sly about
    it that we don't actually SEE these people.  Can't those of you who see
    the U.S. as completely wrong in trying to STOP Iraq see the DIFFERENCE
    between the U.S. and Iraq methodology?  I think that there is a VAST
    difference between U.S./Allies intent in this war and what Saddam would
    have come to pass.  Remember Iraq is the Country that turned oil taps
    on into the Gulf. Who is the loser here? The whole Planet. If that
    doesn't illustrate just plain sour grapes vindictiveness toward
    everybody I don't know what does... unless it was bombing their own
    people (the Kurds) with chemical weapons or...........
    
    Jeff

    .65 some good points Gerry. Yup, every time at the end of a war we say. NOW
    lets work so there are no more wars, and we mean it and work at it.
    When the seemingly inevitable forces build up again and somebody like
    Saddams' Administration comes along we make another exception and have
    another war. Yes, the issues are complex, we should use less oil so that
    we don't need Middle East oil etc. What about the agression and the
    building nuke potential Iraq was obtaining? THAT had nothing to do
    with oil?!  Many see the war as primarily oil driven.  I don't. I see
    Saddams taking over Kuwait, COMBINED with being the what? 5th largest
    military power on the planet COMBINED with attempting to acquire nukes,
    COMBINED with hideous human rights violations as being the primary
    causes.  We can dream on and should try for what should be. What do
    we do in the meantime... let this guy run rampant over the region AND
    eventually blackmail the World Community (or use them)?
    
    The problem is that not enough people (especially those in power) think
    the way those of us who want World peace think.  Because of that
    imbalance of power and ideas these wars occur.  Thats why I said in an
    earlier note that the issues which cause wars are built into the
    fundamental nature of mankind, and THAT causes me to tend to dispair
    of ever stopping wars more than any other factor.  There always seems
    to be somebody (every 40 years or so) who is acting so contrary to the
    fundamental morals of mankind that they MUST be stopped.  The
    appeasement crowd should look at the history books and see what
    eventually happened when the U.S. follow an isolationistic (keep out
    nose out) policy. Eventually things get to the point where we can't
    ignore things.  Should we have waited until Saddam blackmailed Paris
    with a nuke, or actually set one off in a major city? Am I making a
    big thing out of nothing? Oh, he never would do THAT! Look at his 
    record and answer it for yourself.
    
    Jeff
    

>    What about the obvious human
>    rights violations which the Iraqui Government performs?  Rights
>    violations which put the U.S. human rights violations to shame. Such
>    as torture/maiming, summarily stringing people up from cranes in public
>    squares? Oh, I know the U.S. does the equivalent but is so sly about
>    it that we don't actually SEE these people.  Can't those of you who see
>    the U.S. as completely wrong in trying to STOP Iraq see the DIFFERENCE
>    between the U.S. and Iraq methodology?  

The point isn't the difference between the US and Iraq in the human-
rights area.  The point is that we Americans turn our heads away from 
extreme brutality in some instances (the Contras, the Killing Fields
of Cambodia, the Santiago Stadium in Chile, the slaughter in Tiennamen
[sp?] Square, the death squads of El Salvador, the current abuses in
Lithuania, and there is even evidence that we new about the Holocaust
long before we entered WWII), yet, in other instances, human-rights
issues are used as a major reason for US intervention. 

Is Saddam abusive?  Sure he is, but he isn't unusual, and his tactics 
aren't unheard of in world politics.

So, when people like me criticize the United States for pulling this 
"He's such a madman; he has no respect for human rights!" chant, we 
are only saying that there must be other issues besides human rights 
that got us into this war, because we don't care about human rights in 
other countries unless it furthers our lifestyles, our politics, or 
our economy.

Otherwise, we'd be policing every serious human rights violation in 
the world.  And we clearly aren't doing that.  Sometimes, in fact 
(Cambodia, El Salvador, and Chile, for instance), we actually support 
the governments that are doing the abusing.


							--Gerry

>    What about the agression and the
>    building nuke potential Iraq was obtaining? THAT had nothing to do
>    with oil?!  

The idea is simple, but to implement it is very difficult:  Figure out 
all the steps that led up to Saddam having nuclear capabilities and 
all the steps that led up to his human-rights abuses.  Figure out all 
the subtle ways in which we supported him in doing what he did.  (For 
example, check out the reaction that the French and German diplomats 
are receiving in Israel for allegedly having sold the Iraquis the 
machinery needed to build nukes and wage war.)  Once you've figured 
out what support led to a Suddam Hussein, learn to withdraw that 
support--as a united world community--the next time a power-crazed 
militarist attempts to build up.  

Certain types of sanctions three years ago might have prevented the 
war today.  And, if it doesn't prevent the next war, I think that we, 
as a world community, can be proud that we did some good work in 
between wars to try to prevent them.

You see, I find it bizarre that countries who, a few years ago, looked 
the other way and sold Iraq the tools they needed to make themselves a 
world power, are now shocked and find war "just happening."  An awful 
lot of support, denial, greed, and complacency went into supporting 
Saddam and building him up to the point at which he has become a real 
threat to the world.

[And, even as I write this, I'm not sure that it is possible to do.  
But I'd like to try.  Know what I mean?]

>    Should we have waited until Saddam blackmailed Paris
>    with a nuke, or actually set one off in a major city? 

You're implying that I'm advocating that we wait longer. I'm actually
arguing that we need to learn to take firm-but-peaceful stands
_sooner_.  That we are going to war is a sign to me that the world
acted too late; I see war as a sign of failure, as "damage control." 


							--Gerry

An item that's been in the news recently relates to a decision made by
the US government to not provide any kind of honors ceremony for those
killed in the war.  No honor guard, no flag-draped coffin, just a private
ceremony if the family wants it.  I wonder how those who are eager to fight
for their country feel about knowing that if they die fighting, that their
country, for which they gave up their life, wants to pretend that perhaps
they were just a tourist who had an accident while on "vacation".

The stated intention of this ruling is to "prevent morale problems".  As I
see it, it's intended to try to deny that there is any human cost to this
war, to allow Americans to continue to believe in high-tech "surgical strikes"
and not realize that they are paying for this war with the lives of their
children.

A lot has been in the news lately about the increased production of
missles and other military gear, as if this were some hidden bonus.  Why haven't
I seen articles about the makers of body bags?

				Steve

Interesting note:

During this crisis, the people who have most impressed me have been 
the military leaders.  They have appeared to be sane, practical, and, 
in some instances, wise.  They have led the chorus of, "War is messy 
and unpredictable; don't expect this to be over any time soon."  They 
have kept their heads on straight.

The least impressive people in this crisis have been the reporters
from the network headquarters (not the ones in the field).  Believe it
or not, they have been worse than the politicians.  They have been
mindless cheerleaders, jumping at every innuendo and feeling free to
draw multiple, sweeping, and conflicting conclusions.  Blech!

Just my opinion....


							--Gerry

    NPR aired interviews with workers in a body bag ("human remains
    pouch") factory late last saturday afternoon.  it was quite moving.
    
    
    it's my understanding that the customary ceremonies will be observed
    in the absence of the media.

    I've read about a dozen replys and plan to read the rest but just have
    to add something.
    
    I did a tour in Vietnam so I don't know the guilt you're talking
    about; ie guilty for NOT going.  My guilts are a little different.  I
    felt guilty to the point of depression several times when I was there
    because friends got whacked and I didn't.  After I left it took me
    years before the empty look of little Vietnamese street beggars left
    my dreams.
    
    I don't know.  I did what I did and I can't take it back.  My biggest
    wish for any any serviceperson is that they not have to dream the
    dreams I had.  That they not have to see the ghosts of friends.  That
    they not have to remember what seeing buddies die is like.
    
    The only way I know of to do this is to not have the combat.  I don't
    feel that I'm betraying the dead Vietnam vets.  They would be alive
    today if they hadn't been killed there.  I don't know what they died
    for really.  I know all the arguments like 'protecting their country
    and allies' and all that crap.  What I see is friends that can't go
    fishing and backpacking with me anymore.  Friends that can't ever see
    their kids or grandkids.  Friends that are DEAD!  I'd rather feel
    guilty than dead.  And I know I'll catch hell for this but I still don't
    see what they died for.  No one is better off.  Hell the VietNamese
    army ended up saving a lot of lives in Cambodia.  What a hoot.
    
    I just wanted to say that it seems like no matter what you do you're
    going to feel guilty about this - one way or the other.  Don't go and
    fight and feel guilty, go and fight and feel guilty.  That's what war
    is all about; no matter what you do you lose.
    
    patrick
                                          

    re .75   Ok Gerry. I agree with your point. We sure ARE inconsistent
    regarding which abuse issues we react to. If we are going to justify
    our being in the Gulf on purely human rights issues then we are being
    inconsistent as hell.  Of course we are there for a variety of reasons.
    Human rights, the oil, Iraq's building nuke capacity which in the hands
    of Saddam in my view was reason alone enough to 'eliminate' (read
    destroy) that capacity. The Israelies saw this threat, what, 8 years
    ago and did something about it. We sat back and sold arms to the Third
    World, & supported Iraq because he was fighting Iran at the time.
    
    On Sixty Minutes last night one woman in Iran said where were you (The
    U.S.) when Iran needed U.S. help to fight Iraq. The reporter pointed
    out that at the time (1981 or so) the U.S. was still smarting from the
    Hostages which had been held in Iran for how long, over a year, right?
    
    Under those conditions I can see how the U.S. would tend to turn a
    blind eye to Saddam at the time.
    
    Many of the people who criticism U.S. action (and I agree it is hardly
    perfect) tend to forget the context in which we do and don't do some
    of these things and simply point out the action(s) of the U.S.
    regardless of context.
    
    I have never hear Saddam even have the 'courtesy' to say that he cared
    about how many of his people might die fighting the U.S..  At least
    Bush SAYS he cares, and I believe he does.
    
    Jeff
    

    .76  I think we see pretty much eye to eye Gerry. I agree the World
    as a whole helped "make" Saddam. He couldn't have done it without
    outside Iraq help.  Then 'we' wonder why Saddam comes back at us with
    the equipment the World has sold him. The subtlies which lead to war
    are vast... every arms dealer I see as partially responsible.  I
    think the World as a whole began to get complacent about building 
    World arms... especially Third World Countries armed with hi tech
    equipment.  Well, we as a whole (the World) are eating the arms we
    sold him now.... am I am truely sorry we are having to learn the hard
    way.
    
    Lets hope the NEXT generation can learn from our mistakes the way our
    fathers hoped WE would learn, but apparently didn't.
    
    That oil 'spill' of Saddams to me is beyond words in its significance
    in immorality.  I can understand an attacked ememy shooting back, but
    dumping oil on the ecosystem is to me the 'ultimate' crime against
    innocent victims, (birds, fish, porposes etc.) who truely are innocent
    of any of Mankinds political crap.  If we kill ourselves fighting 
    thats one thing but at least lets not take the rest of the ecosystem
    with us!
    
    Jeff
    

    I have a very cynical view of this stuff in the Gulf.
    Cynicism is the only way that I can explain why we are there
    to my staisfaction.  And it is helped by a little news
    item that I heard:

    The U.S. Ambassador to Iraq is (still) April Glaspie.
    She hasn't been in Iraq for some time, but she was
    reported (by the Iraqis) as having shown "no concern" when
    Iraq suggested that it might move on Kuwait back in August.
    The disclosure of her statement (by Iraq) was a serious 
    breach of diplomatic etiquette by Iraq, since the conversa-
    tion was off the record.  Accordingly, the US is neither 
    denying nor confirming what she said.  So, is Iraq lying,
    or did she in fact say what she said?

    I believe that she probably did say what she said, and I
    assume that her statement was an informed statement, ie, 
    that she was saying what she was supposed to say.
                                     --------
    I think we were laying a trap for Iraq to walk into.
    Here is the reason that I think we did what we did:

    Saddam was building up his army to way beyond what he
    needs for defense, acting like he is going to bring the Arabs
    together (by coercion) and rattling sabers at Israel.  

    We needed an excuse to clobber him before he got any bigger.
    
    He asks the US Ambassador what she thinks of his possibly
    aggressive move and she says, "why that's no business of the
    U.S.A", knowing full well, that if he moves on an Arab country
    instead of on Israel, that we'll have a good case for jumping
    in there to defend whatever Arab countries are left, and 
    rallying the other Arabs to our side.  He didn't have enough
    clout to take on Israel (over Jordan), but Kuwait was an
    easy mark, got him lots of oil and gold and might have coerced
    the rest of the Arabs to go with him, if the US had indeed 
    stood aside.  If we no one acted to stop him, he could have
    moved right down the peninsula, picking off those sheikdoms,
    and would eventually control a lot of oil.
    
    I think April was part of the trap that we were springing to
    make him move in a way that we could best use to clobber him,
    before he became an Arab hero, revived OPEC, got us standing
    in lines at gas pumps and then started moving on Israel.
    
    And all of the Bush/Baker diplomatic negotiating and the
    UN resolutions, etc, was just to give us the right to clobber
    him.  We would be much better off with the Arabs clobbering 
    each other, than with the Arabs united and possibly clobbering 
    Israel with weapons and the rest of us with oil prices.  

    The Arabs were nicely divided while Iran and Iraq were going
    at each other, and the Soviets were coming apart at the seams.  
    We can spend our energies keeping any upstarts that would 
    threaten us in their place, and get the rest of the world to 
    agree with us acting as policemen.
    
    The last thing we wanted in January was for Hussein to say,
    "Oops, sorry, I think I made a mistake.  I'll pull back 
    within my borders if you (the U.S.) will pull back to within
    your borders."  That's what we were demanding, but not what
    we really wanted.  And we made damn sure the stakes were too
    high for Saddam to accept.  Bush's stance got harder and
    harder because he DID NOT WANT a settlement that would leave
    Iraq ready to make war.
    
    Bush said "the world can wait no longer," when he started
    the bombing.  The world could have waited forever.  What
    can't wait is the US economy and the Israelis.  Saddam was
    too big a threat.  If we waited him out, and he worked out
    some diplomatic withdrawal from Kuwait, we'd be in a mess.  
    He would have stood up to the US (and by default Israel),
    he'd still have all his arsenal and men.  We needed to act
    while we still had a chance to clobber him.  You notice
    we are not trying to push him out of Kuwait.  We are trying
    to pulverize his ability to make war on anyone.  Eventually,
    we'll push him out of Kuwait, but before that happens, we'll
    make sure that Iraq is no longer capable of making war on anyone.
    
    (That will lead to chaos, of course, with Turkey, Syria, and
    Iran, maybe even Palestinians, all moving in for the spoils.  
    But chaos is fine.  If they get to fighting each other that 
    is also fine.  The problem that power planners worry about
    is that someone might unite the Arabs and then go after the
    price of oil or the heads of the Israelis.  We are not there
    to make peace, we are there to make sure that oil and Israelis
    are safe.)
    
    Given all that cynicism, I hope that the guys on the ground
    don't have to move against the Iraqi ground forces no matter
    how pulverized they are.  I hope we have the best weapons, 
    the smartest commanders.  I hope we can do it with minimum
    loss of life on both sides, but especially on our side.
    
    Before the fighting started, I wanted to wait for sanctions,
    etc.  Now I can't imagine doing anything but supporting the
    troops in the combat zone.
    
    Wil 

    
    sanctions are always a joke. even after the UN voted sanctions,
    German firms were shipping (or trying to ship) materials used
    in chemical weapons by Iraq.
    
    sanction fail utterly when confronted with greed...

RE -.1

That's the first explanation of the situation in the Gulf that has a 
loud and resonant sound of Truth to it.  Didn't others feel "something 
missing" in all the other explanations and rhetoric?

Part of me wants to say, "Stop the war, now.  We've done enough."  
Another part of me shudders at the idea of pulling out now, and 
letting a pissed off Saddam rebuild and come at us again.  

I'm trying very hard to see a way to end this war without bloodshed, 
but I keep drawing the conclusion that, now that we've started it, we 
need to disable Saddam's ability to strike us (and Israel) back after 
the war is over.


							--Gerry

    RE .83
    
    If this were indeed true and the liberal media got a hold of it, Bush
    would be impeached. If this were true, wouldn't SH announce it to the
    world a part of  the Satan's deception?
    
    Gerry
    
    What you envision is probably the perfect world. I would like a world
    w/o wars and strife. The problem is how to make/ensure it.
    
    As I see it: (not in  any particular order)
    
    1.  You would need a common language (english)
    2.  You would need democratic govts everywhere
    3.  You would need to have every country like the US, a melting pot
    4.  There may be others...
    
    As I see it, you could never do this! You would have to FORCE people to
    accept this. Look at the problem with women in SA? And that is just one
    little problem. How do we get them to change otherwise, especailly
    where we need them, they really don't need us (war excepted).
    	Now, I am not a total skeptic. I think that English, world-wide
    communications, and inter-dependent ecconomies will help. But all of
    this will take time.
    
    My cut
    Steve

    	There have been almost 1000 years of governments trying to force
    the Welsh to speak English and the Basques to speak French, and I could
    give other similar examples. At the last count the number of people
    whose *first* language was Welsh was about 5 million, and increasing.
    
    	Now, for Basques French tends to be the second language. For Finns
    Swedish tends to be the second language. For Greeks, Swedes and Turks
    it is often German that is the second language, and this is for purely
    practical reasons. In Morocco the languages are Berber and Arabic, with
    the Jews speaking Spanish, and University education conducted in
    French.
    
    	For most people English does not even rate as a third language, and
    unless you are unusual, consider how fluent you are in *your* third
    language. With millenia being inadequate to force people to change
    their first language, and the second language tending to be chosen on
    the basis of the first language of the majority of other people you
    deal with, if you rely on that for world peace then you have a forlorn
    hope.
    
    	Actually, since all Muslims learn Arabic as either first language
    or second (great stress is placed on reading the Koran in the original)
    that is probably a better bet than English for a world language.
    Spanish and Chinese have their protagonists too, though.
    
    	Now the "melting pot" idea is interesting. People do not move from
    their own cultural and linguistic bacgrounds without a very strong
    incentive. The U.S. was formed from persecution in Europe, slavery in
    Africa, starvation in Central America, forcing the original native
    popluation to integrate or be killed, ...    Which of these techniques
    would you propose as most appropriate for making Poland or China or 
    India or even Iraq a "melting pot"?
    
    	Even democracy does not have too good a record of preventing wars.
    There were wars amongst democratic Greek city-states. Rome was a
    democracy when it started out on world conquest, and the IRA have the
    right to vote both in Britain and Eire.

    RE .87
    
    Exactly my point. Doesn't seem too feasible, does it?

    .83  Sure sounds like a likely scnerio to me.... the pieces do seem to
    fit the actions, and, it sure sounds like the way the World REALLY
    works.  Seems as if we and the world were 'dammed' if we made war
    by having to face the realities of war and 'dammed' if we didn't make
    war because eventually Saddam would have gotten to the point where
    ignoring him was no longer an option.  You can ignore the bully on the
    playground for so long... but once he jumps on your back and drags you
    to the ground he becomes difficult to continue ignoring. 
    
    Those who say the oil doesn't count are I believe incorrect.  Oil is
    the lifeblood of the U.S. economy, whether we are right or wrong to be
    so dependent on Mid East Oil is currently a moot point.  We are
    dependent on oil and  our economy IS dependent on it.  A poor economy
    translates into deaths and hardship.  In that sense of the world U.S.
    survival (economic) did depend on the oil and thus Saddams move into
    Kuwait was a direct threat to the United States.  How many wars have
    been fought over natural resources?  Many, I submit, and oil is no
    exception.  Its far more complex than just the oil as .83 outlines
    with far more at stake than John Doe being able to fill up his gas
    guzzler with minimum impact on his wallet.
    
    Jeff
    

	I read  an  article  over  the  weekend  about the pro-war and anti-war
	groups  who  are  struggling for the exclusive use of the yellow ribbon
	symbol. 

	The anti-war  forces  are  using  the  ribbon to mean "Stop the war and
	bring  the forces home", and the pro-war forces are using the ribbon to
	mean "Finish the war first, then bring the forces home." 

	I find  the  second statement from the pro-war side appalling when they
	simultaneously  call  their  stance  as  'supporting the troops'.  They
	think  their  demand of "Fight the war for us first, and only THEN will
	we let you come home" is SUPPORT??

	I personally  find  the  use  of the yellow ribbon to mean what it does
	during times of hostage crisises, "Bring them home now."

	Already both  groups  are starting to slur each other about who are the
	real  Americans  and what does patriotism really mean.  Given some more
	time  and  significant American men AND women casualties, this is going
	to  turn  ugly.   Real  ugly.  I don't think the American support is as
	strong as conservatives like to think.  

	I feel  it  is  the  standard  "If you can get away with it real quick,
	we'll  support  you.  If it doesn't work, we'll scream 'what a terrible
	idea' at you.  Myself, I feel we were too easily and too docily brought
	into  this  war.   But  if  it  works, no one will complain.  But if it
	doesn't...
 
 	-Erik

    How about having the yellow ribbon mean simply support for the
    troops... period.
    
    

>	mean "Finish the war first, then bring the forces home." 

>	I find  the  second statement from the pro-war side appalling when they
>	simultaneously  call  their  stance  as  'supporting the troops'.

 I find it disingenuous to call non-appeaseniks the "pro-war side," given the
fact that nobody WANTS war. How can you call yourself supportive of the troops
when you act in a manner to strengthen the enemy? The troops are there to
enforce UN resolutions. Opposing that mission is opposing the troops, because 
the troops are very supportive of their mission. The troops want to do their
job. The troops do not want to hear you tell them they can't do their job.

 I hope you enjoyed the personal thanks that Saddam Hussein gave to all the
appeaseniks. If everyone thought like you, we'd have to learn arabic.

 The Doctah

    
    	If people didn't want to be in this war, we wouldn't be in it.
    
    	Plain and simple.
    

    re .93
    
    Responsibility:  Doing something that needs to be done even if you
                     don't want to do it.
    
    fred();

    
    Irresponsibility: Doing something before first determining whether it
    		      is truly necessary and in the best interest to have 
    		      it done.

>     	If people didn't want to be in this war, we wouldn't be in it.
    
>    	Plain and simple.

 You forgot one more adjective: wrong.

 People don't only do things that they want to do; therefore your analysis,
while plain and simple, is incomplete. Like Fred said, there is a thing called
responsibility which causes some people to act in a manner different from
how they'd act if they were solely want driven.

 Eschew your tendency towards reductionism. Not everything can be explained
"plain and simple."

 The Doctah

    re .95
    
    Seems to me the U.N., the President of the United States and the
    leaders of nearly all nations of the world, *and* the Congress of
    the United States *did* make that determination.
    
    fred();

        Posting yet another different male view from another man, 
	editorial cartoonist Steve Benson...

	=====================================================

           "Feel Like I'm Fixin' to Die Rag Pt. 2"

    G                              D                   G   
    C'mon, all you women and men, Uncle Sam needs your help again.
                                               D                      G
    He's got himself in a terrible jam, 'cause he ain't got no energy plan.
                                             D                   G
    So pick up your gun, it's time for war, 'specially if you're black or
         poor.

             G        C F D               G
    (CHORUS) And it's 1,2,3, what are we fightin' for ?
                     D
    Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, 
                  G                    C F D            G
    We're out to get Saddam.  And it's 5,6,7, the Saudi Desert's great!
                A7                             D             G
    Well, there ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee, we're all gonna die!


    G                                   D                        G
    C'mon mothers throughout the land, pack your sons off to the burnin' sand.
                                    D                            G
    C'mon fathers, don't hesitate, they need your daughters in Kuwait.
                                        D              G
    Wipe those tears, no time for sobs, sacrifice your kids for jobs.

    
    (CHORUS)
    G                                 D                      G
    C'mon generals, let's move quick, George drew his line, let's make it stick.
                                       D                                G
    He's no wimp, just read his lips, start droppin' bombs, send in the ships.
                                     D                      G
    The Allies back us all the way, just fight their war, its' we who'll pay.

    
    (CHORUS)
    G                               D                  G
    C'mon, Congress, don't be slow, you should be the first to go..
                                       D
    Grab that gas mask, fight the foe, for EXXON, Gulf and TEXACO.
                                    D                G
    Super unleaded is what we seek, so let's go kill for Arab sheiks !

    
    (CHORUS)

  re: .95
    
>    Irresponsibility: Doing something before first determining whether it
>    		      is truly necessary and in the best interest to have 
>    		      it done.

  Excellent definition which certainly applies in the present instance.
  There was considerable divided opinion in every sphere on the wisdom
  of this war.  Remember the Sam Nunn hearings?   Admiral Crowe?   Zbigniev
  Brezezinski?    Call them appeaseniks??     Quite a joke.

  Bush could have really listened to counter opinions but he chose not to.
  Basically, he listened to the Richard Pearlniks in our military-industrial
  complex, and never went beyond them in his thinking.     

	-- mardy

    .99  What makes you sure Bush didn't listen?  Maybe he did listen and
    decide to go ahead with the war anyway.  I dare say the existance of
    the war doesn't prove Bush didn't listen.  It proves he decided that
    war was the way to go... right or wrong.  Now that we are in there
    lets meet our objectives and bring the troops home.    Jeff
    

    Some folks would spend their whole lives listening and waiting and then
    finally at some crucial juncture stand up and say, "Yep, that's when I
    should have done something, but it's too late for that now, let's see
    what we should do now."
    
    ed

    >Some folks would spend their whole lives listening and waiting and then
    >finally at some crucial juncture stand up and say, "Yep, that's when I
    >should have done something, but it's too late for that now, let's see
    >what we should do now."

    	And other folks spend no time at all making the best decision and 
    	rush into situations they later regret but can't back down from.

    	When it comes to war, I expect there to be a very BIG debate. Not a
    	Saturday hearing the weekend before the Tuesday, pre-chosen date for
    	a war the President was railroading thru the UN and Congress.

    	The decision to go to war is a major one. For once the dogs of war
    	are unleashed, you have *no* idea which way they will turn. This is
    	now an incredibly explosive situation which could turn many ways.

    	It is very hard to back down after plunging into war. Just ask my
    	surviving German relatives...

    	-Erik

    but they spent months getting around to deciding to debate.  They only
    started to debate when it became politically impossible to avoid the
    decision.
    
    As usual they sat around when they could have started the debate
    earlier.
    
    ed

    Re: -1.
    
     But one of the main reasons they waited until we were virtually
    committed to war (so it was too late) was that the president exerted
    enormous political pressure to keep Congress out of the debate. Not a
    pretty picture of Congress, to be sure, but let's lay the real blame
    where it belongs.

>     But one of the main reasons they waited until we were virtually
>    committed to war (so it was too late) was that the president exerted
>    enormous political pressure to keep Congress out of the debate.

 The congress took great pains to avoid debate on the issue. The democrats
made full political use of the buildup in attacking the president, while
being careful not to actually commit one way or the other. The president did
not call on them to debate the issue, but then, they didn't want to anyway.
Congress preferred to not commit (as is their hallmark).

 The Doctah

Mark,

	"short memory, or selective recall?" as a title seems quite apt in
this case. Secretary James Baker talked about not wanting congressional debate
on a gulf resolution, it's a matter of public record. The president did more
than passively "not call on them to debate the issue" the administration did
in fact actively ask them not to - until the time was ripe.

	-- Charles

 The only point I'm trying to make is that it is inappropriate to place the
blame on the president for the alleged lack of congressional debate. Even
if the president "ordered" congress not to debate the issue, they could have
done so anyway. Clearly they were as adverse to debate on the subject as
was the president, if not more.

 The Doctah

>>     But one of the main reasons they waited until we were virtually
>>    committed to war (so it was too late) was that the president exerted
>>    enormous political pressure to keep Congress out of the debate.
>
> The congress took great pains to avoid debate on the issue. The democrats
>made full political use of the buildup in attacking the president, while
>being careful not to actually commit one way or the other. The president did
>not call on them to debate the issue, but then, they didn't want to anyway.
>Congress preferred to not commit (as is their hallmark).

I agree with this.

I think we can add (most of) the peace protestors to the list of 
people who waited too long.  The first major peace rally in Washington 
was not scheduled until a few weeks after the January 15th deadline.  
Large rallys were not seen in Boston until around the 15th.

Ellen Goodman had an excellent article in the Globe.  She made the 
point that this is the first war in her recollection in which we spent 
5 months slowly walking up to it.  (Sleepwalking might describe most 
people.)  She pointed out that some explosive situation usually sets 
war off, not a slow build-up and a deadline.

I don't think that we can blame George Bush for the lack of debate 
before the war.  He gave Congress and peace protestors 5 months; they 
used the last week before the deadline.  (...and I don't buy the 
argument that Bush put a muzzle on Congress; I agree with Mark; they 
didn't want to get involved.)


							--Gerry

> The only point I'm trying to make is that it is inappropriate to place the
>blame on the president for the alleged lack of congressional debate. Even
>if the president "ordered" congress not to debate the issue, they could have
>done so anyway. Clearly they were as adverse to debate on the subject as
>was the president, if not more.

Yep.  They didn't want it badly enough.

It's indicative of the appalling state of the Democratic Party these 
days.  Zippo leadership.


							--Gerry

>It's indicative of the appalling state of the Democratic Party these 
>days.  Zippo leadership.

 Well, I agree, but I'd like to say that the republicans certainly didn't
pressure the democrats to stand up and be counted either. Of course, they
will be waiting for the outcome of this war to see if they can make political
hay come election time (as will the democrats). Ain't politics grand?

 The Doctah

    it's my opinion that the "debate" in congress was a moot issue anyway,
    and that the Prez was gonna commit the battle anyway.  
    
    in fact, he (Bush) *said* the debate was to send a message to SH, and
    was not required to 'empower' his action.
    
    the US was going to fight, with or without any debate.
    
    t.

>   it's my opinion that the "debate" in congress was a moot issue anyway,
>   and that the Prez was gonna commit the battle anyway.  

Perhaps. But it would have sent an interesting message if the Executive branch
and State department (in the person of James Baker) had rounded up the UN votes
needed to get the use of force authorized, then the US congress had repudiated
it. Very interesting indeed. Before the deadline the split in Congress was very
close - I don't think the President was sure he would get a resolution in
support, so he wanted Congress to hold off. Further, the debate isn't entirely
moot. Under the War Powers Act, passed somewhat in reaction to Vietnam and
to atone for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the congress has the power to cut
off funding for military operations. So the President could have STARTED the
war, but might not have been able to continue it. It would have been a giant
debacle for US foreign policy.

Would have been interesting, but is certainly moot right now.

My personal position is that sanctions were working and should have been given
longer to work. Siege is a tried and true method for reducing an enemy, but it
can take a looong time - especially if the enemy has had time to prepare for a
siege. I found it extremely cynical how the CIA quickly changed its analysis of
the effectiveness of sanctions, just coincidentally it always matched the
official State Department position. Of course sieges are unromantic, and have
always had the problem of maintaining morale and support for them.

	-- Charles

    I BELIEVE (iow, IMO) and I think Bush also believes the War Powers Act
    is an unconstitutional restriction of the Executive Branch by the
    Legislative Branch and sooner or later with a strong enough President
    the issue will end up the Supreme Court.  This clearly was not the time
    for that.
    
    ed
    (uhoh, I can feel the incoming now)

    re: -1
    
>    I BELIEVE (iow, IMO) and I think Bush also believes the War Powers Act
>    is an unconstitutional restriction of the Executive Branch by the
>    Legislative Branch and sooner or later with a strong enough President
>    the issue will end up the Supreme Court.  This clearly was not the time
>    for that.
    
    I agree.  (both with your statement of the President's belief, and
    *with* his belief.)  This is why I think the actual debate was moot. 
    Pres. Bush was going to fight with or without the Congress.  
    
    However, as (re: -2) stated, Congress certainly *could* cut funding. 
    And, I am convinced Pres. Bush believed there was so little chance they
    would do that (knowing full well that public opinion would prevent it,
    at least in the near term...long enough, in all probablility, to "get
    the job done").
    
    How would _you_ like to be the congressman who voted to yank funding from
    our troops in full battle?  I can think of only one or two who might
    even consider such an act.... and they are from MA.
    
    Of course, it is pointless to get carried away with "what might have
    been".  Such energies might be better spent on trying to learn how we
    (humans) can STOP such madness...forever!
    
    tony

    Tony, the problem (wars) is that it keep coming back to this:
    
    Even if we have a country which does not wish or want to fight some
    other country eventually will grow strong and agressive enough to start
    'picking on' (read take over) the weaker country.  Apeasement doesn't 
    work... it tends to encourage further agression.  It sounds as if I am
    resigned to wars and don't believe they CAN be stopped.  I agree that
    in THEORY they can be but in reality it doesn't seem to work that way.
    I believe wars are caused by the basic nature of man/womankind and
    until we are able to change our basic nature we are stuck with
    occasional wars.  Its not enough to have ONE group refuse to fight.. we
    ALL (Saddam too) must refuse to fight.  If just one party (country) refuses
    to take part in the no fighting pact we are back into another war.  The
    alternative would be to allow ones' country to be taken over in some
    instances.  If that is acceptable, (let the big guys always be on top)
    then maybe we CAN stop wars but at the price of our rights and
    freedoms.
    
    I think that many of you are right... that Bush did 'want' this war,
    that is, he wanted to fight Saddam and eliminate the military/economic
    threat of Iraq.  I think Bush preferred fighting Saddam NOW rather than
    later when it would have been MUCH harder to have stopped his march
    through the Mideast.  The fact that Iraq is proving so hard to
    'persuade' to leave Kuwait suggests to me that Iraq is/was the military
    threat that Bush has told us about.  I think that had we not sent
    troops into the Mideast in August that by now Saddam would have us hard
    by our economic necks and in a few years would have presented an
    INTERCONTINENTAL balistic missile threat... nukes.      
    

    The historic revisionism has begun.  I heard a Jordanian say (this
    morning on TV) that Saddam was going to pull out of Kuwait in a few
    more days and that Bush did not give him a chance to avoid war.
    
    ed

    Don't feel guilty, feel lucky.
    
    Listening to conversations around town and work, I hear the macho
    comments, bomb him with everything we got, Hussein will regret the day
    he decided to mess with us. I hear the government say, We'll protect
    you, fight for your freedom and give you back the chance to live like
    us, Free. I'm happy to see the support the American people are giving
    to the soldiers. I hope they continue to do so when the body bags start
    arriving. This is WAR, the same government that told the people of Viet
    Nam we will support you trust us, is the same government that left one
    day. Why ? because the people back home were tired of it. The problem
    wasn't the intent, it was the message. Viet Nam was different, it
    started slowly. We went as advisors and slowly expanded our presense
    until we finally owned it. People back home were relatively quiet until
    they realized that our young people were being killed. The young at
    home said, the hell with this were not going. A big difference was the
    draft. You were called, you pass the physical, take the oath, and your
    gone. Hey, soldier what was your body count for the day, WHAT! I guess
    you will have to try harder tommorrow. Music blared the anti-war
    message, letters printed it. We spend billions on weapons for war, and
    let the Viet Nam veterans live on the streets because the government
    didn't have the processes in place to properly handle reinductance back
    into society. The government is still denying claims to the VA by VIET
    NAM veterans. Hell theres no money for you guys because we have to give
    foreign aid to them over there. 
    
    I hope that the American people don't blame the soldiers for this war.
    And I hope they continue to support them even if the chips fall flat.
    I hope we respect them when they come home and they will be able and not
    be ashamed, to talk about the horrors they will have had burned into the
    heads.
    
    God Bless
                                         

    >>>>    Listening to conversations around town and work, I hear the macho
    comments, bomb him with everything we got, Hussein will regret the day
    
    Macho?  Macho's got nothing to do with it.
    
    But BOMB him with everything we got...

    When this is over, and it will be over, I think we should have big
    parades to show our support of our troops. Leading the parades, though
    should be the Vietnam vets. They should finally get the welcome home
    that they were denied.

    
    When the French had their victory march in 1919, the first unit
    to lead the parade were not the Guardes Republicains, not the
    Dragoons, not the Goums or Spahis, but rather the men in wheelchairs 
    and on crutches..

    re .119
    
    The Vietnam vets here had their welcome home a couple of years ago. 
    You lot still behind...?

    
    -1
      Yeah it's the new guys turn..One thing that bugs me is the
    number of Vietnam Vets on TV actually coming out against this
    war..You would of thought that they would be a little more
    sensitive to pulling the rug out from under the troops in
    the gulf..I don't say this is the majority opinion,just seems
    odd...Could it be guilt???
     sincerely,
    The Nurse      <- See I don't have any male ego hang-ups:-)

    Re: -1
    
         I have seen a lot of Vets that don't support the war, but I've yet
    to see a vet "pull the rug out from under" the troops in the gulf. 
    This would truely be shameful.
    
                                                              Capt. Scott

    
    -1
    
      Figure of speech Capt.Scott..Perhaps I equate pulling the rug
    out from under them with visual images of VETs carrying signs
    like "No blood for oil" and "Bring our boys back,not another
    Vietnam" etc etc..
    
    
    The Nurse

    re: -1
    
          I see what you mean.  The first thing that came to mind for me
    was protestors in the 60's spitting on troops, calling them
    baby killers, etc....
    
                                                             Capt. Scott

 As I see it, one big difference between the Vietnam conflict and the Gulf War 
is that during 'Nam, much of the US force was conscripted, and were thus people 
who were there unwillingly/unwittingly/not from choice.  In the Gulf, all the 
US troops there so far are volunteers, right?  That is, these people joined the 
Military as a job, as a career, as an opportunity; and now these people are 
being asked to do their job.

 So why should I make a big fuss over some bunch of soldiers doing their jobs?
There are people here in the US whose lives are in as much danger as the gallant
troops in the Gulf; the US police forces (especially in large cities) face 
enemies every bit as nasty as the Iraqi Republican Guard.  When do we show our
support for them? I'm a lot more grateful and thankful for my local police than
I am for the 82nd Airborne.

 				Nigel

    I heard a radio announcer suggest that he thought the Gulf War veterans
    should be given a parade when they return.
    
    I disagree.  
    
    As a Viet Nam veteran, I think the best thing we can do for them is
    respect what they have done... openly.  A showy parade isn't what they
    want (at least it's not what *I* wanted)... but, we shouldn't ignore
    them either... VN vets have been/and are being ignored.  Few of them
    even talk about their involvement.  Probably because of they way they
    were treated by the "home crowd" when they returned.  Involvement in
    the VN war was a "curse".
    
    But, showing off the vets in a public display is swinging the pendulum
    too far the other way.
    
    If there are genuine heros from this war...have a parade for them. 
    But, just respect the others, and don't shame them.
    
    tony

I've decided that there's been enough arguing about war in this conference
for a while.  At first, some of the notes did try to keep the subject
relevant to the theme of this conference, but lately it's degenerated into
a war of its own without relevance to the topic of men.

Therefore, I have chosen to disable further replies on this and the other
war-related notes in this conference.  If you must argue war, there are
several other conferences (such as SOAPBOX or DISCUSSION) where it may
be more appropriate.

As always, if you wish to discuss a moderator's action, please feel free to
send mail.

				Steve