Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Fight fire with fire.  Yes, a terribly old cliche, but things become
    cliched because they tend to be true.
    
    
                                   L.J.

    reluctantly.
    
    I believe that SH won't hesitate, and if let to go on will make things
    much hotter for the whole world than he is making Kuwait now.  It is
    that which makes me agree with stopping him.  His ruthlessness and
    willingness to use dreadful weapons against Kurds, for example, and his
    ambition both personal and national, make me believe he must be stopped
    sooner or later, and best for all if sooner.  Yes, I know that much
    horror will be caused by this.  I just think that the horror will only
    spread, and be harder to stop, if later.
    
    Yes, there are reasons both mercenary and politically expedient that
    motivate U.S. policy.  I don't agree with those reasons.  I consider
    the above to be more important.
    
    For comparison, I'll say that though I'm not real fond of C/communism,
    I was glad when the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia and threw out the Khmer
    Rouge.  Communism is a bad system imo, and military invasions are bad
    imo, but the Khmer Rouge was worse.
        
    It's better not to fight, but sometimes you have to.  It's often hard
    to know just when that is.
    
    Sara

    I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see any other way that will work. I just
    hope that the military is allowed to go in and get it over with as soon
    as possible instead of dragging it out like 'Nam.
    
    Deb

     
     YES, ( reluctantly also..)  S. Hussan is working 24hrs a day for
    the capability to launch nuclear warheads. Intelligence reports state
    3-5yrs till he could hit Israel. 7-10yrs....New York.  Mutual Assured
    Destruction ( MAD ) would not be a deterant to someone like him. GEt
    him now...or....never.
       People say this is just a war over oil....it's just part of the
    reason.  I think Bush should pressure Japan + Europe to pay for
    MUCH more of the cost !!!!!
    
    

    "just war" is an oxymoron.  Wars are inherently unjust, for many die
    who are not guilty - that is not justice.
    
    D!

    >.5
    
    It has been my observation that reality has little to do with justice.
    
    
                                      L.J.

    I used to think maybe, on the grounds that he was developing 
    nuclear missiles.  I don't think so any longer.

    The "he'll control the world's oil supply" argument just doesn't
    wash with me.  *We* are the ones responsible for our dependence on 
    foreign oil.  Our government has been acting irresponsibly for 
    decades, and the day of reckoning will have to come someday.  Going
    to war now would postpone it, but at the cost of thousands of lives.
    And we still wouldn't be taking steps to solve our problem.  We're
    still *not* taking steps to solve our problem.  Most of the time
    our leaders don't even admit we have a problem.

	"Hello, my name is the United States of the America, and
	 I am an oilaholic."

    The main reason I am against a war is that we can't afford it.  No 
    matter how they do the accounting, it's deficit spending, every penny 
    of it.  That huge deficit is someday going to compromise our national 
    security and our standing as a world power much more than not fighting 
    a war with Saddam would.  We talk a lot about "protecting democracy and
    human rights" (a phrase which should often not be taken too literally), 
    but in compromising our own security we are not advancing the forces of 
    democracy one whit.

    Saddam, after all, is a much more direct threat to other countries
    than to us.  Israel, for example.  They already launched a raid to
    destroy a plant they suspected of building nuclear missiles; let them
    do it again.  They've already all but volunteered.  And how about all
    those other countries that are playing us for suckers by "not paying
    their fair share"?  Well, I think they're right.  After all, we're 
    determined to call all the shots.  And why do we insist on doing all
    this even though we clearly can't afford it?  Because we *are* suckers,
    that's why.  We think it's what "America should do" and what "America
    is all about".  I have yet to understand this. (Explaining it to me
    won't help.)

    This is, by the way (because I think it needs to be said) in no way a 
    reflection on our troops in the Middle East.  They are doing their 
    jobs, and doing them loyally, and I support that no matter what I may 
    think of the decisions of our leaders.

    What can we do to stop Bush from going to war?  I don't think we
    can do anything.  Much as I dislike the idea and its consequences,
    I think its inevitable.  After all, if it weren't for a war, he'd
    have to deal with the economy :-|.

    Bush's obsession with military solutions notwithstanding, war with Iraq
    will be a horrible, bloody tragedy, and I believe that the cost of
    "victory" will mainly be to worsen the already complicated situation in
    the Middle East.  In fact, even if we accept the legitimacy of the
    concept of "just war", America's religious leaders have pointed out
    that war with Iraq violates the principles of this so-called Just War
    doctrine.

    I am reminded of the comments of a Vietnam Veteran who was being
    interviewed on a Denver radio station.  In reaction to Bush's comment
    about losing patience with Iraq, the man said that he would like to take
    Bush over to the Vietnam Memorial and make him read 58,000 reasons for
    patience.  Unfortunately, Bush was not so morally opposed to naked
    aggression when it served his own purposes, such as against Nicaragua. 

    What can we do to oppose and resist Bush's push for war?  I'm not sure
    that anything will be successful, given the fact that Bush will
    probably sidestep Congress and send tens of thousands of American
    soldiers to their deaths without any legistlative debate, but one step
    might be to organize and to educate people about the realities of Gulf
    crisis.  We can certainly write letters to our government officials (I
    have written to my Congressman, Senator, and to Bush himself), or
    letters to the editor of your local paper.  Rallies and teach-ins are
    being organized around the country.  These actions may not prevent
    war, but at least we will know that we have done what we could.  What
    more can anyone ask?

    -- Mike

NO.

It is my belief that a war is totally unjustified especially since
there has been no real work towards any negotiated settlement at all.
It is hard for me to fathom Bush's headlong rush into war.  It seems
very immature to me to put people's lives on the line without any
effort to talk whatsever.  This thing very quickly seems to degenerate
into a pissing contest with no real talking whatsoever.  I can never
support the use of force until at attempts at a peaceful settlement
have failed.  At this point, I would be happy with any attempt at a
peaceful settlement.

That said, I do not support Iraq's aggression against Kuwait and
beleive sanctions should be given a change to work.

I also have a lot of problems with Bush's rhetoric.  While he is
always talking about Iraqi aggression, he only seems willing to take a
stand on it when it interferes with so-called US interests (viz: oil).
The United States and particully the recent Rebublican administrations
have done little to stop Chinese aggression against Tibet or its own
citizens.  It also rings very hollow for me when we (the US) talks
about aggression against other nations when our own continent was
basically taken by force and by disception and many of these wrongs
have never been settled.

Let's move away from our dependance on foreign oil and stop mistaking
US interests for our insatible appetite for more and more matierilsim
and wealth.  Let's take a consistent stand against aggression
including the aggression of our own country - past and present.

john

    The desired outcome (remember 'outcome' ?) is that Iraq understands
    that initiation of force to achieve their ends is wrong. There
    should be a clear set of ever-more-drastic alternative ways to achieve 
    that goal, starting with negotiation and ending with force, the last 
    used only when all other alternatives have been tried and found
    wanting.
    
    Unfortunately, one of the middle options, embargo, has been used 
    already, out of order, making the use of 'lighter' alternatives
    more difficult and the use of harsher alternatives more likely.

    	In the world there are a lot of people who will listen to reason. 
    However, sometimes you first have to get their attention.  IN the case
    of Kaddafy he really didn't hear what the US was saying until the
    message was put into terms that he could understand.  Once Reagan
    figured out the language that he could understand, he seemed to get the
    message.
    	I think that Bush should have done something similar back in August
    to get Hussein to understand that the subject deserved serious
    consideration.  Perhaps an air strike against military installations
    near Bagdad would have been suitable.  As it is we are becoming more
    and more commited to large scale action, and it appears that Hussein
    doesn't take the buildup in Saudi Arabia seriously as yet.    
    	It is unreasonable to expect people of very different cultures to
    share our contemporary view that everything can be settled by
    negotiation.  In the middle east the negotiation occurs after it has
    been established that one party will win and the other lose in an armed
    confrntation.  Negotiation prior to that is just jockeying for
    position.  	
    	The sooner and more decisively we act against Iraq, the fewer lives
    will be lost.  Indecisiveness will result in more civilian lives being
    lost, and encouragement being given to others (like Assad, this week's
    friend) to take what isn't theirs.
    						John
    

re:   <<< Note 593.12 by LEDS::LEWICKE "IfItsWorthDoingItsWorthDoingToExcess" >>>
                            -< Hit them last month >-

    I can't help finding your personal name ironic. :-)

    Despite my sometimes violent emotions about world nonleaders who abuse
    their power, )Sadahm and George, are you listening,) and the very
    strong desire to go in there and kick some tail, and I'm not sure who
    would get kicked, barring nuclear usage, I have to vote with a
    resounding NNNNNNNOOOOOOO!!!!!!! In the period from 69-72 when I, in
    all probability, would have ended up in Vietnam, I did all I could
    short of leaving the country, to stay out of it, and was successful.
    Now that I'm old enough to feel fairly safe in the thought, that I
    won't be called up, I have to be true to that behavior. If I thought it
    was wrong for me to fight in a war I felt was wrong, obscene, and the
    worse thing that our country ever got involved in, then changing my
    tune now, when I think involving ourselves in this one could lead to
    global annihilation would be horrendously hypocritical on my part and
    quite possibly ruin my status as acaring human being. It's wrong,
    wrong,wrong. I felt that it was ok to posture and supply troops until
    our own and other innocents were freed. Now that that has happened,
    it's time to bring all the troops back to their homes again.
    
    Please remember that old 60's adage. "War is not healthy for children
    and other living things." Cliche', yes. Still true, VERY YES. 
    
    Phil, who would be the first one in line, if the US was attacked.

    
    e grace said it best, but to elaborate:
    
    morally, war is *always* wrong
    politico-economically, i don't think war is in our best interest
    

    
    as to how we can prevent war, i think it's most important to let
    the congress and the president know that there is *not* solid
    support for his policies. there may be good strategic reasons
    for him to say so to iraq, but they need to know that the
    american people have *serious* doubts about this.
    

  Um, JWHITE, I think I disagree.  It is important that George Bush have
  the abilty to credibly threaten war, with or without the support of
  congress and the people.  Saddam is hardly likely to leave Kuwait if
  he doesn't believe that he will be attacked.

  That is why it was good to hear the saber-rattling of the past few weeks.
  GB is not bluffing but he would much rather that SH did not call his hand.
  And there is no way to convince SH that we will attack without also 
  convincing the rest of the world.

  What really scared me was the recent statements that the army is not
  ready to go to war.  Yeah, sure.  You have to understand that both
  postures are pure disinformation, taken in an attempt to affect Iraq's
  actions.

  If SH doesn't believe we will go to war, may have to.  If we do, we
  will not be happy with the result.

  JP

  Can it be that we
  have so often been
  told that force is
  not the answer to
  everything

That we have come
to believe that it is the
solution to Nothing.

  A war of aggression is not justified or just but it is acceptable to defend
yourself and those around you or those you have an interest in if they are
attacked. We read and hear of attrocities by Iraqi soldiers, looting of an
entire country, rape of an entire generation of Kuwaiti women, and still
say that any war is wrong?
I have seen people in this file berate situations where an individual was 
being attacked/raped/robbed and no one helped. Is this any different?

It is not about *OIL* but about an entire economic way of life, built up in 
this and other countries, it may be wrong or right but it *IS* our *WAY OF 
LIFE* a total economic collapse will cost more lives than a war with Iraq
(unless it goes nuclear).

As Dana said we screwed up the order of reactions but we must carry through
if Iraq is still in place Jan 15.

Amos

    
    I was *just* writing a letter to the president and my congress
    critters about this very issue.  I have another one I'm writing
    about an energy policy.
    
    I think we should not go to war with Iraq *at this time*,
    for many reasons already mentioned.
    
    In the meantime, we need to give sanctions more time and continue
    to press for a peaceful resolution.
    

        The time to put an embargo around Iraq was years ago when
        S.H. first used chemical weapons.  I said so then but as
        Iraq was at war with Iran at the time and people didn't
        much care for Iran, people seemed to react as if I was
        nuts.
        
        The time to be prepared for military action was when
        Iraqi troops lined up at the border with Kuwait.  The
        U.S.A. should at least have been ready to help Kuwait
        with air strikes against the invading Iraqi troops when
        they invaded.  But again we failed to take action.  When
        the troops massed at the Saudi border something was
        finally done.  Amazingly, there are people who opposed
        even that.
        
        I believe the Congress should begin debate in early
        January and declare around the 13th or 14th that if
        Iraq's troops remain in Kuwait on Jan. 15 that a state of
        war exists between our two countries.
        
        Dan
        
        p.s.  By the way, isn't Jan. 15th Martin Luther King, Jr. Day?

    
    i should have written 'he' needs to know. that is, i am willing
    to accept the president's prerogative to threaten war (although
    i disagree with it) and that implying that all of america is
    behind him is part of that ploy. however, mr bush should certainly
    be aware of the reality that all of america is *not* behind him
    before he actually sends anybody to a sandy death.
     

    
    Yes. But not gladly.
    
    The last time an individual of Saddam's political, economic, and
    military power, ruthless ambition, and cunning wielded power,
    the U.S. was busy maintaining a stubborn isolationist "hands off"
    policy. It is most likely that many thousands more died than would
    have had we intervined sooner, with more force. The number of
    parallels is striking. That time, the madman was Hitler. 
    One only need review Hussain's past to see the writting on the
    wall.
    
    Many people make the comparison of buildup in the Middle East to
    what preceded Vietnam.  Mabey we're comparing the wrong war...
    

        It will be easier to count up the votes if you put a
        title on your reply with "Yes" or "No" in it.
        
        Dan

    yes

    
                  My first inclination is to say no....but sometimes events
    require that we stand up for what is right.  If we say no...then the
    Panama invasion was for nothing.  SH has the power to kill much more
    than we relize and the mentality to do it.  Can we, as a nation, afford
    to *NOT* be involved with world politics?  There again the answer is
    no.  With enconomic systems *SO* interrelated we connot "afford" to
    ignore this kind of stupidity.  Face it...we (the world) is very
    quickly becomming an economic single enity.
    
                   One other thought......I have found that it is a great
    deal easier to go to war yourself than to send a loved on.  There in
    is the answer to *MY* reluctance.  Viet Nam created more "deaths" than
    the battlefield caused.  Mothers,fathers,brothers,sisters and friends
    of those who died in Viet Nam, also suffered a "kind" of death.  I wish
    that war was not a general necessity.....but sometimes it is and we all
    suffer for it.  
    
    
    Dave
    

    
     Read the letter from the editor-in -chief on page 67 of the
    Dec 24th issue on US NEWS + World Report. Good thought provoking
    stuff on the " should_we_go_to_war" debate.
    
      ( also, good article on methods of birth control in the issue...)
    

    This tears me up. I hate the idea of war but don't believe that Hussien
    can be allowed to succeed. I don't trust the world community to support
    the sanctions long enough to make them work. Germany is already
    failing. I also think that Israel is dead meat if Hussien convinces the
    Arab world that he can get away with this. Plus, the Amnesty
    International reports on Kuwait make my blood go cold. I can see no
    other way out that won't cost even more in the long run. Remember how
    long we let Jews and Pols die by the thousands?

    All that said, George's rhetoric makes me sick. liesl

	The conference notice made me think of this topic:
        
               -< May People of Good Will have Peace on Earth. >-
        
        Dan

    
    
    The squadron I was in during the Vietnam war had a motto and patch that
    said:
                    "WE BOMB ON CHRISTMAS"
    
    of course, the Vietnamese/Cambodians/Loatians/etc.. don't really 
    celebrate Christmas.  So I guess it was moot.
 
    Here's one plan.  Pull all the females out of the area.
    US women are not allowed in battle sites.  This will send
    a message to SH.  Next, start High altitude bombing. 50 days nonstop.  
    No military targets.  Mine all the Oil fields. Destroy the poison
    gas factorys.  Hit all Hospitals, Mosques, Senior citizen centers 
    and Schools.  
    
    After the ground has been cratered,  start the low-altitude
    day and nite bombing runs.  A couple of carrier task forces
    full of A-6's/FA-18 will do the job nicely.  
    I'd send cruise missles in with propaganda leaflets letting the 
    rest of SH's pals know what was to come.  
     
    Now we're going to have fun,  A couple of Trident Subs can launch 
    ICBM's from anywhere and put on a Fireworks display that can be seen
    for miles.  
    
    But for sheer terror and destruction.  
    
    
    Nuke'em, it's proven technology.
                         
    Have a Merry Christmas.
                                  
    
    

    I disagree entirely with the tone of the previous reply. The gung-ho
    mentality has no future. Yet, If I thought it would further LONG TERM
    peace would I press the "red nuclear" button for Baghdad? I
    like to think I would have the courage. Luckily, I have not been, or
    likely to be in such  a position. Its easy to follow orders, but to
    take the decision, there's the rub.
      Personally,  I  think the middle east is a world war in the making,
    the time and the place our only decisions. 20/20 hindsight suggests 
    the earlier is the best, but whoever does decide will be eternally
    damned by history.
    
    	Blessed are the peacemakers.
    	
    	Damned are those who suceed in creating peace.
    
    
    WWII has often been quoted in the context of Iraq-Kuwait. If Winston 
    Churchill had launched a pre-emptive attack against Hitler, he and not
    Hitler would have gone down in history as the villain. I hope I would
    I would have the foresight and the courage to be cast as such a villain.
    If G.B. is such a person, I envy the the americans, if not, god help us
    all, even though i'm athetist.

    
    RE .4 : (2CRAZY::FLATHERS)
    
>    People say this is just a war over oil....it's just part of the
>    reason.  I think Bush should pressure Japan + Europe to pay for
>    MUCH more of the cost !!!!!
    
    I'm interested to know why you think Europe and Japan should fund your
    country's policies...
    
    
    
    				Jamie.

    I made an entry a few notes back explaining my plan.  If you noticed
    it was called "Wing Attack Plan R".  Many will remember this was the
    order given by Major Jack Ripper in the movie "DR Stranglove".
    
    The situation is either you deal with him "sh" now or later.  If he is 
    allowed to arm to full nuke capabilites there will be a messy fight.
    
    If you do not use the US Marines that are in the Gulf area they will 
    lose the edge.  Even more losses.  
    
    Remember, The USS Stark was hit with a Iraqi Exocet Missle.  
    But, they did say they were sorry....
    
    I don't want to see a long drawn out conflict.  It is too expensive.
    Get in, Hit hard, use whatever tool that is hand.  
    
    in the meantime,  more and more U.S. Servicemen and Women are dying
    one at a time.  Except the boating accident in Haifa. 20 reported 
    dead.   
           
    If America can go into Central America or Panama or Grenada we can go
    anywhere we please.   This is not my policy but it does happen.
    
    Hey, I voted for Al Haig.  What do you expect........
                            

    ..to Jamie..
    
        Japan + Western Europe get 70 to 90% of it's oil from the area.
    The U.S. gets approx 25-30% from the area.  I think it's more in
    Japan's + Europe's interest to support the U.S.
    
       

    I'm not happy about it.  But like many other of the "yes" votes,
    I feel strongly that this is a "pay me now or pay me later" situation.
     I'd rather pay now, while the price is somewhat less expensive.
    
    Congress needs to have the debate and declare war.  This gets the
    objectives and conditions for "success" clearly defined.  (Current
    debate is no different from what was going on in the general populace
    prior to our entry in both world wars, btw.)  I'd like to see that
    resolution passed before Jan. 15, and I believe that Bush is doing
    the country a disservice by not pursuing it.  Such a declaration
    does *not* have to mean that we go to immediate hostilities.  It
    is a means of "upping the ante" and letting SH know that we really
    mean it.  I don't think he believes that today.
    
    
    Private frustration.  There is a lot of noise in the press about
    how the Japanese aren't doing their part because they haven't sent
    any troops to the effort.  The Japanese haven't sent troops because
    it is illegal for them to do so.  Their constitution forbids the
    sending of troops outside their country (and limits their military
    expenditure to 1% of the GNP).  That constitution was imposed on
    them by *US* at the end of WWII.  Given their military history,
    it's probably a good clause.  Certainly their Asian neighbors want
    to see it continue.  The Japanese have pledged money to the cause,
    and need to be prompt in their payments.  But *we won't let them*
    send troops, and shouldn't blame them for failing to do so.
    
    Alison

A number of replies back I voted NO.  I hate the thought of our men and
women putting their lives on the line thousands of miles away.  I don't like
the fact that we have no energy conservation or alternative energy source
strategy in this country, and should the oil fields over there be destroyed
in a conflict we will be in serious trouble.


But after rethinking over the holiday weekend I have reluctantly come to the
conclusion that this guy has to be dealt with.  Now.  


I'm tired of Bush's rhetoric, I'm tired of all the talk.  If it must be done,
and it seems that it must, let it be done quickly.



Only, Mr Bush, don't tell our men and women over there that their sacfrifices
will not be forgotten.  Our cemetaries are full of forgotten sacrifices as are
our Veteran's hospitals, "old folks homes" and streets and alleys.



Jim  

    
     I agree with .39...yes it is against current Japanese law to send
    troops........but all they have done is pledge 4 billion to the cause.
    And to date...have only sent 1 billion....pretty skimpy !!!
    

    As an active Reservist who could be activated at any time, I hope war
    does not come.
    
    As the father of an 18 year old son (and a 15 year old son), I pray war
    does not come.
    
    As an optimist, I haven't given up on finding a diplomatic solution.
    
    As one man, I am ready to go should it be necessary.
    
    As a realist, I'm afraid it will be.
    
    
    Mike
    

    Remember the appeasements of 1938 at Munich and Berchtesgaden?  The
    blood of millions is the result of those acts of queasiness.

    No sane American wants a war, but sometimes aggressors must be stopped
    before they can do more damage.  And I say this, even though I have  a
    son and a nephew currently serving on active duty in our armed forces. 
    
    So I could support a war to stop Saddam, with reluctance and only if we
    have concrete objectives in mind and a plan for what we will do
    Post-Saddam before we start.  And only if we have the full cooperation
    of our Arab allies in this.

    Decrying the fact that our economy is over dependent on oil is nice
    and all that, but that still doesn't eliminate the fact that it is, and
    that our livelihoods and security as a nation are at stake.  Having an
    aggressor of the Saddam Hussein's ilk threatening over 40% of the
    worlds oil supplies is equivalent to holding a gun pointed directly at
    our nation, as well as all of Europe and Japan.  Maybe a formal
    declaration of war is justified, provided that short and long range
    plans to control our dependence on oil consumption are part of the
    package in some way. 

    As far as the Europeans/Japanese lack of support, that doesn't surprise
    me.  They have no incentive to do the right thing since we have taken
    it on ourselves to do it for them.  Still, one wonders why we ever
    believed we could ever depend on our wonderful allies to help us help
    them.  The U.K. is excepted from this diatribe, of course.  They have
    always been full partners in ventures of mutual concern.

    Mike

    Remember:  If war really happens, not only USA and Iraq will be 
               suffered from war --- blood & money... --- but also
               the whole world will be suffering ECONOMICALLY!!!
    
    In H.K., merely the suspection of war and high rise of oil price
    already made our inflation incrased to 2 digit (over 10.00 percentage). 
    Almost everything (both service & commodities) increased the price. 
    Worst of all, the dear HK Government for the sake of ROSE GARDEN and
    NEW AIRPORT PROJECT, still urge all EMPLOYER to have our salary
    increase of coming year (1991) should be 3% less than inflation !!!
    
    Even taxi claimed & got approval to charge additional HK$1.- for every
    trip to compensate the flying oil price.  However, who is going to
    compensate the middle and lower level of H.K. people --- occupying over
    70% of HK population.
    
    Above should also apply to other country & nation too!!!!!!!!
    
    

    As much as I hate this decision (yes or no for war in the current
    Middle East context) this string asked me so I will vote.
    
    I HATE war as most sane people do! My first inclination is to
    vote no, just because if we are ever to stop wars we much start some-
    where and 'just say NO' to wars.  But then, as a earlier noter said
    the parallels with Hitler are alarming.  Saddam is not Hitler but 
    some of the parallels are striking. I am not saying that we should
    go to war because there are parallels.  I am saying that we should
    look over history carefully so we don't make the same mistakes our
    fathers made.  The U.S. said no to war during the early days of WW
    II and what happened?  Hitler gained strength and rapidly expanded 
    all over Europe. Eventually he became such a threat that we HAD to
    help stop him before he DID attack the U.S. directly. Ok so Saddam
    is not Hitler, he will not send troops to land on U.S. shores. But
    what WILL he be able to do if he is not stopped?  How about one nuke
    tipped missile aimed at London or the U.S. Troops in Saudi Arabia?
    His nuclear threat (which as I understand it he is VIGOROUSLY working
    at) WILL be something we cannot ignore.  Pay hard now, or pay harder
    later?????
    
    I vote no for attacking Saddam.  I think we should keep a very strong
    U.S. presence in the Mideast to make sure he doesn't expand ANY more.
    We should maintain the military blockade with a vigor we would have
    expanded on an outright war.  This guy needs to be 'baby sat' and cut
    off from further military parts and materials. We should monitor and
    contain Saddam 'forever' if necessary.  We should monitor his nuclear
    capabilities with ironclad controls.  He should NOT be allowed any 
    access (ever) to technology associated with nuclear power stations or
    materials which could aid in building a nuclear bomb. 
    
    If Saddam does attempt to expand further he should have his military
    capabilties bombed back 'into the Stone Age' with special emphasis 
    on nuclear plants. 
    
    But for now, I say no to war, babysit him.
    
    Jeff

    All sane people hate war, but the alternative can sometimes be worse. 
    I wish that if we were going to war we would go under the U.N. flag,
    but barring that, I support the United States going to war with Iraq
    because Hussein has to be stopped and because we are citizens of the
    world as are the people of Kuwait.  I hope Bush does not bypass
    Congress in the decision-making process.  It's very difficult to bury a
    loved one who died in a "conflict" as opposed to a declared war.
    
    Marge  

    At this time we have no alternative, the world needs to stop the
    agression of this bully, the price will be high in terms of life and
    destruction for both sides, along with innocent people paying the 
    price of one man's thirst for conquest, the reality of WWII shows
    what happens when aggression goes unchecked.

	I agree completely with .30

	Amnesty International has exposed many of the attrocities that Saddam 
	has inflicted on Kuwait - and these are people of the same religion.

	He wants to wage, and win, a holy war. If we leave him now, he will 
	continue to invade and plunder, and increase his capabilities, until he
	believes he can fight and win a war against the infidels. The 
	attrocities then will make this look like a kiddies playground.

	Remember Hitler, and the amount of appeasement we gave him, we have 
	given Saddam enough.

	
	Heather

 This came up over the recent vacation:

 If Saddam Hussein is such a threat to the world, then how did Iraq just
manage to wage an eight-year war with Iran which finished more or less
as a draw??   Certainly, at this point, I see George "Read My Lying Lips" Bush
as more of a threat to world peace than any of them what leads countries in the
Middle East (and that includes the Israelis).

 Somehow, I find it tragic that the US administration is going to start a 
war which will kill thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of humans just 
for cheap oil.  Or are "we" fighting to restore the democratically-elected
government of Kuwait, I forget?  Or are "we" fighting to ensure that military
spending in the United States deson't get cut now that the Russians are no 
longer our enemies?

 Or are we just fighting so certain people can put cheap Arabian oil in their
Japanese cars and then pontificate on how wonderful it is to be American??

 On a quieter note:  I believe that in some circumstances, military action is
justified. Yes, even starting a real war as opposed to a "police action" or 
"freedom fight".  I just don't think that those circumstances exist in this
situation.


					Nigel

    When I was in Germany a couple of months ago I visited a concentration
    camp outside of Munich.  One of the people I was with made the comment,
    "How could the townspeople live with this going on?"  What he meant
    was, how could the locals who delivered food, mail correspondence etc.,
    the people who lived in town just a mile or two down the road - how
    could they close their eyes to the torture, the starvation, the cruelty
    to the Jews?  Why did they allow it to escalate so much???
    Now I look at the rape, torture and destruction in Kuwait and wonder
    why it is allowed to go on.  How can the world stand back and watch a 
    madman that will even go so far as experiment with biological warfare
    on children of his own country.   While I pray for a peaceful solution,
    war may be the only answer.

RE:                      <<< Note 593.51 by RANGER::PEASLEE >>>
                        -< Will History Repeat Itself? >-

>    was, how could the locals who delivered food, mail correspondence etc.,
>    the people who lived in town just a mile or two down the road - how
>    could they close their eyes to the torture, the starvation, the cruelty
>    to the Jews?  Why did they allow it to escalate so much???
>    Now I look at the rape, torture and destruction in Kuwait and wonder
>    why it is allowed to go on.  How can the world stand back and watch a 
>    madman that will even go so far as experiment with biological warfare
>    on children of his own country.   While I pray for a peaceful solution,
>    war may be the only answer.


History is already repeating itself all over the world in Tibet,
China, El Salvador, (and in Kuwait as well), the occupied territories,
etc many of whose goverments the United States fully supports.  

Why does the United States support some of these "madmen" and not some
of the others?

Maybe we should have a consistent and moral foreign policy that is not
soley dependant on economic interests?

john

    
    do you know we are being led to
    slaughters by placid admirals
    
    and that fat slow generals are getting
    obscene on young blood
    
    - Jim Morrison
    

    <--(.51)
    
    Nancy, my landlord in Zehlendorf (a quasi-suburb of W.-Berlin), who had
    been a rocket engineer during the war, told me "yes, of course we knew
    about the death camps and the atrocities, and though some thought it
    was a good idea to get rid of the jews, most of us were horrified.  But
    what could we do?  It was the government who were responsible for all
    of it!  To whom could we have complained?  It was legal!"
    
    
    Some things must be stopped before they get underway, because later is
    too late.  My only thought about Kuwait is that it's a pity we didn't
    act in the instant...but then we never do.
    
    							=maggie

    =maggie
    
    I do think we should do something also, but maybe the fact that
    we never react immediately is our strenght...
    but I hate the fact that so many people die while we dither.
    
    Bonnie

    One of the things that really upsets me about WWII is that American
    inaction in the name of pacifism, contributed to the death of
        so many Jews, Romaines and outspoken Christens.
    
    I do not wish to stand idle while genocide is committed this time,
    and I believe from the accounts we have recieved that this is happening
    in Kuwait..
    the longer we wait to act the fewer Kuwaities will be left to 
    take over their country again..
    
    if American power means any thing then it should mean protecting
    the small and weak against the big and powerful.
    
    What is going on in Kuwait is a crime against humanity and we should,
    if we care about what we believe in, try and stop it!
    
    
    Bonnie

The following is MY OWN set of opinions - they develop from my own set of 
values or ethics if you will.

To me, War is a classic case of the "door is either open or it is closed."
You either go to war or you don't go to war - in my opinion, you don't go 
to war reluctantly, you simply go to war.  In war:

	Men Soldiers will die
	Women soldiers will die - make no mistake about that.  The so-
         called "non-combat" maint. battalions are 90 miles from the border.
	Women will die
	Men will die
	Women children will die
	Men children will die
	Perhaps wo/men children soldiers will die

The fact that Saddam might kill many helpless people is repugnant.  Is it 
less repugnant to make it a sure thing by going to war?  Then all of us 
will kill helpless people - what sense does it make to kill helpless 
people on a MASSIVE scale to prevent Saddam from killing helpless people?

What would I do?  Stop the B*LLSH*T about whose idea it is or what day it 
is on and get to the table with Saddam.  If that fails, then find a way to 
take out Saddam, not thousands and thousands of innocents.  PLEASE, don't 
tell me we couldn't find a way to do that.

War has NEVER been the answer, it is NOT NOW the answer, and, it NEVER 
WILL be the answer.

IMO,

Barb

-d

It's not "civilized" - really, now think about that - to kill thousands of 
healthy people to get at Saddam.  If you want him dead, dead, dead, then kill
him, him, him.

As far as Rome goes, flush toilets civilization does not make.  Yeah, wonderful
solution, burn them all to the ground!

Sorry, there's nothing worth all that death.  Like I said, go get Saddam - you
don't need to start a World War to track down one man.

Barb

    I would be very cautious about making sweeping statements about
    how "the Arab mind" works. It's no more fair than it is to single
    out any other social or ethnic group and apply stereotypes to
    them. 

re .56 -

<sarc on>

Oh me too. I definitely think we should blame pacifists, who oppose war,
for deaths that happen in wars. In the immortal words of a great leader: 

"Pacifism is simply undisguised cowardice."


	-- Adolf Hitler  (1926)

<sarc off>

D.

I have moved my lastest response in the past few to the rathole - care to join
me?  Thought we might leave this space for the voters.

Barb

          re: 593.30 (Liesl Kolbe)

          > Plus, the Amnesty International reports on Kuwait make my blood
          > go cold.

          What are they?  I haven't heard anything about the AI reports...

                                                            nancy b.

    
    AI issued an "interim report" based on debriefing of people who have
    escaped from Kuwait. They document several hundred human rights
    violations, ranging from unwarranted detention, through beating rape
    and mutilation (shooting off young men's testicles, etc) to murders
    (including taking babies from incubators in intensive care and throwing
    them in the garbage wrapped in sealed plastic bags).
    
    The report is "interrim" because it is based on possibly prejudiced
    testimony and has not yet been verified on the ground.
    
    Of course by the time Congress approve action there may well be no
    survivors to ask for verification... :-(
    
    /. Ian .\

	Ian, I thought that they had waited until issuing this, until they
	had verification. They had verified the incubator incedence with
	doctors who had since escaped, and some of the mutilation incedents
	with survivors, who had been badly mutilated themselves, and who
	had witness other attrocities.

	Heather

    
    Heather: (and others) they waited until they could interview escapees
    and returning "hostages". However they labeled it "interim" because
    they can't get into Kuwait to do the verification they feel necesary
    "on the ground".
    
    However having read it, I would describe it as somewhat damning. I only
    wish all those who think this is about oil could read it too...
    
    /. Ian .\

    That report is what changed my mind about "non-intervention".  I truly
    believe Hussein is operating in the mode of Hitler.
    
    mdh

    
    re .70:
    
    what's this: a new definition of democracy "one person - six votes"
    
    :-)
    
    /. Ian .\

    
    re .72
    
       one can only hope (-;
    
    ~r

	Thanks Ian.

    Since we are talking about atrocities in Kuwait (as if that had
    anything to do with Bush's push for war), let's discuss an atrocity
    elsewhere (form feed warning for the squeamish):

    

        "Marcos Castro, a friend and coworker, was stopped on the night of
        August 30 by a group of 30 contras.  He was singled out of a group
        of 60 unarmed civilians on a truck.  The following day they found
        his mutilated body.  Marcos was badly beaten on the face and
        wrists.  His eyes were gouged out and he was castrated.  The
        contras cut his tongue and lips off and broke his arms and legs,
        stabbed and shot him.  They also cut his penis off and stuck it in
        his mouth." (Joe Ryan, an American working in Managua, November 10,
	1989).

    Another interesting contra atrocity recently had its one year
    anniversary.  On January 1, 1990, two nuns were killed by contras in
    northeastern Nicaragua; one of the nuns was an American, S. Maureen
    Courtney.

    Of course, the contras were our *friends*, weren't they?  Funny how
    that works.  Atrocities are a justification for war when they take
    place in an oil producing region, but if Bush's friends commit them,
    then it's okay.

    -- Mike

    
    I think Bush should team up with Madonna to do a video called "Justify
    My Defense Budget" and dedicate it to Mr. Hussein..
    
    D.
    

    
    re .75:
    Thank you, Mike, for putting so clearly what others here have
    been trying to say (and not being heard).
    

          re: 593.11 (Dana Charbonneau)

          > The desired outcome (remember 'outcome' ?) is that Iraq
          > understands that initiation of force to achieve their ends is
          > wrong.

          To this I would add the desired outcome is that "Iraq _and other
          nations_"  understand that initiation of force to achieve their
          ends is wrong.  In other words, I hope that what is happening to
          Iraq is being seen by other potentially belligerent nations as an
          example of what the world would do to them in a similar
          situation.

          > There should be a clear set of ever-more-drastic alternative
          > ways to achieve that goal, starting with negotiation and ending
          > with force, the last used only when all other alternatives have
          > been tried and found wanting.

          I agree with that, Dana, but hope the last alternative will not
          be necessary.  I s'pose we'll know that soon enough.

                                             nancy b.

    re: . 75 (Mike)
    
    Not that one atrocity justifies another, but the Sandinista's are
    perfectly capable of performing atrocious acts too, you know.

    Mike

    Yes, Mike, I recognize that the Sandinistas did not have a perfect
    human rights record, but I also believe that it was much superior to
    that of the Contras.  You are free to disagree, of course, but that is
    my own view of the situation.
    
    -- Mike

    Mike,
    
    WADR, I observe neither (the contra's record nor the Sandinista's record) 
    of which is very helpful to me in deciding whether or not Bush is doing 
    the right thing in opposing Saddam Hussein.
    
    If you're arguing that because the US has a record in the past of
    supporting regimes known to abuse human rights, we should therefore
    ignore Hussein's military oppression, invasion, murder, rapine, and
    looting in Kuwait, I don't think the argument has merit.  Our ability
    in the present world to deter agression rests partially on the
    perceptions of others in the world that we will back up what we say.
    The UN principles on sovereignty of nations have been transgressed by
    the leaders and army of Iraq; our ability to deter such actions in the
    future rests on our response to the transgression now.  I truly think
    that the cause of peace in the world will be in much greater danger if
    Saddam Hussein is not punished by the loss of all his attempted goals,
    punished for his violence against his neighbor.  
    
    Writing about contra human rights violations in this context is a
    disservice to all of us, because while you are not incorrect that our
    support of such crimes is anathema, and should be made politically
    costly to the administration, raising the issue while we try to decide
    how to handle a different situation thousands of miles and of far
    differing implications is a distraction, a red herring.  I have no
    objections to your republication of the peace-net offerings.  But
    please don't bring up undecided current political disputes (Nicaragua)
    as some sort of counterexample to Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait.
    
    DougO

The issue is not oil. The issue is the sovereignty of nations. The U.S. has a
horrible record of only respecting sovereignty when it's convenient (Panama,
Grenada, El Salvador, Nicaragua), but that doesn't change the facts. Kuwait is
a sovereign nation. Iraq's invasion is immoral, illegal, and must be stopped.
The United Nations and the World Court should be the arbiters here. In this
case, the United Nations has ruled the invasion should be stopped and that
Iraq must withdraw. I personally support that decision. Bush's motivations are
more than suspect - they are obviously greedy and self-serving - but that
doesn't alter the fact that what Iraq has done is immoral and must be put right.

My objection is to the use of force. It is NOT clear to me that other avenues
will not work and are not working. Why the rush to force? Why do people ignore
the possibility of the sanctions working? Is it simply blood lust? Is it a
need for revenge? Why? Do we believe that by starting a war now that suffering
will be minimized? I don't.

	-- Charles

    Doug, I feel I have every right to evaluate whether or not Bush is
    pushing obsessively toward war for the reasons that he claims.  It is
    clear to me that he is not, and that he is hardly in any position to
    take the moral high ground on matters of either international law or
    human rights.  What matters to me is that we put aside this charade
    that this pending war has anything to do with Iraqi atrocities; and I
    suggest that if we American citizens are really interested in stopping
    atrocities, what were we doing for the last ten years while tens of
    thousands have been tortured and killed by our "friends" in Central
    America?  We have the power to stop our government's complicity in that
    area; I am not convinced, on the other hand, that a conflagration in
    the Gulf would be even be effective in the long run.

    I have never suggested, by the way, that we "ignore" the atrocities
    committed by Hussein.  In fact, I don't happen to believe that a
    holocaust is the *only* possible response (and I believe that it will
    solve nothing in the long run); if anything, it is Bush who is doing
    the ignoring of options, since he is pushing towards war without giving
    other options a chance to work.  I do suggest that we should be
    consistent.  The hypocritical nature of Bush's foreign policy *is* an
    issue here.

    If the U.S. is going to engage in a knee-jerk policy of going to war
    with every country that commits human rights violations, then we ought
    to be prepared for a *lot* of wars well into the next century.  I
    happen to believe that war should be at best a last resort.  If we are
    going to be arbitrary about who we respond to, on the other hand, then
    it is important to question the contention that this war in the Middle
    East has anything to do with stopping atrocities, since atrocities
    clearly do not currently drive U.S. foreign policy.  (And Kuwait, I
    might add, was a very repressive government itself, as is our "ally"
    Saudi Arabia.) 

    I therefore will not refrain from bringing up the issue of Nicaragua;
    because I believe that there *is* a linkage between the two situations. 

    -- Mike

    Mike, what we were doing for the last ten years in Latin America is
    what we were doing for the last 100 years in Latin America.  I'm not
    excusing it, I'm saying that the American public and the American
    presidency have a long history of intervention in this hemisphere.
    And no, you don't have to stop drawing a linkage if you want to keep
    drawing it, but in terms of evaluating the proper response to Hussein's
    agression, I don't find your linkage relevent.
    
    And if you want a consistent foreign policy, I'm sorry, but this is
    the U.S.  We've never had a consistent foreign policy, and I lost hope
    for it long ago.  Don't demand of Bush what no other president has been
    able to accomplish, plainly and simply because Congress and the media
    won't let him.  I'll settle for, in this case, his taking moral actions
    which (to me) means taking a stand against the overt agression of
    Hussein, with the backing of 9 UN resolutions and the troops of 27
    other nations alongside us.  It's better than any president since WWII
    in terms of acting with the approval of most of the rest of the world.
    If you want to fry him for Central America, fine; but doing so doesn't
    discredit the stand being taken in the Middle East.  So fry him in some
    other circus tent, this one's complicated enough already.
    
    DougO

    Doug has brought up a point that has seemed to be lost on many
    people. The US government is not acting as a rogue agent here.
    The US is at the forefront simply because we have the largest
    military machine in the Western world. Our position in the Gulf
    is supported by the United Nations as a whole as well as its
    individual member nations. It's not a question of the US vs. Iraq.
    It's the *world* vs. Iraq.
    
    --- jerry

    Doug, I agree with you completely that we should take a moral stand
    against Hussein (just as we should take a moral stand against Bush). 
    On the issue of linkages, though, I am afraid that we will have to
    disagree.

    The point is not whether or not the whole world is against Iraq; the
    point is that all-out war on January 15 is not the appropriate action
    to be taken as part of the efforts to oppose Iraq.  Bush's callous
    disregard for the lives of American soldiers and the Gulf residents who
    he will be sending to death once he starts the war--instead of pursuing
    peaceful solutions to the problem--is, in my view, deeply disturbing. 
    And if we engage in offensive action, we will probably lose the support
    of many of our Arab allies, as well as many individual Arabs--and then
    it will certainly not be the whole world against Iraq any more.

    -- Mike

    I truly wonder if we are prepared to deal with the consequences
    of what embargo of Iraq will really mean there.  
    
    The logic of conquest says that the people you feed *first* are
    your troops.  The next set of people that you feed are those involved
    in the manufacture of arms.  You starve babies and small children
    *first*, and their mothers second.  The pictures from Ethiopia will
    be repeated in large in Iraq, with the added emotional horror that
    directly behind the skeletal children and mothers will be well fed
    soldiers - except we won't see them.
    
    In addition, as the force enforcing the embargo, you don't allow
    the import of foods or medicine.  Sorry - but that's the way it
    has to be if you're going to be effective in bringing someone with
    the messianic zeal of Hussein to what we in the West regard as rational
    thinking.  You have to kill, or encourage the death of, large
    percentages of his population to get his attention.
    
    *Nothing* about deterring aggression is easy, or pretty, or morally
    clear.  We aren't God, we won't make perfect decisions, we won't
    be consistent.  I don't believe that the American public has the
    stomach for what prolonged embargo would entail, and I believe the
    other Arab nations wouldn't wait that long in any event.  I'm not
    jumping up and down with joy at the prospect of "going hot" over
    this situation.  But I truly believe that it is in the best interests
    of civilization that we do so.
    
    Alison

    I realize this analogy is an extreme simplification but think about
    this:
    
    What happens on a playground when a bully picks on other kids?  Until
    someone (or a group) stands up to him he will persue his ways of
    picking on the weaker kids until he is stopped.
    
    I believe the psychology regarding Iraq is similiar.
    
    Jeff

    sometimes you can show a bully the error of bullying ways.  You should
    always try that first.  If that works, wonderful!  If not, you have two
    choices: a)let the bully knock you down, until you stay down. b) deck
    the bully, and end the bullying; then repeat about the error of
    bullying ways (that is, don't hate the bully forever, only the
    bullying)
    
    I only wish it were that simple, in international issues...
    

    
    DougO,
    
    The point in bringing up Nicaragua is this:
    People are arguing strongly that we must go to war with Iraq to
    stop the human atrocities being committed in Kuwait, while we've
    *encouraged* governments committing the same things elsewhere!
    
    I can quickly deduce that the *real* reasons for going to war
    with Iraq are *not* human rights violations.  It's totally obvious
    to me that the reason is the god-almighty buck.
    
    Sign me 'totally cynical'.
    

    re .92

    I'm as cynical as anybody, and it's clear that economics is a
    major motivating factor here. But there's another factor which
    differentiates Iraq's acquisition of Kuwait from the U.S's
    ill-advised exploits in Central America or even the Israeli
    occupation of the West Bank.

    In this instance, an *entire sovereign nation* has been swallowed
    up. Not land, not leadership, but a whole country.

    While it can be argued that Kuwait was the creation of Western
    interests in the first place, that reasoning would suggest we turn
    North America back to the Amerinds. (And the same reasoning would
    say that if Iraq retains control of Kuwait long enough, its
    transfer is a fait accompli.)

    So ... the issues are clearly multiplied greatly by the economic
    implications, but the eradication of a sovereign nation has
    sufficient import on its own to merit consideration.

The point to the embargo is not to kill people, starve them, or let them die of
disease. The U.N. resolution clearly allows importation of food and medicine to
prevent any of those things from happening. The point to the embargo is twofold
1) reduce Iraq's ability to wage war. This will happen due to shortages of spare
parts and critical resources. 2) destroy Iraq's economy. No modern nation, 
hooked into the international economy as Iraq is, can survive economic blockade
without serious effects on it's economy (I claim this is the real reason we
"won" in Panama - unfortunately we are still seeing the effects of our
economic warfare on that country. Panama's economy is in shambles.) I'm less
sanguine about the long term economic effects on Iraq, I'm afraid the economic
sanctions will cause long term economic hardship in that country - but far less
hardship both on them and the world economy than a war in the oilfields would
cause.

Perhaps this war *is* about oil. So? If the Iraqi, Kuwaiti, and Saudi oilfields
are seriously damaged PEOPLE WILL DIE. The *world* depends on that oil. Oil is
not the sole provenance of corporate greed-heads, your lives depend on oil. We
can argue that this should not be, but that moves no trucks, that flies no
planes, that pulls no rail cars. If the price of oil goes up, people you know
will suffer - older people on fixed incomes, single parents, the poor. Some of
them will die. Yes - this war is about oil. So?

I still maintain that threats to oil and the world economy deserve an economic,
not military, response. Threats to national sovereignty and use of force against
sovereign nations may be met with force, but I believe in this case it is not
yet necessary.

	 -- Charles

    re: .92

    The USA government does not encourage other governments to commit human
    atrocities.  It does all too frequently turn a blind eye when a
    government that we consider important to our national interests decides
    to commit them on their own.

    I agree with what has been said earlier, that the primary reason we are
    threatening to go to war is to protect our own vital interests, and
    that the Iraqi invasion and subsequent rape of Kuwait are essentially
    side issues, albeit very important side issues.  Our vital economic
    interests can be summed up in one word: OIL.

    Now there are many who say that we shouldn't support a war for oil
    using some catch phrase like "No Blood For Oil".  The plain truth is
    our economy is so closely intertwined with oil, that we simply cannot
    afford to let some 60% of the worlds proven oil reserves to come under
    the control of a man like Saddam Hussein.  If a man such as himself
    came to control that region, we can just forget about having any real
    control over our own economy, and indeed our own national interests,
    because we would be at Saddam's beck and call.  At least until we are
    able to wean ourselves away from our oil addiction.  An addiction that
    consumes something like 30% of the current total daily oil production,
    worldwide.

    This is now where the side issues of aggression and atrocities become 
    important.  Does anyone doubt that if Saddam is left alone to benefit
    from his conquest of Kuwait that eventually the rather impressive
    coalition of nations lined up against Iraq will start to crumble?
    Already the French are starting to talk about deals.

    And besides, the sanctions are not without severe penalties that accrue
    to relatively innocent nations like Turkey, Egypt, and especially
    Jordan.   Do we continue to punish them for standing with the
    coalition?  In time, their own self interests will cause them to ignore
    the sanctions and start to cut deals with Iraq too.  Does anyone doubt
    that time is on Saddam's side?  

    Sure, some middle east potentates and big oil companies benefit from
    our strong stand, but those are essentially side effects.  Arguments
    that we are too dependent on oil, and if only we weren't this wouldn't
    have happened are undeniably true, but irrelevant.  

    Ultimately, I believe that the lessons learned at the Appeasement of
    Munich back in 1939 were tailor made for characters like Saddam
    Hussein.  The lesson is obviously that an aggressor must be stopped as
    early as possible.  The longer one waits, the more time he has to
    gather his strength, and the greater the cost will be to stop them
    later on.

    Mike

    
    Is oil used in manufacturing body bags?
    
    :-}
    
    D.
    

    re; .96 
    
    Probably.

    Not to mention a singificant portion of the computer terminal that
    you're sitting in front of.
    
    --- jerry

    
    .98
    
    Is that what I was sneering at?
    
    What I thought I was sneering at was, if oil is used in making body bags,
    then obviously we gots to fight to protect our oil interests, cause we're 
    sure gonna need them body bags!
    
    D.

    Besides, dead soldiers don't drive.  Think of the energy savings that
    we can accomplish from a really good bloodbath.
    
    -- Mike

>    I'm as cynical as anybody, and it's clear that economics is a
>    major motivating factor here. 


	It is only you opinion that you are as cynical as anybody.

	In my considered opinion, there are people who are more cynical, and 
	people who are less cynical; than yourself.

	Also, it's only your opinion that economics is a major motivating 
	factor

	Heather

    re; .102
    
    Are you saying that economics is not a major motivating factor for this
    potential war?
    
    Mike

 Its my belief that large percentage of what the U.S. government, and most
governments for that matter, does is based on economics.  Economics are what
keep you in power or throw you out.  In this particular case I think that
the circumstantial evidence is enormous that petroleum economics drove our
decision to intercede and are driving the concerted effort to "push" Saddam
out.  It certainly wasn't a moral position (listen to Bush's initial reason
for going in: to "preserve our way of life").  And as previous notes have
suggested, there have been far worse atrocities committed than Irag->Kuwait.
Cambodia and Uganda come to mind.

  (I also think that some small part of the military push is to demonstrate
U.S. power when ecomonically we are becoming less and less powerfule, but
the evidence isn't as strong here).

Jim

> Its my belief that large percentage of what the U.S. government, and most
> governments for that matter, does is based on economics.

Yes, that's true. So? What's your point? That it's immoral to go to war over
economic issues? If so, I disagree. If war is moral at all, then war over
economic issues is certainly moral. Economics go to the heart of how the world
works - if you don't think so how's about sending me half your paycheck, or
perhaps you'd like to buy everything from me at twice what you're currently
paying? We are willing to go to war to protect "strategic national resources"
like rubber and cobalt, oil is absolutely a vital strategic resource, war to
protect our oil supplies is certainly moral by those standards.

	-- Charles

    I think that while the overriding economic concern is the price of oil
    (and what it can do to our price structure as a whole), there's also an
    element of our government that is fighting for another economic interest:
    defense.  If there isn't a credible reason for continuing defense spending
    at the levels of the Reagan years, it means the loss of a significant
    number of jobs and the destabilization of certain industries.

    I wonder what it says about Americans that we, on the whole, tend to
    find it more palatable to think we're fighting over an abstract concept
    like freedom than over our own economic interests, despite convincing
    evidence to the contrary.

	Sharon

    
    
    I against the war.  Basically it is Bush's war.
    We just can't afford to have a war; it is too costly(both
    life and $$$).   Remember the economic situation of US is
    in a very bad shape now.  This is the result of so many years
    of expensive military buildup, while other country enjoy of
    very little expense on military.  We have to fight the economy
    war now or lose the battle(been taken over by Japanes or others).
    
    As far as Sadam, he has many enemies already.  If you are comparing
    him with Hitler,  then you are brain washed by Bush's tone.   I
    know he is bad.  But look, he is not going to cause troble in
    oil supply from mid-east, as long as we make sure SA is safe and
    maintain the sanction.
    
    I voted for Bush last time,  I regret it.  Never vote for
    a candidate who is against gun control(automatic weapon).
    
    The only thing he knows is solving problem with troop.
    
    Also he is such a double standard president.
    
    If we want to go to war,  ask Isreal withdraw from occupied
    land first.
    
    Not to mention that it is Kuwait who provoked the Iraq first.
    Also unproved news that CIA was involved in the mess also.
    We are probably as guilty as Kuwaitee.

    AFter today.. there will be war. 
    
    REK

 What is it that is repugnant to IMO US noters in the concept of going to war 
over economic interests? 

   The worlds history is full of wars over economics interests.

In fact there have been wars just to show that countries were "still prepared"
to fight for economic interests.

>    my feeling is that Iraq invaded and annexed
>    Kuwait to wipe out its $22,000,000,000 debt to that country.  (The
>    Kuwaiti government loaned Iraq the money for its war against Iran.)
>    I feel this of primary importance, and almost no one even mentions
>    it.  Miff.
    
    So, who're we going to have to invade if we actually ever want to 
    pay for this war (and all of our government's other vagaries)?

	Sharon

    
    If a vote is accepted from a neutral country, I would say NO. I think
    the US is pushing this action of war too hard.
    
    re .38
    
    No - we (at least I) don't expect nor want the US to do it all. I dont
    know about the rest of Western Europe, but my country gets about 30% of
    our oil from the Gulf area, not 70-90%. (come to think of it, maybe
    that is why our gas prices are four times higher than in the U.S :-) )
    
    Many various reasons pro and con war have been discussed here. I have
    no ideas for a "friendly" solution, but deep down in my heart I don't
    want a war between the US and Iraq. I think this war would affect the
    whole world one way or another.
    
    Some of you have expressed worries about casualties among American
    soldiers and Gulf residents. Since sometime back in the 1860-s all wars
    that Americans have been involved in have been faught outside of the
    U.S. (ok Pearl Harbor..). Have you US civilians voting YES considered
    the possibility of getting bombed in your own backyard?
    

    .120  I didn't vote yes.... but to quote you: "Have you considered the
    possibility of getting bombed in your own backyard?"
    
    In THIS instance (Iraq vs. U.N.) how do you see that happening?
    
    Economically bombed YES, that could very well happen.
    
    The "only" way we are going to get bombed in our continental U.S.
    backyards is if this turns into a World War, which I realize is
    possible.
    
    Do you see any OTHER way?
    
    

    Yes, I see another way that we can be bombed in our own back yard.
   
    Terrorism.
    
    It is well within the realm of possibility, nay it is likely, that
    "hot" action in the gulf will be countered with terrorist attacks
    within the US.  We are an incredibly open society.  It is relatively
    easy to get munitions and bombs into this country.  Saddam Hussein
    is one of the primary sponsors of terrorist groups around the world.
    
    It is my firm belief that he has under his control and direction
    individuals whose value system includes the notion that they will
    be rewarded during their after-life for dying in terrorist activity
    in this life.  They think it is *better* to die for Allah than to
    live.  I don't think this is a mind-set that most westerners can
    understand.  It is what leads to labels like "insane" and "fanatical",
    and by our value system, it is.  But very few of the world's value
    systems place the emphasis on the importance of individuals and
    their lives that westerners do.  
    
    I still vote "yes" to armed conflict.  I still believe that this
    is our opportunity to avoid the appeasement that the Munich accords
    proved themselves to be to Hitler.
    
    And my son is still at risk.
    
    Alison

Jerry - FWIW a number of "experts" opine that this war would actually be bad
for the economy. They argue that the parallels between this war and WWII are
not there. Unfortunately I've forgotten the exact reasons... :-)

	-- Charles

    The reasons I heard why this war would not fuel the economy is
    that there isn't a requirement to tool up for it. The military
    already has the iron they need (assuming it doesn't turn into a
    prolonged war of depletion). 

    
    I'm not exactly sure where this fits.  I haven't been following this 
    note so it may be entirely out of place here, but I heard something on 
    the radio that really disturbed me.

    Whenever I've been able to, I've been listening to the radio broadcast 
    of the debates going on in the House and Senate, over what to do in the
    Persian Gulf.  Well, this afternoon, I heard someone reading a list of 
    tortures, inflicted by the Iraqi's on the Kuwaits.  I was horrified.  
    (I know this happens, I am just not accustomed to hearing someone say 
    these things.)  I listened to this disembodied, and largely 
    dispassionate voice, say things like "shot arms or legs at point blank 
    range and did not provide treatment," "put out cigarettes on eyeballs,"
    "burnt body parts with a variety of commonly used heat producing 
    appliances (like irons)," "used electricity to shock tender parts 
    (lips, ears, fingers) including genitals," and, among increasingly 
    hideous acts, "forced broken bottle up the rectum," "inject air into 
    the rectum" using pipes, etc.

    These awful things are being done by certain people on certain other
    people.  I want to kill those people; at the very least, they should be
    removed from society and they should never be allowed reentry.  I can't
    make a connection between these people who have done these awful things
    to governments, rulers, the United Nations, armies, bombers, body 
    bags...

    CQ

    Actually, I believe that a war in the Gulf wouldn't be good for
    the economy, but I believe that a number of decision-makers
    think it could be.
    
    --- jerry

    It's moot now; our elected representatives have voted to allow George
    Bush the use of force....this after voting down, in each chamber, the
    "give sanctions a chance" resolution.
    
    mdh

First, let me reiterate my position that we MUST give sanctions more time to
work, and that sanctions alone will be sufficient.

Given that, it's arguable that yesterday's vote was absolutely necessary. For us
to ask the U.N. for A Resolution allowing the use of force, and then to have our
Congress repudiate that vote would have been worse than ludicrous, it would have
ruined our (the allied forces) credibility and perhaps fatally undermined our
position.

I'm unhappy, but unsurprised. I hope Perez de Cuellar can do something, but I
doubt it. I hope that Gorbachov has a proposal, but I doubt it. I hope that
Saddam Hussein will withdraw, but I doubt it. I hope there won't be war, but...

My biggest worry is that Saddam Hussein will likely succed in his aim of either
turning this into an Arab vs Isreal fight by attacking Isreal (Isreal will of
course defend herself, and the U.S. will too. This will cast the conflict as
Arab vs Israeli/U.S. with disasterous long term consequences.) or he will
succeed in linking a Kuwaiti settlement with a Palestinian solution - not a
bad thing in and of itself, but it will strengthen his claim to being "the
modern arab Saladin" again with disasterous consequences.

(Saladin was the Arab general who united the Arabs and kicked out the Crusaders.
He is a universal Arab hero, and was a military genius.)

	-- Charles

        re .130,
        
>>    Let the protests continue; let the shame rest squarely on the heads
>>    of those who have voted to continue this charade; let the blood of
>>    the soldiers and civilians of the forthcoming slaughter stain the
>>    hands of those not courageous enough to struggle for peace.

        The people of Kuwait had blood, too.  Whose hands does it
        stain?
        
        Dan

    RE: .129 (d)
    
                     My thoughts *EXACTLY*! and *very* well put.
    
    Dave

    re .129

    I'm not sure this is how you mean it, but I'm not comfortable with
    suggestions which smack of "My country right or wrong" (if it's
    right, good; if it's wrong, fix it), and that's how "Time to close
    ranks" sounds to me.

    There's never a time when it's right to not speak your conscience,
    regardless of what Congress may have voted. Anyone who agrees with
    the vote should be vocal in their support. Anyone who disagrees
    should also be vocal. In theory, at least, that's what the troops
    are supposed to be defending. 

    I'll echo the sentiment that it wasn't the protests and
    uncertainty about the war in Viet Nam that caused American GIs to
    commit acts that we'd rather not know about, and to suggest
    otherwise is a disservice to democratic principles and to the many
    people who worked to get the US out of Viet Nam.

    All in my opinion, of course.

        re .135
        
>> Two wrongs don't make a right, didn't we learn that in kindergarten?
        
        The first wrong was when Iraq invaded Kuwait.  A second
        wrong would have been to let them gain from it.  The
        Congress, the President, the international community are
        all doing the right thing in demanding that Iraq leave
        Kuwait, and in preparing to enforce that demand if Iraq
        doesn't.
        
        Dan

	A previous note mentioned terrorism,
	
	When Salman Rushdie wrote things about the Koran that the Muslim leaders
	did not like, the Ayatollah Homeini (sp?), issued a death sentance on 
	him.
	There were demonstraitions in Reading, and other major cities/towns 
	(not all peaceful), there were bombings of book shops, and he still has 
	a death sentence on his head and is in hiding.
	
	Saddam has called a meeting of the Muslem leaders, and they are calling 
	for this to be a Jehad if war does ensue.
	They have already proclaimed Bush as "the leader of the infedels"

	The streets of Reading could be a very dangerous place to be, so could
	DECpark. Digital is a large American company, and the largest employer
	in Reading. I don't expect us to go unnoticed.

	Heather - already checking all her post.

>    Given that the US Congress has voted to support the use of force if
>    Saddam Hussein refuses to do as he should and quit Kuwait, it now
>    becomes critically important that we, the American people, stand behind
>    our forces in the Gulf region.  We must let them know that we support
>    their presence there, and that we support what they are doing.

	I see "supporting their presence there" and "supporting what 
	they are doing" as two different things.  I *cannot* say I 
	support their presence there.  Given US foreign and domestic
	policies, I can agree that it may be necessary, but I don't
	support a large part of US foreign and domestic policy, either.

	And yet, I support what the troops are doing.  They are doing
	their job, and doing it loyally, as we expect and need to be able
	to suspect of our military.  This much, I can say truthfully: I
	support our troops.

	What would create another Vietnam, at least as far as US popular
	opinion goes, is if lack of support for US foreign policy turned
	against each of our troops on a personal level.  Supporting our
	troops does not mean that we have an obligation to agree publicly 
	with US foreign policy for reasons of troop morale.

	The spirit of democracy says that you may hold and voice your own
	opinion, but that once the die is cast you have an obligation to
	abide by the decision of the majority - and, ideally, that the
	majority has an obligation to take minority views into account.
	The majority may support our troops' presence in the gulf, *and*
	the majority may support what they are doing.  If so, letting them
	know that is a positive step towards their safe return.  If not,
	let your president and congresscritters know instead.  When it 
	comes to dictating US foreign policy, our troops' hands are as tied
	as most of our own; what is important is that we don't take our
	frustration with US foreign policy out on them.
  
	    Sharon

Sharon,

I agree completely that we should not take our frustrations out on our people
serving in the Gulf.

However, I do not believe that the majority has spoken.  In all the members of
the House and the Senate, only one has a child serving in the Gulf.  How can
our current legislature possible represent a cross-section of America when that
is the case?

Barb

    Entered for another noter:

    Here are some figures comparing Iraq and portions of the U.S. in both
    population and size. They are taken from the 1990 edition of 
    _Information_Please_Almanac_.  They are offered without comment.

    Geographical		Size in 		Population
    unit			square miles		

    Iraq			167,924			18,100,000

    ______________________________________________________________
    Connecticut			  5,009			 3,107,000
    Massachusetts		  8,257			 5,737,000
    Maine			 33,215			 1,125,000
    New Hampshire		  9,304			   920,000
    Rhode Island		  1,214			   947,000
    Vermont			  9,609			   511,000
                                -------                 ----------
    New England			 66,608			12,347,000


    New England			 66,608			12,347,000
    New York			 49,576			17,558,000
    New Jersey			  7,836			 7,365,000
    Pennsylvania		 45,333			11,863,000
                                -------                 ----------
				169,353			49,133,000

    Iraq			167,924			18,100,000

    California			156,321			23,667,000
    Texas			262,044			14,229,000

    Washington			 66,543			 4,132,000
    Oregon			 96,000			 2,633,300
                                -------                  ---------
    				162,543			 6,765,000

    
    re: .141
    
    Kerry is still in office and voted "no" to the force option;
    "yes" to further economic; as I believe all Mass congressmen
    and senators did.  (from yesterday's worc t&g).
    
    

RE: .141

Sorry -d, and I am being sincere - not sarcastic - when I say that just because
people cast ballots does not mean America is well represented.  With the way
that campaigns are run and won - this is the side issue I am NOT trying to
start - it is, in my opinion, extremely naive to say that the Congress is
representative of Americans.  For us now, *I believe* we are especially out of
sinc with our reps because there is no consription (which *I think* would at
least force a bit more soldier representation in the legislative ranks).

Barb

-d,

>But, on the other hand, it is an ineluctable fact that Congress DOES
>represent us - precisely because the vote of Congress is what controls
>where the country goes and how we get there.  The people can speak and
>sing and protest and stand on their heads as much as they want - it's
>Congress that imposes taxes, makes laws, and grants the President the
>power to wage war.

Sigh......Oh, so true....

Does that mean that you think the large scale type demonstrations against the
Viet Nam war had no effect on Congress?

Barb

    In the long sessions of Congress which lead up to the votes on
    Saturday, there was no Rambo-like argument.  The arguments were
    well-considered and each member clearly was speaking from the heart. 
    Tom Foley, the House Speaker, said he would vote his conscience and
    others should do likewise so that no one would have regrets later.  He
    specifically said there would be no political arm-bending, and I
    believe that was the case in the House; the Senate may be another story
    as the vote was closer.  NPR carried the whole thing and did a splendid
    job of commenting.
    
    

    Not too much.  The demonstrations went on for many years before
    Congress and Nixon ended our involvement in the war.
    
    The demonstrations did more to prolong the war then they did to end it.
    The Vietnamese have since stated that they were encouraged by the
    demonstrations and felt that all they had to do was hang on until
    the Congress got tired of it all.
    
    Also, in my opinion, the demonstrations we are seeing in the USA today
    are probably more likely to convince Saddam that all he has to do is
    hang in there, and he will get whatever he wants.  I am not suggesting
    that we dispense with our rights of assembly and protest, I am
    suggesting that whenever we exercise them on a large scale, there is
    almost always a cost involved.  That is something that isn't discussed
    too often.
    
    Mike
     

"We have to do what we have to do," mumbled our president, inarticulate to 
the end as to why we are so close to the rocks on his watch.

"Oh, it's wrong-wrong-wrong for the Soviets to employ force in Lithuania 
('No justification' -- Bush), or Afghanistan, or by proxy in Angola, but 
it's right-right-right when we do it in the gulf. That we could blockade, 
isolate, virtually ban from the modern world of commerce and communication 
such a landlocked backwater as Iraq no longer appeals to the American 
psyche.

"We're tired of it. Let's go get 'em. Rambo. Top Gun. Red October. Video 
arcade. Light up the sky. Bounce the rubble.

"Ever-willing to be gulled by the sonorous pronouncements of the 
leaseholder in the White House, Congress knuckles under. The people never 
voted for war, or even voted on candidates who took a stand on the war, 
because the president waited till after the November elections to make his 
all-or-nothing escalation....

"Have we made mistakes? Where do I start? We marry Saddam (against Iran) 
like we marry Syria's Assad now, because we are fools, ever ready to be 
suckered by Middle Easterners. Reagan and Bush give Iraq $1.5 billion of 
technology. As last as last summer, Bush opposed sanctions to curb Iraq's 
brutality.

"Now we've been suckered again. For a tiny monarchy (Kuwait), in defense of 
a bigger monarchy (Saudi Arabia) where the rulers call our soldiers 'white 
slaves,' because we won't conserve oil, and because our coalition will fall 
apart unless it's used promptly, we're on the brink.

"I would rather trust the first 540 people I encounter at a ball game than 
the Congress and War Cabinet (Baker-Cheney-Sununu-Powell) and president 
that did this to us."

	-- David Nyhan, from a column in today's Boston Globe

    a minor ? glitch...
    
    the anti-war demonstrations during Vietnam encouraged the North
    Vietnamese army and Viet Cong.  Let's not lump them all into one
    category...
    Just as all Russians are not Soviets.
    Maia
    

    My answer is no.  This is not to say that those who advocate
    war against Iraq do not have a valid point.  Rather I am using a simple
    criterion.  That is, I ask myself if I am willing to volunteer to fight
    the battles.  Now there are many things I think are worth risking my life
    fighting for, but I must say this is not one of them.  Since I cannot
    justify risking my life for this cause, I cannot justify risking anyone
    else's precious life for this cause.  So my answer is no.
    
    Eugene

    re .151, that's exactly the way I feel, too.
    
    Lorna
    

Tough. Major and Bush and others just voted yes

    Well it's all moot now.
    
    D!

    Well, D!, it is true that the war has started now, but I believe that
    as long as the war is being fought, the effort to oppose it must
    continue.  I don't think we should simply fall in line to "rally around
    our flag" and "support our President" now that the war has started. 
    The struggle for peace is all the more important now that this
    senseless war has started.

    -- Mike

    I agree, Mike. Even though the "die is cast", as they say, it's
    important one stand up for what one believes. If for no other reason
    than to keep one's soul from shrivelling that little bit...
    
    Bush does what he feels he has to do; we each must do the same.
    
    What *I* want to know is: how can we show our opposition to this
    madness and still make it clear that we support the wo/men who are
    in the military doing their job?
    
    --DE
    

    
|    What *I* want to know is: how can we show our opposition to this
|    madness and still make it clear that we support the wo/men who are
|    in the military doing their job?
        
        By *NOT* treating our  troops in the Persian Gulf the same as
        the Vietnam Troops were treated when they came home.
        
        Matt

    
    i suppose we'll have to wait until they come back then?
    

    RE: holding rallies in support of the troops
    
    Wouldn't it be somewhat awkward to attend protest rallies AND
    support-the-troops rallies? Wouldn't that give unintended messages
    to EVERYbody?
    
    I still haven't found any way that lets me protest the war and
    support the troops AND make it clear that that's what I'm doing.
    
    --DE
    

One of the main themes at Saturday's peace march in SF was
"Support the troops -- bring them back alive".  I can think of no
more basic support of someone then to want them to live, to try to keep
them from getting killed.  

I think there's a huge area of common ground between people protesting
the war and people supporting the war, in that both groups care very
much about the lives of the poor people out there on the front lines,
and just differ in how one defines support.  My support for them 
is based on shortening the threat to their lives; some of "pro-war"
support for them is, I believe, based on keeping up their morale while
they are there.  These are not necessarily conflicting goals.
(We don't need to be angry at each other for different approaches.)

	MKV

    Can I still vote on this? 
    I am opposed to the war and every single process that led us to it.
    Starting from way back. Like the name of the CEO of the company who
    drilled the first oil in Saudi :  George Bush...Former CIA and
    marketeer extraordinaire.  A formidable combination.  
    I support the troops in that I think it unconsionable (sp?) to turn my
    back on people who I know full well did not join to kick a** .  Many
    joined like Schwartzkopf says he did - to get an education.  Some I
    know joined to get out of a bad economic situation.  whatever.  To give
    the government a blank check on this or anything is unpatriotic to me.
    
    And to those of you who worry about what message you project when you
    protest ... the way I deal with it is I think about what message I feel
    internally when I do nothing.   Points of view cannot always be spelled
    out on a poster. Intelligent conversation is a better way, IMHO.
    
    Many of the rallys I've been to are technically anti-war rallys.  We 
    have been harassed by the 'others' to the point of having them scream
    and blow horns when our speakers are trying to be heard (over mikes!).
    Then when we move to a different location - they FOLLOW us and continue
    to blow horns (and wave flags, I might add).  One of their favorite
    things to scream is 'if you don't like it move to Russia'.  Doesn't
    that make sense :-)
    
    So there's my vote
    
    Carol

>    I support the troops in that I think it unconsionable (sp?) to turn my
>    back on people who I know full well did not join to kick a** .  Many
>    joined like Schwartzkopf says he did - to get an education.  Some I
>    know joined to get out of a bad economic situation.  whatever.  To give
>    the government a blank check on this or anything is unpatriotic to me.
    
 	I believe the actions of people who milk the state in this fashion, to 
	be in the same league as those who steal, lie and cheat.
	
	They have taken money on false pretences, they have signed to say they 
	will fight, and they have taken the place of someone who would be 
	prepared to go to war.
	
	Heather

>	They have taken money on false pretences, they have signed to say they 
>	will fight, and they have taken the place of someone who would be 
>	prepared to go to war.

I haven't heard of the military turning anyone down because they're
"full".  At least in the U.S., with the disproportionate amount of our 
tax money they're getting, it seems they have as much as they need to 
train, build, and buy whatever they want.  

Too bad the school systems can't say as much.  Maybe that's why so many
of the less-privileged (economically) feel that they can only get a decent
education by joining the armed foces.

	MKV

    
    
    YES WAR.
    
    Show the pig what US Air Supremecy is all about.
    

    RE .167

    When you get so enthusiastic about war that you start dehumanizing
    the enemy, it's time to evaluate your feelings.

    And what's this "US" air supremacy business? Do you favor
    devaluing the contributions of the other countries involved in the
    coalition?

    
    
    
    RE: .168
    
    Since when does mentioning US Air supremecy devalue other members of
    the coalition?  I think you are reading into it a LITTLE too deep.  And
    a LOT incorrectly, too.
    
    As for dehumanizing the enemy, I find it harder to HUMANIZE Saddam
    Hussein than DEHUMANIZE him.  'Course I'm not a psychologist or
    anything.
    
    
    

>I haven't heard of the military turning anyone down because they're
>"full".  

	I have heard of your bases closing in your own country, and I am sure
	your generals know how many people they need in the forces.
	I wouldn't expect them to be "full", I'd expaect the entrance
	criteria to be matched to the number applicants.

	If they have a lot of applicants, the criteria is stiffer, than if they
	only have a few.

	Either way, if someone manages to get a place, there is someone else
	who doesn't.

	The only excuse I could see was if the person was illiterate, and so 
	could not read the papers they signed. And I would still have expected
	this to be explained to them.

>At least in the U.S., with the disproportionate amount of our 
>tax money they're getting, it seems they have as much as they need to 
>train, build, and buy whatever they want.  

	And they want to do this in order to have an armed forces in time of 
	war, not to find that a proportion of what they have spent has been
	wasted in this effort, and they no longer have what they need.
	Just because people who have signed to say they will fight, won't, they
 	just wanted to use the military for their own personal gains.

	Heather

    re .167, when are you volunteering for active duty?  With your
    enthusiasm, I hate to think you'll miss out on all the fun.  
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    RE: .171 
    
    I am ready the afternoon they want me to go.
    
    Actually, if they wait 2 years until I graduate, I will be an officer. 
    If they want to wait another year after that, I will go to flight
    school and become a pilot.  If I had my degree, I could go to flight
    school today, and I would.
    
    

    re .172, I think the army probably wants you, they just don't know you
    exist.  If you go down to your local recruiter's office today at
    lunchtime and volunteer, I'm sure they'll be glad to take you.  If you
    hurry, you may not be too late to serve in the middle east war.
    
    Lorna
     

>Note 593.173        Vote on War,Yes 20,No 20/count till .110          173 of 173
>WRKSYS::STHILAIRE "these romantic dreams in my head"  7 lines   4-FEB-1991 11:52
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    re .172, I think the army probably wants you, they just don't know you
>    exist.  If you go down to your local recruiter's office today at
>    lunchtime and volunteer, I'm sure they'll be glad to take you.  If you
>    hurry, you may not be too late to serve in the middle east war.
>    
>    Lorna
    
    Lorna, 
    
    The misinformation flows from your lips like a swollen river.
    
    1)  The Army does know I exist, because I registered for the draft
    2)  I could not go to enlist, because I am currently under contract 
        to get my degree and become an officer in the US Air Force.  If 
        I were to enlist, I would be in breach of contract.  The Air Force
        has to tell me to go.  I can't ask for it.
    
    If you have decided to launch a personal attack against me concering my
    given right of an opinion of the Gulf War, then let's continue this
    petty little argument over mail.
    
    Good Luck!
    Nick
    
     

    Nick, since you gave your opinion without stating anything about your
    personal circumstances, naturally I couldn't be expected to know what
    your situation is since I have never met you and know nothing about
    you.  Now that you have given some personal information about yourself
    I know more about where you're coming from, and I don't think anything
    would be gained by an exchange of mail between us.
    
    Good luck to you, as well!
    
    Lorna
    

    > Since when does mentioning US Air supremecy devalue other members of
    > the coalition?  I think you are reading into it a LITTLE too deep.  And
    > a LOT incorrectly, too.
    
    Back off.  Paul was correct, the air supremacy is that of the UN
    coalition, with sorties being flown by air forces of nine or ten
    different coalition members.  You owe Paul an apology.
    
    DougO

    
    
    DougO--
    
    Answer the question.
    
    How does simply mentioning US Air Supremecy devalue other members of
    the coalition?
    
    Once you answer it, I'll consider the rest of note 593.176.
    

"Discussion and argument over the war have taken over a majority of 
womannotes' energy and space over the past month or two.  In fact, it 
seems to have unbalanced the file away from its primary purpose, to 
help women share between one another and help them feel less isolated 
within Digital.  A lot has been said, and a lot of opinions have 
been given, and this venting is not necessarily a bad thing (it was 
obviously something very important, and at the front of everyone's 
minds).  

But there are many other notesfiles whose charter it is to discuss
such issues, and who already have many topics related to the war.  And 
therefore we are writelocking some of the topics about war, and 
requesting that the debate and discussion about the war itself be 
carried on elsewhere, to allow womannotes to continue serving its 
purpose.

Bonnie Reinke
for the womannotes comoderators



Other discussions of the war can be found at:
    
    HPSCAD::ISRAEL_GULFWAR
    
	PEAR::SOAPBOX
	62 Iraq/Kuwait
	656 Kuwait a day in history
	657 War? Yes or No
	660 Weapons/Technology/Tactics
	661 The War Prayer
	665 Peace Activism
	667 Iraq/Kuwait/Israel: Desert Storm
	668 Iraqi terrorism
	673 When does military action become war?
	678 After the Fire (The fire still burns)
	681 War fund - your country needs your one weeks' pay
	682 Why don't you support our troops
	689 Germany and the Gulf War
	693 PATRIOTic speculations 
	709 Questioning American motives in the Persian Gulf War
	717 Breaking the Embargo with Iraq
	734 Persian Gulf War: Body Count
    	
    
    MENNOTES
    553 - guilt about *not* fighting
    558 - watching the war is exhausting me
    559 - reservist turned cons obj?
    561 - ground war
    
    PSYCHOLOGY
    175 Imminent Thunder