Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    to manipulate the price of oil
    
    needless to say, i am opposed to our involvement
    

    Havn't you people been reading 'Gas Guzzlers' how else are we going to
    feed our oil addiction?  
    
    Beyond that... it isn't 'nice' when countries take over their
    neighbors.  It seems to me that is the sort of issue that started
    the Second World War, (not that this WILL start the 3rd) but the
    issue is in SOME ways similiar.  

    
    re: reading 'gas guzzlers'
    
    no
    
    re: countries taking over their neighbors
    
    it happens all the time in other parts of the world and we don't
    give a hoot
    

    re: .3  .....happens all the time......
    
    
    SURE we give a hoot!  why do you think we have a person at the
    UN all the time?  i would like to visit the UN during a session,
    and listen to all the hootin' and hollerin' going on....must be
    quite a sight!
    
    of course, some of the hoots that we give are not what would
    be described as GOOD hoots....but we make the noise just the same!
    
    this was one instance where the infraction against international
    law was so blatant, that the US government felt it could flex
    some muscle and get away with it.  heck, i'm all for it!
    
    emotional thoughts are to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and replace
    with a calmer leader....less emotional thoughts are to force the
    Iraqis to leave Kuwait to the Kuwaitis (and not a puppet state).
    
    

    
    'flex some muscle and get away with it'
    what? you think this is some kind of *game*?
    some real, actual human lives are going to be lost.
    

    I am convinced that we are there in an attempt to avert a world-wide
    economic collapse the likes of which would make the '30's look tame.
    
    Both the Kuwaitis and the Saudis have already made some pretty enormous
    profits in oil in the last 20 or so years.  Most of those profits have
    been reinvested in the West.  (Reread the list of banks which are owned
    by the Kuwaitis that was distributed by Digital last week.  *Try* to
    find a complete list of the companies which are wholly or partially
    owned by them.  Then consider that the Saudis have at least equal
    funds.)  Saddam Hussein wants to either liquidate those investments or
    control the companies to his agenda - which doesn't include any of the
    'good citizen, good employer, tax-payer to a nation' motives which
    drive most companies.
    
    Surprisingly, as important as energy supplies are to keeping all of us
    employed (what happens to Dec's sales when they turn off the
    electricity?), I'm convinced that the oil flow is only a percentage of
    what we are trying to preserve.  And I'm convinced that we're doing the
    right thing to try and stop Hussein now.
    
    And if it goes on for another full year, it will probably be my son
    over there.  And that thought is even harder to face than it was when
    it was my friends 20 years ago.  Suddenly, I understand far better why
    the late '60's and early '70's were such a source of confusion and
    dismay between the generations.
    
    Alison

    
    i agree that the reasons for our involvement are economic. but i
    disagree that they are compelling. they are certainly not compelling
    morally.
    

    
    re the prediction of radioactive oil...
    
    Yes, and then we won't be able to use it, so we'll have to
    conserve or find alternative energy sources.
    
    Justine

    The short  answer  is  that  we're  defending  our current friends
    (Saudia  Arabia)  from  last month's friends (Iraq) because we are
    incredibly  short  sighted,  and failed to conserve energy when it
    became obvious 17 years ago that the Middle East would always be a
    bit unstable and most of our oil came from there.

    A longer,  equally  cynical  answer  would  be  that  there  is an
    election  coming  up  and the president would rather wave the flag
    and distract people from abortion, David Souter, and the recession
    that  we are either in or near, depending on who you ask. Invading
    a  small  country  is a good way to get people to rally around the
    flag  (and  president)  when they might otherwise think about some
    real  problem.  Remember  the  invasion of Granada -- about a week
    after  a  lot  of  marines were killed in Lebanon. Everyone forgot
    about  Lebanon  except  the  marine's  families,  and there aren't
    enough of them to swing an election.

    A more palatable reason would have to mention that we (and much of
    the  world)  have been pouring weapons into an area ruled by a few
    feuding  families  with  a social structure that is different from
    ours  and  that we don't understand. Between our not understanding
    the   society,  unpopular  governments,  and  governments  getting
    overthrown,  there  isn't much stability there. There are a lot of
    weapons  in  the  area (Iraq has one of the world's best artillery
    collections,  including  some pieces that are much better than the
    best  US.  artillery.)  so  when  a  feud  gets out of control, or
    someone miscalculates, a lot of people get killed.

    Hussein has  miscalculated  twice,  the first time when he invaded
    Iran,  and  got very little for a long war (and he might well have
    been  wiped  out  if we hadn't been more worried about Iran, so we
    armed  Iraq and gave them intelligence data), and again in Kuwait.
    He didn't expect the unified reaction to his invading Kuwait. It's
    perhaps  the  most  unified  reaction  the world has seen. Hussein
    figured  that we would yell a bit, but not do much. What he didn't
    realize is that the US military needs a minor war it can win, both
    to  hold  off the budget cutters, and for its morale, as it hasn't
    done  much  right  since  Korea.  As  important,  the  West really
    couldn't  accept  Hussein controlling that large a fraction of the
    world's oil supplies.

    What will  we get out of this? Not clear. If a war breaks out, the
    US  has  lots  of  sophisticated weapons, and if they work, the US
    will win quickly, but Iraq may have time to destroy the oilfields,
    which they claim are already mined (and I certainly beleive that.)
    If  all these clever weapons don't work in sandstorms, there could
    be a long rough battle, killing lots of people on both sides. 

    Hussein may  be  able to avoid a war, and the hostages will help a
    lot. The problem is that Bush seems to need a war (that he can win
    quickly),  so  he's  not  giving Hussein room to pull out and save
    some  face.  If Hussein wanted to invade Saudi Arabia, he probably
    would  already  have done so, as the US has been moving weapons in
    for a while, and he would have wanted to invade before the weapons
    got  there.  I  suspect  that  Husseisn  is  looking  for either a
    negotiated  settlement, the US to get tired of waiting, or to link
    Israel with Kuwait to break up the current coalition.

--David

    There's another element of the whole picture which tends to be
    overlooked in the West. I overlooked it until discussing the situation
    with a Turkish friend over the weekend.

    Saudi Arabia is home to Mecca, the spiritual center of Islam. Islam is
    not only the primary religion of the Arab nations, but of other
    countries in the region as well (e.g. Iran and Turkey). My friend
    opined that Saddam Hussein would not invade Saudi Arabia because he
    knew that Moslems around the world would not want Mecca to fall under
    his control and would rise up against him the instant he made a move in
    that direction. (Of course, my friend could be dead wrong. That's a
    risk with political opinions.)

    So, within the region at least, there's more at stake than "just" oil
    and national boundaries.

    The whole situation brings back some memories of 28 years ago when
    (under a different Iraqi government) I was in a busload of Americans
    traveling from Iran to Jordan which was detained an extra day in
    Baghdad just to give us a hard time. No international incident, no
    wider ramifications, just an isolated incident. One family had two
    people (mother and daughter) on the same passport, so the number of
    passports didn't match the number of Americans. When we finally got to
    Jordan we decided (what "we", Kimosabe? I was just a teenager on the
    bus) to drive back through Syria and Turkey and avoid Iraq - but then
    Syria had a coup and the border closed, so we flew back.

    Fun area.

    I just heard on radio WVBF-105.0 fm station here in the Boston area,
    that if there are any persons interested in writing some of "our
    boys over there" as pen-pals, they should contact the station and
    get the address for this program. They mentioned the name of it
    over the air, but it escapes me. I just thought that if any of you
    *were* interested in doing this, call the station and post the adress
    for this program here. I am unable to reach them from where I am
    at the moment.

    
    re: .7
    
 /                        -< i predict radioactive oil >-

    if it is radioactive, i doubt the reason will be US nukes.
    
    (doesn't iraq have 3 research centers working on developing
    nuclear weapons?)
    
/    i agree that the reasons for our involvement are economic. but i
/    disagree that they are compelling. they are certainly not compelling
/    morally.
    
    may i ask for your opinion on what would happen if US troops
    pulled out, and no longer interfered in the plans of Saddam Hussein?
    (my opinions are pretty obvious, which is why i don't disagree
    with the intervention taking place)
    
    jonathan (hawk in dove's clothing....or is it vice versa?)
    
    p.s. about the comment on the oil fields being mined.....how long would
    it take to drill new wells to replace the booby trapped ones?
    

 Maybe I'm just too cynical, but I believe that the US sent a vast force to 
the Persian Gulf not in reponse to Saddam Hussein,  but more in response to
Congress threatening to cut the defence budget.  I am saddened by my belief that
many hundreds of Americans, Saudis, Iraqis and Kuwaitis will die just so the
Pentagon can spend more of our money on neat new weapons systems.

 Also, this war does distract the fickle members of the public away from other
more politically sensitive aspects of the Bush Administration, such as the 
"War on Drugs (how is that going, anyway?)" and the S & L fiasco (What is Neil
Bush doing these days?).

					Nigel

 

    re .13, I think you're probably right.
    
    Lorna
    

    When I took the Vietnam course recently, I learned that the US
    simply assumed we would win because we 'had the high tech.'
    The NVA knew they would win because they had the commitment and
    the purpose (not to mention the people).  We learned disastrously
    that high tech does not always equal victory.
    
    Why are we there?  Why were we in Vietnam?  In my cynical opinion,
    the US is simply flexing its muscles again, redeeming itself from
    one failure, trying to show the 'others' just who 'is the world'
    afterall.
    
    Yes, I'm cynical.  My husband was an MIA in Vietnam, came home,
    but never really came home.  IF I had a son, he would be
    in Canada by now.
    
    Maia
    

    
>    may i ask for your opinion on what would happen if US troops
>    pulled out, and no longer interfered in the plans of Saddam Hussein?
    
    	who cares?
    

    Re: -.1
    
    Do you mean "who cares for my opinion?"
    
    or "who cares what happens?"
    
    Bruce
    
    

    well
    
    in re -.2
    
    if the situation provokes a world wide recession, I'd care a lot
    
    

    .11
    s'more from me on this subject.
    
    This type of media blitz adds to the myth of the 'glory of war.'
    Once again, 'our boys are over there.'  We can finally rally round
    the flag again.  The media, IMHO, is loving every minute of this.
    Nightly they have little vignettes of soldiers, saying 'hi' to the
    'folks back home.'
    
    Could it be possible that we're 'ready' for another war?  Are we
    so hungry for the feeling of patriotism and unity among ourselves
    that we're willing to get into a mess like this one?
    
    Shudder.
    Maia
    

    re .19, I agree.  I *hate* the sense of holiday feeling and excitement
    that I pick up from these little goodbye vignettes.  It's like, oh, how
    exciting, we're going to war again!  Is this ever going to be *fun*, or
    what?  
    
    I find myself feeling thankful that I have a daughter and not a son. 
    If I had a son I'd be encouraging him to go live with my aunts in
    Vancouver right about now.
    
    Lorna
    

    I am not normally pro-war but I think this was a situatin where we (or
    at least someone) needed to step in. What if we had reacted when Hitler
    took Poland instead of waiting for Pearl Harbor? I think the Arab
    states would have spent their time and energy arguing about it until it
    was too late to do anything.

    In general I find the world situation depressing. We lose no matter
    what happens. Everyone is out for themselves and the UN is basically
    powerless. I don't want a worldwide recession and yet I believe that as
    Americans we use a disproportionately large amount of the world's
    resources and maybe a recession would slow us down. I don't know what
    to think anymore. liesl

    I agree with .9, .13, .19.  
    
    Furthermore,  where are we going to get the $2Billion it's going to
    cost us through the end of Sep to do this.  And now Bush is saying that
    this is going to be a long haul.  How much more is it going to cost? 
    He says that he wants to break Iraq economically.  What about the US?
    
    I don't know the whole story - who does?  BUT - I just can't convince
    myself that the scale of the response is necessary.  I beleive that
    there is a great deal of political motivation involved.  Perhaps that
    is  because I don't trust Bush as far as I can throw him - and that
    isn't far because I wouldn't cross the street to spit on hom if he were
    on fire.  I thing that basically he is a manipulative, dishonest,
    self-serving person who doesn't give a d*** about us every day folks -
    except that he needs us to foot the bill.
    
    Oh dear, I became emotional - sorry.
    
    

  Re: The bill -

    I've heard that much of the bill may be paid by the Kuwaiti
    government-in-exile from their vast foreign holdings.


  Re: It's a diversion -

    Yeah, and like uhh, wasn't there an open seat on the Supreme
    Court or one of those groups or somethin...


  Re: Bush -

    Remember.  Somebody voted for him.

                                   Atlant

    
    re:.17
    who cares what happens
    

    re .24 In view of the potential for death in the mid-east 
    (and elsewhere) a *lot* of people *should* care. Including
    and especially Hussein and Bush. When the C5's that are 
    hauling tanks and troops to Syria start bringing back 
    body-bags, maybe you'll care too. 
    
    

    re .25, if no Americans went over, there wouldn't be any bodies to come
    back in bags.  I think that's the point - is whatever's going on over
    there worth having Americans die for?
    
    Lorna
    

    
    exactly. thank you, ms. st. hilaire.
    

    .26, .27,
    
    Gotta agree with bonnie on this one.  Recession kills people
    too.  Here is a quote from _Macroeconomics_ by Robert J. Gordon:
    
    The human costs of unemployment are tragic.  Researchers have found
    that with every 1 percent increase in the U.S. unemployment rate, 920
    more people commit suicide, 650 commit homicide, 500 die from heart and
    kidney disease and cirrhosis of the liver, 4000 are admitted to state
    mental hospitals, and 3300 are sent to state prisons.  In total, a 1
    percent increase in unemployment is associated statistically with
    37,000 more deaths, including 20,000 heart attacks...
    
    Alf
                                           

    In the past We, in the U.S. have condemned the Soviet Union for 
    muscle flexing. We criticized them for not utilizing their capital
    in a productive way. In the U.S.S.R. technological, agricultural and
    medical advances were hindered because the money went to arms
    maintaonence and escalation. The Soviets now realize how counter-
    productive that was. 
    
    We have the richest, most furtile nation in the world. Tiny little
    Japan and West Germany pale by comparison. We could easily develop
    ways to fuel our country with solar, gasahol, and other alternatives.
    The greed of the people, the government and the oligopolies may de-
    stroy this nation. It will create war instead of alternatives. Fighting
    for oil is not the answer. It creates more problems. 
    
    If we fight in a war, we will have to pay for a war. We will still have
    to find alternate sources of energy to compensate for petrolium which
    is of a limited commodity. Our countrymen will die and so will someone
    elses countrymen. We will, in time, look at the veterens of another war
    and think, " What a pity that war was. Too bad young Bill had to loose
    his leg for a gallon of crude which we shouldn't have needed anyway".
    
    I was a kid when Vietnam happened but I remember. I used to think that
    the only truely good thing that came out of it was that we learned our
    lesson. We learned that war s@cks! I never thought I'd see another. I
    didn't think the people would let it happen. How naive. 
    
    
    Kate

    re:.29
    
    No, what we learned from Viet Nam was not that "war sucks" (we
    already knew that), but that we're not always in the right, and
    we won't win simply because we're us.
    
    The Viet Nam parallel doesn't fly for other reasons. Nor does our
    past condemnation of Soviet "muscle flexing". The Soviets, for
    instance, didn't "flex their muscles" in Czechoslovakia or
    Afghanistan or wherever. They invaded. They claimed that they
    were "invited" by the legitimate government, just as we claim
    with Saudi Arabia. The difference, however, is that they got involved
    in an internal struggle against other forces within the country,
    just as we (wrongfully) did in Viet Nam. So far, the troops in
    Saudi Arabia haven't fired a shot, and the forces are there not
    to fight a civil war that is none of our business, but because
    the Saudis (and the rest of the Arab states as well) are concerned
    about being invaded by Iraq.
    
    Also, keep in mind that while the forces are largely American, they
    are there with the full endorsement of the entire world through
    the United Nations. Even the other Arab states of the reason,
    while distrusting US motives (as well they should -- I don't trust
    them either), support to one degree or another our presence there.
    If we sent in our forces in opposition to world opinion, I would
    agree with you that we shouldn't be there. But we aren't.
    
    I dislike having to go to war, but to quote Marion Zimmer Bradley's
    characters, "The world goes as it will, not as you or I would wish
    it."  As long as human beings are human beings, there will be war.
    Sometimes you have to fight.
    
    Various people have made the comparison between Saddam Hussein and
    Adolf Hitler. While the reasons for making the comparison are
    transparent, the comparison is not inaccurate. Hitler, too, annexed
    countries after promising that he wouldn't. Hitler, too, used
    poison gas against "other races" within his control. If we said
    50 years ago, "Why are we sending our boys across the world to
    die?" we'd probably be in deep $#!+ right now.
    
    Another apropos quote is "Those who don't learn from history are
    condemned to repeat it."  The Allies barely defeated Nazi Germany.
    I'm glad that we're not letting Hussein get away with what we let
    Hitler get away with before we started doing something.
    
    --- jerry

    re:-1
    
    Jerry,
    
    We're going to have to agree do disagree on this one. My point is
    that when the world is weaned from petroleum Hussein and those like
    him will have to power.
    
    Kate 
    

I'm not sure if you're all aware that the Austrian President went over
there to get the Austrian hostages out of Iraq and Kuwait. He succeeded 
and they are all back home by now. Latest information says that also
all women and children of other nations are allowed to go home. 

When I saw an interview with the Austrians arriving at the airport I had
the impression that not all of them were really happy to be be back. One
woman said that she wasn't scared at all and as soon as the situation 
improves she will be the first to go back again. (She has lived in 
Kuwait for more than two years.)

I can image that if I lived there with my husband or boyfriend and he
he was supposed to stay (soldier or hostage or whatever) I wouldn't really
want to leave, too. I would want to stay with him. So, do you think that
all those women who are allowed to leave by now are happy with the decission?
What would *you* do if you were in this position?

Second question, what do you think about this "Waldheim's action"? Did you
hear any comments about it?

Billie

    .31
    
    There will always be something to fight about.
    
    -db

    Jerry,
    
    We're going to have to take the hit at sometime. It is going to hurt
    economically but it's going to have to be done. Are we going to wait
    until the last drop of crude is used up? Are we ever going to learn 
    from our mistakes? Is war the answer for everything?
    
    Regarding: There'll always be a reason to fight.
    
    Hell of a reason to die in a hell hole of a desert thousands of miles
    away from home. Hell of a reason to put our nation further into re-
    cession. Hell of a reason.
    
    Kate

    'our' nature?
    
    men's maybe

    re:.35
    
    I know there will be a point at which we'll use up all of the
    crude oil there is to use. And I agree most vehemently that we
    need to develop alternate energy sources, and we should've long
    ago. But the fact remains that we cannot develop alternate
    sources overnight. Until those sources are developed, we need
    the petroleum, and all the wishing in the world won't change
    that.
    
    --- jerry

    another thing that we need is some marketing geniuses
    to devote some time to selling alternative enrgy.
    
    that would mean giving up high paying jobs in nucleaar
    energy and in other profitable fields, but as long as
    alternative sources are developed but the news does not
    reach the masses, nobody will use the other sources.
    
    steam powered cars were a reality at one point, and could
    have beaten oiut gasoline powered ones, but marketing
    managed to sway the public.
    
    jonathan (dreamer....now you put your hands on your head OH NO!)
    

    opinion alert
    
    .37 -- Bonnie, I think men's nature more than women's, but I think that
    women too have the ability to take offense to the point of fighting
    about it.
    
    The merits of any given war depend on your view of how worthwhile your
    fight in it is...  Worthwhile fighting against: Pol Pot, Hitler; not
    worth it: Castro, the Sandinistas.  Worth fighting for: constitutional
    freedoms, freedom of religion.  Not worth fighting for: the primacy of
    any given religion, American Fruit, Exxon etc., national pride.
    
    The American revolution was about taxes and representation, not about
    starvation, or freedom from brutality, or life and death.  How would
    it rate as a cause today?
    
    The problem is, how do you decide when it's worth it?  Even by my
    examples listed above, it's not a clear decision.  Saddam Hussein has
    sent a man back to his wife, in bits and pieces in a body bag, for the
    offense of responding diffidently to a request for candor.(NPR)  And oil
    prices are going up, and Texas is happier than it's been for years. 
    George Bush is an old oilman; is he protecting his friends' interests?
    or our own? since as was pointed out elsewhere in this string, we have
    not weaned ourselves from the use of petroleum products.  (Whether we
    should or not is a seperate question.)  Do we wait, then, for Iraq to
    use chemical weapons to subdue the resistance fighting in Kuwait?
    
    I'm not a pacifist.  I am deeply suspicious of the reasons nations
    often go to war, while still believing that sometimes, you have to
    fight.
    
    Sara
    

    If it's our 'nature' to go to war, how did this happen?  Are we really
    born with some inert desire to grow up, kill someone, and be killed?
    I doubt it.
    
    Once again, I see the "myth"; the myth that there is glory is dying,
    glory in dying in a war.  Every "antiwar" movie I've seen recently,
    says *nothing* about not wanting another war; rather, it perpetuates
    the idea that to "be a man" you must be willing to "die for your
    country."  B*llsh*t.  After viewing six or seven Vietnam movies
    this summer, I asked a fellow student (19 yr. old boy) if he would
    have gone, and he said, 'yes, sure, why not.'  And this is after
    watching the gore, the supposedly bad stuff of war.
    
    Anyway, it's not our nature, IMHO, it's what we have been taught
    here in America--the flagwaving nation afterall.  We are 'supposedly'
    so strong, so righteous, it's OK for us to straighten out all those
    little countries somewhere over there who don't know how to live
    right.  Again, b*llsh*t.
    
    Maia
    

    The current story appears to be that Saddam Hussein is NOT going to let
    the women and children hostages go, but is trying to "trade" them for
    supplies.  I don't trust that creepy dictator as far as I can spit!
    He's a childhood bully on a world-wide playground!
    
    As I said in some other note string, the only person I knew in Kuwait,
    other than visiting foreigners, was killed in the invasion.  I think a
    lot of you would feel more sympathetic to the U.N. trying to put a stop
    to this aggression (given that dislodging the Iraqis from Kuwait
    militarily would be extremely difficult, hand-to-hand fighting), if the
    country invaded were someplace we all feel more of a connection with
    because our ancestors came from there, our relatives live there, or
    whatever.  Say, if Germany annexed Poland... does that deja-vu scenario
    seem more chilling?
    
    /Charlotte

    One of the greatest tragedies of Mankind is that each generation seems
    to have to learn the lessons their parents learned the hardway all over
    again for themselves.  My generation (Vietnam) came back with that 
    conflict with the attitude "no more wars".  That lasted for about 10
    years (the attitude that is).  Now I see the gung ho troops over there
    with the attutude let us at em.  Now they may have to find out the hard
    way for THIS generation.
    
    The I don't care attitude expressed by some in this string is beyond
    belief to me. "You had better care, you could very well wind up dead
    along with the rest of us".
    
    I don't think the situation in the Gulf is black and white as some
    would have us believe. Our fuel supplies do count whether we 'should
    have" developed alternatives more or not.
    
    I do not want to see anyone die in the Middle East.
    
    Sometimes reality DEMANDS that we stick up for ourselves and others
    rights (isn't that the principal that the U.S. stands for? human
    rights?).
    
    I see people in the current generation who don't seem to be aware that
    the freedoms they currently enjoy were bought with human lives. 
    History teaches us that to maintain the freedom sometimes (damm it)
    we have to fight.  How does Saddam threaten our freedom when he is
    thousands of miles away?  He is setting a pattern of disregard
    for World law and order which if we ignore will encourage him AND
    OTHERS to continue with.  At what point WOULD someone directly encroach
    on U.S. territory?  Your guess is as good as mine... but eventually if
    we let Saddam and others like him get their way someone would test us.
    We may as well stop him now and while we are at it assure fuel supplies
    for a while longer.  Hopefully, this oil shock will push is into
    developing realistic alternatives while we still have some time to do
    it.
    
    Jeff
    
    

    .42
    
    Well.  You see, IMHO, it's all politics, period.  All war is politics.
    
    My father lived in Russia during their revolution--ask him what
    he thinks of Lenin.  My mother lived in Lithuania during WWII,
    ask her what she thinks of Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill.
    America had no problems with the annexation of the Baltic states.
    
    I think that's why I tend to rave when it comes to subjects like
    this...people die violent deaths needlessly, period.  Morality,
    fairness, equality, peoples' rights to a finer life, have nothing
    to do with fighting a war.  
    
    "Oh when will they ever learn, oh when will they ever learn?"
    -Peter, Paul, and Mary
    
    Maia
    

	This is going to be really long.

	The following are my opinions and not necessarily the opinions
	of the moderators or notes of womannotes.  I am not debating
	I am stating.



	Item one:  "our boys"

	If my eyes do not deceive me I saw women on the telly, in
	uniform in the mass of US soldiers - so we should now say
	either "our soldiers" or "our boys and girls".

	Item two:  fighting as natural order

	Since there are some people who do not fight at all and 
	most people only fight to save their lives/possessions/loved
	ones, fighting is not the natural order.  It is the exception.
	There are other ways to solve problems.

	Item three:  alternative energy

	Why do you think that there are no alternatives to oil and
	its by products?  Do you think that it just might be because
	that is where all the money is? That is where control comes
	from?  And just who do you think pays for the imaginative
	advertising that stops/kills all alternative energy plans?

	Who do you think bought up the railroads/trolley lines?  Who
	do you think supplies the material to build roads?  Who do
	you think controls access to research centers?

	What does it mean to be totally dependent on one industry
	for life as we know it?  Is this life-style so great that
	it is worth having our sons and daughters die for it to continue?

	Just who are they saving and for what?

	Item four:  Iraqi people

	The leader of the Iraqi people is a man who is taking the 
	concept of GOD to mean him personally, but he is not the first
	and he will not be the last.  As long as GOD is viewed as
	being someplace else, we (humans) will continue to treat everything
	in this place as less than GOD-like.  This is the problem.
	When one sees and knows the sacredness in ALL things in this
	world, one is not able to even think about using chemical
	weapons or other devastating devices.

	The Iraqi people are not monsters, they are merely humans, same
	as you and I, who have a leader who is out of control.  But are
	we, here in the United States, in a place to puff up our chests
	and say "We are GOD-like.  We have right on our side.  And if you
	don't do things our way we will use our GOD-like power and remove
	you from this place."

	Just as there was a reason that Hitler was listened to by the
	German people in the 1920's and 30's there is a reason that
	Saddam (I am not sure of the spelling) is listened to by the
	Iraqi people.  Address this issue/reason and we will not need
	to use arms to remove him from power.  Will we listen to the
	needs of the Iraqi people - NO WAY IN H#!!.  They are monsters
	who beat their women and children, who view males as more than
	human and have a military answer for every problem.  They also
	feel that they have GOD on their side.  (Sound familiar???)

	Item four:  World wide depression

	Just what makes you think that we are not in one now?  OH, 
	I get it, we, the United States, will be touched, wait that
	is not quite right, we in the United States who are not homeless
	or rural poor or elderly or uneducated or any of a number of
	"other" states of living, WE will be required to loose some of
	our necessities - two or more cars; two or more homes (includes
	time-share condos in other countries); limitless electronic
	gadgets that make life worth living (Nintendo games, microwave
	ovens); cheat food that is full of poisons; air we can not
	breath; water we can not drink; a medical industries that does
	not prevent or cure disease.

	Economic depression is a term used to scare individuals into
	behaving as the people on top would like us to.  Economists
	do not include the labor of the women of the world who carry
	the water, prepare the food, care for the sick and the healthy.
	They have no idea as to what makes the world continue to exist
	for millions of humans.  If women stopped feeding others for
	one week - that would be a WORLD WIDE DEPRESSION.


	Item nnnn:  I could go on and on

	I would like to believe that the United States has the strength 
	to not use our overwhelming might, but to say "See this is what
	we could do, instead, we will work in a peaceful way to end this
	problem in a way that address the root cause not the visible
	symptom."   Yes I am a dreamer.

	_peggy

		(-|-)
		  |
		  |
			All things are possible, they just take
			differing amounts of time.

<	Item one:  "our boys"

	There are no 'boys' in the services--they are MEN


	If my eyes do not deceive me I saw women on the telly, in
	uniform in the mass of US soldiers - so we should now say
	either "our soldiers" or "our boys and girls".
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                 Good Choice      No way, "MEN and WOMEN"

Flame on Simmer

Bob

    
    thank you peggy!
    
    this whole thing has got me depressed beyond words (and the sword-
    rattling going on here and elsewhere doesn't make it any better)
    
    

    re .45, yes, Peggy, thanks.  I'm glad you had the energy to write all
    that.  I agree with you.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Me, too, Peggy.  I realize that a lot of my responses here have been
    flip, but that's because I'm deeply upset by all this, and I haven't
    been able to articulate it.  Thanks for doing that, Peggy.  I think
    you're right on.
    
    Justine

    .49 -
    
    I can't either, so yes, extra thanks to Peggy and others here for saying 
    it for me. Every morning I hear the *thud* of the Boston Globe landing on 
    my front porch, and it sounds increasingly ominous...
    
    As for war being inevitable - I'm with Maia on this one. We're humans
    with brains, after all. If we can put a man [sic] on the moon, we ought
    to be able to come up with some way of settling territorial, etc. disputes,
    other than blowing people away. Unfortunately our society thrives on 
    violence; certainly the media does.
    
    Couldn't we just make a movie out of it, and skip the reality?
    
    Dorian
     

    Of all the talks about alternative energy source...  No, "alternative"
    energy source will not succeed as long as they are not economically
    competitive. Of course if you are willing to let the government put a
    humongous tax on it, that will do it.  No matter how hard the "lessons"
    are, and how "outraged" you and I are in this notesfile, we will always 
    follow the market trend.  Isn't it surprising that suddenly everyone is 
    blaming everyone else for not taking this "alternative energy" thing 
    seriously before?  As far as I know the last energy crisis happened 10 
    years ago, and wn has been here for about 5 years?  Surprise surprise, 
    all the far sighted national energy experts suddenly just pop out?
    
    As to Iraq, I think neither oil nor recession are worth the massive 
    effort we are putting there.  After all, there is a limit as to how 
    high the oil price can go.  What really matters is that Iraq will 
    eventually have nuclear weapon, and Iraq has just launched something 
    into orbit.  The real threat is Iraq obtaining both nuclear weapon and 
    intercontinental missles.  When that happens, everyone will be held 
    hostages. 
    
    Alf

	And if war was declared, that there would be a 

		L O U D   R E S O U N D I N G 



		  NNN      NN      OOOOO
		 NN NN    NN      OO   OO
		NN   NN  NN      OO     OO
	       NN     NNNN        OO   OO
	      NNN     NNNN         OOOOO


	Heard across this country.

	_peggy
	
		(-)
		 |
			The sound of women's voices.....
			Maybe they are a threat to the
			world as we know it.

    
    Thank you Peggy!!!!!!
    This entire business has me really upset. I personally think that we
    have no business sending our soldiers in the Persian Gulf. Do the
    majority of Americans really think that having our sons and daughters(
    regardless of how old these soldiers are, they ARE SOMEONE'S sons and
    daughters) killed is better than rising oil prices??
    I think that there should be some kind of general referendum where
    all Americans vote to decide if our children should go to WAR?
    But, the children of those in command will most likely not be going
    anyway.
    
    ALso, a sore point! WHy should we send our women to work alongside
    men in Saudi Arabia who think that women are inferior to women!!!!!
    If a woman commander has to give orders to some Saudi soldiers, will
    they just stare at her, arrest her, or is she supposed to look at 
    the ground and give the command in a soft voice???????
    
    If this situation was not so serious, it would be laughable. We really
    have no business there. It seems to me to be just trying to preserve
    the way of life of a minority of the Americans, who will so their
    darnedest to prevent THEIR children going....and probably succeed.
    
    Desryn.
    

    Ah, yet another 'myth' -- that women who are sent to war are not in
    combat.  Oh sure, it's against the law, the constitution, or something
    that women go into a combat situation but the fact is, that women
    do indeed fight along side the men in war.  Thousands and thousands
    did in Vietnam, then Panama.  But because it is 'illegal' for them
    to be on the front lines, the gov't. denies they were there; and
    guess what?  They get no VA benefits whatsoever.  A woman soldier
    suffering from PTSD can't go for free health care, she has to
    find and pay for a doctor herself.  Afterall, she wasn't in
    the war; she was only there to 'support' the men.  Yeah, right.
    
    Maia
    

    
    Re .53
    
    Sorry, typo. Should read...
    Why should we send our women to work alongside Saudi men who think that
    women are inferior to MEN!!!!
    Hopefully, most of you still understood the sentence.
    
    Desryn
    

    On NPR the other evening, I heard that the women who are in Saudi
    Arabia have to "ride shotgun" alongside the men, because of the status
    of women in that country.  They couldn't even drive jeeps!
    
    
    Judi
    

    .55,
    
    Unfortunately, that is called military.  When you sign up for the armed
    forces, you put everything, even your life on the line.  The men there
    are facing some strange things too.  Yes, the women sent there are
    facing additional restrictions on them, but I think the brave men and
    women who signed up for the military understood the sacrifices they are
    giving. 
                                            
    When the going gets tough, everything becomes fair game (whether it is 
    fair or not :-)). 
    
    I am reluctant to judge other culture I don't really understand, but 
    my somewhat culturely ignorant opinion is that Saudi is still in the 
    dark ages as far as women are concerned.
    
    Alf

    I hear all this talk about alternative energy.  What could we use 
    QUICKLY and cost effectively to power vehicles? (yes cost effectively
    because if it isn't cost effective it won't be generally used by
    people)
    
    Remember the alternative energy sources must meet all of the following
    critera to be useful on large scale terms to change our transportation
    industry.
    
    - It must be cost effective
    
    - It must be able to be 'manufactured' and distributed efficiently and
      safely.
    
    - The general public must be able to use it with a minimum of
      technical knowledge.
    
    - Our current cars/busses/trucks etc. must be able to use this fuel
      source with minimum modifications to be cost effective and the
      equipment needed to modify the vehicles must be readily and widely
      available.
    
    - It must not pollute anymore than current fuels, preferably far less.
    
    - It must be a renewable resource.
    
    - It must have a high enough energy to weight ratio so that one can
      cost effectively use it in a vehicle.
    
    If you have a fuel in mind which meets all of these criteria please let
    me know because I would like to solve the worlds transportaton energy
    problems with you and get rich too. 
    
    "Why can't we use bikes, walk, and busses and get rid of our cars?"
    
    Because the entire Country is set up to move people around (except some
    cities) by using highways.
    
    "What about hydrogen as the alternative fuel?"
    
    Where does the energy come from to produce the hydrogen in VAST
    voluums?
    
    "Why not use electric cars or batteries?"
    Same answer as the prior question:  Where does the ORIGINAL source of
    energy come from to produce the electricity?
    
    These are some of the issues that both have to be technical feasable 
    LARGE scale and not drive the problem backto oil as the base source of
    the energy.
    
    "Why not use LNG or propane in our cars?
    Fine, but remember they are fossil fuels too.
    =========
    
    I suppose nuclear power could help alot had we built enough nuclear
    power stations but there are the safety and environmental concerns.
    
    As much as I would LOVE IT, as far as I can see as an engineer there
    ARE NO quick easy solutions.
    
    The solutions involve all sorts of multiple efforts, such as:
    
    Attempt to develop FUSION.
    
    Reduce fuel consumption NOW, to buy time.
    
    Tax gasoline and use the tax money to encourage R & D on alternatives
    fuels.
    
    Set your thermostat back, and drive less.
    
    Develop solar/geothermal and other renewable energy sources with a 
    PASSION.
    
    Technology has solved lots of problems but the sheer voluume of
    our oil use driven life style precludes lots of the fixes which work on
    a small scale but NOT on a large scale.  We must take the small
    scale fixes and multiply them to the point where they add up to a big
    fix.
    
    
    
    

    re -.1,  public transportation, carpool, alternate energy powered
    cars (electric, gasohol, whatever), population shifts so that people
    build their lives around these restrictions.  In CA when the freeways
    were closed after the earthquake the air quality was much improved!
    	Linda

>      <<< Note 342.57 by EXT::PRUFROCK "No! I am not Prince Hamlet,..." >>>
        ...    
>    I am reluctant to judge other culture I don't really understand, but 
>    my somewhat culturely ignorant opinion is that Saudi is still in the 
>    dark ages as far as women are concerned.

        From one who lived in Saudi Arabia, your perception is entirely
        accurate.
        
        The hospitals are staffed by European and American nurses, who,
        when they wanted to  go  into  the town, had to call one of the
        men in another compound to go pick them up and 'chaperone' them
        at all times.
        
        Women  cannot  drive, appear in public without a man, wear
        clothing  which reveals above the ankles or wrists, or which
        clings in such a way that the shape  of the breasts or buttocks
        can be seen. You are entirely liable to be 'groped' if your
        escort is not right beside you. If a matawah (religious police) takes
        exception to your dress, he can and will follow you along the
        street, loudly berating you and beating you with a cane!
        Anything but total submission to this puts you in jail. (See
        below).
        
        Saudi men can and do hug, kiss and hold hands as they walk in
        public. A man and a woman are totally forbidden to make  any
        form of physical contact in public. A kiss will put both in
        jail.
        
        The women's jail is a place which puts you at the mercy of the
        'warden' (_invariably_ a man) and his friends, sexually.

        And so on, ad nauseam.
        
        Andy
        
        PS. =maggie, do you remember our conversation regarding this?

    
    
    	Well, ya know, my little sister is a Sargent in the Army 
    	and she can handle a weapon just fine... ;-)...better than 
    	I can.  ;-)
    
    	But, now I'm kinda worried about the 'Mid East' because, I'm 
    	flying home Sept 5 for her wedding to Dennis, a career Marine 
    	drill Instructor.  Andrea is 3 months pregnant, and from our 
    	telephone conversations, she is ready to assume the duties of a 
    	military wife.  I asked her specific questions about what she 
    	expects; after having been enlightened about military women's 
    	thoughts from her best friend ( Susan ) in Tokyo; 1.5 years ago, 
    	during my vacation in Japan. 
    
    	Susan was quite patient with my quirky questions.  I was quick to 
    	focus on her unending loyalty to what her husband is doing and her 
    	devoted faith.  One thing that Susan had to conquer is the fear 
    	that her loved one:  
    
    	1. may be gone without a moments notice  
    
    	2. may never return  
    
    	I know Andrea is prepared for the future...'cause she's honest 
    	and committed to living her life the way she pleases!
    
    
    	p.s.
    
    	Dennis is State side and training the new enlisted men, so the 
    	wedding is as planned...at this writing!  
    
    
    							Kelly
    
    	Prime rib.....yummm....
    

Article          357
Path: shodha.enet.dec.com!bacchus.pa.dec.com!decwrl!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!looking!clarinews
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (SUE MORGAN)
Newsgroups: clari.news.military,clari.news.fighting,clari.news.religion,clari.news.hot.iraq,biz.clarinet.sample
Subject: War-wary soldiers contacting Quaker committee
Keywords: military, fighting, organized religion, religion
Message-ID: <Uiraq-friends_179@clarinet.com>
Date: 29 Aug 90 18:15:04 GMT
Followup-To: biz.clarinet.sample
Lines: 51
Approved: clarinews@clarinet.com
Xref: shodha.enet.dec.com clari.news.military:1070 clari.news.fighting:864 clari.news.religion:357 clari.news.hot.iraq:747 biz.clarinet.sample:978
ACategory: usa
Slugword: iraq-friends
Priority: regular
Format: regular
ANPA: Wc: 521; Id: a1021; Sel: na--a; Adate: 8-29-210ped
Codes: ynm.rxx., ynf.rxx., ynrorxx., xxxxxxxx, //na--a/
 
 
	PHILADELPHIA (UPI) -- A Quaker group is being flooded with phone
calls from soldiers who never expected to go to war but are now afraid
they will be asked to fight in the Middle East, an official for the
pacifist religious group said Wednesday.
	``Nobody who calls here is gung-ho,'' said Harold Jordan, youth and
militarism coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee, which
opposes war and counsels draftees. ``Most people are fairly desperate.''
	Jordan said his office, which normally gets two or three inquiries
a day, has received nearly 500 telephone calls in the past two weeks
from soldiers, reservists and their families concerned about the Persian
Gulf crisis.
	``Many of these persons were dissatisfied with certain aspects of
the miltary before the current action but this has crystallized it for
them,'' Jordan said.
	He said most of those contacting the group operated by the American
Society of Friends, better known as Quakers, want to know how to keep
from going to Saudi Arabia or how to get out of the military.
	At least one Marine has applied for conscientious objector status.
	``We've been contacted by a number of people who want to apply to
be conscientious objectors, which means that they will never have to
fight because of moral or religious grounds,'' Jordan said.
	Because of their religion's opposition to war, the Quakers are
protected by the U.S. Constitution from serving in the armed forces.
	``Today's mail has a letter from a guy whose son joined the
National Guard and is in basic training and the son has developed
serious concerns about being in (the Guard) and wants to know what to do
about getting out,'' Jordan said.
	Jordan said his office received many calls during and after the
American invasion of Panama but there are differences between Panama and
Operation Desert Shield, as the deployment of American troops in Saudi
Arabia is called.
	``It's a longer military operation, more people are being called up
and the reserves are being mobilized, so it's going to affect a larger
number of people,'' he said.
	``It is also something that involves a lot of countries and a
country (Iraq) that has a substantial army, so the possibility of it
becoming a serious war is higher. That idea has not been lost on young
people,'' Jordan said.
	He said many younger soldiers are ``shocked and freaked out'' at
the prospect of war because the idea is not emphasized in the military's
recruiting campaigns.
	``What everybody is saying is if they go into the military they
don't go in thinking about war,'' Jordan said. ``They know they will
have to shoot at dummies or targets during basic training, but they're
not thinking about shooting people.
	Many soldiers and sailors now in the Persian Gulf were born after
1968, Jordan said, and have few if any memories of Vietnam.
	``The military for the most part, with the Marine Corps being a
partial exception, does not play up the war aspect (in recruiting),''
Jordan said. ``They play up the training, the money for education.''

    Regardless of the situation in this particular case, I find the idea of
    developing regligion on an "as needed" basis to be a mockery of those
    who really believe. What did these people think soldiers did for a
    living? liesl

    People really oughta read the fine print before they sign. I mean,
    what in h*ll do they think joining the military *implies* ? That
    they *won't* ever have to fight ? Sheesh. Anybody who joins the
    service expecting four years of steady employment, training and
    *no* chance of going to war is living in fantasy land. 

    It is interesting that the article implies that all of the callers
    have seen the light and realized that they object to killing, while
    I would assume that they really objected to being killed.
    	Linda

    Are these people cowards, or are they smart for having found
    "religion", or are they stupid for thinking the military wouldn't ever
    go to war, at lest not until they got their college benefits, (or
    whatever)?
    
    My thoughts tend to run toward the first explanation.
    
    Mike
    

Article          378
Path: shodha.enet.dec.com!bacchus.pa.dec.com!decwrl!lll-winken!looking!clarinews
From: clarinews@clarinet.com
Newsgroups: clari.news.religion,clari.news.issues.conflict,clari.news.hot.iraq,biz.clarinet.sample
Subject: Quakers call for halt to Gulf buildup
Keywords: organized religion, religion, war & peace, social issues
Message-ID: <Uiraq-quakers_180@clarinet.com>
Date: 5 Sep 90 00:47:55 GMT
Followup-To: biz.clarinet.sample
Lines: 66
Approved: clarinews@clarinet.com
Xref: shodha.enet.dec.com clari.news.religion:378 clari.news.issues.conflict:579 clari.news.hot.iraq:933 biz.clarinet.sample:1164
ACategory: usa
Slugword: iraq-quakers
Priority: regular
Format: regular
ANPA: Wc: 681; Id: a2240; Sel: na--a; Adate: 9-4-845ped
Codes: ynrorxx., ynxwrxx., //na--a/
 
 
	PHILADELPHIA (UPI) -- The American Friends Service Committee Tuesday
became the first religious organization in the United States to call for
a halt to the U.S. buildup of military forces in the Persian Gulf.
	The Quaker group urged President Bush instead to take the lead in
diplomatic efforts to end the crisis, which began Aug. 2 with the Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait, and recommended that U.S. forces be replaced in the
region by an Arab or United Nations peacekeeping presence in the
meantime.
	Quakers are known for their pacifist convictions, and was one of
the first religious organizations to oppose the Vietnam War.
	``The AFSC supports the U.N. call for Iraqi withdrawl from Kuwait,''
Chairman Stephen Cary said. ``This call would carry greater weight, I
believe, if the United States were to link it to a matching call for the
end of other illegal military occupations in the region.''
	Cary said the crisis precipitated by the invasion of Kuwait would
have been impossible without the worldwide arms trade, and he urged the
United States to take the lead in ending that trade.
	``Today's crisis provides us with a fresh opportunity to turn
about, to replace the politics of war with the politics of peace,'' Cary
said.
	U.S. churches have been cautious in their reaction to the Persian
Gulf crisis, generally condemning the Iraqi invasion but urging the Bush
administration to go slowly and to use international organizations in
response to the situation.
	Last week, the presidents of two major Protestant denominations --
the United Church of Christ and the Christian Church (Disciples of
Christ) -- wrote Bush saying, ``We believe that restraint by the U.S. and
other nations in responding to the Iraqi aggression in Kuwait is
essential.''
	They urged the administration to ``look increasingly at the United
Nations for an appropriate response'' and said they were concerned that
``the continuing buildup of an already massive military presence in the
Middle East will hamper these efforts and exacerbate tensions.''
	The two leaders also were critical of some of the elements of the
sanctions imposed against Iraq, saying, ``We urge that food and medical
supplies not be withheld from Iraq's civilian population.''
	The National Conference of Catholic Bishops, representing the
nation's 55 million Roman Catholics, has issued two statements on the
crisis, one in early August and the other on Aug. 30.
	Neither statement urged particular policy actions but did label the
Iraqi invasion ``devoid of provocation or any justification'' that poses
``a severe threat to international peace.''
	Noting Bush's request for prayers, the first statment responded to
that call, and in the second, Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk of Cincinnati,
president of the bishops conference, urged that those prayers ``also
remember ... those men, women and children -- Americans and others -- who
are being held against their will in Iraq and Kuwait.''
	In early August, just hours before Bush announced his decision to
send forces to Saudi Arabia, the National Council of Churches issued a
statement denouncing the Iraqi invasion as an ``unjustifiable act of
aggression'' and said it supported ``the demands of the international
community for a speedy and complete withdrawal of all Iraqi forces.''
	In mid-August, the Global Mission Ministry Unit Committee of the
Presbyterian Church (USA) said it concurred with statements by other
religions bodies -- including the World Council of Churches, the National
Council of Churches and Churches for Middle East Peace -- in criticizing
the Iraqi action.
	And both Catholic and Protestant agencies have called for relief
efforts to aid those fleeing Kuwait and Iraq.
	The World Council of Churches has announced a $300,000 global
appeal to meet the needs of refugees. The Church World Service, the
National Council of Churches relief and development arm, said it will
seek to raise $75,000 as part of that appeal.
	Catholic Relief Services said it is providing $15,000 to aid the
refugees.

If the United States had not intervened in the Persian Gulf:

    Kuwait would be now be a permanent province of Iraq. Hundreds of
    innocent Kuwaitis associated with the former government would be
    killed. Americans in Kuwait would be killed or held indefintely in
    prisons.

    Hussein would invade Saudi Arabia, with thousands killed during
    the fighting. Saudi Arabia would eventually go down in defeat. A
    blood bath of death would envelop the country.

    The world supply of oil would dwindle. The price of energy would
    increase 400 to 500%. 

    This would lead to world-wide unemployment and a depression worse
    than the 1930s. In the United States, unemployment would reach 25
    percent. Oil and gasoline, when available, would cost $10 a gallon
    or more. Inflation would jump at annual rates of more than 50
    percent. Half a billion people throughout the globe would starve
    or freeze to death. 

    With these victories, the war would become a Holy War, sanctioned 
    by God. Iraq would become the leading world power. The United
    States, now a third-rate power, would surrender after atomic
    bombs were dropped on several cities. The practices and beliefs of
    Islam would be the required world religion. Women would be
    relegated to a second-class, servile existence.

    Bruce

    
    What's a holy war anyway? Who decides if a war is holy or not?
    
    D.

    
    if we hadn't done a thing:
    
    kuwait would be re-united with iraq.
    kuwait's vast oil wealth would be distributed throughout greater
    iraq (more equitably than to the handful of sheiks previous).
    the price of gasoline would double in the united states, maaking
    alternate forms of energy cost competitive.
    within 10 years, the united states would be energy efficient and
    environmentaly better off.
    increased efficiency will allow for greater growth and the
    improved environmental situation will lead to a happier and
    safer life for all.
    
    

    re .71
    
    I believe, based on 15 years ago history classes, that the decision to
    call for jihad (holy war) is made by the senior imams of Islam.  Jihad
    is a conquering of non-Islamic countries/territories/peoples - pretty
    straight-forward.  The problem for Hussein is that he must convince his
    followers that the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Egyptians and whoever else he
    wants to go after have so egregiously failed to follow the tenets of
    Islam that they can be accounted in the non-Islamic set of available
    targets.  (By definition, no Moslem is ever to fight or wage war
    against another Moslem.  Actual practice, of course, is somewhat
    different.)
    
    Hussein was able to play this card in the war with Iran, because the
    two countries follow different 'flavors' of Islam - Sunni and Shiite. 
    I confess that I can't keep track of which is which, or what the
    differences are.  [In the Christian world, it's akin to the difference
    between being Catholic and Protestant - particularly if you go back in
    European history to the religious wars waged to determine which of the
    two would be the 'official' state religion.]  I believe that the
    Saudis, Kuwaitis, Iraqis and Jordanians all follow the same basic
    flavor.  Differences arise because of the relative wealth of the
    nations and how that wealth is distributed between them.  Some (guess
    which) feel that *all* Muslims should share equally in the wealth, and
    all of Islam should be a single 'nation'.
    
    This is part of what makes trying to understand the politics of the
    area so difficult for us Westerners.  Concepts about the roles of
    nationality, ethnicity, and religion for forming coalitions are
    hideously complex and the value assigned to each changes based on
    relative advantage, with an unclear goal of what the final desirable
    outcome would be.  (Sorry about the last sentence.  Trying to follow it
    twisted my brain when I was in school, and it hasn't gotten better
    since.)
    
    Alison  

    >What's a holy war anyway?  Who decides if a war is holy or not?
    
    this question reminds me of a passage in Shogun.  Blackthorn (our hero,
    henceforth "B") is having his pivotal interview with Toranaga ("T", the
    powerful Japanese warlord).  B is telling him about the then-current
    rivalry between Spain/Portugal and England/Holland, in which England is
    backing Holland in its revolt against its Spanish king.  T is
    horrified, and tells B sternly that there is __never__ any legitimate
    reason for rebelling against your liege lord.  And B answers,
    "Unless you win."  T laughs delightedly at this answer, and doesn't
    kill B, and the book goes on.
    
    Some things are cross-cultural.  It will have been holy if Iraq wins. 
    If Iraq loses, it will have been criminal.
    

    re .68, thanks for the info, god.  (oh great, all-knowing one)
    
    Lorna
    
    P.S.  What would have happened if I hadn't married my ex-husband in
    1971?  Do you do tarot cards, too?
    
    

    Re: .73
    
    Lorna, 
    
    What happened in 1971 is history. I just look at the future. I've
    screwed things up too much in the past to look back.
    
    bruce
    \  
     \
      (just a lower case god)

    re: .70
    
    just to fill in a blank you had left....
    
    the massive iraqi tank build-up along the saudi border was
    really just for defensive purposes, to keep the massive
    saudi war machine at bay.......
    
    

    .68
    
    Really?  What is the source of your information?  Can you back
    up your statistics?
    
    Just asking,
    Maia
    

    Maia,
    
    Thanks for asking.
     
    These are my own personal projections based on what I have read,
    discussions with others, personal feelings, childhood memories of World
    War II, and so forth. The exact percents and amounts probably are off,
    but this is my true and personal opinion of what would have happened if
    there had been no intervention.
    
    Bruce

Re: .63:

>    Regardless of the situation in this particular case, I find the idea of
>    developing regligion on an "as needed" basis to be a mockery of those
>    who really believe.

    Really?  I think it's a great idea, I'm just sorry it's necessary.
    In saying that being a conscientious objector on religious grounds
    equates to carrying a label like "Quaker", the US government is
    placing an inordinately great worth on *organized* religion *per se*.
    All of these people believe something.  They all have their own concepts
    which correspond to religious concepts.  Some of them may, for reasons
    of upbringing, belong to other organized religions, and believe most
    of their teachings.  Others may be religiously unaffiliated for reasons
    of upbringing, personal belief, or both.  Some may not even know what
    they believe until the chips are down.  And in making that call to
    the Quakers, they are expressing, above blind adherence to some religious
    arbiter, *their own beliefs in how they, personally, relate to the
    world*.  We give it fancy names like religion, and wrap it in trappings,
    buildings, prayer books and the like, but it's all the same stuff at
    heart.

    But personal belief is not good enough for our government if you don't 
    have the proper *label*.  So much for real	"freedom of religion".

    "What did they think soldiers did for a living?".  When my cousins
    joined the army, they did so because they could find no jobs in their
    area, and didn't have the means to further their education.  The army, 
    for them, was a JOB.  The older cousin, I think, also viewed it as
    an adventure (if nothing else, he'd get to travel out of Ohio), but
    for the younger of the two (trained as a mechanic), I know it was
    purely a practical decision: it was the only show around that needed
    mechanics, and he needed a job.

    Let's face it.  Not only are we in this country not God, but we
    conscript the poor, and discriminate against our citizens according
    to religious affiliation (how many candidates for president are
    non-Christian?), and especially against the religiously unaffiliated.
    And we expect them all to die first-in-line to preserve the status
    quo.

    Personally, I find it sickening.

	Sharon

    Just to keep the players straight...can we agree to use "Saddam" for
    Saddam Hussein and reserve "Hussein" for King Hussein (of Jordan)?  I
    was confused some replys back.
    
    Nancy
    

    .78,
    
    Sharon, I think you are missing the point.  Nobody has been conscripted
    for a long time.  Those who are calling the Quakers and raising
    religious objections are the ones who joined the military voluntarily in
    the first place.  What do they think the JOB of the military is?  It is 
    not even a matter of reading the "fine prints".  As a matter of fact, no
    job has been more clearly defined than the military.  The very first 
    thing the military does to its recruits is giving them guns and training 
    them for war.
    
    ...

    It is like going to a fancy restaurant, eat an expensive meal then 
    refuse to pay.  That is the "mockery".  If joining the military means
    a "JOB" of adventure and fun and money and then getting out at the 
    last minute on religious ground, sign me up for the "JOB".  

    Alf

    re: .78 (Sharon)
   
    >But personal belief is not good enough for our government if you don't 
    >have the proper *label*.  So much for real	"freedom of religion".

    If you can figure out a way for a person to show he/she really has
    found religion, or has really just discovered a distaste for doing
    their duty, then I guess we can have the perfect "freedom of religion"
    you want.  Until then, we need to have some means of discovering one's
    true intentions.  Membership in a recognizable religious faith is one
    way.  Incidently, notice I used the word "recognizable" as opposed to
    "recognized".  The law does make provision for faiths that are not in
    the mainstream, you know.
                     
   > "What did they think soldiers did for a living?".  When my cousins
   > joined the army, they did so because they could find no jobs in their
   > area, and didn't have the means to further their education.  The army, 
   > for them, was a JOB.  The older cousin, I think, also viewed it as
   > an adventure (if nothing else, he'd get to travel out of Ohio), but
   > for the younger of the two (trained as a mechanic), I know it was
   > purely a practical decision: it was the only show around that needed
   > mechanics, and he needed a job.

    When people join the military, they sign a contract of employment that
    says, among other things, they might be expected to be involved in
    combat.  Whatever the reasons a person might have for joining the
    military, whether it's for adventure, a secure job, earning benefits
    for a college education, that person is knowingly taking a chance that
    he/she might have to go to war.  After all, everyone who is currently
    serving in our armed forces are strictly volunteers.  There isn't one
    draftee among them.  Anyone who suddenly decides they no longer wish to
    abide by the terms of a contract they willingly entered into,
    especially by such a wimpish and dishonest method of claiming a new
    found "religion", is simply not worthy of anyone's respect.

    >Let's face it.  Not only are we in this country not God, but we
    >conscript the poor, and discriminate against our citizens according
    >to religious affiliation (how many candidates for president are
    >non-Christian?), and especially against the religiously unaffiliated.
    >And we expect them all to die first-in-line to preserve the status
    >quo.

    We haven't conscripted anyone in a long time now, poor or otherwise. 
    As I said above, our military services are peopled by volunteers, a few
    of which apparently, are cowards.  

    You know, I wish we didn't need to have a military.  I wish we lived in 
    a world where we all treated each others like brothers and sisters. 
    Such a world is a place devoutly to be wished for and worked for. 
    However, until we have such a world, we would be foolish in the extreme
    to go without the means to protect ourselves and our legitimate national
    interests.
    
    Mike
                                                               

    
    re:.78
    hear! hear!
    

>> .78
>>			  and discriminate against our citizens according
>>    to religious affiliation (how many candidates for president are
>>    non-Christian?), and especially against the religiously unaffiliated.

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded
 on the Christian religion."                             -- George Washington

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they
 be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God." -- George Bush

	Dan

    re: .69 (digression)
    
    "They" do.   As in "You know what they say..."
    
    - M

    I am a little fuzzy on the details, but my understanding is that during
    the Vietnam War the Supreme Court ruled that those who apply for 
    conscientious objector status need not have a religious basis for their
    case.  I happen to remember that ruling, even though I was probably 10
    or so at the time, because my father (who approved of that ruling) was
    expressing his disagreement to the family over the comments of a
    neighbor who had labeled all conscientious objectors as "cowards".

    Assuming that my understanding of the law is correct, one need not be a
    Quaker, or a member of the other traditional "peace churches"
    (Bretheren and Mennonites) to be a conscientious objector.  When I
    registered for the draft in 1980, I was involved with no religious
    denomination, but I did write on the margin of the registration form
    that I was a conscientious objector.  This was an essentially
    meaningless act, since there was no such thing as registering as a
    conscientious objector, but the idea was that if I were to be drafted I
    could use that as part of my overall case when applying for CO status
    for real.  Fortunately, I was never drafted, so it didn't really
    matter, except to make a moral statement.

    The point of all this is that one doesn't have to be a Quaker to be a
    conscientious objector.  The AFSC is a service organization, as well as
    a resource that people can turn to for information and counseling on
    military matters; it is not possible to become an "instant Quaker"
    merely by contacting the AFSC.  As a matter of fact, Quaker meetings
    don't normally accept new members unless they have been attending for
    some time, and potential members are screened by a committee as part of
    the overall process.  Similarly, I would imagine that establishing CO
    status is not a trivial matter.  Those who have contacted the AFSC did
    so for information on CO related issues; that didn't make them
    Quakers, though.

    So, while it is certainly possible to criticize those in the military
    who have contacted the AFSC, by suggesting that they should have known
    in the first place what they getting into, I don't believe that those
    people are in any real position to use religion for their own cynical
    personal advantage, even if they would like to.  It makes sense, when
    seeking information, to contact an organization that is likely to have
    the appropriate expertise.

    -- Mike

Short clarification:

     By "conscription of the poor", I didn't mean the draft.  I meant
that those who can find no other jobs often feel compelled to join the
army because of their belief in the work ethic (since the alternative,
if applicable, would be public assistance).  "Joined the army voluntarily"
is a bit of an anachronism in this context.  Saying that is classism,
pure and simple -- the concept of "volition" presumes that one had a 
choice in the first place, which is a function of economics and 
demographics.

If a mugger comes up to you and says "your money or your life" with a
knife to your throat, do you then consider after the crime that you
gave the mugger your wallet of your own volition?  Is that the way you
relate the story to the police?

    Sharon

    re .86 Sharon, WADR, you're diluting the meaning of the technical
    term 'conscription'. The fact that one has two lousy choices
    is *not* the same as being forced into one of them.

Is there anything in history that's been responsible for more wars than



religion?

    wealth ?
    
    

    "All bloody principles and practices, we, as to our own particulars, do
    utterly deny, with all outward wars and strife and fightings with
    outward weapons, for any end or under any pretence whatsoever.  And
    this is our testimony to the whole world."

                             George Fox, 1661

    
    re: .87
    /re .86 Sharon, WADR, you're diluting the meaning of the technical
    /term 'conscription'. The fact that one has two lousy choices
    /is *not* the same as being forced into one of them.
    
    two lousy choices.....do not work, face possible starvation.
    work for the government (during an unfolding era of peace),
    save up money for college, get fed.
    
    yes, it is not technically 'conscription', conscription would mean
    that EVERYBODY, across class boundaries, would be asked to serve
    in the defense of the nation (as opposed to defense of economic
    interests overseas).  most scandanavian countries practice
    conscription.  i believe that all swiss citizens also have to
    take part in their army.
    
    also, i am confused.  i had thought that CO status meant that one
    did not have to serve in a combat unit, but still did some sort 
    of service with the army.  there is plenty of space in all the
    units back on the home front to take the CO's, freeing up more
    people who would not mind fighting.  does CO status mean that
    the individual is booted from the army?
    
    

    
    I really don't think that religion is ever the "cause" of any war but
    is used as an excuse to rally the troops to go get more stuff or more
    land for the rich men in power (or to get people to forget about tough
    financial times or embarassing scandals like the S&L, for example).
    
    Justine

    re. .93
    
    		If my memory serves me correctly (it's been well 
    over 20 years), technically the only thing a CO would not
    be asked to do is carry a weapon.  They can, for the most part,
    still serve in a combat unit.  A lot depends on what type of
    status the CO is given, i.e. there is a difference between a
    CO on religious grounds that "thou shalt not kill" and a CO on
    religious grounds "thou shalt only wear orange dresses".  (sorry,
    my bias is showing.)  If for some reason you are not able to
    wear a uniform individuals were allowed to do some number of
    years service in something like the Peace Corp.  Definately not
    a simple status issue.
    
    FWIW
    
    bob

	A man I knew who was a CO in Viet Nam worked as a medic on the
	front lines, he could and did get shot, but did not carry a
	weapon.  

	As someone else said, contacting AFSC is not the same as 
	converting.  They are one of the few groups that will give
	individuals the answers needed to make decisions about their
	status in potential combat stituations.

	I try to never call anyone a coward, I don't know from where
	they are making their decisions.  I also try to not call anyone
	brave, for the same reason.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			The only predator of MAN is man.

        I would like to clear up some misunderstandings about the AFSC.  
    I *am* a Friend, so I do have a base from which to speak.
    
    The American Friend's Service Committee actually started in WW I.  At
    that time it was called the Friend's Ambulance Service.  (The name 
    may be a little different, but not much.)  As Mike has already 
    transcribed, we Quakers believe in a Peace Testimony which is rather
    absolute.  I am sure there are varying degrees of belief in it, but
    the belief is there.  When WW I began, long before the United States
    joined in, Friends determined to do something to help the suffering
    of wounded victims without regard to nationality, or sides, or sex, or
    how the wounds were incurred.  
    
    Many people felt that the Quakers were aiding and abetting the enemy;
    Quakers believed there was no such thing as a "right" side.
    
    This function eventually was taken over by the American Red Cross (once
    this country entered the war), but the Friends continued to do the 
    work of peace believers.  The American Friends Service Committee grew
    directly out of the Friends Ambulance Service.  It grew and evolved
    into a leading toiler for peace.
    
    The AFSC won the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts to end war, and 
    ease the suffering of war victims.
    
    Now for what it *isn't*.  It is *not* the Quakers.  It is *not* made
    up only of Quakers.  It is *not* a Religious Society of Friends
    convert gatherer.
    
    It is a group made up of people of all races, religions, creeds and 
    non-creeds (as the Friends do not have a creed), sexes, colors, sizes
    and shapes, and it exists soley to help end the suffering caused by 
    war and oppression.  These people are all over the world, in many countries
    that are oppressing someone or other.  They are in Central and South 
    America, Europe, the African continent, everywhere.  They are in places 
    whose governments do not want them.  They are unarmed and many have been 
    murdered.  
    
    I pray for a day when I can have the kind of raw, gut courage it takes
    to stand up for one's convictions in this way.
    
    Oh, my!  Flame off, I guess.  No one can say I "passivists", that's
    for sure.  I'm just a passionate pacifist!
    
    E Grace  
    
    
    

    I understand that the common human response not to worry about
    something till it happens has something to do with the rush towards CO
    status. Perhaps those who are now seeking it just thought the issue
    wouldn't come up, but really, they did join the military. They had to
    know this *might* happen.

    I was briefly in the military and even the women (and even in the air
    force which is different in many ways from the army) there was no
    "cover up" of any sort about what the service was all about. As a woman
    I did not have to crawl through the bomb run when I did the obstacle
    course but it was very obvious that we were being trained to get
    through a war zone.

    I've had several friends who were in the army band at Fort Carson. Even
    the musicians are trained as infantry. They all know they could be
    front line troops even though their goal was just to be able to earn a
    living playing their instruments.

    The reasons we make war are often political and rarely honorable. But
    sometimes it is right. Is this one of those times? I honestly don't
    know. But those who entered the service made a commitment with full
    understanding of what that might mean. If they object to this
    particular war (as opposed to what they considered a rightful war)
    they should protest. But suddenly "discovering" that they are opposed
    to the basic job of the military strikes me as disingenuous. liesl

An earlier reply on the nature of CO status was correct (or was 20 years ago, 
anyway). Most COs served in uniform as non-combatants. That service could be
anywhere from stateside to front line (evacuating wounded under fire). If you
know what CO means, you don't file for CO because you're afraid of being shot;
you file for CO because you don't want to shoot. There is a difference (which 
is not to say those filing today are all aware of it).

Some COs were able to successfully maintain their beliefs (religion not being
a requirement for belief) precluded aiding a military effort in any way (which
included wearing a uniform); these were generally assigned alternate service
in hospitals or education. When I was in high school in Iran, two of my 
teachers were Mennonites doing alternative service by teaching.

My gut feel is that anybody who has gotten through basic training, with all the
mindless yelling of "kill kill" while sticking bayonets in burlap dummies (or
however it works these days) would have a difficult time making a case that they
weren't aware that combat was an option.

    re: .86 (sharon)
    
    "Feeling compelled" to join the military because there are few job
    prospects, and "being compelled" are two different things.  Membership
    in our armed forces is always voluntary, nowadays.  Saying "Joining the
    Army voluntarily... is classism, pure and simple", is at best
    disingenuous.  As you yourself said, people join the military for many
    reasons, only one of which is to get a job.  In this country, most
    people have many choices, if they have the wit to recognize them, and
    the ambition to work hard enough to achieve what they choose.  
    
    This is not to deny that some people do join the military to escape
    economic hardship.  It is to deny that all, or even most do.
    
    Mike

    There are alot of folks here whos last information regarding military
    recruitment comes from 20 years ago.  That like me talking about DEC
    (but basing my comments of the DEC of 10 years ago!).
    
    Todays army is *not* the choice for those poor unfortunate folks who
    have no job prospects anywhere else.  For one, they require a diploma
    (HS), no GED's need apply.  You also have a minimum GT score (which
    is fairly high).  There is no longer an option to "Go to jail or go to
    the army".
    
    The basic skills testing includes high school level reading, and fairly
    detailed (when was the last time *you* did long division without a
    calculator).  
    
    The idiots and losers who used to populate the army are long gone. 
    Today's soldiers are there because they want to be, not because they
    have to be.  They are there for lots of reasons, mainly a decent
    salary, educational benefits, and security.  TANSTAAFL, folks!  The
    trade off is that sometime, someplace, you will be required to take up
    arms in the name of the United States.  You opinion will not be asked,
    nor will a vote be taken.  We elect officials to make these decisions,
    and when they are made, soldier will carry them out.  That's what they
    are there for.  
    
    CO status is generally unavailable to a peacetime enlistee, unless a
    "verifiable" conversion takes place and at that point a discharge is
    granted.  
    
    To the argument that the army is a job for those who can't get one, you
    are wrong.  No one in their right mind enlists in the service unless
    they *want* to.  The work is hard, dirty, tiring, and it plays hell on
    your family.  The pay is livable, but if you spend two years at McD's
    and two years enlisted, your salary would be half again as big at
    McD's.  
    
    Those poor unfortunates who can't get jobs would not *want* the
    service.  It is hard work!
    
    Sue

>>    The idiots and losers who used to populate the army are long gone. 

There are some who would suggest this statement overlooks the generals and 
other top brass...

    I sure do, Bruce.
    
    Assuming your are unmarried, then the room part isn't quite as nice as
    the college dorm I had, and the board part is cafeteria food.  And it
    isn't exactly free.  If you live on post (in the barracks) and eat in
    the mess hall, then you don't get BAQ/Seperate Rations/VHA (which are
    the housing and food allowances the army pays).  But if you live off
    post you get them.  So, basically, the army provides you a place to
    live and a cafeteria in exchange for the BAQ and VHA (plus sep. rats)
    
    The dental benefits are no longer free.
    
    The medical benefits are debatable...
    
    Thirty days vacation *is* nice, I agree
    
    
    Sue

    re .102, most of them are probably damn glad that they *are* long gone
    from the Army, too!
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna,
    
    	Those of us whose lives (and the lives of thier loved ones) depend
    on the competence and intellegence of the soldier in their unit are
    damned glad they are gone, too.
    
    Seu 

     Newsgroups: rec.ham-radio
     Subject: Ham report from Kuwait
     Path:cbnewsc!att!occrsh!uokmax!munnari.oz.au!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-
     state.edu!mips!prls!philabs!briar!rfc
     From: rfc@briar.Philips.Com (Robert Casey)
     ======================================================================
     copied this from packet, have no way of knowing how accurate this is.
     WA2ISE

      Msg# TSF  Size #Rd  Date  Time From   MsgID        To
     32499 BF   4043   2 14-Aug 2229 N3GOB  22864_KA3PLC ALL@ALLBBS ()
       Sb: Report from inside Kuwait

       Message copied from WB2K who got it from W2JGR.

       The following message was copied Sunday evening 8/12
       by W2JGR from an amateur station in the Middle East.

       SUBJECT: NEWS REPORT FROM KUWAIT
       DATE REC'D: 12/8/0908Z
       TO: ALL
       FROM: KUWAIT

       THANKS FOR THE RELAY THE MESSAGES...AND HERE IS A SMALL REPORT
       FROM MY SELF YOU MAY TAKE AWAY MY NAME AND CALLSIGN ETC
       YOU MAY SEND TOTHE W.P OR  TO ANY DESTINATION YOU FIND IT GOOD.

       IRAQIS AND SINCE MANY DAYS ARE COMING INTO KUWAIT AS
       GROUPS OF HUNDREDS, AND THOUSANDS...  THERE IS NO BORDER AND
       THEY ARE NOW OVER 100 THOUSAND OR MAYBE MORE INTERING KUWAIT.
       SOME OF THEM WITH BUSSES, AND OTHERS WITH CARS, BUSSES, AND LORRIES.

     THEY TAKE EVERYTHING FROM THE SHOPS AND SHOPPING-CENTERS AND FILL INTO
     THE LORRIES AND GO BACK TO IRAQ.  THEY BREAK EVERY SHOPE...ALL THE CARS
     IN THE WAREHOUSES OF THE BIG COMPANIES, SUCH AS NISSAN, TOYOTA, ALL
     JAPANESE, MERCEDEZ, GENERAL MOTORS ETC ETC... ALL ARE BEEING TAKEN AWAY
     TO IRAQ.. AND WHATEVER THEY CANNOT TAKE THEY BURN OR DAMAGE.  THEY TAKE
     ALL THE PARTS... SPARES PARTS ACCESSORIES, AND WHATEVER WAS IN THE
     NATIONAL , TOSHIBA, MITSUBISHI, PHILLIPS ETC ETC BREAKING THE SHOWROOMS
     AND TAKING EVERY SINGLE AWAY.  IT IS A COMPLETE CHAOS....  WE NOTHING
     TO DEFEND OURSELVES...  WE HAVE NO WEAPONS TO DEFEND OUR HOUSES AND
     CHILDREN AND THERE IS NO POLICE  NO ARM ... NOTHING TO  BRING SOMETHING
     INTO CONTROL...IT IS AN ABSOLUTE  QUIET-CHAOS IT IS A QUIET-CHAOS  ..
     BECAUSE THERE IS NO  RESIST... NO BODY CAN RESIST... AND THEY JUST COME
     AND TAKE WHATEVER THEY LIKE ....  ALL THE FOOD STORES... BEEN
     STOLLEN....THEIR PUBLIC ARMIES (PUBLIC ARMY.... THEY CALL IT  EL-JAYSH
     EL-SHAABI) HUNDRED THOUSAND OF THEM...FULLY ARMED WITH GUNS ANIT IS A
     VERY SAD SITUATION FURTHER MORE....SOME PEOPLE OF INSIDE KUWAIT ..  BAD
     PEOPLE TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WHATEVER HE LIKES...  STEELING AND
     TAKING CARS BURNING ETC ETC... NO CONTROL NOBODY CAN TELL THEM
     ANYTHING...  BECAUSE EVERYBODY WILL THINK THAT DAMAGES BEEN DONE BY
     IRAQIS ... AN IT IS NOT TRUE...  THERE ARE  MORE DAMAGE FROM PEOPLE
     INSIDE....FOR I AS I SAID THERE IS NO RULE NO GOVERNMENT  NOTHING TO
     DEFENT THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT INSIDE.  FOOD AND ACCOMMODATIONS...NOW IN
     QUEUE YOU HAVE TO STAND IN LONG QUEUES IN FOUR LINES... 2 FOR MEN
     ANOTHER 2 FOR WOMEN.. AND FOR A   BUT THE SUPERMARKETS  DO NOT SELL
     MORE THAN 10 KD FOR EACH FAMILY IN A DAY...  THE FAMILIES HAVE NO CASH
     MONEY, THEY CAN OFFER THEIR CREDIT CARDS OR THE BANK-ACCOUNT-NUMBERS ,
     AND CAN TAKE ABOUT 10 KDAND DISTRIBUTED IN THE SUPERMARKETS FOR PEOPLE
     TO READ..  BUT ALL THE KUWAITIS...JUST SPITTING  ON THOSE PAPERS AND
     SQUEEZING THEM BY THEIR FEET... NOBODY LIKES TO READ ANYTHING ABOUT ALL
     WHAT IS WRITEN I DID NOT TRY TO TAKE ONE THEY CALL THE
     MUBARAK-ALKABEER  HOSPITAL THEY GAVE IT THE NAME  SORRY I FORGOT THE
     NAME NOW HI.. BUT CHANGING NAMES ANYWAY...  E.O.F.
                              GA LOGOFF 73'S JULES DE XXX YYYYY
                              DURATION: 15 MINS.

     One response I saw posted to

     > ...  WE HAVE NO WEAPONS TO DEFEND OUR HOUSES AND CHILDREN AND THERE IS NO
     > POLICE  NO ARM ... NOTHING TO  BRING SOMETHING INTO CONTROL...NO BODY CAN
     > RESIST... AND THEY JUST COME AND TAKE WHATEVER THEY LIKE ....

     noted that this was the "British legacy of gun control" on Kuwait, and I
     don't understand.  When was Britain in control of Kuwait?

     Did anybody see the interview last night with Barbara Walters and a woman
     who recently escaped Kuwait?    What the woman said verified much of the
     previous note; she talked of the Iraqi army looting and raping women.  She
     said that there _is_ a Kuwaiti resistance movement, but they have no
     weapons to use, and are resorting to crude homemade bombs.

                                                  nancy b.

    
    Essentially the entire middle east was part of the British Empire, at
    least de facto.  The UK still controlled rather a lot right into the
    '50s.

    A week or two ago I saw a segment on one of the Sunday morning news
    shows that described how many U.S. radio stations are doing their part
    to drum up war hysteria among Americans.  The Friday Gazette-Telegraph 
    reported that this is happening in our very own Colorado Springs.  It
    seems that one of the songs that KKFM is playing called "Bomb Iraq". 
    The lyrics to this offensive ditty include:

        Drop the bomb on Iraq, launch a full-scale attack; drop the bomb on
        Iraq, scrap Hussein into a sack; drop the bomb on Iraq, an F-16
        desert attack.

    Mark Stevens, the KKFM DJ who produced the song, excused it with the
    standard justification for offensive humor:  "We are not advocating
    anything other than humor.  You gotta take it for what it is.  Poking
    fun."

    Mike Royko's column in the September 2 Denver Post commented on Hank
    William's militaristic song about Iraq, which includes the immortal
    line "You can take that poison gas/and stick it in your sassafras."
    Said Royko:

        The trouble with trying to peddle a war song today is that most
        Americans have doubts about wars.  Those who were in Korea and
        Vietnam know that we aren't automatically the good guys or the
        winners, and we aren't always sure what it is we're killing and
        being killed for.

        Thanks to the moronic miracle of television, Americans who have
        never been near a war now have had an opportunity to see what wars
        really look like.  And they know that reality has nothing to do
        with John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Sylvester Stallone, or Chuck
        Norris.

        It's a little naked kid running along a road and screaming because
        the napalm hurts so bad.  War is young men in body bags--theirs and
        ours.  And the dying doesn't necessarily have anything to do with
        baseball, apple pie and the Grand Old Flag.

        So most people know that if the shooting begins in the Middle East,
        it won't be as simple as telling Saddam to stick his poison gas in
        his sassafras.

        Incidentally, Hank Williams Jr. was born in 1949, which means he
        was old enough to have been in the Vietnam War.  He wasn't.  I
        don't know why.  Maybe he had a good reason.  Guitar lessons or
        something.

    Unfortunately, I'm not sure sure that I share Mike Royko's optimism
    about American sensibilities.  It seems that many radio station disk
    jockeys are doing their damndest to prove Royko wrong.

    -- Mike

    The 9/12/90 Denver Post has a paid ad, on page 8A, placed by the AFSC. 
    The text of the ad is:

                         A Message to President Bush:

                      NO WAR FOR OIL IN THE MIDDLE EAST

        We urge you to reverse the U.S. military buildup in the Persian
        Gulf and Saudi Arabia.  The United States should support
        international and non-military negotiated efforts to resolve the
        conflicts in the Middle East.  While we join you in condemning
        Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, an escalation of the military conflict
        will only lead to great human suffering.

                              Join us for a
                     PEACE RALLY & CANDLELIGHT VIGIL
                          Thursday, September 13
                                   7 PM
                        State Capitol - West Steps

          To Join In Work For Peace In The Middle East Contact:
        American Friends Service Committee, 1535 High St., 3rd Fl.,
    	Denver, CO 80218

    By the way, I believe that there is also a peace vigil every Monday at
    11:30 AM in Colorado Springs, in front of the U.S. Post Office.

    -- Mike

    Mike,
    
    Please go for me, too.  If you are going, that is.
    
    E Grace

    E, I don't know if I'm going or not, but if I do I'll definitely go for
    both of us.
    
    -- Mike

    And me too.
    
    Thanks.  You have my prayers.
    
    --bonnie

    Yes, I'll be there, too, even if it's only in absentia.
    Thank you.
    
    
    -Dotti

    
    	I had to chuckle last night when a Reserve commander had so much
    	trouble with what to call his female soldiers.
    
    	He kept stumbling over it with "the men and, uh, women Airmen of
    	my unit." 
    
    	God forbid if he should use "Guardspeople" instead of "Guardsmen and 
    	women Guardsmen." I think the entire military would collapse.
    
    	-Erik

Maybe this belongs in 'Humor'. If so, mod, feel free to move it.
 
Hear what Sadam's response was to the request that he pull out of Kuwait?



He refused, saying it would be Kuwaitus Interruptus.

    
    a more effective method is to bag Dad.

Hi, I have mixed feelings about the possible war. In terms of power struggle
between states and energy supplies needed to keep the current economic
structure active, it makes sense for the US to send troops and to destroy the
Iraqi government (i.e. assassinate Saddam Hussein).

However, the recent patriotic upsurge reminds me of the Gulf of Tonkin crisis
or the propaganda used to bring the US into the First World War. I feel that we
are being manipulated. My goals in life are not necessarily the same as that of
the US government or our economics system. What is good for GM isn't
necessarily good for me. Who will gain from the war; who is gaining right now?
What kind of people are US soldiers defending?                                         

The French investigatory magazine, L'Express, recently published a report
reputedly from a Defense Dept. aide describing plans for military operations in
November:
	1. bombing of Iraqi air force, communications & leadership
	2. flanking attack into Kuwait
	3. defeat of Iraq's in Kuwait City by allied Arab forces

It has a rough estimate of 20,000 US casualties, since effects of chemical
warfare are hard to gauge. I wonder how the US plans to get the Arabs to handle
the dirty door-to-door fighting in Kuwait City. Is the US public ready for
these casualties? Would these actions be in accord with the Constitution and the
War Powers Act? (A recent poll indicates support for Bush Kuwait actions have
fallen from ~70% to ~50%.)

In life, I seek for us to join together to control our own destiny; for those
that work to gain power over their lives by controlling their workplace. For
this reason I'm going to a demonstration on the Iraq & Kuwait Crisis to show my
opposition to the government's actions.

What do you feel that people can do to make decisions together (Pro or Con) and
carry them out in this situation?

******************************************************************************

The following info is from a leaflet:


        March & Rally 12 noon Saturday, Oct. 20
	Assemble: Boston Common (Park St.)


* Withdrawal of all US military forces from the Middle East.
* No establishment of US bases in the Middle East.
* Legislation prohibiting a president from usurping the war powers delegated
	to Congress.
* Support for peaceful, diplomatic efforts to end the crisis.
* Money for jobs, education, housing, health care, veterans benefits & AIDS
	research, not war.
* No draft.

    Regarding application for CO status, there has been an interesting
    discussion about this in alt.activism.  In response to the suggestion
    that you must have a religious reason for applying for CO status, I
    found the following posting (some of you may recognize the name of the
    individual who wrote this):
    
Article         6599
From: jym@berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: HELP!  =*=  DRAFT INFORMATION NEEDED  =*=
Date: 26 Nov 90 20:28:57 GMT
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)
Organization: Berserkeley
 
> But he did say that the selective service bureau DEFINITELY DOES
> REQUIRE RELIGIOUS REASONS TO BE A CO. They are fairly loose on
> the definition of religion (basically any belief in a supreme
> being/force will qualify) but (according to him) PHILOSOPHICAL
> JUSTIFICATION APART FROM RELIGION WILL NOT WORK. So you can
> argue Gandhi and King all day, but if you don't bring up G-d, it
> ain't gonna work.
..-.
|D|raft law between 1948 and 1972 had a clause stating that COs
`-' had to base their objection on "religious training and
    belief."  This was originally defined as meaning "a belief
    in a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising
    from any human relation."  This "Supreme Being clause" was
    removed in 1967, perhaps in response to a 1965 Supreme Court
    ruling (U.S. v. Seeger) which decleared that "religious
    training and belief" didn't need to involve a Supreme Being.
..-.
|A|nother Supreme Court ruling in 1970 (Welsh v. U.S.) stuck with
`-' the 1965 interpretation.  In 1972 the Selective Service
    revised their CO form to replace the words "by reason of
    religious training and belief" with "based on moral or ethical
    beliefs, or belifs which are commonly accepted as religious."
 
			      * * *
..-.
|I| got this information from a 1980 pamphlet put out by the CCCO.
`-' All information available in 1980 was based on the last invo-
    cation of the draft, and we weren't sure if a new invocation
    would follow the same guidelines.  I don't know if any new
    developments have come up in the last decade, but I'm trying
    to contact the CCCO to find out.
..-.
|I|f things work the way they used to, local draft boards will
`-' have lots of say in the decision whether your CO claim will
    be accepted.  Draft boards tend to be made of politician's
    cronies, who are hardly impartial, so mileage varies.  Of
    course you can appeal things all the way up to the Supreme
    Court if you need to.
..-.
|I|t is generally better (when dealing with draft boards) to have
`-' religious reasons for being a CO.  Oh, and by the way, if
    you quote Gandhi and King you're probably going to be quoting
    religious or spiritual reasons (though you could distill
    secular, intellectual reasons form their thoughts and stick
    to those if you prefer).
 
:::.-----.::: <_Jym_> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.-----.:::
::/   |   \:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer ::/  o o  \::
::\  /|\  /::::::::::::::::::: jym@mica.berkeley.edu ::\ \___/ /::
:::`-----':::::::::::::::::: Berserkeley, California :::`-----':::

    
    in the current 'ms.' magazine there is an 'open letter' stating
    clearly opposition to our military involvement in the gulf. it
    can be copied and sent to various legislators and the white house
    or modified as appropriate or necessary.
    

Article         6659
From: mathrich@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Rich Winkel)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Stopping the gulf war: things you can do (1/2)
Date: 3 Dec 90 00:12:24 GMT
Organization: University of Miami Department of Mathematics & Computer Science
 
Fwd from Peacenet:
/** mideast.gulf: 267.0 **/
** Topic: WHAT YOU CAN DO: LETTERS TO EDITOR **
** Written 11:06 pm  Dec  1, 1990 by sfreedkin in cdp:mideast.gulf **
NO WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST: WHAT YOU CAN DO
 
INFORMATION SHEET #1 (OF 2):  LETTERS TO NEWSPAPER EDITORS
 
By Cathy McNamara
 
(c) 1990 by the Peace Resource Center of Santa Barbara.
    Groups may reprint if they notify Peace Resource Center
    (PeaceNet: sfreedkin), 331 N. Milpas #F, Santa Barbara,
    CA 93103-3203, tel. (805) 965-8583.  Credit to the Peace
    Resource Center of Santa Barbara appreciated.
 
 
    Letters to local, state, and national newspapers reach a
wide audience of readers. Letters/editorial pages are the
most widely read "news" section of a paper; only the comics
and sports sections have more readers. Government officials
and other leaders read letters to the editor as indicators of
public opinion on important issues.
    Many angles of the Gulf crisis can be used as the basis
of letters to the editor. Some ideas:
* the consequences to the U.S. and the world if war breaks
  out
* the benefits of a peaceful resolution
* ideas on how readers can make a difference for peace
* comments on media coverage and suggestions for improved
  reporting
* the crisis and the peace dividend: no more mindless
  military spending
* the crisis and energy policy: time for conservation and
  alternative energy
* the crisis and nonviolent toys: let's not raise another
  generation of warmongers
* President Bush and his previous roles in foreign policy
  (Iran-Contra, Panama, etc.)
* the need for Congressional debate about the crisis
* the role of the United Nations as a peacekeeping force
* responses to articles, editorials, or current news
  developments
* spread information reported in alternative media which may
  not be reaching others
* express your opinions about war and peace
 
    To increase the effectiveness of your letter and its
chances of appearing in print, follow these tips:
* Always include your signature, name, address, and phone
  number (you may receive a call to verify that you wrote the
  letter). Neatness counts -- type your letter if possible
  and correct all grammar and spelling mistakes before
  mailing.
* Focus on one main point, and keep your letter clear and
  concise. Editors will cut words or even paragraphs from
  your letter if it's too long, and their editing may alter
  your meaning or cut what you felt was your most important
  point. Keep it short. If you want to make several points,
  write many letters, each to a different newspaper.
* If you want to be persuasive, use a fact or two to convince
  readers, but be sure you're accurate. Cite your sources and
  check your facts; mistakes can hurt the credibility of your
  case and give another reader reason to write a rebuttal to
  your position, pointing out the inaccuracies.
* If you want to demonstrate public or personal concern,
  write a strongly opinionated or emotional letter It's best,
  however, to avoid excessively harsh or hostile attacks on
  people, which may backfire.
* Whenever possible, link your letter to recent developments,
  news stories, other published letters to the editor, or
  editorials; this will increase the chances that your letter
  will be printed. Keep the allusion very brief; the bulk of
  your letter should express your thoughts and ideas, not
  review those of another writer.
* Don't send the same letter to more than one publication.
  Rewrite for other papers, or choose another theme.
 
 
(Addresses of national and local newspapers to which you can
write appear after the following section.)
 
 
SOURCES OF INDEPTH/ALTERNATIVE COVERAGE
AND ANALYSIS OF THE GULF CRISIS
 
DAILY
 
National Public Radio coverage
Morning Edition, morning newsmagazine
All Things Considered, evening newsmagazine
 
WEEKLY NEWSPAPERS
 
The Guardian
In These Times
The Nation
 
MONTHLY MAGAZINES
 
The Progressive
Tikkun
The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs
World Press Review
 
------------------------------------------------------------
Where to write letters to the editor:
------------------------------------------------------------
 
NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS
 
Letters to the Editor
Chicago Tribune
435 N. Michigan Ave.
Chicago, IL 60611
 
Letters to the Editor
Christian Science Monitor
One Norway Street
Boston, MA 02115
 
Letters to the Editor
New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
 
Letters to the Editor
Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281
 
Letters to the Editor
Washington Post
1150 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20071
 
Letterline
USA Today
1000 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22229
 
 
CALIFORNIA DAILY NEWSPAPERS
 
Letters to the Editor
Santa Barbara News-Press
P.O. Box 1359
Santa Barbara, CA 93102-1359
 
Letters to the Editor
Los Angeles Times
Times Mirror Square
Los Angeles, CA 90053
 
Letters to the Editor
Daily Nexus
P.O. Box 13402
University of California at Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, CA 93107
  (include academic major, class standing,
  or position at UCSB if appropriate)
 
Letters to the Editor
Ventura County Star*Free Press
P.O. Box 6711
Ventura, CA 93006
 
Letters to the Editor
San Francisco Chronicle
901 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
 
Letters to the Editor
Sacramento Bee
P.O. Box 15779
Sacramento, CA 95852
 
 
SANTA BARBARA AREA WEEKLY NEWSPAPERS
 
Letters to the Editor
Santa Barbara Independent
607 State Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
  (published every Thursday)
 
Letters to the Editor
Carpinteria Herald
P.O. Box 10
Carpinteria, CA 93013
  (published every Tuesday)
 
Letters to the Editor
Goleta Sun
335 Rutherford Street
Goleta, CA 93117
  (published weekly)
 
Letters to the Editor
The Channels
721 Cliff Dr., CC-112
Santa Barbara, CA 93109-2394
  (published every other Wednesday; include Santa Barbara
  City College position or academic major)

Article         6658
From: mathrich@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Rich Winkel)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Stopping the gulf war: things you can do (2/2)
Date: 3 Dec 90 00:13:36 GMT
Organization: University of Miami Department of Mathematics & Computer Science
 
Fwd from Peacenet:
/** mideast.gulf: 268.0 **/
** Topic: WHAT YOU CAN DO: WRITE OFFICIALS **
** Written 11:16 pm  Dec  1, 1990 by sfreedkin in cdp:mideast.gulf **
NO WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST: WHAT YOU CAN DO
INFORMATION SHEET #2 (OF 2):  CONTACTING GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
 
By Cathy McNamara
 
(c) 1990 by the Peace Resource Center of Santa Barbara.
    Groups may reprint if they notify Peace Resource Center
    (PeaceNet: sfreedkin), 331 N. Milpas #F, Santa Barbara,
    CA 93103-3203, tel. (805) 965-8583.  Credit to the Peace
    Resource Center of Santa Barbara appreciated.
 
 
    Past experience has proven that letters and phone calls
to Washington officials can affect government actions and
policies. Staff members estimate that one letter or call
indicates that up to 100 other constituents hold the same
opinion.
    Don't be intimidated about writing to a government
official. Use your own words to state your ideas and feelings
about the current situation. Most importantly, firmly state
your opposition to war and the use of military force in the
Gulf, and demand Congressional involvement in decisions,
citing the War Powers Resolution, which states in part:
  "The President in every possible instance shall consult
  with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces
  into hostilities or into situations where imminent
  involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the
  circumstances, and after every such introduction shall
  consult regularly with the Congress until the United States
  Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have
  been removed from such situations."
    Be sure to thank members of Congress who speak out
against war and promote patience and the use of sanctions
(Richard Gephardt, for example). Encourage them to continue
and increase such actions, and to lobby their colleagues to
do the same.
   If you have access to a word processor, this is a good
time to take advantage of its ability to send a similar
letter to everyone on this list, personalizing each with
names and comments.
   No time to write? Pick up the phone! Congressional and
White House operators will record your brief comments.
 
 
WHITE HOUSE, CABINET MEMBERS, AND PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORS
 
President George Bush
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
(202) 456-1111 (White House Comment Section)
 
James A. Baker III
Secretary of State
Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520
 
Dick Cheney
Secretary of Defense
Department of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1155
 
Brent Scowcroft
National Security Advisor
White House Office
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500
 
Gen. Colin L. Powell
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Department of the Army
The Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310
 
 
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
 
U.S. Congress Switchboard (any Senator or Representative):
  (202) 224-3121
 
U.S. Congress Generic Addresses:
  The Hon. (name)                  The Hon. (name)
  United States Senate             House of Representatives
  Washington, DC 20510             Washington, DC 20515
 
Rep. Thomas Foley, Speaker of the House
1201 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
 
Rep. Richard Gephardt, House Majority Leader
1432 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
 
Sen. George Mitchell, Senate Majority Leader
176 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510
 
Sen. Robert Dole, Senate Minority Leader
141 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510
 
Sen. Sam Nunn, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee
303 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510
 
Sen. Robert Byrd, President Pro Tempore of the Senate
311 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510
 
Sen. Alan Cranston, (202) 224-3553
112 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510
 
Sen. Pete Wilson (or successor), (202) 224-3841
720 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510
 
Rep. Robert J. Lagomarsino (R-Santa Barbara/Ventura)
Local:       505 E. Montecito Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93103
             963-1708
Washington:  2332 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington,
             DC 20515, (202) 225-3601
 
UNITED NATIONS OFFICIALS
(Family names are in ALL CAPITALS)
 
His Excellency Javier PEREZ DE CUELLAR
Secretary General of the United Nations
United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017
 
Representative LI Daoyu
Permanent Mission of China to the UN
155 West 66th Street, New York, NY 10023; (212) 787-3838
 
Representative Pierre-Louis BLANC
Permanent Mission of France to the UN
1 Dag Hammarskjold Plaza
245 East 47th Street, New York, NY 10017; (212) 308-5700
 
Representative Yuli VORONTSOV
Permanent Mission of the USSR to the UN
136 67th Street, New York, NY 10021; (212) 861-4900
 
Representative Sir Crispin TICKELL
Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the UN
845 Third Ave., 10th fl., New York, NY 10022; (212) 752-2710
 
Representative Thomas PICKERING
Permanent Mission of the United States to the UN
799 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017; (212) 415-4000
 
IRAQI AND KUWAITI OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES
 
Representative Ismat Taha KITTANI
Permanent Mission of Iraq to the UN
14 East 79th Street, New York, NY 10021, (212) 737-4434
 
His Excellency Dr. Mohamed Sadiq AL-MASHAT
Embassy of the Republic of Iraq
1801 P. Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 483-7500
 
Representative Mohamed A. ABULHASSAN
Permanent Mission of Kuwait to the UN
321 East 44th Street, New York, NY 10017, (212) 973-4300
 
His Excellency Shaikh Saud Nasir AL-SABAH
Embassy of the State of Kuwait
2940 Tilden Street NW, Washington, DC 20008, (202) 966-0702
** End of text from cdp:mideast.gulf **

    
    thanks, mike!
    

From a USENET mailing list (permission granted implicitly by the openning
    paragraph)...
     
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Extracted from MS. Magazine:
 
A MS. OPEN LETTER ON THE PERSIAN GULF CRISIS
This letter is a compilationof concerns expressed by Ms. readers and 
staff, and written at their suggestion. Please photocopy it and/or
modify it to express your sentiments (or to reflect relevant changes in 
the crisis since the time of this drafting); share it with friends, and
send copies to your political representatives, the White House, news-
paper editors, oil companies ...
________________________________________________________________________
 
Dear
 
We are angry at and weary of the way gender gaps in U.S. public opinion
are consistently ignored. Soon after the Gulf crisis began, CBS News Poll
showed 43 percent of women disapprove of the use of U.S. troops to force
Iraq from Kuwauit, as compared to 29 oercent of men.
 
1. We are alarmed at the rapidity and size of the U.S. deployment in the 
Gulf, and at the possibility of a U.S. first strike against Iraq. We
believe such a strike would be a tragic blow to any peace prospects
in the region.
2. We do not consider the U.S. role to be that of global policeman. We
believe the United Nations is the forum for conflict resolution and
the U.S. should act only under its aegis, through negotiation and/or
as part of a multinational peacekeeping force under the U.N. flag.
3. We note that the White House and the State Department cannot use
"defense of democracy" rhetoric to justify military intervention in
this case, since there little pretense of democracy in the Gulf States
concerned: Kuwait was ruled by a hereditary emir who dissolved the
parliament in 1986, and who has repeatedly denied women the right
to vote; Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy where no one has the
right to vote.
4. We therefore believe that the White House has committed the lives
of U.S. servicemen to protect the special interests of the oil industry__
an industry to which President Bush has had a particularly close ties
throughout his career. We also note that the U.S. citizens are being
robbed of our "peace dividend" so that the Pentagon and defense in-
dustry can be saved from melting in the Cold War thaw.
5. We feel that U.S. "national security" is best served by real domestic
security, that U.S. "strategic interests" would be better served by
reducing our dependence on oil, and that attention to the Gulf deploy-
ment would be better spent on conservation and on exercising emergency
powers to reestablish an alternative energy policy.
6. We call on Congress to act as representatives of the people, not as
a rubber stamp for the executive branch.
7. We note that the U.S. is psending $30 to $40 million per day on
Operation Desert Shield, but less than $602,000 per day on international
family planning programs   because of the previous and current admini-
strations' concern that abortion would be made available to women. We
will not forget such "pro-life", pro-war hypocrisy.
8. We stand in solidarity with U.S. military women in the Gulf who
are objecting to sexist practices announced by their commanding officers 
__ with the justification that such practices reflect Saudi culture.
Although we support women's right to be anywhere men are, we do not
believe that U.S. military_female or male- belong in the Gulf.
9. We stand in solidarity with Arab women who have stated clearly__
through such groups as Pan Arab Women's Solidarity Association__ that
they wish to see the crisis resolved among and by the Arab nations, 
or in an international forum, not by U.S. intervention.
10. We deplore all hostage-taking, and we stand in solidarity with
the refugees, mostly female and largely Asian, fleeing Kuwait and
Iraq. We are outraged at the harassment, rape, and murder of these
women. We condemn the brutal war crimes already being committed
against women in the Middle East.
11. We support the establishment of region-wide negotiations under 
United Nations auspices, to resolve not only this crisis but other
hostilities in the region, and to address the eradication of nuclear,
chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction.
12. We urge the immediate replacement of U.S. presence with United
Nations peacekeeping forces. Especially in light of the budget crisis,
we demand that funds requisitioned for the U.S. deplyment be put
to life-giving measures at home, including effective and just aid to
poor people, old people, the struggle against AIDS, and similar sane
priorities.
13. In sum, we will not stand silent while U.S. foreign policy prepares
us all for another Vietnam. We do not want loved family members, male
or female, returned to us in body bags, nor de we wish the blood of
others on our hands again.
Women have traditionally founded peace movements because we believe
in living for a cause, not dying for it. We are sick of systems that
equate manhood and honor with death and destruction. We insist on
peace for ourselves, the human family, and the planet.
 
Signed,
 
 
__________________________________
 
Name
 
 
__________________________________
 
Address
 

    How do you negociate with someone who has everything he wants, and no
    desire to return any of it to the rightful owners?
    

    
    thanks, d! that was the letter referred to in .121
    

    
    RE: D!
    
    
    >From a USENET mailing list (permission granted implicitly by the
    >opening paragraph)...
    
    
    The first paragraph also "solicits" Digital employees to act in a
    certain way which is against Digital Policy.
    
    
    FWIW....
    
    kathy

    Thanks for posting that letter, D!.
    
    -- Mike

    
    is a 'citation' of a solicitation a solicitation?
    

>    >From a USENET mailing list (permission granted implicitly by the
>    >opening paragraph)...
>    
>    The first paragraph also "solicits" Digital employees to act in a
>    certain way which is against Digital Policy.
    
    Not quite. This was asked of the Policy manager and his view was that
    such postings were acceptable under PP&P. It's different because
    someone outside of Digital is doing the solicitation. It was not a
    clear difference and opinions can change but I don't see a policy
    problem even though I disagree with the solicitation.
    
    			Alfred

    Kathy, I'm not soliciting anybody or anything.  DEC rules prohibit *me*
    from solicitation (of any sort ;-), but all I did was copy an article
    in from a magazine.  The *article* may be solicitous, but it was
    clearly marked as a quote, and therefore I am not encouraging any
    action at all, so I am not breaking any rules by posting it.  Hell, I
    was even posting it with (implicit) permission, thereforeit is *more*
    legal that many of the other articles copied into conferences.
    
    D!

    I heard something yesterday, from my daughter, and it was suggested to
    me by a friend, that I should try to add a note of levity to one of the
    many Persian Gulf notes around.  I only hope no one will think I am
    being disrespectful of the situation....I'm not by any means, but this
    gave me a really good chuckle....
    
    My daughter was up at about 3:00 a.m. yesterday morning with a very,
    sick husband.  At one point she was watching CNN News......The news
    person (don't know who he was) went to the next sheet on his agenda,
    stopped for a moment, shook his head and then began to read....
    
    "Baghdad has created its equivalent of Tokyo Rose in Baghdad Betty.
    She went on the air today with another propaganda lecture to try and
    demoralize our troops over there....(in particular, I guess, the men in
    this instance)......"Men" she said....."Your wives and girlfriends are
    all being unfaithful to you....They are all dating movie stars such as
    
    Tom Selleck.............
    
    		Burt Reynolds........
    
    			AND......
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Are ready for this, folks??????
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    B- A - R - T    S - I  -  M  -  P  -  S  -  O  -  N  ! ! ! ! ! 
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    8-)  8-)  8-)  8-)
    
    

    Bart?
    
    That slime!
    
    When I get my hands on that little twerp........
    
    

/** mideast.gulf: 283.0 **/
** Topic: Eric Hayes Resists Marine Service **
** Written  5:08 am  Dec  5, 1990 by mphillips in cdp:mideast.gulf **
On Friday, November 30, 1990, Lance Corporal Eric Hayes in
the United States Marine Corps Reserve declared at a 10:30
a.m. press conference that he is seeking a conscientious
objector discharge and refused to report for active duty in
the Persian Gulf.
 
The press conference was held at Southern Illinois University
in Edwardsville, Illinois.  Hayes is a Lance Corporal in the
Dragon Platoon of the 3rd Battalion of the 24th Marine
Reserve Division, a combat unit.  His unit was ordered to
report for active duty at their command headquarters at
Lambert Airport at 7:30 a.m. November 30; instead, he
announced his refusal to go.
 
The reservist is a graduate of Mercy High School in St. Louis
and presently a student at Southern Illinois University at
Edwardsville, Illinois.  He is a 24-year-old African American
who enlisted in the Marine Reserves in 1986 for six years of
active and two years of inactive service.
 
Supporting him in prepared statements were representatives of
the St. Louis Friends Meeting, the Mennonite Peace
Fellowship, the St. Louis Catholic Worker Community.  The
American Friends Service Committee arranged the press
conference and is serving as his support organization.
 
Hayes prepared the following statement:
 
     My name is Eric Hayes.  I am a Lance Corporal in the
     United States Marine Corps Reserve and an infantryman
     in a dragons platoon.  My primary MOS is rifleman in a
     weapons company.
 
     On August 18, 1986 I joined the Marine corps to become
     what I perceived to be a worth while venture.  My uncle
     served in Korea and my father in World War II.  I was a
     fully indoctrinated fighting machine after bootcamp.
     Totally unaware that the United States sponsored
     exploitative policies motivated by corporate and
     personal greed.
 
     I first became aware of U.S. policies through written
     testimony from Tom McCoy a former C.I.A. agent who
     helped expose illegal court actions by the Central
     Intelligence Agency around the world.
 
     Later I learned about the assassination of Patrice
     Lumumba and many other legitimate leaders of several
     other countries.  I can no longer blindly follow orders
     from my superiors.
 
     My deeply rooted moral convictions and knowing that to
     follow orders in any way to aid this war campaign would
     be wrong in the sight of God.
 
     I am deeply disturbed to read that 50-60% of troops in
     Saudi Arabia are of African and Mexican descent.
     Especially when Mr. Bush vetoed the civil rights bill.
     If we are to expect a kinder gentler nation maybe we
     should focus our attention on our own country to make it
     a better place for all of it's citizens.
 
     There are more African-American males in some form of
     penal institution than there are in college.  If you
     allow that percentage of a so-called minority to be
     killed in war then what are we lead to believe about
     claims of a kinder, gentler nation?
 
     I refuse to be a pawn in America's power play for oil
     profits in the Middle East.  It is morally wrong for the
     Bush administration to ask America to turn away from
     honest negotiations and continue the build up of
     military forces for a "showdown in the gulf."
 
     I refuse to take or endanger the lives of any legitimate
     government solely because of eocnomic or personal greed.
 
     I refuse orders to activate me into regular Marines.
 
     I will refuse orders to ship me to Saudi Arabia to
     defend our polluting, exploitive lifestyle.
 
     I declare myself a conscientious objector.
 
For further information, contact Bill Ramsey, AFSC, 438 N.
Skinker, St. Louis, MO 63130, 314/862-5773.
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.gulf **

    Did someone else see the Ross Perot (The Big Shot from Texas) being
    interviewed on ML Newshour?  I would love to get the transcript of it. 
    Coming from someine who would never in a million years be associated
    with ``left wing pinko libearal commi sympathisers'', his words just
    might be given some serious consideration.
    
    I got a real chuckle when he pointed out that the biggest mistake Bush
    made was to make the situation personal ("I have had it with Saddam
    Hussain).  Ross Perot commented "If that's the way he really feels,
    let's call Don King and have them fight it out, one on one in Atlantic
    City!"
    
    - Vikas

 
                         30 ACTS FOR PEACE
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1.  Write a letter to the editor.
2.  Write letters to your representatives, both in Congress and
        in the U.N.
3.  Participate in and/or plan a candlelight march/vigil.
4.  Participate in and/or plan a rally.
5.  Write a petition and get at least 40 people to sign it.  Send
        it to important people and newspapers.
6.  Call up talk shows and talk about the Middle East.
7.  Go to the nearest train station-bus stop-busy commuter
        place and leaflet, picket, talk to people.
8.  Wear a white arm band for peace.
9.  Fast for a day each month, or each week.  Explain to people
        why you're doing so.
10.  Be trained as a draft counselor.  Contact the Central
        Committee for Conscientious Objectors, 2208 South St,
        Phila., PA  19146  545-4626
11.  Attend a teach-in.
12.  Write your feelings on the situation down.  Make ten copies
        and send them to friends and relatives.
13.  Build/visit a shanty display on the crisis.  Sit and share
        your thoughts.
14.  Create an art piece expressing your feelings - a painting,
        sculpture, etc.
15.  Make a poster and have everyone sign a peace sign for each
        person they know in the Middle East.
16.  Send a plastic bag to Congress in a statement of "No more
        bodybags!"  Contact MPJN below for more info.
17.  Decorate and send a film canister to Congress saying "No
        blood for oil!"  Contact FoRecon. below for more info
18.  Join a national peace group.
19.  Put candles in your window each Friday night to join in
        sending a message of peace to the Iraqi families.
20.  Call Washington D.C. on December 13 or January 14th, or
        any other day.
        White House: (202) 456-1111, Congress: (202) 224-3121
21.  Join the National Campaign for Peace in the Middle East in
        D.C. Jan 26th.  See address below
22.  Tie white ribbons around trees.
23.  Make a display about the 100,000 bodybags being sent on
        troop planes.
24.  Reach out to high schools to provide draft counseling.
25.  Urge people to start their files to prove they are a
        Conscientious Objector.
26.  Read alternative press accounts of the situation.
27.  Use less energy and gas.
28.  Hug someone.
29.  Make copies of this and distribute them.
30.  Talk to people. Share yourself, teach others. Learn from
        others.
 
Created by Bryn Mawr/Haverford for Peace in the Middle East,
c/o Evan Manvel , Haverford College, Haverford, PA, 19041-
1392  (215)  642-3194  internet: E_Manvel@hvrford.acc.edu
 
National Campaign for Peace in the Middle East, P.O. Box 3009,
        Church Street Station, NYC,NY 10008  (212) 727-3069
American Friends Service Committee, 1501 Cherry Street,
        Philadelphia, PA 19102-1479  (215) 241-7000
War Resister's League, 339 Lafayette St., NYC, NY  10012
        (212) 228-0450
Fellowship of Reconciliation,  Box 271, Nyack, NY  10960
        (914) 358-4601
Middle East Justice Network, P.O. Box 558, Cambridge, MA
        02238  (617) 666-8061

    This is a form letter that Framingham, MA Friends Meeting received from
    the Friends Committe on National Legislation (FCNL).  The FCNL suggests
    that this be brought to town and city and state officials in the hopes
    that they will sign it; it would then be sent to the president.  The
    address for the president is:
 
        President George Bush
        The White House
        Washington, DC 20500
        (202) 456-1111 (White House Comment Section)
 
 
    		--------------------------
 
 
    Dear Mr. President:
 
 
    		WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER
    ===========================================================================
 
      We are gravely concerned about the possibility of war in the Middle
    East -- especially as the United States shifts from a defensive to
    offensive military posture in the region.
 
      We emphatically oppose the United States taking any offensive
    military action in the current crisis.
 
      War in the Middle East would be a human, political and economic
    catastrophe.
 
      War would result in a massive loss of lives -- including as many as
    10,000 - 50,000 Americans and untold numbers of other combatants and
    civilian casualties on all sides.  Chemical and even nuclear weapons
    might be used.  A fragile multilateral consensus and alliance would be
    shattered.  The entire Middle East could be engulfed in war.
 
      We believe the U.N.-sponsored embargo must be given every opportunity
    to work.  We believe that a multinational, diplomatic, and non-military
    solution can and must be found.
 
      We therefore strongly urge that:
 
       > No U.S. offensive military action be taken
       > Economic sanctions against Iraq be given time to work
       > the crisis be resolved through peaceful, diplomatic means
 
      This crisis requires visionary and courageous leadership.  Wisdom,
    diplomacy, patience and restraint must guide the United States as it
    works through the United Nations to resolve the crisis in the Gulf.

/** mideast.gulf: 330.0 **/
** Topic: FOUR STEP PROGRAM FROM FCNL **
** Written 10:09 pm  Dec 14, 1990 by jsax in cdp:mideast.gulf **
Subject: FOUR STEP PROGRAM FROM FCNL
 
/* Written  7:27 pm  Dec 14, 1990 by sncrom in cdp:fcnl.updates */
/* ---------- "Hotline for December 14, 1990" ---------- */
FCNL                     TELEPHONE TAPE - 12/14/90
 
This is the Friends Committee on National Legislation, with updated
legislative information.  To speak directly with a staff member, call
(202) 547-6000.
 
This message was prepared at 6 p.m. on Friday, December 14, 1990.  Barring
extraordinary circumstances this will not be updated until December 28.
It contains information and action suggestions on the Gulf crisis.
 
ACTIONS TO PREVENT WAR: In the effort to prevent a war in the Gulf region,
FCNL is recommending four specific steps which can be taken at the
grassroots level.  Our goal is to do what we can to prevent a war before
it starts.  Our immediate focus is on legislative action which can be
worked on now while Congress is at home during recess.
 
STEP 1: CONGRESS MUST DECIDE.  Congress should take control of its powers
and responsibilities in this situation.  Urge your senators and
representative to claim Congress's Constitutional responsibility to decide
whether to make war.  A resolution as been introduced by Representatives
Durbin IL and Bennett FL.  It reaffirms that Congress, and not the
executive, must act as an entire body before any offensive military action
can be taken in the Gulf.  Urge your members to support the Durbin-Bennett
resolution actively.
 
STEP 2: NO FUNDING.  Ask congressional members to take responsibility for
military spending.  Operation Desert Shield is being funded with money
that is off budget.  This means that every dollar spent on Desert Shield
raises the deficit beyond its already frightening level.  It is possible
that Rep. Dan Rostenkowski IL will request that a surtax should be levied
to pay for military action.  A surtax would make the war's cost highly
visible to ordinary Americans, and might provoke greater opposition to any
escalation.  Watch for any such legislation and urge your members to take
the ultimate step in preventing the war, by controlling the power of the
purse.
 
STEP 3: NO WAR.  Continue urging "no war, no offensive action." If and
when Congress takes up a war powers vote, members should feel that their
constituency strongly disagrees with taking military action in the Gulf.
This is our strongest tool.  The more questioning they hear, the better.
Urge your members to vote against any military action.
 
STEP 4:  ALTERNATIVE ENERGY.  Work to take away the cause of future "oil
wars."  In February 1991, the Bush administration will issue a major
report on U.S. energy policy.  The policy is expected to continue heavy
reliance on oil and other fossil fuels.  Let U.S. officials hear the
message that individuals and communities are willing to take strong steps
towards sustainable and alternative energy use.  Making significant
changes in our oil-dependent economy is one of the important long-term
steps toward preventing war.
 
This concludes our message.  For more information, please write to the
Friends Committee on National Legislation, 245 Second St., NE, Washington,
DC 20002.
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.gulf **

/** mideast.gulf: 347.0 **/
** Topic: Army Paratrooper writes from Saudi **
** Written  6:45 pm  Dec 18, 1990 by cscheiner in cdp:mideast.gulf **
 
The following letter was sent by a U.S.  Army reservist sergeant, a
paratrooper in Saudi Arabia, to a Manhattan College professor he had for
Peace Studies a few years ago.  While in the class, the Sergeant, a
veteran of the Grenada invasion, had continually disagreed with the
professor.
 
When his Reserve unit was activated and taught how to use chemical
weapons offensively, the sergeant began to rethink his opinions.  While
at Fort Dix awaiting deployment to the Middle East, he wrote the
professor saying that the professor had been right all along.  The
professor wrote back, and his letter was forwarded to the sergeant in
Saudi Arabia, who wrote the letter below in return.
 
The Sergeant is home now, after 90 days in the Gulf, working as a New
York City cop.  If war breaks out, he will probably have to go back to
Saudi Arabia.
 
This letter was printed in the November 29, 1990 issue of the
Quadrangle, the Manhattan College student newspaper.
 
              --------------------------------------
 
                                                     Saudi Arabia
                                                 October 24, 1990
Dr. Joseph Fahey
Peace Studies Department
Manhattan College
Riverdale, New York
 
Dear Dr. Fahey,
 
    I write this letter to you from the desert in Saudi Arabia. I
received your letter last night and was very surprised to hear from
you.
 
    I think it was good that the Pentagon has sent me over here, this
way I can see firsthand what is actually happening.
 
    More and more I feel the U.S. is pushing for a war that nobody
wants.  Not to say that Saddam is right; in fact, I feel he is out of
control.  However the fact of the matter is that as long as U.S.
troops are in Saudi Arabia, Iraq will not attack. A naval blockade
and U.N. sanctions will eventually work. Yet, guaranteed, the U.S.
will attack first and label it a "preemptive strike." How can it be a
"preemptive strike" if the U.S. Army thinks Saddam will not attack?
This I cannot understand.
 
    In my reserve unit we have seven Vietnam veterans. Each one of
them wants to leave, stating that "something smells" and they don't
like it.  To me, this is critical because these men have been through
this scenario before.
 
    For the past seven years I have been in the Army, two years
active and five reserve. I've always felt a strong sense of duty.
However, since Operation Desert Shield has started, I feel no
patriotism toward this military operation.  In 1983, as a 19-year-old
paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division, I swelled with pride
when we rescued the American students in Grenada, seeing them with
tears in their eyes and saying they would've been Cuban hostages if
it weren't for us. We all felt a sense of good. I feel no sense of
good here. We aren't defending democracy, since Saudi Arabia is a
monarchy. Women are slaves and foreigners are indentured servants.
American soldiers hide their religion: the Chaplain is called a
"morale officer," and Catholic services are called "C meetings." I
don't even feel we're helping friends. Dr. Fahey, how can the Saudis
be our friends when we're paying $1.50 for a gallon of gas, yet here
it costs 11 cents?
 
    Ever since my Army reserve unit was called up, many men in my
reserve unit are feeling the same way. In my reserve unit we have 14
NYC Police Officers, three NYC firefighters, IRS agents, customs
agents, and federal drug agents.  All upstanding citizens in their
community.
 
    In the Army, I am a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division
(Reserves); I love my country, and I serve her with pride. In the
civilian world, I am a NYC Police Officer; I love the City of New
York and I also serve her with pride.
 
    All I ask of people, especially young people, is that they not
take the President's word as Bible. We are allowed to decide our own
future, and that's what makes this country so great. It's your right
to question why.
 
This country could be just as great in peace, and just as strong through
peaceful means.  As Americans it is our right to question if our
interests really lie here in the Middle East.  If our country was
attacked or attack against our shores were imminent, myself and my
fellow troops would feel much differently.  However, this is clearly not
the case here.  Not at all.  As an Army reservist, I may be home next
month, or no later than February.  However, I feel this not only for
myself.  Army estimates that in a 6-week war, 20,000 - 30,000 Americans
will die and 250,000 wounded or crippled.  Is the price to pay worth it
for what we could accomplish through peaceful means?  I say definitely
not.
 
    Many soldiers here have written their representatives in
Washington voicing their concerns. The reason I write to you is
because I see how right you were 3-1/2 years ago, and how the U.S.
can abuse its military power.
 
    You can print my letter wherever you see fit. I feel that 20,000
Americans may live if more people spoke up.
 
    Please pray for all of us here in Saudi Arabia. God Bless America.
 
                                  Sincerely,
 
                                  Sgt. Andrew DeStefano
                                  Manhattan College Class of 1989
** End of text from cdp:mideast.gulf **

/** mideast.gulf: 345.0 **/
** Topic: Medical & Env. Effects of Gulf War **
** Written  5:50 pm  Dec 18, 1990 by fbp in cdp:mideast.gulf **
Subject: Medical & Env. Effects of Gulf War
 
/* Written  2:56 pm  Dec 12, 1990 by meduk4peace in gn:med_uk.general */
/* ---------- "GULF WAR:MED,ENVL,PSYCH REPORT" ---------- */
                                                           1
                    WAR IN THE GULF:
  A MEDICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
 
Foreign workers and hostages trapped in Iraq are being released.  But
the human and environmental consequences of a major conflict remain
huge.  The large Iraqi and Kuwaiti civilian populations remain exposed
to the effects of war, which may spread to neighbouring populations in
Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.
 
Official Secrecy
 
In Britain, preparations for a major war continue to be made; there is
new evidence of medical preparations for casualties on a massive scale.
But these preparations are shrouded in official secrecy.
 
On 3 December, responding to parliamentary questions, Secretary of State
for Health Virginia Bottomley refused to make public the Department's
guidance to regional health authorities on the reception and allocation
arrangements for armed forces casualties to the National Health Service
in time of war.(1) This secrecy is compounded because senior health
service managers are now required to sign the Official Secrets Act,
blocking the flow of information to clinicians and making it difficult
to plan properly for emergency admissions.
 
1. MEDICAL PREPARATIONS FOR A GULF WAR
 
Preparations are being made in the expectation of heavy war casualties.
But these measures cannot match their likely scale, because weapons of
mass destruction are involved, with large numbers of military forces on
each side and much larger civilian populations.
 
Recent medical preparations for war include:
 
A. NHS Hospitals:
 
- burns units in major acute hospitals across S England are on alert,
but recognise their limited capacity would be overwhelmed very quickly;
for example, the regional burns unit at Odstock Hospital (Salisbury) has
15 beds, but envisages a scenario of 10 serious burns cases per day for
10 days;
 
- hospitals in S England such as Wexham Park (Slough) are preparing
wards for war casualties and postponing non- urgent operations;
 
B. Military Hospitals:
 
- the eight military hospitals in Britain are not expected to be able to
cope so the Ministry of Defence has alerted civilian hospitals in
southern England to expect Gulf casualties; in Wessex region, despite
its two military hospitals at Gosport and Swindon, the 15 big acute
hospitals may also have to take casualties;
 
- civilian patients normally treated in military hospitals are being
discharged/reallocated wherever possible, forming an additional
immediate burden the the NHS; in 1988 military hospitals treated 238,000
civilians;
 
- as part of Ministry of Defence policy, vacated military hospitals will
be turned into 'post-acute care centres' in time of war; this means they
can no longer act as rehabiliatation centres for service casualties, and
in early January 1989 a parliamentary committee expressed concern that
proper arrangements for rehabilitating military casualties had not yet
been made.(2)
 
- Stonehouse naval hospital in Plymouth and Halsar in Portsmouth have
each turned a medical ward into mortuaries, which can take up to 100
dead per day;
 
C.  Medical Facilities in the Gulf
 
- Western armed forces hospital beds in the Gulf now total 6,000; there
are 1,200 British medical personnel;
 
- the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Argus has left Britain to form a floating
hospital in the Gulf; fitting out Argus as a hospital ship has cost 2.5
million;
 
- the military hospital at Aldershot has relocated its staff and
facilities to set up a 400-bed field hospital at Jubayl in Saudi Arabia,
with medical staff of 500 including 20 surgeons and anaesthetists;
 
- one blood transfusion centre (N London) is sending 100 units (= 50
litres) of blood per day to one British field hospital in Saudi Arabia;
extrapolating, 1,000 units per day may be being sent in total from other
centres; these supplies have a 35 day shelf-life;
 
- the Ministry of Defence wrote early in December to all medical
personnel in the Territorial Army (peacetime reservists) asking them to
volunteer urgently for active service;
 
- US preparations for casualties include 10,000 units of blood plasma
and 100,000 body-bags sent from Westover Air Force base (Massachusetts)
to the Gulf; Canada has also sent body-bags for a high proportion of its
troops;
 
The Inadequacy of these Preparations:
 
These escalating medical preparations indicate official views of the
likelihood and scale of war.  But they would be inadequate.  Angus
McGrouther, professor of plastic and reconstructive surgery at
University College Hospital, London, who helped treat soldiers injured
in the Iran/Iraq war and is an international authority in this field,
has stated:
 
"A planeload of casualties would soak up the capacity of military
hospitals within a matter of hours.  This was one of the lessons of the
Falklands war.  At the very most, the health service would be able to
treat only about 150 such casualties at one time.  There are no more
than 30 plastic surgery or burns units in the country, and they could
handle only five patients each because of the intensive treatment
required."(3)
 
Secretary of State for Health Virginia Bottomley stated on 3 December in
Parliament that no guidance has yet been given to NHS burns and plastic
surgery units, or to any other NHS medical service, in relation to Gulf
casualties.(1) She denied any arrangements for US casualties to use NHS
facilities.
 
The assessment of The Medical Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons, based on
this and on information which follows, is that a Gulf war would:
 
- kill or injure many of the civilians whom it is intended to liberate,
as well as many of the military forces on both sides;
 
- overwhelm medical services very quickly, denying life- saving medical
care to many of the injured;
 
- burden an already overstretched NHS with the long-term care of large
numbers of casualties.
 
2. THE MEDICAL CONSEQUENCES OF A GULF WAR
 
SUMMARY
 
- 314,000 military casualties, including 63,000 dead;
 
- over 1 million civilian casualties, including over 100,000 dead;
 
- casualties from the longer-term impact of blazing oil- wells and
chemical plants, and the destruction of living conditions,
infrastructure and resources in the Middle East are likely to exceed
immediate war-casualties, according to a new report (see LONG-TERM
HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES below).
 
Other consequences would include:
 
- refugees on a huge scale;
 
- profound economic effects worldwide, especially in USA, Eastern Europe
and the Third World, resulting from destruction of Iraqi and Kuwaiti
oil-fields;
 
- regional instability, increased Arab mistrust of the West, and a
grievance which may be pursued for decades to come.
 
It is clear that attempting to resolve the Gulf Crisis by a military
attack on Iraqi forces would yield only a Pyrrhic victory - the
consequences for both sides would be so great as to far outweigh any
gains.
 
MILITARY CASUALTIES were estimated by an independent Washington
thinktank (4) before American, British and Iraqi force-levels were
increased; estimating on the same basis, military casualties may now
total 314,000 troops on both sides, including 63,000 dead.  This may
well be an underestimate, as it assumes no significant use of Iraq's
chemical weapons and no use of the 1,000 nuclear warheads which will
have reached the Middle East by early January with some contingency
plans for their use (see 5. MILITARY FORCES IN THE GULF below).
 
Already, before hostilities have broken out, 50 US service personnel
have been killed in accidents and 2,000 hospitalised, including 1,000
serious cases flown to Germany for medical treatment.  Two British
servicemen have also been killed in accidents.
 
These casualty-estimates do NOT include the huge civilian populations
present in the area.
 
AT RISK from a Western attack on Iraqi forces are approximately 18
million civilians.  The Iraqi population totals 16.5 million and
Kuwait's 1.5 million (less those who have fled or died).  Whilst Western
media attention concentrated on the Westerners trapped in Iraq, these
were hugely outnumbered by the Asian and other migrant workers
(approximately 1.5 million) who may lack the means of leaving or whose
countries of origin may be unwelcoming.
 
Thus civilians far outnumber the military forces of both sides.  They
are concentrated in the population centres of Baghdad, Basra and Kuwait
City, which are strategic centres in the southern war-zone.
 
CIVILIAN CASUALTIES would be greater than military casualties, because
they are more numerous, located in strategically important areas, less
well informed, less protected from attack, and likely to receive much
less immediate medical care.  There have been estimates of 100,000
civilian casualties from an assault on Baghdad alone.(4) Again, this may
be an underestimate, because in wars during the 1980s, 84% of all
war-dead were civilians.(5) If this proportion is repeated in a Gulf
war, the number of civilian casualties will exceed 1 million, including
over 100,000 civilian deaths.
 
This catastrophic estimate cannot be discounted; in a Gulf war the
civilian populations would be subjected to weapons of indiscriminate
mass destruction, which were not used in most of the wars of the 1980s.
 
3. LONG-TERM HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
 
These would result from the destruction in Iraq, Kuwait and in
neighbouring countries of living conditions, infrastructure and
resources - notably oil-fields and chemical plants.  On 6 November at
the World Climate Conference King Hussein of Jordan reported his
scientists' calculations that a Gulf war would set ablaze the Kuwaiti
oil-fields, creating a poisonous cloud composed of carbon monoxide,
carbon dioxide, and sulphur dioxide.  This would have immediate health
consequences for survivors, with longer-term consequences in the whole
region.  King Hussein described such a war as "an ecological and
environmental disaster on a world scale...beyond our wildest fears".
 
The UK Prime Minister minimised any environmental consequences of a Gulf
war, saying "on any realistic estimate the main effect would be to
increase annual world CO2 emissions by a small amount", in answer to a
parliamentary question on 6 December.(6)
 
This complacency has been contradicted by a new and independent
assessment of the longer-term environmental consequences of a Gulf war,
which argues that the major adverse effects will result from smoke and
local ozone depletion.(7) Engineering consultant Dr John Cox notes that
"...within 1000 miles of Kuwait itself, the pall of smoke (from blazing
oil-wells) could be several times that predicted by the nuclear war
scenarios...these predict failure of the Asian monsoons...Upwards of
1000 million people depend on the annual rains for their crops and could
face starvation."
 
Dr Cox continues:  "In addition to direct climatic consequences of
uncontrolled burning, smoke is an ozone- scavenger and creates localized
ozone holes...the consequences of an ozone hole over the Indian
subcontinent would be unimaginable...the casualties from the long-term
effects are likely to exceed those to the combatants.  A population of
several hundred millions would be in the affected region and, directly
by the impact of UV radiation or indirectly from the failure of crops,
would suffer."
 
Epidemics of cholera and typhoid could also result from the breakdown of
sanitation, clean water, food supplies, and health care, and from
survivors' increased susceptibility to disease.
 
Dr Morris Bradley, Director of the Richardson Institute for Conflict and
Peace Research at Lancaster University, states:  "The full costs of a
high-technology war in the Gulf must be measured in terms of the
consequences for a large proportion of the world's population.  These
costs would follow from world-wide political instability, the
dislocation of patterns of trade, commerce and supply of vital
resources, and environmental damage.  For the vulnerable in society, for
struggling economies and for emergent democracies, these costs may be
extreme."(8)
 
HERO - Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordnance - further
increases the dangers of a Gulf war and complicates any assessment of
casualties likely to result.  Modern weapons systems generate electronic
emissions and electrical energy on an unprecedented scale; the emissions
of one weapons-system may disrupt the electronic control of other
weapons systems, causing them to malfunction.  Command and control
centres may be particularly prone to HERO; command and control would
have a crucial role in coordinating the disparate national forces making
up the anti-Iraq military coalition if an attack is launched.  Although
HERO has received little public attention, the military are familiar
with its unpredictable effects.  HERO has been implicated in many
military accidents.  During the 1986 US bombing of Libya from British
airbases, an F16 bomber crashed as a result of HERO.  In a major modern
conflict, as a war in the Gulf would be, the opportunities for
HERO-effects would be enormous and unpredictable.(9)
 
4. THE MILITARY FORCES IN THE GULF
 
IRAQI FIGHTING CAPABILITIES have received little attention until
recently.  A new assessment by is available from BASIC (the British
American Security Information Council) in London (fax 011-44-1 497 9141;
tel 011-44-1 379 4924).
 
Weaponry in place ready to fight a Gulf war warrants pessimistic
estimates of military and civilian casualties.  The nearly 18 million
civilians in Iraq and Kuwait would be exposed to a wide variety of
weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction.  For example:
 
CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS now produce blast and heat effects equivalent to
small nuclear weapons.  'Area-munitions' are designed to spread
destruction simultaneously over a very broad area.  If not used solely
in large areas known to be wholly devoid of civilians they will cause
civilian casualties in contravention of international law.
 
Aerosol bombs are one such weapon developed by the USA.  These
impregnate air over a target with fine droplets of highly inflammable
hydrocarbons and then ignite them, creating intense heat and blast.  US
authorities have stated that they suspect Iraq has also developed
aerosol bombs.
 
Another US area-munition creates, in one minute, 8000 explosions
scattering high velocity shrapnel fragments over an area of 40 acres,
from a distance of 20 miles.  It can be reloaded and fired again within
minutes.  Death rates would approach 40% and of the survivors 30% would
be seriously injured.
 
CHEMICAL WEAPONS have been used by Iraq against its Kurdish minority and
Iran.  Iraq possesses up to 2,000 tonnes of chemical weapons.  German
plants supplied to Iraq can produce up to 40 tonnes of mustard gas per
month, and 4 tonnes each of the nerve gases sarin and tabun.  Presumably
Iraq may use these weapons whenever it is militarily advantageous to do
so.  Western military forces have some protection against chemical
attack, although this reduces their fighting ability, rendering them
more vulnerable to other forms of attack.  But the civilian population
will be largely unprotected, particularly the 1.75 million non-Iraqis in
Iraq.
 
NUCLEAR WEAPONS - US, British and French - are present in the Gulf, in
large and increasing numbers.  At the moment the USA has 700 nuclear
warheads in the region, 300 land- based in Turkey and 400 on US Navy
ships and submarines.  In January this force will have increased to six
aircraft carrier battle groups, naval nuclear weapons to 710 warheads,
and total US nuclear warheads in the region to 1,000.  Virtually all
these nuclear weapons are long-range sea-launched cruise missiles and
aircraft-delivered nuclear bombs.(10) In addition, the two British
destroyers have several nuclear weapons and the French aircraft carrier
has between 8 and 18 nuclear bombs and air to surface missiles.  A
Soviet ship in the Gulf may also be nuclear-armed.
 
There must be some conditional intention to use these nuclear weapons,
despite the presence of many civilians, with human consequences familiar
from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  However, these nuclear weapons are many
times more destructive.
 
Israel has stated that, if subjected to chemical attack, it will respond
with nuclear weapons.  Iraq has stated that if a Western offensive is
launched, it will immediately widen the conflict to involve Israel.
 
Other Middle Eastern countries have received new high technology
armaments as part of the Western military effort against Iraq.  Saudi
Arabia has received $20 billion of the latest US weaponry, including F15
fighter planes.  This may increase to $23 billion if Saudi requests for
the new Multiple Launch Rocket System are agreed.  If these weapons
remain after the immediate crisis is resolved, they will threaten
regional stability and accelerate the regional arms race.  Already other
countries, notably Israel, are demanding matching equipment from USA.
 
FORCE-LEVELS also indicate the potential destructiveness of a Gulf war.
Iraqi armed forces have been increased to over one million, USA is
deploying 450,000 troops, West Europe 75,000 (including a British
component being increased from 16,000 to 30,000), Saudi Arabia 67,000,
Egypt 20,000, with some other smaller national deployments.  In addition
Syria has armed forces totalling 400,000 and Turkey 647,000, which are
able to open a second front in the north or reinforce in the south.
 
It is likely that half of the Iraqi, Syrian and Turkish forces will be
involved in a stand-off on the northern front.  This leaves the armed
forces committed to combat in the south totalling less than the 1.75
million foreign workers and hostages in Iraq.  This indicates further
that civilian casualties will far outweigh military casualties.
 
FINANCIAL COSTS of these deployments also indicate their scale and,
perhaps, the pressure to justify their presence by some form of military
action.  Without a shot being fired in anger, the costs are already
huge.  US deployments had a budget of $11.3 billion, which may well be
exceeded now reservists and the National Guard are being called up.  In
addition, Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Turkey have demanded cancellation of
debts to USA for previous arms purchases.  Britain's smaller deployment
has cost 75 million initially, with daily costs of 1 million and a
projected total of 600 million this year.  Since then, British forces in
the Gulf have been doubled, with an additional expenditure of 480
million budgeted so far.  On 8 November the Chancellor of the Exchequer
told the House of Commons that "financial constraints will not hinder in
any way the UK's military contribution to resolving the Gulf Crisis".
 
SCENARIOS for the use of these weapons are many but, in the end,may make
little difference to the likely consequences of a Western attack on Iraq
or Kuwait.  Even with the most limited scenario - a military attempt to
relieve the beleaguered Western embassies in Kuwait City - Saddam
Hussein could not be sure that this was not merely a precursor to or
distraction from a much larger assault.  As soon as any conflict breaks
out, he will be under pressure to use his most destructive weapons
immediately or risk losing them to the superior US and other air power
and naval forces.
 
5. ALTERNATIVES TO WAR
 
There are alternatives to war in the Gulf, and they promise a better
outcome for all concerned.  Regional security and stability is the
long-term solution to the current Gulf crisis.  Successful non-military
coercion of Iraq will assist the development of a Middle Eastern
security structure, whereas military destruction of Iraq will further
threaten it.
 
SANCTIONS have been the main form of coercion, and have been achieved
through unprecedented international cooperation within the UN.  On 7
November the head of UN committee monitoring sanctions said that the
embargo was generally effective and should begin to seriously constrain
Iraq early next year.  She suggested further ways of tightening the
embargo.  The CIA now estimates that Iraq is deprived of more than 90%
of its goods and services; by next spring only some energy-related and
military industries will still be able to operate; 43% of both Iraqi and
Kuwaiti GNP has been eroded by sanctions.(11)
 
It has always been the expectation that sanctions would take many months
to have effect.  They are becoming effective.  So how can the increasing
readiness for war amongst a minority of Western political leaders be
justified?
 
 
6. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF WAR
 
MEDIATION & CONFLICT RESOLUTION techniques have been refined and used to
good effect in other crises.  This experience offers a means of pulling
back from the brink of war in the Gulf.  But for mediation and conflict
resolution to get started there must be some willingness to negotiate;
this does not involve conceding that there was any justification for
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.  Ultimatums and a refusal to negotiate
effectively preclude the use of these alternative, non-violent methods
of resolving conflicts.
 
In the process of resolving conflicts peacefully, it is important to
encourage and reinforce the non-warlike, reasonable, humanitarian
tendencies of national leaders so that, for example, George Bush does
not feel a 'wimp' unless he goes to war in the Gulf and Saddam Hussein
receives acclaim rather than humiliation for retracting his aggression
against Kuwait.  The pressure of professional advice and public opinion
should be positive - in support of a leader's flexibility, determination
to find peaceful alternatives to war, and understanding of his
opponent's grievance - rather than being negative - criticizing the
leader's intransigence and his determination to prove his arms are
mightier.  Peace movements often pursue the second course, thus
contributing to the psychological pressures on a leader to go to war,
although expressing opposition to it.
 
Resolving the Gulf crisis by such methods and attitudes would also boost
confidence in our collective ability to build a more just, secure and
peaceful world order.
 
IS VIOLENCE INEVITABLE, OR DO WE HAVE A CHOICE?
 
A belief in the probable necessity of force to compel compliance may be
sincere, but it is based on a dubious view of human nature.  This view
holds that humanity is inherently aggressive and will act aggressively
unless constrained by counter-threats.
 
Scientific enquiry has established that, rather than being driven by
barely controllable instincts, humans are most powerfully influenced by
their membership of a particular group, such as a nation.  We are
primarily social animals, whose behaviour is determined far more by
social pressures than by any innate aggression.  This is illustrated in
many experiments by social and behavioural psychologists, such as those
of Asch (12) and Milgram.(13) In 1985 a distinguished group of
behavioural scientists published the Seville 'Statement on Violence'
which substantiates these points.(14)
 
War may seem advantageous for two reasons:  it benefits groups and
leaders, at least in the short-term.  When nations or cultures are in
conflict they respond in a predictable way.  Threat from without is met
by increased conformity and cohesion within the group, which can give a
sense of comradeship, as some found during the Falklands War.  This is
associated with intensified stereotyping and derogatory, distorted
perception of the 'enemy', which justifies our violent behaviour towards
him.(15) Such stereotyping also intensifies our perception of threat,
induces reciprocal threats from us, and moves the conflict towards its
expression in violence.  But this non-rational process towards war can
be reversed - by becoming aware of the process and making rational
choices in favour of other outcomes, by discovering some mutuality in
common threats or shared goals which transcend the conflict, and by the
need for cooperation between conflicting groups.
 
Leaders also benefit from war, in the short-term.  It clarifies for the
group its sense of purpose and identity, which the leader comes to
embody.(16) By reducing the tolerance of diversity within the group, it
makes the group easier to lead.  As conflict favours leadership, so it
also favours an autocratic style of leadership.  Few leaders relax their
grip on power readily, and most instinctively grasp opportunities to
strengthen it; war provides such an opportunity.
 
War is, above all, self-flattering:  the enemy is bad and 'we' are good.
Although the forces of destruction we use may be identical to those of
the enemy and the circumstances in which we use them very similar, a
partial view of history justifies our actions and condemns his.
 
These other, undeclared purposes of war help explain why, although it is
so destructive to all parties, it is still perceived as an advantageous
option in some circumstances.
 
REDUCING THE INDIVIDUAL'S CAPACITY TO THINK
 
Statements directly threatening Saddam Hussein not only arouse his
hostility and that of his followers but also have an effect on our own
public.  They make the likelihood of war seem greater, and thus
reinforce individual defensive processes of denial and repression,
thereby decreasing individuals' potential capacity for independent
thought and action.  A further result is increased dependence on leaders
actually motivated by power.
 
Professor Norman Dixon (17) has pointed out that the greater the
build-up of weapons and personnel, the greater the chances of war
starting by accident or through boredom or low morale.  The wealth of
equipment may also give a false sense of reassurance, increasing the
risk of action to justify its presence.  The 'weapons effect',
discovered by Berkowitz (18), shows that the mere presence of weapons
can exert an irrational, largely unconscious bias towards more
aggressive options.  Irrational and impulsive behaviour occurs more
frequently under stress.
 
FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTIONS
 
Thus the task of preventing war in the Gulf and insisting that there are
better solutions involves breaking down these distorted perceptions of
the 'enemy'.  Preventing war involves interrupting the psychological
process by which other options are foreclosed and war comes to seem the
only solution.
 
A move towards a more balanced picture of the world would be made if
Western political leaders recognised that Saddam Hussein is the same man
with whom the West was happy to do business, supporting him for eight
years against Iran; that the weapons we now fear are largely those we
supplied or helped him develop; that the boundaries disputed are those
created by the West in earlier imperial decades; that Western countries
have also used military might to impose their will on smaller nations;
and that hostage-holding is not an innovation - the nuclear deterrence
maintained by the superpowers for 40 years involves a permanent threat
against the civilian populations of states perceived as threats, and has
been valued as an effective form of deterring attack and maintaining
'peace'.
 
The penalties for failing to intervene in this accelerating
psychological process are the huge casualties and other devastation
resulting from a major modern war.
 
7. REFERENCES
 
1.  Hansard, 3 December 1990, col.32.
2.  Proceedings of the Committee of Public Accounts,
Ministry of Defence, Service Hospitals, 18 January 1989
3.  The Times, 27 October 1990.
4.  Private communication, Center for Defense
Information, Washington, 8 November 1990.
5.  World Military & Social Expenditures 1989, Ruth Leger
Sivard, World Priorities Inc.
6.  Hansard, 6 December 1990, col.165
7.  'Environmental Consequences of a Gulf War', Dr John
Cox, consultant chemical and environmental engineer; for
details, contact MCANW.
8.  Private communication, 10 December 1990
9. 'Deadly Rays in the Desert Shield', Patricia Axelrod,
defence researcher at the Richardson Institute of
Conflict and Peace Research, Lancaster University, and
Captain Daniel Curtis, military electronics engineer; 16
November 1990; available from MCANW office.
10.  'Nuclear Ships in the Middle East', Greenpeace
Briefing, 1 December 1990.
11.  The Observer, 9 December 1990.
12.  Studies of Independence and Conformity,
Psychological Monographs, 1956.
13.  Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 67,
371-378.
14.  Medicine and War, 1987, 3, 191-193.
15.  Journal of Social Issues, 1960, 17, 46-48
16.  Improving Leadership Effectiveness: The Leader Match
Concept, Wiley.
17.  Why Do Leaders Mislead? The Nuclear Mentality, 1989,
Pluto.
18.  How Guns Control Us. Psychology Today, 1981, 15, 6,
11-12.
 
MEDICAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST NUCLEAR WEAPONS
601 Holloway Rd, London N19 4DJ
(GN: meduk4peace)
(fax 071 281 5717)
(tel 071 272 2020)
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.gulf **

    	Has anyone else seen or heard the Amnesty International report on
    Kuwait?  The report details mass murders, "dissappearences" of large
    numbers of individuals (in other countries individuals who dissappear
    only reappeared in skeletal form), and numerous other violations of
    basic human rights.
    	
    

    	As far as sanctions working to remove the invaders from Kuwait is
    concerned:  The most important and probably effective sanction against
    Iraq is the presence of a large number of troops who appear to be
    prepared to take military action.  The economic sanctions (which can
    only be imposed by force of arms) are ineffective at preventing
    supplies of most sorts from reaching Iraq.  There is a thriving trade
    going on with several neighboring countries.  The trade consists of
    consumer and other goods looted from Kuwait in exchange for food and
    other supplies.  
    	Many of the countries in the region are willing to ignore smuggling
    because of the economic benefits, or in the case of Iran to spite
    the United States.  Much of the smuggling is going through Kurdish
    areas.  The Kurds have no reason for loyalty to any side in the
    conflict, and perceive it to be to their benefit to trade with any side
    that may help their own interests in the future.
    						John
    

/** mideast.gulf: 348.0 **/
** Topic: Treatment of foreign workers in Kuw **
** Written  6:46 pm  Dec 18, 1990 by jsax in cdp:mideast.gulf **
Subject: Treatment of foreign workers in Kuw
 
/* Written  1:50 pm  Dec 15, 1990 by gt8145a in cdp:talk.pol.mideast */
/* ---------- "Treatment of foreign workers in Kuw" ---------- */
Germain Greer writes in the New York Times of Nov 14, 1990:  "Our Allies,
the Slave Holders"
 
        "Foreign workers in the gulf have no rights and no representation.
Their fate is in the hands of the employer and his family.  Children are
taught to discipline--to insult, pinch, slap and pull the hair of--servants
who displease them.  Many servants have to carry buzzers so that they are
on call at all hours.   They are not allowed to do their own shopping or
cooking, and eat only what is left after their employers and guests have
been fed.
 
...Occasionally, desperate servants run away, but with no money, no
documents and no command of Arabic they had nowhere to go but to the
police, and the police would promptly return them to their employers.
 
        We are not proceeding with all flags flying to the rescue of 500,000
foreign workers, or of the 350,000 Palestinians who found temporary
refuge in Kuwait or even of the professionals who are admitted to Kuwait
for the term of their working lives only to be unceremoniously kicked out
at retirement age.
 
        We are sending our finest to defend the 8.6% of the total Kuwaiti
population of three million or so who are allowed the rights of
citizenship, namely the male descendants of males resident in Kuwait in
1920.  We are risking a war that could poison the planet at the same time
as it scuttles our precarious economy, to restore an idle and luxurious life
style that depends upon the daily humiliation and degradation of hundreds
of thousands.  And we are taking the slave owners' money for doing it.
 
        Seven million Kurds did not become our friends when whole villages
lay dead of Iraqi nerve gas.  Though they pleaded for relief and assistance,
nobody heard.  Like the working women whose screams echoed among the
Kuwait City high rises, the Kurds are poor, to poor to command so much as
a frontier of their own.  We do not make friends among such as they, no
matter how cruelly our enemies oppress them.
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.gulf **

    
    Thanks a lot for entering these.
    
    D.

    
    keep it up, mike! 
    

    Hi my name is Silvia and unfortunately this really effects my life.
    
    Being a german citizen I just saw how we (Germany) reunified.
    The cold war we had to live with for years was over all of a sudden.
    
    Now a couple month later, my Fiance (we were supposed to get married in
    Feb. 91) had to leave for Operation Dessert Shield.
    He is serving in a Combat Unit in the US Army, which moreless means he
    will be Frontline.
    
    To me it seems so unrealistic, because I just saw how people can solve
    problems by talking and now I have to watch 2 guy's showing their
    strength by pulling so manny men and women out to the dessert.......
    
    My questinon so is: does anyone know of how to work E-mail ?!?!
    
    My fiance's Battalion will have computers out there and just in case
    there might be important messages besides "I Love You" , how could we
    possibly link up with them ?!?!
    
    I already thought about writing to Ken Olson about that and ask
    permission to use E-mail for any real important stuff.
    
    What do you guy's think ?!?!?
    
    Fell free to send mail to Frais::Merrell
    
    Thank you Silvia

        re .-1,
        
        Mail from outside of Digital should be addressed to
        
        	merrell@frais.enet.dec.com
        
        to get to you.
        
        Dan

1914-1917

1939-1941

1990-?

		Talk morality while others bleed and die.

    With all the patriotic concern about supporting our troops in Saudi
    Arabia, which includes sending them gifts, it has occurred to me that
    we are neglecting one important area of the war effort right here in
    the United States.

    Now that so many soldiers have been shipping out of Fort Carson in
    Colorado Springs lately, this is clearly having a devastating effect on
    one area of our local economy.  I am referring, of course, to the
    prostitutes on South Nevada Avenue, who are necessarily losing many of
    their military customers.  I would therefore like to propose that, in
    conjunction with Operation Desert Shield, we establish a local relief
    effort, which I suggest we name Operation Dalkon Shield, to help these
    people survive the tough times that our nation demands.

    I would like to point out that prostitutes are patriotic Americans just
    as much as you and I, and yet they are bearing the brunt of the
    economic suffering brought about by our nation's Divine mandate to make
    the world safe for wealthy and repressive Arab emirs.  Why should they
    be the scapegoats?  Not only that, but they contribute to our local
    economy as well, and when they lose disposable income, other jobs could
    suffer as well.

    As long as prostitution remains limp (so to speak) in our community, I
    would like to suggest several thrusts (so to speak) of action.  First,
    we could airlift customers in from other communities, especially those
    that lack a strong military presence and which therefore are not
    suffering from Trick Loss (the scientific term for this phenomenon).  We
    also might want to set up relief drives, where we would distribute free
    necessities, like food, blankets, coats, and condoms.

    I welcome further suggestions for how we can promote this humanitarian
    campaign.  

    RE: .150
    	
    	:-) :-) :-)!!!!!
    
    	[I haven't laughed so hard at work in a while, I loved it! :-)]
    
    	Right on Mike! Thanks for entering all these too...
    
    	-Erik

    a-hem
    
    
    And just *how* do you propose to "do your part?"
    
    

    E Grace,
    
    I just asked him that!
    
    Bonnie

    Well, E, I am afraid I am going to be far too much of a busy bee to be
    involved in this campaign myself.
    
    :-)
    
    -- Mike

    --Mike
    
    I'd have thought you were much to broke to get involved!
    
    Bonnie

/** mideast.actions: 33.0 **/
** Topic: WOMEN'S FAST AT WHITEHOUSE 1/15 **
** Written  6:54 pm  Dec 20, 1990 by hfeldman in cdp:mideast.actions **
 
WOMEN'S FAST FOR PEACE
    Washington D.C.
 
Beginning January 15, 1991
Sponsored by Colorado Campaign for Middle East Peace
 
Join deeply concerned women from all over
the country gathering in our nation's capitol
fast for peace.  The gathered women will:
 
   +Create a dramatic and visible presence in front
    of the White House to draw attention to the deep
    concern of women for peace and the total unaccept-
    ability of a war with Iraq.
 
   +Fast until the threat of war in the Persian Gulf is
    ended (or until those fasting make a decision to stop).
 
   +Affirm the sacredness of all life in the Middle East.
 
   +Mourn our country's leadership in providing violent
    solutions, rather than peaceful negotiated settlements,
    to the world's problems.
 
   +Support the United Nations as a world conflict-resolution
    body.
 
   +Express our solidarity with women all over the world whose
    families are victims of war and poverty.
 
   +Insist on peace for ourselves, the human family, and the
    planet.
 
The final statements of purpose, actions while in D.C., and other
plans will be made by consensus with the group of women who gather in
Washington to begin the fast.  We will make initial arrangements for a
first meeting, make arrangements to stay in inexpensive housing, and
arrange for initial publicity and endorsement.  All other decisions
and plans will be made by the women gathered.  We hope that, as some
women have to give up the fast, we will be joined by others.  We will
make every effort to preserve our health and to obtain medical
supervision as we are fasting.  As yet, we have no large amount of
funding, but hope that individual women can raise their own
transportation money and small amounts for housing and local
transportation.
 
Your participation, ideas, support, and prayers are urgently needed.
 
Contact: WOMEN'S FAST FOR PEACE
         Kate Goodspeed, coordinator
         303-538-4805
         303-457-4048
         13352 Ash Circle
         Denver, CO 80241
 
or c/o hfeldman on PeaceNet.
** End of text from cdp:mideast.actions **

Fwd from Peacenet conference gn.peacemedia.
(gn.peacemedia contains issues of 'Peace Media Service' provided
by Peace Media Service based in the Netherlands:
Kanisstraat 5, NL-1811 GJ Alkmaar,
telephone: +31/72 11 25 45
fax:       +31/72 15 41 80 )
 
More than a hundred British religious leaders and theologians, including
16 bishops and a cardinal, have issued a statement in which they argue
that the conditions are not present for a just war in the Persian Gulf.
The text was made public at a press conference in London November 26.
 
The 110 signers concluded "that a military offensive against Iraq by
predominantly Western forces would not promote a just peace.  The
environmental, human and psychological damage would last for
generations.  Britain and its allies should use their forces to make UN
sanctions work and let the Arab governments bargain for a new political
arrangement in the region which might hold out a hope of a better life
for the masses of poor people who inhabit it."
 
While the invasion of Kuwait and the brutal treatment of Kuwaitis were
recognized as providing a just cause, the signers declared that
"Christian teaching about a just war demands more than a just
cause....It demands that no action should irreparably damage the chances
of the just peace that the Middle East obviously needs."  They placed
their objections under four headings:
 
Last resort:  "The time-table of war seems to be dictated more by
threats from Western leaders and the build-up of offensive capability
than by the necessarily slow process of sanctions and diplomacy.
Sanctions have not failed, nor do they appear to be failing.  Coupled
with the patient methods of Arab mediation and bargaining, they are more
likely in the end to produce lasting peace in the region.  Last resort
should truly be last."
 
Legitimate authority:  "In international law there is the customary
right to aid states which have become objects of an unlawful use of
force.  Western leaders have claimed that sufficient authority for war
has already been given by the Kuwaiti request for intervention; other
voices insist that only the United Nations Security Council should
authorize it.  But there is another side to this question:  the massive
Western military presence appears to many ordinary Arabs as the latest
example in a long history of interventions by foreign armies in their
region, for which it is always Arabs who pay the price in blood.  Their
voices too deserve to be heard.  Not even a United Nations Security
Council resolution would be sufficient authority for war if the other
conditions for justice were absent."
 
Right intention:  "Right intention in this case would be the expulsion
of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and the restoration of its legitimate
government.  It would not include destruction of the Iraqi state.  Arabs
understandably ask why it is only now that the militarism of Saddam
Hussein is being opposed, when for years he fought an offensive war
against another of his neighbors supplied and encouraged by the
countries now condemning him; built chemical weapons and nuclear plants
with European know-how; and committed atrocities against his own
citizens without any serious international protest.  Faced with such
facts the Arabs will supply their own answers to the question of
intentions.  They are likely to include the promotion of Western
economic interests, the establishment of a permanent military presence
in the region, and the permanent division of the Arab nation.  The
question needs a convincing answer from those preparing for war."
 
Proportionate response:  "Even if other methods fail, war would be
unjust if it were to bring about a manifestly greater evil than the one
it is intended to remove.  A proportionate response would require an
announced objective strictly limited to expelling Iraqi forces from
Kuwait, and means commensurate with that objective, not involving the
invasion of Iraq proper.  Such a restricted action on the part of the
forces, mostly Western, now ranged against Saddam Hussein seems highly
unlikely; it is improbable that a just peace would result from a strike
by them against Iraq.  The Middle East is not all desert:  something in
the order of 50 million people live in the area which would be directly
affected by a war.  About one million soldiers now face each other in
one of the most heavily armed regions of the world.  Because of the vast
armories involved, the scale of destruction threatens to be greater than
anything since World War II.  There is a high likelihood of
indiscriminate air attacks on centers of population in a number of
countries, including Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel.
Iraq has a well-known willingness to use chemical weapons if attacked,
and if the United States and Israel both deploy nuclear weapons in this
area King Hussein of Jordan has rightly said that a war would be `an
ecological and environmental disaster on a world scale'."
 
Among the signers are Cardinal Gordon Gray, Primate of the Catholic
Church in Scotland, eight bishops of the Anglican Communion, eight Roman
Catholic bishops, heads of the Jesuit, Dominican and Franciscan orders,
the heads of theological schools, editors of theological journals,
professors, lawyers, and writers.  While Pax Christi and Christian CND
assisted in circulating the text for signatures, the project is
independent.
 
[The list of signers is available from Christian CND, 162
Holloway Rd., London N7, England UK; tel +44.71: 700.2393; fax
700.2357]
 
 
US CATHOLIC BISHOPS ISSUE GULF WARNING
 
In a 249-15 vote, the American Catholic hierarchy endorsed sharp
limitations on any use of US military force in the wake of Iraq's
invasion of Kuwait.  In a statement released November 12, they said
church principles rule out targeting civilians.
 
The bishops urged the US administration to "stay the course of
persistent, peaceful, and determined pressure against Iraq" for a
nonviolent solution.  Reviewing the principles for a just war, the
bishops questioned that a real and certain danger exists in the Gulf
which can only be confronted by war.
 
Archbishop Roger Mahony, on behalf of the National Conference of
Catholic Bishops, warned Secretary of State James Baker that a war
"would jeopardize many lives, raise serious moral questions and
undermine international solidarity against Iraq."
 
Earlier, 26 US Roman Catholic bishops signed a Pax Christi USA statement
urging US forces in the Gulf not to obey orders or policies aimed at
killing noncombatants.  [see story in PM 18] They expressed support for
conscientious objectors and condemned any blockade of food or medical
supplies to Iraq.
 
`EACH SIDE HAS A PIECE OF THE TRUTH': BUDDHISTS ON GULF CRISIS
 
Deploring both the Iraqi take-over of Kuwait and the US military
response, the Buddhist Peace Fellowship has appealed for a negotiated
solution within the framework of the United Nations.  Extracts from the
BPF statement:
 
"Reconciliation occurs when all have a choice to speak and be heard.  As
Gandhi stated, each side in a conflict has a piece of the truth.  We
advocate listening to all sides.  In this situation one viewpoint is
that the US must protect the free world for democracy and cannot let a
`Hitler' control access to much of the world's oil supply.  Another
view-point holds that the Arab world is controlled by elite monarchies
who control all of the wealth while the majority of people suffer.  Can
we drop our idea of what is right and allow for a new understanding to
emerge?  Can we listen to both sides with an open mind and heart?  It is
in this way that a true settlement, not just a temporary precarious
solution, can occur.
 
"We have all contributed in some way to the present crisis and it is up
to each of us to look closely into our own minds and lives to see how we
participate.  We must look beyond the stated causes of both sides to
underling causes that helped create this situation.  Instead of only
blaming others for the problems we face, we must also look at our own
lives to see how we contribute to the problem.  The Arabs, because of
their different religion, color and customs, make an easy target for our
blame.  We make an equally easy target for theirs because of our oil
consumption and misuse of natural resources:  the US, with 5 percent of
the world's population, consumes 26 percent of its oil.  This blaming
limits our ability to see all sides of the story and work out peaceful
solutions.
 
"We are learning daily how small a community our world is.  When
Chernobyl emitted radiation, the winds shared it with the whole world;
when rain forests are cut down in the Amazon, the whole earth warms.  We
have also seen how democratization in Eastern Europe moved from country
to country without recognition of borders.  If our ethical behavior is
directed only towards people we like or who serve us in some way, we
have made a fundamental error by our refusal to see the interdependent
relationship we have with all peoples.  The suffering of one affects us
all.
 
"We are being called on to respond to this crisis.  We must act quickly
and boldly to protect life and prevent war.  Like most other religions,
Buddhism has a precept against killing.  Let us not be afraid to speak
out against killing anywhere for any reason.  The Buddhist Peace
Fellowship encourages each of us to look at our own hatred, greed and
fear and see how it colors our perception and response to this
situation.  We encourage you to see how the lack of understanding of our
relationship to life and to each other allows such violence to continue.
We encourage you to work for alternatives to war on the personal,
national, and international levels."

/** military.draft: 19.0 **/
** Topic: DRAFT: 9 QUESTIONS AND ANSWES **
** Written  1:15 pm  Dec 20, 1990 by wrlmilitary in cdp:military.draft **
9 Questions and Answers on the Draft
 
1. Isn't the draft a thing of the past?
 
No. Current law requires men, within 30 days of their 18th
birthday, to register for the draft. Over one million young men
have refused to register, and while no one has been prosecuted for
failing to register in over five years, a $250,000 fine and 5
years in prison remain the maximum possible penalty.
 
2. How likely is a draft?
 
No one can say for certain. Opposition to the draft is strong and
the Bush administration will be slow to introduce the draft at a
time when he is struggling to keep public support for his Mid-East
policies. Yet if a large number of U.S. soldiers die, the
Pentagon, conservatives and some liberals will call for the draft.
With recruitment down a third, the draft may be needed to maintain
troop strength in the Mid-East.
 
3. Who would a draft affect?
 
Men would be drafted according to age, with those turning age 20
during the year of the call-up drafted first. If additional people
were drafted during the same year, 21 year olds, then 22 year
olds, up through age 25 would be called up. A call-up held the
next year would draft from the new group of 20 year olds first.
Unlike during the Vietnam war, people whose deferment had expired
would be draftable up to age 34 and would go even before those age
20.
 
4. What about women?
 
Federal law and Selective Service System (SSS) regulations do no
allow women to be drafted. The SSS is currently working on plans
for the registration and possible conscription of health care
professionals, which would include women.
 
5. If there is a draft, what options would a draftee have?
 
While there is no opportunity to request a deferment now, upon
receiving a draft notice a draftee would have ten days (from the
day the notice was mailed) to apply for a deferment. Deferments
will be available for medical, hardship, sole surviving son,
homosexuality and other reasons. Though illegal, thousands of
young men will simply refuse to register and refuse induction.
 
6. Has much changed from the draft during the Vietnam war?
 
Though the draft would run basically the same way now as it did
then, some important changes have been made. For instance, no
longer is there a deferment for college students. Now only a
postponement exists to allow seniors to finish out their senior
year and other college students to finish out their current
semester or quarter. In addition, we expect that it will be much
harder for U.S. citizens to find refuge in Canada due to changes
in the political climate and immigration policies there.
 
7. What is conscientious objection?
 
Conscientious objection is the right individuals have to refuse to
take part in the military if they are morally, ethically  or
religiously opposed to war in any form. To be a C.O., a person
does not have to be a total pacifist or believe in god. But their
objection must be to all war. This deferment cannot be applied for
now.
 
8. What can a person do now?
 
The best place to start is often by reading about and discussing
the Mid-East crisis and the draft as much as possible. If a person
expects that they could apply for a deferment, they should begin
to collect the appropriate documentation now--i.e. medical records
to document a condition, financial records to document a hardship.
C.O.'s can begin by writing a statement of their beliefs and
having that statement notarized. C.O.'s should also begin sharing
their views with others and collecting letters of support from
friends.
 
9. Where can I get additional information?
 
Your local peace and social justice organization is likely to have
information on the draft. In addition, you can contact the War
Resisters League, 339 Lafayette Street, New York, NY 10012. Tel:
(212) 228-0450.
** End of text from cdp:military.draft **

/** sf.lobby: 60.0 **/
** Topic: Kennedy Res. on Iraq 12/21/90 **
** Written  3:35 pm  Dec 21, 1990 by sfnatldc in cdp:sf.lobby **
December 21, 1990
 
Rep. Joseph Kennedy (D-MA) has circulated a Dear Colleague letter
asking Members of the House to be an original co-sponsor a
resolution calling on the President to exhaust economic sanctions
before opting to wage war against Iraq.
 
Message: Call your Representative during the holidays and urge
him/her to be an original co-sponsor the Kennedy resolution.
SANE/FREEZE is supporting both the Bennett-Durbin resolution, which
expresses a sense of Congress to prohibit the President from taking
offensive action against Iraq without the consent of Congress, and
the Kennedy resolution.
 
The Kennedy dear colleague letter reads as follows:
 
December 21, 1990
 
Dear Colleague:
 
     I am writing to invite you to be an original co-sponsor of a
resolution calling on the President to exhaust economic sanctions
before opting to wage war against Iraq.
 
     All Americans are outraged by Iraq's brutal occupation of
Kuwait.  We support the President's firm resolve to end it,
particularly by leading the effort to implement and enforce
comprehensive economic sanctions.  Virtually all analysts agree that
sanctions have successfully closed Iraq's economic lifeline to the
outside world.  One recent report on National Public Radio stated
that Iraqi imports and exports have both been reduced by more than 90
percent.
 
     However, recent Administration actions indicate that the
President is preparing to forsake sanctions in favor of a massive
offensive military action against Saddam Hussein an his soldiers.
The decision to double ground forces in Saudi Arabia, to refrain
from rotating troops, and to obtain the consent of the United
Nations Security Council for offensive action are all signals that
U.S. forces are being placed on an offensive war footing.
 
     The wisdom of these actions has been sharply questioned by many
of us in the Congress, as well as by no less than 7 most former
Secretaries of Defense, 2 former heads of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
and 1 former Secretary of the Navy.  These individuals--and millions
of Americans--share the view that the sanctions will effectively
dislodge Saddam Hussein from Kuwait if given a reasonable amount of
time to work.  Four months is far too short a period; 12 or more
months is.  They urge patience, and warn that a shooting war could
cause the needless loss of American lives, dollars, and prestige,
not to mention political and economic stability in the Gulf region.
 
     The joint resolution we intend to introduce on January 3rd
recognizes the potentially disastrous effects of a premature war.
It calls on the President to (1) continue to support sanctions
against Iraq until all Iraqi forces are withdrawn from Kuwait, and
(2) engage in no offensive military action in Iraq or Kuwait for at
least 12 months.
 
     At this critical moment in our history, it is important that we
express in affirmative terms our view of the proper course of action
in the Gulf.  Otherwise, our silence may be construed as
acquiecance,and the time to prevent a war may pass.  If you would
like to become a co-sponsor, please call Shawn Maher of Roger Ervin
at 5-5111.
 
 
** End of text from cdp:sf.lobby **

/** mideast.gulf: 347.1 **/
** Written  8:02 pm  Dec 18, 1990 by cscheiner in cdp:mideast.gulf **
 
Here is the first letter from Andrew DeStefano to Dr. Joseph Fahey,
written while he was awaiting shipment to Saudi Arabia:
 
                                                Fort Dix, NJ
                                          September 12, 1990
Dr. Joseph Fahey
Peace Studies Institute
Manhattan College
Riverdale, New York 10471
 
Dear Dr. Fahey,
 
    I am a graduate of Manhattan College, and I took your course
"Religious Dimensions of Peace" in 1987.
 
    Throughout the course, I maintained many views which I have
embedded within myself in my lifetime, having served active duty
during the Grenada invasion and also during Lebanon.
 
    I write this letter to you as an Army reservist that has been
involuntarily called up to serve in Saudi Arabia.  During this
mobilization, I have been contemplating many different actions
which the U.S. government has taken. At 26 years old, I see things
much differently now. I almost find it insane that we attend
professional meetings to discuss the most effective way to kill,
maim, and destroy, and that a group's effectiveness is measured by
how much death and destruction it can cause. The sole purpose of
each action is to kill. I feel that we will possibly die for the
price of oil.
 
    In no way do I condone what Saddam has done, but a diplomatic
solution should also be the most prevalent solution.
 
    I don't think the President is doing what he can to avoid armed
conflict. Probably the U.S. will be the first to attack, and it
will falsely be labeled a "preemptive" strike. The Pentagon will
put out disinformation, as it did during the Panama fiasco, and
American TV will display biased reporting which it is so good at.
In the process, American families will be devastated, and President
Bush will label them heroes for their "sacrifice to preserve the
principles which made this country great." I believe that this is
all for the price of oil.
 
    Again, this whole military philosophy is starting to make me
sick. I am not scared at all; I'm disgusted with having my civilian
life interrupted for something I feel is really not that important.
Even people I despised before this, I am open to everything. Case
in point: I've never liked Jesse Jackson and even thought that he's
a joke. When I heard he would go to Iraq to talk to Saddam, I
prayed for his success.
 
    What I'm trying to says is that you were right; peace isn't a
viable alternative, it's the only way.
 
                              Sincerely,
                              Andrew DeStefano
** End of text from cdp:mideast.gulf **

/** pn.alerts: 200.0 **/
** Topic: ulf Day of Action **
** Written  2:14 pm  Dec 19, 1990 by gn:cnd in cdp:pn.alerts **
               CAMPAIGN FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
                         CALLS FOR AN
                 INTERNATIONAL DAY OF ACTION
                     ON 12TH JANUARY 1991
 
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament invites people across the
world to join an International Day of Action on January 12th
to Stop War in the Gulf.
 
In Britain we will drawing the public's attention to the cost
of a war in the Gulf - in terms of lives, money and the
environment.
 
There will be a demonstration and rally held in London,
organised by the Committee to Stop War in the Gulf (of which
CND is a member), plus marches, rallies and vigils throughout
Scotland, Wales and England.   This International Day of
Action is supported by the Committee to Stop War in the Gulf
and the National Peace Council.
 
If your organisation has, or plans to have, an action on Jan
12 please send details to CND so that we can use the
information in our publicity.  Thank you.
 
For more information contact: Jane Powell
at the above address.
** End of text from cdp:pn.alerts **

/** mideast.gulf: 300.0 **/
** Topic: COALITION APPEAL FOR UNITY **
** Written  7:29 pm  Dec  7, 1990 by csime in cdp:mideast.gulf **
     Coalition to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Middle East
                      (October 20 Coalition)
      36 East 12th Street, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10003
   Phone (212) 254-2295               Fax (212) 979-1583
 
December 7, 1990
 
Dear Friend,
 
On October 20, tens of thousands demonstrated in over 25
U.S. cities and in eight other countries to demand an end to
the U.S. war in the Persian Gulf. These demonstrations,
which were initiated by the Coalition to Stop U.S.
Intervention in the Middle East, were a powerful, united
action. At that time the Coalition called for national
action to coincide with the birthday commemoration of Dr.
Martin Luther King.
 
This date has now become central because Bush has cynically
made King's birthday -- January 15 -- the deadline to start
shooting. But more important, the Coalition, whose
leadership board is mostly people of color, deliberately
chose the January 19 Martin Luther King weekend as part of a
serious and thoughtful strategy to link the struggles
against racism and war, as Dr. Martin Luther King did, and
maximize Black, Latino, Asian, Native, Arab and trade union
participation.
 
In this spirit January 19 was set as a date for a massive
national march on the White House. Substantial work has
begun, including major national mailings and many
discussions with local coalitions. Hundreds of organizations
have endorsed. It was announced at a UN press conference the
day before the war resolution was passed. The January 19
demonstration has already been reported in the Washington
Post, Boston Globe, Baltimore Sun and New York Newsday, and
extensively in the Black and Latino media. Coordinated
demonstrations have been called in Los Angeles; San
Francisco; Honolulu; Toronto, Canada; and Sydney, Australia.
 
Thousands of completed petitions are flooding into our
office, signed by people all over the country, as part of
the Campaign for One Million Signatures, initiated by the
Coalition. We will take more than a million signatures to
Washington, DC, on January 19, to make the message loud and
clear to Bush and to Congress, to Bring the Troops Home Now.
Enclosed in this mailing is a sample of the petition. Please
make copies, pass it to friends, and become part of the
Campaign for a Million Signatures. Send it back to our
office or bring it with you to Washington, DC.
 
Of course a truly massive demonstration in Washington takes
many thousands of mailings and phone calls, and hundreds of
thousands of leaflets printed to get the word out. This is
going to take huge amounts of money... The coalition has a
national "900" phone number to tell Bush "NO WAR". The
number is 1-900-44-NO WAR (starting Dec. 16). Please use it.
A record of each call, by area code and region, will be
taken with the petitions to Washington. A $10 charge for the
call will help with the Coalition's enormous expenses...and
to bring the troops home.
 
You may contact the coalition for stickers and flyers to
publicize this number, plus copies of the petition for a
million signatures against the war, and other organizing
literature.
 
Nothing is more urgent than stopping the Bush
administration's march toward war. Our fight is here at home
to create peace, end U.S. military expenditures, stop
racism, and for jobs, education, healthcare, housing and to
end AIDS. It is the people who can stop this war.
 
Join us in Washington on January 19 and honor Dr. King's
birthday by marching to stop another U.S. war!
 
(signed:) The Administrative Committee of
the Coalition to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Middle East:
 
The Administrative Committee of the Coalition to Stop U.S.
Intervention in the Middle East meets weekly.
 
It is composed of:
 
Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General
Deborah Jackson, American Association of Jurists, National Conference
   of Black Lawyers
Wilhelm Joseph, UN Representative of National Conference of Black Lawyers
Job Mashariki, Black Vets for Social Justice
Michio Kaku, Professor, City College
Ben Dupuy, Committee Against Repression in Haiti
Luis Miranda, Casa De Las Amricas
Michael Ratner, attorney
Harold Mendlowitz, President, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1202 (Greyhound)
Adeeb Abed, Jerusalem Cultural Center
John Jones, Jersey City Billion Dollar Housing Coalition
Saleh Fawaz, Palestine Aid Society
Shreeram, Third World journalist
Michelle Payne, African Students Association
Gale McGovern, Caribbean and Latin American Support Project
Preston Wilcox, Professor, Harlem Community leader
Pat Harling, Chief Steward, Teamsters Local 1518
Teresa Gutirrez, Independent Commission on Panama
Terry Klug, Recording Secretary, Transport Workers Local 240
Dr. El!as Guerrero, ACTUP
Karen Gellen, Guardian newsweekly
Robert Knight, WBAI
Gavrielle Gemma and Monica Moorehead, staff.
 
The following is a partial list of endorsers.
If you or your organization wish to be added to this list,
please contact the Coalition by phone, Fax or mail, or
respond on PeaceNet to "csime".
(that's cdp!csime@labrea.stanford.edu from the internet  rw)
 
Larry Adams, President, National Postal Mailhandlers
   Union Local 300 (NY, NJ, CT)*
Rita Addessa, Lesbian and Gay Task Force, Philadelphia
Ibrahim AbuLughod, member Palestine National Council
African-American Coalition Against U.S. Intervention, NY
African American Cultural Alliance, Nashville TN
AFSCME Local 1072, Univ. of MD
Alfred University Students for Alternative Solutions
Alliance for Philippine Concerns
All-Peoples Congress
American Indian Movement
Amnesty International, Canisius College, Buffalo NY
Anan Ameri, President, Palestine Aid Society
Toney Anaya, former governor, New Mexico
Androscoggin (ME) Coalition for Peace in the M.E.
T. J. Anthony
Arab Americans for Peace
Ashkenaz Music & Dance Cafe, Berkeley CA
Bob Basker, San Francisco CA
Harry Belafonte
Patrick Bellegarde-Smith, Prof. of African-American
   Studies, Univ. of Wisconsin
Tony Benn, Labor Party, member of Parliament, England
Berkeley Union of the Homeless
Donald Bishop, Citizens Against War in the Middle East*
Black Consciousness Movement, (New York City)
John Black, Pres. Emeritas, Dist. 1199P, National Union of
Hospital and Healthcare Employees, AFL-CIO*
Black Consciousness Movement
Blacks Against Racial Genocide, Brooklyn NY
Black and White Men Together, San Francisco CA
Black Veterans for Social Justice
Rev. Dorsey Blake, Pres., Ecumenical Peace Institute and
   Dir. for Black Urban Studies, Univ. of CA, Berkeley
Yvonne Bobo, Boston University student activist
Betty Bonner, Sec.-Treas., SEIU Local 205, Nashville TN*
Janis Borchardt, V.P., ATU Local 1225 (striking
   Greyhound workers), San Francisco CA*
Herb Boyd, prof. of History, College of New Rochelle
   and journalist, Guardian and Amsterdam News
Ron Braithwaite, co-chair, Alice B. Toklas Lesbian/Gay
   Democratic Club*
Brandywine Peace Community, Swarthmore PA
Elombe Brathe, Patrice Lumumba Coalition
Brown Berets
Bring the Frigates Home Coalition, Sidney Australia
Esmeralda Brown, Women's Workshop on the Americas
Lee Brown, anti-racist activist, San Francisco CA
Buffalo Greens
Barbara Cameron, Dir., Comm. United Against Violence
Canisius College Coalition of Students Against Military
Involvement in the M.E., Buffalo NY
Capitol Green Party, Sacramento CA
Victor Carpenter, Senior Minister, First Unitarian Church, San Francisco CA
Centro Juan Antonio Corretjer
Benjamin F. Chavis, Jr., Executive Director, United
   Church of Christ, Commission for Racial Justice
Chelsea/El Jicaral Sister City Project
Arnold Cherry, Grievance Coord., TWU Local 100, NY*
Committee of Concerned Westsiders
Rev. Kiyul Chung, International Comm for Peace & Reunification of Korea
Cincinnati Area Coal. Against U.S. Intervention in M.E.
CISPES, Richmond VA
Citizens Against War, Univ. of Delaware, Newark
Citizens for Progressive Energy Policy, Stoney Brook NY
Henry Clark, Dir., W. Co. Toxics Coal., Richmond CA*
Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General
Clergy and Laity Concerned
Coalition to Stop U.S. and Canadian Intervention in the
   Middle East, Toronto
Co-Madres (Committee of Mothers of the Disappeared,
   Political Prisoners & Assassinated of El Salvador)
Committee Against Repression in Haiti
Communist Organization of Britain, London England
Doug Comstock, Lesbian/Gay Voters Project, San Francisco CA
Comm. Organized to Stop Systematic Child Abuse (COSSA), Brooklyn NY
Dave Cormier, Delegate, Central Labor Council, Kokomo,IN*
Rev. Herbert Daughtry, House of the Lord Church, Brooklyn NY
Barbara Davidson, Pres., AFGE Local 476 (HUD)*
Sue Davis, New Directions for Women
Sally Davies, Pres., AFSCME Local 1072, Univ. of MD*
December 12th Movement
Ruby Dee
Department of Community Mission/Council of Churches
Mohammed Diahite, Asst. Prof. of International Studies,
Bradley Univ., Peoria IL*
Gordon Dillahunt, Pres., APWU Local 1078, Raleigh NC*
Disciples of Christ, Buffalo NY
Dominican Communist Party
Dominican Workers Party
Frances Dostel, RN
David Duncan, Exec. Dir., Opportunities for Broome, NY
Elders for Survival, San Francisco CA
Rev. Graylain Ellis-Hagler, Church of Our United Community, Roxbury
Anthony Fiagbeto, Pres., Student Government Assoc.,
   Bronx Community College
John Funicello, Chairperson, Solidarity Committee of the
   Capitol District, AFL-CIO, Albany NY*
General Union of Palestinian Students
David Gespass, Chair, Birmingham Committee Against
   U.S. Intervention in the M.E.*
Ebrahim Gonzalez, Progressive journalist*
Zeev Gorin, chair, Dept. of Sociology, Bradley Univ.,
   Peoria IL & Peace Network*
Arturo Griffiths, Panamanian activist, Washington DC
Elias Guerrero, M.D., Act-Up*
Hands Off Iraq, London England
Pat Harling, Ch. Shop Steward, Teamsters Local 840, NY*
Jean Harris, aide to Supt. Harry Britt, San Francisco CA
Hawaii Committee for Peace in the Middle East
Huntington Peace Center Inc., Huntington NY
Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance, Baltimore MD
International Indian Treaty Council
Iowa Peace Network
Deborah Jackson, American Association of Jurists
James Earl Chaney Foundation
Ronald Jean-Baptiste, GI resister facing courtmartial
Eva Jefferson Paterson, civil rights atty. and Exec. Dir.,
   San Francisco Lawyers Committee
John Jones, Billion Dollar Housing Coalition, Jersey City
Wilhelm Joseph, UN Rep, National Conf of Black Lawyers
Just Peace, St. Peter MN
Michio Kaku, Professor of Theoretical Physics, CUNY
Gary Kapanowski, Central Labor Council, AFSCME Dist.
   Council 47, Philadelphia*
Kapatide
Morris Kight, convener, Gay and Lesbian Peace
   Concerns, Los Angeles CA
Terry Klug, Recording Secretary, TWU Local 241, NY*
William Kunstler, attorney
Robert Knight, WBAI Pacifica Radio*
La Casa, Nashville TN
Lancaster Independent Press, PA
Learning Alliance
Spike Lee
Peter Leibowitch, Pres., USWA Local 8782, Toronto
Leonard Peltier Defense Committee
Lesbian and Gays Against Intervention, San Francisco CA
Susan Lesser, Lead Shop Steward, AFSCME Local 2252, MD*
Anne H. Long, First Citizen of Portsmouth VA for 1987
Willie Ludlow, Anne Skelton, Wyoming Coalition for Peace in the Gulf*
John Majors, A. Philip Randolph Institute, Nashville TN*
Marie Malliett, Pres., CWA Local 9410, San Francisco CA*
Julianne Malveaux, economist and synicated columnist, Essence magazine
Samori Marksman, African American Resource Center
Esperanza Martell, Comm. for Puerto Rican Affirmation*
Key Martin, Chap. Chair, Newspaper Guild, Time-Warner*
Hilda Mason, Councilmember-at-Large, Washington, D.C.
Enola Maxwell, Director, Potrero Hill Neighborhood
   House, San Francisco CA
Rosemari Mealy, journalist
Adelita Medina, parent of navy GI
Harold Mendlowitz, Pres., ATU Local 1202 (striking
   Greyhound workers), NY
Garry Merchison, Pres., USWA Local 8751, Boston MA*
Mexican National Liberation Movement, Denver CO
Middle East Task Force of the Western NY Peace Center
Middletown Connecticut Coalition for Peace in the Gulf
Anita Miller, Pres., LSSA, District 65 UAW*
Rev. Timothy Mitchell, Ebenezer Baptist Church &
   Chairman of Health Comm. of the Baptist Ministers
   Conference of NYC and vicinity
Bishop Paul Moore
Michael Moore, producer and writer
Pam Namdar, Pres., Minority Coalition, IBEW Local 26, Washington DC*
Reza Namdar, Baltimore/Washington Newspaper Guild*
Nashville Coal. to Stop U.S. Intervention in the M.E.
National Assoc. of Yemeni Immigrants
National Chicano Human Rights Council
National Coalition Against English Only
Natl Labor Relations Bd Union Local 20, San Francisco
National Survival Summit/D.C.
Network of Black Organizers
Craig Newman, Chief Shop Steward, AFSCME Local 1072, Univ. of MD*
Garnett Newman, Pres., Student Government Assoc., Medgar Evers
Pat Norman, community activist, San Francisco CA
Oakland Union of the Homeless
Angel Ortiz, Philadelphia City Councilmember
Pakistan Progressive Magazine
Palestine Aid Society
Palm Beach County Coalition for World Peace
Michelle Payne, Baruch African Students Organization
Pax Christi, Canisius College, Buffalo NY
Peace Resource Center, Des Moines IA
People for Middle East Peace, Des Moines IA
People's Anti-War Mobilization
Philadelphia/Delaware Valley Union of the Homeless
Barbara Ransby, Board Member, Ella Baker/Nelson Mandela
Center and Editorial Board, Race and Class
Michael Ratner, Atty for Congressional Lawsuit, CCR
Reverands for Life, Canisius College, Buffalo NY
Richmond-Petersburg Central American Network
Don Rojas, Executive Editor, New York Amsterdam News
Allen Roth, Exec. Bd., APWU, Cleveland Area Local*
Sacramento Emergency Action Network
Susan Sherman, Editor, IKON magazine*
David Skondras, City Councilmember, Boston MA
Tom Spence, Chair, Power Dist., TWU Local 100, NY*
Staten Island Coalition for Survival
Staten Island Council for Peace & Justice
Staten Island Div. of NYC Area Veterans for Peace, Chapter 34
Stockton Citizens for Peace in the Persian Gulf
Students and Youth Against Racism
Students for International Awareness, Bronx Science High School, NY
Leon Swain, Area VP, AFSCME District Council 92, MD*
Karen Talbot, Dir. of Intl Center for Peace and Justice
John Teamer, Co-chair, Natl Assoc of Black and White Men Together
Tenderloin Self-Help Center, San Francisco CA
Tennessee State Univ. Student Government Assoc.
Third World Caucus, Clergy and Laity Concerned
Katherine Tompa, Pres., Daughters of Mother Jones*
Charlie Trujillo, Vietnam combat vet and author,
   Soldados Chicanos in Vietnam
United African-American Churches of NY, Inc.
United American Indians of the Northeast
United Church of Christ, Buffalo NY
United Labor Action
U.S. Hands Off Cuba Coalition, NY
U.S. Out of the Middle East Coalition/Atlanta
U.S.-Vietnam Friendship Association
United Coalition Against Racism, Ann Arbor, MI
University of Buffalo Freedom School
University of Buffalo Stop the War Coalition
Vanderbilt Black Student Alliance, Nashville TN
Veterans for Peace, West Connecticut
Washington Forum on the Philippines
Rev. Paul Washington, Church of the Advocate, Philadelphia
Wayne County (NY) Peace and Justice Education Center
Gwen Wells, President, Metro Labor Press Council, NYC*
Western NY Peace Center
Wichita State Student Peace Group
Rev. Saul S. Williams, Newburg NY
Women's Action for Nuclear Disarmament (WAND), Buffalo NY
Young Koreans United
Youth for Philippine Action
Howard Zinn, author and historian
 
*For identification only.
** End of text from cdp:mideast.gulf **

/** mideast.gulf: 331.0 **/
** Topic: MARCH ON DC & SF JAN 26! **
** Written  3:35 pm  Dec 13, 1990 by mobenat in cdp:mideast.gulf **
          SECURITY COUNCIL VOTE SWELLS MOVEMENT'S RANKS
 
The UN Security Council vote authorizing a US attack on Iraq
anytime after January 15 has shown starkly how close war is in
the Middle East.  The movement has been galvanized as a result.
On December 1, 12,000 people marched against war in Boston and
5000 in Seattle.  On December 8 there were more big
demonstrations, in Chicago (5000), Berkeley (5000), Washington
(1500) and Denver (600).
 
The Call to Stop the Killing Before It Starts, issued by National
Mobilization for Survival, Pledge of Resistance and War Resisters
League, resulted in a wave of civil disobedience actions on
December 7-8 demanding immediate US withdrawal.  In New York, 27
people were arrested in a CD at the US Mission to the UN; 42 were
arrested at the Naval Reserve Station in Seattle; there was CD in
Washington DC at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, where the list of
those already dead in Saudi Arabia were added to the list of dead
on the wall; and blockades took place at a new army recruiting
center in Boston and the federal building in Madison.
 
There were also antiwar protests on December 7-8 in Bellingham
and Olympia, WA; Austin, TX; Roanoake, VA; Albany and Saratoga
Springs, NY; Duluth, MN; Lincoln, Hastings and Omaha, NE; and in
Canada, in Castlegar, Victoria, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto,
Montreal, Halifax, Sussex and St. John's.
 
        MARCH ON WASHINGTON AND SAN FRANCISCO JANUARY 26!
 
In response to the January 15 line in the sand, the National
Campaign for Peace in the Middle East is calling for national
marches and rallies in Washington DC and San Francisco on JANUARY
26, around three demands:
 
                   NO WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST
                   BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW
                 MONEY FOR HUMAN NEEDS, NOT WAR
 
The call for January 26 was issued by the largest representative
national gathering of the antiwar movement since the Gulf crisis
broke out in August.  Almost 300 people attended the National
Campaign meeting on December 1 in New York, representing scores
of cities coast to coast and 164 national organizations and local
coalitions.
 
People need to start NOW (if not sooner) organizing the buses and
getting up the fliers in their cities.  For more information
about how to build for January 26, call the National Campaign for
Peace in the Middle East at (212) 727-3069 or send a peacenet
message to "mobenat."
 
                   NATIONAL ACTION CALENDAR
 
Dec. 22-24     Holiday vigils for peace
 
Jan. 3?        (When Congress reconvenes) Protest and lobbying at
               the Capitol by delegations from all 50 states
 
Jan. 13        National radio teach-in featuring Eqbal Ahmed,
               Edward Said, Jack O'Dell, June Jordan and Barbara
               Ehrenreich, broadcast over satellite
 
Jan. 15        Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday: Local actions
               reclaiming King's legacy of peace, linking war and
               racism
 
Jan. 19        Local antiwar demonstrations building for the 26th
 
Jan. 26        MARCH ON WASHINGTON AND SAN FRANCISCO
 
Jan. 27        National student antiwar meeting in Washington DC
 
                THE NATIONAL CAMPAIGN WANTS UNITY
 
The December 1 meeting expressed a strong desire for the broadest
possible unity.  It decided that the January 26 marches will be
organized not only by the National Campaign for Peace, the
broadest existing antiwar umbrella, but in cooperation with every
organization that is willing to work together to stop this
devastating war.   We very much regret that the Coalition to Stop
US Intervention in the Middle East is organizing a rival march,
with a virtually identical call.  The National Campaign's offer
to share decision-making with them for the march, and to discuss
any possible way of achieving unity, stands.
 
                         MORE RESOURCES
 
*  Third World Resources has devoted its entire Winter 1991 issue
to a particularly thorough (24 page) compilation of resources on
the Middle East, with a special emphasis on the Gulf region.  The
issue costs $4 ($2.50 each for 10-49; $1.50 each for 50 or more),
plus 15 percent additional for postage and handling.  Order from
Third World Resources, 464 19th St., Oakland, CA 94612-9761;
415/835-4692; fax: 415/835-3017; peacenet: tfenton.
 
*   The Center for Defense Information has put out a detailed
analysis of the military logistics of a US invasion of Iraq,
complete with maps and statistics.  Behind the technicalities,
it's gruesome.  Call 202/862-0700 for copies.
 
*   Labor Notes, a progressive labor monthly, carried an antiwar
editorial in its December 1990 issue, written by labor activists
from one of the Northern California Labor Councils that has come
out against the war.  Subscriptions are $10/year; bundles of
sample copies are free.  Write to 7435 Michigan Av., Detroit, MI
48210, or call 313/842-6262.
** End of text from cdp:mideast.gulf **

    Reprinted from today's Gazette-Telegraph:

        Sisters of Mercy blast gulf buildup:  The leadership council of the
        Sisters of Mercy criticized the U.S. military buildup in the
        Persian Gulf as wasting human and material resources on a
        "primitive method of conflict resolution."

        At a meeting in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., the Roman Catholic order's
        council added: "This expense is especially deplorable at a time
        when we, along with others committed to education, health care and
        social welfare, are struggling and often failing to find the means
        of providing these basic human rights for an increasing number of
        people."

/** sf.lobby: 59.0 **/
** Topic: Persian Gulf Action Alt 12/17/90 **
** Written 12:19 pm  Dec 17, 1990 by sfnatldc in cdp:sf.lobby **
December 17, 1990
 
                         LEGISLATIVE ALERT
 
                     NO WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST
 
 
Whether or not the U.S. goes to war in the Persian Gulf is not a
decision to be left to one man.  Our Constitution makes this the
responsibility of Congress, not the President.
 
On January 3, 1991, the first day of the new session of Congress,
Reps. Charles Bennett (D-FL) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) will
introduce a resolution which declares that Congress must approve any
offensive action against Iraq before such action is initiated.  [A
copy of the resolution is below.]  A similar resolution recently
passed the House Democratic Caucus by a vote of 177 to 37.
 
ACTION:  Light up the phones and flood the office with letters to
your Representative.  Urge him/her to:
 
*Cosponsor the Bennett-Durbin resolution that declares Congress must
 approve any offensive action against Iraq before such action is
 initiated;
*Remain in session after January 3 in order to debate the
 resolution; and
*Pass the resolution before January 15, the UN deadline date for
 Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait.
 
Call/write your Senators.  Urge them to sponsor a similar resolution
in the Senate and pass it by January 15.
 
Capitol switchboard:  (202) 224-3121
 
 
           WE NEED A NEGOTIATED PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
                  AND A PEACE DIVIDEND AT HOME!!!
 
 
BENNETT-DURBIN RESOLUTION
 
                         H. Con Res. ______
                       CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
 
  To express the sense of Congress that Congress must approve any
               offensive military action against Iraq.
 
     Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring)
 
Section 1.  Approval of Initial Response to the Invasion of Kuwait.
 
     The Congress supports the actions taken by the President of the
United States to defend Saudi Arabia, demands that Iraq immediately
withdraw from its illegal occupation of Kuwait, and supports the
President's diplomatic and economic initiatives to resolve the
Persian Gulf crisis.
 
Section 2.  Urgency of Congressional Authority for Offensive
              Operations in the Persian Gulf.
 
     The Congress finds that the Constitution of the United States
vests all power to declare war in the Congress of the United States.
Any offensive action taken against Iraq must be explicitly approved
by the Congress of the United States before such action may be
initiated.
 
DELLUMS RESPONSE TO COURT DECISION ON LAWSUIT - DECEMBER 13, 1990
 
           DELLUMS PLEASED WITH COURT RULING ON HIS SUIT
 
Washington, D.C.--Rep. Ronald Dellums (D-8th C.D.-Calif.) was
pleased to learn of the Court ruling on the suit that he and 53
other Members of congress had filed against the Administration.
While the court did not feel that it was necessary at this time to
issue an injunction against offensive military action, it did rule
that the substance of the arguments made by the Members of Congress
was, indeed, correct:  that the President of the United States may
not unilaterally take this country to war.  Dellums went on to say,
 
"This is a victory for the American people.  The court has put the
President on notice that he must obtain consent from the Congress
before he initiates an action against Iraq.  Though the President
and his Secretaries of Defense and State have stated otherwise, they
now have a clear ruling from the court that only Congress, in its
collective and deliberative action, may make this grave decision."
 
Dellums was very impressed by the strong language that Judge Greene
used when he said in his opinion that: "[T]he court is not prepared
to read out of the Constitution the clause granting to the Congress,
and to it alone, the authority to declare war."  The Court rejected
the President's argument that it was the President and not the
Congress which determined what constituted a war:  "If the Executive
has the sole power to determine that any particular offensive
military operation, no matter how vast, does not constitute war-
making but only an offensive military attack, the congressional
power to declare war will be at the mercy of a semantic decision by
the Executive.  Such an 'interpretation' would evade the plain
language of the Constitution."
 
On the matter of the injunction against military action requested by
the plaintiffs, Dellums said, "The court does not feel that war is
imminent, because, in Judge Greene's language, President Bush 'has
not shown a commitment to a definitive course of action.'  We can
only hope the Court is correct.  While the court does not see the
need, at this time, to issue an injunction against an offensive
military action, the issue is still before the court and we as a
nation will continue to watch the Administration in hopeful
anticipation of a peaceful settlement."
 
Judge Greene also indicated the need for Congress to act as an
entire body to assert its claim in this matter.  "We are in the
process of framing that strategy now," said Dellums.
 
 
** End of text from cdp:sf.lobby **

    I have heard there will be a contingent of (hopefully) 12,000 women
    (that's the goal) dressed in black (pre-mourning clothes), that will
    visit Washington and wail against the war.  Simultaneously 1,000 women
    will be sent to the middle east to wail there.  I believe this will
    happen in January.  I will post more details as I get them, or anyone
    else who has information can help fill in the blanks.
    
    -Jody
    

Dick,

The *economic* sanctions against Iraq are not intended to physically harm the
populace as much as wreak havoc with two things 1) The Iraqi economy, which
is well integrated with the world economy. and 2) Iraq's ability to wage war. As
a cynic, I believe the US is waiting for the second goal without worrying about
the first. The fact that Iraq has enough food, and the domestic economy is
currently apparently healthy is not reason to believe the sanctions aren't
having their effect. No one believes that the sanctions would work quickly.
Iraq will slowly deplete its reserves of high tech parts and materials and be
unable to replace them. Iraq will find no markets for its finished goods and
materials, and that will affect its domestic economy. But this will not happen
quickly. The effect on the ability to wage war will be quicker, Iraq depends
on foreign sources for many if not most of the spare parts needed to keep its
military equipment running. This is particularly true for the airforce, and for
the more sophisticated anti-aircraft and anti-tank defenses. A recent CIA
analysis claimed that by spring, summer at latest, Iraq's ability to field
effective air power would be greatly reduced due to lack of parts. I believe
this is what the US is waiting for - and that this is a direct result of the
embargo. The embargo is working, but we are not willing to give it time to do
anything more than reduce Iraq's military ability. I believe that given time,
and given solid Arab support, the world can bring this to a bloodless solution.

But we absolutely cannot allow Iraq to make a single gain from its invasion. If
Kuwait grants them rights to the northern oilfields, it should extract just
compensation for them. If Kuwait forgives Iraq's war debts, it should get 
compensation. Likewise for a gulf port. In addition  Iraq must be made to make
restitution for despoiling Kuwait. Iraq MUST NOT gain from it's illegal and
immoral invasion of Kuwait - lest it or some other petty dictator be tempted to
try again.

	-- Charles

  ----------------Should it come to war-----------
    
    Let it not be another Vietnam. Those who fight a war should not
    carry the guilt. The burden is that of the whole of our society.
    Even if such a war would be extremely shameful, dont put the burden
    of shame on the men and women who fight it, but rather on ourselves.
    We voted the people into power, to make the decisions. Should our
    forces come home in victory or defeat, they should be welcomed in all
    pomp and circumstance to reward their dedication to us, the ones who
    sent them. It essential that no matter the outcome that the combatants
    are welcomed back into the bosom of society. Should they come back in
    defeat our welcome should be even greater, for they have fought, lost
    and died at our bidding, no matter how indirect.
     Dont mock the quaint, miltiary rituals of departure and return. These
    are means by which normal peaceful people can depart and return to 
    normal behavior.
    
    
    
    	Culture: Male, Northwest UK.
                                    

    Fortunately I have seen nothing but support of "the goys and girls over
    there", even from the staunchest of pacifists.  Whatever happens, I
    hope we don't have the sort of war *here* that happened during the war
    in 'Nam.
    
    Didja see today's Doonsbury?  One huge frame of Boopsie looking out
    over the water, waiting for BD to come out, with a yellow ribbon tied
    around what was apparantly supposed to be an old oak tree.  And from
    Gary Trudeau, who has hardly been a Bush supporter.
    
    D!

"Crossing the Line" : An Interview With Tony Bing                12/7/90
 
Tony Bing is Director of Peace and Global Studies at Earlham College
in Richmond, Indiana. For the last three years, he has been on the
Middle East Task Force of Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR), and
helped plan the Crossing the Line campaign. Tony has been involved
with Middle East peace issues since he was a professor at the
American University in Beirut, Lebanon in the 1960's. In October
1990, he joined 20 other Americans in an FOR delegation to Iraq.
This interview first appeared in the December 1990 newsletter of
the Richmond Committee for World Peacemaking [RCWP] (Cathy Flick,
editor; 302 SW 5th St., Richmond IN 47374; Tel. 317/962-3427; E-
Mail, CATHYF@EARLHAM.BITNET). Distribution is encouraged.
 
RCWP: What was the purpose of your trip?
TONY: We went as a kind of first step in the FOR's "Crossing the Line"
campaign. The FOR described it this way: "We are crossing the line
from consensus to dissent by voicing opposition to a military solution
and refusing to accept the notion that any talk of troop withdrawal,
cuts in military spending, and negotiation is unpatriotic or
subversive." We went to be a symbolic presence, to be the beginning
of a campaign for a nonmilitary solution.
        We also went so we could talk about re-ordering U.S. national
priorities.  Americans ought to see that it's not just oil that is running
loose in the desert, but the peace dividend is just seeping into the
sand out there every day. Our national agenda about the debt, the
homeless, racism, a sane energy policy-- you name it, is just getting
postponed further and further.
        Marjorie Young and her husband Jim  did a study on the fact
that 85% of the oil in this country is consumed by automobiles as
gasoline. But if we raised the mandatory miles per gallon in engines
3 mpg, we wouldn't need any oil from Kuwait or Iraq. If we raised it
12 mpg, we wouldn't need any oil from the whole Gulf. It might be
interesting to ask the American people if they would be willing to do
that, to not have to be dependent on foreign oil.  We shouldn't be
using so much oil, period.
        So I think that this campaign gives people the chance to
explore the domestic agenda in a big way.
RCWP: Our government supported the military buildup in Iraq
during its eight-year war with Iran. Iraq had long-standing disputes
with Kuwait: overproduction of oil at low prices, claims that drilling
at an angle in some fields was actually stealing Iraqi oil.  Did Iraq
have any reason to believe that its invasion of Kuwait would result in
hundreds of thousands of American soldiers on its border, set to
attack?
TONY: It's an amazing story.  Saddam Hussein sent people to see our
ambassador to Iraq, April Gilaspie, one week before the invasion  to
sound out the United States.  They told her they planned to go in to
take back the disputed oil fields and maybe an island or so. He didn't
say he was going to take over the whole country.
        She responded to him, after checking with Washington, that it
was an internal Arab matter and the U.S. would regard it as such.
This was like a green light to him. He did invade. Meanwhile, we
blocked the Voice of America broadcast to Iraq saying we intended
to take a tough stand if any invasion took place. So no one in Iraq
knew what our official position was at the time. They were
absolutely stunned at our reaction.
        Someone I       know quite well spoke with Ambassador Gilaspie
directly and discovered that she was only acting on orders from her
superiors. But her career was ruined . She was withdrawn from
Baghdad. They said she was incompetent, that she had no business
telling them what she did. The US  press corps in Iraq told us she
was "vacationing when she should have been on the job". But she told
my friend  that actually she had been  abroad on official business .
She said exactly what was told her, but she was taking the fall on it.
        So our government knew about the invasion at least a week
ahead of time. I personally talked with one of the hostages, an
intelligence officer at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. He said that our
government had sent someone over to Kuwait to warn them about
the invasion and to tell them that we were willing to be "invited" to
protect them.  The Kuwaitis just laughed it off.
RCWP: This sounds like "entrapment", like our government wanted
Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait so we would have an excuse to
take military action.  There is also serious skepticism about Saudi
Arabia ever really being in danger from invasion by Iraq. What are
the real reasons behind our government's reaction?
TONY: We're given a different reason every week.  This scenario that
I just spelled out for you suggests that perhaps we had our own
reasons for not discouraging the original invasion. I confess that
these reasons are not clear to me.
        This business about  being "invited" to Saudi Arabia is one of
the bigger charades.The Crown Prince of Jordan told us that his
brother,  King Hussein, was talking with Margaret Thatcher a day or
so before this "invitation" was issued from Saudi Arabia for our
troops. The King said to Thatcher, "We have to do something so the
Americans don't send in their troops." Margaret Thatcher told him,
"It's too late. They're on their way." This was a day before we were
even "invited".
        We had people in our delegation from North Carolina, near
Camp Lejeune and Ft. Bragg. They knew that troops were leaving
North Carolina before we were invited. There's only one conclusion to
be drawn. We simply told them "We're coming, and it would be
really nice if you were to invite us."
RCWP: But why would the US force an "invitation" for its troops from
Saudi Arabia?
TONY: Two theories make sense to me. First, our government has
always wanted a base there, and now we've got it in Saudi Arabia.
The Palestinians suggested another reasonable possibility. The United
States doesn't need that oil so much as Europe and Japan. But if we
are able to control the price of oil, we are able to control the
economic competition with Japan and Europe in a way that we
couldn't otherwise. So it's not that we need the oil, we need the
control over those countries and the control over the oil prices so we
can call the shots with Japan and Europe. Otherwise, we're losing
badly in the competition with them.
RCWP: What kind of reaction do you get when you talk to groups?
TONY: People are not that stupid in the United States.  They don't feel
they have heard the real reasons why we are there. They know it
has something to do with oil, and certainly not with democracy or
sovereignty. They see right through that business. After all,  how
have we acted about the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the
occupation of Lebanon by Syria? We haven't exactly rushed in with
200,000 troops.
RCWP: Do people make the connection between Iraq's invasion of
Kuwait and the US invasion of Panama?
TONY: Yes. The Iraqis mentioned it all the time.  They said, "Explain
to us why it's okay for you to go in and take out a leader that you
don't like, who has crossed you, in Grenada or Panama, or to mine
harbors in Nicaragua, and it's not right for us?"
RCWP: FOR was involved in a delegation to Panama recently, and the
Panamanians were asking them, "Why is Bush reacting so strongly to
Iraq, and he still hasn't rebuilt what he destroyed here?" The latest
UN report says at least 2500 to 3000 thousand civilians were killed
and at least 15,000 were made homeless by the US invasion.
TONY: Many people don't know that about the Panama invasion. We
are being protected from the realities of war. A Vietnam veteran in
our group was explaining to his class why he was going from San
Francisco to Baghdad. He said, "If I can keep one of you from going
through what I went through in Vietnam--killing people I didn't
know for a reason that was never explained to me, and then having
to take the arms and legs of my friends and put them in body bags
and send them back--even if I don't come back from Iraq on this
trip, it will be worth it."
        We found out that they fly about 200 soldiers over to Saudi
Arabia in a cargo plane. They also load these aircraft with 100
coffins, which they never show the soldiers.  This is not just a rumor-
-it has been corroborated by the AFSC.
        A lot of the Vietnam veterans on my trip had been through VA
hospitals for a long time after the war. One had his leg shot off and
had been bayonetted through the neck. He said, "You know, the care
we've had is really pretty abysmal. The United States has never even
acknowledged the existence of Agent Orange, to all intents and
purposes for treating it." He said, "Has anyone talked about the VA
hospitals and how they are going to be prepared to take 50,000 to
100,000 people who've been gassed or wounded? Is there any
provision for this? The answer is no. I'll tell you right now--I know
the VA hospital system, and they're not prepared for this. "
        But no one wants to face the reality that if we invade Kuwait,
it's not going to be this overnight little blitzkrieg. It's going to be
very messy. I talked with a Marine stationed on the front lines in
Saudi Arabia who was back home on emergency leave.  He was told
that if we invade after the first air attack, it would take about a year
to reach Baghdad in fighting. Imagine how many people are going to
die. And if we're right about all the chemical weapons--it's going to
be terrible. I assume that Saddam Hussein would use them if he
were backed into a corner.
RCWP:That's the problem--people backed into a corner will do just
about anything. This is why our government's  refusal to even talk
with the Iraqis was so dangerous. .
TONY:The Iraqis were certainly ready to negotiate in October. They
told us, "We put out proposals in August which you said were
nothing but propaganda. We're ready to talk now."
         Saddam Hussein made a colossal error--he really did not
anticipate he would get in this amount of trouble doing what he did.
No sooner had he done it, I think, and seen that he had basically no
support in the Arab world (at least among the leadership) and in the
West, he was looking for a way to get out with saving face. Now
saving face is extremely important, both for our president and their
president.
        Bush has changed the rules, too. He said at first that we had
three objectives: to protect Saudi Arabia, to restore the emir of
Kuwait, and to have Iraq withdraw from Kuwait.  A couple of weeks
afterwards, he added a fourth objective: to destroy the military
capability of Iraq, and to take out Saddam Hussein.
        That fourth objective is the scary one. Those first three could
be accomplished through negotiations. But the fourth-- you can't
accomplish that. You can't negotiate a suicide. I don't think that
Saddam Hussein would negotiate himself out of existence.
RCWP: Bush wouldn't do that to himself!
TONY: Who would? It's completely unreasonable. I think that Saddam
Hussein is dangerous, but he is no more dangerous than other leaders
in the Middle East. He is no more a terrorist than President Assad of
Syria, or Prime Minister Shamir of Israel, whose early career was
being a terrorist.
RCWP: If we're worried about the Iraqis having the bomb, why aren't
we worried about the Israelis having the bomb?
TONY: Well, I'm worried about anybody having the bomb. But  the
Iraqis  are in a position where they cannot convince people who
don't want to be convinced. When they allowed their facilities very
recently to be inspected and this international agency said they are
years away from having a tactical weapon, our government's
response was "They were hiding things. They didn't show this group
anything." Nobody said, "Gee, I wonder why Israel has never allowed
a regulatory body to look at their facilities."
RCWP:  How much support is there for Saddam Hussein in that
region?
TONY: Let me first say I don't think that heat should be taken off
Saddam Hussein for his invasion. I think it was the wrong thing to
do, and it's typical of the kind of person he is. Traveling around Iraq,
one is very aware of the positive social achievements of this regime-
-the land distribution, the clean streets, the wide  highways, the
beautiful buildings. It's really an incredible country that way. But
one is also very aware of the repression and the fear. People really
don't want to talk, to us or to anybody. And it is true that dissent is
dealt with very, very harshly.
RCWP: How would you compare Iraq with Saudi Arabia?
TONY: I've never been to Saudi Arabia, but I think the regimes are
equally harsh.
        We spent a  day and a half in Jordan, meeting with people like
the crown prince. And we talked to some of the Asians who had been
working in Kuwait and who had been evacuated.
        The Jordanians and others suggested that Americans should
ponder why the most democratic and moderate Arab regimes
(Algeria, Tunisia, Jordan) are the ones most supportive of Hussein.
And the most autocratic regimes, like Syria,  Saudi Arabia, and the
sheikdoms (Egypt is a special case because of what they owe the
United States) are the ones who are the most against him.
        That  is worth pondering, because these relatively democratic
regimes know that Saddam Hussein is not a democrat, they know
that he is ruthless and cruel. But they also feel that even though he's
not the right person, he raises the right questions for the Arab world.
He raises the questions of American imperialism, of exploitation of
Arab resources. And every time somebody in the United States says,
"OUR oil", it just exposes this kind of mentality that we have with
respect to that part of the world.
        Saddam Hussein also raised the issue of the economic
inequality that exists throughout the Arab world, where these oil-
rich sheiks invest all their money in Europe and the United States
and they don't invest in the capital of their own country. There's no
trickle-down effect, any more than there is in this country.
        So he exposed all of that. People also don't like the emir of
Kuwait. We found out that there are 700,000 Kuwaitis, but 2 million
Asians to wait on them. It doesn't sound as if the Kuwaitis are too
productive on their own.
RCWP: I had heard that only about 8% of the population is eligible to
vote.
TONY: That's true, too. The moderate Arabs say that the emir should
be restored, but only if he offers to hold a plebiscite and open
himself up for democratic reform--which includes allowing the
permanent residents of his country to vote, which they can't do now.
There are also 400,000 Palestinians in Kuwait who have been there
mainly since the 40's and 50's--they've never been allowed to vote.
They are permanent residents with no voting rights. So if you want
to know why the Palestinians were not wildly supportive of the
Kuwaitis, that's one reason. They've been disenfranchised there, as in
every country except Jordan.
RCWP: What has been nationwide reaction to the FOR campaign
"Crossing the Line"?
TONY: We talked with the Speaker of the Iraqi Assembly and the
First Deputy Premier on October 20, just at the time when thousands
of Americans were demonstrating in 18 cities across the United
States. And we could tell them, "We're just 21 people here, but there
are thousands behind us.We're telling you that, and we're telling our
government that."
        I figure we have already sent about 1000 of these "NO BLOOD
FOR OIL" canisters out of Richmond. I mentioned this on a talk show
in Chicago. They said, "Well,  if Richmond, Indiana with less than
40,000 people can do this, surely we could send a hundred thousand
of these out." I said, "You surely could. And here's where you get the
labels, and here's how to do it."
        I heard on the news this morning that there will be a
demonstration in Oxford tomorrow, in Miami University, and that
they plan to march to the Post Office to send barrels of oil. So this is
catching on.  FOR printed up 85,000 new labels last Monday. We
couldn't wait for the labels to be printed. We've been sending out the
xeroxes.  I just faxed some label sheets down to a retirement
community in North Carolina. They've been going through their town
collecting canisters from all the photographers. It's really great.
RCWP: What has been media coverage of the campaign?
TONY:We brought four hostages back with us, and nobody in the
media even mentioned that it was a peace group that secured the
release.
A very significant event that  has not hit the newspapers at all is
that last week, the FOR chartered a 707  in California and carried 13
1/2 tons of medicine to Iraq. It was taken over by four people--two
from the FOR, a Jewish physician from Physicians for Social
Responsibility, and a Syrian Orthodox priest. These four people
accompanied this shipment to Iraq. The medicine was given to the
nongovernmental Red Crescent Society [their equivalent of the Red
Cross] last Tuesday. Nothing appeared in the media.  RCWP: The
media has also not been mentioning the nationwide protests until
fairly recently. We've seen that kind of news blackout before on
Central America  protests also.
TONY: Yes, it's not unique.
RCWP: Do you think the campaign will make a difference?
TONY: The most interesting thing about this campaign is that it's a
repetition of the 1954-55 campaign that FOR did, sending little bags
of grain to the White House and asking for famine relief for China.
President Eisenhower said later that this campaign made him give up
the idea of dropping nuclear bombs on China after the Korean War.
The important thing about that is that the people who were involved
in the famine relief campaign never knew exactly if it made a
difference or not. But it did.
         So we know we will make a difference. Even if we get out of
this situation and George Bush wants to take credit for it, saying
"This \happened because I was tough", there is no reason for people
not to think that what we're doing is making a difference.
        I see some changes in Congress. More and more people are
speaking up. More and more folks are even saying "We'd better
attack now while there is still public support". Obviously they think
that when people know more about it, they won't be for the war! I
don't know how you can draw any other conclusion .
RCWP: Bush sending somebody over to Iraq to talk was a
breakthrough, and I can't imagine that the arrival of all those
canisters did not have something to do with it. And the fact that the
protests are beginning to be noticed may be another connection
there. Contacts in Congress have told Pledge of Resistance that its
actions over the years prevented an invasion of Nicaragua, even
though publicly our officials either ignored the protestors or
trivialized them.
TONY: The FOR headquarters says they have just been swamped with
requests for labels. And the requests are coming from a cross section
of America. It isn't just professional peace activists at all. It's people
who have cousins and sons over there. It's veterans, farmers, labor
union people.  It does restore some of your confidence in the people.
But they really need to learn to push and to be skeptical, to not
accept everything they hear.
RCWP: This is hard for life-long activists to understand, but many
people have the strong sense that someone else is in control and
there is no use trying to change things. They are also afraid of getting
on lists, of making waves and getting noticed by the government. A
lot of times this fear is very vague, but it is very real.
TONY: Yes, people are fatalistic and cynical. All the American
journalists we met over in Iraq  were very, very cynical. I kept
asking them, "Why are you so much against peace? Why do you just
assume that somebody who is for peace is naive and couldn't be a
realist? " They had no real answers to this.
        But we were giving a press conference one night after we had
been to a hospital where most of us had been  devastated by seeing
children dying--diabetics, for example, because there was no insulin,
and little kids hooked up to intravenous fluids because they hadn't
had infant formula or powdered milk, their mothers were giving
them hot tea to keep up their liquid. The nun in our group actually
saw a child die right in front of her eyes.
        So we came back that night, full of the emotional upheaval that
you can imagine from that experience ,and had to give a news
conference to US television reporters. A woman in our group was
explaining about the diabetics and this guy really jumped on her--he
just yelled out of the audience and said, "That's a really serious
accusation, you know. Do you have any facts for this? What's the
name of the hospital, what's the name of the doctor? How many
children are you talking about? What were their names? What part
of the country are they from? How do you know they're not Kurds?"
Like a machine-gun load of questions, and then he stopped.      She
tried to answer as best she could, and someone else offered more
information.  I noticed the whole rest of the press conference, this
reporter didn't say another thing. We went up to him afterwards and
we said, "We noticed you came on pretty strong. But why didn't you
ask any more questions? You couldn't have been satisfied by those
answers, because they didn't give the kind of specifics that you
wanted."
        He replied, "Look, my network told me to get you guys. But I
want you to know that I have a son who is a Ranger in Saudi Arabia,
and I thank God that you're here. I'll ask my one question, but I
wouldn't ask any more questions of you."
        It was an incredible moment. What made it  incredible was
being surrounded by all this sense of futility and cynicism, and then
seeing that really people are able to respond to a message of love.
Even the hardest hearts are not immune to this. Especially when you
have that kind of a personal tie like that.
        The head of the Jordanian Air Force  greeted us with, "Thank
God you've come." Now, we were just twenty ordinary Americans.
But he said, "You know, if there were more of you people, people like
me wouldn't have a job. And I would love it. Do you know what it's
like to send up young Jordanians into the sky, knowing that there is
no way they are ever going to return if there's a war? Thank God
you're here."  The Jordanians are going to get it either way. Either
side they come in on, they're going to get wiped out.
         I wish we had the head of our Air Force praising peace efforts.
RCWP: How did the Iraqi officials react to you?
TONY: We were very adamant about saying, "We're against the
occupation of Kuwait. We're against the invasion. But we're also
against the invasion and occupation of other countries." And the
Iraqis would say, "You know, you're the first Americans who haven't
used the double standard on this. We don't agree with you about our
occupation and invasion necessarily, but we respect the fact that
you're consistent." But that's about as close as we got to a genuine
engagement  with the issues at the official level.
        The amount of fear in the rest of the country made it
impossible to engage others with the issues, also. But even in the
midst of this fear, there was no anti-Americanism demonstrated
toward us: at the university, on a farm, walking the streets of
Baghdad, people came up to us and were extremely kind and
hospitable.
        When I left, I had this sense  that these friendly people could
be dead next week from American bombs. Our own greatest fear was
not that the Iraqis were going to keep us or kill us, but that we
would be invaded by our own people and bombed in Baghdad. We
sensed it, and the Iraqis did too. And yet they demonstrated no
hostility toward us as individuals. I found that very remarkable. I've
seen this attitude everywhere in the Arab world. It's one of the
reasons I love that culture.
RCWP: We have found that in Central America and Cuba, people also
make a clear distinction between the aggressive actions of our
government and the American people themselves. But Americans
don't seem to make this distinction. If we hate a government, we're
supposed to hate the people too.
TONY: In every underdeveloped country or developing country, they
seem more civilized than we are about making such distinctions.
They are not naive about governments, so they can make a
distinction between governments and people. They've always had to,
in order to exist.
        In fact, I must say that I was always touched at how much
respect the Iraqis had for our government. The hostage issue was a
key one. They actually think that we wouldn't invade Iraq because
they put Americans around strategic sites.
        This is ludicrous. Everybody at the US Embassy that we talked
with in Baghdad said, "We are not in the equation. We are dead meat.
We're professionals. We know that if our government decides to
invade Iraq, we're expendable. The fact that we're hostages means
nothing in the military calculus."
        We tried to explain this to Iraqis, but they said, "No, no--your
government wouldn't do this." But we've done it in the past. We did
it in Hiroshima. There were American civilians and hostages being
held in Hiroshima. They just evaporated with everybody else. So I
was touched that they thought that about us. It's part of this love-
hate relationship I think the Arab world has with America.
RCWP: Was your trip a success?
TONY: The only way that we would feel the trip was successful would
be if we accomplished something after our return.  We were making
a symbolic gesture and a stand. But the fact is that because we went,
we've had lots of doors open to us and a chance to mobilize people.
What I've done is multiplied at least by twenty times, and other
people who are full-time activists--they've just been knocking
themselves out, speaking and writing everywhere. But we feel that
the deadline that Bush got the UN to impose--January 15--is a
deadline for the peace movement just as much as it is for the Iraqis.
        I was giving an interview today with the Indianapolis Star over
the phone, and the reporter asked me about the difference  between
the anti-war movement now and during the Vietnam period. To me,
one of the major differences is that we actually have a chance to do
something before it happens. The Vietnam peace movement got
started after we had already been engaged and after a lot of blood
was shed already. We also have the advantage of learning from
Vietnam.

/** mideast.actions: 35.0 **/
** Topic: MOMENTUM FOR JAN. 19 ANTI-WAR DEMO **
** Written  2:28 pm  Dec 24, 1990 by csime in cdp:mideast.actions **
     Coalition to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Middle East
                      (October 20 Coalition)
      36 East 12th Street, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10003
   Phone (212) 254-2295               Fax (212) 979-1583
 
For immediate release: December 20, 1990
 
Contact: Sara Flounders or Joyce Chediac
 
Momentum builds for January 19 National March on Washington
        to stop Bush's war plans in the Persian Gulf
 
            Activists call on Bush to "renounce
                 Jan. 15 deadline for war."
 
 
The Coalition to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Middle East expects
upwards of 300 busloads of demonstrators from around the country to
converge on the White House on Jan. 19 to demand that Bush cancel his
war plans and bring the U.S.  troops home immediately.
 
More than 100 local anti-war coalitions in 22 states, including all of
New England, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, the
Carolinas, Tennessee, as well as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan,
Illinois, and Indiana, and as far away as Toronto, are energetically
organizing to bring students, trade unionists, seniors and community
groups to the demonstration.
 
The March is supported by more than 400 national and local
organizations as well as prominent individuals including Harry
Belafonte, Spike Lee, Tyne Daly, Casey Kassem, Dick Gregory, Ruby Dee,
Michael Moore, Michio Kaku, Parren Mitchell, Rev. Ben Chavis, Bishop
Paul Moore and Ramsey Clark.
 
In addition to strong support on campus, the march is also getting
significant labor participation. Over 60 union locals are organizing
for the Jan. 19 demonstration, including many AFGE locals in the Metro
D.C. area. (Most federal government workers belong to the
AFGE--American Federation of Government Employees.)
 
Committees to organize buses have been set up in Hospital and
Healthcare Workers Union Local 1199 in New York and 1199P in
Pennsylvania, the Amalgamated Transit Workers Union representing
striking Greyhound workers, and AFSCME State Councils in Pennsylvania
and Maryland.
 
Commenting on Pres. Bush's threat to attack Iraq after midnight Jan.
15, Gavrielle Gemma, a coordinator of the Coalition, said that
"sending almost half a million U.S.  troops to the Persian Gulf to
risk their lives for the oil companies is horrendous enough. But to
make Jan. 15--Martin Luther King's birthday--the deadline for war, is
obscene and offensive to people of conscience everywhere.
 
"We are calling on President Bush to stop the clock," Gemma said, "and
immediately renounce the Jan. 15 deadline for war that he coerced out
of the United Nations. This would be a Christmas present that U.S.
troops, their loved ones, and the entire world would welcome.
 
"In the meantime," Gemma continued, "those opposed to the U.S. war in
the Gulf must continue the fight to bring all the troops home. We need
to stop the Bush administration from establishing a permanent military
presence the Gulf, and oppose all forms of warfare--including
militarily enforced sanctions. We favor an Arab-based peaceful
solution to the crisis.
 
"Finally, we must demand that the billions of dollars wasted on the
war buildup in the Gulf be re-routed to address the crisis of
homelessness, unemployment, AIDS and healthcare, education for all--in
other words, social and economic justice at home."
 
To find out how you can help stop this war and for transportation
information, call (212) 254-2295 or write:  Coalition to Stop U.S.
Intervention in the Middle East, 36 East 12th Street, 6th Floor, New
York, NY 10003.
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.actions **

/** mideast.gulf: 371.0 **/
** Topic: SANE/Freeze ad in New York Times **
** Written  3:33 pm  Dec 26, 1990 by cscheiner in cdp:mideast.gulf **
Full-page advertisement in the New York Times (B11) December 26, 1990:
 
           The largest deployment of armed forces since
        Vietnam, the most rapid escalation in U.S. history,
            ... and no Constitutional mandate for war:
 
  MR. BUSH HAS DELIVERED 452,000 U.S. HOSTAGES TO SADDAM HUSSEIN.
 
             NOW HE WANTS THEM TO FIGHT THEIR WAY OUT.
 
                        Support our troops.
                      Bring them home. Alive.
 
President Bush:
    America has no interest in the Persian Gulf more vital than the
lives of the soldiers you have ordered there. It's time to change
course. It's time to pursue peace as aggressively as you have
prepared for war. A "new world order" worth having can't be built on
brute force. Give sanctions time. Use the U.N. and the formidable
international coalition you have built to resolve this crisis
peacefully. Bring our people home alive.
 
Coupon for contributions to: SANE/FREEZE Campaign for Global Security
                             1819 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20006
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.gulf **

    Heard on the tube last night :

    There's evidence that the sanctions are working. All the milk
    cartons in Baghdad have pictures of other milk cartons on them.

    "The only winner of a war will be the executives and the Wall Street
    flag wavers who profit from out dependency on oil...G.I.'s are the
    victims of war.  We are the pawns in the government's struggle to
    control the world's shrinking supply of natural resources.  We will be
    the ones stuffed into body bags.  We will be the next generation of
    wheelchair vets.  We will be the new homeless wandering the streets,
    neglected by the Veteran's Administration."

    		- US Marine Corporal Erik Larson

/** mideast.gulf: 351.0 **/
** Topic: FCNL:  Congress and the Gulf Cris **
** Written  7:08 pm  Dec 28, 1990 by jsax in cdp:mideast.gulf **
Subject: FCNL: The Final Days...
 
/* Written  6:08 pm  Dec 28, 1990 by sncrom in cdp:fcnl.updates */
/* ---------- "Hotline for December 28, 1990" ---------- */
FCNL                 TELEPHONE TAPE - 12/28/90
 
This is the Friends Committee on National Legislation, with updated
legislative information. To speak with a staff member, call (202)
547-6000.
 
GULF CRISIS.  As this message is being written, it is still unclear
whether Congress will stay in session following its swearing-in on January
3, or will recess until January 23 (its usual procedure).  Most observers
agree that there are still not enough votes in Congress to invoke any kind
of war powers restraints on presidential military actions.  On the other
hand, if a resolution were introduced to support a military initiative
against Iraq, it might pass, but perhaps not with the overwhelming support
the Bush administration would want.  Therefore, at the moment it appears
unlikely that either side will quickly push for a major showdown vote on
U.S. military moves in the Gulf.
 
There are, however, several important initiatives which can help to build
the opposition to war both in Congress and among the public.  They include
the following:
 
1. Support resolutions affirming that only Congress, and not the
President, can authorize offensive military action in the Gulf.  Such a
resolution will be introduced in the House by Representatives Bennett FL
and Durbin IL.  In the Senate, an identical measure will be sponsored by
Senators Harkin and Adams.  ACTION: Urge your members of Congress to
co-sponsor and support these resolutions that place the war-making
responsibility squarely on Congress, where it belongs.
 
2. Thank House members who signed on to a letter to President Bush,
initiated by Representative George Miller CA, urging the President to
allow time for the economic sanctions to work, and to refrain from
offensive military action.  The letter also strongly restated the fact
that Congress alone has the power to take the nation into war, and that a
UN Security Council vote cannot commit or authorize the use of United
States armed forces.  The 110 signers of this letter have been receiving
strong criticism from some quarters.  They need the support and thanks of
their constituents.  ACTION: Call the office of your representative, and
ask if she or he signed the George Miller letter to Bush.  Express thanks
and appreciation to those who did, and disappointment to those who did
not.  If necessary, contact the FCNL office for a list of signers.
 
3. Rep. Joe Kennedy MA is circulating a Dear Colleague letter seeking
support for a joint resolution he intends to introduce.  The resolution
would call for continuing sanctions against Iraq until it withdraws from
Kuwait, but would prohibit U.S. offensive military action for at least 12
months.  ACTION:  Urge your representative to co-sponsor this resolution
by Rep. Joe Kennedy.
 
The above actions can be seen as strengthening the ongoing efforts people
are already carrying out all over the country -- vigils, demonstrations,
media work, and delegations to your own members of Congress.  All these
are needed to build the movement to stop a war before it starts.
 
 
Friends Committee on National Legislation, 245 Second St., NE, Washington,
DC 20002.
** End of text from cdp:mideast.gulf **

/** mideast.general Topic: Church Leaders Peace Pilgrimage **/
** Written  9:01 pm  Dec 27, 1990 by jlynch in cdp:mideast.general **
Copied from the "NCC NEWS" meeting on ECUNET.
 
For further information contact:
 
     J. Martin Bailey
     475 Riverside Drive, Room 850
     New York, New York 10115
     phone:  (212) 870-2252
     fax:    (212) 870-2030
     email:  NWI:J_MARTIN_BAILEY
 
2 (of 2) J MARTIN BAILEY Dec. 27, 1990 at 10:44 Eastern (14517
characters)
 
NCC News
 
CHURCH LEADERS RETURN FROM MIDDLE EAST,
ISSUE URGENT CHRISTMAS APPEAL FOR PEACE
 
NEW YORK, December 21, 1990-----Eighteen top U.S.  Protestant and
Orthodox church leaders issued a message to the American people today,
urgently calling for renewed peace initiatives in the Middle East.
 
The appeal came less than 24 hours after one of their number, the Most
Rev.  Edmond Browning, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, carried
their concerns to President George Bush, an active Episcopalian.
 
The church leaders arranged the visit to trouble spots in the Middle
East just prior to the Christmas holidays.  They visited Iraq, Israel,
the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the divided
island of Cyprus.
 
"We believe that the United States must take the high road and do all it
can to de-fuse the present crisis in the Gulf," said Bishop Melvin
Talbert of the United Methodist Church, on his return from Baghdad,
Iraq.
 
Talbert described the tension in Iraq as high and said that both parties
seem to be unyielding.  "Neither George Bush nor Saddam Hussein seem
likely to blink."  Talbert, who is a vice- president of the National
Council of Churches, insisted "There will be no winners in a Gulf
war--only losers.  An open conflict could spread to a conflagration
elsewhere," he warned.
 
In Baghdad, Talbert and other church leaders called on officials of the
government of Saddam Hussein "to withdraw immediately its troops and
occupation forces from Kuwait."  Their appeal was embodied in a
resolution on the Gulf and Middle East Crisis adopted by the General
Board of the NCC on November 15, 1990.
 
The same resolution called for "the continuous rigorous application of
sanctions against Iraq authorized by the U.N.  Security Council."  Those
who visited Baghdad reported evidence of the effectiveness of the
sanctions, including a virtually empty airport and the limitations on
some consumer goods.
 
The Rev.  Joan B. Campbell of New York, General Secretary- elect of the
NCC, reported that the delegation returned "more convinced than ever
that there will be no peace in the region until several issues in the
region are resolved."
 
"We support the convening of an international conference for a
comprehensive Middle East peace," she said.  "The conference should be
called under United Nations auspices to discover ways to implement the
Security Council's resolutions on Israel and Palestine, on Lebanon, and
on Cyprus, as well as on the Gulf," she said.
 
The Very Rev.  Leonid Kishkovsky, president of the NCC and ecumenical
officer of the Orthodox Church in America, reported on the reactions of
religious and political leaders in Beirut, Lebanon and in Damascus,
Syria:
 
"Although there is a certain hope for a peaceful solution, even a
yearning for a peaceful solution, expressed particularly by the
religious leaders, the nations are firm in their insistence that Iraq
withdraw from Kuwait."
 
In Israel and the occupied territories, the church leaders spoke with
prominent representatives of the Jewish and Muslim faiths, as well as
with officials in the Israeli government and the Palestinian Liberation
Organization.
 
Bishop Vinton Anderson, moderator of the Black Church Liaison Committee
of the World Council of Churches and bishop of the 5th District of the
African Methodist Episcopal Church, said that religious leaders in
Israel and the West Bank called for even-handedness and consistency from
the United States in dealing with the occupations of Kuwait and
Palestine.  The group visited the occupied Gaza Strip and sensed,
especially among the young, a lasting anger toward the occupying forces.
 
Dr.  Patricia Rumer, general secretary of Church Women United, reported
that Palestinians have reported their belief in a political solution
there and in the so-called "two state option" (Israel and Palestine),
 
In Amman, Jordan, the church leaders spoke with evacuees from Kuwait who
were hoping to return to their homes in Thailand, Pakistan, and the
Sudan.  The church leaders visited a tent city on the outskirts of Amman
that had been filled during the peak of the evacuation process and they
observed prefabricated, insulated barracks being assembled for possible
use by refugees if hostilities break out.  Crews there are working
against a January 15 deadline that coincides with the date set by the
United Nations for Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait.  The evacuation center
is being developed and staffed with the assistance of the Middle East
Council of Churches and from funds supplied through the NCC's Church
World Service and Witness Unit.
 
In Amman, the group discussed Middle East peace issues with Crown Prince
Hassan and with the Foreign Minister Marwan al-assam, who thanked the
church leaders for their interest in the region and urged that Arab
peace initiatives be given an opportunity to resolve the Gulf Crisis.
 
According to Bishop Browning, church officials in Jordan and Iraq urged
Americans to pray with them for a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
"Our visit meant a great deal--a very great deal--to Christians in those
countries who are increasingly anxious as the war buildup continues.  We
were glad to stand in solidarity with them on the eve of celebrations
marking the birth of the Price of Peace."
 
The Rev.  James Andrews of Louisville, Kentucky, stated clerk of the
Presbyterian Church (USA), said the group made the trip with a sense of
urgency and out of moral and spiritual convictions."  He said the group
also expressed concern for "the members of our congregations whose
families already are being divided by the deployment of troops to Saudi
Arabia."
 
The NCC resolution called for "an immediate halt to the build-up" and
for the "withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Gulf region, except those
which might be required and explicitly recommended by the Security
Council of the UN in accordance with relevant provisions of the UN
charter."
 
The church leaders statement, "War is Not the Answer" follows.  For
further information contact J. Martin Bailey, press officer for the
Church Leaders' Peace Pilgrimage, at 212-870-2252.
 
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.general **

** Written  9:06 pm  Dec 27, 1990 by jlynch in cdp:mideast.general **
Copied from the "NCC NEWS" meeting on ECUNET.
 
The following statement was released in New York on December 21, 1990
and was signed by the participating church leaders.
 
 
                       WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER
 
                A Message to the American People
 
We are marching toward war.  The stakes are horribly high.  Military
experts predict casualties in the tens and hundreds of thousands.  And
it won't end there.  War would unleash a chain of human tragedies that
will be with us for generations to come.
 
Our Christmas pilgrimage to the Middle East has utterly convinced us
that war is not the answer.  We believe the resort to massive violence
to resolve the Gulf crisis would be politically and morally
indefensible.
 
One clear message emerged from our many conversations in these holy
lands:  "War would be a disaster for us all."  We were told again and
again, "Please go home and tell the American people that a way to peace
can and must be found."  We have concluded that in the Middle East today
it is no longer only a question of right and wrong; it is also a matter
of life and death.
 
The unspeakable loss of lives, especially innocent civilians, would be
unacceptable on moral grounds.  Nations hold in their hands weapons of
mass destruction.  It is entirely possible that war in the Middle East
will destroy everything.  No cause will be served, no crisis resolved,
no justice secured.
 
War will not liberate Kuwait; it will destroy it.  War will not save us
from weapons of mass destruction, it will unleash them.  War will not
establish regional stability, it will inflame the entire Middle East.
War will not resolve longstanding conflicts, it will explode them wider
and deeper.
 
War will not unite the Arabs and the West, it will rekindle painful
historical memories of past efforts by the "Christian" West to dominate
the "Muslim" East and divide us as never before, with potentially
disastrous results for the local Christian communities.  War will not
stop aggression, it will instead rapidly accelerate the cycle of
violence and revenge, which will not be limited to the Middle East.
 
We will also be ravaged here at home by a war in the Middle East.  Given
the make-up of U.S. volunteer armed forces, we know that those who will
do most of the suffering and dying in the Gulf War will be
disproportionately low-income and people of color.  Similarly, if
"Desert Shield" continues to swallow up limited national resources in a
time of economic contraction, the prospects of justice at home will
disappear like a mirage in the sand.
 
Again and again during our pilgrimage we heard the sentiment that peace
in the Middle East is indivisible.  While we do not accept the
proposition that the resolution of all other conflicts must precede the
solution of the Gulf crisis, we do believe that there will be no lasting
peace in the region until interrelated issues are dealt with in a
comprehensive framework.  What is required is not "linkage," but
consistency in the implementation of U.S. foreign policy.  Our
government should support the convening of an international Middle East
peace conference by the United Nations.
 
We have prayed in Jerusalem for the peace of Jerusalem.  Jerusalem's
vocation as the city of peace will not be realized until both Israelis
and Palestinians are free and fully protected in the exercise of their
human rights within secure and recognized boundaries.
 
We have seen both the hopes and frustrations of Lebanon as it emerges
from its 15-year nightmare of Civil War.  A durable peace in Lebanon
requires the withdrawal of all foreign forces-- Syrian, Israeli and
Iranian--and international support as Lebanon seeks to rebuild its
shattered society.
 
We have felt the anguish of a divided Cyprus, which seems to have been
forgotten by the world community.  Cyprus can be united and free only
when occupation forces are withdrawn from the island, and a pluralistic
Republic of Cyprus is acknowledged as the only legitimate government of
the entire island and its population.
 
There is no such thing as a benign occupation.  Occupation of the lands
of others is wrong.  It breeds frustration and frustration leads to
conflict.  Even as we oppose the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait on moral
grounds, so also we believe that the West Bank and Gaza, Lebanon and
Cyprus must be free.  These occupations must end before even more
precious human blood is shed.
 
We have looked into the faces of children in Iraq.  In Jordan we have
witnessed in dusty refugee camps the compassionate response of a
democratic government and the churches to the thousands of evacuees who
descended upon a country already impoverished by the Gulf crisis.  We
have seen fear in the eyes of people who could lose their homes or their
lives in the event of war.
 
Having seen the faces of victims and potential victims, we believe that
there must be an alternative to war.  That alternative is
negotiations--serious and substantive negotiations.  If the United
Nations can be mobilized to impose sanctions and to set deadlines, it
can also be mobilized to provide a forum to resolve disputes between
nations.  The U.N. can be the place where the deadly escalation of
armaments of mass destruction in the Middle East can be reversed.  The
U.N. should be given the opportunity to provide a framework for an Arab
contribution to the resolution of the Gulf crisis.
 
Our nation must not submit to the inevitability of war.  By acting now
on a very broad scale, we as a people of faith will mobilize on behalf
of a peaceful alternative.  Citizen action and the strength of public
opinion could literally make possible a solution to this crisis without
war.
 
We call upon the churches and upon the nation to fast and pray for
peace, to pursue every means available of public dialogue and popular
expression to find a way out of certain catastrophe, to resist the war
option and help point the way to peace with justice.
 
At this moment, the resolution of the Gulf crisis will take a miracle.
But in this season we are reminded that the Middle East is the cradle of
miracles.  That miracle must be acted and prayed into being.
 
Signed by the following church leaders who visited the cities indicated:
 
Baghdad and Amman:  The Most Rev.  Edmond L. Browning of New York,
presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church; the Rev Joan Brown Campbell of
New York, general secretary-elect of the National Council of Churches;
the Rev.  Dr.  Milton Efthimiou of New York, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
of North and South America; the Rev.  Dr.  Fred Lofton of Memphis, TN,
immediate past president of the Progressive National Baptist Convention,
Inc.; the Rev.  Edwin G. Mulder of New York, general secretary of the
Reformed Church in America; Bishop Melvin Talbert of San Francisco,
bishop of the California-Nevada Annual Conference, United Methodist
Church; Jim Wallis, of Washington, D.C., editor of Sojourners Magazine;
and the Rev.  Dr.  Daniel E. Weiss of Valley Forge, PA, general
secretary of the American Baptist Churches in the USA.
 
Jerusalem and the Occupied Territories:  The Rev.  Herbert W. Chilstrom
of Chicago, bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Bishop
Vinton Anderson of St.  Louis, moderator of the Black Church Liaison
Committee of the World Council of Churches and bishop of the 5th
District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church; the Rev.  Mac
Charles Jones of Kansas City, MO, of the National Baptist Convention of
America; the Rev.  Dr.  Donald E. Miller of Elgin, IL, general secretary
of the Church of the Brethren; Dr.  Patricia J. Rumer of New York,
general director of Church Women United, the Rev.  Dr.  Robert
Stephanopoulos of New York, representing the Standing Conference of
Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas; and the Rev.  Angelique
Walker-Smith of Trenton, NJ, of the National Baptist Convention, U.S.A.,
Inc.
 
Beirut and Damascus:  The Rev.James Andrews of Louisville, KY, stated
clerk of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); the Very Rev.  Leonid
Kishkovsky of Syosset, NY, president of the National Council of Churches
and ecumenical officer of the Orthodox Church in America; and the Rev.
Dr.  Paul Sherry of Cleveland OH, president of the United Church of
Christ.
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.general **

    I would like to make two points about the responses I have read so far
    in this note..neither of which relate to the justification (or
    otherwise) of a war but relate to the Wests understanding of the Middle
    East.
    
    1.  For year's the West has tried to impose their Western will and
    ideals of democracy and freedom on Middle Eastern Nations that do not
    think the same way we do.  (I am not making a judgement here, simply
    stating a fact).  In most Middle Eastern countries women are
    second-class citizens, and men are allowed to have several wives.  In
    some ME countries, if you are caught stealing, they cut your hand
    off...if you are caught lying, they cut your tongue off.  Alcohol is
    banned, etc, etc.  We can not understand these concepts of life any
    more than they they can understand our concepts of freedom and
    democracy.  We believe our way is right..they believe their way is
    right...but it is not for us to dictate how they should lead their
    lives.   ME tradition is full of warring factions and constant battling
    between tribes, countries etc.  Whats more important is that their
    history is thousands of years older than our own!!!  Why do we believe
    we have a right to change it???
    
    The answer is we don't...until it begins to theaten our Western way of
    life that we have chosen.  And this brings me to the second point...
    
    2)  Why has no one mentioned the threat to Israel???  The West has
    chosen to support Israel over the last 40 odd years not just because it
    is strategically located, but because it is an "oasis of freedom and
    democracy in an otherwise barren land".  Should we just turn our backs
    on Israel??
    
    My personal conclusion....
    
    Let the Arabs fight amongst themselves as much as they want..They've
    been doing it for thousands of years and will continue to do it.  But
    when the actions of Arabs (or anyone else for that matter) begin to
    affect our way of life and the way of life our our free and democratic
    friends, we must respond.  But we must respond in a way that the Arabs
    (in this case) understand i.e with force....it is the only language
    that they understand.
    
    PJ

/** mideast.actions: 44.0 **/
** Topic: San Francisco Demos in Jan. **
** Written  7:35 pm  Jan  1, 1991 by ednoca in cdp:mideast.actions **
WILL OIL WAR LEAD TO NUCLEAR WAR?
 
Nearly 100 American soldiers have already died in "accidents" in the
Persian Gulf, but a major military conflict could mean the death of
30,000 to 50,000 American soldiers, more than 100,000 Arab deaths, and
unpredictable ecological consequences, all within a matter of weeks.
 
A US nuclear attack is a very real possibility.  Bush has vowed to take
"quick, massive and decisive" action and there are at least 5,000
nuclear war heads in the region.  A "conventional" war will result in
unprecedented devastation, but still may not be sufficient to produce a
decisive US "victory".
 
Bush's January 15th Dead Line is rapidly approaching.  To prevent a US
attack, thousands of people across this country are going to have to
immediately stop what they're doing and directly interfere with the
operations of the US government.
 
In San Francisco, and around the world, mass oppposition is growing.
Here the Bay Area Direct Action Network (BADAN) is calling on all
individuals and affinity groups to help build a campaign of non-violent
sustained resistance.
 
BADAN has emphasized creative direct actions to raise public
consciousness.  We've done Christmas Die-Ins in the shopping district.
An Army Recruiting Center takeover made national media.  An
Antiwar-Homeless March helped secure an early opening and expanded
services at a new homeless shelter during a severe cold spell.  Leaflets
for Financial District workers have called for disruption of business as
usual the day after an invasion.
 
From January 14 to 28, San Francisco will become a west coast center for
actions against the war.  At least 10 major actions are being planned
including two regional mass demonstrations and non-violent affinity
group based actions targeting centers of military and corporate
activity.
 
BADAN encourages individuals and affinity groups from all of the western
states to join in these important actions, to organize in your
communities, and put out the call for direct action everywhere.
 
Discussions of Scenarios and Tactics, and AG formation will happen at a
"Community Planning Meeting and Preparation for Direct Action" from
January 11 to 13 at New College, 777 Valencia, San Francisco.  All are
invited to participate.
 
We encourage self sufficiency, but BADAN is seeking donations of food,
accomodations and other support facilitites to help sustain the actions.
Our tactics will include traffic stoppages, blockades, and occupations
of buildings.  We will focus on governmental, military, financial, and
corporate centers linked with the war.  Call (415) 464-3020 for updates.
 
 
MORNING RUSH HOUR PROTEST
Jan 10 (thursday) 6:30 am; stand with banners near BART, freeway on
ramps, various public places; contact:  Stop the US War Machine Action
Network.  (415) 273-2427
 
SHUT DOWN THE FEDERAL BUILDING
Jan 15 (tues) 7:00 am, San Francisco Federal Building, 450 Goldengate, at
Civic Center BART. contact: Bay Area Pledge of Resistance (415) 655-1177
 
NIGHT MARCH IN THE MISSION
Jan 15 (tues) 5:00 pm, Mission & 24th St., San Francisco (24th St BART)
address/phone as Jan 26 Mobilization.  Middle East Peace Action (415)
548-0542.  Peninsula Peace Center (415) 326-8837.
 
EMERGENCY DEMONSTRATION IF/WHEN WAR BREAKS OUT.
The day of. 5:00 pm at Powell & Market, SF (Powell St BART)
 
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.actions **

-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL TO REQUIRE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION BEFORE GULF WAR
 
Christic Institute, Friday, January 4, 1991
 
The Durbin-Bennett resolution would prevent the President from
taking offensive military action in the Gulf without the consent
of Congress.
 
You can tell your Member of Congress what you think about this
resolution.  Any Congressional office can be reached through the
Capitol Hill switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
 
If you support the resolution, you can send a personal telegram
to Congress by calling (800) 257-4900.  Ask for operator 9782.
The telegram text asks your representative to do everything in
his or her power to prevent a military conflict in the Gulf and
urges that Congress act to limit Presidential power to conduct
covert operations.  If you choose to send the telegram, a $6
charge will be added to your phone bill.
 
The telegram is a service of the Christic Institute.  The
Institute also urges you to get involved in national
demonstrations against war in the Gulf scheduled for January 19
and 26 in Washington, D.C.  The contact numbers for the two
national coalitions organizing the separate protests are (212)
727-3069 and (212) 777-1246.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Lang            151251507 CHRISTIC                   telex
Christic Institute     tcn449                                 TCN
Washington, D.C.       christic                          PeaceNet
202-529-0140 BBS       uunet!pyramid!cdp!christic            UUCP
202-797-8106 voice     cdp!christic%labrea@stanford        Bitnet
202-462-5138 fax       cdp!christic@labrea.stanford.edu  Internet

    
from another string
    re:593.56
    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    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.
 
    and arguably saved the lives of many americans.
       
>    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..
 
    as for the number of actual kuwaitis there are, i believe they only
    constituted 40% of the population of kuwait before the invasion.
    
    as to genocide, the united states has stood idle during all kinds
    of genocides, including turkey, russia and cambodia.
    
    as to the truth of 'war atrocities', i'm suspicious of anything
    the u.s. government tells us.
       
>    if American power means any thing then it should mean protecting
>    the small and weak against the big and powerful.
 
    even allowing that that is what american power should be used
    for (not in the constitution, you know; and what about our own
    domestic problems? but i digress...) by at least one standard, 
    kuwait is hardly a 'small and weak' country. one could argue
    that the kuwaitis saved a fortune by not having their own army
    sufficient to defend itself, instead relying on western (american)
    forces. now, they'll get defended and will save lives as well as
    money. poor kuwait.
       
>    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!
    
    what about the public executions in kuwait just a few years ago?
    what about the oppressed women and minorities in kuwait and
    saudi arabia? since when is the united states in the business of
    supporting autocracies?
 
       
    

>    as to the truth of 'war atrocities', i'm suspicious of anything
>    the u.s. government tells us.

    For what it's worth, one major source of stories about the
    atrocities being committed in Kuwait is Amnesty International,
    which is hardly an arm of the US government, nor likely to be
    influenced by it.

    One tendency I saw very prevalent during the Viet Nam years which
    I would hate to see happen now was for opponents of US involvement
    to assume that since "we" are wrong, "they" must be right. Drove
    me nuts. Both sides can be wrong.

    I recall hearing on CNN a couple of months ago that Amnesty
    International had accused Saudi Arabia of torturing Yemeni residents
    there, as a result of political differences between Yemen and Saudi
    Arabia over the Gulf crisis.  I guess it follows from this that we
    should also invade Saudi Arabia.  Oh no, we can't do that--they are our
    allies.  Oh well, never mind.
    
    -- Mike

        re .182,
        
        Neat, how did you get something dated tomorrow? :-)
        
        Dan

    I have my connections.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

/** mideast.gulf: 324.0 **/
** Topic: Congressional Call-In Campaign on  **
** Written 10:48 am  Jan  2, 1991 by msommer in cdp:mideast.gulf **
 
To:  All interested persons From:  Mark Sommer, Peace and Conflict
Studies Program,
	  UC Berkeley
Re:  Congressional Call-In Campaign against use of force in
	  Persian Gulf
 
     The following text may be useful to groups or individuals
seeking to marshall public sentiment against a U.S. invasion of
Iraq.  It seeks to target specific Members of Congress whose
actions may be pivotal, providing all essential information.
Moreover, it encourages chain-calling (each person calling two
friends) to expand the base of participation and asks people to
call throughout the month of January.  Feel free to use it as is
or to modify it as necessary.  It is designed as a two-sided
flyer, with the rationale and strategy on the first side and
essential information on the second.
 
     Good luck!
 
			    *   *   *
(first side of page)
 
		  STOP THE WAR BEFORE IT STARTS
 
		CALL FOR PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
 
			  January 1991
 
     Many Americans feel that President Bush has not given
sanctions and diplomacy a chance to work before resorting to war
against Iraq but most also feel powerless to affect their
government's policy.  We do still have the power to prevent this
disaster.  In early January, Congress reconvenes and begins
debating a resolution on the use of force in the Persian Gulf.
Many members have expressed strong doubts about the wisdom of the
Bush Administration's war-at-all-costs policy.  But most are
concerned about the political risks of opposing their commander-
in-chief.  In order to take a firm stand against the President's
policy, they need to know that they are strongly supported by the
public.
 
     If enough ordinary citizens express their opposition to
invasion and support for sanctions to their Representatives,
Senators and key Congressional leaders, we can give them the
political courage to brake the momentum towards war.
 
THE STRATEGY:  CHAIN CALLING (2+2+2+2...)
 
     Call or write your Congressman, Senators, and a few key
Congressional leaders during the month of January to express your
views.  At the same time, contact at least two friends,
colleagues, or members of your family and ask them to call or
write as well.  If each of us contacts two others and they in turn
two others, within a week or less we may have thousands or even
tens of thousands of calls.  Since Congressional offices are
unused to receiving large numbers of calls on any issue, the
impact of yours will be magnified.
 
POINTS TO MAKE
 
     * Oppose any resolution condoning "use of force" by American
troops in the Persian Gulf at this time
 
     * Give sanctions as much time as necessary to work.  Open
channels for negotiation or mediation of the conflict
 
     * Reduce U.S. forces to levels adequate for defense only and
place them under UN command.  Share their expense with all UN
members
 
     * Press for a national energy policy reducing dependence on
oil and emphasizing conservation and greatly increased funding for
development of renewable sources of energy
 
			    *   *   *
(second side of page)
 
		      ESSENTIAL INFORMATION
 
WHO TO CALL
 
     *  Your Representative and Senators
 
     CONTACT the Capitol Switchboard (202-224-3121) and ask for
your members' offices.  When the receptionist answers, ask for the
staff person for the Persian Gulf.  If that person is not
available, give your message to the receptionist.
 
     * Senator George Mitchell, the Senate Majority Leader
 
     CONTACT the Senate Majority Leader's office at 202-224-5556.
Ask for the staff person for the Persian Gulf.
 
     * Rep. Tom Foley, Speaker of the House
 
     CONTACT Speaker Foley's office at 202-225-5604.
 
     * Senator Sam Nunn, chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee
 
     CONTACT Senator Nunn's office at 202-224-3521.
 
     * White House Comment Line
 
     CONTACT at 202-456-1111
 
     Call between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday.
Those in Western and Mountain time zones can take advantage of
very low long distance rates before 8 a.m. and still reach
Congressional offices during business hours.  Before 8 a.m.,
long-distance calls from most parts of the country cost just 13
cents a minute; after eight, just 25 cents.
 
WHOM TO WRITE
 
     All Members of the House of Representatives:
 
     Rep. _________________ House of Representatives Washington,
     D.C.  20515
 
     All Senators:
 
     Senator ______________ U.S. Senate Washington, D.C.  20510
 
     If you have time to write, a well-crafted letter can be
especially effective.  Be sure to ask for a response.
** End of text from cdp:mideast.gulf **

/** mideast.actions: 48.0 **/
** Topic: RADIO PSA'S FOR JAN 19 DEMO **
** Written  6:57 pm  Jan  3, 1991 by csime in cdp:mideast.actions **
Coalition to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Middle East
                 36 East 12th Street, 6th Floor
                      New York, N.Y., 10003
              (212) 254-2295  Fax: (212) 979-1583
 
January 3, 1990
 
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS READY, FEATURING:
 
DICK GREGORY, RUBY DEE, MICHIO KAKU, OSSIE DAVIS
 
Tape-recorded 30- and 60-second public service announcements
of the January 19 national demonstration to "Bring the U.S.
Troops Home!" are now available from the office of the
Coalition to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Middle East.
Featured speakers include Dick Gregory, Ruby Dee, Dr. Michio
Kaku, and Ossie Davis.
 
To obtain tapes to use on your local radio station, call the
Coalition at (212) 254-2295. Coalition supporters are also
free to place the announcements for reading by local
announcers. But please notify Coalition media coordinators
Joyce Chediac or Sara Flounders.
 
60 seconds
 
THIS IS______________.  IT'S IRONIC THAT GEORGE BUSH CHOSE
MARTIN LUTHER KING'S BIRTHDAY AS HIS DEADLINE FOR WAR IN THE
PERSIAN GULF. IF DR. KING WERE ALIVE TODAY HE WOULD BE
LEADING THE FIGHT AGAINST THIS WAR. AS HE REMINDED US DURING
VIETNAM, WE NEED A WAR AGAINST POVERTY, INJUSTICE AND RACISM
RIGHT HERE. ON SATURDAY, JANUARY 19, MARCH WITH ME AND TENS
OF THOUSANDS IN WASHINGTON, D.C., TO TELL THE GOVERNMENT TO
"BRING THE U.S. TROOPS HOME HOW! MONEY FOR JOBS, HEALTHCARE,
HOUSING AND AIDS, NOT WAR!" HONOR DR. KING'S BIRTHDAY WITH
THIS NATIONAL MARCH. THAT'S SATURDAY, JANUARY 19. FOR BUS
AND OTHER INFORMATION CALL THE COALITION TO STOP U.S.
INTERVENTION IN THE MIDDLE EAST AT (212) 777-1246. THAT'S
(212) 777-1246.
 
30 seconds
 
THIS IS _______________.IF YOU ARE AS CONCERNED AS I AM
ABOUT THE WAR IN THE PERSIAN GULF, YOU CAN DO SOMETHING. BY
DIALING 1-900-44-NO WAR, YOU CAN TELL PRESIDENT BUSH AND
CONGRESS "BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!" THE $10 CHARGE WILL
ALSO GET YOU INFORMATION FROM THE COALITION TO STOP U.S.
INTERVENTION IN THE MIDDLE EAST ON THE LATEST ACTIVITIES TO
STOP THE GULF WAR. THAT'S 1-900-44-NO WAR.
 
30 seconds.
 
THIS IS ____________.  LET US HONOR DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING
THIS YEAR BY SAYING "NO" TO WAR. JOIN ME AND THOUSANDS AT
THE WHITE HOUSE IN WASHINGTON, D.C., ON SATURDAY, JANUARY 19
WHERE WE WILL TELL GEORGE BUSH: "BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!
PEOPLE NEED JOBS AND EQUALITY--NOT WAR!" FOR BUS AND OTHER
INFORMATION, CALL THE COALITION TO STOP U.S. INTERVENTION IN
THE MIDDLE EAST AT (212) 777-1246. THAT'S (212) 777-1246.
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.actions **
-- Transfer complete, hit <RETURN> to continue --

/** mideast.actions: 40.3 **/
** Written 10:36 pm  Jan  2, 1991 by cscheiner in cdp:mideast.actions **
                    Gulf Peace Team USA
 
Ten people from USA will be leaving for the Iraq  on January
6. Together with groups from USSR and Indonesia, they will
be joining the Gulf Peace Camp, which has been established
on the Iraq/Saudi border to non-violently oppose and
withstand aggression from any party to the Gulf Conflict.
 
Already there are people from Aotearoa (New Zealand),
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Britain, France, Germany,
India, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon and the Netherlands
at the camp.
 
By placing themselves between the armies, the peace campers
hope to bring to the attention of leaders the insanity and
inhumaneness of war, and to stimulate them to pursue a
peaceful solution to the conflict.
 
The Camp is at an unoccupied resting place for pilgrims to
Mecca, about 1 kilometer from the Iraq/Saudi border, and
directly between  Iraq forces and USA forces.
 
People from USA who wish to join the Gulf Peace Camp can
contact Gulf Peace Team US, PO Box 598, Putney, VT 05346, ph
(802) 387 2600.  Peacenet - igc:cscheiner.
 
People from other countries contact Gulf Peace Team
International Office, 7 Cazenove Rd, London N16 6PA, ph
Great Britain 81 442 4664, fax 81 442 4649.  GreenNet -
gn:gpt.
** End of text from cdp:mideast.actions **

/** mideast.actions: 48.0 **/
** Topic: Nat'l radio teachin Jan. 13 **
** Written  8:17 pm  Jan  2, 1991 by cscheiner in cdp:mideast.actions **
          NATIONAL RADIO TEACH-IN:  THE GULF -- COUNTDOWN TO WAR?
 
              Sunday, January 13, 1990   6:00 - 10:00 pm EST
 
                Hosted by WBAI's Marksman & Phyllis Bennis
 
                           LIVE BY SATELLITE
 
With:
    Eqbal Ahmad, Middle East scholar
    Noam Chomsky, policy analyst
    Barbara Ehrenreich, writer and analyst
    Jack O'Dell, National Rainbow Coalition
    Mudar Abed, Palestinian-American Resource Center
 
This national teach-in, broadcast by WBAI (Pacifica) in New York will be
broadcast live by satellite and available free to community, college,
public, and other radio stations across the country.  Activists should
urge their local stations to downlink the program for live broadcast or for
taping for future use.  There is no charge to participating stations for
taking the teach-in off the satellite.
 
Speakers will address a wide range of issues, including the legacy of
colonialism in the Gulf region, the origins of the Iraq-Kuwait dispute,
and Bush administration policies.  They will examine the goals behind
Bush's war drive: the longstanding U.S. search for permanent bases in the
region, the politics of oil, changes in international relations in the
post-Cold War world.  Speakers will also address the impact of the crisis
on Palestinians and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the question of
alternative energy sources. They will examine the domestic costs of the
Gulf build-up, especially its impact on communities of color.
 
For more information, contact the CAMPAIGN FOR PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST,
104 Fulton Street, New York, NY 10038.  212/227-0221.
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.actions **

    
    Re .167:
    
    I had occasion recently to discuss the matter with council (lawyers)
    retained by the British Government. Their opinion is part of British
    Government thinking right now.
    
    For what it is worth they agree that existing treaty obligations
    undertaken freely by congress de facto grant the President the right
    and duty to pursue the obligations of these treaties.
    
    Furthermore a Un Police action is not a war within the accepted
    definitions of international war.
    
    On both of these counts there is no obligation on the part of the US to
    "declare war" and hence no reason for Congress to review a decision it
    in effect made when it agreed to join the UN.
    
    ---
    
    In plain English the birds have come home to roost...
    
    /. Ian .\ 

    While the British Government's points may have some validity, I would
    like to point out that it does not have legal authority to interpret
    the U.S. Constitution; that authority belongs to the U.S. Supreme
    Court.

    There *is* a precedent for Presidents going to war without
    Congressional approval, but it has nothing to do with the United
    Nations or treaty obligations--Presidents were sending American
    soldiers to their deaths, on their own executive authority, long before
    the UN was born.  The problem is that the Constitution provides two
    authorities for military action--the power to declare war, which
    Congress has, and the authority as Commander-in-Chief, which the
    President has.

    Prior to the Korean War, Presidents did not send Americans off to any
    "major" conflict without a declaration of war, but Americans fought
    many "minor" conflicts without any such declaration.  As one member of 
    Congress has pointed out, there have been over 200 conflicts fought
    without a declaration of war (!), and only 5 with such a declaration. 
    Those 5 were the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American
    War, World War I, and World War II.  I somehow doubt that a distinction
    between a "minor" and a "major" conflict has any legal standing.

    However, having said that, it is very likely that a war with Iraq is
    going to be one of the "major" wars, at least in terms of casualties. 
    I do not want to see a President starting such horrible carnage on his
    sole initiative.  Congress as a body may passively go along with their
    Commander-in-Chief, and thus endorse this march towards a pointless and
    bloody war; but public debate is a part of the democratic process that
    I would like to see, as part of the public record, in light of the
    horrors that are likely to result.

    -- Mike

    
    In fairness: These are not "The British Governments" views - the
    government having been asked to help asked a noted specialist in the US
    Constitution for an opinion as to whether Bush would be hung drawn and
    quartered by Congress and was told that in the lawyers opinion Congress
    had abrogated its authority in the matter by ratifying the UN Treaty.
    
    In the lawyers opinion the treaty is such that actions arising
    therefrom are *NOT WARS* but police actions intended to punish and
    control states that are in violation, and as such - not being wars -
    they don't need to be declared.
    
    It is normal practice in Britain before going to court to get a
    "Council's Opinion" as to the probable outcome, and that is all that is
    involved here: a learned jurists opinion of how a putative US Supreme
    Court decision would go.
    
    On a personal level I ask you this: Congress is currently Democratic or
    if you like "liberadical" or perhaps "appeasement minded". However as
    many readers here have commented the Supreme Court is Republican, or
    "Conservative" or if you like "pro-Bush". In the circumstances how do
    *you* think the Supreme Court would vote?
    
    /. Ian .\

    As I stated before, I consider it a strong possibility that Congress
    (regardless of party affiliation) would simply go along passively with
    Bush's drive for war; historically, it has tended to be passive in such
    matters.  As for what the Supreme Court would rule on the issue, that
    is anybody's guess; but given past precedent (which, as I pointed out,
    LONG precedes the UN and treaty obligations), I suspect that they would
    rule in favor of President Bush, simply because Presidents have sent
    American troops into conflict situations many, many times in the past
    without Congressional approval.  I don't know if the Supreme Court
    would consider that precedent or not, but it would probably at least be
    used as an argument.  Whether or not a declaration of war is a legal
    requirement is not the issue, as far as I am concerned, since I
    consider it a *moral* requirement that any march towards carnage be
    preceded by a public debate.

    As for the claim that the conflict against Iraq would not be a war--I'm
    sure that the relatives of those tens of thousands of American soldiers
    who would be returning home in body bags will consider this a great
    relief.
    
    -- Mike

    re .192:
    
    Ian, would it be considered a UN police action if we fly the US flag?
    
    thanks,

    I am somewhat worried by the role media is playing in this conflict.
    For me, someone who was born in a country where TV and Radio are
    controlled by Government, almost lopsided coverage portrayed by the US
    media is downright disturbing.  It does not ask any uncomfortable
    questions.  Views which are not in compliance with US foreign policy
    are given very little exposure.  I was very much surprised when I found
    absolutely no discussion on the controversial Ross Perot's interview on
    ML Newshour.
    
    Of course there will be war in Gulf, if now then later.  Few years down
    the road, Syria's ruler will be equated to Hitler.  All his attrocities
    will be portrayed on the media in great detail.
    
    - Vikas

 I always get suspicious, nay cynical, when the actions of some person or
country are compared to Hitler.  It is the right phrasing to press a lot
of peoples buttons, especially the buttons of those who practice Judaism!

 And now (all of a sudden) the American propaganda machine is telling the
world that "informed sources" believe that Iraq will have a nuclear capability
within ... oh the number keeps changing, but always getting smaller. Last I
recall, it was some number of months now. That's just to get the hot buttons of
other people who might otherwise question why all these people are going to
die.

 I'm also not sure what purpose trashing Iraq will serve.  For a variety of 
reasons, there has been war and bloodshed in the "Middle East" for at least 
5000 years; only the weapons have changed.  Is America (or the UN) going to
take on the role of "moderator" in the Gulf?  Good Luck!  Maybe they could
practice in Northern Island/Eire.

 						Nigel

/** mideast.actions: 52.0 **/
** Topic: FCNL: CONGRESS! **
** Written  6:59 am  Jan  5, 1991 by jsax in cdp:mideast.actions **
Subject: FCNL: CONGRESS!
 
This is the Friends Committee on National Legislation, with updated
legislative information.  To speak with a staff member, call (202)
547-6000.
 
This message was prepared at 6 p.m. on Friday, January 4. It contains
information and action suggestions on the GULF CRISIS.
 
The situation in Congress keeps changing.  As of January 3, the new
Congress is in "pro forma" session.  This means that members can debate
and introduce legislation but no legislation will be voted on.  Any time
during the pro forma session, congressional leaders may call members
back to vote on legislation.  Congress is required to reconvene within
two days of such an announcement.  Congress will probably reconvene
shortly after Secretary of State Baker meets with Iraqi Foreign Minister
Tariq Aziz.  That meeting is expected to take place Wednesday, January
9. If there is no such reconvening, then Congress will resume January
23.
 
Several important initiatives can help to build support for a peacefully
negotiated settlement and opposition to war, both in Congress and among
the public.  They include the following:
 
1. VOTER COMMUNICATION WITH CONGRESS.  The majority of mail that
Congress is receiving is opposed to war.  This is very encouraging!
However, it is extremely important that your Senators and Representative
CONTINUE to receive these messages over the next three weeks.  There
must be no slowing down, especially after the Baker-Aziz meeting.
Please continue to send letters to Members of Congress throughout the
month, and especially to urge and assist people who haven't yet written
to do so.
 
2. AFFIRM THE CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION OF POWERS.  Support resolutions
affirming that only Congress, and not the President, can authorize
offensive military action in the Gulf.  Several resolutions are being
introduced that affirm Congressional responsibility.  An important piece
of legislation is the resolution introduced in the House by
Representatives Bennett FL and Durbin IL.  In the Senate, an identical
measure is sponsored by Senators Harkin IA and Adams WA.  Urge your
members of Congress to co-sponsor and support these resolutions that
place the war-making responsibility squarely on Congress, where it
belongs.
 
3. START THE WAR-POWERS "CLOCK."  Representative DeFazio OR has
introduced a resolution that is similar to the Bennett-Durbin one, but
in addition, it would start the War Powers 60-day clock ticking on
January 15.  Urge your representative to co-sponsor this resolution now
and support it when it comes up for a vote.
 
4. PREVENT ACCIDENTAL WAR.  The huge numbers of troops and highly
sophisticated weapons massed in the Middle East, combined with great
tension and uncertainty, give rise to justifiable fears that a war could
start because of a small accident, mistaken judgment, or deliberate
covert provocation.  Ask your elected officials to emphasize to the
administration and military leaders how essential it is to use caution,
and not be misled or tricked into tragedy.  Ask members of Congress to
be prepared to insist on firm verification of any alleged incidents.
 
5. On Saturday, January 26, there will be a demonstration in Washington
for peace in the Middle East.  The three messages will be NO WAR IN THE
MIDDLE EAST, BRING THE TROOPS HOME, and MONEY FOR HUMAN NEEDS, NOT WAR.
If you are coming into the Washington area for this demonstration, you
may want to stay on for the national lobby day the following Monday,
Jan. 28.  FCNL will be assisting in the briefings for this event.
 
This concludes our message.  For more information, please write to
the Friends Committee on National Legislation, 245 Second St., NE,
Washington, DC 20002.
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.actions **

    this is the letter i sent to george. similar letters have gone to
    my representatives in congress.

					Seattle, WA

					1 January 1991


President George Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, District of Columbia


Dear President Bush:


I am writing to convey my opposition to the United States's current 
military involvement in the Persian Gulf.  

Moral philosophers and clergy all over the world have failed to find 
sufficient justification for military action.  Politically, one cannot 
help but be struck by the inconsistencies in our attitudes toward 
sovereignty, occupation and democratic governments when we ignore
aggression in some cases and come to the defense of an autocracy in
others.  The obvious economic concerns can be better dealt with in 
other ways.  I do not think there is an American who would not gladly 
pay twice or ten times as much for a gallon of gasoline, if it saved 
American lives.  Anyway, reducing the use of oil, foreign and domestic, 
would be the best thing that ever happened to us environmentally and 
economically.

I have written to my representative in the house and both senators
expressing my concerns.  It is my hope that you and they will be able 
to find a peaceful solution.

				Sincerely,



				Joseph Pollard White

/** mideast.actions: 59.0 **/
** Topic: NH PEACE ACTIVITIES **
** Written  2:52 pm  Jan  6, 1991 by jsax in cdp:mideast.actions **
Subject: NH PEACE ACTIVITIES
 
/* Written  2:29 pm  Jan  6, 1991 by cttoy in cdp:mideast.gulf */
/* ---------- "NH PEACE ACTIVITIES" ---------- */
    The following is an excerpt from a flyer sent out by
New Hampshire Action for Peace and Lasting Security
(P.O. Box 771, Concord, NH, 03302. Phone: (603) 228-0559).
We hope those involved in trying to bring a peaceful end to
the Gulf Crisis will be heartened to know that even in a
small state like New Hampshire,  the surge for peace is
growing and receiving real support.  Our philosophy is to
involve many small groups in small towns all over the
state; be visible, even if in only a small way.
 
GRASSROOTS ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT STRONG IN NEW HAMPSHIRE:
VIGILS HELD THROUGHOUT THE STATE
 
    There has been an extraordinary outpouring of protest
in NH as the United States marches toward war in the
persian Gulf.  NH citizens are taking to the streets in
unprecendented numbers with thousands willing to
publically state their opposition to war as a solution to
the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.  Vigils and demonstrations
have been held in cities and towns througout the state
(would you believe 50 people at a peace vigil in Cornish?
35 in Bradford?) and editiorial pages are filled with
letters urging a non-military solution to the crisis.
Daily we receive calls from strangers asking how they can
help -- what they can do to stop the rush to war.
 
    Our response is always the same.  Call.  Write.  Urge
others to do the same.  Organize vigils.  Attend vigils.
Get letters in the newspaper.  Do all the things you can
do that will let our elected officials know they will pay
a very high political price if this crisis becomes a war.
Those are the tools available to us, and they will be
effective if used consistently, patiently, stubbornly, and
in strength.  We urge you all to continue your efforts; it
is what will make the difference.
 
    WEEKLY VIGILS ARE NOW BEING HELD IN:
 
(All numbers are area code 603.)
 
CONCORD:  Wed. noon to 1, State House Plaza, prayer vigil.
    487-2638.
CENTER SANDWICH:  Sat., noon to 1, town center. 284-6983.
DOVER: Fri., 5-6 p.m., Cong.Church. 742-6921.
HANOVER:  Fri., 7:30-8:30 a.m., Ledyard Bridge, Coop,
    CRREL Labs. (3 Locations) 795-2008.
HANOVER:  Fri., noon to 1, Hanover Green. 643-3123.
HENNIKER:  Wed., 4-4:30 p.m., Adm. Bldg./New England
    College, 428-3036.
KEENE:  Sat., noon to 1, Central Square.  352-2207.
LANCASTER:  Fri., 5-6 p.m., Centennial Park. 837-2653.
MANCHESTER:  Sat., 11 to noon, Veterans Park.  622-2795.
MILFORD:  Sun., 12:30 to 1, Oval/town ctr. 673-7601.
NORTH CONWAY:  Fri., 6:30-7:30, Shuler Park. 447-5895.
NORTHWOOD:  Thurs., 6-7 p.m., Chesley Libr., 942-5863.
PETERBORO:  Tues., noon to 1:30, Peterboro Ctr., 547-3589.
PLYMOUTH:  Fri., 4-5, Town Common.  536-1572.
PORTSMOUTH:  Fri., 5-6 p.m., Market Square. 433-4119.
TAMWORTH:  Wed., 5-6 p.m., Village Center, 323-7950.
TILTON:  Thurs., 4-5 p.m., Post Office.  934-5467.
WEST LEBANON:  Sat., 10 to noon.  Rich's Plaza. 649-3940.
 
    COMING EVENTS:
 
CONCORD:  1/10, 7:30 p.m., Town Meeting to discuss crisis.
    Unitarian Church, 225-1036.
HANOVER:  1/9, 7-10 p.m., Teach-In, Cook Audit. 795-4339.
HANOVER:  1/13, 3-5:30 p.m., UCC Church. Panel: "The Moral
    Dimension of the Crisis." 646-3441.
KEENE:  1/19, noon to 2 p.m., rally, Central Square.
    833-2531.
MERIDEN:  1/12, 11 a.m., Vigil, Fire Station, 675-5486.
NASHUA:  1/5 and 1/12, 11 to noon, Vigil, Main St. between
    Temple and Pearl.  882-7042.
NORTH CONWAY:  1/11, 6:30 Vigil and Forum.  447-5895.
PORTSMOUTH:  1/15, 5-7 p.m., Vigil, Market Square.  Panel
    discussion following at UU Church. 433-6601.
ROCHESTER:  1/11, noon on, Vigil.  Methodist Church.
    332-4170.
WOLFBORO:  1/12, 7-9 p.m., town library, forum. 569-5277.
 
    STATEWIDE RALLY AND MARCH ON
    JANUARY 13 (SUNDAY) 1-3 P.M.
    STATE HOUSE PLAZA, CONCORD.
 
    This is the first statewide action on the Persian
Gulf.  Your presence and voice will add strength to our
message.  We urge people from every town in NH to come to
Concord on January 13 for speakers, music, and a march to
the Capitol Shopping Plaza.
    Speakers will include Ret. Col. John Barr (national
president of Veterans for Peace), Rev. Deane Starr (NH-VT
Unitarian-Universalist Churches), Dudley Dudley (New
England WAND coordinator), Sr. Madonna Moran (Manchester
Diocese of Roman Catholics); music will be provided by
Paul and Peggo Hodes, and Colburn and Stuart.
    Our belief in the justice of our cause will be felt by
our commitment to action...the strength of our movement
will be concretely measured in numbers.  The rally will
take place ocme bitter cold, rain, or snow...please try to
be there.
    This event is being organized by the NH Campaign for
Peace in the Middle East.
 
    JANUARY 26 MARCH ON WASHINGTON FOR
    PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
 
    P/LS is chartering a bus.  We are looking for 47 hardy
souls to take a "NH SAYS NO TO WAR"  message to
Washington.
 
    Please call now for reservations:  228-0559.  $55 per
person.
 
    Unfortunately, two national marches on Washington have
been planned (Jan. 19 and Jan. 26) by two separate
national coalitions.  We have chosen to support the event
to Jan. 26 which is endorsed by SANE/FREEZE, Campaign for
Global Security and the American Friends Service
Committee, as well as other national groups with whom we
work.
 
    If interest is high enough we may be able to charter
more buses.
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.actions **

/** mideast.forum 203.0 **/
jsax    A Forum for Middle East Concerns         4:37 pm  Jan  6, 1991
 
CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS:  CONGRESS ON THE GULF
 
Here is a summary of the results taken from a poll of the House
of Representatives and the Senate by the Knight-Ridder Washington
Bureau late last week:
 
388 of 535 Congresspersons Responding
317 of 435 Representatives Responding
71 of 100 Senators Responding
    237 Democrats Responded
    150 Republicans Responded
      1 Independent (Socialist) Responded
 
Question:  President Bush says he will act on a United Nations
resolution authorizing the use of force if Iraq doesn't withdraw
from Kuwait by January 15.  Must a decision to launch a U.S.
military offensive be approved in advance by Congress?
 
310 of 388 Surveyed Answered the Question
    213 said "Yes"
    97 said "No"
       196 Democrats Responded
           181 said "Yes"
            15 said "No"
       113 Republicans Responded
            82 said "No"
            31 said "Yes"
         1 Independent Responded
             1 said "Yes"
 
Question:  If there were such a vote today, would you vote to
give Bush authority to use military force against Iraqi forces
after January 15?
 
252 of 388 Surveyed Answered the Question
    128 said "Yes"
    133 said "No"
        163 Democrats Responded
            127 said "No"
             36 said "Yes"
         98 Repbulicans Responded
             92 said "Yes"
              6 said "No"
          1 Independent Responded
              He said "No"
 
 
Notable quotes:
 
  Terry Sanford, D-NC:  "The Constitution is unequivocal"
  Edward F. Feighan D-Oh:  "I think the president has a moral
      responsibility to exhaust all alternatives"
  Tim Wirth, D-CO:  "Sanctions take a long time.  They took five
      years in South Africa.  They took 40 years in the Cold
      War.  But they work."
  Louis Stokes, D-Oh:  "What's the rush to get American boys
      killed?"
  Steven H. Schiff, R-NM:  "Right now, the Democratic leaders are
      being deliberately unclear so that if the president acts
      and comes out well, they'll be able to say they backed him.
      If he acts and a disaster occurs, they'll be able to say
      they opposed him."
   Bob Traxler, D-MI:  [speaking about members who don't insist
      on exerting their full constitutional powers regarding
      war-making] "a horrendous abrogation of one of their most
      sacred responsibilities...[they] don't deserve to be
      here."
 
Source:  San Jose Mercury News,. January 6, 1991
 
What to do now:
 
     1.)  Call your Senators and Representatives.  Ask them
          these two questions as a constituent.
     2.)  Post the results of your survey.  (If they answer
          "yes" to the first and "no" to the second, send
          them a thank you)
     3.)  Check this topic on a regular basis.  Identify
          those who are voting the way we need them to vote
          if we want peace and write them a trhank you.  Identify
          the undecided and send them a letter explaining why
          you want them to act.  Identify the opposed and write
          a courteous letter explaining why they should change
          their position.
 
Nine days and counting.
 
Joel GAzis-SAx

/** christic.news: 76.1 **/
** Written  9:58 am  Jan  6, 1991 by christic in cdp:christic.news **
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TEXT OF DURBIN-BENNETT RESOLUTION ON WAR DANGER IN THE GULF
 
Christic Institute, Friday, Jan. 4, 1991
 
The following is the text of the resolution introduced by U.S.
Reps. Charles E. Bennett and Richard J. Durbin requiring the
President to seek the approval of Congress before taking
offensive military action in the Gulf.  Some Christic Institute
supporters may not agree with the entire text.  Whether or not
you can support this resolution, your phone calls and letters to
Congress are still urgently needed.  Any office on Capitol Hill
can be reached through the following number: (202) 224-3121.
 
``Section 1.  Approval of Initial Response to the Invasion of
Kuwait.
 
``The Congress supports the actions taken by the President of the
United States to defend Saudi Arabia, demands that Iraq
immediately withdraw from its illegal occupation of Kuwait, and
supports the President's diplomatic and economic initiatives to
resolve the Persian Gulf crisis.
 
``Section 2.  Urgency of Congressional Authority for Offensive
Operations in the Persian Gulf.
 
``The Congress finds that the Constitution of the United States
vests all power to declare war in the Congress of the United
States.  Any offensive action taken against Iraq must be
explicitly approved by the Congress of the United States before
such action may be initiated.''
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Lang            151251507 CHRISTIC                   telex
Christic Institute     tcn449                                 tcn
Washington, D.C.       christic                          PeaceNet
202-529-0140 BBS       uunet!pyramid!cdp!christic            UUCP
202-462-5138 fax       cdp!christic%labrea@stanford        Bitnet
202-797-8106 voice     cdp!christic@labrea.stanford.edu  Internet
** End of text from cdp:christic.news **

/** mideast.actions: 57.0 **/
** Topic: Mailgram to Congress: No War! **
** Written 12:17 pm  Jan  6, 1991 by midpenpctr in cdp:mideast.actions **
Send a mailgram to Congress:  NO WAR!
********************************************
Call 1-800-257-4900...ask for hotline # 9797
********************************************
 
Congress will be debating war in the Middle East next week.
You've called, written, marched, demonstrated and vigiled. Keep
the heat on...send a mailgram.  Call the number above and ask for
"Hotline # 9797."  The following message will be delivered the
next day to your Representative or any Congressional Rep you
name:
 
"I urge you to oppose the use of force in the Persian Gulf
crisis. The massive loss of life expected in such a war cannot be
justified.  A peaceful resolution must be found."
 
The cost for the mailgram is $6.75, billed to your home telephone
account.  Second and third mailgrams can be sent to your senior
and junior Senators for an additional $3.00 each.  The prices
cover the cost of the mailgrams only...no group is fundraising
through this effort.
 
"Citizens' Peace Initiative" is a project of the Peninsula Peace
Center, 555 Waverley St, Palo Alto, CA (P.O. Box 1725, Palo Alto,
94302)  Tel: (415) 326-8837; Recorded event info: (415) 32-PEACE
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.actions **

/** mideast.actions: 61.0 **/
** Topic: DIAL-A-DISSENT (REUTERS DISPATCH) **
** Written  5:41 pm  Jan  6, 1991 by csime in cdp:mideast.actions **
REUTERS DISPATCH: Dec. 27, 1990
 
DIAL-A-DISSENT: LET YOUR FINGERS DO THE PROTESTING
 
For $10 a call to a new 900 telephone number, Americans can
get all the latest news on protest activities against U.S.
involvement in the Persian Gulf.
 
1-900-44-NO-WAR provides an update on protests and reaps a
donation for the Coalition to Stop U.S. Military
Intervention in the Middle East.
 
The coalition says the phone number, which has been
operating since Dec. 17, has raised thousands of dollars.
 
"We don't have big bankers bankrolling us but we're
determined to carry out our work against the war," said
Jelayne Miles, the coalition's fundraising coordinator. "A
900 number is a creative way to raise money. It's an easy
way for people to support the effort to get the troops out
of the Gulf."
 
The current recorded announcement gives details on a
national demonstration against the American military build-
up in Saudi Arabia planned for Jan. 19 outside the White
House and the coalition's address.
 
Miles did not disclose exactly how much the coalition is
paying for the 900 telephone service but would say only that
the monthly charge is the "going rate," between $800 and
$1,500.
 
She said the coalition keeps $8.40 per call with the
remainder going to the private broker who leases the 900
number.
 
Hillel Cohen, a volunteer organizer with the coalition who
was active in the peace movement during the Vietnam war,
said the 900 number will operate "as long as U.S. troops are
in the Gulf."
 
--REUTER
** End of text from cdp:mideast.actions **

    
    there is a 24-hour, 7 days a week vigil going on at gas works 
    park in seattle.
    

/** mideast.actions: 62.0 **/
** Topic: VIPS JOIN ANTI-WAR EFFORT **
** Written  5:42 pm  Jan  6, 1991 by csime in cdp:mideast.actions **
     COALITION TO STOP U.S. INTERVENTION IN THE MIDDLE EAST
      36 East 12th Street, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10003
   Phone (212) 254-2295               Fax (212) 979-1583
 
 
For Release: January 2, 1991
 
Contact: Sara Flounders, Joyce Chediac (phone 212-254-2295)
 
ENTERTAINERS, ARTISTS, VIPS, JOIN ANTI-WAR EFFORT
 
Leading personalities from the fields of film, music, art, and
literature have joined the effort to stop U.S. military intervention in
the Persian Gulf.  Director Spike Lee and actress Ruby Dee are
co-hosting a reception at New York's Alternative Museum on Jan. 9 to
help raise funds for the anti-war effort.
 
The reception's hosting committee includes E.L.  Doctorow, Joanne
Woodward, Kurt Vonnegut, Casey Kasem, Tyne Daly, Ramsey Clark, Geno
Rodriguez, Elaine Jackson, Sidney Walsh, and Peter Mattheissen.  Painter
Larry Rives and the Climax Band will perform at the reception.
 
For the Jan. 19 national anti-war demonstration in Washington, speakers
will include Dick Gregory, former British Labour Party leader Tony Benn,
Vietnam veteran Ron Kovic, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark.
 
More than 100 local anti-war coalitions in 22 states are organizing to
bring students, trade unionists, seniors and community groups to the
demonstration.  More than 60 union locals will bring members.
 
Coalition coordinator Gavrielle Gemma said that "making January
15--Martin Luther King's birthday--the deadline for war is offensive to
people of conscience everywhere."
 
Gemma continued, "Our coalition aims to bring all the troops home and to
stop the Bush administration from establishing a permanent military
presence in the Gulf.  We oppose all forms of warfare, including
military-enforced sanctions.  We support an Arab-based peaceful solution
to the crisis.
 
"We demand that the billions of dollars wasted on the war buildup in the
Gulf be used instead to deal with the crisis of homelessness,
unemployment, AIDS, healthcare, and to bring about social and economic
justice at home."
 
For more information, call the Coalition to Stop U.S.  Intervention in
the Middle East at (212) 254-2295.
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.actions **

  RE: .205

  The group sponsoring that 900 number makes an interesting point not to
indicate who they really are.  The $10 you give them via the phone company
goes to the Marxist-Leninist Society (or something whose name is very similar
to that).

  I know some people may not care which group is doing the organizing as long
as they're doing the right thing, but for the others...

Jim

Article         7189
From: jsax@cdp.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: AFSC TALKING POINTS ON THE CRISIS
Date: 7 Jan 91 04:11:00 GMT
 
 
Subject: AFSC TALKING POINTS ON THE CRISIS
 
/* Written  9:10 am  Oct 10, 1990 by afscid in cdp:mideast.gulf */
/* ---------- "AFSC TALKING POINTS ON THE CRISIS " ---------- */
AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE
1501 Cherry Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
 
      TALKING POINTS ON THE CRISIS IN THE PERSIAN GULF
                      October 9, 1990
 
The following talking points represent perspectives and
understandings of the staff Asia Bennett, Denis Doyon,
Catherine Essoyan, Saralee Hamilton, Carol Jensen, Corinne
Johnson, Harold Jordan, Bill Pierre, Ed Nakawatase, Michael
Simmons, and Warren Witte  who developed them and of the
committee members whom they consulted.
They  do not represent a formal American Friends Service
Committee policy statement.  They have been written for use
by AFSC staff and others who might find them of value.
 
Events in the Middle East since the beginning of August--the
invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and the subsequent military
buildup in the Gulf region--make us fearful that there will
be war, war that will kill and maim many people and destroy
both natural and human-made resources.  Hopes raised by the
ending of the Cold War are being dashed by the rush to
military actions and responses in a region flooded with
sophisticated armament.
 
As we address these ominous developments, our perspective
and recommendations flow from our own and AFSC's fundamental
values and understandings:
 
    Rejection of military means to resolve political issues;
 
    Support for non-military means for responding to
aggression and injustice, including economic sanctions;
 
    Belief in the need for and value of negotiations in
conflict situations;
 
    Support for strengthening international bodies;
 
    Concern for the human impact of political and military
events--including concern for noncombatants and for those
affected by economic sanctions.
 
The AFSC group that has developed these talking points has
done so in the course of our responsibilities as staff and
committee members, but also as people deeply concerned about
what may be coming and by our own nation's present and
likely role in it.  We seek ways to share knowledge and
understanding and advocate  negotiated solutions, so that
our worst fears may not be realized.  We call on leaders of
the countries and peoples involved to listen to all those
who are seeking solutions, to consider their ideas and
proposals, and to find a way to peace.
 
An early and peaceful solution must be found, to prevent
war, to end the brutal occupation of Kuwait, and also to
alleviate the suffering both of those forced to flee their
jobs and homes and of those not free to leave at all, and to
allow commerce to resume so that people dependent on
financial support from workers and governments in the Gulf
will again be able to gain that support.
-----------------------------------------------------
IRAQ'S INVASION
  Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was an unprovoked act of aggres-
sion.  Its occupation reportedly has been marked by
killings, repression, looting and rape of Kuwaiti women.
The open disputes between Iraq and Kuwait (over oil
production and prices, territorial claims, and debt
forgiveness) were being addressed through apparently
productive negotiations immediately before the invasion took
place; in no way did those disputes justify Iraqi
aggression.  Iraq's claim that Kuwait, historically, has
been linked to Iraq has some basis in fact, as, apparently,
does its claim that Kuwait was cheating on oil production
and pricing; neither claim, however, can legitimate invasion
and annexation.  Iraq's economic crisis prior to the
invasion was a result of its long, brutal and costly eight
year war against Iran.  Iraq should withdraw its military
forces from Kuwait and submit its grievances to a
negotiating process.  Saddam Hussein must also end his calls
for "Holy War" and other provocations to prepare for a
negotiated settlement.
  By threatening Kuwait, Iraq may have hoped to convince
other Arab states to follow its lead on oil pricing, debt
forgiveness, the Israeli/Arab conflict and other outstanding
issues in a region in which Iraq, Syria and Egypt have long
vied for power and influence.
     Iraq's subsequent invasion and annexation of Kuwait
seem to have been largely intended to seize Kuwait's
resources and wealth and gain strategically important
islands at the mouth of its Gulf port.
     The United States' "tilt" toward Iraq during the course
of its long and devastating war against Iran helped provide
the military capacity that has made Iraq such a formidable
power.  The current conflict demonstrates the utter
bankruptcy of a foreign and military policy based on the
concept of "the-enemy- of-my-enemy-is-my-friend."
 
KUWAIT
  Iraq's charge that Kuwait is an artificial relic of the
colonial era could apply to many other countries of the
Middle East.  Indeed, the colonial legacy in the region has
been destructive and lasting, but it cannot be resolved by
unilateral actions and military force.  Kuwait's sovereignty
must be restored.
  Kuwait has never been a democratic state.  Political power
has been concentrated in the ruling al-Sabah family, and a
small democracy movement has suffered harassment and
repression.  Since the Iraqi invasion, however, monarchists
and opposition forces have united against the Iraqi
occupiers, both in Kuwait and in exile.  Iraqi withdrawal
from Kuwait must not be linked directly to Iraqi demands for
political change; the future course of Kuwait should be left
for Kuwaitis to decide.
  Only days before the Iraqi attack, Kuwait agreed to limit
its oil production to the quota set by OPEC; Kuwait's
leaders have stated their willingness to negotiate
outstanding issues with Iraq once its forces leave the
country and Kuwaiti sovereignty is restored.
  Oil has propelled Kuwait into global economic power, with
a per capita income significantly higher than that of the
United States.  The country controls at least $100 billion
in foreign investments and is a key financial player in the
Arab world and far beyond.  It has devoted a greater share
of its national wealth to development projects in the Arab
world than have other oil-rich states.  Nevertheless, the
opulence of Kuwait City and the level of the nation's
international investments have created resentment in poorer
Arab countries.
  Before August 2, 60% of Kuwait's residents were not citi-
zens.  Large numbers of Palestinians worked largely in
professional and business roles, and large numbers of
Egyptians, Pakistanis, Indians, Filipinos and others worked
in technical or menial jobs in order to send remittances to
their home countries.  They, and especially the large number
of Asian women employed as domestic workers, did not share
in the generous benefits granted to Kuwaiti citizens.
 
THE MIDDLE EAST CONTEXT FOR THE CURRENT CRISIS
  The current crisis in the Persian Gulf must be viewed in
relationship to other major unresolved conflicts in the
Middle East that have roots in the post-World War I division
of the Ottoman Empire's Arab provinces into mandates under
European control.  These include the
Israeli/Palestinian/Arab conflict as well as the conflict in
Lebanon.
  The Israeli/Palestinian/Arab conflict, rooted in the
claims of Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs to the same
land, continues to deny self-determination to the
Palestinians and security to Israel.  This conflict is also
a critical factor shaping dynamics in the current crisis.
This is evidenced by Saddam Hussein's ability to rally a
degree of popular Arab support by playing on the perceived
"double standard" of the U.S. vis-a-vis the Israeli
occupation of Palestine, on the one hand, and the Iraqi
occupation of Kuwait, on the other.  It is also demonstrated
by his ability to project his actions as a stand for
Palestinian self-determination and against Western and
Israeli interests in the Middle East.
  The warfare and division in Lebanon threaten both the
security and welfare of the Lebanese people, but they also
affect Lebanon's neighbors and the allies of its various
factions, including Iran.
  The military approach to resolving the Gulf crisis under-
mines the prospects for negotiated solutions to the other
regional conflicts.  It fuels the regional arms race,
increases polarization within the Arab world, and
strengthens the forces within Israel that oppose
negotiations with the Palestinians.
  The United States should support United Nations and other
multilateral efforts to achieve negotiated settlements of
the major conflicts in the Middle East--the Gulf crisis, the
Israeli/ Palestinian/Arab conflict, and the situation in
Lebanon--on the principles of self-determination, mutual
recognition and mutual security.
 
US STRATEGIC INTERESTS IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA
  Since the beginning of the Cold War, U.S. policy in the
Middle East has been based on four strategic objectives:
 
    Containment of Soviet, communist or radical nationalist
influence in the region;
 
    Protection of pro-Western regimes;
 
    Control of Middle East oil production by forces friendly
to U.S. interests;
 
    Maintaining a "special relationship" with Israel.
 
    While the first objective has changed radically in a
post- cold war era, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait can be
interpreted as a threat to these U.S. objectives.  Iraq is
seen as a formidable regional power trying to rally support
from Arab radicals; the invasion of Kuwait has ousted one
pro-Western regime and threatened others; the invasion is
seen as an attempt to control world oil prices; and Iraqi
military strength and aggression are seen as threatening
Israel's long-term security.
  While the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait does threaten long-
standing U.S. interests, U.S. military intervention in the
Gulf may, itself, undermine those interests.  The very large
scale U.S. military response to Iraqi aggression has allowed
Saddam Hussein to portray what was initially an inter-Arab
conflict as an Arab battle against foreign occupiers of Arab
land; this view has attracted a good deal of support in the
Arab world, especially among those who remain in deep
poverty and those whose yearnings for self-determination
have been frustrated.
  The size of the U.S. military deployment, combined with
its offensive capacity and ambiguous intent, has already
worried Saudi rulers and, some observers believe, may
threaten the stability of pro-Western regimes elsewhere in
the Middle East.  Outright military conflict between the
United States and Iraq would certainly prompt a more intense
outcry from Arab people, and have grave implications for the
future of U.S.-Arab relations.
  A war in the Gulf will likely destroy oil facilities and
pipelines, not only in Iraq and Kuwait, but in Saudi Arabia
and other Gulf countries as well, deepening the suffering
that hundreds of thousands of people already face as a
result of this confrontation, and risking world-wide
economic recession.
  A war in the Gulf also threatens to involve Israel.  Some
Israeli leaders say they would welcome a crippling U.S.
attack on Iraq, Israel's greatest strategic threat; Iraq, on
the other hand, may well try to drag Israel into the
conflict in order to garner wider Arab support.  Any
military conflict between Israel and Iraq would be
devastating to the people of both countries as well as to
Jordan, which would be caught in the middle.
  A U.S. proposal, put forward tentatively in recent weeks,
to construct a new "regional security structure" in the
Gulf, with the participation of European countries, Japan,
and possibly the Soviet Union, would advance three
longstanding U.S. strategic goals:  creating a strong
military alliance to protect U.S. interests in the Middle
East; overcoming constitutional restrictions on the use of
German and Japanese military forces; and creating an "out-
of-area" role for NATO.  Such an alliance, however, would
further polarize the tense Middle East region, forcing
nations of the region to line up for or against U.S.
strategic goals.  It undoubtedly would be opposed by most of
the Arab governments currently allied with the United States
in opposition to Iraqi aggression.  It would be viewed as a
creation of wealthy, powerful nations to dominate poorer,
weaker nations and their resources.  It would increase the
chances for war in the region.
     AFSC believes that Unites States' interests and the
interests of those in the Middle East would best be served
by an immediate halt to the build-up of U.S. forces, an end
to U.S. naval interdiction, and a phased withdrawal of U.S.
forces from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.  Such steps, with UN
inspection of vessels bound to or from Iraq, would allow
sanctions to work.  President Bush should take the lead in
diplomatic efforts to replace the U.S. forces with an Arab
or United Nations peacekeeping presence.
 
U.S. / IRAQI CONFLICT AND EAST / WEST RELATIONS
  In the 1990's, North-South conflicts, rather than East-
West tensions, will likely threaten world peace. Competition
for scarce and valuable resources will intensify as European
and East Asian industrialized economies expand. The
international debt crisis may increase political instability
and provoke aggression.  As U.S.-Soviet cooperation
increases, former Third World client states may well form
new alliances and revive old rivalries.  Heavily militarized
regional powers in the Third World will be able to instigate
wars of mass destruction.
  The challenges of the post-Cold War era include equitable
social and economic development and the right sharing of the
world's resources, de-militarization, and development of
non-military responses to international conflict.  A non-
military response to the Gulf crisis could set a precedent
for addressing regional conflicts in the 1990's.
  The unprecedented (since World War II) cooperation of the
Soviet Union and the United States in responding to the
Iraqi invasion, the forceful role of the United Nations, and
the emphasis placed on multinational non-military responses
are signs of a new era in handling international tensions.
By sending U.S. troops to the region, particularly with
offensive capacity, however, the Bush Administration has
shown the world it believes that non-military responses,
even when they garner broad international support, are
inadequate and that assertion of U.S. military power is the
primary means of countering aggression.  The world can
hardly celebrate the "end of the Cold War" if it means the
United States can act unilaterally and unchallenged to
assert its military will in the Third World.
 
GLOBAL CONSEQUENCES
  The end of the Cold War made possible unanimous UN
Security Council resolutions opposing the Iraqi invasion of
Kuwait and even the support of interdiction of shipping to
enforce an embargo against Iraq.  The end of the Cold War
also made it possible for the United States to put massive
contingents of troops into Saudi Arabia and the Gulf,
without risking Soviet-backed retaliation.  The United
States has discovered that it no longer faces a major
countervailing force.
  After World War II the United States was instrumental in
writing constitutions for Japan and Germany that preclude
their use of troops beyond their own borders, or, as the
prohibition was interpreted in the case of West Germany,
beyond the bounds of NATO.  Now the United States is calling
on Japan and Germany to amend or override these
constitutional constraints so that they can share the burden
of the military intervention in the Middle East.  This may
well be a short-sighted policy that makes more probable the
offensive build-up of other militaries and greater risk of
war in the future.
  The situation in the Gulf is putting severe new economic
pressures on the many nations of the Third World that have
no oil and already carry enormous burdens of debt and unmet
needs for their people.  These new pressures fall heavily on
women, especially as declining economic conditions--and
shortages of fuel in particular--create new demands for
women's labors.  Burden-sharing is a concept that must be
applied to these nations' needs rather than to military
expenditures, if real global security is to be achieved.
Whatever the ultimate solution in the Gulf, steps must be
taken to lift the debts of the Third World and to assist in
forms of development that put the needs and interests of the
majorities of people, especially including women who are
often neglected by development plans, ahead of gain for
narrow elites.
 
MILITARY FORCES IN THE REGION
  Countries in the Middle East have much of the most
sophisticated military weaponry in the world as a result of
the most intense and sustained regional arms race that the
world has seen.  In the 1980's, Middle Eastern countries
imported an annual average of over $15 billion in arms and
military services.  In addition, the region's own weapon-
producing capability has increased substantially in the last
decade.
  While Iraq has actually used chemical weapons in its war
with Iran and against Kurdish resistance, all major military
powers in the region have or have the capacity to
manufacture chemical weapons.  Israel, according to most
international experts, has a significant nuclear weapons
capability.  All of the major powers in the region have
missiles as well as aircraft that can deliver conventional,
chemical, or nuclear weapons to primary targets in a
regional war.
  As of early October, the United States had deployed and
estimated 200,000 troops to the Gulf area, with over 400
planes and 50 major warships.  This U.S. buildup, in
addition to that of its allies, adds ominously to the level
of armament already in the region.  The new influx of
conventional and nuclear armament increases offensive
capacities and the level of destruction should the weapons
be used.
  With such an enormous level of weapons and troops in the
region, many have observed that the likelihood of war
increases; having invested so heavily in the mutual buildup
in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, one or both sides may well feel
compelled to use this force to achieve their ends.  From
another point of view, however, the enormity of the military
buildup--and the massive death and destruction that would
result from a war--must serve as an ever stronger impetus to
efforts for a negotiated settlement.
  The U.S. military intervention in the Gulf is costing bil-
lions of dollars.   The administration has dunned its allies
to help meet the costs of its venture.  Termed "burden
sharing" by its advocates, the practice makes vivid the new
world reality in which U.S. military might has outstripped
U.S. economic capacities.  The United States is now
dependent on less militarized, economically stronger nations
to fund the deployment of its forces.
  The AFSC has called upon the United States government to
use the current crisis as an opportunity to initiate
discussions with all major arms suppliers to the Middle East
about steps to halt the arms transfers, not only to Iraq,
but to all nations in the region.  Such a policy would be in
sharp contrast to current U.S. steps to respond to the
crisis.  New U.S. shipments of arms to Saudi Arabia have
heightened anxieties within Israel and are leading to
Israeli requests for expanded U.S. military aid.  Neither
Israel nor Saudi Arabia will be more secure as a result.
 
U.S. MILITARY MOBILIZATION
  The U.S. military mobilization in the Persian Gulf is the
largest since the Vietnam war.
 
    An estimated 200,000 active duty service members have
been sent to the region, and more are on the way;
 
    Two large call-ups of reservists have been announced;
some are being sent to the Gulf, while others are being sent
to installations in the U.S. to replace active duty
personnel sent to the region;
 
    Civilian resources, most notably domestic commercial
aircraft, are been commandeered for military use.
 
    The build-up of troops in the Gulf has been marked by a
substantial and highly visible proportion of women being
sent into possible combat.  Estimates are that 11% of U.S.
troops in Saudi Arabia are women, corresponding to the
overall proportion of women in the military.
 
  It is doubtful that mobilization of reserves would be
necessary simply to support the limited goal of the short-
term defense of Saudi Arabia.  With 2.1 million active duty
service members on hand and only 1.2 million reservists, it
is possible that the Pentagon's immediate objective is to
work out the kinks in the reserve system so that reservists
can play an important role in supporting a large-scale or
protracted war or an occupation.
     Prior to August 2, U.S. military experts anticipated
that the reserves would assure military readiness as U.S.
troop in Europe were demobilized and the overall size of the
standing armed forces was reduced.  This scenario has been
altered substantially by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the
U.S. military response.  It now appears that the reduction
in tensions in Europe will result in re-deployment of some
U.S. forces to the Gulf rather than demobilization and
simultaneous activation of elements of the reserves.
  The activation of reserves may be a way of resolving by
executive fiat longstanding political and military debates
about the appropriate size of the U.S. military and the role
of reserves.
  Actions taken in the current mobilization endanger the
civil liberties of service members and threaten established
rights of conscience.  Military regulations require that,
whenever possible, the military reassign conscientious
objector applicants to duties that do not bring them into
conflict with their consciences.  C.O. applicants who apply
before transfer orders are issued have traditionally been
held back from war zones pending disposition of their cases.
In the current wave of C.O. cases military officials have
announced that, despite past practice, such service members
will be sent to Saudi Arabia while their cases are pending.
At least one C.O. applicant has been arrested and charged
for refusing to board a plane to Saudi Arabia.  Reserve
regulations that have permitted transfers have been
suspended, indicating that the services plan to make it
virtually impossible for reservists to avoid mobilization.
  Although unlikely in the short run, reinstatement of the
draft would become more likely should a significant military
conflict occur.  Such a move has been anticipated by the
gradual rebuilding of the Selective Service System in recent
years.
  At the very least, the Persian Gulf crisis will likely
result in the defeat of current legislative efforts to place
Selective Service in "deep standby."
 
DIPLOMATIC OPTIONS
  Iraq's stated position of annexation of Kuwait does not
totally preclude its leaving Kuwait.  Saddam Hussein has
changed course in the past, especially in relation to Iran,
when he has seen it has been in his interest.
  The United States has a number of avenues through which it
might explore negotiations: the good offices of King
Hussein, the PLO, the Soviet Union, and other nations should
be considered.  Their current or historic relationships to
Saddam Hussein should be seen as positive opportunities for
communication rather than as breaks in the solid front of
opposition to Iraq.
  The Arab League is another vehicle for pursuit of
diplomatic solutions.  Before August 2, that body appeared
to be in a position to achieve unity in its response to the
building crisis.  The militarization of the crisis and U.S.
steps toward this end have, however, deeply divided Arab
states and threaten the League's capacity to hold together.
  The United Nations remains a primary force for
peacemaking, even though its strong Security Council
resolutions against the Iraqi invasion remove it from a
neutral stance in the conflict and thus limit its room for
negotiation.
  The position of the Soviet Union in this conflict remains
fluid, but its historic ties to Iraq provide it with a basis
for peacemaking.  A communique from George Bush and Mikhail
Gorbachev in Helsinki in early September noted that
"additional steps" would have to be considered if economic
sanctions did not work.  At that point the Soviet view was
that it was too early to discuss a military option and that
every effort should be made to find a diplomatic solution.
In late September Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze
indicated that the Soviet Union was willing to consider an
internationally sanctioned military operation against Iraq.
Despite this aggressive stance, in early October the Soviet
Union sent a senior diplomat to Iraq to pursue political
solutions, which led him to a more optimistic assessment of
the chances for a political settlement.
     President Bush's careful statement at the United
Nations in early October that an unconditional Iraqi
withdrawal from Kuwait could be followed by a renewed
diplomatic effort toward Israeli/Palestinian peace was a
hopeful sign.  Constructive U.S. steps in relation to the
peace process would provide Arabs with positive signals and
demonstrate U.S. commitment to peacemaking in the region.
     The PLO, like King Hussein, has been attempting to find
a solution that is acceptable to Saddam Hussein and that
meets with the level of support for Saddam Hussein in their
constituencies.  The PLO and King Hussein both believe Iraq
ought to withdraw from Kuwait but they have cast their
proposals in the form of Arab solutions, with Arab mediators
and Arab peacekeeping forces.  They also have tended to link
the Gulf crisis to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  For
both the PLO and the Jordanians, there is much to gain from
a negotiated solution and much to lose from armed conflict.
     The PLO's support for Saddam Hussein has been deeply
troubling for many Israelis previously in favor of a
negotiated agreement, who now question the Palestinians'
commitment to a peaceful settlement with Israel.
     While the Persian Gulf crisis interacts with the other
regional conflicts, each conflict requires a negotiation
process and negotiating partners designed to resolve its
unique issues.
 
ECONOMICS AND OIL
  The U.S. public, according to polls and person-in-the-
street interviews, generally believes that the United States
took the action it did in response to the Iraqi invasion of
Kuwait in order to protect the U.S. economic way of life.
President Bush said as much early in his public statements
on the military intervention.
  The United States depends on imports for more than 50% of
its oil consumption, yet policies are not in place to
discourage consumption of this ultimately limited resource.
1970's policies of conservation and development of
alternative safe energy sources, responding to the oil
crisis then, were systematically dismantled during the
1980s.
  The oil market has been affected by events in the Gulf,
but it has also been manipulated by those able to profit
from it; as prices have shot upward, surpluses remain within
the United States, allowing a continuation of profitable
U.S. oil exports to Europe.  The United States urgently
needs to adopt a long-term energy policy that prohibits
profiteering in times of international crisis while it
discourages use of oil, encourages safe alternative sources,
and addresses the burdens that possible increased oil prices
place on low income people.
  The United States must find ways to reduce its oil
consumption markedly.  Incentives must be developed for
people to live more simply, use less packaging, reduce and
recycle waste, and prevent pollution.  The United States
must forego its perception of its "right" to foreign oil.
 
HUMANITARIAN CONCERNS
  The UN imposed and enforced sanctions against Iraq include
interdiction of food and medicine except to meet
emergencies.  As in other settings where food and medicine
are embargoed, women and children will be the first to feel
the effects, for support to armies becomes a first priority
in a nation at war.   While AFSC supports economic sanctions
against Iraq, we have rejected the use of food and medicine
as weapons.  The embargo should permit their shipment to
Iraq.  Non-combatants must not be placed at risk.
     The Iraqi use of foreign civilians as hostages or
shields against military attack has been widely condemned as
a fundamental breach of civility, human rights and
international law.  Iraq should release immediately all
hostages and detainees in Iraq and occupied Kuwait.
  The numbers and plight of refugees (mostly Southeast or
South Asian) that gathered in the frontier zone between Iraq
and Jordan and within Jordan in the period after Iraq's
invasion of Kuwait are staggering.  UN, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and the media reported the extreme
shortages of water, medicine and shelter.  Initial
international relief efforts were unable to keep up with the
8,000 - 10,000 or more refugees into the area per day.  The
American Friends Service Committee has established a Gulf
Assistance Fund, to contribute to emergency assistance
efforts of a consortium of NGOs in Jordan.
     While, by early October, the immediate relief situation
in Jordan seemed to have improved, less is known about the
conditions of Asian workers that remain stranded in Iraq and
Kuwait.  Reports indicate that there is increasing hunger
and concern for health conditions.  Changing circumstances
in Iraq and Kuwait could lead to rapid deterioration of the
conditions of the refugees and place new and more urgent
demands on international relief operations.
  The Bush administration's response to the humanitarian
needs inside Jordan, though limited, was a positive step,
especially in that it was channeled through the United
Nations and NGOs.  The U.S. should be challenged to respond
adequately to the harsh suffering of refugees and should
make maximum use of its airlift capacity (so well
demonstrated in the past months) to fly evacuees out of
Jordan.
  The Jordanian economy, already weak before the current
crisis, is now threatened with deep recession.  Food, water,
oil and electricity shortages could occur.  The United
States should support Jordan in seeking relief from UN
sanctions under Article 50 of the UN Charter.  Furthermore,
it should allow free passage of ships bearing food and other
non-military goods into the Jordanian port of Aqaba.
  As this crisis continues, it is having devastating conse-
quences on the economies of many other countries both in the
region and outside.  Many South and Southeast Asian
countries have become dependent upon remittances from their
nationals working in Kuwait, Iraq and other Gulf states.  As
remittances from these women and men dry up, as evacuees are
repatriated into economies already marked by high
unemployment, and as those economies suffer from increasing
oil prices, economic and political pressures are likely to
build with potentially explosive consequences.
  Palestinians throughout the region are already feeling the
economic consequences of the crisis, especially in Gaza the
West Bank, Jordan and Lebanon.  The ending of remittances
and the curtailment of much of the financial support for
Palestinian institutions from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia will
have severe results:
 
    closure or reduction in services of hospitals and
clinics along with a wide range of other social service
organizations, women's groups and charitable societies;
 
    suspension of salaries for West Bank university
faculties;
 
    drying up of development funds;
 
    generalized reduction of income available to Palestinian
families, exacerbating the effect of recent decreases in the
Jordanian dinar's value and the economic impact of the
intifada which already have had the effect of sharply
reducing Palestinian buying power.
 
     The United States should support the application of
United Nations Article 50 to the situation of Palestinians
in the Occupied Territories as well as in Jordan.  It should
also offer direct economic aid to Palestinian health and
welfare institutions on the West Bank and in Gaza.
 
DOMESTIC REPERCUSSIONS
  The large military response of the United States in the
Gulf has already had serious negative effects domestically.
Rousing martial spirits once again diverts attention and
resources from the long-unmet needs of this country.  Such
needs include the acute problems of urban areas; adequate,
affordable housing for the many in need; and reversal of the
growing disparities between rich and poor.  Also urgently
needed are adequate health, maternal care, child care and
other programs that are particularly essential to the well-
being of women.
  The current deployment of U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf
costs an estimated one billion dollars and upwards per
month, a cost that would increase dramatically If armed
conflict breaks out.  This unbudgeted undertaking, combined
with the U.S. budget deficit and widely shared political
unwillingness to raise new revenues and Congressional and
White House inability to agree upon a federal budget, makes
a "peace dividend" that might be used for social programs
ever more remote.
  Serious Congressional scrutiny of the enormous military
budget with the prospect of significant cuts, which appeared
in the offing as recently as July, is now being soft pedaled
and, if the military confrontation continues or escalates,
will likely be reversed.  News accounts report Pentagon
officials expressing relief that the Gulf crisis has saved
them from the budget axe.
  The bulk of the news media in this country quickly
amplified government (and especially, military) views on the
Gulf crisis.  They projected an image of Saddam Hussein as a
Hitler or other lunatic or devil.  They relied initially on
military spokespeople for their commentary and assessment of
the situation and their speculation about outcomes.  The
media, with their a-historical treatment of U.S.-Iraqi
relations and their hyperbole, undoubtedly played a role in
building initial public support for the Bush
administration's unilateral military moves.  After the early
weeks of the crisis the media began to draw more heavily on
diverse perspectives and to explore diplomatic options.
Perspec- tives of Jordanians and Palestinians also were
aired.
     The extensive reporting of the role women are playing
in the military build-up has been portrayed as a success
story for U.S. women--especially as it has been contrasted
with the restricted role of women in Saudi Arabia.  We
reject the concept that participation in military service is
a measure of gender equality and the suggestion that it
marks the success of struggles for women's rights in the
United States.
  Current public opinion polls show little support for mili-
tary action and strong support for economic and political
moves.  The public attitudes that are commonly enlisted to
support military actions have destructive domestic
repercussions.  The enemy images that are stimulated by
military confrontation, as in the past, contain racist
assertions and stir racial bigotry.  Significant increases
in anti-Arab and anti-Muslim harassment are reported around
the United States.  The President and other U.S. leaders
must exercise moral authority to deplore and help put a stop
to such activities, even as they seek a peaceful resolution
of the confrontation that has given rise to them.

    Have you considered starting your own notes conference on the
    subject?

    A few notes discussing the pros and cons, particularly if they're
    balanced, are a good idea. I wonder if this degree of electronic
    overload is really pertinent to this conference, especially with
    the subtle solicitation inherent in the (alleged) marxist 900
    number which was published.

    Re: .208
    
    I'm not sure where you got that information, but the "group sponsoring
    that 900 number" indicates quite openly who they are.  As the Reuters
    article specifies, they are the Coalition to Stop U.S. Intervention in
    the Middle East.  As the name coalition implies, this organization is
    composed of many groups and individuals.  Like any coalition, this one
    comes from many points of the political spectrum, all of whom in this
    case share a common objection to this unecessary and pointless war. 
    The coalition includes such "Marxist-Leninists" as the United Church of
    Christ
    
    The Administrative Committee of this coalition, along with a partial
    list of sponsors, is listed in reply .164.  However, I will repeat it
    here:
 
Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General
Deborah Jackson, American Association of Jurists, National Conference
   of Black Lawyers
Wilhelm Joseph, UN Representative of National Conference of Black Lawyers
Job Mashariki, Black Vets for Social Justice
Michio Kaku, Professor, City College
Ben Dupuy, Committee Against Repression in Haiti
Luis Miranda, Casa De Las Amricas
Michael Ratner, attorney
Harold Mendlowitz, President, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1202 (Greyhound)
Adeeb Abed, Jerusalem Cultural Center
John Jones, Jersey City Billion Dollar Housing Coalition
Saleh Fawaz, Palestine Aid Society
Shreeram, Third World journalist
Michelle Payne, African Students Association
Gale McGovern, Caribbean and Latin American Support Project
Preston Wilcox, Professor, Harlem Community leader
Pat Harling, Chief Steward, Teamsters Local 1518
Teresa Gutirrez, Independent Commission on Panama
Terry Klug, Recording Secretary, Transport Workers Local 240
Dr. El!as Guerrero, ACTUP
Karen Gellen, Guardian newsweekly
Robert Knight, WBAI
Gavrielle Gemma and Monica Moorehead, staff.
 
    This is the partial list of endorsers from reply .164:
 
Larry Adams, President, National Postal Mailhandlers
   Union Local 300 (NY, NJ, CT)*
Rita Addessa, Lesbian and Gay Task Force, Philadelphia
Ibrahim AbuLughod, member Palestine National Council
African-American Coalition Against U.S. Intervention, NY
African American Cultural Alliance, Nashville TN
AFSCME Local 1072, Univ. of MD
Alfred University Students for Alternative Solutions
Alliance for Philippine Concerns
All-Peoples Congress
American Indian Movement
Amnesty International, Canisius College, Buffalo NY
Anan Ameri, President, Palestine Aid Society
Toney Anaya, former governor, New Mexico
Androscoggin (ME) Coalition for Peace in the M.E.
T. J. Anthony
Arab Americans for Peace
Ashkenaz Music & Dance Cafe, Berkeley CA
Bob Basker, San Francisco CA
Harry Belafonte
Patrick Bellegarde-Smith, Prof. of African-American
   Studies, Univ. of Wisconsin
Tony Benn, Labor Party, member of Parliament, England
Berkeley Union of the Homeless
Donald Bishop, Citizens Against War in the Middle East*
Black Consciousness Movement, (New York City)
John Black, Pres. Emeritas, Dist. 1199P, National Union of
Hospital and Healthcare Employees, AFL-CIO*
Black Consciousness Movement
Blacks Against Racial Genocide, Brooklyn NY
Black and White Men Together, San Francisco CA
Black Veterans for Social Justice
Rev. Dorsey Blake, Pres., Ecumenical Peace Institute and
   Dir. for Black Urban Studies, Univ. of CA, Berkeley
Yvonne Bobo, Boston University student activist
Betty Bonner, Sec.-Treas., SEIU Local 205, Nashville TN*
Janis Borchardt, V.P., ATU Local 1225 (striking
   Greyhound workers), San Francisco CA*
Herb Boyd, prof. of History, College of New Rochelle
   and journalist, Guardian and Amsterdam News
Ron Braithwaite, co-chair, Alice B. Toklas Lesbian/Gay
   Democratic Club*
Brandywine Peace Community, Swarthmore PA
Elombe Brathe, Patrice Lumumba Coalition
Brown Berets
Bring the Frigates Home Coalition, Sidney Australia
Esmeralda Brown, Women's Workshop on the Americas
Lee Brown, anti-racist activist, San Francisco CA
Buffalo Greens
Barbara Cameron, Dir., Comm. United Against Violence
Canisius College Coalition of Students Against Military
Involvement in the M.E., Buffalo NY
Capitol Green Party, Sacramento CA
Victor Carpenter, Senior Minister, First Unitarian Church, San Francisco CA
Centro Juan Antonio Corretjer
Benjamin F. Chavis, Jr., Executive Director, United
   Church of Christ, Commission for Racial Justice
Chelsea/El Jicaral Sister City Project
Arnold Cherry, Grievance Coord., TWU Local 100, NY*
Committee of Concerned Westsiders
Rev. Kiyul Chung, International Comm for Peace & Reunification of Korea
Cincinnati Area Coal. Against U.S. Intervention in M.E.
CISPES, Richmond VA
Citizens Against War, Univ. of Delaware, Newark
Citizens for Progressive Energy Policy, Stoney Brook NY
Henry Clark, Dir., W. Co. Toxics Coal., Richmond CA*
Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General
Clergy and Laity Concerned
Coalition to Stop U.S. and Canadian Intervention in the
   Middle East, Toronto
Co-Madres (Committee of Mothers of the Disappeared,
   Political Prisoners & Assassinated of El Salvador)
Committee Against Repression in Haiti
Communist Organization of Britain, London England
Doug Comstock, Lesbian/Gay Voters Project, San Francisco CA
Comm. Organized to Stop Systematic Child Abuse (COSSA), Brooklyn NY
Dave Cormier, Delegate, Central Labor Council, Kokomo,IN*
Rev. Herbert Daughtry, House of the Lord Church, Brooklyn NY
Barbara Davidson, Pres., AFGE Local 476 (HUD)*
Sue Davis, New Directions for Women
Sally Davies, Pres., AFSCME Local 1072, Univ. of MD*
December 12th Movement
Ruby Dee
Department of Community Mission/Council of Churches
Mohammed Diahite, Asst. Prof. of International Studies,
Bradley Univ., Peoria IL*
Gordon Dillahunt, Pres., APWU Local 1078, Raleigh NC*
Disciples of Christ, Buffalo NY
Dominican Communist Party
Dominican Workers Party
Frances Dostel, RN
David Duncan, Exec. Dir., Opportunities for Broome, NY
Elders for Survival, San Francisco CA
Rev. Graylain Ellis-Hagler, Church of Our United Community, Roxbury
Anthony Fiagbeto, Pres., Student Government Assoc.,
   Bronx Community College
John Funicello, Chairperson, Solidarity Committee of the
   Capitol District, AFL-CIO, Albany NY*
General Union of Palestinian Students
David Gespass, Chair, Birmingham Committee Against
   U.S. Intervention in the M.E.*
Ebrahim Gonzalez, Progressive journalist*
Zeev Gorin, chair, Dept. of Sociology, Bradley Univ.,
   Peoria IL & Peace Network*
Arturo Griffiths, Panamanian activist, Washington DC
Elias Guerrero, M.D., Act-Up*
Hands Off Iraq, London England
Pat Harling, Ch. Shop Steward, Teamsters Local 840, NY*
Jean Harris, aide to Supt. Harry Britt, San Francisco CA
Hawaii Committee for Peace in the Middle East
Huntington Peace Center Inc., Huntington NY
Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance, Baltimore MD
International Indian Treaty Council
Iowa Peace Network
Deborah Jackson, American Association of Jurists
James Earl Chaney Foundation
Ronald Jean-Baptiste, GI resister facing courtmartial
Eva Jefferson Paterson, civil rights atty. and Exec. Dir.,
   San Francisco Lawyers Committee
John Jones, Billion Dollar Housing Coalition, Jersey City
Wilhelm Joseph, UN Rep, National Conf of Black Lawyers
Just Peace, St. Peter MN
Michio Kaku, Professor of Theoretical Physics, CUNY
Gary Kapanowski, Central Labor Council, AFSCME Dist.
   Council 47, Philadelphia*
Kapatide
Morris Kight, convener, Gay and Lesbian Peace
   Concerns, Los Angeles CA
Terry Klug, Recording Secretary, TWU Local 241, NY*
William Kunstler, attorney
Robert Knight, WBAI Pacifica Radio*
La Casa, Nashville TN
Lancaster Independent Press, PA
Learning Alliance
Spike Lee
Peter Leibowitch, Pres., USWA Local 8782, Toronto
Leonard Peltier Defense Committee
Lesbian and Gays Against Intervention, San Francisco CA
Susan Lesser, Lead Shop Steward, AFSCME Local 2252, MD*
Anne H. Long, First Citizen of Portsmouth VA for 1987
Willie Ludlow, Anne Skelton, Wyoming Coalition for Peace in the Gulf*
John Majors, A. Philip Randolph Institute, Nashville TN*
Marie Malliett, Pres., CWA Local 9410, San Francisco CA*
Julianne Malveaux, economist and synicated columnist, Essence magazine
Samori Marksman, African American Resource Center
Esperanza Martell, Comm. for Puerto Rican Affirmation*
Key Martin, Chap. Chair, Newspaper Guild, Time-Warner*
Hilda Mason, Councilmember-at-Large, Washington, D.C.
Enola Maxwell, Director, Potrero Hill Neighborhood
   House, San Francisco CA
Rosemari Mealy, journalist
Adelita Medina, parent of navy GI
Harold Mendlowitz, Pres., ATU Local 1202 (striking
   Greyhound workers), NY
Garry Merchison, Pres., USWA Local 8751, Boston MA*
Mexican National Liberation Movement, Denver CO
Middle East Task Force of the Western NY Peace Center
Middletown Connecticut Coalition for Peace in the Gulf
Anita Miller, Pres., LSSA, District 65 UAW*
Rev. Timothy Mitchell, Ebenezer Baptist Church &
   Chairman of Health Comm. of the Baptist Ministers
   Conference of NYC and vicinity
Bishop Paul Moore
Michael Moore, producer and writer
Pam Namdar, Pres., Minority Coalition, IBEW Local 26, Washington DC*
Reza Namdar, Baltimore/Washington Newspaper Guild*
Nashville Coal. to Stop U.S. Intervention in the M.E.
National Assoc. of Yemeni Immigrants
National Chicano Human Rights Council
National Coalition Against English Only
Natl Labor Relations Bd Union Local 20, San Francisco
National Survival Summit/D.C.
Network of Black Organizers
Craig Newman, Chief Shop Steward, AFSCME Local 1072, Univ. of MD*
Garnett Newman, Pres., Student Government Assoc., Medgar Evers
Pat Norman, community activist, San Francisco CA
Oakland Union of the Homeless
Angel Ortiz, Philadelphia City Councilmember
Pakistan Progressive Magazine
Palestine Aid Society
Palm Beach County Coalition for World Peace
Michelle Payne, Baruch African Students Organization
Pax Christi, Canisius College, Buffalo NY
Peace Resource Center, Des Moines IA
People for Middle East Peace, Des Moines IA
People's Anti-War Mobilization
Philadelphia/Delaware Valley Union of the Homeless
Barbara Ransby, Board Member, Ella Baker/Nelson Mandela
Center and Editorial Board, Race and Class
Michael Ratner, Atty for Congressional Lawsuit, CCR
Reverands for Life, Canisius College, Buffalo NY
Richmond-Petersburg Central American Network
Don Rojas, Executive Editor, New York Amsterdam News
Allen Roth, Exec. Bd., APWU, Cleveland Area Local*
Sacramento Emergency Action Network
Susan Sherman, Editor, IKON magazine*
David Skondras, City Councilmember, Boston MA
Tom Spence, Chair, Power Dist., TWU Local 100, NY*
Staten Island Coalition for Survival
Staten Island Council for Peace & Justice
Staten Island Div. of NYC Area Veterans for Peace, Chapter 34
Stockton Citizens for Peace in the Persian Gulf
Students and Youth Against Racism
Students for International Awareness, Bronx Science High School, NY
Leon Swain, Area VP, AFSCME District Council 92, MD*
Karen Talbot, Dir. of Intl Center for Peace and Justice
John Teamer, Co-chair, Natl Assoc of Black and White Men Together
Tenderloin Self-Help Center, San Francisco CA
Tennessee State Univ. Student Government Assoc.
Third World Caucus, Clergy and Laity Concerned
Katherine Tompa, Pres., Daughters of Mother Jones*
Charlie Trujillo, Vietnam combat vet and author,
   Soldados Chicanos in Vietnam
United African-American Churches of NY, Inc.
United American Indians of the Northeast
United Church of Christ, Buffalo NY
United Labor Action
U.S. Hands Off Cuba Coalition, NY
U.S. Out of the Middle East Coalition/Atlanta
U.S.-Vietnam Friendship Association
United Coalition Against Racism, Ann Arbor, MI
University of Buffalo Freedom School
University of Buffalo Stop the War Coalition
Vanderbilt Black Student Alliance, Nashville TN
Veterans for Peace, West Connecticut
Washington Forum on the Philippines
Rev. Paul Washington, Church of the Advocate, Philadelphia
Wayne County (NY) Peace and Justice Education Center
Gwen Wells, President, Metro Labor Press Council, NYC*
Western NY Peace Center
Wichita State Student Peace Group
Rev. Saul S. Williams, Newburg NY
Women's Action for Nuclear Disarmament (WAND), Buffalo NY
Young Koreans United
Youth for Philippine Action
Howard Zinn, author and historian

    No, I haven't considered it.  But thanks for the suggestion anyway. 
    The moderators have thus far deemed that the Persian Gulf is a valid
    topic for discussion in this notes conference.  If they should decide
    to terminate the discussion (from both sides), then I will cease
    posting such notes; otherwise, I consider this topic important enough
    to continue participating in, just as those who favor the conflict are
    free to continune participating.

    -- Mike

  I heard that information on NPR about 1, maybe 2 weeks ago.  If I'm wrong,
then my apologies.  

Jim

/** pn.announcements: 202.0 **/
** Topic: A Mideast Postcard to Bush **
** Written 10:27 am  Jan  7, 1991 by peacenet in cdp:pn.announcements **
Subject: A Mideast Postcard to Bush
 
From arosenblum Sat Jan  5 20:13 PST 1991
 
We'd like to print a few thousand postcards to send to Bush and others
around the country and to give out in Washington, D.C.
 
The card is not designed to offend the president or his people but to
reach their hearts and help them to change.  Hence, no condemnation.
Here is the text:
 
 
CONGRATULATIONS, Man of the Year, George Bush:
 
   You have, as an  historic first, alligned the  world into
an  embargo on a war  criminal. Strenthen it.  Stop military
supplies from reaching  Iraq. Give it  time to work  and win
the peace. A "state of siege" is the most efficient military
operation. Keep your promise of a "kinder, gentler nation".
 
   A recent  scientific conference  in London  found that if
Iraq sets  off Kuwait's oil fields we'd have an unimaginable
environmental disaster likely  to advance global  warming 30
years  and affect  every part  of our  planet. Don't  let an
"environmental presidency" lead to that.
 
   To  threaten war against  people so unfortunate  as to be
ruled  by  Saddam  Hussein  only  puts yourself on Hussein's
level. Don't  let the  "Man of  the Year"  title go  to your
head. Adolf Hitler was TIME'S "Man of the Year" in 1938.
 
   Our  own  major  cities  are  already close to chaos with
bankruptcy, crime  and poverty.  Should we  attack Iraq, the
entire  Moslem world  could turn  against us. Washington and
other cities  might very  soon be  in shambles  as a result.
There  is no way to win such  a war. Peace is the way. Bring
back the troops. Let the embargo work.
 
                          *** ***
     This will be printed on a 6 1/4" x 4 1/2" card which requires no more than
15 cents. Printed 12 char. / ", 6 lines to the inch it just fits. Reduction to
95% provides nicer margins.
 
     On the address side will be the president's address in small letters and
the suggestion that it be sent also to other officials and news media all over.
(Be aware: many papers do not print "open letters", so the form must be changed
to comply with their policy.)
 
     Others are free to use this text w/o permission. We prefer you do that
rather than send to us for cards. However, we can print extra and mail them out
by priority mail in stacks of about 200 for $8.00 incl. postage. You may call
Art at Aquarian Research: 215-849-3237 any day or evening if you have
questions.
 
 
** End of text from cdp:pn.announcements **

/** mideast.actions: 65.0 **/
** Topic: Citizen ribbon witness **
** Written  4:13 am  Jan  7, 1991 by upstate in cdp:mideast.actions **
     6 January 1991
 
     The following idea is suggested as one beginning step toward
     creating more visibility for the people who do not want war and
     see a UN facilitated negotiated settlement as the method that
     must be used--even if hostilities do get started.  We must
     mobilize a Peace Army just as Bush has mobilized the war machine.
     The good news is that there are new volunteers for this army
     every day.  The bad news is that we seem to lack leadership and
     realistic missions toward clear goals.
 
     We think the ribbon strategy could be useful in religious
     communities as a supplement to the many prayer vigils that are
     now being undertaken.
 
     We will welcome your responses.
 
     QUAKERS IN ONEONTA, NY AREA PROPOSE PUBLIC WITNESS BY WEARING
     UN-BLUE RIBBON
 
     Butternuts Monthly Meeting affirms the need for negotiation of
     the differences between our country and Iraq rather than having a
     devastating war.  The symbol of our concern will be the wearing
     or display of a blue ribbon, which represents the light blue of
     the United Nations flag.
 
     Approved on January 6, 1991 Butternuts Monthly Meeting of New
     York Yearly Meeting The Religious Society of Friends, Oneonta, NY
 
     Transmitted to PeaceNet by a member, Rod Morris who is also
     director of the Upstate (NY) Campaign for Global Security, a
     SANE/FREEZE: Campaign for Global Security affiliate.
 
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.actions **

    Hi,
    
    I've read most of the replys in this Topic and to me there are 
    really two questions:
    
    1. Why does one considere Bush could be like Hitler ?!?!?
    
    Yes, I can see war coming around but I also think Bush gave Husein very
    much time to leave Kuweit, and also Husein is not only trying to keep
    Kuweit, no his thoughts go far beond that little state, just as far as
    Turkey....think about that.........
    I am german and I think it is really brave of all the Forces which are
    down there in Saudi, that they are taking the risk of being killed for
    Democracy all over the world, or does anyone think that Bush instead
    wants to take over instead of Hussein ?!?!?
     
    2. Do you really think about the men and women in the gulf ?
    
     I have a Fiance stationed 30 miles away from the Iraqui boarder,
    before he left I tried to get him out.
    I wrote to his congressman, we called Washinghton several times, we've
    got in contact with the anti-war group of the green party here in
    germany, but most likely it did not help, he signed a contract and he
    signed it twice when he joined the army.
    So most likely everybody who is in the Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy,
    ect. knew that they would have to face a critical situation if it would
    turn up, think about it...........
    No I do not want war !!!!!
    I might loose someone I love very much, but at this moment I have to
    encourage the ones I love !!!
    I can not go out and say, what you are doing is wrong, 
    so do not shoot !!!!
    I have to think war, evenso I hate to do so, but how would any of you
    feel if the loved one is in such a situation ?!?!?!
    The moral down there is low, and many of the men and women are scared,
    just think how you would feel if the people of your own country would
    not stand behind you...........
    No war is worth fighting for, but picture yourself in the position of
    being stuck between two sides, what are these people supposed to think
    about ?!?!?
    It will be like Vietnam if the people which are safe at home
    demonstrate against their own people.............
    
    Silvia

    
>    1. Why does one considere Bush could be like Hitler ?!?!?
 
	I don't consider Bush like Hitler, I consider Saddam to have
	the same fanatical streak that Hitler had, and as such, should be
	made to withdraw now.
	5 months of peaceful negotiations and sanctions have not worked.
	It is time to make him leave the country he invaded, and to stop his
	continual barbaric practices.   

>    Democracy all over the world, or does anyone think that Bush instead
>    wants to take over instead of Hussein ?!?!?
 
	Bush? I really can't see that at all. 

>    2. Do you really think about the men and women in the gulf ?
 
	Yes. As I did when we went to the Faulklands, and I think about it 
	with Northern Ireland.
   
>     I have a Fiance stationed 30 miles away from the Iraqui boarder,
>    before he left I tried to get him out.
>    I wrote to his congressman, we called Washinghton several times, we've
>    got in contact with the anti-war group of the green party here in
>    germany, but most likely it did not help, he signed a contract and he
>    signed it twice when he joined the army.
>    So most likely everybody who is in the Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy,
>    ect. knew that they would have to face a critical situation if it would
>    turn up, think about it...........
 
	I have thought - when people join the armed forces, or the teratorial 
	army, or equivilents, what are they doing it for, if not to be ready 
	for war , if and when it arrives?
	I lived in Plymouth for much of my life, it is one of only three nuclear
	submarine repair bases in the UK, it has a heavy navy presence.
	There is hardly anyone who lives in Plymouth that doen't have friends 
	or family in the forces. It was decimated by bombing in the second world
 	war.
	What are armed forces for if not for war?
	
	I can understand people having conciencious objections to fighting, but
	I cannot understand them volunteering and signing up, to then try and
	duck their responsibilites when their training is called upon.
	
>    I have to think war, evenso I hate to do so, but how would any of you
>    feel if the loved one is in such a situation ?!?!?!
 
	Spouses, family and friends always have to face this. It is not
	easy, there are support groups to help the people left behind.
	However the best thing to do is to support that person, keep sending 
	messages to support them with the responsibilities they choose to bear.

>    The moral down there is low, and many of the men and women are scared,
>    just think how you would feel if the people of your own country would
>    not stand behind you...........
>    No war is worth fighting for, but picture yourself in the position of
>    being stuck between two sides, what are these people supposed to think
>    about ?!?!?
 
	These people are professionals, they volunteered to join the armed 
	forces so they could be there for just this type of occasion.
	They have been trained for this type of activity.
	
	Give them support now, and even more importantly, give them support and
 	show your thanks to the ones who survive, and honour those unfortunate
	enough not to return.

  	Heather

    
>    No war is worth fighting for
    
    No one thinks it is: we do not fight *for* a war, we fight for a better
    peace when the war is over.
    
    /. Ian .\
    

    
    among the things that disturb me about the gulf situation is the
    way saddam has been 'hitlerized'. all of a sudden, this guy we
    sold arms to has turned into a demon. how convenient.
    

    actually, Joe, most of Saddam's arms are from the USSR, and the rest
    are from the French.  We haven't sold arms to Iraq in this decade, and
    given that we were so close to Iran until 1978, I'd be surprised if
    before then, either.  So your saying "this guy we sold arms to" is off.
    Diplomatically, we supported Iraq; but not with arms materiel.
    
    DougO

    re .219:
    
    Yes, Joe, it irks me that Hussein is being compared to Hitler.
    IMO, theh comparison trivializes Hitler and glorifies Hussein.
    

    
    A certain amount of comparison.. not so much with Hitler but the entire
    situation in Europe in the thirties and how GB and France reacted (or
    didn't) and the result of that is inevitable.
    
    Besides the _no war_ faction appear to be pushing a few 'hot buttons'
    in terms of the casualties and the damage expected.
    
    If the US acts correctly (in military terms) the casualty figure should
    be well under the 10k mark for the allies and the 'war' should last a
    couple of weeks at most.
    
    I don't like war but I think what Saddam sees on CNN every day is
    making war more likely rather than less.
    
    As a comparison the British forces in the Falklands were outnumbered
    by 3-1 had virtually no air-cover,no armour and very little artillery.
    In addition they had to march across the island..no fast heavily
    armoured strike force AKA Desert Shield.
    Result ?? total victory with 250 (total) deaths which was a 10-1 ratio
    as the Argentinians lost 2500. The difference ? in the main the 
    Argentinian forces were composed of scared, drafted kids and were up 
    against a well trained professional volunteer army.
    
    IMO when this gets started iwith Iraq the casualty ratio will be orders
    of magnitude greater in favour of the allies...this is not to gloat,
    the deaths of the Iraqi's, like the Argentinian's is a cause for
    sadness..but if somebody is going to die better they should die for
    their country than your men die for yours...
    
    Aidan (usually read only...now I suppose I gotta introduce meself).
    

Re: -.1

  I'd take strong exception with your numbers there.  First, you can't predict
casualties all that easily.  Second, 10K casualties is a lot of familiers/people
affected.  Sounds too much like a "Vietnam-style" body count mentality.

  I also don't see how you can categorically state it will be over in a couple
of weeks.  I know its your opinion but it gets my fur up because it trivializes
the magnitude of what we are undertaking, both militarily and politically.
Besides, what does it mean to "win" in a situation like this?

  The other exception I take is that CNN is swaying Saddam's opinion.  What do
you base that on?  I see no indication that all of the US posturing is making
a whit of diffence; unfortunately he postures just as well.

Jim

    
    re:.220
    i accept the correction, though it really don't change the argument.
    
    by the way, did you notice that the soviet union sent troops into
    the baltic states this morning? are you aware that officially the
    united states recognizes the baltic states as independent? are we
    soon to see a u.s. led force in finland? 
    

    
    re:.221
    could you re-state this?
    i've read it a couple of times and have had wildly different
    reactions each time...
    

    .re the Baltic states
    
    It seems that the U.S. had no problem at all when Russia decided
    to annex the Baltic states back in the 40's.  But I guess by then
    we were tired of war and all that (actually, wasn't Roosevelt,
    Stalin, and Churchill all in on this 'agreement'?)  Too bad they
    didn't ask the peoples of Lithuanaia, Latvia, and Estonia how
    they felt about it.
    

    
    Two points (minor nit first, serious one second)
    
    1) Saddam Hussein should be called [President] Saddam, not 'Hussein' -
    after all you don't habitually refer to the President of the US as
    'George' do you?
    
    2) Current NATO figures for expected casualties were revised upwards
    and now stand at 14% of forces committed in any action. Thus the
    casualty rate would only be as low as 10,000 if only 71,500 troops were
    engaged - and I suspect that 20% of the available force is a bit low...
    
    Also current expectations are that between 5 and 10% of the aircraft
    will be destroyed - thats a few hundred aircraft. 
    
    So let's not kid ourselves that if everybody does the right thing we'll
    have a short war and light casualties. Saddam's forces have had 5
    months to dig in, build fairly effective (and broad) defensive barriers
    and mine fields and are equipped with good Soviet made anti-tank
    weapons, amongst other things. Add in the fact that the start date is
    hardly likely to be a surprise (especially if Congress insist on having
    a debate before allowing the attack) and the US could be looking at 500
    aircraft, 750 tanks destroyed and more casualties than the 10 years of
    Vietnam generated...
                                                
    /. Ian .\

    re 218...  I can't resist this:  FIGHT FOR PEACE.  If there is any
    irony which is more bitter I have trouble thinking of one which beats
    fight for peace: read (kill so you don't have to kill).  I know, I know
    there is more going on than simply trying to avoid bloodshed. The thing
    that trips all of us up who truly yearn for a peaceful World is that not
    enough of us (or at least not enough of those in POWER) have the same
    objectives.

    We are back to the grammar school playground.  Kid X doesn't want to
    fight, in fact, he refuses to hit the bully back. Does this create 
    peace? Well, it does create ONE sided violence rather than two sided
    that ends quickly in a fist fight.  It could be argued that the non
    fighter has indirectly perpetuated the bullies violence by not
    attempting to stop him. Rather we wind up with an on-going situation
    where the bully continues to violate kid X rights until a bigger kid
    steps in and pastes the bully, or the kids physically move away from
    one another because of a school year change (this is the usual
    'solution').  "Everybody" or at least those in power have to want peace
    and respect others rights or we inevitable wind up with the lop-sided
    situation where weaker peoples' rights are being violated and the
    'gang' has to step in and set the aggressor straight.   Aren't WE the
    aggressor by stepping in? I don't think so, look at the playground
    scenario, ignoring the bully/aggressor encourages him to continue and
    doesn't bring peace at all.... just continued aggression.  Is the bigger
    kid who steps in and pastes the bully an aggressor?

    "Yeah but what about Panama, and Grenada, what right does the U.S.
    have to interfere in the Mideast when WE have been aggressive? Do we
    have to be perfect before we have the right to do what may be right in
    this case because we have been wrong before?  

    I think the U.S. has to decide whether we will be isolationistic as we
    were before WW II (we ignored Hitler for a long time too before getting
    involved).  Not that Saddam is Hitler.  Or do we continue to be World
    Cop?  If we are to be World Cop, I think we had better get clear of what
    our role is to be and what situations we will intervene in.

    I do think the current Mideast crisis directly affects U.S. well being
    in an economic sense.  No, Iraq was not going to bomb the Continental
    U.S., but they did threaten our economic system by attempting to
    control the majority of World oil production.  What is it they say?
    Oil is to our economy as blood is to our body.  Like it or not that 
    seems to be the case.... whether it SHOULD be that way is a moot point.
    It IS that way and if we don't like it we should change it. 

    
    re: .223
    
    I was reacting to some of the figures quoted in the replies posted
    by the anti-war groups a bit further back..figures in the 50k range 
    long war etc etc.
    
    The Iraqi army is disposed in a classic Linear defense system, it has
    constructed defenses that are WWI in character, and they are virtually
    all in Kuwait. Their war experience is  is mainly based on holding such
    defenses against an army composed of (largely) inexperienced conscripts
    and Militias with little armour or airpower thrown in large numbers
    against those defenses. Their army is mostly composed of conscripts
    itself.
    I base (and it is not just my opinion, but the opinion of many who have
    studied tactics and strategy, see DEFENSE_ISSUES) my figures on the
    fact that the US and GB to name two of the allies are professional
    volunteers, highly trained..particularly in high mobility operations.
    The training was based on fighting WP forces on the plains of Germany
    but adapt even better to the desert conditions they face now.
    The Iraq army is not used to Desert fighting so they are about even
    on that score.
    The defenses constructed are where the Iraqi army is..namely Kuwait.
    The allies will almost certainly either outflank the defenses on the
    left flank and drive NE toward Basra thus cutting off the Iraqi army
    from resupply or retreat. If the allies do deem it expedient to go
    through the defenses they will do so at one or two chosen points where
    they will concentrate their best forces and equipment and hammer the
    defenses with everything they have before driving through them. 
    Assuming the airpower has already achieved air-supremacy which they are
    apparently planning to do with hours of being given the 'go' order then
    Air attacks would happen every time the Iraqi forces exposed
    themselves.
    It is not a jungle.. it is not easy to move or hide from airpower in a
    desert.
    And experience has shown..both in the Falklands and during Israels wars
    against Syria and Egypt that given that kind of assault, any troops,
    but especially conscripts will collapse very quickly.
    
    As I said before..if planned properly the majority of the Iraqi army
    will never need to be attacked and beaten directly.. they can be
    surrounded,cut off and, if need be, pounded into surrender.
    
    What I mean be 'win' is the achievement of military objectives..it is
    up to the politicians what they make of the forces achievements and
    sacrifices.
    
    I get virtually all my news from CNN and what I see is peace protests
    and churches offering 'sanctuary' for soldiers who don't want to go to
    fight. I try to put myself in Husseins place (Aside to Ian: I never
    refer to Hitler as Chancellor Hitler , why should I refer to Hussein as
    President ?) in his Ivory tower, surrounded by sycophants (He
    apparently executes anybody who dares tell the truth) and reports that
    he is an avid watcher of CNN. In fact (though this will probably bring
    scorn of my head) I was watching CNN last night and they were showing
    Dan Quayle's speech..he referred to the same thing.
    If I was Hussein I would not believe that the US has the will to use
    force, I would sit and confidently wait for the next offer to go yet
    another 'mile for peace'.
    
    I do not glory in War...very few in the Western world glory in war
    I believe that the majority of us have learned how horrific and tragic
    it really is. I have walked the battlefields and their associated
    graveyards in France from WWI and have agonised over the apparent waste
    of human lives. The majority of entries in the visitors books have one
    word against them .. WHY ??
    My answer is... because as a result we have learned not to glorify war,
    not to seek or desire war, not to see war as the only solution. Some
    have gone further and believe that war is _never_ the solution.
    I agree with that..or would if only the whole world had learned the
    same lesson. If they had then the Falklands war would not have happened
    because Argentinia would have continued to discuss and negotiate with
    GB instead of Invading the Islands. We would not be faced with the
    situation in the Gulf, because Hussein would have continued to talk and
    negotiate with Kuwait instead of invading it. The day the entire world
    learns that war is not the way then will become unneccessary.
    Until that time the world _must_ take a stand against aggression..not
    IMO that it solves an awful lot... it just buys us more time for the
    rest of the world to learn the lessons that the Europe and the US
    appear to have learned..at such cost..
    
    I am sorry, Jim, that you interpreted my response as a trivialisation
    of this undertaking..it was not meant as such and I do not trivialise
    war no matter how small that war may be. I do not trivialise the deaths
    of either side in the Falklands conflict, I do not trivialise the
    deaths of any person... one or a million.. each death is an individual
    tragedy and also a tragedy to many others whose lives are affected by
    that death.
    
    I do believe that whether two thousand or ten thousand casualties
    result from this war, the casualty figure would be far greater if we
    allow a ruthless aggressor to remain in possession of the forces he
    currently commands, with the known capability to use chemical weapons
    and the probability to obtain nuclear weapons in the near future.
    This man has not got a weapon that he refrained from using.
    
    I hope this makes it clearer what I was trying to say in my earlier
    note.
    
    Aidan
     

/** mideast.actions: 77.0 **/
** Topic: GULF EMERGENCY ALERT **
** Written  6:07 pm  Jan  8, 1991 by jsax in cdp:mideast.actions **
Subject: GULF EMERGENCY ALERT
 
/* Written  1:21 pm  Jan  8, 1991 by sncrom in cdp:fcnl.updates */
/* ---------- "GULF EMERGENCY ALERT" ---------- */
GULF WAR VOTE IN CONGRESS: EMERGENCY ALERT FROM FCNL    (Jan. 8, 1991)
 
Votes on the Gulf conflict are expected in both the House and the
Senate, some time between Thursday, Jan. 10, and Sunday, Jan. 13.  It's
not yet clear what the precise wording will be of the resolutions that
will provide the vehicle for an up-or-down vote on authorizing a war in
the Gulf region.  But it IS clear that the measures being considered
will go beyond the simple assertion of Congress's constitutional
war-making powers, and will address the substance of the issue itself:
to either give or deny authority for the President to initiate offensive
military action.
 
ACTION:  The next few days are absolutely crucial for everyone who wants
to prevent a war in the Middle East.  We need literally millions of
telephone calls and telegrams to the offices of EVERY senator and EVERY
representative in Congress.  The message is simple:  NO WAR; do not vote
to authorize military action in the Gulf region; work harder for a
genuine negotiated solution.  The costs of a war, in lives, suffering,
and money will be too horrendous; the possibilities for a peaceful way
out have NOT been fully explored and sincerely tried.
 
The telephone number of the Capitol switchboard in Washington is (202)
224-3121.  If you know your member's individual office number, use it.
Calls to their home offices, in the local district or state, are OK if
you cannot call Washington.  Ask first to speak to the aide who works on
the Gulf crisis, but if that one is not available and you cannot hold
the line, you can leave your message with the phone answerer.  Telegrams
and overnight letters are also good ways to communicate.  But DO NOT
DELAY; time is of the essence.
 
The other crucial factor is NUMBERS of people calling.  Please contact
anyone and everyone you think might possibly make a call:  friends,
neighbors, co-workers, relatives, attenders at your place of worship.
Ask each one to call her/his representative and two senators, and then
to get three more people to do the same.  If there are existing phone
trees in your community or organization, they should be activated at
once.  This action needs to multiply rapidly all across the country.
 
Finally, if you and any groups you work with are doing some sort of a
public action -- vigil, demonstration, teach-in, etc.  -- try to get
local news media to report on the activity, and make sure those reports
are sent to or brought to the attention of your representative and
senators.
 
This is the historic hour, friends.  If anyone wants to stand up and be
counted, NOW is the time to do it!  For more information, check FCNL's
weekly legislative update (prepared Fridays at 6 pm); phone
202-547-4343, or access via CompuServe and PeaceNet.  Or contact the
office of the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), at 245
Second St.  N.E., Washington, DC 20002; phone 202-547-6000.
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.actions **

/** sf.lobby: 6.0 **/
** Topic: Weekly Legislative Report 1/7/91 **
** Written  7:04 am  Jan  8, 1991 by sfnatldc in cdp:sf.lobby **
   SANE/FREEZE WEEKLY LEGISLATIVE REPORT--Week of January 7, 1991
 
The Weekly Legislative Report is updated on the second business day
of each week by the SANE/FREEZE:  Campaign for Global Security
Legislative Office.  This report is based on the political
objectives adopted by the SANE/FREEZE National Congress.  Please
help us by reporting your local lobbying activities to Mark W.
Harrison at (202) 862-9740, by FAX at (202) 862-9762, by written
report (report form available from Legislative Office), or send us a
message via "mail" on PeaceNet to sfnatldc.
 
                    GREETINGS IN THE NEW YEAR!!!
 
                     NO WAR IN THE NEW YEAR!!!
 
                            ACTION ALERT
 
**Urgent call for nation-wide action--Please make this a priority**
 
NO WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST
 
On Thursday or Friday of this week, the House will debate the use of
force against Iraq with a vote on Friday or Saturday.  The Senate may
debate this issue at same time or early next week.  As of today, the
scenario in both the House and the Senate looks like this:  There will
be a vote on three resolutions - (1) a declaration of war based on the
United Nations resolution on the use of force; (2) a Democratic
leadership proposal urging that sanctions be given more time to work (as
of this writing the proposed resolution has not been made public); and
(3) a prohibition on the use of offensive military force unless approved
by Congress.
 
ACTION:  MOBILIZE YOUR LEGISLATIVE NETWORK TO CALL YOUR
REPRESENTATIVE AND SENATORS.  LIGHT UP THEIR PHONES!!!  STRONGLY
URGE THEM TO:
 
*Oppose any resolution authorizing the use of offensive military
 action against Iraq by the U.S. at this time.  Give sanctions and
 diplomacy more time.
*Support the Kennedy resolution (House) which calls on the President
 to continue to support sanctions against Iraq until all Iraqi
 forces are withdrawn from Kuwait and engage in no offensive
 military action in Iraq or Kuwait for at least 12 months.
*Support the Bennett-Durbin (House)/Harkin-Adams (Senate) resolution
 which declares that Congress must approve any offensive military
 action against Iraq before such action is initiated.
 
[See list of co-sponsors of these resolutions below.]
 
Capitol Hill switchboard:  (202) 224-3121.
 
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU CALL THE LEGISLATIVE OFFICE FOR UPDATES
FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE WEEK.  THINGS ARE CHANGING DAILY.
 
                               UPDATE
 
        **Current status and messages for ongoing lobbying**
 
CO-SPONSORS OF PERSIAN GULF RESOLUTIONS
 
Kennedy Resolution [(H J Res 48)--binding resolution requiring the
President's signature]:  Kennedy, Abercrombie, AuCoin, DeFazio, Dellums,
Donnelly, Early, Evans, Flake, Gonzalez, Gordon, Hayes (IL), Lewis (GA),
McCloskey, McHugh, Mavroules, Mfume, Mink, Murphy, Nagle, Oakar,
Oberstar, Owens (NY), Payne (NJ), Pelosi, Rangel, Roybal, Russo,
Sanders, Savage, Serrano, Stark, Stokes, Torres, Towns, Vento,
Washington, Wheat, Swift, and Markey.
 
Bennett-Durbin Resolution [(H.Con.Res. 1)--non-binding Sense of Congress
resolution]:  Bennett, Durbin, Annunzio, Miller (CA), Roybal, Stark,
Schumer, Towns, Boxer, Mrazek, Sangmeister, Evans, Boucher,
Hochbrueckner, McHugh, Slaughter (NY), Unsoeld, Traxler, Dellums,
Sanders, Costello, Mazzoli, Rangel, Yates, Kleczka, Nagle, Sabo,
Gejdenson, Kaptur, Udall, Atkins, Waxman, Panetta, Mfume, Kostmayer,
Poshard, Lewis (GA), Pease, Wyden, Matsui, Markey, Collins, Torres,
Glickman, Kildee, McCloskey, Roe, Vento, DeFazio, Pelosi, Fazio, Jontz,
Olin, Dorgan, Brown (CA), McDermott, Neal (NC), Moody, Wolpe, Coyne and
Berman.
 
Harkin-Adams Resolution--non-binding Sense of Congress resolution:
Harkin, Adams, Burdick, Cranston, and Sanford.
 
MILLER LETTER
 
On December 27, 1990, over 100 members of the House of Representatives
joined Rep.  George Miller (D-CA) in a letter urging President Bush to
allow economic sanctions to "exert substantial pressure against Iraq,"
and in again reminding him that Congress alone has the power to take the
nation into war.  The letter notes, "So long as neither our hostages nor
our troops are subjected to immediate danger and the international
economic embargo continues to exert substantial pressure against Iraq
(as confirmed by members of your Administration and other knowledgeable
observers), we believe that the initiation of offensive military action
by the United States unwisely risks massive loss of life, the
expenditures of billions of dollars, the possibility of severe domestic
economic dislocation, and the further political and military
destabilization of the region."
 
Signer of the letters are:  Abercrombie, Anderson, Andrews (ME),
Annunzio, Atkins, AuCoin, Bates, Bennett, Bonior, Boxer, Bryant, Carr,
Clay, Coleman (TX), Condit, Conyers, DeFazio, DeLauro, Dellums, DeLugo,
Dixon, Donnelly, Dorgan, Downey, Durbin, Dwyer, Early, Eckart, Edwards
(CA), Espy, Evans, Faleomavaega, Fazio, Flake, Foglietta, Ford (TN),
Ford (MI), Frank, Gejdenson, Glickman, Gonzalez, Gray, Hayes (IL),
Hertel, Hochbrueckner, Jacobs, Johnston, Jontz, Kanjorski, Kaptur,
Kennedy, Kennelly, Kleczka, Kostmayer, LaFalce, LaRocco, Lehman (CA),
Lewis (GA), Lowey, Luken (OH), Markey, Martinez, Matsui, Mazzoli,
McDermott, McHugh, Mfume, Miller (CA), Mineta, Moody, Mrazek, Murphy
(PA), Norton, Orton, Owens (NY), Owens (UT), Panetta, Payne (NJ),
Pelosi, Perkins, Poshard, Rangel, Richardson, Roybal, Russo, Sabo,
Sawyer, Schroeder, Serrano, Sikorski, Slaughter (NY), Stallings, Stark,
Studds, Torres, Towns, Traficant, Unsoeld, Vento, Walgren, Waters,
Weiss, Wheat, Wise, Wolpe, Wyden and Yates.  (The letter was signed by
Members of the 101st and 102nd Congresses.)
 
Last week, Senator Kennedy (D-MA) released a letter signed by 127 law
professors from across the nation insisting that President Bush has a
constitutional obligation to "obtain prior express congressional
authorization" before ordering U.S. forces into war in the gulf.
 
DEMONSTRATION AND LOBBY DAY
 
March on Washington for peace in the Middle East, for social justice at
home and for new national priorities - SATURDAY, JANUARY 26, 1991.
 
National Lobby Day - MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 1991 (Lobby Day Training on
SUNDAY, JANUARY 27, 1991.  If you plan to participate in the lobby day,
please contact the SANE/FREEZE Legislative Office.)
 
SANE/FREEZE AD IN THE NEW YORK TIMES
 
On Wednesday, December 26, 1990, SANE/FREEZE placed a full-paged ad in
the New York Times.  CBS News mentioned the ad in a report.  The ad
reads as follows:
 
            THE LARGEST DEPLOYMENT OF ARMED FORCES SINCE
         VIETNAM, THE MOST RAPID ESCALATION IN U.S. HISTORY
             ...AND NO CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE FOR WAR:
 
Mr. Bush has delivered 452,000 U.S. hostages to Saddam Hussein.  Now
he wants them to fight their way out.  (in big bold letters)
 
The ad ended with a coupon.  The response to the ad has been
outstanding.  For a copy of the ad, please contact the Legislative
Office.
 
** End of text from cdp:sf.lobby **

/** mideast.actions: 75.0 **/
** Topic: January National Phone-In **
** Written 12:57 pm  Jan  8, 1991 by jsax in cdp:mideast.actions **
Subject: January National Phone-In
 
/* Written  9:22 am  Jan  8, 1991 by fornatl in cdp:mideast.gulf */
/* ---------- "January National Phone-In" ---------- */
                          NATIONAL PHONE-IN
                  to the White House and Congress
 
                 Monday, Jan. 7 --- Friday, Jan. 11, 1991
 
 
MESSAGE for the WHITE HOUSE:  "No Military Strike Against Iraq:
                               Negotiate, Don't Escalate!"
 
MESSAGE for CONGRESS:  "No funds for a Gulf War!"
 
President George Bush could decide to start a war in the Gulf any time
after January 15th.  That decision would be a catastrophe.  Hundreds of
thousands of civilians killed.  Tens of thousands of U.S. casualties in
the first month alone.  Families receiving the body bag of a loved one.
Oil fields damaged.  Oil prices increased.  The world economy crippled.
Arab sentiment against the U.S. for decades to come.  And no one would
win.
 
In violation of the U.S.  Constitution, President Bush's decisions have
not been approved by the Congress and the American people.  The decision
to deploy mili- tary forces to the Gulf on August 7th was made by a
handful of men in the administration.  The recent decision to send
another 150,000 troops to the Gulf, bringing the total close to 400,000,
was made without consulting the Con- gress or the people.
 
It is time the White House and Congress heard from the people.
Beginning Monday morning, January 7th through Friday evening, January
11th, the FELLOW- SHIP OF RECONCILIATION invites U.S. citizens to voice
their opposition to U.S. military action by phoning the White House and
Congress.  Call for negotiations through the United Nations and/or Arab
governments.  Call for withdrawal of U.S. military forces.  Call for
peace in the Middle East.
 
Thousands and thousands of calls from all over the country can make a
differ- ence!  It has made a difference in the past.  Everyone can join
this campaign without giving up other important work for peace in the
Gulf.
 
The FELLOWSHIP OF RECONCILIATION invites you to participate in the
NATIONAL PHONE-IN CAMPAIGN:
 
        * call the White House, call your Congressional representatives (in
          your home district if possible), then call three friends to do the
          same.
 
        * ask your family, friends, co-workers to phone the White House and
          Congress.
 
        * publicize the Phone-In Campaign through local organizations and your
          news media.
 
         President Bush and the Congress must hear from the people.
 
WHITE HOUSE  (202)456-1111              CONGRESS  (202)224-3121
 
                    Stop the war before it starts!
 
Fellowship of Reconciliation
Box 271
Nyack, NY  10960
914/358-4601
FAX- 914/358-4924
PeaceNet- fornatl
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.actions **

/** mideast.actions: 71.0 **/
** Topic: QEP:  WHO WILL VOTE AGAINST WAR? **
** Written  8:07 pm  Jan  7, 1991 by jsax in cdp:mideast.actions **
CONGRESS AND THE GULF:  WHO IS LIKELY TO VOTE AGAINST WAR
 
The following documents were prepared by Joel and Lynn Gazis-SAx
for the Quaker Electronic Project.  QEP wishes to acknowlege the
assistance of Allison Oldham of the Friends Committee for National
Legislation in preparing these reports and recommendations for
action.
 
The documents under this topic include:
 
    1)  How to use this packet
    2)  Points to Remember
    3)  Signers of the Dellums Letter
    4)  Signers of the Miller Letter
 
Permission to download and copy these documents is GRANTED.
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.actions **
 
/** mideast.actions: 71.1 **/
** Written  8:17 pm  Jan  7, 1991 by jsax in cdp:mideast.actions **
HOW TO USE THIS PACKET
 
These lists help us to know who is likely to vote against the immediate
commencement of hostilities in the Persian Gulf based on past actions.
These lists are not all inclusive.  If your representative appears on
one or both of these lists, he/she is likely to oppose military
enforcement of sanctions at this time and needs your support.  Your
representative may still oppose military enforcement of sanctions and
not appear on this list or may be still thinking the matter over.  In
other words, do not hesitate to call your representative if he/she is on
the list or if he/she is not on the list.
 
IF YOUR REPRESENTATIVE APPEARS ON THE LIST
 
1.)  Call her/him to say thanks for her/his past efforts in seeking a
peaceful, negotiated solution to the Gulf Crisis.
 
2.)  Urge her/him to continue to stand for a diplomatic solution to the
Gulf Crisis, particularly in the votes to come in the next few days.
 
3.)   If he/she affirms this stand, thank her/him for that.
 
IF YOUR REPRESENTATIVE DOES NOT APPEAR ON THE LIST
 
1.)  This representative either has not taken a public position, plans
to vote for war, or plans to vote against war.  Call her/him to ask how
he/she stands on seeking a peaceful solution to the Gulf Crisis.
 
2.)  If he/she says he/she plans to vote for alternatives to military
resolution of the Gulf Crisis, thank her/him for her/his stand.  Follow
this up in writing.
 
3.)  If he/she states that he/she has not decided, explain why you would
appreciate her/him voting to seek further use of sanctions before going
to war.
 
4.)  If he/she intends to vote to support military force, express your
REGRET for this position and POLITELY hang up.
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.actions **
 
/** mideast.actions: 71.2 **/
** Written  8:21 pm  Jan  7, 1991 by jsax in cdp:mideast.actions **
A FEW POINTS TO REMEMBER
 
1.)  Always be polite, no matter how rude the Representatives' staff may
be to you.
 
2.)  Thank the staff member for taking the time to listen to you.
 
3.)  Tell the staff member when you are a constituent.
 
4.)  Avoid giving the impression that you are working off a list.
NOTHING irritates a member of Congress more than the impression that
he/she is being "targetted".  The lists to follow are not "hit lists":
they are merely records of past actions which you can use as a guide for
what to say when you contact your representative.
 
5.)  DO NOT WRITE A LETTER.  CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE, PREFERABLY IN
WASHINGTON!!!
 
6.)  Watch to see how your representative votes and thank her/him if
he/she votes as you want her/him to vote.
 
For more information on current legislation, visit fcnl.updates or
sf.lobby on PeaceNet.
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.actions **
 
/** mideast.actions: 71.3 **/
SIGNERS OF THE DELLUMS LETTER
 
The Dellums letter to President Bush was circulated in October
1990.  It:
 
*  supports the opposition to Iraq's occupation of Kuwait.
 
*  urges negotiations and a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
 
*  states the signers' belief that the President must consult with
Congress; and
 
*  that the Congress must be a partner in any decision to use
military force in the region.
 
Those who signed it included:
 
Vic Fazio, CA                     Bruce Vento, MN
Nancy Pelosi, CA                  James Oberstar, MN
Barbara Boxer, CA                 Mike Espy, MS
George Miller, CA                 Alan Wheat, MS
Ron Dellums, CA                   William Clay, MO
Pete Stark, CA                    Pat Williams, MT
Don Edwards, CA                   Donald Payne, NJ
Norm Minetta, CA                  George Hochbrueckner, NY
Leon Panetta, CA                  Lloyd Flake, NY
Tony Beilenson, CA                Thomas Manton, NY
Edward Roybal, CA                 Edolphus Towns, NY
Julian Dixon, CA                  Major Owens, NY
Mervyn Dymally, CA                Charles Rangel, NY
Pat Schroeder, CO                 Ted Weiss, NY
Barbara Kennelly, CT              Jose Serrano, NY
Charles Bennett, FL               Louise Slaughter, NY
John Lewis, GA                    John LaFalce, NY
Charles Hayes, IL                 Byron Dorgan, ND
Gus Savage, IL                    Marcy Kaptur, OH
Cardiss Collins, IL               Don Pease, OH
Lane Evans, IL                    Tom Sawyer, OH
Richard Durbin, IL                James Traficant, OH
Jim Jontz, IN                     Louis Stokes, OH
Dave Nagle, IA                    Les Aucoin, OR
Carl Perkins, KY                  Pete Defazio, OR
Kwesi Mfume, MD                   Tom Foglietta, PA
Barney Frank, MA                  Bob Gray, PA
Ed Markey, MA                     Harold Ford, TN
Joe Moakley, MA                   Ron Coleman, TX
Jerry Studds, MA                  Henry Gonzalez, TX
John Conyers, Jr., MI             Halbert Bustamante, TX
Howard Wolpe, MI                  Wayne Owens, UT
Bob Traxler, MI                   Jolene Unsoeld, WA
David Bonior, MI                  Jim McDermott, WA
Dennis Hertel, MI                 Jerry Kleczka, WI
William Ford, MI                  Jim Moody, WI
                                  Nick Rahall, WV
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.actions **
 
/** mideast.actions: 71.4 **/
** Written  8:28 pm  Jan  7, 1991 by jsax in cdp:mideast.actions **
SIGNERS OF THE MILLER LETTER
 
The following press release from Rep. George Miller's office
describes the contents and intentions of the Miller letter:
 
27 December 1990
 
OVER 100 LEGISLATORS TELL PRESIDENT BUSH TO ALLOW ECONOMIC
SANCTIONS TO WORK
 
WASHINGTON - Over 100 members of the House of Representatives have
joined Congressman George Miller (D-7-CA) in urging President Bush to
allow economic sanctions to "exert substantial pressure against Iraq,"
and in again reminding him that Congress alone has the power to take the
nation into war.
 
"So long as neither our hostages nor our troops are subjected to
immediate danger and the international economic embargo continues to
exert substantial pressure against Iraq (as confirmed by members of your
Administration and other knowledgeable observers), we believe that the
initiation of offensive military action by the United States unwisely
risks massive loss of life, the expenditures of billions of dollars, the
possibility of severe domestic economic dislocation, and further
political and military destabilization of the region", the letter notes.
 
The signatories also argued that the vote of the United Nations Security
Council does not override the Constitutional authority of Congress alone
to declare war.  "Most of the nations that voted for the resolution made
no simultaneous commitment of troops, material or money to support
military action in the Gulf.  The United Nations does not commit, or
authorize, the use of United States armed forces."
 
"This letter, together with the recent vote of the House Democratic
Caucus and the numerous statements by military and diplomatic experts,
is intended to encourage the Administration to make every effort to
resolve this serious dispute through efforts other than military
conflict," said Miller.  "We believe it is evident that Iraq is enduring
tremendous economic privation as a result of the near-total economic
embargo, and that its capacity to sustain its aggression, and to
undertake military activity, is being depleted every week.
 
"We must not be drawm into conflict because of impatience or without
greater participation--military and financial--from other nations who
have even greater security interests at risk than the United States.  We
are neither the world's policemen, nor any nation's mercenaries."
 
The following representatives signed the Miller letter:
 
Bob Matsui, CA                    Bob Carr, MI
Vic Fazio, CA                     David Bonior, MI
Nancy Pelosi, CA                  Barbara-Rose Collins, MI
Barbara Boxer, CA                 Dennis Hertel, MI
George Miller, CA                 William Ford, MI
Ron Dellums, CA                   Bruce Vento, MN
Pete Stark, CA                    Martin Sabo, MN
Don Edwards, CA                   Jerry Sikorski, MN
Norm Mineta, CA                   Mike Espy, MS
Gary Condit, CA                   William Clay, MO
Leon Panetta, CA                  Alan Wheat, MO
Richard Lehman, CA                Bernard Dwyer, NJ
Edward Roybal, CA                 Donald Payne, NJ
Julian Dixon, CA                  Bill Richardson, NM
Maxine Waters, CA                 George Hochbrueckner, NY
Marty Martinez, CA                Tom Downey, NY
Mervyn Dymally, CA                Robert Mrazek, NY
Glenn Anderson, CA                Floyd Flake, NY
Esteban Torres, CA                Edolphus Towns, NY
Pat Schroeder, CO                 Major Owens, NY
Barbara Kennelly, CT              Charles Rangel, NY
Sam Gejdenson, CT                 Ted Weiss, NY
Rosa DeLauro, CT                  Jose Serrano, NY
Charles Bennett, FL               Nita Lowey, NY
Harry Johnston, FL                Matt McHugh, NY
John Lewis, GA                    Louise Slaughter, NY
Neil Abercrombie, HI              John Lafalce, NY
Larry LaRocco, ID                 Byron Dorgan, ND
Richard Stallings, ID             Charles Luken, OH
Charles Hayes, IL                 Marcy Kaptur, OH
Marty Russo, IL                   Dennis Eckhart, OH
Cardiss Collins, IL               Tom Sawyer, OH
Sid Yates, IL                     James Traficant, OH
Frank Annunzio, IL                Les Aucoin, OR
Lane Evans, IL                    Ron Wyden, OR
Richard Durbin, IL                Peter Defazio, OR
Glenn Poshard, IL                 Tom Foglietta, PA
Jim Jontz, IN                     Bill Gray, PA
Andy Jacobs, IN                   Paul Kanjorski, PA
Dan Glickman, KS                  Austin Murphy, PA
Romano Mazzoli, KY                Harold Ford, TN
Carl Perkins, KY                  John Bryant, TX
Tom Andrews, ME                   Ron Coleman, TX
Kweizi Mfume, MD                  Henry Gonzalez, TX
Joseph Early, MA                  Wayne Owens, UT
Barney Frank, MA                  Bill Orton, UT
Chester Atkins, MA                Jolene Unsoeld, WA
Ed Markey, MA                     Jim McDermott, WA
Joseph Kennedy, MA                Bob Wise, WV
Gerry Studds, MA                  Jerry Kleczka, WI
Brian Donnelly, MA                Jim Moody, WI
John Conyers, Jr., MI
Howard Wolpe, MI
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.actions **

    This is the first time I have ever entered a note in the notesfile. I
    am also greatly concerned about the Persian Gulf situation.  However,
    many notes back a very valid point was raised that this situation is
    not over oil alone, but nuclear weapons.  I agree with this.  I think
    nuclear weapons is a big part of this dilema. Israeli's destroyed
    Saddam's ability to have nuclear weapons a few years ago, but Saddam
    was very close to having this weapons. Stop Saddaam now ... later will
    be too  late for the entire world.  There is more too this than oil! 
    The absence of Kuwaiti oil and Iraqi shortfall is more than being made
    up by the rest of the world's oil producing nations.  I have greater
    concern over the nuclear weapon siutation than the oil one.  If we
    learned anything from Hitler, I would hope it is to "nip it in the bud"
    and stop Saddam NOW.
    

    
    Aidan,
    
    I intended the square brackets to imply an optional item: however
    Saddam's familly name is 'Saddam' and his given name is 'Hussein',
    hence my comment about people not refering to George's actions etc.
    
    ... or indeed comparing Saddam with Adolph (though I guess most of us
    would know who you meant, but perhaps if you compared him with Joseph
    would Stalin spring immediately to mind?)
    
    Bottom line ... World leaders - even one's you don't like - are known
    by their family name or a chosen alias, not by their given names.
    
    /. Ian .\

    
>    1) Saddam Hussein should be called [President] Saddam, not 'Hussein' -
>    after all you don't habitually refer to the President of the US as
>    'George' do you?
 

	Aha, I have just found something that I have been doing correctly.

	Heather........Bowing to the crowds   
 

    >Bottom line ... World leaders - even one's you don't like - are known
    >by their family name or a chosen alias, not by their given names.
    
    Except Maggie of course.

It's not at all clear to me that Nuclear Weapons are more than a red herring.
We are not willing to go to war to prevent Pakistan, India, Korea, Brazil, or
Israel from getting them. Why Iraq? Simply because we don't like the current
leader? I don't believe it's possible to stop technological development like
that, eventually Iraq *will* have nuclear weapon(s). We must have a policy in
place to deal with that eventuality. Ignoring it won't make it go away. Just
wait 5 years. We happen to get along with the current leaders of the other
countries mentioned, but again, wait 5 years. I worry more about nuclear war
between Pakistan and India than I worry about nuclear devices in the Mideast.

As for Afghanistan, the answer is clear - we were not willing to go to war to
protect Afghanistan, for the same reason the USSR was not willing to go to war
to protect Panama, Nicaragua, or El Salvador. Instead we (and they) use more
informal means of belligerence, and formal diplomacy and sanctions. Iraq
arguably thought it had Soviet protection and so would be immune from US
military action. They guessed wrong.

	-- Charles

    For what it's worth, James Baker just gave a press conference to
    summarize the meeting in Geneva (I'm working at home today and
    caught it). No joy - very somber presentation, apparently no give on
    Iraq's part - Aziz read but would not accept Bush's letter.
    
    The DJI was up 40 points before the press conference, is now down 24
    points (so far). That's a 64 point swing due to the press
    conference.
    
    President Bush will be giving a press conference shortly (scheduled
    for 2:30 but late). Aziz will also be giving a press conference in
    Geneva (probably after Bush speaks).

    re:.235
    
    As long as we're picking nits, it's Adolf, not Adolph. :-)
                                            ^
    
    And I disagree that world leaders are never referred to by their
    last names. "Maggie" has been brought up, and I might also bring
    "Ronnie" and "Jimmy" as examples. And Stalin was often referred
    to as "Uncle Joe", and Hitler as "Adolf".
    
    And historically, there was your own Queen Bess. :-)
    
    --- jerry

    
    The problem with using 'Hussein' to refer to Saddam is that it is
    confusing: Jordan's leader is King Hussein.
    
    /. Ian .\

    In the interests of saving disk space on Momcat, I am now just going to
    post references to the articles of interest that I have.  If you would
    like to receive these articles, you can contact me and I will place you
    on a Persian Gulf mailing list.  (Note that I will still post an
    occasional article if it is of particular interest).

    This is the latest set of articles:

        1) An article from Greenpeace:

	    GREENPEACE CALLS ON PRESIDENT BUSH TO FORMALLY DISAVOW USE OF
            NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THE PERSIAN GULF

            1,000 U.S. Nuclear Warheads to be in Gulf by U.N. Deadline

	2) The Gulf Peace Team asks you to pray for peace on 15 January 1991

	3) Jesse Jackson will be speaking at the Baptist Peace Fellowship of
	North America in Washington on January 15.

	4) Rochester NY Ad Hoc Committee to Stop the War in the Gulf declares
	January 15, 1991 "DON'T DRIVE DAY".

	5) In a wonderful piece of news, the Oakland Board of Education has
	responded to the Gulf crisis by voting unanimously to stop providing
	lists of its high school seniors to military recruiters.  The School
	Board also condemned the buildup of U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf.

	6) Listeners to public radio station KQED in San Francisco were
	planning on picketing the station over the unbalanced coverage (in
	favor of a pro-war stance) on the Persian Gulf crisis in its program
	"The Persian Gulf:  A National Debate."

	7) The Fellowship of Reconciliation is sending another peace
	delegation to Iraq.

	8) Information about anti-war activities in Sussex, England.

	9) More information about the Women's Fast for Peace.

    -- Mike

    For the benefit of those of you who have relatives or friends of draft
    age, I am posting the following information about conscientious
    objection (originally posted by former Digital employee Jym Dyer):
    
/** mideast.actions: 98.0 **/
** Topic: Draft information **
** Written  7:24 am  Jan 10, 1991 by jsax in cdp:mideast.actions **
Subject: Draft information
 
/* Written  7:42 am  Jan  9, 1991 by jym in cdp:alt.activism */
/* ---------- "Straight Dope on the Draft" ---------- */
__  Also, the San Francisco address and phone number of the CCCO
_   posted in the previous message is out-of-date.  It is now:
 
	CCCO (Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors)
	P.O. Box 42249
	San Francisco, CA  94142
	415/474-3002
 
    The Philadelphia headquarters, again, is:
 
	CCCO
	2208 South Street
	Philadelphia, PA  19146
	215/545-4626
 
    The CCCO has a packet of information about conscientious
    objection.  It's called the "CO Packet," and costs $2.00.
___
__  Another group providing support for conscientious objectors
_   is the American Friends Service Committee.  They also have
    a $2.00 draft packet for COs.  Their addresses are:
 
	AFSC (American Friends Service Committee)
	1501 Cherry Street
	Philadelphia, PA  19102
	215/241-7000
 
	AFSC
	2161 Massachusetts Avenue
	Cambridge, MA  02140
	617/661-6130
___
__  Feel free to redistribute this information anywhere and
_   everywhere you think it might help.
    <_Jym_>
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.actions **

    The latest batch of articles:
    
    1) Information, directed at war resisters in the British army, which
    discusses the background of the Gulf crisis and answers questions for
    those who are opposed to participation in the war.
    
    2) The January 11 legislative update of the Friends Committee on
    National Legislation (FCNL).
    
    3) Comments from Jimmy Carter on the issue of Iraq/Palestinian linkage. 
    
    4) Colorado demonstration outside of Pat Schroeder's Denver offices.
    
    5) Fax campaign directed at pro-war Democrats in Congress
    
    6) Discussion of swing votes in Congress
    
    7) Corretta Scott King urges a new anti-war movement
    
    8) U.S. Army resisters forced to the gulf
    
    9) Sane/Freeze legislative update
    
    -- Mike

    
    Be careful about ditributing material on methods of avoidance in
    Britain. Whilst currently legally "dubious" it will almost certainly be
    [very] illegal should fighting start.
    
    "Conscientious objection" will then be a total non sequitor unless we
    introduce conscription since it is not a valid excuse to refuse a call
    up under the 1980 Reserve Forces Act during a state of National
    Emergency (only demonstrable personal hardship is valid then, and even
    that is often not succesful).
    
    /. Ian .\
    
    (PS I am refering to distributing or advertising the material on the
    elcetronic net, which has nodes and accessors in Britain.)

    PP&P policy number 6.54 has recently been revised to allow posting of
    general announcements without the author's explicit permission, ergo:

From:	NAME: RICHARD ROWAN @AKO            
	FUNC: Security                        
	TEL: 244-7584                         <ROWAN.RICHARD AT
AKOV12A1 AT AKOMTS AT AKO>
Date:	10-Jan-1991
Posted-date: 10-Jan-1991
Precedence: 1
Subject: PERSIAN GULF - SITUATION REPORT
To:	See Below
CC:	See Below




    
                    *** DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY ***
    
    
         SOURCES, who have provided me with reliable information in 
    the past, continue to believe that Iraqi strongman, SADDAM 
    Hussein, will, at the last minute, begin at least a partial 
    withdrawal from Kuwait -- before the U.S.-led forces on his border 
    can initiate hostilities, though the call as to war or peace is 
    very, very close.  While they hold to a conviction that war may be 
    averted, prudence dictates that managers plan for a worse-case 
    scenario -- a commencement of hostilities, following January 15th.  
    It seems unlikely that war would begin precisely on January 16th, 
    but it certainly could come by the 19th.
    
         In the event of hostilities, said SOURCES look for an 
    outbreak of anti-American rioting in the following areas:  Jordan, 
    Israel's occupied territories, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, 
    Pakistan, Sudan, Yemen and Mauritania.  They're particularly 
    concerned about the ferocity of rioting in Jordan and Pakistan.  
    Personnel should be drawn down to the bare minimum in Jordan, and 
    there, and in the other potential trouble spots, Westerners should 
    lay in supplies and curtail circulation at the first report of 
    Persian Gulf hostilities.
    
         They also anticipate a surge of Iraqi-sponsored terrorism in 
    Europe, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent and Southeast 
    Asia, with attacks also possible in Latin America, Africa, Canada 
    and the United States.  Attacks probably will focus in large part 
    on U.S. Government entities and commercial aviation -- airline 
    offices, airports and aircraft.  There is also a possibility, 
    outside of the United States, of bombings at private American 
    schools and at prominent U.S. corporate facilities.  They cannot 
    exclude the possibility of attacks upon American university 
    extension programs, but, in their judgment, those targets would be 
    somewhat lower on Iraqi lists.
    



    
         They believe that corporations should curtail non-essential 
    foreign travel and, in the event of hostilities, corporate 
    employees should select air carriers carefully and limit the 
    amount of time that they spend in airline ticket offices and 
    airport lobbies.
    
         Corporations should review and, if necessary, upgrade bomb 
    control measures.  Additionally, said SOURCES would not quarrel 
    with the idea of parents keeping children home from overseas 
    American/International schools, for several days, in the event of 
    hostilities and until terrorism prospects can be clarified.
    
         In the Middle East, they are especially concerned about 
    attacks in Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Bahrain and the United 
    Arab Emirates.
    
         In Europe, they are particularly concerned about five cities 
    with a long history of operations by Palestinian extremists:  
    Athens, Brussels, Rome, Vienna and Istanbul.
    
         In Asia, they are concerned about Karachi and other points in 
    Pakistan, Thailand and Manila.
    
         In Latin America, they are concerned about Lima, Santiago and 
    Montevideo.
    
         There is a high probability that an outbreak of hostilities 
    in the Persian Gulf would spur terrorist attacks in the United 
    States and Canada, by Palestinian terrorists aligned with SADDAM.  
    They would not be surprised to see an attack or two come early, 
    perhaps within five or six days of the beginning of the war.
    
         Initial Palestinian attacks probably would be designed to 
    attract maximum publicity, at minimum risk, and could take the 
    form of a bombing at an airport lobby or some other public 
    gathering place.  The most likely locations for an attack, in the 
    U.S., are the following:  New York, Washington, Los Angeles, 
    Chicago, and Detroit, which has a very large Arab population.
    
         They cannot exclude the possibility of an in-flight bombing 
    aboard a domestic commercial aircraft, especially in light of the 
    relatively lax security arrangements in effect at most domestic 
    airports, but they are inclined to believe that assailants, 
    initially at least, will opt for relatively simple and relatively 
    low-risk assaults.
    
                    *** DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY ***



    
    
         They have no basis, at this time, for recommending the 
    curtailment of domestic air travel, though they would suggest that 
    travelers limit the amount of time that they spend in open-access 
    areas of airports and otherwise comport themselves in accordance 
    with safe-travel guidelines.
    
         Attacks against public utilities, telecommunications 
    facilities, as well as oil production and transportation 
    facilities also are possible, but, again, they are more concerned 
    about unprotected targets.  It is a good time to review and, if 
    necessary, upgrade bomb-prevention measures.
    
         They do not anticipate a high volume of attacks in the early 
    stages of a campaign in the United States, but they do expect that  
    terrorists will strive for maximum publicity impact in hopes of 
    sowing panic.  The media will give them tremendous publicity, so 
    it will be awfully important for persons, with Security 
    responsibilities, to anticipate the problem and, when it comes, to 
    stay cool.
    
         Regards,
    	    Rich
    
                    *** DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY ***
    
    
------- End of Forwarded Message


================== RFC 822 Headers ==================
Return-Path: <dianna>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 08:08:18 -0500

                ***** DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY *****

                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     09-Jan-1991 16:58 EST
                                        From:     Raymond F. Humphrey
                                                  HUMPHREY.RAYMOND
                                        Dept:     Corporate Security
                                        Tel No:   223-4088

TO: See Below

Subject: International Business Travel / Middle East Situation

                       ***DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY***
   
   Official and quasi-official sources continue to be divided concerning 
   the resolution of the Middle East scenario and possible hostilities on 
   or about 15 January 1991.
   
   The consensus, however, is that if armed conflict occurs, a number of 
   pre-positioned terrorist groups in Western Europe and elsewhere will 
   likely support Iraqi interests by acts against airport terminals, 
   aircraft, and other seemingly "soft" targets.  Accordingly, security 
   procedures can be expected to be implemented worldwide, with particular 
   emphasis in Europe.
   
   Additionally, a great deal of criticism was directed at government 
   entities and commercial aviation following the bombing of Pan Am 103, 
   concerning an alleged failure in that instance to act differently upon 
   receipt of a bomb threat.  Because of this, it can be expected that 
   either the government or the American carriers may be more prone to 
   unexpectedly cancel flights upon receipt of threats.  In other words, 
   the possession of a confirmed return flight ticket may not necessarily 
   guarantee a scheduled departure on the date and time indicated.
   
   Various non-American carriers can also be expected to be potential 
   targets, based upon their country's support of the Middle East/U.N. 
   Resolution and/or support of U.S. leadership.  Within the past two days, 
   some international carriers have temporarily suspended flights into 
   certain countries.

                ***** DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY *****
   
                                     ***
                ***** DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY *****
   
   Because of the uncertainty of events and the potential severity on a 
   broad scale if hostilities occur, I recommend that international air 
   travel be strictly limited to those activities that are ABSOLUTELY 
   CRITICAL to our BUSINESS NEEDS.  Anything that can be temporarily 
   postponed, should be.
   
   For planning purposes, I suggest that this curtailment remain in effect 
   until at least 21 January 1991 (and revisited at that time, unless 
   overtaken by events).
   
   Critical business travel should continue.  That is, those activities 
   that involve significant economic advantage to the Corporation, are 
   time-driven, and cannot be delayed for a few days.  Again, however, 
   prudence dictates that all travel that can be postponed should be moved 
   to a date beyond the above-cited "critical window" (now until 21 
   January).  This simple requirement will significantly reduce employee 
   risk during these unpredictable times.  Additionally, no employee should 
   be compelled to travel against his or her stated wishes.
   
   Although not a time for undue anxiety, as a minimum, I recommend that 
   individuals who MUST travel are reminded of the following:
   
        Reduce "exposure" by taking "direct flights" wherever 
        possible.
        
        Confirm that their scheduled flight is available before 
        leaving for the airport.
        
        Allow enough time to pass through markedly increased 
        airport security.
        
        Spend as short a time as possible at curbside (during 
        drop-off or pickup of passengers at airports).
        
        Move quickly through the public or check-in areas of 
        airport terminals to more protected areas (e.g., through 
        passport control to planeside departure lounges, etc.).
        
        Do not accept packages, envelopes, or luggage from anyone 
        (including "watching" stranger's luggage at airports).
        
        Minimize "high visibility" individuals meeting them at 
        airport terminals (e.g., use taxi's and similar 
        conveyances, rather than an "official" reception at 
        airport terminals and other public areas).  If being met 
        by a "limo driver," use a recognition name on greeting 
        signs other than "Digital Equipment Corporation" or 
        "DEC."
 
                ***** DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY *****

                ***** DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY *****
       
        Do not move to the scene of demonstrations, loud noises, 
        or explosions.  To the extent possible, stay away from 
        large glassed areas at airports and hotels.  Most 
        certainly, avoid any street or public demonstrations.
        
        It can be anticipated that activist support and/or ethnic 
        groups may pose significant threat to "any Westerner" 
        walking public streets immediately following any outbreak 
        of armed hostility.  This possibility may be more intense 
        in countries of high Arab populations, etc.  Accordingly, 
        "Westerners" in such locations should remain indoors 
        until local situations stabilize.
        
        Err on the side of downplaying "American" or religious 
        affiliation in regards to jewelry and clothing.
        
        Internationally, stay away from restaurants or other 
        public gathering places that are "known for their 
        military patronage" or are viewed as "American."
        
        U.S. citizens should register with the American Embassy 
        (non-U.S. citizens with their own embassy), if business 
        must be conducted for more than a couple of days in 
        potential trouble areas.  A battery-powered radio, 
        capable of tuning into local U.S.-sponsored stations, is 
        also recommended (with spare batteries).
        
        Report any suspicious activity to airport or police 
        authorities.
        
        Exercise cautious judgment during this period of global 
        tension.
        
                     ***DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY***
        

To Distribution List:
[Deleted]

    I have been away for a few days, and, as you might imagine, the
    quantity of items on the Persian Gulf is rather large.  Here is the
    first batch of several:
 
    1) Dialing 1-900-44-NO WAR to send an antiwar message to Bush and
    Congress.
    
    2) Article from the Middle East Justice Network (Cambridge, MA).
    
    3) January 12 FCNL update
    
    4) Launching of the Alternative Revenue Service in Eastern
    Massachusetts on January 15.
 
    5) Faxes & phone numbers of the Senate
    
    6) Faxes & phone numbers of the House of Representatives
    
    7) Members of congress who voted for peace
    
    -- Mike

    The next batch:
    
    1) Sparking the flame for peace
    
    2) 198 methods of nonviolent action
    
    3) Draft resistance group denounces Representative Les Aspin's call for
    a renewal of the draft.
 
    4) CO Army reserve doctor refuses to be deployed to the Persian Gulf.
    
    5) Peace group (winner of Nobel Peace prize in 1910) questions whether
    or not the UN is violating its own rules in resolution 678.
    
    6) April 27 peace ribbon to encircle the Pentagon. 
    
    7) The city of San Francisco approved two important resolutions on the
    Middle East crisis.  The first one grants sanctuary to those who do not
    want to participate in a Middle East war.  The second one provides
    civil rights protections to the Arab-American community.
    
    8) FCNL legislative update, 1/15/91
    
    9) FCNL letter to Bush
    
    10) 14 Marine reservists who have filed CO applications are being held
    at Camp Lejeune on court martial charges.
    
    11) Environmental effects of a Gulf War
    
    -- Mike

==================================================================
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 12:18:58 -0700
From: Patrick Juola <juola@eclipse.colorado.edu>
Subject: For those of you with questions about draft deferments....
 
        How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Draft
                Patrick "kitten" Juola
 
Please feel free to redistribute this to all your friends, if they
want it.  Heck, feel free to distribute it to your enemies, if they
want it.  Or if they don't.  I don't mind.  Really.  After all, it's
not *my* disk space.... -k.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to a deluge of requests (primarily from the junk mailing
list), here is the Real Stuff about the draft.  For the record, I am
a draft counselor with the American Friends Service Committee, and most
of the material in here is straight out of the NIBSCO Draft Counselors
Manual.  But, please, everyone, bear in mind that free legal advice
can be very expensive -- if you want to play mind games with the
Selective Service System, talk to a draft counselor or an attorney
first.
 
First, how the draft works.  Conscription is done by age, based on year.
of birth.  As I write, it is 1991.  I was born in 1966, so I will turn
25 this year, putting me in the "age 25 selection group".  Someone born
in 1971, therefore, is in the "age 20" group.  Registrants are called in
the following order :
        1) Volunteers (yeah, right!)
        2) Previous registrants whose deferments or postponements have
expired.  (i.e. if you get a postponement until the end of the semester,
you get called up QUICKLY after that).
        3) The age 20 group, followed by age 21, 22,... 25.
        N) The age 19 group.
        N+1) The age 18 group.
 
There are approximately 2 million men in each group, so if you were
born in 1970 or earlier, you are *probably* safe -- I doubt that we can
kill off a million people a year.
 
There are only five deferments available :
        4-F (Unfit for Service) is the usual physical check.  About half
of the people called (in Vietnam) fell into this category; we are apparently
a society of real couch potatoes.  This also includes mental aberrations,
for which an Army Doctor needs to agree on the diagnosis, and homosexuality,
which is (contrary to fact) considered a form of mental illness.
        4-F also includes the people who (as popularized by Arlo Guthrie)
"may not be moral enough to burn women, children, houses, and villages."
This is usually a felony conviction or a LOT of misdemeanor convictions, and
the Army may be willing to waive this, so it's not a guaranteed out.
 
        1-O are Conscientious Objectors; they are required to serve two
years in an alternative service (usually changing bedpans in hospitals).
It's actually not quite as difficult to get as some people believe -- during
'Nam, over 95% of the people who appealed their denial of a CO claim won
it on appeal.  But you need a good counselor or a good lawyer to pull this
one off.
 
        4-G (Surviving Son) is what most people think of as the "only son"
deferment.  In short, if you have had a father, mother, or blood sibling
killed in action or in the line of duty, killed by wounds received (in the
line of duty), or declared MIA, you are eligible for a deferment.  *This is
not available, unfortunately, if Congress declares a war or a national
emergency.*   There is no "only son" deferment.
 
        3-A (Hardship) deferments are available to people whose absence
would cause serious problems for their dependents and who have no one else
who can take over the responsibilities.
 
        2-D (Ministry Student) and 4-D (Minister) are self-explanatory.
And probably useless for most people.  But, if you join a seminary, you can
get out of going to the war.
 
Thoses are all the available *deferments* -- i.e., as long as those conditions
persist, you will not be drafted.  There are also a few postponements
available, which will keep you out of the war for a few months.
 
        High school students can finish their degrees (up to age 20, and
even beyond if they are in their final year).  College students can finish
the current semester, and college seniors can finish their year.   The 4-S
deferment no longer exists, unfortunately.
 
        ROTC scholarship students can stay in school forever.
 
        There are also minor deferments for things like being scheduled
for a professional examination (like medical boards or bar exams) or
medical emergencies.  Again, mostly useless.
 
That's basically the lot.  Some notable things that are *not* included
are : only son deferment, student deferment, and protected industry
deferments.  Although, Colorado and Massachusetts residents might like to
know that working for NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
is apparently, legally, the equivalent of serving in the Armed Forces.
I don't, however, know that loophole well enough to recommend it.
 
Finally, if you are interested in pursuing a CO claim or have any questions,
I'm available at juola@boulder.colorado.edu.  The real professionals are
the National Interreligious Service Board for Conscientious Objectors,
(NIBSCO), at 1601 Connecticut Ave NW, Ste. 750, Washington DC.  In the
Denver area, the folks who trained me are American Friends Service Committee,
at 1535 High St., 3rd Floor, Denver, CO  80218.  Any of us can probably
help answer further questions.
 
        Peace,
 
                - kitten
 
Patrick Juola // juola@boulder.colorado.edu // kitten@ai.mit.edu

Draft Info:  Addresses and Phone Numbers
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
    AFSC - The American Friends Service Committee.  Founded by
    Quakers in 1917 to assist COs.  They now provide a wide
    variety of services for COs and non-registrants regardless
    of faith.  Many local Friends meetings around the country
    provide active support for COs.
 
        AFSC [Headquarters]
        1501 Cherry Street
        Philadelphia, PA  19102
        215/241-7000
 
        AFSC [New England Office]
        2161 Massachusetts Avenue
        Cambridge, MA  02140
        617/661-6130
 
        AFSC [Coloradao]
        1535 High Street, 3rd Floor
        Denver, CO  80218
 
    CARD - Committee Against Registration and the Draft.  A group
    opposed to both the draft and draft registration.  They had a
    Washington office in the past, but the headquarters now appears
    to be in the Midwest.
 
        CARD
        731 State Street
        Madison, WI  53703
        608/257-7562
 
        BAARD (Boston Alliance Against Registration and the Draft)
        P.O. Box 2406
        Cambridge, MA  02238
        617/354-0931
 
    CCCO - The Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors.
    Provides information and counseling.  Will keep statements
    of conscientious objection on file.  Has extensive liter-
    ature, including a "CO packet," available for $2.00.
 
        CCCO [Headquarters]
        2208 South Street
        Philadelphia, PA  19146
        215/545-4626
 
        CCCO [San Francisco]
        P.O. Box 42249
        San Francisco, CA  94142
        415/474-3002
 
    NISBCO - The National Interreligious Service Board for
    Conscientious Objectors.  Similar to the CCCO, but focusing
    primarily on COs whose objections to war stem from religious
    principles.
 
        NISBCO
        1601 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 750
        Washington, DC  20005
        [Phone Number Not Listed]
 

    Today's batch:
    
    1) For your entertainment, updated lyrics for Country Joe and the
    Fish's classic antiwar song: "I Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-To-Die Rag '91".
    
    2) Clarinet article: Anti-war protests mushroom on news of war
    
    3) Peace actions in Cambridge, MA
    
    4) FCNL news release, 1/16/91
    
    5) War tax resisters in Boston
    
    6) Guidelines for nonviolence
    
    7) Satire: Die For Oil
    
    8) Commentary on the Gulf War
    
    -- Mike

Powell announced over 1000 sorties flown, with an 80% effective rate -
target identified and damaged.  The other 20% were due to bad weather,
mechanical difficulties, or unable to find target.

Over 100 tomahawk cruise missiles, which he said were VERY effective.

Some Iraqui planes did engage, Allied forced returned (either the Iraquis
were shot down, or it was a draw).

One US F-16 lost, wouldn't say how (but commentators concluded it must 
have been SAMs).  Powell did acknowledge that they encountered a lot of
Surface-to-Air Missiles and anti-aircraft flak.  One US plane damaged,
but returned safely.  One British Tornado lost.

No SCUD missile launches.  Pleased with results against chemical and
nuclear plants.  

Plan includes ground forces, particularly tanks, after primary targets
taken care of (radar, airplanes, anti-aircraft installations).

Saddam not targeted (they learned after Panama).

Powell felt that they had severely disrupted the Iraqi communications,
but that it had not collapsed.  Did not target radio and TV specifically.

Viewed CNN as best evidence of their ability to avoid religious, cultural,
and civilian targets.

Could call off the attack if directed by the President in response to an
Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait.

    Incredible that we're at war once again and no one is talking about it
    here in notes ...
    
    At any rate, during the news last night, all night long, I couldn't
    help but notice that no one mentioned 'casualities' as in
    "womenandchildren."  Womenandchildren were such a big issue a few
    months ago; now, they're not mentioned at all.  I imagine there
    were quite a few womenandchildren huddled together during the night
    wondering if they would see dawn.  Yes, the innocent victims, but
    since they're over there, they don't count I suppose (read sarcastic).
    
    This whole thing has brought back the horror of Vietnam fullfold.
    I feel sick.
    Maia
    

    
    At any rate, during the news last night, all night long, I couldn't
    help but notice that no one mentioned 'casualities' as in
    "womenandchildren."

I feel strange defending the military, but...

Ahem, there was much mention (at the Pentagon briefing at 9 AM this morning)
of the military's desire to avoid civilian casualities.  (I.e., "women
and children," not to mention Bernard Shaw who was reporting live from
a Baghdad hotel during the bombing.)  In fact, General Cheney noted that
the fact that you could listen to Shaw live showed how successful they
were.  There was also specific mention of targeting and "control over
the aircraft" to make sure they hit their intended targets and didn't
accidentally hit "cultural or religious" sites.

Perhaps more interesting (for students of gender-free language) is that
the American pilot who was apparently killed was identified as "an
individual" rather than by a gender-specific term.

    This whole thing has brought back the horror of Vietnam fullfold.
    I feel sick.
    Maia

Agree, totally.

Martin.
    

    
    Did anyone notice how our esteemed President seemed to be on the
    verge of hysterical laughter during his speech last night, and how
    he grinned when he mentioned the rape of Kuwait?
    
    Or maybe it was just gas.
    
    Carla
    

    Well,  here's my opinion....
    
    Saddam had to be stopped.  The man lives on the edge of sanity (IMHO)
    and left to his own devices I'm sure he would have built up his forces
    and attacked somewhere else other than Kuwait.  (Like Israel, Turkey,
    Saudi Arabia, etc.)  More people would have died.  And the moer he
    "conquered" the more he would have wanted.
    
    Whether it was the job of the Americans to stop him can be debated. 
    But this is a moot point now, as action has been taken.  It seems that
    from reports received to this point that the military did a good job in
    taking out the defense forces without harming the people.  This should
    be good news but the thing I'm most scared about now is the fact that
    there was so little resistance to the bombings.  I can't help but think
    that Saddam is hiding something really terrible.
    
    As for the pilot, was this situation considered a "combat" situation?
    In that case the pilot would have had to be male.
    
    Lisa 

Well, the President has "proved his manhood" to all those card-carrying members
of the ACLU who would call him a wimp. Of course he's happy.  

And the military got to play with all kinds of new toys. Hey, we'll need newer
and better systems for the NEXT war -- let's start spending.

And the military budget will increase.

And the deficit will increase.

And we'll have to have a few new taxes to pay for the "Liberation" of Kuwait.

And George Bush can't be blamed for ANY of it.  Of course he's happy.

And we got to kick sand in the face of some nasty little ethnic dictator. Hey,
who's going to dare say nasty things about the Good Ol' US of A now. This is 
the gunboat diplomacy of the 20th century, and it lets Bush dream about the 
"good old days".  Don't let those namby-pamby democrats get in the way of good
old-fashioned WAR; the "honor of the country" is at stake.  Who'll dare burn
the American flag now.

				A sad and cynical Nigel

    RE: .259
    
    -d,
    
    NO, I will *not* stop protesting.  I don't believe that not exercising my
    right to free speech will help stop this war.
    
    E Grace 

Read in another conference that Iraq has told CNN to shut down...





Jim

Re .260 if this view is typical of the U.S. then  
I'll "dare say nasty things about the Good Ol' US of A now"

It isnt just a U.S. show  REMEMBER THAT!
It isnt just U.S. lives at stake!

You didnt even invent the term "gunboat diplomacy"

I will refrain from further anti-american invective

			Derek

    RE:  258
    
    Right on ... Saddam has to be stopped NOW.
    

    Re .265 and .266
    
    Hear hear.
    
    Ken
    

    I expect this is just my paranoia at work, but I can't help remembering
    Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor:
    
    What if Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait because he was encouraged to do
    so by the US?  

    
    Wow, Maggie, and I thought I'd reached the all time high in cynicism,
    but... come to think of it... one of our diplomats did say that the US
    wasn't worried about Arab-Arab disputes such as Iraq's issues over the
    border with Kuwait -- certainly not *dis*couragement.
    
    Justine

    The terror of "THE PINBALL MACHINE" has been released on Iraq.
    
    The pinball machine is what we called the air war in Viet Nam, the
    High Tech Computer Battlefield has been much inproved since Viet Nam.
    
    We wired the Ho Chi Ming Trial like an arcade pin machine, the action
    happening is Iraq is Cultural Genocide. 
    
    In an air war we don't have much contact with our TARGETS, we KILL
    buildings, trucks, tanks, etc... We terrorize people, there is no
    concern with their welfare, this causes psychological devastation,
    it worked in Laos, but not in Viet Nam, the air war failed.
    
    We were up against bicycles and sanpans with our High Tech.
    Will this type of warfare work here? Time will tell.
    
     
    
    

    I have a copy of a London Observer article from October 21 that goes
    into a great deal of detail to make precisely that point, about Bush
    encouraging Saddam.
    
    The question arises of who is the more evil madman--Saddam or Bush. 
    Right now, I'd say it is too close to call.
    
    -- Mike

    RE: .272 So what are you doing to protest the invasion of Kuwait?
    If less then you are doing to protest the UN actions of today I
    am of course forced to believe you approve of Saddam's actions
    there. As I am forced to assume that everyone who protests about
    the UN action without being at least equal in their condemnation
    of Iraq is in support of the Iraqi invasion. TO assume otherwise
    would be foolish.


    ~Cliff

    Your inferences are incorrect, since I have stated many times that I am
    as opposed to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait as I am opposed the current
    war against Iraq.
    
    -- Mike

    re.273
    
    seriously, this seems to me to be a bit of a non-sequitar.
    
    personally, I'm appalled that we're in a war now.  I find little to
    admire in the UN action.
    
    it would be foolish to infer from this that I find the Iraqi invasion
    of Kuwait to be admirable and just.
    
    while I'm not Mike [unless I slept too near a pod last night], I would
    like to state that my opposition to both actions has been equally
    active.  what letters and phone calls to embassies, relief
    organisations [also funds on this one], legislators, et al. can do, I've
    done.
    
    arguably, I've not made a _huge_ impact thus far; but I'm doing what I
    can.
    
    are you asking for listings of names and places where you might stand
    up and be counted as opposed to Iraqi atrocites?  is your .273 merely
    a request for equal time for both sides?
    
      Annie

    I'm trying real hard not to shout.  This one hit a nerve.
    
>    ===========================================================================
>Note 342.270                   The Persian Gulf                      270 of 272
>LUNER::VISCO                                        19 lines  17-JAN-1991 13:09
>                        -< Would We Commit Genocide? >-
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    In the names of all gods above and below us ever invented -- will we
    stand by and watch it happen?  AGAIN?  Have you closed your mind and
    ears to the reports of atrocities by Iraqi troops in Kuwait?  broken
    bottles put up bodily orifices, sex organs shot off, premature babies
    discarded on the floor in looting their incubators, doctors shot dead
    on the spot for objecting, and more -- far, far more.  We did not stop
    genocide, the real thing not what you're calling genocide, even though
    we KNEW it was going on in Germany.  We did not stop the Khmer Rouge,
    and even fussed mightily when the Vietnamese did.  There are other
    examples.
    
>    We were up against bicycles and sanpans with our High Tech.
>    Will this type of warfare work here? Time will tell.
    
    Scud missles carrying chemical and biological weapons, aimed at
    civilian populations, these are equivalent to bicycles and sanpans?
    
    Friend, war is an uncivilized and horrible thing to do, or be subjected
    to.  Sometimes it's necessary.  I wish it wasn't.  But if you can see
    no differences between this war, being fought for both (macro)economic
    and anti-atrocity reasons, and Vietnam, which was fought for the
    benefit of corporations and for ideology and because of post-colonial
    prejudices, then I can only suggest you look into it further.
    
    Sara

    
    If there's anything funny about all this, is all the hype we're hearing
    about the high tech we have going for us.  This is *exactly* what
    was said during Vietnam too; 'hey, we have all this great modern
    equipment, all they have is black pajamas and pea shooters.'  And
    yet, they *won*.
    
    There was a wonderful article in the NYT last summer, an interview
    with the North Vietnamese general who was in command during that war;
    he said they knew they would win, no matter how great U.S.'s technology
    was; they had the will to win, it was their country afterall.  They
    won through mere perserverance.
    
    IMHO, what we're in now, is much the same, if not worse.  We should
    have learned something from Vietnam.
    

    
    re:.259
    i do not want them to 'do their jobs'
    

    re .279 Do you also object when a police officer does _their_ 
    job ? Saddam Hussein has shown himself to be a theif, specifically
    an armed robber. He must be stopped from continuing his acts
    of theft. We, the US and our allies, have taken it upon ourselves
    to stop a thief. 

    re .278
    
    YHO is misguided, simplistic, misinformed, inaccurate, inappropriate,
    and wrong, IMHO.
    
    
    Would it have been condescending for me if in addition to above I also
    said
    "I understand how/why one might say such things, however..."

    I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the BUsh admin. had encouraged
    Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. The political moves that go on behind
    the scenes are no longer surprising me. That this whole deal was
    Orchestrated from Day One... from Saddam in Kuwait to Billy Graham in
    the White House....would not be a surprise. It's more than politics,
    it's Theater. Bush was working on the speech he gave last night MONTHS
    ago at Camp David. 
    
    --DE
    
     

    re: 282
    According to press reports last night, President Bush started
    to work on that speech TWO weeks ago, in case it was needed.
    

    Oh ,OK. That's much better, then.
    
    

There's this Yiddish curse, "May your dreams come true."

Suppose "we" "win" the "war" -- what then?  Do we become an army of
occupation?  Do we install a Panamanian-style puppet regime?  Do
we just declare victory and go home, leaving the natives to clean
up after us?

It seems that none of the journalists picked up on the Iraqui references
to President Hussein as a modern Saladin.  Saladin threw the Christians
out of the Middle East 800 (+/- 200) years ago.  Will we win the battle
and thereby lose the war?

Bush's timetable appears simple:

-- something interesting for the 7:00 news.
-- a "decisive victory" by Superbowl Sunday.  Maybe a little mopping up
   afterwards, of course.
-- the end of the war by August 1992 (in good time for the presidential
   campaign).

What do we do if Hussein's timetable 20 years to run?

The Kuwaiti's hired foreigners to run their country: take out the garbage,
mow the lawns, that sort of stuff.  Why do I have the feeling that we're
just more hired help?

Martin.

    I heard that there is a chance of the Super Bowl being postponed or
    cancelled due to the threat of terrorism.
    
    Lisa

    
    So there *is* something good coming out of this.
    

    Carla, thank you for providing us all a chance to laugh amidst our
    heartsickness.  It helps.  Cancel the Superbowl due to threat of
    terrorism, hooray!  I can laugh with that!
    
    DougO

    Terrorism is still a major concern and we can't do a whole heck of a
    lot to prevent it.  
    
    mdh

    
    re:.280
    your analogy is no basis for rational debate
    

>>>        So there *is* something good coming out of this.

    Hey, the Dow Jones average is up over 113 points for the day.

    Why do I have this feeling that Bush put in a big "buy" order on Tuesday?

    Marge, yes, terrorism is still a major threat and we can't do as much
    as we wish to prevent it.  Therefore, I agree with the decision (if it
    really is true) not to hold a Super Bowl; too dangerous.  Can I help it
    if I agree with Carla, that this *isn't* such a bad thing, to cancel?
    
    DougO

    re.290 re .280 Which premise do you disagree with ?

    
    you mean there's a difference?
    
    D.

    re .295, yes, the superbowl is more boring.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: Carla and Lorna
    
    I'll second that!;)
    
    Barb

    
    
    Going _completely_ off on a tangent, I'd _love_to see the Superbowl
    cancelled! (..like, maybe permanently..?!)  The hype around this modern
    day gladiatorial event amazes me.  If anyone remembers back to first
    few SB's, the footbal players seemed to take it more humorously, (can I
    say 'appropriately'?) too.  
    I remember a TV show where the players dressed up like cavemen, and
    clowned around.. _the players_ knew it was a spoof, the audience did,
    too...seemed to be more on par with the level of
    entertainment.
    
    
    IMO IMO IMO IMO
    
    
    jamd

    Could we please start an "I Hate Football" topic and get this one
    back on track ?

    Today's batch is rather small:
    
    1) The text of a "No Blood For Oil" full page ad in the Vancouver
    (British Columbia) Province.
 
    2) Anti-war activities in Germany.
    
    3) Anti-war activities in Indiana.
    
    -- Mike

    Here's the latest batch:
    
    1) Announcement of support meetings for Boston war tax resisters
    
    2) Announcement of Peace Resource Center BBS 
    
    3) Anti-war demonstration in Oulu, Finland
    
    4) Clarinews article about continued worldwide antiwar demonstrations. 
    
    5) A chapter of Veterans For Peace is promoting a blood drive as a way
    of supporting the soldiers in the Middle East while opposing the U.S.
    war.  "We support the troops but not the policies that put them there. 
    We want them to come home safely to their families and communities. 
    Until this happens we will continue to send them tangible evidence of
    our support -- human blood, our blood -- in the hope that it will save
    lives.  It is indeed possible to hold the warrior in our hearts and
    still despise war."
 
    -- Mike

    More stuff for your reading pleasure:
    
    1) Article by the Peace Day Project, based in Santa Cruz, CA
    
    2) Derrick Jackson column in the Boston Globe
    
    3) Statement on the outbreak of war by an international peace group
    
    4) Military families support network
    
    5) SCAWD (Scottish Churches Action for World development)
    gulfwatch bulletin #2
    
    6) SCAWD gulfwatch bulletin #3
    
    -- Mike

    I realize that I might be sending a rather high volume of messages out
    on the mailing list, some of which may not be of much interest.  I
    apologize for not exercising as much discrimination as I probably
    should in determining to send out.  I don't want to end up drowning you
    in a deluge of mail that you you will end up not bothering to read;
    but, on the other hand, I don't want to be so discriminating that I
    don't send out things that are genuinely of interest to others.  I am
    going to make a more conscious effort in this area, so that I don't
    send out too much.

    Now, having just said that, here is some more "stuff" for your
    enjoyment:

    1) Peacenet announces the formation of a Middle East crisis desk.

    2) Christic Institute bulletin on the Gulf

    3) Some churches are offering sanctuary for soldiers who don't want to
    fight in the Gulf War.

    -- Mike

    
    please keep it up, mike. i don't necessarily read everything but
    i do find some small solace in knowing it's there.
    

    
    yes, thanks, I really appreciate your sending them.
    
    D.

	I want to know when we're going to switch to the real campaign that
will win the war - surrounding Baghdad with arrays of speakers and playing
"It's A Small World" 24 hours a day at ear-shattering volume until they 
surrender.

					--Doug
					  (with credit to Jim Anderson,
					    creator of _The Gene Pool_)

    Here's the latest batch:
    
    1) Pope meets with three Christian bishops from Iraq, who handed him a
    church document calling for a negotiated settlement of the crisis.
    
    2) Pope condemns gulf bombardments
    
    3) An attender of San Francisco lists some of the better antiwar
    slogans that he found on signs and banners.  (Some of them are quite
    good.)
 
    4) Kenneth Burke quote
    
    5) Announcement of the Boston Area Mobilization for Survival phone
    number for daily updates on protests, mettings, etc.
    
    6) Radio For Peace International shortwave broadcasts
    
    7) Announcement of National Lawyers Guild toll-free number for military
    personnel who need counseling or referrals.
    
    8) Bulletin from the FCNL
    
    9) U.S. Representative Ron Dellums calls for a ceasefire.
    
    10) Media censorship in Britain
    
    -- Mike

    Chilling news report at noon; they showed three of the American POWs,
    one of whom was saying obvious propaganda like, 'The U.S shouldn't
    be here...' (not exact quote).  What was so terrible was how they
    looked--drugged, comatose almost, expressionless, heads down.
    
    We are doomed to repeat...
    
    

    More items for your reading pleasure:
    
    1) Coretta Scott King comments on the Persian Gulf war
    
    2) Comments about allegations of violence at demonstrations
    
    3) Don't burn the flag--wash it!
    
    4) Tactics to use at antiwar demonstrations
    
    5) Denver Post article on efforts by Bush's Episcopal Bishop to steer
    the president away from war
    
    -- Mike

The following is an excerpt from an article which appeared in the Herald-Sun 
daily newspaper, Melbourne, Australia on 22 January, 1991. It pretty well sums 
up some important concerns which Australia holds with respect to the Gulf War, 
but about which many other people from other countries would be unaware.

                             "SYMPATHY FOR SADDAM

*Australia's largest and nearest neighbour is not gung-ho about war against 
Iraq. Tom Hyland in Jakarta reports that 'Saddam is good' T-shirt sellers are 
doing a brisk trade.*

In Indonesia, home of the world's largest Moslem community, the Gulf crisis 
has exposed considerable public sympathy for the Iraqi leader, who is seen by 
many as a champion who stands up to Israel, its Western backers, and the rich 
Gulf states.

For the Indonesian Government, the Gulf crisis has created a complex set of 
diplomatic, economic and political problems. Caught between two sides, 
Jakarta's official response is seen by some as ambivalent. Publicly, the 
government has called on Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait and has strictly 
enforced United Nations sanctions. But President Suharto has rejected Saudi 
Arabian appeals to send even a token military force to defend Moslem holy 
sites, and has criticised the build-up of military forces in the Gulf.

A leading member of the non-aligned movement, Indonesia carefully avoids 
criticising any country, with the significant exception of Israel and its 
behaviour in the occupied territories. 

While it argues it is being even-handed, Indonesia last week won praise from 
the Iraqi and Palestinian ambassadors in Jakarta for its "realistic, objective 
and balanced" stance on the Gulf crisis."

...what the aforegoing tells us is that Indonesia is on our side, but for how 
long will that be if this becomes a Holy War? Not long, many suspect.

Don
*8-)

	I talked to an old friend last night.  Her brother-in-law is a
Kuwaiti, who brought the family back to America (American wife two children at
the time, now three) a year or so ago.  She told me that he says that
Saddam Hussein would have been preferable to the previous Kuwaiti government.

						--D

><<< Note 342.311 by BLUMON::WAYLAY::GORDON "Like the shadows on the snow..." >>>
>                      -< One small piece of data... FWIW >-

>	I talked to an old friend last night.  Her brother-in-law is a
>Kuwaiti, who brought the family back to America (American wife two children at
>the time, now three) a year or so ago.  She told me that he says that
>Saddam Hussein would have been preferable to the previous Kuwaiti government.

>						--D

Excuse me?
Are we talking about the same Saddam Hussein? the looter of banks? the killer
of babies? the raper of women? (Oh I forgot, it wasn't him, just the folks 
that work for him!)
The previous Gov? the ones that provided school for *ALL* children?
that brought their country to the highest average income per family of the 
arab countries?

I think I'm going to puke!

re: .312

I think he meant the one that disbanded parlaiment last year and shut down 
the press shortly before the invasion.  

My daughter Kat was at a public affairs forum in Concord (NH) last 
Saturday, and one of the tidbits they learned from the public-affairs
speakers was that the Kuwaitis had been using angle drilling -- setting
up oil wells at the Kuwaiti oil fields and then drilling sideways to tap
Iraqi oil.  Apparently on a massive scale.  That would start a war in 
Montana, too...

Another was that in the Arab world, Saddam Hussein is seen as a populist 
leader fighting the oppression of the kings and emirs who hold the rest 
of the people down.

--bonnie

    Bonnie, my take on the angle-drilling story was that it was Saddam's
    claim, and justification for invasion.  Until verified (and who am I
    going to trust, now?) I doubt the story.
    
    DougO

I heard that the main (real :-) reason that Iraq invaded was
that Kuwait had the nerve to want Iraq to pay back the money
that Kuwait gave (loaned) them during the Iran Iraq war.

Amy

>>>    In the Arab world, you do not win by losing.  

    Whither this insight? How does it differ from winning in any other
    "world"? And how do you know?

    It's awfully easy to make sweeping statements about how it "is" in
    the "Arab world". When push comes to shove, it seems to me that
    most people in any Society A have very little real insight into
    what it's like in Society B.

 Having a popular leader and democratic choice is not  a recepy for peace and
justice for all. 
	Not wishing to take this obvious analogy too far but

Hitler had the full democratic support of electorate of Germany.
(I believe he did rig the elections but it was unnecessary since he would
have won any way)

He was intensely popular

The point is

Popular   <> Correct
Democracy <> Justice


		

    Well, Hitler had "the full democratic support" of *half* the German
    electorate.  The Nazis dis-enfranchised the women.  Oh well, they
    hadn't had the vote for all that long, so they shouldn't have missed
    it, right?
    
    						Ann B.

    To say that "Saddam would have been preferable to the previous
    Kuwaiti government" does really say much at all. That's just one
    point of view, after all, and we don't know by what criteria the
    person is making that judgment.
    
    --- jerry

    Yup.
    
    That's why I think a referendum for the Kuwaitis' governance would
    be such a good idea.  (Ideally, the question of "What would be the
    best form of government for us?" should be bruited around the
    country for weeks.  Then, each person should be awakened out of a
    sound sleep, asked that question, and every answer recorded.  I
    think the results would be quite satisfactory.)  But it'll never
    happen.
    
    						Ann B.

>    Then, each person should be awakened out of a
>    sound sleep, asked that question, and every answer recorded.

	I'd hate to think what the results of that would be if it were
	done in this country.  Sample answers that might occur in
	statistically significant numbers:

		1. Do you know what time it is?
		2. Go away, I'm trying to sleep.
		3. Huh?  Is something wrong?
		4. Can it wait until morning?

	The most logical interpretation for this, of course, is public 
	apathy, right?  What was the rationale for waking people out of
	a deep sleep for this referendum, anyway?  It strikes me as not
	being in the best interests of either coherence or privacy.
		

    re: angle drilling
    
    The person giving the talk was a recently retired military
    intelligence type, and he seemed to think there was quite a lot of
    validity to the charge.  
    
    I don't think there's any such thing as a single real reason any
    military action begins.  Hussein's need to save face, or to keep
    the military off his back, and Bush's need to prove his
    masculinity no doubt enter into it as much as any concrete
    grievances about war debts or oil prices or "freedom."
    
    I'm beginning to suspect that one of the major motivations of many
    US backers of the war is that they think they can purge the
    memories of Viet Nam.  It seems like some people are thinking, "If
    we go in united and openly, if we strike hard and don't tie the
    hands of our military, if we're kind to our soldiers and continue
    to eat apple pie, we will redo all the things we did wrong, we'll
    win, and we'll be back in Eden again."  
    
    --bonnie

Greetings:

   It is possible that this war is the result of two egos which are too big 
to back down.

   It is possible that the world economy is the driving force behind this 
war.

   It is even possible (remotely) that America's short- sighted policy on 
energy has caused us to fight this war over the price of oil.

   But these possibilities are irrelevant.

   The fact is that Iraq is being run by a dictator who has attacked a 
helpless neighbor and has systematically destroyed that neighbor.

   The fact is that even those who have been labelled "anti- western" fear 
similar attacks on themselves, and are in support of the... um... "removal" 
of his ability to do so.

   And history is full of examples showing that backing down and seeking to 
avoid conflict with contentious leaders like this is a de facto invitation 
for that leader to perform further aggressions.

   A war with Iraq was inevitable. If we hadn't attacked Hussain now, we would 
have been forced to attack him 5 or 10 years from now (assuming he didn't 
attack us first!). And in 5 years it is highly unlikely that insulting
statements made about our President's so- called "macho attitude" or signs with 
peaceful slogans on them will be an adequate response to nuclear attacks made 
on Tel Aviv, biological weapons released by terrorists in Europe (and possibly 
North America), and the eventual acquisition of the capabilty to militarily 
threaten my country.

   In other words, while I find the concept of war distasteful, I'd prefer 
our soldiers to fight Hussain now, in Iraq, rather than later -- possibly 
all over the world.

                                                -Robert Brown III

    RE: .325  (Robert)
    
    
                          I agree....Sensible and well thought out. 
    Exactly the same as my recent thoughts.  The bottom line word would
    be......*inevitable*!
                   
    
    Dave

	Re drilling and oil:


	There was a documentary on UK TV a couple of months ago which covered
	the oil, and disputed fields.

	In that programme there was no mention of "angle drilling", but covered 
	the fact that oil fields spanned the boarders, and although the majority
	of some oil fields were under Iraqs' land, some was under Kuwaits' land.

	And both countries were pumping oil from the same fields. Iraq was 
	saying that as such a small percentage was under Kuwaits land, then the
	oil was Iraqs.

	It also highlihted this as one reason that Iraq wanted the boarder 
	moved , so all the oil fileds were under Iraqs' land.

	Heather

    Hi Robert -- As .326, this, and many other notes will show, I don't
    think that you are alone in this file concerning your perspective on
    this war.  If your title means that you think that *any* opinion you
    might voice here is unwelcome, then I would respectfully disagree.  I,
    for one, value your opinions on many matters.  It's good to hear from
    you on this one!
    
    Cheers, Dan Kalikow

    ditto.  Please don't only express (what you <generic> think might be)
    controversal opinions here.    We here all have more in common than we
    have apart.
    
    and ditto on the view of SH in .325.  Also, I have an extreme disgust
    for people who perpetrate (and apparantly enjoy) torture.  I want to
    stop them, just as I would want to stop a child abuser.  Immediately,
    and by violence if necessary.
    
    Sara

    Here is yet another batch:
    
    1) The text of a speech on the Persian Gulf crisis by Phillip Agee
    (long).
    
    2) The first part of text from the News Services of the Church of the
    Brethren General Board on the Persian Gulf crisis.
    
    3) The second part of the text
    
    4) Anti-war slogans
    
    5) Pentagon newspeak
    
    -- Mike

  Re: .325

  Robert,

  I agree with the possibilities you list and would add one other:  we just
  kept adding troops to Desert Shield until we noticed that there was an
  opportunity to destroy Iraq's warmaking capability.  And that was just
  too good an opportunity to pass up.  But it's more likely that that was
  the plan all along and that Bush just didn't want to bother the populace
  or the Congress about such a momentous decision.
  
  I also agree that it is now too late to do anything but follow through
  with the war.

  But I would like to hear some of the examples you mention about
  backing down and seeking to avoid conflict.  The example usually put
  forth is Neville Chamberlain and Nazi Germany.  I believe this example
  is flawed because we are not dealing with a binary choice between all-out
  war and appeasement.  If the League of Nations had shown up on Germany's
  doorstep with an inordinate amount of ordnance (sorry), things might have
  been very different.

  A total blockade might have worked.  It might have taken many years and
  it would be interesting to talk to a Kuwaiti-on-the-street at the end of
  this whole thing...and ask him/her whether s/he would have preferred five
  years of Iraqi occupation as opposed to having a war fought in the country
  followed by an Iraqi scorched-earth withdrawal.

  An interesting question for us is whether the difference in those two
  scenarios is worth the price of a shooting war.

  If enough people believe that war is inevitable, then of course it is.
  Therefore I try not to believe in inevitability.

  George Bush is doing a creditable job and I suppose it is silly of me
  to wish that he had taken some truly imaginative steps to avoid war.  At
  this point, I just hope we can win the peace.

  Yeah, Saddam is a nasty customer but remember that just _how_ nasty was
  not proven until after the war started.  I understand that he and his
  weapons programs are a threat.  But that begs the question of the extent
  to which we are willing to go outside our borders and root out threats.
  There are lots of countries with NBC weaponry, after all.

  JP

    in re .330
    
    I'd recommend that folks who are interested in the background history
    of this war ask Mike to send #1. There is a *lot* in it that isn't
    in the regular news mags and papers.
    
    Bonnie

Referencing 342.328 (Dan):

   Thank you for your comments. Your assesment of the meaning of my title
is correct: based on my experiences here I have concluded long ago that
no opinion of mine is welcome here.

   And while you have often demonstrated that you do value my opinions
here, you do not represent those who rule this Notesfile (officially and
unofficially).

   Nonetheless, I appreciate your response. Thank you.

                                                      -Robert Brown III

    Hi Dawn:
    
    From my point-of-view, one of the strong points of Vietnam was that it
    taught the U. S. of A. some needed humility.
    From my point-of-view, one of the strong points of success in the
    Persian Gulf will be that it might help restore some badly needed
    self-respect and international respect. (We keep hearing over and over
    again that Saddam has been influenced by the perception of us Ami's of
    paper tigers). On the other hand that 'carrot' *could* end up
    'compelling' us to continue a policy which otherwise would merit
    terminating.
    One of the real potential short falls of success in the
    Persian Gulf would be a restoration of the cockiness that we all felt
    after WWII. Few things frighten me quite as much as a 'world cop' going
    here to Ethiopia, there to Latvi, hither to Uruguay, thither to Albania
    and yon to Malagasy Republic to 'restore order'

    RE: .335
    
    How interesting, Herb. *I* think this "war" will do nothing to restore
    respect (of ANY kind) for the U.S.   Just, I am afraid, the opposite.
    
    Maybe I'm projecting, though, since Mr. Bush's actions have certainly
    greatly diminished *my* respect for him and "us".
    
    And if it takes being the agressor in a conflict to gain respect, we
    have a long way to go in our evolution. I doubt we'll make it.
    
    --DE
    

    <And if it takes being the agressor in a conflict to gain respect, we
    <have a long way to go in our evolution. I doubt we'll make it.
    
    praps so (not very pleasant, is it?)
    
    				herb    
    

		Another Generation, Another war - and the Questions Remain
		
    			Alan Lupo Boston Globe Wed Jan 23
                          (copied without permission)


    	Perhaps one of the early casualties of the gulf is a piece of mythology
    that has flourished as America's baby boomers have aged and taken their
    places in molding the nation's opinions.

    	Many veterans of both the Vietnam War and the antiwar movement were so
    shaped by the horror and passion of their experiences that they could not
    believe that the US would engage again in a war longer and deadlier than,
    say, the Panama invasion.

    	Peculiar to each generation is the notion that it has a monopoly on
    truth and how best to achieve justice. It is always a jolt when members of
    any generation are confronted with realities that contradict that notion.

    	Some veterans of the anti-Vietnam War protests could not believe they
    were marching again. With all the self-indulgence of that particular
    generation, they said they thought they had made it clear 20 years ago that
    war was no longer permitted.

    	They had jolted the World War II generation, which, having indeed won a
    just war for a good cause, believed that all America's wars were righteous.
    That older generation, in turn, had upset the assumptions of the World War
    I veterans, many of them isolationists before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

    	The old doughboys had warned against getting into another European war.
    They had survived trench warfare, machine-gun fire, heavy artillery, gas,
    mud, disease and rats. They knew the horror of war, they said, and nothing,
    not even Hitler's behavior, was worth another one. Their protest was
    understandable; their conclusion was wrong.

    	Each generation propagandizes what it knows best, which is usually what
    it has personally experienced. Though this is understandable, it is not good
    enough for the making of public debate. Too often, when hawks and doves
    call for public debate, what ensues are the cliches of both sides fleshed
    out with what they know only from living memory.

    	We are more than the total of our personal experiences.  Saddam Hussein
    is not quite another Hitler, though he certainly gave it a good shot, and
    the gulf war need not be another Vietnam.  Neither generals nor peace
    protesters should limit themselves to fighting the last war.

    	There has been little or no brief in this column for war - for war in
    general or for this particular conflict in the gulf.  A strong defensive
    presence combined with another year of a tough embargo was preferred.  It
    was not to be.  Perhaps history will show that it was never meant to be.

    	There are occasions in the time and tide of humankind that demand
    aggressive behavior.  There are not many, and, too often, the warmakers
    have pretended that such occasions exist.  One can make a cogent argument
    against most of America's wars against native Americans, Mexico, Spain.  As
    brilliant as the invasion of Panama was militarily, it seems to have
    brought little or nothing useful; the drug trade there is bigger than
    before, and Panamanians increasingly resent us.

    	Was the American Revolution necessary?  Peaceniks then were called no
    better than Tories.  Had we remained part of Great Britain, we would have
    ended slavery sooner.  We also might have been bled dry by the mother
    country, though Canada seems to have survived fairly well.

    	Our most horrible war, which we ironically call "Civil," was
    inevitable.  It was one of those rare occasions when all alternatives
    seemed to have been exhausted.

    	Was the gulf war inevitable?  One likes to think there was a middle
    ground between the Bush hawks insisting that the world was out of patience
    and the peaceniks urging peace at any price.

    	The dirty truth is that we do not yet know the answer to that.  The
    hope is that if we learn the truth, we shall not wipe away all previous
    history and depend on the lessons of the gulf war alone as a guidepost for
    the next crisis, for each crisis is indeed different.

    	With or without a new world order, in making foreign policy, we need
    more perspective than that afforded by just the cockiness of the |World
    War II generation or the insecurity of the Vietnam generation.

    Today's batch:
    
    1) The text from a leaflet that explains how to maintain a non-violent
    presence at anti-war demonstrations.
    
    2) Press release from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
 
    3) Part three of the text from the News Services of the Church of the
    Brethren General Board that discusses the Persian Gulf crisis.
    
    4) Many people refuse to pay their Federal telephone excise tax because
    of its historical association with raising revenues for war.
    
    5) Protest marches in Australia.
    
    -- Mike

    NPR reported yesterday that popular support for Saddam Hussein is
    growing in Jordan. Since the crisis began last August, 412 male babies
    (6% of all males born) have been named Saddam - a name never used in
    Jordan before then.
    

    RE: .341
    
    I don't believe we have any idea what Saddam Hussein means to theArab
    world. I believe we have (once again) entered a conflict with societies
    we do not understand, and a "Tut-tut-old-boy-that's-not-cricket" 
    attitude. I believe we are in for many (unpleasant) surprises.
    
    --DE
    

    Georgie peorgie
    puddn 'n pie
    kissed the girls and
    made them cry
    when the boys
    came out to play
    georgie peorgie
    ran away
    

    not sure that George
    is much higher on
    the pecking order than
    Herbert

More on the Arab viewpoint (or at least some Arabs).

 
Following are excerpts of a report produced on Dec. 10, 1990 by
      Wendy Chamberlain McFadden
      Director of News Services
      Church of the Brethren General Board
      1451 Dundee Ave.
      Elgin, IL 60120        1(708) 472-5100
 
 
relayed by jlynch@cdp.uucp on Dec. 12, 1990.
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
                       (continuation)
A number of diplomatic initiatives were undertaken to address these
grievances and all met with failure. Several people spoke of the rude
and un-Arab way in which these initiatives were rejected by the Kuwaitis.
 
Arab vs. International Solutions: 
Another common theme was alarm over the swift and massive international
response to the invasion. Everyone with whom we spoke felt that the
problem could have been resolved as an inner-Arab issue. No credence was
given to the argument that the U.S. had to rush in to protect Saudi Arabia.
 
In both Jordan and Iraq we heard great resentment about the double
standard that has been applied to United Nations resolutions related to
this region. Although Turkey's invasion of Cyprus was condemned by the
Security Council, no action has been taken and Turkish troops still 
occupy much of the island. U.N. condemnation of Israel's Lebanon invasion
resulted in similar inaction. And in spite of overwhelming international
support for U.N. resolutions 242 and 338, Israel continues to occupy the
Arab lands that were invaded in 1967. Such selective application of
international law is viewed with great suspicion in the Arab world.
 
While in the West we hear that the Gulf crisis is the first test of  
a new world order, many Arabs see this situation as the first crisis
created by that new world order. With the demise of Soviet power, the
U.S., they say, is now unrestrained in the pursuit of its own global
interests. From that perspective, the invasion of Kuwait provided a
pretext for America to establish a permanent military presence on the
Arabian Peninsula. That presence is viewed as a long-held U.S. goal
that will be used to exert control over the crucial oil reserves 
of the region.
 
Saddam Hussein's growing popularity among citizens in the Arab world
derives, not from his aggressive invasion of Kuwait, but rather from
his determination to stand up for all Arabs against these
neo-colonialist Western aspirations for dominance over the Arab homeland.
 
Prospects for Peace / Costs of War:
According to President Bush, the U.S. seeks four goals through the
deployment of American troops in the region:
1) the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait
2) restoration of the legitimate Kuwaiti government
3) release of all foreign hostages
4) implementation of adequate security arrangements to secure
   stability in the region.
 
One of the strongest impressions I bring back from the trip is that
these goals can be achieved through peaceful means. Everyone with whom
we spoke expressed the desire for direct talks between the U.S. and
Iraq. There was also a clear willingness to negotiate all aspects of
the dispute, including Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait.
 
Two questions that were frequently asked and difficult to answer are
why our government seemed so eager to go to war and why it is so set
against talking with the Iraqis. President Bush's recent decision to
begin high-level diplomatic discussions was a very positive step 
toward resolving the problem. The negative rhetoric that has
accompanied that decision, however, makes one wonder what good can
come from such talks.
 
Those statements encourage the Iraqi view that these talks have been
undertaken by Bush merely to placate American sentiments that war
should not begin without first attempting a diplomatic solution.
If the talks are viewed by Bush and Baker only as a forum to restate
American resolve, an excellent opportunity to avert war
will certainly be lost.
 
Given the fact that direct substantive talks seem to provide great
potential for successful resolution of the conflict, Bush's
opposition to such dialog is quite baffling. Many Arabs asked whether
there is a second, private administrative agenda that is the real
motive for our strategy toward Iraq.
 
Given our official reactions to dialog and several statements from
U.S. officials, one might assume that the true purpose of our
military buildup is to take out Saddam Hussein and destroy Iraq's
military and economic strength. That strength and Hussein's long-held
pan-Arabist sentiments may well be the real reason for massive
military intervention in the region.
 
                        (to be continued) 
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
    transcribed by John DiNardo

    re .336
    Hey, Daaaaawwwwnnn...
    
    <...*I* think this "war" will do nothing to restore
    <respect (of ANY kind) for the U.S.   Just, I am afraid, the opposite.

    perhaps you are right,
    but I would have understood it better had you said

    ...*should* do nothing to restore ... 

    My sense is that willy nilly, if the U S of A handles this 'problem'
    with dispatch (and I can't define dispatch), that the U S of A's
    'international standing' is going to go up substantially. 
    
    (perhaps you are thinking that folks would react to the U S of A with
    more with the kind of 'respect' that is shown for the Charles Bronson
    character in the Deadly Force(?) series rather than the kind of
    'respect' showed to the Gary Cooper characters in such films as High
    Noon or Sgt. York?)
    of course, perhaps many don't see any difference in those two.
    
    
    				herb

    re: .345
    
    This reminds me of a book I read last weekend, which expressed
    this thought:  that one can gain success, if one does not also
    wish victory.
    
    nla

    Well, actually, Herb...I *didn't* mean "should". I really mean that
    I believe that respect for the US is going to diminish after this 
    "war". Especially in an international sense.
    
    There will, indeed, be the Macho-Cowboy-My-Country-Right-or-Wrong
    contingent here for whom that won't be true. For whom a violent
    response is the correct response. For whom "teaching them a lesson"
    is bombing the hell out of them. For whom the US is the world's
    Big Daddy and ought to control the destinies of other countries.
    For whom the belief that we should be The World's Policeman makes
    perfect sense.
    
    If the polls are correct (and I have my doubts about polls anyway)
    75% of people in the Bay Area believe we are doing the right thing
    in Iraq. So maybe respect *won't* take a dip "at home".
    
    
    But I really do honestly believe that the world community will
    view the US with even less respect than it does now. And certainly
    how the Middle Eastern countries view us is going to Matter Very Much
    in the future. 
    
    Still, I could be wrong. (Me? Nah.) :-)
    
    In that case, well...yeah...in that case, I guess I worry about
    our Collective Karma (or whatever you want to call it)...Might really
    doesn't make Right, and someday....well...what goes around comes
    around, ya know?
    
    --DE
    

    I heard a statement on the radio yesterday by George Bush condemning
    Saddam Hussein for using SCUD missiles -- because of their inaccuracy.
    There was a sneer in his voice as he said the word "SCUD".

    I found this statement disturbing, because it seemed like a thinly 
    veiled advertisement for American missiles, which, according to 
    official Allied press reports, have so far proven more accurate in 
    this war than the SCUD.

	Sharon

    A missle in the hand is worth two in the Bush?
    
    -- Mike

From what I've heard, the Scuds have been very effective, having shot down 
every Patriot fired so far...

    	Well, I've heard much about the views of the people of Jordan (~half
    	of whom, as I understand it, are Palestinian) - and as one Palestinian
    	remarked on the news in the past week or so (with regard to supporting
    	Saddam) - "What other choice do we have?"

    	The Jordanian government says that they will regard *any* invasion
    	of their air space as an act of aggression requiring military 
    	retaliation (meaning that they will regard it as aggression against
    	*them* if Israel flies over them in an air strike against Iraq.)

    	When asked why it was ok for Iraq to use their air space for the
    	SCUD missiles launched against Israel, the Jordanian government said
    	that they don't have the technology to prove that these missiles
    	used their air space.  (I guess they didn't notice all the bright
    	flashes of light that have streaked across their sky going to
    	Israel lately, but if some Israeli jets fly overhead, they'll find
    	the technology to know about it and will launch their own attack.)  

    	Let's face it - Jordan may get involved in the war no matter what
    	anyone else does - their high percentage of Palestinian population
    	gives them added incentive to support anyone who goes up against a
    	longtime friend of Israel (and of course, they support the idea of
    	SCUD missiles being aimed at innocent civilians in Israel.)

    	As the Palestinian mentioned earlier pointed out - what other choice 
    	do they have?

    	If civilian targets in the U.S. were being bombed by Iraq right
    	now, would their position (of supporting Saddam) be any different?
    	I sincerely doubt it.

    	RE: .350  Sharon
    
    	The SCUD missiles are 20-year-old technology from the Soviet Union
    	- Iraq was unable to purchase newer Russian missiles (against which
    	the Patriot missile hasn't been tested.)
    
    	George Bush knows this - I believe that his "sneer" was intended
    	to express contempt for the way these missiles are being used by
    	Iraq.

re: .354

>    	George Bush knows this - I believe that his "sneer" was intended
>    	to express contempt for the way these missiles are being used by
>    	Iraq.

    One would think that, but he didn't express contempt for the way
    the missiles were being *aimed*, he expressed contempt *towards 
    Saddam* for *using* them.  His contempt, to me, seemed centered
    around two things: Saddam, and the SCUD (which I believe the Soviet
    Union is selling, even though it's hardly their latest-and-greatest).
    There was clearly an undertone of "Saddam doesn't care enough to send
    the very best".  (Am I the only one who noticed this?)

    Iraq has openly admitted to aiming the missiles at civilian targets;
    that much is _not_ an inaccuracy issue, as George Bush well knows.  
    Cynically, I wonder if he wasn't showing his concern for the American
    economy as well - since he knew that message would receive airplay 
    abroad.

	Sharon

    	RE: .355  Sharon
    
    	Well, I heard him say it, and I didn't get the impression at all
    	that Bush would rather see Iraq use more accurate missiles against
    	Israeli civilians.  He seemed angry (to me) that Iraq is engaging
    	in this particular war crime at all (and just happened to cut down 
    	Iraq's missiles' accuracy in passing.)
    
    	Bush doesn't need to advertise our missiles, by the way.  The
    	videos from the cameras in the smart bombs themselves (as they
    	reposition themselves to zoom into doors and windows of their
    	targets) has been on the news all week.  

    	The deliberate Iraqi oil spill in the gulf is reported by CNN
    	to be 12 times the size of the Exxon-Valdez accident.  Now Iraq
    	is destroying environments and systems that affect the well-being
    	of the whole region.
    
    	(My understanding is that the Saudi de-salinization plants in the
    	gulf - which could well be affected by this deliberate oil spill
    	- supply much of the drinking water for the gulf states.  Does
    	anyone have any more exact information on this?)

    Re .357
    
    Yes, it is expected that the desalinization plants will be affected, as
    will fishing and birdlife, etc. The slick is said to already be 30
    miles long by 8 miles wide and expanding all the time at the rate of an
    estimated 100,000 gallons per day. There has been talk that Saddam
    Hussein might set the slick alight, but the combination of crude oil
    and water doesn't assist inflamability. There was one report I heard a
    few hours ago though which stated that the slick was already alight.
    
    Don
    *8-(

This is neither the first, nor, I believe, the biggest oil spill in the gulf.
During the Iran-Iraq war, a number of offshore oil platforms were attacked,
causing a much larger spill. Of course, since there were no Americans involved
the American media and American environmental groups paid no heed at the time.

I find newspeople comparing this spill to the Exxon Valdez spill to be
annoyingly parochial. I wish they'd compare it to the earlier spills in the
gulf as well.

	-- Charles

    Charles, the news media in Holland (not_Texas ;-)) use the same
    comparisation. So far there have been reports about environment
    specialists being sent in, I've heard speculations about possible
    floating barriers. 
    
    Ad

    Here is the latest batch:
    
    1) More interesting signs seen at the Anti-War demonstration in SF
    
    2) Campus network plans anti-war conference in Chicago
    
    3) Statement on the war from the Spanish Bishops Conference, declaring
    that the Gulf war is not a "just war" according to Christian doctrine.
    
    4) Commentary on allegations of atrocities
    
    5) FCNL hotline, 1/25/92
    
    6) CLW hotline 1/24/91
    
    7) German parliament member on the civilian death toll from Allied
    bombing of Iraq.
    
    8) SCAWD Gulfwatch #7
    
    9) SCAWD Gulfwatch #8
    
    10) SCAWD Gulfwatch #9
    
    11) Greenpeace gulf report #7
    
    12) Refugees from Baghdad report on damage and civilian casualties from
    the Allied bombing
    
    13) Commentary from Lars-Erik Nelson, New York Daily News Washington
    Bureau Chief.
    
    -- Mike

                The Importance of being Earnest
                    Patrick "kitten" Juola
 
Once again, please feel free to redistribute this to all and sundry
who care.  I only ask that you keep my name the part I wrote and
keep me updated if you make any significant changes.  -k.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, my mailbox is flooded; this time with people saying
"I read your article on the draft and I want to know how to
become a Conscientious Objector."  So, here is the Real Stuff about
CO's.  Again, for the record, I am a draft counselor for AFSC out
of Denver, also working with the Rocky Mountain Peace Center, and
I'll cite further sources as I use them.
 
First, a quote from *The Handbook for Conscientious Objectors*, published
by the CCCO, one of the most important and reliable sources of information
and support for CO's.
        "No [paper] is a substitute for good draft counseling.
        If you're confused about anything -- the draft law or
        your own beliefs, for instance -- you need to talk to
        someone who knows about conscientious objection and
        the law."
Free legal advice should always be viewed with suspicion, and never
trust *anything* you see over USENET.
 
The legal definition of a CO is "a person... who by virtue of religious
training and belief is conscientiously opposed to participation to war
in any form."  There are actually two kinds of CO's -- 1-O deferments
are given to people who will not serve in the Armed forces at all, while
1-A-O are given to people who will serve, but only as noncombatants.  Most
of the following paper applies to both.
 
To prove yourself a CO, you need to convince a draft board of three things :
i) that you are "religious", ii) that you are opposed to "war in any form",
and iii) that you are sincere.
 
"Religious", as used by the SSS, is an easy one to show.  Under court rulings,
you don't have to be in a church, to believe in God, or even to call your
decisions religious.  The law merely excludes "political, sociological, or
philosophical" positions, or a "merely personal moral code."  Admittedly,
this is a fine line, but it gives you an idea of what you are up against.
The CCCO or draft counselors can give you more ideas about what this
means.
 
"War in any form" is a harder one.  The SSS does not recognize "selective
objectors" -- people who would fight in some wars, but not others.  For
example, saying that "I would fight if the United States were under attack,
but not in the Persian Gulf" is an easy way to *not* get the 1-O.  On
the other hand, CCCO doctrine is for all selective objectors to apply
as well.  First, there is always the chance that the board may make
an administrative error that will give you a COship on appeal.  Second,
the more selective objectors apply, the more likely Congress is to
recognize this as an objection to war.
 
Finally, you need to prove to the board that you are sincere.  More
accurately, the burden of proof is on the board to find you insincere,
and they will try hard.  "How have these beliefs you claim affected your
life?"  "What will you do if your application is denied?"  "How can you
*prove* that you are a CO?"
 
The procedures are deceptively simple.  There is *no* way to apply to
become a CO until you are actually ordered to report for induction.
Once you receive this notice, though, you will have less then ten days,
so you should start preparing your application materials well before this.
 
The first step is simply a check-off form, requesting a 1-O or 1-A-O
deferment as applicable.  This must be sent in before you actually
report for induction.  You will then be sent a copy of the SSS Form 22,
which is the application for a CO claim.  You are asked, on this form,
to the answer the following three questions :
 
        1)  Describe your beliefs which are the reasons for your claiming
conscientious objection to combatant military training or to all military
training and service.
        2)  Describe how and when you acquired these beliefs.  Your answer
may include such information as the influence of family members or other
persons; training, if applicable; your person experiences; membership in
organizations; books and readings which influenced you.
        3) Explain what most clearly shows that your beliefs are deeply
held.  You may wish to include a description of how your beliefs affect
the way you live.
 
Clearly, these are not questions to be answered in an hour at the typewriter
with a Coke in your hand.  For example, during 'Nam, many applicants answered
these with philosophy theses, and your application will take as much work
as any term paper you ever wrote/write in college.  It can be helpful to
have several people read versions of this and comment on them.  Ideally,
you can convince these people, at least, of your sincerity, which brings
us to....
 
Letters of support are another very helpful thing.  A letter from your
clergyman or teacher attesting to your beliefs, can carry a lot of weight
with the local draft board.  Ask for them to let you see the letters
beforehand, so that you can make sure that they aren't accidentally
weakening your claim.  With the letters, you can also submit press clippings,
published papers, arrest records, and anything that can prove your sincerity.
The important thing to remember is that you need to prove yourself *sincere*,
not prove yourself *right.*  You will never convince the draft board that
war is wrong, but you shouldn't have to.
 
The next (and hopefully final) step is a hearing in front of the draft
board, where you talk to the board and they to you, trying to prove you
insincere.  They can ask lots of hard questions here : some samples follow
at the end of this paper.
 
Hopefully, at the end of this procedure, the board grants you your desired
classification.  If not, there are appeals procedures, but you should
talk to a draft counselor or attorney about them.  The important thing to
do now, before the draft starts, is to start thinking about what you
really believe and start gathering evidence.  Write letters to the papers
describing your beliefs.  Talk to people.  And listen to what your
conscience tells you about war.  That's what "conscientious objection"
really means.
 
        - kitten
 
Patrick Juola // juola@eclipse.colorado.edu // kitten@ai.mit.edu
 
p.s.  Here are some sample questions taken from the CCCO.  For a copy
of the Handbook for CO's, write to CCCO, 2208 South St., Philadelphia,
PA.  19146 or call 215-545-4626.  Cost is about $3, I think.
I am, of course, still available for questions at juola@cs.colorado.edu.
 
Questions on the nature of beliefs :
How can you say your belief is religious?
Is your objection to killing, or being killed?
How do you explain all the wars in the Old Testament?
What about the Christian doctrine of approval for just wars?
Can no war be just or necessary regardless of the situation?
 
Questions about "Why not a 1-A-O" :
Can you say that a medic helping a dying soldier is an immoral act and
        can never be an expression of God's love?
If you don't believe in killing, why let a wounded soldier die?
 
Questions about the use of force :
Do you honestly think the Armed Forces should be abolished?
How would you resist evil?
Can't non-physical force, such as strikes and boycotts, be just
        as destructive as physical force?
Would you use force to stop a maniac from killing an innocent person?
        ... from killing your mother?  And wasn't Hitler a maniac?
 
Questions about sincerity :
How can you *prove* you're a CO?
What will you do if your application is denied?
 
(One of the test readers suggested that I include that "answers" to these
questions can be found in the literature.  The works of Gandhi, King, Tolstoy,
and others, will frequently provide a theoretical justification for their
form of non-violence.  Here again, though, be careful.  It's more important
to be sincere in what you believe than just to parrot back a half-understood
version of Gandhi.  The travel is as important as the destination, at
least here.)
 
More questions, and much more information, are available from the CCCO
or a draft counselor.  -k.

Whilst not totally relevant (since the UK has never had US style selective 
service), the following recent comment from someone who would be involved 
should it come to a draft in Britain might be of interest:

"if he isn't a monk, or a priest in holy orders, he ain't a CO"

So be thankful if you live in the US of A...

/. Ian .\

footnote: Britain doesn't draft females, so the above quote isn't sexist.

        I don't think the USA will restore the draft, so the CO
        stuff seems rather academic.
        
        Dan

    
    Hourly updates, extended newscasts, detailed war coverage, we've
    lost this many airplanes, there are this many MIAs, we have this
    many POWs, there have been 10 casualties (deaths, dammit, DEATHS,
    KILLINGS, MURDERINGS) in the latest skirmish.
    
    OK, details, the miracle of modern satellite technology.  It's a
    marvel.  I almost feel like I'm there, watching marines fire off
    their guns and things that look like cannons, but surely there's 
    a more advanced name for them.
    
    The world is hungry for these minute by minute details.
    
    But I want more.
    
    I want to know how many legs have been buried in the desert sand.
    I want to know how many fingers have been dismembered.
    I want to know how many eyes have been blinded.
    I want to know how many souls have been scarred.
    I want to know how many feet have been blown off.
    I want to know how many tears have been shed, count the drops.
    I want to know how many stomachs have been ripped open, sewn together.
    I want to know how many bones have jaggedly felt the air.
    I want to know how those Marines died, how bloody, how painful, how
      many body bags are used per body.
    I want to see the proof, justification, familial trauma, not continual
      Pentagon-approved propoganda.  Rah rah rah.  Go team go.
    
    They give me details, but not the ones that make this experience 
    real.
    
    Carla
    

    our own George Herbert Walker Bush has been nominated for the Nobel
    Peace Prize for 'standing up to Saddam Hussein's threat to the world'
    [or words to that effect]
    
    in Nobel's will it was put forward that the prize for peace should go
    to an individual who had furthered the cause of peace and disarmament
    or promoted peace talks.
    
    interesting that, in this case, going to war was grounds for
    nomination.
    
      Annie

    re: .366
    
    War is "gore".  The details we are getting are horryfying enough.
    Would not want more explicit details revealed ... especially
    for the sake of the young children that watch these news
    broadcasts .... ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!
    
    We are there ... it is a mute point.
    

    re .368, oh, I agree with Carla.  I think the "young children" should
    see all the details so they'll know what war is all about.  Maybe if a
    generation of kids grew up seeing the truth instead of John Wayne
    movies they'd have more incentive to stay out of wars and settle things
    peacefully.
    
    Lorna
    

    	It's the "action/adventure" movies that show so much gore now.

    	I'm glad the media is leaving it out of their coverage of the war.
    	Kids can see all the blood they want at the movies.

    	It would be an invasion of the privacy of our troops to show
    	their injuries (or deaths) to the whole world, and it would be
    	especially inappropriate for their families to see them in
    	this state on world-wide TV.

    	This is our first "live via satellite" war.  Governments and the
    	media are learning as they go.  Global communication is way too
    	immediate to let it go without making adjustments along the way.

    	They made the right choice about not showing the gore, IMHO.

By reporting on equipment and military operations instead of on the
human effects, the war is presented in a sanitized (untruthful) version.
If you don't want people to object to the war, you don't show its
human horrors.   (You don't need to show gory closeups of bleeding faces,
but even human numbers and names, Joe Smith of Shrewsbury,  Mass., 
19 years old.)

Maybe if war was shown in truth it wouldn't be so easy
to  choose it as a viable option.  Maybe if we knew more about the human
loss we'd give economic and political and diplomatic options a try.
Maybe five months wouldn't seem like a long time if we weighed it against
massive numbers human deaths, of eyes and limbs and blood.  
(Didn't General Schwarzkopf (sp?) say that himself in November?)
Maybe we'd have more diplomatic efforts happening *today* if we let ourselves
feel the pain and grief of war.

Pain and grief are bad PR for those politicians who want public support and
high popularity ratings.  But is it ever too soon to teach that "war hurts
children and other living things"?

	MKV

    Mary, you have raised a valid point.  We are getting virtually no
    information about civilian casualties in Iraq, for example; instead, we
    are presented with this picture of a sanitized war in which we are only
    told about the times when allied bombers successfully strike military
    targets.  This gives the false impression that there are virtually no
    civilian casualties (excuse me, I mean "collateral damage") in this
    war.

    -- Mike

    	When I hear that someone is raped, I don't need to see the woman's
    	body (or the pelvic exam) to know the truth about how she has been
    	traumatized.
    
    	While I know that the horrification and trauma of children seeing
    	the bodies of their parents (Mom and Dad) or other kids' parents
    	on world-wide TV may seem like a good way to work on peace - I'd
    	rather not see children go through this kind of nightmare for the
    	sake of a political statement.

    "Casualty" in military parlance has a specific meaning, and it doesn't
    mean dead.  A casualty is an instance when an individual is no longer
    capable of performing his assigned mission.  Thus it can be anything
    from the screaming heebie-jeebies (aka battle fatigue), to injuries
    such as you would have in an auto accident, to death.  It can be
    something as simple as a broken finger or toe.
    
    The level of "gore" that we are seeing seems about right to me.
    But then, I don't slow down to look at accidents on the other side
    of the road, either.  :-)
    
    Alison

    re .372 Mike, there are a few problems around getting accurate
    reports on civilian casualties in Iraq - 1. we're at war with them,
    so any information they give us is suspect 2. They're not going
    to let us in to count for ourselves (see 1) 3. The military is
    trying to paint the best possible picture for the folks at home
    and 4. the military knows that Iraq is watching the same TV reports,
    so they're not going to give accurate information.
    
    One may hope that the people of Iraq will get fed up with the
    wars Saddam Hussein keeps getting them into, rise up and throw
    the bum out. Then again, lacking a free press and anything
    remotely resembling objective news reporting, they may have no 
    idea _why_ they're under attack.

    Dana, I think the problem is that Iraq has a stake in underestimating
    casualties themselves, for reasons of morale.  Thus both sides do not
    like seeing any reports on civilian casualties.  It isn't the count per
    se that I am interested in seeing reported, so much as an
    acknowledgment that these casualties even exist.  I am bothered that
    the air war is being painted as (more or less) a surgically clean
    operation, and I suspect that many Americans are perceiving the war in
    that way.

    -- Mike

    Are we watching the same newscasts ? I keep seeing film which
    purports to show Iraqi civilian areas being targeted, and hearing 
    claims of American airstrikes killing large numbers of civilians.
    
    The people (common folks, that is) of Iraq are _not_ viewing CNN,
    so I doubt Iraq is downplaying civilian casualties for their sake.
    (I'd be inclined to think they'd get exaggerated reports, too,
    to whip up fear of the 'Great Satan' America. Then again, I rather
    doubt that SH really gives a rat about what the people think.
    He's _not_ running for re-election.)
    
    
    Dana

    Even dictators are interested in shaping public opinion in their own
    country.  That's one reason why they have censorship.  Mass desertions
    from the armed forces, for example, are not very helpful to a war effort.
    
    -- Mike

I think the viewing of casualties would be a mistake. The mass popularity of
slasher and shoot-em-up movies makes me think it would only become yet another
movie to the masses. We are watching this on TV after all. That already makes it
part make believe. I think a lot of people might *like* to watch this sort of
horror, all safe and snug in their little suburbia, they won't even have to rent
videos. Maybe I'm just too jaded. liesl

/* Written  9:26 am  Feb  1, 1991 by lsiegel in cdp:mideast.gulf */
/* ---------- "War is Not a Video Game" ---------- */
This is the original version (before minor editing) of an op-ed piece
that the SF Examiner is supposed to run today (2/1/91).
 
WAR IS NOT A VIDEO GAME
Life Attempts to Imitate Art
 
by Lenny Siegel
 
        At first glance, the Persian Gulf war resembles a gigantic
video game. The young pilots and other troops using America's
remarkable whiz-bang military technology grew up at video
arcades, and now, it appears, they have a chance to use the
skills they learned there in the real world.
 
        The Pentagon's high-tech weapons often work, and
occasionally they accomplish seemingly miraculous tasks. But
they suffer from two fundamental flaws. First, they tend to
mask the difficulties of warfare. Second, they fail to transmit
the human costs.
 
        In modern fighting vehicles, contact with the
outside world is filtered through a limited number of windows
and electronic sensors. Fliers, sailors, and soldiers are safer
because they drop their bombs, release their missiles, and fire
their guns at a great distance from their targets, but they often
do not see what they are supposed to be attacking.
 
        Accustomed to the instant gratification of video
games, they assume that the target has vanished into thin air
with a quick boom. In the real world, however, militarily
significant targets are often difficult to distinguish from their
surroundings, they are hardened, and they are concealed.
 
        Beginning with Vietnam, in every instance where
the U.S. has used our high-tech weapons in combat, initially
positive reports turned out to be optimistic. Targets were
missed. False targets were hit. In Southeast Asia, the U.S.
wasted untold tons of ammunition on water buffalo and bags of
urine that triggered electronic sensors. It Panama, our "surgical"
strikes managed to kills thousands of civilians.
 
        Now, we are learning that our pilots cannot confirm
"kills" of Iraqi aircraft that they hit, because not every strike
downs a plane. The cameras on television-guided bombs tell us
when a building is hit, but they don't tell us what was inside,
and what happened to it. This is the real world, not Space
Invaders or Nintendo.
 
        U.S. intelligence is not hampered by the lack of
information. With our satellites, AWACS planes, and incredible
variety of surveillance devices, U.S. analysts are accumulating
data at an astounding rate. Rather, the information is so
overwhelming that it creates the illusion that remote electronics
can substitute for on-the-scene, multi-dimensional, reality.
 
        The night-vision devices, radar images, and remote
television views alter reality in another way. Like the video
games that they emulate, the real weapons sanitize the war. We
know that thousands of tons of explosives have been poured
into Iraqi strongholds, but our warriors have not seen the blood,
the gore, or the anguish.
 
        To some in the military, a key lesson of Vietnam is
that both our troops and we folks back home lose the will to
fight when confronted with the ugliness of war. In the video-
electronic version that the Pentagon now offers, targets, even
enemy soldiers, disappear with the ease of a Pac-Man swallow.
 
        There is no way, short of Iraqi capitulation, that
this war can be won without enormous military and civilian
casualties. Most of Kuwait will be leveled or torched, either by
U.S. bombers or by the Iraqi troops who have hidden
themselves among that country's most valued remaining
physical assets. Perhaps George Bush thinks that the arcade-like
facade of a clean war will last longer than the war, but that will
not make the destruction any more palatable in the long run.
 
        Military spokesmen appear to have abandoned the
daily kill ratios reported from Vietnam, but other forms of
scorekeeping remain. What frightens me most, is that once the
score reaches a certain point, the Bush Administration, like the
teen-ager at a video arcade, will think it has won the right to
"play" again.
 
        -30-
 
        Lenny Siegel is Director of the Pacific Studies
Center, in Mountain View, California, and co-author of The High
Cost of High Tech (Harper & Row, 1985).

    	If anything, electronic (high tech) warfare will make war
    	less likely.  
    
    	Countries without it are hopelessly ill-equipped to defend
    	against it.
    
    	When two countries have it, they'll both be reluctant to
    	start anything (since they both know its potential.)

    	If anything, electronic (high tech) warfare will make war
    	less likely.  
    
    	Countries without it are hopelessly ill-equipped to defend
    	against it.
    
    	When two countries have it, they'll both be reluctant to
    	start anything (since they both know its potential.)

I guess you and I learned different lessons from Vietnam...

	-- Charles

    
    	RE: .383  Charles
    
    	The Vietnam war was ~20-25 years ago.  Don't you notice a drastic
    	difference in the Allied strategy this time around?
    
    	I do.
    

	There are people who are against the war and say we have 
	not given diplomacy a chance and that we we have not given peace 
	a chance.  They could be right.  Many people support the war 
	because they believe the anti-war people are naive in their 
	optimistic view of human nature and in particular that of Saddam 
	Hussein's.  They argue that there are forces among us that are so
	hideous that must be met with force.  I agree with them on that 
	point.

	I am against going into this war, and I explained my personal 
	reason in note 593.151.  However, this does not release me of the 
	obligation to provide valid and objective answers to the questions 
	posed by the people who support the war.  In practice, I derived 
	at the anti-war position not because I am more optimistic than 
	those who support the war but because I am more pessimistic.  If 
	we examine the explicit reasons of the war, we will find few that 
	will hold.  First there is president Bush's "new world order", an
	order, according to president Bush, where the rule of the law not 
	rule of the jungle prevails.  I do not know what was in the 
	president's mind when he said this, but I for one believe this 
	"new world order" to be a delusion.  Oh, we have heard all the 
	ideological banners for wars.  "The war to end all wars" sounded 
	compelling and reasonable, but we were left to find ourselves in 
	a more fierce war only three decades later.  This is not to say 
	that we shouldn't have gone into war with the Nazi's.  That 
	was a war I would have fully supported had I been there.  The 
	point is things like "the war to end all wars" and a "new world 
	order" are not and should not be the reasons to go to war.  Just 
	look at the world history of any era and region.  When was the 
	last time we had the rule of law in the international affairs and 
	since when has the desert of middle east ceased to be a political 
	jungle of oil and sand?  Even we, a nation of law went 
	into Grenada and Panama by the rule of jungle just recently.  
	As Richard Nixon said in an interview:  If we are in there for the 
	principles, we wouldn't have allied with the Syrians.  Permanently 
	removed from the political power center, Nixon can afford to be 
	straight forward about these things.  If not for principle, someone 
	may ask, would there ever be any reason to fight a war?  My answer 
	is yes, but only to preserve our way of life.  This does not mean
	that we never go to war in a foreign land, but rather that we 
	fight for practical reasons not for abstract principles.

	Then there is the fear of Iraq's eventual possession of nuclear 
	weapons.  There, one has to ask, why the sudden concern?  What 
	if Iraq never invaded Kuweit, would we have gone in and bombed 
	the nuclear power plants anyway?  I am afraid that the only 
	lesson we have given Iraq as well as every third world petty power 
	who has an ambition to go nuke is that if you want to build bombs, 
	build them underground.  And Iraq has surely learned this lesson.  
	Nuclear proliferation is a much larger and a very grave problem 
	and could be reason enough for this war, but we will not solve 
	this problem with this war.  

	There is also the issue of oil.  Now, there is nothing wrong 
	with going to war for oil if the oil problem has become a 
	national crisis, but it didn't.  As a matter of fact, we are 
	overconsuming oil (6% population consuming 35% of world oil 
	production), and it is certainly not in our interest to continue 
	this overconsumption of oil.  What we need is a war on gas guzzling 
	not a war for cheap oil.  And it is a simple matter of raising 
	gas tax to win that war.  Yes, it will mean short term hardship; 
	it will mean immediate recession, but in the long run, it can 
	only make our economy healthier. 

	The real worry about this war is the uncertainty of not who 
	would win on the battle field but the long term prospect of 
	peace and stability in the region.

	Eugene

>   	The Vietnam war was ~20-25 years ago.  Don't you notice a drastic
>   	difference in the Allied strategy this time around?

Not particularly, but then I'm not privy to allied strategy at this point.

As I said - you and I appear to have learned different things from Vietnam. 
Vietnam was a high tech war. The U.S. used LOTS of high tech weapons in that
war.I learned that a highly trained high tech army with lots of high
tech weapons can be defeated by a low tech enemy that knows how to make the
most of the advantages it has. In particular high tech weapons aren't as useful
against an enemy that is scattered among the local populace, that doesn't
concentrate, and that practices a long-view guerilla war. I particularly
disagree with your claim that

	"Countries without it are hopelessly ill-equipped to defend
    	against it."

our Vietnam experiece goes DIRECTLY against that, as does the Soviet Union's
experience in Afghanistan. If anything, both teach us the exact opposite.

I believe the problem with the attitude you express is that assumes that the
enemy will fight you on your terms. Enemies have this disconcerting tendency
to do things you don't expect - to "fight dirty." When you are faced with an
overwhelmingly superior force, fighting them head to head is futile and you
*must* "think out of the box" - or die. Fought head to head, advanced technology
would probably win. However, there are many military strategists who believe a
superabundance of "dumb" weapons can win against "smart" weapons, based on the
amount of training and money it takes to equip a force with smart weapons. That
notwithstanding, even vastly superior forces with an overwhelming technological
advantage won't necessarily win. There are many other factors to take into
account. The chinese have taught for centuries in "The Art of War" that the
best way to win a war is to remove your enemy's will to fight.

	I would not place too much faith in this technological terror you
	have constructed. The power of this battle station is nothing
	compared to the power of the Force.

		Darth Vader

	-- Charles

    	RE: .386  Charles
    
    	The thing I've learned since the Vietnam war is that we aren't
    	stuck permanently in that era.  Time moves on, and things change.
    	It is not the case that the U.S. has been permanently rendered
    	incapable of ever being successful in a large conflict.
    
    	> The U.S. used LOTS of high tech weapons in that war.I learned that 
    	> a highly trained high tech army with lots of high tech weapons can 
    	> be defeated by a low tech enemy that knows how to make the most
    	> of the advantages it has. 
    
    	The Iraqis don't have the same advantages North Vietnam had, and
    	they aren't even using the few they do have (such as, the fact
    	that they had several months to dig into strongly fortified holes
    	in the desert of Kuwait where they could have waited for Allied
    	Forces to try to dig them out.)  It may be that this didn't turn
    	out to be such an advantage for a large army needing much food and
    	supplies to keep going, but it was an important factor for them.
    
    	Another thing is that they are run by a leader who cares more about
    	the political outcome of this conflict than the military outcome.
    	If he can survive the worst military defeat possible, he believes
    	it will still give him a political advantage in the Arab world.
    
    	Meanwhile, his army is in the desert of Kuwait (cut off from their
    	supplies) - and when they come out of their fortified positions
    	they are hit by massive air strikes.  
    
    	They may still use unconventional weapons against the Allied forces,
    	but their army is not in a position to launch a successful ground
    	war (even with their greater numbers of soldiers.)
    
    	It's a different war, Charles.

Suzanne,

You said, in regards high tech warfare:

	"Countries without it are hopelessly ill-equipped to defend
    	against it."

*not*	"Iraq is hopelessly ill-equipped to defend against it."

I might have agreed with the second statement. Vietnam and Afghanistan have
taught me the falsity of the first. The situation may indeed be different
now than it was during Vietnam. It may even be different than it was during
Afghanistan. But to baldly claim that it *is* different, when the evidence is
otherwise - well I have to disagree. It looks the same to me. That's what I
meant when I said you and I had learned different lessons from Vietnam. I
believe your statement above is a vast overgeneralization and unfortunately
typical of those who put their faith in our military prowess.

	-- Charles

	Now the war has begun, and casualties are coming in.  There 
	are body bags, and torn up limbs buried in the sand, and 
	thousands of other images of suffering and death.  Why is it 
	that so many people who support the war object to these images 
	of horror on television?  We and especially they have an 
	obligation to watch them.  After all they are the ones who 
	bear the responsibility and the decision to send the troops in.
	And they as well as we have the obligation to examine and
	re-examine our convictions in the face of those images. 
	Are we afraid, that after seeing those images, we could begin 
	to doubt our convictions or that we would discover our convictions 
	are not as strong as we thought?  Then those images serve to give 
	us a better understanding of the war and what war really means to 
	us.  If, on the other hand, after seeing those images, after 
	acknowledging that those body bags and limbs could be ours and ARE 
	ours, and we still believe in the war effort, then we will gain 
	a still deeper appreciation of our convictions.

	The body bags should be shown.  These days, I have seen some 
	people become excited when they talk about the war heedlessly with 
	radiant beams coming out of their eyes.  No, you will not see 
	them on television or in notes (I guess we can call that 
	progress).  What bothers me is the fact that many of those 
	radiant beams are not from the the eyes of Joe Sixpack down in 
	the Pub, but from behind the thick spectacles of the intellectuals.  
	What bothers me most is there has been time in my dreams
	when I saw myself flying a jet fighter diving into a battlefield.  
	My eyes must have been radiant in those few moments, and the 
	radiance must have shined through the closed eyelids of my deep sleep.  
	But lately, most of the images I have seen are the demolished houses
	in Israel and in Iraq and the faces of POW's on Iraqi television.  
	Yes, We need to smell the fetid air and face the body bags.

	Eugene

    
    
    RE:  .389
    
    I support the war and I object to showing body bags.  Flag-draped
    caskets, yes, but not body bags.
    
    This is because irrational emotions take over when they see body bags. 
    Some begin to think we should withdraw all the troops.  Some begin to
    think we should withdraw the troops and nuke the entire area.  Both of
    these thoughts, in my humble opinion, are wrong.  War means dying for a
    higher good.  It is important that those who fight believe in what they
    are fighting for.  It makes them fight harder.  
    
    The way I see it, showing body bags means increased anti-war sentiment
    which means decreased troop morale which means increased US casualties
    which means a failure of US objectives.
      

> This is because irrational emotions take over when they see body bags. 

Irrational? I think not. I think it's irrational to advocate war and not be able
to face what that means. Body bags are part of what that means - and by no
means the worst part.

> War means dying for a higher good.

Oh? Are the Iraqis dying for a higher good too? War means people killing each
other. Dead is dead. Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait was vile, despicable,
immoral, and contemptible. He must be stopped. Kuwait must be liberated. War
is not the way.

	-- Charles

    	RE: .388  Charles
    
    	The generalization stands - I *don't* think countries without
    	high-tech weapons can successfully defend against them - as
    	long as the force using the high-tech weapons refuses to be
    	drawn into situations where the other force has the advantage.
    
    	I'm no military strategist, but it's still easy to see that
    	our forces have changed their approach - it's no longer a
    	matter of "Well, our enemy has good jungle fighters (or desert
    	fighters) so I guess we should try to learn how to do it, too, 
    	so we can beat them on their terms."
    
    	The Allied forces have trained in desert fighting, but we're
    	not concentrating our main efforts on beating the Iraqis at
    	*their* best skill set.  
    
    	Our forces are doing what *they* do best, and are waging the
    	war on their own terms.
    
    	It makes a big difference.  Forces without high-tech weapons
    	are not equipped to adjust upwards to compete on a high-tech
    	level.

    
    
    RE:  .391
    
    Yes, the Iraqis are dying for a higher "good."  They believe Saddam is
    good and right, therefore they are willing to die for him.
    
    > War is not the way.
    
    Let me ask you a simple question.
    
    What is a situation in which the US military SHOULD be used?  Can you
    name just one?
    

    What is a situation in which the US military SHOULD be used?  Can you
    name just one?

Nope. 

Is that clear enough?

	-- Charles

    	RE: .391  Charles
    
    	Ok, fair is fair.
    
    	If you think those who support the war should be obligated to look
    	at the body bags, then I say that anti-war protesters should be
    	forced to look at the bodies of those killed in the take-over of
    	Kuwait.
    
    	They should be forced to see the pile of dead premature babies
    	left when the Iraqis turned off their incubators.  They should
    	see the remains of people raped, tortured, and butchered by the
    	Iraqi army - and they should be made to watch the films showing
    	the bodies of 5000 Kurd men, women, children (including babies) 
    	killed by Iraqi gas attacks IN IRAQ itself!
    
    	If you think there's such an advantage to showing bodies, there
    	are far, far, far more opportunities to see the attrocities
    	committed by Iraq - and I think the anti-war people should feel
    	obligated to see them (or risk being called irrational for being
    	so blind to the nature of the force that can not be stopped
    	without the use of force.)

        I don't object to showing the consequences of our joining
        this war on tv.  But why weren't they showing all along
        what the consequences of our delay meant to the people of
        Kuwait?
        
        Dan

    
    
    RE:  .394
    
    You mean if the house that your grandfather was born in was being
    overrun by foreign invaders, you would actually not advocate fighting
    to protect it.
    
    Don't take this TOO personally, but I find that disgustingly sad.
    

    	I'm no military strategist, but it's still easy to see that
    	our forces have changed their approach - it's no longer a
    	matter of "Well, our enemy has good jungle fighters (or desert
    	fighters) so I guess we should try to learn how to do it, too, 
    	so we can beat them on their terms."

Is that what you think our strategy was in Vietnam? Yet another example of
different lessons learned. Carpet bombing by B-52s isn't exactly "jungle
fighting" - nor have we given it up... I believe our strategy in Vietnam was
to bring our overwhelming technological advantage to bear on a relatively
backward and smaller force. To "bomb them into the stone age" using B-52s and
carpet bombing. To take advantage of our overwhelming air superiority to
provide cover for our ground forces that would systematically root out and
destroy the enemy.

The Soviets tried to do the same thing in Afghanistan. They went in with a
quick and precise takeover, installed a government sympathetic to them, then
spent years fighting guerillas before finally declaring victory and going home.

    	The generalization stands - I *don't* think countries without
    	high-tech weapons can successfully defend against them - as
    	long as the force using the high-tech weapons refuses to be
    	drawn into situations where the other force has the advantage.

Add enough qualifiers and I might agree with you - but that's NOT what you said,
and it's NOT what I disagreed with. Even so, it's hard to tell sometimes when
the other side "has the advantage" - especially when you are a high tech
military force fighting third world villagers and tribesmen. You only know
you've lost when you get called home - or go home in a box. Does Saddam Hussein
"have the advantage?" It sure doesn't seem so - but then it didn't seem like
Ho Chi Minh "had the advantage" either when we were carpet bombing them "back
into the stone age."

	-- Charles

    
    
    RE:  B-52 Carpet Bombing
    
    The carpet bombing we are doing now is being down in Kuwait against
    Republican guard units and Iraqi convoys.  They are also using smart
    weapons, the ones that can destroy the top three floors of a building
    while leaving the day care center in the basement unharmed.
    

    You mean if the house that your grandfather was born in was being
    overrun by foreign invaders, you would actually not advocate fighting
    to protect it.

My grandfather was born in Nagasaki. I don't think that house exists anymore.
    
    Don't take this TOO personally, but I find that disgustingly sad.

I do too.

	-- Charles

    	If we'd waited to use force against Iraq, a great many of our
    	grandchildren (if our children survived to have them) would
    	also be able to say that their grandparents' houses no longer
    	existed due to a nuclear weapon.
    
    	We didn't have a clear choice between war and peace.  We had
    	a choice between war and a worse war later.
    
    	This is why so many people support the war now. 

    I'd really be interested in documentation of any capability such as
    described in .400.
    
    ... cruise missile targeted at a particular building and floor thereof?
    
    ... smart bomb pointed down the chimney or ventilation shaft of a
    particular building, with juuust enough high explosives to only blow
    off the high part of said building?
    
    ... or are we (as I'm betting) just speaking figuratively here, and
    claiming more precision than is possible to salve our consciences
    against the inevitable civilian deaths (oops Collateral Damage) that
    happen?
    
    Not that I'm advocating pacifism here, just acceptance of the realities
    of war, even high-tech war.

    .395 Sue, I thought I would never write this but I agree with you.
    The points that you made about Iraq invading Kuwait and what they did
    was appauling. Where were the anti-war protesters then? I don't
    remember hear-seeing-reading about these people protesting against
    the invasion of Kuwait. Maybe all they care about is the USA and to
    h*ll with every other country in the world.... Sometimes you can't
    just sit back and watch.. Sometimes you have to help... And sometimes
    when you help people can get  hurt and killed. I have read a lot of
    stories about our troops in the middle east. I know some people over
    there. They know why they are there and they know what they
    have to do. I support them for this reason....
    

    	By the way, I have to mention here that I find it unbelievable
    	that Iraq complains so bitterly about civilian casualties when
    	in the next breath, they state that they intend to use chemical
    	weapons in Israel that have *NO* military benefit at all (but
    	could potentially kill 30,000 exposed civilians PER MISSILE.)
    
    	The bombing of Iraq is being done to prevent the execution of
    	Saddam's threats (against Israel and other countries) to kill
    	tens of thousands of civilians in one shot (of possibly many!)
    
    	Allied military is doing the best it can to hit military targets
    	in a country that has a history of trying to protect such
    	targets with "human shields" as an emotional defense.

    
    
    RE:  .403  
    
    Documentation := film clips
    
    The part about the day care center in the basement was, of course,
    speculation.
    

    	I support the war because I studied the alternatives (and because
    	I listened to the words of Saddam Hussein himself and to the
    	reports and the evidence of his handiwork both in northern Iraq - 
    	the gassing of the Kurds - and in Kuwait.)
    
    	It was my most fervent wish that we would never again face a
    	situation comparable to WWII (where force would be the only thing
    	that could stop a leader with the ambitions and morals of someone
    	like Saddam.)
    
    	It's unfortunate that we're in this situation, but I don't believe
    	that we had any choice but to take our current path.

    re:-1
    
    I respectfully disagree. I think economic sanctions and a very strong
    defensive stance would have been a much better solution. It would have
    cost a whole lot less and fewer people would have died.
    
    Why do you disagree?
    
    Kate
    

	I have seen on TV the horrible scenes of Kurds being gassed, 
	but where were we then?  We learned the atrocities of the Iraqi 
	army committed in Kuweit.  Where were we when the Chinese 
	government mulled down the peaceful students, the flower and the 
	future of China?  As an immigrant from China, I don't need to 
	tell you the rage I felt then, but only to realize that not only 
	was there nothing I could do, but there was nothing the mighty
	United States could do to prevent it.  All those were horrible 
	events.  We didn't do much not because we condone them, not 
	because we are indifferent about them, but because of the 
	realization that our resources and power are limited.  The 
	"do-gooders" should seriously re-examine the lessons of Vietnam.  
	Humanity really has some serious problems and is quite screwed
	up in many areas.  We don't condone those atrocities.  In fact,
	we condemn them in the strongest terms.  We do what we can, 
	and in some sense we should feel responsible for some of the 
	problems, such as feeding the hungry in Ethiopia, but we are not 
	responsible for all the woe in the world.  God is.  On the other 
	hand, we are directly responsible for the body bags if we choose 
	to send in the troops.  Hence, it is more compelling to examine 
	our convictions before the shadows of those body bags.

	Under what circumstance would I go to war?  Like I said before, 
	I would have entered WWII.  I do not mean to presume, but I 
	think anyone who is concerned about this war should ask himself 
	the question I asked in 593.151.  You don't even have to answer 
	it, but only to keep that question in mine when you think about 
	this war.

	Can anyone show me a clear vision of the region after the war?  
	Lacking such a vision is one of the major reasons we failed in 
	Vietnam.

	Finally although, I think it unwise to enter this war, I am 
	also against the anti-war demonstrations.  It is a matter of 
	putting myself in the position of the troops who are serving 
	their country fighting the war.  Yes, they understand that 
	political dissent is part of America, but that does not lessen 
	the negative psychological effects those demonstrations could 
	have on the troops' morale.

	Eugene

    	RE: .409  Kate
    
    	Extending the economic sanctions would only have given Saddam
    	more time to prepare for a worse war later.  He said himself
    	(in September) that he would destroy Israel and launch an all-
    	out war before he would allow Iraq to be "strangled" by the
    	UN embargo.
    
    	None of the peace initiatives (from all the various countries
    	and groups who tried) were accepted by Iraq.  Saddam could not
    	be moved.
    
    	More lives would have been lost in a worse war later.

    re. 'body bags'
    
    [ever consistent]
    
    We are a country at war.  Body bags are being filled and shipped home.
    Whether we support this war or we do not, we _must_ confront the
    horrors of it.
    
    A flag draped coffin is an icon. A corpse in 3 mil plastic is a bit
    more down to earth.
    
    To support a war and not face squarely the outcomes is rather ostrich-
    like.  To oppose it without facing it squarely is irresponsible.
    
      Annie

    re .389, .410, Eugene, I agree.  I like your notes.
    
    Lorna
    

    The Soviet Union has rolled into Lithuania and Latvia during the past
    month. Why aren't we there, now.  Protesting against their aggression.
    Or could it be that Lithuania and Latvia don't have anything that
    the U.S. may want or need?
    
    

>                     <<< Note 342.414 by BOOKS::BUEHLER >>>

>    The Soviet Union has rolled into Lithuania and Latvia during the past
>    month. Why aren't we there, now.  Protesting against their aggression.
>    Or could it be that Lithuania and Latvia don't have anything that
>    the U.S. may want or need?
    
 How can you only hear half the story?? 

Europe is cutting aid to Russia and the U.S. threatened to cut aid, there were
talks between Baker and ????? (Russian) and the troops are pulling out of
the Baltic. Bush and ????? discussed this recently, and the summit meeting
was postponed because of this. 
I believe that we are starting an apprpriate level of response to the actions
over there.   

>================================================================================
>Note 342.414                    The Persian Gulf                      414 of 414
>BOOKS::BUEHLER                                        6 lines   4-FEB-1991 11:08
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    The Soviet Union has rolled into Lithuania and Latvia during the past
>    month. Why aren't we there, now.  Protesting against their aggression.
>    Or could it be that Lithuania and Latvia don't have anything that
>    the U.S. may want or need?
 
    
    Reason #1::      Our hands are full
    Reason #2::      The USSR has VETO power in the UN.  Remember, the UN
                     is protecting the sovereinty of Kuwait.
    Reason #3::      The USSR has big, bad nuclear weapons aimed at our
                     little country.
    
    Digression #1::  We did cancel a summit with the USSR to condemn the 
                     Kremlin's Baltic State policy.
    
       
    

	As an act calculated to inspire defeatism at home shipping home
corpses is a winner. Why is it done?

	Re. Where was America when the Iraqis gassed the Kurds. This is nothing
new. 
	Where was america in 1914 (Start of WW1)
	Where was america in 1933 (Start of german concentration camps)
	Where was america in 1938 (facist takeover of spain,Cechslovakia)
	Where was america in 1939 (start of WW11)
	Where was america in 1940 (Invasion of France)
	Where was america in 1956 (Hungary)
	Where was america in 1968 (Cechslovakia again)

RE:  .417
    
    
>	As an act calculated to inspire defeatism at home shipping home
>corpses is a winner. Why is it done?

        COULD YOU RESTATE THE QUESTION?  I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
    
>	Re. Where was America when the Iraqis gassed the Kurds. This is nothing
>new. 
>	Where was america in 1914 (Start of WW1)
        AMERICA GOT INVOLVED
>	Where was america in 1933 (Start of german concentration camps)
        AMERICA GOT INVOLVED
>	Where was america in 1938 (facist takeover of spain,Cechslovakia)
        AMERICA GOT INVOLVED
>	Where was america in 1939 (start of WW11)
        AMERICA GOT INVOLVED
>	Where was america in 1940 (Invasion of France)
        AMERICA GOT INVOLVED
>	Where was america in 1956 (Hungary)
    >	Where was america in 1968 (Cechslovakia again)

    As you see, we eventually got involved in these conflicts.  It just
    took a while.  We didn't attack Iraq on Aug. 3.
    

    RE.417 'why ship corpses home?'
    
    you've stated you've 'still no answer' on this one.  I am reasonably
    certain that the answer was given, but for the record:
    
    	Custom
    
    it may seem a silly answer, but there you have it.  it's a customary
    veneration of the remains [much as cremation, above ground burial, and
    tossing into the sea are custom in other cultures.]
    
    my studies have led me to speculate that the actual remains were deemed
    to be a more powerful icon than a mere plaque or memorial service. also
    in a less mobile era, the significance of returning to the soil/place
    of beginning was more of an issue.
    
    you contention that it is 'an act calculated to inspire defeatism' may
    be valid for the norms to which you were bred; but the effect cannot be
    equivalent where norms and expectations are different.
    
      Annie