Conference turris::womannotes-v3

	Do you devalue life if you are prepared to fight to liberate others,
	or stop attrocities happening to others?

	
	Do you cross the road to the other side?


	The men and women who join up have volunteered NOT to cross the road.


	The only debate left is whether you think the road is the right one.

	
	I, and many others, believe it is.

	Heather

    
    
    
    RE: .0
    
    I suppose there are many ways to look at it.  
    
    I feel the lives of each and every person is valuable and should be
    spared this awful situation.  But I also believe in every person's
    right to freedom from oppression. 
    
    I know many people in the US Armed Forces (having grown up in a
    military town).  From talking with these people and knowing them as
    well as I do, a very large majority of them WANT to be over there. 
    They WANT and are devoted to guarenteeing a person's right to freedom.
    
    Of course, no one WANTS war, no one WANTS bloodshed, but many of the
    military personnel I know are willing to die for the cause of freedom.
    
    And I know I am too.  What is my life as compared to the lives of
    millions of innocent people.  If I lost my life for the cause of
    freedom for them, it would be worth it.
    
    kathy

    re .0, we aren't over there to protect any ideal of freedom.  We are
    over there to protect US oil interests.  The people who come back in
    body bags will have died to protect oil interests, not freedom.
    
    Lorna
    

  re: .3
  
  I agree with you 100% on this. I know that if Kuwait(sp?) and
  Saudi-Arabia's chief export were dates...we would not have troops
  over there, and hussien would not be where he is.

    
    Since current world oil production is higher than it was pre-invasion I
    will have to say once again that I think this "fighting for oil" line
    is over simplistic.
    
    But then nobody is claiming that we are going to fight for democracy.
    
    Freedom is only the absence of an unwelcome occupying power, not the
    presence of US style democracy.
    
    /. Ian .\

    Michele,
    
    The idea, "We need to do more <x> here before we are justified
    in doing <x'> anywhere else" is a phony argument.
    
    It is phony because one can *always* claim that more <x> needs
    to be done.  Whether its a claim that we need more and better
    health care in Massachusetts, or that Womannotes needs to be more
    free of any individual's perception of sexism, or that our society
    needs to address the suffering of its members more attentively, it
    is a claim that never ends.
    
    Now, I am not advocating that the US "not take care of all of the
    people who live here".  I suggest weighing the level of current
    care here against the level of current care there.  Are they
    wildly disparate?  In our favor?  If yes, then ignore the claim
    that we must take care of our people first.  If no, then address
    the claim.
    
    Since I believe the answer is yes, I recommend examining the situation
    in the Persian Gulf on its own merits.
    
    						Ann B.

    .2
    
    Well, my experiences as an ex military wife whose husband was MIA
    in Vietnam, and who just recently spoke to him about the desert
    thing is this...
    
    Yes, some of them *want* to be there but not for the reason of 
    "preserving life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." 
    Some (and I will say most) of the military men I know want to
    go to war, because of the perceived "glory" of it.  Remember
    John Wayne?  Well, we can blame this mess on him. :-)
    After also taking a course in Vietnam and the media, it has
    become very clear to me that the movies we watch today; ie.
    Platoon, etc. are not anti-war movies at all; in fact, they
    glorify the gore, the passion, the experience.  And in this class,
    our instructor asked the young men if they would go to war even
    after seeing what it can be like, every one of them said 'yes.'
    
    "Protecting America" has nothing to do with it.
    
    IMHO, Bush has watched too many John Wayne movies; he's using
    others' lives to assert his own masculinity.
    
    IMHO of course.
    Maia
    
    

    
    
    Ann,
    
    I thought about your note, and I fail to see comparing our level
    of care to theirs.  What difference does that make?  Is your thought
    based on the fact that our level of care should be the same as theirs?
    I disagree if this is so.  From my understanding of the monies, the
    money for care per person is much more available over there than it is
    here.  
    
    I am not using my thought that we should take care of our people before
    venturing out is not meant to be an argument.  It is an opinion which
    I feel is very valid.  Why should our government allow the conditions
    which clearly have a negative impact on the nation to continue?  
    Part of what I see in this situation is that the money being spent is
    in my opinion not being spent on the correct situation.  
    
    How can the US help other people when a very large segment of its own
    population needs help?  I am seeing wasted US money and wasted US
    lives.  
    
    I still fail to honestly understand why they are there in the first
    place.   Why aren't the rest of the nations that voted for action in
    the UN vote standing right next to the soldiers from the US?
    
    Michele
    
    
    

    Even if the only reason we go to war is for the economic reasons,
    our people are still dying for the American way of life.  If we were
    to lose the oil that country supplied we could be in for dire 
    consequences.
    
    I would like to see this nation look at other means of fuel, but until
    this happens we should protect our interests.
    
    As to why other countries won't send as much support...I don't know.
    This country has always been a leader in world polotics.  I'm not too
    suprised other countries are using the sit back and wait theory.
    
    
    
                                      L.J.

    
    i think comparing our governments activities in the domestic realm
    versus the foreign or military realms is quite reasonable. from the
    larger perspective, the question is 'what is the proper function of
    government?' i believe the constituion says something like 'provide
    for the common welfare'. presumably some people believe that fighting
    in the gulf does indeed provide for the common welfare. i, however
    (and many people), honestly believe that fighting is not for the 
    common welfare.
    
    (one way of determining that might be to note how much good could be
    done for our own people with the money being used in the gulf)

    
    re .10:
    
    Nit, Joe:  I cringe when I hear people saying "Let's do something
    better with the money".
    
    WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY!!
    
    Excuse me for shouting, but we're financing this war solely on
    debt!  Let's not pretend there's money to spend.  My view is that
    it shouldn't be spent at all.
    

    
    who is 'we'?
    

    re 619.8 why aren't other nations standing by the US?
    
    Total allied troops= 640,000
    of which US troops   350,000
    
    Total allied tanks = 4,200
    of which US tanks    2,250
    
    Total allied planes= 2,500 (combat only)
    of which US planes   1,450 
    
So while the US has over half the forces there, it is by no means alone.
    Even Bangladesh has 2,000 troops in the UN forces.
    
    Regards,
    	George
    
    (Source- Scotland on Sunday this past weekend)
    

    
    
    re 13
    
    George,
    
    Thanks for the numbers.  By your numbers the US is half of the entire
    forces there.  Sure there are other countries there, but why does the
    US have to be the majority party in this?  
    
    Michele

    RE: 14
    
    One posible answer:
    
    Because the U.S. is a world leader and a good leader is one that leads
    by example.
    
    
    
                                              L.J.
    

re .15 - Because George Bush has a recession on his hands.  Military action
    (even deployment) tends to end recessions.  Also, the military doesn't
    want to reduce, and unless it finds a reason to exist in its current
    size it'll have it's budget now.

    After whatever happens in the middle east ends, the government will
    be arguing for no military cuts because if we had cut it we wouldn't
    have been able to send as many troops as we did.

re -.2 (?) - troop percentages.  

    With the exception of the U.S., Great Britain, Egypt, and (I think) 
    Syria, no other countries have committed more than a small fraction
    of their troops.  Egypt wants to be a significant regional player
    again.   Syria is an enemy of Iraq (our friend-of-the-month).  Great
    Britain has a government with views that are very similar to that of 
    the U.S. (which came first, I wonder).
    
    Perhaps most of the other countries want to let those four countries
    take the bulk of the casualties and expenses.  Perhaps they feel
    that losses won't go over well.  

re -.1:  I don't think being a "world leader" has anything to do with it.

    We also have the biggest financial resources...er, make that the
    biggest debt...
    
    --- jerry

  our forces are in the majority because maybe we are the biggest user
  of foreign oil?

    
    I was under the impression that US is being sponsored by Saudi Arabia
    and the exiled leaders of Kuwait...
    
    ??
    Bo

The U.S. is over there because we have strategic interests there. If the Middle
East had nothing of value to us (such as oil), we wouldn't be there.

We didn't do anything when Afghanistan was overrun, we aren't doing anything in
Africa (which is experiencing terrible carnage right now). 

Secondarily, I think we're there to help prop Bush up. If we win the war, he'll
be a hero and we can feel on top of things again in spite of our sputtering
economy.

If we lose the war, we can blame our sputtering econony on the fact that we had
to spend so much money on the war, and nobody else helped us out. (It's lonely
at the top of the armed power heap, huh?)

I don't mind all the problems we're having in this country right now because I
think things have to get worse before they get better. In other words, things
won't get better till they get worse.

Vicki Meagher

>    re .0, we aren't over there to protect any ideal of freedom.  We are
>    over there to protect US oil interests.  The people who come back in
>    body bags will have died to protect oil interests, not freedom.
    

 	shouldn't this say "in my opinion we aren't over there to.......


	Heather   

>   We have the biggest military, the best
>    technology, the best logistical support.  Would you expect Bangladesh
>    to field 350,000 troops just because we can do it?
 

	I don't understand how you can say this, when american tanks cannot 
	shoot on the move, they have to stop then aim and fire, whereas other 
	countries have tanks which can aim and fire whilst on the move.

	Heather

> 	shouldn't this say "in my opinion we aren't over there to.......
    In your opinion, it should say that. Perhaps you should have added
    that... :-)
    'Course, that's only *my* opinion that, your statement about
    someone's opinion, should contain the phrase, "in my opinion".
    Maybe it would be easier to assume replies are opinions only,
    and everything else requires a reference?
    
    John

    
    ah yes, but wasn't that the viewpoint that Heather was taken to task
    for in the Circle of Stones topic?
    
    /. Ian .\

    re .22, Heather, if you will kindly take the time to more carefully
    read my .3, which you have partially quoted, you will discover that the
    title of my reply is "IMO."  (in my opinion)
    
    BTW, are you having fun, yet, going through the file trying to find
    examples of things others have gotten away with that you didn't?  Just
    wondering...
    
    Lorna
    

>The U.S. is over there because we have strategic interests there. If the Middle
>East had nothing of value to us (such as oil), we wouldn't be there.


	This is your opinion, athoigh you have ommited to say so.

	I have the opinion that the troops are there to ensure Saddam cannot 
	keep visiting attrocities on Kuwait, and also to ensure that he is 
	stopped now, rather than later, when I believe a war will
	be far worse.

	Heather

>> 	shouldn't this say "in my opinion we aren't over there to.......
>    In your opinion, it should say that. Perhaps you should have added
>    that... :-)
>    'Course, that's only *my* opinion that, your statement about
>    someone's opinion, should contain the phrase, "in my opinion".
>    
 
	Ah well, you see, it in my opininin is should have if it were a
	statement, however in my opinion is was a question 

>    Maybe it would be easier to assume replies are opinions only,
>    and everything else requires a reference?

	I do agree.

	Heather

	Okay, so if I learn all the abrieviations possible I can use
	them in my headings , and write notes the way I would like, without
	anyone hastleing me over missing out three words?


	    Heather

>    Heather, I am under the impression, gained from people in the US tank
>    corps, that American tanks can indeed shoot while on the move. 

	I have gained this info from people in the Royal Engineers, that's why
	our tanks will go first into the fray - 'cause they can move faster.


	Heather

    
    re .16, Matt:  The French have a good number of troops in Saudi
    Arabia.  Of the Western countries, they have the third largest
    number of troops, behind the US and the UK.
    
    re .20, Bo:  I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Saudi
    Arabia is "sponsoring" the US troops.  In terms of money, what
    they've contributed is a drop in the bucket.  In my opinion,
    they are *stealing* from us.  This is another major reason I'm
    against the offensive campaign.  They should be made to pay up!
    
    re .22, Heather:  Facts shouldn't have to be prefaced with "IMO".
    If I say 2+2=4, I wouldn't say "in my opinion".  That's absurd.
    The facts speak pretty clearly to me in this case that the US is
    over there to protect the supply of oil.  Otherwise, why wouldn't
    we have protected Afghanistan?
    

    
>    re .22, Heather:  Facts shouldn't have to be prefaced with "IMO".
>    If I say 2+2=4, I wouldn't say "in my opinion".  That's absurd.
>    The facts speak pretty clearly to me in this case that the US is
>    over there to protect the supply of oil.  Otherwise, why wouldn't
>    we have protected Afghanistan?
 

	The facts say the troops are there.

	Afgahnisatan did not have the UN declaration.

	In fact, the UK would benefit without the war, we are the country that
	has the least dependance on their oil supply - but the troops are still
 	there.
	
	You have interpreted the facts one way, and have your opinion, as I 
	have interpreted them another, and have mine.

	Heather

    re .20/.32 and others. 
    
    As I'm home and have the Scotland on Sunday with the figures on
    troop deployment in front of me, I thought I'd ruin some of the
    guesswork by putting them in. :^) (I do see that I was off on a
    figure or two from memory in my previous reply.)
    
    Country	Troops	Tanks	Aircraft Warships

    Iraq	500,000	4,000	700		15

    US		350,000 2,250  1,450		90
    UK		 34,000   160     60		11
    France	 10,000    40     50             6
    Saudi Arabia 97,000   550    190            25
    Kuwait        7,000    50     30             -
    Egypt        35,000   600      -             -
    Syria        19,000   300
    Pakistan      5,000
    Bangladesh    2,000
    Morocco       6,000
    Senegal         500
    Niger           500
    Czechoslovakia  170
    Greece- 1 warship; Italy 8 aircraft, 5 warships ; Denmark 1 warship
    Canada 12 aircraft, 2 warships ; Netherlands 2 Warships ; 
    Australia 2 warships ; Spain 3 warships ; 
    Others       80,000   250        190     0

    Sorry about including facts. :^)
    
    Cheers,
    	George

        re .32,
        
>> Otherwise, why wouldn't we have protected Afghanistan?
        
        But the U.S. govt did protect Afghanistan.  It kept
        our athletes from going to the 1980 Olympics.
        
        Dan

    Is the U.S. preparing for war with a country threatening world peace?
    
    Hardly.  Iraq has 18,000,000 people.  They are drafting 17-year-olds.
    
    However, imagine Saddam Hussein as President of the Pan Arabic Union, 
    created in the 90's after U.S. withdrawl, encompassing the current Syria, 
    Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen, the emirates, etc., with nuclear capability,
    controlling the bulk of the world's petroleum reserves.
    
    Hitler wasn't a world peace threat either when Germany marched into
    Sudetenland in 1936, after the allies marched out.  World War II might
    not have been a world war, if it had been fought then.  Countless lives
    would have been *saved*.  
    
    Hitler was bluffing.  He was building military capability, but he wasn't 
    there yet.  Calling him at the time just seemed too expensive to World 
    War I-weary Britain and France.
    
    Bush's comparison between the two leaders might actually show some
    vision and an honest desire not to have history repeat itself. 
    The potential is there, including a large population of Jews if Israel 
    were to be overwhelmed.
    
    Are the oil companies the *only* reason we are there?
    
    This vision disturbs me, because it might prove to be as invalid
    as the domino theory that helped get us into Viet Nam.  
    
    It also disturbs me because it could be correct. 

    I hear people say:
    
    "Kuwaity women are being raped by Iraqi soldiers."... An American women
    is raped every 6 minutes
    
    "Chemical warfare is barbaric."... So are the chemicals on the streets
    of New York or Worcester or anytown, USA.
    
    "There's a certain glory to war."... War is Hell. My father-in-law told
    me a story about his glorious war. The old double U double U Two. He
    told me of how he saw his best friend running scared holding his guts
    in his stomach with the only hand he had left. Glorious war?
    
    "We must fight so that others may be free." What is freedom? Is freedom
    equality? Are the Saudi's free? Can they dress and worship as they
    please? Can I understand why my brother/cousin/husband or friend will
    return legless or lifeless? To protect the Saudi Freedom? No I can't.
    Saudi freedom is an oxymoron. This is a BIG mistake. One person's eyes
    for another person's pseudo freedom. 
    
    I'm really pis*ed at myself for not writing my Congressmen and Senators
    before this escalated to this. Maybe I thought it'd go away. I don't
    know. I am going to get involved though. For whatever good it will do.
    
    Kate 
    

        re .37,
        
>> Maybe I thought it'd go away.
        
        Apparently a lot of people think that if we all just
        forget about Saddam Hussein, that he'll go away, too.
        
        Dan

        
>        Apparently a lot of people think that if we all just
>        forget about Saddam Hussein, that he'll go away, too.

    Hey, maybe he will.

        <cynical hat on here>

    What I find interesting is not the number of people who think that
    Saddam might go away, but the number of people who think that if
    enough of us go away, maybe Saddam will follow our example and go
    away himself.

	<cynical hat off>

	    Sharon

    
    
    >"Chemical warfare is barbaric."... So are the chemicals on the streets
    >    of New York or Worcester or anytown, USA.
    
    What sort of "chemicals" are you talking about on the streets of
    anytown, USA?  
    
    If you're talking about drugs, I don't see the correlation.  A person
    chooses to take drugs, a person does not choose to have a chemical bomb
    dropped on them.
    
    Sign me confused.
    
    kath

>    >"Chemical warfare is barbaric."... So are the chemicals on the streets
>    >    of New York or Worcester or anytown, USA.
>    
>    What sort of "chemicals" are you talking about on the streets of
>    anytown, USA?  
>    
>    If you're talking about drugs, I don't see the correlation.

	Call me a cynic, but I assumed she meant toxic waste.

	    Sharon

    
    
    > Call me a cynic, but I assumed she meant toxic waste.
    
    That was my other guess, but "on the streets" seemed to imply drugs to
    me....I dunno why....
    
    that's why I asked! ;-)
    
    k

 There's a few notes about The U.S. sticking its nose in the internal affairs
of other countries when they arent doing any better at home. Examples that
irritate:

	U.S. nationals interfering and sponsoring terrorism in the 
United kingdom. The U.S. politicians pontificating about levels of violence
in  Northern Ireland (PART OF THE UNITED KINGDOM), which are insignificant
compared to some U.S. cities.
 The people in  Northern Ireland have voted in democratic elections to stay
part of the United Kingdom. Some persons may argue that King Billy took it
by conquest and we should give it back. I therefore suggest that the current
inhabitants of the U.S. give it back to the original occupants the Indians.
 It should be noted that the U.S. is more recent than King Billy!


		U.S. Hands off Northern Ireland!!

    
    
    RE .37  Chemical warfare is barbaric
    
    Thanks for bringing in this thought, since it clarified a fuzziness I
    had in reading this topic.
    
    To add to the general confusion, when the question is raised does the
    US devalue life, WHAT "U.S." are we referring to?  I can think of at
    least three components;
    
    	- the government	
    	- big business
    	- the people  (cynicism exposed: I don't believe the government is
   		       necessarily a part of the people anymore.)
    
    Any other candidates??
    
    
    
    -jamd	       - when will THEY do {the RIGHT thing}  ??
    			(probably when I look in the mirror and recognize
   			 THEM as me.)
    
    
    
    
    
    additional thoughts: 
    I took .37 to be referring to toxic waste, and I *don't* believe I
    (part of the people group) have any say in this matter: the decision
    about what I am exposed to is made by business poeple whose attention may
    on my welfare or may be on their bottom line. IMO
    
    (Having said that I cannot control this, let me add the caveat that
    *acting alone* I have no influence.  As a part of a larger group, in
    this case, greenpeace, or one of that ilk, individuals have large
    voices. .37's intention to write or do *something* is what it takes if
    we folks not involved in a daily basis in controlling the world are to
    be heard.)
    
     
                                                                

    re .45, isn't chemical warfare painful for the victims?
    
    I thought that some types of chemical warfare were supposed to be
    extremely painful...?
    
    Lorna
    

Chemical warfare - and all weapons of mass destruction are "barbaric" because
they are indiscriminate. The theory is that it is ok to kill soldiers, and to
destroy your enemy's ability to wage war, but it is immoral to kill civilians.
Weapons of mass destruction are indiscriminate.

That's the theory.

	-- Charles

    RE: Chemicals on the streets.
    
    Kath,
    I meant drugs. There are lots of innocent victims of the chemicals on
    our streets. Children and babies.
    
    Kate

    Several people here have brought up Afghanistan and the U.S.
    involvement or lack of involvement. The United States did get involved
    by shipping stinger missiles to the rebels, which by the way turned the
    war against Gorby and his troops. 
    
    	The situation in the Gulf is not as simple as some people like to
    believe. You cannot make the situation there PC, this is real life.
    Study the history of the region and Saddam the man and then offer an
    opinion based on knowledge not passion.
    
    
    	War is hell but so are ignorant people offering uninformed
    opinions.
    
    	Argue the facts, argue the law, but don't attack everything and
    everybody to legitimize a paticular position (that means don't change
    the subject).
    
    
    		IMHO (ok)
    
    		Wayne

    So offer us some facts already.
    
    	-- Charles

    I've done my reading and studying for my own information not yours. I
    would suggest you do your own exploration of the area and people.
    
    
    
    		Wayne

    I say let Israel fight it's own war, because that's what this is all
    about.  If I hadn't known a Middle-Easterner for the past five years I
    wouldn't have realized this either.  I was truly brainwashed, like most
    of the American citizens.
    
    First target is Israel.  We'll just be caught in the middle.

    re: .36
    
    A couple of small points:
    
>    Hitler wasn't a world peace threat either when Germany marched into
>    Sudetenland in 1936, after the allies marched out.  World War II might
>    not have been a world war, if it had been fought then.  Countless lives
>    would have been *saved*.  
     
    I think you refer to the Rhineland in 1933, the Sudetenland was what
    Chzechoslovakia was sold out for in 1938.
    
>    Hitler was bluffing.  He was building military capability, but he wasn't 
>    there yet.  Calling him at the time just seemed too expensive to World 
>    War I-weary Britain and France.
    
     As the de-militarization of the Rhineland was part of the Versailles
     treaty, and as the U.S. was a signatory to that, where was the U.S.
     at that point ?
    
     One other observation, I would be a bit less cynical about this
     opposing aggression line if the U.S. had opposed Iraqi aggression
     when they attacked Iran. An aggressor is an agressor, even if he is
     attacking someone you are mad at !!
    
    Aidan
    

    
    
    .53 brings up a point that's been niggling at the back of my mind
    since I heard Bush's speech.
    
    Where were we when Iraq was commiting atrocities on Iran?  Much of the
    evidence i've seen about what we are defending the people of Kuwati from
    is in the form of pictures from the Iraq/Iran conflict.
    
    If anyone's seen the blood chilling picture of a young child (very
    young - about a year old) lying next to their parent, both victims of
    indiscriminate chemical warfare, ...perhaps they can answer my question..
    we (US Govt) "deplored" that action, but we (US govt) didn't get involved, we
    didn't go there to save the innocent citizens....how cum not?
    
    When I heard Bush's speech, my cynicism concerning inconsistencies
    like the above got in the way of my buying into his program.
    
    I pray for the US troops.  I believe in them; I just feel like our
    leaders are asking me to buy a half told story.
    
    
    anybody else have this problem?
    
    jamd

    re .54 'US foreign policy' has for a long time been strictly
    'spur-of-the-moment', subject to every change in the weather.
    Iraq was an enemy to Iran, and the US played "The enemy of my enemy
    is my friend." Now circumstances have changed and the inadequacy
    of our short-range thinking is glaringly obvious. Out of spite
    for Iran we created a monster in Iraq. (We did the same in the
    Phillippines, Iran, Panama, Cuba, and plenty of other places.)
    
    Until the US sets a long-range foreign policy and *sticks to it*
    we will continue to have problems with yetserday's allies.

        re .54,
        
>>    Where were we when Iraq was commiting atrocities on Iran?
        
        When the subject came up after Iraq first used chemical
        weapons against Iran, I said we should blockade supplies
        for chemical weapons from getting to Iraq, and warn that
        we would join in the war against them if they used
        chemical weapons again.  I was politely told it would
        never happen.
        
        The statement that if Hussein isn't stopped now the cost
        in lives and effort will be much greater, later, didn't
        start with his invasion of Kuwait.
        
        Dan

    
    US should stop the practice of spending money and
    losing life for the defense of other country.
    
    It is better spending money in this 50 states.
    Let those people in mid-east fight each other.
    
    I bet you without the US support of Israel, Saud Arabia,
    Egypt,  in a short time, there will be peace. 
    
    If you think SH is another Hitler, a danger to wrold peace,
    then you are brain washed by Bush.

    Isolationism has long been popular with nationalists. Like it or not,
    the US is a part of the greater world community and as such we have
    certain responsibilities to the rest of the world. Whether those
    responsibilities include attacking Iraq is perhaps an interesting
    topic. That we should ignore the rest of the world and "solve
    our own problems" I feel is short sighted, selfish, and ultimately
    futile.
    
    	-- Charles

I have to reluctantly agree with Charles (.58).  As much as I hate war
and violence, and think that we jumped rather too eagerly into this 
particular war, without adequate thought or exploration of alternatives,
I don't think doing nothing was one of those alternatives.  Like it or
not -- and on the whole I think it's a good thing -- we've become a global
society, a global economy, and there are no more quiet corners whose
activity affects only themselves.  

I just wish the people in the US could get it through their heads that 
being involved in the world doesn't mean we have to run the world.

--bonnie

    In answer to why we didn't assist Iran during their war with Iraq. The
    reason is simple ,they didn't ask for our help the S.A. government did.
    Please think before you speak. There is enough misinformation and hot
    air on TV.
    
    
    		Wayne 

The reason we didn't support Iran in it's war with Iraq is simpler than that -
we were supporting Iraq. Until he invaded Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was a
putative *ally*.

	How soon they forget,
	-- Charles

    Well ... I believe you'll find that we were supporting Iraq
    because it was opposing Iran, and the US didn't like Iran.

    When I lived in Iran, and the Shah was in power, the US was not
    supporting Iraq. I was in a busload of Americans that travelled
    from Iran to Jordan through Iraq and received border-to-border
    hassles, including a day of house arrest in Baghdad.

    It seems like we pick our friends from among those who don't like
    the ones we consider enemies at the moment.

    Re: .61
    
    We are in vociferous agreement. We will go back to supporting Iraq just
    as soon as it becomes politically convenient/necessary. Oceania indeed.
    We will support anyone as long as they act like *good* little client
    states, nevermind their internal politics, their lack of democracy,
    their human right's abuses.
    
    	-- Charles

    	We sold arms to Iran (to be used in their war against Iraq) in
    	the Iran-Contra scandal, in case anyone remembers.
    
    	I'd call that supporting Iran against Iraq in at least one sense.

    .64, Suzanne -- thanks, I was just going to mention the Iran-Contra
    scandal.

    Please see 593.178