Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    I feel that the freedom to express one's thoughts is so intrinsically
    part of the American way of life that even in war time those who
    disagree with the President should have the freedom to say so or
    we are denying the very foundation of our nation.

    Bonnie

    I mentioned this previously.  I share your views.  The decision has
    been made to go to war.  The war is reality.  Now is the time to stand
    together as a nation, and support the decision that has been made. 
    Our citizens are there, risking their lives in support of our country.
    My best friend strongly disagrees with me.  She thinks the president
    does not have any business getting involved in this situation.  I say
    that there is more to it than we are aware of.  But I am getting off
    the topic.
    
    The time for protest and demonstrations is over.  The decision has been
    made, we as Americans should be supporting the president, and our
    people over there.  I encountered a rather rowdy bunch of demonstrators
    yesterday, that threw snow at cars and harassed passing motorists.  I
    wonder how they can claim to represent peace, the way they were
    behaving.  I want to know how demonstrating for peace is going to help
    this situation, now that we are indeed at war.  I think it only serves
    to aid dissention.  Of course as a human being, I do not like war and 
    killing.  I do not want to see any person hurt, American or otherwise.
    But this man Saddam Hussein must be stopped.  Not only because he took
    over Kuwait, and tortured, raped and killed Kuwaiti citizens, but also
    because he is very dangerous, and left alone could only do more damage.
    I think it is naive to think that if he were allowed to keep Kuwait, 
    that he would stop at that.  I think our country has done an admirable
    job of uniting the Allies and addressing this problem swiftly and 
    decisively.
    
    Kim

    I find myself getting more and more vocal as this war continues.  I
    have been watching and listening to the news broadcasts almost 24 hours
    aday.  My TV in my bedroom has been on through the night so I won't
    miss anything.  I have talked with people who were in Veitnam and they
    are having some of the same feelings I am having.  
    
    Watching the war is scary as hell and brings back many awful memories,
    but watching the protesters is even worse.  I remeber when I was in
    thats alot of what we heard then.  The people at home don't support
    you, they are all at home laughing at you, they are at home having
    parties, etc.  
    
    It was hard enough being away from home, in a strange country, fighting
    people you didn't know.  Fighting for something you weren't even sure 
    was right, but thought you were doing the right thing for your country.
    
    But when you came back people treated you like dirt, some "Friends"
    didn't what to be see with you.  They were to busy "Protesting" the
    war, the baby killers, etc.
    
    I don't know what else to say.  The protesters of today shouldn't make
    the same mistakes of the ones before.  Protest the war, but don't
    protest the young men and women who are involved in the war.
    
    As I have said before when this whole thing is done.  I hope the same
    people who or protesting now will rally around the people who come back
    from the fighting.  Make them feel happy they have made back.
    
    Make sure they are welcomed back "HOME" not just back.
    
    Have a good one.
    
    

    Well, I respect these peoples views & their right to express them. But,
    I feel they are acting without knowing, or maybe comprehending, the
    full implications of the Gulf Crisis.
    We have a situation which if left to bask in it's notoriety would give
    the fanatical sections of the world all the inspiration they needed to
    follow suit. 
    Wouldn't it be a perfect world everybody loved each other without fail.
    Unfortunately the human race is, invariably not like that. 
    
    Peace has a price, this is it, I back this action FULLY & pray for the
    safety of all the allied troops.
    
    Reality isn't a bowl of roses.
    
    Tony

I'm searching for the right way to say this, because the message is mixed.

One of the strengths of the US, and our form of government, is that it
is possible to express one's displeasure with current policy.  I firmly
support everyone's right to express their desire for particular policy,
and don't necessarily believe that everyone *has* to agree that we should 
be fighting.

However.

The forces we are opposing don't see it that way.  Because of our past
willingness to abandon the scene of battle when things failed to go our
way, particularly in the Middle East, they believe that all that is 
necessary is to wait us out.  Eventually we'll get tired of the fighting
and go home.  I don't happen to believe that we will in this instance.

One consequence of the opposition viewpoint is that media coverage of 
demonstrations in the US (and elsewhere) against war causes them to
fight harder and try to hang on longer.  They have lower motivation to
stop fighting when they believe that the political will of their enemy
isn't strong enough to continue the fight.  In a very real sense,
demonstrations prolong the fighting and increase the casualties among 
our troops particularly and all combatants generally.

My personal plea to those of you who are unalterably opposed to fighting
to resolve this is that you conduct your protest in such a way as to
discourage media attention.  Write letters to our congressmen and the
President.  Telephone them.  Pray (we can *all* do that one - I am too).

My hope, though not my expectation, is that our media will recognize the
effect of their coverage, and choose to not show pictures of demonstrations
nor give estimates of the numbers involved in them.  

Alison

    Alison,
    
     I couldn't agree more.
    
    Please, if you are protesting, sit down and THINK about the
    implications. You may be damaging moral of your fellow
    countrymen/women, thus in a long term situation, endangering their
    lives.
    
    Tony

    I, too believe that the time for loud protests is over.  War is here.
    I believe it is now time to support your country 100%.
    
    Many of the men & women over there will see the protests.  I can only
    hope they realize that they may not be the majority.
    
    
    
                                       L.J.

    I think that these protesters should just go home and keep their mouths
    shut! Nobody wants to see people die in battle, be they right-wing or
    left-wing. I think that its about time that the people in the US try to
    regain some of their 'true' patriotism and stop listening to all these
    'do-nothings' foaming off at the mouth!. It makes me sick to my stomach
    to see these people on TV and on the streets with their signs spewing
    bull@#$% to everyone. There are and will always be times when America
    and its allies will have to stand up to various tyrannies that will try
    to inhibit democracy. To the protesters, I say THIS IS NOT VIETNAM!!!
    WAKE UP AND SMELL THE ROSES!!!!! As a parting thought, just imagine if
    Dukakis had become president- read Howie Carr's column in the Hearld
    today for more insight.

    I would just ship them to Saddam Husein to keep company!
    I am sure he would welcome some help now that he is getting a bit
    short-handed...
    
    

    re: -1
    
    I will protest this war and the administration's
    policies.  I will support the troops, they are not there of their own
    volition.
    
    I will exercise my right to free speech.  I do not foam at the mouth. 
    I am a patriot in my own way.  I am not a do-nothing.  
    
    In my opinion I feel your post is offensive to all americans who are
    just as patriotic, they just hold different views.
    
    Walter Cronkite said it best on the first night.  He said that one
    group is not more patriotic than another and we must be tolerant of
    everyon'e views.
    
    I feel your post is not tolerant.
    
    sue

    It is *never* "time to support your country 100%". Your country is
    never 100% right, and failing to voice opposition to your
    country's actions where they are wrong (or where you see them as
    wrong) would do a disservice to your country.

    One of the reasons that Saddam Hussein misjudged the strength
    arrayed against him (or so it seems) is the fact that his circle
    of advisers "supports him 100%", and so he wasn't given accurate
    information.

    I think the same principle applies beyond simple strategic
    considerations. 

    
    Short aside...What did Howie Harr say in the Boston Herald about
    Dukakis?
    
    

    
    RE:  .2
    
    I very much agree with you!
    
    Americans have the choice of whether to support or not support the
    President in this time of war.  I can respect everyone's choice even
    though I may not agree with them.
        
    I do not understand how these so called Anti-War Protesters 
    can be so much against our men and women fighting in the Gulf...
    yet they will go out onto the streets of United States and cause 
    violence acts.  Do they really think that their violence acts will
    change anything?  All I see it doing is out-raging others.
    
    Carol  
    
         
    
    

    
    re: -.1
    
    The latest peace march in Seattle involved 30,000 people carrying
    candles and walking silently through the night.
    
    Violence, nor even shouting, was present.
    
    Apparently some people do not listen when pro-peace demonstrators
    say repeatedly, "We are against the decision, not the troops."
    
    Or perhaps that concept is too complex.
    
    Carla
    

    Carla,
    
    That sort of protest I'd gladly take part in.
    
    Bonnie

    
    I agree with the base note.  I support our troups, the UN and
    President Bush.  He's simply got more information than I have.
    
    I'd like to have a "support the troups, support your country,
    stand-in" somewhere.  I think somewhere in MAynard or Acton
    would be good because there's losts of DECIES around there.
    I'd like for something like that to make the news so the troups
    can see it.  It's time that people stood up for what they AGREE
    with in addition to what they disagree with.
    
    If anyone has any suggestions, I'd appreciate them about where
    to hold this thing.  I was thinking about Jan 23 during lunch.
    
    Rachael Barlow
    

    We certainly have a right to express our opinion about the appropriateness
    of the war. Whether we have the right to character-assassinate
    advocates of either side or to attack the motives of either side is
    quite another matter. 

    I personally think several of the comments in 342 and elsewhere sail
    very close to the wind as personal attacks. I think some of them go
    overboard.

    Two that go overboard in my opinion are 342..262 & .263. 
    Do we really have the privilege/right to spew the kind of ad hominem
    vitriol that I think exists in those responses?

    Further, even if we have the right, is it sensible to escalate the
    discussion in such a fashion?

    Not in my opinion

    
    i was part of that 30,000 carla and it was one of the saddest
    experiences of my life.
    
    i have also sent letters and made phone calls to congress.
    
    in fact, no representative in congress that i voted for voted in
    favor of going to war.
    
    this may be encouraging.
    
    i did not vote for bush.
    
    anyway, i believe that going to war was wrong before and i believe
    it is wrong now. 
    
    i believe it is both immoral *and* not in our best interests as
    a country.
    
    i opposite it both as a moral person *and* as a patriot.
    
    i don't blame the soldiers for anything other than naivete.
    
    their souls are their own problem.
    
    but i didn't support their being there before and i'm sure as hell 
    not going to support it now. 
    
    it is my moral obligation, regardless of 'civil right' to continue to
    oppose the war.
    

    While I disagree with the anti-war demonstrators, and consider them
    simplistic in this case, I think they should be allowed to continue
    their protests. What better example can we offer than to show the 
    world that, even while we fight an enemy, we allow our people to
    peacefully, publicly disagree with our policies. That we are engaged
    in military action is no excuse for censorship of our citizens.

    
    Yes, it's wrong.  But I keep thinking "it's not so simple" and I start
    thinking 'It's wrong to steal but what if I'm starving?' and 'It's wrong 
    to hurt someone else, but what if they're trying to hurt me, or someone 
    else or an animal?'  Merciless as I am towards myself, I also wonder 
    why I haven't been able to get by these questions and figure it all out.
    
    Christine

    in re .19
    
    Thankyou Dana

    -> .19, Dana
    
    yes!
    

	In the 5 months since Iraq started this war, were these
	protesters demonstrating in front of the Iraq embassy against
	the Iraqi aggression? If so, then their pleas for peace might carry
	weight. But I feel that every day that the US stayed out was one
	more day of continued war. The international involvement will
	bring peace to Kuwait much quicker than any other means. 

	Those against US involvement had 5 months to make their case. If they
	persist in pursuing it, it should be with respect for the rights
	of others, with the recognition that their elected representatives
	(congress, President) voted to pursue the course we are pursuing,
	and lastly, they should respect my right to my opposing opinion,
	just as I respect their right to their opinion.

						Tom_K

re: .19 

	    NO.

    I am not advocating censorship.  What I am disagreeing with is the
    following sentence: "What better example can we offer than to show the 
    world that, even while we fight an enemy, we allow our people to
    peacefully, publicly disagree with our policies."

    During the 6 months (in 1984 and 1986) I spent in the Soviet Union,
    I had several opportunities to see American "peace groups" on TV.
    The portrayal was almost always the same: we all know the line of the
    American government.  But here's what the people are saying.  They feel
    this so strongly that they'll go to great lengths to say it, including
    travelling here to say it on Soviet TV.  See, not even Americans agree
    with their leaders!  This wasn't explicitly said, of course, but it was
    the obvious conclusion.

    I sometimes watched these broadcasts with Soviet friends, or discussed
    them with my teachers there.  Their reactions varied, but I don't think 
    anyone ever said to me "gee, that's great, the American government 
    allows its people to peacefully, publicly, disagree with its policies".  
    The reactions were entirely different: "these Americans are SO naive", 
    "how can your government allow people to say those things?", "doesn't 
    your government *listen*?  I thought you were supposed to be a democracy".

    I realized that it would have been a very, very small step to convey
    a wartime message that "the American people must be liberated".

    Our point that "even while we fight an enemy, we allow our people to
    peacefully, publicly disagree with our policies" is probably lost on
    a large portion of the world; it's an alien concept.  It's like trying
    to explain to a person who believes in peace at any price that war is
    sometimes necessary.

    I am still not advocating censorship.  I am simply suggesting that
    we not fool ourselves about the wonderful message we're sending to the 
    world about this country in allowing protests.  Truth is, that message 
    will vary widely according to the receiving ears, and it won't always
    be positive.

	Sharon

    
    
            First let me say that I am *FOR* this war.  I am *NOT* for any
    war.  This one IMHO is needed.  As for demonstrations, I don't mind
    them as long as they don't insist people listen to them.  I do not
    believe they have the right to disrupt a "basketball" game or otherwise 
    obstruct *any* organized endeavor.  If they have to be dragged away,
    then I think they are wrong!
    
            Peaceful protests in front of buildings or such is fine.
    
    
    Dave.....

    	RE: .25  Sharon
    
    	> I am simply suggesting that we not fool ourselves about the wonderful
    	> message we're sending to the world about this country in allowing 
    	> protests.  Truth is, that message will vary widely according to the 
    	> receiving ears, and it won't always be positive.
    
    	Saddam is rebroadcasting the peace rallies in Iraq - he labels them
    	"U.S. anti-American, PRO-SADDAM" demonstrations.
    
    	We're already in the war.  If Bush were to listen to the protests
    	now and hold back, it would be the worst thing that could happen to
    	our troops.  He would hold one hand behind their backs and it would
    	cause many more of their deaths.
    
    	Sorry to the protesters, but I hope Bush ignores them (and it sounds
    	as though he is doing exactly that.)
    
    	This isn't Viet Nam.  Saddam's best crack at diplomacy has been to 
    	tell us that our blood will rain from the skies and that jackels will
    	eat our corpses.  He is a threat to the entire world, including us.
    
    	I'm against war.  I'm against violence.  But I'm more against the
    	idea of Saddam firing nuclear weapons at our country a few years
    	from now (and I believe we could have *counted* on him to do this.)
    
    	Look at the determination Saddam has shown to drag Israel into this 
    	war - a few years from now, he would have done the same to us (except 
    	the missiles would have had nuclear warheads.)
    
    	I support the use of force against Saddam.  I hope it will be finished
    	quickly so that our troops can come home.
    
    	And I'm not a hawk by any stretch of the imagination.

    I was all for the protests prior to the war and felt a lot more people
    could have gotten involved or Wondered whether there was a payoff to
    the media to stay away from filming or interviewing protesters?  Anyone
    else doubting our government to that extent?
    
    BUT now that we've engaged ourselves in the war I feel we have to
    support our troops there and let them know we're behind them 100%.  Not
    our government, the troops.
    
    As an old flower child, I was hoping for the following "fantasy" to
    occur.  That all the soldiers over in Saudi Arabia would lay down their
    guns in unison and say "we're not going to do it".  We don't believe in
    war no more and feel there must be a way to dialogue our way out of
    this mess.  POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
    
    I also thought about what if I were a young man and was told to go.  I
    don't believe I could have done it.  But then I guess they really had
    no choice at that point?  There's no such thing as a military protest?
    Innocent lambs to the slaughter.  I guess that's how I view them and
    what an awful position to be in.

re: .27 (Suzanne)

    I figured Saddam would seize on the idea of broadcasting the 
    demonstrations (I would have been really surprised if he hadn't).  
    What dictator wouldn't love a media freebie from the enemy themself?

    To those who view a conflict in terms of black and white, grey is not
    a separate color, it is either black or white.  And traditionally, war 
    is a black-white situation: there are the good-guys, and there is the 
    enemy.  Citizens of the participating countries are on one side or the 
    other: their hats are white, or they are black.  War protesters seek
    to separate themselves from either side, and in doing so they end up
    in grey hats.  To show that grey hat in public is to play a media 
    wildcard in a deadly game.

    I was against the use of force against Saddam.  I am highly skeptical
    that Saddam posed a real threat to US territory.  I don't agree with
    Bush's handling of this conflict, and I don't think going to war was
    in our national best interests.  However, that's irrelevant to the
    situation now at hand; it's politically incomprehensible to fight half 
    a war, then return to sanctions as if nothing had happened.

    My sympathies are largely with the protesters.  I want our troops home,
    safely, and I don't agree with the US foreign and domestic policies of
    the past several decades that brought them to Saudi Arabia in the first 
    place.  I agree with their right to protest unhindered.  I agree with 
    much of what they are saying.  But I can't agree that their method of 
    expression is one which promotes peace.

	Sharon 
    (whose grey hat is home in the closet until it learns to behave itself 
    in front of TV cameras).

    > The latest peace march in Seattle involved 30,000 people carrying
    > candles and walking silently through the night.
    >
    > Violence, nor even shouting, was present.
    
    Could you ship a couple dozen organizers to SF and Berkeley?  Here, 
    the protestors are shooting up recruiting offices, burning police 
    cars, lighting bonfires on major streets, smashing car windows, 
    shouting angry slogans, and blocking the Bay Bridge.  I don't have any
    problem with their opinions, but these particular methods of expressing
    themselves are execrable.
    
    DougO

    .18
    
    well said joe and thank you for saying it.
    
    D.

    re .29 Sharon, maybe Saddam hussein doesn't pose a threat to
    either US territory of to our immediate interests. *But* is
    a thief not a threat merely because he victimizes people in
    another town ? 
    
    The world today is a pretty small place. A 'thief in the next town' 
    _is_ a threat to my interests. He may never steal from me, but his
    continued thievery erodes the fundamental mutual respect for rights
    which is the basis for peaceful society. 
    
    Saddam Hussein has shown himself to be a very large thief in a
    small world. That the property he has stolen belongs to Kuwait
    rather than to me is irrelevant. He is a threat to the _idea_
    of respect for property, rights, sovereignty, all the abstract
    things that make a peaceful world possible.
    

    Doug, you might want to read Jym Dyer's account of the San Francisco
    demonstrations, which I posted elsewhere in this conference.
    
    -- Mike

    I do not know whether this war was necessary. I believe Mr. Bush
    did not try everything before he attacked Iraq. So, I will *never*
    know whether this war was necessary.
    
    Calling this a "human rights" issue is as simplistic as "no blood
    for oil". IF we're so concerned about human rights, why did we wait
    until it was Kuwait? We had plenty of other choices before this. There
    are lots of issues involved here, and pardon my cynicism, but this is
    not a war of selfless intent on Mr. Bush's part.
    
    I believe Mr. Bush was spoiling for a fight, and so was Mr Hussein.
    I believe Mr. Bush was wrong in not trying everything. Therefore,
    I am totally in support of those who protest because they believe he
    was wrong to start war, AND I am totally in support of those who 
    protest because they believe war is wrong, period. 
    
    Those who are protesting just to raise hell (and it seems there are
    some) and create destruction do NOT have my support. Unfortunately,
    one can't tell who these people are, as they are part of the larger,
    peaceful group, until they start trouble. Those who are FBI agents
    starting trouble to put the demonstrators in a bad light don't have
    my support, either, if they're there, yet.
    
    I support those who, and I reserve my own right to, protest at the
    actions of my government. That's what this country is about.
    
    That humans have not evolved far enough to solve problems without
    war saddens me. 
    
    --DE
    

    Dawn, I'd be the last to argue that Bush's motives are simon-pure.
    But that doesn't change the moral status of this war. Heck, Bush is
    probably doing the right thing purely by accident. (Is there an
    icon for a 'dark humor' smile?) 

    Thanks, Mike; in catching up with the conference today, I did come
    across Jym's message, which is a useful perspective.  Just how useful
    strikes me as fodder for a basenote, so perhaps interested parties can
    follow to another topic, coming to a screen near you shortly...;-)
    
    DougO

>    re .29 Sharon, maybe Saddam hussein doesn't pose a threat to
>    either US territory of to our immediate interests. *But* is
>    a thief not a threat merely because he victimizes people in
>    another town ? 

        My gut reaction to this is "so you think that the Boston
        Police should go after everyone who robs a convenience store
        in Los Angeles"?  Note that I'm actually not disagreeing with you
        that Saddam was/is a threat.

>    The world today is a pretty small place. A 'thief in the next town' 
>    _is_ a threat to my interests. He may never steal from me, but his
>    continued thievery erodes the fundamental mutual respect for rights
>    which is the basis for peaceful society. 

        Everyone has their own criteria for when a war is "the best
        solution", even if that criteria is "never".  Your criteria and
        mine are different; I feel that given the current US economic
        situation and the fact that the threat posed by Iraq was not
        directly territorial, that solutions could have been found that
        were more in our national best interests.  

	Unlike you, I feel zero obligation to launch a violent defense 
	of "fundamental mutual respect for rights" halfway around the 
	world.  On the contrary, I feel it conflicts with other moral
	obligations we have to our present and future citizens.

            Sharon

    
    Bush didn't try everything to avoid the war.
    If both side step back, war can be avoid.  Yes, Saddam is bad,
    but US should be the one fighting the war.
    
    What's wrong with promising for a mid-east conference?
    Bush just want to save his 'big face' and go to war to have some
    many people lose their life.   We don't need a hawk president who
    resorts to troop in every major foreign event and just ignore
    the domestic economic crisis we have.
    
    We should modify the law, so that 3/4 is necessary in congress
    to authorize the president to engage US in a war.

        re .38,
        
>>    What's wrong with promising for a mid-east conference?
        
        It's on the same principle as that you don't negotiate
        with terrorists.  If you reward a country for invading
        and taking over another, you just encourage a repetition
        of that action.
        
        Dan

I support the protesters and plan to be one when I don't have to work :-).

I don't support this war, or any war, as a method of solving problems.

I don't base my actions on how different parties might read them if 
they're shown on TV, but on what I believe.  (The image of protestors is 
an image to many audiences.  You can't play to them all.)

And I don't think we should all sit quietly and "show solidarity" right now
for propoganda value.  It's way too likely that this war will go on for
a long time, and I want to remind the folks in charge *every day*, that
they *really* should be trying to stop.  It'd be too easy, after the
initial air strikes, and then the initial intense ground combat/killing,
for the allies to get into a stalemate and just sit there, waiting for Saddam
Hussein to do something, or as a "peace-keeping" force, or as a
"world-police" force, or something -- keeping the war in fact going.
It'll be easier to stay if there isn't constant pressure from the people
of the world on the governments to move on to peace.

I want to be able to say, some day, when a child, or a niece or nephew,
or a pet says "What did *you* do in the War?", that I did something to
try to get it to end sooner, to minimize the killing, to bring peace.
All I can do is express myself, so I'm going to do it, and I thank the
people who are doing it day after day, while I'm only doing it when it's
convenient.

	MKV

    Mary, that was wonderfully expressed.  Thank you for writing that.
    
    All we can ask of ourselves is that we do what we can.  The real
    failure is in not trying.
    
    -- Mike

    
    "Though I disagree, as men may, with your words, yet would I
     lay down my life in defense of your right to express them"
    
    						- Patrick Henry
    
    "The right of peaceable public assembly and debate is the foundation
     of freedoms which, if this union is to succeed, must serve to enrich 
    and preserve the very spirit of democracy"
    
    					- John Quincy Adams 
    
    
    As long as there have been wars, there have been protests.
    Let us pray that the "freedom" to engage in such protests,
    which has been the birthright of all Americans, is never
    lost. I do not believe there is a single sane person who
    would claim to "enjoy" or "be glad of" this war, or any
    war. 
    
    but-
    
    In 1980, Saddam Hussein began in earnest to acquire equipment
    and materials, the purpose of which could only have been used
    in the construction of a nuclear device. By 1987 he requires
    only the nuclear material itself to complete the project.
    
    but-
    
    In 1984, America confirmed Saddam's use of mustard gas against
    the Iranian forces he has waged war against for five years.
    
    but-
    
    In 1985, Iraqi terrorist Abul Abbas murders wheelchair-bound
    American Leon Klinghoffer on board the cruise ship Achille Lauro.
    This is the man Saddam has charged to help carry out his mission 
    to "slay the Great Satan which is America". Numerous terrorist
    attacks, sponsered by Iraq are commited in Europe and Africa.
    
    but-
    
    In 1986, Amnisty International releases it's report on some
    of the atrocities commited on Iranian, Kurd, and even Iraqian
    prisoners at the hands of Saddam. A battle-hardend, former
    Korean POW states that he is "shocked and sickened" by the
    details of the report.
    
    but-
    
    In 1987, Abdul Mahaz, member of Saddam's "Council of Advisers"
    disagrees with Saddam over military policy. He is put to death
    by being "drawn and quartered". His wife is forced to observe
    the execution.
    
    but-
    
    In 1988, Saddam uses mustard gas on the Kurds in the town of
    Halabjah, killing over 5000, and permanantly crippling over
    10,000 more. 70,000 refugees fled to Turkey.
    
    but-
    
    In 1990, Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. His elite "Republican
    Guard" troops rape and murder hundreds of innocent civilians 
    at Saddams command. Many were captured and tortured, others 
    executed immediately.
    At Mahm Bazek, a mass grave stands where dozens of Kuwaities
    including women and children were doused with gasoline and 
    burned alive. Saddam declars that Kuwait is "liberated", and
    confiscates the country's few national treasures.  
    
    In 1991, after giving up on any possiblity of a diplomatic solution,
    the United States and rest of the NATO alliance attack Iraq,
    resorting to war to force Saddam's army from a stricken
    Kuwait. Saddam pledges that "America's blood will flow in
    rivers. Carion shall feast on their stinking bodies uncounted".
    
    What might Hitler have achieved without U.S. intervention?
    What might Saddam achieve?
    What do you believe this man thinks of peace?
    
    
    Thank God for those who speak the courage of their convictions.
    
    Thank God for those who have the strength to choose a lesser evil,
    to stop a much, much greater one.
    
                                                  

    In general, I support the US presence in the Gulf (though I disagree
    on a number of specific points). That said, my opinion on the
    protestors is along the lines of Paul's in .11. Not only do I
    feel that people have the right to express disagreement with the
    government's policies, I feel that they have the *moral obligation*
    to so express themselves if that's how they feel.
    
    This is, however, predicated on the practice of peaceful assembly,
    and one that does not interfere with other people's day to day
    business. When protestors sit across a major street and block
    traffic or take pot-shots at military recruiters, they're stepping
    over the line.
    
    The other day, one of the local news stations was interviewing a
    Military Police unit that was leaving for Arabia from a Boston-area
    base. They asked a few of the soldiers what they thought of the
    protestors. Every one they interviewed (or rather, showed) said,
    basically, "Their right to protest is exactly what we're fighting
    for."
    
    --- jerry

    
    yes, thank you mary!
    

    
    RE: .42
    
    Every government leaders who brought war to us in the past
    would have told you a lot of reasons why we had to go to
    war.
    
    Can you remember what were the reasons we went into Vietnam
    var?  They were probably more justified than those in .42
    
    It is very simple to avoid the war - Just promise for a 
    mid-east conference in the future.  This is not a consession
    or lose of Bush's face.  It is long over due.

    Please see note 593.178