Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    I appologise for taking so long to pull this together.
    
    Bonnie

    
    
    I'll start!
    
    I heard on the news another first of this war.  A female Army Major was
    flying mission support in a big Chinook helo.  She flew three missions
    into KTO.  It was the first flight of a female pilot into a combat zone
    of the Gulf War.
    

    re:.2
    
    Actually, from the way I saw it Monday evening on CNN, there were
    *three* female copter pilots in the excursions into Iraq.
    
    --- jerry

    Regarding Hussein's decision to pull out of Kuwait, declaring it no
    longer the 19th province of Iraq.  He's essentially declared a moral
    victory and has said he's leaving.  
    
    In my opinion, world opinion now dictates that the coalition forces
    cease fighting.  But there has been the suggestion that we chase the
    Iraquis right back to Baghdad until he acknowledges *all* the U.N.
    resolutions as having standing.  
    
    To be honest with you, other than the "liberation of Kuwait" I don't
    know what the other resolutions say.  I thought the order to allow
    force sort of supplanted the previous ones.  Yes, I'm told one of them
    talks about reparations.  Fine.  What do the rest of them say, and is
    it worth chasing a retreating army to get Hussein to acknowledge these
    other resolutions? 
    
    I appreciate your insight.
    
    mdh 

  Re: First few.  One of the relatively important outcomes of women piloting the
choppers is that the phrase "men/boys at the front" is no longer operative.
If nothing else, perhaps this event will have changed women's role in the
military.  And once that's gone, maybe acceptance of gays etc. will become more
then norm.

Jim

RE:  .4
    
>    is it worth chasing a retreating army to get Hussein to acknowledge these
>    other resolutions? 
    
    I think we should let the retreating army retreat.  On foot.  They
    should be allowed to take no military hardware, not even a pistol, out
    of Kuwait.  That would bring additional stability to the region.  I
    think that a march on Baghdad you be playing into Saddam's hand. 
    Saddam's troops appear to not be willing to defend the "19th province." 
    Saddam's troops would be much more willing to fight to the death to
    defend Baghdad, however. 
    
    Also, a march on Baghdad would not sit well with Us-Soviet relations.
    
    NICK
       

    re .4

    Other UN resolutions still in force involve war reparations (Iraq
    being held responsible for damages to Kuwait, which from reports
    are extreme - they've destroyed most Government buildings in
    Kuwait City), and restoration and recognition of the Kuwaiti
    government.

    The following "analysis" is a summary of the commentary from CNN
    this morning, filtered through just a smidgen of cynicism.

    The US has stated it will not engage withdrawing troops which have
    left their arms behind. (Nothing said about legs.) Since armed
    troop columns heading North may still be heading towards
    encircling coalition troops, their intentions can't be assumed to
    be peaceful, and will be engaged (according to US). Also, the (so
    to speak) "rules of war" have no precedent for one side in a war
    to say "Okay, we've won; let's take our tanks and go home, see you
    guys around". Traditionally, the proper protocol is "Okay, you've
    won, we surrender, here's all my tanks, where's my aid package?"
    Iraq hasn't used that "S" word, and appear to be trying to leave
    with as much armament as possible. In view of what they've done to
    Kuwait, the coalition's stance seems to be "Nope, you haven't said
    the magic word yet".

>                                  they refused to award her a combat
>  medal while awarding them to the men who fought under her.

    -d,
    
    Are you sure about this?  Everyone who *went* to Panama got a combat
    medal.  Every campaign has it's own medal.
    
    People who earn extra medals for combat through leadership,
    selflessness, or getting injured get them by recommendation from
    witnesses.  I don't think there is any room for sexual discrimination
    here.  If top Army Brass went out of their way to prevent an award to a
    female, then I think it would have become a highly publicised scandal.
    
    NICK
    

    Nick,
    
    I am certainly speaking from a position of noticable ignorance here,
    but I am aware that while everyone who went to *Grenada* got a medal,
    I had believed that it was specifically not true for Panama.  Also,
    I am aware that Sen. Schroeder (sp?) did bring up this question, and
    it did make the news, so it was publicised, even if it doesn't quite
    make the grade for "a highly publicised scandal".
    
    							Ann B.

    Nick, what's KTO?  is that a DEC site designation? :-)
    
    About the UN resolutions, SH, etc:
    My interpretation of what I've heard is that the UN resolutions go
    beyond merely requiring Iraq to physically withdraw from Kuwait.  They
    address war reparations, the restoration of the original govt of
    Kuwait, the "restoration of peace and security to the area" which is
    being interpreted by some to mean that Iraq must be deprived of the
    _ability_ to threaten its neighbors militarily again.  An important one
    (resolution) is that Iraq must formally and legally renounce any claim
    to Kuwaiti territory.
    
    Another issue -- not sure whether it is directly addressed in the UN
    resolutions -- is the demographics of Kuwait after the war.  Many
    Kuwaitis fled the country, but far more could or did not.  The Iraqis
    are reported to have killed (in various inventive ways) a very large
    number of Kuwaitis, and to have physically removed a large number of
    Kuwaitis (couple of tens of thousands? not sure of number) to Iraq,
    replacing them with a new, Iraqi population.
    
    The various Iraqi positions taken before (and since) the start of the
    ground war were trying to (opinion alert) weasel out of responsibility
    for the effects of the invasion, and for making right the wrongs they
    have wrought, and out of the commitment to not invade their neighbors
    again.  This is what was meant by "we'll get out of Kuwait, since you
    insist, but then you must promise not to punish us for what we did --
    the UN sanctions and resolutions must be rendered null and void".
    
    Sara

    
    
    RE:  .12
    
    KTO is probably a DEC site, but I was talking about the Kuwaiti Theatre
    of Operations.  
    
    
    No matter what the UN resolutions say, we also need to be very careful. 
    We can't let Saddam re-group and re-organize an invasion force under
    the cover of a "peaceful" withdrawl.
    
    NICK
    

    I personally wish we could get all sides to leave their weapons behind.

    With regard to the reparations, I believe Iraq was already in debt (one
    of the main reasons for their invading Kuwait?), so even if they agree
    to pay for damages, if they don't have the money, Kuwait will never see
    it.

    I hope that now that (if) the Iraqui army is retreating, this thing
    will finally be over.  I can see that given that we live in a world
    where almost every country is armed with enough deadly weapons to do
    a great deal of damage, there needs to be some world-wide response to
    aggression (would that the response were meted out more evenly, but..),
    but I still feel very strongly, that Bush had several opportunities to
    negotiate, and he refused.  I believe that he had the chance to save
    many lives, and he chose military escalation instead.

    It sounds like many of the Iraqui soldiers were/are fighting under duress.
    (I reached this opinion because of the accounts by deserters).  So it's
    hard for me to think of those soldiers as "the enemy" even though
    they're out there trying to kill us, and we measure a great deal of our
    success by how many of them we kill.  I am angry that George Bush and
    Saddam Hussein used the lives of others to fight their war.  And I
    don't think it's right.

    These are strong opinions that I've voiced here, but I own them, and I
    am entitled to them.  I am hoping that folks who feel differently about
    this can state their opinions without attacking me (or people who share
    my views).  I guess I'm offering myself up as the test baloon here to
    see if we can talk about our opinions here without abusing each other.
    If this note causes a "storm," I suspect that one of the other
    moderators will delete this note and any following it that don't
    adhere to the guidelines for this string.

    Justine

RE:   .14
    
>    I am angry that George Bush and
>    Saddam Hussein used the lives of others to fight their war.
    
    I don't think this claim is substantiated by actions, and I don't think
    history will look upon this as Bush v. Hussein.
    
    First, on the Allied side.  It took many more leaders (30 something) to
    use lives of others to fight this war.  Secondly, a great majority of
    the lives actually fighting this war are proud to be there fighting,
    and they believe in what they are fighting for. (With the noted
    exception of a few vocal soldiers who joined the military for just
    money or just to protect their own homeland.)
    
    Secondly, on Iraq's side.  I would infer that a great percentage of the
    Iraqi people support Saddam Hussein.  Although his cannon-fodder front
    line conscripts were dragged into battle, they believe or did believe
    that their cause was just and their cause was right.  I think this war
    boils down to those who cherish a nation of Kuwait v. those who cherish
    a 19th province in Iraq, with G. Bush and S. Hussein being the
    figureheads of their respective ideas.
    
    NICK
    

Iraq still has debts from the Iran/Iraq war, which was one of their stated
reasons for invading Kuwait - they accused the Kuwaitis of lowering the price
of oil by pumping more than OPEC guidelines would permit, thus making it harder
for Iraq to pay its war debts.

This is pure speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised to see settlements
proposed that would garnish some of Iraq's (future) oil profits for reparations.
The reason I find this theory attractive is that it would also make it more
difficult for Iraq to rebuild its military, which is a major concern of the
Kuwaiti government.  However, to be acceptable to the Americans this would
probably have to include some agreed-upon set price for that oil, as there
could potentially be too much incentive to the Saudis and Kuwaitis (traditional
advocates within OPEC of lowered oil prices) to keep prices higher, if the
reparations were on a percentage basis.

    Sharon

    <I am angry that George Bush and Saddam Hussein used the lives of
    <others to fight their war.  And I don't think it's right.


    That is an extremely personalized view of both of them.
    I think if you are going to make such ad hominem statements you have a
    responsibility to ...
    
    a) defend them (including some kind of a discussion of the
    psychological theory implicit in such a statement)
    b) State that they are an expression of your personal value
    system and are not open for discussion.
    

 

DEC site KTO is Kyoto, Japan.

	-- Charles

One of the oldest military tactics known is to pretend to retreat or surrender 
and then attack the other side.

In view of Iraqi behaviour at Khafji it is impossible to trust Saddam's troops 
to withdraw, unless they leave their arms behind. 

Saddam wants to recognise UNR 660 but ignore the subsequent ones calling on him
to pay reparations and repudiate his "historical claim" to Kuwait. He is
behaving like a small boy, who having lost a game chooses to take his ball
home so that he can play another day.

There are only two safe ways he can remove his forces from Kuwait:

1) they can lay down their arms and abandon their vehicles and walk north

2) they can lay down their arms and abandon their vehicles and surrender to
the coalition whence they'll be gicen a bus ride to a camp where they'll be
given good food a reasonable bed and a shower...

If they attempt to take their arms with them they are both a legitimate military
target and a substantial threat: they must be attacked [playtime for the A10s
and Apaches]

/. Ian .\ 

re: .14
Thank you, Justine, for expressing that.

I'm angry too, and sad, every day this goes on, and every day that 
opportunities to minimize bloodshed are passed up by Bush.
(Including: not waiting longer for sanctions, not being open
to talks to avoid starting the war, not being open to peace efforts by
Iran, not being open to peace efforts by the Soviet Union, and
continuing to attack the Iraqis who are leaving Kuwait.)

I'm also angry that we've sacrified our Freedom of the Press here,
and now have no way of knowing what's  really going on.  I can't
believe without question the words that the government and the military
choose to tell us, based on history.  I'm angry that we're being
manipulated by the PR experts in the military and the government, and
not given information to make up our own minds.

[As with Justine's note, if this note doesn't adhere to the new guidelines,
I'm assuming the moderators will do their thing and delete it or ask me to --
no problem.]

I think it can be easy to lose sight of the human side of war, if a discussion
is phrased in the military euphimisms and jargon being fed to us, and
is only about technology and strategy and rules of War.

	MKV

    RE:   705.52
    
>     In the past days,
>    it's become increasingly clear that Bush refuses negotiation of any
>    sort.
    
 &   RE:   709.20
    
    I would like to ask....
    
    What exactly do you think President Bush or anyone for that matter
    should offer to Saddam Hussein?  Maybe the right to rule over Kuwaiti
    Oil?  Maybe the right to keep the things stolen from Kuwait?  Maybe the
    right to be allowed to continue to claim Kuwait as part of Iraq?  There
    is nothing to negotiate here.  Nothing to talk about.  The world has
    spoken, and it is time for Iraq to reaqt. [sic]
    
    Also, there is no proof that northbound Iraqi troops are withdrawing,
    surrendering, or complying with the UN resolutions in any way.
    
    NICK
    
        

    Uh, Herb?  I thought that the person used the word "I" throughout.  Why
    did you interpret it as a statement of fact and not as a personal
    opinion?
    
    Jim

    
    I want to talk about something only related to this war.
    That is, military service.  I don't know about you, but I would
    *never* take a job that would mean putting my job before my family
    for months and possibly years on end!  To the exclusion of even
    *seeing* them!
    
    This war has given me a new appreciation of the horrors of military
    service.  Let's say that *every one* of our military personnel comes
    back alive.  Then what?
    
    How many divorces will *this war* have caused? (Or less serious
    relational problems.)
    
    How many babies and children will have to be without their
    mothers and/or fathers during *this war*?
    
    There's the hardships on one-parent families to have to
    "do it all."
    
    Or, how about not being able to attend a child's birth (for fathers)
    or a parent's deathbed because of *this war*?
    
    On and on and on.
    
    *NOTHING* could *EVER* be worth any of that to me!  And I would hope
    if I had a child, that they would never sacrifice a relationship with
    a spouse or a child for *ANY* job!
    

RE:    709.23, if I may...
    
>    How many divorces will *this war* have caused? (Or less serious
>    relational problems.)
 
    This would be a total lack of consideration and a total
    misunderstanding of marriage and relationship on the part of the
    initiating partner.  If S/he was so shallow that 6-8 months is enough
    to extinguish the love, then S/he never really loved in the first
    place.
       
>    How many babies and children will have to be without their
>    mothers and/or fathers during *this war*?
 
    As many mothers and fathers who "signed on the line" after being told
    by their recruiter and their basic instructors that someday, somewhere,
    *they* may be asked to give their lives for their country.   
    
>    There's the hardships on one-parent families to have to
>    "do it all."
 
    What happens after, God forbid, a car accident or heart attack?  The
    military also takes very good care of families, better than any
    insurance agency.   
    
>    Or, how about not being able to attend a child's birth (for fathers)
>    or a parent's deathbed because of *this war*?
 
    Are these things *that* important, considering the circumstances?
       
    
>    *NOTHING* could *EVER* be worth any of that to me!  And I would hope
>    if I had a child, that they would never sacrifice a relationship with
>    a spouse or a child for *ANY* job!
 
    Thankfully, it is worth that to some people.
    
    NICK
       

    
    It's my understanding that one of the provisions on the UN resolutions
    that Hussein has *not* agreed to is that Iraq will be held responsible
    for any violations of human rights.
    
    I do *not* want this conflict to continue, but I cannot believe that we
    would let Hussein be blameless for the atrocities he has committed.
    
    =jamd

    <I am angry that George Bush and Saddam Hussein used the lives of others
    <to fight their war
    
    The "I" statement concerns anger
    Bush and Hussein used the lives of others is stated as if it were
    fact
    
    Let me also say that is is hard for me to convince myself that your
    reply was done in good will. 
    

    No offense meant, Herb.  I understand what you meant, now.
    
    Jim

    re .26, I think it *is* a fact that Bush and Hussein used the lives of
    others.  I don't see how anyone can think differently.  People are dead
    because Hussein and Bush, who are in charge, chose to take certain
    actions.  They did *use* the lives of others.  It may be argued that
    they had no choice, but they still did it.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    well Nick, guess we're at odds here...
    
    There are many many divorces after the soldier returns from combat;
    separation is extremely hard on the family structure.  From the 10
    years I spent as a military wife, I know many who had been married
    for quite a long time (approx. 5 years) and divorced within 3 years
    after the soldiers return.  Another casualty of war is alcoholism
    among the wives who are left behind to 'do it all.'  And contrary
    to what you seem to think, the military DOES NOT take care of the
    dependents once the soldier is gone.  (If he's missing in action,
    the family gets his pay until they find him; if he's KIA, they
    get his insurance or SS.)  But otherwise, zilch.  When my husband
    received orders to go to Vietnam within 3 weeks, I was ordered 
    *off base* ; the military didn't care where I lived, I had to find
    a place off base and move as soon as he was moved.  It wasn't
    a hardship for me; but I know families who were left homeless and
    in transition--kids pulled out of school, etc.--because they had
    no where to go after the orders had come through.
    
    And children are another casualty of war...I've seen much too many
    "army brats" who were old before their time, moved from base to base,
    saluting their soldier-parent, and mostly, saying "good bye."
    
    Maia
    

    re .24, I totally disagree with your comment that if 6-8 months is
    enough to extinguish love and maybe end a marriage that they never
    loved each other in the first place.  Love and life are not that
    simple.  All sorts of things can happen and go wrong in 8 months. 
    That's a long time to be apart from somebody, and meanwhile daily life
    goes on.  It can get complicated.
    
    Lorna
    

    s'more....
    
    Haven't you heard on the news of the dependents being in great need
    right now trying to make ends meet because they've lost their
    military benefits since the soldier is no longer living with them?
    
    Some communities actually have soup kitchens for these families!
    

    have you seen enough Bonnie?

    I don't have any personal experience with being part of a military
    family, but my day care provider's husband is part of Operation Desert
    Storm.  And the military has not supported her one bit.  As a matter of
    fact, I was there when someone called her up and threatened her when
    she pushed a little too hard to get the support that she thought she
    deserved.
    
    I don't think her marriage is in any trouble, but she is having a hard
    time adjusting to being alone with her 9-month old daughter and having
    total responsibility at home.  The military moved them to Fort Devens
    only a year ago and they have no family in the area, and from what I
    can see, a limited support structure. 
    
    judy

RE:   .28
    
    
>    re .26, I think it *is* a fact that Bush and Hussein used the lives of
>    others.  I don't see how anyone can think differently.  People are dead
>    because Hussein and Bush, who are in charge, chose to take certain
>    actions.  They did *use* the lives of others.  It may be argued that
>    they had no choice, but they still did it.
>    
>    Lorna
    
    
     Should I assume by this note, Lorna, that Henry Ford is personally
    responsible for tens of thousands of deaths every year?  And we call
    him a great American.   Sheeesh!
    
    
    NICK
    

    re .35, Nick, so you *do* have experience being married and separated
    and you know because of your personal experience that a "real marriage"
    would not be torn apart due to things of this nature.  I'm confused.  I
    don't recall reading your age anywhere but I thought you said you were
    a college student.
    
    I don't think that being married is always easy even when people are in
    love, and I don't think it takes much sometimes to wreck it.  A happy
    marriage can be a very delicate thing.
    
    Lorna
    

    
RE:   .32
    
>    s'more....
    
>    Haven't you heard on the news of the dependents being in great need
>    right now trying to make ends meet because they've lost their
>    military benefits since the soldier is no longer living with them?
    
    Actually, the news is doing stories about reservists who no longer have
    a steady income from their civilian jobs, right?  What military
    benefits are lost in this situation?
    
    NICK
        

RE:   .37
    
>    re .35, Nick, so you *do* have experience being married and separated
>    and you know because of your personal experience that a "real marriage"
>    would not be torn apart due to things of this nature.  I'm confused.  I
>    don't recall reading your age anywhere but I thought you said you were
>    a college student.
    
    Maybe I have a classmate in college whose husband is in SA who I
    communicate with almost daily over vaxmail?  Maybe I have been away
    from my fiancee a combined total of 8 months dues to co-op and summer
    break.
    
    Thanks Lorna for the interest in my experience.  I was hoping someone
    would ask.
    
    NICK
        

    re .39, no problem, Nick.  Anything else you were hoping I'd ask?
    
    Lorna
    

    re .28
    There is no ambiguity in my mind in the 'message' in the part of .14
    that I responded to. That message is that Bush and Hussein are using
    'innocent' soldiers to fight what the author perceives to be a
    _private_ battle between Bush and Hussein.
    
    I _think_ the message goes a LOT further than that as an expression of
    what the author actually believes concerning macho-ness, and
    phallic-ness etc and as an editorial comment about war. But that is
    more subjective.

    				herb

   UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Since Iraq invaded Kuwait on Aug. 2, the
U.N. Security Council has passed 12 resolutions condemning
Baghdad's government. The latest, which authorizes the use of
military force, was adopted Thursday. [that's referring to November -- Dan]

   Aug. 3 - One day after Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Security Council
voted 14-0 to condemn the invasion and demand the immediate and
unconditional withdrawal of Iraq's troops. Yemen, the only Arab
member of the council, did not vote on Resolution 660, saying it
did not have instructions.

   Aug. 6 - The council voted 13-0 to order a trade and financial
embargo of Iraq and occupied Kuwait. Cuba and Yemen abstained on
Resolution 661.

   Aug. 9 - In Resolution 662, the council voted 15-0 to declare
Iraq's annexation of Kuwait null and void in international law.

   Aug. 18 - In No. 664, the council voted 15-0 to demand that Iraq
free all detained foreigners.

   Aug. 25 - The council voted 13-0 to give the United States and
other naval powers the right to enforce the economic embargo
against Iraq and Kuwait by halting shipping to those countries.
Cuba and Yemen abstained on Resolution 665.

   Sept. 13 - The council voted 13-2 to allow humanitarian food aid
into Iraq or Kuwait only ``to relieve human suffering,'' and said
only the council could decide when those circumstances exist. Cuba
and Yemen voted against Resolution 666.

   Sept. 16 - The council voted 15-0 on Resolution 667 to condemn
Iraq's aggressive acts against diplomatic missions in Kuwait,
including the abduction of foreigners in the buildings.

   Sept. 24 - On Resolution 669, the council voted 15-0 to stress
that only its Sanctions Committee has the power to permit food,
medicine or other humanitarian aid to be sent into Iraq or occupied
Kuwait.

   Sept. 25 - The council voted 14-1 to explicitly expand its
economic embargo to include all air cargo traffic in or out of Iraq
and Kuwait, except for cargoes of humanitarian aid specifically
authorized by its Sanctions Committee. It also calls on U.N. member
nations to detain any Iraqi ships that may be used to break the
naval embargo. Cuba voted against Resolution 670.

   Oct. 29 - The council voted 13-0 to hold Iraq liable for war
damages and economic losses, to ask nations to collect evidence of
grave human rights abuses by the occupying forces, to demand that
the Western embassies in Kuwait City be restocked with food and
water, and to demand that all hostages be released. Cuba and Yemen
abstained on Resolution 674.

   Nov. 28 - The council voted 15-0 on Resolution 677 to condemn
Iraq's alleged attempts to drive out Kuwaitis and repopulate their
country, and it asked U.N. Secretary-General Javier Perez de
Cuellar to take possession of Kuwait's census and citizenship
records for safekeeping.

   Nov. 29 - The council voted 12-2, with one abstention, to give
Baghdad ``one final opportunity'' until Jan. 15 to comply with all
previous resolutions. After that date, nations allied with Kuwait
are authorized ``to use all necessary means'' to force Iraq to
withdraw and honor the resolutions, a phrase that all council
members agree would permit a military strike. China abstained on
Resolution 678; Cuba and Yemen voted against it.

    Ahem.  Could we please have a discussion (or series of 'em) that
    makes some sort of pretense of pertaining to this conference?
    
    Those desirous of other sorts of discussions will find pointers
    at note 593.178.
    
    						Ann B.
    						Comoderator

Nick, I don't see the parallel between political leaders and Henry Ford.
Of course political leaders use others to fight their wars; that's what standing
armies *are*: groups of people who are ready to fight wars if their political
leaders command them to do so.  This has been accepted custom for
centuries now; whether or not it is right is a different question.

Nobody has actually claimed that they should be held responsible for using
armies to fight a war rather than having a fistfight in the UN chambers.

[Of course, if you insist on dragging Henry Ford into it, then since Henry
used George Bush all those years to sell oil so that his company could sell 
cars that ran on it, then really Henry Ford is equally responsible, and rather
than George Bush vs. Saddam Hussein it could be Henry Ford vs. Saddam Hussein,
or, better, Henry Ford vs. Ayatollah Khomeini, since Iran could have surrendered
early in the Iran/Iraq war and prevented Iraq from incurring all those war
debts - and maybe given them some coastline - but wait.  If we leave it to
Henry Ford and Ayatollah Khomeini to duke it out in the UN chambers, how will
we know when someone's won?]

    Sharon

    
    
    RE:    .45
    
    
    Thank you for proving my point!  
    
    NICK
    

Nick, what I was proving is that your point was unfounded.  Justine said
that she didn't think it was *right* that they used others to wage war.
*Nobody* said that they should be held responsible; it's pretty obvious
that's not likely to happen, since it's not in "the rules", and "the rules"
are made by political leaders.

    Sharon

<Nobody has actually claimed that they should be held responsible for using
<armies to fight a war rather than having a fistfight in the UN chambers.

    I don't see how .14 could get much closer to that without actually
    saying it.

    
RE:   .47
    
>              -< what did you say your point was?  I'm confused. >-

>    Sharon
    
    My point was that it is as ridiculous to call this a Bush-Hussein war
    as it is rediculous to call this a Ford-Ayotollah war.  And you proved
    it!  :-)
    
    NICK
    

    
    It's easy to let feelings about personalities get in the way of
    realities when discussing it.
    
    Me, for one:  I personally cannot *stand* George Bush!  Didn't vote
    for him, won't ever vote for him under any circumstances, and my
    feelings about him have dug in even deeper over his handling of the war.
    
    But wait a sec!  His "handling" of the war that I'm angry at doesn't
    even include *being* at war!  We would probably be at war with Iraq at
    some point no matter who was president.  It's when Bush starts talking
    like a tenth grade bully, about "kicking ass" and appearing during the
    Super Bowl, I just see red.  The man's rhetoric is abhorrent.  He shows
    no remorse over being at war.  He's arrogant!  It's like he's trying to
    impress the lowest common denominator of society.
    
    None of which is exactly to say I don't think we should be at war.
    I'm not sure, and I choose neither to support nor protest this war.
    

    I've just set 4 notes hidden and written to their authors asking them
    to rewrite them. (If you don't know how to edit a note and move it
    back into place send me mail.) 
    
    Please, do not be so quick to take umbrage with people who have
    a different point of view than you do. If people cannot talk
    about this topic reasonably I'll shut the note down again.
    
    Bonnie

     Another recipe for chocolate cookies:

	2 ounces of chocolate
	3/4 cup shortening
	1 cup of suger
	10 egg
	1/2 teaspoon vanilla
	1/2 teaspoon salt
	2 tablespoons milk
	1.3 cups of flour


     Preheat the oven to 400F and eat the whole mess with
a wooden spoon.

Eugene

    inre .52
    
    :-)
    
    thankyou Eugene!

    re .36, Nick, so by sarcastically titling your note "good logic" are
    you publicly making fun of my ability to reason?  If so, I consider
    that to be a personal attack and ask that you delete that title.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Lorna
    

    re .24, Nick, I am astounded at your arrogance.
    
    >>    How many divorces will *this war* have caused? (Or less serious
    >>    relational problems.)
    >
    > This would be a total lack of consideration and a total
    > misunderstanding of marriage and relationship on the part of the
    > initiating partner.  If S/he was so shallow that 6-8 months is enough
    > to extinguish the love, then S/he never really loved in the first
    > place.
    
    Have you had these experiences?  Do you presume to judge other people 
    when you haven't walked in their shoes?  I humbly suggest that if you 
    haven't been married, haven't been through an 8-month separation, and 
    haven't been divorced, then you don't what you're talking about.  And
    if that's the case, your presumptiosness in calling other people 
    "shallow" is sadly out of place.  
    
    DougO

    re.38
    
    NPR, CNN, and numerous local network affiliates across the country are
    also doing stories on military families [as in regular, not reserve]
    who are in a world of hurt at present.
    
    I grew up a military dependent and I know first hand that when my
    father received orders for an isolated tour of duty either income to
    pay for housing [housing allowance] or actual shelter were lost to us.
    The government continued to house my father; after all their contract
    was with him, not his family.
    
    In our case, this was more vexing than it was catastrophic; but in the
    Vietnam era, I knew many families that had to go on assistance.  I knew
    many women who struggled to feed their families.  Money that in the
    family budget had been earmarked for food, abruptly had to cover food
    _and_ shelter.  
    
    There are many 'feed the children' private efforts going on about in
    areas where there are large concentrations of military postings --
    coastal Virginia; south-central Texas; southern California; the Gulf
    Coast to name a few.
    
    There's always talk of saving several months' pay; but in the lower
    ranks, compensation is not lavish in monetary terms [even with housing
    thrown in] and this is not always possible.
    
    Isolated tours of duty occur even in peacetime, so arguably the need
    exists to help military families always. [certainly I would not argue
    against it]  However, the large shift in demographics makes the the
    need more acute by sheer force of numbers.
    
      Annie

    
    
    
    Lorna:
    
    No I am not making fun of your ability to reason.  The title "good
    logic" was a title to *my* reply.  It was implying nothing, and it was
    not out of sarcasm.  The title "Good Logic" simply means that I
    consider my reply to be, in fact, good logic.  I do not believe you
    have been wronged in any way.
    
    NICK
    

    
    
    RE:   .52
    
    
    10 eggs?    Cholesterol city!
    
    

    
    
    Anyone heard any more news today?  Last I heard was that some Iraqui
    troops were withdrawing, but there had also been some "exchanges."
    
    I wish there could be a cease-fire while the UN works out the terms of
    withdrawal: what they can take with them, how long they have, what the
    next step is.  Personally, if we could end the fighting today, I
    wouldn't mind waiting months or years for the other things to get
    settled.  I mean, if this guy is a "madman," what difference does it
    make what he says about renouncing any claim to Kuwait?  I think if he
    gets out of Kuwait, the shooting should stop, and the sanctions could
    continue until or unless the other conditions are met.
    
    Justine

    
    
    RE:  news
    
    There is a huge engagement at Kuwait City International Airport between
    tanks  (British and Marine against Rep. guard)
    
    Iraqi troops are not withdrawing.  They are retreating.
    DEFINITION:
    withdraw----To put your guns down and walk home
    retreat-----To run towards home to prepare to fight again
    
    The Kuwaiti flag is flying over Kuwait City.
    
    
    

    re .36, well, first of all, Nick, *I* have never thought of Henry Ford
    as being a "great American."  I thought he was just a guy who invented
    an assembly line and went into business and got rich.  I, also, don't
    tend to think in terms of people being "great Americans."  I don't care
    for extreme displays of patriotism, so when I think of someone being
    great I tend to think of the person as just being "great" rather than
    being a "great American" or "great Frenchman" or whatever.  Secondly,
    Henry Ford may have made a cheap car accessible to everyone but he
    didn't tell them to drive like irresponsible fools so, no, I wouldn't
    say that it was his fault that so many have died on the roads.  It is
    possible to drive a car without killing or being killed.  It is not
    possible to wage a war without killing and being killed.  The intent is
    different.  Car accidents are accidents.  Killing in war is
    intentional.  
    
    Lorna
     

        re .52,
        
>> Preheat the oven to 400F ...
        
        Sure, that's easy to say, but the energy to do that has
        to come from somewhere ...
        
        Dan

    re .60

    No problem, use the stove my grandmother used until she died (in
    her 90s)...

    First you need kindling. Once you get the fire going, you use the
    iron handle to lift the lid (don't lean over it if you value your
    eyebrows) and stuff a couple more sticks of wood in until the
    temperature's *just* right...

    
    INTERLUDE...
    
    Hopefully, there will no longer be a war for us to discuss.
    
    Praying for peace.
    'gail

This letter is being distributed by Jubilee Partners, a Christian intentional
community in Georgia affiliated with the Koinonia Community.  Someone from
there is accompanying a group from the Fellowship of Reconciliation that is
going next week to Israel, Jordon, and Iraq next week to distribute medical
supplies to civilian hospitals and refugee camps.  This letter is meant to be
sent by American citizens to be distributed to Iraqi citizens.  Print this
out, sign your name and (if you want) address, and send it to: Jubilee
Partners, Box 68, Comer, GA, 30629, by *March 1*. (The group is leaving March
2nd.)  You may also FAX it (if you don't have time to mail it) to (404)
783-5134.  Call J.P. at (404) 783-5131 for more info.  This letter will be
translated into Arabic.  Feel free to send your own letters for distribution,
but they cannot promise that those will be translated.
 
<------------------- 8< ---------- cut here ---------- >8 -------------------->
 
Dear Friends in Iraq,
 
  For just a few moments I would like to forget the political differences of
our two contries and communicate with you simply as one person to another.  Of
course I have no way of knowing who will receive this letter, but I will trust
God to guide it to someone who will listen to what I would like to say.
 
  I know it must be difficult for you to believe that there are millions of us
here in the United Sates who are very sad about the suffering of your people.
Many of us have seen the reports of your men, women, and little children
killed and injured by our weapons, and we grive with you even at this
distance.
 
  The reason I send this letter is to ask you to forgive us for the violence
that you are suffering at the hands of my country and others.  I wish I could
visit you personally, speak with you, meeet your family, and learn to know you
as a human being like myself.  Maybe that will be possible someday.
 
  It is tragic that the people of your nation and the whole Arab world have
experienced Christianity so often in history as a source of violence rather
than as a source of love and understanding.  In that way we have gone
absolutely against the teachings of Jesus.  He was a man of great compassion
who taught his followers to love all people.  It may be that you, whether
Christian or Muslim or of whatever religion, can help us learn to be more true
to our own faith.
 
  Each of us has a dream of a world in which all people can live in peace.
That cannot be achieved by even the best of governments unless the people of
our countries are willing to reach out to each other, overcoming our fears of
each other and trying to understand our differences.  If we do not make the
effort ourselves, our children are likely to fight against each other in the
future.  Surely we are all alike in our desire that our children live in peace
rather than in war.
 
  I ask you to forgive, and I promise to work in my own country to promote
greater understanding and compassion toward your people.  I include my own
address below and invite you to respond to this letter if possible.  With
God's help we can do a small part to bring peace and goodness to both our
countries.
 
                                        Sincerely,
 
                                             ____________________
 
                                             ____________________
 
                                             ____________________
 
                                             U.S.A.

    
    I belive one story that was not "cleared" for publication by the
    censors had to do with bomber pilots watching pornographic films
    right before their bombing missions.  It was thought that this would be
    an embarrassment if it got out, but I hardly see the security risk of
    revealing that info., so I think the censors may be abusing their
    power.
    
    Justine

    The porn films may indeed be a 'secret weapon'.  They were reported
    also to have been used by the British going into the Falklands to
    increase the aggression level of the troops.

    So if a revelation could alter public opinion about war in a direction
    counter to what the government wants, then it should be censored?  How
    democratic.

    -- Mike

    
    
    1)  Fighter/Bomber pilots should be allowed to watch whatever types of
    films they want, whenever they want, just like anyone.
    
    2)  You can rest assured that Allied Fighter/Bomber pilots do not need
    porn to be aggressive enough to achieve Air Supremecy and deliver the
    ordinance.
    
    3)  Fighter/Bomber pilots should be allowed to watch whatever they
    want, without it going on the news.  Just like anyone. 
    
    NICK
    

    
    Interesting how no one in any position of authority in the justice
    dept., police, etc. will acknowledge that certain types of pornography
    may lead to an increase in violence but that the Brit. govt. felt that
    showing pornographic films right before a bombing mission would make
    their pilots more aggressive.
    
    
    Justine

    I strongly AGREE that information that fliers are watching 'DIRTY'
    pictures should be aired.
    
    (perhaps along with pictures of the goings-on in Kuwait City, the last 7
    months?)
    
    

    re.70
    
    Nick,
    
      I wholly support all three of your points.
    
      However, personal viewing choices are not at issue.
    
      At issue is the inclusion of pornography as part of the pre-flight
    briefings.
    
      It is most certainly not a case of being 'allowed to watch whatever
    types of films they want, whenever they want, just like anyone.' It is
    a career-limiting move to get up and walk out of a pre-combat flight
    briefing.
    
      Annie

    -d,

    I don't believe that censorship of information *in order to control
    public opinion* is not a valid function of the government in a
    democratic society.  When the government controls the distribution of
    information because it is afraid of the consequences of public opinion,
    then we are not talking about a democratic government any more--we are
    talking about fascism.

    The fact that a country is at war does not relieve the public from the
    right to formulate its own opinions about the morality or validity of
    that war or its conduct; nor does it absolve the government from the
    responsibility to insure that right.  To do otherwise is to allow the
    government to absolve itself of any moral responsibility for its
    actions.  American public, for example, had the right to hear about the
    My Lai massacre, whether the military liked it or not. 

    I would prefer that the government not decide for me, or for the press,
    what constitutes "news", as a means of furthering its own policy aims.

    -- Mike

re: .70 ("Fighter/Bomber pilots should be able to watch whatever they want,
	  without it going on the news.  Just like anyone.")

    Actually, this wouldn't be the first time someone's viewing preferences
    made it into the news.  I remember reading an article listing all the
    videos the Bork family had rented in the past six months (year?) from 
    local video stores.

    Evidently there's a segment of the population that believes we are what
    we watch.  The last three movies I've seen are C'est la Vie, (part of)
    Scenes from a Mall, and Bull Durham.  I wonder what this says about me?

        Sharon

    Scarey, isn't it.  That to make men more aggressive, they show
    movies of presumably women and sex and children and sex and men and
    sex and animals and sex.
    
    And yet, pornography doesn't lead to violence, does it?
    
    Sigh.
    M.
    

>    Scarey, isn't it.  That to make men more aggressive, they show
>    movies of presumably women and sex and children and sex and men and
>    sex and animals and sex.
    
Can you say  "Out-of-control wildfire"    ?
    
    
    Seriously, when did bestiality and pediophility become part of this
    discussion?
    
    NICK
    
    

    Nick
    
    its pedophilia (or pederasty)

    
This is a military briefing from 27 Feb.  It is anything but brief.  It is very
informative, and it gives casualty numbers.  Gen Schwartzkopf is the briefer.



    We made a very deliberate decision to align all our forces
    looking north across the border to Kuwait, and made sure that a
    lot of people saw our extensive naval activity in the gulf.
    
    Basically they outnumbered us 2 - 1, in order to attack such
    heavily dug in troops, one should have a 5-1 advantage in
    troops.
    
    We had to find a way to do this without having the physical
    numbers. We started an extensive air campaign in order to
    isolate the KTO from the north part of Iraq.
    
    We also bombed a lot of the forces in the KTO itself,
    particularly along the front line where we had to go through.
    
    We also had to make Iraq believe that we were going to land by
    sea, remember the extensive writing about Imminent Thunder ?
    
    After we took out his Air Force, we had eliminated his eyes in
    the area. When we knew he couldn't see us anymore, we pulled a
    "hail Mary" type play, as used in football - we moved most of
    our troops out west. It was an extraordinary move, unique in the
    annals of military history. Not only did we move the troops, but
    we moved thousands and thousands of food, ammo, fuel, supplies -
    enought for 60 days, to the same western extremes. I can't
    express our appreciation for everybody involved, including the
    Saudi Gov't.
    
    By 23 Feb most of the front line troops were attrited to
    somewhere around 75 %, the republican guard about 25%.
    
    We put Special Forces deep in enemy territory during the
    pre-ground forces.
    
    The plan initially was to start in the eastern Saudi area,
    exactly as the Iraqis thought we were going to do. Lots of noise
    and action to keep them believing that was what our plan was.
    
    At 4 am, the US Marine and Saudis attacked into Kuwait. At the
    same time, the 6th french armoured Div & the 82 Airborne,
    launched a deep mobile assault towards the Euphrates, far to the
    west. Then the 101st air assaulted in.
    
    I can't say enough about the Marines - faced by fire barriers,
    fixed obstacles, etc. they breeched well, it will become
    textbook operation.
    
    What we found, was that as soon as the Marines and Saudis
    breeched the defenses, we began getting lots of surrenders, then
    the weather started getting bad in the forecasts, then we began
    hearing about a large number of atrocities in Kuwait City.
        
    Now there is a lot of talk about US intentions are to take Iraq,
    and take down Saddam - well ladies & gentlemen, on the afternoon
    of the 24th, we were 150 Miles from Baghdad, with *nobody*
    between us and the city . We did not head for Baghdad.
        
    To now we have destroyed or rendered ineffective 29
    divisions.
    
    
    			KIA	WIA	POW 
    Air Attacks		23	34	?                   
    
    Scud Attack		28	90   	1
    
    Ground Assault	28	89   	1
    
    Q: what is your impression of Saddam as a military strategist ?
    A: HAH! he is neither a strategist, nor is he schooled in the operation
    art, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general, nor is he a soldier,
    but other than that, he is a great military man, I can tell you !
        
    Q: Don't mean to demean the abilities of the troops, wasn't it really
    not very intense ?
    A: ever been in a minefield ?
    Q: No.
    A: that is very intense.
    
    Q: [missed]
    A: so many people were deserting, that the Iraqis brought down
    execution squads to shoot them and keep them in place. They were lied
    to, they were deceived, they weren't properly fed, given water, etc.
    The Republican guard were different, well fed, well equipped, almost
    pampered, but BY THE WAY, the Rep. Guard were well to the rear, in the
    best position to bug out at the first sign of trouble, and make it
    backl to safety while the poor buggers at the front took the pasting -
    only that didn't work - we made sure of that.
        
    Q: are bombings continuing in n. Iraq, and why ?
    A: Yes, for the purpose of supporting military operations - my troops
    are still out there fighting and dying - and I will do everything
    possible to reduce that.
    
    Q: is there some fear on your part that there will be a cease fire ?
    A: I think I've made it very clear to everbody that I wish the war had
    never started - we had no choice - nobody will be happier than me
    if there was a ceasfire.
    
    Q: the timing of the ground campaign starting - political or military
    decision ?
    A: we made a military analysis - I gave the recommendation based on
    that - and the President made his decisions based on that. I am very
    thankful that the President allowed us to fight the war in the way we
    planned.
    
    Radio Scooter International

    -d, I never claimed that "information that can damage the effectiveness
    of a military organization is proper fodder for the press."  I did
    state that government fears over resulting public opinion about policy
    is *not* a valid criterion for censorship.  The people have a right to
    formulate their opinions about government policy in a democratic
    society.  Preventing them from having information simply because it
    might lead them to formulate an opinion opposed to the government's
    policy is utterly wrong.  The government's act of masking that
    self-serving and dictatorial motive as a "security" issue is
    disingenuous.

    -- Mike

        I am fearful that one result of the Gulf war will be an
        all-or-nothing approach to dealing with future problems in
        the world:  any steps short of all-out, uninterrupted war
        will be viewed as doing nothing, or worse, as "appeasement". 
        In the doublethink of the times, a UN-sanctioned embargo
        adhered to by nearly all nations -- and all the major ones --
        and enforced by military action, and accompanied by a
        200K-person defensive force, is viewed as "appeasement".

        One can guarantee that, in the future, sanctions and
        embargoes will only be used for symbolic effect -- if at all. 
        "Ceasefire" and "negotiations" are dirty words in this new
        era, or at least are indications of shameful weakness.  

        Americans in particular will think of war as a clean,
        harmless activity.  A few Americans might die, but not many. 
        Our devaluation of the lives of "the enemy" might actually
        increase, since it will aid in the rationalizations of this
        post-war mentality.

        It will cost us a lot of money for the armaments, but that
        ultimately will help the economy, which may increasingly be
        dominated by military production, as civilian production
        continues to move off-shore or to be controlled by off-shore
        interests.

        We Americans will not realize that for every Saddam Hussein
        we destroy in this way we probably are encouraging the
        formation of a dozen more to take his place.  We might
        actually be encouraging a new arms race in the middle east,
        since there will still be many ambitious nations and rulers
        in the area, there still will be many nations, and even more
        people, that hate Israel and the US, and many of them will
        learn the necessity of having modern weapons (or effective
        terror weapons such as a deliverable nuclear device).  For
        them, this war may prove that Saddam Hussein was right, if
        injudicious.

        If the Soviet Union can hold itself together, it will find
        some willing new client states to take the place of eastern
        Europe.

        I am not sanguine about this victory, but I will admit that
        things could have been a lot worse.

        Bob

    One other item that the press isn't allowed to photograph is the
    returning bodies at Dover, Delaware.  I know this is receiving wide
    press, but I'd still like to mention it.
    
    I think it is *disgusting* that the military is trying to manipulate
    the public in this way.  They don't want us getting too emotional.
    
    For some reason, they liked this idea in WWII when they encouraged
    every dead soldier's Mom to hang out her gold star as a sign of public
    recognition that she lost a child. 
    
    I think that the war should "work" on principle, no matter how many
    lives are lost.  Either it is a just cause or it is not and showing
    video or photos of our returning soldiers should not change the cause.
    
    judy

    re .84 Given the normal insensitivity and sensationalism of the
    press, I'm not surprised that the military has done so. Maybe
    the military is simply showing respect for the dead and their 
    families. 
    
    Dana (who thinks the press often act like ghouls)

    I do think there are incidents where the press has not acted as I would
    like.  However, I have read that the military decided this because they
    were worried that the number of bodies would change the public
    perception at home.
    
    This is what bothers me, even more than the insensitive way that the
    press might handle it.
    
    judy

    re .83:
    
    There is a saying that supports your concern:
    
    "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
    
    mdh

    Well, the war is over.  Let's hope we can have some lasting peace both
    here and there.  I think Bush has just ensured his '92 election. 
    
    Eugene

        re trying to suppress the pornography story ...
        
        I would guess that was done because possession of
        pornography is a very serious offense in Saudi Arabia.
        A few weeks/months ago a tv show had a story about an
        American oil worker who was arrested, jailed and tortured
        for months because he had VCR tapes of The Love Boat.
        
        I doubt that they cared very much about the U.S. reaction
        to the story.
        
        Dan

    
    Again on the pornography story....... people might think of other
    wars that have been fought and the atrocities committed by troops of
    both sides (including rape of women and children of the enemy). This
    doesn't sit too easily with stories of troops being shown porn before
    action.
    
    Jane

        
    I'd say the pornographic mentality and the warrior mentality have
    a lot in common...both involve the dehumanization of people, 
    turning them into objects, either sex objects or shooting objects.
    
    D.

    .83
    
    I agree with you totally except I don't feel it's in our future; it's
    already here.
    
    Maia
    

re Note 709.88 by HPSTEK::XIA:

> I think Bush has just ensured his '92 election. 
  
        That never was much in doubt, unless the Democrats did
        something totally unexpected!

        Bob

    The only homeless person George Bush ever met was the emir of Kuwait.

I understand the the United States Goverment cut off all aid to Yemen
after Yemen voted no on the use of force resolution in the United
Nations.  Yemen felt that sanctions should be give more time to work.

john

 I feel confused this week.  During the buildup for Operation Desert Storm,
we (in the US at least) were constantly being barraged with reports on just
what a great threat to the world "Mad" Saddam was, and how, if we didn't do
something _right_now_, then nowhere would be safe from his chemical, biological
or nuclear weapons.  
 Well, hey, he didn't seem to be much of a threat after all. I wonder (quite
seriously) just how much the US government has lied to us over the past six or
seven months, and how many years it will be before (if at all) the truth about
this glorified military training mission comes out.

 And, while I'm in here and feeling depressed anyway, I feel very sad and some-
what ashamed at being part of a country (well, actually part of two of the 
countries) that particpated in the massacre on the highway north of Kuwait. 
The bombing and strafing missions were described by the pilots as "like shooting
fish in a barrel". Gee, what fun, almost like a video game, and none of our
brave and heroic (sic) pilots were killed or injured in this most vital mission.
There are those (and I've read notes from 'em) who feel proud of this massacre;
I just feel sort of unclean.

						Nigel

    -.1
    
    hear hear (if not see see?)
    
    D.

    
    Thanks, Nigel.  I too have had a sneaking suspicion that the
    American public's been manipulated, if not outright lied to.
    
    And I feel very bad for all the good people of Baghdad for what
    we've done to them. )-:
    

    re .98, I agree, too, Nigel.  I, also, think the American public has
    been manipulated, if not outright lied to, as Ellen said.
    
    Lorna
    

  This morning, NPR reported that the price of the war was set to
  (I forget exactly but something like) US$ 50,000,000,000 with
  (I remember this one) US$ 15,000,000,000 to come out of the
  pocket of the American taxpayers.  In round numbers, *BEFORE*
  interest, that's about $60 for each person in the country.

                                   Atlant

re .96

alternatively, Saddam Hussein was *exactly* the threat George Bush painted,
and had the US not confronted him he would have used his chemical and biological
weapons - exactly as he did against Iran.

*HOWEVER* he may have been afraid that the US just might use its nuclear weapons 
to convert Baghdad into a 25th century glass plain and himself into nuclear 
vapour, and hence chose to limit himself to conventional weapons, and hence 
lost.

In other words he might have been crazy, but he wasn't stupid.

/. Ian .\

    
		PRIWARITIES



	When it comes to the merits of war,
	It depends what you're fighting one for:
	Stop poverty? drugs?
	The government shrugs
	And girds for an oilier shore.

Also, I heard that all Yemen workers in Saudi Arabia were "sent home"
after Yemen's vote to give sanctions a chance.

	MKV

Nigel, I must admit I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say the 
'massacre on the highway north of Kuwait'.  Do you mean the carpet bombing
of the Republican Guard during the air war, the bombing during the ground war,
or the current civil unrest?  If it's the second, I wonder; what do you do
in chess when you've checkmated your opponent and they don't give up?  What
"should" we have done?

I too was sickened at terms such as "turkey shoot" being used, although I
guess it's easier to look at it that way if you're talking about an enemy
that's been posing a mortal threat to you personally.

I agree that I think the American public's been lied to (hey, I've been
saying that all along!).  But I don't think you can use the events of the
past few weeks to conclude that Saddam wasn't much of a threat, considering
that his capabilities at the end of February weren't close to what they were
on January 15.  What *is* clear, however, is that much of the public was led
to believe that Saddam was another Hitler, and that therefore the only solution
was to deal with him as we dealt with Hitler, and is now confused about why
we didn't go hunt him down in Baghdad.  In this sense, force begets force:
because we used force once to solve a problem successfully, people come to
think it's the *only* way to solve a problem successfully.  At this point,
convincing the public to support a war reduces to convincing them there is a
problem.  The way the Bush administration kept changing what the problem
really *was* before the war made me highly suspicious (although still not
convinced...) that it was manufactured and not "real".

There are tens of thousands of Iraqis who are dead because they were pawns.
In the game for world power and prestige, our leaders have announced checkmate
to the Soviets.  In the game for American political power and control of public
opinion, the head of the Republican party has announced check (mate?) to those 
who would oppose him.

Now, where are you?  Are you a pawn who supports Bush and the Republican agenda
and vision 100% (or something close to it)?  Or are you a pawn on the other 
side, who believes that national health care or a civil rights bill or urban
renewal projects or guaranteed access to abortion should come before the 
Republican party's current agenda?  If the latter, what does it mean to you to
know that now, there's only one player at the board?

    Sharon

RE .104 -

The reference to the massacre on the highway north of Kuwait refers to the
column of vehicles (tanks, armored personnel carriers, trucks, and stolen
civilian cars) being driven north out of Kuwait City by Iraqi troops laden with
booty stolen from Kuwait. They got trapped by the Allied troops, the head of
the column turned around trying to make it back to the city but were blocked
by the rest of the column, and opened fire on their own vehicles trying to
clear a path. Allied aircraft discovered this traffic jam (whether before or
after they were fighting among themselves I'm not sure) and basically wiped
the whole column out from the air. Some troops trying to escape the barrage
were killed by land mines Iraq had laid along side the highway.

The result wasn't a pretty sight. Among the wreckage in the pictures I saw were
scattered weapons, hand grenades, stolen television sets, a child's electronic
learning toy, just about anything the soldiers figured (my supposition here)
they could sell on the black market back in Iraq.

[Above information from various CNN stories plus an article in the Sunday New
 York Times.]

    
    If you're going to discuss graphic information about violence, 
    please preface the graphic material with a warning and a form feed, so
    that people who would rather not read it can choose to "next unseen".
    
    thank you
    
    -Jody

    It occurs to me that a number of respondents here have chosen to
    overlook the atrocities in Kuwait City as they decide on Saddam
    Hussein's character and whether or not we ought to have gone to war.
    
    mdh

    
    What do you think should have happened to them?
    
    A pull over to the side by Officer Friendly for a warrant check and 
    vehicle search, an admonition to be good, a citation for illegal operation 
    of a tank on the public roads, firing live ammunition in a populated area?
    
    This was organized theft, assault, battery, murder...
    
    Had they been individuals, the Iraqis would lose their heads and
    or hands for these crimes.     
    
    Why should they get away withy them because they are more or less
    organized into an army?
     

re: .109
I suspect carpet bombing would be considered "cruel and unusual
punishment" for the crimes of the individuals, in the U.S.
justice system.  

re: .107
Sorry bout that, I've deleted the note.  Just wanted to point out
that there was alot of human loss on that road out of Kuwait, 
in addition to the odd collection of material goods.

	MKV

    
    US justiz is not necessarily applicable to these parts of the
    world..
    
    Anyway carpet bombing meant a faster death than these troops
    handed out to Kuwaitis as the morgue tenders can testify...
    

    I still believe this war had to be fought.  I have my own reasons; they
    are not the same as the governments'.  If use of force can ever be
    justified, I believe it to be in such a case as this.  Arguing that in
    the past the U.S. govt has overlooked similar ruthless tyrants and
    their acts is a poor argument for continuing to overlook them.
    
    I don't disagree that our govt, and others in the coalition, and others
    opposed to the coalition, are cynically manipulative of public opinion
    and news; that is one of the more disgraceful aspects of politics, at least
    at the inter/national levels.  But I disagree with the notion that I
    cannot (as in, am not able to) form an opinion of my own about whether
    or not the use of force is necessary (or on any other issue).
    
    If I believed that, I'd have to crawl into a hole and hide, or be
    paralyzed and never have an opinion, or take an action.
    
    Sara

    
    George didn't do any atrocities...
    
    

In all fairness, as a supporter of sanctions myself, Yemen's position was and
is just a little stronger than "giving sanctions a chance." They, due to
domestic opinion, were one of the countries actively supporting Iraq. They would
not, for example, allow coalition forces to dock in Yemen - even during the
blockade, and they allowed blockaded tankers to dock in Yemen.

	-- Charles

    RE: .114
    
    Oh, I dunno.
    
    I think after the dust settles from this, we will find that Mr.
    Bush&Friends have done and said *many* atrocious things. 
    
    How far do you have to be from the gun if you are the power behind it,
    in order to be "innocent"?
    
    This may be interesting stuff when the truth comes out in 20 years or
    so. Assuming, of course, that we have any way to find out, in 20 years
    or so.
    
    --DE
    

    re .113:
    
    All you'd need to do, Mike, is to take the list of atrocities together
    with George Bush's role in them to the U.N. and have them draw up 12
    resolutions condemning them. Then, get the vote of Congress.  Given that, 
    sure, I'd go to war.
    
    mdh

    I heard that Bush et als. renewed aid for the government of El
    Salvador.  It hardly has clean hands; the massacre of its civilian
    opponents is ongoing. (Not that the guerillas are a better alternative)
    
    Reagan and Bush supported the government of Panama before turning on
    their former ally Noriega.
    
    I suspect that the US government was a prime player in overthrowing the
    elected Allende government in Chile and instituting martial law, mass
    arrests and torture.
    
    To claim that we entered the war on Iraq due to moral scruples is pure
    hogwash.  It is a way of selling the war to the gullible.  I think Sen.
    John Glenn was correct when he identified the issue as OIL - its
    control, pricing, use, military necessity, and economic consequences. 
    You can buy this package or not, but heck, that's what the issue is.  I
    listened to the senate debates, and bought the package.  Not without
    great sadness and regret that oil is still the key to our survival. 
    But for now, it is.  And I want the US and its allies to control it,
    not some crazy dictator.  
    
    It was a terrible irony that Bush's "energy policy" rested on increased
    use of nuclear power for a too-gradual reduction of reliance on
    imported oil.  I believe that we need restored tax incentives, even
    direct funding, for research, manufacturing, and purchase of
    alternative energy devices.  It would make sense in the economic long
    run and benefit the environment as well.  
    
    Where is the public outcry for alternative energy?  It's more fun to
    throw darts at photos of Saddam Hussein.
    
    We can be proud of our military.  It has been restored to its
    pre-eminance from the nadir of Vietnam.  But can we be proud of our
    domestic policies?  Our homeless are unnumbered and increasing all the
    time.  Our infant mortality rate is shameful.  We of the middle class
    are in a bad crunch, with steadily lowered expectations, and more of
    our unfortunates dropping into poverty and homelessness.  We women are
    barely holding on to our gains as a class.  Parents have no national
    leave policy; the daycare deduction is a pittance.  The Bill of Rights
    is under attack.  Our education system is very flawed.  Drug use is
    endemic.  Crime is increasing in quantity and violence.  Our greatness
    has been our freedom, opportunities, and quality of life.  Why did our
    ancestors come here?  If there are not some major changes in direction,
    the US will lose its great advantages.
    
    Where is the public consensus on domestic issues?  Its more fun to wave
    flags than to address the difficult problems.
    
    In summary, the war WAS about OIL.  Take it or leave it.  But we have
    tremendous domestic problems to address, and they are being swept under
    the carpet.  We can be proud of our military.  I am even prouder of its
    separation from political control (a rarity in this world), than of its
    prowess and dedication.  But we should be ashamed of our domestic
    situation.  Don't expect Bush et als. to rock the boat for needed
    changes.

    
    Nobody has clean hands. If we wait for people with clean hands to 
    come to power we'd have to wait a very long time.
    
    Sometimes its prudent to act in self interest, and sometimes self
    interest demands that we deal with non-angelic governments.
    
    Are you saying that Faribundo Marti *does* have clean hands? Or that
    Bush actually pulls the trigger when the ES death squads striike? 
    
    As the diplomats say, that is an internal matter... 
    
    And war for oil is not as reprehensible as it sounds... SH's hands on
    the oil tap would do us or our allies very little good indeed.
    
    As for domestic policies, so what? The less government does domestically, 
    the less its liable to trample our rights and waste our money on
    liberal aganda nonsense..
     

    Bush, in arming and supporting the death squads, is, for all practical
    purposes, pulling the trigger when the death squads strike.
    
    -- Mike

    ahem!
    
    -d and Mike, you are getting this note dangerously close to the
    kind of entries that caused us to shut down the Gulf war note
    in the first place.
    
    Bonnie J
    

    Sorry about the last reply.  Meant to provide a response to 119 using
    buffers (first try) but I made a mistake somewhere.
    
    So, to try again:
    
    1.  May I gently suggest that USWS::HOLT read my statements more
    carefully?  He/she would discover that I actually made the following
    points, some of which are in agreement with his/her own:
    
     a. The US government has often consorted with unsavory regimes.  To
     claim we fought Saddam because he's a baddie, is untrue.  We fought 
     for oil.  I just don't like sugar coated pills; I prefer em straight.
    
     b  I think the fight for oil was the right thing to do.  I clearly
     stated that I don't want a "crazy dictator" controlling it.
    
    2.  I would also suggest that the author of .119 be more politic in
    terming the following problems "nonsense":
    
     a. Drug use
    
     b. Crime
     
     c. Erosion of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution
    
     d. Women's rights (ESPECIALLY in this particular notes file)
    
     e. Erosion of the economic well-being of the middle class of which
     most readers are a member, and are eager to preserve 
    
     f. Homelessness, which could happen to any of us if enough things
     went wrong in our lives (see point 2.e.)
    
    3.  Ah yes, how familiar.  Anyone whose view makes you uncomfortable
    is a (HORRORS) LIBERAL!  How facile.  How simplistic.  How easily this
    divides us into the good guys and the bad.  Please be more measured in
    your discourse.  Your methods do not further discussion.  
    
    Hoping to keep the mud in the swamp,
    Laura

    
    ok we fought fer whatever you want to say we fought fer.
    
    surely there is a reason for every taste...
    
    as for nonsense issues... do you think that protection for our
    civil rights is going to come from the same guvmint who will
    enforce correctspeak and correctthought??

>    It occurs to me that a number of respondents here have chosen to
>    overlook the atrocities in Kuwait City as they decide on Saddam
>    Hussein's character and whether or not we ought to have gone to war.

I find this remark disturbing.  As others have pointed out, atrocities are 
not that uncommon in the world today, yet rarely do they compell us to
fight an all-out war.  What I find strange is not that they do not 
consistently bring about support for war, but that they sometimes *do*.

In the consideration of whether or not we "ought to have" gone to war
(a reasonably moot point at this stage of the game), Iraqi atrocities 
committed after January 16 must be considered irrelevant to the argument. 
This is because given the military inequity, it is difficult to determine 
whether those atrocities were committed in retaliation for allied military 
successes or whether they betray inherent character traits of Saddam Hussein 
and/or members of the Iraqi army.

War is expensive, both in dollar terms and in terms of human lives and
suffering.  In both cases, war has a high opportunity cost: the people
and the money diverted to the war are being taken from the civilian
economy and from domestic concerns.  Except for some of the people, this
diversion is permanent.

The population of Iraq was approximately 18,780,000 before the war.  The
Pentagon estimate for the number of Iraqi casualties (as a direct result
of the war) is "in the tens of thousands"; other estimates range as high 
as 100,000.  For purposes of comparison, let's say it is approximately
50,000, or roughly the same number of people as died in the earthquake
in Armenia.  Percentagewise, it constitutes 0.2-0.3% of the total Iraqi 
population, which is equal to or higher than the percentage of Americans 
deployed in the Persian Gulf.  The pre-war population of Kuwait, in contrast,
was 2,080,000 (of which less than half are Kuwaiti).  How many atrocities 
would it take to justify such a cost?  How about the above human cost, 
plus the dollar cost to Allied taxpayers, plus the cost of rebuilding 
Iraq and Kuwait, plus the cost to other Middle Eastern economies, and the
cost (positive or negative) in international goodwill?

A large, united, technologically advanced nation like the United States
is unlikely to be conquered from outside by conventional military means.
Economic attack and economic weapons pose a far more serious threat to
our national security than does the military arsenal - conventional and
otherwise - of a Middle Eastern dictator.  Economics is perhaps one of 
the best arguments for going to war in this case, although it can also 
be construed as one of the better argument against war.  

If we, as a nation, find Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait, in and of themselves, 
sufficient reason to go to war, there is hope neither for peace or for 
lasting national security; if we are consistent in the application of our
foreign policy, we'll always be at war on several fronts.  Personally 
(speaking as an American with no relatives in Kuwait), I find them a 
relatively insignificant factor in the overall equation.  This is *not*
the same as overlooking them.

    Sharon

                   [From the March 1991 issue of Z magazine]

                       What's Your I(raq) Q(uotient)

    1. President Bush has called Saddam Hussein another Hitler.  Before
    Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, U.S. policy toward this "Hitler" included all
    of the following EXCEPT:

	a) Giving his government over $1 billion in loans and agricultural
	credits.

	b) Blocking Congressional sanctions aimed at Hussein's use of poison
	gas.

	c) Supplying him with war-related equipment and satellite
        intelligence for his war with Iran.

	d) Warning Hussein that Ronald Reagan wouldn't help him secure a
	burial plot at the Nazi cemetery in Bitburg, Germany

    2.  Before he attacked Iraq, Bush claimed he would "go the extra mile to
    achieve a peaceful solution."  As part of this effort he did which of
    the following:

	a) Welcomed Iraq's early January 1991 offer to withdraw from Kuwait
	in return for an international conference on the Mideast.

	b) Followed the advice of several former joint chiefs, secretaries
	of defense, and other "peaceniks" that starting a war would be a
	mistake.

	c) Heeded the evidence that economic sanctions were increasingly
	effective.

	d) Announced that the only talking the U.S. would engage in would
	be to deliver an ultimatum to Iraq.

    3. On the same day that Bush began bombing Iraq to establish a "New World
    Order," what other new orders for the world did the President issue?

	a) He gave South Africa six months to eliminate apartheid or be
	subject to U.S. military action.

	b) He gave Israel six months to comply with UN resolutions on
	Palestinian rights and the occupied territories or face Tomahawk
	missile attacks on its nuclear weapons facilities.

	c) He formally apologized to Panama, Grenada, and Nicaragua for
	"naked aggression" and "flagrant violations of international law"
	by the U.S.

	d) He ordered an additional $42 million sent to the Salvadoran
	military which has killed tens of thousands of civilians in the past
	decade.

    4. Bush says we are fighting this war for "freedom."  By this he means
    the freedom of:

	a) Saudi Arabian women who've faced arrest and death threats for
	daring to drive automobiles.

	b) The 97 percent of the Kuwaiti population who have never had the
	right to vote.

	c) The 58 percent of the Kuwaiti population of foreign ancestry who
	are denied citizenship rights.

	d) The members of the Kuwaiti parliament which was dissolved in
	1986.

	e) The Emir of Kuwait who has billions of dollars of wealth and a
	slightly smaller number of wives.

    5. Secretary of State James Baker said that "if you want to sum it up in
    one word," U.S. policy in the Gulf is about "jobs."  Those whose jobs he
    was referring to include:

	a) Wall Street traders who have managed the 300-point rise in the
	stock market since the war began.

	b) Oil executives whose price increases since August have cost U.S.
	consumers $21 billion.

	c) Military contractors whose "smart bombs" have obliterated the
	peace dividend.

	d) Makers of body-bags.

	e) All of the above.

    6. The Gulf war will cost--at the least--$30 billion, which is more than
    the Bush administration proposes to spend this year on job training,
    AIDS, mass transit, drug treatment, pollution control, nutrition
    programs, Head Start, and occupational health and safety combined.
    Where does Bush plan to get the money to meet U.S. social needs?

	a) He is hoping that U.S. bombing will lead to a thousand points of
	light.

	b) He expects that his son Neil, who has gotten rich from the S&L
	scandal, to donate his booty to the U.S. government.

	c) He figures that his son George Jr., a big-time investor in
	Persian Gulf oil drilling, will share his excess profits with the
	poor.

	d) He has no plans to meet U.S. social needs.

    7. African-Americans account for 12 percent of the U.S. population, but
    about 30 percent of the combat troops in the Gulf.  The reason for this
    is that:

	a) Despite opposing affirmative action here at home, Bush supports
	it on the front lines.

	b) It's part of the Administration's new policy on minority
	scholarships.

	c) Black Americans, feeling a surge of patriotism after the
	President vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1990, volunteered to fight.

	d) Young Blacks get the message it's "all you can be" when the face
	twice the unemployment rate and three times the poverty rate of
	whites.

    8. All of the following songs have been banned by the BBC from its
    broadcasts to troops in the Mideast EXCEPT:

	a) Give Peace a Chance

	b) We've Got to Get Out of this Place

	c) Killing Me Softly

	d) I'm On Fire

	e) The Ballad of the Green Berets

    9. The best way to support the troops is to:

	a) Display yellow ribbons.

	b) Wave the American flag.

	c) Pray your loved ones will not be among the dead.

	d) Bring the troops home now.

    10. Essay Question:  In a well organized, clearly written essay, discuss
    some other international problems that could best be solved by rejecting
    diplomacy and negotiations, abandoning sanctions, and unleashing
    unprecedented military power.  Do NOT consider any of the likely human
    and economic costs and be sure NOT to deal with moral concerns or
    long-term implications.


    Answers

    1.d; 2.d; 3.d; 4.e; 5.e; 6.d; 7.d; 8.e; 9.d

    Scoring

    0-1 correct: your brain seems to have suffered "collateral damage" from
    the heavy bombardment of media disinformation.

    2-3 correct: you're reading the National Enquirer too much.

    4-5 correct: you're reading the New York Times too much.

    6-8 correct: you know much more than Dan Rather's been telling you.

    9-10 correct: you're very knowledgeable, but since you're not a retire
    general or right-wing ideologue, you're ineligible to serve as an expert
    commentator on television.

From _Village Voice_, February 26, 1991. p. 26.
"Insecurity Council:  America Keeps the UN in Line"
 
By Michael Tomasky & Richard McKerrow
 
After embracing the United Nations to establish the "legality" of the war, the
US has shown considerably less interest in the world body since the bombing
commenced.  Prior to Thursday's closed Security Council meeting, the US had,
during the war's first month, actively avoided formal meetings, snubbing
requests for convening the group in defiance of the council's rules.
        At least three of the 15 council members --India, Yemen, and Cuba--
had called for Security Council meetings, requests that must be honored,
according to the council's rules of procedure, specifically Rule 2:  "The
President *shall* call a meeting of the Security Council at the request of any
member of the Security Council."
        The three requests were made (informally by India, in writing by
Yemen and Cuba) in January.  But the US, backed by Britain and the Soviet
Union, blocked any formal meeting --in part by promising Zaire, which in
January held the presidency of the council (Zimbabwe now presides),
military assistance and partial debt forgiveness in return for its support of
the US position.  So, while the war that it approved raged for nearly 30 days
and 70,000 missions, "the council simply went on vacation," in the words of
Ricardo Alarcon, the Cuban ambassador to the UN.  The US's stated view is
that convening the council would be divisive and send the wrong message to
Saddam Hussein.  Critics of the current US posture, however, see other,
unstated reasons.
        First and foremost, the US does not want to have to defend its military
plans in an open forum.  Resolution 678, which permits the use of force,
allows the "coalition" to "use all necessary means" to remove Iraq from
Kuwait; it does not sanction the destruction of Iraq's economy and
infrastructure.  That the attacks are doing just that was especially
emphasized by Wednesday's bombing of the Baghdad building, killing
perhaps 400 people.
        Second and virtually undiscussed, there exists an all but invisible
resolution that could cause the US considerable embarrassment.  On
December 4, six days after the Security Council passed 678, the General
Assembly passed Resolution 45/58 J, which reaffirms the long-standing ban
against military attacks on nuclear facilities.  The assembly approved it 141-
1, the latter vote cast by the US.  Even Israel, even *Kuwait*, supported the
move.
        And what happened on January 17?  The US attacked Iraqi nuclear
facilities.  Bombers flattened the research center at Tuwaitha, about 12 miles
outside Baghdad.  A five-megawatt thermal reactor provided by the Soviet
Union in 1968 and a 500-kilowatt thermal reactor supplied by France in
1987 were located there.  Estimates of the possible repercussions differ, but
people in the area could well be at risk from radioactive iodine and cesium.
        When Defense Secretary Dick Cheney trumpeted that these reactors
were "gone, they're down, they're finished," he did not say the mission
defied articles of the Geneva Convention and the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty (both of which the US signed), as well as 45/58 J.  While General
Assembly resolutions are nonbinding, 45/58 J explicitly states that in the
event of such an attack, "the Security Council would have to act
immediately."  Washington does not want this publicly discussed.
        The delay in calling a Security Council meeting and the flouting of
45/58 J undermine the "legality" given the war by the UN's imprimatur.  The
US cajoled and bribed the members to get what it wanted and left it at that.
There is now no discussion, for example, of the fact that once the council
concedes the necessity of force, Article 46 of the UN Charter stipulates,
"Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security
Council," and not Colin Powell.  Furthermore, Article 47 says the council shall
establish a "Military Staff Committee," and not truckle to the wisdom of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Other than keeping the UN in line, the US (currently
about $566 million in arrears in it UN dues) has no further use for the body.
        . . .
. . . US behavior can be tracked by returning to the US position on Security
Council Rule 2.  Now it ignores or blocks the rule; yet go back to April 1966
when Britain was worried about the presence of two oil tankers off the coast
of Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe).  The British UN ambassador asked for
a Security Council meeting.  The meeting was put off, not one month, but one
day.
        Arthur Goldberg, then the US ambassador to the UN, was outraged by
the 24-hour delay and fired off a letter tot he council president, citing Rule
2:  "The rule is mandatory and does not give the President the choice of
convening or not convening the Council when a member so requests."
Thomas Pickering, the current US ambassador to the UN, might do well to
read Goldberg's letter.
------

    
                   President Bush *might* be thinking down the line to
    prove a "point" or make an example to ecourage others who might be
    thinking of doing the same thing in their part of the world, to think
    twice, thus in the long run, saving lives.  I also find it interesting
    that this is the first time that *most* of the world came together and
    agreed on something.  That fact, more than any other, leads me to
    believe that peace (world peace) is possible in our lifetimes.
    
    
    Dave

    I would appreciate it if those on the anti war side of the arguement
    would refrian from calling Bush a war criminal, a war monger etc.
    These statements not only imply moral and ethical inferiority (even
    if it is the president and not another noter) but are statements of
    opinion not labeled as such. I would prefer that points be made
    without resorting to this sort of language at all. I've once again
    hidden a number of notes for unacceptable language.
    
    May I remind people that if they cannot moderate their language
    that their notes can and will be deleted and the topic shut down.
    
    Bonnie J
    =wn= comoderator
    

    It seems to me that preventing anyone from discussing war crimes in
    this topic makes the entire discussion trivial to the point of being
    meaningless.  The prowar arguments typically point out Hussein's war
    crimes as part of their justification for the war.  Similarly, the
    antiwar side points out Bush's war crimes as part of their objection to
    the war.  Both arguments are inherent to their respective positions. 
    To prevent anyone from discussing war crimes eliminates the meat of the
    discussions here.
    
    Therefore, I believe that war crimes should be discussed in this topic.
    
    -- Mike

    Mike
    
    I *absolutely* decline to get involved in a discussion of whether
    or not George Bush has committed war crimes in this file. What
    the Iraquis have done in Kuwait is a matter of public record
    and I believe is germaine to a discussion of the Gulf war. Discussion
    of what we are doing in South America has no relevance to the
    Gulf war that I can deduce.
    
    Bonnie

    In that case, Bonnie, this topic becomes a one-sided discussion.  If
    only one side is allowed to make their case here, then in effect the
    other side is being censored.  Bush's war crimes are just as important
    an aspect of the validity of this war as Hussein's are.  If Hussein can
    be called a war criminal in this topic, then I have the right to call
    Bush a war criminal.
    
    -- Mike

    The next time I find out of line notes in this topic it gets shut
    down for 24 hours.
    
    Bonnie J
    =wn= comod

    Mike
    
    We ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT south america, Bush's foreign policy, or
    your interpretation of same. 
    
    I may agree with you politically but you are attempting to push
    this topic in a direction in which it was not intended to go.
    
    I suggest that if you wish to discuss whether or not Bush is a war
    criminal that you go to soapbox.
    
    I have no intention of having this file torn apart by that sort
    of violently partisan political discussion. That is not the intent
    or purpose of this file.
    
    Bonnie J
    =wn= comoderator

    Then the only fair thing to do, to prevent censorship of the antiwar
    side, is to shut down this topic.  Otherwise, the antiwar side is
    restricted from expressing itself in response to prowar arguments, and
    I don't believe that that is the intent or purpose of this file either.
    
    -- Mike

    I guess then if you win the war you are not a war criminal. If you
    lose the war then you are a war criminal......
    
    REK
    
    Sounds about right for this notesfile... 
    

    Well Bonnie J, co-moderator,
    
    Since you so easily set my note hidden, then I'd like to get out of
    this file completely.  How do I find my notes, and how do I delete
    them, or will *you* do this for me, please?
    
    I know the need for moderation, but IMHO, what you are doing is
    selectively censoring.
    
    I'm outta here.
    Maia
    

    Mike,
    
    George Bush's actions in South America have *nothing to do* with
    the Gulf War. I think that you can discuss the Gulf war from an
    anti war point of view and keep it to the Gulf war.
    
    Maia,
    
    There are very clear guidelines at the beginning of this topic
    that those replying to this topic are expected to follow. If
    you wish to be involved in a less rigidly structured discussion
    of the Gulf War I suggest that you try soapbox or the gulf war
    file.
    
    We moderators decided that in the interests of file harmony we
    would allow only a very limited discussion of the war, with
    very narrow guidelines, as we have already limited the abortion
    topic.
    
    I'm sorry that you find this unacceptable. You will notice that
    notes on both sides of the discussion have been deleted or
    set hidden today.
    
    Bonnie

    I had several reactions to .147, ::banks (sorry, didn't catch your
    name?)
    
    of course you are right about the US and the convenience factor of
    accepting/not accepting UN resolutions.  Kinda like how much we respect
    the world court.
    
    But about Israel & the Palestinians, I have to bring up a point GB made
    last night (in the speech I dub "697 Points of Light" ;-] ).  For the
    first time in quite a while, the Israelis and certain Arab countries
    (Syria, SaudiArabia, Kuwait) find themselves in the awkward position of
    being on the same side of an issue.  As GB pointed out, this has an
    effect of demonstrating that they can in fact have interests in common. 
    GB is now going to try to nudge them into continuing on this path.
    
    GB did not mention that we are now in the exact same position with the
    Iranians, but I suspect that this is a reason he brought up the
    hostages held in Lebanon.
    
    anyhow, It can be argued -- not proved, but argued -- that this
    inadvertant cooperation has opened a chink in the wall of stubbornness
    that has characterized positions in the middle east for far too long.
    
    Sara

    
    It seems to me that Mike is making a perfectly legitimate comparison,
    and I don't see why anyone has to feel they're being torn apart as a
    result of it; would someone explain why they would be?
    
    D.

    Some folks are clearly identified yourself as being unalterably
    opposed to the concept that violence can EVER be an acceptable means of
    solving problems.
    
    Such a position has a lot of at least arguable ethical merit.

    It isn't surprising that people holding such a position would find 
    Saddam Hussein and George equally reprehensible with respect to the
    Persian Gulf War.
    
    However, many human beings do not view the world of violence in such
    a binary fashion. In my opionion, those who do have a more flexible
    view of war, are owed the courtesy of having a discussion that tries to
    have a finer point of resolution than that of 
        
    	War is good or 
    	War is bad

    And that such folks should be able to have this discussion unencumbered
    by interjections that appear to be grounded only on the perceived
    immorality of violence. These interjections serve the result if not the
    purpose of preventing the discussion from continuing.
    
    
    
    				herb

    Maybe an analogy. There is a policeman in one of the towns
    out here. A few years ago he used excessive force in a
    confrontation with a lawbreaker. He was strongly reprimanded. 
    A year later he saved the life of an infant in danger of 
    suffocating. Does the first incident mean that his actions
    in the second incident were not good ?

    Bonnie, the Gulf war has been justified because of its global
    implications for situations outside of the Gulf region.  It has been
    justified because of its implications for the "New World Order".  I
    thus don't think it is possible to compartmentalize the Gulf War, in
    isolation from the rest of the world, as you suggest, since its very
    justification involves the rest of the world.  If I question the "New
    World Order" that is being used as the justification for this war,
    given that others have the right to bring it up in the first place,
    then why shouldn't I be allowed to reply?

    I realize that you are not trying to censor anyone's opinions.  But the
    de facto result that I see of trying to restrict the discussions in
    this way is that it allows the accepted ideological consensus to go
    unchallenged; what happens is that implicit references to the majority
    Weltanschauung can be expressed, while *explicit* questioning of that
    world view is construed as violating the topic guidelines.  This has
    the effect of censorship, in my view.

    -- Mike

    re .153
    
    I don't understand who you are addressing. I also do not understand
    what the policeman's behavior is supposed to be analogous to
    
    
    				herb

    Herb, if I followed Dana, he's saying GB in South America was a bad
    cop, while GB in the middle east is a good cop.  I think he is offering
    this analogy against Mike's position rather than yours.
    
    DougO

    Unfortunately, Bush hasn't been reprimanded for his actions in Central
    America, as the cop in Dana's analogy was.  He had, and continues to
    have, a free hand in that area.
    
    -- Mike

    Mike
    
    If you cannot discuss your anti war position in this file without
    calling George Bush a war criminal I would prefer that you discuss
    it someplace else. I believe that you are intelligent enough to
    be able to express your personally deep held anti war beliefs
    without so doing.
    
    If it matters, it is possible that I am coming down on harder on
    your point of view than on the othe side, although I do not think so.
    But if I am, it is because it is harder to be objective about
    the side that one personally favors. i.e. I'm apt to be harder on
    people that I tend to agree with.
    
    Bonnie

    Since we cannot seem to continue this discussion without cries
    of foul or censorship on one side or another, if an attempt
    to keep it within civil bounds is made, or have this blow
    up into full scale war between opposing points of view if
    such restraints are not imposed, I have decided that I will
    set this note nowrite.

    Anyone with suggestions as to how it could be reopened may send
    me mail.
    
    
    At this time I feel like the parable of the old man, the boy and
    the donkey. 

    Bonnie J
    comod