Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    	While I feel that Sadam Hussein should be caused to retreat from
    Kuwait and restore that nation's freedom, such as it is, and feel that
    he should be strongly discouraged from further adventurism, I object to
    war as a tool of diplomacy. My support of the war effort in the Middle
    East stops at one crucial juncture, I would not send any of my children
    to fight that battle, nor would I go myself. This is not theory
    speaking here, I have two boys in college. (I don't think my daughter
    needs worry about being yanked out of high school) Nor am I a coward or
    terminal pacifist. I am a VNE vet (USAF) who believes that every
    citizen owes service to their (sex-neutral adjective) country and
    should be expected to fight when that country is endangered. I do not,
    however, feel that this cause is sufficient to be considered
    "endangering" to our country. 
    	We do have something (how much?) of an obligation to protect Saudi
    Arabia from attack, but I suspect that Bush intends to pursue a more
    aggressive stance than "protect" would warrant, spoiling for a budget
    busting war. Anything to protect the "military-industrial complex" that
    has been so good to him over the years. He has lost Russia as "The
    Enemy" but can replace that diversion with S.H. long enough to protect
    another budget or two from too much scrutiny or criticism.

    When I was notified by the Denver office of the American Friends
    Service Committee that they were going to be placing a newspaper ad
    that would call for a reversal of the military buildup in the Gulf, I
    gladly contributed money for the ad and thus saw my name appear among
    the signatories in the ad.

    For those who are interested in a recently published discussion of
    Christian pacifism, I strongly recommend John Dear's book, "Our God is
    Nonviolent:  Witnesses in the Struggle for Peace & Justice".  The book
    discusses the basis of Christian pacifism, and then highlights several
    influential pacifists in history, including Jesus, Martin Luther King,
    Dorothy Day, Gandhi, and Daniel Berrigan.  I find it interesting that
    the non-Christian Gandhi was included in the book; however, he was
    actually very much influenced by Jesus in his own pacifist beliefs. 
    The rest of the individuals discussed in the book were Christians.

    -- Mike

    I'm strongly opposed to the military build up in Saudi Arabia. For one,
    I feel that this build up is more of a threat to the Oil Companies than
    it is to human rights. I have not seen any evidence that the Saudi's
    would fight with us if we have a conflict against Iraq. The wealthy
    oil lords of Saudi Arabia are with us, but the Saudi populace would
    side with Hussein before they would stand with us in battle. 

    Also, Kuwaiti's are not so saddened by the overthrow of their rich
    exploitable government, which makes me think about Iran's feeling toward
    the U.S. after the overthrow of the Shaw.

    I have not seen enough of the populace support for us over there to be
    willing to sacrifice human life. What I hear, whenever the press talks
    with the average citizen in that area saying is that, "this is an Arab
    problem which requires an Arab solution. We oppose what Hussein has
    done, but if the U.S. goes to war against him, we will support him and
    not the U.S." To me this means that our 200k troops over there are
    surrounded by an opposing force.

    Peace 
    Jim

There are two sides to Jesus.

There is the side which can be described (not quite accurately, in my
opinion) as pacifist.  This description is consistent with many of his
actions during his life on earth.  However, it is inconsistent with some
of his actions such as the scourging of the temple (twice) as well as
his lack of protest from such organized forces which support war as
armies and governments ("give to Caesar that which is Caesar's").

The other side of Jesus is the conquering Messiah.  This is the same
person at a different time period.  The Old Testament references are
many - this is the Messiah the Jews were waiting for.

We are still waiting for this Messiah to return.  And when He does,
the winnowing fork will be in His hand.  The double-edged sword will
be in His mouth and there will be destruction such as has never been
seen before and never will be seen again.

Our pacifist Lord and Savior?

I don't think this description does justice to who Jesus really is since
both aspects of Jesus are true.

Collis

    Jesus killed no one in the temple.  Overturning tables is not the same
    as assaulting human beings.  Furthermore, his Sermon on the Mount made
    quite clear his pacifist views, which he did conform to in his own
    life.
    
    As for apocolyptic visions of a returning Jesus causing massive
    destruction and suffering--if anyone wants to make Jesus out to be a
    barbarian, they are more than welcome to.  I am more interested in
    living my life according to the principles of the Sermon on the Mount,
    however.  That is why I am a pacifist.
    
    -- Mike

    re .4
    
    You reflect a common misunderstanding (myth):  Pacifists are passive.
    
    True, some are.  Not the ones I know (including me).
    
    The sword in the Revelation you referred to is the sword of Truth,
    not the death sword of inflicting death.
    
    Jesus of Nazareth was/is the most incomparably radical pacifist and
    social activist this world has ever given a serious audience to.  He
    was, in his time, lopsided; asymmetrical.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

I believe the pacifist *is* "inactive" or "passive" when it comes to
being violent.

Jesus was not a "pacifist" when he talked with Abraham about Sodom
and Gomorrah (pre-incarnate form).

Jesus was not a "pacifist" at the temple, as I already pointed out.

Jesus will be far from a pacifist when he comes again.  (Richard, the
references to Jesus' coming again occur in numerous books, not just
Revelation.  As well as what is going to happen when Jesus comes again.)

If you'd like to deal with specific references to Jesus, let's do that. If,
however, you simply want to create Jesus in your own image of what he
should be (which is what I see happening when broad statements without the
support of Scripture and without dealing with the issues that deny what you
claim), then there really is not a lot more to talk about. 

The choice is yours.

Collis  :-(  (Sad that communication is starting to cease.)

Note 28.7

    Collis,
    
    Au contrere, mon frer!  Jesus *was* a pacifist at the Temple,
    even if you pointed out otherwise.  Just because this episode was
    not in conformance to *your* particular understanding of pacifism
    does not make it so.
    
    Of course, the choice to believe what you prefer to believe about
    Jesus is your choice and I shall respect that.
    
    Cheer up!  It's not so bad! :-)
    
    Richard

Well, Richard, please state your view of pacifism so I can judge Jesus'
actions by it.

Thanks,

Collis

    
    I can accept, and mostly understand, the views of Jesus as explained
    by Richard and other Christian pacificsts -- and I agree with much of
    it.  They are talking, as I understand it, about Jesus as he lived and
    walked and talked on this earth during the approximate 30 or so years,
    and they make a distinction between destroying property (as done in the
    temple) and taking or harming physical life (people).   Right -- more
    or less? 
    
    I had no problem being opposed to the Viet Nam war and other,
    similar military "incursions" or whatever.  I do, however, believe
    that Christians can and should stop tyranny; i.e., we should have
    stopped Hitler long before we did.  What I can't figure out is
    whether or not Saddam is an "incipient Hitler."  
    
    I believe we have an obligation to stop tyranny in world leaders
    just as we have an oblgiation to stop tryanny in our own children
    and in our own government.  
    
    Perhaps Kuwaitis want/should have more say in their government than
    they have had under 200 years of monarchy.  But does that justify
    Saddam's taking over and kicking out the monarchy?  I don't see that
    it does!  I don't think we (as Christians, that is, I don't know what
    we as the US should do) should sit by and let him do that!  But what
    SHOULD we do about it?
    
    The ironic part of all this is that our church is currently addressing
    a situation where one paranoid man has caused many problems and great
    distress in our church off and on for more than 10 years!  Most of that
    time, we Christians were sitting ducks and simply "took it!"  Now we
    realize that that behavior was NOT the Christian thing to do -- so we
    are making demands and setting limits!  
    
    My question is -- how do you apply that on a global level to an
    international situation????
    
    Nancy

    Re. 10
    
Nancy,

First of all:  Thank you for being here. :-)

>    I believe we have an obligation to stop tyranny in world leaders
>    just as we have an oblgiation to stop tryanny in our own children
>    and in our own government.

Me, too!
    
>    Perhaps Kuwaitis want/should have more say in their government than
>    they have had under 200 years of monarchy.  But does that justify
>    Saddam's taking over and kicking out the monarchy?

Why not?  Similar circumstances justified Bush's invasion of Panama.

>    I don't see that
>    it does!  I don't think we (as Christians, that is, I don't know what
>    we as the US should do) should sit by and let him do that!  But what
>    SHOULD we do about it?

I confess.  I don't know.  Hussein has repeatedly been called a "mad dog".
Unfortunately and sadly, there only one known cure for a canine with rabies.
    
Peace,
Richard

    Collis,
    	where did that "two-edged sword in his mouth" come from ?  Sounds
    like something decidedly not Biblical. Everyone has a two-edged sword
    in their mouths (go to mirror, open wide, emulate brat) and it was
    known in Biblical times for being both the best and the worst cut of
    meat - simultaneously.
    	A pacifist is not required not to fight, only to refrain from
    offering harm to others. They may defend themselves if a way can be
    found to do so without harming others. Judo and Aikido are both martial
    arts forms which are primarily defensive, the goal being to render your
    uninjured opponent unable to offer you injury. Aikido, in fact,
    contains several injury-causing "moves", while judo has none, but the
    one who initiates contact typically loses the confrontation.

    Richard,
    
>> Why not?  Similar circumstances justified Bush's invasion of Panama.
    
    Hey, don't let me down now!  Do *you* think the invasion of Panama was
    justified?  If so, then your logic follows -- but methinks you're
    pulling my leg!
    
>> I confess.  I don't know.  Hussein has repeatedly been called a "mad dog".
>> Unfortunately and sadly, there only one known cure for a canine with rabies.
    
    So maybe we should try assasination rather than war?  That makes *some*
    sense, but certainly still runs a high risk of war.
    
    Tell me, Richard, are you opposed to war in all circumstances?  Is there
    ever a just war?  What should have been done to stop Hitler and how can
    we apply those lessons now and in the future?
    
    It's been a new feeling to be kinda' mostly, sorta' supportive of our
    actions in the Persian Gulf -- even while admitting the profit motive,
    etc., etc.  I'm uncomfortable with my feelings about it, even though I
    do not consider myself a "total" pacifist when it comes to military
    action.
    
    Not letting you off too easily either,
    Nancy

Note 28.13

Nancy,

>    Hey, don't let me down now!  Do *you* think the invasion of Panama was
>    justified?  If so, then your logic follows -- but methinks you're
>    pulling my leg!

I pulleth thy leg; enjoying it all the while ;-).  I wondered if you saw
the tongue in my cheek.
 
>    Tell me, Richard, are you opposed to war in all circumstances?

All I know (My apologies to Will Rogers) is I never met a war I liked.
O' course, a hawk would say the same thing.

The difference is that Satan cannot cast out Satan.  And, blessed ol'
San Pablo was right on, I think, about overcoming evil with good, and
not repaying evil with evil.  Similarly, peace is never the offspring
of war, even when the overt violence ceases.

Peace,
Richard

    Re .9
    
My definition of pacifism:

1. Being in union with Christ through the Holy Spirit.
2. A process, not a goal.  There is no way to peace.  Peace is the way,
   just as there is no way to Christ; Christ is the way.
3. Peace is not the absence of conflict.  Peace is a largely unexplored
   way to deal with conflict.

Peace,
Richard

Thanks, Richard.  It's really helpful to see more clearly what you believe
about this.

In this case it tells me that there is not much to pursue.  Your definition,
although good for you, is much too high-level and non-specific to do me
any good to really understand how you would deal with any specific issue
as a "pacifist" living by this definition.  That is, I could give this
definition of pacifism to several different people and I would get very
different responses as to what that "pacifist" would do.

But I very much do appreciate you providing the definition, even if it
doesn't prove too useful for me.

Collis

    Okay, Nancy.  What are your thoughts about the Gulf Crisis from
    your perspective as a Christian?
    
    Richard

    Richard,
    
    Mostly, my view is as stated in .13:
    
    >It's been a new feeling to be kinda' mostly, sorta' supportive of our
    >actions in the Persian Gulf -- even while admitting the profit motive,
    >etc., etc.  I'm uncomfortable with my feelings about it, even though I
    >do not consider myself a "total" pacifist when it comes to military
    >action.
    
    I think we should have stopped Hitler early, and we didn't.  (But I was
    just a wee one :) then -- believe it or not -- and am not a good enough
    student of history to know *what* we should have done or *when*!)  But
    surely we are accountable for allowing the suffering he inflicted!!
    
    In spite of the many, many bad motives we have for being in the Gulf, and
    in spite of the many bad things we will probably end up doing there, I
    still have the feeling we should "do something" about Saddam -- and I
    have no idea what!
    
    I agree that "peace is the way" not the end goal, but when you live in
    a country and a world where peace is definitely *not* the way so far,
    what do you do?  Do you remain "pure" and uninvolved?  (That seems like
    a copout to me.)  What is the will of God given the sinful situation we
    are (all) in??? 
    
    And, remember, I am coming to this from a situation in our church where
    we as a congregation acted like an abused spouse in relation to a
    paranoid man who caused trouble and conflict for more than 10 years. 
    To have accped that abuse without standing up to it was wrong, sinful,
    unChristian.  To accept Saddam's abuse would also be wrong.
    
    The ultimate question, then, is: in world events, how do you stop abuse
    and tyranny without going to war (or at least preparing for war, which
    we all know almost guarantees it)?
    
    How do *you* answer this question?
    
    Still struggling with it all,
    Nancy

    Nancy,
    
    I'm about where you are.
    
    I saw "Fat Man and Little Boy" over the weekend.  Very revealing.
    Hindsight always is, isn't it? ;-)  The movie said that the blockade
    of Japan was working, and that high government officials were predicting
    the end of the war by October.  How many lives were saved by dropping
    the atomic bomb "Little Boy" on Hiroshima on August 6, and "Fat Man"
    on Nagasaki on August 9?  If those who predicted the end of the war
    by October were right (which we'll never know), then victory was the
    result of an unconscionable and sadistic use of force.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (DAVID E. ANDERSON, UPI Religion Writer)
Newsgroups: clari.news.religion,clari.news.gov.usa,clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.europe,clari.news.issues,clari.news.hot.iraq,clari.news.top
Subject: Church consensus emerging on Mideast
Date: 31 Oct 90 16:43:43 GMT
 
 
	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Three months after Iraq's takeover of Kuwait, U.S.
mainline churches are forging a consensus on American Middle East policy
that could soon put them at odds with President Bush and the
administration.
	At the heart of the churches' stand is an opposition to any
unilateral military action by the United States and a demand that
American policy exhaust all possible peaceful solutions to the conflict.
	The mainline church stances could be critical for Bush in maintaining
public support for his gulf policies. In the late 1960s and early 1970s,
church opposition to the war in Vietnam helped make the anti-war
movement respectable and provided thousands of middle-aged, middle-class
demonstrators at anti-war protests.
	Most recently, the church council of the middle-of-the-road 5.3
million-member Evangelical Lutheran Church in America adopted a lengthy
two-page resolution on the crisis calling on the U.S. government to 
``reflect the consensus within the international community that a
peaceful resolution of the conflict be sought and that international law
be enforced.''
	The ELCA is the nation's fourth largest Protestant religious bodies
and draws much of its strength from rural and mid-America.
	Its statement on the crisis, also called for a ``just resolution of
all conflicts in the region'' -- a reference to the Israeli-Palestinian
problem -- and an end to ``transfers and sales of destabilizing military
armaments to all of the nations of the Middle East.'' It closely tracks
recent statements by leaders of the Episcopal Church and the Methodist
Church as well as by coalitions of church groups.
	In particular, church groups are pressing to bring the military force
arrayed against Iraq under United Nations control.
	The Lutheran resolution, for example, urged that the United States 
``negotiate with the United Nations with the goal of bringing the
military forces in the region under United Nations authority and control
as soon as feasible.''
	That echoes a letter sent to selected members of Congress by 14
church groups organized as Churches for Middle East Peace which said 
``U.S. forces have served their stated purpose and should be reduced.
Forces designed as a deterrent to Iraq should at the earliest possible
date come under full U.N. authority and control.''
	In addition to warning against U.S. unilateral military or diplomatic
actions and urging continued U.N. and Arab efforts to negotiate a
settlment, elements of the church consensus also include:
	--A universal condemnation of Iraq for its Aug. 2 invasion of Kuwait
and a call for it to return to its pre-invasion borders.
	--A linking of efforts to solve the gulf crisis with the Israeli-
Palestinian problem. ``We ask our people and the government of the
United States to increase their attention to the peace process involving
Palestinians and Israelis in recognition that no peace is possible in
the Middle East without security for the Palestinian people,'' the House
of Bishops of the Episcopal Church said.
	--Opposition to including food, medicine and other humanitarian goods
for the Iraqi and Kuwaiti people in the economic embargo sanctioned by
the United Nations. ``U.S. inistence on including food and medicine in
the embargo will strengthen the prvailing opinion within the Arab world
that the United States is concerned not for Arab people's lives but only
with oil,'' the Churches for Middle East Peace said.
	--A call for a comprehensive U.S. energy policy that reduce U.S.
dependence on foreign fuel supplies. The ELCA statement called for the
United States to ``develop and abide by a sound energy policy in the
very near future'' to reduce its dependence on oil.
	``For what reason has our nation unleashed the greatest military
force since the Vietnam War,'' Edmond Browning, presiding bishop of the
Episcopal Church asked in an Oct. 5 statement. ``Are we not justified in
suspecting that the reason is primarily economic, having to do with
unimpeded access to oil?
	``Let us examine our national priorities and our addiction to
unnecessary consumption,'' Browning said.

"Kuwait is not the first country that Saddam has invaded. In 1980,
he invaded Iran - with never a peep from us.  And that was a far
more vicious war than this one.  The casualty rate was comparable
to ours in World War II.  And Saddam used chemical weapons there.
He's a real monster, no doubt about that.

But in that war, we were neutral, tilting toward Iraq.  Why weren't
we equally outraged by that invasion?  Well, of course, the enemy
of my enemy is my friend.  Besides, that war didn't pose much threat
to the automobile."

John Alexander, extracted from an article which appeared in
_The Other Side_, Nov-Dec, 1990.

Richard

Re: .21  Richard

It seems fair to me.  Iran had just taken 50 of our citizens hostage and
held them for many months.  Why should we have lifted a finger to help them?

				-- Bob

P.S. to what I wrote in .22:

It's easy to yield to the temptation to hate one's enemies.  Part of me cheered
when Iraq invaded Iran.  Part of me cheered when China invaded Vietnam.  If I'd
been living in 1941, part of me would have cheered when Germany invaded Russia.
In 1990 or 1991, part of me would cheer if the United States invaded Iraq.

At the same time, though, it's important to see the big picture.  A war between
two countries hurts everyone, not just people in those countries, because it
takes us one more step away from the dream of world peace.  So yes, the United
States should have done more to bring about peace between Iran and Iraq in
the 1980s, and we should do whatever we can to prevent war and restore peace
to the Middle East in 1990.

				-- Bob

    Wow!  You can mellow a whole lot in 20 minutes, Bob!
    
    ;-)
    Richard

Re: .24  Richard

Obvious lesson: if you're the leader if a superpower and are about to push
The Button, spend at least 20 minutes thinking about it first.

				-- Bob

    re. 25
    
    You know why the guys who actually press "The Button" are in pairs
    and carry handguns, don't you?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Bob,
    	why should we feel that upset about the difference in how we
    responded to two of Sadam's invasions. Iran never asked us for help,
    Kuwait and Saudi Arabia did. And why would you have felt any twinge of
    rightness about the 1941 invasion of Russia by Germany ?  Except
    perhaps in hindsight of things yet to come ?  I don't believe anyone in
    this country took Russia seriously until after WWII.

Re: .27  Dave

Regarding your first point: I agree that there was no reason for us to
intervene on Iran's behalf, but we should have done more to try to end the
war.  On the other hand, our influence in that part of the Middle East was
close to zero, so it's not clear what we should have done.

Regarding the 1941 invasion of Russia: in 1939 Germany and Russia signed a
non-agression pact.  When Germany invaded Poland, Russia moved in and took
over the eastern third or so.  Thus, the German invasion in 1941 was poetic
justice.

You're right, though, that my actual reactions at the time might have been
different without the benefit of hindsight.  Who knows; in 1941 I might have
been a Communist.

				-- Bob

    RE:27
    Dave,
    	as far as Saudi Arabia asking us for help, if you remember, we
    had to send advisors over there to convince them to ask us for 
    help. The only Kuwaitis that asked for help is the exiled government.
    The average Kuwaiti and Saudi citizen in the streets, when interviewed, 
    said they would support Hussein if the U.S. attacked his forces. Our
    troops are being screwed by the U.S. government. If there is an attack,
    they will be surrounded on all sides with opposition.

    Peace
    Jim

    It seems to me high time that we looked for, and accepted, some kind of
    win-win situation, even though I remain very distrustful of Saddam.
    I am quite uncomfortable with Baker's traveling through the area -- not
    for purposes of promoting peace, but for purposes of getting support
    for military action!!!
    
    Nancy

    Jim et al,
    	I'm sorry if my comments were taken as an attempt to justify our
    presence in the area, that was not my intent. I was only pointing out
    what I thought were relevent differences between the two situations. I
    agree with Nancy that we ought to be seeking a peaceful solution rather
    than rattling our fragile sabres. And Baker would NOT be on my Top 10
    list of those who would be likely to seek and find an acceptable
    peaceful solution. He impresses me as a man who would "do what he had
    to do" rather than "do the right thing", and that worries me. 

    Some relative statistics:
    
    	Number of barrels of oil saved _PER DAY_
    	if the United States used oil as efficiently
    	as Japan ..... 7 MILLION
    
    	Number of barrels of oil imported PER DAY
    	from Iraq and Kuwait ...... 730,000
    
    	Cost, in ONE September WEEK, of maintaining
    	the U.S. military operation in the Persian
    	Gulf ...... $600 MILLION
    
    	Amount devoted to renewable energy for fiscal YEAR
    	1990 by the U.S. government ..... $411 MILLION
    
      -- from Greenpeace magazine November/December 1990
    
    
    What's wrong with this picture...?  B^/
    
    Karen                                  

     RE: <<< Note 28.32 by CARTUN::BERGGREN "Open the heart to enchantment" >>>

   <<<   Some relative statistics:
    
   <<<	Number of barrels of oil saved _PER DAY_
   <<< 	if the United States used oil as efficiently
   <<< 	as Japan ..... 7 MILLION
    
    
    This would be possible if all 240 million of us moved to the state of
    New York.
    
    regards,
    
    David
    
    
    

    David,
    
    >> Number of barrels of oil saved _PER DAY_
    >> if the United States used oil as efficiently
    >> as Japan ..... 7 MILLION
    
    > This would be possible if all 240 million of us moved to the state
    > of New York.
    
    Although there is no smiley face present, I am hoping this is a 
    tongue-in-cheek comment as opposed to some pitiful form of ambivalent
    sarcasm.
    
    Karen
    
    

    
    Don't you like New York, Karen? :-)
    
    guy

    Karen,
    	I've been there. Their "economy" with oil is based, in part, on a
    level of expectation inconcievable to most Americans. "Central heating"
    is rare. Individual housing is, by our standards, cramped. Personal
    land space seems non-existent by our standards.
    	Your comments ring true, there are solutions going begging in our
    time of crisis, but we can no more emulate Japan than we can emulate
    18th century America. Would YOU shut down your central heating, put on
    a sweater and sit on the floor with your legs under the table - because
    the heat source was located there ?  Would you - or your favorite
    suburbanite - give up your lawn and garden ?  Would you move into a
    20'x20'/person home ?  Most wouldn't. 
    	I already have a car that gets 40MPG+ on the highway, a Golf GTi,
    but I have a daily 50+ mile commute. There are not many American cars,
    or 4-passanger cars, that do as well. There are not many DRIVERS who
    are willing to toodle along at 55 just to get 4 or 5 more MPG, or pump
    their tires up to 40PSI for a similar gain, or ...  It will take a LOT
    of re-education just to wean Americans from their thunder-chariots,
    much less from their dream homes and high-on-the-food-chain diets. It's
    a lot easier to shoot a bunch of swarthy arabs who don't vote or
    generate sound bites.

    
     Re.36
    
        Dave:
             As a former denizen of the Borough of Brooklyn I am
       required to ask:
     
          Yo, Dave, Like waz wrong wid da cidy ?
    
    
                                                       Mike
             

    Dave .36,
    
    > It will take a LOT of re-education just to wean Americans from 
    > their thunder-chariots, much less from their dream homes and 
    > high-on-the-food-chain diets.
    
    What good is education unless there is a desire to apply it?  
    We need a lot more than education.  A little reverence for the earth 
    and an understanding that she and her resources are ALL we have would 
    go a helluva long way.  But how do you 'teach' reverence?  You don't.
    Reverence is brought to life through nothing less than 'metanoia', a 
    radical change of human consciousness.  It exists well beyond the 
    rational mind, which is what most educational systems are designed to 
    appeal to. 
     
    You think Japan has it rough?  If the West doesn't get _real_ serious, 
    _real_ fast about _renewable_ energy and conservation... you ain't seen 
    nothing yet sweetheart.  Most Americans, myself included, seem to 
    have this condition of ecological myopia.  The sad thing is this 
    myopia we suffer from winds up being a very slow form of mass 
    suicide.    
    
    > It's a lot easier to shoot a bunch of swarthy arabs who don't vote 
    > or generate sound bites.
    
    I fail to see the ease or comfort in trading human blood for oil.  Is
    that what our precious freedom and American lifestyle has been reduced 
    to?  
    
    Karen

    	Well, shall we start with the "quality" of the "air" ?  Then move
    on to the pervasiveness of the potholes ?  Oh, can't forget the
    perpetual grid-lock.
    	Ya gotta understand where I'm coming from on this: Berkshire
    County, Mass. Where you can see more than a couple of blocks even when
    it's raining and when the rain is still drinkable until it hits the
    ground. Where you can drive for miles before bumping into another
    car(take that any way you want to). You go 20 or 30 miles west from my
    childhood home and you are in the Albany/Schenectedy/Troy area, which
    isn't half bad either. 

    Karen,
    	I agree with you, my comments were simply pointing out some hard
    facts. Yes, things ARE going to get harder and we ARE going to have to
    learn to deal with that.
    	Um, you didn't think that I was ADVOCATING trading arab blood for
    oil, did you ?  Sorry, that was just a cynical remark aimed at certain
    well-placed American politicians.

    Dave,
    
    Although there was a moment of confusion as to how you meant what you
    said, knowing you as I do Dave, I didn't *think* you were advocating
    trading blood for oil (and btw, it would be _a lot_ more than just 
    arab blood).  I did sense your statement was a cynical remark aimed 
    at certain 'aspects' of the Administration.
    
    I appreciate the clarification.
    
    Thanks,                      
    Karen

    
    Re.39
    
     Dave:
           What's wrong with Brooklyn air ? It looks, tastes and
    feels just fine :-)
           You must realize that I gotta defend the "honna" of the
    old neighborhood in order to be welcome back there when I visit.
           Also are you sure about the rain being drinkable ? I also
    live in W.Mass and we have a bad problem with acid rain according
    to the EPA.
    
                                                       Mike

    Mike,
    	I haven't tried it in a number of years, it USED to be potable.
    Let's see, it blows in from the Tri-Cities area and passes over the
    stacks of the GE plant there. Yeah, it might be toxic. 

    
    
    Here's a different perspective on the Gulf Crisis to think about...
    
    Some of you here may be aware of predictions of a large earthquake
    hitting the New Madrid Fault in the central U.S. around December
    3rd.  There is a lot being written and talked about it.  So, I was
    already concerned about this, but now I'm *really* concerned.  We
    have sent a majority of our organized troops over to Saudi Arabia,
    and are still planning on sending more and more of our reserves.
    Much of our equipment is there too.  How the heck will we be able
    to deal with a natural disaster at home?  There will be no way to
    get injured people out or to get supplies in.  It almost feels like
    we are setting ourselves up.
    
    Then again, this may never happen and I'll be able to just worry
    about the Gulf Crisis! %^/
    
    Carole

Re:  .44

You're right, Carole.  Let's increase the defense budget!  :-)  :-)

Collis

    
    
    RE: .45
    
    No, no, no Collis!  Let's bring everyone home and spend the money
    on alternative energy sources like solar power!  ;^)
    
    On a serious note, I would like nothing better than to see everyone
    come home.  I have a 20-year old nephew who is over there....I see
    his face before me every day.
    
    Carole

Article         6333
From: harelb@arthur.uchicago.edu (Harel Barzilai)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Military Families Support Network
Date: 8 Nov 90 05:37:58 GMT
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Organization: University of Chicago
 
Fwd from ACTIV-L
================
Reply-To:     Philip Bogdonoff <PDB%CORNELLF.BITNET@UCHIMVS1.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Military Families Support Network
 
                                Join the
   M I L I T A R Y   F A M I L I E S   S U P P O R T   N E T W O R K
    Supporting our troops and working for peace in the Persian Gulf
 
Alex Molnar                                              Judy Davenport
Milwaukee, WI                                           Goose Creek, SC
Co-chair                                                       Co-chair
 
 
Who we are:
 
We are the family members left behind when our loved ones were sent to
the Persian Gulf.  We are mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers.  We
are veterans.  We are patriotic citizens all across America who are not
associated with the armed forces but who support our troops and love our
country.
 
What we think:
 
We think that President Bush was right when he went to the United Nations
to respond to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.  We *support* the Security
Council resolutions condemning Iraq and imposing economic sanctions.
However, we *oppose* the massive deployment of American ground forces
into the region and we *oppose* an American military offensive.
 
What we want:
 
We want any peacekeeping force in the Persian Gulf to be truly
*multinational* and purely *defensive*.  We want it to be under U.N.
control.  We want to see diplomacy used to resolve this crisis peacefully.
We want an end to the talk about an American military offensive as a
presidential option.  We believe that an American offensive would be a
personal tragedy for thousands of American families and a disaster with
unforseen consequences for our country at home and abroad.
 
We want President Bush to respect our Constitution and we want our
Representatives and Senators to stop evading their constitutional
responsibility.  We want them to invoke the War Powers Act and *affirm the
right of Congress to decide* whether or not the United States goes to war.
 
What you can do:
 
o Join us.  You don't have to be a member of a military family to become
  part of our network.
 
o Turn the Persian Gulf Crisis into a political issue.  Demand that your
  Representative and Senators go on record.  Do they oppose an American
  offensive?  Do they support a truly multinational purely defensive
  peace keeping force under U.N. control?

o Contact your local media and insist that voices like ours be heard in
  their news reports and their public affairs programming.  This is
  especially important on "Public" radio and television stations.
 
o Write letters to the editor and ask family members and friends to do
  the same.
 
o Contact you local radio talk show and ask them to invite someone from
  the Military Families Support Network to speak on their show.
 
o Duplicate and distribute Support Network materials to friends, relatives,
  neighbors, etc. and ask them to join us and do the same.  We will be
  happy to send you an information packet if you write to us at the address
  below.
 
o Organize fund raising activities, donate time, help organize people in
  your area, make phone calls.  We need each other for support and help.
  Let us know what you can do.
 
o Contribute whatever you can financially to help us protect our troops
  from a senseless war.  Even a dollar will help us promote peace.  All
  contributions are tax deductible.
 
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                 Military Families Support Network                  |
 |                                                                    |
 |  Sign me up:                                                       |
 |  Name____________________________________________________________  |
 |  Address_________________________________________________________  |
 |  City_______________________ State_________ Zip__________________  |
 |  Senator____________________ Representative _____________________  |
 |  Here is my contribution for: ___________________________________  |
 |                                                                    |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
Send contributions to: P.O. Box 11098, Milwaukee, WI  53211
Tel. (414) 964-5794  Fax. (414) 964-2375
 
* A project of the Fund for New Priorities in America.  The FFNP is
a tax-exempt educational charity 501(c)(3).  171 Madison Avenue,
New York, NY  10016 * Tel. (212) 685-8848 * Fax. (212) 751-4131
##################################################################
 
Now's the time to stand up and be heard, before George decides it's
time for a weekend ratings-boost, at the cost of a few hundred or
thousand young American (and non-American) men's lives.  --Harel
 
   ###################################################################
  #        Harel Barzilai for Activists Mailing List (AML)          #
 #harelb@zaphod.UChicago.EDU /\ harelb%zaphod@gargoyle.Uchicago.EDU#
###################################################################
To join AML, just send the message "SUB ACTIV-L <your full name>" to
the address: LISTSERV@UMCVMB.BITNET; you should then receive a message
confirming that your name has been added to the list. Other addresses
to try (only) if the above fails are: "LISTSERV@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU"
or "ucscc!umcvmb.missouri.edu!LISTSERV"]
 
If you have problems/questions, contact the list administrator: Rich
Winkel at MATHRICH@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU or MATHRICH%UMCVMB.BITNET

    As you probably all ready heard, President Bush has ordered another 100,000
    troops to the Gulf. Last night I caught just a glimpse of a Senator
    or Congressmen speaking out against it. He was saying something about
    what we will have left in reserve, if war breaks out in the Gulf with
    that many troops already there. 

    I'm wondering, with the latest reserve call up, how far are they away
    from having to institute a draft ? A guy I know who was an inactive 
    Marine reservist, just got called and tolled to get ready to be put on
    active reserves.

    Jim

    
    
    I agree Jim....it doesn't look like it will be much longer.  Feels
    like Bush was just waiting until the elections were over before
    he really heated things up.
    
    There's just *got* to be another way to handle this!
    
    Carole

        It was scary to see Henry Kissinger on last night's
        "Nightline" program.  His basic position is that by being in
        the middle east with as many troops as we already have (i.e.,
        before this latest build-up), that there was no logical way
        to avoid attacking the Iraqi forces.

        The "logic" seemed to be that if those forces just sat there,
        morale would ebb and the determination of the uneasy
        coalition between Arabs and westerners would fail, with the
        end result being an eventual disgraceful withdrawal and a
        strengthening of Saddam's power in the region.

        This may well be a possible, even likely, outcome;  but it is
        no way certain.

        What scares me is that these "attack" proponents just seem
        to assume that the outcome of an attack will be better in the
        balance!  I think that this is totally unreasonable.  In
        fact, I think that the uncertainties, and hence the
        probabilities of bad outcomes, are far greater in the case of
        war.

        One wonders whether the greater uncertainty allows the mind
        to play a trick and simply discount the unpleasant
        possibilities as irrelevant.

        Lord help us!

        Bob

    How many believe that if invaded and conquered, Kuwait would be
    returned to its former state of sovereignty?
    
    
    That's what I thought.
    
    :-(
    Richard

>    How many believe that if invaded and conquered, Kuwait would be
>    returned to its former state of sovereignty?
 
	Assuming you mean invaded by the multi national force, I do.

				Alfred

	PS: Now Iraq may be different.

    re .52
    
    History will not back you up, Alfred.

    	Of course there is a better way to deal with this problem. It just
    isn't in the best interests of Bush and crew to contemplate such things
    openly. The Kuwaitis are negotiating with the Iraqis and if they settle
    their dispute before Bush gets in a "master stroke" then he will have
    to - once again - struggle to maintain the image of world leadership.
    He has already been embarassed by the Soviet Bloc "coming over" without
    so much as a "by your leave", to have another dispute settled without
    his direct involvement would be costly. Though he could always say it
    was our troops that forced the agreement. Even so, without a war in the
    offing, Bush will have to scale back the standing military. I think that
    is the threat that is driving him now. 

Article          559
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (DAVID E. ANDERSON)
Newsgroups: clari.news.demonstration,clari.news.gov.usa,clari.news.religion,clari.news.fighting,clari.news.hot.iraq
Subject: Opposition mounting to Bush Iraq policy
Date: 9 Nov 90 22:31:51 GMT
 
 
	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The streets are still empty and the campuses
quiet, but opposition to President Bush's move to put the United States
on an offensive footing in the Middle East is slowly organizing and
building, activists said Friday.
	``There is a shift of mood,'' said the Rev. Paul Sherry, president of
the United Church of Christ, one of the most liberal mainline Protestant
denominations.
	Bob Musil of the Professionals Coalition for Nuclear Arms Control, a
key cooridinating group for Washington antiwar lobbyists, agreed. Bush's
announcement on Thursday that the United States would nearly double its
forces in the Persian Gulf ``only confirms our worst fears,'' he said.
	The build-up announced by Bush, said Musil, ``is precisely the wrong
response to this crisis. This is not Grenada, this is not Panama, this
is not Libya. This is serious war.''
	And Dennis Doyon of the American Friends Service Committee in
Philadelphia reported that his Quaker-based group was getting an
increased number of calls from ``plain Americans'' suddenly fearful the
nation will be plunged into war.
	A number of peace groups and peace-oriented religious bodies were
expressing concern about the increasing stridency of the administration
rhetoric even before Thursday's announcement.
	On Thursday a group of 21 organizations took out a quarter-page
advertisement in The Washington Post declaring ``war is not the answer''
and saying they ``emphatically oppose the United States taking any
offensive military action in the current crisis.''
	Among the signers of the ad were the Union of American Hebrew
Congregations, a Reform Judaism organization; Americans for Democratic
Action; SANE/FREEZE; Physcians for Social Responsibilty; Women's
International League for Peace and Freedom and a number of religious
denominations and agencies.
	The American Civil Liberties Union and a number of other
organizations are circulating a letter that calls on Congress to ensure
that Bush follow constitutional constraints and that there be full
congressional hearings before any military action is undertaken.
	The Professionals Coalition -- seasoned peace lobbyists in Washington
-- has hired a polling firm to measure public opinion on a host of gulf
crisis questions over the coming weekend.
	But some groups are ready to take to the streets in an effort to
resurrect the mass mobilizations that marked the antiwar protests of the
Vietnam era.
	The Washington Area Coalition to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Middle
East plans a Saturday demonstration in front of the White House under
the broad slogan of ``civil rights before oil rights'' and will call for
``the unconditional, immediate and complete withdrawal of Iraqi troops
from Kuwait'' as well as a ``nonviolent, diplomatic resolution to the
conflict.''
	Said Sherry, ``Restraint is so critical right now. Patience is so
critical right now. But if the build-up continues, restraint will go by
the boards, patience will go by the boards. ... 
	``Our concern is that increasingly we are placing ourselves in a
position where war may become inevitable,'' he said.

    Last night on a radio talk show, they had some expert whose name I
    don't recall, saying that an attack against Iraq will result in an 
    all out war that will result in ten's of thousands of lives lost.

    The U.S. alone will loose 10k. The Iraqi's will loose ten times that
    number and many will be women and children. He said that most of the
    Iraqi sites that are targeted for bombing are heavily populated with 
    civilians. It will be impossible to bomb them without killing
    thousands of innocent human beings.

    In my own opinion, based on what I have heard from  some of those who
    are closser to the situation is that, if an all  out war breaks out, in 
    the end, we will shamefully be forced to leave the Persian Gulf, which will 
    be  in ruins, with enormous casualties all around, and we will never 
    again be seen as an honorable nation in the eyes of the world again.
    
    Lord, let there be a peaceful solution.
    
    Jim

    I pray with you, Jim (re .56).
    
    Richard

    I agree with you Jim.  The US cannot participate in an all-out war
    in the Persian Gulf and be seen as an "honorable" nation in the eyes of
    the world.
    
    Might does not always make right.
    
    I favor continuing long term economic sanctions and a multi-national
    _defense_ force with more UN involvement/direction.  It may take more 
    time, but I believe in the long run it would take _far_ less lives. 
    
    Yes, God please help us.
    
    Karen

    
    
    I attended a Quaker service this past Sunday.  For those who are
    not familiar with the format, people basically sit quietly until
    someone is moved to speak.  The topic of sharing was war, particularly
    since yesterday was Veteran's Day.  A man was sharing his views,
    and he said that instead of studying war we should be studying peace.
    He had quite a bit to add, but one of the things that really bothered
    me was he had seen a program where they reported on the shipping
    of body bags and wooden coffins to Saudi Arabia in preparation for
    war.  This is part of studying war.  It is one of the standard tasks
    that are done on the check-off list.
    
    Carole

Re: .58 Karen

>    The US cannot participate in an all-out war
>    in the Persian Gulf and be seen as an "honorable" nation in the eyes of
>    the world.

Since an "all-out war" would mean that we'd use nuclear weapons, I agree with
you.

>    Might does not always make right.

True, but sometimes might is needed to enforce what is right.  (Perhaps
some people don't agree with this.)

I think the U.N. should continue to enforce a trade embargo against Iraq,
and should continue to keep troops in Saudi Arabia to forestall an Iraqi
invasion.  I also think that if the U.N. backs off from its commitment
that the U.S. should go it alone, although in that case the trade embargo
might no longer be a viable strategy.

We should realize that the current stalement does have a cost in human
suffering.  The latest Newsweek, for example, has some distrubing stories
about what is going on in Kuwait.  People are dying out there.  However,
far more people would die if we went to war with Iraq.

What I'm afraid of is that the U.N. consensus against Iraq and U.S. public
opinion in favor of Bush's Mideast policy won't hold up long enough for the
sanctions to force Iraq out of Kuwait.  In that case Bush would be forced
either to attack Iraq or to withdraw from Saudi Arabia.  Withdrawal would
be political suicide; Bush would be forever known as the "Wimp President".
For that reason, I think war with Iraq is a very real possibility.

To answer a question that Nancy asked in .0: yes, I think Saddam Hussein
is worth stopping.  The question is: how can we get out of this mess with
the least cost in human lives and world economic security.

				-- Bob

    Funny how little historical and cultural understanding we of the
    West have of the region in question.  Our actions are based on the
    assumption that the Iraqi thought is similar to ours, when actually
    it is appreciably different.  The Islamic faith reinforces the idea
    that it is the highest honor to die for Jehad (Islamic Holy War).
    As I understand it, it's practically a guarantee of eternal life.
    
    Richard

re Note 28.61 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     Funny how little historical and cultural understanding we of the
>     West have of the region in question.  

        We also don't have a good grasp of the history of the region. 
        The British exercised imperial rule over this area with
        relatively recent memory.  It is no wonder that the British,
        and their co-lingual and co-religionist allies the Americans,
        raise a lot of suspicions, fears, and outright hostility
        among Arabs.  And all this is on top of even older and
        deeper-felt religious animosities.

        Bob

There was an excellent article in the Boston Globe this past week which
purpoted to explain what is happening here from the Hussein's perspective.
According to the article, the lack of outrage over the use of chemical
warfare on his own people as well as an explicit statement by a U.S.
official about the expected lack of U.S. response to any aggressive
action by Iraq against Kuwait practically guaranteed an invasion, since
it was the logical thing to do.

Personally, I don't know what we should do.  Is Hussein another Hitler
(i.e. will he want more if no one stops him at Kuwait)?  It appears that
he would want more.  But should we stop him?  And at what cost?

I ask God these questions and don't think I've gotten a clear response
yet.

Collis

    	The question is no longer "Stop him at Kuwait". We have done that.
    We have hurt him at home and abroad with the embargo. The question now
    is "Will we attack?" or "Should we attack?". I think we should not, I
    hope we will not. Still, Bush has invested a lot in this situation and
    dares not come off looking like a minor player or a loser and this
    means he is likely to order an attack. Muslims may be assured of
    eternal life if they die in Jihad but not if they starve to death so
    that the soldiers will be well fed for their last battle. Our only hope
    for peace is that the situation will resolve itself before Bush can
    act. Have you all noticed that his stated objectives have switched from
    "Restore Kuwait to 'normalcy'" to "Deprive Iraq of the capacity to wage
    war" ?  That is NOT the act of someone interested in peace at even the
    most reasonable cost. That is the act of someone you would have to PAY
    to wage peace.

    
    O God, through your prophets you foretold of a day when the weapons of
    war would be beaten into plowshares of peace.  We pray that you will
    hasten the fulfillment of that great and glorious day!  Calm the
    turmoil of the nations; dissuade the people who delight in war; that we
    may be swiftly delivered from our present confusion into the order and
    righteousness of your realm on this earth; through Christ, our Savior we
    pray.  Amen.
    
    		--the Invocation at church this past Sunday

    re. .61 Richard
    
    	Last I heard this was not declared a Holy War (except by Hussein
    which doesn't count).  Has that changed??
    
    _ed-

    Hussein may not count to us, certainly.  I really don't know
    who gets to declare Islamic Holy War.  To me, Holy War is a
    contradiction in terms; like Civil War.  Funny how some folks
    try to glorify sinful obscenity, eh?
    
    You will recall how a truck full of explosives was rammed into a
    U.S. Marine complex in Beirut a few years back?  That was a suicide
    mission typical of Holy War.  I wonder who declared that?  Islamic
    congress?  I honestly don't know.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    I read in yesterday's New York Times, that of the 700,000 exiled
    Kuwaitis, only 3000 or .4% are currently serving on the front line in
    Saudi Arabia.  21% of the U.S. military force is now deployed to 
    operation desert shield. To give you an idea of the magnitude of the 
    build up, during Viet Nam, we had 16 % of our Military force deployed
    there.

    The New York Times also showed a picture of the exiled Kuwaiti
    government, living in a plush Hotel in N.Y. Under that picture
    is a photo of a  U.S Calvary compnay, standing in the desert for 
    morning role call.
 
    
    Peace
    Jim

Jim,

I don't want to belittle the 3000 Kuwait troopers but have you
been to Kuwait? Having the untrained senior Kuwaiti's on the
front lines are a detriment to the multi national force. Much
like sending the congress and senate out there.

The Kuwait culture (my opinion only) has evolved into a tent of
chieftians and very few warriors. This is a throwback of the
British (re)installed culture there.

calvin
who-went-there-on-one-occasion-to-teach-desalination-process-class

Note 28.68

>a photo of a  U.S Calvary compnay, standing in the desert for 
>morning role call.
 
Interesting typo here, Jim.  Of course, I know you meant cavalry, and
not the Greek word for Golgotha (The Skull), where Jesus was crucified.

Peace,
Richard

    re:-1 Richard
    
    Boy, I new it was gonna be a tough day in the conferences. 
    
    My secratary took the buyout and now I have to write my replies
    myself.-:)
    
    Peace
    Jim

Article          576
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (ADAM KELLIHER)
Newsgroups: clari.news.religion,clari.news.europe,clari.news.issues.conflict,clari.news.military,clari.news.fighting,clari.news.hot.iraq
Subject: Runcie calls for one year of sanctions
Date: 15 Nov 90 19:26:22 GMT
 
 
	LONDON (UPI) -- Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie said Thursday
the multinational force arrayed against Iraq should wait one year for
economic sxanctions to have an effect, but that armed force would be
justified in the ``final resort'' if peaceful means failedto resolve the
Persian Gulf crisis.
	Elsewhere in Britain, a group of five Britons, a Belgian, an Indian
and a Ghanaiain prepared to fly Friday to Jordan and then to the Kuwaiti
desert to set up a peace camp between Iraqi troops and the U.S.-led
multinational force massed in the Saudi Arabian desert.
	Also, British and U.S. officials said an American chartered flight is
scheduled to leave Kuwait Sunday with an unspecified number of Western
women and children.
	The Voice of America and the British Broadcasting Corporation's World
Service broadcast messages advising nationals to contact the American
and British embassies in Kuwait City.
	``At the end of the day, its their decision,'' a Foreign Office
spokesman said about the 600 Britons remaining in the occupied emirate.
``Our advice to them is to come out.''
	Runcie, speaking at a General Synod as the outgoing leader of the
Anglican Church, said the public must discard romantic ideas that the
bloodshed would be confined to soldiers in ``surgical strikes'' and 
``clean'' operations.
	``Let us be in no doubt whatever, that if it comes to war ... non-
combatants will most certainly be killed and maimed and bereaved,'' he
said. ``We must face the bleak, horrible fact that a war could not be
confined to the professional soldiers, airmen and sailors.
	``A year of sanctions would be far cheaper in every way than even a
very short war,'' he said.
	``Of one thing I am quite sure: whilst we must use every means short
of war to enforce the U.N. (economic) policy, it would be foolish to
rule out the use of force in the last resort,'' Runcie said.
	An official for the Gulf Peace Camp said the group leaving Friday is
an advance party and that about 100 other people had signed up to go
when the camp is established.
	He said the group was non-political and self-funded and that the
venture had been cleared with Iraqi authorities and Kuwaiti officials of
the government-in-exile. They were awaiting a response from Saudi King
Fahd to a request that a second camp be created inside the adjacent
kingdom, he said.
	``The main aim is to remind the world leaders that there should be
peace and no war,'' he said. ``It can help to stop the war, but of
course it depends on the leaders.''

Article          577
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (DAVID E. ANDERSON, UPI Religion Writer)
Newsgroups: clari.news.religion,clari.news.gov.usa,clari.news.fighting,clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.europe,clari.news.hot.iraq
Subject: Bishops morally opposed to war against Iraq
Date: 15 Nov 90 19:52:03 GMT
 
 
	_ WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The head of the nation's Roman Catholic bishops
wrote President Bush Thursday the United States could not morally go to
war against Iraq now and expressed concern with the U.S. military
buildup in the Middle East.
	Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk of Cincinnati, president of the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops, said in a hand-delivered letter to the
White House, that moving from a defensive to an offensive military
posture ``could well violate these criteria (for a moral war),
especially the principles of proportionality and last resort.''
	Catholic and most Protestant teaching on war follows what is known as
the ``just war'' tradition that allows war to be waged only under
certain circumstances. For example, the use of force cannot be out of
proportion to the harm caused, the war must discriminate between
combatants and civilians and it must be waged as a last resort.
	``The use of weapons of war cannot be a substitute for the difficult,
often time-consuming and frustrating work of searching for political
solutions to the deep-seated problems in the Middle East which have
contributed to this current crisis,'' Pilarczyk wrote.
	The letter to Bush was requested by the more than 300 Catholic
bishops gathered in Washington for their annual four-day meeting. While
the letter was a ``president-to-president'' letter, Pilarczyk said he
was expressing the growing concern of his brother bishops, raised during
a closed session of the prelates Wednesday afternoon.
	The communication raises Catholic concern about the present U.S.
military policy another notch from that expressed by Los Angeles
Archbishop Roger Mahony just before the latest escalation began. But it
does not put the bishops' conference into full-fledged opposition to the
Bush gulf policy as a number of bishops had urged.
	Mahony, who chairs the bishops' international policy committee,
underscored Pilarczyk's concern, answering ``no'' to a question of
whether the current U.S. build-up met the ``just war'' criteria and that
he did not see any reason at this time to move toward an offensive
policy.
	The bishops' concern echoes that of a growing number of religious
leaders. Most recently the Board for World Ministries of the United
Church of Christ called on Bush to stop the escalation.
	``Cooling off the military presence will give diplomacy a chance to
work,'' sadi the Rev. James Fletcher, of Portland, Maine, a trustee of
the board.
	Across the country, meanwhile, the Rev. Gabriel Habib, head of the
Middle East Council of Churches, told the governing board of the U.S.
National Council of Churches in Portland, Ore., that Bush should ``talk
to all the parties involved,'' including Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
	``War can be avoided,'' he told the leaders of the council's 32
Protestant and Orthodox church bodies. ``Humanity is God's gift and
should not be sacrificed by conflict between rulers.''
	Pilarczyk's letter strongly repeated earlier condemnations of Iraq's
Aug. 2 invasion of Kuwait and for continued ``worldwide peaceful
pressure and action to deter Iraq's aggression and secure the peaceful
liberation of Kuwait.''
	But he noted that ``clear moral criteria must be met'' to justify the
use of military force.
	At the same time, Pilaraczyk also called for a national dialogue on
the ethical dimensions of the Bush policy but, in answer to questions,
said he did not have anything as specific as a special session of
Congress in mind as a forum for that debate.
	Mahony said the international policy committee will continue to
monitor changes in the U.S. policy on a daily basis and continue to
press its moral criteria on Bush and other policy makers.

Article          580
From: clarinews@clarinet.com
Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.usa,clari.news.religion,clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.military,clari.news.hot.iraq
Subject: Church group condemns U.S. policy in Middle East
Date: 16 Nov 90 14:23:50 GMT
 
 
	PORTLAND, Ore. (UPI) -- The National Council of Churches, condemning
the Bush administration's Persian Gulf policy as one of ``reckless
rhetoric and imprudent behavior,'' called for the immediate withdrawal
of all U.S. forces except those explicitly recommended by the United
Nations.
	``We stand at a unique moment in human history, when all around us
seemingly impregnable walls are being broken down and deep historical
enmities are being healed,'' the council said in a message unanimously
approved at its annual general board meeting Thursday night.
	``And yet, ironically, at such a moment, our own nation seems to be
poised at the brink of war in the Middle East.''
	While condemning Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait, the
council's message was also critical of President Bush's response to the
crisis, questioning ``the apparent open-ended nature of U.S. military
involvement in the Middle East and the failure on the part of the
administration clearly to state its goals.''
	``President Bush and administration officials have done little to
clarify either of these points,'' the council message said. ``Indeed the
rationales offered for the steady expansion of U.S. presence have often
been misleading and sometimes even contradictory.''
	Of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the council said, ``We are
appalled by the past and present behavior of the regime in Iraq, one
which has previously enjoyed U.S. support.''
	But the response of the Bush administration, the council said,
amounts to ``reckless rhetoric and imprudent behavior.''
	``As Christians in the United States, we must witness against weak
resignation to the illogical logic of militarism and war,'' the
council's message said.
	The delegates adopted a resolution urging Iraq ``to release
immediately all those citizens of other nations being held against their
will in Kuwait or Iraq and to withdraw immediately its troops and
occupation forces from Kuwait.''
	The resolution also calls ``for an immediate halt to the buildup and
the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the gulf region except those which
might be required and explicitly recommended by the Security Council of
the United Nations in accordance with the relevant provisions of the
U.N. Charter.''
	While calling for the continued ``rigorous application'' of sanctions
against Iraq authorized by the U.N. Security Council, the council of
churches reiterated its opposition to the withholding of food and
medicine as a weapon against civilian populations.
	The National Council of Churches represents some 42 million American
Christians in 32 member denominations such as the United Methodist
Church, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the
United Church of Christ, the National Baptist Convention of America and
the Orthodox Church in America.
	The council's resolution called on its congregations, local and
regional ecumenical agencies and individuals ``to make peace in the
Middle East a paramount and urgent priority for prayer, study and
action.''
	It also called on Bush and Congress ``to pursue every means for a
negotiated political solution to the crisis in the gulf, including
direct negotiations with Iraq.''
	The resolution also addressed the Israel-Palestinian issue.
	``The U.S. government's condemnation of the massacre on the Harem al-
Sharif Temple Mount ... and its endorsement of a U.N. mission to the
occupied territories was a welcome departure from past policies,'' the
council said.
	``The failure of the U.S. government to take any substantive measures
to oppose the Israeli occupation, however, weakens the effect of its
appropriate outrage over Iraqi aggression against Kuwait. The region
cries out for a U.S. policy that seeks to redress all cases of
injustice, including those of Israel and Palestine, Lebanon and Cyprus.''
	The resolution also was critical of U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia
and forgiveness of debts to Egypt and Israel.
	``The presence of U.S. troops in the Middle East has led to an
expansion of the military capacity of an already grossly over-
militarized region,'' the resolution said.
	``The prposed billions of dollars of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, the
forgiveness of military debts to Egypt and Israel, and the supplying of
both with new and more sophisticated weaponry, combined with a seeming
lack of initiative to resolve the region's unsettled disputes, can only
be seen as morally irresponsible.''

    WASHINGTON - AP - A federal judge refused yesterday to stop the Army
    from sending a reservist to the Persian Gult without congressional
    authority, but said the case posed "a difficult legal question" about
    presidential power.
    
    US Districut Judge Royce Lamberth refused to grant a temporary
    restraining order to a member of the National Guard from North Carolina
    who argues that President Bush lacks authority to order him to Saudi
    Arabia....
    
    But Lamberth scheduled a hearing Dec. 10 to consider the request for a
    permanent injunction by Sgt. Michael R. Ange, now stationed at Fort
    Lee, Va.....
    
    Ratner [the guardsman's lawyer] said the judge's refusal to stop Ange's
    deployment, expected this week, would not render the case moot because
    the lawsuit also seeks his return from the Middle East....
    
    But the judge indicated some interest in legal arguments by Ange's
    lawyers that Bush violated the Constitution and the War Powers Act of
    1973 by sending troops to Saudi Arabia without getting permission from
    Congress.
    
    ....The War Powers Act requries the president to notify Congress of
    any substantial new deployment of forces overseas, and requires him to
    win congressional approval or withdraw troops within 60 days if he
    sends them into combat or into situations where hostilities are
    imminent.
    
    

Article          584
From: clarinews@clarinet.com
Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.usa,clari.news.religion,clari.news.demonstration,clari.news.hot.iraq
Subject: Quaker group protests Gulf buildup
Date: 17 Nov 90 20:55:34 GMT
 
 
	PHILADELPHIA (UPI) -- Amid growing discontent with the U.S. troop
buildup in the Persian Gulf, about 150 members of a Quaker group braved
the rain and cold to rally for a peaceful solution to the crisis.
	The board members of the American Friends Service Committee, in
Philadelphia for their annual meeting, mailed postcards to President
Bush and held a brief Quaker worship service outside Independence Hall.
	``It is time for our nation to stop the build-up toward war and
engage in a partnership with other nations to find a non-military
settlement to the Gulf crisis,'' board chairman Stephen Cary said.
	Since the Aug. 2 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, some 230,000 U.S. troops
have been sent to the Persian Gulf, and more are on the way.
	The Quaker group also condemned the Iraqi invasion, and called for
Iraq to withdraw troops from its southern neighbor.
	``We hope that more and more Americans will voice their opposition to
war and its preparations,'' said Asia Bennett, AFSC executive secretary.
	The AFSC is the best known of several groups associated with the
Quaker religion, which preaches non-violence.
	The Quaker protest comes as President Bush's popularity rating
continues to slip in several national polls.
	A Washington Post-ABC News poll published Saturday showed public
support for Bush's performance in the gulf crisis continues to slip.
Fifty-nine percent of those questioned said they approve, down from 65
percent in an ABC survey conducted before Bush announced last week that
he would send more troops to Saudi Arabia. In September, 78 percent
backed Bush's handling of the crisis.
	The results were based on a poll of 515 randomly selected adults
nationwide conducted Nov. 14-15. The margin of error for the poll is
plus or minus 5 percentage points.

    This note addresses the kind of mental warfare I see practiced around
    me, wherein folks paste up pictures of Saddam Hussein on which targets
    are superimposed.  I believe such individuals are playing into
    Hussein's deranged psychic needs and actually contributing to
    destabilization. Here's why:
    
    I believe there are people who derive perverse satisfaction and a kind
    of sustenance from hatred, and that Saddam Hussein is such a person.
    The evil within him beckons to the evil within us all; many have
    answered the call.   Hussein gives us an excuse to indulge the darkness
    within in the name of national or even global security.  While we
    starve Iraq's people, are we feeding Hussein's appetite for the energy
    of hatred?   
    
    If this analysis is correct, then Jesus's counsel of loving your
    enemies is not pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by; it is practical peace-fare. 
    Our Mission, should we decide to believe it:  to transmute that hatred
    into love; first within ourselves, next within those beside us; then
    .... 
    
    Is it so simple?  Is it so difficult?  Have we another choice?
    
    DR

Re:  .77

We should love those who persecute us.  We should explicitly try to not
hate, but rather to love.

Collis

	... our Southern Baptist church a few weeks ago, and learned some-
thing really surprising.

	Know which Arab-block country is the most tolerant of Christians,
Christian evangelism, and Christian churches?




		Iraq!

Article          589
From: clarinews@clarinet.com
Newsgroups: clari.news.religion,clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.children,clari.biz.products,clari.news.hot.iraq
Subject: Minister taking baby food to Iraq despite embargo
Date: 23 Nov 90 14:09:34 GMT
 
 
	GRANVILLE, Ohio (UPI) -- A minister who plans to deliver infant
formula to Iraq says he is aware of the risk of violating a U.N. embargo
by making the delivery.
	But the Rev. George Williamson, pastor of the First Baptist Church,
said obeying moral law is more important than abiding by civil law.
	Williamson plans to join a 12-member group scheduled to leave New
York Sunday with food and medicine for the Iraqis.
	``Non-violent action (groups) have always considered there to be a
moral law higher than civil law,'' Williamson said. ``Civil disobedience
has always been a means of bearing witness to the higher moral law.''
	Williamson said the U.N. embargo, which includes food, ``is sort of
like cruel and unusual punishment. It affects the poor people. The
people who are in power are going to have all the food they want.''
	Williamson, president of the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North
America, said the mission is sponsored by the Fellowship of
Reconciliation of Nyack, N.Y.
	The group sponsored a similar mission in October, delivering 1,000
pounds of medicine for children's hospitals in Baghdad. The group also
returned with two Americans who had been hostages in Iraq, Williamson
said.

Article        18899
From: kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Text of Archbishop Roger Mahoney's letter concerning US/Iraq
Date: 26 Nov 90 12:11:02 GMT
Sender: news@usc
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
 
 
Since we have been discussing the recent statements by the Catholic
bishops and the NCC calling for restraint in the Persian Gulf, this
in fact is the letter sent by Archbishop Roger Mahoney, on behalf
of the Catholic bishops to Sec. of State Baker...
 
 
Reprinted from the Tidings, the diocesan newspaper of the Archdiocese 
of Los Angeles.
 
 
	Archbishop Mahony's Letter to Secretary of State Baker
	------------------------------------------------------
 
Washington (CNS) -- Here is the text of the Nov 7 letter on the
application of ethical principles to the Iraq crisis, written to
Secretary of State James A. Baker III by Archbishop Roger Mahoney of
Los Angeles, chairman of the U.S. bishops' International Policy
Committee.
 
[The letter was endorsed by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops 
(NCCB) at their annual meeting in Washington D.C. on Nov 12, by a vote 
of 249:15.]
 
 
Dear Mr Secretary:
 
  I write as chairman of the International Policy Committee of the U.S.
Catholic Conference to share several concerns and criteria regarding
possibly use of U.S. military force in the Persian Gulf.  As Catholic
bishops we are deeply concerned about the human consequences of the
crisis -- the lives already lost or those that could be lost in a war,
the freedom denied to hostages, the victims of agression and the many
families divided by the demands of military service.  As religious
leaders, we are concerned about the moral dimensions of the crisis --
the need to resist brutal aggression, to protect the innocent, to
pursue both justice and peace, as well as the ethical criteria for the
use of force.  As U.S. citizens, we are concerned about how our nation
can best protect human life and human rights and secure a peaceful and
just resolution to the crisis.
 
  Our conference has thus far emphasized five basic issues in
addressing the crisis:
 
  1) The clear need to resist aggression.  We cannot permit nations to
simply overwhelm others by brutal use of force.
 
  2) The need for broad-based, international solidarity which seeks
effective and peaceful means to halt and reverse aggression.  We
strongly support the United Nations actions and the international
pressure which has effectively halted Iraqi aggression and offers hope
for the peaceful liberation of Kuwait.
 
  3) The need to condemn the taking of hostages and the mistreatment
and killing of civilians.  We deplore the cynical and intolerable
actions of the Iraqi government in taking innocent civilians against
their will and using them for protection or propaganda, as well as the
brutal treatment of civilians in Kuwait.
 
  4) The essential need to distinguish between the leaders of Iraq and
the civilians of Iraq and Kuwait.  In the carrying out of the embargo
and other actions we need to take care so tha	t innocent civilians
are not deprived of those essentials for the maintenance of life,
i.e., food and medicines.
 
  5) The imperative to seek a peaceful resolution of the crisis and
pursue legitimate objectives by nonviolent diplomatic means.  We
continue to call for effective solidarity, perseverance and patience
in the search for a peaceful and just outcome to the crisis.
 
  It is on this last point, the persistent pursuit of a peaceful
solution, that I write to you now.  As the administration assesses the
military and geopolitical implications of initiating combat, we also
ask you to carefully assess the moral consequences of resort to war.
 
  Our country needs an informed and sustantive discussion on the human
and ethical dimensions of the policy choices under consideration.  In
the Catholic community, there is a long history of ethical reflection
on these issues and diverse points of view.  As chairman of this
committee, I share these reflections with you, not to offer a
difinitive judgement but to suggest some essential values and raise
some key questions which must be considered as the U.S. Explores its
options.  We hope they will contribute to the necessary and growing
public debate about whether the use of military force could be morally
justified and under what, if any, conditions.  We specifically seek to
draw attention to the ethical dimensions of these choices, so that
they are not ignored or neglected in a focus on simply military and
geopolitical considerations.
 
  In our tradition, while the use of force is not ruled out absolutely,
thre is a clear presumption against war.  The right to self-defense or
to repel aggression is restricted and governed by a series of moral
principles, often called the "just war" theory.  These criteria spell
out the conditions which have to be met for war to be morally
permissible.  Aomng the major criteria are:
 
  (a) Just cause: Is there "a real and certain danger" which can only
be confronted by war?  Several objectives have been put forth for U.S.
policy: to deter and repel aggression, to safeguard human rights, to
assure adequate and affordable energy supplies, to advance a new
international order, to overthrow a hostile dictator.  In order to
meet the just cause criteria U.S. policy would have to clarify its
precise objectives, measure them by ethical values and demonstrate
that they can only be achieved through the use of force.
 
  (b) Competent authority:  This principle asks who in this case is
the competent authority to authorize the use of force.  The president
acting alone, the president and Congress, the U.N., which has played
an indispensible role in securing international condemnation of Iraq?
This principle is curcial given the past conflicts in our own country
about who has such powers.
 
  (c) Right intention:  Are the reasons set forth as a just cause for
war the actual objectives of military action?
 
  (d) last resort:  Have all peaceful alternatives been fully pursued
before war is undertaken?  Can the international economic and
political pressure on Iraq bring about a just solution over time
without resort to violence?
 
  (e) Probability of success:  Is the prospect of success sufficiently
clear to justify the human and other costs of military action?
 
  (f) Proportionality:  Is the damage to be inflicted and the costs
incurred by war proportionate to the objectives to be achieved by
taking up arms?  In this case are the expressed values at stake so
important, i.e., the survival of Kuwiat, repelling aggression, etc.,
that they justify the use of force?  Will war with Iraq leave the
people of Kuwait, the Middle East and the world better or worse off?
 
  In addition to these criteria, there are others which govern the
conduct of war.  These principles include proportionality and
discrimination, i.e., the military means used must commensurate with
the evil to be overcome and must be directed at the aggressors, not
innocent people.  For example, the Second Vatican Council declared,
"Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire
cities or of extensive areas along with their population is a crime
against God and man himself.  It merits unequivocal and unhesitating
condemnation."
 
  Military action against Iraq would have to be restrained by these two
principles, necessarily ruling out tactics and strategies which could
clearly target civilian lives.  This means this war would have to be a
limited war, raising again the criteria of the probability of success
and the price to be paid given the hostile physical environment, the
fragility of the anti-Iraq alliance and the volatility of regional and
domestic political support.  
 
  These considerations lead me to strongly urge that the U.S., in
continued cooperation with the United Nations, the Soviet Union, Arab
states and other nations, stay the course of persistent, peaceful and
determined pressure against Iraq.  A resort to war in violation of
these criteria would jeopardize many lives, raise serious moal
questions and undermine the international solidarity against Iraq.  We
underrstand that a strong military presence can give credibility to a
vigorous pursuit of non-violent solutions to the crisis.  They may
also open the door for a new, broader and more imaginative dialogue
concerning the deep-seated and long-standing problems which have
contributed to the current situation.
 
  We pray for the safety and welfare of the peoples of that troubled
region.  We pray for the liberation of the hostages and the people of
Kuwait.  We pray that the American men and women deployed in the Gulf
may by their presence support a peaceful resolution of the crisis and
return safely and soon.  And finally, we pray that our leaders and all
other parties concerned will have the persistence, wisdom and skill to
resolve the current crisis in peace and with justice.
 
----------------------------------------------------

    
      Westover Air Force Base, which is only a couple of miles from
    where I live, is the major staging area for men and materials
    going to the Middle East.
      According to a local newspaper they have received information
    from a "source" that works on the base that metal air shipment
    coffins and body bags are among the "supplies" that are being 
    regularly sent from the base to the Middle East.
      Also, large numbers of men and equipment are being sent to Turkey
    as well as Saudi Arabia. These could used as reserve forces that
    could be quickly moved to Saudi Arabia if needed or to create a
    "second front" in the event of war.
      I suppose one could say these are all part of routine military
    logistics. It is just that such "routine things" from a military
    perspective are rather sickening from my perspective.
    
     
                                                       Mike 

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

I must say that I find .83 deeply troubling. A reservist who finds no difficulty
being fully trained as a fighting machine and claims CO status on the basis of
*why* he is bing ordered to kill, and states justification based on what
percentages of minorities have joined (voluntarily) the armed services? I think
that looking with favor on this man's claim dilutes the meaning of the term
conscientious objector.

Serving in the manner in which he has *until* actually ordered into combat
clearly leaves open the possibility of other motives for his sudden strong sense
of moral duty. If, however, his motives are indeed pure, he should feel
obligated to refund all pay received and serve whatever prison sentence he
receives for not following orders. This seems to me to fall under Christ's
directive to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." This man entered into an
agreement, and should meet it honorably. (*Please* note that I am neither
condemning nor condoning the decision to enter into the agreeement in the first
place!)

I suggest that Eric is a totally qualified practitioner of civil disobedience,
questioning with justification policies of our nation which are, to be kind,
less than just. I get more than a little edgy at considering his claim to CO
status as valid. CO status should not be used to allow one to practice civil
disobedience without suffering the consequences of current law.

    Re.85
    
       Funny, but I see nothing in the article Mike posted that
      would indicate that the person in question thinks he
      will avoid suffering the consequences of the the decision
      he has made.
       Also, I would point out that, just maybe, this person has
      done some growing up and learned a few things since he was
      trained as a "fighting machine". People and their beliefs and
      values do change.
       At one time in my life I wore a uniform and carried gun. I was
      trained and drilled to follow orders without question and and
      many occasions I did just that. Those days and that person
      are long gone and I can't think of anything that would
      get me to do those things again.
       The honoring the contract reasoning doesn't hold much water with
      me. If you cannot perform your obligations in good conscience,
      should you continue doing them ? Should a person be required to
      do what they believe is evil because they previously acted in
      ignorance ? I think not. Especially when doing so could cost you
      your life.
        I can ask no one to give their life in a cause that I would not
      be willing give mine in and I would not be willing to die to defend
      Saudi oil profits.
       Are you willing to , right this minute, leave your home and
      family and go be killed in a war ?  If you are not, then I think
      you should refrain from suggesting that someone else do so. 
      Especially for a reason so underwhelming as a contractual obligation.
    
                                                       Mike 
                                                         

    Being an ex-Marine myself, I have little doubt that this guy is going
    to jail. He'll eventually get out with a less than honorable discharge.
    If he's lucky he'll just get a bad conduct discharge rather than
    a dishonorable.

    My understanding of a dishonorable discharge would mean he will not be 
    allowed to own property in the U.S. or be allowed to vote, run for
    public office or hold any government job.

    In the days prior to Vietnam, being discharged with less than
    an honorable discharge would make it difficult for you to get a job.

    	As one reply pointed out, Eric has done some growing up since he
    signed on several years ago. Still, he now claims CO status on two
    grounds; that his understanding of war has changed and that this
    pending war is unconsciably unjust as it is for reasons of economic
    imperialism. That his letter of objection cited the racial unfairness
    of the situation is informative rather than a basis for his CO status.
    	I am a VNE vet. I gave Ceasar 4 years while he was engaged in an
    unjust war to which I objected. Still, I put on AFBlues and served my
    country. I would have gone to jail before going to SEA, but I served my
    country still. At the time I could see no "right" decision to make so I
    made the one that seemed the least "wrong". "Situational ethics". 
    	Eric will go to jail. He will suffer for all of us who have moral
    or ethical standards which exclude war for profit. In that, at least,
    he is very much like Christ was. And Ceasar will see that he too is
    crucified for daring to be moral or ethical.

Note 28.85

> states justification based on what
> percentages of minorities have joined (voluntarily) the armed services?

I was hoping someone else would catch this, since I'm generally perceived as
an antagonist in this area.

There are reasons why there are disproportionate numbers of minorities in
the military.  And, it's less a voluntary matter than one might imagine.  Many
people of color perceive (real or imagined) that they really have no other
choice.

Peace,
Richard

    	The armed forces will hire people with little or no previous job
    experience and a poor educational background as long as they are
    healthy. They will also teach various skills that may be hard to come
    by for those with limited resources.
    	Anglos do not enlist because they have greater access to the
    non-military job market and to various educational alternatives. They
    are much less likely to NEED what the armed forces can offer
    non-Anglos.
    	This is not a justification for the system or praise for it, just
    an explanation. It is not right that any group should have greater or
    lesser access to a job market or educational alternative unless that
    group is defined by a skill-set or other capability demand. IMO

    Also, according to one article I read (and posted in some NOTES conf.
    somewhere -- was it here?), the armed forces do some pretty agressive
    recruiting in some predominately Hispanic and African-American
    inner-city high schools....
    
    Nancy

/** mideast.gulf: 293.0 **/
** Topic: ConflictCosts Reported in Media **
** Written  5:03 am  Dec  7, 1990 by cttoy in cdp:mideast.gulf **
DATA AND ANALYSIS FROM THE MEDIA ON THE PERSIAN GULF CRISIS
COSTS
 
        Material will be added to this resource package from time to
time.  Watch for new editions.
 
Prepared by Judy Reed for
NH Campaign for Peace in the Middle East
c/o NH Action for Peace & Lasting Security
P.O. Box 771, Concord, NH 03224
(603) 228-0559
 
WAR CASUALTIES
 
        "My projection is that there would be about 10,000 American
casualties in 10 days of fighting to occupy Kuwait" and dislodge
Iraqi forces, said Trevor duPuy, a military historian and editor
of a military encyclopedia to be published next year.
        In military terminology, "casualty" embraces both dead and
wounded.  The ratio depends on the type of warfare waged.
        Taking into account data from past wars and the composition
of forces now facing each other in the Gulf, duPuy reckons that
16 to 17 percent of American casualties would be fatalities--160
to 170 a day.
        ...[Defense analyst Joshua Epstein of the Brookings
Institution] said the Army's own research suggested that up to
half as many American and other troops in Saudi Arabia would be
killed or wounded as Iraqi soldiers in any drive into Kuwait.
        US News and World Report said in its latest issue that the
U.S. joint chiefs of Staff and the National Security Council
estimated that the United States would lose between 20,000 and
30,000 dead and wounded in a Persian Gulf War.
        There was no official comment from the government, but one
senior officer with extensive combat experience told Reuters he
thought the estimate "pretty realistic, probably on the low
side."
        The highest published estimate of war casualties so far has
come from France, where Defense Minister Jean-Peirre Chevenement
said this week that fighting would kill at least 100,000 people
on both sides of the conflict.
-Boston Globe 9/26/90
 
        Recent Pentagon estimates...indicate that more Americans may
be killed in the first 14 weeks of a war with Iraq than were
killed during the 14 years of our combat role in Indochina.
-Rep. Ronald V. Dellums (CA), Boston Globe, 11/18/90
 
MILITARY COSTS
 
        The Defense Department has calculated this net cost [of the
Gulf operation] at roughly $46 million per day, a figure which
should decline once the forces are fully deployed.  Let's assume
that this means roughly $1 billion per month in additional costs
spread over five to six months.
        -Gordon Adams & Stephen Cain (Defense Budget Project, a
private research organization), Tempe Daily News Tribune, 9/16/90
 
        The estimated "add-on" [e.g. off-budget] costs of Operation
Desert Shield are $1 billion per month.
-Michael T. Klare, defense correspondent, The Nation, 10/15/90
 
        The Pentagon estimates that the cost of the Gulf operation
for the first two months alone (when the military forces will be
only a fraction of their projected size) to be $2.5 billion.
Ironically, by deploying military forces, the U.S. has imposed on
itself a much higher cost for oil than Saddam Hussein would have
been able to do....
        The question should be asked whether Pentagon planners
exploited the Persian Gulf crisis to sideline plans for reducing
military operations and cutting defense spending.  Just six
months ago the defense department was facing the demobilization
of troops and serious questions about the role of the military in
the new post-Cold War era.  Now however, the U.S. is mobilizing
the largest foreign military build-up since the Vietnam War...
        Plans for creating a "peace dividend" and cutting defense
appropriations as a deficit reduction strategy effectively have
been derailed by the U.S. action in the Gulf....  As the country
faces a tough budget cutting process, the Gulf mobilization means
that large cuts again will come from social service expenditures.
        -Billie Marchik (International Affairs Program Director,
AFSC, DesMoines, Iowa), AFSC Middle East Peace Notes, September,
1990
 
MILITARY AND OIL COSTS
 
        [War with Iraq] could produce potentially devastating
economic consequences.  One would have to anticipate the serious
possibility of at least a temporary cutoff in much of the flow of
oil from the Persian Gulf.  Military action would probably result
in the destruction of most of Kuwait's and Iraq's oil facilities,
while sabotage could also affect the installations in other gulf
states.  The price of oil could easily climb to $65 per barrel or
even more.
        The financial costs of the war by themselves would also be
extraordinarily high.  It has been estimated that for the United
States the costs of large-scale combat could amount to about $1
billion per day.  An economic and financial world crisis might
thus prove difficult to avoid.
        -Zbigniew Brzezinski (National Security Advisor under
Carter), New York Times, 10/7/90
 
        Worldwide gasoline rationing could be among the first direct
results of a full-scale conflict.  Further along in the crisis,
the casualties could include the financial collapse of developing
countries, outright failure of the economic reforms in Eastern
Europe and a severe shock to the world banking system....  [Oil]
prices as high as $60 to $80 a barrel are likely, and could go
even higher, depending on the scale of the war.
        The problem, of course, is that Saudi Arabia's oilfields are
now pumping more than seven million barrels of oil each day--one-
third of the oil traded on the world market....  Iraq has some of
its most battle-ready armored divisions and an array of short-
and medium-range missiles within a few hundred miles of much of
the Saudi oil infrastructure, including wells, pumping
facilities, refineries and tanker terminals....  Such facilities
are hard to defend, even with air superiority....
        Even full use of the world's strategic oil reserves could
not make up for the losses that would result from a major
disruption of Saudi supplies.  Moreover, these reserves are
limited and could be exhausted in six months if they had to be
used at their maximum rate....
        With many [developing] nations already barely able to meet
debt service obligations, they are in no shape to pay doubled oil
import bills.  A series of defaults could cascade through the
world banking system....
        The U.S. faces the uncomfortable reality that the oil
facilities it seeks to protect could be among the first
casualties of war....
        -Christopher Flavin, Worldwatch Institute, a policy research
organization
 
        When oil prices rise by only $6--about half the increase
they showed in the first three weeks of the current gulf crisis--
they add a full percentage-point to the inflation rate, and
dampen the world's economic growth by 0.5%, Georgia State
University economist Donald Ratajczak says....
        A prolonged war or one that destroys major oil fields would
leave supplies disrupted for months, or even years.  Fuel would
be in short supply.  Shortages could appear in other products as
well.
        The war could cost a quarter of a billion dollars a day--
much more by some estimates--sending the U.S. government on a
borrowing spree. Oil prices would soar and stay high even after
the conflict, particularly if production facilities were
damaged....
        Operation Desert Shield already is expected to cost the
government $2.5 billion by the end of September--about double
what the Pentagon earlier estimated.
-Karen Tumulty, New York Times, 9/3/90
 
        Ironically, as the flight from the dollar suggests, the
Persian Gulf commitment is a massive subsidy of our economic
competitors.  Reborn conservative isolationists will not be alone
in objecting to the United States paying more than $50 billion a
year for "gulf contingencies" to insure the access of Europe and
Japan to almost 60 percent of all Middle East oil at discount
prices.
-Robert L. Borosage, The Nation, 9/24/90
 
OIL CONSERVATION
 
        The White House, which has urged Americans to conserve oil
in the wake of the Persian Gulf crisis, orchestrated a Senate
vote yesterday that effectively killed a landmark energy
conservation bill requiring auto makers to increase fuel mileage
by 40 percent within a decade.
        The bill would have saved 2.8 billion barrels of oil a day,
more than the 1.9 billion barrels that the United States imports
from all of the Persian Gulf countries combined, according to the
bill's sponsors.
-Boston Globe 9/26/90
 
Barrels of oil the US consumes each day: 17 million
Barrels of oil the US imports each day: 8.4 million
Portion of US oil supplied by Iraq & and Kuwait prior to the
trade embargo: 5%
Portion of US oil saved by raising car fuel efficiency standards
by 2.8 mpg: 5%
Billions saved per year if US converts to best available lighting
technology: $30
Resulting decrease in US electricity use: 25%
Reduction in Dept. of Energy budget for energy matters from 1980
to 1989: 90%
Market price of Middle East oil prior to Iraqi invasion of
Kuwait: $30/barrel
Price including all current US military costs in Middle East:
$61/barrel
Military costs per day of Operation Desert Shield: $83,333,000
-Greenpeace
 
        The New York Times's chief diplomatic correspondent Thomas
Friedman ... estimates that the difference between the price of a
barrel of oil before the invasion and the price Iraq favored
would translate into a five cents per gallon difference at the
gas pump for U.S. consumers.
-Stephen R. Shalom, Z Magazine, October ,1990
** End of text from cdp:mideast.gulf **

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

/** mideast.gulf: 326.0 **/
** Topic: Unitarian-Universalist Statement **
** Written 10:36 pm  Dec 12, 1990 by tshapin in cdp:mideast.gulf **
ACT NOW TO PREVENT WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST
 
The following comes from the Unitarian Universalist Association and
the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee:
 
Dear Friend,
Preparations for war in the middle East are reaching the point of no
return. Your help and leadership is needed now. We urge you to share
this letter and action alert with your congregation and community.
 
On November 29, after heavy lobbying by the Bush Administration, the
UN Security Council voted in favor of a resolution sanctioning use of
force against Iraq if it has not unconditionally withdrawn from Kuwait
and freed all hostages by January 15, 1991.
 
Many members of the UUA and UUSC share your alarm at this rush toward
war. The Boards of both organizations have publicly expressed
opposition to offensive military action and support for a negotiated
peace. A clash between the world's first and sixth largest military
powers will cause untold human suffering and death. Thousands of
innocent men, women and children will be among the dead and dying
along with combatants. The world economy will be gravely weakened by
rising oil prices.
 
Unitarian Universalists across the country are responding to this
crisis. We have both requested meetings with UU members of Congress.
We urge you to organize delegations from your congregations and
communities to lobby your members of Congress.
 
Enclosed are recommendations for action and suggested resource
materials, We invite you to reprint the enclosed order of service
insert and use the alert sheets for posting and letter-writing tables.
 
It is our hope that congregations nationwide will light candles for
peace in the Middle East during holiday services on December 23 or 24.
We also encourage you to set aside the weekend of January 12--13 for
special services and activities directed at stopping this potential
war.
 
The next several weeks are a key time to prevent this catastrophe. We
must make our voices heard in support of UN-mediated negotiations and
a peaceful resolution of the Middle East crisis.
 
Sincerely,
 
s/ William F. Schulz, President, Unitarian Universalist Association
 
s/ Richard S. Scobie, Executive Director, Unitarian Universalist
Service Committee
 
SAY YOUR PEACE!
 
Demand a peaceful settlement before war starts. The President and
Congress must be persuaded that the American people will not tolerate
the political, economic and human costs of initiating an offensive war.
 
MESSAGE
 
Offensive military action against Iraq will result in untold human
cost and in economic and political upheaval in the Middle East and
throughout the world.
 
Economic sanctions must be given more time to work and genuine
diplomatic efforts mediated by the UN must be made to resolve this
crisis peacefully.
 
THINGS TO DO
 
Write and call the President. Address: The White House, Washington,
DC 20500; Comment line 202-456-1111.
 
Write, call, and organize interfaith delegations to visit your
representatives and Senators. Addresses: U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
20510; House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; House and
Senate telephone: 202-224-3121.
 
Set up letter writing tables after church services or other
gatherings.
 
Educate others: organize or participate in public forums,
demonstrations, vigils, church services, teachins, or discussion
groups. Display candles in the window, arm bands, or ribbons on car
antennas to help marshal public opinion against military action.
 
Contact the Media: write letters to the editor, call into talk shows,
meet with news directors and editorial boards. Suggest people who
could provide thoughtful perspectives on the crisis.
 
Write Congressional Leaders: Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell;
Senate Minority Leader Robert Dole; House Speaker Tom Foley; House
Minority Leader Robert H. Michel; Senator Claiborne Pell, Chair, Senate
Foreign Relations Committee; Rep. Lee Hamilton, Chair, Europe and
Middle East Committee; Senator Sam Nunn, Senate Armed Services
Committee. Addresses: U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
20510; House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
 
RESOURCES AVAILABLE
 
``The Persian-Arabian Gulf Crisis: Background for Study, Reflection and
Citizen Action'' prepared for UU congregations by the UUA Washington
Office, 100 Maryland Ave, NE, Wash., DC 20002, 202-547-0254.
 
``Crisis in the Gulf,'' pamphlet available for $1 plus $.65 postage from
the Institute for Policy Studies, 1601 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington
DC 20009, 202-234-9382. Video also available for $29.
 
``Crisis in the Gulf,'' a resource packet of reprints from Middle East
Report available from MERIP, 1500 Mass. Ave., NW, Suite 119,
Washington, DC 20004, 54 pp., $7.50. Add $4.50 for the special Nov.-
Dec. Gulf Crisis issue.
 
``Jordan's Stormy Banks: Towards Understanding the Middle East,'' a 20-
minute video that provides an excellent background on the crisis.
Available for rental from Presbyterian Resource Centers. For
information on their locations, contact Jo Gallagher, 502-569-5451.
 
BACKGROUND
 
The recently-passed UN Security Council resolution sanctioning the use
of force against Iraq moves the US closer to war in the Middle East.
 
Despite Administration attempts to justify its actions, prominent
military and policy experts strongly question the large troop buildup
and caution against war.
 
The UUA Board, the National Council of Churches, and the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops have all taken strong positions against
the use of force.
 
THE UU RESPONSE
 
At the local level:
Members of congregations and UUSC Units have marched in
demonstrations, invested in media advertisements and co-sponsored
community-wide teach-ins;
 
Congregations have planned services and speak-outs, including all of
the churches of the Delaware Valley, New York and New Jersey;
 
Arlington Street Church in Boston is displaying a banner urging peace.
It will remain in place until all U.S. troops have returned from Saudi
Arabia.
 
Individual UUs have written to their Congressional representatives and
called the White House.
 
At the continental level:
The UUA Board passed a resolution urging the search for a non-military
solution in the crisis;
 
UUA President Bill Schulz issued a Pastoral Letter on U.S. policy in
the Persian Gulf. He and Dick Scobie, Executive Director of UUSC are
seeking meetings with UU members of Congress;
 
UUA Social Justice Washington office Director Bob Alpern produced and
distributed a packet on the Middle East crisis to all congregations;
he is also chair of Churches for Middle East Peace, a consortium of
religious-based organizations;
 
The UU Peace Network prepared Action Alerts encouraging calls and
letters to Congress and the President;
 
The UU/UN Office sent information to all congregations and, along with
35 other religious and human rights groups, sent a letter to all
members of the UN Security Council urging them to reject the use of
force to resolve the crisis.
 
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations,
25 Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108. (617) 742-2100
 
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, 130 Prospect Street,
Cambridge, MA 02139. (617) 868-6600.
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.gulf **

Excerpted from:
/** pn.announcements: 194.0 **/
** Topic: ARMY DOCTOR HUNGER STRIKE IN TEXAS **
** Written  9:03 pm  Dec 13, 1990 by peacenet in cdp:pn.announcements **
Subject: ARMY DOCTOR HUNGER STRIKE IN TEXAS
 
From ttrudell Mon Dec 10 20:36 PST 1990
 
************************************************************************
The American Friends Service Committee Office in Austin, Texas counsels
men and women who are in the military or who are concerned about the
draft.  David Wiggins comes to us at the conclusion of his application
process with the Army.  We are assisting David in conjunction with the
National AFSC Youth and Militarism Program to explore his options and
spread the word of his current situation.
************************************************************************
THE FOLLOWING IS A PERSONAL STATEMENT BY DAVID WIGGINS
RECEIVED BY AFSC-TAO, AUSTIN, TEXAS:
************************************************************************
 
9 Dec 1990, Killeen, Texas
 
Hello.  My name is David Wiggins.  I have been on a hunger strike since
30 November.  I am a conscious objector (CO).  I am a physician and
Captain in the Army.  I graduated with honors from West Point in 1984 and
New York Medical College in 1988.  I worked a year at Walter Reed Hospital
in Washington, DC and have been at Fort Hood, Texas, since then.  I need
your help. In February, 1990, I applied for CO status because war is
immoral.  Even as a physician it is immoral for me to work in support of
something immoral.  Millions of innocent people continue to die because
their leaders on BOTH sides have convinced them it is necessary to KILL
for FREEDOM.  As larger and more powerful armies are raised to "defend
freedom" this power is ultimately abused and war breaks out and the
senseless killing begins.
 
As all nations acquire nuclear capability, nuclear holocaust will result.
The only option is nonviolent political change.  The collapse of communism
which began in the fall of 1989 convinced me beyond a doubt that this is
possible.
 
I applied for CO status.  An investigation was done.  I was interviewed by
a chaplain and a psychiatrist. Letters were required from supervisors,
co-workers and many friends.  Each person, and the investigation as a
whole recommended I be given CO status and discharged from the Army. A
review by lawyers at Ft. Hood concurred.  The application was then denied
at all levels of my chain of command, even when their personal staff
recommended approval.  Though it should have been done by 28 May, the
application was not forwarded to the Conscientious Objector Review Board
(CORB) until late August.
 
The CORB denied on the grounds that my views, in their opinion, were not
deeply held enough to be classified as "moral" since historical and
political events had influenced my decision.  This, in spite of the fact
that "moral" was the most common term in the case record used to describe
my beliefs. I took them to court.
 
On 30 November a preliminary injunction from the Federal District Court
in Waco, Texas, upheld the decision of the CORB on the same grounds.  I
immediately started, and am still on a hunger strike for my right to
discharge from the Army as a CO.I believe the Army knows I am a CO, but
will not discharge me as a CO until it is in their best interest to do
so.  My situation is urgent as I will be sent to Saudi Arabia on 17
December.
 
I am attempting to generate as much media attention as I can.  Newspaper
articles and TV appearances can generate a negative publicity that will
bring the Army to it's senses.  Please help publicize this situation.
Letters (preferably), FAX transmissions or calls to my commanding General
or immediate commander can also be helpful.  Please reinforce the truth.
Tell them I am a CO, that by law they should discharge me, and tell them
why it is in their best interest to do so.  As a last resort, I will
weaken my body to the extent that it is of no use to the Army.  Please
help.  On Monday, December 17th, I must leave for Saudi Arabia or go to
jail.
 
Thanks, DW
 
Here are the addresses you may write or FAX:
 
Lt. General Richard Graves
Commanding General
HQ III Corps and Fort Hood
Ft. Hood, TX  76544-50
Phone:  817/287-2506
FAX:    817/288-2750
 
Lt. Coronel Michael Freeman
Commander
2-158 AVN Regiment, 6th Calvary Brigade
Ft. Hood, TX  76544
Phone: 817/287-1993 (his desk)
       817/287-2000 (office)
FAX:   817/287-8728
 
Also send copies of your correspondence to:
 
Support Committee for Dave Wiggins
American Friends Service Committee
227 Congress Ave, #200
Austin, TX 78701-4021
Phone enquiries 512/474-2399, daytime.
 
** End of text from cdp:pn.announcements **

            <<< TINCUP::$203$DUS852:[NOTES$LIBRARY]QUAKER.NOTE;1 >>>
                       -< Religious Society of Friends >-
================================================================================
Note 61.4              Response to war in the Persian Gulf                4 of 6
GWYNED::YUKONSEC "Demure Delight"                    44 lines   4-DEC-1990 12:38
                 -< Feel free to extract and post everywhere >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is a form letter that Framingham Meeting received from FCNL.  It
    is suggested that this be brought to town and city and state officials
    in the hopes that they will sign it.  It should then be sent to the
    president.  (Address in previous reply)
    
    
    		--------------------------
    
    
    Dear Mr. President:
    
    
    		WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER
    ===========================================================================
    
      We are gravely concerned about the possibility of war in the Middle
    East -- especially as the United States shifts from a defensive to
    offensive military posture in the region.
    
      We emphatically oppose the United States taking any offensive
    military action in the current crisis.
    
      War in the Middle East would be a human, political and economic
    catastrophe.
    
      War would result in a massive loss of lives -- including as many as
    10,000 - 50,000 Americans and untold numbers of other combatants and
    civilian casualties on all sides.  Chemical and even nuclear weapons
    might be used.  A fragile multilateral consensus and alliance would be
    shattered.  The entire Middle East could be engulfed in war.
    
      We believe the U.N.-sponsored embargo must be given every opportunity
    to work.  We believe that a multinational, diplomatic, and non-military
    solution can and must be found.
    
      We therefore strongly urge that:
    
       > No U.S. offensive military action be taken
       > Economic sanctions against Iraq be given time to work
       > the crisis be resolved through peaceful, diplomatic means
    
      This crisis requires visionary and courageous leadership.  Wisdom,
    diplomacy, patience and restraint must guide the United States as it
    works through the United Nations to resolve the crisis in the Gulf.
    

/** mideast.gulf: 324.2 **/
** Written 10:15 pm  Dec 17, 1990 by ttrudell in cdp:mideast.gulf **
*************************************************************************
12-17-90
"Army Doctor Sent to Saudi Arabia Continues Hunger Strike."
Written by Ruth Powers, AFSC-TAO
 
AUSTIN--Conscientious Objector, Dave Wiggins, is deployed to Saudi
Arabia while he continues through day 18 of his hunger strike.
 
Today, Dave Wiggins left his home in Killeen, Texas, at 1:30 pm, to
report to Fort Hood for deployment to Saudi Arabia.  Dave's spirits were
strong.  He was spent much of his last days on the phone and with local
and national media.  From the media attention, Dave received many calls
from COs and other supporters who sympathized with what he is going
through.
 
On Sunday the 16th, a busload of about 40 people came from Austin and
held a vigil in his front yard.  It was a song and spirit-filled
afternoon.
 
The following text is the message Dave asked us to give to supporters
upon his deployment:
 
          "I would like to say farewell to all of you. Patty and I both
      thank you for your attention, caring and support.
           Do not think for a minute that because I [have] gone I am
      defeated. I believe in non-violence as a potent force for change.
           Now my life itself has become a test of that belief.  Can we,
      in a non-violent fashion, overcome the strongest military force in
      the world?  I believe we can.
           Ours is an optimistic creed.  While the military assumes men
      and women are evil, and thus, must be forced to change, we believe
      the good in all of us will manifest itself when given the
      opportunity.  If [we as] Americans cannot take an honest peaceful
      stand for [our] beliefs, what freedom do we really have?
           I have gone on a mission to heal the ill and wounded.  And,
      against my will, send them out [again] to kill or be killed.  I
      will not cease in my efforts to save them all.
                        Peace,  Dave Wiggins"
 
More information will follow as available.  In the meantime please pray
or meditate for Dave's comfort, his continued good health and safety.
An image comes to mind for him to have all the people around him,
including his "chain of command," treat him as they would their most
beloved brother.
 
*************************************************************************
 
Dave would appreciate getting mail.
 
Mail sent by Dec. 25th can go to this address:
 
     CPT DAVID WIGGINS
     080468340
     HHC 2-158TH AVN, 6TH CVAC
     APO 09657 NY
 
After Dec. 25 the zip code changes to:  APO 09834 NY
 
Patty Wiggins would also appreciate hearing from supporters.
Write her c/o AFSC at the address below.
 
    SUPPORT COMMITTEE FOR DAVID WIGGINS
c/o AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE
    227 CONGRESS AVE #200
    AUSTIN, TX  78701-4021
 
Please send a copy of your correspondence to us so we can add them to
Dave's file and have them available for him upon his return in case some
of his mail does not make it to Saudi Arabia.  Please include your full
address and phone number in your letter so the committee can send you
action alerts and keep you apprised of Dave's situation.
 
*************************************************************************
Those of you who feel moved to help Dave and Patty pay some of the phone
bills and legal expenses related to his case can send checks payable to
Patty Wiggins at the above AFSC address.
*************************************************************************
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.gulf **

Article         4151
From: kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: What the Quakers are saying in concern to the Persian Gulf
Date: 14 Dec 90 08:39:51 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
 
This is taken from a working paper of the American Friends Service
Committee, "Talking Points on the Crisis in the Persion Gulf",
Oct. 9, 1990:
 
	Events in the Middle East since the beginning of August --
	invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and the subsequent military buildup
	in the Gulf region -- make us fearful that there will be war,
	war that will kill and maim many people and destroy both 
	natural and human-made resources.  Hopes raised by the ending 
	of the Cold War are being dashed by the rush of military 
	actions and responses in a region flooded with sophisticated
	armament.
 
	As we address these ominious developments, our perspective 
	and recommendations flow from our own and the AFSC's
	fundamental values and understandings:
 
	* Rejection of military means to resolve political issues;
 
	* Support for non-military means for responding to aggression
	  and injustice, including economic sanctions;
 
	* Belief in the need for and value of negotiations in conflict
	  situations;
 
	* Support for strengthening international bodies;
 
	* Concern for the human impact of political and military events
	  -- including concern for noncombatants and for those affected
	  by economic sanctions.
 
 
Dennis again.  The document itself is rather long (13 pages).  I am
going to give only the policy recommendations suggested to the AFSC 
which are listed in the paper:
  
 
IRAQ'S INVASION:
 
	Iraq should withdraw its military forces from Kuwait and 
	submit its grievances to a negotiating process.  Saddam
	Hussein must also end his calls for "Holy War" and other
	provocations to prepare for a negotiated settlement.
 
KUWAIT:
 
	Kuwait's sovereignty must be restored.
 
	Iraqi withdrawl from Kuwait must not be linked directly to
	Iraqi demands for political change (in Kuwait)); the future
	course of Kuwait should be left for the Kuwaitis to decide.
 
THE MIDDLE EAST CONTEXT FOR THE CURRENT CRISIS:
 
	The United States should support United Nations and other
	multilateral efforts to acheive negotiated settlements of
	the major conflicts in the Middle East -- the Gulf Crisis
	the Israeli/Palestinian/Arab conflict, and the situation
	in Lebanon -- on the principles of self-determination,
	mutual recognition and mutual security.
 
US STRATEGIC INTERESTS IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA:
 
	AFSC believes that United States' interests and the 
	interests of those in the Middle East would best be served
	by an immediate halt to the build up of U.S. forces, an
	end to U.S. naval interdiction, and a phased withdrawl
	of U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.  Such steps
	with UN inspection of vessels bound to or from Iraq, would 
	allow sanctions to work.  President Bush should take the
	lead in diplomatic efforts to replace U.S. forces with an 
	Arab or United Nations peacekeeping presence.
 
GLOBAL CONSEQUENCES:
 
	Whatever the ultimate solution in the Gulf, steps must be
	taken to lift the debts of the Third World and to assist in
	forms of development that put the needs and interests of
	the majorities of people, expecially including women who are
	often neglected by development plans, ahead of gain for
	narrow elites.
 
MILITARY FORCES IN THE REGION:
 
	The AFSC has called upon the United States government to use
	the current crisis as an opportunity to initiate discussions
	with all major arms suppliers to the Middle East about steps
	to halt the arms transfers, not only to Iraq, but to all 
	nations in the region.
 
ECONOMICS AND OIL:
 
	The United States urgently needs to adopt a long-term energy
	policy that prohibits profiteering in times of international
	crisis while it discourages use of oil, encourages safe 
	alternative sources, and address the burdens that possible
	increased oil prices place on low income people.
 
	The United States must find wasy to reduce its oil consumption
	markedly.  Incentives must be developed for people to live
	simply, use less packaging, reduce and recycle waste, and
	prevent polution.  The United States must forego its perception
	of its "right" to foreign oil.
 
HUMANITARIAN CONCERNS:
 
	While the AFSC supports economic sanctions against Iraq, we have
	rejected the use of food and medicine as weapons.  The embargo
	should permit their shipment to Iraq.  Non-combatants must not
	be placed at risk.
 
	Iraq should release immediately all hostages and detainees in
	Iraq and occupied Kuwait.
 
	The American Friends Service Committee has established a Gulf
	Assistance Fund, to contribute to emergency assistance efforts
	of a concortium of non-governmental organizations in Jordon.
 
	The U.S. should be challenged to respond adequately to the
	harsh suffering of refugees and should make maximum use of its
	airlift capacity (so well demonstrated in teh past months) to
	fly evacuees out of Jordon.
 
	The United States should support Jordon in seeking relief from
	UN sanctions under Article 50 of the UN Charter.  Furthermore,
	it should allow free passage of ships bearing food and other 
	non-military goods into the Jordanian port of Aqaba.
 
	The United States should support the application of United
	Nations Article 50 to the situation of Palestinians in the
	Occupied Territories as well as in Jordon.  It should also
	offer direct economic aid to Palestinian health and welfare
	institutions on the West Bank and in Gaza.
 
DOMESTIC REPERCUSSIONS
 
	We reject the concept that participation in military service
	is a measure of gender equality and the suggestion that it 
	marks the success of struggles for women's rights in the
	United States.
 
	The President and other U.S. leaders must exercise moral
	authority to deplore and help put a stop to displays of
	anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry, even as they seek a
	peaceful resolution of the confrontation that has given
	rise to them.
 
 
Dennis once more.  If you'd like more information on what the Quakers
are saying in concern to this crisis, you can write the AFSC at:
 
		American Friends Service Committee
		1501 Cherry Street
		Philadelphia, PA 19102
 
dennis
kriz@skat.usc.edu

Article         4117
From: kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Text of the NCC's Nov 16th statement on the Persian Gulf
Date: 12 Dec 90 04:02:22 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
 
 
		A Message of the National Council of the Churches
	   of Christ in the U.S.A. on the Gulf and Middle East Crisis
 
			Final Text, issued Nov 16, 1990
 
 
Theological and Moral Imperative
--------------------------------
 
	I, therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead
	a life worthy of the calling to which you have been 
	called with all humility and gentleness, with patience,
	bearing with one another in love, making every effort to
	maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace.
	[Eph 4:1-3]
 
Thoughout the history of the church, the question of the admissibility
of war as a means of resolving disputes has been a source of
differences, and at times division, in the body of Christ.  Among our
own communions, there is a wide diversity of approaches to this
question.  For all Christians, however, war is a sign of the sinful
human condition, of human alienation from God, of alienation between
human beings who are all children of God.
 
We stand at a unique moment in human history, when all around us
seemingly impregnable walls are being broken down and deep historical
emnities are being healed.  And yet, ironically, at such a moment, our
own nation seems to be poised at the brink of war in the Middle East.
"What then are we to way about these things?" [Romans 8:31].
 
The quest for peace and the quest for Christian unity, which is the
very reason for our existance as a Council, are intimately related.
As churches seeking to recover our unity, we are called to be the salt
and leaven of our societies.  Together with other faith communities,
we are called to address moral and spiritual dimensions in the debate
on a national policy that seems to be careening towrad war.  Believing
that Christ is our peace, we cannot do other than to strive to be the
incarnation of creation's cry of peace.
 
Unanswered Questions
--------------------
 
Two months ago, on September 14, 1990, the Executive Coordinating
Committee of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA
addressed a message to its member communions on the Gulf crisis.  That
message condemned Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait, raised
serious questions about the decision of the U.S. government to send
troops to the Gulf region and about the growing magnitude of U.S.
presence, noting that the extent of the commitment of U.S. forces and
weaponry was the largest since the Vietnam War.  Since then, the U.S.
has more than doubled the number of troops sent to the region to a
number approaching a half a million persons.
 
The message also questioned the apparent open-ended nature of U.S.
military involvement in the Middle East and the failure on the part of
the administration clearly to state its goals.  President Bush and
administration officials have done little to clarify either of these
points.  Indeed, the rationales offered for the steady expansion of
U.S. presence have often been misleading and sometimes contradictory.
Early statments that U.S. forces had been deployed for the defense of
Saudi Arabia or the enforcement of U.N. sanctions have been supplanted
by suggestions of broader goals, including expulsion of Iraqi forces
from Kuwait by military means, or even offensive action against Iraq
itself.  The antion still has not been told in clear and certain terms
what would be required for the withdrawl of U.S. troops.
 
The Prospect of War
-------------------
 
The initial response of the NCCC/USA was carefully measured,
recognizing the magnitude of the injustice inflicted by Iraq against
Kuwait, and the unprecedented reliance by the U.S. on the mechanisms
of the U.N.  In contrast, the U.S. administration increasingly
prepares for war, a war that could lead to a loss of tens of thousands
of lives and the devastation of the region.  Such talk has given rise
to widespread speculation in our country, in the Middle East and
elsewhere that the United States will initiate war.
 
In the face of such reckless rhetoric and imprudent behavvior, as
representatives of churches in the United States we feel that we have
a moral responsibility publicly and unequivocally to oppose actions
that could have such dire consequences.
 
The Wider Implications
----------------------
 
Our earliermessage also pointed out that the active U.S. effort to
implement United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to the
occupation of Kuwait by Iraq stand in marked contrast to U.S.
negligence regarding the implementation of Security Council
resolutions 242 and 338.  These call for the withdrawl of Israeli
troops from the territories occupied in the 1967 War and the convening
of an international conference to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian
issue.  There has also been negligence regarding the implementation of
Security Council resolutions 353, 360 and 361 which call for the
withdrawl "without delay" of Turkish troops from Cyprus and solving
the problems of the island through negotiations.
 
During the intervening weeks the situation in the Israeli-Occupied
Territories has, in fact, worsened.  The U.S. government's
condemnation of the massacre on the Haram al Sharif/Temple Mount and
its endorsement of a U.N. mission to the Occupied Territories was a
welcome departure from past policies.  The failure of the U.S.
government to take any substantive measures to oppose the Israeli
occupation, however, weakens the effect of its appropriate outrage
over Iraqi aggression aginst Kuwait.  The region cries out for a U.S.
policy that seeks to redress all cases of injustice, including those
of Israel and Palestine, Lebanon and Cyprus.
 
Dangers of Militarization
-------------------------
 
The presence of U.S. troops in the Middle East has led to an expansion
of the military capacity of an already grossly overmilitarized region.
The proposed billions of dollars of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, the
forgiveness of military debts to Egypt and Israel and the supplying of
both with new and more sophisticated waponry, combined with a seeming
lack of initiative to resolve the region's unsettle disputes, can only
be seen as morally irresponsible.
 
The Price of War
----------------
 
The price of war and the preparation for further conflict is already
being paid in human terms.  Hundreds of thousands of foreign workers
and their families have been compelled to leave Kuwait and Iraq,
creating enormous strains on the Kingdom of Jordan and the Republic of
Egypt and, ultimately on the societes to which they are returning.
 
The cost of the U.S. military presence in the Gulf is estimated at $1
billion per month.  This "extra-budgetary expenditure" is once again
likely to reduce further the nation's capacity to address human needs
in oursociety.  Thus, among the early victims of this tragic
engagement will certainly be the growing number of the poor, homeless,
sick and elderly.  The corrosive effects on our own nation will be
felt especially by racial/ethnic communities who make up a
disproportionate number both of the poor and those who are on the
front lines of military confrontation.
 
We are appalled by the past and present behavior of the regime in
Iraq, one which has previously enjoyed U.S. support.  But the
demonization of the Iraqi people and their leader has led to an
increased incidence of defamation of and discrimination against
persons of Arab descent or appearance.
 
A New World Order
-----------------
 
We stand on the threshhold of a "new world order."  Indeed, the near
unanimous condemnation by the nations of the world of Iraq's illegal
occupation of its neighbor, Kuwait, shows the promise of a new
approach to the vocation of peacemaking for which the United Nations
was created 45 years ago.  There are present in this moment seeds
either of a new era of international cooperation under the rule of
international law or of rule based upon superior power, which holds
the prospect of continuing dehumanizing chaos.
 
Our churches have long sought to nurture and bring to fruition the
seeds of hope.  The power we would invoke is not the power of the gun,
nor is it the power of wealth and affluence; we would invoke the power
of the cross and the resurrection, symbols for us of love and hope.
As Christians in the U.S. we must witness against weak resignation to
the illogical pursuit of militarism and war.  We must witness to our
belief in the capacityof human beings and human societies to seek and
achieve reconciliation.
 
The General Board of the NCCC/USA commends this message to the
churches, all Christians, and persons of other faiths, inviting them
to join with us in continuing prayer and urgent action to avert war in
the Persian/Arabian Gulf region, and to join in the quest for a just
and durable peace in the Middle East.
 
 
		Resolution on the Gulf and Middle East Crisis
		---------------------------------------------
 
The General Board of the National Council of Churches, meeting in
Portland, Oregon, November 14-16, 1990, recognizing its solidarity
with the Christians of the Middle East and with the Middle East
Council of Churches,
 
URGES the government of Iraq to release immediately all those citizens
of other nations being held against their will in Kuwait or Iraq and
to withdraw immediately its troops and occupation forces from Kuwait.
 
CALLS FOR the continued rigorous application of the sanctions against
Iraq authorized by the United Nations Security COuncil until such time
as it withdraws its forces from Kuwait.
 
REITERATES ITS OPPOSITION to the withholding of food and medicine as a
weapon against civilian populations.
 
ENCOURAGES the Secretary-General of the United Nations to exercise
fully his own good offices in pursuit of a rapid negotiated resolution
of the present conflict in the Gulf.
 
CALLS UPON the President and the U.S. Congress to pursue every means
for a negotiated political solution to the crisi in the Gulf,
including direct negotiations with Iraq.
 
REITERATES SUPPORT FOR the convening under U.N. auspices of an
international conference for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East,
as a means of implementing United Nations Security Council resolutions
on Israel and Palestine, Lebanon and Cyprus, recognizing that the
present crisis cannot be isolated from the unresolved issues of the
region as a whole.
 
CALLS FOR an immediate halt to the buildup and the withdrawl of U.S.
troops from the Gulf region except those which might be required and
explicitely recommended by the Security Council of the United Nations
in accordance with the relevant provisions of the United Nations
Charter. 
 
CALLS UPON the U.S. government to give leadership to the institution
of an immediate and complete embargo under U.N. auspices on arms
transfers to the Middle East.
 
CALLS UPON member communions, congregations, local and regional
ecumenical agencies and individuals to make peace in the Middles East
a paramount and urgent priority for prayer, study and action.
 
EXPRESSES its profound gratitude for the witness of the Middle East
Council of Churches and commits itself to the continued partnership
with the MECC in its efforts for peace, justice and development.
 
REQUESTS the President and the General Secretary (of the NCCC/USA) to
engaes in dialogue and to coordinate where possible and appropriate
with the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and Evangelical
Organizations with regard to the development of statements or actions
in an effort to provide a common Christian witness.
 
REQUESTS the President and General Secretary (of the NCCC/USA) to
communicate this resolution to the President and Secretary of State
(of the United States), to the members of the U.S. Congress, to the
President of Iraq, to the Secretary General of the United Nations, the
World Council of Churches, and to the Middle East Council of Churches.
 
------------------------------------------------------------
 

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

    Reprinted from today's Gazette-Telegraph:

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

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

	This is a scarey time in the history of the world.  Saddam has
publicly declared Tel Aviv as Iraq's first target in the event of war.
I know this'll raise the hair on the back of the neck of many a Zionist.
There's a large portion of folks who claim a Christian identity who will
defend Israel based solely on their particular doctrine.

	Meanwhile, Palestinians have no place which they may call their
home.  Palestinian blood is being shamelessly spattered and shrugged off.

Richard

Richard,

I remembered your note yesterday as they showed the Christian
Arabs in Israel and Iraq. There they were celebrating the birth of
the Prince of Peace; yet their governments were rattling swords
(guns) at each other.

In the Christmas Eve Mass, I lead the prayers for the people in
praying for peace and respect for all man kind. I know that there
are a few that believe that they must go to the aid of Israel for
securing the relics and sacred places of Christianity. Question
is, what will we gain if the roots of Christianity is in the
middle of so much hate and anger?

I pray that God will soften the heart of Saddam Hussein to allow
the man a turn-about from total war.

calvin

Note 28.103

>In the Christmas Eve Mass, I lead the prayers for the people in
>praying for peace and respect for all man kind.

Calvin,

	I saw the same irony you spoke of several times on the news
over the Christmas holiday.

	I have a problem with Hussein.  I suspect the stories of
atrocities leaking out of Kuwait smack of truth.  Such behavior must
cease.  It is wrong to allow injustices to persist.  Reparations are
in order.

	At the moment, I am at a loss as to how to bring this about.
I believe the use of deadly force will neither free Kuwait or nor restore
its monarchy.  I suspect that if Kuwait is taken by force it will result
in a military dependent, puppet government, not very different from that
currently existing in Panama.

	At the same time, it is unconscionably irresponsible to turn a
blind eye to Iraq's deliberate desecration perpetrated against human life.

	I ask the Author of Life to guide us all toward resolution,
to find a way of peace that is rooted in justice and based upon
agape love which Jesus taught.

Richard

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

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

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

    Calvin,
    	when you are praying for Hussein, please remember to pray equally
    for Bush. You cannot have a war if only one side would fight, nor can
    you fail to find peace if both sides negotiate with honor and
    understanding. If Bush has one, then he lacks the other, because what
    he wants of Iraq is one of the few things they cannot give up without
    Jihad. That is their ability to wage war. You must pray for ALL the
    insane war-mongers, not just our opponents.

/** mideast.actions: 43.0 **/
** Topic: UPDATE on "World Gatherings" **
** Written 12:17 am  Jan  1, 1991 by tdewart in cdp:mideast.actions **
Happy New Year!!!
 
Prohibit your national leaders from using violence? Prevent war?
 
You are invited to participate in this effort, events called World
Gatherings, and respond thereafter with peaceful action that will
henceforth prohibit our national leaders from using violence, or the
threat of it, to solve problems in our world.
 
On the next two Sundays before the January 15th United Nations deadline,
concerned people like yourselves will be setting time aside to gather in
places of worship to prepare themselves to respond with clarity of heart
to the threat of war.  We want it be said that, "Citizens unite in
communities around the world to avert war in the Middle East".
 
This may sound a little flip but, the Surgeon General has not issued the
warning:  War is hazardous to your health and causes complications and
Death, nor is he likely to do so.  One person alone cannot stop war, but
as united individuals we can stop war.
 
Let us remove the power that authorizes any individual including our
leaders to use violence, or the threat of it, to solve problems.
 
                                                        Timothy R. Dewart,
                                                        World Gatherings
                                                        volunteer
 
 
(the following is poster information to announce the event:)
 
"To help you respond with clarity of heart to the crisis in the Middle
East, you are invited to attend one of the many:
 
WORLD GATHERINGS
 
Gatherings of individuals from all backgrounds, who want to acknowledge
the inborn connections we have to each other.
 
Let us join together and experience the healing and unifying bond of the
love within us as we share prayer and meditation in the spirit of
peace."
 
Sunday,  January 6th and 13th, 1991
Where:  Place and time decided within each
        community by volunteers such as yourselves.
 
Local time and place:
 
If you are an organizer, use the above framework to make this happen in
your community.Outreach volunteers are needed to publicize World
Gatherings to:  places of worship and meditation;political leaders;
communities around the world; electronic bulletin boards; newspapers;
international news services; radio and TV talk shows; etc..  As groups
form they can be recorded as "active" by notifying this writer and
volunteer by telephone, fax, or mail to:  World Gatherings c/o Timothy
R. Dewart, 11 Sixth Rd, Woburn, MA, 01801, USA, tel.617 935-8074; Fax
617 935-1304; as E-mail @ Compuserve,ID # 76116,2201; E-mail on IGC's
"Econet" under user name:(tdewart);or on Prodigy's JE-mail,ID# GXHG42A.
Also, suggestions and feedback are welcome.
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.actions **

THE PERSIAN GULF: IDOLS OF WAR VS. GOSPEL OF PEACE
by Robert Meyerson
[The following  includes edited excerpts from  a "Christmas letter"
sent by an American in Moscow to Ruth and Sam Neff, 329 SW 1st
St., Richmond, Indiana  47374. Distribution through newsletters or
newspapers is encouraged. E-mail responses can be sent to
CATHYF@EARLHAM.BITNET.]
        After studying theology at Wheaton College Graduate School
and receiving a master's degree in Russian from SUNY at Albany,  I
came to the Soviet Union several years ago with the intention of
acting as a "peace bridge" between the Soviet and American people. I
have been an editor/English stylist for the multilingual Moscow
News for several years, the first American professing Christian to
work for the Soviet media. The Moscow News, coincidentally, became
the "flagship" of glasnost and perestroika.
        With the increase in freedom of speech here in the USSR, there
is an influx of foreign evangelists/healers who now quite freely
preach on the radio, TV, and college campuses. When I heard one of
these foreign TV evangelists glibly preach at the Moscow Baptist
Church on how the current Gulf crisis will unavoidably flash into
Armageddon, with the true believers being raptured into heaven
before the fighting began, I decided to express some of my thoughts
on the matter.
        It's great that these evangelists bring Bibles to a Bible-
starved country. It's great that they want the Soviet people to
finally know about God. The danger arises when they start distorting
the Gospel of Peace!
        They are not without precedent: Billy Graham threw the baby
out with the bathwater and undermined Soviet believers' right to
conscientious objection to military service when on May 9, 1982, he
began his speech from the pulpit of the Moscow Baptist Church by
saying: "I am not a pacifist."
        The problem is not just in the fact that these are the  people
responsible for sending two hundred thousand young Americans to
the Persian Gulf, or that they would be delighted if an equal number
of young Soviet converts would opt to go there, too. Just as bad is
the fact that many young people, tired of the hypocrisy, turn to
drugs, perhaps in search of a more consistent reality.
        Ironically, it was my military experience that brought me
closer to God. In 1975 I left the U.S. Navy submarine base in Holy
Loch, Scotland, as a conscientious objector. The catalyst which
promoted my decision was the banner of a Chicago newspaper which,
in 1974, quoted President Ford's response to the Arab oil boycott
that year: "Whether it is moral or immoral, if we need oil for the
security of our country, we will go to the Persian Gulf and take it."
        America had made idols of ships and planes built for the
military, a force supposedly intended for preserving the peace. But
instead of ensuring the peace, these costly idols were about to cause
us to go to war just to feed their insatiable fuel tanks!
        Feeling like the little boy who saw that the emperor wasn't
wearing any clothes, and taught that our ships and nuclear weapons
were needed as a "deterrent" against "the Russians", I felt I could
better serve both God and my country in some other way, and decided
to promote more understanding between our two countries. I venture
to say that it's because of the pacifists and citizen diplomats that
God postponed Armageddon, and has reduced the "incorrigible evil
empire" into such a half-burnt marshmallow that the only challenge
here today is how not to waste one's life in lines!
        God will not hold off Armageddon forever. We don't deserve it.
But isn't it clear that either we give up our idolatrous military toys,
or God will give up on us? He'll get an unlisted number and it will be
too late.
        It's time to put Christ back into Christmas. Time to tell
President Bush to can the idols and call up the pacifists.  Isn't it
obvious that the same nonviolent change that has swept the
powerful communist block could likewise change the much smaller
Iraq? And that all it would take is an airlift of citizen diplomacy?
Isn't it obvious that those who got rich from keeping the Cold War
going have had to find a new threat to keep their demonic jobs and
demonic mind sets? Woe to the "religious" who help them (Matthew
23:15-36)!
                                                      (end)

Article         4686
From: CL5@vaxa.york.ac.uk (Chien)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Peace in the Gulf
Date: 3 Jan 91 17:57:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
 
There will be a five minute inter-faith meditation for a peaceful
solution to the current Gulf crisis, on the 10th of January,
between 14:40 and 14:45 GMT. All over the world, people will be
concentrating on peace in the Gulf, at the same time.
 
People of any religious faith are invited to join us with prayer
or meditation at this time.
 
	Chien
 
---------------------------------------------------------------
 
14:40 GMT  =	6:40 Pacific Standard Time
		7:40 Mountain Time
		8:40 Central Standard Time
		9:40 Eastern Standard Time
		15:40 Central European Time
 
	... and	17:40 in Kuwait

Article          625
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (MIHIR MUKHERJEE)
Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.hot.iraq,clari.news.fighting,clari.news.religion
Subject: Mother Teresa urges Bush, Saddam to avoid war
Date: 6 Jan 91 10:49:12 GMT
 
 
	CALCUTTA, India (UPI) -- Nobel Peace laureate Mother Teresa has
written a second letter urging Presidents Bush and Saddam Hussein to
find a peaceful solution to the gulf crisis, saying war ``never can
justify the suffering, pain and loss of life.''
	``You both have your cases to make and your people to care for, but
first please listen to the one who came into the world to teach us
peace,'' said Mother Teresa, the worldwide head of the Missionaries of
Charity order of nuns, in a letter to the two leaders.
	``You have the power and the strength to destroy God's presence and
image -- his men, his women and his children,'' she said. ``Please listen
to the will of God. God has created us to be loved by his love and not
to be destroyed by our hatred.''
	Mother Teresa's letter dated Jan. 2 was released to reporters late
Saturday by the office of the chief minister of West Bengal state, where
Calcutta is located. The release of the letter came shortly after a
meeting between the Roman Catholic nun and the state government
official.
	It was the second letter that Mother Teresa is known to have sent to
Bush and Saddam Hussein. Two months ago she wrote a similar appeal
urging the two leaders to seek a peaceful solution to the crisis in the
Persian Gulf, where a U.S.-led multinational force is confronting Iraqi
troops who invaded Kuwait Aug. 2.
	In her latest letter, Mother Teresa, who won the 1979 Nobel Peace
Prize for her work among Calcutta's poorest of poor, urged Bush and
Saddam to ``please choose the way of peace.''
	``In the short term there may be winers and losers in a war, but that
never can justify the suffering, pain and loss of life which your
weapons will cause,'' she said.
	``I come to you with tears in my eyes and God's love to plead for the
poor and those who will become poor if the war, we all dread, happens,''
Mother Teresa said. ``I beg you to labor for God's peace and be
reconciled with one another.''
	She also expressed concern for those who would be slain, wounded and
left as orphans by any outbreak of war in the Middle East.
	``You may win the war, but what will be the cost for the people who
are broken, disabled and lost?'' she asked. ``Let love and peace triumph
and let your names be remembered for the good you have done, the joy you
have spread and the love you have shared.''

    In light of our understanding of the current crisis in the Middle East,
    the Board of Directors of the Massachusetts Council of Churches (MCC),
    an ecumenical partnership of sixteen Protestant denominations, has
    adopted a statement urging U.S. governmental leaders to:
    
    1. Reverse the build-up of offensive forces in the Persian Gulf;
    2. Concentrate on negotiations, diplomacy and sanctions to resolve the
    crisis;
    3. Urge a genuine multinational United Naions effort to preserve peace,
    for example, by convening an international conference on the Middle
    East.
    4. Respond to the present Gult crisis in light of the whole Middle East
    context.
    
    The MCC invites all who share these concerns to contact their
    congressional leaders (House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
    20515; Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510) and the President (The White
    House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington D.C. 20500), and to wear a
    light blue and white ribbon as a symbol of these commitments.  (These
    are the colors of the United Nations and the World Council of
    Churches.) 
    

    One additional paragraph from the longer MCC statement:
    
    We see the need for increased reliance upon diplomacy and negotiated 
    settlements.  The negotiations in the Persian Gulf cannot be separated
    from the wider issues in the Middle East.  Any settlement of border
    disputes should also recognize the need to comply with the other U.N.
    resolutions (such as Resolutions 242) which speak of the sovereignty of
    Israel within secure borders, the withdrawal of Israeli and other
    forces from occupied lands, as well as the rights of the Palestinian
    people.

Will both sides never cease? We are heading head first into war
and they still hold the same line.

I pray that we will agree to the World Conference on Palestine
Issue so as to defuse the crisis a bit; YET not link the Iraq
invasion with the Palestine problem that's been going on.

calvin

    re: .115 

    	I was listening to a debate in the House today on my way to work,
    one of the benefits of an off shift, and the arguments were startling.
    One Democrat who was against starting a war spoke out against the
    Orwelian state of constant emergency that the President had, again,
    caused. (The Cold War was the previous instance but was the error of a
    previous administration) Another fomented against the arguments being
    used in favor of the war which were based on "secret" information that
    could not be divulged or confirmed - like the status of the Bagdad
    marketplace. The Republican who spoke was opposed to the joint
    resolution being considered because IT WAS TOO LATE. Not because it was
    a bad idea, not because it unfairly limited Bush's options, not because
    he was opposed to it, but because the only effect it would have would
    be to let our "allies" know that our armies might not be there when the
    attack is called. The resolution might not pass in the House and might
    not even be debated in the Senate prior to 15 Jan and the delay made it
    a moot point. He said he would have supported it even a week earlier.

/** mideast.gulf: 346.0 **/
** Topic: GULF PEACE TEAM PRESS RELEASE **
** Written  4:13 pm  Jan 10, 1991 by gn:gpt in cdp:mideast.gulf **
PRESS RELEASE      PRESS RELEASE       PRESS RELEASE
Date:   10 January 1991
From:   The Gulf Peace Team
 
                GULF PEACE TEAM ASKS YOU TO PRAY FOR PEACE
                     ON 15 JANUARY 1991
 
The Gulf Peace Team, an international multi-cultural
group funded by donation, who have co-ordinated
volunteers from over 11 countries to attend a Peace Camp
on the Iraqi-Saudi border (between the oposing armies) -
asks you to 'Pray for Peace' on 15 January 1991 - the
date of The United Nations deadline of withdrawal of all
troops from Kuwait.
 
The objective is to inspire goodwill, peace and unity
accross the planet at this crucial time in history.
 
                        How You Can Help
Healing groups, religions of all denominations, and
individuals are called for to medidate and to send love
and peace to World Leaders and the Gulf Peace Team on
Tuesday 15 January.  Close your eyes, feel love in your
heart, and send that love and your thoughts of courage,
to all those you wish to support.
 
                                - end -
 
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.gulf **

/** mideast.gulf: 342.0 **/
** Topic: Another Delegation to Iraq **
** Written 10:32 pm  Jan  9, 1991 by jlynch in cdp:mideast.gulf **
The following is copied from the "PEACE MISSION" meeting on
ECUNET.
 
NEWS RELEASE
 
For immediate release              For Information Contact:
                                   Ken Bedell
                                   United Theological Seminary
                                   1810 Harvard Blvd.
                                   Dayton, OH 45406
                                   (513) 278-5817
                                   (513) 832-2295 (home)
 
     A peace delegation to Iraq next week sponsored by the
Fellowship of Reconciliation will include Ken Bedell who is on
the faculty of United Theological Seminary.  The delegation will
arrive in Baghdad on January 9 for 5 days of meetings.  According
to the organizers the purpose of the trip is to "dramatize that
the road to peace is through negotiation, not violence."
     As well as Bedell, the delegation includes a professor from
Whitman College in Washington and 10 students from 9 different
colleges.  The group will meet with Iraqi students and other
citizens to listen to their concerns.  They will also deliver
medicines to the Iraqi Red Crescent Society for the Iraqi people
and to the Jordanian Red Crescent Society for evacuees who have
fled Kuwait and Iraq.  But according to Bedell "the primary
purpose of the trip is to make a clear statement that it is not
too late for a negotiated settlement to the Gulf crisis."
     For 75 years the Fellowship of Reconciliation, with
headquarters in Nyack, NY, has sought to apply the power of love
and trust to the resolution of human conflict.  A spokesperson
for the organization said, "Its delegation to Iraq is not without
risks, but if it contributes even a little to slowing the rush
towards war, it is worth the risk."
** End of text from cdp:mideast.gulf **

Article         7420
From: jsax@cdp.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Jan 14 Candlelight Vigil in DC
Date: 10 Jan 91 15:16:00 GMT
 
 
Subject: Jan 14 Candlelight Vigil in DC
 
/* Written 10:35 pm  Jan  9, 1991 by jlynch in cdp:mideast.actions */
/* ---------- "Jan 14 Candlelight Vigil in DC" ---------- */
The following is copied from the "MIDDLE EAST GULF CRISIS"
meeting on ECUNET.
 
25 (of 26) GA WASHINGTON OFFICE Jan.  8, 1991 at 15:26 Eastern
(1444 characters)
 
A CANDLELIGHT PROCESSION AND ALL-NIGHT PRAYER VIGIL FOR PEACE
 
		     MONDAY, JANUARY 14
	  ON THE EVE OF THE UNITED NATIONS DEADLINE
 
Join in a public witness to the urgent need to persevere in
resolving the Gulf crisis through peaceful means-and call our
government to seek an alternative to war in the Middle East.
 
	Schedule for the Evening Procession and Vigil
 
7:00 PM - Gather at the Washington National Cathedral for
	  prayers (Wisconsin and Massachusetts Aves.  NW).
 
7:45 PM - Walk to the White House.
 
9:00 PM - Silent vigil for peace in front of the White House.
 
9:30 PM - 8:00 AM - All-night prayer vigil at St John's Episcopal
	  Church, Lafayette Square (across from the White House).
 
	The public is warmly invited to participate.
 
Partial list of participants: Most Rev Edmond L Browning,
Presiding Bishop, Episcopal Church; Rev Joan Campbell, General
Secretary-Elect, National Council of Churches; Rt Rev Ronald
Haines, Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of Washington, Rev
Elenora Giddings Ivory, Director, Washington Office, Social
Justice & Peacemaking Unit, Presbyterian Church (USA); Jim
Wallis, Editor, Sojourners.
 
For further information contact Canon Michael Hamilton or Anne
Shirk at the Washington National Cathedral, (202) 537-6400; or
Joe Nangle at Sojourners (202) 636-3637.
 
     Walter Owensby, GA Washington Office
     Tue, 8 Jan 1991, 04:26pm
  
  
 

    Excerpts from a column, "Naive Moral Cartoons of the Mideast" in today's
    Boston Globe, by Peter J. Gomes, Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and 
    minister in the Memorial Church, Harvard University:
    
    ...one might wonder at what point it is worth committing American
    resources.  For half of the last 50 years the call was "not to forget
    the lessons of Munich."  And now it is the specter of Vietnam which is
    invoked as the moral template.
    
    Both have lessons to be learned.  In Munich, the lesson was you get
    what you pay for.  Isolationist America did not want to see Hitler or
    his menace, and all in England save Churchill hoped to buy him off. 
    The result was not "peace in our time," as we all know, but a greater
    appetite for war which eventually consumed the continent and much of
    the world.
    
    In Vietnam, some think the lesson is that nothing is worth fighting for,
    no cause anywhere is worth the spilling of American blood. Because we
    were "wrong" there we shall never be "wrong" again.  The real lesson of
    Vietnam is that we must not allow that misadventure forever to shape
    and determine our response to world events.
    
    In the simple-minded sloganeering which so far has characterized much
    of the public debate in the gulf, "that was then and this is now."  If
    the alleged lesson of Vietnam was to be applied retroactively to
    American foreigh policy, we would all either be British citizens or
    speaking German.  To apply the lessons of the last war to the next
    conflict is always to fight the last war at the cost of the next
    conflict.
    
    And contraty to the conventionally correct wisdom, war does change
    things: the face of the map, for example, the fate of nations, slavery
    in the US, democracy in post-imperial Europe.
    
    This is not to endorse war, but it is to put paid to the pious premise
    that nothing happens as a result of war.
    
    ...
    
    In such a world, where evil is complex and as much the result of
    inaction as well as wrong action, a cheap and easy peace is itself a
    questionable virtue, particularly when in the name of peace, the
    complexity of the situation is overlooked and debate stifled by a moral
    gag rule.  The dangers of a self-righteous opposition to all but talk
    in the Middle East are almost equal to those of an unconsidered
    jingoism.
    
    Talks are clearly needed, not only between the US and Iraq but, nearly
    as critical, between the descendants of Munich and Vietnam in the US. 
    Indeed, the well-being of nation and world may well depend upon the
    quality of both conversations.

Article          642
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (CHARLES RIDLEY)
Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.hot.iraq,clari.news.religion,clari.news.europe,clari.news.top.world
Subject: Pope warns against dangers of gulf war
Date: 12 Jan 91 17:19:18 GMT
 
 
	VATICAN CITY (UPI) -- Pope John Paul II spoke out strongly against war
in the Persian Gulf Saturday and said ``peace obtained by arms could
only prepare new violence.''
	``The true friends of peace know that the hour is more than ever for
dialogue, negotiation and the preeminence of international law,'' he
said of the situation in the gulf. ``Yes, peace is still possible -- war
would be the decline of the entire humanity.''
	The pope spoke in a major review of the world situation during his
annual audience in the Vatican with the Diplomatic Corps accredited to
the Holy See for an exchange of New Year's greetings.
	John Paul touched briefly on the situations in countries all over
Europe, Latin America, Asia and Africa, with the Middle East and the
gulf crisis coming near the end of his 19-page address.
	This year, 126 ambassadors attended the ceremony, including the
ambassadors of the United States, Iraq and Kuwait, the main parties
involved in the show-down with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein since
Iraq's Aug. 2 invasion of Kuwait.
	The pope also revealed he sent a message to U.N. Secretary-General
Javier Perez de Cuellar Friday as de Cuellar headed for Baghdad for a
last-ditch effort to head off the threat of war.
	``I wish ardently that the moral authority of the organization you
represent may contribute to make dialogue, reason and justice prevail in
the end and that choices with disastrous and unforeseeable consequences
can therefore be avoided,'' the popes message to de Cuellar said.
	John Paul told the ambassadors that ``leaving intact the profound
causes of the violence in this part of the world (the Middle East),
peace obtained by arms could only prepare new violence.''
	Expressing his ``profound concern'' about the situation created in
the gulf area, the pope outlined what is at stake.
	``On the one hand we have seen the armed invasion of a country and a
brutal violation of international law as it is defined by the U.N.
Organization and by moral law,'' he said. ``These are unacceptable
facts.
	``On the other hand, while the massive concentration of men and
weapons which followed had the aim of putting an end to what can well be
qualified as aggression, there is no doubt that, if it were to end in
military action, even though limited, the operations would be
particularly murderous, without counting the ecological, political,
economic and strategic consequences whose gravity and far-reaching
effect we have perhaps not yet measured.''
	In his review of the Middle East situation, John Paul stressed the
need for ``rapid political decisions'' on a broad range of problems,
particularly the Palestinian question.
	``For decades, the Palestinian people has been sorely tried and
unjustly treated,'' he said. ``Witness to this are the hundreds of
thousands of refugees dispersed in the region and other parts of the
world, as well as the situation of the inhabitants of Transjordan (the
Israeli-occupied West Bank) and Gaza.
	``Too often there have been negative replies to proposals made by
various authorities which could have permitted at least a beginning of a
process of dialogue with a view to guaranteeing equally to Israel the
just conditions for its security, and to the Palestinian people its
incontestable rights,'' the pope said.

Today Congress defeated a joint resolution calling for long term sanctions
against Iraq as a way of forcing it out of Kuwait, and instead passed a
joint resolution the use of force if in the President's judgment it was
need to force the Iraqi wothdrawal.  I watched the debate on PBS, and several
people who voted to approve the use of force claimed it was the best way
to ensure peace.

I think Bush has staked a lot on his plan to use the January 15th deadline
and the threat of force to intimidate Saddam into leaving Kuwait.  If Saddam
"blinks", Bush and the Republicans will have scored a great diplomatic and
political triumph.  If Saddam stays in Kuwait then I have no doubt that we
will soon be at war.  There is no longer a constitutional issue; Congress has
already given its consent.  In effect, today they gave Bush an undated
declaration of war that he can use whenever he likes.

I think Bush's plan could lead to a U.S. victory, but it is more likely to lead
to war.  With continued sanctions we could have won our victory without firing
a shot.

I'm disappointed with today's action in Congress, but I'm glad that the vote
took place.  This is still a democracy.

				-- Bob

     Our church (North Decatur Presbyterian Church) helped organize,
    and partook in, an interfaith service for peace in the Middle East.
    
     One of the ideas that came out of the service was a call for the 
    ringing of church bells at Noon on the 15th,,,The 15th is also
    Martin Luther King's birthday--a man who embodied the search for
    alternatives to violence--.
    
     Please join us wherever your church may be,,let's all try to have
    a wave of church bells around the world (we've heard from churches 
    in Japan,Scotland,and Latin America so far)
    
     Maybe the ringing of church bells will "Give  Peace  A  Chance" in
    this one case.........
    
     Hopefully and prayerfully
    
     Doug Langdon

    re: .121
    
    	I do not believe that it is either fair or accurate to characterize
    the "lessons of Munich" as "you get what you pay for", as Peter J.
    Gomes did. The lesson we needed to learn from WWII is that appeasement
    seldom, if ever, brings about peace. The UN has learned that lesson and
    applied it when they embargoed Iraq and requested that armed forces be
    sent to Saudi Arabia to forstall further aggression.
    	I do not believe that the lesson of Vietnam is that "nothing is
    worth fighting for", as stated by the same writer. The lesson of
    Vietnam is much more cynical and reflects on OUR government, who sent
    thousands to die in support of a repressive regime so that American
    business interests and American "honor" should not suffer. That lesson
    is "be sure what you are about to fight for is worth dieing for." This
    is the lesson that the Bush Administration either forgot or hoped that
    the American people had forgotten when they aggravated a dangerous
    situation until war became almost inevitable.
    	We cannot "win" a war against Iraq. We can remove Hussein from
    power and remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait, but that would not
    constitute a "win". In the process we would lose support from many
    third world countries, even those who would join in the battle on "our"
    side. We would also lose the lives of many young adults and subject
    many more to stresses which they will suffer from for the rest of their
    lives. We will also restore to "normalcy" two nations which have NO
    love for America and which will require buttracing for a year or more,
    at an economic cost which would be burdensome in the extreme. We might
    destroy the very oil our business interests are hopeful of exploiting
    and simultaneously minimize the impetus to develop an energy policy and
    alternative energy resources. We cannot "win".

    
    
    As each day has drawn us closer to a very possible war in the Middle
    East, I have become more and more depressed and afraid.  What we see
    on the news is only a part of this story.  There is so much more going
    on behind the scenes then we will ever know about.  My gut feeling is
    that Bush and his administration took advantage of a situation in order
    to have a long-term presence in the Middle East.  This was never an
    option to us before and a door was opened.  Our initial reason for
    being there was to defend Saudi Arabia and our oil interests.  Then
    it changed to getting Hussein to leave Kuwait.  The United Nations
    voted on the possible use of force to remove Hussein from Kuwait.  Now
    it looks like it will be Bush's decision when to fire the first shot.
    This has just so very quickly gotten out of hand.  People say we have
    to do something so that Hussein does not control the oil supplies.  We
    could survive without it....we really could.  Other countries would
    probably pay a higher price for it.  Hussein wants money.  He would
    have sold his oil.  Now if there is a war, the supplies will be 
    disrupted, probably more so than most people think.  We will all be
    affected by this and not just emotionally, though that is hard enough.
    Our economy will be hit hard.  And then there is the concern about
    terrorists.  This could be really, really awful.
    
    I have a nephew who is over there.  He is two units away from the
    Iraqi border.  I have another nephew and a niece in the Air Force,
    and they could be sent over there at any time.  We are sending our
    children to possibly fight and die.  Our children.  I want them home.
    
    Carole

Re:  .126

I disagree, Carole, that our reason for being in the Middle East has changed
during the crisis.  I believe it was either the day that Iraq invaded
Kuwait or the day after that President Bush declared that Kuwait would
be free.  The only question was when.  This is exactly the same position
that he holds today.  He has not budged an inch.

Re:  some other number

I, too, am quite pleased that Congress took a vote and took a stand.  In
my mind, it was very important that Congress  assume the responsibility that
the Constitution has given it.

One of the questions that still remains is, "would sanctions have worked?"
In my mind, this question is being answered.  Someone who would go to war
rather than withdraw would also submit to economic sanctions rather than
withdraw.  Or at least it seems so to me.

Collis

    Well, I hate to spread depressing speculation, but I have a
    different opinion for the Gulf crises. 

    A Russian woman who works with me was telling me about the situation
    in the Soviet Union. She had relatives that just recently visited
    her in the U.S., and things aren't what we think they are over there. 

    First, there is a power struggle going on between Gorbachev, the 
    KGB and the Red Army. The KGB and the Red army are opposed to 
    Gorbachev's open democratic policies. Right now there are shortages
    of essential goods, such as food and clothing. The Soviet people don't
    speak highly of Gorbachev and they are starting to become frustrated and
    impatient with the Gorbachev policies. The KGB and Red army of course is 
    encouraging the dissension.

    The KGB and the Red army have  material goods locked up in store
    houses, which they will use when the time is right, to show that 
    Gorbachev's policies are failing and that their way would be better.
    They are spreading the propaganda already and many people are swallowing it.


    Now based on this, it is solely my own opinion, that in order for
    Gorbachev to succeed with democracy and capitalism, he would need help
    from the west, which he was getting and would continue to get, up until 
    Iraq invaded Kuwait. Remember, that the Red army had troops as well as 
    advisors and still has advisors in Iraq. I don't believe Iraq would 
    have invaded Kuwait without the support of the Red Army. So the west is 
    now preoccupied with the Gulf situation and is not going to be helping 
    democracy to look better than communism in the eyes of the Russian people.

    Since all the west attention has been on the Gulf crises, things are
    blowing up in the Soviet Union. The news interviews in the streets with
    Soviet citizens shows that the people are beginning to turn against 
    Gorbachev in a big way. We've just seen the strong arm of the red army
    in Lithuania. Did Gorbachev really order the invasion of the
    paratroopers ?

    The depressing thing about about this is, that the new Communist
    government that I seen coming into power, will be more of a threat 
    to the world than the Communist  government that was there before.

    Peace
    Jim

re Note 28.123 by DECWIN::MESSENGER:

> Today Congress defeated a joint resolution calling for long term sanctions
> against Iraq as a way of forcing it out of Kuwait, and instead passed a
> joint resolution the use of force if in the President's judgment it was
> need to force the Iraqi withdrawal.  

        One wonders if sanctions would ever be given a chance in the
        future.  The current situation is almost ideal as far as an
        environment for sanctions to work:  the UN is unanimous, no
        major developed countries are violating the sanctions (i.e.,
        in particular there is no arms-merchant apparently violating
        the sanctions), the sanctioned country (Iraq) is relatively
        small and of few resources of the type needed for a modern
        war machine.  The only credible reasons why sanctions should
        not continue to be relied upon are the possible failure of
        the world coalition and the possibility of the sanctioned
        country gaining strength over time (which threat must be
        weighed against the overwhelming likelihood of their being
        weakened by the sanctions).


> I think Bush's plan could lead to a U.S. victory, but it is more likely to lead
> to war.  With continued sanctions we could have won our victory without firing
> a shot.

        A victory for our forces is likely, but it is a defeat for
        the future of non-military action against aggressors.  Unless
        we suffer a truly horrible defeat (which I agree is most
        improbable), the popular perception will simply be that
        sanctions don't work and war does work.  We may have 10,000
        dead people on our side alone, but that will be viewed as a
        series of personal tragedies, not a national tragedy.

        What truly sickens me is how the lessons of history are
        conveniently misapplied.  Many times in the congressional
        debate, the memory of Munich and the appeasement of Hitler
        was brought up as a ghost to frighten us into war.

        The two situations are not very much alike.  At Munich the
        allies simply agreed to let Hitler's invasion stand, in
        exchange for a mere promise of future non-aggression.  There
        were no worldwide sanctions against Germany.  There were no
        massive modern armies sent from super-powers to camp at the
        German border.

        At Munich, the allies did indeed do nothing but give into an
        aggressor's demands.  The current situation of sanctions
        backed up by standing armies is in itself an enormous show of
        forceful opposition, as you say, without firing a shot.

        Bob

re Note 28.121 by LJOHUB::NSMITH:

>     In Vietnam, some think the lesson is that nothing is worth fighting for,
>     no cause anywhere is worth the spilling of American blood. Because we
>     were "wrong" there we shall never be "wrong" again.  The real lesson of
>     Vietnam is that we must not allow that misadventure forever to shape
>     and determine our response to world events.
  
        There were a lot of secondary lessons in Vietnam as well.

        One was that we tend to underestimate an enemy, especially an
        enemy with a strongly-held world-view that is alien to ours. 
        Part of the reason why we went in so slowly was that we were
        always convinced that victory had to be just around the
        corner -- after all, our armed forces were so vastly superior
        to the enemy's.

        I am not reassured when president Bush claims that this war
        would not be anything like Vietnam -- that's precisely the
        point, we don't know what this will be like, except to know
        that our preconceptions tend to be overly optimistic.

            
>     This is not to endorse war, but it is to put paid to the pious premise
>     that nothing happens as a result of war.
  
        I certainly wouldn't hold to such a simplistic position -- of
        course a lot happens because of war.  Some is good, some is
        bad -- a big war will have a lot of side effects, perhaps
        some very good, and some woefully bad.  The problem is that
        we humans don't have the wisdom to predict or control the
        outcomes of war.
          
>     The dangers of a self-righteous opposition to all but talk
>     in the Middle East are almost equal to those of an unconsidered
>     jingoism.
  
        Who is opposed to "all but talk"?  Certainly not the sponsors
        of the pro-sanctions resolution in Congress.  Such sanctions
        are far more than talk -- and they are a real hardship to
        some of the participating countries.  That resolution also
        assumed a continued major military presence in the Gulf
        region -- you call that "all but talk"?

        (I always recall with amazement how the tough-talking Ronald
        Reagan in 1980 won the support of many farmers because he
        opposed the economic hardship of the sanctions against the
        Soviets for the invasion of Afghanistan.  Some people seem
        ready to go to war in an instant yet think that non-warlike
        but tough actions are for wimps and liberals.)

        Bob

    
    RE: .127 Collis
    
    
    You may be write about the reasoning Collis.  What I was thinking of
    was the shift from defensive to offensive right after the elections.
    
    Carole
    
    

    
    RE: .128
    
    Interesting perspective Jim.  There is always a lot more going on
    behind the scenes than we ever know about.
    
    Carole
    
    

><<< Note 28.130 by TAMARA::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish (381-0899 ZKO3-2/T63)" >>>
>                   -< many lessons -- most not learned well >-
>
>re Note 28.121 by LJOHUB::NSMITH:
    
    Remember this was from a column by the Rev. Peter Gomes, not something
    I myself wrote!  
    
    However, his main point gave *me* a lot to think about, namely that
    those who "remember Munich" and insist we must stop the dictator Saddam
    *and* those "remember Viet Nam" and insist we must avoid going to war
    must *both* listen to each other and realize that this situation is
    identical to neither Munich *nor* Viet Nam.  This situation must be
    judged on its own terms.
    
    One thing that still bothers me tremendously is that I don't hear
    *enough* urging for more talks and negotiations.  Sanctions, without a
    willingness on the part of the US administration to negotiate other
    Palestinian problems, might take a long, long time to work.  I would
    think that Bush's unwillingness to talk (in the recent past) would only
    make Saddam more determined to stay put.
    
    Nancy
    
    
    

re Note 28.133 by LJOHUB::NSMITH:

>     Remember this was from a column by the Rev. Peter Gomes, not something
>     I myself wrote!  
  
        Yes, I should have addressed my remarks to Rev. Gomes. :-}

  
>     *enough* urging for more talks and negotiations.  Sanctions, without a
>     willingness on the part of the US administration to negotiate other
>     Palestinian problems, might take a long, long time to work.  I would
>     think that Bush's unwillingness to talk (in the recent past) would only
>     make Saddam more determined to stay put.
  
        At this final day before the deadline, the French are
        proposing a withdrawal coupled with a future Palestinian
        issue peace conference.  Could the solution to this crisis be
        that simple?  Would it be all that bad to have a conference,
        even if it were likely to be stacked against Israel?  Is it
        worth killing, perhaps tens of thousands of people, in order
        to reject an unbalanced conference?

        I cannot see how Pres. Bush could order an attack if all that
        he would need to accept in order to get an Iraqui withdrawal
        from Kuwait would be a Palestinian conference.  I am a little
        bit skeptical that Hussein would withdraw simply in exchange
        for such a conference.  What conference could be so bad that
        it would be worth going to war to avoid it?  What conference
        would be so good (in Hussein's eyes) to be worth simply
        giving up on Kuwait to get it?

        (Of course, I do believe that Bush and his advisors want to
        destroy Hussein and the Iraqui nation as a military power --
        only all-out war could achieve that.  And why would the
        administration favor that option?  Yes, you guessed it, to
        avoid war!)

        Bob

The reason Iraq attacked Kuwait had nothing to do with Israel.

It had to do with two factors:

  1)  Iraq's debt to Kuwait

  2)  Access to the gulf

Iraq owed Kuwait a *lot* of money.  They tried to negotiate the interest
rate downward.  Kuwait said no.  They tried to control the price of oil
enabling them to raise more money.  Kuwait wouldn't go along.  Based on
Iraq's past experiences of warfare, they believed that they could simply
overrun Kuwait and get away with it.  This was a calculated risk which,
historically, would seem to have had a high chance of succeeding.  It
turns out that it will not succeed this time.

Iraq has a very strong military, but hardly any coastline.  Kuwait has
coastline.  This coastline is very important for a number of reasons
including militarily.

Iraq's best hope of muddling their invasion of Moslems (although rich
Moslems) is to change the issue.  To say that they invaded Moslems to
attack Israel is effectively what they are claiming (as ridiculous as
it sounds, if you say it often enough, people will believe it).

The question is, will the U.S. allow Iraq to change the issue from an
invasion of Kuwait for economic and military reasons to the issue of
liberation of Palestines in Israel (which, you need to remember, some
of the nations aligned against Iraq want to see changed just as Iraq
does).

The answer, in my mind, is not an easy one.  You really have to consider
all the implications, all the factors.

Collis

Re:  .131

You're right, Carole.  There was a real shift by Bush from trade embargo
to military force after only a few months.

Collis

    Now that the deadline is hear, I'm guessing that the President will
    order and air attack at 00:00:01. I'm presuming that the Iraqis are
    taking him serious in that, we will attack. If they know we will attack
    at some point, their best advantage would be to beat us to the punch 
    by attacking us first. George Bush, knowing that the Iraqis best
    punch would be to attack first, could not afford to wait. Night
    time is to our advantage, so 00:00:01 our planes should be dropping
    bombs. To wait will give the Iraqis the opportunity to make the first blow.
    and thereby inflict heavier casualties on our forces.

    Peace
    Jim

re Note 28.135 by XLIB::JACKSON:

>                              -< A lot to consider >-

        As you say, there is a lot to consider.  There is so much to
        consider that almost all discussions of this topic try to
        simplify by ignoring at least some of the issues.


> The reason Iraq attacked Kuwait had nothing to do with Israel.

        Who said it did?  The issue at hand, however, is whether
        there is any reasonable way to get Iraq to leave Kuwait
        without resorting to war.  "Reasonable" is obviously a
        subjective term, but I personally would be willing to talk
        (which is what a conference is) about ANY subject if that was
        the only "cost" in avoiding a war.  It wouldn't have to be on
        any subject related to the cause of the conflict:  if Hussein
        wanted a promise of a conference to discuss the morality of
        the U.S. treatment of Native Americans, or a conference to
        discuss the future of the European Community, in exchange for
        a complete pull-out from Kuwait and hence the avoidance of
        tens of thousands of casualties, who wouldn't accept the
        deal?

        What makes a conference on the Palestinian issue so different
        that one would be willing to commit thousands of his own
        people to die to avoid one?


> The question is, will the U.S. allow Iraq to change the issue from an
> invasion of Kuwait for economic and military reasons to the issue of
> liberation of Palestines in Israel (which, you need to remember, some
> of the nations aligned against Iraq want to see changed just as Iraq
> does).

        A president who would kill his nation's children to avoid
        "changing the issue" is murderous scum -- or perhaps a
        simpleton.

        Bob

re Note 28.137 by PCCAD1::RICHARDJ:

>     Night
>     time is to our advantage, so 00:00:01 our planes should be dropping
>     bombs. To wait will give the Iraqis the opportunity to make the first blow.
>     and thereby inflict heavier casualties on our forces.
  
        The deadline is midnight New York (U.N.) time, which is in
        the middle of the morning in Iraq.

        Bob

    RE:-1
    Well, that's in Iraq's favor.


    If you have this mornings Worcester Telegram, take a look at the
    editorial cartoon on page A10.

    For those who don't have it, the cartoon shows earth with pictorial talk 
    coming from the U.S. about bombs. From the USSR bullets. From the
    Middle East, gas mask. From the heavens, God says, "maybe I should
    give THEM a deadline!"

    Peace
    Jim

Jim,

The allied forces has a 5 minute lead on the take off of any
Iraqi aircraft and 3-5 hours on the loading of fuel on the SCUDs.
Through the satellite and AWACs, we do have a defensive posture.

I remember Baker saying that the allied agreed that they will
attack (Syria excluded) upon the ignition of a SCUD or a fighter
crossing the Saudi border.

I pray that Hussein will pull out; am I a minority?

calvin

    I pray for God's Kingdom to Come and God's Will to be Done - on Earth
    as it is in Heaven.
    
    DR

    	Again I listened to NPR on the way to work. It does not sound as if
    things are progressing toward a peaceful solution of any nature. It
    might have been easier to enter negotiations if Bush had not escalated
    HIS demands from the UN-ordered restoration of Kuwait to his own
    requirement that Iraq be stripped of its war-making potential. It seems
    that the Saudis are very much in favor of that demand.
    	I, too, pray that all that is good protect us - us the world - from
    ourselves and our rulers.

re Note 28.143 by DELNI::MEYER:

>    if Bush had not escalated
>     HIS demands from the UN-ordered restoration of Kuwait to his own
>     requirement that Iraq be stripped of its war-making potential. 

        If that is the goal, then there really is no realistic
        alternative BUT all-out war.

        Bob,
        who is amazed at how poorly we can forecast tomorrow's
        weather, but how we are certain enough about Saddam's future
        intentions that we can confidently start a war today.

Re: .127 Collis

>One of the questions that still remains is, "would sanctions have worked?"
>In my mind, this question is being answered.  Someone who would go to war
>rather than withdraw would also submit to economic sanctions rather than
>withdraw.  Or at least it seems so to me.

Well, the way I see it is that Saddam invaded Kuwait because he was greedy.
Once he saw that he would NEVER profit from his crime, the theory is that
he'd cut his losses.  Of course, maybe he wouldn't think in such a business-
like way, in which case we'd probably have to fight a war -- AFTER Iraq had
been weakened by a year or two of sanctions.

Sanctions represented the best chance for peace. That chance has been thrown
away.  There is very little chance now that Saddam will withdraw without a
fight; what I'm hoping now is that when Saddam sees the massive damage caused
to his country by our air and naval bombardment he will either withdraw from
Kuwait or be overthrown.  Otherwise, we'd better brace ourselves for a
full scale ground war.  (One report I heard was that we probably won't invade
on the ground for about three weeks; we'll soften them up first with our
air force and navy.)

				-- Bob

re Note 28.145 by DECWIN::MESSENGER:

> away.  There is very little chance now that Saddam will withdraw without a
> fight; what I'm hoping now is that when Saddam sees the massive damage caused
> to his country by our air and naval bombardment he will either withdraw from
> Kuwait or be overthrown.  Otherwise, 

        In spite of all the force placement and last-minute
        posturing, I'm hoping that our first military moves, if they
        must come, will be limited towards one of two objectives: 
        strengthening the embargo by interdicting the supply route
        with Jordan (and possibly Iran) and a follow-on to the 1981
        Israeli bombing of the nuclear facilities (a reasoned,
        measured action if there ever was one).

        Saddam might escalate, but if the above actions were taken in
        a way that signaled "that's all -- for now", he might
        continue to let his missiles and his armies sit, and have
        something more to think about.

        After this past day of reading and watching about the crisis,
        I gather that our military think that the loss of life would
        be very low unless and until the ground war starts -- and
        that the air war would be so devastating that Saddam might
        indeed give up before a ground war.

        My personal moral concern is greatest about loss of life,
        particularly civilian but also the many conscripts from a
        culture in which to say no would be unthinkable (as well as
        suicide).  The military have conveniently avoided this by
        concluding that an air war, at least, would be very "safe" as
        far as life would be concerned.

        (I also have to admit to politically liberal feelings -- I
        don't trust the present administration as far as its regard
        for human life of low economic significance.  I see the past
        decade as one in which the poor, at home and abroad, were
        systematically exploited and abandoned.  I would guess that
        they believe that it's business' and government's role to
        carry out Jesus' prophecy "for them that have little even the
        little that they have will be taken away.")

        May we be surprised with peace!  Blessed are the peacemakers!

        Bob

    When I see some indication that sanctions are working in Cuba I
    will start to consider the possibility that they may work in Kuwait.
    Sanctions have been in place in Cuba for some 20 years. Are people
    willing to wait a generation? I am not. The cost in human life, bad
    enough with a war, will be nothing like the genocide Saddam will
    have in Kuwait given the time. 

    I hope and pray for a peaceful resolution but I fear that waiting
    longer is not morally justifiable. Every day we let this evil man
    rape and pillage is a day we, in effect, tell him that such activities
    are "ok". I have trouble supporting his activities and saying no war
    at any cost is just such support.

    			Alfred

re Note 28.147 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     When I see some indication that sanctions are working in Cuba I
>     will start to consider the possibility that they may work in Kuwait.
>     Sanctions have been in place in Cuba for some 20 years. 

        Are these two instances of sanctions at all comparable?  Cuba
        has been supplied through all that time by, among other
        countries, one of the super-powers!

>     Every day we let this evil man
>     rape and pillage is a day we, in effect, tell him that such activities
>     are "ok". I have trouble supporting his activities and saying no war
>     at any cost is just such support.

        So teaching him a moral lesson is worth any cost?  He's the
        last person in the world on whom I'd spend a dime on moral
        lessons.  

        Besides, the mainline "let sanctions work" people are NOT
        saying "no war at any cost" -- they are saying no war now
        because a more effective and humane way exists.

        I admit that I just don't understand letting justified
        righteous indignation at atrocities become justification for
        a blank check for attack.  I just don't see it.

        Bob

>>     Every day we let this evil man
>>     rape and pillage is a day we, in effect, tell him that such activities
>>     are "ok". I have trouble supporting his activities and saying no war
>>     at any cost is just such support.
>
>        So teaching him a moral lesson is worth any cost?  He's the
>        last person in the world on whom I'd spend a dime on moral
>        lessons.  

    I don't think the intent is to teach him a moral lesson. If anything
    it's to teach lots of other people a lesson. If we do not stop him
    every petty dictator in the world will *know* that he/she can take
    what they want by force at will.
    
    And I don't think "at any cost" is my intent. Cirtianly I believe that
    all attempts to minimize civilial casualties should be taken. BTW,I 
    firmly believe that sanctions will be far more expensive in the long 
    run in terms of lives and human suffering then the war being proposed.

>        Besides, the mainline "let sanctions work" people are NOT
>        saying "no war at any cost" -- they are saying no war now
>        because a more effective and humane way exists.

    Well so far no one has told me what that more effective and humane
    way is. Please do so but don't tell me sanctions. It is not at all
    effective and will be devastating in human suffering. More so I believe
    then war.

>        I admit that I just don't understand letting justified
>        righteous indignation at atrocities become justification for
>        a blank check for attack.  I just don't see it.

    And I don't see how calling for months or perhaps years of sanctions
    is anything other then callous and unloving. Allowing atrocities to
    continue and be rewarded is not a good thing. And yes the sanctions
    have clearly helped raise Saddam's standing in the world he values.
    This is a form of "reward."

    		Alfred

re Note 28.149 by CVG::THOMPSON:

> >        I admit that I just don't understand letting justified
> >        righteous indignation at atrocities become justification for
> >        a blank check for attack.  I just don't see it.
> 
>     And I don't see how calling for months or perhaps years of sanctions
>     is anything other then callous and unloving. Allowing atrocities to
>     continue and be rewarded is not a good thing. And yes the sanctions
>     have clearly helped raise Saddam's standing in the world he values.
>     This is a form of "reward."

        Then you are letting Saddam manipulate you into using his
        value system to evaluate our actions.

        All I know is that I worship and serve a Lord who has the
        forbearance to allow all this and more.  He came to this
        world, was spat upon and beaten, and yes allowed Pontius
        Pilate to be rewarded in the world he values and allowed
        Herod and Caiaphas to be rewarded in the worlds they valued.

        You don't have to judge Saddam by his standards or the
        worlds' -- he will have his "reward" most assuredly.  You
        also mustn't judge a situation that involves millions
        according to the actions and situation of one man.  Allowing
        your view of Saddam to color your attitude towards and
        treatment of an entire nation is just what he wants.

        Bob

    Arfred,
    	as Bob mentioned about Cuba - that was only a partial embargo and
    it failed for that reason. One of the things an embargo of Iraq would
    have accomplished is a weakening of the Iraqi war machine due to
    equipment failures. Any equipment maintained in a war-ready status
    would eventually break and Iraq currently has a finit store of spare
    parts. The Army, of course, would grow and dig in but could not train
    as they also have a finit ammunition supply. All this suggests that a
    war later, rather than sooner, would be to our comparative advantage.
    
    	This is the week when the moon is darkest, an advantage. The
    weather is cool and clear, an advantage. Our troops are ready and our
    carriers are on station, advantages. We can expect Kuwait and Iraq to
    be bombed, the Iraqi Air Force and missile bases to be destroyed, Iraqi
    tank parks to be straffed and bombed, and Iraqi army positions in
    Kuwait to be straffed and bombed - all between lunch and the 110'clock
    news sometime this week. If Iraq does not respond to this by pulling
    back then American blood will flow as our troops attempt to dig the
    Iraqi soldiers out of their positions. What a dreary prospect.
    
    	Protesters blocked intersections in downtown Boston this morning at
    rush hour. A couple dozen were arrested but most were not. A lady from
    my church was one of several familiar faces in the crowd (TV news).
    There have also been protests at Westover in the news and I'd swear
    that some of those faces hearken back to Vietnam Era protests of my
    youth, or it might be wishful thinking. All this is not in opposition
    to the imperative that Hussein be stopped and deprived of any gains his
    adventure might have brought him, but in opposition to the too-rapid
    switch from a defensive/seige posture to an aggressive/assault posture.
    Bush thinks too little of the lives of the children of other families.

re Note 28.150 by TAMARA::FLEISCHER:

>         Then you are letting Saddam manipulate you into using his
>         value system to evaluate our actions.

        (Responding to my own note -- how tacky!)

        Alfred,

        I have to admit that this same thing happens to me.  As I
        have already "confessed", I have a bit of distrust of
        President Bush and his administration's philosophy.  I am
        quite aware that "letting the sanctions work" would mean that
        a resolution to the crisis would come rather close to the
        time of the 1992 presidential campaign.  I know that the
        memory of that "fool" President Carter haunts Bush (as well
        as his old "wimp" image).  I know that President Bush will
        get rewarded according to the values of his world for a
        military victory against Iraq, something he is almost sure to
        get if we attack, whether or not it was necessary.  On the
        other hand, he might consider even a victory, through
        enforced sanctions, to be a political liability.

        But I shouldn't judge whether I support the actions of our
        government according to my guess as to Bush's motives and
        personal satisfactions.

        Bob

    To begin with starving women and children is not *more* humane.  We are
    then no better than Iraq, who has killed both women and children by the
    1,000.  It is time that we as a nation act like a nation under God. 
    For my God is not just love, but He is just, holy, rightous, and
    vengence is His.  The Bible teaches that God uses nations to effect
    His vengence.  In this action I believe God is using us to bring His
    justice to that land.  I pray for the freedom of Kuwait.
    
    
                                    Marshall
    

    Others are more than welcome to believe that God is vengeful, that
    suffering and bloodshed are God's tools, or that suffering is somehow
    to be equated with that which is holy and righteous.  But the God that
    I believe in is not like that.

    -- Mike

re Note 28.153 by RAVEN1::WATKINS:

>                          -< SANCTIONS ARE NOT HUMANE >-
>    To begin with starving women and children is not *more* humane.  
         
        If I had to choose between my family being "starved" (as in
        the current sanctions -- food is not totally unavailable) and
        bombed, I would choose limited food any day.  Neither is a
        good action, but remember that the objective of the sanctions
        is more to cripple Iraq's ability to wage modern war than to
        starve the people.


>     It is time that we as a nation act like a nation under God. 
>     For my God is not just love, but He is just, holy, rightous, and
>     vengence is His.  

        Then leave it to Him.


>     The Bible teaches that God uses nations to effect
>     His vengence.  

        Then let Him use us, rather than us use Him.  Where is the
        prophetic direction to "effect God's vengeance" in this case?

        (By the way, this reveals that your true objective is
        vengeance, not "humane action".  Yes, I agree that massive
        bombing is a better way or wreaking vengeance than enforced
        sanctions.)


>     In this action I believe God is using us to bring His
>     justice to that land.  I pray for the freedom of Kuwait.
    
        Before we go killing people based on this belief, you had
        better make a good case that it is God who wills this
        particular action.
    
        Bob

Neither are bombs humane! Especially delayed explosion cluster
bombs.

CNN just reports that there's been explosions and antiaircraft
fire starting 2:30 AM Bagdad time.

God of Abraham; please put a stop to this madness!

cal hoe

    President Bush will address the nation at 9:00 pm, EST

    May God have mercy on us.
    
    -- Mike

    	It seems I erred in my prediction: it did not quite start in time
    to make the 6:00 News. 
    
    Marshall,
    	if you are now praying for freedom in Kuwait, what were you doing 6
    months ago when Kuwait was under the rule of a LOCAL dictatorship ?  I
    admit that the Kuwaitis were much better off under their local ruler
    than under this more remote one, but they were not much freer.
    	Sorry, I can't buy your "war as an act of God" line. I will not
    worship a "god" that expects his armies to bend, fold and mutilate men,
    women and children *indiscriminantly* in his name. That *is* what bombs
    do, you know. Nor can I believe that Bush is acting "in the name of
    God" anymore now than when he was shipping weapons to the Contras and
    helping to pay for it with returning loads of cocaine - as a solid body
    of evidence suggests.
    	Moreover: IF you believe this is a good and just war that is truely
    sanctioned by your God then you must, as a devoted servant and tool of
    that God, participate in the war. Have a good time. Write when you can.

	Desert Shield now,
		Desert Storm;
			Desert Sword!
				Deadly Sin......?

					.....Damned Shame.


Richard

		Now I've been crying lately
		Thinking about the world as it is
		Why must we go on hating?
		Why can't we live in bliss?

		'Cause out on the edge of darkness
		There rides a peace train
		Oh peace train take this country
		Come take me home again

					Cat Stevens


		We got guns
		They got guns
		All God's chillins got guns

					The Marx Brothers


Re: sanctions

As I understand it, humanitarian aid (basic food, medical supplies) were
allowed into Iraq under the U.N. sanction.  Sanctions were not inhumane.
No one died or would have died because of sanctions, unless Saddam starved
his country to keep his army well supplied.  People are already dying in the
war.

Nevertheless, I don't see any point right now in debating whether sanctions
would have worked.  It's an academic question; I'm far more interested in
the progress of the war.  I do want the U.N. forces to prevail, but I also
hope that loss of life can be minimized on both sides.  When the whole thing
is over then we'll be in a better position to talk about what might have
been.

				-- Bob

re Note 28.159 by DELNI::MEYER:

> That *is* what bombs do, you know. 

        It looks as if the very modern bombs of this first day of war
        are so precise that the loss of life associated with the
        bombs might be limited to Iraq's military -- and so far only
        to headquarters and the actual personnel assigned to weapon
        installations.

        Does this change the morality of bombing?  Does this make
        bombing more moral than general sanctions?

        Bob

    It seems to me that sanctions alone were of questionable effectiveness
    and time; a fighting war seemed to come too quickly and be too extreme.
    
    Why couldn't we have *talked*?  Talk is not cheap... it's damned
    difficult!
    
    From one who mediates/negotiates human relations and problems almost daily,
    Nancy

    Well, it is here ! I'm deeply depressed about it. 

    Although I have spoken against war, and I feel we should have never
    gone in there in the first place, I now feel that there is
    no turning back now. Understanding the situation and the stubbornness
    of Hussein, the only solution now is for us to win. I feel the 
    American people must rally around the President and support him, so that
    a victorious end will come quickly, rather than a drawn out affair which
    will cost more lives.

    The American people must support our troops that are over there. They 
    have a job to do, and I pray that they will do it well, and with  
    a sense duty, that they know that there not going to have to come home
    the way the Vietnam vets had to come home. It made me sick to see
    anti-war protesters, burning the American flag. It's one thing to 
    oppose war, and another to be a traitor. I fear 

    I  pray that our troops will fight with a good moral
    conscience and be humane in treating prisoners as well as any
    civilians that they encounter.

    I pray for the Iraqi people, who were innocently drawn into this by
    a dictator. I pray that their suffering will be minimum.

     
    In all I pray for peace. May God help us to obtain this.


    Jim

/** fcnl.updates: 8.0 **/
** Topic: FCNL News Release, 1/16/91 **
** Written  7:43 pm  Jan 16, 1991 by sncrom in cdp:fcnl.updates **
NEWS RELEASE
January 16, 1991
 
The following statement was made by Joe Volk, the Executive Secretary of
the Friends Committee on National Legislation, in response to the onset
of the U.S. military offensive against Iraq:
 
The War That Didn't Have To Be
 
With commencement of U.S. bombing attacks against Iraq, another war has
come to take the lives of many innocent civilians and of soldiers on all
sides of the conflict.  They will suffer and die because their trusted
leaders did not choose life.
 
We grieve at this senseless loss of life and destruction.  All the
worse, this war did not have to be.  But human beings took one turn
after another toward war, instead of one turn after another toward
peace.  Every human being is a holy place.  Every injury and every
killing insults God.  Our profound regret and deepest sympathy are
extended to the families--to all the families, on all sides of the
conflict--who have lost loved ones.
 
We say, still, it is not too late to stop now.  Cease bombing, make no
more attacks, hold your places, and let talking begin immediately to
prevent further bloodshed and destruction.
 
President George Bush, we appeal to you to choose life that others may
live; give us an agenda for peace and justice.  President Saddam
Hussein, we appeal to you to choose life that others may live; give your
people a peace and justice agenda.
 
You both have failed the public trust by taking our two nations to war.
The United Nations Security Council, the Congress of the United States,
the European Community, and the Arab League failed too.  Each allowed
you to persuade them that the answer to an illegal and unjustified
military aggression by Iraq against Kuwait is a legal and rationalized
bigger war by the United States against Iraq.  The United Nations and
our Congress have acquiesced in the logic that two wrongs make a right.
In consequence, the Iraq-Kuwait conflict may multiply and spread to many
other nations.
 
Neither of you can redeem your failures without cooperating with the
other.
 
Precious lives are at stake.  Let your hearts soften for their sake.
Cease fire, meet together, talk directly, and resolve your differences
without shedding the blood of others.
 
The American administration believes that the bombs dropping today on
Iraq will sprinkle the world with international justice and enduring
peace.  They say that this war will create a new world order free of
aggression.  They are wrong.  Death, destruction, and generations of
hatred are the things that germinate from the wreckage of war.  The
Iraqi leaders believe that standing up to the military might of a
superpower will demonstrate courage, bring honor and assure them a place
in history.  The latter may prove to be true, but a place in history for
a few men is little consolation for the many who will die now, and for
the generations who will suffer into the future.  We believe that you,
President George Bush, and you, President Saddam Hussein, can exercise
the courage and vision to stop the killing and to negotiate a just
outcome, and so we appeal to you to do the right thing:  negotiate now.
 
The war will end in some kind of negotiated outcome sooner or later.
Why not sooner?  Why not choose life?  We appeal to all people of good
will to condemn and oppose this war and to counsel their leaders to stop
the bloodletting now.
 
-----
 
The Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), based in
Washington, DC, was founded in 1943 to represent Quaker views on
national policy.  It is governed by a General Committee of
representatives from 26 Friends' Yearly Meetings and eight Friends'
organizations.  FCNL speaks for itself and like-minded Friends.
 
** End of text from cdp:fcnl.updates **

Last night, I was interested what Pat had to say about the
starting of war. Pat predicts that Syria will take a portion of
Iraq to become the former territory of Assyria. Then, the Syrians
will take on Israel.

Interesting that Pat Robertson is so gung ho with war.

cal hoe

Article          659
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (CHARLES RIDLEY)
Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.hot.iraq,clari.news.religion,clari.news.top.world
Subject: Pope says gulf war serious defeat for international law
Date: 17 Jan 91 16:33:26 GMT
 
 
	VATICAN CITY (UPI) -- Pope John Paul II expressed his ``profound
sadness'' for the outbreak of war in the Gulf Thursday and said the
conflict ``marks a serious defeat for international law and for the
international community.''
	``I continue to hope that what has started may end as quickly as
possible,'' he said.
	The pope spoke before priests and cardinals at a Vatican ceremony at
which Cardinal Ugo Poletti was replaced as Vicar of Rome by Bishop
Camillo Ruini, 59, president of the Italian Bishops' Conference.
	His formal comment on the war reflected his disappointment that
President Bush and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had failed to heed
personal messages he sent to them Tuesday urging them to avert armed
conflict.
	``This meeting with you takes place at a moment of profound sadness
for my soul as Father and Pastor of the universal Church,'' the pope
said. ``The news that arrived during the night of the drama under way in
the gulf region has given rise in me and -- I am sure -- in all of you to
feelings of profound sadness and great discomfort.
	``Up to the last moment I prayed and hoped that it would not happen
and I did what was humanly possible to avert a tragedy,'' he said. 
``Bitterness comes from the thought of the victims, destruction and
suffering which the war can provoke.
	``That bitterness is made still more profound by the fact that the
start of this war also marks a serious defeat for international law and
for the international community,'' John Paul said.
	``In these hours of great danger, I would like to repeat forcefully
that war cannot be an adequate means of resolving completely the
problems existing between nations. It has never been and it never will
be,'' he said.

    Marshall,
    	I'm sorry that I got a little snappish a couple back. This new but
    not unexpected turn of events has me stressed and depressed.
    	Syria has just claims to a portion of Iraq dating back to pre WWI.
    	Turkey has similar but larger claims in the north.
    	The initial allied effort was fairly effective in destroying large
    amounts of Iraqi hardware and similar efforts should be starting about
    now. By the weekend there should be little Iraqi hardware of any note
    still in operation. This would mean the end of the war were we fighting
    a Western nation. We are not. The core of the Iraqi threat is its
    troops. You can't neutralize troops without killing people. Our troops
    have moved to forward positions, others coming in behind to fill the
    slots. This suggests that the killing will begin in earnest soon;
    tomorrow or the next day, Monday at the latest.

        Israel has just been attacked (about an hour ago), presumably
        by Iraqui Scud missiles.

    This is the strangest thing I've ever witnessed:
    
    		War as a media event.
    
    Richard

Article          662
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (DAVID E. ANDERSON, UPI Religion Writer)
Newsgroups: clari.news.religion,clari.news.gov.usa,clari.news.fighting,clari.news.demonstration,clari.news.hot.iraq
Subject: Religious leaders pray for 'world wounded by war'
Date: 17 Jan 91 20:11:05 GMT
 
 
	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The nation's religious leaders, expressing sorrow
over the failure of diplomacy and a ``world wounded by war,'' called on
members Thursday to pray for a quick and speedy end to the Persian Gulf
conflict.
	Some Protestant leaders said they would continue to oppose President
Bush's turn to the military to end Saddam Hussein's occupation of Kuwait
and a top Catholic leader reiterated the church's warning to Bush that
there are ``moral limits'' to the conduct of the war.
	Jewish leaders urged rabbis to use the Sabbath services this weekend
for special prayers for peace and for the safety of American military
personnel serving in Operation Desert Sword.
	Meanwhile, Bush, along with nation's top military leaders and most of
the Cabinet, attended a ``special service for peace'' at At Fort Myer,
Va., just 4 miles from the White House.
	Gathered in Memorial Chapel under heavy security, those responsible
for ordering and directing Operation Desert Storm heard military
chaplains pray for the quick success of their ``just and righteous
cause.''
	Evangelist Billy Graham, who spent Wednesday night at the White House
as a guest of the Bushes, declared in his sermon that ``there come times
when we have to fight for peace'' and prayed that out of the gulf war 
``will come a new peace and, as suggested by our president, a new world
order.''
	Other religious leaders, however, were less convinced of the need for
war.
	Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk of Cincinnati, president of the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops, expressed the mood of most religious
leaders in a statement saying, ``We are deeply saddened and disappointed
it has come to war.''
	``We have shared our concerns as pastors and teachers about the moral
and human consequences of war,'' the archbishop said. ``History will
judge whether or when this war should have been launched, but this day
our hearts and prayers are focused on the lives at risk, the dangers
still to be faced and the anxious families and communities we serve.
	``Today we pray for our nation, our president and other leaders, and
for a world wounded by war.''
	Pilarczyk also reminded Bush the church had raised question's about
whether military action could be moral, noting, ``We also believe the
conduct of war has moral limits,'' and he said ``every reasonable step
must be taken to safeguard human life, minimize casualties and to ensure
that the means of war are proportionate to the values to be defended.''
	Top leaders of the National Council of Churches, made up of 32
Protestant and Orthodox communions, also expressed their sorrow at the
turn to war, noting they had urged Bush to continue to pursue a
diplomatic solution to the conflict that began with the Aug. 2 invasion
of Kuwait by Iraq.
	``Our opposition to the use of military force has not been based upon
tactics or politics,'' said the Rev. Leonard Kishkovsky, president, and
James Hamilton, general secretary, of the council.
	``Operation Desert Storm may be a success for advanced miltiary
technology, but the resort to war reflects a failure for the human
spirit.
	``Our churches call for, and will work for, a speedy and negotiated
conclusion to the conflict,'' they said.
	But the two leaders also said the task of their churches now ``is
fundamentally a pastoral one.''
	``We will seek to bring solace to those in our own nation who have
felt the effects of this conflict: members of the military and their
families, as well as those who have faced agonizing decisions over
whether they could, in all conscience, participate in this war.
	``Our prayers are with the leaders of nations and of the United
Nations as they face fateful decisions in the days ahead,'' the two
leaders said.
	Rabbi Joel Zaiman of Baltimore, president of the Synagogue Council of
America, said Jews have supported Bush in his efforts to seek
alternatives to war.
	``Now that all such diplomatic efforts by the United States and its
allies ... have been exhausted, we give our complete support to the men
and women of our armed services. ... May their mission be accomplished
speedily and may they return to us safely.''
	The Rev. Joe Hale, general secretary of the World Methodist Council,
expressed sorrow at how quickly Bush had turned to war -- just 18 hours
after the Jan. 15 deadline.
	``The most decisive and swift military victory imaginable will
neither address nor resolve the problems that will remain in the gulf
and in the Middle East,'' he said.
	Cardinal James Hickey of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of
Washington, D.C., called on members to pray ``that the civilian
populations of Kuwait, Iraq and Saudi Arabia be spared the desolation
and destruction that war brings in its wake.''
	Added Episcopal Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning, head of Bush's
denomination: ``Even inthe heat of battle let us not forget that the
call to peacemaking is an imperative for Christians.''

Interesting interview on CBS news (radio) last night. They were
talking to a ITN reporter who just left Bagdad. His views was
that Saddam Hussein is not linking Israel with Kuwait. The
reporter said that the Arabs had always looked at Israel as an
American-Israel conspiracy so when he attacked Israel, it's an
attack at a common enemy; even though the west does not associate
the Israelis with the Americans.

cal

    That makes some sense.  It was the UN that created the modern state
    of Israel and it is the UN that is at war with Iraq.

    Well, he has made the link again, it seems. Sirens were sounding over
    Tel Aviv at about 2PM today (EST).

    Re. 166

     Cal:
         Yeah, real interesting in light of the fact Pat Robertson
     has his Dad pull strings to get him out of a combat unit
     in Korea.
     
                                                              Mike

Article          670
From: clarinews@clarinet.com
Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.religion,clari.news.issues.conflict,s:.news.hot.iraq,clari.news.hot.iraq,biz.clarinet.sample
Subject: Pope meets three bishops from Iraq
Date: 19 Jan 91 21:27:25 GMT
 
 
	VATICAN CITY (UPI) -- Three bishops from different Christian churches
in Iraq met Pope John Paul II Saturday and handed him a church document
calling for a negotiated solution of the Persian Gulf crisis and an
overall settlement of Middle East problems.
	``They came to give the pope the results of the final declaration of
a conference of Christians for Peace that was held in Baghdad Dec. 3-5,
1990 on the theme 'Blessed are the Peacemakers,''' chief Vatican
spokesman Joaquin Navarro Valls told reporters.
	The Vatican gave no other details of the audience, other than that it
took place in the library of the pope's apartment and lasted half an
hour.
	The three bishops were headed by Raphael I Bidawid, the Catholic
Patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldees and spiritual leader of Catholics
in Iraq. The patriarch also presides over the Episcopal Conference of
various Catholic rites in Iraq.
	The other members of the delegation were Armenian Orthodox Archbishop
Avak Asadourian and Ghiwarghis Sliwa, Metropolitan of the Assyrian
Church.
	Spokesman Navarro said the delegation left Baghdad on Sunday for a
series of meetings with Catholic leaders in various countries to inform
them of the peace resolution the Middle East religious leaders approved
at the December conference.
	In an interview published in Rome Wednesday, shortly before war broke
out in the gulf, the Patriarch Bidawid said he still hoped for ``a
peaceful solution of the crisis.'' He said the resolution adopted by the
December conference had the specific approval of Iraqi leader Saddam
Hussein.
	He said the document to be presented to the pope called for a
negotiated solution of the gulf crisis which takes into account ``all
the problems of the Middle East and in particular the Palestinian
question.''
	The proposals, including the call for an overall settlement of Middle
East problems, matched those made by the pope Thursday in his anguished
public condemnation of the outbreak of war in the gulf.

It seens inconceivable to some folks that some clergy can support
our troops AND be against war. The Bishop of Colorado (Episcopal)
was interviewed after his concecration as the Bishop; was asked
how you can be for the troops and be against war? Well, the
Bishop said, the troops are people just as the Iraquis are
people. We must minister to their spiritual needs but not be for
the killing.

That seems to make a lot of sense to me; it's not a clear case of
if you're against war, you're not patrotic.

calvin

BTW, you'll see that I carry a American and Canadian flags. I'm
Canadian and our Air Force and navy is part of Operation Desert
Storm.

Article          672
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (PHILIP WILLAN)
Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.hot.iraq,clari.news.issues.conflict,clari.news.religion,biz.clarinet.sample,clari.news.top.world
Subject: Pope condemns gulf bombardments
Date: 20 Jan 91 18:28:33 GMT
 
 
	VATICAN CITY (UPI) -- Pope John Paul II Sunday condemned the 
``deplorable bombardments'' occurring in the Persian Gulf war and warned
of the dangers if the Middle East conflict should spread.
	``The tragic reality of these days shows ever more clearly that
problems cannot be solved by arms, but that their use creates new and
greater tensions among peoples,'' the pope said at the midday angelus in
St. Peter's Square.
	The pope spoke of the ``deplorable bombardments of which we have been
informed,'' without specifying whether he was referring to Iraqi missile
attacks on Israel or the U.S.-led allied bombing raids on Iraq and
Kuwait, or both.
	``In reality, every civilian population, on one side as on the other,
has the right to be respected and not to be caught up in military
actions,'' he said.
	The pope warned the massive resort to weapons could have very grave
consequences and lead to ``the possible progressive spread of the
conflict to the entire Middle East.''
	Looking grave and tired, the pontiff said he had done all in his
power to avoid the ``tragic experience'' of war.
	``Unfortunately, it is the terrible logic of war that tends to
involve other states in the conflict and indiscriminately to threaten
civilian populations,'' he said.
	John Paul appealed to the warring sides to halt the conflict as
quickly as possible and then to set about removing its causes. He said
he would continue to pray for peace and that he was close to ``the
victims of this war, to the killed and the injured.''
	The pope Thursday described the outbreak of war as ``a serious defeat
for international law and for the international community.''
	The pope Tuesday sent personal messages to President Bush and Iraqi
leader Saddam Hussein to try and head off the imminent prospect of
conflict.
	In his message to Bush, the pontiff stressed the tragic consequences
of war and his belief that ``war is not likely to bring an adequate
solution to international problems.''
	At the same time, the pope called on Saddam to ``make a generous
gesture'' in order to avoid violence.
	Speaking Thursday, after the outbreak of hostilities, John Paul
called for a swift end to the conflict and an international conference
to resolve the causes of the dispute.
	He met Saturday with three bishops from different Christian churches
in Iraq who handed him a church document calling for a negotiated
solution to the crisis.
	The delegation was led by Raphael Bidawid, patriarch of the Chaldean
church and spiritual leader of Iraq's 400,000 Catholics.
	The Catholic church's opposition to war has also been expressed in
the Vatican's semi-official newspaper L'Osservatore Romano.
	``War is always a useless massacre and a mutilation to the course of
history,'' the paper commented Saturday, describing armed conflict as a
``barbaric regression''.
	``No progress can be made while we are forced to count the innocent
victims of a catastrophe which all sides had a duty to avoid,'' the
paper said.
	It also criticized the bellicose sentiments expressed by some Italian
politicians and commentators on the war.
	``If war is frightening, so is the chorus of support for war, this
euphoria that re-echoes the attitudes of eras and regimes which we
thought had been definitively surpassed,'' it said in an unsigned
comment.

 
     I was talking to a friend of mine this weekend who's son
 is an Army recruiter in Petersborough N.H. . He told me his son
 has been told to "Get as many kids as you can to sign up. Tell
 them anything they want to hear, but get them to enlist." He was
 also told that if he didn't exceed his quota for the month that,
 "We'll send your ass off to Saudi Arabia."
     My friend is very worried about his son who, needless to say,
 is under a lot of stress. 

                                                        
                                                       Mike 

    People at the diner where talking this morning about official word on
    a draft. They said that 20 - 25 yr olds will be the first drafted. 
    I didn't hear anything about the government thinking about reinstating
    the draft, other than the one about drafting doctors. Did anyone hear
    about a draft ?


    Jim

If they have a draft I hope they do it when the weather is warmer.  If I'm
going to be out there protesting I don't want to freeze my **** off.

With something like 75-85% of the public "supporting" the war effort you'd
think the armed forces would be getting a large number of volunteers.  Lip
service, perhaps?

				-- Bob

I don't know if there will be a draft, but I can guarantee that there will
be rumors of a draft!

    Re.181
    
    Bob:
         A lotta lip service according to my friend. The main reason
    his son is so worried is that the number of people enlisting
    has dropped way down the last two months. At least that is the
    case in in Peterborough.
    
                                                   Mike

    	I spend several hours a week on-line to various BBSs and have come
    across several hawks in the last couple of weeks. My usual response to
    such a discovery has been to make sure that the hawk's understanding of
    the facts isn't too different from that being generally reported and
    then I suggest that the Army needs such committed individuals as they.
    Not one of them - all young men, I believe - has suggested that they
    were thinking along those lines. All talk, no action. Unless retreating
    from volunteering is to be accepted as "action". Several have moderated
    their views when faced with the facts, maybe I just talked them out of
    their hawkish stance. Or gave them an excuse to put a good face on it.

    I heard of one man who appeared on Donohue and who is visiting
    various business groups providing a cultural and historical context
    to the Gulf Crisis.  His audience is typically dominated by upper
    income, white males who have no relatives serving in the Gulf.
    
    He asks for a show of hands for the ones favoring military action
    in the Gulf.  Nearly everyone raises a hand.  Then he asks how
    many would favor a tax increase to pay for the war.  He has yet
    to see a hand raised.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Richard:

      I heard a similar thing on NPR from a UCLA professor who has
    been polling his students. About 85% support US action in the gulf,
    but only about 10% say they are willing to go fight. 
      

                                                               Mike

AArticle          700
From: clarinews@clarinet.com
Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.religion,clari.news.issues.conflict,clari.news.fighting,clari.news.hot.iraq,alt.desert-storm
Subject: Pope urges gulf war leaders to negotiate
Date: 2 Feb 91 21:34:05 GMT
 
[Provided for USENET readers by ClariNet Communications Corp.  This copyrighted
material is for one-time USENET distribution only.]
	VATICAN CITY (UPI) -- Pope John Paul II called on the leaders of
warring parties in the Persian Gulf Saturday ``to find the courage to
abandon the path of military confrontation'' and start negotiations.
	The pope made his latest in an almost daily series of appeals for
peace in the gulf as he led Rosary prayers in the Vatican's Hall of
Benedictions. The rosary prayers are broadcast by Vatican Radio on the
first Saturday of every month, and this time television coverage of the
prayer service was made available by the Italian state-run network to
countries all over the world.
	The pope invited those attending the recital of the rosary to pray 
``for the soldiers on every front'' and for ``those peoples of Jewish,
Christian and Muslim faith who are stricken by this war.''
	He said people should pray ``so that those responsible in the parties
to the conflict may find the courage to abandon the path of military
confrontation and entrust themselves, with sincerity, to negotiation,
dialogue and collaboration.''
	``Let us invoke divine light for those who, in international circles,
continue to seek the paths of peace, striving to put an end to the war
and who have a firm will to find peacefully, and with a desire for
justice, solutions to the various problems of the Middle East,'' John
Paul said.
	``Let us implore divine comfort for all those who are suffering
because of the war and the serious situations of injustice and
insecurity which are not yet healed in the Middle East region,'' he
said.
	The pope expressed concern for the danger that the war will be
extended ``in time and space ... in a tragic way and with incalculable
consequences.''
	``Day after day news reaches us that is always more worrying for the
number of combatants and the quantity of weapons used, and for the
involvement in the conflict of whole civilian populations,'' he said.
	The pope said the war involved ``unheard-of violence and useless
massacres.''
	He asked God ``to hear the heartfelt appeal of all humanity: Never
more war, an adventure without return, never more war, a spiral of
mourning and violence.''

                           <<< HUMANE::DIGITAL >>>
                         -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 1148.60   The Corporate War Machine: Maintaining Troop Morale      60 of 60
PIRU::GOETZE "live the digital art lifestyle"       108 lines   4-FEB-1991 11:09
                             -< Another viewpoint >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I found this interesting article in Time magazine from about September
    or so of last year. Thought it applied to this whole discussion pretty
    well.
    
    erik g.
    
    
    
The Warrior Culture

by Barbara Ehrenreich

In what we like to think of as "primitive" warrior cultures, the passage to
manhood requires the blooding of a spear, the taking of a scalp or head. 
Among the Masai of eastern Africa, the North American Plains Indians and
dozens of other pretechnological peoples, a man could not marry until he had
demonstrated his capacity to kill in battle. Leadership too in a warrior
culture is typically contingent on military prowess and wrapped in the
mystique of death. In the Solomon Islands a chief's importance could be
reckoned by the number of skulls posted around his door, and it was the duty
of the Aztec kings to nourish the gods with the hearts of human captives.

All warrior peoples have fought for the same high-sounding reasons: honor,
glory or revenge. The nature of their real and perhaps not conscious
motivations is the subject of much debate. Some anthropologists postulate a
murderous instinct, almost unique among living species, in human males. Others
discern a materialistic motive behind every fray: a need for slaves, grazing
land or even human flesh to eat. Still others point to the similarities
between war and other male pastimes--the hunt and outdoor sports--and suggest
that it is boredom, ultimately, that stirs men to fight.

But in a warrior culture it hardly matters which motive is most basic.
Aggressive behavior is rewarded whether or not it is innate to the human
psyche. Shortages of resources are habitually taken as occasions for armed
offensives, rather than for hard thought and innovation. And war, to warrior
people, is of course the highest adventure, the surest antidote to malaise,
the endlessly repeated theme of legend, song, religious myth and personal
quest for meaning. It is how men die and what they find to live for.

"You must understand that Americans are a warrior nation," Senator Daniel
Patrick  Moynihan told a group of Arab leaders in early September, one month
into the Middle East crisis. He said this proudly, and he may, without
thinking through the ugly implications, have told the truth. In many ways, in
outlook and behavior the U.S. has begun to act like a primitive warrior
culture.

We seem to believe that leadership is expressed, in no small part, by a
willingness to cause the death of others. After the U.S. invasion of Panama,
President Bush exulted that no one could call him "timid"; he was at last a
"macho man." The press, in even more primal language, hailed him for
succeeding in an "initiation rite" by demonstrating his "willingness to shed
blood."

For lesser offices too we apply the standards of a warrior culture. Female 
candidates are routinely advised to overcome the handicap of their gender by
talking  "tough." Thus, for example, Dianne Feinstein has embraced capital
punishment, while  Colorado senatorial condidate Josie Heath has found it
necessary to announce that although she is the mother of an 18-year-old son,
she is prepared to vote for war. Male candidates in some of the fall contests
are finding their military records under scutiny. No one expects them, as
elected officials in a civilian government, to pick up a spear or a sling and
fight. But they must state, at least, their willingness to have another human
killed.

More tellingly, we are unnerved by peace and seem to find it boring. When the 
cold war ended, we found no reason to celebrate. Instead we heated up the "war
on drugs."  What should have been a public-health campaign, focused on the
persistent shame of poverty, became a new occasion for martial rhetoric and
muscle flexing.  Months later, when the Berlin Wall fell and communism
collapsed throughout Europe, we Americans did not dance in the streets. What
we did, according to the networks, was change to channel to avoid the news.
Nonviolent revolutions do not uplift us, and the loss of mortal enemies only
seems to leave us empty and bereft.

Our collective fantasies center on mayhem, cruelty and violent death. Loving 
images of the human body--especially of bodies seeking pleasure or expressing
love-- inspire us with the urge to censor, Our preference is for warrior
themes: the lone fighting man, bandoliers across his naked chest, mowing down
lesser men in gusts of automatic-weapon fire. Only a real war seems to revive
our interest in real events. With the Iraqi crisis, the networks report,
ratings for news shows rose again-- even higher than they were for Panama.

And as in any primitive warrior culture, our warrior elite takes pride of
place.  Social crises multiply numbingly--homelessness, illiteracy, epidemic
disease--and  ouir leaders tell us solumnly that nothing can be done. There is
no money. We are  poor, not rich, a debtor nation. Meanwhile, nearly a third of
the federal budget flows, even in moments of peace, to the warriors and
weaponmakers. When those priorities are questioned, some new "crisis"
dutifully arises to serve as another occasion for armed and often unilateral
intervention.

Now, with Operation Desert Shield, our leaders are reduced to begging foriegn 
powers for the means to support our warrior class. It does not seem to occur to
us that the other great northern powers--Japan, Germany, the Soviet Union--
might not have found the stakes so high or the crisis so threatening.
It has not penetrated our imagination that in a world where the powerful,
industrialized nation-states are at last at peace, there might be other weays
to face down a pint-size Third World warrior state than with a massive force
of arms. Nor have we begun to see what an anachronism we are in danger of
becoming: a warrior nation in a world that pines for peace, a high-tech state
with the values of a warrior band.

A leftist might blame "imperialism"; a right-winger would call our problem 
"internationalism." But an anthropologist, taking the long view, might say this
is just what warriors do. Intoxicated by their own drumbeats and war songs,
fascinated by the glint of steel and the prospect of blood, they will go
forth, time and time again, to war.

     
       I spoke to my friend who's son is the Army recruiter in
     Petersborough N.H. the other day. He didn't make his quota
     for Jan. and is now on his way to Saudi Arabia.
       
                                                     Mike

    Since I've thinking a lot of the American Indians lately, especially
    after watching the two recent movies, "Dances With Wolves," and "Son
    of the Morning Star." I've been wondering if there isn't a parallel in
    the way the west has treated the Arab people over the years, to the way 
    the white man treated the American Indians ?

    Part of Sadam Hussein's popularity among Arabs is that he is one of the 
    first to stand up to the west, and refuse to be told what to do by
    them. Similar to the stand Crazy Horse took towards the U.S.
    government, back in the 1800's.

    My knowledge of the Middle East is very little and what I do know
    only comes as a result of the war. From what I understand however,
    Arabs had little to say about the forming of the nations as we know
    them today, but were formed by the British. The Palestinians living in
    Israel were not involved with the U.N. resolutions in forming the
    State of Israel in 1946, despite the fact that they were majority of
    the population living there, and still are.

    The American Indians were pretty much ignored because they were thought 
    of as being bloodthirsty savages. In today's terms they would be called
    terrorist. The white man wanted their land, and they took it. The west
    wants Arab oil, and will take it if need be ? 

    And so, as I look at the Arab nations, I can't help but think of the
    some similar attitudes we've had towards American Indians. If history
    repeats itself, this is probably the period of history that we didn't
    learn from.


    Peace
    Jim

re Note 28.190 by PCCAD1::RICHARDJ:

>     The American Indians were pretty much ignored because they were thought 
>     of as being bloodthirsty savages. In today's terms they would be called
>     terrorist. The white man wanted their land, and they took it. The west
>     wants Arab oil, and will take it if need be ? 
> 
>     And so, as I look at the Arab nations, I can't help but think of the
>     some similar attitudes we've had towards American Indians. If history
>     repeats itself, this is probably the period of history that we didn't
>     learn from.
  
        Or perhaps we learned another lesson from the same "facts".
        The genocidal war against the Native Americans worked -- we
        got the land at a cost that was "acceptable" to us, and the
        Native Americans were permanently reduced to a state where
        they could not challenge the settlers.  America has prospered
        since then.

        We conduct war because war "works" -- it achieves the goals
        we set for ourselves.  We prosper because of war, and those
        who conduct it become heroes.

        The Vietnam war was an aberration on this theme.  That is why
        it was so important to so many that the memory of Vietnam be
        replaced by the memory of a good and successful war, one that
        made us feel good and brought business to us.  (Note that
        major American companies are already signing contracts for
        the rebuilding of Kuwait, and there will likely be even more
        money spent on the rebuilding of Iraq, much in this country.)

        As much as I think this war was ill-conceived, as much as I
        think that some horrible unforeseen consequence will raise its
        ugly head after this war is over, I have to admit that we
        have nine chances in ten of suffering in no way, and even
        prospering, and that the middle east will have greater
        "stability" afterward.

        It is even conceivable that eventually we could do to the
        Arabs what we did to the Native Americans (although this war
        alone wouldn't do that).

        Bob

According to many, the war in the Middle East has already been very
costly to the U.S. in terms of the economy (recession), the deficit
(going up) and is likely to soon be costly in terms of lives (U.S. soldiers).

What does the U.S. gain from this?  Increased hatred from those people
and countries that choose to portray the U.S. as the Great Satan; unrest
at home where people demonstrate against the war while others support
the war (although there is currently a great deal of support for the
war, this is likely to change over the course of time) and an increased
probablility of terrorist attacks.  Oh yes,  It also means that Saddam
Hussein will not be able to attack another near defenseless country
because he will not have the military capability to do this.

I do not mean to suggest that this is a balanced picture.  I only mean
to suggest that these issues are sometimes overlooked by those who see only
the "gain" for the U.S. out of this war.

Collis

/** mideast.gulf: 109.0 **/
** Topic: CAPT DAVID WIGGINS:  PRESS RELEASE **
** Written 10:26 pm  Feb  5, 1991 by ttrudell in cdp:mideast.gulf **
 
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
               FROM THE SUPPORT COMMITTEE FOR DAVE WIGGINS
                       AUSTIN, TEXAS  512/474-2399
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
 
                  P  R  E  S  S     R  E  L  E  A  S  E
 
FEBRUARY 4, 1991
 
        CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR, DAVE WIGGINS, RESIGNS COMMISSION
                          AND AWAITS CHARGES
 
A flight surgeon until recently assigned to the 6th Air Calvary, Dr.
David Wiggins began his military training at West Point.  He once
aspired to a military career, but began a long process of soul searching
once joining the academy.  In February of 1990, Wiggins filed his
conscientious objector claim with the Army.  When that claim and a
subsequent appeal were denied, he began a hunger strike.
 
Wiggins was shipped out along with his unit to Saudi Arabia on December
17th, and once there ended his fast when ordered to do so.  When
Congress authorized U.S. military action, Wiggins resumed his fast and
offered to resign his commission as an officer and stop receiving his
salary.
 
When the Army did not respond to his offer, Wiggins entered a busy
intersection on the military base and stripped off "all military
apparel."  After 30 minutes he was physically removed from the
intersection and ultimately transferred to a military hospital for
psychiatric tests.
 
Since that date, Wiggins expected that he would be charged and court
martialed, but he has not yet been charged.  So on January 27th, Wiggins
submitted his unqualified resignation, which is attached to this press
release.  You will note that he is "appealing to Saddam Hussein to allow
me to enter Iraq as a peace-loving private American citizen opposed to
all war, so that I may provide medical care to prisoners of war held in
Iraq."
 
In addition, on February 3rd, Wiggins petitioned the International Red
Cross office in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to volunteer with them.  Wiggins
told us today that this request has been turned down.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Wiggins wrote an Open Letter to President Bush, which he would
like to have published in newspapers.  We would appreciate your serious
consideration of this request.  It would probably be appropriate for the
Op Ed section or other sections where readers are allowed to comment.
                            (See attached)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
 
2 Feb 1991
 
Mr. President,
 
     I hear that you have called for a national day of prayer for
peace.  Your hypocrisy is as transparent as the lenses in my gas
mask.  You started the war.  If you want peace, stop the war now!
 
     You say it is our duty to fight this war because our cause is
just.  You contend that even though the fighting had stopped for a
time, Iraq started the war by invading Kuwait.  By the same logic,
it would be equally "just" for any foreign nation to invade America
to liberate the Indians that once ruled the land we now call ours;
but this should not be necessary.  A man of good conscience like
yourself, should realize this sin and immediately endeavor to
rectify it by giving the land back to Indians.
 
     Furthermore, by what standard is our cause just?  Jesus, your
purported savior, and a jew, never encouraged his countrymen to take
up arms against their conquerors, the Romans, though their government
was abusive, and their religion heathen.  No where in the New Testament
are we exhorted to drop bombs on other men, women, and children in God's
name or for any other reason.  At the hands of the Romans, Jesus paid
for his PACIFISM with his life.  Is it not interesting that Jesus
established a "new world order' and that the descendant nations of the
Roman empire are now mostly CHRISTIAN?
 
     Are you so conceited as to send well-meaning Americans to their
slaughter, at your behest, in defense of your personal idea of
justice?  Again, let us give America back to the Indians, or let us
invade the USSR to liberate Lithuania, Lativa, and Estonia, or
Israel to liberate the West Bank and Gaza.  Surely, economic
sanctions, if they were instituted at all, have not worked against
these invaders in five months or fifteen years.
 
     I have heard you commend those slaughtered Americans who made
the "ultimate sacrifice."  Clearly, you believe with all your heart
and soul that our cause is just, and regrettably, even this type of
sacrifice is necessary.  Being a military man, you know that the
best leaders lead by example.  Mr. President; adhere to the infantry
motto, "Follow me," or the example of your purported savior, the
great leader Jesus Christ.  Come to the war.  Charge the Iraqi
tanks.  Make the "ultimate sacrifice."  Surely, Mr. Quayle, your
esteemed Vice-President, can adequately replace you.  You, in turn,
will go down in history as a sincere believer and a great leader.
You may rightly contend that no religious or ethical standard
encourages you to take such a step.  What a pity the same logic does
not apply to the promising young Americans being slaughtered at your
command.
 
Respectfully and sincerely,
 
CPT David S. Wiggins,
Physician
US Army Medical Command
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
 
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
 
                    THE SUPPORT COMMITTEE FOR DAVE WIGGINS
                C/O AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE (AFSC-TAO)
                    227 CONGRESS AVE
                    AUSTIN, TEXAS, 78701
            Phone:  512/474-2399
 
        (A more complete file of documents relating to Dave's case
                        may be found in pn:gen.quaker.)
 
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.gulf **

    	Regarding the "cost" of this war. Much of the cost of the munitions
    being used in this war has already been paid. The only way that cost
    will effect future budgets would be if we chose to replace those
    munitions. Since we no longer have to protect ourselves against the
    Russian menace it is possible that we need not replace at least a part
    of those stockpiles.
    	Hmmm, ya think Bush called the war as a Cold-War-End-Clearance ?

re Note 28.194 by DELNI::MEYER:

>     	Regarding the "cost" of this war. Much of the cost of the munitions
>     being used in this war has already been paid. The only way that cost
>     will effect future budgets would be if we chose to replace those
>     munitions. Since we no longer have to protect ourselves against the
>     Russian menace it is possible that we need not replace at least a part
>     of those stockpiles.
  
        On the contrary, since these weapons worked so well, there
        will be calls to not only replace them, but develop even
        better ones.

        Warfare has really taken a dramatic turn with this war, a
        turn perhaps, in its own way, as significant as the use of
        atomic weapons in WW II.

        The ability to evade detection, with stealth and
        counter-measure technology, coupled with the ability to
        destroy anything you can see (directly, via TV in the bomb
        itself, via satellite) yet be at a sufficient distance that
        the enemy can't get you, plus the ability to see day or
        night, changes everything.  And unlike nuclear weapons, we
        aren't afraid to use these new weapons!

        Why spend money on health or education, where there is so
        much disagreement whether such programs even work, when you
        can spend money on stuff that really works!

        Bob

    Oh, Bob, you are such a cynic. It sounds to me like you do not trust
    our government to do what is best for the majority of its citizens
    should such a course be contrary to the wealth - I mean well being - of
    major campaign contributors. For shame, man, for shame !  What possible
    excuse could they have for pursuing such a despicable plan ?
    	OK, in .194 I was pointing out a reality, that we don't HAVE to
    replace all of the munitions we are using. Fact is, I expect Bush had
    replacing the war materials in mind when he was luring Hussein (see,
    Marshall, equal opportunity) into providing us an excuss to attack.

re Note 28.196 by DELNI::MEYER:

>     Oh, Bob, you are such a cynic. It sounds to me like you do not trust
>     our government to do what is best for the majority of its citizens

        Actually, I am quite confident that the government will try
        to do what is best, in the short term (4 years or less) for
        the majority (not all) of *its* citizens (not necessarily
        the world).

        That is what I fear.  (To a real U.S. political
        conservative, such a fear is nothing but pure unadulterated
        liberal fuzzy-thinking claptrap.)

        Bob

Article          716
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (CHARLES RIDLEY)
Newsgroups: clari.news.fighting,clari.news.europe,clari.news.religion,clari.news.terrorism,clari.news.hot.iraq,alt.desert-storm,clari.news.top.world
Subject: Is the pope's life endangered by his anti-war stand?
Date: 9 Feb 91 19:04:26 GMT
 
[Provided for USENET readers by ClariNet Communications Corp.  This copyrighted
material is for one-time USENET distribution only.]
	ROME (UPI) -- A prominent Italian politician's claim that Pope John
Paul II faces a ``grave personal risk'' because of his outspoken
condemnation of the Persian Gulf war stirred a mounting political
controversy in Italy Saturday.
	Suggestions that there could be a terrorist attack on the pope was
made first in a television talk show and later before Catholic students
at Milan university Friday by Roberto Formigoni, 43, vice president of
the European Parliament and an active campaigner against the gulf war.
	``For the courageous position he has adopted in favor of peace, the
pope is running a grave personal risk,'' Formigoni, a founder and leader
of the Catholic activist ``Popular Movement'', said.
	In a radio interview Saturday, Formigoni was pressed to explain more
precisely on what he based his claim thst there have been ``threatening
warnings'' made against the pope.
	``I intended, and I intend, to say that the pope, in committing
himself in a personal and impassioned way to the search for a peaceful
solution to the crisis, has embarked on a path that is disagreeable to
powerful people,'' Formigoni said.
	``This position has won much sympathy for the pope, but has also
brought him irritated and disrespectful public replies and insolent and
threatening private comments,'' Formigoni said.
	Chief Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro Valls said Saturday the
Vatican had no knowledge of any threats against the pope. He said the
Vatican has received only messages of support for the pope's repeated
calls for an end to the gulf war.
	The interior ministry and powerful members of Parliament took up the
case Saturday, in effect demanding that Formigoni explain what the basis
for his claims.
	``At such a delicate moment, any information obtained in any way must
be referred in the first place and with maximum speed to the public
security authorities and the magistrature,'' an interior ministry
statement said.
	It said Formigoni had been summoned to police headquarters in Milan,
where he lives ``to explain the precise facts he spoke about.''
	Later Milan police chief Umberto Lucchese told reporters he met
personally with Formigoni in the presence of an official of the DIGOS
anti-terrorist police organization.
	He said Formigoni provided some ``new elements'' about the danger
allegedly run by the pope which police passed on to judicial
authorities. He said judicial secrecy prevented him from disclosing what
Formigoni said.
	Formigonis press office issued a statement saying Formigoni informed
Interior Minister Enzo Scotti and the police chiefs of Milan and Rome
Saturday of ``all the information and elements he knows about regarding
the international reaction to the position taken by the Holy Father in
favor of peace.''
	In Parliament, the presidents of the foreign affairs and defense
committees of the Chamber of Deputies -- to which Formigoni, a Christian
Democrat, was elected in 1987 -- decided to summon Formigoni to appear
before them, probably on Tuesday.
	The committee presidents said the meeting was aimed at obtaining all
the information in Formigoni's possession about ``the grave risk
reported to the life of the pontiff as a result of the courageous
position he has taken against the war.''
	Defense Undersecretary Clemente Mastella told reporters he had made 
``a little investigation'' of his own into the alleged danger run by the
pope and ``did not come to the same conclusions'' as Formigoni.
	``That the pope by issuing his warnings ... may have annoyed somebody
is understandable,'' Mastella, a Christian Democrat, said. ``But from
there to give the idea, as Formigoni has done, that the very life of the
pope is in danger, frankly appears to me to be exaggerated.''

Topic 4 Hotline for February 8, 1991
sncrom  fcnl.updates     6:13 pm  Feb  8, 1991
 
FCNL                   TELEPHONE TAPE - 2/8/91
 
This is the Friends Committee on National Legislation, with updated
legislative information.  To speak with a staff member, call (202) 547-6000.
 
This message was prepared at 6 p.m. on Friday, February 8.  We regularly
provide a new legislative update every Friday at about 6:00 p.m., Eastern
time.  However, during the extraordinary events surrounding the outbreak of
the Gulf War, we changed our message much more frequently.  We have now
resumed the once-a-week schedule, though circumstances may again require
more frequent updates.  If that is the case, we will attempt to alert you of
changes whenever possible.  At this time, you can expect a new message only
on Friday evenings.
 
This message contains information and action suggestions on the following
subjects: the GULF WAR, CULTURAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS IN THE GULF, the FEDERAL
BUDGET, and the PORTION OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXES GOING TO WAR RELATED ITEMS.
 
GULF WAR.  The desperate need for a ceasefire NOW is underscored by two
trends: the accelerating approach of a brutal ground war, and the growing
human death toll from the unrelenting bombing of Iraq.  Recent statements by
U.S. administration and military leaders suggest that they consider a ground
offensive necessary and inevitable, despite projections of massive
casualties on both sides.  Meanwhile, news reports suggest that Iraqi
military weapons and personnel are being "hidden" in residential areas, and
that the U.S. will therefore change its declared policy of trying to avoid
killing civilians in order to bomb Iraqi troops.  If these reports are true,
both governments' actions are reprehensible and inhumane.  Killed, maimed,
or starved civilians are not mere "collateral damage."
 
Public debate seems to offer only two choices: continuing the air war, or,
starting a ground war with continued bombing.  A third choice should be
raised up: stop the air war, cease fire, and negotiate.
 
ACTION: Call or telegraph your representative and senators now.  Urge them
to press President Bush to stop the air war, to declare a ceasefire, and to
take all possible initiatives to open political processes to resolve this
conflict.  The good offices of the UN Secretary General, of Iran, of
non-aligned nations such as Algeria and Yugoslavia, and of the Arab League
may help this process.  The objective of the political process should be to
achieve a negotiated agreement for Iraq's complete withdrawal from Kuwait in
exchange for assurances of no further military attacks, and of an end to the
economic sanctions.
 
Urge your Members of Congress to sign on to a letter to President Bush which
is being circulated by 22 representatives.  The letter states in full: "It
is our belief that there is no need to escalate the war in the Persian
Gulf."  To sign on, your member should contact the office of Representative
Ron Dellums at 202/225-2661.
 
CULTURAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS IN THE GULF WAR: FCNL has a new document raising
questions about the "misunderstandings" and "miscalculations" that permeate
relations between the U.S. and Arab nations.  To receive this document, send
a stamped, self-addressed envelope to FCNL and request G-110.
 
THE FEDERAL BUDGET:  On Monday, February 4, President Bush released his
proposal for the Fiscal Year 1992 federal budget.  This budget -- or
whatever version of it that Congress agrees on -- will go into effect on
October 1, 1991.  The President has requested the highest level of military
spending that he is allowed to request under the budget agreement passed
last year.  By FCNL's analysis, the budget includes $294 billion in military
budget authority.  This amount is billions of dollars higher than the
average annual military budget in ALL the cold war years.  The cold war
ended, and the White House didn't even blink.
 
ACTION:  Urge your members of Congress to respond to the end of the cold war
by ending the cold war military budget.  It's time this nation dropped its
inflated military budgets and turned to other pressing concerns.  FCNL's
budget analysis is now being prepared and will be distributed in the
upcoming FCNL Washington Newsletter.
 
WAR TAXES:  FCNL has completed its annual analysis of the percentage of
income taxes that support the military budget and related items.  We
calculate that 31.2% of Fiscal Year 1990 federal funds went for current
military programs.  In addition, 18.9% went for expenses that were incurred
because of past wars, including veterans' benefits and interest on a portion
of the federal debt.  For detailed information on this calculation, send a
stamped, self-addressed envelope to FCNL and request document number G-111
from FCNL.
 
This concludes our message.  For more information, please write to the
Friends Committee on National Legislation, 245 Second St., NE, Washington,
DC 20002.

The following letter appeared in the February 7, 1991 edition of
THE OBSERVER, a student newspaper that circulates at the University
of Notre Dame and St. Mary's College, Notre Dame, Indiana, under the
headline:
 
PRAYER WITHOUT INFORMATION AND ACTION IS INEFFECTIVE
 
Mr. Esch is a student at Moreau Seminary, Notre Dame, Indiana, and is
under temporary vows to the Congregation of Holy Cross (CSC), a Roman Catholic
religious community.
 
========================================================================
 
Dear Editor:
 
      These days, many people are praying for peace.  Since the week the
war began, members of Pax Christi-Notre Dame have been meeting every day
to pray for peace; the Gulf Crisis Action Group sponsored a vigil last
Friday at the Grotto from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m.; Father Warner called on us to
pray; even President Bush, the man who led America into this war, announced
a National Day of Prayer for U.S. troops Feb. 3.
 
      These efforts are commendable, for the underlying causes have spiritual
dimensions, but I am afraid to say that I am beginning to smell opium.
 
      Is it enough for Christians and all people committed to conversion to
merely pray at a time like this?  A Turkish news agency announced, after just
four days of bombing, that there were 150,000 Iraqi casualties; Greenpeace
recently estimated 140,000 Iraqi deaths.  And now U.S. military authorities
have banned the press from photographing flag-draped coffins as they multiply
at Dover Air Force Base.  These grim statistics and U.S. press censorship
make us question whether it is enough to kneel down and whisper a prayer to
God.  For many, it seems the only response.  Yet, I think more is required.
 
      If we chanced upon an elephant stepping on a mouse's tail, what would
we do?  Would we hold a prayer vigil for the elephant to get off the mouse's
tail?  Would we go buy elephant-flags and begin waving them?  Or would we
act creatively against the gross injustice being committed agains the mouse?
 
      Now do not read me wrong.  Saddam Hussein is a thug.  The atrocities he
has authorized are reprehensible.  He is not a mouse.  However, if you note the
number of sorties we've sent compared to the few Scuds they have launched, the
analogy holds:  there is a heinous injustice being committed in our response.
 
      We may never see official statistics which represent the bloody truth
of this useless war.  Personally, I have not bought the "surgical strike"
myth.  I see our actions more as a sledgehammer pounding a fly.
 
      What were the Christians of Europe and the U.S. doing as Hitler was
liquidating Jews, Catholics and others he considered less than human?  Many
were waging war--trying to defeat violence with violence.  And what were the
others doing, those unable or unwilling to take up arms?  I dare say they
were praying:  praying for peace.  A noble effort, but by itself--without
real information and consequent action--a useless enterprise.
      Mother Teresa has said that prayer without action is no prayer at all.
Prayer lacking subsequent action is like a lion without teeth or an eagle
without claws.
 
      What more can we do, then as conscientious people?  We can inform and
educate ourselves so that when the vigil is over we can get off our knees
and onto our feet.  We must seek a variety of news sources--BBC, computer
mail, PeaceNet, foreign radio--ones that offer us more than fancy maps and
scant information about what is really happening.
 
      Those who believe this war is justifiable and necessary have an obligation
to stand up and state their case--not just wave their flag.  But first, they
must be properly informed on several issues:  the history of U.S. military
interventions aimed at liberation (i.e. El Salvador); the complex socio-
political dynamics of the Middle East; and the anesthetizing power of prayer
devoid of real information.  If all we do is watch Peter Jennings and read
Newsweek, we are lacking substantial information.  The press has been kind
enough to inform us that they are not informing us, telling us they will
photograph neither caskets nor soldiers injured in battle.
 
      Those who believe this war is unjustifiable have a similar obligation;
to rise up, make their argument and exercise their patriotic privilege and
their Christian duty to resist this war with all the peaceful strength they
can muster.
 
      Positions for or against this war cannot be adequately defended on the
basis of prayer alone.  Those who pray without adequate information and
action are like a toothless lion who will slowly starve to death.
 
 
                                          Thomas Michael Esch, CSC
                                          Moreau Seminary
                                          February 2, 1991
 

Article         9513
From: aldis@peg.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Soldier declared Amnesty POC
Date: 8 Feb 91 16:17:00 GMT
 
 
/* Written  1:59 am  Feb  7, 1991 by gn:robbieb in peg:mideast.gulf */
/* ---------- "Soldier declared Amnesty POC" ---------- */
- American Soldier Declared Prisoner of Conscience -
 
Amnesty International announced tonight that it was declaring an American
soldier who has refused to serve in the Gulf to be a Prisoner of
Conscience.
 
Sergeant George Morse is the first prisoner of conscience in the US
adopted by Amnesty since 1987. He was sentenced in December last year to 5
months' imprisonment for refusing to obey an order to help prepare
supplies for troops in Saudi Arabia.
 
International organisations including the UN Commission on Human Rights
now recognise conscientious objection to military service to be a
legitimate exercise of a fundamental human right. Amnesty say that this
right does not have to be shown to have been held continually by an
individual and cannot be withdrawn. "We believe that is a right at all
times - before joining the army, while in training, or even during a war",
said a spokesman.
 
Sergeant Morse has said that his conscientious objection to participation
in all wars developed some time after he re-enlisted in the army four
years ago.  But he had said that he was prepared to serve his full term,
due to be completed last December.
 
Since the invasion of Kuwait the US authorities have suspended all
discharges, and Morse was ordered to help prepare supplies for troops in
Saudi Arabia.  Other soldiers have been told that they cannot apply for
conscientious objection status unitl their units arrive in Saudi Arabia or
"their final destination".
 
Amnesty has called on the US authorities to release Sergeant Morse
"immediately and unconditionally".  A spokesman said, "The US authorities
have put him behind bars simply for exercising his fundamental right to
conscientious objection".
 
- UK "Possible Prisoners of Conscience" -
 
Last Friday 1 February Amnesty said that it consdered some of the Iraqi
and Palestinian detainees held without trial by the UK authorities to be
"possible prisoners of conscience".
 
Four Palestinians were released tonight after a major press campaign on
their behalf but over 50 others remain in Pentonville prison in London
awaiting deportation for unspecified crimes which are said to "threaten
national security".
 
A three man tribunal has been heraing appeals 'in camera', but the
detainees are not allowed to have a lawyer with them, nor are they cetain
to be told the reasons for their detention.
 
These conditions are acceptable in English law, on the basis that the
detainees constitute a threat to national security. But they constitue a
violation of international treaties and standards, including some to which
Briatin has formally acceded. Judicial Review has been refused, and the
laws which allow this procedure, standard in the case of all migrants
arriving in Britain, remain on the statute book.
 
---------------

Re:  28.200

  >A Turkish news agency announced, after just four days of bombing, that 
  >there were 150,000 Iraqi casualties; Greenpeace recently estimated 
  >140,000 Iraqi deaths.

Since Iraq itself has estimated as recently as a few days ago that
civilian deaths are 600+ from the bombing, these deaths must be
soldiers.  Actually, of course, the deaths are nowhere near this number.
Not to trivialize lives, but throwing around numbers like without respect
for their accuracy (by this student, Turkey or Greenpeace) is
irresponsible.

  >And now U.S. military authorities have banned the press from 
  >photographing flag-draped coffins as they multiply at Dover Air Force 
  >Base.

I'd hardly call the war-related deaths to the U.S. or allied forces
as having multiplied flag-draped coffins at Dover Air Force Base.
Eleven U.S. soldiers killed in action.  Another small number (10? 20?)
killed as a result of mechanical failures and accidents that are not
directly related to engaging the enemy?  This loses credibility with
me real fast.

  >If we chanced upon an elephant stepping on a mouse's tail, what would
  >we do?

If the elephant had a brain, we'd tell him to get off the mouse's tail.
If the elephant refused to get off and the mouse was crying in anguish,
we might feel justified in pushing him off.  Saddam, the elephant,
has clearly squished Kuwait, the mouse.  The world told him to get off.
He said no.  Are we going to push him off or are we going to accept the 
pain of this mouse and wait for the squeals of the next mouse?

  >...there is a heinous injustice being committed in our response.

Evidently this student is unaware of the outrageous atrocities that
have been committed on the citizens of Kuwait.  I had the privilege of
listening to a CBA basketball coach who was in Kuwait in August when
it was invaded.  The total brutalization of Kuwaiti citizens and rape
of the country's assets (as well as the women) is shocking.

The fact that Saddam desires to continue this treatment of Kuwait and
claim all of its assets for himself is even more troubling.

  >I see our actions more as a sledgehammer pounding a fly.

You obviously don't believe Saddam.  Have you not heard?  Victory for
Iraq is right around the corner!
 
  >Mother Teresa has said that prayer without action is no prayer at all.

James said that faith without works is dead.  Fortunately, there *is*
someone doing something to restore peace to Kuwait - peace that will
not exist as long as Saddam is in control.

Collis

    Actually, although Iraq has an interest in pointing out the civilian
    casualties, the morale effects of reporting *large* civilian casualties
    are not to Iraq's benefit.  Thus both Saddam Hussein and Bush are
    uninterested in having reports of high civilian casualties.  There
    is no question that many, many more than 600 civilians have died from
    Allied bombing.  I happen to believe that the deaths of thousands of
    Iraqi civilians from Allied bombing are just as tragic as the existence
    of Kuwaiti victims of the Iraqi invasion.

    Worse still, no sort of lasting "peace" will result from this military
    response to the invasion.  Bush, who has violated international law
    when it suited him, and who has supported terrorists and death squads
    in Central America, is hardly the one to restore any kind of "peace" in
    his "new world order".

    -- Mike

/* Written  7:43 pm  Feb 11, 1991 by lbensky in cdp:mideast.media */
/* ---------- "ramsey clark on damages" ---------- */
 
** Topic: IRAQ: ''STAGGERING'' CIVILIAN DAMAG **
** Written  5:53 pm  Feb 11, 1991 by steve in cdp:ips.news **
Area: Middle East
Reference: North America
Title: IRAQ: ''STAGGERING'' CIVILIAN DAMAGE, SAYS FORMER U.S.
 
official
 
new york feb 11 (gin-ips/janis lewin) -- former u.s.
attorney-general ramsey clark reported monday on
''extensive'' civilian damage he said he witnessed on a six-
day trip to iraq.
 
clark, an expert in international law, said that the
bombing of iraq by the united states and its coalition
partners in the gulf war violates all known standards of
international law, including the geneva conventions, and
the nuremberg war crimes precedents.
 
a television documentary crew travelled with clark over
the past week, observing and documenting the damage to
housing, shops, hospitals and other infrastructure in the
cities of baghdad and basra, and throughout the
countryside.
 
the damage was ''staggering in its expanse'', clark said
as he described hundreds of dwellings reduced to rubble,
civilian trucks burning by the roadside, and anguished and
enraged civilians who had lost family or homes.
 
according to clark, as a result of the bombing there is
virtually no electricity or running water in baghdad.
 
hospital surgeons are unable to wash their hands between
operations, and the occasional water that is available is
cold and dirty, he said, adding that hospitals have only a
few lights in the emergency rooms and no pain killers.
 
clark claims that he and his group saw no evidence of
military damage. he said they saw no destroyed military
vehicles or wounded soldiers.
 
he also reported that extensive bombing of bridges has
resulted in great damage to neighbouring housing and
commercial structures.
 
the group also travelled throughout the countryside,
where they said they witnessed the results of ''missed
targets'' and random damage not anywhere near military
installations.
(more)
 
iraq: ''staggering'' (2)
 
the former u.s. attorney-general said that his group
saw, for example, the ruins of a mosque, in which a family
of 12 had sought refuge. as a result of bombing by u.s.-led
forces, he said, the dome had collapsed, killing 10 of
those family members.
 
clark cited dr. ibraham al noore, a pediatrician and
head of the international red crescent society in iraq, who
estimates that civilian casualties could range from six to
seven thousand. but clark admitted it would be difficult to
verify the figure.
 
the iraqi government has not issued an official estimate
of casualties. clark noted that in times of war, no country
readily gives out its casualty figures, largely to avoid
civilian panic.
 
the former attorney-general said his group was able to
travel without significant restriction, and that their film
was not reviewed by iraqi censors.
 
emphasising his view that the gulf war is ''an attack
against the people and the economy of iraq'' and ''has
nothing to do with the liberation of kuwait'', clark
observed that the u.s. military budget is four times the
gross national product of iraq.
 
he compared the iraqi invasion of kuwait with the u.s
invasion of panama, saying they both violated international
law, and argued that the u.s. goal in both the middle east
and latin america is ''dominion''.
 
he called for an immediate end to the ''rain of death
and destruction on the people of iraq'' and urged a start
to talks aimed at ending the war. (ends/ips-gin/ip/jl/yjc)
 
 
 
** End of text from cdp:ips.news **

    re:.204
    
    	My opinion of Ramsey Clark has fallen. I can understand how he
    might be apalled by civilian casualties and other aspects of this war,
    but his credulity is amazing. He wandered about the country with his
    camera and saw no damage to military targets while we at home saw
    various smart weapons destroy military targets. What we saw does not
    deny that civilians were hurt or killed, what he saw denies what we
    saw. I'm not about to counter the casualties of our bombing with the
    civilian casualties in Kuwait, Iran and Iraq due to his policies, but
    it seems gullible that he would fail to see any military damage AND
    fail to find this to be remarkable. Seeing this I am reluctant to point
    out our mutual disaffection for US adventures over the last dozen or so
    years.

Article         9621
From: jad@cbnewsl.att.com (john.a.dinardo)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm,talk.politics.misc,soc.rights.human,misc.headlines,alt.activism,soc.culture.arabic,soc.culture.african,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Eyewitness Testimony of CARNAGE IN IRAQ From Ramsey Clark --
Date: 13 Feb 91 18:05:31 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
 
Former Attorney General of the United States Ramsey Clark has
just returned from a trip to Iraq. His press conference was
broadcast over the Pacifica Radio Network affiliate, WBAI-FM 99.5
in New York City on Feb. 11th. He covered over 2,000 miles during
his weeklong stay in Iraq. he commented that the government didn't
try to control his travels, and that with all the devastation in
Iraq, it could not have done so anyway. There was just he, a
cameraman and a driver in his car, and he said that the driver
obeyed all his instructions. The following is a nearly complete
transcription of the press conference which I took from a tape: 
 
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
                      (continuation)
RAMSEY CLARK:
When President Bush talk's about pinpoint bombing, let me tell
you, I didn't see any "collateral" military damage. This is an
attack on the people of Iraq -- the economy of Iraq. You tell me
what municipal water in Mosul has to do with liberating Kuwait --
or bombing the bridges in Baghdad, or trying to .....
 
We're bombing the civilian population. The hospitals have been
hit -- the Teaching Hospital in Basra doesn't have a window in it.
It was out of operation for a week ..... when they needed it most.
They've got a lot of injured people there. I walked down there at
night and here a bomb had hit a family club, and thank God it was
closed because it would have killed scores and scores of people
if it had been open.
 
The bombing is a violation of international law, which all of us
should always remember, protects civilians. You don't kill
civilians! The United States of America doesn't go around killing
civilians! And there're not hitting military targets. If they are,
why can't you find some shreds of soldiers' clothing. All you
find is the people's clothing scattered around, and their
possessions scattered around in their residential areas. That's
what's happening. 
 
Food, gasoline -- VERY hard to get. The gas stations all up and
down the roads are hit. Road repair camps are hit. They don't
want you to repair the road from Amman to Baghdad. The idea that
military traffic is on that road -- if SCUDS are out there -- 
you'd take a SCUD down a main highway? Why don't you see anything,
if they hit them? 
 
These are violations of the Hague Conventions. They're violations
of the Geneva Conventions. They're violations of the Nuremburg
Principles. They're war crimes. And the idea that they are
encompassed within the U.N. resolutions including 678, the 
Security Council resolution, is off-the-wall. 
 
How can destroying civilian life in northern Iraq, or central
Iraq, or any place in Iraq, except mass troop formations (and 
there are plenty of them out there) have anything to do with the
liberation of ... [Kuwait]  There's nothing in there that says we
have a right to go in -- and of course we couldn't get a right
from anybody because, in natural law and in international law,
there's no right, ever, to destroy civilian life or non-combatant
life, which would include the government offices. Who do you
think works in the telephone company? A bunch of soldiers? 
People work in there. And all those buildings that are hit in
Baghdad. People work in there -- civilians overwhelmingly. 
And we're just "bombing them back into the stone age", as people
like to say about Vietnam. .....
 
What kind of military pride could you have in beating up on a
poor third-world country like that? Their per capita income is
about $2,400. Ours is $19,000. 
 
We are raining death and destruction, with our technology, on the
life in Iraq. And there ought to be a cessation of the bombing
now. And anyone who dares to say there are "surgical strikes" 
ought to go into those hospitals and see what kind of surgery
they're having to do because of them! On little babies, women
and children. If the United States of America cares about its
character, it had better stop that bombing. You can never have the 
respect or the good will of the people of the planet, including
hundreds of millions of Arabs, a billion Moslems, or just poor
people anywhere, if you use your technology to destroy their lives.
                         (conclusion)
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
     John DiNardo

Certainly this is a distressing report.

Did he in any way attempt to verify what damage was inflicted by
Allied bombings and what damage was self-inflicted?

re Note 28.205 by DELNI::MEYER:

>     He wandered about the country with his
>     camera and saw no damage to military targets while we at home saw
>     various smart weapons destroy military targets. What we saw does not
>     deny that civilians were hurt or killed, what he saw denies what we
>     saw. 

        To be fair, the videos of weapon hits released by the
        coalition authorities have only covered at most a few dozen
        or so targets.

        There is no necessary contradiction between Ramsey Clark's
        claims and the videos we have seen -- he certainly wasn't
        claiming that no military targets have been hit anywhere.

        Bob

Article          725
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (DAVID E. ANDERSON, UPI Religion Writer)
Newsgroups: clari.news.religion,clari.news.gov.usa,clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.hot.iraq,alt.desert-storm,clari.news.top
Subject: Church leaders urge gulf war cease-fire
Date: 14 Feb 91 17:03:07 GMT
 
[Provided for USENET readers by ClariNet Communications Corp.  This copyrighted
material is for one-time USENET distribution only.]
	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Scores of U.S. church leaders, including more than
65 delegates attending the World Council of Churches' Seventh Assembly
in Canberra, Australia, called Thursday for a cease-fire in the Persian
Gulf war.
	The statement, the first broad-based appeal from the churches since
the Jan. 17 beginning of the armed conflict, said that on behalf of all
who suffer ``we call for a halt to the fighting -- a cease-fire -- and a
fresh effort to find a diplomatic solution.''
	Joining in the appeal for a cease-fire were mainline and evangelical
Protestants, Roman Catholic bishops and laity and the leaders of
Orthodox churches, including the heads of the Presbyterian Church (USA),
the Episcopal Church, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the
Reformed Church in America, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America,
the United Church of Christ and the American Baptist Churches.
	``The churches were at the forefront of those urging peaceful
alternatives to war in the Middle East,'' the statement said.
	``We have wrestled with our varied theological traditions, returning
to fundamental questions of the Christ faith,'' it added. ``We agreed
that the stakes in human lives were so high, and the potential for
catastropehe in a Middle East war so great, that military confrontation
had to be averted.''
	``But now,'' the statement added, ``the nation is at war -- a war that
should have been avoided. And a great human tragedy of yet unknown
proportions has begun to unfold.''
	While calling for a cease-fire in the conflict, most of the appeal
was directed toward church members, calling on them for prayers and
ministries of support to all those touched by the war, including those
in the military.
	``Let our churches provide pastoral support for military personnel,
comfort and hope for their families, friends and communities as they
grapple with their fear, confusion and grief,'' the statement said.
	``Let our churches stand ready to help those returning from war with
physical, psychological, economic and spiritual wounds and needs,'' it
added.
	At the same time, the statement urged support and and assistance to
conscientious objectors who ``for reasons of faith and conscience''
refuse to fight the war.
	``Let our churches speak clearly their historic teachings on war and
peace, and provide moral guidance for soldiers, citizens and political
leaders,'' the signers said.
	The statement urged churches to become ``places of comfort and calm
sanctuary in the midst of the 'Desert Storm' of war, thus reclaiming the
historic tradition of providing 'safe shelter' in times of trouble.''
	And it urged a dialogue between Muslims, Christians and Jews ``to
address our fears, concerns and hopes for peace'' as well as 
``ministries of compassion'' for those in the Middle East harmed by the
war.
	``Already many people are suffering,'' the statement said, citing the
``young American servicemen and women being sent into battle and their
fearful families at home; people of color who are a disproportionate
number of those doing the fighting. ...
	``Kuwaitis enduring brutal occupation; Iraqi families living under
the daily rain of bombardment; Israeli parents putting gas masks on
their children under the terror of missile attack; Palestinians and
other Arabs who see their hopes for dignity and freedom dimmed by the
clouds of war; prisoners of war paraded on our television screens; Iraqi
draftees being carpet-bombed in the desert; the thousands of refugees
who are already fleeing for their lives.'' 

    The Ramsey Clark text that I cited earlier was actually the second part
    of the transcript.  Here is the first part:
    
Article 7194 of alt.desert-storm:
Xref: cbnewsl alt.desert-storm:7194 talk.politics.mideast:27190
 talk.politics.misc:46234 misc.headlines:19511 soc.rights.human:4980
 soc.culture.arabic:5823 soc.culture.african:2244 soc.culture.indian:35628
Newsgroups:
 alt.desert-storm,talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.ri
 ghts.human,soc.culture.arabic,soc.culture.african,soc.culture.indian
Path: cbnewsl!jad
From: jad@cbnewsl.att.com (john.a.dinardo)
Subject: Eyewitness Testimony of the CARNAGE IN IRAQ From Ramsey Clark --
         U.S. Attorney General Describes Bush's CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 91 16:41:39 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Feb12.164139.20826@cbnewsl.att.com>
Followup-To: any except alt.activism
Keywords: See what's being deducted from your salary.
Lines: 133
 
Former Attorney General of the United States, Ramsey Clark has
just returned from a trip to Iraq. His press conference was
broadcast over the Pacifica Radio Network affiliate, WBAI-FM 99.5
in New York City last evening. He covered over 2,000 miles during
his weeklong stay in Iraq. he commented that the government didn't
try to control his travels, and that with all the devastation in
Iraq, it could not have done so anyway. There was just he, a
cameraman and a driver in his car, and he said that the driver
obeyed all his instructions. The following is a highlighted
version of the press conference which I edited from a tape:
 
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
RAMSEY CLARK:
The reports of the number of sorties over Iraq led me to the
concern that there must be extensive civilian casualties .....
The head of the civil defense in Basra agreed that when the bombs
started falling in the middle of the night, he would come and
take us to the scene .....
The cities of Basra and Baghdad contain a good 25% of the
population of the country .....
Once we got on the road, we'd see smoke and just go where the
smoke was -- that sort of thing .....
The damage that we saw was staggering in its expanse .....
For instance, in a city like Basra, you can see six continuous
city blocks that are almost rubble. They were homes. You'd see a
guy sitting out there because they kind of watch over what's left .....
You get 50 miles down the road, and there's a bridge out .....
We saw hundreds of dwellings demolished .....
 
We got to one place in Baghdad. It was a heavy concrete home --
three floors and heavy concrete slabs, and there was a 500 lb.
bomb hanging off the top. It hadn't gone off. And two had hit
nearby and pretty much killed the family. The father was badly
burned and in the hospital. Whether he would live or not, we
didn't know. And there were a hundred angry people standing
around wondering why these homes have been bombed. You look around
and you don't see anything that looks like any target whatsoever.
You only see homes. You go to the centre of a town ..... Devonia
..... and there are three hotels destroyed ..... the largest one
had about fifty rooms ..... a lawyer's office, doctor's office,
shops. The central market in Basra has about a thousand shops --
and here you see a crater that's bigger than the White House
swimming pool, except it's round. Its right at the entrance to
the market and it shattered everything, and it landed right on a
supermarket. It's not there anymore. I mean it's just gone. And
around, you just see damage, and there's no possible military
target there. Driving through the countryside, you see food
processing places, if they're big, fairly systematically hit.
You see extensive bombing around bridges. It's hard to hit a
bridge, apparently. I even saw a U.S. Government count and they
said it took 500 and some sorties to hit bridges, and they hit 31.
But there're people living all around them. There's a big river
through Baghdad and there're a lot of bridges across it. And people
don't stay away from them. They build right up toward them.
In Baghdad, the Ministry of Justice building has all its windows
shattered. And right there -- and I think he was trying to hit
the bridge, probably, because there's just absolutely nothing else
there [remaining]. But he didn't hit the bridge and he had four bombs
coming in there, and he just knocked out all these -- it's a poor
part of town -- little shops and stores. And the merchants and the
people who survived, they've lost everything, and their families
were killed and all.
 
The mosques; we came upon one mosque in Basra -- it was particularly
tragic, it was way out in the countryside ..... there were three
or four bombs that hit around there that just kind of messed
everything up. When you hit a mosque, it's got no internal support,
just this big dome, so it just comes down. It collapses in rubble.
And there was a family of twelve who had sought refuge in there. .....
They found ten bodies in the mosque. The minaret was still
standing there. Every type of civilian structure you could think of --
 
On the highways, I think we put over 1,400 miles on the highways,
and we saw hundreds and hundreds of vehicles damaged or destroyed.
We saw a lot of these oil trucks. They were burned up pretty bad.
But you don't find anything that looks like arms in there. When
[Secretary of State] Jim Baker says that they were carrying arms,
he's talking about something he does not know. Now, in Jordan,
along the road, we saw scores and scores of these trucks. They're
pouring out ..... bringing oil from Iraq to Jordan, which has an
economic crisis ..... When you're driving down the road, what you
see are trucks -- a lot of tractor-trailers. We weren't ten miles
into the country when we came upon a tractor-trailer that was on
fire ..... John Alpert gets his camera out and he's taking a
picture at night. It's dark. You don't leave your lights on, I'll
tell you. I said "What is this here?" I thought it was sand. I
picked it up and it was grain -- feed. Looked like animal feed.
They hit that truck and it's burning. And another one carrying
asphalt tiles.
 
Buses, public buses, painted baby blue -- and they're hit by
shrapnel and torn up -- burned. Mini-vans, taxis -- lots of
private cars -- lots of private cars, on the highway from Baghdad
to Amman. Not a military target on the scene. ..... We didn't see a
single tank that had been hit. We didn't see a single armored car
that had been hit, or an armored personnel carrier. .....
 
In every city, town and village, we went in to see if anybody had
running water. There's no running water in the city of Baghdad. .....
The Minister of Health said the single most important and urgent
health problem in the country is bad water. Tens of thousands of
people are getting sick and some are dying --from bad water.
 
There's no heat. There's no electricity. We've systematically
destroyed electric plants. Some people have little gasoline
generators, who can afford them -- like CNN. In the hospital, you
see a few lights on in emergency rooms -- but you go into a ward
at night. We went into four hospitals. There are people badly
injured -- men, women and children. Lots of children.
 
JAD:
[It's understandable that there would be lots of children
because half of Iraq's population consists of children under the
age of fifteen.]
 
Lots of women. A little girl twelve years old -- her leg cut off
very near the hip, and no pain killer. And it's cold in there.
hands. There's no water. One doctor told me, "I hate my hands.
We've got no gloves. I go from this wounded person to this wounded
person to this wounded person, and I can't wash my hands."  It
was getting to him! And people moaning in pain that you don't
hear here [in the U.S.A.] because we anesthetize them when it
gets that bad.
 
When Gen. Powell says that this is a party -- which he's said in
his press conferences -- he ought to think about the civilian
population, or those hospitals in Iraq, and see what kind of
a party he thinks it is.
                       (to be continued)
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
     John DiNardo

    Mike,
    	the substance of that is an accusation either that our military
    personnel haven't the slightest idea of what a target looks like or
    that they are intentionally bombing only civilian areas. Either way, if
    that text is an accurate indication of the results of our attacks, then
    a substantial number of the better-paid Americans in that area are such
    monsters that they should be quietly put to sleep without regret. Now,
    I would like to know if this is your belief or if you feel that Clark
    saw what he saw and reported it faithfully (if not accurately) but that
    he was always looking towards that damage and never towards
    recognizable damage to military targets ?  This accusation goes far
    beyond the question of the moral prohibition against murder vs the
    ethical requirement to obey the lawful orders of your government. This
    accusation requires that those who define the targets, those who attack
    those targets, those who assess the damage, and those who command the
    attacks are all intent on killing civilians rather than attacking
    genuin military targets. They are terrorists without honor or
    intelligence. 

    Dave, I think the point is that our so-called "surgical strikes"
    against Iraq are nothing of the kind.  The bombing directed at the
    Iraqi infrastructure is killing thousands of civilians.  I don't know
    that the allies are deliberately killing civilians; I think it is more
    likely that the "collateral damage" is simply the inevitable (but, as
    far as Bush is concerned, irrelevant) result of allied carpet bombing. 
    I think it is important to bring to the attention of the American
    people just what "bombing Iraq back to the stone age" really means in
    human terms.

    -- Mike

    	Today, from Radio Bagdad, the Revolutionary Council placed a peace
    initiative on the table. It offered to withdraw Iraqi forces from
    Kuwait under certain conditions. Linkage to Isreal. Linkage to Syria.
    Free elections in Kuwait. Linkage to ... Lots of stuff that has already
    been denied. Bush, acting like he had the authority to do so, turned it
    down cold.
    	Today, from Moscow TV, a report of a coup attempt in Iraq. Hussein
    fighting for his life. Unconfirmed.
    	Today, heard on WBUR, Articles of Impeachment have been filed
    against President Bush in the Congress. Reasons cited include his
    activities which helped precipitate this war and his lack of good faith
    in attempting to avert bloodshed.

Article          737
From: clarinews@clarinet.com
Newsgroups: clari.news.religion,clari.news.europe,clari.news.fighting,clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.hot.iraq,alt.desert-storm
Subject: Pope calls conference of Catholic leaders on gulf war
Date: 19 Feb 91 14:20:28 GMT
 
[Provided for USENET readers by ClariNet Communications Corp.  This copyrighted
material is for one-time USENET distribution only.]
	VATICAN CITY (UPI) -- Pope John Paul II summoned Roman Catholic
leaders from all countries involved in the Persian Gulf War to a
conference in the Vatican March 4-5 that will examine the effects of the
war on Middle East people and inter-religious relations, the Vatican
announced Tuesday.
	The aim of the unprecedented conference will be to plan the best way
to counter the divisive effects of the conflict and make ``a concrete
contribution for peace in the region, for inter-religious dialogue and
for solidarity,'' a Vatican statement said.
	Those invited include all seven patriarchs of the Catholic Churches
of the Middle East and the presidents of Bishops' Conferences of the
United States, Britain, France, Italy and Belgium, plus Cardinal Carlo
Maria Martini in his capacity as president of the Council of European
Episcopal Conferences.
	The Vatican statement said the pope will preside over the March 4-5
meeting, which chief Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro Valls described
as ``an initiative without precedent.''
	``With this initiative,'' the Vatican statement said, ``the pope
wishes to favor an exchange of information and opinions relating to the
consequences of the war on the populations of the Middle East, on the
Christian communities of the region, on the dialogue between East and
West and relations between Islam and Christianity, as well as those
between Judaism and Christianity.
	``The conclusions of the meeting should suggest what can be the most
suitable initiatives enabling the Catholic Church and its institutions
to offer, for the immediate and for the future, a concrete contribution
for peace in the region, for inter-religious dialogue and for
solidarity,'' the statement said.
	In recent speeches the pope, in addition to calling repeatedly for an
end to the gulf wart, has expressed concern for the effect of the war on
relations between Muslims and Christians.

Article          748
From: clarinews@clarinet.com
Newsgroups: clari.news.religion,clari.news.fighting,clari.news.issues.conflict,clari.news.hot.iraq
Subject: Quakers call for emergency U.N. meeting to discuss gulf peace plan
Date: 23 Feb 91 18:07:42 GMT
 
 
	PHILADELPHIA (UPI) -- The American Friends Service Committee is
calling for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council to study
the Soviet Union's Persian Gulf peace proposal.
	The Quaker group also Friday called on President Bush to avert a
ground war. Bush has given Iraq until noon Saturday to begin withdrawing
from Kuwait or face a ground attack.
	Iraq is ignoring the U.S. ultimatum and instead accepted the Soviet
proposal for a withdrawl after a cease-fire, a proposal the U.S.-led
multinational force rejects.
	The Quaker group, in a letter to the United Nations, said the
military coalition led by the United States must not be allowed to
unilaterally reject such a serious peace proposal.
	``We urgently ask that you move to reassert United Nations leadership
in averting a ground war,'' the Quaker organization said in a letter to
Security Council President Simbarashe Mumbengegwi.
	The group said said the U.S. should not be allowed to set further
deadlines without reference to the Security Council -- the body that
provided the authority for international measures against Iraq.
	``We urge you and the Security Council to continue to negotiate on
the basis of the Soviet proposal to reach an agreement on a cease-fire
and a process for the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait,'' the
letter said.
	AFSC Executive Secretary Asia A. Bennett added in her letter that the
moral force of the ambassador's position should be used to ``press the
combatants in this conflict to continue to seek a basis for concluding
it without further needless loss of life.''
	As a Quaker organization, the AFSC sees each life as sacred, each
person as a child of God. The Service Committee was a co-recipient with
British Quakers of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1947.
	In a later statement, the Quakers asked its staff round the world not
to fly on Pan American World Airways because of the airline's policy of
refusing service to people with Iraqi passports who do not have
permament U.S. resident visa.
	``Pan Am's policy will obviously lead to discrimination against
others on the basis of appearance and race,'' Bennett said.
	Bennett said in a memo to ASFC staff in 30 countries that she is
asking other American religious organizations to consider similar
policies.
	``We all have been aware that the war in the Persian Gulf has given
rise to new instances of racism and discrimination in our society,''
Bennett said. ``Instances of anti-Arab and anti-Jewish sentiments and
behavior have been well documented.
	``Few of these instances have been as blatant as Pan Am's policy. Its
initial policy of refusing service to all Iraqi passport holders was
reversed only in the face of legal challenge.''
--
This, and all articles in this news hierarchy are Copyright 1991 by the wire 
service or information provider and licenced to Clarinet Communications 
Corp.  for distribution.  Except for free samples, only paid subscribers 
may access these articles.  Any unauthorized access, reproduction or 
transmission is strictly prohibited.  We will reward the first provider of 
information that helps us stop violators of this copyright.  Send reports 
to reward@clarinet.com.  

    I find it interesting to note that those whom I was taught to view as
    war-mongers are those who are striving for a peaceful solution in the
    Gulf while those whom I was taught to think of as peace-loving good
    guys are those who are insisting on soaking the Mid-East sands in the
    blood of young men and women. It is seems altruistic of the opposing
    army that it surrenders rather than participate in a bloodbath for the
    greater glory of despots and warmongers everywhere.

<><><><><><><><>  T h e   V O G O N   N e w s   S e r v i c e  <><><><><><><><>

 Edition : 2269            Wednesday 27-Feb-1991            Circulation :  8583 

VNS MAIN NEWS:                                     [Tom Povey, VNS UK News Desk]
==============                                     [Reading, England           ]

    Yesterday, Saddam Hussein announced that Iraq would withdraw from
    Kuwait. He also said that Kuwait is no longer considered part of Iraq
    and that the Palestinian question would be solved at another time.

    However, the allied reply was that withdrawal in the form of an armed
    retreat was not enough. Surrender was required plus agreement to all 12
    UN resolutions.

<><><><><><><><>   VNS Edition : 2269   Wednesday 27-Feb-1991   <><><><><><><><>

In my opinion the allied forces have overstepped their U.N. mandate.  The
Security Council resolution empowered them to use all necessary means to
force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, *not* to force Iraq to surrender and
*not* to force Iraq to agree to the other 11 resolutions.

This war has done this much at least: it's given me a concrete reason for
despising George Bush.

				-- Bob

    A report out of Kuwait this morning made my day.  It told of an
    American truck which had become stuck in a pocket of mud in
    the desert.  As the Americans labored unsuccessfully to free 
    themselves an Iraqi tank came into view.  But instead of firing
    and destroying the Americans, the tank came up behind the truck
    and pushed it out of the mud.
    
    Handshakes were exchanged afterward.

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.

> This war has done this much at least: it's given me a concrete reason for
> despising George Bush.
  
        Bob,

        Even though I did not and still do not support this war, I
        cannot say that I despise George Bush.  He very faithfully
        represents a traditional strand of American triumphalism,
        militarism, and cultural myopia that probably does claim a
        majority of the American voters.  A situation came along
        which pretty well fit the traditional pattern of an American
        war to establish righteousness (of course there was some
        manipulation along the way, but I don't think you can claim
        this was a complete fabrication;  of course there is a lot
        more motivation than just the American sense of secular
        righteousness -- certainly economics played a part).

        This doesn't mean that it was a just -- or a wise -- war.  I
        actually pity the people, including apparently George Bush,
        who think that wars actually bring peace and that peace is
        a major justification for war.  He may even receive the Nobel
        Peace Prize for this war!

        (It is ironic that when us "liberals" suggest that Christians
        have an obligation to work for peace, and should pray for
        peace, "conservatives" counter that Christ didn't promise
        peace, and that true lasting peace will come only with the
        coming of Christ.

        When a president suggests that a war be fought to bring
        peace, however, the conservatives do not object to this!  It
        seems that only peaceful methods of working for peace are
        objectionable!  Warlike methods of working for peace are
        acceptable and are part of our glorious history!)

        I am fearful that one result of this 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 the
        post-war mentality.

        It will cost us a lot of money for the armaments, but that
        ultimately will help the economy, which will increasingly be
        dominated by military production, as domestic 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 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).

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

        If we put Saddam Hussein on trial as a war criminal, we will
        inadvertently be giving him and his supporters a world-wide
        platform for anti-Israeli and anti-US propaganda. There are
        plenty of skeletons in the US closet that can be paraded
        before the world.

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

        Bob

    	Spoke to a friend yesterday about the war and Bush's reluctance to
    accept victory and stop the fighting. He reminded me of the Iraqi
    battle pattern of the past and it became clear that, having come this
    far, we had to continue through to an unconditional surrender. Every
    time Iran beat back an Iraqi offensive, the troops retreated and
    regrouped. Then attacked again. Against this opponent there is no room
    for agreement between parties, only total and unquestioned dominance. A
    sad commentary indeed.

Dave,

Why can't we just stop at the Iraq/Kuwait border, stop the aerial bombardment
and continue to apply the economic embargo until Iraq complies with the
remaining U.N. resolutions?  If Saddam is so foolish as to attack us again
then we are more than ready for him.

				-- Bob

    Re .220
    
    Bob,
    
    I sort of envy your ability to articulate what's on my heart.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re Note 28.223 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     I sort of envy your ability to articulate what's on my heart.
  
        Richard,

        Well, I've often had the same feeling for your writing.

        Thanks,
        Bob

            <<< Note 28.222 by DECWIN::MESSENGER "Bob Messenger" >>>
             -< Are we really in such fear of what Iraq might do? >-

Bob,

The Iraqui's did by sending a letter (fropm Taric Aszzi (sp?))
that they will comply and President Bush issued stop firing order
for 5AM GMT (0:00 hrs EST, 27 Feb).

Not any more but if they had the capability to lob chemical
ordanance (Scud or artillery shells). Even with our guided "smart
bombs" were able to blow up civilians when they fell short of the
target; can you imagine what havoic a nuk bomb or a chemical bomb
can do? CBS showed a clip where they showed some of the armaments
left by the Iraqi's were so poorly maintained.

cal hoe

If Iraq has such a fearsome chemical weapons capability, why didn't they use
it?  Moral scruples on Saddam's part?  ;^)

Re: Bush.  "Wimp to Warmonger" has a nice ring to it, but I've never really
understood how he got tagged with the "wimp" label in the first place.  At
any rate, he's finally gotten rid of it now: wimps don't slaughter thousands
of Iraqis.  What made me really angry with Bush was that just when Iraq had
agreed to the Soviet peace proposal, Bush came up with this ridiculous
ultimatum which it would have been impossible for Iraq to accept.  He's been
angling for the destruction of both Saddam and his army for a long time,
possibly from the start.

What makes my not just angry but depressed is that Bush's popularity is
soaring.  Americans love a winner.  Ever since 1980 I've felt more and more
alienated from the political sentiments of the majority of Americans.  Maybe
by the year 2000 things will turn around... you never know.

				-- Bob

re Note 28.226 by PROTO2::MESSENGER:

> What makes my not just angry but depressed is that Bush's popularity is
> soaring.  Americans love a winner.  Ever since 1980 I've felt more and more
> alienated from the political sentiments of the majority of Americans.  Maybe
> by the year 2000 things will turn around... you never know.
  

        Well, Bob, we have an open democratic system -- if you and
        others who feel like you (like myself, in some if not all
        areas) got together and made a case for the alternative,
        perhaps things would turn around.

        However, I wouldn't bet on it.  Taking a "Christian
        perspective" on this, I must note that Christ wasn't very
        popular among the powerful elements of society.  I doubt that
        any platform based on Christ's teachings could be successful
        among the powerful, or even among the comfortable, in today's
        society.

        I am quite convinced that being a follower of Christ means
        being in the minority, being despised.  It means being
        unjustly treated, yet never striking out, being an alien and
        sojourner in the world but never of the world.

        I find it very hard to reconcile the above, which I firmly do
        believe, with my being a comfortable well-paid wage earner in
        America.

        Bob

    On the radio this morning, I heard a British military commander express
    satisfaction over how few lives were lost in this war.  I guess he
    wasn't counting the thousands of Iraqis casualties, not to mention the
    thousands of Iraqi civilians who were killed by the Allied bombing.
    
    -- Mike

re Note 28.228 by CSC32::M_VALENZA:

>     On the radio this morning, I heard a British military commander express
>     satisfaction over how few lives were lost in this war.  I guess he
>     wasn't counting the thousands of Iraqis casualties, not to mention the
>     thousands of Iraqi civilians who were killed by the Allied bombing.
  
        This will be the greatest tragedy of the war -- our memory
        will only be of our few casualties, not of the many on the
        other side.

        As a Christian, I have a hard time dismissing the deaths of
        the Iraqi combatants simply because they were combatants. In
        deciding to start the war when we did, and in deciding to
        conduct all-out bombing of all military targets, we were
        making a judgment that the lives of the Iraqi soldiers were
        worth less than the lives of the Kuwaiti population that
        might be killed or tortured by a continuation of the Iraqi
        occupation.  (Note that the Iraqis actually doing the killing
        and other abuse were generally not the same Iraqis who were
        hunkered down in tanks or in bunkers and dying from the
        coalition bombardment.)

        The common-sense "righteous American" viewpoint on this is
        that the Kuwaitis were "innocent", and the Iraqis were not. 
        The Christian viewpoint on this is much different:  all have
        sinned, none are innocent, all sin is an abomination before
        God.

        When necessary, even many of us who are avowed Christians are
        willing to set aside the foolishness of God for the common
        sense of man.

        Bob

    Mike,
    	you managed to forget the number of Kuwaiti civilians killed during
    the war - a number believed to be greater than that of Iraqi civilians.
    Or are they irrelevent ?  The coalition, to the best of my knowledge,
    did not target civilians. Yes, they hit civilians, but those were not
    the intended targets. The Kuwaitis killed were known to be civilians
    prior to their becoming targets.
    	And how did the Iraqis respond to the opening of the land war ? 
    They pursued a scorched-earth policy. What they hadn't stolen and taken
    with them they at least tried to destroy. There is little admirable
    about the Administration's conduct throughout this affair - starting
    nearly a year ago - but I can find absolutely nothing even redeemable,
    much less admirable, in what Iraq has done. We are the lesser of two
    evils in this one - I just chaffe at being one of the "evil"s.

re Note 28.230 by DELNI::MEYER:

>     We are the lesser of two
>     evils in this one - I just chaffe at being one of the "evil"s.

        From the Christian perspective, is there any basis in
        Scripture or Christian theology to support the notion that
        God recognizes degrees of evil, and that, given the choice,
        God prefers some evils over others?

        Bob

    	I wasn't attempting to work on such a grand scale. Perhaps I should
    have said that "our side" committed fewer evil acts than Hussein's ? 
    That "our" evil was on a lesser scale ?  
    	I did not participate in the evil of that war. I wrote messages
    against it here and in numerous other forums. I protested as vigorously
    as seemed feasable. My actions were about as effective as a hair dryer
    against a hurricane. But I tried. My country may have failed, but I
    tried. Even a God such as the more conservative Christians envision
    could ask no more of me.

    I've heard that Israel is becoming suspicious of the things the
    President of the United States is telling them.
    
    It seems that the last time they listened to a bush, they ended up
    wandering in the desert for 40 years. %+}
    
    Richard
    <groan>

    Richard !  Really !
    
    	I understand that certain religious orders used to go around
    beating themselves for their real (or imagined) sins. Were I not an
    inveterate punster myself ...  That was BAD Richard. I liked it. ;-)

    Calvin, I understand that a large percentage of what casualties there
    were in Grenada were also from friendly fire (or from accidents).  It
    seems that this is not an uncommon problem in modern warfare.
    
    -- Mike

Article         4954
From: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: enemy casualties
Date: 1 Mar 91 08:26:08 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
 
We have fortunately managed to avoid arguments over the wisdom of the
recent war, and I do not intend to open such a discussion.  However
some things I've been hearing in the last few days really bother me.
I keep hearing people on the news talk about how wonderful it is that
we've conquered the whole Iraqi army and only 138 of our people have
been killed.  I agree that this is an amazing accomplishment, that it
is proper to be very grateful that no more of our people were killed,
and that both our military and their commanders deserve our
admiration.
 
However, at the same time I'm hearing estimates of up to 100,000 Iraqi
soldiers killed.  This figure is typically quoted in the same tone of
voice as the 175,000 who surrendered and all the other amazing
accomplishments of our military.
 
The tone of these reports is beginning to bother me.  I'm beginning to
get the impression that because they are Iraqis, their deaths somehow
do not count.  I do not blame our commanders for thinking first of
their own people.  That is quite proper for them.  But it seems to me
that once a war is over, we should consider enemy dead just as
important as our own.  I would like to hope that Christians would find
some way to remind people that we do not confine our concern for
others to political boundaries.

re.233

	I get it. But you have it backwards. The reason they wandered 
around for forty years is because they *didn't* listen to the bush. 

Really.

ace

/** fcnl.updates: 6.0 **/
** Topic: Hotline for March 1, 1991 **
** Written  5:34 pm  Mar  1, 1991 by sncrom in cdp:fcnl.updates **
FCNL                    TELEPHONE TAPE - 3/1/91
 
This is the Friends Committee on National Legislation, with updated
legislative information. To speak with a staff member, call (202) 547-6000.
 
This message was prepared at 6:00 p.m. on Friday, March 1. It contains
information and action suggestions on the GULF WAR and the FEDERAL BUDGET.
 
GULF WAR:  We are thankful that a ceasefire has finally been achieved.  We
deeply regret that it did not come earlier and that many lives--civilian and
combatant--were sacrificed to the imperatives of nation-state politics.
Although the shooting has stopped, we fear that the warring between peoples
will be carried on through other means, political and economic.  We must now
undertake strong and concerted efforts for policies of reconciliation and
reconstruction.  Friends have an important role to play particularly at this
time.
 
Congressional committees have begun to look at the post-war U.S. policy
questions.  So far these questions center on the following:
 
     --Middle East arms transfers and arms control;
     --foreign aid for coalition partners, and foreign aid CUTS
       for those who were neutral (such as Jordan);
     --processes for installing democracy and free markets; and
     --determining which remaining Middle East conflicts warrant U.S.
       initiatives.
 
At this date, we see no specific pieces of legislation for which we
recommend action.  We do expect new legislative proposals to result from the
congressional committee hearings.
 
ACTION:  In the meantime, we recommend the following five actions:
 
1) Support humanitarian aid agencies.  An AFSC shipment of personal hygiene
kits and clothing will be sent March 8 for delivery overland through Jordan.
To contribute to the Gulf Assistance Fund of the American Friends Service
Committee, make your check payable to AFSC, and earmark it "Gulf Assistance
Fund." Mail to AFSC Gulf Assistance Fund, 1501 Cherry St., Philadelphia, PA
19102. For information about contributing to other non-governmental aid
agencies, call Lisa Mullins at InterAction: 202/822-8429.
 
2) Call on Congress to propose U.S. initiatives to achieve multilateral
agreements to reduce or stop arms transfers to the Middle East.  Proposals
such as a Middle East conference on cooperation and security, with
participation by all countries, should be supported.  Nuclear free zones and
bans on chemical weapons are certainly relevant.
 
3) Express your thoughtful views in letters, fax messages, or phone calls to
National Public Radio (NPR), Cable Network News(CNN), and the editor of your
local papers. Letters of opinion may be sent to NPR at the following
address: Gulf Letters, NPR, 2025 M St., NW, Washington, DC 20036. The NPR
Morning Edition listener comment line is 202/775-8686. And the CNN FAX line
is 404/681-3578; their phone number is 404/827-1500.
 
4) Hold silent vigils and public meetings for worship to express concern for
victims of the war, and opposition to the war system.
 
5) Take time to reflect and adjust your perspective on the peace work we do.
You may want to work with others to plan a local meeting to hear the
witness/testimony of those who have actively worked for peace and justice
for DECADES, and still keep on going.  What is their vision?  From where do
they draw their strength?  What stories do they remember or tell that keep
them directed and purposeful?
 
FEDERAL BUDGET:  Meanwhile, military spending inflicts its own style of
"collateral damage" here at home, in the lives of people who are locked out
of the American economy, locked out of homes, health care and opportunities
for decent education and employment.  While the cost of the Gulf war is
handled as an "emergency" -- off budget -- the human crises at home are
expected to compete for leftover funds.
 
ACTION:  Urge your representative and senators -- especially any of them who
are on either the House or the Senate Budget Committee -- to allocate
ADDITIONAL funds for critical human needs programs, including housing,
health, Native American programs, and assistance for homeless people.  If
additional funds are only available for "emergencies" under the new budget
rules, urge them to recognize the emergencies of homelessness, infant
mortality, domestic violence, drug addiction, and unemployment.
 
This concludes our message. For more information, please write to the
Friends Committee on National Legislation, 245 Second St., NE, Washington,
DC 20002.
** End of text from cdp:fcnl.updates **

Article          761
From: clarinews@clarinet.com
Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.fighting,clari.news.hot.iraq,clari.news.religion,clari.news.issues.conflict
Subject: Pope: 'let us feel close' to Iraqi suffering
Date: 3 Mar 91 14:09:47 GMT
 
 
	VATICAN CITY (UPI) -- Pope John Paul II called Sunday for solidarity
with Kuwait, empathy for Iraqi suffering and prayers for all victims of
the Persian Gulf war as the conflict draws to an end.
	``Let us feel solidarity with the people of Kuwait who after
undergoing an extremely grave trial have found their independence again,
'' he said during Sunday's Angelus in St. Peter's Square.
	Calling for prayers for the war's victims and consolation for those
that suffer, the pope said his thoughts were with all those in the
Middle East region who had been most affected by the conflict, that
began with Iraq's Aug. 2 invasion of Kuwait.
	U.S.-led allied forces launched an air war against Iraqi forces on
Jan. 17 that included bombing of Baghdad and other Iraqi targets, and
the allies began a ground war Feb. 24. Analysts estimate at least 50,000
Iraqi troops were killed in the conflict that subsided when President
Bush ordered a cease-fire that took effect Thursday.
	``Let us feel close to the population of Iraq and their sufferings,''
the pontiff said.
	``We ask God that through a definitive peace, that country be allowed
to collaborate loyally with its neighbors and other members of the
international community,'' the pope said.

re Note 28.240 by CSC32::M_VALENZA:

> 	``Let us feel close to the population of Iraq and their sufferings,''
> the pontiff said.

        I was deeply moved, and troubled, by a report I read over the
        weekend about the slaughter of fleeing Iraqis on the
        al-Mutlaa ridge.

        Apparently, during the closing moments of the land battle to
        liberate Kuwait, large numbers of Iraqis were fleeing north,
        some in military vehicles, including tanks, but most in cars. 
        Apparently the coalition forces attacked and destroyed all
        that moved.

        How should a Christian feel about that?  I'm sure that the
        military justification was to prevent the military forces
        from returning to Iraq and re-grouping -- although one would
        think that an army which couldn't, after seven months of
        preparation in its maximum strength, pose much resistance to
        the allies would not have been a credible danger after such a
        flight.

        I'm sure that the more callous observers would say that those
        people probably got what they deserved  (A Christian might
        counter "thank God we don't all get what we all deserve!)

        Bob

Bob,

I, too, am deeply saddened by the loss of life not only on that road
but throughout the entire war.

Let's consider all that happened.  First, Iraqi's were given explicit
instructions on how to surrender.  Instead, they chose to not only
ignore these instructions, but many chose instead to steal whatever
they could from Kuwait City before leaving (many in stolen cars).  They
took many weapons with them.

When their avenue of disorganized retreat is cutoff, instead of
surrending they fight.  What a needless loss of life!  Their stupidity
and greed cost them their lives.

It reminds me of what many will say before the judgment seat of our
God.  During their lives, they will seek to satisfy their own selfish
desires and, when confronted with the Gospel, will fight it.  Their
lives will be lost and THEN, at the judgment seat, will want to be
restored to God.  It is too late.  They had their chance and they threw
it away.  They chose what was most important for them and neglected
to consider the (in this case) eternal consequences.  It is indeed
a tragedy.  :-(

Collis

    Collis,
    
    Are you saying "they asked for it?"!  I hope I am reading you
    incorrectly!  This sounds so much like what women are often told when
    they are raped.
    
    E Grace

re Note 28.242 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> When their avenue of disorganized retreat is cutoff, instead of
> surrending they fight.  What a needless loss of life!  Their stupidity
> and greed cost them their lives.

        We pull the trigger and then blame the target for the loss of
        life!

> It reminds me of what many will say before the judgment seat of our
> God.  

        Yes, it does make me think that we were "playing God."

        Unfortunately for us, the boss is comin'.

        Bob

    Re.242

     Collis:
             Considering that the coalition has been bragging about
     having destroyed Iraq's command and control capability I have
     my doubts that these people received instructions on how to surrender.
     Unless you are referring to the pamphlets we dropped which were
     basically a propaganda weapon and I don't think anyone should 
     be expected to believe enemy propaganda pamphlets. 
              These people did something perfectly normal, they saw
     they were in big trouble and made a run for it. They picked part
     two of the "Fight or Flight" choice. 
               As for the possibility that they might regroup and attack
     that is ludicrous. They were in a full scale panic retreat.
     In seems as though we are trying to justify shooting fleeing
     people in the back.

                                                        Mike

re Note 28.245 by SA1794::SEABURYM:

>      In seems as though we are trying to justify shooting fleeing
>      people in the back.
  
        Please, don't call them "fleeing people" -- they were
        "retreating enemy assets."

        Bob

    	It is my understanding, perhaps erroneous, that SOME of those in
    that caravan invited the assault that cost many of them their lives.
    This is not a justification, just an explanation. The response was an
    over-reaction, a brutal and indescriminant slaughter that killed many
    "innocents" along with the guilty. Gotta admit, though, that they
    weren't innocent of much - just of not provoking the attack.

re Note 28.247 by DELNI::MEYER:

>     	It is my understanding, perhaps erroneous, that SOME of those in
>     that caravan invited the assault that cost many of them their lives.
>     This is not a justification, just an explanation. The response was an
>     over-reaction, a brutal and indescriminant slaughter that killed many
>     "innocents" along with the guilty. Gotta admit, though, that they
>     weren't innocent of much - just of not provoking the attack.

        We Americans are really fortunate that there isn't some much
        stronger self-righteous power with an inclination to blast us
        when we get out of line.  We just can't relate from personal
        or national experience to such an occurrence.

        Christians, in fact, believe that such a power exists;  but
        for some reason that power is much slower to act than we are. 
        Is God a wimp?

        Perhaps we Americans are a righteous lot, and God has not
        blasted us because we have done nothing wrong.  Could be. 
        How conveeeenient!

        Perhaps there is a lesson here, but if we maintain our
        national sense of self-righteousness, we certainly will never
        learn it (until God's patience comes to an end).

        Bob

What I am saying and have said is that refusing to submit sometimes
has a very high price tag.

It was not the intention of the Allied forces to inflict this war on
civilians.  In fact, they went to extraordinary efforts to prevent
civilian causalties with greater success in this war than there has
ever been in any war.

The question you ask is whether or not this onslaught was justified.
What I hear is, "Maybe the people didn't know that they should
surrender?"  Of course, a significant number of these people knew
quite well what surrending would mean - because they had committed
atrocities and might have to face justice for these atrocities.

I also hear, "Maybe people who are retreating with all kinds of
weapons and stolen goods do not pose a threat?"  Even after they
have fired on allied forces.

Yes, this was a mismatch.  Yes, I am truly deeply saddened by the
loss of life - so much of it needlessly lost because people refuse
to submit for their own best interests.  Some things never change.

Collis

re Note 28.249 by XLIB::JACKSON:

        Collis,

        My main concern is not the moral condition of the feeing
        Iraqis -- my comments were directed towards the moral
        position of our forces (actually their commanders), the ones
        who represent you and me and the ones who are paid from our
        taxes.

        To the extent that we want to be, or feel forced to be, the
        "police force" in this case, we should try to act more like a
        police force and less like an army.  A police force (at least
        in the more "civilized" world) usually goes to great lengths
        to avoid the use of deadly force against a suspect,
        especially in a crowd.

        Bob

    What is really tragic about those deaths is that they could have been
    avoided had Bush agreed to accept the Soviet peace proposal; or, for
    that matter, had he never started the war in the first place, and
    instead allowed sanctions to work.

    However, given that Bush's public approval rating is a record 91%, it
    is clear why he chose the route of slaughter instead of peace.  (I'm
    sure that the domestic politic difficulties that he was facing prior to
    this crisis had absolutely *nothing* to do with his decision to push
    for war instead of seeking peaceful solutions to the crisis :-(). 
    After all, as he demonstrated during the 1988 elections, why be right
    when you wrap yourself in the flag instead?

    Americans love to whip another country in a good juicy war.  I saw a
    bumper sticker on sale at the local 7-11 that read "USA All the Way",
    as if victory in warfare were analogous to winning the NCAA basketball
    tournament.  So what if thousands of Iraqis civilians were killed as a
    result of the so-called "surgical strikes" against the Iraqi
    infrastructure?  So what if the carpet bombing was certain kill
    thousands of Iraqi civilians?  It's so much easier to assuage our
    consciences if we pretend that this was nothing more than a high tech
    Nintendo War.  There weren't many casualties at all in this war,
    because, after all, enemy lives don't really count anyway.

    -- Mike

re Note 28.251 by CSC32::M_VALENZA:

>     What is really tragic about those deaths is that they could have been
>     avoided had Bush agreed to accept the Soviet peace proposal; or, for
>     that matter, had he never started the war in the first place, and
>     instead allowed sanctions to work.

        A discussion of "would sanctions have worked" would quickly
        become a bottomless rathole.  While certain events which did
        take place because of when the war started would not have
        taken place, it is extremely uncertain what events would have
        taken place instead, especially over the long run.

        Bob

    Tragically, Bob, you are correct that we will never know what might have
    happened.
    
    -- Mike

    	Comment heard on NPR during drive in (~2PM) "In essence, we were
    fighting over whether they should withdraw in 7 days or in 21." For
    that, 100,000+ men died.

    Unfortunately, not just 100,000+ men, but women and children as well.
    
    Ro
    

re Note 28.255 by ATSE::FLAHERTY:

>     Unfortunately, not just 100,000+ men, but women and children as well.
  
        One might wonder whether there would be a difference, either
        way.

        Bob

    	Actually, Ro, no. Nearly all those killed in the dispute over 7 or
    21 days were sodiers. But then, most left behind women or children who
    must now do the best they can. I don't think there need be any
    differentiation. A needless death is a needless death is a sin.

Re:  28.251

  >What is really tragic about those deaths is that they could have been
  >avoided had Bush agreed to accept the Soviet peace proposal...

Or if Saddam had accepted the U.N. resolutions...

Actually, I expect Saddam would have been only too willing to kill
others had he been given more of a chance.

Collis

Re:  .250

I didn't know that the war had been called off.  Certainly Iraq had
not called it off. 

I certainly do agree with you that internal handling of affairs by
police is of necessity quite different than the war raged by Iraq
against the United Nations forces.

Collis

re Note 28.259 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> I certainly do agree with you that internal handling of affairs by
> police is of necessity quite different than the war raged by Iraq
> against the United Nations forces.
  
        It isn't a matter of necessity, but rather a matter of
        decency, morality, and civilized behavior.  History gives
        many examples of atrocities committed by uncivilized and
        amoral police forces.  Those police forces that choose to
        minimize lethal force and the risk to the potentially
        innocent do it not out of necessity but by choice.


        Iraq never started a war against the United Nations forces
        (in fact, even when the United Nations forces attacked, they
        did relatively little to retaliate -- certainly not measure
        for measure, mostly because they couldn't).

        Iraq did start a war against Kuwait.

        The United Nations, at the United States' prodding, chose to
        avenge the attack and capture of Kuwait by doing likewise to
        Iraq.  (There is nothing in the UN Charter which requires it
        to interpret an attack upon one of its members as an attack
        on the UN.)

        The situation is very much more like a police action than a
        classic two-party (attacker and attackee) war.  Obviously the
        scale is much larger.

        Bob

     A "Bridging the Gulf" fund for relief, reconstruction, and
     reconciliation efforts was authorized by the Mennonite Central
     Committee (MCC).  The fund is to assist people affected by the
     conflict in the Persian Gulf.
 
     "This war has reopened old wounds and deepened the chasm between
     Muslim and Christian, Middle East and West, Jew and Arab, Arab
     and Arab," according to Ray Brubacher, MCC's director of overseas
     services.  "Bridges need to be built so that we can again embrace
     each other as brothers and sisters."
 
     Brubacher suggests that one way to make contributions is to give
     10 cents for every dollar of gas one buys.  "Since the war began,
     the price of gas has fallen about 10 cents a gallon in the United
     States," he said.  "this implies that the war is connected to oil.
     Putting a self-imposed 'tithe' on gas will remind us of our daily
     connectedness to this war."
 
     MCC has been working in the Middle East since 1949 and currently
     has 43 workers there doing education, health and other work.
 
     [From a report in 26 February Gospel Herald.]
 
     For more information on "Bridging the Gulf" contact:
 
         Mennonite Central Committee
         21 South 12th Street
         P. O. Box 500
         Akron, PA  17501-0500
         (717) 859-1151

Re:  28.260

Bob,

I read your note with incredulousness.

Having over a million people with full equipment opposing each other
from over 20 countries should be more properly considered a "police
action" than a war?

  >Obviously the scale is much larger.

Obviously.

Collis

re Note 28.262 by XLIB::JACKSON:

>                       -< Some thoughts strain the brain >-

        Brains benefit from some stretching now and then!


> Having over a million people with full equipment opposing each other
> from over 20 countries should be more properly considered a "police
> action" than a war?
  
        The issue at hand was the carnage on the al Mutlaa ridge
        consisting of civilian vehicles and a disorganized scattering
        of fleeing military vehicles from a defeated army at the
        hands of combined air and land attack by a vigorous and
        well-coordinated force.

        After seeing the "police action" in Los Angeles, perhaps I
        need to re-think my use of police behavior as a standard for
        civilized handling of an overpowered suspect.

        Bob

re Note 28.262 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> Having over a million people with full equipment opposing each other
> from over 20 countries should be more properly considered a "police
> action" than a war?
  
        It took me a while to look this up:

        Technically, in international law, it seems that Desert Storm
        would be classified as a "police action" rather than a "war."

        By the way, the Korean "war" was also a classified as a
        "police action."

        Bob

You learn something new everyday.

Somehow, I think "police action" misdescribes the scenario, but then
again I'm no expert in the English language.

Collis

re Note 28.265 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> Somehow, I think "police action" misdescribes the scenario, but then
> again I'm no expert in the English language.

        Yes, in this context it clearly is a euphemism.  I think that
        the point of it is that since all parties to this conflict
        are members of the UN, it is an "internal dispute" rather
        than a war against an outsider.  Perhaps it's a "UN civil
        war".

        Bob

     The Church of the Brethren, a historic peace church, has set up plans
     with the U.S. State Department to provide humanitarian aid to children
     and refugees affected by the war in the Persian Gulf.  The
     denomination's Cooperative Disaster Child Care program--the only
     program of its kind--has agreed to care for the families of seriously
     injured service personnel who are evacuated to the United States.
     The Church of the Brethren refugee office will provide, as need
     arises, volunteers to assist in mass care centers for Middle East
     displaced persons airlifted to the U.S. for temporary haven.
 
     [From 7 March Mennonite Weekly Review.]

    I received the following message that I would like to pass along:
    
    
Keywords: You and I can help save lives.
 
So far, I have mailed the following letter to twenty church pastors
in my Congressional district. I hope that other net readers will choose
to mail this appeal, or a similar one, to anyone in their locales whom
they think might care enough to contact their Congressperson and urge
our government to render life-saving assistance from the people of the
United States to the people of Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Dear Christian Pastor,
 
On the evening of March 7th, WBAI-FM, 99.5 in New York City,
reported that the people of Iraq are now facing contagions of
typhoid, meningitis and cholera due to the bombing of that nation's
water and electrical generating systems by President Bush. The
report states that these diseases are growing to epidemic proportions,
and this means that many thousands of innocent human beings,
mainly women, children and old people, will be killed as an indirect
result of our government's merciless blitzkrieg upon life-essential
civilian facilities. Among the mangled carnage lie many barely alive
people. It is not too late to save them with desperately needed
medical supplies and other assistance. You must understand that
with each minute of delay, injured and diseased children of God
are lapsing into death, as our nation's crimes against God pile up
in what can be accurately termed a mountain of corpses.
 
The Bush Administration, rather than facilitating relief, is
obstructing it. So our major challenge, at this moment, is to
bring to bear substantial public humanitarian pressure upon our
Congress to mobilize immediate relief during this brief interlude
of opportunity for all true followers of Christ. He would require
us to act with the utmost urgency.
 
Please write to our Congressman, Dean Gallo
                                 U.S. House of Representatives
                                 Washington, D.C. 20515
 
For verification of our government's obstruction of relief, please
contact the Christian-based organization, Fellowship of Reconciliation,
P.O. Box 271, Nyack, NY 10960, (914) 358-4601.
 
As a pastor for Christ, you can have an extraordinary impact upon
our Congressman because you represent so many of his Christian
constituents.
 
                                  With High Regards,
 
 
                                  John DiNardo

Article        11744
From: kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz)
Newsgroups: soc.rights.human,alt.desert-storm,alt.activism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Dorothy Day Follower continues stint in LA Jail to protest the War
Date: 22 Mar 91 03:38:18 GMT
Sender: news@usc
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
 
 
From the LA Times Opinion Page [Thu Mar. 21, 1991, pg B6]:
 
 
		An Act of Contrition for the Sin of War
		_______________________________________
 
* As America celebrates, the protest continues, through prayer and
fasting in jail
 
			by Jeff Dietrich
 
[Jeff Dietrich is a member of the Los Angeles Catholic Worker, which
operates  a kitchen and other services on Skid Row].
 
 
  "Hey, Homes, you still in here?"  The voice of my fellow prisoner
bounces off the steel walls of this jailhouse recreation room in
reverberating echoes.  "I thought they were gonna let all you
protesters go home now that the war is over
  
  "No man, it looks like I'm kind of a prisoner of war now."
 
  Even the guards here at the Federal Detention Center in downtown Los
Angeles were a little surprised that I hadn't been released.  But that
became unlikely once I was indicted as a felon for my part in a Feb 15
protest in which we peace activists dumped 40 gallons of oil and two
pints of human blood on the Federal Building steps.
 
  "Was it worth it, Homes?"
 
  Who can say what convictions are worth?  We are known as men and
women of conviction only if we are willing to bay the price of that
conviction.  It is easy enough to protest a war.  Far more difficult a
task is to place our entire existence in the path of war.  But to
speak the truth while none are listening, to continue protesting a war
that is substantially over, to stay in jail when your presence is so
obviously ineffective, is to appear foolish bordering upon
pathological.
 
  Three of us declined bail: it seems that our task is to remain in
jail, praying and fasting, even as America cheers and celebrates.  Our
task as people of conviction is, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther
King, "to save the sould of America."
 
  Though we are in the midst of the Lenten season, this archaic notion
of doing penance no doubt seems offensive, even masochistic, to
contemporary sensibilities.
 
  But the original prophetic intent of repentnece was always addressed
to the corporate transgressions of the community; injustice,
repression, the violence of war were the traditional targets of the
prophet.  The authentic purporse of penanceis to give substance to the
otherwise, ephemeral reality of evil inour midst; to take onto our own
flesh the insubstantial spirit of malevolence that otherwise remains
unconscious and thus deadly.
 
  When the national spirit of euphoria subsides, what will remain is
the conviction that the great cost of this conflict in terms of death
and destruction to the enemy was not commensurate with the paltry
price that we have paid for victory.
 
  Bloodshed tempers righteousness and restrains even the hand of the
mighty with the mournful memory of sacrifice.  Like sex without love,
victory witout significant sacrifice is irrestibly seductive.
Unrestrained power, like unrestrained lust, destroys moral character.
 
 
  While conferring a sense of omnipotence, the cool, rational
instruments of technical sophistication annihilate our sense of moral
responsibility by abstracting power and disconnecting it from its
locus within the human person.  Just as the assembly-line worker feels
no responsibility for the fruits of his labor, in the same manner does
the B-52 pilot feel disassociated from the deadly effects of his
labor.  
 
  Despite the illusions that have been established, of victory without
sacrifice, of war without suffering, of battle without death, we know
that actions ahve consequences.  While our nation rejoices that so few
of our countrymen and -women were lost, we remember the real price of
America's cheap victory: 100,000 or 200,000 or more Iraqi lives.
These we mourn.
 
  The popular theology of America's "new world order" is perhaps best
expressed in the hit song "At a Distance," which proclaims: "From a
distance God is watching ... from a distance, we are all one family."
While this sentimental image is comforting to whose world view is seen
through the lens of high-tech obfuscation and moral disjunction, a
more authentic theology is one that recognizes God not at a distance,
but rather incarnate in the very flesh of humanity.
 
  It is this task, this penitential task of putting flesh upon the
disembodied spirits of unseen suffering, that keeps us here.  It is
the desire to confront the elusive reality of the war with its
unacceptable truth that causes us to remain in this prison.
 
  So we continue to fast, and each evening we gather in an obscure
corner of this jail under a makeshift shrine of the Sacred Heart, to
pray the Rosary with a group of Latin Americans who cannot even speak
English.  They, too, are POWs for the most part, foot soldiers and
underlings captured in the not so triumphant "War on Drugs."  They do
not pray of world peace or economic justice.  They pray for a lenient
prosecutor, a fair judge, a compassionate jury, a brief sentence,
reunion with family and friends.,  We join our prayers with theirs in
the deepest hope and profoundest conviction that such commingling of
concerns may indeed "redeem the soul of America."
 

Article        11966
From: jad@cbnewsl.att.com (John DiNardo)
Newsgroups: soc.rights.human,alt.desert-storm,talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,alt.activism
Subject: HUMANITARIAN APPEAL To Aid Our Victims In Iraq
Date: 27 Mar 91 15:37:40 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
 
 
I made the following transcript from a tape recording of the
UNDERCURRENTS program, broadcast over Pacifica Radio Network
affiliate WBAI-FM 99.5 in New York City last evening, March 26th:
 
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
CHRIS GEORGE: (Assistant Director for Middle East/North Africa
               Division of SAVE THE CHILDREN)
People [in Baghdad] are consumed with the task of providing for their 
families -- providing food and water, and some fuel. People are
very worried about the future, not only about the political future
but in terms of health, as well. They know what warmer weather
means, and they know that they're in for a very rough summer if
assistance doesn't come in, either through their own government
or through international aid organizations. 
 
MARK CUTTS: (Emergency Relief Coordinator for SAVE THE CHILDREN) 
 
Nothing in the city [of Baghdad] is working anymore. It's a bit
of a ghost town. The infrastructure of the city has been so badly
damaged -- there's no electricity anywhere. There's no water. Due
to the bombing of the electric power stations, water systems have
totally broken down, and so have sewage systems. 
......
The city is actually in a very, very bad way.
 
LAURA FLANDERS:
In response to a U.N. mission that reported that Iraq had been
bombed back to the stone age, there was some additional flexibility
opening up possibilities at the Sanctions Committee to allow 
certain foodstuffs and medical aid to reach Iraq. What do you
believe is the practicality of that system of administering relief
vis-a-vis the needs that you met?
 
MARK CUTTS:
Well, the fact is that, since people all across Iraq have been
affected by the war -- there have been sanctions on the country
for the last seven and a half months -- the country is facing a
very serious food problem at the moment. Iraq has traditionally
imported more than 70 percent of its national food requirements, 
and no food has been allowed into the country for the last 7 1/2
months. Now, we are happy that the United Nations Sanctions 
Committee has agreed that food be allowed into the country --
food which is taken in by U.N. relief agencies and the International
Committee of the Red Cross. But certainly, I don't think it's going
to make very much difference to the country. It's not going to
prevent the situation in the country from deteriorating because 
the amount of food which is needed for eighteen million people is
between five and ten metric tons per day. Now, the amount of food
that is going to be taken into the country by the World Food
Program and other U.N. agencies is likely to be up to one hundred
tons a day, or a few hundred tons a day. It's not going to meet 
the ten thousand tons a day mark.
 
SAVE THE CHILDREN Fund was very much pressing for an easing of
sanctions. But, I think that unless the Iraqi government is given
an opportunity to import food itself -- or, unless there is more
of an easing of the sanctions than there has so far been -- 
I don't see that the situation is going to improve very much.
The World Food Program is only bringing food in for the most
vulnerable groups. This will be given to children, women, elderly
people, and, as has been happening until recently, these relief
items which are allowed into the country will be distributed mainly
in institutions such as hospitals, clinics and orphanages. This
is not going to meet the needs of the majority of people around
the country. And it's only going to be able to treat the symptoms 
of those who arrive in poor condition at hospitals and clinics.
Unless food is made more freely available on the market -- unless
it becomes accessible to people by being available at reasonable
prices on the market -- I think that there's going to be a 
continuing and very serious food crisis in the country.
 
LAURA FLANDERS:
Have you ever seen or been informed of a situation where after a
ceasing of hostilities, there has been a refusal to lift the kind
of sanctions and embargo that we're now seeing at the United Nations?
 
MARK CUTTS:
Well, I have not seen this kind of situation myself. ...
I can only speak about those areas where sanctions impinge on the
delivery of humanitarian services to the civilian population. And
I feel that, although the United Nations Sanctions Committee has
recognized that it has to allow certain food items into the country,
and certain other items which are necessary for humanitarian 
purposes, I feel that so far, they have not gone far enough.
It does not seem that they really appreciate the urgency of the
situation in the country. The hot weather is coming now, and 
diseases which have been so far controlled by the winter weather
might well break out into large-scale epidemics. We could be seeing
epidemics of cholera, typhoid, hepatitis, [meningitis], in the
days to come when temperatures reach up to 115 degrees Fahrenheit
and the medium is correct for the spread of epidemic diseases.
 
I think something has to be done VERY quickly to avert a major
catastrophe in the country. And we're talking about doing something
in a matter of days or weeks rather than in a matter of months.
 
LAURA FLANDERS:
Did the people of Iraq, or anyone that you met, have a message 
that they wanted you to convey -- or did you meet children who had 
anything to say that you could share with us?
 
MARK CUTTS:
The civilians that we were speaking to were still in a state of
shock. They feel that somehow this war has been aimed against
them, because suddenly they wake up in the mornings and -- as
I said before -- they don't have water in their taps, they don't
have electricity, they can't go to school. They have been affected.
Civilians have been affected in this war more than civilians have
been affected in many other wars where the fighting is at the
front, far away from them. But in this case, civilians have been
very much affected.
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
 
  [I urge you to save this posting in connection with a simple
   humanitarian gesture which costs only a little bit of time,
   and which would aid in the saving of many thousands of 
   innocent peasant people, most of whom are women, children
   and old people. In a later posting, I intend to offer and
   solicit thoughts on the implementation of humanitarian actions
   by us, as citizens of the only government in the world that
   is capable of rescuing this imperiled segment of humanity.]
  
         John DiNardo

	"The Peace Sown by Peacemakers Brings a Harvest of Justice."

					- James 3.18

	In light of this Scripture, what harvest of justice has the
allied forces brought about with regard to the Persian Gulf?

Richard

Lots of parades...

				-- Bob

Re:  .272

I don't see a harvest of justice now in the Middle East.

Neither did I see a harvest of justice there before the war.

Of course, the peace has yet to be won.  Perhaps it never will be?

Collis

    I'd of thought we would have placed sanctions against  Kuwait for 
    the inhumane acts it's committing. But, when there's big money contracts 
    yet to be negotiated, you have to shut your eyes to little things like 
    torture and mass executions. 

   
    Jim

    What has happened? Well, the people of Kuwait are being ruled by
    their own government using their own laws. Now I do not particularly
    like some of those laws but I am also generally opposed to meddling
    in other peoples cultures and beliefs. Jim (.275) apparently thinks
    we should force our culture and values on the people of Kuwait. He also
    (speaking of double standards) appears to find the torture and mass
    executions of Kuwait to be more evil then those of Iraq. Perhaps I'm
    wrong but that is the impression I get.

    A few things else to bring up. Several people here claimed that the
    Allied forces would march all the way to Baghdad. That they would not
    stop at freeing Kuwait. I've been waiting for those people to admit
    publicly that they are wrong. SH still rules Iraq, allied troops
    except for those that are feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and
    providing homes for the homeless are all out of Iraq. The border is
    now patrolled by unarmed UN troops. What I said would happen happened.

    Yes a great many Iraqis died. But American forced daily announced
    in Arabic over the radio where bombs would fall. Iraqi troops had
    only to leave the battle grounds (as 1,000s did). But they stayed. They
    and the forced that kept them deserve the blame for their deaths. Oh,
    yes. Those who marched in this country and encouraged them in the
    belief that the US would not keep it up also share the blame.

    RE: Harvest of Justice

    I believe it might have come if Allied forced had created a peace.
    But that was not to be permitted. What was created was a pause in
    the fighting. Saddam Hussain still rules as several of you wanted
    but expected not to happen. For what he does now you share blame.

    Yes I am somewhat bitter about how things worked out. I wanted to see
    peace but it is obvious that there are no governments in that area
    that want peace. The people of Iraq do not want peace and it is not
    going to be forced on them. And perhaps it should not be. Peace
    can not be externally forced. Perhaps this lull, which came years
    faster and at the cost of fewer lives then sanctions would have, will
    last a while. I hope so. But I fear that too many people in this
    country will give the kind of encouragement to people like SH that I
    see in several notes here and it will start up again.

    		Alfred

    What has been harvested from the Persian Gulf war?
    
    Well, there was a harvest of increased revenues for the sellers of
    American flags, Operation Desert Storm t-shirts, "Support Our Troops"
    decals, yellow ribbons, and Patriot missiles.
    
    -- Mike

    RE:276
    Alfred,
    	   the only point I'm trying to make here is, that we went to war,
    with the flag of justice in our hands,   against the atrocities of
    Sadamm Hussein (no doubt they existed), and liberated Kuwait. But, we
    then let the Kuwaiti government do what we stopped Hussein from doing
    and say nothing. 

    Heck, even Egypt got fed up with Kuwait and pulled all it's troops out
    with a strong warning that if Kuwait ever needs help again, they can
    go to ....well it'll depend on how much the U.S. pay's them.

    Peace
    Jim

Article 15498 of alt.activism:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!skat.usc.edu!kriz
From: kriz@skat.usc.edu (KRIZ)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.desert-storm,alt.activism,soc.rights.human
Subject: LA Catholic Worker protesters -- George Manly-Gil, Sandi Huckaby
Message-ID: <33841@usc.edu>
Date: 23 Jun 91 22:51:51 GMT
References: <33833@usc.edu>
Sender: news@usc.edu
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,alt.desert-storm,alt.activism.d,soc.rights.human
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 47
Xref: nntpd.lkg.dec.com talk.religion.misc:43522 alt.desert-storm:14542 alt.activism:15498 soc.rights.human:7279
Nntp-Posting-Host: skat.usc.edu



from the "Catholic Agitator" a monthly newspaper put out by the 
Los Angeles Catholic Worker community [June 1991]:


George Manly-Gil Sentenced to Three Months in Prison
----------------------------------------------------

On May 29, Judge Davies senentced George Manly-Gil to three months in
prison for his participation in the January 31 Catholic Worker
blood-and-oil protest against the Persian Gulf War.  George will join
Mary Lopez who has been in the Metropolitan Detention Center since
Good Friday on similar charges.

In a separate proceeding, Judge Gadbois gave Sandi Huckaby a two-month
sentence for her role in the protests.  Sandi will begin serving her
sentence appropriately enough on July 4.

While we are somewhat surprised at the severity of the sentences in
light of the minimal damage our actions have caused, we are
nonetheless grateful that the Holy Spirit and our strict judges have
given us an opportunity to continue our protests against the obsenity
that was the Persian Gulf War.

Letters of support can be sent to:

		George Manly-Gil
		93378-012
		Metropolitan Detention Center
		Box 1500
		Los Angeles, CA 90053

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mourn on the Fourth of July
---------------------------

Pray for Peace, Mourn the Victims, Accompany Sandi to Jail, Downtown
Federal Building. 300 N. Los Angeles St., 10:00 AM July 4th.

Join the Catholic Worker Community in its continuing protest of the 
Persian Gulf War, as we mourn the growing numbers of victims in that
war, pray for peace, and accompany Sandi Huckaby to jail where she 
will serve a 2-month sentence for her "blood & oil" protest.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

       While reading Tacitus last night I came across a quote that
    seems appropriate to what happened:

            "They created a wasteland and called it peace"


                                                          
                                                              Mike

Article 170 of misc.activism.progressive:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mont!rich
From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
Subject: AI decries Kuwati trials
Message-ID: <1991Jun26.035556.3971@pencil.cs.missouri.edu>
Date: 26 Jun 91 03:55:56 GMT
Sender: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Organization: PACH
Lines: 40
Approved: map@pencil.cs.missouri.edu

/** mideast.gulf: 103.0 **/
** Topic: Amnesty decries Kuwaiti trials **
** Written  9:41 pm  Jun 22, 1991 by jsax in cdp:mideast.gulf **
AI Report on Kuwait Trials

Amnesty International has issued an Urgent Action on the Kuwait
treason trials.  The report notes in part:    

"Following the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait on
26 February 1991, the Kuwait authorities introduced martial
law regulations and set up special courts to hear the cases
of individuals charged with 'collaboration' with Iraqi
authortiities and with crimes committed during the occupation
period.  Of the hundreds of people arrested by the Kuwaiti
authorities since 26 February 1991, an estimated 200 are being
brought to trial on a variety of charges.  The trials, which
began on 19 May 1991, are being held in public and are attended
by families of the defendants, representatives of
non-governmental organizations, and Western embassies, as
well as the media.

"Amnesty International's observer attended hearings and trials
heard before the Martial Law Courts between 20 May and 1 June
1991.  In a public statement on 11 June 1991, Amnesty International
appealed for the commutation of any death sentences passed, and declared
that the trial proceedings were unfair and should be halted until they
are brought into line with international standards for fair trial.
Amnesty International believes that so far the trials have been
defective in all the critical phases; in the pre-trial period,
during the hearings themselves, and in the lack of the defendants'
right to appeal to a higher tribunal." [sic]

For more information contact Amnesty's Urgent action office
and ask for UA 212/91.


The number is 303-440-0913.

    
** End of text from cdp:mideast.gulf **

Article: 14530
From: kriz@skat.usc.edu (KRIZ)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.desert-storm,alt.activism
Subject: "Refusing to Worship Idols" -- by Jeff Dietrich
Date: 23 Jun 91 01:31:59 GMT
Sender: news@usc.edu
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
 
 
 
			Refusing to Worship Idols
			-------------------------
			    by Jeff Dietrich
 
 
The parade which was billed as the "Mother of all Parades" began when
a squadron of F-15s flow low over Sunset Blvd.  The young boy next to
me looked up with an expression of reverence, "Oh, Daddy, they are so
beautiful!  When I grow up I want to be a fighter pilot."  His
seemingly benign remarks summed up the attitude of the parade -- a
sense of awe at the spectacle of power that was on display before us.
 
This Hollywood extravaganza for the Desert Storm "victors" was not so
much a parade or even a welcome home ceremony, as it was a celebration
of technology, progress success, sexuality and Holywood glamour.  In
short, it was a ritual solemnization of the true religion of America,
of all that we hold sacred.
 
In the face of this false religion, it was an expecially powerful
experience for us to stand along the parade route holding our symbols
of truth: pictures of Iraqi war victims and an enormous cross swathed
in black.  As the Generals and Hollywood celebrities rode by on their
floats, they turned their thumbs down on us or made other more
explicit, obsene gestures.  The crowds, of course, scorned us even as
they cheered for the returning soldiers.  But their greatest
enthusiasm was bestowed upon the mechanical engines of war: the M1
Abrams tank, the F15 fighter plans, and of course the Patriot missile.
 
We sometimes thing that America is a secular culture in which religion
plays no direct role.  But that is because our rationalist/scientific
bias has blinded ous to the recognition that contemporary Western
society, like all societies throughout histroy, is bound together by
an unconscious adherance to what Jacques Ellul has called the
"sacred."  The history, mythology, hierarchy, and general structure of
the culture are derived from this "sacred space"  The "sacred" is the
primal organizaing force of the culture itself.  As such, it forms
what psychologists call the "reality principle."  From adherence to
this "reality principle" flows all security, power, and heirarchy.
 
An easier way of understanding the sacred is to adopt the Old
Testament language of the prophets and describe it as simply idolatry.
When we recognize idolatry as not merely an erroneous form of
religion, but as the "reality principle" of the culture itself, then
the call of Jesus and the prophets to worship God alone becomes a
subversive threat to this sacred collective reality.
 
It is only when we begin to realize that all of us are, to one degree
or another, under the spell of this sacred reality, this cultural
idolatry, that we can truly apprreciate Jesus' ministry of healing and
exorcism.  The inner reality of the Kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus
Christ and the prophets is so subjective, tenuous and insubtantial
that most of us experience it as tangential to our "real life" of
career, education, credit ratings, mortgage payments and family
obligations.  Thus, it makes sense for Jesus to have begun his
"kingdom movement" by casting out these internalized demonic spirits
of an idolatrous cutural reality.
 
If He were around today, ti would not be difficult to imagine Jesus
freeing us of the demonic possession of credit cards and consumerist
lust as a precursor to entering the Kingdom.  But if the story of the
rich young man is any indication, the affluent were no more interested
in being exorcized then than they are now.  Affluence, security,
comfort, and power are a sign that we are well connected with the
"sacred."  
 
It therefore comes as no surprise that the more and marginalized are
most often the ones who are successfully exorcized by Jesus.  They are
grateful to be liberated of the internalized demonic spirits that
paralyzed them, silenced them, or caused them to do violence to
themselves or others.
 
This ministry of exorcism ultimately led Jesus to Jerusalem, the
sourse of the idolatrous, demonic spirit that had taken collective
possession of the people of his time.  The cleansing of the temple was
nothing less than an exorcism of this idolatrous reality.
 
It was in this spirit of exorcism that we went to the Desert Storm
Victory Parade to hold the cross, to mourn the dead, and to say that
we must worship God alone.  the worship of technology, progress,
sexuality and victory is idolatry and the worship of idols leads to
death.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------
 
Jeff Dietrich is a member of the LA Catholic Worker Community.
He spent two months in jail, following a protest in which he and
another member of the Catholic Worker community dumped 30 gallons
of oil and 2 pints of human blood on the steps of the Federal Building
in Los Angeles to protest the Persian Gulf War.
 
Indeed, Jeff spent those two months in jail prior to his sentencing
even after the bail for his release was reduced to a single American
dollar.  His, and Curt Grove's  sentences ended up being the most
lenient of the bunch (four other Catholic workers went to jail
following similar protests), partly because of the Prosecuting
Attorney's affidatit stated that Jeff Dietrich considered going to
jail a part of his ministry, and that it would do nothing to change
his views or conduct.
 
dennis
kriz@skat.usc.edu
    

Grant us, O Lord...

In this hour of murder and madness, when people worship at the feet of the
new Baal, a leaden statue of a bomb with eyes that see;
   when birds of death blot out the sky and we call the darkness light;
when the new Herods put the children to the sword and call
   their slaughter justice;
when the anguished and bereaved sob like the desert wind and people hear
   only the sigh of computer keys;
when people deceive themselves and call it honesty;
   when people are silent and call it impartiality;
when people are numb and call it objectivity;
   when death is life,
     riot is order,
       and lie is truth;

Grant us, O Lord...

To see that war rages not in some distant land
   but in our homes, not to others to
     ourselves,
grant us to see that the truth take wing not from our tongues
   but from our hearts, not from words
     but from our lives;

Grant us to see the death that we may embrace life; grant us to see the lie
   that we may seek truth;
grant us to see the face of war that we may yearn for peace.

- prayer written by Conrado Di Quiros 2/12/91

Article: 16604
From: bertoldi@macondo.Princeton.EDU (Frank Bertoldi)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-shield,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Quaker Project *Waging Peace*
Date: 28 Aug 91 01:09:39 GMT
Sender: news@idunno.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
 
 
	*****************************************
	*					*
	*	PROJECT   *WAGING PEACE* 	*
	*					*
	*       HUMANITARIAN AID FOR IRAQ	*
	*					*
	*****************************************
 
 
The Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (PYM) of the Society of Friends
(Quakers), in coordination with the American Friends Service
Committee (AFSC), has undertaken a project of aid to Middle East
children and families. Under AFSC auspices, a representative of
PYM has traveled to Iraq to assess the needs of the population,
and to identify specific needs that can be met through AFSC
material aid or development assistance. Any funds or materials
that Project *Waging Peace* collects will be channeled through
existing agencies such as AFSC, the Middle East Council of
Churches, the International Red Cross/Red Crescent.
 
To respond to the immediate emergency, the AFSC has provided
personal hygiene kits for refugees, oral rehydration packets for
dehydrated children, and has arranged for shipment of much needed
agricultural equipment to salvage the harvest in Iraq.  Longer
term projects will be chosen to enable the people of Iraq to help
themselves and avoid dependency.  A corollary goal of the project
is to provide opportunities for both spiritual and social
witness, to give material and educational aid, and to increase
the body of information on which we act.
 
One means to that end will be the preparation of video and audio
tapes for fund raising and education. A 30-second spot will be
scheduled for public and local television public service
announcements. Longer versions will be available for schools,
meetings and other public gatherings as well as for fund raising
presentations.
 
Project *Waging Peace* is intended, above all, to break down
stereotypes, to get to know Iraqis as neighbors so as to take
away the occasion for war.
 
If your group would like to coordinate on Project *Waging Peace*,
please contact David Shen at (215)662-5270.
 
Contributions can be sent to: Waging Peace Friends Peace
Committee, PYM 1515 Cherry Street Philadelphia, PA 19102
------

In documents recently released by the DoD, a quarter of the American
men and women killed in the Persian Gulf War were killed by "friendly
fire."

Richard

    Though only 7 percent of the total tonage of bombs dropped in the Gulf
    War were precision-guided, 100 percent of the military-supplied
    pictures during the Gulf War were of precision-guided bombs.
    
    Richard

	"The war has changed me in extreme ways.  The most obvious is the
violent rage that besets me.  It comes on so suddenly, I cannot tell where
it comes from.

	The Marine Corps took me at a time in my life when I was extremely
confused and upset with the world.  The recruiters told me everything I
wanted to hear.  They spoke of pride and self-respect.

	I think that mostly I would really just like to cry.  I have not
been able to cry for the American Marines that I saw die, nor the Iraqi
men that died at the hands of the Americans.  I have attempted to pray for
their souls, each time being able to do nothing but remember the anger and
violent hatred.

	Every time I begin to ask God for absolution of my soul the events
of that night replay in my mind.  I can smell the burning flesh and see the
dismembered bodies being placed into plastic bags.  I feel the pain and the
loss.  Violent thoughts of destruction and undaunted carnage whirl around
my brain and I am no longer a human being, I become a machine, an angel of
death...Many times the smell of burgers has made me nauseous.  Often I
cannot eat without vomiting...

	But the Marines lost me and I began to rediscover what I was before
anger.  What I began to discover is that I loved life, that all life is 
sacred...I learned that it is possible to love all human beings...I did
not discover this except through the thoughts that run through my head of
the dead Iraqi men that I saw and could smell decaying.  With this new
understanding comes a whole lot of heartache.  Emotionally and spiritually
I am in turmoil.  Torn between the knowledge of my own soul and the angry
violent instinct that was taught and bred into me."

				-- Gulf War veteran

copied with permission from
"Sign of the Times"
a periodical published by
Christian Peacemaker Teams (a project of the Mennonite Church,
General Conference Mennonite Church, Church of the Brethren)
1821 W Cullerton
Chicago, IL 60608
312-427-5513

    That hit me this morning like a good swift kick in the gut.
    
    Thanks Richard.  I *did* need that.  
    
    I wonder if there are growing numbers of people that are beginning 
    to wean themselves from the idea that we periodically need to slay 
    massive quantities of one another.  That this is one of the ways men
    need to "become" men.
    
    blessings,
    Karen   

    "The whole story will be out -- it'll take a little while -- and after
    the parades are all over, the troops will begin to regret many of the
    actions that were taken. We're going to learn a lot of sordid stories
    because this is the first time in history that we fought a nice clean
    antiseptic war with modern high-tech weapons -- as told to us at least,
    by the Pentagon and the myriad of briefings that we were given during
    the war, from Riyad and the Pentagon and Great Britain, and it was all
    clean and antiseptic -- now we are going to find out the truth, and I
    suspect in time, we will see a certain revulsion for the people that we
    killed and we are going to ask ourselves, in time, why did we do
    it?...

    "No one is going to call us to account except the world's opinion. We
    won't submit to any kind of court on this matter, and the first
    reaction of the Pentagon will be to deny it, or to suggest that it was
    absolutely essential to save the lives of our troops. But the whole war
    that was fought against Iraq was not a war; it was a slaughter. We went
    in and _smashed_ the entire portion of Iraq we wished to destroy, and
    we killed at will. The epitome, of course, was...the troops leaving
    Kuwait City. We caught them on the road, and just slaughtered them on
    the ground, it was a real "turkey shoot;" as the troops themselves, our
    troops, were saying. And the aircraft pilots were saying that when they
    were picking them off on the ground, it was a big target exercise for
    the US; an exercise in killing people....
    
    "We are going to know more of what went of went on, now this story is
    out. There's going to be other stories from the troops, firsthand. In
    fact, the kind of bombing raids that we did on the center of Baghdad
    went far beyond those attacks necessary to knock out the military
    aspects against which we were fighting.  We were striking civilian
    targets; we have made a mess out of that country, and we, the American
    people, really don't want to know any more of what happened. One of the
    reasons, I think, that the parades were ordered when the troops came
    back, was not only to welcome the troops who had been away for some
    months, but to divert the public's mind, as to any question of what the
    war was like. There were parades, there was a note of finality, of
    completeness; it signaled the end of that war, and the Administration
    then hoped to move on to doing whatever else it wanted to do."

    		- Admiral Gene Larocque, Director of the Center for
    		  Defense Information.  Excerpted from an interview.

    Tomorrow will be the anniversary of the start of the war against Iraq. 
    The most recent Legislative Update published by the FCNL (Friends
    Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker lobby) encourages people to
    participate in vigils "which mourn the Gulf War and its tragic
    aftermath."  There will be a vigil in front of the White House tomorrow
    at 6pm, as well as other similar events in other U.S. communities.

    -- Mike

re Note 28.289 by CRBOSS::VALENZA:

>     But the whole war
>     that was fought against Iraq was not a war; it was a slaughter. We went
>     in and _smashed_ the entire portion of Iraq we wished to destroy, and
>     we killed at will. The epitome, of course, was...the troops leaving
>     Kuwait City. We caught them on the road, and just slaughtered them on
>     the ground, it was a real "turkey shoot;" as the troops themselves, our
>     troops, were saying. And the aircraft pilots were saying that when they
>     were picking them off on the ground, it was a big target exercise for
>     the US; an exercise in killing people....
  
        Last week, the ABC news program "Nightline" ran a report,
        researched in conjunction with the "U.S. News & World Report"
        magazine, covering what had been revealed since the war about
        the conduct of the war.

        They reported that deaths of Iraqi combatants, in general,
        were probably far lower than the initial estimates
        (approximately 10-20 thousand vs. 100-200 thousand).

        As far as the "turkey shoot" leaving Kuwait City, they
        reported that far fewer bodies were found in or around the
        shot-up vehicles than one would have expected from the number
        and size of vehicles.  Apparently, the U.S. forces initially
        only attached the lead and the end of the column of vehicles,
        thereby preventing the vehicles in the middle from escaping. 
        Then they waited a while before attacking the vehicles in the
        middle.  They concluded (although proof is hard to come by)
        that most of the occupants of the vehicles escaped into the
        surrounding desert on foot once the initial attack began.

        (Of course, none of this affects the fundamental moral
        dimension of war, or does it?)

          
>     "We are going to know more of what went of went on, now this story is
>     out. There's going to be other stories from the troops, firsthand. In
>     fact, the kind of bombing raids that we did on the center of Baghdad
>     went far beyond those attacks necessary to knock out the military
>     aspects against which we were fighting.  We were striking civilian
>     targets; we have made a mess out of that country, 

        As far as I can recall (I was in bed and might have dozed off
        from time to time!), the program had little to report on this
        subject (civilian casualties in non-occupied Iraq).

        Bob

    Bob, I think you alluded to an interesting question.  Do the moral
    implications of an activity depend on the quantity of people you
    slaughter?  Is killing 1001 people a worse offense than killing 1000? 
    
    -- Mike

Re: .292 Mike

>  Is killing 1001 people a worse offense than killing 1000? 
    
Put it this way, Mike: let's say that you've just killed 1000 people, and
you walk up to number 1001 and are preparing to pull the trigger.  He gets down
on his knees and pleads for his life.  If you show mercy to this man doesn't
that show that you have at least a spark of humanity in you?

Yes, I'd say that killing 1001 people is a worse offense than killing 1000.
The difference between 1001 people and 1000 is immense: an entire human life.

				-- Bob

    Gee as I recall, the pilots would give a fly by warning to the escaping
    Iraqi troops to allow them to abandon their vehicles. Then the pilot 
    would destroy the vehicle.


    I think that a lot of the accusations against the allied forces in the
    Gulf War are coming from those who opposed the war from the beginning,
    and are trying to justify themselves, by conjuring up false
    atrocities committed by the U.S. It was already reported by U.N. 
    and Western reporters that were inside Iraq after the war, that the
    destruction to civilian areas was caused by revolting Kurds and
    Iraqis after the war. The targets that like the so called milk
    factory and the so called civilian bomb shelter are have already been
    proven to have been military sites.

    How come nobody is screaming about the latest execution of Iraqi
    officers that Hussein just carried out ?
    
    Jim

    There was certainly nothing false about the U.S. bombing campaign
    directed at the Iraqi infrastructure.  The fact that most Americans
    continue to take for granted the high tech, Nintendo images of the that
    the Pentagon wanted us to believe shows just how successful the wartime
    propaganda effort was.  We were constatly presented images of a war in
    which military targets were destroyed with precision accuracy, while
    civilians were supposedly spared from the horrors of the bombing
    campaign.  This is what Americans were told and shown throughout the
    war, and this is what most Americans continue to believe.  The fact is
    that the U.S. *did* engage in massive bombing of the Iraqi
    infrastructure, and civilian targets *were* attacked.
    
    -- Mike

re Note 28.295 by CRBOSS::VALENZA:

>     The fact is
>     that the U.S. *did* engage in massive bombing of the Iraqi
>     infrastructure, and civilian targets *were* attacked.
  
        I seem to recall (correct me if I'm wrong) that both the
        water and electric power supply facilities of Baghdad were
        destroyed or at least disabled by the bombing.  This probably
        was true of at least one other major city (Bosrah?).

        For some reason, a few wildly-inaccurate missiles which
        could, if by chance they landed at the wrong place and
        actually exploded, destroy a few residential buildings are
        considered a "terror" attack.  On the other hand, preventing
        a city's populace from getting clean water and from keeping
        food fresh is not "terror".

        Of course, we did the latter, "they" did the former.

        Bob

Note 28.294

>    How come nobody is screaming about the latest execution of Iraqi
>    officers that Hussein just carried out ?
    
Jim,

	I think it's a tragedy that Hussein is still in power and
committing barbaric, paranoia-driven atrocities.  I doubt that I'd
be able to find anybody who'd disagree with me about this.

	Amin, Castro, Noriega, Khaddafi, Khomeni, Hussein....dear God,
how are we to deal with all our enemies?

Peace,
Richard

Article: 2379
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
From: jon@kracken.uci.com (Jon Harder)
Subject: ANNOUNCE: Protest at Super Bowl.
Sender: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Organization: PACH
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 00:06:21 GMT
 
     A peace witness outside the Minneapolis Metrodome prior to the Super
     Bowl, is being planned by group from Faith Mennonite Church of
     Minneapolis, to remind the American public of the tragedies of the
     Iraqi War.  A single banner will focus on the consequences of war: the
     Iraqi children that have died since last April.
 
     Spokesperson Ted Lewis says the main concern is that "as a society we
     viewed the war as a quick, clean easy war -- hence a forgetable war.
     In praising the limited consequences of war for us, we have veiled
     over the larger, continuing consequences of war for the Iraqi people."
 

    "A friend at one of television's top shows--a veteran producer who
    insists that his anonymity be protected--told me he proposed that
    broader debates be built into his network's Gulf War coverage.  His
    executive producer agreed and invited him to draft a proposal.

    "He never received a response.  When he complained months later, he was
    told that the nonresponse was his response.  "Don't you know what was
    going on?" he was asked....

    "It was in this same period that Michael Gartner, president of NBC's
    news division, personally intervened to kill a story about civilian
    damage in Iraq, shot and produced by the network's longtime stringer
    Jon Alpert, one of the few independent journalists to regularly report
    for a network news program.  Alpert was fired after 12 years.  The
    circumstances were these: Thanks to an invitation from former attorney
    general Ramsey Clark, Alpert wrangled a visa into Iraq at a time when
    NBC News could not get one for its own principle correspondent.  Tom
    Brokaw's Nightly News program agreed to run his report but Gartner
    intervened, later telling Clark that he was considered a "loose cannon"
    and didn't want one of his people associating with the "Ramsey Clarks
    of the world."

    "Gartner says he never saw Alpert's piece so he was not censoring that
    specific story--and that network belt-tightening meant that
    free-lancers were no longer needed.  But among journalists who examined
    the case there is no question that it was the content of Alpert's
    report--with its striking images of civilians in hospitals and people
    weeping over the their dead--that doomed the report.

    "Slowly, as hard information snuck out from under the blanket of state
    censorship and news management, media organizations began to admit they
    had been had.  Fifteen of the biggest media organizations wrote to Dick
    Cheney months after the war ended to protest the pool systems that the
    networks had helped create.  Today, the Pentagon is negotiating with a
    committee of Washington bureau chiefs to rewrite the rules, not abolish
    them.

    So, as we celebrate the anniversary of Desert Storm, and await
    Schwarzkopf's five-million-dollar memoirs, many of our most thoughtful
    journalists know in their heart of hearts that truth was a major
    casualty of the Gulf War, and that there is nothing to prevent a
    rerun."

                            -- Danny Schecter
          "The Gulf War: one year later.  What really happened?"
                     ( Spin Magazine, February 1992)

Article 2389 of misc.activism.progressive:
Path: pa.dec.com!decwrl!gossip.pyramid.com!olivea!spool.mu.edu!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!mont!rich
From: CATHYF%EARLHAM@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU (Cathy Flick)
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
Subject: Effect of Gulf war on children
Message-ID: <1992Jan21.014825.1971@pencil.cs.missouri.edu>
Date: 21 Jan 92 01:48:25 GMT
Sender: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Organization: PACH
Lines: 99
Approved: map@pencil.cs.missouri.edu

/** mideast.gulf: 37.0 **/
** Topic: GULF: The Effect of War on Kids **
** Written 10:02 pm  Jan 19, 1992 by jrandall in cdp:mideast.gulf **

January 17, 1992
The following is a report on the effects of war on children in a
conflict zone. I have omitted only the nationality, and encourage
you all to try to guess it before looking at the identification at
the very end.
               Peace, Cathy Flick
----------------------------------------------
CHILD PSYCHOLOGY SURVEY

   A total of 214 children of primary school age were interviewed
by two child psychologists. Both child psychologists are recognized
as leaders in the field of conflict-related stress and have
extensive experience investigating the impact of conflict on
children [in various countries including war zones].
   The results of the study reveal a level of psychological stress
that is the highest the authors have seen in 10 years of conflict-
related research.
   The study reveals a highly disturbed population of children who
are exceedingly bothered by intrusive thoughts of the war. The
entry of these thoughts into the children's waking/sleeping mind
are out of their control and, in many cases, remain the dominant
thought making up their conscious memory.
   Affected children try to avoid thinking of such painful
thoughts, try not to be upset when reminded of the events, and try
to remove such thoughts from their memory -- but it is impossible
for them to keep these disturbing memories at a reasonable
distance. The children interviewed commented on their efforts to
protect themselves from these tormenting inner "pictures" as
useless. "I try every day, but it is impossible not to think about
it" was a common, spontaneous statement.    Despite trying to block
the memory from their minds, 50 per cent of interviewed children
continue to dream of the event, 66 per cent have difficulty
sleeping because of the memory, and 63 per cent are having
difficulty with concentration. Three quarters of the children
interviewed find little joy in playing with friends, in sports, and
other similar activities. A full 62 per cent of the children worry
that they may not live to become an adult.
   One of the most worrisome features is the high proportion of
interviewed children who were experiencing sadness and worry. 75
per cent feel sad and unhappy, worry for the survival of their
family, and need the company of an older person to feel safe.
    The most significant impression from the interviews of the
children was their lack of "life," their deep depression, sad
appearance, tiredness, and lack of joy. The most serious conclusion
to be drawn from this material is that what happened to these
children -- the severe psychological trauma -- may cause them
serious problems for years to come. For some children, these
problems may endure for their entire lifetime.
    The children interviewed strive to frame and to understand what
they saw; planes bombing, houses collapsing, fires burning,
soldiers fighting, mutilated and crushed bodies, and burned out
trucks. The children fight to forget what they heard: people
screaming, desperate voices, planes and explosions.
    The children are haunted by the smell of gunfire, fuel from
planes, fires and burned flesh. Many children are still struggling
with the memories of what they touched: remains of planes, blood,
dead bodies and wounded relatives.
   And every night these children go to bed with the memories of
the terrible sounds, shaking grounds, and the prospects of the
whole family being buried in the ruins of the house.

[Accompanied by a child's drawing of a house: people with arms
raised in front and to the side, an automobile to one side, and
bombs dropping on it from above.]

------------------------------------------------------------   The
subjects of the interviews were Iraqi children, after the Gulf War
.
   This is an excerpt from the Report of the International Study
Team on the Gulf Crisis, which from August 23 to September 5
comprehensively surveyed the impact of the Gulf Crisis on the
health and welfare of the Iraqi population. The team consisted of
87 researchers drawn from a wide variety of disciplines, including
agriculture, electrical engineering, environmental sciences,
medicine, economics, child psychology, sociology and public health.
   Team members visited Iraq's thirty largest cities in all 18
Governorates, including rural areas in every part of the country.
The mission was accomplished without Iraqi government interference
or supervision. Principal funding was supplied by UNICEF, the
MacArthur Foundation, the John Merck Fund, and Oxfam-UK.
   This material is taken from WAR WATCH, published by OUT NOW,
P.O. Box 562, Santa Cruz CA 95061 USA, Issue #11-12, November-
December 1991.    In observation of the anniversary of the Gulf
War, which many Americans still think was conducted by the US and
its allies in a "clean" and "humane" manner, I will provide
excerpts from other parts of this Report in later postings. Perhaps
this will remind us that modern war is never "clean" or "humane",
no matter what the Pentagon and TV broadcasters claim, and that we
must pursue alternative ways to deal with unjust or dangerous
situations. Not tomorrow, not next year, but TODAY. I am tired of
hearing people say that THEIR "just war" will be the last one. It
never is the last one, and with the destructive capabilities of
modern weapons it can never be just.
                    Peace, Cathy Flick
** End of text from cdp:mideast.gulf **

    I've been watching coverage of Iraq on TV a lot. Especially while I
    was out. What shocks me is the lack of willingness to blame the one
    man who could have prevented it all - Saddam Hussain. I doubt the
    sincerity of anyone who claims to be upset about the casualties and
    does not also demand that something be done about Saddam. Pure and
    simple if you are not upset about Saddam I can not believe you are
    upset about what happened to Iraq. As long as the people of Iraq leave
    Saddam in power I will not believe they have been seriously hurt.

    BTW, all you who said sanctions would work must realize that if there
    had not been a war we would be remembering a year and a half of Iraq
    occupation of Kuwait. I fully believe that the civilian casualties
    there would more than have matched what happened to Iraq. The big
    difference being that the killing of Kuwaitis would be continuing and
    it's stopped in Iraq. Except for what Saddam is doing still in his
    own country. The sanctions are still on and are still not changing
    the policies of Iraq which are to protect the guilty and punish the
    innocent. If you do not support the sanctions you *are* supporting
    the killings of the innocents.

    			Alfred

    Since I don't know of anyone who is particularly fond of Saddam
    Hussein, or condones what he did, the point is moot.  The fact that
    others commit atrocities does no exempt one from moral responsibility
    for one's own actions.  We are all aware of Saddam Hussein's
    atrocities; his actions are well known in the U.S.  Military propaganda
    was effective in highlighting them, after all.  On the other hand, the
    effects of our own conduct in the war was just as effectively shielded
    behind the Nintendo high-tech images of a "clean" war.  The issue is
    not just one of blame, therefore, but of getting out the truth in the
    first place.  As Americans, we have a special responsibility for
    understanding the conduct of our own government.

    In any case, I must admit, it does take chutzpah to blame civilians who
    are incinerated for their own misfortune.  I suppose all those Iraqi
    children who died and otherwise suffered as a result of the aerial
    slaughter are also to blame.

    -- Mike

re Note 28.301 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     man who could have prevented it all - Saddam Hussain. I doubt the
>     sincerity of anyone who claims to be upset about the casualties and
>     does not also demand that something be done about Saddam. 

        If the only conceivable thing that could be done now to oust
        Saddam is to start another war, then I see no inconsistency
        or insincerity.

>     simple if you are not upset about Saddam I can not believe you are
>     upset about what happened to Iraq. As long as the people of Iraq leave
>     Saddam in power I will not believe they have been seriously hurt.

        And I'm sure this also applies to the Cambodians under Pol
        Pot, the Soviets under Stalin, and the Germans under Hitler?

>     The sanctions are still on and are still not changing
>     the policies of Iraq which are to protect the guilty and punish the
>     innocent. If you do not support the sanctions you *are* supporting
>     the killings of the innocents.
  
        Honestly, I don't follow the above logic at all.

        Bob

    I read a front-page article last week in _USA Today_ which spoke about
    the difficulties many Gulf War veterans were having in dealing with
    all that they experienced while in the Gulf.  The fear of death, the
    images of killing the foot soldies... One vet spoke of living with an
    image that kept replaying in his mind, that of shooting an Iraqi foot
    soldier with his high-tech gun.  He said the guy was there one moment
    and then "just disappeared."
    
    The article reported increased incidences of spousal abuse, divorces,
    alcohol consumption, and confirmed cases of post-tramautic stress
    syndrome of Gulf vets, as they struggle to psychologically deal with 
    what happened over there.
    
    No one wins in war.
    
    Karen

>    Since I don't know of anyone who is particularly fond of Saddam
>    Hussein, or condones what he did, the point is moot.  
    
    	The point is hardly moot. There are thousands of people marching
    in the streets of Iraq praising Saddam and what he's done.
    
>    In any case, I must admit, it does take chutzpah to blame civilians who
>    are incinerated for their own misfortune.  
    
    	I blame the people who put and keep Saddam in power. And those who
    did nothing to stop him. No the children are not to blame but their
    parents are. 
    
    		Alfred
    

>        If the only conceivable thing that could be done now to oust
>        Saddam is to start another war, then I see no inconsistency
>        or insincerity.
    
    Perhaps. But war is hardly the only conceivable thing that could be
    done. Especially by the people of Iraq.
    
>>     The sanctions are still on and are still not changing
>>     the policies of Iraq which are to protect the guilty and punish the
>>     innocent. If you do not support the sanctions you *are* supporting
>>     the killings of the innocents.
>  
>        Honestly, I don't follow the above logic at all.
    
    	Honestly I don't understand how one could fail to follow that
    	logic.
    
    			Alfred

    RE: .303
    
>        And I'm sure this also applies to the Cambodians under Pol
>        Pot, the Soviets under Stalin, and the Germans under Hitler?

    The Cambodians threw out Pol Pot themselves. Recently they took
    to the streets to keep his party from returning to power. It is
    unfortunate that people in this country did not want to stop the
    killing earlier by helping those who resisted. The Soviets did
    not stop Stalin and again the US stood idly by and let murder
    take place. So neither case is relevant to the Iraq situation.
    But who else do you blame for what Stalin did but the Soviet people
    who did nothing? 

    As for the Germans under Hitler. Germans elected him. Germans kept
    him in power. Are you suggesting that Europe was wrong to resist him
    and that the US was wrong to help that resistance. Hitler did not do
    what he did alone BTW.

    		Alfred

Alfred,

>     The sanctions are still on and are still not changing
>     the policies of Iraq which are to protect the guilty and punish the
>     innocent. If you do not support the sanctions you *are* supporting
>     the killings of the innocents.

This section puzzles me, too.  After reading it a couple of times, I wondered 
if there was a typo or lexo in there.

I read you saying that *not* supporting the sanctions, *supports* killing of 
innocent people.

But if the sactions are not changing the policy of said killing either, then 
it seems that support or non-support of the sanctions has no bearing on the 
killing.

I'm not arguing, just asking, is that what you mean?

Puzzled,

Jim

    
    
    It was painful to see how my nephew changed after his experiences
    in the Gulf.  His gentle way was definitely hardened and his sense
    of humor a great deal less spontaneous.  He did not share in detail
    the more difficult things he experienced but he did say....
    "I'm not proud of some of the things I did over there".  So sad.
    
    Carole
    
    P.S.  Just dropping back in for a little bit!
    

>I read you saying that *not* supporting the sanctions, *supports* killing of 
>innocent people.

	Yes that's what I meant. Removing the sanctions at this point sends
	a clear message that the world doesn't mind if Saddam continues to
	kill innocent people. The fact that sanctions appear not to be working
	indicates that they are not enough not that they are too much.

			Alfred

re: Note 28.310 by Alfred, "Radical Centralist" 

Thanks for clearing that up.  

>                              Removing the sanctions at this point sends
>	a clear message that the world doesn't mind if Saddam continues to
>	kill innocent people. The fact that sanctions appear not to be working
>	indicates that they are not enough not that they are too much.

I agree.  

I am a bit dismayed by some of the "first anniversary of the war" news reports 
stating such things as "if it hadn't been for the war, oil prices would now be 
$## per gallon."  No one knows for sure what might have happened if we chose 
to not go to war. It sounds to me like trying to justify the war economically. 

The war was an expensive one.  The world will be bearing the spiritual cost 
for years to come.

Peace,

Jim

    I have to admit, the idea that we should place no value for the human
    life of people who live under regimes that we don't like is rather
    interesting, to say the least.  Even aside from the notion that people
    with the wrong politics don't have the right to live, a carpet bombing
    campaign doesn't discriminate between the supporters of a regime and
    the opponents; and, as has already been conceded, children have also
    been the tragic and innocent victims of the U.S. slaughter in Iraq.  Of
    course, the rationalization is really for slaughtering a people who
    have not *successfully* overthrown a government (no mean feat in a
    dictatorship).  Unsuccessful attempts don't count.

    This kind of nonsense is what terrorists and war criminals no doubt use
    to justify their atrocities.  The idea is that the people they kill or
    kidnap aren't really innocent victims after all.  Obviously, to this
    kind of mentality, U.S. the military's propaganda portrayal of a
    squeaky clean war was wasted.  To many Americans, it was necessary to
    believe that the war was a clean one.  But if slaughtering people
    doesn't bother one in the first place, there is obviously no need to be
    comforted by such high tech images.  

    -- Mike

    For some reason I'm reminded of the story of Ben Hadad and Ahab in I
    Kings 20 where Ahab let Ben Hadad go when He had him in his power. A
    prophet was sent to Ahab to rebuke him as follows. "Thus saith the
    Lord, because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed
    to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy
    people for his people."
    	Perhaps I am being impudent to suggest that in letting SH go Bush
    planted the seeds of his own political destruction. Suppose the allies
    had stopped short of Berlin, allowing HItler to live in a severely
    weakened Germany? If we had really gone after SH we could have put some
    kind of Marshall plan in effect that would have eventually led to stabilized
    Mideast.
    
    
    john

     While I would rather wish no one ill, I still keep in the back of 
     my mind that sooner or later this Sadaam will return to dust. Heros
     and one-cloaked varlets all receive the same fate. Its simply a matter
     of time. I do not feel I need to accelerate the process, as the 
     man has not been able to purchase immortality.

     When his heart fails, from one cause or another, we will have to seek
     out some other devil to vent our hatred. Perhaps our time could
     be more wisely spent eliminating the causes upon which devils thrive.

     Best wishes,
     Rollyn
     

re Note 28.307 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     But who else do you blame for what Stalin did but the Soviet people
>     who did nothing? 
> 
>     As for the Germans under Hitler. Germans elected him. Germans kept
>     him in power. Are you suggesting that Europe was wrong to resist him
>     and that the US was wrong to help that resistance. Hitler did not do
>     what he did alone BTW.

        All I was questioning was your statement (in .301):  "As long
        as the people of Iraq leave Saddam in power I will not
        believe they have been seriously hurt."  It seems obvious to
        me that people can be quite severely hurt and still "leave"
        their malignant leader in power.  I did not say they were
        blameless -- I didn't raise the issue of guilt, or the proper
        actions of third parties (i.e., the Allies), at all.

        Bob

    RE:312
    Mike,
    	you used the term carpet bombing, but there is no proven evidence
    that the U.S carpet bombed Iraq. Most of the damage to non-military
    targets was done after the war, by the fighting between the Iraqis
    and Kurds. This was reported by  by that news person that 
    as taken prisoner during the war. Simon is his last name, but I don't
    recall his first name.

    Jim

    Jim, while there may have been a great deal of damage as a result of
    the conflict with the Kurds, but it is also true that the U.S. bombing
    campaign caused extensive damage to civilian targets.
    
    -- Mike

    Although U.S. bombing did hit unintended targets, this is not carpet
    bombing. Carpet bombing is indiscriminate. The U.S. military made
    every attempt to bomb military targets and to limit the number of
    civilian casualties. In war, especially the way Sadam Husseins of  
    the world fight them, civilian casualties are unavoidable. 

    Gee, if you look at what Sadam Hussein is does to his own people,
    one can only imagine what he'd do and did do to others.

    Jim

    While the U.S. obviously did bomb military targets, the U.S. also
    bombed civilian targets.  The image of a "clean" war, where the U.S.
    only bombed military targets, and where civilian casualties were
    incidental, is precisely the image that the Pentagon wanted to convey
    with its censored high-tech images of the war blasted to us on the
    evening news.  Unfortunately, that was not the case, and civilian
    targets were subjected to U.S. bombs.  

    -- Mike

    Mike
    	the U.S. did not bomb civilian  targets purposely. There is no
    proof of that.  The Pentagon never denied that civilians would be
    or were killed. Gen. Swirtzkouf Sp? said all through the war that
    civilians would be killed. That's the horror of war. So let's stop
    pretending that there was an effort to hide it.

    And what about Sadam's indiscriminate SCUD attacks against civilians in
    Israel ? Also, what about his nuclear bomb and the super gun he was
    building ? Don't you think he would and will use it on Israel if he
    gets the chance ?

    Jim

    The U.S. *did* bomb civilian targets purposely.  The results of the
    carpet bombing campaign really aren't any secret; there were
    eyewitnesses at the time who saw what was happening to Iraqi civilians. 
    The problem is that that the Pentagon preferred not to present this
    information to the public at large, and the news media generally went
    along; as a result, most Americans still believe, incorrectly, that
    civilian targets were not bombed during the war.  As I pointed out in
    an earlier reply, several news reports showing the terrible civilian
    toll of the U.S. bombing were not aired by the major networks.  Thus
    the problem is not one of uncovering some dark secret, but of making
    the public aware of what happened.  Everyone--you and I included--knows
    about the atrocities that Saddam Hussein committed; but most Americans
    remain uninformed about the way the U.S. conducted the war.  The
    military knows that there is great propaganda value in pointing out
    atrocities committed by the other side, especially when they are true;
    similarly, there is great value in *not* emphasizing the unpleasant
    things your own side does, even though they are true.  

    The Bush administration did not bomb civilian targets in Iraq just for
    the fun of it, of course; there actually was a reason for it, albeit a
    cynically political one.  After the war, some administration officials
    did report why the this was done.  There was a Washington Post article,
    for example, in which officials were quoted as explaining that some
    targets were bombed primarily to create postwar leverage over Iraq, not
    to influence the course of the war, and that the worst civilian
    suffering resulted "not from bombs that went astray, but from
    precision-guided weapons that hit exactly where they were aimed." 
    Military targets may have indeed been bombed for military reasons, but
    civilian targets were bombed for political ones.  And the civilians who
    died were the pawns in this process.  One Air Force official justified
    this by claiming that these civilians weren't really innocents anyway,
    a justification that effectively gives license to killing civilians at
    will, and eliminating the concept of the "war crime" from the
    discourse.  That is, unless we are talking about the other side--they
    still have to live up to the moral standards that we set.

    Of course, when a human rights organization  published a report a few
    months ago on the Gulf War, citing not only various offenses committed
    by Iraq, but also various violations of international law in the U.S.
    bombing campaign, this news was buried deep in the bowels of the Boston
    Globe.  No front page news here--no one wants to hear about that.  What
    a contrast from the glorious high-tech images we got *during* the war.
    
    -- Mike

    If you mean residential areas civilian target were not deliberately
    bombed. If you mean "strategic" targets like sewage plants,
    postoffices, water treatment plants and many other places with
    primarily civilian use lots of unnecessary targets were struck.
    
    john

    RE:322

    Agreed, that's my point ! 

    A military target need not be military installations. DEC facilities
    would be military targets, if we were attacked by Iraq here in the
    U.S.A. Civilians would most certainly die.
    
    Jim

re Note 28.323 by PCCAD1::RICHARDJ:

>     RE:322
> 
>     Agreed, that's my point ! 
> 
>     A military target need not be military installations. DEC facilities
>     would be military targets, if we were attacked by Iraq here in the
>     U.S.A. Civilians would most certainly die.
  
        I think you both are in agreement -- and I agree, too.

        The point which I would want to make, drawn from the above,
        is that war inevitably involves distress, injury, and often
        death to possibly large numbers of "innocents" ("innocent" in
        the sense of having no real blame for the "wrong" being
        "righted" by the military action).

        Thus one cannot simply say, "Saddam is evil and has done
        wrong, military action can correct that wrong and deal
        justice to Saddam, and thus military action is justified and
        just" and give no regard to the consequences to the otherwise
        uninvolved civilians.

        Can we really say that the lives of multiple civilians which
        we might destroy count nothing to us because of the greater
        evil to be destroyed?  Can we really excuse ourselves by
        saying that more people would die eventually anyway if we
        didn't act -- weighing a near certainty against a probability
        based on human judgment?

        If we say these lives must be destroyed to pursue a greater
        good, aren't we ourselves then no better than a Hitler?

        As Christians, have we allowed God room to act, or are we
        deciding to be judge and executioner in God's stead?  Or is
        our reliance upon God insufficiently strong to allow for
        God's vengeance?

        Bob

	"I joined the United States Marine Reserve because I believed
that the US was a country which stood up for what is just and good in
this world.  But after deep exploration of my feelings on our foreign
and domestic policy and my experiences in the military, I found out I
was wrong.

	In October of 1990, I submitted an application for discharge from
the military as a conscientious objector to war.  I refuse to kill.  And
I emphatically refuse to kill for oil in the Persian Gulf."

					-- Paul Dotson, conscientious
					objector, Marine Corps Reservist

					copied with permission

    RE:324

    Bob, 
        I agree, but now I would like to put forth the question that has
    been on my mind lately. 

    Does God allow us to defend ourselves against the Hitlers, Stalins and
    Husseins of the world ?


    Jim

    re: .325
    
    I think what this guy refused to do was his sworn duty when it seemed
    like he would have to do something hard for his military benefits.
    
    Mike

    Re: .327
    
    	I'm sure you're not alone in your assessment, Mike.
    
    	Sadly, we seek to label such situations as 'laziness' or
    'cowardice' instead of trying to understanding the workings of
    conscience and that which Christ has lain upon a human heart.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re Note 28.326 by PCCAD1::RICHARDJ:

>     Does God allow us to defend ourselves against the Hitlers, Stalins and
>     Husseins of the world ?
  
        I actually do believe that God allows us to defend ourselves
        against the Hitlers, Stalins and Husseins of the world.

        I do not believe that God sanctions our choosing when and on
        whom to administer his justice/vengeance.

        I do believe that God uses us to administer his
        justice/vengeance against the Hitlers, Stalins and Husseins
        of the world.  I do not believe that it is our decision.

        I suspect that many times when we are defending ourselves we
        are actually being used by God to administer his
        justice/vengeance.  We can (and often must!) choose whether
        to do the former;  we must not make the latter choice on
        God's behalf.

        By the way, I believe this applies to capital punishment as
        well -- we must not kill to administer God's judgment.  On
        the other hand, we may occasionally need to kill if there is
        no other way to prevent further horrendous crime.

        Bob

    Well, I guess it seems to me that so many people all of a sudden "got
    religion".  I guess I have a difficult time with folks who, when faced
    with doing what it was they were hired to do, which is help to kill
    people, decide that they want to wriggle out of their contract, and use
    religion to help them do it.  It's not like these folks thought that
    the military was really involved in planting trees or something.  
    
    It would be instructive, I think, to visit these folks in a year or
    two, and see if they are still committed to their newly found religious
    beliefs.  I guess you and I differ in that you seem willing to believe
    a person who professes a new found faith in the face of mortal danger
    for the purposes of getting out of that danger, and I'm not.  Not until
    I'm convinced that the person is sincere, that is.
    
    Mike 

    Well, just when I thought I had it all figured out, God shows me how
    I don't !

    With the issue of how do we handle the Hitlers Stalins and Sadams of
    the world ? Yesterday in my confirmation class, we read the Scripture
    verse in Mark 15:6-15. This is where Pilot brings before the crowd
    a man named Barabbas who was sentenced to death for murder in a rebel
    uprising against the Romans, and Jesus who was opposed to violence. He 
    ask the crowed which man do they wish to be released in observance of 
    the custom of releasing a prisoner for the Passover festival. The crowd 
    shouted to release Barabbas.

    Now looking at this, I became aware that here were two Jewish men who
    lived under the yoke of the Roman empire, with two different responses.
    Barabbas, did as most of us would support. He took up arms and fought
    what we would call a "just war" against the Romans. Jesus on the other
    hand did not take up arms, but preached "love your enemy," and here,
    He takes the place of the man who did the violent act. 

    Also, yesterday I watched for the second time, the movie Gandhi. Again,
    I'm shown that the way that we should respond to injustice is through 
    non-violent methods even if it means your own death in the process.

    The power to the nonviolent response to injustice in the  way Jesus and 
    Gandhi did, is more powerful than the tonnage of bombs that were dropped in
    the Gulf War.

    So I would have to say that the bombing of Iraq for whatever reason,
    was wrong. Of course the problem here is holding to the position of 
    non-violence, even while the atrocities by the madmen of the world
    are going on. As Jesus and Gandhi showed me, it is done through prayer and
    fasting. 


    Peace
    Jim

    Jim,
    
    Do you really believe that we could have prayed and fasted Saddam
    Hussein out of Kuwait?  No derision intended here, by the way.
    I really want to know if praying and fasting would have worked.
    
    Mike

re:332
    Mike
        
>    Do you really believe that we could have prayed and fasted Saddam
>    Hussein out of Kuwait?  No derision intended here, by the way.
>    I really want to know if praying and fasting would have worked.
    

    I may have caused misunderstanding  here. IMHO, praying and fasting is so 
    that we can be strong in our faith and trust in God during these 
    adversities. This  strength will enable us to hold true to our 
    commitment to nonviolence. The end result of whatever happens is according 
    to God's  will, not ours.

    Peace
    Jim

    Okay, I understand.  Thank you, Jim.
    
    
    Mike

Re:  28.331

Hi, Jim,

  >Barabbas, did as most of us would support. He took up arms and fought
  >what we would call a "just war" against the Romans.

Barabbas did not do what could be classified as a "just war".  Barabbas
was an individual and, as such, had *no* Biblical authority to
do what he did.  We are to submit to authority (Romans 13).  Surely,
there are instances where we must "obey God rather than men".  Equally
as surely, Barabbas' actions against the government did not fall
under these.

  >Jesus on the other hand did not take up arms, but preached "love your 
  >enemy," and here, He takes the place of the man who did the violent act.

This teaching, which is the same as Old Testament teaching, was for
individuals to love your enemy.  It was the Jewish leaders who corrupted
the "love your neighbor" Biblical teaching to "love your neighbor, hate
your enemy".  The role of government, as God has set it up, is not the
same role as the individual.  It is up to the government to restrain
evil by enforcing law and order.  Does this enforcement mean that the
government "hates" its' people?  No.  It is simply doing what is best
for them - what love would have it to do.

  >Also, yesterday I watched for the second time, the movie Gandhi. Again,
  >I'm shown that the way that we should respond to injustice is through 
  >non-violent methods even if it means your own death in the process.

Quite true in some circumstances.  Not true in all circumstances.

  >The power to the nonviolent response to injustice in the  way Jesus and 
  >Gandhi did, is more powerful than the tonnage of bombs that were dropped 
  >in the Gulf War.

Jesus will return with *very great* violence.  Just as God Himself chose
to wipe out all but 8 humans, just as God often threatened to destroy
even His chosen people (and did destroy others), Jesus will come again
and win the world from Satan with violence.  It was a combination of
pacificism (at the first coming) and violence (at the second coming)
that God in His wisdom will use.  When will we learn that balance that
God teaches us?

Collis

    RE:335
    I don't have much time to respond other than to say it looks like you 
    didn't understand anything I wrote in that note. Perhaps it's my fault?

    Peace
    Jim

Note 28.335

>Jesus will return with *very great* violence.

I can hardly wait!

>Just as God Himself chose
>to wipe out all but 8 humans, just as God often threatened to destroy
>even His chosen people (and did destroy others), Jesus will come again
>and win the world from Satan with violence.

Ah, Satan will be cast out with the instruments of Satan.

>It was a combination of
>pacificism (at the first coming) and violence (at the second coming)
>that God in His wisdom will use.  When will we learn that balance that
>God teaches us?

Are Jesus' teachings still too radical for you, Collis?

Peace,
Richard

At times, Jesus' teachings are too radical for me.  I
struggle with them.

  >Satan will be cast out with the instruments of Satan.

So power and might are the instruments of Satan?  Indeed
interesting that our God has unlimited amounts of these.

Collis

    No...violence, cruelty, hate, fear and death; these are among the
    instruments of Satan.
    
    I don't believe that Satan can be cast out either by Satan or by
    means which are Satanic.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    RE: .339 Are we than to believe that anything Satan does is evil
    and not to be done by good people? Such things as talk to God,
    discuss things with people, give gifts... Are these the things
    which we must not do? No? Why not? They are clearly instruments
    of Satan.

    			Alfred

Re:  28.339

  >violence, 

Biblically unsupportable that all violence is from Satan.  Reference
God's violence in the flood, Sodom & Gomorrah, commanding the Israelites
to annihlate the Promised Land, the multiple laws given to Israel
commanding violence in certain situations.  What *is* clear is that
God demands violence in certain situations.

  >cruelty, 

Agreed that cruelty is not and never has been a charactericstic
of God.  However, God will not be cruel when He returns, only just.

  >hate, 

Some hate is certainly from Satan.  However, other hate (such as
God's hatefulness of sin) is godly, just and right.  The hate that
you refer to in this instance is certainly wrong - but then again
Jesus will *not* be exhibiting hate to people when He comes again.
There is absolutely no Biblical basis for believing that Jesus will
hate anyone at any time.  There is only your assumption (my guess) that 
all violence is associated with hate - which is a Biblically unsupportable
assumption (or why else would you be including hate here?)

  >fear and 

As in "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom"?  Is this the
fear that is a Satanic tool?  Biblically unsupportable claim that fear
is an instrument used only by Satan.

  >death; 

Certainly death is an instrument of Satan.  Death is an enemy to be
conquered.  However, death is *more* than that.  Death is also an
appropriate punishment (the just rewards) for sin - and as such God
uses it (many, many Biblical references).  What I'm saying is that
if Satan never existed and sin did exist, death would still be here
and would still be the appropriate punishment for sin.  Whether it is 
Jesus' return resulting in the death of many or the Judgment Day when 
those who have rejected Jesus are cast into eternal punishment (referred
to as death in the sense of seperation from God), God uses death
as well as Satan.
    
Collis

    So then Collis, was the death of Iraqi women and children, God's will
    or man's will ?

    I would say that man having a free will, carries out death and
    destruction out of his own will rather than God's. God's part
    is that he allows man to have free will.

    Understand that when you read the Old Testament, "free will" was
    not part of tribal theology for the Hebrews of that time. That's
    why the message of Jesus in the New Testament often seems contradictory
    to the image of God in the Old Testament. Without a understanding of
    cultural traditions of the people of the Old Testament, literal
    interpretation of it is disastrous.

     Also, when Christ comes again he will bring peace, not violence.
     The violence your speaking of is what comes before his coming 
    isn't it ?

    Peace
    Jim

Re:  28.342

  >So then Collis, was the death of Iraqi women and children, God's will
  >or man's will ?

God has not revealed to me His Will for these people.  I can answer
your question based on general Biblical principles - and the answer
will be, "I don't know, but it is possible that some of it was God's 
Will".

  >I would say that man having a free will, carries out death and
  >destruction out of his own will rather than God's. God's part
  >is that he allows man to have free will.

My question for you is:  Was the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
including the killing of all the people except Lot and family God's
will or man's will?

  >Understand that when you read the Old Testament, "free will" was
  >not part of tribal theology for the Hebrews of that time. 

The tribal theology of the Hebrews is of interest, but of no particular
revelance, to the God-breathed words of the Bible (in terms of
understanding God's revelation of Himself).

  >That's why the message of Jesus in the New Testament often seems 
  >contradictory to the image of God in the Old Testament.

I'm glad you sad "often seems".  It may often seem that way, but it
is not.  Jesus' message is perfectly complementary to the
revelation that God gives in the Old Testament.  Now it is certainly
true that God's revelation was much distorted by religious leaders
over the centuries (which Jesus clearly pointed out), but neither
Jesus nor any prophet ever contradicts Old Testament revelation.

  >Without a understanding of cultural traditions of the people of the 
  >Old Testament, literal interpretation of it is disastrous.

Since I'm not a literalist, I'm not sure whether or not I fall into
the category of those who interpret "literally".  However, I certainly
do disagree with the point that God's revelation of Himself needs
a broad framework of the cultural traditions of the people in order
to be properly understood.  This is certainly some truth to this,
but let's not overstate it.  In Genesis 15, it is *crucial* to
understand the tradition of the day of Suzzerein (sp.) treaties to
understand the implication of the ceremony that God instructs Abraham
to perform.  However, it takes no knowledge of culture at all to
understand the ten commandments of Exodus 20.

In other words, understanding culture is important when God addressed
His people in ways that used culture.  Knowing the culture of the
day is useless if that knowledge is used for the purpose of trying
to determine why the Bible was written the way it was.  The Holy
Spirit wrote the Bible, not the culture of the day.

  >Also, when Christ comes again he will bring peace, not violence.
  >The violence your speaking of is what comes before his coming 
  >isn't it ?

The Lion of Judah will come.  What happens when He comes?

  II Thes 2:8  "And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the
     Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and
     destroy by the splendor of his coming."

  Rev 19:11-15a  "I saw heaven standing open and there before me was
    a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True.  With
    justice he judges and makes war.  His eyes are like blazing fire,
    and on his head are many crowns.  He has a name written on him that
    no one but he himself knows.  He is dressed in a robe dipped in
    blood, and his name is the Word of God.  The armies of heaven were
    following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen,
    white and clean.  Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which
    to strike down the nations.  He will rule them with an iron sceptor."

  Rev 19:19-21  "Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their
    armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse
    and his army.  But the beast was captured, and with him the false
    prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf.  With
    these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the
    beast and worshipped his image.  The two of them were thrown alive
    into the fiery lake of burning sulfur.  The rest of them were
    killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the
    horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh."

Collis

    .340
    
    Alfred,
    
    	I didn't say that.  But let me ask you, can Satan cast out Satan?
    And according to the Bible, with what are we to overcome evil?  And
    was that what we used against Iraq?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

>    	I didn't say that.  
    
    That's what if sounded like to me. What did you mean?

>	But let me ask you, can Satan cast out Satan?

    Obviously, the answer is yes. No reason to believe that Satan
    is not capable of self-control.

>    And according to the Bible, with what are we to overcome evil? 

    Good.

>    And was that what we used against Iraq?

    Yes. Not always but in general. I believe that if what the US was
    doing was evil we would have suffered all the casualties the doom
    prophets predicted.

    			Alfred

re: Note 28.345 by Alfred "Radical Centralist" 

[answering Richard, I think]

>>	But let me ask you, can Satan cast out Satan?
>
>    Obviously, the answer is yes. No reason to believe that Satan
>    is not capable of self-control.

Um, didn't Jesus say words to the contrary?  "Satan cannot cast out Satan"
"A house divided against itself cannot stand..."  something like that?

As far as our use of "good", I get confused.  My mother did lots of things 
that were said to be "good" for me.  Some of them, like taking bad tasting
medicine, really were good (though I hated it at the time).  Other things were
out and out abusive.  I can't call them "good", however, through the power of
God I work to transcend them. 

Peace,

Jim

p.s.  fwiw, When I see the word "obviously", I usually find it associated with 
something that is certainly NOT obvious to me... .-)

>As far as our use of "good", I get confused.  My mother did lots of things 
>that were said to be "good" for me.  Some of them, like taking bad tasting
>medicine, really were good (though I hated it at the time).  Other things were
>out and out abusive.  I can't call them "good", however, through the power of
>God I work to transcend them. 

	This highlights a common problem with the expression of ideas. For
	is it good for someone to cut someone up with a knife. Well if that
	person is a doctor opening up my hand to relieve pressure on my
	carpal nerve the answer is probably yes. (At least I hope so since
	he's done it already. :-)) But it's probably not good if it's someone
	who just doesn't like your face and wants to pin your hand to a
	table. Those last two examples could also be described as "the end
	justifies the means". But we know that's not valid. At least not
	without still more context.

			Alfred

Re: 28.346

Jim Kirk is correct about Satan casting out Satan, according to Luke 11.14-23.

Peace,
Richard

	RE: .348 Did that for me didn't you? Knowing I like to see context.
	Jesus there refutes the notion that He is casting out devils on
	Satans behalf. He does talk about "a house divided against itself"
	falling. I wonder though why those people did not claim that the
	Satan was not just setting it up to look like Jesus was doing it
	in Gods name? Or perhaps ask if maybe the whole thing was some other
	set up with the devils really still there but quiet? A real cynic
	might even go so far as to suggest that the woman in verse 27 was
	a plant acting to change the subject before more questions came up. :-)

	I think the issue is still open for me. Perhaps Satan is incapable
	of casting out his demons. I don't really know.

			Alfred 

Upon reading the passage referenced, it appears not that Satan
is incapable of casting out Satan, but rather that it is
nonsensical for Satan to do so.  Both sides have a point.

Collis

    But that only works if you think Saddam Hussein is Satan.  He isn't.
    He is a thoroughly despicable man, and he leads an army comprised of
    some people only slightly less despicable.  Neither are George Bush, the
    United States, the United Nations, or the leaders of the various
    coalition nations Satan.  We are all only people who, when confronted
    with evil, employed the means at our disposal to stop other people from
    committing evil actions.  It would have been nice if we had recourse to
    means other than military action, but as near as I can tell, we didn't.
    
    Mike

    How can we say that military action is the only action that works ?
     
    How many times in the history of the world has prayer and nonviolence
    been tried ?
    
    
    Peace
    Jim

>    How can we say that military action is the only action that works ?
    
    We can not. Nor do I know anyone who does. But remember while we 
    know that people are healed of many things through prayer most of
    us still visit doctors.
    
    		Alfred

re: Note 28.349 by Alfred "Radical Centralist" 

Hi Alfred,

I appreciate your point about how far cynicism can lead us.  I've often heard 
Satan called "the great counterfeiter", usually to cast aspersions on others 
doing what would normally be considered "good works", while not explicitly 
citing Jesus Christ as the the source of those good works.  "Sure, they feed 
and clothe the poor, but they don't praise Jesus enough, so it must be evil 
works..."

I think the third letter of John has something to say about that.  (Sorry I 
can't give you more context than that, .-) I'd have go home to look it up.)

Another point seems to me to be just how much power does one attribute to 
Satan?  It seems that some people attribute so much power that absolutely no 
one has any hope of telling the difference between God's true leading and 
Satan's counterfeit, so all are doomed.  (Well, all except the person making 
the attribution, anyway .-)

It's an age old problem.  One can read the Old Testament, concerning all the 
battles, and come to the conclusion that the attitude was "if we won, God was 
with us; if we lost, we need to justify that by finding someone who sinned 
before the battle, and that is why God forsaked us..."  (Taint sayin' that's 
the ONLY conclusion possible, but I heard it from trained professionals...)

Perhaps Collis is right, there is fodder for either perception.  I'm certainly 
not crystal clear on it.  I do wonder, though, what the U.S. response would 
have been if we *weren't* a "kinder, gentler America".

Peace,

Jim

    re: .352 (Jim)

    >How can we say that military action is the only action that works ?
     
    Military action isn't necessarily the only action that works in
    settling dispute between nations.  Consider the number of disputes we
    have been involved with, and then compare that to the number of times
    we have taken military action.  The ratio is fairly low, I think.

    >How many times in the history of the world has prayer and nonviolence
    >been tried ?

    Ghandi tried it, with limited success, as did Martin Luther King. 
    Admittedly, it hasn't been tried nearly often enough.  However, there
    are situations when a nation cannot wait for prayer to stop a 
    sociopathic person bent on committing large scale evil, who wouldn't
    respond to any sort of moral outreach, anyway.  Such a person was
    Hitler, and such a person is Saddam Hussein.  
    
    Unless you are basing your question on your belief that God will
    intervene as a direct result of prayer.  I know a lot of people believe
    that such is possible.  Personally, I don't believe any such thing
    would happen, if only because the historical record supports my belief. 
    
    Mike
    Mike

Strange that the U.S. can rush half way around the globe and "liberate" Kuwait
from it's oppressor on moral grounds, and yet continue to provide economic aid
to governments known to be oppressing their people (perhaps it has something
to do with visibility):

Subj:	More Murders in Santiago Atitlan, Guatemala
CASE No.  1, 1992
DATE      FEBRUARY 14, 1992


                    ANOTHER MASSACRE AGAINST
                   SANTIAGO ATITLAN RESIDENTS.

On February 9, 1992 on the highway between Patulul,
Suchitepequez and Santiago Atitlan near a military
detachment in Pochuta jurisdiction, the military
carried out yet another massacre against Santiago
Atitlan residents. This time the Army's action left
six people dead and eleven others injured. The names
of those extrajudicially killed are:

Miguel Garcia Julaju     (50)
Antonio Sacalxot         (38)
Esteban Coche Xicay      (46)
Francisco Garcia Chingo  (30)
Felipe Petzey            (10)
And an unidentified man

The wounded are:

Miguel Garcia Sitaju
Antonio Petzey
Gregorio Petzey
Gaspar Mendoza
Concepcion Tacaxot
Nicolas Ruiz
Felipe Palay
Francisco Cuic
Jose Icaj Sicay
Edgar Joaquin Pena and
an unidentified man.


                   UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR KILLED

On the night of February 10, 1992, MANUEL ESTUARDO
PENA (28), a professor of the School of History of
the University of San Carlos was assassinated by
two members of the Security Forces when arriving
at his home in Colonia Nimajuyu, Guatemala City.
The victim's wife testimony reveals that the two
men had come to their house two hours earlier
looking for her husband; when they realized he was
not home, they remained in the vicinity waiting for
him. Upon arriving, the professor was shot dead with
automatic weapons used by the Guatemalan Army
(calibre 45).

	"There were exceptions to the pattern of grass-roots church support
for the Gulf War.  Most notably, African-American pastors and political
activists took leadership in opposing the Gulf War in many communities
around the country.  On February 15, 1991, more than one hundred black
leaders from across the nation attended a National Emergency African-American
Leadership Summit on the Gulf War at Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem.
In an open letter to President Bush summit participants wrote:

	The war in the Gulf is wrong, unnecessary, unprincipled, and dirty....
  The United States is spending $1 billon a day to wage war when we should
  be spending that much and more to wage peace, educate all our youth, cure
  all our diseases, unshackle all our alcoholics and dope addicts, train
  all our workers, employ all our people, provide housing and food for all
  our families and liberate all our oppressed.  It is troubling to realize
  that the same president who fear over-representation of blacks and other
  minorities in American jobs, corporate positions and academic institutions,
  does not object to over-representation of blacks and othe minorities on
  the front lines of battle.  Mr. President, you refused to support any
  approximation of affirmitive action, refused to sign the Civil Rights
  Bill of 1990, refused to maintain the legality of minority scholarships;
  but you voice no objection to the fact that blacks and other minorities
  are over-represented in the military and are dying disproportionately in
  the present war.

	Similar criticisms were expressed by other African-American leaders.
Coretta Scott King noted that war is not 'an equal opportunity destroyer' and
that 'conditions of social and economic injustice...force African-American
youths to seek escape in the military.'  Reverend Benjamin F. Chavis, Jr.,
executive director for the Commission of Racial Justice for the United
Church of Christ said that Christians 'must demand a change in national
priorities, from huge military expenditures to meaningful programs to
eliminate poverty and social injustice.'"

				- Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer
				"Brave New World Order"

	I seem to recall that there was talk of a moral imperitive to
"liberate Kuwait."  The moral imperitive to liberate Bosnia, however, is
curiously absent.  Why isn't the U.S. responding to the situation in Bosnia
the way the U.S. responded during the Gulf War?

	The answer can be put in a three letter word: O-I-L.  Bosnia has
no resources which are considered of vital national interest.  Therefore,
the situation in Bosnia is a "damn shame," while the situation in Kuwait
demanded swift U.S. intervention on a massive scale.

	Well, hooray for the U.S..  With the help of other nations we somehow
managed to defeat a country with a GNP the size of Kentucky.

Pax Christi,
Richard

re .-1

Baloney.

In the case of Kuwait, there was a very different situation.

A foreign nation had invaded and annexed Kuwait.  Eliminating the aggressor
was easy -- bomb Baghdad and the rest of Iraq until the Iraqi army, mostly out
in the Kuwaiti desert, could no longer be supplied.

In the case of Bosnia, things are quite different.

We're not dealing with an invasion of a sovereign nation by a neighbor.
The Serbians doing most of the fighting aren't from a neighboring country,
they are citizens and residents of Bosnia, fighting a local ethnic war.
Eliminating the aggressor is much more difficult, since bombing Belgrade
won't make any difference.

/john

    Re .359
    
    Is that your perspective as a Christian?  Or as an American?
    
    Richard
    

It's my perspective.

    re: .358
    
    Okay, so if Kuwait and Saudi Arabia had no oil, no doubt we may have
    completely ignored the situation.   But given the utter dependence of
    our economy has on oil, given the utter dependence that your's and my
    livlihood has on oil, for that matter, could we hardly do any different?
    
    It is called a question of vital national economic security, Richard. 
    Now I know that Christianity doesn't make too much provision for that,
    but I can assure you that each and every political and religious
    economic unit on the face of this planet understands the concept.  And
    they understand that aggression against one's vital interests are
    ignored at one's peril. 
    
    Richard, I realize that such ideas aren't in accord with the pacifist
    movement with which you identify yourself, but fortunately, American
    pacifists are very much in the minority in 1991, and were back in 1941. 
    The alternative in 1991 would have been more bloodshed in the Middle
    East, including, perhaps, the destruction of Israel.  And the pacifist
    movement had succeeded in 1941, the alternative would have been you and
    I possessing zero freedom to pursue our respective ideals.
    
    Mike

    Another interesting example is that of East Timor, which was invaded by
    Indonesia.  Not only did the U.S. not go to war on behalf of East
    Timor, but the U.S. continues to be a strong ally of Indonesia.
    
    -- Mike

    I'm not certain, but was not East Timor already part of Indonesia?
    
    I know that I have never heard of a "Republic of East Timor" or some
    such.  
    
    Mike

    East Timor was a mostly Catholic Portuguese colony that was invaded by
    mostly Moslem Indonesia after Portugal relinquished control of the
    colony.  The reason why you've never heard of a Republic of East Timor
    is that Indonesia prevented East Timor from acquiring independence.
    
    Just recently, by the way, there have been protests against the
    Indonesian invasion, and large numbers of civilians were massacred. 
    There is still considerable resistance to the Indonesian government
    there.
    
    -- Mike

    I picked this article off the internet a few months ago.  This is an
    example of what has been going on in East Timor the last few months:
    
[ This report appeared on the Mon,13/4/92 issue of THE AGE
newspaper in Melbourne. There was also a front page article 
on this particular topic on the Mon, 13/4/92 issue of the 
Canberra Times newspaper. The national newspaper, The 
Australian also had a similar report, but a much shorter 
version].

TIMOR INTIMIDATION WORSE, SAYS CHURCH

Reporter : Tom Hyland

The Indonesian Government has taken a harder line against 
dissent in East Timor since the Dili massacre and further 
bloodshed is expected, according to a confidential report 
by the Roman Catholic Church.

In addition, sources recently returned from East Timor say 
the Indonesian Army has abandoned its "hearts and minds" 
strategy against pro-independence activity since the Dili 
massacre in November and begun a policy of intimidation.

These accounts support the finding of the confidential 
report by Mr Michael Whiteley, the national director of 
Australian Catholic Relief. The report said: "The ongoing 
pressure on the Timorese can be seen from the increased 
security measures... there is also a policy of intimidation 
with a very obvious military presence."

"The Indonesians appear to be taking a harder line on 
dissent and are prepared to take whatever action is 
necessary to repress it. More bloodshed and suffering can, 
most regrettably, be expected."

Mr Whitley visited East Timor in December. The report was 
given to Australian Catholic Relief's national committee 
and a number of bishops.

It is supported by statements from a number of recent travellers.

An Australian who has visited East Timor three times, most 
recently last Month, said: "As far as I am concerned, the 
situation was absolutely horrible two weeks ago."

A visitor in January said political prisoners arrested 
after the massacre complained to church leaders of torture: 
being burned with cigarette ends, slashed with razor 
blades, and beaten on the feet.

A number of the sources said they had been unable to 
contact Timorese they met on earlier visits. Some had been 
forced into hiding or had possibly "gone to the mountains", 
a common expression for joining Fretilin independence 
guerillas.

Mr Whitley said: "The atmosphere (in Dili) was extremely 
tense. People came to work, went home and then locked 
themselves in."

Another source saw signs of intense military activity in 
Dili and elsewhere in January. She said Indonesian troops 
appeared to be billeted in every neighboorhood and village, 
searching for those suspected of involvement in political 
activity.

In Baucau, east of Dili, she saw signs of a military 
operation in the streets, involving soilders with shields, 
helmets and riot masks.

"The whole time we were there we werewatched. Our rooms 
were searched. We were followed everywhere, and quizzed as 
to where we were going and why we had come, " she said.

The new military commander in East Timor, Brigadier-General 
Theo Syafei, was recently quoted in the Indonesian weekly 
`Editor'magazine as saying "... if something similar to the 
November 12 event were to happen under my leadership, the 
number of victims would probably be higher."

An inquiry by the Indonesian Government found that at least 
50 people died in the massacre and up to another 90 were 
missing. Witnesses have said that more than 100 died. -AAP

--- FD 1.99c

    Thank you, Mike.  I appreciate the lesson in current geography!

    Mike, as a nation, we can intervene in every trouble spot in the world,
    and end up spending lots of money, killing lots of people, and failing
    more often than not.  Or we can ignore every trouble spot in the
    world, even those that are vital to our national economy, and end up in
    worse economic straits than we are currently "enjoy", and become a
    target for every village bully boy that comes along.  Or we can pick
    and choose those trouble spots that are vital to our interests, and
    apply appropriate diplomatic and, if necessary, military pressure.
    The amount of pressure applied being directly proportional to the 
    level of vitality to our interests.

    Like it or not, that is the way of the world.  It has always been so,
    and it always will be so.  At least as long as people continue to have
    neighbors and economies.

    Having said this, I too wish that the way of the world were different.

    Mike

Note 28.362
    
>    Okay, so if Kuwait and Saudi Arabia had no oil, no doubt we may have
>    completely ignored the situation.   But given the utter dependence of
>    our economy has on oil, given the utter dependence that your's and my
>    livlihood has on oil, for that matter, could we hardly do any different?

Mike,

	I appreciate your honesty.  You didn't try to employ theological smoke
and mirrors to justify the U.S. going to war in the Gulf as I've heard so many
do.  You didn't try to discredit the claim that the Gulf War was about oil
and not about some moral imperative to "liberate Kuwait."  You didn't try
to dress it up to be something it wasn't.  I think you deserve a lot of credit
for your courage and sense of integrity.

>    Richard, I realize that such ideas aren't in accord with the pacifist
>    movement with which you identify yourself, but fortunately, American
>    pacifists are very much in the minority in 1991, and were back in 1941. 
>    The alternative in 1991 would have been more bloodshed in the Middle
>    East, including, perhaps, the destruction of Israel.  And the pacifist
>    movement had succeeded in 1941, the alternative would have been you and
>    I possessing zero freedom to pursue our respective ideals.

	I'm not so certain how "fortunate" it is.  As it is, we'll never be
able to say with absolute certainty what might have happened - because it
didn't.

	I've heard the theories over and over about how much more bloodshed
there might have been if some military move hadn't been made.  Did you see
the movie "Fat Man and Little Boy"?  It's a pretty accurate portrayal, as
far as I could tell, of the events leading up to the bombings of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki.  Anyway, it's revealed to us years and years later that Japan
was on the verge of surrender even before the atomic weapons were detonated.

	So much cover up.  And then sometimes, those who do the covering up,
like Oliver North, are made into patriotic heroes.  I personally find it
utterly contemptible and very disheartening.

Peace,
Richard

    Re: .368
    
    Richard,
     I wouldn't get my historical imformation about Japan from
    a Paul Neman movie.  Japan was not ready to "give up".....
    The dropping of the atomic bomb saved many many lives..
    japanese and American. Many more than it killed. There are many
    sources to check.....
    
    By the way, I once worked with a DEC employee who was scheduled
    to be part of the land invasion of Japan. He was told that 1
    in 10 would survie!!!! What would go through your mind?
    
    The invasion was cancelled when Japan surrendered after the bomb was
    dropped.
    
    Marc H.

    re: .368

    Thank you for your kind words, Richard.

    Now on to business!

    Richard, I appreciate your feelings about war.  Such a failure in human
    behavior is too terrible to contemplate, but yet, as Shakespeare said,
    "...war and lechery. nothing else holds fashion."  As in many other
    things, he spoke of a universal truth.  Conflict between humans, and
    therefore between groups of humans, seems to be almost a genetic
    imperative.  It's as though we have a "war gene" planted in our DNA
    somewhere.  I wish that there were some means to excise this "gene"
    from our make-up once and for all, but quite frankly, I can't imagine
    how that can be done.  Of course this doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

    As regards the A-bomb drop on Japan: 

    I did not see the movie you speak of, but I do know that Hollywood
    mostly never gives an accurate portrayal of historical events, for at
    least two reasons: one, the director and/or writer has a point of view
    he wants to put across; two, the events as portrayed are not placed in
    a proper historical context.  Movies can portray events and even
    personalities quite powerfully.  It is not possible to portray complex
    traditions, ebbs and flows of history and human thought, and the
    exceedingly complex psychological interactions between nations in
    sufficient detail to give a true picture. 

    Richard, if there was a peace movement in Japan, it did not extend to
    the Japanese leadership.  We had the example of our attack on Okinawa
    fresh in our minds, where the Japanese threw several hundred kamikaze
    attacks at our shipping, and where Japanese ground troops preferred
    annihilation to surrender.  We had no reason to disbelieve the reports
    that the Japanese were arming everyone who could carry a rifle in
    preparation for our assault on the  Japanese homeland.  Our casualties,
    and indeed, the Japanese casualties were expected to be horrendous. 
    Even more horrendous than that which the Japanese suffered as a result
    of our air attacks, if that can be imagined.  No, I am firmly convinced
    that as horrible a decision as dropping the bombs were, it had the
    result of ending the war sooner than it would have otherwise, and that
    lives were saved that otherwise would have perished.  

    Yes, politicians of all stripes are into cover-up for all sorts of
    reasons.  For the good of the party, for the good of the organization,
    for the good of the department, of the service, of the church, and so
    on.  It is quite a human thing to want to maintain an institution's
    authority and power, just as most people don't usually like to have
    their personal peccadilloes laid out before the public.  I don't like it
    any more than you do, and when public servants like Olly North do it,
    they should be shunned.  Unfortunately, he was treated as a folk hero
    in much the same way as Bonnie and Clyde were.  He, like they, thumbed
    his nose at the "establishment", only he got away with it.  Americans
    seem to love such individuals.

    Anyway, such behavior is disheartening, but it also seems to be a part
    of our culture, if not human nature.  

    Mike

	I assure you that the information about Japan nearing surrender is
not based soley on a movie.  I wish I could rattle off a bunch of highly
credible resources for you, but I have them not at my fingertips and I am
not inclined go to the trouble to research this in the near future.

	There is, of course, the logic that many American lives were spared
by using the bomb.  But that logic also says that the Japanese lives that
were devastated, like Iraqi lives in the Gulf War, were comparatively
worthless.  Jesus' teachings, however, tend to contradict this.

	The U.S. is the only country in the history of the world to detonate
a nuclear device over a populated area; populated, mind you, primarily with
civilians.  It indisciminantly vaporized children, the infirmed, and the
elderly.  Even a few Americans were killed by our bombs.

	I can see this is drifting from the Gulf War to war in general, so
I shall not pursue this further under this particular string.

	I do appreciate the responses though.

Peace,
Richard

The theory, actually, is that not only were many American lives saved,
but many more Japanese lives were saved.  Had an invasion of the home
islands been necessary, the bloodbath on each side would have been
many times the number of deaths from the bombing.

There is also a theory that the bombs were dropped for no reason other
than to intimidate the Soviet Union.

/john

    Interesting topic.....
    
    One way to decide if the bombing of Japan saved lives or not is
    to review what we did (Allies) to Germany near the end of the war.
    The saturated fire bombing of Dresden killed more Germans than
    the number of Japanese that were killed because of the atomic bomb.
    
    If we had not dropped the atomic bomb, we would have used the same
    type of firebombing techniques...many many more lives would have
    been lost.
    
    Now....don't think for a moment that I think that killing is O.K.
    I just don't see how any other alternative at the time would have been
    better.
    
    Marc H.

If a read-only noter may interject:


28.368 --- CSC32::J_CHRISTIE

>> Anyway, it's revealed to us years and years later that Japan
>> was on the verge of surrender even before the atomic weapons were 
>> detonated.

   This is quite true.  In fact, there were four separate peace 
   initiatives authorized by the Japanese government:  one through Sweden, 
   one through the Soviet Union, and two through Switzerland.  These 
   peace initiatives all came about in the Spring of 1945.

   The Swedish initiative fell through because of a change in the Japanese 
   foreign ministry.  Mamoru Shigemitsu was replaced as foreign minister 
   by Shigenori Togo, who thought that a more influential intermediary 
   could be found.

   The Soviet initiative fell through because, as it seems, the Soviets 
   did nothing with it.  Unfortunately, it was this initiative that the 
   Japanese counted on the most.  In fact, Emperor Hirohito was involved 
   in this one.

   The two Swiss initiatives went further.  Both of these involved Allen 
   Dulles, then OSS representative in Germany and in parts of France and 
   Italy.  In one, he was negotiating peace agreements with Swiss
   representatives and in the other he was negotiating with Commander
   Yoshiro Fujimura, Japanese Naval attache in Berne. 

   Dulles received his authorization to negotiate with Fujimura from the
   US State Department on May 3, 1945. 


Rick

    re: .374
    
    Thank you for this information.  I wonder if you wouldn't mind citing
    the source for this, though.
    
    Thanks.
    
    Mike

28.376 -- SOLVIT::MSMITH

There are a variety of sources for this information.  However, I would
suggest John Toland's "The Rising Sun:  The Decline and Fall of the Japanese
Empire" as a good starting point.

Rick

    Thank you, Rick.
    
    Mike

	"I just happened to be the house guest of Mr. Bush -- I had no idea
the Persian Gulf War was going to begin."

				- Billy Graham
				  Regarding his prayer service at the
				  White Houseon the night the Gulf War began.
				  Philadelphia Inquirer, June 9, 1992

    Richard,
    
    		Have you heard something?
    
    
    Dave

    Dave - 
    
    Unofficial reports from CNN say that the US and some of it's allies
    have begun bombing in Iraq.
    
    Nanci

    
    		Great....Bush didn't finish it the first time so he has
    decided to do it just before he leaves.  I'm sorry...I have an 18 year
    old son that might get caught up in all this.  I'm really not angry at
    Bush but it does frustrate me no end.
    
    
    Dave

    Bombs Away.....
    
    And so it goes.
    
    Marc H.

    Vengeance is mine saith the George.
    
    Richard
    

This is a limited strike, and may have already met its goal.

News reports say that the Iraqi ambassador to the U.N. has already announced
that Iraq now agrees to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to resume flights over
the country and agree to stop their raids into Kuwait.

    
    I think it's interesting that several of you attribute this to Bush.
    I've gotten the impression from the media that Clinton has been fully
    involved and in favor of any action that would be taken under the
    conditions laid down to Hussein.  In these last days of transitioning 
    power, don't you think Clinton has some say.  Maybe not ultimate 
    authority, but but some input.  Just as a relay runner passes a 
    baton to the next runner, at one point either or both could be 
    responsible for the dropping of the baton.  
    
    Before anyone gets their nose out of joint, I'm not saying that
    Clinton is responsible.  I'm just sick of this scapegoat mentality.
    That it all comes down to George Bush is just a bit much for me.
    There are advisors, congress, the new administration, and certainly
    the nation of IRAQ's actions and we really don't know what has been
    said in private.  So to pin it on George is feeble IMHO.
    
    Jill

    Regardless of who is responsible for deciding to bomb Irag, it is a
    good thing!  
    
    jeff

    Lord, when will your children learn to value the sacredness of life?
    
    Richard

STUDY SHOWS IRAQI POST-WAR DEATHS GREATER THAN INITIALLY THOUGHT. - Sentinel
DOW Story

                Sentinel Delivered by WGS Advanced Development:
        DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY BY INFORMATION PROVIDER AGREEMENT:


  PITTSBURGH, Aug. 17 /PRNewswire/ -- Three years from the Aug. 7, 1990, start 
of Operation Desert Shield, a new study shows that the number of Iraqi 
civilians who died in the Gulf War's aftermath from adverse health effects 
greatly exceeds U.S. government estimates by 41,000, it was announced today.

  However, the same study shows that the number of civilians who died during 
the war from direct war effects was smaller than originally thought. The 
study, published in "PSR Quarterly," was conducted by Beth Osborne Daponte, 
visiting instructor of public policy at Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz 
School of Public Policy and Management, who has taken a two-year leave of 
absence from her position as a demographer from the Center for International 
Research at the U.S. Census Bureau.

  Her research shows that the number of Iraqis who died in 1991 from effects 
of the Gulf War or postwar turmoil approximates 205,500.  There were 
relatively few deaths (approximately 56,000 to military personnel and 3,500 to 
civilians) from direct war effects. Postwar violence accounted for 
approximately 35,000 deaths. The largest component of deaths from the Gulf War 
derive from the 111,000 attributable to postwar adverse health effects. 
According to Daponte, these deaths were due to diseases and infections that 
thrive on a weakened population.

  Many of the postwar deaths from adverse health effects can be attributed to 
the Allied bombing of Iraq's electrical generating capacity, which was needed 
to fuel Iraq's sewerage and water treatment system. Of the total 1991 Iraqi 
excess deaths, approximately 109,000 were to men, 23,000 to women and 74,000 
to children (because of rounding error, these figures do not sum to 205,500).

  Daponte's research shows that in modern warfare, postwar deaths from adverse 
health effects account for a large fraction of total deaths from war. In the 
Gulf War, far more persons died from postwar health effects than from direct 
war effects. Daponte writes that "The effects of war continue long past the 
time of conflict. The lethality of indirect effects of warfare can be much 
greater than the direct lethality of the weapons themselves.

  "The number of civilians who died during the war pales in comparison to the 
number that died after the war. The Allied Forces seem to have achieved their 
goal in minimizing civilian wartime casualties, but failed miserably in their 
effort to keep all civilian casualties from the war to a minimum," Daponte 
said.

  /CONTACT:  Angela Burrows, 412-268-6061, or Beth Osborne Daponte, 
412-268-2178, both of Carnegie Mellon University/
14:55 EDT
% ====== Internet DOWvision Codes
storyCounter: 614
Storydate: 08/17/1993
Headline: . STUDY SHOWS IRAQI POST-WAR DEATHS GREATER THAN INITIALLY THOUGHT.
transmissionTime: 1516
Time: 1516
categorySubject: N/GEN N/PR
categoryGeographic: R/IZ R/ML