Conference rdvax::grateful

Good question.

My approach has been largely to look inward.  The human mind seems to
be an incredable laboratory to see the root of suffering, war, greed,
lust, joy, selflessness, bliss, everything.  My belief is that if this
is done, what to do in the "outside" world will become apparent
without having to analyze and think about it much.  If thinking is
part of the problem, then can thinking about it ever solve it?

john

    Too many questions to answer JR, but I'll take a stab at one........
    
    
    
    yes, you are crazy



                      ;^)
                         rfb

    
    My answer is somewhat non-complex; here's the process:
    
    1) Identify the decision makers in going to war.
    
    2) Make their alternative to NOT go to war a clear winner (in their
    minds).
         
    Result:  They will make the right choice.
    
    Putting this answer into practice (unfortunately) is rather complex.
    
    #1 is doable.
    
    #2 is next to impossible.
    
    Treetheory

    I went to Littleton last Saturday to check my post-office box,
    and what did I find,
    but an Anti-War Demonstration
    Right there on Littleton Common
    Put on by the Littleton Unitarian Church.
    Naturally, I joined in...
    
    
    
    Yes, the war is popular,
    this week.
    The Vietnam war was popular
    for a few years.
    This war is as popular as it will ever be
    and it is less than 2 weeks old.
    It will not be popular six months from now.
    A year from now George Bush will be wondering
    what went wrong with his presidency.

    1969(?): The war is extended into Cambodia.
    1991: the war is extended into Iran.
    
    I realize the hypocrisy in US policy towards the Middle East.  I
    realize that this war is being fought more for strategic and economic
    reasons than high ideals.  I realize that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait
    might have been prevented had the US told them that we would get
    involved (prior to the invasion we assured Iraq that we would not get
    involved with border disputes).  However, I don't see any other viable
    course other than war.
    
    Sanctions never would have worked, the Jordanian border was (and is) a
    sieve.  Oops, work interrupts me from this fascinating discourse (what
    a nuisance :^)).  What I want to know from those who oppose the war is:
    
    What do you think we should have done?  Hindsight is 20-20, so I guess
    the real question is "What should we have done after the UN resolution
    expired?"
    
    I am somewhat of a fence straddler on this war, so your argument could
    change my mind.
    
    Jamie

RE:          <<< Note 109.5 by FRAGLE::IDE "now it can be told" >>>
                           -< alternatives to war? >-

    
>    Sanctions never would have worked, the Jordanian border was (and is) a
    
>    What do you think we should have done?  Hindsight is 20-20, so I guess
>    the real question is "What should we have done after the UN resolution
>    expired?"
>    
>    I am somewhat of a fence straddler on this war, so your argument could
>    change my mind.
    
O.k., Humpty, I'll give it a shot...  :-)

Sanctions would have worked.  Never before had there been such comprehensive 
and multi-lateral cooperation in sanctions on such a scale as that which took 
place before 1/15. They just weren't given enough time.  Sanctions worked in 
South Africa with only a few countries taking part. The issue here, however, is 
what the goal of the sanctions were. Why was the U.N demanding unconditional 
surrender, complete restoration of the status quo, and appropriate reparations 
be made for Iraq's actions?  Sanctions would have made more sense if the UN's 
demands were more reasonable, with the major objective to being simple 
withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait.  But if you ask me, the UN demands were handed 
to the Security council on a silver platter by Bush himself, with the expressed
intention of making the goals unreasonable for Iraq to agree to. Why? I don't 
know, but I suspect it has to do with Bush's mortal fear of the world thinking 
that he is a "wimp". This war's intention from the start was to establish
Bush's "New World Order", not to free Kuwait.

	The UN's Security counsel mandates are key in this debate.  They are 
the ones who gave Bush the "permission" to go to war and they are the ones who 
voted that Sanctions would not work after January 15th. The simple fact of the
matter is that the U.S. has manipulated the UN into a body which instead of
acting as an instrument of peaceful settlement in world conflicts, acts only in
the interests of its key manipulator: the United States.  Here is the hard
evidence of manipulation of the UN security counsel delegates who voted on the
resolution giving a blessing to any power that wished to obliterate Iraq as a
response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait; All this happened right before the vote:

   o	Baker arranged with the Saudi's $4 Billion worth of Crude oil as aid to
	the U.S.S.R. 

   o	The U.S. forgave $14 Billion in Eqyptian debt.

   o	Syria was given $1 Billion in arms (which Assad used to secure its
	Puppet control of Beirut, further placating Arab nations unsure who to
	support in this mess).

   o	Turkey was promised $8 or $9 Billion in Arms, U.S. support for its
	application to join the EEC, and an increase in its textile export
	quotas to the U.S.

   o	China got a $114.3 Million loan from the World bank and the first
	official recognition in Washington of a Dengist delegate since the
	Tianemen Square Masscre. (Note:	China's abstaining vote in the Iraq 
	resolution was said to be key and a major victory for Bush).

   o	Bush's tour of South America prior to the Vote had the single 
	objective of buying Three UN delegate's.

Again, I beleive the the President of the U.S. was simply "impatient", and 
unwilling to give sanctions a chance.  Even if sanctions never acheived the 
unreasonable goals of the UN security counsel, or didn't achieve anything at 
all, don't your think peace would have been worth waiting for?

Fog

>intention of making the goals unreasonable for Iraq to agree to. Why? I don't 
>know, but I suspect it has to do with Bush's mortal fear of the world thinking 
>that he is a "wimp". This war's intention from the start was to establish
>Bush's "New World Order", not to free Kuwait.

Fog, this "wimp" stuff is a real stretch.  I really don't think the American
public is that dumb;  Bush would not get support if people believed he was
doing this whole war thing soley for personal gain.

I think the sanctions would have worked eventually also.  There have been
stories in the news saying that the captured Iraqis are in prettry bad shape.
Perhaps the sanctions would have worked over time, a lot of time!  

But, that would give Madman Saddam more time to build his military might and
plan more carefully.  Even if the sanctions worked, and he pulled out, what
happens in the future, after Saddam has had the chance to develop even more
gross, deadly weapons ?  This guy needs to be taken out.  

 JC

re < Note 109.6 by SPICE::PECKAR "More or less in line" >

>withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait.  But if you ask me, the UN demands were handed 
>to the Security council on a silver platter by Bush himself, with the expressed
>intention of making the goals unreasonable for Iraq to agree to. Why? I don't 
>know, but I suspect it has to do with Bush's mortal fear of the world thinking 
>that he is a "wimp". This war's intention from the start was to establish

How about intervention in the Third World replacing the Cold War as a 
justification for huge military expenditures?  Installing a "peace keeping"
force in Iraq which would actually be used to achieve U.S. interests?  Obtaining
control of oil fields?  Diverting public attention from domestic issues (the
S&L fiasco, the recession, AIDS, homeless, etc. etc. etc.)?

- Dave

re:          <<< Note 109.8 by ISLNDS::CLARK "the doublespeak decade" >>>
                           -< other possibilities? >-

I think you hit it right on the head.

		Dave

RE:      <<< Note 109.7 by BIODTL::FERGUSON "Is it just a waste of time?" >>>
                             -< Take him out now. >-


>Fog, this "wimp" stuff is a real stretch.  I really don't think the American
>public is that dumb;  Bush would not get support if people believed he was
>doing this whole war thing soley for personal gain.

The American public that dumb??  They bought "read my lips..no new taxes",
they bought "the environmental President, the education President", flag 
burning and Mike Dukakis' is a card carrying member of the American Civil
Liberties Union as the major issues of the Presidential campaign...He also
spent a good portion of the primary campaign trying to convince them he 
was not a wimp..it would not surprise me one iota if the wimp thing was 
a big piece of this whole thing...


I don't know if the sanctions would or would not have worked.  I too, am
a fence sitter on this.  I agree that something has to be done about this
guy, but at what cost?  I have this horrible feeling that "this won't be
another Viet Nam" is just another "read my lips" piece of rhetoric, and this
is going to turn into a horrible bloodbath with a massive loss of life.  For
what?  



If someone would have walked into Bush's office and said "Hey Georgie, lets
spend $.5b/day on AIDS research or helping the homeless or cancer victims or
improving schools or any other major domestic issue" he would have given them
the finger and tossed them out on their a**es.  Now here we are on an adven-
ture that will likely wreak havoc on all of us for years to come that is costing
us lives and $ that we cannot afford to lose.


And just what is this New World Order and why do we need it?





Jim 

  One of problems I have is that I never see our foreign policy as interested
in granting other nations certain rights we as a nation consider sacred, 
(ie right of self determination).  Because I never see this happening when an
action arrives that I feel I may want to support I am still suspicious of my
governments actions.  I believe sanctions would have worked only if could have 
kept it from becoming an Arab vs American situation and I doubt we could've,
plus I still feel strongly for the people of Kuwait. 

  I think Bush was more than willing to have this event present itself, he 
may being taking the right actions for the right reasons, so far I am one
of the Americans supporting the war, however, I don't doubt that he has 
strong political reasons for being glad the whole thing has occurred, I agree
with Dave in Note .8.  I also believe the American public is dumb enough to
believe anything.

  My fear is that in a few years we will still being doing nothing as a nation
and as individuals to relieve ourselves of our dependency on oil, Japan's
economy, and others.  I'm afraid we won't be fighting a war on poverty, or
a war on self serving governments, that it will all just go around again.
It would be nice if war brought peace and prosperity and we didn't kick back
and enjoy it, that we took that time to actively seek proper change in our
society.

  I don't think we can stop war in the future, it would be nice if at least
we had a consistent, kinder, more rational foreign policy.  I truely believe
I exist as a pawn in a game controlled by and for the wealthy and there must
either be a tremendous alliance of the masses to demand change or an acceptance
that Sadams will always exist.  I also believe as wrong and dishonest as Bush
may or maynot be, that to attempt to blame most of this on him rather than 
Sadam is just an attempt to look inward for all solutions.

 john   

  

I know there was some earlier debate as to whether protesting the war will 
actually prolong it because it will convince Sadam to hold out.

On Sadam's interview with CNN yesterday he specifically thanked the people
protesting the war in the US, I was wondering how people protesting felt
about that and whether it altered their commitment any (I'm not implying in any
way that it should)?

jonathan

re  < Note 109.12 by RGB::GOLDBERG >

>On Sadam's interview with CNN yesterday he specifically thanked the people
>protesting the war in the US, 

In what context?

	"Thank you all fellow peace-loving people, we want this horrible
	 dehumanizing war to come to an end as well ...."

	"Thank you for vocalizing your opposition to the U.S. imperialist
	 pig-dogs, this will make it easier for us to grind you under our
	 boot heels ..."

??

- Dave

    re .13 ... 
    
    does it really matter???  he could say it any way he pleases and none
    of us would really know any more about how he really feels...  he plays
    the same political propoganda games that we do...  personally i don't
    care what words he uses...  his actions, thus far, do not show me that
    he is one who can be taken at his word no matter what that word is...
    he can start spouting the most humanitarian line in the world and
    continue for the rest of his days...  it doesn't change his track
    record or his current course (whatever that may be)...
    
    				da ve

>On Sadam's interview with CNN yesterday he specifically thanked the people
>protesting the war in the US, 

>>In what context?

Dave, It was along the lines of your number one choice...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now onto something unrelated to the 1st part of this msg....

I'm straddling the fence too.  Now you can call me NAIVE but I feel
there is something to be said for "sovereign nations", "unmitigated 
aggression" and yes even the economy that affects every other economy
on the face of this planet...although this war may only damage that.
Contrary to what alot of people might have us believe (I see major
respected economists talking of only negative things that this war
will do).

Now with those thoughts aside - at this point in the war I have
a burning question for you all....

What is an Israeli peace activist to do?  Protest for peace in
the current situation?  I guess the REAL question is "is any war
worth fighting?".  

I tried to get away from BUSH vs. HUSSEIN or ALLIED vs AXIS or
us and them.  I don't have an answer either....

peace-nik or pacifist?
i dunno
bob

re: what context?

I don't think the context really matters, its obvious that he has noticed it,
it plays a part in his thinking, and he wants it to continue. I don't think
any peace protester is naive enough to think that Sadam really shares their
antipathy to war after attacking Iran unprovoked, gassing Kurds, and invading
Kuwait on truly marginal historic and economic grounds. My question is that 
if he wants it to continue/increase then could the reaction to the protests
that "it will prolong" be valid, and if so would it be reason to stop
protesting. I can see the argument either way, but I have not actively protested
other than in conversation so I was wondering what people who did were thinking.


>What is an Israeli peace activist to do?  Protest for peace in
>the current situation?  I guess the REAL question is "is any war
>worth fighting?"

actually, I just heard Amos Oz (sp?) an israeli peace activist talking on
this very subject on NPR. He said yes to "is any war worth fighting". He
said he would fight if his loved ones were endangered or if his freedom was 
threatened. He roughly said that he was not protesting against the gulf war 
because both those requirements were met from his perspective. He is, I believe,
part of the peace now movement that is pushing for the immediate dialog with
the palestinians and independence of the west bank. 

    If I really believed that this war was only to get Saddam out of
    Kuwait, I might support it, but only after sanctions had been given
    a lot more time, only with more than token support from other
    countries, and only if there had not been such an obvious effort
    to humiliate Saddam Hussein.
    
    What we have is a war between the United States and Iraq, which will
    soon turn into a jihad between the United States and
    Iraq+Syria+Iran+Jordan+Libya+++
    
    Note that Iran has already said they will enter the war on Iraq's side
    as soon as Israel gives them the slightest hint of an excuse.  Jordan
    is effectively on Iraq's side already, and Syria doesn't need much
    prodding to switch sides either.
    
    I am extremely suspicious of ANYONE who promises a	"new world order".

    re "other possibilities"
    
    	You left out:
    
    	destroying the only military machine capable of giving us a decent
    battle before it turned into one that could wipe us out without
    breaking a sweat
    
    	I also agree with everything else you (who were you?...where have
    all my brain cells gone?) said
    
    							/
    

Thanks all for entering your opinions; here we have some intelligent discourse
from heads strongly against, strongly for, and strongly ambivalent towards
these very emotional current events; no flames, no hurt feelings. I applaud 
all your deadheadedness.

Someone back there (John?) asked about what this New World Order is all about.
He's my take: U.S. World hegemony. To hell with the U.N., to hell with Russia
and China; if someone gets in our way, we're gonna go in there and "kick their
Asses".

I was chatting the other day with Chris-O a good friend of da ve's; he was
telling me that a few months ago, he was looking forward to the 1990s to be the
decade to end all warring. Look where we were, he said. Germany re-uniting,
Communism seeing its inevitable crumbling; so much good vibes. Then this Iraq
thing comes along and blows a whole a hunnert feet wide through it; erasing the
potential for mandkind to finally assert itself as a species which can redeem
itself in the face of its own extinction.  I blame Bush. He had an opportunity
to carry those vibes and set the stage for a long hard climb to a de-armed
planet with initiatives of peace rather than his choice of an initiative of
war.  He's really made a mess of this time in Human History. Oh well, enough
rambling, time to go sit in front of the tube and listen to Mr. Pres.'s State
of the Disunion...

Fog_who_is_really_really_against_this_war,_even_if_Saddam_turns_out_to_be_a_
worse_dude_than_Hitler.

Err ... someone just told me that ground fighting between US & Iraqi troops
has started, and there have been about 20 casualties so far?  Can anyone
confirm?  Last night was the first time in a while that I didn't watch/listen
to the news.

- Dave

Perhaps someone can summarize what Bush said last night.  I was unable to be
near a brain washer, er, ah, TV during that time...

Sorry for the bash on TVs; I just don't really like 'em .... but I am honestly
interested in knowing what Bush said.

RE .20


Supposedly there was a "skirmish" when Iraq entered Saudi Arabia and
we started shooting and flying bombers and stuff in.  The coalition side
said "heavy" casualties on their side (including a bunch of tanks, armoured
personnel carriers [and presumably lives] destroyed).  Light casualties on
the allied side.  The Iraqi side said almost exactly the opposite.



RE Bush's speech.

Basically he said everything is great, we're going to win, the recession 
will be over soon, 1000 points of light, etc




Jim

>interested in knowing what Bush said.

On the Domestic front:

	Thousand Points of Light is werkin fine. Lets re-assert it: The
	government shouldn't help the poor, needy, crippled, or racially 
	abused cuz there are enough people around who aren't hurting to
	volunteer their time to help.

On the Foriegn front:

	New Werld Order is werkin fine. Lets re-assert it: The government
	should help poor, needy, crippled, or racially abused countries
	because their aren't enough countries around who aren't hurting
	to volunteer their armies to help.

I think that sums it up pretty well Fog..




Jim

This came to me via "the-ususal-suspects" mailing list.  I think it fits here.

    To Dan Beard, who dropped in to see him,
    Clemens read the "War Prayer," stating that
    he had read it to his daughter Jean,
    and others, who had told him he must not
    print it, for it would be regarded as sacrilege.
    
    "Still, you are going to publish it, are you not?"
    
    Clemens, Pacing up and down the room
    in his dressing-gown and slippers,
    shook his head.
    
    "No," he said, "I have told the whole truth
    in that, and only dead men can tell the truth
    in this world.
    
    "It can be published after I am dead."

--- From "Mark Twain, A Biography"
	by Albert Bigelow Paine,
	Harper & Brothers, 1912


			     The War Prayer

			       Mark Twain


(c) 1923, 1951 by the Mark Twain Company
Reprinted without permission



It was a time of great and
and exalting excitement.

The country was up in arms,
the war was on,
in every breast
burned the holy fire of patriotism,
the drums were beating,
the bands playing,
the toy pistols popping,
the bunched firecrackers
hissing and spluttering;
on every hand and far down
the receding and fading spread
of roofs and balconies
a fluttering wilderness of flags
flashed in the sun;
daily the young volunteers marched
down the wide avenue
gay and fine in their new uniforms,
the proud fathers and mothers
and sisters and sweethearts
cheering them with voices
choked with happy emotion
as they swung by;
nightly the packed mass meetings
listened, panting, to patriot oratory
which stirred the deepest deeps
of their hearts
and which they interrupted
at briefest intervals
with cyclones of applause,
the tears running down the cheeks
the while;
in the churches the pastors preached
devotion to flag and country
and invoked the God of Battles,
beseeching His aid in our good cause
in outpouring of fervid eloquence 
which moved every listener.
It was indeed a glad and gracious time,
and the half-dozen rash spirits
that ventured to disapprove of the war
and cast a doubt upon its righteousness
straightaway got such a stern
and angry warning
that for their personal safety's sake
they quickly shrank out of sight
and offended no more in that way.

Sunday morning came---
next day the battalions would leave
for the front;
the church was filled;
the volunteers were there,
their young faces
alight with martial dreams---
visions of the stern advance,
the gathering momentum,
the rushing charge, the flashing sabers,
thje flight of the foe, the tumult,
the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit,
the surrender!---
then home from the war,
bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored,
submerged in golden seas of glory!
With the volunteers sat their dear ones,
proud, happy, and envied
by the neighbors and friends
who had no sons and brothers
to send forth to the field of honor,
there to win for the flag or failing,
die the noblest of noble deaths.
The service proceeded; a war chapter
from the Old Testament was read;
the first prayer was said;
it was followed by an organ burst
that shook the building,
and with one impulse the house rose,
with glowing eyes and beating hearts,
and poured out
that tremendous invocation---

  God, the all-terrible!
  Thou who ordainest,
  Thunder thy clarion
  and lightning thy sword!

Then came the "long" prayer.
None could remember the like of it
for passionate pleading
and moving and beautiful language.
The burden of its supplicaton was
that an ever-merciful and benignant
Father of us all would watch over
our noble young soldiers
and aid, comfort, and encourage them
in their patriotic work;
bless them, shield them in the day
of battle and the hour of peril,
bear them in His mightly hand,
make them strong and confident,
invincible in the bloody onset;
help them to crush the foe,
grant to them
and to their flag and country
imperishable honor and glory---

An aged stranger entered and moved 
with slow and noiseless step
up the main aisle,
his eyes fixed upon the minister,
his long body clothed in a robe
that reached to his feet, his head bare,
his white hair descending
in a frothy cataract to his shoulders,
his seamy face unnaturally pale,
pale even to ghastliness.
With all eyes following him
and wondering,
he made his silent way;
without pausing, he ascended
to the preacher's side
and stood there, waiting.
With shut lids the preacher,
unconscious of his presence,
continued his moving prayer,
and at last finished it with the words,
uttered in fervent appeal,
"Bless our arms,
grant us the victory,
O Lord our God,
Father and Protector
of our land and flag!"

The stranger touched his arm,
motioned him to step aside---
which the startled minister did---
and took his place.
During some moments
he surveyed the spellbound audience
with solemn eyes in which burned
an uncanny light;
then in a deep voice he said:


"I come from the Throne---
bearing a message from Almighty god!"
The words smote the house with a shock;
if the stranger perceived it
he gave no attention.
"He has heard the Prayer
of His servant your shepherd
and will grant it
if such shall be your desire
after I, His messenger,
shall have explained to you its import---
that is to say, its full import.
For it is like unto
many of the prayers of men,
in that it asks for more
than he who utters it is aware of---
except he pause and think.


"God's servant and yours
has prayed his prayer.
Has he paused and taken thought?
Is it one prayer?
No, it is two---
one uttered, the other not.
Both have reached the ear
of Him Who heareth all supplications,
the spoken and the unspoken.
Ponder this---keep it in mind.
If you would beseech
a blessing upon yourself, beware!
lest without intent
you invoke a curse upon a neighbor
at the same time.
If you pray for the blessing of rain
upon your crop which needs it,
by that act you are possibly praying
for a curse upon some neighbor's crop
which may not need rain
and can be injured by it.


"You have heard your servant's prayer---
the uttered part of it.
I am commissioned of God
to put into words the other part of it---
that part which the pastor,
and also you in your hearts,
fervently prayed silently.
And ignorantly and unthinkingly?
God grant that it was so!
You heard these words:
`Grant us the victory,
O Lord our God!'
That is sufficient.
The *whole* of the uttered prayer
is compact into those pregnant words.
Elaborations were not necessary.
When you have prayed for victory
you have prayed for many unmentioned results
which follow victory---*must* follow it,
cannot help but follow it.
Upon the listening spirit
of God the Father fell also
the unspoken part of the prayer.
He commandeth me
to put it into words.


Listen




	"O Lord our Father,


	      Our young patriots,
	     idols of our hearts,
	    go forth to battle---
	       be Thou near them!


	    With them, in spirit,
	         we also go forth
	     from the sweet peace
	 of our beloved firesides
	        to smite the foe.


	O Lord our God,


			  help us
	   to tear their soldiers
		 to bloody shreds
		 with our shells;


			  help us
    to cover their smiling fields
	      with the pale forms
	   of their patriot dead;


			  help us
	     to drown the thunder
		      of the guns
		 with the shrieks
	        of their wounded,
	        writhing in pain;


			  help us
		     to lay waste
	       their humble homes
        with a hurricane of fire;


			  help us
	      to wring the hearts
      of their unoffending widows
	   with unavailing grief;


			  help us
        to turn them out roofless
       with their little children
	     to wander unfriended
		       the wastes
	  of their desolated land


	       in rags and hunger
		      and thirst,
	 sports of the sun flames
		        of summer
	        and the icy winds
		       of winter,


	        broken in spirit,


	       worn with travail,


		    for our sakes
	    who adore Thee, Lord,


	       blast their hopes,


	      blight their lives,


protract their bitter pilgrimage,


	  make heavy their steps,


water their way with their tears,


	     stain the white snow
		   with the blood 
	   of their wounded feet!


		       We ask it,
	   in the spirit of love,
of Him Who is the Source of Love,


     and Who is the ever-faithful
		refuge and friend
       of all that are sore beset


					AMEN.


After a pause:

"Ye have prayed it;
if ye still desire it,
speak!
The messenger of the
Most High waits."

It was believed afterward
that the man was a lunatic,
because there was no sense in what he said.


[ The white house: 1-202-456-1111 ]        

RE: .last

wow.

Thanks for throwing in the white house comment line at the end. How appropriate.

Fog

re:           <<< Note 109.6 by SPICE::PECKAR "More or less in line" >>>
>          -< Sanctions should at least been given more time to work >-

    
>O.k., Humpty, I'll give it a shot...  :-)

    Thank you sir, may I have another?  :^)
    
>Sanctions would have worked.  Never before had there been such comprehensive 
>and multi-lateral cooperation in sanctions on such a scale as that which took 
>place before 1/15. They just weren't given enough time.  Sanctions worked in 
>South Africa with only a few countries taking part. The issue here, however, is 
    
    I don't believe that sanctions would have worked, ever.  How long a
    time period would have been acceptable to you?  Would you have
    supported war after that time period expired with no Iraqi withdrawal?
    Although cooperation among nations was strong, I feel it would have
    required 100% cooperation for sanctions to have worked.  As long as
    Hussein had oil to sell, he would have been able to find a buyer or
    barterer.  Meanwhile, while we would be waiting for sanctions to work,
    the Iraqis would have become more entrenched in Kuwait, and more
    Kuwaitis would have died.  
    
>what the goal of the sanctions were. Why was the U.N demanding unconditional 
>surrender, complete restoration of the status quo, and appropriate reparations 
>be made for Iraq's actions?  Sanctions would have made more sense if the UN's 
>demands were more reasonable, with the major objective to being simple 
>withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait.  But if you ask me, the UN demands were handed 
    
    I haven't read the UN resolution, but my impression is that it called
    for withdrawal, reparations, and re-establishment of the Kuwaiti
    monarchy, not surrender.  Can you back that up?  Even in war, the UN's
    position is that the Iraqi nation, and Hussein himself remain intact
    after they withdrawal.  There can be no peace with surrounding
    countries scrambling for a share of post-war Iraq, Iraq must remain as
    a nation.
    
>to the Security council on a silver platter by Bush himself, with the expressed
>intention of making the goals unreasonable for Iraq to agree to. Why? I don't 
>know, but I suspect it has to do with Bush's mortal fear of the world thinking 
>that he is a "wimp". This war's intention from the start was to establish
>Bush's "New World Order", not to free Kuwait.

    Bush's "mortal fear" is your own invention.  How do you know how he
    perceives himself?  There is no wimp factor, particularly after his
    speech therapists lowered his voice by an octave.  :^)
    
    George Bush was a WWII Navy combat pilot, and as such he fully
    understands the price of war in human suffering.  He also feels deeply
    for the Kuwaiti people, for he befriended many of them when his
    company, Zapata Petroleum, established Kuwait's first off-shore
    drilling platform.  The edition of USN&WR of two weeks ago ran several
    stories about how Bush's personal make-up would affect his decision on
    war.
    
    I can't believe that I'm defending a man I didn't vote for, dislike
    personally, and disagree with on many policies, but here I am.  The
    nation's cynicism towards politicians is very evident when so many
    ludicrous conspiracy theories are ascribed to a man who might best be
    described as "simple."  (Fog, I don't mean apply "ludicrous" to any of
    your statements, sorry if it comes off that way).
    
>The UN's Security counsel mandates are key in this debate.  They are 
>the ones who gave Bush the "permission" to go to war and they are the ones who 
>voted that Sanctions would not work after January 15th. The simple fact of the
>matter is that the U.S. has manipulated the UN into a body which instead of
    
    This is true, for the US hosts and pays the lion's share of the UN
    budget.
    
    That's all I have time for now.  I agree with you about one thing: it's
    refreshing to find a place to debate this without stooping to SOAPBOX
    tactics.  Heck, no one even called you a socialist for dumping on the
    free market!
    
    Jamie

re < Note 109.27 by FRAGLE::IDE "now it can be told" >

>    George Bush was a WWII Navy combat pilot, and as such he fully
>    understands the price of war in human suffering.  

I don't see how one can assume that because a person was a combat pilot, he
fully understands the human suffering caused by a war.  And does understanding
it mean he's sympathetic?

- Dave

    re .-1
    
    The USN&WR article I mentioned in .27 quoted him as saying such. 
    Having lived it first hand, I think he knows what war means to the
    people who fight it.  I don't know if he's sympathetic, but I don't see
    how any human can't be.
    
    Jamie

Yes, he did say some good things, I would agree with that.  


Just what does he mean with "infrastructure"?






Jim

    he also mentioned something about tax free savings family savings
    accounts.  He read a letter from a woman in Mass. about the economic 
    problems.  
    
    More or less a big pep talk.  He could have ignored the whole domestic
    policy issues and just talkled about the war.  So, at least he
    acknowledged the domestic problems - its a start.   
    
    RE: Jim 
    I think he meant the U.S. highway system when talking about
    infrastructure.  It sure would make going to dead shows easier. :-)
    
    scottg

  Oh f**k him!!!!  We don't need to address the poverty issues at home
because we'll just have a call for volunteers.  Although it's about high 
damn time we had a call for volunteers, that certainly isn't going to 
cure any major problems, and education, who cares, huh!!  
  I may agree with some of the things he is doing in the war, but I sure
am dissappointed in our kinder gentler President.

  john

    re .25
    
    any objections to me extracting that and giving it fairly wide
    distribution????
    
    				da ve
    

What Bush said in his State of the Union speech, and what he will *do*, are
not necessarily the same thing.  Politicians are well known for telling the
people what they want to hear, then not delivering.

- Dave

  The french minister at war that has been vocal about his opposition
to the war has resigned and been replaced by a more "hawkish" minister.

 john

RE:  South Africa

I think that's a very debatable statement saying that sanctions don't
work because whites are still in power in South Africa.

1)  The level of sanctions are hardly comparable.  The sanctions
imposed on South Africa are weak.  Companies can still do business
there, there is no blockade.  South Africa is not shunned or isolated
widely in the international community.

2)  Seeing as we are seeing change in South Africa after the
international community is continuing to put pressure on the South
African goverment, one could in fact argue that the sanctions (as
weak as they are) are having an effect.

Peaceful protest like sanctions, shunning, non-violent opposition is a
long, hard road.  It is more difficult and takes more patient and
courage that violence.

john

>    Thank you sir, may I have another?  :^)


Sure, What De Hay...  :-)

>    I don't believe that sanctions would have worked, ever.  How long a
>    time period would have been acceptable to you?  Would you have
>    supported war after that time period expired with no Iraqi withdrawal?

	Fine, neither did Bush.  I, however, wish we could have been more
patient.  Even if sanctions proved to accomplish nothing, and gave Saddam the
opportinity to strengthen his grip on Kuwait, I strongly believe a peaceful
solution should have been sought for a longer period than the six weeks the
U.N. resoluted. Peace is _always_ worth waiting for. As for time periods to
allow sanctions to take effect, I say indefinitely. The world was united in its
reaction to Saddam's overthrow of Kuwait, and if, over time, he refused to
budge, then, over time, the effect of sanctions would be felt more and more
acutely. I'd be perfectly satisfied if it took twenty years if that could have
saved the death of one more civilian and prevented the release of one barrel of
oil into the gulf.  I wonder what the Kuwaiti citizens take would be on this,
given the choice of despotic rule or the complete ruination of their
infrastructure and a polarization of arab against arab...

As for sanctions and their effect on South Africa, yes, the whites still rule,
but Aparthied has been abolished and Mandela is free...

	My position is that Saddam is playing a political and psychological game
with the world.  Latest reports I've been hearing is that he considers a
victory the fact that after two weeks of being at war with the United States,
he is still in a considerably good position to wage war.  In politics and
psychological games, war is the worst and least appropriate trump card.
Sanctions, on the other hand, are playing the political/psychological game with
the same deck of cards (i.e., there can be a winner and looser, rather than
both sides loosing).

	And yes, some of my statements are "out there", ludicrous, even. But,
so are a lot of statements I hear coming from the White House. I'll try not to
distort facts and keep to opinion, but its hard when so many of the facts we
are fed from our own goverment and media are so hard to swallow...

Need_a_deadshowP

    We all need a Dead show at this point, I think.

51 days 'til Albany  8^)

 RE  Needadeadshow...


After having a rather rotten day yesterday and rushing around last night
to get home and constantly thinking about the war...as I was walking into
my apt last night, that's exactly what I said to myself...I need a Dead show.
Or even a Jimmy Buffett show which comes awful close...


Maybe the whole world needs a Dead show.





Jim

    
    The whole world does need a Dead show... 
    
    	That eternal Dead show.. you know the one?  The one where when it
        gets to be a certain 'way'..  it's always the same place.. it's
        always magnificient.. just right.. perfect.. and you come out
        feeling alive again.. nothings seems quite as bad as it did before
        and life once again takes on new meaning.
    
    Man.. when I die, I hope it's like walking into that eternal Dead show
    where the boys just keep on churning out that saving grace..
    
    Mary

>    Man.. when I die, I hope it's like walking into that eternal Dead show
>    where the boys just keep on churning out that saving grace..

  I love the phase "death is like taking off a tight shoe"

  Dead shoz are like having no shoes on.

   john

RE: <<< Note 109.43 by DICKNS::STANLEY "What a long strange trip it's been..." >>>

    
   > The whole world does need a Dead show... 
    
    >	That eternal Dead show.. you know the one?  The one where when it
    >    gets to be a certain 'way'..  it's always the same place.. it's
          
         Yep...right now I'd take either 9-19 or 9-20-90 at MSG...     




   
Jim

RE: <<< Note 109.42 by XCUSME::MACINTYRE >>>

Marv,

There is indeed a lot of merit in that argument.  However I feel it
has the following weak points.

1)If the US policy is to help out people that are being abused and
violated, then either there are other reasons that that we are
involved in Kuwait or that is not the real reason we are there.

Because, people are being violated and oppressed all the whole,
sometimes by our friends and sometimes by our enemies.  Tibet has been
undergoing a slow genocide since the 1950's.  The US stands idly by.
Our friends in Central America for years have routinely deprived their
citizens oru rights.  If these dictators support US business
interests, it really does not seem to matter to the US goverment.

I have hard time swallowing Bushes rhetoric about Iraq aggression.  I
mean this whole country was formed on the genocode and subjegation of
the Native American countries that were here already and its still
going on.  Again, business interests seem to have priority of the
alleged ethical interests of the US goverment.

2)  It's not clear to me that the effects of the war won't be worse
that what would have happened with continued sanctions.

3)  There may be other negative consequences of the war for the Unites
States.  For example, it is not clear that this war will help the long
term stability of the region which has many very serious problems.

I don't support the aggression of Iraq nor of America.

john

>	Fine, neither did Bush.  I, however, wish we could have been more
>patient.  Even if sanctions proved to accomplish nothing, and gave Saddam the
>opportinity to strengthen his grip on Kuwait, I strongly believe a peaceful
>solution should have been sought for a longer period than the six weeks the
>U.N. resoluted. Peace is _always_ worth waiting for. As for time periods to
    
    Six MONTHS, wasn't it?  Aug. 2 - Jan. 15.  But peace at ANY cost?  At
    the price of the subjugation of a nation?  Waiting would only have
    delayed the inevitable (barring Hussein's overthrow, which I'm learning
    was (is) a real possibility - he is justifiably afraid of his own air
    force), allowed Hussein to re-arm from the war with Iran, possibly
    develop nuclear weapons capabilities (the Israelis dealt his nuke
    research program a big blow in '82), and possibly exploit other
    countries (I'm thinking of the U.A.E. here, not Saudi Arabia).
    
>allow sanctions to take effect, I say indefinitely. The world was united in its
    
    The nations of the world (with the exception of Jordan, maybe others)
    were united, but Hussein had money and oil to exchange for arms. 
    During the embargo, over 700 instances of violations were detected
    (which probably means twice as many were not), most from Germany, but
    there were some from the US itself.
    
>reaction to Saddam's overthrow of Kuwait, and if, over time, he refused to
>budge, then, over time, the effect of sanctions would be felt more and more
>acutely. I'd be perfectly satisfied if it took twenty years if that could have
    
    Sanctions had a minimal effect over six months, how do you think they
    would have fared over years during which the grip would have slackened?
    I disagree completely, I think that sanctions would have been less
    effective over time.
    
>saved the death of one more civilian and prevented the release of one barrel of
>oil into the gulf.  I wonder what the Kuwaiti citizens take would be on this,
    
    You must be referring to Iraqi, Israeli, and coalition civilians,
    because many Kuwaiti civilians died while we waited.
    
>given the choice of despotic rule or the complete ruination of their
>infrastructure and a polarization of arab against arab...
    
    Good question.  If we can believe the government in exile speaks for
    the nation, they've chosen the latter.
    
    
    Jamie

Z    Good question.  If we can believe the government in exile speaks for
Z    the nation, they've chosen the latter.
    
Since when has an absolutely monarchy-in-exile spoken for the people of his
nation in a beleivable way?  :-/

Please keep in mind that the stories you here about what the enemy is doing are
coming from a participant in this war.  The American press is very capable of
distorting the truth and making the eneny out to worse than he is and making the
American leadership of this war out to be better than it is.  Are their any
international heads out there who can shed some more light here?

Marv, you mentioned the "Stolen Incubator" story. This has already been shown
to be a completely fabricated and un-evidenced story. Do the rest of you
really beleive that the Iraqi's are plundering Kuwait like the Visigoths
plundered their victims?  None of these stories of rape and murder have I seen
evidence for and numbers for, and none of us probably will for a very long time.

Meanwhile, we're all supporting a war based on stories that our enemy rape its
conquered (seen no evidence of this), Tortures is POW's (pilots very rarely
look like their ready for the Sunday prom just after they've climbed from a
burning aircraft), proclaims it has nuclear warheads pointed at Jerusalem
(Jeruselam is just as sacred to Saddam as it is to Golda Meir, and the latest
issue of Scientific American sez "no way" Saddam has nuclear capability), and
on and on and on.

Please don't swallow these stories so easily. Have a suspicious attitude to any
news story you hear.  Try to discriminate when the reporter is reporting and
when the reporter is commentating; its sa good exercize to keep you on your
toes...

Fog_who_sees_that_he_stands_on_pretty_tenuous_ground_when_it_comes_to_
challanging_individual's_in_support_for_this_war's_support_for_this_war_(huh?)

    
    Like Fog said, take what the media tells us with a grain of salt.  Not
    for a second do I believe that we are being given an accurate story. 
    Watching TV last night, it was so obvious to me that the media is a
    huge tool for our government.
    
    I've seen a couple cases where the news has chosen to ignore certain
    facts about this war that were reported minutes after the fact.  Its as
    though they reported some sort of news as soon as it happened, and then
    were told "shut up about that now."
    
    I still don't know how i feel about this..... Bush wanted this war, it
    was obvious to me in November that he would push aside every possible
    peace initiative that would stop a war.  Why?!?  I can't really agree
    with the notion that he doesn't want to be perceived as a 'wimp.'  I
    think he perceived Hussein as a threat that wouldn't go away unless he
    was beaten down.  This is where I have a tough time, because I think he
    is a very dangerous threat, and to pull out of Saudi Arabia with Iraq's
    army intact would have made his massive buildup in Saudi Arabia
    useless; that after committing all those troops to Saudi Arabia, to bring
    them all home without kicking Saddam's butt would make him look like a
    fool (maybe the wimp factor is somewhat valid here, but it has little to
    do with his history of being a wimp).  And last but not least, this is a
    way to take people's attention off of the other domestic issues at hand,
    which are pretty damned bad already......
    
    I felt insulted by what little I heard of Bush's speech last night,
    twas a lot of BS as far as I'm concerned.  I felt insulted by his
    speech to announce the beginning of the air war.  I don't trust him or
    any politician (especially any Republican or Democrat).  They all
    represent what really equates to an illusion.
    
    Saddam is a dangerous person......but I can't help but feel that the US
    is also just being opportunistic in its actions.  Like others have
    said, the US really made it impossible for war to be averted.
    
    Dave 

    
    RE .48
    
    However, I do believe that Iraq has beaten captured US pilots.  The men
    I have seen looked completely demoralized, like they have been
    tortured.  The fact that Iraq made them say such anti-american
    statements.  The Iraqis have a lot to gain from intense interrogation
    of prisoners, and I believe that they have tortured them.  I would
    guess that their information on the US military is not nearly as
    complete as our information on theirs.  On the news they were talking
    about how well the US treats the Iraqi prisoners.  I believe that this
    is true, too.....but only because the US military doesn't really need
    these prisoners for information (I think our satellite photos and
    reconnaisance planes and CIA tell us enough).  IF they are treating
    POW's well, its because its in their best interest (and we will only
    hear that they are being treated well).  If there was any need to beat
    some information from an Iraqi prisoner, I believe it would be done.
    
    Dave

I heard today on CNN that our planes have begun to drop leaflets into Iraq that
have cartoons on them.  These cartoons show Iraqi troops thinking of their
families, show Iraqi POW's eating full meals, and give instructions for proper
surrender.

Psychological warfare at its best....

adam

Democracy don't rule the world,
You better get that through your head.
This world is ruled by violence
But I guess that's better left unsaid.

                       _ Bob Dylan

Weren't the rapes/babies disconnected from incubators/other horror stories
corroborated by Amnesty International?



Jim who thought he heard that somewhere




Jim

The ball is in Saddam's court right now;  it always has been.  Bush agreed
to a cease-fire as soon as Saddam shows signs of pulling out of Kuwait...

Saddam is ruthless...

Did Bush agree to that cease-fire or did Baker agree to it without
Bush's knowledge?




Heard on the radio that Saddam will try pilots he's captured as war criminals
and he is now targeting Bush.




Jim

I don't know if anyone else saw this or if it follows in this discussion but
take it for what it's worth.

		Dave

                  <<< SMURF::USERA:[NOTES]DISCUSSION.NOTE;1 >>>
                                -< Discussion >-
================================================================================
Note 78.0                      About the Iraq War                      3 replies
JARETH::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."        127 lines  30-JAN-1991 08:02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 446 of alt.desert-storm.facts:
Path: shlump.nac.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!petunia!news
From: dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm.facts
Subject: The Bush Record on Human Rights in Iraq
Message-ID: <27a617bc.3d1b@petunia.CalPoly.EDU>
Date: 30 Jan 91 00:47:56 GMT
Reply-To: dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross)
Followup-To: alt.desert-storm
Organization: Desert Storm:  Keeping the World Safe for Monarchy
Lines: 113



The Bush Record on Human Rights in Iraq		-- by Dave Gross
---------------------------------------
	Last year, only months before Iraq invaded Kuwait, Congress was
debating sanctions against Iraq.  Congressmen Howard Berman, Dan Glickman,
Daniel Inouye and Alfonse D'Amato, and others angered by Iraq's dismal human
rights record and belligerant actions, pushed bills or amendments which would
restrict trade with Iraq.

	But while Congress worked to pass sanctions against Iraq, the Bush
Administration opposed sanctions and tried to cozy up to Iraqi leader Saddam
Hussein.

	The Bush Administration had long opposed the comparatively hard-line
that Congress took when dealing with Iraq.  In late 1989, Congress voted to
bar U.S. Export-Import Bank credits to Iraq.  By January of 1990, President
Bush had waived this ban.

	As a way of showing it's gratitude, Saddam Hussein in March executed
a western journalist, and was caught that month trying to buy nuclear weapons
triggers in the U.S. and components of a massive gun in Great Britain.

	By April, Congress was ready again to slap Baghdad with sanctions,
and again the Bush Administration was opposed.  One senior administration
official was quoted as saying of Hussein that "it is certainly better to
deal with him than not.  He is more moderate than he was in the past and there
is a good chance he will be more moderate in the future."

	To reassure Saddam Hussein that he had the Bush Administration's
support, despite Congressional misgivings, Bush sent influential Republican
Senators Arlen Specter and Robert Dole to deliver a conciliatory message to
the Iraqi leader in the Iraqi city of Mosul.

	At the time, the deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs
Edward W. Gnehm made it clear that the administration opposed sanctions.  By
later that month, Assistant Secretary of State John H. Kelly was dispatched
to the House of Representatives to speak against the sanctions package being
proposed there.  Kelly proposed "a trial period to see whether there's a
potential for improvements in their behavior and in our relationship."  To
encourage improvements in behavior, perhaps, President Bush sent Hussein what
was called a "message of friendship" at the end of the Islamic holy month of
Ramadan.

	About this time, Saddam Hussein was busy bragging about his chemical
weapons arsenal and threatening to "burn up half of Israel" with it.

	But by June 15th, Kelly must have still been hopeful, because he was
back at it again, this time testifying before a Senate committee that sanctions
against Iraq would interfere with the United States' "restraining influence on
Iraqi actions."

	Senator Alfonse D'Amato would have nothing of this.  Saddam, he said,
is "a butcher, a killer, a bully -- some day we're going to have to stand up
to him.  Why not now?"  By this time, Iraq was already massing troops on the
Kuwaiti border and making military threats against it's neighbor.  And right
about this same time, our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie had her now-famous
meeting with Hussein in which she said:

	"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border
	 disagreement with Kuwait.  I was in the American embassy in
	 Kuwait during the late 60s.  The instruction we had during this
	 period was that we should express no opinion on this issue, and
	 that the issue is not associated with America.  James Baker has
	 directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction."

	Place this in the context of the Bush Administration's championing of
Iraq and it's easy forgiveness of Hussein's previous military adventures and
human rights atrocities against Iran and the native Kurds, and you can see why
Hussein probably thought he could get away with an invasion, and that the Bush
Administration would, if not support Hussein, at least look the other way.

	Now, after the invasion, Bush, the opponent of sanctions, now insists
that sanctions are not enough and that war is necessary to drive back the
"Butcher of Baghdad."  He reads from Amnesty International reports as if
he were a champion of human rights -- casually ignoring the fact that pre-
invasion reports by Amnesty International were equally graphic and horrible.

{ Update -- Today (1/29/91) some campus newspapers printed a response by AI
	executive director John G. Healey to a letter to student papers by
	Bush printed by many campus papers shortly after our attack (1/15/91).

	Bush, in his letter, used an Amnesty International report on Iraq
	to justify his military actions.  Healey called this an "opportunistic
	manipulation of the international human rights movement" and asked why
	Bush ignored previous AI reports about Iraq.

	"There was no presidential indignation, for example in 1989, when
	Amnesty released its findings about the torture of Iraqi children.
	And just a few weeks before the invasion of Kuwait, the Bush
	administration refused to conclude that Iraq had engaged in a
	consistent pattern of gross human rights violations," Healey wrote.

	Healey also mentioned the human rights abuses in Turkey, Egypt,
	Israel, Morocco, and elsewhere, and asked why Bush is silent on
	these issues." }

	Some people compare Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler and accuse those
members of Congress who were reluctant to go to war of "appeasement."  When
all is said and done, however, and history looks back on this preventable war,
it will be President George Bush who will take the blame for appeasing this
dictator with U.S. funds and with nods and winks.

	If the world had stood up to Hitler soon enough, there might not have
been a World War II.  Similarly, it was Bush's refusal to accept the ounce of
prevention that the Congressional sanctions packages might have been that led
this country into the Gulf War.

-- 
************************ dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU ***************************
"Protection ... against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough:  there
 needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and
 feeling..."                       -- John Stuart Mill

RE:                    <<< Note 109.57 by XCUSME::MACINTYRE >>>
                             -< editorial comment >-

       
   > We are now at war and to me the only thing to do is to WIN it ASAP and
   > get the f**k out of there and everywhere else.
    
   > Come home, America ... and STAY HOME
    
    
    

    As a fence sitter on this thing, this probably sums up my feelings more
than anything right now.  And I think this is where I'd like to see our
collective efforts focused.  Our protests, letters, civil disobedience etc
is not going to stop this thing.  I'd like to see us unite as a country behind
this (Marv's statement), get this thing overwith, and then work our a**es off
to make sure it NEVER happens again...



Jim     

  > and he is now targeting Bush.
    
    OH NO!!!
    I wish they'd make Dannyboy fly in the same helicopter as Bush!!
    

	This is kinda old, but I thought there were many interesting
    	things mentioned in this.  It's pretty lengthy.  One thing to
        read in this whole article is about Kuwait, victim or not.
    
    	I'm putting this here because I didn't know where else to put it.
    	Moderators, please move this if you think it should go else where.
    
    				--Cathleen

Article 9342 of alt.activism:
From: DEP@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: US TOLERATES IRAQI TAKEOVER OF KUWAIT
Date: 30 Jan 91 23:20:51 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Yep. There have been many published reports about this. The best I have
seen lately is "How America Lost Kuwait: Diplomatic Blunders cost the U.S
a chance to stop the Gulf war before it started", by Murray Waas in the
Metro, Santa Clara Valley's Weekly Newspaper (vol. 6, no. 47) January 24-30,
1991.

    "On July 24, State Department spokesperson Margaret Tutweiler,
     asked during a press briefing about hwether the U.S. had any
     commitment to militarily defend Kuwait, responded: 'We do have
     any defense treaties with Kuwait, and there are no special defense
     or security commitments to Kuwait.' The very next day, July 25,
     Sadam was personally told the same by no less than the U.S.
     ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie."

Sad but true. It's very conceivable that if the U.S. had made a powerful
enough warning to Sadam over Kuwait, he might have thought twice about
invading. As it was, not only did we not warn him, we practically gave
him a green light.

How do you account for that? I say it had to be either: (1) Total ineptness,
or (2) Cunning.

Either one is reprehensible, especially given the number of lives now being
lost.



                  <<< SMURF::USERA:[NOTES]DISCUSSION.NOTE;1 >>>
                                -< Discussion >-
================================================================================
Note 52.0                  Analysis of War Rationales                  8 replies
JARETH::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."        832 lines  10-JAN-1991 08:06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some of the material at the beginning of this may be boring to wade
    through, but I found the material at the end (from "Kuwait as Victim"
    and below) interesting.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Article 50366 of talk.politics.misc:
Path: 
shlump.nac.dec.com!ryn.mro4.dec.com!decvax.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!bloom
-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!news.funet.fi!ousrvr!tko.vtt.fi!dfo
From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Newsgroups: 
alt.desert-shield,talk.activism,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,eunet.p
olitics
Subject: Rationales for the coming (?) war
Message-ID: <1991Jan3.141334.6103@ousrvr.oulu.fi>
Date: 3 Jan 91 14:13:34 GMT
References: <10240@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> 
<1990Dec26.165132.18590@cs.rochester.edu>
Sender: news@ousrvr.oulu.fi
Organization: Technical Research Centre of Finland, Computer Laboratory
Lines: 809
Xref: shlump.nac.dec.com alt.desert-shield:2348 talk.politics.misc:50366 
talk.politics.mideast:20923 eunet.politics:28

The following is posted as a favor to George Lakoff.  Please address all
correspondence to him, not to me.

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

To Friends and Colleagues on the Net:

From George Lakoff,
Professor of Linguistics,
University of California at Berkeley
(lakoff@cogsci.berkeley.edu)


January 15 is getting very close. As things now stand, President
Bush seems to have convinced most of the country that
war in the gulf is morally justified, and that
it makes sense to think of ``winning'' such a
war.

I have just completed a study of the way the war has
been justified. I have found that the justification is
based very largely on a metaphorical system
of thought in general use for understanding foreign policy.
I have analyzed the system, checked it to see what
the metaphors hide, and have checked to the best of my
ability to see whether the metaphors fit the situation in the
gulf, even if one accepts them. So far as I can see,
the justification for war, point by point,
is anything but clear.

The paper I have written is relatively short -- 7,000 words.
Yet it is far too long for the op-ed pages, and January
15 is too close for journal or magazine publication.
The only alternative I have for getting these ideas out
is via the various computer networks. 

While there is still time, it is vital that debate over
the justification for war be seriously revived.
I am therefore asking your help. Please look over the
enclosed paper. If you find it of value, please
send it on to members of your newsgroup, to friends,
and to other newsgroups. 
Feel free to distribute it to anyone interested.

More importantly, if you feel strongly about this issue,
start talking and writing about it yourself. 

Computer networks have never before played an important
role in a matter of vital public importance. The time has come.
The media have failed to question what should be questioned.
It is up to us to do so. There are a lot of us connected by
these networks, and together we have enormous influence.
Just imagine the media value of a major computerized debate over
the impending war! 

We have a chance to participate in the greatest experiment
ever conducted in vital, widespread, instantaneous democratic
communication.
Tens of thousands of lives are at stake.
During the next two weeks
there is nothing more important that we can send over these
networks than a fully open and informed exchange of views
about the war.

Here is the first contribution. Pass it on!

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


Metaphor and War

The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf

George Lakoff Linguistics Department University of California  at
Berkeley (lakoff@cogsci.berkeley.edu)

Metaphors can kill.  The discourse over whether we should  go  to
war  in  the  gulf is a panorama of metaphor.  Secretary of State
Baker sees  Saddam  as  ``sitting  on  our  economic  lifeline.''
President Bush sees him as having a ``stranglehold'' on our econ-
omy.  General Schwartzkopf characterizes the occupation of Kuwait
as  a ``rape'' that is ongoing. The President says that the US is
in the gulf to ``protect freedom, protect our future, and protect
the  innocent'',  and  that we must ``push Saddam Hussein back.''
Saddam is seen as Hitler.   It  is  vital,  literally  vital,  to
understand  just  what  role  metaphorical  thought is playing in
bringing us to the brink of war.  Metaphorical  thought,  in  it-
self, is neither good nor bad; it is simply commonplace and ines-
capable. Abstractions and enormously complex situations are  rou-
tinely  understood  via metaphor.  Indeed, there is an extensive,
and mostly unconscious, system of metaphor that we use  automati-
cally  and unreflectively to understand complexities and abstrac-
tions.  Part of this system is devoted to understanding  interna-
tional relations and war. We now know enough about this system to
have an idea of how it functions.  The metaphorical understanding
of  a  situation  functions  in  two  parts.   First,  there is a
widespread, relatively fixed set of metaphors that structure  how
we  think.  For example, a decision to go to war might be seen as
a form of cost-benefit analysis, where war is justified when  the
costs  of  going  to  war are less than the costs of not going to
war. Second, there is a set of metaphorical definitions that that
allow one to apply such a metaphor to a particular situation.  In
this case, there must be a definition of  ``cost'',  including  a
means  of  comparing  relative  ``costs''.  The use of a metaphor
with a set of definitions becomes pernicious when it hides reali-
ties  in  a  harmful way.  It is important to distinguish what is
metaphorical from what is not.  Pain, dismemberment, death, star-
vation, and the death and injury of loved ones are not metaphori-
cal.  They are real and  in  a  war,  they  could  afflict  tens,
perhaps hundreds of thousands, of real human beings, whether Ira-
qi, Kuwaiti, or American.

              War as Politics; Politics as Business

Military and international relations strategists do use  a  cost-
benefit analysis metaphor. It comes about through a metaphor that
is taken as definitional by most strategic thinkers in  the  area
of  international  politics.  Clausewitz's Metaphor: WAR IS POLI-
TICS PURSUED BY OTHER MEANS.  Karl von Clausewitz was a  Prussian
general  who  perceived  war  in  terms of political cost-benefit
analysis.  Each nation-state has political  objectives,  and  war
may  best  serve those objectives. The political ``gains'' are to
to be weighed against acceptable ``costs.'' When the costs of war
exceed the political gains, the war should cease. There is anoth-
er metaphor implicit here: POLITICS IS BUSINESS  where  efficient
political  management  is  seen  as  akin  to  efficient business
management. As in a  well-run  business,  a  well-run  government
should  keep  a  careful tally of costs and gains.  This metaphor
for characterizing politics, together with Clausewitz's metaphor,
makes  war a matter of cost-benefit analysis: defining beneficial
``objectives'', tallying  the  ``costs'',  and  deciding  whether
achieving  the  objectives  is ``worth'' the costs.  The New York
Times, on November 12, 1990, ran a  front-page  story  announcing
that  ``a  national  debate  has  begun  as to whether the United
States should  go  to  war  in  the  Persian  Gulf.''  The  Times
described   the   debate   as  defined  by  what  I  have  called
Clausewitz's  metaphor  (though  it  described  the  metaphor  as
literal),  and  then  raised  the  question,  ``What  then is the
nation's political object in the gulf and what level of sacrifice
is  it  worth?'' The ``debate'' was not over whether Clausewitz's
metaphor was appropriate, but only over how various analysts cal-
culated  the relative gains and losses. The same has been true of
the hearings of the Senate  Foreign  Relations  Committee,  where
Clausewitz's  metaphor  provides  the framework within which most
discussion has taken place.  The broad acceptance of Clausewitz's
metaphor  raises vital questions: What, exactly, makes it a meta-
phor rather than a literal truth? Why does it seem so natural  to
foreign  policy  experts?  How does it fit into the overall meta-
phor system for understanding foreign  relations  and  war?  And,
most  importantly,  what realities does it hide?  To answer these
questions, let us turn to the system of metaphorical thought most
commonly used by the general public in comprehending internation-
al politics.  What follows is a two-part discussion of  the  role
of  metaphorical  reasoning about the gulf crisis. The first part
lays out the central metaphor systems used in reasoning about the
crisis:  both  the  system used by foreign policy experts and the
system used by the public at large. The second part discusses how
the system has been applied to the crisis in the gulf.

                       Part 1: The Systems

                   The State-as-Person System

A state is conceptualized as a person, engaging in  social  rela-
tions  within  a  world community. Its land-mass is its home.  It
lives in a neighborhood, and has neighbors, friends and  enemies.
States  are  seen  as  having  inherent dispositions: they can be
peaceful or aggressive, responsible or irresponsible, industrious
or lazy.

Well-being is wealth. The general well-being of a state is under-
stood  in  economic terms: its economic health.  A serious threat
to economic health can thus be seen as a death  threat.   To  the
extent  that  a nation's economy depends on foreign oil, that oil
supply becomes a `lifeline' (reinforced by the image  of  an  oil
pipeline).

Strength for a state is military strength.

Maturity for the person-state is industrialization.   Unindustri-
alized  nations are `underdeveloped', with industrialization as a
natural state to be reached.  Third-world nations are thus  imma-
ture  children,  to  be taught how to develop properly or discip-
lined if they get out of line.  Nations that fail to  industrial-
ize  at  a  rate  considered  normal are seen as akin to retarded
children and judged as ``backward'' nations.

Rationality is the maximization of self-interest.

There is an implicit logic to the use of these  metaphors:  Since
it is in the interest of every person to be as strong and healthy
as possible, a rational state seeks to maximize wealth and  mili-
tary  might.   Violence  can  further  self-interest.  It  can be
stopped in three ways: Either a balance of power, so that no  one
in  a  neighborhood is strong enough to threaten anyone else.  Or
the use  of  collective  persuasion  by  the  community  to  make
violence  counter  to  self-interest.   Or a cop strong enough to
deter violence or punish it.  The cop should act morally, in  the
community's interest, and with the sanction of the community as a
whole.  Morality is a matter of accounting, of keeping the  moral
books balanced. A wrongdoer incurs a debt, and he must be made to
pay. The moral books can be balanced by a return to the situation
prior  to  the wrongdoing, by giving back what has been taken, by
recompense, or by punishment.  Justice is the  balancing  of  the
moral books.  War in this metaphor is a fight between two people,
a form of hand-to-hand combat.  Thus, the US might seek to ``push
Iraq  back out of Kuwait'' or ``deal the enemy a heavy blow,'' or
``deliver a knockout punch.'' A just war is thus a form of combat
for  the  purpose  of  settling  moral  accounts. The most common
discourse form in the West where there is combat to settle  moral
accounts  is the classic fairy tale.  When people are replaced by
states in such a fairy tale, what results is  a  scenario  for  a
just war.

                 The Fairy Tale of the Just War

Cast of characters: A villain, a victim, and a hero.  The  victim
and  the  hero  may be the same person.  The scenario: A crime is
committed by the villain against an innocent victim (typically an
assault,  theft, or kidnapping). The offense occurs due to an im-
balance of power and creates a moral imbalance. The  hero  either
gathers helpers or decides to go it alone.  The hero makes sacri-
fices; he undergoes difficulties,  typically  making  an  arduous
heroic  journey,  sometimes  across the sea to a treacherous ter-
rain. The villain is inherently evil, perhaps even a monster, and
thus reasoning with him is out of the question.  The hero is left
with no choice but to engage the villain in battle. The hero  de-
feats  the  villain  and rescues the victim. The moral balance is
restored.  Victory is achieved. The hero, who always acts  honor-
ably,  has  proved  his manhood and achieved glory. The sacrifice
was worthwhile.  The hero receives acclaim, along with the grati-
tude of the victim and the community.

The fairy tale has an asymmetry built into it. The hero is  moral
and courageous, while the villain is amoral and vicious. The hero
is rational, but though the villain may be cunning and  calculat-
ing,  he  cannot  be  reasoned with. Heroes thus cannot negotiate
with villains; they must defeat them. The enemy-as-demon metaphor
arises  as  a  consequence  of the fact that we understand what a
just war is in terms of this fairy tale.  The most natural way to
justify  a  war on moral grounds is to fit this fairy tale struc-
ture to a given situation. This is done by  metaphorical  defini-
tion, that is, by answering the questions: Who is the victim? Who
is the villain? Who is the hero?  What is the crime? What  counts
as  victory?  Each set of answers provides a different filled-out
scenario.  As the gulf crisis developed, President Bush tried  to
justify going to war by the use of such a scenario.  At first, he
couldn't get his story straight.  What happened was that  he  was
using  two  different  sets  of  metaphorical  definitions, which
resulted in two different scenarios: The Rescue Scenario: Iraq is
villain,  the  US  is hero, Kuwait is victim, the crime is kidnap
and rape. The Self-Defense Scenario: Iraq is villain, the  US  is
hero,  the  US  and other industrialized nations are victims, the
crime is a death threat, that is, a threat  to  economic  health.
The  American  people could not accept the second scenario, since
it amounted to trading lives for  oil.   The  administration  has
settled on the first, and that seems to have been accepted by the
public, the media, and Congress as providing moral  justification
for going to war.

                  The Ruler-for-State Metonymy

There is a metonymy that goes  hand-in-hand  with  the  State-as-
Person metaphor:

                 THE RULER STANDS FOR THE STATE

Thus, we can refer to Iraq by referring to Saddam Hussein, and so
have  a  single  person, not just an amorphous state, to play the
villain in the just war scenario. It is this metonymy that is in-
voked  when  the  President  says  ``We have to get Saddam out of
Kuwait.''  Incidentally,  the  metonymy  only  applies  to  those
leaders  perceived  as  rulers. Thus, it would be strange for us,
but not for the Iraqis,  to  describe  an  American  invasion  of
Kuwait by saying, ``George Bush marched into Kuwait.''

                     The Experts' Metaphors

Experts in international relations have an additional  system  of
metaphors  that  are  taken  as defining a ``rational'' approach.
The  principal  ones  are  the  Rational   Actor   metaphor   and
Clausewitz's  metaphor,  which  are  commonly taught as truths in
courses on international relations.  We are now in a position  to
show  precisely what is metaphorical about Clausewitz's metaphor.
To do so, we need to look  at  a  system  of  metaphors  that  is
presupposed  by  Clausewitz's  metaphor.   We  will begin with an
everyday system of metaphors for understanding causation:

                   The Causal Commerce System

The Causal Commerce system is a way to comprehend actions intend-
ed  to achieve positive effects, but which may also have negative
effects.  The system is composed of three metaphors:

Causal Transfer: An effect is an object transferred from a  cause
to  an affected party.  For example, sanctions are seen as ``giv-
ing'' Iraq economic difficulties. Correspondingly, economic  dif-
ficulties  for  Iraq  are  seen as ``coming from'' the sanctions.
This metaphor turns purposeful actions into transfers of objects.
The  Exchange  Metaphor for Value: The value of something is what
you are willing to exchange for it.  Whenever we ask  whether  it
is ``worth'' going to war to get Iraq out of Kuwait, we are using
the Exchange Metaphor for Value plus the  Causal  Transfer  meta-
phor.  Well-being  is  Wealth: Things of value constitute wealth.
Increases in well-being are ``gains'';  decreases  in  well-being
are  ``costs.''  The metaphor of Well-being-as-Wealth has the ef-
fect of making qualitiative effects  quantitative.  It  not  only
makes qualitatively different things comparable, it even provides
a kind of arithmetic calculus for adding up costs and gains. Tak-
en  together, these three metaphors portray actions as commercial
transactions with costs and gains.  Seeing  actions  as  transac-
tions  is  crucial to applying ideas from economics to actions in
general.

                              Risks

A risk is an action taken to achieve a positive effect, where the
outcome is uncertain and where there is also a significant proba-
bility of a negative effect.  Since Causal Commerce allows one to
see positive effects of actions as ``gains'' and negative effects
as ``costs'', it becomes natural to see a risky action metaphori-
cally as a financial risk of a certain type, namely, a gamble.

                        Risks are Gambles

In gambling to achieve certain ``gains'',  there  are  ``stakes''
that  one can ``lose''. When one asks what is ``at stake'' in go-
ing to war, one is using the metaphors  of  Causal  Commerce  and
Risks-as-Gambles.  These  are  also  the metaphors that President
Bush uses when he refers to strategic moves  in  the  gulf  as  a
``poker  game''  where  it would be foolish for him to ``show his
cards'', that is, to make strategic knowledge public.

                The Mathematicization of Metaphor

The Causal Commerce and Risks-as-Gambles metaphors lie behind our
everyday  way  of understanding risky actions as gambles. At this
point, mathematics enters the picture, since there is mathematics
of  gambling,  namely,  probability  theory, decision theory, and
game theory. Since the metaphors of Causal  Commerce  and  Risks-
as-Gambles are so common in our everyday thought, their metaphor-
ical nature often goes unnoticed.  As a result, it is not  uncom-
mon  for  social scientists to think that the mathematics of gam-
bling literally applies to all forms of risky action, and that it
can provide a general basis for the scientific study of risky ac-
tion, so that risk can be minimized.

                         Rational Action

Within the social sciences, especially in economics, it is common
to  see  a  rational  person as someone who acts in his own self-
interest, that is, to maximize his own well-being. Hard-core  ad-
vocates of this view may even see altruistic action as being ones
self-interest if there is a value in feeling righteous about  al-
truism and in deriving gratitude from others.  In the Causal Com-
merce system, where well-being is wealth, this view  of  Rational
Action translates metaphorically into maximizing gains and minim-
izing losses. In other words:

               Rationality is Profit Maximization

This metaphor presupposes Causal Commerce plus  Risks-as-Gambles,
and  brings with it the mathematics of gambling as applied to ri-
sky action. It has the effect of turning specialists in mathemat-
ical  economics into ``scientific'' specialists in acting ration-
ally so as to minimize risk  and  cost  while  maximizing  gains.
Suppose   we   now   add  the  State-as-Person  metaphor  to  the
Rationality-as-Profit-Maximization metaphor. The result is:

               International Politics is Business

Here the state is a Rational Actor, whose  actions  are  transac-
tions  and  who  is  engaged  in  maximizing gains and minimizing
costs. This metaphor brings with  it  the  mathematics  of  cost-
benefit  calculation and game theory, which is commonly taught in
graduate programs in international relations.  Clausewitz's meta-
phor,  the  major  metaphor  preferred by international relations
strategists, presupposes this system.  Clausewitz's Metaphor: War
is Politics, pursued by other means.  Since politics is business,
war becomes a matter of maximizing political gains and minimizing
losses.  In  Clausewitzian  terms, war is justified when there is
more to be gained by going to war  than  by  not  going  to  war.
Morality  is  absent from the Clausewitzian equation, except when
there a political cost to acting immorally or  a  political  gain
from acting morally.  Clausewitz's metaphor only allows war to be
justified on pragmatic, not moral, grounds.  To  justify  war  on
both  moral and pragmatic grounds, the Fairy Tale of the Just War
and Clausewitz's metaphor  must  mesh:  The  ``worthwhile  sacri-
fices''  of the fairy tale must equal the Clausewitzian ``costs''
and the ``victory'' in the fairy tale must equal the Clausewitzi-
an ``gains.'' Clausewitz's metaphor is the perfect expert's meta-
phor, since it requires  specialists  in  political  cost-benefit
calculation.   It sanctions the use of the mathematics of econom-
ics, probability theory, decision theory, and game theory in  the
name   of   making   foreign   policy  rational  and  scientific.
Clausewitz's metaphor is commonly seen as literally true.  We are
now  in  a  position  to  see exactly what makes it metaphorical.
First, it uses the State-as-Person  metaphor.  Second,  it  turns
qualitative  effects  on human beings into quantifiable costs and
gains, thus seeing political action as economics. Third, it  sees
rationality  as  profit-making.  Fourth,  it sees war in terms of
only one dimension of war, that of political expediency, which is
in turn conceptualized as business.

                      War as Violent Crime

To bear in mind what  is  hidden  by  Clausewitz's  metaphor,  we
should  consider an alternative metaphor that is not used by pro-
fessional strategists nor by the general public to understand war
as  we engage in it.  WAR IS VIOLENT CRIME: MURDER, ASSAULT, KID-
NAPPING, ARSON, RAPE, AND THEFT.  Here, war is understood only in
terms  of  its  moral  dimension,  and not, say, its political or
economic dimension.  The metaphor highlights those aspects of war
that  would  otherwise  be seen as major crimes.  There is an Us-
Them asymmetry between the public use  of  Clausewitz's  metaphor
and  the  War-as-Crime metaphor.  The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait is
reported on in terms of murder, theft and rape. The planned Amer-
ican invasion is never discussed in terms of murder, assault, and
arson.  Moreover, the US plans for war are seen, in Clausewitzian
terms,  as  rational  calculation. But the Iraqi invasion is dis-
cussed not as a rational move by Saddam, but as  the  work  of  a
madman.  We see US as rational, moral, and courageous and Them as
criminal and insane.

                    War as a Competitive Game

It has long been noted that we understand war  as  a  competitive
game like chess, or as a sport, like football or boxing.  It is a
metaphor in which there is a clear winner and loser, and a  clear
end  to  the  game.   The metaphor highlights strategic thinking,
team work, preparedness, the spectators in the world  arena,  the
glory of winning and the shame of defeat.  This metaphor is taken
very seriously.  There is a long tradition in the West of  train-
ing  military  officers in team sports and chess. The military is
trained to win.  This can lead to a metaphor conflict, as it  did
in Vietnam, since Clausewitz's metaphor seeks to maximize geopol-
itical gains, which may or may not be  consistent  with  absolute
military victory. The situation at present is that the public has
accepted the rescue scenario of the just war fairy tale  as  pro-
viding moral justification. The president, for internal political
reasons, has accepted the competitive  game  metaphor  as  taking
precedence over Clausewitz's metaphor: If he must choose, he will
go for the military win over maximizing geopolitical gains.   The
testimony  of  the  experts  before Congress falls largely within
Clausewitz's metaphor. Much of it is testimony  about  what  will
maximize gains and minimize losses.  For all that been questioned
in the Congressional hearings, these metaphors have not.  It  im-
portant to see what they hide.

                      Is Saddam Irrational?

The villain in the Fairy Tale of the Just War may be cunning, but
he  cannot  be rational. You just do not reason with a demon, nor
do you enter into negotiations with him. The logic of  the  meta-
phor  demands  that Saddam be irrational. But is he?  Administra-
tion policy is confused on the issue. Clausewitz's  metaphor,  as
used  by  strategists, assumes that the enemy is rational: He too
is maximizing gains and minimizing costs.  Our strategy from  the
outset  has been to ``increase the cost'' to Saddam. That assumes
he is rational and is maximizing his self-interest.  At the  same
time, he is being called irrational. The nuclear weapons argument
depends on it. If he is rational, he should follow the  logic  of
deterrence.  We have thousands of hydrogen bombs in warheads. Is-
rael is estimated to have between 100 and 200 deliverable  atomic
bombs.   It  would take Saddam at least eight months and possibly
five years before he had a  crude,  untested  atomic  bomb  on  a
truck.   The most popular estimate for even a few deliverable nu-
clear warheads is ten years.  The argument that he would  not  be
deterred  by  our  nuclear  arsenal and by Israel's assumes irra-
tionality.  The Hitler analogy also assumes that Saddam is a vil-
lainous  madman.  The analogy presupposes a Hitler myth, in which
Hitler too was an irrational demon, rather than a rational  self-
serving  brutal politician. In the myth, Munich was a mistake and
Hitler could have been stopped early on had England  entered  the
war  then. Military historians disagree as to whether the myth is
true. Be that as it may, the analogy does not hold.   Whether  or
not Saddam is Hitler, Iraq isn't Germany.  It has 17 million peo-
ple, not 70 million. It is economically  weak,  not  strong.   It
simply  is  not  a  threat to the world.  Saddam is certainly im-
moral, ruthless, and brutal, but there is no evidence that he  is
anything  but rational.  Everything he has done, from assassinat-
ing political opponents, to using poison gas against his  politi-
cal enemies, the Kurds, to invading Kuwait can be see as further-
ing his own self-interest.

                        Kuwait as Victim

The classical victim is innocent. To the Iraquis, Kuwait was any-
thing  but an innocent ingenue.  The war with Iran virtually ban-
krupted Iraq. Iraq saw itself as having fought  that  war  partly
for the benefit of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, where Shiite citizens
supported Khomeini's Islamic Revolution.  Kuwait  had  agreed  to
help finance the war, but after the war, the Kuwaitis insisted on
repayment of the ``loan.'' Kuwaitis had invested hundreds of bil-
lions  in Europe, America and Japan, but would not invest in Iraq
after the war to help it rebuild.  On the contrary, it began what
amounted  to  economic  warfare against Iraq by overproducing its
oil quota to hold oil  prices  down.   In  addition,  Kuwait  had
drilled  laterally into Iraqi territory in the Rumailah oil field
and had extracted oil from Iraqi territory.  Kuwait further  took
advantage  of  Iraq by buying its currency, but only at extremely
low exchange rates.  Subsequently,  wealthy  Kuwaitis  used  that
Iraqi currency on trips to Iraq, where they bought Iraqi goods at
bargain rates. Among the things  they  bought  most  flamboyantly
were  liquor  and prostitutes-widows and orphans of men killed in
the war, who, because of the state of the economy, had  no  other
means  of  support.   All this did not endear Kuwaitis to Iraqis,
who were suffering from over 70%  inflation.  Moreover,  Kuwaitis
had long been resented for good reason by Iraqis and moslems from
other nations.  Capital rich, but  labor  poor,  Kuwait  imported
cheap  labor from other moslem countries to do its least pleasant
work. At the time of the invasion, there were 400,000 Kuwaiti ci-
tizens  and  2.2 millions foreign laborers who were denied rights
of citizenry and treated by the Kuwaitis as  lesser  beings.   In
short,  to  the  Iraqis  and  to  labor-exporting Arab countries,
Kuwait is badly miscast as a purely innocent victim.   This  does
not in any way justify the horrors perpetrated on the Kuwaitis by
the Iraqi army. But it is part of what is hidden when  Kuwait  is
cast  as  an innocent victim.  The ``legitimate government'' that
we seek to reinstall is an oppressive monarchy.

                        What is Victory?

In a fairy tale or a game, victory is well-defined.  Once  it  is
achieved,  the  story or game is over. Neither is the case in the
gulf crisis. History continues, and ``victory'' makes sense  only
in  terms  of  continuing history.  The president's stated objec-
tives are total Iraqi withdrawal and restoration of  the  Kuwaiti
monarchy.  But  no  one believes the matter will end there, since
Saddam would still be in power with all  of  his  forces  intact.
General  Powell said in his Senate testimony that if Saddam with-
drew, the US would have to ``strengthen the indigenous  countries
of  the  region''  to achieve a balance of power. Presumably that
means arming Assad, who is every  bit  as  dangerous  as  Saddam.
Would  arming  another villain count as victory? If we go to war,
what will constitute ``victory''?  Suppose we conquer Iraq,  wip-
ing  out its military capability.  How would Iraq be governed? No
puppet government that we set up could govern  effectively  since
it  would be hated by the entire populace. Since Saddam has wiped
out all opposition, the only remaining effective  government  for
the country would be his Ba'ath party. Would it count as a victo-
ry if Saddam's friends wound up in  power?  If  not,  what  other
choice is there? And if Iraq has no remaining military force, how
could it defend itself against Syria and Iran? It would certainly
not  be a ``victory'' for us if either of them took over Iraq. If
Syria did, then Assad's Arab nationalism would become  a  threat.
If  Iran  did, then Islamic fundamentalism would become even more
powerful and threatening.  It would seem that the  closest  thing
to  a ``victory'' for the US in case of war would be to drive the
Iraqis out of Kuwait; destroy just enough of Iraq's  military  to
leave  it  capable  of  defending  itself against Syria and Iran;
somehow get Saddam out of power, but let his Ba'ath party  remain
in  control of a country just strong enough to defend itself, but
not strong enough to be a threat; and keep the price of oil at  a
reasonably  low  level.   The problems: It is not obvious that we
could get Saddam out of power without wiping out most  of  Iraq's
military  capability.   We  would  have  invaded an Arab country,
which would create vast hatred for us throughout the Arab  world,
and  would  no doubt result in decades of increased terrorism and
lack of cooperation by Arab states.  We would,  by  defeating  an
Arab  nationalist  state, strengthen Islamic fundamentalism. Iraq
would remain a cruel dictatorship run by cronies  of  Saddam.  By
reinstating the government of Kuwait, we would inflame the hatred
of the poor toward the rich throughout the Arab world,  and  thus
increase  instability.  And the price of oil would go through the
roof. Even the closest thing to a victory doesn't look very  vic-
torious.   In  the  debate over whether to go to war, very little
time has been spent clarifying what a victory would be.   And  if
``victory''  cannot  be  defined, neither can ``worthwhile sacri-
fice.''

                       The Arab Viewpoint

The metaphors used to conceptualize the gulf crisis hide the most
powerful  political ideas in the Arab world: Arab nationalism and
Islamic fundamentalism.  The first seeks to form a racially-based
all-Arab  nation,  the  second,  a  theocratic all-Islamic state.
Though bitterly opposed to one another, they share a great  deal.
Both  are conceptualized in family terms, an Arab brotherhood and
an Islamic brotherhood. Both see brotherhoods as more  legitimate
than  existing states.  Both are at odds with the state-as-person
metaphor, which sees currently existing states as distinct  enti-
ties  with  a  right  to exist in perpetuity.  Also hidden by our
metaphors is perhaps the most important daily concern  throughout
the  Arab world: Arab dignity.  Both political movements are seen
as ways to achieve dignity through unity.  The  current  national
boundaries  are  widely perceived as working against Arab dignity
in two ways: one internal and one external. The internal issue is
the  division between rich and poor in the Arab world. Poor Arabs
see rich Arabs as rich by accident, by where the British happened
to  draw  the  lines that created the contemporary nations of the
Middle East. To see Arabs metaphorically as one big family is  to
suggest  that  oil  wealth  should  belong  to all Arabs. To many
Arabs, the national boundaries drawn by colonial powers  are  il-
legitimate,  violating  the  conception  of  Arabs  as  a  single
``brotherhood'' and impoverishing millions.   To  those  impover-
ished  millions, the positive side of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait
was that it challenged national borders and brought to  the  fore
the  divisions between rich and poor that result from those lines
in the sand.  If there is to be peace in the region, these  divi-
sions  must be addressed, say, by having rich Arab countries make
extensive investments in development that will help  poor  Arabs.
As long as the huge gulf between rich and poor exists in the Arab
world, a large number of poor Arabs will continue to see  one  of
the superstate solutions, either Arab nationalism or Islamic fun-
damentalism, as being in their self-interest, and the region will
continue  to  be  unstable.   The external issue is the weakness.
The current national  boundaries  keep  Arab  nations  squabbling
among  themselves and therefore weak relative to Western nations.
To unity advocates, what we call  ``stability''  means  continued
weakness.   Weakness  is  a major theme in the Arab world, and is
often conceptualized in sexual terms, even more than in the West.
American  officials,  in  speaking of the ``rape'' of Kuwait, are
conceptualizing a weak,  defenseless  country  as  female  and  a
strong  militarily  powerful  country  as male.  Similarly, it is
common for Arabs to conceptualize the colonization and subsequent
domination  of  the Arab world by the West, especially the US, as
emasculation.  An Arab proverb that is reported to be popular  in
Iraq  these  days  is  that ``It is better to be a cock for a day
than a chicken for a year.'' The message is clear: It  is  better
to  be  male,  that is, strong and dominant for a short period of
time than to be female, that is, weak and defenseless for a  long
time.  Much  of  the support for Saddam among Arabs is due to the
fact that he is seen as standing up to the US, even if only for a
while, and that there is a dignity in this.  If upholding dignity
is an essential part of what defines  Saddam's  ``rational  self-
interest'',  it  is  vitally important for our government to know
this, since he may be willing to go to war to ``be a cock  for  a
day.''  The US does not have anything like a proper understanding
of the issue of Arab dignity.  Take the question of whether  Iraq
will  come  out  of this with part of the Rumailah oil fields and
two islands giving it a port on the gulf. From  Iraq's  point  of
view  these  are  seen  as economic necessities if Iraq is to re-
build. President Bush has spoken of this as  ``rewarding  aggres-
sion'',  using  the  Third-World-Countries-As-Children  metaphor,
where the great powers are grown-ups who have the  obligation  to
reward  or  punish  children  so as to make them behave properly.
This is exactly the attitude that grates on Arabs who want to  be
treated  with  dignity. Instead of seeing Iraq as a sovereign na-
tion that has taken military action for  economic  purposes,  the
president treats Iraq as if it were a child gone bad, who has be-
come the neighborhood bully and should be properly disciplined by
the  grown-ups.  The issue of the Rumailah oil fields and the two
islands has alternatively been discussed in the media in terms of
``saving face.'' Saving face is a very different concept than up-
holding Arab dignity and insisting on being treated as an  equal,
not an inferior.

         What is Hidden By Seeing the State as a Person?

The State-as-Person metaphor highlights the ways in which  states
act  as  units,  and  hides  the internal structure of the state.
Class structure is hidden by this metaphor, as is ethnic composi-
tion,  religious rivalry, political parties, the ecology, the in-
fluence of the military and of  corporations  (especially  multi-
national corporations).  Consider ``national interest.'' It is in
a person's interest to be healthy and strong. The State-as-Person
metaphor translates this into a ``national interest'' of economic
health and military strength.  But what is in the ``national  in-
terest''  may  or may not be in the interest of many ordinary ci-
tizens, groups, or institutions, who may become poorer as the GNP
rises  and  weaker as the military gets stronger.  The ``national
interest'' is a metaphorical concept, and it is defined in Ameri-
ca  by politicians and policy makers. For the most part, they are
influenced more by the rich than by the poor, more by large  cor-
porations  than  by  small  business, and more by developers than
ecological activists.  When President Bush argues that  going  to
war  would  ``serve our vital national interests'', he is using a
metaphor that hides exactly whose interests would be  served  and
whose would not.  For example, poor people, especially blacks and
Hispanics, are represented in the military in  disproportionately
large  numbers,  and  in a war the lower classes and those ethnic
groups will suffer proportionally more casualties.  Thus  war  is
less  in  the interest of ethnic minorities and the lower classes
than the white upper classes.  Also hidden are the  interests  of
the  military  itself,  which  are  served when war is justified.
Hopes that, after the cold war, the military might play a smaller
role  have been dashed by the president's decision to prepare for
war.  He was advised, as he should be, by the  national  security
council, which consists primarily of military men.  War is so aw-
ful a prospect that one would not like  to  think  that  military
self-interest  itself  could  help tilt the balance to a decision
for war. But in a democratic society, the question must be asked,
since  the justifications for war also justify continued military
funding and an undiminished national political role for the mili-
tary.

                          Energy Policy

The State-as-Person metaphor defines  health  for  the  state  in
economic terms, with our current understanding of economic health
taken as a given, including our dependence on foreign oil.   Many
commentators  have  argued that a change in energy policy to make
us less dependent on foreign oil would be more rational than  go-
ing  to  war  to  preserve our supply of cheap oil from the gulf.
This argument may have a real force, but it has  no  metaphorical
force  when  the definition of economic health is taken as fixed.
After all, you don't deal with an attack on your health by chang-
ing the definition of health.  Metaphorical logic pushes a change
in energy policy out of the spotlight in the current  crisis.   I
do not want to give the impression that all that is involved here
is metaphor. Obviously there  are  powerful  corporate  interests
lined  up against a fundamental restructuring of our national en-
ergy policy. What is sad is that they have a very compelling sys-
tem  of  metaphorical  thought  on  their  side. If the debate is
framed in terms of an attack on our economic health,  one  cannot
argue for redefining what economic health is without changing the
grounds for the debate.  And if the debate is framed in terms  of
rescuing a victim, then changes in energy policy seem utterly be-
side the point.

                      The ``Costs'' of War

Clausewitz's metaphor requires a calculation of the ``costs'' and
the ``gains'' of going to war. What, exactly, goes into that cal-
culation and what does not?  Certainly American casualties,  loss
of  equipment, and dollars spent on the operation count as costs.
But Vietnam taught us that there are social costs: trauma to fam-
ilies and communities, disruption of lives, psychological effects
on veterans, long-term health problems, in addition to  the  cost
of  spending our money on war instead of on vital social needs at
home.  Also hidden are political costs: the enmity of  Arabs  for
many years, and the cost of increased terrorism.  And barely dis-
cussed is the moral cost that comes from killing and maiming as a
way  to  settle disputes.  And there is the moral cost of using a
``cost'' metaphor at all. When we do so, we quantify the  effects
of  war  and  thus hide from ourselves the qualitative reality of
pain and death.  But those are costs to us.  What is most  ghoul-
ish  about  the cost-benefit calculation is that ``costs'' to the
other side count as ``gains'' for us. In Vietnam, the body counts
of  killed  Viet  Cong  were  taken as evidence of what was being
``gained'' in the war. Dead human beings went on the profit  side
of  our  ledger.   There  is  a lot of talk of American deaths as
``costs'', but Iraqi deaths aren't mentioned.  The  metaphors  of
cost-benefit accounting and the fairy tale villain lead us to de-
value of the lives of Iraqis, even when most  of  those  actually
killed  will not be villains at all, but simply innocent draftees
or reservists or civilians.

                         America as Hero

The classic fairy tale defines what constitutes a hero: it  is  a
person  who  rescues  an innocent victim and who defeats and pun-
ishes a guilty and inherently evil villain, and who does  so  for
moral rather than venal reasons. If America starts a war, will it
be functioning as a hero? It will certainly not fit  the  profile
very  well.  First,  one  of  its main goals will be to reinstate
``the legitimate government of Kuwait.'' That  means  reinstating
an  absolute  monarchy,  where  women  are  not accorded anything
resembling reasonable rights, and where 80% of the people  living
in  the  country are foreign workers who do the dirtiest jobs and
are not accorded the opportunity to become citizens. This is  not
an innocent victim whose rescue makes us heroic.  Second, the ac-
tual human beings who will suffer from an  all-out  attack  will,
for  the  most  part, be innocent people who did not take part in
the atrocities in Kuwait. Killing and maiming a lot  of  innocent
bystanders  in  the  process  of nabbing a much smaller number of
villains does not make one much of a hero.  Third, in  the  self-
defense scenario, where oil is at issue, America is acting in its
self-interest.  But, in order to qualify as a legitimate hero  in
the rescue scenario, it must be acting selflessly. Thus, there is
a contradiction between the self-interested  hero  of  the  self-
defense  scenario  and  the  purely  selfless  hero of the rescue
scenario.  Fourth, America may be a hero to the royal families of
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but it will not be a hero to most Arabs.
Most Arabs do not think in terms of our metaphors.  A great  many
Arabs  will see us as a kind of colonial power using illegitimate
force against an Arab brother.  To them, we will be villains, not
heroes.   America  appears as classic hero only if you don't look
carefully at how the metaphor is applied to the situation. It  is
here  that  the  State-as-Person metaphor functions in a way that
hides vital truths. The State-as-Person metaphor hides the inter-
nal structure of states and allows us to think of Kuwait as a un-
itary entity, the defenseless maiden to be rescued in  the  fairy
tale.   The  metaphor  hides the monarchical character of Kuwait,
and the way Kuwaitis treat women and the  vast  majority  of  the
people  who  live in their country.  The State-as-Person metaphor
also hides the internal structures of Iraq, and  thus  hides  the
actual  people  who  will  mostly be killed, maimed, or otherwise
harmed in a war.  The  same  metaphor  also  hides  the  internal
structure  of  the  US,  and therefore hides the fact that is the
poor and minorities who will make the most sacrifices  while  not
getting any significant benefit. And it hides the main ideas that
drive Middle Eastern politics.

                          Things to Do

War would create much more suffering than it would alleviate, and
should  be renounced in this case on humanitarian grounds.  There
is no shortage of alternatives to war.  Troops can be rotated out
and  brought  to  the minimum level to deter an invasion of Saudi
Arabia.  Economic sanctions can be continued. A serious system of
international  inspections  can  be  instituted  to  prevent  the
development of Iraq's nuclear  capacity.   A  certain  amount  of
``face-saving''  for  Saddam  is  better  than  war: As part of a
compromise, the Kuwaiti monarchy can be sacrificed and  elections
held  in Kuwait.  The problems of rich and poor Arabs must be ad-
dressed, with pressures placed on the Kuwaitis and others to  in-
vest significantly in development to help poor Arabs.  Balance of
power solutions within the region should always be seen as  moves
toward  reducing, not increasing armaments; positive economic in-
centives can used, together with the threat of refusal by us  and
the Soviets to supply spare parts needed to keep hi-tech military
weaponry functional.  If there is a moral  to  come  out  of  the
Congressional  hearings,  it  is  that  there  are  a lot of very
knowledgeable people in this country who have thought  about  al-
ternatives to war.  They should be taken seriously.

----



    

	if you're interested in working with an organized group 
	in a positive way to try to end war (all wars, that is), 
	contact:

		Beyond War
		222 High St.
		Palo Alto, CA 94301

		415-328-7756


	Debess

  Did you guys see those Dune Buggies from hell that they showed the 
Special Forces driving during the action on T.V.??

 john

    I want one. :-)

re:  <<< Note 109.62 by OURGNG::RYAN "but Momma. that's where the fun is ..." >>>
   
    >                 -< remember the T.V. show Desert Rats? >-
    
     No, but I remembet Rat Patrol. :-)

    
(Reprinted and distributed with permission)
     
ENCIRCLE THE PENTAGON WITH A "PEACE RIBBON," MAY 1991:
 
Help put a peace ribbon around the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.,
this spring!  This national action and rally will dramatize the
need to redirect military spending toward social and environmental
needs.
 
WE NEED HELP in building a nationwide coalition to pull off this
event.  It will take place on a Saturday in the spring (e.g., May
25 -- the exact date will be determined by participating
organizations).
 
     This event was inspired by the 1985 Peace Ribbon action, in
     which thousands of Americans (and others) made panels for a
     ribbon that was circled around the Pentagon to protest the
     nuclear arms race.  The need to convert to a "peace economy"
     is now stronger than ever.
 
INDIVIDUALS CAN HELP by contributing time, energy, peace ribbon
panels (see below), and/or funds.  Share your enthusiasm with:
friends and neighbors; co-workers; church/synagogue groups; and
peace, social-justice and environmental groups that you work with.
Urge all to participate along with you.
 
ORGANIZATIONS CAN HELP by co-sponsoring the event, and by
mobilizing their members to take part.  We need help with
logistics, publicity, and funding.  We also need a non-profit
fiscal sponsor.
 
INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS can help SPREAD THE WORD through letters to
the editor, newsletters, university papers, radio talk shows,
etc.
 
FOR INFO. about how to get involved, or about how to make a peace
ribbon panel (dimensions: 1 yard x 1/2 yard):
 
     CALL PAT at (408) 688-7021 [voice], or:
 
     SEND a self-addressed, stamped envelope to:
          PEACE RIBBON ACTION COALITION
          P.O. Box 2121, Aptos, CA 95001
 
Feel free to pass this message on.  Thank you for your help!

    
    Sounds good to me, Carol.
    
    It is America's people that makes her strong.  They must not be
    neglected and they have been.
    
    We really do need to focus on solving our domestic problems now.
    
    mary