v064lnev@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Zerxes Bhagalia) (02/06/91)
On August 2nd of 1990, Iraq waged war on a tiny middle-east nation. The UN resolutions, and the actions the coaltion forces have taken have been made to restore peace and equillibrium to the region. The United States and its coaltion allies are waging war for peace. Only war can fight war - as the age old expression goes, "fight fire with fire." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (Zerxes Bhagalia v064lnev (INTERNET: @UBVMS.cc.buffalo.edu / BIT: @UBVMS.bitnet) ( -==- Bhagalia (INTERNET: @SYBIL.cc.buffalo.edu / BIT: NA ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
matth@mars.njit.edu (Matthew Harelick) (02/06/91)
Peace ?
This conflict has nothing to do with peace. This conflict exists for three
reasons:
1. Keep Western control over the world oil supply.
2. To Clean up a NATO foreign policy mess
3. To secure a U.S. Presence in the region.
Fight for Peace ? All that is is a version of the Orwellian doublespeak statement : War is Peace, or even better, Ignorance is Blissjenkins@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Kent Jenkins) (02/07/91)
In article <2247@njitgw.njit.edu> matth@mars.njit.edu (Matthew Harelick) writes: >Peace ? > This conflict has nothing to do with peace. This conflict exists for three >reasons: > > 1. Keep Western control over the world oil supply. > > 2. To Clean up a NATO foreign policy mess > > 3. To secure a U.S. Presence in the region. We're not there because Saudia Arabia asked, are we? Nope, didn't think so. We're also not there because the UN decided that something had to be done, right? It's all the US's fault. Thought so. Gee, I've been so warped by the media to think that these two were actually true. >Fight for Peace ? All that is is a version of the Orwellian doublespeak statement : War is Peace, or even better, Ignorance is Bliss Like the Peace Activists who start violent rallys, eh? (Or the Pro-War rallys which aren't violent.) Unfortunately, I agree. We're not fighting for peace. We're not fighting exlusively for the three reasons listed, but it's not peace. (What about "To take back Kuwait for the Kuwaiti people"? I'll bet you that quite a few US soldiers believe in doing that, which MAKES it a reason. It may be mislead, but it's legit.)
rodney@dali.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) (02/07/91)
In article <1991Feb6.190535.11933@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> jenkins@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Kent Jenkins) writes: > >Like the Peace Activists who start violent rallys, eh? (Or the Pro-War rallys >which aren't violent.) > I was at the DC rally on the 26th -- there were more than 100,000 people and no violence. You can't say the same thing about your typical sporting event or concert with 100,000 people. -- Rodney
gary@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) (02/07/91)
> Matthew Harelick > This conflict has nothing to do with peace. Yep. It's about justice and freedom. > This conflict exists for three reasons: > 1. Keep Western control over the world oil supply. > 2. To Clean up a NATO foreign policy mess > 3. To secure a U.S. Presence in the region. And these are the *only* three reasons, all others being mere rationaliza- tions, eh? > Fight for Peace? All that is is a version of the Orwellian doublespeak > statement : War is Peace, or even better, Ignorance is Bliss What good is peace without justice or freedom? The Soviet Union used to be peaceful, internally, (for the most part) but I guess that all those people who want freedom and justice over peace just have their heads up their collective arses, eh? Believe it or not, there are many people who prefer something else besides peace. As an old professor (an escapee from the Nazis, then the Communists in Poland and a decorated tank commander) used to say, "There is peace in a cemetary, there was peace in the camps." Or is there more to your "peace" than simply the absence of war? If so, then you're not telling us everything, and perhaps some of what your idea of "peace" entails might even preclude peace itself, at least for some period of time. -- Gary Strand There is only one success -- to be able Internet: strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu to spend your life in your own way. Voicenet: (303) 497-1336 - Christopher Morley
west@turing.toronto.edu (Tom West) (02/08/91)
In article <10211@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes: >> This conflict has nothing to do with peace. > > Yep. It's about justice and freedom. > >> This conflict exists for three reasons: >> 1. Keep Western control over the world oil supply. >> 2. To Clean up a NATO foreign policy mess >> 3. To secure a U.S. Presence in the region. > > And these are the *only* three reasons, all others being mere rationaliza- > tions, eh? Much as many people would like to think otherwise, I fear 'tis so. There are a number of far worse situations that the U.S.A. has seen fit to ignore completely, such as the occupation and subsequent attempt at genocide of East Timor. This isn't to say that the U.N. intervention in Kuwait wasn't deserved. But to claim that the U.S. is fighting for peace and freedom and only coincidentally fullfilling the above three notions while ignoring the rest of the world's injustices (which coincidentally don't have any U.S. strategic value) is to demonstrate astonishing naivity. It just happens that in this war, one can also claim a moral ground. A big help when it comes to getting support for a war like this. It's a little bit disturbing to see how many people have taken the gov't line hook line and sinker. I used to think that this might be the right war for the wrong reasons. Now I wonder. Tom West
gary@ncar.ucar.EDU (Gary Strand) (02/13/91)
> Tom West >> Gary Strand This conflict exists for three reasons: 1. Keep Western control over the world oil supply. 2. To Clean up a NATO foreign policy mess 3. To secure a U.S. Presence in the region. >> And these are the *only* three reasons, all others being mere rationaliza- >> tions, eh? > Much as many people would like to think otherwise, I fear 'tis so. The threat to Saudi Arabia, Israel and so on count for nothing? The record of Saddam in dealing with his neighbors and his own people doesn't matter? There is much more to the current conflict than blaming it all on the US and/or the West and/or NATO. Saddam himself actually carries the largest share of blame, because if he had withdrawn before the deadline, we would not be at war, probably. The final choice was left to him, and he made the wrong choice. > There are a number of far worse situations that the U.S.A. has seen fit to > ignore completely, such as the occupation and subsequent attempt at > genocide of East Timor. Suppose we had entered into that episode and done the right thing. Does that mean that you personally would approve of the US' actions now? I doubt it, so the whole issue of what we did and didn't do in the past doesn't affect your current political views. It's a red herring/strawman. > This isn't to say that the U.N. intervention in Kuwait wasn't deserved. > But to claim that the U.S. is fighting for peace and freedom and only > coincidentally fullfilling the above three notions while ignoring the rest > of the world's injustices (which coincidentally don't have any U.S. > strategic value) is to demonstrate astonishing naivete. I'm not saying that the US doesn't have other interests involved. But to claim that the *only* US interests are the "lower" ones is erroneous too. The whole point is that sometimes "peace", "justice", and "freedom" can conflict. If we wanted nothing but peace, then the Kuwaiti people would be suffering great injustices and have no freedom whatsoever. Similar claims can be made for many other situations in history. I for one do not hold "peace" per se as the highest possible value, because many peaceful places are some of the worst places that have ever existed, like the camps and the Gulag. > It's a little bit disturbing to see how many people have taken the gov't > line hook line and sinker. I used to think that this might be the right > war for the wrong reasons. Now I wonder. It's also disturbing to see people reduce criticism to simple slogans that deny the complex underpinnings of the whole issue. There's much more to it than "No Blood For Oil", even though that makes a good soundbite. Perhaps a little skepticism toward *both* sides is in order. -- Gary Strand There is only one success -- to be able Internet: strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu to spend your life in your own way. Voicenet: (303) 497-1336 - Christopher Morley
hardt@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Dan Hardt) (02/19/91)
In article <10271@ncar.ucar.edu> strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes: > Suppose we had entered into that episode and done the right thing. Does that > mean that you personally would approve of the US' actions now? I doubt it, > so the whole issue of what we did and didn't do in the past doesn't affect > your current political views. It's a red herring/strawman. This is a common point of view among war supporters, which I don't think makes much sense. The avowed U.S. argument is that we went to war based on some general principles about violations of sovreignty, democratic principles, etc. The argument against this is not just that the U.S. has we been _inconsisent_ about going to war to avenge such violations -- it would be crazy to think that we should go to war whenever we judge that some country violates these principles. The point is, our policy hasn't followed such a simple (and brutal) principle, and it never will. The government just uses it to avoid a serious discussion of whether we should be at war or not. dan
gary@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) (02/19/91)
> Dan Hardt >> Gary Strand >> So the whole issue of what we did and didn't do in the past doesn't affect >> your current political views. It's a red herring/strawman. > This is a common point of view among war supporters, which I don't think > makes much sense. It makes perfect sense when we are presented with a list of past US actions or inactions, with the taunt "We didn't do it before, why are we doing it now?" > The avowed U.S. argument is that we went to war based on some general > principles about violations of sovreignty, democratic principles, etc. The > argument against this is not just that the U.S. has we been _inconsisent_ > about going to war to avenge such violations -- it would be crazy to think > that we should go to war whenever we judge that some country violates these > principles. Why would it be crazy to go to war every time a given country violates these principles? If we really want to be the Good Guys, then we need to hold to our principles, and apply them continuously. Since we do not and have not, then what restrictions does that place on actions we take now and in the future? As I have argued, none. > The point is, our policy hasn't followed such a simple (and brutal) > principle, and it never will. The government just uses it to avoid a > serious discussion of whether we should be at war or not. No, the antiwar folks use it as some kind of "argument" against US action at any given time, when in fact the whole basis is specious. Again, suppose the US had strictly and completely followed the principles of fighting for democracy, territorial inviolability, and so on. Would you still be against the war? Of course. So, regardless of what principles the US has had, and whether or not we always stuck to them, you would not support the war. Thus, the argument is rendered a red herring. -- Gary Strand There is only one success -- to be able Internet: strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu to spend your life in your own way. Voicenet: (303) 497-1336 - Christopher Morley
matth@mars.njit.edu (Matthew Harelick) (02/19/91)
Lets take a look at some of the excuses Bush uses for us to go to war:
1. Iraq violated a foreign nation's right to sovereignty.
The U.S. violated the sovereignty rights of Grenada, Panama, Liberia, Libya, and Iraq in the last six years.
In the case of Panama , the U.S. overthrew an unfriendly government and kidnapped their leader.
In the case of Iraq, we are demonstrating to Hussein that it is wrong to violate a nation's sovereignty by violating
Iraq's sovereignty.
The more apparent idea that the U.S. is illustrating is that there is a Western double standard that says that the NATO
countries can invade other countries when they feel its necessary but this freedom is not allowed to third world nations.
2. Iraq possesses a vast arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, and will be able to use his nuclear technology to build
nuclear weapons, thereby becoming a danger to the region.
Where did he get all of this technology? The French built his nuclear reactors, and the W. Germans built his bunkers and `
sold him the Bio/Chemical weapons. The U.S. helped build up his forces to fight Iran.
Hussein used these weapons on his own people , the Kurds, and NATO still continued to support him. All of a sudden Hussein
makes a decision independently , against the wishes of George Bush and he becomes the World Enemy.
When I stated a while back that this war is to clean up a NATO foreign policy mess, its the above point I am talking
about. Our soldiers are going to be victims of American and European BioChem weapons and technology. George Bush so
boldly spoke about bring Hussein up on charges of War Crimes, he will have to bring NATO up on charges of aiding and
abedding a War Crime.
3. The United States is fighting to protect freedom and democracy.
Yeah, right , this is the oldest one in the book. Saudi Arabia is not a democracy, neither is Kuwait, Jordan, or Syria.
Israel is , however it would not be under attack by Iraq if the U.S. did not start bombing Baghdad.
There are reports of brutality committed by Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait. This is only a short term situation and if someone
is really interested in stopping brutality throughout the world, they should read the Amensty International book. This
book has about 165 pages listing nations where torture goes on everyday. I don't see the U.S. intervening in all of these
nations. In some cases the casualty rate of U.S. intervention would be lower than the number of soldiers injured before the
ground war in the Persian Gulf.
In addition if the U.S. was so interested in fighting for democracy, then we should have overturned the apartheid government
of South Africa, which still continues to have a racist separatist government.
- More to follow in a while
- Matt