My thoughts on the Gulf conflict and the upcoming war
Ulf Dahlen
discussion about the Gulf conflict up until now, mainly because what
I've read has been too much of extreme-left (make peace, i.e. support
Saddam) vs. extreme-right (bomb the f***ers off the map). But I guess
this is the right time to say something if it's going to be said at
all.
I'm rather disturbed by the so called peace demonstrations taking
place around the world. I have the highest respect for those who think
the military option shouldn't be chosen now and that sanctions should
be tried for a longer time period. Reluctantly, I think they are
wrong. I'm also aware of that this is democracy in action; every
opinion should be heard, everything discussed - this is what separates
us from dictatorships like Saddam's Iraq.
But when demonstrators shout "USA out of the Gulf" and "Bush, don't go
to war" and also *don't* shout anything like "Iraq out of Kuwait" or
"Saddam, choose peace", I'm appalled. One asks oneself: how many of
these demonstrators are believing communists and how many are simply
afraid of war and don't understand what they are demonstrating *for*?
This is not a conflict between good and evil. Sometimes leftists (is
"leftist" a real English word?) say that the coalition think this is a
war between good and evil, but the reality is that it's Iraq who has
this outlook on life, we don't. Especially Europeans have a long
cultural tradition of "not being sure", and we have not entered this
conflict lightly or without hesitation.
It is especially saddening to see demonstrators demanding the
withdrawal of the coalition when at the same time Soviet troops are
entering Lithuania. How can they demonstrate *against* the countries
that stand up against aggression and not against Soviet troops in the
Baltic states? *This* is hypocrisy!
There is of course one way to avoid war: accept Iraq's invasion of
Kuwait. Let's don't care about Kuwait. Saddam will sell us oil, no
problem there. Why should we give our lives for Kuwait?
Indeed, why should we? Many people seem to be unwilling to fight for
anything. In this case it's a principle, and many people don't want
to fight for a principle. If the enemy invades our living-room and
interrupt Twin Peaks, then we would fight! But for a principle, for
upholding international law and for a country far away? - Nae!
My point is: it *is* worth fighting for a principle. Maybe it's not
worth dying for, but then again what is?
If it comes to war, and it sure looks like that now, let's hope
they've got it right this time, and don't make too many mistakes.
Destroy Iraqi missile-sites, airfields, supply lines etc, and wait
with a ground assault until absolutely necessary.
If war is avoided, let's hope Saddam falls down a well or something,
so we don't have to deal with him in a couple of years.
__________
Ulf Dahlen
Work: Dept of Computer & Info Science, University of Linkoping, Sweden
Email: u...@ida.liu.se, u...@liuida.UUCP
Home: Troskaregatan 51:23, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
"The beginning is a very delicate time."
Marc Riese
>I'm rather disturbed by the so called peace demonstrations taking
>place around the world.
reasonably well-informed of the situation, understand the historical context,
understand the implications, and still decide to say that peace should
be given every chance? Demonstrations can be an effective way for people
to give their government an idea of how to represent them; now they know that
*some* of us will want serious justifications for any action taken.
It beats staying home and numbing one's mind on television.
>But when demonstrators shout "USA out of the Gulf" and "Bush, don't go
>to war" and also *don't* shout anything like "Iraq out of Kuwait" or
>"Saddam, choose peace", I'm appalled.
I think you are over-generalising your perceptions. The peace demonstration I
participated in last night was quite even-handed. *Of course* there is the
odd one-sided banner, and *of course* that is more catchy for television,
but the people at the demonstration were simply calling for *peace* and
I found them quite reasonable and fair about it. I doubt anyone knows what the
nature of an `average' Gulf peace demonstration is "around the world".
>One asks oneself: how many of these demonstrators are believing communists
Counter-example:
I saw *one* person wearing a 1-inch diameter Soviet badge and *zero*
communist flags and slogans. That's amazing since the communists usually
make a lot of noise at *ANY* demonstration, no matter how irrelevant.
Should that prevent one from going to all demonstrations?
>and how many are simply afraid of war and
>don't understand what they are demonstrating *for*?
Aren't you being condescending?
>How can they demonstrate *against* the countries
>that stand up against aggression and not against Soviet troops in the
>Baltic states? *This* is hypocrisy!
Counter-example: One popular demonstration chant I heard called for equal
treatment of Kuweit, Palestine, and Lithuania.
>My point is: it *is* worth fighting for a principle.
I agree completely.
However, I don't like the fatalistic, condescending attitude of some people -
I'm not saying that you said this -
some people who think that going to a peace demonstrations is just a silly
little thing for silly little people to do, when we should all be resigning
ourselves to `inevitable' war. I understand the parallels of this situation
with that of 1939, and yet on January 15th I quietly participated in a
peace demonstration. Silly me.
Marc Riese
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Alain Cedelle
>
>It is especially saddening to see demonstrators demanding the
>withdrawal of the coalition when at the same time Soviet troops are
>entering Lithuania. How can they demonstrate *against* the countries
>that stand up against aggression and not against Soviet troops in the
>Baltic states? *This* is hypocrisy!
>
U.S, and allied troops are massively gathered along the Kuwait border, to
defend democracy and rights of man. Why haven't some of these troops been
launched on Lithunania, to defend Lithuanian democracy ?.
*This* is hypocrisy !
A.C.
Daniel Fischer
>
>I'm rather disturbed by the so called peace demonstrations taking
>place around the world. I have the highest respect for those who think
>But when demonstrators shout "USA out of the Gulf" and "Bush, don't go
>to war" and also *don't* shout anything like "Iraq out of Kuwait" or
Dammit, the 1001st comment of this kind, and the story doesn't get truer by
endless repetition. FACT: the peace vigil (right translation of Mahnwache?)
in Bonn was equally spread to to embassies of the U.S. *and*Iraq*! There was
even a human chain (Menschenkette) linking both embassies for a time.
And even if there would be demonstrations against the U.S. only, it would still
be justified to join them, as 'WE' (i.e. our beloved Bonn government) are the
allies of Bush and thus have at least a very limited influence on him, but we
are not the allies of Saddam (except for parts of the industry :-( ) and he'll
not care what we tell him (as he doesn't even care for the U.N.). The situation
is: there was an unjustified attack of Iraq on Kuwait with some atrocities
committed (but see a recent discussion in alt.desert-shield on whether that was
Saddam's personal order), but the situation was stable for months.
The sanctions had just started to work (incidentally mainly on the sick and
children of Iraq) and according to analysts after a year or so would have
made Saddam think. Bush claimed in his address: "The world could wait no
longer... Sanctions were tried for well over five months, and we and our
allies concluded that sanctions alone would not force Saddam from Kuwait" -
how, please, does he know that??? And why did he never try to even think
about Saddam's offer of linkage with the Palestinian question? What does he
expect to happen after this war? Anyway, there were so many arguments against
Desert Storm, and so many risks involved (think about what happend in Isreal
this morning, and what might still happen - and what'll happen after the war),
that IT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. And thus it was good and is good do demonstrate
against the current U.S. policy and for a solution of *all* the questions
of the region.
>My point is: it *is* worth fighting for a principle. Maybe it's not
>worth dying for, but then again what is?
I'd like to direct your attention to a cartoon in today's KURIER newspaper
from Vienna. A son says to his father: "I've heard that the gulf war is
necessary, so that in a new world order there'll be never again a war."
Says the father: "Correct. And that's also true for any future war..."
>If war is avoided, let's hope Saddam falls down a well or something,
>so we don't have to deal with him in a couple of years.
We thank you for this qualified comment on the greatest world crisis since
WW II.
Michael Schwuchow
> U.S, and allied troops are massively gathered along the Kuwait border, to
> defend democracy and rights of man. Why haven't some of these troops been
> launched on Lithunania, to defend Lithuanian democracy ?.
> *This* is hypocrisy !
>A.C.
You can not defend democracy with weapons. You can defend territory and
maybe life. Then military has to withdraw and democracy must be reerected.
Democracy mainly works with elections.
In a military conflict nobody is allowed to elect something, or to choose
(flight as soldier for example)
Michael
--
---------------- There is more than One Truth. ----------------------
! Realname: Michael Schwuchow UUCP: schw...@uniol.UUCP !
! Position: Oldenburg, FRG/RFA/BRD Inhouse: michel@aragorn !
-------------ceterum censeo vocales non mutanda----------------------
Jack Jansen
>But when demonstrators shout "USA out of the Gulf" and "Bush, don't go
>to war" and also *don't* shout anything like "Iraq out of Kuwait" or
>"Saddam, choose peace", I'm appalled. One asks oneself: how many of
>these demonstrators are believing communists and how many are simply
>afraid of war and don't understand what they are demonstrating *for*?
Sorry, I couldn't let this pass by. Two short points:
1. I have often heard people make remarks like 'If you protest X
and not Y you're a hypocrite'. Invariably, these people don't
demonstrate against anything or undertake any other action themselves.
They only flame others who *do* try to do something.
2. I don't understand why you have to be either a communist or stupid
to demonstrate against the Gulf war. Communism doesn't have anything
to do with this. Also, it might come as a shock to the original
poster, but I have the feeling that there are a *lot* of informed
and intelligent people who *still* don't want this war.
--
--
Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht | Oral: Jack Jansen
zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen | Internet: ja...@cwi.nl
dan dooft het licht | Uucp: hp4nl!cwi.nl!jack
Arne Gehlhaar
Ken Warkentyne
> Why haven't some of these [American] troops [in the Gulf] been
> launched on Lithunania, to defend Lithuanian democracy ?.
> *This* is hypocrisy !
No, this is ``real-politik'', something that the French are only too good
at practicing.
Let us look at the French Communist party, perhaps the greatest band of
hypocrites in the world. Where were their protests when the U.S.S.R.
invaded Hungary, Czeckoslovakia, and Afghanistan? Where were their
protests of the Soviet policy of turning the Baltic states into ``russified''
provinces through deportation and execution of the local population
and mass immigration of Russians? The human rights abuses? The gulags?
Etc. And yet now they are on the front line in France decrying the
villainous use of force to push Saddam, a former Soviet and French client,
out of the country that he had just invaded.
Let us look at Jean-Marie LePen, the French fascist, who has decided to
oppose the anti-Iraq coalition simply to gain political credit in France.
What strange bedfellows, LePen and Marchais.
As for the mainstream parties, does anyone doubt that, if Saddam remains
in control of Iraq after this crisis is over, the French will resume
selling advanced war material and contributing know-how for the making
of chemical and nuclear weapons? Let us not forget who actually sold
Iraq their nuclear reactor. We can't blame everything on greedy capitalist
German companies.
Just so you don't think that I am in favour of this conflict, please note
that I believe that the war against Iraq will prove to be a mistake.
The hypocrisy of the peace demonstrators lies not with individuals (who may
be entirely consistent in their personal actions, even if naive) but with the
groups themselves. We never saw 20,000 Parisians manifesting against Saddam's
original invasion, nor against many of the events that people such as
Cedelle cite as evidence of American hypocrisy. It seems that it takes the
``excitement'' of war (or self-interest) to mobilise these folks who would
otherwise be content to stay at home and watch ``Ciel Mon Mardi'' (a piece
of drivel that appears on French television).
--
Ken Warkentyne - war...@ltisun.epfl.ch | <phrase> - <attribution>
Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, |
EPFL, Suisse. |
Michael Schwuchow
>ced...@yin.irisa.fr (Alain Cedelle) writes:
>> U.S, and allied troops are massively gathered along the Kuwait border, to
>> defend democracy and rights of man. Why haven't some of these troops been
>> launched on Lithunania, to defend Lithuanian democracy ?.
>Probably because Lithuania doesn't have any oil !
>Arne
Prbably because Lithuania isn't independant member of the UN. (yet).
Micha
J|rgen Holmberg
This is ridiculuos! The soviet union has nuclear bombs and an army that is more
powerful than Iraq. The fact that a threat to national security by western
forces would give the military in the soviet union a perfect opportunity to
impose presidential rule or even martial law on all member states may also have
influenced the NATO leaders. Saddam Hussein is a modern day Hitler that has
found religious fanatics as easily lead as Hitler found nazi fanatics.
While war is never a good choice it is better than letting the wound fester
and spread like a disease over the world. Already we see the religious leaders
of various fundamentalist countries whipping the stupid masses into a frenzy
in order to rid the world of infidels. Infidels in this case means people that
can think for themselves and might oppose a destruction of democracy.
/Jorgen
--
*******************************************************************************
email dvl...@cs.umu.se - other ways to communicate are a waste of time.
Everything I say is always true, just apply it to the right reality.
"Credo, quia absurdum est." Credo in absurdum est?
Daniel Tuijnman
>If you believe that the only reason why we are fighting a war against Saddam
>is to protect our oil interests, can you explain why no similar action
>was taken during the first "oil shock" when the price of barrel rose from
>less than ten to thirty US dollars?
The reason is simple -- first of all, the first "oil shock" was due to a
world-wide decision of oil-producing countries, gathered in the OPEC, to
raise prices. That would have been rather difficult to fight. Secondly,
would only a raising of the prices have justified military action?
But of course the West tries to protect its economic interests as best
as possible. Should I remind you of the following cases:
- Belgian investors helped the uprising in Katanga, which resulted in
the military dictatorship of Mobutu in Zaire (BTW, Katanga is the part
of Zaire where copper is found);
- French and English intervention as Nasser wanted to nationalise the
Suez-canal in 1956;
- The decades-long reluctancy of the West to put sanctions on
South-Africa;
- the help of the CIA for the coup of Pinochet against the
democratically chosen government of Allende, which wanted to nationalise
the tin-mines;
- and so on, and so on.
Greetings,
Daniel.
Ken Warkentyne
>> defend democracy and rights of man. Why haven't some of these troops been
>> launched on Lithunania, to defend Lithuanian democracy ?.
>
> Probably because Lithuania doesn't have any oil !
If you believe that the only reason why we are fighting a war against Saddam
is to protect our oil interests, can you explain why no similar action
was taken during the first "oil shock" when the price of barrel rose from
less than ten to thirty US dollars?
Erland Sommarskog
>is: there was an unjustified attack of Iraq on Kuwait with some atrocities
>committed (but see a recent discussion in alt.desert-shield on whether that was
>Saddam's personal order), but the situation was stable for months.
>The sanctions had just started to work (incidentally mainly on the sick and
>children of Iraq) and according to analysts after a year or so would have
>made Saddam think. Bush claimed in his address: "The world could wait no
>longer... Sanctions were tried for well over five months, and we and our
And they started to work first after five months? Doesn't seem like
good sanctions to me. A year or so? What would have been left of
Kuwait then? Could a year or so mean "ten years"?
>And why did he never try to even think
>about Saddam's offer of linkage with the Palestinian question?
What has Palestina to do with Kuwait? Nothing. Would you trust
Saddam to hold his promise and leave Kuwait after such a conference?
What you buy a used car from this man?
>Anyway, there were so many arguments against
>Desert Storm, and so many risks involved
The Desert Storm was inevitable. Of course there are risks. Of
course there were great risks holding on to status quo. Would
the arabs still accept American troops in the Gulf after "a
year or so"?
--
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - som...@enea.se
"There is only one success -- to be able to spend your life in your own way"
Christopher Morely
Marc Riese
>From: war...@ltisun.epfl (Ken Warkentyne)
>...
>Just so you don't think that I am in favour of this conflict, please note
>that I believe that the war against Iraq will prove to be a mistake.
Has anybody ever noticed Ken's last name? Pronounced: "War-ken-tie-in"?
Scribner-Bantam defines:
"Tie-in" 1. sale or *promotion* in which two ... products are sold together
2. connection or *link*
"War/Ken Link"? "Ken Promotes War"? What about his ID? "War-ken-t"?
Ken promotes war and tea?
Is this some sort of macabre joke by an International Gorilla?!?!
alain cedelle
>
>> ... Time for peace folks !
>
>Is this a declaration for eunet.politics or do you really mean "time to return
>to sanctions" or "time to let Saddam have Kuwait?"
You mean you don't understand the word 'peace' ?
Your high level in english might still need some improvements.
A.C.
Alain Cedelle
>
>>From: war...@ltisun.epfl (Ken Warkentyne)
>>...
>>Just so you don't think that I am in favour of this conflict, please note
>>that I believe that the war against Iraq will prove to be a mistake.
>
>Has anybody ever noticed Ken's last name? Pronounced: "War-ken-tie-in"?
It sounds also like "War-in-time" !
>Is this some sort of macabre joke by an International Gorilla?!?!
... Time for peace folks !
A.C.
Ken Warkentyne
you might consider behaving in a civilised manner.
>>[My comments on the French Communist Party deleted]
>
> As you seem well informed, why don't you tell the Truth, Mr Warkentyne ?
M. Cedelle, who always seems to be ready to trot a list of U.S. crimes whenever
they take any sort of action, seems to resent my trotting out a list of
similar lapses in morality of the French Communist Party.
The goal of my posting was to point out the hypocrisy of the French Communists,
who were the prime movers behind the recent Parisian peace demonstration.
Nothing more. I apologise if that wasn't clear. M. Cedelle has argued (or
seemed to argue -- his English is somewhat imperfect, I may have
misunderstood him) that any moral justification for defeating Saddam Hussein
is irrelevant because of inconsistent application of international law and
similar acts perpretated by the United States. I merely borrowed his strategy
to apply it to a different target.
> What is the value of this international right when it is differently applied
> in Kuwait from in Lithuania or in Palestine ?
Greater than if it is never applied.
Alain Cedelle
> (Alain Cedelle) wrote:
>> Why haven't some of these [American] troops [in the Gulf] been
>> launched on Lithunania, to defend Lithuanian democracy ?.
>> *This* is hypocrisy !
>
>No, this is ``real-politik'',
It's a good luck you being here, Mr Warkentyne, to explain us the real sense
of words, to provide your objective informations and your wise comments.
Real-politik of militaries is "strike the ennemy only when he is weaker than
you". Of course, this might have some sense, USSR is stronger than Irak, The
hypocrisy is to justify such action by great principles of international right.
What is the value of this international right when it is differently applied
in Kuwait from in Lithuania or in Palestine ?
>Let us look at the French Communist party, perhaps the greatest band of
>hypocrites in the world. Where were their protests when the U.S.S.R.
>invaded Hungary, Czeckoslovakia, and Afghanistan? Where were their
>protests of the Soviet policy of turning the Baltic states into ``russified''
>provinces through deportation and execution of the local population
>and mass immigration of Russians? The human rights abuses? The gulags?
>Etc. And yet now they are on the front line in France decrying the
>villainous use of force to push Saddam, a former Soviet and French client,
>out of the country that he had just invaded.
> Let us look at Jean-Marie LePen, the French fascist, who has decided to
>oppose the anti-Iraq coalition simply to gain political credit in France.
>What strange bedfellows, LePen and Marchais.
As you seem well informed, why don't you tell the Truth, Mr Warkentyne ?
why don't you speak also of the green party against the war, why don't you
speak of the great number of peace demonstrators outside any organisation ?
Even the most rubbishy newspapers had reported these facts.
I'm not communist, Mr Warkentyne, nor lepenist nor green. But if you too are
not communist, please don't use the same old techniques of disinformation.
>The hypocrisy of the peace demonstrators lies not with individuals (who may
>be entirely consistent in their personal actions, even if naive) but with the
>groups themselves. We never saw 20,000 Parisians manifesting against Saddam's
>original invasion,
The peace demonstrations, in Paris, Rennes or any other European city, were
mainly directed against the disastrous engagement of European states themselves
in a war that could have been avoided.
Those people had no more reasons of manifesting against Saddam's original
invasion, than manifesting against each African coup when bloody dictators
destroy democratic regimes.
In Africa, they have no oil and no money, so they have less rights.
A.C.
CHENEVOY
Alain Cedelle wrote:
>> What is the value of this international right when it is differently applied
>> in Kuwait from in Lithuania or in Palestine ?
or lebanon, or china...
>
> Who says it isn't (or potentially wouldn't be). The problem is
> that many people have the notion in their mind that we must
> solve everything at the same time. Wrong is wrong, whereever it
> takes place, but we cannot solve (or link) everything together
> in one big "case", since this will inevitable result in a dead-lock,
> where nothing is solved.
>
I agree with you when you say that the american can't solve everything
together. I had the impression that a new UNO could endly have its true
meaning seens August the 2nd, I must admit, like you, that it is not the
case, and that the americans can't give the appropriate answer (read 450 000
soldiers) to all the problems of this planet.
Just a question, don't you think the price was not too heavy ? I mean, the
sacrifice of Libanon, diplomatics and economic relations with china, the
"confusion" of western leaders with what happens in the baltic states, the
lost of credibility of united nations after what happened in Jerusalem. All of
which happened after the iraki invasion of Koweit.
I may be wrong, but I still don't anderstand why it is not possible to take and
to keep economic retorsions against some states even if there is a crisis
somewhere else. I don't anderstand a politic which consist in "buying" a vote
in the UN security concil to harmful states in order to punish another harmful
state.
> Kim Chr. Madsen
--
*****************************************************************************
* Yannick Chenevoy | Qu'est ce qui est plus con que l'armee?*
* e-mail: chen...@loria.crin.fr | Deux armees !! *
*****************************************************************************
Kim Christian Madsen
> Real-politik of militaries is "strike the ennemy only when he is weaker than
> you". Of course, this might have some sense, USSR is stronger than Irak, The
> hypocrisy is to justify such action by great principles of international right.
In fact it makes perfect sense ....
Real-politik with respect to a war option is, go to war when it
makes sense, that is the war can solve your political aims, without
risking loosing too much yourself - otherwise its potential harakiri
(or seppukku). One might argue that attacking the USSR and starting
a nuclear WWIII will solve all problems on earth, since there will
be noone left to complain, however, noone has made a strong point
on this yet -- That's real-politik!
> What is the value of this international right when it is differently applied
> in Kuwait from in Lithuania or in Palestine ?
Who says it isn't (or potentially wouldn't be). The problem is
that many people have the notion in their mind that we must
solve everything at the same time. Wrong is wrong, whereever it
takes place, but we cannot solve (or link) everything together
in one big "case", since this will inevitable result in a dead-lock,
where nothing is solved.
Kim Chr. Madsen
Ken Warkentyne
>If you believe that the only reason why we are fighting a war against Saddam
>is to protect our oil interests, can you explain why no similar action
>was taken during the first "oil shock" when the price of barrel rose from
>less than ten to thirty US dollars?
Had my facts mixed up: in '73 the price quadrupled to over 10 US/barrel.
It took the Iranian revolution at the end of the seventies to put the barrel
over 30$. If Reagan had been in power instead of Carter, would the U.S.
have done something to keep the Shah in power?
Anyway, the point that I wanted to make was that the reason why Iraq is being
attacked is not simply to keep Saddam from controlling Kuwait's oil but a
a complex mixture of military, political and economic circumstances.
The necessity of Saddam being morally in the wrong is to place public opinion
on the Allies side. Without worldwide public support, there could never have
been a military option. In other respects, the fact that Saddam is a nasty man
running a nasty regime had no importance in the decision to oppose him; however,
if he weren't a nasty man or if Iraq were a democracy, there would be no Gulf
crisis in the first place.
Having stated that the attack on Iraq is purely the result of real-politik,
I should add that our reasons for supporting the U.S. actions in the Gulf
do not necessarily have to be the same as those of the U.S. Saddam is a
monster. His ambitions have caused the Iraqi people hardship and suffering
for decades. The torture and assasination of political opponents is a
fact of life under his regime. His gassing of the Kurdish minority makes
him a mass murderer. He has invaded two countries without cause, bombed
civilian populations, and looted and pillaged occupied territory. The recent
display of British and American pilots who have clearly been tortured,
greatly repugnant though it be, is only a small item in the list of his
crimes. We can (and perhaps should) be cynical about the motives of the U.S.
and the allies. Nevertheless, we should be grateful that, for once, the
terrible action being taken is justified.
Arne Gehlhaar
>>> U.S, and allied troops are massively gathered along the Kuwait border, to
>>> defend democracy and rights of man. Why haven't some of these troops been
>>> launched on Lithunania, to defend Lithuanian democracy ?.
>>
>> Probably because Lithuania doesn't have any oil !
>If you believe that the only reason why we are fighting a war against Saddam
>is to protect our oil interests, can you explain why no similar action
>was taken during the first "oil shock" when the price of barrel rose from
>less than ten to thirty US dollars?
Not THE ONLY REASON, but the main reason... Maybe America (NATO) is just
looking for a new enemy-image. Maybe America is just interested to sustain
it's political influence, and was looking for a good pretence to destroy
the strengthening Iraqi influence. Maybe the military was just getting
bored. (seems the same in Lithuania at the moment - what are all the poor
Afghanistan generals supposed to be doing sitting at home ???)
Think !
Arne
Ken Warkentyne
> In article <13...@disuns2.epfl.ch>, ri...@litsuns1.epfl.ch (Marc Riese) writes...
>
> It sounds also like "War-in-time" !
Funnily enough, "Cedelle" and "Riese" put me in mind of some some colourful
English colloquial expressions.
> ... Time for peace folks !
Is this a declaration for eunet.politics or do you really mean "time to return
to sanctions" or "time to let Saddam have Kuwait?"
cpmu...@vax1.tcd.ie
> In article <WARKENT.91...@ltisun.epfl>, war...@ltisun.epfl (Ken Warkentyne) writes...
>> (Alain Cedelle) wrote:
>>> Why haven't some of these [American] troops [in the Gulf] been
>>> launched on Lithunania, to defend Lithuanian democracy ?.
>>> *This* is hypocrisy !
>>
>>No, this is ``real-politik'',
>
> you". Of course, this might have some sense, USSR is stronger than Irak, The
> hypocrisy is to justify such action by great principles of international right.
>
> What is the value of this international right when it is differently applied
> in Kuwait from in Lithuania or in Palestine ?
This is not just the real-politik of the military. Different countries have to
agree on what is "right". In the case of Israel, there is very little agreement.
Should they be driven into the sea? Should they be forced to give up all or
part of Israel for a Palestinian state? Lithuania is easier, but of course
the USSR is more powerful, politically as well as militarily, than Iraq. The
probability of success against Iraq is much higher than against the red army.
You are saying all cases should be treated in *exactly* the same way.
I disagree.
>>The hypocrisy of the peace demonstrators lies not with individuals (who may
>>be entirely consistent in their personal actions, even if naive) but with the
>>groups themselves. We never saw 20,000 Parisians manifesting against Saddam's
>>original invasion,
>
> The peace demonstrations, in Paris, Rennes or any other European city, were
> mainly directed against the disastrous engagement of European states themselves
> in a war that could have been avoided.
It depends. You cannot say outright that war could have been avoided. Sadam
doesn't care how his people suffer. If Sadam invaded Kuwait without any
provocation how do you know he wouldn't try again? He has always said that
he intends to destroy the "zionist entity" using whatever means he has,
including chemical or nuclear weapons.
The similarities with Chekoslovakia in 1938 are striking. A proper argument
against war has to show how this analogy is false.
> Those people had no more reasons of manifesting against Saddam's original
> invasion, than manifesting against each African coup when bloody dictators
> destroy democratic regimes.
There is a difference between an internal coup and erasing a whole country
from the map. One reason that we have avoided World War for forty years is
that the integrity of nation states. What Sadam has done is much more serious
than an internal coup.
> In Africa, they have no oil and no money, so they have less rights.
Than the Kuwaitis? Well this is true in a way, but I think it's also because
other cases are less obvious. When one country invades another and wipes it
off the map, it's far easier than civil wars or border disputes to agree
what is right.
> A.C.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Murphy, Trinty College, Dublin, Ireland cpmu...@vax1.tcd.ie
cpmurphy%vax1....@pucc.princeton.edu ..uunet!mcsun!ukc!tcdcs!vax1!cpmurphy
Ken Warkentyne
the U.S. to be fighting in the Gulf:
> Maybe America (NATO) is just looking for a new enemy-image.
They hardly needed to go to war to have an "enemy-image".
> Maybe America is just interested to sustain it's political influence,
> and was looking for a good pretence to destroy the strengthening Iraqi
> influence.
This applies to the Iranian revolution as well.
> Maybe the military was just getting bored.
Ha ha.
Arne, please give me some more reasons. You still haven't convinced
me why the motive of the U.S.A to drive Iraq out of Kuwait should not
have also caused them to send some divisions to prop up the Shah of Iran.
--
Ken Warkentyne - war...@ltisun.epfl.ch | Let a hundred flowers bloom.
Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, | - Mao
EPFL, Suisse. |
J|rgen Holmberg
Think? Good advice! Thinking things through is even better.
The main reason for the war is that we in this day and age can't afford the
kind of medieval leadership that Saddam's minions are displaying. A power-
hungry emperor bent on "uniting" his part of the world whatever the cost
was bad enough before the a-bomb. Now it would be the end of the world.
Economic concerns might enter into the discussion but the main reason for
this war is that the leaders of the world are scared. Scared that someone
as deranged as Saddam Hussein would get his hands on nuclear arms.
Aalin Cedelle
>on the Allies side. Without worldwide public support, there could never have
>been a military option.
Yes. It is clearly the aim of all this anti-saddam propaganda. Saddam is
necessarily Evil. The more Evil he is, the more Good we are, the more needed
and justified is this war.
As people have no memory, no-one is disturbed to remember that one year ago,
Saddam was a (relatively-)good guy, the friend and customer of western
countries.
>if he weren't a nasty man or if Iraq were a democracy, there would be no Gulf
>crisis in the first place.
The world today, is full of dictators and countries that are not democracies,
especially in 'southern' or thirld-world countries.
The reasons of this situation are numerous and complex, but one of these is
clearly the continuous economic pressure of western (Northern ?) countries,
increasing poverty and de-stabilizing most of these southern countries.
If all the money, spent in this war had been used in economic assistance for
southern countries, it would have helped in reducing poverty, diseases of all
sorts. Such improvements might also help in initialisating the democratic
evolutions of those countries.
This of course is quite idealistic, considering the huge economic interests of
weapon makers.
It is certainly a difficult program, to establish peace all over the world,
much more difficult that jumping to war, especially when there are so much
economic interests, and so much stocks of weapons.
But I think it is the only one that can save the long term future of mankind.
A.C.
Alain Cedelle
(Ken Warkentyne) writes...
>Arne Gehlhaar suggests some reasons other than preserving oil interests for
>the U.S. to be fighting in the Gulf:
>> Maybe America (NATO) is just looking for a new enemy-image.
>
>They hardly needed to go to war to have an "enemy-image".
>
>me why the motive of the U.S.A to drive Iraq out of Kuwait should not
>have also caused them to send some divisions to prop up the Shah of Iran.
There was no need, at that time of Iranian revolution, to send US troops in
these regions.
It was a time of East-west balance of power, when Communist danger was still
sufficient to drive the U.S.A's military politic.
To know more about the objectives of U.S.A. everyone should read the text
that was posted in talk.politics.mid-east, under the title "Words Bush
doesn't want you to hear (or read)", written by a former CIA agent: Phil Agee.
I report below the parts of the text speaking about the economic apects
of U.S. war-policy:
" With a U.S national debt of $3 trillion, some $800 billion owned by
foreigners, The United States sooner or later would have to find, or
produce, the proper crisis - one that would enable the president to
hire out the armed forces, like a national export, in order to avoid
conversion of the economy from military to civilian purposes. Iraq's
invasion of Kuwait, encouraged, it seems, by the Bush administration,
is the necessary crisis."
[....]
"Why would Bush seek a world crisis? The first suggestion came, for me
at least, when he uttered those words about "our way of life" being at
stake. They brought to mind Harry Truman's speech in 1950 that broke
Congressional resistance to Cold War militarism and began 40 years of
Pentagon dominance of the U.S. economy. It's worth recalling Truman's
speech because Bush is trying to use the Gulf crisis, as Truman used
the Korean War, to justify what some call military Keynesianism as a
solution for U.S. economic problems. This is, using enormous military
expenditures to prevent or rectify economic slumps and depressions,
while reducing as much as possible spending on civilian and social
programs. Exactly what Reagan and Bush did, for example, in the early
and mid-1980s.
In 1950 the Truman administration adopted a program to vastly expand
the U.S and West European military services under a National Security
Council document called NSC-68. This document was Top Secret for 25
years and, by error, it was released in 1975 and published. The
purpose of military expansion under NSC-68 was to reverse the economic
slide that began with the end of World War II wherein during five
years the U.S. GNP had declined 20 percent and unemployment had risen
from 700,000 to 4.7 million. U.S. exports, despite the subsidy program
known as the Marshall Plan, were inadequate to sustain the economy,
and remilitarization of Western Europe would allow transfer of
dollars, under so-called defense support grants, that would in turn
generate European imports from the U.S. As NSC-68 put the situation in
early 1950: "the United States and other free nations will within a
period of a few years at most experience a decline in economic
activity of serious proportions unless more positive governmental
programs are developed..."
The solution adopted was expansion of the military. But support in
Congress and the public at large was lacking for a variety of reasons,
not least the increased taxes the programs would require. So Truman's
State Department, under Dean Acheson, set out to sell the so-called
Communist Threat as justification, through a fear campaign in the
media that would create a permanent war atmosphere. But a domestic
media campaign was not enough. A real crisis was needed, and it came
in Korea. Joyce and Gabriel Kolko, in their history of the 1945-55
period, "The Limits of Power", show that the Truman administration
manipulated this crisis to overcome resistance to military build-up
and a review of those events show striking parallels to the Persian
Gulf crisis of 1990. "
[...]
"The so-called national security state of the past 40 years has meant
enormous riches, and power, for those who are in the game. It has also
meant population control - control of the people of this and many
other countries. Bush and his team, and those they represent, will do
whatever is necessary to keep the game going. Elitist control of the
U.S. rests on this game. If anyone doubts this, recall that from the
very beginning of this crisis, projections were coming out on costs,
implying that Desert Shield would last for more than a year, perhaps
that large U.S. forces would stay permanently in the Gulf. Just
imagine the joy this crisis has brought to U.S. military industries
that only months ago were quaking over their survival in a post-Cold
War world. Not six weeks passed after the Iraqi invasion before the
Pentagon proposed the largest arms sale in history: $21 billion worth
of hardware for defense of the Saudi Arabian throne. Very clever when
you do the sums. With an increase in price of $15 per barrel, which
had already happened, Saudi Arabia stands to earn more than $40
billion extra dollars during the 14 months from the invasion to the
end of the next U.S. fiscal year. Pentagon calculations of Desert
Shield costs come to $18 billion for the same 14 months. Even if the
Saudis paid all that, which they won't because of other contributors,
they would have more than $20 billion in windfall income left over.
O.K., bring that money to the States through weapon sales. That, I
suppose, is why the Saudi Arms sale instantly became known as the
Defense Industry Relief Act of 1990."
A.C. / "Whoever lives from war will perish from war"
Marc Riese
ced...@yin.irisa.fr (Alain Cedelle) writes:
[ 100 line message about US economic motivation for waging war]
You have accused K.W. as being a liar (sic) for calling the French political
and arms-selling activities cynical but not recognising its good side.
Don't you think that such a long condemnation of the US by a Frenchman
should at least include a word of recognition that France sells arms too?
Where's your humility?
Marc Riese
Michael K. Gschwind
> The peace demonstrations, in Paris, Rennes or any other European city, were
> mainly directed against the disastrous engagement of European states themselves
> in a war that could have been avoided.
>
HOW COULD A WAR WHICH STARTED ON AUGUST 2ND, 1990 HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IN
JANUARY 1991 ????????
>A.C.
Michael K. Gschwind
Erland Sommarskog
> What is the value of this international right when it is differently applied
> in Kuwait from in Lithuania or in Palestine ?
Very well worthwhile. The conclusion of what you say is that we should
never interfer when the strong takes the weak. It is unfortunate that
we cannot interfer in Lithuania, but we have to compromise between our
principles and possibilities to enforce them. (And what has happened
to Kuwait in these six months it has been "annected" by Iraq is probably
a lot worse than what has happened to Lithuania since 1940.) As for
Palestine, you don't have a case; there never was an independent Palestine.
>The peace demonstrations, in Paris, Rennes or any other European city, were
>mainly directed against the disastrous engagement of European states
>themselves in a war that could have been avoided.
My opinion is that the only way to peace in this question is through
war. When you deal with people like Saddam Hussein there is no such
thing as kindergarten.
> Those people had no more reasons of manifesting against Saddam's original
> invasion, than manifesting against each African coup when bloody dictators
> destroy democratic regimes.
> In Africa, they have no oil and no money, so they have less rights.
The only case vaguely similar to Kuwait in Africa I can think of is
Spanish Sahara, and it never had any de facto independence before
Marocco walked in.
True, there are coups in Africa (but how many against democratic
regimes???) but they are internal affairs.
--
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - som...@enea.se
One likes to believe in the spirit of muzak.
Alain Cedelle
>In article <1991Jan22....@irisa.fr>, ced...@yin.irisa.fr (Alain Cedelle) writes:
>> The peace demonstrations, in Paris, Rennes or any other European city, were
>> mainly directed against the disastrous engagement of European states themselves
>> in a war that could have been avoided.
>
> It depends. You cannot say outright that war could have been avoided.
Why not ? I effectively say that war could have been avoided, I see two
reasons:
1- The negociations have not been tried as strongly that they should have
been tried. Since the beginning, Bush wanted 'his' war.
2- Efficiency of economic blocus. The case of South Africa has yet been
discussed, but more generally the world today is made of economic powers that
have replaced the old colonial organisation. The efficiency of this economic
power is obvious in all so-called north-south relations.
>> Those people had no more reasons of manifesting against Saddam's original
>> invasion, than manifesting against each African coup when bloody dictators
>> destroy democratic regimes.
>
> There is a difference between an internal coup and erasing a whole country
>from the map.
What kind of difference ? An internal coup can be much more bloody that such
'erasing', in terms of deads and distress.
The british ex-Empire has drawn the map of Irak, Kuweit and others. This
drawing erased former countries. Who is guilty ?
>One reason that we have avoided World War for forty years is that the
>integrity of nation states.
I would say, One reason that we have had World Wars, is that the existence
of nation states.
Because interests and 'rights' of nation states have nothing in common with
the real interests and rights of mankind.
The Pope himself has recently declared that the International-right should not
be considered as some extension of sovreignty of states, or interests of these
ones.
Isn't it outrageous to see so much money spent in a war for Kuwait, while so
many millions of people are starving and suffering all over the world ?
A.C.
Olaf Schlueter
>>> U.S, and allied troops are massively gathered along the Kuwait border, to
>>> defend democracy and rights of man. Why haven't some of these troops been
>>> launched on Lithunania, to defend Lithuanian democracy ?.
>>
>> Probably because Lithuania doesn't have any oil !
>If you believe that the only reason why we are fighting a war against Saddam
>is to protect our oil interests, can you explain why no similar action
>was taken during the first "oil shock" when the price of barrel rose from
>less than ten to thirty US dollars?
Maybe because the believe in peace and the hate against war had been
bigger then than today. Times are changing.
Ok, just wishful thinking. The probably reason is, that is has been
considered and dropped after a "cost-benefit" analysis of the same
"experts", which also thought it would be wise to support Iraq in the
war against Iran over a couple of years, and now believe that it
is necessary to bomb away those weapons we sold to it.
And never wasted one thought to the lives endangered and killed by
this "politics".
I do not trust them any longer, and will never trust them again.
And I am ashamed that I ever trusted them.
--
Olaf Schlueter, Sandkuhle 4-6, 2300 Kiel 1, FRG, sch...@oski.toppoint.de
There is only greed and evil in the man who fight today, the song of the
crusaders has long since gone away - Jerusalem is lost. (Crusader, C.d.Burgh)
! We have to pay for incoming mail, so don't reply or keep short !
Alain Cedelle
>>[ 100 line message about US economic motivation for waging war]
>>
>You have accused K.W. as being a liar (sic) for calling the French political
>and arms-selling activities cynical but not recognising its good side.
I certainly must apologize for not being as clear as I thought i was.
My 'accusations' towards K.W. were certainly not about French political
and arm selling, but about peace demonstrations.
My main point was that French peace demonstrations were not only led by
communists and others cynical people.
>Don't you think that such a long condemnation of the US by a Frenchman
I suggest, for you to read once more (or at least one time ?), the header of
this text, where I explained it came from an American (Phil Agee).
I must still apologize, since these important explanations about my sources
were probably not enough clear. I should have written them two or three times,
maybe in capital or blinking letters.
And it is not a 'condemnation', but mainly a realistic view of the situation.
>should at least include a word of recognition that France sells arms too?
I have never supported such activity, and if i have not spoken of it, that
doesn't mean i agree with it.
But in this war, Bush is the leader, not Mitterrand.
The fact that I might be considered as 'Frenchman' shouldn't interfere with
my opinions and my right to criticize anything or anycountry.
A.C.
Kim Christian Madsen
> Why not ? I effectively say that war could have been avoided, I see two
> reasons:
> 1- The negociations have not been tried as strongly that they should have
> been tried. Since the beginning, Bush wanted 'his' war.
Negotiation of what? This action taken by S.H. was outright war against
a small neighbor, who he brutally annexed. Negotiations call for
consessions on both sides, there was no conssessions to give S.H.
except that he would not be harmed further if he unconditionally
withdrew from Kuwait.
> 2- Efficiency of economic blocus. The case of South Africa has yet been
>discussed, but more generally the world today is made of economic powers that
>have replaced the old colonial organisation. The efficiency of this economic
>power is obvious in all so-called north-south relations.
A blocade of Iraq would (even if 100% effective) cause greater harm to
the people of Iraq, thousands of dead Iraqis due to shortage of food,
medicine and other needed commodities. The technological warfare
against Iraq, even if not as good as seen through the military
channels, are not aimed at civilians but at military targets, which
they hit with great precission, thus having a greater impact on Iraq
than a blocade could ever have and possibly even saving civilian lives.
Unfortunately this does not go the other way around, S.H. uses his
military arsenal indiscriminately on civilians to cause terror,
instead of aiming at military targets.
>> There is a difference between an internal coup and erasing a whole country
>>from the map.
> What kind of difference ? An internal coup can be much more bloody that such
> 'erasing', in terms of deads and distress.
The kind of difference that has been explained over and over, but you
don't seem to grasp....
The international concensus has been (and rightly in my opinion):
1) Internal affairs of a country are the affairs of that
country, as long as they don't have an adverse effect on
other states.
You just don't bomb france, because a socialist goverment won the
election and you heavily dislike socialist governments. You don't bomb
Berlin because the police opened fire upon demonstrators. You don't
bomb Iraq because they gas the Kurds, You don't bomb China because
they execute democratic protestants....etc. And if you do, prepare for
World War XIII in the end of June (-:
2) When a country uses force against another country, it is no
longer an internal affair.
This is what happened in the Kuwait case, it gave a reason for the
internation coalition to act, which it couldn't before.
> The british ex-Empire has drawn the map of Irak, Kuweit and others. This
> drawing erased former countries. Who is guilty ?
This is history, look at a map of Europe and get a map from before
WWII and compare. Should Germany be allowed to war against Poland to
get back their territories from before 1945 (the drawing was made by
the Allied Forces not Germany), should Romania be allowed to go to war
against the Soviet Union, for taking Moldavia away from Romania, etc.
If such border claims are to be resolved by war, we will have a very
short lifespan in store! Thus, we cannot accept such claims be
resolved by war, even if it takes war to prevent other claims to
evolve.
>>One reason that we have avoided World War for forty years is that the
>>integrity of nation states.
> I would say, One reason that we have had World Wars, is that the existence
> of nation states.
But you cannot remove the concept of nation states, unless all parts
agree upon unifying the states. How would the EEC look like if it was
made by war? The fourth reich perhaps.....
> Because interests and 'rights' of nation states have nothing in common with
> the real interests and rights of mankind.
You are a blue-eyed idealist, I think I would like to live in your
dream world, but unfortuinately I was brought up in another world,
which has a looooooong history behind it, that cannot be forgotten
overnight or ignored -- for good or for worse, it's the world we live
in, except at night when we sleep!
Kim Chr. Madsen
mathew
> In article <1991Jan22....@irisa.fr> ced...@yin.irisa.fr writes:
> > The peace demonstrations, in Paris, Rennes or any other European city, were
> > mainly directed against the disastrous engagement of European states themse
>
> Maybe I'm just plain stupid. So I have one little question:
> HOW COULD A WAR WHICH STARTED ON AUGUST 2ND, 1990 HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IN
> JANUARY 1991 ????????
>
Question:
Which European war started on August 2nd, 1990?
mathew.
[ You can spend as long as you like thinking about it. ]
--
Internet: mat...@mantis.co.uk / mathew%mantis...@ukc.ac.uk
UUCP: mat...@mantis.UUCP / ...!mcsun!ukc!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew
If you know anything significant about ISDN, please mail me...
Chris Hayward
>Arne Gehlhaar suggests some reasons other than preserving oil interests for
>the U.S. to be fighting in the Gulf:
>Arne, please give me some more reasons. You still haven't convinced
>me why the motive of the U.S.A to drive Iraq out of Kuwait should not
>have also caused them to send some divisions to prop up the Shah of Iran.
How about this one: at the time the Shah was overthrown, there were
two "super powers" glaring at each other throughout the world and, to
some extent, keeping each other's worst excesses in check. The US
could not move in without inviting escalation from the USSR.
The USSR has now stepped down from this war, meaning that:
a) The USA has lost its big bogey, the threat from the East, which has
for the last 40 years dominated its foreign and domestic policies. The
giant was, for a time, in danger of waking up to its problems at home,
since it no longer had to walk the streets of the "free world" as
policeman and moral guardian.
b) There is now no-one to oppose the expanmsion of their own influence
in the world. The mid-east has been a pain for the Yanks for years -
they needed an opportunity to step in with the big stick to ensure
they get their own way (and "their" oil).
BTW the fact that they can now:
- test their wonderful destruction machines
- sell the above as "battle tested"
- increase the back-door public spending programme aka "defence
industry"
is probably a happy side effect of this bloody conflict, rather than a
prime motive for it.
Chris Hayward
Alain Cedelle
>ced...@yin.irisa.fr (Alain Cedelle) writes:
>> 1- The negociations have not been tried as strongly that they should have
>> been tried. Since the beginning, Bush wanted 'his' war.
>
>Negotiation of what? This action taken by S.H. was outright war against
>a small neighbor, who he brutally annexed. Negotiations call for
>consessions on both sides, there was no conssessions to give S.H.
>except that he would not be harmed further if he unconditionally
>withdrew from Kuwait.
Everything is negociable, it is only a question of suitable will. The
negative position of 'no-concessions/no-conditions' only shows that
negociations have not been enough tried.
>> 2- Efficiency of economic blocus. The case of South Africa has yet been
>>discussed, but more generally the world today is made of economic powers that
>>have replaced the old colonial organisation. The efficiency of this economic
>>power is obvious in all so-called north-south relations.
>
>A blocade of Iraq would (even if 100% effective) cause greater harm to
>the people of Iraq, thousands of dead Iraqis due to shortage of food,
>medicine and other needed commodities. The technological warfare
>against Iraq, even if not as good as seen through the military
>channels, are not aimed at civilians but at military targets, which
>they hit with great precission, thus having a greater impact on Iraq
>than a blocade could ever have and possibly even saving civilian lives.
AH ! what a nice world, where weapons are used to save lives !
Where bombs are smart enough to destroy only military targets !
Where people feel concerned by Iraqis starvation resulting from a blockade !
Are you really ignoring that millions of people are starving everyday in
the world ? What kind of concern have you had for these other ones ?
If all these starving people had only the quarter of all that money spent
in missiles and weapons, we might certainly live in better world.
>>> There is a difference between an internal coup and erasing a whole country
>>>from the map.
>
>> What kind of difference ? An internal coup can be much more bloody that such
>> 'erasing', in terms of deads and distress.
>
>The kind of difference that has been explained over and over, but you
>don't seem to grasp....
It is not to me that you should explain that difference, but to all the
victims of these events.
>
>The international concensus has been (and rightly in my opinion):
>
> 1) Internal affairs of a country are the affairs of that
> country, as long as they don't have an adverse effect on
> other states.
So, long life to Apartheid in South Africa ?
Is Lithuania a Soviet-Union Internal affair ? and Tibet a Chinese one ?
>You just don't bomb france, because a socialist goverment won the
>election and you heavily dislike socialist governments. You don't bomb
>Berlin because the police opened fire upon demonstrators. You don't
>bomb Iraq because they gas the Kurds, You don't bomb China because
>they execute democratic protestants....etc. And if you do, prepare for
>World War XIII in the end of June (-:
Is it still necessary to recall my opposition to any bombing and any war ?
In your nice international order, 15 Millions of Kurds have no rights in
front of 900 000 Kuwaitis.
I don't agree with that.
In this war, thousands (and may be more) of people will die. For what will
they die ? for freedom of Kuwaitis ? while in the same time millions of other
people are enslaved, starving, and dying all over the world.
Is this quite logical ?
>> The british ex-Empire has drawn the map of Irak, Kuweit and others. This
>> drawing erased former countries. Who is guilty ?
>This is history, look at a map of Europe and get a map from before
>WWII and compare. Should Germany be allowed to war against Poland to
>get back their territories from before 1945 (the drawing was made by
>the Allied Forces not Germany), should Romania be allowed to go to war
>against the Soviet Union, for taking Moldavia away from Romania, etc.
Irak was allowed and encouraged in his war against Iran, Irak was even
allowed to go to war against Kuwait. Remember the last US-Irak discussion,
before August.
>> I would say, One reason that we have had World Wars, is that the existence
>> of nation states.
>
>But you cannot remove the concept of nation states, unless all parts
>agree upon unifying the states. How would the EEC look like if it was
>made by war? The fourth reich perhaps.....
EEC is the best example showing that peace is possible and much more
constructive that war. EEC has been build because the comunity of nation-states
accepted to give up some of their independance, and to be integrated in a
larger organisation.
EEC is the end of the concept of nation states as it existed before 1945, in
Europe.
>> Because interests and 'rights' of nation states have nothing in common with
>> the real interests and rights of mankind.
>
>You are a blue-eyed idealist, I think I would like to live in your
>dream world, but unfortuinately I was brought up in another world,
>which has a looooooong history behind it,
No, I'm strongly realist. This world might have a looooong history, but for
me it might have a very short future.
Because, if people in 1991 continue to use war for resolving conflicts (and
for purposes of internal politics), we are close to the final explosions.
Because, if this time, no nukes and no bacteries are yet used, it is only a
question of years.
Because the technology is here, and it may only spread everywhere. More and
more countries have nuclear weapons.
How will you prevent these growing dangers ? certainly not with such
speeches about historical use of war, and so-called International Right.
I certainly dream of a better world, but be sure that i do my best to turn
this dream into reality.
A.C.
Magnus Kempe
: Everything is negociable, it is only a question of suitable will.
Well, picture the following scene:
some blood-thirsty thug asks you to give him all of your property, including
house, car, clothes, food, etc., as well as your children.
What kind of compromise could you reach? however small the compromise with
this evil (say, some food and $10), you will have established the principle
that any demand is -- to some extent -- valid, no matter who demands what.
It won't be long before the cannibal comes back, this time asking for your life.
What compromise would you reach, then?
: I certainly dream of a better world, but be sure that i do my best to turn
: this dream into reality.
Face the facts. A cannibal is a cannibal. No good derives from a compromise
between good and evil -- only evil can profit from such a compromise.
--
Best Premises, mag...@elcgl.epfl.ch
"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar to
our ennemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*."
-- Hugh Akston, in _Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand
Michael K. Gschwind
>mi...@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Michael K. Gschwind) writes:
>> Maybe I'm just plain stupid. So I have one little question:
>> HOW COULD A WAR WHICH STARTED ON AUGUST 2ND, 1990 HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IN
>> JANUARY 1991 ????????
>>
>> Michael K. Gschwind
>
>Question:
>
>Which European war started on August 2nd, 1990?
This is not a European war. Some European states just happen to defend
the victimof Iraqi aggression. BTW, which English/French war started in
1939. By your argument, the French and British were dead wrong in
defending Poland - after all it was not a democratic state either, but
a fascist dictatorship. Also, HItler had attacked neither the UK nor
France ...
Michael
Olaf Schlueter
>In article <PiDJw1...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>>mi...@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Michael K. Gschwind) writes:
>>> Maybe I'm just plain stupid. So I have one little question:
>>> HOW COULD A WAR WHICH STARTED ON AUGUST 2ND, 1990 HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IN
>>> JANUARY 1991 ????????
>>>
>>> Michael K. Gschwind
>>
>>Question:
>>
>>Which European war started on August 2nd, 1990?
>This is not a European war. Some European states just happen to defend
>the victimof Iraqi aggression. BTW, which English/French war started in
>1939. By your argument, the French and British were dead wrong in
>defending Poland - after all it was not a democratic state either, but
>a fascist dictatorship. Also, HItler had attacked neither the UK nor
>France ...
Are you going to tell us, that WWII has been waged to free Poland ?
--
Olaf Schlueter, Sandkuhle 4-6, 2300 Kiel 1, FRG, sch...@oski.toppoint.de
Stop bombardment. Continue embargo. Start negotiations. NOW!
700 tons on Dresden killed 60000. 18000 tons on Bagdad killed (censored).
dela...@uni2a.unige.ch
> mi...@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Michael K. Gschwind) writes:
>
>>In article <PiDJw1...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>>>mi...@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Michael K. Gschwind) writes:
>>>> Maybe I'm just plain stupid. So I have one little question:
>>>> HOW COULD A WAR WHICH STARTED ON AUGUST 2ND, 1990 HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IN
>>>> JANUARY 1991 ????????
>>>>
>>>> Michael K. Gschwind
>>>
>>>Question:
>>>
>>>Which European war started on August 2nd, 1990?
>
>>This is not a European war. Some European states just happen to defend
>>the victimof Iraqi aggression. BTW, which English/French war started in
>>1939. By your argument, the French and British were dead wrong in
>>defending Poland - after all it was not a democratic state either, but
>>a fascist dictatorship. Also, HItler had attacked neither the UK nor
>>France ...
>
> Are you going to tell us, that WWII has been waged to free Poland ?
Why, yes, I *do* believe the french war declaration included a segment
about freeing Poland.
>
> --
> Olaf Schlueter, Sandkuhle 4-6, 2300 Kiel 1, FRG, sch...@oski.toppoint.de
> Stop bombardment. Continue embargo. Start negotiations. NOW!
> 700 tons on Dresden killed 60000. 18000 tons on Bagdad killed (censored).
I heard the figure 18,000 was wrong; but the figure (censored) is probably
right...
ludovic
"You were born, and never asked: so happy birthday" laurie
Markus Stumptner
> mi...@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Michael K. Gschwind) writes:
>>1939. By your argument, the French and British were dead wrong in
>>defending Poland - after all it was not a democratic state either, but
>>a fascist dictatorship. Also, HItler had attacked neither the UK nor
>>France ...
>
> Are you going to tell us, that WWII has been waged to free Poland ?
Congratulations! Since you now have realized this, 52 years after the
fact, perhaps you will realize in 2043 what the Gulf War is for.
--
Markus Stumptner m...@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna vexpert!m...@uunet.uu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
pedrogo...@gmail.com
dans le besoin,son adresse email est celle ci : dokousan...@gmail.com
Contacté-le si vous êtes dans le besoin. partager cette publication