🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1819@netmbx.UUCP>, sanio@netmbx.UUCP (Erhard Sanio) writes:
> In article <1991Feb6.193157.19254@tss.com> mathon@tss.com (John D. Mathon (593-0923)) writes:
> >In article <A0b0cf8k@oski.toppoint.de>, schlut@oski.toppoint.de (Olaf Schlueter) writes:
> >Criticism is fine sir, but, if you have no alternatives, then your
> >criticism is stupid noise.  Stop complaining about the nuclear power 
> >plant and spend more time explaining your brilliant plan to take out
> >the nuclear threat of Saddams without air strikes.  Otherwise why
> >don't you take your complaining to the toilet where it belongs.
> >
> In fact all analysts (including those from Israel) aggree that there was
> no imminent danger that Iraq could develop an atomic bomb earlier than
> in the next two or three years if any. 

IT NEVER OCCURRED TO ME THAT TWO OR THREE YEARS UNTIL SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS
NUCLEAR WEAPONS IS AN OPTIMISTIC SCENARIO!

My fundamental question is assuming you are correct, how do you propose
removing Saddams nuclear threat in the next 2 or 3 years?  Do you think
he is just going to let us come in and disable it?

THink about it.  Really, HOW DO YOU PROPOSE ELIMINATING
SADDAMS NUCLEAR CAPABILITY IN THE NEXT 3 years.  If Saddam leaves Kuwait
the US and its allies will be forced to stop the war.  We will have no 
pretexct to go in and take out his nuclear weapons.   Even if we win the
war it is not clear the US will be in a position to take and control
Iraq sufficiently to carry out a "clean" operation. 

All that I have said in the previous paragraphs ASSUMES that you are
correct and that it will be 2 or 3 years before he could launch a nuclear
weapon.  If you are wrong and he is within several weeks or months, then
tens of thousands of Americans would die and the world could be plunged
into a massive nuclear conflagration.

Since you don't believe in the war in the first place I fail
to see how you could get him to relinquish his nuclear technology.  You
have no plan.  You just don't care.  In fact, Germany has been selling him 
the technology, so I presume that you just don't care whether he gets
nuclear weapons.

A goal of the war is to eliminate his nuclear capability.  Since we have
no guarentee that he doesn't already have these weapons or is close to it
and because we do not know when and if we could dismantle his nuclear 
capability otherwise I think we took the only logical course.  	If you
have some alternative, let's hear it. Simple criticism of allied efforts
are easy.  Again, unless you have a credible alternative, I suggest you
take your criticism to a toilet where it belongs.

> >> I do not care, who of both war waging parties commits more ware crimes
> >> and which are more evil. I just want to indicate how useless and senseless
> >> all rules for waging war are. War is immoral.
> >
> >If you truly feel this way I suggest you go to Iraq yourself and state 
> >this fact to the men on the front line of Iraq as well.  Everybody in
> >America would prefer not to fight this war.  But Saddam refuses to get
> >out of Kuwait any other way.  He is the one who refuses to get out of
> >Kuwait.  YOU SHOULD BE TALKING TO HIM, NOT US.  We do not want to fight
> >the war.  We have no choice.
> >
> Your rhethoric is following one simple and demagogic thread: everybody
> who argues that war was not the appropriate means supports Saddam. Period.

NO!!!!  I am saying that if you are against the war, take it to Saddam.
Nobody in America wants to fight this war.  Otherwise explain why you think
Saddam should keep Kuwait.  Either you think that Saddam should keep
Kuwait or you think we should expel him.  Since you suggest that we should
not fight I presume that you support his continued "war crimes" against the
people of KJuwait and continued occupation of Kuwait.  That's fine.

However, if you believe Saddam should get out of Kuwait, then what is your
beef.  Again, criticism is easy, what is your alternative.  You sound 
like a child or a moron.  Think.  Stop chanting "no war.  no war."  This
is not a peace rally.  We are trying to understand why "no war" and what
are the alternatives to war.

How do you propose freeing Kuwait?  How much will your solution cost,
how realistic is it and how many people will die, Kuwaitis, Iraqis,
Americans, etc...  Will your solution empower Saddam?  When will Saddam
develop a nuclear option?  When will Saddam develop a biological
capability?

> In fact, the alternative was (and is) clearly not either to let Iraq
> get away with the conquest of Kuwait or to start war.
> That was never the real alternative. While US government spread the myth
> that the embargo was a total failure, now CIA reports given to the US
> parliament Committee for armed forces showed that the embargo was the
> most effective one in the history of those measures - which does not
> astonish, as there are no states like the UK or the USA putting loopholes
> in as it was the case with South Africa.
> While maintaining the embargo would have shown the unique will of the 
> international community not to tolerate agression and would surely have
> proved to work after a while (months rather than a year), the war allowed

We have now gone one month more into the embargo AND the US has destoryed
his ability to resupply his people and troops.  We have in escence 
accelerated the embargo by bombing what supplies he has and by causing
him to use the supplies he has quicker and less effecitively.  Saddam
shows NO signs of caving in.  YOU ARE CLEARLY WRONG.  An embargo can
be shown that it would have failed.

Saddam Hussein started his adult life as a terrorist.  Videotapes show
examples of how Saddam rose to power.  One showed soon after Saddam was put
in a powerful position he had someone who had oppose him get up and disclose
who opposed Saddam.  On the videotape it shows each of those indivuduals 
being pulled out of their chairs and brought outside where they were
executed.  In the main hall, the legislators stood up and gave Saddam a
standing ovation.

When he rose to power in Iraq the first thing he did was to attack Iran.
As a believer in pan-arabism he believes in the merging of all Arab
countries.  Therefore his first target was Iran.  8 years later and 100
billion dollars and more than 1 million dead he desisted and changed
targets to what appeared an easier and smaller target, Kuwait.  Kuwait
would give him the revenue to upgrade his army (already the fourth largest
in the world) to true superpower status.  The war with Iran was very 
costly monetarily and he needed new resources.  Kuwait was the perfect
target.

If you think an embargo would convince Saddam Hussein to give up Kuwait
you are a fool.  Simply put, you would be a fool.  He has already killed
one million.  If the US gets out of this with a few hundred thousand
dead on the Iraqi side and a couple of thousand on the US side we should
count ourselves as lucky.  VERY VERY LUCKY INDEED AND SO SHOULDNT THE
IRAQI PEOPLE.

> Saddam to assemble his people behind him and to give himself the shape
> of an arabian hero resisting the attack of the whole world.

Saddam WILL NOT BE A HERO.  He may be a hero today to frightened and
uneducated and propogandized masses, but, the acts of
flooding the sea with oil and shooting scuds at innocent people and
his despotism will come home to roost.  He is not a hero and never will
be.  The US is in good shape if we risk that Saddam will be a hero.
It's absurd.  No intelligent person, no person educated will accept
Saddam as a hero.  It's absurd.  It is only a matter of a short time
and the stature of the US will be greater and more illuminated in the
Arab world than ever. 

Japan considered the emprorer to be a hero.  After the war, the fact that
he was a despot became clear.  The fact that he plunged his people into
total destruction was clear.  The leaders of Japan in WWII are not heroes to
the Japanese, the leaders of the Germans at the time were not heroes and the
leader of Iraq, saddam hussein will NOT BE A HERO.  It's absurd.

> >I DONT THINK TURKEY IS WRONG TO TRY TO DEFEND KUWAIT, BUT IF TURKEY IS
> >ATTACKED IT IS SURELY A CONCERN OF GERMANIES.  To suggest otherwise
> >shows a gross lack of concern for your partners.  It certainly would 
> >put into question the reliability of Germany as a partner.  
> >
> NATO is a defense alliance which means that partners are not hostages of
> arbitrary military adventures of the other members. When Turkey occupied
> Cyprus it was clearly no "NATO case". Equally, if you were right, where
> would Germany have been committed to intervene during Greek/Turkish
> military conflicts? At both sides? Both are NATO members!

You may argue this to death, but the political fact is one YOU HAVE TO
LIVE WITH NOT ME.  If you abandon Turkey it is YOUR problem not mine.
You may claim that there are good reasons for doing so, but it is the
Turkish people you must convince, not me.  I am simply pointing out
that the image of a Germany NOT resolutely behind its allies is something
that is going to be a SEVERE problem for Germany.  As I said, if you
think standing behind Saddams rights is more important than standing
behind your allies, that is YOUR choice, but, YOU will have to live the
consequences, NOT ME.

> Btw., "defending Kuwait" is another propaganda euphemism. Though covered
> by UN resolution, this is a war to reconquest (if you want, to liberate)
> Kuwait, not to defend it. Otherwise you could say that Saddam is "defending"
> the Palestinians as they too are under foreign occupation condemned by
> the UN or Syria would "defend" Golan (occupied and annexed against UN
> security council resolutions) once they would attack Israel.

Discussing these semantics is fun, but, if you would think for a second and
get your head out of the sand you will realize that Saddam Hussein is
interested in the destruction of Israel and the West in Gerneral.  After
reviewing the little history lesson given above you come to the conclusion
that Saddam Hussein is a man concerned about the rights of the Palestinians
or anybody else you are naive in my opinion.  Saddam Hussein cares about
as much for Palestinians as he does for green beans.  Probably less.

He is hurting the Palestinians, not helping them.  THey will suffer fant-
astically because of Saddam Hussein.  The Palestinians best course is a 
peaceful course.  Saddam proposes a military course.  For the Palestinians
this makes no sense.  It is suicidal.  He is leading them to destruction.

> Quite other though highly irrealistic situation would develop when Iraq
> would successfully occupy a considerable part of Turkey showing the 
> intention to keep that territory. That might affect NATO as a whole.
> Just now, the contrary is true. There are serious concerns that Turkey
> could abuse the situation for conquest - her P.M. Oezal already raved
> about "Greater Turkey".

Seems like you do in fact have a problem with Turkey and that you do not
trust Turkey within the European Community and NATO.

> >If you feel
> >that allowing Iraq to retain Kuwait and for Saddam Hussein to emerge 
> >victorious is MORE important than defending an ally, then that is your
> >choice, but you may find that future German political voices are 
> >ignored as unconstructive, unreliable and counterproductive.  If that
> >is what you prefer, so be it.
> Tell me who advocated Iraq to keep Kuwait. Bashing strawmen is indeed
> "unconstructive, unreliable and counterproductive".

The fact is that British, Italian, French and Turkish citizens may
be dieing.  You have to face the fact that it is not only Americans
you can piss off with not standing behind the coalition.  You are
trying to be a significant player in EUropean politics, but if Germany
is percieved as not being a team player.  If Germany is perceived as not
willing to be in on the tough decisions and if many Germans are seen
as having stupid views (at least as viewed from France, Britain, Turkey,
etc)  then YOU are facing a serious credibility problem.

You can argue till you are blue in the face, but, if you want to be a
leader in Europe, you have got to know what it means to work together 
and to make decisions together and to part of the solution and not
resisting the approaches agreed upon by all your neighbors.  Otherwise
you will find that you will not be allowed to be a leader in Europe.
It is that simple.

I am saying that even if you disagree with the rest of Europe YOU HAVE
GOT to be willing to follow the consensus view and you have got to be
willing to stand behind the decisions of your partners, otherwise you
cannot expect the same treatment when you become a leader.

You must at least acknowledge the points of your partners.  Many many
intelligent people now believe that Saddam Hussein could not be stopped
other than with a war.  Now that it has started it is possible to say
that you still think it was possible to resolve it without a war, but,
I stand behind my partners financially, politically and with my life.
Saddam Hussein MUST leave Kuwait.  He has the ability to stop the killing
at any time by acknowledging this generally recognized requirement.
He must leave Kuwait.  Everything else is negotiable, but Saddam Hussien
must leave Kuwait and he must do so immediately.  This is not negotiable.
If Iraq wants to limit the damage on itself, then leave Kuwait.  They have
no ethical, moral, rational argument to retain Kuwait.  The Kuwaitis do
not want to be part of Iraq.  It is unacceptable.  We choose the level
of coercion that is appropriate and necessary to evict you.  GET OUT
SADDAM.

This is the kind of rhetoric that is required of civil people everywhere.
It may be a point of disagreement as to the wiseness of the policy,but
Saddam Hussein is responsible for his position and his peoples position.
If citizens die, it is precisely because Saddam Hussein will not leave the
country of Kuwait and he must do so wither today or tomorrow.

> If the worst case emerges, it may come out that the decision to go on war
> allowed Saddam Hussein to leave the battlefield victoriously.
> Even if not, the war will quickly prove to have left the basic problems 
> of the region unresolved while creating a lot of new ones.

After a war many problems are created and many problems are solved.  If
problems were only created by war, then, that would mean that the world
would degenerate over time and that police would be counterproductive to
a civil society.  We must define civility and then we MUST be willing to 
back up our common definitions of civility.  The notion of civility that
the US and the EC and the coalition is generally trying to push are that
you cannot (after the disintegration of communism) take other peoples
governemnts over without their permission.

> >> That is a feature of your politics I absolutely
> >> dislike: lonesome decisions, as you are TheBigBoss, and then the
> >> call "Come on, this way". No "please". No discussion. That
> >> you got that UN resolution is the only exception of this rule, I know.
> >> And how many you persuaded and how many you bribe, is not clear
> >> yet.
> >
> >We had elaborate consultations with all our allies on this point and
> >in general we have elaborate discussions with our allies on all US 
> >initiatives.  If you have a problem seeing this, I suggest you contact
> >your own government and ask them what they said to the US.
> >
> In fact european governments were blackmailed by their solidarity with
> the US government, which was and is indeed more important for them than
> dissent in a particular question. Even just before war started, e.g.
> the French government made proposals the USA outruled.
> Your ranting about German attitude (or what you interpret as) shows that
> alliance means in your eyes following the decisions of the US government.

Some 70-80% of the people in France and Britain support the war.  You
are an idiot to think that this is some kind of US coerced thing.  You
must address the fact that Europeans are dying in this war, including
all your strongest allies, i.e. France, Britain, Italy.  Even if you prefer
to blame everything on the US and hate the US you MUST acknowledge that 
the people of France and Britain support and are dying to support their
position in the Gulf.  Ignoring this and blaming the US is stupid and
will lead to German irrelevancy in the EC.

> >Iraq is the fourth largest military power in the world.  The Iraqis have
> >more planes than Britain and France combined.  They have some 6 million
> >mines.  They have thousands of tanks and artillery vehicles.  It is safe
> >to say that Iraq could destroy Germany.  Since Germany has been one of the
> >contributors to the buildup in Iraq many Americans should ask WHY ARE
> >GERMANS NOT LAYING THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE TO TAKE OUT THE WEAPONS THEY
> >SOLD TO IRAQ?
> First: Iraq is not at all the "fourth largest mil. power". By some rules
> of arms count, it has the 4th biggest army. Its GNP (including oil industry
> disabled by the embargo) is half of Belgium. Infrastructure is much less.
> Iraq industry is unable to supply the more sophisticated parts of both
> itself and the iraqi army. That comparison stinks again.

You have to face the fact that a despot who hates Israel and drops gas bombs
on his own people got some of these weapons from Germany and that the 
german people seem to be saying that it is OK.  Iraq has a much larger army
than Germany and could arguably defeat germany without US intervention.

You depend on the US and yet you criticize us for doing the dirty work.
It's really despicable.  It lowers all Germans in the eyes of the EC and
America to see such selfish views reflected and such disdain and disrespect
for your partners.  Fortunately I don't believe for a second that Germans
on the whole share your views.  Your prime minister has been much more
intelligent and rational and responsible.

> Second: Your claim only holds if one agrees that war was and is the
> right decision (or the only one possible). I consider both wrong.

Fine, please answer my questions above about your solution and tell me
when your solution will work and what you will do if it doesn't work?
i.e. will Germans participate in a potentially nuclear war with Iraq at
a future time?

> Third: The German constitution does not allow actions like that you 
> suggest. The mere fact that the US government has taken the decision 
> to start a war does not suffice to change our constitution. Beyond
> that, the democratic procedure to accomplish that would take too long
> time to contribute in the recent actions. Or do you not respect democracy
> and constitution?

That is fine.  If that is rhe reason it is understandable and I might not
even want Germany to change its position on this.

> Thus, it is a quite defensible position not to take part in an action
> which tries to fix a mess (created by the whole of industrialized 
> countries) by causing a most probably much bigger mess.

It is an irresponsible position.  You cannot hide your head in the sand.
The fact that these weapons were sold is now a fact.  You suggest 
abandoing your responsibility because you don't agree with the policy.
That is selfish and irresponsible.  You are a member of a community.
You have a problem.  You can be part of the solution or you can be
irresponsible.

> >I suggest a more constructive attitude of Germans should be to stand
> >behind their allies.  The Germans risk being alienated in their own
> >alliance.  So far they have alienated the Turks.  The Germans risk
> >alienating the French and the British.  For 30 years Germany has tried
> >to become a mature leader in the EC.  If Germany puts its head in the
> >sand and starts blaming its allies for problems which it is involved in
> >and for which it helped create, then Germany will be an irrelevant 
> >element of the EC let alone in the world and Germany will set back all
> >of the efforts of the EC to become united.
> >
> I don't think that Germany should be leader of the EC as I do not think
> that the USA should be "world leader". If the EC gets united it should
> be a democracy where votes count and not GNP per capita.

I am simply pointing out that if Germans appear to be deserting their
partners NO GERMAN WILL BE ELECTED LEADER OF THE EC!!!  You are 
diminishing your ability to lead in the EC.  You should consider the
opinions and views of your partners.  That is what democracy is about.

> >Germany stands at a steep precipice.  It must conduct itself with 
> >maturity and in concert with the rest of the civilized world or risk
> >threatening all the gains that have been made in the last 40 years.  Such
> >a setback for Germany would be destructive in so many ways.
> 
> Again, I doubt that starting a war without imminent need is really such a
> sign of civilized and mature habits. But I think that the people of the
> USA has to decide whether or not they want that kind of politics carried 
> out by their leaders. Similarly, the guidelines of German politics have
> to be set up in Germany following democratic procedures. If there was
> any strength of Western alliances, then it was the possibility to carry
> out dissent and to utter criticism in the public. Compare France under
> de Gaulle. That did not hinder cooperation but demonstrated that there 
> were allies, not puppets.

Disputes on the shape of a table for NATO is one thing.  Disputes on 
whether French or Germans will die defending civility in the world is 
another.  I understand that you do not think that it was necessary to 
go to war, but, you must consider the opinions of your partners.