🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <A0b02b30@oski.toppoint.de> schlut@oski.toppoint.de (Olaf Schlueter) writes:
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>>     This is no video game, this is deadly serious, and all of our
>>     military and policy makers know it.  Strangely enough, it seems
>>     that many of the anti-war demonstrators do not think that
>>     the whole situation is very serious.
>
>When Daniel mentions the video game image of this war, he refers to what
>we are seeing on TV, and how it influence the people and the comments,
>and that there had been a change.  I meet a couple of people here, which
>support this war, but rely on the information of the military, that any
>effort is made to spare civilians.  That the politicians and the
>military are better informed, is not only the probable truth, but my
>very hope. 

    You cannot blame the military for the idiotic perception that this
    is a video game.  The only people that I hear calling it that 
    are the 'anti-war' people in a derisive tone.

>We are terrified and in deep sorrow for all the victims of this war,
>the israelian people, the kuwaitian people, which did not manage
>to escape, and the iraqian people, who deserve something better then
>SH. We ask wether this war will reach it objectives (it is to
>free Kuwait, I hope, you remember), and we get the following answers:
>
>1. They drop 18000 tons every day on Iraq and Kuwait, and the 
>   international Help organisations like the Red Cross guess, that 
>   90 per cent of the victims are civilians. 

    It would be a very bad guess (or did you just make this up).
    Most of the installations targeted are in Kuwait (i.e. military).
    Probably both you and I have seen the air raids on both Bagdad
    and the air raids on Dresden.  There is no comparison.  Hell,
    I saw pictures the other day of Iraqi's just calmly walking in the
    streets during an air raid.  Apparently, the average Iraqi has
    more faith in us than you do.  

    I also noticed another thing.  There are no mad dashes for gas
    masks in Bagdad's air raid shelters.  Gee, they must be convinced
    that we will not use chemical weapons.  Contrast this with
    scenes in Israel, Riyadh, Dhahran and along the front lines.
    Get a grip on reality, there is really no moral equivalence here.

>2. For the absolutely small chance to hit Hussein itself they 
>   are bombing Bagdad. Will this help the soldiers to reconquer 
>   Kuwait when the land war starts ?

    No, for the very large chance that we can degrade his ability to 
    wage war by cutting command and control as well as supply dispatches.
    Hitting Saddam would just be luck of the draw, but since he apparently
    is hiding in civilian neighborhoods, he apparently trusts us too.

>3. Until today, both sides committed war crimes, SH leads 2:1.
>   The US bombed running nuclear power plants, Iraq tortured POW'S
>   and used environment terror. The damage caused by the broken
>   nuclear plants is unknown but we all see what is happening with
>   the oil in the gulf.

    Do you have a clue as to what a war crime would be?  Neither the
    attach of a nuclear reactor (no power plant but a nuclear 'research'
    reactor) nor the spilling of tons of oil is a war crime.

>We think that if this war finally is over, kuwait will be free
>but destroyed totally, alsow will be Iraq, and what Israel will
>have to suffer until the war is over, god knows.

    So we should withdraw to let everyone suffer anyway?  Kuwait
    can repair itself.  Israel has really suffered little damage as
    yet, and if Iraq will cease trying to become a military menace,
    they can rebuild quickly as well.

>Did you ever compare the damage and killing today with that before
>Jan, 17 ?

    Do you have any morality at all, or is it just expediency?

>>     Also, it is pretty easy to be anti-war when you have been protected for
>>     the last 45 years and do not have to shoulder any responsibility
>>     for this action since the good old Americans and British are
>>     ponying up once again.  Germany has dissapointed me very much
>>     by even trying to whine out of their NATO commitment to Turkey.
>>     It seems that treaty obligations mean to Germany only gimmee, 
>>     gimmee, gimmee.
>
>Sure, whe have the biggest land forces in Europe, hold our own country
>ready for any showdown between East and West for over 40 years and 
>have now as you think done nothing all the time than shout "gimme, gimme,
>gimme". That statement disqualifies you. Think about that every
>war scenario for europe did end with at least (!) the nuclear desert
>of Germany. We beared this danger for over 40 years. "Gimme, gimme, gimme"

    It would have been gimmee, gimmee, gimmee if Germany had not recently
    lived up to their NATO obligation and vowed to defend Turkey if
    attacked.  This I was very glad to see.

    As to a nuclear desert, all of our plans were based on a forward defense
    (at great risk to our forces) to avoid giving up much of Germany.
    Actually, most analyses ended with Germany speaking Russian.


>We know that, and maybe we are therefore a little bit more scared by
>the rollback in the Soviet union then you are. Do you think, that life
>is easy at the front ?

    Somehow, I think that your concern is not shared by all.  Several
    posters from the Federal Republic suggested that a US withdrawal
    would be a good thing (with or without the Soviets doing the same).
    And I was not suggesting that life at the front is easy (since basically
    we are all at the front with ballistic weapons), just suggesting that
    y'all acknowledge (maybe in just a small way) the help that
    we've been providing at US taxpayer expense.

    Keep in mind that we spend a much larger portion of our GNP on
    defense that you, so a substantial portion of your defense is
    underwritten by us.

>>     I sincerely hope that this is not a majority opinion in the Federal
>>     Republic.  Otherwise, I would suggest ...
>
>No, but we work at it.
>
>>  Time's running out - Quit defending Germany - Bring our boys home now.
>
>Maybe its really a big waste of money.


    I have recently heard from other Germans that this may not be so.

>
>-- 
>Olaf Schlueter, Sandkuhle 4-6, 2300 Kiel 1, FRG, schlut@oski.toppoint.de
>     Stop bombardment. Continue embargo. Start negotiations. NOW!
>700 tons on Dresden killed 60000. 18000 tons on Bagdad killed (censored).

    Why censor it.  The number is probably under 500.  By the
    way, the censorship originates in Bagdad.  And the numbers sound very 
    high for Bagdad.  Most of the tonnage was deposited via B-52 on
    Republican guard positions, not on Bagdad.

    Also, incendiary bombs were used on Dresden.  High explosive on
    Bagdad.  Most of the Dresden deaths were due to the fire, not the
    bombs (also I believe that you understate the Dresden death toll by
    at least a factor of 2 and probably 4).

    I also am not quite sure why all of you 'anti-war' types think that
    starving a nation to death slowly is better than the course of 
    action that was selected (though I do not believe for a second that
    the embargo would have worked).

                                      dale bass



                              
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926