Conference 7.286::sports_91

 How many folks caught "Diffrent World" last night? One can only hope that
 warmoungerng wimp down in DC caught it and got the point.

 For those who didn't one of Duane's buddies who used the Reserves to help
 pay for college was being shipped out on monday. He didn't want to go but
 felt he had too. Duane was having a tough time handling and drew the real
 conclusion that if it esculates he could be gone too.

 As Freddy said "for what? Lousy old oil? We got enough problems right here
 in our country"...Ahem....

 mike

Yup, just leave Saddam alone. Give him Kuwait and maybe that'll 
keep him quiet for awhile.

daryll

    >>    What's a "Junk Note"???????????????????
    >>
    >>    JaKe
    
    
    
    	See note 46.12 as a perfect example....
    
    	PJ 

    	Hawk,
    
    	You got it, dude.
    
    	Scott

�                   -< You should see me when I'm Tina...... >-
    
    Was that you I saw during that revue in one of the Provincetown clubs?

Ohimgod Mac, are you feeling ok???  An honest to God Big Mac Junk Note

[many many smilies!!!]


Hawk, 

Geez, you're an alcoholic and a cross dresser?  You're pushing this
difference thing a bit too far doncha think?  

[ditto on the above smilies]

'Saw

�Ohimgod Mac, are you feeling ok???  An honest to God Big Mac Junk Note
    
    Is a junk note a junk note if it is placed in the junk note topic?

    And if you put a serious note in this topic, is it a junk note by
    virtue of the fact that it's not relevant to the topic? :-)

    Couple a junky thoughts I was having on this Iraq thing:
    
    * How cain we be so sure that he don't already have the bomb?  I
      mean, these are the same intelligence community knucklhaids who
      repeatedly assured Carter that Khomeini would never make a return
      to Teheran and that fundamentalism was only a passing fad with the
      college crowd, right?  He sure is *acting* like he's got something
      up his sleeve.
    
    * Why does everybody assume that Saddam will wait to be attacked?
      Generally there is tactical advantage in throwing the first punch,
      so you gotta figure a ruthless dog like Saddam would launch some
      gas missles to start the proceedings.

    1) I thought at first, Victor would just do what was "right". 
    Especially after the first witness (the wife) when the only 
    question was "Did you see my client shoot him?"  Later on,
    you knew he was gonna get off (so to speak...)
    
    2) Leland does have a Rosalind influence.
    
    3) I guess this week's episode is further argument about sleeping
    with people you work with... (Kuzak vs. Grace, Leland vs. the rest,
    Arnie and the divorcee...)
    
    My favorite line was Tommy in Kuzak's office after Kuzak and Grace
    had it out.  (Are you finished with me?)

    I never missed an episode of LA Law until this season.  Looks like I'm 
    missing some good stuff.  When do the repeats start???
    
    I like Arnie. Kuzak and Victor... yum.  I can't stand Anne and Stuart.
    Although it was funny when they went camping and Anne got poison ivy or 
    whatever that was.
    
    Best storyline was, in my opion, when Kuzak was defending Earl, the guy
    who was accused of killing his lover/student.   Remember that bitchy DA?

   � I can't stand Anne and Stuart.
    
    Ordinarily, true enough, Karen, but Stuart was *AWESOME* last week out
    in the woods playing the action soldier "Skirmish" game.   Rambo would
    have been proud.   He had, like, 21 kills until Douglas shot him to
    shut him up.
    
    And then he came back to the office and was laying on his couch still
    in his fatigues when Ann came into the office and asked if he was okay
    and he said: "Yeah, I'm alright.  I got 21 kills but I got fragged by
    Douglas."   I was rolling.
    
    Bob Hunt

I think the best line I've heard about the Persian Gulf was
stated by a buddy from the Wanderers:

	"What we should do is give them the deadline of January
	15th, and then go in with guns blazing on January 12th...."

And for whatever it's worth, the boys are the front are ready to
get it done, and they're pretty sure they'll do a good job to.
My buddy says he's getting tired of sitting around and waiting,
just pulling maintenance on the tank he commands.  Seems the
biggest hobby in "the world's biggest kitty litter box" is
collecting poisonous snakes and lizards....

'saw

And before anyone misinterprets my vague reply, those were two
different guys I was referring to.  One is on HWFRC, the
other is in Saudi Arabia....

Hey, what's wrong with the Cotton Eyed Joe?

8^)

Anyone see the SNL square dancing thing a few months back, where
the caller got REALLY raunchy?  Too funny!

Have to agree `Saw.

Here's hoping that by this time nexted week Sadaam (and his lovely
wife, Gomorrah) are toast.

Mike JN (SIDJNOTY)

    'Saw -
    
    You got a tape of that SNL square dancing thang?  I gots a coupla
    folks I'd like to have see it.  I square dance - tons.  Me dad's
    a caller.....
    
    And yeah, I cain see folks doin' the Cotton-Eyed Joe in football
    unis....the smashing of shoulder pads as they try to do the underarm
    turn......
    
    A&W

No....sorry I don't have it on tape.  Someone does I'm sure...

Hawk,

I'll second that. I truly hope we avoid this AND get the maniac 
out of Kuwait.

What kind of gets me burned is something like what Mike Childs 
mentioned a few replied back. These people that join the reserves 
expecting a free ride and a second income. All benefits and no 
service. Now, they're getting called to serve and they're whining 
about it. Doesn't fly.

daryll

    
    Hope this doesn't offend anyone, but if we as a country are convinced
    that liberating Kuwait is a worthwhile cause and the right thing to 
    do, I hope we do it directly, as in strategic-only air strikes and
    ground forces only.  Because Saddam has overstepped his boundaries in
    an unjustifiable act of aggression does not mean we have the right
    nor should we take responsibility for responding in kind, multiplied, 
    with airstrikes of Baghdad or other civilian populations.  We could 
    rationalize it in terms of US lives saved, but we'd be taking the 
    lower moral ground and would further undermine our credibility in the
    region for years to come, UN alliance or no UN alliance.
    
    Without saying, I hope none of it comes to pass...
    
    glenn
     

Glenn,

I don't buy the low/high moral ground argument.  The reason we are
opposing Saddam is because it is in our - and our allies' - best
economic interest to stop that nut in his tracks.

I have no interest whatsoever in the U.S. becoming `Policeman to the
World'. There's not a damned thing wrong with our reaction. Playing on
the `morality' of the situation soon prompts the question of when we are
going to interfere in Chad, China, Zambia, Ireland, India, Sri Lanka,
etc.

The people who yell about trading `blood for oil', and `caving in to
the demands of Big Oil' ought to go back to Economics 101 for a little
refresher course. That, and the history lesson from Hitler back re:
Czechoslovakia ought to convince most thinking people that this is a
worthwhile and necessary response.

Mike JN

    A&W
    
    Look for the SNL with Patrick Swayze... it was Dirty Square Dancing...

I've got 1 brother in law over there now and the potential for another
BIL and a brother. My wife is worried sick about this and I'm getting more
aprehensive every day.

Personally I think we should stick to economic sanctions w/ a full blockade.
I can't see the loss of a single life being worth it. The primary reason we 
are there is to protect Big Oil Interests, the secondary reason is to distract
the press from all the S&L scandals that would have fried Bush by now.

The US has no right to become the police force of the world. If the world was
that outraged by the invasion of Kuwait then there would be an equal 
representation of soldiers in the desert.

If the US had started a decent energy policy in the 70's then we'd all be
driving electric cars recharged w/ solar and would give a rat's *ss about 
the middle east oil.

If we do go to war I hope that we bomb Iraq to a sand covered glaze before we
think about sending in any troops. Let's put all the $$$$ that Reagan pored 
into exotic defense systems to use before we march in 5 abreast...

A month of long range bombing around the clock and off shore artillery aught to
do it I think....

Had to get that off my chest,

  Metz

   � * How cain we be so sure that he don't already have the bomb?  I
   �   mean, these are the same intelligence community knucklhaids who
   �   repeatedly assured Carter that Khomeini would never make a return
   �   to Teheran and that fundamentalism was only a passing fad with the
   �   college crowd, right?  He sure is *acting* like he's got something
   �   up his sleeve.
    
 We can't be sure, of course, but I'd like to believe that not all
 intelligence agencies around the world have had the miserable track record
 of the CIA over the last 15-20 years.   
    
 Most notably, I'd like to think that the Israelis wouldn't have allowed an
 Iraqi nuclear weapon to be built under any circumstances.   In 1981, they
 had accurate intelligence that Iraq was building a nuclear reactor for the
 purpose of producing weapons grade plutonium so they attacked and
 destroyed it.   Nothing's changed since 1981 that would now make the
 Israelis tolerate Hussein's possession of such a weapon, has it ???
    
 Like you said, we can't be sure but unless Israel has seriously fallen
 asleep at the wheel, I'd bet that he doesn't have one yet.  YET.
    
   � * Why does everybody assume that Saddam will wait to be attacked?
   �   Generally there is tactical advantage in throwing the first punch,
   �   so you gotta figure a ruthless dog like Saddam would launch some
   �   gas missles to start the proceedings.

 Perhaps, however he has *ALL* the defensive advantages in this showdown so
 why throw them away.   The Americans have never fought a desert war and he
 probably figures they'll waste a lot of blood trying to figure it out as
 they go.   Meanwhile, he can score big points by just sticking his
 battle-hardened veterans behind some concrete and barbed wire bunkers and
 then just mow 'em down.
    
 I read some articles that came out after the conclusion of the incredibly
 vicious Iran-Iraq war.  One article described how the Iraqis would lay
 live electric cable grids in the swamps in front of where the Iranian
 assault forces were formed up.   Once the Iranian assault was underway,
 they just flipped a switch and fried them all.   Next day they were using
 the corpses to build new roads with.
    
 So why would he throw away all his defensive advantages when he's got
 troops who know exactly how to defend themselves ???
    
 Bob Hunt

I think you've hit the nail right on the haid, Mike JN, although it's not just
restricted to the Allies "economic" security - maybe better to say for our
general safety.  If Saddam isn't stopped now it'll be too late...  Already now
the "who's friends with whom" is pretty confusing - Iran switches sides after 
eight years of war, Egypt threatening to switch sides, etc..  Which of those
other countries would switch in a couple of years when Iraq would be even more
powerful??  What sort of a force would they be able to put together??

Mr. T - you have raised a wowser of a question a few back:  The problem is that 
we can't be sure that he doesn't have a smart A bomb - or, better still, and
ally who has one.  

The thing that frightens me the most is that Saddam is acting so smugly 
throughout - just as if he knows something that no one else does...  He even
kept Perez de Cuellar sitting outside in the Waiting room yesterday.

Also, food stores in the south of France experienced a run on groceries over
the weekend!!  Wild!!

rick ellis

> I don't buy the low/high moral ground argument.  The reason we are
> opposing Saddam is because it is in our - and our allies' - best
> economic interest to stop that nut in his tracks.
    
    And a couple of years ago it was in our best interests to back him in
    his war with Iran... What next?
    
    I stand by my original point, that is, whatever we do with Iraq we
    better be considering its long-term ramifications-- or we'll only hurt
    both our political and economic interests in the gulf even further.
    The morality issue is every bit as much a part of that decision-making 
    process as is any strategic issue.  Hussein has support from the 
    peoples of other Arab nations, whether their leaders explicitly 
    acknowledge it or not.
    
    glenn
     

 Daryll what I was really trying to say was take the bus kid. I can't
 understand why in this day and age of civilization, people still fight
 wars and die over money and land. While I agree with JN that Huissen has
 to be stop, it sure seems to me that it could have been done before now.
 If Bush wasn't such a wimp he would have immediately taken action and
 there would be no crisis, but because he's too busy worrying about his
 popularity here and around the world he sat back. Do you think other
 countries would have stop doing business with us or alignated from us
 because we took action? Like our good friends the Russians who are
 now taking some kind of actions in the Baltic while we're tied up
 in the gulf?

 We have allowed it to escalute to this point because the world economy 
 needs the boost that war generates. 

 and during the escalation Suddam has gotten nothing but stronger...

 mike
      

    Mikey,
    
    CONGRATS!!!!!
    (P_name implies diapers)
    
    Right????
    
    Kev
    

Mike --

I don't think immediate action (military anyway) could have been
taken, since we didn't have enough troops in that part of the world.
Even now we're outnumbered, but the odds are a little better.

The thing that amazes me is the amount of time it takes to get all
of that stuff into place...


Also, I sure as hell would like to know why there's not more
French, German, "Arabian", and Japanese troops there.  I mean,
hell, if Japan is so loaded they wanna keep buying up this country,
let them put some money into this....

I have very mixed feelings on this.

Well, we should know soon enough.  That part of the world is 9 hours
ahead of us, so if anything happens right away we should know while
we're eating dinner tonight....

'Saw

    The Jan 15th midnight deadline will be determined by EST, which is
    the time zone the United Nations is in.  Today's Boston Globe said it
    will be 8:00 AM Iraq/Kuwait time.  There is also mention of the Marines
    and allied forces moving further and further north with each passing day.
    
    There was a time when I was all for kicking this guy's ass, but as a
    parent, you feel for the kids (and their families) that are over there,
    fighting what will be another political war.
    
    					Steve

>    The Jan 15th midnight deadline will be determined by EST, which is
>    the time zone the United Nations is in.  Today's Boston Globe said it
>    will be 8:00 AM Iraq/Kuwait time.  There is also mention of the Marines
>    and allied forces moving further and further north with each passing day.

Oh.  My mistake 8^)

My buddy, who as of his last letter was in the northermost tank unit
in Kuwait, is ready to go.  He hates the waiting most of all.  He says
they've been trained to do this for years, and that the waiting sucks.
He says either get it over and done with, or get out.

We do have the edge in equipment (at least from his perspective)....
    
�    There was a time when I was all for kicking this guy's ass, but as a
�    parent, you feel for the kids (and their families) that are over there,
�    fighting what will be another political war.

All wars are political, unfortunately.


I'm bummed, because at least last August it seemed as if the whole world
was starting to get into line.  Now look at it 8^(

'Saw

    You guys keep forgetting one thing: Once we spill major Muslim blood,
    as far as they're concerned the price for a barrel of Persian crude 
    will forever after be MUCH more expensive.  This might have some effect
    on our already shaky economic prospects, IMNSHO.  Also, I cain't help
    but wonder where the Japanese, Germans, et al are.  After all, it is 
    they who are totally dependent on Persian crude, not us.
    
    MrT

    I'm torn over this.
    
    On the one hand, I really believe that Iraq MUST be stopped now.  Too
    many parallels in history to let it pass.
    
    On the other hand, why does it seem that it is ALWAYS the USA that has
    to take the lead?  Where, for instance, is La Belle France, that
    wonderful country which itself was invaded TWICE in this century?
    
    Where is Japan's money, some 4 BILLION that was pledged, but as yet
    they haven't actually paid up to 1 B?  Heard someone on the radio this
    AM saying that Bush should shut-off ALL Japanese imports 'til they
    clear their tab.  Can you see the Pacific, just chock-full of
    freighters loaded down with Japanese cars, and TV's and VCR's and
    microwaves, and all?
    
    Lee, who is praying for someone to find a peaceful solution.

    � Once we spill major Muslim blood, as far as they're concerned the
    � price for a barrel of Persian crude  will forever after be MUCH more
    � expensive.  
    
    This conflict is about oil.   In a simple way, the entire global
    history of the 20th century has been about petroleum.   From an
    historical viewpoint, it is absolutely astonishing that this black
    fossil gunk that wasn't even discovered until the mid-19th century
    could have had such a profound impact so soon and with such devastating
    results.
    
    � Also, I cain't help but wonder where the Japanese, Germans, et al
    � are.  After all, it is  they who are totally dependent on Persian
    � crude, not us.
    
    We are nothing short of mercenaries for them.   They can trade green
    cash for red blood and are doing so.   I'd do the exact same thing if I
    were them.   They have no motivation whatsoever to spill their own
    blood when someone else has stepped up to volunteer to do it for them.  
    
    This is the same strategy we took with the Soviet Union in the Second
    World War.  Why send American troops to fight the Wehrmacht when the
    Red Army was killing them for us ???   Roosevelt meticulously planned
    for but astutely avoided any American military involvement in Europe
    right up until the minute the bombs hit Pearl Harbor.  Cold-hearted and
    ruthless but brilliant.
    
    This entire situation is total lunacy.  There can be no winners.  Even
    if we level Iraq and turn it into a parking lot, we will leave the Gulf
    with a gaping power vacuum into which Iran and Syria will only be glad
    to step forward and resume their anti-American agendas.
    
    Bob Hunt

    First point.  The Japanese have not sent in troops because their
    constitution, which we imposed at the end of WWII, forbids *any*
    deployment of troops outside the home islands.  That constitution
    also forbids spending more than 1% of either their GNP or their
    budget (not sure which) on the military.  They had pledged several
    billion to supporting the cost of having US troops in the Gulf,
    which have not been paid.  We need to do something about that -
    my personal proposal is to slap import duties on everything coming
    from there of, say, 200%, until the pledged amount is paid.
    
    Second point.  Other nation's troops are there, although our own
    news coverage downplays their presence.  The British and Egyptians
    in particular have significant troop presence.  Somewhere in either
    Soapbox or Womannotes I've seen the full counts of troops, equipment,
    and ships provided by all of the nations supporting enforcement
    of the UN resolutions.  It includes far more countries than I was
    aware of, although some of the numbers of troops appear to be tokens.
    
    Third point.  The French (and Germans) are two of the countries
    who did the most trading with Iraq prior to the embargo.  Companies
    headquartered in those countries are "credited" with supplying most
    of the materials which Iraq needs to construct nuclear weapons.
     Both countries have surprisingly long histories of trade with the
    Arabs in the region.  In the 1800's, the alliances in the region
    were frequently British vs Franco/German.  [The US is, in this context,
    the successor state to the British Empire.]
    
    Sorry for the long digression from SPORTS.  Like Lee, I'm torn over
    this, though in a slightly different dimension.  I believe that
    Iraq needs to be stopped now, and I wish we had faced this sooner
    (like when the Stark was attacked).  I wish I felt that the Arabs
    currently aligned with us were better allies - and the Saudis more
    willing to allow our troops their normal standards of conduct and
    comfort.
    
    And to those who ask.... yes, I believe in this strongly enough
    that I am prepared to have my son be one of those on the lines over
    there.  This fight is worth his life.
    
    A&W

    I think there is one thing that all Western governments have misjudged
    throughout this ordeal (ie from August 2nd) and that is Saddam
    Hussein's willingness to go to war.
    
    The Arabs have been fighting amongst themselves and their neighbours
    for thousands of years.  In their culture, there is a certain amount of
    pride and dignity in fighting to the death.  Westerners simply can not
    comprehend that and so have miscalculated Iraqs willingness to do
    battle.
    
    With this background, it is clear to see why we have been pissing in
    the wind with the UN resolutions and with the arbitrary deadlines and
    the personal letters from Uncle George.   SADDAM CAN'T WAIT FOR
    HOSTILITIES TO BEGIN!!!!  HE'LL BE IN HIS ELEMENT!!!   Has anyone
    forgotten that Iraq has been at war more offen that it has had peace
    during Hussein's dictatorship????
    
    I believe we should use force against Iraq, because it is the only
    language that they understand.  Diplomacy does not count for beans when
    dealing with warmongers.
    
    
    On another issue....Hussein is not a madman...he's just unpredictable.
    We should expect the unexpected from him.  I believe that he will try
    to break the coalition by attacking Israel.  Israel will act to defend
    itself and the Arabs will break the coalition.  What happens then
    depends on whether the Western allies and Israel are willing to work
    together.  To date, the Israelis have blocked any attempt to draw up
    joint battle plans with the western allies.  This, I believe, is a
    mistake....the West and Israel need each other...now more than ever.
    
    PJ 

I have to ask again. Why the rush to go in shooting? The fact that we don't
attack does not mean the US is following a policy of appeasement. Appeasement
would be giving Kuwait to Hussein in hopes that he wouldn't try and expand his
power. 

I am saying that we haven't given the sanctions time to act yet. Last CIA 
reports said that we were stopping 97% of Iraqi imports and 99% of their
exports. What is the problem with waiting 6 more months and attacking an enemy
made weaker by lack of spare parts and adequate supplies? 

I wouldn't object to a $.10 gas hike to pay for the costs of a continued 
defensive presence in SA. 

I bet a 1 year embargo would result in 2-3 coup attempts by the Iraqi military.

What happens after war ? Do we leave US troops over their indefinately to make
sure that it doesn't happen again ? Or do we instal a puppet govt in Iraq and
rebuild their infrastructure at enormous US cost so that they can become 
world electronic leaders and flood our shore w/ cheap goods ?

The US can no longer economically afford to be the policemen of the world.

What we have here is two powerful men with enormous ego's who are ready to 
kill many people to avoid losing face.

I'm not calling you a liar A&W but you can't possibly make the statement you
did unless you've actually got family over there ready to die for this.

Metz

    It wan't until somebody put the 5 shopping days till WWIII that
    I really gave serious thought as to what's going on.  I had assumed
    that we'd make Iraq a parking lot and all would be over.  (and for
    a just cause).
    
    Then I started to seriously think about it and I'm afraid that once
    the fighting starts, it will be WWIII!!!!
    
    I'm sure that Hussain has wired all the oil wells to blow up as
    soon as the fighting starts.   So much for Oil Interests.  Once
    the wells start to burn, they'll continue for several years really
    screwing up the global ecology.
    
    I also have a gut feeling that Iraq has the A-bomb and it's possible
    that some of his terrorist friends may have smuggled parts across
    various borders and assembled them in choice locations ('specially
    Israel).  
    
    What long range germ/chemicals does he have?  Maybye he doesn't
    have powerful rockets but airborne winds could carry the stuff all
    across the globe contaminating everything.
    
    Remember, religious fanatics think it is an honor to die (and take
    everybody with them) for Allah.  I think it's highly likely that
    our arab allies will quickly switch sides and bring Israel into
    the fracas and then you've got all the ingredients for the big one.
    
    
    Folks, this is a no-win situation for anybody.  Once the fighting
    starts, it's gonna screw up the world, possibly forever.  I don't
    have the answer but what's the rush to start blowing up each other?
    Is there ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE??
    
    
    Damm, I wish we had an energy policy 20 years ago.  F*cking oil
    lobby :*(
    
    Kev "where are my rosary beads?"
    

>    On another issue....Hussein is not a madman...he's just unpredictable.
>    We should expect the unexpected from him.  I believe that he will try
    
    I wouldn't be surprised if he initiated confrontation with a strike
    tonight at midnight.
    
    Mike

�    on our already shaky economic prospects, IMNSHO.  Also, I cain't help
�    but wonder where the Japanese, Germans, et al are. 
    
    MrT

	Japan has no soldiers, but has pledged 1 Billion $ per month for
(?) four months (?) [  if they ever pay... if they don't, we should stop
importing their products... might be nice to open some American
factories back up. ]

	The two Germanies have recently been reunited .... and at the
stroke of midnight on January fifteenth... they are planning to invade
Poland.

Mike JN

                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     10-Jan-1991 12:35pm EST
                                        From:     RICHARD ROWAN @AKO
                                                  ROWAN.RICHARD AT AKOV12A1 at AKOMTS at AKO
                                        Dept:     Security
                                        Tel No:   244-7584

TO: See Below

Subject: PERSIAN GULF - SITUATION REPORT
    
                    *** DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY ***
    
         SOURCES, who have provided me with reliable information in 
    the past, continue to believe that Iraqi strongman, SADDAM 
    Hussein, will, at the last minute, begin at least a partial 
    withdrawal from Kuwait -- before the U.S.-led forces on his border 
    can initiate hostilities, though the call as to war or peace is 
    very, very close.  While they hold to a conviction that war may be 
    averted, prudence dictates that managers plan for a worse-case 
    scenario -- a commencement of hostilities, following January 15th.  
    It seems unlikely that war would begin precisely on January 16th, 
    but it certainly could come by the 19th.
    
         In the event of hostilities, said SOURCES look for an 
    outbreak of anti-American rioting in the following areas:  Jordan, 
    Israel's occupied territories, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, 
    Pakistan, Sudan, Yemen and Mauritania.  They're particularly 
    concerned about the ferocity of rioting in Jordan and Pakistan.  
    Personnel should be drawn down to the bare minimum in Jordan, and 
    there, and in the other potential trouble spots, Westerners should 
    lay in supplies and curtail circulation at the first report of 
    Persian Gulf hostilities.
    
         They also anticipate a surge of Iraqi-sponsored terrorism in 
    Europe, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent and Southeast 
    Asia, with attacks also possible in Latin America, Africa, Canada 
    and the United States.  Attacks probably will focus in large part 
    on U.S. Government entities and commercial aviation -- airline 
    offices, airports and aircraft.  There is also a possibility, 
    outside of the United States, of bombings at private American 
    schools and at prominent U.S. corporate facilities.  They cannot 
    exclude the possibility of attacks upon American university 
    extension programs, but, in their judgment, those targets would be 
    somewhat lower on Iraqi lists.
    
         They believe that corporations should curtail non-essential 
    foreign travel and, in the event of hostilities, corporate 
    employees should select air carriers carefully and limit the 
    amount of time that they spend in airline ticket offices and 
    airport lobbies.
    
         Corporations should review and, if necessary, upgrade bomb 
    control measures.  Additionally, said SOURCES would not quarrel 
    with the idea of parents keeping children home from overseas 
    American/International schools, for several days, in the event of 
    hostilities and until terrorism prospects can be clarified.
    
                *** DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY ***
      
         In the Middle East, they are especially concerned about 
    attacks in Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Bahrain and the United 
    Arab Emirates.
    
         In Europe, they are particularly concerned about five cities 
    with a long history of operations by Palestinian extremists:  
    Athens, Brussels, Rome, Vienna and Istanbul.
    
         In Asia, they are concerned about Karachi and other points in 
    Pakistan, Thailand and Manila.
    
         In Latin America, they are concerned about Lima, Santiago and 
    Montevideo.
    
         There is a high probability that an outbreak of hostilities 
    in the Persian Gulf would spur terrorist attacks in the United 
    States and Canada, by Palestinian terrorists aligned with SADDAM.  
    They would not be surprised to see an attack or two come early, 
    perhaps within five or six days of the beginning of the war.
    
         Initial Palestinian attacks probably would be designed to 
    attract maximum publicity, at minimum risk, and could take the 
    form of a bombing at an airport lobby or some other public 
    gathering place.  The most likely locations for an attack, in the 
    U.S., are the following:  New York, Washington, Los Angeles, 
    Chicago, and Detroit, which has a very large Arab population.
    
         They cannot exclude the possibility of an in-flight bombing 
    aboard a domestic commercial aircraft, especially in light of the 
    relatively lax security arrangements in effect at most domestic 
    airports, but they are inclined to believe that assailants, 
    initially at least, will opt for relatively simple and relatively 
    low-risk assaults.
    
                    *** DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY ***
    
         They have no basis, at this time, for recommending the 
    curtailment of domestic air travel, though they would suggest that 
    travelers limit the amount of time that they spend in open-access 
    areas of airports and otherwise comport themselves in accordance 
    with safe-travel guidelines.
    
         Attacks against public utilities, telecommunications 
    facilities, as well as oil production and transportation 
    facilities also are possible, but, again, they are more concerned 
    about unprotected targets.  It is a good time to review and, if 
    necessary, upgrade bomb-prevention measures.
    
         They do not anticipate a high volume of attacks in the early 
    stages of a campaign in the United States, but they do expect that  
    terrorists will strive for maximum publicity impact in hopes of 
    sowing panic.  The media will give them tremendous publicity, so 
    it will be awfully important for persons, with Security 
    responsibilities, to anticipate the problem and, when it comes, to 
    stay cool.
    
         Regards,
    	    Rich
    
                    *** DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY ***
    

To Distribution List:

CAIL @CIMNET @VMSMAIL,
DAVE COOMBS @BOO,
FRANK CUTIETTA @KNX,
EDITH DECOURCY@MOO,
DIANTONIO @MEMIT @VMSMAIL,
JOANNE DION-KENDRICK @WRO,
ERSKINE@GIAMEM@VMSMAIL,
GALLANT @ISLNDS @VMSMAIL,
M_GUSTIN @WMO,
HATCH @MPGS @VMSMAIL,
KARTER_VICKI @DNEAST @VMSMAIL,
MLABRANCH @ELMAGO @VMSMAIL,
JOE LOURA@MOO,
MENDOZA @JUPITR @VMSMAIL,
PAYNE @TOLKIN @VMSMAIL,
POWER.TIM AT BPOV06A1 at MOOVAX at BPO,
PRICE @WFOOFF @VMSMAIL,
JEANNE ROY @DOO,
RUKAS @NACMIS @VMSMAIL,
WACHTLER @COMET @VMSMAIL,
NAME: Ian Wellins @BPO <WELLINS.IAN AT BPOV06A1 at MOOVAX at BPO>,
PAWILSON @WJOUSM @VMSMAIL,
FMURRAY @RUTLND @VMSMAIL,
VICKI DIEZ-CANSECO @NRO,
PAUL GONYEA @NRO

    Re: Iraq's A bomb
    
    I doubt they have it.  If they did, Sadman(tm) would've been to anxious
    to use it by now.  Either during the Iran war or against his own
    people.
    
    Most people that are "in the know" say they're 5 years away.
    
    Mike

   � And to those who ask.... yes, I believe in this strongly enough
   � that I am prepared to have my son be one of those on the lines over
   � there.  This fight is worth his life.
    
    No, Alison, it is not worth your son's life or anyone else's life, for
    that matter.
    
    This is a clash between the personalities and egos of George Bush and
    Saddam Hussein.   Neither one merits any support at all, in my opinion.  
    
    Kuwait was an oppressive regime dedicated to acquiring petrodollars
    gained at the expense of its citizens basic human rights.   Saudi
    Arabia is another such regime.  Neither of these countries are worth
    Western blood.   Their only worth to the West at all is their oil. 
    That is all we are fighting for and your son's life is not worth our
    desire to burn gasoline cheaply.
    
    Bob Hunt

   � The media never ceases to amaze me with their "planned" coverage ...
    
    Does anyone (besides me) think it is just a little bit more than a
    coincidence that we've been seeing a recent increase in the
    pro-military "entertainment" propaganda offered over the airwaves ???
    
    Last night's prime time feature movie on HBO was "Top Gun".   The night
    before it was "Predator".   WTBS has been running what seems like a
    month-long John Wayne festival.  One of the networks had a hostage
    escape movie on last night.
    
    Coincidence ???    I don't believe so.
    
    Can you name two other military leaders of the 20th century who were
    extremely good at using the media to manipulate public opinion on the
    eve of desperate battle ???   Hilter and Stalin used to flood the
    airwaves with pro-hawk movies and shows in the weeks leading up to
    major engagements.
    
    Bob Hunt

    Having lived a large portion of my life in the Middle East I have come
    to understand the Arab culture with all its intracasies, and strongly
    believe that Westerners do not comprehend who they are dealing with.
    
    This 'madman' is actually a shrewd, calculating leader much in the mold
    of Nasser, Assad, Ghadafi, and even Sadat (pre-Camp David).  Because of
    their firm grip at home they face no opposition and use this to their
    advantage in international dealings.  These type of leaders are more
    concerned with power than with governing and thus feel their poeple are
    expendable in pursuing their "leader's" policies.
    
    Saddam has to be stopped and if he is allowed to keep his spoils in
    Kuwait, he will do it again, only this time he will be stronger
    militarily, and also politically (Arabs love leaders who stand up to
    the US) and it will involve a lot more lives.  One only has to look at
    Hitler during the '30s or the USSR during the '50-'60s; both countries
    could have been beaten militarily at first.
    
    As far as the Europeans are concerned, someone please answer me this
    question:  Where have most of the terrorist acts taken place ?  Europe.
    Even though the targets were often Americans the Us public has never
    had to fear terrorist acts in the US.  Europe has large Arab
    populations with established underground network.  Secondly, if the
    Europeans send troops who will command them ?  This is a political
    question with important ramifications.  The Europeans know that Saddam
    must be stopped but with the US taking the lead they are willing tio
    offer tactical and political support.  Personally, I feel the Europeans
    could have done more but I also believe that if Thatcher was not PM at
    the time there would be no British troops there.
    
    As far as Israel is concerned, don't be surprised if they retaliate by
    using nuclear weapons. By neccessity they have understood the Arab way
    of life but are often bound by Western moral standards.  They might pay
    a heavy price in the inital salvo, but they will exact one as well.
    
    Thanks for starting the discussion,
    
    John "D Cowboys" R.

Maybe I'm not really in the know, but I can't see where this is
all that different from WWII.

In WWII, the Japanese were seeking to break out of their little 
corner of the Pacific, (partially motivated by oil) and become the
ruling power in that hemisphere of the world.

Granted, until then the US had been a bit more isolationist than we
have been lately, but it's really not that different.  Except of
course that we were directly attacked.


No matter how you cut it, it's gonna get nasty.

I'd like to see more involvement from the Europeans.  And I'd sure like
to see President Bush be as forceful with Japan when negotiating 
trade agreements as he has been with Hussein.

Also, fwiw, I saw a US-Arab Relations Consultant on CBS news last evening
who said an Iraqi attack on Israel would not necessarily cause the loss
of all Arab support for the USA.  I believe he said that Egypt and
Saudi Arabia would stick with the US...  

Also, another thing that pisses me off is that we're in Saudi Arabia
helping them out, right?  But our boys have to pussy foot around, 
and aren't allowed to wear crosses or Stars of David so as not to offend
their hosts.  Well, I'll tell you, if someone was in my land helping
keep a madman agressor out, I wouldn't care if he came naked farting
downwind of me, as long as he helped out...


What a mess.

'Saw

    I also noticed two guys outside my office for the past few minutes...
    
    They are watching what I type, I can just tell.  Hey, wait a minute,
    they're headed this way... Oh my god, they're walking through the
    door...  It can't be, it's, It's, IT'S...
    
    A GOVERMENT CLONE OF MINNIE MINOSO!!!!!! AND HE'S COME FOR ME!!!
    
    ARRRGGHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  NOT THE SOX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    
    Ahem.
    
    Now you mention it, I have seen more war movies of late.  Wheating
    the U.S. bloodlust?  I don't know, but I watched most of them...
    
    Even the A&E channel has had alot of war stuff.
    
    Tanks anyway,
    
    Chip_GSH_Bach
    
    
    

    Funny you guys should mention the movie stuff. Lasted night a few
    friends came over and we watched some videos and drank some brews. The
    movies were "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" and "Die Hard". 
    
    
    
    You guys ever hear of Nostradameus? He predicted that a "Man in a Blue
    Turbin" will wage war on the West. The Great Powers will unite to
    eventually stop him. He talked about some pretty eerie stuff concerning
    this blue turbin guy. Hussein wears a blue beret sometimes.

    I was listening to H Ross Perot today, and he made a damned good point.
    Namely, that there are 4 threats in Iraq : Biological, Chemical,
    Nuclear, and Saddam himself. There was been precedence for removing the
    first three - surgical strikes. Israel did it about 10 years ago, and
    the US did it against Liyba.
    
    So why the hell do you need 480,000 troops for a surgical strike ?
    
    You don't. The US wants Saddam.
    
    And I'm fed up with it all.
    
    First ole Georgie "Porgie" Bush wanted to have us believe that Saddam
    was the second coming of Hitler. So why did he support Hussein with
    arms in the war versus Iraq ? It hasn't washed. 
    
    Another key point that Perot made was this : the oil will continue to
    flow from the MidEast, because that is all they have to sell. This is
    not to 'librate' Kuwait (many Arab countries aren't big fans of Kuwait,
    and it was originally part of Iraq anyway, it was only because of the
    British that it became independent) - it's about oil and power. And
    lives are going to be lost for what ?
    
    Disgusted,
    
    Doc

    H. Ross Perot was on Larry King the other night and the U.S. Secretary
    of Commerce (Mosbacher?) called him up live on the show and spoke to
    him.
    
    Mosbacher chewed out Perot left and right for not supporting George
    Bush.  Said all kinds of incredible things about how it was time for
    America to trust its elected leaders and to put aside all debate over
    this war and its issues.   He said America wants this war.
    
    Perot took this all in very calmly and then said ... 
    
    "I see.  Mr. Secretary, would you mind telling us why both the State
    Department and your Commerce Department pushed so hard for the sale of
    a US-made supercomputer to Iraq *AFTER* the August 2nd Iraqi invasion
    of Kuwait ???"
    
    The Secretary said ... "What are you talking about ???"
    
    Perot said: "Both State and Commerce practically forced an American
    company to sell a supercomputer to a company in Brazil that was set up
    especially to route high tech items into Iraq.   And this delivery
    happened after Hussein invaded Kuwait, Mr. Secretary."
    
    The Commerce Secretary then went on another of his pro-Bush tirades and
    never really answered the question even though Perot tried to get him
    to come back to it.
    
    I got a chill up my spine.   This administration is seriously out of
    touch.
    
    Bob Hunt

    I would like to offer a public apology to Alison Waskom for the
    following exchange and any misunderstandings that may have occured
    because of it ...
    
�            <<< Note 46.113 by SHALOT::HUNT "Bippity Boppity Boo" >>>
�                                 -< Disagree >-
�
�   � And to those who ask.... yes, I believe in this strongly enough
�   � that I am prepared to have my son be one of those on the lines over
�   � there.  This fight is worth his life.
�    
�    No, Alison, it is not worth your son's life or anyone else's life, for
�    that matter.
    
    I had no intention of belittling anyone's feelings on this matter, most
    of all Alison Waskom, whom I respect and admire very much.   I
    wholeheartedly respect and endorse each and every person's right to an
    opinion on these critical issues and I believe I understand the heavy
    weight of her decision to arrive at her conclusions.
    
    Let me also state that my position is really very simple ...  
    
    I don't believe there are any issues left in this world that are truly
    worth fighting a destructive war over.   As such, I would not willingly
    sacrifice my life or my children's lives in support of such a war and I
    do not support elected politicians or career military personnel who
    would like me to believe that such deadly sacrifices are necessary.
    
    Therein lies the critical difference between Alison's viewpoint and
    mine.   I trust that this rather large difference between us serves to
    illuminate the issue rather than obscure it.
    
    Bob Hunt

    Re: supercomputer
    
    ...but do they have the resources to effectively take advantage of such
    technology?
    
    Mike

Let me add my $.02 to this also Bob. 

I did not imply that Alison was lying when she said that she would forfeit her
son's life on this issue. I was mearly trying to state that people without 
family or close friends in Saudia Arabia at this time can not relate the same 
way those of us that do.

I compare it to a funeral of a parent or a spouse. I can not bring my self to
tell someone that "I know how they feel" in this  situation because I have not 
experienced it yet. 

I do not agree with her on this issue but we have agreed to disagree about it.
I am thankful that we live in a country where we can express our opinions on
an issue like this with out fear of repercussions.

While I would support a war 100% if it were based on an issue I felt strongly
enough about, this is not that issue. I would be hard pressed to come up with
more than a handfull of issues that I would support the loss of human life over.
I think that life is far too short as it is and to throw lives away on an 
Ego battle as we are preparing to do here is wrong in my opinion.

While my brother-in-laws both entered the military prepared for an eventual
war I would like to spare our families and families across the country the
pain of a life cut short.


Metz

>    
>    Neither of these countries are worth
>    Western blood.   Their only worth to the West at all is their oil. 
>    That is all we are fighting for and your son's life is not worth our
>    desire to burn gasoline cheaply.
 

	Sounds good.  Forget the whole Middle east.  Let whoever wants it
control the oil and sell it for whatever they want.  $80 a barrel.  Sure.
Who cares if it throws the economy into the shitter, unemployment
rises, inflation shoots through the roof, people starve, people freeze, people
die.  

Better here then there right?

Mc

    
    I have been reading the replies and thinking about some of the ideas
    presented here, so I decided to reply.
    
    I have very mixed feelings about what is going on right now in the
    Gulf.  I support George Bush and what he is trying to do, and I see no
    other way of bringing Saddam to his kness short of military force.  If
    we as a country had stood back and waited, who knows where Saddam would
    be right now.  I am pretty sure that he wouldn't have stayed in Kuwait
    for the holidays.  I was listening to a radio talk show a couple of
    weeks ago, and the host was having a pretty interesting argument with
    one of the callers over this issue.  After some lively discussion the
    host asked the caller one question "If the US didn't step in and stand
    up to Iraq, who would have?"  The caller couldn't answer the question. 
    The host then went on to say that this country was founded on the
    principle of freedom for all men.  How can we stand back and watch a
    ruthless dictator bully his neighbors and do nothing?
    
    Put yourselves in the place of the Kuwaiti people and then think. 
    Their country has been raped, their people beaten and their cities
    robbed.  They deserve some help...  There was an interesting article in
    TIME magazine a few weeks ago about Kuwait.  They have poured millions
    of dollars of aid into their neighboring countries.  Iraq received a
    large part of that money, after the Irag/Iran war to help them heal the
    wounds of that war.  Then Saddam in all his wisdom, bites the hand that
    feeds it.
    
    I'm sorry to have gone on like this.  I hate the thought of war, and
    the loss that it brings.  Saddam knows only one thing and that is
    force, and if the US is the only nation that has the filberts to stand
    up against this jerk then the **** with the rest of the world...
    
    JB
    

As I have mentioned before, I have a close friend in Operation
Desert Shield.  He is married (pushed up his wedding date before
shipping out in September) and found out recently he's gonna
be a Daddy.

I'm concerned.  But, I also have respect for how he feels.  He made
a choice when he entered the military, and he knew that something
like this was always a possibility.  He has trained hard, and believes
in that training.  All he wants to do, is to do the job that he's trained
for should it become necessary to do so.  

He has said that all the guys over there don't feel as if they are
there for oil, but rather, to stop the aggression of a madman.
He doesn't want to die anymore than you or I, but he does want to do
his job to the best of his ability.

The thing I pray for the most is that if the flag goes up and we go
to war, that we support these men and women, NO MATTER WHAT our
feelings about the administration.  Please, let's not have another
bunch of bullshit like the 'Nam vets went through.

And if you have someone over there, please don't forget to write.
The constant theme I hear back in his letters are how very important
getting mail is....


Thanks for letting me get up on the soapbox for a few,
'Saw

    My thanks to both Bob and Metz.  I also hope that this exchange
    can be enlightening, rather than generating heat.  We've agreed
    to disagree in good faith and friendship.
    
    A&W

    A quasi state of war has been ongoing between many Middle East
    countries and the U.S.  Who knows what type of retaliation may have
    occured once the economic sanctions really started to hit home in Iraq.

    re: .126
    
>    The host then went on to say that this country was founded on the
>    principle of freedom for all men.  How can we stand back and watch a
>    ruthless dictator bully his neighbors and do nothing?
    
    Why not?  We've watched Chili do it for the last ten years...to their
    own people...with hardly a word from the White House!  Such hypocrisy
    is so blatant yet the American public falls for it.
    
    This is a war for oil and anyone who doesn't see that has fallen
    blindly to our government's rhetoric.
    
    I hope Mr. Bush watched the news last night and saw the people in this
    country protest.  The Golden Gate bridge was shut down by protesters,
    5,000 people marched in the streets of Chicago, and there were almost a
    thousand protesters in a small military town in California.
    
    This country has finally grown up and learned a lesson from the 60's,
    much like Ron Kovic did on his personal journey.  If anyone can watch
    the movie or read the book "Born on the 4th of July" and still come out
    in favor of our governmental policy when it comes to war your a sorry
    soul.
    
    	--dan'l

> 	Sounds good.  Forget the whole Middle east.  Let whoever wants it
> control the oil and sell it for whatever they want.  $80 a barrel.  Sure.
> Who cares if it throws the economy into the shitter, unemployment
> rises, inflation shoots through the roof, people starve, people freeze, people
> die.  
    
    This is unrealistic.  Right now, as the situation exists *before* war,
    Saddam Hussein is backed into a corner politically, economically, and
    militarily.  He, not we, is in a position of weakness.  Most of the oil
    that we lost when Hussein invaded Kuwait was Iraqi oil, which we're
    obviously going to have to do without regardless of the outcome and
    which we've already mostly made up from other sources.  The
    fluctuations in the price of oil and our stock market are mainly due 
    not to any serious dent put in the oil supply, but because of 
    the volitility of the situation in the Middle East, which has as much
    to do with our strategy as the invasion of Kuwait.  The opinion I've 
    mainly heard from economists, for purely pragmatic reasons not even
    considering emotional arguments like the loss of life, is against going
    to war.  I don't believe the "we're there for oil" argument really
    holds up.  Once we got our troops in place to protect Saudi Arabia 
    (where they should stay), the issue became Saddam and Saddam only, in
    my opinion.
    
    What I don't agree with in Bush's approach is the blind devotion to
    Kuwait as the focus of all of this.  While I feel for the people of 
    Kuwait and don't believe that stuff about the emirate being an overly
    oppressive government (certainly not by Middle Eastern standards), I
    don't see any reason why we can't exercise patience.  Most of the
    Kuwaiti assets are in foreign banks, so I don't see the emir sweating
    this too much, especially since a war will likely result in the
    destruction of his country, which can't be an appealing alternative.
    Are we doing this for them, or us?
    
    If what we needed was some kind of a public victory over Saddam, I 
    don't know why this administration couldn't have been satisfied with
    and played up a near-unanimous international coalition against Hussein
    (a remarkable accomplishment for Bush/Baker), military confinement of 
    Hussein's expansionist aims, a complete blockade of his country, and 
    the collapse of the Iraqi economy.  So what if it takes a year or two?  
    Saddam isn't going to hold on against unified world and Arab opposition; 
    our economy settles down (as well as it can in light of other factors); 
    we don't push any of our boys over the edge, and, worst case, we don't
    make some kind of martyr out of Saddam and de-stabilize the region for
    years to come.  Why not declare a peaceful victory and hang tight
    while we watch the guy's house of cards come down upon him?
    
    glenn
          

    � How can we stand back and watch a ruthless dictator bully his
    � neighbors and do nothing?
    
    In addition to Daniel's reference to the dictatorship in Chile, what
    about China ???   We didn't lift a finger after their tanks mowed down
    the students in Tianamen Square.
    
    � Put yourselves in the place of the Kuwaiti people and then think. 
    � Their country has been raped, their people beaten and their cities
    � robbed.  They deserve some help...  
    
    Same thing happened to Lebanon after the Israelis and Syrians invaded
    it in 1982.   We haven't sent any "help" over there yet.    Oh, I
    forgot, Reagan sent the Marines as a "peace-keeping force" (now there's
    an oxymoron for all time).    When our "help" was perceived as hostile,
    they killed 240 or more of the Marines and we left.
    
    And just yesterday, Bush was warning the Soviets not to use force in
    Lithuania.    I wonder if Gorbachev had anything to say in return.  
    Like, perhaps, "Same to you, pal ..."
    
    Bob Hunt

You know what I wonder?

I'm sitting here, and we're all (me including) getting up on our
little soapboxes, spouting forth our views with heartfelt conviction
knowing just how right we are truthfully, for we each believe we own
the patent on the one unalterable, undiluted truth....

How many of us, would, if the hand of Fate said to you this morning "You're
the one in the Oval Office right NOW", accept the awesome responsibility.

It's just like SPORTS.  We can all sit here and say that Randall Cunningham
should have run instead of passing, or pass instead of running on such
and such a play, but anyone who's ever played knows just how different
it is down on the field...

This is truly amazing....

'Saw

    RE: .133
    
    I'd love to be president.  The first thing always said I'd do is make
    government more accessable to the people.  Right now, it's a monster
    that people feel helpless against.  
    
    A couple Sunday's ago, Dave Barry had a really good column that really
    rung true to how people feel.  Here we go:
    

                THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR '92

             by Dave Barry, Pulitzer Prize winning columnist

          copied from the Boston Sunday Globe, January 6, 1991


        I know what's bothering you, as a concerned American.  What's
    bothering you is that it's 1991 already, and *nobody is running
    for president.*  It's eerie.  At this time four years ago, Iowa
    was already infested with presidential timbers such as Bruce
    Babbitt and Pierre S. "Pete" duPont IV Exquire Inc.  The average
    Iowa farmer could not take a step without bumping into several
    leading presidential contenders demonstrating their concern for
    agriculture by lifting small pigs.  And yet today, four years
    later, nobody is actively campaigning out there.  (Not that the
    pigs are complaining.)

        Of course, George Bush has been busy, what with the Persian
    Gulf, the economy, bonefishing, etc.  And there is speculation
    about Mario Cuomo running.  But there has always been speculation
    about Mario Cuomo running.  A large portion of the Rosetta stone
    is devoted to ancient Egyptian speculation about Mario Cuomo
    running.  You also hear talk about Sen. Albert Gore, but the US
    Constitution clearly states in Article III, Section 4, Row 8, Seat
    5, that the president cannot be somebody named "Albert."

        "Arnold, maybe," states the Constitution.  "But not Albert."

        Another possible candidate, Sen. Bill Bradley, possesses the
    one quality that thoughtful American voters value above all in a
    leader:  height.  Unfortunately, Sen. Bradley also has, with all
    due respect, the charisma of gravel.  Hospitals routinely use
    tapes of his speeches to sedate patients for surgery.  Rep. "Dick"
    Gephardt has no eyebrows and is, in the words of a recent New York
    Times editorial, "probably an alien being."

        Clearly, the nation has a Leadership Vacuum.  Well, where I
    come from, we have a saying:  "If you're not going to grab the
    bull by the horns while the iron is in the fire, then get off the
    pot."  (There are a lot of chemicals in the water where I come
    from.)  And that is why I am announcing today that I am running
    for president of the United States.

        (Wild sustained applause.)

        Thank you.  But before I accept your support and your large
    cash contributions, I want you to know where I stand on the issues.
    Basically, as I see it, there are two major issues facing this
    nation:  Domestic and foreign.  Following are my positions on
    these issues as of 9:30 this morning.

        DOMESTIC AFFAIRS:  I would eliminate all giant federal
    departments - Transportation, Commerce, Interior, Exterior, etc. -
    and replace them with a single entity, called the Department of
    Louise.  This would consist of a woman named Louise, selected on
    the basis of being a regular taxpaying individual with children
    and occasional car trouble and zero experience in government.  The
    Department of Louise would have total veto pawer over everything. 
    Before government officials could spend any money, they'd have to
    explain the reason to Louise and get her approval.

        "Louise," they'd say, "we want to take several billion dollars
    away from the taxpayers and build a giant contraption in Texas so
    we can cause tiny invisible particles to whiz around and smash
    into each other and break into even *tinier* particles."

        And Louise would say: "No."

        Or the officials would say: "Louise, we want to use a
    half-million taxpayer dollars to restore the childhood home of
    Lawrence Welk."

        And Louise would say: "No."

        Or the officials would say: "Louise, we'd like to give the
    Syrians a couple million dollars to reward them for going almost a
    week without harboring a terrorist."

        And Louise would say: "No."

        Or the officials might say:  "Louise, we want to....."

        And Louise would say: "No."

        All these decisions would have to be made before 5:30 p.m.,
    because Louise would be very strict about picking her kids up at
    day care.

        FOREIGN AFFAIRS:  These would be handled via another new
    entity called The Department of A Couple of Guys Named Victor. 
    The idea here would be to prevent situations such as the Panama
    invasion, where we send in the Army to get Manuel Noriega, and a
    whole lot of innocent people get hurt, but *not* Manuel Noriega. 
    *He* gets lawyers and fax machines and a Fair Trial that will
    probably not take place during the current century.

        The Department of A Couple of Guys Named Victor would not
    handle things this way.  I'd just tell them, "Victors, I have this
    feeling that something unfortunate might happen to Manuel Noriega,
    you know what I mean?"  And, mysteriously, something would.

        Or, instead of sending hundreds of thousands of our people to
    fight hundreds of thousands of Iraqis all because of one scuzzball, 
    I'd say:  "Victors, it would not depress me to hear that Saddam 
    Hussein had some kind of unfortunately fatal accident in the shower."

        I realize there will be critics of this program.  "What if he
    doesn't take showers?" they will say.  But these are mere
    technical details.  The improtant thing is that I have a platform,
    and next week I'm going to Iowa - well, technically I'll be flying
    *over* Iowa - as the first declared candidate, and if you want to
    get on the bandwagon, now is the time, because there is a lot of
    important work to be done, such as selecting the band for the
    Victory Party.  Right now I am leaning toward Little Richard. 

    	Also, I need to locate a small pig.
    

  Hold the phone!

  The war we're discussing has nothing to do with 3% of the World's oil 
  output, nor does it have very much to do with one tiny little Kuwait full of
  very wealthy people.

  Furthermore, there is no comparison here between Kuwait/Iraq and China,
  Chili, Ouagadougo, Angola, Russia, whatever.

  What it's all about is the fact that one dictator has managed to get to the
  point where he is *a potential threat to world peace.*  For the U.S., once
  that little danger light goes on it translates into "squish him at any cost."

  Most of us Boomers cannot conceive of a threat to world peace because we have
  not seen one in our time.  Just hearing or reading about some of the stories
  to come out of WW II are spine chilling - any possibility of a recourrence
  must be eliminated.  How can anyone argue that when our own personal safety
  could become in danger?
    
  rick ellis    

    re .127
    
    Saw, I doubt if there are 10 people in the US who doesn't support our
    troops. I do, I feel deeply for them. My father was a vet, 3 of my
    uncles were, I have a cousin in the service. Over 30% (at least) of the
    frontline troops are minority - believe it when I tell you that.
    
    My beef comes with the US goverment's messed up (I'm trying hard to
    keep my language G-rated) sense of priorties, and the cultural
    arrogance that keeps the US in hot water in the MidEast.
    
    I doubt if Hussein is a true madman, or another Hitler, in factI
    beleive he's thrown Bush for a loop more than once in this crisis.
    
    Moreover, if we had any sense of history, perhaps we wouldn't at the
    brink of war now ....
    
    Issac Asimov once said "Violence is the last refuge of the
    incompetent." It's never been more true than now ....

    RE: .133
    
    The fact of the matter is everyone is either blaming Bush, Hussien,
    Regan, Kuwait, Opec, etc., while the reason we're there, and the 
    people who should accept responsibility are... (drum roll)
    
    You and I.  The fact that once gas prices went back down in the 70's/
    80's and we whole handedly threw any ideas of oil conservation, and
    alternate energy sources out the window is OUR fault.  The fact that 
    there was a move (? 2 years ago?) to raise the gas taxes and the
    american people rejected the offer.  Hindsight is great, huh?
    
    Now I've also heard the Auto/Oil industry put us back on the road to
    oil dependence, etc.  bull again.  If, we the people, were (are) united
    in any cause, that cause is soon to be the favorite of any politician.
    
    No one likes to assume/accept responsibility.  People are getting
    gang raped in city parks, selling drugs to little kids, turning
    neighborhoods into war zones, even ruining the banking industry.
    But it's always someone else's fault why this is happening.
    
    And the same people who say, don't fight for oil, are the same people
    voting on expensive social reforms that will be unavailable if a
    thug like Hussien is holding our purse strings.  gimme a break.
    
    Let's remember who put those troops (our sons and daughters) in the
    sand.  It was us.  I hope, when they're back, we can learn something
    from this instead of blaming some figure-head and go back to our old
    routines.  We need an energy policy.  We (americans) need to put that 
    policy on the agenda.  It's too late now for the kid's in army, lets
    pray there ain't no shootin'. 
    
    My 2cents
    
    Chip Bach
        

    I agree with you 100%, Rick, up to the point where you assess the
    extent of the threat Saddam presents.  As long as we have the majority 
    of the Arab nations, including the most powerful ones, on our side 
    (and indirectly on Israel's side), I think we're in pretty good shape.
    Saddam has very little breathing room right now, and anything he does
    is under a microscope.  He could attack, but it will take no one by
    surprise at this point.  The Arab alliances could change even if we 
    sit tight, but I see it as more likely to change if we flatten Iraq,
    which possibly could ignite the region and precipitate a larger war.
    
    I have one last question on our position.  Is Bush sincere in his
    pledge not to attack Iraq if Hussein withdraws from Kuwait?
    If so, how have we altered the threat Hussein poses in the region?
    How are we any better off than we are now with the occupation of
    Kuwait?  Is that little patch of land going to make that much of a 
    difference?  That's what I'd like to hear explained, but of course 
    with the consent of Congress the President is under no obligation 
    to answer such perplexing questions...
    
    glenn
    

    
>    I have very mixed feelings about what is going on right now in the
>    Gulf.
    
    No argument here.
    
>      I support George Bush and what he is trying to do, and I see no
>    other way of bringing Saddam to his kness short of military force.
    
    Perhaps one problem of this country is that we see things in this
    light. The "Bringing Saddam to his knees" mentality is one reason why
    we can't establish peace over there. Too much damn pride. It's an
    afflicition that Isreal, Iraq, Syria, and everyone else suffers from.
    And we may end up seeing all of them choke on it before its said and
    done.
    
>    If we as a country had stood back and waited, who knows where Saddam would
>    be right now. 
    
    If Bush had not had his head stuck in the sand, he would have been able
    to stop the invasion of Kuwait. BTW, for a former CIA head, I find his
    ignorance suspicious and disturbing.
    
>    The host then went on to say that this country was founded on the
>    principle of freedom for all men.  
    
    Excuse me while I giggle. This country was founded on the principle of
    freedom of SOME men. According to the US Constitution, I was defined as
    60% of a man.
    
>    How can we stand back and watch a
>    ruthless dictator bully his neighbors and do nothing?
 
    Gag me. I don't see George Bush putting a deadline on abolishing
    apartheid in South Africa, do you ?
    
    I don't see the US putting deadlines on Lithuania. Why not ?   
    
    The US did nothing while the Shah of Iran bullied his people. In fact,
    when he was overthrown in the 50's, the CIA helped to put him back in
    power.
    
>    Put yourselves in the place of the Kuwaiti people and then think. 
>    Their country has been raped, their people beaten and their cities
>    robbed.  
    
    I've had experince with Arabs and plenty of them were not big fans of
    Kuwait-ites (or whatever you call them). From what I gather, they are
    considered (with some justification) as the rich snobs on the block.
    
>   Iraq received a large part of that money, after the Irag/Iran war to help 
>    them heal the wounds of that war.  Then Saddam in all his wisdom, bites 
>    the hand that feeds it.
    
    Many international experts felt that that was, for lack of a better
    word, protection money. Moreover, it appears that Saddam had a
    legitimate complaint concerning Kuwait's illegal practice of slant
    drilling into Iraqi territory, as well as deliberate over-production of
    oil (over the OPEC quotas) to keep prices deflated.
    
    Allow to state that this DOES NOT justify an invasion IMO, but let's
    the whole story out front shall we ? Kuwait is hardly an innocent
    bystander who was callously overrun.
    
    JB, this isn't a flame, just my view of things over there. As several
    other noters pointed out, there are few things worth fighting about in
    the world. This isn't one of them.
    
    Dr 00:00

>  Most of us Boomers cannot conceive of a threat to world peace because we have
>  not seen one in our time.  
    
    Agreed, Rick.  But why can't we stand up and be the generation that
    says, "Let's keep it that way.  No war for no reason."
    
    Over a period of less than a year, the economic sanctions would bring
    this "madman" down.  Why do we have to spill blood instead?
    
    If the US is to be the world's policeman, we should then police the
    world.  It's hypocritical to pick and choose which dictator is a
    "madman" and which is a "fighter for the true way of life" when all are
    subjugating their people...including Bush and our congress.
    
    	--dan'l

    
    This was sent to me a while back over the net .... what do you think ?
    
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Houston Post/Sunday, November 18, 1990
Page C-4
 
Ask the CIA why we're in Saudi Arabia
 
by Charley Reese
   King Features Syndicate
 
A chronology of recent events in the Persian Gulf will help you understand why
President Bush's crazy crusade is an outright fraud that is endangering human
lives for, basically, private gain.
 
A memo from Brig. Ahmad Alfahd, head of Kuwait security, to the emir, which
results of a meeting between the Kuwaiti security chief and CIA Director 
William Webster in November 1989 says the following in one paragraph:
 
  "We agreed with the American side that it was important to take advantage
   of the deteriorating economic situation in Iraq in order to put pressure
   on that country's government to delineate our common border. The Central
   Intelligence Agency gave us its view of appropriate means  of pressure,
   saying that broad cooperation should be initiated between us ..."
 
The Iraqi Embassy released the memo, which it says it captured in Kuwait. If
the Bush administration has any proof that this isn't genuine, it hasn't
produced it. As you will see, subsequent behavior by Kuwait is consistent with
an agreement between the CIA to destabilize Iraq.
 
The reference to the border is significant, because while Iraq has been
occupied with the war with Iran, the Kuwaitis had advanced the border farther
north and begun to take Iraqi oil.
 
In February 1990, Saddam Hussein in a public speech warned Arab countries the
United States might seek to control the level of oil and gas production for 
each country in the Persian Gulf region.
 
After the speech, the Iraqis claim, there was an increase in propaganda
directed at them. At the time of the speech-February-oil was between $18 an
$21 a barrel. Then Kuwait demanded a large increase in its OPEC production
quota and began without approval to flood the market, driving the price
down to $11 a barrel.
 
Iraq, trying to recover from an eight-year war, was seriously injured 
economically. Iraq diplomats tried to dissuade the Kuwaitis from pursuing
this policy. In May 1990, at the Arab Summit Conference, Hussein warned
publicly that Kuwait's actions amounted to waging war against Iraq.
 
Kuwait persisted. In June, Iraq asked for special talks but was put off
until July when Kuwait pretended to agree to abide by OPEC quotas. But
as soon as the meeting ended, Kuwait again indicated it intended to increase
its production, thus sabotaging Iraq.
 
On July 16, Hussein in a public speech issued a pretty clear warning that if
words could not protect the Iraqi people from economic warfare then decisive
action would be taken. By this time, Iraq had lost $14 billion in revenue as
a result of Kuwaiti actions.
 
On July 30, a last-ditch meeting was held, but still the Kuwaitis defied Iraq.
Unaware at the time of the memorandum cited above, the Iraqis nevertheless
thought it inconceivable  that Kuwait would act the way it was acting unless
it had the support of a superpower.
 
On Aug. 2, Iraq entered Kuwait, the invasion taking about six hours to
complete. It strikes me as significant that the Kuwaiti ruling family and
virtually its entire army and air force escaped intact to Saudi Arabia.
 
Contrary to the Bush claim that Iraq was planning an invasion of Saudi
Arabia, Iraq agreed to a small summit, set up by Jordan's King Hussein,
for Aug. 5 or 6 in Jeddah.
 
Instead, however, Defense Secretary Dick Cheney arrived on Aug. 6-- a visit
obviously scheduled in advance, which explains why the summit was canceled by
the Saudis. The Saudis then invited in U.S. forces, which obviously were
already on the way before the public announcement.
 
Who authorized the CIA to cooperate with Kuwait to destabilize Iraq? I don't
recall any congressional debate on the subject. When did the American people
decide to overthrow the government of Iraq? I don't recall any public debate
on that issue either.
 
so here's why 200,000 Americans are in the Saudi Arabian desert: because
another stupid cover CIA scheme to overthrow someone else's government to
protect private corporate interests is about to blow up in our faces.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think some of you missed the point of my rhetorical question....

We all can say "If I were President", but when you're President, it's
not that easy to get things done.  I truly think any political figure
falls into the ever-present trap of "You can't please all of the people...."

Our government beauracracy is HUGE.  And we'd all like to see it trimmed.
But, it's hard to do that -- very hard.  We can't even make this
little (compared to the gov't) company work right....8^)

The Post Office is a prime example.  I have long felt that if run as
a private sector company, and with competition allowed, the price of
a stamp wouldn't be as exorbitant.  BUT hey, let's face it.  The Postal
Workers Union is very powerful, and those folks have a cushy, cushy
job (a lot of them anyway).  [Caveat:  Before any of you who have relatives
in the Post Office, let me say I get my info from people I know who
work there....and like any other place, there are those who loaf, and
those who bust their hump....]

Anyway, try and make the Post Office a private sector business with
free enterprise competition, and you've got to get by the Postal
Workers Union....no easy task....  The result?  We will pay almost 30� to
mail a letter soon...

So, it ain't that easy....


Let's face it folks.  We're in a mess.  Violence isn't always the
answer, but neither is total non-violence either.  That's been proven.


Anybody working on a spaceship to go planet hunting with?  8^)

'Saw

>    country protest.  The Golden Gate bridge was shut down by protesters,
    
    and misplaced flower children ;-)

>    
>    Over a period of less than a year, the economic sanctions would bring
>    this "madman" down.  Why do we have to spill blood instead?

	That's just opinion.  Nobody can say for certain that the sanctions
will or will not work.  What happens if 6 monts from now some country that
is also effected by the sanctions say 'screw this' and starts trading
with Iraq again?

Mc

The destabilization of Iraq seems like a fine idea to me.

Saddam Hussein is an Imperialist. He began the war with Iran. He has
used chemical weapons on his enemies and his own people. He is
recognized as a murderer, and described as a megalomaniac. He is in bed
with Libya, the PLO, and every other fringe/terrorist organization he
can get close to. He is committed to the destruction of Israel, a
country that the U.S. has supported, and been supported by, almost since
its inception as a country. Saddam Insane has been a destabilizing force
in the Mid-East for a very long time. And his power, and power base is
growing. He is not that far away from Nuclear capability.

As I mentioned in an earlier note, people should take some Economics
courses, and read a little history. The war is not about oil, and it's
not about morals (indignation) over poor Kuwait (as I also mentioned).
Oil.... and Kuwait, are excuses (in my opinion). I believe the U.S.
welcomes the opportunity to confront Iraq now, as a PART of a U.N. task
force, and with the support of other Arab countries; rather than at a
later date, when Hussein has had time to further destabilize the region,
acquire more destructive powers (possibly nuclear), forge tighter
non-aggression / mutual support pacts with additional Arab nations, and
acquire greater reserves of oil and Petro-dollars with which to support
his schemes. I feel that a `diplomatic' solution at this point could
well be the worst thing that has happened to the United States and
its Western Allies in the last 200 years.

I'm hoping that Bob's remark [paraphrased] `that there is NOTHING in the
world worth fighting a destructive war over' was said without thinking.
If you value your freedom, there are a LOT of things worth fighting a
destructive war over.... and it's best to do it before your enemy gets
too strong.

    
> I feel that a `diplomatic' solution at this point could
> well be the worst thing that has happened to the United States and
> its Western Allies in the last 200 years.
  
    Including an unconditional withdrawal by Hussein from Kuwait?
    
    glenn
               

    
    And while you're belittling the knowledge of economics and history of
    fellow noters, could you please explain how Hussein is going to acquire
    petro-dollars without any trade possibilities outside the Mid-East
    (i.e. U.S., Japan, Germany, etc.)?
    
    glenn
    

�    Last night's prime time feature movie on HBO was "Top Gun".   The night
�    before it was "Predator".   WTBS has been running what seems like a
�    month-long John Wayne festival.  One of the networks had a hostage
�    escape movie on last night.
�    Coincidence ???    I don't believe so.


Given the fact that one or another TV station has run a `John Wayne'
Festival on an average of once every other month for the last twenty
years, I don't find this ominous.

However.. Just the other night, I saw a movie on a national network
called `Witness' (the movie.. not the network).

About an Amish kid who sees a murder, then the bad guys try to kill him,
and Indianna Jones saves him and the kid's mother, and then goes with
them to hide out in an Amish community. While there, Indy goes to a barn
raising, and porks a beautiful Amish woman, and does other Amish type
stuff.

But that's not the point.... or the insidious message.
The insidious pointed message is that when you think of Amish you think
of Dutch (or possibly Swiss) people.
When you think of Dutch, you think of Tulips and Wooden Shoes.... but
you quickly forget about the tulips, and concentrate on the wooden
shoes.
When you think of wooden shoes you think of sore feet.
When you think of sore feet, you think of Athlete's foot.
When you think of Athlete's Foot, you think of Desenex powder.
When you think of powder, you think of gun powder (or possibly body
powder, which starts you thinking about women.... and the next thing
you know you're getting sweaty and.... ) ..... Where was I?
Oh yeah.
When you think of gun powder, you think of guns.
And when you think of guns you think of Audie Murphy.
When you think of Audie Murphy, you think of a very short person
standing on top of a burning tank and killing about sixty bazillion
enemy Klingon soldiers, and becoming a hero, and getting the
Congressional Medal of honor, and getting to go to bed with Italian Film
Starlets.

THAT'S what you think about!

And that's what the media and the Democratic congress (which voted to
support El Presidente's actions against Iraq and allow him to declare
war) WANT you to think about!

Coincidence?
HAH!
Don't make me laugh up my sleeves at such foolishness!

Mike JN

    I'm not sure if some of you intended to say this, or were implying
    something else.  So, I think I'll just flat-out state it.
    
    The reason for this situation is MONEY!  Forget pride, religion, or
    whatever else, it's plain old money.  The root of all evil.  We've
    (sports noters) even identified it as the root cause of most problems
    in sports, both professional and amateur.
    
    We're told that it's something much more noble, and I think that the
    vast majority of our population WANT to think it's a noble cause.  But,
    the guys in power know why it's happening, and that they are part of
    the problem, too.
    
    It has nothing to do with democracy, or tyranny, for that matter.  Oh,
    these principles are almost always a part of the problem, but the major
    portion is money.  Money is power, and power corrupts.  Since the
    beginning of time, men have been willing to sell their souls for money
    and power.
    
    Does anyone think that, if our armed forces were made up of strictly
    rich and older men, that we'd EVER EVER have a war?  Not unless someone
    else was trying to wrest their power and fortune from them.  They sure
    wouldn't put their lives on the line for principles, at least not many
    of them.  But, if they can substitute some young, idealistic people
    into the lines, then let's go get the b*st*rds!
    
    lEe_who_is_older_but_certainly_not_rich

    Re: TV
    
    I don't watch too much TV, but I would be surprised by the
    "coincidences".  Besides, with a TV guide and a remote, you can find
    something else to watch and turn the channel.  Or you can turn it off.
    
    If nobody is watching, they would have to try "quality entertainment".
    
    Mike

�    And while you're belittling the knowledge of economics and history of
�    fellow noters, could you please explain how Hussein is going to acquire
�    petro-dollars without any trade possibilities outside the Mid-East
�    (i.e. U.S., Japan, Germany, etc.)?

A) I don't believe Hussein (Saddam, not King) will agree to an
unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait. He has dug himself a hole.
Withdrawal would (in his opinion) wreck all credibility for his future
actions. He'd lose face, and become (again, in his opinion) a laughing
stock... which he couldn't tolerate.

B) I had no intention of belittling fellow noters. I sometimes get a
little excited and wax didactic. Apologies where appropriate.

Re: acquisition of petro dollars.
If he agreed to a total withdrawal from Kuwait, plus reparations to the
Kuwaiti people (the only viable `diplomatic solution'), then there would
no longer be sanctions enforced against him, and he would have no
difficulty stockpiling oil reserves, while going about the business of
the acquisition of petro-dollars. I don't know about the U.S. stance,
but if this were resolved `peacefully', Iraq would have no difficulty
peddling its oil.

Mike JN

I watched cable the other evening.  Watched some show on one of those
educational channels about the predatory habits of mountain lions.
We humans aren't all that much different....

I don't remember the start of WWII, but I'll be a lot of  people
were saying a lot of the same things that everyone is saying now.
But, after WWII, everyone decided it was the right thing to do, I 
guess, since we won.

Time changes perspective in so many ways.

'Saw

lee,

I don't think anyone would disagree that it's about money and power, but
I'd drop the `money'.

It's about Power, with a capital `P'.
Every war that's ever been fought is about Power.

Money is just a symbol of Power. 

So is land. 

So is control of x amount of people. This includes control of their
thoughts, their religion, their work (or the results of that work),
their movement, etc. 

So are strategic seaports.

And as mentioned in the book `Dune' (I `fess up... I like SF), ability
to destroy a thing gives total power over that thing.

Mike JN

    1 - Bob Hunt can defend himself, but please, let's all keep in mind
    that *all* of us, wherever we stand on this issue, have reached
    our conclusions based on the facts as *we* see them, the values
    *we* have about the value of individual lives, freedom, and the
    "price" of both, and how we see current events being played out
    against the back drop of that information.
    
    2 - I am firmly convinced that *all* war is fundamentally economically
    driven.  In that sense, Lee is right.  This is all about money.
     In my view, *there's nothing wrong with that*.  That is simply
    how the world works, although I believe that's unfortunate and wish
    it were otherwise.  Precipitating occasions and morally suasive
    argument are what get folks to actually put their lives on the line
    - to declare "thus far and no farther".
    
    3 - This discussion of this topic has been the most rational that
    I have heard or participated in this week.  My thanks to all of
    you for that, and to the mods for allowing it to continue.
    
    A&W

    If the reporter in the article Doc reprinted feels that Iraq was
    justified (or at least forced) into taking over Kuwait, then why
    shouldn't the US invade Japan?  The Kuwaitis have been outselling the
    Iraqis in terms of oil.  Japan is outselling the US on the automobile
    and electronics front.

    >This conflict is about oil.
    
    I don't think so, not in the primary sense at least:
    
    * America has doggedly pursued a mideast policy since WWII that is in
      total and direct conflict with our vital oil interests there.
    
    * Saddam years ago offered to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
      but refused to do so when the two nations which he was at odds with
      refused to also sign.  He then began his nuke weapons program.
    
    * Saddam - ruthless dictator, invader, and murderer though he may be -
      has offered to negotiate withdraw from Kuwait but America has refused
      to accept his proposed basis for negotation (even though it amounts
      to our stated long-term foreign policy goals in the region). 
    
    * Saddam - ruthless dictator, invader, and murderer though he may be -
      is wildly popular among the impoverished Muslim masses from Tunis 
      across to India.  Indeed, his major leverage in all of this is the 
      threat of post-war chaos and Arab nationalist and Islamic fundamentalist
      revolution to the many post-colonial monarchies set up in the region
      mainly by the United Kingdom with intentional disregard for natural
      ethnic, economic, and geographical boundaries.
    
    * Saddam (and others) have a sense of urgency at this juncture because
      the Cold War and thus their unending supply of cheap arms is ending,
      millions of Europeans are migrating into the region, already strained
      water resources are being squeezed off by countries holding the
      highlands, and nuclear arsenals are just now being introduced by U.S.
      allies borne on advanced American and French missle platoforms.  As
      they see it, it's now or never. 
    
    In other words, the west has been biting the hand that's been feeding 
    it for half a century now, and this sort of showdown was inevitable.
    To my knowledge never before in history has a distinct group held so
    much strategic advantage as do the Muslims.  They know it, our absent
    "allies" know it, and America with its cowboy drama "good guy/bad guy"
    approach pretends like it doesn't know it.
    
    MrT  
             

    >If... Iraq was justified... taking over Kuwait, then why shouldn't
    >the US invade Japan?  The Kuwaitis have been outselling the
    >Iraqis in terms of oil.  Japan is outselling the US on the automobile
    >and electronic front.
    
    Badly flawed and very misleading analogy for these reasons:
    
    1. Kuwait is the artifice of a withdrawing British Empire and was put
       in place as a client-state for the sole purpose of protecting the
       interests of western oil vendors and consumers.  It covers some of 
       the richest fields in the world and is thus able to directly affect
       barrel prices through manipulation.
    
    2. Kuwait by historical, ethnic, and geographical definition is viewed 
       by Iraqis and most Arabs and Persians as being part of what is now
       Iraq (i.e., the Ottoman Empire) that was taken away from them by the
       British for the reasons cited in #1 above.
    
    3. As a post-colonial artifice, Kuwait was populated largely by peoples 
       displaced by the division of what used to be Palestine (in the creation
       of yet another post-colonial artifice) in addition to economic refugees
       from impoverished Muslim states such as Egypt, etc.
    
    I don't think it's fair to say anay of these three elements apply to
    Japan.  Japan is Japan and is the creation of no departing colonial power,
    and the only resource they control and manipulate (capital) is highly 
    mobile and obtained through human value-added; while oil is a sedentary
    substance the volume of which one is able to sell largely a function of
    how quickly and at what price one is willing to deplete it.
    
    My problem with Bush and the entire pre-war "debate" is how intentionally
    one-sided, self-serving, myopic, uninformed, and even racist-colonialist
    it has been.
    
    Also worrisome to me is that our two main players in plunging us into
    this potentially cataclysmic conflict are - Bush and Baker - are oilmen
    whose world view and personal interest stand to gain mightily from the
    permanent increase in the price of a barrel of crude for political and
    not economic reasons.
    
    MrT

    * Saddam years ago offered to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
      but refused to do so when the two nations which he was at odds with
      refused to also sign.  He then began his nuke weapons program.

Signing a NNP Treaty is easy when you have no Nuclear capability. Yet he
used the `two nations which he was at odds with' as an excuse not to do
so. It's evident that treaties mean little to him. He had non-aggression
pacts with both Iran and Kuwait. In both cases, he simply declared that
they were engaged in acts of war against him... and attacked them.
    
    * Saddam - ruthless dictator, invader, and murderer though he may be -
      has offered to negotiate withdraw from Kuwait but America has refused
      to accept his proposed basis for negotation (even though it amounts
      to our stated long-term foreign policy goals in the region). 

The only basis for a negotiated withdrawal which he indicated he `might'
consider was the Yemen proposal (one of Hussein's stooge nations) which
was predicated on the disbanding of the U.N. Force in Saudi Arabia, and
which addressed NO time deadlines re: his own withdrawal, nor provision
for reparations for a country he has totally raped.
    
    * Saddam - ruthless dictator, invader, and murderer though he may be -
      is wildly popular among the impoverished Muslim masses from Tunis 
      across to India.  Indeed, his major leverage in all of this is the 
      threat of post-war chaos and Arab nationalist and Islamic fundamentalist
      revolution to the many post-colonial monarchies set up in the region
      mainly by the United Kingdom with intentional disregard for natural
      ethnic, economic, and geographical boundaries.

He scares the hell out of most people, including his own. I think wildly
popular is a bit of an exaggeration. Impoverished Muslim masses in areas
wherein they are a minority... India, Turkey, Lebanon... etc. might
think it'd be great for a fellow Muslim to take over the world.... but
they'd cheer just as loudly for a meteor strike... at least it might
change things.
    
    * Saddam (and others) have a sense of urgency at this juncture because
      the Cold War and thus their unending supply of cheap arms is ending,
      millions of Europeans are migrating into the region, already strained
      water resources are being squeezed off by countries holding the
      highlands, and nuclear arsenals are just now being introduced by U.S.
      allies borne on advanced American and French missle platoforms.  As
      they see it, it's now or never. 

Makes sense to me.
    
    In other words, the west has been biting the hand that's been feeding 
    it for half a century now, and this sort of showdown was inevitable.
    To my knowledge never before in history has a distinct group held so
    much strategic advantage as do the Muslims.  They know it, our absent
    "allies" know it, and America with its cowboy drama "good guy/bad guy"
    approach pretends like it doesn't know it.
    
1) Which is one of the reasons such pains were taken to assure that
other Muslim nations oppose Saddam in this situation, and that this is a
UN operation, not a U.S. operation. It isn't just the U.S. that has
bought into the `bad guy' analysis re Saddam. Except for the
certifiables ( Qaddafi, et al) most of his `support' is from those over
whom he holds a pretty big club.. ie. Jordan.

2) I cannot go along with `biting the hand that's been feeding it'. We
PURCHASE that oil. When you get gas at a gas station, you purchase that,
as well, and irritating the proprietor is not `biting the hand that
feeds you'. There are other suppliers, and if things get tight enough,
there can (and eventually will be) other alternatives. It's a mutual
dependency. It could be just as easily said that Iraq irritating the
U.S. is biting the hand that feeds them.

Mike JN

I've changed the name of this topic to "Middle East" and moved the junk notes
to note 73.*.

j.

Use this note for discussion of the Middle East situation.

In times like these I remember a line from the movie Starman.

Granted, like Mike JN I too like SF, and I like to believe in this:

	The Starman is talking to one of the scientists (played
	by Charles Martin Smith) and he tells him that humans
	are interesting, because
	
	"you are at your very best when things are worst...."


Somewhere along the line, sanity (i hope) will prevail....

'saw

Couldn't resist adding this.  From a back issue of Desperado, and
it's for you Unix afficionados....


From: [email protected] (Alpha Omega)
Newsgroups: alt.forgery,talk.religion.misc
Subject: God is bored.
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Universal Engineering, Incorporeal
Lines: 14


Subject: God is bored.


        How's everyone set for Armageddon?  I'm getting bored up here and I
thought it might be fun to toast this universe and start over.

        Let's see now; the commands would be...

        Ahh, yes:  cd /universe1/
                   armageddon
                   rm -rf /universe1




'Saw

� Somewhere along the line, sanity (i hope) will prevail....
    
    Saw this quote in yesterday's paper from an unnamed military source ...
    
    "We'll know we've won when we've got one last soldier standing in the
    desert holding his M-16 and no one is shooting at him."
    
    I think that pretty much kisses sanity goodbye, don'tcha think ???
    
    Bob Hunt

>Signing a NNP Treaty is easy when you have no Nuclear capability. 

Wrong.  The proposed NNP deal called for the usual myriad controls, 
including on-site spot inspections, etc.  Saddam proposed them.

>Yet he used the `two nations which he was at odds with' as an excuse not 
>to do so. 

Everybody in the world, including Saddam, understands that his capability
for development and deployment of nukes would be at best marginal in 
comparison to Israel.  He wasn't faking, he was serious.  Moreover, it's
a mystery as to why America refused to cooperate in preempting development
in a nation such as Iraq, but they did.  It's incumbent on any civilized
nation to give negotiations a chance instead of inviting proliferation 
based solely on impugned motives and predictions.

>It's evident that treaties mean little to him. He had non-aggression
>pacts with both Iran and Kuwait. 

It wasn't at all evident at the time America refused to do the NMP with Saddam.
Perhaps that affected his behavior after that point (especially after 
having seen his production facility bombed by jet attack).

Also, all of Islam hasn't forgotten that America violated its own NMP Treaty
by not-so-secretly providing heavy water to Israel in large quantities.
    
    
>In both cases, he simply declared that they were engaged in acts of war 
>against him... and attacked them.
 
Yeah yeah yeah: Greneada.  Panama.  Southern Lebanon.  Everybody's in the
domino theory game nowadays, so Saddam figures why not him.
   
>The only basis for a negotiated withdrawal which he indicated he `might'
>consider was the Yemen proposal 

Bullshit.  The Golan, West Bank, and Gaza were taken with America's help.
America by stated policy "intends" to see them returned.  It's been, what,
20 years now, and they're turning off the water from the Heights and using
American housing credits to build condos in the West Bank.  Whether or not
Saddam truly cares about the Palestinians is irrelevant; what counts is
that he's enabled by mass resentment in the Muslim world that'll certainly
make for a Muslim [oil] vs. West [oil need] standoff that will affect our
prospects well into the 21st century [they have it, we don't].

>for reparations for a country he has totally raped.
 
We shouldn't be worried about implanted monarchies being raped.  We should
concern ourselves with steadily supplied oil at market prices.  But we're
not.
   
>1) Which is one of the reasons such pains were taken to assure that
>other Muslim nations oppose Saddam in this situation, and that this is a
>UN operation, not a U.S. operation. 

Naive!  The trend in the 3rd world for some time has been that sooner or
later popular government - whether democratic or not - wins out.  It's taken
longer in the mideast cuz the implanted dictators (read: monarchies) are 
well-funded and protected given their oil, and cuz democratization efforts
are often thwarted by the post-colonialist West (e.g., America's CIA overthrew
the democratically-elected Mossadegh in Iran in '54 and implanted the Shah, a
knucklehaided Ivy Leaguer scheme for which we're paying heavily today). 

>2) I cannot go along with `biting the hand that's been feeding it'. We
>PURCHASE that oil....  There are other suppliers, and if things get tight
>enough,                                                   

Oil is the critical resource (2nd only to water) to the world.  The Muslims
have the lions share of it.  America has pusued a rabidly anti-Muslim 
foreign policy for religious reasons.  It was artifically cheap before the
'73 War and it suddenly got more expensive.  It was artificially cheap before 
the massive failure of Camp David and it suddenly got more expensive.  It's
artifically cheap now and it's gonna suddenly get a lot more expensive.  For
religious reasons.  Our reasons.  We bite the hand that feeds us for those
reasons.  No denying it on any rational basis.

>there can (and eventually will be) other alternatives. 

Oil production in the North Sea has peaked.  Oil production in the Alaska
Brooks Range Sea Plane has peaked.  Oil production in the world's largest
field, the North Siberian, has peaked.  Oil production in the American Permian
has peaked.  Oil production in the Californian Offshore has peaked.  Oil
production in Venuzuela has peaked.  Oil production in Mexico has peaked.

Moreover, if supply gets squeezed off at its greatest source (the Persian
Fields), then all consumers are affect both in terms of price and supply
regardless of source.

>It's a mutual dependency. 

They don't need us for anything.  They cain get arms from 3rd parties.  And
now that Japan is breaking loose into a unilateral stance (for oil reasons
and marketing reasons, they're rational not religious) they cain get all the
manufactured goods they please from the 5 Tigers to boot.

>It could be just as easily said that Iraq irritating the U.S. is biting the 
>hand that feeds them.

No it couldn't.  

MrT

>it's for you Unix afficionados....
    
    yeah both of you!

Received this mail this afternoon:

Subj:	sobering perspective from a DEC employee in Israel

From:	STAR::HENDERSON "VMS System Engineering ZKO3-4/S23 381-0251" 
To:	@fyi						15-JAN-1991 09:10:20.83
CC:	fredw::matthes
Subj:	A different kind of letter (from a friend on 'the other front' - Ken)

From:	TAV02::FEINBERG "Don Feinberg ... ISO ... dtn 882-8263"   
To:	@[.DLF]UNITY.LIS				15-JAN-1991 01:30:07.41
Subj:	A different kind of letter

Dear Friends,

I sent the attached note to someone last night, in response to a question
about "the situation".   I thought some of you might be interested in
reading it, also.  For what it's worth...

don
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Things must be pretty interesting over there these days.  I think of you
>and your family often.  It's one thing to hear about an abstract
>foreign country on the nightly news; it's another to know someone who's living
>and working in the middle of a world crisis.  Everytime a news report comes
>on, I think about you guys.  
>
>What are people over there thinking about all this?  If there are any
>interesting "opinion" pieces floating around on the network over there, I'd be
>interested in seeing some of them; to get the "insider's" view. 
>
xxxxxx,

Well, I guess "interesting" is an "interesting" word to use -- in the sense 
of the Chinese proverb.

Somehow, people are going through the motions of normal daily life, but it's 
very clear that everyone's mind is "loaded" with a thousand "what-if's".  Of 
course, this is precisely Saddam's intent.  Knowing that does not make 
things easier, however.

There's somehow a huge amount to say, and at the same time, not much to say.
I'll share some thoughts with you. But, I'm sorry, I'm afraid that I'm not
too rational right now.  What comes out will come out. 

Our kids are positively terrified. The Israeli kids are much more accultured 
to this kind of situation, and are fond of "black humor" on it.  My kids are
not accultured to the situations, and do not find this "humor" the least bit
"funny".  We don't censor the news reports.  The media are, of course, doing 
their level best to fan the flames of panic.

We, of course, are frightened, also, as we didn't grow up with this, either.
We have adult understanding - but we also have adult understanding about what
an ICBM is -- and also, about what chemical/biological weapons are.

For the most part, people are quiet, guardedly confident, but are preparing.
There is an astonishing comparison, I think, with the situation here vs.
what probably would be in the US in similar straits.  People are buying
supplies heavily -- you might call it "panic" buying -- but there's no
visible panic.  The stores responded to the demand without second thoughts,
people go to the stores, there aren't any fights, no gross "shelf
empty-ing", etc., etc. To some extent, people go about this almost as a
business. 

There is some confidence.  Israelis have faced this many times.  Pardon the
possible insult, but Americans simply don't know what it IS to face such a
thing and can't even imagine it. Sharon calls this "Cambodia Syndrome": it's
easy, in a pleasant Washington springtime, among flowering cherry trees and
new $1500 Brooks Brothers suits, to order the mass bombing of Cambodia, and
then go out to a fine lunch. Or maybe, even if you just ordered pizzas to
bring in because you're too occupied to go out, you don't have to feel
anything.  People are just numbers, war materiel is just numbers...just
something to debate in the Senate. Your biggest problem is that your new
Buick just came in, in the wrong color and with the wrong radio. 

We wonder what the Cambodians thought as they watched the bombs arriving... 

We (personally) are facing it for the first time.  We try to take our
confidence from more seasoned Israelis.  But then, you get the occasional
one or two who say "Why haven't you bought plane tickets?  Why aren't you
going back to the US? There's no mitzvah [Biblical law] to commit suicide
here..."  We explored this very carefully.  We agreed that if we were to
return to the US now, not even knowing what the real situation is, we would
never be able to return to Israel again and face ourselves or anyone else. 
We chose this as our home with our eyes open.  We can't treat it as a
vacation home, only for the "good times". 

There is an increasing sense that we're absolutely alone here, and that
we're going to have to fight Iraq and Syria (and maybe Jordan) on our own,
again, like in '67 and in '73. After all the promises and reassurances by
the Americans in those two wars, they didn't arrive until after all the
shouting was done with.  And in '73, Israel came darned near to losing it all.

The alone-ness is also from the newspapers.  It's also from not receiving
mail or telephone calls from friends or relatives. It's from watching Tarik
Aziz in Geneva not mention the word "Kuwait" once in his news conference,
and get away with it, almost clean -- only one question, from a Jerusalem
Post reporter, spoiled his perfect record.

I had a thought. It might have been nice, for example, to get some kind of
encouraging E-mail from Ken Olsen.  About three hundred of his best
employees are almost certain to be going out to fight in the next
days-to-a-week.  A few of them are going to die. I guess that management
must be too busy with their Q2 numbers.  I'm sorry for them, because I do
know that that's all that Wall Street really, really, does care about.
Roger, message received. 

L. Eagleburger's visit over the last two days is going a long way to
convince people that the current situation is the same as before ('56, '67,
'73). The content of his message to Shamir was publicized last night: The US
wants Israel to sit back, and when attacked by Iraq, to do just what the
Syrians want us to -- that is, to do nothing. Not to defend ourselves.  Just
to sit quietly, smile, and absorb Saddam's punishment. Presumeably our
friends, the Americans, will take care of us. Just think, after all, if they
were to allow us to fight, why, they might even have to take care not to
shoot down Israeli planes on their way to Baghdad! 

Well, I think we know where out support from the Americans is: nowhere. 
Even Mubarak came out and said that Israel has the right to defend itself! 
But the Americans know better... 

There is a feeling that the Americans have no b*lls for this struggle.  I
think, personally, that that's largely right.  I read a bunch of English -
language stuff this past Shabbat.  A great deal of the push-back on Bush and
Co. seems to be couched in terms of "none of our boys should die for the
price of a gallon of gas at the pump".  This convinces me, at least, that
Bush has neither communicated the reasons, danger, and international
seriousness of the situation, nor the reasons that the US needs to be in the
Gulf. Rather, he probably does not, himself, understand the reasons. It 
would be enough for him if Saddam were to withdraw from Kuwait.  This would
be a tragic mistake.

I conclude, at least personally, that because of this he will not have the
necessary resolve.  I suspect that to Bush, also, in the end, it will not be
worth the fight to defend the price of a gallon of gas. And I think that
Saddam is counting on this.

We're feeling "alone" again:  we have no allies who will actually help.
Again, we will have to fight with our backs to the wall to defend a few
thousand square kilometers.  But we WILL win.  We will be hurt, but we will
survive as a nation.

Afterwards, the Americans will take the credit and the morally righteous
position. They'll spend a week making some solemn platitudes about the
valiancy of the now-dead "n" Israeli soldiers and civilans. And they will
then begin to lead a coalition against us in order to "make peace" with
these Palestinians. This is, of course, despite the fact that Arafat has
been physically operating out of Baghdad, and has almost physically crawled
into bed with Saddam. Yet, somehow this little tryst between Saddam
and Arafat is lost in the press. There are even suggestions we hear from US
Congressman that the US resume its "dialog" with the PLO.  Well, at least we
know who the PLO are. 

The local "leadership of the Intifada (PFLP, DFLP, Hamas, etc.)", in their
leaflets beginning yesterday, are calling for a violent revolution -- with
all manner of weapons -- from within, to begin simultaneously with Saddam's
attack on us, to create yet another war we'll have to deal with. Well, WE
know who these people are, even if no-one else does. 

(Just think what would be now if we hadn't destroyed that nuclear plant of
Saddam's in 1981...)

I have a tragic sidelight: The mukhtar (viewed as somewhere between the
Mayor and Allah, in an Arab town) of the nearest Arab town to us came to the
Army commander of the region on Saturday. He requested that "in the case of
an attack by Saddam, would he and his residents be able to take refuge in
the two nearby Jewish towns?" (that is, the village we live in and in the
next village).  The answer was simple:  "No. Despite our previous warm
relationships, over the last three years, you and your people have made over
5,000 premeditated, violent, documented attacks on Jewish people and
property, and you have plans for much more. You've got houses. You can
stay in them." 

When we tell the world that these people are just pawns being used by
the PLO, why, then, we're just a bunch of dirty Israeli no-goodnik SOB's who
don't want peace, but only want to beat the Palestinians up.

Well, xxxxxx:  you asked a question, and you got an essay....sorry about
that.  But it's all buried there, someplace. I guess we don't say "have a
good week" any more.  Someone said to me, last night, "have a week." That
sums it up. Regards. 

don

I think the wild card could be Israel.

With them in the equation it becomes Chaos Theory. Just too many damned
variables to make sense of (and there are plenty of variables without
them. Because they promote a different emotional reaction from every
player in the game... as well as the bystanders.

Saddam will definitely try to embroil the Israelis in this in order to
promote his agenda of this crap as a `Palestinian Issue'. How he does
it, and their reaction should be interesting enough to provide fodder
for several Mini-Series (that's how the networks think).

Then you have Jordan. Most of King Husseins people ARE Palestinians. Why
doesn't he offer Jordan as the `homeland' they're looking for. What role
will he play in this?

Will the U.S. and allies employ a `Linebacker' approach? (The 1972
Operation of massive bombing in Viet Nam which brought North Vietnamese
industry to it's knees [and which they could have done anytime in the
previous eight years], and paved the way for the `peace').

Or are they stupid enough to launch ground attacks and play into
Saddam's strengths.

What about Turkey? If this is protracted, what can we expect in the way
of support, obstruction, air fields, etc.

How much real support is there from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, not to
mention the Frogs.

Whattaya suppose Syria's gonna do?

What's Saddam's `secret weapon'.

What will be the U.S. reaction to terrorist attacks on it's own soil?

	Those same kinds of questions have been asked by history
professors of their students from time immemorial. Then the professors 
proceeded to give the answers.

	It gets a little more scary when the answers haven't been
written yet. Makes you empathize a little more with the people of the
past that `lived' (or died) that history.

	Like everyone who's ever experienced something like this, I wish
you safety for you and yours... and I hope to God we're right.

�            <<< Note 46.166 by CARP::SHAUGHNESSY "Carolina Blew" >>>
�              -< Mike JN, your political savvy disappoints me... >-

MrT, I could as easily say that your world view, and self assumed role
as apologist for Saddam disappoint me. Your statements as to what SH's
thoughts, intentions and motivations were for this or that act are
merely your opinion; although you hold them up as irrefutable fact. No
problem... I tend to do the same sort of thing myself.

If your intention is to present a (possibly) more objective view, or at
least give some insight into the possible reasoning from the Iraq/Muslim
viewpoint.... mission accomplished.

If your mission is to paint the U.S. and Allies as the Heavies in this
little drama, due to this, that, and the other event from the past....
you've failed.  There are just too many interpretations of those events,
and your most pessimistic interpretations do not obviate the acceptance
of a more balanced perspective. (And attempting to draw a parallel
between Grenada and Kuwait is bizarre.)
   
*>The only basis for a negotiated withdrawal which he indicated he `might'
*>consider was the Yemen proposal 
*
*Bullshit.  The Golan, West Bank, and Gaza were taken with America's help.

You lost me here.
My statement re the Yemen proposal is correct.
The Golan, West Bank, and Gaza were taken with the aid of American
supplied weapons. They were also taken during a war in which Israel
wasn't the aggressor. That's a bit different from what your statement
implied.

*>1) Which is one of the reasons such pains were taken to assure that
*>other Muslim nations oppose Saddam in this situation, and that this is a
*>UN operation, not a U.S. operation. 
*
*Naive!

Isn't!

Your comments about oil are probably correct, with the possible
exception of what has or has not peaked (specifically re: North Shore
fields, and Siberian fields).

However I was referring to alternatives to oil, rather than alternative
SOURCES of oil. And I was thinking in terms of the farther, rather than
nearer future, and in terms of fusion power rather than windmills
(whether for tilting or energy purposes). Agreed it is long past time we
get off the dime.

As to biting feeding hands, we are no more hostage to oil than are the
Arab suppliers of oil. In the long run, they are hostage to our (the rest of
the world's) need. They had better start thinking of spending their oil
profits on something besides Rolls Royces and weapons systems. Food
production, desert reclamation, desalinization plants, hospitals, and
their own alternative energy sources might be a nice start. Because when
oil dependence becomes a thing of the past - and it will... eventually -
without some preparation, the Iraqis, et al. will be back living in
tents faster than you can say Insh'Allah.

Mike JN

    �Oil production in the world's largest field, the North Siberian, has
    �peaked.  
    
    I don't know about that.  Amoco recently signed an agreement with the
    State Gas Business Concern of the USSR to develop petroleum resources
    in Siberia.  Amoco feels the gas and oil potential of the Western
    Siberian fields is "significant".
    
    �For religious reasons.  Our reasons.  We bite the hand that feeds us
    �for those reasons.  
    
    OK, call me naive, but I don't buy the idea of the US pursuing a holy
    war.

  Is it me or has anybody else noticed that the news media seems to be covering
the Persian Gulf crisis more like a sporting event than a potential armed
conflict.

Some of the "titles" I've seen for this are "Crisis in the Gulf"(CNN),
Trouble in the Desert", and others relating to the same thing.

Next thing you know, CBS will have Pat Summerall and John Madden there to cover
the war, which they'll code-name Persian Gulf-Bowl I.  

Pat Summerall:  Well John, how do you see the Yanks and Iraqis matching up??

John Madden:  Well Pat, the way I see it, Iraq doesn't have a chance against
the USA on the ground, to have any chance of winning this thing, they'll have
to go to the Air.  But, that's not going to be easy either, seeing how the
USA's defense, both on the ground and in the air, performs.  Sure, Iraq may
complete a few, but for the most part they'll get intercepted or just end up on
the ground.

Later in the conflict, the following could take place:

Summerall:  John, why don't you show the viewers at home what just happened
there.

Madden(with on screen diagramming):  Well Pat, thhese Iraqis thought they could
sneak across this part of the Desert on the ground and suprize the USA, but
here come the A-10 close air support aircraft and Boom Bam Ba-Bam Bam, the
Iraqis are gone.  What a team these Yanks are.


I don't want the media to portray the Persian Gulf crisis in an outwardly
morbid way, but stop portraying it in the same way that they portray the Super
Bowl, World Series, Etc.

I'm personally praying that this whole thing is somehow miraculously averted at
the last second, although I doubt that will happen.


JaKe

    Reports indicate that 400 Iraqis have defected over the last 3 months. 
    News tonight is many Iraqi soldier are carrying civilian clothers and
    will defect once shooting breaks out.
    
    Mike

  re .168 memo from Israel

  The man and his family have really got courage to stick it out when things
  are tough.  I don't think I would....  The letter makes me realize that our
  hopes for a brief confrontation are unrealistic as the hate between the
  Arabs and Jews is so intense that so long as there is still one of each
  standing, there will be fighting.

  re .169 Mike JN

>>What about Turkey? If this is protracted, what can we expect in the way
>>of support, obstruction, air fields, etc.

  Probably quite a lot because the EEC carrot which has been dangled in front
  of them will ensure Turkish support.

>>How much real support is there from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, not to
>>mention the Frogs.

  Saudi support will remain as is.  After all, what've they got to lose by
  supporting the U.S.?  Egypt will do an abrupt face one second after the 
  first bomb is sent towards Israel.  France is in a bit of a political bind
  since they are forced to support the Western cause, but at the same time
  face a great deal of pressure from a large Muslim-origin population in France.


>>What's Saddam's `secret weapon'.

  Dunno, but I bet he's got more than one trump card left to play.

  Finally, the news at about 0100 EST (0700 here) said that the Allies were
  beginning to block Iraqi communication signals and that the Iraqis had sailed
  a few tankers into the bay so that they could dump the oil and start a fire.

  rick ellis

Jake --

You've got a point there.  Media coverage has certainly changed from 
the days of the Crusades, when they didn't even have a printing press
yet...

The tough thing for the media now is that they want to provide total
coverage w/o censorship, yet with Iraq being able to watch CNN, live
broadcasts etc might compromise security.


I don't think that this thing will be averted at the last second.
A friend of mine brought up the similarity between Saddam and the
Japanese in WWII.  Saddam is not going to back down, and whether we
like it or not, we're probably going to war.  

While I'm not a pro-War fanatic (I'd much rather see this thing settled
by having the US Eagles take on the Iraqi Rugby team ;^))  I'm real
tired of seeing all these candle-holding people zipping themselves in
body bags.  It ain't accomplishing a whole lot folks...  I'm also 
real tired of seeing the media do a "countdown to the deadline" thing.

If all the candle holding folks wanted to do something constructive,
they could volunteer for the Red Cross, who would actually do something
to support the troops in a non-militaristic way.  I mean, you may
disagree with the administration, but the average Joe over there is
just like you and me, and could use those Red Cross packages.
I guess Senator Dodd (D. Ct) said it right last night.  He voted against
the congressional resolutions, but he said it was time to present
a united front.


Thanks for letting me get up on my soap box...

Oh, and by the way.  Just because it appears that the flag might be going
up, don't think that you can't still write to the "Any Service Man or Woman"
addresses that get on TV every so often.  Mail means so much to those
folks over there....

'Saw

    The NFL is monitoring the Persian Gulf situation and may postpone the
    Super Bowl.  This seems to be as much a security move (good target for
    terrorists) as a PR move.  Many people still haven't forgiven the NFL
    for televising games after the assassination of Kennedy.
    
    The British Parliment has come out in support of the U.N. Security
    Council resolution, much the same way the U.S. Congress did.  I also
    thought I heard that France has agreed to commit troops.
    
    A lot of people are quick to point the finger at the U.S. as
    aggressors.  Admittedly Bush is probably in the forefront, but the
    decision to place an ultimatum on Saddam and initiate military action
    was agreed upon by the U.N. Security Council.
    
    Jake, once actual television pictures of casualties start coming over I
    don't think the media can portray this as a "sporting event".  Just
    think back on the impact of the media on the Vietnam War.

>MrT, I could as easily say that your world view, and self assumed role
>as apologist for Saddam disappoint me

This statement exhibits the sort of dangerously one dimensional thinking
typical to (pseudo)conservatives: I haven't apologized for Saddam at all,
I've only pointed out several established salient facts of the matter that
are mysteriously left unsaid in our so-called war "debate."   I.e., it's
unpatriotic to utter things that seem to work against the war effort even
if they're true and important.

>Your statements as to what SH's thoughts, intentions and motivations were 
>for this or that act are merely your opinion; although you hold them up as 
>irrefutable fact. No problem... I tend to do the same sort of thing myself.

Speak for yourself.  What I said was that the purity of Saddam's motives 
are wholly irrelevant.  If the linkage exists in the minds of most Muslims
(and it does) then it's a lever for Saddam to use regardless of motive.

>are just too many interpretations of those events,
>and your most pessimistic interpretations do not obviate the acceptance
>of a more balanced perspective. 

What's not open to interpretation are these widely recognized facts:

* Saddam has offered to negotiate withdrawl from Kuwait
* The USA refused to negotiate
* Saddam in 1980 called for a nuclear nonproliferation treaty
* The USA refused to negotiate
* Virtually all of the national boundaries in the mideast were created 
  by the receding colonialists for the express purpose of maintaining
  leverage over the oil from afar
* Kuwait's subdivision from Iraq was the most contentious of these creations
* Iraq has some historical claim (good or bad) over Kuwait
* The Palestinians were displaced in order to create a new state populated
  by Eurpoean refugees

>(And attempting to draw a parallel between Grenada and Kuwait is bizarre.)
   
I drew no parallel except to say that if you want to make a big deal out of
invading and occupying nations then refer to Panama and Grenada, among others.

>The Golan, West Bank, and Gaza were taken with the aid of American
>supplied weapons. They were also taken during a war in which Israel
>wasn't the aggressor. That's a bit different from what your statement
>implied.

You lost me.  America (and everybody else in the world) agrees that the 
occupied territories [sic] should be returned.  The PLO and key Muslim leaders 
agreed to negotiate for a final peace 2 years ago on that basis.  The Likud
was reinstalled and Israel reneged and refused to negotiate.  Now 10,0000
additional Eurpoeans per week are pouring into what fairly recently was
Palestine.  Now America is indirectly funding the construction of new housing
in the occupied territories [sic].

Clearly, America is going to war for the right not to negotiate about something
to which we commited to supporting negotiations over some time ago.

>>>1) Which is one of the reasons such pains were taken to assure that
>>>other Muslim nations oppose Saddam in this situation, and that this is a
>>>UN operation, not a U.S. operation. 

>>Naive!

>Isn't!

Has it ever occured to anybody that the reason our allies have limited their
level of commitment to Desert Shield (especially Japan) is to keep their oil
interests in shape for the inevitable post-war Muslim explosion?  That maybe
they're not so much hypocrites or cowards but smart?

>Your comments about oil are probably correct, with the possible
>exception of what has or has not peaked (specifically re: North Shore
>fields, and Siberian fields).

The CIA and any number of other sources, including the USSR gov't, reported
three years ago that the North Siberian had peaked and was declining fast.
Part of this was due to disinvestment resulting from the inevitable chaos
surrounding Perestroika; most of it is due to the fact that the pools are
emptying.  

The Odessa Field to which Mac refers is a new project which Chevron hopes
could hit big, but could just as easily end up marginal.  In any event it's
separated from the North Siberian by thousands of miles and millions of 
years geologically.

The North Shore peaked some time ago.  This is why they wanna go off-shore.

>They had better start thinking of spending their oil
>profits on something besides Rolls Royces and weapons systems. Food
>production, desert reclamation, desalinization plants, hospitals, and
>their own alternative energy sources might be a nice start. Because when
>oil dependence becomes a thing of the past - and it will... eventually -
>without some preparation, the Iraqis, et al. will be back living in
>tents faster than you can say Insh'Allah.

You sound like Saddam on this, which is why he's made a career of pointing 
out the moral and strategic bankruptcy of client-monarchies like Saud and
Sabah and Hashem et al and why he redistributed income downward and invested
in so much industry and raised the standrd of living and literacy on a mass
level to the highest in the mideast (Iran the only possible exception).

MrT

    >do we go to war, 
    
    No.
    
    >and why?
    
    Because Saddam's offered to negotiate and given that fact attacking 
    Iraq without negotiating will imbue him with a moral force that could
    haunt us for a long time.
    
    If he *is* a fraud as every man woman and child in 'Merica has
    apparently concluded, then all the more reason to bring him to the 
    table and expose him as such.  Doing this will ensure our continued
    good standing with the Muslim world postwar.  
    
    It will also be in the best interest of our long-term strategic oil
    requirements.  It's time America begin acting on its own behalf, and
    this means accounting for its most strategic interests, which include
    oil and nuclear nonproliferation.  It's insipidly stupid to suppose
    that this whole mess has come about because Saddam is insane or is a
    heel.  It's a geopolitical confrontation that's been in the cards for
    decades and - even if we pursue Bush's unexplained expanded geopolitical
    goal of laying seige to Baghdad, ousting Saddam, and dismantling his
    so-called war machine - so long as the preexsting dispute remains the
    Saddams of the world will be there to haunt us and leverage our
    currently untended oil interests.
    
    A solution has been offered and we've refused for no good reason.  Until
    we've established that the offered solution is a fraud there is no reason 
    to wage war.
    
    I'm not afraid of war; I'm afraid of Muslim oil hegemony.
    
    MrT

    I heard on the local news last night that David Robinson may have to be
    called to active duty.
    
    Mike

    Now *that* wouold be a crime!  Another reason not to go to war.
    
    MrT

    
    MrT,
    
    	Forgive me if I missed it, but what is this *solution* that
    	Iraq (Saddam) offered?  The best one I heard was the French
    	proposal which had Iraq withdrawing, a UN peacekeeping force
    	(not to include American soldiers), and a conference on Middle
    	East issues including the Palestine homeland problem.  Saddam
    	rejected this proposal.  That tells me that he never has any
    	intentions of leaving Kuwait.
    
    Claybroon

>                       -< Saddamy's wife's name maybe? >-
    
    I'm not involved with the Humane Society.

>    What the heck is this Armageddon thing.  Is it technoweenie code again? 
    
    Nope.  The Bible records the war to end the world, which happens in the
    Middle East, under the name of Armageddon.
    
    Mike

    I haven't read all 180+ replies in here since this morning, so I don't
    know if this has been cross posted from some of the European notes. 
    This is what they are saying Bush's policy is:
    

        "We SHELL not EXONerate Saddam Hussein for his actions. We will
         MOBILlize to meet this threat to our vital interests in the
         Persian GULF until an AMOCOble solution is reached."

    Nuf said.
    
    	--dan'l

    Gee,
    	Couldn't the Euros included their own oil companies' names(or
    are they subsids of the US). They need/want the oil as much as us.
    

    Gulf is now BP, Dan'l.  Radar said so and that was that, I guess.
    
    Bob Hunt

T is farting out obfuscatory smoke bombs .... for what purpose I have no
idea.

Saddam's ONLY indication of a willingness to MAYBE negotiate was - as I
stated earlier - the Yemen proposal (which preceded the French
proposal). And which was primarily concerned with the disbanding of the
U.N. forces in Saudi Arabia... and did NOT address a timetable for the
departure of the Iraqis from Kuwait.

In his attempt to paint the U.S. and allies as the culprits, T has
resorted to outright mistruths, innuendo, dragged in arguments in
parallel which have no immediate bearing on the situation, and done his
best to portray Saddam as a moderate, fairminded, philanthropic,
Solomon.

Right..... just like Idi Amin Dada.

Iraq itself is not a monolithic entity, let alone the entire Arab world.
And it is highly unlikely they would even be willing, almost solely on
the basis of shared adherence to Islam, to march in step with Hussein,
let alone crawl into bed with him. Historically, the oil producers have
found the subject of oil to be a divisive factor more often than it has
been a unifying factor.

Anybody hear Paul Harvey's "Rest of the Story" yesterday.

It told of a child, severely abused by his step-father, who joined the Iraqi
version of the Mafia at a young age.  To gain acceptance, he was asked to
perform a "hit" on an enemy of the "godfather".  The person to be killed was
the young hitman's sister's husband.  The hitman carried out the order and
eventually worked his way up thru the ranks to become "godfather", himself. 
Harvey also said that this person's favorite movie, which he watches 3-5 times
a week, is "The Godfather."

The person is non other that good old Sadaam Hussein himself.


JaKe

Just goes to show that our propoganda is as good as Iraq's.

    No, it just goes to show the juvenile approach American has gotten
    used to taken to geopolitical problem.  As Mike JN puts it, it's 
    a matter of "heavies" and "culprits" etc.  
    
    The fact remains that Saddam stands ready to negotiate on the 
    Kuwait UN Resolution taken several weeks ago if at long last the
    United States will agree to negotiations on another UN resolution
    having to do with *another* UN resolution that's been outstanding
    for years now.  And that's no lie.
    
    MrT

    re: .-1
    
    > the fact remains that Saddam stands ready to negotiate etc....
    
    A capital B.S.   He has done nothing but ignore attempts to negotiate. 
    Remember his refusal to talk to us before Jan 12th.  Recall his snub of
    Perez de Cuellar.     
    
    If thats what Saddam wanted all along - to negotiate the "other" issues,   
    he has a unique way of going about it.  Just go in to a neighboring
    country/province, murder, rape pilage, and then ask us to negotiate
    the other issues to get him to stop.
    
    Saddams motives are not justice for the Palestinians.  He's after
    power.  So he links his Kuwait invasion with the other issues.   What 
    better way than to embroil the whole region in conflict & become a
    hero/martyr.
    
    Pat
           

    
    
    	Doesn't matter anymore...
    
    
    B.A.

The weenie did it. Bush has launched operation Desert Storm, an all out air 
attack directly on Bagdhad. CNN reports the fifth wave coming in about now.

I'm not usually a religious person but I'll be praying for all the servicemen,
especially the pilots tonight.

The President will be on at 9:00 EST tonight to spew forth some garbled
rhetoric about how this needed to be done.

Ugh,

  Metz

    .195�The weenie did it. Bush has launched operation Desert Storm, an all out air 
    
    	You know why he did it don't you? Top Gun was on HBO tonight!
    
    	Just trying to shine a little light on a gloomy night...
    
    B.A.

    
    
    
    
    JaKe
    

    Just hope the innocent lives lost are minimal....
    
    We're in now, let's kick their butts, get it done, and come home....

Well, initial reports are in, and granted, initial reports are sometimes
inaccurate, but it seems that the casualties are extremely low.

At this point in time the US has lost 1 aircraft, crew rescued.

Whether you feel it's right or wrong, it's going down, and I'm praying
for all the allied forces...especially my buddy Nick.

'Saw

    Let's pray for all involved,hope that our men and women come home
    quickly and safely, and as Walt said,that minimal damage is done to
    innocents.
    
    MikeL
    
    I can't believe that one Boston cable station had the movie "Black
    Sunday" on. As if we all needed a slap in the face reminder.
    Sh%theads.
     

 Please remember come election time that George Bush is a Murder of innocent
 people because of his overgrown EGO...George Bush 6 time looser of presidential
 primaries has staked his future and place in history by aggression....

 like the rest of you I pray that it's fast and quick....

 mike

    From what I heard and saw on the news report this was a stregic bombing
    hitting only military/Anti Aircraft/Nuclear weapons plants/chemical
    weapons plants air strips and TV/Radio/Communication sights...
    I would think the the innocent bystanders casulties would be extremly
    low compared to an all out bombing of Bagdad....Anyone who didnt see
    this coming didnt understand the situation..The waitings over and like
    everyone else in the world I hope the lifes lost on both sides are low
    but there military strength has to be weakend, kuwait will be freed...
    Many of the news stations (TV) are less than human and still have 
    ratings on there minds...IE Top Gun on HBO, black sunday on another
    station...There proberbly change there current schedule to get some
    World War III movies airing.....
    						Over_quickly_Please
    						But_get_the_job_done

    I've never fully agreed with our reasons for being there nor do I feel
    our government's motives are completely pure.  If you read any books
    about the Kennedy assassination, Watergate or anything else, you
    wouldn't trust our government at all.  I don't.  I think a lot of this
    is motivated by a desire to make George Bush look good, to distract us
    from the problems of the country and to protect our oil interests.  I'm
    sorry, but that's the way I feel.
    
    I also feel this is going to absolutely ruin the country economically. 
    The roots of our current inflation came during Vietnam when we had the
    massive social programs plus the war and didn't raise the taxes to pay
    for them.  I feel this is going to be the same situation, only worse,
    and I'll give you one guess who is going to pay to rebuild Iraq after
    all this is over.  Are we suckers or what?
    
    At the same time, there is no way I'm going to do anything to undercut
    the efforts of our servicemen over there.  The worst tragedy of Vietnam
    was how those people were treated when they came home and no matter how
    much I disagree with what's going on, I can't in good conscience do it. 
    I also hope we learned the lesson of Vietnam - if we're going to fight
    a war, don't do it with one hand tied behind our back.
    
    In times like this, life goes on.  I know one person over there and
    sure, I'm concerned for his safety.  I hope and pray he'll be OK.  In
    the meantime, I have to start saving money to be able to pay $3/gallon
    for my heating oil and to look around the TV for something other to
    watch other than the 7X24 war coverage on the networks.  How many times
    can I watch the same people saying the same things?
    
    If you accuse me of a lack of patriotism then fine, sue me.
    
    John

    
    John,  I'm afraid your way off base with your predictions of economic 
    gloom and soaring oil prices (at least in the short term).  The extent 
    of the attack and the lack of retaliation by Iraq has caused:
    
    	$5 DEcrease in the price of oil on the spot markets.
    	$90+ INcrease in the Dow Jones as of 10:00 a.m.  
    
    Seems that the economic markets feared the worst in terms of oil field 
    destruction outside of Iraq and Kuiwait (mainly in Saudi Arabia).  This 
    hasn't yet happened and now appears unlikely.  The world allready has a 
    glut of oil, do to the step up of Saudi production, so unless Iraq mounts 
    some kind of offensive prepare yourself for some serious price drops at 
    the pump.  
    
    Also, remember what happened the last time the price of oil dropped 
    significantly: economic boom of the '80s.  Economic good times are on the
    horizon, provided our military luck holds.  
    
    /Jeff

OIl is down $7/barrell to $24.00

The NYSE is up 75 pts.

daryll

    That's completely opposite of what I expected, but I'm still going to
    withhold judgment until I see what kind of retaliation Hussein
    launches.  It's good news.
    
    John

           
    Actually, I'm somewhat encouraged as to how things went last night, and
    the way our "allies" responded to the action this morning.  As noted a
    couple of replies back, even with the UN coalition officially in place,
    this really is our baby.  It wouldn't have surprised me a bit once the
    shooting started to have some of those that supported the UN resolution
    pull their political support.  It seems as if the financial and oil 
    markets responded well, too, which wasn't expected even if it is much 
    too early to say what will eventually happen.
    
    I'm also content that we did stick to strategic and military targets
    and apparently are going to try to avoid massive civilian casualities.
    This is paramount in retaining Arab support.  If Saddam really can be
    humiliated in this without destroying a nation, the majority of the
    Arab world may be thankful and we could end up big winners in the 
    region.  We certainly would be able to exert more pressure on Israel
    and the cooperative Arab countries to get together.  But I understand
    that this is all speculation and represents a best-case scenario based
    on only one night of nearly ideal results...
    
    glenn
     

Some of what I've heard and collated.

First, our first attacks went off much better than anticipated.  Evidently
the US has the technology to be able to carry off night air attacks
with surgical precision.  That the CNN reporters remained in the hotel
during the bombing and reported it was illustrative of that fact.

We have the raw satellite feed on in here today, and interviews with
returning pilots are showing that the multinational air force is
almost totally unopposed.

News consultants on the Middle East are speculating that Saddam made
two greivous mistakes:

		a) he assumed because the US withdrew from Vietnam
		   that they lack commitment and staying power

		b) he equated US military potential with that of
		   Iran.


Let's just see what happens.  A short war will make a very positive
economic upswing in this nation.  

'Saw

    >A capital B.S.
    
    I'm afraid that's just not true.  He snubbed Bush's call for a summit
    by way of calling for an international conference witht he specific
    objective of enforcing UN Resolution 242.  Bush refused this, Saddam
    then explained that there was no reason to do the summit cuz he wasn't
    gonna pull out of Kuwait voluntarily until such a conference was set.
    
    As for de Cuellar, same story.  The UN was unable to muster a resolution
    approving an attack on Israel in order to enforce that resolution as it
    did for the Kuwait resolution, so de Cuellar had nothing to offer.
    
    It's amazing sometimes how effective American agitprop actually is in
    terms of supplanting established reality with manufactured realities. 
    Especially given the great urban myth that the media are run by a bunch
    of anti-government peacenick fuzzy-haided liberals.
    
    >Saddams motives are not justice for the Palestinians.  He's after
    >power.
    
    Saddam's motives about the Palestinians are irrelevant.  Even if he
    hates the Palestinians as a people (as many if not most Arabs do), so
    what?  They represent a powerfully resonant and very useful playing 
    card that he certainly put into play in a big way.  Trouble is, America
    refused to deal.
    
    MrT  
       

	More updates:

	50 Iraqi tank crews are surrendering(crossing the Kuwait border into
Irag) to Egyptian forces.

	One bombardment of Saudi Arabia resulted in some oil tanks being hit.

	Iraq radio reporting American success as propoganda.

	Oil now at 23-23.50 a barrel on Mercantile Exchange.

	North Sea crude $21.50 a barrel.

	Oil reserves from strategic reserves put on sale(33 million barrels).

	Supposedly, most oil companies have agreed to freeze their prices,
	at least temporarily. 

	Dow Jones +81 as of 11 AM.

	Jim M

	CNN transmissions from Baghdad have ceased. 

	This had to happen. CNN was there screaming that Iraq was watching them,
and yet they were telling the world that 2 of them were hiding in the hotel 
room when anyone came by. It was a strange situation.

	Jim M

 Of course the stock market goes up. now then can build all new bombs to
 replace the one they blew off last night. Considering some of these babies
 costy a million plus and use high technology as well everybody gets a piece
 of the pie...

 mike

    
>    In times like this, life goes on.  I know one person over there and
>    sure, I'm concerned for his safety.  I hope and pray he'll be OK.  In
>    the meantime, I have to start saving money to be able to pay $3/gallon
>    for my heating oil and to look around the TV for something other to
>    watch other than the 7X24 war coverage on the networks.  How many times
>    can I watch the same people saying the same things?
  
    I tend to agree about the 7x24 coverage with people saying essentially
    the same things.  While I am certainly concerned about all the lives at
    stake over there, I just can't watch this coverage all the time.  I
    feel ESPN is doing a very good job of keeping us up to date on the war,
    yet not abandoning their regular programming.  IMO their tape-delayed
    coverage of the president's speech was primarily targeted for those of
    us who wanted to see the OT of the SU-UConn game.  Dan Patrick had an
    interesting line to open Sportscenter last night: "It's our
    job to bring you the scores, it's your job to determine how important
    they are."
    
    Joe    
    
 

    Interesting aside regarding Bush's personal motives in this:
    
    Corroborated reports (i.e., tapes, affadavits, etc.) circulated in
    the progressive rags during the '90 campaign about war cowardice by
    Bush in WWII.
    
    Remember those campaign pictures of Bush stepping onto a ship's deck
    just after being rescued from his shot down bomber?  Ever notice that
    he's not being mobbed by happy crewmen in that shot?  I did.  At any
    rate, here's the story, as told by enlisted men and officers involved
    with his squadron and the rescuing battleship:
    
    Bush got wings and a bomber at, I'm guessing here, the tender age of
    18.  Supposedly the youngest in the US Armed Services.  There was a 
    lot of resentment towards him from flight school on cuz he was perceived
    as a very rich kid who's dad had bought him the charter (not unusual,
    it's a standard practice in militaries around the world).  Many officers
    complained that better men were bypassed in order to get him the orders
    and that he was too immature and unskilled.
    
    Here's the bad part: Bush, in the left seat, was with his squadron on
    a bombing run and his plane took a flak hit.  He lost an engine and had
    a fire.  One gunner on Bush's plane (forget his name, a pudgy old fella
    with a polish surname) has sworn in an affadavit that at this point 
    Bush freaked out.  The copilot took the controls, Bush took them back.
    Bush called for a bailout, his squadron commander radioed that the plane
    was flyable and should be flown back to the base with the entire crew
    aboard (both because of the value of the plane and the fact that the
    survival rate of crewmen parachuting into unfriendly waters was very
    low).
    
    At his point, according to some of those involved, Bush and the Squadron 
    Commander.  Bush  took the plane lower (folowing SOP for emergency
    in-flight evacuation) and then went back and donned a chute.  The crew 
    received contradictory orders about whether to jump. Bush jumped.  The
    remainder of the crew followed orders and stayed with the plane.  The
    plane, by that point too low for its partial power, crashed into the
    ocean, killing all of the crewmen.
    
    This is why Bush was the only survivor.  Nobody else jumped, except 
    perhaps at the last second.  
    
    It is also said that Bush was beaten up by pilots on the rescue ship,
    and that a letter was signed protesting what they considered to be the
    ultimate insult of the cowardly rich kid receiving a medal instead of
    being sent to the brig.
    
    Oddly, the allegedly liberal (i.e., pro-Dukakis) media refused to 
    give this story - true, partially true, or false - any play at all
    during or after the campaign.
    
    MrT   

    I applaud President Bush's decision and the American military efforts 
    thus far!  They're the best and they should be as proud (I'm sure they
    will be when finished) as we are of them.
    
    The Dow Jones is up 79.21 and DEC is up 1 3/8 to 60 3/4.
    
    A lot of the F-15E's that went in the first strike were from Luke
    AFB here in the valley.  The real life Top Guns!
    
    CNN lost transmission, but local radios have residents on from Baghdad,
    AZ. to keep us up to date ;-)
    
    Mike

I think Russia's Non-presence is a very good indication of the current
relations with the U.S.  They could have been problems, and have
historically been the chief supporter/supplier of Iraq. The French have
now committed planes, etc., and have run sorties.

My guesses:
Expect to see: Turkey jump on the bandwagon with troop commitments (not
just refueling access). 
Ditto Syria. 
Continued bombings with emphasis shifting to suppression of
tank/troop/mobile-missile capabilities.
Increased Iraqi desertions.
Much rhetoric by Saddam ( I love the way Bush pronounces his name )
Pictures of civilian casualties... emphasis on any injured children,
grandmothers, etc. (I wonder if we have any pictures of Kuwaiti victims
of Iraqi atrocities...  always nice at dinnertime... this is a wierd
world).
Saddam to make at least one concerted effort to kick some ass.
An enfilading movement utilizing Marines, Paratroopers under close air
support, with feints and actual armor and artillery support from the
`front'.

After this is over... guaranteed the Palestinian question is addressed.
Meanwhile, the Israelis are not idiots enough to give up the Golan
Heights (which historically were used to attack them from), no matter
how many U.N. resolutions are drafted. There would have to be some
pretty watertight safety measures put in place.

Mike JN

    CNN is back on the air.  A local radio station is broadcasting them.
    
    I heard last night that the Stealth bomber is over there.  The CNN guys
    said they think it was used because the air raid sirens were going off
    while the bombs were falling (i.e., too late).
    
    That's a fast sucker!
    
    Mike

�    But, of course, American oil companies will squeeze every extra cent
�    they can out of us.  Last night, before Bush spewed forth, I filled-up
�    the Chevy at $1.259.  Drove by this morning, and it was already up 2
�    cents...
    
    That may have either been due to the gas station owner getting greedy,
    or a new shipment of gas coming in that day.  In fact according to news
    reports last night, the major oil companies have pledged not to
    increase fuel prices during the conflict.

    Hawk, Haffners was still $1.21 9/10 this morning, same as on Monday.
    
    lEe

    Was the Palestinian issue on Saddam's mind before or after he attacked
    Kuwait?  If before, does that mean it was OK that he took a whole
    country hostage to have his demands met?  If after, was it simply a
    smoke screen to try to get Arab support?
    
    From what I've heard, the Pentagon hasn't admitted to using the stealth
    bomber.  In a press briefing from Saudi Arabia this morning, a Colonel
    rattled off the planes used in the attack.  Unless I missed something,
    the stealth bomber wasn't mentioned.

The Stealth *Fighter* was used.  I believe the designation is F-117, but
I'm not positive.  

Reports this morning from the military are that they are very pleased
with the way the fighter performed.

The Stealth Bomber is designated B-2.

hth,
'Saw

    So are they the same plane?  I assume the F117 is a striker ala F15?
    
    Mike

    
    	As for the stealth's, I know a major in the Air Force and he said
    that there were over 100 Stealth's over in the Gulf.  It appears as if
    they really do function as advertised.
    
    	Last report I heard at noon was that wave #3 had started and was
    being aimed at the Iraqi troops, tanks and artillery.  Anti-tank planes
    as well as the others including the B-52's are involved.
    
    	It was also reported that Saddam has refused a letter from his pal
    Gorby in the USSR which was asking him to surrender to save the lives
    of his people.
    
    re: T
    
    	T, I heard that same story about Bush during his campaign so I
    don't see how you can say it didn't get any air time.  I wouldn't take
    the story as you stated it as fact though.  There might be some truth
    to it, but if everyone was killed in the plane crash except Bush, how
    does anyone know what happened except Bush?  I really doubt that the
    military would reward such an act just because of a poor-little rich
    boy.  When the story came out, it sounded as if some of those guys who
    disliked Bush had an axe to grind and maybe were just looking for some
    press.  And, if Bush did panic in combat, so what.  A lot of men have
    done the same thing.  If he jumped and left the others to die, that
    is a different matter, but to panic in combat is not uncommon.  So,
    although the press did pick up the story, it died a rather quick death.
    Maybe they (the press) spent to much time on de-facing his running
    mate.
    
    							bill..g.
    

    With the U.S. bombing at night (most people would be home in bed), and
    concentrating on military targets, I think calling Bush a murderer is a
    bit strong.  It's correct by definition, but not by connotation.

The Stealth fighter is configured somewhat differently than the bomber.

From what I've heard, the Stealth configuration means the plane does
not have supersonic capability.  I would assume that it functions
as an attack plane, coming in low and delivering ordinance.

From several pilot interviews on the feed this morning, at least
some of the F-15s are flying escort missions for F-16s and F-18s
performing attack missions.

I've also seen footage of F4Gs (the "Wild Weasel" configuration)
and EA-6Bs...

Also, supposedly the Netherlands offered some fighters yesterday, 
but Schwarzkopf (sp), the head honcho turned them down.  Reason:
no place to park them...

'Saw

Actually, Hawk, I thought that Chaney and Powell were remarkably
composed, and function well together as a team.

The "best" (read that most assinine) question asked by a reporter
was in the pilot interview this morning on the feed:

	Reporter:  What did you see over the target?

	Pilot:	   Well, I was 25 miles away, covering the attack
		   planes, but I saw fires.

	Reporter:  Can you describe the fire???

	Pilot:     Yeah.  Big orange balls with big black smoke
		   plumes.  [Pilot gets this wiseassed look on his face]


'Saw

    One rumor I heard on the news this morning was that Turkey is preparing
    to declare war on Iraq.

 Sorry Mac but I strongly disagree. We had the man being slowly choked off
 be economic sactions, we had all these countries in our corner, we obviously
 have superior fire power, superior supplies and time on our side. To 
 initiate the fighting that will kill people is a murderer in my book. His
 hand wasn't forced he held all the aces and decided to play a few for his
 own personal gains and ego. 

 mike

    Turkey is now allowing US Air Forces to use their air bases for raids
    on Iraq.
    
    Iraqi troops are defecting.  Reports of 50 tanks + personnel defected
    at the Saudi border this morning.
    
    Kuwait radio reports "hundreds of Iraqi casualities" in Kuwait.
    
    Interesting tidbit:  A co-worker stayed up all night watching CNN.  
    About 3am MST, one of the reporters went to the Baghdad TV station to 
    show a tape of the action and spotted Hussein.  He ran back to the 
    hotel and told of his discovery on the air and described the building 
    he's in.  Within minutes, the bombing started in that vicinity!
    
    Mike

    Iran is refusing to allow any use of it's airspace or territory to
    attack Iraq.  Kind of a funny position from a country who fought for
    over 8 years with Iraq.
    
    Would sanctions have worked?  We'll never know.  I think it would have
    spurred terrorist attacks around the world in an effort to end the
    blockade.  We may still see acts of terrorism, but they won't have as
    easy time of finding a refuge with the home base knocked out.

    CNN now has live footage of the strike that they are showing.  The same
    cameraman that filmed the Libya strike was onboard for the first strike
    last night.
    
    Re: murderer
    
    Hussein is the murderer, not Bush.  He had PLENTY of chances to back
    off and didn't.  For God's sake, he murdered his way to the top and
    used chemical weapons on HIS OWN PEOPLE!  Put this in perspective!
    
    Mike

That's bull, Mike.

SH was continuing to pillage the country he had invaded.
He defied the U.N. resolution to withdraw.
He met every overture designed to negotiate a peaceable solution with
nothing but contempt.
As soon as his cards were called, he started dragging in Israel,
Palestinians, and every other stall device he could think of.
He continued his buildup and war preparations.
Sanctions were not working  (at least within any projected timeframe
which would have done Kuwait any good).
Bush is the Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Forces, but despite what you may
hear to the contrary, this is a joint UN effort (even if much of the
support is token... a token is important to world opinion).

You may not like Bush, but decisions were taken jointly, and such
accusations are unjustified. 
POPB is fine, but you oughta try for a little perspective ;'D

Mike JN

Hawk --

Powell had much more to say at this morning's conference.  He still
is not going to give away anything that will mess up security, but
there were more answers at least.

Did any of you catch the interview with the California representitive
last night?  There's a man who truly believes what he is saying...

more later,

'Saw

    I kinda like Gen. Colin Powell.  He seems very calm and composed and
    doesn't give off any hawkish Patton or MacArthur type vibes.   Very
    matter-of-fact and straightforward.  
    
    He also gives the right "political" answers.   That is, when they ask
    him when we'll stop or something like that, he says "When my commanding
    officer orders me to."    No way Patton would have *ever* said that. 
    Don't get me wrong ... Patton and MacArthur were both great generals
    but they're from a different era altogether.   I shudder to think what
    things would be like today if a guy like Alexander Haig was top
    military dog instead of Powell.
    
    Apparently, Powell is extremely pleased with the Navy cruise missles. 
    So far, the clear winner is technology.   Yes, it obviously needs human
    courage to operate it but at least the aerial high tech gear is
    performing much better than anyone ever dreamed.   Maybe all those
    $1,000 Air Force hammers were worth it after all.   No doubt Reagan is
    smiling somewhere.
    
    Latest news ... a French general claims that Iraq's chemical weapon
    capability is completely wiped out.   If that's true, Israel is
    breathing a lot easier now.
    
    I still oppose the reasons and motives for going to war but now that it
    is underway, I can only marvel at the military performance so far.   If
    this continues so heavily lopsided with so few casualties, Bush's
    popularity ratings will soar through the roof.
    
    Oh, and another "streak" is over ... this is the first Republican
    President to launch a war since Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican
    chieftain.
    
    Bob Hunt

    What does the CNN footage look like?  Is it infrared or just a bunch of
    night with flashes of light?
    
    	--dan'l

I haven't heard ANYTHING.
I am finding it difficult to keep concentrating on work.
I've got a bunch of little projects I'm working on, and I keep bailing
out and jumping in here to see if anybody's heard anything.

Mike JN

�    Any confirmed reports on the wiping-out of 100k-150k of Iraq's "elite
�    Republican Guard"?  If this is true, can you imagine what a bloodbath
�    it must've been?  Unbelievable...
    
Probably similar to Saddam firing chem-weapons at his own folks, 
or maybe similar to the invasion of Kuwait itself, and the raping
and pillaging that went on afterwards.

And, if this is true, then it probably increases the chances of survival
for my buddy, in his tank, on the Saudi-Kuwaiti border...
'Saw

Re: the cruise missile

A reported stated yesterday that the military claims they can 
launch a cruise from Boston Harbor and have it go through the 
uprights at RFK AND have a better percentage than Lohmiller. 
(Hey, this is sports right?)

Re: gas prices

I drive by the 4 same stations every day. Last night going home, 
all stations were 119.9 (Texaco, Sunoco,Exxon and no-name). This 
morning: No-name 119.9
         Sunoco  119.9
         Exxon   122.9
         Texaco  128.9

I fell like stooping at the Texaco on the way home and asking him 
where he gets off...

daryll

    >He met every overture designed to negotiate a peaceable solution with
    >nothing but contempt.
    
    Again: This is simply not true.  Hussein publicly agreed to being talks
    over the UN res calling for his quitting Kuwait in exchange for the same
    on the longstanding UN res calling for Israel to quit the terriotories
    that they've "occupied" now for almost 20 years.
    
    Please, keep your facts straight.  When you attack a nation and begin
    slaughtering thousands of people of a distinct ethnic/religious group
    who control over 50% plus of the world's oil suppply (and rising) it's
    best not to play pretend-talk and that's what .239 is: Pretend talk.
    
    re: bill..g.
    
    Radios, bill.  Radios.  The other airplanes had radios and were in 
    direct communications with the crew all the way into the water.  This
    is not unusual for airplanes within a squadron to be equipped with
    radios and to use them to talk with one another.
    
    You may be right about the guy having an axe to grind, but there are
    several ex-Navy men who corroborated the story, so it must be a big
    coincidence.
    
    As to the media spin on the story (true or false) if the urban myth
    that the media are liberal were true they surely would've played it
    up big-time on Dukakis' behalf.  They didn't.  I doubt if 1% of the
    country's adult population even heard it.
    
    MrT

 Sorry Jn and Mike but my eyes are not closed to Hussian's actions in the
 confrantation. Just because he kills people it doesn't make it right for
 us to do the same. Did anyone try to capture him and bring him to justice?
 I just can't understand how anyone can kill somebody else especially somebody
 they don't even know. 

 Sanctions weren't even given a chance Mac. 45 days is not enough....all
 other possibilties were not exhausted before he pulled the trigger.....

 mike

    Hussein has ignored the pleas of Gorbachev to surrender and stop the
    bloodshed.
    
    Iraqi refugees are fleeing into Iran (talk about ironic).
    
    Pentagon is almost 100% sure that the first strike has prevented any
    serious chemical assaults on the U.S. troops, and Israel.  They're
    pretty much disabled.
    
    Military targets were hit with 80% accuracy.  It is getting dark over
    there now, expect a lot more activity since they don't have the
    technology to compete at night.
    
    Peace demonstrations are going on in San Francisco, Boston (500+ at 
    the JFK building), and Germany.  The ironic part is that there are lots
    of arrests.
    
    Mike

    I undrestand that a Congressman (from Kentucky ?) made it very clear
    that the American people would not stand for any profiteering on the
    part of the oil companies. That was a fantastic pre-emptive strike, for
    we all saw how they reacted after the invasion of Kuwait. 
    
    That combined with the opening of strategic reserves has caused the oil
    companies to hold the line on prices - at least for now.
    
    As for the war, I have a funny feeling that things are going TOO well.
    I hope I'm wrong on this ....

Saw,

I watched the interview with the Rep from cal on C-span last night. His words 
actually might have swayed me a bit more toward George Bush's side. Basically
the guy was recounting the information that he had received in a breifing 
before Congress made the decision to authorize the use of force.

His stories included....

Hussein purging 100 people from his staff by having them pulled from his 
inaugural dinner and having them shot on the spot.

The story recounted earlier about Hussein being a member of the Iraqui mafia

The stories bandied about about Saddam using chemical weapons on his own people.

the stories about Hussein blowing an advisors head off during a meeting because
he didn't like the advice he was getting.

This rep portrayed Saddam as a common psychologically disturbed killer instead
of the shrewd leader much of the media views him as. 

He also mentioned that he was a sanctions man originally and had gone on record
as being against force but after this briefing he was convinced that waiting
would enable Saddam to set up many terrorist acts outside the country. He used
the figure one terrorist act planned for every day that we waited.

He didn't sway me entirely but he made me see the Bush side a little better.

Since I'm 3 hours behind most of you.....

Hussein was spotted at 10:30 PST last night at the Iraqi tv and radio station 
preparing to make a tape to his people.

CNN was pulled off the air in Bagdhad at 8:00 PST today. I don't know if they
are back on the air yet.

The reports of 50 Iraqi tanks defecting to Saudia Arabia are FALSE rumors the
last I heard at 9:30 PST today.

1 US plane lost 1 UK plane lost. No crew rescued from either that I heard.

Turkey authorized the use of bases for attacking Iraq. They have not declared
war on Iraq. Previously they only authorized the use of bases for defensive
purposes.

Some Iraqi planes did get off the ground. CNN had an interview with 1 pilot that
shot down an Iraqi plane with a missle.

Metz

For you gas-a-phobes..

	In Columbia, SC, I passed a Hess station {owned by Leon Hess, the
	Jets owner, I believe, since the signs are green-and-white} that had
	unleaded regular at $1.029... No other station I've seen is above
	$1.129.

	{Note on Hess stations - not your Cumberland Farms-type operation;
	 Cleanest, most friendly, best value... In fact, I think I saw Tony
	 Eason behind the counter evidently attempting to EARN his paycheck :-)}

	When the going gets tough up North, y'all, there's a whole lot of 
	goodness down here in South Carolina;  weather, Southern Belles, 
	LOW real estate taxes, cheap eats, low-cost homes, and a real
	fanaticism over non-professional sports {unless you count Clemson}.

                 From editorial cartoonist Steve Benson : 
                 "Feel Like I'm Fixin' to Die Rag Pt. 2"
    
    C'mon, all you women and men, Uncle Sam needs your help again.
    He's got himself in a terrible jam, 'cause he ain't got no energy plan.
    So pick up your gun, it's time for war, 'specially if you're black or
         poor.
    
    (CHORUS) And it's 1,2,3, what are we fightin' for ?
    Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, 
    We're out to get Saddam.  And it's 5,6,7, the Saudi Desert's great!
    Well, there ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee, we're all gonna die!
    
    C'mon mothers throughout the land, pack your sons off to the burnin' sand.
    C'mon fathers, don't hesitate, they need your daughters in Kuwait.
    Wipe those tears, no time for sobs, sacrifice your kids for jobs.
    
    (CHORUS)
    
    C'mon generals, let's move quick, George drew his line, let's make it stick.
    He's no wimp, just read his lips, start droppin' bombs, send in the ships.
    The Allies back us all the way, just fight their war, its' we who'll pay.
    
    (CHORUS)
    
    C'mon, Congress, don't be slow, you should be the first to go..
    Grab that gas mask, fight the foe, for EXXON, Gulf and TEXACO.
    Super unleaded is what we seek, so let's go kill for Arab sheiks !
    
    (CHORUS) And it's 1,2,3, what are we fightin' for ?
    Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, 
    We're out to get Saddam.  And it's 5,6,7, the Saudi Desert's great!
    Well, there ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee, we're all gonna die!

Also...

the price of crude oil dropped $9.00 a barrel so far today..

More importantly the price of unleaded gas dropped $.20 today in trading (I'm
just reporting what I heard. I didn't know they traded unleaded gas) so prices 
at the pumps should drop instead of rise (yeah right...)

the president authorized the use of the strategic oil reserves at the rate of
1 million barrels a day to make sure that oil prices don't rise. We currently
have 600 million barrels in the reserve.

Stock market is up 91 points.

If any of you remember reading Red Storm Rising..Clancy portrayed the use of
the stealth fighters as so. The stealth fighters are the ones that go in first 
and hang around over the target and place the laser beam on the target that the
smart bombs follow. The bombers come in and release their payload. After the
bombs have struck and the cameras on the stealth fighters record it then the
fighter moves on to the next target for targeting.

Anybody care to hazard a guess on what Clancy's next book is going to be about?


Metz

    Same weakass vietnam era throwback retoric...  snore.
    
    It made sense in that war, not this 'un.
    
    Uncle Sam does have an energy plan.  He should have not forced us
    to drive our new vee8's.  As a matter of fact, he's responsible for
    all the bad things that are happening...  Geez, he should regulate
    every thing we do.  Since we're not responsible for our actions.
    
    The crap in the mid east is our fault and our responsibility.  Quit
    passing the buck.  Every time we voted down a gas tax and every
    year the public didn't put an energy plan on the agenda put those
    troops out there.  We through out all alternative energy plans 
    after prices (gas) were back down to where we liked it.
    
    And if our economy should have suffered because of a Suddam oil crunch
    in addition to our recession cost us bucks, the poor and black would
    be the first effected.  Good (much needed) social programs would bite
    the dust if our economy kicked the bucket...
    
    The same blowmes would be complaining about U. Sam's innability to
    afford expensive social programs.  (Mostly the rich performers I
    see crying about the U.S. taking action to protect strategic resources
    can afford an economy in ruin.)
    
    2cents
    
    Chip_GSH_Bach
    

    MrT, I enjoy reading your notes and think you have a wealth of
    knowledge but I must disagree with you about Saddam and Israel in
    particular.
    
    The US has no closer friend in the Middle East then Israel, and even
    thought the US supplies arms and aid, the US does benefit from the
    friendship as well.  
    
    John "D Cowboys" R.

    257 is a reply to .255
    
    sorry

re cruise:

	Well, I'd like to think the cruise missile is so accurate
	because we've got some hardware on board 8^)

	The guidance system is run by a PDP-11/34, I believe.

	Also, the thing has gyroscopes which allows it to figure its
	polar coordinates, and know exactly where it is at any given
	point. 

	Helluva piece of hardware....

'Saw

    An Army saying originated from Viet Nam.
    "War is hell, but it's that combat that's a mf."
    
    Troops and armor begin to mass and move ever closer to the Kuwait
    border. They are ready and by all outwards appearnces they are 
    very very angry. Rumors persist that helicopters have tested 
    Kuwaiti air space. Another night of surgical tactical strikes 
    followed by a pre-dawn assault across the border. This thing 
    could get real ugly in a hurry. I wish nothing but the best 
    to them all. 
    
    BoB    

    I will make one quick comment and get out of the crossfire.  I only can
    say this with George Bush as the President of this great country I
    sleep like a baby at night.  With a liberal Democrat I would not feel
    safe.
    
    Greg

    I just wanted to take time out to thank the members of this conference.
    
    Through all the personal opinion, there have been some very timely and
    informative notes on this day of uncertainty.  A special thanks to Metz
    for the updates.
    
    	--dan'l

Greg,

If Mike Dukakis was elected, we wouldn't be in this position.

He'd have taxed Hussien to death by now.

I agree with you on Bush BTW.

daryll

    >The US has no closer friend in the Middle East then Israel, and
    >even thought the US supplies arms and aid, the US does benefit from
    >the friendship as well.
    
    Perhaps we wouldn't need the benefits (all military in nature) so 
    much if we weren't the target of focused hatred from a 100 million
    oil-rich Muslims in the first place!
    
    And to me our closest friend in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia.  
    They directly benifit my standard of living by 1) shipping massive
    amounts of oil to us, 2) stabilizing the world oil prices for us,
    and 3) helping to moderate Muslim reaction against us for the long
    outstanding Palestine issue.
    
    Remember, Israel exists because we (and a few other nations) we good
    enough to force the Palestinians off land they held title to and to
    hand it over to millions of European refugees.  Given that, isn't it
    time that a deal finally be cut on these displaced Palestinians?
    
    From the standpoint of justice *and* viability, it's time for Israel
    to cut a deal and begin living in peace.  Don't forget that two years
    ago the PLO agreed to recognize their right to exist and the Israelis
    then changed their story about conditions for negotiations, began
    massively populating the territories, and reneged on its commitments
    to us and the UN.
    
    I'm praying that Bush-Baker plan to force the Palestinian issue to a
    haid after we win against Iraq.  If we do that old fascist curmudgeon
    Shamir (who once worked for Hitler, btw) will fall even if he resists 
    in favor of a reasonable type like Peres); if we don't we'll have hell
    to pay as far as Islamic fundamentalism, destablization of the mideast,
    and, yes, long-term increased oil prices with concomitant economic
    decline in America.
    
    Btw, the big winners on this deal if Bush-Baker choose not to drop the
    hypocrisy, is certainly Japan.  They of the massive hydrogen engine
    and fusion development programs.
                     
    MrT

    
    
    	Just heard 2:50pm EST that the Saudi's have reported a lost plane.
    Seems that the pilot was able to eject and rescue operations are under
    way.
    
    	The current wave that is taking place is using the cruise missles
    again.  They are also using the anti-tank planes (A-10's) attacking 
    the border radar installations.  This is significant in that they
    would not use these planes if they didn't feel the airspace was
    safe.
    
    	Saddam has also repeated his claims on attacking Israel, although
    the time table is said to be secret.
    
    re: Cruise missles
    
    	I remember reading that the cruise missles could be programed to
    follow the terrain that it was to fly over.  This would mean that it
    could fly at about 100 feet off the ground while avoiding enemy radar.
    Because it can fly so close to the ground and is pre-programmed, it
    is an amazing weapon.  A pilot couldn't humanly manuever his plane
    in the same manner, so this is like a pilotless plane with a big
    payload that doesn't miss!
    
    							bill..g.
    
    
    	

    The good news outta all of this is the apparently excellent performance
    of all of our advanced electronics-based war equipment.  A guy here
    made the excellent point that the "wave" technique being used could be
    a matter of keeping cross-traffic (and accidents) down; but there could
    be C-3 capability on a geostationary satellite involved (remember all
    those secret Shuttle trips?) and that it has a limited capacity as far
    as the number of sorties it cain control in real-time simultaneously.
    
    After the military embarrassments of Grenada and Panama, this is very
    encouraging.  However, open desert with 5 months prep time *is* ideal.
    
    MrT

    
    Mike, 
    
    Your voice was heard in terms of "pushing the switch" and ordering this 
    war.  The congress voted to allow the use of force, it was close but
    they approved action (an aside, the entire Mass. contingency voted
    against the use of force, and for allowing the sanctions more time).
    
    This is a democracy and as such we have some say (albiet little to
    practically none) in what decisions are made by our leaders.  Did you
    write your congressman and senator to voice your opinion?  Are you
    active in any goverment lobbying?  It amazes my how many Americans sit
    back and complain about the way government is run and the decisions
    that are made without doing anything about it (>50% don't even Vote!).  
    
    I feel strongly that we are doing the right thing, in the right way, 
    to avoid unecessary loss of human life.   The whole world is watching
    and this time the majority of the world and almost all world
    governments are in aggrement with us.  The LEAST our fighting men and
    women should be able to count on is that the American people are 100% 
    behind the cause they are fighting for.  Not for oil, not for Ego but
    to rid the world of an evil dictator the likes of which have not been 
    seen since Hitler.  
    
    /Jeff                              

    RE: .271
    
    Sorry to see you've fallen to the rhetoric brainwashing, /Jeff.
    
    

 >   And to me our closest friend in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia.  
 >   They directly benifit my standard of living by 1) shipping massive
 >   amounts of oil to us, 2) stabilizing the world oil prices for us,
 >   and 3) helping to moderate Muslim reaction against us for the long
 >   outstanding Palestine issue.
  
     Saudi Arabia is a friend but is not a democracy.  I have been there
    and believe me it is very restrictive.  the stabilization of world
    prices is for their benefit as well; if there was no stability
    Mexico,Venezuela, Nigeria etc. would cause oil prices to crash.  
      
  >  Remember, Israel exists because we (and a few other nations) we good
  >  enough to force the Palestinians off land they held title to and to
  >  hand it over to millions of European refugees.  Given that, isn't it
  >  time that a deal finally be cut on these displaced Palestinians?
  
     The Palestinians were offered in 1948 a country of thier own but
    instaed waged war against Israel and lost it all.  Palestine did not
    exist as a country, but rather was part of the old Ottoman Empire,
    which by the way was ruled by the Turks and not by Iraq.  The British
    after WW1 took over the Manadte of Palestine under the auspices of the
    League of Nations.  Jews began coming to the reion in the late 1800s
    and bought their land from Palestinians.  
    
    If Palestinians are due a "deal" because they have a legal right to the
    land, then how about the American Indians who owned the whole of North
    America ?  Would you be willing to give them a country within the US
    borders ?  
    
   > From the standpoint of justice *and* viability, it's time for Israel
   > to cut a deal and begin living in peace.  Don't forget that two years
   > ago the PLO agreed to recognize their right to exist and the Israelis
   > then changed their story about conditions for negotiations, began
   > massively populating the territories, and reneged on its commitments
   > to us and the UN.
    
     Have you to Israel and seen the massive population of the territories?
     Well I have, and believe it is greatly exaggerated in the press.  The
     Fatah faction of the PLO agreed to recognize Israel, but their charter
     still states that Israel is an illegal state that should be abolished.
     How much do you believ Arafat when he makes such gradiose statements
     but does not back them up ?
    
     Is Shamir is a fascist what type of person is Arafat, a peacemaker ?
    
    John "D Cowboys" R.

 T,
    
 The only point I'll argue about with you in your otherwise excellent
 rundown of the Israeli issue is that the Jews were not just any group of
 ordinary post-World War II European refugees, as we all well know.
    
 I'm not saying the Palestinians got a fair deal.  Obviously, they didn't. 
 But the Jews had to get off of Europe, a continent whose people had tried
 to wipe them out en masse.   They had nowhere else to go at all.   The
 Holy Land was the only real choice.
    
 I married into a Jewish family and I usually get the straight and narrow
 Israeli party line in any discussions with my in-laws.   It's an extremely
 emotional issue even this far away from Israel itself.   That is, Israel
 can do no wrong because they tried to kill "us" in Germany.  I'm not
 claiming expertise, just familiarity with one American Jewish family.
    
 Whatever, it is quite clear that the current Likud party has no intention
 of ever negotiating a solution to the Palestinian question.  That's wrong,
 in my opinion.  Israel has every right to defend itself but the
 Palestinian people deserve a country in which they can manage their own
 affairs peacefully.
    
 When I heard that the United States had asked Israel to refrain from any
 hostilities even if they were attacked, I knew instantly what Israel's
 answer would be ... *** NFW, George ***    So far Hussein has avoided
 throwing this whole thing into a truly horrible conflagration by avoiding
 any attack on Israel.  Then again, he may not be able to do so anymore ...  
 
 But if he attacks Israel, all bets are off on this one.   They'll come
 after him with some of the toughest air and ground troops the world has
 ever seen.
    
 Bob Hunt

  Jeff you just said that the whole MAss congressional folks vote against
  force so why should I have to write them? They obviously knew how I felt.

  I didn't back the Duke, I have no idea how he would have handled it. I voted
  for Jesse and he was on TV the other night and thought that the sactions
  should have been given more time.

  You don't see me out protesting and that kind of thing because I don't
  want to send the wrong message to our men and women over there. They do
  have me support and sympathy.

  It's his royal highness sir George who doesn't have my support never will
  and will always be a murderer in my books. One of the biggest sneaks of
  all time. Where's Noreiga these days? Probably living a better life than
  me cause he can probably tattoo ole' georgie's butt....

 mike

    Bob, I am not sure how much more the Israelies can negotiate with the
    Arabs.  They gave away their buffer zone with Egypt in the name of
    peace, but the Golan Heights are startegically important in terms of
    defense.  The Syrians have always used these 'mountains' to bomb Israel
    from a high elevation point, and thus Israel is very adamant about not
    giving them up. 
    
    The West Bank & Gaza at some point will have to be negotiated, but Gaza
    is totally isloated from other parts of the 1940s proposed UN state of
    Palestine.  Would you as an Israeli feel safe being sandwiched between
    two anatgonizing lands ?
    
    John "D Cowboys" R.  (who is not Jewish BTW)

 �   I feel strongly that we are doing the right thing, in the right way, 
 �   to avoid unecessary loss of human life.   
 
 In other words, it's kill or be killed, right ???  Nice state of affairs. 
 Mankind has a l-o-n-g way to go, wouldn't you agree ???
 
 � The LEAST our fighting men and women should be able to count on is that
 � the American people are 100%  behind the cause they are fighting for.  Not
 � for oil, not for Ego but to rid the world of an evil dictator the likes of
 � which have not been  seen since Hitler.  
 
 Sorry, but the very least our troops should be able to count on is clean
 and accurate weapons, plenty of bullets, three meals a day, and clear
 goals, objectives and requirements.   I'm sure there's not one GI over
 there who right this very second is worried about the ABC News/Gallup Poll
 showing what the American public thinks.    Maybe public opinion is
 important in a long protracted war like in Southeast Asia, but it ain't
 critical right this very minute.   If you want to feel "100%", that's
 fine.  I'd prefer to be a bit more cautious about how far this thing goes.
 
 Also, try not to swallow the Hussein-Hitler comparison that Bush first
 proposed and the media fanned.  It's wrong and shallow-minded in the first
 place.   And it also conveniently ignores a few other rather sanguine
 fellows who have come and gone between Adolf and Saddam ... such as
 Kampuchea's Pol Pot and China's Mao-Tse Tung and so on ...   Each of these
 guys have a few million souls worth of red blood on their hands as well.
 
 Bob Hunt

>    During Bush's speech last night, I forget what exactly he was saying at
>    the moment, something about "Believe me.....", but his famous "Read my
>    lips- no new taxes" lie came to mind.  Anybody else feel this?
    
    Felt exactly as you did, Hawk.  I don't believe anything that f____er
    says.  I used to.  I was once blind to his dishonesty...much like many
    still are today.  Anyone who says to me that this is not about oil has
    read his lips one too many times.
    
    	--dan'l
    

    
    One thing you guys might be missing in this "Bush isn't listening"
    theme is that in every poll I've seen the majority of the American
    public is in favor of what he's doing.  An overwhelming majority
    rejected tying the current crisis to the Palestinian question.  In
    other words, whether we've been duped or not that's the way we feel.
     
    I've already stated my opinion (that going to war presents a worse
    alternative than at least attempting to make some concessions to a
    growing, angry Arab population; an assertion that our successes thus
    far militarily, politically and in the world markets severely
    challenges, I must admit), but I'm willing to acknowledge that it's
    probably a minority one.
    
    glenn
          
                          

    I suppose that 65% of Congress, the majority of the British Parliment,
    the U.N. Security Council should also be labelled as murderers.
    
    My father, who worked on test systems for jet fighters for United
    Technologies, once commented that one of the best things done for U.S.
    military technology was to sell fighters to Israel.  Israeli pilots
    really knew how to put the planes to their limits and were able to use
    them in combat situations at times.

Well, the fact of that matter is that we're there.

We can all sit back here and say we shouldn't be there, we shouldn't
be fighting, etc etc etc, but we are there.

I'm not a warmonger.  I don't like violence.  But, if I'm on the rugby
pitch and some guy cheap shots me, I have to send back a message that
I won't tolerate that.  I may not hit him right away, but the next time
I can, I'll hit him hard, and I'll make sure that he knows it was me
that did it.   It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is.

I'm 100% supportive of the troops over there.  I have a very good friend
there, that I'm worried about.  But I also know that were Saddam allowed
to continue in the manner in which he was going, and he developed 
sufficient nuclear resources, it would have been an even bigger mess
in the long run.  I'd surely not want Saddam indiscriminantly pulling
the trigger on nuclear bombs all over the place.  We can all be
totally pacifistic, talk about higher ideals, and let someone run
rampant over us...  Sorry folks, but society ain't ready for such
a lofty concept yet.

Saddam is like Hitler in one sense.  He will not hear anything from
his aides that is realistic, but rather wants to hear constantly of
his own prowess.

The point was also brought out on the news last night that Saddam was
not of the ilk of Hitler, but of that of Pol Pot and the others mentioned
earlier in this topic.


We are there.  Let's get it done, get it done well, and eliminate
Saddam's ability to wage war.

And when you go to bed at night, say a prayer for our servicemen...

'Saw

I'd like to include this, which was just forwarded to me by mail:


From:	CAM::EGERTON      17-JAN-1991 15:51:29.20
To:	WAY
CC:	
Subj:	stuff from middle east

From:	DELNI::MOSHER "Robyn Mosher, TCP/IP Marketing  17-Jan-1991 1430" 17-JAN-1991 14:58:05.07
To:	@[MOSHER.PRESENTATION]FIELD.DIS,DIANNE,TRAM,DOUG,JIM,LUIS
CC:	
Subj:	Current info from Israel

From:	MARX::BLACKSHEAR "MARIAN BLACKSHEAR, 227-3236  17-Jan-1991 1413" 17-JAN-1991 14:22:23.97
To:	@MARK_GROUP.DIS,@JANESTAFF.DIS,@THE_NETWORK.DIS,@WOMEN_CORE_GROUP.DIS,DIANNE,ROBYN,SALLY,BOURDI,TERRY,MTS$::"ogo::carolyn jones",KEN
CC:	BEN
Subj:	FWD: current info from Israel..worth reading

Subj:	FWD: more from Israel... worth sending out...
Subj:	RE: from manager of DEC facility in Israel 
Subj:	from manager of DEC facility in Israel -
Subj:	FYI-This came back just a couple minutes after I sent my note to
        avraham.  Sounds like he's home working.

From:	JEREMY::AVRAHAM "Avraham Menachem ISV Jerusalem DTN: 884-3111  
17-Jan-1991 2015"   17-JAN-1991 13:18:51.48
To:	LARRY,BJ,ED_MCGRATH,STEVE_TEICHER,DELLY
CC:	AVRAHAM
Subj:	Thanks..

Thank you all for your wishes and support. We know that you are all with us and
probably more anxious then us. That's always the case when you are distant from
the place of the action.

We are all all right. We have to stay home on allert for a Gas attack (doesn't
seem to be real any more). Every one prepared a sealed room in the house and
all of us are equiped with the proper protection equipment like gas masks etc'.
So nothing bad can happen..

We are extremely impressed by your airforce and your  president. You must know
that several High ranked military people were interviewed on the Israeli TV
including Rabin who was the chief of staff in the 6 days war. They all agree
that this operation carried out by the American airforce is second to none in
history and was very professional....

The people in Israel value very much the kind of leadership America and its
president showed the whole world. We are all very lucky America is such a great
nation led by such leader at this time.

best regards and thanks, avraham

Not much new to report after lunchtime here....

Bush is currently in a staff meeting. He has issued a statement to the effect
that he isn't going to get caught up in a war of words with Saddam. He isn't 
going to argue semantics over a total withdrawl vs. a surrender.

Iraq did manage to get off a couple of missles last night. The only problem is
that they landed in their own country and caused some damage.

Iraq claims to have shot down 38 planes. U.S. still says 1 US and 1 UK were 
lost. I still don't know the status of the CNN reporters in Bagdhad.

U.S. is currently dropping leaflets on Iraqi forces urging them to surrender
before the blood shed gets too great.

No hard numbers yet on the "decimation" of the Iraqi Elite guard.


Metz

    
    That last one from Israel was quite a contrast from the previous 
    pre-attack message from the expatriate, where the general theme was 
    that the US president and military were not to be trusted and Israel 
    would once again be alone, no?
    
    glenn
    

I saw an NBC uplink over the feed:

	The British did lose 1 plane, however, the crew is found
	and a rescue effort is underway.

	The Kuwaitis (not the Saudis that I have heard) lost one
	plane and the pilot is down in Kuwait territory.  A rescue
	effort is underway.

	Four french planes were damaged and one french pilot slightly
	wounded.


	One US F-18 was shot down, the pilot was KIA.

'Saw

    Saddam Hussein, I BEG you to attack Israel!  This will be over my
    Saturday if you do!  He might as well slit his throat because they'll
    kick his butt into the Caspian Sea.
    
    Israel's Air Force ranks up there with ours.  In fact, a lot of them
    get trained here at Luke AFB on the same jets we use.
    
    Re: Palestine
    
    If they want it, let them come after it.  The Palestinians are the
    proverbial Matt Sewell's of the world.  Possession is 9/10's of the
    law.  
    
    Mike

>    
>    That last one from Israel was quite a contrast from the previous 
>    pre-attack message from the expatriate, where the general theme was 
>    that the US president and military were not to be trusted and Israel 
>    would once again be alone, no?
>    
>    glenn

Perhaps Glenn, the change in tone comes from the fact that just
before the attack ( about an hour before) the US and Israel agreed to
coordinate any air attack traffic, should Israel send up their planes.

Also, we did knock out the SCUD missiles in West Iraq, which I'm sure
has gone a long way towards relieving some of the Israeli nerves.

'Saw
    

    re .278
    
    Excellent notes by Bob and T. 
    
    And if there are any more people who fell for the Hussein = Hitler
    line, please send them my way so that they can invest their life
    savings in The Bank Of Rhode Island.
    
    If Saddam is the 2nd coming of Hitler, what does that say for George
    Bush, who helped Ronald Reagan support Hussein for 8 years during the
    Iran-Iraq war ?
    
    Should George Bush be tried as a collaborator ?
    
    And who is tomorrow's Hitler ?
    
    Dr M.

>    
>    Israel's Air Force ranks up there with ours.  In fact, a lot of them
>    get trained here at Luke AFB on the same jets we use.


There are some who would rank the Israeli Air Force as #1 in the
world, due to the fact that they've seen more combat that us.

While I might debate that, they are damned good pilots.

Someone told me that only 4 of the pilots in the US Air Force in
Saudi Arabia had seen combat prior to this.  The number might 
be wrong, but not the spirit of the message.  One of the pilots
interviewed this morning said he was slightly disappointed that
the Iraqis didn't come up and fight, that he would have welcomed
the challenge, however, their not coming up enabled a very successful
mission, and he was glad of that...

'Saw

    re .288
    
    Mike you can't be serious about the 2nd half of your message are you ?
    
    Doc

    
    OK, maybe the Hussein-Hitler comparison is overdone, but I still don't 
    buy the line about this entire conflict arrising due to Bush's ego.  
    
    The fact of the matter is that Bush painted himself into a corner by 
    changing the strategy in the gulf from a defensive to offensive
    position.  In no way could we afford to keep 400K+ troops stationed
    over there until sanctions began to work (if they ever would have). 
    
    RE:  Kill or be killed, yeah, when your dealing with a bunch of crazed
    religious fanatics who believe death in war ensures a ticket to 
    paradise - sounds like the perfect strategy.  The way we're going about
    it should limit the amount of casualties on both sides.. hopefully the 
    heavy bombing will lead to an early surrender and/or mass desertion.
    Besides, Hussein should be held responsible for Iraqi deaths not Bush.  
    He brought this action upon himself.  
    
    As mentioned in earlier replies we are all to blame for our dependence
    on oil.  If it is in fact a war for Oil we are all to blame. 
    Personally, I have supported a much higher tax on oil for quite a
    while.  Nothing would make me happier than to reduce our dependence to
    the point where the mid-east is viewed as nothing more than a worthless 
    dessert.  It seems silly that in a day an age when we talk about 
    world economy, geography and associated natural resources dictates so 
    much wealth and power.  In a true democratic world natural resources
    should be shared by all humanity.  Of course, we all know we'll never
    see this in our lifetime.  
    
    /Jeff     
    

>  <<< Note 46.293 by HPSTEK::HAUSRATH "Too many projects, not enough time" >>>
>                      -< Time to buy some solar panels? >-
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


See Jake.  He might be able to help you out 8^)

[figure a little levity might help...]

'Saw

�    If Saddam is the 2nd coming of Hitler, what does that say for George
�    Bush, who helped Ronald Reagan support Hussein for 8 years during the
�    Iran-Iraq war ?
    
    Talk about biting the hand that feeds it.  It is ironic that Saddam is
    trying to unleash weapons he aquired from the US on the suppliers.

    Well, just heard that Wall Street closed UP 112 pts., the highest in
    eight years.
    

 From what I heard last night we only get 22% of oil needs from the middle
 east so we aren't depended upon them for oil as some would like us to
 believe.

 Mac, 65% of congress can consider themselves acoplises. Bottom line is 
 Bush would have attacked no matter what they say. You can deny this
 but I feel it in my bones and know it's correct. He'd have staged a mocked
 up phony battle or something to get us started.

 He's been doing nothing but worrying about his popularity for two years so
 he could pull this action off. He's been branded a looser all his life and
 sees a victory here as finally cementing his place in the winner's circle.
 It's his ticket to re-election cause the after glow of riding Regan's coat-
 tails into the white house have worn off.

 I ain't no saint and I ain't no religous Joe but I just cannot comprehend
 how people can feel that snuffing out another person's life can be justified.
 Just because Hussian has done it, it doesn't give us the right.

 mike

>    Mike you can't be serious about the 2nd half of your message 
    >  are you ?
    
    Not completely.  It's in the Palestinian court though.  They can
    peacefully co-exist in Israel, but I don't blame Israel for not
    trusting them.  Besides, they should know better than anyone not to
    mess with God's people.  Israel deserves to stay as they are.
    
    Speaking of which, I've been listening to National Public Radio (lost
    CNN) and they just interviewed the Iraqi Ambassador to France.  He
    confirmed the attack planned for Israel.  He also said they will not
    give up and that the Allied cannot gain ground superiority.
    
    Iraqi radio claims 44 downed Allied planes.  Actual figures are 3
    Allied planes (1 U.S., 1 Britain, 1 Saudi).
    
    Israel reports that most movable missile stations in Iraq are still
    operational and that some fixed     "       "     are still
    operational.
    
    The US has already started B52 and "blitzkrieg" carpet bombings of 
    Iraqi forces in Kuwait.
    
    US knows some of Iraq's air force still exists under cement bunkers but
    they (Iraq) aren't using them.
    
    Mike

    Re- Israeli Air Force...

    	As a pact agreement with McDonnel-Dougless and the U.S.- Israel gets
    their planes unassembled. They put them together, work out the bugs,
    and then report back any "findings" they have to the U.S. so that we can
    make *our* planes better.

    	As stated before, Israel has had alot of air time to train with.

    more news...

    	France, Itlay, and some other country has reported terrorist
    bombings over the past several hours.
    
    B.A.

    This note has provided me with a much wider perspective of American
    public opinion and their view of the crisis than the one-dimensional,
    party-line reports in media. I just felt that I'd throw my 2� in as 
    someone who's imbibed the other point of view.
    
    I believe that even the best of democracies discourages plurality of
    opinion as far as foreign policy goes. In other words, all the freedom
    in the world does not allow you to hear the opposite side with as much
    weightage as you get from your side. Only when one steps out from the
    trappings of society, one recognizes that there's opinion outside which 
    has credibility also. Anyways, to come to my point, it seems that US
    foreign policy in the middle-east suffers from the same restricted view
    of the world. 
    
    I believe that US is an ideal example of a place where all people are
    considered equal with enough room for individual expression. But when
    it comes to extrapolating the same ideals to the world, it fails badly.
    Why can't US push the idea of a peaceful middle-east with co-existence 
    of Arabs and Israelis ? Why is that idea so repugnant when you see all
    kinds of people co-existing without any problems here ?  The ill-will
    of many Arabs towards US is a direct result of its unfair covering-up
    for Israel's aggressions in the past. 
    In my mind, there's no doubt that over the past half-century, US  has
    done nothing that would bring the Arabs and Israelis together. Yes, you 
    can point to Camp David etc., but the disruptive acts are too numerous
    to list here. If it had taken more initiatives, it would not have to go
    to war for oil as it has done now. May be the prices of oil would have
    been a little higher, but they would have been driven by market forces 
    not by the whims of some dictator or under-cutting by a small Emirate.
    
    The image of Arabs in this country seems to be that of Islamic
    fanatics, poor, emotional, terrorists quarreling amongst themselves etc. 
    But, these generalizations are only as true as those of Americans
    as arrogant, ruthless, rich, imperialistic devils.. If only people
    removed the blinders, situation would be truer, though it may not be
    clearer..
    
    /Dhaval (An occassional RON)
    

    Re: -1
    
    Dhaval, I do realize that Arabs are seen in a negative light here in
    the US, but please name one Arab country that is a democracy.
    
    John "D Cowboys" R.

    � Besides, they should know better than anyone not to mess with God's
    � people.  Israel deserves to stay as they are.
    
    You'll have a hard time selling the "God's Chosen People" legend to the
    hundreds of millions of Hindus, Buddhists, and, of course, Muslims in
    the world.  Israel deserves to "stay there" because they carved it out
    for themselves with their own muscle just like all other peoples of all
    other nations including Americans.
    
    � The US has already started B52 and "blitzkrieg" carpet bombings of 
    � Iraqi forces in Kuwait.
    
    Mike, is that your term, "blitzkrieg", or was it something the media
    has announced or, worse yet, has the Bush administration used it ???
    
    Because it's a poor choice of words if we're trying to rid the world of
    Adolf Jr.
    
    However, it is most certainly a devastating military tactic.  Everyone
    today considers nuclear attack to be the *ultimate* horror but before
    Hiroshima and Nagasaki the ultimate terror was the saturation carpet
    bombings like we're seeing today.
    
    Bob Hunt

    In early radio reports, Saddam has said, "...with God's help, we will
    defeat the Satan in the White House, Bush."
    
    Sounds like phase #2 of Desert Storm is unfolding with the 100+ B52s
    doing the blitzkrieg bombings on Iraqi strongholds in Kuwait.  The
    Apache helicopters are also up attacking tanks near the borders.
    
    The Allied Air Force has flown 1200+ missions with only 3 lost planes.
    Military targets were hit with an unprecedented 80% accuracy.  
    
    Analysts and Pilots are confused over Iraq's lack of air defense.  They
    covered hundreds of miles to Baghdad and weren't detected until upon
    the Iraqis.  They're not sure if it is due to technological superiority
    (stealth - which absorbs radar) or Iraqi incompetence.
    
    Pilots returning from the initial attack said only 2 Iraqi jets were
    encountered, both being destroyed.
    
    Mike

>    Mike, is that your term, "blitzkrieg", or was it something the media
>    has announced or, worse yet, has the Bush administration used it ???
    
    Media term, as told by NPR network.
    
>    However, it is most certainly a devastating military tactic.  Everyone
>    today considers nuclear attack to be the *ultimate* horror but before
>    Hiroshima and Nagasaki the ultimate terror was the saturation carpet
>    bombings like we're seeing today.
    
    The tonage (sp?) of the first strike was said to be equivalent to
    Hiroshima.
    
    Pentagon believes 50% of Iraq's air force was been destroyed.
    
    Mike

A peek at Muslim solidarity:


 
	CAIRO, Egypt (UPI) -- Dawn in Cairo Thursday saw many Egyptians
sitting in their cafes smoking shisha water-pipes, listening to the
radio and welcoming the U.S.-led air strikes on Iraq.
	While exiled Kuwaitis screamed and honked their horns in delight,
Egyptians were more subdued but equally scathing against the Iraqi
dictator.
	There were no demonstrations either for or against Saddam in the
streets of the Arab world's largest city.
	Egyptian Foreign Minister Esmat Abdel Meguid welcomed the allied
strike against Iraq but called on Saddam to withdraw from Kuwait even at
this late hour to save further destruction and loss of lives.
	There were more black-clad paramilitary police carrying machine guns
guarding U.S. and other installations in the Egyptian capital than
tourists.
	The small number of visitors in Egypt have been asked by their
embassies to ``keep their heads down'' and have been doing just that,
hanging out in hotels and restaurants and listening to the British
Broadcasting Corp.'s World Service or watching Cable News Network,
available in some luxury hotels.
	``Saddam deserves what happened to him ... when it's over, business
will boom again,'' said shopkeeper Kamel Ahmad, 28. ``It's good that
they bombed him ... who did he think he was, anyway?''
	Newspaper vendors did a roaring trade on Cairo streets as people
grabbed copies of the leading daily Al Ahram and the opposition
newspaper Wafd and read the banner headlines carefully.
	``War is war, but we have to make a living as well ... people are
buying newspapers now, thanks be to God,'' said one 65-year-old
newspaper vendor.
	Carpenter Hisham Nassam said the Americans had taken Saddam by
surprise.
	``The Americans took Saddam by surprise ... he thought he could take
on the world and get away with it ... but he was so wrong,'' Hisham
said.
	A kiosk owner said Saddam got what he deserved because he was
impolite and used his own people as a shield.
	``Saddam deserves what he got because he is impolite,'' said Ramadan
Sayid. ``He used his own people as a shield to protect himself. We're
sad because we're all Muslims, but he's not a true Muslim for what he
did to Kuwait and his own people.''
	In a downtown bank, female employees were enthusiastic about the U.S.
strike at the heart of Saddam's war machine.
	``This is better, much better,'' said Mona Abdelsalim, an employee at
the Nasser Bank. ``He is getting what he deserves ... but I feel sorry
for the people of Iraq, and I wish Saddam had complied with the United
Nations resolutions.''
	Another veiled female employee said it was sad there were Arab and
Muslim leaders like Saddam.
	``It's a shame there is an Arab and Muslim leader like Saddam,'' said
Maha Noor, 23. ``If he wanted something, he should have negotiated for
it instead of choosing war.''
	Noor also rejected the idea that Saddam was fighting in the name of
Islam or to support the Palestinian people.
	``He put the words 'God is Great' on his flag ... but this is a sin
because he is not fighting a holy war,'' Noor said. ``I hope this is his
end. He only used the Palestinian issue as a pretext. Let's hope he's
dead so the Iraqi people and the Kuwaiti people can live in peace.''
	In one Cairo cafe, people were more interested in the results of a
national lottery than the war in the gulf, but once questioned they all
condemned the Iraqi leader as no friend of Egypt.
	``We were all expecting this,'' said one elderly man smoking a shisha
water-pipe. ``There was a deadline and Saddam ignored it. So he got what
he deserved.''
	Another customer sipped sweet tea while listening to the radio and
watching a black and white television set. ``Iraq never did anything for
Egypt ... Saddam only allowed Egyptians to work in Iraq for his own
interests ... at least the Saudis and the Kuwaitis gave us money when we
needed it.''

    Boy, the last 24 hours have been really wild.  I have to confess to
    some seriously mixed emotions ...
    
    All through the 5 months leading up to this, I've been anti-hawk and
    pro-diplomacy.  I believe we have no legitimate reason to be killing
    other people for any reason whatsoever and I'm saddened by the outbreak
    of war.
    
    But, geez, the success of the technology is incredible.   It's historic
    and marks a hugely significant turning point in warfare history.  I
    can't help but be a little excited at the results, however "unofficial"
    they might be.   You get the feeling you're not just reading a Clancy
    novel but living in one so to speak.
    
    There's no doubt I'd be a little less *excited* if my mailing address
    were Baghdad, Iraq, though.
    
    Unbelievable.  Hard to reconcile these feelings, I have to admit.
    
    Bob Hunt

    Re: confused feelings
    
    I agree Bob.  I don't want anyone to think I'm a warmongerer because I
    have access to updates.  No normal person enjoys war.
    
    On the other hand, I'm a real technology nut.  Every adult has a little
    child in them that can appreciate CONSUMER technology toys.  Some of
    what I'm hearing from technology experts on NPR just makes my jaw drop
    in awe!  For example:
    
    - Satellite technology is given a lot of credit for the "surprise" too.
      It also helps in damage assessment.  They have a resolution of 10
      meters so they KNOW if the targets are destroyed or not!
    - The stealth jets.
    - electronic jamming technology including missiles designed to home in
      on enemy signals to take out the source of broadcasts.
    - laser guided bombing
    - cruise missiles, a literal unmanned plane with lots of firepower.
    
    And of course the highly skilled people that operate this stuff!  
    
    Mike

    
    > But, geez, the success of the technology is incredible.   It's historic
    
    All that tonnage and the report I just heard on NPR gave Baghdad civilian
    casualities at 23 (from early Iraqi reports, no less).  That and the
    reported 80% hit rate are a phenomonal demonstration of accuracy, I'd 
    say...  
    
    glenn
    

>    All that tonnage and the report I just heard on NPR gave Baghdad civilian
>    casualities at 23 (from early Iraqi reports, no less).  That and the
    
    ...and 66 injured.  They also say they're all women, children, and
    elderly people.  Yeah right and sell me a bridge too.
    
>    reported 80% hit rate are a phenomonal demonstration of accuracy, I'd 
>    say...  
    
    With that sort of tonnage and accuracy, the results should be
    frightening.  If the casualties are that low, the laser guided bombing
    must be a phenomonal technology!
    
    Mike

I'm having the same feelings. I'm totally anti-war but it is pretty amazing what
these "toys" are capable of doing. I know  a lot of military people are going
to be happy with the performance of these babies.

I'll be anxious to see some of the footage from the plane cameras if/when it
becomes available for news broadcast.

Latest update continues with the 3 downed allied planes but the Iraqi's have
now boosted their claims to 55 planes shot down.

Some of the allied pilots said that the weather and unexpectedly heavy AA fire
kept thier accuracy down from what it should have been.

I certainly hope that the reports of mobile missle launchers still able to 
fire at Israel are just rumors.

Metz

    re-2,

    	Don't forget that those children are GUN toting 15 year olds!

    Please keep sending up-date...some of us have to work.

    B.A.

Last reports are of 3 missiles landing in Tel Aviv and one in Jerusalem.
They are not reported to be chemical weapons but the populace is being 
instructed to put on their gas masks and head to a safe room.

the one in Jerusalem is surprising since Hussein stated that the city had too 
much Holy feeling for his people so he wouldn't attack it.

Reports are that Hussein kept much of his air force buried in deep bunkers
to avoid the bombing.

time for me to head home to watch CNN.....

Metz

    
    	IRAQ has just bomb Israel! Israel said that they will re-talliate!.
    
    	Gas mask are being asked to be put on...3 bombs have hit
    tel-avi(sp).
    
    	Doesn't look good now...Arabs against arabs?
    
    B.A.

>       <<< Note 46.294 by CAM::WAY "Bo don't know which one's Vanilli" >>>

>>  <<< Note 46.293 by HPSTEK::HAUSRATH "Too many projects, not enough time" >>>
>>                      -< Time to buy some solar panels? >-
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


>See Jake.  He might be able to help you out 8^)

>[figure a little levity might help...]

>'Saw

    'Saw, Good Solar Panels are cultivated, not purchased.   (:^)*
    
    JaKe
    
    

    5 confirmed SCUD missiles launched, 4 hits, as stated earlier, 3 in Tel
    Aviv and 1 in Jerusalem.
    
    Re back a few about Hussein saying he wouldn't hit Jerusalem, I
    wouldn't believe a word that a$$hole says no matter what he tried to
    prove his "truthfullness".
    
    Although Hussein never said, "No New Taxes"    (:^)*
    
    
    JaKe
    

    This may be totally inappropriate, but what the heck.
    
    I was watching the news last night (during the between-period intervals
    of the Bruins-Kings game) and thinking about football.
    
    My choice for the all-Madden team - the men and women of the coalition
    fighting forces in the Middle East.
    
    Keep up the good work, and may they all come back with no more serious
    injuries than they would get on a football field.
    
    A&W

Well, fortunately, Israel did more posturing than retaliation.
Credit some of the absolute superiority of the allied air forces over
Iraq for some of that restraint, and because of that this whole thing
is holding together.

Did anyone see the footage of the Patriot missile destroying the SCUD
over the airbase in Dharan?  First, it was an amazing show of that
technology we've been talking about.  Second, why could the missile's
namesake be as accurate this past season? 8^)

I too am fascinated by the technology, and am in sheer awe of the
skill of the US fighting forces.  My friend Nick wrote me an excited
letter telling how his unit was getting brand new, just_off_the_assembly_line
tanks not too long ago.  I could only think about how worried I'd be
about getting some of *our* "just_off_the_line" software, with all those
little built in bugs, er, uh features....8^)


As to you folks who are totally anti-war, I applaud your attempts at
trying to raise civilization to new heights, but, in a very generic
sense (ie move the issue out of the middle east), if someone walked
into your house and wanted to harm your children, would you try to
peacefully co-exist with the perpetrator, or would you blow his damn
brains out?   If someone attacked the USA, what would you do?

I don't like war any more than anyone else, but until the human race
gets as advanced as the cats of the world (who've learned their weapons
are so powerful that a lot of harm and death would result from fighting,
so power struggles are solved by posturing) we're going to have these
problems....


Just some opinions.

And please, no matter what your feelings on war, don't fall short in support
of our troops over there....

thanks,
'Saw

    Just before I left for work I caught some coverage on CNN that was
    taken from inside the nosecone of one of our fighter jets.  All I can
    say is that it is UNBELIEVEABLE!  They showed a small military building 
    (which was supposedly hiding SCUD launcher).  One of our laser guided
    missiles went in the front door and exploded, literally.  Talk about
    being polite ;-)  The coverage also showed 3 holes (probably holding
    something of military significance), 3-4 feet in diameter, being bombed.  
    The missile hit that hole dead center.  It also showed a multi-story
    building getting bombed from above.  The missile went right into the
    top of the building and blew the sides of this building out.
    
    All I can say is, "UNBELIEVEABLE"!.
    
    -Paul (who's always late for work).

    Way to go, 'Saw.   39 whole lines and not one rugby analogy.  :-) :-)
    
    Quite a night, eh ???   History in the making.   Hussein launches 8 or
    so SCUD missles into Israel and one into Saudi Arabia.   And the
    Patriot anti-missle missle system took that one out 800 to 1,000 feet
    before impact.
    
    The most important thing to figure out now is what's left for Hussein. 
    Was that his last batch of SCUDs or does he have a few hundred more ??? 
    Also, what does Israel do if attacked again ???
    
    The telephone conversations between the Bush administration and the
    Israeli government must have been amazing.  Israel has never held back
    before and for them to do so now speaks huge volumes for their trust in
    American firepower.
    
    One can only imagine if Bush placed a phone call to Gen. Schwartzkopf
    in Saudi Arabia shortly thereafter.   Think he would have stressed a
    slight bit of urgency in taking out the remaining missle sites ???
    
    Frightening night in Israel.  The live footage from CNN with the
    reporters all donning gas masks was chilling.  One of the CNN
    correspondents showed her anti-nerve gas injection kit and then showed
    how you have to plunge it into your thigh when you start to feel dizzy
    from the gas.   Shivers ...
    
    First time I've ever rooted for the Patriots, that's for sure.   They
    ain't no "Patsies".   Wonder if the Boston Herald will send Lisa Olson
    over there to, um, .... nah, never mind, bad joke.
    
    Bob Hunt

 First off for all the techno freaks, come on now we do all kinds of
 software simulations not to mention the fact that the government runs
 all kinds of mock battle tests where they try these weapons out we didn't
 need a first hand look at the wizardry we knew it was there.

 Saw, while I can see your point about an intruder and my family the bottom
 line here is the intruder whould be attacking me first not the other way
 around. My posistion is one of forced defense not offense. Bush took the
 initiative he's the intruder in this one.

 Iraq says 55 We say 3 our government has never lied to us before right?
 Beleive me I'm not saying 55 is correct and 3 isn't but I got to feel it's
 somewhere in between and our government will never give us the real numbers.

 Hussian bombs inocent Israeli suburbans in retaliation to Bush's actions,
 still want to tell me he's not a murderer?

 mike

 � Iraq says 55 We say 3 our government has never lied to us before right?
 � Beleive me I'm not saying 55 is correct and 3 isn't but I got to feel it's
 � somewhere in between and our government will never give us the real numbers.

    There shouldn't be much surprise that the two sides' numbers are
    different.  Enemies *always* report different results.  Both the
    Russians and the Germans reported numbers against each other during
    World War II that had no basis in fact.  The truth is almost always
    somewhere in between.
    
 � Hussian bombs inocent Israeli suburbans in retaliation to Bush's actions,
 � still want to tell me he's not a murderer?

    Well, to pick nits, no one was killed in Israel so he's not a murderer
    in this instance.   But, yes, he's got a long track record.  All
    governments murder, even now.   They just justify it as necessary.
    
    Bob Hunt

>    Frightening night in Israel.  The live footage from CNN with the
>    reporters all donning gas masks was chilling.  
    
    Yeah, but I would have loved to have smacked the person holding the
    camera.  Hold still for cripes sake!  Knowning Ted Turner, that's the
    end of that person's paycheck.
    
    Oh, and real brilliant of someone to open the window so they wouldn't
    get a glare on the picture.  What air raid siren?
    
    	--dan'l

 I realize that Bob, I'm more or less trying to reach out to pro-war
 crowd who seems to feel we're in a runaway victory here. This thing
 could be far from over and the casualities haven't even started yet.
 Kind of please don't swallow the hook the line and the sinker....

 mike

    re .323, .325:
    
    I heard a report that there are five dead in Israel this morning, four
    elderly people and a three year old girl.  All of them apparently put
    their gas masks on incorrectly, and asphyxiated as a result.
    
    
    py

================================================================================
Note 46.319                        Middle East                        319 of 319
SHALOT::MEDVID "President Gas"                       22 lines  18-JAN-1991 08:56
                            -< T-E-C-H-N-O-L-O-G-Y >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RE: Mixed feelings
    
    Me too.  If you were on your way to work or at work during the 7:00 AM
    press confernce this morning, you missed some dandy footage.  I abhore
    war and violence, but I was certainly impressed by our fighter pilots. 
    The footage showed us delivering bombs right through the front door of
    one building.  The most impressive shot though was putting a bomb down
    a structure's airhole the size of a fryng pan.  Blew the hell out of
    the place.  There was various other footage of Thursday's attack.
    
    Just to give you an idea of the kind of person running this country,
    according to one reporter, while Bush was watching this footage he was
    pointing his finger at the target and when the bomb would hit, he would
    say, "Boom."  And somebody said they feel safe at night?
    
    	--dan'l

    

SET FRANK'S_HAT=MODERATOR...


	I'm just going to say this once.

	We all know what a touchy situation we are currently in, both
	in the Gulf, in Digital (with talk of no more leisure noting)
	and in this topic - with many different opinions.

	I won't tolerate any references to ethnic groups in derogatory
	terms.  The other moderators feel the same.

	The reason is this.  This is the SPORTS conference.  We're allowing
	this topic because this is the one place we all turn, but by
	rights, this topic has nothing to do with SPORTS, and shouldn't
	be here.

	I don't want to give Management any excuses to shut this conference
	down.

	Feel free to express your views, but please do it in a courteous
	manner.

Thanks,
frank

Bob Hunt,

	I heard this morning that Schwarzkopf, the Allied Commander
	has said that the allied search and destroy of mobile SCUD
	missles would be "relentless"....


hth,
'Saw

    
    An emotional roller coaster for sure.  After the previous night's
    events, and being plugged into NPR all day yesterday, I thought I could
    turn on the hockey game for a little diversion, but just couldn't do
    it.
    
    They switched suddenly to Jerusalem where an obviously nervous reporter
    stood wringing his hands as air raid sirens moaned in the background. 
    Shortly thereafter, it was announced that missles were on the way at
    that very moment.  Suddenly there was a whooshing sound.  The reporter
    flinched and my stomach rolled over a couple of times.  It was a truck
    passing by near the reporter.  The live footage of the press, the gas
    masks,  the instructions on Israeli TV, the waiting, the waiting for
    the strike was one of the most chilling moments I've ever experienced.
    
    When the strikes were confirmed, my wife and I just stood up and hugged
    each other without saying a word.
    
    Dickstah
    

    No missles were reported in Jerusalem afterall.  The hits in Israel
    were in and around Tel Aviv and Hafien.
    
    The news media is doing some serious apologizing today.  In their rush
    to get the scoop many conflicting reports abounded about the attack on
    Israel last night.  Some reports said that nerve gas had been used,
    others said all SCUD warheads were conventional.  Part of the problem
    is the networks feel they have to proved 24 hour coverage so they seem
    to report anything and everything.  I agree with John H.  Let's keep
    the bulk of the coverage on CNN - afterall they are a news network. 
    And keep the other networks restricted to important (and absolutely
    confirmed) developments, and their regular news shows.  Of course it
    won't happen.  TV networks are striving for ratings and not
    neccessarily customer satisfaction.

	Some more info:

	6 mobile SCUD launchers, armed, and aimed toward Saudi Arabia, were
wiped out by Coalition forces. About a dozen unarned SCUD launchers were
being targeted in Eastern Iraq, and would be pursued until destroyed.
	Word about renewed searches and attacks for the Scud launchers
in Western Irag(Jordanian border) are ongoing. 

	ABC news correspondent made it out of Iraq this morning(afternoon in
Jordan). 24 hours to cross Iraq from Baghdad to border. Reported seeing many
SCUD missile launchers heading toward Jordanian border. Town of Rutbah,
where they stopped for gas was about 20 miles from huge Iranian airbase,
where most Scuds aimed at Israel are expected from. He saw 3 huge bombardments
of this area in about 12 hours.

	Israel seems to be "reserving it's right to retaliate" at the present
time, despite reports that they have sent planes up through Syrian airspace.
This was denied by Syrians. Iraq, predictably, was claiming that Israel's
planes were joining the multinational coalition.

	That's all I've got for now.

	Jim M

NEWS FLASH:

	We've all (including me) been misspelling the word missiles.

	I just noticed that.

	Shame, shame on us.  Now we're going to have to repeat
	Journalism 101.....

Shape up Sportsters!

'Saw

�	We've all (including me) been misspelling the word missiles.
    
    Shoulda known better.  Next time just have to remember to say it like a
    BBC announcer would, that is, ...
    
    "We can confirm the launching of several 'miss-eye-ulls' ..."
    
    Bob Hunt

Speaking of the British, what a wonderful contrast I saw this morning.

They briefly interviewed some British Tornado crews.  One fellow, when
asked how he felt over the target, replied "Scared out of my wits".
He then proceeded to explain how they fly as low as they can to drop
ordinance, yet not so low as to get shot down.  They're also flying
very slow.  Then, when they've dropped, they hightail it, as fast
as possible away.

I doubt you'd have ever heard an American pilot admit to being
scared...

Interesting...

'Saw

>	6 mobile SCUD launchers, armed, and aimed toward Saudi Arabia, were
>wiped out by Coalition forces. About a dozen unarned SCUD launchers were
>being targeted in Eastern Iraq, and would be pursued until destroyed.

	Correction. 3 armed SCUD Launchers and 6-8 unarmed.

	Also 8 Iraqi planes have been shot down so far, with 2 more 
	unconfirmed. 

	Most Iraqi planes have hightailed it North when Target Acquisition
is made. Desert Force tactics don't allow for "chasing" away from the 
prescribed target areas. I imagine that this may come later, when bombing
slows down.

	Still no official word from Israel. Bush headed for Camp David for 
the weekend sometime this evening(hard to understand this).

	Jim M

    
    Iraq is reporting that it's strike on Israel was successful in that it
    hit many "economic, political, military, and other strategic targets."
    
    Conflicting reports say they had no idea where the infernal things
    would land.
    
    Israel casualties report a couple of heart attacks, the suffocation of
    a small child in a gas mask, and another death from suffocation due to
    staying in a small "safe" room for too long.  A couple more deaths
    reported as people donning gas masks without taking the cap off the
    breathing hole.
    
    (This from NPR)
    
    Dickstah
    

�forwarding headers removed�
    
From:	CHIPS::KILROY "16-Jan-1991 1344" 16-JAN-1991 13:43:01.27
To:	@SDESTAFF,@SDESEC
CC:	KILROY
Subj:	Comment on Palestinians - PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL GROUPS



        +---------------+
        | d i g i t a l |          I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M 
        +---------------+

        TO: SDE                         DATE: January 14, 1991
                                        FROM: Larry Walker
                                        DEPT: SDE
                                        EXT:  225 5288
                                        L/MS: HL02-2/N07
                                        NET:  CHIPS::WALKER  
                                        ID:   memo12

        SUBJECT: Comment on Palestinians



             It's come to my attention that a recent memo circulated
        around SDE contained within it some comments on Palestinians
        which implied that terrorism is somehow  a  policy  of  this
        entire people.  This, of course, represents just the sort of
        prejudice to which much of the troubles in the world can  be
        ascribed,  and it is completely unacceptable.  I implore you
        to remember that the situation  in  the  Middle  East  is  a
        personal  tragedy  for many, many people on all sides of the
        political issues and to keep that in mind  when  writing  or
        talking about it.
    

    
      I don't mean to sound cold or heartless, but what does this topic
      (Middle East) have to do with SPORTS ? I can not believe,maybe I can,
      that someone else hasn't asked this question.
    
      Spent time in Vietnam,
         Jim

    Re .-1
    
    I don't know about you, Jim, but I've been following this topic to get
    up to date reports.  I think it's safe to say that we all know at least
    one person who is presently in that part of the world.
    
    					Steve

>                               -< Why in SPORTS >-
>
>    
>      I don't mean to sound cold or heartless, but what does this topic
>      (Middle East) have to do with SPORTS ? I can not believe,maybe I can,
>      that someone else hasn't asked this question.
>    
>      Spent time in Vietnam,
>         Jim

Jim,

This topic was formerly called the Junk Note topic.  I'm not familiar
with your name, and am not sure how long you've been a sports noter,
so forgive me if I'm telling you something you may already know....

Sports has a community of regular noters.  While the major impetus
of our being in here is Sports interest, many side discussions have
grown up over the years.  

When SPORTS moved to cam:: the moderators decided to try and keep the
side notes in one topic, called Junk Notes.  That worked fairly
well until Wednesday.

In any community such as this, concerns over what is happening, reports
on what is happening, etc will be discussed.  

As there is such an overwhelming interest, and as the majority of noters
turn here first before anywhere else, we decided to rename this topic,
and let the noters note.

Hope that answers your question,
frank  (a SPORTS moderator)

    It has nothing to do with SPORTS.    Otherwise, what's the problem ???
    
    <flame on>
    
    This conference, over the years and many miles it has literally
    traveled, has brought together many Digital employees from all kinds of
    diverse and eclectic backgrounds.   Many of the noters in here have
    become close "electronic" friends through this conference.   And, if
    not friends, then certainly "comfortable adversaries".
    
    During this intense time, we've all turned towards the "non-electronic"
    touch-and-feel friends and relatives we have around us so why should we
    not seek out and communicate with our "electronic" brothers and sisters
    as well.
    
    This is one "junk" note that ain't got no junk in it.
    
    <flame off>
    
    Bob Hunt

>Well, fortunately, Israel did more posturing than retaliation.
    
    Well he did it, like I begged him too, but it was too feeble to deserve
    retaliation.  Everyone saw thru it as a desperation attempt in more
    ways than one.
    
    >Did anyone see the footage of the Patriot missile destroying the SCUD
>over the airbase in Dharan?  First, it was an amazing show of that
    
    That was awesome, but the footage of the first strike on Baghdad was
    TOTALLY AWESOME!  In the words of one of the US pilots, "...Baghdad was
    lit up like a Christmas tree!"
    
    News just in:  a US pilot has been captured.  A total of 3 planes have
    been shot down (A18, A6, and an F15E).
    
    Israeli cabinet has been meeting all day.  They are reportedly waiting
    to see how effective the new U.S. strike is before retaliating.
    
    U.S. is reported to be HEAVILY bombing Baghdad again.  Some reporters
    that escaped Baghdad to Amman, Jordan said that there were heavy air
    raids in Western Iraq also.
    
    Progress is being made on the mobile missile launchers.
    
    Hussein's family has been reported to have been evacuated to West
    Africa.
    
    Mike

    
      Ok that answered my question. I did forget that the topic was named
      "Junk" until the war broke out.
    
       Frank,
    
        I have read and written in the Notes file for about 7 years.
    
       Bob,
    
        Do you always get upset with people that ask questions ?  I had
        thought that people in NOTES could ask questions and state their
        opinions without people jumping down their throat.
    
       Jim

    Re: .341, .342
    
    Very well put.
    
    John "D Cowboys" R.

 Mike, for a guy who wears his christiany on his sleeve to talk about war
 and killing as "Totally Awesome" seems a paradox to me....

 MIKE

    I now have a CNN audio feed on the radio.  Bush is holding a press
    conference.
    
    Mike

    re  .210
    
    Hawk,  don't moan about gas at $1.259 a gallon, here in the UK we pay
    over Two Pounds (2.00) Sterling a gallon  (Approx $3.80)  and the Brits
    are net exporters of the stuff!!!!
    
    PJ   (who doesn't enjoy getting reamed every time he pulls into a gas
    station)
    

>    
>       Frank,
>    
>        I have read and written in the Notes file for about 7 years.


Okay, Jim.

The name didn't look familiar to me, but sometimes there are so many
names, and I know we have a lot of RONs out there, so I wasn't sure.


'Saw

> Mike, for a guy who wears his christiany on his sleeve to talk about war
> and killing as "Totally Awesome" seems a paradox to me....
    
    sorry Mike, I don't see the connection between the two.  Maybe that's
    why you consider it a paradox.  
    
    I don't love war, but I love justice.

    �I had thought that people in NOTES could ask questions and state their
    �opinions without people jumping down their throat.
    
    And you say you've been noting for about 7 years? ;^)

    �My point was more at-home, that our own oil companies, and even our
    �local dealers, like to tuck it to us at every possible
    �opportunity......
    
    My wife's family has been in the service station business for years. 
    As a full service station the gas pumps are there more to attract
    customers than to make money.  They primarily rely on servicing cars
    for providing revenue, particularly with all of the self-service
    stations around.

    Several thoughts on the Gulf, etc.....
    
    1)  The Western allies miscalculated Saddam's willingness to do battle. 
    This is why diplomacy failed.  Arabs have been fighting amongst
    themselves and their neighbours for thousands of years, there is
    considerable pride and glory in die for your beliefs and if an Arab
    dies while fighting the infidel....even more glory!!  Our culture does
    not enable us to comprehend this...we value life, liberty and freedom.
    
    2)  A Brit military analyst said that Chemical/Biological weapons are a
    poor man's Neuclear Device.  By that he meant that it is primarily a
    deterrent (as opposed to an offensive weapon).  Saddam may not have all
    his marbles, but he ain't dumb....He knows that if he had hit Israel
    with Chemical weapons, they would start to uncover their nukes.
    
    3)  Saddam has only once visited a Western Country  (France, as part of
    a trade delegation in 1975).  Analysts believe that this explains in
    part why he does not have a very good understanding of the Wests
    culture and mentality.
    
    In fact, if you put points 1 and 3 together, you would probably guess
    that war was inevitable.
    
    Finally, re the analogy to Hitler.  I think if the analogy is limited to
    comparing a dictators designs on territory that is not his own and to
    the desire to nip a crisis in the bud, the analogy holds.  Bush took it
    out of that context for its emotional impact.....(and it worked!!!)
    
    
    PJ

     [Distribution] (deleted)


The current crisis in the Gulf is very sensitive and many people may 
have strong feelings concerning the situation.

We would like to remind people that DIGITAL is a multinational company 
with employees from many different backgrounds.  It is our policy that 
statements via notesfiles, electronic mails or any other business 
related media should not be made which might offend or be inflammatory 
to other employees.

Corporate Personnel Policy 6.54 (4-Sep-1989) on Proper Use of Digital
Computers, Systems and Networks states:

"In addition, these conferences may not be used to promote behaviour 
which is contrary to the Company's values or policy (i.e. they may not 
promote discrimination, disrespect for the individual, violence, 
etc.)."

Also,

"Messages mailed or posted over the Digital network are the 
responsibility of the original author."

During this crisis, please be sensitive to the views and beliefs of 
other people.  Thank you for your understanding and support.

Best Regards,

George Brothers
European Security Manager

Kent Anderson
European Security Support Manager

>    Mike H., I'm also as astounded by your position (what you've been
    
    Hawk & Mike, you folks have fallen for a very humorous stereotype.
    Where does it say a Christian can't be pro-war (though I'm not) or
    pro-technology?  There are a lot of Christians in DEC, including KO,
    that would find that real humorous.
    
    What about all the battles written about in the Bible?  What about the
    true definition of Jihad and its intended application (not the
    distorted use of today's power hungry leaders)?
    
    What about the Israeli forces that constantly give credit to God for
    their success in defending their country  since 1948?
    
    Mike

    re - the televised war
    
    1)  You guys don't know how lucky you are getting to see the critical
    war footage at prime time.  Here in Brit-land, the excitement didn't
    start until 11.30pm!!!     I've been up til 3.00am three nights in a
    row just just George can get his show on prime time!!!
    
    2)  CNN Coverage....The Brits did take some exception to the CNN live
    coverage saying that the reporters were treating it more like a
    SuperBowl...SPecifically they said the commentary glorified war rather
    than horrified....(Personally I think its a fine line, but the
    alternative is delayed /censored news)
    
    PJ
    (maybe I can get the UK networks to 'tape-delay' tonights show so that
    I can get some sleep!!)
    
    8-), 8-), 8-( 

    Mike, Mike, Hawk, et. al.,
    
    Wouldn't Saddam just love to see us at each other's throats like this? 
    Nothing wrong with disagreement, but we're getting into that personal
    realm of ones beliefs.
    
    Keep cool, dudes.  Let's discuss the issue as Americans, not
    Christians, Protestents, agnostics, etc.
    
    	--dan'l

    Not a whole lot came out of Bush's conference.  He did praise Israel
    for their understanding and restraint.  He also condemned Hussein for
    attacking a non-participant and trying to alter the course of the war.
    
    Big theme now is for the media to tone down the euphoria.
    
    Some reports are saying that ground forces are starting to mobilize.
    That doesn't sound good, unless they are ahead of schedule.  I think 
    they should stick to the air at least a few more days.
    
    Mike

I kind of agree with Dan'l....

We could sit here and ENDLESSLY debate our religious/moral etc beliefs.
I know that because we're folks who can endlessly debate something
much more trivial, such as who's better, BobKnight or DeanSmif'...

One of the things I find most interesting is the wide variety of beliefs,
the backgrounds of the people having those beliefs, and how it all fits
in here.

And while some of us may vehemently disagree with the administration,
please keep in mind that the most wonderful thing about our country is
the fact that we can freely state those disagreements.  In fact,
if this were Iraq, I have no doubt that some noters in here probably would
be laying in a ditch with a bloody hole between their eyes for some of
the statements made so far....


On another note, I do find the technology fascinating.  Here's a company
that can't put out a piece of software without bugs, who can't put
out a piece of hardware without bugs, and we don't have all the baloney
associated with some of those government projects which produce those
bombs,planes,guns etc...  That this stuff works as well as it does
totally amazes me.....8^)


'Saw

re .359

Mike,

I think the mobilizations are more positioning, and reinforcing what's
there.  

I have heard that we will not move on the ground until we control the
air above.  

If we do control the air above, that means that those lovely Warthogs
(gawd, I love that ugly looking sucker) will be able to keep an eye
on our tanks, and help them out.  Because my buddy's a tank commander,
that makes me very happy....

fwiw, you'd never get me fighting in a tank.  I'd much rather be flying!

'Saw

    re: GODS
    
    
    I thought we all have our own GODS.....
    
    
    Dave Allen, a Brit stand-up comic, used to end all his shows by saying:
    
                                                   
    	' Good night, and may your God be with you '
    
    
    Let's not get possessive here...
    
    PJ

Bush's conference was more of the same.

Latest headlines are...

7 planes shot down so far...3 US, 2 UK, 1 Kuwait, 1 Saudi

1 UNCONFIRMED report of a captured US pilot.

No timetable for ground attack released.

2000 Sorties a day still going on, 15% cover missions the rest bombers.

Renewed attack on SCUD missle launchers.

Israel reserves the right to retaliate but is holding back for now.

Bush has been in contact with Gorbachav about the War.

Cautions against euphoria, warnings of a long war ahead.

Iraqi planes contacted but either shot down or break off contact as soon as the
US pilots get a radar lock on them.

Incredible camera footage of smart bomb attacks.

Oh yeah...CBS and NBC will resume normal etertainment coverage tonight, ABC
hasn't decided yet. I think it's better off this way because they were simply
repeating the same hearsay over and over anyway and all must have run out of
experts to interview by now. Leave the news to the news professionals at CNN.

Personal bad news....


  Brother in law #2 is getting moved from Germany to Saudi Arabia :-(

Metz

I agree about the Bowl.

The one major constant theme in the letters I've received from the Gulf
is "Keep sending mail.  You should see how bummed the guys are when I
do mail call and they don't get mail."

The Bowl is the same thing.  Admist all of the culture shock of being
miles away from home, and in being in a very strange place, the things
of home take on an almost talisman like significance.

For God's sakes, play the Super Bowl, and make damn sure that your
announcers make sure that there's a ton of support for the troops
in the "call"....

I remember not long ago an NHL game on Sports Channel was broadcast
over the Armed Services network....  A very, very positive reaction
was received from the military in the gulf....

JMHO,
'Saw

    In a reply in the Patriots' notesfile, a Viet Nam vet supports the idea
    of keeping the Super Bowl.  He stated how great it was to know that
    things were still going on the same at home.

    First time I've ever used the <flame> tag in here.  Perhaps it was a
    bit overboard, I apologize.
    
    I respect your (anyone's) feelings and your right to question this note
    and this conference for that matter.   To be fair, though, please
    observe that that there are folks using *this* note in *this*
    conference to stay in touch with each other and that transcends SPORTS
    issues for the time being.
    
    Not forever, though, you're right in that respect.
    
    Bob Hunt

>On another note, I do find the technology fascinating.  Here's a company
>that can't put out a piece of software without bugs, who can't put
>out a piece of hardware without bugs, and we don't have all the baloney
>associated with some of those government projects which produce those
>bombs,planes,guns etc...  That this stuff works as well as it does
>totally amazes me.....8^)
    
    On a similar note, I find it amusing that the PDP's are used a LOT more
    often than the VAXen.  If they want a REAL computer, they should've
    used 11/70s in those cruise missiles instead of 11/34s ;-)
    
    RE: rather be in the air
    
    The Air Force would always be my preference too.
    
    Mike

 My apologies to Mike and anyone else whom may have found my statement out
 of line...consider it dropped.

 If Bush wasn't blood thirsty why did he continue to bomb all day yesterday 
 before Saddam had retaliated? Certainly he send a loud and clear message the
 night before was all the extra necessary?

 Why do I feel Saddam is sitting back smiling holding aces in his boots? Don't
 believe Bush's three week war is going to be a reality. 

 mike

> If Bush wasn't blood thirsty why did he continue to bomb all day yesterday 
> before Saddam had retaliated? Certainly he send a loud and clear message the
> night before was all the extra necessary?

One reason may be to avoid the same pattern that occured in vietnam.
Bomb, rest, hope they sue for peace, bomb, rest, hope they sue for
peace...

I have heard that in this instance, they want continual bombing
of military targets to greatly reduce the warmaking capability of
Iraq.  Remember civilian populations have not yet been targetted.

> Why do I feel Saddam is sitting back smiling holding aces in his boots? Don't
> believe Bush's three week war is going to be a reality. 

This could very well be, and I hope the Joint Chiefs have a plan for
this little contingency....

� If Bush wasn't blood thirsty why did he continue to bomb all day yesterday 
� before Saddam had retaliated? Certainly he send a loud and clear message the
� night before was all the extra necessary?
    
    To limit Israeli and Allied casualties?  The message may have been loud
    and clear, but apparently noone was listening.  Instead of withdrawing
    form Kuwait and honoring the U.N. resolution, Saddam was exhorting his
    people to continue on to "certain victory".  Also, the targets have
    still been military and as someone else reported, Iraqi casualties as
    reported by Iraq are low.

    Being an ex Air Force Technician I to am amazed at two things.  The
    amount of sorties and the tremendous success of the F-15 smart weapons.
    From experience the F-15 Eagle is simply the best fighter aircraft on
    the face of the earth.  Also, you might note, in the Syria vs Israel
    war the F-15 had a 8 to 1 shoot down ratio to its Soviet made Mig
    counterpart.
    
    Greg
               

    
    NPR reports sirens sounding in Israel again, another air attack or
    expected missile attack. (2:00 PM est).  Also alarms in Saudi.
    
    

    Iraq has just attacked Israel again!

>    To limit Israeli and Allied casualties?  The message may have been loud
>    and clear, but apparently noone was listening.  Instead of withdrawing
>    form Kuwait and honoring the U.N. resolution, Saddam was exhorting his
>    people to continue on to "certain victory".  Also, the targets have
>    still been military and as someone else reported, Iraqi casualties as
>    reported by Iraq are low.


 and if he hadn't attacked first we probably wouldn't even be worrying about 
 Israeli and Allied casualites. Why should he listen has Bush ever listen
 to him? You back a cat into a corner it's going to fight it's way out.
 Military targets still have to be maintained by people besides the fact 
 that neither of us are over there how do we truthfully know that it's all
 military targets? The media? hahahaaaaaa

 mike

    Pentagon's preliminary reports are that they are fairly confident it is
    not a SCUD attack.
    
    Iraqi aircraft has not been ruled out.
    
    Mike

    
    Wow.  I just heard the "all-clear" has sounded in Israel.
    
    I'm gonna keep my fingers off the board until something is confirmed.
    

    
    
    	Biggest factor will be tonight (late or early morning over there).
    I Saddam has anything left, he will again provoke Israel into entering
    the war with by attacking.  I would be very very wary of tonight in
    Israel.  I should also say that if Israel is attacked, I hope they go
    in and do what they have to do which appears like civilian targets.
    Afterall, how long can you ask a country to stand-by while its
    civilians are being bombed?
    
    	Re: ground troops
    
    	Something I haven't heard repeated, but I heard one "expert" state
    that we would just manuver our ground forces around in Saudi Arabia
    to make Saddam think we were going to invade.  He would counter a 
    buildup along his border with reinforcements.  When this happened,
    we would send the B52's in to carpet bomb the now clustered Iraqi
    troops.  Sounded possible to me.  Fake an invasion (similar to D-Day)
    point and let the enemy counter with troops, then bomb them.
    
    	I would also think that at some point we would try to surround or
    cut off the troops in Kuwait.  Cutting their lines in half will cause
    the Kuwaiti half to surrender (after a period of time of no food, ammo
    and such).
    
    	As for the techno stuff, glad to see it work!  At least I know my
    tax dollars went for something that works, unlike some of the other
    programs run or funded by Uncle Sam.
    
    	Getting back to those wonderful curise missiles.  Heard that when
    they tested them awhile back, they shot something like 10 at a target
    200 miles away.  Bad news was that they all missed their target.  The
    good news was that they missed their target by 11 inches!  The one that
    blew apart Iraqs defense dept. building was said to have been launched
    from the Persian Gulf from a ship!  Now that is accuracy!!
    
    	The other simply amazing thing to me is that the bulk of our pilots
    have no combat experience yet we have so few fatalities.  You would
    think that with so many "rookies" that there would be more mistakes.
    I guess the Services need a pat on the back for pilot training too..
    Let's just hope the ground forces are just as effective coupled with
    low casuality rates.
    
    								bill..g.
    

    TV reports are saying it was a US jet flying by looking for mobile
    missile launchers.  Israelis also have stepped up their air patrols
    since daybreak over there.
    
    If it was an Iraqi MIG coming, they say it would take a � hour to get
    to Israel.
    
    Re: pilots
    
    Some have said it was mass confusion up there!
    
    BTW - anyone see the footage of the pilots giving high fives to each
    other?  Morale seems to be real high over there.  I've heard the term
    "psyched" a few teams.
    
    Mike

    The U.S. has had many more casualties in the months of training than in
    the few days of combat.
    
    I heard on the news that Israel has the Patriot weapons system.  Why
    wasn't it used during last night's attack?
    
    Mike, we'll never know how many casualties would have resulted if Bush
    didn't go ahead with the attack.  Like I said before I believe the
    sanctions would have pushed him into terrorist attacks around the
    world.  I have a civilian friend in Germany.  She called the other day. 
    She said that people over there have been stocking up on food and
    security has been extremely tight.  They are very sensitive to the
    possibility of terrorist attack.
    
    The accuracy of the U.S. weapons systems are reminiscent of Luke
    Skywalker destroying the Death Star by depositing a bomb in a very
    small hole.

    
    Re:  Accuracy of Missiles...   Just a small nit..   How can they
    possibly measure the accuracy of a missile within a few yards (let 
    alone within a few inches)?    I would assume that the explosives 
    obliterate most of the evidence of exactly where the impact was!  
    
    11 inches sounds like serious defense department propoganda to me.  
    
    /Jeff

    
    > RE: rather be in the air
    > 
    > The Air Force would always be my preference too.
    
    Maybe, but it's probably not any better option if you're looking not to
    get killed.  Fewer mass casualties, but then again many fewer pilots, 
    too.
    
    My brother's an Air Force pilot in training out your way in Phoenix,
    Mike.  It looks like he'll miss all this by a few months, which I feel
    good about, but knowing him, he probably doesn't.  I haven't been able 
    to get ahold of him over the last couple nights, so I imagine all those
    Air Force flyboys are getting together and watching all this come down.
    Probably in seventh heaven...
    
    glenn
    

    
    re: .384/Jeff
    
    	11 inches does sound incredible, but they could measure it very 
    easily.  The test missiles don't have warheads on them so when the
    hit the target (usually some stick building or cement bunker) they
    would just leave a big hole.  All they would have to do is measure
    where the hole is and where they intended it to strike... Think of
    it like an arrow.  As for it being propoganda, I can't rule it out,
    but the cruise missles are supposedly accurate to within 5 feet from
    1000 miles.  And from the reports that have been coming in attesting
    to their accuracy, I don't think this is off base.  
    
    	Ain't technology wonderful?
    
    								bill..g.
    

More info from the family in Israel.

Chilling reading for those of us here who haven't had a foreign invader
on our soil for over 200 years....


====================================================== 
(multiple headers deleted)

From:	TAV02::FEINBERG "Don Feinberg ... ISO ... dtn 882-8263  18-Jan-1991 
1058" 18-JAN-1991 04:15:37.23
To:	@[FEINBERG.DLF]UNITY.LIS,@[FEINBERG.DLF]LETTERS.LIS
CC:	FEINBERG
Subj:	Some more news from the "far side"

    17 January, 1991
    10:00 PM, Israel time
    
    Dear Friends,
    
    A great deal has happened since I wrote that letter on Monday!
    
    At first, I was shocked.  I had no  intention  to  forward my note
    around the E-net.  I did not have any intention to put it into any
    notes files, etc.  I had "just" sent it to 18  friends.    But one
    friend  forwarded  it  to a list he maintains, and within about 36
    hours, I estimate that, perhaps, upwards of 50,000 copies may have
    been "out" on the network.

    First, we ("we" are my wife Sharon and I) want to say that we have
    been very, very surprised (and very pleased) at the reactions.  To
    this  hour,  we have received over 60  letters  in  response,  the
    majority  from  people  we never met before, and  never  heard  of
    previously.
    
    All but two of these letters were rather positive in their support
    of us.  Many people showed a great  deal  of  understanding of our
    position and feelings.  Inasmuch as one of our  prime  problems at
    this time has been the "alone-ness" we described, we can  only say
    "thank  you!"  We have heard you, and you have helped us  a  great
    deal.
    
    Today was a rather unusual day.  I will tell  you  a  little about
    it.
    
    First,  you  need  to know that we live in a very small place:   a
    settlment of only 50 families.    We  are rather interdependent on
    one another in daily life.
    
    About 2:45 AM,  the  local Haga (civil defense) person came around
    banging on our door and on the window of our room, hollering at us
    to break out the gas  masks and to turn on the radio.  We received
    a phone call from the wife of our security officer about 3 minutes
    later with the same message.  You  might  think  that we were in a
    slight state of panic!  Well, you'd be right.  We had no idea what
    on  earth  was happening.  We heard IDF planes  at  high  altitude
    overhead,  but  no  local  helicopter gunships or anything of that
    sort.
    
    We  turned on the radio.  We heard only sketchy reports  from  Kol
    Yisrael (the  government  station) that the Americans had begun an
    aerial invasion of  Iraq.    They  had no idea what Iraqi response
    there was or would  be.   We dressed, and opened up the gas masks,
    just to find that the  box  for  my son's was missing the atropine
    injector and the mustard gas powder.   So, at 3:30 in the morning,
    we sent our daughter running around the  settlement  to chase down
    the missing pieces...
    
    Israel TV  came  on  the  air about 3:30 with civil defense, etc.,
    information.  They  also carried sections of the CNN coverage from
    Baghdad.  Surprisingly, Jordanian TV and radio weren't on the air.
    ITV did carry President Bush's speech at 4:00.

    What  a  feeling it was to open up the boxes  which  were  labeled
    "only  open  on explicit orders of the civil defense authorities"!
    It was spooky enough learning to use them with demonstration units
    a couple of  months  ago.    To  break out your very own gas mask,
    under  "real"  conditions,  to  try  it  on  and  make  sure  that
    everything was "OK" was a different kind of experience.
    
    I was called out to do guard duty for some time in a sector of the
    settlement.   They had turned off a number of  the  main  security
    lights  so  the  settlement  would  not be outlined from the  air.
    Walking around  in  this semi-darkness (and a little cloudy/rainy)
    was also spooky,  mostly  because of the quiet.  The only things I
    could hear were the  continuing IDF overflights every few minutes,
    at very high altitude, and  a few people in their houses trying on
    gas masks, etc.  There was no traffic on our access road, no jeeps
    coming or going.  Just stillness, and  yet  all  this  talk on the
    radio.
    
    Eventually, by about 6:15AM we began to  get  some  reports of the
    size and success of the initial attack on  Iraq.   As the news got
    more  and  more  encouraging,  we finally began to breathe  again,
    really for the first time in a few days.
    
    The situation quickly turned into what  it has remained since:  we
    still have the gas masks broken out.    We were asked to remain in
    our  houses  (except people involved in "essential services"  -  I
    guess that leaves us DECies out!) and sit by  the  radio.   That's
    where it is now:  it remains an uneasy quiet.  People seem to feel
    that  things  were  "too  easy"  -- they don't trust it;   perhaps
    Saddam  has something saved up for us.  The defense ministry seems
    to agree, because even as late as an hour ago they were continuing
    to ask people to stay at home, and to keep the gas masks handy.
    
    18 January, 1990
    9:00 AM

    Much has changed  since  we  wrote the first part of this note.  I
    will keep this very  short.   Sorry, also I'm changing here to the
    first person.
    
    After I wrote the above -- before I could finish it and connect to
    Digital to send it -- I had guard duty on our yishuv from midnight
    to  3:00AM.   Things were extremely quiet.  I kept in contact with
    the military  commander  of  the region, by radio, and also left a
    radio "on," listening  to  Kol  Yisrael  for  any  possible  civil
    defense warnings.
    
    Then, at 2:05AM, I  heard  a  siren  scream, on the radio, with no
    other announcement.  This is  a  pre-arranged  signal  to soldiers
    that an attack against Israel is underway.  I (yeah, even me --  I
    think I must have set the Olympic  record  for  400 meters) ran to
    notify our security officer, and then went down to set off the air
    raid sirens for the yishuv.
    
    By this time, I heard that there was an air raid already in effect
    in  Jerusalem,  and that there was "100%" confirmation of incoming
    missiles. But no more than that.
    
    I ran home to wake my wife  and  children.    On the way -- all of
    about 300 meters, I saw an enormous flash which lit up the sky, to
    the south of us, and I heard a sound  like  a  16"  naval gun at a
    distance  of kilometer(s).  I guess this was one of  the  missiles
    which "missed," and hit the ground doing no damage.

    We grabbed our gas masks and our prepared supplies, and ran to the
    house in which we had a "prepared room", in that  our little shack
    cannot  be  sealed  adequately against gas.  We "holed up" in  the
    prepared  room  by  about  2:30AM,  put  on our gas masks, sat and
    waited, listening to the radio for directions.
    
    It's a very eerie thing to put a gas mask on for rehearsal.   It's
    even wierder  to  open  the  box,  as I described above.  But much
    worse to actually  put  the  thing  on,  and  to  put them on your
    children, when you know that there's an actual attack in progress.
    
    We heard what sounded  like  many  more  explosions.  I don't know
    precisely, but I assume that  these  were  sonic  "booms" from IDF
    aircraft.
    
    By 4:30, they allowed us to take off the gas masks.   I guess that
    they  had determined that no more missiles were incoming, but they
    still didn't  have  any  official  knowledge whether the missiles'
    warheads were explosive  or  chemical,  so we had to remain in the
    prepared room.  It  took  until  about  5:30-6:00  until the civil
    defense indicated that we could  leave  the  rooms.    But we were
    still (as now) required to stay indoors, except for people working
    in "essential services."
    
    Results, as we know them:  All the missles were with "conventional
    warhead." Two  missles  "hit"  in  the  residential  area of south
    Tel-Aviv.  One  destroyed  a  residential  building, but it was in
    very poor condition anyway  and had very few occupants.  There are
    about 12 or 13 wounded  there,  none  killed.  Two missiles missed
    Tel-Aviv altogether, and landed just west,  off  the coast, in the
    sea.   Two missled landed near Rehovot,  south  of  Tel-Aviv,  and
    exploded in the sand dunes near the beach.   Two missles destroyed
    a factory in Haifa.  Thank G-d there was  no  one working there at
    the time.  That's eight.  We hear that there  were  11 to 13 which
    actually  "made  it"  through.  I assume the "9th" was the  one  I
    heard  south of us, and I cannot account for another 3 to  4.    I
    have heard nothing on the news about these 3 or 4 missiles.

    And now,  we wait.  The thousand "what if's" are opening up again.
    What if we return Saddam's favor, and the Syrians do, indeed, make
    good on their threat?    Or  the  Jordanians?  Thank G-d that last
    night the Americans, the Brits,  and  the French all annouced that
    "Israel does have the right to  defend itself." I guess I'm "glad"
    for their permission, both in sarcastic and non-sarcastic senses.
    
    The Army chief of staff was on the  radio  at 8:00.  He said quite
    plainly  and  clearly  that  (my  translation...) "Israel does not
    allow  experiences  like this to pass without answer..." So, we're
    expecting  at  least one more experience in the prepared room with
    the gas masks.
    
    The IDF planes  are  continuing to patrol continuously.  And we're
    getting ready for the Sabbath.
    
    There is a great deal more that we want to  say.    Several people
    asked  us  some  very real, probing, and thoughful questions which
    deserve real  answers.  We will try to answer you, in the next few
    hours / days as the situation allows.

    So, more as we're able.
    
    Sharon and Don Feinberg

    An unanswered question ..
    
    1) What happens now to the half dozen or so American hostages somewhere
       in Lebanon ???   Will they be killed outright or will Iran or Syria
       hold the captors at bay somehow ???
    
    And a wild speculative "what if" ...
    
    2) What if the Russians were mobilized ???   Would Hussein hold out
       against two superpowers ???
    
    Isn't it amazing that you can even raise *that* question in the first
    place ???
    
    Bob Hunt
    

Just a suggestion to all my "electronic" friends.

It's the weekend.  Please, try and get a breath of fresh air,
get outside, see the sky, watch the birds, enjoy your children.
Take your mind off the Gulf for a while.  Recharge your mental
batteries....

Me?  Well, I got lucky.  I got a FREE ticket to the ZZ Top concert
tonight in the Hartford Civic Center....  Where?  In the Sky Boxes...
So, the only thing on my mind tonight will be:

		"My Head's in Mississippi"
		"Double Back"
		"Concrete and Steel"
		"La Grange"

and myriad others...

Have a *good* weekend folks,
'Saw

>    
>    2) What if the Russians were mobilized ???   Would Hussein hold out
>       against two superpowers ???
>    
>    Isn't it amazing that you can even raise *that* question in the first
>    place ???

Imagine what it would feel like for my friend over there.  For three
years, he sat in his tank on the East German border, looking at 
"Ivan" through his sights.

In a phone call just before he shipped out, I asked him what he thought
about that very possibility.  He said it would be very strange...very
strange indeed...

'Saw    

>Chilling reading for those of us here who haven't had a foreign invader
>on our soil for over 200 years....
    
    During the war of 1812, Washington DC and Buffalo, NY were burned by
    the British (~180 years).  Also, the Mexicans occupied parts of Texas
    during the Mexican War (1846).
    
    

>    I heard on the news that Israel has the Patriot weapons system.  Why
>    wasn't it used during last night's attack?
    
    I either heard it on the tube or in here that they don't trust it.
    
    Mike

    I believe that I heard this on CNN last night, but it could have
    been a number of places.
    
    We only sold the first Patriot missiles to Israel in the last couple
    of weeks - may be just this week.  It takes some time to set them
    up, and the Israelis hadn't had a chance to do that before last
    night's attack.  They are working on it, however, and refuse to
    say (wisely) when they will be operational.
    
    A&W

>    My brother's an Air Force pilot in training out your way in Phoenix,
>    Mike.  It looks like he'll miss all this by a few months, which I feel
>    good about, but knowing him, he probably doesn't.  I haven't been able 
    
    Is he at Luke AFB or Williams AFB?  They're a "macho" breed aren't
    they? ;-)
    
    Mike

>>    I heard on the news that Israel has the Patriot weapons system.  Why
>>    wasn't it used during last night's attack?
    
>    I either heard it on the tube or in here that they don't trust it.
    
    I am not a military analyst type, but  I heard that another reason was
    that they don't have enough Patriots to defend their whole border. 
    Apparently the Patriot has a small window that it can defend. (I guess
    that's small window was about the size of the US base it defended
    yesterday)

    Well, folks, I'm outa here.  Let's all share in one wish.  Whether you
    are for or against our actions in the Middle East, let us all
    hope that when we are again together on Monday that:
    
    	- this conflict is over with few lives lost
    	- Frank has had a good time at the concert
    	- I don't break my face in my "touch" football game tomorrow
    
    OK, so that was three wishes.  You know which one is most important.
    
    	--dan'l

>    From experience the F-15 Eagle is simply the best fighter aircraft on
>    the face of the earth.  Also, you might note, in the Syria vs Israel
>    war the F-15 had a 8 to 1 shoot down ratio to its Soviet made MIG
>    counterpart.
    
    Not that I doubt you, but I bet there are a few USSR pilots that could
    go a long way in evening up that ratio.  You can have the best hardware
    in the world, but someone still has to fly it.
    
    Iraqi radio reports that Bush has deceived the American people and that
    Iraqi revenge will result in rivers of American blood.
    
    Hussein has supposedly moved his family to a West African country.
    He is also reported to be hiding in a Baghdad bunker.
    
    Israel prime minister declared after Bush's conference that they will
    retaliate.
    
    Some analysts wonder if Iraq's lack of defense is due to Hussein having
    a "nuclear ace up his sleeve".  I hope not, and I also doubt it.
    
    Mike

    > Is he at Luke AFB or Williams AFB?  They're a "macho" breed aren't
    > they? ;-)
    
    He lives in Mesa; pretty sure it's Williams on that side (I have a bad
    memory for these things).  Yeah, I've always considered my bro to be
    the macho type, but he says even he can't handle the egos on some of
    these guys, so I guess he's still got some perspective... ;-)
    
    glenn
     

    In case you haven't heard, the Pentagon held another press conference
    about an hour ago.  They still say everything is going as planned.
    
    DEC stock had another good day:  up 1 5/8 to 63 1/8.  DJIA was up
    23.52.
    
    Mike

         <<< HPSCAD::CARLSBERG:[NOTES$LIBRARY]ISRAEL_GULFWAR.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Information and Communications on Israel >-
================================================================================
Note 1.0                          Introduction                        No replies
HPSCAD::MAYER "Tomorrow's Software by Yesterday"     19 lines  18-JAN-1991 14:37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	This NOTES Conference is intended as a General Information and
  Communication Conduit with and on Israel during the Gulf War.  A large
  number of Mail messages have been flying around the Enet in the past few
  days and I thought I should centralize the information we are receiving as
  well as allowing a place to communicate with Israel.  Since the BAGELS
  Noteconference is in Tel Aviv I thought it better to set up a Conference
  in the US.  I suspect the TAVENG node is unattended right now.  I will be
  posting this note in the BAGELS Notesfile to point here.

	Please try and avoid rumors as far as possible, though I recognise that
  it be impossible to totally eliminate that.

	UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD ANYTHING THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED A
  MILITARY SECRET EITHER BY ISRAEL, THE US OR ITS ALLIES BE POSTED HERE.
  The Enet is an open network and such information leakage can be devastating.
  I will moderate this notesfile and invite Israelis in Israel to also do so.


		Danny

    Everyone has freedom of speech and everyone has there rights...Just
    as protestors of america have to right to protest we reel americans
    have the right to continue with our lives and our freedoms....Why
    should my travel route to work or other places be disrupted why should
    my ability to enter a federal building be blocked ....
    
    PROTESTERS ARE USING FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO TAKE MY AND MANY OTHER
    AMERICANS RIGHTS AWAY...America love it or leave it......Our senators
    congressmen and our president voted to go to war.  These are the people
    we the majority put in office and there decisions represent the
    majority of the public.  If you want to protest go ahead but Ill say
    one thing if I saw someone burning the AMERICAN FLAG in front of my
    eyes Ill no doubt be in jail the following morning AND THATS MY RIGHT.
    
    ALthough I admit there have been some "Peace Demonstrations" that were
    peacefull and withing their legal limits.  But the poeple who block
    roads or buildings AND BURN the american flags in my OPINION are guilty
    of treason against OUR COUNTRY....Just think what would happen to a
    person if they burnt the IRAQ FLAG IN DOWNTOWN Bagdad...This country is
    geting to leanient with other countries and the people in ours....
    
    Everyone is entitled to their rights but they shouldnt have the right to
    take away others rights.
    						Love_IT_or_Leave_IT_USA

 Outstanding note, Hawk ..
        
    � I've grown increasingly skeptical of this whole event, and very
    � suspicious of "Washington".  
    
 I have been for a while.  I'm sure a lot of people are.
    
    � I feel there's been a *lot* of propaganda dished out to the American
    � public so skillfully that we're eating it all up in favor of this war. 
    � Americans are eating it up so fast and so furiously that ...
    
 And I just hit my personal breaking point when Dan Rather said ...
    
    	"Welcome to the SHOWDOWN IN THE GULF HALFTIME UPDATE" 
    
 during intermission of the Niners-Giants game.   Geez, I was half
 expecting the Energizer Bunny to come walking across the screen or for
 Danny Golden Boy to say "... brought to you by Bud Bowl III".  The media
 is bitching big time about the military censorship but what little
 sanitized data they do get out of the Pentagon is oh-so carefully packaged
 and oh-so softly spoon fed to such a gullible flock of doltish lambs.   
 
 It has become the football equivalent of a "Hi, Mom!" War.   But we don't
 get to see the actual "game" itself.  Oh, no, that would mean we could
 criticize it too much or we could become too sickened by the horror.   No,
 what we get instead is a steady diet of away-from-the-"playing"-field
 sideline camera shots of exhausted but happy-they're-alive pilots who are
 allowed to say "Hi, Mom!" and nothing else.  
 
 Meanwhile, back upstairs in the "broadcast booth", we've got umpty-ump
 armchair "John Madden" broadcasting shills just itching to grab a mike to
 tell us what it all means.   And for good measure, we also get some
 "instant replay" highlight film shots of only the spectacular
 "touchdowns".   We don't get any of the "plays" that didn't work.    Geez,
 I half expect that Len Dawson and Nick Buonoconti will host "This Week In
 The Persian Gulf On HBO" on Wednesday night.    Disgusting.  
 
 How many of us would settle for a TV broadcast of next weekend's Super
 Bowl that showed no live action plays whatsoever, that showed only
 sideline camera shots of players who yell "We're No. 1", and that showed
 only instant replays over and over again of just the scoring plays ???  
 Not many would like it very much, I dare say.   Yet, that is *EXACTLY*
 what we're swallowing so willingly in this "Super Bowl" and, believe me,
 the Pentagon and the Bush Administration are loving it.
    
   � And speaking of anti-war protests and demonstrations, I'm really
   � shocked at the completely negative reaction towards them.  Again, I
   � feel that gov't propaganda has skillfully and successfully fueled this 
   � sentiment.  They've got us believing that by protesting the war, we're
   � not showing support for our troops.  BS.  You won't find a single
   � protestor who wouldn't want every single soldier to come back unharmed. 
   � We're not demonstrating against our troops, we're demonstrating against
   � this war.  But the American public only sees this one way, the bad way,
   � as fed to them by our gov't. who wants us to forget that it's our
   � basic right guaranteed by our Constitution.  Freedom of Speech, right
   � President Bush?  Right America?
    
 You have hit upon a crucial point here, Hawk.  When Bush said "This will
 not be another Vietnam", no one realized he meant the home front, too.  
 Many of the old-timers in government still blame the so-called "liberal
 press" for losing that conflict when, in fact, it was lost before it ever
 began.
    
 If there is one thing I wish all Americans would learn right *NOW*
 forevermore is that support for the troops is different than support for
 the government.   Read that over again ...  It is one thing to support the
 men and women on the front lines and quite entirely another to support the
 government that placed them there.    Many people confuse the two and
 claim that we should be "100% united behind our country" or else we'll
 "lose".    It just isn't true.  It just isn't true.
 
 I fully support our front-line troops.  I don't want to see a single one
 of them harmed in any way, shape or form and I want them all home
 immediately.   I will yell, clap, cheer, cry and buy them all beers
 whenever they get here.  I will forever stand in awe of their courage and
 dedication in such a terrible event.    No, this will not be another
 Vietnam in that the troops should be welcomed back joyously and with wide
 open arms, mine among them.  I'll wave the flag, wear yellow ribbons, and
 line the streets with banners and bunting when they walk down Main Street,
 USA.
    
 But I contempuously and bitterly reject and condemn the government
 officials who placed them there.   It was a horrible decision; one of the
 worst of the century.   It showed no understanding of the political
 situation and the people of the Middle East.   As each day goes by, it
 seems more and more like it's a business decision; literally, a federal 
 bookkeeping "inventory turn" dumping of a few trillion dollars worth of
 hardware.   A bloody justification of a decade of almost pornographic
 military spending and the setting of a new post-war stage whereby the
 "economy" can get back to normal with fresh new rounds of military
 spending orgies to replace everything we're dropping over there now.
    
 I look in the mirror and I see an America that can turn out such wonderful
 and courageous troops and I feel immensely proud of that.  But that same
 mirror shows that we can turn out misguided "leaders" who can and will
 send these brave people to their deaths.   That makes me so profoundly
 sad.   Only the good die young ...
    
   � There was talk this morning about how our ground forces will come into
   � play very soon.  Once the transport planes start coming home filled
   � with aluminum caskets draped with American flags, which could very well
   � happen in a few days, I think more of the American public will realize 
   � the reality and worth of this whole event.
    
 Unfortunately, Hawk, they won't.  I read in this morning's paper that the
 media-sensitive military propaganda machine in the Pentagon has ruled that
 the caskets that arrive at Dover AFB in Delaware will be flag-draped but
 will *NOT* be greeted with full military honors.   That is, of course, so
 that the lambs will be spared any teary-eyed coverage of those arrivals on
 the Six O'Clock News.   Bastards.
    
   � I'm really very saddened by not just this war, but by America itself. 
   � We've got some serious problems right here on our own soil.  Forget the
   � Middle East, let's straighten ourselves out now.  
    
 Coretta Scott King said the very same thing just yerterday.  What about
 AIDS, what about the homeless, what about the fact that 12 million people
 can not find work, what about the "war on drugs" ???
    
   � Peace now.                         
    
 Amen.   And don't anybody tell me to love it or leave it.   I love the
 people of the United States Of America.  I love our fighting men and
 women.  But I despise the government that is now so callously feeding them
 to the Grim Reaper and I don't understand why it is so unbelievably
 difficult for the American people to see the stark difference between the
 two feelings.   This is supposed to be a "government of the people, by the
 people, and for the people".     To me, the government fails on all three
 counts.
 
 Yeah, I admit to being excited by the technology.   But I eventually quit
 feeding quarters to "Space Invaders" a long time ago and had to grow up. 
 Same lesson applies here, America.   Stop the killing now.
 
 Bob Hunt

 >>  This is supposed to be a "government of the people, by the people,
 >>  and for the people".     To me, the government fails on all three
 >>  counts. 
    
    
    Bob,
    
    Correct me if I'm wrong.....but I thought that you and I voted for
    these Congressmen.  Are you suggesting that they did not accurately
    reflect majority public opinion when they voted to support the use of
    force in the Gulf???      
    
    
 >> What about AIDS, what about the homeless, what about the fact that 12
 >> million people can not find work, what about the "war on drugs" ???        
    
    I do not believe that we are in an "either/or" situation.  The issues
    you raised are critical and must be addressed by Goverment, but I have
    faith in our collective ability to walk and chew gum  (ie address our
    internal problems as well as play our part in international affairs)
    
    
 >> Peace now
    
    Who can argue with that???   But if we do not resolve the current Gulf
    crisis (and I include the Palestinian issue as part of the overall
    Middle East crisis), I believe we will be criticised by future
    generations for not acting responsibly.
    
                                                  I believe the current
    situation (regardless of the rights and wrongs of how we arrived at the
    the current situation) gives the United Nations the opportunity to
    impose its authority.  As the world becomes increasingly dependent on
    other nations and as technology narrows the gaps between nations, I
    believe it is critical that there is an international authority that
    has some power to determine and uphold international law.  Perhaps Iraq
    is a test case, perhaps it won't be the glorious success that every
    hopes it will be, but if it results in the establishment of an
    international body that has true authority, then the world will become
    a better place.
    
    Imagine the UN deciding that Russian troops must leave Lithuania,
    imagine the UN forcing Israel to accept a conference on the Palestinian
    issue, imagine Iraq being forced out of Kuwait by a UN resolution
    rather than by force.  Why have none of the above happened???  In part
    because the UN has no teeth.  I believe that the world is changing...it
    is becoming far more globally interdependent  (yes, I was a policy sci/
    government major at college).   In such a world, we need to establish a
    strong international body that can uphold law and order.  If not, the
    Saddam Hussein's of this world will continue unchecked and one day,
    when you are sitting quietly in your homes in the good old safe USA, it
    will be you rushing to the sealed rooms with your gas masks hoping the
    incoming SCUD missiles don't land on your home.
    
    
    PJ 

    Anyone see 60 Minutes?  Chilling.

    
     I caught that last night. The first guy seemed hard to believe
    in some things he said but the arms dealer and the bit about the
    organized terrorism made my flesh crawl.
    
    
    
    Steve

    Some very disturbing comments in this notes file Just Curious if the
    people in here who dont think we should have gone to war thinks that
    we should have let HITLER take over europe ?  What do you people think
    saddam will stop at, hes already attempted Iran, now Kuwait and even
    Isreal....If the country was in your hands wed wait untill Saddam
    controlled 100% of the arab countries...Makes real sense.  We did what
    had to be done......IT WAS AN AMERICANS PEOPLE DECISION not the
    goverment.  It was a GOVERMENT decision in Iraq and I hope for the
    sake of argument you can understand the differense, we dont have a
    dictator in USA we have a very controlled goverment put  into place
    by US.  And me as an american will support ther decisions and voice
    them untill the protestors have the rights to cut out my tounge....
    
    And with the rights they have now (burning the amreican flag) that
    will proberbly be allowed in a few months...Some people make me 
    extremly Ill.....Burning the american flag is not a protest against
    the goverment its a protest against every and any individual who has
    ever faught or lost there live for there country.  If you oppose the
    decisions of this goverment you should look back in time and think
    were america would be today with thinking like that......Hopefully
    this country will get behind ther men and leaders and prevent this
    from being another Viet-Nam, but knowing the mentality of a small %
    of this country there will still be resemblience.
    					End_it_quick_but_Do_whats_Needed
    							American

    Well, Hawk, for one who's all for freedom of speech, you pretty much
    contradict yourself by asking that this topic be write-locked.  ;-)
    
    I also agree with an earlier reply that protestors blocking main travel
    arteries, buildings, etc. are making a mistake.  It is my belief that
    they'd be much more effective holding peace vigils such as those at
    Boston's City Hall Plaza.  Their current tactics are met with a great
    deal of anger by the majority of Americans.
    
    There was a time when I was also against this war.  I think Bush's
    biggest mistake was commiting himself to the use of offensive force 
    in November.  But now that it's happened, let's not screw around.  Keep 
    on with the pounding of Baghdad and *hopefully* the citizens will revolt, 
    but of course, this is unlikely.  You wanna talk propaganda, look at
    the filth these terrorists are spewing. 
    
    My cousin is in the 82nd Airborne, so these are not careless thoughts
    on my part.  He's 32 and has four children.  He spent the Christmas of 
    89 in Panama, and he's been in Saudi Arabia since August.  He cannot say 
    where he is now, but in a letter my aunt and uncle received Saturday, he 
    said his latest training exercise required three jumps in one night, 
    moving further north with each one.  This is most likely the pattern 
    that'll be used until they make their last jump behind enemy lines.  
    
    One candle has been burning in our window since this whole mess started.  
    
    
    					Steve

    
    I think the comments on the lack of information forthcoming from the
    Pentagon in light of the spectacular films that they do come up with 
    are valid, but not those concerning the protest demonstrations.  I 
    think the President and the government have purposely stayed away 
    from criticism of protesters, a lesson learned from the Nixon 
    administration.  At least I haven't heard any...
    
    glenn
    

 Well Hawk and Bob all's that's left to be said after those excellent essays
 on econmics 101 and human decency 101 etc is:

	ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!!!!!!!
	ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!!!!!!!
	ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!!!!!!!
	ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!!!!!!!
	ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!!!!!!!
	ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!!!!!!!
	ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!!!!!!!
	ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!!!!!!!
	ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!!!!!!!
	ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!!!!!!!
	ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!!!!!!!
	ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!!!!!!!
	ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!!!!!!!
	ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!!!!!!!
	ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!!!!!!!
	ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!!!!!!!
	ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!!!!!!!

 MIKE

>America love it or leave it......
    
    That's really scary, Mike.  I'm sorry you feel that way.  I'll just
    pack my bags and my copy of "Born on the 4th of July" and get out right
    now so that you can be more comfortable.
    
>    There was a time when I was also against this war.  I think Bush's
>    biggest mistake was commiting himself to the use of offensive force 
>    in November.  But now that it's happened, let's not screw around.  Keep 
>    on with the pounding of Baghdad and *hopefully* the citizens will revolt, 
>    but of course, this is unlikely.  
    
    Just as Bob Hunt says, the gullible public is eating up the government
    BS to make everyone get behind President Gas.  When the body bags start
    coming back in record numbers, will you change your mind again? 
    Probably not because we won't see or hear "confirmed reports" of the
    negative side of all this.
    
    	--dan'l

    
    I question those who say the coverage is one-sided to explain how the 
    heck we're supposed to get the "other side of the story"?  Hussein 
    has thrown the journalists out of Bahgdad..  Plus during the initial
    air raids when reporters were still in Bahgdad, I strongly hope the 
    majority of cameramen/reporters were in shelters!  
    
    You want true propaganda, look no further than Hussein.  How can he 
    expect his people to believe that they are winning the war when they 
    see the destruction around the city?    
    
    The comments about a stronger UN presence were interesting..  however,
    I never heard this mentioned as a reason for going to war (nor is it a 
    good enough reason).   It could be an important secondary outcome
    however, as more and more 3rd world countries develop nuclear/chemical/
    biologicals weapons in the future.  
    
    /Jeff

  �  Correct me if I'm wrong.....but I thought that you and I voted for
  �  these Congressmen.  Are you suggesting that they did not accurately
  �  reflect majority public opinion when they voted to support the use of
  �  force in the Gulf???      
   
 And just how did this magical, mystical "majority public opinion" come
 into play in the first place ???   You don't suppose the American people
 were bathed with wave after wave of government propaganda suggesting ever
 so slightly what their "opinion" on this matter ought to be, do you ???  
 Nah ...   In my opinion, there hasn't been such a blatant disregard and
 lack of respect for the people's intelligence since, yes, the Nazi regime.
    
 And, as far as Congress is concerned, don't forget that Generalissimo Bush
 was ready to pull the trigger without even consulting them in the first
 place in clear violation of the War Powers Act.   It was only after they
 jumped up and said "Me, too!  Me, too!" did he bother to ram through some
 idiot piece of legislation "authorizing" him to "wait no longer".
    
  �  I do not believe that we are in an "either/or" situation.  The issues
  �  you raised are critical and must be addressed by Goverment, but I have
  �  faith in our collective ability to walk and chew gum  (ie address our
  �  internal problems as well as play our part in international affairs)
   
 What did the government do last week about any of these issues ???  
 Nothing.  Nada.  Zip. Zilch.  So much for walking and chewing gum at the
 same time.
    
    � But if we do not resolve the current Gulf crisis (and I include the
    � Palestinian issue as part of the overall Middle East crisis), I believe
    � we will be criticised by future generations for not acting responsibly.
   
 Are you suggesting that we're resolving it now ???   This way ???   Oh,
 I'm sure we're getting heaps of praise for our "responsible" actions now.  
 Yep, we sure are responsible all right.
     
    � If not, the Saddam Hussein's of this world will continue unchecked
    � and one day, when you are sitting quietly in your homes in the good old
    � safe USA, it will be you rushing to the sealed rooms with your gas
    � masks hoping the incoming SCUD missiles don't land on your home.
    
 George Bush is ten times the threat to me and my family that Saddam
 Hussein is.   He's already caused more grief and heartache in this country
 than a dozen Saddam Husseins ever will.
    
 But WE THE PEOPLE do have at least one ace left in our back pockets.   We
 can vote him out of there in 1992.    This is twice in a little over a
 year that Bush has pulled the trigger.  I don't need any more evidence to
 convince me that he uses a hopelessly misguided NRA mentality applied to
 international politics.
 
 Stop it now.  Hussein has won.   He has POWs and he'll parade them in the
 streets or lay them down in front of our targets and dare us to kill them
 first to get at him.   This man was repeatedly criticized by the UN and
 the Red Cross for his treatment of Iranian prisoners.   He's got far more
 valuable trophies this time.   End it now before it goes any further.  
 I'm perfectly willing to pay $3.00 a gallon for unleaded.
 
 Bob Hunt

    >Just as Bob Hunt says, the gullible public is eating up the government
    >BS to make everyone get behind President Gas.  When the body bags start
    >coming back in record numbers, will you change your mind again? 
    >Probably not because we won't see or hear "confirmed reports" of the
    >negative side of all this.
    
    First off, I'm not gullible to the government BS.  Why is there a
    building in Riyahd torn apart along with a crater like depression in the
    earth if no SCUDs ever reached their destination as they've said.  Why
    did the original statements from the Pentagon about MIAs not coincide
    with the number of our aircraft supposedly shot down?  I am not a fool.
    
    And no, I will not change my opinion once the body bags start arriving.  
    Wether they will be in record numbers is your opinion only, and could be 
    considered a message coming from the propagandists of the war's opponents.
    
    I DO believe that once this war ends, the absolute truth will emerge 
    in regard to the number of casualties.  
    
    For now, the commitment has been made and there is no pulling back. 
    
    					Steve

 
> Stop it now.  Hussein has won.   He has POWs and he'll parade them in the
> streets or lay them down in front of our targets and dare us to kill them
> first to get at him.   This man was repeatedly criticized by the UN and
> the Red Cross for his treatment of Iranian prisoners.   He's got far more
> valuable trophies this time.   End it now before it goes any further. 
    
    Now I think you realiza what type of person you are dealing with, and
    why he has to be defeated, or better yet, killed.  Even Hitler, the
    assh*le that he was, abided by and large with the Geneva Convention.
    TO think that someone who has threatened others with chemical warfare
    should be allowed to survive and keep his spoils is naive at best.
    
    This whole thing reminds me of the speech the leader of Abyssinia made
    when the Italians invaded in 1936 (?).  He told the League of Nations
    (previous UN) that the threat of war is in the air, and that today it
    was his country and unless this threat is eliminated tomorrow it is
    yours.  Guess what happened three years later......
    
    John "D Cowboys" R.

Wow, what a bunch of replies:

Personally, I guess I'm kind of in the middle of the road on a lot
of this.  I don't have an "America, Love it or Leave It" attitude, nor
do I see flag burning as wrong.   American men and women have died
to protect the very right that allows anyone in this country to speak
their mind freely, without fear of reprisal, and to protest in any
way they chose so long as they aren't breaking the law.  That our
people can go out in the street and protest for peace speaks of the
beauty of our system.  That a person can burn the flag speaks of the
beauty of our system.

Nor am I out in the streets with a Peace Now sign.  I feel that Saddam
Hussein, while maybe not Hitler, is an affront to all that is human
and decent.  He hasn't won, and I don't think that one of those POWs
would want America to quit what it started just because they've been
captured.

I don't believe in war, but neither do I believe in total isolationism.
We tried that once, and it didn't work.


What I do believe in is our service men and women.  And I believe in
supporting them.  And while protesting for peace may not be a direct
admonishment of them, it sure doesn't send them a message of support.

There were two addresses in yesterday's paper, to write "To any serviceman".
I'd urge all of you, whether you support the administration, the war,
or not, to pick up a pen and write someone a letter.  Let them know that
you care, whether you want them there or not.  That would be the most
positive thing any one of us could do.  Because just imagine yourself
over there, and what it would be like if you had no one to write
to you, or no one to write back to.  How would you all have felt if
you couldn't have put your feelings down in writing in here?

I'll try to remember those addresses tomorrow....

Just some opinions,
'Saw


	

    Bob and Dan'l,
    
    Give it up.  Hussien broke international law. period.  He has
    proved through the last five months that he isn't interested in
    correcting his error, he is interested in trying to manuver (worm)
    his way around his deed.  Furthermore, if you review the tapes
    and papers of the last months, you will find the Palastine question
    was linked in a last ditch effort to manipulate the arab people.
    
    This didn't work.  Then he threatened Israel.  This didn't bring the
    arabs together.
    
    He then made this whole take over a PLO interest.  We have 24 nations
    that not only agree that Hussien has done the wrong thing, but have
    helped militarily in some ways.  (If you think the Soviets didn't
    help us through intelligence, you're nuts)
    
    Now Hussien thumbed his nose at the law of the world, committed
    atrocities against an entire country, and threatened to grab 25%
    of the worlds oil supply by force, because he couldn't compete
    with the current market prices.
    
    In addition to that, the protesters that believe a man who committed
    the bulk of his resources to build an offensive (far more than a
    defensive) army is going to be interested in talking.  You guys give
    me the creeps.  
    
    Hussien is a mafia type thug, running a country like he ran his life,
    by force and by intimidation, he has not put Kuwait on the table yet,
    and I believe Bush knew he was never going to give Kuwait its freedom.
    
    The arguement against sanctions is being proven now.  Hussien is
    letting his entire country be decimated instead of pulling out of
    Kuwait.  You think sanctions would have worked to cause more hardship?
    
    At last, your painting Bush as someone more dangerous than Hussien
    is something I take personal offense with, Bush has been on of seven
    countries pounding Iraq, we've lost on confirmed dead, three POW's,
    and the other few might be alive.  This is not Vietnam, this is 
    a result of Hussien NOT GETTING OUT OF KUWAIT.  Thats all he had to
    do to advert this war, he just had to get out.  Bush told him that
    from day one.
    
    One last thing.  In a republic we don't make daily decisions by popular
    vote.  We vote our country management in to direct and set policy.
    (We are, after all, a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY, Political Science 101)
    We the people, set the agenda before an election, so this lack
    of an energy policy is the fault of the voters, not 100% fault of
    the management)
    
    We have the best people leading our country, and looking after our
    resources.  If this war were about oil, and Bush was the person you
    made him out to be, we would have cut a deal with Hussien and played
    down the entire situation.
    	
    You are allowed an opinion, I am allowed to be sickened by it.
    
    Chip_GSH_Bach
    
    P.S.  Do some research, suggest Mien Kaumpt (sp?)
    
    PSS  Please forgive spelling errors, I was in a hurry!

    Bob,
    
    Do you believe the US has a role to play in international politics??
    
    If yes, please define that role.....
    If no, you and I will just have to agree to disagree...
    
    PJ

Chip --

Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hiter.  Tranlsation, "My Struggle".... truly
fascinating reading, from what I've heard.

'Saw

    My disagreement over what's going on over there is based on this:  I
    don't know how much of our reasons for being there are due to stopping
    a madman, or to protect a vital strategic and economic resource, or to
    make George Bush look good.  I'd like to believe it's mostly the first
    but I suspect it's quite a bit of the second and third.
    
    The thing that scares me about this war is that this country no longer
    has the resolve or the will to be patient and see the thing through if
    it's going to take as long to win this as I think it is, and with what
    it's going to cost us.  We have all been brought up on TV, where any
    problem gets solved in an hour and this problem ain't going to be
    solved in an hour and it's going to cost us lives to do it.  Could this
    particular US society have stuck the course to win WWII?  I doubt it
    very much.
    
    The other thing that scares me about the war is the growing budget
    deficit.  This is going to cost our country's economy an awful lot for
    an awfully long time, and coming after the deficits of the eighties
    makes me worry a great deal.
    
    Finally, this country was founded on several principles, one of which
    is free speech.  I believe the protesters have the right to protest, as
    long as they don't interfere with anyone else.  In the current
    patriotic wave, a protester or a flag burner may well find his/her life
    in severe jeopardy.  That would be a shame.
    
    John

 �   We have the best people leading our country, and looking after our
 �   resources.  
 
 And they're doing a marvelous job, too, aren't they ???   Think of the
 Middle East as a giant sink drain and George Bush has just pulled the
 stopper out of it.   Around the bowl, down the hole, roll boys roll.
 
 �   P.S.  Do some research, suggest Mien Kaumpt (sp?)
 
 I have read Mein Kampf many times.   It was the writings of a gassed
 lunatic ranting and raving from inside a prison cell.   The best thing the
 German people could have ever done with Hitler was throw away the key.  
 Instead, they let him out and swallowed his idiotic ideas with gleeful
 abandon.
 
 I've also read Von Clausewitz as should any serious student of military
 history.   Perhaps his most salient point is that there are no morals in
 warfare.  War is nothing more than violent politics.   One side trying to
 force its will on the other side.
 
 It is only through a lifetime of fascinated study of the military science
 that I have formed what you consider my ill-informed and sickening
 opinions.  May I politely and peacefully  suggest that you yourself get a
 bit more up to speed on just what we are doing over there.   That is,
 wasting a national treasure, our youth, for political gain.
 
 Bob Hunt

 �   Do you believe the US has a role to play in international politics??
  
 Of course, all nations have a role.
   
 �   If yes, please define that role.....
 
 Oh, I dunno, I guess we're playing the tough guy COP role right now.   I
 don't remember getting that role appointed to us, however.  Must be
 something we decided to take into our own hands.
 
 The role I'd like to see us play is that of a peaceful, intelligent,
 responsible, safe and contributory member of the global village.   We
 should be an international haven for business, industry, the fine arts,
 academics, medicine, architecture, finance, and natural beauty.   And I
 think we should have awesome babes, too.  :-)
 
 I agree that modern Iraq demonstrates very few of these qualities but I
 don't see where two wrongs make a right, either.
 
 Bob Hunt

    We keep hearing that Saddam is no Hitler, yet noone is actually
    identifying the differences between these two "leaders".  One must not
    forget that Saddam considers Hitler his idol.
    
    John "D Cowboys" R.

    Well, I got throgh .411, and I find it humorous that Dan'l, Mike, Bob,
    and Hawk accuse the 'gullible' public of buying the 'propaganda' of the
    government - yet its obvious they you are all buying the propaganda of
    the anti-war faction.   I wonder how many protesters are simply having
    nostalgic flashbacks to the 1960's.  And as for Hawks' assertions that
    ALL anti-war protesters (or was it Bob?) are supporting the troops,
    that's bunk - what about the signs in San Fran and in Washington that
    say "Iraq will win"????
    
    This war is nothing like Vietnam.  A different set of circumstances. 
    And where were all these peace-living "Give Peace a Chance' folks when
    Iraq gassed the Kurds?  Invaded Kuwait?  When the Russians invaded
    Afganistan??  Or is your committment to peace selective.
    
    I'm not a pro-war person, but I must say the anti-war protesters (AND
    PLEASE NOTE, NOT THE GOVERNMENT, NOR THE MEDIA) have totally turned me
    off to their cause.  Throwing molotav cocktails through recruiting
    station windows (Eugene), blocking freeways, causing an emergency
    patient to die (Seattle), blocking buildings, and generally not
    respecting the rights of others.
    
    The wonderful thing about this nation is that folks can protest -
    without worrying about being run over by tanks or being tortured to
    death.  Something the average Iraqi, Lithiuanian, or Latavian don't
    have the luxury of.
    
    On a ::SPORTS note, I can't see this topic as doing anything but
    creating a soapbox type rathole.  This will be my only comment in this
    note.  
    
    MY flag will fly over my house til thiis is over.  My prayers go to the
    families, friends of the servicemen and women, and to those in uniform.
    They are all volunteers, which makes them, IMO, very special.  I will
    continue to respect all Americans' rights to free speech, I will not
    condone anti-american feelings, or acts of violence, or civil
    disobedience.   The 1960's are over, folks.   Freedom don't come cheap.
    
    JD

>    My disagreement over what's going on over there is based on this:  I
>    don't know how much of our reasons for being there are due to stopping
>    a madman, or to protect a vital strategic and economic resource, or to
>    make George Bush look good.  I'd like to believe it's mostly the first
>    but I suspect it's quite a bit of the second and third.
    
    Excellent point, John.  It's the hypocrisy, once again, that's
    agrivating me.  We ignore Chile's atrosities, we shake China's hand two
    weeks after they roll over their people with tanks, and just this
    weekend we label the soviet crackdown on Latvia "deeply disturbing." 
    Gee, George, what stinging words.
    
    Protesters in San Fran got their hands beaten by police clubs so as to
    break up their human chain around the federal building.  The "Soviet"
    army beat Lithuanians who were forming a human blockade around their TV
    station and ministry building.  Viewed side by side, the similarity
    between the two images (emphasis on the word "images") is chilling.
    
    	--dan'l

    Fellow-noters....
    
    I leave this discussion on the Middle East because it has become a
    soap-box rather than a forum for meaningful dialogue.
    
    I am disapponted because colleagues discuss things in terms of black
    and white, right and wrong when the reality of the situation is GREY.
    
    There are no absolutes, there should be freedom of speech (and of
    flag-burning if that is what you choose to do), but this great country
    of ours functions by a process known as democracy.  That is, you elect
    your leaders in the belief that they will represent you and your needs.
    If they fail to do that, or if you don't like how they choose to govern,
    you let them know at the next election.  
    
    What I find strange and irreconcileable is that people who choose not
    to express themselves at election time feel they have a right to
    condemn or condone governmental policy in mid-term.
    
    If you did'nt vote, shut-up. 
    If you did vote and don't like what's going on, tough sh*t.  They are
    the current, democratically-elected government.  Wait until 1992.
    
    You want to know the biggest crime of our time?????
    It is that less than 50% of the public excercise their right to vote.
    
    I know that this is a long way from the Gulf, but let a democratically-
    elected government do what they believe is best.  By all means let your
    elected official know what you think, protest in the streets, burn
    flags, do what you have to.   But get off your soap-box once in a while
    and listen to what the other guy is saying.  Its just possible that you
    are not in the majority.
    
    with regrets,
    
    PJ

    � ... yet its obvious they you are all buying the propaganda of the
    � anti-war faction.   I wonder how many protesters are simply having
    � nostalgic flashbacks to the 1960's.  And as for Hawks' assertions that
    � ALL anti-war protesters (or was it Bob?) are supporting the troops,
    � that's bunk - what about the signs in San Fran and in Washington that
    � say "Iraq will win"????
    
 C'mon, JD, you know me better than that.  I very rarely ever use words
 like "all", "everybody", or "never".   Far too limiting.  I have not
 bought into the peace demonstrators.  I think they're very wrong if they
 take civil disobedience too far as they appear to have done so in this
 case.
    
 I also find it deliciously ironic that a LOT of the flower power Woodstock
 Haight-Ashbury children of the Sixties are now middle-aged stock brokers,
 lawyers, and business managers and they're full steam ahead on this thing. 
 Amazing ...   Almost as if back then they were singing "Give peace a
 chance ... until we make our first million or gold hits $500 an ounce
 whichever comes first."
    
    � This war is nothing like Vietnam.  A different set of circumstances. 
    
 And so George should not have used it as a comparison piece then.  Yet he
 did use it and I wonder why if not for the propaganda value of asserting
 that this time things'll be different so Go, Team, Go !!!
    
    � I'm not a pro-war person, but I must say the anti-war protesters (AND
    � PLEASE NOTE, NOT THE GOVERNMENT, NOR THE MEDIA) have totally turned me
    � off to their cause.  Throwing molotav cocktails through recruiting
    � station windows (Eugene), blocking freeways, causing an emergency
    � patient to die (Seattle), blocking buildings, and generally not
    � respecting the rights of others.
    
 I agree with you.  Civil disobedience can go too far and apparently has. 
 But I wish people would see them not as "anti-war" but as against the bad
 decision to go to war instead.  Big difference but probably beyond the
 grasp.
    
    � MY flag will fly over my house til thiis is over.  My prayers go to
    � the families, friends of the servicemen and women, and to those in
    � uniform. They are all volunteers, which makes them, IMO, very special.  
    
 Mine flies 24 hours a day along with my yellow ribbon.  Which I'm sure
 must frustrate the pro-war sentiment in here who thinks my ideas are
 disgustingly anti-God, anti-American and anti-war.   They're right on only
 one of those.
 
 Bring them home soon, please.
 
 Bob Hunt

    The protesters from the Vietnam era weren't quite so fervent as some
    would have you believe.  One of them said about the protest days (and
    he's probably not the only one) "It was a great excuse to cut classes,
    listen to some great music, smoke some great dope and get laid."
    
    John

    You cain take these things to the bank:
    
    * Every war produces veterans, who in turn are knee-jerk pro-war
      advocates, who in turn push for still more wars; we're nearing
      a critical mass whereby most adults in the nation will be vets
      and our democratic process will inexorably entail war.  
    
    * Americans basically hate their own Constitution (which is the 
      world's sublime document, IMO).  We saw this self-hatred in .402,
      where physical threats are promised for anyone who dares exercise
      the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech by engaging
      in the wholly symbolic act of burning a flag.  These same people
      maintain a queer, unAmerican, silence when the Constitution is
      substantively violated - as happened with Iran-Contra, for example.
    
      In the most basic sense (pseudo)conservatives are unAmerican and
      hate democracy.  They are in the majority now, a sad circumstance
      that leaves us with the fuzzy-haided thinking that protesting a
      war is mutually-exclusive with supporting our soldiers.
    
    * The arms dealer Sarquiz was operating under the control of the CIA.
      He's now scheduled for a show trial, but cuz the CIA won't release
      his case file the judge is balking.
    
    * This war is a religious war and a race war.  The policy that made it 
      inevitable is anti-oil and unAmerican.  Only 2 years ago we were in
      the Gulf facing down the *other* Muslim power for similar reasons.
      An oil glutton nation would normally review how it could pursue a 
      strategic at such direct expense to its own interests - yet no such
      debate has taken place.
                                      
    * Propaganda at its most insidious is scoring big gains at this time.
      Myths about how Viet Nam was lost cuz one hand was tied behind our
      GIs back is only the juiciest morsel; my personal fave is the one
      about how Saddam refused to negotiate.
    
    Isn't it odd that wherever ruthless dictators we support turn on us 
    they're summarily declared insane?
    
    MrT 

    Re: land forces & troops coming home in body bags
    
    I think we'll be as successful on the ground as we currently are in the
    air.  Sure they may outnumber us, but they've never fought against a 
    legitimate military power.  We won't come at them with a straight line
    of 15 year olds waving sticks, throwing stones and Molotov cocktails.
    
    They're gonna see (arguably) the world's best soldiers, armed with very
    effective weapons, and trained in combat karate.
    
    Some argue that they fight with nothing to lose (not afraid to die).  I
    seriously doubt that.  No matter how crazed you are, everyone gets that
    fear-induced "moment of truth" that will take away that "advantage".
    Especially when they're isolated from their leadership (no radio
    contact) and are running out of food and water.
    
    Mike

    Mike,  I do not think it will be as easy as it you picture it, although
    I do believe that the Allies will defeat Saddam.  He has positioned his
    Rev. Guards behind hios frontline troops therefore not allowing them
    the possibilty of retreat.  This was also done during the Iran-Iraq war
    because he did not trust the average soldier.  If the frontline soldier
    decides to surrender he will be bombarded by the Rev. Guards.
    
    John "D cowboys" R.

�    * Every war produces veterans, who in turn are knee-jerk pro-war
�      advocates, who in turn push for still more wars; we're nearing
�      a critical mass whereby most adults in the nation will be vets
�      and our democratic process will inexorably entail war.  

MrT, 

I hope you're not saying that *all* veterans are knee-jerk pro-war.
I can tell you two who aren't.  I know them personally, and believe
me, they don't even like to talk about the war they were in (WWII), 
nor do they automatically favor dropping bombs on someone.  The experiences
they had shaped their lives no doubt, but the fact they don't like
to talk about them says a lot to me about how "pro-war" they are.
One was a Navy submariner, the other was a Sempre Fi Leatherneck.
They're my dad and my uncle, and both would disagree with your statement
as far as they personally are concerned.


re Mike and fight to the death:

I think it depends upon the culture.  The Japanese were notorious for
not being taken alive.  While the majority of the Iraqi troops are probably
conscripted, and wouldn't feel that way, I'd be the fanatical Republican
Guard could be similar to the Japanese.

Our fighting force is very confident.  Their weapons are good, and they
have trained and trained and trained.  Prior to being shipped over to
the Gulf, my friend had been on constant desert manuevers for 6-8
months, in the area around Fort Bliss.  They were out for three weeks
at a time, in for a couple of days, then back out again.

I just hope all of the training, technology, and confidence means that
there are less of those body bags coming home.  And I pray (yeah folks,
even the heathen 'Saw prays) every night that my friend comes home just the way
he went over there...

'Saw

�We ignore Chile's atrosities, we shake China's hand two
�    weeks after they roll over their people with tanks, and just this
�    weekend we label the soviet crackdown on Latvia "deeply disturbing." 
    
    Yet in none of these instances did the aggressor step outside of
    geographical boundaries to do so.  I'm not supporting these actions,
    just stating that the cases are not as similar as some want to make
    them out to be.

Hawk --

Don't sweat it.  I haven't heard any complaints, and if there are any,
everyone knows they should come through the moderators first.  I mean,
that way we can work it all out, and make sure everyone stays cool....

If anyone has any problems, or feel they've been personally slighted,
insulted, or degraded, please, send mail to the moderators.  That's
one of the reasons why we're here...

Frank

    Intresting news in here, I had not seen on the news that a person died
    in an ambulance due to the road to the hospital being block by
    demonstarators...I guess they had the right to kill that person with 
    there freedom of expression.  This note is becoming a rathole, some
    people believe and love america and what it stands for and others dont.
    Good point a few back about people who vote and people who dont but I
    still believe the majority of the people in this country back our
    governments decisions.  No one wants anyone to die, if this could have
    been settled without going to war then it would have withing 5 months.
    It was quite obvious that it was getting nowhere.  I wonder how people
    would feel if it was our country that was invaded, I guess you would
    say Oh well they only took over texas, newmexaco and california...Lets
    just let them keep it so there wont be any more blood shed...I guess
    its a differnt story when its Just Kuwait huh......
    
    One more thing I also agree with as stated a few back, Id bet that a
    very high % of the protestors are protesting for the wrong reasons.
    (Younger Generation- my parents did it seems cool, older generation
    I missed it in the 60's so lets try it out)
    
    I will continue to support my country and the service men and women who
    ARE FIGHTING FOR OUR COUNTYR/GOVERNMENT.  If you dont want to thats
    your choice.  Weather your for the war or against it I ask too that
    you write to the service men/women and give them some support.  I also
    have the address at home and if the previous noter that mention it
    doesnt post it I will try to post it tomorow.

�  and if he [Bush] hadn't attacked first we probably wouldn't even be
� worrying about  Israeli and Allied casualites. 

For those who haven't been paying attention, Saddam atacked Kuwait
first, occupied it, atrocities were reported and verified, he began to
systematically strip the country of assets, the UN issued joint
Resolutions requiring the IMMEDIATE withdrawal of Iraqi forces from
Kuwait, [THAT was not a negotiable] Saddam switched tactics and started
harping on the Palestinian Issue and Israel in hopes of attracting other
Arabs into supporting his naked aggression against a fellow Arab state.
Other Arabs, with a few notable exceptions haven't bought it and
continue to denounce Saddam.... many even supporting the Israelis right
to retaliation ( a pretty amazing fact). 

I keep seeing so called Peace activists on TV.  I wish they'd give it a
rest. A great many of them look like older versions of the clowns we saw
covered in the news when I was in the Marine Corps during Viet Nam. (I
didn't care much for them then, either). I keep trying to find some
understanding of where they are coming from, but the only things I can
come up with are:

	1) They are cowards
or	2) They are malcontents and just like to demonstrate
or	3) They did it in the sixties and are trying to relive their
		childhoods.
or	4) They are totally self centered and can conceive of nothing in
	  	the world worth fighting for.
or	5) They live in a dream world, and their Alice-in-Wonderland
		idealism has rendered them incapable of dealing with the 
		world in which they live, as opposed to the one in which
		they would like to live.

In all fairness, I suspect that in the majority of cases it is a
combination of the last two, rather than the first three.

    >>Soviet crackdownon Latvia...
    
    >Yet in none of these instances did the aggressor step ouside of
    >geographical boundaries to do so.
    
    Check that.  America has never recognized the Soviet Union's claim
    to the Baltics.  As far as our government is concerned the police
    action in Latvia is that of an occupied nation that was partially
    freed but then reinvaded.
    
    MrT

 Mike we're fighting in their backyard it won't be easy. They know the 
 terrain they have hidden underground fortraces I'm sure. And it's all
 so senseless. An unbelievable and unacceptable way to stimulate the 
 economy as well as control population. 

 PJ, I did vote so please withhold that argument in here as it would appear
 most of us did. The vote in the senate was 53-47 or something like that so
 it wasn't an overwhelming majority that wanted to go to war it was more
 like a lobbying victory for the president who probably bent over backwards
 and picked up the soap to sway a few senators.

 and still throughout it all the bottom line is BUSH PULLED THE TRIGGER,
 Saddam was content to sit in Kuawait and wait. Bush didn't even want to
 negotiate a peaceful solution that why he said no compromise get out or
 else. He held all the aces and still he pulled the trigger. Has Suddam
 moved first I wouldn't have half the problem that I do do now accepting
 this war a neccessary evil to overthrow a supposed madman but George has
 proven time and time again he's every bit the madman Suddam is....

 Guys speculating about USSR involvement, hey I mean if we have to have a war
 then lets have a good one right? Why not let the USSR take Iraq's side and
 really go at it right.~/~	

 mike 

I'm way behind in this note... kinda swamped.
Couple of things:

re: comment from someone about ?[shock/disbelief/censure]? over George
Bush pointing his finger and saying boom during the debriefing in which
the film of Allied targeting accuracy was displayed. 
	I find this a totally understandable gesture from an ex-military
man who happens to be the Commander-in-Chief of the most awesome
military power on the planet earth. They were INCREDIBLE! I let out a
whoop and almost spit out the nails I was eating for breakfast!

Re: Accuracy... etc.

Tomahawks are General Dynamics
Patriots are Martin Marietta

I know folks at both places. Although there have been a few failures
over the years (nothing major from either - Challenger, and the Hubble
messes were attributed elsewhere) there track record is awesome.
Primarily this is attributable to the fact that with each of these
company's efforts in the space program, they have learned to build
things to unbelievably fine tolerances. They have a track record for
building things which MUST work correctly the first time, because they
only have ONE chance to make it work right... ie. satellite launches,
etc.
So far they've shown us nothing but excellence.

Mike JN

>re: comment from someone about ?[shock/disbelief/censure]? over George
>Bush pointing his finger and saying boom during the debriefing in which
>the film of Allied targeting accuracy was displayed. 
>	I find this a totally understandable gesture from an ex-military
>man who happens to be the Commander-in-Chief of the most awesome
>military power on the planet earth. They were INCREDIBLE! I let out a
>whoop and almost spit out the nails I was eating for breakfast!


Actually, I don't see that it's all that different that the Patriot
crews who were high-fiving each other after their missiles intercepted
the SCUDS....  

(I feel like high fiving someone every time my lips intercept beer SUDS,
but that's a different story).

And, then, there's the tension aspect.  People do strange things to
break the tension sometimes.  I remember after one particularly gory
ambulance call I was on, the crew got back to the building, and we
had pizza for lunch.  Needless to say within minutes we were laughing
hysterically about our pizza.   That's not something that seems sane
and rational, but it was very necessary in that instance.  If anyone
had seen us, they would have thought we were terrible, but if we hadn't
done that, I'm sure each of us would have carried that horror around
for a long while....

Just another insight....
'Saw

    Self centered, cowardly malcontents?  Fairness, my butt.

    Conflicting Statments...
    
    Poeple said they would rather pay $3 a gallon of gas then go to war...
    then they say this will hurt our Deficate and well have to pay for it
    later.  What exactly is the difference.  As for the patriot missle, I
    dont care if it cost 10million dollars for each one of these babies,
    I think of how many innocent babies (and men and women) would be killed
    by each scud missle they knock out. (awsome)  Saddam started this war
    not bush some people seem to have that confused. (just a reminder).
    
    An intelligent and sane man would be willing to pull out of kuwait by
    now and by him not doing that should prove who insane and what kind of
    a threat he represents. How this man got control in the first place it
    what concerns me, and after this is over where will the next one come
    out of hidden from. (ayotola, kahdafi, hussein whos next).

    'Saw,
    
    I have already received some "hate mail" from some of the noters in
    here who've taken strong exception with my opinions.
    
    Let me reiterate to all that each and every person in here has the
    absolute freedom to ignore another noter.   Do so if you choose to do
    so.   I take no offense whatsoever from another person's thoughts and
    feelings.  I do not offer an expert analysis nor the final say and I
    condemn no one else's thoughts, feelings, or expressions.
    
    Simply put, I'm just stating my own thoughts ...
    
    I've quoted the Grateful Dead many time before on this ... "Believe if
    if you need it. If you don't, just pass it on."    Loosely translated,
    to me it means that words are just words.   Enjoy them and use them if
    you want to and if you don't, that's fine, too.
    
    Don't let your emotions get the best of you in these terrible times.
    
    Keep the faith ...
    
    Bob Hunt

Well, I've talked with some of the other moderators, and what we'd like
is for two noters to try to work it out between themselves first.  Then
if necessary, come to the moderators.

And remember, everyone is entitled to their opinion.  If you don't like
their opinion, and you can state why, in a respectful, courteous manner,
then do so.  But, don't lower yourself to personal attacks, "hate mail",
and the like.

To use a phrase Mike Childs uses a lot, and which really fits this situation,
just "Agree to disagree"....

JMHO,
'Saw

    I would like to thank the mods for allowing this topic in SPORTS, it
    allows us to offer varying points of view on probably the most
    important event in the last few years.
    
    Secondly, we should respect the writings and opinions of those who
    disagree with our own individual beliefs.  If we do not respect each
    other's opinions then eventually we will lose the priviledge of
    debating this topic.
    
    John "D Cowboys" R. 

>	1) They are cowards
>or	2) They are malcontents and just like to demonstrate
>or	3) They did it in the sixties and are trying to relive their
>		childhoods.
>or	4) They are totally self centered and can conceive of nothing in
>	  	the world worth fighting for.
>or	5) They live in a dream world, and their Alice-in-Wonderland
>		idealism has rendered them incapable of dealing with the 
>		world in which they live, as opposed to the one in which
>		they would like to live.
    
    This is getting interesting now.  My father had another way to describe
    *most* demonstrators of the 60's era.  He said they (esp the
    organizers) had the messiahonic syndrome (I don't think he originated the 
    term).  By that he meant they believed they had the right answer to all
    the problems, if they were in charge this, this and this would happen
    differently, these people had a religious fervor, could NEVER admit to 
    being wrong, spewed their ideas in such volumes that they became
    incoherent (mostly because their egoes like to here themselves talk).
    Basically, these people thought they had an irrefutable message from
    the creator (fill in Messiah).  Right now the message is "Stop the
    war".  Next week it's "Save the Whales" and after that it's "No nukes".
    I feel that the majority of these demonstrators (esp the organizers)
    are contrarians (antiestablishment).  Gee they need some issue to start
    spewing.  The list above, I think, describes these *Messiahs* apostles 
    (esp. 3 & 4).
    
    As for me, I think the war was inevitable.  Bush certainly maneuvered
    in such a way to make it that way.  I also agree with a few replies
    back that the Baltic problems, Tiannemen Square etc are not the same
    because these leaders acted on their own people.  Also, I think we
    should save the whales.  
    
    If I disagree with a politician I don't vote for them.
    If I disagree strongly enough, my representative gets a letter.
    
    Demontrators (for the most part) are clich�.  They're a novelty.  
    
    FWIW, Freedom of speech is sacred.  Your freedom stops where my nose
    begins.

    Re: USSR
    
    It's no secret they're interested in the Middle East because of oil,
    despite being the world's #1 producer of oil.  What many don't know is
    that they also have a LARGE Islamic population.  Because of the
    Palestine question, they would jump at the chance to attack Israel as
    an ally of Iraq.  
    
    Then we would have World War III and a possible Armageddon scenario
    that plays right into what Biblical prophecy has been telling us for
    milleniums.  The results are in there too.
    
    Mike

    
    Am I the only one in here who is going to *wait and see* if my
    government has lied to and misled me?  I disagree with the guy who
    effectively said that it was our job to elect a President every four
    years and then get out of the way, but on the other hand I do see 
    enough merit in our government's policy to trust it, for the time 
    being, to carry it out.  My pre-war position was in support of 
    continuing to let sanctions do the job, no matter how long it took, 
    given the risks involved with war.  (I don't believe a boxed-in 
    Saddam posed as much of a future threat as we were led to believe by 
    the government, in no way was it comparable to Hitler's machine of 
    pre-WWII, but nor do I know if the stand-off would produce any
    resolution to the problems of the region which transcend Saddam's 
    role.)  But, I will confess, if the war produces results, both short- 
    and long-term results in the form of a peaceful settlement like our 
    government suggests that it will, then I do believe war is the right
    abd proper course to take.  
    
    I know this is not very idealistic of me, but then again I've not 
    been able to digest the rhetoric and propoganda that has been passed 
    off as the absolute "right" from *either* side in here today.  As 
    mentioned previously, all is not black and white, and, yes, there 
    are political and economic motives at stake.  Is that reason enough 
    to condemn *any* war?  I think not, as every war I'm familiar with 
    has involved these elements, and I don't believe every war was unjust
    and wrong, even while obviously imperfect.  
    
    As I'm personally unable to sort out all the conflicting points  
    and unwilling to fundamentally rule out war if it involves even so 
    much as the loss of one life, I can only make a judgement based on two 
    yet unanswered questions: 1) Will the price be too high?  2) If no, 
    will the war accomplish anything, i.e. will a positive result for the 
    region and the world come out of it?  For all the posturing, I don't 
    think anyone can answer those questions right now, and I'm not going 
    to pretend to be able to...
    
    glenn
    

    � What many don't know is that they [USSR] also have a LARGE Islamic
    � population.  Because of the Palestine question, they would jump at the
    � chance to attack Israel as an ally of Iraq.  
    
    I was under the impression that most northern white Slavic Russians
    held their southern Islamic countrymen in pretty low esteem.  You can
    read any and all kinds of racist themes into that statement. 
    Consequently, I would find it hard to imagine the Red Army marching to
    save Islam.
    
    It certainly seems clear to me that Gorbachev is much more concerned
    with his disintegrating home front than he is with the Middle East.  
    America hasn't this kind of a free hand in such critical events since
    we were allied with the Soviets against Hitler.
    
    Bob Hunt

    I will make my point very clear.  All you anti-war people, just
    remember one thing, in Iraq if the people where to march and protest
    the war they would be shoot to death.  I respect everybody's opinion on
    this war.  However, I simply feel we as American's take our freedom 
    and rights to lightly.  I also pray for peace, but once in a while I
    thank God that I am fortune enough to be an American.
    
    Greg
    
    

  I'd like to discuss strategies being used in the war by both
sides, and with additional input, try to have a better understanding
of what is happening over there.
  
One question is:
1. I just heard on the radio (CNN) that as soon as the Scud launchers
   turn on their radar, we are able to detect this and move accordingly.  
   What has changed in the last day so that we cannot pick this up, since
   there has been little to no warning?

2. Some observations are that our Intelligence has been off on the suspected
   number of Scuds, both mobile and fixed.  CNN has just stated that we may
   have not knocked out all the fixed lauchers after all.  I believe that the
   Iraquis Army has dug in much more than we could ever imagine, with large
   storage facilities for all of their attack/defense resourses.  


3. Do you think the USA, Soviet Union et al can gewt along economically
   without selling arms to 3rd world/developing countries?

          
      Let's hear some strategy conversations if you like.

           Robbie   
    

    The USA and USSR are the two largest arms selling countries, but here
    are some others that might surprise you:
    
    Israel, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, France, Brazil, South Africa, Belgium,
    India, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Italy, China etc.
    
    These countries would be more than willing to take over for any
    cutbacks by the two superpowers.
    
    HTH,
    
    John "D Cowboys" R.

    >Correct me if I'm wrong.....but I thought that you and I voted for
    >these Congressmen.  Are you suggesting that they did not accurately
    >reflect majority public opinion when they voted to support the use of
    >force in the Gulf???      
    
    The votes of the Senate and Congress were not to declare war despite
    what the resolution said.  Bush was quite willing to go to war without
    the approval of the houses.  The vote was, are you going to stand up
    and be counted as a dissenter, or are you going to jump on the
    popularity bus which Bush handcuffed himself to a long time ago.  The
    American public, saps that we are, were sure to support this war, at
    least in the beginning, and recent polls support that.  Bush's
    popularity rating is back up there despite having pursued disasterous
    domestic and foreign policy issues throughout his tenure.
    
    Most of all, remember the scuttlebutt of nearly a year ago?  Good
    relations with the Russians thanks to Gorby.  Germany whole again. 
    Couscheau (spelled horribly, I know) dead.  The point of all that was
    that the fantastic amounts of money Reagan pumped into the military (to
    financially enrich the people who helped get him elected) and it's
    disasterous effect on the domestic economy was suddenly not needing to
    be sustained.  A Defense Dept. budget of $160b per annum had grown to
    $300b.  And there were mutterings of "Peace Dividend".  
    
    Ha!  As Ike warned as his days as president were waning, there is
    nothing more dangerous in our society than the military industrial
    complex.  A Peace Dividend would come directly out of their pockets and
    possibly be returned to our own.  Less than a year later, the U.S. is
    at war, a serious war for the first time in 15 years.
    
    If you don't think these events are related, consider that Bush is
    where he is today by riding Reagan's coattails, and that he sucked up
    to the MIC with the best of them.  He owed them big time.  It made this
    war, as opposed to a sensible course of sanctions, so much easier to
    make.  If not carefully managed, it can lead to economic ruin (as is
    what LBJ led to by lying about the expense of the Vietnam War), but
    unfortunately this means more taxes, and Bush has already told one
    whopper about those.
    
    Dan

What I heard, re the SCUDS, is this:

	When a SCUD is fired, the firing shows up on recon satellites.
	It give intelligence some idea of where they are being fired
	from.

	When a SCUD comes within range of a Patriot battery, the Patriot
	radar picks it up, and goes after it.

	What has happened in the past couple of days is that much of the
	area is obscured by cloud cover, thus negating a lot of the 
	satellite capability...

I'm not expert, but that's what I've heard.

'Saw

�1. I just heard on the radio (CNN) that as soon as the Scud launchers
�   turn on their radar, we are able to detect this and move accordingly.  
�   What has changed in the last day so that we cannot pick this up, since
�   there has been little to no warning?

 I wouldn't think a SCUD launcher needs much of a radar targeting capacity
 at all.  This is not a guided missile.   That means once it's launched,
 you can't change it at all.   It will follow a ballistic trajectory and
 whatever it hits, it hits.    Similar to trying to hit your wastebasket
 with a rolled-up piece of paper.  You just aim it and shoot it.
    
 What I think we can detect is the launching of the missiles since that
 "motion" and the heat used to create it would almost certainly be visible
 on our radar.    If that's so, we have maybe 10 minutes warning before
 impact.
    
 That's always been one of the beauties of ballistic missiles.   By the
 time it's released, forget it, it's too late to shoot it down.   That's
 why the Patriot system is getting such high praise.   It's got a phased
 array radar that's superior to conventional circular radar systems.   You
 need that to pick the SCUD out of the sky with so little warning.
    
�2. Some observations are that our Intelligence has been off on the suspected
�   number of Scuds, both mobile and fixed.  CNN has just stated that we may
�   have not knocked out all the fixed lauchers after all.  I believe that the
�   Iraquis Army has dug in much more than we could ever imagine, with large
�   storage facilities for all of their attack/defense resourses.  

 I woudn't doubt this for a second.  Iraq has *ALL* the defensive
 advantages here as well as eight years of experience to go along with it.

 Bob Hunt

    >And with the rights they have now (burning the amreican flag) that
    >will proberbly be allowed in a few months...Some people make me 
    >extremly Ill
    
    I've never burned the American flag, never been inclined to, and most
    likely will never burn the American flag.  But it's not because I have
    respect for it as a symbol.
    
    But after reading your notes on the topic I am inclined to symbolically
    burn this symbol right here in front of your face for the distinct
    pleasure of making you extremely ill.  Listen carefully! 
    {Splash, splash} (that's the gasoline being poured) {Ffffft!} (match
    being lit)  {Whoosh!}  Old glory is symbolically up in flames right
    here in CAM::SPORTS_91.
    
    You may now commence with your constitutional right to be extremely
    ill.
    
    Enjoy!
    
    Dan

>One question is:
>1. I just heard on the radio (CNN) that as soon as the Scud launchers
>   turn on their radar, we are able to detect this and move accordingly.  
>   What has changed in the last day so that we cannot pick this up, since
>   there has been little to no warning?


The Scud missiles fly at Mach 10 (correct me if I'm wrong). With the short 
distances they are flying to their targets you don't get much more than 5 
minutes to react and launch the Patriots.

>. Some observations are that our Intelligence has been off on the suspected
>   number of Scuds, both mobile and fixed.  CNN has just stated that we may
>   have not knocked out all the fixed lauchers after all.  I believe that the
>   Iraquis Army has dug in much more than we could ever imagine, with large
>   storage facilities for all of their attack/defense resourses.  


the military likens the search and destroy mission of the mobile SCUD launchers
to this. You know there is a green truck somewhere inside of California and your
job is to try and find it.

It's tough to track a moving target (which is one of the reasons the Pakistani
Muhajin (sp) were so tough for the soviets to find. They used hand launched
SAM's to knock out soviet helicopters and then ran away. Much the same way the
Iraqi's are using the mobile SCUDS.

>3. Do you think the USA, Soviet Union et al can gewt along economically
>   without selling arms to 3rd world/developing countries?

The US and USSR have long used 3rd world countries as proving grounds for their
newest weapons. It was always more of a political decision that an economic one.
However if the US didn't sell the weapons to IRAQ (via arms dealers supported by
the CIA) for fighting the Iranians, then the french or South Africans or some
other country would have.


IMHO Saddam is currently playing the waiting game. He has the majority of his 
troops,planes and artillary in hardened bunkers where the carpet bombing isn't
going to affect them. He will wait for the inevitable ground war then try and
inflict as many casulties as possible on the Allied forces and wait for popular
opinion in the states to force an end to the war. IRAQ experienced 1 Million
(1,000,000) casulties in the Iran-Iraq war with out a popular uprising. Bush was
severly underestimating the iraqi's if he expected them to surrender after a few
bombing raids. 

I expect it to get very bloody before it ends. I'm not happy about it because I 
have family over there. It's not an issue worth using american lives over.
To paraphrase the arms dealer on 60 minutes last night.....After this is all 
over the Emir of kuwait will be on some beach in europe sunning himself with
girls running all over the place spending his petro dollars and a lot of 
families in the US will be missing sons and daughters.

Sanctions, yes. A continued defensive presence to prevent further expansion, yes.
A reason for going to war ? No.


Metz

Hey, Dan, while you're at it, could you burn this Laker pennant for me?

RE: USSR
    
    Never know, Gorby may welcome the diversion from his homefront
    problems.
    
>2. Some observations are that our Intelligence has been off on the suspected
>   number of Scuds, both mobile and fixed.  CNN has just stated that we may
    
    Many blame Jimmy Carter and his Intelligence reductions on our current
    lack of information.
    
    Am I the only one that is REALLY curious about this "New World Order"
    that receives frequent mention?  When it comes to not trusting the
    government, phrases like this make me very suspicious about hidden
    motives for this war.
    
    Mike

�After this is all 
�over the Emir of kuwait will be on some beach in europe sunning himself with
�girls running all over the place spending his petro dollars and a lot of 
�families in the US will be missing sons and daughters.
    
    Aren't there a lot of families in Kuwait missing sons & daughters?

    re: .437 (where people who want peace are basically seen as demented)
    >	1) They are cowards etc...
    
    Mike, you forgot one,  I'll call it #6.
    
    	6) They place a greater value on human life and the human condition
    		than you do.
    
    Maybe there's a few more, because you seem like the sort that is quite
    able to consider such things reasonably if given proper motivation.
    
    	7) They fear the after-effects of war may be far worse that the war
    		itself.
    
    	8) They don't think this war will result in a reasonable solution
    		to the current problem.
    
    	9) They noticed that diplomacy was not attempted as a sulution.
    
    	10) They are openly skeptical of the motivation of those who chose
    		war.
    
    Dan
    
    

    >What many don't know is
    >that they also have a LARGE Islamic population.  Because of the
    >Palestine question, they would jump at the chance to attack Israel as
    >an ally of Iraq.                               
    
    Russia has supplied the weapons of war, training, and military strategy
    every time Israel has been attacked in history.  Despite being
    outmanned and outmachined in every case, Israel has prevailed each
    time.  Considering that and adding the current economic devastation in
    the USSR, and its leadership, I think Russia will leave well enough
    alone for quite some time.
    
    Dan

>2. Some observations are that our Intelligence has been off on the suspected
>   number of Scuds, both mobile and fixed.  CNN has just stated that we may
>   have not knocked out all the fixed lauchers after all.  I believe that the
>   Iraquis Army has dug in much more than we could ever imagine, with large
>   storage facilities for all of their attack/defense resourses.  
    
    This time, a week ago, I knew about as much about military hardware as
    I do about automobile engine parts, so anything I can say on the
    subject I've learned recently from the tube.
    
    While the US intelligence sources estimated something like 30 mobile
    SCUD launchers, the Israeli and other intelligence sources had much
    higher estimates, even as many as 100.  One of the reasons is that many
    of the mobile launchers might be camaflauged as ordinary vehicles (even
    garbage trucks, acc. to one CNN report yesterday).  Given the cloud
    cover over Iraq in recent days, I heard speculation that the Iraqi
    military has learned how to build their own launchers (such as above)
    and would most likely be actively rebuilding those damaged.
    
    That's my speculation anyway.  I would hope that with the bucks we sink
    into these spy satellites that we knew about all fixed locations as
    they where built.
    
    Dan

>             -< Russia will never attack Israel (never say never) >-
    
    Ezekiel 38 says differently.  No offense, but I respect that source 
    more.  FWIW, Israel POUNDS them again.
    
    Mike

    Apparently the U.S. isn't the only country "feeding propaganda" to its
    people about the Allied effort in the gulf.  Check out VNS for the UK
    slant on the Gulf War.

    
    How long can we sustain the cost of something, that was never really
    paid for in the beginning (please see The Deficit) !?
    
    100+ Tomahawks so far, at approx. $ 1.1 million per missile ?
    
    10 very expensive aircraft ?
    
    $ 500 million a day ?
    
    The money we have spent SO FAR could have developed a significant
    alternative energy source. This is our National Security at risk ?
    
    FWIW.
    
    - The Doctor

    .467�    100+ Tomahawks so far, at approx. $ 1.1 million per missile ?
    .467�    10 very expensive aircraft ?
    .467�    The money we have spent SO FAR could have developed a significant
    
    	We've had these missiles for a while...we've already bought them
    with past taxes.
    	
    	I agree we could have use our minds to have a better energy
    resource, but *IF* the U.S.A were being bombed, would you still feel
    the same? I would want protection.
    
    B.A.

�         <<< Note 46.417 by CSOA1::BACH "Onward through the fog..." >>>


I'm still playing catch up.

Chip.... Amen.
Excellent response.
I am plodding through replies that are really giving me the creeps.

I can't believe the myopia that has afflicted some people.

Thanks
Mike JN

Dan,

This is not a particularly easy subject for me. In fact I'm trying very
hard not to allow certain comments by some noters to build animosity in
me. I know everyone has a right to an opinion, and a right to speak that
opinion... but I also have a right to dislike that opinion.

Your additions re: the reasons for Peace demonstrations:

They probably have some merit.
    
�    	6) They place a greater value on human life and the human condition
�    		than you do.

I seriously doubt this,  unless they happen to be of the ilk that
believe nobody or nothing should ever die. People who believe this are
unrealistic, and idealistic to a point where they cannot function.
Everything eventually dies.
    
�    	7) They fear the after-effects of war may be far worse that the war
�    		itself.

Valid point.
    
�    	8) They don't think this war will result in a reasonable solution
�    		to the current problem.

Valid point.
    
    	9) They noticed that diplomacy was not attempted as a sulution.

5 1/2 months of diplomacy was tried by a significant percentage of the
world's leaders.
    
�    	10) They are openly skeptical of the motivation of those who chose
�    		war.
    
That skepticism has been evident. I find some of the remarks in that
vein to be bewildering, and I can scarcely credit that these people are
seriously attributing such motivations to the president. I resent it. 
These people aren't voicing doubts, or cautionary statements. They are
confidently asserting that the president of their country is a
treasonous, self serving, mass murderer. We may have freedom of speech,
but in the interests of maintaining some respect for one another, I
would suggest that one's `freedoms' be exercised (at least in this
notesfile) with a degree of restraint.

Meanwhile, the two points I labeled as valid:
I do not mean I agree. I mean that I can believe there are people who
feel that way. I also believe that many of the reasons I listed also
apply in some cases.

At least with those who believe your 7)and 8).... we can agree to
disagree. People may well be justified in voicing such concerns. But I
cannot believe that such concerns would evidence themselves in the
mindless displays of fanatical hate which I've seen displayed by certain
Anti-War factions.
    
Mike JN

    I re-enter Note 46 briefly....not to chase rats down a hole, but to 
    share with my fellow rats some comments from an Israeli friend with
    whom I have just spoken.
    
    He said two things which struck me as particularly worthy of sharing
    with you.  One is rather humorous, the other is rather sobering - I'm
    sure you can figure out which is which!!!
    
    1) Israelis are notoriously poor drivers.  People are killed daily on
    Israeli roads....however, since Iraq has taken to bombing Israel, very
    few people are driving anywhere.   So Saddam Hussein is actually saving
    Israeli lives by bombing Tel Aviv!!      
    
    2) As bad as the situation is in the Gulf today, can you imagine what
    horrors might have been around the corner if the Israeli air force had
    not blown up Iraq's nuclear reactor plant in 1981??
    
    He closed by saying he and his family and friends were scared and felt
    quite helpless.  The Israelis feel more comfortable when their country
    is being defended by their own IDF  (Israeli Defence Force) and said
    that if the attacks continued, the pressure on the Israeli government to
    act would be irresistable.
    
    Just something else to think about,
    
    PJ 

 Mike JN,
    
 I can sense that you're not at all happy with what I (among others) have
 been saying in opposition to the decision to go to war.  I respect that.  
 Please believe me that I try to put extraordinary amounts of thought into
 what I write, especially now.
    
 With that in mind, please allow me to respond to some of your thoughts on
 these issues ...
    
    � I seriously doubt this,  unless they happen to be of the ilk that
    � believe nobody or nothing should ever die. People who believe this are
    � unrealistic, and idealistic to a point where they cannot function.
    � Everything eventually dies.
    
 Point very well taken.  Everything does die eventually and for the good of
 the natural order, too.   But man is the only species that upsets that
 natural order.  Man is the only animal that digs minerals out of the
 ground and uses them to kill his fellow species.   Man is the only animal
 that has bothered to unleash the destructive energy contained inside the
 atom.
    
 Sure, ants kill, hawks kill, lions kill, sharks kill but they're all part
 of a natural food chain.  And if they have to kill for some other reason
 like territory or mating rights, at least they use their own God-given
 animal energies to do it.   In fascination, we've all watched Marlin
 Perkins chase down all kinds of killer animals.
    
 But only man has "progressed" from using just his own animal energy to
 kill to other more deadly forms ... mechanical energy to chemical energy
 to electronic energy to atomic energy in an ever-increasing orgy of
 "unnatural" deaths.  And each time, we say "That's it, it can't get any
 worse than this."
 
 Robert E Lee said after the truly horrible Battle Of Fredericksburg: "It
 is well that war is so terrible else we should grow too fond of it."
 
 I read in the papers things like ... 
 
 "The Allies continued their strategic carpet-bombing of the elite
 Republican Guards while at the same the surgical bombing of Baghdad
 continued relentlessly."
 
 "The Allies have flown over 7,000 sorties with only 10 casualties to
 date."
 
 Each of these statements carefully ignores the truth.   The truth is we
 have huge planes dropping high explosive warheads on top of human beings
 and we are killing them.   The "fact" that they are "elite" doesn't make
 them any less dead.
 
 The truth is we have sent over 7,000 men and women into the air and 10 or
 so of them are not coming back.   They are either dead or captured.   For
 keeps.
 
 I've read a lot of military history.   The accounts of Waterloo are
 fascinating.  "The British horse inflicted severe damage on the enemy's
 left flank."   This means that armed men riding horses killed men on the
 left side of the other line.   No amount or style of words can change that
 awful fact.
 
 Dead is dead is dead.   Sure, all things must die.  But like this ???
 
 Bob Hunt

 I will admit to taking an active part in turning this note into a SOAPBOX. 
 For that, I am sorry.   These are intense and difficult times and we
 should all grant each other a little more room to operate, myself
 included.
 
 I remain firmly opposed to the government's decision to go to war.  I
 remain fully in favor of stopping the killing and returning our troops to
 their homes and families.
 
 I respect opposing viewpoints and the freedom to voice those views.  I
 only ask the same in return.
 
 Yours in country, in Digital, and in friendship,
 
 Bob Hunt

    Theres alot of talk about not wanting lives lost, it was too late for
    that when Iraq wipped out Kuwait, you anti-war people seem to think
    its not worth losing lives over this.  Well none of you have answerd
    how you would feel if it was america that was invaded.  If a life is
    a life and no war is worth losing a life over then if the central
    american countries got together and took aver texas WHAT WOULD YOU DO!
    Better yet if you entire family was on vacation in kuwait (doubtful)
    but for the sake of argument would you say, Oh well my entrire family
    is dead (or being tortured every day) but thats not worth losing more
    lifes over.  This man (saddam) wipped out an entire country, an entrie
    way of life and stripped this country of everything.  How can you say
    that this man doesnt need to be stopped.  If hes proved one thing to
    me its that when he does have Nuclear Weapons he wont hesitat to use
    them, and you dont have no right in saying where he would stop, because
    in my mind and the government of this world they all know he wouldnt.
    I admit that the government of this country and alot of other countries
    are not giving us all the facts of why we went to war.  I think alot of
    the allies in this situation where waiting for him to screw up (saddam)
    so they could rid the world of him.  Im sorry but I love my country and
    the way its run, I love my freedoms.  This WAR is being faught not only
    to give kuwait back there rights but to keep ours.  IF you dont see
    that and understand it you are blind.  SADDAM will use Nuclear weapons
    against us and alot of other countries to get what he wants once he has
    the capabilities.  Im streesing this so that you will understand, he
    uses all weapons available to him to get what he wants !!! Is this
    sinking in yet, god I hope so.  For the sake of the freedoms your
    stressing I hope you understand the true meaning of this war.  And
    lastly I like to ask one thing.  If we shouldnt have sent our troops
    over there because its not worth the blood lost to save an entire
    country, then should we just drop 10 Nuclear Bombs and totaly destroy
    the entire country of IRAQ, and rememeber IRAQ is the country that
    celabrated at the deaths and destorying of the entire country of KUWAIT
    ?????
    								Mike

 re .473

>> I remain firmly opposed to the government's decision to go to war.  I
>> remain fully in favor of stopping the killing and returning our troops to
>> their homes and families.
 
   Bob,

   What should or should have been done instead of going to war?  I would be
   most interested to explore the different alternatives:  sanctions, letting
   other world powers intervene, wait and see, etc.

   Opposing the governments' decision is only meaningful to me when the 
   alternatives are laid out and investigated, and one or many are chosen.

   Most of us are against war as such but at the same time some feel 
   that Saddam had become too big of a threat to allow him to continue both
   his arms acquisitions/production and takeover of weaker countries.

   rick ellis

The addresses to write to any service member are as follows:


	Sea-based personnel:

		Any Service Member
		Operation Desert Storm
		FPO NY 09866-0666

	Land-based personnel:
		
		Any Service Member
		Operation Desert Storm
		FPO NY 09848-0006


Please pick up a pen and write.  You might make a new friend, and better
yet, you might brighten up someone's day who is a long, long way from
home....

'Saw

A simple question:  

Would you rather live in a world without war or a world with lots of war??


And please don't remind me of the realities of the world we actually do live 
in, I am well aware of them.  I was against this war ever starting but now that 
it has, I support our troops, and those of all nations attemping to bring 
Saddam Hussein under control, because the quicker this is over the sooner we 
can concentrate on finding ways for it to never happen again.

Anyway, in an attempt to get out of this rathole, I'd like to maybe provoke 
some talk about what will be the next step.  How soon do you think it will be 
for the ground war everyone is talking about?  I am afraid the SH is saving 
most of what he still has to make it is as bloody as possible.  All I hear is 
that he keeps miscalculating but like it or not he is an experienced warrior - 
have we been underestimating him??

Scott

Just an opinion:

	We keep mentioning rathole here.  Perhaps it is, but let me
	remind you, we haven't even hit HALF the number of replies that
	were entered in the famous SPORTS 90 Trial Note...

	Don't sweat it....

'Saw

    I watched on the news last week when a local TV news crew was
    covering a march by high school students against the war. One of the
    reporters asked a senior why he was marching. He stated that he was
    against war and didn't want people to die over it. He was asked about
    Kuwait and what had happened to them.. His reply...
    
    WHo cares, its a small country. Let Iraq take it. Kuwait people are not
     worth fighting over....
    
    pretty sad... pretty sad....

    
    > 2) As bad as the situation is in the Gulf today, can you imagine what
    > horrors might have been around the corner if the Israeli air force had
    > not blown up Iraq's nuclear reactor plant in 1981??
    
    To expound on something MrT has been harping on concerning past efforts
    at a NNP treaty, I'm somewhat worried about Israel's own nuclear
    capabilities.  With the placement of the Patriots in Israel that worry
    has diminished, but what happens if a beaten and discouraged Saddam 
    manages to unleash some of his chemical capability on a Israeli civilian
    population?  Will we be caught in the middle of the same nuclear
    horrors alluded to above?
    
    glenn
    

Actually, I think the US is just itchin' to get their hands on him,
because of what they're doing to the POWs...

And I think they'll do more than whack his peepee.  Personally, I'd
like to see them have the real Saddam-y go a few rounds with the
Church Lady and her mother 8^)

'Saw

    re:.482
    
    HERE, HERE !!
    

    Well at least we know the Stealth bomber works.  You have noticed that
    not one Stealth has been shot down.  Alot of money for one of those
    babies, but worth every penny!  As for Israel, they will get even with
    Iraq!  Israel has been kicking ass for along time, and I expect they
    will be kicking ass well into the year 2000.
    
    Greg
    
    

    
    
    Anyone catch the retired Colnel (how the H*LL do you spell it anyhow?)
    on Cnn last night..  Seriously gung-ho  ..  predicting the war would 
    be over in 11 more days and that ground troops would not be needed..  
    Unbelievable ..  
    
    In terms of the cost of weapons as mentined previously all the weapons 
    used to date have been bought and paid for..  this war is being fought 
    "out of stock"  ..  the only weapons which will probably need
    replacement are the Patriot missiles.  
    
    It appears the Iraqi's have begun torching the oil fields..  Question
    is whether they're planning on widthdrawing, getting ready for a gound 
    offensive, or simply putting up a smoke screen (thanks for the idea 60 
    minutes!).
    
    /Jeff

>but what happens if a beaten and discouraged Saddam
    
    I saw on the news this morning that this might not happen anytime soon. 
    Seems on those first successful days, many of the objects we were
    bombing were not SCUD launchers but cardboard and plywood cutouts made
    to look like SCUD launchers.
    
    Also, I heard a quote on the first day of the war by a military analyst
    that "if Saddam isn't killed by these bombings, he at least won't be
    able to phone home."  Looks like that hasn't happened either.
    
    We've picked a fight with a crafty character.
    
    Just for the record, for whomever asked, I would approve of defending
    our borders if we were attacked.  I also approve of SDI and think it
    would work in defense of a nuclear attack.  What I disprove of is why
    it has to be the US to have its young people shot to pieces and foot
    the bill for a majority of the Middle East action.   And for what?  If
    we manage to knock off Hussein, then what?  Will we set up another Shah
    of Iran situation?  No way.  I just don't think this war is going to
    solve all these "stop the madman with nuclear toys" situations you are
    presenting.  There will be others to fill his shoes...with many
    followers who don't want us there.
    
    Take it easy.
    
    	--dan'l

    As I stated before, we have rampant idealism and unrealistic goals on
    *both* sides in here, not just with the peace protesters.  Mike
    (Brooks), you say go ahead and drop the big one on Iraq if we don't
    want to lose any US lives?  Are you serious, or have I just misread
    you?
    
    Additionally, pointing to a small occupied country and waving the flag
    and freedom and justice over it is just as idealistic as the peace
    protesters' calls against the loss of *any* life.  Do you guys really
    think we've come anywhere close to adhering to this principle
    universally?   Would you have rolled US troops into Namibia and Angola
    to protect potential Commie civilians from South Africa?  How about
    Central America (and I've drawn no conclusions here, just providing
    some arguable examples)?
    
    No, the war has extreme political and economic ramifications, plain and
    simple.  And as I've said before, for the time being trusting in US 
    intelligence, I'm cautiously in favor of it.  Let's not be blinded by
    the rhetoric from either side...
    
    glenn
     

Mike and the pros who obviously ARE HAVING A HARD TIME  with my stance
please answer me one question why did Bush attack first?????????

Mike B. of course if someone attacked Texas I'd fight back and even here
in Kuawait I do believe the people are worth fighting about but only after
all peacefully negotiations have failed and a covert operation had been 
attemped and failed or Saddam had attacked.

5 1/2 months was not long enough. I can store enough food in my house to
go on for a year. While not the greatest analogy it does show that the 
econmic sactions weren't given long enough. All of the other nations were
rallying around us the coaliation the Arab nations could  Suddam have gone
on for a year or so with no friends? While I feel for the Kuawaitians it
isn't like they've always had democracy they could have waited a year
or two for freedom.

Why wouldn't Bush even think of compromising? Here's a guy who went to Paris
to assure the Iraians that they indeed had a deal with Regan for weapons if
they held the hostages until after the elections been in bed with Noreiga and
God knows who else. I've always thought of Bush as slime and as will and still
I could forgive him and support him if he had let Saddam intiate the 
confrontation.

The war chest was just too full of weapons the moneymakers of the world needed
to purge the chest so they could refill it. They sold the weapons to both sides
and then tugged at two men's ego anf now boom innocent pple are dying and I
supposed to think that's right and ok and necessary?

You're right Mike my views may not be realistic and practical and may seem
like they come from a dreamworld but I have the right to dream and if in my
dreams men don't wage war, don't kill people for the old might buck does
that make my world wrong?????

mike 

>    Anyone catch the retired Colnel (how the H*LL do you spell it anyhow?)
>    on Cnn last night..  Seriously gung-ho  ..  predicting the war would 
>    be over in 11 more days and that ground troops would not be needed..  
>    Unbelievable ..  

Seriously looney is more to the point.  I'm not expert, I don't even
play one on TV, but hey, there's no way we're gonna win this thing all
in the air, nor will it be as short as he predicts.

And his statements that all those beat up POWs got that way from ejecting
really made me kind of angry, as did his insinuations that they weren't
tortured.

I did like his point about the press not being able to do much though.
I think the Armed Forces could find just a little bit more middle ground,
rather than have the press sequestered in a hotel.

And finally, I wonder what he would think of SCUDS if he was directly
under one's flight path.....

What a piece of work this guy was....

'saw

>    Anyone catch the retired Colnel (how the H*LL do you spell it anyhow?)
                              ^^^^^^

Colonel...   from the French and Spanish, "coronel".....

    re: .480
    
>>  I'm somewhat worried about Israel's own nuclear capabilities.  
>>  What happens if a beaten and discouraged Saddam manages to unleash
>>  some of his chemical capability on a Israeli civilian population??
>>  Will we be caught in the middle of the same nuclear horror....
    
    
    Glenn,
    
    For what it's worth, Israel have pledged not to use nuclear weapons
    unless nukes are used against them  (i.e. they will not use nukes
    first).
    
    Personally, I think the Israelis believe they have anough conventional
    superiority so that they would not have to revert to nukes even if the
    enemy used chemical or biological weapons.
    
    PJ

    I do not understand those who still propose a negotiated settlement to
    the Gulf War.
    
    1.  Saddam committed the first act of agression by invading Kuwait. 
    2.  Since then he has refused to give up the land claimning it as part
        of Iraq.
    3.  The UN, granted under guidance of the US, sets a deadline for Iraqi
        troops to withdraw from Kuwait.
    4.  Various countries, including Arab countries, make visits to Iraq in
        order to persuade them to withdraw.
    5.  He defies all overtures and remains steadfast on his occupation.
    6.  Deadline passes and with the backing of the UN, the Allies begin
        liberation of Kuwait.
    
    Saddam had 5 1/2 months to withdraw but refused.  How can you negotiate
    over someone's country who has just been invaded ?
    
    John "D Cowboys" R.

IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION:

	Regarding the addresses I posted earlier:  Those are to 
	write to any unamed member of the Armed Forces.

	Do not use those addresses to write to a specific person.

	If you want to write to a specific person, you will have
	to either already know their address, know a relative who
	will give you their address, or (as a last ditch measure)
	know that last post that they were at, contact that post
	and talk to the people who can access the Post Locator 
	Facility.

	I'm not sure that the Post Locator Facility people will
	be giving out much information considering the current
	situation.


To use the addresses I posted, just use them as is.  You can start
your letter off with something simple, like:

	Hi, 
	
	I'm so and so and am writing because...

If you're Hawk, you'd probably start it:

	Hi,

	I'm Hawk, I drink too much beer and am a freakin' lunatic....  8^)


Seriously, pick up a pen, write a letter......

'Saw

    >I'm somewhat worried about Israel's own nuclear capabilities...
    
    Equally scary are these facts:
    
    1) In our public debate over whether to attack Iraq much was made of
       the need to stop Saddam from obtaining the bomb.  Yet not once was
       it ever mentioned that Israel was armed with the bomb by us.  This
       amounts to propaganda that reinforces pursuing a policy whereby 
       it's ok for the white people to have the bomb but unacceptable for
       the colored to.
    
    2) I don't recall any public debate over our promoting nuclear
       proliferation in the mideast.
    
    
    3) We armed Israel with the bomb.  If you dispute this, consider who
       provided the missiles, the inertial guidance systems, and oh by the
       way the warhaid itself (warhaids must be tested, do you remember
       such a test in Israel, or was it done at White Sands, or are they
       using a DoD issue warhaid?).
    
    4) When Saddam called for negotiations to include a disarmament treaty
       banning weapons of mass destruction we clucked our lips in disgust
       at this allegedly obvious ploy and refused.  Why is it unreasonable
       for Muslims to fear a nuclear armed Israel?
    
    5) No mention has been made in the press about Saddam's call for NNP
       negotations in 1980.  This would seem to be germaine to the subject.
       Obviously the networks have the time available, given that they're
       spending hours on end covering barely relevant minutiae.
    
    6) Opinion polls and experts in Muslim nations uniformly show that the
       vast majority of the peoples of these countries support any type of
       resistance to what they perceive to be Israel's expansionism and 
       dangerousness as a newly-announced nuclear power, and that they all
       very much resent America's double standard.  So when gov't propagandists
       like Dan Rather assure us that several Muslim nations support Desert
       Shield, keep in mind that he's talking in most cases about only a tiny
       minority of elites who risk being overthrown by an angry populace in 
       the wake of this "war" (if Israel isn't forced to the table).
    
    MrT

    
    A couple of my points:
    
    1) The press coverage of this war, while being informing
    to us, is doing nothing but aiding Saddam.
    
    2)As far as war cost goes (I agree that no cost is higher that our
    own country being put in jepordy). These weapons (or most of) are paid
    for already. plus, could Saudi Arabia be aiding us by refueling our
    planes for nothing, from their wells. And if any of this is true, will
    our govermont tell us about it, or just make us pay higher taxes anyway
    to decrease the enormous deficit?
    
    3)Is Saddam saving most of his arms/planes, patiently waiting for us
    to exaust ourselves, then he'll go nuts. And if he is hiding planes
    underground, how efective will/could they be with command and control
    centers squashed.
    
    4)How much longer will it be before some of these press idiots are
    killed for being plain stupid. Today on my radio, I heard this reporter
    say, that when the air raids sound, instead of running to the bomb
    shelters, all the reporters run to the roof of the hotel, with their
    recorders and cameras for a better vantage point. Its just a matter of
    time 'til these idiots get killed.
    
    5)I agree that after Saddam, there will be some other madman that will 
    somehow threaten the world. So we are just prolonging this nuclear
    madness. Wreck our precious planet now or later, I personally vote for
    later.
    
    6)Does anybody have last nites/this mornings updates on SCUDS
    fired/intercepted by patriots, and damage done.
    
    
    Supporting our troops 'til the bitter end, 
    
    Albert

    MrT, one point to remember about the demographics of Israel, the
    "colored" people now constitute a majority of the Israeli population.
    
    Ashekenazi (Jews of Eur. descent) 42%
    Shepardic (Jews of Arab/African descent) 58%
    
     The Shepardic Israelies are the more prone to vote for the Likud party
    and are generally poorer then the Ashkenazi who vote Labour.  so your
    point about the "colored" vs. the whites in not valid in this case.
    
    John "D Cowboys" R.

    First I'd like to apologize for my critical comments on dan'l and 
    Bob yesterday.  I had just watched the POW films and started noting
    on emotion.  Anyway, sorry fellas, I agree with you in principle,
    not excecution of policy.
    
    Saw,
    
    I watched that guy on CNN, he was great!!  (Some great quotes:  It would
    be pissin' in the wind... Saddam will get his when we dig his ass outta
    the rubble...  We are just gonna kick their ass...  The media hype of
    the SCUD's is because of the lack of anything to report on...  The 
    marines are are gonna chew up those short (?) clowns..)
    
    He did make a good point that while 27 SCUD's had fired, there was 
    not one casualty.  It was also notable that he is the most decorated
    war vet. alive, and he was also one of the biggest critic's of the
    U.S. deployment.
    
    It is also interesting that while we can walk a bomb in the door of
    a building through anti-aircrafgt fire, the Iraqis have missed entire
    countries...

    
    From the daily Riyahd "briefing" :
    
    The Navy admiral stated that the F14 crewman shot down yesterday
    had been recovered in a "special forces" operation. He also said
    that another Iraqi ship had been fired upon and was sinking, and
    he showed an infrared film clip of a missile attack on building
    where the first missile punched a hole for the second to follow !
    
    The general and admiral admitted to Iraqi-initiated oil field
    destruction, with the ensuing smoke belches, but could not confirm
    the number of refineries/storage tanks damaged .......
    
    They were very vague (becoming less and less informative each day)
    on the weather issue, POW status, psychological actions, and SCUD
    or PATRIOT impacts into civilian population areas ......
    
    FYI.
    
    - The Doctor

regarding .489


>Mike and the pros who obviously ARE HAVING A HARD TIME  with my stance
>please answer me one question why did Bush attack first?????????

Bush did not attack first.  Irag attacked Kuwait on August 2nd.


>5 1/2 months was not long enough. I can store enough food in my house to
>go on for a year. While not the greatest analogy it does show that the 
>econmic sactions weren't given long enough. 

Economic sanctions were not working well, and waiting another year would only
    have given Saddam time to build more chemical weapons, more SCUD
    launchers, dig in deeper, and possibly develop a nuclear weapon.

>While I feel for the Kuawaitians it isn't like they've always had democracy
>they could have waited a year or two for freedom.

Easy for you to say.  While you wait patiently in your comfy home, Kuwait was 
being destroyed and Kuwait citizens being killed.


>You're right Mike my views may not be realistic and practical and may seem
>like they come from a dreamworld but I have the right to dream and if in my
>dreams men don't wage war, don't kill people for the old might buck does
>that make my world wrong?????

Peace is preferred, but sometimes you just gotta stand up to a bully.  Thats 
the reality of this situation.


Pat
                      

    >I do not understand those who still propose a negotiated settlement to
    >the Gulf War.
    .
    .
    >2.  Since then he has refused to give up the land claimning it as part
    >    of Iraq.
    
    Again, I'm afraid that this simply isn't true, is dangerously misleading,
    and reflects the triumph of American propaganda, in this case agitprop.
    
    (Sigh) Saddam publicly called for multilateral negotiations that would
    negotiate the simultaneous evacuation of Kuwait and the so-called Occupied
    Territories, and the banning of weapons of mass destruction in the mideast.
    
    Now, maybe we shouldn't have negotiated, maybe we had some magic way of
    knowing his intentions, maybe Israel deserves all the land it cain take.
    
    But, in whatever case, your assertion that Saddam "refused" to negotiate
    doen't square with the facts of the matter.  Agitprop.
    
    On another point: Even once we "win," which is inevitable, we and all of
    our allies have every reason to propose a negotiated settlement.  From
    the outset the only question has been whether we could "win the end of
    the war," not the war itself.  If we slaughter thousands of innocent 
    Muslim women and children (and Saddam is prepared to let that happen)
    the price of oil, level of terrorism, and eventual nuclear detonations
    by the Israelis will then become almost inevitable.
    
    We American pretend that Muslims are incapable of public opinion.  They
    are.
    
    MrT 
      
    

re Hawk:

That's pretty interesting.

Some other facts:

	Service personnel in the Gulf are allowed free postage.
	Don't worry about sending them stamps.  All of my letters
	from Nick are marked FREE in the corner where a stamp
	would go.


	Until recently, a reply from Saudi Arabia was taking about
	a week.  Since around Christmas time, things have slowed
	considerably.


	The Military has asked that no packages be sent.  Only first
	class letters and cassettes.  I guess they're having a hard
	time keeping up with the packages.

	btw, last I knew these folks over there were ravenous for
	cassettes of all kinds (except perhaps JoJ's Village People
	cassetttes, which he'd only want to part with because he's
	got the original 8-tracks).  You can buy cassette mailers in
	any stationery store....


Please, no matter what your views, send a supportive letter today.
As I've said, you might make a new friend, someone who can expand your
personal horizons and viewpoints.  And you'll brighten someone's day.
There can be nothing worse than seeing all your comrades get mail
at mail call while you get nothing....


And if you hear from anyone, please let me know....

'Saw	

    For the 2-3 people who misunderstood my last message please re-read it.
    I was asking if the Anti-War people who think that the Kuwaits are not
    worth losing lives over shoul nuclear weapons have been used.  I think
    the current stratagy is better than using nuclear weapons.  I think
    some of you have to think of the Kuwaites as people, just becasue there
    not americans they deserve there freedom and were helping them get it
    back, these are the things you do when your a world power.  If you dont
    like that youll have to move to a smaller country becasue we will be a
    world power untill anti-war poeple let a Saddam take over half the
    world before reliseing whats going on.  Then if you burn the flag or
    speak about your rights youll be shot inthe street and parade around
    as a warning.  I on the other hand will continue to back the War Lovers
    as you want to call them and hope that me and generations or my family
    can live freely.  No one wanted WAR, I dont think anyone in here that
    backs the war wanted anyone to die.  There was no alternative, and bush
    did not pull the first trigger.  Are you people following the war and
    keeping in touch with reality or are you just anti-war under any and
    all circumstaces.  And if you would defend your country if it was being
    invaded what makes americans lives so much more important than kuwaites
     A life is a Life, saddam will continue to end lives untill someone
    stops him, better now (better 6months ago) then 5 years from now when
    half of america is flat, black, radioactive deserts and the next 5
    generations are deformed and the average life span is in the 20's due
    to cancer and whatever else he drops on us.  This is not just a war to
    free kuwait, it is a war to save the world.  I do agree that someone
    else will come along to jeopardize(sp) the world, but if the world
    didnt have to wiat untill these dictators killed millions of people
    to react then this would be a smaller problem......
    
    On a lighter side, I also ask that you write to the previous posted
    address.  Plesae just keep some of your Opinions to yourselfs, the
    men dont need proaganda from their own country.  I still think for
    the most part the majority of this country Loves it and backs the
    decisions of the government and the troops.  And aslo someone back
    a few said that the troops are there because they were ordered to
    go.  They all volunteered (ALL 100% or them) and they dont have to
    go there are choices they can make if there against going to war.
    
    							Mike

    MrT,
    
    Look through the transcripts of Iraq's response since day one. 
    
    They didn't enter the Palastine situation until a desparate deception.
    
    If you allow history to be renegotiated Hussien would have gone back
    to the 1st page of the Koran/Bible to buy time.  Bush saw his
    intentions to stall and break up the alliance, and realized Hussien
    was not going to adhear to the U.N. or any international laws.
    
    He's just an international criminal, and he's being dealt with.
    
    BTW, this weekend, we lost more americans to handguns in our nation 
    than we lost in the entire war.
    
    Chip
    

    re: .505
         
    That should have read"... until a desparte deception was needed to
    divert attention..."
    
    

    The Palestinian issue did not come up until Saddam realized how
    isolated he really was.  
    
    The Palestinian people who live in camps in various Arab countries live
    in squalor and often end up doing the jobs noone else wants to do. 
    What have the Arabs done to help the plight of the Palestinians ?  For
    all their riches they have done nothing ?
    
    The "white man" is more concerned about the fate of the Palestinians
    then the Arab.
    
    BTW Mr T, do you realize that 60% of today's Jordan was previously part
    of Palestinian territory, that 75% of the Jordanian population is
    Palestinian, and that King Hussein is actually originally Iraqi ?
    
    John "D Cowboys" R.
    John "D Cowboys" R. 

    Even if Sadam is holding his aircraft underground I would not worry to
    much about his planes.  Currently 10 Iraq aircraft have had the balls
    to try to dog fight with US aircraft.  Hey, guys guess what the score
    is??  USA 10 Iraq 0.  Im concerned about the numbers of soldiers he has
    on the ground.  Boy those Soviet Mig 25's are shit.  Bottom line - the
    Air Force is not going to win this war.  Like so grunts said the other
    night, that is a pipe dream.  The only way this war is going to end is
    with a ground attack.  The Air Force will soften up some areas, but it
    is up to the grunts to bring home the bacon.
    
    Greg

    >so your point about the "colored" vs. the white in not valid in this
    >case.
    
    Again I'm afraid you're just plain wrong.  The Ashenkenazi (whites)
    are half the population and all of the leadership elite.  Show me a
    Muslim nation where this is so.  [ain't none]
    
    re: Bach
    
    You're dreaming.  You are a typical example of the great triumph of
    self-serving American propaganda.  I don't say this to insult you,
    but a quick trip to the microfiche in the library checking into old
    papers and mags will perhaps dispel this fantasy you're living; it's
    always better to take primary input instead of relying on the likes of
    David Brinkley et al to tell you what did or didn't happen a few months
    ago.
    
    Again: Your imputation of sneaky motives to Saddam skirts the issue.
    
    1) Saddam's spokesmen were talking up linkage from the day they stole
       Kuwait.
    
    2) We had no way of knowing whether Saddam would've withdrawn without
       negotiating.  It's established fact that we adamantly refused to 
       go to the table.
    
    3) Clearly Saddam knew he could never win a war against the west; from
       the beginning he's bet everything on the Palestinian card in hopes 
       of emerging from the post-war as an Arab superhero.
    
    4) I agree that it would be nice to stick dynamite up Saddam's eyeballs
       and gouge out his eyes, but it's more important to win the end of
       the war, and that means dealing with reality and not self-serving
       Orwellian Newsspeak of the likes you're regurgitating.
    
    5) Oil is important, not Judeo-Christian traditions (USA is a secular
       state).  Our policy has been to do everything possible to antagonize
       the oil-rich Muslims for the past half century.
    
    6) The "before he gets the bomb" rationale is a canard.  If we were 
       against proliferation in this unstable region we wouldn't have 
       armed Israel with the bomb.  Once so armed, Saddam and every other
       Muslim leader has every right to arm themselves with nukes, gas, and
       CBW to protect their people from further aggression.
    
    MrT

    MrT,
    
    sheesh, you really are all world NOTY...
    
    chip

    Did I miss something, Isreal has the bomb so Iraq has the right to 
    kill off kuwait and take it over ??? What is this.  Just because Isreal
    has nuclear weapons Iraq can do anything...This is riediculous.  Who
    has isreal used the nuclear weapon against, and for the sake of
    argument who has Isreal invaded recently and who have they used Poison
    gas on, what country is isreal trying to wipe off the map....Man I have
    to watch  more news I completely missed that isreal was invading and
    killing off innocent people.....
    
    Well its a sad day in america...Saddam Hussein has used his propaganda
    to convince americans that he was in the right, never thought Id see
    the day.  My prayers tonight will include one to open up your eyes. I
    more than 1% of the american people feel this way saddam is winning...
    
    

 Kuwait has assets in excess of $100,000,000,000 throughout the West.  The
 Kuwaiti Investment Office (KIO) in London oversees the entire portfolio of
 their country's investments.
    
 They own (or partly own) countless pieces of shopping malls, airlines, oil
 companies, banks, hotels, real estate, insurance companies, shipping and
 transportation concerns, and on and on and on ...   This is throughout the
 United States, Great Britain, and several other Western countries.
    
 You don't suppose we're fighting not just to protect their "freedom", do
 you ???   We wouldn't possibly be over there just because by some small
 coincidence we're "employed" by them, do you ???   Nah, you're right, not
 even worth thinking about ...
    
 Two questions ...
    
 1) When does the government crank up the DRAFT and what in the holy hell
 will break loose around here if *that* ever happens ???
    
 2) If we're really, really *REALLY* serious about ending this war with
 minimum Allied casualties, then why the hell haven't we lit the Big Candle
 yet ???   
    
 I mean that was the whole friggin' point of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, wasn't
 it ???   Break the enemy's will to fight and save American lives in the
 meantime by avoiding a full-scale invasion of the Japanese mainland.   So
 what's different here ???   We've got a fanatical "Hitler-clone" with
 dug-in zealot troops ready to fight to the death.   It's 1945 all over
 again except it's in the desert.
 
 So what are we waiting for ???   Because we're too polite and "civilized"
 to use it ???   Because we'd rather spill 30,000 bodies worth of our *OWN*
 blood to avoid it ???
 
 You pro-war folks avoid this issue rather conveniently, don't you ???  
 We're supposed to just get over there and get it done and then come back
 home safe, right ???   Hey, I got the perfect answer ...  Let's send over
 an ICBM or two.   They'll be home by the Super Bowl, won't they ???
 
 The hypocrisy never ends ...    Today, I am very proud to say that I
 entered the voting booth and pulled the lever for Michael Dukakis in
 November 1988.
 
 See you in '92, George.
 
 Bob Hunt

    On a lighter side of this discussion,if we can insert some
    tension-breaker thoughts
    
    I keep watching the President and other "experts" on the tube
    discussing the events. I know this is difficult to achieve via
    this medium,but recall your auditory senses. I have heard Bush refer
    to Hussein as "saddam", accent on first sylabble with flat A, both
    syllables, while others say :SadDAM,accent on second syllable,broad
    A,both syllable. Does anyone know the correct pronunciation? I wonder
    if Prez' own vocal diction does not allow him to pronounce Hussein's
    name as "SadDAM" or is he just saying it to further PO Hussein.
    
    It has been suggested that this scenario exists:(Enlikened to Graveside
    humor
    
    Hussein in bunker with top aides,watching Bush on CNN " It's SadDAM,
    SadDAM, not saddam you infidel! Which one of you aides instructed
    him on how to pronounce my name? Take them out to be shot!
    
    A second humorous(sick!) scenario has been suggested
    
    Hussein in bunker,last days of war, hearing faint music from UN
    forces'boom boxes. "What's that sound coming from their radios?
    Noreiga warned me about this tactic. They are trying to force me
    out with disgusting music. What is it?" An aide whispers to Saddam,
    "All is lost, they are playing Ha-Va-Na-Gila
    
    Sorry for sick humor,it's broken some of the tension in this office.
    I do not try to make light of a real tense and serious situation
    and I offer a disclaimer that there is no attempt to denigrate
    any nationality,personnel, or religious inclination.
    
    MikeL
    
     

    >The Palestinian issue did not come up until Saddam realized how 
    >isolate he really was.
    
    Tariq Assiz and others began pounding the linkage strategy even as
    they were rolling into Kuwait.  Moreover, for reasons of geopolitics
    it was incumbent upon us to negotiate with him, even if we considered
    his intentions wholly dishonest.
    
    >The Palestinain people who live in camps in various Arab countries
    >live insqualor... dong the jobs noone else wants... What have the 
    >Arabs done... they have done nothing ?
    
    The Palestinians are the target of widespread jelousy among Arabs
    because they've become a sort of elite across Arabia.  True, many
    Palestinians live in camps (most around Jordan and the Territories),
    but by and large the Palestinians are the most successful Arab tribe
    of all based on education, marketable jobs skills, and income.
    
    Palestinians were the elite technocrats in Kuwait, and serve the same
    role in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain.  Engineers (Yasir Arafat is a 
    ME in civil engineering), lawyers, doctors, merchants, you name it.
    
    I think perhaps that you're mixing the Palestinians up with the Egyptians.
    Or maybe Pakistinians and Muslim Indians.
    
    MrT

�And now, here
�    it is almost (and only) a week, and it seems as if there won't be that
�    quick ending and we're preparing for what may very well be much longer
�    than we thought, and much bloodier.  *This* is what turned me against
�    this whole war.  This, and my own feeling that our gov't knew this all
�    along...
    
    Of course our government knew this all along.  This has been stated
    over and over again from Bush's first address to the daily pentagon
    briefings.  Government officials have always been telling the media
    that this will not be over in a few days.

    Well, note .504 did it.  I'm convinced.  Thanks, Mike, for showing me
    my blindness.  Yes, let's kill, kill, kill because it's the right thing
    to do now to prevent death in the future.
    
    I'm taking the Hawk road out of this topic and will stick to sports
    noting.  Have fun, dudes.
    	
    	--dan'l

    With the B-52's being used to "carpet bomb" the Iraqi troops, I'd say
    that should soften up the area pretty well. The ground troops, IMO,
    shouldn't have to be used for "major" combat, but to be used to
    eliminate the few remaining stragglers and count the bodies for
    casualty statistics.
    
    Japan and Germany each verbally agreed to pump a reported 5 Billion
    into the war fund.
    
    SD

    Mr T, So Saddam invaded Kuwait so the Palistines can have a homeland?
    Sure makes sense to me.....
    
    

    Mr T, I have lived in Israel and can tell you in absolute terms that
    the Eur. Jews are not half the population, but have now become a
    minority.  The Shepardic Jews have a higher birth rate and have thus
    overtaken the older Ashkenazi.  
    
    You still have not proven what valid claim the Palestinians have for a
    homeland.  Jews claims go back several thousands of years when the
    Arabs were sheikdoms and not countries.  Do the American Indians not have 
    a valid claim to have their own country(s) ?  Do Armenians have a claim to 
    their own country ? Do Serbs, Croats, Slovaks, Czechs, Eritrians, Tamils,
    etc not have similar claims ? 
    
    John "D Cowboys" R.

    I dont avoid the issue of nuclear weapons, in a previous not I put
    no-nukes (yet)...I think we can give the air attack some time and
    see what results.  Saddam cant do much planning or rebuild as long
    as we keep bombing the way we have.  If I had to make the decision
    of using nuclear weapons or sending in 100,000 ground troops it be
    a tough one.  Right now Im not in that situation so I cant say what
    I would do but what I can say is if the governament (bush) decides 
    to save 100,000 young american lives by using nuclear weapons I wont
    condem him and it wont effect my vote in 92 (at least not against
    him). Everyone has valid points as to what else could have been done
    by the longer we waited the worse this war would have been.  By doing
    this now we will save alot of lives in the future.  Kuwait deservs
    our protection just as if they were americans.  And 3 years from now
    if iran invaded Iraq, Id say to help Iraq again.  Once you let a mad
    man take a little hes not going to stop.  If Kuwait is truly worth an
    excess of 100,000,000,000 dollars then I hope we wont be using our $$
    to rebuild them after this is over.....like we usally do.
    								MAB

    The Palestinian camps in Lebanon and Jordan are not where the lawyers,
    doctors, engineers come back to.  That is exactly the fear of the PLO,
    that once there people accept help they will not come back and will
    "fight" from foreign lands.
    
    In these Palestinian camps they are kept under the watchful eye of
    their Arab "hosts" so as not to incite riots.  Remember in 1971, when
    King Hussein of Jordan, with the help of the Israeli Mossad, tried to
    get rid of the PLO because they were threatening to overthrow him. He
    massacered thousands of poeple to save his throne and yet the
    Palestinians somehow forgot about this ?
    
    John "D Cowboys" R.

    >Did I miss something, Israel has the bomb so Iraq has the right to
    >kill ofkuwait and take it over... just because Isreal [sic] has 
    >nuclear weapons Iraq can do anything...This is riediculous.
    
    Indeed it is, which is perhaps why you should go RON until you're
    able to catch up on current events a bit:
    
    1) Nobody said Iraq "could do anything," just that given America's
       role in proliferating nukes in the region, on the side antagonistic
       to our strategic oil interests, it's important to understand what
       in this case is a valid rationale used by Saddam.
    
    2) We attacked Iraq, refused to negotiate and started a war.  
    
    3) 1 & 2 above portend further conflict, hatred of the USA, and long
       term destabilization of our strategic oil supplies (not to mention
       10x the terrorism against us).
    
    4) I woula supported the war without qualification if we had first
       agreed to Saddam's call for linkage and nuclear disarmament in the
       region.
    
    >and for the sake of argument who has Isreal invaded recently 
    
    With "recent" in historical terms: Palestine, Egypt, Golan Heights,
    Gaza Strip, West Bank, Jerusalem, and most recently Lebanon.  They
    also blew up a nuclear power plant in Iraq a few years back.  
    
    Also, tens of millions of Muslims are still in an uproar about the 
    time the IDF allowed the Maronite militia to slip into the Sabra
    and Shatilla war camps in Lebanon and slaughter hundreds of elderly,
    women, and children.
    
    >Man I have to watch  more news...
    
    Don't do that.  Read more mags, especially the far right and left
    wing and foreign stuff.  It's the TV that's got you so badly confused
    in the first place.
    
    >... I completely missed that isreal [sic] as invading and...
    
    While I personally support Israel's right to exist, it's understandable
    that the millions of families and businessmen who had their farms,
    homes, shops and factories taken from them without compensation and 
    were evicted to Jordan might still be a little upset about things.
    
    MrT 
       

    I remember reading some comments from Soviet defectors who were either
    in the Soviet military or the secret services.  They all said they were
    certain, confident, that the USSR would win any war agaisnt the USA,
    especially in Europe, because they were certain that the American
    people no longer had the stomach to fight for what they believe in.
    
    They felt that the USA was weak.  Many of the comments in here, and by
    protesters, certainly back those points up.  
    
    Do I believe in war?  No.  Do I enjoy death?  No.  However,
    unfortunately, force is still a necessity in this world.  How do we
    change this?  No simple answers.  Singing JOhn Lennon songs won't do
    it.  That's for sure. 
    
    A lot of people enjoy all the benefits of living in the USA.  But many
    of the same people can do nothing but complain about life here.
    
    JD

    >Mr T, So Saddam invaded Kuwait so the Palistines [sic] can have 
    >a homeland?  Sure makes sense to me....
    
    It's a shame that such drivel is successfully pawned off on our 
    gullible public as the central reason why we refused linkage.
    
    The goodness of Saddam's motives are totally irrelevant.  What counts
    is that nearly a quarter century of racism and double-standardism
    caused mass frustration and resentment across the Muslim world.  I
    assume that Saddam, like many of his tribe, hate Palestinians.  So
    what?  The point is that we have stupidly, at direct cost to our oil
    interests and moral fiber, have created a hot geopolitical card for
    some dictator or another to play.  It was inevitable and so here we
    are.
    
    Even assuming that Saddam couldn't give a sheet about the Palestinians,
    we still should have negotiated.  Not doing so will prove a huge mistake.
    
    The hypocrisy we've exhibited in the mideast would be ok if the world's
    oil weren't deposited there.  For that reason our mideast policy has 
    been unAmerican.
    
    Btw, whenever our government media spews the agitprop about "the mideast's
    only democracy," you should remind yourself that America stupidly overthrew
    Iran's first-ever and hugely popular democratically elected leader (a guy
    named Mossadegh) and replaced him with a psuedo-royalty dictator in the 
    Shah.  This as much as Palestine goes a long way toward explaining why
    the Ayotollah took over Iran.
    
    MrT                          
    
                                                                     

    Jordan was created by the British and not by any historical claims by
    the local population.  The Palestinians were offered to co-exist with
    the Jewish state, under UN auspises, but they listened to their Arab
    "brothers" who told them to leave.
    
    The West Bank, the Golan Heights, the Sinai were all captured during
    battles with the Arab armies.  I do agree that Israel did invade
    Lebanon in 1981, but the intent was to push the PLO out of southern
    Lebanon.
    
    Infact the Israelies werw initially welcomed by the Lebanese population
    in the south as liberators from the PLO oppression.  I was in southern
    Lebanon at the time, at the UN HQ in Naquoura, so I say this from
    persoanl experience.
    
    John "D Cowboys" R.

    Ok Ok Ok, this is great I now understand why Iraq invaded Kuwait
    because they hate isreal....Wait no no no they hate america....
    Ok wait wait, they want nuclear bombs...Ok this is getting good..
    We pull all our troops out and go home...Then we supply Iraq with
    weapons including nuclear weapons (this just brings them up to speed
    to were there going to be in a few years anyway) and what the hell
    keep kuwait, there just kuwaitians or whatever, who cares...Of course
    Saddam doesnt want kuwait or there oil he just wants a homeland for
    the Palastienians....Its all clear to me now.  Bush you fool why are
    you wasting your time with saving the future of the earth, your old
    and in 10 years from now when the country gets blown up your not going
    to be around.......At what age do I tell my unborn child that he doesnt
    get any rights or freedom becasue we pulled out of kuwait and let
    Saddam Hussein do what ever he wanted...I guess Ill play it by ear, if
    it hasnt been cut off for listening to some use there freeedom of
    speech that was taken away when the USA goverment was overthown, Oh
    well, I hope I get a nice hut and a little spending money for fresh
    food...BUT hey I dont mind eating the kings garbage, just remember
    make love not war.....ALl we are saying, is give peace a chance..
    
    Im a totaly change person, Im quitting my job, growing my hair, doing
    drugs and marching on washington...Out of my way...

    The solution to the whole Mideast problem is simple:
    
    Saddam gives Kuwait to the Palestinians to establish a homeland. They
    have plenty of oil and the Kuwaities can live off their foreign
    investments.  
    
    Only now you have another displaced population so Saddam will have to
    invade attacks Yemen to push for a linkage with Israeli problem. This
    now becomes the new Kuwaiti homeland and then.......
    
    John "D Cowboys" R.
    

>    Mr T, I have lived in Israel and can tell you in absolute terms that
>    the Eur. Jews are not half the population, but have now become a
>    minority.  The Shepardic Jews have a higher birth rate and have thus
>    overtaken the older Ashkenazi.  
 
Nearly half the population of Israel is white.  This isn't the case with
any of the Muslim nations to which my statement (which you flatly stated
was wrong) applied.  Moreover, virtually 100% of Israel's ruling elite is
white.  Racial considerations have played heavily into our self-defeating
anti-oil mideast policy, whether you admit it or not.  Your own figures 
make my point. 
   
>    You still have not proven what valid claim the Palestinians have for a
>    homeland.  

Who said I was making that argument?!  Americans frequently shoot themselves
in the foot in foreign policy by mixing up questions of right and wrong with
questions that rationally must be evaluated in terms of best and worst (which 
is how geopolitics works).

Let me put it this way: Every country on Earth, except one, including the
USA btw, agrees that they should have a homeland.  More important, the hundreds
of millions of oil-rich Muslims think they should.  I suggest that if you use
any products based on fossil fuel (gas, platstics, food, etc.) that you think
about whether or not the homeland issue is important to you personally.

>Jews claims go back several thousands of years when the Arabs were sheikdoms 
>and not countries.  

Their claims are their own damned problem, not ours.  This is America, and
I'd sugget to you that, hard as it may be to believe, Israel and America are
separate nations pursuing separate interests.

>Do the American Indians not have a valid claim to have their own country(s) ?  
>Do Armenians have a claim to their own country ? Do Serbs, Croats, Slovaks, 
>Czechs, Eritrians, Tamils, etc not have similar claims ?

No, their claims aren't in the least similar, as any quick check of a history
book will immediately attest. 
    
>    In these Palestinian camps they are kept under the watchful eye of
>    their Arab "hosts" so as not to incite riots.  Remember in 1971, when
>    King Hussein of Jordan, with the help of the Israeli Mossad, tried to
>    get rid of the PLO because they were threatening to overthrow him. He
>    massacered thousands of poeple to save his throne and yet the
>    Palestinians somehow forgot about this ?
    
Is there a point here?  

MrT 

    What is your definition of "colored" in the Israeli situation ?  Do you
    consider Arabs white or colored ?  If you call them colored, and
    Israeli Shepardic Jews came from these Arab countries then are they not
    colored as well ?  And if they make up the majority of the Israeli
    population.......
    
    BTW, how are the American Indians different from the the Palestinians?
    Please enlighten.
    
    John "D Cowboys" R.

    >great I now understand why Iraq invaded Kuwait 
    >because they hate isreal [sic]
            
    You're stumbling.  Now, concentrate *real* hard: Iraq invaded Kuwait
    because they were greedy and, believing that America is under the
    sway of Israel and the Israel Lobby, would prove unwilling to link
    the Territories with the similarly stolen Kuwait, figuring that, what
    with millions of Russian Jews being dumped by Gorbachev into Israel,
    a deal could be cut whereby the Palestinians would be only partially
    restored to their rightful land (stolen from them with our assistance
    in 1948), trading off certain Kuwaiti oil fields and islands for the
    land Israel didn't return.
    
    Got it?
    
    re .527
    
    Your sentiment is irresponsible and destructive to American interests.
    Who gives a damn if you were in Israel.  Is that something like all 
    these veterans who're knee-jerk supporters of any war that comes along?
    
    These simple salient facts, remain and they're important:
     
    1) Oil is good.
    2) We want oil.
    3) We have pursued an anti-oil policy, twice increasing the cost per
       barrel to us on Israel's behalf: 1973 & 1979.
    4) We pursue a policy at odds with our economic and security interests
       for religious and racial reasons.
    5) The Muslims will never give up, for they don't accept the fictive
       history of the Palestinian problem any more than I do.
    6) Israel for 40 years promised to cut a deal if the Arabs would only
       guaranteed their security and recognize their right to exist.
    7) The PLO did just that in 1988.
    8) Israel reneged.
    9) The Muslims in an uproar now cuz of 10,000 Russian Jews per week
       pouring into Israel, the end of bipolar superpower conflict, and the
       recent armament of the IDF with U.S. nuclear weapons, will raise the
       ante now that America (on Israel's behalf) refused to negotiate and
       instead humiliated Muslims yet again, for the first time spilling
       Muslim blood to include tens of thousands of innocent bystanders.
    
    MrT
    
    

    I am not sure what nuclear weapons the US has provided to Israel, could
    you please explain ?
    
    BTW, wasn't Einstein a part of the US nuclear program ?  And did he not
    become an ISraeli once the country was formed ?  and haven't German
    scientists (Nazis) worked with Nasser, Ghadafi, and Saddam to help them
    in their military dev.  And who helped Pakistan develop a nuclear
    capability, and are they not colored ?  And the Indians.....
    
    John "D Cowboys" R.

    >they make up the majority of the Israeli population......
    
    A slim majority, one that disappears in terms of the ruling elite,
    one that becomes irrelevant in the eyes of white people who view
    Israel as primarily of European Jewish stock (incorrectly, but mass
    perceptions typically are).  I might point out that the racist
    stereotype of the "dirty Arab" is in very wide circulation among
    Israelis, which you should know given that you were there as you've
    repeatedly stated.
    
    >how are the American Indians different from the Palestinians?
    
    The Palestinians are one tribe, Natives are/were dozens of separate
    tribal nations.  The Palestinians were living on land they'd occupied
    for many centuries, and were then displaced by force by Eurpoean
    refugees backed by powerful white nations anxious to get rid of them.
    More or less the same thing happened to the Natives, but they lost their 
    lands 1-2 centuries ago.
    
    MOST IMPORTANT:
    
    1) The Natives aren't the political fulcrum central to the world's oil
       supply, the Palestinians are.
    
    2) The Natives aren't in a struggle against a nuclear power that has a
       spotty track record as an ally and member of the community of nations,
       the Palestinians are.
    
    3) The Natives' claims have been partially met, the Palestinians haven't
       been met at all.
    
    4) Fulfilling the Natives' claims would destroy our nation.
    
    5) Fulfilling the Palestinian's claims would enhance our nation, and all
       the world's nations, except perhaps the radical right wing interests
       in Israel and the Pentagon.
    
    Are you enlightened now?
    
    MrT

    >I am not sure what nuclear weapons the US has provided to Israel,
    >could you please explain ?
    
    It's a given that a newly-designed nuclear weapon must be tested.
    If the Israeli warhead is a domestic product, where was it tested?
    Answer: it either isn't domestic, or it was tested in Nevada or New
    Mexico.
    
    Also, I'm not military expert but it's my understanding that the
    missile technologies (fuels, inertial guidance systems, platforms,
    etc.) in Israel are American.
    
    >And haven't German scientists (Nazies) worked with Nasser, Ghadafi,
    >and Saddam to help them in their military dev.
    
    Ghadafi and Saddam were young children when the Nazis were still 
    operating.  But, "military dev." is not nuclear arming.  Moreover,
    if you're talking about rogue German consultants then your analogy
    fails cuz the Pentagon is funded by and subject to taxpayers who
    democratically established policy goals committed to stopping nuke
    proliferation everywhere.
    
    And in any case this is all moot, what counts is the political price
    we're soon to pay for pursuing a "whites only" proliferation policy
    in the mideast.
    
    >And who helped Pakistan develop a nuclear capability,
    
    The USA has made every effort, without success, to stop Zia's (DRIP)
    nuke ambitions.  Moreover, we've refused to provide him the ancillaries
    needed to deploy his warhead, which is not the case with Israel.
    
    >and are they not colored ?
    
    Why yes they are.  I see your point, maybe that's why we rebuffed his
    persistent calls for the go-ahaid on the nuke program.
    
    MrT

>    The Palestinians are one tribe
    
     The people belonged to their sheikdoms and not to a country. The
    villages were ruled by families and not by a govt.  
    
    >The Palestinians were living on land they'd occupied
    >for many centuries, and were then displaced by force by Eurpoean
    >refugees backed by powerful white nations anxious to get rid of them.
    >More or less the same thing happened to the Natives, but they lost their 
    >lands 1-2 centuries ago.
    
    The exact same thing happened to the Natives as to the Mexicans who
    used to live in today's US.  Whether it happened 200 years ago or not
    is irrelevant.  Or does moral issue disappear after a 100 years or so.
    If that is the case then Israel only has 60+ years to go.
    
    >1) The Natives aren't the political fulcrum central to the world's oil
    >   supply, the Palestinians are.
      
    There is no oil in Israel, except in some part of the Sinai and that
    was given back to Egypt in exchange for peace.
    
    >2) The Natives aren't in a struggle against a nuclear power that has a
    >   spotty track record as an ally and member of the community of nations,
    >   the Palestinians are.
    
    To the Natives who had bows and arrows, the white people might as well
    have had nuclear power.  They were totally outgunned.  And in terms of
    track record who taught the Indians how to scalp ?
    
    >3) The Natives' claims have been partially met, the Palestinians haven't
    >   been met at all.
    
    What do you mean by partially met ?  they are the poorest minority
    group in the USA.  The Palestinians in the occupied lands have the
    right to choose their own mayors, Israel built them schools, roads,
    hospitals, trained their doctors etc.
    
    >4) Fulfilling the Natives' claims would destroy our nation.
    
    So the rights of Indians is not as important as the preservation of the
    US boundaries ?  Why don't they get a country in Montana, Wyoming,
    or the Dakotas, after all the white man seems to be leaving those
    states.
    
    You still haven't identified the "colored" people you had mentioned
    earlier in your notes.
    
    John "D Cowboys" R.

    T,
    
    I hear you and I'm with you so far.   
    
    One thing I don't understand, though, is why then isn't every single
    Arab Muslim in the entire region siding with Iraq and Hussein against
    the white Israeli-American conspiracy and in favor of a Palestinian
    solution ???
    
    I know you said it was just the Arab ruling establishment that's
    backing the Allies but every ruler, no matter how powerful or terrible,
    eventually has to pay attention to his own public's opinion.
    
    Are you implying that this Allied coalition is doomed to crack at some
    point in time short of the end of the fighting ???   Are the Allied
    Arabs linked with the Americans just placing a bet on who they think
    will win the fighting ???
    
    If so, this coalition will crumble and it *WILL* turn into a Jihad.
    
    Bob Hunt

    Re: .535
    
    The Arabs in the coalition know that it is in their best interest to
    topple Saddam before he continues on his expansionist goals.  Today
    Kuwait tomorrow Saudi Arabia, or Jordan... So far he has attacked two
    of his neighbors.
    
    I agree with T that the Middle East situation will eventually have to
    be discussed but not at this time, and not at Israel's expense.  Here
    is something else about the "Palestinian" boundaries.
    
    Under the League of Nations mandate parts of what are now Jordan,
    Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt all fall under the proposed Palestinian
    state.  These countries are not going to give this land up, in fact
    a syrian map of Syria (Greater Syria) includes the whole area under
    Syrian control.  If these countries are so pro-Palestinian why don't
    they allow them to settle in what was once part of the Palestinian
    state ?
    
    John "D Cowboys" R.

More questions about letters, so here's some answers:

	- It'll only cost you regular first class postage.  For
	  now that's 25�.  It goes up sometime in Feb I think.

	- Enclose your return address.  Before the opening kickoff,	
	  a lot of service personnel didn't have a helluva lot to
	  do.  Granted, they found some things:

			o pulling maintenance on tanks
			o playing cards
			o catching poisonous snakes, lizard for fun
			o READING/WRITING MAIL	

	  To have someone to write to would probably make someone's
	  day.

	- Don't be surprised if it takes a while to get an answer.


Hope this helps,
fw

Actually, here's the way I see it.

First, Mr T should have a series on Public TV, to educate us opiated
masses.  (If, of course, Bob could miss a little of his Xs and Os time).

Second, somebody please stop Mike Brooks before he grows his hair long
and does drugs.  Remember, Mike, JUST SAY NO.

Third, don't let JD break his John Lennon albums...they'll be collectors
items someday.

Fourth, I think we should all go home and have a few beers and really 
chill out.  None of what we say in here is going to make a damn bit of
difference, and if someone is violently opinionated in one direction,
all of the posturing, politicking[sp???], and well meaning sarcasm
isn't going to change it.

Finally, try to maintain an even keel.  There has never been a society
even in peaceful times that hasn't had its share of propaganda.  That's
why there are underground newspapers and such.  It's really no big deal.
There has been a tendency of America to go soft -- we've always done
it, and it seems cyclical in nature, so don't sweat it.

And lastly, please remember to carry out any debates in here with
respect and courtesy.  

'Saw

    Thanks 'Saw
    	I believe the best we could all do is write those letters.
    Thanks for the information.
    
    

    Saw,
    
    Thanks for the addresses.   And don't worry, I don't own any John
    Lennon albums, and never will.  He's more overrated than Worn Moon and
    Randall Cunningham combined!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    
    JD

�    1) Saddam's spokesmen were talking up linkage from the day they stole
�       Kuwait.
�    
�    2) We had no way of knowing whether Saddam would've withdrawn without
�       negotiating.  It's established fact that we adamantly refused to 
�       go to the table.
    
    Are you advocating the use of hostage taking, wilfull destruction, etc.
    as a means for getting what you want?  If a guy goes into rob a bank,
    holds the clerks prisoner, and demands to be able to vacate with the
    money and have his buddy released from jail, it's OK?

� 2) If we're really, really *REALLY* serious about ending this war with
� minimum Allied casualties, then why the hell haven't we lit the Big Candle
� yet ???   
    
    Because we have apparently been very serious about ending this war with
    minimum casualties on both sides (at least civilian casualties on
    Iraq's side).  Because "lighting the Big Candle" would world destroy
    world support for the U.S.

� So what are we waiting for ???   Because we're too polite and "civilized"
� to use it ???   Because we'd rather spill 30,000 bodies worth of our *OWN*
� blood to avoid it ???
    
    As far as I've heard, the plan is to do the most damage by air and use
    ground forces to mop up - resulting in fewer U.S. casualties than an
    all out ground war.  We'll have to see if we can stick to this
    strategy.

    OK, the previous was my next-to-last note because I've just heard that
    there has been another missile attack on Tel Aviv.
    
    Sketchy details are:
    
    	- we shot down one with a Patriot but missed another and it landed
    	  in a populated area.  We don't know where our Patriot missile
    	  went.
    
    	- Many hurt, perhaps killed.
    
    	- Graphic pictures on TV.
    
    Can't confirm any of these details, however.
    
    Bye.
    
    	--dan'l

>    One thing I don't understand, though, is why then isn't every single
>    Arab Muslim in the entire region siding with Iraq and Hussein against
>    the white Israeli-American conspiracy and in favor of a Palestinian
>    solution ???
 
Why would being against the so-called Israli-American cnospiracy necessarly 
entail siding with Iraq?  Certainly that wouldn't be the case for the 
Kuwaitis, who until they were snuffed were prone to holding conferences
issuing communique denouncing Israel blah blah blah.

It's a complex region fraught with complex issues; America's insatiable 
hunger for simplistic good guy-bad guy scenarios will never be sated there.
   
>    I know you said it was just the Arab ruling establishment that's
>    backing the Allies but every ruler, no matter how powerful or terrible,
>    eventually has to pay attention to his own public's opinion.
 
My point.  Only a few years ago Egypt's Prez was murdered by his own elite
guard who was radicalized largely by the Palestinian issue.  Let us not
forget how Mubarak (or Khomeini) came to power, and that inevitably the same 
thing is potentially in store for Assad, King Hussien, the House of Saud, etc.

This is a region of toppling power elites.  Traditionally our knuckleheaded
Ivy Leaguer State Dept/CIA gurus leave America on the wrong side when the
people finally take power, as history attests.
   
>    Are you implying that this Allied coalition is doomed to crack at some
>    point in time short of the end of the fighting ???   Are the Allied
>    Arabs linked with the Americans just placing a bet on who they think
>    will win the fighting ???
 
We'll win the war no prob.  The war, except for the intensified hatred it will
spawn, is a passing side issue of little import.  The allied Arabs like Assad
win on two issues: 1) they rid themselves or the rival Saddam, and, 2) they
get to heighten and focus the Israel issue both at home and abroad.  Their
downside is being overthrown for allowing a white army to recolonize the Gulf,
their upside is settling and old score with an expansionist enemy.

>If so, this coalition will crumble and it *WILL* turn into a Jihad.
    
The coalition is intended to last only until Saddam falls.  After that it's
back to business as usual.  The Jihad was already started, but will be made
dangerous when the Muslim body count starts after the smoke clears.  Look for
major terrorism and regional conflicts.  The major wild card is what Syria 
will do with their newly-acquired Lebanon (except for southern Lebanon which
Israel has annexed).  

The key player could be Assad.  There will me some of the most widespread
intense hatred in the history of man when this ends, and he will be in a 
perfect position to put it in play, with the hapless Saddam in effect having
run interference for him.

re: John "Cowboy"

Pu-leeze, quit telling me that the Palestinians weren't a nation but a tribe!
I know this.  So what?  What counts isn't this fine point, but instead how
the Muslims view it (right or wrong) and as far as they're concerned the Jews
should at least return the territories and make peace, which thus far they've
refused to do.  It doesn't matter at all to them that they were organized in
a traditional way, they like that sorta stuff  ;^)  !! 

MrT

    >Are you advocating teh use of hostage taking, willful destruction,
    >etc.
    
    Absolutely not.  And furthermore I am not advocating silly, simplistic 
    analogies.  
    
    We should have fast-tracked negotiations with him.  Once he copped out,
    we could then turn to the huge, powerful, and agitated anti-American
    Muslim world and say, "we're left with no choice but to blow him away."
    
    Not doing this simple, honest step will exact a huge future cost in the
    form of dead Americans, increased oil prices, diminished influence, etc.
    
    There was NO reason of American interests not to have negotiated; there
    are many reasons to have.  When we started the war at that point Saddam
    attained part of his goals.  When he loses the war he'll being accruing
    the other portions of them.
    
    MrT
    

�    JD, may Yoko Ono scream in your general direction...  :-)
�    
�    Hawk

Hawk,

With Yoko Ono, you have to put it like this:

	may she {scream,sing,shriek,imitate an air-raid siren}� in your....




�pick any one, it all works out the same...


hth,
'Saw

�    We should have fast-tracked negotiations with him.  
    
    I thought we tried that.  He refused to meet with American officials
    until about a day or 2 before the withdrawl deadline.

    Mr T, finally your astuteness has come out, and I have to agree with
    your last note (by and large).  This part of the world will never
    accept democracy as we know it in the West; they admire leaders rather
    than governments.  That is the reason there will always be Saddams and
    Assads and....
    
    One note on Sadat.  If you are interested do you know what started the
    peace process between Israel and Egypt ?  The Mossad had uncovered a
    plot to kill Sadat (Moslem Brotherhood) and had forwarded that
    information to him.  He scoffed at the info, but sent his secret police
    to investigate it anyway.  To his surprise he discovered that it was
    all true and that led him to believe that he could negotiate with the
    Israelies, although he never fully trusted them.
    
    Since that day the Mossad provided him with protection, in fact even
    trained his bodyguards.  One month prior to his death the Mossad
    informed him of the plot, but he refused to believe that his own troops
    would betray him.  This was a fateful mistake.  Some say the initial
    plot was passed on to Sadat to curry his favour but it did produce
    results.
    
    John "D Cowboys" R.

    re: the linkage issue
    
    Would MrT or any other "pro-negotiation" noters care to comment on the
    following:
    
    	"A peace process, dominated by Saddam Hussein (or heavily
    influenced by him), would be a debacle.  For it would have taught the
    lesson that radicalism, terrorism and force are the road to diplomatic
    progress in the Middle East."
    
    
    There is no question, in my mind at least, that this is the reason the
    Western Alliance refused to accept linkage.
    
    PJ

>I seriously doubt this [greater value placed on human life] ,  unless
>they happen to be of the ilk that believe nobody or nothing should ever die.
    
    Mike, your serious doubts represent pure black and white thinking.
    People could be against this war and still accept valid wars to fight,
    reasons to die, such as those on our own soil, those where better
    avenues for answers have been fully explored, those led by a leader of
    proven integrity, those over a cause better than foreign oil supply.
    
>5 1/2 months of diplomacy was tried by a significant percentage of the
>world's leaders.
    
    This country's leaders were willing to attempt 10 *years* of sanctions
    against South Africa over their political system.  5 1/2 months is a
    drop in the bucket when compared to that and a plethora of other issues
    where "quiet diplomacy" was the practiced solution.
    
>That skepticism has been evident. I find some of the remarks in that
>vein to be bewildering, and I can scarcely credit that these people are
>seriously attributing such motivations to the president. I resent it. 
    
    I wonder why you would harbor resentment over reasoned and reasonable
    skepticism.  I hardly think anyone can examine the record of the last
    two presidents and not be skeptical.
    
    Dan

    >6) Opinion polls and experts in Muslim nations uniformly show that the
    >   vast majority of the peoples of these countries support any type of
    >   resistance to what they perceive to be Israel's expansionism and 
    >   dangerousness as a newly-announced nuclear power, and that they all
    >   very much resent America's double standard.
    
    Alleged Muslim perceptions in this case ought not concern anyone,
    especially since alleged Israeli expansionism was in reality the spoils
    of war attained against aggressors bent on Israel's destruction. 
    What's more, the U.S. support of Israel should not be viewed as
    dangerous nor mysterious.  The country represented our only ally in the
    region while Russia funded, guided and armed Israel's enemies.  
    
    I find the points you bring up to be specious and irrelevant in the
    current dilemma, but consistent with a decidedly anti-Israel effort on
    your part.
    
    Dan

    
    
       Has anyone heard anything about the ground war beginning?  I heard
    on the radio this morning that Iraq had attacked our troops in Saudi
    Arabia...Any info?
    
    
       Thanks,
    
            Jim

Dateline Wall St. 21-Jan-1991 

	 			- Digital Equipment Corporation stock
	soared today in a patriotic gesture when high placed military
	sources revealed that they had discovered some DEC technology
	amid the rubble at several SCUD missle site landings. "From
	what we've seen at the crash sites, the SCUDs are apparently
	using internal guidance based on Digital's 'Rainbow' series"
	said Admiral Fred "Butch" Fersnoozle, pentagon spokesman.
	When contacted, a DEC representative admitted dumping the
	doomed system on the Iraqi military back in the mid 80's.
	"We knew they wanted it for military applications, and we
	knew it was a dog" said public relations spokeswoman Barbara
	Sheefer. "We just wanted to do our part to destabalize the Iraqi
	military machine. What better way than to sell them Rainbows".
	President Bush is said to have phoned a congratulatory
	message to top DEC man Ken Olson, calling him a "sly dog".

�       Has anyone heard anything about the ground war beginning?  I heard
�    on the radio this morning that Iraq had attacked our troops in Saudi
�    Arabia...Any info?
    
    The last I heard this information was based on Iraqi radio/TV reports. 
    The Allied military is denying these rumors.

    >Alleged Muslim perceptions
    
    I think at this point it's widely accepted that the mass majority
    of the hundred million or so Muslims over there are enraged about
    the Palestinian problem and their interpretation of our unflagging
    support of Israel as an anti-Islam jihad waged by some mysteriously
    defined Judeo-Christian axis.  (They do tend to view things from a
    religious perspective.)
    
    >in this case ought not concern anyone...
    
    ... who's stupid enough to be unconcerned about the fact that they're
    sitting atop the world's long-term oil supply, or who's already 
    forgotten that they used their obvious oil clout against Western
    consumers twice, in 1973 and 1979, in boycotts protesting Israel, both
    of which resulted in oil price increases.  (Footnote: The 1973 increase
    was huge, and since 1974 the average annual real income for American
    families has dropped, even with working wives.)
    
    >Israel was our only ally...
    
    Quit fibbing, Dan.  The House of Saud, Iran before the Shah was overthrown,
    Bahrain, Egypt, Pakistan, and others.  And what good is an ally if its
    only value is to help partially deflect enormous violence and hatred that
    it brings with it?  I'd venture that their net value as an ally is hugely
    negative to us economically and geopolitically.
    
    As for my "anti-Israel" stance, I'd term it pro-American.  We need oil,
    not pursuit of religious ideals.  If pursuing our oil interests, security
    interests, and justice all fall together... why not?
    
    That's why things Israeli, the quiet nuclear proliferation, for example,
    go totally undebated in America.  If you dare speak out you risk being
    branded an anti-Semite [sic], a Hitlerite.  Ironic, given that Israel
    nearly passed a race-based citizenship requirement amendment to their
    constitution, have major political leaders calling for expulsion of all
    "dirty Arabs" from both Israel and the Territories, and a Science Minister
    (who's still sitting) publicly calling for race war, with "all Jews taking
    up arms to kill Arabs left and right." 
    
    Patrick Buchanan dared to speak out, and he ended up a contrite example
    to other American opinion-makers that self-censorhsip had better be 
    maintained.
    
    I would think a reasonably revisionist position towards Israel is not
    only called for [oil], but enlightened [democracy].
    
    >spoils of war
    
    What America giveth America can taketh away.
               
    MrT

Jim,

An Allied patrol bumped into a squad of Iraqis on Saudi soil and captured 6.
Two Allies were slightly injured, treated, and released.  What the devil the
Iraqis were doing on Saudi soil I can't imagine.

rick ellis

    >>  We should have fast-tracked negotiations with him.
    
    >  I thought we tried that.  He refused to meet with American officials
    >  until about a day or 2 before the widrawl deadline.
    
    This widely held perception reflects the triumph of modern propaganda,
    in this case mass opinion-programming by selective emphasis.
    
    What you say is true, Mac.  What you fail to say is that Saddam, rightly
    or wrongly, regarded negotiating with America as useless in light of
    our unwillingness to accept linkage; and that *his* call for negotiations
    was for a multinational Geneva conference involving Russia and Western
    powers along with the Arab states to negotiate a final solution to the
    Palestinainan problem, evacuation of Kuwait, and verifiable agreements
    for doing away with "weapons of mass destruction in the region" (i.e.,
    Israel's nukes, gas & CBW and Iraq's gas & CBW).
    
    re: PJ's .550
    
    I agree with the quotation's sentiment - except that after 23 years and
    Israel having reneged on the "right to exist" requirement understandably
    the idea of diplomacy doesn't carry as much weight with the Muslims as
    it does with your quotee.
    
    MrT

�    What you say is true, Mac.  What you fail to say is that Saddam, rightly
�    or wrongly, regarded negotiating with America as useless in light of
�    our unwillingness to accept linkage; 
    
    And the UN, rightly or wrongly, regarded negotiating with Iraq as
    useless.
    
    If what I stated is true, then how does it become propaganda?

    
    > (Footnote: The 1973 increase
    > was huge, and since 1974 the average annual real income for American
    > families has dropped, even with working wives.)
      
    I just read last night that real wages for the individual working 
    stiff (all non-supervisory labor; over two-thirds of all wage 
    earners) is now at the level it was in 1958.  This is only partly due
    to the decrease precipitated by the 1973 embargo, as oil prices have
    stabilized at pre-1973 levels for periods of time since.  The real
    culprit is the failure of our educational system to keep up with those 
    of other developed nations, as much of our labor force falls back 
    closer to Third World standards.  But T's right; where would future
    disruption and embargoes of our primary energy source place our 
    standard of living?  At pre-WWII levels?
    
    glenn
    

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: CNN Communications
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 20 Jan 91 23:56:06 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 50
Approved: [email protected]
X-Submissions-To: [email protected]
X-Administrivia-To: [email protected]
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 51, Message 2 of 5
 
 
 From: John Keator, Telcom, National Public Radio, Washington
 Date: 20 Jan 91
 Subject: CNN Communications
 
 
	A four-wire circuit is just that, two separate circuits for
send and receive. It is very commonly used in broadcasting to connect
a remote site to the main studio.  Often several circuits will be set
up: one for production use between the producer/director and another
for engineering.
 
	Normally, the lines are connected to a so-called four-wire
box, actually a small device made by Prospect Electronics in the UK,
that allows the incoming line to be heard in a speaker/headphones and
has a push to talk switch that allows the remote to talk to the
studio. In addition, the box has a conferencing arrangement so that a
second four-wire can be connected and the box can be optioned to allow
the user to talk to either four-wire or both ... in the both position
the two four-wires are linked together so everyone can hear and talk
to everyone else. They are much in evidence on the recent shots from
the middle east of technical setups in the various bureaus.  They are
about the size of half-a-loaf of bread, have a speaker and yellow and
orange switches on the front and a gooseneck microphone on the top.
 
	In normal usage the program audio travels on a separate
wide-band circuit to the studio either on a land line or satellite.
The programing four-wire is normally used for IFB, interuptible feed
back.  This is fed to the small earpiece the reporter uses that allow
him to hear the program on the air, less his own voice (due to
satellite delay).  In addition, the director at the studio can talk to
the reporter telling him to cover a certain issue, throw it to another
location or end his report.  When not on the air the circuit is used
for coordination and planning upcoming segments.
 
	In the CNN case, they had ordered the four-wire to Amman
months ago for coordination on earlier satellite feeds.  These feeds
were not available, but the coordination connection was not
disconnected and was put on the air for the famous broadcast.
 
	They did not use an Inmarsat portable uplink at the hotel; no
one did that night, as they did not want to be sending radio waves in
to the sky with all the missiles flying around ... who knows what they
might home in on.  The next day the BBC used one from the garden of
the hotel, but I believe it was later confiscated.  Legally, you need
prior permission from the country to use an Inmarsat terminal for land
mobile use, but many news companies had sneaked them in.
 
 
John Keator   NPR      Work: 202 822 2800
 
--
---------------------------
Peter B. Hayward                                               WX9T          
University of Chicago Computing Organizations

    Re: Arab Oil
    
    There will always be a market for oil, and the 1973 fiasco will not be
    repeated.  There are too many other oil producing countries that are
    not Arab countries.  BTW the largest oil reserves are in the USSR and
    not the Middle East.
    
    Re: Pat Buchanan
    
    I have always felt that he was an articulate man but lately have felt
    that he has gone too far.  He was deemed anti-Semitic because he stated
    that the Holocaust did not kill 6 million Jews, but was a propoganda
    ploy by the Jews for a homeland.  That is insulting to anyone who lost
    family there and to those survivors who will always live with the camp
    numbers tatooed on them.
    
    John "D Cowboys" R.

For the anti-war advocates, who supported the use of sanctions, I have a 
scenario that I wish to discuss.  The recent positions of Israel, Jordan, 
Syria, and Turkey played a large part in my development of this scenario.

- Start with the assumption that the US gave the sanctions a longer time to 
   work - say a couple of years.

- The US agrees to discuss the Palestine issue, and cuts some type of deal 
  with Iraq.  In the meantime, SH applies pressure on Jordan to supply goods 
  to Iraq, using Kuwait's national reserve to pay for it.  Iraq also makes an 
  agreement with Syria to attack Israel it war breaks out.

- After many months the discussion break down, but in the meantime US public 
  opinion sways against the effort, and Bush.

- Some major world event focuses attention away from the Middle East, say 
  a 'major' crackdown in Russia, or the hard-liners return to power.

- A new president is elected, after campaigning on "let's bring our boys home".
  Because of world events, the forces in Saudia Arabia are sent back to Europe.

- Iraq invades Saudia Arabia, and launches a major SCUD attack on Israel.  
  Israel fearing no support from the US or UN, retaliates.  Syria and Jordan 
  declare war on Israel.  Egypt follows several days later.

- The US lends support to Israel.  Turkey and Iran refuse to allow US troop 
  in their countries.  Libya declares war on Israel and denounces the US.  

- Iraq, Kuwait occupied by Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Libya stop all exports of 
  oil, and declare that any peace settlement requires the elimination of 
  Israel as a nation.

- The invasion of Saudia Arabia is successful enough to overrun the northern 
  troop positions, leaving the country in disarray, and totally disrupting 
  oil production in the country.

Now, compare the current situation to this now, which one would you prefer?

I know that that immediate reaction will be that this is a totally unrealistic
scenario, but the point is that given the recent events, the UN alliance 
appears to be a house of cards.  Bush may have had to do something decisive 
before the house of cards fell apart.  

Comments?  Fire away.

Scott Kirkman

    Whether or ot you believe that the Gulf War is being fought for oil,
    democracy, or simply because we like to flex our muscles once in a
    while, it is no secret that the oil companies have been benefiting
    from higher oil prices.
    
    You may be interested to hear that in the Houses of Parliament today it
    was suggested that oil companies be charged a "War Tax" to help offset
    the financial cost of the war.
    
    PJ

    The Allies have confirmed the skirmish with Iraqi ground troops as
    reported a few replies ago.  They are still denying the full scale
    attacks that Iraq has claimed (Allied border positions overrun and
    captured).
    
    For those who point at South Africa, Chile, etc., since when has the UN
    had jurisdiction over what nations do within their own borders?  As
    such I see this as unrelated to the Gulf situation.
    
    Are some people confusing their dislike of Bush with the UN decision to
    push Iraq out of Kuwait with force?
    
    If the US supply of oil from the Middle East only represents about 20%
    of US consumption, is this really only about oil?
    
    What other factors may have come into play in the decision to implement
    sanctions only for 5-� months?  I can think of a few:  economics of
    enforcing the sanctions (it cost the US alot of money to keep troops in
    Saudi), providing more time for Iran to solidify their defensive
    positions and offensive capabilities, increasing the likelihood of
    terrorist activities, providing terrorists a safe haven (at least safer
    than an Iraq under attack), decreasing effectiveness of the troops as
    they remained in the desert doing nothing.

    Military Recruitment Offices throughout the UK have reported a 300%
    increase in the number of applications since the start of the the year
    (as compared with the first few weeks of 1990).
    
    Part of this increase is the result of poor economic conditions making
    job-finding in the non-military sector more difficult, but the war is
    stirring some strong pariotic passions.   Has there been a similar increase
    in the US??  How about other European countries???
    
    Related to this I hear that while visits to public places (ie museums,
    amusement parks, etc) are down - perhaps for fear of terrorists - visits
    to the Vietnam Memorial are UP!!
    
    Would anyone care to explain???
    PJ

�    Military Recruitment Offices throughout the UK have reported a 300%
�    increase in the number of applications since the start of the the year
�    (as compared with the first few weeks of 1990).
    
    This is true in the US as well.  On a related note, the Cambridge
    school board is trying to stop the US military from making recruting
    visits to the high school campus.  Armed services recruiters have
    always had access in the past.

Mobil oil Co reported profits up 43% this quarter mostly because of the rise
in the price of oil.

Color me ignorant but why would mobil make more money if the price of oil went
up unless they increased their prices more than the corresponding price of a 
barrel of oil?

Or is the following scenario correct....

Mobil buys oil on the spot market when it is say $25 a barrell. The middle east
conflict starts in October and the price of oil goes up. Mobil raises their gas
prices because the price of oil has gone up to $35 a barrell but they are using
the oil they bough at $25 a barrell. Voila....instant major profits....

Personally I'd like to see all of them busted for price fixing.....



Metz

    Metz,
    
    That is precisely what happens when oil prices go up...However, the
    same process is adhered to when oil prices go down.  (ie, pump prices
    go down, because spot market prices are down, but the oil that is being
    used was purchased at a higher price.....ie instant loses).
    
    What is critical here is not the pricing process but that the pricing
    process is the same for rising prices as it is for falling prices.
    
    PJ

From:	TOLKIN::HKING        "A MAN CONVINCED AGAINST HIS WILL - IS OF THE SAME OPINON STILL" 23-JAN-1991 07:50:41.84
To:	@DIST.STK
CC:	HKING
Subj:	SUPPORT OUR TROOPS

Just a note to keep you up to date - heard from our reps from 
Operation Eagle - there will be a rally to support our troops:

When -    Sunday - Jan 25th

Where -   Worcester City Hall

Time  -   3 - 6 P.M.

Representatives from the British and Italian Consulates willl be there
with their colors - representing the allied coalition.  Come one - come all
bring a friend - your lunch - the dog  -  but most of all
bring your support for our boys in Desert Sword.

"Auntie" Helen M. King
    

    Do you go to gas stations very often or what...Bang the oil price
    goes up and you see the gas station attendets changing prices while
    you pump...The oil prices come back down and the price at the pump
    slowly works there way back down over a few week period.  They milk
    it at both ends for as much as possible, you can win.  Im still 
    waiting for the government to let someone mass produce an electric
    car, hopefully in my lifetime.
    								MaB

    > For those who point at South Africa, Chile, etc., since when has the UN
    > had jurisdiction over what nations do within their own borders?  As
    > such I see this as unrelated to the Gulf situation.
    
    I believe I mentioned South Africa in the context of its activities
    in Namibia (formerly South-West Africa) and Angola, in both cases
    outside of its borders.  The UN condemned South African foreign 
    occupation while the US did little or nothing (or even aided South 
    Africa and sympathetic anti-Communist factions) for years (decades) 
    until a settlement was finally reached just a couple of years ago.
    
    I'd say that we have much more at stake in the present situation in 
    the Middle East, but I was only making the point that UN resolutions
    condemning a country's actions outside of its borders has not in the
    past implied automatic, unified military action against the offending
    party.  The US has used the UN as we've needed it, and have in cases
    threatened to pull our financial support or even leave it altogether. 
    
    glenn
     

    Military spending and civilian benefits are not mutually exclusive. 
    Military research has led to improvements in food storage techniques,
    aircraft navigation, medicine (emergency room techniques are much
    better due to techniques developed for treatment of casualties during
    wartime), aircraft, weather forcasting, clothing, hunting gear ;^),
    etc., not to mention the effect on the economy due to wages paid by
    military contracts.
    
    Also remember that just throwing money at a problem doesn't
    neccessarily solve it (e.g. AIDS, homelessness, etc.)

    >What America giveth America can taketh away.
    
    America did not do the giving.  Israel was attacked, usually on all
    sides, defeated the attackers, and took for themselves.  Your account
    of America's role in the creation of Israel is inaccurate and what has
    led you to your false conclusion.
    
    >I would think a reasonably revisionist position towards Israel is not
    >only called for [oil], but enlightened [democracy].
    
    Your positions are not consistent with reality.  
    
    In a fantasy land, the U.S. could hang Israel out to dry.  Short of
    attacking Israel ourselves, it would not make much difference in how
    they defend themselves and probably only double their resolve and
    strengthen the unfortunate hard right control of the country.  But it
    is sheer fantasy to think that Israel will be abandoned by the U.S. 
    and sheer fantasy to think that such abandonment would result in the
    Arab world getting what they want out of Israel (it's destruction).
    
    Further, it is fantasy that with all the hostilities built up in the
    Arab world against the U.S.,  often because of our Israeli policies,
    often because Arab leaders find us an easy mark in forming public
    opinion, would disappear based on the institution of the anti-Israeli
    policy you seem to be calling for.  Perhaps a generation or two from
    now, we could have such relations, but a public weaned on equating the
    U.S. with Satan will not about face so quickly.
    
    Third, it is fantasy (and economic ignorance) that hanging Israel out
    to dry and improving relations with the Arab world would result in
    significant changes in the price at the pump.  While the estimates of
    % of U.S. oil obtained from the Persian Gulf region range from only 5%
    to 20%, there is no doubt that post-1973 they have formed and enjoyed
    monopolistic profits (what you have euphemistically refered to as
    "stabilization").  Oil could be a product that functioned in a nearly
    perfect market, but the oil cartel and the large oil companies haven't
    and won't allow that.
    
    A long-term sensible energy policy is the answer to these problems, one
    which will hold or decrease our need for this oil, force the oil
    companies to spend the money to get at other sources, bring competition
    back to oil sources, and lessen the impact that the Oil Cartel can have
    on American life.  
    
    The fantasy of abandoning Israel is a recipe for disaster, both
    domestically and in the Gulf region.
    
    >As for my "anti-Israel" stance, I'd term it pro-American.  We need oil,
    >not pursuit of religious ideals.  If pursuing our oil interests, security
    >interests, and justice all fall together... why not?
    
    There is nothing pro-American about it.  There is little it would do to
    oil prices if you understand the economic reality, security interests
    is another fantasy, and your insidious mention of "justice" is plain
    wrong-headed thinking of an ugly nature.  That's why not.
    
    Dan
    

    >...not to mention the effect on the economy due to wages paid by
    >military contracts.
    
    It's wise of you not to mention this because this is certainly one of
    the linch pins in what has gone wrong in this country. $300,000,000,000
    per year is spent on the Pentagon.  It has plunged this nation into
    more than a trillion dollars worth of debt.  It has diverted funds from
    needed reform in education, medicine, housing, etc.  12% of our
    citizenship lives below the poverty line.
    
    Dan

    I don't know if MrT is advocating "abandoning" Israel or not, but I do 
    agree that the one-sided proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region 
    is sheer lunacy.  I don't completely understand our role in that matter 
    (T has made some assumptions regarding testing, etc.), but I also agree
    that as concerns nuclear weapons, there *is* a double standard.  While
    we've been working with the USSR on scaling back our nuclear 
    deployments, we should have been doing the same or similar in the Middle 
    East to keep the region nuclear-free.
    
    The tiny nation of Israel is still our number one recipient of foreign 
    aid, is it not?  If some of that money is going into or freeing up
    money for nuclear weapons systems, then I do think some balancing is in
    order.  I would say that a scaleback or elimination in that element of 
    our participation does not represent an abandonment of our commitment 
    to Israel, and would be in our long-term (hell, maybe short-term the
    way things are going) interests in the region, eventual energy 
    independence notwithstanding.  
    
    glenn
    

    
    I see enough of the War on CNN and network television.  This note would
    be fine if it only contained factual data about the war, but this is 
    getting ridiculous.  Why not move this to SOAPBOX where it belongs?
    
    

>    Military spending and civilian benefits are not mutually exclusive. 
>    Military research has led to improvements in food storage techniques,
>    aircraft navigation, medicine (emergency room techniques are much
>    better due to techniques developed for treatment of casualties during
>    wartime), aircraft, weather forcasting, clothing, hunting gear ;^),
>    etc., not to mention the effect on the economy due to wages paid by
>    military contracts.
 
	and not one of these advancements require a war to be effective...
   
   > Also remember that just throwing money at a problem doesn't
   > neccessarily solve it (e.g. AIDS, homelessness, etc.)

  When's the last time the government even took a posistive step towards
  solving either of these problems. All the money I've seen raised for these
  worthwild cause (much more so than the war) has been by the private sector.

  The attitute on these problems from the top seems to be. It's a homo's
  disease so it only effect a small portion of the people anyways. The
  homeless? Hey this is America land of the opportunity these people must
  just be lazy...

 mike

>    I admire Israel's restraint so far and surprised that they've done so,
>   but I do not agree with our agreement to pay them $13 BILLION after
>    this is all over.  With the astronomical costs incurred by us alone
>    each day, with NO help from anyone else, this payment is insane...
  
    It was reported that Japan and Germany each verbally committed to
    spend app. $5 billion to the U.S. as aide in the war fund.
    
    SD  
 

    Hawk,
    
    When you get home tonight, look at a alendar.  It's 1991.  Not 1967. 
    As many folks ar trying to lead us to believe.  Wasn't last night's
    show simple propoganda?  Or is propoganda only what you don't believe
    in.   
    
    The 1960 war protest movement has been vastly overrated, and
    unfortunately has been afforded a much larger part in America's history
    than it should.   All to often, the 'youth' of today simply think they
    have to wear a tie-dye t-shirt, granny glasses, and flash a peace sign
    to be in tune with 'peace' and the nostalgia of the generation that
    gave us yuppies, nintendo, tofu ice cream, latte', and dockers.
    
    And I'm far from a gung-ho war type.  I support our actions there.  OF
    course folks in here are all to willing to blame the USA on everything,
    while benefitting from living here.  
    
    JD

    
>    When you get home tonight, look at a alendar.  It's 1991.  Not 1967. 
>    As many folks ar trying to lead us to believe.  Wasn't last night's
>    show simple propoganda?  Or is propoganda only what you don't believe
>    in.   
 
 JD get real will ya people are still dying in 1991 just like 1967 what's
 the difference? It's still totally wrong!!
	   
   > The 1960 war protest movement has been vastly overrated, and
   > unfortunately has been afforded a much larger part in America's history
   > than it should.   All to often, the 'youth' of today simply think they
   > have to wear a tie-dye t-shirt, granny glasses, and flash a peace sign
   > to be in tune with 'peace' and the nostalgia of the generation that
   > gave us yuppies, nintendo, tofu ice cream, latte', and dockers.
   

	If it wasn't for people waking up and smelling the coffee back then
	the government would have run amuk by now and Iran/Contra type deals
 	woudl be going on as normal businees all the time...
 
>    And I'm far from a gung-ho war type.  I support our actions there.  OF
>    course folks in here are all to willing to blame the USA on everything,
>    while benefitting from living here.  
    

	It's a great country JD but it's not perfect and when we're at fault
	for something that I feel is wrong you're dam right I'm going to stand
	up and speak out. I have to take the lumps for my mistakes why shouldn't
	my country? The way this country is ignoring it's own problems at home
	is disgraceful....

 mike

    NEWS FLASH!!!!!!
    
    Boston Herald has sent Lisa Oslen to Saudi-Arabia to cover the Gulf
    War. The paper decided on Lisa Oslen because she is an expert on
    Patriot missiles.
    
    
    Flim at 11:00

    re military vs. social spending:  It is my understanding that the
    percentage of money spend on the military vs. social programs is
    actually less now than it was during the Kennedy administration. 
    Spending on social programs is also at an all time high.
    
    Also keep in mind that money spent on military programs has a better
    chance of getting back into circulation through taxes and spending than
    that put into social programs.  Take a look at the Massachusetts
    economy and the areas around closed U.S. military bases for the effects
    on the recent decreases in military spending.

    >I do agree that the one-sided proliferation of nuclear weapons in the
    >region is sheer lunacy. 
    
    1) As you saw, MrT used a poor assumption about testing to state his
    conjecture (as fact) that "we gave Israel" nuclear capabilities.  As
    tiny as Israel is, it would probably shock you to learn about what they
    have done about their own defense.  Justly or unjustly, they probably
    spend about the same lunatic percentage on defense as we do.  At least
    they can do a much better job of justifying it.  The point is while
    they have benefited from their rightful good relationship with the
    U.S., they have plenty of their own capabilities.
    
    2) Israel is our only true ally in the region (MrT is correct about
    what we did in Iran, part of our shameful and hellbent anti-Communist
    actions, but it is irrelevant in the current timeframe), and has been
    repeatedly attacked by aggressive hostile countries surrounding them,
    with a stated policy of wiping Israel off the earth.  I am fully
    against nuclear weapons even existing, as was their inventor during his
    lifetime, but Israel's policy is to have them as a deterrent, and not
    to yield them, much as is our own. 
    
    I admit, I read between the lines to make assumptions about what MrT
    meant as his future policy toward Israel.  But there aren't many
    possibilities and given the flow of misinformation as fact, his defense
    of what Patrick Buchanan said, and his presentation of lunitic fringe
    behaviour as the general condition I think I can sense where he is
    going with it, although he has been unwilling to spell out his true
    feeling, couching everything in the "Everyone else is propoganda's
    victim while I know the truth" line of "reasoning".
                                           
    Dan

    Mike,
    
    I also abhore the lack of movement by the government on internal issues
    - but I don't get the connection to Iraq.  Perhaps the US should go
    back to being isolationalist.  Make everyone happy.
    Never said you or anyone else couldn't state views.
    
    However, everyone is having a circle-jerk reliving the 60's.  UGH! 
    That's a HUGE problem with this country - no one wants to take a risk,
    no one wants to 'gasp', 'shudder', think of the future - they care
    about their pocketbooks, and like to escape into the past.  Hey break
    out the Vanilla Fudge albums, wake up Country Joe and tell him to bring
    his fish, lets abuse military folks and families like we did in the
    1960's - lets call them "baby Killers".  Lets burn flags, take dope.
    It'll be groovy.  
    
    Makes me wanna puke.
    
    This topic is worse than Soapbox.
    
    JD

    >re military vs. social spending:  It is my understanding that the
    >percentage of money spend on the military vs. social programs is
    >actually less now than it was during the Kennedy administration. 
    
    I've heard this rehearsed line a lot.  It's irrelevant.  Does education
    in this country need improvement or doesn't it?  I'm not saying throw
    more money at it, but while we are wasting billions developing and
    building death so it can sit in some damned silo in Iowa, the quality
    of education goes downhill quickly.  
    
    This has been a nation mostly at peace for 15 years until George
    decided to show us he's macho.  War Dept. spending should have been
    shrinking instead of doubling and tripling.  That drain on public,
    funds without the political ball to tax for it is what has directly led
    to the Reagan deficit.
    
    Our energy, as a country and society, has been misplaced to go toward
    the financial and political gain of the few.
    
    Dan

Amen JD.

It's sickening reading about "Bush the murderer" in here. Attempt 
to pin any casualities in Israel on Bush are ludicrous.

Where were all the protestors when Hussien was pillaging, raping, 
and killing innocents in Kuwait? 

I've yet to hear a viable attempt to explain how sanctions would 
have worked if given time when a week of consistent bombing 
hasn't produced any movement.

The most ridiculous statement I heard recently from an anti-war 
protestor was that they were "against the war, but supporting our 
troops over there". What a crock of sh$t. If they believe that, 
they even further out of touch with reality than anyone could 
imagine. I've spoken to and know personally a couple POW's from 
Nam. They've both stated that the enemy uses this type of garbage 
to inflict greater physical and emotional damage on POW's.

Take the damn cameras away and they'll all go back to Cambridge 
or S.F. or wherever.

I'm outa here.

daryll 

    Give piece a chance, all we are saying...ACK ACK COUGH...coming down
    from my high and back to reality untill I can drop some more acid and
    march on the state house...
    
    Aids, terible disese, need a cure, not going to happen over night
    and theres being enough done on it, I dont want more of my tax $$$
    going that direction.
    
    Homeless, 5-10% proberbly deserve help because there were circumstances
    that put them there beyond there control.  Majority proberbly put
    themselves there....sorry its a terrible way to feel but if your so
    much in favor of curing the homlessness in this country please tell me
    how many homeless people youve brough off the street to live with you?
    
    Tie Dye, Glasses, Piece sign...Nothing better to do.  During the 60's
    wasnt there a draft ?  All the people over there voluntered and as far
    as I know there hasnt been a draft for this war.  Protestors in the 60s
    were protesting the war and the draft, why ??? Maybe they were chicken
    sh@# of going to war.  I dont know I wasnt there....Protestors today
    some leftovers from another erra, some flowing with the trend some
    looking for excuse to get of whatever..
    
    	puff, puff, puff.....where's my T-shirt

    Taken from "Livewire"
    
)0lqwqwqwqwqwqwqkTMqqrrsssrrqq 
xdxixgxixtxaxlxU.S. News                         LIVE WIRE
mqvqvqvqvqvqvqjqqppoooppqq 
	
          'Green Lights' program aimed at cutting electricity demand 

 Digital, along with 23 major U.S. companies, and the U.S. Environmental 
 Protection Agency (EPA) are working together to encourage U.S. industry to 
 install energy efficient lighting systems via the Green Lights Program.
 
 Formally announced by EPA Administrator William Reilly in mid-January, the 
 voluntary program's aim is to cut national electricity demand by 10% or more.
 It will provide examples of successfully implemented energy efficient 
 lighting programs, and through case studies and workshops distribute this 
 information to all U.S. industries.  

 Lighting accounts for one-fourth of America's national electricity use.  
 Lighting for industry, stores, offices and warehouses represents anywhere 
 from 80% to 90% of total lighting electricity use.  

 More   --> 
)0lqwqwqwqwqwqwqkTMqqrrsssrrqq 
xdxixgxixtxaxlxU.S. News                         LIVE WIRE
mqvqvqvqvqvqvqjqqppoooppqq 

  'Green Lights' program, cont'd 

 According to the EPA, the Green Lights Program would reduce annual air 
 pollution by 235 million tons, 5% of the national total.  Sulfur dioxide 
 emissions, a major source of acid rain, would be reduced 1.7 million tons 
 annually.  Nitrogen oxide, another component of acid rain, would be cut 
 900,000 tons a year.  Annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions would be cut 
 232 million tons -- the equivalent of removing the CO2 emissions of 42 
 million cars, or one-third of all U.S. automobiles.

 In addition to reducing pollution, the benefits of energy efficient lighting 
 systems include improvement of the quality of the work environment, 
 enhancement of national energy security and increasing corporate and 
 national competitiveness. 

 More   --> 
)0lqwqwqwqwqwqwqkTMqqrrsssrrqq 
xdxixgxixtxaxlxU.S. News                         LIVE WIRE
mqvqvqvqvqvqvqjqqppoooppqq 

  'Green Lights' program, cont'd 

 Digital has had an energy management program for the past 10 years.  Based 
 on its leadership work in the area of energy efficient lighting programs, 
 the company was recruited to be one of the Green Lights Program's founding 
 members.

 [Courtesy of Inside Contact, Corporate Employee Communication]

    Just because someone is out there protesting doesn't mean they are 
    jacked up on acid and burning the flag.  Just because someone is 
    wearing tie-dye and listening to the Dead doesn't mean they are for 
    or against war.
    
    Just because someone supports Desert Storm doesn't mean they are
    red necked Army brats.  Just because someone is waving the flag 
    doesn't mean they think the bomb should be dropped.
    
    Mr. Brooks just reminded everyone how/why stereotypes sip.  You can
    put that in your pipe....  

> It's sickening reading about "Bush the murderer" in here. Attempt 
> to pin any casualities in Israel on Bush are ludicrous.

> Take the damn cameras away and they'll all go back to Cambridge 
> or S.F. or wherever.

> I'm outa here.
    
    You guys protest too much.  There's been little of this kind of talk in
    here, and if the little there is is that offensive and ridiculous do as 
    I do and move on to the issues and discussion that are worthy of your 
    response.  It appears as if a couple like Bob Hunt with some reasonable 
    contributions that I didn't even agree with have already been silenced
    and driven out by accusatorial backlash.  If anything in here, that's 
    what's a damn shame. 
    
    Until the last few, I thought the discussion was pretty rational. 
    Then I read this crap about 60's revival and lovebeads and other stuff
    I didn't recognize and then I agreed with you: it really did seem like 
    SOAPBOX all of a sudden.
    
    If the result of this note is that those on both sides conclude that the
    other is guilty of contributing absolutely nothing more than worthless 
    propaganda, then it has become useless-- go ahead and write-lock it, 
    mods...
    
    glenn
     

    Comparing someone who had a child die in viet nam is irelavent
    and is propaganda against the war.  There is a big differenc between
    being drafted and volunteering.  These people who where on TV was
    there son drafted or did he volunteer, and if he volunteerd and part
    of his reason for volunteering was presure from his parents to be a
    good american then I can see why they are bitter and agasint war.
    When you join the armed survices you and your family had better take
    into consideration that if war breaks out your going and you may not
    come back, and if you cant handle that than you shouldnt be in the
    armed survies to begin with.....
    
    If your right everyone doesnt belong to some of the sterytypes I was
    taling about in last few notes, but too many of them do........And I
    feel sorry for the people that are protesting for the right reasons
    that there are so many people standing beside them protesting for the
    wrong ones.
    
    As for homeless, aids, education and other american problems please
    dont bring these up unless you have personally attempted to help out
    the situations, and I dont mean sending $20 thru the mail........

    Back to reality and back to the topic at hand...I know there is a
    press conferenc every day at 10:00am, anyone who watches this could
    you please post an update in here, thanks.  Also if any heres of any
    real information on what is going on in terms of the ground troops
    please post it here, alot of people have siad they are leaving this
    note and not replying anymore, please if its important material with
    information about the things at hand still post them...Im as guilty
    as the rest of you for antagonising the other noters with opinions
    that are different from mine, this will stop (at least from me).  I
    have my believes on what an american is, this is not a note about what
    I or you believe but a note on whats happening in the middle east.  If
    everyone can keep it to that it will not be a (soapbox).  Maybe this
    should be an information only note and have less debate in it.
    								MAB

>I feel sorry for the people that are protesting for the right reasons
>    that there are so many people standing beside them protesting for the
>    wrong ones.
    
    Had to break my silence on this one.  Just wanted to thank Mike for
    calming down and being somewhat rational in .595.  Apparently he thinks
    there are some protests for the "right reasons."  And I assume that the
    reverse is true...that there is killing for the right reasons.  
    
    Thanks for the show of logic, Mike.  Hope you can value the other side
    instead of implying they are freaks as you have been doing.
    
    	--dan'l
    

I disagree with the statement that you can't support the war and yet support
the troops.

I oppose the use of force currently going on in the Middle East. I think it is
a simplistic approach to the problems facing the area. However I've written 
several letters to Any Soldier telling them about myself and informing them
of sports news and other current affairs in the country.  I've wished them all
luck and hope that they get home safely. 

I've also sent tapes to my 2 brothers in law telling them what is going on
in our lives and trying to bring them a little hope as they wait in the desert.

My disagreement is with our government's actions not the actions of our soldiers.

I'm not out in the streets protesting the war I'm quietly writing letters to 
congressman trying to convince them of the shortsightedness of our actions and
the potential costs to our country.

You're wrong Darryl....100% wrong when you stated that you can't be against the
war and support the troops at the same time....


Metz

As time has gone on, this note has degraded from what the original
intention of it was.

What was intended as a way for "electronic friends" to help each other
cope with the reality of the war that started last Wednesday, has
turned into the same old tired debates, same old tired pontificating,
and the same old attempts of noters trying to assert that theirs are
the One True and Right opinions to have.

Late last week, we had to bump up the number of Max Links on CAM to
allow folks here in BMF, who use CAM for work purposes, to be able
to make links out of here.  The node was very crowded due mainly to
Sports Note, and Topic 46 within Sports Note.  Clearly, this was
a time of extraordinary circumstance, but that time has now passed.

As a moderator, I've received mail from noters complaining that this
topic has degenerated to the ilk of SOAPBOX.  Some of the other moderators
have also. 

While it would be hoped that this topic could remain a repository
for factual annoucements concerning the War in the Gulf, the tendency
for debate, posturing, lecturing etc would be to strong.


At this point in time we are write-locking this topic.

Frank