Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu!jenkins
From: jenkins@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Kent Jenkins)
Newsgroups: trial.talk.politics.peace
Subject: Re: Peace?
Message-ID: <1991Feb6.190535.11933@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 6 Feb 91 19:05:35 GMT
References: <58120@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <2247@njitgw.njit.edu>
Sender: news@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
Lines: 29
Nntp-Posting-Host: left.magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu

In article <2247@njitgw.njit.edu> matth@mars.njit.edu (Matthew Harelick) writes:
>Peace ? 
>  This conflict has nothing to do with peace. This conflict exists for three
>reasons:
>  
>     1. Keep Western control over the world oil supply. 
>
>     2. To Clean up a NATO foreign policy mess
> 
>     3. To secure a U.S. Presence in the region. 

We're not there because Saudia Arabia asked, are we?  Nope, didn't think so.

We're also not there because the UN decided that something had to be done,
right?  It's all the US's fault.  Thought so.

Gee, I've been so warped by the media to think that these two were actually
true.

>Fight for Peace ? All that is is a version of the Orwellian doublespeak statement : War is Peace, or even better, Ignorance is Bliss

Like the Peace Activists who start violent rallys, eh?  (Or the Pro-War rallys
which aren't violent.)

Unfortunately, I agree.  We're not fighting for peace.  We're not fighting
exlusively for the three reasons listed, but it's not peace.  (What about "To
take back Kuwait for the Kuwaiti people"?  I'll bet you that quite a few US
soldiers believe in doing that, which MAKES it a reason.  It may be mislead,
but it's legit.)