💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › groups › CDC › cDc-0161.txt captured on 2020-11-01 at 00:13:36.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
_
| \
| \
| | \
__ | |\ \ __
_____________ _/_/ | | \ \ _/_/ _____________
| ___________ _/_/ | | \ \ _/_/ ___________ |
| | _/_/_____ | | > > _/_/_____ | |
| | /________/ | | / / /________/ | |
| | | | / / | |
| | | |/ / | |
| | | | / | |
| | | / | |
| | |_/ | |
| | | |
| | c o m m u n i c a t i o n s | |
| |________________________________________________________________| |
|____________________________________________________________________|
...presents... A Kinder, Gentler Nation
by Tequila Willy
>>> a cDc publication.......1991 <<<
-cDc- CULT OF THE DEAD COW -cDc-
______________________________________________________________________________
PROLOGUE:
"...[we] have no choice but to drive Saddam from Kuwait by force. We will
not fail."
-- President George Bush, January 16, 1991
Perhaps it would not be entirely incorrect to speculate that certain
individuals who hold special jobs in our United States government are holding
the opinion that the general public is exceedingly stupid (stoooooopid),
uneducated, and will accept just about any shitty slop as an explanation
justifying American policy. Perhaps, just maybe, President Bush is among these
slop-shovelers.
As the author of this file I am not against the war with Iraq and I am not
for it. As the author of this file I am merely attempting to analyze
President Bush's language to come to an understandable conclusion as to why our
nation is at war with Iraq.
You might think you know why we are at war, or you might be just as
confused as I am. If the war is of interest to you (since the odds are you are
a male of potential draft age) then this file may prove to be very interesting.
______________________________________________________________________________
DECEMBER 1990:
Language, like many other things, is a tool, and it's a tool used to
communicate ideas. As diverse as our thoughts and ideas can become, so is
language. And as is the case with many tools, when we need to accomplish a
different task we can simply adapt language to accomplish our goal. For its
masters, language can be a powerful weapon and to its novices, language can be
so overwhelming that deception is easily concealed.
For example, if you went temporarily insane and strolled through the park
late at night screaming, "BLOW YOUR MOTHER, YOU MOLDERING LOAVING BUTT-KISSING
CRYPT MAMA'S BOYS!..." you might have the mishap to encounter a few of the
nefarious Crypt ("Crip") gang members. Let's just say they didn't appreciate
your humor and decided your ears would look better stuffed in your mouth and
they subsequently pulled out their knives. In this case the knife is a tool.
Language has the potential to be just powerful as the knife is in this case,
yet its use is much cleaner and can bring bigger and better benefits. And
saaaaaay, isn't that the same as "the pen is mightier than the sword"? Sorta.
But what, what is my point?
Saudi Arabia. You've heard of it. Lots of American troops are stationed
down there. In fact, as of this writing, we're at war with Iraq and Saudi
Arabia makes a convenient launching point. But why were our troops sent there
in the first place? President Bush has stated why, waaaaaay back in August.
Well, kinda.
On August 8, 1990, President Bush delivered a speech at the White House
explaining why he deployed American troops to Saudi Arabia. He concluded his
speech by saying, "Standing up for our principles will not come easy....
Standing up for our principle is an American tradition....it will take unity of
purpose." Pretty patriotic stuff, right? The highly emotive language, "[it]
will not come easy," and "American tradition" is designed to change your
attitude from a potentially negative one to a positive one. The word
"tradition" could easily be substituted with "throwback", "routine",
"observance", or "notion" but these words would not generate the same
persuasive tone. Positive emotional generation is very important in a critical
foreign policy issue -- issues which may otherwise throw the public into a
screaming rage. As this file unfolds, consciously note the deliberate use of
emotive language in President Bush's words.
President Bush becomes very creative with emotive language when he
describes the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait; "...Iraq's tanks stormed in blitzkrieg
fashion through Kuwait in a few short hours." Blitzkrieg fashion? Does this
drum up images of Hitler? During a news conference in Orlando, Florida on
November 1, 1990, at least one reporter wanted to know. President Bush was
asked, "Can you tell us what Saddam Hussein has done that compares to the
Holocaust?" In his reply he stated, "I see many similarities by the way the
Iraqi forces behaved in Kuwait and the Death's Head Regiments behaved in
Poland." This is strong emotive language attempting to emphasize the potential
threat of Saddam Hussein.
This is all a great emotional charge but it does not explain or relate
information as to what our initial purpose in Saudi Arabia was.
President Bush's emphasis of the word "clear" in the speech he delivered
implies that he understands that many Americans might not be sure exactly why
American troops were sent to Saudi Arabia. "Let me be clear," he emphasized.
"The sovereign independence of Saudi Arabia is of vital interest to the United
States." He then went on to explain, "I want to be clear about what we are
doing and why. America does not seek conflict, nor do we seek to chart the
destiny of other nations. But America will stand by her friends. The mission
of our troops is wholly defensive."
Though language is a tool to communicate ideas clearly, sometimes, as
demonstrated by President Bush, it falls short of this goal. In order to
clarify language even further, sometimes it is beneficial to set up an
artificial symbolic language. To further clarify President Bush's attempts to
be clear, we shall use artificial symbolic language to analyze his words.
According to President Bush, it is not the case (~) that America seeks
conflict (C) and it is not the case (~) that America seeks to chart the destiny
of other nations (N) -- so, President Bush, what is the intent of America?
America will stand by her friends (S) and the mission of our troops is wholly
defensive (D). This can by effectively diagramed as:
~C and ~N
S and D
We are left guessing that the reason President Bush deployed American
troops to Saudi Arabia is because "...America will stand by her friends."
Since troops have been deployed to Saudi Arabia, this implies that Saudi Arabia
is America's friend. This deployment has the greater implication that Saudi
Arabia is in danger of being attacked by military forces because the mission of
our troops, as explained by President Bush, is "wholly defensive". Certainly
defense does not exist without attack. Who would order an attack on Saudi
Arabia? Saddam Hussein?
President Bush, while trying to justify his actions, attempts to
demonstrate that America's friend, Saudi Arabia, is in danger of being attacked
by the Iraqi military. The actual argument used by President Bush is as
follows:
"But we must recognize that Iraq may not stop using
force to advance its ambitions. Iraq has massed an
enormous war machine on the Saudi border, capable
of initiating hostilities with little or no additional
preparation. Given the Iraqi government's history
of aggression against its own citizens as well as its
neighbors, to assume Iraq will not attack again would
be unwise and unrealistic."
Currently the premises do provide conclusive evidence that "...we must
recognize that Iraq may not stop using force to advance its ambitions." The
key word here is that the conclusive evidence supports the idea that Iraq may
attack. It's important to understand that the premises establish the idea
that "Iraq has massed an enormous war machine" and "it would be unwise to
assume Iraq will not attack" and these completely support the idea that Iraq
may attack or it may not.
However, as President Bush stated during his August 8, 1990 speech,
American troops are not in Saudi Arabia merely because "America will stand by
her friends," but because "...the Saudi government requested our help." So,
according to President Bush..
American troops are in Saudi Arabia because "America
will stand by her friends," and "...the Saudi government
requested our help."
Does this imply that if Lithuania requested our help then we would be
rushing troops to defend them against the Soviets? Somehow this fellow doesn't
think so.
President Bush has deductively argued that Saudi Arabia may be danger of
being attacked by Saddam Hussein's military -- which is, as President Bush
thoughtfully reminds us, "...the fourth largest military in the world."
American troops are in Saudi Arabia to defend against any possible attacks.
Keep in mind, Iraq might attack Saudi Arabia and it might not. We're just
there to make sure Iraq doesn't attack Saudi Arabia.
At least that's the way President Bush has explained it to us.
______________________________________________________________________________
JANUARY 10, 1991
The 5:00 o'clock news program on KCRA Channel 3 (Sacramento, California)
announced an interesting story on January 10th, 1991. A Modesto, California
businessman had obtained a government contract with the military. There is
nothing unusual about this event by itself except when you stop to consider
that this businessman owns a business which manufactures body bags and the
government contract called for an order of 20,000 (twenty thousand) of them.
It might appear that our government plans to be sending some of our boys
home soon. However, as of this writing (January 10, 1991) that is purely
speculative. Hey, it would be presumptuous to interpret this as a sign that
the U.S. plans to initiate hostilities against Iraq. However, we should also
not discount the consequential implication of this report.
______________________________________________________________________________
JANUARY 16, 1991
"Our objectives are clear. Saddam Hussein's forces will leave Kuwait.
The legitimate government of Kuwait will be restored to its rightful place.
And Kuwait will once again be free."
-- President George Bush, January 16, 1991
Wait, wait, wait! What's all this talk, George!? I thought you said the
mission of our troops was wholly defensive!? In fact, I'm sure that's what you
said. Certainly you don't expect troops on the wholly defensive to remove
Hussein's forces? Wouldn't that be the job of offensive troops?
In fact, President Bush surely recalls those powerful words he uttered
just a few short months ago, and now, if he is going to muster the support of
the American public, he is going to have to present a strong argument for
declaring war on Iraq. What exactly did he say to enlist the support of the
nation?
"Some may ask, 'Why act now? Why not wait?' The answer
is clear. The world could wait no longer."
-- President Bush (January 16, 1991)
That, what you just read, is the crux of President Bush's argument for
declaring war. And, isn't it a fine reason? Who wouldn't die for impatience?
Immediately following this statement comes the emotive charge for making
impatience seem like an excellent reason to wage war on Iraq.
"Sanctions, though having some effect, showed no signs
of accomplishing their objective. Sanctions were tried
for well over five months. And we, and our allies,
concluded that sanctions alone would not force Saddam
from Kuwait. While the world waited, Saddam Hussein
systematically raped, pillaged, and plundered a tiny
nation no threat to his own. He subjected the people of
Kuwait to unspeakable atrocities. And among those maimed
and murdered; innocent children. While the world waited,
Saddam sought to add to the chemical weapons arsenal he
now possesses and an infinitely more dangerous weapon of
mass destruction, a nuclear weapon. And while the world
waited, while the world talked peace and withdrawal, Saddam
Hussein dug in and moved massive forces into Kuwait.
While the world waited, while Saddam stalled, more damage
was being done to the fragile economies of the third world,
the emerging democracies of eastern Europe, to the entire
world, including to our own economy. The United States,
together with the United Nations, exhausted every means
at our disposal to bring this crisis to a peaceful end.
However, Saddam clearly felt that by stalling and
threatening and defying the United Nations, he could
weaken the forces irate against him. While the world
waited, Saddam Hussein met every overture of peace with
open contempt. While the world prayed for peace, Saddam
prepared for war."
In case you had trouble spotting some of those emotive words (and phrases)
mentioned earlier, here's a quick highlight: "raped, pillaged, and plundered a
tiny nation", "unspeakable atrocities", "murdered innocent children", "mass
destruction", "massive forces", "fragile economies of the third world",
"stalling and threatening and defying the United Nations", "open contempt".
After that charge, who would dare speak out against President Bush's
reasoning?
Sometimes, in our attempts to better understand what people mean, it
helps to cut away the vague, ambiguous, and emotive language so we can see
what they're really saying. Sometimes it doesn't help.
______________________________________________________________________________
Before concluding this file there are two more important points President
Bush makes which I believe deserve comment.
"Our goal is not the conquesition of Iraq, it is the liberation of
Kuwait."
-- President Bush (December 16, 1991)
The liberation of Kuwait? I'm not a historian so the facts here aren't
quite clear to me, but many years ago (1950s I believe) it was the United
Kingdom which set up the existing borders between Iraq and Kuwait. Kuwait was,
in effect, set up by the British. Kuwait and Iraq were, before that time, a
single nation. Is Saddam liberating Kuwait or is President Bush liberating
Kuwait? Did the United Kingdom commit "unspeakable atrocities" or was it
Iraq? I do not know, but I'd like to.
"And Kuwait will once again be free."
-- President George Bush, January 16, 1991
Keep in mind, when President Bush refers to the freedom of Kuwait he does
not mean in the democratic sense because Kuwait is a monarchy, not an elected
governing body like we enjoy in the United States of America. So, are we
really defending freedom? And how broadly do we define freedom? If one
communist nation forcibly seized another communist nation, would we care so
much? Maybe if they had oil....
______________________________________________________________________________
President Bush has used troops which he claimed were positioned for wholly
defensive reasons to lead an attack with a coalition of nations against Iraq.
He has claimed, or made implications and suggestions, that he is enforcing the
United Nations' decision that Iraq should immediately depart from Kuwait.
If that truly is our reason for war, why didn't he explicitly state that
during his speech which announced our declaration of war with Iraq? Maybe it
is because that is not the true reason. If "freedom" is not the reason for
this war, then what is? Oil? Drugs? Sand? Whatever the reason it only
seems fair that the public be informed. After all, it would merely be a
reason for war and not a military secret which would endanger the success of
the war.
Because President Bush has not been clear in his reasons for declaring
war, it would be highly unreasonable on my part to either condemn or endorse
this war. As a citizen participating in this democracy I merely want to
know President Bush's reason(s) for declaring war.
______________________________________________________________________________
If you've got a comment, I'd like to hear it. I can be reached at my BBS,
Tequila Willy's Great Subterranean Carnival: 209/526-3194.
______________________________________________________________________________
YOUR HANDY QUOTABLE QUOTES (clip and enjoy!):
"Let me be clear..."
-- President Bush (August 8, 1990)
"...all in the cause of peace."
-- President Bush (August 8, 1990)
"...after perhaps unparalleled international consultation and exhausting
every alternative..."
-- President Bush (August 8, 1990)
"...no one should underestimate our determination to confront aggression."
-- President Bush (August 8, 1990)
"The sovereign independence of Saudi Arabia is of vital interest to the
United States."
-- President Bush (August 8, 1990)
"The mission of our troops is wholly defensive."
-- President Bushy (August 8, 1990)
"Our goal is not the conquesition of Iraq, it is the liberation of
Kuwait."
-- President Bush (December 16, 1991)
"YOW! I'm imagining a surfer van filled with SOY SAUCE!"
-- Zippy the Pinhead (circa 20th Century)
______________________________________________________________________________
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Bush, G. (1990, September 1). Iraq invasion of Kuwait.
Vital Speeches of the Day, LVI(22), 674-675
Bush, G. (1991, January 16). President Address to the Nation.
Bush reiterates complaints against Iraqi brutality.
(1990, November 3). Congressional Quarterly, 48(44),
3762-3763.
Copi, I.M. & Cohen C. (1990). Introduction to Logic.
New York, NY; Macmillan.
My greatest regards to President Bush's speech writing staff for the skill
demonstrated in their writing.
_ _ ____________________________________________________________________
/((___))\|Demon Roach Undrgrnd.806/794-4362|Grassroots..............new # soon|
[ x x ] |NIHILISM.............513/767-7892|Paisley Pasture.......916/673-8412|
\ / |Tequila Willy's GSC..209/526-3194|The Works.............617/861-8976|
(' ') |Lunatic Labs.........213/655-0691|Ripco II..............312/528-5020|
(U) |====================================================================|
.ooM |Copr. 1991 cDc communications by Tequila Willy. 02/18/91-#161|
\_______/|All Rights Pissed Away. |