_ | \ | \ | | \ __ | |\ \ __ _____________ _/_/ | | \ \ _/_/ _____________ | ___________ _/_/ | | \ \ _/_/ ___________ | | | _/_/_____ | | > > _/_/_____ | | | | /________/ | | / / /________/ | | | | | | / / | | | | | |/ / | | | | | | / | | | | | / | | | | |_/ | | | | | | | | 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. |