

                                    _

                                   | \

                                   |  \

                                   | | \

                            __     | |\ \             __

      _____________       _/_/     | | \ \          _/_/     _____________

     |  ___________     _/_/       | |  \ \       _/_/       ___________  |

     | |              _/_/_____    | |   > >    _/_/_____               | |

     | |             /________/    | |  / /    /________/               | |

     | |                           | | / /                              | |

     | |                           | |/ /                               | |

     | |                           | | /                                | |

     | |                           |  /                                 | |

     | |                           |_/                                  | |

     | |                                                                | |

     | |      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.                                             |











