Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    I do.  
    
    You can't win a war until you go in on the ground.  It takes a live,
    human person standing there with a gun to hold a position, no matter
    how many bombs you drop beforehand.
    
    I trust we are in it to win.
    
    
    ---kim
    
    

    A ground war is the only way to finish it, until then any number of
    troops can hold Kuwait, no matter their morale, ammo supply, or number.
    
    Now here's a problem, they only have 3 months supply of ammo left and
    it'll take 9 months to ramp up production that hasn't started yet.
    
    Then, does support include reinstituting a draft? I think so.
    
    ed

Folks, I think we have enough notes on the war in MENNOTES for a while.  I'd
prefer not to start others, unless some direct tie to the conference theme
can be found.  Can we get back to discussions about men?

				Steve

re: .3

Yes, I probably agree.  The war has become "over-kill" (bad pun!).
I had doubts about the appropriateness of this topic too.  But I
went and entered it anyway.

Maybe it is interesting to examine or feel the reactions of men to 
this strange war that popped up from seemingly nowhere.  Perhaps
confrontations with reality, if this is what this is, produces strange 
results?   Who knows?

But I agree, there are other topics on the war here.

Mardy

    
    I dont want a ground war, as I dont want any US and UK casualties some
    of which may be personal friends of mine but I believe there must be a
    ground war as bombing alone will not make Iraq leave Kuwait and as for
    sanctions they are nigh on useless.
    
    Lets all hope it does not happen but I fear it will and if/when it does
    casualties are very light.
    
    Chas

    To give some perspective on air war vs ground war casualties: in the
    decade of the Viet Nam war, the U.S. lost 1500 men in aircraft... and
    there were over 300,000 casualties, 55,000 fatalities.
    
    Not to change the subject (this war will NOT be rat-holed, rather the
    opposite), but I find it ironic that the TOTAL Viet Nam fatalities are
    matched EACH YEAR on our nation's highways. Apparently, most of you are
    consumed with interest in the war, and beset by concern for our
    soldiers. That's all well and good. In the meanwhile, about a thousand
    Americans EACH WEEK are dying in highway accidents. I can't understand
    our national complacency about that sort of carnage. The fuss over the
    poor demonstrators in Tienamen Square: about ONE DAY's worth of U.S.
    car carnage were killed that day in China. The possible reversal of our
    enhanced relations with the Soviet Union are endangered by a
    Lithunanian demonstration where the death count was just about the
    number who die EACH HOUR in U.S. automobiles.
    
    I have sympathy for the Chinese and Lithuanian demonstrators, and I
    wish they'd come to no harm. It amazes me, however, that we base our
    national policy on such events, yet do so little to stop the killing on
    our own streets. Is it because the foreign deaths are really convenient
    excuses for foreign policy? Is it because we're USED to fifty-five
    thousand dying in car crashes each year?
    
    Bewildered as usual, Hoyt

    What a rathole.  Anyway, in my favorite novel read last year, John
    Crowley's "Engine Summer", a person from an agrarian post-industrial
    society is shown one of the old deserted highways.  "What were they
    used for?" he asks, and is told about millions of people in small metal
    boxes going back and forth at inconceivable speeds.  He wonders how
    they survived such conditions and is told how many people didn't
    (several times the total population of the world in the novel), "but
    there were so many people in those times that they didn't even notice
    how many died."
    
    It reminded me of the old military saw about our former foes the "Red
    Chinese" (and, before them, the Japanese) not valuing human life as
    much as we did....
    
    Ray

No ground war now.  Maintain sanctions.  Bomb production efforts.   
Rotate the troops.  Give the sanctions/bombings 1 year to work, like 
most estimates predict.  

If it isn't working after a year, re-evaluate the idea of a ground 
war.

							--Gerry

    RE: .-1
    
    AGREED!  Mark the day on the calendar, Gerry ... :-)
    
    With the exception of troop rotation ... that was a B I G  mistake in
    Vietnam ... let's not make the same one here...
    
    Jerry

    
>    With the exception of troop rotation ... that was a B I G  mistake in
>    Vietnam ... let's not make the same one here...
    
You know more about that end of things than I do.  

(Is there a way to "rest" them while we're waiting?)


							--Gerry

    Based on a interview I read in Newsweek the LAST thing the ground
    troops want is a long delay before a ground war.  They figure the
    quickest way home is THROUGH Kuwait. They were VERY clear about not
    wanting to spend another summer in the desert.  They seem to 
    be willing to risk their lives in the interest of ending the war
    quickly even if it means higher risks.
    
    I wonder if your idea Gerry which is similiar to mine before the war
    started.... I wanted to 'babysit' (contain) Iraq indefinitely while
    waiting for the sanctions to work is realistic....  given the troops
    attitude of want to get out ASAP with the job done and the difficulties
    of maintaining a long term war in the Mideast.  
    
    
    

re giving sanctions time to work.

Who will explain this to the relatives of Kuwaitis who starve to death because 
the Iraqis divert food to their troops and civilians first.

Who will explain this to the relatives of Kuwaitis who die because the Iraqis
divert medicines and other essentials to their troops and civilians first.

Who will explain this to the relatives of Kuwaiti babies who die because the 
Iraqis loot incubators to save their own spawn.

Remember: through inaction you maight save American/allied lives, but you
surely do so at a cost in innocent Kuwaiti lives. Better a hundred thousand die
in saving the innocent than that one innocent person dies through our inaction.

/. Ian .\

    re .12, Ian, I don't see how you can possibly say that (your last
    sentence.)  Personally, I value the lives of American and British
    troops over Kuwaiti civilians.
    
    Lorna
    

    I think .12 was a rather dumb statement.
    
    ed

    
    What makes a Kuwaitis life worth less than anyone elses?

    The problem I have with .12, and others, is what makes a Kuwaiti life
    worth *more* than a life in another country where we did not impose
    our military presence?  Why are X,000 of our lifes worth the lives of
    citizens of another country which doesn't hold our ideals?
    
    Jim

    What troubles me about this strain of the discussion is the idea
    of even trying to create either an equation or an inequality.
    
    ed

    re .16, exactly.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE .17
    
> <<< Note 561.17 by NOVA::FISHER "It's your Earth too, love it or leave it." >>>
>                      -< humbug, it just doesn't balance >-
>
>   What troubles me about this strain of the discussion is the idea
>   of even trying to create either an equation or an inequality.
>    
>   ed
    
    Ed, the discrepency between you personal name and your comment puzzles
    me.
    
    I find it disturbing also the willingness to let the Kuaities be
    raped, robbed, and murdered rather than face the possibility of
    placing one American life in harms way.  
    
    fred();

    re .19, there are people being mistreated, tortured, etc., all over the
    world, South Africa and South America, for instance.  What's so special
    about Kuwait?  
    
    It's an alien culture that doesn't even believe in the same things we
    claim to believe in, and I really don't think any American lives should
    be risked to help them.  Especially since there aren't any American
    lives being risked to help any other unfortunate people, like the black
    people in South Africa for example.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .20
    
    >It's an alien culture that doesn't even believe in the same things we
>    claim to believe in, and I really don't think any American lives should
>    be risked to help them.  Especially since there aren't any American
>    lives being risked to help any other unfortunate people, like the black
>    people in South Africa for example.
     
    So anyone who doesn't believe the way we believe doesn't deserve to
    live??
    Then we are doomed as a nation and as a civilization.
    
    fred();    
    

    Reminds me of a quotation from (I believe) Gandhi:

    Q: What do you think of Western Civilization?

    A: It would be a good idea.

    
    Ghandi succeeded because the Empah *was* civilized..
    
    If India were colonized by Bolsheviks instead, he would have 
    been sent to the Kolyma to mine coal, and his followers shot.
    

Dennis Miller had a great line concerning possibility of a ground war in the
Gulf on Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live this past weekend. I quote:

"Ya know, I don't get it. Why do we even consider a ground war? Why don't we
 just bomb 'em for the next few years? I mean, the air war is like sanctions
 with a bad attitude!"

Now, setting aside for a minute the implications regarding human lives, and
remembering that this _was_ SNL, it was a pretty funny line.

-Jack

    RE .23 [Ghandi] RE .22 [Gandhi]

re:  .20  (sthilaire)

>>>>It's an alien culture that doesn't even believe in the same things we claim
to believe in, and I really don't think any American lives should be risked to
help them.  Especially since there aren't any American lives being risked to
help any other unfortunate people, like the black people in South Africa for
example.

It's not about helping "them" as much as it's about "stopping" Saddom.  If the
black people you refer to lived in Kuwait, it would be the same scenario.

    re:.19:  I didn't say that the K's weren't worth fighting for or
    that anyone wasn't worth fighting for.  I sorely objected to
    trying to the statment that it was better for 100000 soldiers
    to die than one innocent civilian.  Thus, my statement that I
    objected to the creation of an equation.
    
    ed

    I think one has a clear distinction to make regardless of culture: 
    Either its appropriate to risk your life for other people or it isn't.
    The minute politics/beliefs start creeping in determining whether the
    other person(s) are 'worth' the risk to your life you are practicing
    descrimination. I believe that all people... regarless of race, culture
    or anything else have the same inherent worth... the life of a leper
    street person living in a Third World County is worth no less than my
    own life.  The Iraquis dying in the war have no less ultimate value
    as people than our own people have... even though our beliefs/morals
    differ markedly in many ways.  I support our Troops and hope they come
    home safely.  Lets not kid ourselves about having some sort of higher
    value as people in Gods eyes even though our motives may be more noble
    in this War that the motives of the Iraqis.  There are still people
    (IMO of equal value) dying on both sides.  Thats part of the tragedy
    of war.
    
    Jeff
    
    
    
    Jeff
    

    re: .28  the tragedy of war.

    The main rationale for the war has been that it would prevent
    a greater war later.   Of course, the problem with that, based 
    on a too literal Hitler analogy, is that we'll never know now.

    People are already dying in significant numbers in Iraq.  This
    was predicted by many.  Our technology has been over-rated, as
    usual.  No bombs can be yet so 'smart' that civilian casualties
    do not occur, and in significant numbers.

    On the other hand, what would have happened if we had maintained
    the original sanctions?  Would Saddam have become increasingly 
    stronger?  Hardly.  Would he have been able to invade surrounding
    countries a la Hitler?  Very unlikely.  Would fewer people, mainly
    Iraqi civilians, have died?  Yes.   Would masses of the Arab world
    been up in arms over our bombing?   No.   Would Iraq have gotten 
    out of Kuwait?   Ah! The big question!     Well, by forcing an
    unconditional ultimatum on him, we have not been able to get him
    out, and we should have known that from the beginning, given his
    personality.  

    So, where are we?   In a mess, that's for sure.

    Mardy

    re .28, all people may be of equal value in God's eyes, if there is a
    God, but all people do not have the same value in my eyes.  Aren't the
    lives of your own family and friends more valuable to you than the
    lives of strangers?  Mine are.  
    
    This does not mean that I do not *value* all human life.  I do value
    all human life.  This is why I try to treat other people well and why I
    don't approve of murder, robbery, etc.  However, the fact that I value
    human life and the fact that I try to treat people well does not mean
    that I would risk my life for just anybody.
    
    My main objection was to Ian's saying that it was worth losing 100,000
    soldiers lives to save one Kuwaiti civilian, also.
    
    BTW, I sincerely doubt the U.S. would be waging this war if Kuwait were
    full of poor, black people (as in S.Africa)  instead of oil wells. 
    
    Lorna
    

Most of my opinions come from the following beliefs:

	o  War, in the bigger picture, is not inherently "honorable" 
	   or "moral."  It's damage control after cilvilized attempts
	   at negotiating and relating fail.

	o  War changes the context of our decision-making, and, to
	   do it right, we need to play by its rules.  (That's why
	   I've been so impressed by the military specialists and
	   leaders; they are the only ones in this debate who
	   are focused on "doing the war right, now that we've
	   gotten ourselves into this"; everyone else seems
	   distracted by flags, morals, "what if"s, and "rights.")

	o  If you are in a war, do what you have to do to "win,"
	   which, in my mind, means ending it somehow.

When I look at it this way, I think that the right thing to do is to 
plan a strategy for winning the war regardless of the lives in Kuwait 
that are being lost.  Lives are being lost, anyway (check out the 
Iraqui civilians we nailed the other day).  Our soldiers, in the grand 
picture, are innocent, too.

As one military advisor said to a reporter: "You don't understand.  
War is messy and unpredictable."

Let's do what we can do to get it over with and clean up the mess.
Let's not play war according to "church rules," let's use "war rules."
	
							--Gerry

    As a pacifist, I find the use of the term "cowardly appeasers" to be an
    offensive slur.  I don't consider name calling appropriate for this
    or any other notes conference.
    
    -- Mike

    re .33, what about civilians who are pacifists?  Did you ever think of
    that?  You might actually be tricked into risking your life for a
    civilian pacifist!
    
    You accuse pacifists of being cowards.  Is it that incomprehensible to
    you that everyone does not enjoy fighting?  How would you like me to
    accuse professional soldiers of simply enjoying the kill, instead of
    bravery?  (For every pacifist who is really a coward there is probably
    a professional soldier who simply enjoys fighting and killing. 
    Afterall, where would professional soldiers be if there were never any
    wars?)
    
    I found your reply very offensive.
    
    Lorna
    

>    My main objection was to Ian's saying that it was worth losing 100,000
>    soldiers lives to save one Kuwaiti civilian, also.

 I got something slightly different out of it. I don't see it as being a simple
equation of 1 person vs 100,000 but rather a measure of moralistic idealism.
The rightness of a cause being distinct and separate from the consequences
of doing the right thing.

>    BTW, I sincerely doubt the U.S. would be waging this war if Kuwait were
>    full of poor, black people (as in S.Africa)  instead of oil wells. 

 I doubt that we would be at war if it were simply a matter of a government
oppressing it's own people. However, this is a government oppressing somebody
else's people. And that appears to be where the line gets drawn.

>    As a pacifist, I find the use of the term "cowardly appeasers" to be an
>    offensive slur.

 Perhaps, Mike, you do not belong to the group of pacifists which he considers
to be cowardly appeasers. (He did say "most.")

 As for the description itself, it does seem to be apt in most of the instances
with which I am well acquainted.

 The Doctah

    Doctah, the accusation is essentially *incorrect* in ALL of the
    instances in which I am well acquainted.
    
    More importantly, I consider that sort of name calling to be completely
    inappropriate for this notes conference.  It is as wrong to slur
    pacifists in that way as it would be for me to use labels like
    "bloodthirsty warmongers".  As far as I am concerned, an apology is in
    order, and I would hope that the moderators will not permit such name
    calling here in the future.
    
    -- Mike

    
>    Pacifists...have the blood of all innocent vistims on their
>    hands.
    
I can be seen as a pacifist.  In the context of recommending bombing 
and delaying of a ground war, it doesn't bother me that Kuwaitis will 
die.  I accept that, just as you accept the deaths of hundreds of 
Iraqui civilians.

							--Gerry

>     I doubt that we would be at war if it were simply a matter of a government
>oppressing it's own people. However, this is a government oppressing somebody
>else's people. And that appears to be where the line gets drawn.

    Can't agree with you here, Doctah.  Turkey has been oppressing Cyprus
    with military force and China has been oppressing Tibet with military
    force.  But this is not part of the "reality" which is the 6 o'clock
    news therefore 97% of the population doesn't know about it.
    
    When Russia invaded Afghanistan we boycotted the Olympics.  When
    the supporters of the Irish Republic claim oppression by British
    military we shrug it off.  And we always seem to be able to justify
    military action if it's our side doing the invading.
    
    
    The war in the gulf is wrong.  It stinks of politics, economics
    and general warmonging all cloaked under a coating of moral
    righteousness.  You and I have no idea of the truth and are unlikely
    to get any information approaching significant fact while the
    press-pool system is in place. 
    
    If the bombs are falling at the rate the coalition leaders claim
    then one thing is certain - Hell is falling from the skies and killing
    people in Iraq.  Men, women and children who had as little to do with
    Saddam Hussein's crimes as you and I had to do with the UN resolution
    to use force.
    
    How different would the opinions expressed in this forum be if the
    press were allowed to film footage of children caught in the open
    during a "carpet bombing" operation with narative pointing out that
    the only difference between those children under the bombs and those under
    the roof of your own house is that tomorrow your children will be
    in one piece.
    
    Kris

   Ah..... I see there was a no-no entry here back a few;-).   This
   stuff sure can get emotional, can't it?   Well, shall I pour more
   fuel on the fire??  How about this: it bothers me that any of these
   people have to die for what I conceive to be a wholly unecessary war.

   Even now, we could cut out the nonsense, and reduce the bombing (not
   eliminate) and go for all kinds of diplomatic moves.  The Iraqis aren't
   going anywhere.  No chance of that!   

   I don't believe in the internal logic of war.  Who said, "War is politics
   by other means."  It's time we tried "politics", even though it's become
   a dirty word in this country apparently, compared to "defence".

   There actually ARE people who agree with me on this.  I heard several of
   them on the McNeil/Lehrer program the other night.   And that program
   doesn't have the Daniel Ellsbergs or the Ramsey Clarks on it.   

   Well, have I stirred the pot some more?  

   Mardy :-)

  re: .39     GOOD!   I agree completely!    /mardy

    
    So you seriously think that sanctions would have kept President
    Hussein from annoying his nieghbors with noxious gases and
    stealing their countries? 
    
    You seriously think that leaders like this can be dealt with without
    selling out ones friends?
    
    Dealing with President Hussein would have meant selling out our friend
    Israel, who in turn would draw the proper conclusions and, most likely
    have launched an attack with "weapons of mass destruction". 
    
    

>    Doctah, the accusation is essentially *incorrect* in ALL of the
>    instances in which I am well acquainted.

 It is not an accusation, it is a subjective description. I disagree that it
amounts to name-calling, but then, I don't really care if it IS name calling
if it is a valid representation of reality. If you don't like the term, don't 
use it. If the big problem is that you don't want to be labeled by an outside
group, how about if the non-pacifists simply refer to themselves as 
non-cowardly, non-appeasers? 

>The war in the gulf is wrong.

 If that is your opinion, then we have nothing further to discuss. I believe
that the war in the gulf is a necessary evil that will be looked back upon as
being in the best interest of the security of the world (in an historical 
sense.)

 While I can't say that I don't hear any complaints from pacifists about the 
aggression that Iraq foisted upon Kuwait, I can say that it's far less vocal
than that against the US for attempting to reverse the violence. As far as
I can tell, any protests by pacifists against Saddam Hussein have been of
the lip service variety, accompanied by a moderate amount of hand-wringing,
but no willingness to do anything that would lead to a reversal of the
situation. Of course, a convenient argument exists that we ought to have
relied on the sanctions indefinitely, in the blind hope that because it is
impossible to "prove" that open ended sanctions don't work, that they would 
have. Most thinking people recognize that because Iraq even with 100% sanctions
compliance would have only lost ~40% of their GNP, that the reduction to $1300
per capita of GNP would have still placed Iraq firmly in the midst of the
third world pack, and quite unlikely to give up such a precious jewel as
Kuwait. And, of course, no one is naive enough to believe that 100% enforcement
of sanctions were possible even over a short period.

 The sanctions even when announced amounted to a placation of world opinion.
It was well known within the administration that Saddam Hussein has never
voluntarily given up anything, least of all real estate and wealth. The 
sanctions were put in place to demonstrate the willingness of the administration
to attempt to go the diplomatic route with an unreasonable adversary, even 
though few expected them to attain the objective. That is part and parcel of
dealing with unreasonable people; normal, rational methods do not have any
impact whatsoever. People who believe that ANY nonviolent method could have
convinced Saddam Hussein to relinquish his prize delude only themselves. History
is replete with men just like Saddam Hussein; men who lack the ability to 
respond to situations by using diplomatic efforts. None of them behaved any 
differently than Hussein. All had to be "convinced" by violence that they had
erred. Why anyone thinks that Hussein would be likely to behave differently
is beyond me.

 Hussein's actions are truly disgusting, yet are calculated to draw support 
from the very people who are protesting the war. It is so ironic to see people
react precisely the way that Hussein planned for them to act, yet for them
to believe that they do not dance at the end of the puppet strings. In the
same way that pacifists claim that we "non-cowardly non appeaseniks" are dancing
on the puppet strings of the US military, we see the pacifists dancing on the
strings that Hussein controls. 

 The Doctah

    The big problem is that I object to the use of name calling in a
    Digital notes conference.  In this case, it is not even "a valid
    representation of reality", but that is really beside the point.  What
    matters to me is whether or not this sort of use of emotionally charged
    labels to slur a group of people is offensive, and whether it should be
    tolerated in this notes conference.  I believe that it shouldn't.

    -- Mike

    RE: .44
    
    Value differences?
    
    He doesn't like what you have to say .. you don't like what he has to
    say, but, you "value" and respect each others opinion .. what's wrong
    with that?
    
    Did I miss something?
    
    Jerry

    Valuing differences is exactly the point.  A slur against my religious
    and moral principles is *not* valuing my differences.
    
    -- Mike

    	re: several
    		Iraq has energy supplies, with both oil and refineries. It
    has mineral supplies (including uranium) and at least an elite that is
    capable of maintaining a high level of technology for a long time if
    left undisturbed - it was the Iraquis that extended the SCUD missile
    to reach Tel-Aviv - the Russians did not sell them like that.
    
    	What it does *not* have is adequate food production for its
    population. Given a few special deals on medical supplies and a little
    smuggling Iraq can be self-sufficient except for food.
    
    	Now, given a military government and sanctions is it soldiers or
    civilians that will die first?
    
    	Iraq *could* have been made to withdraw with sanctions, and not a
    single Iraqui soldier would have starved to death.
    
    	If the discussion is whether you choose to kill Iraqui soldiers or
    civilians, then to a first approximation bombs kill soldiers while
    sanctions kill civilians.
    
    	To add a few reasonably credible facts I will quote from my atlas,
    which may be a little out of date since it was published over 12 years
    ago.
    
    "Internally there was intermittent fighting between the government and
    its large Kurdish minority throughout the 1960s and 1970s, and
    externally bitter disputes with Kuwait and Iran; Iraq implacably
    opposed to monarchial Arab states". (at that time Iran was a monarchy)
    
    "Iraq is a major oil producer  and its petroleum industry provides
    about 20% of its gross domestic product". "Oil for use in Iraq is
    refined at Daura ... and other centres, and a petro-chemical industry
    is being developed".   "The importance of oil has overshadowed Iraq's
    other mineral resources. These include vast rock sulphur deposits..."
    
    "Products range from building materials to furniture, soap, dairy goods
    and beverages. The important textile industry ..."    "New industries
    are being established with Soviet technical expertise and machinery"
    
    "Only some 14% is actually under cultivation"
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Turning the page to Kuwait there are some interesting economic
    statistics from about 20 years ago, but also
    "Kuwait's amirs, members of the Sabah dynasty which has ruled Kuwait
    since 1756 ..."
    Bearing in mind that both the Turks and the British maintained and used
    local rulers as part of good colonial policy (wherever possible) this is
    probably true. In that case, if we can find any descendant of a
    Hannoverian king, he has a better historical right to the U.S. than 
    Saddam Hussein has to Kuwait.
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    just a few interesting fragments from an atlas, which have no bearing
    on whether people *ought* to kill each other.

	Some interesting responses a few back.   I'll answer them when
	I get a chance.    Oh, and I also agree with Mike Valenza, just
  	for the record.   Good going, Mike.

	Best regards to all,
	Mardy

    
    
    -1
       Just for the record I don't...I prefer the phrase " intellectual
    cowards" instead of pacifists...Pacifists carries the idea of
    a higher moral state of being,and from what I have seen IC 
    are neither...
    
    The Nurse          p.s.The view expressed are not applicable
                         to all persons..I make acceptions for
                       Quakers..The are Good People...
    

>>>>>BTW, I sincerely doubt the U.S. would be waging this war if Kuwait were
full of poor, black people (as in S.Africa)  instead of oil wells. 

Lorna,

It's got nothing to do with color!  As for the oil, you can't let a FOOL
control the oil and have MILLIONS of people at his mercy!!!  That's the greater
threat!!!!

db

    As a returned Peace Corps volunteer, I am surprised (saddened) by some
    of the things I've read in this note.  I hadn't planned to respond but
    I felt I should let some of you know about the "pacifists" fighting for
    peace.
    
    Aside from dealing with malaria and other diseases, we risk our lives
    daily by exposing ourselves to snakes, killer bees (no laughing matter,
    in '88 they killed a volunteer in the country where I was) and the
    extremely risky transportation system - not to mention motocycling on
    horrendous trails.  Right not, in at least one West African country my
    friends are getting caught in gunfire because the government is, well,
    having problems.
    
    Is there any recognition for the men and women who have fought (and
    died) for peace?  Do we even hear about them in the news?  If they
    refused to fight in a war, would they be called "cowards"?  
    
    Excuse me if I've gotten off the subject - I thought it pertained to
    some of the replies I read.
    

[Entered for Ian...]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm a professional soldier. I accepted that I might have to place my life on 
the line.
    
Kuwaiti (and other) civilians did not.
    
It is unacceptable [to me] that innocent civilians be asked to lose their 
lives in order that I might save mine.
    
Those who choose to appease Saddam Hussein's actions have the blood of all 
innocent victims on their hands, just as in similar circumstances those who 
favoured appeasing Hitler in the 1930's bear the blood of the victims of the 
Hollocaust and other innocent civilians who died in occupied land.

I consider - and it is my opinion only - that pacifism, as reflected in a 
desire to apply sanctions until Saddam capitulates - is only acceptable when 
only the practitioner stands to suffer. When it is transparently clear that 
the sanctions hurt the oppressed more than the oppressor it is quite 
unacceptable to me. 
    
    /. Ian .\

.52> -< oh no, 'valuing differences' is surfacing again >-
    
    Let's hope not ...
    
    :-(

As moderator:

	Can people please calm down about the "name calling"?  It has
	already been taken care of.  (It was taken care of within a 
	half hour of the original entry.)

	In the future, please judge actions and things, not types of
	people.  That will avoid the name-calling problem.

	Thank you.  Back to our regularly scheduled...



						--Gerry

 re: .53

 Your note bothers me. Not because you say things that attack me or anything,
but because you expose a significant segment of people who might feel that
my opinion of most of the anti-government protesters cum pacifists applies to
them.

 There are many people who consider themselves pacifists and feel the way they
do about violence because of religious values that they were taught and have 
come to accept. I can respect such people.

 There are many people who consider the use of violence to be abhorrent, and
believe that it is better to become a martyr than to defend one's self against
violence. I can respect them (even though I pity them in a way) as long as
they do not attempt to require the rest of us to also become martyrs.

 There are others who think that if they do not engage in violence even when 
attacked, all the violence in the world will magically disappear. While I
consider such thinking to be naive, I respect the fact that they believe in
it and have no quarrel with them.

 On the other hand, there are many people who simply have an anti-american
agenda and lose no opportunity to trot out the tired slogans and rail along
side real pacifists during real conflict. Anti-war rallies have become a
convenient platform from which to launch anti-american diatribes, many of which
have little to do with the current conflict but plenty to do with a hatred for 
the values of the USA. These people disgust me, and in cloaking themselves as
pacifists they do a grave injustice to people who have strong beliefs about
pacifism.

 Still others become "pacifists" because their ideologies are driven by fear
and mortality. I hold no respect for such people. They disguise their fear by 
claiming that the war is morally reprehensible, shifting the focus from them
and their fear to the conflict. It's so transparent.

 One thing that  does bother me about both true pacifists and false pacifists
alike is the almost universal silence about the violence and repression caused
by the enemies of the United States, coupled with the vocal condemnations of
violence and repression either "caused by" the US or sponsored by countries
favorable to the US. The dichotomy is so striking it is difficult to accept
that the ideology is pure. (There are notable exceptions to this. I have no
problems with those who consistently speak out against violence and repression
only to be ignored most of the time by the media.)

 The Doctah

>The dichotomy is so striking it is difficult to accept
>that the ideology is pure. 

Do you really believe in pure ideology as anything other than a mental 
exercise?  (I'll try to answer the same question for myself, too...)


						--Gerry

    re.65
    I'll second that.
    fred();

    One can tell when war is about to happen because the following messages
    come from those in power for general consumption: 

	They are evil incarnate - We are good 
	They have no respect for human life - We are humane
	They are exploiting the weak - We are defending the defenseless
	They fired the first shot
	If you doubt our cause you are enemies and traitors

    Popular consensus is the most potent weapon in times of war and
    countries are very good at proliferating the above beliefs in order to
    obtain general consensus.  All black and white with no room for
    dissent.

    I do not know if sanctions would have worked against Iraq.  I doubt
    that any country's army can maintain unity and cohesive offensive
    capability while their leaders starve that county's general population.
    The demoralization would be an enormous fact. 

    I do not consider myself a pacifist nor an appeasist.  I have respect
    for a country's need to maintain a strong defense and I have worked my
    entire professional life designing and supplying equipment almost
    exclusively for use in military applications.  It was always with the
    belief that it was for our own national defense. 

    I do not buy into the belief that Hussein's situation is unique among
    other repressive leaders whose crimes have gone unnoticed or
    unresponded as in the case of Turkey's occupation of Cyprus or China's
    slaughter in Tibet or USSR's invasion of Afghanistan.  I believe that
    the coalition forces have vested interest in establishing a dominant
    military presents in that area of the world which has the largest oil
    reserves mush like Britain and France had at the turn of the century. 

    I do know that this war is wrong.  It's not about morals or invasions
    or defense.  It's about power.  And the power to control a large
    percentage of the world's oil supply.  It's about power over how the
    population perceives its own actions by manipulation of fact.  It's
    about lies. 

    Because of that civilians are dying in large numbers.  Be they victims
    of misdirected missiles or Saddam's twisted ideas of civilian shields,
    they are dying.  And I do know that killing is wrong.  It may be a
    necessary evil at times but not this time.  This time it is just wrong. 

    As retribution for heinous crimes against the civilians of Kuwait by
    the Iraqi military machine the coalition, the United Nations and
    several members of our noting audience have decided that heinous crimes
    against the civilians of Iraq will somehow make good the suffering
    already inflicted.  As if the dismantling of human flesh on one side of
    a border will heal the flesh on the other side. 

    In a time where weapons of mass destruction exists this attitude is not
    the road to peace - it is the downhill path to Armageddon. 

    Kris 


    

>>The dichotomy is so striking it is difficult to accept
>>that the ideology is pure. 

>Do you really believe in pure ideology as anything other than a mental 
>exercise?  (I'll try to answer the same question for myself, too...)

 Actually, I probably should have worded it thusly: "The dichotomy is so
striking that it is difficult to accept that the ideology is the overriding
motivation..."

 I don't imagine that there are too many people to whom a pure ideology
really applies. Most people contain at least a bit of hypocrisy; it's just when
it becomes a byte that someone starts looking for parity. :-)

 The Doctah

    I agree with .59, which I think is very well expressed.
    
    Lorna
    

    >>	But during the war, don't you think it is a mere luxury?
    
    No.  The members of the American Friends Service Committee are
    pacifists, but they do not wallow in the luxury of not doing anything. 
    If you believe in pacifism, you believe in pacifism.  It really is that
    simple.  You do what you can to effect peace.

    Pacifism is a luxury if you're an American in America.
    No bombs dropping here on troops OR civilians.  However,
    pacifism is not a luxury, or even an option, in a war zone.
    
    .61 refers to a Frenchman in France, ie, to a man in
    a war zone in 1940.  He could have been a collaborator,
    a resistance fighter, or tried to exist somewhere in
    between as a kind of non-entity.  But getting on a pacifist
    soapbox and telling the invaders and the resisters that
    they are both wrong was not good for his health...
    
    Wil

 re: .59

>    As retribution for heinous crimes against the civilians of Kuwait by
>    the Iraqi military machine the coalition, the United Nations and
>    several members of our noting audience have decided that heinous crimes
>    against the civilians of Iraq will somehow make good the suffering
>    already inflicted.  As if the dismantling of human flesh on one side of
>    a border will heal the flesh on the other side. 

 Your first assumption here is that the reason for the attacks on Iraq is
for retribution for the very serious crimes against humanity that Saddam Hussein
has committed. That is simply not the case. The attacks are designed to
physically move the Iraqi military out of Kuwait, since their leader lacked
the common sense to leave the country he illegally and immorally invaded.

 Your next assumption is that those of us who support the use of force to
liberate Kuwait believe that "heinous crimes against the civilians of Iraq"
have any good component whatsoever. They don't. On the other hand, I do not
consider the collateral damage done to civilians in Iraq to be a "heinous
crime." That Iraqis have died is a terrible tragedy; don't get me wrong, but it
is not a crime in the same sense that the civilians in Israel who have died
were the victims of a crime. Talk about being innocent, they were not even
a part of the coalition! To regard the unfortunate but unavoidable Iraqi
civilian deaths as a crime seems misguided. We never tried to harm any 
civilians; indeed we have endeavored to do as little damage to Iraqi civilians
as possible, to the point of ignoring glaring military targets that could not
be reliably attacked without Iraqi civilian deaths. In perhaps the most telling
sign that the coalition tries very hard to avoid collateral damage, the
Iraqis have moved military machinery into civilian populated areas, well
aware of the fact that we will not attack them.

 I feel bad for the Iraqi soldiers. They are mostly conscripted, unhappy,
underfed, and facing a superior force which most of them really have no
quarrel with, all at the behest of a megalomaniacal leader who has consistently
led them into military debacles. And many of them arer dying as a result of
our bombing. That's very sad. I wish just one of them would do the world a favor
and use his ak-47 on Saddam Hussein, loosing Iraq from his death grip. Saddam
Hussein is a very sick man, willing to sacrifice his entire country if need
be for his ego. Saddam Hussein would happily send each and every citizen of
his country to their deaths if it meant he could keep Kuwait. 

 I hear you complaining about the lack of UN action regarding Cyprus and Tibet,
and using this inaction as the most compelling reason to describe this war
as being immoral. Are you saying that you cannot right any wrong unless you
right all wrongs simultaneously? If we were to tackle Cyprus, would you then
say "Righting this wrong is immoral because you have not done anything about
Tibet"? Where do you start? Or do you never try to do anything right, shackled
by your unwillingness to set priorities? It has come down to this: most of
the world vs Iraq. Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

 I wish that there were a viable way to deal with powerful sociopaths that
did not include violence. And by viable, I mean a method that would be 
effective. I do not care to see people die, even the military troops of the
enemy. Most people seem to draw the line at the military; they can die but
it is somehow a problem when the civilians start to die. I disagree with this
stance. I don't think civilian lives are any more sacred than military lives
from the perspective that military personnel are _people_ first, fighters
second. On the other hand, I feel that when countries go to war, the fighting
should be confined to the armies involved, and not extended to the civilians.
That is one thing that I find to be most disgusting about Iraq. They have
purposely killed civilians for any political windfall they could find.

 In the end, Saddam Hussein will capitulate to the UN sanctions. He has already
started down that path by declaring that Iraq will withdraw from Kuwait
under conditions that no party in the conflict will accept. Before too much
longer, they will concede these conditions and the war will end. And the
process of rebuilding can begin. I am somewhat encouraged that Hussein has
not allowed his entire army to be killed before reaching the inescapable 
conclusion that his ill-gotten booty could not be retained. All that is left
is for him to posture until he realizes the true extent of his inability to
cause harm, then he will finally be beaten. It is, of course, my fervent hope
that he will be ousted from power and replaced by a rational being. I believe
that the people of Iraq have suffered enough from one man's madness.

 The Doctah

we need pacifists to remind us that we don't always have to go to war, and that
there would be support for peace if only we could find a way to it, always.

I am no pacifist.  I see them as needing protection until we can reach the ideal
that they help to keep alive.  I don't think that they will like that statement
though...