Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I think .0 was powerful and moving.
    
    I think war is indeed a tragedy, spawned by fear and greed, which is
    propagated quite often by nothing more than groupthink.
    
    If we should avoid any war at all cost, then why do they still happen? 
    Maybe those who FIGHT the very THOUGHT of war are braver in some ways
    than those who take their marching orders without thought, without
    concern for their humanity and their conscience.  War is brutal and
    dehumanizing, and anyone who signs up for THAT without a second thought
    (even the brief thought of running away before "doing your duty") is
    inhuman indeed.....
    
    -Jody
    

    In all due respect to our brothers and sisters who served in Vietnam
    that war taught us how to appreciate peace. It taught us to say
    no to authority. God bless those who fought for the sake of peace. 
    God bless those who refused to fight for the sake of peace.
              
    Kate
    
    By the way, .0 was beautiful.
    

    It makes me wonder why people are so ready to condem Americans for all
    the atrocities in war. the poor Viet Cong, they were just a bunch of
    fun loving peaceful people until the bad old Americans showed up. 
    give me a break, my dad was there, he had many a confrontation with
    those "peaceful" people who felt it was nothing to strap granades around
    children and pregnant women and send them into American compounds to
    blow the S*&t out of the American war mongers.  
    from what I have read in the majority of notes files, there doesn't
    seem to be much respect for anyone who has ever served in any of
    America's armed forces, dispite any disclaimers. people want to reap
    the benifits of anyone who has died in the military starting with the
    fight for independance when America was new, but Goddess forbid they 
    have to defend anything that might involve any risk.  
    
    vivian

    RE .1 Your reply takes for granted that
    a) governments have a right to draft citizens to fight
    b) patriotism equals unthinking obedience to said
       government
    
    I disagree with both ideas. 

    I highly recommend the early 70's documentary film "Hearts and Minds"
    for a fascinating account of the atrocities committed by the U.S.
    government in Vietnam.

    -- Mike

    Re: Atrocities and other distasteful acts committed in war.
    
    War is not pretty.  Even though we say there's rules, there isn't.
    In every war, civilians get killed.  Children get killed,
    non-combatants get killed.  Tragedy happens.  It's war.
    
    
    There *is* no such thing as a "nice" war.
                                                           
    
    ---kim
    

<<    It makes me wonder why people are so ready to condem Americans for all
<<    the atrocities in war. the poor Viet Cong, they were just a bunch of
<<    fun loving peaceful people until the bad old Americans showed up. 
<<    give me a break, my dad was there, he had many a confrontation with
<<    those "peaceful" people who felt it was nothing to strap granades around
<<    children and pregnant women and send them into American compounds to
<<    blow the S*&t out of the American war mongers.  


It's understandable for one to be angry that there is litte respect for 
the people who served.  But you have to be realistic as well.  My dad
was there too...  and for all those Viet Cong, who blew the s**t out
of the "Americans war mongers", there were just as many Americans who blew the s**t
out Viet Cong villages, woman, children and men alike.  War stinks- both ways.

Just my thoughts,

Terri
 

    
    my biggest complaint is that everyone seems to only document the
    atrocity of the americans.  I am not an advocate of war. I am just
    tired of the one sided information being deciminated.  
    until the vietnamize make films of their actions, or there is more
    information sent out to the americans as to what the Viet Cong did
    during the war, everything being written here is one sided. 
    at no time did I state that war was nice, good or any other platitude.
    I realize to be in support of the military is not politically correct in
    this file or for the most part, DEC, I guess this is one topic that
    Valueing differences doesn't count.
     
    here's to peace.
    
    vivian

    Vivian -
    
    I think you haven't seen the movie, and projected some sentiments onto
    the basenote that weren't there. The movie is about soldiers who are
    wrongfully convicted and executed for alleged atrocities against the
    "guerilla" side of the Boer War, essentially for political reasons. I
    said nothing about the Viet Cong. I said only that it was painful to
    have to make judgements about people from "your" side who are accused
    of atrocities. I think it is very hard for either individuals or the
    relevant judicial system to make dispassionate judgements about such
    wartime actions. I think both American and Vietnamese casualties were
    tragic.  I was not weighing them or their morality against one another.
    
    			- Bruce

re.4,.32 Vivian

Indeed valuing difference _does_ count here in this note, in this conference,
in this corporation.

My father was in Cambodia [dba Thailand as we 'weren't involved in Cambodia'].
I was not happy that he was there, nor was he.  But I was proud that he was
working, as a US soldier and citizen, to get people out.  Quite a bit has
been made of the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge and the North Vietnamese.  
During the years of the 'war' the news was full of atrocities committed against
UN/US forces and un-armed civilians.  The atrocities of the American troops were
_not_ hi-lighted to as high a degree until very late, sometimes years after the
last of the US troops were withdrawn.


Breaker Morant [re.0] was not about the US or Indochina, but rather about 
Australians in WWI.

I believe that most here do not hate soldiers so much as they hate the need 
for them. I protested US involvement in Indochina.  I protested the draft. 
I protested the lies. But, several very dear friends have their name on that 
black wall in Washington.  I would not devalue the contributions they made
in following their principals.

Regardless of _who_ does the killing, we all need to be aware of the costs.
'Never again' is a goal to reach for, no matter how unattainable it is.

    Bruce,
    you are right I didn't see the movie.  
    
    my protest were towards the sentiments towards American military and
    not towards the movie.
    
    vivian

    Minor nit re: .11
    
    "Breaker Morant"  was set in South Africa during the Boer War, and was
    based on a real incident involving soldiers in the British Army.  The
    movie serves to show (in my opinion) how governments sacrifice justice
    and truth to satisfy their own interests. 
    
    					Nigel

    The confusion perhaps comes in because BREAKER MORANT was an
    Australian-made film. Another Australian-made film, GALLIPOLI,
    was about the Aussies in WWI.
    
    War is war is war. The Viet Nam war was wrong (or at least it was
    wrong of the US to be in it). But sometimes, it becomes necessary
    to fight. Few people question the necessity for the fight against
    Hitler, for instance.
    
    --- jerry

    And, no matter what the ethics of our national involvement in 'Nam, it
    seems very clear to me that our troops have nothing to be ashamed of
    about their personal involvement...regardless of the sh*tty reception
    that many of them got when they returned.  They put their butts on the
    line over there, and that's where it all comes together.
    
    						=maggie

    Thank you Maggie
    
    It made me feel better to read .-1
    
    vivian

    
    re .9 (and some later)
    
    One of the costs of a free press is that what is reported is sometimes
    slanted by the *availability* of information from 'the other side'.
    Particularly in situations like VietNam, or the Afghan conflict,
    or the Arab/Israeli situations, we have access to the bad parts
    of only one side - ours.  The VC, the Soviets, the Arabs, simply
    don't let reporters *know* about the atrocities which they are
    committing.  And therefore, we end up *expecting* perfection from
    'our side' and are disappointed when it doesn't happen.  During
    conflict, there will be atrocities from all directions, because
    the only imperative is survival.
    
    How I wish we could gain perspective and peace as a nation on the
    wrenching period that has been labelled 'the Sixties'.  I *still*
    don't know who was 'right' and who was 'wrong' about how to view
    the government's activities then.  I do know that we still need
    healing from the deep schisms which occurred in the body politic
    in that era.
    
    Alison

    While it is true that atrocities by all sides should be highlighted and
    condemned, I think it is natural for people to have a special interest
    in the atrocities committed by their own government, particularly in a
    democratic society where the public does have a say in state policy. 
    We don't elect enemy governments, but we do elect our own, and because
    of this more direct ability to influence our government's policies, we
    have a unique ability and special responsibility to concern ourselves
    with what our own government does.  The tragedy of war atrocities is
    compounded when the very war itself is an immoral act of aggression. 
    In addition, the government is naturally interested in painting our
    side as the 'good guys', and will exercise its propaganda machinery and
    the nation's natural patriotic inclinations to promote this notion;
    opposing government policies, therefore, requires a strong
    counteraction of this sort of official propaganda.

    For those reasons, it was important to focus on the atrocities
    committed by the U.S. in Vietnam.
    
    -- Mike

    There was a band who said "won't get fooled again"
    I WONT

    The band  is The Who... Teenage wasteland..
    
                        REK

    
>    The band  is The Who... Teenage wasteland..
    
    Half right.  The band is The Who.  The Who *never* had a song named
    "Teenage Wasteland", although that phrase is used in the chorus of a
    song by The Who.  The actual name of the song is "Baba O'Reilly" and it
    actually has some relevance to this topic.  Two points to the first
    person who can correctly identify where this song title came from.
    
    Rita
    
    

    Some one sent me mail and the title is Not going to be fooled again
    or something like thar.. the Phase teenage wasteland really means
    somethimg to me.. Like Malls are teenage wasteland....
    
                REK

    I have often thought not being eligible for the draft is the ONLY 
    advantage of being a woman.
    I also think there would be less war if only women were in charge.

    	Any society in which the members are not willing and able to fight 
    for their freedom and way of life is likely in a very short time to be 
    conquered and have another way of life imposed on it.  The women will
    bear the children of the conquerors (Rape with a very big R).  The
    children will be taken from their parents and taught the conqueror's
    language and ideals (Afganistan).  Anyone who speaks against the
    conqueror may be murdered and buried in an unmarked grave (Romania and
    most of eastern Europe until the army changed sides).  
    	Any of you who think that war can never be justified dig up some
    pictures of kids jumping off of buildings onto tanks with Molotov
    coctails in Hungary in 1956.  They had a lot more realistic sense of
    values than you do.  Read some of the stuff in notesfiles that came out 
    of China last year.  
    	Maybe the US has made some mistakes in the recent past.  I hope
    that my children never have to live in a society where most of the
    people are willing to let anyone who is willing come in and take over. 
    There are a lot of values that most of us share in this country, and
    one of them is that we will fight for what is right.  In a lot of the
    world typing something like this into a publically accessible place
    could end up with me and my family disappearing some night.  I hope
    that I would have the courage to fight to prevent our society from
    becoming that kind of place.
    	War may be awfully ugly and unpleasant, but a lifetime of slavery
    in my opinion is an infinitely worse alternative.
    						John
    

    RE .27
    
    I agree. There are worse things than war.
    
    Most people have a point after which they are willing to physically
    fight for something.
    
    What the future needs to offer us are the skills in negotiation,
    listening, lack of chauvinism (in the country sense, not the pig sense)
    understanding that this is one world - and the only one we have, and
    the desire to get to win-win with other groups *in* this world.
    
    What we need to lose are the old crufty ideas about "if you win, then
    I must lose", and that power means "power over" rather than "power
    with".
    
    I'm more concerned abut the attitudes that lead to war, rather than the
    fact that each of us is willing to fight for something, somehow.
    
    RE: Women bearing children of conquerors (Rape with a very big R)
    
    Women bearing children does not equal rape. Forced sexual contact
    equals rape. Rape does not occur because you don't defend your
    homeland, rape occurs because the culture doesn't value women.
    
    --DE
    

    I'm willing - now if you'll just convince the other side.
    
    It nice enough to say that those who fought(?) against the war were
    brave, but i resent the implication that those who "did their duty"
    were not.  I know a fair number of persons who went to 'Nam to do
    something GOOD.  They had hopes to spare a people from what they
    saw as exploitation by the Communists.  They had to be there to
    discover the exploitation by their own, and indeed the ready acceptance
    of corruption by the people there.  I know individuals who readily 
    gave of their off-duty time to engage in genuinely helpful activities.
    I know individuals who were quite disappointed when they discovered
    that their efforts were often being exploited for the advantage of
    local "powers-that-be".
    
    As long as there are people who are willing to commit aggression, it
    will be necessary for the rest of us to be prepared to resist it -
    unless you'd prefer being the object of a massacre, or a slave.

    .29 > It nice enough to say that those who fought(?) against the war were
    .29 > brave, but i resent the implication that those who "did their duty"
    .29 > were not.  
    
    I don't think anyone in this string has made such an implication.
    
    .29 > As long as there are people who are willing to commit aggression, it
    .29 > will be necessary for the rest of us to be prepared to resist it -
    
    I don't think anyone in this string has said otherwise.

    .30>> I don't think anyone in this string has made such an implication.
    
    Perhaps i'm a little to touchy today, but i did get that impression
    from (.2) and (.3).
    							der 

    I think an important point about resisting aggression is that
    sometimes the party committing aggression in a military conflict is
    your own government.  When that is the case, the way to resist
    aggression is to protest against your nation's war effort.

    -- Mike