Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    RE: .3
    
    > 	Why do you think men are willing to fight in wars if not to
    >protect their loved ones ?  What possible rational do you believe 
    
	That's not the reason a bunch of Marine's I spoke to last weekend
    	gave for wanting to go "kick Saddam's *ss."
    
    	I believe the sloan is "duty, honor, country". Things to make heros
    	with. Things that make you a REAL MAN (tm). I heard nothing about
    	going to keep their girlfriend safe or even happy. 
    
    	The Marine slogan is not "travel far away to protect your wife"
    
    	-Erik
    

    There are _several_ 'romanticisms' exploited for the purpose of
    sending men to war. Occasionally they are even true. The main 
    reason young men go to fight is simple - they don't know better
    yet. Why do you think they recruit (or draft) 18-year-olds ?
    If they tried that with 30-year-olds the army would be a dozen
    people ! (Rathole - is it just coincidence that young people
    get very little in the way of education in philosophy?) I know
    that if I had been called at 18 I would have gone - I didn't know
    better. Now that I _know_ what a stupid war the Vietnam conflict was
    I'd be in Canada toute suite :-) But that comes of having several
    years to codify and apply my philosophy.
    
    Want to end the US involvement in wars ? Raise the minimum age
    for recruitment to 30. See how many people buy that gung-ho stuff.

    Dana (militiaman who opposes standing armies)

>    	I believe the sloan is "duty, honor, country". Things to make heros
>   	with. Things that make you a REAL MAN (tm). I heard nothing about
>    	going to keep their girlfriend safe or even happy. 
    

Please get your facts straight.  Marines don't have enough class to have a 
motto like that. :^) 

"Duty, Honor, Country" is the motto (not "slo[g]an") of the U.S. Military 
Academy (actually, it's a whole lot more than a motto; it's a way of life.
But that's not what's being discussed here).

So I guess your cutesy phrase should read: "Things that make you a REAL MAN 
or WOMAN (tm)", right?  You are right on one count: West Point HAS produced 
quite a number of heroes.  

You seem to have a problem with "duty, honor, country".  Care to elaborate?


Rod

    
    > "duty, honor, country".  Care to elaborate? 
    
    	Just this - it is the motto throughout the military (service-wide
    	btw, not just the USMA) and has nothing to do with the notion that
    	men fight to 'protect their loved-ones at home' as someone suggested
    	earlier. (IE, what happens when a soldier wants to stay home and 
    	defend his wife instead of his honor or the honor of his country?
    	Which principle will he be made to uphold?). 
    
    > You are right on one count: West Point HAS produced quite a 
    > number of heroes. 
    
    	People have different criteria for what a 'hero' actually
    	constitutes. A hero of the liberal community may not be a hero in
    	the eyes of the right-wing conservative community and vice versa.
    
    	Whether the slogan of "duty, honor, country" itself is as good a 
    	slogan as Digital's "Do the Right Thing" is another issue...
                                                           
    	-Erik 

    Some years ago when I was in school we were visited by a career
    Navy officer who had joined the Navy early during WW II. Over
    lunch someone asked "Why did you join the Navy?" The answer, which
    was delivered with pure astonishment of voice, was "There was a war on."
    Elaboration was that the officer felt that they had an obligation
    to do all they could to protect country and freedom.

    The officers name was Grace Hopper.

    			Alfred

	It does seem that average men go too easily off to war, giving
	up the real things of value in this life to destroy other average
	men like themselves. Its part of the male experience to be conditioned
	from youth to unquestionably respond to the war drum....some believe
	young men will always be available in this way.Some are glad of it.

	We are told that we must go when country calls....never taught
	the distinction that whats really calling is a government in
	power and its policies.

	I look at my beautiful little boy David,gangly ,blond haired, blue eyed
	thirteen year old fire ball....and pray no government sees the need
	to spend him on some dubious battlefield when he's of age.

	The Pentagon Papers taught me how callous ,cynical men of power
	can ,if so inclined ,easily and purposely manipulate public opinion 
	aiming for that	'war fever pitch' that causes the nation to spend its
	sons (and now daughters) far too easily.

	War should not be the easiest or first option. No government should be 
	given such power as to circumvent the exercise of conscience and the 
	necessary ethical examination that free citizens should apply in such 
	matters. Our children must be morally educated so as to be up to the
	challenges that such exercises of conscience pose.

	Part of that moral education should be the dismantling of the romantic,
	macho imagery of war. It must be seen as the grim, bloody option it is.
	When its inevitable or even somewhat justifiable it should in part be
	considered the failure it really is and more humane avenues must always 
	be kept open and pursued.

MAC

       > Our children must be morally educated so as to be up to the
       < challenges that such exercises of conscience pose.

   	>Part of that moral education should be the dismantling of the romantic,
	<macho imagery of war. It must be seen as the grim, bloody option it is.
	
   MAC...
    Can you tell me more about how the current "romantic, macho imagery of
    war" is passed on to our children?
    
    I am one of those people who cannot abide or understand that thought of
    war. I cannot understand why anyone would go to war, and I would
    personally rather be imprisoned than take another life (or go into a
    situation where I may be expected to do so). HOWEVER....I thought there
    were enough people around who felt like me to have changed, at least
    slightly, the imagery of war that our children learn.
    
    Maybe I'm more of a minority than I thought.....
    'gail                          
    

    
    Those who haven't already read it might be interested in MENNOTES 500 -
    "Why are men always the combatants?"  There are about 200 replies, and
    alot are about why women should/should not go to war, but there are
    also quite a few very interesting replies from men explaining why
    *they* went to war.
    
    Sam
    

    I read the note about David possibly being spent on a war with
    understanding and compassion.  I too hope that Matt (my son) at 3 yrs
    old who also is blond and blue eyed and full of energy is not being raised
    by his mother and me so that some politician can spend him on some
    political cause too.   
    
    At 47 years old and having spent the better part of a year in the
    Tonkin Gulf during the Vietnam War while we bombed hell out of No.
    Vietnam I am left with few illusions about wars either.
    
    I still can't answer the question about what to do about Nations
    which take over others and ignore World efforts to remedy the
    situation (Iraq).  Its sort of like the playground bully (oil issues
    aside) who insists on beating up the little kids.  Until a big guy
    stands up to him the bully will continue beating up the little guys.
    Should the bigger kids stand aside and let him continue?  I assume
    that negotiations have failed and the only thing left is physical
    restraint or punching him out.  What does the World do when the
    bully is surrounded by a heavilily armed Nation backing him?  (Of
    course he never should have been allowed to build up the arms in the first
    place but thats another issue).  Negotiation is failing and physical
    restraint (the blockade) is having a minimal effect. We wait.  Suppose
    we wait and Iraq attacks another Country?  Should we still stand aside
    to save lives and let him get into a stronger more and potentially more
    agressive position?  Eventually I dare say he will expand more and get
    to the point where he CAN'T be ignored.  Also, other aspiring
    agressively expansionist Countries will be encouraged to try similiar
    attacks.  Where does it end?  THESE are the types of questions which I
    try and answer to myself.  I keep coming back to the conclusion that no
    matter how peaceful I want the World to be there are others who don't
    care about World peace and lives saved as long as they can develop
    their own wealth and power at others expense. And the choice is not as
    much a choice as it seems.  It comes down to would we rather stop the
    'bullies' now while its relatively easy or wait until their strength
    has developed more and we have the choice of die or have the World
    taken over.  Its sort of like pay some now or lots more later.
    
    I find myself caught between the realities of how some other people
    behave vs. they way I want them to behave to have World peace.  Running
    to Canada or pretending Saddam doesn't exist won't make him go away.
    
    Whether the U.S. involvement in the Middle East has a selfish component
    to keep oil flowing or not is not the point I am trying to make.  The
    point is that agressive countries have to be stood up to to hold World
    law and order.  Don't they???????
    
    
    
    

	RE: GAIL

	My youth was filled with influences which prepared me for the
	eventuality of war.There was a steady diet of romantic, macho
	influences for my young receptive mind. My games were war games: 
	playing with other boys on the street of S.F. with our toy guns 
	getting as close as we could to the experience of the war hunt and 
	kill; we never tired of the psycho-drama. Even alone I would play 
	with toy soldiers;I even remember taking red crayons and coloring 
	bloody wounds on them to enhance the realism of my play.

	Consider the popular media of the time: Television shows like combat;
	westerns like rawhide,lawman,wanted dead or alive, the rebel, gunsmoke,
	maverick, sugarfoot, have gun will travel; police action dramas like
	m-squad, tightrope, naked city, all forming a constant nightly
	experience for the young male mind. The epic movies of the time
	were largely romantic treatments of violent conflicts like Spartacus,
	Ben Hur, The Alamo, Guns of Navarone, West Side Story and on and on.

	All my boyhood male role models were somehow connected to aggression
	in some way. The expectation in my mind was that violence would come;
	war would come...I would someday be given the opportunity for heroism
	like that depicted constantly by the popular media and other influences
	of the time.

	There was very little counterbalance to the basic message that young
	boys became men through war or other forms of sanctioned aggression. 
	Aggression in sports or other persuits was how I proved worthiness of 
	manhood.

	How much has changed? Are we still preparing our young for mindlessly 
	going off to war...conditioning them on so many subtle levels?

	????

MAC

	
	

    re: .9
    
    	You're very thoughtful and obviously see all sides of this.
    
    	I recognize that sometimes no options are left but aggression.
    
    	I just argue for the opportunity to decide for ouselves as free
    	citizens and hope for the moral/ethical basis to do so wisely.
    
    MAC

    My 16-year-old daughter told us that if the war's still going on
    when she graduates, she's probably going to go.
    
    She doesn't see any reason why it's any worse for her to go than
    for someone's son to go.  Whether the war itself is valid is an
    entirely separate issue. 
    
    She doesn't see it as macho, or romantic, or anything else.  It's
    a nasty unpleasant job that has to be done, and it should be done
    by those who would do the best job.  And she would make a better
    soldier (actually it's AF or Navy ROTC she's looking at) than most
    of her male friends. 
    
    --bonnie

    I am opposed to war on principle; I just wish it was never necessary.
    Unfortunately sometimes it is.
    
    I wish no one's children had to suffer this.
    

    When we talk about war there is no black and white. Our country has
    done many wrong things. That does not mean that all wars are wrong.
    There *are* things worth dying for. It is this country's eternal shame
    that we stayed out of WWII as long as we did. **MILLIONS** of innocent
    people died because we did that. Viet Nam was wrong from the word go.

    So where does that leave us? We must educate our children to both the
    ugly reality of war and the occasional necessity of war. We must
    develop a population that *thinks* about the world and what's
    happening in it.

    I've never been in war but I've spent enough time in the E.R. of large
    cities to know what it must feel like in the medical lines. Seeing
    children slaughtered and screaming in pain is the bottom line of
    combat. But think about the childen slaughtered and screaming in pain
    that Hitler left in the concentration camps. Hussien does that to his
    own counrtymen. Do you think he will stop at doing it to any people he
    takes over?

    Saying someone is evil is a value judgement. Often it's nothing but war
    mongering rhetoric. But sometimes, sometimes, it's true beyond a doubt.
    We have to train ourselves to learn the difference. liesl

    re .15 >re: Kolbe "Viet Nam was wrong from the word go."
    
    >Therefore it follows that all young men who fought and died
    >over there were foolish at best and evil at worse ?    
    
    Non sequiter. Vietnam was a place where the leaders had
    no clear objectives, no expertise, no real interest to protect.
    The men that fought and died there were not fools, nor evil,
    just innocent and ignorant kids whose efforts and lives were
    _wasted_ by a half-a**ed bunch of incompetents.
    
    Wars should be fought to protect a well-defined interest, with
    clear objectives. Pity we have no leaders with the intelligence
    to *see* where our interests lie and *define* objectives. (I 
    sincerely hope President Bush proves me wrong, but I'm not
    betting the lunch money on it.)

    Dana Charbonneau

<    re: Kolbe	"Viet Nam was wrong from the word go."
<    
<    	Therefore it follows that all young men who fought and died
<    over there were foolish at best and evil at worst ?

    I can see no reason why you would think that. I think no such thing of
    the men who died following orders they had no say in (or the men who
    didn't die for that matter). Whatever makes you think the actual
    soldiers had any say in this? liesl

    re .15 and .18, Eagle, I'm amazed that you condemn the young men who
    went to Canada rather than fight in Vietnam when you spent your time in
    college, rather than the military, yourself.  (I seem to recall that
    you told me once that your father paid your way to college and that you
    were never in the military.)  If you felt so strongly about Vietnam you
    could certainly have volunteered your services couldn't you?  
    
    Perhaps some of the men who went to Canada rather than Vietnam wouldn't
    have had to, if their folks had been able to afford to pay their way
    through college.
    
    If I'm mistaken and you *were* in Vietnam, I take it all back.
    But, I seem to recall your telling me you weren't.
    
    BTW, even though I was against the war in Vietnam I wasn't against the
    men who fought there, then or now.
    
    Lorna
    

    Well, some of us -- me, for one -- think violence is always wrong,
    no matter what, even if someone else has offered us violence.  I
    believe that in the long run returning violence with violence only
    causes more deaths and injuries, to the soul as well as to the
    body.  I would not in any sense seek to impose this belief on
    anyone else, including my warlike daughter . . . 
    
    And we do seem to be talking about two different issues here:  one
    is why governments start wars in the first place and the other is
    why soldiers serve in those wars. 
    
    And let's keep in mind that for this war, the soldiers at least
    are both men and women. 
    
    --bonnie

    On the other hand, equating conscientious objectors with "cowards"
    strikes me as being equally "ad hominem".

    As to the "best minds" deciding to go to war - in my view, the best
    minds seldom get anywhere near Washington. The best politicians do. And
    there's very little overlap between the groups.

    re .21, Steve, to me it does make a difference.  If you did not
    volunteer for service during the Vietnam Conflict, and you are of that
    age group, then I don't think you have any business referring to
    anybody else's reactions to having to serve in the military, during that
    timeframe, as cowardice.  If you weren't drafted because you had the
    money to stay in college then I think you have even less business
    criticizing others.  
    
    Steve, it upset you when I, in another topic, referred to hunters as
    murderers and I retracted my statement.  Well, I am equally upset by
    your calling conscientious objectors cowards.  Is it impossible for you
    to believe that there are people who do not choose to kill another
    human being?
    
    Lorna
    

>    The question was essentially - how does one decide what is wrong
>    and what is right when the man in the front lines is denied the
>    option to claim to be fighting for safety of home and loved ones.

The question as stated is easy to answer. You follow your conscience. If
your conscience says it's wrong, for you it's wrong.

You may or may not have the legal option to act on this belief, but that
doesn't stop you from having the belief.

At times one is compelled to follow a path one believes is wrong. Whether
you decide to "fight back" and refuse depends on the degree of wrong you
perceive as contrasted to the consequences of your refusal.

Following the whims and instructions of politicians who are primarily
motivated by the furthering of their own careers never struck me as the
best way to use my capacity to reason.

    I found this while reading Lao Tzu as I was thinking about this topic.

    A good general daring to march, dares also to halt,
    Will never press his triumph beyond need.
    What he must do he does but not for glory,
    What he must do he does but not for show,
    What he must do he does but not for self;
    He has done it because it needs to be done,
    Not from a hot head.

    Lao Tzu also advises against the use of arms until it can not be
    avoided.

    But in time of war men civilized in peace
    Turm from their higher to their lower nature.
    Arms are an instrument if evil,
    No measure for thoughtful men
    Until there fail all other choice
    But sad acceptance of it.

    This advice comes from around 600 B.C. - governments fight wars for
    many wrong reasons. Many men do the same. Many honorable men/women also
    fight wars, because it must be done. I can't accecpt the strictly
    pacifist values that say it's better to die than fight no matter what.
    I just don't believe it. That doesn't mean I think fighting is right,
    just sometimes unavoidable. That also means that many of us will decide
    a different point of when something must be done. How do we reconcile
    that in a democracy? Both ways can't prevail. liesl

    In the previous version of Womannotes, I cited an article by Elise
    Boulding, a sociologist from Boulder.  The article, "The Pacifist as
    Citizen", appeared in the November 1989 issue of Friends Journal. 
    Boulding defined four varieties of pacifists, among those who label
    themselves as such.  Each of the four varieties represents a different
    position on the pacifist spectrum.

    The first group she calls internationalists, "who when it comes right
    down to it will support military action by their government in
    wartime."  She suggests that even though many people might not consider
    this variety to be pacifist, she sees no reason why those in this
    category can't call themselves pacifist if they want to.

    The second group "is the anti-war person, self-identified as pacifist
    but believing there are certain wars it's OK to fight and certain wars
    that it isn't OK to fight.  This kind of pacifist reserves the right to
    choose which war to fight."  Many who opposed the Vietnam War as
    immoral fell into this category.

    The third variety "refuses all war and all taking of life".  These
    pacifists become conscientious objectors during wartime.

    The fourth variety is the "absolutist, who not only refuses all war and
    all violence, but refuses all cooperation with the government in
    relation to national defense on the grounds that governments are
    basically organized as a war system".  These people are not
    conscientious objectors because they don't even believe in registering
    for the draft, and are jailed as a result.

    I think that her definition is very useful, and I think it makes some
    sense to think of pacifism as embodying a spectrum of beliefs.

    Boulding, by the way, was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize this year
    by the AFSC.  
    
    -- Mike

	Boy I'm starting to get real opinionated here...

	Conscientious objectors cowards?

	If I were narrow minded enough and fully bought into that
	'you're not a man if you don't go to war' cr*p; I guess
	I might believe that.

	Isn't it odd that those who counsel restraint; who seek peaceful
	resolutions first and who risk the social castigation attendant with
	civil disobedience are considered cowardly, even crazy.

	Is it somehow an index of manhood or sanity to go mindlessly off
	when summoned? Considering the many who came to this nation to escape
	just such a mindless experience; are we really serving Democracy
	by mindlessly fulfilling the human fodder requirements of misguided
	or militarily adventurous leadership?

	The point has been raised that opposition must be marshaled against
	tyrannical forces....maybe so; but what would undermine these forces
	more than anything would be more 'cowards' amongst the citizen pools
	they draw from: willing to reflect on the morality of the proposed
	slaughter and perhaps offer civil disobedience rather than indulge.
	
	I contend that this nation could easily survive a check of the applied
	consciences of its citizens and even be made better for it.

	Choose life.

MAC	

    Who is braver - the one who meekly accepts orders and goes,
    or the one who defies society at the risk of his freedom
    and does as his conscience decrees ?
    
    (I do admit that some 'conscietious objectors' were merely
    trying to avoid a dangerous place, but there *are* a great
    many who had valid reasons to oppose the Vietnam war. 
    Opposition to the draft on principle, opposition to a war
    against people who were not a clear danger to the US, are
    two that come to mind.)

    
    IMO, not following a call to kill and being cowardly are not the same.
 
    Personally, I'd happily go into the front line in a war - in a medical
    capacity to work with the wounded. I feel no fear at that idea.
    But I would never go to the front line with a gun. 
    'gail
    

moved from 399.5 at request of moderator:
    
                <<< MOMCAT::PIGGY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 399.5                      Women Against War                        5 of 28
HIGHD::DROGERS                                       10 lines  24-SEP-1990 14:01
                                 -< pacifist? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re: 399.2
    
    Must agree with You.  No one in my circle of acquaintences relishes
    war.  Many of them have fought in one or another of the conflicts of 
    this century.  A problem -i- have with pacifism is that it assumes that
    it takes two to make a war; well, strictly speaking, that's true.  If
    one won't cooperate, there will not be a war, just a massacre.  How do
    we deal with the sociopaths - individual, and international - who
    insist on visiting violence upon their neighbors?
    
           

            <<< MOMCAT::PIGGY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 400.33                     Why men go to war                       33 of 33
HIGHD::DROGERS                                        9 lines  26-SEP-1990 11:41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re .22
    Bonnie,
    	Did i understand You correctly?  Do you really believe that it is
    better to be an abject victim than to use violence to resist a
    depredation upon Your person (or Your offspring)?
    
    	I can't understand THAT.
    					dale
    
                                                

    re: .33
    
    Yes, you heard me right, and yes, that's what I believe.  Only I
    don't think there's anything abject about it.  Love is stronger
    than hate and stronger than fear. 
    
    It's gonna take me a lifetime to work out the inconsistencies and
    contradictions and complexities.  This is the longest note I can
    remember ever writing, and it only begins to touch the surface of
    the issues. 
    
    Life is sacred, and precious.  It means something to be alive, to
    breathe and wake and know the dawn and to feel a lover's body in
    yours and a child's gentle hand on your cheek.  It means something
    to talk through the night with a friend, sharing souls through
    words.  Life is good and the love that draws us together is good. 
    Love, compassion, sharing, warmth, unity, all those corny
    abstractions that boil down to nothing more complicated than
    hugging a friend while she cries on your shoulder, helping feed
    those who are hungry and offering kind words to those who are
    hurting inside.  Children who never had a chance because they were
    born at the wrong time or the wrong place or with the wrong genes,
    adults who learned only hate because that's all they grew up with,
    pain that wasn't even inflicted by other people but by earthquakes
    and disease and all the rest of the nasty things that can happen
    to people.  Love is all we have to fight the pain, love that holds
    us together and strengthens us and sustains us. 
    
    We all started out even.  We all came into the world naked and
    crying, with nothing between us and death but the care of an adult
    somewhere.  Some of us were cuddled and warmed at once, given food
    to comfort our wails and rocked and soothed by a loving voice. 
    Some of us were cherished and nurtured as we grew, given love and
    self-esteem and praise.  But some of us were given barely enough
    to sustain life.  We were belittled and ignored, we were starved
    and beaten, we learned that life is hostile and we get what we
    want by taking it from those who are too weak to resist us.  And
    some of us, despite our upbringings, spend our lives fighting
    diseases, flawed bodies, flawed minds. 
    
    Each of us does the best we can with the hand we were dealt.  I
    don't mean for a moment to say that we aren't responsible for our
    actions -- we are.  Our actions make us.  But if I were dealt a
    different hand -- a different race,  different brain cells, a
    different nationality, a different social class -- I might have
    been a mass murderer or a drug dealer or the leader of a cadre of
    terrorists.  There, but for the grace of God, go I. 
    
    Every life is as precious in God's eyes as mine is.  I have no
    more moral merit than the most drunken stinking street person
    sleeping beside the Nashua river or the terrorist doing what he
    sees as his duty to his country.  No less worth, either, but no
    more. 
    
    How then can I kill one of God's creatures?  How can I offer them
    less than love, compassion, sharing, generosity, the benefit of
    the doubt?  All the things that God gave me through Jesus?  Those
    aren't abstractions, those are real and necessary things that so
    many many people live without.  He didn't bless me in order that I
    should hoard my blessings.  He gave me so much so that I could
    give it to others, share it, help them know the reality of love
    and not its absence. Will I reward Him with violence and
    bloodshed?
    
    All life is precious.  It's not right to end it.  Even when he
    cleaned out the temple, Jesus didn't kill the moneylenders.  I
    would have to reluctantly concede that that sometimes it might be
    necessary or unavoidable to kill.  Someone who's so deformed
    mentally that they can't even be safely restrained, perhaps.  But
    it's never right, and always a tragedy. 
    
    And I expect I will end up dying for this principle -- probably in
    an alley with a knife through my throat.
    
    --bonnie

    Bonnie, that was wonderfully, elegantly stated.  Thank you for writing
    that.
    
    -- Mike

    seconded!
    
    E Grace

    Bonnie, if we could all live by that it would be a much better World
    for all of us.  I too have been struggling with the question a noter
    put to you, which was to the effect that you would let yourself and
    family be killed/raped etc. with no resistence?
    
    If you saw a stranger being attacked and you were the only other person
    there other than the victim and attacker (no phones around either)
    would you stand and watch, run, or stop the attacker?
    
    IMO if life is precious then it should be actively defended with
    appropriate action.  What does that mean, appropriate?  That means
    that in my example that stopping the attacker with force if necessary
    is appropriate and not wrong if you don't use 'excessive' force, which
    means not going beyond the force necessary to stop the attacker, i.e. 
    not beating on the attacker for vengence after you have stopped the attack.
    
    How about 'our buddy' Saddam?  Should the World stand back and watch
    his administration take over other countries, torture people, force
    their will on others, and murder people who disagree with his
    philosophies?  Isn't standing by doing nothing disrespect for others'
    lives and freedoms?  Isn't defending those freedoms and others' right
    to life a form a love?  
    
    I have heard it said that the opposite of love is not hate, its
    indifference. 
    
    Jeff
    

there is resistence and there is resistence.  it is not binary.

the choice is not come out with guns blazing or just self-destruct and not cause
anyone the bother of killing me.

I have resisted attacks upon both myself and others -- successfully and not so
successfully.

I've owned a gun or two in my time, although not at present.  It was my desire
to turn a gun on another human being that caused me to eschew them.

I knew that given the gun, the impetus, and the opportunity that I _would_
use deadly force in my own or another's cause and I believe that to be wrong.

I will not sacrifice my honour or my self-respect only to live a life of
self-loathing

I am not a martyr.

>    How about 'our buddy' Saddam?  Should the World stand back and watch
>    his administration take over other countries, torture people, force
>    their will on others, and murder people who disagree with his
>    philosophies?  Isn't standing by doing nothing disrespect for others'
>    lives and freedoms?  Isn't defending those freedoms and others' right
>    to life a form a love?  
    
    We've been ignoring and supporting regimes that maintain power by
    torture and murder of opposition for fifty years in South America,
    and we looked the other way when the Soviet Union tried to invade
    Afghanistan.  Has Britain given back the Falkland Islands yet? 
    Israel still has lots of territory it annexed in war.   How come
    all of a sudden we're so self-righteous when it's an Arab in the
    middle east where we just happen to need oil?
    
    There's a hell of a lot of ground in between "doing nothing" and
    blasting away the lives of tens of thousands of people whose only
    crime is that they listened to and believed their leaders the same
    way we believed ours.  Is it because our leaders think they're
    only Arabs so it doesn't matter?  What bullshit.  We won't even
    negotiate.  We didn't even give the economic pressures a chance to
    work before we went charging in with the heavy artillery.  
    
    Pardon my language, but this line of reasoning makes me furious. 
    And sick to my stomach.  
    
    Yeah, life can get us into situations where the only choice is
    between a wrong and a greater wrong.  But it's so easy to go from
    allowing violence to defend other people as a last resort to "but
    we have to kill these people to protect our wives and children, we
    really aren't doing it for ourselves."  Violence isn't a last
    resort in this society, it's the first resort of the uncreative
    and insecure.  Children and spouses beaten, old women raped in
    their homes, motorists gunned down on the highways for cutting off
    the other driver -- who can even be surprised that our reaction to
    a third-world country stepping out of line and attempting to do
    some of the things the US has done regularly is "Get back where
    you belong or we're going to spank you"?
    
    No, not all physical force is violence.  Grabbing a child who's
    about to run out in front of a truck comes to mind.  But all force
    with the intent to injure is a wrong, a tragedy, a sign of the
    failure of love.  No, I wouldn't allow my children to be injured
    without trying my best to do something.  I'm an idealist, not a
    saint.  But even if what I did was unavoidable, it wouldn't be
    right.
    
    --bonnie

    re .39 >We won't even negotiate.
    
    What is to negotiate in the Mid East ? How much of Kuwait Iraq
    gets to keep ? How much are we willing to give to a despot
    to avoid war ? 
    
    All this talk of peace neglects one fact - that there are people,
    and have long been people, who are willing to *start* trouble.
    Labelling them as 'warriors' is meaningless. They are better
    labelled as 'werewolves'. Beasts in the form of humans. As opposed
    to 'police', who defend the non-agressive from them.

    Beasts in the form of humans?  Ooooohhh, sounds like the basis for a
    great science fiction movie.

    There's probably no better way to make war and killing palatable than
    by dehumanizing the enemy.  They aren't human beings--they're "beasts",
    "gooks", "monkeys".  War thrives on metaphors like that.

    -- Mike

    set behind form feed, this is an atrocity, if you get sick in
    your stomach easily please 'next unseen'
    
    
    re .41 Seen in "US News & World Report" - a report of how Iraqi
    soldiers went into a Kuwait hospital and pulled the plug on an
    incubator holding 22 premature babies. They all died.
    
    Did *I* 'dehumanize' them ? In my own mind, yes. But in reality
    they dehumanized *themselves*. I just call 'em like I see 'em.
    
    If _you_ want to claim kinship with these people feel free. I'm
    mad enough to commit major violence, and in this case, damn proud
    of it.

    Similarly, you can "feel free" to be "damn proud" of a willingness to
    "commit major violence", thus elevating violence beyond a mere
    necessary but abhorrent evil, so that for you it is instead something to
    be proud of.

    I can't think of anything more offensive that the idea of being "damn
    proud" of wanting to commit violence.  And yes, I do feel kinship with
    *all* human beings, even those who commit terrible offenses--even those
    who are "damn proud" of committing violence.  It has to do with *my*
    values.  I happen to believe that universal love is preferable to hate. 
    That includes loving one's enemies.  Being "damn proud" of violence is
    not an expression of love for one's enemies; to me, such expressions of
    of hate and violence are sickening.

    -- Mike

    re: .41
    
    Whose freedom are we fighting for?  Is it worth the deaths of
    thousands to restore the Kuwaiti oligarchy to power so they can
    continue selling us high-grade industrial oil cheap?  The Kuwaiti
    oligarchy hasn't lost its freedom.  They're living in luxury in
    Saudi Arabia.  Are the Kuwaiti people sorry to see them go?  Are
    we going to make Israel give back the Sinai or Britain return the
    Falklands to Argentina?  There's a historic argument why Iraq
    should govern Kuwait that's at least as valid as Britain's claim
    to the Falklands. 
    
    "They started it" is such an easy rationale.  But any parent of
    more than one child knows how little that means.  They know how
    many ways there are for the supposedly innocent party to provoke
    the other into delivering the first blow, and how far back lists
    of grievances go.  Yeah, maybe one power-hungry person did start
    it.  It does happen.  But maybe they didn't.  Maybe the wrong was
    on both sides. 
    
    Negotiation doesn't have to mean appeasement.  A strong person
    isn't threatened by someone else wanting something that's in
    conflict.  A strong person can accept the other person as equal
    and try to figure out a solution that lets them both have what
    they want.  A weak person sees the other person's desires as a
    threat to his or her own weak self-esteem and lashes back.  The
    fear won't let them even consider other options. 
    
    That's how we're behaving right now.  If the Iraqi action in
    Kuwait came as a surprise to our government, it's more incompetent
    than I thought; business and news magazines had been writing for
    years about the impending crisis in OPEC and the increasing role
    Saddam Hussein was playing in it.  Did we do anything then, when
    negotiation or influence might have been possible?  No.  If we've
    let ourselves get backed into a corner where war is the only
    possibility -- and I don't believe that's the case -- then it's
    because of our failure to deal from our strengths and use our
    abilities, our creative insights, our understanding.  It's because
    we think, "Oh, we've got a big army, if this gets out of line,
    we'll just stomp them back into place." 
    
    If somebody doesn't step back and look at positive ways to solve
    the problem (and maybe even admit the possibility they might be
    wrong) instead of just counting grievances, there's only going to
    be more violence and pain and destruction, like living in Northern
    Ireland and seeing only 400 years of wrong no matter which side
    you're on.  
    
    --bonnie

    .42, .43
    
    yes, I am horrified by the act mentioned in .42, not repeated here for the
    benefit of people who hit next unseen.
    
    I'd like to think I am incapable of any such horror.  But I am human,
    which encompasses much of horror as well as of noble.  It's sad to
    think what humans are capable of, when pressed or incited.  We are all
    human, for better AND worse.
    
    I want to stop them, the people mentioned in .42, just as I would want
    to stop IMMEDIATELY and by force if necessary, a child molester or
    rapist.  I might in the heat of my anger use deadly force.  When my
    anger cooled I might regret deadly force, too.

    re: .42 (which appeared while I was writing .44) 
    
    Assuming the report is true, I'm not going to defend those violent
    actions.  It's plainly wrong.
    
    I'm only saying that your violent reaction, and our national
    reaction, doesn't do anything to restore the balance.  
    
    It won't restore life to the babies who died.
    
    It won't make the people who committed the atrocity any better
    human beings. 
    
    It won't ease the grief of the mothers and fathers.  It will add
    to the grief of the mothers and fathers of the people you kill,
    and of those who die seeking revenge. 
    
    Revenge doesn't satisfy anything.  Revenge just escalates and
    escalates, on the personal or the national level.  Read _Njal's
    Saga_ for a finely told example of a personal feud.  Look at
    Northern Ireland.  Listen to the people there saying, "You can
    call them people if you want, but they gunned down six innocent
    women who were just on their way to do the shopping."  Which side? 
    Who knows, either, both, they've both done it. 
    
    So the side whose followers were most recently gunned down goes
    out and plants a car bomb that kills, say, a passing schoolchild,
    and that side brings rifles to the funeral, and . . .
    
    And we can't go on like that.  We have to find the strength to
    love and heal instead of kill and hate and destroy.  
    
    --bonnie
    
    p.s.  I have been told that life support systems violate Moslem
    beliefs by attempting to interfere with the will of God. 

    re .43 In this instance I disagree that violence on my part would
    be 'a mere necessary but abhorrent evil'. There is nothing evil
    about countervailing force. This is the crux of the issue.
    
    Dana

    re .46 You're right Bonnie. It would only accomplish one teeny 
    little thing. It would absolutely ensure that they *never* did
    it again.
    
    Dana

    Being proud of violence is not a level I choose to lower myself to.
    
    -- Mike

    
    re:.38
    my feelings *exactly*
    thanks!
    

    re .49 It's not the violence that I'm proud of but my ability
    to feel the outrage necessary to commit that violence. If I
    could sit back and say, "oh well" I'd hang my head in shame.
    
    Dana

    Bonnie and Mike, I do see where you're coming from, but I don't see
    your expressed abhorrence of violence as an acceptable policy
    alternative.  It's been tried before; but the Kellogg-Briand Pact of
    (around) 1926 didn't work; because not everyone in the world ascribed
    to its lofty ideals.  Those who did so ascribe ended up unprepared for
    Hitler.  I don't debate the morality of your stance; its a personal
    decision we each have to make.  But you must recognize that its
    ineffective at stopping war, and that it therefore is just as morally
    unacceptable to others of us; who may not like sending hundreds of
    thousands of troops to oppose Saddam Hussein's agression; but who don't
    see any better choices.
    
    DougO

    It is my ability to love my enemies that I am proud of.  If I could
    kill another person simply over outrage, I'd hang my head in shame.
    
    -- Mike

    re .53 shall we agree to disagree ?
    
    Dana

    I feel outraged, all right -- but I'd rather do something postive
    to heal it rather than simply slaughtering soldiers until one side
    or the other runs out of strength. 
    
    Opposing violence doesn't mean burying your head in the sand and
    pretending evil doesn't exist.  Evil is real and it's very strong.
    It has to be opposed wherever it rears its head, in whatever
    disguise, whether by violence or by cruel jokes.  You don't fight
    it by being naive about its existence or about what it can do. 
    You don't fight it by shaking hands like gentlemen and assuming
    you can all go home and never think about it again.  
    
    Tragically, by the time actual hostilities start, most wars
    probably are unavoidable, or a choice between two evils.  WWII
    didn't start when Hitler marched across Denmark.  It probably
    didn't even start when he came to power preaching hate.  It
    started with whatever combination of hate and flaws led him to
    choose hate, and with whatever combination of flaws and
    development made so many world leaders deny that reality for so
    long.
    
    But if every one of us would face evil in ourselves and in the
    world around us, then we'd be ever so much stronger in dealing
    with the evils we face collectively.  We could fight evil by
    bringing out the love.  Evil is negative.  Love is positive,
    growing, strengthening.  Everything that strengthens and uplifts
    the human spirit is love and is good. 
    
    And if we fill up the world with love, there won't be any evil
    left. 
    
    --bonnie
    
    p.s. "You" in this note should be read as impersonal, not as
    addressing any particular noter.  I should have used "one"...

    Doug, I think Bonnie has expressed the philosphy of nonviolence very
    well.  It does not mean simply sitting back and doing nothing about
    aggression; pacifism is not a passive philosphy.
    
    Yes, I am opposed to Saddam's aggression in Kuwait.  I am also opposed
    to U.S. aggression in Grenada, Panama, and Nicaragua.  What should we
    do to oppose those acts of aggression?

    -- Mike

	If the reason that people follow leaders who lead them to
	war was addressed and defused then there would be less war.
	
	But this would mean that the world powers would have to 
	give up their power struggles with each other.  This would
	mean that all people would be treated with dignity and 
	justice not just those that have the gold to buy armies.

	For the US army has been bought by the Kuwaiti's to fight
	their enemy.  I do not approve of the action of the Iraqi
	goverment but I do not believe that the people of Iraq are
	the same as the goverment.

	I believe that men (especially men) go to war because it 
	is what our society believes and promotes as the most
	honorable action anyone could take (I will admit that there
	as some people who just like the power thrill of being in
	control over life and death).

	Hilter came to power in Germany because after WWI, the 
	powers of the world left the people of Germany in a state
	that could not help itself recover, it was basicly kept in
	a childlike state where it was not allowed to make the 
	necessary changes in its society to recover from the war.
	Hitler appealed to the "manhood" of the nation to fight
	back to "prove" the "manliness" of the German people.  If
	the German people had been treated humanly after WWI there
	would have been no base for the anger of Hitler.

	The history of Germany in this century is a good illustration
	of the use of anger, revenge, and righteousness out of control.
	And we in the rest of the world bear some of the blame for
	letting it happen.  The US never joined the League of Nations
	we never worked for peaceful settlement.  We let it happen
	until finally our boarders were attacked.

	There was no reason for Hitler to ever come to power - that
	is when you stop a war.

	_peggy
		(-)
		 |
			When you use the methods of your enemy
			you become the same person as your enemy.

    I wrote a few notes in MENNOTES when this subject came up but here I go
    again.
    
    Why does a person go to war?  The answers are varied.  I fought in
    Vietnam because I was sent there.  I enlisted because my father was a
    Pacifist and his father was a Pacifist - it was my ultimate act of
    rebellion.  I had second thoughts just before I was supposed to go and
    went AWOL.  I thought of going to Canada where several friends were
    waiting for me.  I decided to turn myself in and go to Vietnam.  Why? 
    For one thing I was 18 years old and naive.  I also had more
    testostorone than brains.  I told myself that it wouldn't be that bad. 
    I was wrong.  I remember kneeling down in front of my best friend and
    crying.  I was trying to push his intestines back into his body.  They
    were very slippery and muddy and he was very dead.  I then fought
    because I was angry at what happened to him.  I fought to stay alive
    and protect my other buddies.  I've never been so close to other humans
    in my life and I never want to see them again.  
    
    If you've never been to war, you don't know.  If you have, you know it
    in your own way.  It's not glamorous, it's not fun.  It's hell.
    
    pb
    

    I want to add, in case people are assuming otherwise, that I don't
    think the soldiers who actually have to fight the wars started by
    governments are doing something wrong as individuals.  Once it's
    gone that far, there's not much else a person can do.
    
    --bonnie

    I completely agree with Bonnie and Peggy that wars are stopped and
    started politically long before any shots are fired. That is the best,
    perhaps only, place to exert control that results in avoiding violence.

    While I do feel that killing is sometimes necessary, I believe it must
    always be done with regret and sorrow. 'Conduct your triumph as a
    funeral' is really very good advice. We should not rejoice in violence
    even when we are forced to it. It is not glory to have to kill to stop
    a murderer, it is admiting the failure of our cultures/governments.

    Back a number of notes ago I said we had to rely on an educated and
    free populace to control what our government does. If this sort of
    debate (as we are engaging in) had taken place in my high school civics
    class what changes might our generation have wrought?

    The battle we need to fight is in the schools. We need to train
    thinkers not rote learners. We stop the wars by doing the right thing in
    foreign policy. We should feed and train the peasants, not support the
    dictators. And this won't happen overnight. We need to be able to
    defend ourselves during the interim. But if we don't stop the
    increasing trend towards censorship and jingoism in our government
    there will be no change.

    Sorry, I'll take my high horse and ride off into the sunset. liesl

    
    one of the sentiments voiced in .60, 'i've never felt so close to
    other humans', reminded me of something i'd heard and read. namely,
    many people (in my observations mostly american men from the second 
    world war and british men in the first, though not a few women as well)
    have said that their lives were *so exciting* during the wars that
    peacetime has seemed dull and pointless to them. i'm not denying
    or criticising the sincerity or pathos of the soldier's feelings
    for his or her comrades. that may best be thought of as the great
    strength and wealth of human kindness and compassion under duress.
    rather, i am struck by the *intensity* of feeling. i wonder if there
    is something in our society that craves this intensity, or more
    acurately, has deprived us of true intensity in our daily lives?
    

    re:  .63
    
    Carl Jung called this phenomena 'Patricipation Mystique'.  It is a
    closeness felt by people of diverse backgrounds under duress.  We
    earthlings would unite and come together if we were threatened by a
    force from another world.  Your words 'so exciting' upset me.  It's not
    excitement as when you reunite with a loved one after a long time. 
    It's not excitement like standing at the top of a double black bump run. 
    It's more like walking into a dark unfamiliar room and knowing you're
    not alone.  In many cases, you're most alive just before you die. 
    Your senses are heightened, your awareness of subtleties is intense.
     
    I loathe waste.  I came home in 1970 and was spit on; but their spittle
    did not put out the fire in my heart for life and love.
    

    .63
    
    What you describe is not an uncommon phenomena at all; there is
    an excitement in war, I guess it could be called an "adrenalin
    rush."  And people can and do get addicted to adrenalin.  I have
    some experience with Vietnam in that my ex was an MIA for a time,
    returned home (still MIA :-) .  What I experienced was from the
    wife's point of view--the trauma, the comraderie that he described.
    Life on the "outside" never did measure up for him; there just
    isn't a job out here that can compare to the Army and the Vietnam
    experience.
    
    I took a course recently about Vietnam and one of the things that
    was said was that the extremes -- complete boredom of *waiting*
    for something to happen, and then the shock of something actually
    happening, battle, was awful.
    
    Maia
    

    
    re:.64
    i feared that my awkward phraseology would hurt you. please
    accept my apologies. your elaboration on the feelings is what
    i had in mind. thanks.
    

    The point I wanted to make in all this is that there are all kinds of
    people.  Combat soldiers are people.  I was active in a couple Vietnam
    Vets groups and soon realized that different guys handled it different
    ways.  Some are alcoholics and druggies.  Some are average guys with a
    chip on their shoulder.  Some got ambitious and became Congressmen. 
    Some freaked out and wacked themselves and others.  Some are still
    angry.  Some, like me, went through a number of different attempts to
    rid themselves of their dragon.  Ironically, the most help I got was
    from a group of hippie pacifists that flooded me with love when I
    was a mean and angry jerk.  In time I learned to love again.  And when
    I did I knew what was more powerful.  

    re: 66
    
    No need to apology.  Yes it hurt but it also helped.  I had never
    differentiated the two types of excitement.  I choose to be here and I 
    have no regrets.  You did no wrong.
    
    

    re:  69
    
    What happened to negotiate?  If I have to fight anyone who opposes my
    beliefs I'm going to be one tired puppy!

    RE: .69
    >>     you only have three choices ... Fight, Run Away or Whine !
    
    The three choices are Fight, Run Away or Negociate Peace.  Whining is just
    another form of running away.
    
    One of the biggest problems in dealing with human relationships is that
    there are people who truly believe there are only two choices - Fight
    or Run Away.  Trying to negociate with one of them is like trying to
    open a door and having the knob come off in your hand.
    
    Mary

    RE: .70
    
    Same thought at the same time.  I guess your note got in before mine.
    

re .73

Not every choice can be followed to its intended destination. If you try to
negotiate with an opponent who will not negotiate in any terms (like Bush, for
example), then you may have to drop "negotiate" from your list of options in
this instance.

I don't see how to get from "some people won't negotiate" to a position where
negotiation does not appear on your list of possible options. That's just a 
way of guaranteeing conflict where conflict may not be necessary.

    Except in a case of total genocide, all wars will end with negotiation
    anyway.  Why not skip the bloody part?

re.73

  die.

  if my resistence is ineffective and I cannot run and my adversary will not
negotiate, what else is left?

  Annie

    Re: .76
    
    Surrender.
    

    re .69 Sometimes the question is 'who do you fight?' During the
    Vietnam war, who was the greater threat ? The North Vietnamese, 
    or the US government, which insisted on its right to
    enslave young men and send them to war ? If we had lost in
    'Nam but ended, once and for all, the draft in America, that 
    would have been a real victory. Guess it depends on which
    issue *you* want to devote yourself to. (Sort of like why
    some of us are fighting for reproductive freedom while others
    here devote most of their energy to the preservation of the
    2nd Amendment.)
    
    Dana

    re: a few back, Eagle's charge that idealists live a sheltered
    life
    
    At least 5 people of the 289 in my high school graduating class
    died in Viet Nam.  Two of them were my good friends.  My brother's
    best friend watched his mother murder his stepfather; one of my
    good friends is in jail for life for gunning down my father's good
    friend in a holdup.  So I don't think my life has been exactly
    sheltered.  I've been beaten up more than once, and I've had to
    patch up others after fights. 
    
    And what I've seen is that in no case did the violence improve
    anything.  My friend thought if he waved a gun and threatened
    violence, nobody would really stop him from taking the money, and
    when he was interrupted, he panicked and destroyed the rest of his
    life.  My brother's friend's mother thought that if she just shot
    her abusive husband and got him out of their life, she and the
    kids could go back to living peacefully.  Instead she spent time
    in jail and they wound up being raised in foster homes. 
    
    The issue of what we do when someone just won't stop, just won't
    negotiate, is almost always an attempt to rationalize why someone
    won't try to make peace here and now in the things that could be
    negotiated.  Yeah, there will be situations when everything you
    try just won't work, but you don't know ahead of time that's
    what's going to happen.  You don't know until you've tried. 
    
    --bonnie

    re:  .79
    
    Our history has been to shoot first and then negotiate.  After the
    shooting starts and friends and loved ones die, the hatred escalates
    and negotiations fall off and the focus becomes the war and not the
    resolution of it.  Case in point is Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  In my
    opinion it was unnecessary because the war was over for all practical
    purposes.  We were not threatened by the civilians of those cities and
    yet we massacred them.  We were so caught up in the frenzy that we
    forgot why we were fighting.  Fighting for peace is a contradiction. 
    It's like drinking salt water.  I believe we should look further for a
    way to settle things.  Sadam Hussein will get tired of eating sand and
    drinking his own urine in time.  Why kill Iraqi civilians?  Why kill
    American men and women?  There are alternatives.
    

    
    Has Hollywood already started making the movie about the mideast, or
    will they wait till the bodies start coming back and then make it?
    
    D.

    
    	I heard someone say something interesting yesterday...
    
	"I went to VietNam to serve my country.  When I came back, I had to
    	fight the American Public to serve my country.  I am SICK and TIRED 
    	of seeing the veterans portrayed as whiny cry-babies.
                                                                           
    	I AM AN AMERICAN FIGHTING MAN - I AM PREPAIRED TO GIVE _YOUR_ LIFE
    	FOR MY COUNTRY!"
    
    	Not that I completely understand what points he's trying to raise 
    	here, but I found the thought of "fighting the American public to 
    	serve MY country" to be an interesting concept.
    
    	I feel it works both ways too. Veterans fighting anti-war
    	activists. And anti-war citizens fighting the establishment and
    	military. Both for the benefit of their country in each's mind.
    
    	I've also found it curious how upset some pro-military people get when
    	someone suggests the Vietnam anti-war activists were fighting to end
    	the war too in *their* uniforms of war (tie-dye, ect.). These few seem
    	bent on the fact that *they* were they only unselfish ones who
    	fought for our country... in my opinion both sides did. 
    
    	-Erik                                                                    
                                                               

    	RE: 400.81
    
    	Some have said that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
    	actually saved lives. Their point was that the Japanese
    	would not have surrendered under normal circumstance, which
    	may have entailed the kind of jungle warfare that occurred
    	in many of the islands in the Pacific.
    
    	Of course, no one can know for sure.
    
    	The A-bombs were so terrible that Japan did, of course,
    	surrender.
    
    	Scott

    re: .84
    
>    	Some have said that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
>    	actually saved lives. Their point was that the Japanese
>    	would not have surrendered under normal circumstance,
    
    Perhaps.  But the real point is that we apparently never gave them
    a chance to surrender, and certainly never offered alternatives
    short of abject surrender. (But of course we couldn't have settled
    for anything less than total victory, because anything less than
    total victory means we didn't win.)
    
    If they were offered surrender, and refused, then the problem
    changes.  But to argue that "they" -- whoever the enemy of the day
    is -- wouldn't have done it anyway is to indulge in dangerous
    sophistry.
    
    --bonnie

    eagles,
    
    The fact that people disagree does not necessarily mean that they
    do not want to hear each other's thoughts.  
    
    You will never convince me that violence and war are "right"; it goes
    against my most deeply held beliefs and my faith.  However, that same
    faith and those same beliefs tell me that you are just as important
    as me, ergo your beliefs and faith are just as important as mine.
    
    I enjoy reading your notes, because I enjoy learning; from your notes
    I learn more about you and your views.  
    
    As I said, I can understand and empathize with your views, and still
    disagree with them.
    
    E Grace

Re the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saving lives by 
shortening the war:

A recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology magazine article from 
"Technology Review" had exactly this topic explored. They used diaries
of Truman (the President of the US at the time) and of various Chiefs
of Staff that have recently been made public under the Freedom of 
Information Act (or some similiar Act).

A very strong case is made that Truman and the others felt the
Japanese were ready to unconditionally surrender in September. Also, a
major Soviet invasion of Japanese territory was planned for September.
The start of the Soviet invasion was seen to be a likely trigger for
the Japansese surrender. Truman and the 'Allies' felt that if they
waited until September, the USSR would be left in a better post-war
situation and wanted to accelerate the Japanese surrender to a time
before the USSR could be seen as the 'victors' in the Eastern Front. 

They decided that dropping the two atomic bombs would accomplish that.

What was so persuausive about the article were the photocopies of Truman's 
diaries explicitly saying most of the above.

Regards,
	George