Conference rdvax::grateful

We'd all be doin' the duckstep with a little book entitled
"Mein Kampf" in our top pockets.

I dunno John! too hard to answer....
bob

spelling errors aside... 

    I agree with a lot of what is said in .1: overall, the US has been a
    *relatively* positive influence.  Mind you, this is *relative* to all
    of the other powers attempting to assert *their* brands of social and
    political order on their weaker neighbors.  As stated by .1, mistakes
    have been, and still are being made.  Looking at the little pictures, 
    there is much to be embarrassed and ashamed about.  But, I believe the 
    philisophical bases of big picture is still sound.  It's just
    unfortunate the decisions are being made by politicians.
    
    Of course, we can no longer afford to be the "world's police force." 
    This is a very big issue with me, which makes it impossible for me to
    fully support or condemn the war in the gulf.
    

I strongly believe that even with our shames that we hope to
improve on, overall we have a great deal to be proud of in our
foreign policy.  I do not think any nation in history has helped
it's friends or enemies to the extend the U.S. has.

I wish the news services would show a little more footage of just
what the Iraqi soldiers did to Kuwait along with the films of
civilian damage caused by allied bombing.  Any film showing dead
and injured children will bother me and others, but we are seeing
it to the extent of creating a national shame.  There seems to be
no desire to allow us to understand the murders done by the other
side.  I am not defending either side rather curious as to why we
seem to need to only show ourselves in a bad light.


  john 

    Oh we're just a great #$%^&* country aint we
    
    The mere thought of dropping atmoic bombs on Japam just
    brings tears of joy to my eyes. Yes,.. and who can forget
    the glorious bombing of our current bad boy on the planet
    today,.. MR insane himself. yeah,.. look how good we are
    at ripping off the third world,.. hell,. we've got 'em convinced that
    its more profitable to burn down the rainforest anyway. Oh, be still
    my heart as I see our great leader pushing legislation that will ensure
    our dependence on oil,.. and therefore more warring over it, for the
    next decade. And who can forget Grenada and Panama,. oh,, but they
    are such little itsy bitsy countries,... who would care? We are doing
    far too much good to worry about the sovereign rights of a small number
    of Central Americans.
    
    Yes,. what a great country we are. Lets run some more nuclear tests
    out there in Nevada boys,.. The desert seems to be glowing less
    intensely out there tonight. 
    
    								/
    
    Ok,. so maybe I'm just a wee bit sarcastic here ;-).,,.. but please
    spare me the "what a great nation we are" crap Wake up ans smell the
    coffee. Our sh*t stinks too
    
    

Well Said Slash....

Geoff

    ya know /, I just can't help myself here.....
    you flame John Ryan for making a negative statement (with which I
    must say I agreed with) and them you enter something like .7!!!
    There seems to be an inconsistancy there somewhere, /bud.                    
                          
    It;s not that I don't agree with your heavy sarcasim as much as
    I see a 2-sided message.

                            peace,
                               rfb

>The fact is, though, that the A-Bomb ended WWII sooner and with less loss of 
>life than anyone could have imagined.


I have to disagree with this. The US *could* have dropped it on an uninhabited
island/land area to demonstrate the power and then said we have a lot more of 
these so surrender or we will start dropping.

>weapons has been bad.  Nuclear weapons have been extremely stong deterrents 
>against war since their inception.  I wager that we would have had many more

I have to disagree with this too. All it did was shift the war to third world
proxies, like Vietnam, Angola, all of central america, bay of pigs, afghanistan,
and now Iraq. The cold war mentality dictated arming third world nations to do
our battles for us. If Iraq didn't have 4,000 soviet tanks they probably 
wouldn't have invaded, and even if they did, a joint arab coalition alone 
without our help probably could have pushed him out.
Because the US couldn't do battle against its main enemy the Soviets we fought
against their proxies and aided ours no matter how unpleasant they might be.

j

    I agree with you /.

             <<< Note 126.8 by SHKDWN::TAYLOR "Nothing shakin'" >>>

>Nuclear weapons have been around only 45 years, less than 1% of the
>time civilization has been around.  It's premature to say that the
>effect of nuclear weapons has been bad.  Nuclear weapons have been
>extremely stong deterrents against war since their inception.

>Go ahead!  Flame me!! 

OK, I will!!  I disagree with this, because I feel it is like saying,
"Well, the Nazis only tried to exterminate the Jews in gas chambers 
once, so it's premature to say that the effect of gas chambers is 
bad."  I believe our justification for building nuclear weapons is the 
same, morally, as that used by the Nazis for their death camps: "We 
are faced with hostile enemies, and we need weapons which will 
eliminate (murder) large numbers of that enemy in an indiscriminate
and cost-effective manner."  I really do believe there is no 
difference between an American nuclear bomb and a Nazi gas chamber: 
they are both genocide machines, designed to kill whoever the current 
leadership thinks the enemy is.  In Ronald Reagan's case, he saw the 
Soviets as the "evil empire"; I do not accept his authority (or 
Bush's) to threaten anyone with genocide.  As for being a deterrent to 
war, maybe the Nazis considered their gas chambers as a strong 
deterrent to the Jew's undesirable activities (like reproducing).

My position is probably pretty extreme, but it is how I feel.  I 
believe it is a sin to build a nuclear weapon and I believe nuclear 
bombs have *never* had any positive effect on the human race or the 
planet Earth (and they never will).

- tom

    re rfb
    
    	Randy,...
    
    		I flamed John for giving up on hope. NMo matter how bad
    things get, if we give up hope, then the edn really is near. As long
    as we have hope, and are willing ot continue to try to correct the
    wrongs around us, then there is still a fighting chance for us to do
    some good in this world.
    
    		.7 is a statement of some realities of history that I felt
    some of the early replies in here may have forgotten about. They are
    facts aboutt reality the *way it is*,.. as opposed to the way I would
    like it to be.
    
    		I just want to make sure that everybody doesn't start
    thinking about that we're such a great country that we don't need to 
    cricticize ourselves, or questions ourselves (and our government). But
    I have no intention with .7 of stifling anybody's ambition to make
    things change 'round these parts (sorry if it did). On the contrary,
    the intent is to make sure we keep that list of things that do need
    changing "up to date"..
    
    	And lest there be any confusiuon surrounding my political
    motivations here, I do think this is a great country. Things could be
    a lot worse. Its just that things aint perfect...
    
    						/
    

    oooops.,... that was .5 randy et al... not .7
    
    And to Bill Taylor
    
    	I never mentioned nuclear wepaons,.. I mentioned nuclear tests.
    The desrt glows at night from all of the radiiocative fallout in those
    testing and dumping grounds.
    
    	While you may believe that nuclear weapoons have not done any harm,
    or have done more good than harm, IMHO they have done plenty of harm
    and not a hell of a lot of good. Its debatable whethern they ended
    WWII early, a point I may even be willing to concede. But doesn that
    fit the definition of "good" or "less harm than good",.. I don't know.
    
    	FWIW, by the time you figure out whether nuclear weapons have
    caused us any great harm or not,.. it will be too late. If you can't
    accept that the problems we are having today disposing of nuclear waste
    (NIMBY) are real, and "harmful", then why don't you go for a nice
    hike in the Nevada dessert sometime,.. if you can get past the MPs that
    is.
    
    							/
    

   This is all brings up the continueing question I have:

  I love all the pray and demonstrate for peace people because their beliefs 
and stances are generally the same as mine.  One of which is lossely, 'a blind 
faith in our country as good and honorable is a mistake as the politians running
the country  have proven in the past to be distrustful.  Also, we have a past of
doing some dishonorable things.'  I agree with this but, I see just as strong of
a blind all encompassing statement from many members of the peace movement that, 
'America is bad and I always will be willing to demonstrate against this country
being involved in any conflict or decision abroad as we have such a bad history
of improper intervention.'  I believe these people to be harmful to the movement.
 
  It is a movement I would like to see furthered and I believe the hate America
statements first; discredit them to a great portion of undecided and potentially
helpful Americans, and second; are blind knock America statements with no credit
for good, honorable and asked for things America has done.  These people 
generally say they love America and are just trying to make it better, as an 
after remark.  Sorta like telling someone they are ugly and fat, but just 
kidding.  I want the good people to make a difference and I believe their
narrowness of wanting to at all times discredit the country, acually sees to it
that they will make very little difference.

  You know I do not believe the average American supports the present political
program, however they do not want to hate America and there is no strong
middle ground presented to them.  I admire MANY organizations and individuals 
that are speaking out inteeligently and strongly for a better America, I weary
of those blaming this country for EVERY antiinvironmental, military and inhuman
action accurring on this earth.

  If you speak against them you are labeled a redneck, nazi, or sellout and
yet they are driving carbon conbustable cars, have electric shavers and are
in genreal not doing a great deal to make a difference.  To speak highly of
our country in any way to the "counter culture" is akin to being a traitor to 
the culture, that so many of us really do like and believe in many of it's
causes.

  I've rambled so long I've lost the gist of what I am trying to say, but it is:
it may be dangerous to have a blind faith and positive hope in our country, but
I believe a blind dislike and critisism of all American policies is no help.

  john

    To me, the question of nuclear weapons has nothing to do with their
    viability as a deterrent to war (or to agression, or anything else).
    It doesn't matter to me if they ended WWII a day early or a decade,
    because the fact that they exist, and therefore might be used, is
    enough to object to them.  Their very existance is immoral, IMHO.
    
    I have a tendency to believe that any tool, device or contrivance whose
    sole purpose is to kill and mame, is inherently immoral and evil.  Not
    that 'guns kill people', so much as the fact that people create these
    devices with purely immoral intent - to kill.  They simply rationalize
    around that fact, to 'justify' their jobs.
    
    To me, there is absolutely no justification for killing another person.
    None.  Zip.  No excuses.  Saddam Hussein has just as much right to go
    on living as I do, or Bush (or even Quayle, although we might want to
    restrict him politically :-)).  It's wrong to take another's life, and
    so it follows rather naturally that it's wrong to make the tools whose
    only purpose is to take life.  There is no legitimate justification to
    behave otherwise.  It's also immoral, IMO, to support or help any
    organization or company that contributes to the creation of these
    monstrous devices, so, on those rare occasions when it comes up, it's
    been my personal policy to respectfully decline to work with defense
    contractors of any kind.  Frankly, I hope they all go broke.  I'd
    rather have to deal with the unemployment problem, which I'm sure is
    miniscule compared to the problems these people currently cause.
    
    tim
    
    

RE:  <<< Note 126.14 by OURGNG::RYAN "but Momma. that's where the fun is ..." >>>


>  You know I do not believe the average American supports the present political
>program, however they do not want to hate America and there is no strong
>middle ground presented to them.  I admire MANY organizations and individuals 
>that are speaking out inteeligently and strongly for a better America, I weary
>of those blaming this country for EVERY antiinvironmental, military and inhuman
>action accurring on this earth.



I agree 100% with this statement, John.  I believe there are a lot of ques-
tionable things going on in our political world which have got us wrapped
up in the middle east.  But I tire of reading/hearing of all the "horrible"
things our bombings have done, with little or no acknowledgement from the
writers/speakers that SH has committed some far more horrible atrocities.


Jim   




  
  

I guess an eye for an eye is not best, but if the stories coming
out of Kuwait City are true ......

Note 126.14               
OURGNG::RYAN 
    
    Gee, John... I've never heard anyone say that 'America is bad and I always 
    will be willing to demonstrate against this country being involved in any 
    conflict or decision abroad as we have such a bad history of improper 
    intervention.'  I've never read it in any newspaper or heard anyone
    speak it before either.
    
>I want the good people to make a difference and I believe their
>narrowness of wanting to at all times discredit the country, acually sees to it
>that they will make very little difference.

    Can you justify such a claim ...that people want to at all times
    discredit the country?  
    
>I admire MANY organizations and individuals 
>that are speaking out inteeligently and strongly for a better America, I weary
>of those blaming this country for EVERY antiinvironmental, military and inhuman
>action accurring on this earth.

    How about if we just blame this country for every antienvironmental,
    military and inhuman action occuring on this Earth *that our own
    government is responsible for*?  
    
>If you speak against them you are labeled a redneck, nazi, or sellout and
>yet they are driving carbon conbustable cars, have electric shavers and are
>in genreal not doing a great deal to make a difference.  To speak highly of
>our country in any way to the "counter culture" is akin to being a traitor to 
>the culture, that so many of us really do like and believe in many of it's
>causes.

    We live in the culture.  Until it changes, we live as everyone else
    does... except with more restraint economically I think.  Do you have
    some suggestion as to how to "make a difference"?  I'd be very
    interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject.
    
>I've rambled so long I've lost the gist of what I am trying to say, but it is:
>it may be dangerous to have a blind faith and positive hope in our country, but
>I believe a blind dislike and critisism of all American policies is no help.

    Not all American policies, john... just most of them.  And it isn't a
    "blind" dislike and critisism for them... we have good and just reasons
    for our dislike and critisism in my humble opinion.
    
Note 126.16               
BOSOX::HENDERSON 
    
>I agree 100% with this statement, John.  I believe there are a lot of ques-
>tionable things going on in our political world which have got us wrapped
>up in the middle east.  But I tire of reading/hearing of all the "horrible"
>things our bombings have done, with little or no acknowledgement from the
>writers/speakers that SH has committed some far more horrible atrocities.

    Gee, Jim... I never read in any papers of "all the horrible things our
    bombing have done".  I only once read about the civilian bomb shelter
    we blew away and that was only because the foreign press was printing
    the story first.  SH may have comitted horrible atrocities but then
    so have we... I understand that they have found a mass grave in Panama
    where civilian casualties were disposed of.  We seem to be averaging
    quite a few war actions during the course of this presidency... 

    Mary

    	Right now I would not want to be the 1st us troop behind the Iraq
    troops leaving Kuwait (as in following them back to there home) 'cause
    if they (US) lets there guard down it might be a big mistake on US
    troops part.....so I guess if I felt the least bit threatend I'd shoot
    anything that moved (so to speak) 'cause I would want to get my sorry
    a$$ home . Killing anyone for any reason is not right to me, and God
    knows I would have a hard time sleeping at night, but at least Id get
    up in the morning.......
    
    Chris

    The old drivvle of comparing war to an intruder in one's personal home
    is just nonsense.  Nations aren't individuals and war is nothing like
    an individual attacker.  War is categorically evil, wrong, and our
    nation's involvement in a war means our nation is evil, and wrong.
    
    And still, I believe it is wrong to kill, for ANY reason.  And yes, I
    have been in the position of being attacked, and it never occurred to
    me to try to kill the attackers.  Taking someone else's life is murder,
    irregardless of the circumstances or rationalization.
    
    Standing on tradition and precedence to justify war, whether for
    political, economic, or self-defense reasons, cannot be legitimate. 
    History has clearly demonstrated that these rationalizations for murder
    in the past simply haven't worked - wars continue to occur rampantly. 
    To me, the only way to stop the senseless violence is to change the way
    people look at war - to end the rationalizations and unjustifiable
    excuses for murdering other peoples en masse.
    
    Make the world see that war is murder, and murder is never justified. 
    There can be no peace until people see that there can be no more war!
    
    tim
    

  Mary,

  I dunno Mary, I too have not seen my statements written in
any journal nor heard an individual speak them.  In my limited
experience, I believe I have interpreted the attitudes and actions
correctly.  I believe many are so wanting to discredit this
country that they will quickly jump to conclusions and support
anti-American policy without looking at any background at all.
I suppose they have just become so discouraged that they no
longer nelieve we can be correct on anything.  Sorta like finally
losing any faith or hope in you addicted friend or relative that
has let you down so very often.

  I  do not wish to support a blind patriotism nor defend what I
believe to be a flawed government.  I would like to see a more
compassionate and less materialistic society.  I just feel that
many now are willing to jump on ANY critical of America
bandwagon, and most that I speak to, unlike you, know nearly
nothing of the issue.

  Trouble is, I am not pro our government enough to feel
comfortable defending America.  I would rather be intelligently
and with planning critisize many of it's actions and trying to
work for a better society even though I admit it seems a hopeless
task.

  Yes, definitely, yes yes, jump all over our government for the
environmental sins and others policy sins we commit, we all
should.

   john

re:                 <<< Note 126.21 by SCAM::GRADY "tim grady" >>>
   
   
>    political, economic, or self-defense reasons, cannot be legitimate. 
     
  If self-defense is wrong does that mean that when one is threatened or
attacked, as an individual or a nation, we should stand around like sheep
to the slaughter. If that is the case count me out. When someone violates
my right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness I'll defend myself.

NOTE: this does not reflect upon the current situtation in the gulf. I feel 
my rights and freedoms are not being put in jeapordy currently by SH's actions.

Shawn
 

    I don't believe that self-defense is a legitimate excuse for war.
    
    Sorry,  but there is NO legitimate excuse for war.  Period.
    
    When someone violates my right to life, liberty and whatever, I
    exercise my right to run like hell.  The problem is that too many
    machophiles are too stupid to see that this is the only honorable way
    to deal with an aggressor.  
    
    It is better to die with honor than to live by killing another.
    
    tim
    

    
    You know... no one loves America more than Deadheads do.  Many of
    the Dead songs are written about this country... U.S. Blues being
    one of them.  We may have a different view of America but it is
    ours and it has (in the past anyway) provided us with the freedom we
    require to be ourselves.
    
    But it isn't perfect ... just as we are not perfect.
    
    We kind of pride ourselves on admitting when we are wrong as individuals
    and we do the same as members of a nation.
    
    As to making it better, old friend.  It *will* get better.  
    
    Life is really strange, you know?  It circles and swirls in the
    strangest ways.. and things often look darkest before the dawn.
    
    It will never be a perfect world.. it will never be a perfect country..
    and I will never be a perfect tangerine... 
    .... but we will survive because we are survivors and we will have
    a damn good time doing it too. ... because we are Deadheads.
    
    Mary
    
    	give me give, I'm still alive
    	ain't no luck, I learned to duck

>                 <<< Note 126.24 by SCAM::GRADY "tim grady" >>>
>                                   -< yup. >-
>
>    I don't believe that self-defense is a legitimate excuse for war.
>    
>    Sorry,  but there is NO legitimate excuse for war.  Period.
>    
>    When someone violates my right to life, liberty and whatever, I
>    exercise my right to run like hell.  The problem is that too many
>    machophiles are too stupid to see that this is the only honorable way
>    to deal with an aggressor.  
>    
>    It is better to die with honor than to live by killing another.
>    
>    tim
 

	I'm sorry tim but I can't buy this. I am against war, however, if 
someone, my government's army or anothers comes knocking on my door of the 
land that I have struggled with for years, saying that they are going to take 
it (by force if I don't leave). Then I am going to fight them to my dying 
breath. I may not own the land in the eyes of the gods but I am the protector 
and user of that piece of land.

Geoff   

RE <<< Note 126.19 by DICKNS::STANLEY "What a long strange trip it's been..." >>>

    
>>I agree 100% with this statement, John.  I believe there are a lot of ques-
>>tionable things going on in our political world which have got us wrapped
>>up in the middle east.  But I tire of reading/hearing of all the "horrible"
>>things our bombings have done, with little or no acknowledgement from the
>>writers/speakers that SH has committed some far more horrible atrocities.

 >   Gee, Jim... I never read in any papers of "all the horrible things our
 >   bombing have done".  I only once read about the civilian bomb shelter
 >   we blew away and that was only because the foreign press was printing
  
     I wrote the above statement after reading through a bunch of stuff
     I receive almost daily from antiwar organizations.  I'm not saying
     "My country right or wrong" but I also don't believe the Iraqis (read
     SH and his cronies) to be the innocents that the antiwar groups SEEM 
     to be making them out to be.  I should have pointed that out initially.
     (I also don't believe the "civilian bomb shelter" was intended for the
     use of John Q Public Iraqi citizenry, but there are still questions about
     that.  And I would agree that the reporting, at least initially, was 
     pretty scarce)

    >the story first.  SH may have comitted horrible atrocities but then
    >so have we... I understand that they have found a mass grave in Panama
    >where civilian casualties were disposed of.  We seem to be averaging
    >quite a few war actions during the course of this presidency... 

    

    It would seem that perhaps we have committed some attrocities.  The Panama
    mass grave disgusts me, and if we were able to prove it true (which we
    probably can't, unfortunately) then Bush should be tossed out on his ear.
    Likewise if it is found that our involvement in the current war is/was
    for other than the publicly disclosed reasons.


    I'm not advocating this war, I'm not saying we are perfect or that Bush's
    motives are pure.  I was merely commenting on some of the anti war material
    I receive that is just as one sided as the anti war people say the public
    press is.




Jim

    Killing someone isn't standing up for yourself.  You have no such
    right to rationalize such an evil act!
    
    It's not that I wouldn't defend myself (although I'm thoroughly
    convinced that nonviolence is the only civilized perspective on life),
    I'm insistant, though, that killing someone, for ANY reason, is wrong.
    
    We keep wandering back and forth between the concept of war and the
    metaphor of individual attackers as a model for war.  I read that
    lengthy article somewhere in here with grate interest on this issue,
    and I completely agree that it is in no way reasonable or fair to
    compare nations at war to individuals in personal conflict.  How about
    if we stick to the subject of war, then, and drop this ridiculous
    comparison to individual attackers?  They are NOT equivalent.
    
    War is mass murder.  Genocide, if you will.  It is an evil expedient
    for incompetent diplomacy.  That's what's been happening in the middle
    east - economic struggle, followed by failed negotiations, followed by
    escalating mass murder.  First the Iraqi's commit attocities, then the
    U.S. - make no mistake, we are no less attrocious in our murder of
    hundreds or even thousands of Iraqis than the Iraqis were to the
    Kuwaitis.
    
    I can't figure out why people think it's such a bid deal that SH killed
    is OWN people - like that makes it worse than killing Iranians or
    Kuwaitis.  Are the lives of SH's own people somehow worth more?  Did he
    get extra bad-guy credits for slaughtering his constituency?  How do we
    measure those lives in comparison?  Did those dead Kurdish babies have
    less of a chance to defend themselves than the dead Kuwaitis?  I think
    this is such a repugnant economics to trivialize the value of lives to
    the level of bean counting!  Who cares which side the victims are on?
    Should we go back to Kent State?  Why didn't anyone ever accept
    responsibility for those lives?  Oh, I'm sorry, that was too long ago,
    so the statute of limitations for fair arguments has expired.
    
    ALL killing is wrong - there is NEVER ANY excuse for it.  Violence, and
    especially killing, is the last resort of the incompetent.
    
    tim

    I guess I'm somewhere in between.
    
    I do not consider this particular war to be a just war at all.  
    
    But I would not eliminate the possibility of a war completely from my 
    list of choices however.
    
    Unlike those who fight to preserve their economic edge... I would
    restrict my fighting to preserving my life (rhetorical of course...
    meaning the lives of my countrymen).
    
    There are so, so many other less clumsy and stupid ways of solving 
    problems... ways that allow for much more flexibility in the future.
    
    mary

RE:                 <<< Note 126.29 by SCAM::GRADY "tim grady" >>>
                       -< Nations are NOT individuals! >-

   >    How about
   > if we stick to the subject of war, then, and drop this ridiculous
   > comparison to individual attackers?  They are NOT equivalent.
    
  >    ALL killing is wrong - there is NEVER ANY excuse for it.  Violence, and
  >  especially killing, is the last resort of the incompetent.
    
   

   OK.   Canada, deciding that parts of North Dakota belong to her, invades
   killing hundreds of US citizens in the process.  What do we do.  Let it 
   happen?  Negotiate (while Canadian soldiers go house to house killing 
   the inhabitants)?   Sit back and say we don't believe in war?


   I agree that war is horrible.  But how do we stop it, when there are 
   wackos like SH, et al all over the place?  Where do we start?



Jim

    
    Hey / !  I think you set off a great string of replies.  I'm in your
    corner on this one and it looks like when all is said and done many
    of the folks in here really are, too.
    
    ain't no luck
    I've learned to duck
    
    carol

Note 126.31               
BOSOX::HENDERSON 

>   I agree that war is horrible.  But how do we stop it, when there are 
>   wackos like SH, et al all over the place?  Where do we start?

I think we have to start by setting down some guidelines regarding what
    does and does not require a war and then stick to them.
    Getting hysterical and going off half cocked into a situation like
    a war is not an intelligent thing to do in my opinion.  
    
    THIS war was discussed in great depth for months before it happened
    and it happened anyway.  Why?   Because the powers-that-be had 
    already made their decision and were not considering the downside
    to that decision.  That means their decision was based on ego or on
    economic considerations that were not revealed or on flawed logic or
    on assumptions regarding past history that no longer apply during
    these times.

    Their Think Tanks are populated with 'yes' men and they are either not
    getting the proper information required to make intelligent decisions
    or they are not flexible enough to do the right things for the right
    reasons and are instead pursueing their own hidden agenda.
    Either way... they are dangerous to our continued well-being (speaking
    nationally that is).
    
    mary

Jim, I think you are missing the point. Tim said he would rather die that do 
wrong, so he would rather have all the North Dakotans die than have the US 
further the "evil" by killing Canadian soldiers. Is this right Tim?

I have a question for Tim, what is your end goal? Is it:

1) being a morally correct person in all situations even if it means your self
destruction

2) end to all war

If it is strictly #1 then I admire your belief system since to me it implies
a strength to overcome both your personal survival instinct and the instinct to
protect those you care about. A strength I must admit I don't have in all cases.

If it is also #2 then I would argue that you argument rests on the premise that
if *I* act "correctly" eventually *everyone* will. The flipside of the argument
is that all the "correct" people will end up dead and the evil will continue. 
Ever since man has evolved he has been killing his own. Perhaps with education 
*most* people can be convinced of the illogic and evil of war and murder. But 
probably there will always be holdouts. Besides, you have to be alive to teach 
them!

I personally don't believe that self-defense is either murder or morally wrong.
I suppose that all depends on what the basis of your moral framework is. I think
you have to get every one to agree on the basis before you can get each 
individual to agree on whether an indiviual action is moral or not.

As for your argument that nations are not individuals, I think that's blatantly 
wrong. Nations are collections of individuals that have banded together for
the primary purpose of defense. Defense against any threat to survival, whether 
it be starvation, exposure or threat from individuals or other nations. When 
humans formed tribes/clans/commumities back in the dawn of civilization it was
to protect these very things - as life grew more complex so did the associations
and the responsibilities of these associations that are now called nations. Now
I'll be the first to admit that some of the forms and expectations of Nations
that have evolved are improper/bad (according to my framework of course!).

Jonathan

  Tim,

  I have to admit, if that was my wife and children in Kuwait, I'd want to
kill a buch of somebodies.  It would be wrong and it would solve nothing,
I agree, but I am being honest.

  Don't you love getting to know each other well by their entries.  I truely
respect you, Tim for what you are saying.  You make me feel a little guilty for
my own base feelings.  Your attitude is right, keep it up, remember one person
really can make a difference.

  john   

    Your wife and children WOULDN'T be in Kuwait though, john.
    
    You would have read the signs and followed the signals and, as a
    foreigner in a strange land... would have followed your own judgement.
    
    Hussein sat on the border for a week before he went in.  Anyone with
    half a brain would have been out of there before the week was up.
    
    mary

RE:  .17

I don't beleive the Dali Lama belives in just wars - he believes in
non-violence even in Tibet.  This I discerned from reading his
autobiograghy (which I recommend highly).

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."  Gandhi

"There is no way to peace; peace is the way."

"You tell us not to hit then you start a great big war."  (6 year old
US citizen on the Gulf War.

    i've been trying rilly rilly hard to stay out of this discussion,
    but i'm only human and can only resist for so long...  :^)
    
    for my part, i come down in tim's camp on this one...  however, in my 
    humanity, i have serious doubts that if, when push came to shove, i 
    could stand strong on my high moral ground and remain reticent... 
    
    i guess it comes down to values...  assuming i could not disarm
    my assailant or render him/her/it harmless, i would hope that i would
    not kill and i will have nothing but respect for those who feel the
    same...  
    
    looking at some of these examples-
    	Iraq invades Kuwait...  Kuwait does not mean so much to me that 
    	i could kill someone to have it back...
    
    	Canada invades North Dakota...  North Dakaota does not mean so much
        to me that i would kill to have it back...
    
    	someone invades my home...  nothing in my home is so valuable to me
        that i would kill to retain posession of it...
    
    	someone attacks me or those closest to me...  i like to think i
        would forfeit my own life in defense of my family, friends and self
        before i killed someone else...
    
    
    		where do you put a human life on the scale?  probably the
    	hardest question of all, and each must answer it for themselves...
        it's a truly couragous person who can live up to this moral
        position...  for myself, i expect i would crack...
    
    					da ve_the_dove_from_hell :^)
    
    ps.  btw, for the record...  i support the troops too (though i will
    never buy a bumper sticker to prove it)...  they are truly couragous 
    as well for they are also acting upon thier convictions...  you gotta
    do what's right for *you*....
    

    
    	re Tim
    
    		The reason everyone keepo s asking you these hypothetical
    questions about the intruder in the home is because you keep stating
    
    	"all killing is bad"
    
    	So,.. they are tryiong ot come up withe examples and arguments to
    test your moral stance Tim. What do you expect? You'd probably not
    have that problem if you stuck to the same subject you're asking
    everyone else to stick to when they reply to you if you said:
    
    	"all war is bad"
    
    	That statement I can agree with 100%. There is no justifiable
    reason to go to war. Anyone who starts a war is eviel,. and on and
    on,.. I'm with you on akll of that...
    
    	BUT
    
    	Given a situation of being attacked, either as a nation or as an
    individual, is different IMHO. What I am talking about here is the
    innocent people going about their business when along comes a Hitler ar
    a Hussein to claim their land, rpae their women, enslave their
    children, kill their men,... here I would assert that self defense is
    at some moral level justifiable. While I can certainly say to the good
    people defending themselves that their actions are "questionable",.. 
    or morally debatable,.. I can only flat out condemn the actions of the
    agressort as truly and completely immoral.
    
    	Say Evil dude attacks good dude with intent to kill. There is only
    two choices for good dude,.. die or kill. If he dies,.. then what is
    the sum total moral value of that incident? One good duded dies, and
    one evil dude lives. At the good vs evil level, it looks like a loss
    for the good folk. At another level, one life is lost. Good or bad,
    its one life lost, one life preserved. So you have to ask yourself
    would it have been morally correct (or justified) for the good dude
    to kill the evil dude? There is still on life lost, good or bad, at
    that level. But there is a change at the good vs evil level. One good
    dude lives, and one evil dudde dies. Is this better? 
    
    	What is the point of getting so upset at these people who claim
    they will kill in self defense Tim? According to your statement that
    "all killing is bad",.. whats the difference *who* dies? If the
    attacker dies, thats one dead attacker,.. which is bad because all
    killing is bad. If the defender dies, thats also equally as bad becasue
    all killing is bad.
    
    	Now,.. what some of these people in here are soing, as we humans
    are apt to do, is to make value judgements on the lives in question.
    For example, they might value the life of one evil dude higher than the
    life of one bad dude. Thats their value system, and we all have one.
    They are also saying that they by instinct, nature, or what have you
    that they value their own life more than the life of some intruder or
    agressor. So they would kill to preserve their own life if faced with
    the choice of kill or be killed. Its an ugly choice,.. but if I take
    away all your other options Tim,.. including the option to run like
    hell, what would you do then? Kill or be killed?
    
    	The question is rhetorical. I don't know what I'd do myself
    
    	The point I'm trying to make Tim is that you can't get away with
    a broad stroke statement like "All killing is bad" because it is a
    personal value system that leads you to make these statements, and
    not everyone shares in or subscribes to your values. 
    
    	Another dilemna to your philosophy that I see is that you can't
    run forever. If the "good"people of this world simply ran away
    everytime they were faced with evil threats,. then evil would be
    running the world right now and people like you would be dead already
    if you had ever had the chance to be born. Its only by virtue of the
    fact that our ancestors were willing to take up arms against Britain
    that we even have a nation. Every nation on the map has had to fight a
    war at some time to remain "sovereign". Its like the facts of life or
    something. Its ugly, and you cna condemn it, and yuy can hate it, but
    you can't deny it.
    
    	If this comes off as a personal attack on you Tim, I will apologize
    right here because it is not intended that way. I started out only
    wanting to point out that you can't expect people to accept the broad
    statement of all killing is bad, and then limit the discussion to war
    only. All killing does not take place in wars. And some killing takes
    place in self defense. And depending on whether you want to make any
    value judgements on the moral quality of the lives involved in a life/
    death exchange,... some killing can be justified. If you do not
    wish to make value judgements, then you really can't argue that any
    wrong was done by the person who kille din self defense. One life
    gone either way,.. no difference to you.
    
    	OK,.. So if anybody read this far,... you get a free /flame now
    
    							/
    

>     <<< Note 126.39 by STAR::SALKEWICZ "It missed... therefore, I am " >>>
>                           -< on the value of life >-


Well Said Slash, nice note. 

>    agressor. So they would kill to preserve their own life if faced with
>    the choice of kill or be killed. Its an ugly choice,.. but if I take
>    away all your other options Tim,.. including the option to run like
>    hell, what would you do then? Kill or be killed?
>    
>    	The question is rhetorical. I don't know what I'd do myself


	This may sound wrong to some of you but if these were my two choices I 
know that I would kill rather than be killed. I am not afraid to die, when my 
time comes but I am enjoying this life and would like to take it as far as 
possible.

	Geoff

    I don't mean to be so self-righteous as to imply I'd be morally strong
    enough not to actually kill someone if they were attacking me or those
    closest to me.  I don't know if I'm that strong.  I have been in the
    position of being attacked before - outnumbered and out-muscled, and I
    did the only thing I could do - retreated.  I have found that agressors
    have a hard time dealing with someone who refuses to fight.  It only
    points out their own bulliness - sort of the way Bush looks right now.
    
    If Canada invaded North Dakota, and presuming I lived there, I'd
    either retreat or join the resistance.  Passive resistance is quite
    powerful, and much harder to defend against than active agression.
    But I would not kill, for any reason.  I've felt this way for a very
    long time - over 20 of my 36 years.  Conscientious Objection is a
    permanent commitment (for me, at least).
    
    I'm a big admirer of MLK and Gandhi (it was even the name of my college
    dorm! - Gandhi Hall).  Nonviolence is the only civilized option. 
    Violence only lowers us to beneath the level of animals, who typically
    only kill for food...certainly not for money or oil!
    
    IMO, George Bush is a horse's ass, and his propaganda campaign only
    proves his insincerity.  First we were defending the Saudis, then we
    were exorcising Kuwait, now we're leading a vendetta against Hussein,
    shooting his retreating soldiers in the back.  This is the type of
    leadership we should admire?  Horse shit.
    
    tim

    re .40
    
    	Thanks Geoff. the admiration for good content in notes here goes
    both ways :-)
    
    re .41
    
    	Now thats something we can talk about Tim. I agree with
    you.
    
    							/

re:     <<< Note 126.39 by STAR::SALKEWICZ "It missed... therefore, I am " >>>
   >                        -< on the value of life >-

    
Very well said /.

Shawn

    Hi Slash,
    
    I didn't see your reply before my previous diatribe :-)...and I
    certainly take no offense at anything you said (and I did read the
    whole thing, but I'll save my flame for a less important subject, like
    the abysmal behaviour of redshirts at some showz :-)...sort of a 'flame
    rain check'.
    
    I tried to make sure what I said was expressed solely as my own
    personal beliefs - nothing that I necessarily want to impose on others.
    I think it would be unfair to expect others to commit to nonviolence
    except of their own free will - after all, that's the whole point.
    
    There are occasionally some people who can be described as evil -
    Hitler naturally comes to mind, but I think it's terribly common in
    western thought to enforce a kind of good-guy vs. bad-guy duality that
    often isn't there.  Personally, I doubt SH is any more evil than Bush.
    He might even be a better person - I think it's naive to swallow Bush's
    propagandist 'Modern Hitler' bullshit.  That's just war-hawk rhetoric,
    pure and simple.  After all, we could hardly justify attacking a 
    'Modern Mother Theresa', could we?
    
    I think people are confused about the concept of dying for peace.  The
    troops in the middle east - on both sides - are NOT dying for peace,
    any more than they did in Viet Nam, Korea, Angola, Panama, or any war.
    They died for war.  The only people, IMHO, who die for peace, do so in
    the NAME of peace - nonviolent resistance to war and agression.
    
    The poor troops that died yesterday when that SCUD landed in Dahran,
    all died in the name of war.  Gandhi died for peace.  So did Martin 
    Luther King.  It's a big reason we remember them the way we do.
    
    tim
    

    
    I think we need people like Tim... but we need the other kind of people
    too.  Everybody serves a different function and together we all make
    it work.
    
    mary

re < Note 126.44 by SCAM::GRADY "tim grady" >

>    There are occasionally some people who can be described as evil -
>    Hitler naturally comes to mind ...

... and - ?  Do you believe it is OK to kill someone like Hitler (where have I
heard that question before ;^), in order to prevent the deaths of many people?
Is it more civilized to not kill a man and allow him to kill x number of people,
than to kill that man?

- Dave

>                 <<< Note 126.44 by SCAM::GRADY "tim grady" >>
>
>    often isn't there.  Personally, I doubt SH is any more evil than Bush.
>    He might even be a better person - I think it's naive to swallow Bush's
>    propagandist 'Modern Hitler' bullshit.  That's just war-hawk rhetoric,
>    pure and simple.  After all, we could hardly justify attacking a 
>    'Modern Mother Theresa', could we?

	On this point I agree with you 100%. Tim I do value your ideals and 
try to be as good a person as I can and try not to hurt others. But when 
facing myself I know that there are some things that I would do. One of those 
would be to deter an attacker on myself or my family by whatever means it 
would take.

	I think that I would probably fight for this country also. If I 
thought that we were truly in danger, ie some madman with an army strolling 
through the streets of our towns raping pillaging and burning. By the way that 
would also include our own governemtn who I wouldn't trust as far as I could 
throw them.

Geoff

re:	<<< Note 126.44 by SCAM::GRADY "tim grady" >>
>
>    often isn't there.  Personally, I doubt SH is any more evil than Bush.
>    He might even be a better person - I think it's naive to swallow Bush's
>    propagandist 'Modern Hitler' bullshit.  That's just war-hawk rhetoric,

This Hussein is Hitler comparison has an interesting twist according to a 
brief article I saw on the front page of a newspaper the other day. Apparently
SH wrote a book about 10 years ago in which he describes a desire to unite
the Arab world against the west and start a world war, and so on.   The book 
is very rare, and supposedly an original Arabic version exists in Germany.  
It's been translated into German with the title "something Kampf", which means 
"Our Struggle".    Adolf Hitler wrote a similar book called "Mein Kampf" (or 
something similar) which means "My Struggle".

Wierd huh ?   Anyone else see this AP article ?   

It almost sounds like contrived propoganda...

Ken 

In of lot of these hypothetical Hilter vs non-violence type
discussions, it is assumed that Hitler is already there at the border
or over the border.  What is not examined in what was going on the
last 20 or more years to get him there and the fact that a lot of
people supported him explicilty (or implicitly by not standing up
against him).


Likewise now, there's not much discussion on US factors in the rise of
Hussein and the forces that brought him to power or our own
colonialist and exploititive past.


When Gandhi was asked about Hitler, he said he thought Hitler could be
stopped with non-violence but that a lot of people would get hurt.

One wonders if we indeed have another Hitler after stopping the first
one with violence whether in fact any progress has been made.  I
suppose some will agrue that less people have died this time before
more death could occur.  Another interesting question is what factors
bring despots, small and large to power.  What are the underlying
forces behind war, behin greed, behind nationalism, behind intolerance
of all kinds?  Are we just treating the symptons and not addressing
the underlying causes?

peace,
john

    RE. Dave Clark on Hitler
    
     here is an interesting hypothetical question I saw or heard or dreamed
    somewhere.  
    
    Imagine zap you get put back in history with no memory loss.  Maybe
    1938 or so in Nazi Germany.  You have some kind of access to Hitler.
    Do you kill him even though you may get caught, do you do nothing, do 
    you try to discredit him or stop the massacre of the Jewish people???
    
    
     john

re:          <<< Note 126.48 by FURTHR::HANNAN "Beyond description..." >>>
>                              -< Their Struggle >-

>SH wrote a book about 10 years ago in which he describes a desire to unite
>the Arab world against the west and start a world war, and so on.   The book 
>is very rare, and supposedly an original Arabic version exists in Germany.  
>It's been translated into German with the title "something Kampf", which means 
>"Our Struggle".    Adolf Hitler wrote a similar book called "Mein Kampf" (or 
>something similar) which means "My Struggle".
>
>Wierd huh ?   Anyone else see this AP article ?   

I saw a guy on CNN last night who displayed a copy of the book.  He said,
though, that the Hitler analogy stopped there.  He went on to explain how
Germany in 1933 was the world leader in science and technology, and how the
country was, in general, built up so as to be a world power.  Hussein, on the
other hand, is little more than a bully with more talk than action.

This is what he said, not I.  I may be wrong in my paraphrasing, but this is
the gist of it, I believe.

I think our media should start to investigate who the other political big boys
are in Iraq - that is, who is in line to succeed Hussein and what kind of
people are they.  It would be a sort of free advertising for the other
politicians (more of a joke to piss off Saddam while he watches CNN).  I hope
there are some moderates in the Iraqi government, somewhere along the lines of
what Gorby is to the Communist hardliners.

How did Hussein get into power?  Are there popular elections in Iraq?  He's
been in power since around 1980.  He started the war with Iran almost
immediately after gaining power.  Can he be voted out?  Does he have any
political competition?

adam

>are in Iraq - that is, who is in line to succeed Hussein and what kind of
>people are they.  It would be a sort of free advertising for the other

they are dead, as soon as any one gets enough power to be a real alternative
they disappear - this is the key to Saddam's longevity in Iraqi politics.

>How did Hussein get into power? 

Murder, literally. In fact, he brags about killing certain people that he
didn't even kill (although he did try unsuccesfully). He authorized a movie
about it where he is portrayed machine gunning to death the previous dictator.
It actually was others in his Baath party, but he did manage to manage to kill 
a few in his rise (and many after).

>Are there popular elections in Iraq?

Iraq is the most repressive (or at least was) police state currently in 
existence, in short there are no elections and you probably would be jailed
for asking for them. Has made amnesty international's top ten list for quite 
a while now.

Now who was it in this file that wasn't sure whether they would prefer Saddam
Hussein or George Bush as their leader? I'm not defending George Bush, there's
lots of people that I would prefer over George, but Saddam doesn't fall into
this category!

    Saddam led a bloody coup against the previous guy who gained power by
    leading a bloody coup.  SH has ordered the murder of thousands of
    people both in and outside of Iraq.  He is commonly believed to have
    murdered his brother-in-law over a political disagreement.
    
    Marv
    

    
    "Frontline" last night featured a story that covered Saddam Hussein's
    rise to power.  Although this may also be propoganda, the story
    certainly seemed legitimate to me.  Saddam Hussein's whole world is
    based on fear and suspicion.  If anyone around him appears to be
    gaining popularity or strength, that person always disappears.  There
    was film footage of an assembly with the high-ranking officials in the
    Iraqi government.  Saddam sat on the stage, smoking a cigar, and
    accused people of conspiracy.  Those accused (some may have confessed,
    but I'm not sure) were dragged out to be executed.
    
    It gave a deep insight into Saddam's mind.  It basically said that he
    is so isolated from the rest of the world that he doesn't really
    understand it (the West, specifically).  I'm not sure how much George
    Bush understands Saddam either.....but I think he knew he could get
    into this situation with him.
    
    I don't think the two are equivalent......Hussein is a ruthless
    dictator.  Bush isn't....but that would not be possible in this
    country anyway, it's not wise politically!!!!
    
    Dave

    keep the faith, all...we will survive and this mad war will end.
    
    
                               rfb

    
    He dies (I believe), but the problems do not die with him.
    
    There are others waiting to take his place.
    
Note 126.49               
RAB::HEFFERNAN 
    
    >What are the underlying forces behind war, behin greed, behind nationalism, 
    >behind intolerance of all kinds?  Are we just treating the symptons and 
    >not addressing the underlying causes?

    You are right, john.  That is what we must do...  find the underlying
    causes and resolve them.

Note 126.52               
RGB::GOLDBERG                                        

>they are dead, as soon as any one gets enough power to be a real alternative
>they disappear - this is the key to Saddam's longevity in Iraqi politics.

    He has a cousin, doesn't he?  Someone who was trusted with holding
    Kuwait?  Someone who stood beside him as he murdered his way to the
    top?  Someone who has long planned to replace him.
    
>Iraq is the most repressive (or at least was) police state currently in 
>existence, in short there are no elections and you probably would be jailed
>for asking for them. Has made amnesty international's top ten list for quite 
>a while now.

    So what now?  Even with SH gone, the problems still exist over there...
    as they have for many centuries.
    
    mary

    
    Mary,
    
    SH had a cousin who he trusted but the people started liking him,
    so his helicopter mystiously blew-up. I saw an interview on 60 min.
    with one of SH exbodyguards who said SH ordered the cousin wacked
    fwiw.
    
    steve

    I don't know why I think he is about to be assassinated.. just a
    feeling I guess.. just a feeling.
    
    Oh well... those who live by the sword, die by the sword... or so they
    say.
    
    mary

    
    Too late for us, john... the blanks are already filled in no doubt. :-)
    
    	"I decline to walk the line
    	 they tell me that I'm lazy
    	 worldly wise, I realize
    	 that everybody's crazy
    	 a woman's voice reminds me
    	 to serve and not to speak
    	 I myself, am just another freak"
    
    mary ;-)

    :-)

    
    Re:getting rid of SH....
    
     How do you deal with a man who it makes it a crime to insult him in
    public. Punishment of life in prison or death!
     I like all that I have read in here, but for personal reasons think
    some of what has been said is not reality!
     I would love to see a world where everyone could sit down and talk out
    all their differences, but we all know people who have decided they are
    right and nothing said to them changes their mind. Untill we ALL get to
    the point were we are "REASONABLE" people there will be wars...
      
    
    Divide Dave
    
    

    
    My reading says that we put Saddam in power in '78-'80 (after he had
    proven himself with acts of local terrorism).  If you will check back
    you will see that time period (+/-) was the time of the mass hostage 
    taking by Iran.  We needed to groom someone in another country to take
    up our interests.  We (and many other 'Allies') sold weapons and plans
    to Saddam.   
    
    C

    Hi Carol,
    
      A lot of us have said that the U.S. gov made a lot of mistakes
    concerning Iraq, particularly during the Iran hostage time period.  We
    know it and hopefully we won't continue to make similar mistakes.
    
      I believe that we have to stop beating ourselves and move forward. 
    There is plenty of blame to go around but it can serve no good to cry
    "mea culpa, mea culpa" forever.  Its time to get on with righting the
    wrongs.
    
      We supported SD early on but we sure as heck didn't create him.  At
    the time the Ayatolla looked worse.  In the search for regional balance
    we lost sight of some of our values.  Can't we work together to regain
    them?
    
    
    Marv
     

  Boy there is a good point.  Whether this action was correct or
not, We must stop "putting" _our_ people into office in other
countries.  Let them form their own governments!!

  john

    re .65
    
    Yes, Marv... that is something we *must* do.. work together to regain
    our balance.
    
    re .66
    
    I agree completely, john.  We keep creating problems for ourselves.  We
    have to stop doing that.. it's entirely too self-destructive.
    
    Mary