An Open (sic) Letter To The President (sic) From A Concerned Citizen (sic)
westx...@my-dejanews.com
March 25, 1999
Dear Bill;
I seen an' heard ya on the telebitchin' this mornin with yer
object sociopolitical history lesson;
thanx fer fillin' me in onna big pitcher over there in Kosova and ever'thin'.
I agree that's a hell of a mess allright,
all that ethnic cleansin', genocide and stuff like that goin' on;
Serbians with long memories, carryin' on their promise to revenge their great-
great-great-great-sum'pin' gran'fathers whuppin' by the Muslims some twenny
generations ago.
I surely can appreciate the problem ya got there in the panhandle of the ol'
European continent,
second home to the nomad Christians spreadin' the gospel of peace and love.
We sure dropped the ball sixty-years ago, lettin' the situation get so outta
hand;
jus' hope this time 'round we can head off gettin involved inna 'nother world
war at the pass.
And I can unnerstan' yer anxious to get right down to it an' all,
make that corner of the world safe fer democracy an' ever'thin';
So ya gave yer Generals an open hand to do what they know best,
mobilize their forces, scramble aircrews and arm the bombers.
Too bad though 'bout all them civil'ans and refuges bein' inna goddam way,
don't them folks over there know a war's goin' on and they outta take cover?
Shit, some of 'em are bound ta get hurt an' killed and make things kinda
ackward, but what the hell can ennyone expect inna war where the targets
don't sit still?
I'm a little shaky however on jus' how this National Security Interest
whatchmacallit fits inta the puzzle,
but I accept yer take onnit that we can't sit this one out;
after all, where would the world be now if we'd let Pol Pot do his thing?;
oops, scratch that thought, I guess we did miss that one, huh?
All in all our eighteen NATO allies must surely 'preciate yer take-charge
leadership on this issue; strong hand on the ship-of-state's helm, tuff
werds, and anxious to fulfull the bargain part of our solemn promise. But
Bill I gotta wonder, do we really need all them smart bombs and that heavy
ord'nance? Seems like one motivated guy with a scoped an' dialed-in M1 Garand
sure could save a whole helluva lotta dyin'.
And while I'm onna subject I gotta confess I'm more than a little concerned
'bout the Russkies gettin' uptight and droppin outta their NATO committment;
and them makin' angry saber-rattlin' sounds and movin' their TAC Nukes to
offensive southern border positions
while their economy and military's so screwed up don't make me sleep none too
good neither.
But what the hell do I know, ennyway, eh?; I don't get out much ennymore,
prob'bly not enuff to have a handle on the full score;
and after all you got like the inside-track on the real nitty-gritty skinny,
hottest latest sat-tel sit-rep intel-info staff advisers and like that to help
inform and make up yer mind.
I gotta say I suppose you know what yer doin', doncha?; after all, we sure pay
ya enuff, ain't that right?
Well, in closing, jus' lemme say yer doin' a bang-up job;
an' 'bout that Lewinsky thing, yew were right to duck and fumble;
fuck 'em if they can't take a screwin' is what I always say.
Slick Willie yew laughed last and loudest; pulled that one off jus' fine.
Oh, and by the way, tell Hillary an admirer sez hi.
Yew sure knew a damn good thing when ya latched onta that one.
So,
I suppose I'll let ya get back to whatever it is that yew were doin';
Best regards always,
Hope ya live well and prosper.
Thanx fer takin' the time an' effort to read this here open letter
from a concerned citizen yers truly,
sincerely,
skye.
sk...@nowhere.man
hOWL@mOON
NADA MIND PRESS
march 25, 1999
'nother one fer the archives, eh?
>clik<
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jeannekhan
issue makes sense to me. As FOB I can see
him chuckling away at this, even the I am only a dumb joe parts, cute those.
You are redeemed by your stance re:
Monica et al. Let's shake on it?
Jeanne>Subject: An Open (sic) Letter To The President (sic) From A Concerned
Citizen
>(sic)
>From: sk...@nowhere.man <westx...@my-dejanews.com>
>Date: 3/25/99 6:56 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <7ddiqa$g7u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Jody McGinness
<westx...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
Okay, I'm assuming this is a pome not a poem, so I won't ask and get
you all pissy. I do, however, want to make a couple of points on the
content.
>An Open (sic) Letter To The President (sic) From A Concerned Citizen (sic)
>
>March 25, 1999
>
>Dear Bill;
>
>I seen an' heard ya on the telebitchin' this mornin with yer
>object sociopolitical history lesson;
>thanx fer fillin' me in onna big pitcher over there in Kosova and ever'thin'.
>
>I agree that's a hell of a mess allright,
>all that ethnic cleansin', genocide and stuff like that goin' on;
>Serbians with long memories, carryin' on their promise to revenge their great-
>great-great-great-sum'pin' gran'fathers whuppin' by the Muslims some twenny
>generations ago.
>
>I surely can appreciate the problem ya got there in the panhandle of the ol'
>European continent,
>second home to the nomad Christians spreadin' the gospel of peace and love.
Heh. Like the crusades?
>We sure dropped the ball sixty-years ago, lettin' the situation get so outta
>hand;
>jus' hope this time 'round we can head off gettin involved inna 'nother world
>war at the pass.
Different score, friend, I don't think the situations are comparable.
>
>And I can unnerstan' yer anxious to get right down to it an' all,
>make that corner of the world safe fer democracy an' ever'thin';
>So ya gave yer Generals an open hand to do what they know best,
>mobilize their forces, scramble aircrews and arm the bombers.
>
>Too bad though 'bout all them civil'ans and refuges bein' inna goddam way,
>don't them folks over there know a war's goin' on and they outta take cover?
Actually, that's part of the problem. A common scenario in situations
like these, the dictators will park their tanks and troops in harmless
little villages. So if we want to bomb them, we have to chance hitting
the civilians who are huddled in their houses scared of tanks. It'd be
smarter for them to run out into the woods and let their village get
blown to smithareens.
>Shit, some of 'em are bound ta get hurt an' killed and make things kinda
>ackward, but what the hell can ennyone expect inna war where the targets
>don't sit still?
>
>I'm a little shaky however on jus' how this National Security Interest
>whatchmacallit fits inta the puzzle,
I take it the persona of your "pome" believes that we shouldn't put
ourselves at risk unless it is a threat to national security? That
would be nice. Wouldn't be a great world if that were true? We could
just tell the daughter who was forced to slit her mother's throat
before they raped and killed her, "Sorry maam, not our problem."
Here's where the logic doesn't fit. We are the most powerful military
force in the world. We have the ability to put a violent end to
torture, genocide, ethnic cleansing in a country the size of
Yukoslavia. Now if we're here, and other human beings are being
slaughtered horribly for no other reason than their race, don't we
have a responsibility as human beings to do something about it? Is a
pesent woman in Kosovo worth less than a cashier in Des Moines? So
many people think that we shouldn't risk "American Lives", as if they
mean more than Slavic ones. Ridiculous.
Now I'll be the first to admit that these airstrikes are probably not
going to be all that effective. Moving targets and all that. But if it
weren't for the pervasive opinion that so many people have ("Yeah,
that's horribe, but why should WE be the ones to stop it."), we could
really put some effort into it and make it stop. That is the Christian
ethic you mentioned. If we can stop these atrocities, we should.
>but I accept yer take onnit that we can't sit this one out;
>after all, where would the world be now if we'd let Pol Pot do his thing?;
>oops, scratch that thought, I guess we did miss that one, huh?
America has failed to do the right thing in the past. We should be
careful not to let that be an excuse to do the wrong thing now.
>
>All in all our eighteen NATO allies must surely 'preciate yer take-charge
>leadership on this issue; strong hand on the ship-of-state's helm, tuff
>werds, and anxious to fulfull the bargain part of our solemn promise.
NATO is always lead by an American general. That "American Soldiers
never serving under foreign leaders" thing. Stupid, if you ask me.
But
>Bill I gotta wonder, do we really need all them smart bombs and that heavy
>ord'nance? Seems like one motivated guy with a scoped an' dialed-in M1 Garand
>sure could save a whole helluva lotta dyin'.
You ever hear of the Geneva convention? Assassination is a bad game to
play, even with scum like Milosovich.
>
>And while I'm onna subject I gotta confess I'm more than a little concerned
>'bout the Russkies gettin' uptight and droppin outta their NATO committment;
NATO was formed to intimidate the Russians. What commitment do you
think they had to it?
>and them makin' angry saber-rattlin' sounds and movin' their TAC Nukes to
>offensive southern border positions
>while their economy and military's so screwed up don't make me sleep none too
>good neither.
Sure. The Russians are nervous, and blustering. When aren't they?
Pissing them off is a risk we have to take, if we want to do the right
thing.
>
>But what the hell do I know, ennyway, eh?; I don't get out much ennymore,
>prob'bly not enuff to have a handle on the full score;
>and after all you got like the inside-track on the real nitty-gritty skinny,
>hottest latest sat-tel sit-rep intel-info staff advisers and like that to help
>inform and make up yer mind.
>I gotta say I suppose you know what yer doin', doncha?; after all, we sure pay
>ya enuff, ain't that right?
200, 000 a year ain't much for that kind of pressure.
I recognize the sarcasm in here, so if I contradicted in the wrong
places don't be offended.
- Jody
termite
> On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 14:56:16 GMT, sk...@nowhere.man
> <westx...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>
>>I'm a little shaky however on jus' how this National Security Interest
>>whatchmacallit fits inta the puzzle,
>
> I take it the persona of your "pome" believes that we shouldn't put
> ourselves at risk unless it is a threat to national security? That
> would be nice. Wouldn't be a great world if that were true? We could
> just tell the daughter who was forced to slit her mother's throat
> before they raped and killed her, "Sorry maam, not our problem."
> Here's where the logic doesn't fit.
Actually, it does fit.
> We are the most powerful military
> force in the world.
Which meant exactly nothing in Vietnam, Somalia and Los Angeles.
> We have the ability to put a violent end to
> torture, genocide, ethnic cleansing in a country the size of
> Yukoslavia.
Even though we don't have the power to put an end to 20,000 plus murders
in our own country.
> Now if we're here, and other human beings are being
> slaughtered horribly for no other reason than their race, don't we
> have a responsibility as human beings to do something about it?
Then why aren't we doing anything about it in Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan
etc.? If we really have a moral obligation to stop fighting in Kosovo,
then we have one to stop it everywhere - in other words, we are damn well
obligated to take over the world to stop everyone from killing each other.
They'll stop hating each other then - long enough to hate Americans for
awhile.
By the way - I assume that because this is your moral responsibility, you
are arming yourself to go over there and help - after all, one shouldn't
tell others that something's their responsibility and not do anything
about it oneself.
> Is a
> pesent woman in Kosovo worth less than a cashier in Des Moines? So
> many people think that we shouldn't risk "American Lives", as if they
> mean more than Slavic ones. Ridiculous.
Why don't the Europeans solve their own problems for once? And how are
you proposing to save this peasent in Kosovo's life? Oh, by killing a
peasant in Serbia instead. Or allowing a Kosovo peasant to kill him.
You've made the assumption that we can actually stop this. It's been
going on for 500 plus years. It'll stop when they decide to stop it.
> Now I'll be the first to admit that these airstrikes are probably not
> going to be all that effective. Moving targets and all that.
So, basically, we're just doing it to appear like we're doing something
whether it does anything or not.
> But if it
> weren't for the pervasive opinion that so many people have ("Yeah,
> that's horribe, but why should WE be the ones to stop it."), we could
> really put some effort into it and make it stop.
We haven't even stopped the fighting in our own country. Don't you realize
that many overseas see our proclaiming that we can stop their wars when
we can't even stop our own as arrogance and hypocracy?
> That is the Christian
> ethic you mentioned.
Then please explain to me why Jesus allowed himself to be hung on a cross
instead of marching down to Rome with a million angelic soldiers and
instituting the Kingdom of God by force?
>If we can stop these atrocities, we should.
We can't. We can't stop the atrocities in our own country, even though
we have the law and right on our side and are trying to stop them.
>
>>but I accept yer take onnit that we can't sit this one out;
>>after all, where would the world be now if we'd let Pol Pot do his thing?;
>>oops, scratch that thought, I guess we did miss that one, huh?
>
> America has failed to do the right thing in the past. We should be
> careful not to let that be an excuse to do the wrong thing now.
People are responisble for their own morality - in other words, if the
Serbs are killing people, it's their moral sin, not ours.
And if we have a moral obligation to interfere there, we have one to
interfere everywhere - which would mean that we would have to send our
entire generation of young people overseas to police the world.
Do you really think we're going to do that? Do you think our young people
will let us?
>
>>
>>All in all our eighteen NATO allies must surely 'preciate yer take-charge
>>leadership on this issue; strong hand on the ship-of-state's helm, tuff
>>werds, and anxious to fulfull the bargain part of our solemn promise.
>
> NATO is always lead by an American general. That "American Soldiers
> never serving under foreign leaders" thing. Stupid, if you ask me.
>
> But
>>Bill I gotta wonder, do we really need all them smart bombs and that heavy
>>ord'nance? Seems like one motivated guy with a scoped an' dialed-in M1 Garand
>>sure could save a whole helluva lotta dyin'.
>
> You ever hear of the Geneva convention? Assassination is a bad game to
> play, even with scum like Milosovich.
No more than a war that may have no end - at least it hasn't for the last
500 years ...
--
"No matter how much I went rooting around for news, I wouldn't
necessarily come closer to the truth."
-- Kobo Abe'
http://www.net-link.net/~termite
Jody McGinness
ter...@net-link.net (termite) wrote:
>Sending what seemed to be a string of whatever, <36fa756d....@news.supernews.com>,
> jo...@poetaster.com (Jody McGinness) wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 14:56:16 GMT, sk...@nowhere.man
>> <westx...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>I'm a little shaky however on jus' how this National Security Interest
>>>whatchmacallit fits inta the puzzle,
>>
>> I take it the persona of your "pome" believes that we shouldn't put
>> ourselves at risk unless it is a threat to national security? That
>> would be nice. Wouldn't be a great world if that were true? We could
>> just tell the daughter who was forced to slit her mother's throat
>> before they raped and killed her, "Sorry maam, not our problem."
>> Here's where the logic doesn't fit.
>
>Actually, it does fit.
I disagree.
>
>> We are the most powerful military
>> force in the world.
>
>Which meant exactly nothing in Vietnam, Somalia and Los Angeles.
Because it wasn't applied right, not because it wasn't true.
>
>> We have the ability to put a violent end to
>> torture, genocide, ethnic cleansing in a country the size of
>> Yukoslavia.
>
>Even though we don't have the power to put an end to 20,000 plus murders
>in our own country.
Sure we do.
>
>> Now if we're here, and other human beings are being
>> slaughtered horribly for no other reason than their race, don't we
>> have a responsibility as human beings to do something about it?
>
>Then why aren't we doing anything about it in Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan
>etc.?
We should be.
If we really have a moral obligation to stop fighting in Kosovo,
>then we have one to stop it everywhere - in other words, we are damn well
>obligated to take over the world to stop everyone from killing each other.
It probably wouldn't come to that.
>They'll stop hating each other then - long enough to hate Americans for
>awhile.
We're already hated.
>
>By the way - I assume that because this is your moral responsibility, you
>are arming yourself to go over there and help - after all, one shouldn't
>tell others that something's their responsibility and not do anything
>about it oneself.
I'm in the Guard, yes. Haven't been called, though.
>
>> Is a
>> pesent woman in Kosovo worth less than a cashier in Des Moines? So
>> many people think that we shouldn't risk "American Lives", as if they
>> mean more than Slavic ones. Ridiculous.
>
>Why don't the Europeans solve their own problems for once?
The same reason we won't solve them. Moral incompetence.
And how are
>you proposing to save this peasent in Kosovo's life? Oh, by killing a
>peasant in Serbia instead. Or allowing a Kosovo peasant to kill him.
Sure. Seems fair. At least make the odds even.
>
>You've made the assumption that we can actually stop this. It's been
>going on for 500 plus years. It'll stop when they decide to stop it.
Maybe you're right. But we could, if we really put our backs into it,
stop it.
>
>> Now I'll be the first to admit that these airstrikes are probably not
>> going to be all that effective. Moving targets and all that.
>
>So, basically, we're just doing it to appear like we're doing something
>whether it does anything or not.
Yes. Because ninety percent of americans think it's not our problem.
>
>> But if it
>> weren't for the pervasive opinion that so many people have ("Yeah,
>> that's horribe, but why should WE be the ones to stop it."), we could
>> really put some effort into it and make it stop.
>
>We haven't even stopped the fighting in our own country. Don't you realize
>that many overseas see our proclaiming that we can stop their wars when
>we can't even stop our own as arrogance and hypocracy?
Yes, I realize it. What's your point? We should let people be horribly
slaughtered because we're afraid they'll resent us?
>
>> That is the Christian
>> ethic you mentioned.
>
>Then please explain to me why Jesus allowed himself to be hung on a cross
>instead of marching down to Rome with a million angelic soldiers and
>instituting the Kingdom of God by force?
Because man had to choose the Kingdom of God for it to mean anything.
>
>>If we can stop these atrocities, we should.
>
>We can't. We can't stop the atrocities in our own country, even though
>we have the law and right on our side and are trying to stop them.
Sure. We have it rough here. And if we invested the money and training
into education that we do in our armed forces, we might be able to
address that. But that's not the case, and we've got a very pricy
military, and an opportunity to do some good with it.
>
>>
>>>but I accept yer take onnit that we can't sit this one out;
>>>after all, where would the world be now if we'd let Pol Pot do his thing?;
>>>oops, scratch that thought, I guess we did miss that one, huh?
>>
>> America has failed to do the right thing in the past. We should be
>> careful not to let that be an excuse to do the wrong thing now.
>
>People are responisble for their own morality - in other words, if the
>Serbs are killing people, it's their moral sin, not ours.
But letting it happen without trying to stop it. That isn't morally
wrong?
>
>And if we have a moral obligation to interfere there, we have one to
>interfere everywhere - which would mean that we would have to send our
>entire generation of young people overseas to police the world.
Oh, so let's not try to help the dying then. We wouldn't want people
to expect it.
>
>Do you really think we're going to do that? Do you think our young people
>will let us?
I don't really think it's an issue.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>All in all our eighteen NATO allies must surely 'preciate yer take-charge
>>>leadership on this issue; strong hand on the ship-of-state's helm, tuff
>>>werds, and anxious to fulfull the bargain part of our solemn promise.
>>
>> NATO is always lead by an American general. That "American Soldiers
>> never serving under foreign leaders" thing. Stupid, if you ask me.
>>
>> But
>>>Bill I gotta wonder, do we really need all them smart bombs and that heavy
>>>ord'nance? Seems like one motivated guy with a scoped an' dialed-in M1 Garand
>>>sure could save a whole helluva lotta dyin'.
>>
>> You ever hear of the Geneva convention? Assassination is a bad game to
>> play, even with scum like Milosovich.
>
>No more than a war that may have no end - at least it hasn't for the last
>500 years ...
Sure. So you think it's okay to let thousands of people be killed, to
have an entire province decimated of a whole race. I can understand
that. Why should we do anything about that?
It just seems to me that there are human beings being killed and
tortured, and if I haven't been paying 25% of my money to help those
people, what have I been paying for? You can sit here at home with
your head in the sand and find a million excuses for why we shouldn't
risk ourselves, but it comes down to whether we think other humans are
worth the effort. You don't. I do.
That's that, I guess.
- Jody
Bobby
I do pretty much agree with Termite.
Bobby
Jody McGinness wrote in message <36faa3cc....@news.supernews.com>...
j r sherman
>An Open (sic) Letter To The President (sic) From A Concerned Citizen (sic)
>March 25, 1999
>Dear Bill;
bill doesn't seem to be listening ski.... HEY, why don't you tell him
that you're the master of reason and restraint?
then we can all hold hands togther and just wish for the good vibes to
make the bombing stop, make it all one big love thing! cool man,
righteous and cool. maybe if we all had like crystals and stuff.
and moron, yugoslavia was formed in 1919, not sixty years ago, just
thought i'd let ya know.
love and kisses,
j r sherman
-------------------------------------------
I am smitten
I'm the real thing (I'm the real thing)
Won't you be my valentine?
My crush with eyeliner
REM
-------------------------------------------
j r sherman
>>
>> I take it the persona of your "pome" believes that we shouldn't put
>> ourselves at risk unless it is a threat to national security? That
>> would be nice. Wouldn't be a great world if that were true? We could
>> just tell the daughter who was forced to slit her mother's throat
>> before they raped and killed her, "Sorry maam, not our problem."
>> Here's where the logic doesn't fit.
>Actually, it does fit.
do tell, since you complained to me about one line, three word
responses there terms, what's the fit, explain your logic. i'd like to
know.
>> We are the most powerful military
>> force in the world.
>Which meant exactly nothing in Vietnam, Somalia and Los Angeles.
depends. we could have bombed all three places into the stone age if
we wanted.
i do not see LA in cinders as a great lose in the history of world.
>> We have the ability to put a violent end to
>> torture, genocide, ethnic cleansing in a country the size of
>> Yukoslavia.
>Even though we don't have the power to put an end to 20,000 plus murders
>in our own country.
caused mostly by people who have guns in their house and get pissed
off cause their team lost the super bowl, and so they shoot their
loved ones, neighbors, fellow postal workers. what the hell do you
want, world peace AND gun control. do you see why i think you guys are
laughable dreamers?
>> Now if we're here, and other human beings are being
>> slaughtered horribly for no other reason than their race, don't we
>> have a responsibility as human beings to do something about it?
>Then why aren't we doing anything about it in Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan
>etc.?
the money don't flow through there. it does through europe.
>If we really have a moral obligation to stop fighting in Kosovo,
>then we have one to stop it everywhere - in other words, we are damn well
>obligated to take over the world to stop everyone from killing each other.
only where the money flows terms, we've had this discussion before.
>They'll stop hating each other then - long enough to hate Americans for
>awhile.
>By the way - I assume that because this is your moral responsibility, you
>are arming yourself to go over there and help - after all, one shouldn't
>tell others that something's their responsibility and not do anything
>about it oneself.
all of us are terms, we're paying our taxes, (except for the rich and
the Freeman and the other militia nuts). but i ask you, would you be
willing to put your life on the line to stop it?
>> Is a
>> pesent woman in Kosovo worth less than a cashier in Des Moines? So
>> many people think that we shouldn't risk "American Lives", as if they
>> mean more than Slavic ones. Ridiculous.
>Why don't the Europeans solve their own problems for once?
a moot point. what would you like to do, just let the thing boil over
until it errupts into a full european land war. the 20th century has
been there and done that. if bombing a few peasants in Serbia means
that i, or my kinds, or my friends kids, don't have to hit Omaha beach
again, i'm all for it.
and please don't tell me that it wouldn't come to that. we said that
in 1914 an 1939.
cold? yep. so.
>And how are
>you proposing to save this peasent in Kosovo's life? Oh, by killing a
>peasant in Serbia instead. Or allowing a Kosovo peasant to kill him.
yep. we should have armed the Bosnians and the Albanians of Kosovo to
the teeth a long time ago. in place of that, bomb the Serbians.
but do think of it terms. the Serbs wanted Bosnia, and when we put US
troops there, they went after Kosovo. next? how about Macadonia? it's
not out of the question, the Serbs are nuts, and the murders here. so
are we, but that's the breaks of the game, ain't it. we have the
airplanes,a nd they don't.
>You've made the assumption that we can actually stop this. It's been
>going on for 500 plus years. It'll stop when they decide to stop it.
or when they're are no more Serbs left. not a bad idea.
>> Now I'll be the first to admit that these airstrikes are probably not
>> going to be all that effective. Moving targets and all that.
>So, basically, we're just doing it to appear like we're doing something
>whether it does anything or not.
nope, we're hoping for the best. maybe the people of Serbia won't
stand for this and throw out Milosevic, probably not. Milosevic's a
pyscho, but he's not an idiot. he won't play a hand he thinks will
lose. but would you suggest that nobody does anything? your arguement
that the europeans should be taking care of this rings a bit hollow,
just as much killing would be going on if the europeans were doing the
bombing instead of the US. when do we bomb Milosevic, when he's
marching into Bulgaria because he'll claim that in the 14th century
Bulgaria was part of the Serb empire?
>> But if it
>> weren't for the pervasive opinion that so many people have ("Yeah,
>> that's horribe, but why should WE be the ones to stop it."), we could
>> really put some effort into it and make it stop.
>We haven't even stopped the fighting in our own country. Don't you realize
>that many overseas see our proclaiming that we can stop their wars when
>we can't even stop our own as arrogance and hypocracy?
you're missing the point terms. it ain't about proving a right or
wrong. right or who's the murderer, is a pointless discussion. it's
the money flow. a war in europe fucks with the money flow. a war in
Rwanda doesn't.
>> That is the Christian
>> ethic you mentioned.
>Then please explain to me why Jesus allowed himself to be hung on a cross
>instead of marching down to Rome with a million angelic soldiers and
>instituting the Kingdom of God by force?
because human kind doesn't have the faintest clue about the teachings
of jesus. and the teachings of jesus are pointless in this discussion.
>>If we can stop these atrocities, we should.
>We can't. We can't stop the atrocities in our own country, even though
>we have the law and right on our side and are trying to stop them.
would you care to tell me where Serbian-like atrocities are occuring
here in the US, on the scale of whole towns being massacred, whole
villages, thousands of men, women and children being raped and
murdered?
idealism is a fine thing terms. but when it blinds you to the facts
it's as bad as an addiction. it's zealotry, and when you're a zealot,
you're through, there is no point to you, just push you in the proper
direction of the jihad and have at it.
>>
>>>but I accept yer take onnit that we can't sit this one out;
>>>after all, where would the world be now if we'd let Pol Pot do his thing?;
>>>oops, scratch that thought, I guess we did miss that one, huh?
>>
>> America has failed to do the right thing in the past. We should be
>> careful not to let that be an excuse to do the wrong thing now.
>People are responisble for their own morality - in other words, if the
>Serbs are killing people, it's their moral sin, not ours.
landwar, europe, bad, could effect the money flow, that's why we're
there. period. why do you keep wanting to place some morality to this?
it's gone beyond morality. morality doesn't matter any more. the facts
are what matters.
>And if we have a moral obligation to interfere there, we have one to
>interfere everywhere - which would mean that we would have to send our
>entire generation of young people overseas to police the world.
only where the money flows, that's all that matters. that might
inherently be immoral, but it's irrelavant to the discusion.
>Do you really think we're going to do that? Do you think our young people
>will let us?
perhaps if we promised them a lifetime of Nintendo and a cool bitching
car, they just might.
>>
>> You ever hear of the Geneva convention? Assassination is a bad game to
>> play, even with scum like Milosovich.
>No more than a war that may have no end - at least it hasn't for the last
>500 years ...
but the Ottomans never had cruise missles.. heh. just kidding.
so, we do nothing?
termite
> Sending what seemed to be a string of cynical bullshit,
> ter...@net-link.net (termite) wrote:
>
>>Sending what seemed to be a string of whatever, <36fa756d....@news.supernews.com>,
>> jo...@poetaster.com (Jody McGinness) wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 14:56:16 GMT, sk...@nowhere.man
>>> <westx...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I'm a little shaky however on jus' how this National Security Interest
>>>>whatchmacallit fits inta the puzzle,
>>>
>>> I take it the persona of your "pome" believes that we shouldn't put
>>> ourselves at risk unless it is a threat to national security? That
>>> would be nice. Wouldn't be a great world if that were true? We could
>>> just tell the daughter who was forced to slit her mother's throat
>>> before they raped and killed her, "Sorry maam, not our problem."
>>> Here's where the logic doesn't fit.
>>
>>Actually, it does fit.
>
> I disagree.
>
>>
>>> We are the most powerful military
>>> force in the world.
>>
>>Which meant exactly nothing in Vietnam, Somalia and Los Angeles.
>
> Because it wasn't applied right, not because it wasn't true.
>
Military strength is not everything.
>>
>>> We have the ability to put a violent end to
>>> torture, genocide, ethnic cleansing in a country the size of
>>> Yukoslavia.
>>
>>Even though we don't have the power to put an end to 20,000 plus murders
>>in our own country.
>
> Sure we do.
Then why haven't we?
>
>>
>>> Now if we're here, and other human beings are being
>>> slaughtered horribly for no other reason than their race, don't we
>>> have a responsibility as human beings to do something about it?
>>
>>Then why aren't we doing anything about it in Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan
>>etc.?
>
> We should be.
Really? We should police the whole world then, at least the portions that
are fighting?
Do you think they'll be grateful? The Roman Empire, among other things,
created a good deal of economic growth and law and order in their territories.
Were their subject peoples grateful?
>
> If we really have a moral obligation to stop fighting in Kosovo,
>>then we have one to stop it everywhere - in other words, we are damn well
>>obligated to take over the world to stop everyone from killing each other.
>
> It probably wouldn't come to that.
Why wouldn't it?
>
>>They'll stop hating each other then - long enough to hate Americans for
>>awhile.
>
> We're already hated.
But we're not necessarily right next door to the people who hate us, policing
their country.
>
>>
>>By the way - I assume that because this is your moral responsibility, you
>>are arming yourself to go over there and help - after all, one shouldn't
>>tell others that something's their responsibility and not do anything
>>about it oneself.
>
> I'm in the Guard, yes. Haven't been called, though.
Fine, then. It would be a shame to have your life thown away on this
foreign feud, as it would others, including my brother in law ...
>
>>
>>> Is a
>>> pesent woman in Kosovo worth less than a cashier in Des Moines? So
>>> many people think that we shouldn't risk "American Lives", as if they
>>> mean more than Slavic ones. Ridiculous.
>>
>>Why don't the Europeans solve their own problems for once?
>
> The same reason we won't solve them. Moral incompetence.
And magically, once we go overseas, we will become more competent? Why?
>
> And how are
>>you proposing to save this peasent in Kosovo's life? Oh, by killing a
>>peasant in Serbia instead. Or allowing a Kosovo peasant to kill him.
>
> Sure. Seems fair. At least make the odds even.
Then let's just sell them guns. Oh hell, we probably already are ...
>
>>
>>You've made the assumption that we can actually stop this. It's been
>>going on for 500 plus years. It'll stop when they decide to stop it.
>
> Maybe you're right. But we could, if we really put our backs into it,
> stop it.
Just like we stopped the North Vietnamese? Or like we've stopped cocaine
imports into our country?
>
>>
>>> Now I'll be the first to admit that these airstrikes are probably not
>>> going to be all that effective. Moving targets and all that.
>>
>>So, basically, we're just doing it to appear like we're doing something
>>whether it does anything or not.
>
> Yes. Because ninety percent of americans think it's not our problem.
In a practical sense, it's not. And in any sense, I have doubts it could
be solved by anything short of all-out invasion.
And the Serbs will not roll over like the Iraqis did.
Look at the horrible time the Germans had in Yugoslavia during World War
II - the Serbs know and practice guerrilla warfare.
>
>>
>>> But if it
>>> weren't for the pervasive opinion that so many people have ("Yeah,
>>> that's horribe, but why should WE be the ones to stop it."), we could
>>> really put some effort into it and make it stop.
>>
>>We haven't even stopped the fighting in our own country. Don't you realize
>>that many overseas see our proclaiming that we can stop their wars when
>>we can't even stop our own as arrogance and hypocracy?
>
> Yes, I realize it. What's your point? We should let people be horribly
> slaughtered because we're afraid they'll resent us?
We're not letting them be horribly slaughtered. They are being horribly
slaughtered because there is little we can do about it without causing
more slaughter, especially of our soldier-citizens, who we have a much
great obligation to than foreign peoples.
>
>>
>>> That is the Christian
>>> ethic you mentioned.
>>
>>Then please explain to me why Jesus allowed himself to be hung on a cross
>>instead of marching down to Rome with a million angelic soldiers and
>>instituting the Kingdom of God by force?
>
> Because man had to choose the Kingdom of God for it to mean anything.
And people have to choose peace for it to mean anything. If one really
wanted, in 20-25 years, it should be possible for our scientists to
totally short circuit any brain that is in the midst of committing a
violent act. People will have seizures when they get angry and be
incapable of doing anything. Or they'll just take a little nap. No
one will have the choice of violence anymore. We'll just make all
of us have the surgery and then we'll all be fine.
God help us.
I wonder what else they'll be programming our brains to do.
>
>>
>>>If we can stop these atrocities, we should.
>>
>>We can't. We can't stop the atrocities in our own country, even though
>>we have the law and right on our side and are trying to stop them.
>
> Sure. We have it rough here. And if we invested the money and training
> into education that we do in our armed forces, we might be able to
> address that. But that's not the case, and we've got a very pricy
> military, and an opportunity to do some good with it.
Yes, there's quite a lot we could do in our country with the military
that might be good. We could patrol violent neighborhoods, strictly in
an observational capacity so no laws were violated ...
>
>>
>>>
>>>>but I accept yer take onnit that we can't sit this one out;
>>>>after all, where would the world be now if we'd let Pol Pot do his thing?;
>>>>oops, scratch that thought, I guess we did miss that one, huh?
>>>
>>> America has failed to do the right thing in the past. We should be
>>> careful not to let that be an excuse to do the wrong thing now.
>>
>>People are responisble for their own morality - in other words, if the
>>Serbs are killing people, it's their moral sin, not ours.
>
> But letting it happen without trying to stop it. That isn't morally
> wrong?
We should send negotiators. We should attempt to cut off arms shipments
to the aggressors from our country and others that want to stop this.
There are limits to our power - if we go beyond them, we will lose our
ability to change situations we can change.
>
>>
>>And if we have a moral obligation to interfere there, we have one to
>>interfere everywhere - which would mean that we would have to send our
>>entire generation of young people overseas to police the world.
>
> Oh, so let's not try to help the dying then. We wouldn't want people
> to expect it.
We would have to help every country where there is a war, not just Serbia.
And there are many ...
>
>>
>>Do you really think we're going to do that? Do you think our young people
>>will let us?
>
> I don't really think it's an issue.
If it goes on long enough, it will be.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>All in all our eighteen NATO allies must surely 'preciate yer take-charge
>>>>leadership on this issue; strong hand on the ship-of-state's helm, tuff
>>>>werds, and anxious to fulfull the bargain part of our solemn promise.
>>>
>>> NATO is always lead by an American general. That "American Soldiers
>>> never serving under foreign leaders" thing. Stupid, if you ask me.
>>>
>>> But
>>>>Bill I gotta wonder, do we really need all them smart bombs and that heavy
>>>>ord'nance? Seems like one motivated guy with a scoped an' dialed-in M1 Garand
>>>>sure could save a whole helluva lotta dyin'.
>>>
>>> You ever hear of the Geneva convention? Assassination is a bad game to
>>> play, even with scum like Milosovich.
>>
>>No more than a war that may have no end - at least it hasn't for the last
>>500 years ...
>
> Sure. So you think it's okay to let thousands of people be killed, to
> have an entire province decimated of a whole race. I can understand
> that. Why should we do anything about that?
What gives you the idea that other peoples in the world, including the
Kosovians are going to percieve us as the altruistic rescuers you would
like them to perceive us as being? Did the Lebanese and Somalians see
us that way?
> It just seems to me that there are human beings being killed and
> tortured, and if I haven't been paying 25% of my money to help those
> people, what have I been paying for?
The general welfare of the United States of America - well, at least
in theory.
> You can sit here at home with
> your head in the sand and find a million excuses for why we shouldn't
> risk ourselves, but it comes down to whether we think other humans are
> worth the effort. You don't. I do.
No, it actually comes down to whether you think we're morally superior
to other peoples and have the right to tell them what to do, with guns
if they don't listen to us, and it also comes down to whether you believe
you can make them stop.
I don't believe we're morally superior and I don't believe we can make them
stop.
>
> That's that, I guess.
God help the world and God help us if we ever actually do become the
policeman of the world.
If you think our leaders are too good to be corrupted by that kind of
power, think again.
termite
> ter...@net-link.net (termite) wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I take it the persona of your "pome" believes that we shouldn't put
>>> ourselves at risk unless it is a threat to national security? That
>>> would be nice. Wouldn't be a great world if that were true? We could
>>> just tell the daughter who was forced to slit her mother's throat
>>> before they raped and killed her, "Sorry maam, not our problem."
>>> Here's where the logic doesn't fit.
>
>>Actually, it does fit.
>
> do tell, since you complained to me about one line, three word
> responses there terms, what's the fit, explain your logic. i'd like to
> know.
>
said directly - it's rather illogical to present something to me after the
fact, something that happened thousands of miles away from me, something
that I could have done nothing to prevent and then tell me that it's my
problem and I should have done something about it.
>>> We are the most powerful military
>>> force in the world.
>
>>Which meant exactly nothing in Vietnam, Somalia and Los Angeles.
>
> depends. we could have bombed all three places into the stone age if
> we wanted.
Absolutely. And what would that have made us?
>
> i do not see LA in cinders as a great lose in the history of world.
You will if your city fills up with refugee Angelitos ...
>
>>> We have the ability to put a violent end to
>>> torture, genocide, ethnic cleansing in a country the size of
>>> Yukoslavia.
>
>>Even though we don't have the power to put an end to 20,000 plus murders
>>in our own country.
>
> caused mostly by people who have guns in their house and get pissed
> off cause their team lost the super bowl, and so they shoot their
> loved ones, neighbors, fellow postal workers. what the hell do you
> want, world peace AND gun control. do you see why i think you guys are
> laughable dreamers?
I'm not a laughable dreamer, jr - I know very well that people shoot each
other because they're assholes. I even know that gun control's a piss poor
solution to the problem - after all there was lots of gun control in Kosovo,
wasn't there?
The major difference between we and the Europeans is that we kill ourselves
a bit at a time and they like to save up and do all the killing at once.
>
>
>>> Now if we're here, and other human beings are being
>>> slaughtered horribly for no other reason than their race, don't we
>>> have a responsibility as human beings to do something about it?
>
>>Then why aren't we doing anything about it in Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan
>>etc.?
>
> the money don't flow through there. it does through europe.
Exactly.
>
>>If we really have a moral obligation to stop fighting in Kosovo,
>>then we have one to stop it everywhere - in other words, we are damn well
>>obligated to take over the world to stop everyone from killing each other.
>
> only where the money flows terms, we've had this discussion before.
And I say if it's a question of money, then let the free market take care
of it ... Actually, what kind of money do we have in Kosovo?
>
>>They'll stop hating each other then - long enough to hate Americans for
>>awhile.
>
>>By the way - I assume that because this is your moral responsibility, you
>>are arming yourself to go over there and help - after all, one shouldn't
>>tell others that something's their responsibility and not do anything
>>about it oneself.
>
> all of us are terms, we're paying our taxes, (except for the rich and
> the Freeman and the other militia nuts). but i ask you, would you be
> willing to put your life on the line to stop it?
Stop what? Our government interfering with foreign countries? What do you
want me to do, jr, rent a Ryder truck and blow up the pentagon?
I don't have to put my life on the line to refrain from killing Serbians.
I already have. That government computers take money from my paycheck, by
force, to do this purportably in my name, is unfortunate, but I didn't
create that situation, either.
I'm responsible for what I do with the things under my power to change.
>
>>> Is a
>>> pesent woman in Kosovo worth less than a cashier in Des Moines? So
>>> many people think that we shouldn't risk "American Lives", as if they
>>> mean more than Slavic ones. Ridiculous.
>
>>Why don't the Europeans solve their own problems for once?
>
> a moot point. what would you like to do, just let the thing boil over
> until it errupts into a full european land war.
It wouldn't. Europe's not as divided now as it was then.
> the 20th century has
> been there and done that.
So have the Americans. Twice. Don't you see that if we keep solving their
problems for them with arms that they'll never learn to do it themselves?
And who appointed us savior of the world? I don't recall that vote in
the U.N.
> if bombing a few peasants in Serbia means
> that i, or my kinds, or my friends kids, don't have to hit Omaha beach
> again, i'm all for it.
Again, the situation is different.
>
> and please don't tell me that it wouldn't come to that. we said that
> in 1914 an 1939.
>
> cold? yep. so.
It's 1999, jr. It's a different Europe and a different world.
>
>>And how are
>>you proposing to save this peasent in Kosovo's life? Oh, by killing a
>>peasant in Serbia instead. Or allowing a Kosovo peasant to kill him.
>
> yep. we should have armed the Bosnians and the Albanians of Kosovo to
> the teeth a long time ago. in place of that, bomb the Serbians.
>
> but do think of it terms. the Serbs wanted Bosnia, and when we put US
> troops there, they went after Kosovo. next? how about Macadonia? it's
> not out of the question, the Serbs are nuts, and the murders here. so
> are we, but that's the breaks of the game, ain't it. we have the
> airplanes,a nd they don't.
Yet.
Do you think the Kosovians will behave any better if they get some power?
Power's a drug, jr. It makes countries do some arrogant, insane things.
And our country is not immune.
>
>>You've made the assumption that we can actually stop this. It's been
>>going on for 500 plus years. It'll stop when they decide to stop it.
>
> or when they're are no more Serbs left. not a bad idea.
Power can even make some people advocate genocide.
>
>>> Now I'll be the first to admit that these airstrikes are probably not
>>> going to be all that effective. Moving targets and all that.
>
>>So, basically, we're just doing it to appear like we're doing something
>>whether it does anything or not.
>
> nope, we're hoping for the best. maybe the people of Serbia won't
> stand for this and throw out Milosevic, probably not. Milosevic's a
> pyscho, but he's not an idiot. he won't play a hand he thinks will
> lose. but would you suggest that nobody does anything? your arguement
> that the europeans should be taking care of this rings a bit hollow,
Why? They'll be whining to us until kingdom come to take care of their
problems - they have more potential soldiers than we do, and their
military potential is perfectly capable of taking care of things.
> just as much killing would be going on if the europeans were doing the
> bombing instead of the US. when do we bomb Milosevic, when he's
> marching into Bulgaria because he'll claim that in the 14th century
> Bulgaria was part of the Serb empire?
And of course, when we support the Bulgarians in this, they'll magically
behave themselves when it's their turn to be on top?
>
>>> But if it
>>> weren't for the pervasive opinion that so many people have ("Yeah,
>>> that's horribe, but why should WE be the ones to stop it."), we could
>>> really put some effort into it and make it stop.
>
>>We haven't even stopped the fighting in our own country. Don't you realize
>>that many overseas see our proclaiming that we can stop their wars when
>>we can't even stop our own as arrogance and hypocracy?
>
> you're missing the point terms. it ain't about proving a right or
> wrong. right or who's the murderer, is a pointless discussion. it's
> the money flow.
We don't have much money in Kosovo.
> a war in europe fucks with the money flow. a war in
> Rwanda doesn't.
Until the third world, sick of our cavilier attitude towards them and their
lack of money flow, decides to acquire nuclear/biological weapons and
make us pay some attention to their problems.
>
>>> That is the Christian
>>> ethic you mentioned.
>
>>Then please explain to me why Jesus allowed himself to be hung on a cross
>>instead of marching down to Rome with a million angelic soldiers and
>>instituting the Kingdom of God by force?
>
> because human kind doesn't have the faintest clue about the teachings
> of jesus. and the teachings of jesus are pointless in this discussion.
>
That was my point ...
>
>>>If we can stop these atrocities, we should.
>
>>We can't. We can't stop the atrocities in our own country, even though
>>we have the law and right on our side and are trying to stop them.
>
> would you care to tell me where Serbian-like atrocities are occuring
> here in the US, on the scale of whole towns being massacred, whole
> villages, thousands of men, women and children being raped and
> murdered?
It's happening death by death all around us. Haven't you noticed?
>
> idealism is a fine thing terms. but when it blinds you to the facts
> it's as bad as an addiction.
Ahem. I'm not the one who's playing Crusader Rabbit, let's save those
peasants overseas, you are.
I'm not an idealist - I'm a realist. Realism is that we won't change this
without a bloody ground war that we may not, in the long run, win.
> it's zealotry, and when you're a zealot,
> you're through, there is no point to you, just push you in the proper
> direction of the jihad and have at it.
I'm not sending anyone to war, you are.
>
>>>
>>>>but I accept yer take onnit that we can't sit this one out;
>>>>after all, where would the world be now if we'd let Pol Pot do his thing?;
>>>>oops, scratch that thought, I guess we did miss that one, huh?
>>>
>>> America has failed to do the right thing in the past. We should be
>>> careful not to let that be an excuse to do the wrong thing now.
>
>>People are responisble for their own morality - in other words, if the
>>Serbs are killing people, it's their moral sin, not ours.
>
> landwar, europe, bad, could effect the money flow, that's why we're
> there. period. why do you keep wanting to place some morality to this?
> it's gone beyond morality. morality doesn't matter any more. the facts
> are what matters.
Money's what matters, right, jr? So, tell me, why don't we just join in
with the Serbs, help them appropriate the land they're after, round up
the peasants and sell off their organs to dying rich people?
Think of all the money we could make, jr.
>
>>And if we have a moral obligation to interfere there, we have one to
>>interfere everywhere - which would mean that we would have to send our
>>entire generation of young people overseas to police the world.
>
> only where the money flows, that's all that matters. that might
> inherently be immoral, but it's irrelavant to the discusion.
Well, then, you go right on ahead and get that money, ok?
>
>>Do you really think we're going to do that? Do you think our young people
>>will let us?
>
> perhaps if we promised them a lifetime of Nintendo and a cool bitching
> car, they just might.
Some would. If one could somehow turn the war into a Nintendo game, you
would get some recruits on that strength alone.
>
>>>
>>> You ever hear of the Geneva convention? Assassination is a bad game to
>>> play, even with scum like Milosovich.
>
>>No more than a war that may have no end - at least it hasn't for the last
>>500 years ...
>
> but the Ottomans never had cruise missles.. heh. just kidding.
Ah, but thanks to our generousity as a nation, their descendants do. And
they'll use them on the Kurds if they have to while telling the rest of the
world that they ought to save the peasants in Kosovo.
There we have it. US money goes to save some peasants in NATO's name while
other NATO partners kill other peasants - with a little of our money.
At least you're not claiming a moral high ground for us.
>
> so, we do nothing?
It's the only thing we haven't tried in the past 50 years, maybe we ought
to give it a shot and see if it works.
Jody McGinness
>perhaps if we promised them a lifetime of Nintendo and a cool bitching
>car, they just might.
Bitchin' , Jr, that's bitchin'.
For a bitchin' car I'd vote republican.
- Jody
Jody McGinness
That's what I said, Termite. It wasn't implied right.
>
>>>
>>>> We have the ability to put a violent end to
>>>> torture, genocide, ethnic cleansing in a country the size of
>>>> Yukoslavia.
>>>
>>>Even though we don't have the power to put an end to 20,000 plus murders
>>>in our own country.
>>
>> Sure we do.
>
>Then why haven't we?
Because the majority of Americans think like you.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Now if we're here, and other human beings are being
>>>> slaughtered horribly for no other reason than their race, don't we
>>>> have a responsibility as human beings to do something about it?
>>>
>>>Then why aren't we doing anything about it in Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan
>>>etc.?
>>
>> We should be.
>
>Really? We should police the whole world then, at least the portions that
>are fighting?
No. But if it's a matter of gross injustice we should.
>
>Do you think they'll be grateful? The Roman Empire, among other things,
>created a good deal of economic growth and law and order in their territories.
>Were their subject peoples grateful?
Who cares? Really. I don't expect people to be happy that their
slaughtering is brought to a halt. I don't think we're taking their
feelings into consideration when we bomb them. Should we stop because
they won't like us? Stupid, Termite. Hitler wasn't grateful when we
kicked his ass, either. Should we have not done so?
>
>>
>> If we really have a moral obligation to stop fighting in Kosovo,
>>>then we have one to stop it everywhere - in other words, we are damn well
>>>obligated to take over the world to stop everyone from killing each other.
>>
>> It probably wouldn't come to that.
>
>Why wouldn't it?
Because the more places in the world that become instilled with a
stable government, the less it's going to go on. That's why there's
NINETEEN countries in NATO, all unanimously supporting the bombing.
>
>>
>>>They'll stop hating each other then - long enough to hate Americans for
>>>awhile.
>>
>> We're already hated.
>
>But we're not necessarily right next door to the people who hate us, policing
>their country.
What's your point? So they're not going to invade? Of course not. Or
do you mean that we shouldn't get involved in conflicts on our own
borders? Good think the french didn't think so during colonial times,
or you'd have a cockney accent.
>
>>
>>>
>>>By the way - I assume that because this is your moral responsibility, you
>>>are arming yourself to go over there and help - after all, one shouldn't
>>>tell others that something's their responsibility and not do anything
>>>about it oneself.
>>
>> I'm in the Guard, yes. Haven't been called, though.
>
>Fine, then. It would be a shame to have your life thown away on this
>foreign feud, as it would others, including my brother in law ...
This is what I don't get. Foreign? Just because they're from another
country? Their lives are as valuable as anyone from anywhere, Termite.
And somebody who's strong enough is trying to stop senseless atrocity
from happening. Why is that so bad? They are humans, just like us. If
the situations were reversed, I'd hope that someone would step in.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Is a
>>>> pesent woman in Kosovo worth less than a cashier in Des Moines? So
>>>> many people think that we shouldn't risk "American Lives", as if they
>>>> mean more than Slavic ones. Ridiculous.
>>>
>>>Why don't the Europeans solve their own problems for once?
>>
>> The same reason we won't solve them. Moral incompetence.
>
>And magically, once we go overseas, we will become more competent? Why?
No. That's not what I said. We're doing the right thing. So in this
case, we're showing some moral backbone. NATO is primarily european,
and they're involved in this too.
>
>>
>> And how are
>>>you proposing to save this peasent in Kosovo's life? Oh, by killing a
>>>peasant in Serbia instead. Or allowing a Kosovo peasant to kill him.
>>
>> Sure. Seems fair. At least make the odds even.
>
>Then let's just sell them guns. Oh hell, we probably already are ...
>
>>
>>>
>>>You've made the assumption that we can actually stop this. It's been
>>>going on for 500 plus years. It'll stop when they decide to stop it.
>>
>> Maybe you're right. But we could, if we really put our backs into it,
>> stop it.
>
>Just like we stopped the North Vietnamese? Or like we've stopped cocaine
>imports into our country?
This isn't Viet Nam. And I don't see what relevance drug-trafficking
has in this discussion.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Now I'll be the first to admit that these airstrikes are probably not
>>>> going to be all that effective. Moving targets and all that.
>>>
>>>So, basically, we're just doing it to appear like we're doing something
>>>whether it does anything or not.
>>
>> Yes. Because ninety percent of americans think it's not our problem.
>
>In a practical sense, it's not. And in any sense, I have doubts it could
>be solved by anything short of all-out invasion.
Well, I suppose that just means you're more pessimistic than NATO.
>
>And the Serbs will not roll over like the Iraqis did.
Maybe not. But it's worth a try.
>
>Look at the horrible time the Germans had in Yugoslavia during World War
>II - the Serbs know and practice guerrilla warfare.
You're right, but they're obviously not trying to kill soldiers on
foot with airstrikes. They're trying to stop the military machine.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> But if it
>>>> weren't for the pervasive opinion that so many people have ("Yeah,
>>>> that's horribe, but why should WE be the ones to stop it."), we could
>>>> really put some effort into it and make it stop.
>>>
>>>We haven't even stopped the fighting in our own country. Don't you realize
>>>that many overseas see our proclaiming that we can stop their wars when
>>>we can't even stop our own as arrogance and hypocracy?
>>
>> Yes, I realize it. What's your point? We should let people be horribly
>> slaughtered because we're afraid they'll resent us?
>
>We're not letting them be horribly slaughtered. They are being horribly
>slaughtered because there is little we can do about it without causing
>more slaughter, especially of our soldier-citizens, who we have a much
>great obligation to than foreign peoples.
Hmmm. How, praytell, are we putting our soldiers at risk? We may lose
one or two in the bombing process. But even that is unlikely. And
anyone who chooses to join the armed forces has already accepted that
risk, so what's the problem?
>
>>
>>>
>>>> That is the Christian
>>>> ethic you mentioned.
>>>
>>>Then please explain to me why Jesus allowed himself to be hung on a cross
>>>instead of marching down to Rome with a million angelic soldiers and
>>>instituting the Kingdom of God by force?
>>
>> Because man had to choose the Kingdom of God for it to mean anything.
>
>And people have to choose peace for it to mean anything. If one really
>wanted, in 20-25 years, it should be possible for our scientists to
>totally short circuit any brain that is in the midst of committing a
>violent act. People will have seizures when they get angry and be
>incapable of doing anything. Or they'll just take a little nap. No
>one will have the choice of violence anymore. We'll just make all
>of us have the surgery and then we'll all be fine.
I agree with your first sentence here. The rest is confusing, and
strangely Orwellian.
>
>God help us.
>
>I wonder what else they'll be programming our brains to do.
Wow. Watching a lot of star trek lately?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>If we can stop these atrocities, we should.
>>>
>>>We can't. We can't stop the atrocities in our own country, even though
>>>we have the law and right on our side and are trying to stop them.
>>
>> Sure. We have it rough here. And if we invested the money and training
>> into education that we do in our armed forces, we might be able to
>> address that. But that's not the case, and we've got a very pricy
>> military, and an opportunity to do some good with it.
>
>Yes, there's quite a lot we could do in our country with the military
>that might be good. We could patrol violent neighborhoods, strictly in
>an observational capacity so no laws were violated ...
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>but I accept yer take onnit that we can't sit this one out;
>>>>>after all, where would the world be now if we'd let Pol Pot do his thing?;
>>>>>oops, scratch that thought, I guess we did miss that one, huh?
>>>>
>>>> America has failed to do the right thing in the past. We should be
>>>> careful not to let that be an excuse to do the wrong thing now.
>>>
>>>People are responisble for their own morality - in other words, if the
>>>Serbs are killing people, it's their moral sin, not ours.
>>
>> But letting it happen without trying to stop it. That isn't morally
>> wrong?
>
>We should send negotiators.
Done it. No luck.
We should attempt to cut off arms shipments
>to the aggressors from our country and others that want to stop this.
We at least seem to have done it. No luck. They can make guns.
>
>There are limits to our power - if we go beyond them, we will lose our
>ability to change situations we can change.
This sounds like the center of your argument. And I agree, in general.
But how do we define our limits? That is the only thing that limits
us, how far we are willing to go.
>
>>
>>>
>>>And if we have a moral obligation to interfere there, we have one to
>>>interfere everywhere - which would mean that we would have to send our
>>>entire generation of young people overseas to police the world.
>>
>> Oh, so let's not try to help the dying then. We wouldn't want people
>> to expect it.
>
>We would have to help every country where there is a war, not just Serbia.
>And there are many ...
Nobody's saying "all war must stop." Genocide, though, that we are
saying must stop.
>
>>
>>>
>>>Do you really think we're going to do that? Do you think our young people
>>>will let us?
>>
>> I don't really think it's an issue.
>
>If it goes on long enough, it will be.
Bullshit. Really.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>All in all our eighteen NATO allies must surely 'preciate yer take-charge
>>>>>leadership on this issue; strong hand on the ship-of-state's helm, tuff
>>>>>werds, and anxious to fulfull the bargain part of our solemn promise.
>>>>
>>>> NATO is always lead by an American general. That "American Soldiers
>>>> never serving under foreign leaders" thing. Stupid, if you ask me.
>>>>
>>>> But
>>>>>Bill I gotta wonder, do we really need all them smart bombs and that heavy
>>>>>ord'nance? Seems like one motivated guy with a scoped an' dialed-in M1 Garand
>>>>>sure could save a whole helluva lotta dyin'.
>>>>
>>>> You ever hear of the Geneva convention? Assassination is a bad game to
>>>> play, even with scum like Milosovich.
>>>
>>>No more than a war that may have no end - at least it hasn't for the last
>>>500 years ...
>>
>> Sure. So you think it's okay to let thousands of people be killed, to
>> have an entire province decimated of a whole race. I can understand
>> that. Why should we do anything about that?
>
>What gives you the idea that other peoples in the world, including the
>Kosovians are going to percieve us as the altruistic rescuers you would
>like them to perceive us as being? Did the Lebanese and Somalians see
>us that way?
First of all don't tell me what I'd like. Second of all, I don't think
we should give a shit if they like it or not. We aren't trying to stop
slaughter because we want the credit (at least, that's not our public
motive), but because it's wrong.
>
>> It just seems to me that there are human beings being killed and
>> tortured, and if I haven't been paying 25% of my money to help those
>> people, what have I been paying for?
>
>The general welfare of the United States of America - well, at least
>in theory.
>
>> You can sit here at home with
>> your head in the sand and find a million excuses for why we shouldn't
>> risk ourselves, but it comes down to whether we think other humans are
>> worth the effort. You don't. I do.
>
>No, it actually comes down to whether you think we're morally superior
>to other peoples and have the right to tell them what to do, with guns
>if they don't listen to us, and it also comes down to whether you believe
>you can make them stop.
Well let's see. Morally superior? Hmmm. Are our soldiers raping young
women and executing children? No? Then I guess we're MORALLY FUCKING
SUPERIOR! Were we morally superior to the SS? Fucking A RIGHT we were.
>
>I don't believe we're morally superior and I don't believe we can make them
>stop.
I disagree.
- Jody
termite
> On 26 Mar 1999 02:35:21 GMT, ter...@net-link.net (termite) wrote:
>>>
>>> Because it wasn't applied right, not because it wasn't true.
>>>
>>We had over 8 years to apply it right in Vietnam.
>>
>>Military strength is not everything.
>
> That's what I said, Termite. It wasn't implied right.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> We have the ability to put a violent end to
>>>>> torture, genocide, ethnic cleansing in a country the size of
>>>>> Yukoslavia.
>>>>
>>>>Even though we don't have the power to put an end to 20,000 plus murders
>>>>in our own country.
>>>
>>> Sure we do.
>>
>>Then why haven't we?
>
> Because the majority of Americans think like you.
Wrong, Jody. It's because some things can't be stopped without taking the
risk of creating greater evils.
>>>>
>>>>Then why aren't we doing anything about it in Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan
>>>>etc.?
>>>
>>> We should be.
>>
>>Really? We should police the whole world then, at least the portions that
>>are fighting?
>
> No. But if it's a matter of gross injustice we should.
There's a godawful lot of that, isn't there? Oh, and what happens if another
country defines gross injustice as something we're doing to correct what
we see as gross injustice?
>
>>
>>Do you think they'll be grateful? The Roman Empire, among other things,
>>created a good deal of economic growth and law and order in their territories.
>>Were their subject peoples grateful?
>
> Who cares?
Lots of barbarian hordes that overran Roman borders ...
> Really. I don't expect people to be happy that their
> slaughtering is brought to a halt. I don't think we're taking their
> feelings into consideration when we bomb them. Should we stop because
> they won't like us? Stupid, Termite. Hitler wasn't grateful when we
> kicked his ass, either. Should we have not done so?
Hitler represented a far greater problem than the Serbs do.
>
>>
>>>
>>> If we really have a moral obligation to stop fighting in Kosovo,
>>>>then we have one to stop it everywhere - in other words, we are damn well
>>>>obligated to take over the world to stop everyone from killing each other.
>>>
>>> It probably wouldn't come to that.
>>
>>Why wouldn't it?
>
> Because the more places in the world that become instilled with a
> stable government, the less it's going to go on. That's why there's
> NINETEEN countries in NATO, all unanimously supporting the bombing.
At least one of which is oppressing Kurdish people in an equally genocidal
matter in Turkey. Another one of which is still occupying land they conquered
by mass genocide in Ireland hundreds of years ago. Not to mention the
leader of NATO, we Americans, have been responsible for funding foreign
atrocities in El Salvador, Cambodia (yes, for a time we were sending money
to Pol Pot!), Indonesia (massacres in East Timor), China, (the whole world
watched them kill their own people in Tienamen Square, but we quickly did
our deals with them and now our department stores sell goods made by slave
prison labor, some of whom were arrested during that occurance), and last
but not least, our continued possession of enough nuclear weapons to eradicate
any life bigger than a cockroach, in spite of our currently possessing
no enemy capable of conducing such a war against us.
And this is a short list - let's not forget the CIA's complicity in the
crack business in our country.
If we're the world's policemen, who, pray tell, is policing the policemen?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>They'll stop hating each other then - long enough to hate Americans for
>>>>awhile.
>>>
>>> We're already hated.
>>
>>But we're not necessarily right next door to the people who hate us, policing
>>their country.
>
> What's your point? So they're not going to invade? Of course not. Or
> do you mean that we shouldn't get involved in conflicts on our own
> borders? Good think the french didn't think so during colonial times,
> or you'd have a cockney accent.
You are aware, of course, that only a minority of Americans at the time
supported the Revolutionary War - most were, as always, fairly apathetic
about the whole matter.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>By the way - I assume that because this is your moral responsibility, you
>>>>are arming yourself to go over there and help - after all, one shouldn't
>>>>tell others that something's their responsibility and not do anything
>>>>about it oneself.
>>>
>>> I'm in the Guard, yes. Haven't been called, though.
>>
>>Fine, then. It would be a shame to have your life thown away on this
>>foreign feud, as it would others, including my brother in law ...
>
> This is what I don't get. Foreign? Just because they're from another
> country?
That's the common definition of the word, isn't it?
> Their lives are as valuable as anyone from anywhere, Termite.
That's not the point.
> And somebody who's strong enough is trying to stop senseless atrocity
> from happening. Why is that so bad?
Because you're assuming that we are strong enough to stop it from happening.
> They are humans, just like us. If
> the situations were reversed, I'd hope that someone would step in.
Well, there's 20,000 murders in this country a year. There's much less
in Europe and seeing as many of those killed are of European descent, I
suppose this could give them the moral imperative to demand we confiscate
all handguns and put a cop on every corner before they invade us and force
us to do the "right thing".
(and no, I don't believe in gun control, but ...)
Or hey - you know with all our nuclear weapons, we stand a chance of causing
a nuclear winter with mass extinction of humanity. That's billions of
potential deaths in countries that haven't consented to be threatened in
any way and have nothing to gain from our continued hording of nukes.
Perhaps they'd be justified to demand we get rid of our weapons or suffer
an economic boycott and possible invasion.
How many millions of people are the Serbs targeting with their nuclear weapons?
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Is a
>>>>> pesent woman in Kosovo worth less than a cashier in Des Moines? So
>>>>> many people think that we shouldn't risk "American Lives", as if they
>>>>> mean more than Slavic ones. Ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>>Why don't the Europeans solve their own problems for once?
>>>
>>> The same reason we won't solve them. Moral incompetence.
>>
>>And magically, once we go overseas, we will become more competent? Why?
>
> No. That's not what I said. We're doing the right thing.
And magically, going overseas will make us more competent, as will doing
the right thing.
How does this work?
> So in this
> case, we're showing some moral backbone. NATO is primarily european,
> and they're involved in this too.
Funny kind of backbone that takes NATO years to acquire, but ... again,
I don't feel this should be our country's fight.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>You've made the assumption that we can actually stop this. It's been
>>>>going on for 500 plus years. It'll stop when they decide to stop it.
>>>
>>> Maybe you're right. But we could, if we really put our backs into it,
>>> stop it.
>>
>>Just like we stopped the North Vietnamese? Or like we've stopped cocaine
>>imports into our country?
>
> This isn't Viet Nam. And I don't see what relevance drug-trafficking
> has in this discussion.
It's an illustration of our inability to control things.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Now I'll be the first to admit that these airstrikes are probably not
>>>>> going to be all that effective. Moving targets and all that.
>>>>
>>>>So, basically, we're just doing it to appear like we're doing something
>>>>whether it does anything or not.
>>>
>>> Yes. Because ninety percent of americans think it's not our problem.
>>
>>In a practical sense, it's not. And in any sense, I have doubts it could
>>be solved by anything short of all-out invasion.
>
> Well, I suppose that just means you're more pessimistic than NATO.
How often have countries been bombed into submission without following up
with ground troops?
>
>>
>>And the Serbs will not roll over like the Iraqis did.
>
> Maybe not. But it's worth a try.
>
>>
>>Look at the horrible time the Germans had in Yugoslavia during World War
>>II - the Serbs know and practice guerrilla warfare.
>
> You're right, but they're obviously not trying to kill soldiers on
> foot with airstrikes. They're trying to stop the military machine.
Which is comprised of those very same soldiers.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But if it
>>>>> weren't for the pervasive opinion that so many people have ("Yeah,
>>>>> that's horribe, but why should WE be the ones to stop it."), we could
>>>>> really put some effort into it and make it stop.
>>>>
>>>>We haven't even stopped the fighting in our own country. Don't you realize
>>>>that many overseas see our proclaiming that we can stop their wars when
>>>>we can't even stop our own as arrogance and hypocracy?
>>>
>>> Yes, I realize it. What's your point? We should let people be horribly
>>> slaughtered because we're afraid they'll resent us?
>>
>>We're not letting them be horribly slaughtered. They are being horribly
>>slaughtered because there is little we can do about it without causing
>>more slaughter, especially of our soldier-citizens, who we have a much
>>great obligation to than foreign peoples.
>
> Hmmm. How, praytell, are we putting our soldiers at risk? We may lose
> one or two in the bombing process.
I am, of course, referring to the next step in this program - the bombing
is of slight risk to us, but I think we may find it isn't working.
>But even that is unlikely. And
> anyone who chooses to join the armed forces has already accepted that
> risk, so what's the problem?
The problem is that they swore an oath to defend the United States and
its constitution.
Neither the United States or its constitution are being imperiled by
the Serbs.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That is the Christian
>>>>> ethic you mentioned.
>>>>
>>>>Then please explain to me why Jesus allowed himself to be hung on a cross
>>>>instead of marching down to Rome with a million angelic soldiers and
>>>>instituting the Kingdom of God by force?
>>>
>>> Because man had to choose the Kingdom of God for it to mean anything.
>>
>>And people have to choose peace for it to mean anything. If one really
>>wanted, in 20-25 years, it should be possible for our scientists to
>>totally short circuit any brain that is in the midst of committing a
>>violent act. People will have seizures when they get angry and be
>>incapable of doing anything. Or they'll just take a little nap. No
>>one will have the choice of violence anymore. We'll just make all
>>of us have the surgery and then we'll all be fine.
>
> I agree with your first sentence here. The rest is confusing, and
> strangely Orwellian.
No kidding - and worse yet, in 20-25 years, it will be possible.
And think of this - what's to stop those that do the surgery from making
it so anyone who does not obey them, or follow their religion, is put
to sleep until they go along?
>
>>
>>God help us.
>>
>>I wonder what else they'll be programming our brains to do.
>
> Wow. Watching a lot of star trek lately?
We live in a science-fiction world. You ain't seen nothing yet.
>>>
>>> But letting it happen without trying to stop it. That isn't morally
>>> wrong?
>>
>>We should send negotiators.
>
> Done it. No luck.
Then we've done what we could do.
>
> We should attempt to cut off arms shipments
>>to the aggressors from our country and others that want to stop this.
>
> We at least seem to have done it. No luck. They can make guns.
They can throw rocks at each other or strangle each other too.
>
>>
>>There are limits to our power - if we go beyond them, we will lose our
>>ability to change situations we can change.
>
> This sounds like the center of your argument. And I agree, in general.
> But how do we define our limits? That is the only thing that limits
> us, how far we are willing to go.
I think the first thing is to say that we are not willing to risk our
country's lives or reputation on anything less than the vital interests
of the United States. We also do not risk the values of our constitution
by committing troops to wars undeclared by Congress.
If our Congress believes that our country's vital interests are served
by acts of war against Serbia, then they should show the moral backbone
to pass a formal declaration of war against Serbia, as is required by
the government. And then let them answer to the electorate ...
It's not what we're doing to the Serbs that concerns me - it's what we're
doing to ourselves that worries me.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>And if we have a moral obligation to interfere there, we have one to
>>>>interfere everywhere - which would mean that we would have to send our
>>>>entire generation of young people overseas to police the world.
>>>
>>> Oh, so let's not try to help the dying then. We wouldn't want people
>>> to expect it.
>>
>>We would have to help every country where there is a war, not just Serbia.
>>And there are many ...
>
> Nobody's saying "all war must stop." Genocide, though, that we are
> saying must stop.
Either way, a person's just as dead, aren't they? And actually, there's
a lot of genocide going on these days - Serbia isn't even the worst example.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you really think we're going to do that? Do you think our young people
>>>>will let us?
>>>
>>> I don't really think it's an issue.
>>
>>If it goes on long enough, it will be.
>
> Bullshit. Really.
No. Maybe it doesn't bother you. It will bother others.
>>
>>What gives you the idea that other peoples in the world, including the
>>Kosovians are going to percieve us as the altruistic rescuers you would
>>like them to perceive us as being? Did the Lebanese and Somalians see
>>us that way?
>
> First of all don't tell me what I'd like.
Do you deny that you wouldn't like these people to percieve Americans
as altruistic?
> Second of all, I don't think
> we should give a shit if they like it or not.
Until they start shooting at us to make us stop, right?
> We aren't trying to stop
> slaughter because we want the credit (at least, that's not our public
> motive), but because it's wrong.
Who appointed us the moral guardians of the world and said we had to
enforce our stewardship with guns?
>>
>>No, it actually comes down to whether you think we're morally superior
>>to other peoples and have the right to tell them what to do, with guns
>>if they don't listen to us, and it also comes down to whether you believe
>>you can make them stop.
>
> Well let's see. Morally superior? Hmmm. Are our soldiers raping young
> women and executing children? No?
No - we're just holding on to enough nuclear weapons to kill everybody
and everything.
> Then I guess we're MORALLY FUCKING
> SUPERIOR!
Yeah, we have everyone in our bombsights without reference to race, religion,
ethnic identity or color of underwear.
> Were we morally superior to the SS?
In the 40s, yes.
> Fucking A RIGHT we were.
Unfortunately our accumilation of nuclear weapons has caused us to lose
our moral superiority.
>
>>
>>I don't believe we're morally superior and I don't believe we can make them
>>stop.
>
> I disagree.
We're not morally superior - but come to think of it, with enough missiles
launched, we really could stop them all, couldn't we?
Bobby
Bobby
Antti Luode wrote in message <7dh7pa$r5m$1...@news.kolumbus.fi>...
>termite kirjoitti viestissä <7dh598$6...@news.net-link.net>...
>
>>How often have countries been bombed into submission without >following up
>with ground troops?
>
>
> From the beginning, it should have been massive ground
>attack, so massive that the Serb soldiers would have surrendered
>at the sight. If this attack will continue as it does, it will cause more
>harm than good.
>
>A.
>
>
AlphaOmegaK9 ThePittttBull
"CLINTON IS HAVING SEX WITH 13YR OLD",
j r Sherman wrote on rec.arts.poems.
Many long time cyberspace writers and poets
confirmed the statement.
mr j r Shrman calls mr Clinton uncle Billy and
appears to enjoy colose and personal relationship
with The President of The United States.
mr j r Sherman also wrote on rec.arts.poems,
"BEND OVER, LET ME FUCK YOU JUST ONCE"
to another man who clearly had stated heterosexual preference. mr j r
Sherman's Sexual Harassment seemed habitual and addicted.
mr j r Shrerman was seen on rec.arts.poems,
soliciting university students to write PORNOGRAPHY for large sums of
money ($8,000.00 / week).
mr j r Sherman's intimate friend, mr Gary Gamble
wrote on alt.poetry.comments,
"Poor boy, his father a nazi and has a lot of issues".
mr Michael Stephens, a long time cyberspace writer and poet, on
alt.poetry.comments wrote
"IF Gary says it's alright, i'll send it.
(I'M SCARED OF GARY TOO)"
WHY ARE MANY RUNNING SCARED OF
GARY GAMBLE AND HIS FRIENDS?
Could it be 'cause Gary and HIS FRIENDS might write VICIOUS LIES about
you seemingly with impunity?
Or
Could it be 'cause Gary and HIS FRIENDS might
expose sexually explicit and embarassing emails you may have exchanged
with Gary and HIS FRIENDS? black mailed?
WHY ARE MANY RUNNING SCARED
OF GARY GAMBLE AND HIS FRIENDS?
Antti Luode
>How often have countries been bombed into submission without >following up
with ground troops?
Olek
>termite kirjoitti viestissä <7dh598$6...@news.net-link.net>...
>
>>How often have countries been bombed into submission without >following up
>with ground troops?
>
>
> From the beginning, it should have been massive ground
>attack, so massive that the Serb soldiers would have surrendered
>at the sight. If this attack will continue as it does, it will cause more
>harm than good.
I agree. What is the point of bombing targets around Serbia proper?!
It has and will have little or no bearing on what the Serbs are and will
do in Kosovo. Short of going in with ground forces at the outset of this
campaign, the only thing that could make a difference would be to bomb
the hell out of the Serbian troops in Kosovo, and only then, assuming
the Serbs don't wave a white flag, go in with the tanks and helicopter
gunships. If the US is not willing to do this, they should get out, now,
before the groundswell of public opposition around Europe (see what's
going on in Greece, our ally!) will make it impossible to take any
decisive action without causing a rift in the Nato alliance, the long
term consequences of which could prove grave to the peace in the entire
region. Ultimately, though, our intervention in this conflict is doomed
to eventual failure, unless the Albanians and Serbs learn to tolerate
and respect each other's rights, an unlikely turn of events, I think.
Redrawing of national borders (i.e., allowing Kosovo to break away and,
I suppose, eventually merge with Albania) is not the solution to these
people's problems, because the lives that may be saved this time around
will be paid for with many more lives of the future generations. Think
of modern antibiotics as a analogy to all of this. Once they were hailed
as panacea, but now there are increasing concerns that, in the long
term, their overuse will make the human kind more vulnerable to new
infectious organisms, or, rather, the old ones which will figure out
ways of getting around such artificial defenses. We cannot outsmart,
cannot change Mother Nature. Neither can we change human nature.
Olek
Karla
benpeter has also said:
"Sexual Harrassment is wrong and illegal
in the street, in the restarurants, in the workplaces,
in the internet, in rec.art.poems, in the public parks
or in anyplace within the jurisdiction of the Laws
of the United States."
SOUNDS pretty good. Too bad he doesn't understand sexual harrassment
within the
jurisdiction of the Laws of the United States.
Title VII talks about employers and employees.
Recent Supreme Court decisions (Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services,
Inc;
Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corporation; Burlington
Industries v.
Ellerth; Faragher v. City of Boca Raton) address employers, employees
and
co-worker instances of sexual harrassment.
Sorry Peter Peter Peter, no cigar.
Just no law about sexual harrassment on an unmoderated newsgroup such
as rap to
be found.
Thankfully, the Supreme Court, and California law, where Peter Peter
Peter and I
both reside, have sense enought to take into account: "constellation
of
surrounding circumstances, expectations, and relationships"; "[c]ommon
sense,
and an appropriate sensitivity to social context," [Oncale v.
Sundowner Offshore
Services, Inc.]
Karla
I know the law better than you do, nah, nah, nah, n-nah, nah.
westx...@my-dejanews.com
around to replying (yesterday, friday am) i ended up losing my whole deja post
page from offline mode where i spent a coupla hours bangin out some thought;
i'll try to make my answer/comments a lit'l more top the point. BTW, i
appreciate the time and effort ya put into thinkin and writing about this
issue/this thread;
In article <36fa756d....@news.supernews.com>,
jo...@poetaster.com (Jody McGinness) wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 14:56:16 GMT, sk...@nowhere.man
> <westx...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> Okay, I'm assuming this is a pome not a poem, so I won't ask and get
> you all pissy. I do, however, want to make a couple of points on the
> content.
>
> >An Open (sic) Letter To The President (sic) From A Concerned Citizen (sic)
> >
> >March 25, 1999
> >
> >Dear Bill;
> >
> >I seen an' heard ya on the telebitchin' this mornin with yer
> >object sociopolitical history lesson;
> >thanx fer fillin' me in onna big pitcher over there in Kosova and ever'thin'.
> >
> >I agree that's a hell of a mess allright,
> >all that ethnic cleansin', genocide and stuff like that goin' on;
> >Serbians with long memories, carryin' on their promise to revenge their
great-
> >great-great-great-sum'pin' gran'fathers whuppin' by the Muslims some twenny
> >generations ago.
> >
> >I surely can appreciate the problem ya got there in the panhandle of the ol'
> >European continent,
> >second home to the nomad Christians spreadin' the gospel of peace and love.
>
> Heh. Like the crusades?
no, i was referring to the historical significance of serbia having been site
of a last-ditch southern-european defensive stand by christianity against the
northern spread/influence of islam;
>
> >We sure dropped the ball sixty-years ago, lettin' the situation get so outta
> >hand;
> >jus' hope this time 'round we can head off gettin involved inna 'nother world
> >war at the pass.
>
> Different score, friend, I don't think the situations are comparable.
well, i disagree; serbia/macedonia has been a balkanized area since way
before it was lososely controled under the turkish empire. hitler took
advantage of its lack of cohesive governance and unrest to foment rebellian
and create strategic alliances that gave him control over vital resources and
expanded his nazi political empire in the early stages of ww II. the nazi's
policies of controlling/eliminating jews played into the ethnic-cleansing
debate of the die- hard christians; the analogy is that the region still has
long-standing animosities which savvy political players can/do exploit, and
regional unrest can/does spread. Milosovitz has read his history and seems to
have customized a hitler/tito approach to consolidation of power and support.
also, then and now, other concerned players are being dragged into the
conflict which could blow into a major issue with an expanded field of
motivated and dedicated participants.
>
> >
> >And I can unnerstan' yer anxious to get right down to it an' all,
> >make that corner of the world safe fer democracy an' ever'thin';
> >So ya gave yer Generals an open hand to do what they know best,
> >mobilize their forces, scramble aircrews and arm the bombers.
> >
> >Too bad though 'bout all them civil'ans and refuges bein' inna goddam way,
> >don't them folks over there know a war's goin' on and they outta take cover?
>
> Actually, that's part of the problem. A common scenario in situations
> like these, the dictators will park their tanks and troops in harmless
> little villages. So if we want to bomb them, we have to chance hitting
> the civilians who are huddled in their houses scared of tanks. It'd be
> smarter for them to run out into the woods and let their village get
> blown to smithareens.
course, then they gotta try to live offa nothin and lose everything they
managed to scratch/build together,and contribute to the refuge dilemna. it
makes my point; air strikes cannot be conclusive. the former soviet union
found that even with air superiority and hardened ground troops, it was
impossible to to prevail against a popular and disciplined hit-and-run
troops,
Logic Error: of course a peasant woman is not "worth" any less; the point is,
we (sic) can't "know" that we can stop these atrocities, bring peace to the
region, etc.; if anything, military analysts pretty much agree an air
campaign against this kind of locally-organized ground resistance cannot be
conclusive. but, beyond that, your premise that moral conviction requires the
duty to act legitimizes every concievable type of barbarism and atrocity
performed by all participants. dontcha think the serbians feel they have the
mandate from god to persevere over the islamists and other reminders of their
hated turkish-empire ruled conquerors? POL POT, Hitler, Stalin, Tito,
Mussolini, Ho Chi Min, et al. all felt they had the moral upper-hand
inside-track straight-dope whatever, it can legitimize any kind of action to
secure the desired end. and also, since you acknowledge the
difficulty/impossibility of "solving" something with air strikes, what are we
doing, setting the stage fer our (sic) eventual "well shucks, everybody knows
we gotta occupy 'em to really change their hearts and minds", sounds a little
too much like southeast asia to me; and beyond even THAT, i suspect there are
policies and hidden agendas which this recent NATO exercise is just a
convenient front for; theres always whole tiers of reasons behind those
publicly acknowledged.
>
> >but I accept yer take onnit that we can't sit this one out;
> >after all, where would the world be now if we'd let Pol Pot do his thing?;
> >oops, scratch that thought, I guess we did miss that one, huh?
>
> America has failed to do the right thing in the past. We should be
> careful not to let that be an excuse to do the wrong thing now.
OOPS: SECOND LOGIC ERROR: seems some folks can find their reasoning justified
in any kind of lesson; a good damn case can be made that we (sic) contributed
significantly to the conditions which forced/encouraged/inspired POL POT's
extreme solution of a grass-roots agrarian-based model fer world socialism,
in which some 3 million or more cambodians died in the killing fields. US
intel was well up on what was goin on, but we lacked the political will,
popular support, national-security interest and military capability to act
effectively. 'course, we (sic) coulda jus' nuked 'em all and saved their
souls, but it's likely the former soviet union and china mighta had a ready
answer to that.
>
> >
> >All in all our eighteen NATO allies must surely 'preciate yer take-charge
> >leadership on this issue; strong hand on the ship-of-state's helm, tuff
> >werds, and anxious to fulfull the bargain part of our solemn promise.
>
> NATO is always lead by an American general. That "American Soldiers
> never serving under foreign leaders" thing. Stupid, if you ask me.
'course, more direct and to the point, clinton forced NATO's hand, tried to
act as if there was strong, dedicated and unilateral NATO support fer the
action. some member signatories are now having second thoughts, they could
splinter off and align themselves with russia, ie. turkey, macedonia.
>
> But
> >Bill I gotta wonder, do we really need all them smart bombs and that heavy
> >ord'nance? Seems like one motivated guy with a scoped an' dialed-in M1 Garand
> >sure could save a whole helluva lotta dyin'.
>
> You ever hear of the Geneva convention? Assassination is a bad game to
> play, even with scum like Milosovich.
but moral sanctification as per yer previous comment about duty to act, no?
end justifies needs? i dunno the final best answer, but i'd say some
selective personnel removal would damn better be preferred, take out the
muckety-mucks one atta time until there is general agreement its better to be
a moderate leader than a dead one, could save tens of thousands of lives,
probably shoulda been done some 5 to 10 years ago. course, russia mighta took
objection to losing its political allies thataway.
>
> >
> >And while I'm onna subject I gotta confess I'm more than a little concerned
> >'bout the Russkies gettin' uptight and droppin outta their NATO committment;
>
> NATO was formed to intimidate the Russians. What commitment do you
> think they had to it?
well, it sure helped provide some stability to an otherwise potentially
dangerous damn end game. i'm a little concerned about russia comin on in
strong support fer the serbs, and providing logistics, political and
military-aid support, opportunity to consolidate popular support as a device
to refocus attention, divert dissent, consolidate new alignments, etc. also,
those portable TAC NUKES bein moved around with a shaky economic/military
structure don't seem too smart to discount. lotta potential there fer an
accident or "oops, musta lost 'em!" mistakes.
>
> >and them makin' angry saber-rattlin' sounds and movin' their TAC Nukes to
> >offensive southern border positions
> >while their economy and military's so screwed up don't make me sleep none too
> >good neither.
>
> Sure. The Russians are nervous, and blustering. When aren't they?
well, the "russians" are not a singular voice of reason and moderation;
there's a lotta hot heads would like the opportunity to prove their ruthless
savvy, teach somebody some lessons, etc. dontcha think other folks think the
US do a lot of "blustering" too? what makes you think "we" are automatically
right and everybody that disagrees with us is wrong? seems, thats the kinda
thinkin that led to the damn problem inna first place, ie "i was here first!"
"No, I was!" "yer wrong ya SOB!""no, I'm right and yer wrong, why my
great-great- grandaddy..." etc., "yeah, well choke on this 15 mgton olive ya
(insert expletive here)!.
> Pissing them off is a risk we have to take, if we want to do the right
> thing.
again, this assumes A LOT. dontcha think everybody wants ta do the RIGHT
THING? 'cept, a lotta peop[le got different ideas about what that is.
>
> >
> >But what the hell do I know, ennyway, eh?; I don't get out much ennymore,
> >prob'bly not enuff to have a handle on the full score;
> >and after all you got like the inside-track on the real nitty-gritty skinny,
> >hottest latest sat-tel sit-rep intel-info staff advisers and like that to
help
> >inform and make up yer mind.
> >I gotta say I suppose you know what yer doin', doncha?; after all, we sure
pay
> >ya enuff, ain't that right?
>
> 200, 000 a year ain't much for that kind of pressure.
well, at 35 to 40 million bucks spent on behalf of a modern US president to
get elected, i'd say that's a poorly paid gig, wouldn't cha? c'mon, the
pay-back is paid-in-kind influence, power, status, behind-the-scenes
influence peddling, political swap-meet trading, wheelin-dealin in high
places, settin policy agendas that serve some cause or bottom-line
return-on-investment, etc. didn't know that?
>
> I recognize the sarcasm in here, so if I contradicted in the wrong
> places don't be offended.
>
> - Jody
hey, not at all; like i sed, i appreciate yer honesty and sincerity; there's
no "wrong" place to contradict, i'm not lookin to convert ennybody to my
point of view; hell, i dunno the damn answers, but i sure gotta lotta
questions; i'm very critical about the whole damn "us vs. them" debate on
zero-sum-game terms, it has arguably destabilized much of the world's
regional socioeconomic and political institutions and created a massive
north-south axis orientation that has subverted the grass-roots local
real-world reality of many of the world's peoples, the arrogance of the
world's heavy hitters (US, foremer soviet union, china, europe) to assert
their political agenda over that of the rest of the world; allocation of a
tremendous amount of resources to serve some limited means and ends not
necessarily in the common interest. nuff sed fer now, thanks fer tunin in.
skye, outta here. >clik<
Julie
Julie
Fri, 26 Mar 1999 20:23:14 -0800 (PST)
westx...@my-dejanews.com
screaming manner,
sk...@nowhere.man wrote:
In article <36faa3cc....@news.supernews.com>,
jo...@poetaster.com (Jody McGinness) wrote:
> Sending what seemed to be a string of cynical bullshit,
> ter...@net-link.net (termite) wrote:
>
> >Sending what seemed to be a string of whatever,
<36fa756d....@news.supernews.com>,
> > jo...@poetaster.com (Jody McGinness) wrote:
> >> On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 14:56:16 GMT, sk...@nowhere.man
> >> <westx...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>I'm a little shaky however on jus' how this National Security Interest
> >>>whatchmacallit fits inta the puzzle,
> >>
> >> I take it the persona of your "pome" believes that we shouldn't put
> >> ourselves at risk unless it is a threat to national security? That
> >> would be nice. Wouldn't be a great world if that were true? We could
> >> just tell the daughter who was forced to slit her mother's throat
> >> before they raped and killed her, "Sorry maam, not our problem."
> >> Here's where the logic doesn't fit.
i replied to the national security issue inna previous thread; i don't know
that any foreign policy action we (sic) engage in doesn't have some security
interest rationale. we (SIC) may sometimes (often, always, whatever) think
we're (sic) altruistic, but that's seldom (if ever) certain or unequivocable.
yer example/logic thread is obscure; whatta ya mean in plainspeak? actually,
billie c. brought up the vital national security interest argument/rationale
in his widely-broadcast pre-committment history-object- lesson briefing;
apparently to help sell the idea to the "fellow-americans"; this type of
urgent reason to tread firmly on troubled waters has been appealed to many
many many times; it is the type of logic that covers a multitude of sins; i
refer to the whole slam-bam hit-em-till-they-fall-and-kick-em-till-they-
call-"Uncle! no more pleese Uncle!" policy in iran, where we clearly
set-em-up to tumble and fall-down-go-boom, convenient test-bed to prove our
third- generation smart-weapons and one-world-guv command-control
infrastructure. we perfected a type of stone-age
bombing/strategy-to-submission to prove a point to potentially disruptive and
unmanageable middle-eastern nations; something like "don't mess with Sam,
man."
> >
> >Actually, it does fit.
>
> I disagree.
>
> >
> >> We are the most powerful military
> >> force in the world.
yeah, with all that potential waitin, waitin fer some reason to prove itself,
to fine-tune its training, demonstrate its necessary value, pay-fer-itself if
ya will; same kinda rationale that led to the arms race/cold war, keep
raisin' the stakes in one-upmanship russian (sic) roulette-poker, loser keeps
takin out higher and higher markers tryin to stay inna game.
> >
> >Which meant exactly nothing in Vietnam, Somalia and Los Angeles.
>
> Because it wasn't applied right, not because it wasn't true.
same kinda monday-mornin quarterbackin generals bickerin, "well if only we'd
applied factor X in y area and laid our Z forces here, then our QW field of
fire wouldda had a clear line-of-sight approach on their NM positions", buncha
second-guessin' "well, we'll prove our theory the next time" military
professionals writin the field-manual on takin names and kickin' butt.
>
> >
> >> We have the ability to put a violent end to
> >> torture, genocide, ethnic cleansing in a country the size of
> >> Yukoslavia.
> >
> >Even though we don't have the power to put an end to 20,000 plus murders
> >in our own country.
>
> Sure we do.
power is will plus ability plus action plus reason; ending domestic violence
is an obvious hard-sell/no sale to a lotta people who have internalized
violence as a way of life/national policy; but the main point is the logic
flaw in the premise about us (sic) havin the "ability" to put a violent end
to torture et al.; how violent would violent enuff be, ennyway? nuke 'em all
to save 'em from themselves etc.
>
> >
> >> Now if we're here, and other human beings are being
> >> slaughtered horribly for no other reason than their race, don't we
> >> have a responsibility as human beings to do something about it?
'nother logic flaw: everybody thinks they're right dontcha know. 'sides, we
(sic) gotta lotta gall to scream atrocity, we directly/indirectly have been
pretty consistent players on the perp side of the genocide/social injustice
equation; i refer to tribal-relocations/land-use reregulations, our
complicity in guatamalan violence in razing indigenous-culture villages to
protect corporate land-use exploitation and prevent the northern-spread of
socialism in any form, even if its popular and representative as per
nicaragua; tendency to see the world in good-guy/bad guy white-and-black
colors.
> >
> >Then why aren't we doing anything about it in Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan
> >etc.?
>
> We should be.
?????what and how and why, to save sufferring? admirable, but violence begets
violence dontcha know. i would say the current problems in those places (and
many others) have been largely caused or acerbated by our (sic) belligerance
and posturing vis-a-vis king-of-the-hill deal-making; justifying it in terms
of former soviet/chinese bargaining doesn't really make it acceptable or
inevitable or right, either; but get the conceit of walzing in and applying
some stiff and final "correction" to the problems we inspired/helped create
inna first place; first we mess with their heads and install autocratic
leaders with little understanding or concern for/of the domestic issues, and
then we clean house when the problem gets embarrasing. and all along, our
"we're just the good guys maam, shucks; helpin' out is what we like best"
attitude makes us (sic) feel we can do no wrong.
>
> If we really have a moral obligation to stop fighting in Kosovo,
> >then we have one to stop it everywhere - in other words, we are damn well
> >obligated to take over the world to stop everyone from killing each other.
>
> It probably wouldn't come to that.
jeez, and whose lives would we be bettin on, eh?
>
> >They'll stop hating each other then - long enough to hate Americans for
> >awhile.
>
> We're already hated.
>
> >
> >By the way - I assume that because this is your moral responsibility, you
> >are arming yourself to go over there and help - after all, one shouldn't
> >tell others that something's their responsibility and not do anything
> >about it oneself.
>
> I'm in the Guard, yes. Haven't been called, though.
doesn't prove a point ennyway; the "us" is understood to be general policy.
>
> >
> >> Is a
> >> pesent woman in Kosovo worth less than a cashier in Des Moines? So
> >> many people think that we shouldn't risk "American Lives", as if they
> >> mean more than Slavic ones. Ridiculous.
i don't think that's the issue. of course one person isn't "worth" more than
another when the issue is academic, but be real, the well-being of your
neighbor/local banker/etc. is more urgent, has a greater relevancy than some
abstract dunno-'em-ennyway foreigner. the issue is whether it is reasonable
for us (sic) to fight other people's revolutionary wars for them, isn't it?
> >
> >Why don't the Europeans solve their own problems for once?
>
> The same reason we won't solve them. Moral incompetence.
well, the same flaw with demonstrating/validating moral superiority applies;
by default bias: since we're right, they must automatically be wrong, eh?
simplifies the debate like nothin else can.
>
> And how are
> >you proposing to save this peasent in Kosovo's life? Oh, by killing a
> >peasant in Serbia instead. Or allowing a Kosovo peasant to kill him.
>
> Sure. Seems fair. At least make the odds even.
>
> >
> >You've made the assumption that we can actually stop this. It's been
> >going on for 500 plus years. It'll stop when they decide to stop it.
>
> Maybe you're right. But we could, if we really put our backs into it,
> stop it.
Major logic flaw:
>
> >
> >> Now I'll be the first to admit that these airstrikes are probably not
> >> going to be all that effective. Moving targets and all that.
yeah; well motivated, seasoned, know the terrain, local command
infrastructure, poular local support, fighting a battle 600 years old, modern
moral equivalent of a christianized jihad, 'nother holy-grail mandate to seek
and conquer fer god.
> >
> >So, basically, we're just doing it to appear like we're doing something
> >whether it does anything or not.
>
> Yes. Because ninety percent of americans think it's not our problem.
???What?? so they're wrong 'cuz ten percent are "right"??? but ennyway, i
think the number's are skewed, prob'bly more like a 60-40 split.
>
> >
> >> But if it
> >> weren't for the pervasive opinion that so many people have ("Yeah,
> >> that's horribe, but why should WE be the ones to stop it."), we could
> >> really put some effort into it and make it stop.
logic flaw: major assumeable premise that the final price would be agreed to
if known in advance instead of tallied up towards the end, like vietnam's
"just 'nother 100,000 troops and some 56 million dollars by gad, we'll be
home fer christmas mark my werds you betcha" puff and strut to look good and
justify the price already invested.
> >
> >We haven't even stopped the fighting in our own country. Don't you realize
> >that many overseas see our proclaiming that we can stop their wars when
> >we can't even stop our own as arrogance and hypocracy?
>
> Yes, I realize it. What's your point? We should let people be horribly
> slaughtered because we're afraid they'll resent us?
no. i think the lesson is that our (sic) claim-to-stretch is far far longer
than our demonstrated reach-out-and-touch-somebody, make-it-better experience.
>
> >
> >> That is the Christian
> >> ethic you mentioned.
again, we got judaism, christianity and islam all subsuming the same basic
doctrine about brotherly love and peace, but justifying any means to bring
about their own agenda's ends.
> >
> >Then please explain to me why Jesus allowed himself to be hung on a cross
> >instead of marching down to Rome with a million angelic soldiers and
> >instituting the Kingdom of God by force?
>
> Because man had to choose the Kingdom of God for it to mean anything.
>
> >
> >>If we can stop these atrocities, we should.
> >
> >We can't. We can't stop the atrocities in our own country, even though
> >we have the law and right on our side and are trying to stop them.
>
> Sure. We have it rough here. And if we invested the money and training
> into education that we do in our armed forces, we might be able to
> address that. But that's not the case, and we've got a very pricy
> military, and an opportunity to do some good with it.
also, a miitary eager to prove/justify itself, career advancement opportunity,
ojt, field demonstration of classroom theories, fourth-generation smart tech
needing critical real-time design feedback, a lotta old and obsolete ordinance
needing to be recycled (cheaper to cluster-detonate on target than EPA-
compliant dismantle and dispose dontcha know).
>
> >
> >>
> >>>but I accept yer take onnit that we can't sit this one out;
> >>>after all, where would the world be now if we'd let Pol Pot do his thing?;
> >>>oops, scratch that thought, I guess we did miss that one, huh?
> >>
> >> America has failed to do the right thing in the past. We should be
> >> careful not to let that be an excuse to do the wrong thing now.
> >
> >People are responisble for their own morality - in other words, if the
> >Serbs are killing people, it's their moral sin, not ours.
>
> But letting it happen without trying to stop it. That isn't morally
> wrong?
yeah, and tomorrow NATO convoys into dublin to take care of the "irish
problem" fer good; then its on to indonesia; then a short mop-up somewhere
else etc...
>
> >
> >And if we have a moral obligation to interfere there, we have one to
> >interfere everywhere - which would mean that we would have to send our
> >entire generation of young people overseas to police the world.
>
> Oh, so let's not try to help the dying then. We wouldn't want people
> to expect it.
????What???? our helpin' the dyin is not the problem; we're pretty good at
helpin the dyin; it's the livin that got somethin to be damn concerned about
our helpin'; don't forget, we gave some 3 million vietnamese and god only
knows how many cambodians, chinese, russians, and laotians to a merry
send-off, helpin' 'em an' all. this whole thing about
mechanized/transistorized remote- control warfare sanitizes the killin' and
video sit-reps jus' make the dyin' more like entertainment; but it also leads
to an "oops, too bad" disassociation too, and a lotta collatoral excess
baggage.
>
> >
> >Do you really think we're going to do that? Do you think our young people
> >will let us?
>
> I don't really think it's an issue.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>All in all our eighteen NATO allies must surely 'preciate yer take-charge
> >>>leadership on this issue; strong hand on the ship-of-state's helm, tuff
> >>>werds, and anxious to fulfull the bargain part of our solemn promise.
> >>
> >> NATO is always lead by an American general. That "American Soldiers
> >> never serving under foreign leaders" thing. Stupid, if you ask me.
> >>
> >> But
> >>>Bill I gotta wonder, do we really need all them smart bombs and that heavy
> >>>ord'nance? Seems like one motivated guy with a scoped an' dialed-in M1
Garand
> >>>sure could save a whole helluva lotta dyin'.
> >>
> >> You ever hear of the Geneva convention? Assassination is a bad game to
> >> play, even with scum like Milosovich.
say, 100 top-level wannabe gangsta poli-leaders versus ten, twenny thousand
mostly poor disenfranchised disaffected rural epople with 70 percent
unemployment and few prospects fer a better life so anxious to reach out fer
"easy answer" final solutions; our high-tech high-priced weapons/military
systems coulda paid fer a lotta local development projects 9just to argue an
extreme other-point-of-view, alternate options besides warfare approach to
helpin folks).
> >
> >No more than a war that may have no end - at least it hasn't for the last
> >500 years ...
>
> Sure. So you think it's okay to let thousands of people be killed, to
> have an entire province decimated of a whole race. I can understand
> that. Why should we do anything about that?
> It just seems to me that there are human beings being killed and
> tortured, and if I haven't been paying 25% of my money to help those
> people, what have I been paying for? You can sit here at home with
> your head in the sand and find a million excuses for why we shouldn't
> risk ourselves, but it comes down to whether we think other humans are
> worth the effort. You don't. I do.
i think the point this exercise is an excuse fer global search-and-destroy
policies, one-werld-guv thing; if the US holds the stick and leads by
demanding subservience, who can be autonomous? if china percieves the US via
NATO cannot be placated or ignored, they will be provoked to resist. hey;
'nother cold-war, call it the ice-war this time, just in time fer battlefield
crays to monitor orbiting high-level destroyers.
>
> That's that, I guess.
>
> - Jody
>
> >
> >--
> >"No matter how much I went rooting around for news, I wouldn't
> >necessarily come closer to the truth."
> > -- Kobo Abe'
> >http://www.net-link.net/~termite
>
nah, just another installment on the wherethefu?s the truth ennyway
debate/riddle. you seen it around? i misplaced it (again, er some'pin).
skye, like
Dancing Bear
>
>Geezus -- GET OVER IT!
>
>Julie
Seems to me our little maddog has no idea that public
sentiment seems to be running against him on these reposted
dead-horses.
-Dancing Bear
Editor-in-Chief, Disquieting Muses
http://mac8.stattenfield.org/~george/disquieting_muses/
Bear's Lair
http://www.hooked.net/~bear
j r sherman
if i might.
>> Different score, friend, I don't think the situations are comparable.
>
>well, i disagree; serbia/macedonia has been a balkanized area since way
>before it was lososely controled under the turkish empire. hitler took
>advantage of its lack of cohesive governance and unrest to foment rebellian
>and create strategic alliances that gave him control over vital resources and
>expanded his nazi political empire in the early stages of ww II.
um ski, hitler blitzed Yugoslavia in about two weeks in the spring of 1941
because he was worried about his southern flank before his invasion of the
soviet union, and the yugoslavs were not exactly following his wishes to the
letter. the lack of cohesive governance you speak of was a somewhat popular
rebellion against the nazi influence in the balkans. Yugoslavia was created
under the versialle peace treaty from a bunch of different ethnic groups that
are now the countries of slovenia, croatia, bosnia, serbia, and macedonia(which
the greeks have always claimed as their own), and though the country was not the
most stable of systems, he never "fomented" rebellion there, he crushed all
resistance there. (although as a side note, he was never able to completely
subdue the entire country, during the war he had to use sometimes as many as 15
divisions to keep Yugoslavia in order. to their credit the Serbs were the most
rebellious of the ethnic groups, where as the Croatians were the most
collaborative).
>the nazi's
>policies of controlling/eliminating jews played into the ethnic-cleansing
>debate of the die- hard christians;
no, strangely enough it was the Serbs who tended to be the most protecting of
the jews, where as the Croats tended to agree with the Nazis. this ethnic
cleansing idea was a tool utilized by Milosevic in the 1990's to consolidate his
power over what was left of Yugoslavia. by and large few muslims were massacred
during world war ii, most jews fought with Tito, or the nationalists, all
fighting against the nazis(as did many of the muslims).
>the analogy is that the region still has
>long-standing animosities which savvy political players can/do exploit, and
>regional unrest can/does spread. Milosovitz has read his history and seems to
>have customized a hitler/tito
Tito was a strong arm politician, and consolidated his power by any means at his
disposal, but i think it's ignorant to compare him to Hitler. Tito was the one
who kept the different enthic factions from killing each other for 40 years
after the war. he was a hard line realist, unlike Milosevic, who is most
certainly a nationalistic romantic, like Hitler. he customized his political
approach by playing on the mythology of the serbian people(i.e the tales of the
great serbian empire of the past, the mean and bad Ottomans who killed so many
of us, etc), with that i will agree with you. but comparing Tito to Hitler and
Milosevic is wrong.
>approach to consolidation of power and support.
>also, then and now, other concerned players are being dragged into the
>conflict which could blow into a major issue with an expanded field of
>motivated and dedicated participants.
exactly, so shouldn't someone do something about this before the conflict grows
larger and more dangerous?
>> Actually, that's part of the problem. A common scenario in situations
>> like these, the dictators will park their tanks and troops in harmless
>> little villages. So if we want to bomb them, we have to chance hitting
>> the civilians who are huddled in their houses scared of tanks. It'd be
>> smarter for them to run out into the woods and let their village get
>> blown to smithareens.
>
>course, then they gotta try to live offa nothin and lose everything they
>managed to scratch/build together,and contribute to the refuge dilemna. it
>makes my point; air strikes cannot be conclusive. the former soviet union
>found that even with air superiority and hardened ground troops, it was
>impossible to to prevail against a popular and disciplined hit-and-run
>troops,
but hit and run troops still need to be fed and need the support of the people
in general. perhaps if one can make the people realize that the problem here is
Milosevic, and his happy band of nationalistic romantics, thay support can fade.
i'm not saying this is going to happen, but what else can be done?
sorry ski, there you go with Tito again, and i'll take Ho Chi Min over Pol Pot
and Stalin any day of the week.
>all felt they had the moral upper-hand
>inside-track straight-dope whatever, it can legitimize any kind of action to
>secure the desired end.
yes, it's called politics.
>and also, since you acknowledge the
>difficulty/impossibility of "solving" something with air strikes, what are we
>doing, setting the stage fer our (sic) eventual "well shucks, everybody knows
>we gotta occupy 'em to really change their hearts and minds", sounds a little
>too much like southeast asia to me; and beyond even THAT, i suspect there are
>policies and hidden agendas which this recent NATO exercise is just a
>convenient front for; theres always whole tiers of reasons behind those
>publicly acknowledged.
like what? would you care to elaborate as what this is a front for? i would be
interested in knowing.
>> America has failed to do the right thing in the past. We should be
>> careful not to let that be an excuse to do the wrong thing now.
>
>OOPS: SECOND LOGIC ERROR: seems some folks can find their reasoning justified
>in any kind of lesson; a good damn case can be made that we (sic) contributed
>significantly to the conditions which forced/encouraged/inspired POL POT's
>extreme solution of a grass-roots agrarian-based model fer world socialism,
"a grass-roots agrarian-based model fer world socialism" ski is a lovely
euphenism for pathological terror. this sorts of paints a wonderful light on the
evils of Pol Pot. i would agree that the US had a lot to do with bringing this
pyschopath to power, but there is a wistful sound to the murders of Pol Pot in
that statement.
>> NATO is always lead by an American general. That "American Soldiers
>> never serving under foreign leaders" thing. Stupid, if you ask me.
>
>'course, more direct and to the point, clinton forced NATO's hand, tried to
>act as if there was strong, dedicated and unilateral NATO support fer the
>action. some member signatories are now having second thoughts, they could
>splinter off and align themselves with russia, ie. turkey, macedonia.
who, that massive powerful military nation italy? nope, the germans wanted it,
and the british wanted it, and that's who counts in europe. others may snipe a
bit, but the nations who economicly count in europe are the ones who want to
make sure that the Serbs don't start thinking that they can take other parts of
their ancient "Serbian Empire". and no one in western is gonna align themselves
with Russia over Serbia. that's like saying you want to play baseball for the
Brooklyn Dodgers.
Macedonia hates the Serbs, and have allowed US troops there for the last 6
years(a little known fact by the way, there are about 1000 american troops in
that country), and Turkey hates the Serbs more than the Albanians do. what makes
you think that Turkey isn't enjoying themselves to no end seeing Serbia bombed?
>> You ever hear of the Geneva convention? Assassination is a bad game to
>> play, even with scum like Milosovich.
>
>but moral sanctification as per yer previous comment about duty to act, no?
>end justifies needs? i dunno the final best answer, but i'd say some
>selective personnel removal would damn better be preferred, take out the
>muckety-mucks one atta time until there is general agreement its better to be
>a moderate leader than a dead one, could save tens of thousands of lives,
>probably shoulda been done some 5 to 10 years ago. course, russia mighta took
>objection to losing its political allies thataway.
true. europe should have done something about this 8 years ago. france and
britain should have invaded the germany in 1936. hindsight is a wonderful thing.
>> >And while I'm onna subject I gotta confess I'm more than a little concerned
>> >'bout the Russkies gettin' uptight and droppin outta their NATO committment;
>>
>> NATO was formed to intimidate the Russians. What commitment do you
>> think they had to it?
>
>well, it sure helped provide some stability to an otherwise potentially
>dangerous damn end game. i'm a little concerned about russia comin on in
>strong support fer the serbs,
with what? their tanks are rusting in the Ukraine, their navy is rusting in
Vladivostok and the Black Sea. they don't have enough gasoline to keep their
grain trucks moving, let alone any military transport. they can barely feed
their own people, and they're going to come to the aid of the Serbs? no way.
>and providing logistics, political and
>military-aid support,
which they do not have the resources or the will to support.
>opportunity to consolidate popular support as a device
>to refocus attention, divert dissent, consolidate new alignments, etc.
a few people protesting in front of the Kremlin for the CNN cameras does not a
world power make. Russia can cry big ol' weepy tears for the Serbs to their
hearts content, they are a player in this. the american media has made the
Russians a player in this. they are not a concern in Washington.
>also,
>those portable TAC NUKES bein moved around with a shaky economic/military
>structure don't seem too smart to discount. lotta potential there fer an
>accident or "oops, musta lost 'em!" mistakes.
not likely. i think they sold those trucks to Roger Corman's film company for a
shipload of 501's and Sony CD players.
>> Sure. The Russians are nervous, and blustering. When aren't they?
>
>well, the "russians" are not a singular voice of reason and moderation;
>there's a lotta hot heads would like the opportunity to prove their ruthless
>savvy, teach somebody some lessons, etc. dontcha think other folks think the
>US do a lot of "blustering" too? what makes you think "we" are automatically
>right and everybody that disagrees with us is wrong? seems, thats the kinda
>thinkin that led to the damn problem inna first place, ie "i was here first!"
>"No, I was!" "yer wrong ya SOB!""no, I'm right and yer wrong, why my
>great-great- grandaddy..." etc., "yeah, well choke on this 15 mgton olive ya
>(insert expletive here)!.
what a trivial response. as i told termite, there is no right or wrong in this,
it simply is. a destabilized europe is bad for the world economy. that's the
only thing that matters. today it's Kosovo, tomorrow it's Macedonia. something
had to be done.
>> Pissing them off is a risk we have to take, if we want to do the right
>> thing.
>
>again, this assumes A LOT. dontcha think everybody wants ta do the RIGHT
>THING? 'cept, a lotta peop[le got different ideas about what that is.
indeed, then what, in your opinion would be the "right thing" to do?
>>
>> 200, 000 a year ain't much for that kind of pressure.
>
>well, at 35 to 40 million bucks spent on behalf of a modern US president to
>get elected, i'd say that's a poorly paid gig, wouldn't cha? c'mon, the
>pay-back is paid-in-kind influence, power, status, behind-the-scenes
>influence peddling, political swap-meet trading, wheelin-dealin in high
>places, settin policy agendas that serve some cause or bottom-line
>return-on-investment, etc. didn't know that?
hasn't that been the history of politics since we first started building cities?
you act as if your imparting upon the world this knowledge for the very first
time.
>> I recognize the sarcasm in here, so if I contradicted in the wrong
>> places don't be offended.
>>
>> - Jody
>
>hey, not at all; like i sed, i appreciate yer honesty and sincerity; there's
>no "wrong" place to contradict, i'm not lookin to convert ennybody to my
>point of view; hell, i dunno the damn answers, but i sure gotta lotta
>questions; i'm very critical about the whole damn "us vs. them" debate on
>zero-sum-game terms, it has arguably destabilized much of the world's
>regional socioeconomic and political institutions and created a massive
>north-south axis orientation that has subverted the grass-roots local
>real-world reality of many of the world's peoples, the arrogance of the
>world's heavy hitters (US, foremer soviet union, china, europe) to assert
>their political agenda over that of the rest of the world; allocation of a
>tremendous amount of resources to serve some limited means and ends not
>necessarily in the common interest. nuff sed fer now, thanks fer tunin in.
get used to it. it's the 21st century....
just like it's always been. i would love to here some of your solutions to the
problems you point out.
j r sherman
>> do tell, since you complained to me about one line, three word
>> responses there terms, what's the fit, explain your logic. i'd like to
>> know.
>>
>I've explained a great deal of it in this thread - but to look at what is
>said directly - it's rather illogical to present something to me after the
>fact, something that happened thousands of miles away from me, something
>that I could have done nothing to prevent and then tell me that it's my
>problem and I should have done something about it.
true.
>>>> We are the most powerful military
>>>> force in the world.
>>
>>>Which meant exactly nothing in Vietnam, Somalia and Los Angeles.
>>
>> depends. we could have bombed all three places into the stone age if
>> we wanted.
>Absolutely. And what would that have made us?
extreme realists, in the classical style. but americans don't like
extreme realism, we like our realism with a happy ending, and then a
commerical break so that we can find out who's the special guest star
on this week's "Friends" episode.
>>
>> i do not see LA in cinders as a great lose in the history of world.
>You will if your city fills up with refugee Angelitos ...
not if we do it right(i am joking, kind of)
>>
>>>> We have the ability to put a violent end to
>>>> torture, genocide, ethnic cleansing in a country the size of
>>>> Yukoslavia.
>>
>>>Even though we don't have the power to put an end to 20,000 plus murders
>>>in our own country.
>>
>> caused mostly by people who have guns in their house and get pissed
>> off cause their team lost the super bowl, and so they shoot their
>> loved ones, neighbors, fellow postal workers. what the hell do you
>> want, world peace AND gun control. do you see why i think you guys are
>> laughable dreamers?
>I'm not a laughable dreamer, jr - I know very well that people shoot each
>other because they're assholes.
or drunk, or lose their temper, or don't have a clue about the
responsibilities of their actions.
>I even know that gun control's a piss poor
>solution to the problem
actually, no it isn't.
>- after all there was lots of gun control in Kosovo,
>wasn't there?
apples and oranges terms.
>The major difference between we and the Europeans is that we kill ourselves
>a bit at a time and they like to save up and do all the killing at once.
don't get mad, but that's a rather shallow conclusion to what we were
discussing.
>>>Then why aren't we doing anything about it in Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan
>>>etc.?
>>
>> the money don't flow through there. it does through europe.
>Exactly.
so why are we arguing?
>>>If we really have a moral obligation to stop fighting in Kosovo,
>>>then we have one to stop it everywhere - in other words, we are damn well
>>>obligated to take over the world to stop everyone from killing each other.
>>
>> only where the money flows terms, we've had this discussion before.
>And I say if it's a question of money, then let the free market take care
>of it
serbia has very little to sell. but it doesn't take a lot of money to
knock over the apple cart. if you have a market where people are
selling things, and you have one crazy fool who feels it's his duty to
start killing the guy next to him, because that guy's great
grandfather may have done something to his great grandfather, it's
probably not a good idea to wait until that guy goes out of business.
> ... Actually, what kind of money do we have in Kosovo?
not a lot. but we have a lot in Macedonia, and Greece, and
Hungary(which isn't far away), and europe proper.
>> all of us are terms, we're paying our taxes, (except for the rich and
>> the Freeman and the other militia nuts). but i ask you, would you be
>> willing to put your life on the line to stop it?
>Stop what? Our government interfering with foreign countries? What do you
>want me to do, jr, rent a Ryder truck and blow up the pentagon?
not unless you have a date. no use blowing up the pentagon if you
might get laid.
>I don't have to put my life on the line to refrain from killing Serbians.
>I already have. That government computers take money from my paycheck, by
>force,
not really, you can always declare a multitude of deductions, and keep
your money, until you have to pay your taxes. you have choices in
this. i hope you're not one of those persons who thinks it's illegal
to pay taxes.
>to do this purportably in my name, is unfortunate, but I didn't
>create that situation, either.
>I'm responsible for what I do with the things under my power to change.
my point, thank you.
>> a moot point. what would you like to do, just let the thing boil over
>> until it errupts into a full european land war.
>It wouldn't. Europe's not as divided now as it was then.
what makes you say that? Milosevic has said more than once that he
wants to reclaim the entire ancient Serbian Empire. that includes
parts of Bulgaria, Rumania, Albania, even western Turkey. that also
includes Croatia, and Slovenia, where we, the US, and Germany and
England have huge investments in factories and other businesses. you
don't think that there's a possibility that a huge land war could
errupt if Milosevic attempts his great reclaimation of the ancient
Serbian Empire?
Hitler first wanted the Rhineland back, then the Sudatenland(sp?) then
the Danzig corridor, and then parts of Western Poland.
they said the same thing in 1939. now that was one great traveling
circus, wasn't it?
>> the 20th century has
>> been there and done that.
>So have the Americans. Twice. Don't you see that if we keep solving their
>problems for them with arms that they'll never learn to do it themselves?
terms! for christ sake, this isn't like shaking our finger at a
wayward child. it's not like getting pissed off cause your 15 year old
got a fucking tattoo! europe has looked to the new world for the
answer for this entire century. it's the money flow terms. whatever
fucks with the money flow is gonna motivate our needs. if europe
doesn't want to do it, we have no choice. it's not like we're living
in the world of 1850, where we had two huge oceans between us and the
rest of the world. the world gave us, whether they want to admit it
or not, the keys to the kingdom on Dec. 7th 1941, for better or worse,
a war in europe is our problem, whether it's really their problem or
not. we are Rome, the coinage has to flow from every corner of the
empire, and that's all that matters.
>And who appointed us savior of the world?
that process started in 1914, when a crazy Serb shot an third rate
nobleman and caused the end of 1000 years of european madness and 500
years of european domination of the world to come crashing down all at
once. we passed on the first offer of the crown of Rome in 1919. a few
pretenders to the thrown emerged, one in Russia, one in Germany. the
party continued in the middle century Masque of the blood Red Death
scenario until Dec. 7th, 1941. end of the British Empire, end of the
ancient European domination, we got rid of the pretenders, and took
the crown for ourselves. part of it was the flow of history, part of
it was Roosevelt actually had some form of idealism he took from
Woodrow Wilson(actually via neo-manifest destiny, and american
capitalism, it's a long story, i assure you), and the keys of kingdom
came to the victors of the last 30 years war. why do you keep longing
for some answer to the morality to your question. it doesn't matter,
we are Rome(oh yes, Rome fell, blah-blah-blah, after about 1500 years
it fell), the end game of 2000 years of western history. we are
masters of the world, for good or ill, i have become tired of trying
to answer that. once you completely realize that, the questions
become irrelavant.
>I don't recall that vote in
>the U.N.
heh.
>> if bombing a few peasants in Serbia means
>> that i, or my kinds, or my friends kids, don't have to hit Omaha beach
>> again, i'm all for it.
>Again, the situation is different.
you have not proven to me that difference.
>>
>> and please don't tell me that it wouldn't come to that. we said that
>> in 1914 an 1939.
>>
>> cold? yep. so.
>It's 1999, jr. It's a different Europe and a different world.
since we keep saying that human kind hasn't changed all that much in
the last 5K years, is it all that much different? you should try
projecting your idealism into the facts. it gets you in trouble.
>>
>>>And how are
>>>you proposing to save this peasent in Kosovo's life? Oh, by killing a
>>>peasant in Serbia instead. Or allowing a Kosovo peasant to kill him.
>>
>> yep. we should have armed the Bosnians and the Albanians of Kosovo to
>> the teeth a long time ago. in place of that, bomb the Serbians.
>>
>> but do think of it terms. the Serbs wanted Bosnia, and when we put US
>> troops there, they went after Kosovo. next? how about Macadonia? it's
>> not out of the question, the Serbs are nuts, and the murders here. so
>> are we, but that's the breaks of the game, ain't it. we have the
>> airplanes,a nd they don't.
>Yet.
>Do you think the Kosovians will behave any better if they get some power?
>Power's a drug, jr. It makes countries do some arrogant, insane things.
>And our country is not immune.
terms, on the whole, most people just want to not have people shooting
at them. we want to have our kids, and our lovers and friends, and not
have people shooting at us, and add that raping and pillaging thing
too. are the Kosovians(i;m not sure that's the proper use of the word,
but i'll go with it for now) aren't thinking that if they get the
Serbs to stopping killing them that they're gonna make plans to
reclaim the great Kosovo Empire.
>>
>>>You've made the assumption that we can actually stop this. It's been
>>>going on for 500 plus years. It'll stop when they decide to stop it.
>>
>> or when they're are no more Serbs left. not a bad idea.
>Power can even make some people advocate genocide.
well, i have given up idealism regarding this. i am of the opinion
that sometimes there is only one way to deal with a mad dog.
>>>> Now I'll be the first to admit that these airstrikes are probably not
>>>> going to be all that effective. Moving targets and all that.
>>
>>>So, basically, we're just doing it to appear like we're doing something
>>>whether it does anything or not.
>>
>> nope, we're hoping for the best. maybe the people of Serbia won't
>> stand for this and throw out Milosevic, probably not. Milosevic's a
>> pyscho, but he's not an idiot. he won't play a hand he thinks will
>> lose. but would you suggest that nobody does anything? your arguement
>> that the europeans should be taking care of this rings a bit hollow,
>Why? They'll be whining to us until kingdom come to take care of their
>problems - they have more potential soldiers than we do, and their
>military potential is perfectly capable of taking care of things.
heh. so what. there are responsibilities to wearing the crown of Rome.
>> just as much killing would be going on if the europeans were doing the
>> bombing instead of the US. when do we bomb Milosevic, when he's
>> marching into Bulgaria because he'll claim that in the 14th century
>> Bulgaria was part of the Serb empire?
>And of course, when we support the Bulgarians in this, they'll magically
>behave themselves when it's their turn to be on top?
terms! your discussing this as if it were a Risk game. i haven't heard
the Bulgarians dicussing plans for the reclaimation of the Greater
Bulgarian Empire. if they do wish for that, we'll deal with that when
we need to. heh.
>>
>>>> But if it
>>>> weren't for the pervasive opinion that so many people have ("Yeah,
>>>> that's horribe, but why should WE be the ones to stop it."), we could
>>>> really put some effort into it and make it stop.
>>
>>>We haven't even stopped the fighting in our own country. Don't you realize
>>>that many overseas see our proclaiming that we can stop their wars when
>>>we can't even stop our own as arrogance and hypocracy?
>>
>> you're missing the point terms. it ain't about proving a right or
>> wrong. right or who's the murderer, is a pointless discussion. it's
>> the money flow.
>We don't have much money in Kosovo.
we do in europe.
>> a war in europe fucks with the money flow. a war in
>> Rwanda doesn't.
>Until the third world, sick of our cavilier attitude towards them and their
>lack of money flow, decides to acquire nuclear/biological weapons and
>make us pay some attention to their problems.
more than likely. it's the way the world turns.
>>
>>>> That is the Christian
>>>> ethic you mentioned.
>>
>>>Then please explain to me why Jesus allowed himself to be hung on a cross
>>>instead of marching down to Rome with a million angelic soldiers and
>>>instituting the Kingdom of God by force?
>>
>> because human kind doesn't have the faintest clue about the teachings
>> of jesus. and the teachings of jesus are pointless in this discussion.
>>
>That was my point ...
mine as well. we are in agreement. the difference being you don't want
to give up on your idealism. i think idealism is moot in this
discussion.
>>>>If we can stop these atrocities, we should.
>>
>>>We can't. We can't stop the atrocities in our own country, even though
>>>we have the law and right on our side and are trying to stop them.
>>
>> would you care to tell me where Serbian-like atrocities are occuring
>> here in the US, on the scale of whole towns being massacred, whole
>> villages, thousands of men, women and children being raped and
>> murdered?
>It's happening death by death all around us. Haven't you noticed?
come one terms, don't be youthfully over dramatic. the closest thing
this nation has come to to the Serbian actions was Sherman's march to
the sea.
but Sherman did not burn down all of Atlanta, only parts of it.
but Columbia, South Carolina, oh yeah, down to the ground (heh)
>>
>> idealism is a fine thing terms. but when it blinds you to the facts
>> it's as bad as an addiction.
>Ahem. I'm not the one who's playing Crusader Rabbit, let's save those
>peasants overseas, you are.
have you not read anything i've written. the us is not doing this to
save the peasants, it's doing it to protect the money flow.
>I'm not an idealist - I'm a realist. Realism is that we won't change this
>without a bloody ground war that we may not, in the long run, win.
i think that's too simple an idea. we won't send ground troops into
this action.
>> it's zealotry, and when you're a zealot,
>> you're through, there is no point to you, just push you in the proper
>> direction of the jihad and have at it.
>I'm not sending anyone to war, you are.
no i'm not(youthful drama?). calm down.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>but I accept yer take onnit that we can't sit this one out;
>>>>>after all, where would the world be now if we'd let Pol Pot do his thing?;
>>>>>oops, scratch that thought, I guess we did miss that one, huh?
>>>>
>>>> America has failed to do the right thing in the past. We should be
>>>> careful not to let that be an excuse to do the wrong thing now.
>>
>>>People are responisble for their own morality - in other words, if the
>>>Serbs are killing people, it's their moral sin, not ours.
>>
>> landwar, europe, bad, could effect the money flow, that's why we're
>> there. period. why do you keep wanting to place some morality to this?
>> it's gone beyond morality. morality doesn't matter any more. the facts
>> are what matters.
>Money's what matters, right, jr? So, tell me, why don't we just join in
>with the Serbs, help them appropriate the land they're after, round up
>the peasants and sell off their organs to dying rich people?
not a bad idea. chill out terms. your youth is showing.
>Think of all the money we could make, jr.
we'll need a reliable website first.
>>
>>>And if we have a moral obligation to interfere there, we have one to
>>>interfere everywhere - which would mean that we would have to send our
>>>entire generation of young people overseas to police the world.
>>
>> only where the money flows, that's all that matters. that might
>> inherently be immoral, but it's irrelavant to the discusion.
>Well, then, you go right on ahead and get that money, ok?
don't patronize me terms. it's not my fault that i have to point out
the painfully obvious to you, okay?
>>
>>>Do you really think we're going to do that? Do you think our young people
>>>will let us?
>>
>> perhaps if we promised them a lifetime of Nintendo and a cool bitching
>> car, they just might.
>Some would. If one could somehow turn the war into a Nintendo game, you
>would get some recruits on that strength alone.
we do have that terms, it's called MSNBC.
>>>> You ever hear of the Geneva convention? Assassination is a bad game to
>>>> play, even with scum like Milosovich.
>>
>>>No more than a war that may have no end - at least it hasn't for the last
>>>500 years ...
>>
>> but the Ottomans never had cruise missles.. heh. just kidding.
>Ah, but thanks to our generousity as a nation, their descendants do. And
>they'll use them on the Kurds if they have to while telling the rest of the
>world that they ought to save the peasants in Kosovo.
>There we have it. US money goes to save some peasants in NATO's name while
>other NATO partners kill other peasants - with a little of our money.
>At least you're not claiming a moral high ground for us.
no i'm not, but you keep attempting to imply that i am.
>>
>> so, we do nothing?
>It's the only thing we haven't tried in the past 50 years, maybe we ought
>to give it a shot and see if it works.
(sigh) right.
Jody McGinness
>Sending what seemed to be a string of senseless digital crap, <36fbca13....@news.supernews.com>,
> jo...@poetaster.com (Jody McGinness) wrote:
>> On 26 Mar 1999 02:35:21 GMT, ter...@net-link.net (termite) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Because it wasn't applied right, not because it wasn't true.
>>>>
>>>We had over 8 years to apply it right in Vietnam.
>>>
>>>Military strength is not everything.
>>
>> That's what I said, Termite. It wasn't implied right.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> We have the ability to put a violent end to
>>>>>> torture, genocide, ethnic cleansing in a country the size of
>>>>>> Yukoslavia.
>>>>>
>>>>>Even though we don't have the power to put an end to 20,000 plus murders
>>>>>in our own country.
>>>>
>>>> Sure we do.
>>>
>>>Then why haven't we?
>>
>> Because the majority of Americans think like you.
>
>Wrong, Jody. It's because some things can't be stopped without taking the
>risk of creating greater evils.
You're giving congress and the american populace too much credit here.
They haven't chosen not to act again and again because of a
philosophical fear of setting a precedent, they're lazy. If it's not
american blood, it's worth about half as much in their eyes.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>Then why aren't we doing anything about it in Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan
>>>>>etc.?
>>>>
>>>> We should be.
>>>
>>>Really? We should police the whole world then, at least the portions that
>>>are fighting?
>>
>> No. But if it's a matter of gross injustice we should.
>
>There's a godawful lot of that, isn't there? Oh, and what happens if another
>country defines gross injustice as something we're doing to correct what
>we see as gross injustice?
There are standards for such things. Chemical and biological warfare,
the mass executions of civilians. Speaking of which, there were
reports that about a thousand Albanian women and children were rounded
up (after their homes were burned to the ground) yesterday. They're
marching them back into serbian territory. I'm sure their intentions
are good, don't you think?
>
>>
>>>
>>>Do you think they'll be grateful? The Roman Empire, among other things,
>>>created a good deal of economic growth and law and order in their territories.
>>>Were their subject peoples grateful?
>>
>> Who cares?
>
>Lots of barbarian hordes that overran Roman borders ...
>
>> Really. I don't expect people to be happy that their
>> slaughtering is brought to a halt. I don't think we're taking their
>> feelings into consideration when we bomb them. Should we stop because
>> they won't like us? Stupid, Termite. Hitler wasn't grateful when we
>> kicked his ass, either. Should we have not done so?
>
>Hitler represented a far greater problem than the Serbs do.
True, he had more weapons. But the analogy stands: the loser is not
going to be grateful to us.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we really have a moral obligation to stop fighting in Kosovo,
>>>>>then we have one to stop it everywhere - in other words, we are damn well
>>>>>obligated to take over the world to stop everyone from killing each other.
>>>>
>>>> It probably wouldn't come to that.
>>>
>>>Why wouldn't it?
>>
>> Because the more places in the world that become instilled with a
>> stable government, the less it's going to go on. That's why there's
>> NINETEEN countries in NATO, all unanimously supporting the bombing.
>
>At least one of which is oppressing Kurdish people in an equally genocidal
>matter in Turkey. Another one of which is still occupying land they conquered
>by mass genocide in Ireland hundreds of years ago. Not to mention the
>leader of NATO, we Americans, have been responsible for funding foreign
>atrocities in El Salvador, Cambodia (yes, for a time we were sending money
>to Pol Pot!), Indonesia (massacres in East Timor), China, (the whole world
>watched them kill their own people in Tienamen Square, but we quickly did
>our deals with them and now our department stores sell goods made by slave
>prison labor, some of whom were arrested during that occurance), and last
>but not least, our continued possession of enough nuclear weapons to eradicate
>any life bigger than a cockroach, in spite of our currently possessing
>no enemy capable of conducing such a war against us.
I don't disagree that a lot is hypocritical in what the NATO countries
preach. And I feel just as badly for the kurds as the albanians. But
just because they have done, or are doing, the wrong thing in other
areas of the world is no excuse to give up in the balkans.
>
>And this is a short list - let's not forget the CIA's complicity in the
>crack business in our country.
The government's corrupt. That's not news.
>
>If we're the world's policemen, who, pray tell, is policing the policemen?
Preferably the voters, but they only care about their next tax break.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>They'll stop hating each other then - long enough to hate Americans for
>>>>>awhile.
>>>>
>>>> We're already hated.
>>>
>>>But we're not necessarily right next door to the people who hate us, policing
>>>their country.
>>
>> What's your point? So they're not going to invade? Of course not. Or
>> do you mean that we shouldn't get involved in conflicts on our own
>> borders? Good think the french didn't think so during colonial times,
>> or you'd have a cockney accent.
>
>You are aware, of course, that only a minority of Americans at the time
>supported the Revolutionary War - most were, as always, fairly apathetic
>about the whole matter.
As is the case with this matter. What's your point?
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>By the way - I assume that because this is your moral responsibility, you
>>>>>are arming yourself to go over there and help - after all, one shouldn't
>>>>>tell others that something's their responsibility and not do anything
>>>>>about it oneself.
>>>>
>>>> I'm in the Guard, yes. Haven't been called, though.
>>>
>>>Fine, then. It would be a shame to have your life thown away on this
>>>foreign feud, as it would others, including my brother in law ...
>>
>> This is what I don't get. Foreign? Just because they're from another
>> country?
>
>That's the common definition of the word, isn't it?
>
>> Their lives are as valuable as anyone from anywhere, Termite.
>
>That's not the point.
It is the point.
>
>> And somebody who's strong enough is trying to stop senseless atrocity
>> from happening. Why is that so bad?
>
>Because you're assuming that we are strong enough to stop it from happening.
Well lets assume we're not. Does that mean we shouldn't try?
>
>> They are humans, just like us. If
>> the situations were reversed, I'd hope that someone would step in.
>
>Well, there's 20,000 murders in this country a year. There's much less
>in Europe and seeing as many of those killed are of European descent, I
>suppose this could give them the moral imperative to demand we confiscate
>all handguns and put a cop on every corner before they invade us and force
>us to do the "right thing".
>
>(and no, I don't believe in gun control, but ...)
>
>Or hey - you know with all our nuclear weapons, we stand a chance of causing
>a nuclear winter with mass extinction of humanity. That's billions of
>potential deaths in countries that haven't consented to be threatened in
>any way and have nothing to gain from our continued hording of nukes.
The difference between our government and Milosovic's is that we're
not using our weapons. I agree that we are armed to the teeth with
weapons that are too powerful for our own good, but we're not using
any of them on anyone at this point. And frankly, those well-aimed
missles are probably what kept "Red Dawn" from being a documentary.
>
>Perhaps they'd be justified to demand we get rid of our weapons or suffer
>an economic boycott and possible invasion.
Wrong.
>
>How many millions of people are the Serbs targeting with their nuclear weapons?
How many thousands of civilians is the army killing? How many towns
has it raized this week?
33 bombing campaigns have been conducted, none of them have worked
alone except for Bosnia. They always have required ground troops. Some
people believe that as the technology has become more sophisticated,
airstrikes alone have become more effective, as was evinced in Bosnia.
>
>>
>>>
>>>And the Serbs will not roll over like the Iraqis did.
>>
>> Maybe not. But it's worth a try.
>>
>>>
>>>Look at the horrible time the Germans had in Yugoslavia during World War
>>>II - the Serbs know and practice guerrilla warfare.
>>
>> You're right, but they're obviously not trying to kill soldiers on
>> foot with airstrikes. They're trying to stop the military machine.
>
>Which is comprised of those very same soldiers.
Grouped in caravans of ten to twenty vehicles each, which we can
target quite nicely.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> But if it
>>>>>> weren't for the pervasive opinion that so many people have ("Yeah,
>>>>>> that's horribe, but why should WE be the ones to stop it."), we could
>>>>>> really put some effort into it and make it stop.
>>>>>
>>>>>We haven't even stopped the fighting in our own country. Don't you realize
>>>>>that many overseas see our proclaiming that we can stop their wars when
>>>>>we can't even stop our own as arrogance and hypocracy?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I realize it. What's your point? We should let people be horribly
>>>> slaughtered because we're afraid they'll resent us?
>>>
>>>We're not letting them be horribly slaughtered. They are being horribly
>>>slaughtered because there is little we can do about it without causing
>>>more slaughter, especially of our soldier-citizens, who we have a much
>>>great obligation to than foreign peoples.
>>
>> Hmmm. How, praytell, are we putting our soldiers at risk? We may lose
>> one or two in the bombing process.
>
>I am, of course, referring to the next step in this program - the bombing
>is of slight risk to us, but I think we may find it isn't working.
You're right, but ground troops is a whole different debate.
>
>>But even that is unlikely. And
>> anyone who chooses to join the armed forces has already accepted that
>> risk, so what's the problem?
>
>The problem is that they swore an oath to defend the United States and
>its constitution.
>Neither the United States or its constitution are being imperiled by
>the Serbs.
Don't you think if it were a problem you'd hear the soldiers involved
saying so?
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is the Christian
>>>>>> ethic you mentioned.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then please explain to me why Jesus allowed himself to be hung on a cross
>>>>>instead of marching down to Rome with a million angelic soldiers and
>>>>>instituting the Kingdom of God by force?
>>>>
>>>> Because man had to choose the Kingdom of God for it to mean anything.
>>>
>>>And people have to choose peace for it to mean anything. If one really
>>>wanted, in 20-25 years, it should be possible for our scientists to
>>>totally short circuit any brain that is in the midst of committing a
>>>violent act. People will have seizures when they get angry and be
>>>incapable of doing anything. Or they'll just take a little nap. No
>>>one will have the choice of violence anymore. We'll just make all
>>>of us have the surgery and then we'll all be fine.
>>
>> I agree with your first sentence here. The rest is confusing, and
>> strangely Orwellian.
>
>No kidding - and worse yet, in 20-25 years, it will be possible.
>
>And think of this - what's to stop those that do the surgery from making
>it so anyone who does not obey them, or follow their religion, is put
>to sleep until they go along?
Forgive me, I forgot to take an acid hit before I read this post. It's
sort of like The Wall, I need the lsd to understand it.
>
>>
>>>
>>>God help us.
>>>
>>>I wonder what else they'll be programming our brains to do.
>>
>> Wow. Watching a lot of star trek lately?
>
>We live in a science-fiction world. You ain't seen nothing yet.
>>>>
>>>> But letting it happen without trying to stop it. That isn't morally
>>>> wrong?
>>>
>>>We should send negotiators.
>>
>> Done it. No luck.
>
>Then we've done what we could do.
>
>>
>> We should attempt to cut off arms shipments
>>>to the aggressors from our country and others that want to stop this.
>>
>> We at least seem to have done it. No luck. They can make guns.
>
>They can throw rocks at each other or strangle each other too.
>
>>
>>>
>>>There are limits to our power - if we go beyond them, we will lose our
>>>ability to change situations we can change.
>>
>> This sounds like the center of your argument. And I agree, in general.
>> But how do we define our limits? That is the only thing that limits
>> us, how far we are willing to go.
>
>I think the first thing is to say that we are not willing to risk our
>country's lives or reputation on anything less than the vital interests
>of the United States. We also do not risk the values of our constitution
>by committing troops to wars undeclared by Congress.
With our current congress it would take an oil-price threat or troops
on our own soil. And maybe that's what you're espousing. I think it
would be sad if we were as apathetic as those old farts would want us
to be.
>
>If our Congress believes that our country's vital interests are served
>by acts of war against Serbia, then they should show the moral backbone
>to pass a formal declaration of war against Serbia, as is required by
>the government. And then let them answer to the electorate ...
You can't expect moral backbone from a politician. They've got to see
whether we're successful or not before they'll take credit.
I do not care how we are percieved, personally. On a larger scale,
politically it would be nice if other countries respected us. But my
desire to see my country intercede is based on what I see as a
horribly unfair situation that is costing the lives of thousands of
albanians.
>
>> Second of all, I don't think
>> we should give a shit if they like it or not.
>
>Until they start shooting at us to make us stop, right?
Wrong.
>
>> We aren't trying to stop
>> slaughter because we want the credit (at least, that's not our public
>> motive), but because it's wrong.
>
>Who appointed us the moral guardians of the world and said we had to
>enforce our stewardship with guns?
It's always been that way. The one with the most power takes on the
leadership of the rest. Ideally that wouldn't be the case. But this is
not an ideal world.
>
>>>
>>>No, it actually comes down to whether you think we're morally superior
>>>to other peoples and have the right to tell them what to do, with guns
>>>if they don't listen to us, and it also comes down to whether you believe
>>>you can make them stop.
>>
>> Well let's see. Morally superior? Hmmm. Are our soldiers raping young
>> women and executing children? No?
>
>No - we're just holding on to enough nuclear weapons to kill everybody
>and everything.
What do you thinks keeps people from nuking us? Our nukes. They're out
there, termite, and one day a terrorist is going to level Des Moines.
>
>> Then I guess we're MORALLY FUCKING
>> SUPERIOR!
>
>Yeah, we have everyone in our bombsights without reference to race, religion,
>ethnic identity or color of underwear.
But we're not using that force. So once again, we're morally superior.
>
>> Were we morally superior to the SS?
>
>In the 40s, yes.
So you believe our current government is not?
>
>> Fucking A RIGHT we were.
>
>Unfortunately our accumilation of nuclear weapons has caused us to lose
>our moral superiority.
Do you remember the cold war, termite? I'm sorry, I don't know how old
you are. I just caught the tail end of it myself. But I for one am
glad we had those nukes.
>
>>
>>>
>>>I don't believe we're morally superior and I don't believe we can make them
>>>stop.
>>
>> I disagree.
>
>We're not morally superior - but come to think of it, with enough missiles
>launched, we really could stop them all, couldn't we?
Now you're talking sense.
No not really. I understand and agree with your points about the
hypocrisy of the US and the world in general. I just don't see why
that should stop us from doing the right thing in this case.
- Jody
Jody McGinness
>"Antti Luode" <antti...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
>>termite kirjoitti viestissä <7dh598$6...@news.net-link.net>...
>>
>>>How often have countries been bombed into submission without >following up
>>with ground troops?
>>
>>
I agree, and this is very well but. However I'm not sure I understand
why the US is being given so much credit for the airstrikes. Nato
voted unanimously, including greece, to begin the airstrikes. While
that includes a majority of american planes (not a majority of
american soldiers if you look at the stats), it was still not really
our decision alone.
= Jody
Jody McGinness
heh.
There's a quote, and I'm afraid I don't recall which general it was,
but it was said in reference to the Viet Nam war: "If ever there were
a verb 'to atrit', it is most definately to be used in the reflexive."
- Jody
Antti Luode
>Tito was a strong arm politician, and consolidated his power by any means
at his
>disposal, but i think it's ignorant to compare him to Hitler. Tito was the
one
>who kept the different enthic factions from killing each other for 40 years
>after the war. he was a hard line realist, unlike Milosevic, who is most
>certainly a nationalistic romantic, like Hitler. he customized his
political
>approach by playing on the mythology of the serbian people(i.e the tales of
the
>great serbian empire of the past, the mean and bad Ottomans who killed so
many
>of us, etc), with that i will agree with you. but comparing Tito to Hitler
and
>Milosevic is wrong.
I can not believe how well propaganda sinks into people.. All the
Serbs seem
to be full of this holy need to protect Kosovo now, because it is part of
their "soul".
In a same way, the Finnish could be driven to attack to Soviet Karelia,
because
Kalevala (Finnish national tale) was mostly gathered from Karelia.. Hell..
Some
old people still dream of that place.. But me? I could not care less. I
think we
are doing really well without Karelia..
It would be interesting to know what the real situation and the
real opinions in
Serbia are now.. It was interesting to listen to Sky news anchor when he was
driven out of Belgrade, he spoke with a frigtened voice that "men with long
leather coats and submachine guns" came and told them to get the hell out.
I guess the opposiotion has been silenced by the security police..
Antti
Olek
>On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 08:27:52 GMT, ole...@ibm.net (Olek) wrote:
>
>>"Antti Luode" <antti...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>
>>>termite kirjoitti viestissä <7dh598$6...@news.net-link.net>...
>>>
>>>>How often have countries been bombed into submission without >following up
>>>with ground troops?
>>>
>>>
You're right, it wasn't our decision alone, but it would be naive to
think that any of this would have taken place without the US initiative.
Do you really believe that if our government ordered its planes out of
Serbia tomorrow and gave the other Nato countries the blessing to finish
the job (whatever it might take) -- do you really believe that those
countries would be willing to go it alone without us?
So now we're entering the "2nd phase" of the campaign (did somebody
at the Pentagon read my comments last night or what?). According
to the mouth that speaks, "We're going to go after tanks, heavy
artillery, troops in the field. We will NOT go after troops in their
barracks." Yea right, like blowing up a couple of tanks and strafing
a few dozen Serb troops foolish enough to play a soccer game in between
the burning and killing will do anything to stop this madness. PLEASE!!!
And all this while the Serb death squads in Pristina (and no doubt
elsewhere) are going house to house, pulling the men out into
the streets and slaughtering them like cattle, in front of their wives,
mothers, children.
It's time to get off the high horse and get in the dirt! Otherwise,
let's call the whole thing off.
Olek
termite
>>>>> force in the world.
>>>
>>>>Which meant exactly nothing in Vietnam, Somalia and Los Angeles.
>>>
>>> depends. we could have bombed all three places into the stone age if
>>> we wanted.
>
>>Absolutely. And what would that have made us?
>
> extreme realists, in the classical style. but americans don't like
> extreme realism, we like our realism with a happy ending, and then a
> commerical break so that we can find out who's the special guest star
> on this week's "Friends" episode.
You're really hung up on being more streetwise than anyone else, aren't you?
(...)
>
>>I even know that gun control's a piss poor
>>solution to the problem
>
> actually, no it isn't.
How can the government tell us we can't protect ourselves when they not only
have failed to protect us, but have ruled in the Supreme Court that they
have no obligation to protect us?
>
>>- after all there was lots of gun control in Kosovo,
>>wasn't there?
>
> apples and oranges terms.
Not really. If the Kosovars were as heavily armed as we are, they'd be
a little tougher to push around.
>
>>The major difference between we and the Europeans is that we kill ourselves
>>a bit at a time and they like to save up and do all the killing at once.
>
> don't get mad, but that's a rather shallow conclusion to what we were
> discussing.
So, you can be cynical and I can't?
>
>>>>Then why aren't we doing anything about it in Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan
>>>>etc.?
>>>
>>> the money don't flow through there. it does through europe.
>
>>Exactly.
>
> so why are we arguing?
For one thing, money isn't everything - for another thing, just what kind
of money are we making in Yugoslavia anyway?
>
>>>>If we really have a moral obligation to stop fighting in Kosovo,
>>>>then we have one to stop it everywhere - in other words, we are damn well
>>>>obligated to take over the world to stop everyone from killing each other.
>>>
>>> only where the money flows terms, we've had this discussion before.
>
>>And I say if it's a question of money, then let the free market take care
>>of it
>
> serbia has very little to sell. but it doesn't take a lot of money to
> knock over the apple cart. if you have a market where people are
> selling things, and you have one crazy fool who feels it's his duty to
> start killing the guy next to him, because that guy's great
> grandfather may have done something to his great grandfather, it's
> probably not a good idea to wait until that guy goes out of business.
But why not let those corporate interests that are threatened by this behavior
hire the necessary forces to correct it, if they feel their monetary interests
are threatened? If it's a matter of money, why not let the market decide?
>
>> ... Actually, what kind of money do we have in Kosovo?
>
> not a lot. but we have a lot in Macedonia, and Greece, and
> Hungary(which isn't far away), and europe proper.
Actually we don't really have a lot in those three countries - and Europe
proper and we were doing well 4 years ago when the same thing was going
on with Croatia, on a bigger scale.
(...)
>
>>I don't have to put my life on the line to refrain from killing Serbians.
>>I already have. That government computers take money from my paycheck, by
>>force,
>
> not really, you can always declare a multitude of deductions, and keep
> your money, until you have to pay your taxes. you have choices in
> this. i hope you're not one of those persons who thinks it's illegal
> to pay taxes.
People will come with guns to arrest me unless I pay the taxes. That is
by force.
As far as the legality of it goes, well, the people with guns get to define
that, also.
So it goes.
>
>>to do this purportably in my name, is unfortunate, but I didn't
>>create that situation, either.
>
>>I'm responsible for what I do with the things under my power to change.
>
> my point, thank you.
And the same thing goes for our government - or would, if it was being
run by people who weren't trying to appear like the saviors of the world.
>
>
>
>>> a moot point. what would you like to do, just let the thing boil over
>>> until it errupts into a full european land war.
>
>>It wouldn't. Europe's not as divided now as it was then.
>
> what makes you say that?
Are Germany and France going to war with each other over this?
Is Austria and Hungary going to reunite and demand their interests be
taken care of? Is Russia actually going to do more than whine about it?
> Milosevic has said more than once that he
> wants to reclaim the entire ancient Serbian Empire. that includes
> parts of Bulgaria, Rumania, Albania, even western Turkey. that also
> includes Croatia, and Slovenia, where we, the US, and Germany and
> England have huge investments in factories and other businesses. you
> don't think that there's a possibility that a huge land war could
> errupt if Milosevic attempts his great reclaimation of the ancient
> Serbian Empire?
No. A small, bloody and possibly unwinnable (for any side) war is possible.
>
> Hitler first wanted the Rhineland back, then the Sudatenland(sp?) then
> the Danzig corridor, and then parts of Western Poland.
Hitler had a lot bigger army and a lot more things he wanted.
>
> they said the same thing in 1939. now that was one great traveling
> circus, wasn't it?
Mostly because the main actor wasn't a tinpot dictator of a pissant
country.
>
>>> the 20th century has
>>> been there and done that.
>
>>So have the Americans. Twice. Don't you see that if we keep solving their
>>problems for them with arms that they'll never learn to do it themselves?
>
> terms! for christ sake, this isn't like shaking our finger at a
> wayward child. it's not like getting pissed off cause your 15 year old
> got a fucking tattoo! europe has looked to the new world for the
> answer for this entire century.
And funny, unless it involves us sending over troops to do things they don't
seem to want to do themselves, they don't want to hear the answers.
> it's the money flow terms.
Then let the free market decide.
> whatever
> fucks with the money flow is gonna motivate our needs. if europe
> doesn't want to do it, we have no choice. it's not like we're living
> in the world of 1850, where we had two huge oceans between us and the
> rest of the world.
Shit! Wait! Who the hell stole our oceans?
> the world gave us, whether they want to admit it
> or not, the keys to the kingdom on Dec. 7th 1941, for better or worse,
And now they're changing the locks.
> a war in europe is our problem, whether it's really their problem or
> not. we are Rome, the coinage has to flow from every corner of the
> empire, and that's all that matters.
Actually, we're more like Greece - we have sent little colonies of our
influence overseas to do business with us - we have a culture that is
more like Rome, as well as their ambition on occaision, but the Greek
model is closer to what we are doing.
Guess who the Romans are going to be. (Hint - they may speak Chinese.)
>
>>And who appointed us savior of the world?
>
> that process started in 1914, when a crazy Serb shot an third rate
> nobleman and caused the end of 1000 years of european madness and 500
> years of european domination of the world to come crashing down all at
> once. we passed on the first offer of the crown of Rome in 1919.
That's not accurate - Woodrow Wilson attempted to work out a just peace
and was rebuffed at home and abroad.
> a few
> pretenders to the thrown emerged, one in Russia, one in Germany. the
> party continued in the middle century Masque of the blood Red Death
> scenario until Dec. 7th, 1941. end of the British Empire, end of the
> ancient European domination, we got rid of the pretenders, and took
> the crown for ourselves. part of it was the flow of history, part of
> it was Roosevelt actually had some form of idealism he took from
> Woodrow Wilson(actually via neo-manifest destiny, and american
> capitalism, it's a long story, i assure you), and the keys of kingdom
> came to the victors of the last 30 years war. why do you keep longing
> for some answer to the morality to your question. it doesn't matter,
> we are Rome(oh yes, Rome fell, blah-blah-blah, after about 1500 years
> it fell)
The republic fell hundreds of years before the empire did. And times move
much faster now.
Our empire's on its way out - to be replaced by the Chinese, or better, some
kind of multinational intellectual/cultural/economic web ...
>, the end game of 2000 years of western history. we are
> masters of the world, for good or ill, i have become tired of trying
> to answer that. once you completely realize that, the questions
> become irrelavant.
This too shall pass ... rather quickly, too.
>
>>I don't recall that vote in
>>the U.N.
>
> heh.
>
>>> if bombing a few peasants in Serbia means
>>> that i, or my kinds, or my friends kids, don't have to hit Omaha beach
>>> again, i'm all for it.
>
>>Again, the situation is different.
>
> you have not proven to me that difference.
If you can't see major differences between 1939 and 1999, you're not looking.
>
>>>
>>> and please don't tell me that it wouldn't come to that. we said that
>>> in 1914 an 1939.
>>>
>>> cold? yep. so.
>
>>It's 1999, jr. It's a different Europe and a different world.
>
> since we keep saying that human kind hasn't changed all that much in
> the last 5K years, is it all that much different?
Have you ever read Julian Jaymes' "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown
of the Bicameral Mind"? According to him, the human race wasn't even
self-conscious 5000 years ago.
I'm not sure I agree with that, but his book is an excellent overview of
how much different people could have been back then.
The fact is, we don't know that people were the same and cannot know.
> you should try
> projecting your idealism into the facts. it gets you in trouble.
Everyone who disagrees with you is an idealist - it's your favorite putdown.
Actually, I'm questioning your assumptions. You assume we are the "Rome"
of the world. You assume that we have the power to do what we want in
Serbia. You assume that the rest of the world will be willing (or unwilling
subjects). You assume that the Serbs are identical in intention and capacity
to the Germans of 1939. You assume that Europe is as eager to fight one
another as they were in 1914. You assume that our monetary interests in the Balkans are
so compelling and important that we have no choice but to interfere. And you
assume, although you have not said so, that the American people will go
along with a long war with many casualities to sort this out.
These are all assumptions that can be contradicted with facts.
>
>>Yet.
>>Do you think the Kosovians will behave any better if they get some power?
>>Power's a drug, jr. It makes countries do some arrogant, insane things.
>>And our country is not immune.
>
> terms, on the whole, most people just want to not have people shooting
> at them. we want to have our kids, and our lovers and friends, and not
> have people shooting at us, and add that raping and pillaging thing
> too. are the Kosovians(i;m not sure that's the proper use of the word,
> but i'll go with it for now) aren't thinking that if they get the
> Serbs to stopping killing them that they're gonna make plans to
> reclaim the great Kosovo Empire.
I found out it's Kosovar. Shit, we don't even know enough about these
people to figure out what to call them and you want to involve us in
a war over them.
>
>>>
>>>>You've made the assumption that we can actually stop this. It's been
>>>>going on for 500 plus years. It'll stop when they decide to stop it.
>>>
>>> or when they're are no more Serbs left. not a bad idea.
>
>>Power can even make some people advocate genocide.
>
> well, i have given up idealism regarding this. i am of the opinion
> that sometimes there is only one way to deal with a mad dog.
Hire a dogcatcher?
>>>
>>> nope, we're hoping for the best. maybe the people of Serbia won't
>>> stand for this and throw out Milosevic, probably not. Milosevic's a
>>> pyscho, but he's not an idiot. he won't play a hand he thinks will
>>> lose. but would you suggest that nobody does anything? your arguement
>>> that the europeans should be taking care of this rings a bit hollow,
>
>>Why? They'll be whining to us until kingdom come to take care of their
>>problems - they have more potential soldiers than we do, and their
>>military potential is perfectly capable of taking care of things.
>
> heh. so what. there are responsibilities to wearing the crown of Rome.
Well, that won't last.
>
>
>>> just as much killing would be going on if the europeans were doing the
>>> bombing instead of the US. when do we bomb Milosevic, when he's
>>> marching into Bulgaria because he'll claim that in the 14th century
>>> Bulgaria was part of the Serb empire?
>
>>And of course, when we support the Bulgarians in this, they'll magically
>>behave themselves when it's their turn to be on top?
>
> terms! your discussing this as if it were a Risk game. i haven't heard
> the Bulgarians dicussing plans for the reclaimation of the Greater
> Bulgarian Empire. if they do wish for that, we'll deal with that when
> we need to. heh.
You're also assuming that our "allies" in this are going to play our
way willingly. Big assumption.
>>>
>>> you're missing the point terms. it ain't about proving a right or
>>> wrong. right or who's the murderer, is a pointless discussion. it's
>>> the money flow.
>
>>We don't have much money in Kosovo.
>
> we do in europe.
Europe's not at war.
>>>
>>> because human kind doesn't have the faintest clue about the teachings
>>> of jesus. and the teachings of jesus are pointless in this discussion.
>>>
>>That was my point ...
>
> mine as well. we are in agreement. the difference being you don't want
> to give up on your idealism. i think idealism is moot in this
> discussion.
So do I - therefore your idealistic, romantic view of America as Rome is
not constructive.
(...)
>
>>> it's zealotry, and when you're a zealot,
>>> you're through, there is no point to you, just push you in the proper
>>> direction of the jihad and have at it.
>
>>I'm not sending anyone to war, you are.
>
> no i'm not(youthful drama?). calm down.
There's nothing more youthful than someone who's trying to act more
streetwise than anyone else.
(...)
Sorry, but I've got to move on for now ...
termite
> On 26 Mar 1999 23:29:44 GMT, ter...@net-link.net (termite) wrote:
>>
>>Wrong, Jody. It's because some things can't be stopped without taking the
>>risk of creating greater evils.
>
> You're giving congress and the american populace too much credit here.
> They haven't chosen not to act again and again because of a
> philosophical fear of setting a precedent, they're lazy.
Maybe they don't know the answers. Which, in my view, puts them ahead of
those that do.
> If it's not
> american blood, it's worth about half as much in their eyes.
And if it's Rwandan blood how much is it worth in comparison to Serbian
blood? Must not be as much because many more people have been killed
over there and our country hasn't tried to stop it.
>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then why aren't we doing anything about it in Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan
>>>>>>etc.?
>>>>>
>>>>> We should be.
>>>>
>>>>Really? We should police the whole world then, at least the portions that
>>>>are fighting?
>>>
>>> No. But if it's a matter of gross injustice we should.
>>
>>There's a godawful lot of that, isn't there? Oh, and what happens if another
>>country defines gross injustice as something we're doing to correct what
>>we see as gross injustice?
>
> There are standards for such things.
Who establishes them? The people who have the power - at least that's
what history seems to say.
> Chemical and biological warfare,
> the mass executions of civilians. Speaking of which, there were
> reports that about a thousand Albanian women and children were rounded
> up (after their homes were burned to the ground) yesterday. They're
> marching them back into serbian territory. I'm sure their intentions
> are good, don't you think?
>
No better than the intentions of those who persecuted the Serbs in
Yugoslavia during WW 2 - Can't you see that both sides have contributed
to this?
>>
>>Hitler represented a far greater problem than the Serbs do.
>
> True, he had more weapons. But the analogy stands: the loser is not
> going to be grateful to us.
Neither will the winners.
>>>
>>> Because the more places in the world that become instilled with a
>>> stable government, the less it's going to go on. That's why there's
>>> NINETEEN countries in NATO, all unanimously supporting the bombing.
>>
>>At least one of which is oppressing Kurdish people in an equally genocidal
>>matter in Turkey. Another one of which is still occupying land they conquered
>>by mass genocide in Ireland hundreds of years ago. Not to mention the
>>leader of NATO, we Americans, have been responsible for funding foreign
>>atrocities in El Salvador, Cambodia (yes, for a time we were sending money
>>to Pol Pot!), Indonesia (massacres in East Timor), China, (the whole world
>>watched them kill their own people in Tienamen Square, but we quickly did
>>our deals with them and now our department stores sell goods made by slave
>>prison labor, some of whom were arrested during that occurance), and last
>>but not least, our continued possession of enough nuclear weapons to eradicate
>>any life bigger than a cockroach, in spite of our currently possessing
>>no enemy capable of conducing such a war against us.
>
> I don't disagree that a lot is hypocritical in what the NATO countries
> preach. And I feel just as badly for the kurds as the albanians. But
> just because they have done, or are doing, the wrong thing in other
> areas of the world is no excuse to give up in the balkans.
Can't you see that the Greeks and the Russians, to name two examples, see
NATO's meddling in this matter as hypocritical? We are going against
our national interests by alienating the Russians over this - now, why
they support the Serbs is beyond me, except that they might be thinking,
"well, what happens the next time, we have a rebellion in our country -
will NATO dictate the terms of how we settle it? Will they bomb us
if we say no?"
>
>>
>>And this is a short list - let's not forget the CIA's complicity in the
>>crack business in our country.
>
> The government's corrupt. That's not news.
True. So why should I trust them to do the right thing overseas when
they can't do it here?
>
>>
>>If we're the world's policemen, who, pray tell, is policing the policemen?
>
> Preferably the voters, but they only care about their next tax break.
How true.
>>>
>>> What's your point? So they're not going to invade? Of course not. Or
>>> do you mean that we shouldn't get involved in conflicts on our own
>>> borders? Good think the french didn't think so during colonial times,
>>> or you'd have a cockney accent.
>>
>>You are aware, of course, that only a minority of Americans at the time
>>supported the Revolutionary War - most were, as always, fairly apathetic
>>about the whole matter.
>
> As is the case with this matter. What's your point?
The majority of us could give a shit less what a bunch of power tripping
asswipes with swords guns or nukes want from each other.
We want to live. Without war. If we have a choice.
And in this case, we do. It's a pity that many Yugoslavians have chosen
for war, (including the Albanians). When they realize that the rest of
the world is thriving while they are mired in misery, perhaps they'll
see the error of their ways.
Hitler and Stalin sincerely believed they were saving the world for what
was right.
People who want to save the world concern me.
>>
>>> Their lives are as valuable as anyone from anywhere, Termite.
>>
>>That's not the point.
>
> It is the point.
Then the planes would be better used to drop off food supplies in the
areas of Africa that need them.
After all, their lives are as valuable as anyone from anywhere and they're
not running around with guns trying to shoot each other.
Well, some of them, anyway.
>
>>
>>> And somebody who's strong enough is trying to stop senseless atrocity
>>> from happening. Why is that so bad?
>>
>>Because you're assuming that we are strong enough to stop it from happening.
>
> Well lets assume we're not. Does that mean we shouldn't try?
Yes. If we're not strong enough, we can only make things worse.
>>
>>Or hey - you know with all our nuclear weapons, we stand a chance of causing
>>a nuclear winter with mass extinction of humanity. That's billions of
>>potential deaths in countries that haven't consented to be threatened in
>>any way and have nothing to gain from our continued hording of nukes.
>
> The difference between our government and Milosovic's is that we're
> not using our weapons. I agree that we are armed to the teeth with
> weapons that are too powerful for our own good, but we're not using
> any of them on anyone at this point.
There are armed robbers who never use (in the sense of firing off) their
guns either.
They are still convicted of armed robbery.
> And frankly, those well-aimed
> missles
We are aiming them, therefore we are threatening people with them.
> are probably what kept "Red Dawn" from being a documentary.
Actually, it's logistics - how many millions of troops do you think
it would have taken to invade the US? How would have they been transported?
How would have they been supplied? And how would have they been sent
to America without us spotting all those ships in the middle of the
Pacific and bombing the hell out of the whole fleet before they got
here?
>
>>
>>Perhaps they'd be justified to demand we get rid of our weapons or suffer
>>an economic boycott and possible invasion.
>
> Wrong.
Why? Explain to me why a Sri Lankan peasant should share in the fate of
human extinction simply because a couple of other countries don't get
along with one another, or have philisophical differences?
A morality or philosophy that does not reverence life enough to avoid
threatening the existence of a next generation is thoroughly bankrupt.
>
>>
>>How many millions of people are the Serbs targeting with their nuclear weapons?
>
> How many thousands of civilians is the army killing? How many towns
> has it raized this week?
I don't know - neither do you. I know that our missiles, along with other
countries' missles threaten all 6 1/2 billion of us.
>>
>>How often have countries been bombed into submission without following up
>>with ground troops?
>
> 33 bombing campaigns have been conducted, none of them have worked
> alone except for Bosnia. They always have required ground troops.
Then why is our government saying it won't put ground troops into Kosovo?
> Some
> people believe that as the technology has become more sophisticated,
> airstrikes alone have become more effective, as was evinced in Bosnia.
Airstrikes cannot stop what's going on there.
>>>>II - the Serbs know and practice guerrilla warfare.
>>>
>>
>>Which is comprised of those very same soldiers.
>
> Grouped in caravans of ten to twenty vehicles each, which we can
> target quite nicely.
Unless they've got 50 civilians right next to them. And as nasty as
that is, I do believe that's exactly what they'll do.
Wrong? Of course. But how do you stop it?
>>>
>>> Hmmm. How, praytell, are we putting our soldiers at risk? We may lose
>>> one or two in the bombing process.
>>
>>I am, of course, referring to the next step in this program - the bombing
>>is of slight risk to us, but I think we may find it isn't working.
>
> You're right, but ground troops is a whole different debate.
No. If one is serious about stopping the Serbs, then ground troops will
have to be used. If we aren't willing to do that, then we aren't really
trying and what we're doing is worse than doing nothing.
Which is what I think we should have done - nothing.
>
>>
>>>But even that is unlikely. And
>>> anyone who chooses to join the armed forces has already accepted that
>>> risk, so what's the problem?
>>
>>The problem is that they swore an oath to defend the United States and
>>its constitution.
>>Neither the United States or its constitution are being imperiled by
>>the Serbs.
>
> Don't you think if it were a problem you'd hear the soldiers involved
> saying so?
Sometimes they do. And whatever one thinks about any particular war
it is certainly a problem for anyone involved in it.
>>>>
>>>>And people have to choose peace for it to mean anything. If one really
>>>>wanted, in 20-25 years, it should be possible for our scientists to
>>>>totally short circuit any brain that is in the midst of committing a
>>>>violent act. People will have seizures when they get angry and be
>>>>incapable of doing anything. Or they'll just take a little nap. No
>>>>one will have the choice of violence anymore. We'll just make all
>>>>of us have the surgery and then we'll all be fine.
>>>
>>> I agree with your first sentence here. The rest is confusing, and
>>> strangely Orwellian.
>>
>>No kidding - and worse yet, in 20-25 years, it will be possible.
>>
>>And think of this - what's to stop those that do the surgery from making
>>it so anyone who does not obey them, or follow their religion, is put
>>to sleep until they go along?
>
> Forgive me, I forgot to take an acid hit before I read this post. It's
> sort of like The Wall, I need the lsd to understand it.
Are you saying that brain surgery to turn people into docile sheep is
impossible? Haven't you ever heard of lobotomies? Those were done
with ice picks - we could use much more sophisticated equipment.
Come to think of it, if we just made everybody do a hit of acid a week ...
>>> This sounds like the center of your argument. And I agree, in general.
>>> But how do we define our limits? That is the only thing that limits
>>> us, how far we are willing to go.
>>
>>I think the first thing is to say that we are not willing to risk our
>>country's lives or reputation on anything less than the vital interests
>>of the United States. We also do not risk the values of our constitution
>>by committing troops to wars undeclared by Congress.
>
> With our current congress it would take an oil-price threat or troops
> on our own soil. And maybe that's what you're espousing.
Troops on our own soil.
And grave threats to humanity. The Serbs don't qualify.
> I think it
> would be sad if we were as apathetic as those old farts would want us
> to be.
>
I think it would be horrible if our country became a self-righteous
policeman enforcing our views on the whole world with our troops.
>>
>>If our Congress believes that our country's vital interests are served
>>by acts of war against Serbia, then they should show the moral backbone
>>to pass a formal declaration of war against Serbia, as is required by
>>the government. And then let them answer to the electorate ...
>
> You can't expect moral backbone from a politician. They've got to see
> whether we're successful or not before they'll take credit.
Then they won't get any from me.
>>
>>>>
>>>>What gives you the idea that other peoples in the world, including the
>>>>Kosovians are going to percieve us as the altruistic rescuers you would
>>>>like them to perceive us as being? Did the Lebanese and Somalians see
>>>>us that way?
>>>
>>> First of all don't tell me what I'd like.
>>
>>Do you deny that you wouldn't like these people to percieve Americans
>>as altruistic?
>
> I do not care how we are percieved, personally. On a larger scale,
> politically it would be nice if other countries respected us.
They won't if we keep screwing around like this.
> But my
> desire to see my country intercede is based on what I see as a
> horribly unfair situation that is costing the lives of thousands of
> albanians.
Unfortunately, your desire is based on unwarranted assumptions and
an inconsistent appraisal of the world and its situations.
>
>>
>>> Second of all, I don't think
>>> we should give a shit if they like it or not.
>>
>>Until they start shooting at us to make us stop, right?
>
> Wrong.
In other words we shouldn't care if people are shooting at us?
>
>>
>>> We aren't trying to stop
>>> slaughter because we want the credit (at least, that's not our public
>>> motive), but because it's wrong.
>>
>>Who appointed us the moral guardians of the world and said we had to
>>enforce our stewardship with guns?
>
> It's always been that way. The one with the most power takes on the
> leadership of the rest.
Until the rest get sick of it. And they always do.
> Ideally that wouldn't be the case. But this is
> not an ideal world.
It's not a world we have to police to make ideal, either.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>No, it actually comes down to whether you think we're morally superior
>>>>to other peoples and have the right to tell them what to do, with guns
>>>>if they don't listen to us, and it also comes down to whether you believe
>>>>you can make them stop.
>>>
>>> Well let's see. Morally superior? Hmmm. Are our soldiers raping young
>>> women and executing children? No?
>>
>>No - we're just holding on to enough nuclear weapons to kill everybody
>>and everything.
>
> What do you thinks keeps people from nuking us? Our nukes. They're out
> there, termite, and one day a terrorist is going to level Des Moines.
And of course our nuclear bombs will stop that. Nuclear terrorism will
happen. But if we negotiate reduced stockpiles, with the idea of eventual
elimination, and non-proliferation, we may be able to pull the world
through this - the real danger is that India and Pakistan or other countries
will use them against each other and create problems. And we can't tell
them to get rid of theirs unless we're willing to get rid of ours.
>
>>
>>> Then I guess we're MORALLY FUCKING
>>> SUPERIOR!
>>
>>Yeah, we have everyone in our bombsights without reference to race, religion,
>>ethnic identity or color of underwear.
>
> But we're not using that force. So once again, we're morally superior.
We're blackmailing the entire planet. I don't think so.
>
>>
>>> Were we morally superior to the SS?
>>
>>In the 40s, yes.
>
> So you believe our current government is not?
Since we built up our arsenals (along with the Russians - oh, yes, they
can be blamed equally) to such obscene extent, yes. Most of my
generation grew up believing that we would die in nuclear holocast.
Look at the effect it's had on us.
And the younger people - they're in denial - they think because the
Berlin Wall's down and the Communists are "gone" that it can't happen.
And yet, we still possess the bombs. Along with many others.
We have courted death for everyone on this planet. Is that a moral act?
>
>>
>>> Fucking A RIGHT we were.
>>
>>Unfortunately our accumilation of nuclear weapons has caused us to lose
>>our moral superiority.
>
> Do you remember the cold war, termite? I'm sorry, I don't know how old
> you are. I just caught the tail end of it myself. But I for one am
> glad we had those nukes.
In other words, because of our differences with another country, we
were willing to erase the entire human race, all the thousands of generations
to come, because, at worst, the Russians might have communized the world
for 500-1000 years, before they too, became history. In other words,
we were so arrogant to believe that we were the best thing the human
race could ever achieve, that we had the right to threaten our extinction
and all after us, so that we might continue to do things our way.
And you've made one serious error - not "we had those nukes" - we have them.
And I'm old enough to remember our buying a radio and looking over
impromptu fallout shelter plans because we thought we would see nuclear
war over the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Pretty heavy shit to explain to a five year old.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't believe we're morally superior and I don't believe we can make them
>>>>stop.
>>>
>>> I disagree.
>>
>>We're not morally superior - but come to think of it, with enough missiles
>>launched, we really could stop them all, couldn't we?
>
> Now you're talking sense.
>
> No not really. I understand and agree with your points about the
> hypocrisy of the US and the world in general. I just don't see why
> that should stop us from doing the right thing in this case.
Because our hypocrisy is such that we don't even see the wrong things
that we are doing.
j r sherman
>>>Absolutely. And what would that have made us?
>>
>> extreme realists, in the classical style. but americans don't like
>> extreme realism, we like our realism with a happy ending, and then a
>> commerical break so that we can find out who's the special guest star
>> on this week's "Friends" episode.
>You're really hung up on being more streetwise than anyone else, aren't you?
being aware of the machiavellian political realties that are open to
any leader in history is not a claim to any more street wisdom than
anyone else. but i can't control how your going to twist my words into
what you wish to believe in.
as you enjoy playing the adversary in this discussion, not matter what
it is we're discussing, feel free.
>(...)
>>
>>>I even know that gun control's a piss poor
>>>solution to the problem
>>
>> actually, no it isn't.
>How can the government tell us we can't protect ourselves when they not only
>have failed to protect us, but have ruled in the Supreme Court that they
>have no obligation to protect us?
how has the supreme court determined that they are under no obligation
to protect us?
>> apples and oranges terms.
>Not really. If the Kosovars were as heavily armed as we are, they'd be
>a little tougher to push around.
we are talking about a nation armed with military hardware to protect
themselves against a foreign aggressor and the assumed right of
citizens of the united states to own fire arms. we can discuss one of
these issues, or the other(i was under the impression we were
discussing the war in Yugoslavia), but both are not interchangable
simply because it involves guns.
>>
>>>The major difference between we and the Europeans is that we kill ourselves
>>>a bit at a time and they like to save up and do all the killing at once.
>>
>> don't get mad, but that's a rather shallow conclusion to what we were
>> discussing.
>So, you can be cynical and I can't?
this goes back to assuming that the issue of americans owning firearms
and the Kosovo being armed with military hardware is one and the same.
if you would like, we can discuss american ownership of guns, or the
war in Yugoslavia, but they are not the exact same thing, simply
because they involve guns. you can't make this arguement and
discussion that simple.
>>>>>Then why aren't we doing anything about it in Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan
>>>>>etc.?
>>>>
>>>> the money don't flow through there. it does through europe.
>>
>>>Exactly.
>>
>> so why are we arguing?
>For one thing, money isn't everything -
in world politics and economics it is.
>for another thing, just what kind
>of money are we making in Yugoslavia anyway?
i've told you this about 4 times terms, it's not serbia directly, but
many countries around this region where american investments are
concerned. Croatia, Slovenia, Greece, Hungary, and if it spreads from
there, it does involve many billions.
>> serbia has very little to sell. but it doesn't take a lot of money to
>> knock over the apple cart. if you have a market where people are
>> selling things, and you have one crazy fool who feels it's his duty to
>> start killing the guy next to him, because that guy's great
>> grandfather may have done something to his great grandfather, it's
>> probably not a good idea to wait until that guy goes out of business.
>But why not let those corporate interests that are threatened by this behavior
>hire the necessary forces to correct it,
they have, it's called the US Armed Forces. forgive me if i sound
"street wise" in pointing this out to you.
>if they feel their monetary interests
>are threatened? If it's a matter of money, why not let the market decide?
because thinking about this issue in the terms of the ancient
principles of adam smith is ridiculous.
again i ask you, you would do nothing in this matter. allow the Serbs
to do as they wish, because it's there problem, not ours? have i not
explained to you why this is not a good idea? must i keep repeating
the same arguement with you, over and over again?
>>> ... Actually, what kind of money do we have in Kosovo?
>>
>> not a lot. but we have a lot in Macedonia, and Greece, and
>> Hungary(which isn't far away), and europe proper.
>Actually we don't really have a lot in those three countries - and Europe
>proper and we were doing well 4 years ago when the same thing was going
>on with Croatia, on a bigger scale.
a good question as to why we weren't doing anything about this 4 years
ago, also, is should be mentioned that Croatia was far better armed
then than Kosovo is now.
>>>I don't have to put my life on the line to refrain from killing Serbians.
>>>I already have. That government computers take money from my paycheck, by
>>>force,
>>
>> not really, you can always declare a multitude of deductions, and keep
>> your money, until you have to pay your taxes. you have choices in
>> this. i hope you're not one of those persons who thinks it's illegal
>> to pay taxes.
>People will come with guns to arrest me unless I pay the taxes. That is
>by force.
>As far as the legality of it goes, well, the people with guns get to define
>that, also.
>So it goes.
terms, taxes are what we pay for civilization, next time your house is
on fire, feel free to be the rustic pioneer and fend for yourself. and
please don't use our roads, bridges, schools and telecommunications
systems if it offends you so much. the people with guns didn't make
those decsions, the politicians did. if you want to discuss the
morality of taxes, we can do that too.
>>
>>>to do this purportably in my name, is unfortunate, but I didn't
>>>create that situation, either.
>>
>>>I'm responsible for what I do with the things under my power to change.
>>
>> my point, thank you.
>And the same thing goes for our government - or would, if it was being
>run by people who weren't trying to appear like the saviors of the world.
(sigh, once again) we are the largest economic power in the world, in
the history of the world, instability anywhere in the world is going
to have an effect everywhere in the world. you keep thinking it's
because we feel the need to be moral leaders of the world, i keep
(painstakingly) trying to explain to you that that is not our motive
in this crisis.
>>>> a moot point. what would you like to do, just let the thing boil over
>>>> until it errupts into a full european land war.
>>
>>>It wouldn't. Europe's not as divided now as it was then.
>>
>> what makes you say that?
>Are Germany and France going to war with each other over this?
it's against their best interests to do so.
>Is Austria and Hungary going to reunite and demand their interests be
>taken care of? Is Russia actually going to do more than whine about it?
how about if we don't wait around and see?
>> Milosevic has said more than once that he
>> wants to reclaim the entire ancient Serbian Empire. that includes
>> parts of Bulgaria, Rumania, Albania, even western Turkey. that also
>> includes Croatia, and Slovenia, where we, the US, and Germany and
>> England have huge investments in factories and other businesses. you
>> don't think that there's a possibility that a huge land war could
>> errupt if Milosevic attempts his great reclaimation of the ancient
>> Serbian Empire?
>No. A small, bloody and possibly unwinnable (for any side) war is possible.
how about if we don't wait around and see?
>>
>> Hitler first wanted the Rhineland back, then the Sudatenland(sp?) then
>> the Danzig corridor, and then parts of Western Poland.
>Hitler had a lot bigger army
but he didn't have a bigger army than the French, or even the
Poles(numbers wise). if there was any serious collaboration between
the allies on Sept. 1 1939 Hitler could have been crushed in 2 weeks.
>and a lot more things he wanted.
no so much different than Milosevic, both pushed the cart down the
hill that they had no choice but to ride until it was done.
>>
>> they said the same thing in 1939. now that was one great traveling
>> circus, wasn't it?
>Mostly because the main actor wasn't a tinpot dictator of a pissant
>country.
the ideals and methods were the same. only the numbers were slightly
different, but as i said before, how about if we don't wait around and
see?
>>
>>>> the 20th century has
>>>> been there and done that.
>>
>>>So have the Americans. Twice. Don't you see that if we keep solving their
>>>problems for them with arms that they'll never learn to do it themselves?
>>
>> terms! for christ sake, this isn't like shaking our finger at a
>> wayward child. it's not like getting pissed off cause your 15 year old
>> got a fucking tattoo! europe has looked to the new world for the
>> answer for this entire century.
>And funny, unless it involves us sending over troops to do things they don't
>seem to want to do themselves, they don't want to hear the answers.
no one in the US armed forces was drafted, so they don't have much of
an arguement about where they're sent, they certainly know the score
of what they're doing. are you suggesting that the soldiers have a
right to say, vote on what they want to do, where they want to fight?
>> it's the money flow terms.
>Then let the free market decide.
heh. i give up.
>> whatever
>> fucks with the money flow is gonna motivate our needs. if europe
>> doesn't want to do it, we have no choice. it's not like we're living
>> in the world of 1850, where we had two huge oceans between us and the
>> rest of the world.
>Shit! Wait! Who the hell stole our oceans?
it was the airplane i think.
>> the world gave us, whether they want to admit it
>> or not, the keys to the kingdom on Dec. 7th 1941, for better or worse,
>And now they're changing the locks.
no they're not. you may wish to believe this, but it's not happening.
>> a war in europe is our problem, whether it's really their problem or
>> not. we are Rome, the coinage has to flow from every corner of the
>> empire, and that's all that matters.
>Actually, we're more like Greece - we have sent little colonies of our
>influence overseas to do business with us - we have a culture that is
>more like Rome, as well as their ambition on occaision, but the Greek
>model is closer to what we are doing.
specificly the greeks under Alexander. i'm not entirely disagreeing
with your assessment, but Rome in the sense of continuity of the
empire, so to speak. Augustus built the empire to last, though many
changes. the greeks couldn't land the legions where ever they wanted
to. the Romans built roads to everywhere, so they could. and there are
a lot of other factors as well.
>Guess who the Romans are going to be. (Hint - they may speak Chinese.)
nope, can't agree with that one. simple because they have a billion
people doesn't mean they'll be able to do it. first of all their
military is weak as hell. the Red Chinese have had two "military"
victories in their 50 year history, killing a bunch of Tibetans
carrying flintlocks and unarmed civillians in a Bejing square. such
displays does not a Neo-Rome make. their social structure is one step
away from chaos most of the time. all their leaders from the old
shcool are dying off. there is no political will to rule the world.
there navy doesn't exist, and you can't rule the world without a
modern navy(they can even serious invade Taiwan without being
massacred on the beachs). China may think they can rule the world. i
don't think they can.
>>
>>>And who appointed us savior of the world?
>>
>> that process started in 1914, when a crazy Serb shot an third rate
>> nobleman and caused the end of 1000 years of european madness and 500
>> years of european domination of the world to come crashing down all at
>> once. we passed on the first offer of the crown of Rome in 1919.
>That's not accurate - Woodrow Wilson attempted to work out a just peace
>and was rebuffed at home and abroad.
that's what i meant when i said we passed on the first offer. Wilson
knew that his plan of world peace meant US domination of that plan. he
was a dreamer of sorts, but he wasn't stupid. the american people and
the american congress nixed that plan. (strangely enough reading that
debate in congress at the time was fascinating)
>> a few
>> pretenders to the thrown emerged, one in Russia, one in Germany. the
>> party continued in the middle century Masque of the blood Red Death
>> scenario until Dec. 7th, 1941. end of the British Empire, end of the
>> ancient European domination, we got rid of the pretenders, and took
>> the crown for ourselves. part of it was the flow of history, part of
>> it was Roosevelt actually had some form of idealism he took from
>> Woodrow Wilson(actually via neo-manifest destiny, and american
>> capitalism, it's a long story, i assure you), and the keys of kingdom
>> came to the victors of the last 30 years war. why do you keep longing
>> for some answer to the morality to your question. it doesn't matter,
>> we are Rome(oh yes, Rome fell, blah-blah-blah, after about 1500 years
>> it fell)
>The republic fell hundreds of years before the empire did. And times move
>much faster now.
>Our empire's on its way out - to be replaced by the Chinese, or better, some
>kind of multinational intellectual/cultural/economic web ...
i don't think so. how would this come about?
>>, the end game of 2000 years of western history. we are
>> masters of the world, for good or ill, i have become tired of trying
>> to answer that. once you completely realize that, the questions
>> become irrelavant.
>This too shall pass ... rather quickly, too.
how?
>>
>>>I don't recall that vote in
>>>the U.N.
>>
>> heh.
>>
>>>> if bombing a few peasants in Serbia means
>>>> that i, or my kinds, or my friends kids, don't have to hit Omaha beach
>>>> again, i'm all for it.
>>
>>>Again, the situation is different.
>>
>> you have not proven to me that difference.
>If you can't see major differences between 1939 and 1999, you're not looking.
(sigh)
>>
>>>>
>>>> and please don't tell me that it wouldn't come to that. we said that
>>>> in 1914 an 1939.
>>>>
>>>> cold? yep. so.
>>
>>>It's 1999, jr. It's a different Europe and a different world.
>>
>> since we keep saying that human kind hasn't changed all that much in
>> the last 5K years, is it all that much different?
>Have you ever read Julian Jaymes' "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown
>of the Bicameral Mind"? According to him, the human race wasn't even
>self-conscious 5000 years ago.
i disagree, but that is entirely another discussion. i have not this
book you mention, but perhaps i will.
>I'm not sure I agree with that, but his book is an excellent overview of
>how much different people could have been back then.
>The fact is, we don't know that people were the same and cannot know.
i see history as not changing all that much. economics still rules
what we do.
>> you should try
>> projecting your idealism into the facts. it gets you in trouble.
>Everyone who disagrees with you is an idealist - it's your favorite putdown.
would you prefer naive and uninformed boneheads?
>Actually, I'm questioning your assumptions. You assume we are the "Rome"
>of the world. You assume that we have the power to do what we want in
>Serbia. You assume that the rest of the world will be willing (or unwilling
>subjects). You assume that the Serbs are identical in intention and capacity
>to the Germans of 1939.
i never said that the Serbian are exactly like the Germans of 1939 in
capacity. read more clearly what i've written terms before you start
putting words in my mouth. the principles are the same, but obviously
the the numbers and size are a bit different. i believe that they are
the same in intention, and how they would go about furthering their
goals. i have stated that i do not wish the to find out if things are
going to turn out the same way they did in 1939. if there was anything
we learned from wwii it was that.
> You assume that Europe is as eager to fight one
>another as they were in 1914.
again, i did not say that.
>You assume that our monetary interests in the Balkans are
>so compelling and important that we have no choice but to interfere.
they are in europe(our interests), i'm saying, once again, i would not
like to see how far the Serbs would go in this crisis.
> And you
>assume, although you have not said so, that the American people will go
>along with a long war with many casualities to sort this out.
would you care to tell me where i said that? i don't know how far the
american people would go as far as US involvement in this crisis.
>These are all assumptions that can be contradicted with facts.
then contradict them if you feel like it. i did not say what you have
attributed to me above, you did.
>>
>>>Yet.
>>>Do you think the Kosovians will behave any better if they get some power?
>>>Power's a drug, jr. It makes countries do some arrogant, insane things.
>>>And our country is not immune.
>>
>> terms, on the whole, most people just want to not have people shooting
>> at them. we want to have our kids, and our lovers and friends, and not
>> have people shooting at us, and add that raping and pillaging thing
>> too. are the Kosovians(i;m not sure that's the proper use of the word,
>> but i'll go with it for now) aren't thinking that if they get the
>> Serbs to stopping killing them that they're gonna make plans to
>> reclaim the great Kosovo Empire.
>I found out it's Kosovar. Shit, we don't even know enough about these
>people to figure out what to call them and you want to involve us in
>a war over them.
feel like your losing the arguement terms?
>>
>>>>
>>>>>You've made the assumption that we can actually stop this. It's been
>>>>>going on for 500 plus years. It'll stop when they decide to stop it.
>>>>
>>>> or when they're are no more Serbs left. not a bad idea.
>>
>>>Power can even make some people advocate genocide.
>>
>> well, i have given up idealism regarding this. i am of the opinion
>> that sometimes there is only one way to deal with a mad dog.
>Hire a dogcatcher?
or kill the dog?
>>>>
>>>> nope, we're hoping for the best. maybe the people of Serbia won't
>>>> stand for this and throw out Milosevic, probably not. Milosevic's a
>>>> pyscho, but he's not an idiot. he won't play a hand he thinks will
>>>> lose. but would you suggest that nobody does anything? your arguement
>>>> that the europeans should be taking care of this rings a bit hollow,
>>
>>>Why? They'll be whining to us until kingdom come to take care of their
>>>problems - they have more potential soldiers than we do, and their
>>>military potential is perfectly capable of taking care of things.
>>
>> heh. so what. there are responsibilities to wearing the crown of Rome.
>Well, that won't last.
nothing does. even a fourth of Rome is 350 years. i'll take that. so
would you.
>>
>>
>>>> just as much killing would be going on if the europeans were doing the
>>>> bombing instead of the US. when do we bomb Milosevic, when he's
>>>> marching into Bulgaria because he'll claim that in the 14th century
>>>> Bulgaria was part of the Serb empire?
>>
>>>And of course, when we support the Bulgarians in this, they'll magically
>>>behave themselves when it's their turn to be on top?
>>
>> terms! your discussing this as if it were a Risk game. i haven't heard
>> the Bulgarians dicussing plans for the reclaimation of the Greater
>> Bulgarian Empire. if they do wish for that, we'll deal with that when
>> we need to. heh.
>You're also assuming that our "allies" in this are going to play our
>way willingly. Big assumption.
they have no other choice. but i agree, it does remain to me seen.
>>>>
>>>> you're missing the point terms. it ain't about proving a right or
>>>> wrong. right or who's the murderer, is a pointless discussion. it's
>>>> the money flow.
>>
>>>We don't have much money in Kosovo.
>>
>> we do in europe.
>Europe's not at war.
part of it is. you seem more than willing to see if it will go further
than just the Balkans.
>>>>
>>>> because human kind doesn't have the faintest clue about the teachings
>>>> of jesus. and the teachings of jesus are pointless in this discussion.
>>>>
>>>That was my point ...
>>
>> mine as well. we are in agreement. the difference being you don't want
>> to give up on your idealism. i think idealism is moot in this
>> discussion.
>So do I - therefore your idealistic, romantic view of America as Rome is
>not constructive.
but accuarate.
>(...)
>>
>>>> it's zealotry, and when you're a zealot,
>>>> you're through, there is no point to you, just push you in the proper
>>>> direction of the jihad and have at it.
>>
>>>I'm not sending anyone to war, you are.
>>
>> no i'm not(youthful drama?). calm down.
>There's nothing more youthful than someone who's trying to act more
>streetwise than anyone else.
this interests me. i would like to know what prompts you to say this,
some supposed insight into my personality(which i doubt), or have you
ran out of things to add to this discussion?
>(...)
>Sorry, but I've got to move on for now ...
i highly doubt it.
love and kisses,
termite
>
>
>>>>Absolutely. And what would that have made us?
>>>
>>> extreme realists, in the classical style. but americans don't like
>>> extreme realism, we like our realism with a happy ending, and then a
>>> commerical break so that we can find out who's the special guest star
>>> on this week's "Friends" episode.
>
>>You're really hung up on being more streetwise than anyone else, aren't you?
>
> being aware of the machiavellian political realties that are open to
> any leader in history is not a claim to any more street wisdom than
> anyone else. but i can't control how your going to twist my words into
> what you wish to believe in.
>
> as you enjoy playing the adversary in this discussion, not matter what
> it is we're discussing, feel free.
Actually, I think I've made my points, but I'll look over all this and
see if I have something more to add.
>
>>(...)
>
>>>
>>>>I even know that gun control's a piss poor
>>>>solution to the problem
>>>
>>> actually, no it isn't.
>
>>How can the government tell us we can't protect ourselves when they not only
>>have failed to protect us, but have ruled in the Supreme Court that they
>>have no obligation to protect us?
>
> how has the supreme court determined that they are under no obligation
> to protect us?
I can't cite the case, but if you look, you'll find one ...
>
>
>>> apples and oranges terms.
>
>>Not really. If the Kosovars were as heavily armed as we are, they'd be
>>a little tougher to push around.
>
> we are talking about a nation armed with military hardware to protect
> themselves against a foreign aggressor and the assumed right of
> citizens of the united states to own fire arms. we can discuss one of
> these issues, or the other(i was under the impression we were
> discussing the war in Yugoslavia), but both are not interchangable
> simply because it involves guns.
>
They are related.
>>>
>>>>The major difference between we and the Europeans is that we kill ourselves
>>>>a bit at a time and they like to save up and do all the killing at once.
>>>
>>> don't get mad, but that's a rather shallow conclusion to what we were
>>> discussing.
>
>>So, you can be cynical and I can't?
>
> this goes back to assuming that the issue of americans owning firearms
> and the Kosovo being armed with military hardware is one and the same.
> if you would like, we can discuss american ownership of guns, or the
> war in Yugoslavia, but they are not the exact same thing, simply
> because they involve guns. you can't make this arguement and
> discussion that simple.
The point remains that a minority in the U.S. is less likely to be pushed
around like the Kosovars are, because they have the right to have arms.
>>>>>>Then why aren't we doing anything about it in Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan
>>>>>>etc.?
>>>>>
>>>>> the money don't flow through there. it does through europe.
>>>
>>>>Exactly.
>>>
>>> so why are we arguing?
>
>>For one thing, money isn't everything -
>
> in world politics and economics it is.
There are many who would like to think so, but they are mistaken.
>
>>for another thing, just what kind
>>of money are we making in Yugoslavia anyway?
>
> i've told you this about 4 times terms, it's not serbia directly, but
> many countries around this region where american investments are
> concerned. Croatia, Slovenia, Greece, Hungary, and if it spreads from
> there, it does involve many billions.
When Croatia and Serbia were warring it didn't hurt our economy.
>>But why not let those corporate interests that are threatened by this behavior
>>hire the necessary forces to correct it,
>
> they have, it's called the US Armed Forces. forgive me if i sound
> "street wise" in pointing this out to you.
That's government interference in the marketplace. Can't have that now,
can we?
>
>>if they feel their monetary interests
>>are threatened? If it's a matter of money, why not let the market decide?
>
> because thinking about this issue in the terms of the ancient
> principles of adam smith is ridiculous.
Why not? If it's an economic issue, then shouldn't the current economic
wisdom hold? After all, the market holds that money is the measure of
things, and you hold that money is the measure of realpolitik.
I can't understand why you have a problem with that.
>
> again i ask you, you would do nothing in this matter. allow the Serbs
> to do as they wish, because it's there problem, not ours? have i not
> explained to you why this is not a good idea? must i keep repeating
> the same arguement with you, over and over again?
No. You may stop anytime.
(...)
>
>>People will come with guns to arrest me unless I pay the taxes. That is
>>by force.
>>As far as the legality of it goes, well, the people with guns get to define
>>that, also.
>>So it goes.
>
> terms, taxes are what we pay for civilization, next time your house is
> on fire, feel free to be the rustic pioneer and fend for yourself. and
> please don't use our roads, bridges, schools and telecommunications
> systems if it offends you so much. the people with guns didn't make
> those decsions, the politicians did. if you want to discuss the
> morality of taxes, we can do that too.
I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying there is force involved. And it
seems as though taxes don't buy as much civilization as they used ...
>
>>>
>>>>to do this purportably in my name, is unfortunate, but I didn't
>>>>create that situation, either.
>>>
>>>>I'm responsible for what I do with the things under my power to change.
>>>
>>> my point, thank you.
>
>>And the same thing goes for our government - or would, if it was being
>>run by people who weren't trying to appear like the saviors of the world.
>
> (sigh, once again) we are the largest economic power in the world, in
> the history of the world, instability anywhere in the world is going
> to have an effect everywhere in the world. you keep thinking it's
> because we feel the need to be moral leaders of the world, i keep
> (painstakingly) trying to explain to you that that is not our motive
> in this crisis.
Except, of course, that our leaders then turn right around and proclaim
that it is. So either you're mistaken, or they're lying - and if they're
lying, why should I believe them?
>
>>>>> a moot point. what would you like to do, just let the thing boil over
>>>>> until it errupts into a full european land war.
>>>
>>>>It wouldn't. Europe's not as divided now as it was then.
>>>
>>> what makes you say that?
>
>>Are Germany and France going to war with each other over this?
>
> it's against their best interests to do so.
>
>>Is Austria and Hungary going to reunite and demand their interests be
>>taken care of? Is Russia actually going to do more than whine about it?
>
> how about if we don't wait around and see?
Gosh, you were telling skye that there wasn't anyway they could do anything
about it.
(...)
>
>>And funny, unless it involves us sending over troops to do things they don't
>>seem to want to do themselves, they don't want to hear the answers.
>
> no one in the US armed forces was drafted, so they don't have much of
> an arguement about where they're sent, they certainly know the score
> of what they're doing. are you suggesting that the soldiers have a
> right to say, vote on what they want to do, where they want to fight?
Actually they do. On Election Day. As do you and I.
>
>>> it's the money flow terms.
>
>>Then let the free market decide.
>
> heh. i give up.
Can't argue with your own dollar diplomacy?
(...)
>
>>> the world gave us, whether they want to admit it
>>> or not, the keys to the kingdom on Dec. 7th 1941, for better or worse,
>
>>And now they're changing the locks.
>
> no they're not. you may wish to believe this, but it's not happening.
We've already seen our influence decline since the Cold War ended.
(...)
>
>>Guess who the Romans are going to be. (Hint - they may speak Chinese.)
>
> nope, can't agree with that one. simple because they have a billion
> people doesn't mean they'll be able to do it. first of all their
> military is weak as hell. the Red Chinese have had two "military"
> victories in their 50 year history, killing a bunch of Tibetans
> carrying flintlocks and unarmed civillians in a Bejing square. such
> displays does not a Neo-Rome make. their social structure is one step
> away from chaos most of the time. all their leaders from the old
> shcool are dying off. there is no political will to rule the world.
> there navy doesn't exist, and you can't rule the world without a
> modern navy(they can even serious invade Taiwan without being
> massacred on the beachs). China may think they can rule the world. i
> don't think they can.
Give them 50 to 100 years. They're not ready now.
>
>>>
>>>>And who appointed us savior of the world?
>>>
>>> that process started in 1914, when a crazy Serb shot an third rate
>>> nobleman and caused the end of 1000 years of european madness and 500
>>> years of european domination of the world to come crashing down all at
>>> once. we passed on the first offer of the crown of Rome in 1919.
>
>>That's not accurate - Woodrow Wilson attempted to work out a just peace
>>and was rebuffed at home and abroad.
>
> that's what i meant when i said we passed on the first offer. Wilson
> knew that his plan of world peace meant US domination of that plan. he
> was a dreamer of sorts, but he wasn't stupid. the american people and
> the american congress nixed that plan. (strangely enough reading that
> debate in congress at the time was fascinating)
I'm sure it was - and yes, the American Congress did refuse him, but
when his peace proposal was presented to the Allies, they insisted on
Versailles, instead.
>
>>> a few
>>> pretenders to the thrown emerged, one in Russia, one in Germany. the
>>> party continued in the middle century Masque of the blood Red Death
>>> scenario until Dec. 7th, 1941. end of the British Empire, end of the
>>> ancient European domination, we got rid of the pretenders, and took
>>> the crown for ourselves. part of it was the flow of history, part of
>>> it was Roosevelt actually had some form of idealism he took from
>>> Woodrow Wilson(actually via neo-manifest destiny, and american
>>> capitalism, it's a long story, i assure you), and the keys of kingdom
>>> came to the victors of the last 30 years war. why do you keep longing
>>> for some answer to the morality to your question. it doesn't matter,
>>> we are Rome(oh yes, Rome fell, blah-blah-blah, after about 1500 years
>>> it fell)
>
>>The republic fell hundreds of years before the empire did. And times move
>>much faster now.
>>Our empire's on its way out - to be replaced by the Chinese, or better, some
>>kind of multinational intellectual/cultural/economic web ...
>
> i don't think so. how would this come about?
Look at this - the European, Asian, American science/industrial elite
have much more in common with each other than they have with say, factory
and service workers in their own countries. I do some work at a Fortune
500 company (nothing special, believe me!) and there's people all over the
world working with each other - I get the distinct impression they identify
more with their careers and their company than with where they're from.
Our conglomerates are becoming less tied to any one country or culture.
This is where the dollar/yen/eurobuck really starts to talk ...
>
>>>, the end game of 2000 years of western history. we are
>>> masters of the world, for good or ill, i have become tired of trying
>>> to answer that. once you completely realize that, the questions
>>> become irrelavant.
>
>>This too shall pass ... rather quickly, too.
>
> how?
No one stays on top forever.
>>>>>
>>>>> cold? yep. so.
>>>
>>> since we keep saying that human kind hasn't changed all that much in
>>> the last 5K years, is it all that much different?
>
>>Have you ever read Julian Jaymes' "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown
>>of the Bicameral Mind"? According to him, the human race wasn't even
>>self-conscious 5000 years ago.
>
> i disagree, but that is entirely another discussion. i have not this
> book you mention, but perhaps i will.
It's an interesting idea - I don't think I believe it either, but it does
do a good job of pointing out how alien Egypt and Sumer were.
>
>>I'm not sure I agree with that, but his book is an excellent overview of
>>how much different people could have been back then.
>>The fact is, we don't know that people were the same and cannot know.
>
> i see history as not changing all that much. economics still rules
> what we do.
It's never been 100%. Was the Black Plague an economic phenomenon?
>
>>> you should try
>>> projecting your idealism into the facts. it gets you in trouble.
>
>>Everyone who disagrees with you is an idealist - it's your favorite putdown.
>
> would you prefer naive and uninformed boneheads?
You may indulge yourself however you wish. Just don't delude yourself
that you're making a rational argument.
>
>>Actually, I'm questioning your assumptions. You assume we are the "Rome"
>>of the world. You assume that we have the power to do what we want in
>>Serbia. You assume that the rest of the world will be willing (or unwilling
>>subjects). You assume that the Serbs are identical in intention and capacity
>>to the Germans of 1939.
>
> i never said that the Serbian are exactly like the Germans of 1939 in
> capacity. read more clearly what i've written terms before you start
> putting words in my mouth. the principles are the same, but obviously
> the the numbers and size are a bit different. i believe that they are
> the same in intention, and how they would go about furthering their
> goals. i have stated that i do not wish the to find out if things are
> going to turn out the same way they did in 1939. if there was anything
> we learned from wwii it was that.
If the scale is different, as you say, then it is a logical conclusion
to say that the results could not be as disasterous as 1939.
>
>> You assume that Europe is as eager to fight one
>>another as they were in 1914.
>
> again, i did not say that.
They fell all over themselves to get at one another. To make the analogy
that Europe could go to war over Serbia again is to suggest that the
countries are as eager.
>
>>You assume that our monetary interests in the Balkans are
>>so compelling and important that we have no choice but to interfere.
>
> they are in europe(our interests), i'm saying, once again, i would not
> like to see how far the Serbs would go in this crisis.
About as far as the current borders with Macedonia, Turkey, Bulgaria and
Croatia.
By the way - you are aware that Kosovo is still a legal part of Serbia,
and in effect we are attempting to take sides in an internal affair?
>
>> And you
>>assume, although you have not said so, that the American people will go
>>along with a long war with many casualities to sort this out.
>
> would you care to tell me where i said that?
I said you hadn't said so - however, your statement about us being the
new Rome implies that we should be good Romans and support the Imperium,
does it not?
> i don't know how far the
> american people would go as far as US involvement in this crisis.
Not far at all.
>
>>These are all assumptions that can be contradicted with facts.
>
> then contradict them if you feel like it. i did not say what you have
> attributed to me above, you did.
I have contracted them. And you did say, or imply, a great deal of this.
>
>>I found out it's Kosovar. Shit, we don't even know enough about these
>>people to figure out what to call them and you want to involve us in
>>a war over them.
>
> feel like your losing the arguement terms?
No. I'm not backpedaling, am I? I'm certainly willing to admit when
I make a mistake ...
>
>>>>>
>>>>> nope, we're hoping for the best. maybe the people of Serbia won't
>>>>> stand for this and throw out Milosevic, probably not. Milosevic's a
>>>>> pyscho, but he's not an idiot. he won't play a hand he thinks will
>>>>> lose. but would you suggest that nobody does anything? your arguement
>>>>> that the europeans should be taking care of this rings a bit hollow,
>>>
>>>>Why? They'll be whining to us until kingdom come to take care of their
>>>>problems - they have more potential soldiers than we do, and their
>>>>military potential is perfectly capable of taking care of things.
>>>
>>> heh. so what. there are responsibilities to wearing the crown of Rome.
>
>>Well, that won't last.
>
> nothing does. even a fourth of Rome is 350 years. i'll take that. so
> would you.
You're counting the Byzantines. Is that fair? Oh, never mind ...
>
>>>>>
>>>>> you're missing the point terms. it ain't about proving a right or
>>>>> wrong. right or who's the murderer, is a pointless discussion. it's
>>>>> the money flow.
>>>
>>>>We don't have much money in Kosovo.
>>>
>>> we do in europe.
>
>>Europe's not at war.
>
> part of it is. you seem more than willing to see if it will go further
> than just the Balkans.
I'm sure it won't.
>
>>(...)
>
>>>
>>>>> it's zealotry, and when you're a zealot,
>>>>> you're through, there is no point to you, just push you in the proper
>>>>> direction of the jihad and have at it.
>>>
>>>>I'm not sending anyone to war, you are.
>>>
>>> no i'm not(youthful drama?). calm down.
>
>>There's nothing more youthful than someone who's trying to act more
>>streetwise than anyone else.
>
> this interests me. i would like to know what prompts you to say this,
> some supposed insight into my personality(which i doubt), or have you
> ran out of things to add to this discussion?
You've said it to me, you've said it to skye and I seem to recall others
you have said it to. Ad hominem tactics aren't going to add anything to
this discussion, jr.
>
>>(...)
>
>>Sorry, but I've got to move on for now ...
>
> i highly doubt it.
I meant that I had to snip as I'd run out of time this morning.
However, it's not like you won't find someone else to argue with
about something, is it?
westx...@my-dejanews.com
ground there, appreciate the reality alignment.
yeah, it was a reach. my main point was the similiarity of scenario, where
radical nationalism sets off strident and violent ethnic conflicts and
sympathetic alignments. Milosevic is a power broker that is using the
rhetoric of political realism to organize support; his posturing and
political/military ballet is gettin a lot of the folks in the region takin
sides. my concern is that Milsevic has the potential to expand his base, push
this "us vs. them" thing beyond the region. most commentators seem to
emphasize the ethnic angle of serbian nationalism, but doesn't it have a
basic christian vs. muslim logic?
>
> >approach to consolidation of power and support.
> >also, then and now, other concerned players are being dragged into the
> >conflict which could blow into a major issue with an expanded field of
> >motivated and dedicated participants.
>
> exactly, so shouldn't someone do something about this before the conflict
grows
> larger and more dangerous?
tough damn call, there. i guess the problem i have with the way the "war" is
being prosecuted is that there's this fake sorta idealism about air-attack
mostly doin the job, changin hearts and minds, chase the boogeman away and
peace and prosperity's gonna happen. seems a much more realistic program has
got to be a dedicated well-strategized campaign to manage displaced
refugeees, minimize collateral damage, prevent collapse of public-service
infrastructure, take the high ground and sweep through with elite shock
troops to clean house, and remove the bad guys/neutralize the ground forces,
imprison/debrief/reeducate 'em, and turn the whole damn country into a well-
managed and committed reconstruction project, er else its an end-run play ya
can't control and can keep gettin sucked into deeper and deeper. this kinda
committment to win and level the playing field to redress crimes and
solve/prevent military aggression will take a huge committment. i thought it
might be done with, say, 10,000 shock troopers with close air support and
50,000 to 70,000 rear echelon support, engineer, security, supply, etc.
troops. but i have heard some military analysts saying it could take 200,000
troops. the region has a 70 percent unemployment rate, so some viable
economic plan to increase living standards, modernize appropriate technology,
and redistribute land will be necessary for any kind of long-term fix, won't
it? also, the complication of moderating recently-inflamed animosities will
be a challenge.
>
> >> Actually, that's part of the problem. A common scenario in situations
> >> like these, the dictators will park their tanks and troops in harmless
> >> little villages. So if we want to bomb them, we have to chance hitting
> >> the civilians who are huddled in their houses scared of tanks. It'd be
> >> smarter for them to run out into the woods and let their village get
> >> blown to smithareens.
> >
> >course, then they gotta try to live offa nothin and lose everything they
> >managed to scratch/build together,and contribute to the refuge dilemna. it
> >makes my point; air strikes cannot be conclusive. the former soviet union
> >found that even with air superiority and hardened ground troops, it was
> >impossible to to prevail against a popular and disciplined hit-and-run
> >troops,
>
> but hit and run troops still need to be fed and need the support of the people
> in general. perhaps if one can make the people realize that the problem here
is
> Milosevic, and his happy band of nationalistic romantics, thay support can
fade.
> i'm not saying this is going to happen, but what else can be done?
personally, i think i prefer a commando-style "take-out the muckety-mucks one
asshole atta time" approach; at least until it fails because they're too dug
in or react with reprisals. the key is flexibility, smart use of well-
trained/developed military resources, and a resolute will/committement to
succeed.
> /
yeah, but its an extreme variant with little/no give-and-take to it, a
politics without the mediating influence of diplomacy, a tendency to take the
"last- stand but you'll bleed too my friend" approach to solving
problems/disagreements.
>
> >and also, since you acknowledge the
> >difficulty/impossibility of "solving" something with air strikes, what are we
> >doing, setting the stage fer our (sic) eventual "well shucks, everybody knows
> >we gotta occupy 'em to really change their hearts and minds", sounds a little
> >too much like southeast asia to me; and beyond even THAT, i suspect there are
> >policies and hidden agendas which this recent NATO exercise is just a
> >convenient front for; theres always whole tiers of reasons behind those
> >publicly acknowledged.
>
> like what? would you care to elaborate as what this is a front for? i would be
> interested in knowing.
seems to me the natural consequence of the US taking a proactive frontline
military stance vis-a-vis NATO and foreign policy is an expanded role as
"king- of-the-hill"; the New World Order/one guv kinda thing; that's all i
care to comment about it.
>
> >> America has failed to do the right thing in the past. We should be
> >> careful not to let that be an excuse to do the wrong thing now.
> >
> >OOPS: SECOND LOGIC ERROR: seems some folks can find their reasoning justified
> >in any kind of lesson; a good damn case can be made that we (sic) contributed
> >significantly to the conditions which forced/encouraged/inspired POL POT's
> >extreme solution of a grass-roots agrarian-based model fer world socialism,
>
> "a grass-roots agrarian-based model fer world socialism" ski is a lovely
> euphenism for pathological terror. this sorts of paints a wonderful light on
the
> evils of Pol Pot. i would agree that the US had a lot to do with bringing this
> pyschopath to power, but there is a wistful sound to the murders of Pol Pot in
> that statement.
well, i sorta like the straight-to-the-point term "pathological terror" as
tellin-it-like-it-is-plainspeak, but i suppose any phrase of less than full-
novel-length describing the broad-range of terrors and suffering in
excrutiating detail would necessarily be a "eupheminism", eh?; my quote above
is slightly-taken-out-of-context w/o the modifier "extreme solution of"; one
can only have the greatest abhorance for the brutalities and horror of the
whole Pol Pot regime; i do not in any way wish to sanitize or romanticize
this debacle/insult to human sensibilites; but how else to refer to this
madness w/o stumbling over the "flavor" of the reference? BTW, POL POT lived
to a relatively ripe ol' age didn't he? never brought to justice, go figger.
. . . .
>
> >> NATO is always lead by an American general. That "American Soldiers
> >> never serving under foreign leaders" thing. Stupid, if you ask me.
> >
> >'course, more direct and to the point, clinton forced NATO's hand, tried to
> >act as if there was strong, dedicated and unilateral NATO support fer the
> >action. some member signatories are now having second thoughts, they could
> >splinter off and align themselves with russia, ie. turkey, macedonia.
>
> who, that massive powerful military nation italy? nope, the germans wanted it,
> and the british wanted it, and that's who counts in europe. others may snipe a
> bit, but the nations who economicly count in europe are the ones who want to
> make sure that the Serbs don't start thinking that they can take other parts
of
> their ancient "Serbian Empire". and no one in western is gonna align
themselves
> with Russia over Serbia. that's like saying you want to play baseball for the
> Brooklyn Dodgers.
yeah, don't discount the potential there fer broadscale rabble-rousing "rich
west vs. poor downtrodden" comparisons, potential fer east to affirm common
enemy friendships/alliances. BTW, the percieved danger of serbian empire
expansionism sorta proves my earlier point about wwII similiarities, don't it?
>
> Macedonia hates the Serbs, and have allowed US troops there for the last 6
> years(a little known fact by the way, there are about 1000 american troops in
> that country), and Turkey hates the Serbs more than the Albanians do. what
makes
> you think that Turkey isn't enjoying themselves to no end seeing Serbia
bombed?
no, i agree there; my earlier reference was plain inappropriate.
>
> >> You ever hear of the Geneva convention? Assassination is a bad game to
> >> play, even with scum like Milosovich.
> >
> >but moral sanctification as per yer previous comment about duty to act, no?
> >end justifies needs? i dunno the final best answer, but i'd say some
> >selective personnel removal would damn better be preferred, take out the
> >muckety-mucks one atta time until there is general agreement its better to be
> >a moderate leader than a dead one, could save tens of thousands of lives,
> >probably shoulda been done some 5 to 10 years ago. course, russia mighta took
> >objection to losing its political allies thataway.
>
> true. europe should have done something about this 8 years ago. france and
> britain should have invaded the germany in 1936. hindsight is a wonderful
thing.
ain't it he goddamn truth.
>
> >> >And while I'm onna subject I gotta confess I'm more than a little
concerned
> >> >'bout the Russkies gettin' uptight and droppin outta their NATO
committment;
> >>
> >> NATO was formed to intimidate the Russians. What commitment do you
> >> think they had to it?
> >
> >well, it sure helped provide some stability to an otherwise potentially
> >dangerous damn end game. i'm a little concerned about russia comin on in
> >strong support fer the serbs,
>
> with what? their tanks are rusting in the Ukraine, their navy is rusting in
> Vladivostok and the Black Sea. they don't have enough gasoline to keep their
> grain trucks moving, let alone any military transport. they can barely feed
> their own people, and they're going to come to the aid of the Serbs? no way.
>
> >and providing logistics, political and
> >military-aid support,
>
> which they do not have the resources or the will to support.
>
> >opportunity to consolidate popular support as a device
> >to refocus attention, divert dissent, consolidate new alignments, etc.
>
> a few people protesting in front of the Kremlin for the CNN cameras does not a
> world power make. Russia can cry big ol' weepy tears for the Serbs to their
> hearts content, they are a player in this. the american media has made the
> Russians a player in this. they are not a concern in Washington.
yeah, well i still think the pro-serbia russian stance is an opprotunity fer
their own domestic consolidation of power, resources, national will; not
necessarily a bad thing in itself, they sure need some'pin, but where will it
end?
>
> >also,
> >those portable TAC NUKES bein moved around with a shaky economic/military
> >structure don't seem too smart to discount. lotta potential there fer an
> >accident or "oops, musta lost 'em!" mistakes.
>
> not likely. i think they sold those trucks to Roger Corman's film company for
a
> shipload of 501's and Sony CD players.
sorta funny; dunno if its true.
>
> >> Sure. The Russians are nervous, and blustering. When aren't they?
> >
> >well, the "russians" are not a singular voice of reason and moderation;
> >there's a lotta hot heads would like the opportunity to prove their ruthless
> >savvy, teach somebody some lessons, etc. dontcha think other folks think the
> >US do a lot of "blustering" too? what makes you think "we" are automatically
> >right and everybody that disagrees with us is wrong? seems, thats the kinda
> >thinkin that led to the damn problem inna first place, ie "i was here first!"
> >"No, I was!" "yer wrong ya SOB!""no, I'm right and yer wrong, why my
> >great-great- grandaddy..." etc., "yeah, well choke on this 15 mgton olive ya
> >(insert expletive here)!.
>
> what a trivial response. as i told termite, there is no right or wrong in
this,
> it simply is. a destabilized europe is bad for the world economy. that's the
> only thing that matters. today it's Kosovo, tomorrow it's Macedonia. something
> had to be done.
sorry, i missed the no right-no wrong comment; astute in my book;
>
> >> Pissing them off is a risk we have to take, if we want to do the right
> >> thing.
> >
> >again, this assumes A LOT. dontcha think everybody wants ta do the RIGHT
> >THING? 'cept, a lotta peop[le got different ideas about what that is.
>
> indeed, then what, in your opinion would be the "right thing" to do?
damn hard call, hard question. first, i think i gotta keep askin hard
questions/learn more appropriate questions to ask; i recognize i'm not "inna
loop" or a military strategist or politically savvy; the right thing?
damn. but i suppose i agree with antiloude (sp?) on this. to do this right, if
its gonna be done, ya gotta recognize the true cost and committment its gonna
take. i suppose there's gotta be a clear upfront declaration to stay committed
and on-track to the end; as per previous statement, shock troops in concerted
coordinated strike actions to clean/clear sweep every square acre, defend and
hold territory cleared, streamlined refugee services and security, and an
eficient speedy war-crimes tribunal; then a massive reconstruction, five to
ten years of rebuilding social services, investment credits, schools,
hospital/clinics, telecommunications, professional training, stimulating
economy; ie., drag the region into the 21 st century, kicking and screaming if
necessary, serve as model for adjoining territory; but then how to prevent
hostility/resentments of other regional peoples? OR, as an extreme solution,
how about the "adopt a serbian family" strategy, resettle the land with people
who can get along?
>
> >>
> >> 200, 000 a year ain't much for that kind of pressure.
> >
> >well, at 35 to 40 million bucks spent on behalf of a modern US president to
> >get elected, i'd say that's a poorly paid gig, wouldn't cha? c'mon, the
> >pay-back is paid-in-kind influence, power, status, behind-the-scenes
> >influence peddling, political swap-meet trading, wheelin-dealin in high
> >places, settin policy agendas that serve some cause or bottom-line
> >return-on-investment, etc. didn't know that?
>
> hasn't that been the history of politics since we first started building
cities?
> you act as if your imparting upon the world this knowledge for the very first
> time.
it seems some people don't/haven't thought about it much; the comment i
replied to suggested jody thought differently; flip answer and all that; i
replied in kind. where do you get the idea i think i am imparting new data??
Query.
>
> >> I recognize the sarcasm in here, so if I contradicted in the wrong
> >> places don't be offended.
> >>
> >> - Jody
> >
> >hey, not at all; like i sed, i appreciate yer honesty and sincerity; there's
> >no "wrong" place to contradict, i'm not lookin to convert ennybody to my
> >point of view; hell, i dunno the damn answers, but i sure gotta lotta
> >questions; i'm very critical about the whole damn "us vs. them" debate on
> >zero-sum-game terms, it has arguably destabilized much of the world's
> >regional socioeconomic and political institutions and created a massive
> >north-south axis orientation that has subverted the grass-roots local
> >real-world reality of many of the world's peoples, the arrogance of the
> >world's heavy hitters (US, foremer soviet union, china, europe) to assert
> >their political agenda over that of the rest of the world; allocation of a
> >tremendous amount of resources to serve some limited means and ends not
> >necessarily in the common interest. nuff sed fer now, thanks fer tunin in.
>
> get used to it. it's the 21st century....
>
> just like it's always been. i would love to here some of your solutions to the
> problems you point out.
yeah, well, see above et al. i'm outta here. regards etc. skye
>
> love and kisses,
>
> j r sherman
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
wxnw...@cpros.com
damn; i just spent a good damn 2 hours thinkin and writin' some refective
consideration, and almost done, ready to send this reply, hit some damn key
onna right side a' my keyboard and ther's this awkward clunk/clik of the
harddrive processing and POOF! the damn reply is like gone; 's happened to me
saturday er so with a reply to jrs, hadda reconstruct the damn thing; the
result is this is gonna be (mercifuly perhaps) briefer than i'd a' liked. but
here goes (man, my typing is so sloppy, one a' these days i'm gonna learn to
keyboard--again);
In article <7dk6h5$e...@news.net-link.net>,
ter...@net-link.net wrote:
> Sending what seemed to be a string of data,
<36fd30de....@news.supernews.com>,
> jo...@poetaster.com (Jody McGinness) wrote:
> > On 26 Mar 1999 23:29:44 GMT, ter...@net-link.net (termite) wrote:
> >>
> >>Wrong, Jody. It's because some things can't be stopped without taking the
> >>risk of creating greater evils.
yeah, there's an awful lot of best-case-scenario thinkin goin' on; a dearth
of real objective reporting from alternative viewpoints; some very deliberate
and one-sided this-is-the-way-it-is reportage about biased
attitudes/perspectives, folks don't seem to object too much they may think
it's kinda queer but the "oh well, whatta ya gonna do?" response. sorta
reinforces sloppy thinking.
> >
> > You're giving congress and the american populace too much credit here.
> > They haven't chosen not to act again and again because of a
> > philosophical fear of setting a precedent, they're lazy.
that and they recognize some inherant limitations about will-to-act and a
reluctance to make the kinda long-term committment to do this "object lesson"
right; do we (sic) really wann a make the long-term sacrifices in luxury
consumer durables and high-standard of life? also, i would guess there's some
pretty serious thinking about world opinion, the relative "tolerance" or
disagreement our actions might provoke from our (sic) trading partners; as
well as hey, get this, the "will of the people" ok? after all, the
polito-cats werk fer us, right (well, that's what i lerned in school,
ennyway).
>
> Maybe they don't know the answers. Which, in my view, puts them ahead of
> those that do.
damn straight and right spot on, good point.
>
> > If it's not
> > american blood, it's worth about half as much in their eyes.
this is kinda insulting to suggest, isn't it? the point is situational
ethics; most folks are pretty decent, they just have priorities about what is
relevant/necessary and desireable; what is real and personal, necessary to
their lives, and what is abstract, ideal and/or etc. folks are gonna have a
different set of priorities fer handling a situation involving their good
friends, family, business partners and friendly neighbor, and yes, even the
damn good damn dog, than if it was somebody onna street they don't know, esp.
if they're kinda creepy, different, or like that. you may or not put yer life
on the line fer somebody gettin stomped on or threatened; i only seen it once
myself and until it happens to you and you have an opportunity to put yer
money where yer mouth is, all the moralizin' inna world about what should be
done in a given situation is academic; its what ya do that counts. from the
distance of 8ooo miles, we (sic) may have an idea about what's expedient to
do, but that same distance also makes it hard to know the full score
nitty-gritty and just whatta chunk we're (sic) bitin' off. when ya got an
arm/face full of wildcat is NOT the time to decide ya should let sleeping
cats lie (oh well, lame analogy, sorry).
>
> And if it's Rwandan blood how much is it worth in comparison to Serbian
> blood? Must not be as much because many more people have been killed
> over there and our country hasn't tried to stop it.
lack of consistency in picking battles ain't a reason to stop fighting, is it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Then why aren't we doing anything about it in Rwanda, Somalia,
Afghanistan
> >>>>>>etc.?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We should be.
> >>>>
> >>>>Really? We should police the whole world then, at least the portions that
> >>>>are fighting?
> >>>
> >>> No. But if it's a matter of gross injustice we should.
> >>
> >>There's a godawful lot of that, isn't there? Oh, and what happens if
another
> >>country defines gross injustice as something we're doing to correct what
> >>we see as gross injustice?
right, ie. moral sanctions for military action to redress our own domestic
problems.
> >
> > There are standards for such things.
>
> Who establishes them? The people who have the power - at least that's
> what history seems to say.
>
> > Chemical and biological warfare,
> > the mass executions of civilians. Speaking of which, there were
> > reports that about a thousand Albanian women and children were rounded
> > up (after their homes were burned to the ground) yesterday. They're
> > marching them back into serbian territory. I'm sure their intentions
> > are good, don't you think?
to the point: if we (sic) as the "good guys" have some major weapons and
weapons manufacturing by-product storage problems, and have waged our own
genocidal campaigns vis-a-vis southwest indians, mexican laborers, urban
poor, indigenous guatamalans, and iranians, what gives us the moral high
ground to write the book on "high ground moral behavior"? but well, ok;
genocide is genocide is genocide; what's goin on over there is a real-bad
deal all around and i can accept that we gotta doin somethin; like
antiloude,i think if we (sic) decide we're goin' in to redress attrocities
and some major social injustice, we gotta have a damn good complete plan and
be ruthless about what we're gonna do; take names and kick butt; BUT we also
gotta be prepared fer all it takes fer five-ten years whatever, to help
rebuild the infrastructure and make sure the playin field is level, sorta
like post-war german reconstruction. we also should have a high priority on
saving lives, which means minimizing collateral damage, not destroying useful
production and public social-services resources; we should provide and
enforce fire-free refugee retreat zones and provide full temp. resettlement
camps, we should provide opportunity for and honour strategic surrender (not
like the turkey-shoot-em-all high-altitude highway-from-kuwait massacre of
plunder-laden iranian muckety-mucks and soldiers).
and also, the opportunity to consolidate support, align the citizen to
sacrifice in support of a common (perceived) threat; damn if they don't need
something to reorganize and boot-strap their economy and public institutions;
>
> >
> >>
> >>And this is a short list - let's not forget the CIA's complicity in the
> >>crack business in our country.
> >
> > The government's corrupt. That's not news.
>
> True. So why should I trust them to do the right thing overseas when
> they can't do it here?
>
> >
> >>
> >>If we're the world's policemen, who, pray tell, is policing the policemen?
> >
> > Preferably the voters, but they only care about their next tax break.
>
> How true.
well, i don't agree. people are mostly good folk tryin to get by without too
much hassle; they're somewhat easily distracted, sure, by the babble of pop-
media consumer subtle/hard sell psyops/spin-twist and infotainment pap that
saturates the channels, but they got some savvy street-smarts too; a lotta
folk the whole washington dc crowd has got their hands inna money jar and
their heads inna fortune 500 clouds or in their own private world of zealot
issues, somethin' about the system corrupts all but the best and most noble,
but even they get watered down in the care and feeding of the political
realism machine. jus about when i think people are pretty stoopid, i find out
they ain't dumb, jus uninformed and outside of the system.
> >>>
> >>> What's your point? So they're not going to invade? Of course not. Or
> >>> do you mean that we shouldn't get involved in conflicts on our own
> >>> borders? Good think the french didn't think so during colonial times,
> >>> or you'd have a cockney accent.
> >>
> >>You are aware, of course, that only a minority of Americans at the time
> >>supported the Revolutionary War - most were, as always, fairly apathetic
> >>about the whole matter.
> >
> > As is the case with this matter. What's your point?
>
> The majority of us could give a shit less what a bunch of power tripping
> asswipes with swords guns or nukes want from each other.
>
> We want to live. Without war. If we have a choice.
>
> And in this case, we do. It's a pity that many Yugoslavians have chosen
> for war, (including the Albanians). When they realize that the rest of
> the world is thriving while they are mired in misery, perhaps they'll
> see the error of their ways.
fat chance; they either can't see it, or think its not a viable option;
remember, they gotta seventy percent unemployment rate; things are been/have
been bad fer quite some time, and killin off yer "weird neighbors" and takin
his stuff is a temporary but right now cure fer the down-an-out-blues, mighty
appealing fer some; the germans felt much the same way about the jews in pre-
war europe didn't they, give 'em 5 cents onna dollar, better take it bud,
tomorrow the state won't give ya nothin.
>
> Hitler and Stalin sincerely believed they were saving the world for what
> was right.
>
> People who want to save the world concern me.
me too.
> >>
> >>> Their lives are as valuable as anyone from anywhere, Termite.
> >>
> >>That's not the point.
> >
> > It is the point.
>
> Then the planes would be better used to drop off food supplies in the
> areas of Africa that need them.
> After all, their lives are as valuable as anyone from anywhere and they're
> not running around with guns trying to shoot each other.
> Well, some of them, anyway.
yes, and allocation of resources to solve the more severe problems of lack of
development, lack of food and shelter and productive social projects; lack of
hope if ya will. all the time/energy/resources/wealth that goes into one-
upmanship doesn't MAKE food, shelter, clothing, or improve lives; the end
product is sitting in armored shelters, in sophisticated weapons systems, worn
as uniforms, in armories, underground bunkers, etc. ya can't plow/sow/harvest
wheat with a portable nuke carrier.
>
> >
> >>
> >>> And somebody who's strong enough is trying to stop senseless atrocity
> >>> from happening. Why is that so bad?
> >>
> >>Because you're assuming that we are strong enough to stop it from happening.
yes; this is the point; what, five years from now (or ten) will have been our
result.
i think its the open door rationale, the "well, we did all we could do with
airstrikes, now we need to exploit our advantage on the ground, should only
take a coupla weeks (or whatever)" argument; after all, in fer a penny, eh?
GOOD DAMN POINT! thanx fer the discussion. skye
>
> --
> "No matter how much I went rooting around for news, I wouldn't
> necessarily come closer to the truth."
> -- Kobo Abe'
> http://www.net-link.net/~termite
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
j r sherman
>> being aware of the machiavellian political realties that are open to
>> any leader in history is not a claim to any more street wisdom than
>> anyone else. but i can't control how your going to twist my words into
>> what you wish to believe in.
>>
>Well, you continually insist that others are naive and "idealist".
so far i am insisting that you are naive and idealistic.
>> as you enjoy playing the adversary in this discussion, not matter what
>> it is we're discussing, feel free.
>Actually, I think I've made my points,
no you haven't, but why argue...(heh)
>but I'll look over all this and
>see if I have something more to add.
i thought you said you were through?
>>>How can the government tell us we can't protect ourselves when they not only
>>>have failed to protect us, but have ruled in the Supreme Court that they
>>>have no obligation to protect us?
>>
>> how has the supreme court determined that they are under no obligation
>> to protect us?
>I can't cite the case, but if you look, you'll find one ...
well i looked, and asked around, and i couldn't find one, now would be
so kind as to cite your case of this?
>> we are talking about a nation armed with military hardware to protect
>> themselves against a foreign aggressor and the assumed right of
>> citizens of the united states to own fire arms. we can discuss one of
>> these issues, or the other(i was under the impression we were
>> discussing the war in Yugoslavia), but both are not interchangable
>> simply because it involves guns.
>>
>They are related.
fine, how?
>> this goes back to assuming that the issue of americans owning firearms
>> and the Kosovo being armed with military hardware is one and the same.
>> if you would like, we can discuss american ownership of guns, or the
>> war in Yugoslavia, but they are not the exact same thing, simply
>> because they involve guns. you can't make this arguement and
>> discussion that simple.
>The point remains that a minority in the U.S. is less likely to be pushed
>around like the Kosovars are, because they have the right to have arms.
heh... right. let us say that the state of Idaho secedes from the
Union(and there's a cause i would sign up and fight for, no state gets
to leave the party once ya except the invitation, Lincoln, god rest
his soul, made that one pretty clear), anyway, Idaho leaves the Union
because they think it's their god given right to own an assault
weapons. so there they are, armed with their assault weapons, in the
streets of Boise no less, and then, why look? there comes the 101st
Airborne, and the 82nd too. lets include a couple of Marine divisions,
and air cover, armoured divisions to boot... ahhh, so ends the Great
Assault Rifle Rebellion. all the assault rifles in the hands of
rednecks in the country wouldn't stop a well organized army attack.
you've been watching the movie Red Dawn one too many times.
>>>For one thing, money isn't everything -
>>
>> in world politics and economics it is.
>There are many who would like to think so, but they are mistaken.
then what does make the world go 'round terms?
>> i've told you this about 4 times terms, it's not serbia directly, but
>> many countries around this region where american investments are
>> concerned. Croatia, Slovenia, Greece, Hungary, and if it spreads from
>> there, it does involve many billions.
>When Croatia and Serbia were warring it didn't hurt our economy.
this hasn't either, at least not so far. let me (endlessly) repeat
myself, i don't want to wait around and find out.
>>>But why not let those corporate interests that are threatened by this behavior
>>>hire the necessary forces to correct it,
>>
>> they have, it's called the US Armed Forces. forgive me if i sound
>> "street wise" in pointing this out to you.
>That's government interference in the marketplace. Can't have that now,
>can we?
well, if the Serbs want to build a better mouse trap to disrupt the
world economy, fine, bit if you've read adam smith, you'll note that
he did not consider war as a positive economic turn. war didn't enter
into his thinking, as far as a free market economy went. adam said
sell better apples, don't tip over the other guys apple cart and kill
his wife and children.
>>
>>>if they feel their monetary interests
>>>are threatened? If it's a matter of money, why not let the market decide?
>>
>> because thinking about this issue in the terms of the ancient
>> principles of adam smith is ridiculous.
>Why not? If it's an economic issue, then shouldn't the current economic
>wisdom hold? After all, the market holds that money is the measure of
>things, and you hold that money is the measure of realpolitik.
very true. but see above on my opinions as far as the Serbs following
a free market way of doing things.
>I can't understand why you have a problem with that.
heh, you still think we can be isolationists, don't you? heh.
>> again i ask you, you would do nothing in this matter. allow the Serbs
>> to do as they wish, because it's there problem, not ours? have i not
>> explained to you why this is not a good idea? must i keep repeating
>> the same arguement with you, over and over again?
>No. You may stop anytime.
why, it amuses me to keep telling you the obvious. but i will keep
pointing out the many times i have to.
>> terms, taxes are what we pay for civilization, next time your house is
>> on fire, feel free to be the rustic pioneer and fend for yourself. and
>> please don't use our roads, bridges, schools and telecommunications
>> systems if it offends you so much. the people with guns didn't make
>> those decsions, the politicians did. if you want to discuss the
>> morality of taxes, we can do that too.
>I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying there is force involved. And it
>seems as though taxes don't buy as much civilization as they used ...
neither does the price of cigarettes. do you have a point to expand on
here?
>>
>> (sigh, once again) we are the largest economic power in the world, in
>> the history of the world, instability anywhere in the world is going
>> to have an effect everywhere in the world. you keep thinking it's
>> because we feel the need to be moral leaders of the world, i keep
>> (painstakingly) trying to explain to you that that is not our motive
>> in this crisis.
>Except, of course, that our leaders then turn right around and proclaim
>that it is. So either you're mistaken, or they're lying - and if they're
>lying, why should I believe them?
heh. that's naive.
>>>Are Germany and France going to war with each other over this?
>>
>> it's against their best interests to do so.
>>
>>>Is Austria and Hungary going to reunite and demand their interests be
>>>taken care of? Is Russia actually going to do more than whine about it?
>>
>> how about if we don't wait around and see?
>Gosh, you were telling skye that there wasn't anyway they could do anything
>about it.
um...what?
>> no one in the US armed forces was drafted, so they don't have much of
>> an arguement about where they're sent, they certainly know the score
>> of what they're doing. are you suggesting that the soldiers have a
>> right to say, vote on what they want to do, where they want to fight?
>Actually they do. On Election Day. As do you and I.
very true. on election day the soldier of the us armed forces can
decide these things as best they can, until then, they'll go where
they're told.
>>>> it's the money flow terms.
>>
>>>Then let the free market decide.
>>
>> heh. i give up.
>Can't argue with your own dollar diplomacy?
i have proven my point. you're worse than a teenager, unless that's
what you are, then you are a teenager. you spout "free market" arming
yourself and killing your neighbors isn't adam smith free market
terms. you want to argue that it is, feel free, i'll love knocking
that argument down too.
>>>And now they're changing the locks.
>>
>> no they're not. you may wish to believe this, but it's not happening.
>We've already seen our influence decline since the Cold War ended.
where? please feel free to elaborate.
>> nope, can't agree with that one. simple because they have a billion
>> people doesn't mean they'll be able to do it. first of all their
>> military is weak as hell. the Red Chinese have had two "military"
>> victories in their 50 year history, killing a bunch of Tibetans
>> carrying flintlocks and unarmed civillians in a Bejing square. such
>> displays does not a Neo-Rome make. their social structure is one step
>> away from chaos most of the time. all their leaders from the old
>> shcool are dying off. there is no political will to rule the world.
>> there navy doesn't exist, and you can't rule the world without a
>> modern navy(they can even serious invade Taiwan without being
>> massacred on the beachs). China may think they can rule the world. i
>> don't think they can.
>Give them 50 to 100 years. They're not ready now.
100 years? who cares, you will be dead, and so will i.
>> that's what i meant when i said we passed on the first offer. Wilson
>> knew that his plan of world peace meant US domination of that plan. he
>> was a dreamer of sorts, but he wasn't stupid. the american people and
>> the american congress nixed that plan. (strangely enough reading that
>> debate in congress at the time was fascinating)
>I'm sure it was - and yes, the American Congress did refuse him, but
>when his peace proposal was presented to the Allies, they insisted on
>Versailles, instead.
yes, but if the US had joined the League of Nations, to help inforce
their edicts, the world could very well have been a much more
different place.
>>>The republic fell hundreds of years before the empire did. And times move
>>>much faster now.
>>>Our empire's on its way out - to be replaced by the Chinese, or better, some
>>>kind of multinational intellectual/cultural/economic web ...
>>
>> i don't think so. how would this come about?
>Look at this - the European, Asian, American science/industrial elite
>have much more in common with each other than they have with say, factory
>and service workers in their own countries. I do some work at a Fortune
>500 company (nothing special, believe me!) and there's people all over the
>world working with each other - I get the distinct impression they identify
>more with their careers and their company than with where they're from.
>Our conglomerates are becoming less tied to any one country or culture.
>This is where the dollar/yen/eurobuck really starts to talk ...
exactly, but who controls the flow of the money? who polices the the
market place if someone want to push over his neighbor's apple cart?
>>>>, the end game of 2000 years of western history. we are
>>>> masters of the world, for good or ill, i have become tired of trying
>>>> to answer that. once you completely realize that, the questions
>>>> become irrelavant.
>>
>>>This too shall pass ... rather quickly, too.
>>
>> how?
>No one stays on top forever.
i never said that they did.
>>>Have you ever read Julian Jaymes' "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown
>>>of the Bicameral Mind"? According to him, the human race wasn't even
>>>self-conscious 5000 years ago.
>>
>> i disagree, but that is entirely another discussion. i have not this
>> book you mention, but perhaps i will.
>It's an interesting idea - I don't think I believe it either, but it does
>do a good job of pointing out how alien Egypt and Sumer were.
thanks for the suggestion.
>> i see history as not changing all that much. economics still rules
>> what we do.
>It's never been 100%. Was the Black Plague an economic phenomenon?
nope. it effected the economics of the times though.
>>>Everyone who disagrees with you is an idealist - it's your favorite putdown.
>>
>> would you prefer naive and uninformed boneheads?
>You may indulge yourself however you wish. Just don't delude yourself
>that you're making a rational argument.
i hope you're not either.
>>>Actually, I'm questioning your assumptions. You assume we are the "Rome"
>>>of the world. You assume that we have the power to do what we want in
>>>Serbia. You assume that the rest of the world will be willing (or unwilling
>>>subjects). You assume that the Serbs are identical in intention and capacity
>>>to the Germans of 1939.
>>
>> i never said that the Serbian are exactly like the Germans of 1939 in
>> capacity. read more clearly what i've written terms before you start
>> putting words in my mouth. the principles are the same, but obviously
>> the the numbers and size are a bit different. i believe that they are
>> the same in intention, and how they would go about furthering their
>> goals. i have stated that i do not wish the to find out if things are
>> going to turn out the same way they did in 1939. if there was anything
>> we learned from wwii it was that.
>If the scale is different, as you say, then it is a logical conclusion
>to say that the results could not be as disasterous as 1939.
why wait around and find out?
>>> You assume that Europe is as eager to fight one
>>>another as they were in 1914.
>>
>> again, i did not say that.
>They fell all over themselves to get at one another. To make the analogy
>that Europe could go to war over Serbia again is to suggest that the
>countries are as eager.
why wait around and find out?
>>>You assume that our monetary interests in the Balkans are
>>>so compelling and important that we have no choice but to interfere.
>>
>> they are in europe(our interests), i'm saying, once again, i would not
>> like to see how far the Serbs would go in this crisis.
>About as far as the current borders with Macedonia, Turkey, Bulgaria and
>Croatia.
>By the way - you are aware that Kosovo is still a legal part of Serbia,
>and in effect we are attempting to take sides in an internal affair?
well technically so is bosnia, croatia, slovenia, and macedonia. we
already have taken sides in and internal affair.
>>> And you
>>>assume, although you have not said so, that the American people will go
>>>along with a long war with many casualities to sort this out.
>>
>> would you care to tell me where i said that?
>I said you hadn't said so - however, your statement about us being the
>new Rome implies that we should be good Romans and support the Imperium,
>does it not?
i said we are the new Rome, if you project that i was saying we should
support the Imperium, feel free. i can't stop you from misreading what
i write. i don't think we can do much about how the imperium is going
to act.
>> i don't know how far the
>> american people would go as far as US involvement in this crisis.
>Not far at all.
we'll see, won't we?
>>>These are all assumptions that can be contradicted with facts.
>>
>> then contradict them if you feel like it. i did not say what you have
>> attributed to me above, you did.
>I have contracted them.
of course. (sigh)
>>
>>>I found out it's Kosovar. Shit, we don't even know enough about these
>>>people to figure out what to call them and you want to involve us in
>>>a war over them.
>>
>> feel like your losing the arguement terms?
>No. I'm not backpedaling, am I? I'm certainly willing to admit when
>I make a mistake ...
heh. of course.
>>>Well, that won't last.
>>
>> nothing does. even a fourth of Rome is 350 years. i'll take that. so
>> would you.
>You're counting the Byzantines. Is that fair? Oh, never mind ...
it was Rome, wasn't it? all historians count the Byzantines.
>> part of it is. you seem more than willing to see if it will go further
>> than just the Balkans.
>I'm sure it won't.
of course it won't if we blast the Serbs into the stone age... heh.
>>>There's nothing more youthful than someone who's trying to act more
>>>streetwise than anyone else.
>>
>> this interests me. i would like to know what prompts you to say this,
>> some supposed insight into my personality(which i doubt), or have you
>> ran out of things to add to this discussion?
>You've said it to me, you've said it to skye and I seem to recall others
>you have said it to. Ad hominem tactics aren't going to add anything to
>this discussion, jr.
heh, of course.
>>>Sorry, but I've got to move on for now ...
>>
>> i highly doubt it.
>I meant that I had to snip as I'd run out of time this morning.
>However, it's not like you won't find someone else to argue with
>about something, is it?
might i quote you?
"Ad hominem tactics aren't going to add anything to
this discussion, jr."
seeya.
termite
>
>
>>> being aware of the machiavellian political realties that are open to
>>> any leader in history is not a claim to any more street wisdom than
>>> anyone else. but i can't control how your going to twist my words into
>>> what you wish to believe in.
>>>
>>Well, you continually insist that others are naive and "idealist".
>
> so far i am insisting that you are naive and idealistic.
While Jody accused me of writing some "cynical bullshit". Curious how that works.
>
>>>>How can the government tell us we can't protect ourselves when they not only
>>>>have failed to protect us, but have ruled in the Supreme Court that they
>>>>have no obligation to protect us?
>>>
>>> how has the supreme court determined that they are under no obligation
>>> to protect us?
>
>>I can't cite the case, but if you look, you'll find one ...
>
> well i looked, and asked around, and i couldn't find one, now would be
> so kind as to cite your case of this?
I haven't time to go through tons of court cases for a case I read about
in a paper years ago. I did have time to skim through the U.S. Constitution
- unless one interprets "ensuring domestic tranquillity" as protecting
people, there is no Constitutional obligation of the Government to protect
people.
>
>>The point remains that a minority in the U.S. is less likely to be pushed
>>around like the Kosovars are, because they have the right to have arms.
>
> heh... right. let us say that the state of Idaho secedes from the
> Union(and there's a cause i would sign up and fight for, no state gets
> to leave the party once ya except the invitation, Lincoln, god rest
> his soul, made that one pretty clear), anyway, Idaho leaves the Union
> because they think it's their god given right to own an assault
> weapons. so there they are, armed with their assault weapons, in the
> streets of Boise no less, and then, why look? there comes the 101st
> Airborne, and the 82nd too. lets include a couple of Marine divisions,
> and air cover, armoured divisions to boot... ahhh, so ends the Great
> Assault Rifle Rebellion. all the assault rifles in the hands of
> rednecks in the country wouldn't stop a well organized army attack.
> you've been watching the movie Red Dawn one too many times.
Why would a guerilla army stand in the middle of the street? They'd
be in the woods, choosing their time of battle if possible, and probably
not confining themselves to guns. They would also use the media against
the government and cause some Americans to question what was going on,
perhaps inspiring other insurrections elsewhere.
Not that they would be likely to win - but the real analogy should be
what if there were a bunch of under-armed people in, say, Tennessee, and
they were forced at gunpoint, all 100,000 of them to leave their
farms, where they had been existing peacefully, to Oklahoma, taking
whatever they could on such short notice as our government gave them?
Would have things been different if they'd had more gunpower? Would
other countries have the right to interfere with this act of genocide
by bombing and invading us? Many years later, if we told Serbia
they could not treat their people in a similar fashion, would we be
hypocrites, especially seeing as we have not yet compensated the descendants
for this land?
Hypothetical? Ask the Cherokees ...
>
>>>>For one thing, money isn't everything -
>>>
>>> in world politics and economics it is.
>
>>There are many who would like to think so, but they are mistaken.
>
> then what does make the world go 'round terms?
Centrifugal force. Of what profit or use is a newborn child?
>
>>>>But why not let those corporate interests that are threatened by this behavior
>>>>hire the necessary forces to correct it,
>>>
>>> they have, it's called the US Armed Forces. forgive me if i sound
>>> "street wise" in pointing this out to you.
>
>>That's government interference in the marketplace. Can't have that now,
>>can we?
>
> well, if the Serbs want to build a better mouse trap to disrupt the
> world economy, fine, bit if you've read adam smith, you'll note that
> he did not consider war as a positive economic turn.
Then why do you?
> war didn't enter
> into his thinking, as far as a free market economy went. adam said
> sell better apples, don't tip over the other guys apple cart and kill
> his wife and children.
Now that's idealism ...
>
>>>
>>>>if they feel their monetary interests
>>>>are threatened? If it's a matter of money, why not let the market decide?
>>>
>>> because thinking about this issue in the terms of the ancient
>>> principles of adam smith is ridiculous.
>
>>Why not? If it's an economic issue, then shouldn't the current economic
>>wisdom hold? After all, the market holds that money is the measure of
>>things, and you hold that money is the measure of realpolitik.
>
> very true. but see above on my opinions as far as the Serbs following
> a free market way of doing things.
But if the victim's apple cart is not productive enough to the corporate
interests and they don't think it's worth the money to defend, and they're
not worried about the potential for further apple cart destruction, why
should the government step in? What corporate interests are demanding
our involvment in Serbia?
>
>>I can't understand why you have a problem with that.
>
> heh, you still think we can be isolationists, don't you? heh.
Actually, no. I just don't think we can rely on military power to do
much in our influence over the world. Look at the situation now. We've
bombed. The Serbs have responded by evicting all Albanians from Kosovo.
The only way to stop this is by sending in ground troops. But it will
take 2 weeks to a month to get the ground troops there to do it, by
which time the Serbs will have Kosovo and the Albanians will all be
in Albania.
In other words, we started this and we weren't even ready to follow through
with it. We've already lost the first round - our goals were not acheived.
We may have a tactical victory, but we've committed a strategic blunder.
>
>
>>> terms, taxes are what we pay for civilization, next time your house is
>>> on fire, feel free to be the rustic pioneer and fend for yourself. and
>>> please don't use our roads, bridges, schools and telecommunications
>>> systems if it offends you so much. the people with guns didn't make
>>> those decsions, the politicians did. if you want to discuss the
>>> morality of taxes, we can do that too.
>
>>I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying there is force involved. And it
>>seems as though taxes don't buy as much civilization as they used ...
>
> neither does the price of cigarettes. do you have a point to expand on
> here?
That force is a part of human relations, as much as money is.
>
>>>
>>> (sigh, once again) we are the largest economic power in the world, in
>>> the history of the world, instability anywhere in the world is going
>>> to have an effect everywhere in the world. you keep thinking it's
>>> because we feel the need to be moral leaders of the world, i keep
>>> (painstakingly) trying to explain to you that that is not our motive
>>> in this crisis.
>
>>Except, of course, that our leaders then turn right around and proclaim
>>that it is. So either you're mistaken, or they're lying - and if they're
>>lying, why should I believe them?
>
> heh. that's naive.
Is it naive to trust liars or to distrust them?
>
>
>>>>Are Germany and France going to war with each other over this?
>>>
>>> it's against their best interests to do so.
>>>
>>>>Is Austria and Hungary going to reunite and demand their interests be
>>>>taken care of? Is Russia actually going to do more than whine about it?
>>>
>>> how about if we don't wait around and see?
>
>>Gosh, you were telling skye that there wasn't anyway they could do anything
>>about it.
>
> um...what?
It was quite a long paragraph, too, all about how Russian could hardly
feed their own people much less field an army to help the Serbs.
But you'll tell me that there's a possibility they could? Why else would
you be reluctant to "wait around and see"? I thought you knew ...
>>>
>>>>Then let the free market decide.
>>>
>>> heh. i give up.
>
>>Can't argue with your own dollar diplomacy?
>
> i have proven my point. you're worse than a teenager, unless that's
> what you are, then you are a teenager. you spout "free market" arming
> yourself and killing your neighbors isn't adam smith free market
> terms. you want to argue that it is, feel free, i'll love knocking
> that argument down too.
You're the one who's trying to say we're there for ecomonic reasons.
So, you can either justify it economically or admit there are other
motives.
Calling me a teenager is not a rational argument.
>
>>>>And now they're changing the locks.
>>>
>>> no they're not. you may wish to believe this, but it's not happening.
>
>>We've already seen our influence decline since the Cold War ended.
>
> where? please feel free to elaborate.
Can you imagine pissant little countries like Somalia shoving us around
40 years ago? Of course, we had a greater will to fight in those days.
Now, we have to consider other countries and their opinions. We didn't
have to push our allies as hard in the Gulf War to agree as we have
over the Serbs and over Saddam's continued idiocy.
Of course our cultural influence seems to be increasing ... but that's
not military influence or political influence.
>
>
>>> nope, can't agree with that one. simple because they have a billion
>>> people doesn't mean they'll be able to do it. first of all their
>>> military is weak as hell. the Red Chinese have had two "military"
>>> victories in their 50 year history, killing a bunch of Tibetans
>>> carrying flintlocks and unarmed civillians in a Bejing square. such
>>> displays does not a Neo-Rome make. their social structure is one step
>>> away from chaos most of the time. all their leaders from the old
>>> shcool are dying off. there is no political will to rule the world.
>>> there navy doesn't exist, and you can't rule the world without a
>>> modern navy(they can even serious invade Taiwan without being
>>> massacred on the beachs). China may think they can rule the world. i
>>> don't think they can.
>
>>Give them 50 to 100 years. They're not ready now.
>
> 100 years? who cares, you will be dead, and so will i.
Maybe. Maybe not. The way medicine's advancing, I wouldn't bet on that
either.
>
>>> that's what i meant when i said we passed on the first offer. Wilson
>>> knew that his plan of world peace meant US domination of that plan. he
>>> was a dreamer of sorts, but he wasn't stupid. the american people and
>>> the american congress nixed that plan. (strangely enough reading that
>>> debate in congress at the time was fascinating)
>
>>I'm sure it was - and yes, the American Congress did refuse him, but
>>when his peace proposal was presented to the Allies, they insisted on
>>Versailles, instead.
>
> yes, but if the US had joined the League of Nations, to help inforce
> their edicts, the world could very well have been a much more
> different place.
It probably would have been. Although the question of how the European
powers would have let go of their colonies without WW 2 making it inevitable
and how that would have affected our leadership is interesting.
It could have been a very different world.
>
>>>>The republic fell hundreds of years before the empire did. And times move
>>>>much faster now.
>>>>Our empire's on its way out - to be replaced by the Chinese, or better, some
>>>>kind of multinational intellectual/cultural/economic web ...
>>>
>>> i don't think so. how would this come about?
>
>>Look at this - the European, Asian, American science/industrial elite
>>have much more in common with each other than they have with say, factory
>>and service workers in their own countries. I do some work at a Fortune
>>500 company (nothing special, believe me!) and there's people all over the
>>world working with each other - I get the distinct impression they identify
>>more with their careers and their company than with where they're from.
>>Our conglomerates are becoming less tied to any one country or culture.
>>This is where the dollar/yen/eurobuck really starts to talk ...
>
> exactly, but who controls the flow of the money? who polices the the
> market place if someone want to push over his neighbor's apple cart?
>
The Serbs have 70% unemployment. It would seem that few want to do business
with them. And as this goes on, even less will. If someone offered
me a business deal or a factory in Serbia right now, I wouldn't buy it,
would you? Not when I can do a similar deal in Poland or Taiwan and
be sure that I'll be able to keep doing business.
While I don't agree that the dollar is everything, it is quite powerful.
Countries that indulge in this sort of ethnic strife crap are going to
get left out.
>
>>>>>, the end game of 2000 years of western history. we are
>>>>> masters of the world, for good or ill, i have become tired of trying
>>>>> to answer that. once you completely realize that, the questions
>>>>> become irrelavant.
>>>
>>>>This too shall pass ... rather quickly, too.
>>>
>>> how?
>
>>No one stays on top forever.
>
> i never said that they did.
Then it would be wise to remember that the toes we step on today may
be attached to the ass we have to kiss tomorrow.
(...)
>
>
>>> i see history as not changing all that much. economics still rules
>>> what we do.
>
>>It's never been 100%. Was the Black Plague an economic phenomenon?
>
> nope. it effected the economics of the times though.
Hugely ...
>
>>If the scale is different, as you say, then it is a logical conclusion
>>to say that the results could not be as disasterous as 1939.
>
> why wait around and find out?
Because our country cannot afford to interfere with every world situation
that some feel "might" be another 1939 ...
>
>>>> You assume that Europe is as eager to fight one
>>>>another as they were in 1914.
>>>
>>> again, i did not say that.
>
>>They fell all over themselves to get at one another. To make the analogy
>>that Europe could go to war over Serbia again is to suggest that the
>>countries are as eager.
>
> why wait around and find out?
Because in this case, we know they're not.
>
>>>>You assume that our monetary interests in the Balkans are
>>>>so compelling and important that we have no choice but to interfere.
>>>
>>> they are in europe(our interests), i'm saying, once again, i would not
>>> like to see how far the Serbs would go in this crisis.
>
>>About as far as the current borders with Macedonia, Turkey, Bulgaria and
>>Croatia.
>>By the way - you are aware that Kosovo is still a legal part of Serbia,
>>and in effect we are attempting to take sides in an internal affair?
>
> well technically so is bosnia, croatia, slovenia, and macedonia. we
> already have taken sides in and internal affair.
This is why countries like Russia and India are protesting NATO's sidestepping
of the UN in this matter - they are afraid that this will set a precedent
that will entitle other countries to interfere in their internal ethnic
strife. Also, by doing this through NATO, we're showing up the UN as
incompetant and irrelevant - which, of course, they are, but it wasn't
wise to make such an obvious point of it. Now when we appeal to the UN,
other countries will be quick to point out that we didn't do that in
this situation. Which may be a sticking point in a future Gulf War.
>
>>>> And you
>>>>assume, although you have not said so, that the American people will go
>>>>along with a long war with many casualities to sort this out.
>>>
>>> would you care to tell me where i said that?
>
>>I said you hadn't said so - however, your statement about us being the
>>new Rome implies that we should be good Romans and support the Imperium,
>>does it not?
>
> i said we are the new Rome, if you project that i was saying we should
> support the Imperium, feel free. i can't stop you from misreading what
> i write. i don't think we can do much about how the imperium is going
> to act.
No, but we can vote ...
>
>>> i don't know how far the
>>> american people would go as far as US involvement in this crisis.
>
>>Not far at all.
>
> we'll see, won't we?
They're evenly split according to the polls.
>
>
>>>>Well, that won't last.
>>>
>>> nothing does. even a fourth of Rome is 350 years. i'll take that. so
>>> would you.
>
>>You're counting the Byzantines. Is that fair? Oh, never mind ...
>
> it was Rome, wasn't it? all historians count the Byzantines.
It was, and wasn't ... Interestingly enough, the Byzantines had constant
problems in the area of the world we're discussing and never did hang
on to the Balkans for any great stretch ...
>
>
>
>>> part of it is. you seem more than willing to see if it will go further
>>> than just the Balkans.
>
>>I'm sure it won't.
>
> of course it won't if we blast the Serbs into the stone age... heh.
That really could start a new Cold War. Oh, the Russians probably don't
matter that much, but the Chinese, Indians, and others are watching this
carefully.
What the Serbs do in Serbia does not have great implications for the world.
What we do may.
>
>>I meant that I had to snip as I'd run out of time this morning.
>>However, it's not like you won't find someone else to argue with
>>about something, is it?
>
> might i quote you?
>
> "Ad hominem tactics aren't going to add anything to
> this discussion, jr."
Whatever ...
--
"No matter how much I went rooting around for news, I wouldn't
necessarily come closer to the truth."
-- Kobo Abe'
hhtp://www.net-link.net/~termite
Jody McGinness
>Sending what seemed to be a string of data, <36fd30de....@news.supernews.com>,
> jo...@poetaster.com (Jody McGinness) wrote:
>> On 26 Mar 1999 23:29:44 GMT, ter...@net-link.net (termite) wrote:
>>>
>>>Wrong, Jody. It's because some things can't be stopped without taking the
>>>risk of creating greater evils.
>>
>> You're giving congress and the american populace too much credit here.
>> They haven't chosen not to act again and again because of a
>> philosophical fear of setting a precedent, they're lazy.
>
>Maybe they don't know the answers. Which, in my view, puts them ahead of
>those that do.
Nobody knows the answers, anywhere, ever. By you're philosophy (the
"This might not be the right thing, so I better do nothing" one ), no
one would ever accomplish anything.
>
>> If it's not
>> american blood, it's worth about half as much in their eyes.
>
>And if it's Rwandan blood how much is it worth in comparison to Serbian
>blood? Must not be as much because many more people have been killed
>over there and our country hasn't tried to stop it.
That's unfortunate. I suppose since we let the Rwandan's die, it only
makes sense to never help anyone. Do you see how depressingly
ineffective that way of thinking is?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Then why aren't we doing anything about it in Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan
>>>>>>>etc.?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We should be.
>>>>>
>>>>>Really? We should police the whole world then, at least the portions that
>>>>>are fighting?
>>>>
>>>> No. But if it's a matter of gross injustice we should.
>>>
>>>There's a godawful lot of that, isn't there? Oh, and what happens if another
>>>country defines gross injustice as something we're doing to correct what
>>>we see as gross injustice?
>>
>> There are standards for such things.
>
>Who establishes them? The people who have the power - at least that's
>what history seems to say.
Sure.
>
>> Chemical and biological warfare,
>> the mass executions of civilians. Speaking of which, there were
>> reports that about a thousand Albanian women and children were rounded
>> up (after their homes were burned to the ground) yesterday. They're
>> marching them back into serbian territory. I'm sure their intentions
>> are good, don't you think?
>>
>No better than the intentions of those who persecuted the Serbs in
>Yugoslavia during WW 2 - Can't you see that both sides have contributed
>to this?
Yes. But I'm talking about right now. The US and greater Europe have a
lot of apologizing to do for poor decision making or inattention in
the past. If we let Kosovo go, it'll just be another apology to add to
the list.
>>>
>>>Hitler represented a far greater problem than the Serbs do.
>>
>> True, he had more weapons. But the analogy stands: the loser is not
>> going to be grateful to us.
>
>Neither will the winners.
Maybe not. But they'll be alive.
The Greeks are idiots. Really. Have you taken a look at their system
of government. You have to bribe 8 people to buy a newspaper. But even
assuming that their opinion should be respected, they have their vote
in NATO, and as much say as is proportional to their contribution.
They can't expect the other 17 or so countriesto just change policy
because one country disagrees (after they voted FOR the airstrikes).
And the Russians have never liked NATO, understandably, or any of it's
actions. What else is new? They're a self-important relic of a
country, who still assumes that anything the US does is a threat to
their oh-so-waning power.
>
>>
>>>
>>>And this is a short list - let's not forget the CIA's complicity in the
>>>crack business in our country.
>>
>> The government's corrupt. That's not news.
>
>True. So why should I trust them to do the right thing overseas when
>they can't do it here?
>
>>
>>>
>>>If we're the world's policemen, who, pray tell, is policing the policemen?
>>
>> Preferably the voters, but they only care about their next tax break.
>
>How true.
>>>>
>>>> What's your point? So they're not going to invade? Of course not. Or
>>>> do you mean that we shouldn't get involved in conflicts on our own
>>>> borders? Good think the french didn't think so during colonial times,
>>>> or you'd have a cockney accent.
>>>
>>>You are aware, of course, that only a minority of Americans at the time
>>>supported the Revolutionary War - most were, as always, fairly apathetic
>>>about the whole matter.
>>
>> As is the case with this matter. What's your point?
>
>The majority of us could give a shit less what a bunch of power tripping
>asswipes with swords guns or nukes want from each other.
>
>We want to live. Without war. If we have a choice.
So do the Albanians. They haven't asked for their persecution by
asking for independence.
>
>And in this case, we do. It's a pity that many Yugoslavians have chosen
>for war, (including the Albanians). When they realize that the rest of
>the world is thriving while they are mired in misery, perhaps they'll
>see the error of their ways.
It's rare to see any country thrive under a dictator, except in times
of war.
So basically, the Albanians are faced with two alternatives. Live
under the rulership of a tyrant who hates them for their race, and
who's governance reflects that attitude, or declare (and fight for)
independence. NATO is just making the second one less of a suicide
mission.
>
>Hitler and Stalin sincerely believed they were saving the world for what
>was right.
Hitler and Stalin weren't elected.
>
>People who want to save the world concern me.
People who want to ignore it concern me.
>>>
>>>> Their lives are as valuable as anyone from anywhere, Termite.
>>>
>>>That's not the point.
>>
>> It is the point.
>
>Then the planes would be better used to drop off food supplies in the
>areas of Africa that need them.
>After all, their lives are as valuable as anyone from anywhere and they're
>not running around with guns trying to shoot each other.
>Well, some of them, anyway.
How much food do you think we deliver to Africa every year?
It's a bad situation, and more should be done, you're right.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> And somebody who's strong enough is trying to stop senseless atrocity
>>>> from happening. Why is that so bad?
>>>
>>>Because you're assuming that we are strong enough to stop it from happening.
>>
>> Well lets assume we're not. Does that mean we shouldn't try?
>
>Yes. If we're not strong enough, we can only make things worse.
You honestly think the combined efforts of Europe and the United
States aren't enough to stop one backwater dictator?
>
>>>
>>>Or hey - you know with all our nuclear weapons, we stand a chance of causing
>>>a nuclear winter with mass extinction of humanity. That's billions of
>>>potential deaths in countries that haven't consented to be threatened in
>>>any way and have nothing to gain from our continued hording of nukes.
>>
>> The difference between our government and Milosovic's is that we're
>> not using our weapons. I agree that we are armed to the teeth with
>> weapons that are too powerful for our own good, but we're not using
>> any of them on anyone at this point.
>
>There are armed robbers who never use (in the sense of firing off) their
>guns either.
>They are still convicted of armed robbery.
False analogy. If the American people were concerned (as opposed to
comforted) by our posession of nuclear weapons, they would vote
accordingly, or at all. Unfortunately, people who have any political
opinion whatsoever are few and far between.
>
>> And frankly, those well-aimed
>> missles
>
>We are aiming them, therefore we are threatening people with them.
>
>> are probably what kept "Red Dawn" from being a documentary.
Okay, bad movie choice. How 'bout Mad Max? Was that a nuclear
holocaust? Shit. Well, some movie where we got nuked, not invaded.
>
>Actually, it's logistics - how many millions of troops do you think
>it would have taken to invade the US? How would have they been transported?
>How would have they been supplied? And how would have they been sent
>to America without us spotting all those ships in the middle of the
>Pacific and bombing the hell out of the whole fleet before they got
>here?
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>Perhaps they'd be justified to demand we get rid of our weapons or suffer
>>>an economic boycott and possible invasion.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
>Why? Explain to me why a Sri Lankan peasant should share in the fate of
>human extinction simply because a couple of other countries don't get
>along with one another, or have philisophical differences?
>
>A morality or philosophy that does not reverence life enough to avoid
>threatening the existence of a next generation is thoroughly bankrupt.
First of all, I'm not defending the US's cold war strategy. It was
what it was. And fortunately, it worked. We've got a lot of bombs
left, but we have less than we did, and we're supposedly not making
new ones, so that's progress. Far to go, sure, but it takes a lot of
years (and votes) to dismantle an entire strategic defense system.
>
>>
>>>
>>>How many millions of people are the Serbs targeting with their nuclear weapons?
>>
>> How many thousands of civilians is the army killing? How many towns
>> has it raized this week?
>
>I don't know - neither do you. I know that our missiles, along with other
>countries' missles threaten all 6 1/2 billion of us.
>
>>>
>>>How often have countries been bombed into submission without following up
>>>with ground troops?
>>
>> 33 bombing campaigns have been conducted, none of them have worked
>> alone except for Bosnia. They always have required ground troops.
>
>Then why is our government saying it won't put ground troops into Kosovo?
Because American citizens aren't willing to risk their lives for
Albanian ones.
>
>> Some
>> people believe that as the technology has become more sophisticated,
>> airstrikes alone have become more effective, as was evinced in Bosnia.
>
>Airstrikes cannot stop what's going on there.
Maybe. Maybe not. We'll find out.
>
>>>>>II - the Serbs know and practice guerrilla warfare.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Which is comprised of those very same soldiers.
>>
>> Grouped in caravans of ten to twenty vehicles each, which we can
>> target quite nicely.
>
>Unless they've got 50 civilians right next to them. And as nasty as
>that is, I do believe that's exactly what they'll do.
Maybe.
>
>Wrong? Of course. But how do you stop it?
>
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm. How, praytell, are we putting our soldiers at risk? We may lose
>>>> one or two in the bombing process.
>>>
>>>I am, of course, referring to the next step in this program - the bombing
>>>is of slight risk to us, but I think we may find it isn't working.
>>
>> You're right, but ground troops is a whole different debate.
>
>No. If one is serious about stopping the Serbs, then ground troops will
>have to be used. If we aren't willing to do that, then we aren't really
>trying and what we're doing is worse than doing nothing.
No. It is a different debate. I'm advocating airstrikes.
>
>Which is what I think we should have done - nothing.
Okay, Switzerland. Look, it's unrealistic. We're not isolationist,
we're empirical. That's the way our economy works, and our mentality.
But don't you think it would have an effect on us if Eastern Europe
went screwy?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>But even that is unlikely. And
>>>> anyone who chooses to join the armed forces has already accepted that
>>>> risk, so what's the problem?
>>>
>>>The problem is that they swore an oath to defend the United States and
>>>its constitution.
>>>Neither the United States or its constitution are being imperiled by
>>>the Serbs.
>>
>> Don't you think if it were a problem you'd hear the soldiers involved
>> saying so?
>
>Sometimes they do. And whatever one thinks about any particular war
>it is certainly a problem for anyone involved in it.
Rarely they do. But when you join the armed forces, you entrust those
decisions to someone else.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>And people have to choose peace for it to mean anything. If one really
>>>>>wanted, in 20-25 years, it should be possible for our scientists to
>>>>>totally short circuit any brain that is in the midst of committing a
>>>>>violent act. People will have seizures when they get angry and be
>>>>>incapable of doing anything. Or they'll just take a little nap. No
>>>>>one will have the choice of violence anymore. We'll just make all
>>>>>of us have the surgery and then we'll all be fine.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with your first sentence here. The rest is confusing, and
>>>> strangely Orwellian.
>>>
>>>No kidding - and worse yet, in 20-25 years, it will be possible.
>>>
>>>And think of this - what's to stop those that do the surgery from making
>>>it so anyone who does not obey them, or follow their religion, is put
>>>to sleep until they go along?
>>
>> Forgive me, I forgot to take an acid hit before I read this post. It's
>> sort of like The Wall, I need the lsd to understand it.
>
>Are you saying that brain surgery to turn people into docile sheep is
>impossible? Haven't you ever heard of lobotomies? Those were done
>with ice picks - we could use much more sophisticated equipment.
Possible, yes. Plausible, doubtful. Not as long as our country's
leaders are still accountable. If there were a change in government,
that would be a different story.
>
>Come to think of it, if we just made everybody do a hit of acid a week ...
We'd be much more creative.
>
>>>> This sounds like the center of your argument. And I agree, in general.
>>>> But how do we define our limits? That is the only thing that limits
>>>> us, how far we are willing to go.
>>>
>>>I think the first thing is to say that we are not willing to risk our
>>>country's lives or reputation on anything less than the vital interests
>>>of the United States. We also do not risk the values of our constitution
>>>by committing troops to wars undeclared by Congress.
>>
>> With our current congress it would take an oil-price threat or troops
>> on our own soil. And maybe that's what you're espousing.
>
>Troops on our own soil.
>And grave threats to humanity. The Serbs don't qualify.
>
>> I think it
>> would be sad if we were as apathetic as those old farts would want us
>> to be.
>>
>I think it would be horrible if our country became a self-righteous
>policeman enforcing our views on the whole world with our troops.
Wake up and smell the nachos, termite, it happened many years ago.
>
>>>
>>>If our Congress believes that our country's vital interests are served
>>>by acts of war against Serbia, then they should show the moral backbone
>>>to pass a formal declaration of war against Serbia, as is required by
>>>the government. And then let them answer to the electorate ...
>>
>> You can't expect moral backbone from a politician. They've got to see
>> whether we're successful or not before they'll take credit.
>
>Then they won't get any from me.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What gives you the idea that other peoples in the world, including the
>>>>>Kosovians are going to percieve us as the altruistic rescuers you would
>>>>>like them to perceive us as being? Did the Lebanese and Somalians see
>>>>>us that way?
>>>>
>>>> First of all don't tell me what I'd like.
>>>
>>>Do you deny that you wouldn't like these people to percieve Americans
>>>as altruistic?
>>
>> I do not care how we are percieved, personally. On a larger scale,
>> politically it would be nice if other countries respected us.
>
>They won't if we keep screwing around like this.
They don't. They haven't for awhile. Except for suck-ups like Britain.
>
>> But my
>> desire to see my country intercede is based on what I see as a
>> horribly unfair situation that is costing the lives of thousands of
>> albanians.
>
>Unfortunately, your desire is based on unwarranted assumptions and
>an inconsistent appraisal of the world and its situations.
What is unwarranted? Say we spend 1 American life to save 2 Albanian
lives. 500 for every thousand. Rough, yes. But a net gain in LIFE,
termite, and all life is worth the same amount - precious. And that
isn't even close to the numbers we're looking at. We might lose, what,
5? lives in airstrikes. And if they save 5 Albanians, we've broken
even.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Second of all, I don't think
>>>> we should give a shit if they like it or not.
>>>
>>>Until they start shooting at us to make us stop, right?
>>
>> Wrong.
>
>In other words we shouldn't care if people are shooting at us?
Wrong about stopping, not caring.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> We aren't trying to stop
>>>> slaughter because we want the credit (at least, that's not our public
>>>> motive), but because it's wrong.
>>>
>>>Who appointed us the moral guardians of the world and said we had to
>>>enforce our stewardship with guns?
>>
>> It's always been that way. The one with the most power takes on the
>> leadership of the rest.
>
>Until the rest get sick of it. And they always do.
>
>> Ideally that wouldn't be the case. But this is
>> not an ideal world.
>
>It's not a world we have to police to make ideal, either.
You're right. I respect those people who never do a thing to better
the world around them so much more than those who try to make it
ideal.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, it actually comes down to whether you think we're morally superior
>>>>>to other peoples and have the right to tell them what to do, with guns
>>>>>if they don't listen to us, and it also comes down to whether you believe
>>>>>you can make them stop.
>>>>
>>>> Well let's see. Morally superior? Hmmm. Are our soldiers raping young
>>>> women and executing children? No?
>>>
>>>No - we're just holding on to enough nuclear weapons to kill everybody
>>>and everything.
>>
>> What do you thinks keeps people from nuking us? Our nukes. They're out
>> there, termite, and one day a terrorist is going to level Des Moines.
>
>And of course our nuclear bombs will stop that. Nuclear terrorism will
>happen. But if we negotiate reduced stockpiles, with the idea of eventual
>elimination, and non-proliferation, we may be able to pull the world
>through this - the real danger is that India and Pakistan or other countries
>will use them against each other and create problems. And we can't tell
>them to get rid of theirs unless we're willing to get rid of ours.
Sure. Just like they've done so successfully in Russia.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Then I guess we're MORALLY FUCKING
>>>> SUPERIOR!
>>>
>>>Yeah, we have everyone in our bombsights without reference to race, religion,
>>>ethnic identity or color of underwear.
>>
>> But we're not using that force. So once again, we're morally superior.
>
>We're blackmailing the entire planet. I don't think so.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Were we morally superior to the SS?
>>>
>>>In the 40s, yes.
>>
>> So you believe our current government is not?
>
>Since we built up our arsenals (along with the Russians - oh, yes, they
>can be blamed equally) to such obscene extent, yes. Most of my
>generation grew up believing that we would die in nuclear holocast.
>Look at the effect it's had on us.
Apparently it's made the whole generation into a bunch of cynical
isolationists.
>
>And the younger people - they're in denial - they think because the
>Berlin Wall's down and the Communists are "gone" that it can't happen.
What young people are you talking about? I mean, I'm assuming you
don't mean, all young people in the country. That wouldn't really be
fair.
>
>And yet, we still possess the bombs. Along with many others.
>
>We have courted death for everyone on this planet. Is that a moral act?
What's your point. I'm not trying to defend nuclear proliferation. And
one issue is as related to the other as I am to my grand-niece,
once-removed.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Fucking A RIGHT we were.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately our accumilation of nuclear weapons has caused us to lose
>>>our moral superiority.
>>
>> Do you remember the cold war, termite? I'm sorry, I don't know how old
>> you are. I just caught the tail end of it myself. But I for one am
>> glad we had those nukes.
>
>In other words, because of our differences with another country, we
>were willing to erase the entire human race, all the thousands of generations
>to come, because, at worst, the Russians might have communized the world
>for 500-1000 years, before they too, became history. In other words,
>we were so arrogant to believe that we were the best thing the human
>race could ever achieve, that we had the right to threaten our extinction
>and all after us, so that we might continue to do things our way.
And what were our options. Either we threaten to do it, or it would be
apparently done to us. Bad all around, Termite, but old news.
>
>And you've made one serious error - not "we had those nukes" - we have them.
We have less of them.
>
>And I'm old enough to remember our buying a radio and looking over
>impromptu fallout shelter plans because we thought we would see nuclear
>war over the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Then you're one up on me. I remember the wall coming down, but barely.
So maybe the cynicism that seems to have infected your outlook on the
world lays less heavily on me. I believe we can do something. Maybe
not the right thing, but better than nothing.
>
>Pretty heavy shit to explain to a five year old.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't believe we're morally superior and I don't believe we can make them
>>>>>stop.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree.
>>>
>>>We're not morally superior - but come to think of it, with enough missiles
>>>launched, we really could stop them all, couldn't we?
>>
>> Now you're talking sense.
>>
>> No not really. I understand and agree with your points about the
>> hypocrisy of the US and the world in general. I just don't see why
>> that should stop us from doing the right thing in this case.
>
>Because our hypocrisy is such that we don't even see the wrong things
>that we are doing.
Inactivity is not a solution to anything.
- Jody
Jody McGinness
And basically political castration for anyone who wants to act
decisively in a situation like this.
>
>> >
>> > You're giving congress and the american populace too much credit here.
>> > They haven't chosen not to act again and again because of a
>> > philosophical fear of setting a precedent, they're lazy.
>
>that and they recognize some inherant limitations about will-to-act and a
>reluctance to make the kinda long-term committment to do this "object lesson"
>right; do we (sic) really wann a make the long-term sacrifices in luxury
>consumer durables and high-standard of life? also, i would guess there's some
>pretty serious thinking about world opinion, the relative "tolerance" or
>disagreement our actions might provoke from our (sic) trading partners; as
>well as hey, get this, the "will of the people" ok? after all, the
>polito-cats werk fer us, right (well, that's what i lerned in school,
>ennyway).
I don't blame them, they represent the American people well enough. I
mean, one out of ten thinks we should do something, the rest want to
know how to spend the budget surplus.
>
>>
>> Maybe they don't know the answers. Which, in my view, puts them ahead of
>> those that do.
>damn straight and right spot on, good point.
>>
>> > If it's not
>> > american blood, it's worth about half as much in their eyes.
>
>this is kinda insulting to suggest, isn't it?
Yes, and I meant it to be. I think American ethno-centrism is a
repulsive thing, that's grown from our high-standard of living, is
propigated by our spoon-feeding media, and responsible (as much as
anything is) for all the atrocities the American government has turned
a blind eye to or even abetted.
True, but unrealistic. 90% of the American people have that "whatever
you say" attitude, and the other ten percent are divided between
people like termite who espouse a doctrine of inactivity and people
who think like antti.
Russia is a non-entity. Really. They've bitched about NATO (it was
created to thwart them, after all) since the beginning, and they'll
always be bitching about NATO. They're a relic. Something to keep an
eye on, but not to sweat over.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>And this is a short list - let's not forget the CIA's complicity in the
>> >>crack business in our country.
>> >
>> > The government's corrupt. That's not news.
>>
>> True. So why should I trust them to do the right thing overseas when
>> they can't do it here?
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>If we're the world's policemen, who, pray tell, is policing the policemen?
>> >
>> > Preferably the voters, but they only care about their next tax break.
>>
>> How true.
>
>well, i don't agree. people are mostly good folk tryin to get by without too
>much hassle; they're somewhat easily distracted, sure, by the babble of pop-
>media consumer subtle/hard sell psyops/spin-twist and infotainment pap that
>saturates the channels, but they got some savvy street-smarts too; a lotta
>folk the whole washington dc crowd has got their hands inna money jar and
>their heads inna fortune 500 clouds or in their own private world of zealot
>issues, somethin' about the system corrupts all but the best and most noble,
>but even they get watered down in the care and feeding of the political
>realism machine. jus about when i think people are pretty stoopid, i find out
>they ain't dumb, jus uninformed and outside of the system.
Ostriches.
>
>> >>>
>> >>> What's your point? So they're not going to invade? Of course not. Or
>> >>> do you mean that we shouldn't get involved in conflicts on our own
>> >>> borders? Good think the french didn't think so during colonial times,
>> >>> or you'd have a cockney accent.
>> >>
>> >>You are aware, of course, that only a minority of Americans at the time
>> >>supported the Revolutionary War - most were, as always, fairly apathetic
>> >>about the whole matter.
>> >
>> > As is the case with this matter. What's your point?
>>
>> The majority of us could give a shit less what a bunch of power tripping
>> asswipes with swords guns or nukes want from each other.
>>
>> We want to live. Without war. If we have a choice.
>>
>> And in this case, we do. It's a pity that many Yugoslavians have chosen
>> for war, (including the Albanians). When they realize that the rest of
>> the world is thriving while they are mired in misery, perhaps they'll
>> see the error of their ways.
>fat chance; they either can't see it, or think its not a viable option;
>remember, they gotta seventy percent unemployment rate; things are been/have
>been bad fer quite some time, and killin off yer "weird neighbors" and takin
>his stuff is a temporary but right now cure fer the down-an-out-blues, mighty
>appealing fer some; the germans felt much the same way about the jews in pre-
>war europe didn't they, give 'em 5 cents onna dollar, better take it bud,
>tomorrow the state won't give ya nothin.
How viable is living under a dictator who wants nothing more than to
increase his overall power? Not at all. The Albanians have no choice.
>>
>> Hitler and Stalin sincerely believed they were saving the world for what
>> was right.
>>
>> People who want to save the world concern me.
>me too.
They're better than those who choose to ignore it.
That's the only way it'll get done. We don't care enough about it to
support our leaders in a ground attack. But if they convince that it's
the next logical step, maybe it'll work. Maybe.
I disagree. Not that we're blind to our own hypocrisy (although I
can't believe the politicians don't see it), but that it has any
bearing on what is right and wrong. You said it man, genocide is
genocide.
- Jody
Jody McGinness
>
>heh... right. let us say that the state of Idaho secedes from the
>Union(and there's a cause i would sign up and fight for, no state gets
>to leave the party once ya except the invitation, Lincoln, god rest
>his soul, made that one pretty clear), anyway, Idaho leaves the Union
>because they think it's their god given right to own an assault
>weapons. so there they are, armed with their assault weapons, in the
>streets of Boise no less, and then, why look? there comes the 101st
>Airborne, and the 82nd too. lets include a couple of Marine divisions,
>and air cover, armoured divisions to boot... ahhh, so ends the Great
>Assault Rifle Rebellion. all the assault rifles in the hands of
>rednecks in the country wouldn't stop a well organized army attack.
>you've been watching the movie Red Dawn one too many times.
>
That was the plot of an HBO movie. Idaho seceding from the union.
- Jody
termite
> On 28 Mar 1999 03:09:25 GMT, ter...@net-link.net (termite) wrote:
>
>>Sending what seemed to be a string of data, <36fd30de....@news.supernews.com>,
>> jo...@poetaster.com (Jody McGinness) wrote:
>>> On 26 Mar 1999 23:29:44 GMT, ter...@net-link.net (termite) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Wrong, Jody. It's because some things can't be stopped without taking the
>>>>risk of creating greater evils.
>>>
>>> You're giving congress and the american populace too much credit here.
>>> They haven't chosen not to act again and again because of a
>>> philosophical fear of setting a precedent, they're lazy.
>>
>>Maybe they don't know the answers. Which, in my view, puts them ahead of
>>those that do.
>
> Nobody knows the answers, anywhere, ever. By you're philosophy (the
> "This might not be the right thing, so I better do nothing" one ), no
> one would ever accomplish anything.
That's not my philosophy and you know it. My philosophy is that people
who are having trouble running their own country shouldn't go around
telling the world what to do.
>
>>
>>> If it's not
>>> american blood, it's worth about half as much in their eyes.
>>
>>And if it's Rwandan blood how much is it worth in comparison to Serbian
>>blood? Must not be as much because many more people have been killed
>>over there and our country hasn't tried to stop it.
>
> That's unfortunate. I suppose since we let the Rwandan's die, it only
> makes sense to never help anyone. Do you see how depressingly
> ineffective that way of thinking is?
I see how depressingly ineffective we are. Trouble is, without arming
our whole country and going on a crusade, I don't think we can change it,
at least by arms.
(...)
>>>
>>No better than the intentions of those who persecuted the Serbs in
>>Yugoslavia during WW 2 - Can't you see that both sides have contributed
>>to this?
>
> Yes. But I'm talking about right now. The US and greater Europe have a
> lot of apologizing to do for poor decision making or inattention in
> the past. If we let Kosovo go, it'll just be another apology to add to
> the list.
We'll just have to help the refugees as best we can.
(...)
>>
>>Can't you see that the Greeks and the Russians, to name two examples, see
>>NATO's meddling in this matter as hypocritical? We are going against
>>our national interests by alienating the Russians over this - now, why
>>they support the Serbs is beyond me, except that they might be thinking,
>>"well, what happens the next time, we have a rebellion in our country -
>>will NATO dictate the terms of how we settle it? Will they bomb us
>>if we say no?"
>
> The Greeks are idiots.
That's possible.
> Really. Have you taken a look at their system
> of government. You have to bribe 8 people to buy a newspaper. But even
> assuming that their opinion should be respected, they have their vote
> in NATO, and as much say as is proportional to their contribution.
Except they are within close reach of the battle and have interests in
Macedonia that are opposite the Albanians.
> They can't expect the other 17 or so countriesto just change policy
> because one country disagrees (after they voted FOR the airstrikes).
> And the Russians have never liked NATO, understandably, or any of it's
> actions. What else is new? They're a self-important relic of a
> country, who still assumes that anything the US does is a threat to
> their oh-so-waning power.
Especially their power to control their own ethnic problems. I suspect
that's why they're so concerned - they're worried NATO will do the same
to them next.
(...)
>>
>>We want to live. Without war. If we have a choice.
>
> So do the Albanians. They haven't asked for their persecution by
> asking for independence.
Well, they did take up arms against the Serbian government. And a few
years earlier they did inspire many Serbs to leave Kosovo because of
their bigotry and maltreatment.
There's a long history of stupidity on both sides here.
>
>>
>>And in this case, we do. It's a pity that many Yugoslavians have chosen
>>for war, (including the Albanians). When they realize that the rest of
>>the world is thriving while they are mired in misery, perhaps they'll
>>see the error of their ways.
>
> It's rare to see any country thrive under a dictator, except in times
> of war.
Actually, before World War 2 broke out, Germany was doing quite well.
Singapore has been doing very well under a dictatorship for many years.
And without bothering its neighbors.
> So basically, the Albanians are faced with two alternatives. Live
> under the rulership of a tyrant who hates them for their race, and
> who's governance reflects that attitude, or declare (and fight for)
> independence. NATO is just making the second one less of a suicide
> mission.
Unfortunately, they're having to choose leaving instead.
>
>>
>>Hitler and Stalin sincerely believed they were saving the world for what
>>was right.
>
> Hitler and Stalin weren't elected.
Actually, Hitler was.
>>>>> Their lives are as valuable as anyone from anywhere, Termite.
>>>>
>>>>That's not the point.
>>>
>>> It is the point.
>>
>>Then the planes would be better used to drop off food supplies in the
>>areas of Africa that need them.
>>After all, their lives are as valuable as anyone from anywhere and they're
>>not running around with guns trying to shoot each other.
>>Well, some of them, anyway.
>
> How much food do you think we deliver to Africa every year?
> It's a bad situation, and more should be done, you're right.
As much as we can, with the thought that perhaps we should also teach them
how to get things going on their own.
>>>
>>> Well lets assume we're not. Does that mean we shouldn't try?
>>
>>Yes. If we're not strong enough, we can only make things worse.
>
> You honestly think the combined efforts of Europe and the United
> States aren't enough to stop one backwater dictator?
Not without politically unacceptable losses. And perhaps not even then -
just because we get rid of the chief doesn't mean that the war would be
over. Look at Northern Ireland.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Or hey - you know with all our nuclear weapons, we stand a chance of causing
>>>>a nuclear winter with mass extinction of humanity. That's billions of
>>>>potential deaths in countries that haven't consented to be threatened in
>>>>any way and have nothing to gain from our continued hording of nukes.
>>>
>>> The difference between our government and Milosovic's is that we're
>>> not using our weapons. I agree that we are armed to the teeth with
>>> weapons that are too powerful for our own good, but we're not using
>>> any of them on anyone at this point.
>>
>>There are armed robbers who never use (in the sense of firing off) their
>>guns either.
>>They are still convicted of armed robbery.
>
> False analogy. If the American people were concerned (as opposed to
> comforted) by our posession of nuclear weapons, they would vote
> accordingly, or at all. Unfortunately, people who have any political
> opinion whatsoever are few and far between.
Until they see American bodies shipped home. Then they'll discover
they have opinions. And as far as their level of concern, it was
quite high in the mid '80. The lack of a real enemy has lulled them
to the danger.
(...)
>>
>>Why? Explain to me why a Sri Lankan peasant should share in the fate of
>>human extinction simply because a couple of other countries don't get
>>along with one another, or have philisophical differences?
>>
>>A morality or philosophy that does not reverence life enough to avoid
>>threatening the existence of a next generation is thoroughly bankrupt.
>
> First of all, I'm not defending the US's cold war strategy. It was
> what it was. And fortunately, it worked.
And when it did, we stopped having a strategy and stopped realizing that
we had an opportunity to negotiate our nuclear arsenal away.
> We've got a lot of bombs
> left, but we have less than we did, and we're supposedly not making
> new ones, so that's progress. Far to go, sure, but it takes a lot of
> years (and votes) to dismantle an entire strategic defense system.
Clinton hasn't really tried to do anything about it.
(...)
>>>
>>> 33 bombing campaigns have been conducted, none of them have worked
>>> alone except for Bosnia. They always have required ground troops.
>>
>>Then why is our government saying it won't put ground troops into Kosovo?
>
> Because American citizens aren't willing to risk their lives for
> Albanian ones.
Which is precisely why this whole thing is a bad idea. The bombing isn't
working - it's made the situation worse. And we aren't willing to
follow through.
We should have called for the Russians' help in negotiating this some more.
(...)
>>
>>No. If one is serious about stopping the Serbs, then ground troops will
>>have to be used. If we aren't willing to do that, then we aren't really
>>trying and what we're doing is worse than doing nothing.
>
> No. It is a different debate. I'm advocating airstrikes.
It's just making us feel better. That's all.
>
>>
>>Which is what I think we should have done - nothing.
>
> Okay, Switzerland. Look, it's unrealistic. We're not isolationist,
> we're empirical. That's the way our economy works, and our mentality.
We need to find something in between those two extremes.
> But don't you think it would have an effect on us if Eastern Europe
> went screwy?
Not enough of one to get heavily involved in what may well be intractable
problems.
>>>
>>> Don't you think if it were a problem you'd hear the soldiers involved
>>> saying so?
>>
>>Sometimes they do. And whatever one thinks about any particular war
>>it is certainly a problem for anyone involved in it.
>
> Rarely they do. But when you join the armed forces, you entrust those
> decisions to someone else.
And what happens when people become less willing to join?
(...)
>>>
>>> Forgive me, I forgot to take an acid hit before I read this post. It's
>>> sort of like The Wall, I need the lsd to understand it.
>>
>>Are you saying that brain surgery to turn people into docile sheep is
>>impossible? Haven't you ever heard of lobotomies? Those were done
>>with ice picks - we could use much more sophisticated equipment.
>
> Possible, yes. Plausible, doubtful. Not as long as our country's
> leaders are still accountable. If there were a change in government,
> that would be a different story.
Is Bill Clinton accountable for anything?
>
>>
>>Come to think of it, if we just made everybody do a hit of acid a week ...
>
> We'd be much more creative.
Hmm, after awhile it gets to be same old, same old - it can only take you
so far.
(...)
>>>
>>I think it would be horrible if our country became a self-righteous
>>policeman enforcing our views on the whole world with our troops.
>
> Wake up and smell the nachos, termite, it happened many years ago.
Well, actually, I thought we might have stopped for awhile. Obviously
not ...
>>
>>> But my
>>> desire to see my country intercede is based on what I see as a
>>> horribly unfair situation that is costing the lives of thousands of
>>> albanians.
>>
>>Unfortunately, your desire is based on unwarranted assumptions and
>>an inconsistent appraisal of the world and its situations.
>
> What is unwarranted? Say we spend 1 American life to save 2 Albanian
> lives. 500 for every thousand. Rough, yes. But a net gain in LIFE,
> termite, and all life is worth the same amount - precious. And that
> isn't even close to the numbers we're looking at. We might lose, what,
> 5? lives in airstrikes. And if they save 5 Albanians, we've broken
> even.
According to your accounting. I think you'll discover that what the
Congress and the people think about that would be much different.
>>
>>> Ideally that wouldn't be the case. But this is
>>> not an ideal world.
>>
>>It's not a world we have to police to make ideal, either.
>
> You're right. I respect those people who never do a thing to better
> the world around them so much more than those who try to make it
> ideal.
Gandhi did more for his country than any number of revolutionaries with
guns.
Maybe you should try to think of other ways our country could be helpful.
>
>>>>
>>>>No - we're just holding on to enough nuclear weapons to kill everybody
>>>>and everything.
>>>
>>> What do you thinks keeps people from nuking us? Our nukes. They're out
>>> there, termite, and one day a terrorist is going to level Des Moines.
>>
>>And of course our nuclear bombs will stop that. Nuclear terrorism will
>>happen. But if we negotiate reduced stockpiles, with the idea of eventual
>>elimination, and non-proliferation, we may be able to pull the world
>>through this - the real danger is that India and Pakistan or other countries
>>will use them against each other and create problems. And we can't tell
>>them to get rid of theirs unless we're willing to get rid of ours.
>
> Sure. Just like they've done so successfully in Russia.
Actually, we've acquired some of their stocks already. All we need to
do is continue - if they don't get too angry over Serbia.
>>
>>Since we built up our arsenals (along with the Russians - oh, yes, they
>>can be blamed equally) to such obscene extent, yes. Most of my
>>generation grew up believing that we would die in nuclear holocast.
>>Look at the effect it's had on us.
>
> Apparently it's made the whole generation into a bunch of cynical
> isolationists.
They're getting tired of foreign wars with no benefit to us.
>
>>
>>And the younger people - they're in denial - they think because the
>>Berlin Wall's down and the Communists are "gone" that it can't happen.
>
> What young people are you talking about? I mean, I'm assuming you
> don't mean, all young people in the country. That wouldn't really be
> fair.
I don't hear people talking about it much, young or old. I'm assuming
that's what people think. I know that the whole issue has been
fairly buried for a few years.
>
>>
>>And yet, we still possess the bombs. Along with many others.
>>
>>We have courted death for everyone on this planet. Is that a moral act?
>
> What's your point. I'm not trying to defend nuclear proliferation. And
> one issue is as related to the other as I am to my grand-niece,
> once-removed.
My point is if we want to be the world's policeman, we have to show a
lot better grade of morality than we have been.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Fucking A RIGHT we were.
>>>>
>>>>Unfortunately our accumilation of nuclear weapons has caused us to lose
>>>>our moral superiority.
>>>
>>> Do you remember the cold war, termite? I'm sorry, I don't know how old
>>> you are. I just caught the tail end of it myself. But I for one am
>>> glad we had those nukes.
>>
>>In other words, because of our differences with another country, we
>>were willing to erase the entire human race, all the thousands of generations
>>to come, because, at worst, the Russians might have communized the world
>>for 500-1000 years, before they too, became history. In other words,
>>we were so arrogant to believe that we were the best thing the human
>>race could ever achieve, that we had the right to threaten our extinction
>>and all after us, so that we might continue to do things our way.
>
> And what were our options. Either we threaten to do it, or it would be
> apparently done to us. Bad all around, Termite, but old news.
Actually, we chose to start the arms race long before the Russians even
had the bomb. They felt forced to compete.
>
>>
>>And you've made one serious error - not "we had those nukes" - we have them.
>
> We have less of them.
We have more than enough of them.
(...)
>>>>
>>>>We're not morally superior - but come to think of it, with enough missiles
>>>>launched, we really could stop them all, couldn't we?
>>>
>>> Now you're talking sense.
>>>
>>> No not really. I understand and agree with your points about the
>>> hypocrisy of the US and the world in general. I just don't see why
>>> that should stop us from doing the right thing in this case.
>>
>>Because our hypocrisy is such that we don't even see the wrong things
>>that we are doing.
>
> Inactivity is not a solution to anything.
Choosing to stay out of pissing matches is not inactivity.
Jody McGinness
>Sending what seemed to be a string of senseless digital crap, <3700ff41....@news.supernews.com>,
> jo...@poetaster.com (Jody McGinness) wrote:
>> On 28 Mar 1999 03:09:25 GMT, ter...@net-link.net (termite) wrote:
>>
>>>Sending what seemed to be a string of data, <36fd30de....@news.supernews.com>,
>>> jo...@poetaster.com (Jody McGinness) wrote:
>>>> On 26 Mar 1999 23:29:44 GMT, ter...@net-link.net (termite) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Wrong, Jody. It's because some things can't be stopped without taking the
>>>>>risk of creating greater evils.
>>>>
>>>> You're giving congress and the american populace too much credit here.
>>>> They haven't chosen not to act again and again because of a
>>>> philosophical fear of setting a precedent, they're lazy.
>>>
>>>Maybe they don't know the answers. Which, in my view, puts them ahead of
>>>those that do.
>>
>> Nobody knows the answers, anywhere, ever. By you're philosophy (the
>> "This might not be the right thing, so I better do nothing" one ), no
>> one would ever accomplish anything.
>
>That's not my philosophy and you know it. My philosophy is that people
>who are having trouble running their own country shouldn't go around
>telling the world what to do.
Tell that to the other 17 countries in NATO. They'll insist we're
fine.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> If it's not
>>>> american blood, it's worth about half as much in their eyes.
>>>
>>>And if it's Rwandan blood how much is it worth in comparison to Serbian
>>>blood? Must not be as much because many more people have been killed
>>>over there and our country hasn't tried to stop it.
>>
>> That's unfortunate. I suppose since we let the Rwandan's die, it only
>> makes sense to never help anyone. Do you see how depressingly
>> ineffective that way of thinking is?
>
>I see how depressingly ineffective we are. Trouble is, without arming
>our whole country and going on a crusade, I don't think we can change it,
>at least by arms.
Weren't you the one who called him a little tinpot dictator?
>
>(...)
>
>>>>
>>>No better than the intentions of those who persecuted the Serbs in
>>>Yugoslavia during WW 2 - Can't you see that both sides have contributed
>>>to this?
>>
>> Yes. But I'm talking about right now. The US and greater Europe have a
>> lot of apologizing to do for poor decision making or inattention in
>> the past. If we let Kosovo go, it'll just be another apology to add to
>> the list.
>
>We'll just have to help the refugees as best we can.
And then have your children reminding my children about how we let the
Kosovars get slaughtered? There's no progress with that kind of
thinking, Termite.
>
>(...)
>
>>>
>>>Can't you see that the Greeks and the Russians, to name two examples, see
>>>NATO's meddling in this matter as hypocritical? We are going against
>>>our national interests by alienating the Russians over this - now, why
>>>they support the Serbs is beyond me, except that they might be thinking,
>>>"well, what happens the next time, we have a rebellion in our country -
>>>will NATO dictate the terms of how we settle it? Will they bomb us
>>>if we say no?"
>>
>> The Greeks are idiots.
>
>That's possible.
>
>> Really. Have you taken a look at their system
>> of government. You have to bribe 8 people to buy a newspaper. But even
>> assuming that their opinion should be respected, they have their vote
>> in NATO, and as much say as is proportional to their contribution.
>
>Except they are within close reach of the battle and have interests in
>Macedonia that are opposite the Albanians.
Everyone's got their motives.
>
>> They can't expect the other 17 or so countriesto just change policy
>> because one country disagrees (after they voted FOR the airstrikes).
>> And the Russians have never liked NATO, understandably, or any of it's
>> actions. What else is new? They're a self-important relic of a
>> country, who still assumes that anything the US does is a threat to
>> their oh-so-waning power.
>
>Especially their power to control their own ethnic problems. I suspect
>that's why they're so concerned - they're worried NATO will do the same
>to them next.
Probably.
>
>(...)
>
>>>
>>>We want to live. Without war. If we have a choice.
>>
>> So do the Albanians. They haven't asked for their persecution by
>> asking for independence.
>
>Well, they did take up arms against the Serbian government. And a few
>years earlier they did inspire many Serbs to leave Kosovo because of
>their bigotry and maltreatment.
>
>There's a long history of stupidity on both sides here.
How are the actions you just described "stupid"?
>
>>
>>>
>>>And in this case, we do. It's a pity that many Yugoslavians have chosen
>>>for war, (including the Albanians). When they realize that the rest of
>>>the world is thriving while they are mired in misery, perhaps they'll
>>>see the error of their ways.
>>
>> It's rare to see any country thrive under a dictator, except in times
>> of war.
>
>Actually, before World War 2 broke out, Germany was doing quite well.
>Singapore has been doing very well under a dictatorship for many years.
>And without bothering its neighbors.
Singapore is a city-state, where the people are constantly under
surveillence and scared shitless to disagree with the government
because of the (and you'll like this) Orwellian system of silencing
dissidents. It is not an example of sociological comfort. And before
WWII, Germany was NOT doing well. It had resources and money, but a
government in shambles and a sky-rocketing unemployment problem.
>
>> So basically, the Albanians are faced with two alternatives. Live
>> under the rulership of a tyrant who hates them for their race, and
>> who's governance reflects that attitude, or declare (and fight for)
>> independence. NATO is just making the second one less of a suicide
>> mission.
>
>Unfortunately, they're having to choose leaving instead.
>
>>
>>>
>>>Hitler and Stalin sincerely believed they were saving the world for what
>>>was right.
>>
>> Hitler and Stalin weren't elected.
>
>Actually, Hitler was.
Yeah, like George Washington was. I mean, by the populace.
>
>>>>>> Their lives are as valuable as anyone from anywhere, Termite.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's not the point.
>>>>
>>>> It is the point.
>>>
>>>Then the planes would be better used to drop off food supplies in the
>>>areas of Africa that need them.
>>>After all, their lives are as valuable as anyone from anywhere and they're
>>>not running around with guns trying to shoot each other.
>>>Well, some of them, anyway.
>>
>> How much food do you think we deliver to Africa every year?
>> It's a bad situation, and more should be done, you're right.
>
>As much as we can, with the thought that perhaps we should also teach them
>how to get things going on their own.
Sure. Different issue, though.
>
>>>>
>>>> Well lets assume we're not. Does that mean we shouldn't try?
>>>
>>>Yes. If we're not strong enough, we can only make things worse.
>>
>> You honestly think the combined efforts of Europe and the United
>> States aren't enough to stop one backwater dictator?
>
>Not without politically unacceptable losses. And perhaps not even then -
>just because we get rid of the chief doesn't mean that the war would be
>over. Look at Northern Ireland.
What about it? Ulster's as independent as you can get without
acheiving independence. But that's a different situation, too. England
is not cleansing all the Catholics out of Northern Ireland. The laws
aren't even discriminatory (for the most part).
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Or hey - you know with all our nuclear weapons, we stand a chance of causing
>>>>>a nuclear winter with mass extinction of humanity. That's billions of
>>>>>potential deaths in countries that haven't consented to be threatened in
>>>>>any way and have nothing to gain from our continued hording of nukes.
>>>>
>>>> The difference between our government and Milosovic's is that we're
>>>> not using our weapons. I agree that we are armed to the teeth with
>>>> weapons that are too powerful for our own good, but we're not using
>>>> any of them on anyone at this point.
>>>
>>>There are armed robbers who never use (in the sense of firing off) their
>>>guns either.
>>>They are still convicted of armed robbery.
>>
>> False analogy. If the American people were concerned (as opposed to
>> comforted) by our posession of nuclear weapons, they would vote
>> accordingly, or at all. Unfortunately, people who have any political
>> opinion whatsoever are few and far between.
>
>Until they see American bodies shipped home. Then they'll discover
>they have opinions. And as far as their level of concern, it was
>quite high in the mid '80. The lack of a real enemy has lulled them
>to the danger.
My point.
>
>
>(...)
>
>>>
>>>Why? Explain to me why a Sri Lankan peasant should share in the fate of
>>>human extinction simply because a couple of other countries don't get
>>>along with one another, or have philisophical differences?
>>>
>>>A morality or philosophy that does not reverence life enough to avoid
>>>threatening the existence of a next generation is thoroughly bankrupt.
>>
>> First of all, I'm not defending the US's cold war strategy. It was
>> what it was. And fortunately, it worked.
>
>And when it did, we stopped having a strategy and stopped realizing that
>we had an opportunity to negotiate our nuclear arsenal away.
>
>> We've got a lot of bombs
>> left, but we have less than we did, and we're supposedly not making
>> new ones, so that's progress. Far to go, sure, but it takes a lot of
>> years (and votes) to dismantle an entire strategic defense system.
>
>Clinton hasn't really tried to do anything about it.
Was it Clinton who signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty? I'm not
sure.
>
>
>(...)
>
>>>>
>>>> 33 bombing campaigns have been conducted, none of them have worked
>>>> alone except for Bosnia. They always have required ground troops.
>>>
>>>Then why is our government saying it won't put ground troops into Kosovo?
>>
>> Because American citizens aren't willing to risk their lives for
>> Albanian ones.
>
>Which is precisely why this whole thing is a bad idea. The bombing isn't
>working - it's made the situation worse. And we aren't willing to
>follow through.
>We should have called for the Russians' help in negotiating this some more.
>
>(...)
>
>>>
>>>No. If one is serious about stopping the Serbs, then ground troops will
>>>have to be used. If we aren't willing to do that, then we aren't really
>>>trying and what we're doing is worse than doing nothing.
>>
>> No. It is a different debate. I'm advocating airstrikes.
>
>It's just making us feel better. That's all.
>
>>
>>>
>>>Which is what I think we should have done - nothing.
>>
>> Okay, Switzerland. Look, it's unrealistic. We're not isolationist,
>> we're empirical. That's the way our economy works, and our mentality.
>
>We need to find something in between those two extremes.
>
>> But don't you think it would have an effect on us if Eastern Europe
>> went screwy?
>
>Not enough of one to get heavily involved in what may well be intractable
>problems.
We're not heavily involved, yet. So what're you complaining about?
>
>>>>
>>>> Don't you think if it were a problem you'd hear the soldiers involved
>>>> saying so?
>>>
>>>Sometimes they do. And whatever one thinks about any particular war
>>>it is certainly a problem for anyone involved in it.
>>
>> Rarely they do. But when you join the armed forces, you entrust those
>> decisions to someone else.
>
>And what happens when people become less willing to join?
What we see today. Overworked areas throught the armed forces, which
leads to less renewels, etc... in a descending spiral. We're spread
thin.
>
>(...)
>
>>>>
>>>> Forgive me, I forgot to take an acid hit before I read this post. It's
>>>> sort of like The Wall, I need the lsd to understand it.
>>>
>>>Are you saying that brain surgery to turn people into docile sheep is
>>>impossible? Haven't you ever heard of lobotomies? Those were done
>>>with ice picks - we could use much more sophisticated equipment.
>>
>> Possible, yes. Plausible, doubtful. Not as long as our country's
>> leaders are still accountable. If there were a change in government,
>> that would be a different story.
>
>Is Bill Clinton accountable for anything?
Let's see. Is he an elected representitive? Then he's accountable to
the american people. If we want, we can take his job away. Or vote
republican next time, whatever. Our leaders are more directly
accountable to the people than anywhere else in the world.
>
>>
>>>
>>>Come to think of it, if we just made everybody do a hit of acid a week ...
>>
>> We'd be much more creative.
>
>Hmm, after awhile it gets to be same old, same old - it can only take you
>so far.
>
>(...)
>
>>>>
>>>I think it would be horrible if our country became a self-righteous
>>>policeman enforcing our views on the whole world with our troops.
>>
>> Wake up and smell the nachos, termite, it happened many years ago.
>
>Well, actually, I thought we might have stopped for awhile. Obviously
>not ...
>
>>>
>>>> But my
>>>> desire to see my country intercede is based on what I see as a
>>>> horribly unfair situation that is costing the lives of thousands of
>>>> albanians.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, your desire is based on unwarranted assumptions and
>>>an inconsistent appraisal of the world and its situations.
>>
>> What is unwarranted? Say we spend 1 American life to save 2 Albanian
>> lives. 500 for every thousand. Rough, yes. But a net gain in LIFE,
>> termite, and all life is worth the same amount - precious. And that
>> isn't even close to the numbers we're looking at. We might lose, what,
>> 5? lives in airstrikes. And if they save 5 Albanians, we've broken
>> even.
>
>According to your accounting. I think you'll discover that what the
>Congress and the people think about that would be much different.
I agree. And that's a shame.
>
>>>
>>>> Ideally that wouldn't be the case. But this is
>>>> not an ideal world.
>>>
>>>It's not a world we have to police to make ideal, either.
>>
>> You're right. I respect those people who never do a thing to better
>> the world around them so much more than those who try to make it
>> ideal.
>
>Gandhi did more for his country than any number of revolutionaries with
>guns.
>Maybe you should try to think of other ways our country could be helpful.
You should see what England did for that country. I mean, they have
colleges now, you know?
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No - we're just holding on to enough nuclear weapons to kill everybody
>>>>>and everything.
>>>>
>>>> What do you thinks keeps people from nuking us? Our nukes. They're out
>>>> there, termite, and one day a terrorist is going to level Des Moines.
>>>
>>>And of course our nuclear bombs will stop that. Nuclear terrorism will
>>>happen. But if we negotiate reduced stockpiles, with the idea of eventual
>>>elimination, and non-proliferation, we may be able to pull the world
>>>through this - the real danger is that India and Pakistan or other countries
>>>will use them against each other and create problems. And we can't tell
>>>them to get rid of theirs unless we're willing to get rid of ours.
>>
>> Sure. Just like they've done so successfully in Russia.
>
>Actually, we've acquired some of their stocks already. All we need to
>do is continue - if they don't get too angry over Serbia.
And about ten percent of them have disappeared off the face of the
planet. Presumably into the black market.
>
>>>
>>>Since we built up our arsenals (along with the Russians - oh, yes, they
>>>can be blamed equally) to such obscene extent, yes. Most of my
>>>generation grew up believing that we would die in nuclear holocast.
>>>Look at the effect it's had on us.
>>
>> Apparently it's made the whole generation into a bunch of cynical
>> isolationists.
>
>They're getting tired of foreign wars with no benefit to us.
They haven't fought any.
>
>>
>>>
>>>And the younger people - they're in denial - they think because the
>>>Berlin Wall's down and the Communists are "gone" that it can't happen.
>>
>> What young people are you talking about? I mean, I'm assuming you
>> don't mean, all young people in the country. That wouldn't really be
>> fair.
>
>I don't hear people talking about it much, young or old. I'm assuming
>that's what people think. I know that the whole issue has been
>fairly buried for a few years.
That's a big assumption.
>
>>
>>>
>>>And yet, we still possess the bombs. Along with many others.
>>>
>>>We have courted death for everyone on this planet. Is that a moral act?
>>
>> What's your point. I'm not trying to defend nuclear proliferation. And
>> one issue is as related to the other as I am to my grand-niece,
>> once-removed.
>
>My point is if we want to be the world's policeman, we have to show a
>lot better grade of morality than we have been.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fucking A RIGHT we were.
>>>>>
>>>>>Unfortunately our accumilation of nuclear weapons has caused us to lose
>>>>>our moral superiority.
>>>>
>>>> Do you remember the cold war, termite? I'm sorry, I don't know how old
>>>> you are. I just caught the tail end of it myself. But I for one am
>>>> glad we had those nukes.
>>>
>>>In other words, because of our differences with another country, we
>>>were willing to erase the entire human race, all the thousands of generations
>>>to come, because, at worst, the Russians might have communized the world
>>>for 500-1000 years, before they too, became history. In other words,
>>>we were so arrogant to believe that we were the best thing the human
>>>race could ever achieve, that we had the right to threaten our extinction
>>>and all after us, so that we might continue to do things our way.
>>
>> And what were our options. Either we threaten to do it, or it would be
>> apparently done to us. Bad all around, Termite, but old news.
>
>Actually, we chose to start the arms race long before the Russians even
>had the bomb. They felt forced to compete.
Sure. American sympathizers in Russia say the same thing about us.
>
>>
>>>
>>>And you've made one serious error - not "we had those nukes" - we have them.
>>
>> We have less of them.
>
>We have more than enough of them.
True.
>
>(...)
>
>>>>>
>>>>>We're not morally superior - but come to think of it, with enough missiles
>>>>>launched, we really could stop them all, couldn't we?
>>>>
>>>> Now you're talking sense.
>>>>
>>>> No not really. I understand and agree with your points about the
>>>> hypocrisy of the US and the world in general. I just don't see why
>>>> that should stop us from doing the right thing in this case.
>>>
>>>Because our hypocrisy is such that we don't even see the wrong things
>>>that we are doing.
>>
>> Inactivity is not a solution to anything.
>
>Choosing to stay out of pissing matches is not inactivity.
You should tell that to the families starving as they struggle through
the mountains trying to reach Macedonia. Sorry, not our pissing match.
- Jody
termite
> On 30 Mar 1999 20:03:51 GMT, ter...@net-link.net (termite) wrote:
(...)
>>
>>That's not my philosophy and you know it. My philosophy is that people
>>who are having trouble running their own country shouldn't go around
>>telling the world what to do.
>
> Tell that to the other 17 countries in NATO. They'll insist we're
> fine.
As long as it's our troops on the ground and not theirs, yeah.
>>>>
>>>>And if it's Rwandan blood how much is it worth in comparison to Serbian
>>>>blood? Must not be as much because many more people have been killed
>>>>over there and our country hasn't tried to stop it.
>>>
>>> That's unfortunate. I suppose since we let the Rwandan's die, it only
>>> makes sense to never help anyone. Do you see how depressingly
>>> ineffective that way of thinking is?
>>
>>I see how depressingly ineffective we are. Trouble is, without arming
>>our whole country and going on a crusade, I don't think we can change it,
>>at least by arms.
>
> Weren't you the one who called him a little tinpot dictator?
I was referring to all such places in the world. If we took it upon
ourselves to sort every situation out, then we would be on a crusade.
As far as little tinpot dictators go, they can be quite hard to
deal with on their own territory.
>
>>
>>(...)
>>
>>>>>
>>>>No better than the intentions of those who persecuted the Serbs in
>>>>Yugoslavia during WW 2 - Can't you see that both sides have contributed
>>>>to this?
>>>
>>> Yes. But I'm talking about right now. The US and greater Europe have a
>>> lot of apologizing to do for poor decision making or inattention in
>>> the past. If we let Kosovo go, it'll just be another apology to add to
>>> the list.
>>
>>We'll just have to help the refugees as best we can.
>
> And then have your children reminding my children about how we let the
> Kosovars get slaughtered?
We didn't let them get slaughtered, we had no real choice. The bitter
truth is that we will have to fight a ground war to change this situation.
And we should have known that to begin with.
> There's no progress with that kind of
> thinking, Termite.
I saw a good part of a generation thrown at a war that wasn't winnable
according to the way our government was willing to conduct it. It was
ugly and tragic. It bitterly divided our country and in the end,
nothing was accomplished.
(...)
>>>>
>>>>We want to live. Without war. If we have a choice.
>>>
>>> So do the Albanians. They haven't asked for their persecution by
>>> asking for independence.
>>
>>Well, they did take up arms against the Serbian government. And a few
>>years earlier they did inspire many Serbs to leave Kosovo because of
>>their bigotry and maltreatment.
>>
>>There's a long history of stupidity on both sides here.
>
> How are the actions you just described "stupid"?
Well, it's certainly not doing them much good is it?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>And in this case, we do. It's a pity that many Yugoslavians have chosen
>>>>for war, (including the Albanians). When they realize that the rest of
>>>>the world is thriving while they are mired in misery, perhaps they'll
>>>>see the error of their ways.
>>>
>>> It's rare to see any country thrive under a dictator, except in times
>>> of war.
>>
>>Actually, before World War 2 broke out, Germany was doing quite well.
>>Singapore has been doing very well under a dictatorship for many years.
>>And without bothering its neighbors.
>
> Singapore is a city-state, where the people are constantly under
> surveillence and scared shitless to disagree with the government
> because of the (and you'll like this) Orwellian system of silencing
> dissidents. It is not an example of sociological comfort.
Actually, I'd say that many of the people there prefer it that way.
It's not a tradition in that part of the world to go against authority,
or to spend one's time concentrating on politics. Most want to work
and make money and have orderly lives, and so they do.
Of course, I'd hate living in a country where they fine you 500 bucks
for not flushing a toilet ...
> And before
> WWII, Germany was NOT doing well. It had resources and money, but a
> government in shambles and a sky-rocketing unemployment problem.
That was in the 20s. When Hitler took over, he primed the economy
by starting up the factories to provide him with war goods. Employment
was good. The economy was doing well.
The prospects for peace and a decent life in Europe weren't so damned
good ...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hitler and Stalin sincerely believed they were saving the world for what
>>>>was right.
>>>
>>> Hitler and Stalin weren't elected.
>>
>>Actually, Hitler was.
>
> Yeah, like George Washington was. I mean, by the populace.
He was elected. First to the Reichstag as leader of the Nazi Party,
which achieved a plurarity of the popular vote; after which he was
invited to form a government with a coalition of other parties, which
he did. It was within the country's laws and followed traditional
parliamentary procedure.
After he got that far, he quickly took the opportunity to become
a world class asshole.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well lets assume we're not. Does that mean we shouldn't try?
>>>>
>>>>Yes. If we're not strong enough, we can only make things worse.
>>>
>>> You honestly think the combined efforts of Europe and the United
>>> States aren't enough to stop one backwater dictator?
>>
>>Not without politically unacceptable losses. And perhaps not even then -
>>just because we get rid of the chief doesn't mean that the war would be
>>over. Look at Northern Ireland.
>
> What about it? Ulster's as independent as you can get without
> acheiving independence. But that's a different situation, too. England
> is not cleansing all the Catholics out of Northern Ireland. The laws
> aren't even discriminatory (for the most part).
It's a very similar situation. A minority in country B wants to
unite with their brothers in country A, but the majority in country
B don't want to become a minority in country A.
Also there are places where a Catholic or a Protestant dare not go
in Northern Ireland. How they can tell by looking is beyond me ...
The main difference is that both sides feel a lot more obligation to
find a civil solution to the problem.
>>>
>>> False analogy. If the American people were concerned (as opposed to
>>> comforted) by our posession of nuclear weapons, they would vote
>>> accordingly, or at all. Unfortunately, people who have any political
>>> opinion whatsoever are few and far between.
>>
>>Until they see American bodies shipped home. Then they'll discover
>>they have opinions. And as far as their level of concern, it was
>>quite high in the mid '80. The lack of a real enemy has lulled them
>>to the danger.
>
> My point.
OK.
>>
>>> We've got a lot of bombs
>>> left, but we have less than we did, and we're supposedly not making
>>> new ones, so that's progress. Far to go, sure, but it takes a lot of
>>> years (and votes) to dismantle an entire strategic defense system.
>>
>>Clinton hasn't really tried to do anything about it.
>
> Was it Clinton who signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty? I'm not
> sure.
It's rather easy for us to sign a treaty like that when we already
have the weapons. The Pakastanis felt quite differently ...
(...)
>>
>>> But don't you think it would have an effect on us if Eastern Europe
>>> went screwy?
>>
>>Not enough of one to get heavily involved in what may well be intractable
>>problems.
>
> We're not heavily involved, yet. So what're you complaining about?
We have implied by our actions that we want to solve the problem. Yet,
soon, the world will see that our actions were not enough, and we
are not willing to take actions that would be. Next time we involve
ourselves in a situation, are people going to find us believable?
It's simple as this - we find goals that our people believe in, we
go through the constitutional steps to use military force for these
goals, we define what it is what we're going to try to do, and then
we go all out, 100%, to do it, no holds barred.
Not enough people believe in this war, Congress has not declared
war, Clinton has not really defined what he's after and he's only
got air power in this battle and there won't even be ground troops
for weeks.
It's half assed. I don't think this should be done at all, but
we sure as hell shouldn't do it this badly.
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't you think if it were a problem you'd hear the soldiers involved
>>>>> saying so?
>>>>
>>>>Sometimes they do. And whatever one thinks about any particular war
>>>>it is certainly a problem for anyone involved in it.
>>>
>>> Rarely they do. But when you join the armed forces, you entrust those
>>> decisions to someone else.
>>
>>And what happens when people become less willing to join?
>
> What we see today. Overworked areas throught the armed forces, which
> leads to less renewels, etc... in a descending spiral. We're spread
> thin.
Exactly. And Saddam's watching this. But he's an idiot. There's
one more reason we should be cautious - what would happen if we got
heavily involved in this, sent thousands of troops over there and
then North Korea picked that moment to invade the South?
>>>>
>>>>Are you saying that brain surgery to turn people into docile sheep is
>>>>impossible? Haven't you ever heard of lobotomies? Those were done
>>>>with ice picks - we could use much more sophisticated equipment.
>>>
>>> Possible, yes. Plausible, doubtful. Not as long as our country's
>>> leaders are still accountable. If there were a change in government,
>>> that would be a different story.
>>
>>Is Bill Clinton accountable for anything?
>
> Let's see. Is he an elected representitive? Then he's accountable to
> the american people.
He's not up for reelection, so he doesn't have to worry ...
> If we want, we can take his job away. Or vote
> republican next time, whatever. Our leaders are more directly
> accountable to the people than anywhere else in the world.
I'm not so sure about that.
(...)
>>>
>>> What is unwarranted? Say we spend 1 American life to save 2 Albanian
>>> lives. 500 for every thousand. Rough, yes. But a net gain in LIFE,
>>> termite, and all life is worth the same amount - precious. And that
>>> isn't even close to the numbers we're looking at. We might lose, what,
>>> 5? lives in airstrikes. And if they save 5 Albanians, we've broken
>>> even.
>>
>>According to your accounting. I think you'll discover that what the
>>Congress and the people think about that would be much different.
>
> I agree. And that's a shame.
We can't protect the world from themselves. Some will have to learn
the hard way.
(...)
>>
>>Gandhi did more for his country than any number of revolutionaries with
>>guns.
>>Maybe you should try to think of other ways our country could be helpful.
>
> You should see what England did for that country. I mean, they have
> colleges now, you know?
They had colleges, literature and scholarship when the Angles and Saxons
were painting themselves blue and sleeping in peat huts.
(...)
>>>
>>> Sure. Just like they've done so successfully in Russia.
>>
>>Actually, we've acquired some of their stocks already. All we need to
>>do is continue - if they don't get too angry over Serbia.
>
> And about ten percent of them have disappeared off the face of the
> planet. Presumably into the black market.
Oh, man. Where'd you hear that? Does anyone know who got them?
That's the world's biggest danger, right there ...
>>>>Since we built up our arsenals (along with the Russians - oh, yes, they
>>>>can be blamed equally) to such obscene extent, yes. Most of my
>>>>generation grew up believing that we would die in nuclear holocast.
>>>>Look at the effect it's had on us.
>>>
>>> Apparently it's made the whole generation into a bunch of cynical
>>> isolationists.
>>
>>They're getting tired of foreign wars with no benefit to us.
>
> They haven't fought any.
The people 5 years older than me did. And it was hell.
(...)
>>
>>I don't hear people talking about it much, young or old. I'm assuming
>>that's what people think. I know that the whole issue has been
>>fairly buried for a few years.
>
> That's a big assumption.
It hardly gets mentioned in the papers at all ...
(...)
>>Actually, we chose to start the arms race long before the Russians even
>>had the bomb. They felt forced to compete.
>
> Sure. American sympathizers in Russia say the same thing about us.
It's historical fact. We had the bomb in 1945. The Russians got it
a few years later. All the while we not only kept refining and
building more bombs, we invented the hydrogen bomb and blew up
a couple just to show the world what badasses we were.
The Russians, naturally, were scared shitless.
>>
>>Choosing to stay out of pissing matches is not inactivity.
>
> You should tell that to the families starving as they struggle through
> the mountains trying to reach Macedonia. Sorry, not our pissing match.
Wait til they decide they're going to grab their land back. Oh, and
maybe the parts of Macedonia that are mostly Albanian and hell, any
parts of Serbia they feel entitled to.
Actually, I strongly suspect that no matter what happens, a guerrilla
war in that area is now inevitable.
wxnw...@cpros.com
In article <7dsh75$l...@news.net-link.net>,
ter...@net-link.net wrote:
> Sending what seemed to be a string of senseless digital crap,
<37013b17....@news.supernews.com>,
> jo...@poetaster.com (Jody McGinness) wrote:
> > On 30 Mar 1999 20:03:51 GMT, ter...@net-link.net (termite) wrote:
>
> >>That's not my philosophy and you know it. My philosophy is that people
> >>who are having trouble running their own country shouldn't go around
> >>telling the world what to do.
> >>>>No better than the intentions of those who persecuted the Serbs in
> >>>>Yugoslavia during WW 2 - Can't you see that both sides have contributed
> >>>>to this?
> >>>
> >>> Yes. But I'm talking about right now. The US and greater Europe have a
> >>> lot of apologizing to do for poor decision making or inattention in
> >>> the past. If we let Kosovo go, it'll just be another apology to add to
> >>> the list.
> >>
>
> We didn't let them get slaughtered, we had no real choice. The bitter
> truth is that we will have to fight a ground war to change this situation.
> And we should have known that to begin with.
>
> I saw a good part of a generation thrown at a war that wasn't winnable
> according to the way our government was willing to conduct it. It was
> ugly and tragic. It bitterly divided our country and in the end,
> nothing was accomplished.
>
> (...)
> >>>>
> >>>>We want to live. Without war. If we have a choice.
> >>>
> >>> So do the Albanians. They haven't asked for their persecution by
> >>> asking for independence.
> >>
> >>Well, they did take up arms against the Serbian government. And a few
> >>years earlier they did inspire many Serbs to leave Kosovo because of
> >>their bigotry and maltreatment.
> >>
> >>There's a long history of stupidity on both sides here.
> >
(if i may, snip snip and like that;) hey and like that; i've been followin'
this 34-string thread, read jus' 'bout ever' werd, and must say its been
interstin'; got classical/political realism, pragamatic realism., pragmatic
idealism, political idealism, non-violent pragmatism, romantic idealism,
romantic pragmatism, and whatnot various arguments/points of view. i sorta
admire termite's non-violent rationalism, respect jody's idealism, understand
button-presser's political realism, have regard fer jrs's classical realism
and global-scene savvy, and agree with anti's pragmatic idealism; jus' a few
points i'd like to make to add to/comment on the discussion. i guess what's
really got me is the artless duplicity by which the US public is being misled
by the prez and other public-policy spokepersons in stages to apparently and
eventually endorse the kinda action its gonna take to really clear this whole
issue up. granted i think there is a compelling rationale fer interceding in
this human-rights drama, cause of social justice and world-peace and all
that, but eight days after the shooting-match started i gotta say the UN
really dropped the ball on this, the US of course/especially too; we (sic)
find ourselves gettin' provoked/pushed/prodded righteously indignant and
compelled to committ to the kinda full-out military-prosecution campaign we
should have been well-planned-for and ready to implement from the git-go;
instead, our political-leaders (sic) and spokespersons have been leading us
on inna soap-box- opera charade of "what's the right moral duty, class?"
lesson-by-the-nose instruction; the military has its own reasons fer provin'
their systems and the mettle/caliber of their troops. beyond that, the whole
debacle unintended-but-inevitable consequences of a major refugee dilemna
that won't go away now presents the UN with a crisis; a sort of "duh; ya mean
the folks'll flee from retribution when we start bombin? who'd a' thought,
eh?" idiots. ain't got too much respect fer a buncha commanders and
strategists and analysts who didn't anticipate/plan fer that scenario; best
intentions and all like that, their concern fer well-being sorta shallow
there. the whole emphasis on airpower is foolish and ludicrous, illustrates
jus' how dumb the muckety-mucks think the public are, they'll go along with
anything if ya tell the well-meaning but uninformed and
don't-know-what's-best electorate what they should believe and why. . . .and
there's the assumption of moral superiority underlying all our (sic) actions.
if action is required and we (sic) feel it's up to us to act, we (sic) should
be willin' to meet the foe onna ground and respect his (her, whatever) dyin
with our own risk; not that we (sic) should needlessly accept risk, but ya
gotta clear and hold territory, or else the whole damn mess just gets shoved
underground inna hit-and-run campaign that drags on and on and. . . .course
now the muckety-mucks are anxious to use some block-busters to adjust
real-estate values after inflation. . . . and so-on-and-so-forth. jrs's
analysis/commentary about the money-flow showing what the US's real mission
is is pretty sharp (i always thought jrs was a pretty complex guy); but i
don't think it goes far enuff. (well, i had another lost-dejanews post-page
episode, i even "saved-as" off-line but it wasn't savin' my
laboriously-werded reply; damn, but this is an exercise in frustration,
trying to reconstruct an argument w/o losing patience; it won't be as
elaborate as i would like/already did; damndamndamn etc.) the money trail
tracking the US's real interests in Albania/kosova/et al. also includes some
pretty vested interests in military hardware and systems, as well as R&D,
logistics, supply, transport, and ordinance. still think the real payout is
weapons design R&D, armory replenishment (use up the old ordinance, let
contracts fer new product), military promotion/patriotic rah-rahing, troop
training, systems testing, revising the manual on postmodern war rural/urban
strategy, consolidation of UN mantle-of-respectability/authority/moral
superiority, and like that. ennybody feel free to add what i mighta missed,
overlooked.
thot i'd pass on this tight analysis of the Serbian/Albanian points of view by
suzanne burrows (from some different thread/forum):
Side 1: Kosovo, also known as Old Serbia, has been an integral part of
Serbia's identity and culture for the last 700 years, and for almost all that
time was populated by Serbs. When the Turks occupied the place, they
displaced the Serbs over time, and planted pro-Ottoman Albanian Muslims in
the province to ensure stability and support for the Ottoman Government.
Serbs were a majority until well into the 20th Century, and lost their
demographic dominance to past 'ethnic cleansing' and persecution which forced
many to flee north into Serbian- governed areas. Side2: Albanian Muslims have
been present in Kosovo for several centuries, and in the last 50 years have
become the dominant ethnic group in Kosovo. They resent being governed by
Serbs, and the forced use of the Serbo-Croatian language in government
institutions such as Universities, and believe the Serbs are trying to erode
their culture, and assimilate them. They base their claim to independence on
their overwhelming majority- 90% of Kosovans are Albanian. In recent years,
resistance against Serbian oppression has blossomed into a full Civil War
with independence as their goal.
i'd say offhand that ethnic strife has been aggravated by the communist
regime of the last fifty years, which limited economic/social development,
significant improvement in standard-of-living, and opportunities to enhance a
vital culture. and so it goes. lotz more could be sed, but that's fer next
time (mebbe); outta here like, now; skye
>clik<