Re: war is terror...
--- Ronn! Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 09:31 AM Thursday 7/19/2007, jon louis mann > wrote: > >That is one - rather bizarre - way of looking at > things. I would > >suggest that in fact the reason people are able to > be more concerned > >about collateral damge is because a) they are more > aware of it and b) > >the stakes are much lower. With the immoral bombing > actions of the > >Second World War a genuine case can be made for it > protecting the > >bombing nation (although I am not sure that > personally I would try to > >make such a case) whereas no such similar case can > be made today. > > Martin > > > >i think that now, more than ever, a case can be > made for no more war. > > > > I love the idea of Isaiah 2:4. Are you aware of any > extant nation or > group of people who have successfully implemented > it? > > > > >the people in these mideast countries are being > kept in poverty, > >despite their fantastic wealth in oil. people are > so full of rage and > >desperate for work, that they join terrorist > organizations. many > >become martyrs simply so their families will be > fed. > >was it really necessary to fire bomb dresden? > > > > I dunno. Was the London Blitz really necessary? > > > > >did america really need > >to use the a-bomb on densely populated cities? > > > > I dunno. Did Japan really need to infect POWs with > bubonic plague > and then vivisect them to see the effects, in plans > for using > balloons or other devices to drop bacteria on > California? > > > > > was the alternative to > >invade japan, or were there other choices? > > > > I dunno. Any suggestions for what those other > choices might have been? > > > > >what role do governments > >have in going to war when the solution might be to > find a way to give > >people in these countries hope? > > > > I dunno. What would you have done to give Germany's > Jews hope in the > late 1930s-early 1940s? > > > -- Ronn! :) > > > > ___ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > Heh Easy answer silly boy..! No these things were not necessary... All everyone had to do was be nice to each other and impliment (Ah HaHaHa..) Moral policies of government (snicker, guffaw) and industry (oh stop, stop...i can't take it!) which repect the mutual welfare of all. What did God tell the people in the "Book of Judges" when they demanded a King, (like all the other nations) ? Chaos still rules. LongTimeNoSee-um ;;) Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: war is terror...
-Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of jon louis mann > Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 6:33 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: war is terror... > > the evidence is that a blockade would not have ended WWII. > it would have allowed the Soviet Union to switch it's forces to the > Eastern Front... > which probably would have resulted in a Soviet sphere. (snippet) > > my japanese stepmother told me the americans dropped the bomb because > japan was negotiating a surrender to the commies, which would have > ended the war, and japan would have become a soviet satellite. > jonsan I'm not sure if you know, but extensive documentation of the deliberations of both the Japanese and American governments exists. I was able to get a copy of "Why Japan Surrendered" by Robert Pape (International Security, Vol 18, No 2, pp. 154-201). He brought up some factors that I knew and some I didn't (including that the USSR invasion of Manchuria's devastating success was a factor in the surrender of Japan). But, the important point here is that this question has been the subject of tremendous scholarship by people who have access to a wealth of primary documents. I would trust a rumor heard in Japan about the motivations of the US and Japanese government about as much as I'd trust a rumor in Germany, or the US. After all, there are stories that a fraction of the US is convinced about the UN and its black helicopters about to take over the US or the WTC being rigged with explosives that are believed. > >what role do governments have in going to war when the solution might > >be to find a way to give people in these countries hope? > > if most wars are due to government seeking advantage (which certainly > is the case in iraq) it is even more tragic that freedom loving > americans went along with bushco. we had no dictatorship to resist. But, the advantage that the US sought was not a bad thing. A government that existed to provide for the people it governed in Iraq would be a good thing for them. > wars may not be correlated with desperation, but this war is to defeat > terrorism, which can be described as tactics of desperation. > the wars of the last 30 years are vastly different than 250 years ago, > although people lived under oppessive regimes. As framed and stated by GBW et. al. it does sound silly. But, framed differently, as a long term worldwide COIN, fighting the insurgency does make sense. Like the cold war, though, individual battles (such as Gulf War II) can be disastrous and/or foolish. But, that doesn't mean that isolationism is a better option. For example, was the US wrong to stick its nose in the business of others in Gulf War I or the Balkans? I think a neoisolationism policy, which I think you are advocating...but would happily accept clarification onwill be more harmful than our policy of the last 20 or so years. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
war is terror...
the evidence is that a blockade would not have ended WWII. it would have allowed the Soviet Union to switch it's forces to the Eastern Front... which probably would have resulted in a Soviet sphere. (snippet) my japanese stepmother told me the americans dropped the bomb because japan was negotiating a surrender to the commies, which would have ended the war, and japan would have become a soviet satellite. jonsan >what role do governments have in going to war when the solution might >be to find a way to give people in these countries hope? if most wars are due to government seeking advantage (which certainly is the case in iraq) it is even more tragic that freedom loving americans went along with bushco. we had no dictatorship to resist. wars may not be correlated with desperation, but this war is to defeat terrorism, which can be described as tactics of desperation. the wars of the last 30 years are vastly different than 250 years ago, although people lived under oppessive regimes. habibi jonski Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: war is terror...
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of jon louis mann > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:31 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: war is terror... > > That is one - rather bizarre - way of looking at things. I would > suggest that in fact the reason people are able to be more concerned > about collateral damge is because a) they are more aware of it and b) > the stakes are much lower. With the immoral bombing actions of the > Second World War a genuine case can be made for it protecting the > bombing nation (although I am not sure that personally I would try to > make such a case) whereas no such similar case can be made today. > i think that now, more than ever, a case can be made for no more war. > the people in these mideast countries are being kept in poverty, > despite their fantastic wealth in oil. people are so full of rage and > desperate for work, that they join terrorist organizations. many > become martyrs simply so their families will be fed. Actually, that's not a typical portrait of a martyr. It's one that fits our preconceptions, but not the data. A friend/colleague Gautam is one of the world experts on terrorism. She has interviewed over sixty different terrorists. Off the top of my head, terrorists do not, usually, come from the poorest and most desperate. A better generalization is that they find meaning in their actions. Most members of terrorism organizations, such as AQ, come from middle or upper class families. Examples of this include Bin Laden, most of the 9-11 hijackers, and the physicians who were involved with the latest attempts in Great Britain. Another perspective on this is the conclusions of a French journalist who interviewed a number (>20 and probably 40-50) failed suicide bombers in Israeli jails. He said they talked freely with himand he thought that they did so because they saw him as sympathetic. For the most part, their motivation was to purity which was ruined by the existence of Jews in Palestine. As with the 9-11 terrorists, Bin Laden himself Further, the suicide bomber is not, usually, a long standing member of the groupbut sees this action as a way of gaining status/honor. If folks are interested, I can write Gautam and ask him to relay her findings in more detail, as well as other literature on the subject. But, I won't bother him if it will just be dismissed out of hand. > was it really necessary to fire bomb dresden? No >did america really need to use the a-bomb on densely populated cities? >was the alternative to invade japan, or were there other choices? If they wanted to end the war without an invasion, most likely. We can never know for certain what the consequences of untaken actions would have been, but we do have some indicative data. In particular, the Emperor had to decent from above to cast the tie-breaking vote on surrender. His cabinet was deadlocked 3-3 on surrendereven after two cities were devastated by two bombs. IIRC, even after the Emperor descended, he had to argue long and hard to get agreement on surrender. Given that, the evidence is that a blockade would not have ended WWII. Rather, it would have allowed the Soviet Union to switch it's forces to the Eastern Frontwhich probably would have resulted in a Soviet sphere of influence in the east like the one in the west (Eastern Europe. And, the invasion was expected to cost 1 million American casualties and far more Japanese. There were plans for a fight to the death by virtually the whole population. Remember, according to the Japanese viewpoint of the time, a defeated people lost their humanity when they lostthat's what made the killing of half of their POWs, their actions in Korea reasonablethey were dealing with sub-humans. >what role do governments have in going to war when the solution might be to >find a way to give people in these countries hope? It sounds logical, but most wars are not the direct result of a hopeless people. It's the result of a leadership that sees advantage in starting a war. Look at the wars that have been started in the last 60 years. I think it is more reasonable to see the view of people that they cannot resist their own dictatorships successfully as contributing to war, but the initiation of wars are not correlated with desperation. One way to look a this is look at the wars of the last 30 years and the big wars of, say, the last 250 years, and see if the cause is that the perpetrator of the war was a country with a uniquely desperate population (or at least trending towards significantly higher desperation in the population than other countries at the time.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war is terror...
On 7/19/07, Ronn! Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I love the idea of Isaiah 2:4. Are you aware of any extant nation or > group of people who have successfully implemented it? Liechtenstein? According to http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2025383,00.html they don't have an army, but still came out okay when Switzerland (accidentally) invaded them earlier this year. -- Mauro Diotallevi "Hey, Harry, you haven't done anything useful for a while -- you be the god of jello now." -- Patricia Wrede, 8/16/2006 on rasfc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war is terror...
On 7/20/07, Ronn! Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >the people in these mideast countries are being kept in poverty, > >despite their fantastic wealth in oil. people are so full of rage and > >desperate for work, that they join terrorist organizations. many > >become martyrs simply so their families will be fed. > >was it really necessary to fire bomb dresden? > > I dunno. Was the London Blitz really necessary? I'm sure you are trying to make some sort of point but I'm unsure what it is. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war is terror...
At 09:31 AM Thursday 7/19/2007, jon louis mann wrote: >That is one - rather bizarre - way of looking at things. I would >suggest that in fact the reason people are able to be more concerned >about collateral damge is because a) they are more aware of it and b) >the stakes are much lower. With the immoral bombing actions of the >Second World War a genuine case can be made for it protecting the >bombing nation (although I am not sure that personally I would try to >make such a case) whereas no such similar case can be made today. > Martin > >i think that now, more than ever, a case can be made for no more war. I love the idea of Isaiah 2:4. Are you aware of any extant nation or group of people who have successfully implemented it? >the people in these mideast countries are being kept in poverty, >despite their fantastic wealth in oil. people are so full of rage and >desperate for work, that they join terrorist organizations. many >become martyrs simply so their families will be fed. >was it really necessary to fire bomb dresden? I dunno. Was the London Blitz really necessary? >did america really need >to use the a-bomb on densely populated cities? I dunno. Did Japan really need to infect POWs with bubonic plague and then vivisect them to see the effects, in plans for using balloons or other devices to drop bacteria on California? > was the alternative to >invade japan, or were there other choices? I dunno. Any suggestions for what those other choices might have been? >what role do governments >have in going to war when the solution might be to find a way to give >people in these countries hope? I dunno. What would you have done to give Germany's Jews hope in the late 1930s-early 1940s? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
war is terror...
That is one - rather bizarre - way of looking at things. I would suggest that in fact the reason people are able to be more concerned about collateral damge is because a) they are more aware of it and b) the stakes are much lower. With the immoral bombing actions of the Second World War a genuine case can be made for it protecting the bombing nation (although I am not sure that personally I would try to make such a case) whereas no such similar case can be made today. Martin i think that now, more than ever, a case can be made for no more war. the people in these mideast countries are being kept in poverty, despite their fantastic wealth in oil. people are so full of rage and desperate for work, that they join terrorist organizations. many become martyrs simply so their families will be fed. was it really necessary to fire bomb dresden? did america really need to use the a-bomb on densely populated cities? was the alternative to invade japan, or were there other choices? what role do governments have in going to war when the solution might be to find a way to give people in these countries hope? Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
