From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: John Cage is Dead
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:59:29 GMT

In article <Btq7qu.3vD@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.162250.15149@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly) writes:

>>Now, about the "crimes" of this "evil" Cardew person.  My God, man,
>>he merely championed Mao's philosophy--he never killed anyone!

>Well, I don't think Hitler ever actually killed anyone personally either,
>but don't you think that he and his supporters were responsible for the
>bloodshed every bit as much as the guys who pulled the triggers and ran the
>gas chambers?

I see.  Whom did Cardew order killed?

>>If you, say, supported George Bush 4 years ago, or today, or even
>>voted for him, does that make *you* responsible for, oh, the 100,000+
>>Iraqi civilians killed by the bombs or starved to death in the
>>continuing aftermath of his sycophantic support of the Saudis?

>ince when is it "sycophantic" to defend an ally against aggression from 
>a neighbor?

When you're allied only because they keep the world price of oil down,
basically.  When they oppose most of the things you stand for.

But that's irrelevant.  For one thing, until the day before the invasion,
Iraq was an ally, too.  

For another, the defense is irrelevant.  The issue is: were the things
Bush ordered done appropriate?  The destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure,
the massacre of unarmed troops, the FAILURE to remove Saddam or his Guards
while destroying the rest of the army (thus *strengthening* his political
position), the failure to protect the minorities we had encouraged to
revolt against Saddam, thus ensuring *their* massacre; all this is on the
table.  Do people who support Bush have to answer for all of this?

>Don't you think that there is a difference between STARTING a war and 
>responding to an attack?  

Of course.  Don't you think there's a difference between military necessity
and atrocity?

>If an aggrressor hides his weapons beside orphanages and old age homes,
>would you say that it would be immoral to respond to attacks?  Of course,
>you might deny that Iraq was an aggressor or that they placed their weapons
>intentionally in places that would endanger civilians, but you wouldn't deny
>that if he in fact did these things that there is no moral problem with
>those collateral deaths, would you?

Fine.  Most of the collateral deaths had nothing to do with these issues.

>I am also curious where you got that 100,000+ statistic.  I had heard 
>something like that as the number of total Iraqui deaths including 
>soldiers.  Where did it come from?

All over the place.  DOD won't tell you differently.

>Lastly, the ideology which Bush professes (which I don't happen to believe he
>actuall subscribes to) cannot be made to justify mass killings for no good 
>reasons, Maoism on the other hand is quite consistent with such actions.

Does Bush profess any ideology?  He seems to subscribe to tons of them.
But, as you say, actions speak louder than words, and his encouragement
of arms sales, legal or otherwise, to just about anyone on the planet
would seem to be a pretty consistent statement.

Now, could you please relate this to Cornelius Cardew, who never had one
shred of effect on world politics, and who never called for the death of
anyone?

Roger

Newsgroups: rec.music.classical