From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: A word to Viking (that I posted anyway)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 07:33:21 GMT

In <1992Apr12.203831.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu writes:

>Anyway, did you ever think that perhaps it was not our place to
>be in the Middle East in the first place?  Explain to me why we
>were there.  Was it to defend the rights of some small Mid. East 
>country?

	Now we are getting into the realm of politics, so I'll try to
make this portion fairly short: we were there because Saddam posed a
threat to our oil supplies, because we had the political will do go
in, and because we had the backing of neighboring states.  Those were
political decisions.  Was it our place to be there?  Somebody appears
to have thought so, and I'd imagine Bush knew more about the
ramifications than I do.  Wars are started by politicians; the military
is an arm of foriegn policy and executes that policy, be it war or
more peaceful pursuits.

>I find your insentivity toward civilians rather alarming. [..] Tell me how
>you propose telling the families of these civilians that they were "Just
>in the way"  That is plain ignorant.

	On the contrary, I have no intentions of telling the families
of these civilians anything -- I see no need to do so.  What is plain
ignorant is when people think warfare is a sterile event where people
dress up in cute uniforms and shoot at each other.  It is not.  War
is the art and science of applying as much pain, suffering, and death
on an enemy in the shortest amount of time as possible while attempting
to avoid retaliation.  Civilians know that targets will be shot at, and
also that their own cities may be a target should the political leaders
so decide.  Bombs, missiles, artillery, mortars, and even rifles are
not precision weapons, nor are they discriminate.  I see no reason to
expect a war zone to be safe, and if civilians cannot leave the area
that is a pity.  It is, however, a reality.

>  In Korea over 1 million civilians
>died.  Were they all just "In the way"  or were they diliberatly targeted?
>Perhaps to demorilize the "enemy"?  How can that many people just be in the
>way?

	One million civilians isn't that bad, really, considering the
war in question.  Deliberatly targeting civilians is a waste of munitions
unless they are somehow supporting your enemy.  In any event, there are
hundreds of ways to kill civilians and not have targeted them.  One is
errant shellfile, another is running over them with tanks and the like.
A third is to shoot back and them (note this implies they shot first),
and a fourth is to kill them in their homes during street-to-street
fighting.  Did you think no civilians died during any of the other wars
we had previously?  I'd bet several died just in the Normandy invasion
and the preceeding bombardment, not to mention the fighting in cities
that happened shortly thereafter.  People die in war.  Face it.  Some
of them don't wear uniforms.  Too bad.  My dislike of it will not
change that fact.  As for demoralizing, deliberate targeting of civilians
is a great way to make your enemy much more determined and resolved.

>  Tell me how the poor farmers of the Vietnamese plains could ever know
>that there fields were good for the next battle-field.

	When troops are walking across your rice paddy and you live in
a war zone, you do not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that
somebody might start lobbing mortar shells on them and you should most
likely get someplace else soon.  A half mile would be enough.

>  Explain to me why
>poor and INOCENT men, women, and CHILDREN were burned out of there homes
>and shot in the dirt roads in Vietnam.

	Were they so innocent?  Somehow there must have been a reason,
be it a murderer in the army (not unheard of), collaboration or giving
aid to the enemy, shooting at the troops, walking along with a munitions
convoy that will be shelled, and of course the inevitable confusion
that will result in civilian casualties.  If you've just been shot at
or shelled, and you see something flitting between buildings, there is
a remarkable tendency to shoot first and make a positive ID later.  As
for the age or sex of the individials, I fail to see why I should care.
A life is a life, and the loss of one is no more or less tragic should
they be 8 or 80.

>Don't spend your time babbling about "Orders"  why not spend a second and
>take a thought about morals.  We all have the ability to say no.  Even to
>our highest superiors.  Tell me, which would you rather have on your 
>concious.  A dead child, or a discharge from the military?

	Never been in the military, have ya?  I know you're going to go
absolutely nuts when I tell you this, but there is no reason for me to
make such a decision.  See, I cannot be ordered to shoot a child unless
that child poses a serious threat (as in, carries a grenade or gun and
appears to know how to use it), so in any scenario I might be ordered
to shoot a kid in, I'd shoot the kid.  As for the military discharge,
note that refusing to obey valid orders is a court-martial offense, and
in a wartime situation may be considered treason, traitorious conduct,
or mutiny.  The penalty for these is still summary execution.

	Morals?  Yes, we all have the ability to say no.  We also have
the ability to think for ourselves and to say, "Yes, sir!" when we
so wish.  My morals and yours quite possibly do not coincide in many
areas, and there appears to be little chance that they ever will.  I
choose to deal with the realities of life, and one of those is that
people die all the time, and often not for any particular noble reason
or for any purpose.  People die in wars, be they soldiers or civilians.
Civilians are an asset that may have some military significance and,
while not a popular option, may be targeted indirectly such as when
their cities are bombed or burned.  Live with it.  To prevent it,
all you need to do is prevent war.  Can you figure out a practical
method of doing so?  I'll give you one constraint: I am not willing
to give up any of my liberties in exchange for this security.

<Daniel R. Sorenson   Dod #1066  |If Iowa State University agreed with me >
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu <- work |I'd make $90K/yr.  They don't, I don't. >
<viking@iastate.edu      <- play |"I am *not* goofing off.  I am driving  >
< myself mercilessly in the pursuit of relaxation." -- T. Weeds           >