HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steph@cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson)
Subject: Re: To the Pacifists (A Challenge Not a Flame)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:26:07 GMT

In <204799@unix.cis.pitt.edu> jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Jonathan S. Anderson) writes:

>In article <92103.161255TWZ101@psuvm.psu.edu> TWZ101@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>>
>>     I challenge the pacifists recently posting anti-war messages to do one
>> simple thing:  show me a case where pacifism PREVENTED or STOPPED a war AND
>> guaranteed the rights of the invaded against the invader (I don't mean someone
>> who simply let their country be overrun while sitting there hoping for sal-
>> vation and achieving nothing).

>Sorry, there is no example to give.  Pacifists like myself, would like to
>stop war, but readily admit that what we are trying to do is impossible.
>Does this, in any way, make war a morally acceptable alternative?  No.  Does
>it detract from our position?  Not in the slightest.

>I would ask you... Give me one example of a law which has stopped cocaine use
>in the United States.  The simple fact that you cannot give me one does not
>mean the laws shouldn't be on the books.  (Although some might disagree)

I submit that the laws against cocaine use have directly caused *some*
people to refrain from using cocaine.  I believe that if there were no
laws on the books, cocaine use would rise.  In other words -- the laws
do have a deterrent effect.

I don't think you were challenged to prove that a pacifism would prevent
all wars from now until the end of time -- any more than military
preparedeness prevents all wars.  I'm waiting for any example where pacifism
prevented a *single* war.

[snip]

-- 
Dale J. Stephenson |*| (steph@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Gigabit Study Group 

  "It is considered good to look wise, especially when not 
   overburdened with information" -- J. Golden Kimball
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Interesting challenge.
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:05:02 MST

In article <1992Apr16.124717.9196@linus.mitre.org>, bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise) writes:
> In article <1992Apr16.005400.6617@pimacc.pima.edu> ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu  
> writes:
> 
>> Well *I* believe there is a *little* bit of difference between assasinating
>> someone & arresting them, for one thing. I think we would've had one hell
>> of a time trying to arrest SH. Could've been as bad as Berlin in 1945 IMHO.
>> Also, there had been a recent election in Panama that had been overturned
>> by Noriega so there was a replacement gov waiting in the wings with a good
>> claim to the title, as it were. The situations in Panama & Iraq had many
>> significant differences between them.
> 
> Panama is a semi-colony of the US and our relations with the rest of the world  
> are somewhat different. My original comment was meant tongue in cheek.  We do  
> use assassination but there is a lot of hypocrisy about it.  Remember when they  
> bombed that bunker in Bagdad?  They weren't trying to kill the janitor!   
> Government does tend to have a gentleman's agreement about offing the  
> competition at the same level since if you shoot at the other guy he might  
> start shooting back at you!  And I don't have any problem with the concept of  
> knocking off the king or whoever of a country if I'm at war with them.  The  
> only problem is if you kill the head of state it's hard to get him to negotiate  
> a peace treaty after the war.
> 
> --
> Barry Wise

Just for the record; I think that the US law concerning assasinations was
both ill-conceived & ill-considered in the first place. It was , however,
proposed by the liberals in Congress during the anti-war fever of the '70's
& passed (I believe) over a presidential veto. At the time I remember read-
ing a number of warnings from the intell community that the US would regret
that law someday & I think the Gulf War bears that out. After all the nature
of modern warfare really doesn't rule out much & having to work around this
sort of law does inevitably produce a measure of hypocrisy.

PHIL

Newsgroups: alt.war
From: wehumble@iastate.edu (William E Humble)
Subject: Re: How to stop wars
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 20:50:55 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.031101.6411@m.cs.uiuc.edu> steph@cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson) writes:
>In <1992Apr12.180539.7780@wam.umd.edu> spinoza@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (Prince Lev of the Domovoi) writes:
>[snip]
>
>>I'd just like to point out here that the soldier is not obligated to  
>>follow orders which are manifestly immoral (at least that's what I've  
>>heard about US and Israeli armed forces, I imagine the same principle is  
>>expounded in other countries. In any case, the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials  
>>seem to have established this principle pretty well by demolishing th  
>>e"just following orders argument"....................
>
>Semi-rhetorical question.  Were there any German soldiers who *didn't*
>follow orders?  What happened to them?  What would have happened to them?


	In the case of 'go shoot that peasant' sort of orders, the *regular* 
German army soldiers at least, could refuse without getting court martialed.  
The way I heard it, German army regs required that the circumstances of the
charges had to be presented at a court martial, and so a blatantly illegal 
order like that wouldn't stand up.  I heard of a few instances where German 
soldiers refused such orders, and were merely transferred to a different unit.

	The SS units might have been a different story, without the history of
discipline of the regular German Army, but I do remember reading somewhere 
about some soldiers who refused to work in an extermination camp, and weren't
executed, imprisoned, etc.   


>"It takes one foe to breed a war, not two, Master Healer.  Those who
>have not swords may just as easily die upon them" -- Eowyn.
>-- 
>Dale J. Stephenson |*| (steph@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Gigabit Study Group 
>
>  "It is considered good to look wise, especially when not 
>   overburdened with information" -- J. Golden Kimball


	Ed Humble
	wehumble@iastate.edu 
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: james@cs.UAlberta.CA (James Borynec; AGT Researcher)
Subject: Re: To the Pacifists (A Challenge Not a Flame)
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:56:35 GMT

steph@cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson) writes:

>  I'm waiting for any example where pacifism
>prevented a *single* war.

Well, if you count pacifism for pragmatic reasons (as opposed to pacifism
for ideological reasons) I can think of a number of wars which were
averted including: The 1981 Polish war. The liberation of East Europe.
The Soviet Civil War (at least for now). 

The majority of the people of the world now live under (more or less)
democratic rule.  This is the first time EVER that this has happened.
As democracies rarely go to war with other democracies, this means that
starting and prosecuting wars is much more difficult.
 
j.b.  Jjames@cs.ualberta.ca
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Flowers?
Date: 11 Apr 92 20:08:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr11.200844.13957
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Jonathan S. Anderson) says:

>......people will never learn and there will always be wars around. 

We've never been able to end war, therefore it can't be done?
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOkay.


.
-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: What about the worst generals ever?
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:54:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: linus.1992Apr14.155427.5148
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <204855@unix.cis.pitt.edu> hnkst2+@pitt.edu (Hanhwe N Kim) writes:

> Also candidates are the French and German leaders who
> wasted their armies in the trenches on the Western front.

Would Hitler count since he acted as a general in planning such wonderful  
debacles as Barbarossa?
--
Barry Wise
(bwise@hemlock.mitre.org)
From: hnkst2@icarus.lis.pitt.edu (Hanhwe han Kim)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: How to stop wars
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:52:20 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Just my 2 cents on this thread.

I believe the only way to win a war is to prevent it from happening.
All modern wars have cost ridiculously large expenditures, caused
havoc with the victors as well as loosers, and the human costs
are hardly justifiable. Even Sun Tzu in ancient China notes that
fighting a war in his time was extremely costly to the state.

But non-violence as a means to protect oneself has not worked
well. There was a thread on soc.history several months ago
comparing instances where one side did not resist an aggressor
and where one side did so with violence. The one's who fight back
have fared much better. 

One comparison I remember was the Austrailian
aborigines vs. the Maoris of New Zealand. The Maoris who fought
the British invaders for 15 years in a brutal guerilla war were
able to get at least some concessions and preserve some of their rights
while the aborigines who did not fight back effectively had none.
Among the Native Americans, the Navaho whom are currently the largest tribe
were also the ones who fought the US the longest.

-han kim
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thursday, 9 Apr 1992 12:07:55 EDT
From: <TWZ101@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Greatest Military/War Games
 <1992Apr9.140056.29697@news.iastate.edu>

     On a somewhat different note than other posters, I'd say the most fun
 "beer and pretzels" game is Axis and Allies.  It's not terrible realistic,
 leaves much to chance, but damn, it's addictive  (after one summer, we decided
 to set up a hotline called AAAA--Axis and Allies Anonymous).

                                        --Tom--
                                "Do you trust what I trust. . .?"
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: p0lu@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Leslie Mills)
Subject: Re: Greatest Military/War Games
Organization: University of New Brunswick
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:46:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.030804.19912@descartes.waterloo.edu> sjknell@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (Jason Knell) writes:
>
>   What are the greatest/best military/war games to play?  I'm more   
>   interested in games of strategy and/or tactics.  Some people have
>   suggested to me that chess is the ultimate.  But what do you war
>   experts think?
>
> <parts deleted>

Well, I'm not a war expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I 
know what I like. ;->

In terms of pure strategy and complexity of moves, no game in history
has been used more than chess.  Technically though I don't really
consider it a war game, since you are only permitted to move only one
piece at a time (with the exception of castling).

The best war game in terms of land battles I've seen so far is a 
computer game called The Perfect General.  It is simple enough to play,
(heck, *I* can play it!!), but the scenarios gradually get more and
more complicated.  The only drawbacks to the game that I can see are:

1) The computer opponents are not much of a challenge, even at high
   intelligence levels (you have a choice of 3 levels).

2) The loooooong time it takes for the computer to process your moves.

In terms of running a war rather than battles, I would suggest 
InterStel's computer game Empire.  It's relatively old (~10 years), 
but is simple and very flexible (nobody I know plays the game the same
way).

Yeesh.  This is a long posting for only 2 articles. 

"At Munich, Hitler offered you a choice: War or Dishonour.  
 You chose Dishonour, and you shall get War."
	-- Winston Churchill to Prime Minister Chamberlain

-- 
"If you love something, set it free.       |
 If it doesn't come back to you,           | Leslie Mills
 Hunt it down                              | Disclaimer: Letter? What letter?
 And kill it..." -- Thus sayeth a T-Shirt  |
From: jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Jonathan S. Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: war is hell.
Keywords: fnord
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:52:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Apr12.112256.608@sbcs.sunysb.edu> jflint@csws5.ic.sunysb.edu (Jesse Flint) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.085458.13613@acsu.buffalo.edu> v080lmaq@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (MIKE) writes:
>>
>>Wars have frequently been a means of distracting attention from domestic
>>problems with economic issues involved. 

>Yeah, right?
>People NEVER fight wars for "valid" reasons... at least valid AT THE TIME...

Let's try to be objective for a minute.  Although I agree with your statement,
all you have quoted from Jesse is that wars frequently distract us from
problems occurring at the time and divert our attention.  Do you disagree
with this?  Look at the popularity George Bush gained as a result of
desert storm.  He gained this popularity, DESPITE his almost total lack
of concern for domestic issues and policies.  The American public is not
stupid and they know that Bush hasn't helped them much on the domestic front.
I'm not going to go out on a limb and say that George started the Persian
Gulf conflict as a means of raising his approval ratings, but I think you
would also be going out on a limb by saying it wasn't in the back of his mind.
Obviously, something as complicated as conflict is not entered upon for one
simple set of reasons, is it?

-Jon Anderson


  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  
  Jon Anderson                                      jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu
      "Won't you look down upon me Jesus, you gotta help me make a stand,
       You've just got to see me through another day.
       My body's aching and my time is at hand,
       And I won't make it any other way. "                 -James Taylor
  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: A voice to be heard
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:33:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.225051.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>So, you all want an explenation to the lyrics???
(Stuff about why lyrics are posted and other stuff)

Alright, let's not say, "Let's blow the hell out of Columbia!"  Howzabout,

"Let's blow the hell out of Asbury!"

:) :) :)

Smileys posted for the humor impaired.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Roger Asbury                            email:  fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  You can sell your soul, but don't you      
dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu 	|  sell it too cheap!
				|  
Standard Disclaimer		|  -Randy Bachman, The Guess Who
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: How to stop wars
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:15:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: pimacc.1992Apr13.101512.6604


 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting, though, that soldiers in the Soviet Union, and
> some of the soldiers in China refused orders to fire upon 
> their own countrymen.  It's a shame it's not like that here, huh?
> -----------------------------------------------------------

Well I fibd it significant that *most* of the soldiers in China
did what they were ordered to. Besides there are always *some*
soldiers who won't go along. One of the teachers at this college
was drafted into the Wehrmacht at the age of 17 during WWII. He
wound up in the stockade because he wouldn't follow certain orders
haveing to do with the treatment of Soviet POWs. It didn't involve
shooting any of them or even anything that sounded like a potential
warcrime but it went against his grain anyway.

Finally, what does your last sentence refer to. Not Kent State that's
for sure. Videotapes clearly show the officer in charge of the con-
timgent of troops attempting to restrain his men. I believe the var-
ious trials concluded that the outbreak of gunfire was spontaneous &
*not* the result of any order.

PHIL
From: rwstarke@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Ross W. Starkey)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: What about the worst generals ever?
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:08:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: vela.14679
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.

Surely General Gamelin belongs in anyone's top ten pick for the worst
generals of all time?


-- 
Ross Starkey                         "Of course you know, this means WAR." 
rwstarke@vela.acs.oakland.edu        "This whole thing is goony, I shou'da
                                      stood in bed!"  "Gruesome, isn't it?"
FIGHT DICTATORSHIP!  VOTE!!!!                                  --Bugs Bunny
From: jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Jonathan S. Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: To the Pacifists (A Challenge Not a Flame)
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:32:28 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <92103.161255TWZ101@psuvm.psu.edu> TWZ101@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>
>     I challenge the pacifists recently posting anti-war messages to do one
> simple thing:  show me a case where pacifism PREVENTED or STOPPED a war AND
> guaranteed the rights of the invaded against the invader (I don't mean someone
> who simply let their country be overrun while sitting there hoping for sal-
> vation and achieving nothing).

Sorry, there is no example to give.  Pacifists like myself, would like to
stop war, but readily admit that what we are trying to do is impossible.
Does this, in any way, make war a morally acceptable alternative?  No.  Does
it detract from our position?  Not in the slightest.

I would ask you... Give me one example of a law which has stopped cocaine use
in the United States.  The simple fact that you cannot give me one does not
mean the laws shouldn't be on the books.  (Although some might disagree)

>     Not only will you most likely NOT be able to do this, but for every ONE
> example you might dig up, TEN OTHERS could be found where deterrence and
> balance of power achieved better results.
>                                                 --T.Z.--

Accepting any possible good which might come from evil does not negate the
evil.  If you disagree, then you must accept that the ends justify the
means.  I claim that such a philosophy is dangerous as:

	1) human beings can never predict with %100 certainty what the
	   consequences of their actions will be.
	2) it makes almost any possible action morally acceptable

					-Jon Anderson

  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  
  Jon Anderson                                      jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu
      "Won't you look down upon me Jesus, you gotta help me make a stand,
       You've just got to see me through another day.
       My body's aching and my time is at hand,
       And I won't make it any other way. "                 -James Taylor
  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: spinoza@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (Prince Lev of the Domovoi)
Subject: Re: To the Pacifists (A Challenge Not a Flame)
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:22:05 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.202159.743@linus.mitre.org> bwise@hemlock.mitre.org  
(Barry Wise) writes:
> In article <james.703349795@menaik> james@cs.UAlberta.CA (James Borynec;  
AGT  
> Researcher) writes:
> > steph@cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson) writes:
> > 
> > >  I'm waiting for any example where pacifism
> > >prevented a *single* war.
> > 
> > Well, if you count pacifism for pragmatic reasons (as opposed to  
pacifism
> > for ideological reasons) I can think of a number of wars which were
> > averted including: The 1981 Polish war. The liberation of East Europe.
> > The Soviet Civil War (at least for now). 
> 
At the moment, there are between three and five civil wars going on in  
what used to be the USSR..........
Newsgroups: alt.war,soc.culture.asian.american
From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: The War in 2020 (was US military policy)
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:35:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.183217.4287@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>In article <10878@chalmers.se> d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr4.010011.13911@nas.nasa.gov> eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) writes:
>so the book would appear to have a monopoly on this line of reasoning.
	     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, this should read "would NOT appear to have a monopoly". 
Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - These opiini^H^H damn! ^H^H ^Q ^[ .... :w  :q  :wq  :wq! ^d  X ^?
exit X Q  ^C ^? :quitbye  CtrlAltDel   ~~q  :~q  logout  save/quit :!QUIT
^[zz ^[ZZZZZZ ^H  man vi ^@  ^L  ^[c  ^# ^E ^X ^I ^T ? help  helpquit ^D  ^d 
man help ^C ^c help exit ?Quit ?q CtrlShftDel "Hey, what does this button d..."
Newsgroups: alt.war,soc.culture.asian.american
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: The War in 2020 (was US military policy)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 04:58:22 GMT

In <1992Apr10.230007.8183@cs.yale.edu> yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU
 (Norman Yarvin) writes:

>I just meant that war is, in Western countries, now popularly regarded as
>something quite horrible.  It wasn't always that way.  For instance take the
>Franco-Prussian War of 1870; the French declared war because "their honor
>had been insulted" by the German government or some such.

	For an even more interesting view, check out Greece about 700BC and
how Hoplites fought each other.  Basically, a hundred guys from Sparta
would put on their armor, walk up to Athens, and taunt the Athenians.  The
Athenians, certain that the Spartans were vile enemies, put on their armor,
*opened the gates to the city* and walked out.  The two groups went to
find a suitable flat place for a battlefield, fought each other, and that
was it.  Here's the rub: The greeks of this time had no seige engines!  The
vines don't burn (unless they are dead) and there's precious little to
loot outside the cities, so the Spartans could do zip/squat to the
Athenians unless the Athenians agreed to fight.  Honor was the only
reason for leaving the safety of the city walls.

>On the other hand this attitude doesn't stop our waging wars where we are
>sure to crush the opponent immediately (Panama, Grenada), or where our vital
>interests are at stake (Gulf War).

	It is also interesting to note that chimps have been filmed
hunting down, killing, and sharing a monkey.  Never a gorilla, but
always a much smaller monkey.  This also leads me to believe that
perhaps there is some inbred warlike tendencies in humanity, we not
being much above apes in many respects.  At least the apes know not
to try hunting prey that can effectively fight back.

<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           >