HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: What kind of countries wage wear at each other (was Re: The War in 2020 (was US military policy))
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:02:20 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology

In article <1992Apr13.010922.12825@sics.se> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
>I think a better question to ask would be: have there ever been wars
>between democratic nations? I don't think so, but perhaps I'm wrong?

  I have seen the war of 1812 (?) been cited as an example of such a one,
but I don't know anything about the level of democracy in the involved 
nations.

  WWII? Hitler got at least some votes in an election before he got the rest
by intimidation and back-room deals.

  If Pakistan and India goes at it again it might be an example. Both of 
them call themselves democracies, but both are debatable democracies.

  Some more debatables:
    Serbia vs. Croatia
    Serbia vs. Bosnia-Hercegovina
    Serbia vs. Slovenia
    Armenia vs Azerbadjan

>Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se

-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: some more to viking.
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:55:28 MST

In article <1992Apr13.163948.1@acad2.alaska.edu>, fsrla@acad2.alaska.edu writes:

> As for the Middle East, don't any of you relize we were not wanted there
> by the countries we were "suposedly" protecting, well, until Bush cried
> a lot and pushed and pushed them till they finaly gave in.

I can think of one country that wanted us there & that's Kuwait. I don't
think they required any "crying &/or pushing" either (or at least not
by the US anyway). In fact I'll bet they were calling for assitance be-
fore Pres. Bush even heard about the Iraqi invasion.

PHIL
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Interesting challenge.
Date: 16 Apr 92 07:54:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: pimacc.1992Apr16.005400.6617
 <1992Apr14.155958.5363@linus.mitre.org> <1992Apr14.150207.6613@pimacc.pima.edu> <1992Apr14.191856.1@acad3.alaska.edu>

In article <1992Apr14.191856.1@acad3.alaska.edu>, fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
> In article <1992Apr14.150207.6613@pimacc.pima.edu>, ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes:
>> In article <1992Apr14.155958.5363@linus.mitre.org>, bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise) writes:
>>> In article <viking.703133928@aviator.cc.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan  
>>> Sorenson) writes:
>>>> 	Because killing him would have made him a martyr, and as
>>>> a defeated but alive political leader he is much less powerful.
>>> 
>>> It would have been an assassination and we don't do those things do we? We'd  
>>> much rather kill the grunts out in the field. Wars are started by leaders but  
>>> the soldiers do the dying. I don't think a leader has led the charge since the  
>>> War of the Roses.
>>> --
>>> Barry Wise
>>> (bwise@hemlock.mitre.org)
>> 
>> And then there was also the big flap over the legality/illegality of assas-
>> sinating a foreign head-of-government.
>> 
>> PHIL
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Gee, uhm, then why didn't this stop us from "arresting" one in Panama????
> Just a simple thought.....
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Roger Asbury  
_________________________________________________________________________
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.

PHIL
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: apte@leland.Stanford.EDU (R Apte)
Subject: Re: the greatest generals of all time
Summary: The great Qon
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 23:32:54 GMT

In article <9APR199218145175@venus.lerc.nasa.gov> smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) writes:
>c34657b@saha.hut.fi (Tuomas Viljanen) writes...
>>>>No. Mongols had superiority nearly all the time. For example, in the battle of
>>>>Liegnitz 1241, the Mongols had some 100,000 - 150,000 men against King Henry
>
>Turnbull says that at the time of Genghis death, the Mongol army numbered
>123,000 TOTAL.  So it is difficult to believe that 75% of the army was used as
>a flank guard into Poland, with the remaining 25% hitting the 100,000
>Hungarians and guarding the empire.  Chambers mentions an invading force of
>100,000 Mongols. 

From memory, Berthold Spuler estimates that there were never more than 75,000
mongols massed at any one battle.  This figure does not include hostages, of
which there were often quite a few (used a human shields).  At any rate,
the Mongols had an impressive army/total population ratio and an equally
admirable combatants/non-combatants ratio.  Truly they defined economy-of-
force.

Raj

Newsgroups: alt.war
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Interesting challenge.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 23:18:36 GMT

In <1992Apr16.124717.9196@linus.mitre.org> bwise@hemlock.mitre.org
 (Barry Wise) writes:

>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!   

	Are you referring to the bunker that a bunch of civilians were
supposedly caught in?  I looked fairly carefully at the pictures of that
bunker, and discovered it to contain conduit and wiring that was far in
excess of what several industrial shops I've worked in had.  To wit,
that was a command and control center.  Remember, it's illegal to take
out civilians and politicians on purpose -- there is no such restriction
on generals.

<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           >
From: zippy@cs.mcgill.ca (Fotis XIPOLITAKIS)
Subject: Re: How to stop wars
Summary: Yeah right...
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 08:02:49 GMT

In article <92102.230859DAM137@psuvm.psu.edu> DAM137@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>Just a quick solution that was put forward by a German poem entitled
>"Sagt Nein! (Say No!)" written just after WWII:
>
	[things deleted]
>
>Just say no...

 Just not very realistic! eh!? What about the factory worker who needs
 to do the job to feed his family and be able to send them to scholl so
 they don't have to do what he's doing? What about the soldier who is
 ready to put his life on the line for a system he deams worthy to
 protect? We have a volunteer army not a conscript one... Our soldiers
 believe in what are countries stand for... They are doing what they are
 because they wish too... Should we just say no to people like hitler?
 Let them kill millions we'll be happy here in our prety ivory towers
 until people like him come after us... Certain political motives may
 dubious but the soldier MUST always do what he is told... That is his
 job...
>
>Dave

Fotis.

Newsgroups: alt.war,soc.culture.asian.american
From: yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin)
Subject: Re: The War in 2020 (was US military policy)
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:00:07 GMT

geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU writes:
>In <1992Apr9.161534.14433@cs.yale.edu> yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>
>>Well, do you see war between civilized countries any more?  I think Nobel was
>>right.  It just took the rest of the human race a hundred years or so to
>>realize it.
>
>That's real nice, but war has continued anyway.
>I'm not sure how to take your reference to 'civilized countries.' Are you
>implying that every nation that has engaged in war since Nobel's day is
>uncivilized?

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.

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).

--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
From: nigel@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: A word to Viking (that I posted anyway)
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:58:37 GMT
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md, USA

In article <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?  Well, considering few people but the rich have any rights
>there, I somehow doubt it.  Ask any woman from the area.

We were there to say "Hey look...military expansion is not tolerated
among civilized nations".  Are you implying that any nation that has
less than perfect civil liberties is fair game to invasion?  Why not
ask those women in Kuwait that you're so worried about whether they
cheered or cried when US troops poured into their country.

The legal (and mostly supported by the citizens...they seem somewhat
less than thrilled with the Royal family at the moment) government of
Kuwait was attacked and the country was raped by Iraq...is this
correct or incorrect behavior?  This was done after years of economic
aid and years of "peaceful" (if somewhat motivated by fear)
appeasement.  Half the reason that the Kuwaiti military stood down was
to appease Saddam and show that they were non-threating.  So is this
(the Iraqi invasion) what a pacifist considers moral behavior? 

If the legal and justly appointed government asks us to help defend
thier country against a dangerous aggressor do you suggest we say
"sorry buddy, so he's going to rape your women, kill your kids and steal
all your stuff...but it would be immoral for us to go there and kill
our fellow man...after all we're not sure if we even belong in the
Middle East."

[civ death deleted]

>our highest superiors.  Tell me, which would you rather have on your 
>concious.  A dead child, or a discharge from the military?

Well Roger...which would you prefer...letting someone kill a child or
stopping him if it means killing the guy?  I can guess that if it was
your kid on the line you'd shoot the SOB...but not for someone else's
kid eh?  Especially if the guy is able to take a shot at you too...

>Roger Asbury                           email:  fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu

--
Nigel Tzeng
.sig under construction
From: dege@cs.umn.edu (Dege Jeffrey Charles)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: How to stop wars
Date: 12 Apr 92 23:54:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr12.235438.7178
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.

In <1992Apr12.180539.7780@wam.umd.edu> spinoza@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (Prince Lev of the Domovoi) writes:

>In article <1992Apr12.080249.1763@cs.mcgill.ca> zippy@cs.mcgill.ca (Fotis  
>XIPOLITAKIS) writes:

>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"....................

    Not all nations support this principle.  US training stresses the obligation
to follow all lawful orders.  And the obligation to challenge all unlawful
orders.  The USSR made no such distinction.  Soviet soldiers were expected to
obey all orders, the legality of them was to be determined by the leadership.
I'd be interested to know if this is changing in the new national armies.
 
   Even in the US, the soldier isn't expected to judge the morality of the
war in which he finds himself involved, only the morality of the actions he
individually performs.  The judgement of whether a war is justified or is not
justified is a political one, and the military is strictly subordinated to
the civilian leadership on this issue.
 
=====================================
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: aryk@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (a.j.s. nusbacher)
Subject: Re: How to stop wars
Organization:  University of Toronto * Universitas Torontoniensis 
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 02:42:10 GMT

In re the Sagt Nein thread:

Just imagine if during the Second World War the soldiers of the allied armies
had "Nein" gesagt.

_____________________________________________________________________________
        Aryk Nusbacher                .. .. Celebrating the 20th Anniversary    
                                      ||_||  of Women Members of Hart House 
          Hart House                  | I |     || ||          || ||  ..    ..
Informal Education in the University  |   |   . ||_||__________||_||  || ___||
                                      | O |___|_|__________________|__| /  \ |
    aryk@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca         |   |       o oo  oo  oo   o      |__| |
                                      |_A_|_______A_oo  oo  oo   A__^^^______|
_____________________________________________________`------------____________
From: youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Greatest Military/War Games
Date: 10 Apr 92 05:38:30 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

In <RIIALI.92Apr9134838@kannel.lut.fi> riiali@lut.fi (Beke) writes:


>The most realistic one is Harpoon (Naval Strategy).

   Well, it certainly is the most *detailed* one that I've seen, but it is
   hardly realistic.  The NATO weapons accuracy is far overstated...for
   example, I quite routinely wipe out a multiregiment Backfire raid
   with 4 F-15's.  The USAF is good, but...:)
   Also, the sonar section needs to be fixed.  It is almost impossible to
   sneak subs around, and to get within torpedo range is almost impossible
   unless you start off within range.  The new Battleset Indian Ocean/
   Persin Gulf is supposed to have fixed some of this, and also includes
   Stealth aircraft and the new X-USSR aircraft carrier.

   It is a lot of fun, but the big problem is that you have to play 
   against the computer, who is incompitent.  A dual player modem game would
   be amazing.  (Anyone from 360 Software take note!)

   Scott Young
   youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Greatest Military/War Games
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:29:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: pimacc.1992Apr8.162959.6601

In article <1992Apr7.030804.19912@descartes.waterloo.edu>, sjknell@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (Jason Knell) writes:
> Ok.  Here's a RELATIVELY simple question that I need answered (out of 
> curiousity):
> 
>    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?
> 
> 
> -- 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My favorite game of any kind is SSI's 'Battles of Napoleon' tactical level
computer wargame. The AI is pretty good & as long as the player doesn't
'cheat' (by taking back moves) the computer can give you a pretty good
run for your money. Simulation of "fog of war" is very good in this game.
Ditto for command control.

PHIL
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: knight@iastate.edu (David P Bonthuis)
Subject: Re: Greatest Military/War Games
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:00:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.030804.19912@descartes.waterloo.edu> sjknell@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (Jason Knell) writes:
>Ok.  Here's a RELATIVELY simple question that I need answered (out of 
>curiousity):
>
>   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?
>
	I think Advanced Squad Leader by Avalon Hill is the most realistic
 tacticalwargame I have ever played.  The wargame I have enjoyed playing
the most is Operation Market Garden by Victory Gamy Gamtory Games.
	As for computer games, the most fun I've had with one is a public
domain one concerining the Civil War.  It's not terribly realistic, but it
does present numerous tactical situations for you to figure out.
	I think it might help if you defined "best" more specifically.  Do
you mean "most realistic" or "most fun to play"?  If your are looking for
the best combination of the two, I would have to definately say it isay,
IMHO, that it is Advanced Squad Leader.
From: tedrick@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: What about the worst generals (Samsanov :-)
Date: 15 Apr 92 10:15:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.sgvn6INNne0
Organization: University of Communism at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: triangle.berkeley.edu

I think Samsanov and Rennenkampf deserve at least an
honorable mention :-)

(faced with a strategic genius like Hoffmann on the other side 
though, the odds were stacked against them).
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: nigel@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov
Subject: Re: Flowers?
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md, USA
	<1992Apr11.223625.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:08:08 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.223625.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu writes:

>If you find the signiture in any way post-war, you need some serious help.
>It simply states that the freedom we seem to be protecting (remeber, this
>lyric comes from a song written at the time of the vietnam war, and the
>Kent state massacre) is costing the lives of innocent people.

Hmmm...why not ask some S. Vietnamese the cost of losing freedom?  Why
not take a look and see the enlightened ways the N Vietnamese reacted
after winning.  The cost of freedom is buried in the ground Roger...we
simply disagree wether or not that cost is worth it.  

Having been told what happens to the loser by people who experienced
losing their country first hand to a vicious aggressor I have
absolutely no desire to allow that to happen to anyone I care about.

Perhaps Roger they (the Vietnam protestors) simply didn't care what
happened to them?  That many of the people who protested the Vietnam
war are the same people today who are driving BMWs and were the same
people in the 80s who raped Wall street with junk bonds I have very
little evidence they care(d) about anyone other than themselves.

>Roger Asbury                              email: fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"Find the cost of freedom buried in the ground"   ---CSNY---

--
Nigel Tzeng
.sig under construction
From: fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Interesting challenge.
Date: 12 Apr 92 23:36:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Apr12.143646.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

One could almost say that it was the protests
and marches and civil unrest at home that brought
an end to the war in Vietnam.  
Of course, it could have also been the goverment
realizing that the war was wrong, but what are the
odds of that being true?  Or was it just that we
were losing and the government wanted to save face? 
No, I believe that Vietnam is not a good axample 
really.  It simply ended because the American government
betrayed a country we had sworn to protect.  (which we 
jprobably shouldn't have done in the first place, the 
Vietnamese being corupt, and our government supporting it)
_____________
Let me ask the challenger to answer a few questions in return.
Name one war that couldn't have been executed in a lot less time
thenit actually took.  Take the War in the Gulf.  CNN knew where
Saddam Hussien was the night the fighting broke out.  He was our
only true enemy.  But the government here, with it's political
twisting of words, said this is not who we where after.  WHY NOT?
He is, after all, the man who was out to dominate the Middle East.
His soldiers sure as hell weren't.
War can be averted.  I bet half of Iraq would have been happy to se
Saddam out.  But, no, we have to kill hundred of thousands of his 
soldiers, uncounted civilians, only to spit in his face and leave him
in power.  Explain this one to me, if you please.
The same holds true for Vietnam and Korea.  The only wars we have actually
won are the ones mentioned with any light in our school textbooks.  
Tell me, did you ever think of reading something other then what wa
 s  assigned in class?
Would you like to know how many civilians did die in the Korean war???
Well, the number is not measured in the hundreds, thousends, or even
tenthousaands.  It's quite a shocking picture that people who aren't
even involved in a war are killed.  Is this what you want?  
War is no answer to anything.  It doesn't improve relations, in the
last few wars, if anything, it made those countries far more anti-american.
And, I for one, believe we deserve it.  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Asbury                               email: fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Find the cost of freedom buried in the ground"    ---CSNY---
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sunday, 12 Apr 1992 16:12:55 EDT
From: <TWZ101@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: To the Pacifists (A Challenge Not a Flame)

     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).

     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.--
                                        "Knowledge, was it worth such torment/
                                         to see the far side of shadow?"
                                                                   --G.Tate
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin)
Subject: Re: war is hell.
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 02:41:33 GMT

jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Jonathan S. Anderson) writes:
>The problem is that some problems cannot be ignored for a short time.  Take
>one example: the environment.

I didn't say they could be ignored by everybody.  I said they could be
ignored by the news media and the general public for a short time.  The
entity that keeps Evil Chemical Companies from dumping PCBs into drinking
water isn't the Sierra Club, it's the EPA, which is a large slow-moving
organization and can safely be assumed to keep running on inertia if it's
left alone for a year.

So there is no reason to say "we can't go to war because we have to pay
constant attention to domestic things and war will distract us."  Indeed if
the current state of the nation is any way to judge how well paying constant
attention to internal matters serves us, we might as well have another war.

--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
 "Democracy is also a form of worship.  It is the worship of Jackals by
  Jackasses." -- H. L. Mencken
Newsgroups: alt.war