HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:10:52 GMT

spinoza@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (Prince Lev of the Domovoi) writes:

>> > 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..........

You call those little things *wars*, they could hardly be called riots.
I'm willing to bet that less than 10,000 people have been killed.
The Somalians and the Sudanese put those skirmishs to shame :-).

When I said the Soviet Civil War, I meant *THE* Soviet Civil War.  
You know, when the Russians and the Ukrainians start mixing it up.  That
war has been averted (at least for now).

j.borynec james@cs.ualberta.ca
wa
From: rwstarke@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Ross W. Starkey)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: SUNDAY
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:45:31 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.


>I think this is a bit obvious.  It goes without saying that the average 
>individual does not wish to be involved with a modern day, full scale war.  
>I would suggest, and I think most readers would agree with me, that such an
>individual belongs in an institution.  Again, I think the real dispute is
>over whether war is a necessary form of evil or not.  I made a decision a
>long time ago, mostly on religious grounds, that there is no such thing as
>a necessary evil.

A necessary evil?  Hell no!  Never!
Inevitable?  Tragically, yes.

>Simply because people do not agree with my position, however,
>does not mean I label them as "warmongers".  Personally, I think this 
>stereotype of pacifists has gone on long enough. We are not ignorant fools and
>we do have reasons for our positions.  Simply because we are in the minority
>does not take away the validity of our arguments.

Count me as a pacifist too.  Yet I believe that the US must preserve a strong
defense, and that includes SDI (in its present incarnation, not King Ronnie's
"Space Shield that we'll be happy to share with the Soviets" claptrap).

There are, however, a number of kooks who say that we should eliminate our
defenses and "give peace a chance" -- who call themselves pacifists. 
Because of them I am reluctant to call myself a pacifist.  In a similar vein
I am reluctant to call myself a liberal because of the way that those pinheads
in the Democratic Party have changed the meaning of the word... (No flames
please.  I have even less respect for the Elephants than I do for the 
Jackasses)



A NOTE TO ALL: I am a vegetarian and saw last week's "Dinosaur's" episode.
So let's have no Social-Darwinist "bigger eats smaller" talk, eh? :-)


-- 
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: c34657b@saha.hut.fi (Tuomas Viljanen)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: How to stop wars
Date: 13 Apr 92 09:43:50 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

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:
>
>If all the soldiers refused to fight, if they just said no, then there would
>be no armies.  If all the laborers who produce war materials just said no, 
>the armies would have nothing to fight with.  If all the mothers who are told
>to raise their sons to be soldiers just said no, there would be no manpower.
>If all the scientists who are told to make new, more destructive weapons just
>said no, then there would be no more mass destruction.  In short, if everyone
>just says no, then the governements will find themselves without sufficient
>means to fight.  All it takes is the will of the people of the Earth to end
>war at all costs...
>
>Just say no...

So, if there would be no police, there were no crimes, eh ? 

>Dave


  ++ Tuomas Viljanen                     ++ For a battle like Crecy, you do  ++
  ++ Lahderanta 20 A 19                  ++ not need a military genius like  ++
  ++ SF-02720 Espoo 72 FINLAND           ++ Edward III. All you need is an   ++
  ++ 358-0-592175 or c34657b@saha.hut.fi ++ idiot like the Duke of Alencon.  ++
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: RFowler@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Robert A. Fowler)
Subject: Re: Tomohawks/creative accounting
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:09:13 GMT

>The Sneaky Theory (I don't necessarily believe it) : we deliberately
>depleted our Tomohawk supplies because we knew our allies were going
>to refund their cost. With the "new world order", our stocks were deemed
>too high, and this was a way of :
>   1) accomplishing the task
>   2) depleting stocks of an over-stocked weapon
>   3) getting money back for other purposes  
>Sort of makes sense (too much for gov't :^), but it is based on possibly
>false assumption.

>Any comments?

I think you're right about 2 & 3.  I seem to remember in an a press release 
of how much the war cost, that the US *MADE* money on it.  However there was 
a large amount of equipment "writen off" something like 1 to 2 Billion $. It 
sort of makes sence.  If we were going to destroy the equipment anyway (
conventional arms reductions in Europe) then we didn't "spend" it in Iraq.  

Remember when the Sudis wanted to buy a bunch of F 15s and the USAF 
delivered them "out of stock"?  As far as I know we don't keep $40 million+ 
air craft "in stock" in a warehouse somewhere so they really were buying 
USED aircraft.  What did the USAF do with the money?

Any more comments?
    _________________________________________________________________
                        HONDA -- The only way to fly
    o          
  _/\_>   -A proud owner (just wish they were made in the USA)
 O,> / O   [with all respects to Ohio MINE were made in Japan]
           
                           CR500/XL500R/VF500F
                            '88   '82    '84
                           
     Slower trafic keep right (suckzukies, HDs, etc.) ->->->->->->->
    _________________________________________________________________
From: dxper@dtek.chalmers.se (Per Anders Olausson)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: What about the worst generals ever?
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:55:43 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg Sweden

ttynjala@niksula.hut.fi (Tuomas Olli Tynj{l{) writes:

>In article <1992Apr3.005421.3350@cs.umn.edu> dege@cs.umn.edu (Dege Jeffrey Charles) writes:

>The army was bigger (~156,000 in frontline-units). Maybe some 120,000
>in Carelian isthmus which was the main theatre.

>The number for sovjet casualties seems allso quite large. Including losses
>from both 1939-40 and 1941-1944? In that case the size of finnish army in
>which to compare the losses should be that used during 1941-1944 (Size of
>the whole army increased from ~300,000 (1939) up to ~500,000 (1941-).)  

  Well the high casualty rates might have been caused by the _very_ high
death rate of Soviet prisoners in finnish POW camps however I'm not sure
if they are in those figures. I suppose so, though.

  If you check the figures for WWII you'd find that Finland had the
highest rates of any of the countries involved.

pao


--
-------------------------------Andrew Olausson--------------------------------
------------------------------Systems Architect-------------------------------
----------------------------dxper@dtek.chalmers.se----------------------------
--------------------------------pao@proxxi.se---------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: A voice to be heard
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 07:50:51 GMT

So, you all want an explenation to the lyrics???
Ok, I seem to have many points to rebute.
1. someone points out that pacifists don't read this newsgroup.
   Well, I do.  I'm sure I'm not the only one.  Perhaps I'm the
   only one who feels it neccissary to post things.

2,  Why lyrics?
    Well, music is universal.  Many songs have been written out 
    there that fit the situation.  No, I'm not going to write the
    lyrics to the "Balled of the Green Barrets".  It wouldn't fit
    the situation.  I'm anti-war.

3.  Why post here?
    Where better place to try and make a difference?  True, I don't
    mind these historical discussions.  I'm interested in history,
    myself.  But the ones that are like "Hey, let's go blow the hell
    out of Columbia"  are just plain ignorant.

    I don't mind the questions I get.  I'm pretty sure you are all not
use to some anti-war guy from alaska posting anti-war lyrics on your
precious news group.  But I'm here.  And as long as there are people
hoping around waiting for the next war to talk about, I will be here.
To those of you who will dismiss me for some 60's throw back, go ahead.
But for those of you who are interested in other ways.  Why not ask.
One person stated that as long as we have leaders who say that 'we"
must wage war on "them" we will always have war.  Isn't it time for
us to get a leader who isn't interested in war, but peace?  Believe it or
not, if enough people speak out, we will be heard.  Think about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Asbury                            email:  fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Find the cost of freedom buried in the ground."   ---CSNY---
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 18:32:17 GMT

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:
>>Well, I was informed of this very interesting thread.
>>No, I have not read the book, but I shall make an effort to try and find it.
>
>  I've read it, and my opinions about it are very mixed. Taken as a pure
>techno-thriller in the Red Storm Rising/Red Phoenix school it is a good book.
>It gives a interesting picture of the nature of future warfare and and while it
>makes some wild flights of fancy, most of the technology are not that far out.

I haven't read the book, but the subject reminds me of a public opinion poll
I saw in Japan when I was there. These questions were all asked of young (17-
25 year old) Japanese. One of the questions was "Who is Japan's best friend
among all other nations". The most common answer was, of course, the US 
(~ 85%). another question was "Do you think there will be a war in the next 
10 - 20 years involving Japan?" (NOTE: this was just before Iraq invaded
Kuwait). ~70% answered "yes". Of those that answered yes, about 80% said the
war would be with the US! Kind of strange logic.

>  What the book basically says is that "The only reason the Japanese is 
>pissed about Hiroshima is because it was us doing it to them and not the 
>opposite, and given a chance they'll do it to us ten times over."

Actually, there is a fairly vocal right-wing contignet in Japan that thinks
Japan must get nuclear weapons to avenge the 'dishonor' of their surrender,
so the book would appear to have a monopoly on this line of reasoning.
Fortunately, the vast majority of the Japanese populace oppose ANYTHING
nuclear, and building a nuclear power plant there usually encounters far more
resistance than here in the US.

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..."
From: yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin)
Subject: Re: To the Pacifists (A Challenge Not a Flame)
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:28:24 GMT

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

If actions are not to be measured by their consequences... then what are
they to be measured by?  What else can possibly be used to judge the worth
of an action than the events that it causes?

--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
 "... and I realized, we did not live in a scientific society."
	-- R. P. Feynman, "Cargo cult science"
From: fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Flowers?
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:19:14 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks


              WHERE HAVE ALL THE FLOWERS GONE....(Peter, Paul, & Mary)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Where have all the flowers gone, long time passing
Where have all the flowers gone, long time ago
Where have all the flowers gone, young girls have picked them, everyone
Oh when will they ever learn?  Oh when will they ever learn?

Where have all the young girls gone, long time passing
Where have all the young girls gone, long time ago
Where have all the young girls gone, gone to husbands, everyone
Oh when will they ever learn?  Oh when will they ever learn?

Where have all the husbands gone, long time passing
Where have all the husbands gone, long time ago
Where have all the husbands gone, gone for soldiers, everyone
Oh when will they ever learn?  Oh when will they ever learn?

Where have all the soldiers gone, long time passing
Where have all the soldiers gone, long time ago
Where have all the soldiers gone, gone to graveyards, everyone
Oh when will they ever learn?  Oh when will they everlearn?

Where have all the graveyards gone, long time passing
Where have all the graveyards gone, long time ago
Where have all the graveyards gone, gone to flowers, everyone
Oh when will they ever learn?  Oh when will they ever learn?

Where have all the flowers gone, long time passing
Where have all the flowers gone, long time ago
Where have all the flowers gone, young girls have picked them, everyone
Oh when will they ever learn?  Oh when will they ever learn?
________________________Peter, Paul, and Mary--------------------------

Roger Asbury                               email: fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu
_______________________________________________________________________
"Find the cost of freedom, buried in the ground"     ---CSNY---
_______________________________________________________________________
From: jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Jonathan S. Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Flowers?
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:15:27 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Apr10.220005.23938@nntp.hut.fi> c34657b@saha.hut.fi (Tuomas Viljanen) writes:
>Oh when will they ever learn ?
>People ? Never, I guess. I am a cynic, not an idealistic pacifist like you.
>"Sure I do believe in peace - peace thru superior firepower" C:-(
>What about posting the lyrics of "Puff The Magic Dragon" next ?
>

Just for the record, I am a pacifist myself.  I agree with you,however, that
people will never learn and there will always be wars around.  I've just
decided that I'm not going to be the guy who fights in them.  I'm not alone
in this belief and you might find it a little outside the stereotypical
idea that pacifists are nothing more than "misdirected idealists".

By the way, if you really want the lyrics to "Puff" I can get them for you.  I
used to work at a Summer camp and it is all we ever sang. :-)

-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
  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><
From: v080lmaq@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (MIKE)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: war is hell.
Date: 12 Apr 92 09:54:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

No, Roger, you are not the only pacifist to read this group and not
the only person to be disturbed by this Columbian thread.  To speak
or write of hostile actions against a sovereign nation is just plain
ignorant.  It would be a violation of international law, that we have
not only pledged to uphold but have been instrumental in framing.

Obviously the government has played by the rules when it was in its
interest... and ignored them when it was in its interests.  It is 
that old saw, "Might makes right."  I, for one, do not buy it.

There is much more to cleaning up the drug problem than invading other
countries.  A good place to start would be here at home, through better
education and improving the job market.  That doesn't make good news
though, does it?

Wars have frequently been a means of distracting attention from domestic
problems with economic issues involved.  This is true whether of the U.S.
or the poor Quechua who is trying to keep his family alive.  Well, I do
not want to get into a long discussion of a sad history so suffice it to
sake a lot of research and/or thought to figure that out.  Simply pay a
little thought to how dependent our economy is on manufacturing the tools
of war...

A historian by the name of James Randall wrote that perhaps the best wars
to study were those that did not happen... he was on to something there,
and perhaps it would be helpful to look at issues that determine wars and
go from there.  I think that would be more interesting and productive than
discussing invasions of small countries where things never seem to improve
for the common people.

mike
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: steph@cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson)
Subject: Re: How to stop wars
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:11:01 GMT

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?

"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
From: jflint@csws5.ic.sunysb.edu (Jesse Flint)
Subject: Re: SUNDAY
Followup-To: The reaction to the posting of "Sunday Bloody Sunday"
Summary: Wargaming -- it's EEEEEVIL!!
Keywords: fnord
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 08:40:38 GMT
Expires: Fri, 1 May 1992 04:00:00 GMT

I'm sure most pacifist-types would find wargaming just as abhorrent as war
itself, i.e. "Oh, by making it into a GAME you're actually ENCOURAGING it!!"
I remember the outrage a few years back at the game Nuclear War... a silly
card game dealing in mass destruction of human life- it's a wonder how
ANYONE could have taken it seriously but they did...
Guess aggression is necessary for a sense of humor... >:)

-- 
############################################################################
#DISCLAIMER:    	     # "Too often peace is merely the result of    #
#	                     #  war-weariness, and the very negation of    #
#THE OPINIONS IN MY POSTINGS #  victory. It is (or may be) the formula of  #
#ARE MINE AND DO NOT REFLECT #  sloth and the gateway to stagnation."      #
#THE VIEWS OF MY HOME SYSTEM #   	               --A. Crowley        #
#OR THE OWNER OF THIS        #  Gary McCammon a.k.a. Tog                   #
#ACCOUNT. <FNORD>            #    c/o  jflint@sbcs.susb.edu	           #
############################################################################
From: fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Peace thru firepower  (was Re: Flowers)
Date: 11 Apr 92 21:52:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Apr11.125230.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Apr10.220005.23938@nntp.hut.fi>, c34657b@saha.hut.fi (Tuomas Viljanen) writes:
> Oh when will they ever learn ?
> 
> People ? Never, I guess. I am a cynic, not an idealistic pacifist like you.
> 
> "Sure I do believe in peace - peace thru superior firepower" C:-(
> 
> What about posting the lyrics of "Puff The Magic Dragon" next ?
> 
> 
> 
>   ++ Tuomas Viljanen                     ++ For a battle like Crecy, you do  ++
>   ++ Lahderanta 20 A 19                  ++ not need a military genius like  ++
>   ++ SF-02720 Espoo 72 FINLAND           ++ Edward III. All you need is an   ++
>   ++ 358-0-592175 or c34657b@saha.hut.fi ++ idiot like the Duke of Alencon.  ++
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Puff the Magic Dragon" has to do creativity and imagination.  Somthing someone
with the philosophy "Peace thru superior firepower" is probably lacking.
                              ROG!
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: steph@cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson)
Subject: Re: Interesting challenge.
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:29:29 GMT

In <1992Apr15.041320.9157@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> aryk@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (a.j.s. nusbacher) writes:

>The last British monarch to lead his troops in battle was King George II at the
>Battle of Dettingen.  I would wager that the last French monarch to lead his
>own armies was Napoleon, but that's a guess.  King Leopold of Belgium briefly
>led his own armies in the field in 1940.

I believe Napoleon III led the French into destruction during the 
Franco-Prussian war.
-- 
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