From: hubey@pilot.njin.net (Hubey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Logic of war (was: Hats off to Maggy)
Date: 14 Aug 92 04:18:37 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Aug14.012106.9609@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> mb2p@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Marco  Bertamini) writes:


> make the confrontation worse and longer. Probably there
> will be more dead people too. But the real point is that I was
> looking for final solutions, and I think that these can only
> come from negotiations. 

Logic would dictate that whoever is ahead of the game
would as to negotiate. He doesn't have to give up
anything, only agree to negotiate. That boils down to
getting the other side to put his John Hancock on
the paper. If the other side refuses then we only
point to the intransigence and irresponsibility.

In either case, the loser loses.

There's nothing wrong with negotiation unless it means
agreeing to your own suicide. If the Great Powers cannot
guarantee some kind of justice, it's pointless to negotiate.
What you've lost is gone no matter what, and there's no
chance of getting anything in the negotiation.


Even more to the point: 

The world powers are not involved in struggles-for-existence
i.e. there's no WWIII. We're sitting comfortably and eating
pizza while we watch TV.

Serbia is not struggling for existence only bent on expansion.

It's not happening in some third world country, so that we
can't get smug satisfaction that it doesn't happen to people
like 'us'. It is happening.

Why is it impossible for Serbs to live as minorities in other
states ? This is the same chauvinism used by Hitler. Germans
were toooooooooo great to live as minorities in any country. 
And we saw the results.

Now we have people saying similar things about Russians in
other countries of the CIS.

> I believe that we will never get rid of the risk of war using
> violence. But we could get rid of it by means of a more rational 
> economic system and a world wide communication network. (yes,

We are certainly not guaranteeing peace by disarming. It's
not the arms race that causes war. Other causes (revenge,insecurity)
etc cause the arms race and the wars.  

I'll put it in blunter terms--simple facts--no morality.

Letting loose a known murderer no matter what kind of treatment
he's received will never guarantee that he will not kill again.
His execution will. This argument directly contradicts your
argument above. Wars might not end wars, but disarming in
front of agression is like asking sheep to negotiate with
wolves, in the hope that they might not be hungry.

> the proof that the economy has to be left to its own rules.
> In fact, this would imply that it is ok to sell arms to third
> world country, just because there is market demand.

If third world countries could be guaranteed justice in
their dealings with an international court, and military
force to back it up, maybe they wouldn't spend their
money on weapons. Asking them to live an insecure life
in addition to enduring hunger is too much. Third world
country citizens have dignity too.

It's up to the countries themselves to decide what is more
important for them. If they think having some weapons is necessary
because they fear their neighbor, and want to spend money
on it it's not anyone's business to do their thinking for
them. Slavery ended long time ago,; and its modern 
version is ending too. People decide what they want; not
their unelected leaders. Similarly in the world community
nations decide their future; not some selected countries
which decide whether they need machines, guns, butter or
wheat.

There's nothing wrong with selling weapons to people
who want to buy them. The best thing would be to 
provide an international organization that will make
it unnecessary.

The same goes for people living in any country. If I feel
that the police cannot protect me while I shop, live or
work, I'll start to protect myself and carry a gun. That's
the reason there are so many guns in cities in America.

And that's the reason why so many countries feel they need
weapons. 

In short, if you want an international law and want it
enforced then you should be crying for intervention. If you
want the law of the jungle reign on the international scene
then you stay out and let the nations fight like dogs and
cats.

Choices are pretty clear. YOu can't have your cake and
eat it, too. 
-- 

	mark	


   hubey@pilot.njin.net                   hubey@apollo.montclair.edu
 ...!rutgers!pilot!hubey                  hubey@logos.montclair.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.turkish