From: ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:08:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.003952.22847@newsgate.sps.mot.com> carlson@viking.sps.mot.com (Brett Carlson) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec16.030250.9427@news.columbia.edu>  
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>> Just noticed something as I was waiting for the message to send....
>> 
>> In article <1992Dec16.011312.19839@mogate.sps.mot.com>  
>carlson@viking.sps.mot.com (Brett Carlson) writes:
>> >
>> >So you agree, then, that the cause of the war is something other  
>than  
>> >humanitarianism??  That to me is enough reason to oppose the  
>action right  
>> >there!
>> 
>> Hang on for a sec: deployment of troops does not a war make.  
>
>But deployment of 50,000 heavily armed combat troops with air support  
>and heavy artillery in a nation halfway around the world *does* a war  
>make.....or a military action, or a police action, or whatever.   
>Choose your favorite Newspeak term....
>
>> Lemme get one thing straight:
>> 
>> Policy and the instruments of policy cannot be considered  
>separately.
>
>The means does not justify the end??  I agree totally!
>
>furthermore, I think that invading a small nation on the other side  
>of the globe in order to stop a few good ol' boys and feed the hungry  
>(so that the good ol' boys can come back next year) is not justified.
>
>> The Right has tended to concentrate only on the goals, the policy  
>of
>> containment for instance, and ignore the implications of the  
>actions
>> needed to achieve these goals.  Stamping out Communist insurgents
>> whereever they can be found without regard to human rights is  
>clearly
>> wrong, no matter the patriotic rhetoric they may wrap themselves up
>> in. 
>
>Agreed.
>
>> Similarly, the automatic condemnation of any military action on
>> the part of some liberals is just as short-sighted.  
>
>I'm not disagreeing with this just because it is a military action.   
>I'm disagreeing with it because it's pointless.  Read on....
>
>> You are judging
>> the tools without regard to the goals.
>
>Didn't you just say that the policy and the instruments of that  
>policy cannot be considered separately??!?!?
>
>> I follow Clausewitz's notion
>> that war is the continuation of policy by other means, and the army
>> may the instrument of these policy goals, for good or ill.  "What  
>are
>> our policy goals, and are they worth using the tools available?"   
>That
>> is a better question to ask than, "Is the Pentagon involved?"
>
>Ok.  What are our policy goals in Somalia??  To heighten american  
>jingoism??  To throw a monkey wrench into the Clinton  
>administration??  To let the boys in the Pentagon stretch their  
>muscles a little bit??  To protect the defense industry's profit  
>margin???  Are any of these worth using the military tools  
>available??  I would argue no.

Feed the millions of starving people?  Na, that couldn't be it.  Some of you
people are convinced that America is at least as evil as the former
Soviet Union and as such couldn't possibly do anything simply for
the sake of humanatarian purposes.  Paranoia dictates that an ulterior
motive must be lurking just out of site in the shadows of government
and military evilness.

>So you must believe that our policy goal is to feed the hungry in  
>Somalia.  Well, we killed the hungry in Uganda, and we imported the  
>hungry in Southeast Asia, so I guess that would be an improvement  
>over the past....

We killed the hungry in Uganda??  Praytell how did we do this?  You know,
you guys won't ever get any converts or win credibility with the masses
unless you can substantiate every left wing absurd statement you make.  Oh
sure, there will be those easily led people who say "gee, really, we did
that?"  But otherwise, you guys are stuck out in left field.

>But i still don't buy it.  I don't think our government is concerned  
>about individuals in Somalia.  If they were concerned, they wouldn't  
>have sent the guns there in the first place.  George Bush likes  
>military operations.  Maybe he's just having one last fling before he  

Ha ha ha, this is good reading, I always liked fiction.

>retires to the golf course.  I don't know, but I refuse to believe  
>that the Bush administration is so concerned about the lives of the  
>starving individuals in Somalia that it would mobilize thousands of  
>US servicemen and women.  I just don't buy it.
>
>going home now,
>--brett
>
>Brett Carlson		    |	

Yes, you do buy it.  You seem to have bought into every chunk of ultra left
wing propaganda that has been spoon fed to you over the years.  You and 
others like you have lost all objectivity and have lost the ability to
make intellectual assesments of each situation as it arises and instead
have resorted to a mindless narrow view of everything the US gets involved
in as nothing more than evil intentions and motives.  True, not everything
we do is noble but not everything we do is evil either as you and yours
would have us believe.

ray
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton