From: rob@hoster.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
Subject: Re: War ramblings (was Re: Elections)
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Electrical Engineering
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 05:15:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.215728.23156@nevada.edu> messiah@nevada.edu (mw) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.192621.19242@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu>
 rob@amstel.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) writes: 
     ^^^^^^
Sorry 'bout the bad beer, BTW.
[My previous statement: CHOMP]
>If what you're saying is that the underlying reasons for intervening in
>Vietnam were pure fabrication then I disagree with that. 

Well, nothing is ever pure, but this stuff could have made the Ivory Soap
commercials.  Some SE Asian country has a change of government and the whole
world inevitably goes commie.  I mean, really.  If you truly believe that free
democracy is _that_ inferior, why the bleep support it?

>On the other hand, if you're saying that the media and white house laiason
>applied "selective journalism" and allowed only "desirable" images to filter
>through to the public then that is more or less my standpoint as well.

Hey, we agree!  Now what?  :-)

>However, if "selective journalism" was fool-proof then we would never have
>seen the images of flagrant war crimes commited by *some* American soldiers.
>Thus, a person who stays informed and accesses data from multiple sources can
>compile a reasonable picture despite the inherent bias of individual sources.

True.  The problem I have with American sources is that most of them are
biased in the same direction, which makes this information gathering an
exercise in frustration.

>I don't think one can go so far as to say "total lack of supporting evidence"
>without expessly over-exaggerating the issue (to emphasize one's point I
>presume? :-) )

Why else?  :-)
Seriously, I meant to indicate the exageration with the valley-speak (who
takes Valley people seriously, eh?).  Apparently that didn't work too well, so
let me restate:

I think that the evidence supporting any of the reasons given for involvement
in the Vietnam situation is weak, and that the evidence supporting the specific
argument of the domino theory is effectively nil.  `Effectively,' because,
while there is evidence, I have never heard of non-hawks who were willing to
buy it.   

>>OK, let me rephrase the scenario: If I hypnotize your neighbor to walk off a
>>cliff, are you going to follow him because he thinks he's doing his patriotic
>>duty? 
>
>If "hypnotize" is a neologism to stand in for propaganda (see I'm picking
>stuff up from what you write :-) ) 

:-)  Correct.

>then the premise is biased and should neccessarily be discarded. 

Unk?  How is the premise biased?  I can see an argument that it doesn't
address the issue, but biased?

[minor chomp] 
>Yes, I think that soldiers deserve the support of people for whom they are
>risking thier lives.

That's very true but irrelevant.  The USA was never in any danger of being
overrun by the North Vietnamese, so there weren't any soldiers risking their
lives for the good ol' Us of A.

As a side note, I think that possibly the ugliest aspect of the whole domestic
political fracas around Vietnam was that many of those opposed to the war took
it out on the soldiers, who, as we have both observed, were mostly drafted and
therefore not to blame.  Protest against the government, fine and proper.
Spit in the faces of returning draftees, WRONG.

>No, I don't condone war crimes. Acts of despicable cruelty should be dealt
>with severely.

Dang!  We agree again. :-)

[Another chomp.  My rebuttal to `Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire' failed to
 address that the comment was aimed neither specifically at the military nor
 specifically at the US.]
>My case was against pacifistic philosophy as an agent in producing reform,
>and applied to people in general, not specically to the US as far as the
>former USSR and Eastern Europe was concerned. I was thinking more along the
>lines of Central America where US military support has been influential in
>resisting Marxist/Communist aggression.

1) I'm not sure if I'm comfortable defending pacifism, but I really don't see
   how your claim re pacifism follows from the discussion so far.

2) While US support, military and otherwise, has certainly been influential in
   resisting Communist (So far all governments that have called themselves
   Marxist have been lying) incursions into South and Central America, it has
   certainly been exactly as influential in propping up a number of fascist
   and/or feudal regimes.  Whether the net result is an improvement is open to
   debate, to say the very least.

[Everybody has already read the gaschamber bit more times than they want to.
 Chomped.] 
>>Well, then you can accuse me of totally missing your standpoint.  :-)
>
>* Ahem * "Accuse" is such an inflammatory term, let's just say
>         "prone towards 'fallacious' interpretation."  :-)

Ah.  More than 4 syllables and li'l Robby won't be able to follow the meaning,
eh?  :-)

[And chomped again.  Time to burp.  :-]
>In my case above the willing soldier and the "conscientious objector" are
>both on the front line covering each other's ass under gun-fire while
>defending the interests of the folks back home. When you compare that to
>your case for joining POWs in the gas chambers to show solidarity, those who
>would voluntarily join them offer nothing to protect those heading towards
>the gas chambers. If people actively parcipate in the resistence movement
>against the common enemy instead, then they are much more likely to help 
>make a difference.

OK, now I see what you mean.  

Let me go through this backwards (fits my personality :)
1) There was no common enemy in the case of the Vietnam war.  The US military
   personel in Vietnam had an enemy, the country at large did not.
2) Active participation in the WW2 resistance, while laudable, did not help
   the people who were already _in_ the deathcamps.
3) Very fortunately I have no direct experience with the WW2 deathcamps, but
   it is my understanding that the inmates _did_ cover for each other as best
   as they were able to.  That's not very well, of course, but that makes the
   comparison _better_, not worse.  Consider:  what do you think protects a
   US trooper in Vietnam better: another warm body with a gun, or political
   action that stops the war and gets his ass out of the frying pan?

>>>Many of us younger Europeans have family members who experienced World War
>>>II, and by virtue of thier presence with us today we have evidence that
>>>Rob's interpretation of my logic is fallacious.
>
>>Eh?  We have evidence that they did not agree that (my intepretation of) your
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     Hold it. My statement bases itself on thier *presence* not what 
>    they *think* of your fallacious interpretation of my example.

So does mine.  They are there, therefore, they cannot have thought in certain
ways (which would have led to their self-destuction.)

You on the other hand seem to be arguing that because some people survived
WW2, it cannot be true that `lining up for the gaschambers is equivalent to
submitting to Vietnam draft against your consience.'  Forgive the stupidity,
but would you _please_ expose the intermediate steps in this leap-o-logic?
I'm sure I'll find them fascinating beyond compare.  ;->

>>logic was binding on them.  Fallaciousness is nowhere in sight.
>
>Interesting twist you use there, first bedazzle with psuedo-confusion and
>then coax them into tangling thier logic into a knot by having them
>complicate the statement with more qualifications. Allow me to *SIMPLIFY*
>the case instead...

Who's this hapless `them'?

>Had they [WW II survivors] believed in passive sacrifice,
>they would not have been with us today.

Agreed.  Not relevant, but agreed anyway. :-)

>My position is analogous to the philosophy of WW II
>survivors who advocated resistence.

Disagreed.  (see 9 paragraphs above.)

>That WW II survivors are with us today shows that they
>believed in the same thing I believe today.

And that doesn't follow either.  They could (and some of them did) equally
well have believed in hiding in their homes until the whole thing blew over.

>Marco LV, NV, USA

SR, CMH, OH, USA :-)
---


Newsgroups: soc.culture.netherlands