From: messiah@nevada.edu (mw)
Subject: Re: War ramblings (was Re: Elections)
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:57:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.192621.19242@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu> rob@amstel.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.152722.14345@nevada.edu> messiah@nevada.edu (mw) writes:
>>>Rob answers:

[ * opening remarks prior post - chomped * ]

>>When the US (and other nations) were present in Vietnam, the aim was to
>>thwart the encroachment of communism, and they were invited by non-communist
>>Vietnam to assist in protecting them. At that time the world-wide communist
>>entity appeared formidable, therefor taking action to prevent it from
>>overwhelming the free world was not a "stupid" idea based on available facts.

>This is actually a good point.  That is, factually it is nonsense --like,
>total lack of supporting evidence, man-- but it _is_ what at least the
>American media were propogandating (neologism to stand in for `reporting',
>a title which this crap doesn't deserve) at the time.  Unless you had access
>to a lot of sources and used it, there was a fair chance to be taken in.

If what you're saying is that the underlying reasons for intervening in
Vietnam were pure fabrication then I disagree with that. 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. 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.

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? :-) )

>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 :-) ) then the premise is biased and should
neccessarily be discarded. But to answer along those lines...

Yes, the media hypes things up. 

No, I don't think all Americans believe
everything they see in the media. 

Yes, I think that a "reasonable" coverage of
the situation was "available" to the Americans.

Yes, I think that soldiers deserve the support of
people for whom they are risking thier lives.

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

 [ comments on rise/fall Communism *chomped* ] 

>>I submit that this was certainly not achieved through pacifism (as in
>>refusing to fight). It took the willingness to face up to armed conflict,
>>both internally by civilians and externally by the intervention of other
                     ^^^^^^^^^
>>nations to achieve the marked decline in Communism.

>The Warsaw Pact countries were
>looking at a choice between economic collapse and change.  This has very
>little to do with how many MX missiles Reagan parks in his back yard.

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.

>>>>Some went [Vietnam] because they were forced to.  Here one might argue for
>>>>solidarity; however, that same logic would have put all of Europe in the
>>>>gas chambers 50 years ago.

>>For *ALL* of Europe to end up in the gas chambers, we would have
>>had to line up with the Jews voluntarily, and/or not have put up any
>>resistance at all. That is patently different from my standpoint. 

>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."  :-)

>The original statement was:
>]Honor and family values are fine but from where do you imply "blind"
>]sacrifice? If my neighbor goes to war and I don't, and he comes back home
>]wounded (or not at all), can I look him in the eye honestly and tell him "I
>]didn't go because of conscientious objections?"
>
>So we have a part of the people that are being forced to go to war (nailed by
>the draft) and a part that you argue should go with them.
>I had a part of the people (jews, gypsies, gays, etc) that were being forced
>to go to the gas chambers and argued that your logic would have had the rest
>follow.  Where's the patent difference?

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.

>>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.

>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...

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

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

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

>SR

Marco, LV, NV, USA

Thanx... C-ya,

Marco LV, NV, USA


Newsgroups: soc.culture.netherlands