Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    I just heard that too....I am so ashamed and sad for us right now. 
    What is humanity coming to when something like this is allowed, even
    condoned....Ick!
    
    -HA

  Oh, yes.  It would have been so much more humane to go in a dig them out
  with bayonets.  Or napalm.  Both of which are more in line with military
  doctrine.

  As a matter of fact, lots more Iraqis gave up (and therefore survived)
  as a direct result of this tactic, than would have otherwise.

  JP

    I'm not sure, but I think I'd rather be buried alive and suffocate,
    than bleed to death from a bullet in my gut.  Or is a bullet in the
    gut a more dignified (manly/womanly) way to die?  I can think of a 
    lot of other ways to die in combat that are pretty horrendous.  I
    hate the whole business of war, not just this attrocity or that
    attrocity.
    						- Vick

    Not one U.S. soldier was killed in that episode...sounds like damned
    good tactics to me.  We seem to have forgotten a famous Patton saying:
    
          "KILL THE SONSABITCHES"
    
    War is not fun ladies....kinda the point I have tried to make many
    times in other notesfiles where everyone seems to think it would be
    peachy-creamy-nice if women could be in combat.

    
    	RE: .4  
    
    	Yo, Rush!  Put a lid on it.
    

The thing here is that WAR IS NOT HUMANE.  The sole purpose of the
fighting forces in any war, as distinct from the political or personal
motivations that started the war, is to destroy the enemy's ability to
make war as quickly and efficiently as possible.

As sick as burying enemy soldiers alive may appear, it is *very*
efficient -- far more so than digging them out one by one and killing
them in a bloodier way.  Bombing them in their bunkers also buries them
alive, you know, those that it doesn't maim first, anyway.

I don't have to like what we/they did, and I don't.  But I understand
it, and FROM A STRICT MILITARY PERSPECTIVE I approve of it.

-d

The following is excerpted from MEDIA MONITOR Vol. 1, No. 5, a monthly 
publication of the Council for Public Media, P.O. Box 4703, Austin, Texas 
78765:

BAREFACED LIES BARELY MENTIONED

--Mike Christie

Remember the smart bombs and the laser-guided bombs dropped
on Iraq with such "surgical precision"? In the days of those
military video games, Pentagon and administration spokesmen
stressed that only military targets were being hit; that
civilians would not suffer unduly.
Now we know that was a lie. The U.S. missiles were aimed at
civilian targets as well. Finally, the mainstream media is
acknowledging this, as referenced by an article in the
Austin American-Statesman on July 14 (p. A17) vaguely
entitled: "Strategic Intent: Allied Bombing of Iraq Aimed at
Societal Targets." The article discloses some rather
startling admissions on the part of the administration. Here
are some samples:

"Some targets were bombed primarily to create postwar
leverage over Iraq, not to influence the course of the
conflict."

"The worst civilian suffering, senior officers say, has
resulted not from bombs that went astray, but from
precision-guided weapons that hit exactly where they were
aimed."

"In an estimate not substantively disputed by the Pentagon,
the team [the Harvard public health team] projected 'at
least 170,000 children under 5 years of age will die in the
coming year from delayed effects' of the bombing." The
bombing strategy may have been "a campaign to incapacitate
an entire society."

Strong stuff. But the most remarkable fact of all -- the
fact that the administration clearly lied to prevent these
goals from becoming a subject of public debate -- is glossed
over as a side-note. The article (Washington Post Service)
begins by stating that the bombing of Iraq now appears to
have been more than just military in intent, and that
Pentagon officials have been forced by evidence to
acknowledge this. Bombing details "contrast with the
administration's earlier portrayal of a campaign aimed
solely at Iraq's armed forces and their lines of supply and
command."

When I was growing up, if I threw a ball through a window
and claimed my brother had done it, and my parents later
found out about it, they didn't think of that as a "contrast
with an earlier portrayal"; they knew I had lied.

But maybe there was a military justification for
slaughtering the innocents? Listen to this "senior Air Force
official" giving his reasons: "The definition of innocents
gets to be a little unclear . . . they do live here, and
ultimately the people have some control over what goes on in
their country." So, according to the Air Force, if only
those 170,000 toddlers had had the political acumen to get
rid of Saddam Hussein, they could grow up and lead normal
lives.

The alternative press revealed much of this information
about the U.S. bombing during the war, asserting that
collateral damage was widespread, and questioning the real
intended purposes of the air attacks. But few writers went
so far as to accuse the administration of the point-blank
deception it now freely acknowledges.

Lies in government are no shock to anyone who has read about
Iran-Contra. What is truly shocking is that when the lies
are revealed, and the U.S. government admits to the blatant
manipulation of public opinion by withholding information,
the Statesman relegates the story to the second half of the
news section with an obscure headline. A headling reading
"Administration Lied to U.S. Public" on the front page would
be more appropriate.

Re: .7

How does that article relate to the discussion of SOLDIERS WHO WERE
BURIED ALIVE BY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT?

It doesn't.

Could we for once in the history of =wn= stick to the TOPIC???

-d

    War is and has always been and will always be horrible.  It
    is to be avoided.  If it can't be avoided then it should be ended
    as quickly as possible with as few deaths as possible.
    
    The tactic used was sound.  Many men surrendered and saved their
    lives. And tactics like this brought most of our people home safe.
    
    Another famous line...Don't die for your country, make the other
    guy die for his.
    
    
    
                                        L.J.

RE:.6

Ahh, Dick, but do you approve enough to pay _all_ your taxes????? �


					Nigel

Notes:
� : Dick Binder and I had a discussion during "Desert Storm" after a comment of 
    mine about the pro-war people making a voluntary  contribution to the 
    expense of the war.
    To paraphrase the discussion, he held the position that income tax was 
    in some manner voluntary, so by paying taxes you _were_ making a voluntary
    payment to the government.  I forget where the original note is; it's in
    here somewhere.

 Haven't the hands been sufficiently wrung YET?

    The hands will never be sufficiently wrung.  When we become comfortable
    with war - we will not try to avoid it.
    

    
    What really bugs me is the fact that it's allways the average Joe
    (by the thousands) that die, or get wounded.  And the "arm-chair"
    warriors never get a scratch !!!  Saddam is still out there!!!
      I bet we end up having to go in again !!!!
    
    Jack
    

Re: .12

Robert E. Lee, standing on the heights above Fredericksburg, Virginia,
said it best of all, I think.  He was watching his troops mow down
advancing Federals as a scythe mows down stalks of grain.

	"It is well that war is so terrible, else we should come to
	love it too well."

Not meaning to offend, but I do have *my opinions*....

.2  We have heard many times in history that if we didn't "X", then
     many more of our/their lives would have been lost anyway.  To me,
     saying that it's o.k. to bury thousands alive because in the end
     maybe more of them surrended is anathma...

.6 & .9

    We really hate war, but because it's here, then effective tactics
     are good tactics?  If that's so, then there is an "ethic" to win,
     which means there is nothing that you do that is unethical because
     you are pursuing "the win."  So, *to me*, that says there really
     are no war crimes....not for us, not for Nazis, not for anyone...

Just how it strikes me, folks.

Barb

  Barb,

  I was against our going on the offensive in the Gulfwar, and I believe
  I said so elsewhere in this file.  I believe we lost a unique opportunity
  to eschew large-scale violence.  I interpreted .0 and .1 to be carping on
  the particular heinousness of this bury-'em-alive tactic and I was pointing
  out that this particular tactic was in fact relatively humane.

  Apparently, there were certain trenches where the sight of the 
  earth-movers caused hands to go up so fast that it looked like the
  Iraqis were doing "the wave."
  
  I agree that we have heard many times "if we didn't then more would
  have died."  But I don't know how to interpret the rest of your
  statements.  Given that the war had started, are you saying that
  we should have used those other tactics?  Even though, near as we
  can tell, even more Iraqis (and far more Allied) soldiers would
  have died?  These are hard choices but abstaining from a choice
  is often a choice in itself.
 
  JP

    re: .15
    
    As a veteran and current Reservist, I can only say that you are
    comparing apples to oranges. The Nazis exterminated innocent civilians,
    I would not call an Iraqi soldier in uniform, innocent.
    
    In war, the object is to destroy the enemy. If you happen to be wearing
    the uniform of the enemy, then you face the consequences.
    
    I guess it's easy for you to be idealistic in front of a T.V., but for
    some of us, it's not that easy. In war it's kill or be killed, the Jews
    were not wearing military uniforms and shooting at the Nazis. 
    
    Big Difference.....

    RE: .15  Barb
    
    The ethics of war is set by the Geneva convention (which prevents
    anyone who adheres to it from adopting an "anything goes" philosophy.)
    
    Iraq didn't choose to follow it, but we did.
    
    It's tragic that so many Iraqi soldiers died - but the war was set up
    from Saddam's perspective with the gamble that our western morality
    would prevent us from stomping Iraq's Army.  Saddam had absolutely
    NOTHING TO LOSE by sending his people to die.  We had quite a bit to
    lose by allowing them to proceed without being stopped.
    
    If we had fought his Army in smaller moves, it would have dragged on
    for years (which would have resulted in many, many, many more people
    dying.)
    
    It's easy to say that we never should have fought the war at all, but
    I saw Saddam's actions (not Bush's words but Saddam's ACTIONS) as being
    ominous enough to warrant stopping.  He put the lives of his people up
    to see how intent we were to do the job.  We did it up to a point, but
    probably not enough to prevent some future trouble with Saddam again,
    though.  But at least it ended the most immediate Iraqi threat.

    That's your opinion, Suzanne.  Others believe that he did break
    international law (including former Attorney Genral Ramsey Clark).  I
    believe that his crimes are not non-existent, and that his blatent
    extermination of civilians in the war was a violation of international
    law.
    
    -- Mike

    
    	Law isn't based on your (or my) opinions of what it should be.
    	
    	You can't prove he broke international law by simply insisting
    	on it (and by hammering us with your infinitely prejudicial 
    	descriptions of what happened in Iraq.)
    
    	

	Mike,

	 Are you and Ramsey also of the opinion that Saddam's actions
	in Kuwait were war crimes?

					Tom_K

 But Mike, you have been virulently against the war from the start and like
Ramsey Clarke, have consistently pushed your agenda since day one. I have 
noticed that you comments regarding the aspects of international law as
relates to the actions of the Iraqi regime have not had a tenth the vehemence
and venom that your excoriations against the United States have had.

 I thought that there had been a general agreement to disagree on this whole
issue, given the fact that views pro and con are so profoundly held and so
diametrically opposed that one cannot hope to find even the slimmest glimmer
of light amidst the phenomal heat generated by these differences of opinion.
I am convinced that to attempt to lobby the readership to viewing this
unfortunate happenstance in one light or another is doomed to failure, and am
distressed that this issue has reared its ugly head yet again. Apparently,
things had been entirely too peaceful...

 Off to the flotation tank with me, to get into a better mood in order to
enjoy my 5th wedding anniversary celebration...

 PS- How is this topic relevant in =wn=?

>    I just heard that too....I am so ashamed and sad for us right now. 
>    What is humanity coming to when something like this is allowed, even
>    condoned....Ick!
    
according to the news around her it was justified by saying, "the geneva
convention has no ban against this - and it saved alot of American lives..
it also is believed to have intimidated many Iraqui soldiers to surrender"

I'm not surprised they were surrendering...who wouldn't????

    
    If this burying alive of hundreds (or thousands) of Iraqui soldiers
    was the right thing or the most humane thing or the most efficient,
    cleverest thing, that is, something we ought to be proud of, how come
    we didn't hear about it until now?  Was this privileged information?
    The "war" has been "over" for some time now, so I can't imagine that
    soldiers' lives would be endangered by our letting it be known
    that hundreds or even thousands of Iraqui soldiers were buried alive.
    We got to see all kinds of spiffy graphics showing us the smart bombs,
    with their "surgical precision."  Why not graphics (or better yet, why 
    not actual photos, or real live footage - complete with screams) showing 
    us the clever, efficient, humane burial?  All that sand, mud, or whatever 
    it was they used  to bury them...  That big, tough, impressive equipment 
    that our boys used to move that sand into the noses, ears, and throats of 
    those Iraqui soldiers?  Or isn't there a good football analogy for the 
    good ole "suffocate the enemy" strategy?
    
    Justine
    
       One after another his comrades were slaughtered.
       In a morgue of marines, alone standing there
       He crouched ever lower, ever lower with fear
       They can't let me die, they can't let me die here.
       I'll cover myself with the mud and the earth
       I'll cover myself.  I know I'm not brave.
       The earth, the earth, the earth is my grave.
    
       The grave that they dug him had flowers 
       gathered from the hillside in bright summer colors
       and the brown earth bleached white at the edge of his gravestone.
       He's gone.
       But eternity knows him.  And it knows what we've done."
    
       
    From Don McLean's "The Grave" -- tells the story of the imagined
    death of an American soldier in Vietnam -- it's on the "American Pie"
    album.   
    
    
                                                   

    	George Bush didn't break international law in Desert Storm -
    	he only broke some individuals' idea of what international law
    	should be.
    

    	Doesn't everyone remember how nerve-wracking it was in the days
    	right before the ground war (when we had no idea how many of
    	our troops would be killed?)  Remember how the military described
    	a process they called "softening the battlefield"?
    
    	Rather than sending our troops into an area where half a million
    	Iraqi troops were waiting in fortified (protected) positions where
    	they could pick our troops off as they approached in the open -
    	our military bombed, buried and otherwise destroyed the forces
    	that were waiting to kill ours (while other Iraqi forces were
    	already commiting rape/murder/looting in Kuwait, while other Iraqis
    	launched Scud missiles at purely civilian areas in Israel and 
    	Saudi Arabia, and while other Iraqis continued to develop nuclear
    	and chemical weapons that would have eventually been launched at
    	Israel and/or Saudi Arabia and/or the United States.)
    
    	Let's not pretend that Iraqi forces were destroyed out of a simple
    	desire to kill.  They were destroyed to prevent them from killing
    	our troops and other allied troops who were responding to the
    	Iraqis having ALREADY murdered/raped/tortured/robbed Kuwaitis who
    	were not in any aggressive posture with Iraq at all.
    
    	If anyone here would rather the Iraqis had not been killed, then
    	I wonder how many thousands of American deaths would have been
    	worth the price of being able to say we hadn't done this.
    
    	As for why they didn't tell about it - for God's sake, we all
    	knew "softening up the battlefield" meant that Iraqis were dying
    	as part of the war.  We simply lacked the details until now.
    
    	It doesn't change anything.

    I'll admit to cringing when I heard the news, but then I got to
    wondering why it should be considered a worse way of killing than
    punching holes in people with lead projectiles, or ripping them apart
    with explosives, or any of the other techniques. (I _would_ like to
    know how much warning the Iraqis had. Were those who were buried buried
    because they stood their ground, firing, in the face of oncoming
    bulldozers? If people were buried as they tried to run or surrender,
    that seems different to me than people choosing to remain in the path
    of a juggernaut... I've never had much sympathy for the lie-in-the-
    path-of-the-train crowd.)
    
    I also got to wondering - doesn't each new "advance" in the art of war
    take some getting used to? Seems to me that when bombing first became
    tactically significant, there was an outcry about the deaths of
    civilians, the destruction of civilian property, and, yes, the "lack of
    nobility" of killing someone from a distance instead of face to face.
    Many bemoaned the transition from horses to tanks, too; maybe
    earthmovers are the new cavalry...
    
    Or maybe it's time to reverse the trend, and go back to one-on-one
    duels of honor between the highest-ranking officer of each country.
    Hmmmm.
    
    As for the news being kept secret - well, of course. I mean, you
    wouldn't have wanted the Pentagon to throw a cloud over all those
    yellow-ribbon ceremonies by revealing the gory details, would you?
    
    -b

    To bad we did not finish it. We will be back again, Wait and see.

     "Why didn't we hear about it until now?"
    
     Because in the scheme of things, it was pretty low on the list of
    significance.
    
     "And if they'd done it to 'our boys?'"
    
     We'd have blamed our military leaders for allowing them to outfox
    us...
    
     I agree with your point about capturing the gore of war on videotape.
    I just think the first audience ought to be Saddam Hussein...

    OK.  I read through this whole note and didn't see ANYone else make
    this observation:
    
    The burying of Iraqi soldiers was not a primary goal, it was a SIDE
    EFFECT of the process of clearing paths through the fortifications. 
    From the sound of some entries, the uninformed might think that we sent
    bulldozers shoulder-to-shoulder, as it were to bury miles and miles of
    trenches.  Total nonsense.
    
    re: the note trying to differentiate NAZI war crimes against
    non-participating civilians (.19?):  _of_course_ the Jews weren't
    shooting back, the government had already CONFISCATED the weapons from
    "unreliable" citizens, using the REGISTRATION lists.
    
    More to the immediate point, let us differentiate violence in pursuit
    of victory from violence which could not possibly effect the outcome of
    a war.  Harming prisoners who have surrendered, and are already under
    one's power, is not considered to be an act in pursuit of victory.  It
    is therefore a war crime.  Hitler's forces did this regularly.
    	[dale]
    

    	It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where an Adolph Hitler
    	(and the slaughter of 6 million human beings because of intolerance
    	to their religion) would not be possible.  It would be great if we
    	hadn't had to watch Iraq use its billions in oil revenue to build
    	up an ominous war machine (complete with nuclear and chemical
    	weapons) and march it towards the takeover of most or ALL middle
    	east oil revenue (which would have made Iraq's goal of world mastery
    	through military domination and the threat of nuclear holocaust
    	that much faster.)
    
    	It would be great if Saddam hadn't planted a half million of his
    	people in the Saudi Arabian desert (daring us to kill them as the
    	only resort to stopping him.)
    
    	It would be easy to decide that we'd all rather die than to take
    	the action necessary to stop a rich, powerful madman while there
    	is still time to prevent the deaths of countless millions (in the
    	way that Hitler *wasn't* stopped,) but many of us don't believe
    	it's better to die ourselves than to kill members of a war machine
    	on its way to destroy us.
    
    	If I can't live in a world where a Hitler, or a Saddam Hussein or
    	a Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer weren't possible - then I want to
    	live in a world where people are willing to stand up with the
    	means necessary to stop them.

    Justine, I want to thank you for copying those lyrics from the Don
    MacLean song.  I have to admit that the incident of the Iraquis being
    buried alive is to me no more than yet another manifestation of war's
    tragic nature; and, in a sense, I guess I view it as being no more
    tragic than other products of this war, such as the other soldiers
    who died or the civilians who were deliberately killed by the U.S.
    bombing campaign.   All of these victims were caught up in events that
    were in a sense beyond them.  All of us were.  You and I and others who
    opposed the war were unable to prevent it, but I try to remind myself
    of what Daniel Berrigan said a few months ago at a Denver church.  I
    don't have the exact quote in front of me, but it was to the effect
    that we were not called to stop the war, but to resist it.

    That sounds rather pessimistic, because it calls for the active pursuit
    of a goal (in this case, stopping the war) in face of present failure. 
    It recognizes that we could not stop the war, but it calls for
    resistance against it anyway.  It's tough to face sometimes, but the
    only alternative that is the one Abbie Hoffman chose, and that doesn't
    sound very appealing.  I have to admit that some times I think of what
    Abbie Hoffman did, and I look at the world around me, and can't help
    but wonder if he was correct in his despair.  But I think all we can
    ask of ourselves is to do what we can.  Perhaps this is the ultimate
    absurdity of life, but it seems we have no choice but to reconcile the
    existence of injustice and militarism, which we must accept because
    they exist, with the necessity of those things, which we must reject
    because we can look higher.

    -- Mike

    
    While I did not oppose the war (because I couldn't offer or see
    a viable alternative to it to achieve the objective of
    Iraq-out-of-Kuwait) , I certainly didn't support it wholeheartedly.
    
    Given my position, I was totally disgusted and outraged by the
    hoopla, parades, and celebrations that took place a couple of
    months back.  War may be necessary in certain times, but
    *celebrating* war?!  How barbaric!  We're just a bunch of savages!
    (Not me, of course, because I didn't participate or condone).
    Millions of innocent civilians lost their lives!  It may be a
    necessary side-effect, but HOW can we justify celebrating it?
    
    Especially given the cost of the celebrations in these
    troubled economic times with government at all levels buried
    deeply in debt.
    
    Excuse me while I state that I feel our priorities are
    *TOTALLY* SCREWED UP!
    

> War may be necessary in certain times, but
>    *celebrating* war?!  How barbaric!  We're just a bunch of savages!

 Perhaps you do not differentiate between celebrating war and celebrating
the survival of individual troops and the fact that our troops prevailed;
many of us do. Nobody wanted the war. Do you normally celebrate things you
don't want? If you go into surgery and come out of it with your health
preserved,  and you decide to celebrate your good fortune, are you celebrating
the carving up of the human body? I don't think so.

>    Millions of innocent civilians lost their lives! 

 The fact that many people lost their lives in this conflict is reprehensible,
but let's not exaggerate. What happened was bad enough without exaggerating.
The worst case estimates are that perhaps 100,000 Iraqi armed forces died
and a much smaller percentage of civilians.

 The Doctah

    I'm surprised no-one has brought up the atomic bombings during WWII.
    
    These reeked death and destruction on a vast scale. The after
    effects were also very nasty and long lasting. Many people died
    in a much more unpleasant way during these bombings than anything
    the Iraqi soldiers had inflicted upon them. 
    
    It is widely recognised by historians and society in general, that
    these bombings were justified because they saved many more lives,
    Japanese and Allied, than the bombs killed. It also saved a large
    amount of money, by the war coming to a end sooner.
    
    I see no difference between the atomic bombing during WWII and the
    killing of these Iraqi soldiers. Horrible I know, but when is war
    *not* horrible ?
    
    
    Jerome.                    

    re .35, .36

    I agree with Ellen on the subject of "celebrating the war". There
    was probably some element of being thankful that fewer Americans
    died, but from my perspective the overwhelming attitude was one of
    "we whupped 'em good", veins in the teeth, jumping up and down and
    saying "I wanna kill, kill, kill" and then we was both...

    Oops, had an Arlo Guthrie flashback. But that's how the
    "celebrations" came across to me. I found them in extremely poor
    taste. 

    A good friend of mine has a brother that was on the front lines of the
    war in the Gulf, and it so happens I was visiting this friend on
    Saturday night.  I brought up how awful I felt when the stories of the
    soldiers being buried alive were broadcast on the news last week, and
    how I was bothered by the way the newscasters just sort of said, "Hey,
    this is war, folks.  These things happen."
    
    My friend went on to tell me some of the stories her brother brought
    back with him.  The stories of what really went on over there are
    sick -- *really sick*.  What we hear on the news has been filtered...
    I knew that, but confirming it made me ill.
    
    I know war isn't nice.  I am one of those people that didn't sleep the
    entire first week of the war -- my dreams were invaded with bombs and
    death.  It was horrible.  
    
    I hope we don't end up with more fighting over there.  :-(  
    
    -Janice   

Thank you, Suzanne. Your statement in .34 hit it right on center for me. 

---

Is dying in sand any worse than being in a bombed building? The lucky people die
immediately, but for many who are woudned and then buried in the rubble it can
be a slow and painful death in the wreckage of the building.

Bruce  

    This string of notes has me convinced I don't belong in this notefiles.
    I'm appalled, and I'm out of here.
    
    Maia
    

.39>    I am one of those people that didn't sleep the
.39>    entire first week of the war -- my dreams were invaded with bombs and
.39>    death.  It was horrible

I seldom remember my dreams... but on the first night of the war I had
an EXTREMELY vivid dream; I was discussing the war with my father, and I
was trying to explain to him the difference between "patriotism" and
"jingoism", but he just didn't get it.  In case you're wondering, my
dad is a DEFINITELY a rah-rah jingoist; if you don't love what your
country is doing, then you don't love your country.  Period.  And not
loving your country is a sin comparable to taking a chainsaw to your
grandmother, in his opinion.

Anyhow, in the dream he and I ended up in a fistfight (!).  Now, my
dad has a heart condition, and the whole family walks on eggshells
not to set him off EMOTIONALLY, never mind physically.

I woke from that dream screaming at him.  Tamara says it's the first time
I've done that for as long as she's known me...

[hmmm... maybe this should go in MENNOTES somewhere?]

--jim

    RE: .35  Ellen
    
    > Millions of innocent civilians lost their lives!  It may be a
    > necessary side-effect, but HOW can we justify celebrating it?
    
    Ellen, I hope this is only a typo.  I can't imagine how else anyone
    could state that "millions" of anyone died in this war (especially
    civilians.)
    
    Contrary to what someone else in this string has implied, our
    government did NOT sanction bombing raids with the goal of killing
    civilians.  The Geneva convention allows for the fact that some
    strategic targets during a war will have civilians on site (working
    there, etc.) - so some bombing raids took place anyway, even though
    the Allied forces knew there were some people there.  
    
    The celebrations after the war were for the troops (to thank them
    for the risks they took and the jobs they did.)

    While the number of civilians deliberately killed by the U.S. bombing
    campaign was offensive, it was not in the millions.
    
    -- Mike

    	The number of American and Israeli lives saved by the prevention
    	of Iraqi nuclear attacks on our cities is in the dozens of millions,
    	though (and the deaths of a good portion of our populations would
    	have been the sole purpose of these attacks.)
    
    	The Iraqi citizens killed in the war can thank Saddam Hussein for
    	putting them in harm's way in the first place.

    
    So sorry about getting the "millions" wrong.
    
    Not *at all* sorry about my opinion on celebrating war.
    It stands as written.  *Celebrating* war is WRONG in my
    value system.  Nothing anyone can say will change that
    opinion.
    

    
    I dunno, killing is killing to my mind.
    
    I'm not comfortable sitting here rehashing it thinking "this war is
    better than that war because" or "my war is better than your war
    because".  
    
    War is never "better".
    
    -Jody

    	Something I've noticed here - the same "killing killing killing
    	killing killing killing" tactic is being used here that is often
    	used in the arguments in favor of making abortion illegal.
    
    	It's kind of a drag to be on the receiving end of *both* of these
    	particular verbal exercises. :-(

    	RE: .46  Ellen
    
    	> *Celebrating* war is WRONG in my value system.
    
    	We disagree about this.  It strikes me as hypocritical for a
    	country to send our troops to do a job (and war does result
    	in deaths) and then to punish them for it when they get back
    	so we can feel "good" (or whatever) about being "against killing".
    
    	We did it to the Viet vets - we didn't do it again to the Gulf Vets.
    	I'm glad for that.

	Celebrating war is indeed wrong. Celebrating the *end* of war,
	victory, and the return of the warriors, is not wrong.

					Tom_K

    	Most of the "celebrating" seemed more like "We support our troops"
    	(which a lot of people felt was important to their morale and well-
    	being during the war, as well as after it.)

    Well, I certainly felt it was a lot more of what Paul said:
    the "we sure whupped 'em good; aren't we great?", with lots
    of jumping up and down and hollering, with a lot of "lowest
    common denominator" type behavior.

    And, Suzanne, in .49 you seem to make some leap of logic - what
    makes you think that foregoing celebrations equals "punishing"?
    I'm talking about this statement:
    
>    	We disagree about this.  It strikes me as hypocritical for a
>    	country to send our troops to do a job (and war does result
>    	in deaths) and then to punish them for it when they get back
>    	so we can feel "good" (or whatever) about being "against killing".
    
    In no way do I feel that people doing their jobs well need to be
    punished.  I *NEVER* said that!
    

    RE: .52  Ellen
    
    > And, Suzanne, in .49 you seem to make some leap of logic - what
    > makes you think that foregoing celebrations equals "punishing"?
    
    Well, I left out a sentence that explained this (so I'll try again
    now):
    
    Ignoring the vets when they come home is a form of punishment (and
    we should know since we did this, among other worse things, to the
    Viet vets.)  If we talk about "all that nasty killing over there"
    and refrain from all public shows of gratitude to the vets, we're
    in effect telling them that what they did was wrong and disgusting
    (even though our country sent them to do this as their jobs!)
    
    Our country celebrated the victories in WWI and WWII - they (those
    alive at the time) were glad it was over and the troops could come home.
    
    If Gulf vets had come back to silence, it would have seemed as though 
    we were ashamed of the way they risked their *lives* by being there -
    I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem right to me.

There is no justice.  We live on this spinning globe with several billions
clamoring for food and love and such simple things as fresh water and a warm
place to sleep and we find no justice, certainly not from the hands of our
reputed elected leaders nor from the individuals who pursue what is right for
each of them, in their own eyes...to my tortured sensibilities these tales do
no justice in themselves, but in excess, in our shock/horror, I witness what
has been done by this oh-so-haphazardly-deadly society, and I more firmly hold
that change comes, must come, will come, or we are all destroyed.  If we are
held hostage to the point of war by puny dictatorships of oil sheikdoms, then
must we stop using oil so senselessly.  Bush exercised great skill in crafting
a unified world response...and has squandered his moment by failing to build
an energy policy for the future of this country, much less the free world.  Oh,
he released something last winter that he called an energy policy, but of no
consequence...and as before, our leaders fail us.  There is no justice.  When
our systems of political and economic thought so transparently fail, why do
we rail at each other?  We experience systemic failure, it is due to the vision
of independents (like Mike) that we even know of it.

>     Contrary to what someone else in this string has implied, our
>    government did NOT sanction bombing raids with the goal of killing
>    civilians.

The news article excerpted did not make this claim.  See .7.  I can easily
believe both that our government did expressly target infrastructure such as
power and water purification facilities, the loss of which were bound to have
long-lasting effects including thousands of civilian deaths, and that they 
denied it at the time.

If the claim is implied anywhere else in this string, I'd like to know where.

DougO

    
    I for one am not sorry that we prevailed. 
    
    I am sorry that we haven't been real careful in marking graves 
    so that the Iraqi moms and kinfolk can someday know the final
    resting place of their boys. That isn't the way I thought we operated.
    
    As for the whooping and parades, all I can say is that unless you know
    at first hand what its like to either be in combat, or to be waiting
    for a family member to return, it is a cheap shot to denigrate their
    enthusiasm with words like "least common denominator". 
    

    RE: .54 DougO
    
    >> Contrary to what someone else in this string has implied, our
    >> government did NOT sanction bombing raids with the goal of killing
    >> civilians.
    
    > If the claim is implied anywhere else in this string, I'd like to know 
    > where.
    
    I'm referring to the statements made repeatedly by one individual who
    claims our government "DELIBERATELY" killed civilians.  It makes it
    *sound* as though these casualties were intentional in and of themselves 
    (thus my use of the word "implied.")

    Thanks, Doug, for sharing your honest thoughts on this issue.  "There
    is no justice", you remarked, and I sit here and nod my head.  But...
    but, I ask myself:  if there is no justice, what then must we do?  We
    do what we can, says the stock answer.  Sometimes, it has been shown,
    we plant seeds we never live to see sprout.  I think about Daniel
    Berrigan's words.  Here is a man who has devoted his life to the
    pursuit of peace and justice.  Not everyone would agree with his views
    (and perhaps you do not).  But I consider his advice.  He tells us that
    we are called to "resist".  Not to change the world, not to halt a war
    that he and I opposed, but simply to resist.  Are we reduced to
    nothing more than rear guard actions in a hopelessly corrupt world? 
    Well, I don't know, but I do think he is talking about planting seeds
    by our very resistance.  Someday they might just come to fruition.

    I have to admit having a certain fascination with the ideas of Albert
    Camus.  Maybe it's the cynic in me.  In any case, he rejected the idea
    of a world of ultimate purposes.  In his essay "The Myth of Sisyphus",
    he calls for a threefold strategy of revolt, freedom, and passion in
    the face of an absurd world.  I don't agree with Camus that life is
    Absurd; but I do think that life is full of little absurdities.  And to
    confront those absurdities with despair is wrong.  That is why I reject
    Abbie Hoffman's way out.

    What is the absurdity that Camus was talking about?  He defined
    absurdity as the contradiction between our human desire for a unified
    and meaningful purpose to our existence, and the non-existence of the
    very thing we wish for.  We think about this, and we take a look around
    us.  We wish for justice.  "There is no justice", you wrote.  We can
    talk until we are blue in the face about injustice, poverty, racism and
    sexism.  We can discuss the large civilian casualties that result from
    a bombing campaign against another nation's infrastructure; or the
    slaughter of dissidents, church workers, and others by Central American
    death squads; or Tiannamen Square; or countless other examples of
    institutionalied violence in the world.  What do we do to change
    things?  How do we "resist", as Daniel Berrigan suggested?

    I don't know for certain.  I do believe that the seeds of justice do
    exist in the world.  Life may not be fair, but it is not utterly
    without meaning either.  There is compassion in the world.  People do
    care.  People look higher.  That's a start.

    Sometimes I down at my home computer and struggle with Word Perfect. 
    It's the masochist in me, it must be.  I write a chapter here and a
    chapter there.  My Magnum Opus.  Someday I'll have an entire book, if I
    live that long.  My metaphysics, my epistemology, and my ontology: my
    vision of a better world is my "resistance".  Armchair resistance.  It
    sounds so nihilistic, when instead what we need is a positive vision. 
    But in lieu of a better word, I'll stick with Daniel Berrigan's, at
    least for now.

    -- Mike

    Late night, eh Mike?
    
    D!

    	The aspect of war is terrible, true, and could be sufficient
    	reason for anyone to look at the human race with utter despair.
    
    	However...War isn't the worst thing that could happen.
    
    	It would have been worse if all of Europe and England had spent 
    	the last 50 years in the hands of the Nazi party (or the USSR.) 
    	It would have worse if Hitler had realized his dream of a total 
    	"Final Solution" (with nearly ALL European Jews dead.)
    
    	It would be worse if Saddam controlled ALL the oil resources in
    	the middle east and had plenty of money to realize his dream of
    	finishing what Hitler started (by sending chemical weapons to
    	kill the entire population of Israel) - and then pursuing his own
    	dreams by sending nuclear weapons to American and/or other western
    	cities.
    
    	I'd have true despair if I had to worry that NO ONE was willing
    	to stop a Hitler or a Saddam.  If I were eligible for military
    	service now in a combat position, I'd go to help prevent something
    	worse than war from happening.  Thank goodness there are eligible
    	folks who feel the same way (who did go and would go again, if
    	necessary.)

    RE: .32
    
    What's your point!!!!

    It seems to me that arguments about the Persian Gulf War come down to 
    how much you believe of what we were told.  If, for example, you believe
    that it might be possible for Saddam Hussein to take control of all the 
    oil in the gulf, and/or if you believe that he was/could become "another 
    Hitler" -- capable of killing on a massive scale (I would guess that is 
    on a scale worse than other leaders that we've ignored or even bolstered 
    -- like Marcos and several right-wing leaders in Central America), and if 
    you believe that George Bush tried every other possible means to resolve 
    the conflict (and for an appropriate length of time) before resorting to 
    war; then I can understand how you might support and believe in the 
    necessity of the Persian Gulf War.
    
    In the time leading up to the war and during the war, I wanted to discuss
    the war and hear discussions of it on that level: was the threat great, 
    do we have other means of addresssing the threat, how long should we wait 
    before going to war (if we must), is anything we're doing now making war 
    more or less likely? (I mention this last one because I think that once 
    Bush had hundreds of thousands of troops in the gulf, war seemed 
    inevitable.)  BUT instead, much of what I heard in response to those of 
    us who opposed or even questioned the war was attacks on our "patriotism" 
    -- I'm not saying that happened so much here, but it certainly happened 
    in the public media.  How can it be unpatriotic to oppose a war against a 
    tiny country?  A country which supplied very little of our (U.S.) oil.  
    A country which had almost no other source of income -- I don't think Bush 
    gave economic sanctions long enough to work.  And the country we were 
    defending?  There sure have been a lot of abuses of human rights since the 
    end of the war.  Was it the right thing to go to war against Iraq?  The 
    vast majority of U.S-ers say yes (according to polls), but I don't think 
    we had enough information to answer that question.  So, I am generally 
    predisposed to be against WAR -- I admit that.  And in this specific case, 
    I remain unconvinced that it was the right thing to do.  OK, so that's how 
    I feel, and I expect to be able to hold that view.
    
    More importantly to me, the celebrations that have now gone on longer than
    the "war" itself have really upset me.  Yes, I can understand the joy folks
    must feel at having their loved-ones return unharmed (or at returning 
    unharmed), but a lot of what I've seen has sickened me.  The excitement
    with which the media (and other folks) described the performance of
    the U.S. weapons.  Even so-called "lefty" reporters on N.P.R. seemed
    caught up in football analogies and military-speak (e.g, "collateral 
    damage.")  This newest generation of adults has only really known 
    Reagan/Bush as presidents, and they have lived in relative peace.  They 
    were in grade-school when the Vietnam war ended.  They didn't attend 
    protests or know any young men who got their legs blown off or who didn't 
    come back at all, or who (to this day) remain completely traumatized by 
    the horrors they saw and maybe committed.  To many of us, "Star Wars" is 
    as big a part (or bigger) of our consciousness as is Kent State.  
    Ironically, this "clean" war was made for the very age group that was so 
    frightened and enraged by VietNam.  Wanna go play PACMAN for Uncle Sam?  I 
    feel that the actual horror of war - any war- has been ignored: by our 
    leaders, by the media, and by many of us.
    
    Yes, I hate what Hitler did, and I hate what Saddam Hussein has done.
    I hate all violence and oppression -- even when it's done  by those who
    are friendly to U.S. "interests."  If it's wrong in Iraq, then it's wrong 
    in El Salvador.  I am tired of being manipulated by claims (and actual
    reports) of violence (an appeal to my bleeding heart?) when money seems to 
    be the only thing that really matters when it comes to who gets food, who 
    gets more guns, and who gets tanks rolling down their streets.  So, fine.  
    Wave your flags, and wear your yellow ribbons, but don't deny me my right 
    to say that I think we fought an unjust war, and don't accuse me of not 
    appreciating the bravery of our soldiers -- if I didn't appreciate it, I 
    would keep silent as I watched them kill and be killed over something that 
    I think is wrong.
    
    Justine  

Mike, The Myth of Sisyphus was one of the few books I read in high school
that spoke to the gnawing concerns I'd felt as I passed my adolescence in
the aftermath of watergate and the profound despair it evoked with regard
to our political institutions and their inability to stand uncorrupt in a
world which very much needs strength and purpose in its institutions.  To
my comfort the strategies he suggested have served me again in recent years
as I struggle to work out meaning and purpose in my own life.  A teacher,
Barbara Fletcher, never did me a better turn than to suggest that book.  I
do not find it cynical so much as it instead seeks a redemption through a
virtue of integrity.  Acknowledging awful truths is not cynicism unless we
give way to despair.

DougO

    That's interesting, Doug.  I first read Camus's essay when I was in
    high school.  I don't think I was mature enough to appreciate it then,
    though.  I just reread it about a month or so ago, and it really "spoke
    to my condition" (to use a Quaker phrase) much more this time around. I
    agree with your comments on Camus.  He was not a pessimist, in the
    sense that his philosophy was very much life-affirming.  But I also
    think that his premise, that life is absurd, is not a pleasant one to
    consider.  Camus argued that there are *two* conditions that make for
    an absurdity, and if either term drops out of the equation then the
    absurdity disappears.  One of those conditions represents our
    "nostalgia" for an ultimately meaningful and just world, and the other
    represents his view that the world is not this way.  He called any
    attempt the latter term, particularly through some sort of hope or
    final appeal, to be "philosophical suicide".

    As I mentioned, I don't agree with Camus that the world is ultimately
    without an unity or meaning, but I think that many aspects of life are
    characterized by a plurality of meaningless events.  I don't think that
    you can wish away these meaningless components of life by saying that
    somehow every individual event has a purpose and everything is for the
    best.  And that is where I think Camus has something important to say.

    -- Mike

    RE: .61  Justine

    > It seems to me that arguments about the Persian Gulf War come down to 
    > how much you believe of what we were told. 

    We weren't only "told" about Saddam - we were able to see what he was
    doing (eg, the 10 year war with Iran, the bloody takeover of Kuwait,
    his claims that the desert would flow with rivers of Allied blood, etc.)

    How many such "clues" did Hitler offer when he was on a similar course
    in the 1930's?  Do we have to wait for millions to be slaughtered in
    death camps before we take *another* powerful madman seriously?  I hope
    not.

    > If...you believe...then I can understand how you might support and 
    > believe in the necessity of the Persian Gulf War.
    
    If Saddam was prepared, determined and fully capable of carrying out
    chemical and nuclear destruction of American, European, Israeli cites
    (or others) - then you might also agree that prevention of these
    actions would make the Gulf War a "just" and necessary war, right?

    > How can it be unpatriotic to oppose a war against a tiny country?

    ...A tiny country with the 4th largest army in the world, remember.

    > Was it the right thing to go to war against Iraq?  The vast majority 
    > of U.S-ers say yes (according to polls), but I don't think we had enough 
    > information to answer that question.  So, I am generally predisposed to 
    > be against WAR -- I admit that.  And in this specific case, I remain 
    > unconvinced that it was the right thing to do. 

    Unconvinced?  You don't sound unconvinced later in your note:

    > ...but don't deny me my right to say that I think we fought an unjust 
    > war...

    The paragraph above sounds as though you're willing to make this
    assumption based on your stand "against war" - even though you already
    agree that you don't have enough information to know for sure.

    I'm not trying to nitpick with you about this - but the point is that
    Saddam's actions (and his vast armies, wealth and military aggression
    in the 1980's and early 1990's, up to and including the invasion of
    Kuwait) made him someone that much of the world *HAD* to take seriously
    as a threat for another Holocaust.  It would have been irresponsible
    to ignore the signs that this man was capable of wreaking the kind of
    destruction that Hitler only dreamed would be possible.

    If this is what the Gulf War saved us from, then it was entirely just
    and proper to do it (unless one thinks that another Holocaust is
    preferable as long as WE don't have to fight any armies in the meantime.)
    
    You're entitled to your opinion about this, of course, but don't accuse
    anyone here of supporting an unjust war, either.

    RE: .65  Brian
    
    > On the other hand, it has always been popular to attack those who
    > do not approve of war.  They are easy targets: after all, their idea
    > of fighting back is to throw words, not bombs; to stick you with your
    > conscience, not with a bayonet.
    
    Well, I'll tell ya, I think some who endlessly attack the supporters
    of the war have done a far more painful job of it than you seem to be 
    giving them credit for doing.  
    
    When the war was going on, the entire subject had to be pretty much
    banned because =wn= became a vast dumping ground for anti-war rhetoric.
    
    My conscience is in tact (because I believe that Saddam's actions were
    indicative of a very ominous threat of mass destruction) - but I'm
    really weary of the fact that the anti-war rhetoric can resurface and
    bite us all over again at the drop of a hat.
    
    Why is =wn= a target for this stand?  We didn't start the war.

    re: .66

>   Why is =wn= a target for this stand?

    I don't quite understand why you would ask this.  I never got the
    impression that "=wn= the conference" took any particular stand on
    the war one way or the other.  Certainly individual noters offered
    opposing views but I wouldn't call either the anti-war or the
    pro-war opinions an "attack" on the file.  (On disk space maybe!)
    8-)
    
    I think the topic (war) invites rhetoric -- no matter what one's
    position is.  Life and death seems like serious, important stuff;
    and since =wn=ers in general are responsible, caring, involved
    folks, it's no wonder to me there's so much rhetoric floating
    around.

    nla                                       

    RE: .67
    
    >> Why is =wn= a target for this stand?

    > I don't quite understand why you would ask this.  I never got the
    > impression that "=wn= the conference" took any particular stand on
    > the war one way or the other. 
    
    No - what I said was that =wn= became a vast dumping ground for anti-war
    rhetoric (so much so that the moderators felt it necessary to BAN the
    entire subject while the war was still in progress.)  It would have been
    nice to discuss it and share our feelings about it here, but it quickly
    became impossible.  When one person was questioned about why he felt it
    necessary to post so much material against the war, he responded that
    he was frustrated at being bombarded by the media with *support* for the
    war.  No one here (including me) was bombarding ANYONE with support for
    the war - yet we were subjected to someone's frustration at the MEDIA.
    
    I'm not saying the person wasn't allowed to do it (except for the fact
    that these actions banned the topic from the file for awhile) - but I
    do wonder why =wn= (for this)?

    Actually Suzanne,
    
    As I recall it, the ban was more as a result of strongly prowar
    types attacking the antis.
    
    But that is just my perspective in hindsight.
    
    Bonnie

    
    I'm a little confused (scared? Disgusted? appalled?) by the statements
    to the effect that killing by burying your enemy alive is no worse and
    no different than bayoneting them or whatever other end.
    
    There is a difference! (IMO) a difference in degree, in volition. In
    the American revolution, many British lost their lives because the
    revolutionaries didn't play fair, according to the rules of the time...
    line up in ranks, beat the drums and march forward.  
    
    Colonists fought a nastier war and won.  Nowadays, guerilla tactics are
    commonplace.... and what is "acceptable" becomes ever freer and looser
    - if it means winning; the end justifies the means. 
    
    Is war civilized? what an oxymoronical idea! There are degrees of
    horror and (de-)civilization, IMO.  we're on a slippery slope downward. 
    
    

    re:.71
    
      Are you then saying that the colonists were wrong in using nasty
    tactics to take on the red coats?  Perhaps we should have just given
    in to them?
    
    
                                        L.J.

    In my Territorial Army unit, C Company wear a red triangle behind
    their beret badges to commemorate the Battle of Brandy Wine Creek.
    What happened was the soldiers sneeked up on the enemy camp and killed
    all of them in their sleep. Before then, the battle was stopped at
    dinner time and resumed the next morning. In war, it is unfortunately
    inevitable that new tactics will be thought up to kill the enemy. It
    was this type of thing that prompted the Geneva Convention part that 
    deals with warfare. Even within the scope of this it is possible to
    kill in some horrible ways. As mentioned before, is it any better
    to die slowly after having been blown apart, or to be bayoneted, or
    gassed, or shot, or buried alive etc.?
                            
    
    Jerome. 

Re: .71

This note hits a particular "pet peeve" of mine.  The American Revolution,
it is true, was partially characterized by guerilla ("indian-fighting")
tactics.  But the truth of the matter is that that style of fighting was
NOT the predominant one.  Most of the battles were fought using the
standard European tactics.  The common notion is that the Revolution
started at Lexington and Concord, and the colonists followed the British
army for several years, shooting at them from stone walls, until they
(the British) surrendered at Yorktown.  In reality, Washington knew
that he had to beat the British on their own terms, and he did.

And as far as war getting more brutal, I think you would have a hard
time substantiating that.  Wars throughout history have each
brought their own particular horror, and it is hard to say which was
the worst.  How does one compare the A-Bomb of WWII, the Mustard gas of WWI,
the prison conditions of the American Civil War, the genocide of Hitler,
the ignorant brutality of the Indian Wars, the ancient practice of
killing the entire population of a city that resisted a siege, the
Mayan practice of cutting the heart out of their (still-living) prisoners...
I'm sorry, this is getting awful...

The point is, people have only fairly recently made any attempt at all
to define and codify what is unacceptable in warfare.  So perhaps there is
a glimmer of hope.

Ben

yah, humans have shown themselves capable of pretty awful things throughout their
recorded (at least) history.  It says to me that we are, that I am, also capable
of awful things.  Are some things more awful than others?  Yes.  Can I define
a criterion, that which makes a thing more awful than something else?  No.

Is there hope, at least, that humans can get less awful?  I think so.

    
    Suzanne,  I think you're mixing two things together there.  We
    (moderators) did decide to limit how much stuff folks could post from 
    other mailing lists or publications -- we didn't establish a hard
    limit, but we did decide that we could determine how much was too much,
    and we asked (in this case) Mike to provide a pointer for more
    information, which he did.  We ended up deciding to put a hold on 
    discussion of the war (and I still feel awful that it came down to that) 
    because:
      1. It seemed to be leaking into just about every topic. 
      2. There were hurtful things being said on both sides of the issue,
         and many of us seemed so attached to our views that we couldn't
         use the same courtesy and judgement that we use in other notes.
    
    I certainly hope we mods won't have to make that kind of decision
    again.  This is an important issue, and I know I want to read and write
    about it.  We (all of us as members of this community) have to find a
    way to express our deeply held views without attacking each other.
    
    Justine -- Womannotes Comoderator
                                                             

    The pacifists seem to be saying (and this is my interpretation)
    that armed aggression is never justified, no matter what the other
    person does. Indeed, it seems like some people would prefer to be
    murdered or enslaved rather than put up any armed resistance or
    force. I find this to be a saddening decision for several reasons. 

    It is particularly saddening because, in my opinion, you devalue
    yourself: You are saying that the other person's urge to kill,
    enslave, and rape you or your loved ones is more important than
    your right to life or the right to life of your loved ones.

    The news today is of a possible another Coalition attack on Iraq.
    I find that saddening, too. But force may be necessary to stop an
    immoral madman who is trying to enslave the world. 

    We seem to be at an impasse here in =wn=. I don't think we will
    ever reach agreement. But let's respect each other's opinions. 

    Bruce

I believe that a pacifist would say, rather, that his or her own personal moral 
convictions are more important than the other person's urge to do violence, 
and possibly more important than his or her own life.  That choice is up
to each individual, at each moment that those convictions are challenged
with violence.

disclaimer: I am not a pacifist, nor have I ever been one.  But I am a woman
who believes in principle.

I did not intend to put in a note and then leave questions to me unanswered.
I have not been well.

At any rate, I would like to share a few things with you.  I had considered
replying to specific points, but decided that would be far too windy.

What do I think?  I think your replies have caused me to think quite a bit.
I did have to ask myself, IS there one way better than another to die?  Did
I thing Sadam would run unchecked and "become another Hitler?"  Did I think
that this was a war for oil? etc., etc.

I'll try to be brief, here.  First, I do think this was an economic deal.  
It would have been o.k. to let Sadam run over Iraq because they didn't 
particularly have enough that we wanted and we were p*ssed at them for
keeping our people.  So, is it o.k. to bury alive, or whatever, to keep what
we wanted (much in the same way we dealt with Native Americans)?

Well, no, not in my book.  The reason *for me* is fairly simple.  If we at
least try to keep to some notion of what is right, we are focusing on
PROCESS.  So long as we focus on process, there is some hope that we may
some day put down so many things that are war crimes that war will become
impractical and abhorent.  So we try to define...

I do not agree with the idea that Sadam would "run free" in the region and
become another Hitler.  Let's remember that Israel stayed out of this by
our pressure - for once, the long term goal of peace in mind.  If we had not
intervened and Sadam posed that kind of threat, I do believe that Israel 
would have gone in and done much the same thing that we all did (although
they would most likely have had a real ending).

And, just as my own liitle statement....

	I do not ever apologize or try to justify my position with regard
	to war.  A world without war is a very difficult thing to imagine,
	and, I know is unrealistic.  However, I do not accept the reality
	of death and brutality, for, I feel that it stakes down one more
	position for the status quo and allows war to continue.  This 
	world makes little enough sense to me...Were I to say, that's just
	the way it is, it would make no sense at all.

Barb

     65.: RIPSAW::HETRICK:
     "....
	  The purpose of armed conflict is to reduce or destroy the enemy's
     capability and will to resist.  Burying enemy soldiers under sand
     while clearing anti-tank barriers is part of that.  Pulping enemy
     soldiers with fuel/air bombs is part of that.  Destroying the utility
     services and water supply of the civilian population is part of that.
     Terrorizing and killing the civilian population itself is part of
     that.  These activities directly and efficiently contribute to
     achieving the goal.
          ......
	  It seems to me that objections to these tactics are not object-
     ions against conduct _in_ a war, but conduct _of_ a war.
                ...."
    
    The historical experience the (europeans) had with the conduct in a war
    led them + U.S. after WW1 to write some rules for this uncivilized
    game. Killing civilians or endangering their health on design and
    purpose is war-crime, according to Den Haag convention. The bombing
    of e.g. Rotterdam, Coventry, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki are war crimes.
    Destroying water supplies which are neither used by armed forces
    themselves, nor for manufacturing or distribution of goods necessary
    for the conduct of war is war crime. (The food industry was not
    considered military target in the Den Haag convention, I believe.) Period. 
    The civilians had no chance to hide, run away, surrender. The soldiers
    be it conscripts or professionals, had at least some chances;
    killing them with any means except for the use of chemical and B weapons
    is permitted.
    
    War is the continuation of the politics with other means; this was
    written in the 19th century by professional soldier, von Clausewitz.
    The politics well ahead of the Gulf war was not suitable to ensure
    peace there. The war itself did not destroy the dictatorship
    in Iraq, and nobody helped the opposition in Iraq that tried
    to get rid of Saddam Hussein. (Just imagine the allies stop
    at the frontiers of 3rd Reich as of 31st Aug 1939 and permitting
    Mr. Hitler to stay in power and behave very much the same as before!)
    It is arguable then that the goal of the politics before the
    war, the war itself and the politics now did not and do not
    have the objective of getting peace there, improve the living
    conditions there, apply human rights, getting towards democracy.
    
    The idea is that the goal does not justify (every) mean. Mean means
    can not be used to achieve just goals. (Just to get the idea what
    these ideas were about, refer to the speech by Mr. Churchill, then M.P.
    held on the Gen. Dyer hearing - you may remember the massacre scene
    in the movie 'Gandhi'.) 
    
    Josef.

Even in these days of the Geneva Convention, "all's fair in love and war"....

Remember: in general, only the losing side ever gets prosecuted for
"war crimes".  Therefore, if you can cheat your way to victory, you'll
likely get away with anything!

--jim

paraphrased from James Clavelle's _Shogun_:

Toranaga to Blackthorne:
	"There is NEVER any excuse for rebelling against your liege lord!"

Blackthorne to Toranaga:
	"Unless you win."

The winner gets to write the books, conduct the trials, exact justice.
For the time being, at least.

    re .78
    
    you've expressed it exactly correctly for me...

             <<< IKE22::$3$DIA5:[NOTESFILES]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 1037.83                  Iraquis buried alive                      83 of 84
SIETTG::HETRICK "Looking for a sacred hand"          36 lines  19-SEP-1991 14:42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Re: .80 (Josef)


     Re.: .83 (Brian)
     "...  I think that the "slippery
     slope" starts not when one considers using reprehensible methods in
     warfare, but when one starts to consider using warfare at all. "

     I agree. More so when we have weapons that if used hit civilians hardest.
     
     Josef.
    

    	If we made ALL war unlawful, then we'd leave it in the hands of those 
    	willing to break existing international war laws (like Hitler and 
    	Saddam Hussein.)
    
    	It's similar to the idea of making guns against the law - we'd take 
    	them away as a DEFENSE from law-abiding citizens (or countries, in
    	the case of war) and leave us all at the mercy of those willing to 
    	BREAK the law.
    
    	I'm against this (for both guns *and* wars.)
    
    	Further, if we declared to the world that we would no longer be
    	willing to ever wage war again (UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES,) we'd
    	be nuts not to realize that countries would (essentially) call
    	us to tell us they'll swing by to "pick up the keys" to the US,
    	because we'd definitely be too attractive a defenseless target
    	to let sit in peace for the rest of our lives.

    	By the way, I empathize very strongly with the philosophy of
    	true pacifism, as I understand it.  The goal is not to try to
    	stop the war (or to influence one's country to deliberately 
    	lose the war,) but rather, if called to serve one's country, to 
    	find a way to contribute to the war effort in ways that do not 
    	involve ending anyone's life.  Pacifists have served as medics, 
    	for example (where their work is to put their own lives at risk 
    	to save others.)
    
    	I have the utmost respect for this philosophical position.
    
    	However, I have less respect for those who use cries of "pacifism"
    	as a self-righteous stand against a society's right to use force to
    	defend itself (or to defend others.) 
    
    	As someone else said, pacifism should be a personal CHOICE (and
    	an excellent one for those whose moral beliefs call for it) - but
    	it can NEVER be forced as a societal choice, nor should non-pacifists
    	be treated as morally inferior for not holding to pacifism.

  Re: .77 (Bruce)

  Sheesh, you don't have to be a pacifist to oppose a particular use
  of military force.  I have never been a pacifist but I opposed the 
  commencement of the ground war in the gulf.

  Anyone who wants a glimpse into the "decision process" that led to 
  the Gulfwar and other recent US military actions should try "The Commanders" 
  by Bob Woodward.  You'll see why quotes belong around the words "decision 
  process."

  JP

1. The Gulf War -- I think the primary reason we bombed and invaded Iraq 
was because Bush thought it would be a popular war and enhance his standing. 
The second reason was to keep the price of oil down and enhance Bush's standing. 
A third reason was to stop Saddam from building a larger war machine and also 
to enhance Bush's standing. 

2. Pacifists have provided the world and humanity with a lot of good through 
their efforts, particularly during times of war by serving with the armed 
forces in non-battle positions. Nobody disputes that.

But personally I disagree with their philosophy. Pacifism cannot survive 
without non-pacifists around to make the world safe for them. Without non-
pacifists we would all be slaves to the first person who wanted to be world
dictator. I value my life and freedom, and the life and freedom of my loved 
ones and all human beings too much to let that happen without doing what I can
to prevent it.

Bruce   
 

    re .89, odd, I've always thought that pacifists would survive quite
    well without non-pacifists.
    
    Lorna
    

Re: .90

In an ideal world, we would all be pacifists. Unfortunately reality does not 
begin to approach this ideal.

Bruce

Perhaps it would have been more accurate if I had said that without 
non-pacifists we would all be slaves or dead. 

There are things worth dying for and principles worth dying for. I'd rather die
while actively trying to stop a Hitler, a murderer, or a rapist, than passively
do nothing (and maybe die anyway) while others are being enslaved, murdered, 
or raped.

Bruce 

    re:.94
    
    
          No pacifism is not "doing nothing".  But I believe .93 was
    stating that there comes a point when nothing *but* force will
    get through.
          .93 (oops forgot to get a name) was stating that there is
    a point where force is necessary.
    
    
                                         L.J.

>Perhaps it would have been more accurate if I had said that without 
>non-pacifists we would all be slaves or dead. 

	If everyone were a pacifist, then who would be doing the enslaving 
	and killing?



>There are things worth dying for and principles worth dying for. I'd rather die
>while actively trying to stop a Hitler, a murderer, or a rapist, than passively
>do nothing (and maybe die anyway) while others are being enslaved, murdered, 
>or raped.

	So would most pacifists, I'd bet.  They just wouldn't use violence
	as a means of actively trying to stop <whatever>.



	*A*

    
    If the problem is would-be dictators, why not let them slug it out,
    and leave the rest of us in peace?
    
    peace,
    Dorian

    
    because dictators, like muggers, prey on the weak.
    
    be a mark, get hit. its actually pretty simple to 
    understand.
    
    in a civil milieu, sure, noble instincts abound. 
    
    but the world, like some neighborhoods, is a jungle.

		A person I new years back talked about working (producing
	war materials) for the Germans in WWI. It's easy for a person to
	stand tall and refuse, but what it your children or others will
	suffer for your non-compliance, that's a whole lot harder.
		People with fellings have trouble understanding people
	who are emotionally detached. To these people if you simply eliminate
	the people who won't bend to their will and the problem goes away
	quickly. 
		Non-compliance only works in a society where it's tolerated
	to some degree (i.e. there may be some consiquiences but not death
	or total removal from society ).
		Maybe mankind can someday reach a level where policeman or
	armies aren't needed but we sure aren't there yet.

Oh, geesh, I do so love hypocrisy...

The "pacifist" idea of contributing to a war effort but in such a way
that you do not end another person's life is bunk.  Sorry, but it is.

Are you innocent of a murder if you stand by and stanch the wounds the
victim inflicts on the killer while struggling to save hirself?  No,
you are not.  You are an accessory; you have contributed to the death of
the victim.  If you patch up infantrymen who have been shot so that they
can be returned to combat, you are an accessory to the deaths those
infantrymen cause by rifle fire.  There is no such thing as a free
lunch.  If you contribute to any war effort, in any way, you are freeing
others for combat duty.  And you are therefore guilty of killing enemy
troops and possibly civilians.

Robert Heinlen said in _Time Enough for Love_ that a person who couldn't
shoot hir own dog when that was the merciful thing to do doesn't deserve
to own a dog.  Having a veterinarian do it is a copout.  And holding
soldiers' coats while they're out there doing your dirty work for you is
no less a copout.

-d

    You can stretch that argument to include anyone who lives in a nation at
    war who pays taxes or works or does anything that supports that
    nation.  They then are all hypocrits who do that and at the same time
    espouse pacificism.  I think it was William James (but I'm not sure)
    who suggested that we should each act in such a way that if everyone
    acted that way, society would be better off.  Surely if everyone (let's
    say on both sides) were to refuse any military service except caring
    for the wounded, then there would be no war.  It is certainly less of
    a cop-out for a pacifist to help the wounded than for a pacifist to
    take up a gun, or, for that matter, for a Christian to take up a gun
    to kill his neighbor.  It is much harder to practice pacifism in this
    world (though perhaps things are changing) than to practice
    war-mongering.  So for a pacifist to lack the courage to go all the way
    with their commitment to the cause, seems to me to be a pardonable
    offense.  I have the utmost respect for those who go unarmed into
    battle to help their wounded fellows.  They are braver than I am.
    
    					- Vick

    	Some of the people who preach pacifism as an ideal seem to
    lack any sense of awareness that it is a part of the human nature
    as it has evolved to be violent and bellicose.
    
    	In particular - there are many of us who watch Star Trek and
    do in fact relate to the Klingon characters as more "real" than
    the captain and crew of the Enterprize.  In fact if it were needed
    to put together on short notice either a team of terrorist aggressors 
    or a team of pacifist peace negotiators from among random people we
    know ... it might be easier to find fighters than peacemakers ... and
    this is not intended as a male/female awareness.  Among female friends
    many of them were and still are just as angry and willing to destroy
    whomever they see as a threat as male friends seem to be.
    
    ~-sdt-~  think about it ... maybe many of us aspire to be warriors ...

    re .102, well, I don't think it's anything to be proud of.
    I wouldn't brag about being violent and bellicose.
    

    
    except when a male gets judochopped in the coccyx and is crippled 
    fer life..
    

    re .104, well, if he deserved it, I'd brag about it.
    

    re .102
    
    
    ...as we have evolved....??!!!!
    
    Hmmm.. if you'd be interested in an opposing viewpoint, please read the
    Chalice and the Blade by Riane Eisler.  TWO of the interesting aspects
    of the rise of civilization that she supports through her
    archaeological research is:
    	- humans were/are basically NON-warring.  There were some tribes of
    belligerent and bellicose people (who by the way were also geared toward
    the domination of women and establishment of caste systems) who
    brutally conquered the more gylanic societies.
    
    	- Contrary to popular belief, civilization did NOT make rapid jumps
    whne these warring tribes moved through.  In fact, the advancement in
    those areas we consider technological or social advances occured in
    those periods when those folks (the belligerent and bellicose ones)
     elsewhere!
    
    
    My pharasing.. her writing is MUCH better!
    Jamd