[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: RAT ANTI-NATO-ART
Yes, Jonathan that's true, and that's, I think, my point. You know how you
hear these CEO-looking generals talking theoretically about expending "blood
and treasure" in the same way that spin doctors talk about "political
capital".
And the airstrikes kill people too, just not as effectively as ground
troops. My fear is that we'll just naturally escalate like they escalate
rhetoric.
I won't get all self righteous and say that Serbian lives are worth just as
much as American lives (although they are) because I know that it much more
disturbing to me when Americans are killed. Its that old black magic they
call nationalism worming its way into my commie pinko artsy fartsy heart.
But if we're not, as a nation, willing to spill our own blood AT ALL then do
we really have a moral right to bomb the crap out of these people?
Might makes right, so sure. Thats the American Military Conservative
Republican Way
Or you can take the other side which is that Lack of Might makes right.
Thats the american ACLU PETA Liberal Democrat Way.
I prefer ethical systems that start from something I can support such as
"Love thy neighbor as you love thyself" and build a logically consistant
structure from there. There are permutations that fall out of that that I
won't get into but suffice it to say that I am as confused as the next
person as to what to do about this whole situation.
The one thing I know is that war scares me.
War is chaotic and uncontrolled. What if Yeltsin dies (I know, he's so
healthy it'll never happen, I'm just supposing) and some Nationalist
Communist Nutcase steps in and says lets go help old Slobering Mymomsabitch
and they just march 1,000,000 men over Romania and into Yugoslavia and
accidently take over Greece. What do we do then?
I just think the whole idea of war is so weird and out of control but the
reality is that people have been going to war since before there was
civilization. Maybe I'm the weirdo. Maybe human lives aren't that valuable
and violence is the way to solve things. No really.
Mmmmm
john sylvain
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ezra Buzzington [SMTP:jonoh1@juno.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 1999 2:05 AM
> To: rat-list@whirl-i-gig.com
> Subject: Re: RAT ANTI-NATO-ART
>
> On Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:21:47 -0700 "Sylvain, John"
> <jsylvain@station.sony.com> writes:
> It
> >reminds me
> >of the wierd diplomatic speak where there is a difference between
> >being
> >"very concerned" "outraged" and "condemning" something. The difference
> >is
> >apparently apparent to the diplomats but doesn't make a difference to
> >me.
> >When you're going to war however the whole thing changes but it seems
> >like
> >the US government sees airstrikes as being similar to being "very
> >concerned", while ground troops would equal "outrage". A limited "no
> >way we
> >can achieve our objectives but at least it looks like we're trying"
> >approach
> >seems to make sense to the people in power. They don't seem to realize
> >that
> >they are doing more harm than good now.
>
> John,
> I tend to agree. However there's one consideration not mentioned in the
> post. The loss of our soldier's lives. Like it or not there is more of a
> premium on them. Air attacks are far less dangerous for our servicemen.
> So I think there's more to consider here than merely a some degree of
> emotional involvement.
> Best,
> Jonathan
>
>
> http://nationalfringe.webjump.com
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
> or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]