War

[Maynard_Lanting]

All this talk about people detesting “warfare” and avoiding it is beginning
to scare me. There are times when warfare is very necessary. When some
crazy person like Hitler is going on a rampage, should we all stand there
passively and say, “I have strong morals, and i detest warfare, I do not
want my hands bloody, therefore I will not resist”? If they take your money
you need to feed yourself or your family, if they kill you because you are
of a certain nationality, or indulge in random acts of violence, or
visciously rape your wife or daughter, or son, and make you watch, are you
still going to hang on to your “morals”? If these things are happening to
your neighbour, will you cling to your abhorance of violence? Somehow think
that your non-participation in stopping these types of atrocities are
laudible?

Ok, say your follow the line of thinking that you should stop these types of
human crimes but in this relatively peaceful time you don’t think that
weapons and violence should be supported. Let me remind you that Britain
was very vulnerable to a German invasion at the beginning of WWII. If they
would have landed on the beaches of Ireland like the Allies did on Normandy,
Britain would have almost certainly fallen and with Britain out of it, maybe
Russia too. Millions more innocent people would have died. The point is
this: we must always be ready for this type of person (this means
continueing to development means of killing people, yes better ways of
killing people). They are out there (Hitlers), and although the States does
many types of self-serving acts, i’m thankful they do hold the power and not
some unstable country.

Yours immorally,
Maynard


“Rick Lake” <rwlake@spamfree.domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:9nalov$f8e$1@inn.qnx.com…

inn.qnx.com <> mcharest@clipzinformatic.com> > wrote:

[These are MY opinions and I’m speaking only for myself]

I think the question is “where do you draw the line”. In this case you
have a pretty clear view of what your software could be used for. But
would you have the same moral doubts if your software was indirectly
involved in the manufacturing of warfare equipment? What about if it was
indirectly indirectly involved? And what about triple indirectly, and so
on…

So how many levels of indirections should be between the deployment of
your software and people getting killed? Perhaps the answer would be: as
long as there are so many levels that you cannot see the relevance
anymore? But then if you were desperate enough to sell, you would
deliberately refuse to see beyond a certain number of levels just to be
able to sell your product with a clear conscience.

Even the most complete passivist will eventually somehow undeliberately
contribute to warfare in anything he/she buys or sells. It’s just a matter
of how clear you’re able to see the relevance between your actions and
people eventually getting killed. I utterly detest warfare, but
unfortunately anything I make/buy/sell is somehow (no matter how remote)
linked to it.

So to answer your question: Since in the long run we are all responsible
for warfare, whatever decision you make, I won’t condemn you UNLESS your
motive is to support warfare.

regards,
rick

This is not related to QNX but since I almost live here >


I’ve received an order from a company that is manufacturing and
designing
warfare equipment. I’ve been wondering; should I sell to them? Granted
the
software they want will make absolutly no difference between someone
getting
killed or not, but it will possibly make their job easier at doing so.
Luckly I can afford to not sell them, so I have the luxury of being able
to
make a choice.

What would you do if you’d be in my shoes? PS I’m not really looking
for
someone to take the decision for me, I want to see what people think.

• Mario

[Bill_Caroselli_Q-TPS]

“Maynard Lanting” <mlanting@atsautomation.com> wrote in message
news:3b98e6cf$1@ats2.sentex.ca…

. . . . They are out there (Hitlers), and although the States does
many types of self-serving acts, i’m thankful they do hold the power and
not
some unstable country.

Hi Maynard,

just as a point of reference, where are you from?

Yours immorally,
Maynard

I don’t think you’re immoral at all. War is dirty business, but the good
guys have to stay involved just so that bad guys don’t (always) win.

[Maynard_Lanting]

“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <qtps@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9nap9h$hhj$1@inn.qnx.com…

“Maynard Lanting” <> mlanting@atsautomation.com> > wrote in message
news:3b98e6cf$> 1@ats2.sentex.ca> …
. . . . They are out there (Hitlers), and although the States does
many types of self-serving acts, i’m thankful they do hold the power and
not
some unstable country.

Hi Maynard,

just as a point of reference, where are you from?

Yours immorally,
Maynard

I don’t think you’re immoral at all. War is dirty business, but the good
guys have to stay involved just so that bad guys don’t (always) win.



Well, as a country, i’m from Canada, parents are from the Netherlands

(Holland), they experienced WWII firsthand.
As a company employee, from ATS Automation Tooling Systems. When they make
a call for participants to put down for good some crazy, I’m signing up, not
for the glory or honour, but somebody has to do it for our innocent kids.

[Rennie_Allen2]

…and most of Germany, Austria etc. people thas days…

I disagree.

…and most of Irque people thes days…

Again, I disagree.

…and most of Bosnian, American etc. people today…

And again, I disagree.

…and most of Russian and Chechnya people today…

And once again, I disagree.

… or even
worse not blindly but just having no another choise.

This is the primary reason people kill one another en masse, for which
the only proven protection is a vibrant democracy, with checks and
balances, and freedom of the press.

let’s go futher and insulate different contries, nations, religions
and in
general inequaly thinking people from each other ?

I meant “isolate” in terms of discussion, not to physically isolate even
the psychopaths, let alone groups of normal people.

but unfortunatelly even
this wouldn’t help and some time later they’ll start a civil war or
another
alike “party”.

I agree. Physical isolation is not a solution to any problem, nor was I
proposing any sort of solution at all, I was simply disagreeing with the
idea that contemplative violence is a trait that is common to anything
but a very tiny percentage of Homo sapiens. There’s no denying that far
too much violence exists, but my belief (and history pretty much bears
me out on this) is that all group violence has at it’s roots
psychopathic individuals (of course there are crimes of passion, that
most human beings are capable of, but these are generally not related to
group violence).

also there’s too much of prisons needed. btw if anyone
remember such “fun” experiment has already been made in exUSSR. there
were
more prisons then shops and every square meter of snow in Siberia had
it’s
own personal janitor. but it didn’t help too much more like vice
versa.
guess, will be the next iteration a way better ?

The situation to which you refer was caused when (due to lack of
vigilant democracy) a group of psychopaths got control of a group of
200+ million individuals, 199+ million of which would live peaceful
lives given their druthers.

I vehemently (but non-violently disagree with those who seek to
paint all of humanity with the brush of those who have no humanity.
This point of view, if widely adopted, would only condemn us to an
eternity of this type of behavior.

[Bill_Caroselli_Q-TPS]

“Maynard Lanting” <mlanting@atsautomation.com> wrote in message
news:3b98ecce$1@ats2.sentex.ca…

Well, as a country, i’m from Canada, parents are from the Netherlands
(Holland), they experienced WWII firsthand.
As a company employee, from ATS Automation Tooling Systems. When they
make
a call for participants to put down for good some crazy, I’m signing up,
not
for the glory or honour, but somebody has to do it for our innocent kids.

Amen

[Stacey_Abshire]

Can we get back to qnx please?

Thanks,
Stacey

[Rennie_Allen2]

I agree, and those who promote war in order to derive profits are
psychopaths (by the very definition of the term). How many arms dealers
(the kind who sell to both sides in a conflict) do you know personally ?
My guess is they comprise an infinitesimally small percentage of the
population (and do an incredibly large amount of damage), yet some
fatalists would argue that all of humanity would engage in this behavior
if given the chance.

Now as for your other point, not all those who make or sell weaponry are
psychopathic (i.e. willing to engage in perverted behavior without
empathy or remorse); some may indeed feel remorse, and still others are
actually doing it because they really believe that they need to do this
in order to protect a society that is free from subjugation by
psychopaths from those that are not (and I happen to agree on this
point). The goal (as absurd as it seems) is to maintain peace by
preparing for war, and while this approach can never actually succeed in
maintaining peace over the long term, it can provide for sustained
periods of peace, and it is the best approach currently available to us.


So (as with many things in life) the question (let alone the answer) is
not so simple…

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrej Lucny [mailto:andy@nod10.mstep]
Posted At: Thursday, September 06, 2001 11:48 PM
Posted To: advocacy
Conversation: War
Subject: Re: War


Dean Douthat <ddouthat@faac.com> wrote:

Donna Kinsman wrote:

David Rempel <> drempel@qnx.com> > wrote:

As an aside, wouldn’t it be great if wars were
fought in the virtual world instead of the real world?
(tonight: Unreal Tournament Deathmatch …
Saddam vs Bush, for the fate of Kuwaite ;P)…now
I’m dreaming…

– drempel

This reminded of a Star Trek episode (from the original series!)
called “A Taste of Armageddon.”

…two neighboring planets had been at war for over 500 years,
and to avoid the complete devastation of war, computers were used.
When a “hit” was scored by one of the planets, the people declared
“dead”
willingly walk into antimatter chambers and are vaporized.

Basically the message was that you must truly experience the horrors
of war to want to make peace.

-Donna

Thus the saying:

“Peace hasn’t come to {Northern Ireland|Middle East|Macedonia|…}
because
they haven’t yet killed enough on both sides.”

Don’t you think that the peace hasn’t come because there is still a lot
guys who profit from war ? Think ! Imagine that you are weapon producer:
it is good for you that the US army intervents in Macedonia, but
it is not good for you if it succeeds to establish peace there !
Therefore each conflict turns to never-ending story ! The guys who
makes fortune from weapons dream about imperialism and tell you
stories about democracy.

I appreciate everybody who says ‘no’ to such contract.

Andy

[Igor_Kovalenko2]

We did not discuss skirts length yet.

Stacey Abshire wrote:

snip wasted bandwidth

Can we get back to qnx please?

Thanks,
Stacey

[Stacey_Abshire]

I think that they can be as short as the wearer wants them to be.
There, enough discussion, so let’s get back to something worthwhile.

I’ll start…

I had used the demo of qnx sometime back… the one on floppy… I
guess it has been about 3- 4 years now, and I thought that it was
impressive. So the other day, I see on osnews.com an interview dealing
with qnx, so my interest was brought back, and I decided to check out
qnx’s homepage… what a shock I was in for. It looked so nice
(graphically) that I had to download it and see if it was as fast as it
was some years back.

Well, needless to say, it was. That was while running it from CD here
at work. I went home, backed up my important files from my Mandrake
linux box, wiped the box clean, and installed qnx. I have not went back
yet.

As I use it, I am reminded of how my Amiga worked… quickly! Apps
load in a second or two. The drive doesn’t spin for what seems like an
eternity as it does under Linux and Windows. It is what I have been
wanting. No bloat, and quick. I liked the fact that the installer
didn’t install more than a base system… just like my ol’ trusty Amiga.

QNX has got it right. Granted, we don’t have all the apps, but I really
don’t need em. I am going to write the ones that I need… a
checkbook, and addressbook mostly, and anything else that strikes my fancy.

So to the developers of QNX, I salute you for a job well done. Keep up
the good work!

Stacey Abshire

[Igor_Kovalenko2]

Maynard Lanting wrote:

Ok, say your follow the line of thinking that you should stop these types of
human crimes but in this relatively peaceful time you don’t think that
weapons and violence should be supported. Let me remind you that Britain
was very vulnerable to a German invasion at the beginning of WWII. If they
would have landed on the beaches of Ireland like the Allies did on Normandy,
Britain would have almost certainly fallen and with Britain out of it, maybe
Russia too. Millions more innocent people would have died.

It is unlikely that fall of Britain would help germans on eastern front.
If anything, it would take away some of german troops, first for
fighting and then for control of islands. Keep in mind that (contrary to
popular on the West beliefs) all combined shipments of arms and
ammunitions made by allies to Russia amounted only to 3% of what Russia
produced herself. Perhaps some of those arms were of better quality
(fighter planes were, i think) and they certainly helped and were
appreciated, but they were too few to make decisive difference. I also
think (anyone knows for sure?) shipments started only after US joined
the war in late 1941, which was after germans were kicked back under
Moscow (i.e., worst was over). And they practically ceased after tragic
fate of the PQ-17 convoy in 1943.

The point is
this: we must always be ready for this type of person (this means
continueing to development means of killing people, yes better ways of
killing people). They are out there (Hitlers), and although the States does
many types of self-serving acts, i’m thankful they do hold the power and not
some unstable country.

I agree completely with the point however.

Also, if Hitler captured Britain in 1941 instead of attacking Russia,
then may be Stalin could’ve managed to strike a deal with him (which he
tried, and some historians believe the deal failed only on the issue of
control over turkish Bosfor/Dardanells straits which Stalin wanted) then
Europe would’ve been divided exclusively between Stalin and Hitler.
Without control over British islands and with german forces not tied up
fighting russians I don’t think it would’ve been realistic (if at all
possible) for US to land in Europe. They’d probably had much harder time
with japanese instead, because there’d be nothing to stop germans from
helping them. Australia very likely would’ve been captured too. And then
there was quite a bunch of South American countries at the time,
‘simpatizing’ to Hitler to say the least. It wouldn’t have been long
before nazis were looking at US from across Rio Grande.

So the only option left for US would’ve been to get The Nuke before
germans do and then ‘negotiate’ them all… Now question to all
pacifists here: would you agree to help US to build The Nuke in such
scenario?

I was in military for 7 years, so I know a thing or two about what is
army and how it works. I do not like wars at all. People however can be
immoral at peace just like at war, which is what produces wars. Wars
can’t be removed from our world without removing immorality first and
until then one rarely can know what will cause more damage in long term

• working on arms or refusing to do so.

• igor

[Maynard_Lanting]

Stacey:

I agree with pretty much everything you said. The only problem i have is
that if you don’t like the discussion, kindly start a new thread.

Some may find this thread thought provoking. I certainly do, and since QNX
is, like you said, a high speed machine, its gonna catch the attention of
the military. It caught your attention.

Just out of curiousity, why don’t you want to talk about war? Why do you
deem it not “worthwhile”? Why pursue a policy of avoiding of things you
don’t like? Confront it and deal with it. I don’t like warfare either.
Only sick people do. So as technologically advanced people, lets address it
too (besides sickos). Or only the sick people will. Which is scary.




“Stacey Abshire” <sabshire@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3B9903D2.8080301@yahoo.com…

I think that they can be as short as the wearer wants them to be.
There, enough discussion, so let’s get back to something worthwhile.

I’ll start…

I had used the demo of qnx sometime back… the one on floppy… I
guess it has been about 3- 4 years now, and I thought that it was
impressive. So the other day, I see on osnews.com an interview dealing
with qnx, so my interest was brought back, and I decided to check out
qnx’s homepage… what a shock I was in for. It looked so nice
(graphically) that I had to download it and see if it was as fast as it
was some years back.

Well, needless to say, it was. That was while running it from CD here
at work. I went home, backed up my important files from my Mandrake
linux box, wiped the box clean, and installed qnx. I have not went back
yet.

As I use it, I am reminded of how my Amiga worked… quickly! Apps
load in a second or two. The drive doesn’t spin for what seems like an
eternity as it does under Linux and Windows. It is what I have been
wanting. No bloat, and quick. I liked the fact that the installer
didn’t install more than a base system… just like my ol’ trusty Amiga.

QNX has got it right. Granted, we don’t have all the apps, but I really
don’t need em. I am going to write the ones that I need… a
checkbook, and addressbook mostly, and anything else that strikes my
fancy.

So to the developers of QNX, I salute you for a job well done. Keep up
the good work!

Stacey Abshire

[Bill_Caroselli_Q-TPS]

Ut oh! She dropped the big one! ;~}

OTOH, Stacy, I agree with you.

“Stacey Abshire” <sabshire@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3B9903D2.8080301@yahoo.com…

I think that they can be as short as the wearer wants them to be.
There, enough discussion, so let’s get back to something worthwhile.

I’ll start…

I had used the demo of qnx sometime back… the one on floppy… I
guess it has been about 3- 4 years now, and I thought that it was
impressive. So the other day, I see on osnews.com an interview dealing
with qnx, so my interest was brought back, and I decided to check out
qnx’s homepage… what a shock I was in for. It looked so nice
(graphically) that I had to download it and see if it was as fast as it
was some years back.

Well, needless to say, it was. That was while running it from CD here
at work. I went home, backed up my important files from my Mandrake
linux box, wiped the box clean, and installed qnx. I have not went back
yet.

As I use it, I am reminded of how my Amiga worked… quickly! Apps
load in a second or two. The drive doesn’t spin for what seems like an
eternity as it does under Linux and Windows. It is what I have been
wanting. No bloat, and quick. I liked the fact that the installer
didn’t install more than a base system… just like my ol’ trusty Amiga.

QNX has got it right. Granted, we don’t have all the apps, but I really
don’t need em. I am going to write the ones that I need… a
checkbook, and addressbook mostly, and anything else that strikes my
fancy.

So to the developers of QNX, I salute you for a job well done. Keep up
the good work!

Stacey Abshire

[Maynard_Lanting]

“Igor Kovalenko” <Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> wrote in message
news:3B990F22.BC68485C@motorola.com…

It is unlikely that fall of Britain would help germans on eastern front.
If anything, it would take away some of german troops, first for
fighting and then for control of islands. Keep in mind that (contrary to
popular on the West beliefs) all combined shipments of arms and
ammunitions made by allies to Russia amounted only to 3% of what Russia
produced herself. Perhaps some of those arms were of better quality
(fighter planes were, i think) and they certainly helped and were
appreciated, but they were too few to make decisive difference. I also
think (anyone knows for sure?) shipments started only after US joined
the war in late 1941, which was after germans were kicked back under
Moscow (i.e., worst was over). And they practically ceased after tragic
fate of the PQ-17 convoy in 1943.

This is all theoretical, but I think the resources used on Britain during
this time, thousands of planes, bombs and the supporting logistics,
factories etc. If Britain was subdued, and the support of the home country
of Germany was turned on Russia, I do think that at least Moscow would have
fallen. The Germans came oh-so-close. A major reason for failure was a
lack of supplies. And the supplies that they did have were not of a high
enough quality for the extreme Russian climate. Remember that it isn’t
often the amount of men/women in a war but the supply chain and technology
(besides other factors - which numbers isn’t as great a factor).

Also, if Hitler captured Britain in 1941 instead of attacking Russia,
then may be Stalin could’ve managed to strike a deal with him (which he
tried, and some historians believe the deal failed only on the issue of
control over turkish Bosfor/Dardanells straits which Stalin wanted) then
Europe would’ve been divided exclusively between Stalin and Hitler.
Without control over British islands and with german forces not tied up
fighting russians I don’t think it would’ve been realistic (if at all
possible) for US to land in Europe. They’d probably had much harder time
with japanese instead, because there’d be nothing to stop germans from
helping them. Australia very likely would’ve been captured too. And then
there was quite a bunch of South American countries at the time,
‘simpatizing’ to Hitler to say the least. It wouldn’t have been long
before nazis were looking at US from across Rio Grande.

scary isn’t it. What could have happened if Hitler had only listened to his
expert generals. The world wasn’t ready for powerful, planned attack at
that time.

So the only option left for US would’ve been to get The Nuke before
germans do and then ‘negotiate’ them all… Now question to all
pacifists here: would you agree to help US to build The Nuke in such
scenario?

I was in military for 7 years, so I know a thing or two about what is
army and how it works. I do not like wars at all. People however can be
immoral at peace just like at war, which is what produces wars. Wars
can’t be removed from our world without removing immorality first and
until then one rarely can know what will cause more damage in long term

• working on arms or refusing to do so.

• igor

[Rick_Lake1]

I don’t see why all this would make one detest warfare less. Even though
sometimes some things are necessary, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hate
it. Of course you should defend what you hold precious. Of course you have
to put a stop to what a crazy aggressor is trying to do. (I consider
putting a stop to horrors as “preserving peace” rather than “waging war”.)
But if people support warfare because they gain from it (i.e. they sell a
whole lot more of their product) then their morals conflict with mine.
(Not that I’m implying that this is the case in this thread, mind you!)

regards,
rick

Maynard Lanting <mlanting@atsautomation.com> wrote:

All this talk about people detesting “warfare” and avoiding it is beginning
to scare me. There are times when warfare is very necessary. When some
crazy person like Hitler is going on a rampage, should we all stand there
passively and say, “I have strong morals, and i detest warfare, I do not
want my hands bloody, therefore I will not resist”? If they take your money
you need to feed yourself or your family, if they kill you because you are
of a certain nationality, or indulge in random acts of violence, or
visciously rape your wife or daughter, or son, and make you watch, are you
still going to hang on to your “morals”? If these things are happening to
your neighbour, will you cling to your abhorance of violence? Somehow think
that your non-participation in stopping these types of atrocities are
laudible?

Ok, say your follow the line of thinking that you should stop these types of
human crimes but in this relatively peaceful time you don’t think that
weapons and violence should be supported. Let me remind you that Britain
was very vulnerable to a German invasion at the beginning of WWII. If they
would have landed on the beaches of Ireland like the Allies did on Normandy,
Britain would have almost certainly fallen and with Britain out of it, maybe
Russia too. Millions more innocent people would have died. The point is
this: we must always be ready for this type of person (this means
continueing to development means of killing people, yes better ways of
killing people). They are out there (Hitlers), and although the States does
many types of self-serving acts, i’m thankful they do hold the power and not
some unstable country.

Yours immorally,
Maynard

[…]

[Stacey_Abshire]

I am not avoiding it… if I want to discuss it, then I think that it
should be discussed in a war newsgroup, and not an OS newsgroup. I
understand how things can get sidetracked, but I think that it should be
discussed elsewhere.

And for the record, I am NOT a pascifist. I think that war is necessary
in some cases. I don’t think that it should be the first choice. I
think that the two groups need to work on differences in a civil manner,
but there are times when this cannot happen.

This is true in normal life as well. Sometimes it takes a hard lesson
to reach someone. I am not advocating shooting someone if they cut you
off in traffic, or things such as this, but sometimes people are so
blinded by what they think is right that to be reached, it takes
something on a large scale.

Well, I have talked enough on this. I look forward to discussing that
pertains to OS advocacy.

Stacey

Maynard Lanting wrote:

Stacey:

I agree with pretty much everything you said. The only problem i have is
that if you don’t like the discussion, kindly start a new thread.

Some may find this thread thought provoking. I certainly do, and since QNX
is, like you said, a high speed machine, its gonna catch the attention of
the military. It caught your attention.

Just out of curiousity, why don’t you want to talk about war? Why do you
deem it not “worthwhile”? Why pursue a policy of avoiding of things you
don’t like? Confront it and deal with it. I don’t like warfare either.
Only sick people do. So as technologically advanced people, lets address it
too (besides sickos). Or only the sick people will. Which is scary.




“Stacey Abshire” <> sabshire@yahoo.com> > wrote in message
news:> 3B9903D2.8080301@yahoo.com> …

I think that they can be as short as the wearer wants them to be.
There, enough discussion, so let’s get back to something worthwhile.

I’ll start…

I had used the demo of qnx sometime back… the one on floppy… I
guess it has been about 3- 4 years now, and I thought that it was
impressive. So the other day, I see on osnews.com an interview dealing
with qnx, so my interest was brought back, and I decided to check out
qnx’s homepage… what a shock I was in for. It looked so nice
(graphically) that I had to download it and see if it was as fast as it
was some years back.

Well, needless to say, it was. That was while running it from CD here
at work. I went home, backed up my important files from my Mandrake
linux box, wiped the box clean, and installed qnx. I have not went back
yet.

As I use it, I am reminded of how my Amiga worked… quickly! Apps
load in a second or two. The drive doesn’t spin for what seems like an
eternity as it does under Linux and Windows. It is what I have been
wanting. No bloat, and quick. I liked the fact that the installer
didn’t install more than a base system… just like my ol’ trusty Amiga.

QNX has got it right. Granted, we don’t have all the apps, but I really
don’t need em. I am going to write the ones that I need… a
checkbook, and addressbook mostly, and anything else that strikes my

fancy.

So to the developers of QNX, I salute you for a job well done. Keep up
the good work!

Stacey Abshire
\

[Mitchell_Schoenbrun]

Previously, Maynard Lanting wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy:

All this talk about people detesting “warfare” and avoiding it is beginning
to scare me. There are times when warfare is very necessary.

After I read this, I thought a bit about a related although
somewhat simplistic model. The big issue presented here
seems to parallel quite closely the classic games theory
problem known as the prisoner’s delemma.

To those not familiar, here is a brief run down. Two
prisoner’s have been caught after a crime. Both are
interrogated separately and asked to testify against their
partner in crime. If they both talk, they each get
three years in prision. If only one of them talks, the
poor trusting sole gets 10 years, and the fink goes free.
If neither cooperates, they each get one year.

So for each of them thinking individually, they always
improve their situation by talking. But yet we can see
that this strategy will always leave them worse off than
if they both kept quiet.

Translate talking into making weapons, and years in prison
to percent of the population destroyed and you will see
what I’m talking about. Actually the world situation is
rosier. If no one made weapons, there would be no one
killed.

Mitchell Schoenbrun --------- maschoen@pobox.com

[Rennie_Allen2]

I also
think (anyone knows for sure?) shipments started only after US joined
the war in late 1941, which was after germans were kicked back under
Moscow (i.e., worst was over). And they practically ceased after
tragic
fate of the PQ-17 convoy in 1943.

I am sure that some sort of delivery of weapons occured before the
lend-lease act, but you are correct in that nothing significant occured
until that time. In 1941 the allies committed to delivery 400 A/C per
month to Russia, however, it took until 1942 before significant numbers
were delivered, but this wasn’t due to lack of commitment. Ferrying this
many aircraft safely over such a distance in the middle of a world war
isn’t exactly a cake-walk. The reason that you recall A/C as the major
benefit is because this is pretty much the only type of aid that could
be delivered in reasonable quantities given the circumstances…

So the only option left for US would’ve been to get The Nuke before
germans do and then ‘negotiate’ them all… Now question to all
pacifists here: would you agree to help US to build The Nuke in such
scenario?

According to the dictionary a pacifist is one who opposes violence as a
means of settling disputes. If one is not opposed to using violence as
a means of settling disputes, then one must support violence as a means
of setting disputes. Since I don’t support violence as a means of
settling disputes, then I guess that makes me a pacifist. My position
is that military might should be used for defense only.

Since I support building weapons for defense, and since the scenerio you
describe is defensive (i.e. I wouldn’t be assisting in building a nuke,
so that it could be used to settle a dispute, I would be building a nuke
to prevent millions of my countrymen from being killed) then, yes, of
course I would assist.

[Igor_Kovalenko2]

Maynard Lanting wrote:

This is all theoretical, but I think the resources used on Britain during
this time, thousands of planes, bombs and the supporting logistics,
factories etc. If Britain was subdued, and the support of the home country
of Germany was turned on Russia, I do think that at least Moscow would have
fallen. The Germans came oh-so-close. A major reason for failure was a
lack of supplies. And the supplies that they did have were not of a high
enough quality for the extreme Russian climate.

It was indeed too close. I don’t think it depended really on amount of
supplies, bombs, planes etc. They had more than enough. Luftwaffe had
practically unchallenged air superiority till mid. 1943. Their hand
machine guns were better in 1941 against older russian rifles. Tanks
wildly varied in quality on both sides, but german tanks outnumbered
russians till 1943. However, they were not eqiupped with ‘extreme cold
start’ devices like russian ones were (Russia just finished another
‘extreme cold war’ with Finland). And their anti-tank artillery just
sucked, so germans were only good in attack, not defence.

Most of all, germans simply have underestimated time and efforts it
would take to get to Moscow, so by the time they were there it was too
deep into cold winter for an army equipped to fight a summer blitzkrieg.
Their solgiers simply had no suitable cloth/shoes and were barely able
to move. And the last thing they were prepared to was planned and
concentrated contr-attack with new weapons, like T34 tanks (which btw
remained superior to any other tank in world till the end of war) and
jet-propelled multi-barrel truck-mounted mortars.

Remember that it isn’t
often the amount of men/women in a war but the supply chain and technology
(besides other factors - which numbers isn’t as great a factor).

Remember that it often is not amount of men/women, but their spirit.
Their readiness and willingness to fight to death. France had much
better economy, supplies and technology than Poland, but polish gave
Hitler more resistance. I believe they held Warsaw for a month. In
Russia it took germans 280 days of siege and several unsuccesfull
attacks to capture Sebastopol (in Crimea peninsula) and there was no
‘cold weather’ factor there. They never managed to capture Leningrad
despite 900 days of siege.

• igor

[Kevin_Stallard1]

Hi Mario,

I don’t know where you live, but I also have a couple of thoughts.

1. I am a true-blue-right-to-the-bone American. I love freedom.
2. There are those who are jealous of that freedom and prosperity. (They
   call America “the great Satan…”) and would like to destroy her and her
   interests in order to justify their existance.
3. In order to keep us and others free, it requires our presence throughout
   the world and requires a STRONG military.
4. I don’t know of a single country that we’ve beaten in battle that we
   haven’t rebuilt and provided for.
5. We don’t use our military to increase our borders or put a people into
   captivity or its own countrymen.

If the company to whom you wish to sell, however unperfect they may be, is a
weapons manufactor that supplies a country that supports the cause of
freedom, I would support them 120%. Yes they makes gobbes of money at their
craft. That’s fine with me. It means they can afford the very best.

War is terrible, but so is the loss of liberty. This is why involvment in
the political process is important that we may have upright, moral and
leaders with integrity at the helm of this powerful force.

Kevin

“inn.qnx.com” <mcharest@clipzinformatic.com> wrote in message
news:9n7vmk$nt3$1@inn.qnx.com…

This is not related to QNX but since I almost live here >


I’ve received an order from a company that is manufacturing and designing
warfare equipment. I’ve been wondering; should I sell to them? Granted
the
software they want will make absolutly no difference between someone
getting
killed or not, but it will possibly make their job easier at doing so.
Luckly I can afford to not sell them, so I have the luxury of being able
to
make a choice.

What would you do if you’d be in my shoes? PS I’m not really looking for
someone to take the decision for me, I want to see what people think.

• Mario

[Igor_Kovalenko2]

“Kevin Stallard” <kevin@robots.flyingrobots.fly.> wrote in message
news:9nee2s$lra$1@inn.qnx.com…

Hi Mario,

I don’t know where you live, but I also have a couple of thoughts.

Let me play some devil’s advocate a little, Kevin…

1. I am a true-blue-right-to-the-bone American. I love freedom.

Most people like freedom. That’s not unique feature of
true-blue-right-to-the-bones.

2. There are those who are jealous of that freedom and prosperity. (They
   call America “the great Satan…”) and would like to destroy her and her
   interests in order to justify their existance.

I am not true-blue, so it sounds little childish and self-centric to me. But
perhaps you are right. There are ‘those’, although I doubt they are really
jealous. Jealousy makes one to want what you have. ‘Those’ do not want what
America has. They want something different and for them America is an
obstacle, rather than subject of jealousy. Also to some of ‘those’ American
way of life and habits of behavior are an insult to their morale, so they
probably hate you more than envy you.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating ‘those’. But if I may remind you,
Americans are not known for tolerance to something what does not go along
with their own morale. There are different morale systems out there and
just mere fact that America is richest/strongest at the moment does not make
american morale system ‘the rightest’.

3. In order to keep us and others free, it requires our presence
   throughout
   the world and requires a STRONG military.

That’s quite interesting proposition. To keep ‘them’ ‘free’ from you USSR
felt that they needed nukes on Cuba, how did you like it, huh?

To some people ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ may mean no american presense in
their backyard. Would you like another country’s spy planes flying regularly
along your borders? Would it make a big difference for you if that country
was ‘land of freedom’ (in their own definition)?

4. I don’t know of a single country that we’ve beaten in battle that we
   haven’t rebuilt and provided for.

There were some you haven’t beaten, like Vietnam. You did not
rebuilt/provide it, AFAIK.

5. We don’t use our military to increase our borders or put a people into
   captivity or its own countrymen.

True, you don’t do it now. But did not you use military to actually form
your country? Is there any guarantee you’re not going to do it again? I
don’t think US constitution forbids that, lol

If the company to whom you wish to sell, however unperfect they may be, is
a
weapons manufactor that supplies a country that supports the cause of
freedom, I would support them 120%.

During WWII, Dr. Goebbels used to teach germans that they are serving
cause of freedom. Beauty is in eyes of beholder, have you forgotten?

• igor

P.S.
Last time I sayd something like all that to a true-blue one I was told that
my mother bangs horses and I must get ***** out… So if someone wants to
tell me that again, spare the efforts