War

[Rick_Lake1]

Alain Bonnefoy <bonnefoy@club-internet.fr> wrote:

Rennie Allen wrote:

(…)
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.




The problem is that weapons manufacturers have to win their life so it will
sell their products to those of their client who use weapons, mainly the
attackers.

Without attacker, ther is no defender!

Regards,
Alain.

Let’s look at an analogy:

Since the introduction of the computer virus phenomenon, there are lots of
people who urn their living by writing anti-virus software. But since
constructing viruses is wrong (IMO), they base their income on something
that shouldn’t have been there in the first place. So if some day we
eradicate all viruses and everybody behaves themselves, they shouldn’t cry
because they don’t sell any anti-virus software anymore. (I’m sure the
thought has once crossed most people’s mind that anti-virus companies
sometimes introduce viruses just to keep their business going

Some more analogies:

• Firewall companies thrive on the fact that there are hackers on the
  Internet.

• Encryption software writers benefit because people don’t respect others’
  privacy.

• Detectives/police have jobs, because there are criminals.

And of course weapons factories thrive when there are lots of wars.

regards,
rick
[disclaimer: those are my opinions on behalf of only my self]

[Alain_Bonnefoy2]

Igor Kovalenko wrote:

“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 >

\

I’m quite agree with you Igor even if I think that it would be better to
not develop such ideas. My think is that it’s too subject to controversy!

best regards,
Alain.

[Alain_Bonnefoy2]

Rennie Allen wrote:

(…)

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.
\

The problem is that weapons manufacturers have to win their life so it will
sell their products to those of their client who use weapons, mainly the
attackers.

Without attacker, ther is no defender!

Regards,
Alain.

[Miguel_Simon1]

Hi Kevin…

Kevin Stallard wrote:

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.

…with an exception being the nearly 40 years old --useless??,
un-humanitarian?? and mostly driven by the --coordinated??-- politics of
the two countries: the USA and Cuba??-- embargo of Cuba?

(NOTE: since I lived under the embargo, I know a little bit about it…)

And when Fidel Castro goes, and provided that a ‘democratic’ system goes
into effect, will the ‘help to Cuba’ be in the form of race
discrimination, class casting, casinos, mafia, drugs, etc.? (e.g. past,
present, future situation in Russia comes to mind). Of course, this
goes to say that no one country is perfect, but we knew that…

All of this has little to do with the original question, so I
digress…


To Mario:

I do not have wise words to say to you, but we all know that the
environment and/or life circumstances paves the way for scientists and
engineers to contribute directly or otherwise to the advancement of
military applications even when this leaves a sour taste in the soul.
Having said this, I would claim that maintaining the integrity of your
values, having a clear sky and a clean conscience would be a much better
deal.

Sorry, but not much, eh?

Bests…

Miguel

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

–

my opinions are mine, only mine, solely mine, and they are not related
in any possible way to the institution(s) in which I study and work.

Miguel Simon
Research Engineer
School of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering
University of Oklahoma
http://www.amerobotics.ou.edu/
http://www.saic.com

[Kevin_Stallard1]

Hi Igor,

I don’t mind, devil’s advocacy is fine, let me see if I can respond add to
what I said in response to your thoughts.

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.

Yes, most people do like the sound of the word freedom, but do they know
what it means and what it entails? It is also a heavy responsiblity. My
use of true-blue-right-to-the-bones reffers to my citizen ship in the USA.
I love America and I’m proud of her and her achomplishments. I proud for
what she stands for, for her history and the changes that were brought about
in the world because of her example and her strength. Millions upon
millions of people found a good life and protection within her borders and
have been freed from oppression because of the US (and the good people of
Canada, the UK, etc). I am thankful to have been born and raised in this
nation.

My use of that phrase was not meant to be offensive nor a put down to anyone
else in any other part of the world. I have a sincere desire that everyone
have the same opportunities and privilidges that I enjoy, and I believe that
they can.

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.

I respectfully take issue with what I think you are saying. I don’t believe
(reffering to my previous paragraph) true-blue as being childish nor
self-centric. It is rather a statement of loyalty and comitment. These are
good qualities. Every citizen of every nation should be proud of their
heritage and work towards bettering themselves and their country.

Secondly, there isn’t a nation in the world that would not want what we
have. The poorest of our people have color tv’s and microwaves as well as
food to put in them. Most have automobiles and some have really fast ones!
Additionally, most of these poeple wouild do better with their lives if they
would just get a job, but many choose not to and we are still tolerant of
them.

The leaders of those nations hate the fact that they are weaker than we are.
They hate having to sit in our shadow. It’s human nature, nothing more. If
you disagree (and please belive me, I don’t take disagreements personal in
any way, I rather enjoy these types of converstaions) I would like to know
how in the world we are an obstacle to them? Or even how are we perceved as
an obstacle? I don’t know of any country that is involved on a frendly
level that is hurt by our presence. I mean look at China, they’re building
a formatable military and threatening it against us with money obtained by
trade with the US.

Now, I do also understand that some have justified dislike for some of the
garbage produced here (i.e. the sex, violence, profanity and other human
debris that gets paraded in front of the world) these things we can surly
do without, however, is it not also true that anywhere you go, wether you
read newspapers or watch the telivison, etc, the bad, the disappointing, the
misery, the killing is what is paraded before us. It’s no wonder sometimes
that our image not a good one in some people’s mind because of the
disproportionate emphasis on what’s wrong rather than what’s right.

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’.

I disagree with this as well. I think americans are of the most tolerant.
You may have expereinced some jerk, but with a popualtion of a serveral
hundred million, you’re bound to run into one or two. I remember a friend
telling me he was travelling somewhere in California, I think, he drove
through a small town with a sign that said.“Welcome to such-and-such a
place. Population: 1205 really nice and decient people and 2 real jerks”

I’ve seen forigeners come to town, I find most Americans very interested in
him or her and I see others working, playing talking in pleasants ways.
When someone doesn’t speak our language, I see Americans (and I’m sure it is
the same elsewhere) being very helpfull. I’m sorry, I know there are
intolerant people, but for the majority of americans we are a very tolerant
people. Look at how much ‘aid’ we allow our governemnt to send over seas?
There is just so much that is done here that isn’t in the press that I think
if you really expereiced it you would change your mind.

I work in a place for example that has all sorts of people of different
ethnic backgrounds working together and enjoying it. All these people come
from different backgrounds and from different reliegons, etc. It doesn’t
happen in many other places in the world.

You might elaborate what you mean by morale system however. I’m not sure
what you mean by it.

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?

Yeah, and many teenages would like to be ‘free’ from their parents, when
what they desire isn’t really to be free, what they want is freedom from
accountability and freedom from consquence. Fortunatly, there is no such
thing.

And to put it bluntly, the propaganda machine of the USSR may have been very
effective during that time to in trying to protray America as the enemy.
However, there were many who remebered the generosity and dedication of the
American soldiers in WWII that helped defeat the USSR’s worst enemy at the
time. I remember reading a very touching article of a man who went to the
USSR during the cold war. I don’t remember the details, but he entered a
local drinking establishment (ok, a bar), and was treated exteremely warmly,
he was loved and respected by all there and through out all his travels.
Many old men expressed their profound gratitude for America and what it had
done and assured him that they where not in agreeance with their goverment.
Forgive me if I do not have all these facts correct, but this is to the best
of my recollection of the article, however, my point is, I don’t believe
that all the people of the USSR really beleived the US was a threat, they
hated the oppression they felt more than anything.

Freedom can be defined however you want, but an individual knows when he or
she is being restricted and stepped on.

I’m sure political leaders of the USSR would have liked us to have gone away
so we would not be around to remind them how well we were able to keep our
people out of poverty AND have a strong mility to boot. I’m sure they just
hated that fact… They wanted to be ‘free’ from the realization that they
were wrong.

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)?

You are correct. It is not pleasant to have someone always looking over
your shoulder. Add that to ignorance, and you have a lot of fear.

Please also keep in mind that when a country makes public threats like
“Would they like to exchange Los Angles for Taiwain.” What are you supposed
to do?

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.

One could argue that we lost that war…again, why were we there in the
first place? A dictator was attempting to gain control over someone else
through force. It was not in defense, it was an agression. I’m sure he
would have liked to have been free to subject the whole of vietnam to
comunisum.

I worked with a developer who lived in vietnam and escaped on raft in the
late 70’s it took him three tries, he suffered a lot. You should hear him
talk about the differences under such a rule and in America. It would
recommit anyone who loves liberty and freedom to defeating comunisum and the
like.

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 >

And as long as people who think like you and I are living here, we won’t,
EVER. A person who understands liberty and freedom are content to acqurie
what they desire through industry and other honorable means (free market)
not cohersion and bloody force.

The people living here were bing oppressed and abused. It is natural for
one to want to be free from oppression and abuse. Besides were were already
here and England wouldn’t leave us alone…

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?

Yes, it is amazing what a cunning liar can achomplish. That is why we have
to be strong so we can stand against such if the time comes again.
Additionally, it is important to be educated and able to judge the words
being spoken by such an individual. If you always just take people always
at their word (especially poloticians) with out doing your homework, then
the fault is yours. That is part of the responsibility of freedom.

• 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 >

I am sorry that you had that experience. You are obviously a very decent
and caring individual. Individuals who are usually such get that from their
parents, especially their Mothers. Your desire to do the right thing is
inspiring. Thanks.

Additionally, I have learned much from reading your posts. I don’t post
much 'cause either you or someone else beats me to the punch or I really
don’t know. Thanks for the education.

This has been very emjoyable. Take care,

Sincerely,
Kevin

[Alain_Bonnefoy2]

Rick Lake a écrit :

Alain Bonnefoy <> bonnefoy@club-internet.fr> > wrote:
Rennie Allen wrote:

(…)
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.




The problem is that weapons manufacturers have to win their life so it will
sell their products to those of their client who use weapons, mainly the
attackers.

Without attacker, ther is no defender!

Regards,
Alain.

Let’s look at an analogy:

Since the introduction of the computer virus phenomenon, there are lots of
people who urn their living by writing anti-virus software. But since
constructing viruses is wrong (IMO), they base their income on something
that shouldn’t have been there in the first place. So if some day we
eradicate all viruses and everybody behaves themselves, they shouldn’t cry
because they don’t sell any anti-virus software anymore. (I’m sure the
thought has once crossed most people’s mind that anti-virus companies
sometimes introduce viruses just to keep their business going >

I reconize that it crossed my mind !

Some more analogies:

• Firewall companies thrive on the fact that there are hackers on the
  Internet.

• Encryption software writers benefit because people don’t respect others’
  privacy.

• Detectives/police have jobs, because there are criminals.

And of course weapons factories thrive when there are lots of wars.

regards,
rick
[disclaimer: those are my opinions on behalf of only my self]

Right, but we are not going to thanks criminals because they give job to
policemen.
The problem of weapons manufacturers is a little bit different.
Contrary to the examples you give ( I hope!), they further as much criminals as
lawyers!

Regards,
Alain.

[Andrej_Lucny1]

Rennie Allen <RAllen@csical.com> wrote:

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 ?

It is not inevitable to sell to both side to promote war. Even it is
not inevitable to do something intentionally to promote war. Society
can produce worse behaviour than the worst psychopath. E.g. USA in
spite of agreement form 1972 produced bacteria weapons which can
liquadate whole mankind. Have I feel that there is no psychopath
in US army and they only maintain peace in long term ?

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

[Stacey_Abshire]

Well, I am not a she, but a he. Sorry to disappoint you.

Stacey

Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS) wrote:

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
\

[Dean_Douthat1]

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?

“Like” (or “dislike”) are, IMHO, pretty much irrelevant. Tolerance is the
operative word. Now, would our military tolerate another country flying spy
planes along our borders? Not only would they tolerate it, they would take
comfort in and get a good laugh out of it. Only a terminally stupid adversary
would spy on us by flying airplanes along borders. For example, US 40 cuts
through the middle of a Navy training facility in Nevada where Electronic
Counter-Measures are practiced against emulated ground threats. A regular
“tourist” along that road is the “Soviet Winnebago”, an RV bristling with
electronic eavesdropping equipment. How does the Navy “like” it? The standing
comment is: “At least they bought an American-made truck.” Closed, dictatorial
societies are the only ones threatened by free flowing information. Open
societies are willing to tolerate easy access by potential adversaries for the
sake of greater goods.

[Rennie_Allen2]

Defense is always necessary since attackers will always exist, not
because humanity in general is depraved, but because there are so many
opportunities for those with no conscience to wreak havoc on the general
populace (due in large part to the majority of humanities aversion
toward violence - you appear to be a case in point). I would encourage
peace loving persons to be involved with the defence of democracies, it
is everyones responsibility.

I am proud to be a member of the species, I happen to think we’re pretty
damned good, all in all. I believe that we need to realize that our
societies are based on the idea of conscience, and good-will, and that
consequently, those without either are capable of devastating our
societies if we do not remain vigilant. It’s an important job (perhaps
the most important job), and we all have to do it…

-----Original Message-----
From: Alain Bonnefoy [mailto:bonnefoy@club-internet.fr]
Posted At: Sunday, September 09, 2001 8:31 AM
Posted To: advocacy
Conversation: War
Subject: Re: War


Rennie Allen wrote:

(…)

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.
\

The problem is that weapons manufacturers have to win their life so it
will
sell their products to those of their client who use weapons, mainly the

attackers.

Without attacker, ther is no defender!

Regards,
Alain.

[Igor_Kovalenko2]

Dean, you weren’t Navy or Pentagon spokesman last time I checked, were you?
How do you know if they would behave as you tell us? And I don’t think your
analogy with US40 is valid. Spy planes along border would be much more
politically sensitive issue and even if military did not give a damn (which
I doubt) then White House most certainly would be displeased.

And speaking about terminally stupid, US spy planes do fly along China
border regularly, in case you did not know there was a collision relatively
recently. They used to fly along USSR border too and even across USSR, for
what one of them was shot down in sixties.

• igor

“Dean Douthat” <ddouthat@faac.com> wrote in message
news:3B9CBB80.E21C3875@faac.com…

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?

“Like” (or “dislike”) are, IMHO, pretty much irrelevant. Tolerance is the
operative word. Now, would our military tolerate another country flying
spy
planes along our borders? Not only would they tolerate it, they would
take
comfort in and get a good laugh out of it. Only a terminally stupid
adversary
would spy on us by flying airplanes along borders. For example, US 40
cuts
through the middle of a Navy training facility in Nevada where Electronic
Counter-Measures are practiced against emulated ground threats. A regular
“tourist” along that road is the “Soviet Winnebago”, an RV bristling with
electronic eavesdropping equipment. How does the Navy “like” it? The
standing
comment is: “At least they bought an American-made truck.” Closed,
dictatorial
societies are the only ones threatened by free flowing information. Open
societies are willing to tolerate easy access by potential adversaries for
the
sake of greater goods.

[Rennie_Allen2]

It is not inevitable to sell to both side to promote war. Even it is
not inevitable to do something intentionally to promote war. Society
can produce worse behaviour than the worst psychopath.

What historical evidence do you have to support this contention ? Name
one conflict in the last 500 years, where violence (or the threat of
imminent violence) was not initiated by a nation under authoritarian
rule. Authoritarian rule is not always bad, it depends which
authority is in charge at any given point in time, but it certainly has
a far worse record than democracy. On the flip side of this, name one
democratic nation that has initiated a violent conflict. You must
agree that democracies best represent the will of the majority, and that
the actions of democracies best reflect what is “human nature”.

… E.g. USA in
spite of agreement form 1972 produced bacteria weapons which can
liquadate whole mankind. Have I feel that there is no psychopath
in US army and they only maintain peace in long term ?

On the contrary. Statistically, I am certain that there are
psychopaths in the U.S. military, and if it weren’t for the fact that a
civilian government, elected by the people controlled that military,
they would most certainly, have used those biological weapons a long
time ago. This is why the poor turnouts in elections in the U.S. scare
the hell out of me. I am completely unconcerned, however, that the U.S.
controls the most lethal arsenal ever assembled, as long as the ultimate
control of these weapons rests with the majority will of the people of
the U.S.

[Rennie_Allen2]

Also for the record, whilst this is a newsgroup hosted by an OS
manufacturer, this particular forum is advocacy, which is pretty much a
dogs breakfast of topics… caveat anagnostes !

-----Original Message-----
From: Stacey Abshire [mailto:sabshire@yahoo.com]
Posted At: Friday, September 07, 2001 12:28 PM
Posted To: advocacy
Conversation: War
Subject: Re: War


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
\

[Dean_Douthat1]

I guess I didn’t write clearly so here’s another try: ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’
means tolerating presence of ALL, friend and foe alike, not just in backyard but
in the house as well. It would be a silly adversary indeed that lurks around in
the backyard (international waters) when they can come in and take a look
around. OTOH, if you’re not let in the house, well then the backyard is all
that’s left.

I don’t speak for Navy, etc. nor for FAAC; just reporting direct experience at
NAS Fallon.

Igor Kovalenko wrote:

Dean, you weren’t Navy or Pentagon spokesman last time I checked, were you?
How do you know if they would behave as you tell us? And I don’t think your
analogy with US40 is valid. Spy planes along border would be much more
politically sensitive issue and even if military did not give a damn (which
I doubt) then White House most certainly would be displeased.

And speaking about terminally stupid, US spy planes do fly along China
border regularly, in case you did not know there was a collision relatively
recently. They used to fly along USSR border too and even across USSR, for
what one of them was shot down in sixties.

• igor

“Dean Douthat” <> ddouthat@faac.com> > wrote in message
news:> 3B9CBB80.E21C3875@faac.com> …



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?

“Like” (or “dislike”) are, IMHO, pretty much irrelevant. Tolerance is the
operative word. Now, would our military tolerate another country flying
spy
planes along our borders? Not only would they tolerate it, they would
take
comfort in and get a good laugh out of it. Only a terminally stupid
adversary
would spy on us by flying airplanes along borders. For example, US 40
cuts
through the middle of a Navy training facility in Nevada where Electronic
Counter-Measures are practiced against emulated ground threats. A regular
“tourist” along that road is the “Soviet Winnebago”, an RV bristling with
electronic eavesdropping equipment. How does the Navy “like” it? The
standing
comment is: “At least they bought an American-made truck.” Closed,
dictatorial
societies are the only ones threatened by free flowing information. Open
societies are willing to tolerate easy access by potential adversaries for
the
sake of greater goods.

[Dean_Douthat1]

Rennie Allen wrote:

Defense is always necessary since attackers will always exist, not
because humanity in general is depraved, but because there are so many
opportunities for those with no conscience to wreak havoc on the general
populace (due in large part to the majority of humanities aversion
toward violence - you appear to be a case in point). I would encourage
peace loving persons to be involved with the defence of democracies, it
is everyones responsibility.

Not depraved in general but always with a small fraction of depraved who
sieze power trying to further depraved aims.

I am proud to be a member of the species, I happen to think we’re pretty
damned good, all in all. I believe that we need to realize that our
societies are based on the idea of conscience, and good-will, and that
consequently, those without either are capable of devastating our
societies if we do not remain vigilant. It’s an important job (perhaps
the most important job), and we all have to do it…

Exactly, good but not perfect nor perfectable. Thus the true governmental
genius is designing institutions/policies/charters that work DESPITE
imperfection. Ironically, these are often counter-intuitive: tolerate
adversarial operatives in our midst to preserve freedom of movement,
tolerate pornographers in our midst to preserve freedom of speech, and so
on.

-----Original Message-----
From: Alain Bonnefoy [mailto:> bonnefoy@club-internet.fr> ]
Posted At: Sunday, September 09, 2001 8:31 AM
Posted To: advocacy
Conversation: War
Subject: Re: War

Rennie Allen wrote:

(…)
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.




The problem is that weapons manufacturers have to win their life so it
will
sell their products to those of their client who use weapons, mainly the

attackers.

Without attacker, ther is no defender!

Regards,
Alain.

[Rennie_Allen2]

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.

I know it is popular (especially amongst non-French Europeans to
characterize the French during W.W.II as “wet noodles”, but (IMO) this
is simply not true. It is certainly true that the French military
command was (almost criminally) unprepared to fight W.W.II, but the
soldiers in the French army have been reported to have fought heroically
in nearly every action for which I have read accounts. In Dunkirk, for
example, fierce (hand to hand combat in many cases) rear actions by the
French played a significant role in slowing the advance of the German
divisions (although these soldiers clearly knew their ultimate fate, and
could have retreated to join the evacuation). Their sacrifice played a
significant role in the success of the evacuation, without which,
Hitler’s rampage over North Africa and the Mediterranean would have gone
largely unchallenged, and with this larger geographic base, the war
could easily have gone the other way (and Leningrad eventually taken, in
however costly a fashion). No, the French military might have made
serious strategic errors, but their willingness to fight should not be
questioned, nor the individual sacrifices of soldiers forgotten or
trivialized. As for the civilian French population, the nature of the
invasion of France was so different than any other situation in W.W.II,
that there simply was not an opportunity to offer any resistance of the
type undertaken in Warsaw or Sebastopol. The French population
undertook a successful program of subterfuge as the only reasonable form
of resistance given the circumstance; while it was not as dramatic as a
seige, it was ultimately quite effective.

Rennie

[Igor_Kovalenko2]

Kevin Stallard wrote:

Hi Igor,

I don’t mind, devil’s advocacy is fine, let me see if I can respond add to
what I said in response to your thoughts.

I am glad there are intelligent true-blue ones

Yes, most people do like the sound of the word freedom, but do they know
what it means and what it entails?

My point was, it may mean different thing for different people.
Unfortunately all nations (americans not an exception) have tendency to
impose their meaning to whole world

Secondly, there isn’t a nation in the world that would not want what we
have. The poorest of our people have color tv’s and microwaves as well as
food to put in them. Most have automobiles and some have really fast ones!

Material posessions are not the only thing people are after. US is known
in the world for ‘consumerism’ of its population, but for many people in
the world posession of TVs/microwaves/cars is not equal to happiness.
OTOH, consumerism of population is good for economy, LOL

The leaders of those nations hate the fact that they are weaker than we are.
They hate having to sit in our shadow. It’s human nature, nothing more. If
you disagree (and please belive me, I don’t take disagreements personal in
any way, I rather enjoy these types of converstaions) I would like to know
how in the world we are an obstacle to them? Or even how are we perceved as
an obstacle?

Yes, you’re exactly ‘an obstacle by example’. Some of those leaders are
trying to teach people virtues they belive into and the very existence
of US, with culture dominated by posessions (which means lack of ‘true
virtues’) yet highly economically succesfull is certainly an obstacle.
Society like US is not supposed to be viable in their doctrines, so they
want it vanish to prove the doctrines. And since it does not vanish,
they pull off the ‘Great Satan’ trick

The fact that american culture is also heavily spoiled by ‘we are the
best in the world’ concept also does not help. It builds perception of
americans as ‘arrogant’ and ‘ignorant’ people in other nations,
especially those with sufficiently different cultures (muslims being a
typical example).

You might elaborate what you mean by morale system however. I’m not sure
what you mean by it.

Morale system is something what tells you what is virtue and what is
sin. It mostly comes from religious background, so it is bound to be
different in nations with sufficiently different religions. Simple
examples include things like poligamy, which is quite usual in some
places, but is considered sin and even crime in US, except may be in
Utah, lol

For tougher example, muslims consider anyone who does not believe into
‘true God’ an ‘unworthy’ man. Many interpretations do not consider it
crime to kill an ‘unfaithful’, there’s even concept of Jihad (holy war
for true God). Afghan mojahideens did not call russians ‘russians’, they
called them ‘unfaithful’. Talibs impose death penalty on anyone who
abandons Islam, when americans believe into freedom of religion. Most
americans would consider that as ‘lack of freedom’, but for muslims it
is not question of freedom at all, it is question of good/evil.
Abandoning Islam is evil in their minds. However (for an extreme
example) raping a captive woman is not an evil deed in some
interpretations (popular these days in Chechnya for example), unless
she’s pregnant. In fact there seems to be no concept of ‘rape’ of a
captive, since captive ‘belongs’ to you, which would be a totally alien
idea to american morale system. They however care to wait till her next
period so she’s ‘clean’ and doesn’t make them ‘dirty’ :\ I don’t really
know how valid such interpretations are, but they do exist, apparently.

Yeah, and many teenages would like to be ‘free’ from their parents, when
what they desire isn’t really to be free, what they want is freedom from
accountability and freedom from consquence. Fortunatly, there is no such
thing.

LOL, you’re implicitly comparing US to ‘wise parents’ and others to
‘spoiled teenagers’
On what grounds? Just because US is richer?

And to put it bluntly, the propaganda machine of the USSR may have been very
effective during that time to in trying to protray America as the enemy.

It worked both ways I think. Mamy americans still put equality sign
between words ‘russian’ and ‘communist’. FYI, at the height of communist
rule communist party was only about 20% of population and majority of
its members joined just because there was no other way to move up.

However, there were many who remebered the generosity and dedication of the
American soldiers in WWII that helped defeat the USSR’s worst enemy at the
time. I remember reading a very touching article of a man who went to the
USSR during the cold war. I don’t remember the details, but he entered a
local drinking establishment (ok, a bar), and was treated exteremely warmly,
he was loved and respected by all there and through out all his travels.
Many old men expressed their profound gratitude for America and what it had
done and assured him that they where not in agreeance with their goverment.
Forgive me if I do not have all these facts correct, but this is to the best
of my recollection of the article, however, my point is, I don’t believe
that all the people of the USSR really beleived the US was a threat, they
hated the oppression they felt more than anything.

Look, I know what we thought first hand
I thought US is our friend till 4th grade in school (from reading books
about war). Then I thought it turned into our worst enemy till 7th or
may be 8th grade (from watching TV news). Then I came to realization
that pieces of picture do not fit together very well and since then I
did not think of US as either enemy or friend. Yes, people might be warm
to each other on both sides, but as countries they are still not really
‘friendly’. Several generations holding power have to change on both
sides for that to happen. Too much untrust for now…

You are correct. It is not pleasant to have someone always looking over
your shoulder. Add that to ignorance, and you have a lot of fear.

Please also keep in mind that when a country makes public threats like
“Would they like to exchange Los Angles for Taiwain.” What are you supposed
to do?

Well, Taiwan is officially considered China territory, isn’t it? What if
Hawaii decided to break away from US and China sent their Navy to
protect them and sold them arms? That is unlikely to happen, but
hypothetically, what would US do?

One could argue that we lost that war…again, why were we there in the
first place? A dictator was attempting to gain control over someone else
through force. It was not in defense, it was an agression. I’m sure he
would have liked to have been free to subject the whole of vietnam to
comunisum.

And he did, ultimately. The only thing US gained there is bad publicity
and blood on hands. That sometimes happens when you try to impose your
meaning of ‘freedom’ to a very different faraway place. Note than USSR
did the very same thing (just opposite, like picture in mirror, using
ther definition of freedom) in Afghanistan. And what US said? They
called USSR aggressors, boycotted Olympic games and sponsored
mojahideens, some of which are now called Talibs

I worked with a developer who lived in vietnam and escaped on raft in the
late 70’s it took him three tries, he suffered a lot. You should hear him
talk about the differences under such a rule and in America. It would
recommit anyone who loves liberty and freedom to defeating comunisum and the
like.

I knew few afghanis who lived there under Soviet rule and afterwards.
They liked it more under Soviets, because USSR actually tried to do some
good deeds there, aside from occupation. Remember, the goal of going
into Afghanistan was not evil, at least not in the mind of people who
did it. I knew students who volunteered to join army and go there,
because they believed into good cause. In fact russians in Afghanistan
not only fought, they built schools and hospitals, sent teachers and
doctors, etc. They tried to establish some kind of modern society there.
Some afghanis appreciated that, especially in northern part, but
majority did not, apparently. Seems like majority prefered to live in
medieval times with their own morale system, so they have Talibs now,
who do you know what… Quite ironically, the only remaining opposition
to them (holding 5% of territory in the north) is Ahmad Shakh Masud, who
was one of fierciest enemies of Soviets during occupation

The people living here were bing oppressed and abused. It is natural for
one to want to be free from oppression and abuse. Besides were were already
here and England wouldn’t leave us alone…

Well, US started second war with Britain on their own will. And I think
you’re forgetting about the Monroe doctrine, wars with Indians and their
oppression, Spain (for Florida), Mexico (for Texas), etc. Sale of Alaska
by Russia was pretty much ‘forced’ sale, because Monroe was basically
suggesting to either buy it on his terms, or take it by force if
necessary and Russia was not ready to defend it at the time.

You seem to be also forgetting American & British (as allies) attacks on
Petropavlovsk (Camchatka peninsula) and Sebastopol (Crimean war) in 19th
century and Archangelsk (northern Russia) in early 20th century. What
do you think did they want there? Defend someone’s freedom?

I am sorry that you had that experience. You are obviously a very decent
and caring individual. Individuals who are usually such get that from their
parents, especially their Mothers. Your desire to do the right thing is
inspiring. Thanks.

Additionally, I have learned much from reading your posts. I don’t post
much 'cause either you or someone else beats me to the punch or I really
don’t know. Thanks for the education.

This has been very emjoyable. Take care,

Thank you, wish you the best too.

• igor

[Igor_Kovalenko2]

Rennie Allen wrote:

What historical evidence do you have to support this contention ? Name
one conflict in the last 500 years, where violence (or the threat of
imminent violence) was not initiated by a nation under authoritarian
rule. Authoritarian rule is not always bad, it depends which
authority is in charge at any given point in time, but it certainly has
a far worse record than democracy. On the flip side of this, name one
democratic nation that has initiated a violent conflict. You must
agree that democracies best represent the will of the majority, and that
the actions of democracies best reflect what is “human nature”.

I have mentioned few examples of US initiating conflicts on their own
will in reply to Kevin

• igor

[Rennie_Allen2]

While Dean get’s a little overzealous with the “…take comfort in…”
comment. His basic contention is correct, that the U.S. military will
“tolerate” eavesdropping, so long as those doing the eavesdropping are
equally tolerant of U.S. eavesdropping. He is also correct IMO, when he
states that dictatorial states are more threatened by eavesdropping than
democratic states, and it should be painfully obvious why (hint: it
isn’t that they’re scared military secrets will be compromised).

If you are a dictator who’s contemplating stomping out a little
Tiananmen like uprising, in some far-flung corner of your country, you’d
probably prefer not to have this event broadcast on CNN, where tapes
could be made and smuggled back into your country now would you ? (this
is why Tiananmen was a nightmare for the Chinese authorities, and why
they took so long to act - hard to hide something that happens right in
downtown Beijing)

-----Original Message-----
From: Igor Kovalenko [mailto:kovalenko@home.com]
Posted At: Monday, September 10, 2001 9:40 AM
Posted To: advocacy
Conversation: War
Subject: Re: War


Dean, you weren’t Navy or Pentagon spokesman last time I checked, were
you?
How do you know if they would behave as you tell us? And I don’t think
your
analogy with US40 is valid. Spy planes along border would be much more
politically sensitive issue and even if military did not give a damn
(which
I doubt) then White House most certainly would be displeased.

And speaking about terminally stupid, US spy planes do fly along China
border regularly, in case you did not know there was a collision
relatively
recently. They used to fly along USSR border too and even across USSR,
for
what one of them was shot down in sixties.

• igor

“Dean Douthat” <ddouthat@faac.com> wrote in message
news:3B9CBB80.E21C3875@faac.com…

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?

“Like” (or “dislike”) are, IMHO, pretty much irrelevant. Tolerance is
the
operative word. Now, would our military tolerate another country
flying

spy

planes along our borders? Not only would they tolerate it, they would
take
comfort in and get a good laugh out of it. Only a terminally stupid
adversary
would spy on us by flying airplanes along borders. For example, US 40
cuts
through the middle of a Navy training facility in Nevada where
Electronic
Counter-Measures are practiced against emulated ground threats. A
regular
“tourist” along that road is the “Soviet Winnebago”, an RV bristling
with
electronic eavesdropping equipment. How does the Navy “like” it? The
standing
comment is: “At least they bought an American-made truck.” Closed,
dictatorial
societies are the only ones threatened by free flowing information.
Open
societies are willing to tolerate easy access by potential adversaries
for

the

sake of greater goods.

[Alain_Bonnefoy2]

Igor Kovalenko a écrit :

Kevin Stallard wrote:

Hi Igor,

I don’t mind, devil’s advocacy is fine, let me see if I can respond add to
what I said in response to your thoughts.


I am glad there are intelligent true-blue ones >

Yes, most people do like the sound of the word freedom, but do they know
what it means and what it entails?

My point was, it may mean different thing for different people.
Unfortunately all nations (americans not an exception) have tendency to
impose their meaning to whole world >

Secondly, there isn’t a nation in the world that would not want what we
have. The poorest of our people have color tv’s and microwaves as well as
food to put in them. Most have automobiles and some have really fast ones!

Material posessions are not the only thing people are after. US is known
in the world for ‘consumerism’ of its population, but for many people in
the world posession of TVs/microwaves/cars is not equal to happiness.
OTOH, consumerism of population is good for economy, LOL >

The leaders of those nations hate the fact that they are weaker than we are.
They hate having to sit in our shadow. It’s human nature, nothing more. If
you disagree (and please belive me, I don’t take disagreements personal in
any way, I rather enjoy these types of converstaions) I would like to know
how in the world we are an obstacle to them? Or even how are we perceved as
an obstacle?

Yes, you’re exactly ‘an obstacle by example’. Some of those leaders are
trying to teach people virtues they belive into and the very existence
of US, with culture dominated by posessions (which means lack of ‘true
virtues’) yet highly economically succesfull is certainly an obstacle.
Society like US is not supposed to be viable in their doctrines, so they
want it vanish to prove the doctrines. And since it does not vanish,
they pull off the ‘Great Satan’ trick >

The fact that american culture is also heavily spoiled by ‘we are the
best in the world’ concept also does not help. It builds perception of
americans as ‘arrogant’ and ‘ignorant’ people in other nations,
especially those with sufficiently different cultures (muslims being a
typical example).

You might elaborate what you mean by morale system however. I’m not sure
what you mean by it.


Morale system is something what tells you what is virtue and what is
sin. It mostly comes from religious background, so it is bound to be
different in nations with sufficiently different religions. Simple
examples include things like poligamy, which is quite usual in some
places, but is considered sin and even crime in US, except may be in
Utah, lol >

For tougher example, muslims consider anyone who does not believe into
‘true God’ an ‘unworthy’ man. Many interpretations do not consider it
crime to kill an ‘unfaithful’, there’s even concept of Jihad (holy war
for true God). Afghan mojahideens did not call russians ‘russians’, they
called them ‘unfaithful’. Talibs impose death penalty on anyone who
abandons Islam, when americans believe into freedom of religion. Most
americans would consider that as ‘lack of freedom’, but for muslims it
is not question of freedom at all, it is question of good/evil.
Abandoning Islam is evil in their minds. However (for an extreme
example) raping a captive woman is not an evil deed in some
interpretations (popular these days in Chechnya for example), unless
she’s pregnant. In fact there seems to be no concept of ‘rape’ of a
captive, since captive ‘belongs’ to you, which would be a totally alien
idea to american morale system. They however care to wait till her next
period so she’s ‘clean’ and doesn’t make them ‘dirty’ :\ I don’t really
know how valid such interpretations are, but they do exist, apparently.

Yeah, and many teenages would like to be ‘free’ from their parents, when
what they desire isn’t really to be free, what they want is freedom from
accountability and freedom from consquence. Fortunatly, there is no such
thing.

LOL, you’re implicitly comparing US to ‘wise parents’ and others to
‘spoiled teenagers’ >
On what grounds? Just because US is richer?

And to put it bluntly, the propaganda machine of the USSR may have been very
effective during that time to in trying to protray America as the enemy.

It worked both ways I think. Mamy americans still put equality sign
between words ‘russian’ and ‘communist’. FYI, at the height of communist
rule communist party was only about 20% of population and majority of
its members joined just because there was no other way to move up.

However, there were many who remebered the generosity and dedication of the
American soldiers in WWII that helped defeat the USSR’s worst enemy at the
time. I remember reading a very touching article of a man who went to the
USSR during the cold war. I don’t remember the details, but he entered a
local drinking establishment (ok, a bar), and was treated exteremely warmly,
he was loved and respected by all there and through out all his travels.
Many old men expressed their profound gratitude for America and what it had
done and assured him that they where not in agreeance with their goverment.
Forgive me if I do not have all these facts correct, but this is to the best
of my recollection of the article, however, my point is, I don’t believe
that all the people of the USSR really beleived the US was a threat, they
hated the oppression they felt more than anything.

Look, I know what we thought first hand >
I thought US is our friend till 4th grade in school (from reading books
about war). Then I thought it turned into our worst enemy till 7th or
may be 8th grade (from watching TV news). Then I came to realization
that pieces of picture do not fit together very well and since then I
did not think of US as either enemy or friend. Yes, people might be warm
to each other on both sides, but as countries they are still not really
‘friendly’. Several generations holding power have to change on both
sides for that to happen. Too much untrust for now…

You are correct. It is not pleasant to have someone always looking over
your shoulder. Add that to ignorance, and you have a lot of fear.

Please also keep in mind that when a country makes public threats like
“Would they like to exchange Los Angles for Taiwain.” What are you supposed
to do?

Well, Taiwan is officially considered China territory, isn’t it? What if
Hawaii decided to break away from US and China sent their Navy to
protect them and sold them arms? > > That is unlikely to happen, but
hypothetically, what would US do?

One could argue that we lost that war…again, why were we there in the
first place? A dictator was attempting to gain control over someone else
through force. It was not in defense, it was an agression. I’m sure he
would have liked to have been free to subject the whole of vietnam to
comunisum.

And he did, ultimately. The only thing US gained there is bad publicity
and blood on hands. That sometimes happens when you try to impose your
meaning of ‘freedom’ to a very different faraway place. Note than USSR
did the very same thing (just opposite, like picture in mirror, using
ther definition of freedom) in Afghanistan. And what US said? They
called USSR aggressors, boycotted Olympic games and sponsored
mojahideens, some of which are now called Talibs >

I worked with a developer who lived in vietnam and escaped on raft in the
late 70’s it took him three tries, he suffered a lot. You should hear him
talk about the differences under such a rule and in America. It would
recommit anyone who loves liberty and freedom to defeating comunisum and the
like.

I knew few afghanis who lived there under Soviet rule and afterwards.
They liked it more under Soviets, because USSR actually tried to do some
good deeds there, aside from occupation. Remember, the goal of going
into Afghanistan was not evil, at least not in the mind of people who
did it. I knew students who volunteered to join army and go there,
because they believed into good cause. In fact russians in Afghanistan
not only fought, they built schools and hospitals, sent teachers and
doctors, etc. They tried to establish some kind of modern society there.
Some afghanis appreciated that, especially in northern part, but
majority did not, apparently. Seems like majority prefered to live in
medieval times with their own morale system, so they have Talibs now,
who do you know what… Quite ironically, the only remaining opposition
to them (holding 5% of territory in the north) is Ahmad Shakh Masud, who
was one of fierciest enemies of Soviets during occupation >

The people living here were bing oppressed and abused. It is natural for
one to want to be free from oppression and abuse. Besides were were already
here and England wouldn’t leave us alone…


Well, US started second war with Britain on their own will. And I think
you’re forgetting about the Monroe doctrine, wars with Indians and their
oppression, Spain (for Florida), Mexico (for Texas), etc. Sale of Alaska
by Russia was pretty much ‘forced’ sale, because Monroe was basically
suggesting to either buy it on his terms, or take it by force if
necessary and Russia was not ready to defend it at the time.

You seem to be also forgetting American & British (as allies) attacks on
Petropavlovsk (Camchatka peninsula) and Sebastopol (Crimean war) in 19th
century and Archangelsk (northern Russia) in early 20th century. What
do you think did they want there? Defend someone’s freedom? >

I am sorry that you had that experience. You are obviously a very decent
and caring individual. Individuals who are usually such get that from their
parents, especially their Mothers. Your desire to do the right thing is
inspiring. Thanks.

Additionally, I have learned much from reading your posts. I don’t post
much 'cause either you or someone else beats me to the punch or I really
don’t know. Thanks for the education.

This has been very emjoyable. Take care,

Thank you, wish you the best too.

• igor

Very good account on the facts!!

Regards,
Alain.