From: mel (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Wed Nov 17 2004 - 18:01:19 GMT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mark Steven Heyman
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 7:34 PM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: MD Stopping The Mischief Makers
<snip>
msh says:
I do understand the stakes, which is why I am unwilling to say that
the fire-bombing of Dresden, the nuclear bombing of Japan, were 100%
indefensible. There is no way I or any sane person would have wanted
the Allied powers to be defeated in that war. However, I do not
believe that these deliberate terrorist displays (which is what they
were) were necessary to win the war; but I concede that there is
respectable argument for the opposing view.
mel:
I question your use of terrorism in the modern
sense, which is usually criminal acts of violence
in the name of an agenda by a weak party
unwilling to bear personal responsibility.
The nuking of Japan was a pure economic
decision accompanied by Gethsemane level
gnashing of teeth.
The economics:
1)Make surrender affordable to Japan
by making continued struggle too expensive>
2)Save up to 1,000,000 American lives
mel:
Americans are inherently and surprisingly
isolationist even to this day, as individuals,
but in a century or more of time we have
seen that folks left alone in other parts of
the world get up to significant mischief.
Our lesson learned (right or wrong) is to
kill, cripple, derail, or buy-off mischief
makers early in their cycle of ambition and
expend fewer lives of our young later.
msh says:
This is American mythology, right off the rack; but it is an idea I'm
interested in. I don't want to spend a lot of time pursuing it if
you are unwilling to clearly state your position. Is it your
position that the USG does not and has not murderously intervened in
the affairs of other sovereign nations unless they perceive some
significant threat to the citizens of the United States? If this is
not what you mean, will you clearly state what you mean, giving some
examples of what you would call significant mischief?
mel:
Most of your understanding of America WILL BE
mythological. It is too complex for you to hold
it all in your head and so you will reduce it to
significant representational "icons."
However, it can also be experiential and the
inferential projection of such is from which
I speak.
In years of field work through rural portions of
the U.S. nearly all ranchers and farmers I've
encountered will turn any discussion into:
1) Weather
2) politics
3) what the hell's wrong with people
or
3) what the hell's wrong with the world
In ten years or so, I've only met two
ranchers and one farmer who did not
express an isolationist sentiment.
In discussion with more URBAN folk, I
find people unevenly divided between
those who's opinions are paraphrased
from this month/weeks' news media and
a few who seem to think more for
themselves. Discounting the larger
group which flops like drying fish,
I find the more genuine thinkers
to be probably 6 or 7:1 isolationist.
Seems to hold consistent on both coasts,
south, north, higher in mountain states
and Pac NW.
Oh, regarding mischief?
Inequitable applications of force
without consensus.
Haiti frequently, much of Africa now,
Various diaspora and holocaust
behaviors, partisan "nationalizations"
as ploys by petty self-interest groups
for soliciting ransoms.
Third world "people's" movements that
yield "some more equal than others"
behaviors and lots of executions.
Obviously the pre WW behaviors...
thanks--mel
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 17 2004 - 18:40:57 GMT