Just war or not

[Roger Baker]

--Apple-Mail-1-223909132
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	format=flowed

On Sunday, October 28, 2001, at 08:06 AM, Michael Eisenstadt wrote:

> i keep on thinking about Roger's viewpoint.
>
> Roger,
>
> Am I right in understanding that you see NO
> significant difference between Viet Nam, an
> unjust colonialist war and other colonial
> wars, and the Afghan operation?
>
> In other words it seems like the WTC distaster
> never comes into your calculus. Those 2 buildings
> do not seem to be real to you nor the dead.
> Perhaps you believe "America" deserves what it
> got for its past iniquities (where "America"
> stands for corporate or entrepreneurial inquity)
> and the interests of American society consisting
> of 300 million actual people have no standing
> in the argument.
>
> Please advise.
>
> Mike
>

First of all, Mike seems like he may be incapable of understanding my 
point of view.

No wars are  "just"  wars -- unless they maybe have the rulers who make 
the policies that lead to war fight it out out in person, or something 
like that.  Otherwise wars tend to affect innocents and children 
disproportionately,
as all modern wars do, and as terrorism does by definition.

Now that the world is full of nuclear weapons on the part of Pakistan 
and India, etc., humans have a moral obligation to prevent wars. ( In a 
technologically sophisticated world, the points of potential 
vulnerability have multiplied to where one individual with the ability 
to culture anthrax spores and coat them with a layer of teflonized spore 
antibodies can snarl up the whole US government).  In a world like this, 
it is impossible to be secure except though civilized behavior supported 
by world opinion and the leaders in most nations.
There is no rational moral basis at all for modern war; to even believe 
there is is a psychological trap (humans like chimpanzees but unlike 
bonobos are genetically disposed toward mass aggression because that 
propagates the genes of human tribal apes more successfully).

"Am I right in understanding that you see NO
significant difference between Viet Nam, an
unjust colonialist war and other colonial
wars, and the Afghan operation?..."

I do indeed see a significant difference. The big differences I can see 
are that the Afghan "operation" is the fallout or "blowback" from our 
earlier intervention to lure the Soviets into their Afghan quagmire in 
the early 1980's. In contrast, the Vietnam war was a continuation of the 
imperialist management of that country which we willingly assumed from 
the French defeat at  Dien Bien Phu.

Also our apparent goals in Afghanistan makes the Vietnam war look 
winnable by comparison. Both on the grounds of inherent military 
difficulty and on the grounds that this war has to be fought in such a 
way as to preserve Arab and even international opinion.  We're in a 
rapidly worsening world deflationary spiral that will worsen 
nationalistic hostility based on trade; the current economic situation 
is conducive to nationalistic rivalry and trade war.

I think the WTC attacks were reprehensible and uncivilized but certainly 
understandable in the context of the bigger picture of the way humans 
are likely to behave in a world characterized by barbarism toward fellow 
humans and mother nature too at the behest of private wealth, as their 
guiding moral principle.  Who can say that Bush's refusal to sign the 
global warming treaty
and so establish a basis for international cooperation does not condemn 
hundreds  of times the numbers of victims killed in the WTC?

To make the images of burning buildings of iconic significance under 
terror attack somehow the trigger for US participation in a war -- this 
is from all accounts precisely the result that bin Laden wanted to 
accomplish. After using the CIA to screw the rest of the third world for 
decades, it is predictable that the screwees would get tired of going to 
the United Nations and getting vetoed by the US, and would start using 
the skills taught them by the CIA to fight back in a way that finally is 
guaranteed to get the attention of the US public.

That is my reasoned analysis of the current situation.  Based on all 
that, I am motivated to work for peace and to prevent Bush from trying 
to set up a fascist police state that would use attempted control of the 
internet (all other US mass media is essentially now under corporate 
control) -- to prop up a shaky global corporate empire that is 
attempting to rule the world through military force.

So long as we behave as a nation that ignores international law, 
ignoring the UN, and bases our political and military actions on nothing 
more meaningful than  images of burning buildings that bubble up from 
the primitive emotional parts of our brains, then we might as well be 
puppets dancing around on a string controlled by bin Laden.  He's got us 
just where he wants us and has cunningly played his cards in such a way 
as to unite the Islamic world (from whence comes the oil to maintain our 
addiction) on his side.

To sum up, we insist on playing the game of maintaining a world empire 
so poorly on so many different levels (by insisting on fighter jets to 
solve social problems caused by goals based on corporate barbarism) that 
it is inconceivable that the current corporate empire led by the USA is 
not doomed in the next decade or so.

The clinching argument is that even if humans turned massively toward 
peace and love by some miracle, world oil production is STILL going to 
peak within this decade, the increasing cost of energy will splinter the 
world economy, and this alone is pretty much guaranteed to change 
everything for the "worse" forever as the tentacles of materialistic 
corporate power wither. For 99.999% of the world's species of life, 
however, that may arguably come as good news.

For more details, go to:

  http://www.dieoff.com

Peace, Roger












--Apple-Mail-1-223909132
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=US-ASCII

On Sunday, October 28, 2001, at 08:06 AM, Michael Eisenstadt wrote:


<excerpt>i keep on thinking about Roger's viewpoint.


Roger,


Am I right in understanding that you see NO 

significant difference between Viet Nam, an 

unjust colonialist war and other colonial 

wars, and the Afghan operation?


In other words it seems like the WTC distaster 

never comes into your calculus. Those 2 buildings

do not seem to be real to you nor the dead.

Perhaps you believe "America" deserves what it 

got for its past iniquities (where "America" 

stands for corporate or entrepreneurial inquity) 

and the interests of American society consisting 

of 300 million actual people have no standing 

in the argument.


Please advise.


Mike


</excerpt>

First of all, Mike seems like he may be incapable of understanding my
point of view.


No wars are  "just"  wars -- unless they maybe have the rulers who
make the policies that lead to war fight it out out in person, or
something like that.  Otherwise wars tend to affect innocents and
children disproportionately, 

as all modern wars do, and as terrorism does by definition. 


Now that the world is full of nuclear weapons on the part of Pakistan
and India, etc., humans have a moral obligation to prevent wars. ( In
a technologically sophisticated world, the points of potential
vulnerability have multiplied to where one individual with the ability
to culture anthrax spores and coat them with a layer of teflonized
spore antibodies can snarl up the whole US government).  In a world
like this, it is impossible to be secure except though civilized
behavior supported by world opinion and the leaders in most nations. 

There is no rational moral basis at all for modern war; to even
believe there is is a psychological trap (humans like chimpanzees but
unlike bonobos are genetically disposed toward mass aggression because
that propagates the genes of human tribal apes more successfully).


<color><param>0000,0000,DEDE</param>"Am I right in understanding that
you see NO 

significant difference between Viet Nam, an 

unjust colonialist war and other colonial 

wars, and the Afghan operation?..."

</color><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>

I do indeed see a significant difference. The big differences I can
see are that the Afghan "operation" is the fallout or "blowback" from
our earlier intervention to lure the Soviets into their Afghan
quagmire in the early 1980's. In contrast, the Vietnam war was a
continuation of the imperialist management of that country which we
willingly assumed from the French defeat at  Dien Bien Phu. 


Also our apparent goals in Afghanistan makes the Vietnam war look
winnable by comparison. Both on the grounds of inherent military
difficulty and on the grounds that this war has to be fought in such a
way as to preserve Arab and even international opinion.  We're in a
rapidly worsening world deflationary spiral that will worsen
nationalistic hostility based on trade; the current economic situation
is conducive to nationalistic rivalry and trade war.


I think the WTC attacks were reprehensible and uncivilized but
certainly understandable in the context of the bigger picture of the
way humans are likely to behave in a world characterized by barbarism
toward fellow humans and mother nature too at the behest of private
wealth, as their guiding moral principle.  Who can say that Bush's
refusal to sign the global warming treaty 

and so establish a basis for international cooperation does not
condemn hundreds  of times the numbers of victims killed in the WTC?


To make the images of burning buildings of iconic significance under
terror attack somehow the trigger for US participation in a war --
this is from all accounts precisely the result that bin Laden wanted
to accomplish. After using the CIA to screw the rest of the third
world for decades, it is predictable that the screwees would get tired
of going to the United Nations and getting vetoed by the US, and would
start using the skills taught them by the CIA to fight back in a way
that finally is guaranteed to get the attention of the US public. 


That is my reasoned analysis of the current situation.  Based on all
that, I am motivated to work for peace and to prevent Bush from trying
to set up a fascist police state that would use attempted control of
the internet (all other US mass media is essentially now under
corporate control) -- to prop up a shaky global corporate empire that
is attempting to rule the world through military force. 


So long as we behave as a nation that ignores international law,
ignoring the UN, and bases our political and military actions on
nothing more meaningful than  images of burning buildings that bubble
up from the primitive emotional parts of our brains, then we might as
well be puppets dancing around on a string controlled by bin Laden. 
He's got us just where he wants us and has cunningly played his cards
in such a way as to unite the Islamic world (from whence comes the oil
to maintain our addiction) on his side.


To sum up, we insist on playing the game of maintaining a world empire
so poorly on so many different levels (by insisting on fighter jets to
solve social problems caused by goals based on corporate barbarism)
that it is inconceivable that the current corporate empire led by the
USA is not doomed in the next decade or so. 


The clinching argument is that even if humans turned massively toward
peace and love by some miracle, world oil production is STILL going to
peak within this decade, the increasing cost of energy will splinter
the world economy, and this alone is pretty much guaranteed to change
everything for the "worse" forever as the tentacles of materialistic
corporate power wither. For 99.999% of the world's species of life,
however, that may arguably come as good news.

</color><color><param>0000,0000,DEDE</param>

</color>For more details, go to:


 http://www.dieoff.com


Peace, Roger






 







--Apple-Mail-1-223909132--