Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] facism gaining ground in US

[Pierce T . Wetter III]

On Jul 21, 2004, at 1:53 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

 [Text with incredibly well articulated and much better reasoned then 
anything I've
written so far arguments removed. ]

> But if you convince me that "collateral damage" is morally equivalent
> to "terrorism", I'll have to side with Pierce, because Abu Grieve is
> now subject to the same kind of cost-benefit consideration that any
> military operation is.  This is precisely why I take issue with Pierce
> on the issue of whether the concept of "limited war" is a joke.  No
> limits can be counted on to bind the enemy, but _we_ should strive to
> win the peace, rather than the war.  Whether that's an ethical way to
> think about it is dubious due to the legitimacy problem.  But it's
> good business, and I have to count the reduction of casualties a good
> thing in itself.

 I don't think "limited war" is a joke, but I think at that point our
soldiers have become policemen. If we trained them for that, it would
be one thing, but AFAIK, we don't train the majority of our troops that
way. The exceptions being the MPs, the civil affairs corp, and the 
Marines,
but that's a relatively small number. However, I don't really know what
the training is like in the armed forces these days. It would also worry
me if we started training our army to be able to peacefully subjugate 
the
population. (Consistency is boring...)

 Rumsfeld's real job has been transforming the military from its Cold 
War
Fulda-Gap orientation into a force that represents how its actually been
used the last 60 years. So to some extent, I see his bull-headedness as
a good thing.

 Earlier you said that you thought he deserved a red card instead of a
yellow card. While I believe that there are certain moral absolutes
and that Rumsfeld violated them, I also believe that you should judge 
not.
Civilian casualties would be even worse if he hadn't forced Franks to
completely revise the war plan to be much less damaging to Iraq. Men
produce both good and bad, I haven't quite figured out where you draw 
the
line and say "this is the limit".

Rumsfeld is what he is, which is, since 9/11, the Secretary of War, not
Secretary of Defense. As such, I'm a little more tolerant of his 
outbursts;
I see him as the "bad cop" to Powell's "good cap". If I was to sit in
judgement on Rumsfeld, I think he's done a lot of good, though he has 
done
a lot of bad as well. For one example, I think that the Pentagon tends
to be quite complacent, and its hard to be complacent around Rumsfeld.
That's a good thing. I think the bad examples are probably obvious.

 Pierce