From: Kent E. Christensen (kchrist1@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Sat 23 Apr 1994 - 22:36:49 EEST
>Re: Operation Desert Storm as "Murder"
> Uh, well, you get to an interesting point, which is that
>every religion has to deal with the concept of war. I don't
>think you advance the dialogue by calling killing-through-warfare
>murder,...
Oooh, I see. If a *government* rationalizes it's murder by calling it "warfare" or some such bullsh*t, then it is morally justifiable.
>...especially since the U.S.A. is the only country that even
>tries to adhere to the laws of civilized warfare (which is not as
>oxymoronic as it sounds).
Civilized? That's when U.S. soldiers in Vietnam slaughter entire villiages full of old men, women, and children, right? Usually the U.S. military won't commit too many overt atrocities, though, because those in power do not want to jeopardize their political careers. They just support genocidal military dictatorships, e.g., the Khmer Rouge, to do their dirty work for them.
>(How many other countries have ever
>tried their own officers for war crimes?) And you picked a
>really bad example, since Desert Storm was run much more by the
>book even than other wars fought by U.S. forces.
What book is that? "How to destroy the entire infrastructure of a country
and cause the deaths of 100,000 children in the first
year after the "war"?
>"Murder" has a specific legal
>definition in Anglo-American law (and thus also in Australia).
>This definition includes the term "unjustified" and the phrase
>"in the peace of the Commonwealth." It simply doesn't apply to
>warfare--by definition.
Doubleplusgood. If I walk around and kill people, that's murder. If the government *tells* me to walk around and kill people, that's not. If the government tells me that murder isn't murder, then it isn't?
>Be a pacifist if you like--no matter how
>morally indefensible such a position is--but don't call war
>"murder."
Why? So you can ease your conscience about the wholesale slaughter of innocents.
>That just reveals ignorance and/or willingness to
>obscure the issues through misuse of emotionally-laden terms...
Not feeling anything certainly makes this sort of thing easier to do and easier to justify.
>Persons of good will can certainly debate the wisdom of
>Making the Mideast Safe for Oil-Rich Monarchies. But trying to
>argue away war is wishful thinking, at best. And the medieval
>concept of the "just war," though making something of a comeback,
>is an unworkable compromise between reality and a crypto-pacifist
>religion.
I think this little tirade belongs in 'alt.warmongering.kill all the colored people'.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:33:53 EEST