To: Marc Schiler who wrote (5956 ) 4/14/1999 11:12:00 AM From: Jurgen Trautmann Respond to of 11051
Marc, IMO functionality leads to pacifsm. You ask: "Give a specific idea about how to stop it without force." This is not logical. I do not want to do anything. Therefor I don't need motivations. My point is not that I had a better way making it different, my point is that this war is a worse way than making nothing. Worse in every way you look at this, worse for every party that is involved. But the vice-versa-question is rational: "Give a specific idea about how to stop it with force." When I wanted to do anything with a bunch of disadvantages, I should at least argue where the profits could be. Of course this is not a US-problem; a nice day all these soldiers will fly back home, leaving back a destroyed region and thousends of victims. What's your horizon, Marc? All Serbes dead? How should the refugees of Kosovo come back, rebuild there country, a mixed population out Albanians and Serbes? I guess, that problem will be a typical European problem (where we will be again "to stupid to solve it...") - at least for you people over the ocean. I have more examples than I like to have: No doubt, the wars in Vietnam, Irak or Afghanistan (9 years?) have finished. But what was achieved by the "winning" nations? All these irrational fighters are strong enough to destroy and kill, but absolutely unable to solve the smallest problem. It's usual to do like there was a meaning, a realizable target, a logical planning causing such wars - but the historical reality shows that seldom (if at all) a war could bring that what the warriors were argumenting before.It's no question of moral for me, Marc. It's the meaningless waste of goods and humans that hurts me. Again, why don't we bomb Northern Ireland? There too the NATO could destroy all cities, all infrastructure, a lot of criminal terrorists and a lot more harmless people. There too sooner or later nobody could fight back. Is that a solution? A target? Or isn't that exactly paranoia? We really don't need arguments for not killing. We need arguments, very good arguments, for killing. Though if you should ask questions, ask the people who want to kill, not the people, who ask "what will be after the killing?" Very personal: Are you, Marc, really sure that this war will be the first war where we all will say "that was really a good idea, expensive, a few victims, but over all better than searching for a solution without war" after the last bomb will have exploded? Jury