Something you don't read about in school...

[Fionn]

Steve,

As cold as the answer may be one must take the certainty of saving the sub by letting those crew drown over the possibility of saving them AND the sub.

In the cold light of logistics and personnel replacement "Sailors are expendable and eminently replaceable ( in the short and long terms) whilst nuke attack boats are neither."

Of course, the hope is that you're never put in these situations but if you ever are your role is to do whatever serves the "greater good". In this case saving a combat-capable naval unit at the cost of a few lives is a simple choice to make.

REALLY hard choices come when you have to decide between 2 people who will each lose both legs if they aren't operated on after a car crash and ONE person who will definitely die if not operated on. You only have 1 operating theatre and staff and due to the complexity of injuries of the ONE person if you operate on him you will be unable to save the legs (the time spent in operating on him will be longer than a leg can survive after the release of all the metabolytes released after severe crush injuries.)

So... Is it better to leave two people in wheelchairs and accept one mortality OR is it better to let the one person die and preserve the mobility of two others ? Now THAT's another thing you don't get posed in most schools .

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest John Pender]

Pixman, our prayers are with you and your family. Wish Stacey our best.

[Lee]

Interesting thread. I'd like to respond to a few things said.

tss: I know very little about the Finnish civil war, but I take

it from your description that the "Reds" were communist

revolutionaries trying to take over Finland from within. In which

case, I would like to point out that there is nothing wrong with a

basically good and just government executing traitors trying to

take over the country. I think they should be given a fair and

speedy trial before the sentence is carried out (wouldn't need

too long of a trial in most cases since they were clearly fighting

for the communist side), but there is nothing wrong with them being

ultimately executed for their crimes. In fact, if communists

(or others of their vile ilk) should ever try to take over a

country, they should all be killed by the government/citizens as

quickly as possible. Communists should never, ever, be

allowed to take over a country. They must be stopped at all costs.

Because if they do take over, God help the citizens of that country.

Their freedoms will be taken away, they will be made slaves and

abused, imprisoned and murdered at will. That's something that

bears remembering.

Pixman: Killing another human is *not* an absolute evil. That's

why we have the term "murder"; to distinguish between killing

someone for just cause or by accident and the intentional killing

of another human for no just reason.

Example, Someone unsavory fellow breaks into your home and tries

to kill you with an axe, so you shoot him. Perfectly legitimate,

right and good reason to kill someone. Not evil at all.

Another example, a neighboring country tries to take over your

free country and enslave your people (because they want your land

and think your race is worthless sub-human trash, anyhow). So,

you and your fellow countrymen fight these invaders and kill a

great number of them. Once again, a perfectly legitimate reason

to kill someone. These invaders are trying to steal your land

and enslave/murder your people. Decent peaceable people

have a right to defend themselves and their liberty from

those who would do them harm and steal their freedom.

[sage]

Pixman --

Your philosophy is one that I understand, but is no one that I agree with, as I do not believe in absolutes where humanity is concerned. I think BTS said it well; a small war to stop a big war is a moral war. An artillery bombardment of a village that is preceded by a warning to the inhabitants to leave is preferable to one that is not. A war in which prisoners and wounded are not shot is preferable to one in which they are not.

But if you believe (and it appears that you do) that a complete rejection of the possibility of morality in war may in fact limit or end future conflicts, then -- so be it. I respect your faith. The complete rejection of morality in war is a rejection of all violence. You are in good company (Gandhi, MLK, et al.).

Sage

[Pixman]

Thanks John P, BTS and other well wishers. You guys feel even more like family to me now.

I know I come off like a pie in the sky optimist. But I refuse to acquiesce to the darker side of man (meaning me). If there is no chance of a brighter tomorrow through learning from our mistakes, then I might as well tell Stacey's anesthesiologist to gas me up and end it all for me. There has to be a use for our notions of morality. They are and must be motivational.

The submarine example is great Steve -- Star Trek again. I'm thinking of the very moving scene at the end of the second movie when Spock is dying of radiation poisoning. He has sacrificed himself for the ship -- "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few....or the one." Great stuff and certainly applicable to the submarine dilemma. Obviously, given the choices, you sacrifice the men in the flooded compartment and pray that they and God forgive you.

Steve, I do not disagree that there are times when going to war is the right choice. WWII and Kosovo, as you point out, are both prime examples. The point I want to make is the difference between proactive and reactive choices. Our entry into WWII was reactive. That is, it was almost a mechanical, reflexive response to what preceded it, i.e. Germany's and Japan's aggression. Sure, we had choice and could have stayed out but, considering Pearl Harbor and the picture that had been painted in Europe to that point, we needed to get in and get it done.

Conversely, the Marshall Plan was a proactive masterstroke -- a true investment in lasting peace and, I think, the greatest achievement of the 20th century. I hold the UN in a similar regard but it is still struggling to take its full place in the world. It is in these types of efforts that I wish we would invest our energies. What matters is how we use the breathing room to think and plan that a war can buy us. That thinking and planning should focus on resolving the underlying issues that fuel the violence, with the end goal being to prevent another war from happening.

The Marshall Plan was exactly that. It provided no fuel for a future fire. In fact, it had more the effect of a fire hose. How could Germany remain hostile while we were rebuilding her cities, infrastructure and economy? Likewise with Japan. Is the Marshall Plan the end all? No, but it provides a major precedent for how to resolve a conflict AND invest in future peace.

I don't think we should be proud we defeated Hitler and his Nazi henchmen. The war was a necessary evil in which we took part with the goal of ending it. That is not meant to dishonor any of the brave men and women who gave their lives to the cause. We all (the Allies)had a job to do and did it. But the true moral act was to love and forgive our enemy when it was over, to help him up and restore his honorable place in the world. Of that we should be very proud.

I need to go snuggle Stace now. Thank you all for enduring my long winded optimism. I'll let you know how things turn out.

Peace,

Pixman

------------------

Fact is the enemy of truth. - Don Quixote

[Thomas Davie]

Steve; when I was taking my philosophy degreee, I never heard of that classical dilemma My choice is simple....seal the doors, kill some crew and save the others/the boat. Personally, I do not see that a choice exists to be made. You hesitate? You lose everything. A Kantian might claim that issues of personal morality cease to exist in a war. If anyone is interested, you can check out Immanuel Kant's 'The Critique of Pure Reason' paying particular attention to a chapter containing 'categorical imperatives'.

I've never been in a war and hope never to be in one. However, that having being said, I would do *whatever* it takes to win....or whatever I had inductively concluded was necessary to win. I would rather not engage in atrocities....I would rather not have to kill in order to live....I would rather not have to defend my way of life/existence with the sword....but I would. And, I would make the claim that hunreds of millions of other people would as well. Pretty bleak commentary on human nature? No; it is simply what and who we are. We kill in order to live. Other species we eat. Other humans we kill because there is something existent within them that we despise or fear.

Now, if you're not yet thoroughly convinced that I am a barbarian, take a gander at 3 books by Plato; 'The Republic', 'The Statesman'and 'The Laws'. Essentially I am in complete agreement with what is contained in these books. It may not be nice and it certinaly is not kind or gentle, but humans have always distinguished 'outsiders' from 'insiders'. And we do not take kindly to outsiders Very few ingroups do.

So....I guess I am saying that violence doesn't particularly surprise or disturb me. I expect it as a natural course of human endeavours. What does surprise and disturb me is that when reason fails some people will give up and let their way of life be overcome rather than fighting to inflict damage on an opposing mode of existence.

Consider this a roundabout way of me saying that I have never considerd the USA a 'pure as the driven snow' country'. But I sure as hell am glad that they are the pre-eminent military power in the world today. 200 SS troops murdered? Well, you know what is said.... 'the winners make the rules'.

Tom

[Pixman]

Lee, your line of thinking is exactly what holds us back and all but guarantees that we will continue to wage war.

Sage:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>a small war to stop a big war is a moral war<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, just the more preferable of two immoral acts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>An artillery bombardment of a village that is preceded by a warning to the inhabitants to leave is preferable to one that is not. A war in which prisoners and wounded are not shot is preferable to one in which they are not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree on both counts, but it does not make the bombardment moral, it just mitigates the killing. You are still responsible for any who stay in the village and die. You are also responsible for the wounding and capturing of the soldiers that you "mercifully" choose not to shoot.

I've got a kooky idea for all of you naysayers out there. Let's just imagine that, in 1939, we took all of the resources we would eventually spend on the war -- including potential lives -- and used them to produce goods of all kinds that the German people might want. Real stuff -- oil, cars, cloths, toys, Glenn Miller albums, you name it. And then we started shipping them to Germany by whatever means possible. Kind of a reverse Dunkirk meets St. Nicholas. Just drive right over the Maginot line and start giving the stuff out. What are they going to do, shoot us? And even if they did, what the hell, we're just going to line up on Normandy beach in a few years to get slaughtered anyway.

How many could they kill before the people doing the killing would start to realize the barbarity of their actions? The German soldier was no barbarian. He was a highly educated, honorable man for the most part. So why was he fighting? Because he was duped and we reinforced the duping by playing the role of a perfectly viable enemy. Imagine how idiotic Hitler would look up there waving his arms around and getting red faced in one of his speeches while we are airdropping Hershey's chocolate into Berlin. It's almost comical to picture.

Ridiculous sounding? Sure. Less costly in lives and material over the ensuing 6 years? I'd bet my life on it. We tried the traditional way and boy was it uuuugly. Why not try something new with the same conviction and determination with which we wage war? What are we afraid of?

Sage:

I am honored to be mentioned in the same solar system as Gandhi and MLKing Jr. But please, these men actually did give their lives for this cause (and advanced it by the way ). I am just writing on a bulletin board. You did not mention JC, but I guess that is just too high a standard of behavior for any of us to try to emulate.

------------------

Fact is the enemy of truth. - Don Quixote

[Thomas Davie]

Pixman; my best wishes are for your wife.

As regards Spock and his utterance of 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few....or the one', I would have to respond by saying 'the needs of the many NEVER outweigh the rights of one'.

Consider a dilemma that I was faced with in one of my philosphy classes; 'you're in a desert and you own a water stand; ten people who are obviously dying of thirst come up to you and demand your water; what do you do, and what is right?'. Obviously, the perception of strength balances will play a large part in anyone's decision as to what they do, but I made the claim that it is your right 'as owner of the water stand' to kill all ten people if chosen in order to 'defend your private property'.

Oddly enough, despite the claim that I have a bleak view of humanity I would hold the opposite 'that I trust enough in another's rationality to hold my sovereignty from them as valid' such that I do not have to resort to violence to defend what I believe to be mine. But if I do, so be it.

Regards

Tom

------------------

[SGTRock]

Again Guys, Great Post!

Alot of Us here seem to be trying to define morality and war. I think you have to look at Human nature, but human nature; or sin as some would call it make up this world on a whole.

I believe War brings on a different kind of morality all it's own. To the victor goes the spoils.

I don't think the question is morality as much as it is moral. I don't at all agree with Shermans approach in the Civil War, but it worked. By burning everything on the way to Atlanta it helped break the moral of the people who were in this case fueling the machine so to speak. War is made to either subdue or eliminate the others moral. Sherman was right "War is Hell" (I use it on my post all the time) ((But I'm a die hard Reb )) Look at the Bible:

Complete genicide (that is not just eliminating all surviors in the land, but ripping open wombs and killing the the unborn children )was done against opposing tirbes which the Isrealites eliminated--land was aquired through this, but the moral (in this case the opposition) was completely eliminated. This also served a purpose to the other neighboring empires which in turn did effect their opinion of the Isrealites approach, or request for more land. Now I don't say this to poo poo the Bible but the Bible also gives the reason why. It says that God told the Moses, Arron to do this because they were evil in his sight and the Isrealites were not allowed to let any other gods or mindsets deviate them from the God Jehovah. Ok. Now were back to the 'God told me too, thing' something that the Koran adheres too more than the Bible; in anycase this isn't a lesson on theology it's a lesson of morality, but most of all free will. Sometimes that free will is fueled by God, other times greed.

The fact is not that 200 SS Soldiers were massacred by GIs, but what would you do as a GI Soldier if you were there at that time. Judge not, lest ye be judged. Steve has a point too no one race is without spot or wrinkle, but 'When It Comes To War, Everyone Has Their Own Rules ', in the end God, or destiny makes the decision either to punish, or to bless.

I said it once, I leave this quote everytime...

------------------

Sgt. Rock Says " War is Hell, but games are fun "

[Chris Jenkins]

Hope the wife is doing well. I am reminded of Sun Tzu. "To avoid the evils of war, we must study them." Has everyone heard about the Austrian election? The radical right-wingers came in second place. The leader (fuehrer?) of this party is a real problem child.

------------------

Climb to Glory!

[Larry Marks]

Pix, my best to you and your wife.

It is fascinating to look back at how Hitler rose to power in the period between the World Wars. He was able to gain an iron grip on a country bitterly defeated in 1918 and subject to severe economic hardships during the 20's and early 30's. He was the wrong man at the right time (for him). I have always wondered what course the war would have taken on September 3, 1939 if France and England did not act on their promise to come to Poland's aid. I believe that Hitler would have turned East first toward Russia. That would have been perfect. Let the two totalitarian regimes beat the hell out of each other. The US still would had to fight Japan though. The course of history would have been very different. The Germans may have a better shot of defeating the Russians if they invaded in May 1940 instead of June of 1941. However, if they were successful, Hitler would have then turned West. As his actions showed prior to the war, nothing was ever enough for him.

History has deemed the Allies to have fought a "noble war" against the Axis from 1939 to 1945 because of the defeat of the totalitarian political systems. However, on a more basic level the GI must have had two things in mind: stay alive and kill the enemy. It doesn't shock me that the Allies committed atrocities. I recently spoke to a Korean vet who was there in 1950 about the massacre and a Vietnam vet about the Korean massacre and My Lai. It is interesting that they both said the same exact thing: "War is hell". I think their point was combat is real hairy and **** happens. I am not condoning or approving the acts, but trying to understand why it happens. War on a grand scale might be fought for rational reasons, but to the combat soldier who has bullets flying all around him his reality has to be more irrational. What is right or wrong to us looking from a very safe distance might not be so clear to those in combat.

Larry

[Thomas Davie]

Pixman; if we (the West) really started to turn all of our industrial resources into shipping products to Nazi Germany in 1939, I would have bolted from Canada, attempted to get German citizenship and take whatever the West was willing to give me as a German.

This is a thought experiment of course, but I would be willing to bet that when the West could not afford to give more, Hitler would be able to take whatever was left (and I would not blame him if we engaged in that course of action ).

Now, if the West had atomic weapons at the beginning of 1939 and had demonstrated or transmitted a willingness to use them should Germany continue in it's ways they would have stopped....

I assume that I possess a different view of human nature than you

Regards

Tom

[Lee]

Pixman: Unless it is your contention that human beings do not

have the right to protect themselves from being murdered or

enslaved, I don't see one thing that I said that you could possibly

disagree with. If you'd like to point out what I said that was

so wrong, I'd be interested to hear it.

BTW, I hope your wife is well. My prayers are with her.

[Darstand]

A Few Thoughts

I am far more concerned about our willingness to violate the Constitution and every Law in the land when we shoved US citizens of Japanese orgin into interment camps; Then I am about US GI's executing prisoners of War.

War is the absence of morality. Trying to create rules for war is some strange European concept that never works. The real reason you want to treat prisoners well is that if you just shoot them or treat them terribly they are more willing to fight. Remember that Germans almost never surrendered to Russians.

It is strange to me that religion which is supposed to be about peace and brotherly love. Is actually more about killing, maiming, and persecuting those who don't share your religion. And given in the Bible, Koran, and Torah the willingness of God to take sides and condone these actions only leads me to believe that Man has created God in his own image and not the other way around.

[This message has been edited by Darstand (edited 10-06-99).]

[tss]

Lee wrote:

I know very little about the Finnish civil war, but I take it from your description that the "Reds" were communist revolutionaries trying to take over Finland from within. In which case, I would like

The situation was not that simple. At the time Finland had just gained her independence from Russia. As result the government structures were more or less in chaos. Both sides claimed that they were the legitimate government, Whites because they controlled what was left of the Senate which was officially the highest authority at the time, and Reds because they controlled Helsinki (the capital) and in their opinion the Senate had been disbanded. The White claim was stronger, and in private Red leaders speaked of "Revolution", but in their public statements they always claimed to be legitimate.

Also, I intentionally refrained from using term "communist" when describing Reds, because the term has means different things to different people, and in any case the modern meanings can't be straightforwardly applied to situation in 1918. The Red leaders were definitely revolutionaries and some of them were even bolshevists but many were not. Most of the Red soldiers were common workers and farm hands who had joined socialist party because it was their only way of having any influence in society. Many joined Red Guards because they were unemployed (there was a _severe_ recession in Finland at the time) and in danger of starving (there was also a food shortage), and the Red Guard provided food and money.

What made the war especially hairy was that both sides fought "different" wars. The Reds were rallied to pacify the country and to "protect the rights of common people against oppressors". The Whites, however, were originally rallied to disarm the 40000 Russian soldiers that were still in Finland. In reality, only about 2000 Russians took part in the war, the rest only wanted to go home as quickly as possible.

So, the Reds thought that they were fighting a "class war" against the bourgeoisie, while the Whites thought that they were fighting a "liberation war" against Russians and a few Finnish "criminals" that had joined them. As both sides were (in their opinion) clearly fighting for a "just cause" they had to be the "good guys", so the enemy were "bad guys", and as we all know from Hollywood movies, bad guys are evil and you are allowed to do anything to stop them.

Of course, the commanders on both sides knew what really was happening, but the common soldiers knew only what they were told.

crimes. In fact, if communists (or others of their vile ilk) should ever try to take over a country, they should all be killed by the government/citizens as quickly as possible. Communists should never,

You know, most communists have some reason why they become communists. The communist ideal is very desirable: equality, everybody gets what they need, and everybody works for common good as well as they can. The problem is, that the ideal works only if each and every person unselfishly agrees to it, and that doesn't happen in this world. The history of last 80 years shows what happens in reality.

The communism breeds out of poverty and hunger. If you want to get rid of communism the effective way is not to kill all communists, but to remove poverty. It worked in Finland. I find it quite ironic that in 40 years following the White victory, _all_ of the reforms that Reds demanded prior to war were made, but if the Reds had won, Finland would probably have been annexed to Soviet Union in late 20's or early 30's.

- Tommi

[Mike Oberly]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You know, most communists have some reason why they become communists. The communist

ideal is very desirable: equality, everybody gets what they need, and everybody works for

common good as well as they can. The problem is, that the ideal works only if each and every

person unselfishly agrees to it, and that doesn't happen in this world. The history of last 80 years

shows what happens in reality.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ernest Hemingway wrote an amusing bit in a letter to a friend once summing up his current political philosophy,along the lines of:

'Regardless of the political/economic system,top dog gets on top.Top dog then commences to kick bottom dog in the teeth'

It's always been and always will be about power,and power is always abused.

Mike

[SGTRock]

"It is strange to me that religion which is supposed to be about peace and brotherly love. Is actually more about killing, maiming, and persecuting those who don't share your religion. And given in the Bible, Koran, and Torah the willingness of God to take sides and condone these actions only leads me to believe that Man has created God in his own image and not the other way around."

On the contrary Religion doesn't start wars, man does, Usually for Greed not God.

When it comes to the Torah (The Old Testament of the Bible ) The Isrealites fought for a different reason, a mandate that there faith was to purify the land. It's a complicated thing to justify, but you'd need to do a Bible study to make sense of it. Most Juihads (Holy Wars) are fought with alterier political reasons and have very little to do with Religion at all, most of it is greed. Although I will say that writings and various other types of medias more over propogandas have led to riling people up. The Koran looks at anyone who is not a muslim as an infidal (Better off dead) Islam, is not by any means a " Tolerant " religion, so thus many could see that becomming a recipe for disaster. Again we come back to power as spoke about in TSS last post. Power is one root of a 'common evil' in the sense that one becomes so powerful that they begin to make themself there own diety. That is where the link between Religion and Mankind comes in. If one religion puts itself as being the only religion that all must worship or be smit from the earth that's where the question of morality lies, with it's teachings, and it's beleivers, not their history nor with their faith or God.

------------------

Sgt. Rock Says " War is Hell, but games are fun "

[sage]

Dear Sgt Rock --

Please study Islam before you comment on it. Your opinions will be more informed.

[Lee]

tss: Those socialists/communists/"workers" (socialist/commie type

revolutions always claim to champion the workers) never had a

legitimate claim to power. The reason I know is simple. There is

no such thing as a "legitimate" socialist/communist goverment.

They're all the same, take away the rights of your citizens, disarm

them and abuse them as long as you can cling to power. No goverment that does that is legitimate.

Secondly, the communist "ideal" is not in any way a good thing.

Taking away people's rights and private property and forcing

them to work for the "common good" is immoral on it's face. No

person has an obligation to use his hard work to support others

against his will. Yeah, everyone in commie countries are equal,

equally miserable. The only place people are equal is in prison.

And that's what commie countries are, giant prisons. Where they

force you to do what they want and be "equal" with everyone else.

There is no such thing as freedom in such a system. That's why

these socialist governments always take away the guns of the

citizens. So the citizens can't overthrow their corrupt philosophy

when they find out how rotten it is. But then it's too late,

the chains are already in place and it's very hard to get free of

them. The Nazi's did it and all communist governments do it.

None of them are worth a dime. So, I reiterate, if any socialists

(Nazi's, commies, whatever) try to take over a country they should

all be put to the sword as quickly as possible. Too bad the

tens of millions of people murdered by these left-wing

governments can't post on this board.

[Pixman]

Guys,

Stacey came through like a trooper. She'll be giving me marching orders again in a week or so. We very much appreciate all of the kindness and prayers you have expressed on this board the past few days. You are a first class bunch of guys and I am honored to know you.

I have enjoyed reading the philosophy/theology tonight, but you'll get none from me (I know that is breaking some hearts, lol) -- just sleep, ssleeep, ssssllleeeeeeeepzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

------------------

Fact is the enemy of truth. - Don Quixote

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lee, you are confusing the reality of Communisim with the theory. I agree that in theory there is much good in Communism. The problem is the only way to make it work is through obligation, which means the removal of choice, which in turn requires force to achieve. Force then turns into its own ugly beast and gains its own reason for being. That is why Communism on any mass scale will never work. But again, this is the reality, not the theory.

As far as being legit or not, that is up to the majority (hopefully) of the people to decide. If the majority wish to have something a certain way, then it is legit. There are many people that REALLY wanted what Communism and Socialism (birds of a feather back in the early part of the century) had to offer BECAUSE the current system of government they were rulled by was NOT supported by the majority of the people. Therefore, the existing govenerment in such cases has NO MORE CLAIM TO POWER than the Communists or other groups seeking to take over. Tzarist Russia certainly didn't have the people backing it in an overwhelming way.

When Russia disintegrated after the defeat of its armies in 1917 there was a power vacuum. As TSS stated, this was the case in Finnland. Therefore there was legitimate claims to power by MORE than ONE group. Happens all the time. So the two duked it out and the "better side" won. In Russia it was the Reds under Lennin, in Finnland it was the Whites. Both were legitimate heirs to the previous rullers. Just because you don't like the reality of Communism, you can not take that away from them. The majority in Russia WANTED a Communist government. Why? Because it promised to be better and more accountable than the previous system. Of course it turned out to be as bad, if not worse, but that doesn't mean it wasn't legit.

As a side note, less than about 30% of Americans elect their public officials. A "landslide" vote is when one candidate gets 51% or more of the total vote. This means that about 15% (+/-) actually voted for the person holding office. It makes you wonder how well the Democratic system works as a true voice of the people when 85% aren't directly represented.

Steve

[Lee]

"If the majority wish to have something a

certain way, then it

is legit." <-- Steve

Steve: This notion is incorrect. At one time in this country

most people thought it was fine to own and beat a black man if

they wanted to. That didn't make it right.

Right and wrong is

not subject to a popularity poll. If the majority of people

decide that sticking Jews in gas chambers is ok and elect Nazi's

to power to carry out that wish, does that make that government

and it's actions legitimate? I think not. If a government has

as it's core beliefs priciples that are immoral, then they

are nothing more than a band of criminals, whether or not the

masses were foolish enough to put them there in the first place.

All that does is speak ill of the morality and wisdom of the

masses, not strengthen the legitimacy of the government. It's

not right to violate the rights of an individual just because

the majority says it's ok to abuse them.

[Moon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If the majority of people

decide that sticking Jews in gas chambers is ok and elect Nazi's

to power to carry out that wish, does that make that government

and it's actions legitimate?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This might be a simple question from the moral point of view, but legally there are many ?s. Who should sit judge over such a nation and who should prosecute? Can another nation intervene although the government has been elected fairly? And so on...

Many of these questions are relevant for some of the conflicts on the Balkan, too. But - to make that clear - these are legal questions, and moral and law have somewhat different points of view here.

[guachi]

Steve,

Having studied the Communist Manifesto for an economics class, I agree with Lee. There is nothing good even in the theory of Communism.

Its first tenet is the abolition of private property.

"In this sense,the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property"

- Communist Manifesto

A government that has no problem taking your private property by force of law or arms will have little problem taking your most precious private property, your life and freedom.

I grabbed the quote from a 20 sec. search on yahoo under Communist Manifesto. It's the same link (in Australia) that my teacher used for my econ class several years ago. It's amazing how morally bankrupt and how much a product of its time the Manifesto is.

You could do worse during your time waitng for CM than reading the Communist Manifesto.

Jason

[Los]

BTW I don't know if this has been mentioned but there was a good book that came out a few years back (Sorry can't remember the name!) that details hundreds of thousands of German POW deaths that occured in "Western ALlied" POW camps in 1945-48 primarily due to disease, exposure ad malnutrition. These were sort of skirted over by the allies after the war. Of course then there were the Russian POW camps. It may not ahve been due to any deliberate policy on the US/UK/French but due to incompetence and mismanageent. Wich I could remember the name of the book. I'll have to peruse Barbes and Noble.

Los