If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote in message
Not to wave paper, but as someone with a degree in International Relations (education coupled with operational experience lends a modicum of credibility), I've never heard of "regularizing" nukes. Hey, we have something else in common: a degree in International Relations! Actually, mine is in International Affairs, which I got at the Zoo in 74. I chose it because it sounded like it was a degree in chasing women all over the world - dead solid perfect for a future fighter-gator! As far as nukes, isn't it funny how everybody thinks the military is just itching to use nukes? I know I sure as hell wasn't! Took all the fun out of dropping bombs. Not manly at all. LGBs and GBU-15s are the only way to go. Not that some countries wouldn't be improved by a B-61 or three... Kirk F-4 WSO (ret) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote:
The acts of non-violent protest are, indeed, well thought through. The philosophy of non-violence that leads to these acts is not. One would have to ignore all of history to live comfortably in the belief that pacifism, unilateral disarmament, etc is going to lead to peace. It only leads to Auschwitz. Get on the train and work will make you free... No. It is simply untrue to state that the philosophy of non-violence only leads to Auschwitz. I KNOW you (meaning you, Ed, not necessarily everyone who reads this) know of very famous examples of non-violent protest leading to very positive societal change, and I won't insult either of us by listing various instances. Of course the military policies of our government has made us safer in many ways, and of course these nuns are kooky, but if you don't see that you're ignoring some logical steps in your arguments, I have to think that there's more motivating your position than you've admitted. Not to wave paper, [Ed then waves his papers], I've never heard of "regularizing" nukes. . . . . Your basic statement as a premise for further discussion is flawed. This is my fault, as I didn't explain that I meant regularizing within the U.S. military/political structures only. That is, more hawkish (not a term I like, really) leaders have repeatedly advocated building and using nukes in a wider range of applications. These plans, when they become public, lead to silly protests by nuns and such, and also a fairly strong backlash from the general populace. I guess I was trying to point out that without the silly protests, the public's discomfort might be easier to spin or simply ignore. Apathy is a two-edged sword. It can signify ignorance, but it can also indicate substantial satisfaction with existing policy. Obviously you disagree, but I think this makes my point rather well. Most people are apathetic about virtually all military decisions. When some groups--obviously the most passionate and thus quite outside the mainstream--start protesting actions of the U.S. military, it brings out feelings in common people that hadn't existed before, simply because they hadn't considered the issue. That these nuns are controversial is a sign to me that people WERE substantially satisfied, but when they thought about the issue further, they realized that they have mixed feelings about the issue. I would guess that causing people to discuss this issue in the way we are now would be considered a success by these nuns. I'm appalled that society still overlooks the damage caused by such acute ignorance as that of the nuns. Overlooks how? They were caught and arrested. Most people heard the story at some point. There was no big backlash against punishing them. What is appalling you here? To apologize for their behavior in cutting fences, hammering on weapons, defacing government property, obstructing military members in the conduct of their duties, etc, on the grounds that they are legitimate protesters and not law-breakers is ludicrous. Who's apologizing? They did what they did because they knew it was wrong. They made a judgement which you obviously disagree with, but again I think you're missing some of your own motivation. Who claimed they weren't law-breakers? I don't understand why you would say that. They ARE legitimate protesters (as we all are), even if this protest was not legitimate legally. We've got a First Amendment right in this country to protest policy, but it involves discussion, presentation of alternatives, concensus building, compromise and political process. No, it doesn't. Those things are usually included in debates by default, but First Amendment protections exist even with activities that are solo and completely one-sided. I don't have to have this discussion with you for my opinions to be protected; I decided to start typing my feelings this time, but many times I don't. What I say, and what I believe, are protected either way. It doesn't support law-breaking, regardless of the morality of your cause. I agree that the Constitution doesn't protect illegal actions, but that doesn't mean that all illegal actions are consequently morally wrong. I'm not arguing that they should have Constitutional protection for their actions. I'm arguing that their illegal actions are (at least in their eyes) the better moral choice than doing nothing. They should have been maxed. I agree. Glenn |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote:
But there is no "law on the books" that would authorize citizens to act illegally--that would be anarchy. And, it certainly wouldn't allow for each citizen independently to make the judgement of what is "immoral". Every citizen does make morality judgements, and they don't need a law to "allow" it. I do agree with you point about legalizing illegality. With regard to the issue in question, the pacifist nuns were certainly not acting against an abusive or oppressive government They clearly were, though they weren't the ones being abused or oppressed. I find them acting for those without voices to be the main point in their favor. , nor were they acting as representatives of a majority of the population which had elected their representatives and given them authority for the execution of the national defense against a serious threat. Not all action has to be representing others. Certainly not all action needs to represent a majority of a population. C'mon now Ed, you think ALL minority positions lack legitimacy? What about historical change in opinions? They happen constantly; many things now commonly accepted started out as odd ideas in one person or small group. Glenn |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Glenn P." wrote:
Ed Rasimus wrote: But there is no "law on the books" that would authorize citizens to act illegally--that would be anarchy. And, it certainly wouldn't allow for each citizen independently to make the judgement of what is "immoral". Every citizen does make morality judgements, and they don't need a law to "allow" it. I do agree with you point about legalizing illegality. I'm glad you see the conflict. Authorizing illegal behavior whenever someone sees a moral conflict (in their individual view) would wreak havoc. It's very much the situation in which we have the pro-lifer assassinating the abortion doctor. With regard to the issue in question, the pacifist nuns were certainly not acting against an abusive or oppressive government They clearly were, though they weren't the ones being abused or oppressed. I find them acting for those without voices to be the main point in their favor. Who are "those without voices"? Who authorized the sisters to act on behalf of someone else? I don't think you've got a very compelling argument with that. , nor were they acting as representatives of a majority of the population which had elected their representatives and given them authority for the execution of the national defense against a serious threat. Not all action has to be representing others. Certainly not all action needs to represent a majority of a population. C'mon now Ed, you think ALL minority positions lack legitimacy? What about historical change in opinions? They happen constantly; many things now commonly accepted started out as odd ideas in one person or small group. Whoa, you've made a giant leap here. We aren't talking about the legitimacy of a minority position, we are talking about violation of the law, possibly even reckless endangerment (see BUFDRVR's earlier post about the fool pounding on the drain valve of a B-52 external fuel tank.) As I initially stated, the right to express minority opinion, influence public policy and to attempt to convince other's of your correctness is implicit in the First Amendment. Speak your piece, but don't cut fences to security installations and pound on nuclear weapons with your moral indignation. Policy gets made in this country through a process. Sometimes civil disobedience has been an effective tool--one need only look at the Freedom Marches and sit-ins of the civil rights movement to see the evidence. But, when Blacks sat in at lunch counters, they didn't break the windows to get in, spill blood on the counter and attempt to break the dishes. There's a difference in the methodology. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (ret) ***"When Thunder Rolled: *** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam" *** from Smithsonian Books ISBN: 1588341038 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote
Isn't there a law on the books that permits a citizen to act in opposition to his government if said government is engaging in immoral activity as the Nazi's did? Yes. The law is called a rifle. Oswald used that law to change the government in 1963. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Stephen Harding" wrote Although it's a risky premise, I wonder if possession of nuclear weapons (by a state as opposed to private whackos) forces a degree of care in decision making that might not otherwise be there? Would the world be a more peaceful place if *everyone* had nukes??? Don't think so. There's been at least a few nutters, given the chance, who might have. Quadaffi, maybe...Idi Amin, among others. Plus there is the question of control, and government stabiliy. With insufficient controls....a private whacko *may* get control of a nuke. Or a hostile takeover of an unpopular leader. Then who is in control? For a time...no one. Would the Red Army Faction have used a nuke? Probably. Those fools with the gas in the subway in Japan? Probably. Arafat in the early days? Maybe. Given enough of them in various hands, and a few *will* leak out to those who would use them. On purpose or by accident. Pete |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
I want to point out that the USAF, as well as the other services, does
not take anything about nuclear weapons lightly. Having sat alert with the blasted things and later been responsible for a base full of them I can assure you that everybody with any responsibility for them is deadly serious (in every sense of the word) in matters concerning their security. When an intrusion alert is sounded the responding force has no idea as to whether the cause is a fox, some Taliban types after a nuke or in this case three irresponsible women with not the foggiest idea what they were actually getting into. You-all can discuss as to whether we need nukes, they were right or wrong, or whatever, but please don't screw around with nuke security - it's a losing game. The security forces ARE authorized to shoot, as was I, while on alert. Walt BJ |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Glenn P."
SNIP: No. It is simply untrue to state that the philosophy of non-violence only leads to Auschwitz. SNIP: What the philosophy of non-violence leads to is someone else defending the non-violent against the aggressor. I call this an abdication of personal responsibility. Walt BJ |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Walt BJ" wrote
I want to point out that the USAF, as well as the other services, does not take anything about nuclear weapons lightly. Having sat alert with the blasted things and later been responsible for a base full of them I can assure you that everybody with any responsibility for them is deadly serious (in every sense of the word) in matters concerning their security. When an intrusion alert is sounded the responding force has no idea as to whether the cause is a fox, some Taliban types after a nuke or in this case three irresponsible women with not the foggiest idea what they were actually getting into. You-all can discuss as to whether we need nukes, they were right or wrong, or whatever, but please don't screw around with nuke security - it's a losing game. The security forces ARE authorized to shoot, as was I, while on alert. I happened to drive a bread-box van down the taxi-way one day at Ramstein, when I came up to a taxi-way and decided to take a short cut. After driving through the line of really cool looking F-4's I got to the gate-house, and the AP asked me if I had driven in from the flight-line. Yea, I decided to take a short cut! He asked me to step out of the van and put my hands on the hood and spread my legs as far as I could. He then went back in the gate-house and waited about 2 minutes, when a whole ****ing squadron of base security types with guns bigger than I'd ever seen before surrounded me, and had me take off my flight suit as they began to inventory my possessions into plastic bags, and when complete took me to a steel holding cell where my commander came and got me out! I asked him what the *hell* that was about, and it wasn't until then that I realized they were the nuclear alert F-4's! ****, what a bird brain... |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Ed Rasimus
wrote: I'm glad you see the conflict. Authorizing illegal behavior whenever someone sees a moral conflict (in their individual view) would wreak havoc. It's very much the situation in which we have the pro-lifer assassinating the abortion doctor. The State of Alaska several years back had a new law go on the books that it was okay for a person to resist an unlawful arrest. I was a cop at the time..did 20 years. Almost without fail each person I arrested felt I was making an "unlawful arrest". My uniform cleaning bills went up quite a bit. G The law didn't last long. -- Dale L. Falk There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing around with airplanes. http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Please, help me found pilot Nikolaj Timofeev | Dancer | Aerobatics | 0 | September 7th 04 03:31 AM |
Fwd: [BD4] Source of HIGH CHTs on O-320 and O-360 FOUND! | Bruce A. Frank | Home Built | 1 | July 4th 04 07:28 PM |
FS: Air Adventure Gifts in Colorado | David Campbell | Aviation Marketplace | 3 | December 25th 03 09:08 PM |
OT Quote found on Web | Pat Carpenter | Military Aviation | 20 | July 25th 03 03:47 PM |
Air Force wife, kids found dead | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 19th 03 04:36 AM |