The Logic Off Topic list

Thoughts from the mind of marc lindahl, 9/24/01:

>  > From: Adrian Gill <adrian@zarathustra.u-net.com>
>>
>>  There are many euphemisms for war - 'Self-Defense', 'protecting one's
>>  interests', and, by extension, those of one's client states, and the
>>  methods can be political, economic, military. Covert or otherwise.
>
>... and I can see that your definition is, "anything the US has even remote
>involvment in, regarless of context, where lives were lost; tally them up as
>the fault of the US."

I think you completely miss the point.  Someone wrote that the US has 
only killed 'recently' in war-acts.  The problem is one of the old 
chicken & egg.  A countries is in tumoil (or in war with another 
country).  The US feels its interests are being threatened, and steps 
in to secure... whatever, oil supply, other interests.  At the onset, 
it was _not_ (NOT) their war, but they _choose_ to intervene. 
Obviously, you now suddenly can say that anything the US does is a 
war-act (ignoring the simple fact that they mingled in a war not 
their own, out of their own free will).  And so all of a sudden all 
the killing is justified, since it's just "war acts"???

Reasoning this way, you can always justify any killing: first call 
the entire situation 'war', and then defend each act as an 
'unavoidable war-act'.  How's that for logic...


cheers,
HJ, amazed at what his one, rather innocent posting has brought about...
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html