HP3000-L Archives

February 2003, Week 2

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Christian Lheureux <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:25:55 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (59 lines)
Wayne wrote :

> I am guessing that since Europe has far more recent
> experience with war and
> it's effects on their people and their countries that this is
> causing them to
> lean far more towards peace than people in the US.

Wayne, you are more than right.

Factor in a good measure of terrorism (some from Palestine, some home-grown)
in the 70s and 80s, and you begin to understand why people in Europe are a
bit nervous at the idea of going to war. Name it, you have it. Italy ? Red
Brigades. Germany ? Baader-Meinhoff. France ? Action Directe. All local
terrorist groups. Palestine ? Black September. Which, and this adds to our
nervousness, mostly (but not only) operated in what is now the European
Union, leaving behinfd it a trail of hijackings, attacks, bombings, etc.

During that period, the US was mostly de facto immune to such deeds. Trouble
came later, WTC'93, Oklahoma ... 95 ? Atlanta'96,
WTC/Pentagon/Pennsylvania'01, and attacks against "softer" targets, like US
interests abroad (Kenya/Tanzania ... 98 ?), Cole/Yemen'00. Add Bali'02, for
which a suspected terrorist (I believe he has since been convicted) clamied
he wanted to kill as many Americans as possible.

> Excepting 9/11, the last time military activity occured
> inside the 48 states
> was the Civil War.

Well, due to the fact that these territories were not yet States, most
Indian wars probably do not qualify. But even if they did, they would extend
your point by about a decade or so. No big deal.

> Nobody in the US has direct experience
> with the effects
> of war on this country any more except some small number of
> people who served
> overseas in places like Vietnam.

Well, "small number" ? are you sure ? I would bet that about a million
soldiers serv in Vietnam which had, at most, about 500,000 US soldiers on
its soil. That's about 2.5% of the then-current population of the US. Is
that still a small number ?

> Where of course, the death
> and destruction
> was mostly directed at the locals.

This is true. The US soldiers who served in Vietnam mostly paid the price of
war with their bodies and souls. The Vietnamese paid with their bodies and
souls and earthly possessions.

> Wayne

Christian

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

ATOM RSS1 RSS2