Re: Evolutionary ethics (Re: What does an evolutionist actually believe?)


"Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, BLT, DOA" <someonelse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb
im Newsbeitrag news:FTMkf.596738$x96.388456@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Knoerr_NoSpam_@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dmtfhb$j1k$00$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > "Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, BLT, DOA" <someonelse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > schrieb
> > im Newsbeitrag news:SPWif.585495$_o.439609@xxxxxxxxxxxx

> > I guess that the decisions to wage war were mainly made by generals and
> > military staff with focus on the MILITARY aspects, not by
anthropologists
> > who would have drawn social and cultural issues into consideration.

> Sylvia, as one who has been there, please let me assure you that very few
of
> the higher ranking American officers WANT to go to war. Most of our senior
> ranking officers had experiences in Vietnam (and other places) that
drilled
> into them quite deeply that war is a thing to be abhorred and avoided if
at
> all possible; Colin Powell being but a single example.

Ah, Colin Powell is on the right track IMHO - I was really sorry when he
left the crew.

This decision was
> made by politicians who had no experience of the horrors of modern warfare
> and who consider war as Clausewitz did-- merely an extension of the
> political process. It is of no small import that it was The War College
> faculty who argued *against* the campaign in Iraq.

That's plausible. I guess those who promote war are mainly those who BENEFIT
from it in any way, and who didn't personally experience it yet.

> > Yes, it seems to be typical for dictators to drag their country down
when
> > they founder. Another reason why nations should better not have them!
> > What I can't really understand is that no WMD were found in Iraq in
spite
> > of lots of efforts and best equipment standards on the American side. If
there
> > were WMD, why didn't Saddam *USE* them when things went rough for him? I
> > don't believe he would have had much qualms to deploy them.

> As of this date, there has been some evidence uncovered that tends to
> support the contention of weapons development. There was a significant
trail
> detected along the corridor northeast towards Syria as well as the massive
> chemical "spill" into the Euphrates (that killed off thousands of tons of
> birds and fish). Both incidents received only passing mention in the back
> pages of most American (and European) newspapers. American politicians
lost
> a big chance when they did not push this information real hard. The reason
> that did not happen was our hopes for a rapprochement with the Syrian
> government.
> Secondarily, we know quite well that several companies in Italy, Germany,
> and France were paid billions of dollars to design and build some rather
> significant underground bunker systems throughout Iraq. Some of those
> bunkers were large enough to hide flights of fighter/intercepter aircraft.
> We *did* find one of those. However, none of the corporations has been
> willing to cooperate either with their home governments, the UN, or the US
> in supplying details which would locate those facilities. If we knew where
> those facilities were, it is likely that we might find some substantial
and
> substantive evidence. Iraq is not a small country, and the desert provides
> ample room to hide all manner of evils.
> It is my understanding (admittedly fourth hand) that Saddam & Sons *were*
> going to use the weapons they had but that the American advance was so
fast
> and so overwhelming that they did not have the time to coordinate weapons
> deployment.

Hm, since war didn't exactly come as a surprise (given all the ultimatums
preceding it), it's hard to believe that Saddam was unprepared.

All that, however, is rather moot, since we are all aware that
> Saddam & Sons had used chemical weapons repeatedly against his neighboring
> countries as well as his own people (and I say "his own people" in the
> loosest possible manner).

I thought the facilities to produce chemical weapones had largely been
destroyed in Gulf War I.

> > Well, big sized herbivores don't need much camouflage, because their
mere
> > size keeps predators away. But our ancestors were tiny (compared with an
> > average US citizen, that is), so this can't be what helped our ancestors
> > to survive in the savannah. If we apply Occam's razor, the most likely
> > alternative is that they didn't dwell in the savannah in the first
place.
> > Of course, the image of a hominid within a savannah surrounding was the
> > paradigma of the past 100 years, so even reasonable
anthropo-paleologists
> > are reluctant to give it up. But this is not the first time that it
takes
> > dozens of years for a new idea to root.

> Usually it takes hundreds of years for a new idea to take root. Modern
> American dissonance over evolution is small potatoes compared to the
tumult
> over the concept of zero, the heliocentric system, and Newton's gravity
> (Action at a distance? Impossible!).

Ah, I had forgotten about thes quarrels. Thanks for reminding me! But to be
honest, all these things are hard to swallow when they come as something
new, because they revolute the model of the world.

> Truth will win out, however, if we survive long enough.

Even if we don't...:-))

> >> Thanks, but I can still manage to read a bit of German. I'm rusty, but
> >> still useable.

> > Cool! :-)

> Oh c'mon, I have to read Husserl and Heidegger on a regular basis.

In German?? Wow, that's hard stuff. You must be pretty fluent then.

> Actual
> conversation, however, would he a horror show of epic proportions!

LOL, I wish I could be a witness. :-)
You probably exaggerate.

> > At least the outcome is evidence for the fact that our ancestors turned
to
> > stand up on the rear legs. :-)

> At some point they did. Establishing when that point was is another
question
> and the mechanism of and for that standing is the most intriguing of all.

Alas, it seems that Prof. Niemitz remained vague about WHEN and WHERE it
happened. But he is quite detailled about the mechanism.

> > Indeed, it must have happened quickly, and it must have happened to a
> > relative small isolated group of hominids (or animals? I think this
could
> > also have been the turning point for when we started to be human.)

> Hmmmm. That is the quandary... did this happen BEFORE the turn to
hominidae
> or AFTER?

It could be the very same moment in time.

> On these two questions hang all the laws and the prophets. (to paraphrase
> some of my favorite liturgy)

Maybe not ALL of the laws and the prophets, but surely quite a lot. :-)


.

Relevant Pages

  • Interesante articulo de Fuku
    ... As we approach the third anniversary of the onset of the Iraq war, ... By invading Iraq, the Bush ... with plenty of American targets to shoot at. ... United States still has a chance of creating a Shiite-dominated ...
    (soc.culture.argentina)
  • Who are we to believe: Troops at every level who are in the midst of the fight, or, a lying, draft&
    ... "War is a dreadful thing, and unjust war is a crime against humanity. ... This is the latest word -- the word on Iraq from the troops in the ... A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: War on Terror deaths Vs other War
    ... getting more sophisticated weapons every day. ... An Hour With Noam Chomsky on Iraq, War Profiteers & The Media ... He speaks against the power investors have over ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)
  • Re: The murder of innocents. Not quite what you hear from liberals and democrats.
    ... weapons inspectors. ... Iraq is naive and incorrect. ... to adopt the same tactics as the AQ, the war would end in a week. ... this had nothing to do with American public opinion. ...
    (soc.culture.iraq)
  • Re: Washingtons war
    ... Their goal was to keep Iraq oil production low ... American people that you can call Iraq a problem or a failure. ... The human and material cost of America's occupation of Iraq is reaching ... decolonization after World War II. ...
    (soc.retirement)
Loading