RE: Landmines RE: US Foreign Policy Re: *DO* we share a civilization?

[Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLBD/BGM/SVM/SGM]

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Verzonden: Thursday, August 16, 2001 8:42 AM
> Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Onderwerp: Re: Landmines RE: US Foreign Policy Re: *DO* we share a
> civilization?

> It is not unreasonable to me to suggest that a person who is an
> anti-mine activist, whose paper is put up on the web by an anti-mine
> organization, might, consciously or unconsciously, have slanted his
> case in the Korean peninsula against land mines.

Yet it is unthinkable that someone who puts a paper on the web in which he
defends the use of landmines, is not (consciously or unconsciously) biased?


> >I doubt there are any unbiased sources in this case. Can you cite a
> >few unbiased sources? (And no, the Pentagon is NOT an unbiased source
> >-- in case you wanted to cite that one.)
> 
> First, why doesn't the Pentagon count as an unbiased source?

The Pentagon is one of the parties involved in this matter. They will only
make statements that defend their policies, which means they cannot be
anything else but biased. They are not a neutral source.


> >BTW, I'm still waiting for you to cite a few sources that support the
> >pro-landmine views of the US.
> 
> The nice thing about this argument, from my perspective, is that I
> don't have to do that.

Thank you. Your statement is sufficient proof for me that your beliefs are
not based on facts -- otherwise you would have had no problem providing
sources that contradict anti-landmine sources.

(Isn't this wonderful? When I make a statement, I'm supposed to back it up
by providing sources, but when Gautam disagrees with me, he doesn't have to
back up *his* claim by providing sources.)


> Your use of terms like "pro-landmine" in describing the United States

The term "pro-landmine" was used in the meaning of "as opposed to
anti-landmine". I thought that was obvious, actually. How else would you
describe it? As "not anti-landmine", or "not-opposed to landmines" or
something like that?


> >>I'm saying that this is a situation in which subjective judgments
> >>are called for - are APMs necessary for the succesful allied defense
> >>of South Korea against North Korea - and an activist is obviously
> >>likely to make those judgments in a way that more neutral observers
> >>might not.
> 
> >And who would those "neutral observers" be?
> 
> Us, presumably.  Well, I certainly think I am.  I have no dog in this
> fight.  My life is not changed one way or the other if we use landmines
> in Korea or not

By that definition, I qualify as a "neutral observer" too. Yet you don't
accept me as one, and the only reason I can find for that is that I don't
share your (or the Pentagon's) views.


> >You know, people (including mr. Rossiter) are quite capable of
> >acquiring knowledge *without* getting a degree in the subject. For 
> >example, I know my around computers and computer networks (that's what 
> >my boss pays me for!), but I don't have a Masters Degree in Computer 
> >Science. Does my not having a CS degree make me incapable of, say, 
> >analyzing and solving network problems?
> 
> I agree.  But I did not cite an educational degree as the sole way of
> gaining these credentials.  Military experience - particularly serving
> at a high rank in someone's military - would be an experiential way of
> gaining this knowledge, perfectly equivalent, it seems to me, to your 
> knowledge of computers.  In fact, a person with military experience
> would have _more_ credibility in my (and I think in most people's)
> minds than someone with purely academic knowledge.

Yet, when I showed that people with military experience (the former
commander of the US forces in South Korea, and several retired military
leaders) shared my views, it was dismissed with "they're only part of a
small minority". Apparently, only officers that are part of a vast majority
qualify as "credible sources".


> Two more points.  The first is that it seems to me that in order to
> prove your case, you must make some argument as to _why_ you think it
> is that the United States military is holding on to mines with such
> force, if they are of as limited utility as you seem to believe.

I have already done that, but I'll repeat it. The US military is holding on
to their mines because of a wrongful belief that they are actually useful,
even though several sources show that more effective weapons are available,
and landmines are more likely to be a hazard than a help to US and South
Korean forces.


> Some deference is also, it seems to me, owed to the judgments of the
> men and women who are risking their lives in defence of South Korea,
> and who also have the highest degree of expertise necessary to judge
> whether the use of land mines would be necessary in the case of war.

Yet when these experts say that landmines aren't necessary, they are
dismissed as "not credible" because they are "part of a small minority".


> Or that you have "debunked" the beliefs of the American military by
> citing the writings of an anti-mine activist who lacks any evidence of
> credentials that would rate his judgment equal or superior to that of
> his judgment equal or superior to that of people in the American and
> South Korean militaries.

First, I believe that mr. Rossiter's credentials are such that his judgment
can be considered fairly equal to that of people in the armed forces.
Second, I have also cited sources other than mr. Rossiter that show why
landmines should not be used in South Korea.


Jeroen

_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website:                    http://go.to/brin-l