Mike Toliver

A few days ago, I asked Andy to take me off the forum. My reasons are very well stated by Susan (thanks!). I especially find the obsession with conspiracies troubling, primarily because much of what I've seen on those threads is tightly-held opinion, little tolerance for alternative points of view, and a lack of critical thought. Such things are horrible examples for educators and students. I initially joined because John asked me to, based on my presence on his Spartacus site as a Vietnam veteran who was willing to be interviewed by students. I envisioned this site as an expanded version of that, with people sharing resources on various topics and exchanging ideas. While that has happened, much of it has been buried by CT. If it was my site, I'd find a way to spin off all the CT stuff and leave the rest of the site for the rest of us. And I agree with Susan; the site is overly complex (even w/o CT). I do appreciate the amount of work that's gone into this, but until the site becomes more about education, I'll say "so long".

Well we could get into a real broohah about movies, but I agree with Derek: LOTR (both the books and the films) was all about how UN-clear things get when we're trying to do "good". While one can ultimately conclude that Hobbits and Elves and Men and Dwarves are "good" and Orcs and Uru-kia and Ring-wraiths are "bad", the journey is filled with flawed beings of all kinds - and in Gollum we see what Frodo could have become if not for "accident". It seems entirely appropriate in this day and age and in a discussion of war crimes to note just how flawed we ALL are - and the more kids who watch LOTR and get that lesson in some fashion, the better.

You folks probably already know this, but I'm pretty sure this "report" is a satire aimed at the Kansas State Board's attempt to restrict the teaching of evolution because "it's only a theory".

Just checked out Quick Time Pro - it imports a large variety of formats, including some Windows formats, but the format you listed isn't one of them. So, I don't think this is an option for you.

For what it's worth, I use Quick Time for much of my video work. Quick Time Pro - which does cost about $30 USD - will convert one format into another, though I don't know if it will do what your friend wants. Quick Time (*.mov) has been a movie standard for some time; many of the educational videos I use in my classes are in that format. Graham's advice is great - I'm going to check out those sites myself because I've run into a problem with *.wma files on my web site - they won't play even on Windows machines without a great deal of trouble.

I am sympathetic to Tim's point of view. I joined the Marines to fight in Vietnam because I believed that we were fighting for their freedom. When Ronald Reagan referred to the war in Vietnam as a "noble cause" he was exactly right - as far as those of us who fought in it were willing to sacrifice our lives for the freedom of people we had never even heard of before. However, the South Vietnamese did not regard us a liberators, but as invaders. So, in reality we were not fighting for their freedom but for our own self-interest - at least as it was perceived then. And so, we lost. Iraq is not the same as Vietnam, but one disturbing similarity is the insurgency. It forces allied troops to be suspicous of every single Iraqi, which in turn leads to the killing or injuring of innocent civilians, which in turn leads to an increase in insurgency, which in turn leads to greater suspicion.... "My name is Jon Johnson, I live in Wisconsin...." According to my understanding of "Just War", neither Iraq nor Vietnam qualify as Just Wars. The point may be irrelevant, because we are, in fact, at war and at that point all bets are off. Unlike John, I hope the situation in Iraq does turn out well, despite the boost it may give to clowns like Bush and Rove.

Hi Ryan - I probably sounded somewhat crispy - I apologize. But I really did get this same message in 2003 and I thought I was done with it then. Jane Fonda made some horrendous mistakes, but I don't think she's the devil incarnate. She's an actress who didn't think too clearly or deeply about what the hell she was doing. Has she been influential? I guess so, since people still talk about her. Best to you,

I received this thing over a year ago. First, is it true? Or is it one of those "urban legends" that seems to reverberate around the web? By "it" I mean is Jane Fonda about to be "honored" as one of the 100 most influential women of the 20th century? If so, who is doing the honoring? Why should we care - if the honoring group is of no consequence to our lives? It seems more likely that this is simply another internet rumor (like the one accusing Target, Inc. of being insensitive to veterans) promulgated by people who don't like Jane Fonda very much and want to keep raking over old wounds. It's done. Forget it and move on.

I presume that the point of this debate is to serve as an educational resource. Yet most of what has been presented so far is merely opinion. Why should that be "educational" or useful to students or teachers interested in this topic? It seems to me that this thread would be more useful for its intended purpose if we had some sort of "official" declaration of what constitutes war crime. I happened across the following book in a used book store a couple of years ago. It is Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy, by Telford Taylor. Taylor was US Chief Counsel at Nuremberg. I think students and teachers interested in war crimes in general, and My Lai in particular, would find this a very useful resource. Here are the contents: Introduction; War Crimes; Superior Orders and Reprisals; Just and Unjust Wars; Nuremberg; Aggressive War, Vietnam and the Courts; War Crimes: Son My; Crime and Punishment; War and Peace. The concluding sentence of the book is "Somehow we failed ourselves to learn the lessons we undertook to teach at Nuremberg, and that failure is today's American tragedy." It is a book useful beyond its stated scope because Taylor traces the development of "rules of war" through history up to 1969 (the book was published in 1970). Perhaps some of you could post other resources related to war crimes - or maybe extract from the Geneva Convention some concept of what constitutes a war crime. That would certainly fulfill the purpose of the forum.

It's not just "the rest of the world" who is upset at the performance of the clowns in Washington. There are many US citizens who aren't happy with Bush and his cronies. He was re-elected because US citizens were upset at the war crime perpetrated on them by Al quida (9/11 was a war crime, was it not?) and because the democrats don't have any vision. I'm certain that the Swedish Army is very professional. They also haven't fought a war in some time - which is a good thing, of course. But when you're at the tip of the lance, life (and death) is also quite complicated. Candide would not change the neo-cons one whit. I'll bet many of them have read it. They would simply re-interpret it to make it fit their vision of the world, or ignore it as irrelevant to the current situation. What might change them is if they have everything their way, and things fall apart. Unfortunately, they'll take the rest of us with them if this happens. If things DON"T fall apart, they will be encouraged in their world view and we're in for even more interesting times. In another thread, I believe we discussed whether or not there are rules of war. Of course there are - the Geneva Convention being the most prominent example. But in reality, the average grunt is not operating under any other rule than survival. That's the nature of war.

This may sound blunt, but the notion that war has a brutalising effect on soldiers is hardly news. It may be news to many of you that most soldiers don't become brutes. And that may be the most frightening fact of all - we all are capable of committing terrible deeds under particular circumstances. In the course of my 13-month tour in 'Nam, I witnessed TWO events that might be considered war crimes. One was abuse of a suspected Viet Cong prisoner (beating) and the other was the shooting of an elderly Vietnamese who made the mistake of walking past our compound 5 minutes after curfew (he didn't have a watch). Considering the fact that our lives depending on being suspicious of EVERY Vietnamese we had contact with, I'd say that's a pretty remarkable record. I would also point out that the perpetrators of My Lai and ABu Ghraib were brought to trial by the US WHILE THE WAR WAS GOING ON. Admittedly, the perps of My Lai got off relatively unpunished (we'll see about the prisoner abuse in Iraq), but it is still remarkable that these people were held accountable under those circumstances. Even the Vietnamese were impressed by that. The problem, as a number of you have pointed out, is war itself. If there is a war, there WILL be war crimes. The solution is thus obvious - no war, no war crime. The solution is also unattainable. We will always have war, "just" or not. I also doubt that international law will have much of an effect - though it could serve to bring transgressors to "justice". International law will also have little effect because there is no strong body able to enforce it. IF that were to happen - an international court with real enforcement powers - THEN perhaps the incidence of war crimes will be reduced (but not eliminated). By the way, the notion that "victors get to decide what constitutes a war crime" took a hit in Vietnam. The Vietnamese were victorious over the US, yet were unable to impose any sort of sanction on the US - nor was the rest of the world.

Ray - Well, I'd rather be getting older than the alternative. I joined the marines in 1967 - December. David - I've read Hackworth's book About Face, and while I agree with much of what he says, I didn't find it terribly ground-breaking. I should read it again. I'm sorry he's gone... Justin makes good sense. I simply can't understand how one could argue that our presence in Vietnam "saved" Malaysia and the Philippines. We were present and we LOST. Wouldn't that encourage communist insurgencies rather than discourage them?

Hi Ray - I think LBJ did want to focus on the Great Society, but he knew that the only way he'd get the votes to pass it was to "stand up to those commies in Vietnam". So it's not that he viewed Vietnam as "helping" the Great Society in any way, just a political deal he had to cut to get his way. Johnson, as you know, was a big deal maker. He'd give the cold warriors their "line in the sand" as long as they gave him the Great Society. Then he tried to make deals with the North Vietnamese - but they weren't interested in deals. So, my interpretation is not very different from yours - I just put the decision to fight in 'Nam first because I believe LBJ did that - just to lay the ground-work for his Great Society "deal". Now you're making me feel old! You were born during the war? Well, the war went on a long time, so maybe you were born in the early years....

It is interesting that those of us who were in 'Nam often have very different opinions. It is not surprising, however. I spent my time up in I Corps, where the vast majority of Vietnamese were opposed to US involvement. Daniel spent much of his time in close contact with Vietnamese who supported US involvement. I would guess that, taken as a whole, 70 - 90 % of the South Vietnamese viewed the US as invaders, not liberators. If my guess is close to correct, there was no way we could win the war, no matter what our political will. The only thing I can add to the discussion is that there was also an important domestic element driving our policies. LBJ wanted his "Great Society", and in order to get it he had to appear hard on communism. He knew that the war was unwinnable, but chose to go ahead because he thought the domestic outcome would justify the losses. You decide if he was right....

Tim - It is perhaps Monday morning quarterbacking, but much of historical analysis could be so characterized. The war was, in fact, a waste because we did, in fact, lose. I would argue that the war was unwinnable. The South Vietnamese had no interest in what the US was trying to do. The reactions I got from villagers whenever we patrolled through a ville were either "Please don't shoot me, Mr. marine!" or "If I had a gun, you'd be dead meat." And, often enough, we were... We were regarded as invaders, not the North Vietnamese. I do not see how one can argue that our efforts in Vietnam somehow "slowed" communist expansion. Logically, they could take our loss there as encouragement for expansion, not discouragement. One could argue that Soviet expansion in Afghanistan was the result of such "encouragement" - much to their sorrow. Similarly, it is hard to see how our actions in Vietnam did any good whatsoever for our international standing. From the beginning, most of the world regarded our actions there as misguided at best. It was no surprise to the rest of the world that we lost. An ally of the US could potentially conclude that we'd learned a valuable lesson (we didn't) and would be a better ally in the future.

It is an over-simplification to attribute US involvement in Vietnam to the Domino Theory. We became involved due to a complex mix of ideology, historical circumstance and realpolitik. A good resource for this is Leslie Gelb's (he has a co-author, whose name I've forgotten) The Irony of Vietnam: The System Worked. Gelb, as you may know, was the person responsible for the assembly of the Pentagon Papers (but not, of course, their release to the public, which was Daniel Ellsberg's province). I would argue that the Domino Theory was developed primarily for public consumption - as a simple way to describe the reasons for our involvement. I doubt that any politician of consequence really believed it as stated. I agree with Tim that the role of JFK is ambiguous - not "fact". The facts are that JFK acted as a hard-core "cold warrior". I do not doubt that he had conversations about withdrawing US troops; where those conversations would have led we will never know. Nor do I believe he was assassinated by "the same people responsible for all the deaths in Vietnam", but I don't think it's appropriate to get involved in the morass of the JFK assassination here. The facts are that he escalated our involvement, and his vice president took us all the way. I disagree with Tim on the war as a whole. It was a monumental waste, which I witnessed first hand. We had absolutely no business in Vietnam. The crucial moment was 1945. If Harry Truman had recognized Ho Chi Minh's government as the legitimate government of Vietnam (as the Asian desk of the State Department urged him), the tragedy of US involvement would have been completely avoided and Vietnam would indeed be an economic powerhouse to rival or exceed South Korea. The fate of the Montagnards would have been questionable in any case - they have never been accepted into mainstream Vietnamese society. A true democracy would probably have been better for them, but they weren't about to get that from Thieu and his bunch.

Sorry - not my intent to irritate anyone. I consider it a waste of time because, as Mel notes, people who want to believe there was a conspiracy refuse to believe contrary evidence. My own experience with this does not have to do with conspiracies, so, Steven, I really don't have anything to add to this discussion other than to encourage Mel. But to elaborate on my point above, as a biologist I deal frequently with creationists and "intelligent design" advocates who never acknowledge that their criticisms of evolution have been answered. They will not be convinced by evidence. A specific example is the case of "human tracks" with dinosaur tracks at Glen Rose, Texas. A CREATIONIST investigator established, beyond reasonable doubt, that the so-called "human tracks" were dinosaur tracks. He pleaded with his fellow creationists to stop using this example. They're still using it. CT advocates strike me as very similar. I read Posner's book, found it persuasive. I come to this site and find people who believe that 9/11 was a US government plot, that we never landed on the moon, etc., etc. Again, I apologize if I ticked you off. My sole intent was to encourage Mel.

I'm one of the "few" who agree with Mel - but this issue is (to me) a waste of time. Therefore, I'm very glad the "anti-conspiracy" voice is finally being heard by someone who cares enough to spend the necessary time refuting this stuff.

John's topic on women in art has already raised a number of interesting issues, many of which should have their own threads. One such seems to me to be the question I pose for this topic. I'm teaching in the aesthetics section of our western civilization and culture course right now. The title of this section is "You cal THAT art?" - a kind of send-up of many people's reactions to modern art. The alternative title is more traditional: "Why is art important?" It is abundantly clear that even the students interested in art have never encountered aesthetics before - and quite frankly they're encountering it right now from a biologist who's sole training in this area comes from a spouse who is an artist and art historian and discussions with my colleagues over the years. In the "women as artists" topic one of the contributors noted the difference between "modern art" - which she characterized as non-representational - and representational art. Many people want their paintings to look like something real. But the advent of photography (an art form in itself) pretty much takes away the need for representationalism unless the painter wants to make a particular kind of statement. I began the aesthetics unit by showing some Kandinsky and Franz Marc - two of the painters most responsible for the break from representation. I particularly focused on Marc's "Fate of the Animals" because to me, that is one of the greatest works of the 20th century. It is prescient - of WWI, of ecological destruction, of the fragmentation of our own lives. I think great art captures revolutionary moments before anyone else recognizes them as revolutionary moments. Picasso's cubist paintings did that, so did the impressionists, so did the expressionists. Jimi Hendrix did it at Woodstock when he played the "Star Spangled Banner". What do you think makes something "art"?

Lots of interesting issues (some deserving of their own thread) raised here. My wife is an artist. It has not been an easy road for her. There are many reasons, one being the lack of understanding of art in society - in particular, not understanding why it's important. The first thing to go in school budgets is often the arts. I am currently teaching the aesthetics section of our western civilization course, which is concerned less with particular artists than with what various philosophers and artists have written about art. We do include a piece from "Adam Bede" where Eliot "turns to the reader" and explains why she's writing the way she is. I do think ego has a large role to play. One does have to have a certain amount of self-confidence to get out there and declare "I'm an artist!". I also think that skills traditionally practiced by women (weaving, for example) are often disregarded - they're not "art". Art, of course, is much more than painting or sculpture. It is a popular notion that "many great artists were insane" - taken out of a "Calvin and Hobbes" cartoon and reinforced by Marty's post. It's also an unfortunate notion. I think I'll start a new thread - "what is art"

What do you get when you cross a mobster with a post-modernist? An offer you can't understand!

I ran across a great passage from Leopold's A Sand County Almanac.... It is from "Song of the Gavilan" (a river in the Sierra Madre): "There are men charged with the duty of examining the construction of the plants, animals, and soils which are the instruments of the great orchestra. Thes men are called professors. Each selects one instrument and spends his life taking it apart and describing its strings and sounding boards. This process of dismemberment is called research. The place for dismemberment is called a university. A professor may pluck the strings of his own instrument, but never that of another, and if he listens for music he must never admit it to his fellows or to his students. For the construction of instruments is the domain of science, while the detection of harmony is the domain of poets. Professors serve science and science serves progress. It serves progress so well tha many of the more intricate instuments are stepped upon and broken in the rush to spread progress to all backward lands. One by one the parts are thus stricken from the song of songs. If the professor is able to classify each instrument before it is broken, he is well content. Science contributes moral as well as material blessings to the world. Its great moral contribution is objectivity, or the scientific point of view. This means doubting everything except facts; it means hewing to the facts, let the chips fall where they may. One of the facts hewn to by science is that every river needs more people, and all people need more inventions, and hence more science; the good life depends on the indefinite extension of this chain of logic. That the good life on any river may likewise depend on the perception of its music, and the preservation of some music to perceive, is a form of doubt not yet entertained by science. Science has not yet arrived on the Gavilan, so the otter plays tag in its pools and riffles and chases the fat rainbow from under its mossy banks, with never a thought for the flood that one day will scour the bank into the Pacific, or for the sportsman who will one day dispute his title to the trout. Like the scientist, he has no doubts about his own design for living. He assumes that for him the Gavilan will sing forever." I have not been to the Gavilan, though I've been to somewhat similar places. How can our pursuit of "progress" avoid the fate described above?

Doug - You state humans are the only creatures with souls, because they are different - made in God's image. Science offers a different perspective. It is clear from comparative morphology, biochemistry, ethology and fossils that humans differ from other animals in degree, not in kind. I think you will find it difficult to name one characteristic of humans that is not exhibited to some degree in some other animal. Science tells us that humans are not really different from other animals. Of course, it can tell us nothing about the existence of souls in us or anything else. But there is no scientific support for your contention that humans are "different"

I think you're right about living one's life in direct opposition to one's belief. I do think that the view of God as separate from nature still is significant in the way western societies advance their technology. Abrahamists (you're right - nice term!) are told that God put humans on earth to subdue and have dominion over it. That gives humans carte blanche to do whatever they want with nature. If God didn't want us to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, He wouldn't have put it there in the first place. Platonism (speaking of ancient Greece) fit in very well with Christianity by viewing this material world as a corrupt, imperfect reflection of the "Ideal" world that exists in the mind of God (or Gods). That view also lends itself to environmental abuse. Certainly pagan societies are not entirely free of the abuse of nature (Jared Diamond has a fascinating book out about why societies collapse - and some of the societies he mentions were pagan societies), but their world view (which I share) does not lend itself so readily to the subjegation of nature (nor to technological progress!)

Actually, I think our technological success is at least in part due to a Christian view seeing God as separate from nature. This allows one to "subdue" nature with no regard to spirtitual consequences. In the short run, that leads to technological progress - in the long run to ecological disaster. Scientific materialism could, of course, have the same result; but I'm pretty sure the initial impulse comes from a Christian view of God as outside nature.