hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
New Trillium species discovered

Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

RSS story archive

Re: war

I was not offended at all, just wanted to relay my observations. I lived in Europe in the mid 50's and much of what you saw I did too. Visited Hiroshima when I went to Japan many years after the bombing. Was appalled in both cases. I have also visited Dachau. Don't pretend to know the answer, but it seems to me that things haven't changed much since Plato said "Only the dead have seen the end of war." Yes, there are some hawks in the military, but the difference between them and the hawks in Congress is that the military ones generally know that they will end up in harms way. The others are the ones doing the sending. For what it is worth, the motto of the Army's Combat Casualty Care Course is - War has no winners...only survivors.
On Sunday, February 16, 2003, at 03:45 AM, Marge Talt wrote:

Well, I knew I'd offend some of you:-)  I'm an old Army brat,
myself...come from a *very* hawk-like family, so my experience of
army officer's views on war is a tad different....still, I consider
war a very poor alternative to anything else.  Happened to live in
Europe in '48 and saw the results of W.W.II first hand; hard to
believe that anyone who has either lived through war or seen the
aftermath could even consider it as a "solution".

Agree, Congress is probably even more willing to commit troops than
most military personnel...and those who have no experience of war or
its aftermath the most enthusiastic about it.   Perhaps I should
change my theory from military commanders to civilian ones to make it
more accurate:-)

Marge Talt, zone 7 Maryland
Editor:  Gardening in Shade
Current Article: Wild, Wonderful Aroids Part 3 - Amorphophallus
Complete Index of Articles by Category and Date
All Suite101.com garden topics :

From: cathy carpenter <cathyc@rnet.com>
I was a soldier (albeit a nurse - one who deals directly with the
effects of war on the soldier) for 30 years (might end up one
again, as
retirees are subject to recall until age 65). My father was a
for 20 years (an armor officer), so I have had plenty of contact
the military -  of all ranks and specialties. Believe me, soldiers
war up close and personal and I don't know a class of people that
less bloodthirsty (there are exceptions, of course, but every group
its weirdos). The generals are far more reluctant to commit troops
combat than is our Congress - very few of whom have ever served in
military. In military "table top" exercises involving use of
it has been found time and again that civilians involved are far
to use those weapons than the military participants.
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the

  • References:

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement