Rules of Engagement was Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Meta: Too far

[Joseph Bloch]

When conversations have risen to such a level of absurdity (and I speak 
here of Brett's questions, not Stuart's answers) then perhaps the time 
has come to move on to more productive conversations.

Joseph

Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": 
http://www.humanenhancement.com
New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta
PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated 6/14/05)

The Avantguardian wrote:

>--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>But how can *you* guarantee it Stuart? What does 
>>your *guarantee* mean in this context?
>>
>>Is it a legal term? Are you promising Samantha or
>>others
>>that if the military fires at, or bombs  people that
>>you 
>>personally will make good on any loss?
>>    
>>
>
>Sheesh. Too many attorneys on the list. ;) Actually I
>may have overstated myself. To rephrase more
>accurately, I am certain, to my own satisfaction mind
>you, that the U.S. military mandates and takes great
>pains these days to make sure that innocent civilians
>are not harmed by their soldiers during armed
>conflict. The civillian casualties that do occur are
>almost all accidents. Those very few soldiers that
>purposefully disregard this are brought to justice by
>their peers and their chain of command. And to a
>certain extent, yes, I do personally feel remorse at
>the death of civillians even when I am not the one
>pulling the trigger.  
>
>  
>
>>>In any conflict involving U.S. troops, rules of
>>>engagement are very clearly spelled out, flash
>>>      
>>>
>>cards
>>    
>>
>>>summarizing them are issued, and violations are
>>>      
>>>
>>taken
>>    
>>
>>>very seriously.
>>>      
>>>
>>In any? ;-)  That is truly a magnificent
>>accomplishment.
>>Perhaps the military should be running all aspects
>>of 
>>government and management then, if they have reached
>>such sophistication in anticipation and education.
>>    
>>
>
>ummmm.... NO. Although there does seem to be a rise in
>armed conflicts in American schools these days, using
>the military to solve this would be like using a
>sledge hammer to fix a toothache.
>
>
>
>  
>
>>Perhaps the US Constitition and the UN Charter
>>should
>>be relabelled and called the US Rules of Engagement
>>and the UN Rules of Engagement.  ;-)
>>    
>>
>
>heh. I personally don't think that there will be a one
>world goverment unless or until it can be demonstrated
>that potentially hostile intelligent life exists
>elsewhere in the universe. There just isn't enough
>evolutionary pressure to select for it. But if it
>should ever, for whatever reason, come about, I hope
>whatever charter or constitution the United Nations of
>Earth adopts would be based in large part upon the
>U.S. Constitution. Even if the barbarians have sacked
>our cities by then. 
>
>The Avantguardian 
>is 
>Stuart LaForge
>alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu
>
>"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
>-Bill Watterson
>
>
>		
>__________________________________ 
>Do you Yahoo!? 
>Make Yahoo! your home page 
>http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>
>  
>