An eminent scholar such as Richard Falk does not need me to defend him from an
ad hominem attack by one such as "Briarroot". I write this post only in case
that some readers might have been misled by Briarroot's ignorant assertions.
I have no interest whatsoever in any personal communication with "Briarroot".

Briarroot wrote in message ...
Nick (The Minister of Propaganda) wrote:
(snipped)
Evidently, George Wald was a minor source (he's cited only once) for
"The United States and Biological Warfare" by Stephen Endicott
and Edward Hagerman (both of York University, Toronto, Canada).

This is another communiqué from Nick, the Minister of Propaganda.
Let's just look at this with an open mind.

So "Briarroot" really believes that he has "an open mind"?
That's evidence of Briarroot's self-delusion, if not his derangement.

Whatever 'evidence' that may or may not exist regarding the question of
whether or not the US used biological agents in the Korean war, a struggle
which lasted nearly three years, and in which the combatant armies were
locked closely together, their lines often being only yards apart, let us
examine the political philosophy of the man who Nick quotes here.

Richard Falk wrote an introduction to a history book by two other scholars,
not a complete explanation of his own "political philosophy".

Here's an excerpt from the introduction by Richard Falk, Albert G. Milbank
Professor of International Law and Practice, Princeton University:

"But there are other concerns as well, especially the extent to which
government--any government, including our own--can be trusted when it
comes to matters of national security.

When it comes to matters of national security, who ya gonna call?
Ghostbusters? My aunt Sally?

Has the United States government always told the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth about the alleged "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq?

There is, first of all, a thick veil of secrecy and deception that surrounds
the undertakings of government in the domain of national security.

I wonder why Professor Falk thinks this is a bad thing? Secrecy
and deception being the stock and trade of spies and secret agents,
I wonder why he thinks it is that governments erect such barriers?
And who are these barriers designed to foul, the people of the nation,
or their enemies? Perhaps he is confused as to which is which.
I wonder how else he thinks national security should be preserved.

"The elaborate process of cover-up and concealment depicted in this book is
one more indication that citizens in the United States (and elsewhere) are
naive if they rely upon and trust the claims of government in relation to
national security policy. One lesson that could be learned is that democracy
is dangerously vulnerable unless it disallows its leaders and officials to hide
their deeds behind a cloak of secrecy. Trust is essential for participatory
citizenship in America, and it is now evident that trust is impossible without
far greater transparency than currently exists."
--Richard Falk (pp. xix-xx)

In the American case, this opaqueness is reinforced by the doctrine of
deniability, which *authorizes lying to the extent necessary to resist
unwanted disclosures*.

Which is exactly the same for every other large government in the world;
or at least those governments who take their responsibilities seriously.
Again, when he says "unwanted disclosures" who does he consider to be the
enemy? Or does he think that there are no real enemies from whom some data
must remain secret?

"What is at stake, of course, is the urgent need for the drastic revision of
our understanding of human security as we embark on this transition to a new
millennium. It has become far too unreliable and dangerous to rely any longer
on the sort of militarist approaches that have guided statecraft in
Machiavellian directions for the past several centuries."
--Richard Falk (p. xxi)

Second, there is the sense that the constraints of law and morality must be
put aside in circumstances of warfare or in the pursuit of vital national
interests.

I wonder how moral this professor would think it if a government
allowed its nation to suffer a defeat and its citizens killed by
a foreign power, in the interests of "law and morality?" What
"vital national interests" does he have in mind that supersede
a governments primary responsibility in keeping their nation safe?

"What is ultimately at issue is the entrenchment in government of a war
mentality that overrides the major premises of both elemental morality and
civic democracy. Unless this mentality is effectively repudiated and abandoned
in the inner circles of government, we should expect more in the future of what
Endicott and Hagerman have documented in relation to the Korean War period."
--Richard Falk (p. xxi)

Third, there is a highly compliant mainstream media even in constitutional
democracies that is deferential to the national security establishment,
and generally succumbs to pressure in the unusual event of an unwanted
revelation.

Hmm, is this the same rabid media that positively *lives* to unearth new
government scandals, often attempting to create them out of whole cloth to
boost the ratings? Is this the media that immediately publicizes national
security gaffes, mistakes, foibles and screw ups?

"Since September 11, much of the press has dropped to both knees before
George W. Bush to take dictation....If the press has given Bush and his Cabinet
a horsey-back ride, it isn't because they are paid submissives. They're not
prostitutes; they're pushovers....

The American press sniffs at the cult of personality that once plastered the
walls and billboards of Iraq with portraits of Saddam Hussein while remaining
oblivious to the cult of personality that has cowed most of them....

But why expect American journalists to stand up for foreign broadcasters when
they don't stand up for themselves or their own colleagues at home? They don't
stand up to anybody in authority. Their knees must be locked."

--James Wolcott ('Round up the Cattle!' in "Vanity Fair", June 2003)

He must be speaking of some other media in a land I've never heard of.

With regard to the issue of the hypothesised "weapons of mass destruction" in
Iraq, the British media have been much more critical of Tony Blair than the
United States media have been of George W. Bush.

On the other hand, every nutter that comes bopping down the pike with
yet another conspiracy theory isn't likely to be given much attention.
For good reason - the moon really isn't made of green cheese!

That's more evidence of the state of Briarroot's "open mind".

"The United States and Biological Warfare" by Stephen Endicott and
Edward Hagerman was published by Indiana University Press in 1998.

And fourth, there is the fusion of militarist thinking that anything goes
in war with the prevalent belief among political and military leaders that
'saving American lives' is a justification for otherwise terrible deeds
that brushes aside any moral and legal obstacles.

Yeah, those silly political and military leaders. How silly of them to place
a higher value on their own citizens lives and welfare than that of the
citizens of other nations! Again, I wonder what Prof. Falk considers is the
proper way to prosecute a "moral and legal" war?

"It is here that one's worst fears and apprehensions are unfortunately amply
upheld. With respect to biological weaponry, even at a time when it was
generally considered to be both immoral and illegal, the United States
government was energetically exploring the *offensive* possibilities. And by
authoritative decision at command levels, it was prepared to use biological
weapons as a *weapon of choice* whenever military circumstances so warranted.
Such an internal governmental approach, clearly documented in a seemingly
incontrovertible manner for the period 1950-1953, *contradicted* the general
claim then made, and subsequently reaffirmed, that the U.S. program in
biological weapons was maintained solely for defensive purposes, and as a
backup retaliatory threat in the event that such weaponry was used by
adversaries."
--Richard Falk (p. xix)

Talking the enemy to death, perhaps?

'To jaw-jaw is better than to war-war.'
--Winston Churchill

Such a combination of circumstances suggests the breadth of the gap that
separates the citizenry from its political and military leadership in the
areas of war and peace.

No fooling. The average citizen is too busy with his or her
own life to worry about the "areas of war and peace." Hence
they designate other folks to handle those problems for them.
We call this division of labor Civilization. Yeah, that's
right, professor, we organize ourselves exactly like that.
Some are politicians, some are soldiers, some are farmers,
some are builders, some are manufacturers, some are doctors,
some are teachers, and so on. All of us working diligently
in our own little corner of the whole. Fortunately, we don't
let guys like Prof. Falk get their hands on the levers of power.
That those who *do* wield power, do not take advice from the
amateur philosophers like this professor, is a Good Thing(tm).

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them that they are being
attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in every country."
--Hermann Goering (1946, at the Nuremberg Trials)

It is against such a background of concerns that this disturbing and fine
book by Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman assumes its importance.

Such a background...meaning Professor Falk refuses to accept the
necessities of life in the big bad world around him. "Why can't
we all get along?" "Because the secret, vast, right-wing conspiracy
to control the world, won't let us!" Uh-huh. Sure.

"I was in a highly privileged position at Bomber Command. I knew much more
than most of the operational officers about the general course of the campaign.
I knew much more than the cabinet ministers in London about the details of our
operations. I was one of the very few people who knew what were the objectives
of the campaign, how miserably we were failing to meet these objectives, and
how expensive this was for us in money and lives. The bombing campaign
represented roughly one quarter of the total British war effort. It was costing
the Germans less than this to defend themselves and to repair the industrial
damage....We stopped trying to hit precise military objectives. Burning down
cities was all we could do, and so we did that. Even in killing the civilian
population we were inefficient....

I felt deeply my responsibility, being in possession of all this information
which was so carefully concealed from the British public. I was sickened by
what I knew. Many times I decided I had a moral obligation to run out into
the streets and tell the British people what stupidities were being done in
their name. But I never had the courage to do it. I sat in my office until
the end, carefully calculating how to murder most economically another hundred
thousand people."

--Freeman Dyson (Weapons and Hope, pp. 119-20)

The authors, experienced historians whose approach to their subject is
impressively exhaustive and meticulous, explore one of the most notorious
allegations of the Cold War era--that the United States used biological
weapons on an experimental basis in China and North Korea during the
Korean War....

Allegations from whom? What's notorious here, is this Professors
wholesale acceptance of innuendo. Where did these notorious allegations
arise? China? The Soviet Union? Your local student union?

"It is impossible to acknowledge properly the help of the many people who
helped us over the twenty years that it has taken to prepare this book."
--Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman (30 January 1998, p. xiii)

Relying on a vast array of previously unavailable declassified sources and
on access to archival materials in several countries, including China,
Endicott and Hagerman reached the conclusion that the circumstantial
evidence strongly supports the allegation of use.

Riiight. Wouldn't be much of a research project if they'd come up empty.
Bang! There goes the funding from the international conspiracy set.

"We wish to acknowledge the financial support that we received from the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, from York University, and
from Atkinson College, which made this extensive research project possible."
--Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman (p. xv)

And the Chinese released some documents? How clever of them to recognize an
opportunity like this, to cast doubt on their enemy's veracity.

"These documents were declassified for our use, and permission was given to
quote them....In any case, we greatly appreciated the treasure trove of daily
reports, telegrams, instructions, and research analysis of epidemic diseases
from the border area to Korea that came our way."
--Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman (pp. 253-4)

It also implies a continuing high-level cover-up about the true
relationship of the United States government to biological weapons in
general.

Or maybe the authors were mistaken all along. It doesn't take much effort
to "cover-up" something that never happened.

Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman have acknowledged that, given their
available documents and interviews, their case remains a circumstantial one.

The authors are scrupulous in their presentation, providing evidence and
reasoning for each link in their argument and resisting generalizations
that exceed what can be reliably documented.

Are the authors "providing" evidence or pointing out that such
evidence already exists? Are they creating evidence in support
of their theory? Readers of this introduction can't tell how
reliable is the documentation used the allegations made in the
book. This professor's imprimatur seems less than reassuring.

"As prosecutors, Hagerman and Endicott present a strong case. They cannot
be said to be dispassionate, but they are careful, even judicious."
--Stephen Ambrose (American historian and biographer of Eisenhower)

They also examine fairly the arguments and evidence that have been advanced
over the years to discredit the central allegation of BW use, and find them
thin and contrived.

This whole book sounds thin and contrived, unlike this introduction which is
clearly laced with loaded words to convey a message that the book's premise
cannot be refuted.

That's more evidence of the state of Briarroot's "open mind".

At minimum, this book raises the historical debate on the allegation about
biological weaponry to a new and necessary level of scholarly seriousness
that challenges the government to come forward with its own refuting
arguments and evidence. It is of utmost importance to clear up the
record....

Utmost importance to create suspicion where none previously existed, you
mean. I can't see any government taking time out to refute the "allegations"
of every two-bit psychopath with a political agenda somewhat to the left of
Joe Stalin. And why bother?

That's more evidence of the state of Briarroot's "open mind".

"At a minimum their research and revelations raise questions about the possible
use of biological warfare by the United States in the Korean War that must be
answered before we indulge in further moral condemnation of Iraq's research
and development of a germ warfare capability."
--Stephen Ambrose

Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman deserve our gratitude for producing
such an important study based on prodigious research, but even more for
their courage in taking on such a delicate theme. There are likely to be
recriminations and countercharges hurled in their direction, highly
orchestrated responses designed to divert attention from the substance
of their analysis.

Oh, how cunningly this is worded! Those "recriminations and countercharges
hurled in their direction" couldn't be because they deserve criticism, could
it? No, says the Prof., they "deserve our gratitude." What hogwash! Falk is
warning of "highly orchestrated responses designed to divert attention from
the substance of their analysis" while doing the exact same thing himself!

Would Richard Falk appreciate it that his point has been corroborated by the
'response' of "Briarroot"?

Few people are going to believe the moon is made of green cheese,
no matter how much documentation you provide; and if you persist
in saying so anyway, based on your "prodigious research," they're
going to point at you and snicker! Better get used to it.

That's more evidence of the state of Briarroot's "open mind".

This doesn't require orchestration by a secret cabal, it's just
the normal inclination of human beings to scoff at the improbable.

As 'improbable' as the existence of the United States Public Health Service's
secret Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (1932-72), wherein 399 African American men
were deliberately kept in ignorance of and denied medical treatment for their
cases of syphilis, condemning many of them to death?

For further reading:
"Bad Blood: the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment" by James Jones

Such a prospect is hardly fanciful. Consider the backlash a few years ago
when the prestigious Smithsonian Institution sought to mount an exhibition
on the fiftieth anniversary of the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. The end result of the incident was that the director of the
museum was dismissed and the exhibition was scaled way back to deprive it
of any elements of overdue atonement for the prolonged damage inflicted
on Japanese civilian society.

I lack the time now to address the historical ignorance in what follows:

Long overdue atonement! What a crock. Professor Falk has been
raising his flag throughout this piece, and here he clearly reveals
his ideology. "The prolonged damage inflicted on Japanese civilian
society" as he puts it, was the result of that same society starting
a brutal war to subjugate the whole of east asia. The Japanese
murdered millions for the sake of their narcissistic desire for
Empire and domination. In my opinion, an opinion which is far more
widely held than the Prof.'s, the Japanese richly deserved whatever
suffering they were later forced to endure. Don't just blame their
leaders, like Tojo, who was tried, convicted and hung by the allies;
the common people themselves, while things were going well, were
eager for their empire to conquer, and Tojo was their hero. Just as
the Germans loved Hitler... until they started losing. Yes, dropping
the atomic bombs saved *many* American lives. That's considered a
Good Thing(tm) by the American people who elected the leaders that
made that decision.

And no Japan wasn't going to surrender soon anyway. Tojo and his
gang were planning on going out with a blaze of glory. What actually
happened on Okinawa (and all the other islands) was going to happen
in Japan, but on a hugely increased scale. They were even training
the women and children to charge the invasion beaches with bamboo
spears. They had 15,000 aircraft hidden, with just enough fuel for
a final Kamikaze run at the American fleets. They were planning to
resist to the end, all for the glory of their Empire! Casualties on
both sides would have been horrendous. Even after the first atomic
bomb destroyed Hiroshima, Tojo refused to reconsider. Only after the
second bomb destroyed Nagasaki did the Emperor get off his ass and
finally step in and overrule him to say, in effect, enough's enough.
In my opinion, the Smithsonian curator who set up that exhibition was
*properly* dismissed for trying to re-write history. It is the various
*revisionist* conspiracy theories such as are promulgated here by
Professor Falk, that are exactly what he attempts to label below as
"their "own consoling version of history."

"It's important to recognise how much of American memory is myth. For example,
that we used the bomb simply to win the war and save Americans' lives is the
dominant myth."
--John Dower (quoted by William Lanouette in 'Why We Dropped Bomb' from
"Civilization: the Magazine of the Library of Congress",
January-February 1995, p. 37)

"Without question, Dower is America's foremost historian of the Second World
War in the Pacific. I steal shamelessly from him in my lectures; I do make
sure to give him credit when I steal from his material in my books. No one
else even comes close to Dower in researching and writing about the war in
the Pacific."
--Stephen Ambrose

John Dower is Ford International Professor of History at MIT. Dower has won
the Pulitzer Prize in Letters for General Nonfiction, the National Book Award
in Nonfiction, the Bancroft Prize in American History, and the John K. Fairbank
Prize in Asian History.

In this instance, unlike that pertaining to the biological weapons
narrative, the essential facts were known (though the bureaucratic
rationale for the use of atomic bombs at that stage in the war remains a
matter of controversy and concealment), and it was patrioteering elements
of the citizenry who apparently self-mobilized (with notable congressional
and Pentagon backing) to safeguard their *own consoling version of
history*, thereby avoiding the anguish of self-examination with respect
to responsibility for having crossed the nuclear threshold."

What nonsense. Know one in 1945 knew exactly what effects the bombs
would have, not even the scientists who developed them. There was
no evident "nuclear threshold" in 1945. Leaving aside the question
of whether or not nuclear weapons are any less moral to use in wartime
than conventional weapons, (I happen to think they are as moral as
any other weapon) all talk of a "nuclear threshold" is 20-20 hindsight.

In the thread, "OT Dresden teapots" (17 August 2003), "Briarroot" wrote:
"What I did was point out the obvious; that if all of the enemy are dead, then
the war is over and can be considered to have been successfully concluded.
This has been long been the model of war making by the human race. Recent
European tradition (inherited by their former colonies) in the last several
centuries has moderated this model, but the older system is still sound...."

Here's a link to information on the international Genocide Convention:
http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/

--Richard Falk (5 August 1998, pp. xvii-xx)

Professor Falk and his kind (such as that museum director) deserve
all the excoriation and disdain that they may have received for
trying to twist history to fit their fantastic notions of morality,
and how wars should be fought. Above, Falk criticizes "political
and military leaders" who feel "that 'saving American lives' is a
justification for otherwise terrible deeds that brushes aside any
moral and legal obstacles." He is completely wrong to do so. It
is the primary responsibility of all national leaders to save the
lives of their citizens; and to place the survival of their own
ahead of the survival of the people of an enemy state, both in time
of war and in time of peace. This is the duty for which they were
elected or appointed to the positions which they hold. One might
even say it is their first duty. But then the concept of national
duty seems strangely alien to men like Prof. Falk.

'Befehl ist Befehl!' ('An order is an order!')
'Vernichtungskrieg' = 'war of annihilation'

"By the worst means, the worst. For mine own good,
All causes shall give way: I am in blood
Stepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er."
--William Shakespeare (MacBeth)

It's too bad Nick didn't quote any of the body of this book.
I'd like the opportunity to debunk some of that bilge water.

And that's more evidence of the state of Briarroot's "open mind".

'Prejudices of education are never wholly eradicated, even when they are
discovered to be erroneous and absurd.'
--Tobias Smollett (Humphry Clinker)

--Nick

"Nick" wrote in message
om...

An eminent scholar such as Richard Falk does not need me to defend him
from an
ad hominem attack by one such as "Briarroot". I write this post only in
case
that some readers might have been misled by Briarroot's ignorant
assertions.
I have no interest whatsoever in any personal communication with
"Briarroot".

"...They had dead cats. You could smell them..." H. Finn

StanB

Nick wrote:

An eminent scholar such as Richard Falk does not need me to defend him from an
ad hominem attack by one such as "Briarroot". I write this post only in case
that some readers might have been misled by Briarroot's ignorant assertions.
I have no interest whatsoever in any personal communication with "Briarroot".

Briarroot wrote in message ...
Nick (The Minister of Propaganda) wrote:
(snipped)
Evidently, George Wald was a minor source (he's cited only once) for
"The United States and Biological Warfare" by Stephen Endicott
and Edward Hagerman (both of York University, Toronto, Canada).

This is another communiqué from Nick, the Minister of Propaganda.
Let's just look at this with an open mind.

So "Briarroot" really believes that he has "an open mind"?
That's evidence of Briarroot's self-delusion, if not his derangement.

Whatever 'evidence' that may or may not exist regarding the question of
whether or not the US used biological agents in the Korean war, a struggle
which lasted nearly three years, and in which the combatant armies were
locked closely together, their lines often being only yards apart, let us
examine the political philosophy of the man who Nick quotes here.

Richard Falk wrote an introduction to a history book by two other scholars,
not a complete explanation of his own "political philosophy".

Here's an excerpt from the introduction by Richard Falk, Albert G. Milbank
Professor of International Law and Practice, Princeton University:

"But there are other concerns as well, especially the extent to which
government--any government, including our own--can be trusted when it
comes to matters of national security.

When it comes to matters of national security, who ya gonna call?
Ghostbusters? My aunt Sally?

Has the United States government always told the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth about the alleged "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq?

There is, first of all, a thick veil of secrecy and deception that surrounds
the undertakings of government in the domain of national security.

I wonder why Professor Falk thinks this is a bad thing? Secrecy
and deception being the stock and trade of spies and secret agents,
I wonder why he thinks it is that governments erect such barriers?
And who are these barriers designed to foul, the people of the nation,
or their enemies? Perhaps he is confused as to which is which.
I wonder how else he thinks national security should be preserved.

"The elaborate process of cover-up and concealment depicted in this book is
one more indication that citizens in the United States (and elsewhere) are
naive if they rely upon and trust the claims of government in relation to
national security policy. One lesson that could be learned is that democracy
is dangerously vulnerable unless it disallows its leaders and officials to hide
their deeds behind a cloak of secrecy. Trust is essential for participatory
citizenship in America, and it is now evident that trust is impossible without
far greater transparency than currently exists."
--Richard Falk (pp. xix-xx)

In the American case, this opaqueness is reinforced by the doctrine of
deniability, which *authorizes lying to the extent necessary to resist
unwanted disclosures*.

Which is exactly the same for every other large government in the world;
or at least those governments who take their responsibilities seriously.
Again, when he says "unwanted disclosures" who does he consider to be the
enemy? Or does he think that there are no real enemies from whom some data
must remain secret?

"What is at stake, of course, is the urgent need for the drastic revision of
our understanding of human security as we embark on this transition to a new
millennium. It has become far too unreliable and dangerous to rely any longer
on the sort of militarist approaches that have guided statecraft in
Machiavellian directions for the past several centuries."
--Richard Falk (p. xxi)

Second, there is the sense that the constraints of law and morality must be
put aside in circumstances of warfare or in the pursuit of vital national
interests.

I wonder how moral this professor would think it if a government
allowed its nation to suffer a defeat and its citizens killed by
a foreign power, in the interests of "law and morality?" What
"vital national interests" does he have in mind that supersede
a governments primary responsibility in keeping their nation safe?

"What is ultimately at issue is the entrenchment in government of a war
mentality that overrides the major premises of both elemental morality and
civic democracy. Unless this mentality is effectively repudiated and abandoned
in the inner circles of government, we should expect more in the future of what
Endicott and Hagerman have documented in relation to the Korean War period."
--Richard Falk (p. xxi)

Third, there is a highly compliant mainstream media even in constitutional
democracies that is deferential to the national security establishment,
and generally succumbs to pressure in the unusual event of an unwanted
revelation.

Hmm, is this the same rabid media that positively *lives* to unearth new
government scandals, often attempting to create them out of whole cloth to
boost the ratings? Is this the media that immediately publicizes national
security gaffes, mistakes, foibles and screw ups?

"Since September 11, much of the press has dropped to both knees before
George W. Bush to take dictation....If the press has given Bush and his Cabinet
a horsey-back ride, it isn't because they are paid submissives. They're not
prostitutes; they're pushovers....

The American press sniffs at the cult of personality that once plastered the
walls and billboards of Iraq with portraits of Saddam Hussein while remaining
oblivious to the cult of personality that has cowed most of them....

But why expect American journalists to stand up for foreign broadcasters when
they don't stand up for themselves or their own colleagues at home? They don't
stand up to anybody in authority. Their knees must be locked."

--James Wolcott ('Round up the Cattle!' in "Vanity Fair", June 2003)

He must be speaking of some other media in a land I've never heard of.
congressional
and Pentagon backing) to safeguard their *own consoling version of
history*, thereby avoiding the anguish of self-examination with respect
to responsibility for having crossed the nuclear threshold."

What nonsense. Know one in 1945 knew exactly what effects the bombs
would have, not even the scientists who developed them. There was
no evident "nuclear threshold" in 1945. Leaving aside the question
of whether or not nuclear weapons are any less moral to use in wartime
than conventional weapons, (I happen to think they are as moral as
any other weapon) all talk of a "nuclear threshold" is 20-20 hindsight.

SNIP..

Yes, yes under my 'circumstances' of 'beer' & brufen, I sanction the
tri-partite 'finger' exercises of Mssrs. Blair, Howard & Dubbya. In
effect, locating the 'red' button & pressing the "mother" - Target =
Jakarta. Burning 'up' these funny hat Dutch 'monkees' would deliver much
'Oxfam' bounty..

From: "StanB"
Date: 09/09/03 04:13 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:


"Nick" wrote in message
. com...

An eminent scholar such as Richard Falk does not need me to defend him
from an
ad hominem attack by one such as "Briarroot". I write this post only in
case
that some readers might have been misled by Briarroot's ignorant
assertions.
I have no interest whatsoever in any personal communication with
"Briarroot".

"...They had dead cats. You could smell them..." H. Finn

StanB


That's very good, Stan! Your reading is showing real signs of progress. In
fact, if you keep this up, we're thinking of moving you up to third grade, next
year...

You *work* for the USCF, right?

Mark

Mhoulsby wrote:

From: "StanB"
Date: 09/09/03 04:13 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:


"Nick" wrote in message
. com...

An eminent scholar such as Richard Falk does not need me to defend him
from an
ad hominem attack by one such as "Briarroot". I write this post only in
case
that some readers might have been misled by Briarroot's ignorant
assertions.
I have no interest whatsoever in any personal communication with
"Briarroot".

"...They had dead cats. You could smell them..." H. Finn

StanB


That's very good, Stan! Your reading is showing real signs of progress. In
fact, if you keep this up, we're thinking of moving you up to third grade, next
year...

You *work* for the USCF, right?

Mark

StanB just sits there shuffling card chessboards. Didn't you know this,
Marconius?..

"StanB" wrote in message ...(to Nick Bourbaki):
"...They had dead cats. You could smell them..." H. Finn
StanB

In the thread, "Susan Polgar" (7 September 2003), Debi Sherry wrote to StanB:
"Stan, the man (or not)! You always have something so nice and positive
to say! Better be careful or you might not make it to Heaven! God don't
like ugly! Stop hating!!!"

"StanB" wrote in message ...(to Nick Bourbaki):
"...They had dead cats. You could smell them..." H. Finn
StanB

In the thread, "Susan Polgar" (7 September 2003), Debi Sherry wrote to StanB:
"Stan, the man (or not)! You always have something so nice and positive
to say! Better be careful or you might not make it to Heaven! God don't
like ugly! Stop hating!!!"

This post has been written today *only* to combine another ignorant post by
"Briarroot" on history with his *relevant comments* in this thread in order to
make it more convenient for me to respond to them all, if I choose later when I
have more time to write, here in one place instead of in separate but related
places.

(Nick) wrote in message . com...
An eminent scholar such as Richard Falk does not need me to defend him from an
ad hominem attack by one such as "Briarroot". I write this post only in case
that some readers might have been misled by Briarroot's ignorant assertions.
I have no interest whatsoever in any personal communication with "Briarroot".

Briarroot wrote in message
...
Nick (The Minister of Propaganda) wrote:
(snipped)
Evidently, George Wald was a minor source (he's cited only once) for
"The United States and Biological Warfare" by Stephen Endicott
and Edward Hagerman (both of York University, Toronto, Canada).

This is another communiqué from Nick, the Minister of Propaganda.
Let's just look at this with an open mind.

So "Briarroot" really believes that he has "an open mind"?
That's evidence of Briarroot's self-delusion, if not his derangement.

Whatever 'evidence' that may or may not exist regarding the question of
whether or not the US used biological agents in the Korean war, a struggle
which lasted nearly three years, and in which the combatant armies were
locked closely together, their lines often being only yards apart, let us
examine the political philosophy of the man who Nick quotes here.

Richard Falk wrote an introduction to a history book by two other scholars,
not a complete explanation of his own "political philosophy".

Here's an excerpt from the introduction by Richard Falk, Albert G. Milbank
Professor of International Law and Practice, Princeton University:

"But there are other concerns as well, especially the extent to which
government--any government, including our own--can be trusted when it
comes to matters of national security.

When it comes to matters of national security, who ya gonna call?
Ghostbusters? My aunt Sally?

Has the United States government always told the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth about the alleged "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq?

There is, first of all, a thick veil of secrecy and deception that
surrounds the undertakings of government in the domain of national
security.

I wonder why Professor Falk thinks this is a bad thing? Secrecy
and deception being the stock and trade of spies and secret agents,
I wonder why he thinks it is that governments erect such barriers?
And who are these barriers designed to foul, the people of the nation,
or their enemies? Perhaps he is confused as to which is which.
I wonder how else he thinks national security should be preserved.

"The elaborate process of cover-up and concealment depicted in this book is
one more indication that citizens in the United States (and elsewhere) are
naive if they rely upon and trust the claims of government in relation to
national security policy. One lesson that could be learned is that democracy
is dangerously vulnerable unless it disallows its leaders and officials to
hide their deeds behind a cloak of secrecy. Trust is essential for
participatory citizenship in America, and it is now evident that trust is
impossible without far greater transparency than currently exists."
--Richard Falk (pp. xix-xx)

In the American case, this opaqueness is reinforced by the doctrine of
deniability, which *authorizes lying to the extent necessary to resist
unwanted disclosures*.

Which is exactly the same for every other large government in the world;
or at least those governments who take their responsibilities seriously.
Again, when he says "unwanted disclosures" who does he consider to be the
enemy? Or does he think that there are no real enemies from whom some data
must remain secret?

"What is at stake, of course, is the urgent need for the drastic revision of
our understanding of human security as we embark on this transition to a new
millennium. It has become far too unreliable and dangerous to rely any longer
on the sort of militarist approaches that have guided statecraft in
Machiavellian directions for the past several centuries."
--Richard Falk (p. xxi)

Second, there is the sense that the constraints of law and morality must
be put aside in circumstances of warfare or in the pursuit of vital
national interests.

I wonder how moral this professor would think it if a government
allowed its nation to suffer a defeat and its citizens killed by
a foreign power, in the interests of "law and morality?" What
"vital national interests" does he have in mind that supersede
a governments primary responsibility in keeping their nation safe?

"What is ultimately at issue is the entrenchment in government of a war
mentality that overrides the major premises of both elemental morality and
civic democracy. Unless this mentality is effectively repudiated and abandoned
in the inner circles of government, we should expect more in the future of
what Endicott and Hagerman have documented in relation to the Korean War
period."
--Richard Falk (p. xxi)

Third, there is a highly compliant mainstream media even in constitutional
democracies that is deferential to the national security establishment,
and generally succumbs to pressure in the unusual event of an unwanted
revelation.

Hmm, is this the same rabid media that positively *lives* to unearth new
government scandals, often attempting to create them out of whole cloth to
boost the ratings? Is this the media that immediately publicizes national
security gaffes, mistakes, foibles and screw ups?

"Since September 11, much of the press has dropped to both knees before
George W. Bush to take dictation....If the press has given Bush and his
Cabinet a horsey-back ride, it isn't because they are paid submissives.
They're not prostitutes; they're pushovers....

The American press sniffs at the cult of personality that once plastered the
walls and billboards of Iraq with portraits of Saddam Hussein while remaining
oblivious to the cult of personality that has cowed most of them....

But why expect American journalists to stand up for foreign broadcasters when
they don't stand up for themselves or their own colleagues at home? They don't
stand up to anybody in authority. Their knees must be locked."

--James Wolcott ('Round up the Cattle!' in "Vanity Fair", June 2003)

He must be speaking of some other media in a land I've never heard of.

With regard to the issue of the hypothesised "weapons of mass destruction" in
Iraq, the British media have been much more critical of Tony Blair than the
United States media have been of George W. Bush.

On the other hand, every nutter that comes bopping down the pike with
yet another conspiracy theory isn't likely to be given much attention.
For good reason - the moon really isn't made of green cheese!

That's more evidence of the state of Briarroot's "open mind".

"The United States and Biological Warfare" by Stephen Endicott and
Edward Hagerman was published by Indiana University Press in 1998.

And fourth, there is the fusion of militarist thinking that anything goes
in war with the prevalent belief among political and military leaders that
'saving American lives' is a justification for otherwise terrible deeds
that brushes aside any moral and legal obstacles.

Yeah, those silly political and military leaders. How silly of them to
place a higher value on their own citizens lives and welfare than that of
the citizens of other nations! Again, I wonder what Prof. Falk considers
is the proper way to prosecute a "moral and legal" war?

"It is here that one's worst fears and apprehensions are unfortunately amply
upheld. With respect to biological weaponry, even at a time when it was
generally considered to be both immoral and illegal, the United States
government was energetically exploring the *offensive* possibilities. And by
authoritative decision at command levels, it was prepared to use biological
weapons as a *weapon of choice* whenever military circumstances so warranted.
Such an internal governmental approach, clearly documented in a seemingly
incontrovertible manner for the period 1950-1953, *contradicted* the general
claim then made, and subsequently reaffirmed, that the U.S. program in
biological weapons was maintained solely for defensive purposes, and as a
backup retaliatory threat in the event that such weaponry was used by
adversaries."
--Richard Falk (p. xix)

Talking the enemy to death, perhaps?

'To jaw-jaw is better than to war-war.'
--Winston Churchill

Such a combination of circumstances suggests the breadth of the gap that
separates the citizenry from its political and military leadership in the
areas of war and peace.

No fooling. The average citizen is too busy with his or her
own life to worry about the "areas of war and peace." Hence
they designate other folks to handle those problems for them.
We call this division of labor Civilization. Yeah, that's
right, professor, we organize ourselves exactly like that.
Some are politicians, some are soldiers, some are farmers,
some are builders, some are manufacturers, some are doctors,
some are teachers, and so on. All of us working diligently
in our own little corner of the whole. Fortunately, we don't
let guys like Prof. Falk get their hands on the levers of power.
That those who *do* wield power, do not take advice from the
amateur philosophers like this professor, is a Good Thing(tm).

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them that they are being
attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in every country."
--Hermann Goering (1946, at the Nuremberg Trials)

It is against such a background of concerns that this disturbing and fine
book by Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman assumes its importance.

Such a background...meaning Professor Falk refuses to accept the
necessities of life in the big bad world around him. "Why can't
we all get along?" "Because the secret, vast, right-wing conspiracy
to control the world, won't let us!" Uh-huh. Sure.

"I was in a highly privileged position at Bomber Command. I knew much more
than most of the operational officers about the general course of the
campaign. I knew much more than the cabinet ministers in London about the
details of our operations. I was one of the very few people who knew what
were the objectives of the campaign, how miserably we were failing to meet
these objectives, and how expensive this was for us in money and lives. The
bombing campaign represented roughly one quarter of the total British war
effort. It was costing the Germans less than this to defend themselves and to
repair the industrial damage....We stopped trying to hit precise military
objectives. Burning down cities was all we could do, and so we did that.
Even in killing the civilian population we were inefficient....

I felt deeply my responsibility, being in possession of all this information
which was so carefully concealed from the British public. I was sickened by
what I knew. Many times I decided I had a moral obligation to run out into
the streets and tell the British people what stupidities were being done in
their name. But I never had the courage to do it. I sat in my office until
the end, carefully calculating how to murder most economically another hundred
thousand people."

--Freeman Dyson (Weapons and Hope, pp. 119-20)

The authors, experienced historians whose approach to their subject is
impressively exhaustive and meticulous, explore one of the most notorious
allegations of the Cold War era--that the United States used biological
weapons on an experimental basis in China and North Korea during the
Korean War....

Allegations from whom? What's notorious here, is this Professors
wholesale acceptance of innuendo. Where did these notorious allegations
arise? China? The Soviet Union? Your local student union?

"It is impossible to acknowledge properly the help of the many people who
helped us over the twenty years that it has taken to prepare this book."
--Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman (30 January 1998, p. xiii)

Relying on a vast array of previously unavailable declassified sources and
on access to archival materials in several countries, including China,
Endicott and Hagerman reached the conclusion that the circumstantial
evidence strongly supports the allegation of use.

Riiight. Wouldn't be much of a research project if they'd come up empty.
Bang! There goes the funding from the international conspiracy set.

"We wish to acknowledge the financial support that we received from the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, from York University, and
from Atkinson College, which made this extensive research project possible."
--Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman (p. xv)

And the Chinese released some documents? How clever of them to recognize an
opportunity like this, to cast doubt on their enemy's veracity.

"These documents were declassified for our use, and permission was given to
quote them....In any case, we greatly appreciated the treasure trove of daily
reports, telegrams, instructions, and research analysis of epidemic diseases
from the border area to Korea that came our way."
--Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman (pp. 253-4)

It also implies a continuing high-level cover-up about the true
relationship of the United States government to biological weapons in
general.

Or maybe the authors were mistaken all along. It doesn't take much effort
to "cover-up" something that never happened.

Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman have acknowledged that, given their
available documents and interviews, their case remains a circumstantial one.

The authors are scrupulous in their presentation, providing evidence and
reasoning for each link in their argument and resisting generalizations
that exceed what can be reliably documented.

Are the authors "providing" evidence or pointing out that such
evidence already exists? Are they creating evidence in support
of their theory? Readers of this introduction can't tell how
reliable is the documentation used the allegations made in the
book. This professor's imprimatur seems less than reassuring.

"As prosecutors, Hagerman and Endicott present a strong case. They cannot
be said to be dispassionate, but they are careful, even judicious."
--Stephen Ambrose (American historian and biographer of Eisenhower)

They also examine fairly the arguments and evidence that have been
advanced over the years to discredit the central allegation of BW use,
and find them thin and contrived.

This whole book sounds thin and contrived, unlike this introduction which is
clearly laced with loaded words to convey a message that the book's premise
cannot be refuted.

That's more evidence of the state of Briarroot's "open mind".

At minimum, this book raises the historical debate on the allegation
about biological weaponry to a new and necessary level of scholarly
seriousness that challenges the government to come forward with its own
refuting arguments and evidence. It is of utmost importance to clear up
the record....

Utmost importance to create suspicion where none previously existed, you
mean. I can't see any government taking time out to refute the "allegations"
of every two-bit psychopath with a political agenda somewhat to the left of
Joe Stalin. And why bother?

That's more evidence of the state of Briarroot's "open mind".

"At a minimum their research and revelations raise questions about the
possible use of biological warfare by the United States in the Korean War
that must be answered before we indulge in further moral condemnation of
Iraq's research and development of a germ warfare capability."
--Stephen Ambrose

Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman deserve our gratitude for producing
such an important study based on prodigious research, but even more for
their courage in taking on such a delicate theme. There are likely to be
recriminations and countercharges hurled in their direction, highly
orchestrated responses designed to divert attention from the substance
of their analysis.

Oh, how cunningly this is worded! Those "recriminations and countercharges
hurled in their direction" couldn't be because they deserve criticism,
could it? No, says the Prof., they "deserve our gratitude." What hogwash!
Falk is warning of "highly orchestrated responses designed to divert
attention from the substance of their analysis" while doing the exact same
thing himself!

Would Richard Falk appreciate it that his point has been corroborated by the
'response' of "Briarroot"?

Few people are going to believe the moon is made of green cheese,
no matter how much documentation you provide; and if you persist
in saying so anyway, based on your "prodigious research," they're
going to point at you and snicker! Better get used to it.

That's more evidence of the state of Briarroot's "open mind".

This doesn't require orchestration by a secret cabal, it's just
the normal inclination of human beings to scoff at the improbable.

As 'improbable' as the existence of the United States Public Health Service's
secret Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (1932-72), wherein 399 African American
men were deliberately kept in ignorance of and denied medical treatment for
their cases of syphilis, condemning many of them to death?

For further reading:
"Bad Blood: the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment" by James Jones

Such a prospect is hardly fanciful. Consider the backlash a few years
ago when the prestigious Smithsonian Institution sought to mount an
exhibition on the fiftieth anniversary of the dropping of atomic bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The end result of the incident was that the
director of the museum was dismissed and the exhibition was scaled way
back to deprive it of any elements of overdue atonement for the prolonged
damage inflicted on Japanese civilian society.

I lack the time now to address the historical ignorance in what follows:

Long overdue atonement! What a crock. Professor Falk has been
raising his flag throughout this piece, and here he clearly reveals
his ideology. "The prolonged damage inflicted on Japanese civilian
society" as he puts it, was the result of that same society starting
a brutal war to subjugate the whole of east asia. The Japanese
murdered millions for the sake of their narcissistic desire for
Empire and domination. In my opinion, an opinion which is far more
widely held than the Prof.'s, the Japanese richly deserved whatever
suffering they were later forced to endure. Don't just blame their
leaders, like Tojo, who was tried, convicted and hung by the allies;
the common people themselves, while things were going well, were
eager for their empire to conquer, and Tojo was their hero. Just as
the Germans loved Hitler... until they started losing. Yes, dropping
the atomic bombs saved *many* American lives. That's considered a
Good Thing(tm) by the American people who elected the leaders that
made that decision.

And no Japan wasn't going to surrender soon anyway. Tojo and his
gang were planning on going out with a blaze of glory. What actually
happened on Okinawa (and all the other islands) was going to happen
in Japan, but on a hugely increased scale. They were even training
the women and children to charge the invasion beaches with bamboo
spears. They had 15,000 aircraft hidden, with just enough fuel for
a final Kamikaze run at the American fleets. They were planning to
resist to the end, all for the glory of their Empire! Casualties on
both sides would have been horrendous. Even after the first atomic
bomb destroyed Hiroshima, Tojo refused to reconsider. Only after the
second bomb destroyed Nagasaki did the Emperor get off his ass and
finally step in and overrule him to say, in effect, enough's enough.

In the thread, "OT: Core Values" (5 September 2003), "Briarroot" wrote to me:
Nick (The Liar) wrote:
(Briarroot's off-topic (non-historical) ad hominem attack snipped)

..."Briarroot" evidently believed that Tojo was still Japan's Prime
Minister in August 1945. In fact, Tojo and his entire Cabinet had been
removed from office in July 1944. In August 1945, Tojo was merely a
former Prime Minister--living in some disgrace, having been widely blamed
for Japan's many defeats in the war--who evidently had little, if any,
remaining political influence. But most people in the United States today
may be ignorant of that fact of Japanese history. Yet I should expect
that even ordinary undergraduate students of modern history ought to know
at least that much.

I expect that most undergraduates know that even though Tojo was no longer
Prime Minister, he continued to control the government of Japan using his
associates within the army hierarchy. Assassination was one of the tools
his group used to maintain their control. Prime Minister Koiso was far
to (sic) weak a personality, and had no base of power of his own to compete
with Tojo's group.

Of course, you avoided my point in the post you quoted, a typical tactic of
the liar that you are. The point of that post was that Japan was not going
to surrender, even after the 1st atomic bomb was dropped. The die-hard
reactionaries in charge of Japan would have much preferred to have their
entire nation consumed in the carnage that would have ensued after a
US invasion. Their warped sense of honor made them willing to sacrifice
their own people on the altar of what they thought of as glory. The
Emperor's intervention prevented this from occurring, but (much like Hitler
in the final days of the Third Reich) Tojo would have preferred to leave
nothing but a charred wasteland to mark the passing of Imperial Japan.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that a leftist (and blatant liar) like
you would prefer that these facts were not become common knowledge.

I lack the time now to address Briarroot's false statements (above).

"Briarroot" wrote (back in this thread):
In my opinion, the Smithsonian curator who set up that exhibition was
*properly* dismissed for trying to re-write history. It is the various
*revisionist* conspiracy theories such as are promulgated here by
Professor Falk, that are exactly what he attempts to label below as
"their "own consoling version of history."

"It's important to recognise how much of American memory is myth. For example,
that we used the bomb simply to win the war and save Americans' lives is the
dominant myth."
--John Dower (quoted by William Lanouette in 'Why We Dropped Bomb' from
"Civilization: the Magazine of the Library of Congress",
January-February 1995, p. 37)

"Without question, Dower is America's foremost historian of the Second World
War in the Pacific. I steal shamelessly from him in my lectures; I do make
sure to give him credit when I steal from his material in my books. No one
else even comes close to Dower in researching and writing about the war in
the Pacific."
--Stephen Ambrose

John Dower is Ford International Professor of History at MIT. Dower has won
the Pulitzer Prize in Letters for General Nonfiction, the National Book Award
in Nonfiction, the Bancroft Prize in American History, and the
John K. Fairbank Prize in Asian History.

In this instance, unlike that pertaining to the biological weapons
narrative, the essential facts were known (though the bureaucratic
rationale for the use of atomic bombs at that stage in the war remains a
matter of controversy and concealment), and it was patrioteering elements
of the citizenry who apparently self-mobilized (with notable
congressional and Pentagon backing) to safeguard their *own consoling
version of history*, thereby avoiding the anguish of self-examination
with respect to responsibility for having crossed the nuclear threshold."

What nonsense. Know one in 1945 knew exactly what effects the bombs
would have, not even the scientists who developed them. There was
no evident "nuclear threshold" in 1945. Leaving aside the question
of whether or not nuclear weapons are any less moral to use in wartime
than conventional weapons, (I happen to think they are as moral as
any other weapon) all talk of a "nuclear threshold" is 20-20 hindsight.

In the thread, "OT Dresden teapots" (17 August 2003), "Briarroot" wrote:
"What I did was point out the obvious; that if all of the enemy are dead, then
the war is over and can be considered to have been successfully concluded.
This has been long been the model of war making by the human race. Recent
European tradition (inherited by their former colonies) in the last several
centuries has moderated this model, but the older system is still sound...."

Here's a link to information on the international Genocide Convention:
http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/

--Richard Falk (5 August 1998, pp. xvii-xx)

Professor Falk and his kind (such as that museum director) deserve
all the excoriation and disdain that they may have received for
trying to twist history to fit their fantastic notions of morality,
and how wars should be fought. Above, Falk criticizes "political
and military leaders" who feel "that 'saving American lives' is a
justification for otherwise terrible deeds that brushes aside any
moral and legal obstacles." He is completely wrong to do so. It
is the primary responsibility of all national leaders to save the
lives of their citizens; and to place the survival of their own
ahead of the survival of the people of an enemy state, both in time
of war and in time of peace. This is the duty for which they were
elected or appointed to the positions which they hold. One might
even say it is their first duty. But then the concept of national
duty seems strangely alien to men like Prof. Falk.

'Befehl ist Befehl!' ('An order is an order!')
'Vernichtungskrieg' = 'war of annihilation'

"By the worst means, the worst. For mine own good,
All causes shall give way: I am in blood
Stepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er."
--William Shakespeare (MacBeth)

It's too bad Nick didn't quote any of the body of this book.
I'd like the opportunity to debunk some of that bilge water.

And that's more evidence of the state of Briarroot's "open mind".

'Prejudices of education are never wholly eradicated, even when they are
discovered to be erroneous and absurd.'
--Tobias Smollett (Humphry Clinker)

--Nick

Nick (The Liar) wrote:

This post has been written today *only* to combine another ignorant post by
"Briarroot" on history with his *relevant comments* in this thread in order to
make it more convenient for me to respond to them all, if I choose later when I
have more time to write, here in one place instead of in separate but related
places.

chuckle

And Nick the Liar has had the temerity to call *me* obsessed.

Dear Nick, blow it out your ass, you pompous lying weasel!

"Briarroot" wrote in message
...

This post has been written today *only* to combine another ignorant post
by
"Briarroot" on history with his *relevant comments* in this thread in
order to
make it more convenient for me to respond to them all, if I choose later
when I
have more time to write, here in one place instead of in separate but
related
places.

chuckle

And Nick the Liar has had the temerity to call *me* obsessed.

Dear Nick, blow it out your ass, you pompous lying weasel!

"They had dead cats. I could smell them." -- H. Finn

StanB