Does your museum exist to house and preserve a collection? Immutable laws
of physics condemn your collections to rot--but you persist in your efforts
despite evidence that, ultimately, all will be lost. Why not practice peace
this way?

Rationales for war would seem to include clear and present dangers but also
conceal hidden agendas. Pre-emptive war making, however, is like a
conservation treatment applied before thorough testing: it inflicts
irreversible damage. Then, too, distributing small arms to local insurgents
and  nuclear technology to unstable governments, and propping up petty
dictators are all like putting your collection under floodlights in the
middle of traffic. Why not commit resources to resolving conflicts with
preventive strategies and methods that are balanced against possible
adverse consequences, and ones that limit damage to human beings and
cultural property? Why not insist on the full and honest documentation of
all defense-related intelligence, as though it was a conservation treatment
plan?

Rebecca Trussell

> [Original Message]
> From: John A. Bing <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 7/20/2004 12:13:51 AM
> Subject: Re: Stonewalk
>
> I have restrained myself from entering this thread as I viewed it as a
> rather naive effort of claiming that one could make war go away by
> just being nice and not having an army.  It makes me wonder if they
> still teach history in our schools.  I also wonder if the proponents
> of no army are just doing this as a political message for the coming
> election.  A few points:
>
> Did anyone think of how many fewer millions of people would have been
> killed in WWII if Chamberlain had taken a strong stand to Hitler
> instead of relying on Hitler's assurance on non aggression.  We all
> can take a lesson by watching the old newsreel of Chamberlain getting
> out of the airplane and holding up a piece of paper and claiming that
> because of his agreement with Hitler there will be "..peace in our
> times..." Ha.
>
> Hitler invaded Poland  and Russia not because they had armies but
> because they had small armies that he could conquer.
>
> Ask the people of Belgian and Luxembourg, both of which had minuscule
> armies what their "peace" was during WWI as well as in WWII.
>
> Lastly, if you are repulsed by war, shooting and hurting people, why
> don't you get rid of the police.  They are just the communities's
> equivalent of an army.  Just think how your lives would change if we
> didn't have our police or as they are often referred to as "peace
> officers." You can be sure it would find us all hunkering down in our
> houses scared to go out because of all the thugs and robbers out
> there.
>
> We need our police and we need our army and, we need to stop the
> Hitlers and el Quida BEFORE they do us harm.  The only point is that
> firm and factual justification will only come when they write the
> history, and if you are wrong, you probably won't be around to read
> it.
> John Bing
>
>
>
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:32:26 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >Dave,
> >Thank you for correcting my misspelling of Liechtenstein. As I stated,
peace
> >is a way of life. To take one simple example, one can gently correct a
> >misspelling, or even overlook it if the misspelling does not interfere
with
> >the core of the message, or one can make a snide remark. The first option
> >will be helpful and lead to more standardized communications. The second
> >option will not add or detract from the message, but will not serve as a
> >motivator for negative remark. The third option presents a temptation of
> >responding in-kind and potentially escalating the correspondence into an
> >unpleasant exchange. I don't know how you intended your comment about
> >Liechtenstein, but I choose to see it as a welcome corrective.
> >
> >The simple point that I tried to make with the Liechtenstein example is
that
> >without an army one is not going to be involved in any military
> >misadventure-that is a guarantee. Furthermore, all income to the
government
> >also has the potential of being spent on productive needs of the society
> >such as healthcare, support of culture, infrastructure, old age pensions,
> >etc.
> >
> >Is there a causal relationship between not having an army and living in
> >peace? In my view, yes-I have yet to hear of a people without an army
that
> >went to war. Your statement that it is easy to live in peace when you are
> >small is not serious. Just think of Germany (size of Oregon) vs. the
Soviet
> >Union and France, North Vietnam vs. France and the US, or Israel and its
> >neighbors. In fact, Israel is the world's smallest nuclear power. It's
not
> >the size of the country, it's the attitude.
> >
> >I agree with you that it makes no sense for Liechtenstein to have an
army,
> >but I feel that about countries in general. I have no idea how
Liechtenstein
> >fared in the World Wars. I do know that they did not lose 20 million
dead in
> >WWII as the Soviets did, they did not have concentration camps on its
> >territory as in Poland, they were not murdered wholesale and they did not
> >murder wholesale. In short, Liechtenstein's civilians suffered less than
> >most neighbors with large armies, and they caused less suffering to
others.
> >
> >Cheers, --PeaceNick
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf
> >Of David E. Haberstich
> >Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 2:23 AM
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: Stonewalk
> >
> >In a message dated 7/16/2004 9:06:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> >[log in to unmask] writes:
> >
> ><< Peace is not a goal-it is a way of life, of establishing
relationships,
> >of
> > structuring culture. Lichtenstein has no army. Lichtenstein has had more
> > years of peace than we exist as a country. Is there a connection? You
bet.
> >>>
> >
> >Nick, I'm no authority on Liechtenstein (except for knowing how to spell
> >it),
> >but I wonder if there's really any causal relationship between its lack
of
> >an
> >army and its peaceful existence.  It's pretty easy to be peaceful when
> >everyone else is bigger than you are.  Would there be any point in
having an
> >army
> >even if they wanted one?  I also wonder how peaceful it was when it was
part
> >of
> >the Holy Roman Empire.  How did it fare during the world wars?  (I ask
> >because
> >I have no idea.)
> >
> >David Haberstich
> >
> >
>
> =========================================================
> Important Subscriber Information:
>
> The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail
message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should
read "help" (without the quotes).
>
> If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
[log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff
Museum-L" (without the quotes).

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).