[lit-ideas] Re: Muhammed and the Giant Peach
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 19:59:22 -0500
It stands to reason that if they expected flowers, they would hardly expect any
of the other consequences. They had no plan for after the Saddam fell, none
whatsoever. If they expected all the bad things you quote and were that
unprepared, Lawrence, geez ...
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 2/5/2006 7:50:39 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Muhammed and the Giant Peach
You quote me saying ?I perform a (cold analysis of the evidence.? You then
draw a conclusion about my conclusions. As evidence you provide an incomplete
quote from me with an emphasis upon on of those old bugaboo words ?none.?
[Does ?none? mean ?none without exception? or ?none of the major ones, or none
of a certain sort?? The context ought to guide you.] I used the word
advisedly expecting no one would engage in this sort of quibble. Note the
entire quote which you do not provide: ?And in the aftermath, none of the
expectations of failure occurred. The Iraqis did not rise up in support of
Saddam. The Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis did not begin an immediate Civil War.
The various religious and political elements did not reject democracy. The
Iraqis did not want us out immediately.?
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 4:01 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Muhammed and the Giant Peach
"I am an ancient who performs a (cold) analysis of the evidence,"
As I see it, you don't analyze the evidence, you spin the evidence to suit your
conclusions. For example, in another post you write, "And in the aftermath,
none of the expectations of failure occurred."
What expectations of failure? They expected flowers. Bremer said the
insurgency took them by surprise. What evidence was there of expectation of
failure? They went in with an army even the Army laughed at, they thought it
would be so easy. Extensive reading of one point of view, yes. Analysis, I
don't see it.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 2/5/2006 5:18:46 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Muhammed and the Giant Peach
Yesterday I saw a few minutes of a C-Span discussion of Michael LeGault's book
Think, Why Crucial Decisions cant be made in the Blink of an eye. He said
that moderns have lost the ability and desire to engage in critical thinking.
In earlier times one developing an argument would analyze the evidence and draw
conclusions based upon it. But today it is considered better to draw
conclusions based upon the right emotion. I thought of the very brief Let us
reason together period Mike and I had Friday. He saw that we had some things
in common and proposed that we reason together.
In listening to LeGault on C-Span, it seemed to me that Mike and I might be
exemplifying the difference he was referring to. I could never say wars ought
not to be engaged in until I analyzed wars and the reasons for engaging in
them. Mike could presuppose Never again war.
He started with rejecting the idea that the US was the good guy. He asked why
we couldnt just see the world as Just Guys Seeing the Things from their own
perspective. I indeed believed that we each saw things from our own
perspective, and I could accept the pluralism of allowing for that, but I
couldnt go all the way based on the evidence. I couldnt accept the
consequences no matter what. If the Islamist seeing things from his own
perspective wants to kill me, I am not willing to be quite pluralistic enough
to allow him to do so.
Further down he said Lets start with the end to war. I could never start
there. I need to start with an analysis of war. I need to study the reasons
that wars start, their commonness, their effects and a variety of other things.
As it happens Ive already done a considerable amount of that. I have
concluded that while wars are not desirable, they are sometimes necessary.
But my purpose here isnt to rehash our two note discussion of Friday, it is to
wonder whether Mike and I clash because I am an ancient who performs a (cold)
analysis of the evidence, while Mike, a modern seeks the right (warm) emotions
and is able to draw unerring conclusions from them.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
