[lit-ideas] Re: The beginning of the end in Iraq
- From: "Judith Evans" <judithevans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:39:10 +0100
> Lou Dobbs was certainly surprised by Grange's outburst, but
> also acknowledged the truth of the outburst
our generals would have said (if the TV person hadn't) "X
per cent of the population oppose the War" *not*
>"Half of the country seems to want
> us to lose this war!
there's an important difference.
> But for the desire to see things fail, just review the
> postings on this List from 2003 to 2004
You must have been told a hundred times (it certainly seems
like a hundred...) that opposition to a war is not the same
as "want us to lose it" except insofar as what you might call
victory is not what opponents of the war want i.e. we do not
want to see Iraq made a desert and proclaimed a democracy.
It is however not dishonourable to want the US/UK to "lose"
this War (meaning of "lose" to be determined) whereas it
certainly would have been dishonourable to want the Allies to
lose WWII.
(Why?)
Judy Evans, Cardiff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Yost" <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 8:21 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The beginning of the end in Iraq
> > General Grange had a brief outburst that seemed to
> surprise Dobbs. He said, "Half of the country seems to want
> us to lose this war! Why do we want to lose this war? We can
> win it if we want to."
>
> Judy: our generals and former generals tend not to say
> things like that.
>
> Lou Dobbs was certainly surprised by Grange's outburst, but
> also acknowledged the truth of the outburst. Maybe it's an
> American thing: most of the media's world view is shaped by
> Vietnam. (Remember the NYT started with the "Vietnam
> quagmire" cry early in the Afghan campaign, and only stopped
> when it was beyond any doubt that they were wrong.)
>
> But for the desire to see things fail, just review the
> postings on this List from 2003 to 2004. It's built into the
> mentality and is beyond argument, reason, or national need.
>
> Bush is partially responsible for reactivating the Vietnam
> meme. Andrew Sullivan points out that after 9/11 Bush could
> have said, "We have to rebuild our army to pre-Clinton
> levels. That will require new taxes and no supply-side tax
> cuts." He would have got what he asked for too. Instead he
> said, "Everything's okay, don't sacrifice anything. We'll
> take care of things. You just go shopping." Then he went
> into Iraq with enough troops to lose but not enough to win.
>
> So everyone stayed in their state of disconnected suburban
> nihilism, and here we are...
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
