[lit-ideas] Re: WTO and War
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:50:37 -0800
Look up polemic some place else. Here's the definition that comes with the
Microsoft Office Word:
1. Passionate argument: a passionate, strongly worded, and often
controversial argument against or, less often, in favor of something or
somebody.
2. Passionate critic: somebody who engages in a dispute or argues
strongly or passionately against something or somebody
You weren't providing evidence. .You engaged in an impassioned
sarcasm-filled diatribe
Why do you say I'm from the far right? Believing in National Defense
doesn't put me on the far right. What does "far right" mean to you?
Remember all my notes praising Liberal-Democracy? How do they equate to
"far right"?
Since I couldn't tell whether you were opposing or supporting the WTO; so
just in case you were opposing it, I mentioned we signed up to it during the
Clinton administration.
You write, "Your various postings call for eternal war, nuclear attacks on
Arabs, missile defense systems against thriller novels, and general attacks
on leftists, without any justification whatsoever."
My postings regarding my ideal future call for universal peace not eternal
war. My notes about Fukuyama and Barnett describe how we can achieve this
peace. I hope they are right, but I also described the arguments of Samuel
P. Huntington who argues against Fukuyama and thinks we shall have ongoing
clashes of civilization. Huntington seems to be closer to being right at
the present time. As I read each book on Iran, for example, I hope to find
some evidence that we won't have to engage in a pre-emptive attack, but I
haven't found anything to suggest that. The next thing to hope for is that
a Nuclear Iran is thinkable after all, but if they are the chief supporter
of terrorist organizations, and the chief exporter of Islamism in the Middle
East today, and they are, then a nuclear Iran seems a very great risk to
take. For a brief period (during Khatami's regime) they quit opening their
meetings with "Death to America, Death to Israel," but I think with their
new president they are back to that. Invoking the WTO doesn't address this
issue and I don't know why you brought it up in this context.
I never proposed a nuclear attack on any Arab nation. I argued that if a
nuclear Iran was unthinkable then a surgical strike against their nuclear
facilities is what we should pursue.
I don't recall writing on missile defense except to say we had no defense
against the SCUD in a Box scenario the pentagon is war-gaming. Are you
saying that because the Pentagon is war=gaming this scenario that to
describe it is the same as describing a novel? That doesn't make sense.
Also, to imagine that we shouldn't try to prevent being attacked in the
future doesn't make sense either.
"Without any justification whatever"? That's not true. I provide
references for all the arguments I make. It is true that I haven't quoted
voluminously out of the last few books I've read, namely Robin Wright's In
the Name of God, The Khomeini Decade, Mohaddessin's Islamic Fundamentalism,
Ilan Berman's Tehran Rising, and Kenneth Timmerman's Countdown to Crisis,
The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran, however, I have mentioned what I
found in these books. The evidence exists. The "reasons whatsoever" exist.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andreas Ramos
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 8:24 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: WTO and War
> I don't see how you can call adherence to the WTO a "Republican"
enterprise.
> We joined the WTO in 1995 during a Democratic administration.
Oh, Lawrence...
First, I didn't say the WTO was a Republican enterprise. I said that the GOP
supported it,
to prevent you from claiming the WTO was a pinko project. Even the GOP
supports it.
Secondly, the Clinton Dems were centrist Republicans. To you, on the fringe
right, the
center does seem leftist. Clinton and the Dem party was only barely
tolerated by traditional
Democrats (unions, etc.) Remember: Clinton was pro-business, abolished
welfare, and slept
with his admins. Typical Republican.
Thirdly, my email about the WTO was hardly a polemic. I gave you an
explanation, based on
economics, why "local politics" doesn't matter anymore.
So what's a polemic? Here's the Wiki definition: "Polemic is the art or
practice of inciting
disputation or causing controversy, for example in religious, philosophical,
or political
matters. As such a polemic text on a topic is written specifically to
dispute or refute a
topic that is widely viewed to be a "sacred cow" or beyond reproach, in an
effort to "stir
up trouble".
Your various postings call for eternal war, nuclear attacks on Arabs,
missile defense
systems against thriller novels, and general attacks on leftists, without
any justification
whatsoever.
Yep, that seems like polemics to me.
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
Other related posts:
