[lit-ideas] Re: CFP: PEACE REVIEW on the PsychologicalInterpretation of War

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 17:15:57 -0800

The war (war on terror) was started by the Islamists.  It was.  Islamists
attacked us.  That started the war.  Bush responded by declaring war not
only on those who attacked us but upon those who gave aid and comfort to
them.  That was an appropriate response to this sort of guerrilla-type war.
Saddam was in the second category not the first.  
 

Lawrence Helm

 

-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 4:35 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: CFP: PEACE REVIEW on the
PsychologicalInterpretation of War

 

 

<<By  the way, Bush didn't start this war, the Islamists did.  They attacked


us

and any president would have responded in some fashion.  I can't  bring to

mind a president that would have let such an attack pass.   Also, Kerry

didn't denounce the war against the Islamists.  He didn't  fault Bush for
the

war. He just said he would have fought it differently,  e.g. by getting

France and Germany to help and waiting for U.N.  approval.>> 

Hussein is/was not an  Islamisist.  He was thoroughly secular and persecuted


the most religious of  the Muslims.  To call attacking Iraq an attack on the


Islamisists conflates  issues.  It's not clear whether the current
"insurgents" 

are Islamisists or  not, but if they are, they have merely filled a void.  

There was nothing  Islamisist about Hussein's regime. 

Julie Krueger 

 

 

========Original  Message========     Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: CFP: PEACE
REVIEW 

on the  PsychologicalInterpretation of War  Date: 12/8/04 5:24:13 PM Central


Standard Time  From: _lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 

(mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx)   To: _lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)   Sent 

on:    

Gee, Andy, you quote a couple of my long  paragraphs and then, and then try

to reduce them to a single sentence and  assume you have captured what I

said.  You didn't.  I've covered  these matters in two notes now, but I
don't

want to beat a dead horse.   If you don't get it, you just don't.  Moving

right along  then:

 

John Kerry as your modern day St. Francis???  Gosh.  We  must be living in

alternative universes.  The Kerry in my universe  doesn't seem up to it.

 

You asked what I meant by verbally violent  pacifists.  I am referring to

people who claim to be against war under  any circumstance but who engage in

flame wars with those who disagree with  them.  I am not a pacifist.  I

believe any nation that isn't  willing to defend itself either won't survive

or will have to rely upon  another nation for its protection.  Words come

from the heart, and if a  person's words are violent, he doesn't make a very

credible pacifist.   

 

By the way, Bush didn't start this war, the Islamists did.  They  attacked
us

and any president would have responded in some fashion.  I  can't bring to

mind a president that would have let such an attack  pass.  Also, Kerry

didn't denounce the war against the Islamists.   He didn't fault Bush for
the

war. He just said he would have fought it  differently, e.g. by getting

France and Germany to help and waiting for U.N.  approval.

 

Lawrence

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original  Message-----

From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On Behalf Of Andy Amago

Sent:  Wednesday, December 08, 2004 1:32 PM

To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;  lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: CFP: PEACE REVIEW on  the

PsychologicalInterpretation of War

 

-----Original  Message-----

From: Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Sent:  Dec 8, 2004 2:04 PM

To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: [lit-ideas] Re:  CFP: PEACE REVIEW on the

PsychologicalInterpretation of War

 

A long  time ago, when I was 17, I enlisted in the Marine Corps.  I  didn't

enlist for reasons of comradeship -- I had no friends joining with  me.

There was a war going on -- the Korean War.  I don't recall how  astute I
was

at that age, but the nation declared a need, the sort of need  that young
men

have been called to meet since the earliest days of mankind's'  recorded

history.  I take it that if Koenigsberg were part of our  discussion, he

would be interested in my motivations. He would be interested  in what sort

of aberration caused me to talk my mother into signing the  papers so I
could

enlist in the Marine Corps.  But Koenigsberg would be  better off examining

the history of the times: the relationship between the  USSR and the USA.
He

should read about the Truman administration and  learn about the writings of

George Kennan.  The Truman doctrine had been  created to combat the USSR and

its influence.  The Korean War was an  application of that doctrine.  That

application was the cause of our  entry into that War, not my willingness to

join the Marine  Corps.

 

 

To argue that there could not have been a justification for  our going to
war

with North Korea implies that we should not have had a  policy that opposed

the USSR and that we should have allowed North Korea to  invade our ally

South Korea.  To search for the reasons for war in the  psychology of

individual soldiers is searching in the wrong place.  It  is also wrong to

search for the reasons for this war in the psychology of  Truman, Acheson,
or

Kennan.  None of those three wanted to go to war in  Korea, but they weren't

willing to abandon our ally South Korea.  As an  alternative to
Koenigsberg's

psychological exercise, consider the  psychological implications of American

leaders who at that time could have  abandoned South Korea to the North

Koreans.

 

 

 

A.A.   Restating your position, times and countries create war, people don't

create  war.  This begs the question: who creates the times and countries?


 

 

 

 

L.H. I am presently reading Ian Kershaw's Hitler, 1889-1936:  Hubris.  I am

on

page 432 and it is 1933.  Hitler has just  become Chancellor.  Hitler has

made his policies known.  He intends  to go to war - not because he loves

war, although I suppose he loved it as  much as anyone.  He wanted to go to

war to give Germans lebensraum and  to counter the effects of the people he

called "the November  Criminals."  He thought the Germans were the master

race and deserved to  gain as much lebensraum as it needed through war.  He

thought the  Germans were better at war than anyone else.  It is possible to

examine  many of Hitler's motives, but as much as he loved war, however much

that was,  it couldn't be said that he went to war because he loved war.
The

objectives of his war were the reasons he went to war.  Lebensraum  in the

East and the countering of the effects of the ignominious surrender  after

World War One were probably the prime reasons. 

 

 

 

A.A. If  he hated war and violence, he would have found another way to meet

his  ends.  He chose instead to go to war, and his people chose to  follow

him.  He hated peace, so he shunned it.

 

 

 

 

L.H.  We are a conflicted people - all of us are.  We engage in  conflicts

throughout life.  The nations that represent us also engage in  conflicts.

It would be better to focus on the nature and reasons for our  conflicts
than

in the dubious love of war.  

 

 

 

A.A. So far,  through 2004, focusing on reasons for conflicts just has

yielded one  solution: war, ever bigger, ever badder.

 

 

 

 

L.H. Imagine a  nation filled with adults who each

possessed the personality of St. Francis  of Assisi.  Perhaps that nation

could avoid war - at least it would  stand a better chance than any nation

that exists today.  Now that would  be an interesting project, all you

pacifists: give up your verbal  violence.  Stop railing against people who

disagree with you.   Become more like St. Francis.

 

 

A.A. Bush purportedly is focused on  religion, and he started a war that
will

last for years if not decades.   Perhaps we need a president who could lead

us in becoming more like St.  Francis.  Kerry was the man to do that and he

was defeated.  In  fact, he denounced the Vietnam War and was vilified for

it.  My question  to you is, what specifically is verbally violent from

pacifists?   

 

 

Andy  Amago

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

To  change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,

digest  on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,

digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html



------------------------------------------------------------------
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: