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

  • From: Andy Amago <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 21:02:49 -0500 (GMT-05:00)

-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Dec 8, 2004 6:20 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: CFP: PEACE REVIEW on the PsychologicalInterpretation 
of War

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:


A.A. You're avoiding the issue.  Plus it's a legitimate question, so I'll ask 
it again: who creates the times and countries if not human beings?  


L.H. 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.


A.A.  Kerry was against the war.  He said the country is not ready for body 
bags and burn victims and amputees.  He was told by his advisers that if he 
wanted to win against a Republican president during war time, he had to support 
the war.  That was why he was so half hearted in his support.  He also was 
severely beat up for being against Vietnam by Bush's supporters.  Your call to 
emulate St. Francis belongs in an alternate universe given that the man you no 
doubt voted for invaded a country and killed a third as many Americans as did 
al Qaeda, mained God knows how many more, and killed over 100,000 Iraqis, all 
for no reason.




L.H. 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.  



A.A.  Flame wars?  When someone disagrees with your logic, you accuse them of a 
flame war.  I asked you for specific examples of verbal violence and you accuse 
me of a flame war.  Is your logic that unsupportable?

I'm assuming you mean that because it's clear the human race loves war, and I 
am interested in the dynamics of why the human race loves war, then that 
automatically makes me a pacifist.  I'm against stupid wars, like the war in 
Iraq.  Does that make me a pacifist or just someone with sense?  


L.H.  By the way, Bush didn't start this war, the Islamists did.  


A.A. Right.  The Islamists attacked us, not the Iraqis.  No WMD, remember?  
9/11 Commission, remember?



L.H.  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.  



A.A.  Right again.  The difference being that another president may have 
attacked the correct target and avoided turning a terrorist organization into a 
worldwide movement.  We are by no stretch of the imagination safe from another 
attack.  We are merely living on bin Laden time, until he's good and ready.  
Not to mention that there are many ways to skin a cat.  This war in Iraq is a 
huge victory for bin Laden because in addition to building a movement for 
himself, he's bleeding us with it.  It's in his interests to have us in Iraq 
now.  Bush has opened up a wound for us without securing a thing.  



L.H. 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.


A.A.  Getting the world on our side would have been in our interests.  We're 
going it alone and clearly you think that's great.  Presumably in alternate 
universes fighting singlehandedly against worldwide movements is a good thing.  
Or perhaps in this universe too given how warlike our species is.  We love war, 
we got war.  Pacifists need not apply.


Andy Amago




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

Other related posts: