[lit-ideas] Re: Five Years Ago
- From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 23:08:25 +0100
More of Lawrence's standard fayre.
On the one side we have his predominant position that the left can't read the
situation, that it is incorrect in applying full blame on the US for 9/11. (It
doesn't of course, but we shouldn't let facts get in the way of rhetoric.) On
the other side we have his other position that the left thinks the US and
Britain should get out of Iraq now. Notice that all he ever seems to be
concerned about is the political opposition. It doesn't matter about those in
power. Why's that?
Interesting leap between the two of course. On one side we have the
consideration of blame, whilst on the other the consideration of policy. What
happens when we swap the two about? The questions become:
What does the left consider should be done in the 'War on Terror'?
Who is to blame for the situation in Iraq?
No doubt Lawrence could supply answers to both. First though he should make a
study of the word nuance.
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:50 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Five Years Ago
Judy,
The fact that Mike's use of "root causes" was clear to you is irrelevant.
You are not a standard here. The sentence was not self-authenticating. It
possessed ambiguity. That is a demonstrable fact. Go back and observe what
happened. I read Mike's statement about root causes and assumed he meant a
particular set of causes. He was outraged -- sort of. How could I so misread
his ambiguous statement as to apply the root causes I applied? Well, gosh and
gee whiz. If you expect someone to understand you thoroughly then you had
better do your best to write that way and not hold someone to a peculiar
interpretation of an ambiguous term. Don't plunk down an ambiguous word or two
and then be outraged if someone doesn't read it your way.
I notice that you abandon the fact that his phrase was ambiguous and rush to
the assumptions I made about it. That is more interesting to you because you
side with Mike. (Do you share the party line?) You know exactly what he meant
and that means something to you. You then make some pronouncements and
declare my reading of Mikes ambiguous phrase "cartoonish." But how many times
have I read just this phrase, employed by a leftist to mean just that
cartoonish thing? Perhaps dozens. It is virtually a Leftist party line.
Forget the quibbles. It is said in different ways, but it is said over and
over again. The US is responsible for 9/11. It went out and did bad things in
the Middle East. Look at what it did in Iran. Look at what it did here and
there. Look at all the greed, all the business underhandedness. Yes, that is
what caused 9/11; the U.S. itself is the Root Cause of 9/11. What we have is
the Wretched of the Middle East crying out under the burden of this abuse, of
this oppression. They have no armies and no weapons to speak of. All they
have is their pitiable lives; and so these poor ones board planes and fly their
protests into the World Trade Center. But will the US understand this message?
No, not at all. They don't take the blame. They don't see that it is their
guilt that is the root cause of 9/11, but it is, and unless they wake up and
take responsibility for their outrageous behavior, nay, unless they change
their outrageous behavior, it will happen over and over and over.
The "party line" has always had significance in Leftist and Marxist circles.
I'm not playing the logic game of all or none or some. This has been the
predominant situation in the U.S. Of course it isn't just peculiar to sayings
of the Left: look at the way that guy is mincing along. Look at his lisping
talk. Five dollars to a donut he's gay.
We have a Democratic-Party contingent that wants the U.S. to leave Iraq
immediately. Notice the ambiguity in that. It doesn't explain why they want
the U.S. to leave. Conservatives don't understand this contingent. Don't they
realize that if we pull out immediately, the Sunni insurgents will have an all
out war with the Shiites? Don't they realize that the fragile Iraqi government
won't be able to stand if we pull out too soon? Don't they understand that
Iraqi democracy is at risk? I submit that the Democrats don't look at Iraq the
way Conservatives do. Democracy is a Western Idea and who are we to impose
that on an Islamic nation? Who do we think we are? If they want democracy
then they'll figure that out on their own.
Well sure, but the immediate effect is that those things the Conservatives
fear if we pull out too soon will probably happen.
Big deal. You don't get your way over there. Tough.
Fortunately this view is a minority one. We could recast it to say that the
US & Britain must not leave Iraq before they have a stable government, a stable
military and a stable police force. We Conservatives think it would be a good
thing if Iraq were to have a stable democratic government that had no
Rogue-type aggressive inclinations. We do not see Liberal-Democracy as an evil
thing. We think it the best form of government that has ever been developed.
Sure you can find bad and ugly things in America & Britain but where can you go
in the world where you can't? Look on the positive things that we have and
are. There is nothing that exists today that is any better, and there is much
that is much much worse.
If you want something better then you want something that doesn't exist, and
it is okay to advocate improvements or changes. It is not okay to recommend
the elimination of Liberal Democracy and the substitution of Islamism -- or
even the moral equivalency between the two ideologies.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
