[lit-ideas] Re: The Iran Charade
- From: "Veronica Caley" <vcaley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:15:57 -0500
Robert: Advocating not invading Iraq might be a
consequence of one's being a true pacifist; but
saying that this is the 'wrong war, at the wrong
time, in the wrong place,' is to advocate
prudence, not pacifism, unless one is a pacifist
making a bad joke.
Robert is correct here I think. In my experience, it's always
conservatives who think some branch of the Democratic Party (pacifists?) is
responsible for losing something or other. First it was China going
Communist, then it was Vietnam. Now it will be Iraq.
I started opposing the Vietnam war when my Republican professor was
explaining the circumstances of Vietnam. These were that the French had
warned the US away from this when they gave up the country. That the US
promised at the treaty between Vietnam and France that they would not
invade, although the US ambassador would not shake the hand of the
Vietnamese ambassador.
The other event that made me oppose the war was that when I watched the
news, I realized that various hills were numbered and taken, over and over
again, by one side or the other. After studying the matter further, I
decided that they would fight to the last person to get their country away
from foreigners.
And then I thought what Americans would do if invaded the way the
Vietnamese were. My conclusion was that we would do as the Vietnamese did.
Veronica Caley
Milford, MI
> [Original Message]
> From: Eric Yost <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 1/19/2006 12:45:17 AM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Iran Charade
>
> Robert: Advocating not invading Iraq might be a
> consequence of one's being a true pacifist; but
> saying that this is the 'wrong war, at the wrong
> time, in the wrong place,' is to advocate
> prudence, not pacifism, unless one is a pacifist
> making a bad joke.
>
> Eric: Another alternative is that people say
> whatever they think supports their views, whether
> or not they believe in them. One could say this is
> the 'wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong
> place' merely because it supports one's
> emotionally-based convictions.
>
> Take Pinter's bizarre Nobel Prize speech--an old
> coot venting ahistorically and nonsequentially as
> though he were a military historian rather than a
> playwright. Pinter obviously doesn't know more
> than any of us--he merely makes contentions that
> support his emotional bias.
>
> And you have no idea how many literary folk have
> sent me copies of his speech--as though the
> judgment of Pinter on recent history were any more
> valid than Andy Warhol's opinion of quantum mechanics.
>
> People want things that confirm their views.
> Doesn't matter if they are ignorant of the
> subtleties or innocent of the research.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
