[lit-ideas] Re: The Peace of Westphalia
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:48:55 -0400
---- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 9/28/2006 12:08:00 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Peace of Westphalia
That?s nonsense Irene. The Peace of Westphalia was not a pattern for anything
except not fighting wars for religious reasons.
A.A. It also introduced nation states.
L.H. You're making the rest of that up. But why? Did you think I wouldn't
know? Why do you say stuff like this? You corkscrew yourself into admitting
it in your own perverse way by saying, ?whether they fought them over religion
or something else is irrelevant.? I have identified what the Peace of
Westphalia did. It primarily ended wars for religious reasons in the West.
The solidification of the nations after 1648 was a problem only for the German
States, that is those who wanted Germany to become a great empire. It was a
hypothetical problem if Marx and Sayyid Qutb turned out to be right. Don't
just keep repeating your assertions Irene. Show me some evidence that
contradicts what I've written.
A.A. How do you explain that Bush consulted with God before invading Iraq?
How do you explain the use of the word crusade early on?
L.H. As to Europeans being warlike, I have argued that for years -- as has
Victor Davis Hanson. No one in the world can reasonably expect to defeat a
Western army -- a
A.A. Except unfortunately in Iraq. Or are you still marching toward democracy
over there?
L.H. lthough the Europeans have been trying to give up their warlike ways --
fairly wishy-washy about even NATO. As it is now, the English-Speaking West
is the most proficient at war.
A.A. Maybe. WWI was fought in the trenches for a relative handful of feet a
day. Where's the proficiency except in running up millions of casualties of
nice white boys?
L.H. But being proficient and being aggressive are two different things. We
are very very slow to go to war.
A.A. I guess we creeped into Vietnam, Iraq. More like, jumped in, creeped
out.
L.H. We in the US are still inclined, many of us, toward isolationism.
A.A. Like the neocons and the civilian management of the military? How
isolationist are they?
L.H. It takes a lot to get us into a war and then, you probably haven't
noticed, we want to end it as quickly as possible.
A.A. Nope, we charged into Iraq literally without a thought. But maybe you
hadn't noticed.
L.H. The dumbest among us and those who masochistically hate themselves in the
US want us to retreat from victory. That always seems to be going on at some
level. We are the best fighters, but back at home are whiners who want us to
lose. Can we win despite them? That has been an iffy matter for many years
now.
A.A. I think you need to share your opinions with the people who wrote the
latest reports. Tell them we're doing great. Why don't they know that? I
think you're just looking for someone to blame for losing, that's all. Can't
blame the ones who lost, right?
L.H. As to offensive wars against Militant Islam, you're making that up as
well.
A.A. What are you talking about? What did I say about offensive wars against
Militant Islam? You're making things up and saying I'm doing it. That's
weird, Lawrence.
L.H. And of course you have to because you hate America,
A.A. Lawrence, I'm going to use a bad word on you if you don't stop this crap.
How dare you tell me what I hate and don't hate?
L.H. but the facts are that America was attacked and the US has responded with
considerable force.
A.A. And here we are. We took a bunch of kooks, maybe 10,000 jihadists total,
and made them into a worldwide movement, gave them virtually untouchable
sanctuary in Iraq, gave the rest of Iraq to Iran. The fact is, al Qaeda
attacked America, and we ignored them completely and attacked Iraq. With
considerable force. And created a nightmare quagmire.
L.H. You don't like the response, but then neither does Al Quaeda, Osama bin
Laden, Ahmadinejad, Noam Chomsky, and Ward Churchill. But that?s tough. If we
have the guts, and if we have the sense not to listen to anti-American
Leftists, we will succeed.
A.A. The ones who hate America are the neocons. They put us in this
impossible situation, where we have to win but we can't. And they won't change
a thing in their strategy or tactics.
L.H. As to the break-up of Yugoslavia after the fall of the Socialist
paradise, that is referred to primarily as ethnic war. In any case neither
Yugoslavia nor its component parts comprise Liberal Democracy in the European
sense. Yugoslavia didn't automatically become the West with the fall of the
USSR:
A.A. All I said it was a religious war, which you said was no longer being
fought. Except when it is. Also, Lawrence, Liberal Democracies are a buzz
word that the elites what you to throw around to keep you distracted while they
carve up the world. If the neocons cared about Liberal Democracy, they
wouldn't be fighting a War on Terror. Instead they'd be managing terrorism
while growing their country instead of driving it into the ground. But,
fantasize away. It's all that's left anyhow.
Other related posts:
