[lit-ideas] Tom Thumb runs from office
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:00:52 -0800
Okay. That is interesting. Some wars are just and some wars are unjust, to
rephrase your statements slightly. Let's move on from there. We can
dismiss your term "warmonger" at the outset because there is no elected or
appointed office with that title. (I'll pick it up later on and do
something appropriate with it.) Instead we have a series of elected
officials, members of the Executive and Legislative branches of government
who decide when it is appropriate to go to war. If we don't like what they
decide we can vote them out of office.
Is the U.S. a perfect form of government such that it always goes to war for
the right reasons? I don't think any form of government is perfect, but
there is nothing better and no nation with a better record. If you don't
like the decisions made by our government, then vote into office someone who
will make the right decisions.
As to your current pet peeves, I disagree with them. I think we made
prudent decisions in regard to Afghanistan and Iraq. We have debated that
endlessly as I read book after book and you and others of your ilk communed
osmotically with the Great Leftist Force. But so what? You didn't get
your way and want to cry Warmonger? You want to leave the game and go home?
Where is home? Is it the same one we all (or many of us) vote to support?
Is it the nation that has several enemies in this modern world? Do we vote
for leaders who have experience in Foreign Policy such that they will make
the best decisions in regard to these enemies . . . hmmm . . . I'd better
rephrase that one and suggest that we ought to elect officials who are
experienced in Foreign Policy such that they can make right decisions in
fending off or dealing appropriately with our several enemies.
I've been reading about nations going to war. So far I haven't found a
single one which wanted to go to war because it seemed fun. The Spartan's
were warlike in ability but they were very slow to go to war. They backed
out of several crucial battles for religious reasons. When they did fight,
they fought well, but they never started a war because they thought it was
going to be fun.
No one in World War One thought that war was going to be fun. They were all
afraid of something. Even when "honour" was at stake it usually had an
element of if I let them get away with this they'll do even more next time.
Which is a valid consideration by the way. We let Al Quaeda, Hezbollah and
other Islamist groups "dishonor" us so many times that they decided we
weren't to be respected as a military force. They kept upping their
disrespecting ante until they got our attention; which meant much more work
for us than if we had presented a more Warlike stance to them earlier on -
something you would call Warmongering and I would call prudence. Your way
kills more of us, and more of the enemy than my way, by the way. Prudent
warlike stances prior to World Wars One and Two could have prevented them,
but we didn't know how to do that back then. Actually we still don't know
how to do it - too many red-faced pouters sitting in too many corners
sucking on too many plumbs, and pulling out too many trite phrases like
"warmonger," and lisping, "oh what a good boy am I."
Lawrence Helm
San Jacinto
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mike Geary
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:04 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Dmytryk, HUAC, Warmongers & Liberal-Leftists
LH:
>>...you will see that what Geary advocates doing (by implication) about the
modern enemies of our freedom, or indeed past enemies in any war we've ever
discussed is . . . as Dmytryk says "nothing."<<
Not quite true. I believe World War II was necessary against the warmongers
Hitler and Hirohito. And I think we were justified in going after the
warmongers of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, I don't know why we quit that. But
those are about it. From what I know of all the rest of our military
adventures (with the possible exception of the Gulf War), they've all been
unjust wars promoted by our warmongers. I'm open to new information,
however, and I know that things get muddy, but on the face of it, that's
what I'd say.
Mike Geary
Memphis
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Lit-Ideas <mailto:Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 8:18 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Dmytryk, HUAC, Warmongers & Liberal-Leftists
During the watching of Winds and War and War and Remembrance I read about
how underrated an actor Robert Mitchum was; so I decided to order several
Mitchum films from Netflix. I watched the first one this evening,
Crossfire. In the "Special Features" is a commentary by the director Edward
Dmytryk. I don't know when the commentary was recorded - whenever the DVD
was made of this movie, but what is interesting is that Dmytryk was one of
the "Hollywood Ten" that HUAC prosecuted. Dmytryk said that HUAC at first
had twenty but narrowed it down to those who were or had been in the
Communist Party.
Dmytryk ended up spending some time in jail. It was four years before he
was back making money again. He said he could understand the Communist
point of view and the point of view of Anti-Communists. What he couldn't
understand was the point of view of the "Liberal Leftists" (his term) which
he thought would support his freedom of speech. When he was most in need
of their support they "did nothing." That is what Liberals are best at,
Dmytryk said, "doing nothing."
After he got out of jail he need some financial help to get back on his
feet. His Leftist Liberal friends however, wouldn't support him. Do you
know who helped me, he asked? It was Liberal Republicans. I don't know if
he made a verbal mistake or if there were "Liberal" Republicans but I found
that interesting. Back in the days when it was risky to stand up for your
Leftist beliefs, the Liberal Leftists did nothing (according to Dmytryk),
but non-Liberals helped him.
I see this as relating to Geary's implied view of the non-Warmonger. Far be
it from them to aggressively stand up for someone about to be sent to jail
by HUAC. Only the warmongering Republicans would do it. Read the
following excerpt from Geary's latest note and you will see that Geary fits
Dmytryk's view of a "Leftist Liberal." Don't see it? Read it again and you
will see that what Geary advocates doing (by implication) about the modern
enemies of our freedom, or indeed past enemies in any war we've ever
discussed is . . . as Dmytryk says "nothing."
From Geary's latest note: "My definition of a warmonger is one who
forcefully advocates the killing of however many people it takes to ensure
that one's self-interest is served. Such advocacy is usually clothed in
appeals to patriotism or religion or racial superiority or economic
necessity or some noble ideal such as 'democracy'. As a cultural ethos in
the West, warmongering typically expresses itself in glorification of those
who excel as executives of killers and for whom public statues are erected,
and in generic glorification of those who paid the ultimate price for the
warmongers' self-interests -- almost always someone of a lower
socio-economic class to whom posthumous medals are given and in whose name
public speeches are made though the names forgotten. Abstract heroism is
preached to the young. Always the buying and selling of human life for the
interests of the wealthy and powerful. "A few good men." "A holy
jihadist." True believers all, aren't we? It's been that way for forty
thousand years. The time has come for some kind of "truth in advertising
law" to be passed, or at least the posting of a warning label: "Caveat
milites: The life you're about to take or give up is not for the reasons
you've been told." Yes, indeed, the time has come long since to put an end
to that old lie "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"."
Lawrence Helm
San Jacinto
Other related posts:
