--- Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [I wrote] <snippage> > > ...It isn't > > enough for the Admin to believe that they have a > > case - they need to convince the American (and > preferably world) public... > > The case has been made. People don't care. As > Michael Walzer memorably wrote (I posted his article > to the list)
I still have it saved in my "to read" file... > one of the main drivers here is > superiority. It's the self-righteous thrill of > pointing out the flaws of the US. You don't get > that by actually doing something useful. Interesting take; I personally feel that I *didn't try hard enough* to convince some friends who vote conservately to change their minds, or encourage the moderates to call their congressman and register their opinion(s) on the war/economy/environment. Hardly self-righteous, and probably not "useful" from your POV, but it is participatory. <snip> > > Suggestive of what? Not being informed? Not > having > > the facts? Not trusting what they've been told > > recently because prior claims have been dismissed? > > Not caring. It's so much easier to criticize the > United States than to do something. You can feel > superior and so much more knowledgeable and > enlightened than people who concern themselves with > practical realities. You won't actually achieve > anything - in fact, you'll probably make things > worse. But since when does that matter? <wryness> I'm not sure if you're addressing this to the ANSWER folks, of whom I know nothing more than what has been written on this list, in which case I have no basis to disagree with your opinion; or _me_, in which case I can point to prior posts in which I've said that *I don't know* but am trying to become informed about these issues. <there was some snippage here re: that what "ought" to be is "not, in fact, going to happen."> > > To desire a > > better world is the basis for many improvements. > Or do you dismiss those who "have a dream?" Gandhi > and > > MLK decided that they didn't want their worlds to > > continue unchanged - so they worked towards that > > change. [Note that I *am not* equating their work > > of improved social justice to war/not-war WRT >>Iraq -- > > only your statement that what "ought" is "not, in > > fact, going to happen." Because sometimes it > does.] > > No. If Gandhi or MLK were like you're suggesting > they > would have said "Gee, I don't want the British in > India. So in my world, they're not." They wouldn't > have marched and protested and struggled. They > would have just lived in a fantasy world. ??? OK, I'm confused - isn't that just what the anti-war protestors *are* doing (some are calling/writing their congressmen instead)? Again, I am not equating the current demonstrators' marches with the social justice work of G and MLK -- but they *are* taking action on an issue with which they are concerned. >You can say "ought" all you want - but the very things > you > support will actually make the "ought" less likely. > Only the threat of unilateral US action brought us > to > the point where something can be done. But you > condemn US unilateral action. There's a pretty damn > big disconnect between what you say you want and > what you're willing to support to get it. I support diplomacy (and I've included polite under-the-table arm-twisting in that category); unfortunately the Administration, with its aloofness and superiority, made that option nearly non-viable early on, and extremely difficult (but not impossible, as 1441's passage showed) since. Once the troops were moved to the region, it would be pointless to deny their effectiveness as a fait accompli thumb-screw. > > Also, that as the > > bigshot, the US must be 'like Caesar's wife above > > reproach' - not that that's fair, but that's the > way it is. > > This is what I meant, btw. To you, everything is > _always_ the fault of the US. ??? Where have I said that "everything is the fault of the US?" Was 9/11, or the Bali bombing, or tribal warfare gone horribly mad, American fault, instead of the terrorists' or rebels'? No. [In response to the 'moral rightness' argument WRT Iraq, I *have* stated that equally evil/wrong acts elsewhere were essentially ignored, so I do not accept the 'because its the moral thing to do' premise, although it's fine to say that it would be a 'good' side-effect.] >We're both omnipotent > and incompetent, an odd combination. What I've said is that the US is "the most powerful nation in the world" (with an [EMAIL PROTECTED]&# deleted, I think :P); as such, I think our obligations are higher - which I admit is perhaps feudal 'noblesse oblige,' and quite arrogant. :) It isn't that we're incompetent, but _it isn't possible_ to achieve our goals in the world - such as the capture of al-Quada terrorists - without cooperation from many other nations. > You always come > back to "If only we'd acted differently." Nope. Well, what the US did after WWII WRT Japan/Germany (I think I only mentioned Japan, or maybe it was the Marshall plan?) was foresighted - it was even noble; had we done something similar in Afghanistan post-Russians-ousted, I think it _would_ have been different. > We're the most powerful country in the history of > the > human race, but that doesn't actually mean that we > control the world. Um, that's what I've been saying WRT 'working with' instead of 'bullying.' >The French acted the way they did > because that was in consonance with their perception > of French interests. The Germans the same. The > goodwill meant jack shit to them, because "Gratitude > is the virtue of dogs" (Joseph Stalin) and they > believe that, even if we don't. Or do you see many > signs of gratitude in French public opinion? Any? The French I've met here don't like the Bush Administration, but do like us as a people. > The Americans who get spat on in France nowadays - > how > many of those Frenchmen remember Omaha Beach. I'll > actually go farther - the goodwill is one part of > the > reason _why_ they hate us. If you're strong and > someone else is weak, and they hate you because > they're weak, then doing things to engender > gratitude will get you more hatred, not less. I think that depends on how your strength is demonstrated, but it seems true to me that you can't depend on gratitude to last forever. (Isn't there a saying along the lines of "Gratitude worn too long is like a hair shirt?") While in another post you wrote "This isn't medicine. We aren't all standing around trying to decide what's best for the patient," and that is indeed true, since Bush called SH a "cancer" the other night, I'm going to take the liberty of using a medical analogy (hey, it's better than the horsy one! ;D ). As a doc, I've been in a (relative) position of strength and knowledge and yes power over patients; when I convey compassionately my concern for their welfare/health, all but a very (disturbed) few will listen even when we disagree on 'what to do, or what ought to be done.' When I've had a *really bad* day, and have run out of patience - sadly I _have_ had a few of those, and they have been a constant goad to do better - I snap that if they "want to know everything I know" they ought to go to medical school and treat themselves, if they won't take my advice. <grimace> No guess which individuals actually do what I suggest... I recall someone saying that Europeans 'don't understand how we Americans feel' after 9/11; the converse is that we cannot understand the European mindset WRT war precisely because (other than Pearl Harbor) the US hasn't suffered a modern war on its own turf. We haven't had to send our children overseas to be safe from bombs, or wake from sleep upon hearing the drone of 'Doodlebugs.' I think maybe some of their 'disdain and superior attitude,' and for the extremists hatred, is actually a poor bandage over bone-deep *fear.* To continue the analogy, we must convince the 'patient' that anger towards us 'the doctor' is misplaced: it is the *cancer* that they must fight, not us. We have a poor 'therapeutic relationship' with Europe at the moment, but with effort that _can_ be repaired. [Yes, I've done it a couple of times after alienating a patient, but it _was_ extremely difficult.] And some _are_ trying to do just that, because there isn't another doctor in the house. <snip> > Take a look at the people in the protests - the > people > on your side of the debate (not mine, thank God) - > and > you'll notice that a lot of them _do_ think that the > US is 'worse than Saddam'. You might want to worry > about who you're associating with a bit. I know if > I > was on the same side of an argument as ANSWER _and_ > David Duke, I'd be a little concerned. <grin> Now, because I extoll the virtues of Arabian horses, am I "on the side of" Middle Eastern tyrants who do the same? If David Duke supports the idea of the death penalty (I have no idea what his position on that is - nor do I care), and I have already stated my agreement with the concept of the death penalty (although I do have grave reservations about how it has been implemented - pun grimly intended), does that make me "associated with him?" No and no. Debbi who has _never_ gotten up on the wrong side of the stall herself...<ducks and runs for cover, expecting lightning to strike momentarily ;) > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
