At 04:27 PM 4/18/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: >On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:18:35 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote > >> Note that Dan >> and I, for example, despite different positions on the >> war, have consistently acknowledged that going to war >> has costs. What's striking is the asymmetry here >> because, of course, _not_ going to war has costs as >> well, and the reason this discussion isn't going very >> far is the failure to acknowledge that simple fact. > >Good grief, Gautam. > >I've held the remaining hand of a double amputee from Iraq and could hardly >speak as we looked into each other's eyes and I told him about Wes. I've >visited our returning soldiers in VA hospitals. I've planted a few hundred >crosses in the ground at an Iraq memorial. I've thanked and hugged more >Marines in the last few months than I can count. I've seen my 21-year-old >niece bury her husband of 13 months. A half-dozen relatives of dead soldiers >and I share a kind of friendship for which I don't even have words. > >My father is mostly deaf from his time in the belly turret of a light attack >bomber in WWII. I have had people die in my hands from violence. I've made >the kind of triage decisions that cannot be left behind. I've spent time in >dialog with people tortured and targeted by Central American death squads. >I've traveled to squatter's settlements and remote Third World villages to >learn from the poor, surrounded by children going blind and dying from >malnutrition. Please spare me the arguments that I'm thinking magically and >don't know the costs of action, inaction or anything in between. > >I choose to have hope for better ways of dealing with conflict *despite* the >fact that my experiences scream at me to run and hide in cynicism or self- >righteousness. > >It's a hell of a thing to suggest that anybody who lost a family member in >Iraq is failing to acknowledge that our decisions about war come with costs. >It's a hell of a thing to suggest that anybody who's been a first responder >fails to acknowledge the cost of violence. I'm feeling pretty stinking angry >right now and I'm extremely tempted to dump a truckload of >"whatthehelldoyouknow" on you... but I know that you *do* know a great deal >about the costs and benefits of political decisions. > >I acknowledge your education and contacts, so about how giving me the benefit >of the doubt about my knowledge and experiences. Please, spare me the >suggestion that I don't know or acknowledge that there are costs of going to >war or not going to war. I know far more than I have words to describe. > >Peace! > >Nick
Nick, I have quoted your whole piece here, because I am not at all sure how it responds to Gautam's point. Gautam's point was that he doesn't feel that you are acknowledging that *not* going to war has costs as well. You responded with a discussion of the costs of going to war. This is a partial sports score, its like saying "Baltimore 2" without at all mentioning the other half. Under Saddam Hussein, many families were losing loved ones directly to torture, disappearances, and summary executions. Tens of thousands of others were losing their beloved children because Saddam Hussein was spending the country's oil revenue on palaces and weapons rather than basic food and medicine. These are costs of *not* going to war. Gautam was asking you to acknowledge this, and as near as I can tell, you have not bothered to respond. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
