OT My Appologies...and the fights that ensued.

[Andreas]

As to getting Saddam out, no, this was the only way.
The alternative approaches offered, inspections wouldn't have
done that even if they had worked.

And there are no other concievable solutions to getting Saddam out, sooner or later? Like, I don't know, more pressure and controlled free elections? Or anyhting else? Of course, you might have thought everything through, but I doubt that. Don't be so quick to talk in onlys.

No, we weren't determined to got to war from the beginning.
The troops were in place because we thought they might
well be necessary; also because only that sort of
pressure would have made Saddam disarm, not to
mention let inspectors back in. If Saddam had
credibly disarmed within the time frame after
which we could not fight, we would not have fought.
If the British compromise proposal had been
accepted by the UN, with a three week deadline
and clear benchmarks for what counted as
disarming, and Iraq had complied, we would not
have fought.

Perhaps not, but actually I am not so sure. With the way the UN inspections have been disregarded and lied to with false reports from the British intelligence, I can easily see that someone who wanted a war could have said:" Ah, they disarmed, but we know they have more weapons, althugh we cannot show any proof.", and still invade. Kind of what happend, but without the extra step.

As you say, the war is happening. I support it for
the reasons the administration gave; I appreciate
that you don't (and I do agree about our
clumsy diplomacy).

But this is something I think we can agree upon.
As we speak a captive people, millions of them,
are being liberated
from an utter son of a bitch, who has accounted for
about a million of them in the last 20 years, who has
made their lives a living hell since 1979.

How important is that?
I don't know about you, but I am very, very glad.
When they say to us that their nightmare is ending
and the day they have awaited has arrived, I
am moved deeply. The people who are lamenting
and getting arrested protesting seem to me to have
missed something of extraordinary moral importance.
If I were on the other side of this issue, and thought
we should not have gone to war, I would still be
very glad.

Down with Tyranny!

Sounds like 'Independence day' to me...

I really hope that all Iraqi soldiers put down their weapons, so that Saddam can be desposed of as soon as possible. This would be a really great thing. Then I hope that the occupiers don't mess at all with the oil and quickly set up working Iraqi government and leave. Then things would be really good, and the war in itself would be a great victory.

The problem is the way the war was begun. Now every state who wants can claim that they have evidence they can not show because of security reasons and attack some other country in preemtive purpose. What can anyone say? "No, you cannot. Only the US are morally superior enough to do stuff like that."?

And while we're at it. What is this "Illegal combatant" stuff? Why not call it warrprisoner directly? "No sir, that is an extra r in that one. No Geneva convention for you." Can other countries also arrest people they don't like, call them some funny name and inprison them somewhere, on the North Pole perhaps, and just keep them there without trial?

Seriously, there must exist some kind of international rules if the world is to function properly, and someone has spent most of the last years by breaking them. That will lead to great problems in the future, and I can not see how anyone can defend that kind of behaviour, if one looks at it with unbiased eyes.

[herbivore12]

[Sorry to say I cannot read the first half of Jim's post; whenever someone posts a picture in the new board format, it extends down to cover much of the next post on my screen. So Bloomfield's cartoon -- scary *and* funny -- is covering much of your post. Is this a browser problem on my end? Anyone know?]

Anyway. . .

I would try to be as hopeful as the Iraqis you invoke, too, had I suffered what they had. I imagine some of them have little left but hope. *My* hope is that their faith and hope is justified.

Yes, I think Iraq, and probably the world, will be better off once Saddam is gone. (Assuming we're honest and generous in the rebuilding and let the Iraqis determine their own future thereafter; I hope the Iraqis don't exchange one bad gov't for another, or for a kind of indenture.) I'll feel easier about this once we actually know he's out; he seems like a resilient thug, so far. It is awful that Iraq's people, that any people, should have to suffer at the hands of their own government.

And yes, down with tyranny. In all its forms, and everywhere. I'll be keeping a close eye on our own administration, which has done stuff like include expected income from ANWR in its budgets even though drilling there was (is, until a proposal is passed) still illegal at the time, locked up citizens without access to counsel or even revealing charges or evidence, proposed increasingly worrisome schemes for "ensuring public order", and so forth. I'm a bit worried about things like (VP Cheney's old company) Halliburton's "no spending cap" contracts for the rebuilding in Iraq, and about statements from our administration which make it clear that the US, and not Iraq, will be divvying out the lucrative contracts for services in Iraq, and intimating the freezing-out of countries like France because they opposed the war. So much for self-determination.

In environmental matters alone, which I know some people regard as small potatoes: the fiscal 2003 budget appropriations legislation contained riders that would open up areas of forest across the country to the logging industry, provide funding for the surveys needed in advance of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and, in a few cases, prevent anyone from objecting. One rider excludes the disputed 1997 Tongass forest management plan from judicial review; another excludes the public from commenting on the renewal of the Trans-Alaska pipeline system. Surely the point about national forests and national wildlife reserves is that they belong not to the administration, or a handful of senators and congressmen or even to the timber industry and the oil industry but to the nation. If a 20-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is to be lifted, even in the name of the nation's oil supply, the nation should participate in the decision.

Imagine an administration continuing to act as this one has, without appeal to debate or diplomacy, in fact actively curbing discussion wherever it may be inconvenient. Jailing citizens without charge or counsel. Increasingly invading the private lives of its citizens. (I know, we're a long way -- I hope -- from anything like Iraqi-style oppression, but I still think this is all cause for real concern.)

Indeed, Down With Tyranny!

[elendil]

I was getting a little tired of this thread last night, but now I'm actually a little edified by the recent contibutions by Zubivka and Bloomfield (however, Herr Blumfeld, the word is "suppressors" ).

Bloomie, your lengthier post a while back was interesting to me because it seemed genuinely thoughtful, and not merely pretend-thoughtful, camoflauging your anti-christian agenda. I'm referring to your reflections on the disconnect between Euros and Americans (in re which, see my link to Derbyshire's article). Sadly, I'm despairing of Euros ever "getting" Americans. Is that a chauvinist statement? I don't think so: given that America will probably remain the 800 pound gorilla on the planet for the forseeable future (but nothing is certain in earthly affairs), a healthy interest in understanding reality, rather than in dreaming up or legislating alternative realities, would dictate that Euros should invest a tad more time in trying to figure out "us." (Claudine: lighten up ) I did find your remarks genuinely stimulating, although I'm still not interested in that catechism session.

Zubivka, I was wondering about that Slavic name of yours. I used to be pretty fluent in Polish and even sang for two years in a Ukrainian choir--although as a Polish speaker I was suspect, and some members even refused to speak to me. I've known many Eastern Euros who lived through WWII, including some who survived in garden spots like Dachau, were slaves in Germany, were reduced to eating bark in Siberia, lived underground as Jews in Nazi occupied Poland, traveled through Russia and Iran to Egypt and fought across North Africa to Monte Cassino--only to be betrayed by the Allies. There stories have always been deeply moving, full of genuine human pathos. So...I read all through your small font family history with great interest. And yet in the end I sensed the same unwillingness to comprehend the American experience.

But here's what I wanted to mention to you. You went on at some length about the right and the left, and about how the Nazis and the Commies were such enemies, and especially about how the Nazis went after the Commies in Germany and Spain, and you seemed to see that as proof of their fundamental differences. But think back to Soviet history (Bloomie will love this: the study of history! ). Were the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks really so far apart, ideologically? And yet weren't the Bolsheviks as relentless toward the Mensheviks as they would be later toward the Kulaks? Where is the ideological difference, if you please, between National Socialism and "Socialism in one country"? Wasn't Lenin's NEP nothing but a knock-off of the German WWI war economy? Isn't it a fact that Stalin, far from being upset by Hitler's persecution of German Commies, thought the two of them could cooperate? Was Hitler's invasion of Russia motivated by anti-socialism or by Nationalism? Do you really want me to believe that Russian nationalism played no role in the Soviet regime? Isn't it often true that the most vicious wars are over the smallest differences? That factions that share a basic motivation magnify their slight differences, or invent them altogether, for tactical advantage?

So, no, I find your analysis of left and right to be utterly uncompelling. Have you ever read Milovan Djilas' "The New Class"? You should. (An aside: Djilas, obviously, was another Slav, and a former protege of Stalin and Tito who ultimately saw through the system. I hope I'm not condescending. Turner should know about this guy.) Some American scholars like Richard Pipes have also shown a good understanding of all these issues. And let me come right out and say it: I understand fully why Euros find Amies naive, but I find modern Euro political analysis to be distressingly shallow. That's not to exalt American political analysis from its own banal dead end of a swamp, just to urge you and Bloomie to break out of your own dead end. I'm suggesting that if you want to understand human reality you'll have to junk bogus categories like socialism/capitalism and left/right and get down to some more serious reflections.

A few historical asides that maybe a few, besides me, will find interesting. (By now Claudine will probably have stopped reading, so I won't have to worry about sounding too hard on those Frenchies. ) Did any of you know that the Poles had a million men under arms in the Allied armies in WWII--far more than the Free French? That the Poles made up fully 20% of RAF pilots at the height of the Battle of Britain, and that along with a smaller Czech contingent had the highest kill ratio of any RAF units? That the Poles inflicted more casualties on the Germans in 1939 than the French did in 1940? That not only did the Poles steal the Enigma code machines from the Germans and turn them over to the Allies but they also provided the Allies with all their mathematical research as well, which was the key to the Ultra secret? That in 1945 Churchill would not let the Poles march in the victory parade, for fear of offending "Uncle Joe" Stalin. But actually, I identify with my Irish side.

Re Cherokees: my in-laws still remembered, having lived through them, the days in the West of Ireland when school children were beaten for speaking Irish. That sort of thing was common in Wales, as well. The French have a long history of that sort of thing, especially in Zubivkas neighborhood. None of which is to deny that the Trail of Tears was one of the saddest episodes in US history.

[Bagfed]

Zubivka,
Please check your Private Messages if you have not already.

[Walden]

Re Cherokees: my in-laws still remembered, having lived through them, the days in the West of Ireland when school children were beaten for speaking Irish. That sort of thing was common in Wales, as well. The French have a long history of that sort of thing, especially in Zubivkas neighborhood.

But you are right, the English suppression of the Irish and Welsh language was much the same thing, and similar efforts were undertaken toward the aboriginal peoples of Australia at times. I suppose those involved felt like their motives were good, to acculturate and make them part of the general society.

None of which is to deny that the Trail of Tears was one of the saddest episodes in US history.

Not that the Trail of Tears is particularly relevant. But the boarding school system was used for various tribes, not peculiar to the Cherokee, who were surely one of the more acculturated tribes already.

[Turner]

Did any of you know that the Poles had a million men under arms in the Allied armies in WWII--far more than the Free French? That the Poles made up fully 20% of RAF pilots at the height of the Battle of Britain, and that along with a smaller Czech contingent had the highest kill ratio of any RAF units?

Sure tinuviel my Mums Auntie married a Polish pilot :adminok:

Not Sure about the kill ratio, but all of the Pilots during the Battle of Britain were pretty amazing.

In Sir Churchills words:

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."

Maybe this will be of interest to you tinuviel:

http://www.frenkenstein.com/ww2/poland/Poland.htm

But you are right, the English suppression of the Irish and Welsh language was much the same thing, and similar efforts were undertaken toward the aboriginal peoples of Australia at times. I suppose those involved felt like their motives were good, to acculturate and make them part of the general society.

Shamefully this is also true, another misjustice by my imperialistic ancestors. Didnt happen so much in Wales however, the welsh language was dying because of lack of interest, but is now making a steady recovery in Wales. The Welsh and Scots were well and truely aboard the Empire bus with England

The supression of Irish language and culture was first done by the Normans, after Norman/English settlers in Ireland started to speak Gaelic, and wear Irish style clothes, the Normans forbid any Norman/English settlers from wearing Kilts, and speaking Gaelic.

The Normans also forbid the use of the English language for a period in England

[Walden]

The Normans also forbid the use of the English language for a period in England

Which gave the language that beautiful French ring to it.

...or, as they say in Washington, "Freedom ring!"

[Turner]

Which gave the language that beautiful French ring to it.

...or, as they say in Washington, "Freedom ring!"

Exactly, thats why we have so many Cul-de-sacs in England.

[Bloomfield]

Bloomie, your lengthier post a while back was interesting to me because it seemed genuinely thoughtful, and not merely pretend-thoughtful, camoflauging your anti-christian agenda. I'm referring to your reflections on the disconnect between Euros and Americans (in re which, see my link to Derbyshire's article). Sadly, I'm despairing of Euros ever "getting" Americans. ....

Wow, I am flattered, and ask that you'll pardon my slip-up. I always strive for pretend-thoughtful but it's difficult to the get the tone just right: somewhere between Heidegger and the back of a cereal box is where I usually aim. I hope I'll be off "seeming" "genuinely" "thoughtful" soon enough.

I am also amazed that I have risen in the world to such an extend that I have an agenda now. And it's anti-Christian (which much better than Antichristian, I presume). I wasn't aware.

About your despairing of Europeans ever "getting" America: If that's your view, it might the right time to try to "get" the Europeans.

[TubeDude]

I got a letter from my kid today, now Stationed At Camp Pendleton, and I'd like to share it with y'all..
______________________________________________________

Dear Ma and Pa, Am well. Hope you are. Tell Brother Walt and Brother Elmer the Marine Corps beats working for old man Minch by a mile. Tell them to join up quick before all of the GOOD places are filled.

I was restless at first because you got to stay in bed till nearly 5a.m., but am getting so I like to sleep late.

Tell Walt and Elmer all you do before breakfast is smooth your cot and shine some things. No hogs to slop, feed to pitch, mash to mix, wood to split, fire to lay. Practically nothing to do....

Men got to shave but it is not so bad, they got warm water in here.

Breakfast is strong on trimmings like juice, cereal, yogurt, fruit, etc., but kind of weak on grits, eggs, ham, bacon, steak, fried eggplant, and other regularfood. But tell Walt and Elmer you can always sit between two city boys that live on coffee. Their food plus yours holds you till noon, when you get fed again. It's no wonder these city boys can't walk much.

We go on "route" marches, which the Platoon Sergeant says are long walks to harden us. If he thinks so, it is not my place to tell him different.

A "route march" is about as far as to our mailbox at home. Then the city guys gets sore feet and we all ride back in trucks. The country is nice, but awful flat.

The Sergeant is like a schoolteacher. He nags some.

The Capt. is like the school board. Majors and Colonels just ride around and frown. They don't bother you none at all.

This next will kill Walt and Elmer with laughing. I keep getting medals for shooting. I don't know why. The bulls-eye is near as big as a chipmunk and don't move. And the target ain't shooting back at you, like them Higgett boys at home. All you got to do is lie there all comfortable and hit it. You don't even load your own cartridges. They come in boxes.

Be sure to tell Walt and Elmer to hurry and join up before too many other fellers hear bout this setup and come stampeding in.

Your loving daughter,
Caroline

[WyoBadger]

[ The Welsh and Scots were well and truely aboard the Empire bus with England

Not so, actually (for whatever it's worth to the current conversation). After Prince Charlie's rebellion the highlanders were subjected to increasingly strict laws designed to snuff out highland military power and, by extention, highland culture and language. That was the beginning. The ending was the clearances (type "highland clearances" into your search engine and read all about it), which explains why today there are so many people with Scottish names in England, North America, and Australia.

True, the Scots were pretty much on board with England...but only because all the trouble makers (real or imagined) were either deported or so demoralized by the destruction that they gave up.

They play tin whistle in Scotland, you know. There. We're back on topic.

For what it's worth.
Tom

[jim stone]

Shall we get back to music now?
We've solved the problems of the
world several times over.

Much enjoyed these discussions.
I have a new rosewood G Sweetheart
fife, and it feels neglected, I think.
Best wishes to all, Jim

[dd]

make music not war

[Nanohedron]

*takes out flute and plays 'The Battle of Aughrim-chair Warriors'*

--Sorry, folks, I just couldn't resist.

N

--edited for really bonehead mistake to which I won't admit.....*oops!*

[elendil]

Super pun, Nano!

Before coming here I read serpent's post, decrying the tone of some OT threads. But as I said last night, I'm actually rather edified at the way peace and love seems to be bursting out all over this thread lately. For example, the way Bloomfield and I seem to be finding common ground. Since I accept that it is necessary at times to choose the lesser of two evils, I find myself in agreement with Bloomie that being anti-Christian is probably better than being Antichristian.

But he also mentions Heidegger, which is really almost psychic (sp.??) on his part. The fact is, earlier today I was (figuratively) kicking myself and saying: Tinuviel, you chump, if you were going to try to expose the essential hollowness of left/right Fascist/Commie dichotomies, why didn't you point out the example of Heidegger? After all, Heidegger supporters and fans these days are probably pretty generally people of the so-called left. And yet, as is well known, Heidegger publicly espoused the Nazi ideology as Rector of the University of Heidelberg--and never really recanted, although he resigned his university post before the start of the war. My point isn't to get into whether Heidegger should have been ostracized, prosecuted, or whatever. I do believe that his political positions did flow from his ideology (I choose that word deliberately--I do not consider him a philosopher). And his ideology, since it lacks fundamental moorings in reality, is able to accomodate positions that are commonly thought to be opposite. Why? I suggest it's because they share deep commonalities. The same is true of deconstructionist ideology. Although wildly popular among people who, again, are almost uniformly of the left, its early exponents were Nazi propagandists in Belgium (I believe--Mark Lilla has written extensively on this). Again, a seeming paradox, as with Heidegger, as with intra Soviet purges, as with Nazi-Soviet cooperation. And yet, if we keep discovering seeming paradoxes, maybe it's not an unwarranted leap to think we should be looking for a deeper commonality, rather than taking their publicly proclaimed disagreements at face value.

Bloomie also raised the Euro uneasiness with the open religiosity of American political discourse, and American incomprehension of that uneasiness. I would like to suggest an explanation. (Preliminarily, let me just say that I consider liberalism/leftism/socialism to be a religion, anyway, but here I'll just try to address the Euro viewpoint.)

I think the Euro opposition to religion in politics arises from the Euro experience of the totalitarian state, beginning with the princely states of the so-called Renaissance and developing into the imperial states of the next couple of centuries. Religion was viewed as part of the repressive establishment, so that modern Euro anti-Christianity is quite largely anti-clerical in origin and remains so in spirit. Americans shake their heads at the notion of "mainline" religion being considered repressive--for most of "us" it seems squishily liberal, if not out and out leftist. That's because Americans are (broadly) descended from two types of people: dissident (at that time non-mainstream) Protestants and Catholics who for the most part brought with them a traditional religiosity rooted in their peasant folk culture (I exaggerate--the German Catholics certainly brought with them a tradition of intellectualism, but certainly the Irish, Poles and Italians largely fit my overall typology). What remains is that Euros, locked in their reaction to a repressive state in alliance with (politically) established religions, cannot understand American religiosity because they cannot understand the American experience. The American experience, on the other hand, is of a non-repressive state without an establishment of religion, and a broad tolerance of differing religious traditions. "We" cannot identify with the Euro attitude because "we" have freely embraced our religions. This is a great oversimplification, but I'm trying to hit on issues that may get people thinking. Because I do think these issues are of very fundamental importance.

Now, a little experiment. I have a theory. I believe Stoner reads every single post in every single thread on this site. Furthermore, I know he has just recently said he wants to get back to music, so he really shouldn't be reading this lengthy OT rant of mine--but I'll bet he is! So I'm going to cleverly gig him by addressing a question to him about Sweetheart fifes/piccolos--since he said he just bought a G fife. I've been fascinated with the idea of buying either a fife or a piccolo, as a cheap intro to flute playing. But I'm wondering which is preferable for Irish music--the fife or the piccolo. Now, if he answers this, we'll know he can't lay off the OT stuff!