Posted by lil' jimi on April 18, 2003, at 22:17:41
In reply to Re: Everyone wants peace - real peace » justyourlaugh, posted by Dinah on April 17, 2003, at 22:24:01
> Different people just have different ideas about how to go about getting it.
>
> Did Chamberlain gain peace when Hitler chased him around the table?
>
> Is lack of war the same as peace?
>
> Peace at all costs?
>
> Continuing the sanctions that hurt the Iraqi people was better than ending a brutal dictatorship? Yeah, how about another ten years of oil for food? Not to mention torture and oppression.
>
> No easy answers.hi dinah,
how are you doing?
things are better for me now .... we got home okay.... i took my medication and then we all had a big nap.you know, justyourlaugh could have easily meant inner peace when she invoked "real peace" .... really decent arguments can be made that only with inner peace can any be real peace be achieved.... or jyl could have easily intended something more substantial, such as universal peace, which may be seen as either more "real", perhaps in some sense of more permanent, or perhaps as a form of ideal peace, although that may be less attainable.
but it doesn't matter .... because
...you have, in your post above, clearly implied that you have taken it as narrowily referring to peace in iraq ...
now, from my previous post, i said i want to uncloud my mind of my preconceptions (clear mind) and engage the personal affective aspect of your view (open heart) to appreciate you vision ... okay, my new friend?
the first thing my open heart seems to notice is that your message seems all ...mmmmm .... bristly-like ... besides being very abrupt .... it seems as if it is in response to some experiences which may have put you on the defensive?... maybe?
anywho, all that's just my measure of your offerings' more superficial style points and not really important, except as a beginning for me trying to engage your vision here.
so you want to talk about iraq, okay?... okay, but neither i nor jyl nor tim robbins' speech mentioned iraq, but if you, my friend, want to talk about iraq, then i'm going to open my heart to your vision ....so
"> Different people just have different ideas about how to go about getting it. "
okay! we can agree... although this should be classified as an inescapable truism, but i take it this is your statement supporting a diversity of views... and we agree about that too.
but from here things get more complicated for me ... your vision is not so clear to me here..... so i will be asking for some clarification(s), okay?
one the one hand we have your ww2 nazi germany analogy:
"> Did Chamberlain gain peace when Hitler chased him around the table?
> Is lack of war the same as peace?
> Peace at all costs?"
where we have your rhetorical questions to which the answers are all unequivocally, "no."yet on the opposite hand, we have:
"> Continuing the sanctions that hurt the Iraqi people was better than ending a brutal dictatorship? Yeah, how about another ten years of oil for food? Not to mention torture and oppression."
referring to the pre-gulf war 2 situation in iraq...then
"> No easy answers."
... where i don't think you really intend to be describing my reaction to your offerings, but that's how it strikes me..... however, allowing myself to extrapolate, my sense of this is, ....that it is to dismiss the possibility of solution immediacy.... which doesn't seem unreasonable....okay, please try to help me out here:
in your ww2 analogy, aren't you emphasizing the historical failure of appeasement against an intractable enemy, as in, "No giving in! No lettin' 'em off!";whereas, in your reference to the pre-iraq war situation you attack the un sanctions, and by extension the entire regime of international punitive efforts against iraq for gulf war 1.
so i'm getting a double vision of your view because we can either condemn whatever appeasement it is that you are denouncing or you may condemn the punishment the internationally imposed sanctions: do you feel we were being too hard on iraq with the sanctions Or were they getting off too lightly, ala some sweet-heart deal with some bambozzled neville chamberlian-like baffoon?
can you see that my problem here is that the combination of
defeat in gulf war 1;
food-for-oil;
no-fly zones with regular air strikes;
the weapon inspections;
nation-wide u-2 overflights;
along with the other international sanctions seem to be the opposite of appeasement?and another serious problem, for me, here, is the entire ww2 analogy: although hitler was a bad guy and saddam hussein was/is a bad guy, the parallels between pre-gulf war 2 iraq and our situation with nazi germany before entered ww2 are very thin.
germany had a series of unrelieved successes dominating europe with its fully operational war machine against no effective opposition.
iraq's military was seriously degraded by gulf war 1, had all of the above listed encumberances to re-building its capabilities, while 2/3 of the country had nato overflights and un inspectors searched for any signs of weapons development...
so the pre-gulf war 2 iraq does not make out as the implacable unrestrained nazi germany analog by any reasonable stretch... and as far as i recall there was no neville chamberlain coming to them to seek accommodation either .... unless we were to count bush 1's ending of gulf war 1
i'd ask if abandoning the ww2 analogy isn't for the best?
of course it hasn't been in dispute that mr. hussien regime was a brutal dictatorship, but that has not been any different than when we put him into power in the 70s, thank you donald rumsfeld and the bush 1 team..... and being a brutal dictatorship hasn't been sufficient cause for us to go to war until recently ... we have installed and supported brutal dictatorships more often than not, iran, indonesia, chile, guatemala come to mind... and if changing our past bad behavior was a goal then there should be consideration for the brutal dictatorships which pose more formidable threats to world peace, which iraq scarcely was, such as china or .... saudi arabia ...
so despite my attempts i have failed to engage the vision you have offered.... i apologize
would help me clear up these confusions, please?
your civil friend,
~ jim
poster:lil' jimi
thread:220134
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20030414/msgs/220500.html