I am quite happy that I missed these cartoons you are so excited about. Quite happy, believe me. I will not say what I think about people who admire them, but...... people have different tastes. However, I thought you are only against war in Iran, but it seems to me that if you were living 50 years ago you would have said like the British - "we will not fight in defence of Danzing". And we all know what had happened next. ;-)
I will not say either what I think of anonymous commentators, going around the web suggesting that everyone who challenges their party line is simpleminded, a traitor or both! Great link Tori, thanks!
Anonymous, you are right: I am not against war. I am against "stupid wars."
I was really conflicted about the war with Iraq. Saddam Hussein committed terrible crimes against minorities. The problem was that W was not committed to nation-building. Removing Hussein required aggressive nation-building. I actually said this before the war when I was asked why I did not support it. (Really.)
I am also against looking at every conflict through the lens of ww 2. It's not a realistic way of viewing current conflicts.
I don't have party line. It also seems to me you think me american and I am not. ;-)
Tori
I understand that you might have been (and are) against the war in Iraq. I was conflicted myself, however at that time I knew next to nothing about ME so my views were coloured by articles in Guardian and other newspapers.....I think in the following years I have learned something about ME . No, my remarks concerned strictly your praise of the cartoons. I looked at the couple of the first ones that dealt with Afghanistan and Taliban and I was shocked. They looked at the things from liberal American point of view, they used vulgar expression , overall they were, and they are, simply stupid.
As for looking at everything through the lenses of II world war - it seems you (again) are getting me wrong.
I think that you assume that modern wars are so much different from the wars which come before that they have to be in their own category. But they are not different at all, the basis of the wars are the same, only technological trappings are different - that's all. That's why one can use an examples of second or first or any other war and the then attitudes of people towards wars in taking about present conflicts and present attitudes of people towards wars - as a saying goes "when you forget lessons from history you are doomed to make the same mistakes again and again and again" ;-)
But I thought you knew that from reading science fiction.
I grew up in a community with a lot of Holocaust survivors, and I remember hearing over and over and over again this question: why didn't the allies bomb the camps? This question is so ingrained in me that I cannot help but ask that same question about every situation.
Reading some military history has also made me realize that decisive, albeit brutal, campaigns could have stopped a much worse war. (Quantum worlds, I guess)
(Another part of me wonders if the brutal campaigns would have just staved off eventual violence or would have ended it: but that's another question.)
That said, I try to maintain an interest in many different points of view: even those I do not always agree with.
I do think of myself as a liberal as it is defined here:
# broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant ... # having political or social views favoring reform and progress # tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition # a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
Which brings me to this question: why have so many of my self-defined liberal friends given up on the ideas of freedom and democracy?
7 comments:
Hi
I didn't know that series, great one! Emailed it to all my friends:)
Tori
I am quite happy that I missed these cartoons you are so excited about. Quite happy, believe me.
I will not say what I think about people who admire them, but...... people have different tastes.
However, I thought you are only against war in Iran, but it seems to me that if you were living 50 years ago you would have said like the British - "we will not fight in defence of Danzing". And we all know what had happened next. ;-)
I will not say either what I think of anonymous commentators, going around the web suggesting that everyone who challenges their party line is simpleminded, a traitor or both!
Great link Tori, thanks!
Anonymous, you are right: I am not against war. I am against "stupid wars."
I was really conflicted about the war with Iraq. Saddam Hussein committed terrible crimes against minorities. The problem was that W was not committed to nation-building. Removing Hussein required aggressive nation-building. I actually said this before the war when I was asked why I did not support it. (Really.)
I am also against looking at every conflict through the lens of ww 2. It's not a realistic way of viewing current conflicts.
anonymous @10:50
I don't have party line. It also seems to me you think me american and I am not. ;-)
Tori
I understand that you might have been (and are) against the war in Iraq. I was conflicted myself, however at that time I knew next to nothing about ME so my views were coloured by articles in Guardian and other newspapers.....I think in the following years I have learned something about ME .
No, my remarks concerned strictly your praise of the cartoons. I looked at the couple of the first ones that dealt with Afghanistan and Taliban and I was shocked. They looked at the things from liberal American point of view, they used vulgar expression , overall they were, and they are, simply stupid.
As for looking at everything through the lenses of II world war - it seems you (again) are getting me wrong.
I think that you assume that modern wars are so much different from the wars which come before that they have to be in their own category. But they are not different at all, the basis of the wars are the same, only technological trappings are different - that's all.
That's why one can use an examples of second or first or any other war and the then attitudes of people towards wars in taking about present conflicts and present attitudes of people towards wars - as a saying goes "when you forget lessons from history you are doomed to make the same mistakes again and again and again" ;-)
But I thought you knew that from reading science fiction.
Anonymous, Thank you for your comments.
I grew up in a community with a lot of Holocaust survivors, and I remember hearing over and over and over again this question: why didn't the allies bomb the camps? This question is so ingrained in me that I cannot help but ask that same question about every situation.
Reading some military history has also made me realize that decisive, albeit brutal, campaigns could have stopped a much worse war. (Quantum worlds, I guess)
(Another part of me wonders if the brutal campaigns would have just staved off eventual violence or would have ended it: but that's another question.)
That said, I try to maintain an interest in many different points of view: even those I do not always agree with.
I do think of myself as a liberal as it is defined here:
# broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant ...
# having political or social views favoring reform and progress
# tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
# a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
Which brings me to this question: why have so many of my self-defined liberal friends given up on the ideas of freedom and democracy?
Discuss among yourselves.
What do you mean?
Post a Comment