[Peace-discuss] Re: "Liberal" media

[ouroboros rex]

C. G. Estabrook wrote:

>Suppose we were talking to a member of the German government
>sometime from mid-1940 to mid-1944, and he said the following:
>
>“We hear constantly that those of us who support moving out of
>France slowly to avoid massive civilian casualties are
>'pro-war' ... My reasoning is based entirely on number of
>French people killed per day ... Now that the political
>elements there have begun to turn to attacking each other [as
>Left and Right in France did under the Occupation and
>afterwards], it becomes clearer than ever that the Germans'
>job as honorable compassionate people, post-invasion, is to
>get out, but to clean up the mess the invasion made before we
>leave.”
>
>Would we believe him at all? Probably not.  But suppose he was
>sincere.  Then his protestation that his was an anti-war
>position -- that he was “talking about defusing the potential
>for *more* war” -- would simply seem deluded.  “Cleaning up”
>and “defusing” would be obvious euphemisms for continuing the
>effects of the German invasion -- an unavoidably pro-war
>position. --CGE
>

   The depths to which you have to go to refute my argument indict your 
position more thoroughly than I ever could, but it would still be 
interesting to see evidence of these civil struggles in France - 
particularly their genesis in old religious rivalries, the church 
bombings, and the routine calls for civil war from the pulpit.

   Or is this just a particularly dishonest and disgusting straw man?

  

>
>
>---- Original message ----
>  
>
>>Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:53:43 -0500
>>From: "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1 at itg.uiuc.edu>  
>>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] "Liberal" media  
>>To: <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>
>>  We hear constantly that those of us who support moving out
>>    
>>
>slowly to avoid massive civilian casualties are 'pro-war', 
>  
>
>>'supporting the occupation', have 'strange or corrupted
>>    
>>
>reasons', etc.
>  
>
>>  My reasoning is based entirely on number of Iraqis killed
>>    
>>
>per day.  How a desire to keep that number down is 'strange 
>  
>
>>or corrupted' is beyond me.  Now that the religious elements
>>    
>>
>over there have begun to turn to bombing each other, it 
>  
>
>>becomes clearer than ever that our new job as honorable
>>    
>>
>compassionate people, post-invasion, is to get out, but to clean 
>  
>
>>up Bush's mess before we leave.  Unless, of course, we want
>>    
>>
>to personally enable casualty numbers to move on up into 
>  
>
>>holocaust territory.
>>
>> Arguments that such reasoning cannot also be anti-war, when
>>    
>>
>we are talking about defusing the potential for *more* 
>  
>
>>war, are simply exercises in feely-good redefinition.  And
>>    
>>
>labels of 'pro-war' - when applied to this idea - are simply 
>  
>
>>lies.  -cmb 
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>    
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Peace-discuss mailing list
>>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>    
>>