[Peace-discuss] The message of wiki-leaks…

[David Green]

John, it really does matter how this is being spun by liberal elite 
opinion-shapers at the NYT, primarily Rich and Freidman. Because like in 
Vietnam, they have to shape a certain narrative as to enable them to go kill 
again. "Good intentions gone wrong," "quagmire," "nation-building can't be done 
unless people help themselves," at best--at worst, "stab-in-the-back" by liberal 
media, appeasement, etc. Ultimately, no apologies, no guilt, no reparations, 
"Vietnam was painful for both sides." Again, who controls the narrative controls 
the present, who controls the present controls the past, who controls the past 
controls the future. 


Yes, this is very important for "y'all" to think about, if you wouldn't mind. 
Rich's columns are the tactics to Obama's strategy.

DG



________________________________
From: John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
To: David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>
Cc: Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu>; Peace Discuss 
<peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Mon, August 2, 2010 12:09:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The message of wiki-leaks…


You know I'm not very smart, and sometimes have trouble following these arcane 
threads.  Someone please remind me why Frank Rich's precise turns of phrase are 
the most important thing that y'all have to talk and think about.  Are you in 
danger of becoming complacent if ol' Frank finally admits that the war in 
Afghanistan is "morally wrong" and not merely some manner of mistake?

John


On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:49 AM, David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com> wrote:

 
Mort, it's not at all clear that Rich thinks we should get out. Although he is 
an editorial columnist, he says nothing throughout of his own views. The closest 
he comes is this: As the president conducts his scheduled reappraisal of his war 
policy this December, a re-examination of 1971 might lead him to question his 
own certitude of what he is fond of calling “the long view.” 

>That's obtuse, and for a reason. And indeed the lessons of "1971" aren't at all 
>clear, if one is serious about making even this argument re what "might lead" 
>Obama. Neither the army nor the population is rebelling against the war, and the 
>economic downturn that has accompanied it does not seem to be bothering the 
>interests of capital, broadly speaking. In fact, it has benefitted them 
>greatly--the economic world is very different than it was in 1971, and the 
>resource stakes are much higher in the ME than in Southeast Asia.
>
>There is no certainty at all, as Rich suggests, that we are on the downside of 
>this war. So his column is counsel for complacency.
>
>With you, it has seemed to work.
>
>DG
>
>
>
________________________________

>From: Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu>
>
>To: David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>
>Cc: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>; Peace Discuss 
><peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>Sent: Mon, August 2, 2010 10:44:24 AM 
>
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The message of wiki-leaks…
>
>
>Again, you beg the question with the statement below. It's clear that Rich 
>thinks we should get out of Afghanistan. That's specific, and positive, despite 
>all else. I also want the U.S. forces "out". That's the most important thing at 
>the moment, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere.    
>
>
>
>As for Carl, he can twist anything for his purposes, as with use of the word 
>"quagmire" as an excuse for hiding criminality. 
>
>
>It is one thing to say that you are not satisfied, or strongly dissatisfied with 
>the positions and writings of someone like Rich, but I believe your twisting of 
>what can be helpful in stopping the killing is perverse. Get off your 
>ideological horse.
>
>
>
>--mkb
>
>
>On Aug 2, 2010, at 8:57 AM, David Green wrote:
>
>On a broader level, everyone wants peace, albeit on their own terms.


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100802/164e5473/attachment-0001.html>