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

[John W.]

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 12:59 PM, David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com> wrote:



>  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
>

I guess y'all - primarily you and Carl, in this instance - still don't
understand my question.  On this list you're largely preaching to the
choir.  You don't have a national column to reach the audience that Frank
Rich and Thomas Friedman are able to reach.  You don't "control the
narrative", although you would of course like to.  Even Noam Chomsky doesn't
"control the narrative".  You both have small local followings, but even
locally you're perceived by the "silent majority" as extremists.  For whom
are you doing this elaborate and repetitive deconstruction, this parsing of
sentences and paragraphs?

I dunno.  I still say that the only effective means of social change is
civil disobedience, usually carrried out over a long period of time and at
great personal sacrifice.  And sometimes that doesn't even work, in which
case events just have to play out, run their absurd course.  People of
genuine conscience have to die or rot in prison.  Empires have to collapse
of their own weight and corruption.

But no, I don't mind.  You intellectuals have to have something to do, I
guess, while awaiting the inevitable denouement.  I suppose parsing the
words of other intellectuals, or pseudo-intellectuals, is as good a pastime
as any.  I can't say that I don't enjoy it, once in a while.




>   ------------------------------
> *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/20100803/2986ffb9/attachment-0001.html>