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

[C. G. Estabrook]

I suggest a public reading - hire a hall, or use a street-corner if necessary - 
of "The Responsibility of Intellectuals."

Or perhaps the gospel according to Mark.


On 8/3/10 1:24 AM, John W. wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 12:59 PM, David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com
> <mailto: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 <mailto:jbw292002 at gmail.com>>
>
> *To:* David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com <mailto:davegreen84 at yahoo.com>>
> *Cc:* Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu <mailto:brussel at illinois.edu>>;
> Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:brussel at illinois.edu>> *To:* David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com
> <mailto:davegreen84 at yahoo.com>> *Cc:* C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu
> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>>; Peace Discuss
> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto: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.