once again. i was trying to make it _really_ clear that i'm not denouncing anyone for their position that leftists goals will be advanced if the US suffers heavy losses.
i shared with folks my reaction which was that i had hoped that we would suffer a terrist (tm) attack and that I pesonally would take the bomb or the anthrax spore or whatever.
IOW, i share the outrage. My thought was that the political setbck would be for the US to suffer from a terrist attack!
We were discussing what event(s) would set the US back, knock it in the knees, right? My reaction was that terrism on US soil would do it.
I'm trying desperately here to reveal what a shitty person i am, what shitty thoughts i had, to say, "I am not different"
Now, we can discuss thismore tomorrow. But before we do, I have to _know_ if you are hearing me on this one point as to what I wwas doing in the post dennis responded to.
May I ask? Did you read what I wrote--the whole thing? And, if so, did you try to read it in the best possible light? If you aren't doing that, then we can't continue this discussion.
kelley First, I disagree that it will have political blowback in the US. I've outlined this in the post just prior to this and in one to chuck0. At 10:34 AM 3/26/03 -0600, Carrol Cox wrote:
>Dennis Robert Redmond wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Kelley wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think any person who took the position that the best outcome for
> > > the revo is that the US loses lotsa of troops actually wants to see
> Iraqis
> > > die. I just think they forgot that along with US troops deaths come Iraqi
> > > troop and civilian deaths.
> >
> > The problem is, they were dying already from Clinton's vicious and
> > despicable sanctions regime,
>
>This is the passage from Kelley's posts that I should have focused on,
>and perhaps some confusion would have been avoided. I hope my
>understanding of this is correct -- but even if it isn't, I will argue
>that unless Kelley meant what I am about to interpret her as meaning,
>she should have said it in different ways.
>
>I don't see why anyone _should_ "remember" that Iraqi are dying. It is
>true that when I say I am glad I am here I am in fact celebrating the
>immense human misery that the neolithic revolution caused. But I don't
>feel that that is very relevant. Those people died, starved, were
>crippled independently of anything I think.
>
>Iraqi are dying, as Dennis R says, not because we do or do not think
>about them dying but because Bush 1, Clinton, & Bush 2 have been busy
>killing as many Iraqi as they can.
>
>So why does Kelley give a shit what people do and don't remember about
>the nature of combat?
>
>I really don't understand what her point is if it is not to ask us to
>investigate our souls to see if we have the right motives for the right
>act.
>
>The Iraqi are fighting. I wish them well in the fight, and will do my
>best to tie their enemy's hands or at least make the attack on them as
>clumsy as possible. Period. Nothing more to remember or forget. The
>state of my soul is not a proper topic for public discussion.
>
>Carrol