Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Never again. How soon we forget.
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 14 Aug 92 13:25:10 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <Bsz8G2.LnA@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman) writes:
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 
>>> Sure, war is horrible. It *is* horrible the killing that is going on
>>> over there. But did you know that there are thousands of people starving
>>> to death in Somalia also? Did you know that because of armed conflict
>>> in the region, relief supplies are not getting through? And where is
>>> Bush and the U.S. on that one? Why aren't they raising a fuss about
>>> going to Somalia with U.S. / U.N. troops so as to save Somalian lives?
> 
>>	So unless we are going to attempt to solve every problem simultaneously
>>we shouldn't even try?
> 
>     No, that is not my point. Here you have put words in my mouth.
>     My point is that starving blacks apparently does not upset
>     the Bush administration.

	That's why it is in the form of a question.

>>	As we speak, the UN is moving to safeguard food supplies.
> 
>     Correct.
> 
>>	But why do you insist that it be the US who has to help in Somalia?
> 
>     Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I have nowhere insisted
>     that it "be the US who has to help Somalia." I am only noting
>     that the Bush administration seems uninterested in starving
>     babies when they are black.

	Of course.  And if they are muslim, or in any other way far from what
Bush considers to be people "like him".
	But don't confuse the rest of us with that attitude.

>>> Why haven't we been hearing the U.S. governments standard and inevitable
>>> refrain "we have no money" on this one. Here in the United States we
>>> have had a problem with children going to bed hungry for years. Here
>>> in the United States we have had problems of homelessness, inadequate
>>> health care and economic despair for years. And what do they consistently
>>> tell us when the people in their outrage beg for a few crumbs of
>>> assistance from the U.S. government? They consistently tell us, "Sorry.
>>> We'd like to help but there is no money." Why aren't they saying that
>>> *now*? Why aren't we hearing "Sorry Yugoslavia, but we have no money."
>>> Why aren't they saying that?
> 
>>	Because they are unwilling to sit by and watch Holocaust II?
> 
>     You are hysterical.
> 
>>	Why are you willing to sit by and watch it?
> 
>     This holocaust you refer to, do you mean the one currently
>     going on in U.S. cities? You are unclear.

	What holocaust in US cities.  I'm unaware of any forces sweeping US
cities in an effor to genocide a group.

>>> After the Gulf War, president Bush triumphantly proclaimed that we
>>> had put the ghost of Viet Nam behind us. It is as if by our
>>> involvement in the Gulf War we had atoned for Viet Nam. I note that
>>> you self-righteously allude to the World War II holocaust at the
>>> end of your post. Is that what this is all about? Is it that we
>>> have to go to war in Yugoslavia *now* so that we can atone for our
>>> lack of involvement in assisting the victims of atrocities which
>>> occurred over 50 years ago? Will going to Yugoslavia *now* atone
>>> for what happened *then*?
> 
>>	Which victims did we not help?  How is four years of fighting not
>>helping?  How is liberating concentration camps not helping?
> 
> It is an historical fact that the U.S. at first ignored/disbelieved
> reports of Nazi death camps. 

	It is a historical fact that everyone at first downplayed the reports. 
It was inconceivable (at the time) to think a civilized country would commit
such attrocities.
	But then the Nazis weren't civilized.

> Again you have misrepresented me (a.k.a. put words in my mouth).
> I stated "lack of involvement." I did *not* state that we did
> not help. We helped, but not as soon as we could have.

        We were in the middle of WWII.  What could we have done?  What could
anyone have done at that point besides what they were doing: fighting a world
war.

> If the basis of your refutations is going to be 1)misrepresenting
> me, 
        Hardly misrepresentations.  If you put forward broad allegations, you'd
best expect people to ask for clarification.

>and then 2)attacking these misrepresentations, then there is
> little I can do in the realm of having a reasonable discussion
> with you. 

        I'm not surprised to see you punt.  The facts are against you.

> I am puzzled at your hysterical insistence that another
> holocaust is occurring. Delving more deeply into this conundrum,
> I can only conjecture as to the breakdown of your logical
> processes. Perhaps you get off on a self-image of someone who
> is saving the helpless (and hence is quite a fine fellow). Thus,
> it is surmisable that the breakdown of your logical processes and
> subsequent descent into emotionalism can be traced to a sort of
> "feel good" emotionalism. "Look at those bad guys. *I* will save
> you. What a fine fellow I am!!"

        It's really sick that your ego is being shored up at the expense of a
few thousand dead in the Balkans.  Will it be even better when the numbers hit
millions?

> Of course, it can be o.k. to work yourself up into a state of
> emotional positivism (provided that fantasy and reality do not
> become confused). For example, you could watch "Rambo" and become
> so caught up in the movie that you forget reality. Often we
> identify with the "hero" in these types of movies and, for the
> time, forget who we really are. *This is o.k., provided that we
> do not begin to distort fantasy and reality*. However I fear that
> in your case this Ramboesque identification has gone across
> the line between the two. Hence, the breakdown of your logical
> processes and subsequent egoist fantasy. It is my conjecture that
> at the moment you are insane.

        Considering how far off you are on everything else, this is no
surprise.  But it's no surprise when the paranoid start thinking "it's everyone
else who is crazy".

>>> Will *you* be going over there to fight what David H. Hackworth 
>>> (a veteran of combat in the region and career military man) has
>>> called "the meanest mothers in the valley of death and the last
>>> tigers the United States ever wants to try to tame."? Will we
> 
>>	The meanest mothers of all fighters?
> 
>>	No I won't be going.  The military said no thanks when I signed up for
>>ROTC back in 1980.
> 
>     My point is that it is too easy to send someone else over
>     there to fight out your particular fantasy.

        Obviously you didn't get the message.  I would if I could have.  This
isn't armchair militarism.

>>> be seeing you over there, slogging through the mud and the rain
>>> and the cold, atoning for atrocities that happened 50 years ago
>>> and wearing a martyred look of self-righteousness? If you want
>>> to go over there, go ahead. But stop demanding that others go
>>> and risk their lives and limbs for your personal delusions.
> 
>>	Just as soon as you stop demanding that no one be allowed to go over
>>there and stop Holocaust II.
> 
>     Calm down.

        ! :)  Amusing given that your premise is that intervention in the
Balkans is somehow therapy for WWII Nazism.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15099 alt.politics.elections:10968 alt.politics.bush:2158 misc.headlines:5748 talk.politics.misc:40651