From: bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman)
Subject: Re: Never again. How soon we forget.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 17:22:09 GMT

kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:

>In article <Bsz8G2.LnA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman) writes:

>>demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>>>	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.

>So what? That is a strawman, and was when you brought it up. The issue here
>is intervention in ex-Yugoslavian states to put a stop to "Ethnic
>Cleansing", not whether or not you Yanks care about Somalian suffering. You
>are clearly incapable of dealing with one issue at a time.

Ah, so apparently you are British? Since it is common knowledge that
you Brits are tough, why don't the Brits go in there and win the match?
We Yanks don't want to travel all that way. Since you are in the 
neighborhood why don't you "pop on by" and straighten things out?
Do it for the queen mum.


>If your comment about Bush is correct, it simply implies that Americans as a
>whole, _not_ their president, aren't too concerned about starving blacks...
>and _that_ has nothing whatsoever to do with "ethnic cleansing" and
>intervention in Bosnia et al.

Don't agree but am tired of arguing. Have decided to keep a
"stiff upper lip" on this one.

>>    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.

>Western societies are collectively disinterested in starving babies, period.
>Still has absolutely _nothing_ to do with the issue under discussion:
>intervention in Bosnia. While your political flagellation may be of passing
>interest to those who share your contempt for your own government (and, by
>implication, its people), it isn't of concern here.

That's not cricket. There is a difference between our people and
our government, old sport.

>What seems to be disturbing you is that Americans don't care about blacks,
>eh? I submit that the question at hand is whether or not western societies
>care about Croats, Serbs and others dying in the fighting.

Sure. But if a house is burning down do you automatically rush in
to save the occupants? The answer is no. You evaluate the level
of danger and proceed accordingly. 

>>>> 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?

>Who gives a damn? Your loathing for your own people is of marginal interest
>to shrinks, but still avoids the issue. 

That is not cricket, old sport. I put my *people* first. It is my
*government* that is suspect.

>>>	Because they are unwilling to sit by and watch Holocaust II?
>>    You are hysterical.

>Phooey - he doesn't appear either irrational or violently emotional to me -
>have you got another definition you'd like to add, like "opposed to my
>political agenda?"

Yes irrational because he claims there is a "Holocaust II" going on.
Where are the gas chambers? Where are the ovens? There have been
horrible prisoner of war camps in many wars -- but this does not 
indicate a holocaust. Was the Andersonville camp during the American
Civil War also a holocaust? I can assure you it was much more horrible
than what we are seeing in Yugoslavia. And yet the British government
sided with the confederacy which maintained this horrible p.o.w.
camp. 

>>>	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.

>I think he's clear enough - many have made the comparision with the
>Holocaust of World War Two, and, although I disagree with the use of the
>term relative to Serbo-Croat warfare, I doubt very much whether many others
>misunderstood his reference. If, as many opine, using the word holocaust in
>reference to the situation in <ex> Yugoslavia is an insult to the memory of
>those who suffered and died during WWII, the use of the word in the context
>of American cities is clearly inappropriate and highly offensive, although
>consistent with your previous political rhetoric.

Ah, hah! So "you disagree with the term [holocaust] relative to
Serbo-Croat warfare" and yet you had previously stated that you
saw nothing irrational in the previous speakers linking of the two.
Make up your mind.

Yes, use of the term holocaust *is* an insult to the memory of those
who suffered and died during WWII. So let's stop the use of this
term when we *irrationally* link it to Serbo-Croat warfare.

>>If the basis of your refutations is going to be 1)misrepresenting
>>me, and then 2)attacking these misrepresentations, then there is
>>little I can do in the realm of having a reasonable discussion
>>with you. I am puzzled at your hysterical insistence that another
>>holocaust is occurring. 

>Good - we find common ground, although your repeated assault on the
>respondent is getting tedious... what hysteria?

He keeps claiming there is another holocaust going on.

>>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!!"

>You seem to address the need to get personal with Stupendous Man here - why
>is that?

Because I am facing a roadblock in his mind. The argument keeps going
around in circles and I have to *adivinar* why he has a fixation on
his illusion of a holocaust in spite of no proof of same.

>>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.

>Ah, yes, now the mask of interest in rational discussion is dropped
>completely so you can endulge in some wierd mental masturbation - you are
>definitely a piece of work.

Well, it may be that I am "a piece of work." But I disagree with
what you say as to there being a rational discussion. I had previously
addressed his fixation on there being a "holocaust 2" in Serbo-Croatia
in spite of there being no proof of same. The rational discussion had
already broken down -- I was merely addressing that issue.


>>    My point is that it is too easy to send someone else over
>>    there to fight out your particular fantasy.

>The ISSUE is whether or not you support military intervention in Bosnia -
>you do not, although you seem unwilling or incapable of saying that without
>adding ad hominem fluff to fill the page.

Come on! Are you seriously trying to tell me that it is not clear
whether or not I support military intervention in Bosnia!? Churchill
must be turning over in his grave.


>>    Calm down.

>Given that he didn't seem too excited in the first place, I'd say
>"physician, heal thyself" should apply here.

You Brits are great! You've got this cool reserve about you. OOOOhhh
I'm *so* wounded by what you've said! (chortle chortle)

Say hi to the queen mum for me.

Brian Redman
(bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu)
"Ah yes, Armageddon. I remember it well."


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40592 talk.abortion:32430 alt.politics.bush:2128