From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Henry V
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:20:19 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School

In <1992Apr8.233326.14819@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

[stuff from an old post of mine deleted]

>I have isolated these three paragraphs from Geoff's posting because they
>highlight a strange attitude towards the Branagh Henry V and war in
>general.

Since this is rec.arts.movies I am happy to discuss any 'strange attitude
towards the Branagh Henry V' but if you want to discuss war in general there
are more appropriate newsgroups.

>In the first paragraph, Geoff writes "if I was dumb enough to get myself
>into war as a combatant...".

I didn't say I wouldn't go, I'm just not very eager to get shot at. Since
a nation without a general draft offers many ways to serve one's country I
consider military service to be only one of many options. 

>In the second he waxes eloquent about the costs of war.

I don't think I was eloquent at all but suit yourself. In fact, I didn't
really go into the subject at all.

>In the third he tries to apply cost/benefit analysis to war.

I didn't apply anything, I merely addressed it as a point of view.

>It appears to me that to Geoff, if war benefits a society more than it
>costs, those dumb enough to be persuaded to actually fight the thing
>should march off a la Pistol, Nym, Bardolph and Boy.  While we at home
>should sing loud hosannas that we ain't going, and tot up the benefits.

Actually, no. As a historian I view war as a means to an end. Quite
simply, war is a major foreign policy tool. I don't think war is a
pleasant business or a fun thing to participate in but I can feel that way
and still look upon the motives behind it from a more impartial position.
I also think that if a nation commits to war it should do so as a nation.
Those who would profit off the suffer of others are no better than
criminals in my opinion.
If the United States got into a real war and I was able to avoid fighting
I wouldn't turn around and start backstabbing the military that is
protecting me.
If I don't want their protection I can always leave the country, right?

>Shortly after the brutalization of Iraq, the New York Times' business
>section printed an unspeakably vulgar little article on the front page
>of its business section, lauding the easy winnings of a clean war.  This
>article was illustrated with a Fascist Art Deco design of Yuppies, hair
>blown by the wind, lording it over ugly little men who were the actually
>fighting soldiers.

I really resent your continued efforts to have a political dialogue about
the Gulf War in rec.arts.movies. PLEASE, take this subject to an
appropriate newsgroup. Odds are, you'll find me there.

>I placed this article on my door at work.  Over it, I placed one of the
>most searing images of the war, of a young, non-Yuppie soldier (with the
>coarse blunt hands of the white poor), crying bitterly as he had learned
>of the death of his buddy.  By friendly fire.  
>Geoff, tell him that the costs outweighed the benefits.  Tell Bardolph,
>and tell Boy.

Since I was not addessing the Gulf War I really have no interest in your
childish insults. I mioght consider discussion of this topic in
talk.politics.misc or alt.war but I'm not going to answer an accusation
like this when it is trying to attack me for comments made about a MOVIE
after applying them to a WAR I was NOT discussing at all.
As far as "the costs outweighing the benefits" goes. I never expressed an
opinion on the Battle of Agincourt or the Gulf War which claimed that they
did or did not. Please refrain from ascribing opinions to me that I have not
expressed. What I think is my business and I really don't need you
to tell me what it is.

>>       "Economic deprivation makes freedom less relevant to a people."
>>						-Paul E. Tsongas

>On the contrary.  Freedom is more important than relative deprivation.
>ESPECIALLY freedom from beancounters like Tsongas.

I agree. Freedom is more IMPORTANT. But that isn't what the quote says. It
uses the word RELEVANT, which carries a different meaning from "relative"
and "important." 
Do you just go off on these tirades without even reading what you are
replying to?

-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU  -  Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business
    "An ancestor of mine maintained that if you eliminate the impossible,
     whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
		-Spock, "STVI:TUC", Stardate 9523.8