Could a "better case" have been made for war?
Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:19:34 -0800
Jeff Bone writes:
> On Saturday, Mar 22, 2003, at 19:44 US/Central, Gordon Mohr wrote:
> > As you now seem to agree the war is a good idea,
> What the hell are you talking about? I think the GOALs are reasonable.
> I never said "I think the war is a good idea."
> Don't put words in my mouth.
There was a quote from Paul Berman, asserting that the war is
overwhelmingly in the interest of the whole world. Further, the
quote came from a longer article which further said the war was
a very good idea, and that even people with problems with how we
got into the war should, now, support its pursuit of humanitarian
James Rogers said, of the quote (and possibly also refrrring to
the larger argument): that's a good summary, he could get behind it,
but he didn't see that view expressed much.
At that point you petulantly claimed that the Berman view is
something you've been expressing all along, if people were
only paying attention.
The plain meaning of that exchange is that you endorse the ideas
of the forwarded Berman quote -- and perhaps the interview as a
whole (though that is less clear) -- that the war is "sharply in
the interest of almost everybody all over the world."
You may find hairs to split, but that sounds the same as "the
war is a good idea" to me.
Perhaps you should "PAY ATTENTION" to the viewpoints you claim
to be consistently expressing, so that you don't have to disavow
them less than 20 hours later?
Original exchange reproduced below.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Bone" <email@example.com>
To: "James Rogers" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "FoRK" <email@example.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: "[Bush's] inarticulateness has become .. a national security threat for the US"
> Then, James, all I can say is: PAY ATTENTION. Many of us are
> expressing this same point of view.
> On Saturday, Mar 22, 2003, at 12:46 US/Central, James Rogers wrote:
> > On 3/22/03 7:43 AM, "Russell Turpin" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> "In my interpretation, the basic thing that the
> >> United States wants to do -- overthrow Saddam
> >> and get rid of his weapons -- is sharply in the
> >> interest of almost everybody all over the world.
> >> And although the U.S. is proposing to act in the
> >> interest of the world, Bush has managed to
> >> terrify the entire world and to turn the world
> >> against him and us and to make our situation
> >> infinitely more dangerous than it otherwise
> >> would have been. It's a display of diplomatic
> >> and political incompetence on a colossal scale.
> >> We're going to pay for this."
> > That is just about the best summary of the situation that I've heard
> > yet. I
> > could subscribe to this view, but I don't see it being appropriately
> > expressed in too many places.
> > Cheers,
> > -James Rogers
> > email@example.com