Imperialism and Treason
Chefjef responds to this post of mine:
"I meant blitzkrieg. I was too lazy to type it out, so I typed blitz in quotes, but then got lazier and dropped the quotes. Sorry for the confusion.
"While an intelligent person may reasonably infer, from my comments, that I was saying a direct comparison of a U.S. President and Hitler is okay, I did not imply it. I believe I mentioned that that would be insane. I also believe that, in Monk’s quote of the newspaper article that covered the “art” story, the article stated that the “art” display did not draw a comparison between Bush and Hitler. This is why I limited the scope of my comments to a discussion of certain tactics, and why I said “grain” of truth, not simply truth. I’ll admit, to us lawyers adjectives and adverbs are important; maybe too important. Perhaps linguistic nuances to the legally educated are, rightly so, hollow verbage to the sane world. Accordingly, perhaps the preceding has clarified, with my apologizes, any erroneous, yet reasonable inferences drawn but unintended from my previous comment.
"I understand Monk’s aversion to the use of the President’s name in same sentence with Hitler. I’ll admit, reading your argument I can “feel” how it offends you. I’ll also admit that I did fully understand it until now. But having read your post, I understand your position, and concede it; so much so that I will avoid doing it, and make the point to anyone who may do it in my presence.
"That being said, perhaps some on the Right will understand that some on the Left and in the Middle – yes, I consider myself in the Middle, stop laughing Monk! – find objectionable the “looseness” with which some on the Right use the terms traitor and treason. Not just in the legal sense, either, but also, as Monk stated, in the qualitative sense. For example, I have had people in the recent past question my patriotism for my criticism of President Bush, the Iraq war and my suggestions that the war (particular the Wolfawitz (sp?) et al ideology behind it) is somewhat imperialistic – imperialistic de facto, not de jure; just because a person thinks they’re actions are benevolent doesn’t mean they actually are (after all Don Quijote thought himself sane!). Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Me, I served 8 years in the Army, 2 in the Infantry – not a rear unit, the Infantry. Then, after the start of Operation Enduring freedom, I voluntarily enlisted in a highly deployable M.P. unit in the Army Guard, even though I disagree with the current war, because our forces are a tad low on qualified leaders and I can’t sit by watching my American brethren go off to the desert like that . Oh yeah, I serve my city everyday at work, too. I KNOW I am a loyal American. I have served and continue to serve my Country, State and City. Thus, when I, or someone like me, is accused of disloyalty because of our sincere political analysis, (someone like Michael Moore may be different – there is a sincerity and honesty issue there) I find it beyond offensive. Let’s not forget that this boy we are discussing is in fact just a kid, and one who is clearly, I think we all agree, surrounded by less than objective educators. I truly doubt he is a disloyal traitor.
"A note to veep…. Monk already dealt with the assertion that a democracy cannot be imperialistic. Also, you asked how spreading democracy can be imperialistic. Well, that’s depends upon how it is spread. If a democratic country invades, let’s say, a socialist country (okay…I’ll admit an invasion of Canada - excuse me Kannukistan - would be cool) where the citizens actually desire and enjoy their socialist existence, and we do so for the purpose of “manifest destiny,” it is probably imperialistic. To simplify, if you have a piece of chocolate cake, and I say, “ sure do like cake,” and you give me a piece, you are a sharing person. If, you have the cake, and ask me if I want a piece, and I say “no, thank you,” and you say “but you don’t understand how good it is,” and then forcibly shove it down my face, well then you’re not a sharer, you’re an assault and batterer. A simplistic example, I know, but the underlying moral and legal principle applies equally to cake sharing and war making.
"That brings me to one small point to Monk. You mentioned that “how” doesn’t matter in the analysis of pre-emption vs. imperialism. Well, I think those on the receiving end may very much differ.
"Lastly, and most importantly, as Monk pointed out I did vote with my feet. You got me there! Darn!
"By the way, I think your blog is swimming along splendidly. Kudos!"
Chefjef
"I meant blitzkrieg. I was too lazy to type it out, so I typed blitz in quotes, but then got lazier and dropped the quotes. Sorry for the confusion.
"While an intelligent person may reasonably infer, from my comments, that I was saying a direct comparison of a U.S. President and Hitler is okay, I did not imply it. I believe I mentioned that that would be insane. I also believe that, in Monk’s quote of the newspaper article that covered the “art” story, the article stated that the “art” display did not draw a comparison between Bush and Hitler. This is why I limited the scope of my comments to a discussion of certain tactics, and why I said “grain” of truth, not simply truth. I’ll admit, to us lawyers adjectives and adverbs are important; maybe too important. Perhaps linguistic nuances to the legally educated are, rightly so, hollow verbage to the sane world. Accordingly, perhaps the preceding has clarified, with my apologizes, any erroneous, yet reasonable inferences drawn but unintended from my previous comment.
"I understand Monk’s aversion to the use of the President’s name in same sentence with Hitler. I’ll admit, reading your argument I can “feel” how it offends you. I’ll also admit that I did fully understand it until now. But having read your post, I understand your position, and concede it; so much so that I will avoid doing it, and make the point to anyone who may do it in my presence.
"That being said, perhaps some on the Right will understand that some on the Left and in the Middle – yes, I consider myself in the Middle, stop laughing Monk! – find objectionable the “looseness” with which some on the Right use the terms traitor and treason. Not just in the legal sense, either, but also, as Monk stated, in the qualitative sense. For example, I have had people in the recent past question my patriotism for my criticism of President Bush, the Iraq war and my suggestions that the war (particular the Wolfawitz (sp?) et al ideology behind it) is somewhat imperialistic – imperialistic de facto, not de jure; just because a person thinks they’re actions are benevolent doesn’t mean they actually are (after all Don Quijote thought himself sane!). Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Me, I served 8 years in the Army, 2 in the Infantry – not a rear unit, the Infantry. Then, after the start of Operation Enduring freedom, I voluntarily enlisted in a highly deployable M.P. unit in the Army Guard, even though I disagree with the current war, because our forces are a tad low on qualified leaders and I can’t sit by watching my American brethren go off to the desert like that . Oh yeah, I serve my city everyday at work, too. I KNOW I am a loyal American. I have served and continue to serve my Country, State and City. Thus, when I, or someone like me, is accused of disloyalty because of our sincere political analysis, (someone like Michael Moore may be different – there is a sincerity and honesty issue there) I find it beyond offensive. Let’s not forget that this boy we are discussing is in fact just a kid, and one who is clearly, I think we all agree, surrounded by less than objective educators. I truly doubt he is a disloyal traitor.
"A note to veep…. Monk already dealt with the assertion that a democracy cannot be imperialistic. Also, you asked how spreading democracy can be imperialistic. Well, that’s depends upon how it is spread. If a democratic country invades, let’s say, a socialist country (okay…I’ll admit an invasion of Canada - excuse me Kannukistan - would be cool) where the citizens actually desire and enjoy their socialist existence, and we do so for the purpose of “manifest destiny,” it is probably imperialistic. To simplify, if you have a piece of chocolate cake, and I say, “ sure do like cake,” and you give me a piece, you are a sharing person. If, you have the cake, and ask me if I want a piece, and I say “no, thank you,” and you say “but you don’t understand how good it is,” and then forcibly shove it down my face, well then you’re not a sharer, you’re an assault and batterer. A simplistic example, I know, but the underlying moral and legal principle applies equally to cake sharing and war making.
"That brings me to one small point to Monk. You mentioned that “how” doesn’t matter in the analysis of pre-emption vs. imperialism. Well, I think those on the receiving end may very much differ.
"Lastly, and most importantly, as Monk pointed out I did vote with my feet. You got me there! Darn!
"By the way, I think your blog is swimming along splendidly. Kudos!"
Chefjef
posted by Monk | 5:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home