Subject: Debate with Shemo
I read, with interest, your "debate" with Margaret
Shemo. I have to say, right off, that I'm on Shemo's side.
The problem is that you seem to like to label anybody who disagrees with you, about Afghanistan, a "Dove."
I see myself as "normal." All people do, right?
So if I'm "normal," and I'm a blood-thirsty, baby-killing son of a bitch,
then, yes, I assume those to my left are doves.
BC, I'm not a dove. If you don't believe
me, try harming someone I love, and watch what happens.
But the difference here is that I would know it was you, and you personally, attempting to do the harm.
You see, as long as we don't have a free press
in this country, all the lights are out.
And nobody can see in the dark. If you're in a room with your wife and many others,
and the lights go out, and somebody slaps your wife, do just start pummelling everyone
in the room when the lights come back on?
That'd be crazy.
Do you use the logic that anyone who is not
guilty of the offense would have tried to stop it,
so they all deserve to be pummelled?
Well, what if that guy that tried to pick your
pocket, earlier in the evening, says that it was the guy
in the blue shirt, standing in the corner? Do you go over and start pummelling the guy in the blue shirt?
Do you say to yourself, "Well, the pick pocket is the only one who's helping me out here,
so I have to take his word for it, until something better comes along?"
Or is it that you just tell yourself you have
to pummell somebody, so others will know that they can't
get away with it? After all, if somebody doesn't get pummelled, you really don't love your wife, do you?
I'm starting to get lost.
If someone stood up and said, "I'm protecting the guy who claims responsibility for hitting your wife,
ad I refuse to hand him over to you" then I would, to use your words, "pummel" him.
As for bin Laden, fuck 'im! I'm all for
getting the little weasel, regardless of whether he was
reponsible for 9/11 or not. Although I would prefer to see him taken down in world court.
But nobody has yet convinced me that we have to pummell Afghanistan to punish bin Laden.
It really doesn't concern me what Blair thinks. He never won an election here.
When my government is killing people in my name, he's not the one that needs to be convinced.
Could this be a mere semantics problem? You say
Afghanistan" as tho
our military men were going from home to home killing the men and raping the women.
Is it your contention that we're not hitting military targets?
"I'm not a dove. If you don't believe me, try harming someone I love, and watch what happens.
Did you not catch the part where bin Laden said
he did it?
Did you not catch the part where the Taliban said, "We have him, and we won't hand him over?"
Looking forward to your reply.
Subject: Margaret Shemo debate: War as an NBC miniseries
this devoted fan has this to add to Ms. Shemo's comments.
I visited Afghanistan in 1977, it was one of the most beautiful places in the world.
The Afghans fought resourcefully and successfully against the USSR, and doing it while
the Soviets were simultaneously destroying their herds, their farms, and their orchards,
then rounding them up into collectives. These people have beaten back all invaders over
the centuries, but even they can't survive in a moonscape, the likely outcome of this invasion.
There is an excellent video 'The Fight for a Way
of Life' made by the BBC and available
if you're interested. Afghans armed with only handmade or 'liberated' weapons (plus some
Stingers from the US of A) succeeded in vanquishing a superpower. Listen to 14 year-olds
talk of being on the front for 3 full years. Hear a man in a hospital with his leg blown off say
'I still have one good leg and will fight on'. See thin men walking single file through a landscape
strewn with mines, on their way to their next battle.
Please, don't say these people are cowards.
PS I'm no lover of female oppression, etc.
It seems we have to make disclaimers these days.
Koresh forbid I try to speak for Margaret Shemo, but I think what set her off was, in a nutshell,
my asking, "Why don't the Afghans fight back?"
You said, "The Afghans fought resourcefully..." which is the past tense.
Maybe this Shemo war could've been avoided had
"Why did the Afghans stop fighting?"
Subject: I'm still here
I saw where you said you've had more friends attack
you over your opinions on
American retaliation than for any other thing.
I just want to say that I took you to task for
your statements several times. You printed a couple of them.
I got nasty. You got ugly. But I never said I was going anywhere, and you didn't hold it against me
when I sent other stuff for your consideration.
I still don't entirely agree with your POV, and
like you said, I would sure like to see that 'evidence' for myself,
especially since some of the hawks in the Pentagon and White House are publicly stating that we should attack
Iraq even if we can't make the link. Why? For the hell of it, I suppose. Raytheon and GE must be having a
garage sale or something. I'd like to see some real experts take the evidence apart and examine it, like they have
done with missile defense, not that it would change anything (it hasn't with missile defense).
I'd like to see ol' Cochran give their evidence the glove test.
My point is that it is your web site and it is
yours to display your opinion. I may not agree with what you say,
I may even attack what you say, but I still dig the toons and the links and your commentary.
Bartcop is still one of my favorite sites.
Jeff, it's much easier to beat up the men than the women :)
Subject: WTC Syndrome
Dearest BC - as a regular reader for a while now
I too have been alarmed at your
recent enthusiasm for revenge against the evil doers. (However instead of not
visiting you each day, I simply scroll past your posts that make me want to
scream until I get to something more interesting - which there always is.)
I think you're right when you talk about how "WTC
Syndrome" has effected us.
Without even a morsel of decent information about who the criminals really are
and with patriotic war hysteria giving Bush 90% approval ratings it's no wonder
that liberals are dazed and confused. We can't trust the press, we don't trust
the evil forces Bush and when pillars of our community like yourself jump on the
bandwagon of war (that's the perception, at least) well it gives us a scare quite honestly.
And I guess that's the thing that is so confusing
to many of us about your
position. Without any credible information forthcoming about who did it and why
(other than the pablum-laced sophomoric rhetoric from President Idiot about the
terrorists being jealous of how great we are) how can we be sure we are taking
revenge on the right folks?
What's scary is that I'm seeing/remembering news nobody else seems to remember.
Is it not a fact that bin Laden has admitted the dirty deed?
Maybe he's just trying to be a big man with the religio-nuts, but isn't it a FACT
that he threatened "more" attacks, and doesn't the word "more" mean something?
And second, the Taliban has said, "We have him and we're not giving him up."
When I hear bin Laden boast of his feats, and the Taliban try to get
between him and us,
I say we let the military do the job we pay them to do.
What am I missing?
Has nobody else heard bin Laden & the Taliban say these things?
Granted, I don't speak Farsi, or whatever they speak, so I didn't "hear" them say anything,
but is it the dove (sorry) position that we shouldn't attack the people bragging
about how they killed 6,000 people and dismantled New York?
This is the most important question of the month.
Let me hear from you.
Subject: I will not kill my wife and child.
Bart, it amazes me how wounded you sound after
Margaret Shemo's note. I don't see any attack on you,
but on the mindset of people who hold an opposing opinion. Does "ditto monkey" sound familiar?
I think it was you who coined it, but now you're all hurt that MS assumes that you didn't recognize
the story of the Warsaw Ghetto-- a pretty innocuous statement it seems to me.
Anyway, your point is that if the oppressed peoples of the world don't fight against their oppressors, then they're saying,
>"If the fight looks difficult - surrender immediately to avoid making your conquerers angry."
How about, "If it looks like I can keep my family alive by doing what they say, I won't fight back."
If I happened to live in Afghanistan and I knew
that not only would my life be forfeit, but that of my son and
my wife as well (as would be the case-- for Charles almost immediately, for Sharon, well, she'd probably
wish it was), then I won't fight back. I'll take a shitty life with the possibility of a better one later over being
the cause of my loved ones' deaths.
(And here comes the CHEAP, PERSONAL ATTACK!!)
Do you understand that?
Rick, I'm not asking you to scarifice your kids, but I am thankful that
Washington, Jefferson, Madison et al
weren't thinking only about their children's safety when they made the decision to fight the Redcoats.
Sacrifices are made to enjoy freedom.
Subject: Why You Are Losing Readers
Let's take a look at this little tidbit:
> I guess you
didn't recognize which story NBC has dramatized. The "lone village" was
the Warsaw Ghetto.
> NBC is presenting its program as some sort of revelation -- and this may be true for the people who get
> all their historical knowledge from "special movie events."
So, you open with a cheap,
Your determination to make this personal is disturbing.
Did I say I get "all my historical knowledge" from TV movies that haven't been broadcast yet?
I'm surprised a friend would do that.
Do you treat all your friends this way?
...or am I no longer your friend?
Show me where she says "you" get your historical
knowledge from movies?
That might have been what she was saying. But then again, it is just as
likely that she was taking a shot on the side at the idiots who do get their
knowledge from the boob tube and, generally speaking, vote Bush.
Edward, certainly, it's possible there was a misunderstanding.
I'd think the odds of a triple misunderstanding in one short letter are remote,
but I try not to close the door on different opinions.
You say, "Show me where she says "you"
get your knowledge.
Well, I enlarged the font on the word that seemed to get the ball rolling.
I have great respect for Margaret's words. She's a tactician.
I doubt that "you" was accidental or inadvertent, but I've been wrong before..
I believe so many former friends have attacked
that you are seeing attacks where none are intended.
Something I've haven't mentioned is that WTC syndrome I spoke of?
I get more mail than the average guy, so the attacks have been proportional to that.
I'm not claiming to have the courage of Julie Hiatt Steele or Susan McDougal,
but it's tough to read a whole lot of "baby killer" mail and not have it affect you.
Actually, "War As NBC Miniseries" is probably
the worst writing I have yet
seen from you and your "IQ of 64".
Really? I thought I'd written lots worse stuff than that...
You put a lot of words into her mouth.
I understood her portion of it to mean nothing more than:
I admit, it's possible that these three lines,
> I guess you didn't recognize
.........and this may be true for the people
> who get all their historical knowledge from 'special movie events.'
> You did know that the Nazis won this particular fight, didn't you?
> But if bombing makes YOU feel better, it can't be all bad.
...could have been misread by Ol' punchy BartCop.
Koresh knows she has the majority of the mail so far...
Your fellow moderate,