|
Randy Cassingham's BlogHistorical Details and Author's Notes from This is True® - the First For-Profit E-mail Publication (and Still Going Strong). |
Honorary Unsubscribes and World Peace
As you know, the Honorary Unsubscribe appears in the free edition first, then Premium; see the FAQ if you don't remember why.
One reader had plenty to say about this week's honoree:
Subscribe for Free
Not to sound macabre or anything, but the "honorary unsubscribe" portion of your newsletter is frequently one of your more enlightening segments. This week's hit a nerve. Lothar-Guenther Buchheim was a credit not only to the brave U-boat crews, but to the entire world afterward. Granted, 1981 was about a sufficient amount of time for Das Boot to be filmed; it was a story well worth telling, and were it not for Buchheim's work as a photographer and a correspondent it never would've happened. The anti-war message in Das Boot is clear, but in showing WWII from the German side, portraying what Americans considered enemies in a respectful tone, he showed the camaraderie and hardships of undersea warfare from the human angle that perhaps best illustrated the futility of our perpetual fighting.Remember that during WWII Field Marshal Erwin Johan Eugen Rommel (aka the Desert Fox) made the cover of Time magazine twice (first in 1941). We had respect for humans then as perhaps we do not now. That we could both honor and make war with a man such as Rommel -- and that Das Boot could tell its story to Americans in such a way as to leave many of us who saw it empathetic to the men, if not the cause, is an art I fear we've lost forever these days. And so it's not simply Buchheim's passage, but rather the tone in which he presented his side of the story to his conquerors that we ought mourn -- or perhaps even dare to learn from. --Charles, Washington
I don't think the ability to respect people -- even those we disagree with -- is lost forever, even if a lot of people don't seem to be able to grasp the concept right now. The concept of demonizing "the enemy", be it an "Evil Empire" or the "Fanatical Dictator" of North Korea, is a common propaganda technique, and may even have some utility. But it does get in the way of understanding and, I think, peace. If all we as a country do is badmouth the "bad guys", it doesn't make much room for talking with them. And if we can't talk to those we disagree with, the only alternatives are total isolation or destruction, neither of which sound like a great idea on this tiny planet. We think we are pretty good people, if only you get to know us, so I think we should always attempt to engage in dialogue with our "enemies". If they spurn us, fine; we can check back later.
RSS
Most Recent Comments
The radical Islamists say "Convert to Islam or die." They believe with every fiber of their being that their God requires this. They make no compromise offer within their demand, nor do they seek any dialogue with you other than to hear you say "I convert." And those are not my words or my fanatical "western" interpretation. Those are direct quotes from their leaders and spokesmen. Exactly what sort of rational dialogue do you expect to have with that mentality? Such foolish and dangerous naievete. Spare us.
---
Yes, I agree -- spare us your naivete (the correct spelling)! The only logical conclusion of what you're saying is the only solution is to nuke them. I'm saying there are other alternatives. It's rather clear which position is naive or extremist.
We've co-existed with Islamics for centuries, and suddenly things have changed, yet there's no hope that educating them will help? Uh huh. I'm not saying talking is easy, but it sure beats wanton slaughter. -rc
Posted by: Randy, Texas | March 10, 2007 1:10 PM
As always, there is an element of truth to both sides. Having lived among them, I agree that a great number of Islamics want to kill anyone who espouses Western or democratic ideals. And I also DISagree that we have co-existed peacefully with Islamics for centuries. I specify that 'coexistence' implies a willingness on both sides. For centuries, the Middle East has been to fragmented and disorganized for any 'willing' coexistence to take place.
Now that they have become more organized AND financed, they provide a greater force to cause interminable problems throughout the rest of the world. There are two solutions. The easy one is to nuke them. That would eliminate the problem forever, but it would also wipe out innocents along with the 'guilty'. And, it would constitute Genocide, something we supposedly oppose. How about a new Holocaust, only this time it would be the U.S. and the Arabs, rather than Germany and the Jews?
Since there are so many Islamics who are totally willing to slaughter each other as they are to engage in war with the West, they don't really need the West to satisfy their blood lust. Our largest problem is containing their internal carnage so that it doesn't spill over to the rest of the world.
That is the trickiest part. Being able to engage in diplomacy so that they can contain their 1500 years of wars in their own yards, not ours. A hard prospect, but when a People is determined to die in order to protect their Right To Kill, we're left with only Where and Who, not How to stop it.
For those old enough to remember, Saudi Arabia (and Egypt for that matter) were NEVER allies of the U.S. It was Kissinger's diplomacy that achieved a mutual tolerance in spite of diametric opposition in political viewpoint. In other words, the Saudi royal family finds it more expedient to tolerate the U.S. rather than risk possible annihilation. Something that the mobs in Iraq are too disorganized, too scattered, and too determined to prolong the bloodlust among themselves, to consider as any detriment.
John Milton stated in 'Paradise Lost' that it's "Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." Faced with that logic, our only hope is to achieve a diplomatic and political balance rather than hope for a final victory one way or the other.
Posted by: Mike from Dallas | March 11, 2007 10:11 AM
Sorry Randy, but I don't see us having a dialog with Iran, Syria, or the radicals in Iraq that is any more productive that the Israeli-Palestinian talks of the last 30 years.
Nukes or not, we are not fighting the war in Iraq to win it. We haven since WWII. Korea was not a win for us. And by Vietnam the American people had mostly lost their will to fight. If Vietnam and now Afghanistan and Iraq were fought all out, to win, like we did in WWII against Germany, Italy, and Japan it would be over now.
Anyone remember the bombing in Germany and Japan (not the nukes either) that destroyed the infrastructure and the peoples will to resist? We haven't done that, not in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I think it's possible to admire someone like Rommel or Hitler for the things they did well. But that doesn't mean you put them on a hero's pedestal. Rommel as tactician was very good, though he was beat.
And any individual soldier, such as Lothar-Guenther Buchheim, surely has many admirable qualities. That didn't make him any less the enemy though.
Posted by: Thomas, Misissippi | March 12, 2007 4:38 AM