To the editor:
In reply to the Aug. 18 editorial, "Excuses," in the 1930s and 1940s, Americans and Europeans did ask what they had done to turn Germany into a Nazi dictatorship. Many found the answer: A young nation had suffered defeat in World War I, humiliation at Versailles and then a depression. These destroyed Weimar democracy, allowing Hitler to seize power. We shared the blame. See Churchill's "History of the Second World War." I can send it.
There were "bleating" apologists for Hitler. See the newspapers of Henry Ford, the speeches of Charles Lindbergh and Neville Chamberlain, or the works of A.A. Milne. Hundreds of thousands of Americans slept with these ululating ungulates. So, the "unity and ferocity" we showed in dealing with Hitler, as you presume, is simply false. That presumption is equal parts neo-conservative myth and boomer self-loathing.
You finally assert that the 1979 hostage crisis triggered the "world war with terrorists." This ignores terrorism's longer causes: the divergences between Europe and the Middle East from 1453-1918; their consequences, European imperialism and the creation of nations such as Yugoslavia and Iraq; the tribal, ethnic and religious reactions to imperial nation-building, which supported fundamentalism and terrorism; and how fundamentalism has exploited ignorance, whether from a minaret in Riyadh or from a flight deck near San Diego. See the works of Hobbes, Montesquieu, Gibbon, Twain and Orwell. I can send them.
The war in Iraq, like your screed, begs the question. Until you endorse evidence, please avoid writing about history.
Burke Griggs,
Lawrence
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
merrill (anonymous) says…
There is no one that I've met in Lawrence, Kansas that is pro terrorist. You are grasping for straws and basically lying on that issue. That may be your perspective however that does not make it true. Where is your evidence?
Leave the lying to President Bush. He will out and about for the next 5 days doing a lot of it to his selected audience at each stop. That is my perspective. Enough said.
Speakout (anonymous) says…
If the Crusades were a response to "violent encroachments into Europe", then what are the Americans doing in Iraq? Violent encroachements into the Arab world. And if so, aren't we getting in Iraq with all the deaths and injury what we justly deserve for attacking it in the first place? It appears that you are speaking with a forked tongue.
I believe that Griggs is right in that respect. How can the Arab world be colonized for hundreds of years and not want revenge for the natural resources stolen from them. They lost their language and customs which was the basis of their existence. This is tantamount to the taking of their heart and soul. Leaders were appointed who followed the ways of the invader, not those who were top of the list by the natives.
Christian invaders have always spelled disaster to the Arab world and the Arabs have always tried to repell them. What possible gain could we expect in invading the Arab world? Is the cost to us and them worth it?
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Could someone tell me the definition of neo-conservative? I have noticed that it has suddenly become the latest phrase/word being used by people who don't like President Bush or his policies, and I was just wondering where it came from and what, exactly, it means. Oh and "straw person" or "straw arguments". That word "Straw" has also suddenly started being used a lot. Just noticed the usage of these phrases and wondered about why they are spreading into so many reports or comments - it's like Kudzu vine in the south. Is it like "like"? Just a verbal habit that is spread from user to user?
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Ohhhh. If neo-cons are ex-liberals that would explain the continued affinity for governmental involvement on a massive scale... I found this definition:
by Daniel McCarthy
Washington University
Regular readers of LRC or other right-of-center sites are sure to have seen terms like "neoconservative" and "paleo-libertarian" from time to time. A quick Google search can explain what the words mean, but definitions don't really answer the more interesting and important question which one are you?
Centrist Just what it sounds like. Someone who doesn't have any particularly strong ideological leanings in any direction.
Conservative Specifically a "fusionist" conservative of the National Review - Heritage Foundation mold. Someone who believes in traditional morality and capitalism, and the need for a limited government to allow both to flourish.
Left-libertarian The quiz uses a mild definition of a left-libertarian, an anti-statist who is somewhat fearful of corporate and religious influence on public life.
Liberal Supports economic regulation to promote social justice and takes a progressive stance toward moral or cultural issues.
Libertarian A libertarian opposes most or all government activites. Does not favor much or any government support for either moral or economic systems.
Neoconservative A "neocon" is more inclined than other conservatives toward vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies. Tends to favor a very strong foreign policy of America as well.
Paleoconservative "Paleocons" want less US involvement in foeign affairs than other conservatives and oppose mass immigration. They are also more favorably disposed toward the South and the idea of secession, or at least decentralization, than neoconservatives.
Paleo-libertarian Similar to other libertarians except for oppostion to mass immigration, and shares the paleocon appreciation of the South.
Radical Critical of bouregois morality and strongly opposed to capitalism and willing to use state power to achieve desired ends.
Third-way More supportive of foreign intervention than liberals and less supportive of economic regulation, coupled with more-or-less progressive social views. "Third-way" is to liberal what neoconservative is to conservative.