File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2003/lyotard.0301, message 139


Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:57:31 +1000
From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Re: war fears


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_IeeoXsOMYZn60veZCQjhIQ)

Recent news says the German and French leaders are changing the EU so they will control, and the previous system of rotating leaders will be abandoned.

  If the Europeans are not for world peace, what are they for?  If the Europeans can't influence the U.S. towards peace, who can?  If the Europeans have power to achieve peace, without the U.S., I hope and pray they will do so.  If the living philosophers you quote know what is to be done to achieve peace, why don't they prevail on their governments to try to get the U.S.to do it? 

  You're right, the U.S. has used wars to achieve peace, all of them, and peace came to Vietnam when the U.S. admitted defeat.   Now the U.S. has power to achieve peace without war, but won't try.  If Europeans refused to trade with the U.S. they might get more attention.

  regards,
  Hugh

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




  Hugh  


  ~~~~~~~~~~~~



  Hugh
  The USA has not worked for peace in its entire history - what makes you imagine it will do so now.  The NLR recently quoted 6 Million dead on the USA's hands since 1945 as a direct consequence of  decisions taken. This is obviously an underestimation but it's a bizarre chosen number don't you think?

  Given that Lyotard proposed the "Jew" as the representive of human suffering - and as the Israeli state continues in it's efforts to build a new "Auschwitz" on the left bank (to partially quote Jose Saramago) I hardly think that suffering in  the middle of the last century is a good starting point for peace....

  regards
  steve

  hbone wrote:

Steve/All,

You may be right, especially about the poor in the U..S. No one knows the
future.

Not that the next war will resemble Vietnam.

But its my earnest hope, and reason for writing about war fears, is that
populations in
Germany, Russia and U.K who suffered most from WWII, will exert pressure on
all   nations and inspire their activists  to work for World Peace. Only the
U.S. can make it happen.

regards,
Hugh




  Hugh

The below analysis of the draft is incorrect - the draft always favours
    the
  middle and upper classes. The distribution of risk and casulaties remains
the broadly speaking the same. The evidence of the Vietnam colonial
adventure proves this...

The poor have more kids may only be true in america - gradually the
birthrate falls...

steve

    And the U.S. no longer has the military draft, although it's
reinstatement has been proposed.  In spite of  evasions, the draft
would distribute more risks and fear to middle and upper classes

So war is just part of the Spectacle, the soldiers come home, we
celebrate, the rich get richer and the poor have more kids.

In deconstructionist terms:  C'est la vie.

regards,
Hugh.
      
    

  

--Boundary_(ID_IeeoXsOMYZn60veZCQjhIQ)

HTML VERSION:

Recent news says the German and French leaders are changing the EU so they will control, and the previous system of rotating leaders will be abandoned.
 
If the Europeans are not for world peace, what are they for?  If the Europeans can't influence the U.S. towards peace, who can?  If the Europeans have power to achieve peace, without the U.S., I hope and pray they will do so.  If the living philosophers you quote know what is to be done to achieve peace, why don't they prevail on their governments to try to get the U.S.to do it? 
 
You're right, the U.S. has used wars to achieve peace, all of them, and peace came to Vietnam when the U.S. admitted defeat.   Now the U.S. has power to achieve peace without war, but won't try.  If Europeans refused to trade with the U.S. they might get more attention.
 
regards,
Hugh
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
 
 
 
Hugh 
 
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
 
 
Hugh
The USA has not worked for peace in its entire history - what makes you imagine it will do so now.  The NLR recently quoted 6 Million dead on the USA's hands since 1945 as a direct consequence of  decisions taken. This is obviously an underestimation but it's a bizarre chosen number don't you think?

Given that Lyotard proposed the "Jew" as the representive of human suffering - and as the Israeli state continues in it's efforts to build a new "Auschwitz" on the left bank (to partially quote Jose Saramago) I hardly think that suffering in  the middle of the last century is a good starting point for peace....

regards
steve

hbone wrote:
Steve/All,

You may be right, especially about the poor in the U..S. No one knows the
future.

Not that the next war will resemble Vietnam.

But its my earnest hope, and reason for writing about war fears, is that
populations in
Germany, Russia and U.K who suffered most from WWII, will exert pressure on
all   nations and inspire their activists  to work for World Peace. Only the
U.S. can make it happen.

regards,
Hugh




  
Hugh

The below analysis of the draft is incorrect - the draft always favours
    
the
  
middle and upper classes. The distribution of risk and casulaties remains
the broadly speaking the same. The evidence of the Vietnam colonial
adventure proves this...

The poor have more kids may only be true in america - gradually the
birthrate falls...

steve

    
And the U.S. no longer has the military draft, although it's
reinstatement has been proposed.  In spite of  evasions, the draft
would distribute more risks and fear to middle and upper classes

So war is just part of the Spectacle, the soldiers come home, we
celebrate, the rich get richer and the poor have more kids.

In deconstructionist terms:  C'est la vie.

regards,
Hugh.
      
    


  

--Boundary_(ID_IeeoXsOMYZn60veZCQjhIQ)--

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005