Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Still supporting the troops
Posted by: mcq on Thursday, February 15, 2007

You have to read it all, but an excerpt from a piece from Dr. June Scorza Terpstra at Loyola University:
During a heated debate in a class I teach on social justice, several US Marines who had done tours in Iraq told me that they had "sacrificed" by “serving” in Iraq so that I could enjoy the freedom to teach in the USA. Parroting their master’s slogan about “fighting over there so we don’t have to fight over here,” these students proudly proclaimed that they terrorized and killed defenseless Iraqis. They intimated that their Arab victims are nothing more to them than collateral damage, incidental to their receipt of some money and an education.

Sunday, February 11— A room full of students listened as a US Marine told of the invasion of Baghdad and Falluja and how he killed innocent Iraqis at a check point. He called them “collateral damage” and said he had followed the “rules.”

A Muslim-American student in front of him said “I could slap you but then you would kill me.” A young female Muslim student gasped “I am a freshman; I never thought to hear of this in a class. I feel sick, like I will pass out.”

I knew in that moment that this was what the future of teaching about justice would include: teaching war criminals who sit glaring at me with hatred for daring to speak the truth of their atrocities and who, if paid to, would disappear, torture and kill me. I wondered that night how long I really have in this so called “free” country to teach my students and to be with my children and grandchildren.
And my favorite part:
They sacrificed their lives, limbs and sanity for money, some education and the thrills of the violence for which they are socially bred. Sacrificing for the “bling and booty” in Iraq or Afghanistan, Philippines, Grenada, Central America, Mexico, Somalia, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, or any of the other numerous wars and invasions spanning US history as an entity and beginning with their foundational practice of killing the Indians and stealing their land.
Welcome home, Marines. Like I said yesterday, I've seen this all before and, having lived that part of history (instead of being one of those engaged today in denying it happened) I can tell you that the pattern, as seen here, is all too familiar.

(HT: Tom Scott)
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Attn: Erb: These are your colleagues. But we knew that already.
 
Written By: cjd
URL: http://
While I was reading her screed, I was thinking of what it would be like here in America if we made our military up entirely from the sons of mothers like her. Of course, we would be speaking German/Japanese right now, but if we were smart we would be studying Farsi and developing skills at busing dishes, scrubbing floors and chauffeuring. Our military has done such a superb job that we can boast of people like Professor Scorza, who, despite her “education” has no concept of how much her sheltered campus life (and her very life) depends on the actions of these rough men (and some pretty rough women, too). She should kiss their feet and she can certainly kiss my veteran *ss. Oh, and I’m glad that she donates her (no doubt considerable) salary to charity so as to avoid being someone who takes money for bling. We don’t see many examples of hypocrisy and ignorance like this... oh wait, there are the limousine liberals, the private-jetting decriers of global warming(tm), liberal etc., and liberal etc.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
Since those are Marines who probably view the distain of Dr. Terpstra with a degree of amusement, I wonder how many of their comments were made just to p*ss her off?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
She should be applauded for her bravery in standing up to power and taking a stand against those people who- protect her, I guess. But that doesn’t mean, well, what does it mean?

Blech. Typical from the Akademe... and we wonder why American education is failing. Another good reason why we shouldn’t waste so much to subsidize education.
 
Written By: Sunguh
URL: http://pmclassic.blogspot.com
Can anyone guess what kind of grades the "former" marines in her class are getting?
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Can anyone guess what kind of grades the "former" marines in her class are getting?
Nice of her to have her opinion on record if they complain about their grades to the school administration. :-)
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Her opinion is hers, and that’s fine. But her clear condescension and disprespect for opinions that do not -ahem- parrot her own is something that the university should not accept.

By the way, what is a "Muslim-American"?
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
I have to say it: Damn, Wulf, that was an insightful comment. I wish I could do that.

NO sarcasm/humor alert.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
A young female Muslim student gasped "I am a freshman; I never thought to hear of this in a class. I feel sick, like I will pass out."
Welcome to the real world honey. The world where your religionists are killing mercilessly.

Stop feigning shock. Puhleeze

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
If it is any comfort, her hatred is not limited to the US military.


"Nice of her to have her opinion on record"

Oh, yeah.

For the morbidly curious;

"Happy Indigenous Peoples Ways Day!

Liberation Central
juneemoon.8m.net
Dr. June Scorza Terpstra is an activist educator of Italian ancestry residing in North America in the Empire entity referred to as the USA.
http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=366806&group=webcast

Faculty:
Northeastern Ilinois University
Columbia College Chicago
Loyola University Chicago
http://juneterpstra.com "

The above selection is from;
http://www.pwgd.com/blog/lb/1123is-this-truly-worth-it-it-neednt-be-this-way-giyus-israel-ups-propaganda-war-us-iran-past-gaddafi-usoil-behind-darfur-crisis/
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Actually, she makes some good points. This is a war of choice, not of necessity. We have taken our young people and rather than asking them to kill and die to defend the country, they are made to kill and die for hegemonic geopolitical interests, or to try to assure access to oil. And, of course, that is why so few people support this action. That is why even Republicans are turning against the war and especially the surge. Like in Vietnam our government has abused its young men and probably destroyed a number of their lives psychologically, besides causing devastation in a foreign land. I do not share any anger at these soldiers; they are idealistic young men who believed their government and now have to believe it was worth it in order not to have to deal with harsh questions about their actions and their meaning.

But make no mistake: fighting in places like Iraq, Vietnam, or Kosovo in no way "defends our freedoms." If our military really focused on that, that would be great. Used the way it is, you can be darn sure I’ll do everything I can to prevent my sons from even considering the military as an option, and I’ll advise any young person considering that course to avoid it. I also as a parent find the dishonest recruitment methods used in schools to be almost abusive, and would fight to keep recruitors OUT of schools.

Transform our foreign policy and military to one truly focused on DEFENSE of our freedoms and not imperial geopolitical schemes, and I’ll reconsider. Even if Bush had focused only on Afghanistan and truly defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda I could have understood that. But Iraq? Like Vietnam, it’s a pointless and immoral war.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Imperial geopolitical schemes? Oh please, Scott. If this were 2001 I might reply in detail, but by now even an academic ought to have a clue.

"order not to have to deal with harsh questions"

Typical leftist. You can’t accept the idea that people might disagree with you for principled reasons. We all must be evil or stupid dupes.
 
Written By: pst314
URL: http://
Dr. Erb today you reveal yourself as the idiot I’ve always suspected you were...
This is a war of choice, not of necessity. We have taken our young people and rather than asking them to kill and die to defend the country, they are made to kill and die for hegemonic geopolitical interests, or to try to assure access to oil.
All wars are wars of necessity, you Dilbert... I punch you, my CHOICE, now you have a CHOICE, to punch back or CHOOSE another option. Violence is ALWAYS A CHOICE, GOOFBALL! Poland could have CHOSEN to accede to German demands upon it in 1939. All wars are optional...the last good war, BTW, Dr. Erb was OPTIONAL, you know 1939-45. As I say the Poles could have acquiesced to German demands, the French and the British could have NOT declared war, the US could have NOT declared war on Japan and Germany! In the US case because neither Germany nor Japan represented that mystical "Existential Threat to the United States" so many on the Left like to talk about. In short this talk about Wars of choice v. Wars of Necessity is so much intellectual garbage. BY DEFINITION ALL WARS ARE WARS OF CHOICE, you simply trot out some intellectual distinction that makes no real distinction.

Like in Vietnam our government has abused its young men and probably destroyed a number of their lives psychologically, besides causing devastation in a foreign land
Because Iraq was NOT devastated prior to our arrival. Dr. Erb things ARE BETTER in Iraq now than in 2003 or 2002 or any time since 1980. We are cleaning up a horrific mess left behind by a nasty, brutish kleptocratic regime. This is just more clap trap put out to justify your opposition to the war. It’s fueled by the Jordan Eason Effect, under Saddam the misery was not shown, UNLESS it could be cast upon the West and the Sanctions, NOW problems can be seen, because the Press ahs the Freedom and ability to report. Hence it APPEARS things are worse now, because now problems can be discussed... it’s akin to those who fear for their children’s safety, because of all the Child Predation. There aren’t more predators, they just make the headlines these days. Same thing., here.
I also as a parent find the dishonest recruitment methods used in schools to be almost abusive, and would fight to keep recruitors OUT of schools.
What would those dishonest methods be Doc? Walk me thru them, please. An assertion is not a FACT, merely an assertion. YOUR problem isn’t dishonest methods, it’s the fact that they recruit at ALL!
Even if Bush had focused only on Afghanistan and truly defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda I could have understood that.
Daggone and I thought we HAD done those things, Doc. More disingenuousness on your part. Are the Taliban in power? Are AQ on the run? Yes, but in Erb-land because they still exist we have "failed." New Flash Doc, then the Second World War and the Cold War were failures, too! Because there are STILL Nazi’s and their are still Marxist-Leninists, true most of the latter are tenured Professors in the West, but still by your metric we lost those wars, too.

I realize that this will be categorized by Dr. Erb as argumentum ad hominem and invective, and I feel bad for calling the Good Doctor names, but today his silliness just set me off....

Bottom-Line: Doc By your measurements I betcha we shouldn’t have fought the Second World War, and we lost it by one of your metrics, any way. The reality is, IMO, that you oppose THIS war and so you want to tart your opposition up in some grander schema, but the when you examine your arguments they turn out to be rather sad, flat and puerile.

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
. Used the way it is, you can be darn sure I’ll do everything I can to prevent my sons from even considering the military as an option, and I’ll advise any young person considering that course to avoid it. I also as a parent find the dishonest recruitment methods used in schools to be almost abusive, and would fight to keep recruitors OUT of schools.
I sure pray for you that your sons never find themselves in the middle of a terror attack.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"...you can be darn sure I’ll do everything I can to prevent my sons from even considering the military as an option, and I’ll advise any young person considering that course to avoid it."
Thank you for that, Professor. A son raised by your ilk or anyone who would seek your counsel on this matter would make a poor prospect for a military recruit.
"...fighting in places like Iraq, Vietnam, or Kosovo in no way "defends our freedoms." If our military really focused on that, that would be great."
Yes, we understand your feeling that waiting for another Pearl Harbor or much larger 9/11 is the preferable way to handle the decision about going to war. Back in ’41 we had the time necessary to convert a bunch of farmers and horses into the fighting force needed to defend our freedoms. Nowadays, things move a little quicker. Peuling Professors like yourself are ill-equipped to make the decisions about what or when action is necessary to defend America. You don’t own a gun, never have and don’t have the foggiest how or when to use one. Why you feel justified in holding forth on the subject of war escapes me. Guess it’s because you are a real good book learner, eh?
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
Oh and one more thing Dr. Erb...you have the NERVE to trot out the "War for Oil" crap?!?! IF we’d wanted oil, you sanctimonious DWEEB we’d have ended the sanctions and bought the darn oil from Iraq, you know like Russia and France were urging? Jeez’a Pete Doc, as my old foreman used to say, "Tell lies small enough at least YOU’LL believe’em."
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I find it hard to place much currency in an article like this published on a medium that also advocates such neo-luddism as this
We have to transform retail trade. The national chains that have used the high tide of fossil fuels to contrive predatory economies-of-scale (and kill local economies) - they are going down. Wal-Mart and the other outfits will not survive the coming era of expensive, scarcer oil. They will not be able to run the "warehouses-on-wheels" of 18-wheel tractor-trailers incessantly circulating along the interstate highways. Their 12,000-mile supply lines to the Asian slave-factories are also endangered as the US and China contest for Middle East and African oil. The local networks of commercial interdependency which these chain stores systematically destroyed (with the public’s acquiescence) will have to be rebuilt brick-by-brick and inventory-by-inventory. This will require rich, fine-grained, multi-layered networks of people who make, distribute, and sell stuff (including the much-maligned "middlemen"). Don’t be fooled into thinking that the Internet will replace local retail economies. Internet shopping is totally dependent now on cheap delivery, and delivery will no longer be cheap. It also is predicated on electric power systems that are completely reliable. That is something we are unlikely to enjoy in the years ahead. Do you have a penchant for retail trade and don’t want to work for a big predatory corporation? There’s lots to do here in the realm of small, local business. Quit carping and get busy.
This is the contemptible fringe, not anyone’s mainstream.
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
Oh and one more thing Dr. Erb...you have the NERVE to trot out the "War for Oil" crap?!?!
No war for oil?
No blood for oil?

THEN NO OIL FOR LIBERALS.

It’s quite simple. If you run around with the "no blood for oil" bit then you’re a hypocrite of the highest order when you use oil.

If oil isn’t worth getting, why should it be worth using?

Just asking and such. I don’t expect an answer, Erb and his like like to lecture, buit they avoid the harsh questions.

But as a rule, anyone who couches their arguments with terms such as "imperial", "empire", "hegemony" and the like can safely be dismissed as the crackpot they are.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
This particular vile rant isn’t her only anti-military filth. She co-authored this hit piece with her husband Husayn Al-Kurdi (what? She’s married to a Muslim? Who’d a freak’n thought it?), on why we shouldn’t celebrate Memorial Day:
We seethe with rage at the TV whenever we see these ugly American soldiers and the hooded Iraqi prisoners. Don’t bring these f*cker killer torturers back to this country to torture their wives, children, and mothers in their homes. Don’t let another generation of ruined mercenaries, military men, and now women too, roam the forests, urban jungles and deserts of America
If you’re as repulsed as I am that this woman is aloud to teach our children, then I would urge you to contact the President of Loyola University:

Reverend Michael J. Garanzin (remember, he is a Jesuit priest, so be respectful)
(312) 915-6400
mgaranz@luc.edu
 
Written By: Robbie
URL: http://urbangrounds.com
While I was reading her screed, I was thinking of what it would be like here in America if we made our military up entirely from the sons of mothers like her. Of course, we would be speaking German/Japanese right now, but if we were smart we would be studying Farsi
LOL! Sure...but neither Japan nor Germany had the capacity to defeat America even if we’d stayed out of the war (Russia was going to beat Germany anyway), and most people who oppose the foreign policy we have now is because it is more like aggressor states of the past than a policy of national defense. And Farsi? Do you really think Iran can take over the world?! Wow, I don’t know what is more amazing, your irrational fear, or you lack of understanding of the nature of power and world politics!

And Joe’s meandering, pointless semi-attack shows the weakness of his position just be the fact he doesn’t come up with any argument but clearly he is upset. Well, fine. But if you don’t think oil interests are involved here, you are very naive. And if you think we’re justified in unleashing this violence to oust a dictator we supported when it was in our interests, and who was far more dangerous during the era we supported him (by 2003 he was a de-fanged tiger), then you need to explain why we don’t just go and oust every leader whose policies don’t adhere to our particular moral beliefs (even if that means killing lots of people and wrecking havoc on their political culture.)

Face it, you don’t have a counter argument. But you do have anger. So vent, I can take it. But the reality is that unless our country returns to our values and ideals and rejects an aggressive neo-imperial foreign policy we are going to make ourselves a target and ultimately we will be brought down. The policies you promote are those which can destroy us. My passion on this is because I want to stop people like you from promoting such policies that will weaken the country in the future. And, at least, the public finally seems to be waking up and seeing the same thing!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Please look at this list of terrorist attacks in only the last three months. Anyone stupidnaive enough to believe that if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq that their sons will be spared this turmoil needs to inform themselves.
Sorry if I sound intemperate.
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
LOL! Sure...but neither Japan nor Germany had the capacity to defeat America even if we’d stayed out of the war
Did you get this from that episode of Star Trek?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Well, fine. But if you don’t think oil interests are involved here, you are very naive.
So Scott, if it’s wrong to go on "oil interests" then stop using oil.

If it’s not worth getting, it’s not worth using.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Actually, she makes some good points.
Even before I scrolled down to read the poster’s name, I thought "That must be Erb."

And it was.

I’m surprised that he left the Korean War off the list.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
But if you don’t think oil interests are involved here, you are very naive.
It would be much more likely to blame the various news agencies for creating something to write about.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
But the reality is that unless our country returns to our values and ideals and rejects an aggressive neo-imperial foreign policy we are going to make ourselves a target and ultimately we will be brought down.
Ah. What was our agressive neo-imperial foreign policy prior to 12/11/1941? Or our agressive neo-imperial foreign policy against Afghanistan prior to 09/11/2001?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
And Joe’s meandering, pointless semi-attack shows the weakness of his position just be the fact he doesn’t come up with any argument but clearly he is upset.

And CLEARLY Dr Erb is at a loss to rebut my arguments...
Let’s recap:
* all wars are wars of choice
* No US war since 1865 has been with an actor that represented an "existential threat to the US"
* No Oil was NOT a factor, if it was rather than war we’d ahve signed oil concessions with Iraq, a la Russia and France....
* Iraq is NOT worse off today than prior to OIF
* Thesre is NOT dishonest recruiting underway
* And the AQ and Taliban in Afghanistan HAVE been defeated
* And if we measure success or failure by the total disappearance of opposition to the new status quo, then no war has been successful in US history.

It’s long, not meandering Dr. Erb, because you present a lot of targets.

But any time you care to respond, feel free. You see this isn’t "Office Hours" nor a class, so you can not appeal to your authority as Dr. Erb, but instead merely have to respond or not as well, Mr Erb. That would make it a "Dialogue of Choice, not Necessity" of course.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Well Joe, rebutting your arguments would probably be a lot like trying to debate with a riled-up wolverine, so I can more or less see why he might not want to fully engage them.

I will venture to say that I think your approach to defining wars of choice isn’t a very good one. Humans can make such a breadth of decisions, that is choose actions, that are contrary to necessity that to define wars of choice so literally and narrowly isn’t very useful. I think that the invasion and occupation of Iraq could be defined as a war of choice because there was no, or at best a very ambiguous, casus belli whereas in the case of the first and second World Wars there were very clear ones in the forms of the sinking of the Lusitania, with the accompanying declaration of unlimited submarine warfare by the German Empire, and the bombing of Pearl Harbor by Nazi Germany’s Japanese allies.

We could have chosen not to prosecute war against Japan and Hitler could have likewise chosen to abandon the terms of his alliance with Japan and now declare war upon the United States, but these would have been choices very contrary to expectations. The expectation that alliances will be honored and that a severe attack on a nation is an act of war that leads to the declaration and prosecution of one creates a category that I think can be distinct classes from the Iraq situation which was pursued with some clear aggressive action against the United States or against an ally of the United States that would have compelled us to attack in honoring that alliance, so World War II is a war of necessity while the Iraq war is one of choice.

This leaves the matter of the wisdom of prosecuting that war of choice unsettled, but I hope that I at least clarified what the purpose of the distinction that Professor Erb made was in accordance with his intention in making it and in a way that made clear to Joe why he might be considered mistaken, provided that he refused the notion of a war of choice on some grounds of reasoning at all.
 
Written By: Paludicola
URL: http://www.vikinghats.com
But as a rule, anyone who couches their arguments with terms such as "imperial", "empire", "hegemony" and the like can safely be dismissed as the crackpot they are
Nothing else to add.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"Russia was going to beat Germany anyway."
Ugh, why don’t you pick up the phone and call a friend in the History department and run that one by and get back to us.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
"...but neither Japan nor Germany had the capacity to defeat America even if we’d stayed out of the war"

How would they defeat us if we were not at war?

"(Russia was going to beat Germany anyway),"

Why? Because of the inevitable triumph of Socialism?

********************

"you have the NERVE to trot out the "War for Oil" crap?!?!"

Poor, naive, innocent Joe. Tsk, tsk. This is fully documented in the documentary movie "Syriana", and if you had taken the Herr Prof.’s class by that name you would know better. Open your mind!

************************8
"Ah. What was our agressive neo-imperial foreign policy prior to 12/11/1941?"

Capitalists are by definition imperialist. Haven’t you read any of Dr. Terpstra’s definitive works?

*********************************
"Well Joe, rebutting your arguments would probably be a lot like trying to debate with a riled-up wolverine, so I can more or less see why he might not want to fully engage them."

Evidently you are new here, and unfamiliar with Erbie’s style. I think he played varsity dodgeball as an undergrad. You do have, however, the same superficial, or perhaps just convenient, knowledge of history.


"I will venture to say that I think your approach to defining wars of choice isn’t a very good one."

Yep, it’s all in the definitions. You can define black as white if you work at it. The Greeks had a word for it; sophistry.

****************************

Does anyone have any information on whether this Terpstra person is actually affiliated with Loyola? Other than the rather self-serving claim at the bottom of her article I have been unable to find any reference to her on the Loyola website, or any other source linking her to Loyola.




 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
will venture to say that I think your approach to defining wars of choice isn’t a very good one. Humans can make such a breadth of decisions, that is choose actions, that are contrary to necessity that to define wars of choice so literally and narrowly isn’t very useful. I think that the invasion and occupation of Iraq could be defined as a war of choice because there was no, or at best a very ambiguous, casus belli whereas in the case of the first and second World Wars there were very clear ones in the forms of the sinking of the Lusitania, with the accompanying declaration of unlimited submarine warfare by the German Empire, and the bombing of Pearl Harbor by Nazi Germany’s Japanese allies.
No it’s a dodge by Dr Erb...and no if Erb thinks THIS is a riled up wolverine he must live and blog in quite tepid waters...
All Wars are wars of choice, Erb wants to make a non-existent distinction between wars he supports and those he doesn’t. The US could have CHOSEN to avoid war with Germany and Japan, simply by entering into armistice discussions the moment of Pearl Harbor and after Germany declared war on the US. The US CHOSE to proscecute that war...ALL WARS are choice, war is an interactive process between multiple parties....Ambiguous causus belli...the Lusitania was carrying war material...the US PROVOKED Japan by an oil embargo...Iraq was in violation of multiple UNSC Resolutions. The only difference is, Erb SUPPORTS WWII and doesn’t support this one. You and Erb use a view from 2006 to justify US actions in 1941, when at the time those actions were JUST as questionable or sound as US policy TODAY. Nowadays, EVERYONE says they supported the "Good War" when the fact is that neigher the Paleo-cons NOR the Left supported it, PRIOR to June 1941 or December 1941.
We could have chosen not to prosecute war against Japan and Hitler could have likewise chosen to abandon the terms of his alliance with Japan and now declare war upon the United States, but these would have been choices very contrary to expectations. The expectation that alliances will be honored and that a severe attack on a nation is an act of war that leads to the declaration and prosecution of one creates a category that I think can be distinct classes from the Iraq situation which was pursued with some clear aggressive action against the United States or against an ally of the United States that would have compelled us to attack in honoring that alliance, so World War II is a war of necessity while the Iraq war is one of choice.
Your grasp of History is what I would expect of a Poli Sci Major, having been one after I was a HISTORY major....Hitler was under NO treaty obligation to support Japan in its war against the US. And the US was in no WAY ALLIED with any of the combatants in the Second World War...Sorry, but there was no expectation, by your OWN ARGUMENT to be upheld by either nation. Germany’s Triple Allaince did NOT include the US as a potential enemy or obligate, as NATO does, that an attack on any member was an attack on ALL members. Germany CHOSE to declare war...the US was under NO obligation to France, Britain, the Netherlands, or Belgium. The Second World War WAS A WAR OF CHOICE, by all participants.

And again, the UNSC is NOT considered an actor in the world? Iraq was in violation of its Ceasefire Agreement and in non-compliance with multiple UNSC Resolutions. The fundamental basis of those Ceasefire and the subsequent resolutions was the War of Aggression waged by Iraq against Kuwayt.

And so Paludicola I would reject both your defense of Erb’s silly distinction that is no distinction and suggest that my reasoning is sound. You and Erb like to attack people for having unsound reasoning, rather than address the issues they raise. Nice try...please come again. That may be a nice attempt at "Delegitimization" a la Foucault or Derida, but it that dog don’t hunt here.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I must apologize for an error in my previous comment. My use of the somewhat deprecatory word "movie" in reference to "Syriana" was an unintentional slight. "Syriana" is a major film deserving much more respect than the word "movie" can impart. "Antz" is a movie, "Syriana" is a film.

Contritely yours,
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Tim until you made your correction in re: Syriana I had merely marked your posting as egregious eructation of erroneous verbiage. Now that you have acknowledged the masterful work that IS Syriana, I shall rethink my previous categorization...further you might have used the word, "Oevre" to describe Syriana, and quite possilby Magnum Opus, as well.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Magnum Opus - that’s a big penguin from "Bloom County".
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
No No NO Looker he’s Opus! Neither is it the name of a movie starring Richard Dreyfus...You People are simply HOPELESS! I’d rather teach backwoods trailer trash from Maine than deal with you all some times....You all with your inability to reason or argue and you continual preference for personal attack rather than sweet dialogue and for your complete inability to distinguish between various cartoon characters! In fact, I would venture to say, Looker, you can’t tell me which is "Ren" and which is "Stimpy." I imagine that a whole genre of the visual media are simply opaque to you. HAH, got to throw in genre and media, though media ain’t a fur’n word.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
No No NO Looker he’s Opus!
Yeah, but if Breathed had, like, had Steve Dallas snort dandelions and have one of his fantasies, it could have been that Opus was really really large, making him a ’Magnum’ Opus.
I majored in Bloom County with a minor in Calvin and Hobbes!

Stimpy was the ’eeeeeediotttt’ cat thing, at least, I think it was a cat, I was never sure, and I had to drop that course anyway so I could review other ventures in that particular media, like classic foreign serializations film such as Dragon Ball Z.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Joe, my description of you as a riled-up wolverine was in part because, "rabid wolverine," seemed too obvious and because what I was trying to intimate is that you, like a wolverine would be, are largely interested in viciously savaging him.

I might be wrong, I remain unsure, but I am certainly sure that I don’t want to be the subject of another adolescent tirade that drowns its valuable content in wrathful capitalization and bitter condescension.

Was there some unhappy quality to my own post that somehow warranted such a vituperative response? I had hoped to present my thoughts in a tone civil and polite enough that you might be soothed into a more affable tone. If I had failed in that, I should like to know how so that I shan’t repeat such mistakes. My purpose in participating here is practical inasmuch as I really hope to understand a perspective that is, at least in foreign policy, contrary to my own and be civilly corrected for my errors.

———————————————————————————————————

Professor Scorza seems to rather badly oversell the material benefits to the soldiers, especially when she begins to talk about securing oil, diamonds, gold et cetera for their masters and hoping for a share of the spoils. It demands a rather severe leap of imagination, and dare I so of faith, to imagine that occurring. How would it even work? Whatever American soldiers in Iraq might be accused of, being the reincarnation of Viking raiders seems the least plausible.

This is really an emotional screed that is very detached from any real thoughtful reasoning or analysis. She merely fell into the foolish trap of writing whilst agitated, producing a rather pointless screed to be happened upon and savaged.

And what sort of dismal world allows its professors to use words like, "bling," without a hint of true irony?
 
Written By: Paludicola
URL: http://www.vikinghats.com
Paludicola, Dude/Dudette this ain’t close to vituperative and drop the "Soothing" crap...you were CIVIL and WRONG, I merely pointed out where you were WRONG and pointed out that complaining aobut tone without addressing issues is merely attempting to delegitimitize your opponent. I could care less about being soothed...address the freak’n issues...
"I was polite" "Yes, yes you were and a complete prat, too, but a polite one." Working on being less a prat and the soothing nature of your tone and discourse will sort itself out.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
but neither Japan nor Germany had the capacity to defeat America even if we’d stayed out of the war (Russia was going to beat Germany anyway),
Germany would have lost to Russia anyway...
Was that with or without the need to dedicate forces to watching the English Channel and the Med? I’m quite sure the Americans played no part in German planning after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

I do note in the gloss over of history that there was no specification as to who was going to defeat Japan. The Japanese expansion throughout the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere would have been stopped by WHO?

I guess maybe the British and the Aussies were expected to do that by themselves? Highly likely as demonstrated by the successful defense they mounted throughout the Pacific theatre after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The Marines in her story brought the situation on themselves. How else could any decent, moral person respond to their admission that they and killed civilians for nothing but a brainless slogan?
I am a teacher and I have a firm rule that I never display bad manners in class and I never register contempt for a student’s ideas. I disagree sometimes, but I do so respectfully. The teacher’s statements about "war criminals" etc. appear to be her private thoughts, not statements that she made in class and, if that is the case, she did nothing unprofessional.
Your closing remark —get ready,Marines— is self indulgent. As this story shows, no disrepect was shown to the Marines until they disgraced their service by bragging in class in front of Muslim students that they had killed civilians. They revealed themselves to be unthinking,immature people who were willing to kill for ridiculous slogans. Don’t jump to the conclusion that I think all soldiers are braindead suckers for the kind of slogans that wouldn’t fool even a FOX viewer: I’m not. I read soldier blogs regularly, I supported Hacket, Murphy, Massa, Winter, Fawcett, and Webb, and I read, with respect, Andrew Olmsted’s writings. I know that there are plenty of soldiers who either support the war or don’t, but do so thoughtfully, from a basis of serious, moral consideration. The jerks in your example failed to think.
There are those on the right—you may be one- who want the soldiers to be disrespected because it is the last hope of clinging to some sense of moral superiority in the face of the utter failure of Republican foreign policy in the Middle East. The last thing in the world some folks on the right want to admit is that the soldiers who have returned have not been mistreated, that the Democratic pary had an impressive list of Iraqi veterans who ran for Congress, (the Republicans didn’t) and that, according to the Military Times, at least half of the soldiers in Iraq no longer support the mission.
 
Written By: laura
URL: http://
laura, why don’t you get together with Cindyb for a drink and a cry. I think that you have a lot in common. Both idiots.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
The Marines in her story brought the situation on themselves. How else could any decent, moral person respond to their admission that they and killed civilians for nothing but a brainless slogan?
Well first you have to believe her version of what was said, don’t you Laura? And given her bias, that’s not exactly easy to do.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
A young female Muslim student gasped "I am a freshman; I never thought to hear of this in a class. I feel sick, like I will pass out."
Confronted by an opposing idea a muslim feels disorientated and offended. Wow - that is so not surprising.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
Oh, this is great...
And CLEARLY Dr Erb is at a loss to rebut my arguments...
Let’s recap:
* all wars are wars of choice
* No US war since 1865 has been with an actor that represented an "existential threat to the US"
* No Oil was NOT a factor, if it was rather than war we’d ahve signed oil concessions with Iraq, a la Russia and France..
..

The first two are irrelevant, the third is unsupported and makes no sense.
* Iraq is NOT worse off today than prior to OIF
You are out of touch with reality.
* Thesre is NOT dishonest recruiting underway
I disagree with your assertion.

* And the AQ and Taliban in Afghanistan HAVE been defeated
They are resurgent and very active. The war there is not over.
* And if we measure success or failure by the total disappearance of opposition to the new status quo, then no war has been successful in US history.
That’s meaningless. Is that really the best you can do?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Laura,

I have no doubt that you are a very serious, sensitive and thoughtful person. Perhaps a little too much on all counts. But the fact that you say these Marines "brought the situation on themselves" and "jerks" who "failed to think" reveals a great deal about your true feelings towards those in the military, whatever your high-minded denials might say to the contrary. Did you read nothing above concerning the possibility that some of these Marines were being flippant just to get a rise out of their not-so-objective professor? I’m a former soldier myself, and having encountered these attitudes from people, I can attest to the fact that my buddies have said similar things just exaggerate the set-in-stone attitudes that people like Terpstra already have. To give an example, long before I joined the Army, I was a cadet for two years at the Air Force Academy. Tourists always gathered along the chapel wall to watch the Cadet Wing march to lunch. On the weekends, cadets would often socialize or chat with tourists. Needless to say, there were usually a handful of leftists present to speak truth! to! power! to the cadets. One day, a young college girl walked up to my buddy and asked him, "How can you advocate napalming children?" My buddy thought for a second and then replied, "Well, you can’t eat them raw." He chuckled and walked away, leaving her horrified. He knew he could convince her that he really didn’t feel that way, nor did he really care to.

Was it "nuanced" or thoughtful? Probably not, but really, what does it matter? Your protestations aside, you’ve already revealed that deep down inside you actually agree with this woman. What disturbs me, however, truly disturbs me, is that many of our educators, from Ms. Terpstra, to Mr. Erb, right down to yourself, have such a completely naive and utterly ignorant view of the outside world. I speak Arabic, and I’ve been to Iraq and other parts of the Middle East, and ma’am, you have no idea what kind of world exists out there. I have counted many Arabs/Muslims as my friends, and on the whole, they are excellent people. But believe me when I tell you (you won’t), that many of them are...wait for it...savages. Many of them have views concerning women that are violent and misogynistic by even Middle Eastern standards. And no, ma’am, America did not make them like this. To put it simply, in deference to you, there are people out there who want to see us dead, and they have wanted this for generations. There are a great many who don’t, as well, but many of them are too cowed to say so. But you’ll never understand this, because you, Erb, Terpstra, and many others have spent your entire professional lives inside a faculty lounge, and continue to look down on us "jerks" who just don’t think. Just remember, a lot of these "jerks" protect you while you sleep. And you’d better pray that they continue to be successful in doing so. Good God, and you’re teaching kids, with the worldview you have?

You know, I was going to avoid saying what notherbob2 said. But on consideration, he’s right, you are an idiot. What’s worse you’re a willful, and , to coin a phrase, "useful" idiot.
 
Written By: cjd
URL: http://
I have been in situations like this where the authority figure labels the group misogynst, homophobic, etc. Many people in the captive audience respond with hyperbole about women, homosexuals. So if those comments occurred (I’m with McQ on this) I think it was hyperbole-a form of ridiculing what’s being said.
Secondly, I wonder what that young Muslim lady thinks of this. Or the beheading of Christian school girls.
Laura, as a teacher what do you think of this article? Do you think a class with language like this might provoke comments which could then be "interpreted" and ridiculed by this person to be super patriotic?
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
"Magnum Opus - that’s a big penguin from "Bloom County".’

Nope, he is a penguin, but he is a private investigator in Antarctica.

***********************
He/she/it who dwells in marshes;

"She merely fell into the foolish trap of writing whilst agitated,"

Should you peruse some of her other writings you will find she seems to be, alas, perpetually agitated

*********************

"until they disgraced their service by bragging in class in front of Muslim student"

One of several passages that make me doubt the complete accuracy of her account, not to mention having read bits of other of her writings. To call her story unreliable is, in my opinion, overly generous.

"I read soldier blogs regularly"

And yet you believe her tale.

***********************

"I disagree with your assertion."

Well, that settles it. Difficult to refute facts like that.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Laura,

If you are a teacher of literature you might recognize a literary device called "the unreliable narrator," wherein the alert reader gradually comes to understand that the story is being distorted through the personality of the story-teller.

If Dr. Scorza’s anecdote were presented to us as a work of fiction, we would recognize the presence of this device right away. The story is told entirely from Dr. Scorza’s point of view, and the reader is totally dependent upon her for all of the facts. It soon becomes apparent, though, that our narrator is a bit of a drama queen, with propensity for hyperbolic exaggeration.

Rather than accepting the story at face value, we should imagine how a group of bored Marines would cope with being held captive in a "social justice" class, indoctrinated with Left-wing dogma by the neurotic Dr. Scorza.

I agree with the other commenters who imagined that the poor Marines would entertain themselves by topping one another in the telling of fictional stories of atrocities designed to play into their professor’s preconceptions, so they could watch her get the vapors.

It seems they may have finally gone too far and triggered in Professor Scorza some sort of terrible psychic breakdown in which she imagines that they plan to "disappear, torture and kill" her.

 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
...but neither Japan nor Germany had the capacity to defeat America even if we’d stayed out of the war (Russia was going to beat Germany anyway)
I always wonder about people who posit parallel universe scenarios as if they were fact. Oh... never mind, that was Scott Erb, who lives in the parallel universe of academia.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Oh my , timactual brought forth the "Syrianna" argument.

’This is fully documented in the documentary movie "Syriana"’

Well, I guess that just ends all debate. We all know Hollywood movie producers would NEVER show a film that wasn’t 100% true.

I’ll be giggling about his "superior intellect and debate skills" for quite some time.

Joe, I’d give up the debate with Scott Erb. Judging from his blog, he’s never held a real job or created anything that didn’t pop out of a printer. He has no clue how to survive outside the classroom. Never debate with ignorant liberals, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Judge
 
Written By: Judge
URL: http://

"I disagree with your assertion."

Well, that settles it. Difficult to refute facts like that.
Since all he had was an assertion and not a fact, it works both ways.

I’m amazed by people who assert the US was needed to defeat Germany. Lend lease helped Russia, but most of what was done to turn back the Germans the Russians did on their own, Hitler’s fate was sealed on June 22, 1941.

Also, cjd seems to think that those who don’t share his or her opinion are ’utterly ignorant of the outside world.’ I have no doubt you’ve had interesting discussions in the Mideast, and certainly there are hard core terrorists who are anti-western, just as there are decent people. I’ve not been to that part of the world, but I’ve been in villages in the far north of Russia, drank vodka with a high level Russian military official, have been all over Europe, intensely studying and learning about the transition from communism to market economies, especially in East Germany.

Just as it would be wrong for me to say "you’ve been brainwashed by the military, therefore you don’t understand the real situation and I’ve been studying it from all perspectives," it’s wrong for you to assert I’ve "spent time in faculty lounges" (we don’t even have a faculty lounge!) You’ve traveled, I’ve traveled. You likely raise a family and deal with those issues, so do I. You’ve likely had numerous jobs, as I have. We both have professions — you in the military, me as a teacher — which cause simple minded insults and attacks, like those you’ve described against military people, or like charges of just being brainwashed (or charges against teachers of somehow being in an ivory tower — rural Maine is far from an ivory tower!) But different professions are just different professions. What matters is the argument, and experience.

In my opinion, which has a long heritage going back to Maine’s Republican Speaker of the House Thomas Reed and others (such as Charles Eliot Norton who said in 1895 "I fear that America is beginning a long course of error and wrong and is likely to become more and more a power for disturbance and babarism..." quoted from Barbara Tuchman’s The Proud Tower, p. 140) that America should not have an aggressive foreign policy, especially in the use of military. This is based on a perspective that I’ll defend while acknowledging that there are other perspectives and views with evidence and logic. I do think that it might be a good and necessary thing for America to have a clear failure in Iraq, but I’ll not lay that out here (that is today’s blog entry on my blog linked below, however).
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

Joe, I’d give up the debate with Scott Erb. Judging from his blog, he’s never held a real job or created anything that didn’t pop out of a printer. He has no clue how to survive outside the classroom. Never debate with ignorant liberals, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Well, I guess I could say that about your profession. If you work in an office, you couldn’t survive without your desk or secretary. If you work in a factory, I’d say you need the comfort of an assembly line (actually I have worked on an assembly line with a bunch of Laotian immigrants — they were so happy to be in America that they worked harder than their American counterparts, which meant I had to work harder since I was on their line!) The fact is, people have different professions. But I’ve been working non-stop since I was 16, including working myself through college 30 hours a week (60 in summer), working at a law firm and a pizza place. Later I worked in Washington DC as an LA for a Senator (a Republican — talk about being out of touch with reality, the power games in DC were crazy which is why I decided to leave). I managed a pizza restaurant for awhile, but decided my passion is teaching and trying to help people learn to think critically about the world. I also love good, intense debates, even though it seems far too many people actually start hating and disliking people with different opinions than their own. That’s a shame, it also works to close peoples’ minds to considering new ideas. Also, this profession frees me to travel and constantly learn and explore ideas rather than being stuck in a routine. Plus I have more time with my kids to go into the woods and investigate nature.

So maybe it’s not a "real job," given the amount of freedom one has to explore and investigate the world. But that doesn’t seem to me to be a bad thing, does it?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I’m amazed by people who assert the US was needed to defeat Germany.
I’m amazed that you don’t think the US was needed. The USSR was fighting back on the eastern front, but it’s not at all clear that they would have marched all the way to Germany without the US in the war.

Had the US not fought, Germany probably would have held North Africa. And Italy wouldn’t have fallen. Which meant that Germany and Italy combined could have devoted more resources to the eastern front. The picture becomes much cloudier when you consider all the factors involved.

As someone asked, just who would have defeated Japan????
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
As someone asked, just who would have defeated Japan????
Don’t be silly, that’s being left as an exercise for the reader. If you don’t learn to think for yourselves and the prof always answers all the questions you’ll never be able to handle the advanced thought processes necessary to construct alternate realities.

For example:
I’m amazed by people who assert the US was needed to defeat Germany. Lend lease helped Russia, but most of what was done to turn back the Germans the Russians did on their own, Hitler’s fate was sealed on June 22, 1941.
Yes, class, as we know Western Europe, far more sophisticated and industrially capable than the Soviet Union, had successfully defeated the NAZI threat by lulling them into a false sense of security when they permitted themselves to be overrun or co-opted by the German regime. In a carefully crafted strategy to mislead the Germans, Europe was bidding it’s time until they could be freed by the glorious and triumphant armies of the East when the Americans showed up in true imperialist fashion and upset the plan, plunging Europe into a destructive campaign that laid waste to many otherwise untouched European cities and nations.
The NAZIs who, up until now had virtually withdrawn all military forces from Europe to concentrate on their Russian front effort, were forced to defend Europe from the capitalist forces deployed by AmeriKa and Great Britain in North Africa, Italy, and finally France with mere children and old men, leading to much unnecessary death and destruction in Europe proper.
It is a virtual certainty that the Soviet Union would have won the battle alone whether Germany had been forced to conduct a 2 front war or not.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I’m amazed by people who assert the US was needed to defeat Germany. Lend lease helped Russia, but most of what was done to turn back the Germans the Russians did on their own, Hitler’s fate was sealed on June 22, 1941
That would be because the US fed, clothed, and equiped the Red Army Dr. Erb, via Murmansk Run and then via Persia... You might peruse Glantz’s "Colossus Reborn" (Which is NOT a series of books on a computer that takes over the world, Looker) wherein you will discover that 10% of the Sviet tank force was US/British and that 16% of the Red Air Force was US/British and that the bulk of the trucks and support vehicles in the Red Army were US. Yes the Red Army bled to defeat Hitler, but it bled whilst wearing US cloth, eating US Spam, and being supported by US equipment. Victory in the Great Patriotic War and the Second WOrld War in general is a bit more complex than "The Red Army won the war". You might also note that the US represented over 50% of the world’s war-making potential in that period and so it is hard to imagine anyone beating the Us or anyone defeating the Axis WITHOUT the US. And certainly the Imperial Japanese threat would NEVER have been handled without the US.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
You might peruse Glantz’s "Colossus Reborn" (Which is NOT a series of books on a computer that takes over the world, Looker)
Joe! I’m shocked! shocked!
Are you implying I mangle reality?

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
"I managed a pizza restaurant for awhile..."
Well, Hell, why didn’t you say so earlier? NOW you are gaining some credibility. My stepdaughter lives in Farmington and once worked at the Professor’s esteemed institution, so I am aware of what an intellectual hotbed rural Maine is. Southern Oregon is equally renowned.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
Joe - so, what happens to Forbin in Colossus Reborn?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Joe - so, what happens to Forbin in Colossus Reborn?
I believe he survives because he’s around in Colossus and the Crab where Dr. Forbin has to make the decision whether to support Colossus or accept help alien help from the Crab Nebula....

I NEVER said you mangle realty...I have no idea how good or bad a renter you are or were...

Was DragonballZ good, say as compared to Ghost in the Shell?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Depends - Ghost in the Shell I’ve only seen as a movie, rather than a serial.
I did enjoy it however (one learns to get around America being the underlying bad guy in most things gone, or about to go, wrong in Japanese Anime. Now that I think on it, it reminds me of conversations with Dr Erb.)

After watching Japanese cartoons I’ve never been satisfied with American fare since. They spend so much more time on detail in their backgrounds, reminds me of the really old Popeye artwork where the background wasn’t always a traveling matte style.

DBZ was, (curse them) bowdlerized for American consumption, though I must say my sons were nevertheless perfectly aware of the hentai aspects of certain portions of the serial. Their main objection however seemed to be the amount of air time spent while Goku ’powered up’ for his attacks. I recall it as a constant frustrated lament while I’m trying to work upstairs that today’s episode really didn’t move the story along vary far (well, words to that effect).

As for Colossus, other than working with an operating system called Guardian (a pity more of us don’t get the humor there) for the last 26 years, I never really followed much past the original movie that aired years ago.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
," Hitler’s fate was sealed on June 22, 1941."

Oddly enough, the Soviets disagreed during the relevant time frame. Of course, they did change their tune AFTER the war, claiming that outside help had been unnecessary. Perhaps you should read some sources not provided or approved by the Soviet government. Joe, as usual, has added some relevant detail.

"rural Maine is far from an ivory tower!)"

LOL. I see your understanding of English is equal to your understanding of history.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
As for Colossus, other than working with an operating system called Guardian (a pity more of us don’t get the humor there) for the last 26 years, I never really followed much past the original movie that aired years ago.
Saw the movie, never read the books, just the back covers from the 1970’s, however Wikipedia has a nice synopsis and Amazon still sells the books with some nice customer reviews.

I would recommend Ghost in the Shell series, available in Blockbuster...they are actually pretty good, though the series used the most ANNOYING voices for the sentients AI’s Section-9 had for a while...Japanese School girl voices! *UGH* STILL the Tachikomo’s (sp.) made some great philosophic observations about humans as analog and closer to God than the binary systems of the AI’s...As Bato says, "You are one SERIOUSLY weird Tachikomo...."

I felt sorry them as they became feared and were replaced, possibly deactivated (murdered if you ask me) but then I feel if you pass the Turing Test you’re aware and deserving of rights, I don’t know if my PC has a "soul" but if it can discuss art and literature with me, it deserves the same right of autonomy that I have. Where it goes when the Motherboard wears out is something between it and God.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"I’ve been in villages in the far north of Russia, drank vodka with a high level Russian military official..."
"Russia was going to beat Germany anyway."
It’s always nice when an author cites a source.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
Lend lease helped Russia, but most of what was done to turn back the Germans the Russians did on their own, Hitler’s fate was sealed on June 22, 1941.
No Scott. Russia had a lot of bodies to drop in front of the Germans, but without lend lease, that trail would never have done a 180 and headed west.

The breadth and depth of your historical revisionism is staggering.

I wonder if your mental correction fluid ever benefits the West, the US, or the foundational concepts of the American Revolution in any way?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
I’m amazed that you don’t think the US was needed. The USSR was fighting back on the eastern front, but it’s not at all clear that they would have marched all the way to Germany without the US in the war.
Note: the original poster said "we’d be speaking Japanese or German." I noted that was absurd, that even if we hadn’t entered the war there is no way Germany or Japan would have taken over the US. Germany would have been stopped by the Soviets ultimately, and Japan as a small island was also heading to imperial overstretch.

Interesting how posters want to talk about these side issues and ignore the real issue: the Iraq war and whether or not it is justified or moral. And note as well that I didn’t say the US shouldn’t have been in the war, or that we didn’t affect the nature of exactly how it ended, only that it’s not like our entry saved the world from Japanese or German domination — such a claim would be silly on its face.

But since you want to talk about alternate histories, the Soviets could (and did) move their industrial complex east, out of reach of the Germans, and improved their quality tremendously. While lend lease helped the pace of the turn around, and perhaps the scope of the victory, the Germans weren’t going to defeat the Soviet Union. Again, the poster said "we’d be speaking German" if the US hadn’t gotten involved, and that’s absurd (Allerdings habe ich nichts dagegen, Deutsch zu sprechen, aber nicht unter solchen Umstaenden!)

One can argue alternate histories all day; suffice it to say by far the vast majority of fighting was by the red army, and they were turning things around on their own. Would losing "10% of their tank force" have altered that, if they had lower quality clothes would that have slowed them down...people can argue alternative histories all day. But the idea that if we didn’t fight Germany would have conquered the world or the US is simply incredible. Germany bit off more than it could chew, and at best it might have managed to hold some territory in the East.

Also note that fascism is even less viable for a longer term than communism (and we saw how poorly communism preformed.) If Germany had been stopped, there likely would have been an internal collapse in the regime itself (many were already trying to kill Hitler in 1944).

As for Germany and Italy being able to combine forces...well, that probably would have weakened Germany even more :-)

Ultimately Japan could have set up an Asian empire, but the balance of power would work against that small island in the long run. That would have threatened America’s economic interests (though perhaps not as much as the ultimate fall of China to the Communists did), but again, the idea we’d be "speaking Japanese" is absurd, we’d have been able to defend ourselves from any Japanese invasion, and they knew it.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

I wonder if your mental correction fluid ever benefits the West, the US, or the foundational concepts of the American Revolution in any way?
Tom, I want us to be true to our foundational concepts. My argument against our foreign policy is that we’ve adopted a power politics approach that attempts to control world events. That’s not what the founders were all about.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
The breadth and depth of your historical revisionism is staggering.
Coming from you, with your bizarre revisionism about the Vietnam war, that doesn’t mean much. But how am I being revisionist here? We’re talking about possibilities that didn’t happen, historical revisionism would mean disagreements about what did happen. Do you really believe that without the US involved we’d "be talking German or Japanese" now? Do you think that if we don’t militarily confront Iran, we’ll all be speaking Farsi? That’s what the poster claimed. Do you agree with him?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
only that it’s not like our entry saved the world from Japanese or German domination — such a claim would be silly on its face.

So our involvment in the Second World War made this a war of CHOICE, not NECESSITY then Dr. Erb? And IF the WWII is a CHOICE, then aren’t all wars wars of CHOICE Dr. because if defeating the Fascists wasn’t important or necessary what else ever could be? And from this does it not follow that discussions of wars of Necessity v. Wars of Choice is simply a wasted discussion?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Japan as a small island was also heading to imperial overstretch.
Right! Sort of like, um, let’s see what was that other inconsequential empire where the sun never set that overstretched itself, errrrr um.....what WAS the name of that place, such an eyeblink in history I can’t quite recall the name?

Oh yeah, right, I remember now, Great Britian.

Difference is, when the British did things that equated to say, the Rape of Nanking, they ultimately felt bad about it and tried to make amends. The Japanese, what, 70+ years and still trying to decide if they ought to be officially sorry. Yes, these were a people who were likely to not treat their new territories with the traditional Japanese methods of dealing with recalcitrant populations, uh huh, yeah buddy.

Now the fact that this (Japan) was a naval empire, and might have had a large swath of the Pacific rim to draw on for resources, and that it was allied with, um, the guys who were fighting the Russians, and the fact that the Japanese could actually have gotten around to fighting from Vladivostok west, well, we shouldn’t ponder that alternate universe, it’s inconsistent with the necessary world view we’re propagating where the Axis powers would have fallen without the US getting involved.
only that it’s not like our entry saved the world from Japanese or German domination — such a claim would be silly on its face.
And with only the US Navy to oppose them on the sea Scott, because the British Navy didn’t fare real well in the Pacific either if you might recall, losing coaling and oiling bases is a major problem when you aren’t nuclear powered. Did you expect Britian to stand alone forever, even with the help of Australia and India?

I have to say, your claim is, um pretty silly. Our entry may not have saved the whole world from domination, just a significant portion of it.
But you go ahead with your version, just please don’t teach it to the kids without giving them a chance to hear alternative views.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Interesting how posters want to talk about these side issues and ignore the real issue: the Iraq war and whether or not it is justified or moral.
It was and it is...

War for Oil, you talk of naivette but never seem to produce any FACTS to back up your "sophisticated" analysis that this was fought for oil. In fact you dismiss my point that IF oil was our goal, we would have done what Russia and France did, extract oil concessions from iraq and then move to weaken or lift the sanctions. You see THAT"S how the US could ahve gotten oil from Iraq...but hey you know best.
Also note that fascism is even less viable for a longer term than communism (and we saw how poorly communism preformed.) If Germany had been stopped, there likely would have been an internal collapse in the regime itself (many were already trying to kill Hitler in 1944).
No it wouldn’t ahve Dr. Erb because folks such as yourself from 1946 on would ahve been talking about backlashes, and "reality" and US "Imperialism" and we would have done little or nothing to oppose it. In short it would have been a Fascist Warsaw Treaty ORganization and would ahve lasted at least as long as the Communist WTO did and quite possibly longer.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I always enjoy where empires would have collapsed all on their own in a short time frame without any involvement by the US.
But I guess it’s true, after all, history is rife with examples of empires falling without U.S. involvement.

Let’s see, the Roman Empire collapsed and we didn’t have to do anything.
Same for the British Empire
Same for Imperial China
Imperial Japan
The Aztec Empire
Persian Empire
Alexandrian Empire
Austrian Empire (WW I not withstanding)
Ottoman Empire

Shame about that time-frame requirement though ain’t it?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Interesting how posters want to talk about these side issues and ignore the real issue: the Iraq war and whether or not it is justified or moral.
This section is for leaving comments in response to a post. The subject of the post was not "the Iraq war and whether or not it is justified or moral." The subject was the attitudes that the troops are encountering as they return from Iraq. It seems to me that the morality of the war is as much of a side issue in this thread as anything else, unless it should have some bearing on the treatment of returning troops in your mind.

Since you introduced into the discussion the idea that this war is uniquely immoral, Joe tested that claim by comparing the morality of the Iraq war to that of the Second World War, which is widely considered to have been a moral war. Without wading into the merits of the argument, it seems to me that Joe was directly on point in responding to your claim.

Therefore, if Joe’s argument now looks like a "side issue" to you as your position in the analogy starts getting on thinner and thinner ice, you have only yourself to blame for going out there in the first place.



 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
While lend lease helped the pace of the turn around, and perhaps the scope of the victory, the Germans weren’t going to defeat the Soviet Union.
Your conclusion is still in the alternate universe realm Scott. You are selectively picking events that help consruct that universe while ignoring or discarding events that do not. Lets say the US isolationists held sway and not only did lend lease not occur, but we gave no support to the UK? Hitler wins the battle of Britan and is able to divert all attention east. Or Hitler doesnt micro-manage and lets his generals run the war. Or some of the weapons systems Germany was working on came to production.

Such is the problem of alternate universe arguments (and to be fair, suggesting that if ____ didnt happen we would be speaking German is as well).
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
As an alternative posting IF the US had not intervened from 1940-on Britain might very well have been forced to sign an Armistice with Germany...the US provided weapons, ammunition, aircraft, and destroeyers, as well as air cover and the Neutrality Patrol, easing the RN’s task of combating U-boats. Without this support Britain WOULD have been all alone against the Germans and might have been forced to sign an Armistice.

IF that had happened, the Germans could very well have won the Seond World War, by beating the Russians. Dr Erb ignores the Dozens of divisions in the West fighting in France and Italy and ignores the 600,000 troops involved in defense of the Reich against the RAF and USAAF Bomber Offensives against Germany, PLUS all the resources those 600,000 troops represent. Imagine an EXTRA 600,000-plus Wehrmacht troops with thousands of artillery pieces and Panzers at either Stalingrad December 1942 or Kursk Summer 1943.

No Dr. Erb it wsn’t the US alone, but NEITEHR was it the Red Army that defeated the Nazi’s and it was pretty much the Australians and the US that defeated the Japanese...the Australians in the period 1941-43, afterward it was pretty much ENTIRELY the US, but had it not been for Australia and Australian troops early on there might not have been a "later on."

And SLOWLY we crawl toward the 100 posting mark...Scientology...Cynthia McKinney

And BTW, I have neve doubted your commitment to the Second World War, that’s part of my point...Dr Erb TODAY supports it, but everything Dr. Erb says TODAY about Iraq, could also be said of the US from 1939-1941 and I believe the Dr. Erb of THAT period would oppose that war as this Dr. Erb opposes Iraq. And I might had both the real and putative Dr. Erb’s would be and are WRONG about their wars.

And SLOWLY we crawl toward the 100 postings mark...Scientology...Cynthia McKinney!
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe, you’re forgetting 9/11 conspiracy - Loose Cannons Change.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
"The Last Article" by Harry Turtledove
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
I think some of the posters here need to be honest with themselves about the stereotypes they have in their heads about liberals.

I suppose it is possible that the Marines were ragging the professor — my expectations of them were higher than those of the posters who seemed to think that middle school behavior was cute.

On the other hand I can think of three examples in my immediate experience of exactly the same kind off behaior—thuggishnes disguised by stupid slogans—so it seems more likely to me that the Marines in the story were just being themselves and it wasn’t a pretty sight.

1. My neighbor’s son came home and, at a family celebration, used racist terms to refer to Iraqis, repeated the chestnut about defending our freedom, and told stories about humiliating and harassing Iraqi civilins. Who in his friendly audience was he ragging?

2. My high school’s NROTC teacher invited some recently returned Iraq War vets to speak to the NROTC students. They taught the class racist words to call the Iraqis and told stories about killing livestock for fun and mocking children by pretending to offer them gifts which were then snatched away. One soldier claimed that his unit fired rockets over a village just to scare the villagers because it was the Fourth of July. Who in the friendly audience of NROTC folks were they trying to rag?

3. I am a former teacher, now attending a community college voc. program. Most of my classmates are the wives or girlfriends of soldiers and know people who have been to Iraq. On day at lunch they began sharing stories with each other about soldiers harassing Iraqis, killing farm animals and dogs, and deliberately wrecking Iraqi vehicles with armoured vehicles. They thought it was all pretty funny. Who were they trying to rag?


The decision to go to war, which is the decision to kill people, is about as serious a decision as any human will ever make. I have a great deal respect for the character of soldiers who can maintain their moral judgement in a pressure cooker like Iraq, even after their tours of duty are extended repeatedly. I have respect for the officers and soldiers who undersand the importance or winning the hearts and minds. I have respect for the soldiers who see that the war should never have been started but do their best every day anyway. I have respect for the soldiers who try to find some good in the experience and focus on that out of a sense of responisblity to the Iraqis.

I do not respect the emptyheaded thugs who think that a jingoistic slogan is sufficient reason for behaving like a subhuman and come home to brag about the subhuman behavior, expecting others to be as morally deficient as they are and to laud them for it. If someone is going to kill, they owe it to humanity to at least think carefully enought about the decision to have more than pig ignorant slogans to offer as a reason.

BTW, just to show how people aren’t stereoptypes, the wives group I mentioned up thread hate Bush, don’t support the war, and want Obama to get the Democratic nomination. How do I know? Because one of the gals came to class wearing an Obama t-shirt Thurday and her buddy group all wanted to know where she had gotten it from. (I’m a Richardson supporter, so far.)

Ninety-nine percent of this crap about soldiers being disrespected by anti-war people is Noise Machine nonsense, the purpose of which is to give the person spreading the story a false sense of being more-a-soldier-supporter-than-thou, an illusion that is hard to sustain given the absolute incompetence and corruption of the administration that started the war.

 
Written By: laura
URL: http://
Okay, and I’ve met and know several, and none of them are anything like you describe laura.

What can I say other than find a new set of acquantainces because obviously you’re hanging around with people who have low class slugs as buddies.

I will say however, I saw the AFV crushing car video, and was disgusted, so that’s a point in your favor.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The decision to go to war, which is the decision to kill people...
says Laura, sounding strangely like the author quoted by McQ. Killing people is a nasty but inevitable effect of war, not the purpose. Also, just like the article quoted, why should we believe your anecdotes are representative of the troops actions and not your biases? I’ve seen videos which show battles in which troops act as you’ve described, BUT once outside the threat area and removed by time these same soldiers are far more circumspect.
Ninety-nine percent of this crap about soldiers being disrespected by anti-war people is Noise Machine nonsense...
And yet, the jist of your post was to portrait the military in a most negative light. How does it feel to be part of the noise machine, Laura?
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
My neighbor’s son came home and, at a family celebration, used racist terms to refer to Iraqis, repeated the chestnut about defending our freedom, and told stories about humiliating and harassing Iraqi civilins. Who in his friendly audience was he ragging?
I take it Laura that you’ve never embellished a story (or known of anyone to embellish a story) to a crowd of people who wouldn’t know if what you were saying is the truth or not? Shock value is often the desired result of such stories.

Heh ... war stories, in many cases, are just that. How many times have you heard of people being busted for claiming to be vets and find out they never wore a uniform or, if they did, they were turning a wrench in the motor pool the whole time? But they told of harrowing experiences?

Jesse McBeth comes to mind.

People like to impress other people but that doesn’t mean that what they’re telling an audience is true or something they heard 4th hand from one of their buddies and adopted as their own story because of that desire to impress.
The decision to go to war, which is the decision to kill people, is about as serious a decision as any human will ever make.
You better believe it is, and one of the coping mechanisms which some adopt is to act callus about it. Trust me ... it’s an act.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I know several soldiers, too, including my dad,uncles, and my cousin.

Of course wars involve killing people on purpose. It is a positive cultural change that most modern Americans want the killing to be confined as much a posible to the enemy fighters, not bystanders.

Notihg I said can be construed as an attack on the military or soldiers in general. That’s your stereotyped thinking, bains.

I can easily imagine a person bragging and exaggerating for effect. It is interesting, though, what kind of lies are considered the sort that would earn respect. Apparently the soldiers who brag of doing things they shouldn’t have done are, in some cases, assuming that their audience will respect them for doing those things. That reflects poorly on the audience, doesn’t it? On the other hand, the argument made upthread is that the Marines bragged about doing awful things to upset their professor because she would disapprove of the awful things. So they were assuming that she had better values than the people who would approve of the stories. Interesting that people on this thread 1. sneer at the professor, while 2. assuming that the stories were not true because the stories were about doing bad stuff, but 3. also assume that people who really support soldiers would approve of the bad stuff!


It is standard (has been for years) for some conservatives to claim to be inately more patriotic and more supportive of soldiers because of a decision to support a war. The Repubicans in the House have been disgracing themselves with lidicrous flights of jingoism for the last couple of days, for example. This war, which was marketed to the public on salespitches which have all been debunked, and has been botched in every aspect of its implementation by the Administration, which has been an enormous cash cow for some businesses connected to this adminnistration, and which is simultaneously supposed to be of critical importance but not important enough to pay for, has made that claim to inherent superior partiotism and soldier support look silly.

Hence the frantic search for some basis upon which to continue the claim.

 
Written By: laura
URL: http://
Notihg I said can be construed as an attack on the military or soldiers in general.
I said "portrait[ing] in a negative light", one of those nuanced differences of which Sen Kerry made such a big deal. And when your three anecdotes are about thuggish behaviors of soldiers, it’s nearly impossible to conclude your trying to show soldiers in the positive.
It is standard (has been for years) for some conservatives to claim to be inately more patriotic and more supportive of soldiers because of a decision to support a war.
wow, and you are claiming I’m falling victim of stereotyped thinking!
This war, which was marketed to the public on salespitches which have all been debunked, and has been botched in every aspect of its implementation by the Administration, which has been an enormous cash cow for some businesses connected to this adminnistration, and which is simultaneously supposed to be of critical importance but not important enough to pay for, has made that claim to inherent superior partiotism and soldier support look silly.
...And Jingoism!
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Your conclusion is still in the alternate universe realm Scott.
Any discussion about alternate pasts is a discussion of alternate probable quantum universes (if you believe the many worlds theory).

I have never seen any serious claim that lack of US involvement in WWII would have led to the US being taken over by either Japan or Germany. In fact, I don’t think either state would have been strong enough to hold on to their empires for long. Germany had already bite off more than it could chew by attacking the Soviet Union. But alternative universe debates really end up being a lot of noise, so I’ll drop it.

It’s amazing how McQ brushes aside claims by returning soldiers as "war stories," apparently not to be believed (calling soldiers liars, eh McQ?). Well, the aftermath of Vietnam and the stories told about that war which were proven true suggests very much that in every war atrocities are committed, and soldiers often have no regret for killing innocents. I show the CNN video on Vietnam from the Cold War series and students are horrified by the scene where Morley Safer reports on Americans burning a village, with old people and children crying as their property is burnt to the ground. Many say "I didn’t think we did things like that." Well, we do. Going to war is a choice to use killing, orphaning, mutilating, and destroying as a means to an end. To me the only moral justification for that choice is necessary self-defense.

What the neo-cons and apparently many neo-libertarians have done is build up abstract rationalizations for war, dismiss concern about the ethical impact by saying things like "that happens in war," and attack any criticism of the military as some kind of assault on soldiers. That’s a dangerous dip into abstractions as reality and rationalizations as justification. And look what it’s done to Iraq. They say a large percentage of American service people are having psychological problems because of the war, families here have been disrupted, marriages destroyed, and hundreds of billions dollars spent. In Iraq perhaps hundreds of thousands dead, numerous widows and orphans, sectarian war, no end in site, as power and oil sales remain below pre-war levels. Instead of really discussing the ethics of it, it seems many are just floating around with your abstractions, not wanting to confront the reality of the situation. It seems many prefer to ridicule and insult those with different perspectives rather than engage them.

IMO, Americans need to simply say "not in our name," and do everything possible to undercut support for the war, and work to assure that President Bush’s hands are tied in trying to either expand the war or spread it to Iran. Evil is evil whether done in the name of freedom, or in the name of tyranny.

All that said, Notherbob2’s bit about me citing my source (the Russian Lt. Gen. I mentioned drinking vodka with) was hilarious — very clever.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Bain, Ok. I’ll rephrase: nothing I wrote portrays soldiers in genreal or the military in general in a negative light. I portrayed specific individual soldiers who bragged about bad behavior and then tried to rationalize the behavior with jingoistic slogans in a bad light.

It isn’t an an example of stereotyped thinking to discribe the Aministration’s war effort the way I did. Check a dictionary definition of "stereotype".

And , yes, there was a great deal of jingoism in the initial support for the war and a great deal of jingoism in the continued support for it as well. There are also many people, conservative and not, who continue to support the war for reasons which are not jingoistic. But not the specific soldiers under discussion who offer nothing but brainless slogans.

I’ve been thinking about how my relatives discussed their wars. My dad enlisted as soon as he turned eighhteen. He went to the Philipines where he saw war crimes, on a modest scale, committed by Americans, and was complicit, to his lasting grief, in one himself. When he told me about it, he wasn’t bragging. Actually "war crime" is an exaggerated term. He saw crimes against civilians and unarmed Filipinnos committed as part of military action.

My uncles (Battle of the Bulge and Italy) never bragged about doing bad things. They could honestly claim to have defended their country.

My cousin has never, to my knowledge, discussed his Viet Nam experience with anyone. In fact, he went for a decade or so without speaking to his father about anything at all. He never bragged about doing anything wrong and he certainly did not rationalize with a bunch of dumb slogans about defending democracy or stopping Communism.

I think the best way to support soldiers is to send them to wars we actually have to fight. People shouldn’t be put into emotionally devastating, morally ambigous situations for glib, shallow or dishonest reasons.



 
Written By: laura
URL: http://
I can easily imagine a person bragging and exaggerating for effect. It is interesting, though, what kind of lies are considered the sort that would earn respect. Apparently the soldiers who brag of doing things they shouldn’t have done are, in some cases, assuming that their audience will respect them for doing those things.
Or they’re playing the old "war is hell" game and pretending things which they may have heard happened but really didn’t happen to them.

And it isn’t only soldiers who do such things as I’m sure you know. Additionally, it may not be ’respect’ they’re seeking with these stories.
So they were assuming that she had better values than the people who would approve of the stories. Interesting that people on this thread 1. sneer at the professor, while 2. assuming that the stories were not true because the stories were about doing bad stuff, but 3. also assume that people who really support soldiers would approve of the bad stuff!
Not necessarily. They were possibly reacting to her biases and her rhetoric (war criminals? killers?) by saying things they knew would upset her, whether true or not. A very human reaction, wouldn’t you say?

Ever do that Laura?
My cousin has never, to my knowledge, discussed his Viet Nam experience with anyone. In fact, he went for a decade or so without speaking to his father about anything at all. He never bragged about doing anything wrong and he certainly did not rationalize with a bunch of dumb slogans about defending democracy or stopping Communism.
Ummm ... at least not when you were around, huh?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
No, I have never done that and it would be indicative of stereotyped thinking on your part if you assumed that I did.

She had the thoughts about war criminals etc. privately after thhe things the Marines said, so no, her thoughts could not be the cause of their behavior. It is possible that the Marines were reacting to a stereoptype they had which they confused with her but that’s as much speculation as your thesis that they were reacting to a stereotype she had of them.

I don’t live in the same city as my cousin. The reports about him not speaking of the war came from his sister, his brother, and his mother.
 
Written By: laura
URL: http://
No, I have never done that and it would be indicative of stereotyped thinking on your part if you assumed that I did.
So you’ve never, ever said anything to anyone to push their buttons? Ok, if you say so. Me? I’ll certainly admit to it. I’ve done it numerous times in my life.
She had the thoughts about war criminals etc. privately after thhe things the Marines said, so no, her thoughts could not be the cause of their behavior. It is possible that the Marines were reacting to a stereoptype they had which they confused with her but that’s as much speculation as your thesis that they were reacting to a stereotype she had of them.
Oh, right Laura ... it never came out in her class, I’m sure. Have you read any of this woman’s writings? Seen what she’s involved in? There’s little doubt of her attitude if you have and there’s certainly no question of her biases or favored rhetoric.

Additionally we’ve heard her side of the story and only her side of the story. Yet we still see the term "war criminals" and claims she’d be tortured and killed. Excuse me if I’m not particularly inclined to believe she’s going to give us an objective report.
I don’t live in the same city as my cousin. The reports about him not speaking of the war came from his sister, his brother, and his mother.
Umm hmmm ... ever been around him when he talked to any army buddies?

My point is there’s a reason most guys don’t talk around civilians, and Dr. Terpstra’s attitude and judgemental rant nicely sum those reasons up very well.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"Interesting how posters want to talk about these side issues and ignore the real issue:"

If you screw up the small issues, why should we believe you on the big issues?

" Germany would have been stopped by the Soviets ultimately"

And yet you repeat the error.

****************************
"They taught the class racist words to call the Iraqis and told stories about killing livestock for fun and mocking children by pretending to offer..."

And what action did the school administration, or you, take? At a minimum, they should have been asked to leave and their statements and conduct reported to their superiors. I take it that no action was taken, as I am sure you would have mentioned it. That can be considered "enabling", don’t you think? I also consider it cowardly and irresponsible.

"So they were assuming that she had better values than the people who would approve of the stories..."
"Interesting that people on this thread 1. sneer at the professor,..."

Have you even bothered to read any of the stuff Terpstra writes? I have, and I believe I provided a link to some of the stuff. I also tried, unsuccessfully, to verify any connection to Loyola. Before you come to a conclusion regarding the attitudes and behavior of the Marines( and why no Army or other services represented?) in that class, perhaps you should take a look at the attitude and beliefs of the source of this tale.

********************************
"the aftermath of Vietnam and the stories told about that war which were proven true suggests very much that in every war atrocities are committed, and soldiers often have no regret for killing innocents..."

The same can be said for WWII. What does that have to do with the legitimacy of a war?

*************************

"She had the thoughts about war criminals etc. privately after thhe things the Marines said, so no, her thoughts could not be the cause of their behavior. It is possible that the Marines were reacting to a stereoptype they had which they confused with her but that’s as much speculation as your thesis that they were reacting to a stereotype she had of them."

For crying out loud, read some of her stuff before you embarass yourself any further. Her thoughts about the US military being war criminals are documented and demonstrably not private, and precede this alledged incident.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
While I am thinking of it, how is it that things like religious symbols or other "offensive" materials or words are not allowed near public schools or universities, yet this alledged offensive language and behavior by veterans was allowed to occur? Repeatedly.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
McQ, Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were suggesting that I would be rude to military people. I am rarely am deliberately provacative in conversation, but, sure, I’ve done it.

I’m not familiar with the professor. Your theory that she provoked the soldiers could be true, but it is speculation. It is just as possible that they provoked her. Since neither of us was there,neither of us knows. FWIW, I do think she sounds like a doctrinaire jerk.

I have no idea how my cousin talks abouut his experiences to his friends, but we haven’t been discussing soldierr to soldier talks. . That, howevver, and our speculations about what happened in thhe professor’s classroom, are realy beside the main point of your post which seems to be: look out, soldiers, people are poised at home to treat you badly.

Who has been the target of years of vicious attacks by grassroots folks, median types and people in positions of power: soldiers, or people who oppose the war?

Who slandered Cleland, Murphy, Hackett, and Murtha?

Who roams the country screeching at mourners in attendence at the funerals of iraq soldiers?

People from the right wing. Not all, of course, but plenty enough to constitute a reprehensible pattern.

Five (at least) Republicans in the House called all Democrats who oppose the war traitors. How many Democratts in Congress have called soldiers war crinimals?



There are millions of people in this country, so it is possible to find examples of every kind of behavior. However, there is no longstanding, widespread pattern of attacks on soldiers by opponents of the war.

Only the rare isolated example. So why is it so important to you to publicize the rare isolated example?

My mindreading is that your agenda is that you are seeking ways to re-enforce the steoretype that you have about unpatriotic anti-soldier lefties. I would be happy to be wrong about this.
I also have to go to bed now, so good night.
I also have to go to bed now, so good night.
 
Written By: laura
URL: http://
But alternative universe debates really end up being a lot of noise, so I’ll drop it.
Granted, you did not initially bring it up, but you certainly tried to play it for your purposes. Big of you to admit the fallacy of it now Scott.

You miss the point Laura, there is rampant sloganeering on both sides – that you agree with one side’s slogans does not make them less so. Furthermore, I’d submit that the left is just as jingoistic of their ideal America, but it is an America that has never existed. And since you’re dropping vicarious experiences, my pop, a veteran of three combat tours in two theaters, who thought general staff was merely inept up until a president (Bush) was elected that he absolutely and viscerally detests (now he generalizes all infractions as war crimes), often pines for the good old days of America. Those wonderful days of the late 1940’s and early 1950’s when the world loved US. IF only we rid ourselves of Bush and the evil neocons, we could bring back to the idyllic and quintessential America of Jefferson’s and Washington’s dreams. Of course, he conveniently overlooks all those unresolved and in fact unaddressed civil issues that were just coming to boil. And of course, thank God we had the J. Edgar Hoover’s trustworthy FBI looking after our rights then. Oh for the good old days, eh Laura?
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Laura,

I take back what I said about you last night being an idiot. I got progressively worked up as I wrote that post and my frustration came out as I signed off, and I apologize for resorting to name calling. As I said, you are a thoughtful individual, as I’ve read more of what you wrote tonight.

Needless to say, however, I still disagree with you intensely.

"Who roams the country screeching at mourners in attendence at the funerals of iraq soldiers? People from the right wing. Not all, of course, but plenty enough to constitute a reprehensible pattern."-Well, these are fringe nutcase followers of Fred Phelps, who, by the way, is a Democrat. You could probably fit all of the followers of Fred Phelps in a bingo hall in Belton, Missouri.

"Only the rare isolated example. So why is it so important to you to publicize the rare isolated example?"-Laura, I agree with you that most people who are opposed or at worst, have reservations about the war are still very supportive of the troops. That said, ever since the war began, and the meme of "We support the troops, but not the war", I’ve always been suspicious that there was a certain disingenuous to this. The people who were the most vocal in their opposition always touted this theme. Occasionally the mask would slip, but never enough to reveal the true feelings behind it. Lately, the mask has slipped more and more. McQ and others are not citing "isolated" examples: William Arkin’s recent article, with the more mainstream position he occupies, gave the virtual go ahead to people who had been dying for months to reveal their true contempt and hatred of those in the military, a hatred and contempt for something they’ve never been able to understand.

"Who slandered Cleland, Murphy, Hackett, and Murtha?"-Whoever slandered Cleland is wrong, however much I disagree with him. Honestly, I don’t know much about Murphy or Hackett. As for Murtha, he is a disgrace. He flaunts his veteran status even as he tries to cut the legs out from under his "fellow" Marines for political gain. You can cite much better examples than Murtha, I hope.

"I think the best way to support soldiers is to send them to wars we actually have to fight."-Huh? By this measure, did we have to fight in Kosovo? According to Mr. Erb’s thinking, we didn’t have to fight WWII, something you’ve already stated was worth fighting. Who gets to decide what wars we have to fight, you? I’m sorry, Laura, but sometimes your enemy chooses you, not the other way around.

Laura, I can see from your postings tonight that you really are trying to understand. Nevertheless, you’re also trying to cling to whatever notions you may have had about the military, Republicans, Bush, war, whatever. War sucks, Laura. I’ve been there. There are no easy answers and the only thing certain about it is that it is uncertain and yes, nasty. Like a lot of people, I’ve had my own reservations about the war in Iraq, but I know the stakes of what will happen if we pull out precipitously at this point. It will make Yugoslavia look like like a day in the park.
 
Written By: cjd
URL: http://
“This war, 1) which was marketed to the public on salespitches (sic) which have all been debunked, and 2) has been botched in every aspect of its implementation by the Administration, 3) which has been an enormous cash cow for some businesses connected to this adminnistration, (sic) and 4) which is simultaneously supposed to be of critical importance but not important enough to pay for…”
Behold; the Liberal Narrative, parroted by a Stepford Wife who has no idea that she is parroting propaganda. Laura actually believes that she has arrived at these conclusions by using her powers of discernment. What a coincidence that what she “believes” exactly coincides with the LN. I see that a lot.

Rather than disagree with items 1-4 above, let me just try to apply some common sense to them. Have, indeed, ALL of the sales pitches been debunked? If not, why would one state that they were? Has EVERY aspect of the implementation of the war been botched? If not, why would one state that they were? War has ALWAYS been profitable to some businesses and most profitable to those businesses who are best “connected” to the administration in power. Why would one choose to make this point now about this war? I must admit that I don’t understand item 4. However, I’ll bet if I look in enough back issues of the NYT I can figure out what she means.
My point? Laura is a Manchurian Candidate and trying to hold a civil discussion with her is like trying to hold such a discussion with a Chatty Cathy programmed with the LN. Or is it just an uncanny coincidence?

Is it vulgar of me to point out the correlation between a commenter’s selection of comments and the LN? Does civil discussion require that one seriously debate blatantly false propaganda points? Just how much respect is a parrot due? How about a really sincere, well-meaning parrot? Aren’t these questions rhetorical?
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
While I am thinking of it, how is it that things like religious symbols or other "offensive" materials or words are not allowed near public schools or universities, yet this alledged offensive language and behavior by veterans was allowed to occur? Repeatedly.
I actually go into the history of Christianity a lot, and note that the West is a Christian culture, and even non-Christians (like myself) have to recognize the impact of Christianity on how we think. We need to understand Christianity and Islam to make sense of the issues we face culturally. Thank goodness you’re wrong about religious words and symbols not being allowed near a public university!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Rather than disagree with items 1-4 above, let me just try to apply some common sense to them. Have, indeed, ALL of the sales pitches been debunked? If not, why would one state that they were? Has EVERY aspect of the implementation of the war been botched? If not, why would one state that they were? War has ALWAYS been profitable to some businesses and most profitable to those businesses who are best “connected” to the administration in power. Why would one choose to make this point now about this war? I must admit that I don’t understand item 4. However, I’ll bet if I look in enough back issues of the NYT I can figure out what she means.
My point? Laura is a Manchurian Candidate and trying to hold a civil discussion with her is like trying to hold such a discussion with a Chatty Cathy programmed with the LN. Or is it just an uncanny coincidence?
Hmmm, you don’t really address the issues or deny them, you try to talk around them, but you really can’t because you have no counter-argument, her points are correct and you know it. So you try to obscure with a lot of meaningless rhetoric, and then insult the person pointing out reality to you.

Thankfully, the American public isn’t being fooled by such dishonest tactics. Like it or not, you’ll have to deal with reality.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
My mindreading is that your agenda is that you are seeking ways to re-enforce the steoretype that you have about unpatriotic anti-soldier lefties.
Reinforce? Stereotype?

I didn’t write the words highlighted above. A self-identified "anti-soldier lefty" did.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"...you really can’t because you have no counter-argument..."
More assininity. Let me offer some more "meaningless rhetoric" (which I insist is logic). In order to make a successful counter-argument, I would simply have to, for instance, review ALL of the "sales pitches" made by the Bush Administration to support the war. Then I would have to find JUST ONE that has not been "debunked". The result would (logically) be that I would have "debunked" the debunker and I would be proven correct and they would be proven wrong. Not in Lalaland, however.
No doubt every single "sales pitch" has a plethora of "debunking" rhetoric available somewhere in the LN. Some of it borders on the assinine, but it is good enough for the committed believer. If no such debunking material is available, an acolyte will simply argue that it really wasn’t one of the "sales pitches" and ignore any further discussion of the point (a tactic, I might add, that Professor Erb is well-skilled at).
So what liberals desire (and Professor Erb is an especially desirous liberal) is that the posit that is on its face a blatant falsehood be taken seriously. Then the liberal can avail him or herself of the vast LN, think-tank-generated, NYT-spouted rhetoric to carry the day. Thus we incidently describe the leftie blogosphere.
Why eschew this Kabuki? The outcome is foreordained. As each point is scored against the liberal faithful, standing out like a rock in a torrent, the iberal simply limp-legs it and carries on. Fellow liberals with more training in that particular aspect of the LN jump in and obfuscate the point. Failing that, they simply go away. They came to spout, not to learn.
A rational person soon tires of this game and refuses to waste time on it.

"...her points are correct and you know it."
Translation: "You simply must respond to my assinine statement, it is so....assinine. When you do, I can begin my Kabuki. Of course, I will ignore my original premise (it actually IS assinine) and deftly shift the discussion, by ignoring points you make and opening new areas of my choice. I will bamboozle you with my brilliance."
No thanks.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
McQ: Actually I did not identify myself as an anti-soldier leftie. I hope that you will correct yourself on that. Please reread the context.

Hi cjd and bains.

The example of Phelps was not a good one, not because he pretends to be Democrat, but because he is clearly nuts. However, even if you sutract him from the conversation, the list of powerful politicians, media types and grassroots slanderers remains.

A pattern is a repetition of at least three. There is a pattern of attacks on the character of soldiers but it comes from the right and is directed to soldiers who have expressed oppostion to the war.

The attempts to deny Murtha credit for his medals. (This was a rightwing smear regardless of how one feels about his earmark behavior etc.)
The verbal attacks on Hackett during his campaign.
Murphy’s opponent’s attempts to deny or minimize Murphy’s service in Iraq.
The treatment of Cleland is notorious.
Jay Fawcett received three death threats and his offfice was vandalized.
Bill Winter’s patriotism was repeatedly challenged as well.

I really think you should examine the statement made up thread about Murtha undercutting soldiers and using his military record for political advantage. This mmakes since only if you assuume that soldiers are supposed to support wars and are betraying other soldiers if they don’t. Which isn’t the case, surely.

Murphy, Fawcett, Hackett, and Winter all ran for office (Hackett just in the primary) last election. All are Iraq veterans, Democrats, and opposed to the war.

So the pattern that exists is that some rightwingers attack soldiers who are Democrats and/or oppose the war.

There is no pattern of Democrats or anti-war people attacking soldiers.

I think that some rethinnkinng of stereotypes left overr from the VietNam days needs to be done.

I also think that we need to re-establish the concept of patrotic opposition. It is possible for people of good faith to disagree. That notion has been obliterated by years of defammation from rightwing pundits, top rightwing websites, and Republicans in Congress. That’s a pattern that should (annd in some cases, does) concern people onn the political right.

I hope very much that returning Iraq vets will be greeted with celebrations and good benefits. However, the patterns is that the abuse will come from the right and be directed toward any soldier who dares to buck the rightwing demand for rightwing political correctness on the war. I’m sure that McQ and others are genuinely concerned about the reception soldiers will get. It makes more sense, however, to address the problem that exists in reality, rather than the one that exists in memory.

I’m going to be away from the computer for a couple of days, and, by the time I get back, this thread will have disappeared into the ozone, so goodby and thanks for the conversation.
 
Written By: laura
URL: http://
McQ: Actually I did not identify myself as an anti-soldier leftie. I hope that you will correct yourself on that. Please reread the context.
I wasn’t talking about you, Laura, I was talking about Dr. Terpstra. It’s her work I cited or "highlighted above".

If I thought you were in the mold of Dr. Terpstra I wouldn’t be wasting my time debating this with you. I think you’ve given very measured and thoughtful responses and I appreciate that.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"I’m going to be away from the computer for a couple of days, and, by the time I get back, this thread will have disappeared into the ozone, so goodby and thanks for the conversation."
A pretty good example of the limp-leg and going away. I am really sorry that Laura did not have even a few minutes to defend her four statements. I am such a cad for beating up on such a nice passive-aggressive lady. hi laura

 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
Notherbob, you really misuse the word liberal. Liberal means wanting limited government, an essentially market economy, and a distrust of governmental power. That describes most of the American political spectrum. Thus most Democrats and Republicans are ideologically similar, but argue about extent of involvement (a few more or less billion for programs generally agreed upon). If you get to the "left" of the Democratic party, you have Social Democrats, though even social democratic thinking has been liberalized. To the right of most Republicans you get nationalists and traditionalists (social conservatives), but even most of them have also been liberalized. Very few Americans are not liberal.

And as far as the war goes, you have some prominent conservatives opposing the war, and many liberals have favored it (Some of Pat Buchanan’s arguments against the war have been brilliant — I like Pat even though I vert often disagree with him, if you disagree with him his skill at using words can infuriate you, but if you agree with him that skill brings appreciation). It is not a left-right issue. Personally I don’t identify with either party, My views often are more on the conservative side, often more liberal. I voted Republican in the last Senate election (this year), but Democrat for the House. So your silliness about some kind of "liberal narrative" (I still am not sure what it is except the narrative about the development of limited government and markets in the US) and lumping everyone as "liberals" makes you seem a bit simple minded. Perhaps rather than grouping people and attacking the group, you could respond to specific arguments and ideas. That’s harder, but ultimately more effective and more rewarding.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
So the pattern that exists is that some rightwingers attack soldiers who are Democrats and/or oppose the war.
There is no pattern of Democrats or anti-war people attacking soldiers.
Such idealogical blinders!
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
"Of course, I will ignore my original premise...and deftly shift the discussion... and opening new areas of my choice."
Further translation: "I will define the terms and frame the issues. Surely you don’t mind that. After all, I am so fair-minded about everything I cite (so long as it is not the point under discussion at the present time). You really must accept me as a non-biased, fair-minded commenter. Ignore the times I repeat verbatim the LN; after all, even though I know nothing about it, I am really a well-informed political commenter."

Oh, and I understand that under your definition of liberal, since I am center-right, I am a liberal too. Nice.

Please carry on walking and talking like a duck.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
These concepts:
wanting limited government

an essentially market economy

a distrust of governmental power
Are the antithesis of the Democratic Party. Yet you are called liberal.

The term does not mean in modern political discourse what it once did.
Please carry on walking and talking like a duck.
Heh.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
HOORAY we made it...100-plus postings...
congratulations to all, except Looker who consistently mangles realty....
And those of you who can not argue a consistently intellectual position without need of argumentum ad hominen....and who evince any questioning of folks with PhD’s or folk from Plains, GA.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Thank goodness you’re wrong about religious words and symbols not being allowed near a public university!

Just off the top of my head;

FAITH UNDER FIRE
College removes cross – from chapel!
William & Mary says move designed to make space less ’faith specific

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52646

Georgetown University also removed crucifixes, and I can remember rading about some high schools banning the wearing of them. Christian symbols such as nativity displays or the Ten Commandments are routinely banned from public forums, prayer is banned at public schools; what makes you think universities are any different?

**************************
"The treatment of Cleland is notorious."

And usually fictitious.

"by the time I get back, this thread will have disappeared into the ozone, so goodby and thanks for the conversation"

Somehow I am not surprised. I guess we will never learn why you and the school you taught in(which will, of course, remain unknown) tolerated the teaching of rascism in its classroom.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
So Timactual says that a couple of examples (in the rather untrustworthy world net daily, which is sort of like weekly world news) of colleges moving or removing crucifixes is the same as "not allowing any religious words or symbols."

Yes, it would be inappropriate for a public school to celebrate a particular faith with a huge nativity scene or something (though the ten commandments seems more benign, as these are honored by at least three major faiths, and the ideas are rather common and coincide with secular ideals). But clearly one can talk about religion (religious words are allowed). My own view is that this generation is ignorant of the cultural heritage of the West which is largely Christian (we have a kind of secularized Christianity now), and thus do not understand the historic context of major debates and ideals. Furthermore, enlightenment style thinkers who want to pretend they’ve come up with a new rationally proven set of moral principles don’t understand how much their core assumptions borrow from the Christian heritage which helped drive the enlightenment (including the thinking of many avowed atheists). I am not a Christian (nor a Jew nor a Muslim), but I think ignorance of these faiths is a major problem in our society, and this combines with a general moral relativism which risks a generation without high regard for ethics. That’s dangerous to any society.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Further translation: "I will define the terms and frame the issues. Surely you don’t mind that. After all, I am so fair-minded about everything I cite (so long as it is not the point under discussion at the present time). You really must accept me as a non-biased, fair-minded commenter. Ignore the times I repeat verbatim the LN; after all, even though I know nothing about it, I am really a well-informed political commenter."
You are describing yourself. You routinely ignore any position or statement, and instead: a) engage in personal ridicule or attack; b) create false categorizes like "liberal narrative" and try to argue by some kind of collectivist grouping; and finally c) charge others with doing the kind of thing you’re doing. You have been evasive, your posts have lacked substance, and you do not allow yourself to actually have a real discussion or exchange. It’s like you know you might lose and that scares you.
Oh, and I understand that under your definition of liberal, since I am center-right, I am a liberal too. Nice.
It’s not my definition of liberal, it’s the way it is taught in any class on political philosophy, and it is the time honored definition. If you do not understand that, well, that explains a lot about how you are debating, perhaps these are things you really haven’t investigated or studied much.

You can see the world in a kind of "two legs bad, four legs good" mentality, defining anything you dislike as "two legs" (liberal) and anything you like apparently as conservative. You can simplify the myriad of different ideas into a kind of easy dichotomy which, rather than requiring thoughtful consideration of issues allows you to just choose the "side" you think is right and then follow what they say. You can ignore all the conservative anti-war arguments.

Nah, that’s all too difficult for you. Better to simply brand those you disagree with by giving them a label, come up with some odd concept like ’liberal narrative’ which you utterly refuse to even define, and then run and hide from real discussion. Sounds like you’re afraid of exposing your biases to any kind of critical thought. Alas, that’s far too common across the entire political spectrum. I don’t think your approach is very persausive or effective though.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Yeah, I sometimes have a few (tokes, drinks, whatever, you know the kind of thing I am describing) on a Saturday night. I like it when others give me a pass under those circumstances and I alway try to pass that along. I am really sorry that you dislike being a liberal; a knee-jerking liberal at that, but one is what one is. So, take another shot at it tomorrow, no harm, no foul.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
"I’m going to be away from the computer for a couple of days, and, by the time I get back, this thread will have disappeared into the ozone, so goodby and thanks for the conversation."

Back so soon? Or is someone impersonating you on Dale’s Starbuck post? This thread is still here too.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Chuckle.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
Hi timactual. My father is in his eighties, deaf, nearly blind from macular degeneration, and is the caretaker for my mother who is bedridden with senile dementia. I visit them as often as I can for as long as I can. My husband just helped his mother move into an assisted living community but we are still part of her support network. So my life is built around their schedules. Not that I owe you an explanation, of course, but you might be a happier person if you got over all the unnecessary spitefulness long enough to realize that.

Anyway, I am back and if you would like to discuss something of substance, I’d be happy to chat.
 
Written By: laura
URL: http://
Well, laura, I guess that your circumstances are supposed to give you absolute moral authority to pass on liberal propoganda that is not true in order to get Democrats elected. One may have noticed that my "Written By:" keeps changing. That is because I drive 6 hours to spell my sister in caring for my 87 year old mother who recently lost her husband. Her old computer has a different cookie in it for me from the one at home. I am wiling away time waiting for her to wake up (she threw up all last night) so I can see if she is dehydrated and needs to go to the emergency room. Her little dog "Maxie" has been ill also and has caused her much worry. None of which gives me any right to beat up on liberals. Their lies give me that right. So, now that you are back in town, maybe you want to explain your four statements for us?
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
"I’d be happy to chat."

After ignoring my questions for several days, why so cooperative now? My sympathies for your family problems, but their demands on your time seem to be selective. Deaf and blind and 80+, yet able to serve as primary caretaker for a bedridden invalid, in addition to caring for himself. Impressive. My father-in-law, who also had macular degeneration, would have been envious.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Dr. Terpstra is no longer affiliated with Loyola University Chicago and was not associated with the university at the time the column was written. Included is her reply to an email I sent her directly.

It would be greatly appreciated if a correction was made.

Thank you,
Anthony Bahr, 2LT, USAF
Loyola University Chicago, BA ‘06

I want to make it very clear to supporters and detractors alike that the facts of the classroom discussion that took place over a week ago are as follows. The discussion did not take place at Loyola University Chicago as some Internet sources are saying. I am presently not teaching at Loyola but I did receive my PhD from Loyola University Chicago, and I was a community research fellow there in the 1990s. Currently I am on the faculty at Northeastern Illinois University.

In Solidarity for the Liberation of the Oppressed, June Scorza Terpstra
 
Written By: Anthony Bahr
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider