Sake White

[This is my response to this thread on Neo's site, that is pretty old. To Sally and Ariel of course]

Actually, Sally, you are the kind of person who uses her rapier wit to try to impale people you don’t like. I actually hold to a different philosophy. I don’t disagree with a person just because I don’t like them nor do I even like a person just because they agree with me, in fact I actually go to greater lengths to analyze a person’s position because the dislike can sometimes affect the conclusion. As you’ve demonstrated in response to my comments here, Sally, you just don’t give a damn. You distort, not only my words but the words of all of your opponents, and you just don’t give a damn. To reiterate an important concept.

I treat you as any other ideologue. So long as you don’t try to attack me, I’ll leave you alone. Because talking to you is a waste of time, just like talking to Conned and legion. You cannot see beyond your own personal angst towards individuals, whether deserved or not, so I am not particularly concerned with doing it for you.

Few people argue with me because I refuse to engage in ad hominem entertainment like you do. When I strike, I’ll strike at what I believe to be either gross injustices or simple logic mistakes. If you really want me to go up against you Sally, all you have to do is ask. There is no need to prowl around in the shadows. There is enough of that on the net already.

I am not a pacifist, but I do not glorify war in any way. I simply look at war as a necessary evil, but still an evil.

You may call it what you want, but they are only labels. Your sentiments are clear, and you may call it unlike pacifism if you prefer, but that doesn’t really change your views, why I disagree with them, and even why I dismiss them as reactionary. There is a difference between dismissing the facts and dismissing how you view the facts. Your views are not the facts, and I am not required to accept your views as the facts. You may in fact argue that you are not a pacifist, but does it really change what you said? No.

One of the purposes to the glorification of war is not that there is much glory in war, but in the seeking of glory in war, one is defended psychologically against guilt, recrimminations, and various other psychological problems that may result from warfare. It applies to a direct or indirect participant of warfare or just normal violence. Your sentiments, Ariel, as you have clearly written, are against war for a variety of reasons. Reasons that do not rely upon the usual psychological defenses using, from lack of a better word, glory in war.

It proves nothing.

You believe it proves nothing because you have too much invested in disgust and disdain of certain things you see in war, to ever believe that it could actually be of better benefit than various other actions you may prefer. You may not think that is pacifist, but certainly it is not warlike. It is not even Jacksonian, because Jacksonians wouldn’t engage in warfare if they thought it was just a useless fight with no tactics, purpose, or chance to prove something.

As I said in response to that view of yours, I simply have a different philosophy. It does not require you to be a pacifist, it requires you to have meant what you had said about war.

By the way, I’m not out to write a military history for your consumption.

No, you are not out here to write a military history book.

Why don’t you cut through the smoke and lay out what you believe and why all this stuff you are bringing up is important to your beliefs.
Ymarsakar | Homepage | 12.23.06 – 5:19 pm | #

I don’t know why you seem to think this had anything to do with you writing military history for me. All I did was ask for your beliefs to be clear cut, not wrapped up in irrelevant details that have nothing to do with the subject I’ve focused on.

The war was wearing down the American people. You can dismiss it, fine.

I didn’t dismiss it, I said that what you brought up had nothing to do with defending that statement.

There was a specific reference to war-weariness in the Military Channel’s documentary on Operation Olympus.

And that document was not mentioned in the above catalogue of history you wrote. You were talking about Truman, remember. What did Truman have to do with the “document” in question? You never did explain, which means your assertions and justifications are unclear. Does being unclear on your part mean I dismiss your views or does it just mean you should do a better job?

Why do you have all this time to talk about Hirohito (incorrectly even) but no priorities on defending your statements? Should we just accept your views as the truth then, would that be easier for you than writing military history for my consumption?