Quail's Nagging Question

[barbara100 at jps.net]

Quail:
Do you feel that the United States ever been "right" in waging war,
keeping in mind that even WWII had civilian casualties? I ask,
because I wish to know the extent and limits of your pacifism.

Have you asked yourself why you *really* wanna know so bad?  I mean don't
tell me, but maybe you should think about it.  I'm not gonna answer your
question, though, directly. I don't know enough about war and history, and
I'll just prove myself an idiot trying to battle out WWII with you; I won't
give you the satisfaction. (Ha!) Another reason, a more important reason is
because I know how you'll use my answer, and I won't give you *that*
satisfaction.  It wouldn't be honest, and I don't want to contribute to the
lies that you tell yourself.  If I gave you something definitive, you'll put
it on your black and white litmus test and use the results to dismiss me.
"Ah! that's it! She's a wacky pacifist! I don't have to pay attention to her
anymore."  I fear you'd latch on to any old thing to ease your nagging
doubt.  Kinda like the less sophisticated ones around here who just dismiss
me as "Doug."  I don't want to let you fall into that trap, Quail.
Besides, who cares about the ugly old past anyway?  I'm in a "take it from
here" kinda mood these days. Let's just stop blowing off those poor people's
little arms *now* huh? Wha'd ya say?
Barbara



----- Original Message -----
From: The Great Quail <quail at libyrinth.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 10:14 AM
Subject: RE: Re: Quail's Selective Understanding


> >You just keep hammering away with my use of the word "official." Let
> >me clear it up if I can--An "official eye for an eye" was meant to
> >note the "official" number of dead Afghans, as accounted for in the
> >Report I posted along with my comment.
>
> All right, that certainly does shade your meaning differently. Though
> the gist is still the same -- based on previous posts, you must
> admit, you see the US attacks as not only unjust, but based primarily
> on revenge, yes? Or am I being inaccurate again?
>
> >Seeing as how you probably didn't bother to read the Report, and
> >maybe not even the end of Toby's post, I'll let you off the hook.
>
> Then put me back on the hook, because I read it all. Though I still
> ask the question to the P-List pacifists, especially you, Doug, Toby,
> and Richard:
>
> Do you feel that the United States ever been "right" in waging war,
> keeping in mind that even WWII had civilian casualties? I ask,
> because I wish to know the extent and limits of your pacifism.
>
> --Q
>