From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Apr 17 2003 - 02:59:23 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Charles writes
>
>
>>do it, but they were blamed anyway. (It did happen while they were in
>>charge, soon after the conquest of Alexandria.) Now Bagdad's library
>>wasn't as significant, but it wasn't minor. Especially if Arabic is your
>>native tongue. Whatever our reputation was, it's now worse.
>
>
> Some people care about what others think more than others do.
> There are many occasions when one has to worry about what one
> will think of himself, rather than be concerned about what
> others will think.
>
I don't see how this generality is germane to the particular
situation. The topic is about US reputation. Those who do not
care about the US reputation will presumably not be contributing
or reading this thread.
>
>>That we didn't do it [assign soldiers to guard the museum]
>>isn't going to cut much ice. We were in charge, and didn't
>>do anything to stop it or put out the fire, or even collect
>>the scraps of parchment that flutter out on the flames.
>
>
> "We were in charge"? Actually, that's what was being contested.
>
What for? Our press claims we are in charge and "mopping up".
We even say we are seeking to establish order now. So why
shouldn't we have some responsibility for this event?
> The deeper issue, alas, as always, is the predictability of
> your making a statement like that. Have any thoughts on this
> more fundamental issue of why in general you and others are
> on one side and so many other people are clearly on the other?
> What truly distinguishes you from them?
>
This is in my opinion uncalled for. Either the statement is
reasonable and raises reaonable issues or it does not. That X
is more likely to make such a statement is irrelevant to this
particular thread. That one is in a minority says nothing for
or against the validty of the minority position.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 17 2003 - 03:02:15 MDT