jj@alice.UUCP (04/26/85)
The double-dealing, two faced discussion about "The shame of the President" here is just amazing. I hear the same people who argue that Reagan should appease the USSR any what he can complaining about his visit to a bunch of DEAD people, and to a threat that is, for the minute, dead. (Brazil aside... ) This is especially offensive because of the obviously deliberate and political motivation of many of the complainers. It's also quite obvious that those who argue that "all humans have rights" seem to disagree when it's expedient to do so, in order to further their political cause. (I have yet to see a posting that was clearly from a person who is objecting to the suffering represented by the people in that cemetary.) There is a clear difference between acknowledging tragedy and supporting offensive ideals. To date, it seems to be that the behavior of the president is clearly the first (visiting the evidence of a great tragedy) and the second. It is also clear to me that a lot of people would like me to fail to make this distinction. I'm offended by the attitude and deliberately emotional/offensive/manipulative attitude of the "shame of the president" articles. I can certainly see a person indication their unhappiness with the situation, but using the situation to manipulate and deceive others is simply dishonest. Those who suffered by Hitler's Germany DO have a legitimate reason to not want the lives of their tormentors/murderers/etc glorified. HOWEVER, I do NOT see ANYONE glorifying these people, Ronald Reagan included. A visit to a cemetary simply does NOT imply approval at all. It DOES acknowledge the tragedy, which very well may have a positive effect if it prevents future like tragedies. (Someone I read once said "Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it", wish I could remember WHO it was that said it!) I must point out that remembering the tragedy in no way should be done so as to create or support hate or grief. Healing from a tragedy is an essential part of personal, national, and human life. Retaining the knowlege of both the tragedy and the healing is likewise essential to avoiding it in the future. Furthermore, recalling how one healed aids the individual in healing others who need it. Acting like there are no buried German or SS soldiers, and trying to forget no more constructive than trying to expunge WW II from history books. Such acts of censorship (be they active or passive) have the sole effect of destroying knowledge, in fact knowledge that might someday be essential. Expecting a US president to excercise this blindness is merely part of censoring an unpleasant part of history. Please note that if the President were to refer to the SS soldiers as "wonderful, glorious human beings, etc etc" or something like that, I <and many others, I'm bloody well sure> would be thoroughly offended. If the president refers to "those tragic souls" or something like that, I can't see how that's offensive at all. I call on all nutnews participants to realize that this medium is overloaded with personal attacks, offensive content, and informationless articles, and that the existance of this medium is being called into question. I think that a less strident tone, less back-and-forth antogonism, and behavior indicative of the understanding that humans are at ALL ends of this net is called for, and is, in fact, essential in both the short and long term. -- DO TEDDY BEARS HAVE OPINIONS? ASK YOURS TODAY! "My mind is clearer now, at last, all too well, I can see, where we all, soon will be.." (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
phl@drusd.UUCP (LavettePH) (04/26/85)
Public radio reported this am that one or more of the "sweet little innocents" took part in the Malmady massacre.
jj@alice.UUCP (04/29/85)
OK, Lavalette, since when do you call SS people "sweet little innocents"? You are the ONLY one, as far as I have seen, who's used that phrase. I think you owe me an immediate apology for associating my article title with your (hell, let's go for broke here) blasphemy. I didn't call anyone a "sweet little innocent" any more than I claimed that SS troopers were innocent, as Mr. Oddjob!London thought fit to claim. (Funny, the correspondence in false concepts attached to my article, isn't it? Odd, or deliberate? Maybe if you say I said something often enough, you'll convince people I said it? Now, who used that tactic before, Phil?) You still haven't answered the 64000$ question here, guy, and that's WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER SOLDIERS? I have no doubt that some of those SS officers were indeed monsters, and I don't think anyone else does, either. Your blind, repetitive hate-mongering blathering about the SS officers is quite tedious, especially when you misquote (I don't even know if misquote is the right word, since it's not even a context extraction) those who would ask you to remain civil, merely because you wish to defame them. I think your apparantly deliberate false associations of emotionally loaded phrases with other people speaks for itself, Phil. I think it's retraction time. -- DO TEDDY BEARS HAVE OPINIONS? ASK YOURS TODAY! "My mind is clearer now, at last, all too well, I can see, where we all, soon will be.." (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
grl@charm.UUCP (George Lake) (04/29/85)
Talk about nonsense. Look, there is a clear message to honoring soldiers (in a cemetery that includes SS) and originally excluding a visit to any of the former death camps. Esp. so close to the 40th anniversary of the liberation of Dachau. The president's "toughening it out" is particularly disheartening. A majority of congress has asked him not to go and gone so far as to ask the German chancellor to rescind the invitation. Did this majority simply want to embarass the president? The president's misguided notion of manhood as "staying to your guns" is disheartening.
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (04/30/85)
-- > The double-dealing, two faced discussion about "The shame of the > President" here is just amazing. I hear the same people who argue > that Reagan should appease the USSR any what he can complaining > about his visit to a bunch of DEAD people, and to a threat that is, > for the minute, dead. (Brazil aside... ) ... > > (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj The real shame is in Reagan's refusal to cancel the cemetery visit because such a change of plans would, as his staff has alleged, signify weakness. This adolescent bravado is the stuff wars get started over. Clearly, Reagan wishes the visit were never scheduled. It doesn't help his position in an economic summit to lay a wreath over SS troops that massacred villages in France. Of course, all his staff cared about was that these guys could not have been involved in the massacre of Americans at Malmedy. No, the only thing more lamentable than Reagan's itinerary is his inflexibility about it. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 30 Apr 85 [11 Floreal An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***