Anybody Want a Discussion?

[apstudent]

I am a senior in highschool, and am soon going to take the English AP test. To do so, it would help tremendously to know one or two books inside and out very well. The best way to know these books, is to have discussions on them. So if anyone would like to have a discussion on any of the following, I would be much appreciated

Crime and Punishment
Their Eyes Were Watching God
1984
Brave New World
Heart of Darkness
Hamlet

[didiervg]

I've read the last 4 on your list (years ago, I must admit) so I'd be happy to learn your views on one or more of them and discuss.

[crisaor]

I can share my thoughts on 1984, Brave New World, and Hamlet.

[apstudent]

In 1984, and Brave New World, does anybody see any of the bad things that the authors were tying to warn us about in the books(overcontrolling government, trying to devalue love and relationships, difference in social classes pertaining to the the government's treatment of an individual), and if you do see some of these in today's sociey, is it as bad as in 1984 and Brave New World?

[Koa]

I love Crime and Punishment and i should re-read it for my Russian Literature exam, cos even if i read it less than 2 years ago, i don't remember it in details. I'll be gald to discuss it, especially after having re-read it.

I've read and appreciated 1984. I don't remember it in details either, and i have no time to read it again...:( I'll try to discuss if i remember ...

I've finished reading Heart Of Darkness just a few days ago, and i need to discuss it too, as it'll be part of my English Literature exam. I don't think i have understood much of the sense of it :( maybe also because i had to read it in original language, and even if i'm fluent in English, i didn't find its language/style easy.

[apstudent]

Well Koa,

I don't know what you do not understand about Heart of Darkness, so I will talk about the basic physcological approach of the book.

What Kurtz was, was just a different side of the main character(I forgot his name, I will call him Bill). Bill's travel down the Congo River is a voyage into himself, a glimpse of what Bill could be if he decided to totally abandon the morals of society as he plunges into this unknown world. Kurtz used to be the same as Bill, but the tempting ability of being unbounded by the values and customs of civilization appealed to him and Kurtz decided to stay there.

Another major agenda of Heart of Darkness is to talk about the nature of truth and the unknown. Conrad uses extensive imagery to portray the unknown as fearful. He uses such physical devices such as fog and darkness as symbols for the unkown. Pertaining to truth, Bill states that there is nothing worse than a lie, in multiple ways.

Well, I hope this is just a start to our discussions.

[Zooey]

Good luck to you. I took it last year and personally used The Great Gatsby and A Streecar Named Desire for mine.

And don't worry, it's not quite as hard as they make it out to be. Or at least I didn't think so.

And actually, I haven't read one of the books on your list! :oops:

[Robert E Lee]

In 1984, and Brave New World, does anybody see any of the bad things that the authors were tying to warn us about in the books(overcontrolling government, trying to devalue love and relationships, difference in social classes pertaining to the the government's treatment of an individual), and if you do see some of these in today's sociey, is it as bad as in 1984 and Brave New World?

It's important to note that there are fundamental differences between the society of 1984 and BNW. In 1984, the people are coerced into acceptance of a dictatorial regime; whereas in BNW, the people are conditioned into liking the regime. In 1984, the power is concentrated into the hands of one leader, while in BNW there are ten world controllers. And while in 1984 one is forced to think only about the glory of the State, in BNW, all sorts of cultural decadence is allowed because it gives people the illusion of freedom.

I know for a fact that Orwell had the USSR in mind when writing 1984, and, even though I don't know exactly what country the state in BNW was supposed to represent, today's America parallels it. Look at the similarities: the glorification of capitalism, mass production, sexual freedom, an ideology based primarily on hedonism ("freedom"), conditioning the population, and culture mixing (the names of the characters in BNW are amalgamates of different cultures: Mustapha (Arab) Mond (French or English), Benito (Italian, as in Benito Mussolini) Hoover (Anglo-Saxon, as in Herbert Hoover), Bernard (French) Marx (German, as in Karl Marx), Lenina (no identifiable origin but probably based on Lenin) Crowne (Anglo-Saxon)).

I find 1984 somewhat irrelevant in today's world. Governments have learned that the idealism of the people for no matter what cause dies out unless it's reinforced by directly pleasuring or benefitting the people. As the American government becomes more centralized, and society continues to decay, BNW will become more pertinent.

By the way, I'm an 11 AP (Language and Composition) student.

I've also read Crime and Punishment. I can discuss that if you want.

You should give us your AOL or AOL Instant Messenger screen name. Or PM me about it.

[Admin]

The sexual freedom in America is a myth. There are many countries that are more hedonistic than we are.

In what other county can you show a woman's entire breast on TV, so long as the nipple is covered by a sticker? Its stupid if you ask me, why are nipples so evil that we can't show them?

Everyone knows they're there, they see them sticking out, but showing them on TV would be wrong. Our society is so hypocritical because sexual innuendos of the highest order are okay for prime time TV, but literal sexual discussion is not.

Marijuana? It's evil and wrong and supports terrorism (give me a break).

Compared to most European countries and even Canada, the United States is very prudish. Go to Amsterdam sometime.

[Robert E Lee]

The sexual freedom in America is a myth. There are many countries that are more hedonistic than we are.

In what other county can you show a woman's entire breast on TV, so long as the nipple is covered by a sticker? Its stupid if you ask me, why are nipples so evil that we can't show them?

Everyone knows they're there, they see them sticking out, but showing them on TV would be wrong. Our society is so hypocritical because sexual innuendos of the highest order are okay for prime time TV, but literal sexual discussion is not.

Marijuana? It's evil and wrong and supports terrorism (give me a break).

Compared to most European countries and even Canada, the United States is very prudish. Go to Amsterdam sometime.

You are right. Don't get me wrong; I'm not some trailer-park WASP who thinks America is the prime example of a hedonistic culture. I have lived in France and Switzerland. Switzerland especially is far more "free" and decadent than America in terms of drugs. And in France coarse language is permitted on national and even state-run TV, and the breasts of a woman are not censored. I have no problem with France's laid-back attitude; but Switzerland is a bit disgusting. Anyway I was contrasting the capitalist West, of which the US is the paradigm, to the communist East in general.

America still holds on to its puritanical, Protestant roots; but that may change in years to come.

[apstudent]

America still holds on to its puritanical, Protestant roots; but that may change in years to come.

I think that remembering that our country, and our government was founded on strong Christian principles. To stray away from these principles would be to change the foundation that our country has been set on for the past 240 years.

I also believe that if the media was allowed to show nipples, the freedom of media advocates would continue on to something worse, and this would continue until there was absolutely no censors on televison, pornagraphy on FOX.

Also, for a parent to allow their children to watch public television, and know that the only sex that will be on that tv will be implied is a relief. Allowing their children to watch public televison allows children to enjoy the programs while the parents remain comforted with the idea that their kids are not see nipples. Imagine letting your 6 year old kid flip through channels filled with boobs,sex, foul language, or all of them at the same time. I know that I wouldn't let my kid watch this stuff. It would ruin everything about morals that are so hard to stress to a child in today's society.

In other words, DOWN WITH NIPPLE SHOWING!

and no I am not gay, only moral.

[Shea]

I fully agree! I'm a very moral person too. And it's come to the point where I don't really watch TV at all. When nothing is sacred anymore, what joy do we have in anything? It seems the more commonplace things become, especially due to mass media, the less sensitive society is to evils. Could this be why crime is so high, divorce stats are up, and everyone feels they need to take phsyciatric drugs? Perhaps that's why I enjoy the classics so much (though I've never read 1984 or Brave New World and don't really know much about them). Sure those evils existed then too, but it's the rare appearance of them and the public shock that they occurred at all that I crave from those eras.

Another case in point: certain programs are all well and good for children but could too many parents be depending on those programs as a babysitter? Humans are social creatures, and a box won't develop our conversational skills.

[didiervg]

I'm a european so moght have a different view on these things. To my mind, Shea has a point when she says she doesn't watch TV anymore. If you don't like what's on, turn off the TV, simple as that. As to not showing nipples: what's next not to be allowed on TV then? Where do you draw the line? And also: who draws that line? Do you want some government official to decide for you what you can and cannot read, see, discuss? Not me, thanks.

[Shea]

Very, very good point. At the Christian college I went to, there was a mission group that went to a country where studying the Bible was forbidden. They moved in as much secrecy as possible using the Bible as an English teaching tool. I love my freedom of biblical study and litererary info right at my fingertips.

I'm not aware of how politics work in other countries. Sadly enough, I know little more about the U.S. I know, I know,.... men and women have fought and died so that I may have the right to vote. But if I were to go into a voting booth now, I would be playing eany, meany, miney, moe. Until I finish school, I really don't have anymore room in my head to follow politics. So, for now, I'll shut up about that until I have the right to complain! :oops:

[Robert E Lee]

America still holds on to its puritanical, Protestant roots; but that may change in years to come.

I think that remembering that our country, and our government was founded on strong Christian principles. To stray away from these principles would be to change the foundation that our country has been set on for the past 240 years.

I also believe that if the media was allowed to show nipples, the freedom of media advocates would continue on to something worse, and this would continue until there was absolutely no censors on televison, pornagraphy on FOX.

Also, for a parent to allow their children to watch public television, and know that the only sex that will be on that tv will be implied is a relief. Allowing their children to watch public televison allows children to enjoy the programs while the parents remain comforted with the idea that their kids are not see nipples. Imagine letting your 6 year old kid flip through channels filled with boobs,sex, foul language, or all of them at the same time. I know that I wouldn't let my kid watch this stuff. It would ruin everything about morals that are so hard to stress to a child in today's society.

In other words, DOWN WITH NIPPLE SHOWING!

and no I am not gay, only moral.


I don't want to get into a political debate. Stick to the topic of the book. Do you think that America today resembles, to a certain extent, the world in BNW? Or do you think that BNW was supposed to represent the USSR and is hardly relevant today except as a warning?

[crisaor]

I think that remembering that our country, and our government was founded on strong Christian principles. To stray away from these principles would be to change the foundation that our country has been set on for the past 240 years.

I wouldn't like to offend anyone, but the foundation of your country (and any other christian country, for that matter) has little relevance to the current state of the country today. In fact, Christianism has nothing to do with the world today. People who are supposed to consider any other human being as equal have no problem in throwing bombs at them, just because they consider it to be 'right'. And right, in this case, means oil, a grip on minor asia, and a power show off to the rest of the world. Please leave christianism (and islamism also) out of the picture, at least for now.


I also believe that if the media was allowed to show nipples, the freedom of media advocates would continue on to something worse, and this would continue until there was absolutely no censors on televison, pornagraphy on FOX.

I agree, but this is merely the top of the iceberg. The fact that media has a 'thing' for showing nipples is hardly a significant matter. There are far more worse things on TV than nipples. The media propaganda (which I believe is stronger in the US than in any country of the occidental world) is so strong that has already legitimized
A)An electoral fraud
B)A war against Irak, an enemy that wasn't in anyone's plans, while NorthCorea is setting its nuclear bombs at north america.
C)The loss of credibility around the world.
D)The lack of memory. Remember Bin Laden?
D)The fact that taking any path necessary towards war is desirable, as long as in the best interest for the nation (in this case, the US).

Personally, i fear what the us government is capable of unleashing upon the world, not only a major war, once the pandora's box of jihad terrorism is opened, but a big step forward to either BNW or 1984.


I don't want to get into a political debate. Stick to the topic of the book. Do you think that America today resembles, to a certain extent, the world in BNW? Or do you think that BNW was supposed to represent the USSR and is hardly relevant today except as a warning?

I'm sorry, i just needed to express my opinion first. About the current topic, I agree to what Robert E Lee said. I do think that the united states resemble BNW in a fairly extent, though i'm not sure if Huxley intended this. It's certainly possible. I'pretty sure that Huxley intended it as a warning, a possible chain of events for any country. About 1984, Orwell had indeed in mind the USSR, particularly the Stalin period.

[apstudent]

Brave New World and 1984 I believe were both strong warnings about the powers of governments in our thoughts and daily lives. I believe that Brave New World has little if no relevance in how we live our lives today. Brave New World is focused on the pre-conditioning of one's mind to live as the government wants one to live. Now someone could say that our government forcing children to attend school and forcing them to learn about our government, the way society functions, and learn about the morals of our country is in the same boat as the pre-conditioning that all children go through in Brave New World. However, I don't know any intellectual out there that understands how the world works that would disagree with subjecting the children of this nation to mandatory education. And because the "pre-conditioning" that goes on in today's society is not at all considered bad, combined with the fact that Huxley's conditioning was written as a warning, comes to a conclusion that Brave NEw World is irrelevant in todays society. It is a valid sign of the changing of times when something occurs that a person warned us as about and that something is not that bad.

1984, I believe was not geared towards our nation but several psychological ideas were presented that I found fasicinating. The idea that the past is alterable, only because that everything that is left of the past is alterable, including one's mind. I look back on the early times in our nation, and the only thing that is left is history books. So I wonder, is what we read about the truth, or is it at least a little subjective due to the fact that no living person could correct the history book because it is the same book he learned from. What do you all think?

On a personal note, sorry about the political stuff, I let my opinion slip! -?

[Robert E Lee]

Brave New World and 1984 I believe were both strong warnings about the powers of governments in our thoughts and daily lives. I believe that Brave New World has little if no relevance in how we live our lives today. Brave New World is focused on the pre-conditioning of one's mind to live as the government wants one to live. Now someone could say that our government forcing children to attend school and forcing them to learn about our government, the way society functions, and learn about the morals of our country is in the same boat as the pre-conditioning that all children go through in Brave New World. However, I don't know any intellectual out there that understands how the world works that would disagree with subjecting the children of this nation to mandatory education. And because the "pre-conditioning" that goes on in today's society is not at all considered bad, combined with the fact that Huxley's conditioning was written as a warning, comes to a conclusion that Brave NEw World is irrelevant in todays society. It is a valid sign of the changing of times when something occurs that a person warned us as about and that something is not that bad.

1984, I believe was not geared towards our nation but several psychological ideas were presented that I found fasicinating. The idea that the past is alterable, only because that everything that is left of the past is alterable, including one's mind. I look back on the early times in our nation, and the only thing that is left is history books. So I wonder, is what we read about the truth, or is it at least a little subjective due to the fact that no living person could correct the history book because it is the same book he learned from. What do you all think?

On a personal note, sorry about the political stuff, I let my opinion slip! :-?


It's more than just mandatory education in America; it's flat-out propaganda. AP US history ought to be titled AP US propaganda. We have to write essays about how America keeps becoming more democratic.

[apstudent]

Sorry, I don't see how making a student write an essay on how the US is becoming more democratic can qualify as propoganda. Please, explain your thoughts.

[Koa]

I think tho, that 1984 reflects an awful lot the era when it was written- soon after the II World War, somehow at the start of the cold war. i remember i could see in that book an almost obsessive fear of dictatorship. Obviously, given the historical period/condition. (i guess this opinion of mine sounds really too naive, as that's what the book is about....anyway....)


Well Koa,

I don't know what you do not understand about Heart of Darkness, so I will talk about the basic physcological approach of the book.

What Kurtz was, was just a different side of the main character(I forgot his name, I will call him Bill). Bill's travel down the Congo River is a voyage into himself, a glimpse of what Bill could be if he decided to totally abandon the morals of society as he plunges into this unknown world. Kurtz used to be the same as Bill, but the tempting ability of being unbounded by the values and customs of civilization appealed to him and Kurtz decided to stay there.

Another major agenda of Heart of Darkness is to talk about the nature of truth and the unknown. Conrad uses extensive imagery to portray the unknown as fearful. He uses such physical devices such as fog and darkness as symbols for the unkown. Pertaining to truth, Bill states that there is nothing worse than a lie, in multiple ways.

Well, I hope this is just a start to our discussions.

Well thanks, i start seeing more clearer in it...

I was wondering tho, what's the rule of IVORY there? I read the last part in a rush cos i had to start studying anohter book before that, and i didn't even understand if Kurtz was there also looking for ivory or whatever....and if he was, was he exploiting the country/the natives? And what about the other people (i mean, the europeans)? i've seen ivory mentioned there, without understanding exactly in which respect...
Thanks.

[Robert E Lee]

Sorry, I don't see how making a student write an essay on how the US is becoming more democratic can qualify as propoganda. Please, explain your thoughts.

History is not viewed objectively. All the class does is glorify the flag. Get your head out of your ***.

[hadji9]

Sorry, I don't see how making a student write an essay on how the US is becoming more democratic can qualify as propoganda. Please, explain your thoughts.

History is not viewed objectively. All the class does is glorify the flag. Get your head out of your ***.

Perhaps apstudent is right . . . "I don't see how making a student write an essay [blah...blah...blah...] can qualify as propaganda;&quot since the teachers are doing what they have been raised to believe is the proper, ethical method of running a classroom. However, Lee made a very general point that history is indeed viewed subjectively and that education, as a function of the State, must ensure the posterity of American democracy (or more precisely, republicanism). In fact, that is the sole purpose of institutionalized education: to indoctrinate the children that will one day constitute the majority of our population. We wouldn't want to have our own student revolution like France did in '68?

Personally I believe that American ideology rests on some particularly unstable foundations (i.e., the Roman view that the West should conquer the East), but what does that mean and, likewise, who cares? The world can't be wholly reduced to politics or economics, but they certainly have an important place in our existence. Don't take my words too seriously, though, who doesn't care that a controversial war is going take place very soon? We all need to stand up for what we believe in, but keep in mind that we are fortunate to be able to sit here and probe these delicate subjects without fear of serious persecution, exile, or even worse, genocide.

[apstudent]

Robert Lee.

I would love to see you live in a country that has no democracy. Then you would crave dearly to be in the position to write an essay describing how your country is becoming more democratic. I forgive you though, its not your fault your spoiled and don't know it. I know your kind, pampered from the day you were born, the kind that would run to Canada if you got drafted, you unpatriotic pussy. Your name itself, shows your nature. Oh well, thanks for taking a vivid role in my nice discussion.

[Shuai]

Robert Lee.

I would love to see you live in a country that has no democracy. Then you would crave dearly to be in the position to write an essay describing how your country is becoming more democratic. I forgive you though, its not your fault your spoiled and don't know it. I know your kind, pampered from the day you were born, the kind that would run to Canada if you got drafted, you unpatriotic pussy. Your name itself, shows your nature. Oh well, thanks for taking a vivid role in my nice discussion.

Dude, you are being WAY too harsh. You have to realize that being patriotic to America today is just being stupid. Everything that America is doing right now is debasing what morals we supposedly have. I'm not against democracy or anything, it's just that in many cases (like this one) democracy can screw its citizens in the ***.

I mean, sure we get to enjoy a lot of stuff that people in other countries don't get to enjoy, but we are, as a nation, being a real ******* to the rest of the world. With this in mind, we have no excuse to say that we are the greatest country in the world, we have no right to invade Iraq, and fleeing to Canada if you get drafted is a smart thing to do when your war is purely based on obtaining oil.

[Shuai]

ALSO- Writing an essay about how your country is becoming more democratic is imprinting the idea in student's heads that your country is becoming even better. Hence the idea that your country is better than other countries who don't show the same changes. Hence PROPAGANDA!!!

Another thing that I just have to mention is that, out of all the countries, America spreads the most propaganda. What do you think that Bush monkey is doing every time he makes a speech? And while we're on the topic, what's with patriotism? It all started right after 9/11. My question is why. Being patriotic after a terroist attack is like getting mugged and braging about it.

[apstudent]

You can't think that the ONLY reason for attacking Iraq is for oil. You definetely wouln't be saying that if Bush left Sadam with is weapons of mass destruction to do what he wants. I am not saying that it is a for sure thing that America is going to be violently attacked if we don't go to war, just that I would be a lot more comforted if I knew someone was doing something to try to ensure my saftey. That is why I would go anywhere, should I ever be drafted, cause somebody has got to do it, and it sure is not gonna be the liberals. Ha Ha. Just Kidding.
I guess I was a little harsh on that poor Robert shlub, but, hey, if anyone tells me to get my head out of my ***, my temper flairs a little bit. I jsut wanted to hear his reasons behind the issue, yah know trying to start a discussion, yah know Robert, what people do on forums. Oh well, I apologize to you Robert, may your days be filled with people that are smaller than you, so when you lip off with your dumbness and lack of patience, that you won't get totally mauled like what would have happened had you said that to my face. Ohhhh, the internet, where people can talk trash without backing it up.

[apstudent]

Oh yah, lets get back on the subject of classic novels. That is where this started, I think!!!!!!!!!

Anybody?

[Shuai]

Dude, that was the most harsh apology I ever heard!

ALSO- The war is all about oil. Do you know what the range is on those missiles? 150km. The UN banned everything above 130km, but those missiles that Iraq have can barely reach Turkey. And besides, have you ever thought of the definete prospect that when we do go to war with Iraq, that any missiles that Iraq does have will be used on us anyways?

As to those books, I haven't read any of them, but plan on doing so in the near future.

[apstudent]

Are you assuming that the only missles that Iraq posseses are known by the UN? I would think not. This is like a neddle in a 30 square mile,20 feet high haystack. And, the weapons that I am afraid of are not really the missles, they are the dirty bombs. Bombs that spread large diseases infecting thousands. Those, in my opinion, are definitely in reach of Iraq's building and executing capabilities.

[hadji9]

Robert Lee.

I would love to see you live in a country that has no democracy. Then you would crave dearly to be in the position to write an essay describing how your country is becoming more democratic. I forgive you though, its not your fault your spoiled and don't know it. I know your kind, pampered from the day you were born, the kind that would run to Canada if you got drafted, you unpatriotic pussy. Your name itself, shows your nature. Oh well, thanks for taking a vivid role in my nice discussion.

F.Y.I., apstudent, the United States isn't the benevolent democracy that someone who is unaware of the Iran/Contra affair, the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment, and the countless scandals in the LAPD, &c., believes it to be just because they read somewhere that living in the USSR during the Cold War was bogus. The fact of the matter is, all of the recent conflicts that the United States government has exploited in an effort to "justify" their assault upon Iraq and the Middle-east are a direct cause of their own actions. Don't believe me? Ask yourself why we are going to war with Iraq in the first place? . . . you'll probably come up with some vague answer like "because Saddam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) fully armed and possibly on first-alert status aimed directly at our country." Overlooking the obvious economic motives that, I believe, the US has masked, let's consider the possibility that George W. Bush -- an adamant supporter of his father's self-proclaimed breech of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (est. Dec. 1948) during the proxy overthrow of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas (that's right, the same Sandinistas we aided and funded several years prior to overthrow the Somoza dictator regime) -- is instigating a conflict in Iraq to defend (though you seldom hear the terms "defend" and "instigate" in the same sentence) the free world from an "anti-American camel jockey who's got a nuke in one fist and a magic genie lamp in the other." Now that's what I call intimidation.

Anyway, what's the deal with WMDs? Why are they so popular with the Arab world? The problem with criticizing "terrorists" and "evildoers" who have tried to get their hands on nuclear weapons (the only weapons that I think should be termed "WMDs") is that we -- Americans -- were the fist to get them. Ok, so what? Doesn't deterrence solve . . . I mean, noone's ever fired a nuclear weapon at another country (during WWI we used atomic, not nuclear weapons), right? Well, yeah, but faith in deterrence is ultimately a faith in hollow threats. The US would never fire a nuclear weapon at Iraq, and Hussein knows it . . . the Nuclear fallout would spread through the desert winds like a brushfire and make Middle-eastern oil completely useless if we could ever get to it at all. But the US has to threaten Iraq to maintain a margin of undecidability that Hussein must forever be conscious of and that is what is known as "calculated ambiguity". Great idea, huh? Not exactly. The problem with calculated ambiguity is that it creates a commitment trap in the event that Hussein (an irrational leader?) decides to risk it all go ahead and develop nukes anyway. If the US were to back down from their "commitment" the US nuclear deterrence would cease to deter. Besides, has history taught us nothing? Why does leadership appeal to men? Do you really think that it is simply to antagonize and provoke other leaders? No, powerful leaders want to stay in power and any risk of losing that is a risk not worth taking. Even if Saddam did assault us with nuclear weapons; even if he annihilated the entire continental US, he would not be safe from US secondary deterrence (the nukes we put on submarines). Jeez, we sure do have a lot of nukes lying around, don't we? Well, we pride ourself as such is the case . . . with nuclear weapons nobody can touch us. . . and, Likewise, whoever else has nukes cannot be touched. My belief is that the US has made nuclear weapons a token of a nation's greatness: nuclear weapons are a symbol of equality, for noone will claim that possessing 5,000 nuclear weapons is necessarily superior to possessing a modest 500. 500 nuclear weapons are enough to blow the earth into two peices (which is exactly what the Russians have developed: a nuke that can drill into the Earth's crust and blow our little rock in two, sending it spiraling out of orbit). In fact, 5,000 nukes is a lot more nukes sitting around that can be taken out with relative ease by conventional missiles.

I think it would be appropriate for me to conclude this with some sort of alternative . . . let me know what you think. I propose that the United States take all of its nuclear weapons off first-alert status and maintain a solemn oath not to initiate an assault with nuclear weapons . . . in fact, nuclear weapons would only be used by the US if it were assaulte with nukes first. There is no doubt, the US has the strongest conventional force in the world; our conventional deterrence will still keep Saddam out of our hair and even if he did assault us with nukes (assuming he is an irrational leader, which he obviouly isn't since he hasn't made any attempt to provoke the US since he took power) we would have the right to respond to his assault with our secondary nuclear deterrent (the only nuclear deterrent we would offer). Additionally, we would not respond to chemical or biological weapons with nuclear weapons, only other chemical or biological weapons. The idea is that noone would launch a nuclear assault on the US for fear of a retaliation strike and since our conventional deterrent is strong enough to suppress any opposing conventional threat (the only threat that we could not respond to with some sort of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon) we could gain the trust of hostile countris who feel that the US has been unwilling to make concessions over its nuclear arsenal. Anyway, food for thought.

[Koa]

I'm not going to get involved in a political discussion here, but i had a question about the rule of ivory in heart of darkness. Thanks.

[Shuai]

Hey, apstudent. You have to realize something here. This war is unpreventable in any case. Let's say that Iraq does have extremely powerful weapons that the UN inspectors haven't found yet. What happens when we find them? What's to stop Bush monkey from saying "We still believe that Iraq is hiding weapons from us."? The bottom line is, we don't believe Iraq because we don't want to believe Iraq. Or we already do believe Iraq and we want oil. Or, the most likely reason, we don't know, and we don't care. We just want oil. You might ask yourself, "If we want oil, why not go after a country like Saudi Arabia or something?" Well, Iraq is the only oil country ever to have the balls to say, "If America isn't behaving properly, let's not sell them oil." You see, we are at fault here. We were even at fault in the first Gulf War. Did you know that Kuwait was actually drilling sideways into Iraqi oil wells? Why? Because they're damn greedy bastards, like many of the politicians in America, like Bush monkey for example.

We should model ourselves after the European countrues. Instead of invading other countries to get oil, we should cut back on our usage and make gas cost $6.00 a gallon. That should teach these f***ers to conserve a little.

[apstudent]

Hmmm. The rule of ivory? What I got out of the situation with the ivory was pretty literal. The reason that Kurtz was originally out there was to search for ivory, and then he got caught up in the uncivilized madness. Symbollically, i thought the color of the ivory represented the nature of humans. Assuming that white is a symbol for good and black is a symbol for bad, as seen in many classic novels, the off white color of ivory is saying that one can never be completely good. As hard as they try, they will always be a little off white, as the ivory is.

This is what I got from it. I don't really know if that is what it means, but I hope it helps.

[Koa]

Better than the nothing i had in mind ;) Thanks

[apstudent]

Shuai,

The admin asked me not to engage in a political discussion on his forum, so I am hoping to end it right here. I have my opinions, and you have yours. Sorry this discussion couldn't continue, it would have been fun.

[Shuai]

Very well. Maybe some other time.

As to the topic of ivory, doesn't it seem kind of racist? Personally, I would have always thought the color red to represent evil (representing the fire in Hell, the color of blood, and the color that many cartoons show as being the color of Satan's skin).

[apstudent]

It is not my personal belief, but it was the form of the authors of that era. Darkness represents evil, and whiteness purity. It is definetely not my belief, but to analyze the books off that time, one must realize these distinctions. Nowadays, it would definetely be racist to make these assumptions.

[Shuai]

Nowadays, by many, using this metaphor is not considered to be racist at all. If you've read The Wheel of Time Series by Robert Jordan, you would see this theme popping up very often. And no, this is not an old series. The latest book just came out last year.

[apstudent]

I guess your right, to use it as a metaphor would not be considered racist, but to apply it to every day life, as with skin would be. Or to associate characteristics to anything without fully undertandin it would be. I agree, in modern literature, it pops up quite often.

[Shuai]

So, in how many days is your exam coming up?

[apstudent]

It is in the begginnig of May, so I have a little time to prepare.

I would also like to note that in Heart of Darkness, the metaphor for evil and good stemmed not from skin color, but from the fear of the unkown. The main character was so deathly afraid of the unknown, and several times through the book, darkness just emphasizes this fear. As far as Heart of Darkness being a racist book, some might consider it now, but at the time it was written, it was very progressive. Conrad explained, in details rich with imagery the suffering the white race caused the aboriginees of Africa.

[Shuai]

You still have two entire months to prepare? :o

You can easily reread every book on that list in that time.

[apstudent]

The thing is, every book on that list I have read in the past three months so they are pretty fresh on my mind. lol

[hadji9]

It is in the begginnig of May, so I have a little time to prepare.

I would also like to note that in Heart of Darkness, the metaphor for evil and good stemmed not from skin color, but from the fear of the unkown. The main character was so deathly afraid of the unknown, and several times through the book, darkness just emphasizes this fear. As far as Heart of Darkness being a racist book, some might consider it now, but at the time it was written, it was very progressive. Conrad explained, in details rich with imagery the suffering the white race caused the aboriginees of Africa.

apstudent, the fear of the unkown and the fear of Africans (blacks) are reciprocal ephemisms that stem from the same Western (white) belief that in order to comprehed truth we must be able to "seize" it (the etymology of "comprehension" entails a seizing or taking hold of). The lack of any metaphysical beliefs in uncultured African tribes (since their beliefs, like the natve americans, were wholly temporal) is what separates Western imperialism from Eastern isolationism. In the eyes of the Occident, we are at the center of all cultures (where truth lies) and the Orient lay on the margins (sufficiently distanced from the center or "Truth"). I recommed reading Edward Said's 'Orientalism' or William V. Spanos' 'America's Shadow: Anatomy of Empire' . . . AP test panelists eat that sort thing up. I quoted outside sources when I evaluated 'Ulysss' and 'Gravity's Rainbow' for my AP exam and got a perfect score.

[apstudent]

Thanx, I will try to read those books. What era are they from? -?

[Robert E Lee]

About Brave New World again. It is relevant to today's America because it, unlike Orwell's 1984, shows you a society where people willingly accept a not-so-democratic regime.

And to apstudent: America isn't the only republic on this planet. There is greater freedom in France.

[hadji9]

Thanx, I will try to read those books. What era are they from? :-?

Said (Sigh-eed) and Spanos are both post-Modernists. 'America's Shadow: Anatomy of Empire' was released in 2000 and 'Orientalism' isn't that much older. I once saw Spanos give a lecture when I was on a debate tournament in New York, he is a total nihilist . . . his theory is perhaps the most radical of post-Colonial (a form of post-Modernism) doctrine to date. You'll find that Spanos is so difficult to read that gathering enough information from the first ten pages is enough to get you through an entire AP exam. Additionally, Spanos tends to repeat the same ideas over and over again. Said, on the other hand, is relatively more accessible. He is critically acclaimed throughout the entire world (unlike Spanos, who is considered a recluse) and is really the first literary theorist to pay homage to multi-cultural literature, especially from the middle-east. You shouldn't have any trouble with Said, but Spanos is going to be a challenge for anyone who tries to tackle him. Spanos is a Heidegger scholar, so you might want to pick up a copy of 'Introducing Heidegger' from your local bookstore. The 'Introducing' series is truly spectacular, they manage to penetrate all the nonsense and give you all the essential information. 'Introducing Heidegger' should only take you a few hours to read, and while you're at it why not pick up a copy of 'Introducing Derrida'? Derrida is a lot like Spanos . . . Spanos even quotes him throughout 'America's Shadow'. Both Heidegger and Derrida are concerned with language. Heidegger's big question was "what is is"? Or, the question of Being. That led Heidegger to question how far language will take us in our journey towards the question of our own existence. Derrida picks up where Heidegger leaves off (he never did answer the question of Being) and says, basically, that we can never transcend language; language is all we know (language not in the sense that we know it, but all signs: visual, audial, sensual, &c.). Signs contain meaning (such as the word "one") only through their relationship to other words (like the word "two" or "three" or "cat" or "flauccinocinihilpilificatious"). The word "one", according to Derrida, means what it means because it is not any of the other words in the English language. The point I am trying to make is basically this: "uno" and "one" mean essentially the same thing, right? In fact, they mean exactly the same thing . . . the only difference is their position in their own system of language (English or Spanish, or any other system). Spanos takes this idea and says basically that without some sort of opposition like father/son, male/female, original/derivitive,&c. there cannot be identity. In other words, difference is the condition for identity. The West's identity was formed based on a necessary opposition to the East's identity . . so Western imperialim is not based any sort of Universal "Truth", rather, it is a dichotomy where one term is favored and the other marginalized . . . just like everythig in life, right? Anyway, it gets a lot more complex than that, but that is the long and the short of it.

[crisaor]

About Brave New World again. It is relevant to today's America because it, unlike Orwell's 1984, shows you a society where people willingly accept a not-so-democratic regime.
That's true, and also, i'd like to add that even if there is no pre-conditioning (i.e. cloning, DNA manipulation, brainwashing and the like) in today's world, or at least, not openly, there is adult conditioning. Through the media, mostly. The new teen band, the new set of electronic equipment, the new car, and any other normal and desirable entertainment (cinema, sports, etc.) can easily be used to distract us from the main picture, whatever this may be.

On a final note, patriotism is one of humanity's biggest horrors. In the name of the piece of land we were born we slaughter anyone just because they're from somewhere else????? That's just plan stupid, and evil. Huxley said that patriotism equals nationalism, and that nationalism leads to military conscription within the country and to imperialism outside of it.

[Robert E Lee]

About Brave New World again. It is relevant to today's America because it, unlike Orwell's 1984, shows you a society where people willingly accept a not-so-democratic regime.
That's true, and also, i'd like to add that even if there is no pre-conditioning (i.e. cloning, DNA manipulation, brainwashing and the like) in today's world, or at least, not openly, there is adult conditioning. Through the media, mostly. The new teen band, the new set of electronic equipment, the new car, and any other normal and desirable entertainment (cinema, sports, etc.) can easily be used to distract us from the main picture, whatever this may be.

On a final note, patriotism is one of humanity's biggest horrors. In the name of the piece of land we were born we slaughter anyone just because they're from somewhere else????? That's just plan stupid, and evil. Huxley said that patriotism equals nationalism, and that nationalism leads to military conscription within the country and to imperialism outside of it.

I couldn't agree more.

As a work of literature Brave New World is still superior. 1984 takes the easy route by making the dystopian society as despicable as possible and as unlikable as possible. Huxley, on the other hand, tempts us to dream of a society such as the one depicted in his book. And at the end of the book, he almost negates the rest by making the choice of government not "democracy vs. authoritarianism" but rather a choice between primitive religious fanaticism and cold, unemotional, slavery disguised as liberty. Thus, BNW is a thematically richer work and more fun to discuss.

[hadji9]

Thus, BNW is a thematically richer work and more fun to discuss.

Orwell can't write fiction, it's a fact. 1984 is packed full of literary and grammatical errors. I'm not saying that it isn't a decent story, but Orwell should have stuck to writing political essays.

[apstudent]

Thus, BNW is a thematically richer work and more fun to discuss.

Orwell can't write fiction, it's a fact. 1984 is packed full of literary and grammatical errors. I'm not saying that it isn't a decent story, but Orwell should have stuck to writing political essays.

OK, no. 1984 is in fact a well-written fiction. Any grammatical errors in the book are the fault of the editor. I do however, agree with Robert E. Lee when he says that Brave New World is better, because Huxley provokes the reader to almost like the futuristic civilization that is presented opposed to Orwell who creates a lifestyle in which no reader in their right mind would enjoy. Just because it is better has no bearing on the merit of Orwell as a writer though. I read Animal Farm and I loved it.

And to crisasor. I could not disagree anymore about patriotism. Without patriotism, we would have absolutely no military, because no one would be proud enough of our country and the rights of our country to fight for what we believe in. I have never seen any case in which the United States has "slaughtered" any other people for the only reason that they are different. It is true that we have, as a country done some things that I am not proud of. It is also true however, that I am very proud to say that my country has learned from its mistakes and will never make these mistakes to the same degree again. To not be proud, or even give normal respect to a country that tries to do so much for its people borders anit-American. Maybe we don't have as much freedom as France, but we do have a standard of living that makes other countries jelous to the point of hatred, and if you cannot respect what our country gives because of democracy, than you should find some other place to live.

[hadji9]

Thus, BNW is a thematically richer work and more fun to discuss.

Orwell can't write fiction, it's a fact. 1984 is packed full of literary and grammatical errors. I'm not saying that it isn't a decent story, but Orwell should have stuck to writing political essays.

OK, no. 1984 is in fact a well-written fiction. Any grammatical errors in the book are the fault of the editor.[/quote]

apstudent, 1984 isn't even supposed to be an ap english reading . . . we read it when I was a freshman in high school. I don't know where you are going to school, but if your ap teacher has taught you anything then you should know that Winston Smith is one of the most subjective, poorly developed characters in modern literature. Like I said though, 1984 is a great story and all that jazz, but it really isn't the literary masterpeice that a high school english teacher with a masters in educations makes it out to be . . .

[TexaninNihon]

About Brave New World again. It is relevant to today's America because it, unlike Orwell's 1984, shows you a society where people willingly accept a not-so-democratic regime.
That's true, and also, i'd like to add that even if there is no pre-conditioning (i.e. cloning, DNA manipulation, brainwashing and the like) in today's world, or at least, not openly, there is adult conditioning. Through the media, mostly. The new teen band, the new set of electronic equipment, the new car, and any other normal and desirable entertainment (cinema, sports, etc.) can easily be used to distract us from the main picture, whatever this may be.

On a final note, patriotism is one of humanity's biggest horrors. In the name of the piece of land we were born we slaughter anyone just because they're from somewhere else????? That's just plan stupid, and evil. Huxley said that patriotism equals nationalism, and that nationalism leads to military conscription within the country and to imperialism outside of it.

[TexaninNihon]

Patriotism is one of humanity's biggest horrors???????

What a GEM.

No. Let me tell you what a horror of humanity is. A bunch of oppressed people from all over europe come together and start a country that in the last 150 years has been responsible for inventing the automobile, the airplane, and for discovering electricity. It is a country where foreigners can come to travel, study, live, or even learn to fly an airplane. Then if said group of foreigners wants to have a place to worship their religion, it will be provided for them, courtesy of the American government, that stresses freedom of religion.

The horror hasn't happened yet. The horror is what would happen to me if I put on an American flag cap and a "Jesus is the King" shirt and went to any one of a number of countries in the middle east. That's right, I would be taken' out on the local soccer pitch, (one whose financing was paid by the US) and shot in the back of the head. I'm not religious to any great extent, but I'm sure that minus the shirt the result would be much the same.

Patriotism is great. America is great. Don't misunderstand me, though, the French make the best cheese and the prize for best car goes to either Italy or Germany, depending on your preferences. I'll give best classical music to 20th century Russia.

Well, I'm looking for a really good book. I'm in the mood for a good patriotic book. Any recommendations? Maybe today, I'll listen to Copland's 3rd symphony, then read a book, eat some French cheese (if they have it in my little Japanese town) and make a choice about whether or not to watch TV, knowing, or at least pretty darn sure, that neither President Bush, nor President Koizumi have a list of "TV owners" with my name on it.

[TexaninNihon]

Hey, alright. This is getting to be fun. I'm starting to like you guys, because at least you have opinions, which is always better than just shrugging your shoulders and saying, "uuuunnnn".

What do you guys say to this? I'll open up a new topic in "General Chat" called, "The Anything Debates". We can continue this there. How's about keeping it nice and leaving out the F bombs if at all possible. By the way, when you type "F***", it is just as silly. Come on folks. Yee-hawwww!
"The Anything Debates". Got it?

Possible subjects including, but not limited to:
Patriotism,
Iraqi conflict,
UN (does it matter?)
abortion,
Porsche/Ferarri which is the ultimate sports car?

[hadji9]

That was probably the worst jusification I have ever heard to the opinion of "patriotism is legit". Patriotism is a form of nationalism that transpired after the fall of the French aristocracy in the very early 19th century. Napolean was a nationalist, and his view on it was such that if he could keep the multitude convinced of their nation's greatness by waging and winning a seemingly endless series of grandiose battles, then he could keep them from questioning "popular" ethos and, subsequently, overthrowing the regime he had established. In other words, if you can get the common citizens to ask the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers. What peasant doesn't like bloodied guts and gore, that's the theatrical appeal of war. We all have to get a peice of that pie while we're still around to gobble it up.

[TexaninNihon]

What are you talking about? You sure as heck aren't talking about me and my patriotism for America.

It's folks like you that in your young and overly enthusiastic, yet naive academic arrogance tend to spout of lots of words that don't pertain to what it is that you are trying to defend, or attack.

Tell me, very clearly, as if I was a kindergarten student,
"How does my being a patriotic American" commit horrors on the rest of humanity. And if you are going to resort to some spunk about how Bush is more evil than Saddam, I guess I can't change your mind, can I? Everyone picks their own battles.

If it is such a horrific thing for an American in the year 2004 to be patriotic, just explain, without talking about the history of the word and its Napoleonic roots, why.

Why don't you guys just try to be a little bit less "Blowhard" and try to make room in your heads for other points of view. My view is that you need to graduate high school or college or whatever institution from which you think that you are currently getting an education and go live abroad for a while. I picked Japan. You pick a place. Anywhere abroad will do the trick. It will help you see what a truly great place America is. Oops. I said it again. Somewhere in the world, 20-40 million people were slaughtered again, because I said it.

[hadji9]

What are you talking about? You sure as heck aren't talking about me and my patriotism for America.

It's folks like you that in your young and overly enthusiastic, yet naive academic arrogance tend to spout of lots of words that don't pertain to what it is that you are trying to defend, or attack.

Tell me, very clearly, as if I was a kindergarten student,
"How does my being a patriotic American" commit horrors on the rest of humanity. And if you are going to resort to some spunk about how Bush is more evil than Saddam, I guess I can't change your mind, can I? Everyone picks their own battles.

If it is such a horrific thing for an American in the year 2004 to be patriotic, just explain, without talking about the history of the word and its Napoleonic roots, why.

Why don't you guys just try to be a little bit less "Blowhard" and try to make room in your heads for other points of view. My view is that you need to graduate high school or college or whatever institution from which you think that you are currently getting an education and go live abroad for a while. I picked Japan. You pick a place. Anywhere abroad will do the trick. It will help you see what a truly great place America is. Oops. I said it again. Somewhere in the world, 20-40 million people were slaughtered again, because I said it.

I am sorry, have I upset you? I apologize. You talk as if being 'unpatriotic' were the social norm of the day. You are entirely mistaken. Additionally, I don't understand how you -- a student in a country that has no military except what the American government has allowed it to have -- can make any claim whatsoever to 'cultural objectivism'. I recommend you go stay in a country like France or Belgium and get a real taste of what living in a society wholly unlike that of America is really like. Of course, you would charge me with the immodest task of living in the caves of Afghanistan to test my liberal beliefs; fair enough. The problem with that logic (and, likewise, the people who exploit it) is that it (and they) ultimately come(s) as a slap in the face to the kind of liberty that you people think you are supporting. Maybe you never thought about it, but perhaps genocide isn't just biological. Perhaps there are other kinds of genocide such as cultural genocide, like the kind that is currently running rampant throughout Europe and America. For example, we criticize the Middle-East because women are given virtually no rights as citizens or even human beings, and government is run as a kind of theocratic dictatorship. What you don't ever take into account is that these people adhere to a certain belief system (not unlike that of the Europeans until natural rights were born in the 18th century and women's suffrage in the early 20th century) that is based on these fundamentals: the superiority of man and the authority of religion. Who are we to march into their country and tell them that they are wrong? In their eyes we are morally repugnant, imperialistic heretics; and who can blame them? We want to spread democracy everywhere because we -- Europeans -- are convinced that it is right and right for everyone.

As per your request for some sort of justification for how your being a pariotic American commits horrors on the rest of humanity, I can't justify something like that. I am in no way condemning you, rather, I am skeptical and critical of an institution that sneers at un-European cultures and lashes out against "rogue nations" (a self-fulfilling term) that seek new types of weapons in order to defend themselves (such as India and Pakistan: two hostile neighbors who developed nuclear arms to deter each other from attacking) rather than provoke the largest military force in our history. I don't think Bush is necessarily "evil" per se, but he is certainly looking for any excuse to warrant a conflict in Iraq. Ask yourself this . . . what has Saddam ever done to provoke the US? You might say he is a dictator who tortures his own people . . . but then why did we overthrow a dictatorship regime in Nicaragua and establish a peaceful democracy under the Sandinistas only to overthrow them (without the consent of the UN or our own congress) and establish a new dictatorship when we saw that they wanted to run and operate the government themselves, without the US interfering? Why isn't Reagan a criminal of war? You might also say that it is because Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction. So? North Korea has WMDs, China has WMDs; these are both potentially hostile countries.However, neither of them have oil.

Anyway, here is a copy of an earlier and more in depth justification of why support for war in Iraq is illegit . . . Read it. Learn it. Love it.

F.Y.I., apstudent, the United States isn't the benevolent democracy that someone who is unaware of the Iran/Contra affair, the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment, and the countless scandals in the LAPD, &c., believes it to be just because they read somewhere that living in the USSR during the Cold War was bogus. The fact of the matter is, all of the recent conflicts that the United States government has exploited in an effort to "justify" their assault upon Iraq and the Middle-east are a direct cause of their own actions. Don't believe me? Ask yourself why we are going to war with Iraq in the first place? . . . you'll probably come up with some vague answer like "because Saddam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) fully armed and possibly on first-alert status aimed directly at our country." Overlooking the obvious economic motives that, I believe, the US has masked, let's consider the possibility that George W. Bush -- an adamant supporter of his father's self-proclaimed breech of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (est. Dec. 1948) during the proxy overthrow of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas (that's right, the same Sandinistas we aided and funded several years prior to overthrow the Somoza dictator regime) -- is instigating a conflict in Iraq to defend (though you seldom hear the terms "defend" and "instigate" in the same sentence) the free world from an "anti-American camel jockey who's got a nuke in one fist and a magic genie lamp in the other." Now that's what I call intimidation.

Anyway, what's the deal with WMDs? Why are they so popular with the Arab world? The problem with criticizing "terrorists" and "evildoers" who have tried to get their hands on nuclear weapons (the only weapons that I think should be termed "WMDs") is that we -- Americans -- were the fist to get them. Ok, so what? Doesn't deterrence solve . . . I mean, noone's ever fired a nuclear weapon at another country (during WWI we used atomic, not nuclear weapons), right? Well, yeah, but faith in deterrence is ultimately a faith in hollow threats. The US would never fire a nuclear weapon at Iraq, and Hussein knows it . . . the Nuclear fallout would spread through the desert winds like a brushfire and make Middle-eastern oil completely useless if we could ever get to it at all. But the US has to threaten Iraq to maintain a margin of undecidability that Hussein must forever be conscious of and that is what is known as "calculated ambiguity". Great idea, huh? Not exactly. The problem with calculated ambiguity is that it creates a commitment trap in the event that Hussein (an irrational leader?) decides to risk it all go ahead and develop nukes anyway. If the US were to back down from their "commitment" the US nuclear deterrence would cease to deter. Besides, has history taught us nothing? Why does leadership appeal to men? Do you really think that it is simply to antagonize and provoke other leaders? No, powerful leaders want to stay in power and any risk of losing that is a risk not worth taking. Even if Saddam did assault us with nuclear weapons; even if he annihilated the entire continental US, he would not be safe from US secondary deterrence (the nukes we put on submarines). Jeez, we sure do have a lot of nukes lying around, don't we? Well, we pride ourself as such is the case . . . with nuclear weapons nobody can touch us. . . and, Likewise, whoever else has nukes cannot be touched. My belief is that the US has made nuclear weapons a token of a nation's greatness: nuclear weapons are a symbol of equality, for noone will claim that possessing 5,000 nuclear weapons is necessarily superior to possessing a modest 500. 500 nuclear weapons are enough to blow the earth into two peices (which is exactly what the Russians have developed: a nuke that can drill into the Earth's crust and blow our little rock in two, sending it spiraling out of orbit). In fact, 5,000 nukes is a lot more nukes sitting around that can be taken out with relative ease by conventional missiles.

I think it would be appropriate for me to conclude this with some sort of alternative . . . let me know what you think. I propose that the United States take all of its nuclear weapons off first-alert status and maintain a solemn oath not to initiate an assault with nuclear weapons . . . in fact, nuclear weapons would only be used by the US if it were assaulte with nukes first. There is no doubt, the US has the strongest conventional force in the world; our conventional deterrence will still keep Saddam out of our hair and even if he did assault us with nukes (assuming he is an irrational leader, which he obviouly isn't since he hasn't made any attempt to provoke the US since he took power) we would have the right to respond to his assault with our secondary nuclear deterrent (the only nuclear deterrent we would offer). Additionally, we would not respond to chemical or biological weapons with nuclear weapons, only other chemical or biological weapons. The idea is that noone would launch a nuclear assault on the US for fear of a retaliation strike and since our conventional deterrent is strong enough to suppress any opposing conventional threat (the only threat that we could not respond to with some sort of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon) we could gain the trust of hostile countris who feel that the US has been unwilling to make concessions over its nuclear arsenal. Anyway, food for thought.

[TexaninNihon]

since this has nothing to do with "General Literature", I'll post a short reply in the General Chat section under "The Anything Debates".

[hadji9]

since this has nothing to do with "General Literature", I'll post a short reply in the General Chat section under "The Anything Debates".

You're kidding, right? Brave New World, 1984, We; these are all political novels which had a profound impact on the status quo. Everything you and I (and everyone here) have been discussing so far are the political ramifications of nationalism, socialism, capitalism, &c. that pervade all of these novels. I believe this is exactly the kind of discussion that literature should stimulate.

[Robert E Lee]

What's wrong with Napoleon? He freed the Jews and bestowed freedom upon Europe. Maybe, hadij, if you got rid of your stupid England-inspired lunacy, you'd understand what a great man Napoleon was.

I am neutral on Iraq.

I am against spending on almost anything other than defense.

I am in favor of racial segregation in schools.

[Admin]

This discussion is no longer about literature. If you can't discuss literature without getting all political, maybe you shouldn't.