|
Tuesday, 02 January 2007 14:05 |
By JOHN NORTH
HENDERSONVILLE ÇƒÓ UNC Asheville professor Sophie Mills fielded wide-ranging questions from the audience of about 45 people, following her Dec. 2 lecture that addressed similarities in attitudes between imperial Athens and its subjects and todayës United States and its war with Iraq.
Her lecture, based on Thucydides quote, "Not by receving kindness but by doing it to others do we acquire friends," was presented as part of the monthly Great Quotes series at UNCAës Kellogg Center.
The attendees of the meeting included members of the Institute for Applied Philosophy, the UNCA Philosophy Department and the general public.
 Opening
the questioning, Margo Nagel, a frequent attendee of the lecture
series, noted that she would "stay away from any comparison between
U.S. foreign policy and Athens." She then asked, "Is it possible to
read Athensë culture in a different way" than that which was presented
by Mills?
"Yes, itës possible," Mills replied.
The professor then was asked if she has drawn any parallels to any other cultures.
"Yes, absolutely ÇƒÓ World War II, the British Empire ... Thereës tons of work to be done," she answered.
A man asked, "How would (imperial) Athens have acted if there had been a body like the United Nations?"
"Theyëd probably try to manipulate it and have as many people on it as possible," Mills said with a smile.
Charles Rowe of Asheville queried, "What about political equality in (imperial) Athens?"
"Democracy, in fact, was a minority thing in Athens," Mills replied. "If you were a woman or a slave, you were outside of it."
However, she
quickly added, "It was a very progressive thing that they did in
(imperial) Athens, but in todayës world, it would be considered a
conservative democracy."
A woman asked what Athenians thought about the concept of heaven and hell.
"Typically, the
Greeks didnët get into ideas of heaven and hell," Mills replied. "The
important thing (to them) is what you do in the here and now."
Regarding the
Athenians, a man asked, "Apart from military actions ... coming to the
aid of their subjects ÇƒÓ did they try to win the hearts and minds of the
people?"
In response, the professor noted that "what they said ideologically about Athenians" was portrayed in Greek plays.
She added that "political speeches referenced this genre," as well as funeral speeches.
Following a brief break, a general audience discussion was held, with Don Emon serving as the moderator.
As for Iraq, a
man began by asking, "What happens if we donët attack them and they
attack Israel or us?" After acknowledging a tendency to act only in
defense, he said, "If Iëm convinced theyëre a threat, I say, ǃÚAttack
them!ë"
Regarding the
U.S. involvement in Iraq, another man asserted, "On a major scale, this
is a first ÇƒÓ in terms of pre-emptive war ÇƒÓ in U.S. history, based on a
claim of weapons of mass destruction ... Weëre engaged in this draining
war and I think (as a result) weëre severely discredited in the eyes of
the world, especially in the eyes of the Muslim world."
Emon replied, "Therefore, could I infer that we should never fight unless weëre first hit by a weapon of mass destruction?"
The man answered
that he would strike first only "if they were carrying out aggressive
action against Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia" or conducting a military
buildup at the border.
A young woman
asserted, "I definitely want a politician who is a good ǃÚoption
quarterback.ë" However, she added that "I think the options are changed
when youëre talking about nuclear weapons."
Directing his
comments to the woman, Emon asserted, "The firebombing of Tokyo with
conventional-type bombs killed more people than did the nuclear bombing
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
The woman
replied, "If country A, with which we have a treaty for mutual
self-protection, is attacked by country B, we should step in and help
them, but not with nuclear weapons."
She added, "Iëd rather have a leader who says, ǃÚI donët have just one answer, but rather, four options.ë"
Regarding the
U.S. military, a man said, "Weëre terribly over-committed. Weëve become
the worldës protector. We couldnët possibly help them if they all were
hit ... Thereës 180 countries that expect us to protect them. Thereës
no way we can help them all."
A woman lamented, "Iëve lost confidence in humanity. What Iëve heard tonight is depressing."
To the woman, Emon pointed out that the U.S. government "found reasons" to justify attacking Iraq that would win public support.
Agreeing, the
woman said, "Nothing has changed. To me, itës very discouraging. Itës a
very terrible situation and I think we should be ashamed of ourselves.
Why doesnët humanity change?"
To that end, Emon noted that the Institute for Applied Philosophy has heard about and discussed just-war theories.
A man then
observed, "ǃÚHow can we endear others to us by our good deedsë is my
understanding of the subject for tonight ÇƒÓ not war."
He added, "It
seems every time thereës an altruistic action, thereës someone who
tries to knock you off ... It seems to me there is room for a little
good deed out there."
Another man
said, "Using Israel as the point, we (the U.S.) support them because
theyëre the only natural democracy in the Middle East."
The man then
took to task the "young lady who would like to have (a leader with)
four options. At some point, youëve got to decide what youëre going to
do."
Ed OëKeefe
asserted, "I read recently that the United States spends more money
annually designing new weapons than any other country spends on its own
military budget. It canët just keep building up and expect peace to
come out of it.
"Has preparation for war ever led to peace?" OëKeefe asked. "Itës not a matter of weapons or oil ÇƒÓ itës where the heart is."
Playing the
devilës advocate, Emon said, "Some would say a reason we never went to
war with Russia is because there was assured mutual destruction."
In response, a
man said, "With some radical Muslims, if they get hold of a nuclear
weapon, they wonët be deterred" as were the Soviet Union and the U.S.
during the Cold War.
Another man said, "I think international relations have been tempered by good will and the exercise of power.
"To win friends and influence people, I think our president has used the exercise of power" to an excessive degree.
For instance, the man said, "Turkey has long been a staunch U.S. ally, but that has soured."
Continuing, the
man added "World War II was a demonstrably just cause" for war.
However, he said he would like to see more finesse in international
relations shown by the U.S. government. He also said he would like the
other element of the equation ÇƒÓ the use of good will ÇƒÓ balancing out
the exercise of force.
Taking a radically different tack, a man said, "The Iraq war could be an act of kindess because itës preventing future wars."
Emon then asked, "Do you have any concrete insight into that" claim? "A lot of things ǃÚcould be.ë"
Another man
asserted, "This whole conversation would have been very different if
weëd have conducted this war very differently." Specifically, he
lamented that the U.S. failed to make an all-out effort to defeat the
enemy from the start of the war in Iraq.
As for
deterrents, he added, "India and Pakistan do not go to war against each
other, but this is different. Weëre fighting tribes" in Iraq.
Further, the man
said, "Having been in Vietnam for 5-1/2 years during the war, if weëd
have done it different," the U.S. could have prevailed.
"Again, weëre not fighting a country, but different tribes."
Emon queried, "Would you be for reinstating the draft so we have enough forces?"
"Weëve got enough forces," the man replied.
A woman
observed, "We donët get information. Our information eeks out so
minutely. Weëre building a 104-acre embassy in the Green Zone (in Iraq)
ÇƒÓ bigger than the Vatican. What kind of message are we sending?"
Another woman
wondered, "Why canët we all get along? Does anyone here know the murder
rate in Washington, D.C. is great than that in Baghdad?"
At that point, several audience members disputed the womanës claim about Washingtonës murder rate.
Charles Rowe
then interjected, "There are circumstances where itës appropriate to go
to war. What we want of our elected leaders is to look at the solution
circumspectfully."
As for the war in Iraq, "It was all about weapons of mass destruction," Rowe said. "That was the real reason."
Diane Emon,
Donës wife, added, "Iëm hoping weëll hold more politiciansë feet to the
fire in the future after this experience ÇƒÓ and the same with the (news)
media."
A man said, "I
think the president is a very arrogant person. He doesnët give much
regard to Europe. Iëm more worried about our president and his attitude
than about the terrorists. His attitude is not what we need as a
leader. Weëre no better than any other country in the world. To be more
diplomatic is a good way to go. I think we are aggressors.
"To talk about
going into Iraq to promote democracy" is disingenious, he added. "If
there wasnët oil there," then the U.S. would not be in Iraq. "I think
we should listen to the rest of the world" and leave Iraq.
In presenting
her closing remarks, Mills noted the following two conclusions she had
reached during the audienceës wide-ranging discussion:
ï The question,
which a man raised and others exprressed concern about: "ǃÚWhat are they
saying about us?ë From that, she surmised that there seems to be an
innate desire for self-justification.
ï She sensed "a
great sense of disillusionment that "it wasnët true" about WMD in Iraq.
"We tend to forget history ÇƒÓ there were many people who were
exceedingly skeptical about weapons of mass destruction. But this has
been forgotten.
Mills said
Emonës question to one attendee of "What would you do?" was a good one.
"Itës easy to look from a distance" and to criticize after actions are
taken.
She also said
she was struck by the profundity of the comment that "we canët have
peace if weëre always preparing for war. That conflicts with the
ancient narrative that says, ǃÚPreparing for war is the best way to
guarantee peace.ë"
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
