enough Goff

Xenon Zi-Neng Yuan wenhuadageming at comcast.net
Wed Jul 23 23:26:20 MDT 2003

At 07:53 PM 7/23/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>One of the true pseudonymous lights of the list,
>Xenon, writes:

actually, that's my real name.  my father is a chemist with an eccentric
personality, and the name "sort of" sounded like my chinese name.

> >>funny, i don't see much of what you appear to see.
>and wasn't the bulk of
>stan goff's active duty on special forces?<<
>I'm not sure just what it is you are even trying to
>see, but you do seem to be stating something clearly
>here. I just don't know what it is.

you seem to be implying that goff is self-serving and devoid of morals.  at
least that's the vibe i'm getting...

> >>would guess that might
>explain the "not your typical grunt" tone.<<
>That he finished out his twenty years tells me
>something, as most don't.

i myself am skeptical about how he could have gone on for twenty years like
that, perhaps committing all sorts of atrocities as so many imperial
soldiers do, but then again, cognitive dissonance is a strange thing...

>  >> as for the lack of morality in
>his language, i don't know what standard you
>apparently have, but most of
>his writings online, particularly on politically left
>mailing lists and in
>his current "military matters" column for FRSO, seem
>plenty humanist enough
>- for me at least.<<
>Great, why don't you stick that material instead of
>defending Goff, who isn't even on this list?

he was a regular on this list until recently when he unsubscribed due to
the overwhelming amount of email and work on his hands.  also, see below...

> >>  and btw, they're (the military) now going deep
>into the
>reserves and even the national guard - from what i
>know (both personally
>and indirectly) many or even most of these didn't sign
>up primarily for the
>killing (although i won't deny that recruiters,
>advertisements and popular
>culture have significant sway in this regard), but for
>college money, job
>skills, etc.<<
>How many on this list even know that Rumsfeld worked
>two years to de-emphasize the use of the reserves and
>guard? As I stated before on this list, political
>activity in communities with guard and reserve units
>has more potential than trying to do anything with
>full-time troops. But it isn't about their looming
>victimhood. It's about why is that you have all these
>small towns who rely on guard and reserve payrolls for
>a huge chunk of their economy? How many on this list
>even know such towns exist?

from my readings of his work, our esteemed comrade goff has actually
addressed most of what you are raising.  and rumsfeld is a kook.  he and
wolfowitz believed that the occupation of iraq would take only a couple
tens of thousands of troops at most, that the supposedly high-tech "shock
and awe" campaign would scare the entire iraqi society into submission and
the populace would shower the troops with roses and confetti, etc
etc.  read for yourself stan's columns at
http://www.freedomroad.org/milmatters.html (DISCLOSURE: i am not a member
of FRSO but i am personal friends and comrades with a few members.)


>What motivates these part-time military  also
>motivates plenty who take full-time duty. But if
>politicized discussion is possible in the US military
>(it isn't other than the service-wide culture that
>holds contempt for most Democrats and anything left of
>them), then why does it take a war to get anyone to
>pursue it?

More information about the Marxism mailing list