Dear subscribers and colleagues, It's very easy to overlook such matters in
troubled times such as the present, but I'd like to alert you to an
alarming series of incidents that have recently been taking place in Iran
involving the arrests of several Iranian film critics. I learned about
these arrests a few days ago when I was asked by a U.S.-based Iranian film
critic to comment on them, and the link below will lead not only to my
posted statement, but also, more importantly, to further information about
these arrests: www.payvand.com/com/news/03/mar/1096.html Thank you for your
attention. Sincerely, Jonathan



At 06:00 PM 3/19/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>There are 9 messages totalling 654 lines in this issue.
>
>Topics of the day:
>
>   1. Stan Brakhage's Films
>   2. FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 17 Mar 2003 to 18 Mar 2003 (#2003-75)
>   3. Morale Boosters
>   4. The Iraq War (4)
>   5. CFP: The State of the Real
>   6. www.disinfopedia.org
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date:    Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:03:52 -0000
>From:    Danny Birchall <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Stan Brakhage's Films
>
>Re:voir have a VHS of the hand-painted films:
>
>http://www.re-voir.com/html/brakpaintedprojection.html
>
>
> >>>> With Regards to the sad news of Stan Brakhage's death. I have =
>always enjoyed what I have read about his work, but alas I have never =
>seen any. Is there any of his work available on video. i know he was not =
>a fan of video especially transfering his films to it. But I wondered if =
>any one on this list knew of any of his work anywhere.
>Many Thanks
>Dan Hopkins
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date:    Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:11:25 -0600
>From:    Jonathan Rosenbaum <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 17 Mar 2003 to 18 Mar 2003 (#2003-75)
>
>In response to Jeramy Poulin, here's part of an email recently sent to me
>by a reader, Mike Konczal , pasted in below. Best, Jonathan
>
>I remember reading in "Movie Wars" a section about the possiblities of an
>actual Anti-War movie. You pointed out that both Saving Private Ryan and
>Full Metal Jacket can be read in a way that glorifies the violence
>associated with war just by showing it. Reading a review from salon.com of
>the new Gulf War memoir "Jarheads" by former Marine Anthony Swofford, that
>thought came back to me: --- >From "Jarhead," you will learn that Marines
>pump themselves up bywatching war movies on video: "We yell Semper fi and
>we head-butt and beat the crap out of each other and we get off on the
>various visions of carnage and violence and deceit, the raping and killing
>and pillaging. We concentrate on the Vietnam films because it's the most
>recent war." The fact that these films are meant to be antiwar doesn't faze
>them. "Actually, Vietnam war films are all pro-war," Swofford writes, "no
>matter what the supposed message." Marines love them because "the magic
>brutality of the films celebrates the terrible and despicable beauty of
>[our] fighting skills." -- These soldiers will, of course, be the
>harbingers of democracy and freedom to the Middle East very soon. Scary times.
>
>
>At 06:00 PM 3/18/2003 +0000, you wrote:
> >There are 7 messages totalling 249 lines in this issue.
> >
> >Topics of the day:
> >
> >   1. Women in French New Wave
> >   2. The Iraq War (3)
> >   3. Three Kings was Re: The Iraq War (2)
> >   4. Stan Brakhage's Films
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >Date:    Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:14:12 EST
> >From:    Richard Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
> >Subject: Women in French New Wave
> >
> >Angela,
> >Yes, Les Bonnes femmes is worth seeing for your purposes, if you can. Also
> >Zazie dans le metro, which chronicles a little girl's odyssey through
> >Gaullist Paris but establishes a model for 'little girls' in mainstream
> >French cinema from Amelie to Nikita.
> >Richard
> >
> >------------------------------
> >
> >Date:    Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:26:15 EST
> >From:    Richard Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
> >Subject: The Iraq War
> >
> >As I and millions more will have their perceptions of the imminent war
> >against Iraq shaped by the moving image, I felt it appropriate tonight to
> >express solidarity with Iraqi subscribers, and any French or francophone
> >film-philosophers disturbed by the failure of the WMD talks. As a Briton
> I am
> >perplexed by our illegal resolution to embark on war, while diplomatic
> >hostility towards France makes me ashamed to be British. I don't wish to
> >spark a debate about these events which would be inappropriate in this
> >context, I merely wish to express mine and millions of Britons' solidarity
> >with the cause of peace and European unity. Naturally, if a conversation
> >about documentary aesthetics should arise out of the conflict, I shall
> follow
> >it with interest.
> >Richard
> >
> >------------------------------
> >
> >Date:    Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:49:42 -0800
> >From:    Robert Koehler <[log in to unmask]>
> >Subject: Re: The Iraq War
> >
> >Thanks, Richard, for your comments and concerns. I just added my name to a
> >growing worldwide petition to protest the war, and some of you will receive
> >it (or already have). When you do, please sign it and pass it along.
> >This crisis is so multifaceted that there is no single center to it, but the
> >facet that disturbs me the greatest transcends the specifics of this
> >impending war: It's the radical policy of pre-emptive strike that has been
> >adopted by this Administration. Even at the height of the Cold War, when
> >analysts determined that the US could and should pre-emptively strike the
> >USSR--and this destroy its nuclear capability--the idea was soundly rejected
> >by both Republican and Democrat Administrations (specifically, Eisenhower
> >and Kennedy) as simply crazy. (This was more or less the word uttered in the
> >West Wing at the time.) With the newly unleashed and unprecedented
> >pre-emptive policy about to get its first test, the actual results will not
> >be the defeat of Saddam Hussein, but the ancillary pre-emptive strikes by
> >other regimes against their perceived enemies. Once the logic of this policy
> >has not only been put into action, but proven victorious, it will only
> >encourage India, Pakistan, perhaps even China, and possibly other
> >non-nuclearized countries to lash out. The troubling point of all of this is
> >that they would feel justified, emboldened by US action. War is proving once
> >again to be the failure of diplomacy (can there be a clearer example of that
> >principle in our lifetimes?), but it is also nothing more or less than the
> >unleashing of unintended consequences. The unintended consequences of the
> >Wolfowitz el al. doctrine (devised, it should be underscored, long before
> >9/11) may be the real definition of ``shock and awe.''
> >Robert Koehler
> >
> >------------------------------
> >
> >Date:    Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:33:07 +1000
> >From:    Gary MacLennan <[log in to unmask]>
> >Subject: Three Kings was Re: The Iraq War
> >
> >My congratulations and support to both Robert and Richard for bringing this
> >up on the list.  If we think of philosophy as having an ethical dimension
> >(and here I commend Levinas to you all)  then comments on what is going on
> >now in the world are surely suitable.  Moreover the recent spate of war
> >films shows that the enemies of peace do not hesitate to use film to
> >promote hate.
> >
> >This semester I took the opportunity to use the torture sequence
> >from  David Russell's Three Kings. I wanted to discuss the phenomenon of a
> >popular film making explicit truth claims - e.g. The First Gulf War was
> >about oil and not about helping Kuwait.
> >
> >I also of course wanted to raise the issue of the coming Second Gulf War.
> >Some of the students had seen the film and argued that the dominant message
> >was that of "a job unfinished" and as such the film was in effect preparing
> >the way for the coming war. I looked at the film again, in the light of
> >this comment and had to agree. Not for the first time have my students
> >taught me.
> >
> >regards
> >
> >Gary
> >
> >------------------------------
> >
> >Date:    Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:15:17 -0600
> >From:    Robert Keser <[log in to unmask]>
> >Subject: Re: The Iraq War
> >
> >A fine statement, Richard. As an American, what's hard to take is
> >that educated, sophisticated citizens--who should be leaders in
> >society--are revealed to be utterly powerless to put a stop to such
> >a grotesque invasion, one which most of the world recognizes as a
> >war crime itself, one which will surely harm many innocent people
> >in Iraq.
> >
> >Pseudo-populists in the media are of course waging an information
> >war to inflate the prejudices of ordinary folk, manipulating facts,
> >twisting logic, and appealing to jingoism. In the context of this group,
> >it is deeply embarrassing to witness the crude xenophobia that insults
> >the country that gave us M=E9lies, the Lumi=E8res, Gance, Jean Vigo,
> >'Grande Illusion', 'Les Enfants du paradis', 'La Belle et la b=EAte', 'Je=
> >ux
> >Interdits', 'Madame de...', 'Le Salaire de la peur', the entire Nouvelle
> >Vague, 'Hiroshima, Mon Amour', Godard, 'Au hasard, Balthazar', 'Z',
> >Rohmer, Rivette, Derrida...
> >
> >--Robert Keser
> >
> >Richard Armstrong wrote:
> >
> > > As I and millions more will have their perceptions of the imminent war
> > > against Iraq shaped by the moving image, I felt it appropriate tonight =
> >to
> > > express solidarity with Iraqi subscribers, and any French or francophon=
> >e
> > > film-philosophers disturbed by the failure of the WMD talks. As a Brito=
> >n I am
> > > perplexed by our illegal resolution to embark on war, while diplomatic
> > > hostility towards France makes me ashamed to be British. I don't wish t=
> >o
> > > spark a debate about these events which would be inappropriate in this
> > > context, I merely wish to express mine and millions of Britons' solidar=
> >ity
> > > with the cause of peace and European unity. Naturally, if a conversatio=
> >n
> > > about documentary aesthetics should arise out of the conflict, I shall =
> >follow
> > > it with interest.
> > > Richard
> >
> >------------------------------
> >
> >Date:    Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:36:27 -0500
> >From:    Jeramy Poulin <[log in to unmask]>
> >Subject: Re: Three Kings was Re: The Iraq War
> >
> >   I too would like to second Gary in supporting Robert and Richard for
> >bringing this up.  If the US media had actually showcased anti-war
> >supporters as articulate as Robert we might not have reached this point.
> >
> >------------------------
> > >Some of the students had seen the film and argued that the dominant
> > >message was that of "a job unfinished" and as such the film was in
> > >effect
> > >preparing the way for the coming war. I looked at the film again, in
> > >the light of this comment and had to agree. Not for the first time
> > >have my students taught me.
> > >Gary
> >-----------------------
> >
> >   I am reminded of my time spent in the military (somewhat ironically as
> >an Arabic interrogator/interpreter). The army decided to show "Saving
> >Private Ryan" as a morale booster at my post. The showing was
> >specifically meant to counter the anti-anthrax vaccination protests that
> >were threatening to cause many soldiers to go AWOL, circa 98-99.  US tax
> >money at work.  I don't believe that "Three Kings" would ever pass the
> >morale booster litmus test, but it wouldn't surprise me if it has been
> >attempted.  Does anyone know of any 'odd' films that are shown to
> >specifically increase soldier morale?  I've often been curious about
> >this grotesque practice.
> >
> >   Jeramy Poulin
> >
> >------------------------------
> >
> >Date:    Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:47:29 -0500
> >From:    DavidFujino <[log in to unmask]>
> >Subject: Re: Stan Brakhage's Films
> >
> > >Hi Dan,
> > >
> > >Here in Toronto many of the better independent video stores have copies of
> > >Dog Star Man, but I don't know where these would have come from.  In May,
> > >however, Criterion is releasing a DVD containing a wide selection of
> > >Brakhage's stuff.  In the meantime, you could track down Jim Shedden's
> > >documentary "Brakhage," which contains lots of clips from B.'s films.
> > >
> > >Best,
> > >
> > >Sean
> > >
> > >
> > >----------
> > >Sean Saraka, Ph.D. Candidate
> > >Department of Political Science
> > >York University
> > >4700 Keele St.
> > >Toronto, Ontario
> > >CANADA M3J 1P3
> > >[log in to unmask]
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Film-Philosophy Salon [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> > >Behalf Of HOPKINS Daniel A
> > >Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 4:20 AM
> > >To: [log in to unmask]
> > >Subject: Stan Brakhage's Films
> > >
> > >
> > >         With Regards to the sad news of Stan Brakhage's death.  I have
> > >always enjoyed what I have read about his work, but alas I have never seen
> > >any. Is there any of his work available on video. i know he was not a
> fan of
> > >video especially transfering his films to it. But I wondered if any one on
> > >this list knew of any of his work anywhere.
> > >
> > >         Many Thanks
> > >
> > >         Dan Hopkins
> > >
> > >The information in this email is confidential and is intended solely
> for the
> > >addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised.
> > >
> > >If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
> distribution
> > >or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, except
> for the
> > >purpose of delivery to the addressee, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
> > >Kindly notify the sender and delete the message and any attachment
> from your
> > >computer.
> >
> >------------------------------
> >
> >End of FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 17 Mar 2003 to 18 Mar 2003 (#2003-75)
> >*********************************************************************
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date:    Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:14:14 EST
>From:    Richard Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Morale Boosters
>
>In response to Jeramy Poulin's muse about movies shown to troops in combat,
>it occurs to me that an audience study might interestingly be conducted
>around veteran responses to morale boosters in a range of conflict settings.
>Given the uncomplicated propaganda offerings that soldiers have traditionally
>been confronted with, instances from a war as complicated in its reception as
>Vietnam would be especially worth exploring, I should have thought. Given too
>the increasing sophistication of audiences, this project would probably yield
>some unexpected responses. I wonder what WW1 veterans had to sit through? And
>what did they make of it? More immediately, what will soldiers be watching
>over the next few weeks? Three Kings? Or The Wind and the Lion?
>Richard
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date:    Wed, 19 Mar 2003 02:21:09 -0000
>From:    Matt Crowder <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: The Iraq War
>
>Does anyone think that there is a place in the media treatment of this war
>for a 'real' to be found? Not in a Baudrillard 'is the war real?' but can we
>find a way to try and work out for ourselves what we think?
>
>Is there a sense in which our opinions on the war are dictated to not by the
>'actual facts' of the war but our reaction to *our view* of its media
>representation?
>
>e.g. - Bush says we must go to war. Most intelligent Americans distrust
>Bush. Thus what Bush says is worng and must be challenged as reactionary
>neo-colonialism. Thus whatever we see represented about the War (evidence,
>coverage from Iraq) becomes all but irrelevant (Hans Blix rubbishing Colin
>Powell's evidence in the UN Security Council).
>(This is supposition not statement of fact)
>
>
>Thus all representation becomes propaganda because we know our governments
>lie to us.
>
>As a young person in Britain who voted Labour I see my relationship to the
>Labour Government differently than if I was in America with George Bush as
>my President. Because TOny Blair makes himself different from Bush. He is a
>better politician, rhetorician and publicist. Thus I want to believe him
>when he says war is moral. But I still dont want war - but I do want to see
>the people of Iraq free.
>
>If we disbelieve all we hear and see, we will probably be anti-war. If we
>take it for granted that its true then we will follow Bush and Blair all the
>way to Baghdad. How much of our opinions are subjective interpretations not
>only of the meanings of discourses, but ultimately of the validity of
>representative discourses to be seen as proper discourses that should be
>listened to?
>
>
>Can we escape the net of representation that our politicians and
>broadcasters throw up around us, or was it always like this and I just
>didn't notice? Am i looking for a zero point of mediation that cannot be
>found?
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date:    Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:12:41 +0000
>From:    Hugo Santander <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: The Iraq War
>
>We can ask ourselves about the truth or objectivity of this incoming war.
>But as truth is an ideal concept, we can only rely on our ethical perception
>of the world.
>
>The relevant point, then, is to ask ourselves whether this is a fair or
>unfair war. The relatives of the first dead soldiers may also ask themselves
>about the purpose of this invasion.
>
>By the was, is it really for the sake of 'freedom'? Who draws the line
>between freedom and prosperity?
>
>Hugo N. Santander
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>MSN Search, le moteur de recherche qui pense comme vous !
>http://search.msn.fr/worldwide.asp
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date:    Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:29:20 +0000
>From:    Damian Sutton <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: CFP: The State of the Real
>
>I hope list-members will be interested in this revised call for papers.
>
>** APOLOGIES FOR CROSS POSTING **
>
>
>CALL FOR PAPERS
>
>T h e   S t a t e   o f   t h e   R e a l
>
>An Interdisciplinary Conference
>
>Glasgow School of Art, UK
>
>21-22 November 2003
>
>Keynote Speakers:=20
>Prof. Linda Nochlin, New York University
>Prof. Slavoj Zizek, University of Ljubljana
>
>
>"How real can you get?"
>The conference organisers propose a debate on the subject of =8Cthe real=B9 in
>aesthetic philosophy, criticism and practice.
>
>"When is representation not real?"
>Recent years have seen notions of reality discussed in the open. What
>relationship do current views developed by this discourse have with those
>tenets of realism and representation that once provided the foundation for
>aesthetic study? What are the philosophical consequences of the introductio=
>n
>of technologies that increasingly blur the boundaries between art and
>popular culture? What is the effect of aesthetic culture on Realpolitik?
>What has happened to the notions of social realism, verisimilitude, and the
>imaginary? Are they still relevant, and how have they been changed, if at
>all?
>
>"Reclaiming the real."
>The organizers are also interested in how notions of reality are affected
>by, and continue to affect, aesthetic practice in the fields of art, design=
>,
>and media production. With the popularity of haptic technologies, what has
>happened to =8Creal=B9 haptics? How do practitioners and academics view older
>technologies in the light of their electronic avatars? With the development
>of notions of virtual space, what has happened to our understanding of the
>body, the mind, and corporeal space?
>
>The organisers particularly welcome proposals on, or dealing with, the
>following related subjects:
>Reality and realism in Art & Design History; New media technologies =AD
>Virtual Reality, CGI photography and cinema, the Internet, haptic
>technologies; Modernity and Post-modernity/Modernism and Post-modernism;
>Philosophies on =8Cthe real=B9 in popular culture; Philosophy and
>art/design an=
>d
>cultural practice; Reality television, realism in film.
>
>Proposals for panels (no more than three papers) and workshops are also
>welcomed.
>
>Deadline for abstracts: 22 April 2003
>
>Please send abstracts of no more than 300 words to:
>=8CThe State of the Real=B9,
>Dept. of Historical and Critical Studies,
>Glasgow School of Art,
>167 Renfrew St,=20
>Glasgow,=20
>Scotland, UK.=20
>G3 6RQ.=20
>
>Abstracts may be sent by email to [log in to unmask]
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date:    Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:57:39 +0100
>From:    "Pete J. Otis" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: www.disinfopedia.org
>
>The "Lexicon of Propaganda" is again on-line.
>
>www.disinfopedia.org
>
>If you are interested in unpublished information about war preparation by
>the bush administration you will read what you will not find at cnn or
>other war supporting sources.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date:    Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:59:38 -0500
>From:    Blair Miller <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: The Iraq War
>
>I agree with Mr. Santander, in his question re- where to draw the line on
>'freedom' as an impetus for destruction of a nation.  I ask you: Which
>nation  is comprised of citizens (though their visions of it may differ in
>scope) who are against freedom?  Who, really, is against freedom, even on
>the awfully abstract level the current president has procured as his
>cause?  (And, how are preemptive strikes emblematic of freedom, apart from
>the dangerous view of negative freedom, freedom from any restrictions
>whatsoever?)
>
>However, I must differ on one account: Truth is far from a mere ideal.  It
>is, definitionally, reality.  Ask a dismembered Iraqi next week if he/she
>doesn't believe in the truth of it all.  Or, ask the citizens of Los
>Angeles if they did not see the footage of Rodney King as true. (Filmed
>footage, no less, bundled up with all of our film theory and typical
>anxieties about perspectivism and relativism of the image that we
>'theorists' hold too closely to our collective vest.)  In fact, it had to
>be true, true to the law, lest those wrongly pardoned remain
>'innocent.'  One of the dangers of truth is that when distilled by its
>witnesses through a desire for relativism, it can avail itself of ethical
>judgement.  This is the sort of mode(s) of truth that we shall become ever
>more familiar with in the coming weeks.  This is a crude characterization
>of 'truth,' y! es, but the truth is nothing if not crude.
>
> >From: Hugo Santander
> >Reply-To: Film-Philosophy Salon
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: The Iraq War
> >Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:12:41 +0000
> >
> >We can ask ourselves about the truth or objectivity of this incoming
> >war.
> >But as truth is an ideal concept, we can only rely on our ethical
> >perception
> >of the world.
> >
> >The relevant point, then, is to ask ourselves whether this is a fair
> >or
> >unfair war. The relatives of the first dead soldiers may also ask
> >themselves
> >about the purpose of this invasion.
> >
> >By the was, is it really for the sake of 'freedom'? Who draws the
> >line
> >between freedom and prosperity?
> >
> >Hugo N. Santander
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >MSN Search, le moteur de recherche qui pense comme vous !
> >http://search.msn.fr/worldwide.asp
>
>
>----------
>MSN 8 helps <http://g.msn.com/8HMHENCA/2752>ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get
>2 months FREE*.
>------------------------------
>
>Date:    Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:11:30 +0530
>From:    Tushar Kumar <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: The Iraq War
>
>I first apologize to jump in this discussion without bothering to read=20=
>
>what has been going on in this discussion before.
>
>History is being made. The images on the Television might be crude in=20
>nature but they are more powerful than any cinema which I have seen.
>
>It is a Crusade.
>
>TK
>
>On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 10:29 PM, Blair Miller wrote:
>
> > I agree with Mr. Santander, in his question re- where to draw the line=20=
>
> > on 'freedom' as an impetus for destruction of a nation.=A0 I ask you:=20=
>
> > Which nation=A0 is comprised of citizens (though their visions of it =
>may=20
> > differ in scope) who are against freedom?=A0 Who, really,=A0is against=20=
>
> > freedom, even on the awfully=A0abstract level the current president =
>has=20
> > procured as his cause?=A0 (And, how are preemptive strikes emblematic =
>of=20
> > freedom,=A0apart from=A0the dangerous view of negative freedom, =
>freedom=20
> > from any restrictions whatsoever?)
> >
> > However, I must differ on one account:=A0Truth is far from a =
>mere=A0ideal.=A0=20
> > It is, definitionally, reality.=A0 Ask a dismembered Iraqi next week =
>if=20
> > he/she doesn't believe in the truth of it all.=A0 Or, ask the citizens =
>of=20
> > Los Angeles if they did not see the footage of Rodney King as=20
> > true.=A0(Filmed footage, no less, bundled up with all of our film =
>theory=20
> > and=A0typical anxieties about perspectivism and relativism of the =
>image=20
> > that we=A0'theorists' hold=A0too closely to=A0our collective=A0vest.)=A0=
>  In fact,=20
> > it had to be true, true to the law,=A0lest those wrongly pardoned =
>remain=20
> > 'innocent.'=A0 One of the dangers of truth is that when=A0distilled by =
>its=20
> > witnesses through a desire for=A0relativism,=A0it can avail itself of=20=
>
> > ethical judgement.=A0 This=A0is the sort of mode(s) of=A0truth that=A0we=
>  shall=20
> > become ever more familiar with in the coming weeks.=A0 This is a crude=20=
>
> > characterization of 'truth,' y! es, but the truth is nothing if not=20
> > crude.=A0
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: Hugo Santander
> >
> > >Reply-To: Film-Philosophy Salon
> >
> > >To: [log in to unmask]
> >
> > >Subject: Re: The Iraq War
> >
> > >Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:12:41 +0000
> >
> > >
> >
> > >We can ask ourselves about the truth or objectivity of this incoming
> >
> > >war.
> >
> > >But as truth is an ideal concept, we can only rely on our ethical
> >
> > >perception
> >
> > >of the world.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >The relevant point, then, is to ask ourselves whether this is a fair
> >
> > >or
> >
> > >unfair war. The relatives of the first dead soldiers may also ask
> >
> > >themselves
> >
> > >about the purpose of this invasion.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >By the was, is it really for the sake of 'freedom'? Who draws the
> >
> > >line
> >
> > >between freedom and prosperity?
> >
> > >
> >
> > >Hugo N. Santander
> >
> > >
> >
> > >_________________________________________________________________
> >
> > >MSN Search, le moteur de recherche qui pense comme vous !
> >
> > >http://search.msn.fr/worldwide.asp
> >
>
> >
>
> >
> > MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*.
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 18 Mar 2003 to 19 Mar 2003 (#2003-76)
>*********************************************************************