The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-16-2007, 12:33 PM   #46
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by cashc View Post
But I wonder, will the pullout of troops in Iraq really accomplish anything other than to quiet the anti-war, anti-bush group?
A better question is what the continued occupation will accomplish. The default behavior ought to be no war, and justification should be required to continue waging it.

What is the situation that we can consider to be a "win"? Does our continued presence as one (among many) cause and target of violence really move us toward that situation?
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2007, 04:08 PM   #47
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by cashc View Post
This sort of got me fired up because a generalization of any kind is almost always wrong. In this case, my community has a tremendous amount of respect and love for the troops in Iraq right now, many of whom has sons and daughters serving in the military now.
A) Your emotions have no place in a checklist of reality. One can express extreme love for every soldier. But if one sends them wastefully to death out of ignorance (ie battle of Syracuse or Vietnam), then the conclusion remains same: total contempt for that soldier.

If emotions are involved, then one becomes his own worst enemy. I don't care how blindly one is devoted or in love with the troops. If one does not think logically, then one has 100% contempt for those troops.

B) Troops don't decide to go to war. Enlisted men particularly must go to war blinded from any knowledge of the purpose or strategic objective. Enlisted men in particular must ignore everything but their tactical objectives - such as keeping their buddies alive.

Enlisted men especially are dependent on us for demanding and performing logical thought. When we so hate our beloved soldiers as to waste them in places like Nam, then that is 100% contempt for the same soldiers we emotionally love. Love - the emotion - is irrelevant. Love - by being responsible - only matters.

C) People such as Goering in 1930s Germany and Karl Rove today play on emotions of the weak. And so we even had mythical WMDs. Patriotic Americans instead are intelligent - divorced from silly emotions - instead think judiciously. Why? One reason: because those enlisted men have no choice. WE decide whether they go to a foolhardy war.

So ask yourself. Were you thinking emotionally - and therefore acting with contempt for the troops? Or did you think logically and therefore recognize that logic existed to justify war? A patriot is never one to blindly wave flags. A patriot is the person who thinks – pushes out the envelope – sees things long before failure happens – is innovative. Name anyone who was a great and patriotic America – and you show us a person who is instead smart and therefore really is patriotic.

D) Let's look at the checklist to justify war. Notice flag waving, "god and country", etc don't appear anywhere on this checklist. 1) Was there a smoking gun? Was there a Pearl Harbor or an 11 September event? 2) Was a strategic objective defined? 3) Is there an exit strategy? Did you first ask these fundamental three questions? If not and if you advocated "Mission Accomplished", then that is contempt for the enlisted man. Emotion appears nowhere in that checklist because patriotic Americans don’t let silly emotions create conclusions. A patriot’s checklist demand coherent and unemotional thinking.

Nothing new here. Demonstrated is why America lost the Vietnam war or why anti-Americans are also so quick to get into bar room fights. Demonstrated is why the book “Making of a Quagmire” made obvious in 1965 the defeat that would finally occur in 1975. Ever hear of “The Ugly American”? Or for that matter, the so many books from Kurt Vonnegut. No difference. In every case, logical questioning must replace wacko extremist principles of ‘good verses evil’. What was the ugly American? A classic ‘big dic’ thinker who believes in ‘might makes right’ and ‘we are good; they are evil’. Just more examples of conclusions based in emotions; not in what is required to be a patriotic American.

E) So that post made you angry. But then you responded with a logical reply. Kudos. That is how one starts becoming a patriotic American. One starts asking many questions. One does as Kennedy did during the Cuban Missile Crisis so that we are still alive. He kept demanding of his staff answers to questions that 'big dics' like Gen Curtis LeMay would not ask, such as, "What does he see? What is he being told? What is his perspective? Why does he say this? What does he want?" Questions that patriots ask are not found in emotion, 'good vs evil', righteousness, or a "political agenda". Those emotions are sources of anti-American thinking that even created McCarthyism, black-listing, and Nixon's enemies list. Remember, an enlisted man counts on us to think logically. WE send him to war. Therefore WE must ask hard and unemotional questions.

Above was a checklist? When did an extremist 'liberal or conservative' ever mention that checklist? Provided was a simple benchmark for those who really love the troops; who work to be a patriotic American.

Last edited by tw; 04-16-2007 at 04:16 PM.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2007, 04:59 PM   #48
cashc
Aggregate Aggravator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Texico
Posts: 17
Quote:
So that post made you angry.
Perhaps i communicated my feeling incorrectly. I never get angry about anything really. I would agree that in most cases excess emotion gets in the way of proper decision making.

When i say "fired up" I could have used replaced it with "eager".

Quote:
A patriot’s checklist demand coherent and unemotional thinking.
But if it really all boils down to contempt for the soldier and his/her life doesn't the absence of some form of emotion undermine the advocacy of those life's?

Last edited by cashc; 04-16-2007 at 05:07 PM. Reason: Came up with another question.
cashc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2007, 05:04 PM   #49
cashc
Aggregate Aggravator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Texico
Posts: 17
Quote:
better question is what the continued occupation will accomplish.
I think that is an entirely valid question. I would say at least looking at what our history texts say that pulling out of places such as Korea and Vietnam was counter-productive to peace and democracy but at the same time the results of America's continued involvement can't be determined.

I'm concerned about global peace and wondering if it is even possible or if America wants to be the ostrich with it's head in the hole.

Either way, I don't know. Some more food for thought, thanks for your input.
cashc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2007, 05:44 PM   #50
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
There are more positions for the US than "ostrich with its head in the sand" and "bull in the china shop".
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2007, 05:53 PM   #51
cashc
Aggregate Aggravator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Texico
Posts: 17
I completely agree! If only a candidate with such views would pop up.
cashc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2007, 07:52 PM   #52
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by cashc View Post
But if it really all boils down to contempt for the soldier and his/her life[,] doesn't the absence of some form of emotion undermine the advocacy of those life's?
Are you totally emotionless about other drivers around you? Yes. You don't know any of them. But you don't have contempt for them. Why? They are members of your team.

Some never get it. Adjacent drivers - complete strangers - are members of your team; working together to make the road work; traffic to flow. If you run a light or cut someone else off, that is contempt for him. You did not do it intentionally or based in an emotional tirade. That contempt is not based in emotion. But lack of respect - a failure to take necessary precautions - is contempt for other members of your team.

Yes, driving is a team sport. It's not usually described that way. But with any team, it does not matter whether emotional love exists between team members. Necessary precautions taken for complete strangers - your team members - are both reasonable and required action.

Some will have a problem with this concept. Some never grasp this concept of team play. They may even consider themselves road warriors - out to beat the other guy - weaving between lanes to get there sooner. Periodically a team gets non-team players as demonstrated by high insurance rates, numerous crashes, suspended license, etc. To understand why those failures occur repeatedly, simply note their contempt for other members of the team. They don't know anyone round them. They have no emotional attachment (love or hate) of other drivers. And yet still, one can have or not have contempt for strangers - other drivers. No emotional attachment need exist for one to have or have not contempt.

One can have complete absence of emotion and still have great respect for another's life. It is, after all, essential for a productive and prosperous society; essential to have what we call civilization; defined by what we call civil people - civilians.

All this for complete strangers for which we have neither emotional love nor hate. We do all this for reasons logical. We may use emotion to do it even better. But then emotion is subservient to logic. When emotion is not, well, that is not a civilized person.

None of this can be explained in sound bytes – to attach to what Happy Monkey has posted. Some who never grasp these conceptsm are easily educated (manipulated) by Rush Limbaugh propaganda. Same person would never grasp a difference between strategic and tactical objectives.

Those same people assume since we won virtually every battle in Nam, then we should have won the war. They will then go looking to blame ‘liberals’ for the loss. Vietnam War was being lost in 1965 long before most of the battles were won. That defeat finally became obvious to strategic thinkers (ie the Wise Men) in 1968. How does one win every battle (tactical victories) and yet lose the war (a strategic defeat)? Does winning every bar room fight win anything? And yet some never understand how battles fought without a strategic objective win nothing. That 'bar room' mentality is so characteristic of 'big dic' thinking.

As said before, it is contempt to not understand simplest of military doctrine and then send soldiers into that unwinnable situation. “Mission Accomplished” today was once described as ‘rope-a-dope’ by a very smart man. 40+ years later and still some Americans never learned simplest military doctrine even demonstrated by 'rope-a-dope'. Again classic contempt for American soldier just like that 'non-team play' driver.

No emotion is required to be smart, to be a team player, to be civilized, and a patriotic American. Understanding ‘rope-a-dope’ as it applied to Nam and applies to “Mission Accomplished” is too hard for some who instead wave flags and call themselves patriotic. That ignorance is contempt.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:19 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.