The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness
-
Yes, "Introspection" is the word I mean. It's important to reflect on one's actions and what your motivations and emotions were at the time and understand how they influenced what you've done. This is applicable on a national level too, albeit somewhat less meaningfully or effectively. That said, introspection can be taken too far. Spending all your time in your head attempting to micro-manage every aspect of your internal dialog is a waste of time and leads to emotional paralysis. Sometimes it's better to act and make a mistake than make the mistake of doing nothing. It's all a process of self knowledge though. Who knows, one decision by one person in the right place at the right time could change everything; I wouldn't want that person to be afraid of their own motivations or outright refuse to examine them. I'm pretty much speaking hypothetically, I suppose.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Yes, "Introspection" is the word I mean.
Well then I continue to disagree that your approach is nothing but a means to diminish America's rights to protect its interests and to advance the position of those willing to oppose them. Leaders should be knowledgable about history (or have advisors that are) such that they can reasonably determine the effects of their policies. We have a presence in the Middle East, protect strategic allies their and support Israel. We know that all those things will piss off Islamic extremists and prior to 9/11 we knew that they were more than willing to commit extreme acts of terrorism. The question is whether or not those policies are worth the risk and potential price to America. If the answer is no, then you change your policies. If they answer is yes, then you don't whine and perform a personal analysis about your emotions when they attack (which should disqualify women from the presidency). You simply fight back.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
Yes, "Introspection" is the word I mean.
Well then I continue to disagree that your approach is nothing but a means to diminish America's rights to protect its interests and to advance the position of those willing to oppose them. Leaders should be knowledgable about history (or have advisors that are) such that they can reasonably determine the effects of their policies. We have a presence in the Middle East, protect strategic allies their and support Israel. We know that all those things will piss off Islamic extremists and prior to 9/11 we knew that they were more than willing to commit extreme acts of terrorism. The question is whether or not those policies are worth the risk and potential price to America. If the answer is no, then you change your policies. If they answer is yes, then you don't whine and perform a personal analysis about your emotions when they attack (which should disqualify women from the presidency). You simply fight back.
Red Stateler wrote:
If they answer is yes, then you don't whine and perform a personal analysis about your emotions when they attack. You simply fight back.
Of course you do. It's fair to ask yourself if you accurately predicted the risk, though. I'm not sure if I'm not explaining myself clearly or you're simply choosing to disagree.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
If they answer is yes, then you don't whine and perform a personal analysis about your emotions when they attack. You simply fight back.
Of course you do. It's fair to ask yourself if you accurately predicted the risk, though. I'm not sure if I'm not explaining myself clearly or you're simply choosing to disagree.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Of course you do. It's fair to ask yourself if you accurately predicted the risk, though.
Well it's exactly this type of "what did we do wrong"/introspective approach that has fueled anti-war zealots. I'm all for reviewing international policy, but only so long as it's done so rationally and not based on some emotional justification for a political group's advancement.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
Of course you do. It's fair to ask yourself if you accurately predicted the risk, though.
Well it's exactly this type of "what did we do wrong"/introspective approach that has fueled anti-war zealots. I'm all for reviewing international policy, but only so long as it's done so rationally and not based on some emotional justification for a political group's advancement.
Red Stateler wrote:
Well it's exactly this type of "what did we do wrong"/introspective approach that has fueled anti-war zealots.
Maybe this is where I'm not being clear.. I'm not advocating examining what we've done wrong. I'm advocating asking ourselves IF we've done something wrong. Too many shoot from the hip and say "Yes, we're evil!" or "No, they're evil!" without really ever examining the question.
Red Stateler wrote:
I'm all for reviewing international policy, but only so long as it's done so rationally and not based on some emotional justification for a political group's advancement.
I agree.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Well it's exactly this type of "what did we do wrong"/introspective approach that has fueled anti-war zealots.
Maybe this is where I'm not being clear.. I'm not advocating examining what we've done wrong. I'm advocating asking ourselves IF we've done something wrong. Too many shoot from the hip and say "Yes, we're evil!" or "No, they're evil!" without really ever examining the question.
Red Stateler wrote:
I'm all for reviewing international policy, but only so long as it's done so rationally and not based on some emotional justification for a political group's advancement.
I agree.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Maybe this is where I'm not being clear.. I'm not advocating examining what we've done wrong. I'm advocating asking ourselves IF we've done something wrong. Too many shoot from the hip and say "Yes, we're evil!" or "No, they're evil!" without really ever examining the question.
But what do you mean by "something wrong"? Emotionally or strategically? The government should constantly be analyzing the latter, but the former should not even come into the equation. "Introspection", by definition, means an emotional analysis. The last thing I want is the president hugging it out in tears with the secretary of state pondering where he went wrong.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
In 1985 (I think it was) Saddam Hussein wiped an entire Kurdish town (ok, large village) off the map by dropping a chemical bomb on it.
... while all the while the USA was arming him to the teeth just because he happened to be fighting against Iran...
Cheers, Vıkram.
After all is said and done, much is said and little is done.
Don't forget that we once had Bin Laden as an ally, simply because he was fighting the Russians! And then 9/11 and this is how he thanks us for 'saving' a Muslim nation from the infidel? True, we need to watch very closely who we think our 'allies' really are. Why we even cinsidered the French as an ally at one time:omg:
John P.
-
K(arl) wrote:
Still able to cope with the moral implications of a war?
What about the moral implications of NOT having a war? I suppose you'd be sitting on your moral high-horse if Hitler had exterminated all the Jews, saying "Well, at least I didn't go to war over it!" War is nasty. The war in Iraq is nasty. But so was Saddam Hussein - very nasty - and so was life (and death...) for hundreds of thousands if not millions of Iraqis (and Kurds) before the war. Sometimes there are no easy, "nice", answers. Sometimes you just have get down and get dirty and fight tooth and claw for what you think is right.
Fred_Smith wrote:
The war in Iraq is nasty. But so was Saddam Hussein
but, but, but ... France was making money.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
The war in Iraq is nasty. But so was Saddam Hussein
but, but, but ... France was making money.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
so.... can we invade France? Pleeeease! :laugh:
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
The war in Iraq is nasty. But so was Saddam Hussein
but, but, but ... France was making money.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Is it your position that Saddam's nasty behaviour does not justify the Iraq war being nasty?
-
Is it your position that Saddam's nasty behaviour does not justify the Iraq war being nasty?
oilFactotum wrote:
Is it your position that Saddam's nasty behaviour does not justify the Iraq war being nasty?
I don't believe I took a position. I said Karl didn't object to Saddam's nastiness because France was profiting.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
so.... can we invade France? Pleeeease! :laugh:
Fred_Smith wrote:
so.... can we invade France? Pleeeease!
where pray tell did I say that?
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Is it your position that Saddam's nasty behaviour does not justify the Iraq war being nasty?
I don't believe I took a position. I said Karl didn't object to Saddam's nastiness because France was profiting.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I said Karl didn't object to Saddam's nastiness because France was profiting.
That's what you said? You take a quote from Fred and respond with a curious non-sequiter about France - and it is about Karl? And when did Karl say he didn't object to Saddam's nastiness?
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
so.... can we invade France? Pleeeease!
where pray tell did I say that?
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
You didn't - I was just asking! Us Brits never miss an opportunity to invade France - it's a national sport; a tradition. :-D
-
Yes. And Burma and Zimbabwe. But i wouldn't bother with the "winning the peace" crap afterwards. It's time we stopped being so bloody nice/diplomatic to these bastard rulers, but walk in there, kill them and walk out again. If they don't manage better with their next leader, we should do it again. And again, until they get it right. If your next door neightbour was torturing / abusing / about to kill his wife/child, would you not think you had a moral duty to intervene? Why is it any different just because these people hide behind an artificial boundary on a map? They are torturing / abusing / murdering millions of living breathing people every day, and we smile and trade with them and sell them our weapons.... Still, why should we care, eh? They're just a bunch of darkie foreigners, aren't they?
Fred_Smith wrote:
But i wouldn't bother with the "winning the peace" crap afterwards. It's time we stopped being so bloody nice/diplomatic to these bastard rulers, but walk in there, kill them and walk out again. If they don't manage better with their next leader, we should do it again. And again, until they get it right.
I hope that your foreign policy newsletter is written at the fourth grade level because that's the only way supporters of such a myopic, infantile, irresponsible military interventionism are going to be able to understand it.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
To hear many Americans talk about it though, you'd think they were blind, the refusal to consider one's own place in the outcome of events. Every event is an opportunity for introspection yet that seems to be the one activity in which Americans categorically refuse to engage.
Golly. You're right. I'm going to reflect on how our international policy prompted the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Red Stateler wrote:
Golly. You're right. I'm going to reflect on how our international policy prompted the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
What if there was something that could have been done to prevent the bombing of Peal Harbor? What if that something was American action in some way or another? Are you so averse to considering your nation's decisions that you'd rather lose thousands of lives in war than admit your country may have done the wrong thing? It's OK to be wrong, Red, no one will think less of you.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
But i wouldn't bother with the "winning the peace" crap afterwards. It's time we stopped being so bloody nice/diplomatic to these bastard rulers, but walk in there, kill them and walk out again. If they don't manage better with their next leader, we should do it again. And again, until they get it right.
I hope that your foreign policy newsletter is written at the fourth grade level because that's the only way supporters of such a myopic, infantile, irresponsible military interventionism are going to be able to understand it.
Sometimes the simple solutions really are the best... trouble with you post-graduate level intellectuals is you are too damn clever for your (and everyone else's) good at times... so far up the backside of your pet theories you forget that the answers are more often than not staring you in the face. Science needs clever intellectuals. Politics needs people that understand people - they are the bottom line of politics. And most people (uneducated morons that they/we are) don't give a damn about your "must-see-the-bigger-picture" realpolitik, oh-so-mature, oh-so-responsible policies that have led us all deeper and deeper into the shit we now find outselves in. Realpolitik - christ, whoever dreamt that one up should have been shot at birth. It's nothing but an excuse for megalomaniacs to do the wrong thing on the gronds that "it just isn't practical" to do the right thing. Contrary to popular belief, life and politics is (should be) very simple; just do the right thing - always. If some shit-for-brains is out there murdering and torturing and abusing people by the millions,. the right thing is simple: shoot him dead. End of that problem. Then deal with the next one. God, it's so simple I thought it up in fourth grade.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Golly. You're right. I'm going to reflect on how our international policy prompted the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
What if there was something that could have been done to prevent the bombing of Peal Harbor? What if that something was American action in some way or another? Are you so averse to considering your nation's decisions that you'd rather lose thousands of lives in war than admit your country may have done the wrong thing? It's OK to be wrong, Red, no one will think less of you.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
What if there was something that could have been done to prevent the bombing of Peal Harbor? What if that something was American action in some way or another? Are you so averse to considering your nation's decisions that you'd rather lose thousands of lives in war than admit your country may have done the wrong thing? It's OK to be wrong, Red, no one will think less of you.
It was American action (not inaction) that knowingly led to Pearl Harbor. The administration knew that an oil blockade would be considered "an act of war". The Japanese said so. History is full of mistakes, but you use those mistakes to help you make decisions in the future. You don't take a conciliatory stance towards those who want to exterminate your nations simply because you feel bad. I thought you were an urban cowboy, not a sissy.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
What if there was something that could have been done to prevent the bombing of Peal Harbor? What if that something was American action in some way or another? Are you so averse to considering your nation's decisions that you'd rather lose thousands of lives in war than admit your country may have done the wrong thing? It's OK to be wrong, Red, no one will think less of you.
It was American action (not inaction) that knowingly led to Pearl Harbor. The administration knew that an oil blockade would be considered "an act of war". The Japanese said so. History is full of mistakes, but you use those mistakes to help you make decisions in the future. You don't take a conciliatory stance towards those who want to exterminate your nations simply because you feel bad. I thought you were an urban cowboy, not a sissy.
Red Stateler wrote:
History is full of mistakes, but you use those mistakes to help you make decisions in the future. You don't take a conciliatory stance towards those who want to exterminate your nations simply because you feel bad.
What if you take a conciliatory stance because it will save American lives? It's called diplomacy, and it doesn't make you a sissy, it makes you successful in international politics.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
History is full of mistakes, but you use those mistakes to help you make decisions in the future. You don't take a conciliatory stance towards those who want to exterminate your nations simply because you feel bad.
What if you take a conciliatory stance because it will save American lives? It's called diplomacy, and it doesn't make you a sissy, it makes you successful in international politics.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
What if you take a conciliatory stance because it will save American lives? It's called diplomacy, and it doesn't make you a sissy, it makes you successful in international politics.
That's naive. Even for a 23-year old urban cowboy. Diplomacy is that art of international negotiation...Not emotive, propagandistic attacks against your home country while it's under attack from a foreign enemy. I hate to break this to you, but you're a cowboy living in the ghetto...Not a diplomat.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
What if you take a conciliatory stance because it will save American lives? It's called diplomacy, and it doesn't make you a sissy, it makes you successful in international politics.
That's naive. Even for a 23-year old urban cowboy. Diplomacy is that art of international negotiation...Not emotive, propagandistic attacks against your home country while it's under attack from a foreign enemy. I hate to break this to you, but you're a cowboy living in the ghetto...Not a diplomat.
Red Stateler wrote:
That's naive. Even for a 23-year old urban cowboy. Diplomacy is that art of international negotiation...Not emotive, propagandistic attacks against your home country while it's under attack from a foreign enemy. I hate to break this to you, but you're a cowboy living in the ghetto...Not a diplomat.
You cut me to the quick, Red. You're a hypocrite living in the middle of nowhere that hates your life and is unhappy in your marriage. Keep calling me whatever you wish, but it's not going to make you any happier with the way your life turned out. Anyway,
Red Stateler wrote:
emotive, propagandistic attacks against your home country
Who is talking about that? We're just discussing the inspection of US foreign policy to determine if there was anything we could change about the way we behave that could save lives. Obviously, there was something wrong in our foreign policy before 9/11. "They're just crazy and jealous of our freedoms" is a nice, pat explanation that enables us to go to war indiscriminately without making any changes in the way we deal with foreign powers. I think that perhaps it's a bit too easy, and I choose to acquire more details about the way we've been conducting ourselves overseas for the last few decades. You go ahead and stick your head in the sand, everyone knows ignorance is a staunch ally when making policy.