Axis Mundi X discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Closed for the Winter
>
How Did 9/11 Affect You, Change You, Alter Your Life?
Mod
(continued from http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show_g...
Comment #20 and beyond)
This is a fascinating question. I was in an elementary school, observing teachers for a research project, when the news broke. A wave of parents showed up, out of nowhere, in the hallways. I think they wanted to be near their kids....but the kids were in class...so the parents all sort of stood in the hallway. Fascinating image.I cried, and I'm not a crier, when I saw the senators on the steps of the capitol break into "America the Beautiful" that night. My oldest son was three at the time, and he could tell something was wrong, but he wasn't quite sure what was happening. I was angry, too. I know there are entitites in this world that hate our country, and some of what our leaders do in this world is horrible, but I am extraordinarily proud to be an American. That will never change. I love what our country stands for. I love the freedom. I love the optimism. There is much I don't like, of course, but this is my home, and I take pride in our country.
This past October, while in Italy, I hit a coffee shop with some educators from NY. When 9/11 came up it was clear that they were still deeply impacted by the event. They talked in low, careful tones, years later, as if the spectre still haunted them, thousands of miles away in a Rome cafe.
How has 9/11 changed my life? That's very hard to articulate. Well, first off, and I don't mean to be glib, flying sucks. Second, I worry more about civil liberties, people of color becoming targets of misguided fear, and whether or not a draft will take any of my three male children. I worry about jackasses using 9/11 for their own political agenda. I worry about fearmongering politicians. I also feel more connected, if any silver lining could emerge, with my countrymen and women. For those of us Americans who lived through 9/11, we are all united by the silence we remember, standing in front of the television, watching buildings fall to the ground.
Mod
How did I change after 911?I cry more ... I love more
Not only is this hard for me to articulate, it is hard for me to even think coherently about it without crying... which is a huge change for me, since I have always tried hard to control my emotions ... although anger has always been problematic for me.
I remember where I was when Reagan was shot, although it didn’t really effect me that much, a lot of people around me were very upset (I did feel really bad about Brady though). I remember where I was when the Challenger blew-up ... I was in uniform at the time ... It was sad such a tragedy occurred, but everyone on that shuttle knew the risks going in, so that didn’t really change me either. After I was commissioned, I became a search and rescue pilot ... it was a good day when we found somebody ... often we did not. If anything, I became more desensitized to death during that experience. Every 2 years or so we would pass the hat for an aircrew’s family and go on with life, thankful that it wasn’t us ... that we hadn’t made the same mistake. I was stationed in Kodiak AK when the OKC bombing occurred ... and somehow the distance made it surreal ... like it had happened in another country, even though I have family in near by Enid, I remember being angry that the Day Care was hit and my self-righteous desire to fry the SoB that did it though. That was probably when I began to change back toward where I am today.
December 26, 2000 ... a coworker mad at the IRS and mad at the company for allowing the IRS to dock his pay decided to give in to his anger and he shot and killed 7 fellow coworkers. I knew them all, but the worst was a lady that I had just finished working closely with. She had returned early from maternity leave that day after having her first child ... a baby girl. I changed a lot then.
On September 11, I was at work when everyone suddenly stopped what they were doing and started to mill around the conference rooms where the company had put the news up on the big screens. I remember being extremely sad because I thought I knew what it meant ... we were at war ... we had been attacked directly and we must respond ... but the real tragedy had yet to hit home. I was connected to 911 in more ways then I was to realize at first. To begin with, my wife was an Air Traffic Controller with orders to Boston Tower in hand. To finish ... flying out of Boston that day was 7 yr old Zoe’s father Bill Weems ... they had just bought a new house ... they had dreams ... how do you tell Zoe that she can’t have those dreams anymore because somebody half a world away was mad at somebody else? Well here is your chance ... I couldn't do it.
http://www.legacy.com/Sept11/Story.as...
I'm all out of anger now ...
Seek said: Should a country have a single leader with executive powers, or not? Interesting question ... I have not really thought about it that closely. One thing that I am really sure of though is that management by committee is probably the worse way to run an organization. If you need a reporting structure ... you need to have folks reporting to only one person.
I am not too enamored with a presidential system either ... at least, not the way it is currently structured in the US ... for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the crazy amount of money spent on this circus we call an election. I wonder if it would not be better to just directly elect each secretary/cabinet position, just like we would do in our local elections.
I like the concept of a Prime Minister ... including the fact that he can lose his job with a no confidence vote. Unfortunately, in some cases, you could get governments that are more dysfunctional then usual if you depend upon coalition governments. Of course, one way to prevent that is with a two-party system ... but I hate that even more.
The Prime Minister set-up is used in many countries without a problem, and has been around for a long time. I think the problem with the systems that we have is that they're not actually representational. They need our votes to get in but once there...The one I get confused by is France. They have a President and a Prime Minister. I don't really understand how that works, unless the President is the equivalent of the more traditional Head of State?
Hiya Shannon :)Yep France is a funny one. I believe that the President, who is elected head of state, actually chooses the PM and the PM then recommends the other ministers to the President. The National Assembly can vote to dissolve the government but the President can dissolve the National Assembly heh.
I think in reality the President has a lot of powers and seniority but ultimately has to choose the PM wisely to as not to create too much unbalance or the Assembly could dissolve it all.
I think :P
On 9/11 I was here on the east coast. With my little ones on my lap, I watched in horror as the second plane hit and truly believed our world was about to end. My father-in-law was working at the Pentagon and my in-laws’ apartment was just a few blocks away. We weren't able to get through to them and find out if they were safe until that night. Our friends in New York were impossible to reach for a week. My reaction? Profound sadness, then anger, then resolve. I collected and delivered food and supplies for the rescue workers then bought a plane ticket. It seemed like the most positive statement I could make. So I guess the final effect has been to make me more determined to live my life fully and fearlessly. To love that way too.
Mod
1) I knew at a vary young age that I wanted to be a marine, so didn’t participate as much as I should have in school.
2) At the time I was in the Marine Corps, My mind was consumed with any number of possible tactical responses’. ( Note, I didn’t even know who would be the recipient of the response, just that there needed be a response)
After 9/11 and serving a tour in Afghanistan, and two tours in Iraq… how have a changed? Well for one I have started to pay attention to who our elected officials are and what they stand for. I tend to be angry. Most of the time about the media, printed commentary in newspapers. Some of the things I read and hear people say just dumbfound me. I think a lot of Americans are thinking with feelings when we should be thinking with cold logic. We face a serious problem. The military can not stand between us and our enemies forever. At the same time, we have to do something. What do we do? If anyone has a good plausible Idea, I would really love to hear it. I myself was maimed in Iraq. Many of the closest people to me in my life were maimed. If there is a solution I would truly love to hear it.
So how have I changed…? I am damaged and angry. As apposed to young and dumb.
Nick, thank you for your service and your sacrifice.
Mod
It's worth asking : what do they actually want? They being the enemies we fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are two schools of thought here. One says - the leaders of al-Qaeda and the like are not madmen, this terrorism and warfare is political. They have specific aims. Therefore we could negotiate, just as we do with most terrorists, eventually (see the Provisional IRA and a gazillion other examples). The second school of thought says - no, this is different, these people are jihadi madmen, they want to kill the West not co-exist with us. They see the West as utterly inimical to Islam, they spit on our Western notions like "democracy" and "freedom of speech". They believe in Islam more than we believe in our (corrupt) culture. They have limitless numbers of hysterical young men who wish to die for Islam. There will be no negotiations. This war will never end.I'd be interested in which sort of enemy you guys think we're fighting.
Mod
The second groups, the radicals, are just as you described them. But their numbers are limited. Granted in fighting them, we generate more of them. However we are also killing them at an incredible rate. I believe the statistical numbers were something like 120 to 1, at the end of 04’. Some simple math and that is in the ball park of 480,000 enemy combatants killed.
With that impact, and General Patrueuse’s (sorry sir not good at the French thing) new way (new for the Iraq war, this tactic has always been used previously) of conducting operations. I think it is only a matter of time before the civilians of Iraq turn full heartedly against the “insurgency”. Yes the Insurgence are Middle Eastern, but a vary small number of them are actually Iraqi. We are already starting to see this taking place. I know the success is downplayed in the media, but the word I received from friends still in country is “Things are looking up”. Is that satisfactory? In my book, no, but is a start.
In time, it could work, on some levels. I my self would like to see something more. Nothing that Obama is talking about mind you. I mean a real solution, not pulling out. Just to come back in 6 months to start all over again, once millions of innocent people are slaughtered. We brought this to them (Iraqi). Now that some are helping us, and progress is being made, it would be a fool’s choice to leave for political gain. I am not arguing about weather this was a “just war” (there never has been one) or weather we should have invaded. Those are moot points, we ARE there, and we OWE the people there and our OWN lost military men and women, to finish the job and safe guard the US.
Well I guess I will shut it now. I don’t have a plan, I wish I did but I don’t.
Mod
Mod
I just realized I have not thanked you or Sarah for your kind thoughts. So thank you.
Mod
Nick's thoughts on whether or not this is a "just" war and what isn't the solution mirror what my own thoughts have been on the subject. Your views are very much appreciated. Particularly since you do have first hand knowledge of the situation.A very good friend just sent her husband back to Iraq after two weeks leave. This is his second tour in their three year marriage. He's National Guard, not (or so he thought) active military. It's hard to say I think he should go back. Finish the job. I would not be the one to send him. I am grateful for the sacrifices he's made though and I do honestly believe we're safer here at home because of them.
Thank you, Nick.
well-let me step in it
we have been meddling for a while now
when the buildings came down-i knew it was about the arab situation
when the buildings came down there had already been a massive loss of life much of it state sponsored by u.s.
we kept trying to fix it and i would love to think we were just misguided not actively persecuting arab nations and peoples
however i knew that really wasn't the case and as well meaning as we wanted to be
we'd mucked up the middle east pretty bad
and jihad was made 30-50 years prior to 9/11
why couldn't we have brokered peace before the saudi nationals decided to get on those planes
HOW THE HELL DID THAT SECOND PLANE GET ANYWHERE NEAR THOSE BUILDINGS!!!
and when the smoke cleared why did we give up on bin laden and invade iraq?
go ahead try to make a coherent argument for a preemptive attack on a soveriegn nation that was not involved in 9/11, had no weapons of mass destruction and no connections to al qaeda? i'm waiting to hear it
from the tone of things around these forums we don't care much for the french why don't we go fix their attitudes with a little, shut your froggy mouths and take part in our illegal action, bombing raid on paris
then we can allow the folks who get their kicks from such things to run into the louvre looting and smashing a little frenchy art
and then when we've bombed the shit out of their infrastructure we can argue about whether we should stick around and fix all the stuff we broke but we'll be talkin in english none of that foreign cheesy language and we'll take over the champs elysee for our "green zone" and have halliburton erect an oil derrick where the effiel tower stood
yah-it is time for us to stop calling our victims terrorists and look at who the real threat is--if you were over 30 when 9/11 happened you knew it was the end result of our years of failed middle east policy
let's stop pretending that the bogey man is out to get us
we are the bogey men
we have been meddling for a while now
when the buildings came down-i knew it was about the arab situation
when the buildings came down there had already been a massive loss of life much of it state sponsored by u.s.
we kept trying to fix it and i would love to think we were just misguided not actively persecuting arab nations and peoples
however i knew that really wasn't the case and as well meaning as we wanted to be
we'd mucked up the middle east pretty bad
and jihad was made 30-50 years prior to 9/11
why couldn't we have brokered peace before the saudi nationals decided to get on those planes
HOW THE HELL DID THAT SECOND PLANE GET ANYWHERE NEAR THOSE BUILDINGS!!!
and when the smoke cleared why did we give up on bin laden and invade iraq?
go ahead try to make a coherent argument for a preemptive attack on a soveriegn nation that was not involved in 9/11, had no weapons of mass destruction and no connections to al qaeda? i'm waiting to hear it
from the tone of things around these forums we don't care much for the french why don't we go fix their attitudes with a little, shut your froggy mouths and take part in our illegal action, bombing raid on paris
then we can allow the folks who get their kicks from such things to run into the louvre looting and smashing a little frenchy art
and then when we've bombed the shit out of their infrastructure we can argue about whether we should stick around and fix all the stuff we broke but we'll be talkin in english none of that foreign cheesy language and we'll take over the champs elysee for our "green zone" and have halliburton erect an oil derrick where the effiel tower stood
yah-it is time for us to stop calling our victims terrorists and look at who the real threat is--if you were over 30 when 9/11 happened you knew it was the end result of our years of failed middle east policy
let's stop pretending that the bogey man is out to get us
we are the bogey men
"go ahead try to make a coherent argument for a preemptive attack on a soveriegn nation that was not involved in 9/11, had no weapons of mass destruction and no connections to al qaeda? i'm waiting to hear it "Copied from my review of "The Accidental American":
Me and my mate Sid figured the whole thing out. Why would Blair have dragged Britain into the Iraq invasion as he did? It was the single most unpopular political act in Britain for 25 years. A million people marched against it. He turned from hero to zero in one month because of it. Not to mention that he was a Christian and should have flinched at the inevitable death and destruction. He was isolated and despised ever after it. Why would he do it when everyone was urging Hans Blick and the United Nations? Well - everyone knows about 9/11 and the Taliban/Afghan campaign that followed, no one got especially jumped up about that. The finesse, slide, elision into Iraq, where the quickness of the diplomatic hand deceived the eye, or tried to, was another thing of course. Bush and Blair may or may not have believed in WMD - that may have just been their causus belli, is that the phrase - and there was no connection between Iraq and Bin Laden. However - and now here comes Our Theory - the whole thing was caused by The Moment. It was a unique moment in history where you could get away with something you could never have done before or since - a full scale invasion of an independent middle eastern country by the USA (and Britain, its figleaf). But why would you want to if you could? Because - and this was surely hubris to the max, also known as megalomania - Bush and Blair realised - dreamed, fantasised - that IF they "decapitated" Iraq and installed a pro-Western regime they could EXPORT this "revolution" to Syria and then Palestine. And maybe Iran, with a bit of luck. What a prize! It would be a democratic domino effect. They could solve about 20 problems all at once - the Palestinian problem, for one. The future supply of Middle eastern oil for another. And then seal up forever the source of the jihadi poison. What an enterprise! Brilliant! One or two years of intense effort and then the Middle east would be at peace for generations, the world would weep in gratitude, Nobel Peace Prizes would be in the post.
Okay, so it all went horribly wrong. But you can't blame them for trying, can you?
Paul said: Okay, so it all went horribly wrong. But you can't blame them for trying, can you? Sure I can ... since this was not the reason we were told that we needed to invade Iraq; if the administration had been up front with the American people and we still agreed with what they wanted to do, that would be something else ... instead we were blatantly lied to so that we would so afraid that we overlooked their failure to make the case for invasion ... which IIRC actually does meet the definition of Terrorist.
We have met the enemy and the enemy is us.
The end does not justify the means ... ever.
:( The wool has been pulled over our eyes time and time again throughout history by those with their own agendas of power. (also well said Kristjan and Donald)
The events leading up to, and after, the destruction of the towers in NY are no different.
It is no longer a surprise to be lied to, at least for those of us who are aware of the countless examples of those in power lying to us.
One of the most frustrating aspects of the propaganda after the illegal war upon the people of Iraq was the cry to "Support your Troops!" "If you dont support your boys you are a traitor!" etc
My support was singularly to not send the troops to kill and be killed.
To say that "we are there now" is a sop. Once one realises that a crime has been committed how does continuing in that crime vindicate or justify anything? It doesnt, it merely makes it worse (or self vindicating)
When will people wake up to the fact that we are expendable pieces of the lowest value in a global game of power?
When will people stop directly or indirectly condoning violence?
As was said in criticism against those of us who spoke out against the war, "If you arent with us you are against us!".....
Likewise i say that if you dont utterly condemn the invasion and killing of people then you are for the invasion and killing of people.
Those in power will take what chances they can (as per Paul's eloquent post). When we make it even easier for them by not resisting, then we have ourselves to blame when they get the taste for it and reckon they can get away with more, next time.
edit: (Nick you spoke of "the insurgents"...... *sighs and takes a deep breath*
If the USA bombed the life out of my country, killing thousands as "collateral damage" and then invaded my country, you can bet your last failing dollar that i would resist with every single part of my being. I would be convincing every person i knew to do the same.
How can ye not see this? Clearly i would just be another fanatical terrorist insurgent worthy only of being hunted down and exterminated.
*sigh*)
Mod
While I do not think the war in Iraq has been conducted well by any stretch of the imagination, I understand the reasons for our going in there to begin with. I don't agree with the doctrine of the Bush administration, they are idealogues of the worst kind. But I do take the threat of militant Islam seriously. It is not a creature that we have created, it has come into existence through as a logical outgrowth of the region, culture and religion in which it has sprung. The nations in which it has been fostered carry responsibility. We have had a long and complicated history with the Middle East. Our hands are not clean, but we are not the ones creating the rest of the world to be as it is. Anyone who thinks the US is the worst kid on the block needs to spend some time abroad, and some more time really studying 20th Century History. Have we lived up to the promise of what we could be, considering the freedoms we enjoy here? No, not really. But I don't think we are completely beyond the pale.
We have, as a nation, unfortunately been holding a tiger by the tail since the end of WW2. What we see in terms of global problems are the result of WW2 leading to the Cold War, leading to post-Cold War chaos, dangers, and hot spots. Has greed also been a factor? Yes. Has corruption? Of course. But so has the unfortunate situation of the need to stand up to Communism, Fascism, and other kinds of Totalitarian regimes. The reasons we are in the region of the Middle East are complex and varied. And the consequences of that are also.
I think it is short sighted and naive to think that if we would just "be nice" to the poor fundamentalist Islamic people that they would stop being angry at us and leave us alone. And I don't think that all of the world's conflicts can be boiled down to "war is bad, peace is good". There are reasons people fight, and it's not always power games and manipulation. Fighting the Nazis was not a mistake. Fighting the Japanese was forced upon us. Since then things have not been as clear cut... but if you study, really study, the complexities of global politics since then, I think it's not so easy to say you personally would have or could have made better decisions than the people who were in the positions to do so.
When you have a tiger by the tail how do you let go without getting your face eaten off? First you have to wait for the tiger to calm down. Anybody got a tranquilizer?
Mod
As I have said, debating about if we should be there or not is a moot point at this time. We are there, we broke it, and we need to fix it. Simply waking up tomorrow and leaving would be vary bad.
When will people wake up to the fact that we are expendable pieces of the lowest value in a global game of power?
I do not consider myself to be expendable. I think you may feel I am but that is hardly a fact.
edit: (Nick you spoke of "the insurgents"...... *sighs and takes a deep breath*
If the USA bombed the life out of my country, killing thousands as "collateral damage" and then invaded my country, you can bet your last failing dollar that i would resist with every single part of my being. I would be convincing every person i knew to do the same.
I don’t recall ever bombing Iran, or Syria. As I have said, the vast majority of the people/insurgents are foreign fighters. And for the record they fight the Iraqi more then they fight us. That is why the surge has been so successful. Because we have altered from a search, seize and go. To search, seize, and stay.
You know, I was planning on going on and on, but I don’t think there is any point in trying to convince you or anyone else of your view point, that we are not the enemy.
I will close with this, just something to think about. If al Qaeda came about, because we “Cut support” for bin ladin, and his fighters against Russia. Then just think of the beast you would create if one were to do did it again (X2 to the Iraqi). We Value life in this country. They do not. They don’t care what they kill as long as they are killing. Innocent people do get caught up in the fighting, as a grunt, I know how it feels when your actions injure or kill an innocent.
Disagree, fine, debate the topic fine. But to call us then enemy, I can not hold my contempt anymore, you make me sick.
i appreciate the points guys but i'm in a fine tuning mood this morning so...
if the back street boys were dreamin of exporting a pro-western regime to the entire middle east in the name of stability then i'll eat my hat
sort of a machevellian they meant well?
this is the argument that gets us to sit on our hands
i don't want to ascribe specious noble intentions to them-i think hegemony is closer to the truth (Noam Chomsky Hegemony or Survival)
ill-advised and ethically shaky is understatement
and allows us to fall into oh well maybe we'll catch our mistake next time
we were lied to but didn't we know we were being lied to-again?
and what happens when we get lied to the next time?
the whole middle eastern morass of our own making that we always were too afraid to honestly address
seriously, if you were born arabic in that area would you be able to ignore, deny or excuse u.s. actions or would you be throwing stones and listening to the mullahs?
we had 30-50 years to prevent 9/11
we didn't acknowledge the real grievances of the arabic people
we didn't stop our policies and now we want to bomb them back to the paleolithic and call them barbarians
and seriously nick-i understand that you wouldn't want to feel like a pawn on a big chess board but...you are a pawn on a big chessboard
you did serve in the military, that's sort of the definition of pawn
if the back street boys were dreamin of exporting a pro-western regime to the entire middle east in the name of stability then i'll eat my hat
sort of a machevellian they meant well?
this is the argument that gets us to sit on our hands
i don't want to ascribe specious noble intentions to them-i think hegemony is closer to the truth (Noam Chomsky Hegemony or Survival)
ill-advised and ethically shaky is understatement
and allows us to fall into oh well maybe we'll catch our mistake next time
we were lied to but didn't we know we were being lied to-again?
and what happens when we get lied to the next time?
the whole middle eastern morass of our own making that we always were too afraid to honestly address
seriously, if you were born arabic in that area would you be able to ignore, deny or excuse u.s. actions or would you be throwing stones and listening to the mullahs?
we had 30-50 years to prevent 9/11
we didn't acknowledge the real grievances of the arabic people
we didn't stop our policies and now we want to bomb them back to the paleolithic and call them barbarians
and seriously nick-i understand that you wouldn't want to feel like a pawn on a big chess board but...you are a pawn on a big chessboard
you did serve in the military, that's sort of the definition of pawn
Mod
"But I don't think we are completely beyond the pale."
no unfortuneately we are right in the pale with our boots on their necks
enemy enemy enemy
saying it over and over will make you feel better
no unfortuneately we are right in the pale with our boots on their necks
enemy enemy enemy
saying it over and over will make you feel better
Whoa, Charissa, write this down in your diary. I agree with almost everything you said!
ko-i'm not blaming the rank and file military
when one decides to participate in war, there is a moral decision being made and the soldiers are used as pawns
being a warrior is honorable in cases of protecting the populace but this is not that situation
i live with my daughter who is in the navy, she served in the gulf for 7 mos.
when we were saber rattling at iran she was on the ship that was pointing their guns at the iranian coast within their missile range
she has marine friends who served on the ground, they lost 10 of their number
she helped deploy them and bring them back
if she dies in active duty, i become the legal guardian of her children
i get to explain to them how and why mommy died
i have said thanks for your sacrifice, i have had people say it to me
i DO NOT want to "sacrifice" my child and their mother for an unjust war
when one decides to participate in war, there is a moral decision being made and the soldiers are used as pawns
being a warrior is honorable in cases of protecting the populace but this is not that situation
i live with my daughter who is in the navy, she served in the gulf for 7 mos.
when we were saber rattling at iran she was on the ship that was pointing their guns at the iranian coast within their missile range
she has marine friends who served on the ground, they lost 10 of their number
she helped deploy them and bring them back
if she dies in active duty, i become the legal guardian of her children
i get to explain to them how and why mommy died
i have said thanks for your sacrifice, i have had people say it to me
i DO NOT want to "sacrifice" my child and their mother for an unjust war
Nick said: The phrase “Illegal war” If it is illegal, why are we still there? The democrats have been in control of congress for quite some time. Elected to bring our troops home. They blame Bush for blocking these actions. HA! What a crock. “They” fooled you. It is generally considered illegal for one country to attack another without the existence of an immediate threat. The Bush administration hinged their entire legal justification of an invasion on the lie that such a threat existed. Now that it is clear that such a threat did not in fact exist, the legal justification for the invasion is missing. It is therefore illegal. We are still there because nobody is powerful enough to make us leave and not for any other reason. As for the ability for the Democrats to actually ‘bring the troops home,’ given the small majority that the Democrats actually have in Congress, the only mechanism the Bush administration won’t (and can’t) block would be a complete failure to fund one of the many Defense appropriation necessary for our military to work at all. I can’t really fault the Democrats for looking at such a draconian move with disfavor ... I’d like to ... but I can’t.
Nick said: As I have said, debating about if we should be there or not is a moot point at this time. We are there, we broke it, and we need to fix it. Simply waking up tomorrow and leaving would be vary bad.
I disagree ... the failure to actually talk about why we are there and what specific conditions are needed before withdrawal is a key factor in why our current strategy blows chunks. We need to stop posturing here and actually talk about what is possible ... and that may actually include a recognition that victory is not achievable or that the cost of such is untenable ... that we may not be able to fix it; that whole you break it you fix it is a horrible fallacy, not the least of which is because that implies that it wasn’t broke to begin with ... and I think it very clearly was broken already. I can at least agree that a precipitous withdrawal would be a bad thing ... as would happen if the Democrats ever forced the issue by refusing funding ... whatever we do, it needs to be much better planned then the start of this fiasco was.
Nick said: If al Qaeda came about, because we “Cut support” for bin ladin, and his fighters against Russia. Then just think of the beast you would create if one were to do did it again (X2 to the Iraqi).
We have never financially supported Bin Laden ... that is a factual error.
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive...
Nick said: We Value life in this country. They do not. They don’t care what they kill as long as they are killing.
Sorry man ... I don’t buy this argument and I think it is extremely dangerous to promote it.
Nick said: Disagree, fine, debate the topic fine. But to call us then enemy, I can not hold my contempt anymore, you make me sick.
Just in case you missed the reference alluded to ...
http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/wehaveme...
Ok, I've desperately been trying to keep my mouth shut about this, but I don't think I can anymore.I struggle greatly with the portrayal of U.S. soliders are heroes who should be thanked without regard to their personal actions and motivations.
I live in a working class small town/suburb about twenty miles north of Milwaukee. Every year, at any of the twelve thousand parades we seem to have (yes, it's one of those towns...homecoming, halloween, pirate day, fish day...i could go on) the people who have gone overseas are trotted (nay, paraded) out as heroes. You know what? I taught in this town. And I know some of those soldiers. And some of those soldiers are jerks. Guess why they went into the military? It's sad. There's also a jackass cop in town who wanted to be the police chief and tried to push his military record as evidence of his ability to lead despite the fact he was a raging prick. Listen...not every police officer or fireperson is a hero either. Don't even get me started on priests. No profession is without its dark examples, including mine.
I won't even mention some of the atrocities american soliders have been caught visiting upon foreigners...rape...torture...and no, not the kind they were ordered to complete. The kind they did on their free time.
Are some of the soliders good people? Of course. In fact, I would say the great majority are good people. I've met a few who joined the military honestly because they like the idea of serving their country and making the world a better place. It's too bad they get caught in the crossfire, both literally and figuratively. A neighbor of mine has done two tours in Iraq and we were close friends before he moved to Florida. Unfortunately, even he admits the war is fucked...but (and I agree with him on this one) leaving now would be a mistake.
But I don't understand this dimmwitted desire to create heroes of every person who walked middle eastern soil in an American uniform. One of my friend's wife's brothers was a soldier, and the soldier's mom wants to paint him as this great individual now that he's returned from Iraq. You know what? He was an asshole when he left and he came back an asshole. He was not making a brave personal sacrifice by joining the military. He was looking to shoot guns and look cool in the parades he would inevitably walk when he returned. He also acts like he is somehow wise and experienced now. What a crock of shit. He's a dumbass kid who took orders in the desert for the better part of a year.
Thanks for listening to me vent. Nick, you seem like a nice enough guy, and your words are measured and not at all jingoistic. I apologize if in any way I have communicated that this post is aimed at you.
It's far too easy to analyze the problems in the Middle East shortsightedly. The West (and by the West, I'm speaking of England, France, and the United States) has meddled, without any attempt at foresight, in the region since the end of World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. England and France were only too happy to chop up the region in terms of their own geopolitic designs, without regard to regional, ethnic, and relgious affinity; thereafter, these nascent countries were "staffed" by leaders palatable to the West--in some cases they were "merely" backwards, in other cases outright despotic. The West had no interest whatsoever in the liberties of these people and made no provisions for their self-determination. The Lebanese, at the time, wished to be incorporated into Greater Syria, for instance, but this didn't suit France and Britain, who needed this region divided up for a balance of powers.
As the United States grew as a global power, of course it too meddled in the Middle East: at times to counter the tacit Arab-Soviet alliances, and at other times to mitigate local disputes (the Iran-Iraq War, for instance). Those persons who claim that the West is not responsible for much of the situation as it is in the Middle East are hopelessly naive. Social unrest and radicalism are not generally the product of an incident or a moment, but of decades of incremental development. Islamic radicalism is a response to several factors, but chief among them is Western dominance and interference.
Saddam Hussein was useful to America during the Iran-Iraq War, and therefore we had little concern for his cruel and malicious behavior toward his own "people" at that time. We discovered our conscience regarding the Kurds only when it served our interest to do so. As always, history is revisionist and subordinate to the practical demands of the here and now.
So what's the solution? There is none which is apparent. What's done cannot be undone. There is only the least of all evils, and the situation is so complex and multi-layered that it's exceedingly difficult to determine what that is at this time. Does that mean we are forced into a position either of passivity or of acquiescence? I can't say. But the point is: Beware of anyone who imagines that the situation is black-or-white, ethically simple, or otherwise obvious. People should be conflicted on this issue, or else their understanding is likely too superficial. (I'll shut up now.)
As the United States grew as a global power, of course it too meddled in the Middle East: at times to counter the tacit Arab-Soviet alliances, and at other times to mitigate local disputes (the Iran-Iraq War, for instance). Those persons who claim that the West is not responsible for much of the situation as it is in the Middle East are hopelessly naive. Social unrest and radicalism are not generally the product of an incident or a moment, but of decades of incremental development. Islamic radicalism is a response to several factors, but chief among them is Western dominance and interference.
Saddam Hussein was useful to America during the Iran-Iraq War, and therefore we had little concern for his cruel and malicious behavior toward his own "people" at that time. We discovered our conscience regarding the Kurds only when it served our interest to do so. As always, history is revisionist and subordinate to the practical demands of the here and now.
So what's the solution? There is none which is apparent. What's done cannot be undone. There is only the least of all evils, and the situation is so complex and multi-layered that it's exceedingly difficult to determine what that is at this time. Does that mean we are forced into a position either of passivity or of acquiescence? I can't say. But the point is: Beware of anyone who imagines that the situation is black-or-white, ethically simple, or otherwise obvious. People should be conflicted on this issue, or else their understanding is likely too superficial. (I'll shut up now.)
Mod
Sadam Had a vary effective way of ruling in the Middle East. He did exactly what his boardering countrys are doing.
"You agree with me great, here is a nice desk and a palace!"
"You don't agree with me? Well then, let’s see where did we put your daughters head..."
I just find it un-believable that someone as compassionate as you are Maureen can turn a blind eye to this because you "feel" we are bad. Has our foreign policies added wood to the fire. Yep sure did. But the fire was already burning. That fire started burning at the end of WWII... Actually, I think that plan was drafted by our good friend in the UK... **Disclaimer** I could be wrong on that, it has been a really long time since I read up on WWII.
I should also make it clear I don't BLAME the soldiers, esp. those good people who went into the military because of limited options in other facets of their life or truly want to make the world a better place. I just don't automatically classify them as heroes.
Anthony, I know some military who are not nice people as well. As you said, there are rotten apples in every bunch. But military service (and public service) is a noble profession, even if the person serving is not themselves noble. The fact of the matter is, no matter what motivation one has for entering the military, these people still fight and put their lives on the line to give the rest of us the freedom to sit here and argue about whether they should be fighting or not. Each person may not be a hero, but their service is heroic. And I will continue to thank them for it.2 cousins served in Iraq and Afghanistan and I can't tell you, Anthony and Maureen, how disheartening it was for them to think that their countrymen had either forgotten them, given up on them, or held them in contempt. As Ko pointed out, we should not blame or punish these (yes, brave) men and women.
Sarah, I would assume, then, that you consider the priesthood a noble profession...should I have the same attitude towards priests who violate children? Should they be thanked for their service? I apologize if that's an overtly harsh analogy, but I'm struggling to follow your logic. Should a soldier who rapes a teenage girl in Iraq be thanked?
A soldier's JOB is to fight to keep the country safe and free and to promote democracy across the globe. He or she should not be demoralized for doing their job.A priest's job is not to violate children.
Not the same thing at all.
And you're missing my whole point. No, a soldier who rapes a girl in Iraq should not be thanked for raping her. I didn't say that these people can do no wrong and that their service in the military negates any horrible thing they have done in their lives. My point is that thanking someone for their service to the country, for fighting for our freedoms, is always appropriate. That doesn't mean that you thank them for everything they have ever done.
I'm not trying to demoralize anyone. In fact, I think it's dangerous to imply that any criticism of soldiers' behavior should be disallowed because it might "demoralize" the soldiers. A person who goes over there for the right reasons, and is a good person? Well, I wish him/her the best. A person who is a prick about it? Nah. Still a prick. I don't care if they went to Iraq or Harvard or if they get my fries in the drive thru. Still a prick. Unfortunately some soldiers seem to get a free pass on engaging in moral behavior both when they're gone and when they return.
Randomanthony said: I'm not trying to demoralize anyone. In fact, I think it's dangerous to imply that any criticism of soldiers' behavior should be disallowed because it might "demoralize" the soldiers. I think you guys are talking at cross purposes ... you are talking about individual behavior while Sarah is talking about a profession. You are always free to judge somebody because of their behavior ... what we should not do is pre-judge somebody because of their chosen profession. The military (as a whole) is a service to our country and is the reason we have the freedoms that we have. I think it appropriate to start with a positive bias here until indivudal behavior indicates otherwise?
Fair enough. Perhaps we needed Kristjan's objective eye here...thanks. My apologies, Sarah.
Mod
Nick... way to stand your ground and speak your truth. I'm so relieved to not be the lone voice in this debate. I get exhausted living in the middle of Liberal Central, arguing with every member of my family and the neighbors too... It's nice when someone can say at least portions of what I talk about on a weekly basis around here. And it's even better that you speak from experience. How many of us can say we have actually been to Iraq and seen with our own eyes what the reality is there?
Nice post David.
Maureen... I don't think there is much of a point in getting into it with you. You argue almost purely emotionally. Your feelings are not wrong, but a feeling is not an informed opinion.
Anthony... I'm with Sarah on this one. Even though I was raised to despise the military I have come to see soldiering as a noble profession. The majority of our men and women in arms are good people trying to do a difficult job. What they are exposed to through that leads to some unfortunate side effects... not the least of which is PTSD usually. A condition I live with, so I know a tiny bit about it. Sure, a lot of them probably behave like assholes, and I would never excuse behavior like that. But I see just as many who don't... and just as many people with less reason who behave just as badly. So... I'm sorry you have that opinion.
Mod
As do I, Nick. I think you get it. Thanks.I'm sorry you can't see the genius of Morrissey, Char. But I like you anyway.
hmmm-the profession should require moral reasoning because lethal force is involved
i know from experience it doesn't always
that requires a higher standard not a lesser one be placed on the professionals
the rank and file isn't making the major decisions so should have a bit less accountability
char you confuse writing, speaking style with info
and presume too much due to personal bias
i could spend 10 minutes finding an incredibly precise definition but wiki will have to do.
The pawn is the weakest (most subordinate?) and most numerous piece in the game of chess, representing infantry, or more particularly armed peasants or pikemen.
and Ko we are cool-i know you are right on
btw many vietnam vets were thankful for the protests and my vietnamese step mother was glad the bombs and napalm stopped
i know from experience it doesn't always
that requires a higher standard not a lesser one be placed on the professionals
the rank and file isn't making the major decisions so should have a bit less accountability
char you confuse writing, speaking style with info
and presume too much due to personal bias
i could spend 10 minutes finding an incredibly precise definition but wiki will have to do.
The pawn is the weakest (most subordinate?) and most numerous piece in the game of chess, representing infantry, or more particularly armed peasants or pikemen.
and Ko we are cool-i know you are right on
btw many vietnam vets were thankful for the protests and my vietnamese step mother was glad the bombs and napalm stopped
Mod
1) I don't know as fact but have herd some staggering numbers. Anybody know?
2) I don't think one can group Vietnam and Iraq together.
We were attacked on 9/11, in Vietnam... I don't know, I have never herd a definitive answer outside of stopping the spread of Communism.
saddam hussein did not attack us nick
iraqis did not attack us nick
the estimate on iraqis is over 1.5 million
iraqis did not attack us nick
the estimate on iraqis is over 1.5 million
Mod
2)This conflict doesn't have boarders.
Mod
i think
you don't like me
and you appear to not like emotional reasoning
i could be wrong
but i don't think so
logical reasoning is not necessarily superior to emotional reasoning and is no more infused with information
(also i don't think humans are capable of purely logical reasoning no matter what my ex says)
the information may be different or it could be the same
to assume some one isn't making an informed opinion because they are basing their argument on primarily emotional reasoning is just that presumptious
and i don't even agree that my reasoning is emotional and yours is logical
we are remarkably similar in our reading
yet we have very different views on morality, politics and probably a few other areas
we both are obviously also very opinionated and very confident our reasoning and arguments are the "right ones" that's definitely going to bring us into conflict
however, i'm not going to call you an uninformed cretin if we disagree
and actually don't care what your opinion is of my reasoning or your opinion of my level of information attainment
but hey it's saint paddy's day
erin go braugh
and let's fight!
you don't like me
and you appear to not like emotional reasoning
i could be wrong
but i don't think so
logical reasoning is not necessarily superior to emotional reasoning and is no more infused with information
(also i don't think humans are capable of purely logical reasoning no matter what my ex says)
the information may be different or it could be the same
to assume some one isn't making an informed opinion because they are basing their argument on primarily emotional reasoning is just that presumptious
and i don't even agree that my reasoning is emotional and yours is logical
we are remarkably similar in our reading
yet we have very different views on morality, politics and probably a few other areas
we both are obviously also very opinionated and very confident our reasoning and arguments are the "right ones" that's definitely going to bring us into conflict
however, i'm not going to call you an uninformed cretin if we disagree
and actually don't care what your opinion is of my reasoning or your opinion of my level of information attainment
but hey it's saint paddy's day
erin go braugh
and let's fight!
no...we're the new think tank?
they're going to call us for the next peace summitt and ask us to present our opinions?
i'm not bored out of my mind and amusing my self with semi mindless chatter?
did ya miss the part where i sit my grandchildren down and tell them mommy just got blown up?
and is that bobby?
morbid fucking gallows humor because we are all fiddlin as rome burns
but the cornbeef is in the oven so my big list of things to do is done for the day so...
think i'll go read a book since no one wants to play
they're going to call us for the next peace summitt and ask us to present our opinions?
i'm not bored out of my mind and amusing my self with semi mindless chatter?
did ya miss the part where i sit my grandchildren down and tell them mommy just got blown up?
and is that bobby?
morbid fucking gallows humor because we are all fiddlin as rome burns
but the cornbeef is in the oven so my big list of things to do is done for the day so...
think i'll go read a book since no one wants to play
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Axis Mundi X
Books mentioned in this topic
Onder vrouwen (other topics)Donde las mujeres (other topics)
Tiernos y traidores (other topics)
The Ring of the Dove: A Treatise on the Art and Practice of Arab Love (other topics)
The Hand of Fatima (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Álvaro Pombo (other topics)Narcís Oller (other topics)
Josep Maria de Sagarra (other topics)
Josefina Aldecoa (other topics)
Salvador Espriu (other topics)
More...
Thinking of what is best for the people of the country, which system is best?
Presidential,
Prime Ministerial
Other Head of State,
No single leader, but a council of sorts.
Other ideas or discussions?