Re: Voting stats

Patrick Dolan wrote:
...
> Are you aware of the atrocities that were performed on the
> American GI's in Nam?
...

Specifically, no, in general, yes; the Viet Cong took the brutatily
award. That atmosphere, of atrocities, was no doubt used to justify My
Lai (at least below the surface).

...
> A Harvard shrink playing classroom games is not war. The example
> you gave is meaningless. Only a person in a college classroom
> would think that your example meant anything.

Fair enough. Note that, however, you haven't said why it's
meaningless. Of course it's a simulation, and not of war, but it still
says something about human nature.

...
> Then, unless you have an agenda in this group,

I have an agenda; I see Iraq through the lens of lotsa different wars.
The Vietnam war should've taught the US humility, I suppose that's my
primary agenda item.

> shouldn't your sentence
> say; "Otherwise, decent people, well..."? Why is it that you mention
> "Human Nature" and then localize a negative statement to "Americans"?

I was trying to talk specifically and generalize at the same time, it's
an error, you're right.

> Is that a Freudian slip of the tongue?

I know what a slip is, but I'm not getting your point.

> >When you put the racial component into the mix, as existed in
> >the Vietnam war, things can get that much uglier that much faster.
>
> Only with racists.

It's easier to discriminate, in terms of "they're different", and then
dehumanize a "different" race. Exemplified by "gook"; of course, this
happens in every war. It's just easier when there are more visual
cues.

> When pressed to the edge of imminent death, almost
> all humans react violently. VERY VIOLENTLY. That's war. The usage of
> war to resolve problems wouldn't be necessary if a governing body like
> the U.N. would ACTUALLY DO WHAT THEY EXIST TO DO.

Ok, yes.

> The Iraq war is an example of what is wrong with the U.N., not the USA
> or anyone else. FIX THE UNITED NATIONS. MAKE IT DO IT'S JOB.

Yes and no. Because the USSR was boycotting the UN at the time it was
possible to obtain a UN mandate for the Korean war. In a perfect
world, with 20/20 hindsight and so on, Bush *should've* been able to
work towards a UN ultimatum instead of a unilateral ultimatum. At the
very least, more realistically, there should've been more involvement
from NATO allies of the US.

However, this brings up Libby, in terms of the marketing of the
invasion. Bush chose a very specific argument. At the least, it turns
out Saddam didn't have WMD's. At the most it was fabrication on par
with the escelation that led to the Vietnam war.

Bush wasn't out there using his bully-pulpit to make the sanctions and
inspections an issue prior to 9/11. To suddenly issue ultimatums, the
outcome wasn't surprising. That's Bush's choice, in that Bush mingled
Saddam's WMD aspirations with Al Quada artificially.

There was, to a degree, a variety of legitimate arguments for regime
change in Iraq. (Just as there were legitimate reasons for the Vietnam
war.) However, those arguments never occurred, there was no formal
declaration of war, etc. The marketing was conceited.


...
> The concept of the U.N. is a great idea and well conceived, but
> it doesn't do what it's supposed to do. Enforcement is necessary
> to implement rules until those rules become an accepted way of
> life.

Unfortunately, with member countries like Iran or N. Korea, I don't see
that happening. The League of Nations failed because it expelled
nations, wheras the UN is probably too inclusive. I just don't see
that as a viable solution in my lifetime.


...
> To express it simply, he didn't have what it takes to be a leader.
...

If you only respond to one point: What happened at Abu Ghraib, then?
This might come off a bit dopey, but the military needs some
Politically Correct lessons in diversity. Recently there was a ruckus
at the Air Force academy over proslytization, which is very topical to
fighting a war against terrorists who use the Koran. Interesting,
there's a US commander in Iraq who uses the term "hearts and minds" and
has signs about that.

...
> Ergo; yes, there
> was a constant drain on them that created a supply and demand problem
> that in turn allowed many to become second luey's that under better
> circumstances would not have made the grade.

Which is why, I hope, there's more discussion and training in the US
military today so that would Calley's modern equivalent try the same
that no one would follow.

...
> There are NO representative groups of people in combat
...
I meant that his troops weren't a sort of F-troop, if you will.

...
> No, you're wrong. The natural tendency of almost any human would be
> to stop the insanity, American or not.

You're right.

...
> Bull***. Children don't fight wars. There are scattered examples of
> children being used by adults as combatants, but these are
> exceptions,not rules.

Hmm. Teenagers, then? I believe that most terrorist organizations
recruit children.


...
> That is not the rule, but the exception. People seem to gravitate
> towards the exceptions in combat stories. "I once saw" is a very
> common way of starting a battle story. Each person in the group then
> tries to out-gross the other guy.

I think the point still stands in that there're elaborate funerals for
suicide bombers, which has the effect of glorifying terrorism. (?)


> How about if you and I get back to something concerning Iraq. I've
> lived and remember enough about Nam to last me another lifetime. I
> really don't need to re-hash it.
...

Sure. Abu Ghraib?

I responded to your points, but don't feel obligated to continue,
please.


-Thufir

.

Quantcast