One last post on this subject; and only to clarify things for tw.

I don't consider animals evil. I simply hold humans to a higher standard.

Obviously, you either didn't read my post in its entirety, you read it and didn't understand it, or... I just don't know. I simply cannot follow your logic from my point to yours. As for being "inspired cannon fodder", only a jackass safe in his ivory tower would not realize that the "cannon fodder" are the ones on the ground doing the day-to-day work and dealing with the people; therefore we, far more than you, far more than even the leadership in the States, know the nature of the people here. And the people here are not that much different from people anywhere. No cry of "evil!" from W. or his cronies is going to get any soldier excited. The same bastards trying to force their rise to power here exist in EVERY culture- sometimes they get their opportunity, other times they don't. Get it yet?

Seriously though, are my communication skills that bad? Did anyone else besides marichiko understand (not agree with; understand) my post, as off-subject as it may have been?

I understood it completely.

Osama and Afghanistan: I was in Afghanistan when the Iraq war kicked off; our mission capability dropped through the floor. We couldn't get the parts we needed to repair our transportation, everything was being rerouted to Iraq, the new priority. Not two months after the Iraq war started, the Taliban were already regaining territory. Up to that point, the military had made some good progress, and I dare say we were on the way to finishing off the taliban completely- they were on the run constantly, many Afghani villagers considered them a joke (which hurts recruitment), and intel indicated that they were far more interested in finding a place to hide or retiring than staging attacks.

The other thing that hurt our mission in Afghanistan is an elephant in the room than no one talks about. PAKISTAN. Pakistan is so tied up with the Taliban and Al Qaeda its... ridiculous. We were forbidden to mention the words "pakistan" and "border" to the media. There's so many cases of the Pakistani army aiding the taliban it's unreal... most of them witnessed by military personnel never make the media. Because of some trite agreement at the beginning of the war (which was forced, mind you), and their almost completely notional status as "allies", it's ignored. According to the media our intel services work together, but I think there's probably a great deal of arm-bending behind that.

Did you justify your conclusions by citing 'them' as evil? Then follow only that transition into my reply. I did not respond to the rest of your post because that comes later. I only addressed what you used as justification for your conclusions - soundbyte reasoning: evil.

It does not matter whether you regard animals as evil or not. By your definition of 'evil' then biological creatures - man or animals - are either good or evil. 'Feeling' that animals are not good or evil suggests maybe you need to read Descartes' book where he starts "I think; therefore I am". Conclusions only based in logical reasoning.

I am further surprised by your response to 'cannon fodder'. If logical, then you never for one second take any of it personal. The definition of 'cannon fodder' probably applies to many of your peers; and is not an insult of anyone. It is simply a fact. Again, 'feelings' have no place among facts. But many enlisted men are more easily inspired by 'they are evil'. Many who don't see beyond a tactical objective also justify their actions in 'good verses evil'.

Let's take another example: Pakistani army supporting Taliban. Well, yes, if everything is only black and white. Is that Taliban child also Taliban? Yes and no. Both answers are accurate. Meanwhile you know the Pakistani army has never controlled the Afghan border. So yes, the Pakistani army is (sometimes) making 'deals with the devil'. Again, perspective. For the most part, Pakistanis are very much anti-Taliban. And to act, sometimes one must make deals with his enemy. Perspective. The Pakistani Afghan border is far more complex than the black and white picture you have portrayed.

There is no ivory tower. There are people who also see the bigger picture (ie strategic objective) and there are soldiers who only see things in good verses evil. How many in Vietnam saw what Ellsberg and Col Vann saw on the same battlefield? Again - perspective.

How does one accomplish amazing tasks? One inspires the emotional brain by simplifying it down into 'they are evil'. Emotion is a tool to be used by a logical mind. Tell the emotional part that 'he is evil' and the emotional part will employ strength and power you did not even know exists.

Meanwhile the logical brain must remain in control - to then tell the emotional half that "he no longer is evil". Literally turn off hate. Cannon fodder cannot do that without orders. No problem. We sometimes need the cannon fodder. So we tell them what is evil - and they achieve tactical objectives.

Don't for one minute let yourself be stuck in a cannon fodder mode. Even on the Pakistani Afghan border, the situation is far more complex - has so many more perspectives - than what you have posted. It is typically too complex for 'cannon fodder' to understand. But you should see through the propaganda. You should appreciate so many perspectives as to then realize that 'evil' does not exist. Black and white interpretations are to KISS – for ‘cannon fodder' benefit. You should be seeing above such emotional inspiration.

Meanwhile, why are we in Iraq? Because of logical facts? Of course not. The president played to 'cannon fodder' in his 2002 State of the Union Address. He had us 'feel' bin Laden and Saddam were allies. Facts even back then said otherwise. But so many so failed to think logically as to not see through that lie. Did you? A difference between thinking as 'cannon fodder' and, instead, discovering a world full of perspectives. A world where 'evil' does not exist has too many perspectives.

Are the Pakistani army helping the Taliban? Yes and no. Both answers are correct - depending on the perspective.

Look, tw, I'm done. I've seen you write some excellent posts, but there's no communication going on here whatsoever. I've tried to clarify my point; you tried to reiterate what you thought my point was, and simply, that's not it.
We're going nowhere. Now, if you were playing silly word games in an attempt to "win", then I understand. But that's not what I'm here for. Either way, I think we're at a dead end.

As for the border, I'm telling you, you can read all you want about it, but unless you're a Pakistani posting from a stone's throw away from Afghanistan, I'll trust my experiences over third-hand information.

As for soldiers, or "cannon fodder" (which no longer truly exist in any form in the military*- professional volunteer soldiers are much harder to replace than the old untrained peasant draftees), whatever you want to call them: I can only speak for certain for myself, but the army infantryman is not motivated (to join the military or to actively fight) by anything to do with "evil", the eradication of it, fighting it, etc. I don't think he ever has been.

I'm not going to say here what we're motivated by; although there's three things in general that motivate the infantryman to fight. Someday, when you know what they are, or rather when you realize what they are, I have a feeling we'll be able to communicate.

*I was strongly tempted to make a snarky comment about the marines here.

This brave lady is trying to reach young muslims who are disgusted with a religion that has no progress, no flexibility of interpretation, and wants to make robots of all followers. Her life is constantly being threatened.

http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/

Our mission in Afghanistan has broadened:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/af...an/canada.html

You only repost that I have ignored your points - and never once even quoted an exact sentence. Therefore I have no idea what you are talking about. Am I to wildly speculate which sentence you are citing? Others do that- imply. But implication and political correctness is not me. You did not specifically cite the sentence, so I have no idea - absolutely zero - why you posted "you tried to reiterate what you though my point was". You did not repost that exact sentence. Therefore your post cannot be understood - can only be interpreted with personal biases and speculation.

If something I post is not relevant to your reply, then cite it with quotes and also with specific reasons. A post without WHYs says little that is useful. And again you are posting something not relevant anything I posted. How does this have one iota reference to a concept called ‘evil’? All my posts are only about myths called 'evil' and realities called 'perspective'.

A major difference exists between a Master Sergeant and a Private. Among the many differences is how one understands basic concepts such as a strategic verses a tactical objective. There are also major differences between a professional volunteer and an untrained peasant draftee. But again, all that is about as relevant as the birthday of Karl Marx. Why do you even mention professional soldier’s verses peasant draftees when no such topics have one iota reference to anything I had posted? Even the birthday of Karl Marx has no relevance to 'evil' and 'perspective'.

Anyone knows the #1 tactical reason a soldier fights: to protect his buddy. But again, that has nothing to do with what was posted. How does protecting a buddy have any relationship to a concept called 'evil'? Where does that apply to reasons tactical verses reasons strategic?

I don't just say you replied irrelevant. Extensive additional facts with reasons and with specific examples are included. For example, are your 'three reasons' in the category of tactical or strategic? Why do I ask? Because this concept was posted previously. And because your reply, if intended to communicate, should have listed those three reasons in such terms relevant to previous posts.

In reply, you did not even quote exact sentences to demonstrate how I "tried to reiterate what [i] thought [your] point was". Am I expected to read implications in everything your post? If not, then detail what I tried to reiterate AND how that was not your point AND why.

Meanwhile what motivates a soldier in battle is secondary to how all humans operate; which again demands comprehension of 'tactical objective' verses a 'strategic objective'. Do you understand the difference? Why do I ask? Because your response implies the concepts were not grasped. Again, note the reference to your statement, how it seems irrelevant to the point, and always - WHY.

Are you saying the world is not full of perspectives? But again, I can only guess that essential and underlying concept is not even mentioned? Again implies that you did not understand what I have posted. Instead irrelevant to 'professional soldiers verses peasant troops' ignores fundamental concept of a world of perspectives verses a world interpreted only in terms of 'good verses evil'.

Do you believe the entire world is defined in terms of "good and evil"? How would I know? You don't even address the concepts defined: "evil" verses a world of perspectives.

I rest my case.

Apparently AG, he has no need for your opinion if it doesn't match his preconceived notions. *shrug*

AG, this is not a court of law where the only purpose is to beat the other guy. This is a discussion group where we share thoughts, information, and principles. Don't hoard your knowledge. If you don't understand specifically what confuses you or where the post does not apply, then quote it specifically, say what the problem is, and include many reasons why.

Don't post as a lawyer. Share yourself with the Cellar. What specifically do you have a problem with and why?

You have a different perspective. Good. Share it.

tw, if you deny the existance of evil in deferance to cultural persective what does this say about your stance on right and wrong? Are you saying that right and wrong are also completely dependent on cultural perspective? Basically, if you are willing to justify one ethnic group killing another in cold blood, could an American commit the same acts there and have it be justified in the same way

We tell a child this is right and this is wrong. Do we tell him why? Of course not. We demand that he somehow only know the difference. As children become adults, we hope they understand what is right and what is wrong because they know WHY. To make it easy, we provide 'rules' (ie the law). Does that mean one blindly follows the rules every time? Yes if one does not learn underlying WHYs. But so often, children who grow up to become adults no longer blindly follow the rules if the rules are wrong (this time).

In the Persian Gulf, an American frigate hit a mine and was sinking. A Pentagon Admiral ordered the ship be abandon. The Captain refused and saved his ship. Therefore the Pentagon ordered a Court Marshall. It should be obvious who acted as an adult. So did Lehman who (as undersecretary of the Navy) stepped in and therefore saved this Captain.

Another example. Rules said that when a fire alarm sounded, then all astronauts were to open the escape hatch, slide down a cable, get into an armoured personnel carrier and drive away like hell. The alarm went off. But a shuttle commander also understood WHYs. The shuttle commander violated well established rules.

Today we know that shuttle commander saved seven astronaut lives. Had they followed procedure, then astronauts would have run right into a hydrogen fire that cannot be seen. They would have burned to death. BTW, this is a story that every informed American of the Challenger era should know. It is another example of why we learn from history.

Why are they alive? Because an adult learns to not blindly follow rules. There is no such thing as simple 'good and evil'; 'right and wrong'. Those are concepts for children. An adult learns about reality which means a world chock full of perspectives. Rules are but guidelines - also learned from history. Adults also demand and grasp WHYs. Having demanded WHYs, then seven astronauts are still alive.

Meanwhile, adults who are still children are told (ordered) to blindly follow the rules - good and evil - right and wrong. It's not easy to be an adult. Violate a rule and one is virtually 100% responsible for the consequences. Not all adults are willing to risk acting as an adult either because they never bothered to learn WHYs or they just don't have the balls.

When in doubt, then falling back on 'good verses evil' is easy, safe, and what children do. Adults who actually become adults must learn to replace 'good verses evil' with a grasp of perspectives. That means also demanding what Rush Limbaugh never provides - the WHYs. Becoming an adult demands that person grow up - not just blindly follow the rules.

Culture has nothing to do with it. Culture is (at best) just a symptom of the above concepts. Some cultures are better at grasping these concepts and appreciate a need for adults who are adults.

The Battle of the Bulge is a classic example of what happens when adults must take charge of their own lives. Whereas Germans so often waited for orders, instead, American (understanding what was at stake) took initiative. You may call that culture. I call it the difference between adult children and adult adults. Culture varies when adults act as adults.

And if you read this only once, then you probably don't yet appreciate what was just posted.

I do and I also know why.
Some parents, culturally, Talk to their kids. Some do not, they talk at their kids.
That, fundamentally, is the difference. Period.
Having a young child, I see it all the time.

Why are they alive? Because an adult learns to not blindly follow rules. There is no such thing as simple 'good and evil'; 'right and wrong'. Those are concepts for children.

In the philosophy industry, they describe this position as moral relativism.

The problem I have is --

In the Persian Gulf, an American frigate hit a mine and was sinking. A Pentagon Admiral ordered the ship be abandon. The Captain refused and saved his ship. Therefore the Pentagon ordered a Court Marshall. It should be obvious who acted as an adult. So did Lehman who (as undersecretary of the Navy) stepped in and therefore saved this Captain.

In this example, "acted like an adult" is merely another shorthand for "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "evil". But notice, tw has made clear value judgements. The Captain did the "right" thing (the "adult" thing). Someone in the Pentagon did the "wrong" thing (the "childish" thing). Lehman did the "right" thing.

Rules said that when a fire alarm sounded, then all astronauts were to open the escape hatch, slide down a cable, get into an armoured personnel carrier and drive away like hell. The alarm went off. But a shuttle commander also understood WHYs. The shuttle commander violated well established rules.

The commander did the "right" thing.

I think what tw is sort of referring to, whether he knows it or not, is Kohlberg's stages of moral development. Kohlberg found six distinct "stages" people go through in moral reasoning, typically moving from childhood to adult. One of the stages, stage four, is the "law and order" stage where the "rules" are considered the most important aspect of morality. Beyond stage four are the principled stages, where you lear to determine morality based on "abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles".

But the notion that we go through stages of morality doesn't mean that those universal ethical principles don't exist.

AG would say, I think, that the universal ethical principles exist and are knowable. TW, by determining that people do "the adult thing" you inherently accept some knowable universal ethical principles. You believe in good and evil; you just don't CALL it that.

[off on a]Some parents don't understand that children are inexperienced not stupid. Someone close to me has always talked down to her kids, now she has a teenage girl who is a baby talker and she herself never broke the habit and now talks that way as well, which is quite irritating when you want to talk to an adult. It is jarring and honestly pretty funny when she baby talks to my kids and gets standard English back.[/tangent]