Canadians in Afghanistan
The
Canadians in Afghanistan, are there for humanitarian aid.....medical teams.
Of course the Taliban only sees they are infidels, wants to kill them and the people they are trying to help.
Apparently the Taliban isn't concerned with winning the hearts and minds of the natives, just keeping them too scared to object is enough. :(
I'm really beginning to think that fundamentalism is a mental illness.
I'm really beginning to think that fundamentalism is a mental illness.
Delusional paranoia, perhaps? I would say this is true of fundies of all flavors.
Not to condone in the least what the Tali-ban is doing, but I imagine with all the warring factions and intrigues and counter intrigues, probably everyone in Iraq has decided everyone else is the enemy. Sad. :(
The Taliban, or whatever you may call them are shooting themselves in the foot. We ( the Coalition ) are fighting an evil group of criminals, who are mad because we have taken away there power and instead of acting like conquers are allowing the people of Afghanistan to govern themselves. Fundamentalist Islam in it self does not condone such acts. The people served by these clinics are usually women and children, those who are the future, and those who carry and nurture the future.
Unfortunately, the battle lines have been drawn here and will not disappear anytime soon. Part of this is the fact that we have a President who is openly devout and who has pledged to wage a
crusade against terrorism. While we have forgotten those words, the Middle East is no more likely to forget them than we are
Ahmadinejad's use of the word jihad.
Of course, in this kind of war there are fewer and fewer bystanders. The clinic was part of a 'hearts and mind' effort, so it was in part a military operation. A NGO clinic run by missionaries would also be seen as a threat considering that part of their goal would be proselytization.
This leaves the only non-threatening presence a secular NGO clinic, and they would just be threatened because they didn't have military or church backing.
BTW, if Hamas wanted to open a clinic in the USA in a poor Muslim neighborhood, it would be shut down within a few hours. The only difference is that the ambush would be by goverment lawyers. Who you are connected to does make a difference on both sides of the Atlantic.
Remember that these people do not watch Fox News and understand that all soldiers are apple pie loving kids from Wisconsin (or Toronto) who just want to help. Many of them listen to Al-Jazeera and consider anyone with a uniform an unlawful occupier at best.
(Impolite version of UT begins)
Oh for fuck's sake, that's such a load of crap I don't even know where to begin. How far do you have to go to justify the bombing of clinics? How fucking far do you have to go to figure it's W's fault? How far do you have to go to even consider an argument taking the side of Hamas?
I just can't wait for a Democratic President and Democratic congress so people like you learn what fucking side you're on in this war.
(Impolite version of UT ends)
snip~
The clinic was part of a 'hearts and mind' effort, so it was in part a military operation.
Aren't the Canadians there under the auspices of the UN as peace keepers/humanitarian aid? Nothing to do with the US plan (more likely non-plan) for Afghani hearts and minds.
I have to agree with UT, these thugs are only interested in killing anyone they don't control and don't mind taking out some of the ones they do control, as collateral damage.:mad:
They are pissed off at the nuance of particular words in the President's speech days after 9/11, but can't tell the difference between a US Military effort and Canadians there to set up a medical clinic.
They are pissed off at the nuance of particular words in the President's speech days after 9/11, but can't tell the difference between a US Military effort and Canadians there to set up a medical clinic.
Uniformed military are targets. Is this a surprise? This is not a defense of their behavior, but someone had better start looking into the motivations of these bastards if we even want to have a chance of getting out of there.
And yes, the leader of the most powerful nation in the world should not be so monumentally stupid as to describe a war in the middle east as a crusade. Crusade is as bad a trigger as jihad.
You don't have to like it, but it's time we started to understand it. We screwed up the first 8-12 months of the occupation because people not only didn't understand what was going on, but did not feel the need to even try to understand. A few hundred billion dollars and 10-12 thousand lives later, everyone is starting to wake up.
The motivations? Afghanis understand perfectly the motivations behind the Taliban effort. When the Taliban first came into power in the mid-late 90's they enjoyed the popular support of the Afghani people, who were sick of the corruption and lawlessness of the local warlords, not to mention the endless fighting. The Taliban were mostly locals, and they brought about organization, law and order, especially moral order. Most importantly, they brought peace through unification. As time wore on and the Taliban gained almost complete control over the country, the movement grew in size very quickly. Most of the new members weren't locals. They were foreigners, mostly Pakistanis and Arabs, who saw their chance to jump on the bandwagon to power. The movement changed: while the original Taliban were local Islamic scholars offended by the actions of the warlords, they weren't necessarily extremists. The new Taliban was most definitely a hard-core fundamentalist group with a heavily foreign, specifically Arabic, influence, and they actually began to lose some of the support of the people. The Taliban started out as heroes (and they were); they ended up being seen as a power hungry, uncaring group corrupted by foreigners, trying to shove revamped Saudi wahabism down the Afghani people's throats. It's a power thing, now. Not too dissimilar to the Sunni Baath-related insurgent group in Iraq. For them, it's not about religion, or nationalism, or freedom, or the People. It's a group of people who want to be on top of the pile when the dust settles, and that's it.
You don't have to like it, but it's time we started to understand it.
You think you understand it, and as proof you play the moral equivalency card.
I don't think I understand it. But I know for certain it's unacceptable to claim that the reason these misunderstood men kill Canadian aid workers is because the leader of the country next door used the wrong word on 9/14/2001.
I don't understand it, but I am really, really certain that the clash of civilizations between radical Islamists and the West did not start on 9/14/2001.
This seems so very obvious to me, that I'm gonna say right out, that anyone who makes such a claim, and then claims to "understand" it, is just speaking out of their ass.
Understanding why a group might act as they do is not the same as condoning their actions. I think Rich has a point. Certain words are a trigger to either side. A Muslim leader can make a two hour speech and use the word "Jihad" exactly once, and the Western press will fall all over themselves reporting this "new Islamic threat." The same thing is true in reverse of a word like "crusade." Certainly, the animosity between Muslim and Christian has deep roots, but leaders on both sides do the cause of peace no favors by throwing out incenduary words. Its a bit like a white person driving down to the nearest black ghetto and screaming "Nigger!" out his car window and then wondering why the people on the street who hear him don't seem to like him too much.
Its a bit like a white person driving down to the nearest black ghetto and screaming "Nigger!" out his car window and then wondering why the people on the street who hear him don't seem to like him too much.
All right, fine. And if those black people on the street then go and kill some Mexicans 4.5 years later, will you believe that it was all because of the white person in the car?
Well, a better analogy would be if they went and killed some Canadians a few years later. :neutral:
will you believe that it was all because of the white person in the car?
Who said all?
There are a million contributing reasons, and if you look at them one at a time you're not going to see much, like the blind men describing the elephant.
Well, a better analogy would be if they went and killed some Canadians a few years later.
Sorry, I wasn't picturing that many Canadians visiting the "black ghetto". Perhaps we should adjust the analogy to a white person going into Afghanistan and screaming "crusade!" and wondering why the Afghanis don't seem to like him too much?
On the killing of Canadian aid workers: Both a demonstration of the taliban's power, and simply because they could.
This is 1. a guerilla war waged by people who don't give a damn about the health and welfare of the Afghani populace. The aid station was likely to improve relations between the people and the coalition, and thus was a threat to the killers. They either need the support or the fear of the populace. They're not going to get the support... (see above). Senselessly slaughtering harmless benefactors is a great way to scare people. 2. A guerilla war, period. In which you take any shot you can against your enemy, and in this case the enemy is anything western.
As for the schism between the U.S. and the middle east in general... Not to oversimplify things, that couldn't have anything to do with Israel, could it? Those leaders (and wanna-be-leaders, more importantly) in the middle east that wish to use religion as a rally point to increase their own power base have all the fuel they need to keep the hatred against the U.S going strong. Sure, Bush using the phrase "crusade" doesn't help, but it's like throwing a twig on a bonfire. Until Israel OR fundamentalist/militant Islam ceases to exist, there will be no peace. Actually, even if Israel disappeared overnight, the U.S. is still "the Great Satan"- I'm not an expert on the details of the Islamic religion, but I believe we earned that label because our belief system is, in key ways, damn near the opposite of fundamental Islam's. Freedom of religion? Separation of Church and State? Free speech? Until we make Islam the state religion, we will always be infidels. And thus the case can be made that our influence/presence in the middle east is (and always will be) "worthy" of retribution. Violent retribution.
In a place where religion is all that many people have, it will be the number one tool for ambitious assholes. They gain their power from the monopoly that religion has on the middle east's culture, and from the passion that their people have for that religion. And the U.S. is the greatest threat to that power. Our culture is a huge threat to the power base of fundamentalist theocracies.
Religion is a scary thing. I received death threats on military.com for espousing separation of church and state, for God's sake.* And that's in a nation that encourages tolerance and where separation of church and state is the law. In a group of countries where that's not the case, and there's religious/political leaders telling their followers that we're the devil... yeah. Until religion loses its all-powerful status in the middle east, or until the U.S. completely detaches itself from affairs there (yeah, right), there will always be conflict between the two.
*or maybe it was because or the length of my posts. Who knows.
I need to cut down on caffeine... I can barely see the point of my own post. No more political posts until I'm clean and sober, I promise.
Don't worry about it... Read one of TW or UG's posts in the politics/current events forums. We don't give a second thought to long looping posts.
(Unfortunately, in this case "don't give a second thought to" generally means "don't read")
I read it, AlternateGray!
(I do not comment on political threads...much. But I do read them!)
I read it too; I was more referring to some of TW and UG's longer screeds.
I read it too; I was more referring to some of TW and UG's longer screeds.
Ah, yes. The scourge of hypergraphia...
'S ok. Ranting is its own reward. When you're half-mad on energy drinks and caffeinated gum, anyways. That, and there's not a whole lot to do here in my off time... you'll see a drastic shortening of my posts when I get back to the states.
My wife is convinced that whenever I spend more than half an hour on the net I MUST be flirting with some 20-year old hussy. Or looking up porn. She's half right.
Sorry, I wasn't picturing that many Canadians visiting the "black ghetto". Perhaps we should adjust the analogy to a white person going into Afghanistan and screaming "crusade!" and wondering why the Afghanis don't seem to like him too much?
Sure, I like that analogy best of all. And what if a member of the Saudi Royal Family went to a shopping mall in Falls Church and screamed "Jihad"? He'd be arrested so fast, his head would spin. And, as HM wrote, its not just one incident of someone sticking their foot in their mouth, its hundreds if not thousands of years of outrages and animosity on BOTH sides.
Alternate Grey is correct in his comment that the US policy on Israel and the forces behind Israel's creation in the first place haven't helped things in the slightest.
There is now so much mutual hatred and suspicion on BOTH sides that I feel very pessimistic about any "quick fix" solution.
Don't get me wrong. I am definitely pro-Israel. For one thing, Israel has political values that are fairly close to ours, or at least compatible. For another, while mistakes have been made on both sides, Israel continues to compromise in one way or another to work towards peace, whereas some of their opposition (I believe this came from Hamas) swear that there will be no peace until every infidel is gone from Jerusalem. It's hard to identify with, or sympathize with, an attitude like that. Insane fanatacism. Let's face it. Israel could quickly secure Jerusalem, all of it, along with any disputed territory, any time they chose. They've been pretty tolerant, all things considered.
Understanding why a group might act as they do is not the same as condoning their actions. I think Rich has a point. Certain words are a trigger to either side. A Muslim leader can make a two hour speech and use the word "Jihad" exactly once, and the Western press will fall all over themselves reporting this "new Islamic threat." The same thing is true in reverse of a word like "crusade." Certainly, the animosity between Muslim and Christian has deep roots, but leaders on both sides do the cause of peace no favors by throwing out incenduary words.
Thanks Mari, that's what I was trying to point out. In order to be effective at curing or killing, you really have to understand the people who will be on the receiving end. And one thing is that we cannot begin to get a perspective on how the 'crusade' remark was recieved because GW is our president. From the rest of the world's point of view he is a guy in control of the worlds largest military and WMD's who could deliberately or inadvertantly destroy the world. So when he talks about a 'crusade', people will notice and will probably not forget it.
I'm sure that there are people in Iran making excuses for Ahmadinejad. However, it is impossible to unmake a statement like that.
Don't get me wrong. I am definitely pro-Israel. For one thing, Israel has political values that are fairly close to ours, or at least compatible. For another, while mistakes have been made on both sides, Israel continues to compromise in one way or another to work towards peace, whereas some of their opposition (I believe this came from Hamas) swear that there will be no peace until every infidel is gone from Jerusalem. It's hard to identify with, or sympathize with, an attitude like that. Insane fanatacism. Let's face it. Israel could quickly secure Jerusalem, all of it, along with any disputed territory, any time they chose. They've been pretty tolerant, all things considered.
While it IS a major problem that Hamas is in control of the palestinian government, Israel knows that it would just generally be a bad move for everyone to crack down too hard on the palestinians... because A.) most are unthreatening civilians and B.) the rest of the area would come down on them SO hard...
I still say cut all all finances until all terrorist actions by Hamas ends.
Most of the new members weren't locals. They were foreigners, mostly Pakistanis and Arabs, who saw their chance to jump on the bandwagon to power. The movement changed: while the original Taliban were local Islamic scholars offended by the actions of the warlords, they weren't necessarily extremists. The new Taliban was most definitely a hard-core fundamentalist group with a heavily foreign, specifically Arabic, influence, and they actually began to lose some of the support of the people.
My understanding of the downfall of the Taliban is that this group drew practically all its movers and shakers from the Pashto-speaking quarter of Afghanistan and everybody who wasn't Pashtun was pretty much excluded. The excluded got resentful. Then they got a chance to do something about it.
In a nation, such as it is, where everybody's definition of "foreigners" is "those people in the next valley," you're going to get a very great deal of this. Add to the mix property being insecure and no social mechanism at all for keeping general order and causing benevolence to be the order of the day -- and you have Afghanistan. The place ever gets overall order and it's going to be a marvel of liberty -- a likely effect (though not inevitable, just likely) of all those separate communities, walled off in their valleys.
Pashtun dominance of Afghanistan is nothing new, and while the other tribes resent it, it doesn't seem to trigger the xenophobia that Afghanis have acquired from being screwed with by foreign powers for centuries. Heavy Arab and Pakistani influence (especially Arab/Saudi- the Afghanis in general view the Saudis as wealthy, racist, arrogant, fanatic, and up to no good) in the upper heirarchy of the Taliban spawned mistrust and resentment, even among the Pashtun tribe- their cause got hijacked. Also, later on many of the Taliban's foot soldiers (effectively the day-to-day face of the organization to the populace) were Pakistani.
An interesting ground-level view of how the Taliban were perceived by the civilians (urban, anyway- rural and urban Afghanis are very different in culture and views) is in the book, "My Forbidden Face". I don't remember the author's name, and it's a little overdramatic in some parts, but it's a young woman's account of the Taliban's rise to power during her teenage years and how it affected her and her family's lives.
Someday I'll go to college and my grammar will be *somewhat* straight; until then, y'all are gonna have to suffer with it.
Taliban = evil, murderous, deluded, vicious...the worst of humanity. Crimes against humanity.
I say as an angry liberal, progressive: If they refuse to surrender and stand down, take them out, no mercy, meet your maker.
My problem with Bush is less his rhetoric and more what I perceive to be his incompetence as commander and chief. Yes, I am just an ignorant citizen funding the war effort, but why weren't al queda and the Taliban crushed into oblivion, and Bin Laden captured when the CIA had them lined up and in their sites in years ago? Where was the swift justice? Where were the troops? diverted to Iraq?
You answered your question in the sentence preceding it.:(
Taliban = evil, murderous, deluded, vicious...the worst of humanity. Crimes against humanity.
I say as an angry liberal, progressive: If they refuse to surrender and stand down, take them out, no mercy, meet your maker.
Replace "Taliban" with "American Indian" and the logic has not changed. Replace "Taliban" with "VietCong" and the logic has not changed. In all cases, the logic failed to first do what Kennedy repeatedly demanded.
What does he see? What is he being told? What is his objective? As noted so many times, evil only exists when god is on our side. IOW - 'evil' does not really exist. They have a perspective on life that is not consistant with ours. Nothing more.
Remember what the Taliban consider as the advancement of mankind: greater glory of god - their religion imposed upon all other people. Whereas that concept might be described as evil, instead, it is what happens when cultures or objectives collide.
Taliban are only doing what any religion does when it must be imposed on all others. What is happening today is no different from so many years previous - ie Spanish Inquisition.
For example, in 2005, the road between Kandahar and Kabul is slowly becoming much like Vietnam's Highway 1. One town on that highway is Qalat. From The Economist of 9 July 2005:
The 19th century British fort that dominates the skyline above Qalat offers an easy reference point for low flying Apache helicopters heading for the America base near the town, the capital of Afghanistan's southern province of Zabul. Yet despite being backed by impressive foreign muscle, the government's control of Qalat barely reaches the city limits. ... Zabal remains Taliban country.
From 4 Oct 2003 The Economist:
The tinsel-clad petrol station at the edge of Maydan Shahr, a desert town west of Kabul, feels like a portal to another and more dangerous country. Aid wokers stop here to check tyres and oil on their jeeps. They do not want to break down. Ahead is southern Afghanistan - a bloody mess that is getting bloodier. Armed attacks on aid agencies in the south, once sporadic, are now daily. Such attacks used to extend only to a pistol whipping. The new rules for those stopped by insurgents are more brutal. If you are a foreigner you will be executed. If you are an Afghan working for a foreigner, you will be hectored, perhaps mutilated, and then executed. Afghan aid workers are the prime targets. Seven were killed last month....
The United Nations thinks 16 of Afghanistan's 32 provinces - almost all in the south - too dangerous for its international staff to venture through. Red Cross officials privately say their marked vehicles are proving a liability. Red Crescent workers are no better off: several were recently murdered. ...
It could get worse. If neo-Taliban are happy to murder those bringing food and water, what might they do to those bringing democracy and rights for women? Officials charged with going out and registering Pushtun voters for the elections will be sitting ducks.
Why is what was normal in 2003 now any different? Taliban are as evil as the Crusaders. What is your perspective? One sided? Or do you first learn why American Indians attacked settlers?
I disagree, tw. Sure, they have a different perspective. But, no such thing as "evil"? What the fuck ever. You've been overeducated and underpersecuted.
"Evil" exists everywhere. There isn't a group or organization of humans on this earth that doesn't have evil in it somewhere. The U.S. intervened in the former Yugoslavia to put an end to the genocide, the semi-organized mass rape and murder of civilians. A U.S. soldier promptly raped and murdered a little Bosnian girl.
So what's the difference? The Serbian militias' party line was that what they were doing was ok. Sure, they had their "reasons", 600 years worth, but when you line people up and shoot them in the head for history's sake, that's still evil. Rampaging Serbian militia: Big Evil. Sick and twisted soldier: Smaller Scale Evil, but same variety.
Were the motivations behind the militia soldiers' actions and the U.S. soldier's all that different? I don't think so. I seriously doubt that some motherfucker sat there and thought "Well, I'm not really into rape, I oppose it really, but the Bosnians did betray us in the fourteenth century, and what better way to get back at them? This one's for you, grandpa." Politics, religion and war all give people the chance to justify or get away with shit that is normally taboo. And there will always be monsters who understand that, and in the interest of increasing their power or achieving their goals, they dangle that forbidden fruit: the justification of evil.
Just because people sometimes band together to espouse harmful, hurtful (and yes, evil) things does not give their cause or methods legitimacy- and I don't give a goddamn what their little battle-cry is, whether it's religion, past wrongs, or whatever.
As for Islamic extremists: sure, you can try to say that gunning someone down on the street because he shaved his beard is a matter of perspective and therefore not good or evil, but dude, come on. That is standard purebred evil. It's not about Islam. Somewhere in the U.S. there's a man (probably more than a few) who would happily kill me or you for wanting to keep the ten commandments out of a little pissant courthouse in Missouri (Or Kansas, or wherever it was). That also would be evil, but he lacks opportunity.
I guess the difference in our "perspective", tw, is that you say the perception of evil comes from having conflicting cultures. I say that evil exists regardless, that the same kind of men who kill people in Afghanistan for cutting beards, exist in the States and everywhere else. Sometimes those men get a chance to exercise their wants, and the cause is always something different, but the nature of the beast is always the same. Just because they might be from my society, my culture, my nation, my religion, or my neighborhood, doesn't make them any less wrong. The religious right scares the shit out of me, because I really don't see much of a difference between them and the taliban. It's all about method; the militant "Christian" right wingers do whatever they can to shove religion down our throats- and if they get their morals passed into law, is it really all that different? Would I call it evil yet? It's on the path, but not quite there. When their "perspective" on life conflicts with my continuing to live, I'm gonna go ahead and label it, you guessed it: evil.
Actually, screw all that. I'm gonna get advanced here, and claim that most of the world's grief comes from three kinds of "evil" men (or women):
1. The Religious Freak, who can take something innocuous like "love thy neighbor", and somehow extract from that: "Crush the unbelievers beneath thy heel, and oh yeah, take their money and free will too".
2. The Bad Man, who will beat you, rob you, rape your family and your dog, and kill you if time permits, all because he wants to or because he can. Because it's fun. Yes, he exists. If you think he doesn't, you need to get out more, although I wouldn't recommend it. Just take my word for it. Although your neighbor is probably one, who just lacks opportunity... ask a Bosnian.
3. The Truly Bad Man: You'll often find him in the company of the other two. He knows how to push their buttons, and he uses them to get what he wants- money, fame, power, etc; e.g., Hussein, Hitler, Buchanan, Milosevic... He legitimizes or legalizes their actions.
Now, if you combine all three you get a ludicrous level of evil- as tw mentioned, the crusades, the inquisition, the later taliban, the near extermination of the Native Americans, etc.
My problem with Bush is less his rhetoric and more what I perceive to be his incompetence as commander and chief.
My problems have everything to do with his rhetoric and his competence.
As for Afghanistan and Iraq.
1) In the case of Iraq, the fact that we went in at all without preparing.
2) We went in light into both places, considering what would be needed for occupation.
3) We split our forces between both places.
4) In the case of Iraq, because we jumped the gun, we committed %90 of the forces to the 'coalition', taking the majority of the casualties, physical and political.
If the Iraqis do not get it under control we will have to 'cut and run' anyway. Right now, we have essentially ceded control of our military to the competence of the Iraqi government.
If the government begins to lose control, we will have to either leave or commit more troops. If we have to ratchet up the force level to 400 thousand, this will a) probably force the reinstatement of the draft and b) force the issue of the cost of the war to the point where the IOU's cannot be hidden. We are already increasing the 'secret debt' of this country to the point where, when counted with the interest on our 'real debt', will force more and more resources to be used to pay interest.
I know the draft is considered political suicide, but if pushed to the wall the argument will be towards the neccesity of the moment, ignoring the decisions that got to that moment. Any attempt to debate that topic would be met with cries of 'treason' and 'failure to support the troops'.
It's a clusterf**k, and the options are all bad. There is only one good scenario (legitimate secular democracy), and multiple bad scenarios
Long term US troop presence (at least 5-10 more years).
Islamic theocracy with or without Iranian involvement.
Complete breakdown into civil war and a failed state.
Rise of 'Saddam Hussein II', a brutal US supported dictator.
On a purely money level, we are hemorrhaging cash. The
8-billion-a-month figure is probably low, considering new reports about military equipment wear. Items in the soon-to-be-increased Pentagon budget are actually additional war related costs.
Coupled with tax cuts, this is having an effect on money being returned to us in the form of grants, services, etc. Money for everything is drying up, including student loans, non-military research grants, and other items having to do with the future competitiveness of this country.
We are mortgaging our future for this war and the administration is doing everything possible to shift more and more of the costs into the future. This is a lot like putting your mortage payments on your credit card and paying the minimum.
From the CRS report.
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States has initiated
three military operations:
!
Operation EnduringFreedom (OEF) coveringAfghanistan and other
Global War on Terror (GWOT) operations ranging from the
Philippines to Djibouti, thatbeganimmediatelyafter the9/11 attacks
and continues;
!
Operation Noble Eagle (ONE) providing enhanced securityfor U.S.
military bases and other homeland security, that was launched in
response to the attacks; and
!
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) that began in the fall of 2002 with
the buildup of troops for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq and
continues with counter-insurgency and stability operations.
What is most disturbing is that CRF could not figure why the costs were increasing so rapidly.
Some of the reasons for higher operating costs are known.
(snip)
These factors, however, are not enough to explain a 50% increase of over $20 billion
in operating costs.
(snip)
These reasons are not sufficient, however, to explain the level of increases or predict whether these procurement levels are temporary or likely to rise still further. DOD has provided little information about overall requirements to replace worn equipment or to upgrade capabilities, or how war requirements relate to ongoing peacetime investment.
March 30, 2003, three years and three months ago, you worried about the prospects of a draft in 2-3 years.
At the rate we are sending troops over, and with the possibility of a much larger than anticipated occupation force, there may be a draft in 2-3 years.
Since March 2003 things have only gotten worse, and yet a draft is unimaginable without some fantasy escalation.
I'd rather stay here until this thing is done than have a draft started, and I think most active-duty infantry guys would say the same. The last thing we need is five gajillion unwilling, barely-trained, scared-shitless cherry infantrymen to our left and right. It's not a good idea.
Agree on the effect of a draft on the professional military, AG. My career Army Dad felt nothing but distaste for the Vietnam era draftees.
The problem is that our military has turned into a "thin green line", and I don't see how we are going to sustain a prolonged engagement or, God forbid, a build up in hostilities. As far as I can tell, our military is giving way under the strain. The government's response has been to cut services to Vets and active duty servicemen's dependents. Not a good idea, but, as mentioned above, the financial hemmorage flows on unstaunched.
I liked your essay on evil, BTW. Evil exists and it exists everywhere - whether in the brain of a Taliban leader or a screwed up infantryman or your next door neighbor. If one would sup with the devil, a mighty long spoon is required.
What is most disturbing is that CRF could not figure why the costs were increasing so rapidly.
Defense Daily 06/28/2006
Author: George Cahlink
The top officers of the Army and Marine Corps yesterday outlined at a House hearing a requirement for billions of dollars that both services need to replace and repair equipment worn out by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker told the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) the service would need an average of $13 billion annually to reset equipment as long as the war continues and for at least two years after. In fiscal 2007, Schoomaker added, the Army would request $17.1 billion because nearly $5 billion in maintenance was deferred.
"We are not gilding the lilly, we are requesting what we need," said Schoomaker, who estimated about 290,000 Army items would have to be reset by the end of fiscal year 2006. He noted Army tanks are being driven at five times normal rates, helicopters flown at two to three times projected rates and trucks are being operated at five to six times normal rates.
Marine Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee said the Marines had received $5.1 billion toward reset costs in the recently passed supplemental spending bill and would need more as the wars continue.
"Even with an annual top line of $18.2 billion (FY 2007 President's budget) supplemental funding will continue to be required unless these is a significant increase (almost double) in our total obligation authority," Hagee said.
Lawmakers, meanwhile, linked resetting military equipment to overall readiness.
HASC Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) said the war had placed "severe demands" on Army and Marine Corps ground and aviations equipment. He said
resetting the force was "essential" to continuing to fight the war as well as being prepared for future threats.
On a more personal level, I see orders coming in for spare helicopter parts that puzzle me.
I speculate it's a matter of the supply depot says we should get 20 widgets and it gets shot down for lack of funding and filed. This happens several times because widgets are a lower priority than say, bullets.
Suddenly there's a war going and the money flows, support the troops, pull all the denied requests out of the files and order them now.
So all 5 requests for 20 widgets are granted and we're building 100 widgets.
I repeat, this is speculation on my part....I prefer to think it's an *educated* guess.;)
Thanks, Marichiko... but the cutting of benefits and whatnot has been an ongoing thing. Don't fall for the excuse that it's because of the war. The Army Times and Stars and Stripes have documented the cutting of benefits and overseas pay attempted by the current administration- specifically, by Rumsfeld and the Pentagon.
I may have missed something here or there, I'll admit. But as far as I've read every increase or even sustainment of our pay and benefits has been due to the efforts of Congress. Congress has also blocked several attempts by the Department of Defense to cut some fairly basic programs and benefits, including the overseas pay. The DOD did not start its slash and burn policy when the budget got tight after Iraq kicked off- no, it started it somewhere around the year 2000. And it has continued unabated since.
It's not my job to decide how much I need to be paid or what I'm worth, that's for the public to decide, by way of Congress. It just steams me to know that... the "DOD" has been trying to screw with us for six years now. If it wasn't for Congressional support and backbone, Rumsfeld would have ass-reamed us years ago.
I know, I'm a bad, bad soldier. I'm supposed to avoid all possible criticism of "higher". Sigh. Trust me, if it wasn't for that, you'd see a vitriolic rant covering several subjects, so long and intense it would have a whole new parental warning rating- "W", for "WHOA, DUDE, NOT COOL- there's kids on the net."
Umm... tangent finished.
... the world's grief comes from three kinds of "evil" men (or women):
1. The Religious Freak, ...
2. The Bad Man, ...
3. The Truly Bad Man: ... Hussein, Hitler, Buchanan, Milosevic...
Now, if you combine all three you get a ludicrous level of evil- as tw mentioned, the crusades, the inquisition, the later taliban, the near extermination of the Native Americans, etc.
Then clearly the American Indian was evil. He was godless. He would be seen naked or wearing only what is found on summer beaches today. How can you sit there and not call American Indians evil since clearly every white man in 1840s knew how evil the Indian was. At least, if using your definitions.
The lion is clearly evil because it kills other lions only for sex - the pride. How despicable. The lion is a godless creature - evil again. So what is the perspective? Once we take a logical perspective, is the lion so evil – or just natural?
By your definition (and using emotions of that time), clearly evil is everywhere even in creatures / people we no longer regard as evil. Is the Great White Shark evil? Having learned of perspective, then emotion (what is and is not evil) gets replaced by logic.
Clearly the Japanese are evil for killing whales. Does not matter what you say. Others say Japanese are clearly evil. And since Japanese are not Christian, then they must be doubly evil. Classic 'emotion replacing logic'. Mien Kopf promoted Hitler by clearly defining Jews as evil. No doubt because Mien Kopf ‘proved an association of Jews with vermin. Jews must be evil - or maybe Germans took an emotional perspective verses a logical one.
Evil only exists when one is emotional. You and I only exist because Kennedy tasked some of this nation's best minds to finally think logically rather than emotionally. He finally got them to stop seeing a Cuban Missile Crisis in terms of 'good and evil'. Had Kennedy not done so, then Americans would have been the evil ones for starting a war that could only go nuclear. Fortunately for us and all lurkers, Kennedy demanded (even from his own brother) conclusions based in logic. Asked them to remember Jupiter Cs and therefore who really was evil? Having learned other perspectives, therefore we all survived. Yes survived only because logic finally replaced the 'Gen Curtis LeMay attitude' of a world only in 'good and evil' terms.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban are only doing what mankind did normally only 400 years ago everywhere in North America. Were they evil? No. Their social structure (social standards - also called biases) were different. You tell me how the Taliban are any different today? Why are Taliban evil when the noble American Indian was not; both did/do same thing?
Need to inspire the 'cannon fodder'? Promote the myth called 'evil'. It works everytime. These are the people who cannot think logically - and therefore believe in evil.
Second point - why are you discussing what was common knowledge in 2003. Afghanistan back then was falling apart only because those who could have saved the country did not even perform promised reconstruction. Listen to interviews on the BBC. Just like in Vietnam, Afghani 'hearts and minds' are being lost just like in Vietnam. Therefore who really is evil? The Taliban? Or invaders who lie; make promises and don't keep those promises. Again emotion or logic; what is your perspective - and welcome right back to why the Vietnam war was lost to 'evil' Vietnamese.
"I know evil when I see it" is what we need from the minds of Cannon Fodder. Same mindset in leaders is dangerous. Which type would you aspire to become?
March 30, 2003, three years and three months ago, you worried about the prospects of a draft in 2-3 years. Since March 2003 things have only gotten worse, and yet a draft is unimaginable without some fantasy escalation.
Basically, because we did not have an occupation force in sufficient numbers to do the job. Tell me how the all volunteer army would have maintained a 400K occupation force for 3 years.
BTW, we may still be there another 5 years, so the only thing that might be off is my timing. %20 is still a reasonable guess for the probability of a draft in the next 8 years my son would probably still be eligible.
BTW, we may still be there another 5 years, ...
In early 1940, the United States with but a trivial military, raised an Army, built a massive Air Force, built a massive merchant marine fleet, built a massive Navy, then transported all into a multi-theatre war on almost every continent, conducted multiple massive invasions of both islands and countries, and won all wars with unconditional surrenders. All that in but four years. And yet in four years, we will have diminished what existed in our military with a budget that approaches Cold War levels. Why? One war was fought due to a smoking gun and with a strategic objective. A second war was invented in Washington for a political agenda, has no strategic objective, therefore has no exit strategy, and has no ‘light at the end of a tunnel’.
Original reason for military operations - bin Laden - and we make no effort even to capture him. As PBS Frontline recently demonstrated, the reason Americans were involved in Tora Bora: rogue CIA agents went in on their own and without orders.
Four years to conquer multiple world powers because we were attacked. Because we Pearl Harbored a sovereign nation; in four years we still cannot finish off one nation let alone deal with another nation that actually attacked us? Welcome to a basic military principle called the strategic objective - which does not exist today and which is why a 'Mission Accomplished' war cannot be won. For those with basic military science training, a war without a strategic objective cannot be won. For same reasons that a war was created in Vietnam (including presidents that outright lie), then a draft becomes inevitable.
In but four years, and without a significant military, we won wars all over the world? Fundamental difference. A smoking gun existed, that war had a strategic objective, and that war was conducted by a leadership interested in America; not in promoting a political agenda.
Again, it begs one to divorce themselves from emotion; to observe from many perspectives; to appreciate why (just like in Vietnam) a draft may become necessary.
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.
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.
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/afghanistan/canada.htmlI've tried to clarify my point; you tried to reiterate what you thought my point was, and simply, that's not it.
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.
... 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.
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.
Apparently AG, he has no need for your opinion if it doesn't match his preconceived notions. *shrug*
I rest my case.
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
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?
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.
Some parents, culturally, Talk to their kids. Some do not, they talk at their kids.
[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]
Oh yea, and via the Wiki entry for Kohlberg's stages:
While Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he had difficulty finding participants who consistently used it. It appears that people rarely if ever reach stage six of Kohlberg's model.
The question then becomes what you do with people who fail to become "adults", in the tw model. Most people operate in that "law and order" stage. Their moral development is weaker than tw's. I wonder what the true moral relativist does about these sorts. If they steal your bike, it isn't right or wrong, good or evil; they just do it. Maybe we should walk in the bike thief's shoes for a while, appreciate their perspective. Maybe the bike thief has the right idea.
I guess this is why rule of law is so important. Law need to be predictable and rational so that it is operational for everyone. Like you mentioned a long time ago about the alcohol laws we used to avoid by crossing state lines, they undermined our belief in law due to their irrational nature.
AG, this is not a court of law where the only purpose is to beat the other guy.
I know. Which is exactly why I'm not going to go into an overly-long spiel detailing every point of my belief system with careful attention paid to every word lest it be misunderstood. I posted a simple, somewhat flippant, point- and I think most understood it. "I rest my case" refers to the assertion that you are not understanding that point, as evidenced by the "animals are evil" interpretation you gave. Sure, if you
want to take it to ridiculous levels you might interpret my post as saying that lions, tigers and bears will comprise the Fourth Reich and that ko-ko was the anti-christ; but you would be blazing
that mental trail all by yourself- I'm still back at camp wondering where the hell you're going.
Not to be callous, tw, but it's not worth my effort to
insure that you understand what I mean. The complexities of human nature dictate that any in-depth discussion of a true definition of "evil" is going to be long and tedious, and that's far beyond the scope of my post. My point was simply that evil exists. Undertoad nailed it pretty well. He's actually kind of eerie sometimes- he knows too much... :3eye:
I find it both annoying and dangerous that many people still insist that the ten commandments need to be the basis for our laws (I don't see many people on this forum leaning that direction, but it's still a popular idea). I think we've evolved as a civilization to the point where we should be able to agree on a common set of
non-religious morals and principles (note that this undercuts "evil dude" #1's power). I had no clue about Kohlberg's stages, I'll have to look that up, but it rings true.
I like to think of myself as having put some effort into understanding the world around me, but I'm still a simple guy. If someone steals my bike, I'm finding him and kicking his ass. :p
I have always thought that calling something or someone "Evil" was a cop-out.
There is no such thing, just a way to get out of empathy for those too lazy or mean to want to look at both sizes.
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.
What is the source for your quote? What you are talking about is a command decision. I don't know which incident you are discussing, but the bottom line is that many, if not most, rules are there for a reason. Considering the danger involved in a fire, the commander was automatically taking a risk by not responding appropriately. By using reasoning, he or she may have reduced that risk, but there was always the risk that it was a real alarm. It is ok and even desirable for commanders to take risks, as long as they take the responsibility for any mistakes that arise. Soldiers and quasi-military origanization members usually understand that they will bear the burden for their commanders mistakes. That's why they are not civilians.
And sometimes the WMD's just aren't there and you have to hunt for excuses and scapegoats.
I have always thought that calling something or someone "Evil" was a cop-out.
There is no such thing, just a way to get out of empathy for those too lazy or mean to want to look at both sizes.
I've met a couple of people that have absolutely no socially redeeming qualities...none.
You can be sure they will do the bad thing in every situation.
Evil is the best heading/description for their catagory. :2cents:
The source for my quote is tw's post.
I find it both annoying and dangerous that many people still insist that the ten commandments need to be the basis for our laws
I've found that you can break these types of people into two subgroups. One is the religious fanatic who thinks that everyone has to live by the Bible no matter what, and the other truly believes that they are the best rules for producing good human beings. We need to limit the power of the first, but remember that you cant tell someone "We can trace your ideas back to a religion so you no longer have the right to vote according to your own values". There is a huge difference between someone forcing their religion on others and another who supports a candidate who mirrors their values, whatever they may be.
No, I wouldn't go that far. Religion will always be the linchpin of the majority's moral system. That's a big "should" I put in there. But, really, I don't want to be a indirect convert to someone else's religious beliefs just because they're the majority and can pass them into law. Check out Utah. Admittedly, if you don't like it there you can move, but if it happens on a national level it's going to be highly annoying at best, and it's not necessary. I guess I just have a very conservative viewpoint when it comes to the gov and morals (true conservative). I don't need the feds to help me find my way to heaven, and moreover, sin should not be illegal- this is not a theocracy. I recognize that that's only my opinion, but it's one I'm pretty militant about.
No, I wouldn't go that far. Religion will always be the linchpin of the majority's moral system.
And where does that morality belong? Long after one has logically evaluated the situation, then one stands back, compares that conclusion to morality biases, and ask, "Does it make sense?"
If not, one puts morality back in a drawer and restarts the logical analysis to find the error. When done, morality is again brought out to be compared to that logical solution. Morality never belongs in a decision making process – in part because it is an emotional concept. Morality is simply a 'check function' so that you don't make wild and unacceptable mistakes.
If, as Bible thumpers do, one uses morality as logic, then such people are easily converted to the dark side - as Hitler did to make it obvious that Jews were so immoral. Scopes trial did same when evolution was declared as evil. They were only using emotional morality rather than logic to condemn the science. If we blindly followed morality in the bible, then charismatic podium thumpers rather than fundamental science would be the source of man's advancement. Such moral people even created the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades.
The ten commandments were man's first attempts at forming civilization. We also no longer blindly follow old English law even though such laws are a fundamental basis of our own laws. As we advance mankind, we learn more of god laws from god's prophets that have existed in every decade. We then discard those guidelines that were wrong. But those who refuse to learn, instead, insist that an early science book, the Bible, is all that one must know. They would use morality rather than logic as a basis for all decisions. IOW they would impose their religious beliefs on all others.
Your morality is your circuit breaker. It is protection so that you don't make bad mistakes. It is not a tool for making decisions; only a tool to check yourself.
On the Boeing web today;
Has tentative contract with Ottawa Tories want firm's Chinooks, C-17s
Toronto Star 06/23/2006
Author: Bruce Campion-Smith
Copyright (c) 2006 The Toronto Star
OTTAWA--Despite public claims that no decisions have been made, the federal government is negotiating tentative contracts to buy four mammoth C-17 Globemaster transport planes and 15 Chinook helicopters from aerospace giant Boeing.
In return for the lucrative deals, worth upwards of $7 billion, Boeing is ready to promise Ottawa a "robust" industrial benefits package to ensure Canadian aerospace companies reap a share of the windfall, especially those in Quebec.
The Chinooks and C-17s are key components of a military spending spree worth an estimated $17 billion that will be unveiled by the Conservatives next week.
The federal cabinet is expected to give its final blessing to the ambitious program when it meets today in Quebec City. And officials are putting the final touches on the logistics of a publicity campaign that will see cabinet ministers fanning out to tout the spending blitz.
The "mobility" package will promise the military new aircraft, trucks and choppers to move troops and equipment on missions around the globe and is meant to tackle some of the most pressing problems facing the armed forces.
Just this week, military officials in Afghanistan warned that Canadian troops travelling in convoys were being hurt in roadside attacks because they didn't have Chinook helicopters to move by air.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said yesterday the government is still "finalizing" its procurement plans for the armed forces but made clear he would act soon on campaign pledges to rebuild the military.
"This government, in our campaign, laid out that we would correct 13 years of Liberal neglect, that we would move forward with major military purchases including new supply ships, new trucks, new helicopters, and strategic and tactical airlift," he told the Commons.
However, in at least two of those deals, the government has already made its choice, industry sources confirm.
For both the C-17 and Chinook, the government will announce that it's done what's called an advanced contract award notification, which means officials have already negotiated contracts with Boeing.
Competing firms will have 30 days to submit a proposal, but the award notification signals the government has made up its mind on aircraft it thinks fits its requirements.
The government will start its military road show Monday in Halifax with the announcement it is moving ahead with the design of three new joint support ships. New trucks for the army will be announced in Quebec on Tuesday, and the Chinooks on Wednesday. On Thursday, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor will be in Trenton to announce plans for new transport aircraft.
Related Stories
Boeing: C-17 money OK'd; program still at risk - Seattle Times 06/23/2006
Boeing to get deal worth billions for military transport planes - Ottawa Citizen 06/21/2006
Ottawa to spend $15-billion to boost military - The Globe and Mail (Canada) 06/23/2006
It looks like Canada is getting serious about gearing up for their role as UN peacekeepers......at least. ;)
On the Boeing web today;
It looks like Canada is getting serious about gearing up for their role as UN peacekeepers......at least. ;)
The Economist on 1 July 2006 says
But while Canadians want their troops well equipped, they do not necessarily want them to fight. ... Anti-American feeling - and hostility to George Bush in particular - has been strong norht of the border since the invasion of Iraq, which many Canadians refused to join. There are many Canadians "who cannot stomach the notion of helping Mr Bush"
The order is not just for aircraft. Canada is also purchasing 2,300 supply trucks. The new government is upgrading its military with C$15 billion now and another C$5.3 billion over next five years.
Nothing to do with Bush, except maybe preparing to defend Canada against a Bush invasion. :lol:
But, they have been tapped pretty regularly as UN peacekeepers and should provide their troops with the best equipment they can.
Nothing to do with Bush, except maybe preparing to defend Canada against a Bush invasion. :lol:
You beat me to it.:right: I may have to go out and rent
Canadian Bacon.
R.J. Hacker, President of Hacker Dynamics: Here he is now. The man that a thin majority of you chose to be the president of the United States.
Morality is really carefully and often finely reasoned survival behavior, which reasoning in some circumstances sets your group's/family's/nation's/planet's biosphere's survival in a higher priority than your personal survival. If a behavior isn't conducive to survival, it is not moral.