The Terror of Ambition Realized

[sschaula]

Tharan,

Great reply. Thanks.

I think there is going to blood spilled with us there or with us not there. We shoud retreat to bases, let the chips fall. The international community will complain, but FUCK the international community. It is not like they have done anything to help. When the Iraqis have complained long enough and loud enough, we can venture out and save them, to some extent. We might even get lucky and everything will magically become peaceful. That would be the best case scenario. At that point, we just leave.

Retreat to the bases in-country? We will be mortared to shit. And if we retreat all of a sudden to go back home, they will organize and make plans to bring the war to America. In my opinion, they're already doing that...but I do believe it would get worse if there was no military presence there - to the point where there would be more 9-11s here.

I agree we shocked but did not awe. But who really cares about that anyway? We are not dealing with 18 year old children who need to weaned from momma and their hometown grilfriend's teat in the same way the drill sargeant's are.

All non-rationalizing people work the same way, so I'd have to disagree. I'm not being racist...saying that Iraqis are pieces of shit. I think the majority of people anywhere are non-rationalizing.

The effect of being effective in the first place wouldn't have just had a psychological effect on the Iraqis/Afghanis, but also on Americans as a whole.

Competence is pretty awesome. Seizing an area, holding it permanently, then buidling around it is pretty awesome. People see it and love it. That is the only way it works, in fact. Thinking you could do this adventure on the cheap and then the people would rise up and throw flowers at you and rebuild for themselves is just plain stupid and very near negligently criminal, IMO. What experience do the Iraquis have except being oppressed and humiliated? What institutions do they rely on? Not seeing that vaccum is what fucked our soldiers. But please don't say this administration was not warned of this outcome.

American men and women don't spend decades in war planning and inteligence to suck this bad. Not at their salaries.

I agree with you here, somewhat. I think they knew possible outcomes, but not exactly that it would turn into what it has. For instance, if you look at some the expenses early in the war it was kind of seen as a short mission actually.

I think there was pressure on the administration to play the role of the good guy and stay to rebuild...the original plan in '03, to the best of my knowledge, was to take care of business and gradually pull out at a much faster pace than it's going at now.

It is Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and the neocon feedback loop that fucked it up (and us) and we and the world should have their heads for it. Enough blood has spilled because of it, why not theirs? Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld will retire in oppulence and comfort. That is sickening not only to me, but to most of the world.

That kind of talk is sickening to me. But to each his own.

It is quite easy to silence the critics. Be effective. You bask in the glory when you are effective, and you damn sure should be a man and accept the responsibility when you are not.

What hasn't been effective? We must look at the objective of the administration: take out Saddam, shake up the Taliban and Al Qaeda, help Iraq get back up on its feet, prevent another 9-11. Which one of those tasks hasn't been accomplished? People like to be negative about things...but really it has seemed to go quite well so far.

The only problem I have is the violence right now, and what that does to the minds of the insurgents. It makes it seem more okay to attack Americans...everyone's doing it! It provides an opportunity for more planning to go into things, now that the violence is becoming even more prevalent. It's not easy to see a solution that will prevent this.

I'm sure the people with the years of war planning experience have already thought of many things. We only hear so much of the story.

Criticism is a hallmark of an open democracy. Policy should be able to withstand criticism. If an administration begins to wither under the same criticism, then that tells you volumes about the effectiveness of it's policy. And even if you can't always be right, you can still be good by being flexible. The administration has neither foresight nor flexibility.

I agree with you. And I do think the administration has been flexible yet firm...I was more pointing to the fact that our freedom and flexibility is the cause of why the country is divided against itself. I don't think it's the administration's fault, so much as it is the media's.

I think propaganda should have been used, to get people more into the patriotic mindset. Some would say the government has already used propaganda and that I've simply been brainwashed. I just laugh at those types.

Humans have survived quite well historically by making the correct choices. It is a function have the correct information. And this administration, along with the Rovian tactics of short term gain through falsehood and emotionalism, did not do itself any long term favors. Those bills on credit are now past due.

I didn't understand that part.

You are correct in that Americans are too pious and self righteous. Example; a spot on the radio showed Bush talking about dialogue with Syria and Iran. He said, I paraphrase, "I can tell you what the dialogue with Iran and Syria would be. It would be stop allowing fighters over there borders. Stop interfering in Iraq's political situation." Bush says these things without realizing that these are his bargaining chips. His moral bluster gets in the way of achieving pragmatic results. If someone cannot stifle their emotionalism and achieve tangible concessions, then they need to be moved aside and someone who can acheive results needs to take their place. It happens everyday in business. Good negotiators are the ones who achieve something, not the ones who sit in the background whining about what "should be."

Very much in agreement. Which is why I was talking about using the shock and awe tactics right away, so that a precedence was set both for the Iraqis as well as American people. Now if we do anything drastic, people will point fingers...saying "bad bad bad bad!"

The question is: who can run this shit? Who can take care of the junk, all the while winning hearts and minds?

I am not sure that has been a significant obstacle for this administration. America is pretty much been at each others throats ever since he took office.

Yes, he's been a very controversial president. My opinion is just because he looks like a chimpanzee. I truly don't think it's been because of his decisions, or even his "Bushisms". You might disagree, being of the opposite political stance than myself.

[Tharan]

What's the opposite of libertarian?

[NLPRN]

Tharan,
"America can still rock this earth if necessary."

True, from a literal standpoint but not from a practical view. Even GWB and accomplices couldn't justify their way out of using radiological warfare against a third-world country, even with reports of (possible) nuclear capability. We posses the most power as a singular nation, but not enough to survive isolation.

"Our Navy and Air Force are currently twiddling their thumbs."

Both of them are essentially uncontested (by anyone). Compared to Iraq, our sea power sans air wings is pretty much useless as Iraq's pitiful navy would be better defined a coast guard. One U.S. carrier group could easily take it out and Iraq's supplies could be brought in from neighboring countries. We clearly have air superiority but who/what is it used against? Their meager air force consists of 30-40 y/o planes. Terrorists deliberately hide often within civilian populations making many bombing campaigns functionally useless. Our "smart bombs" in my opinion are a misnomer. A more accurate description might be "better targeted warhead". After detonation, the killing still indiscriminate. (To deviate for a moment it reminds me of a senior chief's comment: "There's nothing friendly about friendly-fire." during my own naval service under Bush Sr.)

"What is the world's lone superpower to do with it self, when all equal competitors have been vanquished? Is it a recipe for corruption?"

In a twisted way GWB's primary excuses for invasion may have laid a precedent for what I believe could be the start of a new era of U.S. foreign policy in defensive justification. In other words when we suffer (or even perceive) significant loss and potential gain is to be found, we can use it to support most actions we deam justified and arguable. Outside ourselves, who will stop us? Morality and ethics simply becoming pretentious creative propaganda while we ultimately seek to fullfill selfish needs of political gain for the current administration, material gain for the economy or possibly personal reasons of a powerful few.

Based on what I felt were overwhelming reasons to not invade Iraq (Bush Sr. choosing not to invade after Desert Shield/Storm, multiple retired generals in disagreement including Powell and Schwarzkopf before Operation Iraqi Freedom, GWB's own stated desires to invade before 9/11, unsubstantiated intelligence on Iraq's nuclear capability etc, I could go on), I think Al Qaeda's actions in 2001 was fortuitous and convenient for GWB's pre-emptive strike. I wonder if one of our allies was the recipient of the 9/11 carnage if we would have so aggressively pursued our large scale invasion in 3/03? Maybe more important how would the Bush cabinet have justified it? After all our invasion is a "global war on terror". Assuming this to be true, an invasion on behalf of our allies would also be just, but how difficult would it have been to get backing from the American majority? Soberingly, I feel the attack on U.S. soil was simply seen as an opportunistic moment by our president, possibly an insight into the mind of a sociopath.

To answer your question: Is it a recipe for corruption?, I believe yes. However, we are still a democratic nation at our core and this may be our saving grace in the eyes of other nations. We still possess a system of checks and balances between the populace and government and as much as I dislike the general media I think they have a significant purpose portraying our nation's conscience. The recipe may be present but Americans do not have to digest these half-baked, unpalatable abuses of power.

[sschaula]

What's the opposite of libertarian?

From wikipedia: "Libertarianism is a political philosophy maintaining that every person is the absolute owner of his own life and should be free to do whatever he wishes with his person or property, as long as he respects the liberty of others."

A democrat. Just kidding. Probably a totalitarian?

[reedsch]

I've been living in Viet Nam for most of the last 6 years, which does not make me an expert but hardly a day goes by I don't contemplate some aspect of our prior experience.

American idealism is a special thing, and it has made the planet a far nicer place to live for the vast majority of humans. The downside is that sometimes our ideals blind us to the realty on the ground. Reality is malleable, but not infinitely so. Military force is a blunt tool which has its uses, but the real action is in other places: ideology, religion, demographics.

When it was clear that we were going back in to Iraq all I said to myself was: I hope they did their homework and know what the hell they're doing. I reject simplistic analysis, as well as claims that our political leadership is either stupid or selfish. Iraq itself was a fiction created in the aftermath of WWI, which could only be held together by either charisma (Tito-like) or fear. After a period of chaos it will resettle into a more stable configuration...not until they get tired of killing each other though.

We really need to get past arguing over ideas that are either 1400 years old or 2000 years old.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I am not sure what you are saying here. America can still rock this earth if necessary. Basically, we are currently weak in the send-a-bunch-soldiers-to-fight-a-hubristic-war department. Our Navy and Air Force are currently twiddling their thumbs.

The world has changed Tharan, some fossils from the cold war haven't realized it yet though. The real political situation is about the question if they could handle a 'dwarf' like Iran, even if they tried very hard. This is not about hardware of course, on short term you could in theory just nuke or firebomb away. It's the political fall-out that will blow back with more power than a nuke. Realist politicians know these things and use it. Sometimes overextending it like Saddam did, since he thought highly of the US political intelligence (gathering); his biggest mistake.

Right. I like you Diebert, so I won't go overboard. But it is not like the Dutch did much to defeat the Germans. Oh, I forgot about "the underground." Yes, that was very nice of you. I know you only did what you could. But please refrain from preaching.

Haha, how many time haven't I heard these lines? Didn't we thank you enough for not sitting on the fence forever and stop funding Hitler's warmachine? Shouldn't I thank the Russians as well, they lost more men, or the Canadians since they actually liberated us technically. Anyway it's all beside the point, it was implied the allied forces 'founded' democracies in Germany and Japan while they didn't - they repaired it mostly by injection of capital and investment. That's why the same trick didn't work elsewhere and only costs with no return. Sometimes more is needed than waving check books or gun points.

We crushed them both in a two front war and DID impose ourselves competely.

Hitler was an idiot and that's why he lost. By taking on the UK, US, Middle East and USSR at the same time . And we should all be glad for it. While it lasts. Perhaps Americans do not value their own freedom enough and do not believe in 'sliding scales' and dangerous ideals of 'changing the world' as their current administration hang on to. One thing leads to another, some still remember here - though it's slipping from awareness.

Then what, Mr. European? What next. There are certainly more "Van Goghs" to be killed. Please lead for once. I wait with baited breath. Show me ANYTHING.

I wasn't aware anything was wrong in particular. But impeaching/discrediting Bush and Blair, disbanding NATO and the UN Security Counsel... would be a start. If a structure or institute has fundamentally failed or ran its course: close it down and learn the lessons. It's very natural and no great sounding solutions needed. I'm not saying this will prevent terrible wars or murders or civil unrest but at least there's room for change.

"You?" Who is this "you" shit? I can play that game too.

LOL! It's just that interesting 'American' tendency to talk about 'WE' when they're talking about their military or other national prides. It's not something you hear much elsewhere, also out of respect for the ones who are actually doing the bleeding.

WTF has The Netherlands ever done for the world community

Before the WTF was there to regulate global trade 'we' ruled the seas, colonized, no uhmm civilized lots of land elsewhere, sold some slaves and spices, and got awfully rich of it. Lots of advances in naval science too. But that was the golden age, aww! After two or three centuries you'' be whining about the old glory days too ;) But we should never have sold New Amsterdam to you guys. Brainrot was setting in by then.

Thus there is no other reason for me to see the pretty girls on bicycles and the pretty tulips and windmills. Now, I have an internet connection for that if I wanted it. Too bad.

Unlike many Americans, French and Iranians (and many others I'm sure) I don't care much about my own country if it sinks or floats. The next opportunity I'm out of here. Anyone in Nova Scotia knows a place? Ryan, Cory? Though that government looks increasingly corrupted as well.

So don't sterotype me with your "you" because you don't understand what it means to be an American right now. It pretty much sucks. And the reason it does is because I, and at least 49% of the people who live here, love this country and its short history and feel shame for where we are at the moment. We are better than this.

I respect that and I hope you understand I like to rattle a cage now and again. If there was another political wind in your great country I might consider even moving there. I wish I had your love for my own country but it might be even sicker than yours, or so it seems to me. I still prefer the political system here though, more colorful, not so black and white.

[NLPRN]

I've been living in Viet Nam for most of the last 6 years, which does not make me an expert but hardly a day goes by I don't contemplate some aspect of our prior experience.

American idealism is a special thing, and it has made the planet a far nicer place to live for the vast majority of humans.

You appear to be a reasonable person by this statement but I'm not clear how you came to "it has made the planet a far nicer place to live for the vast majority of humans." I would absolutely agree we have provided many benefits to humanity but to ignore the disproportionate amount of consumption and global pollution produced appears naive or possibly biased.

U.S. Population and Consumption: http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/79

I understand we, the United States, have approximately 5-6% of the world's population but use well over 50% of the world's natural resources. (Link can be provided if desired as I need to relocate it)

American idealism is not easily accurately explained but may be best viewed from non-Americans. We are increasingly seen as a proselytizing nation and of mass consumption and ultimately waste. This does not benefit humanity, including ourselves. The world's natural resources are functionally finite and Americans excel at consumption. The reality is the world could not survive if it entirely accepted our way of life.

I would not wish to live in any other country but I am not naive to how we are perceived by others. The analogy of America as a morbidly obese bully is not untrue. If you consider the human race as a roller coaster ride propelled by natural resources, the U.S. is a supercharger accelerating humanity ever faster toward the abyss of resource extinction. This did not happen 1000-2000 years ago, this is unique to our time and the United States is leading the way.

[reedsch]

You appear to be a reasonable person by this statement but I'm not clear how you came to "it has made the planet a far nicer place to live for the vast majority of humans." I would absolutely agree we have provided many benefits to humanity but to ignore the disproportionate amount of consumption and global pollution produced appears naive or possibly biased.

It appears that the only people who wish to argue this on a fundamental level are those who have already attained the Western standard of living. You could have made an interesting argument about the relationship between standard of living and quality of life, but all I heard was a bunch of pontificating about how bad things really are, as if I didn't have 2 functioning eyes in my head (naive! gotta love that one). Bad stuff's always happening, always has, and probably always will.

Even if we didn't prosletize, which we do, we don't really need to: people flock to gain the standard of living I presume that you enjoy.

Like Einstein said, it's all relative. Perspective is everything. Go hang your bare backside over the village pond to do your morning business, see what that does to your biases. If that is a bit much for your tastes, try putting a dollar in your pocket at the end of a day's hard work.

But if you want to know who has pushed the fast forward button on the future shock machine, do visit China.

[NLPRN]

reedsch,

I prefer discussions primarily based on intellect versus emotions. Based on the level of sarcasm in your last reply, to which I have no interest in participating, this will be my last response to you on this thread. If you desire a last word sans sarcasm than I may reply again, otherwise, be well.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

By the way Rory, why did you change user accounts?

Does it matter?

It matters to me for my personal education. I've noticed (mostly on other philosophy boards, but some here now) that philosophy types have an unusual tendancy to have multiple user accounts, and it puzzles me why those attracted to a subject that persues the truth would also have such a penchant for falseness - and changing user accounts smacks of falseness to me.

In your case, changing user accounts may have been an endeavor to go to something reflecting your real name more, but they have the capability of changing user names, so I'm not sure why you didn't go that route. Perhaps you didn't know.

I'm not sure why Bryan has changed his user account again, although he changed in such a way to keep the same name, same identity, but I guess this is like the 3rd or 4th account for him... I don't know if he's having technical difficulties or just trying to keep his post count low.

On other boards people have made multiple accounts and come forth in multiple personas - and that strikes me as really odd in an interest group where the goal is persuit of truth.

Children go through a lying stage where they want to see what heppens if they don't tell the truth in various situations, but most children outgrow the desire to explore falseness by testing it - after a few examples they can run the scenarios in their minds, and no further need to pollute the world with unnecessary illusions.

It was important to me Rory/Katy because by learning directly from some why people do the things they do, I can more accuratly discern patterns, and understand the reasons and causes of why things are so, and why different types of people behave as they do.

I asked because it would be educational for me.

[Katy]

It matters to me for my personal education. I've noticed (mostly on other philosophy boards, but some here now) that philosophy types have an unusual tendancy to have multiple user accounts, and it puzzles me why those attracted to a subject that persues the truth would also have such a penchant for falseness - and changing user accounts smacks of falseness to me.

OK, basic story. I started out on EZboard on a role play forum using a character name but everyone knew it was a character name.

Then when I discovered that there were philosophy boards, and not just roleplay stuff on EZboard, I kept the same name so that people would recognize me.

So then, my father, who also uses EZboard starts attacking me for views he could only have picked up if he read my posts at the first philosophy board. And when I say attacking, there was actual physical violence involved. So I changed my name to something that wasn't related to either the character name or my name in the hopes of him not figuring out who I was.

I came to the conclusion elsewhere that I could use just my first name because it wasn't related to EZ and my father would have to work really hard to trace me to there, but at that point I already was using the Rory name here and was simply too lazy to change.

Finally, I concluded that it was more honest to use the same name in person as online rather than hiding my identity. I won't use my full name in case my father decides to google me, but I will at least be upfront and not hide behind a character.

And no, I didn't realize I could just change the name of the same account, or else I would have done so.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Thank you.