L.A. Times Editorial: U.S. Troops are Imperialists and should not be supported

[Divinus Arma]

Devils Advocate playing through:

Why? Surely the opposite is allowed. Cheering the troops on for a policy that you believe is a success. So surely this would be a case of reciprocity.

And he is correct that no matter who orders a person, the moral responsibility still lies with the person who acts. Others further up the chain of command may get the kudos or the kick in the pants for decisions.

Well Papa, who is to make the decision as to what is moral? You? MRD? The left or the right? How about the majority? Or the minority?


The assumption is that the Global War on Terrorism is a moral error and that the troops are to blame. Despite what the fickle public may think, one way or the other, the morality of the policy decision rests on the public not the troops.

The public elects leaders who establish policy and troops are employed to enforce policy. You want blame for something you see as a failure? Blame yourselves.


Where are all the protestors? Where is the uproar over the so-called lies? I'll tell you where: Driving around in their F-ing escalades while moaning to other self-education policy analysts on their cell phones in ignorant safety. A safety that the troops provide. And those who don't think our military provides safety live in a F-ing dreamworld baby.

One of the things I remeber distinctly after coming back from Afghanistan is how ignorantly blissful the American Public is. All our security is just a raw egg with a 40lb hammer dangling above. Its totally illusory, impermanent, and just waiting to be snapped.

One day, as you pick your children up from soccer practice, you will see a bright orb on the horizon, brighter than the sun. If you live after the shockwave, then you will stumble through the crowds of screaming, thirsty, burnt crowds, looking for help from the government. As you pass little rows of cookie-cutter houses and toppled black cars under a shadowed sky, you will imagine you are dreaming. And then you will finally reach a radio, and surrounded by men and women just like yourself, you will learn of the first nuclear terrorist attack on western soil: in a city near your suburb.

Or how about this: You wake to your alarm clock as you do every day, but you feel sick, really sick. Sweat pours down your face but you still feel cold. You call to your wife and realize that she is still asleep. Sluggishly, you make your way to the kitchen, looking for some cold medicine. As you try to shake off the illness, you realize just how crappy you feel. You go to the phone to call your office, but there is no dial tone. Odd, you think. So you start to go back to your room to find your cellphone when you happen to walk by the window. The neighboring avenue, normally busy with vehicle traffic, is completely quite. Attempting to shake off the heavy ill feeling, you take a close look outside, squinting against the early morning sun. You see several cars in the road, and they look to be stalled. Several are off to the side of the road, and you make out a woman on the ground next to her car with the passenger door open; she's laying on her side and clutching a child. Neither are moving. In a dull shock, you run to your front door and open it wide. You immediately feel heavier, stunned, and far colder. As you collapse to your knees you see your neighbor's body in the driveway next to his SUV. The coffee mug is next to him, and the liquid trails down into the street. As you curl into a ball, you feel immense sharp pain throughout your spine as it tenses as hard as a rock. You pass out before it breaks on its own.

[Papewaio]

How many people have died from terrorism?

How many people have died from dirty water?

Which one should be the major priority? The one that has killed more people? The one that is more cost effective? The one that will win us the hearts and minds of the 3rd world?

So why aren't we devoting more money to purifying water?

[Divinus Arma]

How many people have died from terrorism?

How many people have died from dirty water?

Which one should be the major priority? The one that has killed more people? The one that is more cost effective? The one that will win us the hearts and minds of the 3rd world?

So why aren't we devoting more money to purifying water?

Is asking only hypothetical rhetorical questions an effective argument?

Do hypothetical rhetorical questions imply something, or are they just intended to distract from the discussion?

Which has killed more people; rhetorical questions or hypothetical questions?

Has my point been made?


You are a very smart guy Pape, so this is a little insulting to both of us. Make a point and stand by it. This is fluff.

[Papewaio]

1.8 million people died in 2004 because they did not have reliable access to potable water.

Every day more people die because of bad water then died in 911.

About 103 000 died at Nagasaki and Hiroshima... yet in the 60 years of rememberance days for those deaths there would have been about 250,000 people dieing from lack of access to clean water.

Where should our priorities be?

With a hypothetical dirty bomb that may go off?

Or with a very real daily death toll of some 5000 people who are mainly children?

[Divinus Arma]

Both are important. Period.

There are a whole host of things we should get our priorities straight on: The Sudan, African AIDS, rising obesity rates, Chinese oppression, Russian mafia control of government, Mexican illegal immigration, potable drinking water, Brazillian shanty towns, etc etc.

Bro, the world is slowly getting better. Right now, I'm worried about MY country. MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE. USA USA USA and all the jazz. I am looking out for numero uno. And so are you, otherwise you wouldn't be posting on this board; instead you would dicth your family and join greenpeace, or the peace corps, or volunteer with the homeless. But I would bet that you do not devote a significant portion of your life towards bettering humanity in any substantial way other than talk about it. And neither do I except serve my Nation, which happens to aid in spreading access to potable water, builds schools throughout the world, prevents mass killings of innocents in multiple nations, donates billions to relief efforts (both through private and public funding), etc etc etc.

The world would be F-ed if America goes down hard. Absolutely totally F-ed. Screw potable water. Say goodbye to the world's economy. Say hello to the newly impoverished billions. Say hello to global strife like you have not seen since WW2. Say hello to the global rise of nuclear-armed muslim extremist states. Say hello to a whole new kind of China.

It has nothing to do with a million American citizens and everything to do with the repurcussions throughout the world. I just happen to only actually care about that first million.

[Papewaio]

Both are important. Period.

Really? One kills 2 million a year, the other is a low probability. If you are worried about a mass extinction event then spend more money on anti-asteroid missiles. It is a very tiny probability, but it would wipe out 80% plus of all life on earth.

There are a whole host of things we should get our priorities straight on: The Sudan, African AIDS, rising obesity rates, Chinese oppression, Russian mafia control of government, Mexican illegal immigration, potable drinking water, Brazillian shanty towns, etc etc.

So why chase boogey men when there a lot of real problems right now that could really win hearts and minds, cost less lives to implement and don't cost much money either? Why because there is not a big enough kick back/profit margin/gung-ho/ votes in them.

Bro, the world is slowly getting better. Right now, I'm worried about MY country. MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE. USA USA USA and all the jazz. I am looking out for numero uno. And so are you, otherwise you wouldn't be posting on this board; instead you would dicth your family and join greenpeace, or the peace corps, or volunteer with the homeless. But I would bet that you do not devote a significant portion of your life towards bettering humanity in any substantial way other than talk about it. And neither do I except serve my Nation, which happens to aid in spreading access to potable water, builds schools throughout the world, prevents mass killings of innocents in multiple nations, donates billions to relief efforts (both through private and public funding), etc etc etc.

A) Greenpeace suck because they lie like any political organisation. There science is not crediable and the go for the big publicity stunts. If the creature is cute they will protect it, otherwise they ignore the plights of less cuddly animals.

B) Don't you think the USA would be better off by winning the hearts and minds profile?

C) Meh! I've worked for mining companies. I believe in looking after my family first. I don't think though that the efforts in Iraq are getting as good as ROI as other methods.

The world would be F-ed if America goes down hard. Absolutely totally F-ed. Screw potable water. Say goodbye to the world's economy. Say hello to the newly impoverished billions. Say hello to global strife like you have not seen since WW2. Say hello to the global rise of nuclear-armed muslim extremist states. Say hello to a whole new kind of China.

It has nothing to do with a million American citizens and everything to do with the repurcussions throughout the world. I just happen to only actually care about that first million.

And how would potable water be a kick in the nuts for the stability of America? Surely more happy living people who are going 'America saved my life' would be a plus? Or can we only win hearts and minds through military actions?

[Divinus Arma]

Pape, I obviously distracted you with my dazzling collection of clauses and phrases. So much so that the point of my post was missed completely.


My point, succinctly put, is this:


The world is gigantic poo poo. If America get hurt, then poo poo get bigger.

[Major Robert Dump]

[QUOTE=Divinus Arma]Well Papa, who is to make the decision as to what is moral? You? MRD? The left or the right? How about the majority? Or the minority?


The assumption is that the Global War on Terrorism is a moral error and that the troops are to blame. Despite what the fickle public may think, one way or the other, the morality of the policy decision rests on the public not the troops.

QUOTE]




I don't think that is an assumption at all. There are varying levels of dissent about the war yet they are all lumped together.



[QUOTE=Divinus Arma]One day, as you pick your children up from soccer practice, you will see a bright orb on the horizon, brighter than the sun. If you live after the shockwave, then you will stumble through the crowds of screaming, thirsty, burnt crowds, looking for help from the government. As you pass little rows of cookie-cutter houses and toppled black cars under a shadowed sky, you will imagine you are dreaming. And then you will finally reach a radio, and surrounded by men and women just like yourself, you will learn of the first nuclear terrorist attack on western soil: in a city near your suburb.

Or how about this: You wake to your alarm clock as you do every day, but you feel sick, really sick. Sweat pours down your face but you still feel cold. You call to your wife and realize that she is still asleep. Sluggishly, you make your way to the kitchen, looking for some cold medicine. As you try to shake off the illness, you realize just how crappy you feel. You go to the phone to call your office, but there is no dial tone. Odd, you think. So you start to go back to your room to find your cellphone when you happen to walk by the window. The neighboring avenue, normally busy with vehicle traffic, is completely quite. Attempting to shake off the heavy ill feeling, you take a close look outside, squinting against the early morning sun. You see several cars in the road, and they look to be stalled. Several are off to the side of the road, and you make out a woman on the ground next to her car with the passenger door open; she's laying on her side and clutching a child. Neither are moving. In a dull shock, you run to your front door and open it wide. You immediately feel heavier, stunned, and far colder. As you collapse to your knees you see your neighbor's body in the driveway next to his SUV. The coffee mug is next to him, and the liquid trails down into the street. As you curl into a ball, you feel immense sharp pain throughout your spine as it tenses as hard as a rock. You pass out before it breaks on its own.QUOTE]

Nice boogey man tactics. You just described the war with China, not Iraq. Sorry, suitcase bombs that destroy cities don't exist and never have. But that's neither here nor there, what I'd like to do is stablize Iraq and have a discussion in public about what has/is happening without immediately being dismissed as a hippie. I can't speak for the author of that column, but one side deserves another.

[Divinus Arma]

I don't think that is an assumption at all. There are varying levels of dissent about the war yet they are all lumped together.

Clarify this please. My tiny brain does not compute.

Nice boogey man tactics. You just described the war with China, not Iraq. Sorry, suitcase bombs that destroy cities don't exist and never have.

#1 is a nuke in the West. Does it matter how it happened? Not really. You get the point. #2 is a chemical attack, which is far more likely and a real threat. I just loved carrying atropine and adrenaline in the 'stan. Want some?

But that's neither here nor there, what I'd like to do is stablize Iraq and have a discussion in public about what has/is happening without immediately being dismissed as a hippie.

Fine. Then let's discuss it factually. I'm always game for this one. Leave out conjecture, hyperbole, and party talking point catch phrases like neo-con, liberal elite, etc.

I can't speak for the author of that column, but one side deserves another.

Bro. The guy blames what he percieves to be a policy failure on U.S. Troops. That's messed up. They don't make policy, man. The administration does and the public votes yes or no. We can argue policy all day, but the troops do not make policy. They do what they are told, make the best decisions every day that they are capable of given their value system and military training, and try to survive. That's it.