Learning From Afghanistan

[cwjerome]

What might have worked better? How should we approach the next similar crisis?

Let me say this up front: The US needs to understand the important difference between what is vital and what is desirable. Our emotional state after 9/11 allowed passionate ideological goals to trump concrete objectives directly tied to US vital interests.

As an admitted 50% neoconservative, I do believe using American economic and military power to bring "social change" to other countries can be justified. I believe idealism and moral clarity are important in US foreign policy and unilateral action is sometimes necessary to pursue US strategic interests. HOWEVER...

Those are desirable, and not necessarily vital. Swept up by anger I believed we overreached in Afghanistan by looking to occupy and rebuild the 2nd poorest country in the world in an effort to change the face of the Middle East area. Noble, yes... worth it, doubtful.

Our interests were destroying Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, and punishing the Taliban. Instead of going all out we could have conducted punitive raids using air and some ground power, along with with satellite/ UAV coverage and human intelligence sources to locate bin Laden, al-Qaeda senior leaders and their training camps, (and Taliban leadership) attack to destroy them - and then withdraw. Followed up by promises that as long as the Taliban harbored terrorists or permitted them to operate from their territory we would continue to launch attacks on them.

American strategic security could have been safeguarded and most of our operations in Afghanistan completed in 2002. What did we end up with? 8 + who knows how many more years, spending $100s billions, and costing the US thousands of killed or wounded Soldiers. If we knew this cost beforehand, would we have followed this route? The costs seem to be out of proportion to what we've gained and the strategic benefit will likely be unfufilled for many years to come.

This is by no means some accusatory tirade against our actions, not by a long shot. But we should always be willing to engage in simple, honest analysis. In future cases we should be careful about elevating what's desirable over what's vital. There still needs to be that Realist, pragmatic, (almost ammoral) aspect, an emotionless detachment that can help determine purpose, method and end state within a proper cost/benefit framework.

 

[Lemon law]

I read what cwjerome said, and while agree that we screwed up, I can't agree with what cw advocates.

Because what is cwjerome advocates is exactly what Ossama Bin laden did on 911. Namely used or misused the hospitality of a given country to launch a covert operation on another country. And therefore, because the US is noble, we have the right to bumble in any manner we see fit to assassinate and kill in some other country?????????????

In a larger sense, what Bin laden did on 911 demanded a response, and the international community granted the USA the right to respond. Once the Taliban refused to turn in Bin Laden, their government had to go.

But once GWB&co decided a military response was needed, was the point at which the mistakes began. Because a military occupation carries certain nation building responsibilities, and you either go big or stay at home. We tried to go small in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and its resulted in the USA being the proud parents of twin quagmires. These mistakes are nothing new in world history, any war college knows the formula, at least one troop on the ground per 50 population, and then one must rebuild
the economy. Or every damn time, one is going to get an insurgency and mess. But Donald Rumsfeld was so damn smart that he convinced himself those rules would not apply to him, because he was a neocon.

And all Dumsfeld did is 100% con himself, along with the rest of GWB&co., and add in too many in the population of the USA.

And the other point to make is where does this leaning from our mistakes in Afghanistan come from? Until we in the USA get over our delusions of grandeur, we first must learn the lessons in Vietnam. And given the fact that we are still deep in denial some 40 years later about Vietnam, I just don't think we can quite handle addressing our self made problems with Afghanistan or Iraq any time soon.

 

[Craig234]

Here is a far better answer to the OP's question.

 

[Lemon law]

Good Link Craig234

 

[JKing106]

No campaign in Afghanistan against guerillas has ever been won. There's no indication there ever will be. How about we say fuck you to the American oil dynasties, fuck you to the Saudis and Israelis, who are ever bit as savage and barbarous as Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and develop alternative domestic energy sources so we don't need to ever go there again? That sound like a plan? They may not want to kill us if we stayed the hell out of their back yard, and stopped fucking with their politics.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I read what cwjerome said, and while agree that we screwed up, I can't agree with what cw advocates.

Because what is cwjerome advocates is exactly what Ossama Bin laden did on 911. Namely used or misused the hospitality of a given country to launch a covert operation on another country. And therefore, because the US is noble, we have the right to bumble in any manner we see fit to assassinate and kill in some other country?????????????

In a larger sense, what Bin laden did on 911 demanded a response, and the international community granted the USA the right to respond. Once the Taliban refused to turn in Bin Laden, their government had to go.

But once GWB&co decided a military response was needed, was the point at which the mistakes began. Because a military occupation carries certain nation building responsibilities, and you either go big or stay at home. We tried to go small in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and its resulted in the USA being the proud parents of twin quagmires. These mistakes are nothing new in world history, any war college knows the formula, at least one troop on the ground per 50 population, and then one must rebuild
the economy. Or every damn time, one is going to get an insurgency and mess. But Donald Rumsfeld was so damn smart that he convinced himself those rules would not apply to him, because he was a neocon.

And all Dumsfeld did is 100% con himself, along with the rest of GWB&co., and add in too many in the population of the USA.

And the other point to make is where does this leaning from our mistakes in Afghanistan come from? Until we in the USA get over our delusions of grandeur, we first must learn the lessons in Vietnam. And given the fact that we are still deep in denial some 40 years later about Vietnam, I just don't think we can quite handle addressing our self made problems with Afghanistan or Iraq any time soon.

Cutting through the usually thick partisan rhetoric, you apparently believe the US should either not have engaged in military action, or, gone all-out WWII style occupation.

Not engaging in military action would have been idiotic for such obvious reasons I cannot bring myself to discuss at this point. Perhaps you could elaborate on the benefits of this strategy...

A true top-down occupation has it's own set of problems. For years after 9/11 I was an advocate of this idea and strongly spoke out against a weak occupation on the cheap. I would probably still choose this as my 2nd alternative. But with hindsight as a guide, I don't think the costs are worth the expense and I'm not such a believer of re-making countries that threaten or attack us. In the right context I can support such an idea... in Afghanistan it fails the practicality test.

If we kept our cool and designed a more narrowly defined gameplan we could have met our interests with far less trouble: disrupt/destroy Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and punish the Taliban. A lot of changes, operations, activities, and new thinking could have happened- all in response to 9/11... but the direct military aspect should have been scaled down for meeting the immediate goals of our strategic interests. The major military mission would have been largely over within a year.

 

[cwjerome]

LL?

 

[Lemon law]

Sorry cwjerome for not responding to your question, But my HDD drive failed and it will be a while before I am back up.
Just posting on a borrowed computer at present.

 

[Moonbeam]

If you believe using American economic and military power to bring "social change" to other countries can be justified and that idealism and moral clarity are important in US foreign policy and unilateral action is sometimes necessary to pursue US strategic interests, how can you possibly say there still needs to be that Realist, pragmatic, (almost ammoral) aspect, an emotionless detachment that can help determine purpose, method and end state within a proper cost/benefit framework.

You are recommending doing what is right when it is convenient. What kind of morality can also be amoral all in the same breath?

What kind of person says I'm good when it's easy, but don't look for my help if it costs me anything. Why not just drop the pretense that there is anything moral about you at all? I guess you never heard that when somebody asks you for your shirt you give them your cloak too.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If you believe using American economic and military power to bring "social change" to other countries can be justified and that idealism and moral clarity are important in US foreign policy and unilateral action is sometimes necessary to pursue US strategic interests, how can you possibly say there still needs to be that Realist, pragmatic, (almost ammoral) aspect, an emotionless detachment that can help determine purpose, method and end state within a proper cost/benefit framework.

You are recommending doing what is right when it is convenient. What kind of morality can also be amoral all in the same breath?

What kind of person says I'm good when it's easy, but don't look for my help if it costs me anything. Why not just drop the pretense that there is anything moral about you at all? I guess you never heard that when somebody asks you for your shirt you give them your cloak too.

Because an idealist with no realism is a fanatic and a dangerous thing. YOU can be an idealist with strong principles, yet the universe itself (reality) is not idealistic. It just IS and if you don't tailor your idealism to reflect the realities of our world then all the lofty and just ideals you hold won't mean a thing.

There is a cut-off point. A business can be idealistic and pay its employees too much and then fail... hurting everyone more. A country can be idealistic and engage in all sorts of activities that weaken and destroy it... hurting everyone even more. Idealism should be grounded in reason and reason should be grounded in reality. It's not either-or, it's a complex spectrum.

 

[yllus]

I agree fully.

The rational action to take in Afghanistan would have been to acknowledge that the nation is ungovernable from a central authority. Instead, NATO should have limited the action to destroying all existing resources and people whose aim is to terrorize your country/allies, and kept at that objective into the foreseeable future while taking as few losses as possible.

The long term objective should also simply be that of denying terrorist organizations the ability to assemble and launch attacks, no matter where they are in the world. To that end, perhaps it is sometimes best to forment a revolution in government of a country - democracy and the rule of law is the only true solution to many of the problems these unstable countries face - but we now know that's much easier said than done.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If you believe using American economic and military power to bring "social change" to other countries can be justified and that idealism and moral clarity are important in US foreign policy and unilateral action is sometimes necessary to pursue US strategic interests, how can you possibly say there still needs to be that Realist, pragmatic, (almost ammoral) aspect, an emotionless detachment that can help determine purpose, method and end state within a proper cost/benefit framework.

You are recommending doing what is right when it is convenient. What kind of morality can also be amoral all in the same breath?

What kind of person says I'm good when it's easy, but don't look for my help if it costs me anything. Why not just drop the pretense that there is anything moral about you at all? I guess you never heard that when somebody asks you for your shirt you give them your cloak too.

Because an idealist with no realism is a fanatic and a dangerous thing. YOU can be an idealist with strong principles, yet the universe itself (reality) is not idealistic. It just IS and if you don't tailor your idealism to reflect the realities of our world then all the lofty and just ideals you hold won't mean a thing.

There is a cut-off point. A business can be idealistic and pay its employees too much and then fail... hurting everyone more. A country can be idealistic and engage in all sorts of activities that weaken and destroy it... hurting everyone even more. Idealism should be grounded in reason and reason should be grounded in reality. It's not either-or, it's a complex spectrum.

So true, but wait? Doesn't that mean that Jesus was a dangerous fanatic? Surely to give your shirt and then your cloak, in the eyes of most folk is totally impractical and irrational in an amoral universe, no? So it would seem to me that either you are far wiser than this fellow Jesus or else there is a mistake in what you call reality.

So the real rub, it would seem, is that you have grounded your notions on the unexamined assumption that you are objective and have some true notion of what reality is, a common assumption, I assure you, from where I see things, but one totally unsupported in the reality that I see.

It is you, in fact, who is the dangerous fanatic, I think. You are full of certainty.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: yllus
I agree fully.

The rational action to take in Afghanistan would have been to acknowledge that the nation is ungovernable from a central authority. Instead, NATO should have limited the action to destroying all existing resources and people whose aim is to terrorize your country/allies, and kept at that objective into the foreseeable future while taking as few losses as possible.

The long term objective should also simply be that of denying terrorist organizations the ability to assemble and launch attacks, no matter where they are in the world. To that end, perhaps it is sometimes best to forment a revolution in government of a country - democracy and the rule of law is the only true solution to many of the problems these unstable countries face - but we now know that's much easier said than done.

Easier said than done? Why is it your business to do it for others. Either the soul yearns for the truth and will move there, or else the world it totally empty of any objectivity and nothing matters at all. You either trust that humans have inalienable rights they crave to find and realize, or you are a coward who needs to cause others to be like you so you can feel safe, no?

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If you believe using American economic and military power to bring "social change" to other countries can be justified and that idealism and moral clarity are important in US foreign policy and unilateral action is sometimes necessary to pursue US strategic interests, how can you possibly say there still needs to be that Realist, pragmatic, (almost ammoral) aspect, an emotionless detachment that can help determine purpose, method and end state within a proper cost/benefit framework.

You are recommending doing what is right when it is convenient. What kind of morality can also be amoral all in the same breath?

What kind of person says I'm good when it's easy, but don't look for my help if it costs me anything. Why not just drop the pretense that there is anything moral about you at all? I guess you never heard that when somebody asks you for your shirt you give them your cloak too.

Because an idealist with no realism is a fanatic and a dangerous thing. YOU can be an idealist with strong principles, yet the universe itself (reality) is not idealistic. It just IS and if you don't tailor your idealism to reflect the realities of our world then all the lofty and just ideals you hold won't mean a thing.

There is a cut-off point. A business can be idealistic and pay its employees too much and then fail... hurting everyone more. A country can be idealistic and engage in all sorts of activities that weaken and destroy it... hurting everyone even more. Idealism should be grounded in reason and reason should be grounded in reality. It's not either-or, it's a complex spectrum.

So true, but wait? Doesn't that mean that Jesus was a dangerous fanatic? Surely to give your shirt and then your cloak, in the eyes of most folk is totally impractical and irrational in an amoral universe, no? So it would seem to me that either you are far wiser than this fellow Jesus or else there is a mistake in what you call reality.

So the real rub, it would seem, is that you have grounded your notions on the unexamined assumption that you are objective and have some true notion of what reality is, a common assumption, I assure you, from where I see things, but one totally unsupported in the reality that I see.

It is you, in fact, who is the dangerous fanatic, I think. You are full of certainty.

If you believe that the message of Jesus was to die on principle (in vain) then I would say you are wrong. But this isn't a religious discussion... the bottom line is you be as principled as you want with a chimp in a cage who has an AK47, but the only outcome will be your injury or death, and all your high ideals will have been for naught.

Far from being certain, I would rely on rational observation and logic to continually look for understanding... whereas you on the other hand, seem to be very certain because, well, just because you know you're right damnit. Whatever mystical, psychological truth you've arrived at has nothing to do with what's real. What's real had been around and will be around after you and your consciousness are long gone.

Like most things, you have to integrate concepts to find the right way. Idealism and realism are both important, it all bout finding the right formula in a given context.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: yllus
I agree fully.

The rational action to take in Afghanistan would have been to acknowledge that the nation is ungovernable from a central authority. Instead, NATO should have limited the action to destroying all existing resources and people whose aim is to terrorize your country/allies, and kept at that objective into the foreseeable future while taking as few losses as possible.

The long term objective should also simply be that of denying terrorist organizations the ability to assemble and launch attacks, no matter where they are in the world. To that end, perhaps it is sometimes best to forment a revolution in government of a country - democracy and the rule of law is the only true solution to many of the problems these unstable countries face - but we now know that's much easier said than done.

Easier said than done? Why is it your business to do it for others.

It's not my business what goes on in my neighbour's condominium. However, if she starts running a crack den in the place and refuses to do something about it (or is complicit), I will (call the police). And if it turns out that turfing the crazy old woman who runs the place for good so her kids can move in and take better care of the place will ensure stability next door for the long term, I'll take steps to make that happen too. Same policy applies at the international level.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: yllus

It's not my business what goes on in my neighbour's condominium. However, if she starts running a crack den in the place and refuses to do something about it (or is complicit), I will (call the police). And if it turns out that turfing the crazy old woman who runs the place for good so her kids can move in and take better care of the place will ensure stability next door for the long term, I'll take steps to make that happen too. Same policy applies at the international level.

I figure you have Constitutional rights that allow you to do something about an old lady running a crack house next door to you. They don't include turfing her so what you are talking about there is vigilant murder, hardly something one would expect to hear from somebody maintaining any fiction whatsoever of sanity. When it comes to neighboring countries you have no such Constitutional authority and must appeal to international law. So your claim that the same applies internationally is totally bogus.

 

[Moonbeam]

c: If you believe that the message of Jesus was to die on principle (in vain) then I would say you are wrong. But this isn't a religious discussion...

M: M: I didn't say Jesus died in vain, are you? I asked you the notion that you give somebody your cloak and your shirt if somebody asks for your shirt is fanatically dangerous or not. I am not asking about religion or anything else except that simple question, which you dodged. Mind answering it?

c: the bottom line is you be as principled as you want with a chimp in a cage who has an AK47, but the only outcome will be your injury or death, and all your high ideals will have been for naught.

M: And note again the bigotry arising out of your unexamined assumptions. Suddenly I am dealing with a chimp with an AK47. Already you are engaged in the demonetization of the enemy as justification for your moral clarity. You are exactly the fanatic I said you are.

c: Far from being certain, I would rely on rational observation and logic to continually look for understanding... whereas you on the other hand, seem to be very certain because, well, just because you know you're right damnit. Whatever mystical, psychological truth you've arrived at has nothing to do with what's real. What's real had been around and will be around after you and your consciousness are long gone.

M: Further, you assume you can measure who dies in vain and who does not, because, of course, you know nothing about living and dying over real principles. Only the things you imagine dying for are real, and of course it won't be you doing the dying, but other people, those soldiers who are there to kill in the name of your GOOD. Again, you are full of our own arrogant certainty, but it is totally invisible to you. And, you blindly assume that you can characterize my position as mystical or psychological, again demonizing what you don't understand. And you are going to tell me what is real. Hehe,

c: Like most things, you have to integrate concepts to find the right way. Idealism and realism are both important, it all bout finding the right formula in a given context.


M: Like most fanatics you have a bunch of fancy words to paper over the fact that you don't know anything. You have no idea what concepts to integrate or how to, you don't know what idealism or realism are, and you have no capacity to find any right formula or understand your context. What you actually are is a massive egotist. You are terrified of doubt, of understanding and facing the fact that you actually know nothing at all. All evil is done by folk who know what is good.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: yllus

It's not my business what goes on in my neighbour's condominium. However, if she starts running a crack den in the place and refuses to do something about it (or is complicit), I will (call the police). And if it turns out that turfing the crazy old woman who runs the place for good so her kids can move in and take better care of the place will ensure stability next door for the long term, I'll take steps to make that happen too. Same policy applies at the international level.

I figure you have Constitutional rights that allow you to do something about an old lady running a crack house next door to you. They don't include turfing her so what you are talking about there is vigilant murder, hardly something one would expect to hear from somebody maintaining any fiction whatsoever of sanity. When it comes to neighboring countries you have no such Constitutional authority and must appeal to international law. So your claim that the same applies internationally is totally bogus.

Thankfully, nobody shares your silly opinion. Whether at the international level or merely between two neighbours, everyone understands that the need to ensure one's own safety comes first and foremost. The age, sanity or gentle nature of those who enable the threat are not a factor in the equation.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
c: If you believe that the message of Jesus was to die on principle (in vain) then I would say you are wrong. But this isn't a religious discussion...

M: M: I didn't say Jesus died in vain, are you? I asked you the notion that you give somebody your cloak and your shirt if somebody asks for your shirt is fanatically dangerous or not. I am not asking about religion or anything else except that simple question, which you dodged. Mind answering it?

I have no idea if a person is fanatically dangerous if they give away his shirt and cloak. I didn't dodge the question, I considered in rhetorical and fairly stupid. I stated earlier that a person who has only idealism (principles) is a fanatic and dangerous. Realism (pragmaticism) is necessary to help anchor the principles in the real world. If you don't want to operate in the real world you are a fanatic and dangerous.

c: the bottom line is you be as principled as you want with a chimp in a cage who has an AK47, but the only outcome will be your injury or death, and all your high ideals will have been for naught.

M: And note again the bigotry arising out of your unexamined assumptions. Suddenly I am dealing with a chimp with an AK47. Already you are engaged in the demonetization of the enemy as justification for your moral clarity. You are exactly the fanatic I said you are.

My example is only meant to show that one's ideals cannot overcome a reality. You are simply throwing out the bigot accusation because you cannot understand abstracts and are projecting to a certain degree.

c: Far from being certain, I would rely on rational observation and logic to continually look for understanding... whereas you on the other hand, seem to be very certain because, well, just because you know you're right damnit. Whatever mystical, psychological truth you've arrived at has nothing to do with what's real. What's real had been around and will be around after you and your consciousness are long gone.

M: Further, you assume you can measure who dies in vain and who does not, because, of course, you know nothing about living and dying over real principles. Only the things you imagine dying for are real, and of course it won't be you doing the dying, but other people, those soldiers who are there to kill in the name of your GOOD. Again, you are full of our own arrogant certainty, but it is totally invisible to you. And, you blindly assume that you can characterize my position as mystical or psychological, again demonizing what you don't understand. And you are going to tell me what is real. Hehe,

Isn't it amazing that you can create this whole psychological profile of me (because you of course have the ability to decode a man's being over the computer) then in the next sentence talk about me blindly assuming... and you are going to tell me what is real?

You are so certain when saying I'm so certain while I keep telling you I'm not certain... get it? I only have the same tools you have to determine certainty, however, I'm telling you that what I know and believe is arrived at by observation and reason, not by the godlike mental breakthrough you and you alone have had. We have had this discussion before and I'm not real interested in getting all metaphysical with you again.

c: Like most things, you have to integrate concepts to find the right way. Idealism and realism are both important, it all bout finding the right formula in a given context.

M: Like most fanatics you have a bunch of fancy words to paper over the fact that you don't know anything. You have no idea what concepts to integrate or how to, you don't know what idealism or realism are, and you have no capacity to find any right formula or understand your context. What you actually are is a massive egotist. You are terrified of doubt, of understanding and facing the fact that you actually know nothing at all. All evil is done by folk who know what is good.

I find it odd that you see me as arrogant by trying to decipher what is real and how we should act according to this reality, meanwhile we have to listen to your condescending sermons weekly about your gift of spiritual enlightenment. You are fanatical about yourself and your Truth, although all I ever see is not very profound musings by a guy who opened up a self-help book. The one thing I will give you an A+ at though is your advanced ability to derail threads with the same one-sided mantra you lecture us about constantly.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: yllus

It's not my business what goes on in my neighbour's condominium. However, if she starts running a crack den in the place and refuses to do something about it (or is complicit), I will (call the police). And if it turns out that turfing the crazy old woman who runs the place for good so her kids can move in and take better care of the place will ensure stability next door for the long term, I'll take steps to make that happen too. Same policy applies at the international level.

I figure you have Constitutional rights that allow you to do something about an old lady running a crack house next door to you. They don't include turfing her so what you are talking about there is vigilant murder, hardly something one would expect to hear from somebody maintaining any fiction whatsoever of sanity. When it comes to neighboring countries you have no such Constitutional authority and must appeal to international law. So your claim that the same applies internationally is totally bogus.

Thankfully, nobody shares your silly opinion. Whether at the international level or merely between two neighbours, everyone understands that the need to ensure one's own safety comes first and foremost. The age, sanity or gentle nature of those who enable the threat are not a factor in the equation.

I don't know if you are just plain stupid or dangerously mentally ill, but when you start talking about how you would kill some old lady who lives next door because she's running a crack house I don't take too seriously any silliness you imagine you see in me.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: yllus

It's not my business what goes on in my neighbour's condominium. However, if she starts running a crack den in the place and refuses to do something about it (or is complicit), I will (call the police). And if it turns out that turfing the crazy old woman who runs the place for good so her kids can move in and take better care of the place will ensure stability next door for the long term, I'll take steps to make that happen too. Same policy applies at the international level.

I figure you have Constitutional rights that allow you to do something about an old lady running a crack house next door to you. They don't include turfing her so what you are talking about there is vigilant murder, hardly something one would expect to hear from somebody maintaining any fiction whatsoever of sanity. When it comes to neighboring countries you have no such Constitutional authority and must appeal to international law. So your claim that the same applies internationally is totally bogus.

Thankfully, nobody shares your silly opinion. Whether at the international level or merely between two neighbours, everyone understands that the need to ensure one's own safety comes first and foremost. The age, sanity or gentle nature of those who enable the threat are not a factor in the equation.

I don't know if you are just plain stupid or dangerously mentally ill, but when you start talking about how you would kill some old lady who lives next door because she's running a crack house I don't take too seriously any silliness you imagine you see in me.

Or maybe, as per usual, you're too busy masturbating to your own tired rhetoric to actually understand what others are saying.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: yllus

It's not my business what goes on in my neighbour's condominium. However, if she starts running a crack den in the place and refuses to do something about it (or is complicit), I will (call the police). And if it turns out that turfing the crazy old woman who runs the place for good so her kids can move in and take better care of the place will ensure stability next door for the long term, I'll take steps to make that happen too. Same policy applies at the international level.

I figure you have Constitutional rights that allow you to do something about an old lady running a crack house next door to you. They don't include turfing her so what you are talking about there is vigilant murder, hardly something one would expect to hear from somebody maintaining any fiction whatsoever of sanity. When it comes to neighboring countries you have no such Constitutional authority and must appeal to international law. So your claim that the same applies internationally is totally bogus.

Thankfully, nobody shares your silly opinion. Whether at the international level or merely between two neighbours, everyone understands that the need to ensure one's own safety comes first and foremost. The age, sanity or gentle nature of those who enable the threat are not a factor in the equation.

I don't know if you are just plain stupid or dangerously mentally ill, but when you start talking about how you would kill some old lady who lives next door because she's running a crack house I don't take too seriously any silliness you imagine you see in me.

Or maybe, as per usual, you're too busy masturbating to your own tired rhetoric to actually understand what others are saying.

I anxiously await the true meaning of your words bolded above.

 

[Moonbeam]

c: I have no idea if a person is fanatically dangerous if they give away his shirt and cloak. I didn't dodge the question, I considered in rhetorical and fairly stupid.

M: As well you should. Because you can't see the reality behind the sentiment expressed by Jesus despite all your claims to being in touch with reality, you were lost to any meaningful answer.

c: I stated earlier that a person who has only idealism (principles) is a fanatic and dangerous.

M: As I said earlier, your words can be technically correct without any capacity on your part to actually be able to apply them.

c: Realism (pragmaticism) is necessary to help anchor the principles in the real world.

M: Yes but you make the assumption you know what reality is.

c: If you don't want to operate in the real world you are a fanatic and dangerous.

M: Yes but you operate in the world only under the assumption you know what the real world is. This is your unconscious assumption and why what you say is true in generalities but not a reality you can reach. You have gone to the end of the road without understanding the beginning.

c: My example is only meant to show that one's ideals cannot overcome a reality.

M: There you go again. You don't know what is real.

c: You are simply throwing out the bigot accusation because you cannot understand abstracts and are projecting to a certain degree.

M: I use the word bigot to refer to somebody who thinks he knows something he does not. You think you know what you do not know. You have no modesty.

c: Far from being certain, I would rely on rational observation and logic to continually look for understanding...

M: You rely on the assumption you can do what you say.

c: whereas you on the other hand, seem to be very certain because, well, just because you know you're right damnit.

M: Yes I do no assume I know anything.

c: Whatever mystical, psychological truth you've arrived at has nothing to do with what's real. What's real had been around and will be around after you and your consciousness are long gone.

M: We have certainly known from Socrates time that the so called wise men are fools, that they assume they know what they do not, that wisdom lies in knowing you know nothing.

c: Isn't it amazing that you can create this whole psychological profile of me (because you of course have the ability to decode a man's being over the computer) then in the next sentence talk about me blindly assuming... and you are going to tell me what is real?

M: There is nothing amazing going on here at all. You think you know and I know you don't.

c: You are so certain when saying I'm so certain while I keep telling you I'm not certain... get it? I only have the same tools you have to determine certainty, however, I'm telling you that what I know and believe is arrived at by observation and reason, not by the godlike mental breakthrough you and you alone have had. We have had this discussion before and I'm not real interested in getting all metaphysical with you again.

M: You mean the godlike realization I have that I don't know all the shit you claim you do? Hehe, yes I am definitely godlike compared to you.

c: Like most things, you have to integrate concepts to find the right way.

M: Really, and you know this how?

c: Idealism and realism are both important, it all bout finding the right formula in a given context.

M: And you know this how?

c: I find it odd that you see me as arrogant by trying to decipher what is real and how we should act according to this reality, meanwhile we have to listen to your condescending sermons weekly about your gift of spiritual enlightenment.

M: Back to the fact that I am spiritually gifted because I don't know anything. Nice

c: You are fanatical about yourself and your Truth, although all I ever see is not very profound musings by a guy who opened up a self-help book. The one thing I will give you an A+ at though is your advanced ability to derail threads with the same one-sided mantra you lecture us about constantly.

M: I find no shortage of folk like you who think they know things.

I can't kill the crack lady next door because I don't know I have any right to take somebody else's life. I don't know I have any right to attack somebody in another country. I don't build in my head theories of how I have any right to tell another what to do. All evil is done by people who are right, who know what is right and wrong in reality, the reality they fantasize in their head.

 

[cwjerome]

What kind of deranged mixture of re-edited nonsense is that? All I can say to this is, you are correct, you know nothing. The rest of it is a tiring display of your weak psychoanalyzing skills. Next you'll be accusing me of extreme certainty and arrogance by claiming 2+2=4. Don't you get bored saying same dumb bullshit to everyone, almost everyday?

You talk about me being ready to advocate ideas while letting others die for them, yet I am a Soldier and you know nothing about my principles and sacrifices.

You talk about me being so certain, yet by virtue of my major in philosophy the one thing I have learned is to always doubt.

You keep saying I've defined reality yet I'll I've said is we need to better understand reality to make the best decisions.

You might want to quit shoving everyone you talk to into your narrow, preconceived meme, and you might want to take your hateful, arrogant religion to another board because it's not news or politics.

 

[Moonbeam]

c: Let me say this up front: The US needs to understand the important difference between what is vital and what is desirable.

M: What is the difference?

c: Our emotional state after 9/11 allowed passionate ideological goals to trump concrete objectives directly tied to US vital interests.

M: What goals, what interests?

c: As an admitted 50% neoconservative, I do believe using American economic and military power to bring "social change" to other countries can be justified.

M: How so?

c: I believe idealism and moral clarity are important in US foreign policy

M: What are they?

c: and unilateral action is sometimes necessary to pursue US strategic interests. HOWEVER...

M: When?

c: Those are desirable, and not necessarily vital.

M: What are?

c: Swept up by anger I believed we overreached in Afghanistan by looking to occupy and rebuild the 2nd poorest country in the world in an effort to change the face of the Middle East area. Noble, yes... worth it, doubtful.

M: Maybe Bush was afraid somebody would vote against him if he didn't look real tough.

c: Our interests were destroying Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, and punishing the Taliban.

M: Maybe we should have engaged them in a war of ideas. Personally I don't think insanity has much of a chance against reasonableness.

c: Instead of going all out we could have conducted punitive raids using air and some ground power, along with with satellite/ UAV coverage and human intelligence sources to locate bin Laden, al-Qaeda senior leaders and their training camps, (and Taliban leadership) attack to destroy them - and then withdraw. Followed up by promises that as long as the Taliban harbored terrorists or permitted them to operate from their territory we would continue to launch attacks on them.

M: Hind sight is 20-20 no?

c: American strategic security could have been safeguarded and most of our operations in Afghanistan completed in 2002. What did we end up with? 8 + who knows how many more years, spending $100s billions, and costing the US thousands of killed or wounded Soldiers. If we knew this cost beforehand, would we have followed this route? The costs seem to be out of proportion to what we've gained and the strategic benefit will likely be unfufilled for many years to come.

M: The Supreme Coup voted for Bush and the rest is history

c: This is by no means some accusatory tirade against our actions, not by a long shot. But we should always be willing to engage in simple, honest analysis.

M: How? How could we have been other than what we were. Remember you wanted to talk about reality. What was is the reality.

c: In future cases we should be careful about elevating what's desirable over what's vital.

M: Aside from knowing what those are how exactly will we learn that lesson?

c: There still needs to be that Realist, pragmatic, (almost ammoral) aspect, an emotionless detachment that can help determine purpose, method and end state within a proper cost/benefit framework.

M: How do you know? And what are all those things? Maybe there just needs to be a law that if you start a war that's a fuck-up you will pay with your life.