There's quite a bit to back up my first point, some of it from advisors and experts within our own military that the Bush admin should have paid more attention to. We've been there many times before in other threads.
But of course, everything can be contended, ad infinitum if you want to. There are still Russians who pine for the days of Stalin, and could probably keep you running in circles gainsaying any bad thing you could say about the man.
Quote:
2) Ad-hominem attacks
Who did I make an attack against? I made a characterization of a category of rhetoric, admitedly with my own partisan bite, but not an insult against any particular soldier. If it's an attack against Rush/Coulter/Hannity that bothers you, (a) we could go completely tangential and I could give you lots of reasons why I have a negative attitude towards those people, (b) nothing I was saying hinged on my attitude towards them.
Or do you wish to contend the very existence of soldiers who say things that sound an awful lot like what Rush/Coulter/Hannity might say?
Quote:
The reality is that not all viewpoints are valid nor even equal.
A point you'd do well to take to heart. Or are we just supposed to assume, without support, that whenever we disagree with you that we've become detached from reality?
Quote:
I can continually call myself your friend while punching you in the face repeatedly. If I claimed your face, nose, and specifically your view were no more valid than mine in determining if mine was a true friendship, I think you would disagree.
And you see no essential difference between trying to do something good for someone (get them out of harm's way) while voicing disagreement with them at the same time, and causing harm while speaking nicely to them?
The first might not be appreciated by those whom you are trying to help, but it's certainly more a matter of difference of opinion and values than the total mismatch with reality of your contrived counterexample.
You've made it so abundantly clear that you have absolutely no clue whatsoever about what you are talking about here.
Hey giant.
I quote someone who contributes or belongs to a think tank that I consider to be "correct." Does that mean everything you disagree with is "fvcking unserious," ignorant and uninformed?
Again the ignorance assertion. Taken in context with my unwillingness to cede to your self-described authority and linking to people who pretty much feel the same way about themselves, and it is just par for the course.
So we arrive back to this.
Quote:
You are welcome to state whatever authority above your own opinion you believe valid. To me, you are talking out your butt just like everyone else. Are you Clinton's former National Security Advisor or in some other position that you believe gives you some authority to which we should honor your opinion above others? We can all have informed opinions on this matter and still disagree. The fact that you can't see that is your own limitation.
I post links to think tanks, opinion makers, columinsts, etc. all the time. So obviously when you disagree with me or them you are just ignorant and uninformed using your own reasoning.
There's quite a bit to back up my first point, some of it from advisors and experts within our own military that the Bush admin should have paid more attention to. We've been there many times before in other threads.
But of course, everything can be contended, ad infinitum if you want to. There are still Russians who pine for the days of Stalin, and could probably keep you running in circles gainsaying any bad thing you could say about the man.
What is so hilarous is you make my point for me while trying to argue against it.
You said...
Quote:
1) Supporting policies that prevent life and limb from being lost in poorly planned, poorly executed, poorly conceived wars?
Your support for this... critics of Bush and of course one our two advisors that you declare they should have paid more attention to.
You then go on to state there would be people in Russia who still would pine for Stalin proving that no matter who you are, someone, somewhere is going to have a grossly out of touch opinion. The fact that they can be found for Stalin or against Bush doesn't mean you have proven the policies were executed, conceived and planned poorly. This is even more so when we are still in the midst of executing said plans.
Quote:
Who did I make an attack against? I made a characterization of a category of rhetoric, admitedly with my own partisan bite, but not an insult against any particular soldier. If it's an attack against Rush/Coulter/Hannity that bothers you, (a) we could go completely tangential and I could give you lots of reasons why I have a negative attitude towards those people, (b) nothing I was saying hinged on my attitude towards them.
Or do you wish to contend the very existence of soldiers who say things that sound an awful lot like what Rush/Coulter/Hannity might say?
Along with this...
Quote:
2) Saying "Atta boy!" to whatever Rush/Coulter/Hannity drivel that some soldier parrots in his blog?
Apparently you don't understand what an ad-hominem attack is so let me help you out.
The soldier blogs were wrong according to you for no other reason than it soulds like something Rush/Coulter/Hannity would say. You are attacking the messanger, not the message. One does not have a bearing on the other.
Quote:
A point you'd do well to take to heart. Or are we just supposed to assume, without support, that whenever we disagree with you that we've become detached from reality?
The assertion was about reality detachment was Pfflam's. I simply stated that given the choice between the person there, and the person typing, I choose the person there.
From my example, given a choice between asking you who your friends are, and asking me who your friends are, you are the more valid source. You are the primary source. Pfflam was saying he was able to choose the soldiers friends better than the soldier himself. He said that because the soldier didn't consider him a friend the soldier was disconnected from his reality. I say that that assertion is wrong, and that the soldier, as the primary source knows his/her own interests best.
Quote:
And you see no essential difference between trying to do something good for someone (get them out of harm's way) while voicing disagreement with them at the same time, and causing harm while speaking nicely to them?
The first might not be appreciated by those whom you are trying to help, but it's certainly more a matter of difference of opinion and values than the total mismatch with reality of your contrived counterexample.
This goes a step beyond what you claim. Pfflam said the soldier considered his and others "the enemy." There is a difference between voicing disagreement, and them telling you that you are causing harm. If someone tells you, that you are harming them, your contention that it is in their own best interest's should be questioned. At a minimum it should be questioned before the person claiming the harms is questioned. Pfflam goes well beyond that. He claims the soldier doesn't know best for themselves and have become disconnected from reality since they think his style of "support" harmful. Again I side with the person with the nose. The person claiming it hurts and is heing hit and question the "reality" of the person swinging their arms.
Nick- you are an idiot, and let me explain to you why. You have no right to disagree, because ANYONE who disagrees with the left side of this board MUST be ignorant, backwards, redneck, Bush-loving, etc. There is no way that "enlightened" people could think like you. Because of your stupidity, you need to hand over your SUV, your cigarettes, your guns, and every last penny of your taxes so that we can handle these things "the right way..." You are not smart or "enlightened" enough to handle even these basic choices. No conservative is. Liberals are smarter, and that makes you a dunce if you do not agree with them, by default. The "diversity" everyone whines about does not include your conservative opinion. Sorry.
</end dripping sarcasm>
I can count on one hand the number of people here who I have ever seen post "I see your point, but..." in avoidance of a flame.
You can make your goddamned points without personally attacking other posters! Christ. We appreciate your viewpoints, but not the way you make them known!
An "Ad Hominem" attack is a personal attack. For instance if you were arguing point 'A' to wit I responded "Your wrong because you're an Idiot" thus your argument is wrong. That would be an Ad Hominem attack. http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html
I didn't see an Ad Hominem attack. You were not verbally assulted to minimize the strength of your argument.
An "Ad Hominem" attack is a personal attack. For instance if you were arguing point 'A' to wit I responded "Your wrong because you're an Idiot" thus your argument is wrong. That would be an Ad Hominem attack. http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html
I didn't see an Ad Hominem attack. You were not verbally assulted to minimize the strength of your argument.
He doesn't use the word idiot. He uses "drivel that Rush/Hannity/Coulter" would say which to him is the same.
Likewise, read more carefully. It wasn't me he discredits using that phrase, it was any soldier blog that sounds like Hannity/Rush, etc. Thus by his conclusion the soldier cannot advocate for themselves because they sound like someone he hates.
If you don't get it, too bad for you. It is as clear as day.
He doesn't use the word idiot. He uses "drivel that Rush/Hannity/Coulter" would say which to him is the same.
Likewise, read more carefully. It wasn't me he discredits using that phrase, it was any soldier blog that sounds like Hannity/Rush, etc. Thus by his conclusion the soldier cannot advocate for themselves because they sound like someone he hates.
If you don't get it, too bad for you. It is as clear as day.
Nick
There seem to be a lot of people here "who don't get it" but only one that does.... Wierd wild stuff I guess.
You can make your goddamned points without personally attacking other posters! Christ. We appreciate your viewpoints, but not the way you make them known!
Cite the attacks.
Giant claims any who disagree with him are ignorant, uninformed, read STUPID. He also claims an authority he does not have.
Pfflam claims they are disconnected with reality.
I point this out and I am the one attacking?
Find me the attack Shawn. Better yet, find all the attacks from others on me and post them as well. Let's see who is really attacking and who is really presenting.
I'm sorry. Your post was totally incomprehensible. I'll do my best.
You read soldier blogs.
You say soldier blogs blame liberals and terrorists for problem.
You consider yourself to be at least one of those. (I'll let you pick which one)
You consider them disconnected from reality because they believe this.
You declare you support them and that their reality is wrong.
The problem with this is... they are fighting in reality. You are typing from a keyboard.
So it is you who are disconnected from reality. They say your support is hostile. They are the one's dealing with the reality of Iraq so they are correct. You, they guy giving assurances from behind a keyboard, are not.
Nick
Thanks for trying to be clear, and consequently exhibiting where you misread me clearly.
I never said, nor meant to say, that the soldiers have a disconnect from reality in the sense that they are IDEOLOGICAL: what I do say is that the soldiers, many of them that is, are unfortunately blaming Liberals for their problems, and not seeing that the source of their problems is the IDEOLOGICAL agenda of the administration . . . it is not a surprising misplacement of anger.
IDEOLOGY, in this case meaning for example, Wollfowitz's belief that the Middle-East wanted nothing more than to be invaded and occupied and 'liberated' by us Americans . . . the lack of reality of said Vision which is clear and evident for all to see . . . the disconnect of which he is exhibiting clearly by NOT EVEN KNOWING how many troops he has sent to their deaths!!!
Wollfowitz supports the troops by considering their deaths to be unimportant details not worth knowing!!
He considers learning about the reality of Arab perception of the US prior to invading an unimportant detail.
-the linkage of Liberals with Terrorists is cute but inneffectual rhetoric-
What I find is that those of us typing at keyboards (you included) are all of us removed from the reality of the soldiers:
You claim support by supporting no matter what they are sent to do . . . even if it is resulting in their heroic but needless deaths
I claim support for them because I want what is truly in their and our countries' best interests . . . that means NOT sending them into needless deaths that are the result of an agenda motivated by IDEOLOGICAL goals.
I see where you are misreading me trumpr, and it is not entirely without reason.
What you are saying is that I am saying that the soldiers are disconnected from reality.
In a sense i am saying that, BUT, the sense that I am saying that is that they are merely wrong about placing their balme on me or 'Liberals' for their problems.
'Wrongness' can be a matter of merely not seeing another side of whatever situation at hand, being wrong about something does not equate with being Ideologically incapable of accepting a circumstance that could show one that they are wrong.
I am assuming that the soldier blogs that I read were a case of the soldiers imagining things about 'Liberals' that did not know the whole story about all 'Liberals' (note that many so called 'Liberals' have shown themselves to be absolute Ashsholes recently, particularly with regards to Tillman's death -and thereby have shown themselves to be IDEOLOGICAL arseholes!)
Whereas the manner in which Wollfowits has exhibited his wrongness tells me that reality holds no persuasiveness for him . . he is incapable of checking his IDEALITY against circumstances
and even refuses to become acquainted with the deatails of reality when they disrupt his pretty 'Vision"
Thanks for trying to be clear, and consequently exhibiting where you misread me clearly.
I never said, nor meant to say, that the soldiers have a disconnect from reality in the sense that they are IDEOLOGICAL: what I do say is that the soldiers, many of them that is, are unfortunately blaming Liberals for their problems, and not seeing that the source of their problems is the IDEOLOGICAL agenda of the administration . . . it is not a surprising misplacement of anger.
IDEOLOGY, in this case meaning for example, Wollfowitz's belief that the Middle-East wanted nothing more than to be invaded and occupied and 'liberated' by us Americans . . . the lack of reality of said Vision which is clear and evident for all to see . . . the disconnect of which he is exhibiting clearly by NOT EVEN KNOWING how many troops he has sent to their deaths!!!
Wollfowitz supports the troops by considering their deaths to be unimportant details not worth knowing!!
He considers learning about the reality of Arab perception of the US prior to invading an unimportant detail.
-the linkage of Liberals with Terrorists is cute but inneffectual rhetoric-
What I find is that those of us typing at keyboards (you included) are all of us removed from the reality of the soldiers:
You claim support by supporting no matter what they are sent to do . . . even if it is resulting in their heroic but needless deaths
I claim support for them because I want what is truly in their and our countries' best interests . . . that means NOT sending them into needless deaths that are the result of an agenda motivated by IDEOLOGICAL goals.
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
i would just add the following:
I see where you are misreading me trumpr, and it is not entirely without reason.
What you are saying is that I am saying that the soldiers are disconnected from reality.
In a sense i am saying that, BUT, the sense that I am saying that is that they are merely wrong about placing their balme on me or 'Liberals' for their problems.
'Wrongness' can be a matter of merely not seeing another side of whatever situation at hand, being wrong about something does not equate with being Ideologically incapable of accepting a circumstance that could show one that they are wrong.
I am assuming that the soldier blogs that I read were a case of the soldiers imagining things about 'Liberals' that did not know the whole story about all 'Liberals' (note that many so called 'Liberals' have shown themselves to be absolute Ashsholes recently, particularly with regards to Tillman's death -and thereby have shown themselves to be IDEOLOGICAL arseholes!)
Whereas the manner in which Wollfowits has exhibited his wrongness tells me that reality holds no persuasiveness for him . . he is incapable of checking his IDEALITY against circumstances
and even refuses to become acquainted with the deatails of reality when they disrupt his pretty 'Vision"
A couples points and then this thread will likely end.
First thanks for understanding that others may not necessarily draw the same line you do in these matters. Even if you call it me misreading you, at least you are willing to see that others may understand the conclusion of your words differently than you. Even if we end up disagreeing, I appreciate the fact that you took the time to see how I may have thought about what you posted. It is appreciated.
Second, I saw the line you were attempting to draw between ol'Wolfie being ideological to the point of disconnecting from reality, and the soldiers acting on that, but not being that themselves. I guess I am just unwilling to believe that their blog entries reflect blind obedience to him and that no thought or questioning would occur there. I've not read any orders that told soldiers who to blame in their blogs. I understand that you are attempting to keep them seperate. But I attribute the ideology reflected in the soldier's blogs to the soldiers themselves. If conclusions are the same as wolf's, then I think I am pretty safe in connecting the ideology and conclusion that they are disconnected from reality as well.
As you said, it might not have been your intent, but I clearly read it that way. You did take time to at least understand why I would think that way, so I am trying to be understanding with regard to the very fine line you are drawing there. I will say I can't draw the same conclusions because for me, the distinction is simply to fine. I don't think a soldier would blindly reflect the ideology of their leaders to the point of even assigning blame in their blogs without the questioning, thinking and yes, even eventually the ideology becoming their own. If we disagree on that, then we disagree.
I don't doubt that there are many soldiers that are Ideologically incapable of critiquing their own situation and adjusting what they think in order to account for real situations. But I also like to think that soldiers can think through situations should they be given the chance . . . .and many have shown just that: HERE
I do tend to think that the role of a soldier is not to ask those sorts of questions: they are bound by duty to follow orders. That is fine and I admire those who understand what that means and how it is benificial to a smooth working military force.
I also think, though, that the environment wherein a soldier does his/her stuff, is not really conducive to Critical reflection on the ins-and outs of international situations
: they are bound by duty, as i said, as well as to a peer invironment that is restrictive to critical thought . . . ask the fellow who wrote letters home describing how his unit was ransacking Iraqi homes and stealing from and abusing Iraqis: he couldn't say anything, he could not voice his conscience.
I also think that there are differences between what Wollfowitz exemplifies for me, and the average soldier who is proud of what he is doing:
1. Wolfowitz has the highest sources of information at his finger tips and yet he still can not be bothered by details.
Soldiers are doing a great job at what they are assigned to do and are expending an immense amount of energy doing so, not in analysing the greater global perspective of what it is that they are doing and the effect of Liberals on that assignment.
2. Wollfowitz has shown that he will not recognize that his ideology of easy-democracy, dominoes and an American Military Presence in the ME blooming into love and roses is not adequate for the realities.
If the soldiers understand that this 'Roses and Dominoes' perspective is what they are fighting for, then they know first hand that the reality is different . . . I saw none that acknowledged what seems to be the case, namely that the war in Iraq is motivated by a grand 'Vision' and not the hunt for WMD.
Anyway, there are some ideologically blinded soldiers: they are the kind that will not accept that anything that the US president, as long as he is a good Pro-Guns Republican, tells them to do is a not an entirely good thing, and, anybody who asks even one question is a Liberal whiner who needs to be dragged behind their car. . . . yes those exist . . .more of those exist than the ideologically-liberal soldier, but Im sure they exist as well.
The point is is that the difference twixt ideologically driven actions and idea driven actions is that the latter will adjust to account for new information while the former will never adjust.
But this is all besides the point: my point was: I care for what is in the best interests of my country and its soldiers . . . I believe that that entails being critical of the current actions as they have been motivated by fantasy and sold to the people in half-truths and distorted fables.
. . . I am not the 'enemy', the enemy, in fact, seems to be gaining quite a bit of ground because of the fables that we have been sold. . .
And, Wollfowitz, and his unbelievable ignorance considering his supposed position of authority and direct relationship to the matters in question, seems to show that he has his head firmly embedded in -fable-ville-!
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Cooperative Reseach, is 404 error no found on who they are. blah, blah, blah
Are you fvcking serious?
http://www.google.com/search?q=A+Cle...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
You've made it so abundantly clear that you have absolutely no clue whatsoever about what you are talking about here.
Originally posted by trumptman
1) Contention, opinion, unsupported blathering.
There's quite a bit to back up my first point, some of it from advisors and experts within our own military that the Bush admin should have paid more attention to. We've been there many times before in other threads.
But of course, everything can be contended, ad infinitum if you want to. There are still Russians who pine for the days of Stalin, and could probably keep you running in circles gainsaying any bad thing you could say about the man.
2) Ad-hominem attacks
Who did I make an attack against? I made a characterization of a category of rhetoric, admitedly with my own partisan bite, but not an insult against any particular soldier. If it's an attack against Rush/Coulter/Hannity that bothers you, (a) we could go completely tangential and I could give you lots of reasons why I have a negative attitude towards those people, (b) nothing I was saying hinged on my attitude towards them.
Or do you wish to contend the very existence of soldiers who say things that sound an awful lot like what Rush/Coulter/Hannity might say?
The reality is that not all viewpoints are valid nor even equal.
A point you'd do well to take to heart. Or are we just supposed to assume, without support, that whenever we disagree with you that we've become detached from reality?
I can continually call myself your friend while punching you in the face repeatedly. If I claimed your face, nose, and specifically your view were no more valid than mine in determining if mine was a true friendship, I think you would disagree.
And you see no essential difference between trying to do something good for someone (get them out of harm's way) while voicing disagreement with them at the same time, and causing harm while speaking nicely to them?
The first might not be appreciated by those whom you are trying to help, but it's certainly more a matter of difference of opinion and values than the total mismatch with reality of your contrived counterexample.
Originally posted by giant
Are you fvcking serious?
http://www.google.com/search?q=A+Cle...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
You've made it so abundantly clear that you have absolutely no clue whatsoever about what you are talking about here.
Hey giant.
I quote someone who contributes or belongs to a think tank that I consider to be "correct." Does that mean everything you disagree with is "fvcking unserious," ignorant and uninformed?
Again the ignorance assertion. Taken in context with my unwillingness to cede to your self-described authority and linking to people who pretty much feel the same way about themselves, and it is just par for the course.
So we arrive back to this.
You are welcome to state whatever authority above your own opinion you believe valid. To me, you are talking out your butt just like everyone else. Are you Clinton's former National Security Advisor or in some other position that you believe gives you some authority to which we should honor your opinion above others? We can all have informed opinions on this matter and still disagree. The fact that you can't see that is your own limitation.
I post links to think tanks, opinion makers, columinsts, etc. all the time. So obviously when you disagree with me or them you are just ignorant and uninformed using your own reasoning.
Nick
Originally posted by shetline
There's quite a bit to back up my first point, some of it from advisors and experts within our own military that the Bush admin should have paid more attention to. We've been there many times before in other threads.
But of course, everything can be contended, ad infinitum if you want to. There are still Russians who pine for the days of Stalin, and could probably keep you running in circles gainsaying any bad thing you could say about the man.
What is so hilarous is you make my point for me while trying to argue against it.
You said...
1) Supporting policies that prevent life and limb from being lost in poorly planned, poorly executed, poorly conceived wars?
Your support for this... critics of Bush and of course one our two advisors that you declare they should have paid more attention to.
You then go on to state there would be people in Russia who still would pine for Stalin proving that no matter who you are, someone, somewhere is going to have a grossly out of touch opinion. The fact that they can be found for Stalin or against Bush doesn't mean you have proven the policies were executed, conceived and planned poorly. This is even more so when we are still in the midst of executing said plans.
Who did I make an attack against? I made a characterization of a category of rhetoric, admitedly with my own partisan bite, but not an insult against any particular soldier. If it's an attack against Rush/Coulter/Hannity that bothers you, (a) we could go completely tangential and I could give you lots of reasons why I have a negative attitude towards those people, (b) nothing I was saying hinged on my attitude towards them.
Or do you wish to contend the very existence of soldiers who say things that sound an awful lot like what Rush/Coulter/Hannity might say?
Along with this...
2) Saying "Atta boy!" to whatever Rush/Coulter/Hannity drivel that some soldier parrots in his blog?
Look at me
Apparently you don't understand what an ad-hominem attack is so let me help you out.
The soldier blogs were wrong according to you for no other reason than it soulds like something Rush/Coulter/Hannity would say. You are attacking the messanger, not the message. One does not have a bearing on the other.
A point you'd do well to take to heart. Or are we just supposed to assume, without support, that whenever we disagree with you that we've become detached from reality?
The assertion was about reality detachment was Pfflam's. I simply stated that given the choice between the person there, and the person typing, I choose the person there.
From my example, given a choice between asking you who your friends are, and asking me who your friends are, you are the more valid source. You are the primary source. Pfflam was saying he was able to choose the soldiers friends better than the soldier himself. He said that because the soldier didn't consider him a friend the soldier was disconnected from his reality. I say that that assertion is wrong, and that the soldier, as the primary source knows his/her own interests best.
And you see no essential difference between trying to do something good for someone (get them out of harm's way) while voicing disagreement with them at the same time, and causing harm while speaking nicely to them?
The first might not be appreciated by those whom you are trying to help, but it's certainly more a matter of difference of opinion and values than the total mismatch with reality of your contrived counterexample.
This goes a step beyond what you claim. Pfflam said the soldier considered his and others "the enemy." There is a difference between voicing disagreement, and them telling you that you are causing harm. If someone tells you, that you are harming them, your contention that it is in their own best interest's should be questioned. At a minimum it should be questioned before the person claiming the harms is questioned. Pfflam goes well beyond that. He claims the soldier doesn't know best for themselves and have become disconnected from reality since they think his style of "support" harmful. Again I side with the person with the nose. The person claiming it hurts and is heing hit and question the "reality" of the person swinging their arms.
Nick
</end dripping sarcasm>
I can count on one hand the number of people here who I have ever seen post "I see your point, but..." in avoidance of a flame.
You can make your goddamned points without personally attacking other posters! Christ. We appreciate your viewpoints, but not the way you make them known!
I didn't see an Ad Hominem attack. You were not verbally assulted to minimize the strength of your argument.
Any questions should be addressed by Private Message to myself.
Fellowship.
Originally posted by faust9
An "Ad Hominem" attack is a personal attack. For instance if you were arguing point 'A' to wit I responded "Your wrong because you're an Idiot" thus your argument is wrong. That would be an Ad Hominem attack. http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html
I didn't see an Ad Hominem attack. You were not verbally assulted to minimize the strength of your argument.
He doesn't use the word idiot. He uses "drivel that Rush/Hannity/Coulter" would say which to him is the same.
Likewise, read more carefully. It wasn't me he discredits using that phrase, it was any soldier blog that sounds like Hannity/Rush, etc. Thus by his conclusion the soldier cannot advocate for themselves because they sound like someone he hates.
If you don't get it, too bad for you. It is as clear as day.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
He doesn't use the word idiot. He uses "drivel that Rush/Hannity/Coulter" would say which to him is the same.
Likewise, read more carefully. It wasn't me he discredits using that phrase, it was any soldier blog that sounds like Hannity/Rush, etc. Thus by his conclusion the soldier cannot advocate for themselves because they sound like someone he hates.
If you don't get it, too bad for you. It is as clear as day.
Nick
There seem to be a lot of people here "who don't get it" but only one that does.... Wierd wild stuff I guess.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
TRUMPTMAN
You can make your goddamned points without personally attacking other posters! Christ. We appreciate your viewpoints, but not the way you make them known!
Cite the attacks.
Giant claims any who disagree with him are ignorant, uninformed, read STUPID. He also claims an authority he does not have.
Pfflam claims they are disconnected with reality.
I point this out and I am the one attacking?
Find me the attack Shawn. Better yet, find all the attacks from others on me and post them as well. Let's see who is really attacking and who is really presenting.
Nick
Originally posted by faust9
There seem to be a lot of people here "who don't get it" but only one that does.... Wierd wild stuff I guess.
Appeal to popularity. I suppose it is okay if I use that against homosexual marriage. I'm sure you won't mind.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I'm sorry. Your post was totally incomprehensible. I'll do my best.
You read soldier blogs.
You say soldier blogs blame liberals and terrorists for problem.
You consider yourself to be at least one of those. (I'll let you pick which one)
You consider them disconnected from reality because they believe this.
You declare you support them and that their reality is wrong.
The problem with this is... they are fighting in reality. You are typing from a keyboard.
So it is you who are disconnected from reality. They say your support is hostile. They are the one's dealing with the reality of Iraq so they are correct. You, they guy giving assurances from behind a keyboard, are not.
Nick
Thanks for trying to be clear, and consequently exhibiting where you misread me clearly.
I never said, nor meant to say, that the soldiers have a disconnect from reality in the sense that they are IDEOLOGICAL: what I do say is that the soldiers, many of them that is, are unfortunately blaming Liberals for their problems, and not seeing that the source of their problems is the IDEOLOGICAL agenda of the administration . . . it is not a surprising misplacement of anger.
IDEOLOGY, in this case meaning for example, Wollfowitz's belief that the Middle-East wanted nothing more than to be invaded and occupied and 'liberated' by us Americans . . . the lack of reality of said Vision which is clear and evident for all to see . . . the disconnect of which he is exhibiting clearly by NOT EVEN KNOWING how many troops he has sent to their deaths!!!
Wollfowitz supports the troops by considering their deaths to be unimportant details not worth knowing!!
He considers learning about the reality of Arab perception of the US prior to invading an unimportant detail.
-the linkage of Liberals with Terrorists is cute but inneffectual rhetoric-
What I find is that those of us typing at keyboards (you included) are all of us removed from the reality of the soldiers:
You claim support by supporting no matter what they are sent to do . . . even if it is resulting in their heroic but needless deaths
I claim support for them because I want what is truly in their and our countries' best interests . . . that means NOT sending them into needless deaths that are the result of an agenda motivated by IDEOLOGICAL goals.
Clean it up folks... let the past be the past and stop this nonsense or the thread is locked. Enough of a derailing has already taken place.
Drop it all and move on with the business of this thread or do not reply at all.
Fellowship
I see where you are misreading me trumpr, and it is not entirely without reason.
What you are saying is that I am saying that the soldiers are disconnected from reality.
In a sense i am saying that, BUT, the sense that I am saying that is that they are merely wrong about placing their balme on me or 'Liberals' for their problems.
'Wrongness' can be a matter of merely not seeing another side of whatever situation at hand, being wrong about something does not equate with being Ideologically incapable of accepting a circumstance that could show one that they are wrong.
I am assuming that the soldier blogs that I read were a case of the soldiers imagining things about 'Liberals' that did not know the whole story about all 'Liberals' (note that many so called 'Liberals' have shown themselves to be absolute Ashsholes recently, particularly with regards to Tillman's death -and thereby have shown themselves to be IDEOLOGICAL arseholes!)
Whereas the manner in which Wollfowits has exhibited his wrongness tells me that reality holds no persuasiveness for him . . he is incapable of checking his IDEALITY against circumstances
and even refuses to become acquainted with the deatails of reality when they disrupt his pretty 'Vision"
Originally posted by pfflam
Thanks for trying to be clear, and consequently exhibiting where you misread me clearly.
I never said, nor meant to say, that the soldiers have a disconnect from reality in the sense that they are IDEOLOGICAL: what I do say is that the soldiers, many of them that is, are unfortunately blaming Liberals for their problems, and not seeing that the source of their problems is the IDEOLOGICAL agenda of the administration . . . it is not a surprising misplacement of anger.
IDEOLOGY, in this case meaning for example, Wollfowitz's belief that the Middle-East wanted nothing more than to be invaded and occupied and 'liberated' by us Americans . . . the lack of reality of said Vision which is clear and evident for all to see . . . the disconnect of which he is exhibiting clearly by NOT EVEN KNOWING how many troops he has sent to their deaths!!!
Wollfowitz supports the troops by considering their deaths to be unimportant details not worth knowing!!
He considers learning about the reality of Arab perception of the US prior to invading an unimportant detail.
-the linkage of Liberals with Terrorists is cute but inneffectual rhetoric-
What I find is that those of us typing at keyboards (you included) are all of us removed from the reality of the soldiers:
You claim support by supporting no matter what they are sent to do . . . even if it is resulting in their heroic but needless deaths
I claim support for them because I want what is truly in their and our countries' best interests . . . that means NOT sending them into needless deaths that are the result of an agenda motivated by IDEOLOGICAL goals.
Originally posted by pfflam
i would just add the following:
I see where you are misreading me trumpr, and it is not entirely without reason.
What you are saying is that I am saying that the soldiers are disconnected from reality.
In a sense i am saying that, BUT, the sense that I am saying that is that they are merely wrong about placing their balme on me or 'Liberals' for their problems.
'Wrongness' can be a matter of merely not seeing another side of whatever situation at hand, being wrong about something does not equate with being Ideologically incapable of accepting a circumstance that could show one that they are wrong.
I am assuming that the soldier blogs that I read were a case of the soldiers imagining things about 'Liberals' that did not know the whole story about all 'Liberals' (note that many so called 'Liberals' have shown themselves to be absolute Ashsholes recently, particularly with regards to Tillman's death -and thereby have shown themselves to be IDEOLOGICAL arseholes!)
Whereas the manner in which Wollfowits has exhibited his wrongness tells me that reality holds no persuasiveness for him . . he is incapable of checking his IDEALITY against circumstances
and even refuses to become acquainted with the deatails of reality when they disrupt his pretty 'Vision"
A couples points and then this thread will likely end.
First thanks for understanding that others may not necessarily draw the same line you do in these matters. Even if you call it me misreading you, at least you are willing to see that others may understand the conclusion of your words differently than you. Even if we end up disagreeing, I appreciate the fact that you took the time to see how I may have thought about what you posted. It is appreciated.
Second, I saw the line you were attempting to draw between ol'Wolfie being ideological to the point of disconnecting from reality, and the soldiers acting on that, but not being that themselves. I guess I am just unwilling to believe that their blog entries reflect blind obedience to him and that no thought or questioning would occur there. I've not read any orders that told soldiers who to blame in their blogs. I understand that you are attempting to keep them seperate. But I attribute the ideology reflected in the soldier's blogs to the soldiers themselves. If conclusions are the same as wolf's, then I think I am pretty safe in connecting the ideology and conclusion that they are disconnected from reality as well.
As you said, it might not have been your intent, but I clearly read it that way. You did take time to at least understand why I would think that way, so I am trying to be understanding with regard to the very fine line you are drawing there. I will say I can't draw the same conclusions because for me, the distinction is simply to fine. I don't think a soldier would blindly reflect the ideology of their leaders to the point of even assigning blame in their blogs without the questioning, thinking and yes, even eventually the ideology becoming their own. If we disagree on that, then we disagree.
Nick
I do tend to think that the role of a soldier is not to ask those sorts of questions: they are bound by duty to follow orders. That is fine and I admire those who understand what that means and how it is benificial to a smooth working military force.
I also think, though, that the environment wherein a soldier does his/her stuff, is not really conducive to Critical reflection on the ins-and outs of international situations
: they are bound by duty, as i said, as well as to a peer invironment that is restrictive to critical thought . . . ask the fellow who wrote letters home describing how his unit was ransacking Iraqi homes and stealing from and abusing Iraqis: he couldn't say anything, he could not voice his conscience.
I also think that there are differences between what Wollfowitz exemplifies for me, and the average soldier who is proud of what he is doing:
1. Wolfowitz has the highest sources of information at his finger tips and yet he still can not be bothered by details.
Soldiers are doing a great job at what they are assigned to do and are expending an immense amount of energy doing so, not in analysing the greater global perspective of what it is that they are doing and the effect of Liberals on that assignment.
2. Wollfowitz has shown that he will not recognize that his ideology of easy-democracy, dominoes and an American Military Presence in the ME blooming into love and roses is not adequate for the realities.
If the soldiers understand that this 'Roses and Dominoes' perspective is what they are fighting for, then they know first hand that the reality is different . . . I saw none that acknowledged what seems to be the case, namely that the war in Iraq is motivated by a grand 'Vision' and not the hunt for WMD.
Anyway, there are some ideologically blinded soldiers: they are the kind that will not accept that anything that the US president, as long as he is a good Pro-Guns Republican, tells them to do is a not an entirely good thing, and, anybody who asks even one question is a Liberal whiner who needs to be dragged behind their car. . . . yes those exist . . .more of those exist than the ideologically-liberal soldier, but Im sure they exist as well.
The point is is that the difference twixt ideologically driven actions and idea driven actions is that the latter will adjust to account for new information while the former will never adjust.
But this is all besides the point: my point was: I care for what is in the best interests of my country and its soldiers . . . I believe that that entails being critical of the current actions as they have been motivated by fantasy and sold to the people in half-truths and distorted fables.
. . . I am not the 'enemy', the enemy, in fact, seems to be gaining quite a bit of ground because of the fables that we have been sold. . .
And, Wollfowitz, and his unbelievable ignorance considering his supposed position of authority and direct relationship to the matters in question, seems to show that he has his head firmly embedded in -fable-ville-!