Subject:
|
Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jul 2004 00:37:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
834 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> > And, make no mistake we're losing it. This is a significant defeat, I think.
>
> What is the war for? What would constitute a victory? A defeat?
>
> > This WAS an unimportant war before it started...
> > but if the US loses it, it's a defeat for the US, so it has become an important
> > one to win. And I don't see how it CAN be won, any more.
>
> Is that to say that it is somehow critically important for the US to win every
> war?
I liked Dave K's response here, so this is just embellishment.
As long as we bill ourselves as the world's policeman it is. As soon as cops
can't enforce, they lose their power. That's where we are now.
But that's the wrong reason. We should win every war because any war we enter
(that is to say, not many, if any) should be so clearly necessary that losing
means that evil triumphs in a big way. Stick to that compass, and pay soldiers
decently, and you won't have trouble keeping the volunteer army up to full
strength. I suggest that the most telling damnation of this particular war is
that the Pentagon is resorting to chicanery to keep soldiers fighting after they
have theoretically fulfulled their obligations.
> Is it possible that it would be good for the American gestalt psyche for
> us to lose a few? Maybe it would make us ask a few questions before going in.
Maybe but I don't really think it would be good for us to lose a few just to
teach us a lesson. If you do, I guess I'd be willing to punch you in the nose a
few times next time we meet, at your request, if you think it would help your
world outlook (that's a facetious comment).
With respect to this particular one (despite the fact that we never should have
entered) we are still marginally the good guys, let's review who we're now
fighting, after all.
> > How much better it would have been to have chosen not to fight this one in the
> > first place.
>
> I guess. Actually, I'm not convinced. There are bad people in the world doing
> bad things to others. If we have the power to stop that, do we have the
> responsibility?
Do we have the responsibility to right every wrong in the world? If so, why? I
don't think we do. I am an isolationist, insofar as that's possible in a
globally interconnected world.
> I just think we need to set win-loss standards and make them
> happen. If we knew what a win would look like before going in, we could more
> accurately judge our likelihood of success.
Agreed.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
| (...) Every wrong? No more than the next guy, which is to say that we shouldn't just ignore them if we have the power to coerce them to go away, and we shouldn't be unwilling to step up and correct them by force if it's unconscionable not to do so. (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
| (...) What about when the self appointed "cops" start {breaking} the law? (...) One can not always choose which wars we want. The UK went to war with Nazi Germany knowing there was a chance we'd loose. Palestinians attack the IDF knowing they will (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
| (...) What is the war for? What would constitute a victory? A defeat? (...) Is that to say that it is somehow critically important for the US to win every war? Is it possible that it would be good for the American gestalt psyche for us to lose a (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
56 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
