Doonesbury (7-7)
Antonio E. Gonzalez
much about being found; nice to give some coverage to another aspect
of this mess that's been under-reported . . .:
<http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2008/07/07/>
--
- ReFlex76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
Joseph Nebus
> Well, it's a fairly big country, so they don't have to worry *too*
>much about being found; nice to give some coverage to another aspect
>of this mess that's been under-reported . . .:
> <http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2008/07/07/>
It's under-reported? I thought I'd seen a fair bit of
coverage on this side of things, albeit usually along the way to a
report about how the United States has generously granted asylum to
nearly as many as four of the Iraqis who aided the conquest. (I
grant my news-gathering habits are abnormal, and are drawn to things
like discovering that some fish make noise.)
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Marshall
>(I grant my news-gathering habits are abnormal, and are drawn to things
>like discovering that some fish make noise.)
I threw my whole zebco 33 back in the Greenbrier when I pulled up
some kind of bottom feeding fish that squawked at me when I tried to
take out the hook.
-Mike "I was only 13"
George W Harris
Doonesbury was really nice.
http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2008/06/29/
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
racs...@gmail.com
> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> writes:
>
> > Well, it's a fairly big country, so they don't have to worry *too*
> >much about being found; nice to give some coverage to another aspect
> >of this mess that's been under-reported . . .:
> > <http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2008/07/07/>
>
> It's under-reported? I thought I'd seen a fair bit of
> coverage on this side of things, albeit usually along the way to a
> report about how the United States has generously granted asylum to
> nearly as many as four of the Iraqis who aided the conquest. (I
> grant my news-gathering habits are abnormal, and are drawn to things
> like discovering that some fish make noise.)
I'd say the number of Iraqis living in Syria, Jordan, etc., and how
they live has been under-reported to this extent: It's been covered by
NPR, but given the notion that the press is having problems reporting
on civilians in Iraq because of the imbed rules and because of the
general chaos there, it's indefensible that they aren't able to
regularly report on Iraqis who have taken up residence in neighboring
countries. Syria, I suppose I could understand, since it's not a
terribly friendly country. But Jordan wouldn't be much of a challenge
to get in and out of, or to move around in.
The real problem at this point is more economic than political:
American news organizations aren't terribly interested in reporting
anything that might involve spending money. Still, they could partner
with BBC or someone who doesn't mind actually putting boots on the
ground.
It's not that there is a story there every night, or every week. But
it is part of the war and it ought to be on people's consciousness,
and it simply isn't. Admittedly, most Americans would rather hear
about Madonna and A-Rod, but there was a time when the news
organizations would add some lima beans to the menu instead of going
straight to dessert.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Dann
news:36831ff0-e598-4893...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com.
> On Jul 7, 3:49 pm, nebu...@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
>> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> writes:
>>
>> > Well, it's a fairly big country, so they don't have to worry *too*
>> >much about being found; nice to give some coverage to another aspect
>> >of this mess that's been under-reported . . .:
>> > <http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2008/07/07/>
>>
>> It's under-reported? I thought I'd seen a fair bit of
>> coverage on this side of things, albeit usually along the way to a
>> report about how the United States has generously granted asylum to
>> nearly as many as four of the Iraqis who aided the conquest. (I
>> grant my news-gathering habits are abnormal, and are drawn to things
>> like discovering that some fish make noise.)
>
> I'd say the number of Iraqis living in Syria, Jordan, etc., and how
> they live has been under-reported to this extent: It's been covered by
> NPR, but given the notion that the press is having problems reporting
> on civilians in Iraq because of the imbed rules and because of the
> general chaos there, it's indefensible that they aren't able to
> regularly report on Iraqis who have taken up residence in neighboring
> countries. Syria, I suppose I could understand, since it's not a
> terribly friendly country. But Jordan wouldn't be much of a challenge
> to get in and out of, or to move around in.
Funny. Michael Yon, Michael Totten, Bill Roggio, and lots of other
reporters don't have any problem with the embed system. I've read
several reports about Iraqi civilians written by Michael Yon in
particular.
> The real problem at this point is more economic than political:
> American news organizations aren't terribly interested in reporting
> anything that might involve spending money. Still, they could partner
> with BBC or someone who doesn't mind actually putting boots on the
> ground.
The more crass among us might think that politics may have something to
do with it. Particularly when the downward trend of coverage of news out
of Iraq happens to coincide with the 80+% decrease in civilian and US
military deaths resulting from the surge operations.
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/009941.html
CBS has gone so far as to close their Baghdad bureau claiming that the
bureau didn't get enough on-air time often enough to justify its
existence. Perhaps that is because CBS news executives are only looking
for a certain type *cough*casualty*cough* of story. One CBS producer
begged to be embedded with the Seals only to be told that “One guy in
uniform looks like any other guy in a uniform.” when she tried to get her
story on the air.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/business/media/23logan.html?ex=
1371960000&en=1735742b072af1da&ei=5124
&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink>
> It's not that there is a story there every night, or every week. But
> it is part of the war and it ought to be on people's consciousness,
> and it simply isn't. Admittedly, most Americans would rather hear
> about Madonna and A-Rod, but there was a time when the news
> organizations would add some lima beans to the menu instead of going
> straight to dessert.
And perhaps they would have more readers/viewers if they spent less time
performing odometer style reporting and more time telling us about the
progress being made and/or about the heroics of the men and women
fighting there.
As for the strip/series in question, I was kind of waiting to see how the
week turned out.
Reflex is right about the refugee problem being a huge one that is under-
reported. He's wrong about the numbers, but I suspect he is exaggerating
for effect.
You are right about NPR having done a much better job of covering this
issue.
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Well, everyone knows what "enbed" means; the only question is
whether they're "tops" or "bottoms" . . .
I've read
>several reports about Iraqi civilians written by Michael Yon in
>particular.
>
Considering Mr. Yon would have tried to spin Kim Phuc's famous war
photo, not to mention any "heavies" around him making sure civilians
"answer right," any of his "reports" should be taking with a cup of
salt . . .
>> The real problem at this point is more economic than political:
>> American news organizations aren't terribly interested in reporting
>> anything that might involve spending money. Still, they could partner
>> with BBC or someone who doesn't mind actually putting boots on the
>> ground.
>
>The more crass among us might think that politics may have something to
>do with it. Particularly when the downward trend of coverage of news out
>of Iraq happens to coincide with the 80+% decrease in civilian and US
>military deaths resulting from the surge operations.
>
>http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/009941.html
>
Nice way to sugarcoat the fact that civilians and US military are
still dying . . .
>CBS has gone so far as to close their Baghdad bureau claiming that the
>bureau didn't get enough on-air time often enough to justify its
>existence. Perhaps that is because CBS news executives are only looking
>for a certain type *cough*casualty*cough* of story.
That *is* the only story that should be reported . . .
In a bit of a blessing, the public doesn't care for "good" stories
(as they shouldn't), they only pay attention when people die (as they
should); at best most are passive about our actions in Iraq, with a
vocal few either fully supporting or oppossing; when things go bad,
the passive ones tend to go towards the latter (see 2006 election),
nothing making them go towards the others. Deep down, maybe they
*do* know the wrongness of invading sovereign nations for no reason;
their fellow countrymen dying, and billions upon billions being poured
in also "help" . . .
One CBS producer
>begged to be embedded with the Seals only to be told that “One guy in
>uniform looks like any other guy in a uniform.” when she tried to get her
>story on the air.
>
><http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/business/media/23logan.html?ex=
>1371960000&en=1735742b072af1da&ei=5124
>&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink>
>
>> It's not that there is a story there every night, or every week. But
>> it is part of the war and it ought to be on people's consciousness,
>> and it simply isn't. Admittedly, most Americans would rather hear
>> about Madonna and A-Rod, but there was a time when the news
>> organizations would add some lima beans to the menu instead of going
>> straight to dessert.
>
>And perhaps they would have more readers/viewers if they spent less time
>performing odometer style reporting and more time telling us about the
>progress being made and/or about the heroics of the men and women
>fighting there.
>
There are no "heroics" in this kind of war; only perhaps from
soldiers who have the guts to say "no more," contracts be damned . . .
>As for the strip/series in question, I was kind of waiting to see how the
>week turned out.
>
>Reflex is right about the refugee problem being a huge one that is under-
>reported. He's wrong about the numbers, but I suspect he is exaggerating
>for effect.
>
4,000,000; deal with it . . .
>You are right about NPR having done a much better job of covering this
>issue.
--
Detox
> On 8 Jul 2008 11:43:25 GMT, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >And perhaps they would have more readers/viewers if they spent less time
> >performing odometer style reporting and more time telling us about the
> >progress being made and/or about the heroics of the men and women
> >fighting there.
>
> There are no "heroics" in this kind of war; only perhaps from
> soldiers who have the guts to say "no more," contracts be damned . . .
4 of 5 of the Medals of Honor issued for the War on Terrorism are for
actions in Iraq.
There have been at least 397 Silver Stars issued with the vast
majority of them being for actiosn in Iraq.
There have been 23 Navy Cross medals issued for the War on Terror as
well.
Few of whom [if any] have received the attention from the national
news media that their actions deserve.
> >Reflexis right about therefugeeproblem being a huge one that is under-
> >reported. He's wrong about the numbers, but I suspect he is exaggerating
> >for effect.
>
> 4,000,000; deal with it . . .
~5.1 million to be accurate. [internal and external refugees] Sorry
to have suggested otherwise.
http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index.pdf
--
Regards,
Dann
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>On Jul 17, 11:09 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 8 Jul 2008 11:43:25 GMT, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >And perhaps they would have more readers/viewers if they spent less time
>> >performing odometer style reporting and more time telling us about the
>> >progress being made and/or about the heroics of the men and women
>> >fighting there.
>>
>> There are no "heroics" in this kind of war; only perhaps from
>> soldiers who have the guts to say "no more," contracts be damned . . .
>
>4 of 5 of the Medals of Honor issued for the War on Terrorism are for
>actions in Iraq.
>
So that's *one* Medal of Honor for the War on Terrorism . . .
>There have been at least 397 Silver Stars issued with the vast
>majority of them being for actiosn in Iraq.
>
A lot of medals and "honors" were awarded in the Vietnam War as
well; that did not make the overall action any less wrong . . .
>There have been 23 Navy Cross medals issued for the War on Terror as
>well.
>
>Few of whom [if any] have received the attention from the national
>news media that their actions deserve.
>
Anything from Iraq should be witheld until our full withdrawal;
then they can be part of the reconciliation process. Any who earned
medals in Iraq should follow the example of many Vietnam vets and turn
those "honors" into scrap metal, as which they might actually serve a
purpose, besides a reminder of grave national hubris . . .
>> >Reflexis right about therefugeeproblem being a huge one that is under-
>> >reported. He's wrong about the numbers, but I suspect he is exaggerating
>> >for effect.
>>
>> 4,000,000; deal with it . . .
>
>~5.1 million to be accurate. [internal and external refugees] Sorry
>to have suggested otherwise.
>
>http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index.pdf
Hmmm, I think my figures only included externals; reality bites
either way . . .
Peter B. Steiger
> A lot of medals and "honors" were awarded in the Vietnam War as
> well; that did not make the overall action any less wrong . . .
Likewise, someone who performs a heroic action in a war you or I don't
believe is just is still a hero. If a guy jumps on a grenade and saves
the lives of his team <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Monsoor>, he's
sure a hero in my book regardless of whether those men are only there
because of some screwed up politics that got us involved in a quagmire.
> Any who earned medals in Iraq should follow the example of many
> Vietnam vets and turn those "honors" into scrap metal, as which
> they might actually serve a purpose, besides a reminder of grave
> national hubris . . .
I don't think it's our place to tell someone who has risked (or given)
his or her life how to respond to that sacrifice. What gives you the
moral superiority to pass judgement on those who choose to keep reminders
of their service rather than throw them away?
Returning vets had as much trouble dealing with the horrible, horrible
civilian reception to their return as they did with the government who
sent them off in the first place.
--
Peter B. Steiger
Cheyenne, WY
If you must reply by email, you can reach me by placing zeroes where
you see stars: wypbs.**1 at gmail.com (yes, that's a new address)
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
James Nicoll
Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> A lot of medals and "honors" were awarded in the Vietnam War as
>well; that did not make the overall action any less wrong . . .
Weren't a lot of medals handed out after Grenada?
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Detox
> In article <t5r184tj640u5jug8ivifoj57g2ios5...@4ax.com>,
> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > A lot of medals and "honors" were awarded in the Vietnam War as
> >well; that did not make the overall action any less wrong . . .
>
> Weren't a lot of medals handed out after Grenada?
(1) Navy Cross
(7) Silver Stars
I'm sure there are others.
David Hackworth claimed that there were more medals awarded for
Grenada than there were boots on the ground, FWIW.
--
Regards,
Dann
racs...@gmail.com
>
> There have been at least 397 Silver Stars issued with the vast
> majority of them being for actiosn in Iraq.
One of the Silver Stars issued in Afghanistan went to Pat Tillman.
Don't forget Bronze Stars -- Jessica Lynch earned one of those for her
heroic firefight.
I'd suggest we not measure anything by the awards handed out by this
administration. Anybody who went over there is, in my mind, 10 feet
tall. But they have to be -- We're up to our necks in the Big Muddy.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Peter B. Steiger
> Anybody who went over there is, in my mind, 10 feet tall. But they have
> to be -- We're up to our necks in the Big Muddy.
Amen to both sentiments! And for those who aren't grey enough to
remember that reference (I just barely make the cut), here's my namesake
to explain it for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjONblHLPPI
George W Harris
Nicoll) wrote:
>In article <t5r184tj640u5jug8...@4ax.com>,
>Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> A lot of medals and "honors" were awarded in the Vietnam War as
>>well; that did not make the overall action any less wrong . . .
>
> Weren't a lot of medals handed out after Grenada?
8,600, compared to the 50 Cuban soldiers that were
vanquished.
But it sure made Americans forget Beirut!
George W Harris
<racs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'd suggest we not measure anything by the awards handed out by this
>administration. Anybody who went over there is, in my mind, 10 feet
>tall. But they have to be -- We're up to our necks in the Big Muddy.
That's not mud.
>
>Mike Peterson
>http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Dann
news:52433e7f-de1c-4b90...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com.
> On Jul 18, 12:57 pm, Detox <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> There have been at least 397 Silver Stars issued with the vast
>> majority of them being for actiosn in Iraq.
>
> One of the Silver Stars issued in Afghanistan went to Pat Tillman.
>
> Don't forget Bronze Stars -- Jessica Lynch earned one of those for her
> heroic firefight.
That was the point that Col. Hackworth was making in the article that
suggested that more medals were awarded than there were people on the
island.
> I'd suggest we not measure anything by the awards handed out by this
> administration. Anybody who went over there is, in my mind, 10 feet
> tall. But they have to be -- We're up to our necks in the Big Muddy.
Agreed with the caveat that just because it is hard, it doesn't
automatically follow that it isn't necessary or that we should give up.
Dann
news:283f7$4880f166$23...@news.teranews.com.
> I don't think it's our place to tell someone who has risked (or given)
> his or her life how to respond to that sacrifice. What gives you the
> moral superiority to pass judgement on those who choose to keep
> reminders of their service rather than throw them away?
Amen.
> Returning vets had as much trouble dealing with the horrible, horrible
> civilian reception to their return as they did with the government who
> sent them off in the first place.
My friends that served there tell me that dealing with their memories
would have been easier if they had been properly received when they
returned home.
Rob Wynne
> On 18 Jul 2008, Peter B. Steiger said the following in
> news:283f7$4880f166$23...@news.teranews.com.
>
>> I don't think it's our place to tell someone who has risked (or given)
>> his or her life how to respond to that sacrifice. What gives you the
>> moral superiority to pass judgement on those who choose to keep
>> reminders of their service rather than throw them away?
>
> Amen.
>
I agree with Dann and Peter.
I hate this war. I think it was a mistake, I think it was wrong, and I
think it has been badly planned and poorly presented to the American
People. I think the leadership which brought it about are terrible people,
and I think the ultimate cost, in lives, in reputation, and in economic
impact, will be felt for decades.
But I have nothing but respect for the men and women who are over there,
doing their jobs in less than ideal wituations, putting their lives on the
line to perform the duties they are committed to. They should not bear the
brunt of our dissatisfaction for the civilian leaders who placed them where
they are.
--
Rob Wynne / The Autographed Cat / d...@america.net
http://www.autographedcat.com/ / http://autographedcat.livejournal.com/
Gafilk 2009: Jan 9-11, 2009 - Atlanta, GA - http://www.gafilk.org/
Aphelion - Original SF&F since 1997 - http://www.aphelion-webzine.com/
Rob Wynne
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:04:04 -0700, pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org sez:
>> Anybody who went over there is, in my mind, 10 feet tall. But they have
>> to be -- We're up to our necks in the Big Muddy.
>
> Amen to both sentiments! And for those who aren't grey enough to
> remember that reference (I just barely make the cut), here's my namesake
> to explain it for you:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjONblHLPPI
>
Richard Shindell's cover of that song is awesome.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On 18 Jul 2008, pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org said the following in
>news:52433e7f-de1c-4b90...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com.
>
>> On Jul 18, 12:57 pm, Detox <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There have been at least 397 Silver Stars issued with the vast
>>> majority of them being for actiosn in Iraq.
>>
>> One of the Silver Stars issued in Afghanistan went to Pat Tillman.
>>
>> Don't forget Bronze Stars -- Jessica Lynch earned one of those for her
>> heroic firefight.
>
>That was the point that Col. Hackworth was making in the article that
>suggested that more medals were awarded than there were people on the
>island.
>
>> I'd suggest we not measure anything by the awards handed out by this
>> administration. Anybody who went over there is, in my mind, 10 feet
>> tall. But they have to be -- We're up to our necks in the Big Muddy.
>
>Agreed with the caveat that just because it is hard, it doesn't
>automatically follow that it isn't necessary or that we should give up.
Not hard, wrong . . .
--
- ReFlex 76
Paul Ciszek
In article <G6mgk.285$AB3....@eagle.america.net>,
Rob Wynne <d...@america.net> wrote:
>
>I agree with Dann and Peter.
>
>I hate this war. I think it was a mistake, I think it was wrong, and I
>think it has been badly planned and poorly presented to the American
>People. I think the leadership which brought it about are terrible people,
>and I think the ultimate cost, in lives, in reputation, and in economic
>impact, will be felt for decades.
>
>But I have nothing but respect for the men and women who are over there,
>doing their jobs in less than ideal wituations, putting their lives on the
>line to perform the duties they are committed to. They should not bear the
>brunt of our dissatisfaction for the civilian leaders who placed them where
>they are.
A conservative would say that you are disrespecting the men and women
who are over their by cricising the decision to send them their; worse,
that if we ever bring them home, the ones who have died will have died
for nothing.
I claim that they *have* died for nothing--worse than nothing, they have
died to achieve negative consequences, and that if we keep sending more
over there, those will also die for less than nothing.
--
Please reply to: | President Bush is promoting Peace and Democracy
pciszek at panix dot com | in the Middle East by selling Weapons to the
Autoreply is disabled | King of Saudi Arabia.
racs...@gmail.com
> In article <G6mgk.285$AB3.1...@eagle.america.net>,
> Rob Wynne <d...@america.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >I agree with Dann and Peter.
>
> >I hate this war. I think it was a mistake, I think it was wrong, and I
> >think it has been badly planned and poorly presented to the American
> >People. I think the leadership which brought it about are terrible people,
> >and I think the ultimate cost, in lives, in reputation, and in economic
> >impact, will be felt for decades.
>
> >But I have nothing but respect for the men and women who are over there,
> >doing their jobs in less than ideal wituations, putting their lives on the
> >line to perform the duties they are committed to. They should not bear the
> >brunt of our dissatisfaction for the civilian leaders who placed them where
> >they are.
>
> A conservative would say that you are disrespecting the men and women
> who are over their by cricising the decision to send them their; worse,
> that if we ever bring them home, the ones who have died will have died
> for nothing.
>
> I claim that they *have* died for nothing--worse than nothing, they have
> died to achieve negative consequences, and that if we keep sending more
> over there, those will also die for less than nothing.
I've probably told this story before, but I'll tell it again:
My son's fire company got called to a fire in a townhouse. The
neighbors were frantic -- there were small children in the apartment.
He and a partner went into the smoke-filled building, crawling on
hands and knees and breathing through air tanks, barely able to see
through the smoke. Frightened children are known to hide, so they had
to look in closets, behind furniture, in bathtubs, etc. At one point,
my son saw a small leg protruding through the bars of a crib ... but
it was a teddy bear. They continued to search, and the bells on their
air tanks began to warn that their time was nearly up. They continued
to search. Finally, they couldn't stay in any longer -- their air was
nearly gone.
They crawled back out to discover that the children had been taken in
by a neighbor before the fire department arrived.
What if the kids had been there, and they had brought them out safely?
What if the kids had been there, but were already dead when they found
them? What if they had died in there, looking for kids who weren't
even there?
In my mind, their actions have value independent of whether the
neighbors were right or wrong, and whether the neighbors were simply
mistaken or deliberately lied.
In your mind, it is the presence of the children that puts a value on
their actions. If they were mislead, then they are fools.
I think you should learn to distinguish between the people who provide
the information and give the orders, and the people who act upon that
information and those orders.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Peter B. Steiger
> I claim that they *have* died for nothing--worse than nothing, they have
> died to achieve negative consequences, and that if we keep sending more
> over there, those will also die for less than nothing.
I wish I had thought to save my favorite Lucky Cow of all time, when
what's-his-name is trying to fix a machine by whacking it with spatulas
that keep breaking, and Claire suggests that he's wasting his time and
should give up - "but if I do that, all these other spatulas will have
been broken in vain."
Paul Ciszek
In article <2c061c12-f6c2-48ec...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
To make the scenario with the firemen more analagous to the Iraq war,
suppose the two firemen did die trying to rescue children that did
not exist. Furthermore, supposed it is discovered that those who
sent them into the burning building KNEW that the children did not
exist, and sent them in as part of their own agenda having nothing
whatsoever to do with saving children. But it doesn't end there:
The same authorities, whom we know to be liars, want to send MORE
firemen into the same burning building so that the first two will
not have died in vain.
I say, do not send any more firemen in, and pull out any who are still
there.
Ted Goldblatt
[snip]
> In my mind, their actions have value independent of whether the
> neighbors were right or wrong, and whether the neighbors were simply
> mistaken or deliberately lied.
>
> In your mind, it is the presence of the children that puts a value on
> their actions. If they were mislead, then they are fools.
I don't see how you come to that conclusion - the fact that their
actions are futile and in fact potentially self-destructive makes them
fools only if they are both actually aware in advance that their efforts
are futile and are the decision makers. Absent that, I don't think I
can say that their actions have _value_, but they may well have _honor_
(as opposed to the actions of those decision makers...)
> I think you should learn to distinguish between the people who provide
> the information and give the orders, and the people who act upon that
> information and those orders.
Yes, but that distinction still doesn't make the actions _valuable_.
Actually, in this case, the analogy to Iraq breaks down a bit, since the
firefighters actions would likely be at worst _self_-destructive with no
benefit, while many feel that the military's actions in Iraq have been
destructive to the country as a whole with no benefit.
ted
racs...@gmail.com
You're using a very narrow definition of "value."
I'm using the word in its broader context. Their actions are not
neutral -- you can assign a value to them, independent of the values
of what other people in the incident have done.
And you need to distinguish between the acts of governments and of
agencies and the acts of individuals.
Where this argument turns into misunderstanding is when onlookers
assume that an act is judged by its outcome and by the motivations of
all involved. The "you were lied to" or "you were given bad
information" needs to be kept separate from "you did your best" or it
can easily sound like "you are an idiot and I am a smart person and
everything you did was a stupid waste of time and lives."
Which is not what I think you want to say, but it is what people hear
when you get into the dangerous game of judging the actions of sincere
individuals as if they were political organizations.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Ted Goldblatt
Well, you can broaden the definition of things to the point that they
don't mean anything. I am referring here to an "external value" - that
is, the balance of detriment and benefit for the greater community.
IOW, is the community as a whole was better off after the act than it
was before?
An act's value can potentially be viewed from many points of view. In
the case of a military action, I think the most important point of view
is that of the wider community (country or world) rather than that of
the individual (or military organization or ...)
> And you need to distinguish between the acts of governments and of
> agencies and the acts of individuals.
Yes, but when the individual is acting as an agent of that government,
then from an external point of view, I don't think that distinction is
particularly relevant when assessing the value of the acts.
> Where this argument turns into misunderstanding is when onlookers
> assume that an act is judged by its outcome and by the motivations of
> all involved. The "you were lied to" or "you were given bad
> information" needs to be kept separate from "you did your best" or it
> can easily sound like "you are an idiot and I am a smart person and
> everything you did was a stupid waste of time and lives."
At no point did I say anything about the motivations of the
participants, just their "culpability" (WRT the decision makers) in
causing the act to occur and the outcome in terms of the greater
community. Again, I think we (may?) disagree because I think that you
are treating "value" too broadly or are conflating value to the
individual (in terms of personal/emotional growth or whatever) and value
to the external environment, which is almost completely governed by
outcome/results. No matter how bravely a solder acts, if that act in
the end harmed the country's best interests (which admittedly can be
difficult to assess), then the act was not valuable to the country.
With respect to your concern that people (specifically soldiers) are
subjected to "you are an idiot and I am a smart person and everything
you did was a stupid waste of time and lives" - I think the "you are
stupid and I am smart" part doesn't apply (that is back to subjectively
evaluating motivations and judgements), but the "everything you did was
a waste of time and lives" could apply - if you change the the
"everything" to a situationally appropriate level of "some of the
things", then I think this applies to much of what has occurred in the
"war on terror", and especially in Iraq. That doesn't mean it was the
actors "fault", but that doesn't mean that it isn't the case.
(I _really_ don't want to bring up this analogy, but if you look back to
WW2, I'm sure many German solders fought bravely, with honor, etc., and
therefore enjoyed a personal value from their acts. OTOH, I don't think
that anyone can argue that the world as a whole (or Germany in specific)
gained any value from their acts...)
> Which is not what I think you want to say, but it is what people hear
> when you get into the dangerous game of judging the actions of sincere
> individuals as if they were political organizations.
As I (try to?) say above, I'm not trying to judge the actions of
individuals, but rather the value of the action as a whole. There is a
difference between assigning blame (or honor) and assessing value.
Except in those rare cases where the (non-controlling) actors knowingly
acted "wrongly" (dishonorably?), you generally can't attach blame to
them for their acts, regardless of the outcome (this probably being
increasingly true the further away from the decision making level the
actors are). That certainly doesn't mean that one can't assess the
(external) value of the acts and decide that they shouldn't have
occurred. If you disagree with this, then it becomes difficult or
impossible to ever argue that the leaders of the country made wrong
(military) decisions, or for history to conclude that any war or other
military action was wrong.
ted
Paul Ciszek
In article <2c061c12-f6c2-48ec...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org <racs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>neighbors were right or wrong, and whether the neighbors were simply
>mistaken or deliberately lied.
>
>In your mind, it is the presence of the children that puts a value on
>their actions. If they were mislead, then they are fools.
You are putting words in my mouth, and leaping to non-sequitors besides.
I stand byt my claim that the Bush Jr. administration has sent these
young men and women to their deaths to accomplish something that harms
the USA, and to a greater extent, innocent Iraqis.
The bravery, nobility, self-sacrifice, whatever of these people does
not change that one way or the other.