Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - "support our troops" offensive to troops?

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-30-2007, 11:12 PM

I oft wonder if people are serious in their beliefs of the movers behind the scenees, those who dictate policy. I think you do yourselves a disservice in labeling them; for example I don't see this as a war that has been initiated so that Haliburton can do some creative accounting, skim profits, and get a jump in their stock shares. I see it as policy dictated by people like me or you, making a decision based on their understanding of things, on their convictions, and I accept that people don't agree with said decision.

The way I understand it all, people like me that favored the war, regardless of our justifications, can never win even if "we" (our side) is ultimately successfully, read someone declaring "military victory". Where I'm coming from is this war has not been fought to be won; it has been overly politicized and hampered by peoples idealistic views out what should be, especially how we procede forward. Further more and the bottom line of this point I'm trying to make is that the ultimate success of war can never be realized because it is a pre-emptive action, in this case we are shaping the future. We all know whats at stake, we all know how bad it is right now, and likely problems to come. The problem is perspective: A bold move was made, it was a power play, a bunch of old fogie's who were movers and shakers from the cold war made a policy in light of a post-soviet changing world, there were new threats and new issues to address, thats what Iraq to me attempts to do, and sadly best case to people like Will or others, it will never be clear as such.

Perhaps to sum up my point because I admit it might be hard to follow let me pose a question, its almost a utilitarian (hoping my mind isn't failing me here) Kantian point, a greater good thing: But what if you could stop a great tradegy such as world war/conflict by making a bold play now? People will die and things will be ugly, thats the nature of the beast, people need to stop kidding themselves about humans and our nature. But what if actions in Iraq now would stop said problems later (best case), or (worst case) if problems are inevitable give America the upper hand, would it be worth it?

01-30-2007, 11:12 PM	#21 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I oft wonder if people are serious in their beliefs of the movers behind the scenees, those who dictate policy. I think you do yourselves a disservice in labeling them; for example I don't see this as a war that has been initiated so that Haliburton can do some creative accounting, skim profits, and get a jump in their stock shares. I see it as policy dictated by people like me or you, making a decision based on their understanding of things, on their convictions, and I accept that people don't agree with said decision. The way I understand it all, people like me that favored the war, regardless of our justifications, can never win even if "we" (our side) is ultimately successfully, read someone declaring "military victory". Where I'm coming from is this war has not been fought to be won; it has been overly politicized and hampered by peoples idealistic views out what should be, especially how we procede forward. Further more and the bottom line of this point I'm trying to make is that the ultimate success of war can never be realized because it is a pre-emptive action, in this case we are shaping the future. We all know whats at stake, we all know how bad it is right now, and likely problems to come. The problem is perspective: A bold move was made, it was a power play, a bunch of old fogie's who were movers and shakers from the cold war made a policy in light of a post-soviet changing world, there were new threats and new issues to address, thats what Iraq to me attempts to do, and sadly best case to people like Will or others, it will never be clear as such. Perhaps to sum up my point because I admit it might be hard to follow let me pose a question, its almost a utilitarian (hoping my mind isn't failing me here) Kantian point, a greater good thing: But what if you could stop a great tradegy such as world war/conflict by making a bold play now? People will die and things will be ugly, thats the nature of the beast, people need to stop kidding themselves about humans and our nature. But what if actions in Iraq now would stop said problems later (best case), or (worst case) if problems are inevitable give America the upper hand, would it be worth it? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.