What does everyone think? I feel like there's some sort of truism here, "when both sides are mad at you, you must be doing something right." Obama is at once acting too slow and too fast, doing too much and too little. Half of Congress is mad that Obama isn't landing Marines to ensure that Ghadaffi goes out of power, and the other half is furious that he launched attacks to begin with.
Frankly I thought his speech did a great job of articulating Obama's doctrine, and of explaining why we got into this and what our goals are. What a lot of Republicans seem to have a problem with is the fact that while it's Obama's goal to get rid of Ghaddafi, there are limits as to what we're willing to invest to remove him. I don't see anything wrong with that position. Fareed Zakaria made a good point in response to McCain's complaint on that point, by mentioning that it's our refusal to lose face that gets us into so damn many problems; we don't know when to quit. McCain and others have said that it's illogical to proclaim a goal, and then refuse to invest whatever is necessary to achieve it, but I applaud Obama for saying that while we have a lot of wishes, it's not always worth it to put forth any and all resources necessary to achieve them. Hooray for a little level-headedness.
It's a slippery slope he's put us on though. On the one hand, it's great that he's presenting this high-minded, moralistic doctrine that has us running around the world halting atrocities. Certainly we've done that before, even when our own vital interests weren't in danger (Bosnia seems to be the popular reference here). But given the sheer number of slaughters taking place around the world right now, we have to pick and choose. Obama tried to answer that, and I think he used the best answer there is, by basically saying that fears of being called a hypocrite shouldn't stop us from solving problems when we can and want to, even if we choose not to solve them all. In other words, he's not making his Doctrine a suicide pact. That's nice to know.
Despite the crying in Congress, I actually thought he laid out a pretty clear plan for Libya. NATO takes over and we step back to more of an advisory role, when and if the rebels win, the coalition helps rebuild, not just the United States. And we're willing to help, but only to a point; we'll help NATO help the Libyans level the playing field, but we won't commit ground troops. And the goal is to protect civilians and let the rebels fight it out, and hopefully they win. Check, check, check. I don't really see where the problem is. If they lose, well, that sucks, but the confusion over the Obama Doctrine seems to stem from the underlying belief that we must be able to win something more than just protecting innocent civilians. It's an all or nothing prospect to these people, and I reject that. A more nuanced reading of the Obama Doctrine seems to reveal a pretty clear, compassionate doctrine for the use of force that enforced a well-voiced but rarely acted on American belief: the right of a people to choose for themselves.
Besides, I think too many people are also drawing the wrong conclusions from Iraq as an example. A lot of people are looking back to Iraq and saying we should have gone all the way and invaded Iraq, and I won't say anything about that, and they talk about how long we had a no-fly there. But a lot of people seem to ignore the parallel between the Kurds and the Libyans. We encouraged the Kurds to rise up and throw Saddam out of Northern Iraq, and when they rose up, we did nothing to help them, only establishing the no-fly AFTER they were gassed and slaughtered, and we kept it there afterward, I think, in part out of shame for not having followed through on our promise. At least this time we acted BEFORE the slaughter, and we'll continue to ensure there isn't one.
I'm all for, so far, what we're doing in Libya. However, I do wish this had gone through Congress first, and wasn't more or less unilaterally decided by Obama. I find it amusing that so many Republicans are raising hell about it now when it was all Democrats complaining against Bush in 2003, but that's just par for the course with them.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
If it was Bush doing this, people would be screaming "warmonger!!!" so loud it'd be deafening.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I know Lisa, right? Bush was sooo hard done by! I mean, all he did was start two full scale wars with no clear goals, the second of which was justified by a campaign of deceitful propaganda. But the sheeple just went "baaaah-d Buuuush", like the lamestream media taught them to.
Side note: Can you be any less of a caricature and gain some ability to appreciate the vast differences between the more limited and reasoned approach Obama has taken to this war compared to Bush's wars?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:However, I do wish this had gone through Congress first, and wasn't more or less unilaterally decided by Obama.
This is absolutely the biggest problem I had with it. In 2007, Obama said "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
But this time the UN authorized it. In the long wrong I think that is what is administration is going to lean on.
I for one originally supported Bush and Iraq. As time went on he lost my support. Now I don't believe we should have a single troop in Libya.
We can't hand the Libyans freedom. Now, any democratic government will be seen as a US puppet by those that don't support it. I see Libya have a huge terrorism problem in its future.
At most we should send in a few advisers for to help train the rebels.
Posted by talsmitde (Member # 9780) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: At most we should send in a few advisers for to help train the rebels.
Not even that. Advisers have a bad way of multiplying. My takeaway from the speech last night was that for the U.S. this is going to only involve air power, intelligence, and financial and telecommunication attacks on the Libyan regime so the rebels can have a chance. We absolutely shouldn't have any ground troops in Libya, and we still don't.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: ... But this time the UN authorized it. In the long wrong I think that is what is administration is going to lean on.
But for what reasons? Each member of the Security Council has their own motives for either championing or allowing the war in Libya to proceed. That doesn't really translate nicely into a domestic constitutional justification for Obama going into war.
For what its worth, I too think the intervention will gradually become a wrong in the long run, or a "long wrong" as you put it.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I actually thought the speech was kind of weak. Obama gave a speech saying that we had to strop atrocities from happening to people in Libya. That's great!
Flashback to just a few years ago though:
quote:
"Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
As far as I know, Libya posed no imminet threat to the US. Unlike some of the conservative voices out there I am glad action was taken to stop the violence. I think the President is discovering though that it is a little more difficult than he imagined.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: But this time the UN authorized it. In the long wrong I think that is what is administration is going to lean on.
Screw the UN. Despite what Obama might want, the US is still a sovereign country.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
No it ain't. By signing the Charter you agreed to cede up some of it for the sake of peace.
If sovereignty means the freedom to randomly invade other countries than the US doesn't deserve it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
In this case it seems that it is the lack of sovereignty that means the freedom to randomly invade other countries. So presumably the US doesn't deserve it.
That said, the UN has no power to order the US about; it could authorise member states to use force, but could not order them to do so. So, the decision to send in air strikes was done by the US as a sovereign country. In short, Blayne, your argument is incoherent; it's at right angles to the issues.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: In the long wrong...
I can't tell if that was a typo or a bit of wordplay.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I actually thought the speech was kind of weak. Obama gave a speech saying that we had to strop atrocities from happening to people in Libya. That's great!
Flashback to just a few years ago though:
quote:
"Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
As far as I know, Libya posed no imminet threat to the US. Unlike some of the conservative voices out there I am glad action was taken to stop the violence. I think the President is discovering though that it is a little more difficult than he imagined.
But that's comparing a warehouse full of apples to a basketful of oranges.
The Iraq war is different in both degree and kind to what is being done with Libya. I don't see any legitimate basis of comparison that would allow you to equate them as you appear to have done here.
---
I'm torn on this one. I think the "Obama Doctrine" is a pretty good one in this case, as long as we do actually step back and NATO takes over for what we're doing. But I'm strongly against the U.S. going to war (in reality even if not technically) just at the President's say so. This should have gone to Congress. But, Congress being the self-serving, partisan cluster fest that it is, this most likely would not have happened.
Does the legislative body's abandonment of its central duties justify the executive bypassing them? That something we've been struggling with for some time. I really wish we didn't have to.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: No it ain't. By signing the Charter you agreed to cede up some of it for the sake of peace.
If sovereignty means the freedom to randomly invade other countries than the US doesn't deserve it.
Bullshit.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Does the legislative body's abandonment of its central duties justify the executive bypassing them?
Point of order: If Congress disagrees with you on whether a war should have been declared, that does not mean Congress has abandoned its duties. Yea, not even if their reason for not declaring war is that they dislike the President. That's called checks and balances, that is. The power of Congress to declare war and make peace is not a rubber stamp; or at least, it's not supposed to be. If they have failed in any duty, it is in their duty to impeach a President who arrogates to himself the warmaking power.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: In the long wrong...
I can't tell if that was a typo or a bit of wordplay.
Let us blame it on a freudian slip.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by talsmitde:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: At most we should send in a few advisers for to help train the rebels.
Not even that. Advisers have a bad way of multiplying. My takeaway from the speech last night was that for the U.S. this is going to only involve air power, intelligence, and financial and telecommunication attacks on the Libyan regime so the rebels can have a chance. We absolutely shouldn't have any ground troops in Libya, and we still don't.
I guess I have high hopes for what this is. I hope this is a true civil war/ battle for independence. If true, a little bit of troop training sounds like the French in our own war for independence.
But my gut says you are right.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Does the legislative body's abandonment of its central duties justify the executive bypassing them?
Point of order: If Congress disagrees with you on whether a war should have been declared, that does not mean Congress has abandoned its duties. Yea, not even if their reason for not declaring war is that they dislike the President. That's called checks and balances, that is. The power of Congress to declare war and make peace is not a rubber stamp; or at least, it's not supposed to be. If they have failed in any duty, it is in their duty to impeach a President who arrogates to himself the warmaking power.
Point of order, the War Powers Resolution specifically places the power to declar war with Congress, while granting the president power to deploy military forces within a very limited time frame, while Congress reviews those decisions.
President Obama is well within his rights to deploy even ground forces temporarily while Congress argues about it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Point of order, the War Powers Resolution specifically places the power to declar war with Congress, while granting the president power to deploy military forces within a very limited time frame, while Congress reviews those decisions.
It would be hard to apply that to Libya though, no? Unless we're talking theoretically in some other situation.
quote:... a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Fair enough; but Squicky appeared to be arguing that Congress, if it failed to declare war and/or ratify Obama's orders, would have failed in its duty because of partisan bickering. That is clearly wrong; Congress has no duty to declare any particular war or approve any particular action; it is perfectly within its rights to withhold the declaration or approval, for whatever reason including dislike of the President's policies. That's what "warmaking power" means. Either Congress has hat power or it doesn't; the issue does not depend on its stance in any particular situation.
Of course, as a matter of constitutional practice rather than formal law, it may well be the case that Congress has, de facto, lost its warmaking power. This sort of thing will happen even with written constitutions, because over a timescale of centuries human institutions flow like water. To take an example from another country, there is strictly speaking no Constitutional requirement for the Norwegian King to appoint a government that has the support of a majority of the Storting. In strict law he can appoint whoever he damn well chooses, provided at least half the Cabinet are members of the State church. But obviously this has nothing to do with Norwegian government as actually practiced, and hasn't since well before independence in 1905. Indeed, having the cabinet be responsible to the Storting and not the King was one of the major steps towards independence; it gave a legal fig leaf in 1905, when the formal reason for the declaration of independence was that the Swedish King could not appoint a government, and therefore "had ceased to function as Norwegian King". Sheer nonsense in terms of the written Constitution, excellent international politics!
However, all that is a separate argument from whether Congress has failed in its duties.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: No it ain't. By signing the Charter you agreed to cede up some of it for the sake of peace.
If sovereignty means the freedom to randomly invade other countries than the US doesn't deserve it.
Bullshit.
Derp. Herp herp derp a derp.
I thought you didn't like it when I used that word to respond to one of your ridiculous claims, guess it was only selective?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Derp. Herp herp derp a derp.
:nod:
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: No it ain't. By signing the Charter you agreed to cede up some of it for the sake of peace.
If sovereignty means the freedom to randomly invade other countries than the US doesn't deserve it.
Do you think I'm defending Obama's invasion of Libya? Because I assure you, I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm saying that the UN "okaying" Obama's invasion of Libya isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.
I no more support the government invading Libya (or Iraq or Afghanistan) than I support the government robbing its subjects (citizenry, so called) in the name of "eminent domain".
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: No it ain't. By signing the Charter you agreed to cede up some of it for the sake of peace.
If sovereignty means the freedom to randomly invade other countries than the US doesn't deserve it.
Bullshit.
If you're referring to Blayne's first paragraph, I wholeheartedly agree. If you're referring to the whole thing, I don't get it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:... a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Point taken. I mean even if we use the Bush Doctrine this is a step removed. Having said that, we deploy aircraft carriers between China and Taiwan all the time. I am fairly certain if war planes with payload deployed over those carriers, even if they were heading for Taiwan, that we'd blow them out of the sky without waiting for Congress to approve. I need some time to poke around for the necessary acts that permit the President to deploy airforces in the manner Obama has. I'm certain it's there somewhere.
Even if it isn't, the Executive branch is always tugging and attempting to get more freedom to act decisively. The only way this won't set a bench mark for future administrations is if Congress passes legislation putting a stop to it.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
The US is already in deep **** we should drop all this war crap, and fix up our economy before the gas prices kill us all.
Gas is nearly $4 in this medium town of Missouri..
With all this fuel being wasted on the war version of peek-a-boo...
As for this Ghadaffi guy, why are we trying to do things the slow way, it's a waste of money, 1 precision air strike on his place of residence = death, or maybe 1 sniper on the job to make sure no one else gets injured also = death....
The way of peace is bull, a waste of time, and a way for all them big companies to get money from the military's waste... ---------------------------------------
-Is very angry.
[ March 29, 2011, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: Rawrain ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Amercans didn't get help for trying to seperate from the King of England we armed ourselves with weapons and fought back....
Guessagain.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rawrain: You need to look at Jon Boy's links, and you also need to look at this.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Still it's not America's job to help every country that peoples "wants to be free"... -------------- I remember something in Obama's speach that sounded like BS, something about one of our jet's 'Malfunctioning over Libya' and the pilot having to parachute down to the ground, and being welcomed... can anyone see if this story is true, or was Obama speaking from his behind.. I just find that whole story 'coincidental'..
[ March 29, 2011, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: Rawrain ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
This is pretty pointed criticism but it's meant to be helpful: you really ought not presume to lecture anyone, even a general lecture to the world in general, if you're so very badly informed about some extremely basic pieces of the area of knowledge you're lecturing about.
Knowing that we had help in the American Revolution is, well, very basic level history here. It's not necessarily a piece of knowledge someone should just know (though I think it would be nice and helpful), but if you're going to get high and mighty it's pretty good to know that sort of thing. Because not knowing it makes you appear, well, quite foolish. It's akin to wanting to tell a bunch of car mechanics what's wrong with how they're fixing my axle when I can't change my tire.
Go forth, educate yourself on some basic American history (world history would be nice) before telling people how stupid, wasteful, and nonsensical what's being done is. You shouldn't do that because I say so, though-that'd be a pretty silly reason. Rather because you'd end up much better informed, you would appear much less badly informed, and you'd be far, far more likely to persuade people who aren't already likely to agree with you.
[ March 29, 2011, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rawrain: OK I'll grant it's not our job to help everyone find freedom. It's more of a responsibility we have given ourselves if it's anything at all. So lets assume it isn't. What measuring stick should we use so as to determine who deserves our help?
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Thanks Mucus!
Rakeesh, I have a hard time remembering when my birthday is, don't poke or prod me. I live here and now, not 500 years ago, not even 50, so what's happened in the past is irrellivent. The present and the future is my concern, and I want the future to be better than now.
Black, we should help as best we can without hurting ourselves, and right now WE ARE. we need to get our economical problems solved so we don't end up like one of these 3rd-world-countries. If that happens then we will need help from everyone else, and sure they MAY be willing to help us, but they would much rather put us in more debt so we remain 3rd-world, while they(countries we are in debt to) profit from us, JUST like what WE are doing with many developing countries.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Even if it isn't, the Executive branch is always tugging and attempting to get more freedom to act decisively. The only way this won't set a bench mark for future administrations is if Congress passes legislation putting a stop to it.
The War Powers Resolution and the way we have been ceding power to the executive over the last decade makes it so that Congress can go sit in a corner and be irrelevant. Technically, if Qadaffi did indeed order Lockerbie, he could very well be considered a 'serious threat to the United States.' We invaded Iraq for less.
Obama didn't need to declare anything because now it's considered part of the 'War on Terror.'
It's a little late to realize we've put that much power in the hands of the Executive, if one were intending to stop it or whine about how congress needs to approve this, or that Bush would have been complained at for starting a third war after his farce in Iraq.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Rakeesh, I have a hard time remembering when my birthday is, don't poke or prod me. I live here and now, not 500 years ago, not even 50, so what's happened in the past is irrellivent. The present and the future is my concern, and I want the future to be better than now.
You live here and now, and now and here are both massively altered by what happened there and then. 'The past is irrelevant' is nonsense. Action, reaction, followed by still another reaction and so on. You discover how to make the future better by examining the past and how it impacts the present, so how could it be irrelevant?
None of that is relevant to the fact, though, that you were the one that brought something of the past up and decided to get high and mighty about it (We didn't need help, so why should they get help?). If it's irrelevant, don't bring it up. You clearly don't believe as you say.
quote:we need to get our economical problems solved so we don't end up like one of these 3rd-world-countries.
Any chance of the United States becoming like 'one of these Third World countries' has basically nothing to do with our foreign aid or even our foreign wars. That's if I granted the possibility that it might happen at all, but since I have no idea what you mean in the first place that's pretty murky too. Or are things like economics something that's irrelevant too?
Anyway, look, it's pretty clear you don't want to have an actual discussion, Rawrain. That's my conclusion, though, based on someone who said, "Here's a point from our history that says we shouldn't do this!" and then when it was pointed out you were completely wrong your response was, "History's irrelevant!"
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Rawrain: OK I'll grant it's not our job to help everyone find freedom. It's more of a responsibility we have given ourselves if it's anything at all. So lets assume it isn't. What measuring stick should we use so as to determine who deserves our help?
It's complicated.
We're really not saying it's just about freedom. That's not what I'm hearing. Else we'd be trying to poke our nose into a lot more places. But it seems like in Libya things crossed a threshold for many people - it was looking more like massacre than policing the citizenry. Sovereignty is a nice concept in the kind of world where people don't callously murder dozens, hundreds, or millions of people. At some point, an ethical line must be drawn in the sand.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Knowing the past is far different from living in it, what is done is done, and absolutely nothing you are capable of doing NOW and Forver can change the past, therefore it's irrelivent because it will never change, however the future is the result of our actions of NOW. The future is not judged by the past it is judged by NOW which will be the past in the future.
Stop changing the topic, that is upsetting, What is happening now is screwing us in the near future. THAT IS WHAT MATTERS. -----------------------------------------------
All it takes is one well placed bullet in Ghadaffi skull, and there will be no more problems with that man, if some one else tries to take his reign and do the same, another round to their head ends that problem aswell, eventually some one will get the picture that running a murderous dictatorship = death.
The fact that there's a solution so simple, and so cost efficient it should be done, and it hasn't, leads me to believe those in charge are idiots.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rawrain: I'm sure you'd agree that the past is a far from useless resource when predicting how our responses to current events will turn out.
Interestingly enough, France *did* bankrupt itself helping us fight Great Britain.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Well I do see the use of history and predicting what humans will do, is useful, but will slowly changes as society does.....
I would consider the Assassination of that Austrian guy the cause of WW1, but to me that looked like an excuse, not to mention putting all the war fines on Germany was the main reason for WW2... bleh
Like I said knowing is different from living, you learn the past so you don't repeat it, SO DON'T, simple, but circumstances today are different from back then, making history in this case still irrelivent /:
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rawrain: I think irrelevant is a bit too strong a conclusion. It is unwise to try to portray every event as a carbon copy of a previous historical event. Indeed, we often argue about the details of historical events so how could we begin to accurately match them up with what's going on today? But history is still rife with concrete examples that are not just useful in hindsight. In fact, it is absolutely true that people use history when making their decisions. If we can tease out that history when hearing the rationale a person is using, that in of itself is extremely valuable. People have heroes, and those heroes often belong to history. If we know who a person aspires to be like, we know a ton about what that person values as well as what they do not.
This isn't the first time we've used air superiority against another country. We can very accurately predict the cost based on time + frequency. We can also look at other times we've employed air power so as to get an indication if it can work, and if so/not why.
Often when we make stupid decisions it is a function of dealing with things we don't have much experience dealing with, such as how to govern a world with nuclear weapons. But, I would say a majority of bad choices are made by those who lack an understanding of history, that is readily available to them.
What if Pres. Obama had said, "We should not intervene in Libya, nobody helped us fight off Great Britain." He might be making a decision you agree with, but it would be for the wrong reason, and I think you will agree that broken clocks being right twice a day is no way to run a country.
[ March 29, 2011, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
It's like no one reads everything I write, they read till they find something they don't like that I said and attack it, enough of this history, I get it, I ****ing do, you look too much into what I said like everyone always does every time I post, it ****es me off greatly. HOW ABOUT THIS ignore the history comment all together and read everything else.
History is irrelevent, unless you have the thoughts of every person of the time you're looking into, YOUR INFERENCES are not fact, no one but Hitler knows why he did what he did, history is just a general outline of things that happened nothing more. ----------------------------------------------- Now that I've been upsetted, can this post remain on topic?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Rawrain vs Rawrain:
quote:Amercans didn't get help for trying to seperate from the King of England we armed ourselves with weapons and fought back.
quote:what's happened in the past is irrellivent
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rawrain: There's no need to get upset. I get that you are not throwing out history, but I got the vibe you were still undervaluing it. I'm a polysci major so history is a bit of a household pet I adore.
You don't have to have a mind reading device to infer useful things from history. We don't have to necessarily know why Hitler wanted to kill Jews, if we wish to know how he went about it. The primary documents relating to the holocaust *are* facts. It's a fact that when groups of people wish to harm or otherwise molest another group of people they generally stop referring to them as humans or people. They usually refer to them as something subhuman, such as an animal. Hutus when referring to Tutsies in Rwanda usually called them Tutsie cockroaches. We know it's easier to hurt somebody who isn't perceived as a human being. If we call them parasites, bugs, dogs, aliens, it becomes easier.
So when somebody is discussing immigration for example, and they refer to illegal immigrants as parasites, and use terminology we usually associate with parasites, "hosts" "stealing" "undesireable" "quarantine" we can infer that that person is trying to suggest action your average American might not be comfortable with and must be conditioned to accept. Say they tag the arrest of Japanese Americans during WWII as an example of what they think is the right approach, we've been handed a truck load of useful information regarding what that person wants and how they ought to be responded to.
Anyway, if you wish to talk about Obama, airstrikes in Libya, constitutionality, etc. Then history absolutely *has* to be part of the discussion because precedent is what our interpretations of the constitution rest upon. Precedent is nothing but history.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
When Seventeen Year Olds Attack!
::munches popcorn::
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
And I am still being critiqued about the value of history. bum bum bummmm. I am getting opinions not facts about the value of history, please prove your point by listing real world events that had been made better by the direct use of history, excluding geography.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That sound you hear is George Santayana rolling in his grave.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You're missing the point. You only threw out history when it became clear that you were ignorant of it; when you thought history supported your point, you were quite eager to use it. That's dishonest.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: And I am still being critiqued about the value of history. bum bum bummmm. I am getting opinions not facts about the value of history, please prove your point by listing real world events that had been made better by the direct use of history, excluding geography.
Rawrain, kid, you don't know what you're talking about here, and you need to understand WHY you don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
I'm more lost than this topic is, this is why I usually don't try and post, but I want to <_> As for being ignorant, I was wrong, at the time I was thinking the French was only involved in the French and Indian war, so I decided that Americans did it solo, I don't have a GD encyclopedia,history book, and I am using a dial-up so I just went with my gut, I was wrong..
I was trying to make a comparison, 'if it was done before, it can be done again' sort of scenario...
Well now I see why frustration is a bad thing ._.
Trying to get someone to understand me is quite difficult...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rawrain: Certainly. George Washington while leading his troops in the revolutionary war was absolutely cognizant of the lessons he had learned while fighting for Great Britain in The Seven Years War (French and Indian War). The Indians as employed by the French and English never commited to battle unless the odds were overwhelmingly in their favor. Retreat back into familiar ground whenever you are caught fighting a battle that was not on your terms. Focus on killing officers so that the chain of command breaks down. Basically Washington, as a former British officer was trained in British conventional warefare. He knew the proud military traditions the British officer's would adhere to, and used that to his advantage by using the strategies that had worked against him.
Horatio Gates was another former British officer, who even served in the same unit as Washington in the Seven Years War. And yet, he tried to fight conventionally against the British with mixed results. At Saratoga he lucked out with Benedict Arnold's rally, and at Camden he nearly cost us the revolution by himself.
Washington would have *never* made it to Yorktown, where the French fleet allowed us to beat Cornwallis and end the war, had he not learned from history and played his cards the way he did. The war would have otherwise ended as early as 1775/1776, long before any sort of Declaration of Independence could be signed.
Later it was Washington's understanding of history that lead him to decline becoming king when the rest of the country (the history ignoramuses) were totally willing to crown him after the revolution. It was also this knowledge of history in part that lead him to step down after two terms. Thus distancing himself from the sort of dynasties still dominating European politics.
That work for you?
Also, I don't see why we should exclude geography, any particular reason why?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I've got one too!: I once prepared jalapeño poppers without any protection for my hands and got a lot of jalapeño oil on my fingers which I later transferred to my eyes, lips, nose, and other "delicate" tissues. Every time after that I wore gloves.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I've got one too!: I once prepared jalapeño poppers without any protection for my hands and got a lot of jalapeño oil on my fingers which I later transferred to my eyes, lips, nose, and other "delicate" tissues. Every time after that I wore gloves.
Heh, that works even better than my example by virtue of being so concise.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Geography changes little over time and in a somewhat predictable matter.
Seems to me that Washington was running off of personal experience rather than his knowledge of the time before his.
Come now you must have a better example than that. ------------------ See the topic of history had switched from way-back-when to it-happened-to-me-3-years-ago-so-it-counts-as-history, but I was getting critiqued on American History y World History, these books teach you something as individuals that you can only use as a whole ._____.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
History just means "past events." If I'd read that Harriet Tubman had a similar experience with jalapeños I may have been similarly moved to seek protective handwear.
Learning from one's past generally means not repeating mistakes. Because of this, it's going to be hard to point out major events influenced by a historical perspective because the major events, if so informed, wouldn't happen in the first place.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
I think you just refered to history as not so useful compared to personal experience which in a way is history in it's own right, but not close to the history I was talking about .__.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rawrain: So now history is important if it happens to you? Washington wasn't interested in why the Indians fought as they did, he just knew what the results were and adopted it.
Further, Washington was relying on the lessons of history when he didn't accept the crown. I'm sure he would have reigned as king very similarly to how he governed as President. Yet he would have been versed in what happened to King Charles I just over 100 years ago. A bloody revolution, a king executed, a charismatic radical grabbing the reigns, civil war over who the true successor was. Instead he refused the crown, and instead became our only president elected by acclamation, (something we would never stomach today).
Is it possible Washington would have refused the crown because of some mixture of modesty or lack of desire to be a king? Sure, but it was still a shared knowledge of Britain's history that guided the founding fathers when they discontinued titles based on heredity, setup a bicameral legislature, a judiciary, and still retaining the concept of an executive branch, while modifying the form.
I think our government as setup by the founding fathers was a triumph, don't you?
Edit: This is why it frustrates me to no end when conservatives say things like, "Why should we do things like they do in Europe, this is America, we have to do it the American way!" A student of history can easily see how America from its inception was in large part a conglomerate of good ideas from Europe.
double edit: Further, it was the failure to remain aware of the lessons we learned from guerrilla warfare back in the 1700's, and again after the Spanish American war in the Philippines, that landed us in Vietnam with us getting frustrated that the Vietcong wouldn't "Come out and fight!"
Posted by talsmitde (Member # 9780) on :
To bring things back together, history (broadly speaking) supports Rawrain's other concerns about the expenses and aftershocks of this intervention. France helped us in the American Revolution, but busted their national treasury to do so, which was a major cause of the French Revolution. Sometimes busting the national treasury to defeat a foe is worthwhile (see Britain in WW2), sometimes much less so. One of the main points of the President's speech last night was that we _won't_ spare any expense to get rid of Ghaddafi.
As for the bullet in the head--the trick is getting close enough, and the plan actually succeeding. German officers who were in the room with Hitler couldn't kill him. The CIA tried to kill Fidel Castro numerous times, and it only strengthened his hand.
There is enormous symbolism and legitimacy in Libyans getting rid of Ghaddafi themselves. How would we feel if La Fayette instead of Washington had accepted Cornwallis's surrender at Yorktown? Or if the French had offed King George? Not the same thing, I know, but this is a time for creating heroes that can have legitimacy in the new regime, and those heroes must be Libyan.
In the meantime, we freeze his assets and jam his communications and otherwise make life uncomfortable at minimal risk to ourselves. I don't know if the war will be short, but all the more reason to be cautious in how we proceed.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by talsmitde: As for the bullet in the head--the trick is getting close enough, and the plan actually succeeding. German officers who were in the room with Hitler couldn't kill him.
(I'll try to put up more constructive posts later, but I'm too busy right now to write everything I want to say on this topic)
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Thanks talsmitde you got what I was saying :D
I see what you mean, but we have better stuff than just bullets, big long range artillary bullets pwhahaha... But if as you say having the Libyans doing the over-throwing of Ghaddafi would be better for them, then it's just a matter of time till someone gets enough balls to storm the gate.
I just hope our government doesn't supply Libya with weapons... it might go well at first, but if you've noticed a lot of the weapons that were being used against us in the M-E were from us back from the Iran-Iraq war... bombbbb
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:
I see what you mean, but we have better stuff than just bullets, big long range artillary bullets pwhahaha... But if as you say having the Libyans doing the over-throwing of Ghaddafi would be better for them, then it's just a matter of time till someone gets enough balls to storm the gate.
Something to consider: our military and politicians are presumably even better acquainted with what our various weapons and soldiers can do than you are, Rawrain. Perhaps there is a reason this very expedient action hasn't been taken, since they're almost certainly aware it's possible? Bear in mind that's not a decisive argument against doing it, but it's surely a good indicator that maybe you ought to reconsider, if lots of other people acquainted (probably even better acquainted) with the facts and possibilities have considered and rejected it.
Put another way, if assassination is as easy as you suggest, none of us really have any way of knowing it (if we're discussing covert assassination). Things would look very much the same. Overt assassination is likely (I actually think it's extremely likely, but for the sake of argument) a possibility, but it hasn't been tried, probably because of the question, "What happens next?"
This is, not to dredge up an old subject but because it's actually relevant to this talk of assassination, why history is important, why what happened hundreds of years ago is important, because it can help give us some idea of the answer to that question. And you don't have to know every single thing about what every actor in history was thinking at all times for it to be important, honestly that's such a strange objection it smacks of a tantrum-rebuttal more than anything else.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
??Are you talking about the consequences of assissinating Ghaddafi?? It all depends on who is supporting him and how willing his followers are to continue his orders even after he is dead, the use of history would only give infrences not facts.
Things I need to know to garantee a good assassination with minimum reprocusions.. Where does Ghaddafi get his funds from? (I do believe he's stealing from Libyan people, but is that all?) Are his followers hesistant? Which countries would disagree with this 'attempt'? Oh and of course, Who takes over if attempt is successful?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
OK, some things you need to know before you can effectively make a prediction. This is an incomplete list goin' from memory and tiredness, but:
What exactly are you predicting? Will you be able to know it when you see it? How will you be able to determine when your prediction has come true, and when will you be able to do so? Will you be able to, during the course of events, look at smaller events and see if they're leading up to the big prediction (or away from it)?
None of the questions you just asked, and that's not even a complete list - not even close to what would be necessary to have really considered whether or not to assassinate a chief of state - are you in a position to predict effectively. Some of those questions it's difficult to even tell what the actual conditions are to make a prediction on.
Basically, there are no facts. Of all the questions you asked, only one of them - the question of funding - can really be considered a question of fact, and there's a lot of room for murkiness there too (who controls the people who control the funds, etc.). This is one of the things the study of history is for, to gauge when and which inferences we should pay attention to, because inferences are all we're likely to get.
Frankly this seems so fundamental to observing politics, war, diplomacy that it really appears as though you're just changing the subject (an inaccurate accusation you made of me) and digging your heels in. For example, a better understanding of history might inform you that there have been many people and groups in the past which thought they knew the answers to the questions they needed to ask before assassinating someone. Sometimes things worked out.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
So you lack the answers to my questions, no predictions for you!
The more information I get the better a prediction you get.
I am quite the thinker, it's why I say I am a philosopher, it's just what I do, I only stop to sleep, and even then it's tempting to go on.
I'm simply asking questions that can be answered, not that they are impossible, nor can they be found in history, and most of all cannot be found entirely on the internet. (entirely because videos /: )
There are many more questions but these are the answers to the big questions. Who supports? I got nothing on this one XD Willingness of followers? For the followers one, it's easy peacefull interrogation, this may need to be done to a few of em, but at least you won't have to torture any as long as you're looking for the answers I am asking. Interrogating questions- How the individual feels about Ghaddafi's commands. Why this individual taking part in Ghaddafi's commands. (A few more questions I have yet to think of /: ) What does his family think of Ghaddafi? (Believe it or not, it's a sob question really, put a guilt trip if you can before you release em, or keep em in a cell)
Additional questions are fine as long as they close with the whole family question, this must be done non-violently especially if they are to be released after questioning.
With this information gathered from several of Ghaddafi's followers it would be easier to predict how they would react to his assassination, and with the whole non-violent questioning, it would add good PR amoungst the followers and make it a little less likely they decide to start firing at their own people... if they are Libyan anyways ;o -------------------------------------------- "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes
[ March 30, 2011, 02:17 AM: Message edited by: Rawrain ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's not in this story, and Obama didn't go into further detail, but there's actually more to this story. There were two pilots who parachuted to safety. One of them was picked up by a helicopter, and the other hid in a barn. He wasn't sure if the barn was owned by rebels or loyalists, and the rebel who owned the farm wasn't sure if he was an American or a Ghadaffi pilot. When they eventually figured it out and the American came out, they helped him out with food and water, then drove him to where he could get back to his base.
After he was driven away, another plane came by to strafe the site of the downed F-15. In the strafing run, the farmer's son was severely injured by shrapnel. When the farmer was asked if he held any ill-will towards America because his son was injured, he basically replied that there were no hard feelings, and that accidents happen.
If true, then we're apparently engendering such good feelings over there that, in a part of the world where people don't usually need an excuse to hate us, they're overlooking being shot by us in order to like us. Of course, we all know how temporary appreciation for our help, such as it is, can be.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
.__. Maybe the farmer was just really accepting of the way things are, showing hate towards someone in an accident would just shed more blood.
But the fact the people are thinking strongly of our help is a good sign towards this whole thing being done faster. -------------------- Is there another term for rebels who are also the good guys, every time I hear the word rebels I think them must be the bad guys, even star wars confused me... I mean the resistance works but it's just too big of a word to be used simply /:
Oh well, from this second forth I shall say resistence (until a better word comes along) instead of rebels, except when rebels is refering to the bad guys.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:"Is there another term for rebels who are also the good guys,"
Rebel doesn't mean 'good' or 'bad', it means rebel, someone who wars against the central authority.
quote:every time I hear the word rebels I think them must be the bad guys,
Which is ironic, given how the American rebellion is what gave birth to your nation -- but I guess your society has the Southern rebellion more recent in memory?
What about slave rebellions, though?
Rebel is an honorable and specific word, I suggest using it.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
haha southern rebellion is a joke, people just like to wear that flag thinking it makes their trucks look cool XD or maybe it's serious to them.... Given that rebellion was way before mine, and even my grandmothers time...
As far as my family goes I've always heard the words rebel and rule breaker as meaning roughly the exact same thing and rule breakers are bad, except when the rules are bad, then the people are good and -boom
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
If the USA wants to help other countries get their freedom and stop crimes against humanity, I'd like to know how we pick the places in which we are going to get involved.
There are places such as Sudan, Darfur, etc. that have worse things happening to the people than Libya, but we really haven't gotten involved there to the same extent. It almost seems like Libya was the big news story, so we decided to just go with that.
I'm not complaining against just President Obama either. If we are going to play the part of big brother to the world, I'd like to know how we choose our battles.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: If we are going to play the part of big brother to the world, I'd like to know how we choose our battles.
I kind of feel this way too, but I'm also afraid of having too specific of a set of requirements, or a doctrine that is too rigidly based on definitions. The last thing I'd want is to sit here debating whether a massacre is technically a genocide, or to wait until a specific threshold is crossed (eg. as soon as three more people die, then we'll get involved), while people are being systematically slaughtered.
Posted by talsmitde (Member # 9780) on :
I think the biggest reason we're intervening in Libya is because of geography: it borders Tunisia and Egypt, which are still very fragile. Waves of refugees fleeing Libya would destabilize the temporary regimes in T & E, making the current (temporary) rulers more likely to chart a more authoritarian course.
Also, more cynically, Libya's on the EU's doorstep--they might not want the refugees either.
I agree with shadowland, that there shouldn't be a hard & fast rule.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Nah, it's because the American government want's a foothold in every country they can get a toe in.
Just face it our government is possibly the most rigged in modern times, we get to vote for the president, but we have no say who get's to run for president, we get to vote who goes in congress, but not who gets to run to be in congress.
If you watch these politicians they are always jumping to the next position if they can't get voted in, and a majority of them are really bad people, democrat and republican are just words, and don't necissarily summerize the full list of that indivuals ideals, so why do we still use them 2 catagories even though they are innaccurate.
Why is it that in all presidential speeches the president states "god bless America", it's like they can't help themselves....
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Just face it our government is possibly the most rigged in modern times, we get to vote for the president, but we have no say who get's to run for president, we get to vote who goes in congress, but not who gets to run to be in congress.
This is factually incorrect. We do have a say in who gets to run for President, as well as who gets to run for Congress. There's just not much interest in changing it-or do you have any evidence otherwise?
This is another of those times when it would probably be good to, you know, become better informed if only to be more persuasive about the topics you're discussing. This is basic-level stuff here, and your own dissatisfaction isn't actually a measure of reality.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
When I get on my meds, I will study up so I can best all those whom dwell this here forum, till then most of my facts are half assed /: 1. too lazy to research + dail up makes it hard 2. My town has no library so I have to go to the next town over to check out books, but I have to pay a tax to the library to do so, and I am broke. 3.I've heard just about everything at least once, I just have a hard time remembering XD ------ 4. I wanna pin some of the blame on my education as well, being a very low class citizen, and moving a lot, I never really got settled and I missed practically everything there was to learn in middle school, except of course Ender's Game, graduated now, I am still disapointed the schools taught nothing about things like how to do taxes, which still confuses me, because my whole family has someone else do theirs, and no one even my step-dad who would qualify as a genius if not for his forgetfullness brought on by years of smoking that green 'stuff', will explain taxes to me in an understandable way.
5. As far as lost people go, I'm the guy deep in a cave in the middle of the night, with no flashlight.
6. -Claps for self-
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: When I get on my meds
Nah, naaaah, you don't need meds. Who is telling you you need meds? You're a philosopher, meds will stifle that massive brain of yours. Don't listen to the doctors, it's their job to kill creativity and keep the status quo. Hide the pills under your tongue.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
XD The medicine helps me focus, the voices of them thousand thoughts stiffle at the pill, with such peace n' quite, I can chose between letting my imagination run (which is trippy because naturally I can daydream on command) or I can focus my thoughts on learning something new, or performing a task without them pesky mistakes I tend to make... I was considered the best in my geometry class, me and another student were constantly switching the top spot and I totally woulda trumped him if not for my mysterious 'forgetting to add the 0 at the end of #12' or 'Why didn'y I carry over that 2 even though It's clearly written above that 5 in problem #2'...... ------------------- I take the meds because they help me, not because the doctor says they do, I also take all medicine with the assumption that it won't work as to make myself immune to the placebo effect, aren't I just a clever one >;D Now I am just waiting for my insurance to cover it and walah....
Posted by Owen Morris (Member # 12538) on :
I served in Afghanistan last year, and after watching whats going on this is my response:
We are all watching the scene unfold in Libya like we have watched so much political turmoil around the world. The details and the players change but this story is not a new one. Small country leaders are known for their need to "project power" so that their small country does not feel so weak in a big pond. Why do we bother being shocked to find out that a man who has been left as god of a small nation has taken certain liberties? These dictators are not told NO very often so when the subject of "hey should we kill these people that don't like you?" comes up- it's pretty easy for them to justify it to themselves as "doing what must be done to lead their poor little country."
The people tend to accept some of these liberties to some extent- especially if the living conditions haven't recently worsened. The people involved around these leaders, and sometimes the populous as well, have a tendency to forgive their leaders in the hope that it will strengthen their small nation. Violence leading to more violence eventually causes a boil over where the dictator is unwilling to give up power. He see's himself as the leader that has been making sacrifices for the people, and thus the true leader of said nation.
If you step back and look at the situation like this it's quickly apparent that EVERYONE involved wants the best for their small nation. Under equipped civilians are running into an armed military each believing that they are strengthening their world by doing so, when they are choosing the WORST option possible. It's like a distance runner amputating their leg so that they can finish the marathon with no blisters... AND WE FEED INTO IT! We consider these things like they are legitimate solutions because it's what happened LAST time this was on CNN so why would they do it any different THIS time it's on CNN. There is no rational reason to arm the 'freedom fighters.' Giving them guns only signs their death warrant, and it tells the world that we approve the killing that will be carried out in the name of the fallen for generations to come.
While I offer no direct solution (beyond Gaddafi realizing the point I'm trying to make and giving up all nice and quiet like). I will not allow myself to consider solutions that lead to more deaths. I always remember one Gandhi quote that sticks with me- "For this cause I would be willing to die, but there is no cause for which I am willing to kill."
Our own countries history may have been born of blood, but our greatest rebellions have come at the hands of peaceful men. Civil Rights. Women's Rights. Human Rights. We as Americans have created our own version of rebellion, and built peace into our government system- presidents are inevitably fired after eight years, regardless of their performance. No violence, no questioning, no standoff in the desert- they just leave peacefully. I remain happy that I live here.
Owen you don't sound like a Marine....but you claim you are, so do you have your stripes yet?
Something seems off in your character, I spent a little more than 4 years living in Camp Lejeune, with my Step-Dad who's now retired at the rank of Sergeant, and you're writing doesn't have the Marine feel to it, not one ounce of it.... /: ------ Not the slickest move I've seen though, what you say is relivent, but you act as though you typed it here first then blogged it, but really you blogged it -googled around- and found someplace to post what you've already blogged. ----- Also going entirely what you said, you've left not much wiggle room to have forum fun discussions /: ------ Oh yes, Marines typically don't smile in pictures (some expections of course, like I just got out of a shitty foriegn country, smile is exceptable)... I actually have a funny story related to this whole smilling thing 1 guy in my step-dad's graduation platoons photograph, is smilling, you wouldn't think much of it, but you have over 100 guys all standing there with stern faces on and you have this goober smiling XD
[ March 31, 2011, 06:29 AM: Message edited by: Rawrain ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Something seems off in your character...
Rawrain, perhaps you should post less often and more thoughtfully...?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Owen -
I disagree with a lot of what you just said, but I think your last paragraph really emphasizes where we diverge:
quote:Our own countries history may have been born of blood, but our greatest rebellions have come at the hands of peaceful men. Civil Rights. Women's Rights. Human Rights. We as Americans have created our own version of rebellion, and built peace into our government system- presidents are inevitably fired after eight years, regardless of their performance. No violence, no questioning, no standoff in the desert- they just leave peacefully. I remain happy that I live here.
That's lovely, but peaceful protest relies, to a great degree, on the underlying moral compunctions of the force you're opposing. Civil disobedience worked in America and other places because the reactions from the government caused a serious backlash that got the people to chance their minds, and forced progress. That doesn't work so well when the force you're opposing has no problems with just mowing you down in the streets. American style protest doesn't work so well against autocracies with no moral restrictions.
Your solution seems to be a sort of "grin and bear it" way of looking at things, and I can't say I support that.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Lyrhawn I don't think Owen is gonna come back, he was just searching for places to put his 'story'(?), and I suppose found this forum and coppied it here...
Tom,if you've been around some Marines enough they aren't the type that casts an image of doing things the peaceful way, they're trained killers, and this man Owen sounds like he frollics in flowers >__>
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Did he ever say he was a marine? He said he served in Afghanistan.
In any case, you're wrong about Marines. Like most groups of people, they're more diverse than one would think.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
^__^ My Buddy Chris P is a big nerd, whose height is 5'10" as skinny as a branch, and oh ya he's a Marine XD Destineer he claims to be a Marine Sergeant on his blog, as well as serving 6 years, and he shows absolutely no mannerisms of ever being a Marine >__> and in fact, I would go as far to say his blog is borderline feminine..
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rawrain: You're being extremely rude. I wouldn't like it much if somebody told me how I ought to act when I self identify as something. I'm certain there is a culture amongst the Marines, but that doesn't mean one has to buy into it to serve. As far as I understand it, there is not writing style requirement or blog standard for a Marine.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
A guy that pops up because the discussions in his court to make 1 post a copy and paste one at that, is what I find rude..
once a Marine always a Marine, and this man lacks every single aspect of what a Marine is besides the haircut, which anyone can have, I believe he's an imposter! I am gonna link my step-dad to the blog and get his opinion /: and he's always right...(well hasn't been wrong yet, one day though..one day!)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rawrain: What proof do you have his post here came after his posting it on his blog?
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Time stamp XD
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'll have to take your word for it right now, I can't access the blog at work.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
" Posted by Removed from Reality at 1:34 AM " (most likely Western time) " posted March 31, 2011 04:29 AM " (central time)
My time is set for central and I assume his blog is set as Western, which means he posted it either 1 or 2 hours later on here, I am unsure which one ._.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Step dad wins! Flawless victory! "Man I don't see how u can gatHer his "mannerisms" just from the 3 very boring parAgrApHs on that blog address u sent me to, aside from the fact that he seems to just be ranting incoherently and seems like he's much younger than the 26 yrs old that he stAted. However, I DID conduct a personnel search on a website that I, as a Marine, still have access to. See, the site tells the names,rank, and other pertinent info of EVRY1 who is in ANY branch of service or who ever WAS in any branch, even the reserves, and that guys name or info don't show up in any of the databases so I think he's full of shit tryn to impersonate...." ( I accidentally linked him to just the guys libyan topic and not the main section of his blog) He answered my email with a text message XD
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You mean he might not be using his real name online? THE HORROR!
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
I thought about that, but it seems very unlikely. If it wasn't for my years of online gaming I would use my real name in place of rawrain .__. , but it's the name I chose in the beggining so I stuck with it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: I thought about that, but it seems very unlikely.
HAH!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
OK, why on Earth would you care enough about this random dude to go to that amount of trouble, Rawrain?
Listen: that is pretty strange. That is some odd behavior, particularly since you said yourself you don't even think he's coming back. I don't know what's going on with you, but your style lately has been at best consistently baffling and frequently very off-putting and rude. To say nothing of, again, just peculiar.
Perhaps you ought to consider talking to someone face-to-face, or voice-to-voice, about whatever is actually bothering you rather than patrolling an Internet forum. That is not to say you're not allowed to post here-I'm obviously not the person who makes that decision, and even if I was, I don't think anything you've done approaches that threshold anyway. But steppin' the forum cop on Owen or whoever he is, going to your step-father (and really, why should we believe you any more than you say we should believe him?), and so on and so forth...just strange.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
I like policing XD, but hey, if that guy is using his real name, he's impersinating a Marine. And I do believe it's illegal.
Sometimes I pay attention too little, sometimes too much.
My step-dad has better resources than I do, of course having access to the military websites, kinda makes looking up that guys name easy XD ------------------------------------------------ Rakeesh I don't like liers /: I really don't and when something seems off about a particular person I get very meticulous.. ------------------------------------------------ As for my posts being offensive, ya it depends on what topics I am talking about, religion, politics, and social behavior are topics I am going to offend people on, so just brace yourself if I make a comment XD ------------------------------------------------ Also I do have a psychologist, but he doesn't want to speek with me until after I've tried the medicine he prescribe, which due to insurance and pharmacy issues is going to be a coupla' more days >.<
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
Rawrain: I think you're completely out of line. You very quickly - and incorrectly - judged someone you didn't know. What you did wasn't even stereotyping - your comments were simply unfounded and flippant. At least what Owen says makes sense and shows a command of the english language. I still haven't seen that in any of your 200 plus comments.
To say someone is "full of shit tryn to impersonate...." is a serious attack on one's character. I don't think such disrespectful language has any place on this forum, true or false. The accusation of imposter is far from being a warm greeting towards someone new to the community and you would do well to check your tone and comments before you further detract from this discussion and worsen your faltering credibility.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: Also I do have a psychologist, but he doesn't want to speek with me until after I've tried the medicine he prescribe,
You mean a psychiatrist, right?
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: I thought about that, but it seems very unlikely. If it wasn't for my years of online gaming I would use my real name in place of rawrain .__. , but it's the name I chose in the beggining so I stuck with it.
Guess what- Misha McBride isn't my real name. The name I'm on Facebook under isn't my real name either. My email? Not my real name. In fact, not a single one of my usernames anywhere on the internet is my real name. Why? Because there are creepy guys on the internet (like you!) who might start e-stalking me and trying to dig up my personal information. You might post my details online to strangers whom I do not want having that information. You might even try to get me into IRL trouble with my family or boss (or in this guy's case superior officer) because you got butthurt about something I said.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Capaxinfiniti that was my step dad that said the badly written statement, and as a marine to an impersonating marine FoS is the least terrible thing he could say.. >__> --------------------------------- Yes Destineer a psychiatrist.... I mix things up m'kay /: ----------------------------------------- I've done justified my actions and I am no stalker. In an addition I partually agree with what Owen said. My pursuit of his possible falsehood was entirely brought on but what I know and believe to be absolute truths, and only the most clever and suspicious of people can negate that.
[ April 01, 2011, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: Rawrain ]
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
Did your step-dad teach you how to write? Because I couldn't differentiate his writing from your's.
I don't consider consulting with your step-dad and some "site" - conveniently inaccessible to the general public - due diligence when trying to ascertain the veracity of someone's claim to be a marine. It seems you have no faith in the essential decency of people in general, and, in this case, your skepticism is unwarranted.
You don't have to stalk anyone but your research seems less than thorough and your "sources" will remain suspect until you give us information adequate for verification. In the end, your hasty judgment has done you a disservice, as it make me more suspicious of your previous claims.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
If you want access to certain government websites you're gonna have to join the military .__. ... I am sure you know someone in the military, which means they get access, so you can ask them to search for Owen.
capaxinfiniti I acknowledge everyday how crippled my spelling abilities are, thanks for the reminder. And that's sort of funny, you do know I quoted what he said...right? --------- Here's how it is, Owen is using his real name, he is not a Marine. This is a fact. Owen is using pseudonym, and he could be a Marine.
My decision to accuse is based on intuition, I've been around Marines, they are dogs... and I've read what Owen has to say, and he's a cat. cat =/= dog
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
Rawrain: If you have trouble with spelling I recommended you use a browser with a built in spell-check function like google chrome. It won't better your spelling but such a crutch is useful at times, especially when your spelling errors reach the point that they become distracting. But your posting style really isn't my issue here.
I' not going to defend Morris and say he is a marine, because i don't honestly know. Google his name and you'll see he has more than just a blog, and there's even a good deal of information you can find about Mr. Morris. Now, this could be an elaborate farce but i believe that it's more delusional to believe this guy is a shady imposter than to consider the chance of his name not appearing - yet, perhaps - on the list you're referring to.
The second part of you comment is stereotyping, not just some baseless assumption like before. Saying marines are X is a 'standardized and simplified conception of a group based on some prior assumptions' The way Morris writes doesn't reveal his claim - or the falsehood of his claim - to be a marine any more that it would his skin color, religion, or sexual preference. Even the content of what he says doesn't produce a guarantee.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
I prefer firefox, but it seems to disagree with dial-up and crashes randomly....
How a person speaks and writes, tells you a lot about them... The marine core is very hard on the people that go through it, there's no way you can go 6 years in there and not pick up any of the speaking or writing habits.
It's pretty much the same effect that going through highschool or even middle school has on kids, going through they pick up things, that forever shape their life.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: How a person speaks and writes, tells you a lot about them.
The IRONY.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
I know, tell me a little about myself rivka 8D
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I suspect you don't really want me to do that.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Then you would be wrong, I am very open to opinions and you will even be rewared with a congrats if you're correct, though if you're wrong you only get a no.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: I know, tell me a little about myself rivka 8D
Remember, you asked for this. And you were given ample opportunity to change your mind.
You are young, extremely irresponsible, and uncaring about the needs or wants of others. The world doesn't actually revolve around you, but you have not yet figured this out.
Which is rather a shame, as I suspect you have the intelligence to do well in life . . . if only you gave a crap.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Not quite, I am young, and as much as I want to care about others, it's not within my power, and I do try. I know the world doesn't revolve around me, this is just a forum, I don't give 2 hoots whether someone answers my post or not, but it does mean a bit to me that some people take time to read my words and respond, I appreciate it.
I'm really just looking for someone who understands me, so I can get some help, so far my tally is on 1, 1 person understands me fully, but he isn't capable of helping me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: as much as I want to care about others, it's not within my power
What utter rubbish.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Just because it's hard to image doesn't mean it's untrue, I went to a psychiatrist to get help with my lack of emotion he was going to try anti-depressants, having tried a few different types, they do nothing for me, so I requested a double treatment, get a fix for my adhd and 'possibly' my emotions, answer, adderall, and I am trying to be hopeful that it will fix both problems, but only trying will tell.
The pharmacy should be done resolving their issues soon enough, hope you will brace yourself for the real me, because I am much smarter than this, and I will be up for challenges.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ever heard the expression "fake it till you make it"? Whether or not you can empathize should not determine how you act towards other people.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
I've never heard the expression, and how I act towards people is roughly dependant on what they say, and how they say it, and in the real world expressions and gestures are added to that list aswell.
My assesment of people has never been far off, but the people of hatrack are very hard to pin down mostly I think due to how intelligent the people are here, warning I am studying you. ------------------------------------------------ Austin attempts to save the topic after killing it /:
Anyone else think Obama overplayed his speach a bit, he gave a lot of talk but didn't give specific reasons, I would've like to have heard the full reasons for both entering Libya's rebellions , and how it would benifit this country in the long run.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
More excuses for your poor behavior.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Just because it's hard to image doesn't mean it's untrue, I went to a psychiatrist to get help with my lack of emotion he was going to try anti-depressants, having tried a few different types, they do nothing for me, so I requested a double treatment, get a fix for my adhd and 'possibly' my emotions, answer, adderall, and I am trying to be hopeful that it will fix both problems, but only trying will tell.
The pharmacy should be done resolving their issues soon enough, hope you will brace yourself for the real me, because I am much smarter than this, and I will be up for challenges.
You desperately need to mature enough as a person to understand why you are so easily pegged as an oblivious teenager. I sincerely hope that your psychiatrist hasn't provided you too much of a further roadblock to your own emotional and sympathetic maturity by giving you a lure to convince yourself that the 'real you' is just over yonder on the amphetamine train.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
I wasn't always this way.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
What, were things different when you were 14? Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Things were different in my head before age 10. I give up with you two, I'm being honest and open and you take it as lies or jokes.
Don't worry about it though, you two aren't the first to not get it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Not sufficiently explaining anything that's going on makes it unsurprising that we aren't the first not to get 'it.' whatever it is.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't think you are lying or joking. I think you are making excuses for lousy behavior that actually excuse nothing.
But keep on lumping me with all the people who "don't get it". It gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Apologize and get over yourself, Rawrain.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Rawrain -
When I first became a teenager, I had some anxiety problems. We went to a a psychiatrist who prescribed me anti-schizophrenic medication. They didn't work for me. Where I used to be able to focus and catch every minute detail, I just dazed in and out. We got me off the meds pretty quick, and while I no longer had anxiety problems there was a permanent change in my personality. I became withdrawn, timid, and seemingly incapable of empathizing with the needs or feelings of others. It was also around this time that I also had my standard teenage phase of questioning my identity, authority, and social norms. I became bitter with the world and had trouble feeling appropriate emotions if I felt anything at all. It sounds like your typical teenage angst, and a lot of it was.
But I learned to adapt to my problems. Even now that I'm in college, I still struggle with naturally adhering to social protocol. I have to deliberately think about the consequences of my actions and how they will affect others. I still have trouble focusing, but I force myself to deal with the issues. (I refuse to take psyche meds if I can avoid it.)
The best resource for me to learn these skills was to join my high school's speech and debate team. The activity gets a lot of flack for being filled with nerds, and it is. But you do learn how to adapt to others as a practice if it doesn't come naturally to you. You're given an environment in which you can express yourself without being criticized for having controversial opinions. (You're criticized if you can't defend them.) But most importantly, it forced me to deal with fellow team members and learn how to work with others and understand at a rational level why others play a significant role in my life.
I'm not saying you need to run out and join your local speech and debate team. It certainly doesn't work for everyone. But I would say that using your issues as an excuse for poor behavior is not acceptable. I didn't do it, I learned to adapt and continue to adapt today.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I think that is great advice Vadon. Giving yourself a creative outlet by joining a debate team would probably help him out quite a bit.
I think part of the reason so many kids get bored at school or hate it is because they are forced to stick to a certain schedule. They aren't given enough time to work on their creativity.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
it depends on what topics I am talking about, religion, politics, and social behavior are topics I am going to offend people on, so just brace yourself if I make a comment XD