Insight to the \"average\" high schooler

From NYTIMES.COM

In Mr. Sunderdick's class, Vietnam seemed very distant history. Even the teacher was born after Saigon fell. Several students said they thought that the Iraq war was much more like World War II, a war with a clear rationale waged by a country intent on defending itself, reflecting the effectiveness of the Bush administration's case for going to war.

"We actually got attacked," a student, Jessica Cowman, said. "In Vietnam, it wasn't an attack on us. We got hit in World War II, at Pearl Harbor, and we got hit in New York and at the Pentagon. It wasn't like that with Vietnam."

Hrm... This really bugs me. Other than the standard party-line "Axis of Evil" bs, no one really seemed to talk about any credible links to Al Qaida in Iraq.
I'm sure Al Qaida dealt with Saddam; the enemy of my enemy is my friend after all, but I didn't see anything really current.
This was a war to topple an evil regime and get rid of WMD's. Not attack Al Qaida. That's what the attack on Iran is for.

As my many and numerous Liberal Arts classes scream at me; think critically! What did we really accomplish here?
It certainly wasn't gaining the positive control of WMD's, because that didn't happen. Hello! It's a huge desert and you only have ~250k people over there; without credible intelligence, a double armed-interval police call is going to take a long time.
It seems to me we've managed to destablize the region quite a bit, bring utter anarchy to the streets of Baghdad (not that this is worse or better for the Iraqi's. Just different.), and create another ambigous situation regarding the status of key targets.
The precise bombing campaign against key leadership really bugs me. Show me the body! I don't want DNA evidence, I want the Caesar-esqe bloody American hands and the bullet-ridden corpse.

I'm glad kids feel good about the military. Hopefully, this will inspire them to study some history and political theory and figure out exactly what is going on here.
Ultimately, the soldier is reduced to a political tool and if the people don't understand the true politics of the situation, another Vietnam is inevitable. Which, ironically, the soldier will be blamed for.

"Reaper81" wrote:

I''m glad kids feel good about the military. Hopefully, this will inspire them to study some history and political theory and figure out exactly what is going on here.
Ultimately, the soldier is reduced to a political tool and if the people don''t understand the true politics of the situation, another Vietnam is inevitable. Which, ironically, the soldier will be blamed for.

First Id like to say A-f*cking-Men. Unless everyone understands why we went to war, were just going to get into another one, and another one until the public gets burned by some scandal. My parents think they already found WMDs in Iraq about 2 days into the war, and that we were fighting Al-Quaeda. I tried to reason with them and they thought it was just because I hate Bush so I was making stuff up. The funny thing is I hated Bush before the war, for entirely different reasons, and never actually talked to them about it. I think my Dad is still convinced that they found the WMDs already.

However, I thought everyone blamed Vietnam on politicians, not the military. At least I do.

I''m with you. Bush could have made a better case saying we are fighting the culture that breeds terrorism and says that terrorism is ok. That means we can get Syria as well.

Yeah, because all the good work we''ve done in Iraq is sure to stop terrorism now! Seriously, Ulairi, you really think waging war is going to stop terrorism? I get that we should try and change the culture that supports terrorism, but if wars don''t help should we just keep doing that because we can''t think of anything better yet?

Do you think war can be a successful means to stop terrorism? That''s a genuine question.

-

On topic, I couldn''t agree with you more Reaper.

Well, sensible people would blame the failure in Vietnam on the politicians but if you read how the article is worded, they make it sound like the baby boomers viewed the military as incompetent. Do baby boomers view the military this way? I hope not, they''re pretty deluded then.

My unclear statement was actually referring to the fact that people blame the atrocities and nightmares of Vietnam on the military as a whole instead of the individual. Vietnam and the way it was fought was just symptomatic of American society and political theory at that time. It was a very diseased and unsound situation. Therefore, Joe Troopie, doesn''t know right from wrong anymore and goes absolutely nuts. However, I still feel that the individual made the choice the commit war crimes.

Yeah, because all the good work we''ve done in Iraq is sure to stop terrorism now! Seriously, Ulairi, you really think waging war is going to stop terrorism? I get that we should try and change the culture that supports terrorism, but if wars don''t help should we just keep doing that because we can''t think of anything better yet?

I think if all else fails then war is the last option. It is hard to change people who believe that if they kill them selves while trying to kill as many Western people as possible get rewarded by their god. We can do police actions: Except the governments support the groups. We can just lob missles, that pisses off the average joe and makes the problem worse. We really do need to re-build the middle east. I think this is WWIII and like WWII, some countrys are going to sit out the first couple years.

Do you think war can be a successful means to stop terrorism? That''s a genuine question.

Terrorism? No. Islamic Fascism? Yes. We can never stop someone from strapping a bomb to them selves and blowing up a pizza shop. The whole world doesn''t see terrorism as that big of a problem. If they did, we would tell the Saudi''s to stop funding the hardline islamic groups, we would tell Iran that if they want to stay in the U.N. they have to give up their nuclear programme, etc.

I think the reason we have to go to war now is because we sat on our hands for 30 years. The U.N. is worthless. Countries like Cuba, Iran, Syria, etc. should be forced to change or they should be kicked out of the group.

The U.N. should be a group that promotes Liberalism.

If it''s so worthless, why would these countries want to stay in? Just a thought.
We have told the Saudi''s to stop the funding, many times. It hasn''t worked.
This fight against Islamic fascism, as you call it, is tough. How do you seperate the one from the other without making it look as though you''re opressing a religion?

We really do need to re-build the middle east.

I don''t think there''s a person alive that doesn''t agree with this statement but that''s the very crux of the problem.
Rebuild it how? Rebuild according to who''s plan? Redivide the boundaries how? Who''s religious/ethnic idea of land ownership is right?
There''s reason''s why people blow themselves up and other people drive to the first peoples'' homes with tanks later. They might not be very sound reasons but they exist.

The U.N. is worthless. Countries like Cuba, Iran, Syria, etc. should be forced to change or they should be kicked out of the group.

The U.N. should be a group that promotes Liberalism.

See that''s where we differ, Ulairi. The U.N. should be a group that represents the world''s differing ideologies. A U.N. can''t exclusively promote democracy or liberalism else it has automatically alienated most of the countries it seeks to have participating. Kicking Iran out of the U.N. is productive, how? I mean shouldn''t the whole point be to have a centralized place for dialogue? How much more open to democratic ideas do you think Syria would be if it wasn''t a part of the international community?

I''m not necessarily suggesting the U.N. should be a governing body, but if it''s just going to be an exclusive club for first world countries, then its pointless.

I still believe strongly that our military actions will not curb, but rather strengthen Islamic fundamnetalism. I guarantee you that images of American soldiers in Baghdad is not a reminder that if you practice fundamentalism then America will kick your ass, it''s a rallying point for the very people we''re trying to dissuade. I don''t remember where I heard the quote, but I really latched on to its ideal and paraphrased it is thus: I don''t fight fire with fire. I fight fire with water.

To summarize though, we are in agreement on a few key points that I don''t want to be confused on. We both think Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism should be dealth with and curbed. The Middle East needs reform (though I think it should be internal and moved through diplomacy). America should play a key role in promoting peace (the ultimate goal for you is still peace, I assume).

see the problem with telling Iran to give up their nuclear program to stay in the UN is that

a) the US passed a law to actually allow using small tactical nuclear bombs in future conflicts.

b) the US does not obey to the UN themselves, so how can they command anyone else to do it.

Bush called the UN irrelevant and acted like it. Why should any of those islamic countries obey to the UN. The US is the example of how not to obey and still get away with it.
Calling for the UN here is really showing how flawed the argument for striking against the will of the UN was right from the beginning. Everyone taking up that argument knew that this would make the UN useless. Your gov wanted that war, now they should finally get in there and get rid of the anarchy in that region.

One man (despite my pathological distrust of him) nearly made the biggest turn towards promoting peace and reducing terrorism in known history yesterday. Then he almost took it all back when he became afraid that his own people would turn on him. It''s sad, really, when a former warmonger could almost turn into a great peacemaker, only to be scared off by the threat of his own people.

Oh another one, how can you stop fascism from breeding when their main argument is that we try to destroy their culture and try to establish ours with force.
Or how work bombs against the argument that we are into the middle east for the money, that we do not care about human lives?
How does a precision strike that wipes out entire families work against the argument that democracy and our type of economy nullifies the importance of single human beings?
See the problem with our system is that we always say how tolerant we are, but as soon as we do not understand a culture or a reason for some cause, we respong with oppression, economic pressure or in the worst case with brute force.
It''s these things that causes islamo fascism. No I do not tolerate it and I do by no means support it, but from our history, even our most recent history I see where their arguments are coming from and we will have a hard time persuading them from anything else.

"Elysium" wrote:

The U.N. should be a group that represents the world''s differing ideologies.

It''s not, nor has it ever been.

Its been a world body whereby each country tries to push forward its own agenda onto the world political stage in the name of peace. Its no better then our own Congress, with the exception that we at least know that Congress is full of self-promoting political hacks with special agendas.

Calling upon the United Nations to fix the world problems is akin to asking a group of alcholics to reorganize and provide inventory controll to the liquor store.

Its politics on the largest stage, and Bush was dead-on correct in not letting the UN (and France, for christ''s sake) prevent the kicking of Saddam''s ass.

sh*t, look at history and the fact that the UN did everything but offer an offical invitation to Hitler to overun Europe.

Hmmm, let me rephrase, because that wasn''t what I was trying to say.

The U.N. should be a forum where all the world''s ideologies are represented.

Calling upon the United Nations to fix the world problems is akin to asking a group of alcholics to reorganize and provide inventory controll to the liquor store.

I didn''t call on the U.N. to do any such thing. In fact, I made it very clear that the United States should have a leading role in ""fixing the world problems"".

sh*t, look at history and the fact that the UN did everything but offer an offical invitation to Hitler to overun Europe.

Which is precisely the kind of reason I said it shouldn''t necessarily be a governing body. But I disagree with your characterization of France and Germany being the only political powers that opposed Bush''s war. Frankly, seeing a Germany that is set upon peaceful resolution to conflict is hardly a bad thing, considering your point above.

"Elysium" wrote:

But I disagree with your characterization of France and Germany being the only political powers that opposed Bush''s war. Frankly, seeing a Germany that is set upon peaceful resolution to conflict is hardly a bad thing, considering your point above.

Yeah, but this gave me a thinly veiled opportunity to bash France.

It should be noted that it was the League of Nations that dropped the ball on Hitler, not the UN.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

It should be noted that it was the League of Nations that dropped the ball on Hitler, not the UN.

It''s the same thing. The problems of the League of Nations are in the U.N.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

One man (despite my pathological distrust of him) nearly made the biggest turn towards promoting peace and reducing terrorism in known history yesterday. Then he almost took it all back when he became afraid that his own people would turn on him. It''s sad, really, when a former warmonger could almost turn into a great peacemaker, only to be scared off by the threat of his own people.

What threat did we make, and what did he take back? I didn''t read that part, all I knew was that the Israeli Prime Minister tenuously accepted the roadmap.

Also, Rat Boy said it, but the UN wasn''t formed until after WWII. It was formed specifically because of the failure of the League of Nations to stop Hitler.

Im going to side with Elysium on this one, wars only create more discontent with the conquered population, and unless they get law and order restored quickly, its only going to create more terrorists. If they do restore law and order quickly, but with too heavy a hand, the same thing will happen. Its definately a fine line, one that isn''t being walked very well, as far as I can tell.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

It should be noted that it was the League of Nations that dropped the ball on Hitler, not the UN.

Yeah I know that. And you know I know b/c one of my earlier tirades regarding this subject matter mentioned the League of Nations in the same context. I was just making a point....tomato...tomata.

Besides, if Batman hadn''t been so uppty, the League of Nations could have fought on a unified front.

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]

"Rat Boy" wrote:

One man (despite my pathological distrust of him) nearly made the biggest turn towards promoting peace and reducing terrorism in known history yesterday. Then he almost took it all back when he became afraid that his own people would turn on him. It''s sad, really, when a former warmonger could almost turn into a great peacemaker, only to be scared off by the threat of his own people.

What threat did we make, and what did he take back? I didn''t read that part, all I knew was that the Israeli Prime Minister tenuously accepted the roadmap.

This deserves its own thread, but for the record, Israel has offered an olive branch *again* even in the midst of attacks and poor leadership from the Palestinian side.

Perhaps they won''t get burned this time? Riiiiiiight.

Bush could have made a better case saying we are fighting the culture that breeds terrorism and says that terrorism is ok

Yes! Fight the culture!

"Mex" wrote:
Bush could have made a better case saying we are fighting the culture that breeds terrorism and says that terrorism is ok

Yes! Fight the culture!

Worked before.

"Ulairi" wrote:
"Mex" wrote:
Bush could have made a better case saying we are fighting the culture that breeds terrorism and says that terrorism is ok

Yes! Fight the culture!

Worked before.

When?

Yeah we stopped Fascism dead in it''s tracks. the USSR and China didn''t count because they were ""communist"". Oh yeah, we stopped them dead too, it had nothing to do with thier economy, it was all war.

Seriously though, what were you referring to?

When?

Yeah we stopped Fascism dead in it''s tracks. the USSR and China didn''t count because they were ""communist"". Oh yeah, we stopped them dead too, it had nothing to do with thier economy, it was all war.

Seriously though, what were you referring to?

Italy and Germany come to mind.

"Ulairi" wrote:
When?

Yeah we stopped Fascism dead in it''s tracks. the USSR and China didn''t count because they were ""communist"". Oh yeah, we stopped them dead too, it had nothing to do with thier economy, it was all war.

Seriously though, what were you referring to?

Italy and Germany come to mind.

That was my point, we didn''t actually stop Fascism, just moved it. USSR and China still practiced several dangerous and violent aspects of Fascism long into the 90''s, the war didn''t stop the culture. Now Im not saying WWII was anywhere close to a bad thing, it had to be done, as Hitler was actively invading people. What Im saying is, that as a cultural war, we didn''t win decisively.

the thing is that with italy and germany the situation was a whole lot different. Italy and (west-)Germany were surrounded by democratic states and they themselves were democratic not long before WWII.
The situation is not comparable to the middle east. You cannot eradicate several thousand years of history with a snap of your fingers. Look at how long it took Europe to become democratic. It also is a matter of how much the people actually living in that area agree to the concept of democracy.

Keep in mind that the last competent Israeli peacemaker was not killed by a Palestinian suicide bomber but by a lone Israeli gunman.

Yes let''s compare extremists, shall we?

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Keep in mind that the last competent Israeli peacemaker was not killed by a Palestinian suicide bomber but by a lone Israeli gunman.

Yassir Arfrat was never a peacemaker. I don''t think Sharon is a peacemaker. Hopefuly Bush can force Sharon to take it and the new PLO PM can get some power and hold off teh terrorist.

I''m refering to Rabin. He''s the one who swallowed the Israeli pride and stuck his hand out to Palestine. He''s the one who made the peace process work, and as thanks from his own people he was killed. Neither the Israeli hardliners or the terrorists will allow a peace process. Better to lock up the Netanyahus and Hamas sheiks of the region in a room and let them exterminate each other. The world would be better off if both groups were gone for good.

Rabin was very popular in Israel. Dont do him a disservice now. It was an extremist who assasinated him. I seriously doubt whether his assasination was secretly popular with the majority of Israelis.

The problem the Netanyahus and Hamas is that neither extreme side sees themselves as extreme. They are patriots of course!

You might say, ""but oh the elected an extremist prime minister after Rabin."" Yes but that is a problem with a country that has a more than 2 political party system. A vocal minority group can gain power.

It makes you wonder. Israel has mandatory military service for its citizens. Would you want Boston teenagers with assault rifles patroling New York? Would you want Oakland teenagers patroling LA? Would you want Washington DC youngsters policing downtown Dallas?

Of course its not going to be as violent as Israel occupying Palestine. But you know there are going to be incidents. How many incidents and how many years of incidents does it take to escalate?

"fangblackbone" wrote:

Would you want Boston teenagers with assault rifles patroling New York? Would you want Oakland teenagers patroling LA? Would you want Washington DC youngsters policing downtown Dallas?

Well, to make it sound better, I wouldn''t want Oakland teens patrolling Tampa Bay, San Francisco teens patrolling LA, and DC teens patrolling...er...if they had a team that anybody would give a crap about, then maybe...