Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
That's not what I said. I said our morals demand we apologize and we have to obey our morals. Whether the Iraqis understand our morals or not, we have to remain true to what America is all about.
Our morals demand a corporate apology? I respectfully disagree. A personal apology from the offender is in order, but not a corporate apology from the military. I am in the military and feel no need to tender an apology for the actions of an individual. And that is what happened, the actions of an individual. I don't support his actions, but I dont feel responsible for them either. He deserves our condemnation for being stupid at the least, but neither you nor I share in his responsibility for his stupidity, that is what was tendered by an official apology.It makes about as much sense as me apologizing for my Great,great-grandfather being a slave-owner. I did not own slaves, so why would I apologize? As you can no doubt guess, I opposed Clinton's slavery apology too.
Daniel,I stand corrected. You are correct about the Great Schism. I should have done the research. I am a practicing Roman Catholic, I should have known better. A good explanation can be found here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm
I have been using the German and Czech modules. I really have to polish up my German though, now I am conversational at best or as I like to say, I know just enough German to get beat up.
Back to my original point. Technology is not winning the war for us. All the gee whiz UAV's, jammers, optics, and weapons in the world have not helped us defeat the insurgents. The insurgents are proving the Napoleonic maxim that “In war, the moral is to the material as three is to one”. We have extremely well trained troops and when we can find the enemy we win every time. The problem is finding them. They are Mao's proverbial fish swimming in a sea of peasants. The issue is convincing them that we can help the average Iraqi live in better conditions and greater freedom, but I am not sure that is what they want. Certainly some do, but I am not convinced that a majority of Iraqi's do.I am afraid we are seeing a dilemna similar to that we faced in Vietnam where we will be in the unenviable position of either giving up and leaving or having to destroy the village in order to save it.
Don't get me wrong, I think Hitler was a lunatic. However I found the movie and book to be both educational and highly entertaining at the same time.
At any rate it is moral....and we go by our morals not theirs, and our morals say apologies are a good thing. The Iraqis are our hosts. We are in their house, so an apology is required.
Fuzzy thinking. They believe our morals are decadent and a source of weakness so how does applying our morals in their country help us?
Although I am far from being an atheist or even agnostic. I don't think you need God in politics and the public sector to have a moral society. I think what has contributed more to moral decline is the new moral relativism and narcissistic tendencies in American society. People just do not seem to be as friendly now as when I was little. For example, when I was a kid we knew everyone on our block. Today, I know one neighbor and the guy down the street whose son mine plays with. This despite attempts to be friendly, and I have lived here for 3 years. But, I do agree with you that if we put God back in the public square and people were not almost afraid to admit they are religious it would go a long way towards promoting a more moral society. One of the essential missing ingredients is public censure for bad actions.
I saw this movie in the theaters in Germany when it came out in 2004 during my last tour in Europe. I have also read the book ?Inside Hitler's Bunker: The Last Days of the Third Reich? by Joachim Fest this is the text on which the movie is based. Fest is one of the preeminent historians of Nazi Germany though since the majority of his work is in German is little known in the English-speaking world. It is an outstanding book and movie. It is definitely not a sympathetic look at Hitler; it is simply a recounting of the final days of Hitler?s life. This is the link to the book and movie on Amazon:http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Hitlers-Bunker-Third-Reich/dp/0312423926/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211297937&sr=1-2http://www.amazon.com/Downfall-Bruno-Ganz/dp/B0009RCPUC
It was very controversial in Germany when it came out as it portrays Hitler as both a human and a madman. The movie is available here in Texas at some of the rental places. I would highly encourage everybody to both see the movie and read the book, which has also been translated into English.I read him to mean that the current prison system failed in its original purpose. I might have to reread him again to see if I missed something. Prisons are counterproductive in terms of rehabilitating criminals. Their only purpose now seems to be to remove unwanted elements from society at a terrible cost...very counterproductive in terms of the human element. However, it is difficult to see how else we can do differently. Foucault at least tried to analyse something few others seem to care about.
I agree that from the perspective of rehabilitation, prisons are indeed counterproductive. However, I am a crime and punishment type, I believe the purpose of a prison is to remove unwanted elements of society.As to Foucault and most other postmodernists I have read. They lose me as soon as they start spouting their watered down version of Marxism. They see everything as relative, morality included. What is Foucault's conception of the episteme if not moral relativism? They claim that bias cannot be avoided and since bias is inevitable why not revel in it. Postmodernism is very Narcissistic in that respect. I stand by my assertion that Foucault did not so much analyze as attempt to find fault with something that only he can define. I have a paper I wrote on postmodernism and history that I could forward you if you like. It explains my thoughts much better than these few short lines can.
I've asked my daughters - both teenagers - what sets them apart from the other girls/kids who commit such mean acts of violence against others: both agree that as parents, my husband & I have provided a very stable environment; we've taught them morally & legally right from wrong and most importantly in their book, 3) my husband & I would never tolerate that type of behavior. We have preached there are consequences to a person's behavior and no matter what age a person is, that person must take responsibility.
My wife and I have done the same with our son. He is a much better kid than I ever was. Of course, I have three brothers and my son is an only child so it is harder for him to get away with stuff than it was for me. But I still have son I can be proud of and I am sure he will grow into a man I can be proud of as well. It is all about parenting, as you allude to.
I have a hard time identifying an objective in our current war in Iraq beyond the nebulous “Global War on Terror”. I think that 19th century wars were, with some exceptions, fought for easily definable and concrete objectives. Often the objective was either territory or some political concession on the part of a recognized power, or the suppression of colonial revolt. I hesitate to say that times were simpler, they were most likely just as complex as today. Also, there was not as much hand wringing about the use of force. Force was seen as a legitimate tool of statecraft, which it largely is not anymore. I think that the phrase ?Gunboat Diplomacy? says a lot about the mindset of 19th century governments and there attitude towards the use of force.The difference between then and now is that now we are fighting a thing, terror, and even worse, there is no definable enemy. They have neither territory nor even an acknowledged leader. Bin Laden does not control all the terrorists, he is a figurehead and if he were killed terrorism would not end. Terrorists are like the mythical Hydra, cut off one head and there is another to take its place. The answer to terrorism is to remove the underlying cause of resentment and I am not certain we, meaning the West can do that. Muslim resentment of the West is more cultural than material. Can we change their culture, I think we cannot, they must change it themselves. Until that happens, the conflict will continue unless we are willing to resort to genocide, which I for one am not. I would much prefer to live in peace but if my enemy offers war, then war he shall get.
His analysis of the prison system has some merits.
I have the impression from reading him that he would rather there were no prison system. He seems to argue that prisons are counterproductive, I have found very little analysis in his work but quite a bit of ontificating and obfuscation. I found his idea of the Great Confinement particularly ignorant. He provides very little evidence to back up his claim that prior to the 17th century madmen walked free and were an integral part of society.
Should not the soldier himself then apologize? I would not have a problem with that. I only have a problem with the command apologizing.
I am not saying cover it up. I am simply saying we (meaning the US military or government) should not accept responsibility for the act of one individual. The responsibility belongs squarely on the shoulder of the soldier who used the book for target practice, not his superiors or by extension, the entire US government. By publicly apologizing the military is accepting responsibility for something the military did not do. I am saying the military should acknowledge that yes, it happened, and the offender has been reprimanded. That is all. I have serious doubts that shooting the Koran is punishable under the UCMJ, I guarantee you that it is unpunishable in US criminal courts. He is beholden to US Law, not Iraqi or Sharia law. The most that soldier can get is an official Letter of reprimand. They may weasel their way into charging him under Art. 132, The general Article.
The really sad part is the park service has a trained historian on staff at most parks and they still do a horrible job. Example, at Shiloh last year I got into a discussion with the resident historian about why several of the markers in the vicinity of park HQ's are incorrectly placed. The answer I got was that it was because that was where they were put and most people did not know any better anyway. I am talking about the markers that mark the battery at Pittsburgh Landing. They also have non-period artillery pieces at the battery, the pieces on display date from a year or so after the battle. The woodlines are not correct, but I will admit that they have a program in place to restore the woodlines to where they were during the battle, which will help future visitors to visualize the course of the battle better.I know I am nit picking, but that is what we need if the lessons of the past are to be preserved.
It was very controversial in Germany when it came out as it portrays Hitler as both a human and a madman. The movie is available here in Texas at some of the rental places. I would highly encourage everybody to both see the movie and read the book, which has also been translated into English.
