4 ms·

I think this is an extremely disrespectful and kneejerk reaction to a very thoughtful comment on the parent article. One factor that contributes to the readine

I think this is an extremely disrespectful and kneejerk reaction to a very thoughtful comment on the parent article. One factor that contributes to the readiness of the United States to go to war that escaped your analysis is that any critique, however mild, of the armed forces is met with furious moral indignation.

mpyne 12y ago
> I think this is an extremely disrespectful and kneejerk reaction to a very thoughtful comment on the parent article. I disagree, given that the comment was in keeping with the spirit of the parent comment (i.e., using the opportunity presented to hack in and tear away at the topic being presented). > that any critique, however mild, of the armed forces is met with furious moral indignation. The best possible way to "support the troops" is to not send them to war in the first place, is it not? I'll disagree with a "blame the victim" mentality everywhere I see it, and you should too. For instance, let's consider a fictional city (perhaps Gotham). Cities need firemen, even though we all hope that our stringent building codes will keep fires from starting (or at least, keep them from spreading), improved safety technology helps people put out their own fires, etc. But none of these are foolproof, and the idea of an uncontrolled fire spreading through densely-constructed buildings is so horrific that we have no choice but to maintain a cadre of firemen. OK. But eventually our building codes and safety technologies become so good that Gotham realizes that the biggest risk of a large conflagration is actually from a fire starting in the border city opposite, so Gotham signs up their firemen for "mutual assistance" and helps put fires out in their neighbors, under the catchphrase "better to fight the fire there than have to fight it at home!". The logic seems to work, despite the number of firemen who die fighting these fires each year, and our neighboring cities are doing better at stopping fires too, so we sign up for mutual assistance with cities further and further away. But larger and larger fires start to break out and worse, there are nasty and persistent rumors that those fires are actually being started by Gotham leaders, and even some of the firemen. Yet no one has completely solved the issue of fighting fires in Gotham, so the need to have some people with the training and skill to fight fires at home remains. And yet we don't like the idea of shady people doing shady things to start fires abroad. So who do you blame, the people who signed up to fight fires (possibly abroad, with good reasons), or the people starting the fires?
- jacquesm 12y ago
  > So who do you blame, the people who signed up to fight fires (possibly abroad, with good reasons), or the people starting the fires? What if they're the same people?
  - mpyne 12y ago
    What if the dog is phone? What if the sky were buttery? Or, how do you think it works? Week 3 of basic training at the Gotham Fire Academy, and the drill is to go over to Buckytown and set a random building on fire?
Nrsolis 12y ago
Because you're blaming the WRONG PARTY. It's not the Armed Forces that should receive the criticism. It's the government and the civilians that push for them to go abroad and carry out their wishes. How is that not something you understand?
- pavelrub 12y ago
  Why is this downvoted exactly?
  - Nrsolis 12y ago
    Because it goes against the orthodoxy here. Namely: the USG is a hegemon that exerts a disproportionate and negative influence on the world and is hypocritical in its foreign relations. Of course, these opinions are maintained by people who never risk their lives, their income, or their social strata to effect change. They don't vote. They don't lobby their representatives. I'm willing to bet that a bunch aren't even American and are simply using this forum to air their opinions on US foreign policy.

mpyne 12y ago

> I think this is an extremely disrespectful and kneejerk reaction to a very thoughtful comment on the parent article. I disagree, given that the comment was in keeping with the spirit of the parent comment (i.e., using the opportunity presented to hack in and tear away at the topic being presented). > that any critique, however mild, of the armed forces is met with furious moral indignation. The best possible way to "support the troops" is to not send them to war in the first place, is it not? I'll disagree with a "blame the victim" mentality everywhere I see it, and you should too. For instance, let's consider a fictional city (perhaps Gotham). Cities need firemen, even though we all hope that our stringent building codes will keep fires from starting (or at least, keep them from spreading), improved safety technology helps people put out their own fires, etc. But none of these are foolproof, and the idea of an uncontrolled fire spreading through densely-constructed buildings is so horrific that we have no choice but to maintain a cadre of firemen. OK. But eventually our building codes and safety technologies become so good that Gotham realizes that the biggest risk of a large conflagration is actually from a fire starting in the border city opposite, so Gotham signs up their firemen for "mutual assistance" and helps put fires out in their neighbors, under the catchphrase "better to fight the fire there than have to fight it at home!". The logic seems to work, despite the number of firemen who die fighting these fires each year, and our neighboring cities are doing better at stopping fires too, so we sign up for mutual assistance with cities further and further away. But larger and larger fires start to break out and worse, there are nasty and persistent rumors that those fires are actually being started by Gotham leaders, and even some of the firemen. Yet no one has completely solved the issue of fighting fires in Gotham, so the need to have some people with the training and skill to fight fires at home remains. And yet we don't like the idea of shady people doing shady things to start fires abroad. So who do you blame, the people who signed up to fight fires (possibly abroad, with good reasons), or the people starting the fires?

jacquesm 12y ago
> So who do you blame, the people who signed up to fight fires (possibly abroad, with good reasons), or the people starting the fires? What if they're the same people?
- mpyne 12y ago
  What if the dog is phone? What if the sky were buttery? Or, how do you think it works? Week 3 of basic training at the Gotham Fire Academy, and the drill is to go over to Buckytown and set a random building on fire?

Nrsolis 12y ago

Because you're blaming the WRONG PARTY. It's not the Armed Forces that should receive the criticism. It's the government and the civilians that push for them to go abroad and carry out their wishes. How is that not something you understand?

pavelrub 12y ago
Why is this downvoted exactly?
- Nrsolis 12y ago
  Because it goes against the orthodoxy here. Namely: the USG is a hegemon that exerts a disproportionate and negative influence on the world and is hypocritical in its foreign relations. Of course, these opinions are maintained by people who never risk their lives, their income, or their social strata to effect change. They don't vote. They don't lobby their representatives. I'm willing to bet that a bunch aren't even American and are simply using this forum to air their opinions on US foreign policy.