103 replies · 1,643 views
Burt Reynolds wrote:
AgentWood wrote: but burt, we had to fight a war to free ourselves from oppression. this allowed us to live hand-in-hand with the indians--like one big happy family, you see.
Yup, Woody. I was addressing the first part of the post rather than the second bit.
Ya can't knock the War of Independence. Ya country hasn't exactly done badly since...
but my point is this: we know about the pain of war. we had one on our soil only a mere 150 years ago.
Burt Reynolds wrote: And Pontiac, you seem to live in this 'I've been to Iraq' bubble. Perhaps its an intelligence thing, I dunno. Always felt that only a certain strain of people join the military.
I think your comments earlier regarding Moussaoui's punishment showed a TOTAL lack of understanding of these people's cultures which you so vehemently claim to be in tune with.
good observation. Like being in 'iraq' makes him infallible to everything 'iraqi'.
ghost rider wrote:
Burt Reynolds wrote: And Pontiac, you seem to live in this 'I've been to Iraq' bubble. Perhaps its an intelligence thing, I dunno. Always felt that only a certain strain of people join the military.
I think your comments earlier regarding Moussaoui's punishment showed a TOTAL lack of understanding of these people's cultures which you so vehemently claim to be in tune with.
good observation. Like being in 'iraq' makes him infallible to everything 'iraqi'.
Your completely missing my point in both posts.
The Torture post: It was merely a bit of fun. I know America would never allow such punishments, and for good reason, just sometimes it would be nice for it to be instated for specific cases. How I missed their culture, as you speak, is beyond me; unless of course you didn't get the pig referance.
The last post: I'm am not all high and mighty because I went to Iraq. I'm not saying all my thoughts are 100% the right way of thinking either. My case in 2 points:
Respect those of differing opinions. (They are not ignorant, simply because they think different than you, or a majority of population).
A backseat driver is that, a backseat driver. That does not mean a backseat driver doesn't have good information to offer, or doesn't have good critism (quite the contrary). However, the backseat driver should understand that there are certian aspects they don't see, in road condition, traffic, etc. (and NO; I am NOT putting myself as the driver).
You may not agree with all my opinions or accounts. . .but considering I have experienced things maybe others have not, isn't it at least worth a listen? Why the shunning????
JHC
68 Pontiac wrote:
The Torture post: It was merely a bit of fun. I know America would never allow such punishments, and for good reason, just sometimes it would be nice for it to be instated for specific cases.
but we do use torture, even though it is against the laws of the united states. we refer to it by the euphemism extraordinary rendition.
68 Pontiac wrote:
The Torture post: It was merely a bit of fun. I know America would never allow such punishments, and for good reason, just sometimes it would be nice for it to be instated for specific cases. How I missed their culture, as you speak, is beyond me; unless of course you didn't get the pig referance.
Hmm.. I think you're 'bit of fun' quote says it all, plus the pig jokes. 100 million Moslems will be rolling in the aisles if they read it, I'm sure.
NOT.
I think this displays your total lack of understanding, once again.
68 Pontiac wrote:
- A backseat driver is that, a backseat driver. That does not mean a backseat driver doesn't have good information to offer, or doesn't have good critism (quite the contrary). However, the backseat driver should understand that there are certian aspects they don't see, in road condition, traffic, etc. (and NO; I am NOT putting myself as the driver).
You ain't getting in my car.
68 Pontiac wrote:
You may not agree with all my opinions or accounts. . .but considering I have experienced things maybe others have not, isn't it at least worth a listen? Why the shunning????
JHC
It's not shunning. I'm not sure what your motives were for joining the current military offensive, but I'm guessing money. As for understanding of different cultures, you may have advanced somewhat from what you thought, but you have many miles to go. Try buying a reputable newspaper every day. You might burst that bubble.
AgentWood wrote:
68 Pontiac wrote:
The Torture post: It was merely a bit of fun. I know America would never allow such punishments, and for good reason, just sometimes it would be nice for it to be instated for specific cases.
but we do use torture, even though it is against the laws of the united states. we refer to it by the euphemism extraordinary rendition.
Aye Woody.. Rendition was a buzz-word in the UK, a few months back.
FBI flew at least 100 chartered planes out of here in the last 12 months, to countries that do not recognise the Geneva Convention.
Burt Reynolds wrote:
It's not shunning. I'm not sure what your motives were for joining the current military offensive, but I'm guessing money. As for understanding of different cultures, you may have advanced somewhat from what you thought, but you have many miles to go. Try buying a reputable newspaper every day. You might burst that bubble.
Burt, Somehow you have taken my last post as me taking an offensive? Trying to get a middle ground for everyone.
I ask to respect others opinions and your answer is . . ."Fuck You!!!"????
Since you've read newspapers, makes you more knowledgable???? You seriously believe everything the Press puts out???? You make a huge assumption that I don't read about Iraq on a daily basis. (on the contrary, my life and the Marine's lives I lead depend on me keeping up-to-date with Iraq, and reading intensly on their culture. All unbaisedly, my life and others depend on it.)
I don't want to get into another "should we be in Iraq or not" fight; Asking for BOTH sides to be respecting of each others opinions.
JHC
68 Pontiac wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov, Last of the Red Hot Gentlemen wrote:
68 Pontiac wrote: Interesting how people that are against the involvement in Iraq talk so high-brow and "in-the-know". I think we've traveled down this road once before. Was that not enough?
JHC
Nope.
Do you think it's possible that people who read *might* be be exposed to a broad perspective of what's going on there, and thus be able to form opinions on the basis of what they know? Do you think it might be possible that people who have been to the middle east *might* have been exposed to a limited perspective of what's going on there?
NOOLigan wrote:
i thought we still had free speech.
It's not about free speech or your insults towards me Comrade. I'm talking about the immediate attack on those that think differently. It's called respect of another's opinions, that is the only way free speech works. Just because my, and other's, opinions on Iraq are different does not make one ignorant.
The most interesting part is that you can not possibly fathom what is going on there without fully understanding the culture, which can not be done from a computer desk. Second, I have access and have read much of the same information/news that you have been exposed to. That you think the I've had blinders put on me by the government is so Orwellian. I've actually witnessed events, then seen the same event on the news totally misportrayed.
Either way I respect your opinion, and don't attack it everytime someone says something against it or against the current Commander in Cheif. I was in hopes those on the other side could do the same.
JHC
we respect your experience and opinions. just because we don't always/ever agreee with them does not make us disrespectful. far from it. we take the time and make the effort to reply to your posts. that is a sign of respect. as far as i can tell we have always had quite mature debates here. nobody called anybody names for thinking differently.
NOOLigan wrote:
we respect your experience and opinions. just because we don't always/ever agreee with them does not make us disrespectful. far from it. we take the time and make the effort to reply to your posts. that is a sign of respect. as far as i can tell we have always had quite mature debates here. nobody called anybody names for thinking differently.
NOOLigan,
Hear you, and the topic got a little off track. By reading the past posts, I may have been a little strong on both you and Comrade. His statements were uncommonly insulting, and it also has to do with prior posts in this forum that made me a little touchy (stating thatI am ignorant because 1- I'm in the military, or 2- intel keeps us blind, but I don't realize it).
What I do notice is alot of anti-Iraq and anti-Bush statements. . .anytime someone says something different the forum bandwagons a confrontation; belittling the poster as either ignorant and/or an idiot.
Most of the time these statements I can ignore and let pass, but sometimes. . .well, you get my point.
Respect the both of you.
JHC
68 Pontiac wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov, Last of the Red Hot Gentlemen wrote:
68 Pontiac wrote: Interesting how people that are against the involvement in Iraq talk so high-brow and "in-the-know". I think we've traveled down this road once before. Was that not enough?
JHC
Nope.
Do you think it's possible that people who read *might* be be exposed to a broad perspective of what's going on there, and thus be able to form opinions on the basis of what they know? Do you think it might be possible that people who have been to the middle east *might* have been exposed to a limited perspective of what's going on there?
NOOLigan wrote:
i thought we still had free speech.
It's not about free speech or your insults towards me Comrade.
Honestly, 68, I think you're seeing insults where none are intended.... But, if you've taken any of my comments for insults, I apologize.
I'm talking about the immediate attack on those that think differently. It's called respect of another's opinions, that is the only way free speech works. Just because my, and other's, opinions on Iraq are different does not make one ignorant.
68, what I take exception to is the notion that you know more about Iraq or mideast policy than others of us who have not been to Iraq. I can guarantee you, Woodsy knows more about mideast policy than you, me, and anybody else you know put together. And though she's been to the mideast, I don't think she's been to Iraq. My only point is that some of us are quite widely read, and to say that our opinions are worthless because we haven't been there ignores the fact that many of us who are quite widely read have been exposed to a wide range of perspectives on mideast policy, and that conversely, many of those who have been to Iraq have been exposed to a very narrow range of perspectives on mideast policy.
The most interesting part is that you can not possibly fathom what is going on there without fully understanding the culture, which can not be done from a computer desk.
This is exactly what I'm talking about, 68. You have seen a very, very narrow range of information in your stay in Iraq-- basically, the information the U.S. Government wants you to see-- and somehow, you've turned that into some sort of superior knowledge. I agree that getting to know the people in a culture is an important part of understanding, but even you must know that you experienced only a limited range of Iraqi culture. Surely you didn't discuss the Iraqi insurgency while dining with Iraqi insurgents? Surely you didn't get to know al-Qaeda mujahedeen? My guess is you got to know a narrow range of Iraqis who are cooperating-- in another context, they'd be called collaborators, or traitors-- with the U.S. Even if you talked to a broad cross-section of the Iraqi population, do you really suppose they have a better understanding of U.S. policy, or al-Qaeda's goals, than anybody else-- say policy analysts, or academics, or reporters?
Second, I have access and have read much of the same information/news that you have been exposed to. That you think the I've had blinders put on me by the government is so Orwellian. I've actually witnessed events, then seen the same event on the news totally misportrayed.
I've never said you've had blinders put on you by the Government. What I have said, especially above, is that while in Iraq, you've been exposed to a limited range of information, and that the information you've been exposed to can't possibly suffice to explain mideast or Iraqi policy. Certainly, it helps provide some understanding, but alone, it's just not sufficient.
Since I don't know which events you're referring to, I can't comment about how they were portrayed.
Either way I respect your opinion, and don't attack it everytime someone says something against it or against the current Commander in Cheif. I was in hopes those on the other side could do the same.
JHC
I only take exception to.. ahhh, see above.
68 Pontiac wrote:
NOOLigan wrote:
we respect your experience and opinions. just because we don't always/ever agreee with them does not make us disrespectful. far from it. we take the time and make the effort to reply to your posts. that is a sign of respect. as far as i can tell we have always had quite mature debates here. nobody called anybody names for thinking differently.
NOOLigan,
Hear you, and the topic got a little off track. By reading the past posts, I may have been a little strong on both you and Comrade. His statements were uncommonly insulting, and it also has to do with prior posts in this forum that made me a little touchy (stating thatI am ignorant because 1- I'm in the military, or 2- intel keeps us blind, but I don't realize it).
What I do notice is alot of anti-Iraq and anti-Bush statements. . .anytime someone says something different the forum bandwagons a confrontation; belittling the poster as either ignorant and/or an idiot.
Most of the time these statements I can ignore and let pass, but sometimes. . .well, you get my point.
Respect the both of you.
JHC
yes we may get our information from various sources, and may not have first hand iraqi experience, but we seem to be a very educated bunch here (i have never come across a bunch of people with so many degrees, i'll include myself here, outside a university), so we tend to be very analytical in the way we approach this type of question.
as i said in my profile. i like to question things. just because something is a certain way does not make it right.
unfortunately the whole iraq and iran thing is a big mess now. i didn't for see how it would turn out. even though i felt the war was wrong, i though it would be a quick and decisive campaign. install a new government and get out of there affair. i know i have said this before, but it seems Bush senior knew what he was doing when he did not invade iraq.
i do now feel that it is our unfortunate duty to remain in iraq until that place is a functioning country again.
as for iran. that is the last country that should have nuclear weapons. my further analysis on iran is above.
Comrade,
I have tried writing an indepth answer, twice. . .both occasions forgetting to "copy" and when sent it didn't go through. SO I'm writing a shortened version.
First, and fore most, I asked for BOTH sides to respect each other.
Time and time again, I have stated that I am NOT the world reknowned expert on Iraq. Everyone brings something to thetable. . .mine happens to be experience with the population, and most possibly, information you have never received. I have shared my thoughts, and because I am not against the war in Iraq, I comeunder attack.
Alot assumptions are being made by you, and other posters. For instance, your stating "while in Iraq, you've been exposed to a limited range of information" and "You have seen a very, very narrow range of information in your stay in Iraq-- basically, the information the U.S. Government wants you to see". How the hell do you KNOW what my exposure to information was? It actually was higher there than it is in the US. . .and "big brother" didn't stop my access of information.
You also make assumptions and pigeion-hole military personnel, to an extent it pisses me off.
In the lastpost you made assumptins on my education level; thus my ability to understand my surroundings; my ability to understand policy; my understanding of information I am receiving; and worst of all, that I am too incompetent to realize this.
Just because it's written in the clever passive-aggressive form, doesn't make it less insulting. Or was I not suppose to catch that.
JHC
Sorry, Pontiac... I often judge people by their ability to type in English grammatically, with correct spelling. I find it can be useful to create an accurate picture of the 'poster' although it isn't always the case.
While your experiences are always interesting to us all, and welcome (it builds a different perspective); I hope you can understand why some of us constantly rubbish them.
It's a question of culture and understanding, perhaps.
What is the behavior of the main part of Iraqi people towards American soldiers ?
Do this people behave differently towards soldiers of other countries involved ?
What did you do ? Rather destroying and fighting or helping the population as peacekeepers, blue-helmet like ?
How did you feel ? Proud of your job ? A bit ashamed ? A bit lost in a different country with different standards of living, religion ?
Could you stand this in your country ?
So many questions I could ask...
Burt Reynolds wrote: Sorry, Pontiac... I often judge people by their ability to type in English grammatically, with correct spelling. I find it can be useful to create an accurate picture of the 'poster' although it isn't always the case.
While your experiences are always interesting to us all, and welcome (it builds a different perspective); I hope you can understand why some of us constantly rubbish them.
It's a question of culture and understanding, perhaps.
take it from me. i work in navy training here. the military is very well educated (unless you're just on the bottom of the ranks). they are constantly doing leadership type courses, where all sorts of topics are covered.
Jiphy wrote: What is the behavior of the main part of Iraqi people towards American soldiers ?
Do this people behave differently towards soldiers of other countries involved ?
What did you do ? Rather destroying and fighting or helping the population as peacekeepers, blue-helmet like ?
How did you feel ? Proud of your job ? A bit ashamed ? A bit lost in a different country with different standards of living, religion ?
Could you stand this in your country ?
So many questions I could ask...
Too right, Jiphy. Spot on, in fact.
Pontiac seems more than comfortsble with it all, it seems.
NOOLigan wrote:
Burt Reynolds wrote: Sorry, Pontiac... I often judge people by their ability to type in English grammatically, with correct spelling. I find it can be useful to create an accurate picture of the 'poster' although it isn't always the case.
While your experiences are always interesting to us all, and welcome (it builds a different perspective); I hope you can understand why some of us constantly rubbish them.
It's a question of culture and understanding, perhaps.
take it from me. i work in navy training here. the military is very well educated (unless you're just on the bottom of the ranks). they are constantly doing leadership type courses, where all sorts of topics are covered.
Yup Ron. Top training in Oz, its a respected job. Not necessarily elsewhere though.
Burt Reynolds wrote: Sorry, Pontiac... I often judge people by their ability to type in English grammatically, with correct spelling. I find it can be useful to create an accurate picture of the 'poster' although it isn't always the case.
While your experiences are always interesting to us all, and welcome (it builds a different perspective); I hope you can understand why some of us constantly rubbish them.
It's a question of culture and understanding, perhaps.
Burt, I can understand your thoughts. I try to type fast as I like this place as an outlet, though I don't have the time to devote to corrections. If I read back my posts, they are grammatically and spelled incorrectly many times. I know what's right and wrong inthat dept, it's just that I am being a bit careless in my typing.
All in all, they're posts that will disappear, not novels we're writing, but I completely understand you.
JHC
Jiphy wrote: What is the behavior of the main part of Iraqi people towards American soldiers ?
Iraqi people are confused right now. They have been treated like 3 year olds by the past govt for many years, and most don't graduate Elementary school (depending on the area). They are accustumed to a caste system. Also they are accustomed to living in fear. Then the insurgents move in. There maybe only 50 in the populatin of 2,000. However the insurgents go door to door threatening the death of family members if they tell the US of their whereabouts and/or if they don't receive help (monitary or combative). The population is very poor right now as well, so insurgents will offer someone let's say $50 to plant an IED. That someone doesn't care about the cause, onlythe $50. Now if an American sees him planting it, and shoots him, the family becomes upset (since they don't consider him Muj). . .but usually monetary restitution calms them. So long story, short. . .Most want us there, but are scared to stand up for themselves. Most are tired of the death surrounding them, but most don't understand that they HAVE the power to stop it. They know why we arethere, and most of the population is not a problem. . .however, I would not walk around in the streets bymyself, without a loaded weapon.
Do this people behave differently towards soldiers of other countries involved ?
Not that I have ever noticed, but my knowledge on that is limited. Only was with Tongain Marines and some British.
What did you do ? Rather destroying and fighting or helping the population as peacekeepers, blue-helmet like ?
My talk on this subject can only be limited, so sorry for the vagueness. I did very little combat related work. I was incharge of a base's maintenance, and many other things. I had a 10 man Iraqi working party (of about 30 that rotated in and out), but their trust in me built me a reputation, where most Iraqis that came to the base asked for me, though I had never met them prior. . .so I became involved in alot more. . . stuff.
How did you feel ? Proud of your job ? A bit ashamed ?
Definately proud. Many timesin my life I wonder if I ever make a difference, but when I was there. . .I had no doubt I was.
A bit lost in a different country with different standards of living, religion ?
Yes, but as soon as I knew how to sing and joke with the Iraqis, it kind of became more livable.
Could you stand this in your country ?
Not sure of your meaning? I assume you mean an occupation of an outside country? In the US, no, but that is because our standards of living don't require a need to overthrow the govt.
Hopefully I've answered your questions, thanks for asking.
JHC
68 Pontiac wrote:
Jiphy wrote: What is the behavior of the main part of Iraqi people towards American soldiers ?
Iraqi people are confused right now. They have been treated like 3 year olds by the past govt for many years, and most don't graduate Elementary school (depending on the area). They are accustumed to a caste system. Also they are accustomed to living in fear. Then the insurgents move in. There maybe only 50 in the populatin of 2,000. However the insurgents go door to door threatening the death of family members if they tell the US of their whereabouts and/or if they don't receive help (monitary or combative). The population is very poor right now as well, so insurgents will offer someone let's say $50 to plant an IED. That someone doesn't care about the cause, onlythe $50. Now if an American sees him planting it, and shoots him, the family becomes upset (since they don't consider him Muj). . .but usually monetary restitution calms them. So long story, short. . .Most want us there, but are scared to stand up for themselves. Most are tired of the death surrounding them, but most don't understand that they HAVE the power to stop it. They know why we arethere, and most of the population is not a problem. . .however, I would not walk around in the streets bymyself, without a loaded weapon.
Do this people behave differently towards soldiers of other countries involved ?
Not that I have ever noticed, but my knowledge on that is limited. Only was with Tongain Marines and some British.
What did you do ? Rather destroying and fighting or helping the population as peacekeepers, blue-helmet like ?
My talk on this subject can only be limited, so sorry for the vagueness. I did very little combat related work. I was incharge of a base's maintenance, and many other things. I had a 10 man Iraqi working party (of about 30 that rotated in and out), but their trust in me built me a reputation, where most Iraqis that came to the base asked for me, though I had never met them prior. . .so I became involved in alot more. . . stuff.
How did you feel ? Proud of your job ? A bit ashamed ?
Definately proud. Many timesin my life I wonder if I ever make a difference, but when I was there. . .I had no doubt I was.
A bit lost in a different country with different standards of living, religion ?
Yes, but as soon as I knew how to sing and joke with the Iraqis, it kind of became more livable.
Could you stand this in your country ?
Not sure of your meaning? I assume you mean an occupation of an outside country? In the US, no, but that is because our standards of living don't require a need to overthrow the govt.
Hopefully I've answered your questions, thanks for asking.
JHC
well done. thanks.
68 Pontiac wrote: Comrade,
I have tried writing an indepth answer, twice. . .both occasions forgetting to "copy" and when sent it didn't go through. SO I'm writing a shortened version.
First, and fore most, I asked for BOTH sides to respect each other.
Time and time again, I have stated that I am NOT the world reknowned expert on Iraq. Everyone brings something to thetable. . .mine happens to be experience with the population, and most possibly, information you have never received. I have shared my thoughts, and because I am not against the war in Iraq, I comeunder attack.
I haven't attacked you, and certainly wouldn't attack you for not being against the war. For what it's worth, though, your perspectives on the population are not new information for me.
Alot assumptions are being made by you, and other posters. For instance, your stating "while in Iraq, you've been exposed to a limited range of information" and "You have seen a very, very narrow range of information in your stay in Iraq-- basically, the information the U.S. Government wants you to see". How the hell do you KNOW what my exposure to information was? It actually was higher there than it is in the US. . .and "big brother" didn't stop my access of information.
My previous post was written hastily. I don't think there's some sort of "big brother" attempt to limit your access to information. I do think that as a soldier, you have a certain job to do in Iraq, and that the information that the Government provides to you is intended to facilitate that job. "Information" can mean a lot of things, by the way-- for example, information can mean Arabic language lessons, or it can mean cultural training, or whatever else is necessary to facilitate your job. I also believe that the Government does not provide, nor does it want to provide, a wide range of information that would enable the merits of the war to be debated by the troops. For example, I seriously doubt that the Government distributes dissenting opinions. That doesn't mean that the Government is engaged in an Orwellian conspiracy to control your minds, but it does mean that the range of information the Government provides is narrow and one-sided. The military, after all, isn't a debating society. The Government isn't going to make the facilitation of your job any more facile by distributing analyses that demonstrate the strategic blunders the U.S. has made in invading Iraq, and it might just make it harder for the troops to do their job, so those analyses don't get distributed. Just speculation on my part, of course, but I do believe my speculation is correct. If it's not, I'm sure you'll correct me.
Now, as long as we're on the subject of assumptions, I've been under the distinct impression that you've made some assumptions about my politics, Would it surprise you to know that I was not againss the invasion of Afghanistan? Would it suprise you to know that President Shampanyov wouldn't have sat around waiting half as long as Bush did to go in after bin Laden? Would it surprise you to know that I was not against the invasion of Iraq-- not for it, but not against it-- at least not until I discovered the extent to which the Bush administration had deceived the American public about the war. Yet implicit in your posts is an assumption that I'm against Bush because I'm against the war. Wrong, I was against Bush before he ever set foot in the Oval Office. Also implicit in your posts, and most offensive to me and several other posters here, is the assumption that because we haven't visited Iraq, we don't know much if anything about what's going on there. Here's the latest egregious example:
"The most interesting part is that you can not possibly fathom what is going on there without fully understanding the culture, which can not be done from a computer desk."
Really? How would you know what I and other NOOLers can or cannot possibly fathom? You complain that we're making assumptions about you, and yet right there is an assumption about us that just isn't accurate. As I said before, we're a widely read group here, some of us, and it may be that we fathom Arabic culture more than you give us credit for.
You also make assumptions and pigeion-hole military personnel, to an extent it pisses me off.
I know you explain this below, but I have to respond here as well. If you think I've made assumptions about and pigeon-holed military personnel, please point to specific examples so we can discuss them. I'm flying blind here, because I really don't know (beyond what you've alluded to below) what assumptions and pigeon-holing I'm supposed to have engaged in.
In the lastpost you made assumptins on my education level; thus my ability to understand my surroundings; my ability to understand policy; my understanding of information I am receiving; and worst of all, that I am too incompetent to realize this.
I think you're reading that into my posts, based on your assumptions about me and my politics. I haven't said or implied anything about any of the above. What I have said is that we're a widely read group, and you can't just discount our knowledge base on the grounds that we haven't been there. That's a statement about our level of education, not a statement about your level of education.
Just because it's written in the clever passive-aggressive form, doesn't make it less insulting. Or was I not suppose to catch that.
JHC
I think you're catching something that isn't there. I'll be the first to say that you've been insulted here, but it wasn't by me, and I didn't even secretly approve. If you think I've been insulting, I would ask that you point to specific examples, instead of just mmaking the accusation, because I haven't intended to send any insults your way. As I said before, if you think that I've insulted you, I apologize, because it wasn't intended.
Comrade,
Went back to the start and went through the posts. A couple things to note:
Realized the "pigeon-holing" I was refering to was not you, but Burt. My apologies for accusing you.
My statement: "The most interesting part is that you can not possibly fathom what is going on there without fully understanding the culture, which can not be done from a computer desk."
has been taken the wrong way, and maybe I could have written it better. The best way I candescribe it is with an example:
Someone can read and study extensively on Love, the medical, cultural, and personal reasons that cause it. They can studyso much that they could be duty experts on it; yet there's something missing in their research, if they have never experienced love themselves.
That is not lessening anyones credentials in adding to the discusion; it does not put me at the top of the food chain when it comes to discussions. . .it's a statement that should have said: everything can't be experienced by books.
The government knowledge given to us was enough for us to survive, and complete our mission, true. . .but you're also not accounting for the readings we do ourselves; I also had daily internet access while out there; We are based with many nationalities, many being civilian workers, and Marines themselves, all having their own opinions/discussions onthe matter; and we also had access to Iraqi cable TV, so I had the ability to watch US and European CNN and with help from my translator, I was able to watch Iraqi, Kuwaiti, and Mujadeen news. . .not to mention radio news.
I read your prior posts again and don't think I was reading too deep into them, but if insulting wasnot your intention, then I will let it go.
Never put any assumptions into your stance on politics or policy, only what you have stated. I do my best to assume nothing.
Hope this clears things up.
JHC
68 Pontiac wrote:
- My statement: "The most interesting part is that you can not possibly fathom what is going on there without fully understanding the culture, which can not be done from a computer desk."
has been taken the wrong way, and maybe I could have written it better. The best way I candescribe it is with an example:
Someone can read and study extensively on Love, the medical, cultural, and personal reasons that cause it. They can studyso much that they could be duty experts on it; yet there's something missing in their research, if they have never experienced love themselves.
That is not lessening anyones credentials in adding to the discusion; it does not put me at the top of the food chain when it comes to discussions. . .it's a statement that should have said: everything can't be experienced by books.
but realize this. as this is such an international forum there are several people on this site who have spent time in, or lived in, the middle east, and others who haved lived through war--be it 'official' or guerrilla--and terrorism. not everyone's experiences have been garnered by reading books.
AgentWood wrote: but realize this. as this is such an international forum there are several people on this site who have spent time in, or lived in, the middle east, and others who haved lived through war--be it 'official' or guerrilla--and terrorism. not everyone's experiences have been garnered by reading books.
Completely understand, and never assumed otherwise. On the same note, I don't know anyones expereinces unless they mention it.
JHC
68 Pontiac wrote: Comrade,
Went back to the start and went through the posts. A couple things to note:
- Realized the "pigeon-holing" I was refering to was not you, but Burt. My apologies for accusing you.
No problem, just misunderstanding on both our parts. See my post after this post.
- My statement: "The most interesting part is that you can not possibly fathom what is going on there without fully understanding the culture, which can not be done from a computer desk."
has been taken the wrong way, and maybe I could have written it better. The best way I candescribe it is with an example:
Someone can read and study extensively on Love, the medical, cultural, and personal reasons that cause it. They can studyso much that they could be duty experts on it; yet there's something missing in their research, if they have never experienced love themselves.
That is not lessening anyones credentials in adding to the discusion; it does not put me at the top of the food chain when it comes to discussions. . .it's a statement that should have said: everything can't be experienced by books.
Totally agree with you on this point.
- The government knowledge given to us was enough for us to survive, and complete our mission, true. . .but you're also not accounting for the readings we do ourselves; I also had daily internet access while out there; We are based with many nationalities, many being civilian workers, and Marines themselves, all having their own opinions/discussions onthe matter; and we also had access to Iraqi cable TV, so I had the ability to watch US and European CNN and with help from my translator, I was able to watch Iraqi, Kuwaiti, and Mujadeen news. . .not to mention radio news.
I'm only saying the Government provides a limited range of information. Of course it's possible that somebody can make an effort to learn more.
- I read your prior posts again and don't think I was reading too deep into them, but if insulting wasnot your intention, then I will let it go.
Guaranteed that I'm not trying to insult you, but see my next post.
- Never put any assumptions into your stance on politics or policy, only what you have stated. I do my best to assume nothing.
Hope this clears things up.
JHC
See my next post...
68, I thought about all this after my weekend post. Unfortunately, I didn’t have regular computer access, because I was traveling, so I’m just now able to address what I think the crux of all this has been about.
I went back over the posts, and I think two exchanges stand out as leading to some misunderstanding, so I’d like to discuss them. First, we had this exchange:
Comrade Shampanyov, Last of the Red Hot Gentlemen wrote:
68 Pontiac wrote: If we had a harsher system, terrorists might think twice.
JHC
You don't really understand your enemy, do you? Not surprising, though, considering the Bush administration is pissing its military away in Iraq while al-Qaeda skates away.
Now, I realize that my comment probably seems insulting, but it wasn’t intended as an insult. It was just a statement of fact—an observation—that wasn’t meant as a comment on you. Let me explain. You said “If we had a harsher system, terrorists might think twice.” I really have to disagree with that statement, because I think it’s pretty clear that the mujahedeen don’t really care about the repercussions to themselves. For example, Moussaoui is trying to receive a death sentence. Our actions in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo haven’t stemmed the flow of terror volunteers; if anything, they’ve increased the ranks of the terrorists. Decades of harsh Israeli policy have only increased the number of volunteers for martyrdom. The 9/11 terrorists and the suicide bombers clearly demonstrate that martyrdom is welcomed. Terrorists are motivated by thoughts of martyrdom, not by thoughts of avoiding martyrdom. OK, now, based on these observations, your statement seems to me to be an indication that you don’t understand the motivations of the terrorists. And, because you’re a soldier, the terrorists are your “enemy.” Therefore, my statement “You don’t really understand your enemy, do you”? I realize after looking at it that it can come off as insulting, so I wanted to explain that it wasn’t meant to be insulting, just meant as an observation about your analysis of the situation.
Now, the second sentence in my response, “ Not surprising, though, considering the Bush administration is pissing its military away in Iraq while al-Qaeda skates away.” isn’t a statement about you, or anybody else in the military. It’s a statement about Bush. What I meant by this is: We were attacked by al Qaeda, and instead of chasing bin Laden down, Bush got us bogged down in Iraq—a nation that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Now, if our Commander in Chief doesn’t understand our enemy (actually, I think he does understand, but doesn’t give a damn about 9/11—it’s just a convenient excuse on which to hang his real objectives), and gets our military bogged down in a nation entirely unrelated to 9/11, it’s not surprising if the average soldier makes statements that indicate a failure to understand the enemy.
If that seems insulting, I apologize for making it seem insulting, because I only mean it as an observation about your statement, not as an attack on you or the military.
OK, now the second statement I made:
Comrade Shampanyov, Last of the Red Hot Gentlemen wrote:
68 Pontiac wrote: Interesting how people that are against the involvement in Iraq talk so high-brow and "in-the-know". I think we've traveled down this road once before. Was that not enough?
JHC
Nope.
Do you think it's possible that people who read *might* be be exposed to a broad perspective of what's going on there, and thus be able to form opinions on the basis of what they know? Do you think it might be possible that people who have been to the middle east *might* have been exposed to a limited perspective of what's going on there?
First, my comment “Nope” refers to two things: It’s not enough to discuss these issues once. We’re free to discuss them as often as we wish. Nothing was “settled” the last time we had this discussion (and to be realistic, this thread is about Moussaoui’s trial, not about Iraq). Second, my comment “Nope” rejects the implication that your first-hand experience in Iraq somehow makes your understanding of what is happening there superior to our understanding of what is happening there.
Not an insult directed at you, just a rejection of your thesis statement.
Now, the second part of my response was this statement: “Do you think it's possible that people who read *might* be be exposed to a broad perspective of what's going on there, and thus be able to form opinions on the basis of what they know? Do you think it might be possible that people who have been to the middle east *might* have been exposed to a limited perspective of what's going on there?”
That statement was not intended to imply anything about you. It was a statement about the relative merits of reading widely and having a limited first-hand experience (I’m aware that I’m assuming the first-hand experience is limited for the sake of this explanation). In other words, one can’t privilege first-hand experience over reading without knowing all of the facts. That’s what I mean by the second part of my comment—to consider the possibility that we might know more than you’re allowing, and to consider the possibility that first-hand experience, while certainly valuable, isn’t necessarily enough if the first-hand experience is by its nature of a limited range.
Again, comments not intended to be insulting to you.
Hopefully that clears things up…
Comrade,
Cleared up, but only one bone to pick.
On the my comment of "terrorists might think twice", was done with half-sincerity. Like Ihad mentioned before the post on my hopes for Moussaoui's punishment was a half joke (half because I really wish Icould perform it). Second I would argue that I do understand them. . .
He desires marytrdom, and death as it would send him to the land of many virgins. If we put him in prison for life, he writes letters and novels to spur on those outside prison walls. However if he is dunked in pigs blood, he would be considered "dirty" and would not be allowed to progess to the land of virgins. He would be horrified, more than any physical torture could do. Could it spark off a bunch of others to attack, maybe. However, I gaurantee they wouldn't want to be caught, and might cause a second thought to what they are doing.
But remember, it is a half-hearted comment. I don't stand 100% behind, it was said more in fun, and I don't think that was understood.
JHC
68 Pontiac wrote: Comrade,
Cleared up, but only one bone to pick.
On the my comment of "terrorists might think twice", was done with half-sincerity. Like Ihad mentioned before the post on my hopes for Moussaoui's punishment was a half joke (half because I really wish Icould perform it). Second I would argue that I do understand them. . .
He desires marytrdom, and death as it would send him to the land of many virgins. If we put him in prison for life, he writes letters and novels to spur on those outside prison walls. However if he is dunked in pigs blood, he would be considered "dirty" and would not be allowed to progess to the land of virgins. He would be horrified, more than any physical torture could do. Could it spark off a bunch of others to attack, maybe. However, I gaurantee they wouldn't want to be caught, and might cause a second thought to what they are doing.
But remember, it is a half-hearted comment. I don't stand 100% behind, it was said more in fun, and I don't think that was understood.
JHC
OK, just a misunderstanding-- I thought you meant harsh as in let's fry 'em.
There's an old movie, I can't remember the title of it, but it's about the American occupation of the Philippines, told from a pro-American perspective, of course, and the Moro rebels (muslims) are resisiting the occupation, so the protagonist, an American soldier, threatens to suit up a captured rebel in a pigskin before burying him, which produces the desired effect of loosening his tongue. Can't remember the name of the movie, but it sounds like it's been thought of more than once. 
Comrade Shampanyov, Last of the Red Hot Gentlemen wrote:
68 Pontiac wrote: Comrade,
Cleared up, but only one bone to pick.
On the my comment of "terrorists might think twice", was done with half-sincerity. Like Ihad mentioned before the post on my hopes for Moussaoui's punishment was a half joke (half because I really wish Icould perform it). Second I would argue that I do understand them. . .
He desires marytrdom, and death as it would send him to the land of many virgins. If we put him in prison for life, he writes letters and novels to spur on those outside prison walls. However if he is dunked in pigs blood, he would be considered "dirty" and would not be allowed to progess to the land of virgins. He would be horrified, more than any physical torture could do. Could it spark off a bunch of others to attack, maybe. However, I gaurantee they wouldn't want to be caught, and might cause a second thought to what they are doing.
But remember, it is a half-hearted comment. I don't stand 100% behind, it was said more in fun, and I don't think that was understood.
JHC
OK, just a misunderstanding-- I thought you meant harsh as in let's fry 'em.
There's an old movie, I can't remember the title of it, but it's about the American occupation of the Philippines, told from a pro-American perspective, of course, and the Moro rebels (muslims) are resisiting the occupation, so the protagonist, an American soldier, threatens to suit up a captured rebel in a pigskin before burying him, which produces the desired effect of loosening his tongue. Can't remember the name of the movie, but it sounds like it's been thought of more than once.
So someone beat me to it??? Would like to get to see that movie if you remember the name. Have a fetish for militay movies (I know, big suprise).
JHC
