Saturday, March 29, 2008

Respect for the Enemy

Grandpa grinned as one of his friends told him that he was peeved when people say that he was not a patriotic citizen for not supporting the war in Iraq. Grandpa just looked him in the eyes, his fists firmly planted on his hips and sarcastically retorted,

"I also get a bit peeved when I hear someone say they support the troops but not the war. If they truly understood this they would also say that they support the President but not the war. It is the same principle. The fact that he is the Supreme leader is irrelevant.

And to add to that if they do not support the President in regards to this war then they would also need to say that they do not support any of the members of Congress. The reason being is that it was Congress that authorized the President to conduct the war effort in Iraq in the first place.

If Congress wants to declare that they are against the war than they should never have given authorization in the first place. As for dissent, the time for it was at the time Congress voted, not now. And there was dissent at the time, just not enough. That is the democratic process at work. In a government that uses the democratic process the majority speaks for all, not just the members of the majority.

And the fact that the minority became the majority three years later does not change anything other than the probability that war would not be declared if the vote was taken today instead of the time it was taken. And that vote would be based on hindsight not foresight. And no decision is ever made with the intent of reversing past decisions.

And for those who claim it was a war of choice by the President they must remember it was also a war of choice by the Congress. It is always the Congress that has the choice of whether or not to authorize a war. In fact, every war authorized by Congress is a war of their choosing. The President can never force Congress to declare war. If he could we could not call him the President in accordance to the Constitution. He would be called a dictator.

Remember this, if Congress does not authorize the war, the President cannot lead the troops into war. If the President does not lead the troops into war, there is no war. If the troops refuse to go into battle, war does not exist. But, once war has been declared and troops sent to fight those battles we must have leaders with the backbone necessary to carry out the mission to its end.

Given these facts it then can be said that those who do not support the President in his effort to win this war also do not support our government. Every war is a war of choice by any government. No one can force any government to wage war. So, when Congress declares they do not support the war that they have authorized they are actually saying that they do not support their own decision. For Congress is just as responsible if not more so than the President when it come to the issue of war.

As for popularity of the war we must remember one thing. The war with Iraq was very popular with the people. The President enjoyed some of his highest ratings at that time. The polls indicate the popularity fell only after we were in Iraq and fighting the insurgency. And it has dropped to about 30% and has remained there. This has never bothered me and I say that for one reason. Wars in my opinion, should never be a popular part of the duties of government.

People like to use the mistakes made as the reason for the unpopularity of this war. And there is the problem. Mistakes were not made. The enemy took advantage of and exploited the weaknesses they found. And there is no such thing as a perfect plan that would not allow for weaknesses. To declare that mistakes were made is to declare that the enemy does not have the intelligence necessary to see those weaknesses. That is the nature of war itself. That is the foundational basis of any strategy.

And I prefer to see them as being intelligent persons even though I see them as the enemy. That is called respect. And anyone who goes to war without respect for the enemy is a fool. And anyone who looks at the results and judges without taking into consideration of the intelligence of the enemy is even a bigger fool.

And one more thing, my friend. The fact that I say I respect the enemy's intelligence says nothing about my contempt for the tactics that they have used to try to win this war."

I just walked away from the men so that grandpa’s friend could not hear me chuckle at grandpa’s retort.

47 comments:

Gayle said...

" And anyone who looks at the results and judges without taking into consideration the intelligence of the enemy is even a bigger fool." Which goes right along with the old adage "never underestimate the enemy."

America has a tendency to do that. It comes of arrogance. If we hadn't understimated the enemy we wouldn't still be there because Iraq would have been handled entirely differently - if we had even gone in at all.

Average American said...

"I support the troops. I do not support the war." I have a MAJOR PROBLEM when I hear these words. As far as I'm concerned, that is just hogwash! Just a pc way for the anti-war bunch to "feel good" about themselves. I hope our men and women in uniform don't see it the same way I do.

The Griper said...

gayle,
it really doesn't matter what we speculate about what we would have done under different attitudes. we can't go back and find out. we just need to deal with today and the tomorrows.

joe,
calling them anti-war is playing into their hands also. that is what they call themselves to make themselves feel better too. they are anti-victory.

Gayle said...

I agree with that, Griper, and have argued that point with liberals too many times to count!

dcat said...

You know just the topic of this post got my blood to boil.

Thanks Griper! ;)

With no respect to thugs!

Not from me at any rate! They are so smart they are stupid! That is what my gradma would say to folks just full of themselves. ;)

GO TROOPS! KICK ASS! YEAH!

We are on to them Griper!

repsac3 said...

I’m sorry Griper, but I must disagree with the majority of this post. As US citizens, we never give up our right to dissent & otherwise disagree with one, some, or all of our elected (or unelected) officials. They work for us, not the other way around. The time to raise your voice in approval or dissent is when you feel the need, and not a minute sooner or later. As facts are discovered and circumstances change, both our government and we citizens have an obligation to reevaluate and change course, if necessary. “The Surge,”—which I’m relatively certain you supported—is an example of that. Any withdrawal, whether partial or complete, would be another. I am no more required to support maintaining troops in Iraq than you will be when the order comes to withdraw them. If you believe the order is wrong, I expect you to vehemently say so…

Should Congress or the next President choose to withdraw from Iraq, that decision would be just as much a part of the democratic process as the vote to support the possibility of going in. (In fact, there was no vote to actually go, just to authorize the possibility of going.)

And no decision is ever made with the intent of reversing past decisions.

Many are, Griper, from Brown v Board of Ed to Roe v Wade… And should either of those decisions ever be overturned, those future decisions will reverse these “past” ones, as well…

War of Choice

First off, the claim that this is a war of choice has little to do with authorizations and the like. Those who make the claim are saying it was one of the first times America has ever struck the first blow and started military hostilities with another nation. We were not responding to Iraqi hostility (unless you believe verbal belligerence and high stakes “name-calling” amount to acts of aggression). While there was speculation about what Saddam might do, maybe, eventually, if we didn’t remove him from power, he had not done anything different from many other two-bit dictators that were, are, and will likely continue to be in power throughout the world.

When the US or one of our allies is attacked, we have no choice but to defend our friends or ourselves. For one of the first times in our history, we took up arms offensively, not to defend others or ourselves from an actual threat, but to prevent a threat that may or may not ever’ve materialized. This time, it was offensive. This time, we had a choice.

Second, I know of few if any who’re claiming that those in Congress who voted in favor of the authorization are not similarly responsible for this war of choice, though I hope you’ll agree there is a difference between those who allow an act before the fact or condone it while it’s taking place, and those who actually cause an act to occur. Like I said, as events change, we must be flexible enough to change with them. Just as the surge was a change in response to world events—almost as much of which, I would argue, took place here in the US, as there in Iraq—any amount of troop withdrawal is just as possible, should world events call for them. The idea that the US must be locked into any decision for all time, no matter what happens, just isn’t practical. (Which isn’t to say that you may not be correct that we should stay. I disagree, but my point here isn’t to say so.) Any argument that starts by saying America is powerless to ever change course once our elected or unelected leaders make a decision is fraught with danger for US citizen & world citizen alike.


War, in my opinion, should never be a popular part of the duties of government.


The question isn’t “Is the war popular?”. I’m certain that even the President would sound very much like your average Code Pink member in saying that he doesn’t like this or any other war. If you are citing polls asking whether folks like war, I’m surprised the number is even as high as 30%. Even 5% would kinda make me think twice about morals of the country we’re living in, and have me paying much closer attention to those around me when I’m out at night.

The real questions (& the ones more likely to be asked in polls, including the ones you cite) are,
Is the war just?
Is the war necessary?


People like to use the mistakes made as the reason for the unpopularity of this war. And there is the problem. Mistakes were not made. The enemy took advantage of and exploited the weaknesses they found. And there is no such thing as a perfect plan that would not allow for weaknesses. To declare that mistakes were made is to declare that the enemy does not have the intelligence necessary to see those weaknesses. That is the nature of war itself. That is the foundational basis of any strategy.

Again, Griper, I’m sorry to have to disagree, but to say what you’re saying is to say no one in government should be held to account for the decisions they make.

For instance; at the outset of the war, there were competing theories about troop strength. Rumsfeld (among others) were proponents of a light, fast force. These people didn’t think we’d need many troops to achieve the mission in Iraq. Others, most notably Chief of the Army General Eric Shinseki , believed several hundred thousand men would be needed to stabilize postwar Iraq. Only one of these ideas could be correct. Those empowered to make the decision went with Rumsfeld… and we all know how that turned out… (In fact, going back to an earlier point, “the surge” is another example of our making a decision with the intent of reversing an earlier one.) Now, whether you wish to call Rumsfeld’s decision a mistake or not is up to you—I most certainly do, but YMMV--but it’s clear to me that by not bringing more troops in at the outset, we perpetuated the war and lost American & Iraqi lives unnecessarily, by handing the enemy a weakness to exploit.

For the record, I see no link between whether or not Americans on & off the battlefield are capable of making mistakes, and the intelligence of an enemy force. An intelligent enemy force will exploit whatever weaknesses they see, regardless of what we do; but the fewer mistakes we make, the fewer they’ll be able to find and exploit. My point here is, their level of intelligence remains the same, regardless of how many or few mistakes we make.

I do agree, however, that one must always respect one's enemy. Recognizing--or even admiring--their strengths is in no way the same as agreeing with their cause or their tactics.

The Griper said...

repsac,
very nice try. i see you put a lot of thought into your rebuttal.

"They work for us, not the other way around."

oh yeah, that is news to me.

if you believe that i hope you own a business because i want to go to work for you under the same rules.
1. i will have the right to determine what i will be paid not you.
2 i will the right to determine what benefits i get, not you.
3 i will have the right to determine when i get paid, not you.
4.i will have the right to tell you what i will do once you hire me, not you.
5 i will have the right to work as long as my contract says, you have no say in it. and you cannot fire me. and i'll take the same rules of tenure as a US Supreme Court judge, that means a life time tenure.
6 i will have the right to a staff of people to do my bidding for me and you will pay them what i say.
7 i will have the right to determine when i will take off work and go home.
8. i will have the right to make decisions important to you and i do not need to ask you first.
9 i will have the right to keep secrets from you in regards to the performing of my job.
10. i will have the right to tell you whether or not your behavior is acceptable or not.

and you can dissent all you want but there is nothing that you can do about it.so, what value does your dissent have?

now, is this a person who is working for you? because that is what kind of person you are hiring when entering that voting booth.

i know that if i am hiring a person to work for me, he'd better think twice before thinking he has those rights.

repsac3 said...

Who works for who around here?

It's far from a perfect working relationship, to be sure...

But it doesn't change the fact that we hire & fire them via our votes, and if they wish to renew their contracts for another term, they need to make enough of us happy enough with their job performance to vote them back in for another term.

That it is a unique arrangement is obvious, but unpersuasive. Consider the food & housing costs for which you as employer would be responsible if all employer/employee relationships were structured like the military (another unique arrangement).

For good or ill, it's the way we, the people, set it up, and it is we, the people, who've allowed our elected "employees" to get away with as much as they have, from that day to this.

dissent

Alone, my dissent does little. but when enough of my fellow citizens join me, it changes America's course. (I would argue that even the surge was a response to those citizens demanding results. Had we all just kept quiet and accepted the results we were (or "weren't") getting, the surge might never've happened.)

The Griper said...

repsac,
"Had we all just kept quiet and accepted the results we were (or "weren't") getting, the surge might never've happened.)"

that is conjecture not fact and not a very good one either. if you want me to accept that argument, you need to prove it but that is impossible. it isn't even a plausable one.

we elect rulers to rule over us. and rulers are always the dominant party. we are the ruled. we are the subordinant party. and they are allowed to rule for a certain period of time not because we allow them to but because the Constitution does.

and we are subordinant to the Constitution. the oath of office our leaders take indicate that. they take an oath to abide by the Constitution and what it says. they do not take an oath to abide by what we say.

we do not elect employees. use the word that describe the role in its entirety and employee cannot be used in accordance to its meaning entirely. my first response showed that. to use that term is to take it out of context of its meaning and definition.

it is not an employer/employee relationship. it is a ruler/ruled relationship. you pay an employee a wage or a salary. you pay taxes to a ruler.

Goat said...

Well said Griper as always and repsac is a typical seminar commenter with the usual lefty talking points from Moveon etal, great rebuttal to its inane assine commentary, hats off to you.

Fallen' Angel said...

Well, Griper, you may live in California and consider yourself a Michigander, but I hear a lot of Texan in this post. (That's a high complement coming from this gal.) And I believe you have inherited more than a bit of your Grandpappy's wisdom.
As the daughter of two soldiers, The niece of 7, the cousin of two members of different Spec Op groups/teams and the girlfriend of a 1SG with 24 years of service as AIRBORNE Infantry who volunteered to change divisions to return to Iraq in November despite having completed his last tour in July it sets my blood boiling as well when I hear the "I support the troops but not the war" line. You are with them 100% or you are useless to those who defend your right to be that way. Of course no one likes war. I don't like anthrax vaccines either but it sure does beat the alternative.
I have been a Firefighter for 12 years and all you folks with flags on your cars and stickers were all for this war after 9/11. Where the heck are you now? Did you think this was some video game we were about to engage in?
If you're not going to support the war, than at least find the testicular fortitude to say that you don't support those who engage in it either, because you don't. Ask anyone in ACU's if *they* buy into that and see what answer you get.
Now I'M getting too wound up so I will close by putting this very simply for you folks who can't get off the fence because you fear you might offend someone. It's very old wisdom and it still holds true today:
"One can not serve two masters."
Angel Out

The Griper said...

hello angel,
welcome to my humble abode on the web. you probably hear a lot of texan in what i say because i spent a few years down that way, houston to be exact. along with that fact, my sympathies lie in the south rather than the north. i think goat can verify that. i call myself a michigander only because my loyalties lie there.

anyways, i hope you enjoy my home so as to want to come back again. will say again i enjoyed visiting your home.

The Griper said...

goat,

repsac is not a bad guy. at least he tries to put up a good argument. it may not succeed but i'll still give him higher grades then most that try to debate with me. and he has taught me a couple of things too.

repsac3 said...

that is conjecture not fact and not a very good one either. if you want me to accept that argument, you need to prove it but that is impossible. it isn't even a plausable one.

I cannot prove my conjecture to be sure, but I still think it quite plausable. We can discuss that aspect further if you like, but I'll leave that up to you.

we elect rulers to rule over us. and rulers are always the dominant party. we are the ruled. we are the subordinant party. and they are allowed to rule for a certain period of time not because we allow them to but because the Constitution does.

I most strenuously argue that the Constitution put the citizens in charge of this country, and that we do not elect rulers, but representatives. It is only for those things that the people cannot accomplish alone that we have State power, and it is only for those things that the State cannot accomplish alone that we have federal power.

and we are subordinant to the Constitution. the oath of office our leaders take indicate that. they take an oath to abide by the Constitution and what it says. they do not take an oath to abide by what we say.

The very first words of the document are

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

(I'm sure you know that but, while some here may feel otherwise, this liberal is a big fan of the document, and enjoys citing it.)

We citizens are subordinate to the Constitution, but only because we wrote it that way. We created the role of President and of Congress. They exist by our hand. (and I would argue that the Declaration speaks to our power to desolve those positions, or our whole system of government, should government power ever try to usurp our individual power.)

repsac is not a bad guy. at least he tries to put up a good argument. it may not succeed but i'll still give him higher grades then most that try to debate with me. and he has taught me a couple of things too.

That sir, is why I respect you as a person and as a fellow American, no matter how much we may disagree. One need not be disagreeable, no matter how much one disagrees.

My hat's off to you.

repsac3 said...

Just to clarify...

In saying that "we do not elect rulers, but representatives," I am not saying that the people we elect should bend to our will, but that we elect those who come as close as possible to thinking & acting as we would, were we there ourselves.

If Senator X or Representative Y (or indeed, President Q) are not doing as those they represent wish them to, we can & should replace them with representatives who will, in the next elections. I don't expect X, Y, or Q to change their stripes or do the people's bidding (not even in cases where it is the will of the people that has changed since they were elected) while they remain in office, however.

None of us have any need of representatives who bend like a reed in the wind...

The Griper said...

repsac,

people form any type of government regardless of form. any type of government is made up of people. and all forms of governments rule over those that be the citizens of that state. that is the meaning of the word govern. every state that is self-ruled is made up of two classes of people, those that rule and those that are ruled. without that division is anarchy. and anarchy is nothing but self-rule of the individual.

and the word people is a collective word not a particular word, meaning that it can be used to define a population as a singular unit or the total of that population in terms of the individual units. that is the nature of collective words. when depicting the people as a singular unit we have usually used a word to substitute for them depending upon its role and intent of existence. nation, state, city, are words used in place of the word people when seen as a singular unit. and each are made up of individuals of which are a member of all three, though different individuals will make up the singular unit of state and city. it is just a way to distinguish one group of people from another group of people.

so, when we use the word people we have to be very careful in understanding the meaning of it within the context of its use.

and in your quotation the word people is to be understood as being singular units. the word "states" could have been used instead to make it much clearer. it was the states(people as a singular entity) that united to create a union of a nation (people as a singular entity but of a larger number of individual entities). and each are made up of people. (individual entities)

"and I would argue that the Declaration speaks to our power to desolve those positions, or our whole system of government, should government power ever try to usurp our individual power.)"

this has already occured and proves my point not yours. it was when the southern states seceeded from the union of states. and the war was only the means by which the southern states attempted to remain free from the union they seceeded from. and it is here that can be seen as a perfect example of the meaning behind the need of the second amendment as written.

and from the point of individuals, that has occured too. in the viet nam war when individuals left this country instead of obediently entering the armed services as demanded by our government.

so, we already have examples of how we can use that power as the people, both in terms of an individual and as a group.

so, yes, people do everything when it comes to government and rule of the people. and that is because we are talking strictly of people.

it is only a matter of how people becomes rulers, whether it be voluntary rule or forced rule. and the form of government only determines how much power each individual has starting with a dictator or monarch having absolute rule over the people.

another aspect of government is from whom is that authority to rule derived. at the time prior to the Constitution people was under the belief that the authority of certain individuals to rule came from God directly.

Our Constitution changed that thinking. it declares that the authority to rule comes directly from the people ruled and, in a sense, from God indirectly.

it was the recognition of the free will of people in being under the rule of government. it destroyed the concept that certain people were predestined to rule over the people.

it did not transfer power. it only changed the thinking by which a person obtained the power. our rulers obtain their power to rule by being elected by the people per the Constitution.

Karen said...

Amen, Griper. It makes no sense to say you support the troops but not their mission.

Gayle said...

LOL Griper! I see why you signed off the comment thread on my "Corporate Traitors" post - you are very busy right here in River City. ;)

I just came back in to tell you that Lista came back into that thread and put a lot of effort into what I would call an essay. LOL! She also said that you "make her think," and she wishes you could hear her say that. Well, I thought I'd let you know because that's a high compliment and you deserve it. :)

The Griper said...

repsac,

your argument would be more credible if we elected representatives which only represents the individuals of this nation. where it begins to lose credidibility is the fact we have individuals who represent the states of this nation also. that is called the senate. and as founded, the people of the states had no say in the representative chosen for this body of government. and it was formed for one reason, to check the power of the people.

one more thing you might remember, it was the 13 colonies that revolted from the english rule. and in declaring their independence they were no longer defined as colonies but as states. and with that declaration people(individuals) changed their alliegence from the crown to their state. the people had no greater power after the war than they had before the war. the only change of power was in the power obtained by the governments of each state. the governments of each state were no longer subordinate to the government of England (the king).

repsac3 said...

Your first comment is going to take a bit of research, but this one, I think I got...

...represent the states of this nation also. that is called the senate. and as founded, the people of the states had no say in the representative chosen for this body of government. and it was formed for one reason, to check the power of the people.

That was once true. But we ammended the Constitution to change that (#17), and now Senators are representatives the people, as well. I trust you're not suggesting we repeal the 17th ammendment, or that the founders had it right in not allowing for direct election of the Senate.

...and in declaring their independence they were no longer defined as colonies but as states. and with that declaration people (individuals) changed their alliegence from the crown to their state. the people had no greater power after the war than they had before the war. the only change of power was in the power obtained by the governments of each state. the governments of each state were no longer subordinate to the government of England (the king).

Well, perhaps this'll require some research as well, because I don't believe that the people of the fledgling US believe they owed allegience to their state... At least, nothing akin to the allegience to the Crown of England that they had just renounced.

The people did have more power, post Declaration; Whereas before, they were subject to the laws of the crown, which they had no part in creating, enforcing, or adjudicating, afterward they determined their own destiny... American law, American government, American courts; these were all created by the American people for the American people. Very little was determined from on high, without the imput of the governed.

That, Griper, is my point.

Just to be on the safe side, I will try to research your contention that state power was there before the declaration, and continued just the same (other than the loyalty to the crown) afterward. But my recollection is that loyalists who held state (colony) power prior to the declaration (&/or war) lost power pretty swiftly afterward, & were replaced by people elected or affirmed by the citizens of that colony (or state).

Either way, I'll see what I can find...

BB-Idaho said...

"Wars in my opinion, should never be a popular part of the duties of government." Found a guy that agrees:
"The commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions - or bury the results."
-Lt. General Gregory Newbold USMC
..when he resigned in protest. Wonder if he supports the troops, but not the war?

The Griper said...

repsac,
if i didn't feel you were sincere in your arguments i'd be sitting here laughing at your assertions.

"That was once true. But we ammended the Constitution to change that (#17), and now Senators are representatives the people, as well. I trust you're not suggesting we repeal the 17th ammendment, or that the founders had it right in not allowing for direct election of the Senate."

this just proves my own point. you have just declared the body of the Senate as irrelevant for it no longer serves the purpose of its intent, to be the representatives of the states

we have two bodies of government serving the same purpose, representing the people. the senate can no longer act as a check on the people.

we now have a situation where the the minority of states can dominate the majority of states. and how is that democratic?

and yes, if i was given the power of a dictator for a day that would be the first issue i would address. reason: because i believe that every state should have equal representation and that no state should be in a dominant position over another. they each had to give up certain rights that was common among them so they should be treated accordingly, as equal partners in the running of this central government.

The Griper said...

bb,
i wouldn't read too much into that statement. too many ways to interpret it by itself alone. assumptions could be made to support any number of conclusions there.

Goat said...

I love to see moonbats taken apart and you do a masterful job Griper, a thing of Constitutional beauty. I would add that we do not elect our rulers we elect our rule makers and that we do have the power to change those rules as the Con. outlines very clearly, it just ain't easy so as to prevent the rule of the unlearned mob as represented by repsac. I had some go arounds with him a couple years back on taxation and socialist medical care if I remember correctly, he lost then too.

The Griper said...

goat,
" I would add that we do not elect our rulers we elect our rule makers and that we do have the power to change those rules as the Con. outlines very clearly,..."

not in the sense of the people as individuals we don't. only the people in terms of the states do.

the government rules over the citizens. any and every government does. and our government is made up of the "people" that have been installed into their offices by use of the democratic process. and the beauty of it, each body uses a different way of installing them. that is 435 representatives, 100 senators, 9 supreme court justices and i president. that constitutes our government.

Congress is installed by the people directly now.

the President is installed by people of the electoral college

and the judges are installed by the senate alone.

before the 17th amandment congress was installed by separate bodies of people, one by the people directly and the other by the governments of the states.

this acted as a check of power on electors. no single body of electors had the means to become too powerful.

the amendment upset this balance. and as repsac has so cleverly revealed, it left the states without any representation in the central government.

but to get back to the issue, yes, we elect rulers. it is just that each of the rulers possess a porportionatly less amount of power to rule; first, by separation of bodies, second by authority then by number of persons. as a singular unit, a body of people, they rule this nation.

governments rule by enacting laws for the citizens to abide by. government rules by the enforcement of those laws enacted. and government determines the legality of those laws. what more does a government need to do to declare it rules over the people?

and one more thing of the 17th amendment, it was a very big step and succeess for those who advocate for a socialistic society.

repsac3 said...

Yes Griper, in this we disagree... I don't believe states are equal to people. I don't believe states (rather than the people in them) deserve representation.

(Not to change the subject, but I have the same problem with Corporate personhood.)

Humanizing artificially created entities (states, corporations) under law is wrong, in my opinion. In one case, we have changed that law. In the other, I hope we will.

Goat, we've never spoken. And given your smug superiority, it's doubtful we ever shall. (If you really admire Griper, you ought to pay at least as much attention to the way he treats his fellow man as you do his mastery of the subject matter. You might really learn something there, too.)

The Griper said...

repsac,
"I don't believe states (rather than the people in them) deserve representation."

well then, i guess you don't believe in group rights then. and you think the tenth amendment should be abolished. because as i said earlier the word state is a collective term for the group of people. without people such words as state or nation or city have no meaning.

and you'd have to abolish the legal system also. for there'd be no prosecutor, he represents the state in a court room.

in fact you'd have to abolish governments themselves. for they are the representative bodies for the nation, state, or city.

repsac, you started off nicely in this debate but now you are only presenting arguments of desperation.

repsac3 said...

well then, i guess you don't believe in group rights then. and you think the tenth amendment should be abolished. because as i said earlier the word state is a collective term for the group of people. without people such words as state or nation or city have no meaning.

For me everything comes back to individual people, and groups thereof. You're correct, the state, nation, or city--as you're using those words currently, anyway--represent people.

In the 10th amendment though, "the states" refers to an artificial entity of government we created, and the amendment is making it clear that all powers that we the people did not grant to the federal government (another artificially created entity of government) in the Constitution we are granting either to the states, or to the people as individuals.

and you'd have to abolish the legal system also. for there'd be no prosecutor, he represents the state in a court room.

The prosecutor represents the people of the state, not the government of the state. When one commits a crime, s/he breaks a law written & enforced by the people (through that artificial entity called the state), and it is to the people s/he must answer.

in fact you'd have to abolish governments themselves. for they are the representative bodies for the nation, state, or city.

No, the artificial entities we created are fine... Where we differ (if indeed we actually do differ, and it's not just that we're saying similar things in different ways--and I'm beginning to wonder) is that my political philosophy tells me that here in the US, the people reign over the government entities we've created. We citizens have the final say over our elected representatives and over the laws of our land. Our government and its officials have no authority over us that we do not willingly grant them.

My contention is that the government entity itself (the state) does not deserve representation in the federal system. The people of that state, however, do. I don't believe we need protect ourselves from the unlearned mob, anymore... I wonder whether we ever did.

BB-Idaho said...

Griper,
Your note "assumptions could be made to support any number of conclusions there." seems, IMO, the core of the basis for all political argument. When we consider that "The Tolstoy Syndrome is also know as Confirmation Bias: In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis. Confirmation bias is of interest in the teaching of critical thinking, as the skill is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence challenging a preconceived idea but not to evidence supporting it." * and that this was recognized long ago by Julius Caesar "Men willingly believe what they wish". Since none of us is free of these human constraints, I will not poke fingers. We disagree on the Iraq invasion, we present our 'evidence'. Then name-calling and counterfeit argument. Some years back, I was an Army Chemical officer, a WMD 'expert'. So when WMD evidence was presented as a justification to invade another country, I was very sceptical. Enough so that I wrote my congressman. It turned out that I was in a very tiny minority at that time, but a minority that changed over the years into a majority..the change due to a number of factors, including our perceptions and biases detailed above. Since I could not convince a congressman, I will not attempt to convince you (or others with differing views in the matter) but simply defend the views I hold.
Of course I support the troops: I was one, I have relatives serving in Iraq, I have friends serving in Iraq and I have a neighbor who served there and is buried at Arlington. Lastly, let us keep in mind another of J. Caesar's observations "In War, events of importance are the result of trivial causes".
* the cognitive bias quote shamelessy plagerized from the site 'Dr. Lobojo's Den'

The Griper said...

repsac,
all those artificial entities, as you call them, are nothing but collective terms synomynous for the word people. they serve to inform us of the role along with the powers and authority of a person or group of persons within a society.
none of those terms mean anything without people.
so, there is nothing artificial about the entities other than the fact those roles can be redefined or eliminated.

and if you read any law indictment yyou will read "The state vs the individual." now granted some will use the phrase "the people of the state." but this only proves my point, that the word state is synomynous with the term people.

submission is still submission regardless whether it be voluntary or involuntary. all submission is, is the recognition of a power greater than we possess and submit to it. and to say that we have power over a person we elect to possess power we do not have is self-contradictory.

when election time comes we make the decision of who we choose to possess that power. we cannot hire or fire them. you are misusing those terms also.

if you cannot come to understand that, i can't help you.

repsac3 said...

if you cannot come to understand that, i can't help you.

I agree that we have reached an impasse.

I believe your definitions to be incomplete. "The State" can refer to people, but it can also refer to an apparatus of government and government power. The two meanings -- people, or government entity -- are not synonomous.

We Americans don't submit to greater power (except perhaps in church). We create & wield the power in our form of government. The people we elect--our representatives--do not rule over us, but represent our values and interests in the creation and enforcement of laws & the disbursement of money.

The whole idea of checks & balances is power over power over power, so that no one branch can usurp the other two. Our power over those we elect--our ability to keep them from being reelected, or to elect those with a competing political philosophy--is our check on their power.

You cannot help me to view government power as you do, so if that is your goal, we are indeed at an impasse. If you wish to drop this line of discussion, let me know you wish to move on... You may even have the last word, if you wish. (But if you wish it to be the last word, say so, otherwise I'll keep replying... While I'm not sure we can actually get further, I'm fascinated--in a car crash kinda way--at how different our philosophies of US government are...)

The Griper said...

bb,
i was only commenting on the statement itself. it didn't contain enough information to come to a logical conclusion as far as i was concerned.

as for cognitive and confirmation bias i agree. we all possess it regardless of claims by some that they don't under certain circumstances. the msm is a good example here.

it is bias that helps us to determine right from wrong or anything of that nature.

and being sceptical is always a good thing. it forces us to be cautious in our decision making.

and i agree that it can be and is abused also as it is demonstrated in debate. but i attribute that to emotions that interfere.

but in terms of your argument presented here i will only say this;
"It turned out that I was in a very tiny minority at that time, but a minority that changed over the years into a majority."

i'd argue that you still are among the minority. reason; the majority as it is now are using hindsight to make their decision while you and those like you were not. and valid decisions are never made on hindsight.

your minority did not become a majority because there was a change of belief based on the same evidence but a change of belief based on added evidence and more precisely, further occurances. and most of that added evidence came after a decision was made and carried out thus revealing that evidence as fact.

but i will also add that the recognition of being sceptical is in itself a recognition of possessing a belief. and with every belief it can turn out that it be an incorrect one. we all have them also.

that is why statistical forecasts declare not only the probability of an event but also reveals the possibility of it. put together we declare a fact one way or the other.

but we must admit more too. no person at the time of decision making can be certain that the decision is the correct decision. certainty of decisions are illusionary but at times necessary.

for without that feeling of certainty no decision will be made. that is true with each and every decision we make and that includes the decision not to act or decide.

the decision to invade Iraq was made. was it the correct decision, no one can say.

i use korea as an example of this. the decision not to finish that war may have been seen as the correct decision at the time by President Truman.

but i do wonder if he would have made that same decision given the outcome as we see it now and he had the foresight to know this. my biased opinion says no. if your opinion says yes, then fine.

i would apply this to Iraq also. we went to war against them 10 yearss ago. the decision not to bring that war to its inevitible end was made. i have to sit here and wonder if the president had the foresight to see events as they are now would he have made that decision he made then. my biased opinion says no once more. if your opinion says yes, then fine.

so, when we speak of war and the decision to go to war is out of our hands, to me, that only leaves one question to answer, do i support winning it or do i support losing it.

and given my belief in what this country stands for and how we treated a country when defeated in the recent past (since ww1) then i can only come to one conclusion, to be pro-victory.

its not a question of being pro-war or anti-war once it has been declared and troops are sent into battle. its not a question of whether or not mistakes were or are being made. mistakes are only a part of the costs of war. it isn't even a question of the morality of it.

it becomes a question of winning or losing.

and that is the question that we, the people, must answer for ourselves in terms of support.

The Griper said...

repsac,
""The State" can refer to people, but it can also refer to an apparatus of government and government power. The two meanings -- people, or government entity -- are not synonomous."

with that statement we have come into agreement. by recognition of the fact it can refer to people you have admitted it deserves representation. you are the one that declared only people should be represented.

the second definition you give does not deny the first. nor should they be seen as exclusive defintions of the same thing but inclusive. you can't declare the one without implying rightiously the other. as the defense attorney would say, "i rest my case"

BB-Idaho said...

"it becomes a question of winning or losing." Well, there is always the Nixon 'peace with honor' solution. It is also a question of cost/benefit ratio vs time, and the complex questions of how we shall define 'winning' and/or 'losing'. Somewhere between immediate pullout and the infamous 100 years there should be a logical answer.

The Griper said...

bb,
"Well, there is always the Nixon 'peace with honor' solution."

he grin at this response. bb, that is just political jargon for saying "we gave up" or as psychlogists would say, doublespeak.

if you're honest with yourself you know we lost that war. if you speak to anyone and ask them the outcome of that war, odds of probability declare that they'll say we lost that war. but nice try.

"It is also a question of cost/benefit ratio vs time, and the complex questions of how we shall define 'winning' and/or 'losing'. Somewhere between immediate pullout and the infamous 100 years there should be a logical answer."

yes, each of these questions are important, very important.

defining winning/losing, that one is easy. know and understand the purpose and intent of the reasons the insugents are fighting it then know we are winning by preventing them from accomplishing that goal. you won. if they accomplish their goal, we lose. that is the same formula for any war in a situation we are in now.

but one thing, those questions must be asked not only of us but also of the enemy, especially the enemy more than us.
when we ask,, are we willing to fight for a hundred years, there has to be an assumption that the enemy is willing to if it takes that long. what is it about their goal that makes it so important to them that they will fight that long? what is it about their goal that they'd pay any costs to wage it so long in order to be the winner?

then we must ask what will the consequences be if we allow them to win? will their winning be beneficial to the world or will it be detrimental? i realize we cannot know the answer to this question but it is a question that needs to given an answer to before deciding to allow them to win.

that is the problem with questions as those. when they are asked they are usually asked in reference to us without first asking them of the insurgents.

Gayle said...

Good morning, Griper.

"then we must ask what will the consequences be if we allow them to win? will their winning be beneficial to the world or will it be detrimental?"

As I don't want to become a Muslim and run around in a burka being subservient, I would have to say "detrimental"!

Don't mind me... I'm in far to good of a mood to get into this heavy discussion on a deeper basis. I just came by to see if you had put up a new post. :)

The Griper said...

that makes two of us that be in a very good mood today, gayle.

and i was just working on a new post as we speak. it will not be a topic of politics but it will relate to it, in a sense.

Fallen' Angel said...

Thanks for the welcome Griper. As soon as I whip out my copy of The Constitution, (because I see some very intelligent folks making some excellent points,) I can really start having some fun here, as I too love a good debate. I'm already certain that this blog of yours will quickly become one of my daily "must reads."

The Griper said...

angel,
if my posts gets some people to think a little more, then i feel i have accomplished all that my blog was created for.

and i love a good debate also, but i must always remember that as the poster i must always be prepared to stand alone in defense of my posts and not be afraid of losing the debate if someone presents a better argument than i can.

dcat said...

I'm with you Gale!

Have fun Griper. :D

dcat said...

I think I am too damn bull headed to except others opinion when I know I am right already on an issue ;)

The Griper said...

dcat,
your statement says different though. if you were as bull headed as you'd like me to think you wouldn't be admitting to the attribute of being bull headed.

the first step to wisdom is always the admission of foolishness. the first step to knowlege is always the admission of ignorance. the first step to love is always the admission of the lack of it.

for it is in our admissions we feel the need and desire for the other. that is true of all things we seek.

so girl, if ye be bull headed what is the opposite?

BB-Idaho said...

Hi Griper,
Just reporting that I lost a longish post (floating in the ether of cyberspace) on the nature of insurgencies, General Petreaus, his book and concepts in relation to current Iraqi actions, various historical failures and successes, etc. Since it's been a couple days since, I've forgotten most of it. Must have been knowledge, not wisdom, huh? :)

The Griper said...

he chuckles,,ohhhh that was nasty bb, lolol
that has happened to me a couple of times too until i used my brain and came up with a solution.

for "posts" i write them in a word processor first then copy and paste.

for "comments" i copy first then publish it.

both ways i know cyberspace won't get it and i don't need to sit there and cuss as i rewrite it.

dcat said...

Why stubbornness!

I plead the 5th!

Can I still do that in this country?

If not I will anyway!

dcat said...

I know you are thinking of something to say griper... Just you try it!

It's no use. :D :D :D

The Griper said...

"I plead the 5th!

ohhh, i love a woman who begs. lolol
and i'd never deny you that privilege. lol

then hands her a 5th of her favorite.

Followers

Words of Wisdom of my visitors

Grab This Widget

Gas Buddy

Search for gas prices by US Zip Code

 

Design by Amanda @ Blogger Buster