visionary Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 We feel justified and have a reason for invading Iraq and Afghanistan even though neither government directly attacked us. Nazi's had reasons to invade Poland, France and Russia too. They felt those reasons were justified. Yeah...I don't think this is a winning analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 To the OP and the ad I do not favor isolationism by any stretch but I agree with every bit of the ad with the exception of Obama changing his mind on Afghanistan (which he said he would surge). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Yeah...I don't think this is a winning analogy. The analogy stops at the fact that they felt justified. We feel we are doing the right thing, as they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 We feel justified and have a reason for invading Iraq and Afghanistan even though neither government directly attacked us. Nazi's had reasons to invade Poland, France and Russia too. They felt those reasons were justified. So if Russia or China were to invade us, they too would feel justified behind their own reasoning. I brought up the blitzkrieg because it's a tactic we used to invade Iraq. It's really not difficult to comprehend and am not sure why so many are having difficulty with this. Because, in order to swallow the comparison between the Nazis and the US, one must suspend all sense of objectivity, proportionality, and reason. The add is asking you to put yourself in the position of the Iraqis or Afghans. Of course they will attack us, just as we would fight back against a force occupying us. We even made a movie and are remaking said movie, Red Dawn. Same principle. In other words, the ad is making the observation that people don't like seeing foreign troops on their soil? That's not exactly profound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 In other words, the ad is making the observation that people don't like seeing foreign troops on their soil? That's not exactly profound. That's all the ad is trying to accomplish. It isn't profound but, unfortunately, needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 That's all the ad is trying to accomplish. It fails at this. There was a good TED talk that talked of the value of empathizing with the Iraqis and how they might see our presence. This ad crossed that line by claiming that the analogy of Chinese invading Texas was exactly the same as US and Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 It fails at this. There was a good TED talk that talked of the value of empathizing with the Iraqis and how they might see our presence. This ad crossed that line by claiming that the analogy of Chinese invading Texas was exactly the same as US and Iraq. I'm confused. How would it be different? The ad wants you to be empathetic to the horrors of occupation. Especially in an unjust occupation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncr2h Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Wow. THAT was an ad. Damn. Interesting to see the reaction here. Countries like Germany and Japan want our military bases there, so that's the justification for keeping them? I'm sure they would also want a billion dollar taxpayer handout if we offered it to them. Oh wait, we did...it's called subsidizing their national defense. "We build bases so you don't have to! Free of charge!" (not that this ad has anything to do with Germany or Japan, so I don't know why that has been brought up. The ad clearly draws parralels to our "nation building" in Iraq and Afghanistan) ---------- Post added December-12th-2011 at 10:48 PM ---------- It fails at this. There was a good TED talk that talked of the value of empathizing with the Iraqis and how they might see our presence. This ad crossed that line by claiming that the analogy of Chinese invading Texas was exactly the same as US and Iraq. When does it say that the hypothetical situation is the Chinese invading Texas? I can only find it saying "Imagine, somewhere in the middle of Texas, there was a large foreign military base 0 say, Chinese or Russian." And is building empathy with the Iraqi people worth $1T? I'm sure I could find something better to do with the tax dollars that the government took from me to fund that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Wow. THAT was an ad. Damn.Interesting to see the reaction here. Countries like Germany and Japan want our military bases there, so that's the justification for keeping them? I'm sure they would also want a billion dollar taxpayer handout if we offered it to them. Oh wait, we did...it's called subsidizing their national defense. "We build bases so you don't have to! Free of charge!" (not that this ad has anything to do with Germany or Japan, so I don't know why that has been brought up. The ad clearly draws parralels to our "nation building" in Iraq and Afghanistan) ---------- Post added December-12th-2011 at 10:48 PM ---------- When does it say that the hypothetical situation is the Chinese invading Texas? I can only find it saying "Imagine, somewhere in the middle of Texas, there was a large foreign military base 0 say, Chinese or Russian." And is building empathy with the Iraqi people worth $1T? I'm sure I could find something better to do with the tax dollars that the government took from me to fund that. You are missing the point and the TED reference. I'm not talking about building empathy. Or that $1T should have been spent. I think the Iraq invasion was terrible idea. Paul's video suggests that our policy is to kill enough of 'them'. It's clumsy and crass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted December 13, 2011 Author Share Posted December 13, 2011 You are missing the point and the TED reference. I'm not talking about building empathy. Or that $1T should have been spent. I think the Iraq invasion was terrible idea.Paul's video suggests that our policy is to kill enough of 'them'. It's clumsy and crass. That clearly isn't our policy. Its just the perception of our policy overseas. Which makes total sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Isn't it a little insulting to the conservative posters on here to see that and realize he thinks you're dumb enough to watch that and not notice how flawed that argument and logic is?I'm on board with the notion we need to withdraw a bit from the world stage and scale back the military budget, but pretend to compare America in Afghanistan to a Chinese invasion here? Then to think if you just up and pulled out all the troops years ago it would have been just fine? Really? Wow, you really didn't understand the point of my post.I watched the entire video and got it. Paul's video, and his stated foreign policy, is to cut back dramatically on all foreign spending, including such things as military posts. This also includes cutting back on posts that we are even wanted. Many places, even places where things aren't going well, like Egypt have asked for our help. The point of my post was to ridicule Paul for this one size fits all "we shouldn't have military posts around the world," when that's a too broad and stupidly simplistic analysis of foreign diplomacy. Truthfully, even Iraq goes back and forth on what they want from us in the future. So, yes, Paul's equating China opening a base in Texas to us having bases everywhere, was dumb and moronic and it was precisely this type of idiotic "principled" stance that makes Paul a tragically Utopian-unelectable figure. ---------- Post added December-12th-2011 at 04:14 PM ---------- Exactly. Some of you GOPers/Conservatives are smart. (Like my wife too). Paul is dumb. At least, this ad is dumb. Exactly. Some of you GOPers/Conservatives are smart. (Like my wife too). Paul is dumb. At least, this ad is dumb. Careful bro. Keep using that word and people will think I've started using a dupe account. I think that's what pisses me off the most about the BS Paul and the entire tea party right wing. It's so stupid it's insulting. And for the life of me, I'm dumbfounded that people actually fall for such stupidity. Well let's see... using Afghanistan as an example.... Were we willfully harboring a terrorist group responsible for killing 3000 Chinese civilians? Were we asked to hand them over and refused? Were "we" not the legitimate government and invaders of the US as the Taliban was to Afghanistan? Because if you are going to use Afghanistan as an example as Paul has done, the relevant facts are important and to dismiss them is a manipulative lie. I'd be in favor of a Chinese invasion of Texas. They both deserve each other. :evilg:That said, the analogy in the video is so simplistic it is moronic. While it's extremely important for American commanders and troops there to empathize and understand how the Afghans might see us, so that we can address those issues, to compare the overthrow of the Taliban and attempts to stabilize the country, with invasion and overthrow of a democracy is ludicrous. Are we a country run by a despot who has intentionally murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people? I was against the invasion of Iraq, but the analogy doesn't hold water. I wouldn't disagree with most of this, although I think empires usually behave a little less benevolently than we have. But the analogy in the Ron Paul video is both dumb and offensive. Many Libyans, Bosnians, Kosovars, Haitians, Kuwaitis, and Somalis etc. would think so. We've intervened a number of times with ill intentions (e.g., Central America during the Cold War), but we also intervened a number of times for rather noble purposes. We've done so when others haven't lifted a ****ing finger (e.g., Bosnia and Kosovo). I am predisposed to opposing the use of military force, but comparing us to China is absolutely, positively moronic. I love Ron Paul and believe we need to bring our troops home now, but that was a stupid add. You can't compare troops occupying the US to US troops occupying Iraq. They're totally different situations. We were the ones attacked. Not some supposed "international court" (actually it was not an international court it was a Muslim court. - "OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), a Saudi Arabia-based organization representing 56 Muslim nations"). Yeah, that sounds like a good plan... for bin Laden. Good Lord. Has anyone on this site heard of something called a "point of view"? Do you all honestly think that, when it comes to wars that according to some estimates have resulted in a combined half-million-plus deaths via collateral damage, your average Afghan or Iraqi's first instinct is to say, "Hold on, let's take a step back and analyze this through pure rationality"? Especially when their friend, cousin, or mother is one of those who have been killed? When you live with drones flying over your head every day, drones that could blow up your neighbor's (or your own) house at a moment's notice for reasons you're not allowed to know, exactly how much do you care about whether or not history will ultimately look back upon these wars as justified? But you all are right. We should be offended by the suggestion that people in Iraq and Afghanistan might not see things the same way that we do. That's why Iraq is kicking us out, after all. Because they're so pleased with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Niced post Hubbs, I agree. (and I dont even like the ad, seems too over the top in style to me) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Good Lord. Has anyone on this site heard of something called a "point of view"? We should be offended by the suggestion that people in Iraq and Afghanistan might not see things the same way that we do. That's why Iraq is kicking us out, after all. Because they're so pleased with us. Of course there is nothing wrong with a point of view. Indeed as I've tried to point out numerous times in this thread it is extremely important for those creating policy and executing it to understand the local view. And the Iraqis and Afghans on the ground may well hold the views portrayed in the video, and understandably so. But for someone who wants to be Commander in Chief to portray that perspective as the correct one, is crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Of course there is nothing wrong with a point off view. Indeed as I've tried to point out numerous times in this thread it is extremely important for those creating policy and executing it to understand the local view. And the Iraqis and Afghans on the ground may well hold the views portrayed in the video, and understandably so.But for someone who wants to be Commander in Chief to portray that perspective as the correct one, is crazy. Right. After all, when we're considering invading a country, the point of view of "what will the people of that country think about it?" is completely irrelevant. ---------- I'm seeing a whole lot of people rising up in outrage over "How dare that commercial say that the US equals China?" The ad doesn't say that. What it says is: People don't like it when foreign armies invade their country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 But you all are right. We should be offended by the suggestion that people in Iraq and Afghanistan might not see things the same way that we do. That's why Iraq is kicking us out, after all. Because they're so pleased with us. How dare you suggest that America is not seen by the world as its super hero! We're in Iraq as an occupying force, and we won't be gone from there for years, don't believe me just look at the number of people we still have there. Ted Koppel did a really nice piece last night on Rock Center. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/45648986#45648986 And we're in Afghanistan looking for some moral victory that will continue to elude us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 After all, when we're considering invading a country, the point of view of "what will the people of that country think about it?" is completely irrelevant. That's not remotely close to what I'm saying. In fact it's the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 That's not remotely close to what I'm saying. In fact it's the opposite. sure didnt seem that way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 sure didnt seem that way What part of "it is extremely important for those creating policy and executing it to understand the local view." is difficult to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 What part of "it is extremely important for those creating policy and executing it to understand the local view." is difficult to understand. Oh probably where you ended with... "But for someone who wants to be Commander in Chief to portray that perspective as the correct one, is crazy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Oh probably where you ended with... "But for someone who wants to be Commander in Chief to portray that perspective as the correct one, is crazy." The video states that our strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan is to kill as many of their people as possible. Do you think that's a reasonable perspective for someone who wants to be Commander in Chief to hold? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 The video states that our strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan is to kill as many of their people as possible. Do you think that's a reasonable perspective for someone who wants to be Commander in Chief to hold? As Larry already pointed out to you, its simply asking how we would feel if another nation did what we do, and viewing it from their perspectives, it isnt so far out there to wonder iof they feel that way about our occupation. You missed the entire point of the ad (and I reiterate that I actually am not a fan of the ad) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 The video states that our strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan is to kill as many of their people as possible. 1) I must have missed that part of the ad. But assuming the ad actually said that, then I'd be really disappointed with our military. Maybe it's just me, but I suspect that if we were trying to kill as many people as possible, we could probably do a better job of it. 2) And, even if the ad does make that claim, it isn't because the ad is endorsing our strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacePenguin Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Ron Paul is a much smarter person than this advertisement would have you believe. I suspect his campaign is getting desperate since the corporate media has most brainwashed. Cancel your cable subscription and see how "crazy" Ron Paul sounds in his actual speeches over the years. This ad is just catering to the LCD, he could come out and say our military strategy in Afghanistan is based on securing the opium fields and protecting the oil pipeline for corporate profit (the modern day Dutch East India Company)....but Joe Schmo may have an easier time wrapping his head around China invading Texas. I don't agree with the strategy, but maybe I'm giving people too much credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Maybe a different analogy would work better, to make the same point. Consider the situation of the "domestic disturbance". There's a home/apartment. Husband and wife. Yelling. Some slaps. Throwing dishes. Breaking things. The cops show up. Yes, the cops have a reason for being there. Neighbors are complaining. Possible spousal abuse. Possible assault charges. Noise complaints. Still, it's guaranteed that both spouses will hate the cops for showing up. Even if the woman was being abused, she'll hate the cops for showing up, anyway. Nobody, in that house, is going to treat the cops as heroes. (And the cops know it, too. Which probably doesn't help their mood any, either.) Now, want to make the analogy better? Have the cops show up in the form of a SWAT team. Body armor, face masks, automatic weapons. And have them kick in the door, and rappel through the windows. And stay there for 10 years. ---------- Is that a better analogy? The cops have a justification for being there. They're the Good Guys. (At least, according to them.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacePenguin Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Maybe a different analogy would work better, to make the same point. Consider the situation of the "domestic disturbance". There's a home/apartment. Husband and wife. Yelling. Some slaps. Throwing dishes. Breaking things. The cops show up. Yes, the cops have a reason for being there. Neighbors are complaining. Possible spousal abuse. Possible assault charges. Noise complaints. Still, it's guaranteed that both spouses will hate the cops for showing up. Even if the woman was being abused, she'll hate the cops for showing up, anyway. Nobody, in that house, is going to treat the cops as heroes. (And the cops know it, too. Which probably doesn't help their mood any, either.) Now, want to make the analogy better? Have the cops show up in the form of a SWAT team. Body armor, face masks, automatic weapons. And have them kick in the door, and rappel through the windows. And stay there for 10 years. ---------- Is that a better analogy? The cops have a justification for being there. They're the Good Guys. (At least, according to them.) Some of us don't think the US should be the world's police. This country doesn't have the money, it doesn't benefit the common US citizen, the only ones who profit are multinational corporations who have our government bought and paid for. But, if you think the police actually keep people safe(doubtful)....then I'm wasting my time. They do a great job of protecting private property and making arrest quotas though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.