DebateGate

Possible loss of life as a result of cut and run politics:  inestimable

I only post this as an antidote to the sanctification by many on the extreme left of the peace movement.  It is a political movement, not a moral one.  The ex-member was correct in saying that the peace movement is no holier than the Bush side.  There are, I am sure, many who identify with the peace movement who sincerely want nothing more than an end to war - a lofty goal if not a practical one.  But the leaders - and I pointedly include Ms. Sheehan in that group - are interested in political gain and are only using the peace movement as their springboard.  This does not significantly differ from most politicians, but that is exactly my point.

In the end, this political gamesmanship will only hurt the troops - not support them.  There is a great line from "1776" the musical.  Adams asks the secretary of Congress, Mr. Thomson, whether he stands with him (Adams) or John Dickenson on the issue of independence.  Mr. Thomson, referring to dispatches from Washington at the front, replies, "I stand with the General."

The problem with the premise of this article is that it is oversimplified to the point of being false.  I am reminded of the story of an LDS professor who, during the sixties, was caught up in a protest at his college (I do not remember the details).  One of the leaders asked his religion and he told them.  They started complaining about how his church was doing nothing for (I think) the starving people of Biafra.  The protester demanded that the professor make a public statement insisting that the church contribute to that cause.  He agreed to do so, on the condition that the protester made a general call to contribute to the Maoris of New Zealand, who were having similar problems at the time.  The protester had no idea who they were.  The professor then told him that his church had been assisting them for several years.  He then mentioned several more peoples who were being helped by the church, most of whom the protester also knew nothing about. The bottom line was that the church (as most Christian churches) was busily BUT QUIETLY performing charity work all over the world.  They just weren't necessarily involved in the flavor of the month poor, starving children issue. 

Christians are taught to do good works without bragging about it:

1  TAKE heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2  Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men.  Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
3  But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
4  That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

( Matthew 6:1 - 4)


Consequently, an awful lot of good goes on in the name of Christ which never sees the light of day.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is generally very conservative.  Yet it is among the largest contributors to the American Red Cross and to the Salvation Army, which is also a Christian organization.   When there is a large disaster such as the Tsunami or Katrina or the earthquake in Iran, the church leaders will encourage the members to fast for twenty four hours and donate that money to the church for that cause.  The money is then sent to the Salvation Army or Red Cross, because they already have the logistical abilities in place and the church would rather have all of their money go to relief.  In fact, every month every member of the church fasts for twenty four hours and donates that money to be used in the church welfare system, which feeds thousands every day. 

Christian churches regularly give to the poor, send missionaries to do humanitarian work in third world countries, provide counseling services and charitable works right here in the United States and do good works which never make the headlines.  Even on the issue of abortions and gay lifestyles, churches provide assistance to try to help those who are faced with those issues.   Many on the left accuse Christians of wanting to force women to have children but then offering no support for adoption or charitable assistance to the families involved.  Yet many churches have entire organizations dedicated to just such services (look at Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services or LDS Social Services to name a few).   They just don't make the headlines because they are not controversial (unless they can be accused of misrepresenting themselves as "abortion" services when they are really trying to prevent abortion.  THAT fits in with the media portrayal of the "Christian Right" as deceitful zealots.).  I don't listen to Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson (especially the latter, cuz he's nuts).  But I would bet a silk pajama that they both call for charitable action and for loving your neighbor as often - or more so - than they call for an end to abortion or to defend traditional marriage.

The idea that the Christian right is only interested in two issues is as stereotypical as saying gays are only interested in promiscuous sex or women who abort children are murdering sluts.  It's one thing to see someone spouting the vitriol we see here and on the talk shows but to see this article treating the premise as an accepted fact and then to call for tolerance is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

What Jesus would do is teach.  What Jesus would teach in this case is to avoid judging others, to repent, and to go forth and sin no more.  It would apply to all sides.  I know this because he has already done it.

Actually, Kimba, the word "Qualified" has a very specific meaning when used in a military context.   Homosexuality is STILL illegal in the military (sorry, Larry, Ami is right).  It is not legal to ask (as it used to be) whether a person is gay, but if the gay person tells, or if it is found out in some other fashion, homosexuals will be discharged. 

"Qualification" in military terms means not just meeting ability standards, but also meeting the appropriate requirements.  You cannot be an infantry soldier if you are a woman.  (That is to say, you are not allowed to be.)  You cannot hold a security clearance if you have bad debt problems.  You cannot be promoted to Sergeant if you have not been to leadership training.  You may not join the service if you are under 18 (17 with parental permission) or over 35 (with some exceptions).  All of these things are considered "qualifications" and have nothing to do (necessarily) with ability.  A 45 year old who wanted to join up would be told "I'm sorry, you are unqualified to enlist." 

Of course, Larry's question is the more important, but within the context of this thread, the issue is whether what the SGT did was wrong.  The qualification statement probably isn't.  The rest definitely is.   

That scripture verse is out of context.  God was telling Peter to eat unclean foods.  It would be normal to kill it before he ate it because, well, ya know, yuck!

The vision here was a reference to bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles.  It was about saving - not killing.

Rate of descent is the speed at which jumpers fall to the ground.

Ya think?  This is dumbing down from dumb.

The ATPS canopy is not circular in shape, as the T-10 is. It is a highly modified cross-shaped canopy with an inflated diameter 14 percent greater than that of the T-10, with 28 percent more surface area. . .

The 14-percent weight increase earns jumpers a 25-percent reduction in rate of descent.

Swwweeeeeet.  A slower-moving, larger target!

Thank God it is against the laws of warfare to shoot a paratrooper in the air. 

Yeah, right.

What is the place for intuitive decisions?

I think that a lot of important decisions are made by a lot of people with no real logic involved, hunches are played, gestalt's are felt , and distaste from subchontious reasoning is felt.

If one has a strong feeling that something is right or wrong , won't logic follow in the ruts that emotion leaves?

It's funny, Plane.  I am reading the book "Odd Thomas" by Dean Koontz and I just read a passage which seems to fit well (with a little forcing, perhaps) with that thought:

Most people desperately desire to believe that they are a part of a great mystery, that creation is a work of grace and glory, not merely the result of random forces colliding.  Yet each time that they are given but one reason to doubt, a worm in the apple of the heart makes them turn away from a thousand proofs of the miraculous, whereupon they have a drunkard's thirst for cynicism, and they feed upon despair as a starving man upon a loaf of bread.

A bit overwritten, perhaps, and definitely run-on, but this is a pretty good observation of human nature.

There are, of course, times when faith, intuition or instinct are more important than simple physical observation or the application of logical thought. It is not wise to reject one's deeply held beliefs or convictions in the face of a few seeming contradictions.   But when valid logical objections to intuitive conclusions are rejected out-of-hand without at least sober consideration, one crosses the line from faith to foolishness.  Again, one need not conclude that one's beliefs are false - they must only open their minds to the possibility that they are.

  I don't see debating as mediating, or having much to do with the duties required of an ambassador or a diplomat.   

So what you are basically saying is that objectivity, persuasion, finding common ground with others is not your intention.  You are just here to spout your opinion.  That is the opposite of open-mindedness.

I view debating as a process of analyzing, seeking to understand, attempting to persuade others or come to possible means of resolving conflicts.  In other words, to me debate is an equal mix of learning andf teaching.

Since you will not "lie" and like to call it as you see it,. I will follow that course.

You are a fierce debater (by your implied definition) until you are faced with something that logically challenges you.  At that point you fall back on "I stand by what I said" because you have nothing more substantial than your own ego to support it.  By this I do not mean that you are unintelligent - far from it.  You may be intellectually lazy.  It's hard to come up with good arguments with some of the excellent debaters here and elsewhere.  That is unfortunate, but excusable - since the world does not revolve around our opinions and we all have real life responsibilities to attend to.  OTOH you may be an intellectual coward.  You are so wrapped up in your own self-image as a liberal (or whatever image you have of yourself) that to admit you (and/or the many liberal sources you cite) are wrong would be intellectually traumatic.  If that is the case, I urge you to try accepting that the core values you completely believe in may be wrong.  It is liberating - and you do not necessarily have to conclude that they ARE wrong.  Just accepting the possibility opens the mind and enables the learning process.

The Bush administration is not evil.  It may be confused about moral priorities.  It may be diplomatically inept (and I am among the many who believe that to be the case).  But it is not evil.  Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are evil.  Hitler was evil.  Bush is, at worst, a bad President (and I do NOT believe that to be the case). 

You are correct to say that you are not here to be a diplomat.  That is, however, a very good way to approach debate.  At the very least, BT is correct in pointing out that encouraging such qualities in others while seeing no need of them in your own debate is at best hypocritical and at worst arrogant.

By Mark Helprin
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page B07

Before rejoicing over detente with Kim Jong Il, it might be useful to remember that although agreements were reached in the past, his countrymen later built a number of nuclear weapons and carried out a test. Also, North Korea, with a rich chemical and biological arsenal having long ago neutralized American tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula, has embarked solely on a program of survival by extortion and will gladly forfeit a power it does not need in exchange for recognition and some essential commodities. The Asian nuclear power of which we must take account is not North Korea but China.

The forerunners of China's government were able to defeat Chiang Kai-shek, fight the United States to a draw in Korea and, merely by means of their country's looming potential, help defeat America in Vietnam. This they did in chaos, poverty and without modern arms, but with strategy bred in the bone. Since 1978, using their extraordinary and sustained economic and technical growth to build military capacity, the Chinese have deliberately modeled themselves on the Meiji (who rapidly transformed feudal Japan into an industrial state able to vanquish the Russian fleet at Tsushima).

In altering their position relative to that of the United States, the Chinese have received generous assistance from the past two American presidents, who have accomplished first a carefree diminution of our orders of battle and then the incompetent deployment of what was left, in a campaign analogous to losing a protracted struggle with Portugal. China advances and we decline because, among other things, its vision is disciplined and clear, while ours is burdened by fear, decadence and officials who understand neither Chinese grand strategy nor its nuclear component.

This has led the United States unwittingly to encourage China to move toward nuclear parity. In the next five years, as we reduce our arsenal from 10,000 strategic warheads to 1,700, China's MIRV'd silo-based missiles and imminent generations of MIRV'd mobile and sea-based ICBMs will easily allow a breakout from warhead numbers now variously estimated to range from 80 to 1,800.

Once, the vast imbalance (in 1987, 500:1) might have discouraged China from such augmentation, but no longer. Our reductions and their growth provide fewer targets for more missiles and will create the possibility and therefore the temptation, however remote, of a first strike. As we have cut the stable sea-based leg of our nuclear deterrent from 37 ballistic missile submarines to 14, China works to build its own and a fleet that can provide protected bastions at sea as well as hunt down the small number of American boats on station.

Nuclear competition between mature and newly emerging powers is neither unprecedented nor unexpected, but the rule has always been that if nuclear potential exists it must be countered. Although we may no longer subscribe to this, China does. Aware that the United States planned to use nuclear weapons had China violated the Korean armistice, China would understandably seek nuclear balance, if not preponderance.

The danger lies not solely in quantitative instabilities but in potential nuclear strategies that technical evolution has elevated above Cold War paradigms. It is one thing for a few experts to foresee these strategies but quite another to obtain from a people no longer confident of its right to self-defense the political consensus, appropriations and authority to counter them. Consider just one scenario, highlighted by the recent successful test of China's anti-satellite weapon, part of a strategy to exploit technological asymmetries.

Given China's appetites and our alliances and interests, a war is not inconceivable in Taiwan, or in Korea. To remove American nuclear escalation from the equation, China would need not parity but only a deterrent such as it has long possessed. The Chinese, however, whose nuclear thresholds are dissimilar to ours, would have other options.

They know that every facet of America's economy, military and society depends on individual and networked electronic devices. Were these to fail all at once and irreparably, the nation would seize up, perhaps for years.

Faced with victory, or with loss, they might choose to -- and who would venture to guarantee that they would not? -- detonate half a dozen high-megatonnage nuclear charges in the mesosphere, in an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) strike perhaps not even in American airspace, cooking almost every circuit and semiconductor, rendering the American government blind, deaf and dumber than it is already and the country unable to resist the inroads that would surely follow.

Though we would undoubtedly respond in kind, China is not as technically dependent as are we. Nor, given China's sufficiency for a counterstrike, could we deter an EMP attack with the prospect of massive retaliation, especially because an EMP strike, with no immediate casualties, would seem as peaceful as snow in still air.

The trick in nuclear strategy is to maintain stability by balancing potentials and thus to discourage events from converting the hypothetical to the actual. Required in this case -- only one of many -- is the electronic hardening, redundancy and redesign of essential systems and networks; and missile defense, which would not only close the first-strike window by shielding our second-strike capacity from destruction but protect against an EMP strike directly and dissuade China in the first place by making its deterrent less certain.

Were we to proceed along these lines, we could diminish the chances that China might in the not-so-distant future be tempted to win a nuclear war without fighting a nuclear war. But given that we have ignored explicit warnings of the congressionally chartered EMP commission, what are the chances that we will act on an opinion we dare not even form? In regard to war and the sometimes counterintuitive actions for avoiding it, we are no longer either confident or clearsighted. What a pity to have come so far to find that our rivals and enemies all over the world can run rings around us because half of our politicians have lost their intelligence and the other half have lost their nerve.

Mark Helprin, a novelist, is a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute and a distinguished visiting fellow at Hillsdale College. This article will also appear in the Claremont Review of Books.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030201402.html