Domer's Dilemma (restricted EXCLUSIVELY to grown-ups)

[BT]

If the war in Iraq is immoral   and/or futile  and stupid , why is suggesting that people not fight it is somehow not an adult idea?
 

I don't think enlisting in the military works that way. That is like seeking employment at McDonalds and when hired refusing to flip burgers. Those issues should have been addressed prior to putting on the uniform.

[Michael Tee]

<<At this point, stripped of all the administrations grand ambitions and ego investment, the task is to draw American involvement to the most successful conclusion possible under the realities we face. >>

Right.  Simple adherence to the most basic principles of international law being, of course, completely abhorrent and out of the question.

<<At the same time however, we must be looking forward and positioning ourselves for the long, difficult struggle with violent, radical Islam, a conflict we simply can't afford to lose.>>

Well, at least until the next bogeyman comes to the rescue of your "defense" contractors.

<<I note that even today a battleground is blasting in Somalia, again, indicating at least to me that there is much religious/political/cultural attraction for a jihad which could spread to vulnerable sites.>>

Forget about it, domer, there's no oil under that battleground, get it?  No.  Oil.

But on to more serious stuff.

THE DILEMMA DEFINED:

<<As I have analyzed the situation, there is a possibility that a surge could buy enough time to salvage the present Iraqi government . . . [clearly, in domer's eyes, a nonpareil aggregation of political wisdom, probity and benevolence]  Thus, I sumit, a surge is a rational approach to the problem even if its success is against the odds.

<<On the other hand, beginning withdrawal is also a rational choice, but it has an equally unsure foundation: what do we do  . . . to assure the best possible launch-point post-Iraq to fight and win the overall war against violent, radical Islam? >>

to surge?  or to flee?  to flee?  or to surge?

<<As far as I can see, matching Bush's myopia, the Democrats have not defined such a program or vision . . . . >>

Shit.  Nobody knows anything.

<<By default then, and extrapolated nationally, I will support, until another "tipping point" clearly arises, whatever rational strategy emerges from the present review and renew process. >>

So let's do whatever the Iraq Study Group says to do.

<<This means I will share my "nephew's" and my friend's mission . . . because every soldier and Marine, OUR fighting men and women, needs our heartfelt solidarity as much as our detached prayers. >>

Or better yet . . .  SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

domer is about the only guy in this group who can credibly imitate the tortured agony of a great moral philosopher wracked by existential doubts that threaten the very foundations of his being, and then finally come up with a "solution" that is indistinguishable from the thought of Ronald Reagan.  Makes for some hilarious reading, though.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't think enlisting in the military works that way. That is like seeking employment at McDonalds and when hired refusing to flip burgers. Those issues should have been addressed prior to putting on the uniform.

==================================================================
This is NOT about the supposed dilemma of Domer's buddies who MIGHT be called to Iraq. I agree that anyone that has actually studied the imperialistic behavior of the US (as opposed to their current misinformation about how we are all for democracy these days) should probably assume that if they don the uniform of the Imperial Republicanoid Army, they will be expected to fight in useless wars led by moronic politicians. But that is not the dilemma in question.

We are referring to Domer's dilemma: what should the verbose Domer say to his military buddies? Request a transfer? Tell 'em they're queer? Tell 'em to get sex change operations?  Or tell them the Bring Me the Head of Sheik Ali Muktar?

In the case of Domer, this might not be a difficult problem, as he is a master at obfuscatory rhetoric o0f Greenspanian proportions. He has it within his talents to give a speech so verbose and legalistically convoluted that these military pals could leave feeling at once encourages as well as totally unaware of exactly what Domer has said.

Again, I believe that suggesting that a war one believes to be unnecessary, unwinnable, and directed by imbeciles and thieves might be best unfought is not an adult viewpoint is totally bogus.

[BT]

Yeah Domer has quite the dilemna. What to do, what to do.

I'm sure he will figure it out. That is part of being a grown-up.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Domer could tell his buddies to out one another.

If they were to do this with the proper finesse, they could get a good book deal out of it.

 

[domer]

I remain solid in my opinions, untouched by this childishness, except for Mikey: he's just plain nuts.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I remain solid in my opinions, untouched by this childishness, except for Mikey: he's just plain nuts.

==============================================================
Solid in your opinions that you are uncertain about what to tell your military buddies?

Is uncertainty an opinion?

"I am positively resolute in the opinion that I do not know what to say."


This is the sort of thing that Will Rogers got rich lampooning: he made enough off his newspaper columns to buy half of Los Angeles before it became Los Angeles.

But, as I suggest, you have it within you to profess in a Greenspanian manner in a manner so vague that your friends will be encouraged and you will be satisfied by your eloquence in stating almost the opposite of what they think you said. Few can claim such a talent: avail yourself of it, and be proud.

[domer]

Your puerile inability to understand what I write does not change the import of what I say. Clearly, I will say, "I'm with you." This does not mean I won't chime in in the national debate with my genuine, authentic thoughts (that is my trademark). Nor does it rule out criticcizing the Chief Peckerwood as a peckerwood when appropriate. At my late stage of life, I'm just learning to be master of my ambivalent feelings.

[Plane]

Your puerile inability to understand what I write does not change the import of what I say. Clearly, I will say, "I'm with you." This does not mean I won't chime in in the national debate with my genuine, authentic thoughts (that is my trademark). Nor does it rule out criticcizing the Chief Peckerwood as a peckerwood when appropriate. At my late stage of life, I'm just learning to be master of my ambivalent feelings.

How do you consider the example of Socraties , who led with questions?

It may be quite suportive of you to let them know you care what they think and to lend to them your ear , attention and to complement their opinion and reasoning by pondering it .

[domer]

I already have that type of a relationship with each of them. I'm not about to let the most serious national crisis in my lifetime change that.

[Plane]

I already have that type of a relationship with each of them. I'm not about to let the most serious national crisis in my lifetime change that.

I complement you .

Ther is little use in  being loyat to a nation in which there is no loyalty to freinds and family within the nation.


I beleave that the large concepts serve the small and that the group serves the individual.

[Michael Tee]

<<I remain solid in my opinions, untouched by this childishness, except for Mikey: he's just plain nuts.>>

Hamlet has found his voice.  And it's just like Jerry Seinfeld's.  When Seinfeld was six.  You're hilarious, domer.

[domer]

And you're Canadian, Tee, so please tend to your own business. You are neither intellectually honest nor graced with the gift of morality, a shame for a "moralist."

[Plane]

<<I remain solid in my opinions, untouched by this childishness, except for Mikey: he's just plain nuts.>>

Hamlet has found his voice.  And it's just like Jerry Seinfeld's.  When Seinfeld was six.  You're hilarious, domer.

You and I have come firmly to antipodal positions MT.

Lets not berate someone who is navagateing through shoal waters seeking his own harbor .

I am certain that between the two of us one is wrong , and it is quite possible that two of us are .

I can't be certain that Domer is wrong  , because he is still exploreing the situation and its options.

[Michael Tee]

<<And you're Canadian, Tee, so please tend to your own business. >>

That from somebody resolved to support "his" soldiers in their invasions and massacres of people thousands of miles away so that they can enjoy the dubious benefits of some kind of system which he hopes his political leaders will somehow one day figure out for them.

As I said, domer:  hilarious.

<<You are neither intellectually honest . . . >>

insults, totally unrelated to any factual basis, are just not all that convincing, domer.  Particularly when also totally divorced from even a semblance of rational argument.  But you knew that.

< . . . nor graced with the gift of morality, a shame for a "moralist.">>

I'm working on my morality, honest to God I am, domer.  Every day I pray to the great God of the Christians, "O Great God of the Christians, PLEEEEEZE teach me to torture Ay-rabs, to bomb and incinerate the little fuckers in their homes, for truly evil are they who deny the oil-hunger of thy servant Bush."   But the grace of morality never descends upon me, domer.  That is my curse.  I try and try to be like you, but despair of ever doing so washes over me in waves of sorrow.  Help me, domer.  Help me.