Have people stopped using their brains and just started defending one political group or another .?

Question

Seems people who like Bush do not like Clinton .
How about the truth is that both of them are wrong .

That selling out American jobs and creating massive debts is whats wrong .

That illegals really do not belong here regardless of how much help they are in the service industry .

That unless we begin to solve problems using modern solutions and new Ideas we will continue to repeat the past .

I know that what has happened in the past has been a miserable failure .

That the policies of this government has lead to oppression , war , and the deaths of millions of people and that was just during our own Civil War .
That Sherman's march through the south resulted in communities of people being burned out and women raped and young and old men shot and killed where they stood unarmed .

If we as a people resort to violence to solve our problems then nothing is ever going to change .

Blaming the democrats or republicans for any war misses the point entirely .

War is irrational .

Answer 1

For once I can almost agree with you provided we skip the war issue and focus on the actual question.

Sadly, defense of ones political group or party affiliation has caused many to stop using their brains, I am even guilty of this myself at times. What has caused this is very important though.

You made one statement that carries more than it's weight in truth and that statement is that "both of them are wrong" referring to Bush and Clinton.

The problem regarding the war from my perspective is that the war was authorized by congress representing members from all parties. Regardless of whether the information presented was true or false, based on the information provided at the time - war was authorized.

Now that additional details have come to light regarding the information prior to the war, the Democrats have decided to withdraw their support of the war. This is not good!

This is America, and free speech is one of our many liberties. However, it is not in the best interest of the country for political parties to play games with our military men and womens lives. When one party openly and deliberately goes against what is in the best interest of our country and yields the power to cause our service men and women harm, this should not be tolerated.

We are at war! Whether one agrees with the war or not is irrelevent. The Democrats have made it clear that they hate President Bush so much that they are willing to place our service men and women in greater danger because of their hatred for him. They constantly disrespect the leader of our country and belittle those that support him. Those that support him are not cowards and we do not back down or away from the issue. We face the issue head on and unfortunately that means that we must unite against our common enemy which at this point in time is the Democrats.

Never is it wise to stand against your country in a time of war. Yes, speak out if you disagree but do NOT jeopardize our country in the process. I really wish the Democrats could understand this.

Answer 2

I do agree that it is much easier to just "pick a side" (much as people do with sports teams), and many people in the USA have found that a more pleasant form of political activity than really paying attention to the full complexities of a situation.

Your "War is irrational" statement, however, seems to me to be an example of this. There have, I think, been wars which were rational. WWII is still the shining example: it's hard to see how any of the Allied forces could have avoided that war in a rational manner. It's an easy statement that misses some hard underlying truths.

However, many or most wars, and certainly many recent ones, do illustrate irrationality. I will venture the suggestion that as "war is the extension of politics by other means" (von Clausewitz), irrational politics probably promotes irrational wars. The tendency to just pick sides and avoid further thinking does make such wars more likely. In WWII, that's what drove the Axis aggression in the first place. (It's hard to condemn the war itself as irrational, though, even from that point of view. Had they avoided a few errors, they might well have won.)

I'm not so sure that "modern solutions" are the answer. The most modern political/military philosophy appears to be the neoconservative and "preemptive defense" attitude of the present administration. That it's new doesn't make it an improvement, it simply suggests that it is not yet well tested.

Had Donald Rumsfeld been reasonably acquainted with the 2400-year-old "Art of War" by Sun Tzu, he might have had more sense than to conduct these wars as he did. If a more recent lesson were needed, one might reflect that the Iraqi and Afghan resistance both follow precedent established by George Washington.

The only hope for improvement in the U.S.'s position in either war is the engagement of significant numbers of Iraqis and Afghans in building and defending the new governments. That seems to be happening, thanks to changes in American personnel and behavior, but largely thanks to the viciousness and political sterility of the opposition (al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Iraqi insurgents, etc.)

Answer 3

I guess you point is that 'War is irrational'. Well you should be posting that on the Jihad web sites. After all, this group has attacked the United States repeatedly. So, exactly what is suppose to happen what do we say and to whom and does this group even care to listen.

Answer 4

War is man's ultimate humiliation.

Self defense is honorable and a duty.

Sorting out this paradox is the question of the ages.

There will always be people of aggressive nature that can not be reasoned with.

What we choose to defend must be rational.

Answer 5

Totally agree. Can't add anything, you said it all.