Global politics and scouting

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

OGE,

 

I am not a revisionist of WW 2. It is my belief, that there are times to act to protect yourself, your family, and your country.

 

I am suggesting moderation and to choose carefully when it comes to picking up a gun to change things. We should use our brains, our hearts and our courage first.

 

FB

 

 

[scoutingagain 20]

An interesting thread. I'm going to stay away from the Iraq thing. We've hashed that out before.

 

I'm in general agreement with Lisabob. I think the appropriate forum for detailed discussion of some of these topics is in the Citizenship MBs. I counsel the Cit. in the World Badge and occaisionally the issue of Iraq or other foreign policy issue comes up. I do my best to discuss the issue, whatever it is objectively, without inserting my own political ideas into the discussion. Scouting should be non-partisan, as much as we can make it.

 

As an aside, I grew up as a scout during the Vietnam war. '68 - '73. As an 11 year old I hardly new what Vietnam was, what it was about. While as a grew older I became more aware and learned more, I do not recall Vietnam being discussed at any scouting activity.

 

SA

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I earned Eagle in 1969 at the age of 16. Maybe it was because most of the leaders were ex-military, but world affairs were discussed often. I remember a discussion after the 1967 "7 Day War" Israel had. I remember one of the ASM's saying we had better never get in a war with "the Arabs" as they didnt value life the same way we do. I didn't understand it at the time, I now understand.

 

I remember an alumnus of the Troop came back from Viet Nam for Christmas and he stopped in at the Troop meeting. WIth his dress uniform all sparkling and all the scouts who knew him crowded around him. I remember one scout asked him if he had seen any "action" the soldier nodded his head and indicated he had. Another scout excitedly asked if he had gotten to "kill" any body yet. It was at this point the soldier got up and said he really had to go and it was great to see everyone. Again, as time goes on I gain a greater appreciation of questions and comments.

[sweetspiritpamh 10]

I think a neat thing for a scout group to build patriotism is to volunteer to have a flag ceremony at a incoming flight of military group at your local airport. My kids did it and said the solidars seemed really to appreciate it and it made the local news.

[packsaddle 753]

OGE, sorry...been out on the river for a while. Your questions regarding Germany, Japan, and Korea seem odd for some reason. In each case, THEY initiated the conflict, perhaps pre-emptively in their view, and would therefore receive the judgment of incompetence. They could not achieve their goals in any creative or constructive manner so they chose violence. We had no choice but to respond in defence. In our case, WE pre-emptively started the conflict...needlessly as it turns out, since the stated reason for it (WMD) weren't there. I don't particularly enjoy the comparison that you have provided but that was your decision.

However, on the subject of competence... prior to the first Gulf War we were an ally of Iraq. We supplied all sorts of things to them because they were in opposition to Iran. But there was a growing argument between Iraq and Kuwait. And there is a credible argument that Secretary of State Glaspie made a terrible diplomatic miscalculation during the increasing tensions between Iraq and Kuwait. From the Wikipedia site: "The relationship between Iraq and the United States remained unhindered until the day Iraq invaded Kuwait. On October 2, 1989, President George H.W. Bush signed secret National Security Directive 26, which begins, "Access to Persian Gulf oil and the security of key friendly states in the area are vital to U.S. national security." [11] With respect to Iraq, the directive stated, "Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer term interests and promote stability in both the Persian Gulf and the Middle East." In late July, 1990, as negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait stalled, Iraq massed troops on Kuwait's borders and summoned American Ambassador April Glaspie for an unanticipated meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Two transcripts of that meeting have been produced, both of them controversial. According to the transcripts, Saddam outlined his grievances against Kuwait, while promising that he would not invade Kuwait before one more round of negotiations. In the version published by The New York Times on September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup, but went on to say:

We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.

Some have interpreted these statements as diplomatic language signalling an American "green light" for the invasion. Although the State Department did not confirm (or deny) the authenticity of these transcripts, U.S. sources say that she had handled everything "by the book" (in accordance with the US's official neutrality on the Iraq-Kuwait issue) and had not signaled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein any approval for defying the Arab League's Jeddah crisis squad, which had conducted the negotiations. Many believe that Saddam's expectations may have been influenced by a perception that the US was not interested in the issue, for which the Glaspie transcript is merely an example and that he may have felt so in part because of U.S. support for the reunification of Germany, another act that he considered to be nothing more than the nullification of an artificial, internal border. Others, such as Kenneth Pollack, believe he had no such illusion, or that he simply underestimated the extent of American military response." End of Wikipedia discussion

Therefore, the incompetent are not necessarily limited to violence in their expression or behavior. That is to say, I did not mean to imply that violence was the only stupid thing that incompetent people can do. Just the worst stupid thing.

[BrentAllen 10]

So, packsaddle, just to make sure I understand you - Neville Chamberlain was competent, and FDR and Churchill were incompetent? OK, got it.

[Zahnada 11]

I HATE it when people use WWII arguments to attempt to prove a point. Why? Because it's simplistic and it's inaccurate. WWII was it's own moment in history. The leaders of WWII (Hitler, FDR, Churchill, Stalin) should also have their own place in history.

 

It's easy to compare Saddam to Hitler. It's easy to compare President Bush to Hitler. BOTH COMPARISONS ARE INACCURATE.

 

I feel WWII arguments don't pay proper respect to the current situation or to the situation surrounding the 1940s. Similarities between historical events certainly exist, but they will ALWAYS be outnumbered by the differences.

 

Sorry to vent, but intelligent discourse is lost when people start playing the "Well what about what happened in World War II" card. They're bad analogies because they always draw comparisons between situations that shouldn't be compared. Not all war is the same. Show respect for the people who fought against Nazism by not politicizing it to win partisan arguments.

 

Again, my apologies for the rant. I just see the World War II analogies so often that it really drives a nail under my skin. It's an effective debate tactic, but very ineffective in intelligent conversation.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Brent Allen,

I find your conclusion about Packsaddle's statements to be short of the mark. Please expand on how you arrived at your WW-2 answer.

 

Zahnada,

The reasons for wars are almost always different but the results of all wars are generally the same. That is the reason we should carefully study them.

 

FB

 

 

 

 

[BrentAllen 10]

Fuzzy,

It is really very simple. packsaddle quoted, "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent."

 

Neville Chamberlain believed he could negotiate with Hitler, and avoid war/violence. According to packsaddle's quote, he was competent.

 

FDR and Churchill took their countries into war - chose violence. According to packsaddle's quote, they were incompetent.

 

I think history has judged them just the opposite.

[SR540Beaver 116]

Brent,

 

I don't know that I would say that FDR and Churchill LED their nations INTO war. They did LEAD their nations IN war. The US and England were both attacked and forced into the war in defense of their nations. Prior to that, they had tried to avoid the war. Like Zahnada, I don't care much for the comparisons of WWII to the Iraq conflict. However, how we got into the two different wars is completely different. WWII was to defend our nation after having war declared on us and being attacked. The Iraq war started as a preemptive attack by the US out of fear of possible WMD's. that could possibly be used against us one day. This scenario is not consistent with previous US history and policy. I truely believe that you will see our troops come home and our foriegn policy drastically changed when Bush leaves office....regardless of which side of the aisle wins the Presidency.

[scoutingagain 20]

"I truely believe that you will see our troops come home and our foriegn policy drastically changed when Bush leaves office....regardless of which side of the aisle wins the Presidency. "

 

I know I said I'd stay of of the Iraq thing but here goes...

 

I agree with some of the above. Our foriegn policy will change significantly once GWB leaves office. However I'm afraid the blunder in Iraq has committed us to a generation of involvement on the ground there. Regardless of why or how we got there we cannot afford to let the country sink into civil war and become a playground for oil financed terrorism, which it is very close to becoming. This morning there is discussion of sending addition troops to Iraq and any thought of a troop withdrawal in the foreseeable future is wishful thinking. George Bush has comitted the blood of our youth and maybe trillions of dollars over the next 10 - 15 years at least and I can see no good way out of it. I cannot think of a greater Presidential blunder since the Bay of Pigs. Maybe the biggest of all time.

 

SA

 

[BrentAllen 10]

Sorry, Beaver, I don't see where packsaddle's quote had any disclaimers about whether one is acting is defense or offense. It was pretty clear. "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent."

Churchill and FDR had other choices - negotiate, even surrender. According to packsaddle's quote, those choices would have been more "competent" than violence. If that sounds absurd, that is exactly my point. His quote is absurd.

[SR540Beaver 116]

SA,

 

I fear you are correct about the 10 to 15 year figure and trillions of dollars. My 13 year old son is in love with the Marines. He and his mom took a trip to the recruiting office a few weeks ago to get posters to decorate his bedroom with. I know things can change over the next 5 years, but today he says he wants to be a Marine. My dad was a Marine in WWII and I had strongly considered following that path myself until I discovered I was an insulin dependent diabetic at 17.5. My son took after his mom and is smart as a whip. He is a straight A student, doing pre-AP courses and made a 19 on the ACT this past February in a special offer for 7th graders to take the test that comes thru Duke University. If he keeps it up, he will be a good candidate for Annapolis when he graduates high school. While I love this country and love our military, I am defensive in how they are used. I don't take committing young men and women to conflicts where they can lose their life lightly. When we put boots on the ground, it needs to be strictly in defense of our homeland and not for nation building or to fight an idea. Our forefathers won our liberty with their blood. The American people have always been aware of the cost and it gives them a more appreciative understanding of our liberty. I have a hard time believing that Iraqi's who we win liberty for can ever understand and appreciate the price like we do since it is given to them rather than won by them. I spent yesterday evening on the Naval Academy website with my son exploring what life as a midshipman is like opposed to attending a college or university. While I love the Corp, I love my son more. While I would be proud for him to be a Marine and defend our nation, I have an issue with him possibly being tied up in the kind of mess we have today. Remember the war on poverty, the war on hunger or the war on drugs? Remember when those were won? They will be won about the same time as a "war on terror" will be won. Terrorism is a method, not a state. It will never surrender and be defeated. I am trying to be as even handed as I can and lead my son in his own discovery and opinion of world and national politics. He will be his own man someday and will be responsible for making his own decisions. I will respect and honor them. However, I hate the thought of him losing his life for another country or fighting against an idea. It is not what the US military is designed for.

[packsaddle 753]

Brent, one thing about a quote is that there is no latitude for modification...it is merely a quote. My mention of that quote was intended to provoke further thought and discussion.

 

However, if you read the book that was the source of the quote, you would understand that it does not apply to a response to violence. Once violence has been started, those who otherwise would have pursued peaceful means have little choice but to respond accordingly. I thought this would be easier to understand. Sorry.

[acco40 95]

We sold a lot of weapons to the Shah of Iran. Iran was our "friend." Then came the Ayotollah and the hostage crisis - oops. We supplied the mujahadeen with weapons to fight the Godless commies in Afganistan. Then came the Taliban - oops. We use to give Saddam and Iraq our support when they were fighting the bloody Iraq/Iran war for over eight years. Now we are fighting Iraqis again - oops.

 

Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. these countries have very little weapon production capabilities. Their weapons come from China, Russia (and other former Soviet Union countries), and yes, the United States. Do you know that sophisticated RPGs can be bought for under $10?

 

It looks like Israel and the United States are committing more and more ground forces to fight "terrorists" in southern Lebanon, Afganistan and in Baghdad. I wouldn't have a clue about what to tell 11-17 year old boys about all this.

 

SR450Beaver, I feel for you. I have worked in the defense industry all my life. My young impressionable son thinks what I do is "cool." One day when watching a TV ad for the Army (back inthe Be All You Can Be days) they showed Abrams tanks barreling about the country side and I asked my son if he had any interest at all in joining any of the services (he was about 10 at the time). His first question was, "Could people shoot at you?" When I exclaimed that yes, there was always a chance that he may see combat if he joined he quickly added that he had no iterest. Now, that is intelligence! (Before I get blasted, that was humor.)

 

My oldest son wants to do an Eagle project that would benefit the troop in Iraq and Afganistan. I support him as SM and "dad" but he is scratching his head trying to get a signature for the "community representative." I suggested he give Rummy a call. :-)