The other is that there has been some controversy over SLA Marshall’s research, which Grossman uses as a jumping-off point. Having said that, there are a number of things in Grossman that I do find myself in agreement with.

I have quite a few issues with Grossman.

For example, he uses the multiple-loaded rifles of the American Civil War as an example to support his thesis. Yet the more likely cause was simple fear, not a reluctance to kill.

He points out that most killing occurs on a flanked or fleeing enemy; he claims this is because the fleeing enemy isn’t perceived as human. I think that it is simply the fact that it is easy to kill someone who is not effectively resisting.

If we had set out to fight this war like we did WW II, we’d be done by now.

This isn’t WWII. It’s a different kind of war, a war we are still learning how to fight. When the USA entered WWII, we had created enormous advantages in doctrine (read There’s a War to be Won) and both the population and the leadership understood the nature of the war, a war between states. Now we are fighting a war between states and those who do not have states in the traditional sense. I’ve pointed to Bobbitt’s analysis often (Shield of Achilles, Terror and Consent) because he is the only author I’ve read who really gets his head around that point and begins a systematic analysis on it. (SoA is background, and if you read it, read the introduction over and over until you can say “That should be obvious,” or you’ll miss the whole point of the book.)

Goesh:

In Viet Nam, sleep deprivation and dehydration were significant stress factors and we would go for long periods of time without a shower, sleeping in fire pits or what the army calls fox holes. There were alot of bugs, we ate out of cans and would run short of water on patrols. Our water came from tanks we called water buffalos and it was warm and nasty tasting. We would use water purification tabs in the bush and diarrhea was real common. We weren’t aware of our stench because we all had it. As grunts you could always distinguish us from non-grunts back at base camp because the toes of our boots were white and chewed up from being on the ground on our bellies so much and humping through the bush all the time.

They did have a lot of those problems in Iraq. Read David Bellavia’s House to House. True, they were crammed into an IFV instead of fire pits, but they had the same diarrhea in a more confined space.

Speechlessness and writer’s block is not a a trait of victory you know.

But he and you want to nail anyone to the wall who disagrees on how he is going about that and at what cost in other areas (economy, social welfare…) to the country.

3. You should be careful about those broad characterizations, one might think that those who said you had Bush Derangement Syndrome would be correct in their analysis. No one actually believes, including yourself, that your accusations are right while everyone else’s is de facto wrong.

You’re not worried about the cost, you are just afraid of the cost. And such fears seem to make you forget what I’ve said previously, that are inconsistent with your colored view of the situation.

Anyone that is afraid of the cost to anything, is absolutely worthless in terms of finding solutions to problems. Like I said, those who take counsel of their fears are worse than useless in a fight.

I do consider the cost, so there is a very obvious reason why you think that I don’t. You just consider how afraid you are if the costs are too high. I fail to see how anyone could be part of the solution with that kind of attitude.

I expressed the hope that segments of our military would not be sworn in to serve a Commander in Chief who, in my view, has so little regard for the public good and for life.

4. Hope is a positive emotion, not a negative one.

He gave his speech in front of a portrait of TR, who would have nailed the terrorists but who also nailed the Enrons of his day.

4b. So you’ll only like Bush when he does everything you like for him to do… That. Is. Not. An example. Of tolerance.

Liking Bush as a person does not require that everything he does is liked. That might be something you might want to restudy under the title “Human nature” if you are serious about fighting terrorism.

5. You need to go back to that projection business that sort of blew up in your face, before talking about Dr. Phil.

What you have to say is : Nail them to the wall.
5b. That’s not what I said, that’s what you said Teddy Roosevelt would have done.

The rest is one huge and silly frame around that.
5c. Huge and silly as your disgusting, narcotic, and nauseaus rendition of your personal fears in what you think is the fate of the US? Don’t think I could have topped that so easily.

That’s just plain ridiculous behavior on your part. And it’s not a behavior a real fighter of terrorism would feel comfortable having.

6. If you had a sense of humor, we might be able to laugh at some things both of us said.

6. You have to get out of the Nile to have a good laugh at being wet. Only when the solution has been applied and the problem solved can you laugh about it, I don’t really want someone laughing while they are drowning on my side doing anything.

They tend to be dead weight, and soon at that.

But all that said, have a happy time on this blog and smite all those Lefties endangering our republic.

You’re not a Lefty no matter how many times you claim others think you are, and I smite enemies of the Constitution. Whether they are domestic or foreign. It really doesn’t matter what name you cloak them in. You might want to revisit your duties as a citizen of the United States of America, before you place your fake moral superiority on anyone else.

We have room for only one loyalty in this country, and that is loyalty to the people of the United States and the Constitution. Not to Erasmu’s personal dislikes of Presidents.

Have fun drowning in the Nile. We’ll be on the shores growing food to feed the hungry and making weapons to make war on the barbarians, while you have your little swim.

If you want to know something, ask. Don’t be like the dozens who read my posts, and then stew in the shadows and then crop up with bitterness when they think I’m not expecting it.

They think I don’t know, but that’s what happens in an intel vacuum.

I don’t tend to triple redundancy check my posts with a bibliography because that would make it much longer and it is also not necessary.

I’m not so much here to debate as to read people’s reasoning and logic, and to present my own reasoning and logic in return.

I have nothing against debate, but I don’t come out and say “Believe me because I have these links”.

If you want to know something specific, you need to specifically ask about which FBI and CIA comment you want more background on.

I don’t really understand the problem. If your complaint is the lack of specificity, why do you specifically make your comments too vague for me to figure out which post of mine you were refering to?

2. I’d suggest not practicing psych on the web.

I have nothing against that recommendation, but I have to wonder why you didn’t practice what you preach when you first mentioned “projection”. Talking about fear is not psychology, it is human nature.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt:

I don’t tend to give people the benefit of the doubt that their reasoning is right and mine is wrong. So when you mentioned that I was projecting, I looked it up. And compared and contrast. And presented arguments as to why your reasoning was incorrect given the evidence. Purely debate style of course.

5. Supporting an effective war against terrorists does not require liking the Bush/Cheney domestic agenda.

No, it doesn’t. So why are you mentioning it? Is this some kind of straw man logical fallacy going on here or something?

You think you can prove yourself “right” if you can prove that you can agree with foreign policy but not Bush’s domestic policy?

Jeez, that’s not what the argument is about.

Chomsky and Coburn only wish there really were that many.

Stop changing the subject just because you can’t justify your previous sentences and declarations.

It is not like I don’t notice.

What, Dr. Spielvogel, do you think that says about the author?

I think he is frustrated that Bush doesn’t enforce this country’s laws, and that if Bush was sincere about national security he would make sure that people who hurt national security go down in flame.

What do you think that sentence says about the author Mr. NoEssayFormat?

Do you actually think I would forget that you couldn’t justify your statements about the military, your fears, my fears, and everything else you’ve said in this thread?

It is all part of the same piece.

Look up projection, psychological in wikipedia. Here, i’ll help

Psychological projection (or projection bias) can be defined as unconsciously assuming that others share the same or similar thoughts, beliefs, values, or positions on any given subject.

What this means is that since I already recognize some of the same fears that were in me that are in you, it therefore cannot be said by you that I have “unconscious” fears that I do not recognize.

An illustration would be an individual (Alice, for example) who feels dislike for another person (let’s say Bob), however her unconscious mind will not allow her to become aware of this negative emotion

Which means, your unconscious mind will not allow you to become aware of the fears I speak of, that are in you.

Instead of admitting to herself that she feels dislike for Bob, she projects her dislike onto Bob, so that her conscious thought is not “I don’t like Bob,” but “Bob doesn’t seem to like me.” In this way one can see that projection is related to denial, the only other defense mechanism that is more primitive than projection.

Instead of admitting it is you whom fear the Waffen SS, you say that it is I who fear it instead projecting my fears unto you.

Alice has denied a part of herself that is desperate to come to the surface. She can’t flatly deny that she doesn’t like Bob, so instead she will project the dislike, thinking Bob doesn’t like her. Another, and an ironic, example is if Alice were to say, “Bob seems to project his feelings onto me.”

Erasmus, you can’t flatly deny that you fear the possibility of the US military becoming the Waffen SS under a bad government , so you project that fear unto me.

Notice that little irony at the bottom, Alice is saying Bob is the one that is projecting his feelings unto her. Exactly as you did.

There is a real reason why amateurs should not use psychology, without first understanding human nature and the art of psychology. I am an amateur in psychology, which is why I don’t use psychological terms in debates. I didn’t consciously know about projection, until you brought it up that is and I looked it up. And low and behold, my position is consistent with you having a projection bias about your fear. Not surprising given my studies in human nature. A defense mechanism designed to protect you from me, when I talk about why you shouldn’t listen to the fears that you don’t recognize to exist. People really shouldn’t use psychological terms when they are really amateurs in the art of psychology.

On another note.

I would think it rather a sign of problems if someone were confident and bold in the assertion that the United States military is on the slippery slope to the Waffen SS. If you don’t fear the military becoming the Waffen SS, then you may only be confident of that fact. That is not nice.

It was never about my worries and fears, I don’t fear the military nor the government nor the Waffen SS. Because one of the ways of conquering your fear is to face it, is to recognize its existence, and to think about it. My solution is simple.

You (“we”) are going to break the hold of WHAT government?

I really wonder if you are refraining from using logic for a real reason or an imagined one. But anyways, obviously it is the governent that you fear are putting secretive uh what did you call it, ah yes the government that “secretly orders surveillance of citizens”. That is the government in question.

I wrote about that government only because it was for your benefit, in case you misunderstood something about how my beliefs differed from yours.

“You have nothing to fear but…” You know that one.

Yes I do, but I doubt you do.

If you never looked deep into your soul, you probably wouldn’t believe that you really were afraid of the military turning into the Waffen SS, but your consistent statements tell a different story.

I must point out to you that the reason why you said “calm down” is because you are facing an emotional upsurge from a source, and you think that source is me. But it really isn’t. “Calm down” might have been appropriate for TmjUtah, but you should obviously learn how to differentiate whether someone is calm or not. And because you can’t and didn’t in this case, I have to worry about just what made you write that.

Did you feel threatened by something? Upset by something I spoke about, something you took to be dangerous, impolite, a threat, some sign of insanity?

And if so, just who should be worried about projection if not you after reading the wiki article?

“…when the time comes to break the hold of the government we will do so, and nothing will stop us from fulfilling our oath to the Constitution, to protect it against foreign and domestic enemies.”
This, I presume, will become known as the Meals on Wheels or Assisted Living Putsch.
You (“we”) are going to break the hold of WHAT government?
You keep talking about fear, fear, fear. Hasn’t anyone ever told you about projecting? Calm down. Have a cup of tea. “You have nothing to fear but…” You know that one.