the word 'pro-active'

[wagstaff]

While watching a news story tonight on how yet another charity has severed ties with Peter Hollingworth, the charity spokesperson said, amongst other things, that Hollingworth hadn't been "pro-active" in his dealings on this issue.

What does the word 'pro-active' mean? It seems to mean similar things as active and assertive so how come its usage has become so common in recent years?

The people who use this word seem to be those in positions of power in society: business leaders, government figures and most significantly, footy coaches, commentators and AFL spokesmen (Tony Shaw and Wayne Jackson stand out).

The curious thing is that I never hear people I know and speak to use that word. With the AFL example, it would be hard to imagine a footy supporter saying that their team needs to be more "pro-active" in the second half.

It's strange how the word has come into such common usage in sections of society. It seems to be nothing more then a pointless jargon term that certain types use to make themselves seem more clever and knowledgable then they really are.

 

[Asgardian]

The people who are at the top in business are always Pro-active, it just means to be able to see situations develop, or even before they develop, and to take positive action to avoid a problem occurring.

The opposite to Pro-active is Re-active, those who are Re-active only respond to a problem when it becomes apparent

The benefits of being Pro-active are therefore obvious

 

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by Asgardian

The people who are at the top in business are always Pro-active, it just means to be able to see situations develop, or even before they develop, and to take positive action to avoid a problem occurring.

The opposite to Pro-active is Re-active, those who are Re-active only respond to a problem when it becomes apparent

The benefits of being Pro-active are therefore obvious

You make an interesting case but I disagree with your above point.

In my mind, the opposite of reactive is 'assertive', as that means everything you say 'pro-active' means. To be assertive is to take positive action before a problem develops.

I suspect that many people use the term precisely because it isn't used that widely in society; it gives an aura to statments to imply that the person or organisation involved is of more substance then it is and hoping that the general public would be fooled by it. To speak plainly, they fear, would reveal the weakness in their arguments.

But it just isn't "pro-active" that has been used this way, the statment "weapons of mass destruction" is used regularly by the US elite to justify their upcoming war on Iraq and other evil places. But what exactly are "weapons of mass destruction"? If one is to presume they mean military firepower and destructive firepower, the US would be leading everybody but who is going to argue that they are part of an "axis of evil"?

Terms are used like this to cover up the truth intead of illustrating the truth.

 

[Mooster7]

Wagstaff,

Asgardian defined the term perfectly. "Assertive" isn't necessarily the opposite of reactive as you can be assertive while reacting, or while being pro-active.

The term pro-active isn't a secret word used to muddy things. It is a broadly used term which actually carefully defines method. To my thinking, it is speaking clearly.

It does get old listening to some twinkie suit banter it about as a buzz-word to inspire the troops. But when the troops themselves use it, things get accomplished in a very assertive manner.

I don't know if Australians use the term "knee-jerk." (think of a doctor tapping the reflex in your knee with a rubber hammer) If so, that would be another good antonym to pro-active.

Weapons of mass destruction doesn't refer to simple miltary or destructive firepower. It generally refers to nukes, biological and chemical weapons. The US and Russia has them. So do a lot of other nation states (to include Pakistan).

The problem isn't with the ownership of these. It is rather the likelihood of their use by unstable terrorist sponsoring states. During the Cold War, it was presumed they would be used by the "super powers" in a bid war in Western Europe. In an attempt to deter this, both NATO and the Warsaw Pact indicated they would retaliate in kind if one side or the other first initiated their use. These policies are still in effect.

That's the way war works. Forunately, both sides acted responsibly and nothing happened at all. The concern is degrading these weapons in nations where they are likely to be used by terrorists.

It's the difference between an adult owning a gun, keeping it cleaned and locked away for safekeeping, and letting a small child take a loaded gun outside to play with in a suburban residential neighborhood.

Peace,

 

[35eye]

Originally posted by Mooster7
It does get old listening to some twinkie suit banter it about as a buzz-word to inspire the troops.

Here's a few used in my office that make me cringe...

• Drilling Down
• Being Kept in the Loop
• At Some Juncture
• Going Forward
• Having the Bandwidth
• Synergy
• Value Added

 

[London Dave]

Synergy is one that really peeves me...a lot of this 'management' speak is total crap...I refuse to use it, I much prefer coarse and gratuitous swearing, suits my style more I'm told.

 

[35eye]

Originally posted by London Dave
Synergy is one that really peeves me...a lot of this 'management' speak is total crap...I refuse to use it, I much prefer coarse and gratuitous swearing, suits my style more I'm told.

Same here.

I don't even know what synergy means but sometimes I just like to use the words out of context right back people just to take the p/ss.

 

[skilts]

'Pro-active' is an example of a catch-phrase or jargon which has entered the public discourse via the social sciences. If you see or hear a psychologist, sociologist, human relations operative, or even a social worker these phrases and words constantly recurr: Being 'positive' is good and leads to valued outcomes. Being 'negative' is bad and can be destructive.
Kids have 'attention deficit disorder' because there is a dedicated clinic in Caulfield devoted to this 'disorder'. Oops, they wouldn't say that.
I would have thought the most obvious reason for kids not paying attention would be the boredom factor of the teacher. Let's give 'em speed anyway. We can solve all your problems, if not with a pill then we will talk you to death.
It is all so simplistic and all so believable for those who need to believe there is a solution to their problems. Next project is to re-invent the wheel. Of course if forced to admit they aren't able to solve all problems the cracks appear in their veneer of professionalism.
Rape is not about sex, it's about power. Really?
How do the catchphrases/jargon: 'repressed', 'oppressed', schizo', 'sociopath' etc. add to the sum of human knowledge? Having dismissed a person as being of this class you no longer have to give them any more thought. At its root it's just laziness. It is based on the preposterous notion that anyone can know what it is to be another human being.
You will note there is no room for being 'realistic' here, because if you are doing that you don't have an identifiable disorder, therefore you are of no interest to these professions. If you don't fit into one of their categories, then you are not.
It's an attempt to bring their so-called disciplines into the realm of science. This, above all else, is what they crave. The impramatur of science. Why bother? They can charge more, like those other scientists: doctors, dentists and plumbers.
It is also an attempt to take over the above-mentioned public discourse. If you spent three, four, or, in the case of psychiatrists, up to eleven years studying, you would certainly do everything in your power to build a market for your 'talents'. If an article appears in one of the feature pages of our newspapers and you note that the writer is a psychologist, or whatever, the piece of writing is invariably also a plea for more funding for their type of 'counselling'.
That's right girls and boys. It's about money and the industry that these people have built up while nobody was looking. As a for instance, just think of the first thing that will happen to Australia's troops serving in Afghanistan. That's right, they'll receive trauma counselling. You're getting ahead of me now because I hear you asking how it could be a surprise for a volunteer soldier to be in a war?
Bottom line - It's not about the soldiers, it's about the industry they are building for the 'helping' professions.
They've already won, if you refuse to think.

 

[The Hitman]

Great example. Hawthorn before 1996 weren't very pro-active in their membership drives. Then we realized the danger, and became pro-active by advertising, volunteering, putting ourselves out there.

Pro-active is a positive action, while reactive is a replied action.

The Hitman

 

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by Mooster7
The problem isn't with the ownership of these. It is rather the likelihood of their use by unstable terrorist sponsoring states. During the Cold War, it was presumed they would be used by the "super powers" in a bid war in Western Europe. In an attempt to deter this, both NATO and the Warsaw Pact indicated they would retaliate in kind if one side or the other first initiated their use. These policies are still in effect.

That's the way war works. Forunately, both sides acted responsibly and nothing happened at all. The concern is degrading these weapons in nations where they are likely to be used by terrorists.

It's the difference between an adult owning a gun, keeping it cleaned and locked away for safekeeping, and letting a small child take a loaded gun outside to play with in a suburban residential neighborhood.

Peace,

Not surprisingly, your comments reflect those of the US elite, who of course are justified in having their weapons of mass destruction because they are the home (as so often said) of "freedom and democracy" (another term that has become jargon when spoken by the US elite). Of course, in a country racked by social and economic problems with tens of millions of poor, some have more freedom and democracy then others, but these things are never officially mentioned.

The 2000 election chaos with Gore/Bush almost blew apart the absurdity of these claims, which showed how much of a sham the voting process is. But thanks to outlets like the media, it was eventually kept under control. When all is said and done, the Supreme Court in their decision to back Bush basically said that the people didn't have a genuine right to vote for their President.
Doesn't sound like the home of "freedom and democracy".

 

[Mooster7]

Wagstaff,

Oh my, but you are an up and coming angry young man. Really, as much as you apparently distrust the media, you are "well informed" by some source or another. Whatever this source(s) may be, I would start distrusting it - right away.


I don't think I even know what the "US elite" is. If there is such a thing, I am so far separated from them, I might just as well be on the moon.

The US isn't the only nation to have weapons of mass destruction. Britain has them, France, Germany, China, Russia, India and Pakistan. On and on. The responsible position is to do away with them. This may never be accomplished. If it can be, it will take a very long time. Over the past thirty years, the SALT and START programs have made some headway, but not much. These things cannot be done in months or even years. Generations more like it.

The point is, there are terrorist sponsoring states which already possess chemical and biological weapons. Rather than take steps to rid them, they are doing just the contrary. They are using them against civilian populations. They are attempting to acquire nuclear weapons as well. That is a frightening thought.

It is possible to be too politically correct. We can respect other nations, their culture, their religions and their political systems - even if they differ. At the heart of the matter, however, there is still such a concept as right and wrong. There are dangerous places in the world governed by dangerous people. They have no business dealing in weapons of mass destruction. Regardless if the US is "the great Satan."



Incidentally, the US economy is just fine. Unemployment (always a problem) is relatively low. The downturns in the market should be expected as a correction to a decade of growth in a bull market. There aren't tens of millions of poor. Poor is a relative word anyway. Compared with nations which truly have poverty, there isn't a single poor person within the borders.

There are no more social problems than you would expect in a population of almost three hundred million people - all with differing views. There are outlets for resolving these problems. Most of them are just political exaggerations perpetuated by the sort of publications you undoubtedly read.

I didn't view the Gore/Bush election to be an illustration of problems with American democracy. As matter of fact, I thought the "crisis" (which was obviously also exaggerated in your reading material) showed a strength in democracy. It was a close election. It was resolved in accordance with procedures established by the US Constitution. The people did choose a President. If it hadn't been for all the votes, the election wouldn't have been close to begin with, eh?

The Floridians who claim they were disenfranchised of their vote are just being ridiculous. The fact that far more of them could use a simple voting ballot than couldn't, really disposes of the argument to begin with. For what it may or may not be worth, I didn't vote for Bush. I acknowledge he won a very unusual election. For better or worse, he is the president for a while.

Peace, and be careful of the media. Before you know it, they'll be doing your thinking for you.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by The Hitman
Great example. Hawthorn before 1996 weren't very pro-active in their membership drives. Then we realized the danger, and became pro-active by advertising, volunteering, putting ourselves out there.

Pro-active is a positive action, while reactive is a replied action.

The Hitman

Um......what Hawthorn did is reactive.
They saw a problem (proposed merger), so they reacted.

 

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by Mooster7

The point is, there are terrorist sponsoring states which already possess chemical and biological weapons. Rather than take steps to rid them, they are doing just the contrary. They are using them against civilian populations. They are attempting to acquire nuclear weapons as well. That is a frightening thought.

It is possible to be too politically correct. We can respect other nations, their culture, their religions and their political systems - even if they differ. At the heart of the matter, however, there is still such a concept as right and wrong. There are dangerous places in the world governed by dangerous people. They have no business dealing in weapons of mass destruction. Regardless if the US is "the great Satan."



Incidentally, the US economy is just fine. Unemployment (always a problem) is relatively low. The downturns in the market should be expected as a correction to a decade of growth in a bull market. There aren't tens of millions of poor. Poor is a relative word anyway. Compared with nations which truly have poverty, there isn't a single poor person within the borders.

There are no more social problems than you would expect in a population of almost three hundred million people - all with differing views. There are outlets for resolving these problems. Most of them are just political exaggerations perpetuated by the sort of publications you undoubtedly read.

I didn't view the Gore/Bush election to be an illustration of problems with American democracy. As matter of fact, I thought the "crisis" (which was obviously also exaggerated in your reading material) showed a strength in democracy. It was a close election. It was resolved in accordance with procedures established by the US Constitution. The people did choose a President. If it hadn't been for all the votes, the election wouldn't have been close to begin with, eh?

I have to take issue with some things you said in your response. Firstly, there is your statement that "terrorist-supporting nations" use "weapons of mass destruction" against civillian populations. While there is certainly truth in these statements, you conveninetly forget that the US govt have been involved in various forms of "mass destruction" of its own. For example, during this current war on Afghanistan, it's been well documented in American newspapers that the US military have only killed up to a thousand Afghan civillians in their "war on terror", as much a tragedy as what occurred on September 11. Yet will there be any criticism of America's bombing campaign from the commercial media, let alone from the US government itself? Not likely. It seems that some deaths are more significant then others.

As for your arguments on the Bush/Gore election, you're incorrect in your statement that the American voters chose their President. The Supreme Court in their ruling stopped the recount of votes at the behest of the Republican Party, who feared that if the counting continued that they wouldn't win the election. In their ruling, the Supreme Court stated that any state legislature can revoke the people's votes and:

“if it so chooses, select the electors itself”

Nothing too democratic about that scenario.

As for your claims, that there isn't a single poor person within the United States, is this the same country where 44 million people (according to a 1999 US Census Burearu report) don't even have health insurance? And one reason why you may think that there social problems like homeless people exist is that they are dragged away from the public spotlight and made out of sight, out of mind. For example, before the Salt Lake Olympics (as well as before the Sydney Olympics), local authorities dragged homeless people away from where they could be observed by tourists and the general public for fear that the city's social problems may be revealed for all to see.

Anyway, I guess we're going to agree to disagree on these issues and I have no problem with that. I think it's a good sign when there's lively debate on issues such as these.

 

[Mooster7]

Just a couple of quick pointers:

I really don't know how many Afghani civilians have been killed by errant bombing. Civilian casualties are a fact of war. It is one of the things which make them terrible. It's a good reason why they should be avoided. Unfortunately this is one that was not only laid at our feet, but first bashed against our heads. We will prosecute the war, and there are going to be horror stories. Only Nintendo makes clean wars.

I wouldn't characterize it as a "campaign of terror." It is an unfortunate side effect of shutting down the shop of the folks who put on the 11 September show.

I can flip the coin and say that, from Al Queda's perspective, the lives lost at the WTC are a side effect of what they are trying to accomplish. Fair. However, from our perspective there is a definite base line for what is right and what it is wrong. We were the ones attacked, we viewed that as wrong, and we have a right to defend ourselves. I'm not happy about civilian casualties, but sometimes you have to surgically excise healthy tissue while removing the disease. This saves the body.

After our embassies were bombed in Africa, our government waited patiently for extridition. After the USS Cole was bombed, our government waited patiently for extridition and conventional dimplomatic "police work." After 11 Sep, it was time to change the rules which were protecting the disease. I would like to point out that there are Afghanis celebrating in the streets as Taliban authority slips away to nothing.

You might find it interesting that I spend time on web-sites discussing military history. On them, I get hit from a different direction. As an American I am criticized for the fact that the US attempted to remain neutral in both WWI and WWII. They put up pretty good arguments that casualties (and even the holocaust) would have been less had the US entered the wars sooner. Sucks to be an American. If you remain neutral, you are responsible for terrible things. If you actively engage to stop some atrocity, you are responsible for terrible things. I'm used to it. I prefer to lay blame at the feet of those responsible - like the Nazis & Al Queda as examples.

The US Constitution is itself a document blueprinting democracy. It is subject to change by representatives elected by the people. There were provisions in place to resolve situations like the Gore/Bush dispute. If the Constitution is followed, then democracy has prevailed. W is the 43rd president and this is the first time anything like this had happened. Quite a few people are taking a second look at how the president is elected and trying to decide if there is need of change. The important thing is that the rules in place at the time of the dispute were followed. They were.

Personally, I was barracking for Gore. I'm not upset by the final decision. I don't like the idea of one state (which can float off and join Cuba as far as I'm concerned) holding up an election because some of its' citizens claim they couldn't understand a simple voting ballot. The Constitution provides for a dead line for the electors to meet. That's rule of law. Once that date came, Florida could either announce a vote count or be discluded. The Supreme Court didn't pick a president. What they did essentially was rule that a greater number of Floridians would have been disenfranchised had the state been discluded than what was alleged by the Democratic Party and Gores' camp.

If these rules need changed, they may be in place by the next election. At any rate, a moment of dispute is not time to change the rules. Odds are that it would take another two hundred years for an election to get to that sort of contest to begin with.

I said the word "poor" was a relative term. When I stated there were no poor in the US, I also made it clear that I was comparing our "poor" with those in other countries which suffer under truly horrible poverty.

I'll trust your number as to how many Americans are without health insurance. You may not know that they do have free health care. They can go to free clinics and county hospitals. The lines are longer, there aren't as many perks, the medications are generic, but it is free. Conversely, I have to pay two hundred bucks a month for my health insurance AND it is my taxes which supports the free health care of those without. I haven't been to a doctor in over ten years. That is $24,000 dollars I have paid, and not been sick or injured at all.

There are shelters for the homeless. There are programs in place to help them build a life. Anyone can make a living in the States if they get off their a$$ses and work. I've worked in the fire and ambulance field in an urban area for over ten years. I can tell you that a lot of homeless people are mentally ill. Some are regulars. If I see them out walking, I can stop and talk to them. I know their names, and which drugs they are probably high on. Some are nice people. Others are incorrigible misfits. I dont' blame Salt Lake for keeping them at bay. If anything, for the safety of the international athletes, and the smooth running of the games.

Anyway, that's more than just a couple of pointers. Sorry.

Peace,

 

[The Hitman]

Originally posted by Porthos
Um......what Hawthorn did is reactive.
They saw a problem (proposed merger), so they reacted.

Shhh - I hope you wouldn't pick up on that...

The Hitman

 

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by Mooster7


Just a couple of quick pointers:

I really don't know how many Afghani civilians have been killed by errant bombing. Civilian casualties are a fact of war. It is one of the things which make them terrible. It's a good reason why they should be avoided. Unfortunately this is one that was not only laid at our feet, but first bashed against our heads. We will prosecute the war, and there are going to be horror stories. Only Nintendo makes clean wars.

I wouldn't characterize it as a "campaign of terror." It is an unfortunate side effect of shutting down the shop of the folks who put on the 11 September show.

I can flip the coin and say that, from Al Queda's perspective, the lives lost at the WTC are a side effect of what they are trying to accomplish. Fair. However, from our perspective there is a definite base line for what is right and what it is wrong. We were the ones attacked, we viewed that as wrong, and we have a right to defend ourselves. I'm not happy about civilian casualties, but sometimes you have to surgically excise healthy tissue while removing the disease. This saves the body.

After our embassies were bombed in Africa, our government waited patiently for extridition. After the USS Cole was bombed, our government waited patiently for extridition and conventional dimplomatic "police work." After 11 Sep, it was time to change the rules which were protecting the disease. I would like to point out that there are Afghanis celebrating in the streets as Taliban authority slips away to nothing.

You might find it interesting that I spend time on web-sites discussing military history. On them, I get hit from a different direction. As an American I am criticized for the fact that the US attempted to remain neutral in both WWI and WWII. They put up pretty good arguments that casualties (and even the holocaust) would have been less had the US entered the wars sooner. Sucks to be an American. If you remain neutral, you are responsible for terrible things. If you actively engage to stop some atrocity, you are responsible for terrible things. I'm used to it. I prefer to lay blame at the feet of those responsible - like the Nazis & Al Queda as examples.

While you obviously believe that the American government stands for "freedom and democracy", history suggests this not to be the case.

To take one of many examples, the Chilean coup of 1973. The Allende government had been elected democratically, but the American government was unimpressed with its nationalistion of many of the country's major industries, as it hurt the interests of American big business.

As Chile was a democratic country, the American elite was aware that it couldn't invade the country and install a government to suit its own interests as it would've ruined their credibility of being a representaion of world democracy. So, Henry Kissenger and Richard Nixon used the CIA to train and fund the fascist elements of Chile, mainly residing in the military forces, and eventually ensured that Chile was taken over by a military coup on September 11, 1973. It was estimated that thousands of "dissidents" were torturted with the most debased methods possible: one example saw a pregnant woman beaten by military men so that she would have a miscarriage. And thousands more "disappeared" or were simply killed.

Even today, as documents show the US elite's role in assisting the military dictatorship, and that the Pinochet regime has been shown to be one of the most brutal of the latter stages of the 20th century, people like Henry Kissinger defend their actions, even if they claim that they didn't "intend" a military coup to happen. (See link below)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_america/jan-june01/chile_2-20.html

If this effort on the part of the American establishment is what you term "democracy", then I don't want it.

 

[Mooster7]

Wagstaff,

I really don't know what to tell you. You are obviously a younger guy who is bright enough to look into the world around him.

In the US, we have Kindergarten, and grades 1-12 - just like in Australia. Grade 12 think they know everything. They are soon surprised when they are "grade one" in college (uni). There, they learn that they are really a bunch of idiots. They want to learn. They try.

Then, something else happens. They learn a few things. They are desperate to prove that they are free thinking individuals. Most of them take an intellectual position exactly contrary to whatever the media is putting forth. They don't want to believe anything and they often put forth the tired notion that anyone who believes the free press is a "dupe" and "pawn" of some greater "media controlling elite."

Very common. We call those people "campus liberals" We have patience with them and recognize that perhaps 60% of them are actually intelligent people (if they had the facts).

Winston Churchill said (I'm paraphrasing) "A person who is not a liberal (left wing) at the age of twenty has no heart. A person who is not a conservative (a bit to the right) at age thirty has no brain.

I believe that to be true.

Please don't dig up the crimes of Nixon to prove a point that the US is actually some sort of evil empire. Most of us (in the US) would like to dig Nixon's corpse out of his grave and toss his bones in jail. The Watergate scandal put the notion of democracy in jeopardy like no other incident in our history.

BTW that particular scandal (like the Gore/Bush election) actually demonstrated the power of democracy over anarchy more than anything else. During the cold war, a lot of right wing dictatorships were supported in favor of communist factions. War makes for unusual bedfellows. Whatever atrocities may have been committed by Governments "friendly" to the US may very well have been committed just the same by a communist regime - read up on the Khmer Rouge.

The Cold War is now over (for the most part) I don't trust the Chinese, so I'm not particularly excited.

One thing stands clear. I would like you Bigfooty contributors to know it. The US may be some giant, drunken with power (us citizens don't view it that way). But, we do have a foreign policy law which is written in stone - "An attack upon Australia is viewed by the United States as an attack upon the US itself, and retaliatory and protective measures will be exercised, in full by the US to ensure the autonomy and self-determinism of the Commonwealth of Australia."

I support that "mate." I'll die for it. I'll send my blood to defend that particular notion. We let England hang out there during the battle of Britain in W.W.II. We let a lot of people hang out there. Not Australia. I think is because of your great form of football.

CNN and other new groups operate with total autonomy. You may chose to disregard it, but compare it with the Russian 'Pravda.' The CIA, Russian KGB, and British MI5 has always monitored the Western Press for its' accurate "intelligence" information. Perhaps you should be the first in your class to believe in Western values, a suspicious view of the press, and (just to be a rebel) why don't you like Americans?

Peace,

 

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by Mooster7

BTW that particular scandal (like the Gore/Bush election) actually demonstrated the power of democracy over anarchy more than anything else. During the cold war, a lot of right wing dictatorships were supported in favor of communist factions. War makes for unusual bedfellows. Whatever atrocities may have been committed by Governments "friendly" to the US may very well have been committed just the same by a communist regime - read up on the Khmer Rouge.

The Cold War is now over (for the most part) I don't trust the Chinese, so I'm not particularly excited.

One thing stands clear. I would like you Bigfooty contributors to know it. The US may be some giant, drunken with power (us citizens don't view it that way). But, we do have a foreign policy law which is written in stone - "An attack upon Australia is viewed by the United States as an attack upon the US itself, and retaliatory and protective measures will be exercised, in full by the US to ensure the autonomy and self-determinism of the Commonwealth of Australia."

I support that "mate." I'll die for it. I'll send my blood to defend that particular notion. We let England hang out there during the battle of Britain in W.W.II. We let a lot of people hang out there. Not Australia. I think is because of your great form of football.

CNN and other new groups operate with total autonomy. You may chose to disregard it, but compare it with the Russian 'Pravda.' The CIA, Russian KGB, and British MI5 has always monitored the Western Press for its' accurate "intelligence" information. Perhaps you should be the first in your class to believe in Western values, a suspicious view of the press, and (just to be a rebel) why don't you like Americans?

Peace,

Your comments on the US elite being well-meaning were made a bit more dubious by the revelations that the US government is developing plans that will expand the possiblities of usage of nuclear weapons. Not just against the 'axis of evil' countries mind you, but against countries like Syria, Libya and even countries that Bush has visited recently and aren't supposedly enemies of the US government currently, Russia and China. The leaked document has even suggested that nuclear weapons be used in conflicts in the Middle East and between North and South Korea.

If this report is followed through, then nuclear weapons wouldn't be used by the American military as a last resort when under nuclear attack, but as a possible pre-emptive strike, even against nations that don't have nuclear weapons.

While US government and military figures pontificate about the dangers of Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction', it's America who has the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction and is the one country to use nuclear weapons against another nation's people, as occurred in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. What was interesting about this bombing was that while the Americans were supposedly performing these attacks to enstill democracy to Japan, they were prepared to kill thousands of Japanese civilians who were under this oppressed facist regime, yet after the war, ensured that Emperor Hirohito, who should've been under trial for war crimes, was protected for the sake of 'Japanese-American' relations.

As for today's enemies of the USA, it was the American government that developed and fostered Islam fundamentalism, under the guise of 'freedom fighters' in the 1980's, so that they would be a viable force in the Soviet Union's war with Afghanistan in the 1980's.

As for Saddam Hussein, the US establishment supported him in the war against Iran in the 1980's. So much so that Hussein was genuinely surprised that the US went to war against him in 1990 over the invasion of Kuwait, not aware that the invasion wasn't in the American government's interests.

As for your claims that I don't like Americans, where have I said that? Just because I am critical of the policy of the American government and it's various outlets doesn't mean I dislike the American population. The vast majority of the American population don't have a genuine say in how their country is developed and run; many of them realise that which explains the continually receding turnouts at the major elections they have in recent years. The differences between the major parties have become more and more miniscule over the years to the stage where democracy has become severely compromised. This isn't something that occurs just in America, this has been occurring to the political process in all Western democracies all over the world, including Australia.

 

[Mooster7]

I hope no one else minds too much Wagstaff and I conducting the never-ending story.

Wags, my apologies. This post is very long, and it only addresses one of the issues brought up in your last message. It also rambles as I didn't prepare an outline. I just...wrote.

These nuke documents you are referring to are called "contingency plans." They are nothing new. They are pre-battle plans in the event something untoward happens - and they are needed. They are like a play book in the NFL if you are familiar. The US Armed Forces (and I am certain the forces of every other nation which has forces) prepare these contingency plans for every conceivable theatre in the world in which there is the remotest possiblity a conflict could occurr. They are constantly refined, re-planned and updated as needed.

They are a damned good idea. First let's compare modern war to warfare in WWII. Things have changed dramatically in 60 years. In WWII a Divisional Commander might need up to 24 hours from the time he issues orders for a major initiative until the division actually responds fully to these orders. As the battle developes, he relies on his subordinate commanders to respond to local threats and changes. If the commander wanted to make significant alterations to his plan, these may not take effect for several hours. That several hours creates a gap "from head to foot" if you will. (BTW as comparison, in Napoleanic warfare, the strategic picture developed over a period of days or weeks).

The most significant changes in modern warfare has been the inclusion of modern electronics, computers, high tech recon platforms, greatly enhanced accuracy of both line of sight and remote launch weapons. Now, "the gap" is no longer several hours. Correct reactions, and decisions must now be made inside a window of a few minutes. This is the case in a conventional war, but especially true in a nuclear confrontation.

What to do? In war, you endeavor to give yourself every possible advantage you can find. It's not a sport with a level playing field and rules which mandate both teams be equal. So you make contingency plans, and you do it in peace time while you have the time to do it.

First you make geographical and topographical surveys of the area in question. You look for key terrain features, defensible/undefensible areas etc. Then you make a survey of the infrastucture - road nets, bridges, sources of power, communications capabilities, airports, airfields, strategic manufacturing capability etc. Added to this of course is the military capabiltes of your potential enemy. Troop strength,troop structures, command facilities, radar installations, anti-aircraft capability, lines of logistics, and the mobility of all of these force features.

From there, you make plans for each possible layer of conflict ie low/high intensity (LHI) police conflict, LHI conventional ground war, theater war, Tactical or Strategic Nuclear War. For each level of conflict you develop several plans or options. That way, you already know (or hope you know) the quickest way to disable your enemy in terms of their; command and control functions, air power, anti-aircraft capability. You deny mobility to his troops by destroying the road net & bridges and by interdicting other avenues of maneuver. This also depletes his ability to reinforce and resupply his troops in the field (logistics, you win through logistics). In a prolonged war, you deny his strategic ability through bombing his manufacturing capability, interdicting or bombing harbors - on and on.

Like I said, a very serious conflict can develop rapidly in the modern world. Once it does, it requires rapid action and decisiveness. That is why you pre-plan all this in advance. It may seem unpleasant, but the potential consequences of not doing it are much worse. If during the Cold War, the USSR had launched nuclear weapons against the US, that would have been the most ridiculous time for the US to start making Soviet target selections and programming them into their ICBM's for retaliation, don't you think? So there are also nuclear contingency plans for every conceivable (regardless of how unlikely) possible area of conflict.

Every nation which possesses strategic nuclear arms has these nuclear contingency plans. They have been in existence for decades. In the example I gave above, imagine if the NATO nations didn't have CP's. If a high level political crisis occurred between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and if the Soviets knew we had no pre-planned targeting (which takes weeks to develop and hours to program) the Soviets would have been greatly tempted to launch a pre-emptive strike. Within the strange concept of MAD (which kept the nuclear peace for 50 years) a nuclear CP actually helps deter use of nuclear weapons rather than increase the liklihood of their use. They arent' just pre-emptive targeting plans, they are retaliatory targeting plans as well.

Having said all that.... It is well known that nuclear CP's have existed for decades. Syria, Lybia, Iran, Iraq have already been surveyed. Targets selected, options and plans made for all the various levels of war. Occasionally they are updated. They have to be as you can imagine. They aren't even secret once you understand that aspect of how the world works. Business as usual. The updates as recently revealed by the media aren't revealing any secret at all. They haven't increased the liklihood of nukes being used either.

Just to illustrate the non-secrecy of the concept of a contingency plan, the outline US battle plan for a full scale conventional war in Western Europe was known as the FM-200. In my personal library, I have copies of every FM-200 update from 1973 to present. So did/do the Russians. You can get them off the internet if you're interested (you don't even have to be a spy )

What you have to consider is that the nuke CP's weren't leaked. How can you leak something that everyone in the political, military and news arenas (not to mention a great deal of the general public) already knows about? They weren't leaked, rather they were "leaked." There was a reason for that, and that reason wasn't military in nature. It was instead diplomatic. Consider three things:

A) The 9-11 "Bush Doctrine." Each nation has an international responsibility to police itself against terrorists cells. When discovered they are responsible for the arrest, legal prosecution (and if applicable) the extridition of the terrorists to the other nations injurred by the terrorists. Otherwise, the nations themselves will be considered hosts of the terrorists. Nations hosting terrorists will be (correctly) consdiered sponsors, and thus responsible for the actions of those terrorists. If the act of terror is an act of war, the host nation will be considered to have initiated a declaration of war against the injurred nation.

B) The Al Queda have themselves "leaked" the fact that they are in possession of nuclear weapon(s) and are willing to use them against the US or against US Allies. This is possible but not entirely believable. Terror by rhetoric IMO. Still, it is a threat which must be given some serious credence anyway.

C) The long extant US foreign policy of weapons of mass destruction. "If a nation uses weapons of mass destruction against the US, the US will retaliate in kind with weapons of mass destruction."

Now, with A, B & C in view, reconsider the "leak" of the nuke CP (which as we've discussed is relatively common knowledge to begin with). All the "leak" represents is a reminder for terrorists sponsoring nations to put A, B, & C together. It is a not-so-subtle message to terrorist sponsoring nations that if some freak extremist detonates a nuclear device inside the US, that....well, we have a large stockpile of nuclear weapons ourselves. More detente. It was diplomatic pressure to encourage terror host nations to police up these dirtbags. Rather than increase the liklihood of a nuclear strike, it was a diplomatic attempt to decrease the liklihood of these weapons being used. Not a military message at all.

If the media induced any hysteria by this "leak" then I have to say it was Darwinistic. Those hysterical need to gain a better understanding of how international politics/relations work, and also how the various armed forces of the world interact. Otherwise they are going to find themselves needlessly hysterical quite often.

The US State Department knew what message it was sending, the media involved understood the message it was propagating, and the governments who were intended to receive the message, also understood it very well. IMO, no apoligies necessary to those who need a bit more education, and to whom the message was not directed to begin with.

OMG Wagstaff, I'll get back with you on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This post is already way too long. Let me say quickly that I hate nuclear weapons, but that I support those two bombings and I am prepared to defend that view. I promise to do so. Peace Wags,

Mooster

 

[Mooster7]

Wagstaff,

Back as promised to discuss the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As stated, I'm anti-nuke. I wish they didn't exist. However, I am in complete agreement with President Harry Truman's use of them. They weren't used (as you stated) to instill democracy in Japan. They were used to end the war. The Japanese were in an untenable strategic position and should by all rights of sense have surrendered. They declared they would fight to the last man and woman in Japan.

To end the war would have required an invasion. The plan was to assemble a force of one million combat troops to carry this out. I don't know if you've read much about the island campaigns in the Pacific during WWII, but the Japanese didn't surrender anything. In order to take control of a Japanese held position, Allied troops generally had to inflict casualties in the 90 percentile. That's for crappy little places like Iwo & Tarawa. Imagine the tenacity with which the Japanese would have fought in defense of their home islands.

It's very difficult to precisely predict casualties in a battle that was never fought. I've seen estimates ranging between a half-million to a full million casualties (both sides added in) if an amphib invasion of Japan would have been mounted. This figure represents only weapons inflicted casualties . It does not account for a potential staggering number of civilian deaths from a long campaign to subdue Japan as a result of infrastructure collapse (starvation, disease in overcrowded areas etc).

A half million? A million? I believe that. The Soviets suffered approx 100,000 casualties just taking Berlin. They also lost an estimated twenty million throughout the war. 20,000,000. You could ask, "What's a million more tossed on to the end of all that?"

Pretend you are a Commonwealth trooper in WWII. Somehow you survived campaigns in North Africa (BTW the Aussies were brilliant in NA - particularly in the 1st and second defenses of Tobruk) then Sicily, next France and into Germany to "end the war." Six years of fighting. Somehow, you and your best mates in your squad are all still alive. Eleven people whom you care about as much or more as your own brothers. They ARE your brothers.

Now (instead of going home) you are being shipped to staging areas in the Phillipines in order to stage an assault against Japan. A campaign which may last one or two years, and a campaign in which statistically half of your squad of beloved brothers will be killed - perhaps you too. A million people are going to die along with five or six of the people whom you care about most in the world and with whom you have already trudged through six years of war. Sucks.

Or.... Two airplanes can drop two bombs on two cities in the span of a week or so, and end the whole f#cking war. You and all eleven of your friends go home to start families and carry on whatever passes as a meaningful existence for you. In your case you have AFL footy. Worth living for, eh?

The death toll from the atomic bombings are as follows:

Hiroshima - 66,000
Nagasaki - 39,000

TOTAL - 105,000 War over. Do the rest of the math.

BTW during the Korean conflict, General Douglas McArthur kept spouting off as to how he could win the war with 11 atomic bombs. He was probably correct, but they weren't used. The self-same Harry Truman who authorized the Hiro-Naga bombings instead sacked McArthur's ass. The US hasn't used Atomic weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction since August of 1945. They are horrible and haven't as of yet been justified as they were so clearly in WWII.

The Emperor Hirohito wasn't a war criminal. He was opposed to the war actually. He had no power to wage or stop war, nor was he involved with any of the true war crimes in the Pacific Theater. As in most periods of Japanese history, the Emperor was a figurehead. Granted the emperor did gain some power during the fall of the Tokugawa Shogunate (Meijii Restoration) but soon lost it...again.

The Premier Tojo Hideki, on the other hand was a war criminal. He was tried, found guilty & hanged in 1948.

I didn't say you disliked Americans. I said "...(just to be a rebel)why don't you like Americans?" Then I added a ""

Everyone in a democracy has political power. This power is potential and most times left unused. In the US, we entrust power to elected representatives. They are corrupt. We have the power to remove them (see Nixon, Richard - burglaries, third rate commission of). It's not easy to gain real political power. It's not as easy as logging on to a computer and expressing yourself. You have to get up and work your ass off to affect even minor changes. If you work hard enough, and are smart enough you can be a mover and shaker (part of being smart enough involves getting the funding $$$$ )

The "Bush Foundation" wasn't built overnight. It was built over generations by very clever people. It can, however, collapse rather quickly. With the fall of ENRON, the Bush dynasty may be completely impotent in 3 years.

A side effect of having all this power is that it makes you crook-ed as a sack of snakes. That's Ok, because the best democracies are constructed with the full knowledge that the human animal is possibly the most dastardly every devised. No human form of government will ever work perfectly because of this. Instead of becoming upset about the imperfections you see around the political world, be happy. Things aren't gong badly in Western Democracy because of evil power brokers. Instead, be amazed and proud that your system works well enough inspite of these evil power brokers.

If you find the current social and political conditions intolerable, shut down your computer and go run for office. Start a small political newsletter. Go door to door. Attend town meetings. Get politically active. If someday you are elected to high office, you will find that along the way you have also sold your soul to various special interest groups. That's fine. It's part of being a politician. If you can still manage to carry out your political ideals after selling your soul for the money to get there, if you can do some good and somehow still retain a shred of honesty.... that is better than a politician. That is a statesman!

Peace,

 

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by Mooster7
Wagstaff,

Back as promised to discuss the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As stated, I'm anti-nuke. I wish they didn't exist. However, I am in complete agreement with President Harry Truman's use of them. They weren't used (as you stated) to instill democracy in Japan. They were used to end the war. The Japanese were in an untenable strategic position and should by all rights of sense have surrendered. They declared they would fight to the last man and woman in Japan.

How can you be "anti-nuke" yet agree with the use of them on Japan. That's "a bit" of a contradiction, don't you think?

 

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by Mooster7


Every nation which possesses strategic nuclear arms has these nuclear contingency plans. They have been in existence for decades. In the example I gave above, imagine if the NATO nations didn't have CP's. If a high level political crisis occurred between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and if the Soviets knew we had no pre-planned targeting (which takes weeks to develop and hours to program) the Soviets would have been greatly tempted to launch a pre-emptive strike. Within the strange concept of MAD (which kept the nuclear peace for 50 years) a nuclear CP actually helps deter use of nuclear weapons rather than increase the liklihood of their use. They arent' just pre-emptive targeting plans, they are retaliatory targeting plans as well.

Having said all that.... It is well known that nuclear CP's have existed for decades. Syria, Lybia, Iran, Iraq have already been surveyed. Targets selected, options and plans made for all the various levels of war. Occasionally they are updated. They have to be as you can imagine. They aren't even secret once you understand that aspect of how the world works. Business as usual. The updates as recently revealed by the media aren't revealing any secret at all. They haven't increased the liklihood of nukes being used either.

Just to illustrate the non-secrecy of the concept of a contingency plan, the outline US battle plan for a full scale conventional war in Western Europe was known as the FM-200. In my personal library, I have copies of every FM-200 update from 1973 to present. So did/do the Russians. You can get them off the internet if you're interested (you don't even have to be a spy )

What you have to consider is that the nuke CP's weren't leaked. How can you leak something that everyone in the political, military and news arenas (not to mention a great deal of the general public) already knows about? They weren't leaked, rather they were "leaked." There was a reason for that, and that reason wasn't military in nature. It was instead diplomatic. Consider three things:

A) The 9-11 "Bush Doctrine." Each nation has an international responsibility to police itself against terrorists cells. When discovered they are responsible for the arrest, legal prosecution (and if applicable) the extridition of the terrorists to the other nations injurred by the terrorists. Otherwise, the nations themselves will be considered hosts of the terrorists. Nations hosting terrorists will be (correctly) consdiered sponsors, and thus responsible for the actions of those terrorists. If the act of terror is an act of war, the host nation will be considered to have initiated a declaration of war against the injurred nation.

Mooster7, what exactly is a terrorist? It seems that when a group of people crash planes into the World Trade Centre, that is considered an act of terrorism (which is correct). Yet whenever America gets involved in the bombing of countries like Iraq - whose regime it supported in the 1980's - or, going further back, Vietnam and Cambodia, that is considered to be "defending freedom". Did it ever occur to you that what is happening to the people of Afghanistan - including the reckless killing of civillians that the US are supposed to be protecting - are acts of terror in themselves?

For all the supposed differences between Muslim fundamentalists such as Osama Bin Laden and the US elite, they do have some remarkable similarities. Just as Bin Laden is callously indifferent to human life that the killing of thousands of American civilians, so are the the US military and government to the killing of Afghan civilians. Comments abound from military leaders at press conferences at how they "body-slammed" the opposition by killing thousands of soldiers and when Rumsfeld does admit that the US bombing has seen the killing of numerous Afghan civilians, he is invariably flippant when he comments that "women and children were in the battle zone". In other words, tough luck.

Everyone in a democracy has political power. This power is potential and most times left unused. In the US, we entrust power to elected representatives. They are corrupt. We have the power to remove them (see Nixon, Richard - burglaries, third rate commission of). It's not easy to gain real political power. It's not as easy as logging on to a computer and expressing yourself. You have to get up and work your ass off to affect even minor changes. If you work hard enough, and are smart enough you can be a mover and shaker (part of being smart enough involves getting the funding $$$$ )

The "Bush Foundation" wasn't built overnight. It was built over generations by very clever people. It can, however, collapse rather quickly. With the fall of ENRON, the Bush dynasty may be completely impotent in 3 years.

A side effect of having all this power is that it makes you crook-ed as a sack of snakes. That's Ok, because the best democracies are constructed with the full knowledge that the human animal is possibly the most dastardly every devised. No human form of government will ever work perfectly because of this. Instead of becoming upset about the imperfections you see around the political world, be happy. Things aren't gong badly in Western Democracy because of evil power brokers. Instead, be amazed and proud that your system works well enough inspite of these evil power brokers.

Remarkable. After endlessly defending the US government and its "democratic" instituions, you admit that those who rise to these positions are bascially corrupt grubs who are open to the highest financial corporate bidder. Do you realise how many contradictions there are in your arguments. And of course, you come up with that old line about how the human race is a miserable and evil one.

It seems that not only are you indifferent to the problems and disasters of the world, but you have a contempt for humanity, and therefore, yourself.