And I think it's annoying and presumptuous to readily brandish racial stereotypes based on what appears be a deliberate mischaracterization of one person's analogy.
And that I appreciate. I'll even forgive the initial response that reassigned my gender.
SSH, are you ageist? Do you believe adults are somehow better than children? If you were to skew my analogy in a semi-literal fashion, you could have as readily noted that children are also symbolic of potential, innocence, and -of course- youth (being a younger nation than the US).
Initially, I thought your response was joking.. maybe it's the avatar that leads me to that as default. Reading the subsequent replies, I'm disappointed. An analogy is using two dissimilar things to demonstrate their similarity. In the case of mine, it was the situation - not the ages involved. Likewise, I spent the entire post painting the Adults/US as ignorant and arrogant assuming they'd be able to fix a situation without knowing anything about it.
How did you manage to skim it so shallowly that you only took away a spirit of condescension? Regarding the conflict, I believe we're on the same side of the metaphorical line in the sand (which does come closer to having a literal counterpart than my analogy).
I've read a lot about hindsight, and about high-minded ideals. While it bleeds a little into conspiracy theory territory, the documented doctrines of organizations related to the current administration are at least circumstantial evidence that this conflict was not an act of misunderstanding, but of misleading in order to justify an invasion (referring to the infamous PNAC document). Regarding hindsight, I was serving at an airstation during September 11th, and while we were standing by shocked by the news broadcasts, every last person in my workcenter was assuming we'd end up going after Saddam - not because we defaulted to assuming he had something to do with it, but because we all felt that our government would want to return and resume what was halted after Desert Storm.
Regarding American arrogance or blind assumptions that I promote aspects the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, I was proudest of my country when we'd avoided conflict for some time and the perception (at least of the public) was that the only conflicts we'd entered had roots in noble ideals even if they had selfish tangential motivations (i.e. Aiding Kuwait during invasion v. securing oil interests). At least one could attempt to defend their country in arguments with the "Well, we meant well, even if we probably wouldn't have interfered if it hadn't been that region". In this conflict, all the justifications and semi-moral reasonings were inserted well after the stages of conflict in order to placate the American people.
The perception that because half the nation supports the conflict & administration (doing some research, I think you'll find the number much lower today) means they believe in a "US knows best" policy is misguided at best. The portion of the country supporting the conflict is mislead, ignorant of facts, or stupidly trusting due to apathetic patriotism.
"Support our troops?" Most definitely, for the reasons DG mentioned. I came very damned close to being retained in the military after my contractual obligation had ended, and I fully realize that I could very well have been over there (unless I'd had the fortitude to risk jail time). They're doing what they're told, trusting or hoping that their superiors are right, and having faith that they wouldn't be told to do anything intrinsically immoral (whether that faith is religious or patriotic).
If I were to apply my analogy towards people regularly posting here, I might've previously applied the moniker of "Adult" to SSH as he's got a tendency to shake his head patiently at some of the quibbling of the "Children" here. Now, once again, I need to adjust my perception of vague on-line identities.
