Some DUer’s supported the Iraq invasion?

[patrice]

29. This is an asynchronous environment. That's one of its greatest assets, especially compared to

Last edited Mon Feb 18, 2013, 06:34 PM - Edit history (1)

msm, but also one of its greatest challenges.

Not only do people enter this environment at ALL different levels of being personally informed themselves, they encounter the information this environment presents in their own way, clicking or not, on specific, more or less significant, pieces of information, when/IF they encounter them.

Because there are some people, thus, WITHOUT the more essential, and pretty RARE at that time, information about the lies in the build up to the invasion and occupation of an INNOCENT nation known as Iraq, and WITH the extremely common cognitive limitation manifested in an inability to form original questions, let alone to entertain the possibility that you may be wrong, especially in your assumptions about your own dis-empowerment and de-valuing "small" actions, it's not at all un-reasonable that many people would default to "support the troops".

After-all, something quintessentially bloody appears to be increasingly likely, OUR troops, whether they agree with what is happening or not, will be much more intimately involved than the rest of us, so in light of what seems to be very probable in all of that (i.e. Iraqi persons blown to bloody bits - and - OUR soldiers in incalculable situations in which they must do as ordered - OR INCUR CONSEQUENCES THAT NEARLY 100% OF THE REST OF US WOULD NEVER ENCOUNTER - either at the hands of Iraqi citizens defending themselves or at the hands of the UCMJ), it is not at all unreasonable that lots of people (who might be relatively inclined otherwise were they somewhat more curious, were they in the habit of reality testing THEMSELVES, were the media not such BLOOD SUCKING traitors to the people for the 1% . . . etc.) . . . that is, under the conditions sketched here, it is not at all unreasonable to expect that many people would reflexively opt to "protect" the troops by "supporting" them. Who stands FOR the troops in a situation like what we had/have going on between Cheney's private intelligence and the Pentagon and msm??? The differences between people who reasoned this way have to do with the extent to which they refuse to keep the Five-fingers blinders on and taking your blinders off, by wondering if you might be wrong, and asking yourself questions about what you may AND may not know. All of that is more probable in an environment like the DU, where some degree of differences are tolerated withing certain shared parameters.

When differences are tolerated, within an agreed upon (empty) process, change is possible, but it is still true that even after admitting the possibility of personal error, even after asking a few original questions and seeking answers, some people DO maintain their initial evaluation of the circumstances and don't change. If I, or any we, have communicated our criteria for why/how we establish one's own/our principled truths and IF different others honestly and openly assent and abide by those criteria in their own position processes, and do not seek, therefore, PRIVILEGE, in their "different" truths . . . if all of that has happened authentically and openly, then different truths have the right to coexist and should respect one another as much as possible withing their agreed upon standards.