Liberalscum Buster

May 30, 2008

EXPERIENCE, JUDGEMENT, COMMON SENSE AND TRAINING

Filed under: BARACK OBAMA, Bush, hillary clinton, John McCain, life, mideast, news, politics, war — gasdocpol @ 12:29 pm

People keep talking about “EXPERIENCE” and then stop thinking.

For openners, do they recognise that there is a difference between 20 years of experience and one year of experience twenty times? Experience must be evaluated in terms of both quality and quantity.

There are several other words that need to be considered alongside of experience. They are: Common sense, training, and judgement.

My definition of common sense is the ability to make the right decision or solve a problem without specific training or experience.

Good judgement can be the result of the interplay of: training, common sense and experience. These factors can be combined in various proportions to result in good judgement.

In October 2002, Obama had sufficient experience, training and common sense to have the good judgement to realize that Iraq would be a dumb war.

Advertisements

19 Comments »

  1. Agree. What matters more is how one learns from his/her experience and how he/she applies it and not a lengthy one without learning anything.

    Comment by J. A. Carizo — May 30, 2008 @ 12:41 pm

  2. People like to have an opinion.

    Some people are intellectually lazy. It is very convenient for them to assume that someone who has more experience will do things better than people who have less experience.

    Complicated tasks often call for some combination of training, common sense, experience and judgement.

    It is possible to have a lot of experience and poor judgement. Good judgement is good judgement.

    Comment by gasdocpol — May 30, 2008 @ 1:15 pm

  3. Or Obama realized that Iraq would end up being an unpopular war – especially with the progressives – and would be a useful point in his planned upcoming bid to the POTUS.

    Comment by jonolan — May 30, 2008 @ 1:17 pm

  4. Jolnolan

    For Omama to have realized that Iraq would become an unpopulr war, also would have called for insight. At the time his was a very much a minority opinion.

    For Obama to have realized that Iraq would have become an unpopular war, he would have had great faith in the judgement of Amarican people. That is far from being the elitist that some people have accused him of being.

    I think that you have just given Obama a compliment.

    Comment by gasdocpol — May 30, 2008 @ 1:26 pm

  5. Gasdocpol,

    It doesn’t take much insight to realize that, while we would quickly and efficiently break the Iraqi military and win the “war”, we would be bogged down in factional infighting and multivalent violence for years to come. He – and the rest of us – had plenty of history to reference on the subject.

    It also doesn’t take any faith in the American people to know that we have a long history of not liking protracted military engagements, especially when we’re not achieving clear-cut tactical goals.

    All it took for Obama to vote against the Iraq war was the ability to realize that we were doing the same thing others had done time and time again – always with the same result, and the ability to predict that the media would delight in showing it in the worst possible light.

    That IS a compliment. Obama’s job is being a politician and he’s shown that he is good at his job. Frankly, he may be the best politician in the race. I’d vote for him if I wasn’t dead-set against most of his platform. I might HAVE voted for him if the Republicans had nominated one of their other candidates.

    Comment by jonolan — May 30, 2008 @ 3:16 pm

  6. jonolan

    We had just kicked butt in Desert Storm and Kosovo. Most Americans would not have been anxious to invade Iraq if they knew that 4080 would be killed, 13000 maimed for life and it would cost 3 trillion and over 5 years later we will still be bogged down, mission accomplished etc.

    MAYBE IT WAS EASY FOR OBAMA TO PREDICT THE OUTCOME BUT MANY PEOPLE LIKE HILLARY AND COULD NOT.

    Comment by gasdocpol — May 30, 2008 @ 3:54 pm

  7. That I believe that it didn’t take much insight for Obama to see what would happen doesn’t mean that I believe the others could reach that conclusion. The bar was set very low – but many still managed to fail, or had other priorities, or we’re not getting anything near the truth for going in there.

    Obama may just the best in some ways of a very bad lot.

    Comment by jonolan — May 30, 2008 @ 4:04 pm

  8. jonolan

    “we’re not getting anything near the truth for going in there”

    The truth of why we went in there is obvious but AMERICANS CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

    IF YOU ARE TRULY INTERESTED,

    READ THE ACCOUNTS OF :
    -PAUL O’NEILL
    -RICHARD A. CLARK
    -LAWRENCE WILKERSON
    -SCOTT McCLELLAN

    LOOK UP :
    PNAC
    DOWNING STREET MEMO

    AND YOU WILL SEE A SEAMLESS EXPLAINATION OF HOW AND WHY BUSH/CHENEY LIED US INTO THE IRAQ FIASCO.

    Comment by gasdocpol — May 30, 2008 @ 6:42 pm

  9. I find the PNAC and similar arguments to be doubtful at best. The US govt doesn’t operate that way. I don’t mean they wouldn’t be that duplicitous; I mean they wouldn’t be able to manage that longterm of a plan. It is more likely in my mind that they were concerned about the oil in Iraq and getting our oil companies in control of its production. This thought is born out by the arguments we’ve had with the Iraqi govt over privatization of their oil fields.

    Either way though the above would fall into the “other priorities” category in my comment. By “we’re not getting anything near the truth for going in there” I meant that there was something truly strange and/or dangerous going on over there that the govt didn’t want to freak us out over or piss us off over.

    Comment by jonolan — May 30, 2008 @ 7:55 pm

  10. janolan

    You said “It is more likely in my mind that they were concerned about the oil in Iraq and getting our oil companies in control of its production. ”

    The PNAC plan was to get Iraqi oil.

    PNAC members included: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Bolton…

    Invading Iraq was on GW Bush’d first cabinet meeting agenda.

    Alan Greenspan said the reason was oil.

    Does the word imperialism have any meaning for you?

    Comment by gasdocpol — May 30, 2008 @ 8:23 pm

  11. The PNAC plan was to prove American superiority and further advance our political power through showing the world that we could successfully fight wars simultaneously in multiple location along with other methods to ensure a greater nationalistic sentiment within the US.

    Yes, I know the definition of imperialism – better than most who bandy the word about. America is very much NOT imperialistic. Even the PNAC didn’t call for imperialism, nor did anyone in the Bush cabinet. If you want to use negatively weighted words to describe US foreign policy you would be more accurate to call it hegemonic.

    Comment by jonolan — May 30, 2008 @ 10:04 pm

  12. jonolan

    Today, nobody is going to admit to imperialism. In PNAC the openning words at rheir website (off the Internet recently) were “the world and the USA would be better off under American Leadership” They would never say under American domination.

    The Indian Wars were imperialistic as was the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War. We were taught in school that it was “Manifest Destiny” but in fact wars were fought and land was acquired.

    The Iraq invasion (called “Shock and Awe”) was to prove American Superiority and advance our political power.

    YOU RAISED THE QUESTION OF WHY WE ARE IN IRAQ. SOMEHOW I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT CHENEY AND RUMSFELD SACRIFICED 4080 LIVES AND MAIMED ANOTHER 13000 FOR LIFE AND SPENT 3 TRILLION DOLLARS TO FREE THE IRAQIS FROM A BAD GUY. (It is debateable that indeed they are better off now)

    Comment by gasdocpol — May 30, 2008 @ 10:28 pm

  13. “The Iraq invasion was to prove American Superiority and advance our political power.” — ain’t this imperialism?
    Assuming, arguendo, that it is not imperialism, why would America prove it is superior among other countries? I thought American is saying, through the international human rights documents it had signed, that everybody is equal. Similarly, America also signed the documents respecting the rights of each people (indigenous or not, whatever race or creed) to self determination. So why the show of force? And why the advancement of political interests? Shall we say America is a hypocrite country professing “democracy” and “equality” and “respect for human rights”?

    Just thinking aloud… 😕

    Comment by J. A. Carizo — May 31, 2008 @ 6:43 am

  14. Leadership does not directly imply imperial aims. The US prefers to lead through the overt or tacit consent of other nations. That is why I believe that hegemonic is a more accurate adjective than imperialistic.

    Comment by jonolan — May 31, 2008 @ 2:21 pm

  15. Leadership as stated by PNAC is a code word for imperialism and/or hegemony. The USA received neither overt nor tacit consent of many other nations.

    “The coalition of the willing” did not represent represent world consensus. Besides the USA, only Britain and Georgia sent more than 1000 personnel. It was only the goverment of Tony Blair which supported British participation and not the British people. It cost Blair his political career. There is probably some truth in the assertion that it should be called “The coalition of the bribed and threatened”. One by one the original members of the coalition have left Iraq.

    To justify the Iraq invasion is to put lipstick on a pig.

    Comment by gasdocpol — May 31, 2008 @ 2:46 pm

  16. “Leadership does not directly imply imperial aims.” Agree. But does this mean leadership DOES INDIRECTLY IMPLY imperialistic aims?

    On the other hand, I have a question on US world leadership. Can anybody tell who appointed the US or voted for the US to be the world leader? And can anybody tell me who gave US the right to invade Iraq? Is it the Iraquis who asked the world to intervene? And to whom did the Iraquis asked for help? The UN? The US? If the Iraquis were mum, can anybody also tell me what happened to the concept of “respect for each other’s sovereignty”?

    Comment by J. A. Carizo — June 1, 2008 @ 9:41 am

  17. J A.Corizo

    I am of the opinion that the authors of PNAC may have SAID leadership but they MEANT imperialism. Leadership sounds more honorable than imperialism or hegemony or dominance.

    Unlike Desert Storm in which the world , including Arabs, rose up as one to throw Saddam out of Kuwait the “Coalition of the willing” has been called the “Coalition of the bribed and threatened”. Most Arabs and many important nations were conspicuous by their absence. In many cases people the of the countries in the coalition disagreed with their governments participation.Only Britain and Georgia sent more than 1000 personnel and many have left Iraq.

    The Iraq invasion is in flagrant violation of the UN Charter.

    Comment by gasdocpol — June 1, 2008 @ 1:12 pm

  18. Then, Obama is justified in disagreeing with the war in Iraq. But of course, as gasdocpol said, most is intellectually lazy to analyze this. Or, can I add: A number is so shy to admit that they are wrong?

    But of course, the US has shown its place (and prestige) in the world. Somehow, it’s difficult to be silent at the moment when every country is busy… and when there are internal problems to face and there is a need to divert the issue.

    Comment by J. A. Carizo — June 1, 2008 @ 1:55 pm

  19. The prestige of the USA has diminished as a result of the Iraq invasion. We had a lot of credibility after Desert Storm and Kosovo. GW Bush has put that in the toilet.

    Many of our domestic problems are related to Iraq.

    Comment by gasdocpol — June 1, 2008 @ 2:08 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: