George W. Bush's "loyalty"

[outlander78]

I've always heard that George Bush valued loyalty highly. I assumed that meant that he return that loyalty.

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=736422005

Wow. So Tony Blair fought a war he could have sat out for this guy?

[cactusmaac]

If Blair had any sense he'd know that there wasn't much scope for the US accepting restrictions on greenhouse gases when Kyoto was rejected 95-0 by the Clinton-era Senate.

[Steven Grant]

I've always heard that George Bush valued loyalty highly. I assumed that meant that he return that loyalty.

In my experience, virtually everyone who places a very high value on "loyalty" believes it's a one-way street, and that willingness to "take one" (or more) "for the team" is the epitome of loyalty. Since the person obsessed with loyalty almost inevitably sees his own interests as also being in the interests of others, anyone who takes their own interests into account or asks for/expects loyalty is return is automatically being traitorous, because the instant you project your own interests above that of "the common well-being" (AKA the interests of the loyalty obsessive) you have proven your own disloyalty and untrustworthiness.

The corporate world tends to encourage upward chains of loyalty, with loyalty obsessives being obsequious to those above them in the chain and dictatorial toward those below. Exactly the way Mussolini envisioned it.

[bartl]

If Blair had any sense he'd know that there wasn't much scope for the US accepting restrictions on greenhouse gases when Kyoto was rejected 95-0 by the Clinton-era Senate.
The biggest problem with Kyoto is a matter of cost-benefit; the costs are high, and the benefits are insignificant (the best thing the proponents can say is, "It's only a first step"). Of course, nations that don't have to pay the cost have no problem telling other nations to do so.

[outlander78]

In my experience, virtually everyone who places a very high value on "loyalty" believes it's a one-way street, and that willingness to "take one" (or more) "for the team" is the epitome of loyalty. Since the person obsessed with loyalty almost inevitably sees his own interests as also being in the interests of others, anyone who takes their own interests into account or asks for/expects loyalty is return is automatically being traitorous, because the instant you project your own interests above that of "the common well-being" (AKA the interests of the loyalty obsessive) you have proven your own disloyalty and untrustworthiness.

That is well put. Now that you mention it, I've seen the same behaviour, and been put off by it, in the past.

The corporate world tends to encourage upward chains of loyalty, with loyalty obsessives being obsequious to those above them in the chain and dictatorial toward those below. Exactly the way Mussolini envisioned it.

I've seen similar behaviour and wishes from those in the upper ranks of corporations, but every satisfaction survey I've seen the results of indicates that us peons react in the opposite way - once the workers get the first taste of layoffs following stock price dips and other poor behvaiour (from their point of view), loyalty tanks. Whether or not this has a negative effect I'm not sure of, but the corporate world is certainly becoming meaner with each passing year.

As to Kyoto, I'm not sure that the original treay is very good. Once I read that Austrailia was expected to pay penalties for unpreventable, naturally occuring forest fires my faith in it died. I do believe that an environmental treaty is still the smart, proper move, but I doubt the U.S. will pass one anytime soon. Bush's comments make such a treaty even less likely.

[WatsonGlenn]

In my experience, virtually everyone who places a very high value on "loyalty" believes it's a one-way street, and that willingness to "take one" (or more) "for the team" is the epitome of loyalty. Since the person obsessed with loyalty almost inevitably sees his own interests as also being in the interests of others,

Thats a good observation. Loyalty is an interesting idea. Outside of family the Church and the military I think people are only loyal to those who can help them in some way. I think people who depend on loyalty are only fooling themselves.

Bosses like to play the loyalty card a lot. When I hear it I nod my head but I always remember that when push comes to shove this guy has no loyalty to me.

My loyalties are to my God and my family. Everyone else come in second. I know thats not pretty but thats how I feel.

[Steven Grant]

I think true loyalty is always a matter of enlightened self-interest, otherwise it's just stupidity. Enlightened self-interest (though it often turns out to be unenlightened self-interest, for many) is why people are loyal to a creed, a cause, an organization or another person: the belief, whether evidenced or not, that your life is somehow better by connection to that thing and diminished or injured by its absence. That's why loyalties shift; people constantly adjust their views and reassess what can improve their lives/situation (or they should), and that's a natural part of life that everyone should just bloody get used to. The real problem is rarely disloyalty but the belief of some that they deserve loyalty as a matter of course, of natural law, without continuing to merit it. There's also the social pressure of not wanting to be perceived as disloyal, but that's not loyalty, that's fear.

Loyalty is far too often also used as a excuse to dodge personal responsibility and choice. Even when you've decided where your loyalties lie, you have to be in a position to constantly reassess them. You may be loyal to your boss, but if you cook the books and open yourself to criminal liability and jail terms because he got cute with company money or screwed up in some way, you're a complete flaming idiot. And often you don't not realize where your real loyalties lie until they're put to the test. "Loyalty" is no excuse for following other people down paths of stupidity; it has its value, but in the catalog of human values it doesn't surpass intelligence, morality or personal responsibility. But way too many of those obsessed with loyalty believe it should be the primary human value. (As in those who believe "loyalty to the party" should supercede concerns over bad, inept, or insane candidates, and I'm not speaking of any party in particular; it applies to all of them.)

As far as loyalty is concerned, I hold anyone who raises the issue suspect. It's like trust. If you have to bring up the subject of trust, there is no trust. If you have to make an issue of loyalty, there is no loyalty. Not really.

I think it's time we, as a culture, starting positing loyalty as a quid pro quo: if you want loyalty, you'd better do things that merit it -- which suggests a top -down and bottom-up concept of loyalty mutally co-existing.

[WatsonGlenn]

I see true loyatly as importatn ins some situations.

Family:
People are loyal to their family. Its almost biological. Many people will act in ways that are not self serving in order to benifit their close family, i.e. wives, husbands, children.

The Military:
Men do act in ways that are not self serving in the military. They take chances, and sacrifice their lives just to serve the unit. What other explanation is their for the men that "went over the top" in WWI? I recently read a book about the Boer War (which has many similarites to the current conflict in Iraq) The brave acts of those soldiers and officers scan only be explained by loyalty.

God:
Many men are loyal to their God. They love him and would do anything for him. Though I guess this could be considerd enlightened self interest since such loyalty gets you to heaven.

Of course there are other things one can be loyal to but none of them seem to inspire as strong a loyalty as these three.

[outlander78]

I see true loyatly as importatn ins some situations.
God:
Many men are loyal to their God. They love him and would do anything for him. Though I guess this could be considerd enlightened self interest since such loyalty gets you to heaven.


This is something I have always struggled with - doing the right thing because you like doing the right thing, feel good about it and may be rewarded later on isn't terribly noble, is it? :) Ah, to be a philosopher ...

[Steven Grant]

Family:
People are loyal to their family. Its almost biological. Many people will act in ways that are not self serving in order to benifit their close family, i.e. wives, husbands, children.

Sure, but there are lots of people who aren't loyal to their families: parents and children who've stopped speaking and have nothing to do with each other, for whatever reason; feuding siblings who never want anything to do with each other, etc. There is enough disloyalty among families that it's fairly easy to dismiss it as a biological imperative. On the other hand, most people find families of personal benefit in some way (spiritual, emotional, economic, whatever) and there's no doubt that family bonds can be extraordinarily tight. But how far do you carry family loyalty? Say you have a child who has become hooked on drugs, and no matter what you do you can't get them off the stuff? What's more loyal, to welcome them in no matter what and not make the drug use an issue between you, or to tell them not to come around anymore while they're on drugs, knowing full well that it won't get them off drugs and the likely outcome is that you'll never see them again, at least alive? Say you find out your brother's the Unibomber, would family loyalty be enough reason to not turn him in? Or if you learned the father who loved and cradled and raised you was responsible for a notorious unsolved killing? What are the limits of famiy loyalty?

The Military:
Men do act in ways that are not self serving in the military. They take chances, and sacrifice their lives just to serve the unit. What other explanation is their for the men that "went over the top" in WWI? I recently read a book about the Boer War (which has many similarites to the current conflict in Iraq) The brave acts of those soldiers and officers scan only be explained by loyalty.

Well, this is something the military goes out of its way to instill in recruits, with varying success. The object of boot camp is really to tear down old personalities and reconstruct new ones on top of them. To some extent, it's equivalent to brainwashing, though too fine a point probably shouldn't be put on that. Soldiers are actively encouraged to think of themselves as cogs in a machine, important only insofar as they keep the machine running. (I know that sounds harsh, but I'm only describing it, not knocking it; I'm not suggesting that the military convinces recruits they're of no worth, just that the overall creature of which they are a part is depending on them.) And it's well known that if you believe in something strongly enough, keeping that something going will overcome natural impulses toward self-preservation. But even that's usually driven by some perceived benefit: you may die, but your action -- and the military you serve -- will allow your loved ones to continue on in health and safety, etc., whether your "loved ones" are the wife and kids back home or the guys in the next foxhole. Soldiers don't just throw their lives away, they do it with the expectation that some greater benefit will derive from it.

God:
Many men are loyal to their God. They love him and would do anything for him. Though I guess this could be considerd enlightened self interest since such loyalty gets you to heaven.

Of course there are other things one can be loyal to but none of them seem to inspire as strong a loyalty as these three.

Probably true. But churches, like the military, also have a tendency to request the adherent view himself as a part of a greater machine. As you say, to some extent adherence to a faith is driven by the expectation of a reward in the afterlife, though the Confetior in Catholism even removes that from the equation: "but mostly because thou art good, my Lord, and deserving of all my love."

Still, I'd suggest that even in religion loyalty is the result of a perceived benefit from its presence, even if it's only to be a better person, and a perceived harm from its absence (falling into a state of sin, for example).

[WatsonGlenn]

Sure, but there are lots of people who aren't loyal to their families:

Thats true but I think loyalty to family is the strongest loyalty of all. Everyone understands when such loyalties are violated. Loyalty is teidd to love and that is very strong usually. How many fathers would not sacrifice themselves for their children, some of course but most would.

[QUOTE]Say you find out your brother's the Unibomber, would family loyalty be enough reason to not turn him in?

Surprisingly for some it would remain silent. I personly know a man who did not turn his brother in even after he knew the brother was molesting woman around town in a farily notorious case. Blood is thicker than water.

As for military loyalty I agree with you but would add the element of peer pressure. Young men will do quite a bit that they would not normaly do if their buddies would think less of them if they did not.

Soldiers don't just throw their lives away, they do it with the expectation that some greater benefit will derive from it.

Yes but its not a benefit to them personally. That the essence of loyalty.

[Dennis]

since i'm asian, i feel a deep sense of loyalty to me family. i'm required to. sons are supposed to take care of their parents, like, forever. i find it interesting how many non-asians move far away from their parents. what about people who only talk to their parents a few times a year? is that normal?

[outlander78]

I see both happen in North American culture. Parents and kids that are close tend to stay close, but there is no cultural requirement to stay close to parents who are abusive, exploitive or otherwise unpleasant.

[Inkthinker]

This is something I have always struggled with - doing the right thing because you like doing the right thing, feel good about it and may be rewarded later on isn't terribly noble, is it? :) Ah, to be a philosopher ...


I always considered it to be more impressive and noble to do the right thing with NO expectations of any sort of "eternal reward".

Some people just do the right thing because it's the right thing to do.

[WatsonGlenn]

Some people just do the right thing because it's the right thing to do.

Oh really? Who?

[Inkthinker]

Oh really? Who?

Well... me for one. I've done things many times for no other reason that I felt good about doing them and they benefitted others. On occasion I've done things that I didn't enjoy or particularly feel good about, but did them anyway because I felt it was to the benefit of friends, family, or society as a whole to do so. I recieved no tangible rewards for these actions (if you want a loose list it includes giving professional work to charity, helping strangers when they need help, helping friends even when I know they won't pay me back, and speaking out when perhaps it would have been safer or at least less embarrasing to remain silent).

You could say that I only do these things because they make me feel good about myself, but I believe that to a person who's got their head on straight, doing the right thing is supposed to make you feel good about yourself.

"Right" and "wrong" are determined by society over time and passed along from one generation to the next, so it's always possible that what each of us considers "right" presents a dichotomy. But we all are taught by our social experience what is "right" and "wrong" and our brains naturally wire our senses to allow us to make the determination effectively as we gain experience in life. Of course, if your upbringing strays far enough from the majority of your society (such as you grow up with criminals, or are abused by your parents) then your viewpoint of "right" and "wrong" may be skewed, but assuming you have a happy childhood and a wide range of experiences and influences, your views on "right" and "wrong" should largely match those of the culture in which you live.

One of the subconcious rewards for "doing right" is a feeling of enjoyment self-satisfaction... this is Pavlovian, it's normal and removed from concious control, it's the same brain development that allows you to train a dog. It's a sense of intangible emotional reward that encourages certain actions, and if all you recieve from a deed is that sensation, then I believe you can say that you are "doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do".

[WatsonGlenn]

Well... me for one.


Not if it hindered you own enjoyment of life. We are talking about real self sacrifice not helping a little old lady across the street.

[Inkthinker]

Not if it hindered you own enjoyment of life. We are talking about real self sacrifice not helping a little old lady across the street.


Hindered to what degree? And, gee-golly-whillilkers, I didn't know that "the small stuff" doesn't count.

So, stepping away from me as an example... how about when a person volounteers for military service in a time of war? Are they're not doing the right thing at the hindrance of their own enjoyment of life? The soldier who rescues a stranger while under fire, he's not doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing? Maybe he's just itchin' for that Congressional Medal of Honour.

People DO sacrifice for others, and do things for the greater good at cost to themselves.

[Inkthinker]

Not if it hindered you own enjoyment of life. We are talking about real self sacrifice not helping a little old lady across the street.


Wow... so you know me, huh? Please, do tell where you watch me from.

"Not if it hindered your own enjoyment of life". Well... I got more than a few reputations as a troublemaker for speaking up when I felt that it was right to do so, and they hindered my enjoyment of college and were a factor in preventing me from returning to my alma mater as an instructor... that hindered my "enjoyment of life" since teaching animation is actually ten times easier than actually doing it.

But gee-golly-whillilkers, I didn't know that "the small stuff" doesn't count. We should all ignore strangers who need a battery jump (besides, they could just want to rob you), and we should just walk over the homeless (it's their fault anyway) and we should never, ever volounteer time for charity (when we could be hanging out and having fun). After all, it's not really worth anything.

So, stepping away from me as an example... how about when a person volounteers for military service in a time of war? Are they're not doing the right thing at the hindrance of their own enjoyment of life? The soldier who rescues a stranger while under fire, he's not doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing? Maybe he's just itchin' for that Congressional Medal of Honour.

People DO sacrifice for others, and do things for the greater good at cost to themselves both small and large.

[outlander78]

Oh really? Who?

I was about to say me as well. I can back it up too, I think. But with such an attack dog loose in the forum I don't think I will. I'm sure you know me too.

[WatsonGlenn]

Hindered to what degree?

Well I would say more than a momentary inconvience.

how about when a person volounteers for military service in a time of war? Are they're not doing the right thing at the hindrance of their own enjoyment of life? The soldier who rescues a stranger while under fire, he's not doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing? Maybe he's just itchin' for that Congressional Medal of Honour.

Good point. Steven already talked about the idea of loyalty in the military. To him it was more about training to me its more about peer pressure.

[WatsonGlenn]

I got more than a few reputations as a troublemaker for speaking up when I felt that it was right to do so,

Wow!!! so your reputation in college suffered cause you had a big mouth. I guess your Nobel Prize is in the mail.


Still your point that people sacrifice for others is true. But how much does that have to do with loyalty and how much simple concern about what others think. I.E. "I better join up or everyone will think I'm a coward."

[WatsonGlenn]

I was about to say me as well. I can back it up too, I think. But with such an attack dog loose in the forum I don't think I will.

I don't think you will either.

[Book Nasty]

Watson, you don't know squat about what anybody here does in their own lives or why they do it. Stop being obnoxious just for the sake of being obnoxious or shut your pie hole.

[Inkthinker]

Well I would say more than a momentary inconvience.



Good point. Steven already talked about the idea of loyalty in the military. To him it was more about training to me its more about peer pressure.

And I suggest that sometimes it's because some people have a sense of values that extend beyond self-interest, and try to live by them.

More than a momentary inconvienence... "Momentary" is a relative thing I suppose... momentary for the day, momentary over the period of your life... sure, I suppose I've been rarely inconvienenced over the period of a lifetime. You got me there, pard, I haven't been forced into making a decision as to whether be inconvienenced for a significant portion of my life in exchange for following the course of what is "right"... I've been lucky. Lucky, lucky me.

And of course no-one's ever been imprisoned or beaten or killed for standing firm on their beliefs, or acting to help others.

Guess I'll just have to settle for not being a jerk when those little insignificant moments present themselves on a daily basis.

[Inkthinker]

I guess your Nobel Prize is in the mail.


You still don't get it. There are no "prizes" beyond a sense of self-respect.

[WatsonGlenn]

I haven't been forced into making a decision as to whether be inconvienenced for a significant portion of my life in exchange for following the course of what is "right".


Then your loyalty and virtue have not really been tested have they. So stop bragging.

[outlander78]

Watson, you don't know squat about what anybody here does in their own lives or why they do it. Stop being obnoxious just for the sake of being obnoxious or shut your pie hole.

He is an angry, angry man and a rabid neocon, which is all you really need to know. Don't feed the troll.

[Steven Grant]

And I suggest that sometimes it's because some people have a sense of values that extend beyond self-interest, and try to live by them.

Well... "self-interest" is a tricky concept. Most people take it to mean "Me First," and that's a fairly shallow view of it. I do believe that people will act in what they perceive to be their best interests, even when they're wrong about what their best interests are, but that doesn't exclude nobility or self-sacrifice. What I said was that people can develop expansive senses of what "self-interest" means. Giving up one's life to save the life of one's child is self-sacrifice, yes, but what it suggests is that the "hero's" view of his best interests was expanded to a point where he viewed the child's survival as more in his interests than his own survival. The same with the rather overdramatic and relatively rare (except in war movies, where it happens all the time) example where a soldier hurls himself on an enemy grenade and saves the lives of his platoon: his idea of "best interests" is expanded to encompass the notion that their survival will better achieve something his own survival may not. This isn't to say people who behave nobly or heroically necessary sit around and work out the options and make a choice; in most instances there likely isn't time to. But to some extent this is body thought -- your body internalizing and responding to a decision already on some level made.

"Self-interest" in itself isn't necessarily an ignoble thing, nor does it eliminate any prospect of nobility. It's only ignoble when applied ignobly.

[badMike]

The same with the rather overdramatic and relatively rare (except in war movies, where it happens all the time) example where a soldier hurls himself on an enemy grenade and saves the lives of his platoon: his idea of "best interests" is expanded to encompass the notion that their survival will better achieve something his own survival may not.Hey, like Spock in Star Trek II!

[bartl]

The same with the rather overdramatic and relatively rare (except in war movies, where it happens all the time) example where a soldier hurls himself on an enemy grenade and saves the lives of his platoon: his idea of "best interests" is expanded to encompass the notion that their survival will better achieve something his own survival may not.
Well, in stories, this sets up a nice bit of dramatic conflict where you have a group of people, where one of them must die for the rest to survive; it's especially flexible when it doesn't matter which one dies. When it's a specific one that has to die, the situation becomes simpler: I'm going to die anyway, do I take everbody else with me, or do I at least leave a legacy of being a hero?

Interestingly enough, this is used in the real world as what appears to be a primary means of recruiting suicide bombers; they pick people who are going to die anyway (such as women who have been caught in adulterous situations), and give them an opportunity to win large amounts of cash and honor to their families, and be considered a hero, or die ignominiously, giving shame and ostracism to their families.

[Wig of Doom]

what it suggests is that the "hero's" view of his best interests was expanded to a point where he viewed the child's survival as more in his interests than his own survival.

"Self-interest" in itself isn't necessarily an ignoble thing, nor does it eliminate any prospect of nobility. It's only ignoble when applied ignobly.

Another way of looking at it, I suppose, is the idea that sometimes the idea of doing something likely or certain to lead to your death is less intolerable than the idea of having to spend the rest of your life despising yourself. Your best interests in terms of minimizing misery are then served by the act of self-sacrifice.

I find this manner of putting it useful because it allows for the explanation of different cultural views of honor.

[Inkthinker]

Well... "self-interest" is a tricky concept. Most people take it to mean "Me First," and that's a fairly shallow view of it. I do believe that people will act in what they perceive to be their best interests, even when they're wrong about what their best interests are, but that doesn't exclude nobility or self-sacrifice. What I said was that people can develop expansive senses of what "self-interest" means... his idea of "best interests" is expanded to encompass the notion that their survival will better achieve something his own survival may not.


"I do this thing because I believe it's in my own best interest to accept a loss of some sort in order for others to gain"

Team mentality, sort of thing? Makes a certain amount of sense to me.

Is a sacrifice any less valid when a person does not control the extent of their sacrifice at the time of action, but feels willing to take the chance? Example: a soldier who sees a wounded companion under fire, and pulls him to safety while risking death at the same time. He may survive unharmed, or he may die, and he has no control over this, but he acts to save another just the same. Given that he is not in control of the level of his sacrifice, is his act any less heroic or selfless?

There are many examples of this scenario in the records of every war that occurs... I should think it's a fairly common event in firefights that men are presented the choice to risk their lives for the safety and survival of others.

[Inkthinker]

Then your loyalty and virtue have not really been tested have they. So stop bragging.

At no point was I "bragging"... just as their are no "prizes". I didn't bring this up, YOU did. I said that "people do the right thing because it's the right thing to do", and your response was to set qualifiers on the value of what "the right thing" is. I'm so terribly sorry that I haven't lived up to those lofty standards.

My viewpoint that people DO act in selfless, sacrificing ways is still as valid as ever, whether it applies to my viewpoint of a million little acts of kindness as well as great acts of sacrifice, or whether it applies merely to your own narrow-minded viewpoint that unless it represents a major sacrifice, it is a worthless act... it still happens, people do it, and it's an ideal to live towards.

So stop arguing about it.

[Steven Grant]

Well, in stories, this sets up a nice bit of dramatic conflict where you have a group of people, where one of them must die for the rest to survive; it's especially flexible when it doesn't matter which one dies. When it's a specific one that has to die, the situation becomes simpler: I'm going to die anyway, do I take everbody else with me, or do I at least leave a legacy of being a hero?

Oh, it matters. It has to be either the hero (if it's a tragedy) or the hero's best friend. Some random schnook just doesn't fit the bill.

Interestingly enough, this is used in the real world as what appears to be a primary means of recruiting suicide bombers; they pick people who are going to die anyway (such as women who have been caught in adulterous situations), and give them an opportunity to win large amounts of cash and honor to their families, and be considered a hero, or die ignominiously, giving shame and ostracism to their families.

In which case it is, again, playing on a sense of expanded self-interest.

[Steven Grant]

Team mentality, sort of thing? Makes a certain amount of sense to me.

As I said, that's certainly what military training is about -- personalities are intentionally torn down and reconstructed to fit the military's needs: soldiers whose upbringing has taught them it's wrong to kill have to be "reconditioned" to accept that it's all right to kill The Enemy (this "reconditioning" is rarely all that perfect, because many soldiers on the battlefield for the first time do feel stress and guilt over killing) and that The Group is depending on them to attain a military perception of proper conduct. (NOTE: I'm not complaining about the military, just describing the process. This is true regardless of what military is training you.) You are encouraged to think of The Military as what's really important. But this is true of virtually any group that requires some sort of teamwork: the individuals comprising the group are expected to put their own needs, desires and expectations aside to fulfill those of the group, and strong identification with The Group is highly desirable, effectively subverting self-interesting by encouraging the adherent to consider The Group's interests his interests. And, like I said, to the extent the adherent distinguishes his interests from those of the group the more suspect the group generally holds him.

Is a sacrifice any less valid when a person does not control the extent of their sacrifice at the time of action, but feels willing to take the chance? Example: a soldier who sees a wounded companion under fire, and pulls him to safety while risking death at the same time. He may survive unharmed, or he may die, and he has no control over this, but he acts to save another just the same. Given that he is not in control of the level of his sacrifice, is his act any less heroic or selfless?

Well, to some extent the why of an action is always at least partially irrelevant to the action. If you charge into a burning building to help a woman get out, and you did it because you've always had a crush on this woman and you figure she'll be so grateful she'll go out with you, you still ran into a burning building and saved her. The ulterior motive is a cute twist but it doesn't undo the action.

There are many examples of this scenario in the records of every war that occurs... I should think it's a fairly common event in firefights that men are presented the choice to risk their lives for the safety and survival of others.

Cumulatively, there are possibly. Statistically -- the number of soldiers in firefights vs. the number in firefights who act bravely to save the lives of other soldiers -- I dunno... Compared to the total number of soldiers in firefights, I suspect the number of identifiably heroic and self-sacrificing soldiers is pretty low. From what I understand, the Army doesn't specifically encourage that kind of behavior, since they'd generally rather their soldiers live, all other things being equal...

[WatsonGlenn]

When I was in college I remember reading in the paper about a young man at a race track who threw himself in front of a tire that had flown off a car and into the stands. The tire was flying in the direction of a woman whom he did not know. He was killed. That is an example of self sacrifice but it has nothing to do with the issue of loyalty.

IMO it had to have been instinct that motivated him. He had no time to think. That lunge came from the heart, from his primitve side.

If he had had ten minutes to think about it would he have done the same thing? Who knows.

Now most healthy mothers would do that for her child every time no matter how long she had to think, and be grateful for the chance. That is loyalty.

[SoulOnIce]

Oh really? Who?

People who volunteer for Big Brothers.

Not counting one guy I knew who volunteered because he was hoping to get a little brother with a "hot mother."

[WatsonGlenn]

People who volunteer for Big Brothers.

While we got off on "just doing nice things" we were originally talking about loyalty. I should not have intimated that people do not do nioce things, they do. When I asked "who" I was still think about the issue of loyalty and I'm not sure how Big Brothers fits into that.

[Drew Van T.]

The problem with George Bush's "loyalty" is not that he does not reward those who show him loyalty, IMO. His not rewarding others for services rendered (such as Blair) is quite predictable behaviour; only to be expected when you're top dog in your own mind as well as the minds of quite a few other world leaders, those who are most accommodating to Bush.

No, the real problem is Tony Blair's: it's that this talk about "loyalty" has no place in a proper, law-based international system. Bush represents a group of people who wants something else, namely a flexible system of alliances that can be reshuffled at will, all of them bilateral alliances between America and various individual states, such as Britain. Tony Blair is an idiot for apparently wanting the same thing, or accommodating it. Because it should be obvious that only the state at the center of the alliances - and not Britain - will ever truly benefit from this. It's Britain who gets its metro trains blown up - for services rendered to the top dog in Iraq.

Bush is under no obligation to reward Tony Blair for anything. That is not the system Bush operates in, and Blair should know that. Blair should be operating in the system that sets a single legal standard for all nation-states, regardless of how large or militarily powerful they might be, and hold those states to account. That is the only system that could ever be in everyone's interests rather than the interests of a single nation.