Democrats versus Republicans

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by sck5

You seem to not want to address the notion that it isnt "world opinion" I am trying to please. It is the population our enemies live in and which shelters them and which allows them to operate. Not that world opinion isnt important - Having good allies helped immensely to defeat the communists to take just one example. But the good will of an occupied population is a direct, life saving military asset.

Anyone sheltering these people should be subjected to the same consequences.

If even one roadside bomb hadnt been planted then maybe my cousin Bobby wouldnt have had half his head blown off. Maybe the guy with him wouldnt be dead. Maybe their driver wouldnt be injured. These are not airy fairy conjectural deaths. THEY ARE REAL ONES. And if maybe just one less person hated our guts this wouldnt have happened.

We all hate to hear of American military deaths, but you've yet to link these murders to the notion that treating animals as if they're not animals would've prevented these deaths. If anything, the region's history, and your calls for a strong man to be brought back to power, show that they have no respect for what you're advocating -- they see it as a sign of weakness.

Not torturing people saves lives.

The wrong lives...

Torturing may make you feel good that you are doing something but in the long run it does our servicemen and women more harm than good.

If those with your outlook hadn't paralyzed our forces, much of the deaths you sight wouldn't have occurred. INdeed, if Truman and Ike had bothered to stand up to those USSR-backed elements that "nationalized" the wells, the canal, etc.; if we had retaliated for acts of terrorism ruthlessly back when those acts were of the blew-up-a-disco variety; if we had vaporized northwest Pakistan and Afghanistan when our embassies were blown up; etc., the region would be far better off -- and 9/11 would have never happened.

[sck5]

"But the argument is that under specific conditions, torture is acceptable."

The right used to call this kind of thinking "moral relativism" and they were opposed to it. As for me, if something is wrong to do to our guys then it is wrong to do to anyone. My morals arent rubbery enough to think otherwise. If it is sauce for the goose it is sauce for the gander. If we do it then expect to have it done to our guys. And expect to be laughed at if you complain.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by sck5

"But the argument is that under specific conditions, torture is acceptable."

The right used to call this kind of thinking "moral relativism" and they were opposed to it. As for me, if something is wrong to do to our guys then it is wrong to do to anyone. My morals arent rubbery enough to think otherwise. If it is sauce for the goose it is sauce for the gander. If we do it then expect to have it done to our guys. And expect to be laughed at if you complain.

Recognizing that the context of an action is a huge factor in determining its moral status isn't moral relativism.

Killing in self-defense, for example, isn't murder. The context is the differentiator, labeling one valid and the other the highest crime.

The moral relativistic equivalent would be to ANNIHILATE the differentiator, equivocating between murder and killing in self-defense. (See any defense of any terrorist ever.)

Context, a factor barely taught these days even on the graduate level, is everything (your side has rejected context as necessary in education. I wonder why...) That doesn't mean one equivocates between contexts. As much as your side tries to equivocate to enable attacks on the philosophic foundations of the West, it's fallacious.

Side: Note how moral equivocations always come out AGAINST the moral and/or the more efficacious/powerful/able. It's just another tool used by the nihilist element of the New Left to vent its hatred of the West, ie, the culture that first recognized the actual requirements for Man to live and thrive.

[sck5]

nihilist element of the New Left to vent its hatred of the West"

OK. You stumped me. This is me? If so what the hell is it?

[Sailormon6]

Originally Posted by sck5

"But the argument is that under specific conditions, torture is acceptable."

The right used to call this kind of thinking "moral relativism" and they were opposed to it. As for me, if something is wrong to do to our guys then it is wrong to do to anyone. My morals arent rubbery enough to think otherwise. If it is sauce for the goose it is sauce for the gander. If we do it then expect to have it done to our guys. And expect to be laughed at if you complain.

The circumstances under which an act is committed have always been relevant. A killing committed while the perpetrator is committing a felony offense is murder. A killing for hire is murder. A killing of a person in self-defense or defense of others is generally not a crime. Subjecting a person to intense stress, under strict limitations, in order to obtain information that might save many innocent lives, might very well be viewed as lawful, and as a legal justification in the nature of "defense of others." So far as I know, the legal issue has not been resolved.

If you don't believe the circumstances matter, then how would you feel if the police learned that a serial child killer buried your child alive somewhere, and they smacked him around to get him to reveal where she was buried, in the hope of saving her life?

How would you feel if the police lied to a perpetrator by telling him that, if he surrendered, they wouldn't prosecute him criminally? Both the police and the prosecutor even signed a written agreement to that effect. After he surrendered, in reliance on their promises, they reneged and prosecuted him. Should the police and prosecutor be barred from prosecuting him, since they blatantly lied? Does it matter that he extracted that written agreement while he had a loaded shotgun taped to the head of an innocent person? You bet the circumstances matter!

By your logic, "...what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." If the worst that our enemy did to our soldiers was to waterboard them, we'd be relieved. When they capture our troops and civilians, they torture them, and then they behead them. By your logic, do I presume correctly that you would approve of us torturing and beheading our enemies, since that's what they do to us?

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by sck5

nihilist element of the New Left to vent its hatred of the West"

OK. You stumped me. This is me? If so what the hell is it?

I'm not sure if it's you or not, but your positions, arguments, methodology, etc., sure parallel theirs.

When you address all or most of the points I've put up in response to your posts, I'll reply to this Q. Having said that, it's not hard to figure it out with a decent dictionary (the older the better, preferably an OUD printed prior to 1922.)

[camaraderie]

In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man

Gary Hubbell
February 9, 2008

There is a great amount of interest in this year’s presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush. The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking candidates — a woman and an African-American — while the conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their party’s nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain.

Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians.

There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.
more here....http://www.aspentimes.com/article/2008198091324

[sck5]

"By your logic, do I presume correctly that you would approve of us torturing and beheading our enemies, since that's what they do to us?"

Uh no. That would be allowing them to define what is OK for us to do. But you can count on it that if we sink to the level of torture then that fact will be cited in defense of them doing it too. None of it is excusable in my book, but more than that I think it is counterproductive to national security and our military effort. General Petraeus would be the first to say (and has said) that we arent going to win by military means. That means we need a political settlement which is harder to achieve when nobody trusts us and all are afraid of us. (not that we are there yet, but will be if we keep at it)

As I understood the real difference between the two positions (and ignoring what may be semantic arguments about what may or may not be torture) is that on the one hand there are those who think torture is OK if it saves American lives due to uncovering info that would otherwise not be uncovered. On the other hand there are those (like me) who think that far more American lives are lost through creating a situation where millions of people hate us so much they want to kill us than can possibly be saved even if the people on the other side are right and there is some sort of Jack Bauer thing going on. All of this completely ignores the moral repugnance that used to be a foundation of US policy back when we considered torture to be illegal.

But there are no Jack Bauer's out there. Look at those pictures of guys on leashes and smiling assholes posing with dead bodies to see that for yourself. So far as anyone has said (and they would have given all the criticism) nobody is seconds away from blowing up L.A. There isnt anybody out there who wouldnt want to save LA if it ever came to that but life isnt TV.

So we all want to save lives (our guys first). We are just disagreeing about how best to do that. You havent convinced me yet nor have you convinced the military. So we will have to agree to disagree. I will be happy to because whoever wins in the election, now that McCain is the Repub candidate, there will be an end to this disgraceful policy. We just have to wait another few months.

[camaraderie]

Your arguments cut no mustard with me...cause waterboarding ain't torture! AND unlike your false Jack Bauer analogy...the three times it was used it DID save American lives. It works...it ain't harmful and it scares the bejeesus out of enemy captives to know they won't be treated nicely if they don't talk. It is a limited but useful technique to deal with high level terrorist threats and save lives and THAT is why the democratic senate has refused to outlaw it. It'll take a republican idiot to do that.

[xort]

sck your premise that they will not hate us if we don't torture is false. they hate us, period. doesn't matter if we rape them, torture & nuke them or if we send them candy & our money. They hate us either way. But you can bet that they do NOT respect your kind because you come from a position of weakness. They do respect strength and resolve.
It's been said here before and is worth repeating...why do you think quadafi gave in? Because he felt like being a nice guy? NO, because he thought for sure he was going to join saddam. He was peeing in his pants and gave in. I suppose you think that is bad of us that we scared the crap out of him?