Absolutely appaluled

pmills

pmills

Active member
I'll lead off with a quote from our first president, please post your thoughts after you let it sink in a bit

“Should

any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any

[prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such

severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may

require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be

disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by

such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and

their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

now i just heard a quote from bill kristol who was commenting on obama's cabinet building and said something along the lines of

"it's one thing to campaign and say 'dick cheney -- terrible' or 'water boarding/enhanced interrogation techniques--terrible' ' we've got to respect civil liberties' we really need to think about the threats that face the United States President Bush's policies really kept us safe for 7 years.

my thoughts: what has happened to our country? how have we lost all sense of morals, and how do we suffer from such a stupid amnesia that we can't even remeber that we once stood for Honor in the face of dishonor. That we strove to be better than our enimies.

Go back to Washington's quote-- an american that tortures may ought to suffer death as the shame disgrace and ruin they bring to themself and their country justifies it.

Bill Kristol, George Bush, supporters of torture and 'enhanced interigation techniques, YOU are the true threat to America, and I am absolutely appauled by you.

video of Kristol

( about 3:10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WGKLrVY8mA)

 
And you did drop two eensy-weensie nukes on some eensy-weensie cities, with some eensie-weensie civilians in them.

I like the term eensie-weensie.
 
Americans (except those on NS!) are stupid to believe that they live in the "land of the free". You live in one giant, fucked up police state. If anybody here has studied the rise of Hitler and the Nazis, you will see the obvious parallels between him and Bush. An attack threatens the welfare of the nation(9/11), civil liberties are taken away in the name of nationalism/"terrorism" (Patriot Act) and anybody who doesnt agree with the removal of these rights is deemed a traitor. Meanwhile, the regime now has the power to spy on its people, and therefore there is a disincentive to speak out.
 
who do you guys think are to blame for this?

have we become so apathetic and lazy that we just don't really care anymore?

has our country grown so large that we feel we cant do anything about it?

how will we, the next generation or two retake that moral high ground?
 
so true. what I cannot comprehend is how there are still so many republicans that have a point of view in which they can still believe george w. was a good president. those are people who would vote republican even if hitler ran as repub. absolute ignorance
 
i agree with you for the most part, but remember, saying all of this while blindly following another party is equally as ignorant. (not you in particular, but in general)

it annoys me greatly when people say people who like(d) bush are ignorant, then go on about how obama is all things good and will make everything perfect. You have to realize that every presidential candidate will have some faults and strong points. Who knows, maybe Obama will screw up so badly, in 4 years we will be begging for a republican president. (I don't see it happening, but you never know in this world)
 
i don't think it's ignorant to say people blindly follow their parties, they do regardless of which side of the fence they are on.

does that go on to point towards people's faith in their politicians as a candidate for blame here? I don't know how we can change the status quo so that the politicians fear their constituency, but if we somehow had the power to hold their feet to the fire we probably could enact a lot more (positive?) change.

do you guys think that a majority, or even a large minority of the US population has the same core beliefs that our government has? how do we reconnect the will of the people to the actions of our government.

 
people do blindly follow their parties, i heard someone say that they were voting for stephen harper (canada) because he was good looking. and people voted for bush round II because they thought he would protect their country, but no. you look at it now, and the USA is probably one of the most hated countries in the world. (i dont hate you....all the time). and now the states is in an economic crisis, what will happen.

oh and too the first poster, get your head out of your ass. just because his middle name is Huessein doesnt make him a bad guy.
 
torturing is rough, but what do you suggest the government should do to extract information from captured suspected terrorists? Ask them nicely?
"Would you pretty please tell us where Osama is, we are just having the hardest time finding that silly goose. lolz."
These people they are torturing are not POW's, who were just doing as they are commanded, there are terrorists that have no boundaries and do not play by the rules. They are not part of a nations army, they do not wear uniforms, they don't follow the rules, they are terrorists. In the quote from GW, he had never experienced terrorism, he is talking about when we go to war. If we would have tortured all the British troops that had been captured that would have been fucked because they are just soldiers doing as they were ordered.
I think our government is just trying to save American lives and they will do what it takes to get information that could do that.
 
oh, in that case i am sorry for my comment. i read it as if you were saying because his middle name was hussein you were being stupid.. my apologies.
 
i think it was when germany went into their huge depression and basically the dutch mark or whatever kind of currency they use lost almost all of its value. hilter helped get germany out of that depression thus gaining him the power he needed to do what he did. i think. hahah dont hold me to any of this.
 
All western powers are technically police states dude, there is less real freedom now then there was under absolute monarchy in the 17th century. Social responsibility is a direct contrast to freedoms.
 
hmmmmmm....

im not condoning torture in ANY way, but it is interesting to think about. we are fighting with our arms tied behind our backs while they are fighting dirty. we are affording rights to people who do not give their prisoners even close to the same ammont. not even mentioning that they fight by strapping bombs on humans and blowing up coffe shops and school busses......

what is torture? where is the line drawn? i can see making it "uncompfortable" for them, but we dont need to be cutting off limbs and such...

lets play what if.. what if someone had information that could prevent the deaths of hundreds, thousands, ect. innocent humans. would you rough them up a bit?
 
Although slightly more complex than one single attack, the point is still slightly valid... The aftermath of the Treaty Of Versailles led to unachievable Reperation Payments, and the unneccessary flexing of muscle in the Rhineland by the French combined with the Great Depression made people desperate and scared.

Desperate and scared people make stupid decisions, like forgoing there rights and resorting to extreme consequences, just like Hitler prayed on the fear of the German population in order to gain more power and pass legislation, just like Bush prayed on the North Americans.
 
I dunno how much you celebrate the lives of MLK or Gandhi, these are obvious examples of how you don't have to fight back.

but our hands aren't tied behind our back; they blow up coffee shops, and school busses, but atleast they have the decency to sacrifice themselves for their cause -- Contrast this to flying at 30,000 feet and using tactical air strikes that incidentally hit schools, hospitals (while not intentionally-- it is innevitable, unless you're a cold-hearted utilitarian it's not justifiable). The man at the controls is so disasociated with the distruction he brings. We're not innocent, and we're far from fighting a fair game -- please grant me this, our superior technology does not give us the privilage to use it.

And i ask you where does the terrorist foot soldier get his gun from? Is there an iranian Mikhail Kalashnikov , or the afghani colt gun company ? i don't think so. Most of these guys have been used as pawns by the super powers ak's and m16's left over from our previous meddling.

But i want to get back to torture, back to what america stands for, so let's play your what if game -- what makes you think you'll get the information you want? Torture never guarentees any truth in what someone says, only that you can make them say what you want to hear. You rough someone up maybe you can save hundreds, thousands ect, but your reasoning has lead us to water boarding, to 'alternative interogation techniques'. You can make it simple -- draw the line at you do not torture. That makes us respectable, that brings honor to our country, to our people.

Let's turn this what if game around, America has the potential to be the best country in the world. Every citizen respects his fellow compatriot, every citizen lives to make his country as best as it can be, as morally right and good as it can be.

Isn't a country that trumps the standards of all others, that respects and provides oppertunity for the greatest human endevors -- liberty, justice, tranquility, well being the whole preamble of the constituion -- Isn't that country worth dieing for?

If you're patriotic, and you feel that your country ought to be this moral becon, then the answer is yes. That is why it doesn't matter even if you could extrapolate information to prevent the deaths of innocent humans, you don't do so through torture. It negates the foundations which the country you're trying to protect.

The good life comes at a price --you must sacrifice doing evil no matter how tempting it is
 
One must realize that the torture that George Washington spoke of is much different than the "interrogation" techniques which we use now. The torture he spoke of was to no end, much like beating a dog. Techniques such as water-boarding are not going to kill the person and the agents performing such acts are very careful not the kill them accidentally.The safety of the people in this country must be of paramount importance and to do this we must also at times take away certain freedoms.. By doing this we are not "depriving" people of inalienable human rights we are simply restricting them as to make them safer. Torture has no point, for instance thumbscrews, they did not serve any purpose and were pointlessly abusive. The "interrogation" techniques that America uses now are not barbaric in the least, they are very careful not to hurt the individual. There has to be a shift in consciousness towards the greater good and if this means depriving someone of watching porn, then so be it.
 
ok i have shit load of Homework i should be doing and i promise i will get back to you on the rest of this post. but what the fuck are you talking about? yeah lest just roll over and play nice in the face of evil, hey hitler, im sorry we pissed you off, you can have this, you can have that.

define torture for me, and define "evil" for me. because if killing is evil, (i see it as evil dont know about you?) then YES sometimes you must fight fire with fire and KILL....

o and dieing for their cause, what the hell is wrong with you? dieing for their cause involves taking THOUSANDS of innocent lives. you disgust me.
 
You disgust me as a person, which is why I am going to encourage you to speak with someone who has actually been there since your source is obviously just as foolish as you are. Do you have any idea that the terrorist groups over there use the mentally handicapped, father's who's families have been kidnapped, and unwary children to carry out most of their "sacrifices"? I am not going to act like I am sitting on the dick of this war (nor are many in the military), but for you to say that is both naive and ignorant.

If anyone feels like arguing with me on this point, you had better have something to support it that was not found on Wikipedia because I can guarantee you I have no interest in you seventh hand opinions.

Also, I don't want to sound to horribly harsh about your other points, but this specific one in particular hit a nerve. Maybe you would feel like you helped someone if you stopped a person who had just sent a child to his death from getting away. War is horrible of course, but so is standing by when the innocent are killed.
 
No. "should any one be so base and infamous to INJURE any prisoner"

i don't care if you might kill them or not. you do not torture, period. Perhaps you and your mates should try water boarding one afternoon see if it's really not that bad -- if it's really like a feeling of endless death, just no. no no no no no. NO.

you're caught up in this utilitarian mindset, an end driven ethics. the ends must be justified by the means, how you achieve what you want is just as significant as the result. The torture victim doesn't die, but it doesn't negate that they were tortured.

by restricting peoples rights you are ipso facto depriving people of them, you are destroying the principles of this country.
 
The fact that you are even defending these MONSTERS is ridiculous. These are the men who killed thousands on september 11th and hundreds in Mumbai and countless other acts of senseless violence across the world. They do not deserve to be treated as human beings. "All human beings are born

free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and

conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of

brotherhood." They did not show conscience or act towards ANYBODY in a spirit of brotherhood, they claim their killings are justified because of a ridiculous perversion of a peaceful religion. In short these men dont deserve rights, they are monsters and should be treating accordingly.
 
you've got to realize that these people are abiding by ideologies just as you and i do, when you ignore this, you ignore the fact that they have just as many justifications (if not more) for their actions as we have for our own.

It's not that they think of us as the good guys and they know they are the evil ones. If you're going to make any sort of rationalization about the situation you've got to do so from an unbiased position.

You've got to realize we kill thousands of innocent lives just the same as they do. In my opinion, the guy who has the conviction to kill him self for his cause is more dedicated to his ideology than the guy who causes the same harm 7,000 miles away with a button and a key.

The story of an empire can go either way-- you've got to remember that your perspective depends on which side you're on. Wrap your mind around this first then get back to me.

I dont' want to stray off too much but let's just look at a bit of history-- whose fault is it that hitler came to power? That could have been prevented if after the 1st world war we didn't decide that we had to punish the entire German population for what their army did. Yet we had to have a winner and a loser, you humiliate a country like that, there are repercussions bound to happen.

Torture: any act by which severe pain or suffering,

whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for

such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or

a confession,

punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is

suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a

third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind,

when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or

with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person

acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering

arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

Evil: immoral actions -- i have an objectivist view of morality but recognize that others have a subjective view -- your pick.

I'm still going to defend if our country is so great that it actually provides what the founding fathers wanted it for, then it is worth dieing for. Those innocent people who die-- are simply sacrificing themselves so that their country -- and it's ideologies, morals, way of life continues on. I don't care how many people it is -- we're playing a what if game here, we're not talking about the US as it is now, we're talking about what if it were what it ought to be.

 
I don't agree with torture, but you are totally right about the people we are discussing. They simply don't care how nice you try to be (proven by centuries of pointless peace attempts that failed) and will kill anyone they can to make themselves known.
 
The term police state describes a state

in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over

the social, economic and political life of the population. A police

state typically exhibits elements of Totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their

mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or

other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement.

Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional republic.
 
I don't think quinny was asking for the definition, he was asking if you knew what a police state was.... without going back to Wikipedia, do you think you could rephrase that into your own words?
 
The reason i went to wikipedia is because im terrible at explaining things if i had explained it you would have all been confused and given me negative karma. yes i did know what a police state was..just not the actual definition
 
I like this thread a lot because its respectful discussion..except for the odd "you disgust me as a person" this has been a respectful and productive discussion
 
You are such a pacifist and it is really annoying. You defending terrorist by saying they are just doing what they believe in and it is the same as some one else just doing what they believe in. That is such bull shit dude, they are killing people! innocent people. that is not the same as someone who pushes a button and send a missile at a MILITARY TARGET! if there is collateral damage so be it but their mission was designed to take out a target not a bunch of civilians.
Also if you are so against the torturing of these horrible people then suggest another way we are suppose to find out what we need to know. or would you rather we just captured the bastards and put them in a cell and left them alone while his homies keep planing out what ever they are doing.
grow a pair and realize that these people are NOT like us, and what they do (kill innocent people) and what we do (try to kill them to make the world a better place) is not the same. I will not lose a nights sleep over those scum and i could care less if they are tortured, with the objective of saving innocent lives. They chose to believe in what ever it is that says they have to kill people which makes them a lot less moral than any of us.
 
Dude? Are you serious? I'm really having a hard time accepting that you even think this way. Our aim is not to kill innocent civilians. Collateral damage happens, its a fact of warfare. Terrorism, on the other hand, is almost all of the time directly targeted against innocents. That is coming from a completely unbiased view point. Also, one more thing, I don't see the problem with using superior technology...
 
Alright Quinny, my opening salvo,

To exist a police state need not require a totalitarian government, all that is required is the use of police to restrict and control society. This police also need not be specifically political. Yes the Cheka, Gestapo etc etc were political police forces and used in the classic examples of Police states, Nazi Germany and the USSR under Lenin and primarily Stalin.

However, lets not think that we are innocent here in North America, (I think you are from the states) The RCMP had a political function around World War I and there can be no argument that these have not existed in the USA with the anti-communist witch hunts of McCarthyism and the FBI under Hoover.

In a modern context, we still live in societies in which the police exert strict control. For example the restrictions on drinking age, war on drugs etc. If you do not pay your taxes, you go to jail, if you speed you are fined and or go to jail. Look at Proposition 8 in California. We even to the extent of licensing and controlling household pets. Conformity and consent are important for modern society, hence the push for patriotism. Also, look at welfare. In our western society you are not even allowed to be poor. If we were truly free then you would be allowed to sink or swim on your own.

Now my comment was with regards to absolutism in the 17th century. Lets go with Louis XIV of France and his reign from 1643 – 1715. Louis was one of the first true absolute monarchs and can frequently be used as an example. Under his reign all legitimate political power is in the hands of the monarchy, the public were taxed under his control etc but he had little to no control over their private lives. Welfare semi existed but citizens were free to work wherever they wanted, do whatever they wanted thrive or starve on their own. I can go into more detail in a minute on this. I will let you fire your shots now whilst I eat dinner.

 
To go too far into relativist justifications for actions gets quite foolish. "They're only doing what they believe is right" cannot justify anything. George Bush is only doing what he believes is right, does that exonerate him? I'm not even going to get in a debate, it's obvious this thread is going nowhere fast, but I just thought I'd throw that in there.
 
I think the "greatest country" could be big enough to follow its own constitutional law by not torturing people. McCain knew what it was like to get tortured so he is against it. I am not a huge McCain fan and it's over but just throwing that out there.
 
ok my ideology is kill everything that gets in my way, does that make it right? NO! (not saying this is what Islam is, far from it, just proving a point that ideology's are not always right. ) good example of this, what about Fred Phelps? he "abiding by ideologies" and he is justified in his eyes, right?

no shit, they dont view themselves as the bad guys. neither did Hitler, Stalin, the list goes on, you can justify just about anything if you ponder it long enough.

yeah we might kill thousands, but its not like we strap bombs on children and send them to blow up school buses... bombs and missles will miss, its a cruel fact of war... doesnt make it right, but its reality.

im not here to discuse why or how Hitler rose to power, if you wanna talk that over, make a thread.

again, im not condoning torture, but i do not feel bad if a KNOWN terrorist gets roughed up.... NOT tortured. ide happily give Osama or hussien a good swift kick in the balls, and ide sleep like a damn baby after it. those type of people are MONSTERS.

what about putting the well being of one man lower than that of society's? putting the group ahead of the individual....... not proping this up, just something to ponder.
 
WWII, nope Germany had money poured into it as now the reds were the enemies and reparation payments were such a contributing factor to WWI that they were not reinstated.
 
What we're discussing though, or what i felt like we're discussing is what we as American's hold to be what is right. The fact someone is doing what they believe to be is right may not justify the actions they takes to others, but it does justify it within their own mind.

GW perhaps does think he's justified in doing what he's doing, and we can compare this to what we think the fundamental principles of the United States justify.

My comparison here uses a quote from the founding father to track what America use to mean, and i am wondering if George Bush is a fair example of what it means to be American now. If not, what does America mean now, or what ought it mean now, and what are we going to do about it.

this debate doesn't have to go nowhere fast if people realize that everyone does have their reasons for their actions, everyone perceives others differently, and that our own actions are perceived differently by those who are not ourselves.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top