Absolutely appaluled
- Thread starter pmills
- Start date
pmills
Active member
I'm not entirely pacifistic -- remember George Washington was a general, who fought a war. But perhaps you don't know your military history all that well, in the middle of WWII Great Briton persuaded Roosevelt to change our Air tactics -- before Churchill had said his piece, the American strategy was to run bombing raids during daylight, targeting only military installations, however after Churchill we started running bombing raids at night, carpet bombing, strategic bombing -- now that sounds rather humane, hitting strategic targets, makes me think of accuracy -- well the fact is, we really were just dropping bombs all over cities, destroying residential, and military alike. In japan alone we killed almost 500,000 innocent civilians with firebombings and the 2 nuclear attacks.
then in Vietnam, there were cases where we were often running bombing raids over south Vietnam
those do not look like military personnel
The point is that although we may not be specifically targeting civilians, our form of warfare does damage them in a significantly larger proportion than popularly believed. We've dropped mines that looked like food, and food that looks like mines.
My suggestion is that if our country really is as amazing as it was first set out to be, then we ought to be willing to sacrifice our lives when a 9/11 happens. Make sure you read this right -- I am saying that those who died on 9/11 are the biggest patriots we have, they are the citizens we are proud to have. Their death while unfortunate is a sacrifice that is made so that our core beliefs are not compromised.
Your biggest error is thinking that everyone who is effected by America is someone who wants to plan a 9/11 -- Think of the Iraqi boy, who has a poster of a mustang on his wall, who watches Hollywood movies who listens to our rap music. A highly unlikely character maybe -- but thats because his house and his school just got blown up, and his father died because America came into his country and took out his leader under the lie of wepons of mass distruction. -- That child never hated America untill America attacked him.
I understand that there are terrorists out there who are terrable people, I just happent to think that the concequences of trying to bring them to justice have resulting in too many compromises on our behalf. It's understandable that you do not think that freedom > safety it's what makes america america, different beleifs under one flag. But that's what we're talking about here.
then in Vietnam, there were cases where we were often running bombing raids over south Vietnam
those do not look like military personnel
The point is that although we may not be specifically targeting civilians, our form of warfare does damage them in a significantly larger proportion than popularly believed. We've dropped mines that looked like food, and food that looks like mines.
My suggestion is that if our country really is as amazing as it was first set out to be, then we ought to be willing to sacrifice our lives when a 9/11 happens. Make sure you read this right -- I am saying that those who died on 9/11 are the biggest patriots we have, they are the citizens we are proud to have. Their death while unfortunate is a sacrifice that is made so that our core beliefs are not compromised.
Your biggest error is thinking that everyone who is effected by America is someone who wants to plan a 9/11 -- Think of the Iraqi boy, who has a poster of a mustang on his wall, who watches Hollywood movies who listens to our rap music. A highly unlikely character maybe -- but thats because his house and his school just got blown up, and his father died because America came into his country and took out his leader under the lie of wepons of mass distruction. -- That child never hated America untill America attacked him.
I understand that there are terrorists out there who are terrable people, I just happent to think that the concequences of trying to bring them to justice have resulting in too many compromises on our behalf. It's understandable that you do not think that freedom > safety it's what makes america america, different beleifs under one flag. But that's what we're talking about here.
skiminnesota
Active member
wow is your whole argument the George Washington quote?
here are some doosies from our first president. (actually depending on how you define president, he wasnt, but i assume you know your history?)
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
George Washington
(my Iran thread?)
It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.
George Washington
whoa now.
It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.
George Washington
Let us with caution indulge the supposition that
morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both
forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of
religious principle.
George Washington
holy shit!
Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.
George Washington
i bit ironic we talking about terrorist is it not?
The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing
and swearing is a vice so mean and low that every person of sense and
character detests and despises it.
George Washington
i need to work on this
The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and
everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor
with all that's good.
George Washington
here are some doosies from our first president. (actually depending on how you define president, he wasnt, but i assume you know your history?)
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
George Washington
(my Iran thread?)
It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.
George Washington
whoa now.
It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.
George Washington
Let us with caution indulge the supposition that
morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both
forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of
religious principle.
George Washington
holy shit!
Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.
George Washington
i bit ironic we talking about terrorist is it not?
The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing
and swearing is a vice so mean and low that every person of sense and
character detests and despises it.
George Washington
i need to work on this
The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and
everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor
with all that's good.
George Washington
pmills
Active member
my argument comes from his specific quote about torture -- and more broadly from the perspectives of the founding fathers in general -- the preamble to the constitution.
You're entitled to cite any view of George Washington, but that doesn't do anything against the validity or importance of this particular quote.
although some of what you quote is perhaps helpful to some of my views -- religion and politics perhaps do not mix on the papers, but i think you're construing his core belief which was religious freedom.
It was a different era, do you suppose that some of the foundations of our government have changed? The American philosophy?
You still do need a religious belief to govern this nation -- when did we have an atheist president? How long would they even have their feet wet if they even tried? I'm not a religious man, so i agree it seems quaint, yet somehow still relevant.
You're entitled to cite any view of George Washington, but that doesn't do anything against the validity or importance of this particular quote.
although some of what you quote is perhaps helpful to some of my views -- religion and politics perhaps do not mix on the papers, but i think you're construing his core belief which was religious freedom.
It was a different era, do you suppose that some of the foundations of our government have changed? The American philosophy?
You still do need a religious belief to govern this nation -- when did we have an atheist president? How long would they even have their feet wet if they even tried? I'm not a religious man, so i agree it seems quaint, yet somehow still relevant.
pmills
Active member
Don't miss the point -- everyone abides by their personal ideologies -- my question is simply what is the American philosophy, and has it been redefined ever since FDR -- and especially culminating under GWB
i have to admit i had to look up who Phelps was -- but it's funny because i was partially inspired to create this thread after watching him call Canada a bunch of nazi-fags. And i do wish that a whole mass of Americans would get together and get him to shut the fuck up -- but how do you do it?
Bombs and missiles miss -- we don't have to use them as we do, and we don't have to go to war on false premises either. I don't think i'm a pure pacifist because i recognize that you're right at points -- there is a justified war, but the stuff we've done of late -- mid WWII till current, it's all been from the down hill (moral) position.
i don't know how you draw the line between torture and roughing a guy up -- obviously i'd want to kick osama in the balls, i don't think many Americans would shake his hand, i certainly am not suggesting that. I just think we've lost track of who we're focusing on, them or us. Maybe i'm delusional but the whole aftermath of 9/11 suggests that Osama won -- we've squander our military power, our economic situation is struggling, our civil liberties are being compromised and there has been all this infighting amongst ourselves. After 9/11, a president could not make a country more united than the US was -- i just feel like bush again squandered that unitedness as well as the suport from the international community like none other could. That perhaps is my biggest disappointment -- perhaps it's just the sum of the whole.
I'm not sure i understand what you mean by putting the well being of one man lower than societies. The argument is that the US is as good as it is because we do not stoop to base levels of particular human emotions/actions. We can certainly give justice-- but as you've said torture is not condonable.
i have to admit i had to look up who Phelps was -- but it's funny because i was partially inspired to create this thread after watching him call Canada a bunch of nazi-fags. And i do wish that a whole mass of Americans would get together and get him to shut the fuck up -- but how do you do it?
Bombs and missiles miss -- we don't have to use them as we do, and we don't have to go to war on false premises either. I don't think i'm a pure pacifist because i recognize that you're right at points -- there is a justified war, but the stuff we've done of late -- mid WWII till current, it's all been from the down hill (moral) position.
i don't know how you draw the line between torture and roughing a guy up -- obviously i'd want to kick osama in the balls, i don't think many Americans would shake his hand, i certainly am not suggesting that. I just think we've lost track of who we're focusing on, them or us. Maybe i'm delusional but the whole aftermath of 9/11 suggests that Osama won -- we've squander our military power, our economic situation is struggling, our civil liberties are being compromised and there has been all this infighting amongst ourselves. After 9/11, a president could not make a country more united than the US was -- i just feel like bush again squandered that unitedness as well as the suport from the international community like none other could. That perhaps is my biggest disappointment -- perhaps it's just the sum of the whole.
I'm not sure i understand what you mean by putting the well being of one man lower than societies. The argument is that the US is as good as it is because we do not stoop to base levels of particular human emotions/actions. We can certainly give justice-- but as you've said torture is not condonable.
4frnt_4_life
Member
I dont think Gandi ever had the british suicide bomb him. Also are you suggesting that we shouldnt fight back against a enemy that largely hates us since we are not muslim.
pmills
Active member
i'm suggesting that we don't compromise our core beliefs and deal with our enemies in a moral compatible way. if we risk particular consequences-- if our core beliefs are good enough --it's worth dieing for.
but a few things -- just because Gandhi his movement did not face suicide bombers does not mean they did not risk death.
second our enemy does not largely hate us because we're not Muslim, sure a few of the most extremists are driven by this, but i'm going to say that it probably has something to do with the fact that the west has been interfering with the middle east forever -- i'll go back to 1967 and the 7 day war, George bush didn't start anything -- he's been perpetuating an ongoing clash of cultures.
but a few things -- just because Gandhi his movement did not face suicide bombers does not mean they did not risk death.
second our enemy does not largely hate us because we're not Muslim, sure a few of the most extremists are driven by this, but i'm going to say that it probably has something to do with the fact that the west has been interfering with the middle east forever -- i'll go back to 1967 and the 7 day war, George bush didn't start anything -- he's been perpetuating an ongoing clash of cultures.
Aerozol
Active member
As long as you realise your not actually fighting terrorists, just invading two countries full of people that had nothing to do with it.
Sure they hate you NOW, and you can definitely expect a bunch more suicide bombers- except now you deserve it for killing whatever children/ family you accidentally got with a carpet bomb during your invasion/ occupation.
Sure they hate you NOW, and you can definitely expect a bunch more suicide bombers- except now you deserve it for killing whatever children/ family you accidentally got with a carpet bomb during your invasion/ occupation.
Quinny
Active member
Simply because we have laws that we as a society choose to enforce does not mean we are a police state or that we live in a police state. The point I'm making is that you really have no idea what a police state is really like. An oppressive environment characterized by police states would not allow you access to basic things you take for granted.
Legally enforcing a minimum drinking age and jailing people for not paying their taxes is not repressive behavior characterized by a police state. We as a country have collectively chosen certain rules, and that those rules be enforced a certain way. The fact that we can even have this discussion in a public forum is a demonstration that your right to free speech is not being silenced.
And your assessment of 17th century life is off base. Only the wealthy and privileged had any kind of real freedom. If you were a commoner, odds are you were poor as dirt, you couldn't own any land, and you were forced to be a Catholic if you wanted any shot at social mobility. Sure, you could walk away from that life...it's just that the alternative usually meant exile or your eventual death.
Legally enforcing a minimum drinking age and jailing people for not paying their taxes is not repressive behavior characterized by a police state. We as a country have collectively chosen certain rules, and that those rules be enforced a certain way. The fact that we can even have this discussion in a public forum is a demonstration that your right to free speech is not being silenced.
And your assessment of 17th century life is off base. Only the wealthy and privileged had any kind of real freedom. If you were a commoner, odds are you were poor as dirt, you couldn't own any land, and you were forced to be a Catholic if you wanted any shot at social mobility. Sure, you could walk away from that life...it's just that the alternative usually meant exile or your eventual death.
brokebutitsworthit
Active member
Yay Quinny I am glad you came to play.
Your characterisations of a police state seem very tied to totalitarianism. I am not saying we are living in a 1984 kinda world but I do argue that the restrictions and control exerted by western democracies have parallels. I would say I have quite a decent grasp of what a police state actually is. It does not have to be the narrow definition tied to totalitarianism. With regards to the right to free speech that you are arguing, yeah that is a wonderful thing that we have, and something that is taken for granted waaay too much. However, just because we have freedoms here that would be seen as amazing under Stalin does not change that our society functions under rigid controls. I have no desire for anarchy etc, (in fact my politics are quite separate from my argument here) but merely argue that the level of governmental control and influence we allow over our private lives would shock and alarm a 17th century person.
Also, you state “We as a country have collectively chosen certain rules, and that those rules be enforced a certain way.” Don’t forget so did the Russians, Stalin was immensely popular and Lenin had almost religious devotion.
Now, in so far as my argument about the 17th century I counter that the nobility actually had less freedom than the third estate. The seventeenth century was a revolutionary time for social classes and the emergence of the urban nobility would almost create a new estate, especially in Germany and France. With their determination to increase their status the urban elite were forced into strict patterns, the emergence of rentiers and purchasing of office, and eventual proof of nobility by not working for 3 generations etc etc. Also, limiting their real freedom was the convention that nobles were expected to live a life of conspicuous consumption. Despite not paying taxes this would often result in their financial ruin. However, this was social not political control. The King did respect the nobility, for it was them who he relied on to fight (although less so in Louis XIV time, mercenary armies were emerging as much more common) but did not legislate them very severely.
To quote “If you were a commoner, odds are you were poor as dirt, you couldn't own any land, and you were forced to be a Catholic if you wanted any shot at social mobility. Sure, you could walk away from that life...it's just that the alternative usually meant exile or your eventual death.” Yes, sorta. True most commoners could not afford land, but Labourers and Yeomen did exist. Also, most villages would have common land they shared and nobles employed farmers on their demesne lands.
However, wealth is not tied into freedom here. Without being tied to land they had the freedom to move, work for other nobles, work as servants and take up trades. With involvements in guilds a commoner could actually have quite a lot of social mobility. Either way, the government had little involvement. You were free to live and die as you wished as long as you paid your taxes and did not raise arms against the King.
With regards to the religious question, yeah in France being Catholic was important for the elite, however religion was waay less important in rural settings than many believe. Also, the Huguenots were still significant and prove that you did not need to be Catholic to be powerful.
Your characterisations of a police state seem very tied to totalitarianism. I am not saying we are living in a 1984 kinda world but I do argue that the restrictions and control exerted by western democracies have parallels. I would say I have quite a decent grasp of what a police state actually is. It does not have to be the narrow definition tied to totalitarianism. With regards to the right to free speech that you are arguing, yeah that is a wonderful thing that we have, and something that is taken for granted waaay too much. However, just because we have freedoms here that would be seen as amazing under Stalin does not change that our society functions under rigid controls. I have no desire for anarchy etc, (in fact my politics are quite separate from my argument here) but merely argue that the level of governmental control and influence we allow over our private lives would shock and alarm a 17th century person.
Also, you state “We as a country have collectively chosen certain rules, and that those rules be enforced a certain way.” Don’t forget so did the Russians, Stalin was immensely popular and Lenin had almost religious devotion.
Now, in so far as my argument about the 17th century I counter that the nobility actually had less freedom than the third estate. The seventeenth century was a revolutionary time for social classes and the emergence of the urban nobility would almost create a new estate, especially in Germany and France. With their determination to increase their status the urban elite were forced into strict patterns, the emergence of rentiers and purchasing of office, and eventual proof of nobility by not working for 3 generations etc etc. Also, limiting their real freedom was the convention that nobles were expected to live a life of conspicuous consumption. Despite not paying taxes this would often result in their financial ruin. However, this was social not political control. The King did respect the nobility, for it was them who he relied on to fight (although less so in Louis XIV time, mercenary armies were emerging as much more common) but did not legislate them very severely.
To quote “If you were a commoner, odds are you were poor as dirt, you couldn't own any land, and you were forced to be a Catholic if you wanted any shot at social mobility. Sure, you could walk away from that life...it's just that the alternative usually meant exile or your eventual death.” Yes, sorta. True most commoners could not afford land, but Labourers and Yeomen did exist. Also, most villages would have common land they shared and nobles employed farmers on their demesne lands.
However, wealth is not tied into freedom here. Without being tied to land they had the freedom to move, work for other nobles, work as servants and take up trades. With involvements in guilds a commoner could actually have quite a lot of social mobility. Either way, the government had little involvement. You were free to live and die as you wished as long as you paid your taxes and did not raise arms against the King.
With regards to the religious question, yeah in France being Catholic was important for the elite, however religion was waay less important in rural settings than many believe. Also, the Huguenots were still significant and prove that you did not need to be Catholic to be powerful.
brokebutitsworthit
Active member
Sorry for the semi thread jack by the way, the historical discussion cult died off a long time ago.
Oh and Quinny, please recall that I do have an idea of what a police state is. This shit is the focus of my 2nd degree, whilst if I remember correctly you are a business major (although an admirably well rounded one).
Oh and Quinny, please recall that I do have an idea of what a police state is. This shit is the focus of my 2nd degree, whilst if I remember correctly you are a business major (although an admirably well rounded one).
steezinseagal
Member
we don't really live in a police state, but the idea that america is the land of the free is not completely true. we lock up so many people that we have to build one superjail a year to keep up with the incarceration rates. and as anyone who has been to prison will tell you, prison only works to reform a small amount of people. most just come out worse, and with a felony on their record, have either the shittiest jobs or more crime ahead to look forward to.
pmills
Active member
Back to the topic? anyone take the 10 minutes to watch the video? it's the story of one of the military prosecutors down at gitmo who couldn't handle the lack of American principles.
for those who agree that we ought to 'rough em up' (suspected terrorists) a bit -- does his story at least qualify as a testimony that we've gone too far?
how do we avoid doing what we've done again, especially now that there are the reports that there will be a nuclear/wmd attack in the next 5 years. Do you really care about this speculative possibility, is it worth living in fear/compromised morals (eg. gitmo).
for those who agree that we ought to 'rough em up' (suspected terrorists) a bit -- does his story at least qualify as a testimony that we've gone too far?
how do we avoid doing what we've done again, especially now that there are the reports that there will be a nuclear/wmd attack in the next 5 years. Do you really care about this speculative possibility, is it worth living in fear/compromised morals (eg. gitmo).
brokebutitsworthit
Active member
very true, even with rehabilitation and addiction programs in prison there are still problems with repeat offenders. You can not reform somebody with mental issues like psychopathy etc. Anyway, my point is not a critique of modern society, I like how I live and am seriously considering a career in policing. My comments are that the control the government has is such a part of our world that we rarely notice it. This would technically make it a police state and alarm people such as the founding fathers and most citizens of absolute monarchy.
twin-tip-hero
Active member
wow i am absolutely appaluled after reading this. this country is going to just fucking fall apart, the way things are i really hope that Obama can change this shit hole around, and fast.
4frnt_4_life
Member
well i do not see the wrong in causing temporary pain to someone who is truely evil and would do much worse to you if they had the chance.