Telling It Like It Is

[actsnoblemartin]

eots said we were going around nuking everything

oh and by the way, the second temple is under the dome of the rock, muslims wanna pretend jews didnt exist in the middle east.

oh, i meant, the u.s. isnt blowing up or nuking anything, al queda is using car bombs and i.e.d.s

if anyone is nuking iraq, its islamic terrorists

eh? ground controool to Major Martin....

I don't see the wailing wall nuked either.. nor jerusalem. what's your point?

also, dude, "the ones nuking iraq right now"?

 

[Annie]

Ok, I'll play...


If you want to retain the moral high ground then you cannot act just like those you have demonized.

Let me ask YOU then:


If you knew that OBL was hiding in a village full of muslim kids and grandmas and there was NO way to extract him out and the ONLY option was to nuke him and 500K innocent kids and grannies are you telling me that, in fear of another 9/11, you'd press the big red button?

Yes, it would be a small price to put PAID to WOT. Of course there is not context here, such as there was when dropping nukes in Japan. I don't think that dropping a nuke is necessary, not in the current scenario.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I doubt a village has 500 people, let alone 500,000 kids, and grandma's nice try.

But, it really depends. we might not need obl that bad, he is a figure head at this point.

Also, you do what it takes to win the war, wars arent fought over moral high ground.

I think its absurd in a way, but honestly respect your point.

Ok, I'll play...


If you want to retain the moral high ground then you cannot act just like those you have demonized.

Let me ask YOU then:


If you knew that OBL was hiding in a village full of muslim kids and grandmas and there was NO way to extract him out and the ONLY option was to nuke him and 500K innocent kids and grannies are you telling me that, in fear of another 9/11, you'd press the big red button?

 

[eots]

eots said we were going around nuking everything

oh and by the way, the second temple is under the dome of the rock, muslims wanna pretend jews didnt exist in the middle east.

oh, i meant, the u.s. isnt blowing up or nuking anything, al queda is using car bombs and i.e.d.s

if anyone is nuking iraq, its islamic terrorists

DUDE YOU TOTALY MISSED THE POINT..... I SAID NO SUCH THING

 

[Foxfyre]

Ok, I'll play...


If you want to retain the moral high ground then you cannot act just like those you have demonized.

Let me ask YOU then:


If you knew that OBL was hiding in a village full of muslim kids and grandmas and there was NO way to extract him out and the ONLY option was to nuke him and 500K innocent kids and grannies are you telling me that, in fear of another 9/11, you'd press the big red button?

If that was the ONLY way to prevent another 9/11, yes I would. Wouldn't you? But in the scenario you've described, no reasonable person would interpret that as the ONLY option.

But please don't use changing the question as valid debate.

The scenario I gave you is totally different and is the ONLY option.

Your child or other loved one(s) is about to suffer a terrible agonizing death and you have somebody in your custody who knows where he or she is and refuses to tell. If he doesn't tell you soon, it will be too late. What do you do?

or

You have a finite amount of time to save tens of thousands of people and you have in custody somebody who can tell you where the bomb is. Do you ask him nicely and accept his 'no'? Or will you make him as uncomfortable as necessary to get him to tell you where the bomb is?

What is the moral high ground in a circumstance such as this?

Unless we answer this question straight on, we are dealing in ideological fluff so that we can feel righteous and nothing else.

 

[Shogun]

If that was the ONLY way to prevent another 9/11, yes I would. Wouldn't you? But in the scenario you've described, no reasonable person would interpret that as the ONLY option.

But please don't use changing the question as valid debate.

The scenario I gave you is the ONLY option.

Your child or other loved one(s) is about to suffer a terrible agonizing death and you have somebody in your custody who knows where they are and refuses to tell. If he doesn't tell you soon, it will be too late. What do you do?

or

You have a finite amount of time to save tens of thousands of people and you have in custody somebody who can tell you where the bomb is. Do you ask him nicely and accept his 'no'? Or will you make him as uncomfortable as necessary to get him to tell you where the bomb is?

What is the moral high ground in a circumstance such as this?

Unless we answer this question straight on, we are dealing in ideological fluff so that we can feel righteous and nothing else.

Why are you hellbent on posing a worst case scenerio hypothetical while not letting me turn it around on you? I was clear that such was the ONLY option In accordance with YOUR hypothetical.. The moral highground is to act in manner that is NOT consistent with the behaviour of those who we have demonized by their actions. The point of MY question, and thank you for answering, is that YOU would kill women and children in order to save YOUR side from a percieved threat... well, 20 hijackers made a similar decision against THEIR percieved threat.


9/11 didn't happen in a vacuum. If YOU can fathom killing 500K women and kids then it really dulls any outrage over 9/11. Do we Blow up civilian coffeeshops too? Do we gas the pals with mustard gas for peace? This isn't an episode of 24. Jack Bauer is a fictional character.

If we are going to claim to be better than those we are labeling terrorists we are going to have to act like it.
No, I would not kill 500K of innocents over the FEAR of avoiding what may or may not have become an attack. My chooing as much we become no better than those we kill in the name of TERRORISM. We don't have a monopoly on deciding who are terrorists, you know...

 

[Foxfyre]

Why are you hellbent on posing a worst case scenerio hypothetical while not letting me turn it around on you? I was clear that such was the ONLY option In accordance with YOUR hypothetical.. The moral highground is to act in manner that is NOT consistent with the behaviour of those who we have demonized by their actions. The point of MY question, and thank you for answering, is that YOU would kill women and children in order to save YOUR side from a percieved threat... well, 20 hijackers made a similar decision against THEIR percieved threat.


9/11 didn't happen in a vacuum. If YOU can fathom killing 500K women and kids then it really dulls any outrage over 9/11. Do we Blow up civilian coffeeshops too? Do we gas the pals with mustard gas for peace? This isn't an episode of 24. Jack Bauer is a fictional character.

If we are going to claim to be better than those we are labeling terrorists we are going to have to act like it.
No, I would not kill 500K of innocents over the FEAR of avoiding what may or may not have become an attack. My chooing as much we become no better than those we kill in the name of TERRORISM. We don't have a monopoly on deciding who are terrorists, you know...

Nor would I kill 500k over the FEAR of anything. I made that clear. I would kill 500K to stop a worse disaster. Harry Truman had to make such a decision in World War II.

I answered your far more implausible question. But you won't answer mine. Why is that? You obfusicate and vacillate and spout righteous sounding platitudes and try to detract with red herrings. That my friend is the leftwing wacko way and the reason we spend more time throwing stones than we do solving problems in this country.

I submit that some won't answer the question because he or she will then look like an idiot or grant some credit where s/he doesn't want any credit to be given. Or s/he can't answer the question without having to acknowledge that there are realities in this world that don't quite fit with self-righteous, sanctimonious proclamations intended to embarrass the current administration or whomever.

I submit that a real man or a real woman would just answer the question.

And anybody unwilling to answer that question, or who substitutes righteous sounding platitudes for an answer, has no business being in the business of national security. It is because that worse case scenario is possible that our leaders are most wise in refusing to pledge that they would never get rough with somebody if lives of the innocent require it.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

well then i apologize, i dont come here to slander people.

Tell me what you said and what youre point was, and please accept my humble apology

I had no intention of putting words in youre mouth.

DUDE YOU TOTALY MISSED THE POINT..... I SAID NO SUCH THING

 

[Shogun]

Nor would I kill 500k over the FEAR of anything. I made that clear. I would kill 500K to stop a worse disaster. Harry Truman had to make such a decision in World War II.

I answered your far more implausible question. But you won't answer mine. Why is that? You obfusicate and vacillate and spout righteous sounding platitudes and try to detract with red herrings. That my friend is the leftwing wacko way and the reason we spend more time throwing stones than we do solving problems in this country.

I submit that some won't answer the question because he or she will then look like an idiot or grant some credit where s/he doesn't want any credit to be given. Or s/he can't answer the question without having to acknowledge that there are realities in this world that don't quite fit with self-righteous, sanctimonious proclamations intended to embarrass the current administration or whomever.

I submit that a real man or a real woman would just answer the question.

And anybody unwilling to answer that question, or who substitutes righteous sounding platitudes for an answer, has no business being in the business of national security. It is because that worse case scenario is possible that our leaders are most wise in refusing to pledge that they would never get rough with somebody if lives of the innocent require it.

I said
No, I would not kill 500K of innocents over the FEAR of avoiding what may or may not have become an attack.

Likewise, I would not resort to TERRORISM and TORTURE in some desperate attempt to be told what I want to hear, rightly or wrongly.

Again, your HYPOTHETICAL is a Jack Bauer wet dream and in no way, shape or form validates TERRORISM OR TORTURE as long and those very things are what you continue to sell as the reason behind PREEMPTIVE aggression.

Like I said, you gave the same answer that 20 terrorists did when THEY perceived a threat... and I wouldn't be bragging about dropping nukes on Japan either given the talking points about iran.


Funny, "a worse disaster" seems to hinge on perspective when admitting you'd kill 500K kids for the sake of OBL. WE didn't lose 500K on 9/11 and pearl harbor COMBINED. It's easy to discount their humanity from so far away when yielding to paranoia and fear, eh?

Far more implausable? well, I guess we know what your OPINION is... as if any given terrorist at any given time is going to know about my wife or kid.. Geez..

I hate to break it to you but we don't torture our own convicts and suspects to get missing children info out of them. Perhaps you could ponder why that is. Are we SOFT on kidnapping? no. We are a nation of laws and ACT LIKE IT. even when it would be easier to become what we SAY we hate.

 

[Foxfyre]

I said
No, I would not kill 500K of innocents over the FEAR of avoiding what may or may not have become an attack.

Likewise, I would not resort to TERRORISM and TORTURE in some desperate attempt to be told what I want to hear, rightly or wrongly.

Again, your HYPOTHETICAL is a Jack Bauer wet dream and in no way, shape or form validates TERRORISM OR TORTURE as long and those very things are what you continue to sell as the reason behind PREEMPTIVE aggression.

Like I said, you gave the same answer that 20 terrorists did when THEY perceived a threat... and I wouldn't be bragging about dropping nukes on Japan either given the talking points about iran.

Funny, "a worse disaster" seems to hinge on perspective when admitting you'd kill 500K kids for the sake of OBL. WE didn't lose 500K on 9/11 and pearl harbor COMBINED. It's easy to discount their humanity from so far away when yielding to paranoia and fear, eh?

Far more implausable? well, I guess we know what your OPINION is... as if any given terrorist at any given time is going to know about my wife or kid.. Geez..

I hate to break it to you but we don't torture our own convicts and suspects to get missing children info out of them. Perhaps you could ponder why that is. Are we SOFT on kidnapping? no. We are a nation of laws and ACT LIKE IT. even when it would be easier to become what we SAY we hate.

You just can't bring yourself to answer the question can you? I am not suggesting any 'might' or 'maybe' in the described scenario. I am not comparing Iran with Japan as those two scenarios, both real and imagined, are entirely different and require(d) different criteria in decision making. This has nothing to do with pre-emptive anything or what 10 terrorists might perceive or torturing anybody based on what they might know. It has nothing to do with hypothesis or paranoia or fear. I am suggesting an absolute. I have described a situation that forces us to decide what we will and will not do that is within our power to do.

You imply that you would do nothing to save your loved ones or those tens of thousands of innocents if it involved getting rough with the one person who has the information that could save them. I don't believe you, actually, if you are capable of caring about anybody real. But I do believe you are extremely uncomfortable, perhaps incapable of having an honest discussion about it. Most leftists are. That doesn't make them bad people at all--their motives may be stellar. But it makes them really poor candidates to be in charge of national security.

 

[Shogun]

You just can't bring yourself to answer the question can you? I am not suggesting any 'might' or 'maybe' in the described scenario. I am not comparing Iran with Japan as those two scenarios, both real and imagined, are entirely different and require(d) different criteria in decision making. This has nothing to do with pre-emptive anything or what 10 terrorists might perceive or torturing anybody based on what they might know. It has nothing to do with hypothesis or paranoia or fear. I am suggesting an absolute. I have described a situation that forces us to decide what we will and will not do that is within our power to do.

You imply that you would do nothing to save your loved ones or those tens of thousands of innocents if it involved getting rough with the one person who has the information that could save them. I don't believe you, actually, if you are capable of caring about anybody real. But I do believe you are extremely uncomfortable, perhaps incapable of having an honest discussion about it. Most leftists are. That doesn't make them bad people at all--their motives may be stellar. But it makes them really poor candidates to be in charge of national security.

I ANSWERED THE QUESTION ALREADY

THE ANSWER IS NO

good grief.. are you having a stroke or something?

You are NOT describing an "absolute" YOU are describing a HYPOTHETICAL meant to validate your OPINION. show me one occasion where your hypothetical was more concrete than your imagination. Show me ONE Jack Bauer moment where the fate of the free world rests upon using torture to dig out the disarming code to a nuke. YOU don't like the fact that I'm not mimicking your answer because doing so conveys the similarity between YOUR logic and the logic of those who flew into the WTC.

Let me say it one more time in case you didn't catch that:


NO, I WOULD NOT USE TORTURE TO MAKE SOME PERCEIVED TERRORIST TELL ME SOMTHING THAT HE MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW. I could make you admit anything given enough water boarding. You may think that dirty harry vigilante justice should be an option but then, again, THATS why we are a nation of laws. THATS why we claim to have the moral high ground.

If YOU can fathom killing 500K children for the sake of one perceived threat then you aren't that far off from rationalizing the use of terrorism, are you? Being dense about my answer to your Jack Bauer hypothetical won't make that pill any easier to swallow.

You are free to believe what you want to believe about my answer though... It may make more sense in your head that everyone else in the world would make your same decision but, I guess, schitzophrenia happens, eh? You aren't asking for honest conversation; you are asking for someone to validate your version of a callous disregard for humanity. Again, I'll remind you that we don't torture suspected kidnappers in order to find out where their victims are. Why is that? Again, are we SOFT ON KIDNAPPING?

 

[Foxfyre]

I ANSWERED THE QUESTION ALREADY

THE ANSWER IS NO

good grief.. are you having a stroke or something?

You are NOT describing an "absolute" YOU are describing a HYPOTHETICAL meant to validate your OPINION. show me one occasion where your hypothetical was more concrete than your imagination. Show me ONE Jack Bauer moment where the fate of the free world rests upon using torture to dig out the disarming code to a nuke. YOU don't like the fact that I'm not mimicking your answer because doing so conveys the similarity between YOUR logic and the logic of those who flew into the WTC.

Let me say it one more time in case you didn't catch that:


NO, I WOULD NOT USE TORTURE TO MAKE SOME PERCEIVED TERRORIST TELL ME SOMTHING THAT HE MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW. I could make you admit anything given enough water boarding. You may think that dirty harry vigilante justice should be an option but then, again, THATS why we are a nation of laws. THATS why we claim to have the moral high ground.

If YOU can fathom killing 500K children for the sake of one perceived threat then you aren't that far off from rationalizing the use of terrorism, are you? Being dense about my answer to your Jack Bauer hypothetical won't make that pill any easier to swallow.

You are free to believe what you want to believe about my answer though... It may make more sense in your head that everyone else in the world would make your same decision but, I guess, schitzophrenia happens, eh? You aren't asking for honest conversation; you are asking for someone to validate your version of a callous disregard for humanity. Again, I'll remind you that we don't torture suspected kidnappers in order to find out where their victims are. Why is that? Again, are we SOFT ON KIDNAPPING?

We are talking about what somebody does know. We aren't talking about roughing up somebody to find out what he might know. We are talking about somebody we know has the information that will allow us to save our loved one and/or tens of thousands of people.

It is actually a very simple thing and yes, and, among normal people, can be quite simply addressed in honest conversation. It is dishonest to keep changing the question to avoid answering the question. I will be happy to discuss your other scenarios if you wish, but so far you have 100% refused to answer the question.

 

[ReillyT]

We are talking about what somebody does know. We aren't talking about roughing up somebody to find out what he might know. We are talking about somebody we know has the information that will allow us to save our loved one and/or tens of thousands of people.

It is actually a very simple thing and yes, and, among normal people, can be quite simply addressed in honest conversation. It is dishonest to keep changing the question to avoid answering the question. I will be happy to discuss your other scenarios if you wish, but so far you have 100% refused to answer the question.

If I may take a shot at your scenario.

Yes, if I was absolutely sure that person x possessed information that would allow me to save the life of my wife, there is no other way to save my wife other than to obtain the information, and person x is responsible for putting her in danger in the first place, I would resort to torture.

However, even if I did this, I would understand that what I am doing is wrong, and I would expect to be punished for it, whether I succeeded in getting the information or not. For my wrong and illegal actions, I should suffer terrible consequences.

I don't think this situation applies to my government. One, once a practice like this is condoned and institutionalized, it becomes open to abuse (not talking about the torture here). When I make a personal decision faced with the knowledge that my imprisonment is the outcome, I can feel sure that it is in fact a last resort. I don't trust others (bureaucrats perhaps) not facing those kinds of consequences (whether the torture works or not) to use this as the last resort in only the most extreme circumstances. Every culture that uses torture has to deal with the abuse of that right. *Especially as the doomsday weapon situation where torture is only option has never occurred that we are aware of, I don't see a need for torture as policy*

Second (this is a slightly different point), if this practice is over-used, there are no consequences for the government that introduced it. If the US adopts it as a policy that is wrong, the only negative outcome is what historians say.

Finally, if it ever came about that we have one person who has knowledge of a WMD and we must obtain that information, the opportunity will exist for those holding the person to resort to torture if they feel it is necessary. However, it will be illegal, and they will face the same consequences (prison) that I personally would face in your scenario. Let the person on the spot then weigh how sure he/she is about the necessity of the action.

 

[Foxfyre]

If I may take a shot at your scenario.

Yes, if I was absolutely sure that person x possessed information that would allow me to save the life of my wife, there is no other way to save my wife other than to obtain the information, and person x is responsible for putting her in danger in the first place, I would resort to torture.

However, even if I did this, I would understand that what I am doing is wrong, and I would expect to be punished for it, whether I succeeded in getting the information or not. For my wrong and illegal actions, I should suffer terrible consequences.

I don't think this situation applies to my government. One, once a practice like this is condoned and institutionalized, it becomes open to abuse (not talking about the torture here). When I make a personal decision faced with the knowledge that my imprisonment is the outcome, I can feel sure that it is in fact a last resort. I don't trust others (bureaucrats perhaps) not facing those kinds of consequences (whether the torture works or not) to use this as the last resort in only the most extreme circumstances. Every culture that uses torture has to deal with the abuse of that right. *Especially as the doomsday weapon situation where torture is only option has never occurred that we are aware of, I don't see a need for torture as policy*

Second (this is a slightly different point), if this practice is over-used, there are no consequences for the government that introduced it. If the US adopts it as a policy that is wrong, the only negative outcome is what historians say.

Finally, if it ever came about that we have one person who has knowledge of a WMD and we must obtain that information, the opportunity will exist for those holding the person to resort to torture if they feel it is necessary. However, it will be illegal, and they will face the same consequences (prison) that I personally would face in your scenario. Let the person on the spot then weigh how sure he/she is about the necessity of the action.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. An articulate, well reasoned, and honest answer to the question whether or not I agree with some or all of your take on it.

I can even appreciate Shogun's inability to answer the question because it falls into one of those areas that we don't always know what we are capable of doing until we are confronted with the situation. Example: If a stranger enters the house in a threatening manner and I'm holding a 38 revolver, would I shoot? My quarrel with Shogun is that he pretends to answer the question by answering a different one.

I am not convinced that in this worst case scenario when the only choice is between doing that which repulses us or allowing a terrible injustice to be done, we are in fact giving encouragement to others to torture our own. I believe those who have no conscience about torture or even get pleasure from doing it need no encouragement. They will do it regardless of our policy. And they see our reluctance to do it as a weakness, not a virtue.

For ourselves, our way is to not inflict unnecessary pain or injury on animals or other humans. We do not torture for sport or just to force them to reveal something they may or may not know. Under normal circumstances, those we control, i.e. prisoners, are entitled at least to the very basics of humane treatment.

But anybody who is unwilling to do what must be done to protect the innocent has no business being in charge of national security or defense. And we are gravely in error if we force them to state a position that could make it impossible for them to be able to do that.

 

[ReillyT]

But anybody who is unwilling to do what must be done to protect the innocent has no business being in charge of national security or defense. And we are gravely in error if we force them to state a position that could make it impossible for them to be able to do that.

It doesn't make it impossible. The choice just becomes, "Do I take an illegal action and condemn myself to future imprisonment in order to save many lives?" I think that this is a good litmus test of how certain a person is that torture is necessary. With enough certainty, I think the torture will happen regardless of the state of the law.

 

[Foxfyre]

It doesn't make it impossible. The choice just becomes, "Do I take an illegal action and condemn myself to future imprisonment in order to save many lives?" I think that this is a good litmus test of how certain a person is that torture is necessary. With enough certainty, I think the torture will happen regardless of the state of the law.

Okay point well taken. But I prefer to not put our national leaders in the position of having to choose between legal and illegal choices in order to defend and protect us.

 

[CharlestonChad]

funny, i dont see mecca nuked.

I dont see iran nuked, nor egypt, saudi arabia, pakistan, or iraq.

Funny how facts get in the way.

Infact, the ones nuking iraq right now are al queda, and the u.s. military is stopping that nicely

Al Queda dropped a nuke on Iraq?

Funny how facts get in the way.

 

[Shogun]

We are talking about what somebody does know. We aren't talking about roughing up somebody to find out what he might know. We are talking about somebody we know has the information that will allow us to save our loved one and/or tens of thousands of people.

It is actually a very simple thing and yes, and, among normal people, can be quite simply addressed in honest conversation. It is dishonest to keep changing the question to avoid answering the question. I will be happy to discuss your other scenarios if you wish, but so far you have 100% refused to answer the question.

jesus christ... what part of

I ANSWERED THE QUESTION ALREADY

THE ANSWER IS NO

are you not comprehending? I'm not avoiding your question. I've answered it AGAIN for you. Indeed, tell me about how normal people answer the question "does anyone know you beat your wife?" too.

in fact, was ignoring the BOLD print easier than givng me one example of this Jack Bauer scenerio actually happening?

 

[Shogun]

It doesn't make it impossible. The choice just becomes, "Do I take an illegal action and condemn myself to future imprisonment in order to save many lives?" I think that this is a good litmus test of how certain a person is that torture is necessary. With enough certainty, I think the torture will happen regardless of the state of the law.

indeed, what better way to prove we are better than saddam....


... than to act like saddam when we don't hear what we want to hear...

 

[ReillyT]

indeed, what better way to prove we are better than saddam....


... than to act like saddam when we don't hear what we want to hear...

I am not saying it is necessarily a good thing. I am just saying it would likely happen.