Questions for Fairweather, Puget, and KK

[sexual_chocolate]

yes absolutely, and fascistic. All accurate.

[tvashtarkatena]

if we simply make fun of those with views other than our own, we're doing exactly what we as "progressive liberals" accuse the "other side" of doing.

 

 

I would never accuse the other side of being funny.

[StevenSeagal]

kaskakakvondoveoveoeo said:

Michael Savage is a sleazy jackass.

 

Then he said:

 

I don't give a rat's ass if I convince any ACLU-supporting, God-hating, pinko losers on this list.

 

Huh. You sure talk like him.

[tvashtarkatena]

even kaskadhgkshghk's hatred of the aclu, communism, pink socks and butt sex.

 

KKK hates butt sex? What was last night about, then?

[sexual_chocolate]

Maybe he was pretending to like it? or maybe his hatred is just pretending?

 

 

did he have an erection? did he ejaculate?

[tvashtarkatena]

I hate people who don't love God as much as I do.

[sexual_chocolate]

don't try to side-step my question, sir.

 

any answers we can glean about kaskadkjskfskshf's sexuality might proffer insights into his distorted mind....

[tvashtarkatena]

OK, I'll come clean.

 

I never finished watching the video.

[underworld]

kaskdksashst = tvashektkas

 

 

i mean really...look at the av's

[JayB]

Is it possible for two groups seeking two very different ends to employ the same means without becoming moral equals of one another?

 

The tactics that the US and England employed against the civilians populations in, say, Germany were every bit as brutal and deadly as anything that the Germans air campaigns inflicted on England.

 

Since the two sides employed tactics that were physically equivalent - deliberately inflicting the maximum civilian carnage via bombing - then the two sides must be viewed as moral equals despite the very different ideals and ends that the Allies were striving for?

 

Well, the big tipping point on the moral equality in for WWI/WWII was that the Germans were both gassing their own people and were the initial aggressors actively attacking initially non-hostile countries with the intent of taking over. That said, some of the shit we pulled was pretty ugly as well. Anyone ever read Slaughterhouse 5?

 

From a pragmatic standpoing however, the decision to return tit for tat in blatanly going after civilians, wasn't playing any role in actively increasing the ranks of the Germans. Besides it was an organized government that we were fighting. In that case going after the civilians could justifiably be seen as attacking the country as a whole and decreasing it's ability to continue to make large scale war by destroying it's resources (in this case people).

 

The same doesn't apply to the guerilla warfare in Vietnam or the current terrorist movement. The more we crack down, the more civilians we kill (collateral or otherwise) the more the population see's us as the threat, and in the end breeds more terrorists. I've said it before, but if we want to use conventional tactics to end the war in Irag, Afghanistan, or the the Middle East in general it will require that we raze the entire region to the ground and salt the earth. IMHO there are only two ways to end terrorism. Kill anyone and everyone who might ever become a terrorist, or convince the populations who provide recruits for the the terrorists that we aren't their as a threat and don't want to play a role in governing them. The problem is any chance we had of doing that in the near term is toast, we've blown any clout we once had. and will be much better off stepping out of the region almost entirely. To end the violence there we need allies with local respect to step in and provide a stabilizing influence while we bow out. Iraqi troops would be great, but they can't draw any support from us at all or their tainted. Egypt, Syria, Iran, Pakistan etc. would all be better choices. They all have a vested interest in a stable Iraq, and the local jihadi's will have a much harder time recruiting people to kill muslim troops from the region.

 

We might almost be better off stepping entirely out of rebuilding efforts or any effort to affect or facilitate local politics, and serve only as a policing force responding to violence and/or the threat of violence. Let the local develop their own government from scratch independantly.

 

I agree with a lot of what you've written, but your overall focus here seems to be on the efficacy of a given set of tactics, rather than whether or not using them renders us the moral equals to those that we are fighting against.

 

In my opinion, even if both sides are using the same weaponry and the same tactics in an equally brutal fashion, that still doesn't make them moral equals. These things count, but I still think that you've got to factor the ends that they are striving for and the ideals that have motivated them to engage in the conflict before making the final call about moral equivalence.

 

If you just asses tactics, then I don't see how anyone can claim that the US was the more moral actor in WWII or the Cold War. If you look at the broader picture, I don't think anyone could fail to see that the US was the more moral actor in these conflicts.

 

This is what confuses me about the "Now we're no better than the terrorists" crew that usually chimes in whenever these discussions occur. Maybe if you agree that tactics are the sole determinant of morality, and that all things that are physically equivalent are morally equivalent, but I don't think that anyone really believes this, it's just a rather weak and poorly thought-out attempt to indict the US by conflating two vastly different things that share some superficial resemblances to one another.

 

 

[prole]

If you just asses tactics, then I don't see how anyone can claim that the US was the more moral actor in WWII or the Cold War. If you look at the broader picture, I don't think anyone could fail to see that the US was the more moral actor in these conflicts.

 

And of course it goes without saying that the "broader picture" is the US government's unceasing commitment to spreading freedom and democracy, liberation of the oppressed, etc, ad nauseum.

[tvashtarkatena]

No one argues that the US is 'no better than the terrorists.' For one thing, we have a means for dissent and a mechanism for change when we do something wrong, unlike a totalitarian entity.

 

In a world increasingly intolerant of human rights abuses (the civilian bombing of WWII would never pass muster in today's military doctrine), the US has a particular responsibility as the world's most powerful and visible nation to serve as an example for others. We should lead in the human rights arena, not continually provide excuses for our abuse of those basic rights, regardless of how tough times are. That is what it means to be a nation of principle, not convenience.

 

Indefinite imprisonment, abduction, and torture without due process are the mark of tyranny, not a free society. Much of the world has condemned the US, and rightfully so, because our use of these tactics is not the way forward. We have a moral responsibility to do better than that.

 

WWII provides an example. German invasions of third party countries often involved wholesale slaughter of the civilian population, and widespread programs of ethnic cleansing, and the execution of military prisoners. While the Allies were not totally exempt from atrocities, for the most part Allied forces refrained from these practices. It is not necessary, nor is it advisable, to match an enemy's brutality tactic for tactic.

 

As the bulk of the Arab world watches our every move to gauge our intentions, we should provide a positive alternative, a way forward, as compared to the violence and extremism of our terrorist opponents.

[cj001f]

Upon my return they are still arguing about herring!

 

JayB - it's red and dead, darling

[tvashtarkatena]

kaskdksashst = tvashektkas

 

 

 

I am Everyman.

[cj001f]

kaskdksashst = tvashektkas

 

 

 

I am Everyman.

 

But you aren't Spartacus

[KaskadskyjKozak]

kaskdksashst = tvashektkas

 

 

 

I am Everyman.

 

But you aren't Spartacus

 

But Trashie does like both oyster's and snails. That's why he gets along so well with SC.

 

[ericb]

you bastards have run off all the conservatives, so I'll take over for them. The ALCU is the Antichrist. Prove me wrong.

 

Or perhaps the conservatives are actually working

[Dechristo]

In 1934, a private citizen strapped two pipes together to form a cross and mounted it on a rock outcrop in a remote, privately owned area of the Mojave Desert. The purpose was to honor the service of World War I veterans. President Clinton, as one of his last acts, issued an executive order incorporating the area in the Mojave National Preserve. The ACLU seized on that fact to file a federal suit to remove the cross in 2000. A district court ruled for the ACLU and awarded it more than $40,000 in attorney fees.

Veterans protested, and Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., who represents the area, achieved legislation officially establishing the site as the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial. The legislation authorized an exchange of the 1-acre site for five acres from a private owner, placing the memorial on private land.

However, that did not satisfy the fanatical ACLU. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held the case was “not moot” because the land exchange, although legislatively authorized, was not complete. Further, the court found the lead plaintiff – the first and sole remaining plaintiff – had legal standing to complain of civil-rights injury.

The lead plaintiff, Fank Buono, is a retired Forest Service employee who later moved to Oregon, but claims civil-rights violation and injury because he sees the cross when driving back on visits. ACLU’s attorney fee award for representing him was increased to $63,000.

In 1934, a private citizen strapped two pipes together to form a cross and mounted it on a rock outcrop in a remote, privately owned area of the Mojave Desert. The purpose was to honor the service of World War I veterans. President Clinton, as one of his last acts, issued an executive order incorporating the area in the Mojave National Preserve. The ACLU seized on that fact to file a federal suit to remove the cross in 2000. A district court ruled for the ACLU and awarded it more than $40,000 in attorney fees.

Veterans protested, and Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., who represents the area, achieved legislation officially establishing the site as the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial. The legislation authorized an exchange of the 1-acre site for five acres from a private owner, placing the memorial on private land.

However, that did not satisfy the fanatical ACLU. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held the case was “not moot” because the land exchange, although legislatively authorized, was not complete. Further, the court found the lead plaintiff – the first and sole remaining plaintiff – had legal standing to complain of civil-rights injury.

The lead plaintiff, Fank Buono, is a retired Forest Service employee who later moved to Oregon, but claims civil-rights violation and injury because he sees the cross when driving back on visits. ACLU’s attorney fee award for representing him was increased to $63,000.

 

 

Wow, an homemade cross made of pipes illegally erected in a public reserve. Certainly the defining issue of our day.

 

Loser pays winner's attorney fees is pretty standard in many kinds of cases. They had their day in court. They lost.

 

Sounds like whining to me. It also sounds like the democratic process at work.

 

I would guess that most Americans would not appreciate coming around a switchback in a publicly owned natural reserve and seeing a cheesy homemade islamic flag flying from a used piece of cyclone fencing. Same rules apply.

 

Equal protection, MOFO. You want a cross? Put one up on your own lawn. If someone burns it, the ACLU will be the first ones to come to your aid.

 

of course, you wouldn't let the facts of the case get in the way of your opinion

 

 

Edited December 8, 2006 by Dechristo

[tvashtarkatena]

"In 1934, a private citizen strapped two pipes together to form a cross and mounted it on a rock outcrop in a remote, privately owned area of the Mojave Desert. The purpose was to honor the service of World War I veterans. President Clinton, as one of his last acts, issued an executive order incorporating the area in the Mojave National Preserve. The ACLU seized on that fact to file a federal suit to remove the cross in 2000. A district court ruled for the ACLU and awarded it more than $40,000 in attorney fees.

Veterans protested, and Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., who represents the area, achieved legislation officially establishing the site as the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial. The legislation authorized an exchange of the 1-acre site for five acres from a private owner, placing the memorial on private land.

However, that did not satisfy the fanatical ACLU. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held the case was “not moot” because the land exchange, although legislatively authorized, was not complete. Further, the court found the lead plaintiff – the first and sole remaining plaintiff – had legal standing to complain of civil-rights injury."

 

 

 

of course, you wouldn't let the facts of the case get in the way of your opinion.

 

 

Well, I wouldn't misinterpret them, nor omit key details.

The private land exchange isn't 'incomplete', it's been invalidated in court. The cross is still on a public preserve.

 

If the White House wants to appeal the case, so be it. If they win, and the land is privatized, then let the man have his cross. If, however, the land remains a preserve, no cross.

 

That's our legal system. Gotta love it. Here's some bedtime reading for you:

 

 

"On April 5, 2005, the very same U.S. District Court for the Central District of California held that the land exchange enacted by Congress in 2003 had been a "sham" amounting to an “attempt by the government to evade the permanent injunction enjoining the display of the Latin cross” on federal land.

 

Unless the White House chooses to appeal District Court's April 5, 2005 ruling, the cross must ultimately be removed."

 

Next caller, please...

 

 

Edited December 9, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[Dechristo]

it's ok.

 

 

you, like all at times, have trouble admitting when you're wrong

[tvashtarkatena]

I'll get right on that, should the situation ever arise.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

kaskakakvondoveoveoeo said:

Michael Savage is a sleazy jackass.

 

Then he said:

 

I don't give a rat's ass if I convince any ACLU-supporting, God-hating, pinko losers on this list.

 

Huh. You sure talk like him.

 

I think he does what he does for more reasons than to jerk the chains of ass-clowns on a climbing forum.

 

 

 

[prole]

In my opinion, even if both sides are using the same weaponry and the same tactics in an equally brutal fashion, that still doesn't make them moral equals. These things count, but I still think that you've got to factor the ends that they are striving for and the ideals that have motivated them to engage in the conflict before making the final call about moral equivalence.

 

If you just asses tactics, then I don't see how anyone can claim that the US was the more moral actor in WWII or the Cold War. If you look at the broader picture, I don't think anyone could fail to see that the US was the more moral actor in these conflicts.

 

Judge weighs torture claim vs. Rumsfeld:

The group is suing on behalf of nine former prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. The lawsuit contends the men were beaten, suspended upside down from the ceiling by chains, urinated on, shocked, sexually humiliated, burned, locked inside boxes and subjected to mock executions.

If the suit were to go forward, it could force Rumsfeld and the Pentagon to disclose what officials knew about abuses at prisons such as Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and what was done to stop it.

 

Clearly, these men are just failing to understand the broader picture. Not to mention the ideals that their captors are striving for.

 

 

[Fairweather]

What do you guys think about the ACLU suing Rumsfeld on behalf of detainees mistreated in Iraq, or the stories of a German tribumal charging him with war crimes?

 

Really, Matt - you aren't actually interested in our opinions, you're interested in promoting your own. I would be more accomodating if I believed you were the least bit open to real debate or the slightest change in you own belief system, but time and time again you revert back to your 'endless question' strategy - where you dissect some unimportant flaw in a challenger's reply and pick at it like a scab, all the while ignoring the greater point. I think I've already 'confessed' that Rumsfeld and Cheney are guilty of manufacturing some of the so-called evidence that got us into Iraq. I certainly believe they should be held accountable in some way that won't damage future leaders' ability to conduct war. Being held accountable in a foreign court is not acceptable in any way.

 

On a more likely than not basis, do you think there is much doubt that Rumsfeld knew about what was going on, failed to take strong measures to stop it, likey impliedly if not explicitly authorized it, or bears responsibility simply as the person at the top of the chain of command?

 

I don't think it has been effectively demonstrated that he authorized specifics, but he certainly condoned it tacitly. I have yet to be convinced that the torture revealed at Abu Grab rises to the level of atrocity. I am much more concered that the soldiers responsible for killing that Iraqi family and raping their daughter are publicly executed.

 

Did you think it was important to investigate people in the Clinton administration over travelgate, Vince Foster's suicide, Whitewater, or Monica Lewinski?

Yes

 

 

[prole]

I think I've already 'confessed' that Rumsfeld and Cheney are guilty of manufacturing some of the so-called evidence that got us into Iraq. I certainly believe they should be held accountable in some way that won't damage future leaders' ability to conduct war.

 

Yes, if by some herculean effort and not a little divine intervention these criminals are ever brought to trial before they're too senile to understand the proceedings, let's make damn sure that nothing meaningful comes of it!

Edited December 9, 2006 by prole