Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

"Bad Guys and Good Guys" is a completely subjective way of thinking.

There is never "good guys"...ever. People see black people who do "illegal" actions as bad guys, when they are just doing anything to survive.

I wish I still had the innocence that you posses.

To quote a great man:

Nasir bin Olu Dara Jones wrote:If you ill come get me, cause I ain't runnin'
If your gun's off the hook then we'll both be gunnin'
Come get me if you real, cause I ain't scared
It's all fair in love and war

Torture is necessary in times of war when there is the very real threat of attacks on our homeland and our people. You would think the same if you remember 9/11.

Jeffrey Atkins wrote:I should bust em
Cuz see me killin' you don't mean nothin'
I'll put you through a lifetime of sufferin' brotha'
Then you'll learn that bridges ain't made to be burned
Drug money is rightfully earned, well deserved
Some rules just think, are fit for takes
And Ja's rules make em large, that you fatefully break
Unless you wanna get spanked, with the 9 fully loaded
We can murder each other, meet at the Crossroads
And if I die tonight, in the immortal words of Pac
My brotha's gonna hunt you till you drop, believe that

You push me, I push back.

Karon wrote:Torture is necessary in times of war when there is the very real threat of attacks on our homeland and our people. You would think the same if you remember 9/11.

Experts disagree

Karon wrote:You push me, I push back.

Someone kills a child, you kill a child? Someone rapes a woman, you rape a woman?

We choose to fight against some things and people not just because they have hurt us, but because what they are doing hurts everyone, and is more-or-less objectively wrong.

To quote another great man:

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Mannahnin wrote:

Karon wrote:Torture is necessary in times of war when there is the very real threat of attacks on our homeland and our people. You would think the same if you remember 9/11.

Experts disagree

Karon wrote:You push me, I push back.

Someone kills a child, you kill a child? Someone rapes a woman, you rape a woman?

We choose to fight against some things and people not just because they have hurt us, but because what they are doing hurts everyone, and is more-or-less objectively wrong.

To quote another great man:

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Mind breaking that article down a bit? What I got from the quick skim was that we shouldn't waterboard/torture because the people we are fighting does it too.

What would you suggest we do to get information? In war, we shoot death machines, known as firearms, at each other. Waterboarding does not kill you like these people made it a mission to do so.

Killing children and raping women? I did not say this. I said that if you attack me, I will attack you back. Al Qaeda attacked us, we attacked back...rather clumsily, but we did retaliate, and eventually took out the mastermind of the plot that caused us to enter the Middle East. Indeed, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda's only objective is to hurt everyone, and that's why we shouldn't skimp on the torture when we are fighting an enemy that has no other objective but to harm us in any way possible.

Karon wrote:"Bad Guys and Good Guys" is a completely subjective way of thinking.

There is never "good guys"...ever. People see black people who do "illegal" actions as bad guys, when they are just doing anything to survive.

So a black kid from an upper class family who steals Nikes is "doing anything to survive"? How about a black kid from a middle class family who, rather than attending college, drops out and starts selling drugs? He's "doing anything to survive", right?

Being black and committing an "illegal action" doesn't automatically mean they're "doing anything they can to survive".

Kanluwen wrote:

Karon wrote:"Bad Guys and Good Guys" is a completely subjective way of thinking.

There is never "good guys"...ever. People see black people who do "illegal" actions as bad guys, when they are just doing anything to survive.

So a black kid from an upper class family who steals Nikes is "doing anything to survive"? How about a black kid from a middle class family who, rather than attending college, drops out and starts selling drugs? He's "doing anything to survive", right?

Being black and committing an "illegal action" doesn't automatically mean they're "doing anything they can to survive".

I was not speaking for all black people, lol. I was saying that the majority of, here, poor people who don't have any other option besides to engage in illegal actions, do it to survive.

The two examples you provided were committed by, respectively, a dumbass, and a dumbass.

Karon wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Karon wrote:"Bad Guys and Good Guys" is a completely subjective way of thinking.

There is never "good guys"...ever. People see black people who do "illegal" actions as bad guys, when they are just doing anything to survive.

So a black kid from an upper class family who steals Nikes is "doing anything to survive"? How about a black kid from a middle class family who, rather than attending college, drops out and starts selling drugs? He's "doing anything to survive", right?

Being black and committing an "illegal action" doesn't automatically mean they're "doing anything they can to survive".

I was not speaking for all black people, lol. I was saying that the majority of, here, poor people who don't have any other option besides to engage in illegal actions, do it to survive.

The two examples you provided were committed by, respectively, a dumbass, and a dumbass.

To say that the majority of black people are poor who "don't have any other option besides to engage in illegal actions" is a far more offensively ignorant statement than anything the KKK could ever say.

So congrats for that.

Karon wrote:Mind breaking that article down a bit? What I got from the quick skim was that we shouldn't waterboard/torture because the people we are fighting does it too.

It abandons our principles and lowers us to the level of what we're fighting against. It helps us lose the battle of hearts & minds. And it doesn't actually help. Superior results are obtained with humane interrogation and conversion techniques.

Karon wrote:What would you suggest we do to get information? In war, we shoot death machines, known as firearms, at each other. Waterboarding does not kill you like these people made it a mission to do so.

How about you ask experts like Nance and Herrington? Or maybe just read the articles in which they've already explained it, instead of blindly buying into the torture apologetics?

Karon wrote:Killing children and raping women? I did not say this. I said that if you attack me, I will attack you back.

No, that's not what you said. You said "you push me, I push back", as a defense of torture. Which comes across as a clear indication that if someone does something bad to you, you feel justified doing the same bad thing to them. Maybe that's not what you meant.

Karon wrote:Al Qaeda attacked us, we attacked back...rather clumsily, but we did retaliate, and eventually took out the mastermind of the plot that caused us to enter the Middle East. Indeed, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda's only objective is to hurt everyone, and that's why we shouldn't skimp on the torture when we are fighting an enemy that has no other objective but to harm us in any way possible.

I'm glad Bin Laden's dead, but I'd prefer that he were on trial first. I think it would represent an even bigger victory for civilization and justice. Killing him the way we did is acceptable, and certainly more just than letting him get away, but it's not as good IMO.

They have much bigger objectives. And by torturing people we help them achieve them. By torturing people we help convince moderate Arabs and Muslims (and others) that we are in fact as bad as Al Qaeda claims. By torturing people we help make more enemies.

Karon wrote:but we did retaliate, and eventually took out the mastermind of the plot that caused us to enter the Middle East.

What?!? Did a Seal team take out Bush as well?

Karon wrote:
Killing children and raping women? I did not say this. I said that if you attack me, I will attack you back. Al Qaeda attacked us, we attacked back...rather clumsily, but we did retaliate, and eventually took out the mastermind of the plot that caused us to enter the Middle East. Indeed, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda's only objective is to hurt everyone, and that's why we shouldn't skimp on the torture when we are fighting an enemy that has no other objective but to harm us in any way possible.

Should we also kill innocent women and children in order to inspire fear in the people living near our enemies?

biccat wrote:There have been some accounts that have indicated that some of the information used to find Bin Laden came from waterboarding. Does that mean waterboarding is an appropriate tool for getting information now?

No. The problem was never that the information couldn't be valuable, the problem was you're torturing people. It is absolutely incredible that I have to type that out.

After all, if you're using the "ends justify the means" logic (bin Laden is dead = good thing, regardless of how we got there), then waterboarding should be allowed.

The death of bin Laden also represents a major breach with a lot of international law subjects:
- military operations in a foreign country
- without that country's knowledge or consent
- without a declaration of war against that country
- targetted killing of an individual
- inside his home
- in the presence of unarmed civilians
- the victim wasn't armed

So yes, there are a lot of similarities between "torture" (waterboarding) and targetted killing of an unarmed combatant in his home, at least from an international law perspective.

Except that's absolute bs.

First up, the operation was conducted in complete accordance with international and multilateral institutions. Following the attack UN General Secretary Ban-Ki Moon said "“I am very much relieved by the news that justice has been done.” So your claim the operation was in any way illegal is utter piffle.

Your claim that it was the targetted kiling of an individual is also complete nonsense, the special rapporteurs on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin put up these requirements for the operation; "In respect of the recent use of deadly force against Osama bin Laden, the United States of America should disclose the supporting facts to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards. For instance it will be particularly important to know if the planning of the mission allowed an effort to capture Bin Laden." This condition was met, as described by Bob Woodward; "Specific orders were issued to the SEALs not to shoot the women or children unless they were clearly threatening or had weapons. (During the mission, one woman was killed and a wife of bin Laden was shot in the leg.) Bin Laden was to be captured, one official said, if he “conspicuously surrendered."

Worse, it's hypocritical bs, because you've never, ever deemed it necessary to criticise the US for any of the predator strikes it has launched.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karon wrote:Torture is necessary in times of war when there is the very real threat of attacks on our homeland and our people. You would think the same if you remember 9/11.

The British police thought the same at the height of the IRA. Subsequent reviews into what happened make for shocking, but worthwhile reading for anyone who still likes to play around with the fantasy of the necessity of torture. One comment I remember from my reading was that torture was justified on the basis of necessity, but once it become unofficially allowed it moved to being done as part of all information gathering, to being done simply for the sake of inflicting suffering. What's worse, the change in thinking didn't take years or even months, it took a matter of days.

Those words were highly prophetic in regards to the use of torture by the US. You would think the same if you remember Abu Ghraib.

sebster wrote:
First up, the operation was conducted in complete accordance with international and multilateral institutions. Following the attack UN General Secretary Ban-Ki Moon said "“I am very much relieved by the news that justice has been done.” So your claim the operation was in any way illegal is utter piffle.

The legality of the bin Laden operation is debatable, but you're correct that it is not comparable to torture. Torture is categorically illegal, the only way to defend things like waterboarding is to argue that they are not examples of torture (hence all the effort the Bush administration put into doing exactly that). The attempted arrest of someone like bin Laden, however, is very different as it can be argued that it was a war time action; which eliminates most of the legal issues.

Yay, Bin Laden is dead...

6,775,235,700 more people to go...

dogma wrote:The legality of the bin Laden operation is debatable, but you're correct that it is not comparable to torture.

If it is illegal, then it's far less illegal than any of the predator drone strikes on targets within Pakistan.

Given Pakistan gave authority for operations against AQ, I'm really struggling to see the illegality. Particularly when Ban-Ki Moon said it was justice, and the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights only showed concern that there was an effort made to capture if possible* and didn't worry about the movement into Pakistan at all, I'm inclined to think it was pretty legal.


*To which the answer is more subjective, sitting somewhere between 'a purely legalistic recognition of the need to capture was recognised but the intent was always clear' and 'they would have captured him if there was absolutely no risk in doing so'.

sebster wrote:If it is illegal, then it's far less illegal than any of the predator drone strikes on targets within Pakistan.

Well, I would say that its just as illegal, and that Pakistan long ago forfeited its classical sovereignty, or at least consented to the violation of it by the US. Going farther, the question of Pakistani sovereignty could be regarded as open due to the existence of the Pakistani Taliban, and its ability to contend against the will of Islamabad; thereby violating the monopoly on legitimate force which underpins Westphalian states.

Of course, none of that matters if we all admit that sovereign states aren't what we thought they were, but the US and China don't like that one bit.

sebster wrote:
Given Pakistan gave authority for operations against AQ, I'm really struggling to see the illegality. Particularly when Ban-Ki Moon said it was justice, and the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights only showed concern that there was an effort made to capture if possible* and didn't worry about the movement into Pakistan at all, I'm inclined to think it was pretty legal.

Well I-Law is such that whatever is popular is legal, so calling this particular incident "illegal" is a bit different than saying "Punching dude X in the face is illegal."

Still, insofar as Pakistan is a sovereign government it must be said that this action was illegal by all conventional definitions. Of course, lots of people have argued that conventional sovereignty is obsolete, myself among them.

dogma wrote:Well, I would say that its just as illegal, and that Pakistan long ago forfeited its classical sovereignty, or at least consented to the violation of it by the US.

There are agreements in place for the US to operate in Pakistan, going back to 2004 or 05. If you agree to another military operating in your space, it isn't a violation. Else the US troops in South Korea would be a violation, as would every US navy ship that comes to port in Australia.

Of course, none of that matters if we all admit that sovereign states aren't what we thought they were, but the US and China don't like that one bit.

Which was always my biggest argument against Iraq. Once it becomes okay to invade a country just because we don't like what we think they might be doing, then sovereignty as an issue is dead. Fortunately that whole thing was such a balls up that sovereignty survived to fight another day...

Well I-Law is such that whatever is popular is legal, so calling this particular incident "illegal" is a bit different than saying "Punching dude X in the face is illegal."

Sure, but that only means the rightwing noise machine bleating about the operation being illegal only looks even sillier.

sebster wrote:
There are agreements in place for the US to operate in Pakistan, going back to 2004 or 05. If you agree to another military operating in your space, it isn't a violation. Else the US troops in South Korea would be a violation, as would every US navy ship that comes to port in Australia.

Its very different. For example, the US military has actually fought battles against Pakistani border guards. Then there is the whole issue of ISI/military control of the state. Its messy.

sebster wrote:
Sure, but that only means the rightwing noise machine bleating about the operation being illegal only looks even sillier.

No disagreement there.

I might not be as liberal as you, but I'm also not dumb.

dogma wrote:Its very different. For example, the US military has actually fought battles against Pakistani border guards. Then there is the whole issue of ISI/military control of the state. Its messy.

It isn't neat, especially when no formal agreement was given for the operation to get Osama, but there are agreements in place between the Pakistani government (such as it is) and the US for them to operate in Pakistani territory, and that included many operations where no direct consent was given by Pakistan.

No disagreement there.

I might not be as liberal as you, but I'm also not dumb.

dogma wrote:

sebster wrote:
Sure, but that only means the rightwing noise machine bleating about the operation being illegal only looks even sillier.

No disagreement there.

It's only illegal according to the standards established to declare the Iraq War "illegal" and waterboarding "torture" - that is the standards of international law. However, it appears to be the contention of the current administration that those laws are only applicable when politically favorable.

It's a better position to object to all international law limits on military action than to selectively enforce those that help you politically. If for no reason other than consistency.

And it appears that sebster's posts haven't gotten any better. The OT is a much better read without his periodic hate-filled rants.

sebster wrote:

dogma wrote:The argument Donlon was making is that if killing is bad, and torture is bad, why can't we torture if we can kill? The easy reply is that torture is actually worse than killing.

I would say that the even easier answer would be that we shouldn't be doing either.

I mean, if it represents a realistic chance of danger to our troops, or too great a risk of the suspect escaping, then lethal force should be used, but otherwise we need to capture people and put them through proper justice.

It's really quite incredible that there's a debate going on where people from a mainstream, apparantly respectable political party are arguing "if we do this awful thing, why can't we do this other awful thing as well."

I think Sebster summed it up here, I can't think of a more concise way in which to carry the point any further.

Bin Laden was a mass murderer and extracting him from the area was most likely close to impossible, to let him remain unmolested simply because he could not be taken in to custody alive would have been irresponsible.

As to the whole torture thing... many Americans, and people in general, are often willing to forgo personal liberty for what they believe is a return on their own security (one need look no farther than the Patriot Act, a law about as patriotic as the Democratic Republic of the Congo is democratic or republican). Having grown up in the South I understand the feelings and emotions of a lot of conservatives in the region on the issue. Many people are not terribly well informed on the issues themselves or simply don't know exactly what they are trading for their "security." As a result, they rely heavily on news organizations that appeal to their innate sense of patriotism and independence, and therefor deem these organizations to be more credible because of these factors. This is the reason why Darth Cheny and the others are able to convince good, hard working, and well meaning Americans that it is in their best interest to allow torture to take place.

Combine all this with other forms of war propaganda, and you have a perfect blend of fear and detachment to allow people to condone torture.

Mannahnin wrote:Nattering nabob is a great old person or period Victorian expression. Goes great alongside cad and bounder.

INdeed. Its best use is "nattering nabob of negativity" its old person speak for cheese eating surrender monkey.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:

sebster wrote:
Sure, but that only means the rightwing noise machine bleating about the operation being illegal only looks even sillier.

No disagreement there.

It's only illegal according to the standards established to declare the Iraq War "illegal" and waterboarding "torture" - that is the standards of international law. However, it appears to be the contention of the current administration that those laws are only applicable when politically favorable.

It's a better position to object to all international law limits on military action than to selectively enforce those that help you politically. If for no reason other than consistency.

And it appears that sebster's posts haven't gotten any better. The OT is a much better read without his periodic hate-filled rants.

You know when you put on IGNORE its just a line and you can skip right past it. I find many OT threads with a flood of lines that I can choose to read or not, thus saving my blood pressure, and of course saving them from the provolone beatdown they so richly deserve.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karon wrote:"Bad Guys and Good Guys" is a completely subjective way of thinking.

There is never "good guys"...ever. People see black people who do "illegal" actions as bad guys, when they are just doing anything to survive.

I wish I still had the innocence that you posses.

To quote a great man:

Nasir bin Olu Dara Jones wrote:If you ill come get me, cause I ain't runnin'
If your gun's off the hook then we'll both be gunnin'
Come get me if you real, cause I ain't scared
It's all fair in love and war

Torture is necessary in times of war when there is the very real threat of attacks on our homeland and our people. You would think the same if you remember 9/11.

Jeffrey Atkins wrote:I should bust em
Cuz see me killin' you don't mean nothin'
I'll put you through a lifetime of sufferin' brotha'
Then you'll learn that bridges ain't made to be burned
Drug money is rightfully earned, well deserved
Some rules just think, are fit for takes
And Ja's rules make em large, that you fatefully break
Unless you wanna get spanked, with the 9 fully loaded
We can murder each other, meet at the Crossroads
And if I die tonight, in the immortal words of Pac
My brotha's gonna hunt you till you drop, believe that

You push me, I push back.

I agree with much of this, strangely enough. Clearly its time for coffee.

You know, people can be well informed, not blinded by propaganda and still believe that enhanced interrogations (again, not torture, despite what some hyper-partisans have said) provide valuable benefit and a reasonable tradeoff.

Too many liberals (especially those on this board) believe that the root of conservativism is greed, stupidity, or blind patriotism. Believe it or not, there are reasoned and rational reasons for conservative ideas.

I would love to try a role-reversal exercise with a liberal sometimes. I know that I can make a liberal argument, but I doubt that any of the liberals here could make a conservative argument. Their continued inability to even afford any conservative ideas any reasonable interpretation proves this daily.

biccat wrote:You know, people can be well informed, not blinded by propaganda and still believe that enhanced interrogations (again, not torture, despite what some hyper-partisans have said) provide valuable benefit and a reasonable tradeoff.

Too many liberals (especially those on this board) believe that the root of conservativism is greed, stupidity, or blind patriotism. Believe it or not, there are reasoned and rational reasons for conservative ideas.

I would love to try a role-reversal exercise with a liberal sometimes. I know that I can make a liberal argument, but I doubt that any of the liberals here could make a conservative argument. Their continued inability to even afford any conservative ideas any reasonable interpretation proves this daily.

Agreed. Your statement really hits the nail on the head.

biccat wrote:You know, people can be well informed, not blinded by propaganda and still believe that enhanced interrogations (again, not torture, despite what some hyper-partisans have said) provide valuable benefit and a reasonable tradeoff.

Too many liberals (especially those on this board) believe that the root of conservativism is greed, stupidity, or blind patriotism. Believe it or not, there are reasoned and rational reasons for conservative ideas.

I would love to try a role-reversal exercise with a liberal sometimes. I know that I can make a liberal argument, but I doubt that any of the liberals here could make a conservative argument. Their continued inability to even afford any conservative ideas any reasonable interpretation proves this daily.

Ok try this:

I believe that if a country messes with you, you come down hard on them. You should never back down to terrorists and have no problem with sending special forces to rescue hostages, no matter where they are. If all the terrorists get wiped out all the better. I also believe that there should be the minimum of red tape when it comes to businesses and we clamp down on immigrants who aren't paying their way or are here illegally.

However I do believe in a social warfare system and that we have a moral obligation to look after people who can't and who are vulnerable, does that count as be liberal?

Wolfstan wrote:

biccat wrote:You know, people can be well informed, not blinded by propaganda and still believe that enhanced interrogations (again, not torture, despite what some hyper-partisans have said) provide valuable benefit and a reasonable tradeoff.

Too many liberals (especially those on this board) believe that the root of conservativism is greed, stupidity, or blind patriotism. Believe it or not, there are reasoned and rational reasons for conservative ideas.

I would love to try a role-reversal exercise with a liberal sometimes. I know that I can make a liberal argument, but I doubt that any of the liberals here could make a conservative argument. Their continued inability to even afford any conservative ideas any reasonable interpretation proves this daily.

Ok try this:

I believe that if a country messes with you, you come down hard on them. You should never back down to terrorists and have no problem with sending special forces to rescue hostages, no matter where they are. If all the terrorists get wiped out all the better. I also believe that there should be the minimum of red tape when it comes to businesses and we clamp down on immigrants who aren't paying their way or are here illegally.

However I do believe in a social warfare system and that we have a moral obligation to look after people who can't and who are vulnerable, does that count as be liberal?

Social welfare doesn't make you liberal. Its how much of a social welfare system is out there and how much ontrol the government has to tell you what to is what defines that better.

Frazzled wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:

biccat wrote:You know, people can be well informed, not blinded by propaganda and still believe that enhanced interrogations (again, not torture, despite what some hyper-partisans have said) provide valuable benefit and a reasonable tradeoff.

Too many liberals (especially those on this board) believe that the root of conservativism is greed, stupidity, or blind patriotism. Believe it or not, there are reasoned and rational reasons for conservative ideas.

I would love to try a role-reversal exercise with a liberal sometimes. I know that I can make a liberal argument, but I doubt that any of the liberals here could make a conservative argument. Their continued inability to even afford any conservative ideas any reasonable interpretation proves this daily.

Ok try this:

I believe that if a country messes with you, you come down hard on them. You should never back down to terrorists and have no problem with sending special forces to rescue hostages, no matter where they are. If all the terrorists get wiped out all the better. I also believe that there should be the minimum of red tape when it comes to businesses and we clamp down on immigrants who aren't paying their way or are here illegally.

However I do believe in a social warfare system and that we have a moral obligation to look after people who can't and who are vulnerable, does that count as be liberal?

Social welfare doesn't make you liberal. Its how much of a social welfare system is out there and how much control the government has to tell you what to is what defines that better.

I have never meet a "conservative" who told me, in words or subtle inference, that not helping the elderly, disabled, or otherwise vulnerable was something they believed in or condoned. Virtually everyone wants to help these people, the disagreement comes about on how to enact the help itself. "Liberals" believe it should be done through a central government, "Conservatives" believe in private charity organizations or other such non-governmental venues on the basis that they are more resilient to political influence as well as more effective in their delivery of goods and services.

biccat wrote:
And it appears that sebster's posts haven't gotten any better. The OT is a much better read without his periodic hate-filled rants.

I laughed. Seriously.

I swear, he's the least offensive, and most levelheaded poster I've ever seen in this section of Dakka. No extreme viewpoints, no blaming the victim, and clear, logical reasoning for pretty much everything he says. He even admits it if he's wrong (if you can use aforementionec lear logical reasoning to show him why).

Ketara wrote:

biccat wrote:
And it appears that sebster's posts haven't gotten any better. The OT is a much better read without his periodic hate-filled rants.

I laughed. Seriously.

I swear, he's the least offensive, and most levelheaded poster I've ever seen in this section of Dakka. No extreme viewpoints, no blaming the victim, and clear, logical reasoning for pretty much everything he says. He even admits it if he's wrong (if you can use aforementionec lear logical reasoning to show him why).

We disagree.

Manstein wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:

biccat wrote:You know, people can be well informed, not blinded by propaganda and still believe that enhanced interrogations (again, not torture, despite what some hyper-partisans have said) provide valuable benefit and a reasonable tradeoff.

Too many liberals (especially those on this board) believe that the root of conservativism is greed, stupidity, or blind patriotism. Believe it or not, there are reasoned and rational reasons for conservative ideas.

I would love to try a role-reversal exercise with a liberal sometimes. I know that I can make a liberal argument, but I doubt that any of the liberals here could make a conservative argument. Their continued inability to even afford any conservative ideas any reasonable interpretation proves this daily.

Ok try this:

I believe that if a country messes with you, you come down hard on them. You should never back down to terrorists and have no problem with sending special forces to rescue hostages, no matter where they are. If all the terrorists get wiped out all the better. I also believe that there should be the minimum of red tape when it comes to businesses and we clamp down on immigrants who aren't paying their way or are here illegally.

However I do believe in a social warfare system and that we have a moral obligation to look after people who can't and who are vulnerable, does that count as be liberal?

Social welfare doesn't make you liberal. Its how much of a social welfare system is out there and how much control the government has to tell you what to is what defines that better.

I have never meet a "conservative" who told me, in words or subtle inference, that not helping the elderly, disabled, or otherwise vulnerable was something they believed in or condoned. Virtually everyone wants to help these people, the disagreement comes about on how to enact the help itself. "Liberals" believe it should be done through a central government, "Conservatives" believe in private charity organizations or other such non-governmental venues on the basis that they are more resilient to political influence as well as more effective in their delivery of goods and services.

Ok count me a as a Liberal then as I do think that Government does need to watch over us a lot of the time, for our own good. I have no faith in the general public looking after itself, so some control is needed. It needs to be balanced, but it is needed.

Take smoking for example. It took a government for it to be kept out of public places. You want to smoke, fine, go ahead your choice. However I have no wish to inhale your smoke. Not rocket science, but it took a ban for it to be controlled. A lot of the time the general public has an attitude of "it won't happen to me", then 20 years down the line, it does and then they whine about it.

Karon wrote:
Torture is necessary in times of war when there is the very real threat of attacks on our homeland and our people. You would think the same if you remember 9/11.

I remember 9/11.

I went to Afghanistan right after, twice.

And Iraq, I went there twice too.

I suspect you have never tortured a man before.

Most soldiers serving in elite regiments Ive spoken to are against torture, some aren't of course as its a complex subject and each to their own, but whether for or against, I have never heard anyone speak about it as easily and merrily as you seem to. People that have seen enemy combatants eye to eye are under no illusions as to what is required when torturing another human being, Its only chickenhawks like Bill O who seem to think its all just a big game.

I dont support torture, I like to feel as if we do at least our best to play by the rules, and rather than surrender to my hatred (Its there alright) accept the fact that the people above my pay scale seem to think that its use is overrated anyway.

Wolfstan wrote:

Manstein wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:

biccat wrote:You know, people can be well informed, not blinded by propaganda and still believe that enhanced interrogations (again, not torture, despite what some hyper-partisans have said) provide valuable benefit and a reasonable tradeoff.

Too many liberals (especially those on this board) believe that the root of conservativism is greed, stupidity, or blind patriotism. Believe it or not, there are reasoned and rational reasons for conservative ideas.

I would love to try a role-reversal exercise with a liberal sometimes. I know that I can make a liberal argument, but I doubt that any of the liberals here could make a conservative argument. Their continued inability to even afford any conservative ideas any reasonable interpretation proves this daily.

Ok try this:

I believe that if a country messes with you, you come down hard on them. You should never back down to terrorists and have no problem with sending special forces to rescue hostages, no matter where they are. If all the terrorists get wiped out all the better. I also believe that there should be the minimum of red tape when it comes to businesses and we clamp down on immigrants who aren't paying their way or are here illegally.

However I do believe in a social warfare system and that we have a moral obligation to look after people who can't and who are vulnerable, does that count as be liberal?

Social welfare doesn't make you liberal. Its how much of a social welfare system is out there and how much control the government has to tell you what to is what defines that better.

I have never meet a "conservative" who told me, in words or subtle inference, that not helping the elderly, disabled, or otherwise vulnerable was something they believed in or condoned. Virtually everyone wants to help these people, the disagreement comes about on how to enact the help itself. "Liberals" believe it should be done through a central government, "Conservatives" believe in private charity organizations or other such non-governmental venues on the basis that they are more resilient to political influence as well as more effective in their delivery of goods and services.

Ok count me a as a Liberal then as I do think that Government does need to watch over us a lot of the time, for our own good. I have no faith in the general public looking after itself, so some control is needed. It needs to be balanced, but it is needed.

Take smoking for example. It took a government for it to be kept out of public places. You want to smoke, fine, go ahead your choice. However I have no wish to inhale your smoke. Not rocket science, but it took a ban for it to be controlled. A lot of the time the general public has an attitude of "it won't happen to me", then 20 years down the line, it does and then they whine about it.

You see though, based on the example you just gave, I could not call that viewpoint to be especially liberal. In the example that you just cited you are showing a case in which the government has stepped in to protect a right. It is the opinion of many conservative libertarians and conservatives that the primary function of government is to protect rights and liberties. You have a right to to live and operate in an area that is not filled with dangerous and life threatening chemicals, therefor the government should act on your behalf.

An example of government acting in a way it shouldn't is perhaps... and this is a big one.... medical care. By moving in and acting as the medium between people and their health care providers governments unknowingly create monopolies and increase prices. Medicare here in the U.S. is a great example of this. We can all agree that it is nice to help out the elderly, whose wages are often limited, when it comes to buying their prescription drugs. Unfortunately, when you have an agency that steps forth and says "we will cover all the costs, no matter what" suddenly the Big-Pharma companies realize they can jack up the prices to the highest they possibly can. This creates two problems: A. It makes the cost of Medicare very burdensome on the tax payer and B. it makes it so the elderly are totally dependent upon medicare, whereas before they could afford most drugs as a result of open market competition between drug manufacturers, now they cannot because of a government endorsed monopoly. It is for this reason that Big-Pharma is one of the biggest supporters and pushers of Medicare and the new "Obama-Care."