Devil's Advocate Posted December 17, 2014 Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 I hope I didn't give you the impression that I wanted new people to execute the same strategy. A new strategy is implied by different goals. You can try to achieve the same goals with different strategies, but you can't use the same strategy to achieve different goals. Thanks for the clarification. Expecting a different outcome using the same strategy defines insanity, as some say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiral Architect Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 I have chocked this up to being a good case of the kind of position one is put in when living in a non-free society, even if a mixed economy. If this was a free one the Government would be doing it's job and only engaging an enemy we have declared war upon. A Prisoner of War would be treated as a prisoner of war and a combatant in the field would be also treated accordingly. Torture, as such, becomes a non-issue. Assuming an isolated need on the battlefield to save soldier lives then most of us would just assume war is hell and move on since it is a combat theater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrowEpistemologist Posted December 20, 2014 Report Share Posted December 20, 2014 Guys, again, context. The Founders imagined war powers to be given to the president when our entire existence was threatened, not when some criminals figure out how to kill exactly 1/10,000th of our population all at once, every 25 years. Terrorism is in no way worthy of a war declaration, nor was Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eamon Arasbard Posted December 20, 2014 Report Share Posted December 20, 2014 I personally hate the idea of torture, but it is justified if it works, if it is the only effective method, and if the people being tortured are actual terrorists. I do not believe that the last item is the case when talking about the people the U.S. government has tortured. Whether or not torture itself is justified depends on the first two points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrowEpistemologist Posted December 20, 2014 Report Share Posted December 20, 2014 And how are we supposed to know, with absolute certainty, that the suspects are "actual terrorists"? Who gets to be judge/jury in this case? Or is it okay to suspend our principles of the rule of law only... when we're scared? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CriticalThinker2000 Posted December 20, 2014 Report Share Posted December 20, 2014 Guys, again, context. The Founders imagined war powers to be given to the president when our entire existence was threatened, not when some criminals figure out how to kill exactly 1/10,000th of our population all at once, every 25 years. Terrorism is in no way worthy of a war declaration, nor was Iraq. A government exists to protect the rights of individual citizens, it's not a numbers game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrowEpistemologist Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 A government exists to protect the rights of individual citizens, it's not a numbers game. That, my friends, is what a floating abstraction looks like... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 The conclusion we can draw from the Iraq War is that democracy cannot be delivered with a foreign bullet. We wanted Sadam out - he's out. We wanted Bin Laden out - he's out. We're two for two, but the list of people we want out keeps growing, and apparently they grow in the very camps we imprision (and torture) them in. Time for a new strategy, not a new person to execute the same old strategy. We wanted Sadam out -he's out. We wanted Bin Laden out - he's out. This is focusing on the figureheads. It's like chopping off the head of the hydra. Two more grow back. Hitler was the villain of Nazi Germany. The Ominous Parallels asks what made such a figurehead possible. How individuals in the various positions of government are going to deal with today's concrete, particular, real-life situations is going to be determined by what? Miss Rand states in Philosophy: Who Needs It?: Now some of you might say, as many people do: "Aw, I never think in such abstract terms—I want to deal with concrete, particular, real-life problems—what do I need philosophy for?" My answer is: In order to be able to deal with concrete, particular, real-life problems—i.e., in order to be able to live on earth. To play a little devil's advocate here, consider the reaction that took place in 1941 when 1.72/100,000th of our population was killed. Or prior to that, in 1775 how what percentage of colonist had been killed by British soldiers prior to Lexington and Concord? What has changed or is changing over the course of the years? Human nature? I don't think so. I do think what has changed is an aspect that is fundamental to human nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 To play a little devil's advocate here, consider the reaction that took place in 1941 when 1.72/100,000th of our population was killed. Or prior to that, in 1775 how what percentage of colonist had been killed by British soldiers prior to Lexington and Concord?Churchill is supposed to have said he could defend Europe with just one American "preferably dead". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CriticalThinker2000 Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 That, my friends, is what a floating abstraction looks like... No it's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 Churchill is supposed to have said he could defend Europe with just one American "preferably dead". Slipping that phrase into a search engine, it's a little unsettling how many recent articles are invoking that with regard to the Russia/Ukraine theater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eamon Arasbard Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 CriticalThinker2000, on 20 Dec 2014 - 8:08 PM, said: That, my friends, is what a floating abstraction looks like... How is that a floating abstraction? If the government holds a monopoly on the right to protect the American people and bring terrorists to justice, then it has an obligation to perform that duty and to take action if even one person is killed. However, this does not justify everything the U.S. government has done in response to 9/11, or even the majority of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrowEpistemologist Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 No it's not. That too. :-) Whatever you do, don't ever try to imagine the ideal government working in the real world organized among real human beings on the real planet Earth. What fun would that be? It's far easier to imagine that everybody is good (as soon as they are educated in private schools) and foreign policy is a simple matter of invading and occupying the rest of the world until they all do what we say. The great thing about this future is that taxes will be insignificant because being the world's police force doesn't cost very much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrowEpistemologist Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 (edited) How is that a floating abstraction? If the government holds a monopoly on the right to protect the American people and bring terrorists to justice, then it has an obligation to perform that duty and to take action if even one person is killed. However, this does not justify everything the U.S. government has done in response to 9/11, or even the majority of it. Well, to take your first premise at its word for a moment, why not? This isn't a numbers game, right? One American death is worth of a full scale invasion of another country, trillions of dollars and thousands of soldiers dead, right? Edited December 22, 2014 by CrowEpistemologist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 The great thing about this future is that taxes will be insignificant because being the world's police force doesn't cost very much. This must be one of the better aspects of omitting any particular standard of measurement along the cost/benefit analysis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eamon Arasbard Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 One American death is worth of a full scale invasion of another country, trillions of dollars and thousands of soldiers dead, right? If another country is violating the rights of people living in the U.S., then it is the duty of the U.S. government to ensure that it stops. And if that means going to war, then that's what we should do. I actually agree with you that most of what the U.S. government has done since World War II was wrong, but you need to lay your arguments on a consistent foundation instead of sarcastically replying to someone for raising a legitimate point from the other side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrowEpistemologist Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 If another country is violating the rights of people living in the U.S., then it is the duty of the U.S. government to ensure that it stops. And if that means going to war, then that's what we should do. I actually agree with you that most of what the U.S. government has done since World War II was wrong, but you need to lay your arguments on a consistent foundation instead of sarcastically replying to someone for raising a legitimate point from the other side. Yeah, trading trillions of dollars and thousands of lives of soldiers for a single American citizen murdered doesn't really garner a serious response. Sorry. You are arguing in the realm of floating abstractions. Let me know when you want to get real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 ... What has changed or is changing over the course of the years? Human nature? I don't think so... Cria cuervos... ... I do think what has changed is an aspect that is fundamental to human nature. I've been puzzling over this for a couple of days now. Does this aspect have to do with how humans respond to threats, i.e., something like the fight or flight response? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 Cria cuervos... I've been puzzling over this for a couple of days now. Does this aspect have to do with how humans respond to threats, i.e., something like the fight or flight response? The aspect I'm referring to is philosophy. Specifically the shift from the resurgence of Aristotelian philosophy following Thomas Aquinas culminating in formation of the United States to the Pragmatic approach which has been on the rise since probably the late 1800's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 Ah, yes, e.g., Merkel and Putin. I was following the line of philosophy until your last comment and thought you were suggesting a fundamentally darker aspect of human nature. Guess I've been reading too much Steven King, if that's possible... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.