Recently two american soldiers were tortured and killed in Iraq. This was a barbarous act and should be denounced for what it is. However, can we as a nation denounce it now that we have officially broken from the geneva convention and are actively using torture on detainees who have been denied habeas corpus rights? Do not misunderstand me, what happened to these soldiers is worse than what we've done. They are not equivalent, but pause for a moment and think about this. As a nation we are now forced to argue that the torture of these soldiers is merely worse than our own torture. What seperates us from the monsters that did this is only a matter of degree! It is no longer the civilized versus the monstrous, but the monstrous versus the even more monstrous. We have lost our moral high ground, our moral bearing, and our ability to credibly denounce many forms of barbarism.
bloc posted on Jun 22, 2006
| views: 1943
Comments
-
kelly said on Jun 22, 2006....
That won't stop people from claiming that the other side is evil and barbaric and we're just "doing what needs to be done." Yes, we've lost our moral high ground with CIA secret detention centers around the world and US government sanctioned torture in Guantanamo. I feel bad for what those guys must have felt like before they died. Then again, I feel bad for anyone who is subjected to fear, humiliation, torture and execution. One final thing that Americans need to remember before their outrage over this pours out: WE are the invaders. What did you really expect? -
lidstrom82 said on Jun 22, 2006....
This is messy. We have Muslim extremists as terrorists attacking U.S. soldiers and soil - from the USS Cole to the World Trade Center - because we are seen as the "Great Satan". On the other hand, the United States does not negotiate with terrorists. In Iraq, we have at least some interest in our oil imports, while unseating Saddam Hussein was an important factor in bringing Iraq back to democratic rule. All this, and bin Laden and al-Qaeda are no less determined to keep terrorist activities going. Keep in mind that the more press coverage of American wars there are, the less popular it is with American society. Look at Vietnam. The backlash was huge - and when the veterans came home, they weren't treated as heroes - every one of them was part of something sinister. America is unique because although we should mostly leave other nations alone, we are the dominant superpower (probably soon to be joined by China), and that means we have a responsibility to end tyranny or communism - because we have the power to. At what point does it become pointless? Whether we stay or leave, what if Iraq breaks out into Civil War? Although we have invaded, and many are calling for Bush's impeachment or for the troops to come home, keep in mind many of those same people rallied around the war in the wake of 9/11. Many of us are hypocrites for that reason. America has made many mistakes in its history, and yet we are no better or worse than any other nation. It's because of the people. bin Laden personifies religious extremism, and his beliefs put an ugly mark on Islam. Some could say the same for Bush and Christianity, especially after he pushed the gay marriage ban a little while back. The truth is, at some point we have to step back and see what Iraq as a nation will do. Even if that means we overstayed our welcome, that doesn't mean going over there to unseat Hussein was wrong, and that the whole war has been a mistake. People hate and try to destroy each other for many reasons, but the worst one is religion. -
bloc said on Jun 22, 2006....
"America is unique because although we should mostly leave other nations alone, we are the dominant superpower (probably soon to be joined by China), and that means we have a responsibility to end tyranny or communism - because we have the power to. " I very strongly disagree with this. We are not God. People can take care of their own problems. This is also ignoring the fast that america has no problems supporting dictators when they do our bidding. Remember that saddam and al qaeda were both on our side at one point. They were equally crazy then, but we didn't seem to mind so much. "that doesn't mean going over there to unseat Hussein was wrong, and that the whole war has been a mistake." How can you justify the deaths we've caused in iraq? Wars should always be an absolute last resort and should never ever be initiated the way Iraq was. They did not attack us and were not a threat to us. Our invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression on our part. I have yet to hear a valid reason for going over there from anyone. The only thing that comes close is the utilitarian argument that america killing 30,000 is better than saddam killing 50,000. First one has to show that saddam would have killed 50k people in the future, but even then I disagree. What this argument says is that only the numbers matter. Each individual life is not important. If we follow this logic then the american government should have a lottery where they pick the names of random americans and infect them with things like aids so they can test and find cures. After all, killing 100 people is justified if we save 10k people right? -
the_lex said on Jun 22, 2006....
Hi! I never supported the war. . .even though, when the occupation I started, I originally cheered on "staying the course," as in "We screwed up your country, it's our responsibility to fix it." Unfortunately, I don't agree with the priorities of fixing it. What about fixing the infrastructure and providing good things other than "security"? But I also believe we could've done other things than what we have done before going to war. Even, for me, someone not in the intelligence community, the evidence they provided looked horrible. . .as in, how does that equate to WMDs? I guess, after all, most of this is just further evidence of the American tribalism and the "market researchism" and politicians trying to be popular rather than doing the right thing. . .even though, I'd also say that the Bush administration also seems to have their own agenda, too. BTW, I find it ironic that Adsense has put a Pat Robertson ring tone ad on your blog. Shows how smart Adsense is. . .. -
RobsStuff said on Jun 23, 2006....
I watched as the Twin Towers fell. I watched as the US went before the UN Security Council and distorted the facts. I watched as the UK Prime Minister lied to parliment. I watched as the UK was bombed. How can we support the transportation of prisoners to Gauntanimo without due process and say we support democracy and the rule of law? How can we support dictators in Pakistan and yet scream out at the elected goverment of Palistine? These are the problems of our age. The balancing of our moral views against a backdrop of ecomomic and political injustice. I disagree with the suspension of constitutional rights because of fear. I disagree with the confusion between the office of the President and the person holding it. I worry when a nation attributes mystic significance to its flag and yet can sacrifice its young men to a war that cannot be won. Why did the terrorist attack on 9/11 cause the US to react the way it did? Never in the modern history of the west has a single event caused such termoil. Why is the strongest nation in the world so fearful? What is it afraid of? That it cannot rule the world? That its selfish international policy has finally come home and roost? The US created the problem by training "freedom fighters" and supporting "friendly dictators". Its biased economic policy, the refusal to take part in free trade, have all added to the perception that it wants a new American Empire. When its aid organisations refuse to help unless countries enact laws that meet its moral agenda it is seen as arrogent. When it refuses to allow more members of the security council or to give up its veto it looks like a bully. Wake up America, as a nation you are losing the battle. Once you were a beacon of hope a country where freedom and justice lived. Where race and origins mattered less than the will to suceed. Now you are being percieved as a fascist state, ruled by the Christian right, hell bent on world domination. In the meantime I will weep for the individuals tortured and killed on both sides. I pray that rather than focus on war we can all take the harder road and work towards peace. -
RParr said on Jun 23, 2006....
Iraq is messy and there a handful of other countries that are just as volatile - if not more - right now than Iraq was before we ever invaded (Iran, North Korea, slowly but surely Venezuela, genocide in Darfur region in Sudan). There's no clear cut answer what to do in Iraq right now, it's a messy situation we should have never gotten into in the first place. Why not let the Iraqis hold a vote as to whether they want American soldiers to stay in their country or leave? They would be the ultimate expression of democracy. -
GumpyJumptooth said on Jun 24, 2006....
War really sucks. Especially this one. This is an unnecessary war. It's patently obvious. A waste of time, money, and lives. However, once you go to war, all bets are off. There will be innocent civilians slain, people torture, and soldiers defiled. No, we can't condemn torture. We may not torture as a policy, but our soliders will certainly torture. And even though torture isn't OUR policy, the Bush administration has no problem turning certain individuals over to countries that WILL torture them. Expecting the other side to "fight fair" in the John Wayne tradition is a joke. They're fighting us the only way they can. Sneak attacks. Bombs strapped to women and children. Planes flying into buildings. The notion that they'll suddenly form a conventional army is silly since they know that they'll be defeated easily. I'm no genius, clearly. But even I could have told you at the start of the war that there would be lots of torture and beheadings and unconventional means being used. Because those are the only effective means at the enemy's disposal. So, no, during a war, you don't get to point the finger at the other side and scream that "what you did was wrong!" unless your side in the war hasn't taken a single life. The US doesn't have the moral high ground at all in Iraq, and unless some Holocaust-type extermination of millions of people happens again, I doubt we ever will have the moral high ground in a war. Because there is no moral high ground in a war. -
bloc said on Jun 24, 2006....
"However, once you go to war, all bets are off. There will be innocent civilians slain, people torture, and soldiers defiled." exactly, which is why it should always be a last resort. "And even though torture isn't OUR policy, the Bush administration has no problem turning certain individuals over to countries that WILL torture them." Well it IS our policy. Waterboarding was allowed by the Bush admin amongst other things. Why do you think it is that they said the Geneva conventions don't apply in gitmo? Why did they fight the McCain anti torture bill and then issue a signing statement afterwards saying they don't have to follow it? Unfortunately it is our policy now. "Because there is no moral high ground in a war." I agree to a point. However I think that the moral high ground we used to have is that yes sometimes our soldiers do bad things, but it's not official policy and when it happens we will punish those involved. Of course this isn't perfect and there are cover ups, but the principle is there. We do not torture and we will treat prisoners of war with respect. In WWII soldiers on the opposing side went out of their way to surrender to americans because we treated them well. Gave them food, warmth, etc. This is not the case since Bush and this is what we have lost. America was never a place where people could disappear (including citizens), get tortured, be completely lost in secret prisons, and have no human rights what so ever. Bush has turned us into this and it's sickening. -
GumpyJumptooth said on Jun 24, 2006....
>>Well it IS our policy. Waterboarding was allowed by the Bush admin amongst other things. Why do you think it is that they said the Geneva conventions don't apply in gitmo? Why did they fight the McCain anti torture bill and then issue a signing statement afterwards saying they don't have to follow it? Unfortunately it is our policy now. << Policy is one thing. The Bush administration CIRCUMVENTS policy by turning people over to nations that DO torture, which is the heighth of hypocracy. They will always claim that their policy is not torture, regardless of the actual fact. Practice is another thing, and regardless of policy, human nature and frailty during wartime means that there will be torture whether it is sanctioned or not. >>However I think that the moral high ground we used to have is that yes sometimes our soldiers do bad things, but it's not official policy and when it happens we will punish those involved. Of course this isn't perfect and there are cover ups, but the principle is there.<< The principle is nice, but from a moral standpoint, it doesn't mean much if you or someone you know has been tortured or killed. In fact, some would call it hypocritical to have the policy and then be tortured or killed anyway. Also, when you fight a war, you don't get to pick how the other side fights it. The people we're fighting use torture, and all sorts of things we don't like because they don't have a multi-billion dollar defense industry and the industrial military complex, aided by our government, pumping billions into weaponry and manpower. Once you start killing people over a political disagreement, all bets are off. There is no morality. Nice rules and enforcement or no. And, if you think the US government hasn't tortured people, put them in a secret prison, or have done away with human rights, I'd say you're mistaken. Or did I imagine those Japanese interrment camps during WWII? No, there is zero morality in war. There is only justifications, rationalizations, death, and suffering without cause. I'm not interested in splitting hairs over methodology. If our nation didn't have a military as powerful as a force we were fighting, we'd adopt whatever methodology we thought would work, and morality would be "molded" to fit our needs. I don't LIKE it that our opponents use torture, and beheadings, and car bombs, but I don't blame them for doing it as it is the only way they have to fight, and we put them in the position of having to fight. No morality there, either. -
bloc said on Jun 25, 2006....
I agree with you almost across the board. a couple of points where that isn't the case. "Or did I imagine those Japanese interrment camps during WWII?" You are absolutely right. What a good justice system (not perfect but good) does is get it right eventually. We've done bad things for sure, but in the long run we get it right. The internment was ruled unconstitutional eventually. Yes, it was way too late, but it did happen. What seperates us from countries like Iran is that we have a good amount of transparency and our government is subject to lawsuits and such, and our citizens have basic human rights. Sometimes they aren't respected, but in the end they are. "No, there is zero morality in war. There is only justifications, rationalizations, death, and suffering without cause. I'm not interested in splitting hairs over methodology." What if someone attacks you? Is it moral to defend yourself? -
the_lex said on Jun 25, 2006....
I'm nearly vegan, so I believe it's moral to engage in self-defense, but only moral to kill if it's the only way to stop someone else from killing. And one anecdote I saw on the Colbert Report I've wanted to bring up for awhile. Colbert had some reporter on the show as a guest, who said something quite wise about the negotiations with Iran and North Korea about the nuclear stuff. The same thing could apply to dealing with terrorists. Wouldn't you want to keep communication going, so you can try to have some control over the situation; rather than cut off communication and let go of any control you might have over the situation? That captures the spirit of what she said. It got me thinking, that's for sure. -
SOLDIERCIPSWIFE said on Jun 26, 2006....
I felt so sad for the parents of these men. What a horrible death. My brother in law who just got back a few days ago showed us pictures of what is going on over there...There is so much torture and death that you just want to be sick. It sadly is just like any other war however...I too believe this goes on in war regardless of who you are or what you stand for before you leave. I know his brother has seen and done things that we could never imagine...Except those of you who have been to war and seen it first hand. What about the Sunni's who now want to be part of the peace talks?? Has anyone heard about that ?? They say if we have a timetable to withdraw troops then peace is possible. Here is the article ||{1}|| -
SuccessWarrior said on Jun 27, 2006....
Amen! -
hunter_boyce_chandler said on Jun 28, 2006....
It is the fundamentalist religion, blind faith in what they have been taught and deep love for their God that allows these animals to commit atrocities. It is the ISM that should be destroyed (see my Blog ISM) -
Postrock said on Jul 03, 2006....
first let me say i hate what happened to those poor people being beheaded..i think its just horrible and very sad. That said i feel there's something wrong in what you wrote "What happened to these soldiers is worse than what we've done".. may i ask you why? there are multiple reports of us soldiers torturing prisoners to death, just a few days ago there where news of 3 us soldiers raping an innocent girl and killing the rest of her family in front of her eyes for trying to stop them. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. So as you say it's the monstrous against the even more monstrous..but wich is wich?i think that the us military is the "even more monstrous" and the monstrous has no chance to get even close. -
bloc said on Jul 03, 2006....
I wasn't as clear as I should have been. Why is what they did worse than what we do. Well, when I said "what we do" I meant what we officially do. I.e. what our leaders order our soldiers to do. The rape and murder incident you refer to is not what "we" do. It's what a few bad people did, not what america did. On the other hand our torture of detainees is officiallpolicy and therefore something america did. "i think that the us military is the"even more monstrous"" I strongly disagree. The US military does some very bad things, but they do not intentionally kidnap and murder innocent aid workers simply because they are from a certain country. That's just one example. Again, i'm not talking about the acts of individual idiots, but the acts of the american military and those of the insurgents as organizations. Also, I am certain that the americans that raped that women will be punished and jailed if not executed by the US Military. Will the insurgents do the same to fellow insurgents who kidnap and behead innocent aid workers? I think not and that is a major difference. -
Postrock said on Jul 03, 2006....
Yes i get your point. And in part i agree. But given the situation of this ongoing war i think that the official and not so official is quite blurred. On one side we have the us military with their hi tech weapons. On the other side we got the so called "resistance" that opposes by every possible meen. I hate to say this but every scenario has it's own tactics and those horrible kidnappings are part of it. It is not "evil", it has a tactical function for those who do it. Please don't think i support those actions. I hate to even think at them but i try understand that there is a logic. On the us military side i really can't see any tactical function in those isolated (or not?) events other than just cruelty and terrorism. It's like when the us intelligence was saying "saddam is evil, he puts tactical targets in schools..oh my god"..this is war, it's not a joke, everything is done to gain tactical advantage. The evil (to call it in this all american way) is to do the attack itself, not to scream when those attacked try to defend themselves. In my opinion the illusion is the moral high ground itself but if i start commenting this one i'll never stop :) Sorry for going partly offtopic, i better go to bed. Peace. -
bloc said on Jul 03, 2006....
"On the us military side i really can't see any tactical function in those isolated (or not?) events other than just cruelty and terrorism." What tactical function does beheading aid workers server? People believe that torture garners intel. I don't agree, but those ordering the torture are trying to gain a political advantage. I can't help but think that you are applying some form of cultural relativism to the insurgents/terrorists, but not giving that same benefit to America. I think that IED's are "fighting back" as you say, but beheading aid workers is just barbaric. American torture is simply barbaric as well. However, nothing you've said makes me beleive that anything america has done is as bad as beheading aid workers. That is still the more monsterous in my eyes. -
Postrock said on Jul 04, 2006....
If for aid workers you mean the soldiers that's playing with words. Soldiers are not aid workers expecially after tens of thousands of civilian deaths (other reports say hundreds of thousands but that isnt necessarily the truth). If you actually refer to aid workers as doctors or other people doing some effective humanitarian work those actions are done to launch a political message. Its like showing they need no help, want no help and will resist to the very end. A very strong message to both enemy and those fighting "against the infidels". It's barbaric? yes. Its mindless violence? no. On the other hand we have "isolated" soldiers killing for fun. Does this also convey a message? it sure does. It says "we do whatever we want"..but that's not the official message because the official message is: "we are doing this for their own good and to defend the civilized world from evil". That's why the military and government try to hide those facts. Even the "isolated acts" concept is applicable to the other side considering the number of those fighting back. The only difference is that they don't try to bury those actions but use them to convey a message of strenght (in their eyes). That wasnt even to mention the number of children, babies etc shredded or burned alive by the bombings. Instead of simply disagreeing i think you should explain me how in your eyes a baby burned alive with white phosphor can be considered less "barbaric" than an innocent man beheaded. Sorry for the lenght and sorry if this sounds harsh, i just can't help but gettin passionate when it comes to such enourmous contraddictions. -
GumpyJumptooth said on Jul 04, 2006....
>>Instead of simply disagreeing i think you should explain me how in your eyes a baby burned alive with white phosphor can be considered less "barbaric" than an innocent man beheaded.<< Postrock, excellent point. But debating the issue with bloc is futile. He has staked out what he believes is "moral" killing and "immoral" killing because he has placed a higher value on certain people's lives than others, or has deemed certain methods of death more "moral" than others. Murder of any kind is never in any way moral. It can be justified, rationalized, or explained, but never moral. -
Postrock said on Jul 04, 2006....
bah..that's what i supposed..it's hilarious how so many americans actually believe in the whole good and evil thing.. Who is good? pff what question...we are good!!! They are evil isnt that obvious? I am on the right side hurray lets go back and watch american gladiators.. Jokes apart i'm actually curious to see how he answers the question. -
GumpyJumptooth said on Jul 04, 2006....
>>Jokes apart i'm actually curious to see how he answers the question.<< I wouldn't look for anything with a brainwave or a pulse. But he IS good at stating other people's opinion for them and then disagreeing with it! Wait till he starts THOSE wacky hijinx! -
bloc said on Jul 05, 2006....
"If for aid workers you mean the soldiers that's playing with words." Aid workers have regularly been kidnapped and killed in Iraq. Are you not aware of this? Is this the question you want me to answer? Here is an example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hassan -
bloc said on Jul 05, 2006....
"That wasnt even to mention the number of children, babies etc shredded or burned alive by the bombings. Instead of simply disagreeing i think you should explain me how in your eyes a baby burned alive with white phosphor can be considered less "barbaric" than an innocent man beheaded." this is a simple question. The baby was not intentionally killed by the Americans. The innocent aid worker was intentionally killed by the extremists. That's the difference. No American general thought to themself, "I'm gonig to go burn babies". But the islamists did think to themselves, "i'm going to go behead any innocent american I can find". That's a big difference in my mind. Now let me be clear. I think this war is immoral. It doesn't appear that you, postrock, have read many of my posts. I think that america has done many immoral and bad things. However, we are not like the islamic extremists. Here is another way we are better. We do not believe that women should not be able to drive, should be the property of their husband, and should be covered at all times. We do not believe that women should be murdered for getting an eduction. We do not believe that women should be murdered for having sex out of marriage. The islamisc extremeists believe all these things. We will also bring american soldiers to justice for having raped that girl, but the extremists will not do the same to those that behead aid workers. -
Postrock said on Jul 05, 2006....
I think that given the lenght of my previous message you jumped the following part..so i'll copy and paste it: "If you actually refer to aid workers as doctors or other people doing some effective humanitarian work those actions are done to launch a political message. Its like showing they need no help, want no help and will resist to the very end. A very strong message to both enemy and those fighting "against the infidels". It's barbaric? yes. Its mindless violence? no" You say "The baby was not intentionally killed by the Americans." This is a perfect example of hypocrisy. I guess you think they deliberately bombed civilian targets to let them enjoy the fireworks. Oh wait..it must have been to allow them to read those smart racial jokes scribbled on the bombs. "Here is another way we are better." The illusion of superiority and the powers of propaganda used as an excuse to justify wars is something that strictly resembles the nazi culture. And even being nazis and americans so different some of the propaganda has remained the same. Your ideas seem to be a result of this. -
bloc said on Jul 05, 2006....
"The illusion of superiority and the powers of propaganda used as an excuse to justify wars is something that strictly resembles the nazi culture. And even being nazis and americans so different some of the propaganda has remained the same. Your ideas seem to be a result of this." Do you even read what i say? I think this war is immoral. You and I agree on a lot of things. Let me say it again so you hear it! I think our (america's) invasion and bombing of Iraq is immoral. I've been very clear about this. Almost every post I've made on this site has been critical of America. America has been immoral and so have the extremists. However, All you've done is attack america while not saying anything about the evils of the other side. Is it immoral when the extremists behead civilians? -
GumpyJumptooth said on Jul 05, 2006....
As I said, Postrock, don't expect anything other than bloc's missing your points and restating his. MURDER IS IMMORAL. Methodology doesn't matter. If you ACCIDENTALLY kill some babies, well, it's not much of an accident when you carpet bomb a town, is it? The MILITARY ITSELF knows there will be COLLATERAL DAMAGE every time they go to war. So innocents will be killed. Sorry that it's not planned and filmed like extremists, but they're just fighting the only way they can. Sorry it doesn't suit you. I'm sure having babies killed, and women and children raped and murdered INTENTIONALLY by US soliders (or haven't you read the news lately) doesn't suit the Iraqis. The notion that we have some moral high ground because of methodology is naive and moronic. But that's what I've come to expect from certain posters. -
Postrock said on Jul 05, 2006....
"As I said, Postrock, don't expect anything other than bloc's missing your points and restating his." lol sorry..i didnt expect him to be so blatant. But does he miss on purpose or just doesnt get what you say to him? -
GumpyJumptooth said on Jul 06, 2006....
>>lol sorry..i didnt expect him to be so blatant. But does he miss on purpose or just doesnt get what you say to him?<< Don't know. Don't care. But he does it constantly, and it's really hilarious. Someone so pompous and full of themselves that all they do is trumpet their opinion, oblivious to whatever you assert. But I found your arguments reasonable and well-stated, for what it's worth. Be sure to look for more of bloc's "WE AGREE ON SO MUCH! AND WHERE WE DISAGREE, YOU'RE WRONG BECAUSE I SAY SO!" level diatribe. -
bloc said on Jul 06, 2006....
I answered your question, but you haven't answered mine. I'll restate my answer. I think intent matters. If you intend to kill an innocent person it's worse than if you didn't intend to. However, I agree with both of you in general. I think this war is immoral and I think carpet bombing is immoral. What I want to know is if you, postrock, think that beheading aid workers is immoral. I want to know why you don't complain as much about that as you do about america. p.s - don't fall into the trap of gumpy. he is only capable of ad hominem attacks. -
Postrock said on Jul 06, 2006....
Come on bloc you are acting EXACTLY like he says. You missed all my points and you never give any reasoning for anything you say. You even act like you where the one not being listened to wich is pretty embaracing for me to see. A prove of this is your funny question. Given what i have said so far it is crystal clear what i think about the immorality of those beheadings, the answer has already been given very clearly. "I think intent matters." Wow!!! a glimpse of reasoning..well i hope not to shock you but bombing civilian houses carries the INTENT to kill multiple civilian targets. If you don't have such an intent you do not bomb. It's that easy! So willing to kill multiple persons is worse than willing to kill a single person. Got it? -
GumpyJumptooth said on Jul 06, 2006....
IRAQ WAR STATISTICS US Military Death Count-- 2539 Iraqi Civilian Death Count MIN MAX 38839 43269 Yeah, we're really holding down that moral high ground, aren't we? I'm sure we killed those 40,000 people in a moral, wholesome, fair way that bloc would approve of. -
bloc said on Jul 06, 2006....
"Wow!!! a glimpse of reasoning..well i hope not to shock you but bombing civilian houses carries the INTENT to kill multiple civilian targets. If you don't have such an intent you do not bomb. It's that easy!" Their intent isn't to kill the civilians. Their intent is to kill someone else like zarqawi. They simply don't care that civilians get killed, but they did not intend to kill them. Your redefining the word intent to mean something that it doesn't. Now, I agree that this is still immoral. I don't know how many times I have to say this. THIS WAR IS IMMORAL. ONE MORE TIME. THIS WAR IS IMMORAL. How exactly do you disagree with me? You say I ignore what you say, well please say it simply for me. Maybe I did miss it. The one misunderstand I can see now that I've read over this whole thread is this. Correct me if I'm wrong. Your arguing that the totality of what american has done is worse than the totality of what others have done. This I did miss and I do agree with you. What I was saying is that a single instance like abu ghraib is not as bad as the beheadings. Another thing that I've said implicity is that america and it's government is better than al qaeda in general. If you notice gumpy is the one misrepresenting what i say. I've said over and over and over and over again that I believe that this war is immoral. Never once did I say anything to the contrary. What does gumpy have to say in the face of all this? "I'm sure we killed those 40,000 people in a moral, wholesome, fair way that bloc would approve of." This is a complete and purposefull misrepresentation of what I've said ever since I've been on this site! Let me say it one more time. This war is immoral. -
bloc said on Jul 06, 2006....
Ok, Here is exactly what you said and this is what I disagree strongly with. "So as you say it's the monstrous against the even more monstrous..but wich is wich?i think that the us military is the "even more monstrous" and the monstrous has no chance to get even close." Here is a simple question. Would you rather live in a country run by America or one run by al qaeda? Let's not forget that al qaeda murders girls that try to go to school and men that shave their beards. Also notice how you quoted me as saying that what america has done in iraq is monstrous. This, again, clearly shows how gumpy has misrepresented me. -
GumpyJumptooth said on Jul 07, 2006....
>>Also notice how you quoted me as saying that what america has done in iraq is monstrous. This, again, clearly shows how gumpy has misrepresented me.<< MISREPRESENTED? HMMMM... The title of this very post--that you, not I, put on the site of your own free will--is "the moral high ground." Here are your actual words from the very, very first post. >>It is no longer the civilized versus the monstrous, but the monstrous versus the even more monstrous. We have lost our moral high ground and our moral bearing.<< How can there be a moral high ground if war is immoral? Here's another gem: >>"Because there is no moral high ground in a war." I agree to a point. However I think that the moral high ground we used to have is that yes sometimes our soldiers do bad things, but it's not official policy and when it happens we will punish those involved.<< So, we used to have a moral high ground in war, but now we don't? How can we have a moral high ground if war is IMMORAL??? Again, you want to flip flop, you don't stay consistent, and you want to have us believe you have always stated war is immoral. Not true. The very title of your post refutes this fact. >>I think that IED's are "fighting back" as you say, but beheading aid workers is just barbaric. American torture is simply barbaric as well. However, nothing you've said makes me beleive that anything america has done is as bad as beheading aid workers. That is still the more monsterous in my eyes.<< Here again, you split hairs over the "barbarism" in an event you claim NOW ONLY is immoral. And here's ANOTHER knee-slapper! >>Now let me be clear. I think this war is immoral. << This was posted ONE DAY AGO. You started the thread on JUNE 22. It is now July 7. Do the math. That's over two weeks since you started the thread, and this is the first thing even resembling a statement that war is immoral. All this after you consistently split hairs over forms of death. "We're monstrous, but they're MORE monstrous" isn't a statement that war is immoral. An immoral act can have no moral high ground. Look up the definition of immoral. You will find that it contains no morality whatsoever by definition. I think it's pretty clear you have painted yourself in a corner and now want credit for the notion that war is immoral. Certainly long after several other posters actually stated the notion well in advance of you. If you like, I can post those here since you seem to overlook large passages of differing viewpoints. 12 days ago... >>The US doesn't have the moral high ground at all in Iraq, and unless some Holocaust-type extermination of millions of people happens again, I doubt we ever will have the moral high ground in a war. Because there is no moral high ground in a war.<< >>No, there is zero morality in war. There is only justifications, rationalizations, death, and suffering without cause. I'm not interested in splitting hairs over methodology.<< You're the one who believes there is a moral high ground to be found in an event you suddenly claim (after several others have made the claim nearly two weeks ago) is immoral. Which one is it? How can you have a moral high ground, or lose one, in an event you now claim has no morality? -
bloc said on Jul 07, 2006....
"So, we used to have a moral high ground in war, but now we don't? How can we have a moral high ground if war is IMMORAL??? Again, you want to flip flop, you don't stay consistent, and you want to have us believe you have always stated war is immoral. Not true." I don't think you actually read what I write. Show me where I have said that all war is immoral. I haven't. I have said many times that THIS war is immoral. I believe that war is justifiable if you are defending yourself from I direct attack or an immediate threat. This was neither of those situations. Again, I've made it very clear that I believe that this war is immoral and after that fact you completely misrepresented it by saying. "I'm sure we killed those 40,000 people in a moral, wholesome, fair way that bloc would approve of." Clearly you have read my statements that THIS war is immoral and somehow read it to mean that I said ALL war is immoral. Clearly you are the one misunderstanding. -
Postrock said on Jul 07, 2006....
Yes, i think that the totality of what america has done in this war i way worse than what your enemy has done to America. If you want to isolate single facts i find the method of torture used by the iraqis worse than the method used by the americans. The method is worse, the result is not. Americans on the other hand try to shield themselves with this fake morality thing and then act in the worse possible way. Doing all sorts of war crimes and then trying to hide them while pointing fingers against the "evil". The war as conceived by the americans is a collection of immoral acts, the whole spectrum of immorality i would say. So i'm agreeing with gumpy if he says that it's nonsense for you to state there is a "moral high ground" and that "we are better" and then also say this war is immoral. You even seem to consider the american barbarism bad only for the reason that "we are now forced to argue that the torture of these soldiers is merely worse than our own torture."Postrock said on Jul 07, 2006....
bloc said on Jul 07, 2006....
I think we pretty much agree. When I used the term "moral high ground" I was refering to our past. The fact that america as a country was opposed to torture and generally treated prisoners very well. Bush's official sanctioning of torture was a depature from this and this is where we lost the moral high ground that we used to have prior to this war. I think we pretty much agree about most things and simply misunderstood each other a little bit. Note, when I say that we had a moral high ground in the past I am NOT saying that we were perfect.GumpyJumptooth said on Jul 07, 2006....
>>I don't think you actually read what I write.<< I was thinking the same thing. I don't think you read what you write, either. Have it YOUR way. THIS war is immoral. I'll ask again, how can we lose the moral high ground on an immoral war? Which by definition has no moral high ground? Although you claim we've lost it.bloc said on Jul 08, 2006....
because I wasn't refering to this war in particular as I explain in the comment directly above yours. I was comparing american in general to "terrorists" in general. We had the moral high ground in that we could says "we believe in human rights and we do not torture". We can no longer say such things honestly. Also let me point out, since you wnat to reduce this to some sort of math equation, that a person/country can generally be moral and still have done immoral things. Nobody and nothing is perfect. I believe that we had the human rights high ground for a long time and we squandered it after 911. This became particularly clear when it came out that we officially sanction torture and stopped following the geneva conventions. Also when the bush Admin decided that an american labeled an "enemy combatant" no longer had constitutional rights. I also feel that once the Bush admin is gone we can begin to correct these things.GumpyJumptooth said on Jul 08, 2006....
Oh, well now it's crystal clear. You're full of crap and have no clear, concise thinking. As usual. And wanting to "revise" you arguments along the way as they wilt under the scrutiny of people who DO think clearly. >>What happened to these soldiers is worse than what we've done. They are not equivalent, but think about that for a second. As a nation we are now forced to argue that the torture of these soldiers is merely worse than our own torture. What seperates us from the monsters that did this is only a matter of degree! It is no longer the civilized versus the monstrous, but the monstrous versus the even more monstrous. We have lost our moral high ground and our moral bearing.<< These are YOUR words, not mine. And they OPENED this thread. Again, you claim that the solider's deaths are somehow WORSE than the 40,000 some odd deaths WE'VE caused. And, you again repeat the moronic "moral high ground" argument. Once again, it was over TWO WEEKS before you typed the word immoral in this thread or attributed immorality to the war. You may now backpedal poorly and contradict yourself.bloc said on Jul 08, 2006....
"What happened to these soldiers is worse than what we've done." I'm assuming this is what your refering too. Me saying that what it's worse than what've we've done. You are right. The totatlity of what we have done is more devastating than what the "terrorists" have done. I've said this before. However, I do want to apologize. I have not been consistent and you are correct, but at the same time I don't think it's as black and white as you make it out to be. Let me try to explain my contradictions. I hope this makes sense. When I wrote this post, and many of my posts, I often right it to try to get through to people that disagree with me. I don't write it for people that already agree with me. People that disagree with me don't usually think that this war is immoral and I was implicity conceding that point for the sake of appealing to them. However, I think this war is immoral. So I would switch between saying what I really think and writing in a way to appeal to them. For some dumb reason it didn't dawn on me that this was the cause of the confusion until now. I also got defensive a bit because you gumpy like to make personal attacks which you really shouldn't do. However, all three of us agree for the most part and I'm sorry for the confusion. You are right that we can't lose the moral high ground after starting an immoral war. However, al qaeda is worse than us. If you think otherwise I completely disagree. Would you rather live in a country run by al qaeda or one run by the us? The only reason they have not killed as many people as us is that they don't have the ability to. Give them our weapons and it would be a completely different story. So comparing numbers isn't a good metric for comparing the two sides. Also, i'm curious if the number of Iraqi civilians that have died includes those killed in the quasi civil war. If so you can't completely blame us for that since someone else did the actual killing.hunter_boyce_chandler said on Jul 08, 2006....
bloc, I'm exhausted from reading all the posts....trying to catch up. I am convinced that this adventure was ill advised. (I'm being nice). The only way this enemy can be defeated is by completely defeating them. In WW2 the Japanese were just as bloodthirsty as Islam is today. They raped, tortured, beheaded millions. It only ended when overwhelming force was used to crush the will of the people. We have to get out of the Middle East, deport all muslims to the desert then nuke them. Only by melting them into the ground will we have a chance of breaking the back of a huge fast growing religion that considers killing innocent people a badge of honor. That is the only way to victory in the "War on Terrorism". I for one do not want to fight this war any more it is only making us act like they do. I am not a Nazi...I do not commit genocide...I am an American. If it is the fate of America to be destroyed by the very tolerance we cherish, then let us raise a glass to honor and die with our heads up.Postrock said on Jul 09, 2006....
hahahahha..oh my god...that's precious... every single word said by chandler is simply pathetic. Go get some books and spend the next 5 decades making yourself a culture. Maybe you'll learn how to think properly, that if you'll survive your own stupidity. Hey bloc NOW i'm curious..how do you react to this vegetable? I guess we'll see if gumpy is right or not by what you say to him (the vegetable)..bloc said on Jul 09, 2006....
vegetable?Postrock said on Jul 10, 2006....
gumpy was right..the_lex said on Jul 18, 2006....
Darn. . .Gumpy sure doesn't like to have an actual conversation that allows for a person to change, does he? Sounds like someone stumping for re-election or something. =D Anyway. . .as an American, I sometimes have to wonder what's more immoral: knowing better and doing something that will kill innocent life or acting on instinct and doing something that will kill innocent life. Honestly, that's how I view the situation: America has acted immorally because it should know better while Al Qaeda, insurgents, etc. etc. are acting amorally because they're acting instinctively (like, say, a physically abused wife going nuts and killing her husband) out of desperation. Unless, of course, I'm wrong and bin Laden and them do just want power and will get that power out of chaos. But then again. . .then the individual acts of cruelty by US soldiers could be amoral, since they may just be redneck hicks acting on instinct, too. In that situation, then, the fault would lie on the side of the US government for not psychologically testing their soldiers or training them not to do stupid crap like raping and mass killing. Thus, the organization of the US does act immorally while the agents of the US act amorally because they haven't received proper training. Honestly, that's what I see as the biggest misconsception of the people who believe in this War on Terrorism. They seem to believe that there's the same degree of moral standards (which there isn't even the same degree within the "defensive" country, itself) all around the world, and they can't seem to get it through their heads that there's plenty of historical and situational factors at hand driving the "enemies" of the US, not just someone who woke up one day and decided that they wanted to destroy freedom. Everyone in the human race is an idiot, even me. Like Socrates, I know nothing. Well. . .maybe I also know that Gumpy is more interested in berating someone rather than having a real, constructive conversation.the_lex said on Jul 18, 2006....
Darn. . .Gumpy sure doesn't like to have an actual conversation that allows for a person to change, does he? Sounds like someone stumping for re-election or something. =D Anyway. . .as an American, I sometimes have to wonder what's more immoral: knowing better and doing something that will kill innocent life or acting on instinct and doing something that will kill innocent life. Honestly, that's how I view the situation: America has acted immorally because it should know better while Al Qaeda, insurgents, etc. etc. are acting amorally because they're acting instinctively (like, say, a physically abused wife going nuts and killing her husband) out of desperation. Unless, of course, I'm wrong and bin Laden and them do just want power and will get that power out of chaos. But then again. . .then the individual acts of cruelty by US soldiers could be amoral, since they may just be redneck hicks acting on instinct, too. In that situation, then, the fault would lie on the side of the US government for not psychologically testing their soldiers or training them not to do stupid crap like raping and mass killing. Thus, the organization of the US does act immorally while the agents of the US act amorally because they haven't received proper training. Honestly, that's what I see as the biggest misconsception of the people who believe in this War on Terrorism. They seem to believe that there's the same degree of moral standards (which there isn't even the same degree within the "defensive" country, itself) all around the world, and they can't seem to get it through their heads that there's plenty of historical and situational factors at hand driving the "enemies" of the US, not just someone who woke up one day and decided that they wanted to destroy freedom. Everyone in the human race is an idiot, even me. Like Socrates, I know nothing. Well. . .maybe I also know that Gumpy is more interested in berating someone rather than having a real, constructive conversation.the_lex said on Jul 18, 2006....
BTW, I accidently posted a double comment becacuse Soulcast hates me.GumpyJumptooth said on Jul 18, 2006....
>>BTW, I accidently posted a double comment becacuse Soulcast hates me.<< I'm sure your inability to spell is also Soulcast's fault.bloc said on Jul 18, 2006....
just ignore grumpy, er, i mean gumpy ;)the_lex said on Jul 18, 2006....
I'm feeling feisty and angsty today: Oooooohhhhh. . .Gumpy has shown his razor sharp wit by criticizing a typo and my lack of desire to proofread a comment on a blog (which I probably should take more care improving, anyway). So sharp, Gumpy, that I'm so completely intimidated and cowed by your wit. All hail Gumpy's wit! But no, I will accept the fault of my typo. Thank you for pointing it out. As for the double posting, Soulcast seems to like displaying an error when I post then not giving me any other option other than to navigate using my browser's buttons and menu options. Maybe I'm doing something wrong there. . .I can only think of using Mozilla Firefox rather than MS Explorer as causing any kind of problem. I'll try MS Explorer this time.SoulCast said on Jul 18, 2006....
that was a bug that came in the update yesterday. We believe we fixed it recently. Are you still getting the error when you comment?the_lex said on Jul 18, 2006....
Not with MS Explorer. Trying with Mozilla Firefox right now.the_lex said on Jul 18, 2006....
Don't have the error with Mozilla Firefox, either. Cool!GumpyJumptooth said on Jul 18, 2006....
Douchebag (that's you, "the lex") here's some facts. First, the conversation ended, in my opinion TEN FUCKING DAYS before you came on the scene, when bloc apologized for his flip flop. He did this willingly and of his own choice. I simply wasn't going to let him off the hook for his huge lapses in error. Now, to your drivel. Point by point. I will respond to things that YOU have written (if we can call that writing) of your own free will. >>Darn. . .Gumpy sure doesn't like to have an actual conversation that allows for a person to change, does he?<< No, not when someone starts the whole shebang with "the moral high ground" and then backtracks, no. But, after the apology and admission, the whole thing was dropped. Check it out yourself. Till you, NINE OR TEN DAYS LATER, stirred up some crap. >>Sounds like someone stumping for re-election or something. =D<< Perhaps you can explain how this would sound different than someone stumping for election in the first place? What key phrases or facts indicate that someone has already been elected? And, if they had been elected, wouldn't that mean they had gained the majority of the vote with such rhetoric? >>Anyway. . .as an American, I sometimes have to wonder what's more immoral: knowing better and doing something that will kill innocent life or acting on instinct and doing something that will kill innocent life.<< So your view of morality is based on your nationality? Well, morality knows no national boundaries, so you have disqualified yourself from knowing what's moral or immoral because you don't know what morality is in the first place. >>Honestly, that's how I view the situation: America has acted immorally because it should know better while Al Qaeda, insurgents, etc. etc. are acting amorally because they're acting instinctively (like, say, a physically abused wife going nuts and killing her husband) out of desperation.<< So you think one kind of killing is better than another? Or that the other side doesn't know killing is wrong and we do? No, they know what killing is. They're being killed and killing the only way they can. They don't have a military industrial complex dedicated to giving them tanks. So they cut off heads. For the billionth time, the only difference here is methodology. Both sides will rationalize their killing. Like you're doing for both sides with your warped, incorrect, and naive view of the situation. >>Unless, of course, I'm wrong and bin Laden and them do just want power and will get that power out of chaos.<< The first condition--that you're wrong--is clearly the case. Only time will tell what "bin Laden and them" (nice touch of Hooterville there, Shakespeare) will get. >>But then again. . .then the individual acts of cruelty by US soldiers could be amoral, since they may just be redneck hicks acting on instinct, too. In that situation, then, the fault would lie on the side of the US government for not psychologically testing their soldiers or training them not to do stupid crap like raping and mass killing.<< You mean mass killing like THIS?: Iraqi Civilian Death Count MIN MAX 38839 43269 You may have missed this in your rush to the phonic dictionary. NEWS FLASH: Yes, they're mass killing. >>Thus, the organization of the US does act immorally while the agents of the US act amorally because they haven't received proper training.<< Proper training? Ho ho. Show me the training for war that gets rid of revenge killings and psychosis brought on by the fog of war. NEWS FLASH #2: There ain't no such thing. Or perhaps you can point to a war where this didn't happen. Tickety tockety. We'll all wait. >>Honestly, that's what I see as the biggest misconsception of the people who believe in this War on Terrorism. They seem to believe that there's the same degree of moral standards (which there isn't even the same degree within the "defensive" country, itself) all around the world, and they can't seem to get it through their heads that there's plenty of historical and situational factors at hand driving the "enemies" of the US, not just someone who woke up one day and decided that they wanted to destroy freedom. << And even if that's true, it doesn't make them or their killing any more or less moral than ours. Because there is no morality in war or in killing. Which was the original point of the post. "The moral high ground." Sound out the words....slow-ly...slow-ly now...do try and pay attention. >>Everyone in the human race is an idiot, even me. Like Socrates, I know nothing.<< That you know nothing is intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer. >>Well. . .maybe I also know that Gumpy is more interested in berating someone rather than having a real, constructive conversation.<< With you? That's like painting a mural with a chimp. You can do it, but it's really not fair to the chimp. Which, in this case, is clearly you. Now you run along and spend some time with your PlayStation.the_lex said on Jul 19, 2006....
Wow, I say something that doesn't fall within Gumpy's beliefs or even facts, so I'm a douchebag. What great rhetoric for making conversation and trying to make constructive positive change! I don't approve of any killing going on in Iraq, Israel, etc. etc., whether it be by Iraqis, Americans, Israelis, Lebonese, etc. etc. Yes, you do make a fine point that the terrorists and insurgents probably partake in such immoral/amoral tactics because they're fighting a far superior force, technologically. On the other hand, though. . .why are they striking at civilian targets, including reporters and aid workers, also? If looking at things tactically, what does that do other than piss off some people, scare other people, etc. etc.? In so many places, dude, you misunderstood what I was saying: Morality based on nationality. To a certain point, yes, morality is based on nationality because your nationality, to a certain degree, determines your perspective. You know, somewhat like how being born into Black, Asian, Pacific Islander, Sunni, Shi-ite, Israeli, etc. etc. communities influences your perspective of the world. Maybe I should also mention that I'm white, grew up in a fairly affluent home in New England and, admittedly, have some Northeastern elitism simply because of the lack of access to non-white people. All of this stuff, and more, influences my perspective. Nonetheless, when I said, "As an American. . .," I came from the perspective of reflecting upon the actions of my own country, which I can't control. In this sense, mentioning this point and the supposed contrary opinion from the official American opinion displays the fact that my nationality DOES NOT determine my moral opinion of the situation, since the "official" American view of the moral condition of the situation would be that killing civilians to win the war in Iraq is moral. More abstractly, the ends justify the means is always moral. Um, dude, you totally misread what I said about individual acts of US soldiers being possibly amoral. Their INDEPENDENT acts of torture and such based on amoral thinking, based on the situation, based on a redneck, hick perspective that it's OK to engage in acts of torture. In this case, I was not referring to 'Shock & Awe' tactics, I was referring to INDEPENDENT acts of torture based on amoral thinking. I still don't agree with the 'Shock & Awe' tactics and frankly, think the mass killing based on technological weapons is wrong. And when I'm referring to training of soldiers to not engage in INDEPENDENT acts of torture, I'm referring to "sensitivity" training by the military along with a good upbringing by American culture that teaches these people that torture is WRONG. Nonetheless, even then, it's entirely possible that the situation would simply contribute to some personality types of taking advantage of it to display their desire of power, which I personally simply shows a weak person. Gumpy, dude, take a chill pill. As much I disagree with the war and so forth, your linguistically anal rhetoric and attitude does not accomplish a thing. I think it's hilarious that bloc had to apologize for his rhetoric simply to shut you up, especially when it obviously accomplished what he intended, creating conversation. Unfortunately, I don't think the conversation had much constructive use after awhile because it became an argument over semantics rathe than substance. But, my opinions in short: Killing is wrong. I think it should only be done for self-defense. Immoral or amoral, killing is wrong. As for figuring out the immorality or amorality behind the acts of killing, I think it's useful to figure out which part applies. You can use those evualtive categories to better address how to try stopping the killing. And then there's adding to a conversation and having it not exactly stay on topic, it's the organic nature of conversation, even on the Internet. In regards to your focus on one small thing and starting tunnel-visioned argument based on your viewpoint, the importance of that one small thing and getting all emotionally worked up about it, it all reminds me of the closed mindedness of the War on Terror propaganda here in America. I enjoy the irony.GumpyJumptooth said on Jul 20, 2006....
>>Wow, I say something that doesn't fall within Gumpy's beliefs or even facts, so I'm a douchebag. What great rhetoric for making conversation and trying to make constructive positive change!<< No, no, no...disagreeing doesn't make you a douchebag. BEING A DOUCHEBAG makes you a douchebag. If you weren't a douchebag, you'd realize that. >>I don't approve of any killing going on in Iraq, Israel, etc. etc., whether it be by Iraqis, Americans, Israelis, Lebonese, etc. etc.<< Wow. You must be Martin Luther King, Jr. or Ghandi or something. Jeepers, what a "make a constructive positive change" point. Gosh, I'm so glad you showed up to disapprove of killing. This IS revolutionary thinking. Will you next disapprove of tsunamis and improper disposal of nuclear waste and AIDS? >>Yes, you do make a fine point that the terrorists and insurgents probably partake in such immoral/amoral tactics because they're fighting a far superior force, technologically. On the other hand, though. . .why are they striking at civilian targets, including reporters and aid workers, also? If looking at things tactically, what does that do other than piss off some people, scare other people, etc. etc.?<< Perhaps you should learn to read. ALL KILLING AND ALL WAR IS IMMORAL. Each side rationalizes what they do to suit themselves. THEY say we're the bad guys for striking at civilian targets. WE say they're the bad guys for beheading people. Methodology differs. Rationalization conforms to methodology. Still immoral. But you keep drawing those distinctions and telling yourself it's the same thing. >>In so many places, dude, you misunderstood what I was saying: Morality based on nationality. To a certain point, yes, morality is based on nationality because your nationality, to a certain degree, determines your perspective. You know, somewhat like how being born into Black, Asian, Pacific Islander, Sunni, Shi-ite, Israeli, etc. etc. communities influences your perspective of the world.<< A view of the world doesn't change morality. Your claim that morality can be different from culture to culture is....douchebagish. The point of morality is that it is universal. Above is just the sort of rationalization people use to prop up their shaky argument while killing people. Telling themselves they have "the moral high ground" because the way THEY kill people, and the reasons, are somehow "right and just". You are a classic example of this silly notion. >>Maybe I should also mention that I'm white, grew up in a fairly affluent home in New England and, admittedly, have some Northeastern elitism simply because of the lack of access to non-white people. All of this stuff, and more, influences my perspective.<< Which you use to bend morality to suit your needs. Which isn't morality. And no one cares about your background. >>Nonetheless, when I said, "As an American. . .," I came from the perspective of reflecting upon the actions of my own country, which I can't control.<< Nice revisionist history. Here's what you ACTUALLY said >>>>Anyway. . .as an American, I sometimes have to wonder what's more immoral: knowing better and doing something that will kill innocent life or acting on instinct and doing something that will kill innocent life.<<<< As an American, you admit you WONDER what is more immoral. Again, morality is universal. You may decorate your own rationalizations and CALL it morality. Doesn't make it moral. >>In this sense, mentioning this point and the supposed contrary opinion from the official American opinion displays the fact that my nationality DOES NOT determine my moral opinion of the situation, since the "official" American view of the moral condition of the situation would be that killing civilians to win the war in Iraq is moral. More abstractly, the ends justify the means is always moral.<< "The ends justifies the means" is almost the textbook definition for NOT being moral. Morality means you can't do whatever you want as a means and then justify it by the end. And this shows your glaring inability to understand. >>Um, dude, you totally misread what I said about individual acts of US soldiers being possibly amoral. Their INDEPENDENT acts of torture and such based on amoral thinking, based on the situation, based on a redneck, hick perspective that it's OK to engage in acts of torture.<< So the 40,000 civilian deaths were performed by groups of soldiers each pulling triggers and sending bombs in sort of a group effort? If you're referring to soliders doing things on their own that are not part of a military effort, says so. You didn't. You said individual acts. Every military operation is nothing more than a collection of coordinated individual acts. >> In this case, I was not referring to 'Shock & Awe' tactics, I was referring to INDEPENDENT acts of torture based on amoral thinking. I still don't agree with the 'Shock & Awe' tactics and frankly, think the mass killing based on technological weapons is wrong.<< Then you should say so to begin with. Not write poorly and then tell others they misread something when it wasn't explained the firsts time round. No one misread what you wrote. You didn't write what you meant. >>And when I'm referring to training of soldiers to not engage in INDEPENDENT acts of torture, I'm referring to "sensitivity" training by the military along with a good upbringing by American culture that teaches these people that torture is WRONG.<< Which all flies out the window the first time you have AK-47 fire whizzing by your head. Or seeing your buddy's legs blown off by a car bomb. Even if you're not a psycho. You can't train someone to kill, kill, kill, then put them in a hostile situation and not expect acts of barbarism. Always happens. Always will. Once again, THERE IS NO TRAINING IN THE WORLD THAT WILL PREVENT THIS. >>Nonetheless, even then, it's entirely possible that the situation would simply contribute to some personality types of taking advantage of it to display their desire of power, which I personally simply shows a weak person.<< Forget the people who were criminals before they got into the service. Forget the individual acts of premediated rape and murder. Even good soldiers will kill, and torture, and "Abu Gharib" people when in a wartime scenario. It's a story as old as war itself. >>Gumpy, dude, take a chill pill.<< Ah, the battle cry of the ignorant generation. >>As much I disagree with the war and so forth, your linguistically anal rhetoric and attitude does not accomplish a thing. I think it's hilarious that bloc had to apologize for his rhetoric simply to shut you up, especially when it obviously accomplished what he intended, creating conversation.<< Try learning to sound out the words again. bloc apologized for his inconsistency. Which was obvious to more people than I. He doesn't do a lot of apologizing. He realized he had been flip flopping, after it was demonstrated to him. Try it yourself sometime. If you're not out dispensing "chill pills" whatever the fuck those are. Maybe it's a SuperMario Brothers thing or something, I don't know. >> Unfortunately, I don't think the conversation had much constructive use after awhile because it became an argument over semantics rathe than substance.<< A conversation with you can be constructive? Again, not to be unfair to the monkey, but that's kind of impossible because you have nothing of value to offer to the discourse but a random, unconnected series of incorrect non sequiturs. >>But, my opinions in short: Killing is wrong. I think it should only be done for self-defense. Immoral or amoral, killing is wrong.<< HERE ARE YOUR WORDS...>>>>Anyway. . .as an American, I sometimes have to wonder what's more immoral: knowing better and doing something that will kill innocent life or acting on instinct and doing something that will kill innocent life.<<<< So killing is always wrong, but one kind of killing can be MORE immoral than other. Based on your AMERICAN-NESS? HAW HAW HAW. Try and remember what you've typed before. It helps avoid these gigantic hypocritical statements in conflict with each other. "Killing is wrong, but sometimes it's MORE wrong based on nationality." Based on your personal rationalization is more accurate. >>As for figuring out the immorality or amorality behind the acts of killing, I think it's useful to figure out which part applies. You can use those evualtive categories to better address how to try stopping the killing.<< Ah, so your version of morality has different shades and levels. How convenient for you. >>And then there's adding to a conversation and having it not exactly stay on topic, it's the organic nature of conversation, even on the Internet.<< It is also a great way to be completely off-point and leave the topic at hand when you have nothing of substance to offer the actual conversation. TEN DAYS after everyone else had abandoned it. In the future, you might consider actually being on-topic after arriving so late to the party. >>In regards to your focus on one small thing and starting tunnel-visioned argument based on your viewpoint, the importance of that one small thing and getting all emotionally worked up about it, it all reminds me of the closed mindedness of the War on Terror propaganda here in America. I enjoy the irony.<< Emotion? You can detect emotion from simple typed words on a keyboard shot into the internet abyss? Wow! You must be Kreskin! Are you like that chick on Star Trek The Next Generation who can sense other people's emotions? Jeepers. That's neat-o! It must help you when you're on your PlayStation searching for chill pills.bloc said on Jul 20, 2006....
just ignore grumpy. He only wants to instigate.the_lex said on Jul 20, 2006....
Yeah, I think I'll start ignoring him for this post. I can now look at Soulcast entries chronologically rather than by popularity (for some reason). Also, I don't much enjoy conversing with someone who basically tries winning by belittlement and name calling to invalidate someone. Reminds me of a time I debated the issue of race & education with someone, in which they took the same tact to rip me a new one. Once I stopped receiving the list directly through my e-mail, though, he pretty much ended up saying what I originally argued. Kinda funny, really.GumpyJumptooth said on Jul 20, 2006....
>>bloc said about 2 hours ago... just ignore grumpy. He only wants to instigate. the_lex said 4 minutes ago... Yeah, I think I'll start ignoring him for this post. I can now look at Soulcast entries chronologically rather than by popularity (for some reason). Also, I don't much enjoy conversing with someone who basically tries winning by belittlement and name calling to invalidate someone. Reminds me of a time I debated the issue of race & education with someone, in which they took the same tact to rip me a new one. Once I stopped receiving the list directly through my e-mail, though, he pretty much ended up saying what I originally argued. Kinda funny, really.<< Yeah, all the people like the two of you who don't have their shit together (just check bloc's other posts, I'm not the first to notice it) think everyone's belittling you when they call you on your self-important crap. Stay in the kiddie pool, ladies. There, you can pontificate all you want and claim morality for other peoplebloc said on Jul 20, 2006....
thanks for proving our point grumpy :)the_lex said on Jul 21, 2006....
=DGumpyJumptooth said on Jul 21, 2006....
>>thanks for proving our point grumpy :)<< You had a point? EVER? When did this happen? And will you, as usual, be apologizing later for not being consistent about this point?anonymous said on Jul 21, 2006....
Morality is defined by the culture. Therefore to have sex outside of marriage is immoral to American christians where as to a young girl in the Zulu culture it is necessery so she can prove her fertility before marriage, to a Hindu it could require an honour killing. Our opinions of what constitutes "moral high ground" and "moral bearings" are therefore also subjective. As the side that went to war to "protect" democracy and freedom how far should we go to ensure our goals? Do the ends justify the means?anonymous said on Jul 21, 2006....
Morality is defined by the culture. Therefore to have sex outside of marriage is immoral to American christians where as to a young girl in the Zulu culture it is necessery so she can prove her fertility before marriage, to a Hindu it could require an honour killing. Our opinions of what constitutes "moral high ground" and "moral bearings" are therefore also subjective. As the side that went to war to "protect" democracy and freedom how far should we go to ensure our goals? Do the ends justify the means?the_lex said on Jul 21, 2006....
Now, now, anonymous, I wouldn't say that argument. It leads down a slippery slope. . ..WebTraffic said on Jul 21, 2006....
"As the side that went to war to "protect" democracy and freedom how far should we go to ensure our goals? Do the ends justify the means?" Another example of hypocrisy..the only thing america is trying to protect is their own imperialism and brutality. The reasons for this war have nothing to do with "freedom". Not with the original meaning of the word aniway. Gumpy you are mostly right but try not to be so aggressive please, we are trying to discuss not to insult each other.GumpyJumptooth said on Jul 21, 2006....
>>Gumpy you are mostly right but try not to be so aggressive please, we are trying to discuss not to insult each other.<< When I attempt to insult someone, you'll know it. As of yet, I'm merely responding to moronic thinking that's intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer. Now blow me.WebTraffic said on Jul 21, 2006....
You are obviously insulting and i'm actually lowering myself to your level answering the insults. But before you start once more your mindless attack please try to rationalize whatever frustration leads you to attack someone who was stupid enough to actually support you. Hopefully you'll understand the real definition of "moronic" (and that there's no need to blow someone already blowing himself).bloc said on Jul 21, 2006....
hi webtraffic, i'd love to have a sane discussion with you regarding this post. How did you agree with grumpy and by extension I'm assuming you disagreed with me?GumpyJumptooth said on Jul 22, 2006....
>>You are obviously insulting and i'm actually lowering myself to your level answering the insults. But before you start once more your mindless attack please try to rationalize whatever frustration leads you to attack someone who was stupid enough to actually support you. Hopefully you'll understand the real definition of "moronic" (and that there's no need to blow someone already blowing himself).<< I must have missed the part where I asked for your advice regarding what and how I respond on a blogging site. As for your support, it's quite clear that YOU hold it a much higher thing of value than I. As I have no need of it. The truth is enough for me.hunter_boyce_chandler said on Jul 22, 2006....
Boy, This has gotten to be a long one. Given the plethora of opinions on this topic I tend to feel that I am the only one who has actually grasped the depth of the original quite sound argument by bloc that we have screwed the pooch. I am ashamed of everybody!WebTraffic said on Jul 22, 2006....
>>I must have missed the part where I asked for your advice regarding what and how I respond on a blogging site.<< lol..like that was the only thing you missed.the_lex said on Jul 22, 2006....
Hey Hunter, I figured there wasn't much point in voicing that I grasped bloc's original argument. Don't necessarily get your idiom, "screwed the pooch," though.GumpyJumptooth said on Jul 23, 2006....
>>lol..like that was the only thing you missed.<< I didn't miss this part from bloc. Perhaps you did. >>However, I do want to apologize. I have not been consistent and you are correct. Let me try to explain my contradictions. I hope this makes sense.<< Seems like someone apologized for a lack of consistency that I pointed out over and over again before this admission. Then a weak attempt to "explain their contradications." This is what you're "backing up." I guess you missed THIS. By miles. Again. Throw it on the towering pile of things you've missed.princesse_ingenieure said on Jul 23, 2006....
i kinda believe in the "end of the times" philosophy so i am thinking that there are some things bound to happen. "a time for war, and a time for peace". of course it's barbaric. we're in a war here! i just saw the picture of this kid attacked in Lebanon. and well... i couldn't bear looking at it for more than a minute without flinching. about that moral high ground, i really think it would take a miracle to change things people have already gotten used to.the_lex said on Jul 24, 2006....
Irony is the point I grasped. Maybe not the best executed form of irony, but irony nonetheless.WebTraffic said on Jul 24, 2006....
>>Seems like someone apologized for a lack of consistency that I pointed out over and over again before this admission. Then a weak attempt to "explain their contradications."<< hahhaa..you really don't know what the hell i was talking about don't you? Kinda funny to see how you keep commenting things i didnt ever even refer to while saying i'm the one missing your points.. Looks like the same exact behaviour you where attacking Bloc for.GumpyJumptooth said on Jul 25, 2006....
>>>>Seems like someone apologized for a lack of consistency that I pointed out over and over again before this admission. Then a weak attempt to "explain their contradications."<< hahhaa..you really don't know what the hell i was talking about don't you? Kinda funny to see how you keep commenting things i didnt ever even refer to while saying i'm the one missing your points.. Looks like the same exact behaviour you where attacking Bloc for.<< REALLY? OH, REALLY, MR. OSCAR WILDE, JR. HIMSELF? HERE is the golden nugget of your very highest thinking I responded to: >>I must have missed the part where I asked for your advice regarding what and how I respond on a blogging site.<< lol..like that was the only thing you missed.<< SO, your entire contribution was the amazing: >>lol..like that was the only thing you missed.<< What specific point were you making, oh captain of wit, fact and incisive insight? Please. Illuminate our worlds with the hidden inner meanings, factual observations and deep cleverness. 'Cause that's the WHOLE post of yours right above me. Let's repeat it one more time for everyone: >>lol..like that was the only thing you missed.<< GOD DAMN! What a brainpowered post. And you were making such a huge point there. SO specific. And about the topic at hand. WOW. William Jennings Bryant? Abe Lincoln. Well, those people had nothing on you and your seemingly Dickensesque grasp of the language. Yes, YOU--the parakeet shit eating moron--respond with: >>lol..like that was the only thing you missed.<< That's your ENTIRE response. The WHOLE shootin' match. And people are then chastised for "missing your point."????? WHAT FUCKING POINT? THERE AIN'T ONE, EINSTEIN. Then, I point out something I surely did NOT miss. Which was bloc himself, not I, apologizing for his inconsistency, flip-flopping, and generally wanting his opinion to morph like Odo every time it's inconvenient for him to recall what he was standing for the LAST time. Again, HIS words. Not mine. And you, like bloc, want to assume that none of us has the ability to merely scroll up and refer to what dunderheaded thing you have left us from the last time. >>lol..like that was the only thing you missed.<< Wow. It just gets more profound every time you read it, doesn't it? So, YOU comment that I missed something. Here's my full response, just in case you missed it: >>>>lol..like that was the only thing you missed.<< I didn't miss this part from bloc. Perhaps you did. >>However, I do want to apologize. I have not been consistent and you are correct. Let me try to explain my contradictions. I hope this makes sense.<< Seems like someone apologized for a lack of consistency that I pointed out over and over again before this admission. Then a weak attempt to "explain their contradications." This is what you're "backing up." I guess you missed THIS. By miles. Again. Throw it on the towering pile of things you've missed.<< So after your silly >>lol..like that was the only thing you missed.<< you were told I didn't miss someone changing their position constantly. Or CONVENIENTLY LEAVING OUT HUGE SECTIONS OF RESPONSE because it doesn't back up their "point." If <<< could ever rise to the level of a "point." Please. Bestow more genius upon us like <<< or >>isn't this a great point I'm making here now?<< Then later, you can delete the part where someone thrashes your weak argument when reposting--and act like you just left a John Marshall/Oliver Wendell Holmes-style response. Yes. You're a moron.WebTraffic said on Jul 25, 2006....
HAHAHHAHAHA..oh my god this guy is such a tool! You just write down a small provocation and he goes on blabbering for pages. Poor idiot :) ..GumpyJumptooth said on Jul 25, 2006....
>>HAHAHHAHAHA..oh my god this guy is such a tool! You just write down a small provocation and he goes on blabbering for pages. Poor idiot :) .. << Please. Try not to begin EVERY post with your online imitation of the drooling, giggling, wiping-your-own-stool-on-the-walls, cretinish laughter that I'm sure passes for happiness in your padded world.WebTraffic said on Jul 25, 2006....
<> I must have missed the part where I asked for your advice regarding what and how I respond on a blogging site.the_lex said on Jul 25, 2006....
You know, we've gotten the comment count for this entry of bloc's pretty high. I wonder if we could set some kind of record. . .. =DWebTraffic said on Jul 27, 2006....
< probably got tired of showing himself so predictable.WebTraffic said on Jul 27, 2006....
hmm this site often formats my comments badly or erases parts of them..GumpyJumptooth said on Jul 27, 2006....
>>hmm this site often formats my comments badly or erases parts of them..<< What a pity that the site is robbing you of your God-given ability to badly format (and write) your comments on your own. The erasing part is likely just karma or a universal will of all peoples.WebTraffic said on Jul 27, 2006....
That's all? bah..you are falling flat on your face as usual. Please keep entertaining me.anonymous said on Aug 23, 2006....
spam removedPaladin7 said on Nov 15, 2006....
Why let little things like facts and logic get in the way of your fantasy. America has never condoned torture. It was done in every war America has been in but not by the US the ones that think it is ok should ask any one in the military. You torture anyone for any reason and you go to jail. It has been that way since before WWII. Torture all you want but if you get caught you go to jail. Water boarding that everyone says is torture is not classified as torture. I know this because in order to complete your Special Forces training you have to go through E&E each member of Special Forces is waterboarded, sleep deprived, food deprived, and loud music and noise is typical training we receive before we go out to face the enemy to give us a mild idea of what to expect from the enemy if captured. We are not doing anything to the enemy that we don’t do to our own forces.
What does the enemy do when they capture us? Well let’s see; they cut off body parts, the burn us alive and make the rest of us watch. They cut off our heads with not so sharp knives. And unlike the United States they don’t want any intelligence they just do it for their own amusement as well as a way to harden their troops so it is easier to kill us.
I see you don’t bother to mention that torture is against Islamic law no matter what is done to their people they are forbidden to torture captives. They are by Islamic law required to treat captives with respect and care. Just like our laws and our religion. I don’t see you condemning them for the torture instead you blame America for something you have no proof has ever happened.bloc said on Nov 15, 2006....
paladin
You clearly haven't been following the bush adminitstration. Let me ask you a simple question. Do you believe that waterboarding is torture?
Paladin7 said on Nov 15, 2006....
The answer is no. It is not. Why is it that you are ok with these things when President Carter’s administration came up with water boarding and has been used ever since? That’s right mister human rights came up with and approved it. It is an accepted training tool used by the military for over 30 years to give our troops a mild idea of what they can expect if captured. It does not hurt you unless you are afraid of swimming. There is no real pain involved nor is there any damage to the human body. It is what is termed “high stress” but not torture. Do you think that Mothers of America, a group that oversees the military treatment and our training methods for our own troops, would not scream bloody murder if it was harmful? Hell, they complained when they found out that the barracks I was in had a hot water heater go out for two weeks. The problem I see is that you are against our current president and you are looking for anything to make him look bad. That is your right if you are a citizen but if you wish to blame him why don’t you choose things HE has done instead of pointing out practices that are decades old? We as a nation do not torture. Do some people do it? I would bet money they do. Is it illegal to run a red light? Yes! Do people do it? Yes. Does that mean the president approved people running red lights? No! Has the president lied to us about any of this? No. So give him the benefit of your doubt until you know he lied to the American people for personal gain. I say personal gain because there are times when a president has to lie to protect the nation or its secrets. Something he is bound to do by the constitution.bloc said on Nov 15, 2006....
your delusional.
cotteralladams2 said on May 03, 2007....
Since when did the U.S. government hold the moral high ground? Look at the entire history of its relations with Iraq. America's government systematically destroyed that country. Why? It was out of excessive patriotism, need for oil, competition with Saddam Hussein and some misguided belief in being 'the world's greatest police force'. I believe in historical fact, not propaganda. Uncle Sam doesn't impress me with his policies. Why did the U.S. support Saddam Hussein during the Iraqi-Iranian war while selling arms to Iran? Both were enemies of Israel, but they (the U.S. government) fund the occupation of Palestine. Granted that Israel has a right to self-defense againt Palestinian militants and Arab aggression, it doesn't mean that an unjustifiable occupation should have been continued for forty years because of American pressure, funding and influence of strategic military policy. Some of the aid to Israel has been justifiable and some of it hasn't.
Iran was created by American policy as well as the Islamic Revolution which was more about the persecution complex and blood-thirsty aspirations of 'despot-disguised-as-cleric' the Ayatollah Khomeini. It wasn't really about Islam.
Somalia? Check. Afghanistan? Check. The Palestinian occupation? Check. Colombia? Check. Nigeria? Check. Vietnam? Check. Soviet Union? Check. Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Check. Azerbaijan? Check. Believe me, I don't condone what Iran is doing, militancy and warfare in the name of religion. It is not about religion, though, and can't be solved through war. I do favour a pre-emptive strike against nuclear arsenals and uranium enrichment sites by Israel out of self-defense, and for all the (usual) outcry about it, people will be thankful afterwards.
Comment on "the moral high ground"
Related Posts:
stopmediabias
posted 4 days ago
| views: 73
|
Weak on foreign policy, sold out to the nutty left on domestic policy, now lets fuck with national security and have trials for terrorists in federal courts.... read entire post
stopmediabias
posted 3 days ago
| views: 47
|
He didn't even try to answer it. What would be your answer? Were we right in dropping the bombs on Japan?... read entire post
javadewd
posted 2 days ago
| views: 48
|
The only human being on the planet that can eject a huge turd, yet somehow dupe the media into thinking it's a golden egg that smells like roses.... read entire post
stopmediabias
posted 4 days ago
| views: 49
|
How's Obama doing with the economy and his stimulus....... read entire post
ALIENated
posted 3 days ago
| views: 61
|
Sarah Palin would be a disaster for the Republicans,
in my humble opinion.
... read entire post