Is it really wrong for these guys, if captured, to endure some level of discomfort so intelligence can be gathered from them which could lead to the death of the leaders of the movement and perhaps the movement itself?

Abrignac wrote:

It depends. If you want to live in a country that can still take the moral high ground on this (and future) conflict... then we simply cannot.

If you don't particularly care about being able to say that we as a country afford specific rights to everyone, including people who are clearly against us, then we can go ahead and start torturing.

These days it probably doesn't matter much... what with our drone strikes and spying and general regime building/toppling in the 3rd world countries we've lost most of our moral cache anyway. I suppose one could say we're holding on to this last little thing the same way a virgin holds on to her hymen, despite having been plowed in the backdoor and mouth by the past 10 boyfriends.... but I digress...

victor809 wrote:

Leave it to your generation and you won't recognize one thread of what this Great Country once was......we treated these F*cks the way we did BECAUSE of the way they CHOSE to wage War....and we should resume as quickly as possible.

TMCTLT wrote:

Yes. The whole "I WILL stoop to their level!" stance. Always great when declaring the moral high ground.

It's like you don't even understand basic logic....

victor809 wrote:

F the moral high ground. Pull their fingernails out instead....



:-$

Abrignac wrote:

Yes. The whole "I WILL stoop to their level!" stance. Always great when declaring the moral high ground.

It's like you don't even understand basic logic....

victor809 wrote:

Hehehe....
I used to really care. Because I was pretty sure the US had a good moral stance still. We've done enough over the past 2 decades (hell, lets stretch it out to 3) that there isn't that much left to preserve.

It's one of those things that if we are going to say "hey, we're torturing people now" then our country is no longer any better than Russia.. and we have one less thing to differentiate ourselves from North Korea.

If rational people are willing to make that trade off, then who am I to argue. My problem is with the people who think they can keep the image of America as a morally good country WHILE torturing people. Can't have it both ways, but some aren't smart enough to get that.

victor809 wrote:

I'm not sure how old this Victor fella is, but I'm willing to bet him and I are in the same generation. Be advised I do not share his pansy ass beliefs. I'd go back to Iraq in a heartbeat to deal with those a$$ holes like we did during the Surge.

CruzJ wrote:

We ARE STILL of higher moral caliber Because we start off BETTER.....show me their generosity toward the rest of the world ( like the US ) and acceptance of others Religions and general beliefs and THEN get back to me.

TMCTLT wrote:

I say we drop a giant steel gate on them..


wheel,

wheelrite wrote:

that would be gay.... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

I'm not sure how old this Victor fella is, but I'm willing to bet him and I are in the same generation. Be advised I do not share his pansy ass beliefs. I'd go back to Iraq in a heartbeat to deal with those a$$ holes like we did during the Surge.

CruzJ wrote:

Anyone who believes the US is not using "enhanced interrogation" techniques is naive. And I say this as one who does not believe the ends justify the means.

fiddler898 wrote:

Plausible deniability is also a plausible moral high ground.

In an ideal world, we will have a government which is morally "good" and which stands as an example to the rest of the world as well as give us a sense of national pride when we interact with other countries. We all know that's not going to happen, as a government is a collection of politicians, all of whom are morally corrupt.

Which gives us option two... The image of a morally "good" gov't. In which the world still has a belief in an America which, while not the accurate representation of our country in reality, is an image which inspires others to do better, and which allows us to hold our heads high when interacting with other countries. Plausible deniability of torture would theoretically give us this... if we hadn't done so much to destroy it anyway. Like I said... at this point we're the virginal bride who is "saving herself for marriage" but still got screwed in the butt by the best man.

Option 3.... acknowledge that we as a country are not the shining beacon of freedom and human rights for all that we tried to become... Just say, "hell with it... we aren't going to try to be better than everyone else any longer... we're not even going to pretend to treat our evil enemies any better than they would treat us... torture, maim, eat babies, have sex with donkeys, rape women, rape babies, eat dead post-raped babies... whatever it takes to make sure no one manages to set off a shoe bomb on a waterslide."

I'm fine with any of them. But you can't claim to be from an "option 1" country and advocate "option 3".

victor809 wrote:

Hehehe....
I used to really care. Because I was pretty sure the US had a good moral stance still. We've done enough over the past 2 decades (hell, lets stretch it out to 3) that there isn't that much left to preserve.

It's one of those things that if we are going to say "hey, we're torturing people now" then our country is no longer any better than Russia.. and we have one less thing to differentiate ourselves from North Korea.

If rational people are willing to make that trade off, then who am I to argue. My problem is with the people who think they can keep the image of America as a morally good country WHILE torturing people. Can't have it both ways, but some aren't smart enough to get that.

victor809 wrote: