|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 11:41:30 AM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 2003
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
Oh, I don't know, we defeated Hitler's and Hirohito's (sp/) ideas and ideologies with bullets and bombs just fine.....
Hitler and Hirohito had an organized army and trillions of dollars worth of warmaking infrastructure.
And there was also a cooling off period at the end of the war where we had to make sure Germans cleaned up their own concentration camps and also a lengthy occupation and re-education of Japan.
Perhaps we can make residents of communities where terrorists come from clean up the body parts after a terrorist attack- that might be a small piece of the puzzle in defeating the terrorist ideology.
I do know that killing an innocent person while you are occupying his country is a great way to turn his kids into terrorists.
quote:
More leftist gloom and doom.....with an outlook like that, I'm sure glad you don't work for me!
The thing here is that we're not fighting against an organized army- we're fighting against the Mafia at best. If the federal government sent a bunch of troops into New York, set up checkpoints every five blocks, harrassed various people, and occasionally shot at innocent civilians, you'd create a lot of very angry New Yorkers and perhaps increase the number of Mafia sympathizers by a factor of ten.
You'll notice we never tried to do anything like this in WWII.
< Message edited by blessedinnyc -- 6/18/2008 11:53:44 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 12:36:41 PM
|
|
|
ljmac
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
Oh, I don't know, we defeated Hitler's and Hirohito's (sp/) ideas and ideologies with bullets and bombs just fine.....
Hitler and Hirohito had an organized army and trillions of dollars worth of warmaking infrastructure.
And there was also a cooling off period at the end of the war where we had to make sure Germans cleaned up their own concentration camps and also a lengthy occupation and re-education of Japan.
Perhaps we can make residents of communities where terrorists come from clean up the body parts after a terrorist attack- that might be a small piece of the puzzle in defeating the terrorist ideology.
I do know that killing an innocent person while you are occupying his country is a great way to turn his kids into terrorists.
quote:
More leftist gloom and doom.....with an outlook like that, I'm sure glad you don't work for me!
The thing here is that we're not fighting against an organized army- we're fighting against the Mafia at best. If the federal government sent a bunch of troops into New York, set up checkpoints every five blocks, harrassed various people, and occasionally shot at innocent civilians, you'd create a lot of very angry New Yorkers and perhaps increase the number of Mafia sympathizers by a factor of ten.
You'll notice we never tried to do anything like this in WWII.
No, in WWII Americans (F. Roosevelt, Truman) purposely killed civilians. In Germany and in Japan. Ever hear of the atom bombs? Those weren't military targets.
Roosevelt put 10s (100s?) of thousands of Americans in concentration camps.
The best way to increase "Mafia sympathizers" is to tell the "innocent civilians" that you're leaving. Nobody will want to be on the wrong side when America leaves. Heads will roll and liberals will call it peace.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 12:36:41 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3952
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
quote:
You DO realize that you can't kill an idea with bullets and bombs right?
Oh, I don't know, we defeated Hitler's and Hirohito's (sp/) ideas and ideologies with bullets and bombs just fine.....
quote:
The WOT is an unwinnable war without end. How about winning our war on the things that truly terrorize us in the US: the theives, rapists, gang members, robbers, pedophiles, etc. But I guess that's another unwinnable war!
More leftist gloom and doom.....with an outlook like that, I'm sure glad you don't work for me!
The WOT is not comparable to WWII that way. WWII, although causing the defeat of two major powers did not end the ideological war. The Cold War is actually a better comparison. It took forty years and included military conflicts on several continents. Those conflict were, on the whole, stalemates. The West won some, the communist block won some. The Cold War ended when the USSR collapsed from within for multiple reasons.
The WOT has to be fought in a similar manner. Interestingly, the most progress in the Cold War came after the US realized it could not achieve complete victory by military means.
_____________________________
Nobody ever heard of Acid Rain before we sent people into space.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 12:39:15 PM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
quote:
You DO realize that you can't kill an idea with bullets and bombs right?
Oh, I don't know, we defeated Hitler's and Hirohito's (sp/) ideas and ideologies with bullets and bombs just fine.....
quote:
The WOT is an unwinnable war without end. How about winning our war on the things that truly terrorize us in the US: the theives, rapists, gang members, robbers, pedophiles, etc. But I guess that's another unwinnable war!
More leftist gloom and doom.....with an outlook like that, I'm sure glad you don't work for me!
Yes we sure beat the ideas of the Nazis didn't we? We shot that entire philosphy out of existence. There are no more Nazis because their ideas and philosophy are dead and buried. 
We won the war back then but we didn't stop the ideas or the beliefs. I believe that WW2 was a necessary one. We had to fight that one. We have to fight terrorism, but it's a different kind of war. It has more in common with the Cold War in some respects.
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 1:22:04 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 2003
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
No, in WWII Americans (F. Roosevelt, Truman) purposely killed civilians. In Germany and in Japan. Ever hear of the atom bombs? Those weren't military targets.
And had our troops landed in Tokyo as peacekeepers before the war had ended, we would have suffered a lot of casualties.
quote:
Roosevelt put 10s (100s?) of thousands of Americans in concentration camps.
People make mistakes. The Japanese whom we sent to those camps later received an apology and compensation from the federal government.
quote:
The best way to increase "Mafia sympathizers" is to tell the "innocent civilians" that you're leaving. Nobody will want to be on the wrong side when America leaves. Heads will roll and liberals will call it peace.
So what you're really saying is that if you invade a city, whether you stay or leave, you're going to increase mafia sympathizers. Which makes the Iraq war an enormous mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 1:30:15 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 2003
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jkdjr25
We won the war back then but we didn't stop the ideas or the beliefs. I believe that WW2 was a necessary one. We had to fight that one. We have to fight terrorism, but it's a different kind of war. It has more in common with the Cold War in some respects.
The Cold War was ultimately an economic war that the West won hands down. We may be losing a similar war against China while everyone is focused on the "War on Terror", but that's another story.
This is probably most comparable to the War on Drugs or maybe the Anti-Marxist counter-insurgencies we supported in Guatemala and other parts of Latin America in the '70s and '80s.
Counter-insurgencies tend to be those things that you can pour $1000 into for every $1 the enemy spends and still lose.
In any case, the best way to win an insurgent war is to defeat the insurgent ideology- if you defeat the insurgents militarily, more people will just decide to become insurgents, meaning you will have to get more tactical victories in and endless cycle just to tread water.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 2:51:42 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3952
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
quote:
ORIGINAL: jkdjr25
We won the war back then but we didn't stop the ideas or the beliefs. I believe that WW2 was a necessary one. We had to fight that one. We have to fight terrorism, but it's a different kind of war. It has more in common with the Cold War in some respects.
The Cold War was ultimately an economic war that the West won hands down. We may be losing a similar war against China while everyone is focused on the "War on Terror", but that's another story.
This is probably most comparable to the War on Drugs or maybe the Anti-Marxist counter-insurgencies we supported in Guatemala and other parts of Latin America in the '70s and '80s.
Counter-insurgencies tend to be those things that you can pour $1000 into for every $1 the enemy spends and still lose.
In any case, the best way to win an insurgent war is to defeat the insurgent ideology- if you defeat the insurgents militarily, more people will just decide to become insurgents, meaning you will have to get more tactical victories in and endless cycle just to tread water.
I pray it's not like the "War on Drugs". If so, we are roadkill.
BTW, I remember when Bill Bennett declared victory in the War on Drugs. That's when I first decided his wheels might not be aligned properly.
_____________________________
Nobody ever heard of Acid Rain before we sent people into space.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 4:21:53 PM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2543
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
The thing here is that we're not fighting against an organized army- we're fighting against the Mafia at best. If the federal government sent a bunch of troops into New York, set up checkpoints every five blocks, harrassed various people, and occasionally shot at innocent civilians, you'd create a lot of very angry New Yorkers and perhaps increase the number of Mafia sympathizers by a factor of ten.
Excellent analogy but the pro-war crowd doesn't see or care how it affects future "collateral damage" (ahem) - the civilian population. They should just let their wives and kids be shot and be proud they died in the name of democracy!!
_____________________________
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility."-David Walker, fmr comptroller general of the US
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 4:24:54 PM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2543
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
The WOT has to be fought in a similar manner. Interestingly, the most progress in the Cold War came after the US realized it could not achieve complete victory by military means.
A point lost on people who think nuking people is a viable and necessary option!
_____________________________
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility."-David Walker, fmr comptroller general of the US
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 4:28:01 PM
|
|
|
tafkam
Posts: 1951
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
They should just let their wives and kids be shot and be proud they died in the name of democracy!!
In a war, it's very simple. Either they will die or we will. Call me crazy, but I'd much rather it be them.
quote:
A point lost on people who think nuking people is a viable and necessary option!
Um, we have not used nuclear weapons in the WOT. So your point would be???????
_____________________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan
Tafkam
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 4:54:22 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2350
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
No, in WWII Americans (F. Roosevelt, Truman) purposely killed civilians. In Germany and in Japan. Ever hear of the atom bombs? Those weren't military targets.
The casualty estimates for Operation Olympic for the civilians by the Japanese command was around 10 million. The estimates for the allies were well over 1 million with little chance that there would be any medical relief for the casualties. Military planning on both sides expected the Allies to lose this battle meaning we'd do it again in Operation Coronet which would have been messy also but successful.
Tell me again how many casualties there were in Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Also it is ignorant to dismiss the importance of both Hiroshima with it's concentration of troops and Nagasake for the Mitsubishi plant that I believe was the biggest manufacturer of ball bearings on the island.
_____________________________
-Roger
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 4:55:23 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2350
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
In a war, it's very simple. Either they will die or we will. Call me crazy, but I'd much rather it be them.
If I was convinced we knew who "them" were and exactly how and where to find them I'd be much happier.
_____________________________
-Roger
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 7:48:03 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5940
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: Northern Califonria
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PhunkD
I do not believe that humans have the right to regulate the worship/religion of other humans.
Moses put many to the sword for not choosing God...
quote:
Before God, an appeal to "rights" is useless. Rights are defined to protect us from earthly power, not divine power.
Yet you said the following...
We would have the same rights, because rights come from God.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 7:51:17 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5940
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: Northern Califonria
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jkdjr25
quote:
ORIGINAL: freakofnature
quote:
there has to be cause.
...'Cause they kill you.
quote:
as long as we tell them why,
...'Cause they kill you
quote:
Loving my enemy means affording him the rights I claim for myself, even if it leads to my own death.
Those at Guantanamo Bay are ones found on a battlefield. Not uniformed but found to be supporting those who kill you! Death I am not affraid of, it is the not seeing my children raised in the admonition of the Lord that I am affraid of. It is not seeing my daughters walk the isle on their wedding day, not seeing my son play in the NFL... Because if we give the terrorist and inch they will take it and more then you can forget rights because in Sharia, there are no exceptions... NONE and that ain't freedom. There will be no walking the isle because marriages will be arranged, no NFL for my son, none of those things. But above all, there WILL BE NO FREEDOM! I don't get what it is you don't understand. I love my enemy, but we are also required biblically to protect ourselves and our families. Just because we have to lock up some bad guys and kill some terrorist don't mean we don't love them. If they want to stop all of the killings and the war efforts, then they should cease and decist, but somehow I doubt they will do that.
The ends do not justify the means.
Why not just lock up anyone we capture indefinitely? After all that prostitute on the street corner doesn't have any rights. She's a criminal and commiting unlawful acts. Same with the sneak thief, the drug dealer, and the list goes on. Why treat any of them humanely? They are just scum after all. And after we get all them we can lock up people with political views we don't like. They aren't being good, patriotic Americas after all. We wouldn't have to tell them a thing, because no one has the right to know why they're being put in prison.
It's a very slippery slope we're skirting the edge of, and it's depressing to see Christians defending the administration's position. We cannot allow ourselves to lose our God given conscience in this matter.
Just for clarity... Did you vote for Mr. Bush?
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 7:53:54 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5940
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: Northern Califonria
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
quote:
It's a very slippery slope we're skirting the edge of, and it's depressing to see Christians defending the administration's position. We cannot allow ourselves to lose our God given conscience in this matter.
It's also depressing to see Christians cheering a move that will only embolden our enemies, make the WOT harder to wage, and result in the deaths of more Americans.....
What's depressing to me is to see how Americans are cheering the slow death of the Bill of Rights!!!
The WOT is an unwinnable war without end. How about winning our war on the things that truly terrorize us in the US: the theives, rapists, gang members, robbers, pedophiles, etc. But I guess that's another unwinnable war!
Are you willing to hang theives, rapists, gang members, robbers, pedophiles, and those who murder the unborn by the neck for their deeds? Or is this a bunch of talk?
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 7:58:47 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5940
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: Northern Califonria
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
And there are also consequences for exercising these rights improperly. But it's God's job to ensure those consequences. I don't see God ordering us to keep these prisoners in Guantanamo without trials, so well, their God-given rights still apply.
Without a doubt... I am just wondering if those who believe the people in Guantanamo have rights(which I believe they do) do the same people believe the United States has the right to put them to death for there actions... Even more so given that God has been brought into the picture...
quote:
God grants us the right to reject him. And there are God-given consequences for exercising that right improperly. But obviously, if we did not have the right to reject God, we wouldn't be able to.
Generally a right is something granted that doesn't come with grave consequences attached... I think a better idea would be that God allows sin to run its course, but not always...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 8:00:30 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5940
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: Northern Califonria
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
quote:
It's a very slippery slope we're skirting the edge of, and it's depressing to see Christians defending the administration's position. We cannot allow ourselves to lose our God given conscience in this matter.
It's also depressing to see Christians cheering a move that will only embolden our enemies, make the WOT harder to wage, and result in the deaths of more Americans.....
I think the question is whether ideology or expedience should win, and in general, it's natural for Christians to favor ideology of practicality.
There are a lot of things that Jesus teaches that don't appear very practical or expedient, but we follow them, because we know they're the best thing to do, and we can still understand their ultimate goal.
When it comes to treating others with the same human dignity we expect to be treated with under our own constitution, I don't think it takes a ThD to figure out that this helps us win the ideological war on terror.
Those of us who believe the vast majority of the War on Terror involves bullets and explosions (and not ideas) are trying to have us fight a 21st century war using an early 20th century strategy. The SC's decision goes a long way in helping us fight the ideological war; it says that we are a country that practices the Enlightenment values that it preaches.
At times God and or Jesus had His people wipe out entire cities and nations to deal with problems...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 8:05:47 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5940
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: Northern Califonria
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
The thing here is that we're not fighting against an organized army- we're fighting against the Mafia at best. If the federal government sent a bunch of troops into New York, set up checkpoints every five blocks, harrassed various people, and occasionally shot at innocent civilians, you'd create a lot of very angry New Yorkers and perhaps increase the number of Mafia sympathizers by a factor of ten.
Excellent analogy but the pro-war crowd doesn't see or care how it affects future "collateral damage" (ahem) - the civilian population. They should just let their wives and kids be shot and be proud they died in the name of democracy!!
That's how the Israelites dealt with the issue... They killed everyone...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 8:12:22 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5940
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: Northern Califonria
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
The WOT has to be fought in a similar manner. Interestingly, the most progress in the Cold War came after the US realized it could not achieve complete victory by military means.
A point lost on people who think nuking people is a viable and necessary option!
Part of the progress was the ability to wage war... So while complete victory by military means could not achieve the goal we had to nonetheless posses the means to in order to win the Cold War...
As for using nukes... We killed more folks firebombing Tokyo and enough US troops had died and the whole of Japan wasn't worth another dead GI... The country of Japan waged war, not simply the troops, the people that make the bullets are as much part of the equation as the person pulling the trigger...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 8:55:54 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 2003
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Without a doubt... I am just wondering if those who believe the people in Guantanamo have rights(which I believe they do) do the same people believe the United States has the right to put them to death for there actions... Even more so given that God has been brought into the picture...
Absolutely. We have the authority to try them and put them to death for their actions.
But the trial has to be consistent with the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments. If the federal government can violate their rights (and there are several people down there who do appear to probably be innocent), what's to stop it from violating yours'?
quote:
At times God and or Jesus had His people wipe out entire cities and nations to deal with problems...
John
Sorry, where in does God teach that humans have the authority to make these judgements? If God is partly a Turing Machine, then of course, he can figure out who exactly to kill and who not to faster than lightning. Unfortunately, when we act with expedience, we tend to make mistakes.
quote:
That's how the Israelites dealt with the issue... They killed everyone...
John
I think the paradox that we are running into here is that all actions made by God are by definition, just, while the same isn't true of actions made by humans. Theoretically, a human being could jump out of an airplane without a parachute and figure out a way to land safely. That doesn't mean it's really possible, though.
So there is a God-given right to justice, and God respects this right. Sometimes, it is difficult for us to understand how this justice works, in the same way that it is difficult for us to understand how infinity+1=infinity in numerals but not in ordinals. Unfortunately, for humans to be just, we can't make split-second decisions like God can. To do so would be to play God.
And naturally, then, all finite, human justice should be relatively clear-cut and easy to understand. Detaining someone for seven years because we're worried there's a small chance he may have been an insurgent but we can't prove he's safe so we're going to him locked up for 10% of his expected life isn't really clear-cut and easy to understand.
< Message edited by blessedinnyc -- 6/18/2008 9:03:59 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 8:59:14 PM
|
|
|
tafkam
Posts: 1951
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
Apparently, the train of thought from our pacifist friends is that we should fight this war with "ideas".
I'm willing to overlook the fact that "ideas" is a nebulous concept at best in this area, but I would press forward and ask those so adamantly opposed to our current conflict exactly how they would wage this war of "ideas", and exactly what sort of victory that it should eventually lead to.
The opposition is quick to criticize what we're currently doing, but they tend to get awfully quiet when you ask for viable alternatives.
The floor is all yours, fellas......
_____________________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan
Tafkam
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 9:04:20 PM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
ORIGINAL: jkdjr25
quote:
ORIGINAL: freakofnature
quote:
there has to be cause.
...'Cause they kill you.
quote:
as long as we tell them why,
...'Cause they kill you
quote:
Loving my enemy means affording him the rights I claim for myself, even if it leads to my own death.
Those at Guantanamo Bay are ones found on a battlefield. Not uniformed but found to be supporting those who kill you! Death I am not affraid of, it is the not seeing my children raised in the admonition of the Lord that I am affraid of. It is not seeing my daughters walk the isle on their wedding day, not seeing my son play in the NFL... Because if we give the terrorist and inch they will take it and more then you can forget rights because in Sharia, there are no exceptions... NONE and that ain't freedom. There will be no walking the isle because marriages will be arranged, no NFL for my son, none of those things. But above all, there WILL BE NO FREEDOM! I don't get what it is you don't understand. I love my enemy, but we are also required biblically to protect ourselves and our families. Just because we have to lock up some bad guys and kill some terrorist don't mean we don't love them. If they want to stop all of the killings and the war efforts, then they should cease and decist, but somehow I doubt they will do that.
The ends do not justify the means.
Why not just lock up anyone we capture indefinitely? After all that prostitute on the street corner doesn't have any rights. She's a criminal and commiting unlawful acts. Same with the sneak thief, the drug dealer, and the list goes on. Why treat any of them humanely? They are just scum after all. And after we get all them we can lock up people with political views we don't like. They aren't being good, patriotic Americas after all. We wouldn't have to tell them a thing, because no one has the right to know why they're being put in prison.
It's a very slippery slope we're skirting the edge of, and it's depressing to see Christians defending the administration's position. We cannot allow ourselves to lose our God given conscience in this matter.
Just for clarity... Did you vote for Mr. Bush?
John
I've voted independent since the Clinton years. I can't begin to say what it was but I always got a weird vibe from President Bush and that turned me off of voting for him. I cannot vote for a party that's done so much to get off track from their founding principles. I'm not sure how that matters but there you go.
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 9:10:10 PM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
Apparently, the train of thought from our pacifist friends is that we should fight this war with "ideas".
I'm willing to overlook the fact that "ideas" is a nebulous concept at best in this area, but I would press forward and ask those so adamantly opposed to our current conflict exactly how they would wage this war of "ideas", and exactly what sort of victory that it should eventually lead to.
The opposition is quick to criticize what we're currently doing, but they tend to get awfully quiet when you ask for viable alternatives.
The floor is all yours, fellas......
I'll bite on this one, since you've so kindly given the floor. Yes I do happen to be a pacifist. I hate violence and I think that we should try nonviolent solutions first. However I also recognize that there are times when violence is a regrettable necessity.
The question though isn't about violence or war in general in this case. It's about how we treat the enemy once we capture them in the course of this war (which by the way makes them prisoners of war by definition).
The point is that Habeas Corpus doesn't give the prisoners full and unrestricted access to the courts. All it does is allow them to challenge the reasons behind their imprisonment. Those are two very different things.
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 9:18:51 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 2003
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
Apparently, the train of thought from our pacifist friends is that we should fight this war with "ideas".
What are you talking about? I'm simply saying that ignoring the ideological aspects to focus on the military aspects is like the sorcerer's apprentice trying to stop brooms.
quote:
I'm willing to overlook the fact that "ideas" is a nebulous concept at best in this area, but I would press forward and ask those so adamantly opposed to our current conflict exactly how they would wage this war of "ideas", and exactly what sort of victory that it should eventually lead to.
It's very simple. It's that Jesus had it right when he said to love your neighbor as yourself.
If you kill someone-especially a civilian- that person's family isn't going to be your biggest fan. In fact, if the family doesn't think the guy was involved in terrorism, you may have just created several new terrorists.
So if we kill one civilian for every terrorist we kill, and every dead civilian means 1.5 new terrorists, we are up against an adversary greater than the Russian army- we're up against math. In the deluded universe of neoconservatism, we may be able to defeat math or reverse gravity so that all terrorists fall upwards to their deaths, but in the real world, killing someone in a way that may be unjust has far-reaching consequences.
But what does this have to do with the SC ruling?
quote:
The opposition is quick to criticize what we're currently doing, but they tend to get awfully quiet when you ask for viable alternatives.
Are we debating Iraq or are we debating how we can fight the ideological war?
The SC case is a perfect example of how we can fight the ideological war, because it sends a clear message that the US is a country that takes justice seriously. Perhaps this will give us a chance to work towards true democracies in countries where women are put to death for adultery because they were raped.
As for Iraq, the best solution seems to be to split it up into three countries to try and end the civil war, and most importantly, not have our troops babysitting it. In any case, in 20 years, the Middle East will no longer be very important- it has no uranium, no wind energy, no water, no oil shale, and no arable land, so issues of regional power at least don't pose a long-term threat to the US.
< Message edited by blessedinnyc -- 6/18/2008 9:26:42 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 9:21:23 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5940
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: Northern Califonria
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
Sorry, where in does God teach that humans have the authority to make these judgements?
I didn't say He granted the anyone the authority... In fact my statement says otherwise...
John
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
