• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Someone who GETS it

Truth Detector

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
1,400
Location
Ventura California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I had to post this letter to the editor in the LA Times. It is always refreshing when someone actually GETS it and can so adequately express it:

War isn't about fair play
Re “Obama sets new rules in war on terror,” Jan. 23

President Obama's move to claim what he calls "the moral high ground" in the war on terrorism raises the question: How does this make America safer?

After the events of 9/11, there isn't much high ground of any kind, moral or otherwise.

Obama's righteous sense of fair play might get him a warm round of applause at the next ACLU luncheon. However, this is not a boxing match. We cannot expect to win a contest in which we unilaterally agree to fight fairly against an opponent who claws, scratches, gouges and hits below the belt. This is war, and all is not fair.

I don't want to see America lose a city someday and hear a president tell us we can hold our heads high because we adhered to the highest moral principles and, to our peril, played by the rules in a world in which there are none.

David Stoughton

Santa Monica
 

Eww.

Claiming the moral high ground is good because it makes the U.S. stick to its principles.

The idea that the U.S. should abandon rules just because the world they are in has none is absurd.
 
As long as were posting LAT letters to the editor check this Jan 21st one out.

In seeking to advance "smart power," an Obama-led United States should look toward Europe for assistance and cooperation. European leaders such as Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy wish to work with the U.S. to advance common aims on the economy and the environment.

While European leaders are well disposed toward the U.S., Obama has huge credibility and popularity in Europe. The Transatlantic Trends survey published last autumn showed that 69% of Europeans viewed him favorably.

The conditions are right for the European Union and the U.S. to work together exercising smart power to stimulate the economy and address climate change.

Wow, wonder how it will be working arm in arm with our allies again? :shock:
 
I see no logic in bringing a knife to a gunfight.

If it were up to me, our covert operatives would be peeing in their drinking water too.

I remember the British thought they could whup us Americans by marching in rank and file with drums and fife blaring, obeying Queen's rules. Meanwhile, our "lesser heeled" farm boys picked them off like flies with their squirrel guns.

Screw that. You first have to defend the ground you're standing on before you need to worry about any "moral" highground. What's so "moral" about war in the first place?
 
Cilogy said:
Eww.

Claiming the moral high ground is good because it makes the U.S. stick to its principles.

The idea that the U.S. should abandon rules just because the world they are in has none is absurd.
Click to expand...

I guess you missed the main point:

I don't want to see America lose a city someday and hear a president tell us we can hold our heads high because we adhered to the highest moral principles and, to our peril, played by the rules in a world in which there are none.

The only thing MORE amusing is the Liberal argument that if we play by slef imposed “moral” codes, the enemy will not harm our people in a like manner; frankly, I think the troops who were dragged through the streets and hung from a bridge, or the hostages who had their heads sawed off while screaming for mercy would prefer some water boarding to that don't you?

Carry on; it is obvious that you still don't get it. :2wave:
 
I don't understand how regulating 'water boarding' somehow makes an difference on the moral integrity of America; think about it, when was the last time America was the beacon of 'moral integrity' (whatever that means) to anyone? It seems we're always looking for that long sought, never grasped, era when we were... What, the kid who played fair on the block? Since when? We've never, ever, tried to play 'fair' and most especially not with other countries; that's just some sort of hogwash that has no actual value, but somehow is mentioned like it means something. Think about it, what made America great is that she played fair with her citizens; not with some people who run around blowing themselves up and demanding their prison toilets not face Mecca.
 

Once more you attempt to derail a thread and blather pointlessly about things you know little or nothing about.

You are free to post YOUR letter and make your OWN point on a new thread; but please do not post your pointless, trite and meaningless blather here and waste time and space on things unrelated to the thread topic.

Thank you. :2wave:
 

The reasons for this are simple; it provides Liberals cover from their efforts to support the terrorist’s rights and prevent us from prosecuting them for their crimes and impugn the evil George Bush for a war their candidates voted FOR. :2wave:
 

Sorry, thought it was just another troll.
 
donc said:
Snippet

Wow, wonder how it will be working arm in arm with our allies again? :shock:
Click to expand...

Before or after Russia shuts the gas off again? Seems to me, "hope-hope-change-change-hope" doesn't seem to heat the house as well as natural gas. Which, while I'm no expert, seems to be the general threat hanging over Europe.
 
Moral highground?

I suppose that's an admirable goal. I just don't want to be the only one in the game focused on that goal.

Morals are subjective. You cannot drive 1000 miles in either direction without them changing. I am not saying morals are bad. I believe there is a time and place for them. In the perfect world, that would include the battlefield as well. But then again, in a perfect world, there would be no battles.

So, all that being said, since nobody seems to be able to agree what actually constitutes good vs. bad morals, as far as a universal definition would stand, all that matters to me is if my conscience will let ME sleep at night.

And I sleep like a baby.

Beheading is immoral. Oooops! Looks like our enemies didn't get the message! Does anybody think I care about waterboarding? I still sleep pretty good. Yessir.
 
Goldwater said:
Before or after Russia shuts the gas off again? Seems to me, "hope-hope-change-change-hope" doesn't seem to heat the house as well as natural gas. Which, while I'm no expert, seems to be the general threat hanging over Europe.
Click to expand...

Goldwater, never confuse Donc with REALITY or the FACTS; it will just confuse him and he will enter into the circle of futility where his false claims are refuted then he jumps to the next false claim until eventually you end up at the original false claim.

:2wave:
 

I do understand. TruthDetector, please understand my side of the argument before you assume that I don't get it. Also, I am trying to be kind to you, I would appreciate if you do the same for me.

Stoughton is saying that he doesn't want America to be attacked and have a president that says we stuck to our moral code in a world without rules.

However, it is almost as if Stoughton believes that we might as well not stick to our moral code because we are facing a world without moral codes. I suppose he is partly justified in saying that we are facing a world without that moral high ground, but it is unreasonable of Stoughton to say that he doesn't want a president that says we will stick with our moral codes.
 
Last edited:

Yes, but you wont find me starting a thread from a letters to the editor of the LAT then bi*** when some lazy lout (such as myself) slaps another one(though older) in rebuttal. :2wave:
 

What is immoral about our conduct in Guantanamo?
 
Truth Detector said:
What is immoral about our conduct in Guantanamo?
Click to expand...

I don't know much about Guantanamo, but there used to be torture there right? I'm not entirely sure.

If I am right, IMO, torture is always immoral.
 
Truth Detector said:
What is immoral about our conduct in Guantanamo?
Click to expand...

Well, we made them take a shower, for starters.

Compared to the world they were taken from, I highly doubt anything we could do to them, by comparison, would be considered immoral.

And even if we did, I don't give a rats ass. War is hell.
 
Cilogy said:
I don't know much about Guantanamo, but there used to be torture there right? I'm not entirely sure.

If I am right, IMO, torture is always immoral.
Click to expand...

What is your definition of torture?

Here is the UN's version of what torture is:


Part I
Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

UN Convention Against Torture
 
I don't like it when people induce pain on others, as it is unnecessary and pointless. I guess IMO, pain includes torture.

I don't really have a diplomatic/world relations definition of torture simply because I think all forms of inducing pain are immoral.
 
Like our enemies give two cents about what the UN says?

"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil because I am the meanest son of a bitch in the valley."

THAT'S how you win a war. Besides, it is a language those folks clearly understand. They've been speaking it for centuries.
 
Last edited:

Can I offer you a tissue?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…