DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> "Let's stomp on Constitutional Amendments" thread
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 126 - 150 of 659, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/31/2013 12:33:34 AM · #126
Yes. I choose D with Richard.

If we had been speaking face-to-face you would hear me emphasize "know". I mean we didn't know for certain. It was a calculated guess. Option C presents that there is no other outcome but being betrayed by the Pakistanis. Real life doesn't often work in such certainties.

Actually I would probably have done my best to make C work.

Message edited by author 2013-05-31 00:37:57.
05/31/2013 01:32:13 AM · #127
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Actually I would probably have done my best to make C work.


But you "know" it would have failed, don't you?
05/31/2013 01:48:44 AM · #128
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well, from the get-go the conversation was about the IRS and the difference I see between Bush's sins and Obama's as reported by the media. I honestly would have thought most of the usual people on here would be against the idea of drone strikes. I know they've been against the patriot act and against Bush's "war on terror" and Guantanamo up until 2008. I'm being a bit partisan here because I'm calling out the crew over their silence. It doesn't make sense that Guantanamo was bad under Bush and then forgettable under Obama. Drones? The same.

Is have more respect if I heard people say, "hey, I voted Obama and think he's done a decent job, but I can't side with him on this drone thing." It doesn't make them raging Republicans. It makes them independent thinkers.


No, no it wasn't actually about the IRS. It was about ... Oh what the hell, why bother if you didn't get it the first three times.
05/31/2013 05:29:16 AM · #129
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

... What of the 60+ strikes since? Do they qualify under the same pretext or do we need a different justification?


Not being privy to the intelligence related to this matter, I seriously doubt that any of us could pronounce ourselves in this regard.

Ray
05/31/2013 09:32:59 AM · #130
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by blindjustice:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I wasn't being insulting. Your sentence is 62 words long!

My position is moderate in the sense that I have no need to defend a political figure because of the little D or R after his name.


You know what they say about the size of a mans sentence...


Is it like having big hands or a fancy sports car? :)


Actually I am an NPR guy.

Your response here mixes allusions, or perhaps euphemisms, I believe.

Having big hands is generally accepted to be the hallmark of a well endowed fellow, as the general standard for phallus size is the tip of the index finger to the junction of the thumb at the wrist. There are certainly exceptions to this rule.

Having a big/fast luxury sportscar and/or boat, (or perhaps collection of long lenses), referencing the psychological strategy of compensation. In this situation, a physically inferior person, usually with small hands, attempts to make up for lack of endowment.

Personally, I have average hands, an average car, and short lenses. But I have very long sentences.
05/31/2013 09:45:23 AM · #131
Originally posted by blindjustice:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by blindjustice:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I wasn't being insulting. Your sentence is 62 words long!

My position is moderate in the sense that I have no need to defend a political figure because of the little D or R after his name.


You know what they say about the size of a mans sentence...


Is it like having big hands or a fancy sports car? :)


Actually I am an NPR guy.

Your response here mixes allusions, or perhaps euphemisms, I believe.

Having big hands is generally accepted to be the hallmark of a well endowed fellow, as the general standard for phallus size is the tip of the index finger to the junction of the thumb at the wrist. There are certainly exceptions to this rule.

Having a big/fast luxury sportscar and/or boat, (or perhaps collection of long lenses), referencing the psychological strategy of compensation. In this situation, a physically inferior person, usually with small hands, attempts to make up for lack of endowment.

Personally, I have average hands, an average car, and short lenses. But I have very long sentences.


ROFL!
05/31/2013 10:53:22 AM · #132
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Yes. I choose D with Richard.

If we had been speaking face-to-face you would hear me emphasize "know". I mean we didn't know for certain. It was a calculated guess. Option C presents that there is no other outcome but being betrayed by the Pakistanis. Real life doesn't often work in such certainties.

Actually I would probably have done my best to make C work.


So are you saying that if our government had intelligence that a group of Taliban or Al-Queda had gotten their hands on some nuclear material, that we shouldn't attempt to kill those people unless we knew with 100 percent certainty that the intelligence was accurate? Or do we have to wait until those people are on American soil, or in a country that gives us permission to go after them? Or, do we have to wait until Manhattan is uninhabitable due to the successful detonation of a dirty bomb?
05/31/2013 11:12:35 AM · #133
Where was this Judith in 2007 during Bush's war on terror? A very different Judith was around back then.

If you could gain intelligence about that same bomb by water boarding a prisoner, would you?

If intelligence about the same bomb could be obtained through warrantless wiretapping, should we utilize that?

If it happens that the prisoner that gives us info was housed at Guantanamo, was it good we kept it open?
05/31/2013 11:26:27 AM · #134
Can you answer my question?

I think you're hell bent on proving that the folks who are generally to the left on the political spectrum are now a bunch of hypocrites, but you can only do that if you know what our original positions were, and in my case you obviously have no idea about that.
05/31/2013 11:41:01 AM · #135
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Can you answer my question?

I think you're hell bent on proving that the folks who are generally to the left on the political spectrum are now a bunch of hypocrites, but you can only do that if you know what our original positions were, and in my case you obviously have no idea about that.


I know what your position on torture was. You called it a war crime:

Originally posted by Judith back in 2005:


You know what all this means, right?

It means that the Bush administration is trying to change the definition of torture to only the most extreme of extreme cases.

gingerbaker is correct, the administration has redefined torture more narrowly. And why has it done so? It has done so in order to allow U.S. government agents to engage in war crimes (acts that are war crimes under the prior definition of torture) and avoid legal accountability. This is at the heart of their redefinition exercise.


I do find it hypocritical that you were against the war of terror back then and now you are willing to violate the sovereignty of another country and kill civilians by accident to kill possible low level Al-Quaida agents. I honestly can't fathom it and if you had asked me before this conversation I would have assumed you would have been against it all (which would be a consistent position).

Message edited by author 2013-05-31 11:41:52.
05/31/2013 12:27:49 PM · #136
Yes, of course that was my position on torture, and it still is. Are you going to answer my question?

Let me put it another way. Clinton was trying to kill bin Laden back in the '90s. In your opinion, and knowing what we know now, do you think Clinton should not have been attempting to do that?

The thing we should stop doing in terms of our foreign and military policy, in my opinion, is making the world safe for Exxon Mobil and Chiquita Banana. If we stop doing that, the rest of this will take care of itself, eventually.
05/31/2013 12:50:16 PM · #137
I've answered your question previous (or you could deduce the answer). I think the harms of violating another country's sovereignty are potentially large. I would not invade. Your scenario is a bit odd anyway and there are lots of things we don't know. What are we going to do? Kill everybody but leave the nuclear bomb? How are we going to get the bomb home? What are we going to do with it? How are they planing on moving it? Can we just wait until they move it out of the country and then get them? Bottom line, yes, we have to wait until we get permission from the country. You assume the country is small and weak and can't do anything about our choices. What if it were in Russia? China? etc. etc. etc.

So you are against torture, but for killing people without trial, possibly killing innocents (either people in the way or people who weren't terrorists to start with), and doing it in countries where we do not belong. Why the difference? What makes torture worse than killing?

Message edited by author 2013-05-31 12:51:27.
05/31/2013 12:55:25 PM · #138
Originally posted by DrAchoo:



I do find it hypocritical that you were against the war of terror back then and now you are willing to violate the sovereignty of another country and kill civilians by accident to kill possible low level Al-Quaida agents.


There are 4 fallicies in this statement.

The "war on terror" was not a war on terror. Few liberals objected to the invasion of Afghanistan, which was hosting the authors of 9/11. When our leaders decided to invade Iraq and change a host of other laws to suit their "world vision" in the name of the "war on terror" many people objected. Actually making war on actual terrorists was accepted, the rest of the baggage that came with it was not.

You seem to be drawing a distinction between a drone attack and an incursion by conventional forces that does not exist in international law.

As the numbers I posted earlier in the thread showed drones have a much lower civilian death count as an absolute and as a percentage relative to targeted combatants than any other method of military force.

The wording "possible low level Al-Quaida agents" would imply that there is some level at which such action is allowable in your mind. Yet you disagreed with the raid that took out Bin Laden.
05/31/2013 12:58:21 PM · #139
I didn't ask you if you'd invade. I asked if you'd have gone after bin Laden back in the Clinton presidency if it meant bombing inside Afghanistan or wherever he was located at the time, even if you didn't have permission from the government of that country.
05/31/2013 12:58:28 PM · #140
imagine if a foreign nation a conducted drone attacks that collaterally killed civilians here in the US.

05/31/2013 01:02:07 PM · #141
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

I didn't ask you if you'd invade. I asked if you'd have gone after bin Laden back in the Clinton presidency if it meant bombing inside Afghanistan or wherever he was located at the time, even if you didn't have permission from the government of that country.


Bin laden would heave been dead during the Clinton presidency had he not been tied up in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

That blow job ultimately cost a lot of lives and a loss of some of our rights privileges.

Message edited by author 2013-05-31 13:02:38.
05/31/2013 01:08:32 PM · #142
Originally posted by Mike:

imagine if a foreign nation a conducted drone attacks that collaterally killed civilians here in the US.


OK I have done that. Now I wonder is that substantially better or worse than having your country invaded and occupied, foreign soldiers speeding through the streets of your hometown.
05/31/2013 01:20:05 PM · #143
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Mike:

imagine if a foreign nation a conducted drone attacks that collaterally killed civilians here in the US.


OK I have done that. Now I wonder is that substantially better or worse than having your country invaded and occupied, foreign soldiers speeding through the streets of your hometown.


This just seems like such odd reasoning. Imagine I cut your hand off. Now imagine I cut your whole arm off. Now are you more willing to let me cut your hand off?
05/31/2013 01:22:52 PM · #144
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Mike:

imagine if a foreign nation a conducted drone attacks that collaterally killed civilians here in the US.


OK I have done that. Now I wonder is that substantially better or worse than having your country invaded and occupied, foreign soldiers speeding through the streets of your hometown.


i actually prefer you did neither, i may be less inclined to drive to you neighborhood and throw eggs at your windows, after which you get all your neighbors, come to my neighborhood and burn it down.
05/31/2013 01:56:14 PM · #145
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:



I do find it hypocritical that you were against the war of terror back then and now you are willing to violate the sovereignty of another country and kill civilians by accident to kill possible low level Al-Quaida agents.


There are 4 fallicies in this statement.

The "war on terror" was not a war on terror. Few liberals objected to the invasion of Afghanistan, which was hosting the authors of 9/11. When our leaders decided to invade Iraq and change a host of other laws to suit their "world vision" in the name of the "war on terror" many people objected. Actually making war on actual terrorists was accepted, the rest of the baggage that came with it was not.

You seem to be drawing a distinction between a drone attack and an incursion by conventional forces that does not exist in international law.

As the numbers I posted earlier in the thread showed drones have a much lower civilian death count as an absolute and as a percentage relative to targeted combatants than any other method of military force.

The wording "possible low level Al-Quaida agents" would imply that there is some level at which such action is allowable in your mind. Yet you disagreed with the raid that took out Bin Laden.


Ok, my thoughts about this, in order:

The "war on terror" is not synonymous with Iraq. It was much larger. Iraq could have been a war on terror had our intelligence been correct (but it wasn't and that should be a cautionary tale about making remote decisions based on intelligence). If you were belligerent about "laws being changed" then I think you should continue to be so as we change how countries deal with countries (ie. respecting their sovereignty) which also comes down to "laws being changed".

I don't think I'm making any distinction between drones and invasions. Usually when invasions occur, war is declared and rules of engagement are in force. This is why drones are dangerous or "wrong" because we are doing no such thing. The operation that killed Bin Laden was with soldiers and not drones and would fall victim to the same principle.

Percentages don't really matter when you discuss moral principles. At least they don't mean much in my book. The best you can offer is one is "more wrong" and the other is somewhat "less wrong", but they are both wrong.

I wasn't implying that there is some level of leadership where things are ok. Those are scenarios you (or Judith) keep offering up to me to see if I'll bite. The reality is those scenarios are irrelevant to the vast majority of our drone attacks. You are aware that we have carried out "signature strikes" where we don't even know who we are killing but they seem to act like terrorists so that's good enough. Do you think this is acceptable?

Message edited by author 2013-05-31 13:57:34.
05/31/2013 02:45:18 PM · #146
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Few liberals objected to the invasion of Afghanistan, which was hosting the authors of 9/11.


I was one of the few.
05/31/2013 03:00:03 PM · #147
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Usually when invasions occur, war is declared and rules of engagement are in force.

The last time war was declared by the US was 1941. Since then US military forces has been used on foreign soil 120 times without a declaration of war.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Percentages don't really matter when you discuss moral principles. At least they don't mean much in my book. The best you can offer is one is "more wrong" and the other is somewhat "less wrong", but they are both wrong.

As Stalin said "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic." Killing on any scale is wrong but I am puzzled by those who wring their hands over the hundreds of innocents who have died in drone strikes, while shrugging off the hundreds of thousands of innocents who have died in the invasions. Moral purity is lovely for the armchair theorists, but at a certain point if you actually have to accomplish a specific goal in a military setting you have to find the least horrible way to attain your goal.
05/31/2013 03:08:20 PM · #148
Ahhhh, reminiscing in the old "Bush lied!" type threads from pre-2008 makes this discussion look like the Bizarro thread (with the exception of Don, who consistently thinks he is consistent). Carry on, it's quite entertaining.
05/31/2013 03:10:49 PM · #149
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

(with the exception of Don, who consistently thinks he is consistent)

I do not.
05/31/2013 03:25:16 PM · #150
Originally posted by posthumous:

I was one of the few.


I drove around with my "Barbara Lee speaks for me" bumper sticker. She was the only member of Congress who voted against beginning this war when she gave this prescient speech. I marched and gave money and all that good stuff. I though Ramsey Clark was right when he said that we had laws to fight terrorism, that they were murderers, and that was enough. We needed no new laws, no special prisons or tribunals, that our justice system was equipped to deal with the threat.

However we got into a war. Now we have to get out of it. You cant just fold up the tents and quit because by going to war you tend to piss people off, and they may not want to just quit. So you have to fight to a win, or a standstill. It is easy to get into a fight, getting out of one is much harder. Same applies to Guantánamo,it was a bad idea to open it and create all these new categories of prisoners that we do not know how to deal with. It is proving much harder to close it than it was to open. Creating problems is always much easier than resolving them.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 06/17/2019 11:31:40 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/17/2019 11:31:40 PM EDT.