Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster
This is an interesting issue. I thought Romney looked weak on this question at th debate and I was (and have been) persuaded by McCain that water boarding is simply unacceptable. OTOH, the THREAT of doing something has long been a big part of our military and diplomatic approach. Anybody that grew up before '89 recalls the doctrine of mutual assured destruction. Remember, that we would not agree or state that we would never commit a nuclear first strike. Think about that in terms of morality. Even so, that refusal may have given us an advantage, even if small, that was exploited to avoid war, keep the Soviets at bay, and perhaps even contribute to the downfall of the wall, so to speak. I don't like water boarding, but I also don't like the idea of a first strike. Maybe neither one should be a matter of public pronouncements.
|
COME ON. Torturing individuals or even saying you're going to do it isn't the same thing as MAD during the cold war. This isn't worth wasting much space or time on but for one thing I don't think acquiring nuclear weapons and saying you'll use them in retailation if someone strikes first with nuclear weapons or invades Western Europe with thousands of tanks and millions of soldiers violates the Geneva Convention.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be.
—Paul Auster
Last edited by SeattleUte; 11-30-2007 at 07:42 PM.
|