This is why I think Mitt Romney is who we need running this country...

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Tex, you are evil and you don't know it. But I know it. You are a snake.

Got medication?

[JohnnyLingo]

Labeling others evil is a very mullah thing to do.

Admit you are a mullah and embrace your judgmental nature, Mike.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Labeling others evil is a very mullah thing to do.

Admit you are a mullah and embrace your judgmental nature, Mike.

My patriarchal blessing says that I can identify snakes. Please don't contradict God again Lingo, because that's what you're doing right now.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What currency is that? Our current enemies come from the Middle East and are familiar with brutal interrogation techniques. Waterboarding surely is torture, but if you think that they are going to refrain from attacking us because we "might" waterboard them, well- it didn't stop them when they knew far worse could happen to them.

As for any first strike policy that we may have, if indeed it is for "any reason" as you purport, I would consider it equally without moral basis.

I apprecaite that you might have ahard time believeing someone that types as poorly as me, but it is in fact the policy that was in place. Moreover, it was even worse then becasue our missiles were armed and prepared to launch more readily than they are now. It oucld have happned easily, quickly and we were on a hair trigger.

Here is the question, I guess, in my mind: What moral authority do we gain ro regain by saying we won't waterboard? To regain it as you describe it wouldn't we need to sort of give a menu of torture approaches and say whether we are using them or not? I am not sure this would be useful to us. But wihtout it, then simply announcing on waterboarding doesnt' seem very useful. The larger issue is should we announce policies on specific techniques or tactics of war at all? What is the morality of doing so? Morally, I am not sure we must do this, as long as we govern oursleves in a moral way.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

My patriarchal blessing says that I can identify snakes. Please don't contradict God again Lingo, because that's what you're doing right now.

Wow, quoting from your patriarchal blessing.

Even my dad's never done that.

Waters, are you running for Stake President?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

I apprecaite that you might have ahard time believeing someone that types as poorly as me, but it is in fact the policy that was in place. Moreover, it was even worse then becasue our missiles were armed and prepared to launch more readily than they are now. It oucld have happned easily, quickly and we were on a hair trigger.

Here is the question, I guess, in my mind: What moral authority do we gain ro regain by saying we won't waterboard? To regain it as you describe it wouldn't we need to sort of give a menu of torture approaches and say whether we are using them or not? I am not sure this would be useful to us. But wihtout it, then simply announcing on waterboarding doesnt' seem very useful. The larger issue is should we announce policies on specific techniques or tactics of war at all? What is the morality of doing so? Morally, I am not sure we must do this, as long as we govern oursleves in a moral way.

No, again (as I already mentioned) I don't expect us to give a full "menu" of what we will or will not do. I do expect that when asked if we will do something that clearly IS torture, we will say no and reaffirm our commitment not to torture people.

Perhaps you don't think we "regain" moral authority in this fashion. But we certainly don't deteriorate it any further either (which is precisely what does happen when we say we will waterboard, or we might waterboard).

And we announce positions on tactics of war all the time. That is precisely what the Geneva Convention is (among others). An announcement on appropriate tactics in war. People now want to act like such announcements aren't good for humanity because the enemy never made such a statement. I would argue that is simply one of the factors that makes me hope we win, and not a reason for us to fall to their level.

And I am not taking issue on whether or not we have a "first strike" policy. I am saying that if it is what you claim (I have no knowledge either way), then it is wrong too. I fail to see how citing something wrong can support another wrong action.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

I apprecaite that you might have ahard time believeing someone that types as poorly as me, but it is in fact the policy that was in place. Moreover, it was even worse then becasue our missiles were armed and prepared to launch more readily than they are now. It oucld have happned easily, quickly and we were on a hair trigger.

Here is the question, I guess, in my mind: What moral authority do we gain ro regain by saying we won't waterboard? To regain it as you describe it wouldn't we need to sort of give a menu of torture approaches and say whether we are using them or not? I am not sure this would be useful to us. But wihtout it, then simply announcing on waterboarding doesnt' seem very useful. The larger issue is should we announce policies on specific techniques or tactics of war at all? What is the morality of doing so? Morally, I am not sure we must do this, as long as we govern oursleves in a moral way.

What purpose does it serve to not respond whether we are waterboarding, if in fact we don't and won't do it?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Wow, quoting from your patriarchal blessing.

Even my dad's never done that.

Waters, are you running for Stake President?

I'm willing to bet an unlimited sum that Waters' patriarchal blessing does not contain the word "snake", "serpent", "reptilian" or "Plissken"

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm willing to bet an unlimited sum that Waters' patriarchal blessing does not contain the word "snake", "serpent", "reptilian" or "Plissken"

Well, yes, but I figured if I said, "claiming to quote from" Waters would have called down fire from heaven to consume me.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, again (as I already mentioned) I don't expect us to give a full "menu" of what we will or will not do. I do expect that when asked if we will do something that clearly IS torture, we will say no and reaffirm our commitment not to torture people.

Perhaps you don't think we "regain" moral authority in this fashion. But we certainly don't deteriorate it any further either (which is precisely what does happen when we say we will waterboard, or we might waterboard).

And we announce positions on tactics of war all the time. That is precisely what the Geneva Convention is (among others). An announcement on appropriate tactics in war. People now want to act like such announcements aren't good for humanity because the enemy never made such a statement. I would argue that is simply one of the factors that makes me hope we win, and not a reason for us to fall to their level.

And I am not taking issue on whether or not we have a "first strike" policy. I am saying that if it is what you claim (I have no knowledge either way), then it is wrong too. I fail to see how citing something wrong can support another wrong action.

I concede that the Geneva COnvention is a distingushing feature, but it is certainly not a document that relates to tactical issues (but neither does waterboarding, really, to be fair).

I am not really sure what advanatge or disadvantage the waterboarding issue has for us as a country or for the cndidates. All I am saying is that the need to take a public position on it is not a moral imperative to me, and our refusl is certainly consistent with what we did ni the cold war.

BTW, the ability to reserve a first strike positino acutally gave us quite a bit of leverage with the Soviets in arms neogttiations and other encounters and may have kept them quite a bit more cautious in thie conventional military acitivies, as well as making them keep some of their client states in line.