A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
A fountain of profundity. You should carry a tape recorder when you're around him.

like this one time, we're doing a deposition at opposing counsel's place. I am pasing him post its with suggested questions. as we're getting ready to go there are about 30 crumpled post its in the trash. opposing counsel says "are you sure you want to leave those? confidential?" my guy goes "ummm, all of those made it into the record. you can look if you want."

see that's the thing with us truly smart socks. Everything we say or do is recorded by other people. we don't need no stinky tape recorders.

[Penske_Account]

Edwards is runnning.....look out below.....

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Then why are we drawing parallels to the death count in WWII?

Because people call it a war and talk about how "expensive" this "war" is, and the incredible casualties of this "war". If you want to call this a war, then you have to acknowledge that compared to other wars, this war has been unbelievably cheap in both terms of US combat deaths and money spent.

The 9-11 attack was one of, if not the worst attacks in the history of the United States (in terms of US civilian casualties caused by a foreign power). Our response, and the concomitant cost in terms of lives and money, has been unbelievably mild.

After Pearl Harbor, which were 2000 mostly military deaths, this country went ballistic, but after 9-11, which was three thousand mostly civilian deaths, this country barely stirred.

If you think the expense or the causalities have been high then you should at least refer to it as a minor military skirmish in the Middle East. For a minor military skirmish the cost in blood and treasure might be considered some what high; but not for a war.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Is that original material, or di you lift it from someplace else?

I always wondered what those numbers were so I looked them up. It was incredibly easy. So no, they were not original. If you really want the links I can give them to you, but all those numbers are easy enough to Google.

[Spanky]

When Jesus was executed by the Italians (Hi Sidd) Tiberius was Emperor. Jesus was clearly executed under the authority of the Emperor as crucifixion was an exclusively Roman form of execution and at that time everything official Romans did, they did in the name of the Emperor. Tiberus, was not only the Emporer but the Pontifex Maximus:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:...s&ct=clnk&cd=1

So Jesus was killed under the authority of the Pontifex Maximus of Rome. And now most of the Christian world looks to Jesus' heir on earth as the Pontifex Maximus in Rome (the Pope).


So Christians worship a God that is Jewish, and accept as his intercessor on earth, a person that holds the same office as the man that was responsible for executing that very God.

I belong to one weird religion.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Because people call it a war and talk about how "expensive" this "war" is, and the incredible casualties of this "war". If you want to call this a war, then you have to acknowledge that compared to other wars, this war has been unbelievably cheap in both terms of US combat deaths and money spent.

The 9-11 attack was one of, if not the worst attacks in the history of the United States (in terms of US civilian casualties caused by a foreign power). Our response, and the concomitant cost in terms of lives and money, has been unbelievably mild.

After Pearl Harbor, which were 2000 mostly military deaths, this country went ballistic, but after 9-11, which was three thousand mostly civilian deaths, this country barely stirred.

If you think the expense or the causalities have been high then you should at least refer to it as a minor military skirmish in the Middle East. For a minor military skirmish the cost in blood and treasure might be considered some what high; but not for a war.

Wait, so we're not in the middle of a war on terror?

Quick, call the White House know, let Bush know!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Because people call it a war and talk about how "expensive" this "war" is, and the incredible casualties of this "war". If you want to call this a war, then you have to acknowledge that compared to other wars, this war has been unbelievably cheap in both terms of US combat deaths and money spent.

The 9-11 attack was one of, if not the worst attacks in the history of the United States (in terms of US civilian casualties caused by a foreign power). Our response, and the concomitant cost in terms of lives and money, has been unbelievably mild.

After Pearl Harbor, which were 2000 mostly military deaths, this country went ballistic, but after 9-11, which was three thousand mostly civilian deaths, this country barely stirred.

If you think the expense or the causalities have been high then you should at least refer to it as a minor military skirmish in the Middle East. For a minor military skirmish the cost in blood and treasure might be considered some what high; but not for a war.

Personally, I would love to see Bush, Cheney, McCain, and the Republican leadership in general start calling the war in Iraq the "minor inexpensive skirmish in the Middle East." That would do wonders for their credibility.

What's your theory, Spanky, on why they have not adopted this linguistic tactic? Does the liberal media conspiracy exercise mind control over them?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
After Pearl Harbor, which were 2000 mostly military deaths, this country went ballistic, but after 9-11, which was three thousand mostly civilian deaths, this country barely stirred.

I generally refrain from responding to the same post twice, but this one deserved special notice.

This country barely stirred after 9-11? Which country are you referring to? Were you living somewhere else in 2001?

I remember the US lining up to support their President, giving him a staggering approval rating and level of support. I remember the country expressing overwhelming support for war in Afghanistan. And I remember the country expressing strong support for war in Iraq, too, after Bush fraudulently tied Iraq to 9-11.

Sadly, Bush and the R leadership used this historic moment to tell Americans to go shopping, to lead us into a foolish war on Iraq, and to solidify their power and brand anyone who opposed them a terrorist.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky I take both a utilitarian view and a moral view, not just a utilitarian view. You stated I just take a utilitarian view which I reject. I think the utilitarian view revolves around whether torture is effective and if it is; is there another means that can be used.

The moral issue revolves around whether or not torture is always immoral. To me the moral issue has to revolve around the UMC which is an instinct we all have. Like I said before, the use of the term moral, immoral, just, and unjust implies there is a UMC that we all agree on. Just like the term legal and non legal assumes that there is a legal code we all agree is valid. Without a legal code that we agree on the terms legal and illegal are meaningless. Or if we use two different legal codes we can argue all day but get no where. If there is not a UMC, then what is moral to you may not be moral to me, and we can argue about it all day but get nowhere. If morality is subjective it is useless to argue about it.

When it comes to the moral issues we simply turn to our instincts. When you give the ticking time bomb example most people will say that in that case it is moral to torture the terrorist. The question of “what most people would say” is relevant because you are talking about the UMC and therefore peoples instincts. If there is an internal UMC inside all of us, then the majority of us should come down the same way on the issue. If that were not the case, then what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The logic of the position would trump majority vote, and you wouldn’t care “what most people think”. In my view, if most people think that it is OK to torture the terrorist in the ticking time bomb case, that is the end of the discussion. It is clearly moral to do so. Other people may try and argue that it is an immoral imperative, but for reasons I think are obvious, if there is such thing as an immoral imperative then we can never agree on what is moral and immoral. The whole morality argument becomes fruitless and irrelevant.

Now there is an issue of how the obvious morality of the situation should be translated into the legal code. There are arguments on both sides. This issue is where the issue of abuse becomes central to the argument. But until you agree that torture is moral in some circumstances, then you can't address the times it can be used, and you can't address the issue of abuse.

In this part of the conversation, I was just trying to understand your views, not arguing with you. I characterized your views as utilitarian, because I understand that you see the morality (or immorality) of torture as a function of outcomes. For example, in the ticking-time-bomb scenario, you think it's moral to torture a terrorist because the innocent lives saved through learning information are more valuable than the harm done to the guilty terrorist. I didn't mean to suggest that utilitarian is immoral, from a descriptive perspective -- clearly, it is a view of morality. How do the moral issues fit with the utilitarian perspective in your mind?

So I'm a little confused about your paragraph above about the moral issue and the UMC. At this point, I'm not trying to find common ground (yet) -- I'm just trying to understand your views. Also, the question of legality is potentially distinct -- one can imagine reasons why morality might permit what the law does not, or vice versa. But I wasn't there yet, either.

I'm inclined to table the other issues raised by our posts until I understand where you're coming from on this stuff.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I generally refrain from responding to the same post twice, but this one deserved special notice.

This country barely stirred after 9-11? Which country are you referring to? Were you living somewhere else in 2001?

I remember the US lining up to support their President, giving him a staggering approval rating and level of support. I remember the country expressing overwhelming support for war in Afghanistan. And I remember the country expressing strong support for war in Iraq, too, after Bush fraudulently tied Iraq to 9-11.

Sadly, Bush and the R leadership used this historic moment to tell Americans to go shopping, to lead us into a foolish war on Iraq, and to solidify their power and brand anyone who opposed them a terrorist.

Wrong. Certainly a segment of right minded red-state Americans stirred, but unfortunately the reaction of about 40-something percent of Americans, made up primarily of the faux-intellectual urban liberal crowd and the MSM, stirred to the same extent of a sleeping person letting out a loud fart without waking. Any recognition of the gravity of the attack or the ongoing threat was thin at best and created an illusory foundation of their support, which when real sacrifice and commitment was called for collapsed under the weight of their immorally relativism and now has devolved to a call for cowardly and irresponsible cuttting and running.

Sad that these people don't understand G-d's gift of freedom to us.....

On another note, good to see that as part of her eulogisation of the late President Ford, Cindy Sheehan has held him responsible for the deaths of 3000 American troops in Iraq. The liberal inteligentsia must be proud to have her as its moral leader....right up there with its other shining lights....a rapist, a murderer and a racist.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Personally, I would love to see Bush, Cheney, McCain, and the Republican leadership in general start calling the war in Iraq the "minor inexpensive skirmish in the Middle East." That would do wonders for their credibility.

What's your theory, Spanky, on why they have not adopted this linguistic tactic? Does the liberal media conspiracy exercise mind control over them?

I don't think they can or should. They need to call it a war to insure that we get money and troops for the operation. In addition, no one wants to hear that their son or daughter has died in a "minor military skirmish" in the Middle East.

But anyone with an IQ above six who comments on the war in the media or as a pundit (And especially those that like to see themselves as cutting through the spin and the political B.S.) should see that what is happening is a minor military skirmish and refer to it as such. We should hear over and over again from the pundits that the administration calls this a war, but for a war there are practically no deaths, and for a war this operation is incredibly cheap.

Instead the concept that this is a war is accepted yet everyone focuses on how expensive this war is and how many US military personnel have been lost. However, if you understand that the media is full of liberal morons who don’t understand how important it is that we prevail, and that staying the course is relatively inexpensive in terms of blood and treasure, you get what we have to day. Plus there is the added bonus if they mischaracterize what is happening that will encourage the US population to want to pull out, which they want, and although that will be disastrous for US foreign policy, it will make the Bush administration look bad, which is something they want so badly they are willing to sacrifice the interests of this country.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't think they can or should. They need to call it a war to insure that we get money and troops for the operation. In addition, no one wants to hear that their son or daughter has died in a "minor military skirmish" in the Middle East.

But anyone with an IQ above six who comments on the war in the media or as a pundit (And especially those that like to see themselves as cutting through the spin and the political B.S.) should see that what is happening is a minor military skirmish and refer to it as such. We should hear over and over again from the pundits that the administration calls this a war, but for a war there are practically no deaths, and for a war this operation is incredibly cheap.

Instead the concept that this is a war is accepted yet everyone focuses on how expensive this war is and how many US military personnel have been lost. However, if you understand that the media is full of liberal morons who don’t understand how important it is that we prevail, and that staying the course is relatively inexpensive in terms of blood and treasure, you get what we have to day. Plus there is the added bonus if they mischaracterize what is happening that will encourage the US population to want to pull out, which they want, and although that will be disastrous for US foreign policy, it will make the Bush administration look bad, which is something they want so badly they are willing to sacrifice the interests of this country.

Suppose that there were two types of people in the media advocating withdrawal from Iraq:

(1) the liberal morons who are ignorant (they don't understand how important it is that we prevail, or how cheap it would be in blood and treasure), deceitful (they mischaracterize what's happening there to fool the public), unpatriotic (willing to sacrifice the interests of the country), and partisan (they just want to make Bush look bad); and

(2) another crowd who are well-informed about the Middle East and Iraq, who have come to the sincere conclusion that our continued presence there is making things worse, and that only by withdrawing will national reconciliation and an end to the insurgency be possible, who think this is in the best interests of the country, and who have said this even when they worry that it's not in the best of interests of their political party, be it Republican or Democrat.

If that were the case, how would you try to tell the different between the two groups?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't think they can or should. They need to call it a war to insure that we get money and troops for the operation. In addition, no one wants to hear that their son or daughter has died in a "minor military skirmish" in the Middle East.

But anyone with an IQ above six who comments on the war in the media or as a pundit (And especially those that like to see themselves as cutting through the spin and the political B.S.) should see that what is happening is a minor military skirmish and refer to it as such. We should hear over and over again from the pundits that the administration calls this a war, but for a war there are practically no deaths, and for a war this operation is incredibly cheap.

Instead the concept that this is a war is accepted yet everyone focuses on how expensive this war is and how many US military personnel have been lost. However, if you understand that the media is full of liberal morons who don’t understand how important it is that we prevail, and that staying the course is relatively inexpensive in terms of blood and treasure, you get what we have to day. Plus there is the added bonus if they mischaracterize what is happening that will encourage the US population to want to pull out, which they want, and although that will be disastrous for US foreign policy, it will make the Bush administration look bad, which is something they want so badly they are willing to sacrifice the interests of this country.

So the Admin should call it a war but no one else should? Interesting view.

This war is hardly cheap, in terms of either lives or money. In terms of money, the cost is approaching $400 billion -- more, in present dollars, than the Vietnam war (we can call that one a "war", right?)

Nor is the war cheap in terms of lives. To begin with, the suggestion that 3000 dead US soldiers (and 22,000 wounded) is "cheap" is offensive. But the relatively low casualty toll is due largely to the nature of the warfare. "Asymmetric" warfare always involves relatively low casualties on the side of the technologically advanced army. And the US power and manner of fighting limits casualties even more.

The Soviet Union fought a war in Afghanistan (we call that one a "war", right?) that left the nation mortally (and thankfully) wounded. How many soldiers do you think died there -- 100,000? It was only 15,000, about .1% of what the USSR lost in World War II. By your analysis, that wasn't just a minor skirmish, it was a Sunday drive with a flat tire.

Finally, the notion that a war that ties down 1/3 of the US Army is merely a "minor skirmish" ... well, let's just say that if anyone discussing this issue has an IQ of less than six, it's the person who made that claim.


The article Less cited was silly. Hank's response to that -- saying that comparing the deaths on 9/11 to the deaths in Iraq is silly -- was a sensible response. Your efforts to minimize the catastrophe in Iraq by pointing to traffic deaths, etc. is just continuing the silliness.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Suppose that there were two types of people in the media advocating withdrawal from Iraq:

(1) the liberal morons who are ignorant (they don't understand how important it is that we prevail, or how cheap it would be in blood and treasure), deceitful (they mischaracterize what's happening there to fool the public), unpatriotic (willing to sacrifice the interests of the country), and partisan (they just want to make Bush look bad); and

(2) another crowd who are well-informed about the Middle East and Iraq, who have come to the sincere conclusion that our continued presence there is making things worse, and that only by withdrawing will national reconciliation and an end to the insurgency be possible, who think this is in the best interests of the country, and who have said this even when they worry that it's not in the best of interests of their political party, be it Republican or Democrat.

If that were the case, how would you try to tell the different between the two groups?

Easy. (2) is a null set, in Spanky-land. Tautologies are fun!

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If that were the case, how would you try to tell the different between the two groups?

Which media outlet publishes the pundit's views?