Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Why? Why is torture morally wrong and dropping bombs on cities, even if every attempt to minimize collateral damage is made, is not? What is the difference?

Who said that dropping bombs on cities was OK?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who said that dropping bombs on cities was OK?

War is morally wrong?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
I never it said that it makes it right. I was diputed the idea that if we torture our prisoners that makes us the same as them. If we torture our prisoners that does not make us the same as the Baathists. There are also levels of torture. Did we torture thousand's to death - no. There is no black or white just shades of Grey. And no matter what you say about what our troops did in Iraq we are still a great deal of a lot lighter Grey than Saddam Hussein's regime.

That's a pretty low bar. I don't really care to engage in a theroretical debate about when torture can or cannot be used (I can envision instances where it could be justified and I'm inherently suspicious of absolute rules - I'm a relativist fuck). The widespread abuse of detainees in Iraq (I've heard little about the situations in Gitmo and Afghanistan) is unjustifiable under any standard.

Bilmore dismisses this because "shit happens" in war. My opinion is that because "shit happens," it is foreseeable, particularly this kind of shit which is not one of Rumsfelds unknown unknowns. Because it was foreseeable, it was capable of being prevented. Someone, and not just some dipshit corporal from Bumfuck National Guard, is responsible.

To help restore our credibility internationally (yes, bilmore, it will benefit us in the long run to have international credibility), we need to investigate the matter fully and openly to find out how and why this happened and to punish those criminally responsible. Some efforts have been made at this, but the military has been less than forthcoming, perhaps enboldened by an adminstration that seems to tolerate this sort of activity and levels charges of partisanship and lack of patriotism at any who would question them.

bilmore also asks us to look at the prisoner abuse in the context of the war at large. There is something to this. People suffer and die in war. However, I would ask bilmore to look at the abuse in the context of the war as seen by many (if not a majority) of people throughout the world. They see us as an imperialistic, conquering nation who inflicts torture on the vanquished. I don't agree with this characterization, but I am not myopic enough to think it doesn't need to be addressed. Dismissing what happened with a "shit happens" attitude is not helpful.

Oh, and club, though I am a relativist fuck, I cannot envision a circumstance that justifies institutionalized rape. Should our government be in the business of training rapists?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
War is morally wrong?

Are you unable to distinguish between, on the one hand, shooting at enemy soldiers with a rifle (e.g.), and, on the other, indiscriminately dropping bombs on urban areas?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
The fact that we debate whether or not torture is OK makes us different. The Nazi, the Communists and the Baathists never did any soul searching over torture and that makes us better right there.

So it's okay because we thought about it really hard before we did it?

Or, more accurately, after we did it....

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Are you unable to distinguish between, on the one hand, shooting at enemy soldiers with a rifle (e.g.), and, on the other, indiscriminately dropping bombs on urban areas?

I didn't say indiscriminately and, in any event, I was just using bombing as an example of a war-time action that is hard to distinguish from torture. I'm happy to use shooting in the alternative if it makes you feel better.

[Colonel_Nathan_Jessup]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who said that dropping bombs on cities was OK?

Harry S. Truman. And we now have cheap televisions and Honda Accords.

God Bless the United States of America.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who said that dropping bombs on cities was OK?

When there wasn't accurate targeting technology, and when there were legitimate military or industrial targets in said cities (like in WWII)? Me.

Even then, there were attacks that were unjustifiable -- like Dresden (probably) and the firebombing of Tokyo.

I have no problem with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By causing a surrender without the need to invade the home islands, the bombs almost certainly saved more Japanese lives than they cost, and (selfish reason) probably saved my father's life.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
How do you know they never did any soul searching? No free press.

soul searching? do you want me to tell everyone where you stopped when you took your you know what you know where?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Col_Nathan_Jessup
we now have cheap televisions and Honda Accords.

Ever try wasabi peas? mmmm

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I didn't say indiscriminately and, in any event, I was just using bombing as an example of a war-time action that is hard to distinguish from torture. I'm happy to use shooting in the alternative if it makes you feel better.

The point is, it's not hard to distinguish either from torture, although bombing a city just for the sake of bombing a city is pretty reprehensible too.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Bob
When there wasn't accurate targeting technology, and when there were legitimate military or industrial targets in said cities (like in WWII)? Me.

Even then, there were attacks that were unjustifiable -- like Dresden (probably) and the firebombing of Tokyo.

I have no problem with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By causing a surrender without the need to invade the home islands, the bombs almost certainly saved more Japanese lives than they cost, and (selfish reason) probably saved my father's life.

Setting the atom bomb aside, what we did to Germany and Japan was pretty borderline, to say the least, and might have gotten a lot of people tried as war criminals had we lost the war.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Setting the atom bomb aside, what we did to Germany and Japan was pretty borderline, to say the least, and might have gotten a lot of people tried as war criminals had we lost the war.

A lot of people lost the war to Germany and Japan, but I don't recall ever seeing any evidence that they tried any losers as "war criminals".

Maybe its because nobody committed war crimes against Germany and/or Japan (hmmm, maybe France should try this next time they get a chance... nothing else seems to work for them). Or maybe its because the Germans and Japanese didn't really subscribe to anything even close to the concept.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
That's a pretty low bar. I don't really care to engage in a theroretical debate about when torture can or cannot be used (I can envision instances where it could be justified and I'm inherently suspicious of absolute rules - I'm a relativist fuck). The widespread abuse of detainees in Iraq (I've heard little about the situations in Gitmo and Afghanistan) is unjustifiable under any standard.

Bilmore dismisses this because "shit happens" in war. My opinion is that because "shit happens," it is foreseeable, particularly this kind of shit which is not one of Rumsfelds unknown unknowns. Because it was foreseeable, it was capable of being prevented. Someone, and not just some dipshit corporal from Bumfuck National Guard, is responsible.

To help restore our credibility internationally (yes, bilmore, it will benefit us in the long run to have international credibility), we need to investigate the matter fully and openly to find out how and why this happened and to punish those criminally responsible. Some efforts have been made at this, but the military has been less than forthcoming, perhaps enboldened by an adminstration that seems to tolerate this sort of activity and levels charges of partisanship and lack of patriotism at any who would question them.

bilmore also asks us to look at the prisoner abuse in the context of the war at large. There is something to this. People suffer and die in war. However, I would ask bilmore to look at the abuse in the context of the war as seen by many (if not a majority) of people throughout the world. They see us as an imperialistic, conquering nation who inflicts torture on the vanquished. I don't agree with this characterization, but I am not myopic enough to think it doesn't need to be addressed. Dismissing what happened with a "shit happens" attitude is not helpful.

Oh, and club, though I am a relativist fuck, I cannot envision a circumstance that justifies institutionalized rape. Should our government be in the business of training rapists?

I agree with all of this.

When I find myself aspiring to witticisms, insults and rage, and I see the lizard writing something that I should've said in the first place, I can tell it's been a long day.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
A lot of people lost the war to Germany and Japan, but I don't recall ever seeing any evidence that they tried any losers as "war criminals".

Um, what?

Maybe its because nobody committed war crimes against Germany and/or Japan (hmmm, maybe France should try this next time they get a chance... nothing else seems to work for them). Or maybe its because the Germans and Japanese didn't really subscribe to anything even close to the concept.

Or maybe it's because the winners get to try people for war crimes. What we did to Dresden is pretty similar to what the Germans did to Rotterdam earlier in the war, which caused massive outrage. Strategic bombing is really just another name for terrorism, right? We were destroying Axis cities in the hopes that they'd lose the will to fight.