The debate for dummies
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 28,318
Likes: 9
From: This is not my house!
Originally Posted by brantshali,Oct 7 2004, 10:18 AM
I was actually having this same debate/discussion at dinner last night. ...
As for the answer...the dirty one is that a solution would be to treat the war on terrorism like we...
As for the answer...the dirty one is that a solution would be to treat the war on terrorism like we...
You are right on the money. There also seem to be enough examples of 'behaviour' that is outside the norm to suspect there are plenty of things going on the public would rather not know about too. (Private jails, humiliation in prisons, etc.)
None ot this seems acceptable but failure, especially for those with the butt of a rifle on their shoulder... failure seems less acceptable.
A new type of war is upon us... I wonder if we can try one withough killing and violence?
Former Moderator
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 52,827
Likes: 17
From: State of Confusion
To me it starts with what role agreements/treaties/whatever such as the Geneva Convention play in a modern war on the "nationless enemy" Do we hold ourself to this higher standard or do we fight down at the level of the lowest common denominator.
Is it more important to win or to maintain "moral superiority" or whatever the proper term is?
Is it more important to win or to maintain "moral superiority" or whatever the proper term is?
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 93,305
Likes: 820
From: Nowhere
Originally Posted by brantshali,Oct 7 2004, 12:23 PM
Yep, these are the essential questions that bound the issue for us. We could, in fact, do WHATEVER it takes to catch/defeat terrorists and I believe we have the resources to do it...at least to a great extent. However, the flip side is that the process of utilizing all of those resources would also DRASTICALLY impede the "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Bacon" philosophy that I believe this nation is founded on.
The doors at the borders would have to be slammed shut. The FBI, CIA and others would have to be given free reign to do what they do.
This process would essentially change the face of the game to terrorists holding us physically/emotionally hostage or making us defensive to our own country having a similar impact on us.
The doors at the borders would have to be slammed shut. The FBI, CIA and others would have to be given free reign to do what they do.
This process would essentially change the face of the game to terrorists holding us physically/emotionally hostage or making us defensive to our own country having a similar impact on us.
Former Moderator
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 52,827
Likes: 17
From: State of Confusion
The question then becomes...where do we draw the line? How low do we sink to fight this war? And, once we DO sink that low, do we still have the moral high ground that we as a nation like to believe we have?
Former Moderator
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 52,827
Likes: 17
From: State of Confusion
[QUOTE=jedwards,Oct 7 2004, 11:42 AM]
Depends, do you value winning or being right/true more?
The irony is that by winning the "battle" on terrorism in this manner, we have essentially lost the "war" - we've lost the very thing we were trying to defend, that being the freedom and openness that is a fundamental principle of this nation.[/QUOTE}
Interesting how all of this ties together.
Suppose we say "yes to win the war, we do what's necessary.." Scratch, bite whatever... but the enemy is fought back. In doing so we "preserve" this society.
Or
Suppose we say, "stay true to our values". Fight the enemy within the guidelines of the Geneva Conv'n, or our church or what our Mum taught us... But in doing so we lose to an enemy that 'fights to win' using terrorism, beheadings etc.
Which is better?
Interesting how all of this ties together.
Suppose we say "yes to win the war, we do what's necessary.." Scratch, bite whatever... but the enemy is fought back. In doing so we "preserve" this society.
Or
Suppose we say, "stay true to our values". Fight the enemy within the guidelines of the Geneva Conv'n, or our church or what our Mum taught us... But in doing so we lose to an enemy that 'fights to win' using terrorism, beheadings etc.
Which is better?