Re: Interesting thread…
› Forums › Other Forums › The Pub › Political Ravings of Intolerance › Re: Interesting thread…
Why do I bother? 🙂 We are now entering the head-against-a-brick-wall stage. We’re never going to convince each other, so the discussion is fast becoming pointless.
[quote=”Valdron”]Well, there’s the floundering around like a drunk in a bath tub approach, which doesn’t seem to particularly work well for anyone,[/quote]
I think your world view is coloring your perceptions.
[quote=”Valdron”]And then there’s the sensible approach, which is basically police work, intelligence gathering, reasonable and prudent security, and the judicious application of force when and where it will do some good. Not as flashy, but it has better results.,[/quote]
Sounds great. However, if Valdron was in charge of implementing the above plan, I think you’d quickly find things getting very, very complicated. In fact, I’ll bet the folks in charge have a plan that sounds very much like what you just said. Real life has a way of getting in the way of that.
[quote=”Valdron”]Beep. Wrong again. Well sort of. I note that you’ve qualified your contention by pointing out that the US is *one of the most generous* nations.[/quote]
Thank you. You will note that qualifier was present in the original statement.
[quote=”Valdron”]Of course, if we were to chop Israel and Egypt out of the American equation,[/quote]
Why would we do that? Are they not PC? Isn’t that kinda like saying, “well, if you didn’t have legs, you’d only be FOUR feet tall!”
[quote=”SgtDraino”]I used to love the UN, now I don’t trust them.[/quote]
[quote=”Valdron”]It seems that the feeling is reciprocated.[/quote]
I don’t think the UN can be said to have specific feelings about anything. They’re way too amorphous, and the ability of a few strong nations to veto the will of the majority only enhances the organization as a do-nothing body.
[quote=”Valdron”]Five is the current count, last time I looked. It doesn’t go over well with Afghans.[/quote]
Now this is news to me. I heard about the one, I’ve never heard about any more. I’d think something like that would be all over the news, too. What is your source?
[quote=”Valdron”]Well, accident doesn’t cut it when some guy in a fighter jet deliberately launches his rockets at a target.[/quote]
Depends on the circumstances. Sure, it sucks to be that target on the ground, but sometimes an accident is just an accident. No matter how smart the bombs are, there will always be unintended casualties in military combat.
[quote=”Valdron”]We’re more in the country of negligence, recklessness, manslaughter… You’re a cop, you know how these things work.[/quote]
Sure, but Afghanistan is still basically a combat zone. You’ve said so yourself. Different rules apply. Martial law is always messier than regular law enforcement, but until some level of control is established, regular cops simply don’t have the tactics to deal with the situation.
[quote=”Valdron”]Weddings are particularly good for this kind of thing, since many Afghan celebrations, particularly weddings, involve discharging firearms into the air. Sort of like fireworks.[/quote]
Ah yes, I remember this now. Well, the obvious answer, is that folks need to stop discharging their weapons in the air at weddings and other celebrations. I don’t know this, but I’d bet there’s been a general proclaimation warning against this behavior. Of course they’re taking fire, if they’re shooting in the air while our fighters are flying around!
[quote=”Valdron”]So, you’re fighter pilot gets assigned to the area, he’s patrolling for enemy, he sees flashes of gunfire…. and its goodbye bride and groom, goodbye maid of honour, goodbye best man, goodbye toaster oven, etc.[/quote]
And you would charge that pilot with murder or manslaughter? The situation is tragic, but doesn’t sound like the pilot’s fault. It sounds like a tragic, tragic misunderstanding. Classic friendly fire. The public must be educated, to keep them from being accidentally identified as unfriendlies.
[quote=”Valdron”]Now, obviously, its a messy business. And maybe the first wedding that got blown up was excuseable. We wuz played for suckers.
But not the next four.[/quote]
If they’re still shooting in the air, then I’m not surprised at all. A pilot sees fire coming from the ground, knows he may be taking a SAM up his pipe any second, and does what he is trained to do.
[quote=”Valdron”]Not to put too fine a point on it, but America’s finest seem to be particularly prone to them. U.S. soldiers are getting a worldwide reputation as the ‘friendly fire bastards.’ It isn’t a good thing.[/quote]
I’d put money that any other military unit put in the same situations would make the same mistakes. The US military is simply under the microscope of folks looking for ammunition to discredit us.
[quote=”Valdron”]To some extent I agree with you. But you seem to be saying that because it is difficult to get the full facts and make an informed opinion, that we shouldn’t bother.[/quote]
No, I’m just saying, don’t be so sure.
[quote=”Valdron”]The point is not to surrender and just assume its all unknowable, or that we can just abandon facts and stick with opinions, irregardless of facts.
The point is that we have to make the effort. Which means going out there, getting the information, trying to evaluate it, consider the sources, the inherent biases, taking information from multiple sources, evaluating it, and coming to reasoned conclusions.[/quote]
I don’t think there is an accurate means of obtaining the facts of the “war on terror” at present. All you can obtain are “factoids.” Little anecdotes that make a particular side look good, or bad, but have small bearing on the big picture. And I’m not convinced ANYONE knows what the big picture is… or will be, in a couple of years.
[quote=”Valdron”]Actually, the Russians got hold of his body, compared the dental records, and shared their findings with American doctors and experts. It was verified to everyones satisfaction.[/quote]
That’s not what I heard. But I think I’ve made my point. Sometimes you just never find out for sure.
[quote=”Valdron”]And yes, I can accept a certain amount of realism. We won’t get him right away. But then again, it offends me a little to see the guy minimalized.[/quote]
It’s just typical politics of the day. Opponents of the US actions maximize Bin Laden and Hussein, proponents of the US actions minimize Bin Laden and Hussein. If either of the men were captured or killed, I think you’d find the reverse suddenly happening.
[quote=”Valdron”]First of all, we’ve got a right to hold people accountable to their own words and statements. So if P Bush holds up Osama Bin Laden as the scourge of the world one week, invades a country on the explicit grounds of getting him, and then two weeks later tells us he wasn’t really that important…. Well, I for one am entitled to be a little cheesed. Same thing with Saddam Hussein and these fictional weapons of mass destruction.[/quote]
To my recollection, it was never the intention to go into Iraq or Afghanistan simply to get one man. Certainly those two men are on the “to do” list, but the target was always the organizations run by the two men. And just because weapons haven’t been found, doesn’t mean they never existed. In fact, even the UN says the weapons existed. They still haven’t been accounted for. What happened to them? I think it’s worth finding out.
[quote=”Valdron”]Second, at some point, we have to gage success or failure by some standard that relates to the objectives going in. That’s just common sense. The Afghanistan mess fails on just about every sensible standard.[/quote]
That is certainly your opinion. 🙂 I think we must agree to disagree on this one. We are at an impasse.
[quote=”Valdron”]So what you gonna do. Just ignore everything and go with your gut? Read tea leaves? Consult your fortune cookie?[/quote]
I will listen to information I get from sources I trust, same as you.
[quote=”Valdron”]You take what you can find, and then you assess it carefully, and you form your opinions. New evidence comes along, you re-evaluate those opinions.[/quote]
Absolutely. Happens all the time.
[quote=”Valdron”]But overall, the situation seems to result in almost unregulated self medication.[/quote]
If that is true, then it is certainly a problem that needs addressing. But if the wedding incidents happened as YOU describe, then amphetamines or no aphetimines, I think the result would have been the same.
[quote=”Valdron”]Not good enough. Killing, assault, theft, fraud are all actions imposed by people against the will of other people. Completely non-consensual.[/quote]
Correct. But that was not a qualifier you specified. Laws against such actions are still regulating and defining peoples lives. Of course, if you want other types of laws, they’re certainly out there. How about vice-laws? How about laws that say a civilian’s shotgun barrel must be at least 18″? How about speed limits? All of these regulate and define behavior that has nothing to do with folks violating each others’ rights.
[quote=”Valdron”]Basically, a good yardstick of rights is that your right to throw punches ends where my nose begins. This is a legitimate area for Government.[/quote]
Correct. If you go back to my first post, you’ll also note it’s basically a re-statement of my own ground rule.
[quote=”Valdron”]At the same time, I still stand by my point that in our personal lives, and in our government policy, we have an obligation to set intelligent priorities.[/quote]
All true. I think we agree in principle, if not in practice. All I’m saying, is that it’s impossible to do the most important things ALL the time. It’s not realistic.
[quote=”Valdron”]Poor allocation of resources wastes those resources, and sooner or later, you come to the point where your budget is gone. You have to decide where you are going to focus on.[/quote]
Hey, if you’re talking about government waste, you get no argument from me.
[quote=”Valdron”]Sure, he should enforce them all. In theory, he does. But in real life, he sets his priorities just like everyone else.[/quote]
Of course. But just because the man puts a bunch of little guys away, and only a few big guys, doesn’t mean an effort isn’t being made. It may just mean the big guys are harder to get. Unless you have ongoing knowledge of the inner workings of Justice Department operations, I don’t think you’re qualified to pass judgement.
[quote=”Valdron”]Well, especially since no measures are being taken. Your airport security is still the worst in the world. Congress held up nationalizing airport security cause they didn’t want to risk creating union jobs.[/quote]
The amount of freedom enjoyed in the US is also what is hindering our ability to respond effectively to terrorist threats. Society is often a balance of order versus freedom. Part of what maintains that balance is our bureaucracy, which makes it difficult to make major changes to the system quickly. Unionizing airport security would be insane. It would be like politicizing the FBI, or the US Army. It opens a security organization up to outside control. It is a risk that should not be taken.
[quote=”Valdron”]You’ve got 1500 sites, ranging from nuclear power plants to chemical factories, etc., for which no security is provided.[/quote]
There will never be 100% coverage. The US is big, and targets are everywhere. Of course we should try, but it will never be even close to perfect.
[quote=”Valdron”]Meanwhile, the air marshalls program is being cut back,[/quote]
That was always a flawed program, if you ask me. Random placement (or random searches for that matter) are no good against terrorists. Random enforcement activity serves only as a deterent to people who are afraid of getting caught. Terrorists woul die in order to harm us. I would arm the pilots and reinforce the cockpit.
[quote=”Valdron”]and police and fire departments – ie, the first responders, are still being shortchanged on adequate radios, supplies or training.[/quote]
lol. This is SO us. 🙂
[quote=”Valdron”]This recent blackout showed very little more than how completely inept Tom Ridge and the department of homeland security is at actually dealing with security issues or responding to a crisis.[/quote]
I dunno. They determined pretty quickly that it wasn’t terrorism, and everything stayed reasonably quiet until the lights came back on.
[quote=”Valdron”]No offence, but when it comes to actually protecting the security of the American people… as opposed to hatcheting political enemies, or knocking off oil rich third world countries… it seems the administrations policy is to spread legs, bend over, and whistle.[/quote]
Well, in spite of the holes we’ve both listed, there hasn’t been another attack in the US since 9/11. So far, so good.
[quote=”Valdron”]You can hold whatever opinions you want.[/quote]
Exactly my point. Glad you agree. So long as nobody is trying to force me or anyone else to change their opinions, then everything’s cool.
[quote=”Valdron”]If you feel homosexual acts are immoral, then here’s my advice: Do not engage in these acts. Do not watch gay pornography. Do not have gay people over to your house to have sex or watch TV.[/quote]
What if, say, I was the President. And somebody who doesn’t like me, and is looking for something to use against me, asks me what my personal opinion of the whole thing is. Should I lie, or tell the truth? Should I be persecuted for my personal opinion?
Now, neo-nazis and NAMBLA members get persecuted for their personal opinions all the time. Frankly, I don’t have a problem with that. Those groups often advocate violence and other harmful activities. But just because somebody thinks a particular activity is immoral, doesn’t mean they’d wish harm or violence on a person who engages in that activity. Even now, we live in a society where, if a man like the President says, “I think homosexuality is immoral,” he will be attacked. That is thought police. They are attacking his thoughts. They are telling him that he can only think a certain way. That is the agenda that bothers me.
[quote=”Valdron”]On the other hand, if a gay couple holding hands walks by you on the street, its not your business unless they try and clothesline you, a la WWE.[/quote]
I swear, if those lesbians clothesline me ONE MORE TIME, I am going to be very cross. 🙂
[quote=”Valdron”]I absolutely defend the rights of fry cooks to cook fries, irregardless of those darned vegans. I also defend the rights of parents to feed their children.
Pedophiles and Serial Killers, on the other hand, are doing stuff to the unwilling, so they’re up against other peoples rights, and are properly regulated and imprisoned by the government.
If two men are engaged in a game of hiding of salami not their own, then that is their business, and I don’t want to know about it.
But I sure as hell do not intend to stop it. Mark my words, I have no intention of inserting myself in between the two of them.[/quote]
Amen. I agree completely. 🙂
[quote=”Valdron”]Hey! Wait a second!!! Yes, you did. You absolutely did say that!
What you said was: “We intended to kick the crap out of some terrorists.” That’s exactly what you said.[/quote]
Right. I said we INTENDED. I didn’t say we succeeded. I think we kinda halfway kicked their asses, though.
[quote=”Aleck”]NAMBLA, the KKK and neo-nazis are hardly in the same category,[/quote]
Right, that’s the point. Both gay activists and the KKK would like to be viewed as legitimate by society, but their categories are about as far apart as you can imagine. Just because elements of their agendas are the same, doesn’t mean I can’t support one and condemn the other.
[quote=”Aleck”]unless you’re basing your comparison on the tired old cliche that homosexuality is a choice at best or a psychological abnormality that can (and possibly should) be “cured” at worst.[/quote]
I don’t see what this has to do with the discussion, but since you asked, my purely personal opinion is that homosexuality is a recurring genetic mutation, present since birth. Every gay person I’ve ever known has always said they were born gay. All people have a right to refuse medical treatment, and I would never deny them that.
[quote=”Aleck”]Where has it been said that there is a “homosexual agenda” in place that aims to control the individual opinions of every man, woman and child on the planet?[/quote]
Oh, I dunno. Lots of places. The gay marriage movement leads me to believe that this is the agenda.
See, I do believe that “marriage” is first and foremost a religious institution, with a specific definition that we’ve already been through. I’ve already said I’d have no problem with a gay union institution that provides the same rights and benefits as marriage (though I might want to close the financial loopholes for both marriages and unions). But I don’t think it should be called marriage. I believe the gay community specifically does want the word “marriage,” because they are trying to legitimize their behavior. I think it’s more about that, than about the benefits. They want their behavior to be viewed as “normal.” If they achieve legalized gay “marriage,” then they are a step forward towards trying to force society to change its opinions.
[quote=”Aleck”]Then are civil rights organizations amiss in their attempts to counter racist thought, speech and actions?[/quote]
What you’re talking about is the basic battle over “whose morality?” There is a constant battle in the US over what is moral, and what is immoral… which is not always the same thing as what you have a right to do, and what you don’t have a right to do.
When it comes to something like racism or child abuse, it’s easy for all of us to agree. “That’s immoral!” And we feel better. But when it comes to something more controversial, homosexuality or abortion, for example, you get large numbers of people who disagree. These groups naturally fight over whose definition of morality is eventually held to be “true” by the highest secular authority we have; the US government. Which side of the argument is “good” and which side is “evil” largely depends on your point of view. And naturally, attempts by one side to legitimize its case as “true” will be strongly resisted by the opposing side.
In cases where right and wrong are purely a judgement call, and individual rights are not involved, the government should remain neutral on the subject, with no official opinion. The problem is, that doesn’t stop activists on both sides from trying to force the government to give an opinion. The primary method for doing this has become the court system, using activist judges with loose interpretations of the law to invent new rights not previously existing. This circumvents Congress, and consequently the will of the people. It attempts to force an artificial change in attitudes, instead of allowing attitudes to change naturally over time.
Just so I am absolutely clear on this, I do believe sodomy is protected under the Right to Privacy. I believe the courts made the right call in that case.
[quote=”Aleck”](BTW, isn’t it a blatant contradiction to state that one isn’t a fan of “slippery slope” arguments such as those posited by Scalia, and then turn around and state that legal recognition of gay marriage would lead to the legal recognition of polygamy? How is that statement any different from that of Scalia’s?)[/quote]
Interesting point! 🙂 Allow me to turn that around a bit. If the courts recognized a constitutional right to gay marriage, with all the legal benefits regular marriage brings, can you think of any reason why polygamists could not then demand the same right?
True, I am not normally a fan of slippery slope. But in this case, polygamy only seems one legal step away, to me.
Before this gets mean, can I at least get someone to admit that I’m playing fair? That I appear to be a reasonable fellow arguing points in a polite, civilized, and rational way? I’ve always liked this site, and I’d hate to get demonized, or pigeon-holed as some kind of wacko.