George Bush's Statement of Faith

[indy007]

Exactly. That's why I don't feel we should be applying our own morals to the problem. It's not an effective way to deal with an insurgency. How do you win the support of a populace who's morals are based off something completely alien to your own culture? You can't exactly pick up the bad guys, feed them a few kabobs (okay maybe not kabobs... but I love persian food), and send them on their way. The locals won't respect you. At the same time you can't hook up a trickle charger to their testicles because you lose support with your own people.

Very delicate line to walk. I don't think we're doing too badly at it right now though. The bigger part of the equation, available troops per square mile, is in the process of being solved with the new Iraqi divisions being trained. As more come available and deal with insurgents in their own fashion, dictated by their customs/culture/morals, the pressure will lessen on our troops and moral dilemmas.

[GtoRA2]

Yeah good point. We could go the other way and rule with an iron fist.  

Take a page from how the Commies controlled people. Course that would never fly with most people here, (it would prolly work though)


But we have drifted into Iraq, and I was thinking more Alqueda When talking torture.



Say you get a tip the terrorsit are plotting something, and we pic a guy up traveling with info in Afganistan, the stuff he is packing hints at a nuke inside the US borders.

Do we play nice and hope he spills it and risk American lives or do we hook hits nuts to a battery charger and make him talk?

[Seagoon]

Hi Oboe,

Originally posted by oboe
Thanks for posting Seagoon.  I read the whole thing.

In my mind it is very hard to reconcile his statement of faith with his behavior - his mocking of death row inmate Carla Faye Tucker's plea for life before executing her, his vulgar antics before cameras which he apparently thought were not recording, his economic policies which harm the poor and reward the rich, and most incredibly, his support for the torture of prisoners of war (where is his avowed respect for Life?).    

I'm sure we could go back and forth on this, but in my opinion these are not the actions of someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.

You're welcome.

I am not even going to begin to argue that George Bush isn't capable of being callous or profane, or that under pressure he can be very thin skinned, or that he doesn't have what some have referred to as a "Texas Temper" which he for the most part keeps under raps. As far as the authenticity of Bush's faith is concerned, i.e. if he is really regenerate or just a traditionalist, I don't know. Ultimately that is known only to George and God, and I've never even interviewed him on spiritual matters. All I was trying to make clear is that Bush is not the full blown "holy roller" that his opponents make him out to be, and I say that as a card carrying Christian fanatic.

But regarding economic policies. Oboe, I'm sure you are probably aware that George Bush has expanded every single poor-oriented entitlement program in the Federal lexicon. He has in fact grown them more than his predecessor Bill Clinton, and it could be argued that Clinton actually did more to cut welfare than George Bush.

Also, please don't confuse socialism with Christianity. Christianity teaches the need for private charity, and this is reflected in the fact that as a group, Evangelicals give more donations to charity than any other. Christianity does not however mandate tax sponsored government handouts to the poor. In fact, not only is that concept not found in the bible, it undercuts the entire thrust for service and giving of yourself and not just in $, but in terms of time and sacrifice. Both scripture and personal experience have taught me it is far too easy to be content that "you gave at the IRS" when it comes to the poor, and far more difficult to actually go and help them yourself. Real charity is not seen simply in picking the pockets of those wealthier than you are, and giving the proceeds to those less who are less wealthy. Also, please be aware that with many individuals, a handout is the last thing they need, and that it will do them far more harm than good. This too I have seen from experience.

- SEAGOON

[indy007]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
Yeah good point. We could go the other way and rule with an iron fist.  

Take a page from how the Commies controlled people. Course that would never fly with most people here, (it would prolly work though)


But we have drifted into Iraq, and I was thinking more Alqueda When talking torture.



Say you get a tip the terrorsit are plotting something, and we pic a guy up traveling with info in Afganistan, the stuff he is packing hints at a nuke inside the US borders.

Do we play nice and hope he spills it and risk American lives or do we hook hits nuts to a battery charger and make him talk?

Oh I thought you meant the Abu Ghraib stuff. Assuming you're talking about the EU delcaring it's inquiry now... maybe & maybe not. Alot of torture techniques simply aren't effective. Sleep dep makes people confused, losing reliability. Water torture.. mythbusters debunked that. Pain exposure.. people will say anything to make you stop. There's no way to verify the truth.

Back to that golden rule. Do unto others. Morally, I don't have a problem with it. They chop off heads like it's going out of style, and if free peoples lives are on the line, do what you have to do. That said, logically, I have a problem with it, because it is not, and never has been a reliable means of obtaining information. Interrogation is an art form, and torture doesn't get the job done. Plus, when you're caught doing it, everybody jumps at the chance to take a giant crap on you. The risk/benefit just doesn't add up in favor of it.

[GtoRA2]

Here is a question I always wondered, if torture does not work, why do they do it?

Why do they say torture can make anyone talk?

If you have some info, but need more can't you use the info you have to tell if the guy being tortured is just making it up?


I dint consider much of what went on in Abu Gharab torture personally.  I was making a hypothetical argument about direct terrorist against the US.


Nothing going on in Iraq right now is going to affect the US populace much  

Al Qaeda type terrorist setting off a nuke here would.

That was the jist of the argument, if you can torture info out of a terrorist and save many US lives is it the right thing to do?

Or is it better to stand on a pile of radioactive corpses of your own people, knowing you did the "right" thing by being better then the bad guy.

[Yeager]

A famous P51 pilot, upon learning that his next mission over Germany involved straffing civilian targets on the ground was heard to have said after the briefing:

"We had better win this damned thing or we will be in a world of hurt".

I think the above illustrates my position.

[indy007]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
Here is a question I always wondered, if torture does not work, why do they do it?

Why do they say torture can make anyone talk?

If you have some info, but need more can't you use the info you have to tell if the guy being tortured is just making it up?

I dint consider much of what went on in Abu Gharab torture personally.  I was making a hypothetical argument about direct terrorist against the US.

Couple reasons why you would torture somebody.. you have to look at the psychological profile of the people ordering the torture and the people doing the torture. Torqemada did it to gain power. Saddam did it to stay in power. Caligula did it because he had power. Hitler did it because he had power. Countess Bathory did it because she had power, it gave her a thrill, and she thought by bathing in young girls blood she'd stay young (nope.. didn't work). A VC woman dubbed the Apache mutilated GI's (her trademark was cutting off eyelids) because it made her a damaging psychological weapon, giving her (and her cause) power.

Historically tortue is an instrument of power, not truth. People either break, or they talk. When they talk, they tell you what you want to hear to make it stop. The truth is irrelevant at that point.

Now, if you have facts you can compare to corroborate a story, torture still isn't a good option. A daft interrogator and a healthy dose of sodium pentathol (aka truth serum.. basically a disinhibitor.. like being drunk) will have much better chances at getting you what you want to know, without the mess.

[GtoRA2]

What would that be?

Fight to win then gloss over it in the history books?

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by indy007


Historically tortue is an instrument of power, not truth. People either break, or they talk. When they talk, they tell you what you want to hear to make it stop. The truth is irrelevant at that point.

Now, if you have facts you can compare to corroborate a story, torture still isn't a good option. A daft interrogator and a healthy dose of sodium pentathol (aka truth serum.. basically a disinhibitor.. like being drunk) will have much better chances at getting you what you want to know, without the mess.

Ok but there would be SOME truth in their right? (Addressing first paragraph)


On the second, I bet some would consider the use of drugs against the will of the person in the chair a form of torture. (not me) Also is using drugs to interrogate a violation of the Geneva conventions as well? (Not sure been years since I read them).

[indy007]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
Ok but there would be SOME truth in their right? (Addressing first paragraph)


On the second, I bet some would consider the use of drugs against the will of the person in the chair a form of torture. (not me) Also is using drugs to interrogate a violation of the Geneva conventions as well? (Not sure been years since I read them).

There very well could be truth, but it's too difficult to tell. Plus there's more risk of them prematurely expiring, ending that source of information completely.

I don't believe the geneva convention should apply. We're not at war with a nation. We're in a state of ongoing hostilities against an ideology. With that line of thought, there's a precedent we can apply to the use of drugs in interrogation. No cruel & unusual punishment for executions. Instead we do a sanitary death by lethal injection. Therefore it wouldn't be cruel, nor unusual to apply them during interrogations.


...and I just realise how badly we've hijacked this thread. sorry seagoon!

if you wanna discuss it some more, email me, indy007@gmail.com

[GtoRA2]

Oh yeah we derailed it something fierce.

Still was an interesting and civil conversation.

I found I aggree with you for the most part, I was mostly playing devils advocate.

Good Stuff Indy!

[lada]

Originally posted by straffo
What if it create thousand of future terrorists ?

They will FIGHT with honour, because they are evil (and dont try to mention that they are doing something wrong... god love them.. if they were doing something wrong, god will tell them)...

God bless them

[lada]

This might be right place to ask questions.
I used to hear some rummors, that you can not take public office, if you dont belive in God in US.

Is it BS ?

Is religion mandatory at State run schools ?

[oboe]

Originally posted by Seagoon
...I'm sure you are probably aware that George Bush has expanded every single poor-oriented entitlement program in the Federal lexicon. He has in fact grown them more than his predecessor Bill Clinton, and it could be argued that Clinton actually did more to cut welfare than George Bush.
- SEAGOON

Hi Seagoon -

I do recall that Clinton oversaw federal welfare reform, but as far as the claim that GW has expanded every single poor-oriented program?   The idea of this is completely contrary to what one gleans from the media - the Bush tax cut favored the wealthy and he proposed a billion dollar cut in food stamps.   I also read that the recent $50 billion in cuts to pay for Hurricane reconstruction is coming mainly from programs that benefit the poor.   I'm sure I read that in the Post just the other day.    No offense, but can you provide links to where you got your info?

Firstly, thank you to all generous evangelicals everywhere - its unfortunate that charity is necessary in the first place.  I understand your point about how institutionalising charity demeans private giving.   There was a famous Catholic bishop in the 1950s, his name escapes me, who spoke eloquently on this very issue-- I saw an old film of him speaking.   In fact he thought there was real danger in it.    He said when you institutionalize charity, create a bureacracy around it, charity becomes a 9-5 job.   What goes missing then is the people who see a need and reach out to fill it, even after the normal working hours of the bureacracy.    

Unfortunately, looking at our history, it seems clear to me that we have social programs in the US precisely because voters determined that private charities were insufficient in their scope and/or effects.    I don't believe that these programs make us socialists, any more than having public utilities does.    I see us as a capitalist society borrowing on some of the strengths of Socialism in an attempt to address some of the weaknesses of Capitalism.    Not much more to it than that.

Economic policies go beyond social spending as well - for example, he has done nothing to protect American workers from the loss of jobs due to the growing menace of offshoring.    If you were a Reagan fan, do you remember how he stood up to the Japanese auto industry?   Japan even ended up building manufacturing plants in the US as a result.  Bush has simply been AWOL for the US worker.

[oboe]

Originally posted by indy007
...Back to that golden rule. Do unto others. Morally, I don't have a problem with it. They chop off heads like it's going out of style, and if free peoples lives are on the line, do what you have to do. That said, logically, I have a problem with it, because it is not, and never has been a reliable means of obtaining information. Interrogation is an art form, and torture doesn't get the job done. Plus, when you're caught doing it, everybody jumps at the chance to take a giant crap on you. The risk/benefit just doesn't add up in favor of it.

Reading this I can't help but think you are misunderstanding the golden rule.    It's not just "Do unto others", it's not even "Do unto others as they do unto you."   (That's more like the Old Testament "An eye for an eye").

The Golden Rule is found in Matthew 7:12 I believe:

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

That means treat others as you want them to treat you - not treat them as they are treating you.