The Superior Moral Position on Torture

[ali777]

I'm philosophically a Libertarian, I suppose.

But above all, I'm anti-Empire. I think a lot of the problems we face are due to us sticking our noses into too many places in the world. Instead of us debating whether or not we should torture people, perhaps the better question to ask is why we are manipulating the governments in these foreign places, supporting dictators (Shah, the Sauds, Mubarak, Hussein, etc).

I agree with this, to a certain extent. I think some of the meddling has caused us problems. Of your examples, I would say the Islamic Revolution in Iran has been the most obvious consequence of our "sticking our noses" somewhere.
At the same time, I think a strict isolationist foreign policy would also be harmful. I guess its just hard to pick your spots.
Supporting regimes hated by their people might be something to get away from though. It didn't work in Iran and it didnt work in South America.

I'll make an interesting point here.... I was reading on the history of political Islam, Wahhabis, etc. The interesting thing is, the Middle Easterns used to hate the Wahhabis, the Ottomans went as far as prosecuting them for being extremists.

What happened next? The Brits gave them a country, ie the Saudi Arabia and the Americans became their allies. So, the Brits and the Americans went into bed with the fundamentalists, while the moderates struggled to make a living. Thanks to the petrol money, they've been spreading their poison and suppressing the moderates. You know the rest of the story...

 

[ClayShaw]

I'm philosophically a Libertarian, I suppose.

But above all, I'm anti-Empire. I think a lot of the problems we face are due to us sticking our noses into too many places in the world. Instead of us debating whether or not we should torture people, perhaps the better question to ask is why we are manipulating the governments in these foreign places, supporting dictators (Shah, the Sauds, Mubarak, Hussein, etc).

I agree with this, to a certain extent. I think some of the meddling has caused us problems. Of your examples, I would say the Islamic Revolution in Iran has been the most obvious consequence of our "sticking our noses" somewhere.
At the same time, I think a strict isolationist foreign policy would also be harmful. I guess its just hard to pick your spots.
Supporting regimes hated by their people might be something to get away from though. It didn't work in Iran and it didnt work in South America.

I'll make an interesting point here.... I was reading on the history of political Islam, Wahhabis, etc. The interesting thing is, the Middle Easterns used to hate the Wahhabis, the Ottomans went as far as prosecuting them for being extremists.


What happened next? The Brits gave them a country, ie the Saudi Arabia and the Americans became their allies. So, the Brits and the Americans went into bed with the fundamentalists, while the moderates struggled to make a living. Thanks to the petrol money, they've been spreading their poison and suppressing the moderates. You know the rest of the story...

I don't think the Saud family actually is Wahhabi. I think they allow the clerics to preach Wahhabi islam as a way to keep themselves in power. These are guys that sleep around, spend money on material things, and generally live a life of extreme luxury. I'm not sure that we "gave them a country", so much as the family that runs that country uses the clerics to distract the populace.
Personally, I think Saudi Arabia is America's worst ally, by far. If any country is "responsible" for 9/11, its Saudi Arabia. Thats where they all came from. Besides that, I think the Economist rated the ruling family there as the 7th(?) most repressive regime in the world. But, hey, sometimes gas is cheap. So what if the citizens there get sick of seeing princes f*****g models on yachts and decide to blow up a few buildings?
This is both parties in the US, by the way. Bush held the dudes hand and Obama bowed to him. I don't see either doing the same for the leaders of, say, Burma.

 

[The Gardener]

I'll make an interesting point here.... I was reading on the history of political Islam, Wahhabis, etc. The interesting thing is, the Middle Easterns used to hate the Wahhabis, the Ottomans went as far as prosecuting them for being extremists.

What happened next? The Brits gave them a country, ie the Saudi Arabia and the Americans became their allies. So, the Brits and the Americans went into bed with the fundamentalists, while the moderates struggled to make a living. Thanks to the petrol money, they've been spreading their poison and suppressing the moderates. You know the rest of the story...

VERY true.

The US and Pakistan created the entity now known as "Al Qaeda", and intentionally whipped up religious fervor in an attempt to rally dissafected muslims against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Likewise, the US and Pakistan also created the Taliban, as a way to fortify post-Soviet Afghanistan against the Northern Alliance which, at that time, was supported by Iran.

And now that the Cold War is over, a lot of this short term thinking comes back to bite us in the arse.

That's the problem with us, we are such a short term thinking-based nation. Everything is focused on maximizing immediate profit, with little or no attention paid to consequences, or to long term soundness of decisions. I believe this is really the kernel of most everything that is eating away at the US right now.

 

[ClayShaw]

I'll make an interesting point here.... I was reading on the history of political Islam, Wahhabis, etc. The interesting thing is, the Middle Easterns used to hate the Wahhabis, the Ottomans went as far as prosecuting them for being extremists.

What happened next? The Brits gave them a country, ie the Saudi Arabia and the Americans became their allies. So, the Brits and the Americans went into bed with the fundamentalists, while the moderates struggled to make a living. Thanks to the petrol money, they've been spreading their poison and suppressing the moderates. You know the rest of the story...

VERY true.

The US and Pakistan created the entity now known as "Al Qaeda", and intentionally whipped up religious fervor in an attempt to rally dissafected muslims against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Likewise, the US and Pakistan also created the Taliban, as a way to fortify post-Soviet Afghanistan against the Northern Alliance which, at that time, was supported by Iran.

And now that the Cold War is over, a lot of this short term thinking comes back to bite us in the arse.

That's the problem with us, we are such a short term thinking-based nation. Everything is focused on maximizing immediate profit, with little or no attention paid to consequences, or to long term soundness of decisions. I believe this is really the kernel of most everything that is eating away at the US right now.

A really interesting read about al-Qaeda and Islamic extremism in general is "The Looming Tower", by Lawrence Wright (?). Al-Qeada, according to him, grew out of the "muslim brotherhood" in Egypt. Zawahiri was tortured in Egyptian prisons, and it radicalized him. I'm oversimplifying things quite a bit, but I think the organization was around before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Wright traces it back to a guy (can't remember the name) who came to Colorado to go to college in the 1940's. Really, really excellent book. No ideology, just an objective look at the history of the movement. I felt smarter reading the book, but now I've forgotten most of it (f*****g weed).

 

[Old Baldy]

These are the kind of right wing people (OldBaldy, not the neocons) that I respect, as someone who is sort of center-left.
I picture OldBaldy (i'm probably way off) as a sort of interior west libertarian that has a "leave me alone, I'll leave you alone" philosophy.
I have no issues with these people, and although I frequently disagree with them, I respect them. I lived in the west and came to appreciate this point of view.
It's the neocons who seem to be hungry for blood and very willing to send other people to die (Feith, Wolfowitz, etc.) and the religious right that I have no respect for. I suspect Kilgore is a neocon, and I'm positive CCS is a libertarian.

I appreciate that Clay.

Yes, I love the motto "live and let live"

I'd bet you are the same way also. As are most people. We just disagree on how to get to the "promised land" is all it boils down to IMHO.

However, there will always be those extremist wackos on both the right and left who will ALWAYS try and control our lives unduly IMHO.

In the main, those types of people are called politicians IIRC.

 

[Old Baldy]

Dblebass wrote:

You are a Goldwater republican!!!

Tidbit: Did you know that Goldwater agreed with ClayShaw and felt AR-15, semi-auto types of rifles, should be outlawed? He did, and said that ordinary citizens didn't need a rifle like that.

So NO, I AM NOT A GOLDWATER REPUBLICAN!!

Here's what Goldwater said in 1990:

"I am completely opposed to selling automatic weapons. I don't see any reason why they ever made semi-automatics. I've been a member of the NRA. I collect, make and shoot guns. I've never used an automatic or a semi-automatic for hunting. There's no need to. They have no place in anybody's arsenal."

Goldwater was an old elitist fool IMHO. I never liked him but could never put my finger on why I never liked him. After hearing him say that in 1990, I KNEW why I never liked that elitist jackass.

He always just rubbed me the wrong way and, like I said, in 1990, I finally knew why I inherently didn't like him. He was an elitist IMHO. I don't like elitists whether they are on the right or left. They disgust me.

Like Clay said "live and let live".

 

[ClayShaw]

These are the kind of right wing people (OldBaldy, not the neocons) that I respect, as someone who is sort of center-left.
I picture OldBaldy (i'm probably way off) as a sort of interior west libertarian that has a "leave me alone, I'll leave you alone" philosophy.
I have no issues with these people, and although I frequently disagree with them, I respect them. I lived in the west and came to appreciate this point of view.
It's the neocons who seem to be hungry for blood and very willing to send other people to die (Feith, Wolfowitz, etc.) and the religious right that I have no respect for. I suspect Kilgore is a neocon, and I'm positive CCS is a libertarian.

I appreciate that Clay.

Yes, I love the motto "live and let live"

I'd bet you are the same way also. As are most people. We just disagree on how to get to the "promised land" is all it boils down to IMHO.

However, there will always be those extremist wackos on both the right and left who will ALWAYS try and control our lives unduly IMHO.

In the main, those types of people are called politicians IIRC.

Exactly.
Its those who see no possibility for compromise (the Dennis Kucinich types on the left and the religious conservatives on the right) that I can't stand.
Anyone who takes extreme positions and believes themselves to be correct all the time.
As someone who is a little left of center (I'm far left, extreme left on social issues like gay marriage and much more centrist on fiscal issues), it would be nice to see a conservative party that is secular, and more libertarian than the current GOP. I want a party out there that gets pissed when the gov't spends $.50. I don't agree with them, but they're a great check on people who think the gov't. should be promoting BS like the "fairness doctrine" with public money. Unfortunately, the GOP, as currently constituted, seems to be more concerned with enforcing their brand of Christianity than reigning in frivolous spending.
I also think there are some politicians who do a decent job of staying away from the extremes. McCain, circa 2000, was a good example. Someone I disagreed with but respected. Then he picked a moronic fundamentalism to be first in line to be in charge. I stopped liking him. I think Biden, on foreign policy, is a good example of a pragmatic centrist. Brent Scowcroft is another, as is Colin Powell. Hagel is another guy I respect. I think Bill Clinton did a great job of governing from the center and being willing to compromise. In my opinion, the vast majority of the American public is pretty much in the middle, politically. Most people are a long way from both Sam Brownback and Bernie Sanders. The problem is, people who are really interested in politics tend to be far right or far left, and they get people like Sanders and Brownback elected.

 

[Dblbass128]

These are the kind of right wing people (OldBaldy, not the neocons) that I respect, as someone who is sort of center-left.
I picture OldBaldy (i'm probably way off) as a sort of interior west libertarian that has a "leave me alone, I'll leave you alone" philosophy.
I have no issues with these people, and although I frequently disagree with them, I respect them. I lived in the west and came to appreciate this point of view.
It's the neocons who seem to be hungry for blood and very willing to send other people to die (Feith, Wolfowitz, etc.) and the religious right that I have no respect for. I suspect Kilgore is a neocon, and I'm positive CCS is a libertarian.

I appreciate that Clay.

Yes, I love the motto "live and let live"

I'd bet you are the same way also. As are most people. We just disagree on how to get to the "promised land" is all it boils down to IMHO.

However, there will always be those extremist wackos on both the right and left who will ALWAYS try and control our lives unduly IMHO.

In the main, those types of people are called politicians IIRC.

Exactly.
Its those who see no possibility for compromise (the Dennis Kucinich types on the left and the religious conservatives on the right) that I can't stand.
Anyone who takes extreme positions and believes themselves to be correct all the time.
As someone who is a little left of center (I'm far left, extreme left on social issues like gay marriage and much more centrist on fiscal issues), it would be nice to see a conservative party that is secular, and more libertarian than the current GOP. I want a party out there that gets pissed when the gov't spends $.50. I don't agree with them, but they're a great check on people who think the gov't. should be promoting BS like the "fairness doctrine" with public money. Unfortunately, the GOP, as currently constituted, seems to be more concerned with enforcing their brand of Christianity than reigning in frivolous spending.
I also think there are some politicians who do a decent job of staying away from the extremes. McCain, circa 2000, was a good example. Someone I disagreed with but respected. Then he picked a moronic fundamentalism to be first in line to be in charge. I stopped liking him. I think Biden, on foreign policy, is a good example of a pragmatic centrist. Brent Scowcroft is another, as is Colin Powell. Hagel is another guy I respect. I think Bill Clinton did a great job of governing from the center and being willing to compromise. In my opinion, the vast majority of the American public is pretty much in the middle, politically. Most people are a long way from both Sam Brownback and Bernie Sanders. The problem is, people who are really interested in politics tend to be far right or far left, and they get people like Sanders and Brownback elected.

Actually Kucinich and Paul agreed on a lot of issues regarding the Constitution and Civil Liberties...they were the only two I respected in the race regarding liberty

 

[The Gardener]

US and Iraqi soldiers raping and sodomizing male children detainees on video.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/media-ignor ... ldren.html

Click on any of the bold links for documentation. This is breaking news, and reportedly the reason why Obama did a 180 on releasing the recent set of "detainee photographs".

Was someone here trying to make a point about the "superior moral position on torture"?

Sounds like this "position" is doggy style. Right up "Dick" Cheney's "Alley".