rmcrobertson said:
2. One's point in reference to moral standards in religion and martial arts was that those espousing moral standards in religion and in martial arts should perhaps at times try to live up to them, no matter how inconvenient such standards appear to be in the short run. Indeed, one was suggesting that perhaps the most-cogent reason for principles is this: abandoning principles in the name of expediency is damaging not merely to the "enemy," but to oneself.
I have never outlined my own moral guides here for perusal, as I'm sure the soldiers at AG havent. How relevant is this? The west is secular, not religious, and the moral standards in MA I find to be so much rhetoric.
3. Good to see old Uncle Joe Stalin's logic--you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs--adopted by Americans. Good to see that air attacks on weddings can be written off as the sort of oopsies that Happen in War.
Just because a bad man said it, doesnt make it a lie. In war, mistkaes happen. That is all there is to it. We dont go about deliberately bombing weddings and such. The only alternative is to never attack anythig for fear of making a mistake. I'm sure you can see how practical that would be during an armed conflict.
4. Marvellous to see the old mistake--means are justified by ends--deployed once again. One would worry about finding common moral ground with, say, the Nazis, but wotthell.
One of the least understood phrases in history. Of
COURSE the ends justify the means. They are the only thing that ever can. Lets take a look at a few simple examples:
1 - Breaking into a car is bad. But it is justified if a baby has been locked inside on a hot day.
2 - Hurting someone is bad. But it is justified if it is self defense or the defense of another.
3 - Killing pets is bad. But it is justified if the pet is suffering from a terminal problem.
What the phrase you quoted above
MEANS to say is "The ends do not justify ANY means". to whit, if a mugger comes at you on the street, you cannot knock him unconscious, chain-saw his legs off and then hunt down his family. The ends DO justify the means, but they do not justify ANY means.
5. The essential error committed in the name of pragmatism is this: short term military advantages gained by torture--and make no mistake; "duress," and all the rest are mere euphemisms and what is under discussion is in fact torture as defined not merely by the UN, but by our own American codes of justice including the UCMJ--are always, always, always, more than outweighted by a) the corrupting effect upon one's own troops, b) the unreliability of such information, c) the creation of anger in the civilian population.
I agree whoelheartedly. When the level and quality of information is too poor, and the negative impacts on the political siutation too great, then torture is a negative thing. Obviously the 'abuse' dealt out at AG was not done with an eye to gathering intel, and the impact on the political situation could have been massive. Thus I disapprove.
[snip irrelevant points about past mistakes]
7. Perhaps a re-viewing of Bruce Lee's movies is in order. Why? Well, again and again, and again, Lee's movies tell viewers that might does not make right, that making a buck is inferior to fighting for the weak and helpless, that mere technique always loses out to a good heart....but then, a martial artist should know already what's wrong with the claim that, "Torture becomes significantly 'wrong' once it begins to impair the ability of a nation to protect its interests."
Aye aye aye! What on earth are you talking about?! First note - Movies are not reality. Second note - Most of Bruce's movies revolved around technical and physical superiority. He was always the 'good' guy because that is what sells movies. I could say the same thing about the TMNT movies, or about Voltron, or Starwars...
Why dont you spell out for me exactly what is wrong with the claim that "Torture becomes significantly 'wrong' once it begins to impair the ability of a nation to protect its interests."
8. Always good to see, "human nature," cited as the last best defense of evil, the ultimate excuse for whatever rottenness we come up with...including swaggering assertions of being able to nuke 'em all, papered over with a good thumpin' denegation.
I can only assume you refer to me when using the word 'evil' in your above post. How am I using human nature to defend my position?
As in claiming that, "I do NOT advocate a race war of any degree...I do NOT approve of the 'abuse' of the prisoners at AG," while of course, on the other hand, "The morality of the use of 'torture' (and I still dont see much of what happened at AG as torture) to extract information is relevant to the level and accuracy of the information extracted," and that's all that counts.
That is all that counts, for me. There was no information extracted, and massive potential for harm. Why should I approve of that? I still dont view the treatment of those prisoners as abuse. Not when compared to the treatment of western prisoners in Iraq.
But, I'm still with you.
