No matter your politics, watch this.

[blueerica]

Hmm, I guess that the thread of thought was that they were/are generally considered instruments of war, regardless of agreement or disagreement on either topic (nuclear bombs and waterboarding).

Or I could just be jet lagged...

[Not Afraid]

I was both very athletic AND politically astute in my younger days.

[Alex]

Are you the one on the left or right?

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by Alex

Are you the one on the left or right?

Nope, I'll guess she was driving the boat!

[Not Afraid]

I don't remember. It was too long ago.

[JWBear]

Where are John Sheridan and the Rangers when you need them? <sigh>

[Jazzman]

I don't think sleepyjeff was making an argument so much as he was simply remarking about an anecdotal historical parallel and I personally think his example is perfectly relevant. Imagine two civilizations side by side in the present day. One is embroiled in debate about whether or not nuking their neighbor is cool, while the other's biggest social conundrum is whether pouring water on somebody's face is too harsh. Who would frighten you the most, and who would you consider the "most civilized?" It's all relative, of course, but that's the thinking I came away with from his post.

My sentiments on the waterboarding debate are thus; is it torture? Regardless of my own views on it, if a guy like John McCain, who lived through horrific daily torture for six full years says that it's torture, then it's torture. The things he has lived through make waterboarding look like a leisurely trip through Small World, so I defer humbly to his expertice on the matter.

So, accepting that it is torture, do I believe that it is ever warranted? Yes, but only, and I stress only, in extremely dire, "there's a nuke going off in seven minutes and Osama bin Hidingit knows where it is" situations. If all we're looking for is "so-and-so lives in the second cave to the left and hangs out with a guy who knows a guy who goes to mosque with the sister of the janitor who cleans the office of Osama's lawyer" type info, then waterboarding is a bit extreme, as in "facing charges for doing it" extreme.

It's a great movie scene and a bit of a cliche now, but the courtroom scene in "A Few Good Men" comes to mind. We do need people out there doing the necessary things we won't or can't bring ourselves to do in order to keep us, and the free people of the world, safe. If some murderous extremist gets dunked a couple of times in order to save the lives of a bunch of innocent people, well, as horrible as it is he put himself in harm's way. Just as long as it isn't overused or applied inappropriately, it's another one of those neccesary evils and sadly, that's just life.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Jazzman

I don't think sleepyjeff was making an argument so much as he was simply remarking about an anecdotal historical parallel and I personally think his example is perfectly relevant. Imagine two civilizations side by side in the present day. One is embroiled in debate about whether or not nuking their neighbor is cool, while the other's biggest social conundrum is whether pouring water on somebody's face is too harsh. Who would frighten you the most, and who would you consider the "most civilized?" It's all relative, of course, but that's the thinking I came away with from his post.

This line of reasoning is like saying that because we have murderers to deal with, we shouldn't be horrified at things like dog fighting or spouse abuse. Bullsht. A crime against humanity is a crime against humanity. A cover up is a cover up. A presidency that fires those that oppose their agenda and actually says those that think differently are not patriots...yes, this stuff is still vile and worthy of horror and action, even though our president isn't Hitler or Pol Pot.

I wonder what line a presidency will have to cross in order to get people really angry. This is just the stuff we're actually hearing about! I can't even imagine what else is going on.

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

While that is true of the Republicans it does not explain away the inactions of the Majority of Dems. If it is their job to provide a check against a runaway WhiteHouse one must come to one of two conclusions: A) They are negligent in their duty or B) The WhiteHouse isn't running away.

Agreed. I do hope history judges the Democrats harshly for being silent during these atrocious years. This proves to me without a shadow of a doubt that the system is only as good as the people who work within it. They had the ability to disrupt things and they did not.

Too bad nobody votes in America anymore. This would be a time ripe for destroying the 2 party system if anyone was paying attention.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Too bad nobody votes in America anymore. This would be a time ripe for destroying the 2 party system if anyone was paying attention.

I kinda think the problem is we don't really have two parties anymore....more like two sides to one party.

I voted today btw.....No on two Statewide measures.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

This line of reasoning is like saying that because we have murderers to deal with, we shouldn't be horrified at things like dog fighting or spouse abuse. Bullsht.

Which world would you rather live in though....the one where murder wasn't a big concern anymore so everyone was focused on dog fighting and spouse abuse or the one where murder was such a big problem that no one paid much attention to things like dog fighting and spouse abuse?