Seriously, though to have 25% polling 'no' or 'unsure' just shows that some of the 'birther's' have found a new conspiracy. The numbers are a little lower than the last birther poll on here so maybe cooler heads are prevailing.
I can understand the unsure. Our government -- regardless of who is president, so this comment isn't political -- leaves a lot to be desired in the truth, accuracy and transparency departments.
That said, I voted yes. There's really no other rational explanation for the reports of his death. All the pieces line up in a logical fashion.
I voted yes. However, I have great doubts about the veracity of Barack Hussein Obama Junior.
Barack Hussein Obama Junior did no justice in 2009 to the Navy Seal who allegedly punched a detainee (terrorist) in the stomach. Court Martial proceedings were started and Mathew McCabe was found innocent.
This mentioned Navy Seal was crucified in the Liberal press and left leaning liberal politicians.
These same people denounced water boarding as barbaric. Navy Seals are water boarded as part of their training.
Water boarding (gasp) was used to help locate Osama Bin Laden.I have no problem with that.
The same liberal press, the same liberal politicians are now praising the Navy Seals; nevertheless they are silent about water boarding now that their guy, Barack Hussein Obama Junior ordered the Seals to assassinate Osama Bin Laden. Punch a detainee (terrorist) in the stomach-bad; shoot a terrorist in the head-good.
Barack Hussein Obama Junior carried out the Bush Doctrine to keep the country safe and that is good. George Bush was called a war criminal when he kept the country safe.
I doubt the veracity of Barack Hussein Obama Junior and those of his ilk.
Richard: Navy seals may or may not be "waterboarded" during their training, it's not necessarily public knowledge what goes on during the training. If they are it's so they will know what to expect if captured by someone else. That doesn't make it OK for us to do it.
As for "Punch a detainee (terrorist) in the stomach-bad; shoot a terrorist in the head-good." Yeah, duh.
My biggest problem with Obama, Biden and 75% of Congress is: they have no military experience whatsoever and have no idea what they are ordering our people to carry out. Glad this went well. I could care less about the scumbag bin Laden, I mean I'm glad our guys weren't killed or injured. I voted unsure, because I wasn't there and I don't trust the government in general.
The classic definition of conservatism (I recommend reading Russell Kirk's "The Conservative Mind") is one of morality and upholding the rule of law.
Further, a true conservative would never take a position of ends justifying the means or believing in situational ethics.
Given that water boarding is immoral and violates the rule of law, how can a person who self-identifies as a conservative support water boarding, and then use arguments of ends justifying the means and situational ethics to say it's OK?
Richard, I don't know if you've been through SERE training, but some of us who post here have. The waterboarding and other versions of simulated torture that certain members of the US military go through is an abject lesson in the kind of depths our enemies will sink to to get us to say the things they want us to say.
See my reply to Dave Olsen.
This story will grow feet and the truth will get out.
Call it situational ethics if you like, but in my opinion if water boarding a terrorist will save American lives and prevent another 911 or worse, I am all for it.
It has been a pleasure gentlemen. I will reply to Howard Owens in the next few days-good night.
Dave has a good point, that most of the members of our Congress and the President have never served in the military. While not a requirement for office, it is a plus.
I have not been a Davis supporter, but at least he served (USMC).
So, Richard you doubt the veracity of the President and his administration, because they are liberals, but you believe the people who supported waterboarding and gave the orders to do it. That's rather inconsistent. You may want to consider that the people you believe are trying to justify their actions and being politicians will most certainly lie to do so. I don't trust either side for the record.
John, 75% of congress (both houses) have not been in the service. I think I'll vote for Davis just because we need more veterans there. I may be wrong, but I'm thinkin' more vets, less wars. He was also Coast Guard.
Had to double check the URL on that ... thought I was reading something out of The Onion.
Note, the article has no citations, no links, no sources -- just unsubstantiated assertions.
Bin Laden was captured on video tape shortly after that 9/11 attack laughing about it and saying the towers collapse exceeded his expectations.
He also appeared on several other tapes post 9/11, some of which are authenticated, others not, in which he either takes credit or further threatens the U.S.
Russell Kirk- October 19, 1918 – April 29, 1994, was a man of his time, however, he dealt mostly in theories.
Russell Kirk was a political theorist, a moralist and historian. He was a social critic, a literary critic and a traditionalist conservative; a definition you expostulate inferring that Russell Kirk is the gospel of conservatism and to stray from scripture is morally repugnant.
Granted, Russell Kirk had great influence with the political movement of his time. Nevertheless, he was in turn greatly influenced by John Burke and John Burke’s theories. Above all, Russell Kirk was honest and open about his opinions.
This brings us to liberalism. The Classic definition of a liberal in Russell Kirk’s time was tolerant and open minded; especially in the realms of politics and morality.
You have passively offered a short but unsuccessful thinly veiled Straw Man, a shame argument set up for demolition. It remains a flash in the pan. You conveniently did not offer how you personally feel about water boarding. Was your omission an attempt by an implied liberal to assume the moral high ground and put the onus on me? If it was, is that an example of situational ethics? Do the ends justify the means and is that OK?
I challenge you to find one liberal position I've taken. My positions are consistently paleo-conservative, libertarian or localist (pretty much in reverse order). (Of course, I get labeled a liberal often because I refuse to bow at the alter of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, but rather, prefer to think for myself.)
I've not set up a straw man. The fact is, conservatives of even just a generation ago would not recognize what is called conservatism today.
My opinion of water boarding is irrelevant. What concerns me the most is how this country is losing its way, and conservatives defending water boarding is a drop in the bucket example of the kind of situational ethics and moral relativism that conservatives once condemned but will embrace when it suits their purpose.
As for espousing Russell Kirk (as well as Burke, among others) as the gospel of conservatism today. There was a time when a conservative would be proud to be called reactionary (a favorite epithet of liberals in the 1960s for conservatives meant as an insult). If conservatism means anything at all, it means an adherence to tradition above all else. Any self-described conservative who does not do adhere to tradition, and the traditional values of conservatism, isn't really a conservative.
You can't call yourself, for example, a strict constructionist (a classic conservative position) and then say a strict adherence to the Founders' intent must be molded to fit the times. No strict constructionist who upholds the ideals of the Founders could ever condone inhumane treatment and a violation of due process of the law for any person regardless of the accusations against them or the situation of the moment.
I doubt the veracity of Barack Hussein Obama. A quote by Roy Hattersley comes to mind, “Politicians are entitled to change their minds. But when they adjust their principles some explanation is necessary”.
I applaud the people who keep our nation safe. Pick an imaginary scenario about terrorist attacks on our soil. Terrorist attacks in our schools (see the Soviet Union) in our shopping malls, churches and transportation systems. Imagine the blood and the suffering….the carnage.
Many of us have become complacent since 911 because the people who are protecting us are doing an outstanding job. There are secret operations going on behind the scenes and attacks thwarted that we will never know about. That is the nature of spying and covert operations.
We can argue that by engaging in water boarding we are no different than them. We can take an extreme pacifist platform. We can argue eloquently and politely as Howard does about the traditional conservative. He is right on the money by the way.
We can argue all of those things because of the anonymous people in the background keeping us safe; they are getting their hands dirty, not us. We, me included, are tapping on our keyboards discussing the morality of water boarding or other distasteful interrogation methods. Water boarding is a tool. Just as a rifle or a tank or a guided missile is a tool in our arsenal. The result from the latter is death, carnage, bloodshed and suffering when we use them.
Is that moral? Should we rethink our position?
Terrorists will use any tools at their disposal. They don’t worry about niceties, they don’t worry about morality.
This brings us back to the people keeping us safe. Should we remove any tool that may, or may not be effective to placate our enemies, even though they have to no compunction not to use everything a their disposal against us?
We can argue water boarding is an effective non-lethal tool, or water boarding is a dehumanizing tool and not effective at all; set that aside for the moment.
I give you the hypothetical power, Dave. You can set the issue straight once and for all. It’s all about you, Dave. It’s all about morality and feeling good about ourselves as a nation. We become a shining star for the rest of the world. We hold the moral high ground. The terrorists continue on their present course of action. Would you take the chance, Dave?
Would you stop all distasteful interrogation techniques, including non-lethal water boarding under all circumstances? If the answer is yes, so be it.
Now, I have the hypothetical power I offered you. My answer is no! I wouldn’t take that chance. I would rather remain an imperfect conservative. I would allow a non-lethal tool rather than count the bodies of our dead by taking chances with my fellow American’s lives and the lives of their children.
Richard, I'm not going to answer every question posed. This debate has been going on for years, to be blunt, you're right, I'm not involved in the war on terror anymore or whatever you want to call it, and I'm tired of the same old argument about the same old stuff. I will answer a couple though,
Is war immoral? you bet it is.
A terrorist is a scumbag and doesn't care about morality or humanity, I agree. I'll ask you the same question my mother asked me when I was about 8, "if all your friends wanted to go play in the thruway would you do it too?"
Sticking to our standards is NOT placating our enemies.
There is no proof that waterboarding works (Peter King & Bill O'Reilly saying it does is not proof). It also doesn't scare a person who is willing to strap a bomb to themselves and walk into a crowded market and set it off. So what is the point?
We are still a shining star for the rest of the world, may it ever be so. We can defeat terrorism on our terms, I believe, instead of theirs. I agree, our people are doing a great job keeping another attack from us, it's the management I have a problem with.
Richard, and anyone else who's interested; I'd like to share a little reading material for you when you have time. You can believe all the chattering class hot-air balloon pundits (like Bill O'Reilly)or the morally bankrupt politicians (like Peter King) if you want, personally, I prefer these guys, far better company to stand with:
Do we call the people who are
Do we call the people who are skeptical "Deathers" ?
Dave, you took the words
Dave, you took the words right out of my mouth.
Seriously, though to have 25% polling 'no' or 'unsure' just shows that some of the 'birther's' have found a new conspiracy. The numbers are a little lower than the last birther poll on here so maybe cooler heads are prevailing.
I can understand the unsure.
I can understand the unsure. Our government -- regardless of who is president, so this comment isn't political -- leaves a lot to be desired in the truth, accuracy and transparency departments.
That said, I voted yes. There's really no other rational explanation for the reports of his death. All the pieces line up in a logical fashion.
I voted yes. However, I have
I voted yes. However, I have great doubts about the veracity of Barack Hussein Obama Junior.
Barack Hussein Obama Junior did no justice in 2009 to the Navy Seal who allegedly punched a detainee (terrorist) in the stomach. Court Martial proceedings were started and Mathew McCabe was found innocent.
This mentioned Navy Seal was crucified in the Liberal press and left leaning liberal politicians.
These same people denounced water boarding as barbaric. Navy Seals are water boarded as part of their training.
Water boarding (gasp) was used to help locate Osama Bin Laden.I have no problem with that.
The same liberal press, the same liberal politicians are now praising the Navy Seals; nevertheless they are silent about water boarding now that their guy, Barack Hussein Obama Junior ordered the Seals to assassinate Osama Bin Laden. Punch a detainee (terrorist) in the stomach-bad; shoot a terrorist in the head-good.
Barack Hussein Obama Junior carried out the Bush Doctrine to keep the country safe and that is good. George Bush was called a war criminal when he kept the country safe.
I doubt the veracity of Barack Hussein Obama Junior and those of his ilk.
Richard: Navy seals may or
Richard: Navy seals may or may not be "waterboarded" during their training, it's not necessarily public knowledge what goes on during the training. If they are it's so they will know what to expect if captured by someone else. That doesn't make it OK for us to do it.
As for "Punch a detainee (terrorist) in the stomach-bad; shoot a terrorist in the head-good." Yeah, duh.
My biggest problem with Obama, Biden and 75% of Congress is: they have no military experience whatsoever and have no idea what they are ordering our people to carry out. Glad this went well. I could care less about the scumbag bin Laden, I mean I'm glad our guys weren't killed or injured. I voted unsure, because I wasn't there and I don't trust the government in general.
Dave: Point of
Dave:
Point of clarification; is fair to say you believe that water boarding should not be used under any circumstances?
The classic definition of
The classic definition of conservatism (I recommend reading Russell Kirk's "The Conservative Mind") is one of morality and upholding the rule of law.
Further, a true conservative would never take a position of ends justifying the means or believing in situational ethics.
Given that water boarding is immoral and violates the rule of law, how can a person who self-identifies as a conservative support water boarding, and then use arguments of ends justifying the means and situational ethics to say it's OK?
Richard, I don't know if
Richard, I don't know if you've been through SERE training, but some of us who post here have. The waterboarding and other versions of simulated torture that certain members of the US military go through is an abject lesson in the kind of depths our enemies will sink to to get us to say the things they want us to say.
You sure you're ok with that?
I heard "The Donald" is
I heard "The Donald" is demanding to see Bin Laden's death certificate.....
That's fair to say, Richard.
That's fair to say, Richard. There's also no proof that waterboarding actually led to tracking down bin Laden.
Well Dave, there is proof and
Well Dave, there is proof and here is one link.
http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/waterboarding-co…
Chris: See my reply to Dave
Chris:
See my reply to Dave Olsen.
This story will grow feet and the truth will get out.
Call it situational ethics if you like, but in my opinion if water boarding a terrorist will save American lives and prevent another 911 or worse, I am all for it.
It has been a pleasure gentlemen. I will reply to Howard Owens in the next few days-good night.
With all due respect Mr.
With all due respect Mr. Richmond, (which is to say none whatsoever)you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
I disagree with your opinions
I disagree with your opinions and instinctually you revert to a tired platitude.
Your inflated ego is astounding….respect?
You giving or withholding respect doesn’t amount to a fart in the wind.
You set the tone on this one, Ace
Dave has a good point, that
Dave has a good point, that most of the members of our Congress and the President have never served in the military. While not a requirement for office, it is a plus.
I have not been a Davis supporter, but at least he served (USMC).
So, Richard you doubt the
So, Richard you doubt the veracity of the President and his administration, because they are liberals, but you believe the people who supported waterboarding and gave the orders to do it. That's rather inconsistent. You may want to consider that the people you believe are trying to justify their actions and being politicians will most certainly lie to do so. I don't trust either side for the record.
John, 75% of congress (both houses) have not been in the service. I think I'll vote for Davis just because we need more veterans there. I may be wrong, but I'm thinkin' more vets, less wars. He was also Coast Guard.
Dave, You may very well be
Dave,
You may very well be right.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2009/12/05/years-of-deceit-us-openly-accep…
Had to double check the URL
Had to double check the URL on that ... thought I was reading something out of The Onion.
Note, the article has no citations, no links, no sources -- just unsubstantiated assertions.
Bin Laden was captured on video tape shortly after that 9/11 attack laughing about it and saying the towers collapse exceeded his expectations.
He also appeared on several other tapes post 9/11, some of which are authenticated, others not, in which he either takes credit or further threatens the U.S.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-09-11-binladen-glance_x.htm
He had also declared holy war on the U.S. prior to the attacks. Some background information contemporary with the attacks. http://www.culteducation.com/binladen.html
There's plenty of information available through Google if you've forgotten what actually happened in 9/11 and the months following.
Russell Kirk- October 19,
Russell Kirk- October 19, 1918 – April 29, 1994, was a man of his time, however, he dealt mostly in theories.
Russell Kirk was a political theorist, a moralist and historian. He was a social critic, a literary critic and a traditionalist conservative; a definition you expostulate inferring that Russell Kirk is the gospel of conservatism and to stray from scripture is morally repugnant.
Granted, Russell Kirk had great influence with the political movement of his time. Nevertheless, he was in turn greatly influenced by John Burke and John Burke’s theories. Above all, Russell Kirk was honest and open about his opinions.
This brings us to liberalism. The Classic definition of a liberal in Russell Kirk’s time was tolerant and open minded; especially in the realms of politics and morality.
You have passively offered a short but unsuccessful thinly veiled Straw Man, a shame argument set up for demolition. It remains a flash in the pan. You conveniently did not offer how you personally feel about water boarding. Was your omission an attempt by an implied liberal to assume the moral high ground and put the onus on me? If it was, is that an example of situational ethics? Do the ends justify the means and is that OK?
Richard, "implied liberal"
Richard, "implied liberal" ???
I challenge you to find one liberal position I've taken. My positions are consistently paleo-conservative, libertarian or localist (pretty much in reverse order). (Of course, I get labeled a liberal often because I refuse to bow at the alter of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, but rather, prefer to think for myself.)
I've not set up a straw man. The fact is, conservatives of even just a generation ago would not recognize what is called conservatism today.
My opinion of water boarding is irrelevant. What concerns me the most is how this country is losing its way, and conservatives defending water boarding is a drop in the bucket example of the kind of situational ethics and moral relativism that conservatives once condemned but will embrace when it suits their purpose.
As for espousing Russell Kirk (as well as Burke, among others) as the gospel of conservatism today. There was a time when a conservative would be proud to be called reactionary (a favorite epithet of liberals in the 1960s for conservatives meant as an insult). If conservatism means anything at all, it means an adherence to tradition above all else. Any self-described conservative who does not do adhere to tradition, and the traditional values of conservatism, isn't really a conservative.
You can't call yourself, for example, a strict constructionist (a classic conservative position) and then say a strict adherence to the Founders' intent must be molded to fit the times. No strict constructionist who upholds the ideals of the Founders could ever condone inhumane treatment and a violation of due process of the law for any person regardless of the accusations against them or the situation of the moment.
Howard: I withdraw the
Howard:
I withdraw the implied liberal implication.
Dave: I doubt the veracity
Dave:
I doubt the veracity of Barack Hussein Obama. A quote by Roy Hattersley comes to mind, “Politicians are entitled to change their minds. But when they adjust their principles some explanation is necessary”.
I applaud the people who keep our nation safe. Pick an imaginary scenario about terrorist attacks on our soil. Terrorist attacks in our schools (see the Soviet Union) in our shopping malls, churches and transportation systems. Imagine the blood and the suffering….the carnage.
Many of us have become complacent since 911 because the people who are protecting us are doing an outstanding job. There are secret operations going on behind the scenes and attacks thwarted that we will never know about. That is the nature of spying and covert operations.
We can argue that by engaging in water boarding we are no different than them. We can take an extreme pacifist platform. We can argue eloquently and politely as Howard does about the traditional conservative. He is right on the money by the way.
We can argue all of those things because of the anonymous people in the background keeping us safe; they are getting their hands dirty, not us. We, me included, are tapping on our keyboards discussing the morality of water boarding or other distasteful interrogation methods. Water boarding is a tool. Just as a rifle or a tank or a guided missile is a tool in our arsenal. The result from the latter is death, carnage, bloodshed and suffering when we use them.
Is that moral? Should we rethink our position?
Terrorists will use any tools at their disposal. They don’t worry about niceties, they don’t worry about morality.
This brings us back to the people keeping us safe. Should we remove any tool that may, or may not be effective to placate our enemies, even though they have to no compunction not to use everything a their disposal against us?
We can argue water boarding is an effective non-lethal tool, or water boarding is a dehumanizing tool and not effective at all; set that aside for the moment.
I give you the hypothetical power, Dave. You can set the issue straight once and for all. It’s all about you, Dave. It’s all about morality and feeling good about ourselves as a nation. We become a shining star for the rest of the world. We hold the moral high ground. The terrorists continue on their present course of action. Would you take the chance, Dave?
Would you stop all distasteful interrogation techniques, including non-lethal water boarding under all circumstances? If the answer is yes, so be it.
Now, I have the hypothetical power I offered you. My answer is no! I wouldn’t take that chance. I would rather remain an imperfect conservative. I would allow a non-lethal tool rather than count the bodies of our dead by taking chances with my fellow American’s lives and the lives of their children.
Can we agree to disagree?
Richard, I'm not going to
Richard, I'm not going to answer every question posed. This debate has been going on for years, to be blunt, you're right, I'm not involved in the war on terror anymore or whatever you want to call it, and I'm tired of the same old argument about the same old stuff. I will answer a couple though,
Is war immoral? you bet it is.
A terrorist is a scumbag and doesn't care about morality or humanity, I agree. I'll ask you the same question my mother asked me when I was about 8, "if all your friends wanted to go play in the thruway would you do it too?"
Sticking to our standards is NOT placating our enemies.
There is no proof that waterboarding works (Peter King & Bill O'Reilly saying it does is not proof). It also doesn't scare a person who is willing to strap a bomb to themselves and walk into a crowded market and set it off. So what is the point?
We are still a shining star for the rest of the world, may it ever be so. We can defeat terrorism on our terms, I believe, instead of theirs. I agree, our people are doing a great job keeping another attack from us, it's the management I have a problem with.
So, sure we can agree to disagree.
Richard, and anyone else
Richard, and anyone else who's interested; I'd like to share a little reading material for you when you have time. You can believe all the chattering class hot-air balloon pundits (like Bill O'Reilly)or the morally bankrupt politicians (like Peter King) if you want, personally, I prefer these guys, far better company to stand with:
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2011/05/06/army-interrogator-torture-no…
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Letter-to-Obama-…
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2011/0505/Military-interrogators-…