Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
The theme comes up over and over (and over, and over) in thread after thread: Do the ends justify the means? If we're fighting for freedom, does this allow buddying up to tyrants? If we're against callous disregard for sensitive feelings, are we right in calling the offenders inbred cretins? If we're defending liberty, does this mean clamping down on civil rights in the short run? Do we have to become Nazis to fight Nazis? If we want to make politics more representative, do we get there with back-room deals? Does it take big government to protect individual liberties? Should we protect life by executing murderers? Can a billionaire fight capitalism? Does every shortcut come back to bite you in the *ss?

I'm beginning to think that the ends almost never the means. Trite as it sounds, you may have to be the change that you wish to see in the world. What do you think?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
The world is shades of gray.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
...It often came to our attention that we had to fight fire with fire, or in some cases, pit bad guys vs bad guys. We did it in WW2, using Stalin to defeat Hitler, and we sure as hell knew it while fighting against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Veteran:
It's not like the Allies devised some clever plot to pit Stalin against Hitler.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:
I'm willing to accept that there are occasions where taking the law into one's own hands, or lying to the american people for the sake of national security, etc. etc. could be legitimate.

I'm also willing to bet that such conditions are rare, and that as Americans it is our responsibility to unqaulifyingly nail everybody to the wall who breaks the most esteemed laws of our land.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Veteran:

Also, I don't think we had any idea of what kind of monster we created when we allowed the Mujahadeem to fight a proxy war against the Soviets. At the time the press portrayed them as freedom fighters. Ironically, bin Laden didn't declare the US as an enemy until we stationed troops in Saudia Arabia during the Gulf War.

I think you would have done better to advance your argument if you evoked Truman's use of the atomic bomb to end WWII.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
The theme comes up over and over (and over, and over) in thread after thread: Do the ends justify the means?

---

Quote:

---

If your goal is to prevent global Communist domination then supporting anti-communist dictators is ok.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
So OOC, how many people can we enslave while fighting communism...How many people are we allowed to kill while fighting for freedom? 100? One million? Less than the tyrant would have killed? More?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Then, generally taking shortcuts tends to give poor results.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

I take a shortcut home from work and it take five minutes instead of ten.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

I take a shortcut home from work and it take five minutes instead of ten.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

I know, you're limiting you carbon-footprint....blah blah

You're such a greenie-weenie...Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

rue wrote:
Friday, November 16, 2007 11:10
"how many are we forced to kill in defense of freedom"

She forced me to rape her. He made me murder him. Yeah, that flies.

***************************************************************
They made me do it !

---

Quote:

---

This man led other men in battle and ordered them to kill, because he felt he was saving others and standing up for a cause. Was he wrong?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm surprised that no one has accused me of (gasp!) secularism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Sorry, that answer is a cop out.
=================================
Do they?

No, never.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Veteran:
The Japanese forced Truman to use the atomic bomb?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RocketJock:
In a very real sense, yes, at least as far as Nagasaki was concerned.

The Japanese Imperial government had two days to surrender. Two freaking days, with God's own bad example of what would happen to them if they did not.

They chose not to.

Which, to me, justifies Truman's decision to drop the Hiroshima bomb as well. He had correctly read the intractable nature of the military-dominated Japanese mindset of the time. To have done anything else would have been placing the Japanese population (which he was not beholden by his office to worry about) ahead of the lives of Allied military personnel (which he was.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
And that's why there need to be hard and fast rules about what means are allowed towards which ends. It is very human, a very real part of our nature, that we can rationalize to ourselves almost any inhuman action. So we need an infrastructure in place to keep us from doing what we are programmed to do by the lizard brain need for survival.

We are built to use any means to our ends. We need to create systems to rise above our natures.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
And that's why there need to be hard and fast rules about what means are allowed towards which ends. It is very human, a very real part of our nature, that we can rationalize to ourselves almost any inhuman action. So we need an infrastructure in place to keep us from doing what we are programmed to do by the lizard brain need for survival.

We are built to use any means to our ends. We need to create systems to rise above our natures.

---

Realize that if we do this, we must be willing to sacrifice some of our own if the means to save them goes beyond those 'hard and fast rules'. We might want to check with everybody first, to see which set of rules they're really willing to die for.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Realize that if we do this, we must be willing to sacrifice some of our own if the means to save them goes beyond those 'hard and fast rules'. We might want to check with everybody first, to see which set of rules they're really willing to die for.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Ah. I would submit that someone must be willing to undergo torture themselves before they can authorize it upon another. In that context, we are unlikely to have many votes in favor of the practice.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.- Benjamin Franklin.

I guess the FF had it wrong then? Because they were willing to die for Liberty.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Ah. I would submit that someone must be willing to undergo torture themselves before they can authorize it upon another. In that context, we are unlikely to have many votes in favor of the practice.

---

So you're also all right with innocent others getting killed because you won't do something against your morals, even if you knew it would save them?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
That's a lot like asking, "Would you savagely rape and murder a five year old girl if it might somehow save the lives of thousands?"

And if I said no, then the retort would be, "How dare you inflict your morals upon the innocent multitudes?"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Sorry, but your mind reading is off today.

First, I'd make it clear-cut. If you take no action, this WILL happen.

I'd then ask if you were then willing to take responsibility for the deaths of those thousands. Apologize to their families. Support their children. Each action - or lack of action - has consequences. In the child vs. thousands scenario, someone dies either way.

Also interesting how you equate anything that doesn't agree with your principles with tyranny.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hmm... Oppressive power exerted by government?

---

Quote:

---

But then, what is oppressive? Perhaps it involves robbing people of their rights?

---

Quote:

---

In any event, let me join in on your absolutism.

If we do not authorize the torture and killing of subject individuals, people will absolutely die as a consequence. Thousands. Perhaps millions. The consequence may or may not be immediate. But somewhere along the line, the intelligence we fail to capture will result in horrible bloodshed.

If we authorize the torture and killing of subject individuals, people will absolutely die as a consequence. Thousands. Perhaps millions. The consequence may or may not be immediate. But somewhere along the line, the regime we authorize to overlook people's rights will cause horrible bloodshed.

Now, seeing as how I must apologize to victims either way, I think I'd rather apologize for following my good conscience.

---