Printable View
oh ya. him :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
...I think you are confused. J. Edgar Hoover, while around at that point in time, he was never President and never ran for President, he was the head of the FBI and served from 1935 til his death in 1972. He was famous for being the head of the FBI and also allegedly a closet queen and dressing up in women's clothes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Youngblood
Cool mate, I didnt know that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
So your forefathers did issue a warning! Makes me feel alot better that they did to be honest, but it surprises me somewhat.
I would have thought a lesser target would have been a fair warning, you know: show them the hole in the ground in their not so populated areas and then give them a count down..I imagine in hindsight they would probably do that now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Youngbloodoh ya. him :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Lyle...I think you are confused. J. Edgar Hoover, while around at that point in time, he was never President and never ran for President, he was the head of the FBI and served from 1935 til his death in 1972. He was famous for being the head of the FBI and also allegedly a closet queen and dressing up in women's clothes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Youngblood
F B I = Feminine Bastard Incorporated ;-)
Bush and Cheney are war criminals too with their disregard of the Geneva Conventions. String 'em all up, I say!! :plthumbsdown: :fighting0043gi5::cool:
Will that make Lyle angry....:p;D
miles, after your previous posts on this thread I just don't take you seriously.
Sure the left had been clammoring for Bush and Cheaney to get the war criminal treatment but in all honesty they don't deserve it, I mean it's better than what the CIA used to do....I don't think overdosing someone on LSD is all that great, I'd rather be water boarded, don't know about you. It's not like the CIA sawed anyone's head off, so we're still the good guys in that regard so there you have it.
I almost find the term war criminal paradoxical.
I agree with that as well. The notion varies wildly based on whatever the current cultural constructs of which classifications of people (ie. soldiers, civilians) can be justifiably killed, maimed, or "tortured".Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
A little bit tongue in cheek perhaps, but not a million miles away really. A better label for these types might be "the morally obsolete". Not good people by any stretch of the imagination. Mike Tyson has commited fewer crimes against humanity than these people! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
At the end of the day the USA is still the good guy.
I think a nation as powerful as the United States is far too complex to be described in terms of good and evil. Really, I think that it's impossible to describe any nation in such terms except for extreme cases such as Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia etc. America does many things I would consider to be good, but it also does many things I would not consider good. However, it also depends on how the word "good" is defined in this instance. At a very basic level, the primary goal of the nation is to look after it's own citizens and perhaps that is the only way which it should be judged. However, the very structure of the nation and the interconnectedness of our world means that a country, particularly one as powerful as America, has such scope and impact worldwide that some consideration must be given for the way its actions impact others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
I guess that was a long-winded way of saying I have no idea if America is "good" or not as I don't even know how to define "good" in this instance...
Every nation likes to think that about themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
America has had it's many moments when that could be questioned. But I'm hopeful that this change in administration might lead to a renewed attitude of respect for the states. It's been very touch and go with Bush at the helm.
I find it very hard to make excuses for his time in office. :-\
Well miles has America not done enough good to outweigh the bad they may have done?
No country or leader is without sin or mistake....America atones for past sins by welcoming everyone and being a stronghold of freedom and liberty for everyone to enjoy.
Al Queda doesn't follow the Geneva Convention, they don't wear uniforms, they don't try and avoid civilian casualties, they do more than just torture people AND all those people have to be is not be muslim or not be muslims enough for them and they will cut their heads off as if it was the Crusades all over again...so using a set of guidelines like the Geneva Convention seems a bit too "modern" for the enemy we are fighting
I don't need to debate that with you because I'm sure you know that overall my picture of the US is positive. But I was certainly not a fan of the Bush years and certain policies in times before, especially Israeli policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
One thing I always expect of America, and I don't think it is unreasonable, and that is to always try and show the moral highground as the nation that leads all others. That did get lost under Bush for me, but is possibly getting back in line under Obama.
Admittedly, it's not easy to maintain a moral highground when you have nations like China and Russia doing what they want. But America should lead the way and not stoop to the level of vagabond terrorist groups.
I personally would like to see the US take a much more isolationist foreign policy. Being the "world police" is a largely thankless job that quite often brings more problems than its worth.
People can dislike Bush all they want to for whatever reasons but we were going to Iraq no matter what, it was predestined, Saddam was going to be ousted whether by coup or invasion, even Al Gore had stepped up his language on the subject of Iraq.
I completely understand and agree on the US having the moral high ground, and I even with Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and all the water boarding scandals that we still undoubtedly have the moral high ground.
The question you have to ask yourself is, how far can you go to protect your country and still be in the right? And I think that is where the fundamental difference is between the people who don't think waterboarding is that big of a deal and the people who think water boarding is morally wrong. Anything more extreme than those views are strictly political in their nature and the people spouting them either just want to be "right" or they want to punish former/current politicians in power.
In a non-joking manner the movie, Dark Knight is very similar to what situation the US is in. You have a villain who obeys no rules, America is bound by the Geneva Convention, America belongs to the UN, America has to answer for their actions and their enemies don't. Al Queda doesn't have A COUNTRY, they don't have A GOVERNMENT, they are without borders, uniforms, ranks, and limits. Because of that America must fight their enemy and win...but the question is HOW do you win? Do you follow your rules and guidelines and maybe accept that more casualties/collateral damage will be inflicted by these villains? Or do you follow no rules like your enemy and in winning put your morals and values on the line instead of the citizens you are bound by law to protect?
There is no right or wrong in this situation, there are different shades of gray and anyone saying otherwise is just posturing for political purposes.