It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

American Interests (do you even know what it means)?

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by LittleSecret
 


I definitely see a difference between the two situations. However, they aren't exactly germane to this discussion. I, originally, advocated the US government making hard choices and ignoring their own personal beliefs if it were for the greater good of the people. In both of those hypothetical cases I was aware of the rape. I'd feel obligated to report it. Unfortunately, as far as the US is concerned, there are more than two people affected. It's not just the raper and the raped, there are a large number of comparatively innocent people involved. Sometimes reporting the truth is irresponsible and turning a blind eye is the right thing to do. A more apt analogy would be saying that the rapist had a button that would detonate nukes all over the world if he were reported. Is it still the right thing to do to report him, or is letting the truth out irresponsible?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I don't believe that I condone murder exactly, but I do see that it has a purpose. For instance, many allied soldiers murdered people in WWII just to get rid of Hitler. I know I couldn't kill someone. I'm fairly certain that I benefited from these murders. Is there anything wrong with that or should all the soldiers be arrested and pay for their crimes?




posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Mayson
 





I don't believe that I condone murder exactly


Some people believe in unicorns and tooth fairies. That doesn't mean that unicorns and tooth fairies exist.

You have all ready attempted to equate warfare with murder in earlier posts and simply repeating the equation doesn't make it any more true. Murder is a specific term, and it should be noted that the title of this thread asks about interests and if you even know what that means. You clearly do not know what murder means, and there is a clear delineation between murder and warfare.

The problem with such lazy use of language is that communication becomes impossible. All words have specific meaning, and if you hope to communicate effectively, let alone understand yourself what it is you believe, then it is important you understand the precise meaning of the words you use. Effective communication is arguably in every persons best interest.

If you hope to suggest that you don't condone warfare but can see the benefits of warfare, the argument remains the same as if you were to claim you don't condone murder but see the benefits of it. If you don't condone warfare, there must be a good reason for this, and while you can certainly not condone something but understand that of which you do not condone, at times, becomes a necessary action, this is a valid argument, but your attempts at making this argument fall way short of the mark.

To argue that passivity benefits from aggression is a strange argument to make. It is fine that you believe you could never kill anyone, but what is not fine is to call it murder and then imply it is the kind of murder that should escape justice. Murder is murder, and warfare is warfare, and neither action is the same. Here in lies a useful demonstration with all that is wrong with passivity. Your own passiveness has made you lazy, and this laziness is evident in your poor grasp of language.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I was hoping that you'd answer the question I posed, so that I could prove my point. It makes it hard to respond logically when the topic isn't being discussed, but instead personal attacks are levied against me(people ignoring the issue, but calling me a coward and a liar). I guess I should be happy, it means that I'm "winning".


But I digress...

It's hard to deny that sending soldiers to fight against the axis powers in WW2 was the right call. Many soldiers on both sides were killed.

Suppose that, before Germany got out of control, the US government got wind of Hitlers imminent rise to power and predicted the consequences. As a result, they decided to protect America's interest and act to stop Hitler. Suppose, in order to do so, they had to break the law; maybe capture, torture, and murder some German soldiers prior to a formal declaration of war(that should clear up the issue of semantics). With this information they were able to send a black-ops team in and assassinate Hitler.

Is this illegal? You betcha it is!

This is the kind of "murder" I'm OK with; not morally, but intellectually. It protects American interests and helps everyone. By advocating full disclosure, you potentially impair the governments ability to protect its citizens. If we, as a people, were aware of this we and the other branches of the government would be forced to act to stop it. So, if we were to punish our soldiers for doing their job and putting aside their own personal beliefs for the greater good, we'd be making their job impossible. In a similar way, by tying the hands of the government we make it impossible to do their job.

Yes, you do whatever it takes to protect your country. You also need to keep it a secret to protect the soul of your citizens.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Mayson
 




I definitely see a difference between the two situations. However, they aren't exactly germane to this discussion. I, originally, advocated the US government making hard choices and ignoring their own personal beliefs if it were for the greater good of the people. In both of those hypothetical cases I was aware of the rape. I'd feel obligated to report it. Unfortunately, as far as the US is concerned, there are more than two people affected. It's not just the raper and the raped, there are a large number of comparatively innocent people involved. Sometimes reporting the truth is irresponsible and turning a blind eye is the right thing to do. A more apt analogy would be saying that the rapist had a button that would detonate nukes all over the world if he were reported. Is it still the right thing to do to report him, or is letting the truth out irresponsible?


If the rapist had a button which would detonate nukes all around the world, the rapist should be stopped.

It is about justice, once again, no justice, no peace.

It won't work.

People seem to think we can live without justice in a peaceful manner, and not spend all our resources, time and effort on security.

If there was justice, the US wouldn't have to spend billions, of billions of dollars for defense purposes.

A portion of that money would be enough to help boost research on many areas of sciences to boost human advancement.

Instead we are boosting human destructive force due to lack of justice.

No one would care if the US send a special ops to Germany to kill Hitler, even if it was illegal. Heck the Shias/Kurds in Iraq even asked the US to help kill Saddam during the uprise.

But it was American interests right?

It was American interests to support Saddam right? Give Saddam WMD/Chem/bio weapons to use against Iran right? But here is a question, if you have no clue why your government does anything, how can you take situations such as the Iraq war/Iran/Iraq war lightly and not ask any questions?

Can you argue that your government can/could do horrifying things like Hitler and use national Interests to avoid accountability?

Germans turned a blind eye in regards to Jews being prosecuted, right? Do you believe they thought it was in regards to German interests?



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleSecret
It was American interests to support Saddam right? Give Saddam WMD/Chem/bio weapons to use against Iran right? But here is a question, if you have no clue why your government does anything, how can you take situations such as the Iraq war/Iran/Iraq war lightly and not ask any questions?



Once again you have demonstrated a very narrow view and understanding of a situation you obviously know very little about.

The US did support Saddam but was not the only one supplying him. Did you ever wonder where exactly all that Soviet/Russian equipment came from that they used in their defense against the US and Allies?

Not to mention who all else supplied said weapons. Expand your understanding.

Corporate Suppliers for Iraq's Weapons Programs

Seventeen British companies who supplied Iraq with nuclear, biological, chemical, rocket and conventional weapons technology are to be investigated and could face prosecution following a Sunday Herald investigation. One of the companies is International Military Services, a part of the Ministry of Defence, which sold rocket technology to Iraq.

The companies were named by Iraq in a 12,000 page dossier submitted to the UN in December. The Security Council agreed to US requests to censor 8000 pages — including sections naming western businesses which aided Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



The US did support Saddam but was not the only one supplying him. Did you ever wonder where exactly all that Soviet/Russian equipment came from that they used in their defense against the US and Allies?


Uhhh, wait, because there is two monsters, they are both innocent? Not a good argument.

The Russian weapons ofcurse came from Russia, hence Qassim was a evil socialist, hence that was the reason for killing a Democratically elected evil socialist who was gonna nationalize oil.

By the way, Britain has been part of the empire since WWII. Remember Britain got destroyed.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   


If the rapist had a button which would detonate nukes all around the world, the rapist should be stopped.


Exactly my point. Stop him using whatever means necessary to protect Americas interests.




No one would care if the US send a special ops to Germany to kill Hitler, even if it was illegal. Heck the Shias/Kurds in Iraq even asked the US to help kill Saddam during the uprise.

But it was American interests right?

It was American interests to support Saddam right? Give Saddam WMD/Chem/bio weapons to use against Iran right?


I don't pretend to know the rationale that led those in power to come to that decision.



But here is a question, if you have no clue why your government does anything, how can you take situations such as the Iraq war/Iran/Iraq war lightly and not ask any questions?

Who would I ask? I am, however, curious about why certain things are done.




Can you argue that your government can/could do horrifying things like Hitler and use national Interests to avoid accountability?


Yes. People throughout history have done things that we might now consider "evil". It's unrealistic to assume that it couldn't happen again. The sum total of these actions have brought us to where we currently are.



Germans turned a blind eye in regards to Jews being prosecuted, right? Do you believe they thought it was in regards to German interests?


Some might have believed it was in Germany's interests. Some might not have.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Mayson
 




Exactly my point. Stop him using whatever means necessary to protect Americas interests.


Let me get your argument straight:

So you are saying it is OK to allow someone (with a nuke suicide vest) to rape your daughter, as long as he doesn't press the button which would kill everyone else?

Is that your argument?



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by Mayson
 




Exactly my point. Stop him using whatever means necessary to protect Americas interests.


Let me get your argument straight:

So you are saying it is OK to allow someone (with a nuke suicide vest) to rape your daughter, as long as he doesn't press the button which would kill everyone else?

Is that your argument?


I'm not sure if I can figure out how you came to that conclusion. If someone raped my daughter, I would definitely be upset. If, however, she made a hard choice and "took one for the team", I would be proud. Angry at the situation, but proud of her selflessness.

To continue to use the rape analogy(even though this seems weird to be talking about). Suppose that there was a rapist demanding to have sex with someone or he'd destroy the wolrd. There is no way to stop him. It's either sex or the world is destroyed. The president, at the potential cost of his immortal soul, kidnaps a girl and allows this man to have sex with her and covers it up. No one in the world knows it happens and everyone lives a relatively happy existence.

Would anyone be OK with that? Heck no! Was it the right(as in logical) decision? Probably.

Suppose, despite everyone's best efforts, this type of thing happens every day. As a result of these tough decisions to preserve American interests, the majority of people get to live a peaceful existence.

People here are always advocating the "truth" be let out.

Suppose there was a law that every person in power (generals, politicians, etc.) had to have all his actions recorded and disseminated to the general population.

The next time this "rape scenario" happened, their hands would be tied. They can't kidnap someone and cover it up anymore and they can't give in, so the world blows up. What if they give in anyway? The general public now knows the truth about their governments moral misdeeds in an effort to preserve their countries interests. There is widespread outrage. The country is torn apart. Perhaps only those that were responsible are punished and it's business as usual for the rest of country. What happens the next time the same or a similar situation comes up?



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Mayson
 


I got nothing more to add, anyone raping my daughter, no matter if he has 5000 nukes on him, will be stopped by me, and I'll die protecting her.

There's a difference between me and you, I'm not a materialist, sorry, I don't believe survival is the only thing we should worry about, heck that is what the NAZI Germany was worried about, but we all know you agree with NAZI Germany as stated in the previous post.

The difference between me and you is obvious, therefore no more discussion needed.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


I guess that's why most countries aren't run by priests/clerics/etc. and America has that whole separation of church and state thing.

It seems like things work out better for almost everyone that way.

It's also why world leaders make the "big bucks". They make the hard decisions no normal person would be happy with. It's their metaphorical cross to bear.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Mayson]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join