I got my butt kicked

[The_Professor]

January 20, 2008
Edwards: 'I got my butt kicked'
Posted: 06:15 PM ET
 
Edwards said Sunday he's in it for the long haul.
(CNN) ? After a crushing loss in Nevada's Democratic caucuses Saturday, presidential candidate John Edwards said Sunday that he hopes "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas."

Edwards placed a distant third in the vote, with just 4 percent of the vote, behind Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

?I got my butt kicked. That is what happened in Nevada,? the former North Carolina senator told Wolf Blitzer on CNN?s Late Edition. ?And the job for me now is ? I have learned this from my whole life experience, is when you get knocked down, you have got to get up. You have got to get up and start fighting again?

?I would kind of like to go back to the old Las Vegas saying, though. You know, ?what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas?? I hope that turns out to be true in this case.?

Instead of campaigning in Nevada in the days before Saturday?s vote, Edwards focused instead on stumping in his birth state of South Carolina, where he won the 2004 primary.

Edwards is running a distant third in the state in most recent surveys, behind Obama and Clinton.

Saturday night, after his disappointing Nevada finish, his campaign tried to downplay the importance of results in any one state. "The race to the nomination is a marathon and not a sprint,? said Edwards? campaign manager, former Rep. David Bonior. ?The nomination won't be decided by win-loss records, but by delegates, and we're ready to fight for every delegate.?

On Sunday, Edwards continued to sound a cautious theme, saying South Carolina was ?important,? but just one ?part of the long process. ?We will see how it goes.?

[Michael Tee]

I feel bad for Edwards.  I saw XO in another thread put him second on his preference list, after Kucinich and ahead of Clinton and Obama.  I'd agree with that assessment.  I bumped him up when I heard him say on CNN that under his Presidency, there wouldn't be any more debate about what kind of torture is OK and what kind of torture is not OK.  That there just wouldn't be any torture permitted.  Period.  End of discussion.

How the fucking hell did your country ever get to the point where people have to debate whether or not torture is OK?  It's almost surreal to think that this is a country which used to be one of the good guys.

[The_Professor]

We obviously disagree here, MT. If my nation's security is at stake, ANY type of torture ifs fine with me, Please be realistic.

[Michael Tee]

I'll be more realistic than you, Professor.

1.  Your country's security is NOT at stake.  You are strong enough to counter any strike from anywhere with devastating retaliatory force, and the worst thing that the "terrorists" can do to you is knock down a few buildings and kill a few thousand (out of three hundred million) Americans.  That is NOT a threat to national security.  You lose more than ten times that number of victims in traffic accidents every year.

2.  You are messing with people and places you have no business messing with in the first place, and some of the people you mess with are going to strike back at you.  If you were really concerned with your country's security, the first step would be to start observing the Charter of the United Nations and the Constitution of the United States of America, start looking after your own problems and stop fucking with people who have finally figured out ways to strike back at you.

3.  You need to get a grip.  The crooks running your country have spooked you with ludicrous and fantastic fairy tales about the "threat" to America coming from virtually powerless individuals whose only weapons are their own minds and bodies.  All the torture in the world won't save you from the odd one or two who will get through your defences every so often.  The anti-American hatred generated or blown into white heat by the torture is a bigger threat to you than whatever (if any) pathetic little plots have been uncovered so far as a result of torture.

4.  What is "national security" but a threat to American lives?  Two thousand at a time, ten thousand at a time.  Are your lives so precious to you that you'll sacrifice every moral value you ever had just to save them for a few more years, till the inevitable hour of death arrives anyway?  A value as fundamental as the prohibition of torture - - the cruelest and most horrible form of abuse one human being can commit on another - - is tossed away like scrap paper because "national security" - - the destruction of a few buildings, the lives of a few thousand Americans who, in the fullness of time are gonna die anyway - - are at stake.  What kind of people are you becoming? 

[Lanya]

If you had children in the military, perhaps you wouldn't want there to be any chance of them receiving the same kind of torture we are using on our enemies. 

That is the pragmatic approach. 

Allowing us to be a country that tortures is like being a prissy old man who's scared to death of mice.  So scared and panicked is he, when he thought he saw one  in the corner of the kitchen,  he starts blasting away with his machine gun.   All Grandma's dishes, shattered.  He hits the propane tank outside, it explodes, the house is a total loss.  He gets out, just barely.   

[yellow_crane]

We obviously disagree here, MT. If my nation's security is at stake, ANY type of torture ifs fine with me, Please be realistic.

Suppose, like any other ungodly transgression against your fellow man, you were to be held responible for all those you tortured who turned out to be innocent--would you be as ready to grant full rein?

Realistic is setting up responsible parameters, and there is no credible moral accountability in torturing people merely to punish them for what they do not know.

The ideas of responsible parameters and credulity are lost when only vague, unknown players get to make those calls, and then are protected by Neocon minions for reasons of "national security."

Perhaps you were able to gleen that factor from the many protests you heard surrounding torturing people merely because of their race or their religion?

The question of torture ought to be null and void, until and only when, torture itself is wielded without the fear-mongering little 'me today, you tomorrow' messages directed to everyone in this nation by a corrupt rightwing tyranny.

Put the concept of torturing against the background of this administration's grandiose ambitions in the world theatre, its seditious assaults on our Justice, its trivializations of our Constitution, its unparalleled moral unaccountability, its unconscionable use of lying, its Little Boots intolerance of dissent, etc etc, and you have unavoidable tangential factors at play to consider before you explode with endorsement of clearly the most grave moment you will have to recount and account for before your Maker.

Also, when one arrives at Judgement, and one tries to complain that they were simply misled by the administration that wanted their endorsement for torturing innocents sans bona fide discrimination, will the Voice Rumble:  "where were you when the foundations were laid?"

[The_Professor]

I'll be more realistic than you, Professor.

1.  Your country's security is NOT at stake.  You are strong enough to counter any strike from anywhere with devastating retaliatory force, and the worst thing that the "terrorists" can do to you is knock down a few buildings and kill a few thousand (out of three hundred million) Americans.  That is NOT a threat to national security.  You lose more than ten times that number of victims in traffic accidents every year.

2.  You are messing with people and places you have no business messing with in the first place, and some of the people you mess with are going to strike back at you.  If you were really concerned with your country's security, the first step would be to start observing the Charter of the United Nations and the Constitution of the United States of America, start looking after your own problems and stop fucking with people who have finally figured out ways to strike back at you.

3.  You need to get a grip.  The crooks running your country have spooked you with ludicrous and fantastic fairy tales about the "threat" to America coming from virtually powerless individuals whose only weapons are their own minds and bodies.  All the torture in the world won't save you from the odd one or two who will get through your defences every so often.  The anti-American hatred generated or blown into white heat by the torture is a bigger threat to you than whatever (if any) pathetic little plots have been uncovered so far as a result of torture.

4.  What is "national security" but a threat to American lives?  Two thousand at a time, ten thousand at a time.  Are your lives so precious to you that you'll sacrifice every moral value you ever had just to save them for a few more years, till the inevitable hour of death arrives anyway?  A value as fundamental as the prohibition of torture - - the cruelest and most horrible form of abuse one human being can commit on another - - is tossed away like scrap paper because "national security" - - the destruction of a few buildings, the lives of a few thousand Americans who, in the fullness of time are gonna die anyway - - are at stake.  What kind of people are you becoming? 

1.  Your country's security is NOT at stake.  You are strong enough to counter any strike from anywhere with devastating retaliatory force, and the worst thing that the "terrorists" can do to you is knock down a few buildings and kill a few thousand (out of three hundred million) Americans.  That is NOT a threat to national security.  You lose more than ten times that number of victims in traffic accidents every year.

Sorry, but I would argue that our nation's security is ALWAYS at stake since threats are probably identified and thwarted on a constant basis. This is obviously a major reason why we have not had a re-occurence of 9-11 since then. Everyone wants to knock the big guy off the pedestal.

2.  You are messing with people and places you have no business messing with in the first place, and some of the people you mess with are going to strike back at you.  If you were really concerned with your country's security, the first step would be to start observing the Charter of the United Nations and the Constitution of the United States of America, start looking after your own problems and stop fucking with people who have finally figured out ways to strike back at you.

I agree that we are more interventionist than I like. In fact, in this forum I have, several times, advocated taking our bases out of places like Saudi Arabia. But, you do not seem to realize that even if we did this, bad guys would continue to attack us. It is simply the nature of things.

3.  You need to get a grip.  The crooks running your country have spooked you with ludicrous and fantastic fairy tales about the "threat" to America coming from virtually powerless individuals whose only weapons are their own minds and bodies.  All the torture in the world won't save you from the odd one or two who will get through your defences every so often.  The anti-American hatred generated or blown into white heat by the torture is a bigger threat to you than whatever (if any) pathetic little plots have been uncovered so far as a result of torture.

Well, I must admit to being surprised this has not happened yet. I sincerely hope it does not. If it unfortunately does, I advocate making the sponsoring country uninhabitable for several hundred years. No holes barred here.

4.  What is "national security" but a threat to American lives?  Two thousand at a time, ten thousand at a time.  Are your lives so precious to you that you'll sacrifice every moral value you ever had just to save them for a few more years, till the inevitable hour of death arrives anyway?  A value as fundamental as the prohibition of torture - - the cruelest and most horrible form of abuse one human being can commit on another - - is tossed away like scrap paper because "national security" - - the destruction of a few buildings, the lives of a few thousand Americans who, in the fullness of time are gonna die anyway - - are at stake.  What kind of people are you becoming?  
[/quote]

Being soft will get you DEAD DEAD DEAD in this big, bad world. Simply amazing you really believe this, but whatever...

[hnumpah]

Allowing us to be a country that tortures is like being a prissy old man who's scared to death of mice.  So scared and panicked is he, when he thought he saw one  in the corner of the kitchen,  he starts blasting away with his machine gun.   All Grandma's dishes, shattered.  He hits the propane tank outside, it explodes, the house is a total loss.  He gets out, just barely.

Hey, I knew a guy like that. Seriously. He refinished his basement, put in a game room with beer taps and a pool table, nice panelling and a drop ceiling. Then he started hearing mice in the walls. Caught one in a trap, and kept hearing them in the walls.  Started blasting away at them with a .22 automatic pistol. Went through a couple of bricks of ammunition, left damned bullet holes everywhere. You could still hear mice scurrying around in the walls when they took him to the bughouse.

[Michael Tee]

I think there might be some confusion over the term "national security."  To me, national security means a threat to the existence of the nation.  The kind of threat that Hitler posed to France and Great Britain in 1940.  The kind of threat that Belgium, for example, could never post to Germany.  A threat to a few buildings and a few thousand citizens, serious though it may be, is not a threat to "national security" as I would define the term.

The funny thing is, that national security WAS at stake for Britain and France in 1940.  The prisoners they held were still treated with respect, even when Britain had reason to expect an invasion.  The German prisoners who fell into their hands were not tortured to learn of invasion plans and the captured airmen were not tortured to reveal airfield location, bombing tactics, future plans, new weapons in the works, etc.  The British, like the decent men and women they are, were resolved to fight but not to sacrifice their fundamental values.  The Nazis of course were not so scrupulous.  Captured Resistance fighters were mercilessly tortured for information, although simple common sense prevented them from torturing prisoners of war - - before D-Day, there was no real threat to German national security, and once D-Day had occurred, the writing was already on the wall.

I contrast the principled and courageous stand that the British people took with the cowardly and unprincipled fear-based tactics of Amerikkka and am very proud that the British and Imperial forces never stooped to your level.  ["Your level" = Amerikkka's level, not your own personal level, Professor.]  "Wussy mush" is a  pathetic way to excuse Amerikkka's moral shortcomings - - there is nothing "wussy" about the English - - they are ten times the men that Americans are.  The fact is that England's principles are very high and Amerikkka's principles today are right down in the gutter with the Nazis.   Calling the English principles "wussy mush" says more about Amerikkka than it does about England.

[The_Professor]

Be that as it may, I still advocate that torture may be an unfortunate but necessary method in the case of spies, not ordinary soldiers.

And, MY view of "national security" does not just mean the immediate possible destruction of our country. A 9-11 occurance is indeed a case of a threat to "national security" in my book, MT.

[Michael Tee]

I think we got sidetracked on a semantic issue here, Professor.  You and I may differ on the meaning of "national security," but that's purely semantic.

If the issue is torture, the question is, what kind of danger will justify it?   Say that the danger is another 9-11; does the danger of another 9-11 justify torture if torture will avert the threat?

I guess another way of putting the question would be this:

if the danger is 1 dead American, is torture justified to avoid it?  2 dead Americans?  3? etc.

Where is the point where you would justify torture?

What about criminal activity in a purely domestic sense?  What if there's a murder plot against one American?  Can the police use torture to foil the plot?  Two Americans? etc.

I don't get it, Professor.  Either torture's OK in which case it's OK for the national security apparatus and it's OK for your local police force - - on the theory that one dead American is equal to one dead American, regardless of who (terrorists or street criminals) killed him.

It's all-or-nothing, isn't it Professor?  I mean, once you re-define "national security" as the lives of individual Americans rather than the continued existence of the state itself, isn't that where your logic leads you?

[BT]

Personalize it Mikey.

Someone kidnaps your daughter. You have a person in your custody you are quite certain can give you information that will allow her to avoid being beheaded. The authorities hands are tied.

What do you do?

[Michael Tee]

<<Someone kidnaps your daughter. You have a person in your custody you are quite certain can give you information that will allow her to avoid being beheaded. The authorities hands are tied.

<<What do you do?>>

I don't know.  Probably torture the guy.   I could even rationalize it.  Innocent cancer victims go through horrible pain.  Innocent burn victims.   Why shouldn't this guy feel some of the pain that the innocent victims of cancer and fire have felt - -  fuck him, who ever said life was fair?

I would regard that as a great failure on my part.  My daughter might too.  I would have failed in my duty to humanity all for the selfish advantage of my own family.  But I have to say, it's something I probably would have done.  Let me ask you though - - if the  lives of our children are so special that they justify the breaking of more general duties, why do we permit our children to go to war?  (I'm talking about legitimate wars, like the war against Nazi Germany.)  Why not say, fuck it, I know Hitler's bad, I know he's gotta be stopped, but this is MY SON, God damn it, so I want an exception here, I want the general principle (that the supreme sacrifice is justified) waived for MY SON?

I tell ya what, BT - - I grant an absolution to any parent who tortures to save the life of his child when he knows for a fact that the bastard in his hands has information that can save his child's life.  But it's pointless - - never in the history of human torture has any victim been tortured by a parent to save the life of his (the torturer's) child.  It's fucking bullshit.  It never happens.  They torture for informational scraps, something that MIGHT be connected to something ELSE that MIGHT be connected to something else that MIGHT be connected to something else.   Just plain fucking bullshit.  What if torture saved your kid's life, is that OK?  What if it saved your whole country?  What if it saved the whole planet?

It's just part of the unfortunate tendency of the conservative right to divorce themselves completely from reality.  Torture is real, the pain is real, the atrocity is real - - but ALL OF IT can be "justified" by imaginary hypotheticals that don't have a hope in hell of ever happening, not in this life, not on this planet.

[BT]

The key to this exercise is simple.

You have admitted you would torture. You have admitted you would rationalize it.

You have admitted you would feel guilt.

What makes you any different than the rest of us.

You localized it. An attack on your daughter is an attack on you. An attack on your neighbor is an attack on you. An attack on your country is an attack on you.

How can you expect your government to not do something you would do. The government is you, and you are the government.

[Michael Tee]

No, you CAN'T rationalize it under any rational, real-world conditions.  Only in the crazy fantasy world of the right-wing fanatics where you torture and it saves the life of your own child.

I am not my country.  My neighbour is not me.  An attack on my country or my neigbbour is NOT an attack on me or my daughter.   That's crazy, fascist thinking.  You're equating the love and duty of a father for his daughter with the love and duty of a neighbour to a neighbour, of a citizen to his country?  With all due respect, BT, that is just plain nuts.