rvg, some couple of years later?

[Kadagar_AV]

How come you skipped past the last part?

[rvg]

How come you skipped past the last part?

Didn't wanna scare you any further.

[Kadagar_AV]

Didn't wanna scare you any further.

Oh, peoples opinions never scare me.

People with guns scare me :)

[Papewaio]

Napoleon just used a cannon. Canister shot is a good teacher.

You do realize my quote is from the Boston Massacre right?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"On March 5, 1770 the Twenty-Ninth Regiment came to the relief of the Eighth on duty at the Customs House on King (now State) Street. The soldiers, led by Captain Thomas Preston, were met by a large and taunting crowd of civilians. Captain Preston was unable to disperse the crowd and as they chanted "Fire and be damned" he ordered his troops "Don't Fire!" With all the commotion the soldiers probably did not hear his orders and they opened fire on the crowd killing three men instantly and another two who died later."

It a) helped cement the British Empires loss of the lands.
b) In the cool headed trials that followed proved how advanced the colony was in handling such issues.

The founding fathers were both enlightened and politically astute in their handling of the situation. The British Empire was not.

[Kadagar_AV]

You do realize my quote is from the Boston Massacre right?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"On March 5, 1770 the Twenty-Ninth Regiment came to the relief of the Eighth on duty at the Customs House on King (now State) Street. The soldiers, led by Captain Thomas Preston, were met by a large and taunting crowd of civilians. Captain Preston was unable to disperse the crowd and as they chanted "Fire and be damned" he ordered his troops "Don't Fire!" With all the commotion the soldiers probably did not hear his orders and they opened fire on the crowd killing three men instantly and another two who died later."

It a) helped cement the British Empires loss of the lands.
b) In the cool headed trials that followed proved how advanced the colony was in handling such issues.

The founding fathers were both enlightened and politically astute in their handling of the situation. The British Empire was not.

What you fail to get is that the US has evolved from that meager state since then... To this bastion of freedom we now all enjoy!!!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Didn't wanna scare you any further.

Well, personally, I'm already weighing up the danger you pose to the western world at large, given that you're basically riffing off every sociopathic dictator from the last two millennia.

"Let them hate us so long as they fear us" is as foolish as "kill everyone who doesn't agree.", and it has also been shown not to work, and every generation has tried to be a bit scarier and a bit more brutal, and the retaliation has just been that bit more harsh.

[rvg]

You do realize my quote is from the Boston Massacre right?

It a) helped cement the British Empires loss of the lands.
b) In the cool headed trials that followed proved how advanced the colony was in handling such issues.

The founding fathers were both enlightened and politically astute in their handling of the situation. The British Empire was not.

Of course I do. And my point is that Britain *could* have choked the rebellion.

[rvg]

"Let them hate us so long as they fear us" is as foolish as "kill everyone who doesn't agree."

That's a matter of opinion, and ours differ greatly.

[Strike For The South]

That's a matter of opinion, and ours differ greatly.

yup, his is based in reality

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Of course I do. And my point is that Britain *could* have choked the rebellion.

No it couldn't. It could have stopped the War if it had managed to decisively defeat Washington in the field and then offered the Colonists terms - primarily enhanced tax-raising powers for the provincial assemblies so they could pay the British Army directly.

Later, much worse things than what you Americans have done were done to Africans in an attempt to keep other Colonies, and they failed also.

That's a matter of opinion, and ours differ greatly.

Do you know why Napoleon lost?

When he entered a country it was his policy that his soldiers should take what they wanted, rape who they wanted, and destroy anything not able to be made French. Consequently, he was opposed everywhere he fought.

When Wellington invaded France it was his policy that everything should be paid for and that any soldier caught looting should be hanged immediately. That's the equivalent of rogue Marines in Afghanistan coming back to the base, boasting about the ragheads they killed, then being lined up and shot.

Wellington also had forgers in his army who forges francs with a higher silver content than Napoleon's so that his soldiers could pay for everything they needed with legal tended, and pay more than the French.

This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of historical record.

[rvg]

No it couldn't. It could have stopped the War if it had managed to decisively defeat Washington in the field and then offered the Colonists terms - primarily enhanced tax-raising powers for the provincial assemblies so they could pay the British Army directly.

Later, much worse things than what you Americans have done were done to Africans in an attempt to keep other Colonies, and they failed also.

Let's just say that I'm happy that Lincoln did not adopt this kind of stance during the Civil War. Speaking of which, if you wanna talk about the guy who spat on laws, regulations, articles of the Constitution, Lincoln is the man. And yet he's a hero. He had the will to do whatever needed to be done in order to save this union.

Do you know why Napoleon lost?

Yes, he lost because he got cocky and decided to invade Russia. Bad idea. Repeated many times before Napoleon and after, but always just as bad.

[Fragony]

I guess that's why the Afghan war has dragged out for longer than world war I and II combined then...

Personally I think you can't read this

[Strike For The South]

But Frags you don't exactly know what kind of ski instructor he was.

[Fragony]

But Frags you don't exactly know what kind of ski instructor he was.

I have only knew a few, I never said they were all into that. Just most

[rvg]

Lincoln is a hero because it worked.

The problem is that if you happen to be hung up on principles, you cannot call that man a hero. You have to vilify him for illegally taxing people, illegally detaining people etc. If that line can't be crossed at any circumstances, you cannot call Lincoln a hero regardless of where he succeeded or failed. Period.

[rvg]

Eh, no. Again with these 'principles' huh? The only principles I cling to with vehemence are transparency and honesty. In that regard, Lincoln is as guilty as any president to be sure.

But he won the Civil War, often despite his Generals. And as opposed to any president we've had since WWII, Lincoln actually had a good reason to go to war.

You can't have it both ways. Either principles are set in stone and can never be broken no matter the circumstances, or the presidents can actually be allowed to make judgement calls and do what is best for the nation at the time of war. As you know, Lincoln caught a LOT of heat for doing what he did, he was loathed by many. They too were afraid that they elected a tyrant, that America would never get back the freedoms that were sacrificed for the duration of the war. Yet today we look back and see the wisdom of his actions.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The problem is that if you happen to be hung up on principles, you cannot call that man a hero. You have to vilify him for illegally taxing people, illegally detaining people etc. If that line can't be crossed at any circumstances, you cannot call Lincoln a hero regardless of where he succeeded or failed. Period.

He isn't a hero. Nobody is a hero but Superman, and even the more modern stories has him showing a more fascist side as a political message. Lincoln can still be considered one of the best and at the same time deplorable in many ways.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You can't have it both ways. Either principles are set in stone and can never be broken no matter the circumstances, or the presidents can actually be allowed to make judgement calls and do what is best for the nation at the time of war. As you know, Lincoln caught a LOT of heat for doing what he did, he was loathed by many. They too were afraid that they elected a tyrant, that America would never get back the freedoms that were sacrificed for the duration of the war. Yet today we look back and see the wisdom of his actions.

You can't have it both ways either!

We started this because of your guff about putting principles aside to protect them, but apparently you have no principles by your own admission!

[rvg]

What? No, just no.

I'm not trying to have it both ways, because there is a very clear distinction between Lincoln and, say, Bush Jr. Lincoln presided over the country during a civil war in which over 600,000 Americans died in horrible ways. Whether you're a fan of lincoln or not, you have no business trying to compare it to the war on terror.

No? Why not? It's not much different: people shooting at each other, people getting killed, towns getting leveled, vets going home with missing limbs. War is war. Just because the idea of War on Terror was unfathomable 40 years ago doesn't mean this is not a real war. World has changed, and this is the new reality: you're unlikely to see the equivalent of the Gettysburg again. In less than 2 years Afghanistan will become somebody else's problem, but for now we're at war.

We started this because of your guff about putting principles aside to protect them, but apparently you have no principles by your own admission!

See, when I make a statement I tend to back it up with facts...

[Major Robert Dump]

Actually, when I think of GWB, Abraham Lincoln is the first person from history who comes to mind, the next being Jesus and the thrid being Lancelot Link, Secret Chimp

Lincoln and Bush had many things in common

[rvg]

I mean, for reference, that's like if the entire Regular Army of today was to drop dead--and then some. It is hard to blame the country for accepting dubious terms from their government amid such bloodshed. At least, its much harder to blame them than it is to blame the cowardly people of today, who give up more freedoms for considerably less bloodshed.

So, what would in your opinion be the sufficient body count to justify, say, taking out Al Awlaki or introducing Khaleed Sheikh Mohammed to new ways of inhaling oxygen?

[rvg]

If you'd been paying attention, you'd already know my answers here. Awlaki could have been taken by a small team, he was an American and had rights. The rest of the terrorists deserve either death in battle or capture and handling in accordance with the geneva conventions. Yeah, I guess I have a pretty liberal view on the geneva conventions. Sue me.

But you said that the difference between the Civil War and the War on Terror lay primarily in the casualty figures. So my question is, what kind of casualty figure would justify invoking the measures similar to those that were invoked during the Civil War?

[rvg]

You're twisting my argument, or I presented it badly. The casualty figures are for reference, to show you how pathetic and insignificant the numbers are in comparison. I am not saying that it is ever right to give up your liberties, but I can certainly sympathize with the American people of the 1860s. I cannot sympathize with the American people of today.

So, would it be fair to say that in your opinion it is never justified to curtail certain civil liberties or deny due process to certain individuals regardless of the circumstances?

[Major Robert Dump]

[rvg]

What are you trying to do here? Pigeon-hole me into saying something specific? I am saying it is imperative that you try to avoid curtailing certain (preferably all) civil liberties or deny due process to certain (preferably all) individuals. I am saying that in the 1860s, the American people were pushed to a breaking point that can be objectively considered reasonable, whether you agree with it or not (and surely I would have been one of the people who was mad at hell as Lincoln, regardless of which side of the conflict I lived on).

Our country today has reached no such breaking point. The people capitulated and gave up their liberties without a fight, without batting an eyelash, and absolutely without proper resistance. 3000 people died in a tragedy in New York, and that's all it took to break the country, and give in to the terror.

That's nice, but it does not answer my question :)

[rvg]

No, it does answer it. Right there in the first sentence or two.

Or three.

So, in other words there are situations where curtailing of certain civil liberties or denial of due process to certain individuals can be justified. Is that correct?

[Papewaio]

If you only hold to morals or principles when they are easy or cost free then they aren't principles.

Principles ditched at the first hint of inconvience are just bling.

The individuals, family or societies value in principles is proportional to the lengths in which they will go too to uphold them.

To understand how little value the US puts on innocent until proven guilty, not torturing people, not assassinating people, due process etc all you need to do is look at the per capita death rates for office workers Pre and post 9/11 and compare it with US mining, construction and forestry workers. An increase of deaths even after terrorism of the worst nature in the history of mankind and being an office worker in USA 2011 was still safer then building the skyscrapers in the first place.

All these principles thrown away, liberties lost and beacon extinguished over a threat factor less then going to work in a forest. Humans don't handle day to day risks vs large spectacular ones very well. More kids at the time of desert shield died per capita on roads in the US then from friendly fire. Yes you were safer from getting shot in the butt by a mate then him driving you home after work.

Inability to rationalize true threats, quick trade in of hard won rights for illusion art security, short term visceral fixes instead of hammered out boring old court cases. Fear of the sky falling.

Yeah real brave and smart.

[rvg]

If you only hold to morals or principles when they are easy or cost free then they aren't principles.

True, and I do not do that. I hold to them for as long as holding on to them is logically justified (i.e. even when it's not easy or cost free)

Principles ditched at the first hint of inconvience are just bling.

Sure, and I do not propose doing that at the first hint of inconvenience. I propose doing that when holding on to principles gets people needlessly killed.

The individuals, family or societies value in principles is proportional to the lengths in which they will go too to uphold them.

Sure, which also means that the value of principles is not absolute. There is no principle for which I would be willing to sacrifice my family.

To understand how little value the US puts on innocent until proven guilty, not torturing people, not assassinating people, due process etc all you need to do is look at the per capita death rates for office workers Pre and post 9/11 and compare it with US mining, construction and forestry workers. An increase of deaths even after terrorism of the worst nature in the history of mankind and being an office worker in USA 2011 was still safer then building the skyscrapers in the first place.

Que?

All these principles thrown away, liberties lost and beacon extinguished over a threat factor less then going to work in a forest. Humans don't handle day to day risks vs large spectacular ones very well. More kids at the time of desert shield died per capita on roads in the US then from friendly fire. Yes you were safer from getting shot in the butt by a mate then him driving you home after work.

Nobody's throwing away principles. We just selectively withhold applying those principles to those who seek to destroy our civilization.

Inability to rationalize true threats, quick trade in of hard won rights for illusion art security, short term visceral fixes instead of hammered out boring old court cases. Fear of the sky falling.

We rationalize things just fine. Life, liberty and basic rights of a terrorist are worthless to me.

Yeah real brave and smart.

What's this deal with "bravery"? Are we auditioning to join the Knights of the Round Table? If you want to die for a cause, you go right ahead. I prefer to kill for a cause.

[Tellos Athenaios]

We rationalize things just fine. Life, liberty and basic rights of a terrorist are worthless to me.

No. That's precisely the problem: we do not rationalise things just fine. That's part of why we had that bit of fun back in 2007/2008.

In fact, in terms of loss of life allowing Americans to drive is a worse decision than risking a terrorist to set off a nuke in the middle of New York City.
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert...happiness.html

[rvg]

In fact, in terms of loss of life allowing Americans to drive is a worse decision than risking a terrorist to set off a nuke in the middle of New York City.

So, how many will need to die before we can start taking terrorism seriously?