Outside of American business and the typical young child, there is no person or group that truly believes that the “short-term is all that is important.”
No group, organization, or nation (or the collected individuals that give it will and action) deliberately acts in ways that ignore long term goals. One group or another may act in short-sighted ways for some periods of time, but that is usually in response to unconsidered crises or due to misunderstandings regarding a situation. Whether it is the establishment of particular tax laws, the maintenance of an army in times of peace, or the establishment of rules for the orderly transfer of power, groups typically act with the intention of addressing the long-term.
I made no claim that the U.S. looked “better” in any way. I simply noted that a claim that the U.S. deliberately chose to impose monsters on the world is marred by the fact that the decisions, (however bad they may have been), were not simple up and down votes on our invasion of Iraq. They include a great many fear-generated decisions by sufficient numbers of disparate people to attain a majority in a binary election. That a (not very large) majority of those citizens who voted resulted in a bad choice is not quite the same thing as a claim that “the heartland declared” we support torture.
I am going to asume that you consider yourself to be somewhere to the right of center, a right wing sort. Do you realize that you are espousing the same thing that people on the “left side” are usually accused of? Why is this moral relativism OK for you, but not for the majority of us? Why is this argument coming up now? I believe there is a right and a wrong. I may not always know with certainty which is which, but never mind that. If there is no right and wrong, then we can dispense with many laws and prohibitions against certain acts and behaviors. Murder is wrong, but the victim was an asshole - it’s all relative. Aggression is wrong when directed at us, but right when it’s directed at someone else - it’s all relative. Some things are not relative at all. Some things are absolutes.
There are people who can separate morality from practicality, and can justify (to themselves) anything they do. The rest of us call them sociopaths and psychopaths.
You may want to refer to the topic of the thread, which is “Sell me on why the US should engage in torture.” Where do you think the U.S. is torturing people? Hint; it’s not Greenland.
In any event, yes, Saddam tortured people. I’d be happy to agree that Iraq was a criminal outlaw state. Is the USA, then, to be in the same league as Saddam’s Iraq? They did used to be close buddies. Again, I just wanna know for sure where you want your country to stand on the issues.
How about Cuba and Afghanistan? We have a hundred military bases spread out over this planet. There are plenty of places where we could be torturing people.
I don’t expect my country to be anything. It is what it is. What would wanting it be one way instead of another do to change anything? I do not see the USA as being morally superior to other countries.
torture should be legalized because it is an inevitable consequence of war. Completely prohibiting it is futile and a strategic disadvantage. The best thing to do is legalize and regulate.
You have already posteed several absurd declarations that a “good” torturer would know when his victim should be tortured while also claiming thqat anyone tortured is, byy definition, guilty. If we cannot currently prevenmt torture, a claim that we could regulate it is, on its face, an absurdity.
Now, you have spun this thread a long for several days with one-line responses and cryptic comments, molding your responses to the other posts rather than setting forth an actual position, particularly one that actually addresses the OP in terms of “selling” torture.
I woulds strongly urge you to put together a comprehensive argument to advance in support of a position, taking care not to contradict your earlier statements, or I am going to begin trusting my feeling that you are only posting to see the reactions to your posts.
No, the same thing cannot be said. The problem of rape can be attenuated by giving soldiers a way to satisfy their sexual needs. The military could hire prostitutes if it wanted to reduce the incidence of rape. The difference between rape and torture is that the definition of torture is not nearly as concrete as the definition of rape.
Well I don’t think the USA is necessarily morally superior to most countries… but it should be AT LEAST at the Western standard of morality. In other words better than Iraq, Saudi Arabia and other US allies. A torture here and there in desperate straits might be warranted if better not regulated… but institutionalized use of torture is quite sad… and something voters can chose to stop.
Rashak, you are from Brazil, IIRC, where they have quite a history with torture. I remember reading years ago that a Brizilian cardinal who called for an end to torture of ordinary criminals by the police was widely criticized as being, “soft on crime.” Have things changed in Brazil?
Institutionalized torture is not a reality in Europe and most of the Americas. There are examples of Western nations engaged in clandestine torture, but when discovered, the agencies carrying it out have generally been condemned; often the perpetrators have been tried and punished for their actions. It is true that rogue groups repeatedly resort to that failed practice, but it is not an institution (legally sanctioned, formally organized) in the 21st century Western world.
By your weak standard, governments should actively work to support poverty, since it is “institutionalized” in much of the world.
In what war prior to this one was torture sanctioned by the government, handled as a legal option available to the military, and provided any useful information.
If you cannot document your claims, don’t bother to respond.