RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,914
Posts: 5,388,402
Members: 24,718
Currently online: 462
Newest member: Tribblemaker

TrekToday headlines

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Cumberbatch To Voice Khan
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Shaun And Ed On Phineas and Ferb
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

New Ships Coming From Official Starships Collection
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Trek Stars Take On Ice Bucket Challenge
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Retro Review: Profit and Lace
By: Michelle on Aug 16


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science Fiction & Fantasy > Battlestar Galactica & Caprica

Battlestar Galactica & Caprica This forum was created by man. It rebelled. It evolved. And it has a plan.

 
 
Thread Tools
Old April 5 2013, 05:14 AM   #211
Awesome Possum
I've Rebooted Myself
 
Awesome Possum's Avatar
 
Location: Someplace Shiny
View Awesome Possum's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Awesome Possum Send a message via AIM to Awesome Possum
Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

randomfan86 wrote: View Post
Awesome Possum wrote: View Post
randomfan86 wrote: View Post

Okay we'll have to disagree on Cain's motives/potential to wage a guerrilla war. If her motive really was just a petty suicide mission for revenge and a guerrilla war wasn't feasible, of course she's an idiot. I think her motives were above board and she had a chance, but okay, I'll concede the point and discuss it no longer for sake of argument.

Lets say hypothetically, she had a feasible enough force to wage a guerrilla war with a chance for success, and she committed the actions she did. Would they be that different from the actions American Presidents have taken in the past during war?

Bush/Obama with the torture
Lincoln with the scorched Earth policy...destroying civilian homes, food and infrastructure
FDR imprisoning people based on ethnicity
And every President's action during war of grabbing more and more power

Despite these actions, FDR and Lincoln are lionized as the two best Presidents in the history of the United States.
The difference is that they didn't kill citizens, the very people they are sworn to protect. Cain took a similar oath as an officer in the Colonial Fleet. It is her duty above all others to protect the people of the Colonies. She broke that oath in order to wage a losing war on the Cylons.

What does Presidents did was terrible, but it was done to protect the citizens and end the war as quickly as possible. That's the difference.
Lincoln's scorched Earth resulted in a lot more citizen deaths than Cain's actions. He always considered the Confederacy to be indivisibly part of the Union even during the war so they were his own citizens he did that to by his own standards. It might be more aseptic and indirect than Cain's actions in your eyes, but on the receiving end, the outcome and moral outrage is the same.

You call the actions by the Presidents terrible, but equivocate with the opinion they were done with "ending the war as quickly as possible" and "protecting the citizens". I grant you all the actions I listed could fall into one of the categories but none fall into both. They are also very broad and vague standards. Is it more justified to use morally questionable tactics when you are winning a war and trying to end it as quickly as possible vs. being on the side that is at a tactical disadvantage? Does this same standard apply if its an unsavory dictator that is winning the war and decides to end the war as quickly as possible for the same reason?

Or, does the perceived grand motive of the actor mitigate the morally questionable actions in your eyes? In the abstract this seems to be the general consensus in the eyes of history.
Killing children isn't a tactic. Even Dick Cheney would find that fucked up.
__________________
Space Dandy! He's a dandy guy...in space.
He combs the galaxy like his pompadour on the hunt for aliens.
Planet after planet he searches, discovering new creatures both friendly and not.
These are the spectacular adventures of Space Dandy and his brave space crew. In space.
Awesome Possum is offline  
Old April 5 2013, 06:02 AM   #212
randomfan86
Lieutenant
 
Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

Samuel Walters wrote: View Post
randomfan86 wrote: View Post
Lets say hypothetically, she had a feasible enough force to wage a guerrilla war with a chance for success, and she committed the actions she did. Would they be that different from the actions American Presidents have taken in the past during war?
Which American presidents explicitly ordered American children to not only stand against a firing squad, but also be executed as a means to coerce their American parents to serve in the military?
I concede Cain was a bit harsher than past American Presidents in this regard.

However, the principle of conscription is nothing new in American history. People of age were required to fight and die for the country without free will if one was drafted, even if you thought the war was immoral or thought it was against your religion or just didn't want to be separated from your family and die. Conciouncess objector statuses were given out very rarely so you really can't really bring this up as a mitigating factor.

You could be jailed for refusing to cooperate if chosen. Obviously its a far cry from threatening to execute a family member if chosen, but still, the principle is similar in that there is harsh punishment for non-compliance.

Cain also did inflict harsher punishment in all areas in the name of discipline. Given her situation where discipline was of great importance, I tend to give her more leeway.

To address an earlier post that was similar to this, I think she wanted to enforce the principle of discipline when she wanted to execute Helo and the Chief for haphazardly killing one of her officers. If a CIA officer killed another CIA officer while trying to stop the latter from torturing someone, I suspect the punishment would be life in prison. Hell, they are promoting someone right now who had a part in destroying the torture tapes.
randomfan86 is offline  
Old April 5 2013, 06:52 AM   #213
Awesome Possum
I've Rebooted Myself
 
Awesome Possum's Avatar
 
Location: Someplace Shiny
View Awesome Possum's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Awesome Possum Send a message via AIM to Awesome Possum
Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

randomfan86 wrote: View Post
You could be jailed for refusing to cooperate if chosen. Obviously its a far cry from threatening to execute a family member if chosen, but still, the principle is similar in that there is harsh punishment for non-compliance.
Only in the sense that drinking water is similar to drowning.
__________________
Space Dandy! He's a dandy guy...in space.
He combs the galaxy like his pompadour on the hunt for aliens.
Planet after planet he searches, discovering new creatures both friendly and not.
These are the spectacular adventures of Space Dandy and his brave space crew. In space.
Awesome Possum is offline  
Old April 5 2013, 07:01 AM   #214
randomfan86
Lieutenant
 
Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

stj wrote: View Post
I left part of the citation from my post because the point made there is still true. Even if Starbuck is an angel or some other divine agent, people will still draw their own conclusions, no matter what the characters shout out on behalf of the writers.

The south Korean people have since discovered that capitalism is not the cornucopia promised, and the supposed Communist propaganda about the inevitability of capitalist crisis was simply education. This woman was first elected by the ruling class, then sold to the populace. The chances that her real platform, the one she really wants to carry out, is the one she ran on are pretty miniscule. The assumption that the new Park's election is an unreserved endorsement of the old Park is not as easily justified as you seem to think. I hope you're wrong, because I would hate to despise the people of south Korea.

The assumption that FDR is widely endorsed as a leader despite his many atrocities suffers from two problems. First, his domestic program, the New Deal, has been under attack from the beginning and it's destruction is well underway. Second, FDR's criminal acts during WWII (most notably mass internment of Nisei) have actually been widely condemned, not endorsed. FDR is widely hated, especially for things that are not criminal, such as making an alliance with the USSR against the Nazis.

It is hard to openly apologize for slavery, but as a matter of fact, insofar as it is possible to propagate Lincoln hate without giving the game away, it is done. It was not an accident that Argo won Best Picture over Lincoln. It is obligatory to announce that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, etc., always in the most invidious way possible.

Whatever the merits your analysis of the show's intentions, your real life comparisions show shameless bias.

PS The US militarists seem to like repeat the mantra about how no army has conquered Afghanistan in history. I suppose it sounds like a good excuse. But, as a matter of historical fact, Alexander the Great did conquer Afghanistan. It was called Bactria then, and Greek kings ruled for quite a long time. Also, the Mongols succeeded, so well that their descendants, called the Hazaras, are still a major ethnic group in Afghanistan. I'm sure the US Army Generals like to imagine they are the equivalent of Alexander the Great. But in practice they are more like the Mongols, which is why they can't build a reliable puppet state. Mongols were barbarians, not builders of civilized societies. (Terminological note: "barbarian" in this context has mostly to do with being a nomadic society, and "civilized societies" in this case is rather literally about societies that live in cities.)
With regard to Park, dude...though I was born here, both of my parents are from Korea. I go to Seoul on about once a year and keep in touch with some family there. Its an endorsement of Park. I'm honestly not familiar enough on the history of SK as to whether it was Park's action that directly resulted in the modernization, but I can tell you that he gets the credit with the population because it occurred over his nearly two decade watch. Even the head of the opposition who he almost murdered (instead imprisoned) gives him credit today.

SK in general is a very paternalistic society, and one of the things they need to work on is more gender equality. If she wasn't her father's daughter, there's no way she would have been elected as a woman President at this stage in their march towards gender equality. She's very competent mind you, but there's a lot that resonates with her name. So hate all you want.

Even if there's a democratic revolution in China, Deng is still going to be remembered as a great leader even with Tienanmen.

Thank you for your intellectual honesty about FDR and Lincoln. Though I suspect they'll continue to be lionized, and have their legacies endure. I don't know that Argo beat out Lincoln for that reason. I thought Zero Dark Thirty was the best film by far, and it was seen that way by critics...but I suspect it was sunk by similar petty reasons you ascribe to those who voted for Argo. If people thought that was an endorsement of torture, I wonder what would've happened if Leon Panetta had a similar conversation with Maya that Adama had with Lee at the end of Razor.

With regard to Afghanistan, true that. I never made any such assertion personally. I hope you don't consider me a "US militarist". You would have to look no further than the name of Kandahar to see your point about Alexander.

Last edited by randomfan86; April 5 2013 at 12:32 PM.
randomfan86 is offline  
Old April 5 2013, 07:55 AM   #215
iguana_tonante
Admiral
 
iguana_tonante's Avatar
 
Location: Italy, EU
Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

randomfan86 wrote: View Post
[Locutus]
Sorry Randomfan, (...) Booyah.
[/Locutus]
Awesome Possum wrote: View Post
What the frak?
We weren't giving randomfan the attention he craves, so he had to up the ante.

randomfan86 wrote: View Post
Cain is a proxy for my world-view
This is lol-worthy.
__________________
Scientist. Gentleman. Teacher. Fighter. Lover. Father.
iguana_tonante is offline  
Old April 5 2013, 08:02 AM   #216
randomfan86
Lieutenant
 
Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

Awesome Possum wrote: View Post
randomfan86 wrote: View Post
You could be jailed for refusing to cooperate if chosen. Obviously its a far cry from threatening to execute a family member if chosen, but still, the principle is similar in that there is harsh punishment for non-compliance.
Only in the sense that drinking water is similar to drowning.
I would say the better comparison would be water-boarding vs. drowning vs. "drinking water vs drowning". Cain never bothered with pretense.
randomfan86 is offline  
Old April 5 2013, 08:14 AM   #217
Awesome Possum
I've Rebooted Myself
 
Awesome Possum's Avatar
 
Location: Someplace Shiny
View Awesome Possum's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Awesome Possum Send a message via AIM to Awesome Possum
Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

randomfan86 wrote: View Post
Awesome Possum wrote: View Post
randomfan86 wrote: View Post
You could be jailed for refusing to cooperate if chosen. Obviously its a far cry from threatening to execute a family member if chosen, but still, the principle is similar in that there is harsh punishment for non-compliance.
Only in the sense that drinking water is similar to drowning.
I would say the better comparison would be water-boarding vs. drowning vs. "drinking water vs drowning". Cain never bothered with pretense.
No. We're saying a single step is a terrible thing even though it can sometimes be morally justified given the conditions. You're saying that going a mile is just fine and on the same level.
__________________
Space Dandy! He's a dandy guy...in space.
He combs the galaxy like his pompadour on the hunt for aliens.
Planet after planet he searches, discovering new creatures both friendly and not.
These are the spectacular adventures of Space Dandy and his brave space crew. In space.
Awesome Possum is offline  
Old April 5 2013, 08:54 AM   #218
randomfan86
Lieutenant
 
Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

Awesome Possum wrote: View Post
randomfan86 wrote: View Post
Awesome Possum wrote: View Post
Only in the sense that drinking water is similar to drowning.
I would say the better comparison would be water-boarding vs. drowning vs. "drinking water vs drowning". Cain never bothered with pretense.
No. We're saying a single step is a terrible thing even though it can sometimes be morally justified given the conditions. You're saying that going a mile is just fine and on the same level.
If Cain has gone a mile, the US has walked that mile with her and maybe a step further. This is the only thing (greater punishment for crimes) that she went further than the US, but the US has gone further than her in other instances. Given the greater importance of discipline in her conditions, its understandable.

The Catholic Church (the purveyors of moral absolutism in other instances) even acknowledges the morality of harsher punishment including the death penalty when it becomes harder to maintain stability and order.

Last edited by randomfan86; April 5 2013 at 09:41 AM.
randomfan86 is offline  
Old April 5 2013, 09:46 AM   #219
Locutus of Bored
Furfallin'
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

randomfan86 wrote: View Post

[Locutus]
Sorry Randomfan, but I've been making some pointless references to boy bands because I wanted to dodge your points. Let me address what I think of FDR and Lincoln.

FDR and Lincoln are war criminals that should be punished. Lincoln immorally killed thousands of civilians by purposely destroying their food and homes. He was fighting a war? Screw that, and screw all the blacks he might have been thinking about. What about those poor children he killed? MY FAVORITE MOMENT IN THE MOVIE WAS WHEN BOOTH SHOT HIM.

FDR was an immoral individual for what he did. He should be tried for war crimes and I'M GLAD HE DIED OF POLIO AS A WRETCHED OLD MAN. THAT WAS MY FAVORITE MOMENT OF THE WAR. HE GOT WHAT HE DESERVED!!!111 The old bastard got what was coming to it. Forget that he was dealing with an unprecedented situation in the history of his civilization.

Furthermore add Obama to that list. I condemn him too. He refuses to investigate the previous administration. He also continues the practice of rendition...sending detainees to meaner intelligence agencies where in some cases THEY ARE RAPED. There's even been a case of where an INNOCENT person, not participating in genocide of individuals or anything have been RAPED. Furthermore his spokesman said in reference to the administration killing a 16-year old US citizen "he should've had a better father."

Context is meaningless....so Lincoln Park!

Also, HITLER HITLER HITLER......HITLER!!!11

Furthermore, I think you're engaging in dastardly straw-manning..this claim is baseless of course, but I'm going to lazily straw-man you anyway. Booyah.
[/Locutus]


Did you just call Linkin Park a boy band? I mean, I know they suck, but they're not a "boy band" apart from being made up of all dudes. Don't be one of those people who are totally out of touch with modern music because they're too busy using the final five fingers to resurrect the trouser Cylon in a milky white puddle to their calendar of sexiest real and fictional dictators and homicidal maniacs (see, keeping it on topic).

How have I dodged your points? I've literally addressed them again and again, and in response I simply had them repeated back at me like they were a new argument. You're a broken record. Or to keep this topical to BSG, "All of this has happened before, and it will happen again." Finally, after the last iteration I just decided to break the cycle of taking you seriously since I was just being jerked around by you anyway. Your arguments have been a joke.

Context does matter. However, it's not a historical get out of jail (or criticism) free card. Criticizing some of Lincoln's, FDR's, and Obama's actions doesn't mean I took pleasure in their deaths in the first two cases or would want anything to happen in the third. Nor have I expressed any such happiness at their demise or even Cain's demise in the thread. Others have, but I haven't. But who cares? She's fucking fictional. Why are you so invested in giving her a passionate (yet incredibly shitty) defense as if she was actually on trial for war crimes?

I voted for Obama. I don't agree with all of his policies, though, especially regarding indiscriminate drone strikes, rendition, indefinite detention in Guantanamo, the drug war, concealment of torture information, and excessive law enforcement and intelligence surveillance activities to name a few things. It would be the height of stupidity to write a president --any president-- a blank check full of excuses like you've done here for leaders both real and imagined. You have a serious lack of perspective.

Also, while Lincoln's and FDR's actions are colored by the morals of the era they lived in, actions that might have been considered acceptable by some then are not considered acceptable by the vast majority of people now. Well, you seem perfectly content with looking the other way, but you're clearly an outlier. Colonial society is supposed to be a parable for our own, with the exception of some remarkable technological advancements. Their morals should be judged the way we would judge our own were we under similar circumstances, because they're written by modern human writers who share our society's general morals. If you find what Admiral Cain did acceptable even in time of war, you've got a fucked up sense of morality.

Finally, I never mentioned Hitler as an example in any of my arguments, I just got sick of your continued laziness in incorrectly screaming "Godwin!" every five minutes based on one person making a Hitler/Nazi comparison when it's actually relevant to the topic at hand. It's almost as annoying as your repeated misuse and abuse of "Strawman!" Learn what the fuck those terms mean if you're going to toss them around so casually.

Are we done here? Because you've been a colossal waste of my fucking time, and it just feels like I'm getting screwed with. If that's the case, I insist that you at least buy me dinner first.

__________________
My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Locutus of Bored is offline  
Old April 5 2013, 11:15 AM   #220
randomfan86
Lieutenant
 
Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
randomfan86 wrote: View Post

[Locutus]
Sorry Randomfan, but I've been making some pointless references to boy bands because I wanted to dodge your points. Let me address what I think of FDR and Lincoln.

FDR and Lincoln are war criminals that should be punished. Lincoln immorally killed thousands of civilians by purposely destroying their food and homes. He was fighting a war? Screw that, and screw all the blacks he might have been thinking about. What about those poor children he killed? MY FAVORITE MOMENT IN THE MOVIE WAS WHEN BOOTH SHOT HIM.

FDR was an immoral individual for what he did. He should be tried for war crimes and I'M GLAD HE DIED OF POLIO AS A WRETCHED OLD MAN. THAT WAS MY FAVORITE MOMENT OF THE WAR. HE GOT WHAT HE DESERVED!!!111 The old bastard got what was coming to it. Forget that he was dealing with an unprecedented situation in the history of his civilization.

Furthermore add Obama to that list. I condemn him too. He refuses to investigate the previous administration. He also continues the practice of rendition...sending detainees to meaner intelligence agencies where in some cases THEY ARE RAPED. There's even been a case of where an INNOCENT person, not participating in genocide of individuals or anything have been RAPED. Furthermore his spokesman said in reference to the administration killing a 16-year old US citizen "he should've had a better father."

Context is meaningless....so Lincoln Park!

Also, HITLER HITLER HITLER......HITLER!!!11

Furthermore, I think you're engaging in dastardly straw-manning..this claim is baseless of course, but I'm going to lazily straw-man you anyway. Booyah.
[/Locutus]


Did you just call Linkin Park a boy band? I mean, I know they suck, but they're not a "boy band" apart from being made up of all dudes. Don't be one of those people who are totally out of touch with modern music because they're too busy using the final five fingers to resurrect the trouser Cylon in a milky white puddle to their calendar of sexiest real and fictional dictators and homicidal maniacs (see, keeping it on topic).

How have I dodged your points? I've literally addressed them again and again, and in response I simply had them repeated back at me like they were a new argument. You're a broken record. Or to keep this topical to BSG, "All of this has happened before, and it will happen again." Finally, after the last iteration I just decided to break the cycle of taking you seriously since I was just being jerked around by you anyway. Your arguments have been a joke.

Context does matter. However, it's not a historical get out of jail (or criticism) free card. Criticizing some of Lincoln's, FDR's, and Obama's actions doesn't mean I took pleasure in their deaths in the first two cases or would want anything to happen in the third. Nor have I expressed any such happiness at their demise or even Cain's demise in the thread. Others have, but I haven't. But who cares? She's fucking fictional. Why are you so invested in giving her a passionate (yet incredibly shitty) defense as if she was actually on trial for war crimes?

I voted for Obama. I don't agree with all of his policies, though, especially regarding indiscriminate drone strikes, rendition, indefinite detention in Guantanamo, the drug war, concealment of torture information, and excessive law enforcement and intelligence surveillance activities to name a few things. It would be the height of stupidity to write a president --any president-- a blank check full of excuses like you've done here for leaders both real and imagined. You have a serious lack of perspective.

Also, while Lincoln's and FDR's actions are colored by the morals of the era they lived in, actions that might have been considered acceptable by some then are not considered acceptable by the vast majority of people now. Well, you seem perfectly content with looking the other way, but you're clearly an outlier. Colonial society is supposed to be a parable for our own, with the exception of some remarkable technological advancements. Their morals should be judged the way we would judge our own were we under similar circumstances, because they're written by modern human writers who share our society's general morals. If you find what Admiral Cain did acceptable even in time of war, you've got a fucked up sense of morality.

Finally, I never mentioned Hitler as an example in any of my arguments, I just got sick of your continued laziness in incorrectly screaming "Godwin!" every five minutes based on one person making a Hitler/Nazi comparison when it's actually relevant to the topic at hand. It's almost as annoying as your repeated misuse and abuse of "Strawman!" Learn what the fuck those terms mean if you're going to toss them around so casually.

Are we done here? Because you've been a colossal waste of my fucking time, and it just feels like I'm getting screwed with. If that's the case, I insist that you at least buy me dinner first.
Sad to see the level of conversation has devolved into sophomoric memes now, but not surprising given your last post, and the general poor quality of your arguments. You feel I am screwing with you and am a waste of your ever so precious time, yet you continue to respond and bitch about it afterward? You should look up the definition of insanity. What a fucking clown. Once again you are impugning my motives without cause. If you feel so strongly about being supposedly fucked with and/or your time being wasted, then there's a really really simple solution:



Otherwise, do try to whine less about my motives and your precious time and I'll continue to address your points.

Analogizing to Hitler IS intellectual laziness. You can keep defending it and bringing it up all you'd like...go ahead mention it again and then lament its cycling in the next round

I do sincerely apologize with what I put in with my last post about the "Lincoln being shot was the best part of the film", etc. You did not indeed say that.

I am touchy about Cain because like I said, I see her as a proxy for America's (the country of my citizenship) attitude about war and power: "In the face of duty, honor is meaningless."

"If you find what Admiral Cain did acceptable even in time of war, you've got a fucked up sense of morality."

You do not even need to go back to colonial time to find that the US President seems to find Admiral Cain's behavior acceptable. Look at Cheney/Obama. The torture and rape is far more pervasive under those two than it was under Cain. There's even been innocent people that have been tortured and raped.

I do not "look away" at the abuses of FDR and Lincoln. I just point out what the facts are. The fact is that either by fiat (Lincoln) or traditional law (Roosevelt), those abuses have been okayed. History has followed suit because they showed great leadership during the most trying times in the history of this country.

I bring all this up to say the US during its wars has resorted to activities that can be looked at as way worse than Cain's. I would disagree with you that they (FDR and Lincoln) are a function of the era. I think they are more a function of circumstance than era. Full-scale war and national crisis transcends any era.

"It would be the height of stupidity to write a president --any president-- a blank check full of excuses like you've done here for leaders both real and imagined. You have a serious lack of perspective."

No I don't think I have the lack of perspective. You libertarians/liberals (correct me if I'm wrong) think you have the high ground in this area but you don't.

The fact is the US constitution gives the President a de facto blank check during war-time. I suggest you read John Yoo's book The powers of war and peace. This has been upheld by fiat, the courts, as well as Presidential deference (for example, Obama unwilling to look at the previous administration's practices). Obama is the heir to Lincoln, Cheney and FDR's legacy among others in the area of Presidential war powers.

They set the legal as well as moral precedent by pushing the boundaries and being absolved from any consequences. He's also set the precedent for his successors with his "drone memos". From a practical perspective, you want your executive to have as many tools as he can in the tool box when it comes to war no matter what party you're in.

Last edited by randomfan86; April 6 2013 at 06:03 AM.
randomfan86 is offline  
Old April 5 2013, 11:33 AM   #221
iguana_tonante
Admiral
 
iguana_tonante's Avatar
 
Location: Italy, EU
Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

randomfan86 wrote: View Post
I am touchy about Cain because like I said, I see her as a proxy for America's (the country of my citizenship) attitude about war and power
Then you are what is wrong with the US, and you are no better than the "enemies of freedom" that US allegedly wages war against.

And since we are on memes now, where is Roshi's penis defcon gif when we need it?
__________________
Scientist. Gentleman. Teacher. Fighter. Lover. Father.
iguana_tonante is offline  
Old April 5 2013, 12:30 PM   #222
Locutus of Bored
Furfallin'
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

iguana_tonante wrote: View Post
And since we are on memes now, where is Roshi's penis defcon gif when we need it?
How dare you, sir! I know Roshi has got the penis drawing market covered, but that one was mine. I slaved away for the better part of half an hour on that.

This is not directed at anyone, just posted by request:
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Locutus of Bored is offline  
Old April 5 2013, 12:31 PM   #223
Avon
Fleet Captain
 
Avon's Avatar
 
Location: Space Wales
Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

"in the face of duty, honor is meaningless"

this makes you the bad guy's henchman
__________________

Hello to Jason Isaacs!
Avon is online now  
Old April 5 2013, 03:01 PM   #224
stj
Rear Admiral
 
stj's Avatar
 
Location: the real world
Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

randomfan86 wrote: View Post
With regard to Park, dude...though I was born here, both of my parents are from Korea. I go to Seoul on about once a year and keep in touch with some family there. Its an endorsement of Park. I'm honestly not familiar enough on the history of SK as to whether it was Park's action that directly resulted in the modernization, but I can tell you that he gets the credit with the population because it occurred over his nearly two decade watch. Even the head of the opposition who he almost murdered (instead imprisoned) gives him credit today.
Both the south and Japan received a lot of US Vietnam war spending and both economies accelerated their growth, which continued for a relatively long time (until the general East Asian economic crisis more or less.) Park's specific economic policies were indeed paralleled in Japan. There is no reason to think that Park's dictatorship had anything to do with this, especially US spending, which preceded him. This is true no matter what people supposedly think in the south about Park.

I'm sure that you are correct in saying that it has been conventional wisdom to attribute the economic growth to Park's crimes. What I've been trying to say is that this is an idea propagated by people who a political agenda better advanced by an authoritarian or dictatorial government, a con job perpetrated on the populace.

Further, and even more important, the vote for Park can be interpreted as endorsement for prosperity and economic growth, not for dictatorship. Or it can be interpreted as a deliberate choice for a dictatorship capable of attacking the north. As for the first, in a capitalist system, political figures, even dictators, cannot grow the economy, especial not with torture and terror. As for the second? I really doubt that this woman ran on an open platform of war, especially if that is her real agenda.

So hate all you want.
Everything you've said paints her in a terrible light, but not being Korean, I'm not so deeply invested I hate her, sorry.

Even if there's a democratic revolution in China, Deng is still going to be remembered as a great leader even with Tienanmen.
Is he? His system has recently come to the point where even the highest levels are engaged in conspiracy mongering and fake trials in the pursuit of personal power. The most likely culmination of his heritage is devastating civil war, with massive loss of life and submission of the country to foreign domination.

Thank you for your intellectual honesty about FDR and Lincoln. Though I suspect they'll continue to be lionized, and have their legacies endure.
To clarify, I think FDR's domestic reforms were genuine reforms and their reversal is social degeneration. I happen to dislike FDR for his de facto support for the fascists in Spain and Ethiopia, and for the postwar planning for US expansion worldwide, not just the interment. And although many, many people dislike Lincoln and the preservation of bourgeois democracy against the slave powers, I find it overall quite admirable. My personal favorite politician of the time is the Great Commoner, Thaddeus Stevens and I loved the movie partly because it included him. In assessing Lincoln, it is important to realize that in effect the US Civil War was a revolution, in which by definition it is impossible to adhere strictly to the letter of the law, in which "voting" is by arms as well as ballots.

I don't know that Argo beat out Lincoln for that reason. I thought Zero Dark Thirty was the best film by far, and it was seen that way by critics...but I suspect it was sunk by similar petty reasons you ascribe to those who voted for Argo. If people thought that was an endorsement of torture, I wonder what would've happened if Leon Panetta had a similar conversation with Maya that Adama had with Lee at the end of Razor.
That's my personal analysis of why Lincoln lost. I firmly beieve that in years to come, Lincoln is last year's movie that people will continue to watch with real interest, while interest in Argo will disappear whenever Iran drops from the official hate list du jour. I don't think there's any doubt that everyone in Hollywood knows that they were neglecting to award the Best Picture the title.

As to Zero Dark Thirty, its only concern with torture is the toll torturing people wreaks on the poor US victims of tragic necessity. I find this vile, a big lie motivated by bigotry.

With regard to Afghanistan, true that. I never made any such assertion personally.
No, you didn't. That's why the comment on Afghanistan was in a PS. The blatant historical revisionism (aka lying) about this just gets more and more annoying, so I couldn't help but comment.
__________________
The people of this country need regime change here, not abroad.
stj is offline  
Old April 6 2013, 04:05 AM   #225
randomfan86
Lieutenant
 
Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

stj wrote: View Post
randomfan86 wrote: View Post
With regard to Park, dude...though I was born here, both of my parents are from Korea. I go to Seoul on about once a year and keep in touch with some family there. Its an endorsement of Park. I'm honestly not familiar enough on the history of SK as to whether it was Park's action that directly resulted in the modernization, but I can tell you that he gets the credit with the population because it occurred over his nearly two decade watch. Even the head of the opposition who he almost murdered (instead imprisoned) gives him credit today.
Both the south and Japan received a lot of US Vietnam war spending and both economies accelerated their growth, which continued for a relatively long time (until the general East Asian economic crisis more or less.) Park's specific economic policies were indeed paralleled in Japan. There is no reason to think that Park's dictatorship had anything to do with this, especially US spending, which preceded him. This is true no matter what people supposedly think in the south about Park.

I'm sure that you are correct in saying that it has been conventional wisdom to attribute the economic growth to Park's crimes. What I've been trying to say is that this is an idea propagated by people who a political agenda better advanced by an authoritarian or dictatorial government, a con job perpetrated on the populace.

Further, and even more important, the vote for Park can be interpreted as endorsement for prosperity and economic growth, not for dictatorship. Or it can be interpreted as a deliberate choice for a dictatorship capable of attacking the north. As for the first, in a capitalist system, political figures, even dictators, cannot grow the economy, especial not with torture and terror. As for the second? I really doubt that this woman ran on an open platform of war, especially if that is her real agenda.
Obviously killing someone doesn't directly lead to economic growth. I'm saying the people who went through the era as well as history are willing to overlook the abuses because they credit him for the economic success and his daughter's election in a very paternalistic society is further vindication of his reign by the population. Being a dictator did help in some instances.

One thing he did that helped out included normalizing relations with Japan and getting increased investment and trade from them. A democratic leader wouldn't have been able to do this politically until a whole lot later given the lingering animosity. He also committed 300,000 troops (as a point of reference, more Koreans died in Vietnam than Americans in Iraq) over the course of the Vietnam War to help the US in exchange for a lot of increased US aid and commitments to investment. A democratic leader wouldn't have been able to commit to the conflict as much as Park did.

Park disproves your statement about growing the economy while using terror and torture.

You betray your ignorance with a false dichotomy painting an inaccurate picture. The fact is in the minds of the populace the dictator and economic reform are intertwined and nobody wants a war with North Korea. Your point implying otherwise on North Korea is especially ignorant. South Koreans readily access all the information/various opinions they need to make informed decisions and judgements on their past, present and future leaders. Among other things, its the nation that is most connected to the internet. To characterize this population as brainwashed, while showing a clear lack of knowledge of their country's recent history, because they disagree with your opinion on their former leader, displays blatant ideological extremism. The fact that you needed to come to that conclusion in order to work out your cognitive dissonance shows you are clearly the brainwashed one. Is this personal because he made a habit of casually killing those of your political persuasion?

We'll have to disagree on Deng. He's acknowledged as a great leader by everyone for the economic modernization even with Tienanmen. The fact that you seem to criticize Deng for being too reformist shows how extreme and ideological you are.

Furthermore Zero Dark Thirty took a neutral POV on torture. It did not condone or condemn it. Neutral POV is Kathryn Biggelow's style if you look at her previous films. Just because this film decided to have a CIA agent as the protagonist and not condemn torture, doesn't mean it was condoning it or that we should find the film morally reprehensible. People seem to make this mistake all the time, but there is an inarguable distinction. It was a shame on the industry that she was snubbed for Best Director due to the sad, petty political motives.

Also, I hear former USSR militarists make that same mistake about Afghanistan's history so judge the US not to harshly

Last edited by randomfan86; April 7 2013 at 02:12 AM.
randomfan86 is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Tags
cain, pegasus

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.