Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Cheney)

Discussion in 'Battlestar Galactica & Caprica' started by randomfan86, Apr 2, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Awesome Possum

    Awesome Possum Rated Awesome By 9 out of 10 Awesome Experts Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2001
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

    I hope you realize that Cain isn't real. You don't have to defend the actions of a fictional character since they didn't really happen.

    It's an interesting though exercise, but you might be taking it a little too far.
     
  2. randomfan86

    randomfan86 Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

    Cain is a proxy for my world-view and an interesting way for me to look at what American Presidents of both parties feel they need to do in modern times and throughout history in waging war. You might be right about taking it to far though:lol:
     
  3. Avon

    Avon Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 7, 2010
    Location:
    Avon
    Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

    shouldn't you use the actual president character then? compare the whole voterigging story with george w bush or nixon. also the president isn't a semi-recurring guest star

    thats like learning to drive a car by watching tennis
     
  4. randomfan86

    randomfan86 Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

    Eh, Cain for me represented Dick Cheney (who really had the power in the Bush administration) more than Roselin. As seen with my quote in the OP. "In the face of duty, honor is meaningless" ~Cheney. I immediately thought of Cain. Cain was the leader of the Pegasus and de facto head of the fleet in their short time together though not technically "President".
     
  5. Avon

    Avon Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 7, 2010
    Location:
    Avon
    Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

    then maybe you should've let everyone else know this instead of saying 'strawman' all the time
     
  6. Awesome Possum

    Awesome Possum Rated Awesome By 9 out of 10 Awesome Experts Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2001
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

    I don't think America has had a President that even compares to Cain. Really our wars, even the worst acts are done to limit as much life that is lost and end the war as quickly as possible. Even the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan was done to prevent an even greater loss of life. If they hadn't worked, there would have been a ground invasion of Japan. We're still losing the Purple Heart medals that were made for the estimated number of soldiers who would have been harmed in battle. Not to mention the total number dead on both sides if it had happened. It was a terrible act, but it prevented an even worse act.

    What Cain did was kill some people who did nothing wrong in order to continue a mission of revenge. She had no hope of surviving and even if she did, where would she go? The Colonies are nuked out wastelands with almost no survivors other than a few resistance fighters who would likely die from radiation exposure as soon as they ran out of medication. They could never take back the Colonies and survive there.
     
  7. randomfan86

    randomfan86 Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2013
  8. Awesome Possum

    Awesome Possum Rated Awesome By 9 out of 10 Awesome Experts Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2001
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

    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.
     
  9. Ancient Mariner

    Ancient Mariner Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Location:
    A deserted gin joint on the Lower East Side
    Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

    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?
     
  10. randomfan86

    randomfan86 Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

    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 that he did that to by his own standards (a lot of those citizens had nothing to do with the war and were just born in the wrong place). 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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2013
  11. Awesome Possum

    Awesome Possum Rated Awesome By 9 out of 10 Awesome Experts Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2001
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

    Killing children isn't a tactic. Even Dick Cheney would find that fucked up.
     
  12. randomfan86

    randomfan86 Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

    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.
     
  13. Awesome Possum

    Awesome Possum Rated Awesome By 9 out of 10 Awesome Experts Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2001
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

    Only in the sense that drinking water is similar to drowning.
     
  14. randomfan86

    randomfan86 Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

    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: Apr 5, 2013
  15. iguana_tonante

    iguana_tonante Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    Italy, EU
    Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

    We weren't giving randomfan the attention he craves, so he had to up the ante.

    This is lol-worthy.
     
  16. randomfan86

    randomfan86 Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

    I would say the better comparison would be water-boarding vs. drowning vs. "drinking water vs drowning". Cain never bothered with pretense.
     
  17. Awesome Possum

    Awesome Possum Rated Awesome By 9 out of 10 Awesome Experts Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2001
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

    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.
     
  18. randomfan86

    randomfan86 Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

    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: Apr 5, 2013
  19. Locutus of Bored

    Locutus of Bored Co-Founder of ISIS Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Location:
    Huntington Beach, California
    Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

    [​IMG]

    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.

    [​IMG]
     
  20. randomfan86

    randomfan86 Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

    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:

    [​IMG]

    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:lol:

    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: Apr 6, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.