Quote Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
okay then.

yes sacrficing other is the right thing to do. we went to war on the idea that we were on the moral right. people will die to keep it that way. unless you want to make this a pointless war replacing one torturer we cannoy drop to that level. the geneva convention and human rights act will not be broken no matter what the cost.

i'd rather be dead than tortured. in america now after bush helpfully changed the definition of torture to having to have been maimed by it. i would rather be dead than tortured and maimed.

"Why do we hold elections when we're just going to get an idiot in office no matter who wins? Why do we bother to protect people who are just going to complain that we are evil anyway? Why do we try to spare innocents instead of target them? Why don't we just nuke the entire country of Iraq until it becomes a glowing crater? Why do we stop people from torturing prisoners for the fun of it? Why do we prosecute rapists? Why do we put murderers to death?"

because america likes to think it has morality left.

no answer my question. why do we replace one torturer with another?
I disagree. It is alright to sacrifice yourself, and it is in fact noble and honorable, but you cannot force others to sacrifice for you. That is not a valid moral standpoint at all, it is pure selfishness. You cannot impose your morals upon someone else. Asking someone else to sacrifice for what you believe is right, even if they don't, is ridiculous.

The answer to your question is this: The matter is not as simple as you would like to believe. Yes, if you split things down to that level of basics, people who torture versus people who don't, you are correct, there would be no difference. But there are far more distinctions than just that, and if you cannot realize that, then you need to adopt a less narrow minded view. Yes, I believe that "torture" can be justified, especially since a lot of what is considered "torture" by the rest of the world leaves no permanent effects. Does that make me an evil person? Possibly. But does it make me as evil as someone who tortures for pleasure, who causes harm with no regard for others, or who would kill innocents? I don't think so. You are of course free to disagree, but I cannot advocate a position of standing by and letting evil continue unchecked. "Evil prevails when good men do nothing". If I have to torture or kill one man to save ten or a hundred, I will. I will feel remorse afterwards (which is more than I can say for most of my enemies), but I would do it just the same. While we may be replacing one group of torturers with another (which is a rather flawed statement, since we are not taking control of the Iraqi government), I believe that we are replacing a group that tortures and oppresses constantly with no remorse with a group that only tortures in order to save lives.

Yes, if you simplify things down to basics, it seems pointless. You could have just as easily made the argument that we are just replacing humans with more humans. Or evil people with more evil people. But I believe that there are varying degrees of evil, and that taking some unpleasant action in order to do what I feel is best for the majority of people is far less evil than sitting on my @$$ and letting people die rather than take an action which may usually be considered immoral.