Post by: Grandpa Shooter on October 22, 2007, 06:52:51 PM
Post by: wooderson on October 22, 2007, 07:25:00 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on October 22, 2007, 07:30:53 PM
Post by: Euclidean on October 22, 2007, 07:31:04 PM
Post by: never_retreat on October 22, 2007, 07:42:47 PM
Post by: 280plus on October 23, 2007, 01:59:58 AM
Post by: HankB on October 23, 2007, 05:12:28 AM
Am I the only one who has problems with buying things made in Vietnam..?
I've passed up buying certain shirts at Sears because of the "Made in Vietnam" label. And if there's an alternative, I'll generally avoid Chicom merchandise . . . but that's getting harder and harder all the time. For crying out loud, last time I looked for apple juice at the grocery store, it said "USA and China" on the label!! 
(Wonder how much Pb and Hg was added to the juice . . . )
Post by: Creeping Incrementalism on October 23, 2007, 05:40:45 AM
The Vietnam-made "Vietnam Vet" hat is still ironic, though.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 23, 2007, 05:44:06 AM
As to apple juice, a whole lot of apple juice comes from China, yes, because it's cheaper, and probably not all to safe. If you buy the cheapest, in that case, caveat emptor. More expensive brands use apples only from the US. I buy local cider.
Post by: Werewolf on October 23, 2007, 06:11:19 AM
Heck - for that matter Texans wouldn't be buying stuff made in NY and Mainers wouldn't buy stuff made in AL.
It could get rediculous mighty fast.
Post by: Tallpine on October 23, 2007, 07:21:29 AM
Post by: mtnbkr on October 23, 2007, 07:23:26 AM
Didn't we have a little unpleasantness with Japan, Germany, and Italy once upon a time
Yup, and they were actual threats to our freedoms.
Chris
Post by: Grandpa Shooter on October 23, 2007, 09:00:42 AM
Post by: wooderson on October 23, 2007, 09:27:28 AM
By my count, you're pretty much down to Canada - and that depends on how you feel about their treatment of the First Peoples...
Post by: mtnbkr on October 23, 2007, 09:58:52 AM
Chris
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 23, 2007, 12:42:02 PM
Post by: thebaldguy on October 23, 2007, 01:08:44 PM
Post by: wooderson on October 23, 2007, 01:14:46 PM
Post by: grampster on October 23, 2007, 03:54:43 PM
Post by: Scout26 on October 23, 2007, 05:29:07 PM
Now my uncle had spent 4+ years as Marine in the Pacific during WWII.
After my cousin spent about 45 minutes extolling the virtures of his new purchase, my uncle just looked at him, said "Those people tried to kill me." and walked back in the house.
My cousing took the car back to the dealer the same day.
Post by: Mabs2 on October 23, 2007, 05:36:19 PM
But I want to repress the godless Commies.
I want to repress everyone.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on October 23, 2007, 08:12:07 PM
Am I the only one who has problems with buying things made in Vietnam..? Friend of mine (A Viet Nam vet like myself) came back from Las Vegas with two hats he was proud of having found, proudly proclaiming VIET NAM VET. I looked at the label to discover "Made in Viet Nam". He looked at me funny and put his on. Mine is sitting on my dresser.
I don't really have a problem with it, but I joined the military right after the end.
I might feel differently if I had been of draft age during the war and had to go. I don't begrudge any Vietnam Vet for feeling the way you do though.
I remember once during the 2000 election campaign IIRC, John McCain referring to his captors at the Hanoi Hilton as "Gooks". Some people started to make a big deal out of his "racist" comment. He earned the right to call them anything he wanted, just as you have earned the right to feel the way you do.
Post by: Gun Runner on October 24, 2007, 08:26:39 PM
Didn't we have a little unpleasantness with Japan, Germany, and Italy once upon a time
Yup, and they were actual threats to our freedoms.
Chris
Oh no you di'int!!
Post by: Manedwolf on October 25, 2007, 04:18:49 AM
Back in the late '70's my cousin bought a Toyota and brought it over to show his dad (My Uncle).
Now my uncle had spent 4+ years as Marine in the Pacific during WWII.
After my cousin spent about 45 minutes extolling the virtures of his new purchase, my uncle just looked at him, said "Those people tried to kill me." and walked back in the house.
My cousing took the car back to the dealer the same day.
Now my uncle had spent 4+ years as Marine in the Pacific during WWII.
After my cousin spent about 45 minutes extolling the virtures of his new purchase, my uncle just looked at him, said "Those people tried to kill me." and walked back in the house.
My cousing took the car back to the dealer the same day.
Except now, my Honda was made in Ohio by American workers using mostly American and Canadian parts, while a friend's Ford was "hecho en Mexico." So who is more American now?
Honda of America and Toyota both have massive American factories that employ thousands of workers, while Ford and GM have offshored because it's cheaper.
Also, your uncle was a bit off, there. I doubt most of the people who worked in Toyota plants in Japan in the late 70's had anything to do with fighting a war almost fifty years previous. If you blame a new, peaceful and democratic generation for the sins of the old, how does that do anything to ensure that it never happens again? Once an enemy, always an enemy even centuries later with no further transgressions, that's something they do in the Middle East, and we see where that got them.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 25, 2007, 12:10:39 PM
But to me, nothing says victory like beating the enemy down until they mind their manners and sew our flags for us.
Post by: Len Budney on October 25, 2007, 12:24:12 PM
--Len.
Post by: Laurent du Var on October 25, 2007, 08:37:35 PM
accept old enemies than new ungratefull betrayers ?
Talk about freedom toast...
>>I remember once during the 2000 election campaign IIRC, John McCain referring to his captors at the Hanoi Hilton as "Gooks". Some people started to make a big deal out of his "racist" comment. He earned the right to call them anything he wanted, just as you have earned the right to feel the way you do.<<
I wonder where McCain earned his right to do just that and what was his business in Vietnam again ? He could be just dead as a doornail like the other 50000 young men who trusted their gouvernment to do the right thing.
Post by: Len Budney on October 26, 2007, 03:12:06 AM
I wonder where McCain earned his right to do just that...
He was a POW. You gotta cut at least some slack to a guy when he refers to his former captors and torturers unkindly.
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 26, 2007, 04:46:38 AM
Do we cut him some slack for that one?
Post by: Len Budney on October 26, 2007, 04:55:52 AM
Does anybody else remember when McCain said that using torture would give our enemies excuses to torture Americans? ... Do we cut him some slack for that one?
In that case, as far as I can see, he's right: when enemies torture Americans, the first thing they'll say in their own defense is that Americans torture them. It's a good argument against using torture, aside from the fact that it doesn't produce reliable intel and is just plain immoral.
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 26, 2007, 05:05:32 AM
I'm not arguing for torture, here, just weeding out a weak argument for the anti-torture position.
Post by: Joe Demko on October 26, 2007, 05:18:42 AM
Post by: Len Budney on October 26, 2007, 05:20:52 AM
So they won't torture Americans unless they have a good excuse? That just doesn't wash.
Nobody said that. He said that using torture gives them a good excuse. Turned around, it means that we don't have credible moral standing to complain about torture: they're only doing to our guys the same sorts of things we do to theirs. It might also increase their use of torture, as a retaliation, but the real point here is that by embracing torture we elevate it to a legitimate tactic, about which we have no right to complain.
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 26, 2007, 05:52:06 AM
Post by: Paddy on October 26, 2007, 06:00:01 AM
But Islamic militant groups don't care about who claims the moral high ground, or whether we torture anyone else.
Don't try to figure it out. Len's simply looking for yet another excuse to trash the U.S. while speaking from the lofty tower of moral authoritarianism. IOW, he wants the rule of anarchistic 'law' imposed on everyone else.
Post by: Creeping Incrementalism on October 26, 2007, 06:19:21 AM
He said that using torture gives them a good excuse. Turned around, it means that we don't have credible moral standing to complain about torture: they're only doing to our guys the same sorts of things we do to theirs. It might also increase their use of torture, as a retaliation, but the real point here is that by embracing torture we elevate it to a legitimate tactic, about which we have no right to complain.
No, that's not the way it works. It has always been accepted to break various humanitarian laws of war if the other side breaks them first. For example, during WWI, the Germans sent a letter to the U.S. declaring that they would execute any prisoners taken with buckshot, on the premise that it was expanding ammo/designed to cause excessive pain. The U.S. response gave a reason why that was bunk, and as retaliantion, said it would start executing German prisoners if the Germans did so to ours first.
Islamists will always torture Americans to the maximum degree, and make a video of it, whatever we do. The main problem is that the rest of the world holds a double standard: they won't say a thing if terrorists to torture Americans, but if Americans do it back, they condemn us as loudly as they can.
For those who say torture doesn't provide good intel--that's lame excuse as to why we shouldn't use torture by people who don't beleive we should use it under any circumstances. After Hezbollah captured the CIA station chief in Lebanon in the 80s, suddenly every single agent working for him dissappeared (either captured or fled). And why would it be that we get intel out of the hardcase terrorists, not when sitting in U.S. prisons, but only when they happen to sit in the prisons of our allies that use torture? The premise that torture will only have the tortured give the interrogator what he wants to hear is bogus. The interrogator knows this, and will keep up the torture until he gets a response that he believes. And if it doesn't pan out, it is right back to the torture.
Post by: Len Budney on October 26, 2007, 07:02:58 AM
But Islamic militant groups don't care about who claims the moral high ground, or whether we torture anyone else.
McCain's remarks aren't aimed at at the Muslims. They're aimed at American's and American allies. To restate the point crudely, if we torture Muslims then we deserve the torture we get when we fall into their hands. If a Gitmo interrogator falls into Muslim hands and they subject him to waterboarding and sleep deprivation, it's just desserts. So don't do it. That help?
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 26, 2007, 07:05:03 AM
But Islamic militant groups don't care about who claims the moral high ground, or whether we torture anyone else.
McCain's remarks aren't aimed at at the Muslims. They're aimed at American's and American allies. To restate the point crudely, if we torture Muslims then we deserve the torture we get when we fall into their hands. If a Gitmo interrogator falls into Muslim hands and they subject him to waterboarding and sleep deprivation, it's just desserts. So don't do it. That help?
--Len.
They don't do that. They just behead.
Post by: Len Budney on October 26, 2007, 07:08:17 AM
They don't do that. They just behead.
That's the iffy part of McCain's remarks, and you're the first to raise it so far. It's not strictly true that they "just" behead: they do use hideous tortures first. But arguably, at least, waterboarding and hacking one's head off with a rusty butter knife are not comparable. In a broad sense it makes us "as bad as them," but given a choice between the two I'd definitely take waterboarding. His point somewhat breaks down right there, I agree.
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 26, 2007, 08:02:22 AM
Post by: Len Budney on October 26, 2007, 08:46:42 AM
Oh, you're talking about water-boarding and sleep dep. I was talking about torture. Nevermind.
I invite you to try waterboarding, sleep deprivation, etc., for oh, three years, say, like Jos? Pedilla. Like Jos? Pedilla, you're unlikely to come through the experience sane--but at least you weren't "tortured."
But if you really distinguish that from torture, then McCain's statement should make perfect sense to you: anyone who rips fingernails off Muslims, or beheads them with butter knives, and then suffers the same at the hands of Muslim captors, is clearly getting his just desserts.
--Len.
Post by: Laurent du Var on October 26, 2007, 08:56:13 AM
Well, I'm one of the official "rest of the world" representers on this board
and I can tell you that nobody who sees a beheading video is thinking: Well
they play Britney Spears records to the poor prisoners in Cuba. I have only seen part or the beginning of those videos and they made me physically sick and still do just thinking of them.
Post by: ShrinkMD on October 26, 2007, 09:39:00 AM
Is it better if the owner/shooter of the milsurp in question consciously pays homage to the misdeeds possibly previously perpetrated, and dedicates the range time/safe queen time to the much preferably goal of preserving the shooting sports and the 2nd Amendment? Say a prayer over the turkey, then eat it?
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 26, 2007, 10:13:32 AM
anyone who rips fingernails off Muslims, or beheads them with butter knives, and then suffers the same at the hands of Muslim captors, is clearly getting his just desserts.
Are you then alleging that our government has sanctioned and performed such things in the current conflict? In any case, you are speaking as if the Muslim in question is morally equivalent to the Western interrogator. In other words, you are speaking as if a terrorist and a soldier are morally equivalent. In that case, I don't wish to discuss this with you further. Wasn't aiming my earlier comment at you, anyway.
Post by: Werewolf on October 26, 2007, 10:17:53 AM
Quote from: Len Budney
anyone who rips fingernails off Muslims, or beheads them with butter knives, and then suffers the same at the hands of Muslim captors, is clearly getting his just desserts.
If I wrote what I really want to write about the statement made by mr budney above I'd be banned from APS forever.
I like this place enough that I'm going to take a few deep breaths, get control and ignore that which deserves to be ignored.
Post by: Len Budney on October 26, 2007, 10:30:16 AM
Are you then alleging that our government has sanctioned and performed such things in the current conflict?
Not at all. I'm noting that if "torture" to you means only barbaric practices like that, then by your own definitions McCain's comments are (1) perfectly reasonable, and (2) completely irrelevant, since the US (probably) doesn't do any of those things.
That you took exception to his remarks at all suggests that you do realize that McCain was referring to "aggressive interrogation techniques" that actually are practiced by the US. But if you realized that, then your remark that you "thought I was talking about real torture" didn't really make sense, since we were indeed all talking about such things as waterboarding.
Quote
In any case, you are speaking as if the Muslim in question is morally equivalent to the Western interrogator.
Definitely not. I'm acutely aware of the difference between the attacker and the defender. Though the defender might descend to the moral level of his enemy if he really were, for example, ripping off fingernails, etc. The three possible objections to "aggressive interrogation" are:
1) When used on an Arab who turns out to be innocent (which is still the majority of those apprehended under suspicion), the infliction of torture is a crime. That's why due process was invented, by the way.
2) Depending on the nature of the man's crimes, and the extent of the torture, it's cruel and unusual punishment. If you happen to have an honest-to-goodness terrorist murderer, I can't be bothered sparing sympathy for him, almost regardless what you do to him. But by torturing suspects, to find out whether they know something useful, without any semblance of a genuine effort to establish guilt first, you lose any justification that might proceed from his guilt. He isn't guilty; so far, he's just a suspect.
3) Torture is largely ineffective at generating useful intelligence, and especially in its extreme forms it dehumanizes the interrogator. It harms both the interrogator and the victim, without even fulfilling the purpose that ostensibly justifies it.
Quote
In other words, you are speaking as if a terrorist and a soldier are morally equivalent...
Definitely not. Self-defense good; initiation of aggression bad. There is no equivalence whatsoever between soldiers as defenders and terrorists as attackers. Some individual soldiers, such as Pfc Jesse Spielman, are no better than the terrorists. And it's no secret that I regard some in the administration as war criminals. But it would violate the very core of my libertarian soul if I morally confused attack and defense.
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 26, 2007, 10:58:13 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 26, 2007, 11:01:42 AM
The objection may be raised that such situations never arise, or that torture would not actually help in such circumstances. I hope those things are true.
And when I speak of torture, I do not mean "harsh treatment" such as water-boarding.
Post by: Len Budney on October 26, 2007, 11:07:38 AM
And when I speak of torture, I do not mean "harsh treatment" such as water-boarding.
Don't underestimate man's ingenuity, especially when it comes to barbarism. Some clever little devils found a way to use a leaky faucet to drive a man completely out of his mind.
As for McCain's remark, it's unclear whether he intended it as a practical or a moral statement. As a moral statement it's spot on: adopting the terrorists' methods would make us as bad as them. As a practical statement it's somewhat debatable--but at minimum, it undermines folks general sympathy with our side, and fuels their sympathy with the terrorists. Abu Ghraib definitely sent a shock wave through our Muslim "allies," like Turkey and Saudi Arabia. A couple good beheadings would very likely get us expelled from Saudi and denied overflight rights by most Arab countries.
I don't think anyone believes that giving cotton candy to POWs will make the terrorists do the same to captured Americans. But I don't think anyone claimed such a thing, either.
--Len.