SPCR
http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/

Another Great Example for Ethics Classes
http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=49076
Page 1 of 6

Author:  aristide1 [ Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Another Great Example for Ethics Classes

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25622771/

Author:  thejamppa [ Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:02 pm ]
Post subject: 

Its unfortunate, but like sound, ethics and morality are subjective for each individuals...

Author:  aristide1 [ Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:07 pm ]
Post subject: 

Yes, but what's really scary is the number of people who think this is a great example of a patriotic American.

Author:  thejamppa [ Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:22 am ]
Post subject: 

That prooves how twisted the concept of political morality has become in last 60 years... I agree that it is worrisome that peoples believe that is patriotic...

Author:  Trip [ Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:02 am ]
Post subject: 

I imagine the herd has always had fuzzy morals, though yea mass media manipulates it.

What's really screwy is that we in the West believe each opinion to be equal.

Author:  Greg F. [ Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:31 am ]
Post subject: 

If you get a chance read this book:

"The One Percent Doctrine," Ron Suskind


and this one:

"The Dark Side," Jane Mayer

right now I must admit I have only read excerpts, but I am waiting for my library to acquire these. If not I will Amazon them. These books detail the inner workings of the Bush admin and how they made the decision to go to war. Not about oil, but almost more about who has the biggest schlong, actually. Really. Dick Cheney...I won't feel safe until that man is out of office. Rove, Rummy, these guys are dangerous.

Author:  aristide1 [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

And even more examples of how the law doesn't apply to the king:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25703772/

And this is the man that said he would fire the person who leaked the name. And what does he do? He flip-flops, to put it nicely.

Every time I read something about another GWB decision I am overwhelmed by the urge to shower. And people look up to this criminal.

Author:  aristide1 [ Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:33 pm ]
Post subject: 

Another dirtbag indicted

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25916299/

Author:  NeilBlanchard [ Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:29 pm ]
Post subject: 

Hi,

Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson have been up to no good.

And Scott Bloch has been giving those two a run for their money...

I think the trail leads to....Alberto Gonzalez, Karl Rove, and...

Author:  spookmineer [ Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:06 pm ]
Post subject: 

NeilBlanchard wrote:
I think the trail leads to....Alberto Gonzalez, Karl Rove, and...

Sincerely, Neil


:shock:

Author:  aristide1 [ Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

This thread is not as lively as some others, but so far it's 100% dumb-free.

Author:  aristide1 [ Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:06 pm ]
Post subject: 

More corporate scum:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25967103/

Author:  NeilBlanchard [ Sat Aug 09, 2008 7:29 am ]
Post subject: 

Hi y'all,

Is it any surprise that we went to war in Iraq on completely false pretenses? Ron Suskind reports on the details in his book "The Way of the World". They had the top Iraqi intelligence officer, Tahir Jalil Habbush telling them that there were no "weapons of mass destruction" -- but they (Cheney in particular) were already convinced -- and so they completely suppressed this.

They lied to us.

They took us to war on lies.

Many, many thousands of people have died, and even more people have been injured -- because the Bush administration would rather lie than admit they were wrong.

Quote:
In his new book, The Way of the World: A Story of Truth And Hope In An Age of Extremism, author Ron Suskind alleges that the Bush administration knew Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and eventually fabricated intelligence assets to support its case for war. Both the White House and the CIA deny his claims.

Suskind, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, tells Steve Inskeep that a secret mission was conducted, in which a British intelligence agent met with the head of Iraqi intelligence in a secret location in Jordan, and that the Iraqi conveyed that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"What that meant is that we knew everything that became so obvious by the summer after the invasion, and the president made a decision essentially to ignore that intelligence," Suskind says.

He says once the final report went to President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and others, the U.S. cut off communications with the Iraqi intelligence chief and then moved forward. An agreement was made to resettle the Iraqi and pay him $5 million.

Then, in the fall of 2003, the White House decided that a letter should be fabricated, dated July 2001, from the Iraqi to Saddam Hussein establishing a link to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S. "And the letter should as well say that Saddam Hussein has been actively buying yellowcake uranium from Niger with the help of al-Qaida," Suskind says.

He says that sources at the CIA remember seeing the order for that letter on "creamy White House stationery" and that the letter could only have come from the "highest reaches of the White House. ... It would have to come from the very top."

In disputing Suskind's claims, former CIA Director George Tenet said the White House never gave an order to plant false evidence and his agency resisted efforts to find bogus links between Iraq and al-Qaida. A White House spokesman, meanwhile, called the claims another one of those "bizarre conspiracy theories that Ron Suskind likes to dwell in.

Author:  aristide1 [ Sat Aug 09, 2008 8:39 am ]
Post subject: 

They pumped up mob into wanting blood. That worked. They were exactly where they wanted to be. So they went for it.

And they will never be brought to justice.

Quote:
All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.

Voltaire

Author:  aristide1 [ Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:16 pm ]
Post subject: 

Anybody invite this great contributor to the RNC?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26548197

Author:  aristide1 [ Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:25 pm ]
Post subject: 

Lobbyists in party mode:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rni6G7RRFkk

catering to those taking the legal bribes.

Author:  shathal [ Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:32 am ]
Post subject: 

thejamppa wrote:
Its unfortunate, but like sound, ethics and morality are subjective for each individuals...


They're not, actually. Or rather, not both are.

Morals are defined personally - whether you feel that (say) robbery is acceptable or not. It's a personal matter, your personal moral make-up.

Ethics is different. Ethics is essentially a "group approach", to prevent moral dilemmas. This is why many professions have a code of ethics, so as to NOT have moral dilemmas.

For example, if a catholic priest's confessional booth holds someone who confesses to theft, this is not something he ethically can speak to others about. The "code of ethics" for priests (simplified) states that all things said during confession are not for others.

I hope this clarifies the difference between morals and ethics.

Author:  aristide1 [ Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:02 am ]
Post subject: 

Where I work I need to take an annual refresher course and sign off that I read, understand, and will abide by the established code of ethics.

I suppose if a politician did that his tongue would burst into flames.

Author:  shathal [ Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:08 am ]
Post subject: 

Not necessarily.

It depends what the code of ethics entails. If they're all rules about being a self-centered git, then there's no dilemma at all and they're beyond reproach.

... can you tell I'm cynical when it comes to politicians (not politics) :).

Author:  m0002a [ Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:08 am ]
Post subject: 

NeilBlanchard wrote:
They had the top Iraqi intelligence officer, Tahir Jalil Habbush telling them that there were no "weapons of mass destruction" -- but they (Cheney in particular) were already convinced -- and so they completely suppressed this.

They lied to us.


You are omitting the fact that Bush asked George Tenet (Head of CIA) if he was sure about the WMD in Iraq. Tenet told Bush it was a slam dunk case that there were (as Bob Woodward reported in his book).

On any given intelligence issue you can find at least 10 - 20% of analysts, experts, etc, who hold the contrary view from the majority. So it is not fair that just because the the minority happens to be right on a particular occasion that it means that Tenet or the President were lying or knew that the majority of analysts had it wrong. There were also other ex-Iraqi officials who said there were WMD in Iraq.

Author:  NeilBlanchard [ Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:32 am ]
Post subject: 

Hello,

George Tenet was playing along -- Cheney had his own "intelligence" office stove-piping things into the White House. They squashed all the people who had other conclusions. Just because he made such a statement (that he should have known was wrong) -- doesn't justify taking us into war.

They used Colin Powell, too -- and they lied to us. Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attacks on September 11th, and they knew this full well.

The Bush administration lied to us, and took us illegally into war.

Author:  m0002a [ Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:55 am ]
Post subject: 

NeilBlanchard wrote:
Hello,

George Tenet was playing along -- Cheney had his own "intelligence" office stove-piping things into the White House. They squashed all the people who had other conclusions. Just because he made such a statement (that he should have known was wrong) -- doesn't justify taking us into war.

They used Colin Powell, too -- and they lied to us. Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attacks on September 11th, and they knew this full well.

The Bush administration lied to us, and took us illegally into war.

You are very fortunate to have such clarity in life, but I just don't think things are that simple. One man's truth is another man's lie.

Regarding September 11, all of the attackers had one thing in common--a hatred of US foreign policy that had supported so many dictators in the Middle East. US support for Saddam Hussein in the early days was a prime example. Invading Iraq may been a bad idea, and the motives you assign to that action are very imaginative, but wholly unsubstantiated..

Author:  NeilBlanchard [ Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

We, the USA supported Saddam Hussein -- before we didn't support him.

Author:  m0002a [ Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:52 pm ]
Post subject: 

NeilBlanchard wrote:
We, the USA supported Saddam Hussein -- before we didn't support him.

Yes, that is my point. The 9/11 attackers were upset that the US supported leaders in the Middle East who violated human rights and tortured people. That includes Saddam, but mainly the leaders of the two countries where the terrorists came from (Egypt and Saudi Arabia).

A major part of the thinking in deposing Saddam was to make up for past US sins in supporting him (which was previously done as a foil to Iran). But things don't always work out as planned.

Author:  NeilBlanchard [ Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

Hmmm,

Well, that is a new bit o' logic that I have not heard before -- does that mean we will attack all the other countries where we meddled in the past?

We also took out the elected leader of Iran, Mossadegh and install the Shah; who killed many, many Iranians -- which is why the hostages were taken, essentially. What goes around comes around.

We supported BOTH Iran and Iraq in their very bloody 8 year long war against each other.

Author:  m0002a [ Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

NeilBlanchard wrote:
Hmmm,

Well, that is a new bit o' logic that I have not heard before.
It is not new, it is straight out of the Neo-Con foreign policy playbook.

It is interesting (although not unexpected) that you have not heard it before, but maybe you should ask yourself why you have not heard it.

Author:  aristide1 [ Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:45 am ]
Post subject: 

http://www.newsweek.com/id/146651

SOS

Author:  NeilBlanchard [ Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:42 am ]
Post subject: 

Hi,

Are the so-called neo-cons a reliable source of information? Is Ahmed Chalabi and ethical and upstanding sort of guy?

Author:  m0002a [ Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:56 am ]
Post subject: 

Neo-Conservatism is not an inside source of informaiton. It is political philosophy that heavily influenced Geroge W Bush, especially in foreign policy after 9/11.

Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on Neo-Conservatives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-con#Bush_Doctrine

"Believing that America should "export democracy", that is, spread its ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject U.S. reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives. Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives take a more idealist stance on foreign policy; adhere less to social conservatism; have a weaker dedication to the policy of minimal government; and in the past, have been more supportive of the welfare state."

"Aggressive support for democracies and nation building is additionally justified by a belief that, over the long term, it will reduce the extremism that is a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism. Neoconservatives, along with many other political theorists, have argued that democratic regimes are less likely to instigate a war than a country with an authoritarian form of government. Further, they argue that the lack of freedoms, lack of economic opportunities, and the lack of secular general education in authoritarian regimes promotes radicalism and extremism. Consequently, neoconservatives advocate the spread of democracy to regions of the world where it currently does not prevail, notably the Arab nations of the Middle East, communist China and North Korea, and Iran."

"Neoconservatives believe in the ability of the United States to install democracy after a conflict, citing the denazification of Germany and installation of democratic government in Japan after World War II. This idea guided U.S. policy in Iraq after the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime, when the U.S. organized elections as soon as practical. Neoconservatives also ascribe to principal of defending democracies against aggression."

Author:  NeilBlanchard [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:15 am ]
Post subject: 

Hiya,

I know who and what the neo-cons are -- my questions still stand unanswered.

Page 1 of 6 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/