Another Great Example for Ethics Classes

Our "pub" where you can post about things completely Off Topic or about non-silent PC issues.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Another Great Example for Ethics Classes

Post by aristide1 » Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:27 pm

People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

thejamppa
Posts: 3142
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:20 am
Location: Missing in Finnish wilderness, howling to moon with wolf brethren and walking with brother bears
Contact:

Post by thejamppa » Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:02 pm

Its unfortunate, but like sound, ethics and morality are subjective for each individuals...
If seeing is believing, how can blind person believe in anything?
Maturity is just not experience in life but also ability to make compromises.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:07 pm

Yes, but what's really scary is the number of people who think this is a great example of a patriotic American.
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

thejamppa
Posts: 3142
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:20 am
Location: Missing in Finnish wilderness, howling to moon with wolf brethren and walking with brother bears
Contact:

Post by thejamppa » Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:22 am

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...
If seeing is believing, how can blind person believe in anything?
Maturity is just not experience in life but also ability to make compromises.

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:02 am

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.

Greg F.
Posts: 372
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 am
Location: Seattle

Post by Greg F. » Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:31 am

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.
Biostar 785GE
Intel D510
Asus EeePC N450 netbook
Evo HTC 4G
SAPPHIRE PURE Fusion Mini E350 AMD E-350 APU
Acer Aspire AS5250-BZ641 Notebook AMD Dual-Core Processor C-50
HifiMan REO, Sansa Clip+, JDS cMoy
click on an ad link each time you visit SPCR and help pay the bills.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:39 pm

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.
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:33 pm

Another dirtbag indicted

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25916299/
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7674
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:29 pm

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...
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

spookmineer
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 749
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:02 pm

Post by spookmineer » Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:06 pm

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

Sincerely, Neil
:shock:

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:39 pm

This thread is not as lively as some others, but so far it's 100% dumb-free.
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:06 pm

People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7674
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Sat Aug 09, 2008 7:29 am

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.
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.
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Sat Aug 09, 2008 8:39 am

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.
All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.
Voltaire
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:16 pm

Anybody invite this great contributor to the RNC?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26548197
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:25 pm

Lobbyists in party mode:

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

catering to those taking the legal bribes.
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

shathal
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:36 am
Location: Reading, UK

Post by shathal » Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:32 am

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.
[i][color=blue]D875PBZ, 3.4 GHz Prescott + TR XP-120 w/ 120 mm AF, AccoustiCase C6607 Black, 2x 250 GB S-ATA HD's, 2x 120 mm Evercool Aluminium fans[/color][/i]
[img]http://www.liquidninjas.com/dc/ln_dc_sigs.php?xfahuser=Shathal&xskin=Zyzzyx&xfahteam=31574[/img]

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:02 am

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.
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

shathal
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:36 am
Location: Reading, UK

Post by shathal » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:08 am

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) :).
[i][color=blue]D875PBZ, 3.4 GHz Prescott + TR XP-120 w/ 120 mm AF, AccoustiCase C6607 Black, 2x 250 GB S-ATA HD's, 2x 120 mm Evercool Aluminium fans[/color][/i]
[img]http://www.liquidninjas.com/dc/ln_dc_sigs.php?xfahuser=Shathal&xskin=Zyzzyx&xfahteam=31574[/img]

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:08 am

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.

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7674
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:32 am

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.
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:55 am

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..

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7674
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:05 pm

We, the USA supported Saddam Hussein -- before we didn't support him.
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:52 pm

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.

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7674
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:35 pm

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.
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:11 pm

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.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:45 am

People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7674
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:42 am

Hi,

Are the so-called neo-cons a reliable source of information? Is Ahmed Chalabi and ethical and upstanding sort of guy?
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:56 am

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."

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7674
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:15 am

Hiya,

I know who and what the neo-cons are -- my questions still stand unanswered.
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

Post Reply