Is there a prison big enough for Tony Blair's ego?

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

...Wut

As in, he doesn't believe in prisons as an institution. Except for the one prison cell in the world where we would put Tony Blair.

[Solid Snake]

I just feel it's extremely disingenuous to insinuate that any political decision made -- no matter how utterly offensive or costly or indefensible -- could possibly be worse than rape and murder.

I mean I fucking hate George W. Bush with the passion of a thousand suns, I sincerely hope he rots in hell, but I wouldn't actually say he's a worse person that someone who actually made the conscious decision to rape and/or murder another human being.

If nothing else, it belittles the actual horrific impact of something like rape to view it as less offensive than "political decisions I personally disagree with."

[Azisien]

But political decisions often have direct impact on lives, and not just this person or that person, but millions or billions of people. This line of thinking obviously has utilitarian roots, but the decision to go to war in Iraq, for instance, has cost not much money, but many, many, many lives. The decision to do that was the conscious decision to commit quite a lot of murder. That the decision-makers were in offices giving orders via Bluetooth makes not that much difference to holding the guns yourself, aside from the fact that it's much easier to ignore the consequences.

I think on decisions of that level, no matter what you do, it'll probably cause some chain of events that will lead to people dying or suffering. Unavoidable to an extent. But as a species we just seem to suck extra super hard at making sure most of us suffer. This is worse than singular murders or rapes.

e: the lowest figure I've seen is 100,000 dead, mostly civilians, from just the War in Iraq.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

I don't think smarty meant to belittle rape, instead emphasize the horribleness of Tony Blair. I thought this was obvious. But I often follow some kinda crack logic if some people are to be believed.

[Sifright]

Yea blair and bush totally aren't directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.


oh.... waaaait a second. Yea they are

Gosh how did i forget about that?

Oh yes and of course it was all done for financial reasons which is fantastic bit of oil money is always great.

*PRO TIP*
Libyan rebels? They were supported for the same reason. Gadafi about 6-12 months before the nato nations weighed in tore up a bunch of oil contracts and forced the companies involved to take the oil on at higher cost.

Thank fully the paragons of freedom and democracy joined sides with the rebels who signed much more favourable oil contracts with the west. Isn't that grand?

Edit: So yea, Blair and Bush physically disgust me. They are both more evil than a rapist serial killer even better neither of them will ever suffer for their actions as they are both given millions and millions.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Azisien

But political decisions often have direct impact on lives, and not just this person or that person, but millions or billions of people. This line of thinking obviously has utilitarian roots, but the decision to go to war in Iraq, for instance, has cost not much money, but many, many, many lives. The decision to do that was the conscious decision to commit quite a lot of murder. That the decision-makers were in offices giving orders via Bluetooth makes not that much difference to holding the guns yourself, aside from the fact that it's much easier to ignore the consequences.

You better be ready to imprison every politician who ever makes a decision on anything ever, then.

You see there's no less than three major problems I can deduce with equivocating Tony Blair (let alone viewing him as 'worse than') a 'rapist serial killer,' but one of those three problems is that by falling into the trap of believing that individuals are solely responsible for making major decisions regarding war and peace, you're reducing the degree of responsibility we all share for the mess that's caused.

To put it another way: George W. Bush is a war criminal, Tony Blair is a war criminal, Barack Obama is a war criminal, our intelligence agencies are war criminals, and our military-industrial complex would make ANYONE in a position of power in a country like America or Britain a war criminal.

To pretend that the problem is solely with Bush or solely with Blair actually minimizes the actual degree of criticism and self-reflection that should be required. So, again -- if you're going to say Blair deserves to be imprisoned, don't stop with him, because just about any other British politician under those circumstances with that faulty intelligence and the military and the industrialists breathing down their backs would've made the same decision. Hell, a majority of U.S. Democrats in Congress with every reason to oppose Bush on Iraq made the decision. Then take in the CIA, and don't stop with defense contractors, or anyone who profits in any way from the military-industrial complex, including employees of aerospace companies who make a living from making contributions that result in drones bombing civilians.

The problem isn't with individuals. The problem is with politics itself -- our institutions of governance, the theoretical underpinnings that we teach every Political Science graduate and law school student regarding the 'way the world works,' the role that war plays in our society, the division of civilization itself into separate 'sovereign nations' that compete against each other, and how foreign policy decisions should be made. The capitalist economic structure, the profits gained from a vibrant defense industry, etc. -- all of these things are bigger than Bush or Blair and we even have to indict ourselves insofar as citizens in western countries in general benefit from an unacceptable division of power and resources.

As Barack Obama's recent indulgence in drone warfare has revealed, you could pretty much stick anyone -- Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, David Cameron, whoever -- into office and they're going to make the same fucked up decisions. Because it's not so much a matter of individual culpability when the system itself is rigged to ensure anyone with the power makes the exact same decisions.

I guarantee you, give Smarty McBarrelpants the U.K. Prime Minister position unilaterally tomorrow and within a year he'd make a major foreign policy decision that would be controversial and result, however indirectly, in the deaths of innocents, and that decision could readily be construed as a war crime. Doesn't make him worse than a serial rapist or a serial killer.

I think on decisions of that level, no matter what you do, it'll probably cause some chain of events that will lead to people dying or suffering. Unavoidable to an extent. But as a species we just seem to suck extra super hard at making sure most of us suffer. This is worse than singular murders or rapes.

I think quite the opposite, you see.
Though it's less a quantitative reflection and more a qualitative one; it's less a reflection on how many die and more a reflection on how and why the tragedy's happened.
Unless you sincerely believe that Barack Obama, George W. Bush or any other politician takes personal joy in the notion that their decision will result in the deaths of innocents, like they're just sitting there in their chairs laughing at all the suffering they're going to cause with maniacal glee on their faces, or that they're eager and voluntary participants in genocide, their decisions just feel different to me tonally than a serial killer or a serial rapist, who indulges in the crimes of murder and rape due to a conscious choice to murder and rape innocent people.

That's actually my second of three objections to this notion that politicians who make tough decisions (even contemptible decisions) are 'worse than' serial killers and serial rapists. Legally speaking, active malice is the difference between murder and manslaughter. Active participation in the crime makes a difference, too. And in theory -- albeit not often in practice -- just wars function in a manner similar to self-defense in criminal law cases.

There is, in short, a huge causation issue here.

Let's attempt an oversimplification for the mere sake of example. Say President X orders the assassination of a known terrorist. There's two ways the terrorist could be killed: (1) By drone strike or (2) by ground forces. The drone strike option risks no troops, but there's a 15% chance according to Intelligence Agency estimates that innocent civilians will be killed. The third option President X could choose is not to act, but Intelligence Agency indicates at least a 50% possibility that if he isn't killed, the terrorist will set off a bomb somewhere next week.

Question One: If the President chooses option (1) and innocent civilians are accidentally killed, is he a war criminal? Is s/he worse than a serial killer or a serial rapist who intentionally seeks to inflict harm upon his known victims?

Question Two: If the President chooses option (2) and soldiers are killed during the operation, is the President worse off than with option (1) because his/her own nation's citizens died due to his/her actions? Or, is s/he in better standing because those who suffered were military combatants and not innocent civilians? What if the death of soldiers with option (2) is guaranteed, whereas the death of innocents with option (1) is not? Heck, what if the terrorist has been falsely implicated by misleading evidence, was innocent all along, and option (1) and option (2) both result in the death of an innocent man?

Question Three: If the President chooses inaction and the terrorist (let's call the terrorist 'Saddam', just for the hell of it) actually has a bomb, Intelligence Agency's prediction was accurate, he set off the bomb and kills thousands of innocent people, is the President a criminal then? His inaction led to thousands of deaths, after all, and he had an opportunity to stop the suspected terrorist before the attack occurred while only risking a mere chance of comparatively few deaths.

Question Four: If inaction is the correct course of action because the suspected terrorist is in fact innocent and has no intentions of setting off any bombs, who's to blame if the President chooses option (1) or option (2)? The President, because he made the actual decision? The Intelligence Agency, for presenting the President with misleading evidence? The nation's military, for giving the President the aggressive options in the first place and encouraging him/her to choose the option that'd most benefit their own standing? The military-industrial complex as a whole, for lobbying in favor of action that would increase their economic standing? The technician who developed the weaponry that was actually used? The soldier who actually pulled the trigger? Generations of past scholars, for creating legal and moral justifications for wartime actions that the President would rely upon to inform his/her decision and view him/herself as in the 'moral right' for acting that way?

TLDR: To compare the complexities of wartime decision-making to a serial killer or a serial rapist intentionally choosing to kill or rape someone is ridiculous. And unless evidence comes out that reveals that Tony Blair in fact was eagerly anticipating his decisions leading to countless deaths of innocent Iraqis, I'll continue to feel that way.

Finally, the single biggest (and third) reason why I oppose Smarty's sentiment is because it's indicative of rape culture in general for us to say that anything whatsoever is 'worse than rape,' and extremely insensitive to do so in just about any context. If at any time your message sounds like, "A politician who made a controversial decision I personally disagree with due to policy reasons is worse than a rapist," I can't imagine how a victim of a traumatic rape experience would process that. Murderers and rapists are the epitome of evil, the worst of all scum, and unlike even Tony Blair, there's not even a policy justification they can pull out of their asses to claim innocence or a causation argument in which ultimate accountability could be deflected.

Anyone who speaks of anything who even indirectly suggests or implies that a specific subject is 'worse than rape,' especially if/when that person's never actually experienced rape, which is usually when the comparison is evoked, it's just aaaauuuugggghhhh.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

Anyone who speaks of anything who even indirectly suggests or implies that a specific subject is 'worse than rape,' especially if/when that person's never actually experienced rape, which is usually when the comparison is evoked, it's just aaaauuuugggghhhh.

This, exactly.

The sticking point of the argument here isn't that Blair and Bush aren't inhuman monsters that should totally go before the Hague for their crimes, it's that Smarty totally marginalized the impact of rape, which is also an awful thing to do.

[Solid Snake]

Yeah I tried that thing they teach in school where you put the most important argument last to end your argument well, but in retrospect it actually led to a completely unnecessary (albeit fun to type) wall of text that may have obscured the last few sentences, which was actually the really important part.

[Sifright]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

You better be ready to imprison every politician who ever makes a decision on anything ever, then.

You see there's no less than three major problems I can deduce with equivocating Tony Blair (let alone viewing him as 'worse than') a 'rapist serial killer,' but one of those three problems is that by falling into the trap of believing that individuals are solely responsible for making major decisions regarding war and peace, you're reducing the degree of responsibility we all share for the mess that's caused.

To put it another way: George W. Bush is a war criminal, Tony Blair is a war criminal, Barack Obama is a war criminal, our intelligence agencies are war criminals, and our military-industrial complex would make ANYONE in a position of power in a country like America or Britain a war criminal.

To pretend that the problem is solely with Bush or solely with Blair actually minimizes the actual degree of criticism and self-reflection that should be required. So, again -- if you're going to say Blair deserves to be imprisoned, don't stop with him, because just about any other British politician under those circumstances with that faulty intelligence and the military and the industrialists breathing down their backs would've made the same decision. Hell, a majority of U.S. Democrats in Congress with every reason to oppose Bush on Iraq made the decision. Then take in the CIA, and don't stop with defense contractors, or anyone who profits in any way from the military-industrial complex, including employees of aerospace companies who make a living from making contributions that result in drones bombing civilians.

The problem isn't with individuals. The problem is with politics itself -- our institutions of governance, the theoretical underpinnings that we teach every Political Science graduate and law school student regarding the 'way the world works,' the role that war plays in our society, the division of civilization itself into separate 'sovereign nations' that compete against each other, and how foreign policy decisions should be made. The capitalist economic structure, the profits gained from a vibrant defense industry, etc. -- all of these things are bigger than Bush or Blair and we even have to indict ourselves insofar as citizens in western countries in general benefit from an unacceptable division of power and resources.

As Barack Obama's recent indulgence in drone warfare has revealed, you could pretty much stick anyone -- Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, David Cameron, whoever -- into office and they're going to make the same fucked up decisions. Because it's not so much a matter of individual culpability when the system itself is rigged to ensure anyone with the power makes the exact same decisions.

I guarantee you, give Smarty McBarrelpants the U.K. Prime Minister position unilaterally tomorrow and within a year he'd make a major foreign policy decision that would be controversial and result, however indirectly, in the deaths of innocents, and that decision could readily be construed as a war crime. Doesn't make him worse than a serial rapist or a serial killer.



I think quite the opposite, you see.
Though it's less a quantitative reflection and more a qualitative one; it's less a reflection on how many die and more a reflection on how and why the tragedy's happened.
Unless you sincerely believe that Barack Obama, George W. Bush or any other politician takes personal joy in the notion that their decision will result in the deaths of innocents, like they're just sitting there in their chairs laughing at all the suffering they're going to cause with maniacal glee on their faces, or that they're eager and voluntary participants in genocide, their decisions just feel different to me tonally than a serial killer or a serial rapist, who indulges in the crimes of murder and rape due to a conscious choice to murder and rape innocent people.

That's actually my second of three objections to this notion that politicians who make tough decisions (even contemptible decisions) are 'worse than' serial killers and serial rapists. Legally speaking, active malice is the difference between murder and manslaughter. Active participation in the crime makes a difference, too. And in theory -- albeit not often in practice -- just wars function in a manner similar to self-defense in criminal law cases.

There is, in short, a huge causation issue here.

Let's attempt an oversimplification for the mere sake of example. Say President X orders the assassination of a known terrorist. There's two ways the terrorist could be killed: (1) By drone strike or (2) by ground forces. The drone strike option risks no troops, but there's a 15% chance according to Intelligence Agency estimates that innocent civilians will be killed. The third option President X could choose is not to act, but Intelligence Agency indicates at least a 50% possibility that if he isn't killed, the terrorist will set off a bomb somewhere next week.

Question One: If the President chooses option (1) and innocent civilians are accidentally killed, is he a war criminal? Is s/he worse than a serial killer or a serial rapist who intentionally seeks to inflict harm upon his known victims?

Question Two: If the President chooses option (2) and soldiers are killed during the operation, is the President worse off than with option (1) because his/her own nation's citizens died due to his/her actions? Or, is s/he in better standing because those who suffered were military combatants and not innocent civilians? What if the death of soldiers with option (2) is guaranteed, whereas the death of innocents with option (1) is not? Heck, what if the terrorist has been falsely implicated by misleading evidence, was innocent all along, and option (1) and option (2) both result in the death of an innocent man?

Question Three: If the President chooses inaction and the terrorist (let's call the terrorist 'Saddam', just for the hell of it) actually has a bomb, Intelligence Agency's prediction was accurate, he set off the bomb and kills thousands of innocent people, is the President a criminal then? His inaction led to thousands of deaths, after all, and he had an opportunity to stop the suspected terrorist before the attack occurred while only risking a mere chance of comparatively few deaths.

Question Four: If inaction is the correct course of action because the suspected terrorist is in fact innocent and has no intentions of setting off any bombs, who's to blame if the President chooses option (1) or option (2)? The President, because he made the actual decision? The Intelligence Agency, for presenting the President with misleading evidence? The nation's military, for giving the President the aggressive options in the first place and encouraging him/her to choose the option that'd most benefit their own standing? The military-industrial complex as a whole, for lobbying in favor of action that would increase their economic standing? The technician who developed the weaponry that was actually used? The soldier who actually pulled the trigger? Generations of past scholars, for creating legal and moral justifications for wartime actions that the President would rely upon to inform his/her decision and view him/herself as in the 'moral right' for acting that way?

TLDR: To compare the complexities of wartime decision-making to a serial killer or a serial rapist intentionally choosing to kill or rape someone is ridiculous. And unless evidence comes out that reveals that Tony Blair in fact was eagerly anticipating his decisions leading to countless deaths of innocent Iraqis, I'll continue to feel that way.

Finally, the single biggest (and third) reason why I oppose Smarty's sentiment is because it's indicative of rape culture in general for us to say that anything whatsoever is 'worse than rape,' and extremely insensitive to do so in just about any context. If at any time your message sounds like, "A politician who made a controversial decision I personally disagree with due to policy reasons is worse than a rapist," I can't imagine how a victim of a traumatic rape experience would process that. Murderers and rapists are the epitome of evil, the worst of all scum, and unlike even Tony Blair, there's not even a policy justification they can pull out of their asses to claim innocence or a causation argument in which ultimate accountability could be deflected.

Anyone who speaks of anything who even indirectly suggests or implies that a specific subject is 'worse than rape,' especially if/when that person's never actually experienced rape, which is usually when the comparison is evoked, it's just aaaauuuugggghhhh.

Bush Blair et all didn't give a flying fuck about wmds any other nebulous bullshit brought up. They both knew there weren't any. The only reason they went into iraq was purely for financial gain.

They didn't give a shit that their plan of action would murder hundreds of thousands of people because they would never have to deal with the end result of their actions in any kind of negative way.

Do I think they sat on a chair cackling about murdering brown people in the middle east? No.

Do I think they sat on their chairs cackling about all the money they would make for this? Yes, that hundreds of thousands of peopled died in the middle east means nothing to them.

Yes there are things worse than bloody rape. You know things like GENOCIDE?

Just maybe!?

By the way Bush and Blair ARE murderers on a scale that normal individuals are never capable of reaching.

What fucking wartime decisions. There was no pressing need to invade Iraq. The desire to do so was entirely born of greed. Your fictional scenarios are also an utter joke attempting to justify CIA drone strikes is utterly contemptable.

[Solid Snake]

In this thread: Sifright completely ignores every part of my argument in which I explicitly condemn the current state of politics and warfare on a societal level, because he's incapable of reading text.

Also, re: Genocide:

Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"

And for the record: I do believe Bush and Blair are war criminals under applicable international legal conventions. (I don't believe they committed genocide.)
I do believe it'd be nice to see them jailed.
I do not believe they are equal to, let alone 'worse than,' serial killers or serial rapists in terms of their moral responsibility or accountability.
So stop insinuating that I'm saying things I'm not.