| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Should the President/Prime Minister/Despotic Ruler | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 18 2003, 07:48 AM (571 Views) | |
| Wichita | Nov 18 2003, 07:48 AM Post #1 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
.... ALWAYS tell the truth? Do we WANT the absolute truth at all times? Second question: Who decides WHAT the truth is? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Nov 18 2003, 08:35 AM Post #2 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
Nahhh..... The truth need not alway be told. In fact it is better to conceal and mislead in public at certain times. I accept that as a citizen and see its need. Should Roosevelt have telegraphed D-day to the Nazis? No, and nor should Bush or Blair telegraph anything to the terrorist groups. It was bad enough with Chirac literally telegraphing everything to Hussien. I don't really know what the truth is anyhow, since you asked. That kind of turns this into a philosophical discussion. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 18 2003, 10:19 AM Post #3 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
I've often spoken a phrase that drives the anti-war, anti-America crowd nuts! It is called NATIONAL SECURITY. While we do have a free press, this does not mean that they have the right to broadcast war plans to the enemy (you know that Saddam watched CNN religiously during the first Gulf War). Remember when CNN broadcast the supposedly clandestine Navy SEAL landing on a beach? There was something wrong with that picture. I remember hearing CNN broadcasting during the Iraq War that a marine division was supposed to be bogged down in a sandstorm (back in the beginning of April) and that a column of Iraqi vehicles was going to destroy them? That was incredibly irresponsible! Fortunately, word got to the division and they were prepared. The 1000 Iraqi vehicles, mostly BMPs and their equivalent of jeeps, were eliminated (the Iraqis didn't have infrared capabilities). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Nov 18 2003, 10:35 AM Post #4 |
|
Admiral
|
Can you imagine what could have occurred at Midway had we broadcast war plans to the enemy? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ANOVA | Nov 18 2003, 10:41 AM Post #5 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
When the disclosure of facts would serve evil then that disclosure should be avoided and its disclosure must be cosidered immoral. When failure to disclose disinformation would serve evil then failing to disclose disinformation is is immoral. During times of war this disinformation is known as counterintelligence.
I hope you're not serious. No individual decides on what the truth is. The truth exists outside individual whim or will. The truth is based on reality, existence as it exists, regardless on whether or not a human being is there to witness it. I hope you meant the question another way. ANOVA |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 18 2003, 10:41 AM Post #6 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Those on the west coast of the United States would be speaking Japanese! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Nov 18 2003, 10:49 AM Post #7 |
|
Admiral
|
Admiral, Funny, but not really. I would love to have been there, in all honesty. (Okay, I'm romanticizing here! :)) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Nov 18 2003, 11:00 AM Post #8 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Actually, you stated my point (I think ), but did a far better job than I of explaining it.The truth is what it is. Two people in the same room at the same time when a situation occurs will still have a different opinion of the truth because they bring different experiences/perspectives with them to the situation. Either way, it is simply their opinion of the truth - it doesn't change what the truth is. Am I closer this time, Anova? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ANOVA | Nov 18 2003, 11:51 AM Post #9 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
Just asking before I jump into my objectivist "A is A" diatribe. ANOVA If you'll excuse me, Ive got to go find a thread to do my flaming troll imitation on. B) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Nov 18 2003, 03:46 PM Post #10 |
|
Lieutenant
|
Leaders do not need to tell "the truth" all the time and for everyone; that is why we supposedly have such strict but free electoral processes and procedures - to elect people who have our confidence in using their good judgement, to decide what "we" need to know and when. However, I would also point out, that leaders need to have some idea what "truth" is and also be open to what others may perceive truth to be. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Nov 18 2003, 06:55 PM Post #11 |
|
Unregistered
|
In cases where national security is the true issue, I can tolerate secrecy (maybe even dishonesty) on the part of "the President" - particularly in matters of intelligence and real-time war scenarios. But once the risk to our nation has abated, I think that the people are entitled to the facts - the truth. I thought about this for a few minutes and I can't come up with a scenario where dishonesty from "a President" (actions/objectives) in a domestic policy would be acceptable to me. I can generally accept a policy or a decision that is unfavorable to my personal preference/situation if I understand what went into that decision. I can accept unpopular or difficult decisions, too. But if I sense that "a President" has sought to manipulate or deceive, I tend to adopt a very negative opinion of that President. I am also fairly understanding in cases where "a President" (or another politician) would try to keep personal matters away from the public. As long as "the President" is not violating civil or criminal law and not harming another person, I think "the President" should be entitled to a degree of privacy in his/her personal life. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Wichita | Nov 18 2003, 07:20 PM Post #12 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
I remember a story about General (later President) Eisenhower that I heard several decades ago. When he realized that the reporters covering him were getting very close to learning the truth about D-Day, he called them into a room and told them everything. Then he told them he would hang them for treason if they talked. Makes you wonder how he handled things as President.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 18 2003, 07:37 PM Post #13 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
For this to occur, the risks have to have abated. They have not. In fact, I would say we are nearly at the same risk we were directly following 9/11. Things are marginally safer than before, but not through lack of trying. First of all, Homeland Security has been hamstrung by public officials who would rather see President Bush get a black eye on "domestic attacks." We can't profile potential suspects, which means that 90 year old women in wheelchairs get strip searched at airports. I was going through Dallas (DFW airport) a few months ago. A security guard with a clicker (you know, to count things as they pass) asks me, "Sir, may I randomly search your bag?" I said, "Go ahead, but what if I had switched places with the woman in front of me." He said, as he looked at my laptop and the disks in my case, "Then I'd search her." I asked, "Isn't that the WORST way to find a terrorist? You don't search guys in boots and a hat with an American flag pin, nor do you search old ladies with blue hair sitting in wheelchairs. They don't bomb planes!" He said, apologetically, "Sir, I legally can't search who I WANT to search unless he happens by at the right time." As I said, HAMSTRUNG. Back during WWII, we had very little trouble catching spies and sabateurs. Why? Because we thought like AMERICANS back then. People who think the USA PATRIOT act restricts civil liberties, WITHOUT READING THE ACT in itself, are helping terrorists. There are towns and cities that have passed ordinances forbidding cooperation with the government on this. HOW STUPID ARE THESE PEOPLE?? This spite is simply to make President Bush look bad, not because they really think there is a threat to civil liberties. If former President Clinton had done the same thing, these "useful idiots" (do a keyword search of "Stalin" and "useful idiots) would have held parades. I could go on for pages and pages, but I don't know if I'd be believed. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Nov 18 2003, 08:17 PM Post #14 |
|
Lieutenant
|
an acceptable example of deception to me would be Churchill's decision not to alert the Germans that the British had cracked their war codes by allowing the Nazis to bomb Coventry, was it ? Many people died who would not have if the British had taken action to protect the civilian population of Britain. However, taking protective action may have caused more people to die as the Nazis would have simply switched to a new code. That decision, like Truman's in 1945 in Japan, was truly monumental and I don't have a problem with either side of either example's argument. I would trust either of those leaders to make a decision on my behalf and accept it. HOWEVER, neither of those men were ever called morons in their own time as far as I know, and especially not by other world leaders of enduring stature. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Nov 18 2003, 09:12 PM Post #15 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Could this be because people were more courteous and respectful at that time? I’m sure if ether of these men lived now and did the things they did, they would catch a lot of heat. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



), but did a far better job than I of explaining it.

2:14 PM Jul 11