Oh sorry, let's just pretend I didn't LOL!

A little daily bruising of one's ego (mine) never hurts.

we need to kill every terrorist we can get a sight picture on, those we capture, we need to "interogate" until they tell us where we find more to kill. we are talking survival of our culture, of our nation, our children.

I have been to the middle east before. I don't want my grandchildren to grow up in a country influenced by Sh'arian law............

.

If we torture people

we are becoming the terrorists.

.

Then stop posting and there will be one less....

Even though I tend to FEEL like it's fine to torture terrorists sometimes, I also believe it's probably counterproductive. Also, as has been pointed out above, by using the same techniques as our enemies, we are lowering ourselves to their standards. We can't do stuff like that without doing greivous injury to ourselves. There's a price to be paid for everything.

Sorry, I didn't mean to break out of my usually silly perspective and get all serious . . . forgive me, please.

Took the words out of my mouth.

You can't win a war by taking the high road, thats one of those things that sounds really good in a classroom on campus. In the real world you have to walk through the same mud as the people you are trying to kill. You can't just sit back on a ship and launch a few missles, sometimes you have to beat the piss out of someone in a dirty little back room to get the needed results.

As long as you realize the cost of doing that, that's certainly true. I've always thought it's best to fight fire with fire, but as I have gotten older, I have realized that that can take a serious toll on individuals and on nations.

I agree with you. I think there are instances where you need to employ methods that are distasteful. My problem with the use of these methods are two-fold.

1) Making sure the guy you're beating the crap out of is a real bad guy. He could be some poor schmuck that got "informed on" by some petty power rival. He might not even be the guy that you thought he was. It happens. Torturing the wrong person because you think they have information is not consistent with the values that we hold as westerners.

2) The way in which the US government is trying to play a semantic game about what they are actually doing and why they are doing it. If the government just came out and said basically the same thing you did, then they wouldn't be hypocrites. Maybe it is too much to ask from any government or any politician. Believe me, the politicians in my country are every bit as mealy-mouthed. There are numerous instances of Canadian soldiers taking prisoners in Afghanistan, where the prisoners are "transferred" to Afghani authorities, and you just know what goes on then.

Thats sooo funny, did you come up with that all by yourselves ?
Gees, you should be on some kind of comedy tour.

I mean its so funny when someone realizes that there argument is just plain stupid and they have to come up with such an asinine comment.




RichC
:joker:

When you take the high road you dont get into wars...

RichC
:joker:

.

To all of you guys that think torture is OK

Just wait untill your son or daughter joins the millitary

and someone tortures them.

....

All of these people we are torturing are someones son or daughter.

RichC
:joker:

.

A recap of recent events:

The Bush administration earlier this week publicly acknowledged for the first time that waterboarding had been used by CIA questioners on three terror suspects in 2002 and 2003.

The Justice Dept. believed waterboarding was legal in 2002/2003.

AG Michael Mukasey has indicated he will not call for an investigation of whether laws were broken in those years since the Justice Dept. made the call.

"Whatever was done as part of a CIA program at the time that it was done was the subject of a Department of Justice opinion, through Office of Legal Counsel, and was found to be permissible under the law as it existed then," Mukasey said.

He said the Justice Department could not investigate or prosecute people for actions that it had earlier authorized.

CIA Director Michael Hayden said waterboarding has not been used in five years. Hayden said, the legal landscape has changed following a Supreme Court decision about detainee rights and new laws and policies about how they are treated.

The White House, in defending the practice, stated that it was still available as a technique, provided that Justice and the White House gave approval.

Is that how we lost WWII? Or is that the way we prevailed in Vietnam?

We won WW2 by killing a lot of Germans and Japanese. We fire bombed cities, factories, anything that had any importance on the war. In the field we shot first before asking questions, probably shot a few prisioners as well. At sea any ship was fair game, we sunk a German hospital ship in the Med, killed thousands.

As the Germans were retreating from North Africa they were choking the roads with troops the the British bombed and straffed the largely unarmed wounded fleeing soliders with a vengence.

War is a horrible brutal affair, its when we delude ourselves into thinking we can "take the high road", thats when we lose.

I have not studdied Vietnam enough to comment on it.

If we attacked Iraq like we did German CNN would have went nuts. We would have sent B52's over every major population center to flatton it, destroyed every factory, road, bridge, all the oil fields etc. Then we would have advanced and rounded up every male over 16 that looked like he could have been in the military, and shipped them to camps for 2-5 years.

In a perfect world war would not exist but we don't live in that world and won't anytime soon.

.

I have often wondered if we should round up all of the people on
the planet who want to war, and kill.

Put them on an island somewhere,
and give them all the wepons they want.

And let them kill each other.

That way we could get these guys out of the gene pool.

And the rest of us could have some peace.

Thanks
RichC
:joker:

.

As Patton once said, to bad leaders can't just dual with eachother and settle it that way.

Thats a pretty inconsistent statement from someone who earlier in this thread claimed to care about all people.:rolleyes:

Edit: sorry, it wasn't this thread, but here is the quote by Rich C:

"I truly care about the people around me.
All people actually."

RichC,
Too bad, but your island fantasy utopia ain't happening. Face it, you will always live on a planet in a country with every possible luxury and have neighbors in the world who hate you for it and want to cut your head off and hear you drown in your own blood while they videotape it for the world to watch. Hatterasguy is right. We have to be ruthless. The astonishing thing to me is that half of the population in this fat happy country doesn't realize we are in a death match with pure evil. Keep talking about taking the high moral ground and this thread will go to 10 pages.

.

I do love all people.

Even killers.

But I don't want them to kill me.

Or anyone else.

.

History will look back on this torture of people exactly like it looks back
on all torture.

Remember the Salem witch trials ?

This situation is no different.
We are torturing people we are afraid of.
They thought they had a good enough reason for it then.
And some people think we have good enough reason now.

.

Why do we kill people, that kill people, to show that killing people is bad ?

.

Thanks
RichC

.

Oh? You couldn't actually drown someone with waterboarding techniques?

I think you could.

Yes, you could, you could also drown by chugging a bottle of water, if they do drown it sort of defeats the purpose of the technique unless the CIA can talk to the dead.

I will quote you again and answer again.

Wrong

Utter horse hockey.

The ultra radical Muslims are a minority of all Muslims. Do you fill their recruiting offices by using techniques that work only in pissing people off?

Ass kickers are somewhat responsible for getting us into this mess.

You've got the flag wrapped too tightly around your eyes to see what's going on.

No and you don't either.

This is so much of a softball, I think just quoting it does the trick. A waste of time to point out how stupid this analogy is.

I find it unlikely in the extreme that we would catch someone and know that he knew where a device was.

More likely is that we'll torture several thousand fools who know nothing of value and just further sully our reputation.

Thank God we know who the terrorists are by what they wear on their head.

From the man who knows all.

Could you be a little more vague, please?

So we are the good guys ?
And they are the evil ones ?

It is not that simple.

This is not cable TV wrestling.
We are not in a death match with anyone.

We are not even at war with the people who commited the horrible actions on september 11th.

We are killing people who did nothing.
They dont even have the wepons of mass destruction that was talked about.

.

I misunderstood you--I thought you meant it was unlikely someone here could 'imagine if one of your sons, daughters, ect....was affected first hand by a terrorist' and make a decision from that vantage point.

You just joined the ranks of people that have realized that their argument was so stupid that they could not come up with a valid argument and had to lower themselves into making asinine comments
about the person they were arguing with.

I accept your admission of defeat.

Thanks
RichC

.

At least you spelled "their" right this time....

And further proof of your smallness.

Rich, that you are getting clowned on in three separate threads, and losing your cool to the point of dropping the same cliche in each one, has nothing to do with my size.

Your position on this issue seems to be in the serious minority here, and the analogy to the Salem witch trials is simply not applicable.

Drop another "I accept your defeat" or whatever new frustration blurb you can come up with and re-check your logic when you calm down.

:joker:

"Remember the Salem witch trials ?

This situation is no different.
We are torturing people we are afraid of.
They thought they had a good enough reason for it then.
And some people think we have good enough reason now."


I am sorry to say this, but that statement makes you sound like have a mental disorder......

A few "waterboarding" factoids:

It's a classic "old school" technique, first documented in 14th century writings as "tormenta de toca" and made popular during the Italian (not Spanish) Inquisition. The procedure had two major virtues: If done properly, it was not lethal and it left no scars or signs of injury.

Over the years, the technique was improved upon by the Dutch in the 17th Century East Indies, where they would slowly fill a captured enemy's throat with water.

Going "underground" in the 19th Century, it regained use in the 20th. The French used it in Algiers, Japanese and US used it in WWII, Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, UK used in against Arabs and Jews in the middle east. South American countries Chile and Argentina called it the Asian Torture.

Waterboarding is one of six "enhanced techniques" approved for use:

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.


There does not appear to be much evidence, if any, that the Nazis or Soviets employed it.

CIA officers that were subjected to the procedure in training lasted an average of 14 seconds. It was reported that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

Uh, oh. Now you are going to have to accept your admission of defeat:D

right

RLTW

I am curious as to why you posted this, because to me it makes waterboarding seem less torturous than alternatives.

.

I am completely calm.
I am really not wound up.

This is fun for me.

You guys would be extreamly hard pressed to make me angry.

My worse fear is that some of you actually believe some of your statements.
But then I realize you just got them from someone else, and are
repeating them here.

And the Salem with trials is completely relevent in this arguement about torture.

In each case people were torturing each other.
Trying to get them to confess to something.
The torturer felt justified by thinking that the situation was serious enough to warrant torture of another person.

When people look back at these two events a hundred years from now
they will see them as quite simmilar.
I am sure they will wind up in the same book of the study of torture sometime in the future.

Explain how the analogy is not correct ?

------------------------
And yes I am mentally Ill.
Quite mentally ill.
Bipolar disorder.
Like Beethoven, Winston Churchill, and Ralph Waldo Emmerson.
--------------------------

But I am not mentally ill enough to think that it is OK for
one human to torture another.

.

Different points of view will react differently to the same information, but I put it out there merely as information.

For some, deer hunting is not a sport, while boxing is . . . oral sex isn't sexual relations . . . you know . .

How an individual, not the Department of Justice, views torture, may be a personal matter.

I would caution you to remove this direct insult before a mod sees it and gives you an infraction.

OK, I'll put you back on my "favorable" list.

The whole "terrorist who knows where a nuclear device is that is set to go off in 24 hours stretches credulity.

Since they are going to have a hard time actually getting their hands on a nuke, seems like they wouldn't want to take any chance of it not being used as they wish. Best avenue for that would be to blow it up on a boat in a major harbor.

It just does not make sense that they would bring it into Canada or Mexico and then smuggle it across the border to be placed in some desired target location. Too much could go wrong, and they don't want to have to detonate the thing in some semi-isolated place.

Our harbors strike me as pretty porous. We know that very few containers actually get checked. I could imagine a couple of fools in a container with a nuke, a porta-potty, sufficient food and water, maybe a lead lining of the container to inhibit radiation detection. If they could get a GPS unit to work under those circumstances, they could rig a sensor outside and camoflage it, all they would have to do is u-ulate in New York harbor while they push the button.

I mean if 16 Chinese guys can hide in a container and get into the US, how hard would it be to smuggle a nuke on one? And the funds promised to upgrade container security have not been delivered.

?!?

First post I recall of yours had you putting up the hang-man "smilie" along with blazing uzis regarding Jane Fonda. I was thinking, "Jeez, I wonder if this guy was a POW in Nam." Then I find out you were born years after it ended.

It would be nice if we were always the good guys, just by the very fact of showing up. We are not.

Nixon was seriously contemplating blowing up the dikes in Nam (a war crime) and using Nukes. Kissinger disagreed with both. Nixon said (on tape): "Damnit Henry, I just want you to think big."

Fonda's trip was organized because of suspicions that the dikes were going to be bombed.

So because other countries hate us for having all these luxurys
we need to destroy them so they dont have anyting.

Wouldent that make them even more envious and willing to fight.

Wouldent that mean the answer would be to try and help them up a little.

People want to kill each other because they are sick.
Both sides, not just one.
You are a sick for wanting to kill them
As they are sick for wanting to kill you.

RichC
:joker:

.

You really don't get it lad

Jim

What dont I get ?