[quote]Agressive Napkin wrote:
Good guys don’t torture.[/quote]
Aye.
“May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won’t.”
Dirty Harry (in the self-titled movie) shoots Scorpio in the leg and stands on the wound until he gives up the location of the buried girl he snatched.
When saying “Good guys don’t torture.”, you’re excluding some of the better good guys.
torture argument is stupid, because you can’t win. Its like the whole atheists vs relgion argument.
[quote]Magnate wrote:
Torture comes with no guarantee of death or promise of after-life pussy, whereas blowing themselves up they die instantly (and one would assume painlessly, but I’m not about to test it) with hopes of a little cloud sex.
Torture = all the pain of the innocents they harm, none of the reward [/quote]
I don’t believe knowingly blowing yourself up to harm innocents gets you pussy (or dick for that matter). It gets you straight to hell.
I do believe that God tests the resilience of His subjects. Withstanding torture in the face of an aggressor would be the most noble I can think of. That would get you a first class ticket to heaven with all-you-can-handle pleasures and other benefits. Even a casual reader of Holy Books can see that (see Job).
With all due respect, your logic is not very consistent.
[quote]milesahead44 wrote:
Waterboarding seemed to work well on this turd.
He sang like a canary
And if you think our enimies don’t torture you either don’t know history (ask J Mcain, Batahn death march) or are a fool.
These animals we are up against would slit your throat and never think twice about it.
Time to grow up folks this the real world with real bullets and real blood. The animals won’t pass you by because you felt good about yourself and had a bumbper sticker.
[/quote]
The libs can’t fight their nanny-impulses.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
So we are allowed to do it to members of our own armed forces but not to terrorists?
We’re doing this to obtain information from/demean/humiliate our troops? (The issue), or we’re doing this as a training procedure to voluntary soldiers?
What difference does it make? Do you respect terrorists more than our volunteer troops?[/quote]
Definitely not.
If the alleged terrorists agree to that procedure it is fine with me.
I’m surprised that our government has to waterboard at all. Don’t they have drugs they can inject that’ll make these guys spill their guts? OR is that only in the movies?
We all seem to have this belief that government is very powerful. If they have to use medieval techniques like this, can’t even find a shithead hiding in a cave, and 99% of cheaters get away with income tax fraud, it seems they are a bunch of asshats.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
milesahead44 wrote:
Waterboarding seemed to work well on this turd.
He sang like a canary
And if you think our enimies don’t torture you either don’t know history (ask J Mcain, Batahn death march) or are a fool.
These animals we are up against would slit your throat and never think twice about it.
Time to grow up folks this the real world with real bullets and real blood. The animals won’t pass you by because you felt good about yourself and had a bumbper sticker.
The libs can’t fight their nanny-impulses.
[/quote]
And the neo cons cannot fight their inner Neanderthal?
Would you consider raping terrorists, if scientists, agents, psychatrists etc. are convinced of it’s effectiveness?
[quote]milesahead44 wrote:
And if you think our enimies don’t torture you either don’t know history (ask J Mcain, Batahn death march) or are a fool.
These [/quote]animals [quote]we are up against would slit your throat and never think twice about it.
Time to grow up folks this the real world with real bullets and real blood. The [/quote]animals [quote]won’t pass you by because you felt good about yourself and had a bumbper sticker.
[/quote]
Of course, to torture enemies you must be able to dehumanize them beforehand.
Somehow it seems to me that you have quite some potential.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I don’t believe knowingly blowing yourself up to harm innocents gets you pussy (or dick for that matter). It gets you straight to hell.
I do believe that God tests the resilience of His subjects. Withstanding torture in the face of an aggressor would be the most noble I can think of. That would get you a first class ticket to heaven with all-you-can-handle pleasures and other benefits. Even a casual reader of Holy Books can see that (see Job).
With all due respect, your logic is not very consistent. [/quote]
No surprise that his perception of a terrorists interpretation of the Holy Books isn’t consistent with what you perceive to be logic. I hope you’re playing dumb, because you essentially agree (virgins for violence=wrong) and even if you don’t, you’re talking about viewing religion with a psychological filter attached. Logic doesn’t even live on that planet.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
So we are allowed to do it to members of our own armed forces but not to terrorists?
We’re doing this to obtain information from/demean/humiliate our troops? (The issue), or we’re doing this as a training procedure to voluntary soldiers?
What difference does it make? Do you respect terrorists more than our volunteer troops?[/quote]
Uh, what vital intel do our soldiers have that we need to extract?
100M would be championing the use of torture if his guys were in the white house.
You can’t take anything he says at face value. he is the definition of partisan hack. He thinks Patraeus is the betrayer when it suits him - then he quotes the guy when it is convenient.
The only anti-torture guy on here that should be taken for anything but an ABB fucknut is Mikeyall.
Look who is doing the crying for the most part: Everyone that is against the war in the first place.
Partisan fucks.
What is all this about a moral war? When the hell did war become moral? There is no morality in war. Side A should kill people and break shit of Side B until Side B quits, or has all their people killed and shit broke.
If torture facilitates an expedited means to that end - it should be used.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
What difference does it make? Do you respect terrorists more than our volunteer troops?[/quote]
I respect the rule of law more than I respect individual troops in the military.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
What is all this about a moral war? When the hell did war become moral? There is no morality in war. Side A should kill people and break shit of Side B until Side B quits, or has all their people killed and shit broke.
If torture facilitates an expedited means to that end - it should be used. [/quote]
Wrong.
War is fought to achieve a political goal. Using "any means " often stiffens the will of the opponent, rather than moving you closer to victory.
Such has been the case in this war. Abu Ghraib helped create the insurgency, and extended the war.
Torture is an expedient means to extract information. It is not effective, it’s inefficient, and it works against the ultimate goal, victory.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
100M would be championing the use of torture if his guys were in the white house.
You can’t take anything he says at face value. he is the definition of partisan hack. He thinks Patraeus is the betrayer when it suits him - then he quotes the guy when it is convenient.
The only anti-torture guy on here that should be taken for anything but an ABB fucknut is Mikeyall.
Look who is doing the crying for the most part: Everyone that is against the war in the first place.
Partisan fucks.
What is all this about a moral war? When the hell did war become moral? There is no morality in war. Side A should kill people and break shit of Side B until Side B quits, or has all their people killed and shit broke.
If torture facilitates an expedited means to that end - it should be used. [/quote]
Yup we are all against torture because we think Bush is a nutjob.
Oh, if only Hillary would torture people then we would all agree…
That was irony by the way and one of the reasons we think Bush is a nutjob is because he has people tortured which is morally wrong and politically stupid.
[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
100M would be championing the use of torture if his guys were in the white house.
You can’t take anything he says at face value. he is the definition of partisan hack. He thinks Patraeus is the betrayer when it suits him - then he quotes the guy when it is convenient.
The only anti-torture guy on here that should be taken for anything but an ABB fucknut is Mikeyall.
Look who is doing the crying for the most part: Everyone that is against the war in the first place.
Partisan fucks.
What is all this about a moral war? When the hell did war become moral? There is no morality in war. Side A should kill people and break shit of Side B until Side B quits, or has all their people killed and shit broke.
If torture facilitates an expedited means to that end - it should be used.
Yup we are all against torture because we think Bush is a nutjob.
Oh, if only Hillary would torture people then we would all agree…
That was irony by the way and one of the reasons we think Bush is a nutjob is because he has people tortured which is morally wrong and politically stupid.
[/quote]
Once again - what in the fuck is a moral war? I guess politically stupid is a subjective call. The stupidity is not the torture - most people could give a rat’s ass about non-lethal methods of enticing the enemy to divulge information. Political stupidity is the fact that we are still over there.
This is the problem with the entire prosecution of this war - everyone wants to be nice. Fuck nice. It leads to more needless pain suffering and death than the torture chambers.
Morals mean nothing to our enemy. Picking the fog of war as the proper time to rise above the fray and be a better man is a cowards way out. Play to win, or get off the fucking field.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Once again - what in the fuck is a moral war? I guess politically stupid is a subjective call. The stupidity is not the torture - most people could give a rat’s ass about non-lethal methods of enticing the enemy to divulge information. Political stupidity is the fact that we are still over there.
This is the problem with the entire prosecution of this war - everyone wants to be nice. Fuck nice. It leads to more needless pain suffering and death than the torture chambers.
Morals mean nothing to our enemy. Picking the fog of war as the proper time to rise above the fray and be a better man is a cowards way out. Play to win, or get off the fucking field.
[/quote]
I absolutely agree.
You cannot have a nice war.
This is why I think it is stupid to start one even for the most altruistic motives, like ousting Saddam.
You cannot bomb, maim and kill people or their relatives and convince them that it is in their best interest.
If you do not bomb, maim and kill people the war lasts longer which lead to even more bombing, maiming and killing.
You cannot be the “good guys” and win wars.
Yet American propaganda insist that you are the “good guys” and that that is why you are fighting those wars.
As long as you have to convince the American public you need a just cause. That just cause cannot justify any means.
Which is why the war in Iraq was probably not a good idea.
[quote]orion wrote:
I absolutely agree.
You cannot have a nice war.
This is why I think it is stupid to start one even for the most altruistic motives, like ousting Saddam.
You cannot bomb, maim and kill people or their relatives and convince them that it is in their best interest.
If you do not bomb, maim and kill people the war lasts longer which lead to even more bombing, maiming and killing.
You cannot be the “good guys” and win wars.
Yet American propaganda insist that you are the “good guys” and that that is why you are fighting those wars.
As long as you have to convince the American public you need a just cause. That just cause cannot justify any means.
Which is why the war in Iraq was probably not a good idea.[/quote]
I suppose this means that I’ve bought into the “machine” but I wholeheartedly disagree. War is ugly, no doubt. But good war, like good economics is the choices we make today leading to a better tomorrow. I absolutely believe Europe is a better place today on account of the 20th century’s wars, even though after each of them they were desolated countries. I believe Japan is better today than before. And I believe that Iraq will be better tomorrow than it is today, else I wouldn’t have volunteered.
I know for a fact that America is better for having fought the Brits in 1775. Hell, I think that single war made the world a better place today. I think that’s why it IS important to fight moral wars. By fighting a moral war you increase your chances of making a war with a positive outcome. Jefferson had it right. Paine had it right. They wanted the US to intervene in the French Revolution to help ensure its success. They then got disillusioned and supported it after the terror, but they were at least on the right track initially. We all have inalienable rights, not just Americans. If I knew the Austrian gov’t was killing guys or like or the Swedes were killing guys like Lixy I’d be on the first C-130 with a rifle in my hand to help out.
As Truman said, “The absence of war is not peace.”
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
orion wrote:
I absolutely agree.
You cannot have a nice war.
This is why I think it is stupid to start one even for the most altruistic motives, like ousting Saddam.
You cannot bomb, maim and kill people or their relatives and convince them that it is in their best interest.
If you do not bomb, maim and kill people the war lasts longer which lead to even more bombing, maiming and killing.
You cannot be the “good guys” and win wars.
Yet American propaganda insist that you are the “good guys” and that that is why you are fighting those wars.
As long as you have to convince the American public you need a just cause. That just cause cannot justify any means.
Which is why the war in Iraq was probably not a good idea.
I suppose this means that I’ve bought into the “machine” but I wholeheartedly disagree. War is ugly, no doubt. But good war, like good economics is the choices we make today leading to a better tomorrow. I absolutely believe Europe is a better place today on account of the 20th century’s wars, even though after each of them they were desolated countries. I believe Japan is better today than before. And I believe that Iraq will be better tomorrow than it is today, else I wouldn’t have volunteered.
I know for a fact that America is better for having fought the Brits in 1775. Hell, I think that single war made the world a better place today. I think that’s why it IS important to fight moral wars. By fighting a moral war you increase your chances of making a war with a positive outcome. Jefferson had it right. Paine had it right. They wanted the US to intervene in the French Revolution to help ensure its success. They then got disillusioned and supported it after the terror, but they were at least on the right track initially. We all have inalienable rights, not just Americans. If I knew the Austrian gov’t was killing guys or like or the Swedes were killing guys like Lixy I’d be on the first C-130 with a rifle in my hand to help out.
As Truman said, “The absence of war is not peace.”
mike[/quote]
The war of Indendence and the war against Japan are not comparable.
You were either attacked and needed to defend yourself or you were fighting for your own freedom.
The wars in Europe are comparable though.
It might be that Europe is better off now, but hardly because of the WWs.
People that think that coming to the rescue in WWII was Americas finest hour often forget that it was Americas meddling in WWI “to make the world safe for Democracy” that in part led to four revolutions and to the rise of two of the most brutal dictatorships in mankinds history, Hitlers and Stalins.
I´d wager that we would have found a way to Democracy or to a constitutional Monarchy anyhow, but with several dozens million of victims less.
Maybe Iraq will be a rich Democracy in 50 years but whose to say that would not have happened anyway?
[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
So we are allowed to do it to members of our own armed forces but not to terrorists?
We’re doing this to obtain information from/demean/humiliate our troops? (The issue), or we’re doing this as a training procedure to voluntary soldiers?
What difference does it make? Do you respect terrorists more than our volunteer troops?
Definitely not.
If the alleged terrorists agree to that procedure it is fine with me.
[/quote]
This is so stupid it is staggering.