A Conservative's view on waterboarding

[bodecea]

Did we ever think 25 years ago that we'd be discussing the PROS of waterboarding as Americans?

 

[Care4all]

Did we ever think 25 years ago that we'd be discussing the PROS of waterboarding as Americans?

never ever!

boy was i wrong......

amazing!

 

[Ravi]

Did we ever think 25 years ago that we'd be discussing the PROS of waterboarding as Americans?

No. And it is a damn shame that terrorists have this victory. People are so frightened they are willing to act on raw emotion and become what they fear.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Boo hoo hoo, i'm gonna neg rep ya', dammit!

Some people are such weak minded lil' idiots.

 

[frazzledgear]

Yes, I agree with this.

Your agreement is of no actual value to the discussion, however, since that claim is unsupported, factually.

......
Top Interrogation Experts Agree: Torture Doesn't Work → Washington's Blog

Blah, blah, blah. Here is essentially your entire argument:

1. Torture doesn't work.
2. I declare waterboarding to be torture.
3. Therefore waterboarding doesn't work.

Your problem is with the second one. The US government, the CIA and US military NEVER considered waterboarding to be torture -because the US does not engage in TORTURE! Not a single one of your sources declaring how torture doesn't work was specifically discussing water boarding and your ASSUMPTION that they were is dead wrong! You ASSUMED it includes waterboarding because YOU think water boarding is torture. NO ONE is bound by your stupid, false ASSUMPTIONS though. The CIA was in charge of waterboarding operations of captured terrorists and their requirements about who was even eligible for waterboarding were so strict only three extremely high level terrorists were ever waterboarded. Keep in mind that dozens and dozens of US soldiers were waterboarded as part of their training. Yet the US military, while it does use harsh, stringent and rigorous methods as part of their training -never uses torture. So I guess that means waterboarding is only torture when its done to anyone but a US soldier, right?

Just because some leftwing liberals, a couple of leftwing extremist groups and some Democrat politicians want to CALL it "torture" does NOT make it so! And it doesn't mean every publication discussing the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of TORTURE was lumping waterboarding with REAL torture unless it SAYS SO! Even your source insisting no one with any authority has ever claimed water boarding worked is DEAD WRONG! Two different Directors of the CIA have unequivocally said IT WORKS, US soldiers who have been waterboarded themselves said it works, those trained to carry out waterboarding as a tool unequivocally say it ALWAYS works. Leon Panetta reiterated that UNEQUIVOCALLY again after bin Laden was killed during an interview and just because the media chose to ignore it doesn't change that.

Since the CIA was in charge of water boarding operations and it was the CIA which analyzed the intelligence gained as the result of water boarding and it was the CIA that found bin Laden and it was the CIA in charge of the operation with the Navy Seals that killed him and it was the CIA that learned of the planned 9/11 style attack on Los Angeles and led them to the previously unknown terrorist cell charged with pulling it off, allowing them to capture or kill all its members and it was the CIA that said water boarding provided them with the information about that impending attack-----then I think two different DCIAs discussing these two specific incidents as examples of the value provided by information gleaned by water boarding (as well as them both saying not all intelligence gained as the result of water boarding has been publicized and cannot be) beats all your sources cold especially since not a one of them was involved with the actual water boarding and information collection and analysis resulting from any water boarding. Not a single one of your sources would know if the information gained by the use of water boarding was valuable or not! And therefore their OPINION about whether the intelligence gained by the specific use of water boarding was valuable or not is just unfounded OPINION!

The US military does NOT use torture as part of their training. They use all sorts of stringent and tough measures as part of their training -but they do NOT use TORTURE. But they used WATERBOARDING as part of their training! In fact MANY times more US soldiers have been waterboarded than the number of terrorists! So while you are going all smug and self righteous thinking you just killed this argument by just ignoring the fact the US military, CIA and US government itself did NOT consider waterboarding torture in the first place -where is your OUTRAGE about the fact US soldiers were waterboarded? Or is your concern confined to just the three people who did their utmost to slaughter us? Is it only "torture" when it is NOT being done to a US soldier?

Torture is torture -and not defined by who is on the receiving end and is not defined by WHY they are being tortured. It is the ACT itself that makes it torture -so its still torture no matter who is on the receiving end. So if it was torture to waterboard three terrorists, then it sure as hell was nothing but torture to waterboard dozens and dozens of US soldiers as occurred in SEVERAL different branches of the military. Yet the people still trying to pretend three terrorists were "tortured" are dead silent about the fact that means dozens and dozens of US soldiers were also "tortured" -MANY times more than the number of terrorists! The Navy Seals only stopped waterboarding because their efforts to train to build up some kind of resistance to it were not effective -with near 100% of all trainees spilling whatever secrets they were supposed to keep silent about. Do you understand that? The Navy Seals found waterboarding to be SO effective -that there was no effective training to resist it! So they stopped bothering to even try. I already posted the source for that before as well as the fact other military divisions were still waterboarding US soldiers even after the Seals gave up on it.

Your entire argument is pure bullshit. By the way -since the CIA was in charge of all water boarding and NOT the US military, THAT is the reason no waterboarding was done at Gitmo. The "harsh interrogation techniques" discussed in the sources you provided that were found ineffective and eventually discontinued at Gitmo involved forcing individuals to stand for hours at a time with arms and legs chained in uncomfortable positions, being forced to stand while cold water was poured over them, being stripped naked and put in an extremely cold room etc. THESE things were found to not be effective in gaining the cooperation of individuals held at Gitmo. But the fact they were not has no bearing on whether waterboarding was effective or not. Waterboarding was NEVER done at Gitmo -however, those involved with its proper use say the three high level terrorists who were waterboarded gave them vital, critically important information that turned out to be accurate and was 100% effective in getting them to talk.

Most importantly, not ONE person with any REAL authority who would actually be in the loop and in the know -has ever claimed it did not! The best you can do is provide sources regarding other harsh interrogation techniques that have been found to be not very effective -but were NOT specifically talking about waterboarding -and a couple of people spouting off their uninformed opinion but were never in the loop to know if their opinion even held water or not. And it turns out it doesn't.

Lastly, there is a reason NO Geneva Conventions signatory nation has called for the US to stop waterboarding and there is a reason none have pushed for some kind of punitive measures taken against the US. Not only is it NOT torture under the Geneva Conventions which did not leave nations wondering about what was or was not torture -but these signatory nations do not consider it torture either. In fact the US is not the only western nation to use it and they don't intend to stop using it if they believe they need it. Even if a bunch of American liberals playing politics with the national security of their own country want to pretend the temporary discomfort of a terrorist is more important than the lives of American citizens -they will not do that to their own nation and put the very lives of their own citizens second to the temporary discomfort of someone intent on their mass murder.

 

[Vanquish]

Hogwash. Utter poppycock.

You know it's torture. You just want to sleep at night and be ok with yourself. The problem is, you shouldn't be.

Amerikkka now stands for invading countries that haven't attacked us, putting in our own governments, kidnapping people (rendition) and torturing them.

AWESOME!!!!!!!!

 

[Valerie]

Hogwash. Utter poppycock.

You know it's torture. You just want to sleep at night and be ok with yourself. The problem is, you shouldn't be.

Amerikkka now stands for invading countries that haven't attacked us, putting in our own governments, kidnapping people (rendition) and torturing them.

AWESOME!!!!!!!!

No, rendition is not kidnapping people...

What is rendition?

Developed in the mid-1990s during the Clinton administration, the CIA's rendition program allowed the agency to capture high-value targets anywhere in the world and bring them to a third country for interrogation. Critics argue that rendition is "outsourcing torture"; suspects are believed to have been taken to countries including Egypt, Morocco, Syria and Jordan, which have all been accused by the U.S. State Department and human rights organizations of torture.

Michael Scheuer was one of the architects of the rendition program. He told FRONTLINE that it is a legal process: "First, we had to identify a person who was worth incarcerating," he explains. "Second, that person had to be in a country that was willing to help us arrest him. Third, that person had to be wanted in a third country in a legal process. Either a warrant had to be issued for him, or he had been tried in absentia. … It wasn't just reaching out and grabbing someone. Lord knows there are hundreds of Al Qaeda people we would have liked to take off the street, but we couldn't do it because we couldn't make them fit into the mold of acceptable operations."

One suspect believed to have been rendered is Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who ran Al Qaeda's Khalden training camp in Afghanistan and who was captured in Pakistan in late 2001. Al-Libi was the subject of a bitter dispute between the FBI, which wanted to interrogate him using its practiced methods designed to elicit information that would hold up in court, and the CIA, which wanted to get as much information out of him as quickly as possible. The battle reached the White House and the CIA was ultimately awarded custody of the suspect. Al-Libi was reportedly taken to Egypt.

Frequently Asked Questions | The Torture Question | FRONTLINE | PBS

9th Circuit throws out CIA torture lawsuit for national security reasons
The decision by a divided appeals court says the risk of state secrets being exposed outweighs the alleged victims' right to seek damages from a Boeing subsidiary they say aided in the renditions.

Cia Torture | 9th Circuit throws out CIA torture lawsuit for national security reasons - Los Angeles Times

 

[Dr.Drock]

Hogwash. Utter poppycock.

You know it's torture. You just want to sleep at night and be ok with yourself. The problem is, you shouldn't be.

Amerikkka now stands for invading countries that haven't attacked us, putting in our own governments, kidnapping people (rendition) and torturing them.

AWESOME!!!!!!!!

No, rendition is not kidnapping people...

What is rendition?

Developed in the mid-1990s during the Clinton administration, the CIA's rendition program allowed the agency to capture high-value targets anywhere in the world and bring them to a third country for interrogation. Critics argue that rendition is "outsourcing torture"; suspects are believed to have been taken to countries including Egypt, Morocco, Syria and Jordan, which have all been accused by the U.S. State Department and human rights organizations of torture.

Michael Scheuer was one of the architects of the rendition program. He told FRONTLINE that it is a legal process: "First, we had to identify a person who was worth incarcerating," he explains. "Second, that person had to be in a country that was willing to help us arrest him. Third, that person had to be wanted in a third country in a legal process. Either a warrant had to be issued for him, or he had been tried in absentia. … It wasn't just reaching out and grabbing someone. Lord knows there are hundreds of Al Qaeda people we would have liked to take off the street, but we couldn't do it because we couldn't make them fit into the mold of acceptable operations."

One suspect believed to have been rendered is Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who ran Al Qaeda's Khalden training camp in Afghanistan and who was captured in Pakistan in late 2001. Al-Libi was the subject of a bitter dispute between the FBI, which wanted to interrogate him using its practiced methods designed to elicit information that would hold up in court, and the CIA, which wanted to get as much information out of him as quickly as possible. The battle reached the White House and the CIA was ultimately awarded custody of the suspect. Al-Libi was reportedly taken to Egypt.

Frequently Asked Questions | The Torture Question | FRONTLINE | PBS

9th Circuit throws out CIA torture lawsuit for national security reasons
The decision by a divided appeals court says the risk of state secrets being exposed outweighs the alleged victims' right to seek damages from a Boeing subsidiary they say aided in the renditions.

Cia Torture | 9th Circuit throws out CIA torture lawsuit for national security reasons - Los Angeles Times

Good point, it's a lot worse, it's kidnapping and torture, normally in the dark of night in another country so we can get away with it.

 

[Valerie]

Hogwash. Utter poppycock.

You know it's torture. You just want to sleep at night and be ok with yourself. The problem is, you shouldn't be.

Amerikkka now stands for invading countries that haven't attacked us, putting in our own governments, kidnapping people (rendition) and torturing them.

AWESOME!!!!!!!!

No, rendition is not kidnapping people...

9th Circuit throws out CIA torture lawsuit for national security reasons
The decision by a divided appeals court says the risk of state secrets being exposed outweighs the alleged victims' right to seek damages from a Boeing subsidiary they say aided in the renditions.

Cia Torture | 9th Circuit throws out CIA torture lawsuit for national security reasons - Los Angeles Times

Good point, it's a lot worse, it's kidnapping and torture, normally in the dark of night in another country so we can get away with it.

It is a legal loophole the CIA used but where is the proof anyone was taken illegally?

 

[Dr.Drock]

No, rendition is not kidnapping people...

Good point, it's a lot worse, it's kidnapping and torture, normally in the dark of night in another country so we can get away with it.

It is a legal loophole the CIA used but where is the proof anyone was taken illegally?

I don't base whether I agree with something or not based on the legality of it.

It's disgusting.

 

[Valerie]

Good point, it's a lot worse, it's kidnapping and torture, normally in the dark of night in another country so we can get away with it.

It is a legal loophole the CIA used but where is the proof anyone was taken illegally?

I don't base whether I agree with something or not based on the legality of it.

It's disgusting.

The fact remains, the charge of "kidnapping" is false...

 

[frazzledgear]

Hogwash. Utter poppycock.

You know it's torture. You just want to sleep at night and be ok with yourself. The problem is, you shouldn't be.

Amerikkka now stands for invading countries that haven't attacked us, putting in our own governments, kidnapping people (rendition) and torturing them.

AWESOME!!!!!!!!

No it isn't torture. And YOU can't get past the fact that if its "torture" -then dozens and dozens more Americans have been "tortured" than all terrorists combined! Who is on the receiving end of an act NEVER determines whether it is torture or not. If its torture to do it to one person, it is torture to do it to ANYONE. Not unless you want to make the STUPID, MINDLESS, KNEEJERK, TYPICAL DUMB ASS LIBERAL argument that its only "torture" if its done to anyone BUT a US soldier! While rigorous and harsh methods are used for training by our military - torture is NEVER used! But waterboarding was used in training in numerous divisions in the different branches of the military for years and years -even after it became public knowledge that three terrorists had been waterboarded. Your contention it is torture falls apart with the FACT it was done to our own soldiers and in far greater numbers than it was ever done to all terrorists combined -because there is no such thing as an act that is only torture if done to foreigners but is just "training" if done to US soldiers! You simply want to change the definition of torture to mean "anything that makes our enemy FEEL bad, or FEEL scared or FEEL anything really uncomfortable" (but inducing those same feelings in our own soldiers is fine and dandy) as opposed to its REAL definition! Sorry -I know how liberals operate by insisting words mean whatever they NEED them to mean at the moment and therefore words all have fluid, constantly changing definitions -but its a lie. Effective communication can only take place because of universal agreement on the meaning of words in the first place -and the rest of the world says this one is NOT your call. The rest of the world hasn't jumped on board with the American liberal nutjobs, Democrat politicians and a couple of extremist groups actively seeking the downfall of the US anyway - who think a would-be mass murdering terrorists' FEELINGS are more important the very lives of those he is working to slaughter.

Using the liberals' definition of "torture" would make going to work "torture" for a lot of people, going to the annual family reunion "torture", raising kids "torture", paying bills "torture" and mowing the fucking grass "torture"! And definitely Mommy making you wear a sweater because SHE feels cold would be "torture"! FEELINGS obviously CANNOT be used to define what is torture anymore than feelings are used as the basis of ANY of our laws.

Torture is NOT defined by how someone FEELS as the result of certain acts - but ONLY by what the act DOES to them. Absolutely NO ONE benefits by using a loose and therefore MEANINGLESS definition like that! If someone makes you cry, if someone makes you squeal like a little girl, if someone makes you scared -does NOT make what they did to you "torture" because being the wuss you are, it could mean someone doing anything from calling you a panty waist to shooting you in the leg! When discussing REAL torture -if it is torture to to do it one person, then it means it is ALWAYS torture to do it to ANYONE. It isn't a shifting definition where it is "torture" if done to a terrorist, but "training" if done to a US soldier! So how waterboarding makes someone FEEL is irrelevant in determining whether it is "torture" or not! Waterboarding happens to make people FEEL like they are drowning even though they aren't. That still doesn't make the act itself that induced that FEELING "torture" any more than the fact you cried when I called you a panty waist made that "torture" either!

If you can't comprehend the difference between how someone FEELS as the result of an act and what an act actually DOES to a person -if you can't comprehend why all laws everywhere in the world are based on what an act actually DOES to a person and never, EVER on the FEELINGS it may induce and are irrelevant to the process - then for the sake of everyone, let those who CAN tell the difference write our laws. Heaven knows no one wants to end up in jail because they called you a panty waist and it made you FEEL so bad you went home and cried about it.

Waterboarding makes someone FEEL like they are drowning even though they aren't -and that is what makes it so scary. But THAT doesn't make it "torture" because torture is NOT defined by how someone FEELS as the result of an act. Roller coaster rides FEEL scary too but that doesn't mean its "torture" either. Torture is always defined by what it actually DOES to a person. Yanking out someone's fingernails or sticking them with a hot poker or breaking all the bones in their hand, hanging them upside down and beating them unconscious, hammering nails into someone's skull -all torture. INDISPUTABLE torture. It doesn't matter how the recipients of these acts actually FELT as it happened and their FEELINGS about it are in fact totally irrelevant in determining whether it is torture. It is the act itself that determined it was torture. And here is the point liberals with their lack of critical thinking skills just can't grasp. If an act is torture -it is always torture no matter who is the recipient. If it is torture to hammer nails into a terrorist's head, then it is still torture to hammer nails into the head of a US soldier too! Torture is still torture no matter who is on the receiving end! It isn't "torture" to do it one person, but "training" to do it to a different person! Torture is still torture no matter who it is done to!

Or are you really saying that the FEELINGS of a terrorist count for more than the FEELINGS of a US soldier or what?

I sleep just fine and I want the people seeking our mass murder to be the ones having trouble falling asleep.

If you think no nation has a right to its national security and to provide for its national defense unless another country actually INVADES IT first -then you are a fucking moron.

That would be calling for national suicide and keeping your fingers crossed that once invaded it can be successfully repelled. No nation is obligated to sit by watching a threat to its security or outright existence build from inside another nation and wait until that enemy believes it has the advantage and strikes. Really? Do our laws regarding self defense work that way in your mind too? That someone is OBLIGATED to wait until someone sticks them with a knife before they can defend themselves, OBLIGATED to wait until they have been shot -and IF they survive that, then and ONLY then are legally allowed to defend themselves? THAT piece of moronic bullshit should leave you unable to sleep at night frankly.

That is insisting we MUST let them kill Americans first, must let them actually invade - and gee, I guess we keep our fingers crossed again that they don't kill too many of us first and we have enough left to successfully repel it even though we all know we lose still more fighting them back. That is NOT providing for the national defense and security of ANY nation on earth, sorry!

The rules of war NEVER EVER require any country to sit and act like a patsy waiting for an enemy to hit them first before they are allowed to defend themselves. Preemptive strikes in order to PREVENT an invasion, in order to PREVENT the enemy from a first strike which would needlessly kill many of one's own citizens that a preemptive strike could save -are ALL allowed and recognized legitimate reasons for making the first strike as is destroying the enemy inside a nation that already carried out a strike. In case you didn't notice that -the entire world gave Hitler the benefit of the doubt even as they watched him build up a military that would only be needed if one intended to try and conquer the world -while Hitler told he had no such plans. Until HE was ready to strike and believed his enemies would be their greatest disadvantage. How did that work out for more than 25 million people, huh? Military historians agree that if countries had responded when Hitler first started militarizing Germany in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, 12-19 MILLION people who died as a result of doing it your way -would not have died. While striking earlier would have still cost 6 millions lives, it would have saved three times the number that died by allowing Hitler to strike on HIS terms. Waiting until your enemy is ready to act means he believes the advantage is his -and you are at a greater disadvantage. And that is EXACTLY what happened with Hitler. It is the reason the Allies were losing that war for YEARS and YEARS and in fact why we would have lost the war entirely if Hitler had not made a lethal error of his own. But hoping your enemy which is kicking your ass all over the globe will make a serious mistake in order to turn things around is pretty stupid. History has repeatedly proven waiting for your enemy to strike means you have just increased the odds of your own defeat. The advantage in war lies with the one that strikes on HIS time schedule and not the side on the defensive. Yet you just admitted your idea of "national security" is demanding the US give all enemies the advantage and forcing us to operate from a defensive position even when seeing a threat to our nation build inside another.

You just put to words the single most important reason to keep liberals out of government -they cannot be trusted to protect this nation and a huge percentage even seem to take pride in that fact and think its a strong selling point!

No matter what the issue, one thing can be counted on from liberals -they will ALWAYS choose the option that results in the most people dead. And then actually have the balls to insist others pretend it was the most moral choice. Sorry but the choice that results in the most dead is by definition the LEAST moral of all. I hope it isn't too late for you to develop a real conscience because this one is dangerous to human life.

 

[del]

Hogwash. Utter poppycock.

You know it's torture. You just want to sleep at night and be ok with yourself. The problem is, you shouldn't be.

Amerikkka now stands for invading countries that haven't attacked us, putting in our own governments, kidnapping people (rendition) and torturing them.

AWESOME!!!!!!!!

No it isn't torture. And YOU can't get past the fact that if its "torture" -then dozens and dozens more Americans have been "tortured" than all terrorists combined! Who is on the receiving end of an act NEVER determines whether it is torture or not. If its torture to do it to one person, it is torture to do it to ANYONE. Not unless you want to make the STUPID, MINDLESS, KNEEJERK, TYPICAL DUMB ASS LIBERAL argument that its only "torture" if its done to anyone BUT a US soldier! While rigorous and harsh methods are used for training by our military - torture is NEVER used! But waterboarding was used in training in numerous divisions in the different branches of the military for years and years -even after it became public knowledge that three terrorists had been waterboarded. Your contention it is torture falls apart with the FACT it was done to our own soldiers and in far greater numbers than it was ever done to all terrorists combined -because there is no such thing as an act that is only torture if done to foreigners but is just "training" if done to US soldiers! You simply want to change the definition of torture to mean "anything that makes our enemy FEEL bad, or FEEL scared or FEEL anything really uncomfortable" (but inducing those same feelings in our own soldiers is fine and dandy) as opposed to its REAL definition! Sorry -I know how liberals operate by insisting words mean whatever they NEED them to mean at the moment and therefore words all have fluid, constantly changing definitions -but its a lie. Effective communication can only take place because of universal agreement on the meaning of words in the first place -and the rest of the world says this one is NOT your call. The rest of the world hasn't jumped on board with the American liberal nutjobs, Democrat politicians and a couple of extremist groups actively seeking the downfall of the US anyway - who think a would-be mass murdering terrorists' FEELINGS are more important the very lives of those he is working to slaughter.

Using the liberals' definition of "torture" would make going to work "torture" for a lot of people, going to the annual family reunion "torture", raising kids "torture", paying bills "torture" and mowing the fucking grass "torture"! And definitely Mommy making you wear a sweater because SHE feels cold would be "torture"! FEELINGS obviously CANNOT be used to define what is torture anymore than feelings are used as the basis of ANY of our laws.

Torture is NOT defined by how someone FEELS as the result of certain acts - but ONLY by what the act DOES to them. Absolutely NO ONE benefits by using a loose and therefore MEANINGLESS definition like that! If someone makes you cry, if someone makes you squeal like a little girl, if someone makes you scared -does NOT make what they did to you "torture" because being the wuss you are, it could mean someone doing anything from calling you a panty waist to shooting you in the leg! When discussing REAL torture -if it is torture to to do it one person, then it means it is ALWAYS torture to do it to ANYONE. It isn't a shifting definition where it is "torture" if done to a terrorist, but "training" if done to a US soldier! So how waterboarding makes someone FEEL is irrelevant in determining whether it is "torture" or not! Waterboarding happens to make people FEEL like they are drowning even though they aren't. That still doesn't make the act itself that induced that FEELING "torture" any more than the fact you cried when I called you a panty waist made that "torture" either!

If you can't comprehend the difference between how someone FEELS as the result of an act and what an act actually DOES to a person -if you can't comprehend why all laws everywhere in the world are based on what an act actually DOES to a person and never, EVER on the FEELINGS it may induce and are irrelevant to the process - then for the sake of everyone, let those who CAN tell the difference write our laws. Heaven knows no one wants to end up in jail because they called you a panty waist and it made you FEEL so bad you went home and cried about it.

Waterboarding makes someone FEEL like they are drowning even though they aren't -and that is what makes it so scary. But THAT doesn't make it "torture" because torture is NOT defined by how someone FEELS as the result of an act. Roller coaster rides FEEL scary too but that doesn't mean its "torture" either. Torture is always defined by what it actually DOES to a person. Yanking out someone's fingernails or sticking them with a hot poker or breaking all the bones in their hand, hanging them upside down and beating them unconscious, hammering nails into someone's skull -all torture. INDISPUTABLE torture. It doesn't matter how the recipients of these acts actually FELT as it happened and their FEELINGS about it are in fact totally irrelevant in determining whether it is torture. It is the act itself that determined it was torture. And here is the point liberals with their lack of critical thinking skills just can't grasp. If an act is torture -it is always torture no matter who is the recipient. If it is torture to hammer nails into a terrorist's head, then it is still torture to hammer nails into the head of a US soldier too! Torture is still torture no matter who is on the receiving end! It isn't "torture" to do it one person, but "training" to do it to a different person! Torture is still torture no matter who it is done to!

Or are you really saying that the FEELINGS of a terrorist count for more than the FEELINGS of a US soldier or what?

I sleep just fine and I want the people seeking our mass murder to be the ones having trouble falling asleep.

If you think no nation has a right to its national security and to provide for its national defense unless another country actually INVADES IT first -then you are a fucking moron.

That would be calling for national suicide and keeping your fingers crossed that once invaded it can be successfully repelled. No nation is obligated to sit by watching a threat to its security or outright existence build from inside another nation and wait until that enemy believes it has the advantage and strikes. Really? Do our laws regarding self defense work that way in your mind too? That someone is OBLIGATED to wait until someone sticks them with a knife before they can defend themselves, OBLIGATED to wait until they have been shot -and IF they survive that, then and ONLY then are legally allowed to defend themselves? THAT piece of moronic bullshit should leave you unable to sleep at night frankly.

That is insisting we MUST let them kill Americans first, must let them actually invade - and gee, I guess we keep our fingers crossed again that they don't kill too many of us first and we have enough left to successfully repel it even though we all know we lose still more fighting them back. That is NOT providing for the national defense and security of ANY nation on earth, sorry!

The rules of war NEVER EVER require any country to sit and act like a patsy waiting for an enemy to hit them first before they are allowed to defend themselves. Preemptive strikes in order to PREVENT an invasion, in order to PREVENT the enemy from a first strike which would needlessly kill many of one's own citizens that a preemptive strike could save -are ALL allowed and recognized legitimate reasons for making the first strike as is destroying the enemy inside a nation that already carried out a strike. In case you didn't notice that -the entire world gave Hitler the benefit of the doubt even as they watched him build up a military that would only be needed if one intended to try and conquer the world -while Hitler told he had no such plans. Until HE was ready to strike and believed his enemies would be their greatest disadvantage. How did that work out for more than 25 million people, huh? Military historians agree that if countries had responded when Hitler first started militarizing Germany in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, 12-19 MILLION people who died as a result of doing it your way -would not have died. While striking earlier would have still cost 6 millions lives, it would have saved three times the number that died by allowing Hitler to strike on HIS terms. Waiting until your enemy is ready to act means he believes the advantage is his -and you are at a greater disadvantage. And that is EXACTLY what happened with Hitler. It is the reason the Allies were losing that war for YEARS and YEARS and in fact why we would have lost the war entirely if Hitler had not made a lethal error of his own. But hoping your enemy which is kicking your ass all over the globe will make a serious mistake in order to turn things around is pretty stupid. History has repeatedly proven waiting for your enemy to strike means you have just increased the odds of your own defeat. The advantage in war lies with the one that strikes on HIS time schedule and not the side on the defensive. Yet you just admitted your idea of "national security" is demanding the US give all enemies the advantage and forcing us to operate from a defensive position even when seeing a threat to our nation build inside another.

You just put to words the single most important reason to keep liberals out of government -they cannot be trusted to protect this nation and a huge percentage even seem to take pride in that fact and think its a strong selling point!

No matter what the issue, one thing can be counted on from liberals -they will ALWAYS choose the option that results in the most people dead. And then actually have the balls to insist others pretend it was the most moral choice. Sorry but the choice that results in the most dead is by definition the LEAST moral of all. I hope it isn't too late for you to develop a real conscience because this one is dangerous to human life.

it sure takes you a long time to say nothing intelligent.

thanks for popping by

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Del is too funny

 

[Sheldon]

Had a bike tied to my leg and I was tossed in the deep end...

Seemed to be the thing to do to "Prove" you weren't a pussy when you were 9 or 10 by the Shitheads who were 14+

Was that Torture?



peace...

So that explains this commercial.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTT2-TNuegM&feature=related]YouTube - Fish on a bicycle[/ame]

 

[del]

Had a bike tied to my leg and I was tossed in the deep end...

Seemed to be the thing to do to "Prove" you weren't a pussy when you were 9 or 10 by the Shitheads who were 14+

Was that Torture?



peace...

save it for your shrink

 

[Sheldon]

"Why don't we just chug on over to namby-pamby land."

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

"Why don't we just chug on over to namby-pamby land."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhlWddAXSRA]YouTube - R. Lee Ermey GEICO Commercial - Therapist Sarge[/ame]

 

[Wicked Jester]

"Why don't we just chug on over to namby-pamby land."

You mean "Liberal Utopia"?

 

[Sheldon]

"Why don't we just chug on over to namby-pamby land."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhlWddAXSRA]YouTube - R. Lee Ermey GEICO Commercial - Therapist Sarge[/ame]

I love how he just throw the box of Kleenex.