Sean Hannity agrees to be waterboarded for chairty

[Article 15]

I don't believe the guy calling in is a "Veteran". I know plenty of Veterans who want to actually torture them, not just "waterboarding'.

This whole "moral righteous" "holier than thou" attitude is the trademark of a liberal, proving that "Charles" is doubtfully who he says he is.

Of course these things are usually later discovered, like when that other guy was discovered to be impersonating a United States Soldier, and sentenced to prison, for calling in to Rush Limbaugh and other things.

Hi! I'm an OIF veteran. I agree with what the caller had to say.

Good for you, you're 1% of Veterans and I bet you never left your trailer so I wouldn't go around claiming you're an "OIF" Vet when all you did was sit there and be logistics.

About 10,000 out of 140,000 troops in Iraq are combat troops, the rest are hardly ever in harms way if at all.

Who the fuck do you think you are?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Hi! I'm an OIF veteran. I agree with what the caller had to say.

Good for you, you're 1% of Veterans and I bet you never left your trailer so I wouldn't go around claiming you're an "OIF" Vet when all you did was sit there and be logistics.

About 10,000 out of 140,000 troops in Iraq are combat troops, the rest are hardly ever in harms way if at all.

Who the fuck do you think you are?

Donald Rumsfeld?

 

[eots]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOAkjUySFzk[/ame]

 

[eots]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j8Iyu3orko&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Evangelical]

Hi! I'm an OIF veteran. I agree with what the caller had to say.

Good for you, you're 1% of Veterans and I bet you never left your trailer so I wouldn't go around claiming you're an "OIF" Vet when all you did was sit there and be logistics.

About 10,000 out of 140,000 troops in Iraq are combat troops, the rest are hardly ever in harms way if at all.

So you have been there then?

I'll put my foot down in that I never share any specifics. Two reasons.

1) It leads to pissing matches and ruins the fun of discussion on forums, where generalities suffice accepting that I'm not meaning to paint you or the other guy as specifically such and such but that in general, I just don't see the facts supporting the argument from a "moral high ground".

2) I had a bad run in with a psychotic French Foreign Legionaire who was a German Jew, who was able to track me down from even the slightest footprints I had left on the internet. Since then I've upped my obscurity or anonymity from what would seem normal for any reason.

There are a few other reasons.

Suffice to say, I will defend that in general most OIF soldiers haven't experienced Iraq, except its weather and namesake. Those that have I would simply say have no clue what to think, there were bigger things going on in their lives than politics.

Concerning the politics. I don't care who says what, or why they are saying it such as "I was there so I have an opinion", I just don't think that's a strong argument in general.

And if I were to seriously debate, that would be my main point.

Whether you were there or not does not defend a position, whether or not you served in the military or not does not defend your political views, and I do find the caller "morally reprehensible" for using his service as justification of his political views which I oppose and feel my support for "torture" is no more or less justified by my experiences but rather by the rational fact that torture works, we have always done it, and we've done a lot worse to people in the world than what we are doing to these terrorists...such as invaded Philippines and denied them freedom, killing 250,000 of them in a war of colonization.

Blah blah blah.

 

[eots]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kshqj1rIyEo[/ame]

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Good for you, you're 1% of Veterans and I bet you never left your trailer so I wouldn't go around claiming you're an "OIF" Vet when all you did was sit there and be logistics.

About 10,000 out of 140,000 troops in Iraq are combat troops, the rest are hardly ever in harms way if at all.

So you have been there then?

I'll put my foot down in that I never share any specifics. Two reasons.

1) It leads to pissing matches and ruins the fun of discussion on forums, where generalities suffice accepting that I'm not meaning to paint you or the other guy as specifically such and such but that in general, I just don't see the facts supporting the argument from a "moral high ground".

2) I had a bad run in with a psychotic French Foreign Legionaire who was a German Jew, who was able to track me down from even the slightest footprints I had left on the internet. Since then I've upped my obscurity or anonymity from what would seem normal for any reason.

There are a few other reasons.

Suffice to say, I will defend that in general most OIF soldiers haven't experienced Iraq, except its weather and namesake. Those that have I would simply say have no clue what to think, there were bigger things going on in their lives than politics.

Concerning the politics. I don't care who says what, or why they are saying it such as "I was there so I have an opinion", I just don't think that's a strong argument in general.

And if I were to seriously debate, that would be my main point.

Whether you were there or not does not defend a position, whether or not you served in the military or not does not defend your political views, and I do find the caller "morally reprehensible" for using his service as justification of his political views which I oppose and feel my support for "torture" is no more or less justified by my experiences but rather by the rational fact that torture works, we have always done it, and we've done a lot worse to people in the world than what we are doing to these terrorists...such as invaded Philippines and denied them freedom, killing 250,000 of them in a war of colonization.

Blah blah blah.

I agree wholly that it matters not whether you have been there to hold an opinion. The problem I see with you, is that you maintain a position that cannot be proven . Do have polling data on soldiers agreeing or disagreeing on torture? No you do not. Therefore what you state is opinion and you are representingt hat opinion as fact. That is where my problem lies.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I don't believe the guy calling in is a "Veteran". I know plenty of Veterans who want to actually torture them, not just "waterboarding'.

This whole "moral righteous" "holier than thou" attitude is the trademark of a liberal, proving that "Charles" is doubtfully who he says he is.

Of course these things are usually later discovered, like when that other guy was discovered to be impersonating a United States Soldier, and sentenced to prison, for calling in to Rush Limbaugh and other things.

I'm a vet. I tend to agree with him. So does my Dad. Several vets on this board tend to agree as well. Kinda shoots your theory to shit there doesn't it?

Not really, Forums are liberal leaning so naturally anyone congregating here are more likely to agree with idiot liberals than with conservatives.

This forum is about as conservative as they get without being subject specific (like with Mark Levin's forums).

So now I am liberal leaning? Been called that before. Your theory is still shot to shit.

 

[Article 15]

Good for you, you're 1% of Veterans and I bet you never left your trailer so I wouldn't go around claiming you're an "OIF" Vet when all you did was sit there and be logistics.

About 10,000 out of 140,000 troops in Iraq are combat troops, the rest are hardly ever in harms way if at all.

So you have been there then?

I'll put my foot down in that I never share any specifics. Two reasons.

1) It leads to pissing matches and ruins the fun of discussion on forums, where generalities suffice accepting that I'm not meaning to paint you or the other guy as specifically such and such but that in general, I just don't see the facts supporting the argument from a "moral high ground".
2) I had a bad run in with a psychotic French Foreign Legionaire who was a German Jew, who was able to track me down from even the slightest footprints I had left on the internet. Since then I've upped my obscurity or anonymity from what would seem normal for any reason.

There are a few other reasons.

Suffice to say, I will defend that in general most OIF soldiers haven't experienced Iraq, except its weather and namesake. Those that have I would simply say have no clue what to think, there were bigger things going on in their lives than politics.

Concerning the politics. I don't care who says what, or why they are saying it such as "I was there so I have an opinion", I just don't think that's a strong argument in general.

And if I were to seriously debate, that would be my main point.

Whether you were there or not does not defend a position, whether or not you served in the military or not does not defend your political views, and I do find the caller "morally reprehensible" for using his service as justification of his political views which I oppose and feel my support for "torture" is no more or less justified by my experiences but rather by the rational fact that torture works, we have always done it, and we've done a lot worse to people in the world than what we are doing to these terrorists...such as invaded Philippines and denied them freedom, killing 250,000 of them in a war of colonization.

Blah blah blah.

So denigrating someone's service of which you know NOTHING about is your idea of how to avoid pissing matches on a forum?

 

[Evangelical]

You denigrate your own service the day you use it to justify your political positions.

That is a non-negotiable fact.

And I will tell that to any Retired General I come face to face with too, or Retired Command Sergeant Major, if they should so exercise their perceived "moral authority" as such.

That is directed specifically at the pathetic, excuse of a wretch, General of the Army Colin Powell, US Ret.

Character is the only distinguishing characteristic of an officer, and must be impeccable, particularly with regard to protecting legacy of their actions against the tide of history; and thus defending only their actions, and not their views on what should be done by themselves or others.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

You denigrate your own service the day you use it to justify your political positions.

That is a non-negotiable fact.

And I will tell that to any Retired General I come face to face with too, or Retired Command Sergeant Major, if they should so exercise their perceived "moral authority" as such.

That is directed specifically at the pathetic, excuse of a wretch, General of the Army Colin Powell, US Ret.

Character is the only distinguishing characteristic of an officer, and must be impeccable, particularly with regard to protecting legacy of their actions against the tide of history; and thus defending only their actions, and not their views on what should be done by themselves or others.

Actually, we weren't using our service to justify our position. We were using it to demonstrate how your position is weak.

 

[Article 15]

You denigrate your own service the day you use it to justify your political positions.

That is a non-negotiable fact.

And I will tell that to any Retired General I come face to face with too, or Retired Command Sergeant Major, if they should so exercise their perceived "moral authority" as such.

That is directed specifically at the pathetic, excuse of a wretch, General of the Army Colin Powell, US Ret.

Character is the only distinguishing characteristic of an officer, and must be impeccable, particularly with regard to protecting legacy of their actions against the tide of history; and thus defending only their actions, and not their views on what should be done by themselves or others.

You are the asshat who piped up saying:

I don't believe the guy calling in is a "Veteran". I know plenty of Veterans who want to actually torture them, not just "waterboarding'.

I didn't bring up my veteran status to justify my political positions, I brought it up to let you know that your theory doesn't hold water.

 

[Evangelical]

With regard to my political position, the defense I give of torture is 3 fold:

1) Historically we have practiced it, so we should continue it.

2) Historically the US has done worse things justifiable in the eyes of its citizens, so its citizens should not change their opinion.

3) Informatively, torture yields good results when properly applied and cross-examined over time. Such information while usually tactically weak, or inapplicable, is strategically valuable particularly in dealing with discovering or uncovering the particulars of structure or operational authority, or strategic objectives of the enemy.

Limitations of torture is keen to tactical information where other information is more reliable, due to the limited time for cross-examination, and the inability to apply correct leverage in narrow time frames, tactical operations are almost unrecoverable from torturous procedures; other information gathering whether human intel, reconnaissance, or other forms of observations of actual activities or deductive conclusions from actions taken previously by the enemy, allow for tactical discernment and thus, our decision making.

 

[Evangelical]

You denigrate your own service the day you use it to justify your political positions.

That is a non-negotiable fact.

And I will tell that to any Retired General I come face to face with too, or Retired Command Sergeant Major, if they should so exercise their perceived "moral authority" as such.

That is directed specifically at the pathetic, excuse of a wretch, General of the Army Colin Powell, US Ret.

Character is the only distinguishing characteristic of an officer, and must be impeccable, particularly with regard to protecting legacy of their actions against the tide of history; and thus defending only their actions, and not their views on what should be done by themselves or others.

Actually, we weren't using our service to justify our position. We were using it to demonstrate how your position is weak.

If you say the following:

"I am in the military, and have this view point" I disagree with that attempt for a moral high ground that denigrates the service; for whatever reason.

But, with regard to using it as a defense of your argument, no, that applies more to Charles or whatever his name is on Rush Limbaugh.

"I'm a veteran and I disagree with torture".

So what? All he has done is denigrate his service and made possibly the worse argument you can ever make in the United States for a political position.

 

[Article 15]

You denigrate your own service the day you use it to justify your political positions.

That is a non-negotiable fact.

And I will tell that to any Retired General I come face to face with too, or Retired Command Sergeant Major, if they should so exercise their perceived "moral authority" as such.

That is directed specifically at the pathetic, excuse of a wretch, General of the Army Colin Powell, US Ret.

Character is the only distinguishing characteristic of an officer, and must be impeccable, particularly with regard to protecting legacy of their actions against the tide of history; and thus defending only their actions, and not their views on what should be done by themselves or others.

Actually, we weren't using our service to justify our position. We were using it to demonstrate how your position is weak.

If you say the following:

"I am in the military, and have this view point" I disagree with that attempt for a moral high ground that denigrates the service; for whatever reason.

But, with regard to using it as a defense of your argument, no, that applies more to Charles or whatever his name is on Rush Limbaugh.

"I'm a veteran and I disagree with torture".

So what? All he has done is denigrate his service and made possibly the worse argument you can ever make in the United States for a political position.

In that case I recommend you go see a doctor about that nasty case of footinmouth disease you seem to have.

 

[Evangelical]

I have made some very astute claims none of which you are really able to approach.

First: that military service is denigrated by its application to political positions. Period.

Second: that torture is more than defensible based on US history and its practicality.

Third: that the specific caller on Rush Limbaugh is most likely a liberal hack deceiving Limbaugh to make a political argument because most soldiers would doubtfully denigrate their service in such a way.

 

[Article 15]

I have made some very astute claims none of which you are really able to approach.

First: that military service is denigrated by its application to political positions. Period.

I never claimed otherwise.

Second: that torture is more than defensible based on US history and its practicality.

I've been through this over and over on the boards and I'm not about to rehash it with you.

Third: that the specific caller on Rush Limbaugh is most likely a liberal hack deceiving Limbaugh to make a political argument because most soldiers would doubtfully denigrate their service in such a way.

Pure speculation on your part. The guy was calling into a right wing talk radio show and they tend to pedestalize vets so I don't blame the caller for identifying himself as such if he was. If he felt that letting Rush in that he was a veteran added some levity to his position that's his business. Your attempt to smear him and cast doubt of his service because of your obviously incorrect view of what vets think (as CW and I showed you) is truly pathetic.

 

[Ravi]

How is being a Vet and against torture denigrate anyone's service?

 

[AVG-JOE]

how about he gets stripped naked covered in his own feces and is tormented by deranged military dykes with savage dogs...for charity ....instead

That show would certainly get better ratings here in the US... Not sure if the WWF crowd will be the best for charity calls though

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

With regard to my political position, the defense I give of torture is 3 fold:

1) Historically we have practiced it, so we should continue it.

2) Historically the US has done worse things justifiable in the eyes of its citizens, so its citizens should not change their opinion.

3) Informatively, torture yields good results when properly applied and cross-examined over time. Such information while usually tactically weak, or inapplicable, is strategically valuable particularly in dealing with discovering or uncovering the particulars of structure or operational authority, or strategic objectives of the enemy.

Limitations of torture is keen to tactical information where other information is more reliable, due to the limited time for cross-examination, and the inability to apply correct leverage in narrow time frames, tactical operations are almost unrecoverable from torturous procedures; other information gathering whether human intel, reconnaissance, or other forms of observations of actual activities or deductive conclusions from actions taken previously by the enemy, allow for tactical discernment and thus, our decision making.

Historically, man has been anything but kind - still doesn't justify violence.

Historically, murder has been a very effective political tool - still doesn't justify killing to get ahead.

Historically, accumulating resources by force has been the most successful tactic - doesn't justify its continued use.

History of successful use is NOT a justification for various behaviors.

-Joe