Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I proved the same thing to neil0311 and he hasn't bothered to come back (I suspect he's now wetting himself, crying in his closet and mumbling something about David Rockefeller and black helicopters.)
You proved nothing besides your own ignorance. The only thing I'm whetting is my appetite for a nice dinner tonight.
I very rarely insult an individual or make direct personal attacks, because I do believe in discussion and disagreement. You however are such a miserable excuse for a person that I'll make an exception. Unlike you, I can make my point, know that my point is correct, and not have to engage in stupidity with morons like you.
Enjoy your perceived victory, because those of us who are educated and have a little understanding of the law and the Constitution know your an idiot.
Mods...feel free to do whatever you feel like with my personally insulting comments. I stand by them and would make them again in a heartbeat.
Only an American could fail to notice the obvious: that getting out of it is an option.
I hope that the rest of the world follows our example, but I do not care to descend to the rest of the world's level whether they do or not. (I should really say "to the level of a banana republic", since some countries have higher standards of human rights than the United States.)
Treaties are part of our domestic law. I proved that to you once, and I must say I admire your tenacity in dusting yourself off and pretending you hadn't heard. I proved the same thing to neil0311 and he hasn't bothered to come back (I suspect he's now wetting himself, crying in his closet and mumbling something about David Rockefeller and black helicopters.)
LMAO, what did you prove to me...I'm missing something here. I never denied that what you were aying is not based in fact. C'mon man, I'm saying how I , personally , feel warfare should be conducted. I never argued that these treaties and laws govern our troops on the battlefield, I'm saying that they should not. I'm giving MY opinion of these laws and treaties, not saying that they don't exist. By that same token, if the enemy is going to ignore, or is not governed by these laws and treaties, then they don't apply to our treatment of said enemy. Again, MY view. . You havn't 'proved' anything and I'm not trying to, I'm just saying how things would work if I were in command. 'Only an American would fail to notice that getting out is an option'.....OK if you say so. I prefer the option of smashing the enemy to a pile of goo, and impressing upon them that their campaign of terror against us will end in their utter annihilation. These are terms they can understand, lol, only a sterotypical American would fail to notice that this enemy does not think like an American, and that the best way for us to defeat them is for us to think like they do. Have you ever read Musashi? If not, perhaps you should. Giap wrote some pretty good stuff to. Peoples War , Peoples Army is very enlightening. Tsun Tsu is also a recommended read..The Art of War. There are many others as well. My opinions on warfare, and the manner in which it should be conducted, has been heavily influenced by these works of non fiction. This kind of stuff was required reading in the world I grew up in.
There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.
Alexander Hamilton:
Quote:
A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.
Quote:
There is only one way you can have peace and you can have it in the next second....
LMAO, what did you prove to me...I'm missing something here. I never denied that what you were aying is not based in fact. . C'mon man, I'm saying how I , personally , feel warfare should be conducted.
Ok, that's different. Fair enough. Everyone else on the pro-torture side appears not to get the distinction, but if you do, then while I may still not vote for you for president, we at least have common terms for discussion.
Quote:
I never argued that these treaties and laws govern our troops on the battlefield, I'm saying that they should not.
Just a minor quibble: we're not talking about the "battlefield", we're talking about Room 101 in the Ministry of Truth. Calling it "the battlefield", with all the exigencies that evokes, might be a tad misleading.
Quote:
'Only an American would fail to notice that getting out is an option'.....OK if you say so. I prefer the option of smashing the enemy to a pile of goo, and impressing upon them that their campaign of terror against us will end in their utter annihilation. These are terms they can understand, lol, only a sterotypical American would fail to notice that this enemy does not think like an American, and that the best way for us to defeat them is for us to think like they do.
Well, if you are capable of identifying with them to that considerable degree, surely the thought might enter your brain at some point that they probably are not all wrong and we certainly are not all right. In other words, to ask the most important question about your enemy, which is why he is your enemy in the first place. And surely someone who can digest Gen. Giap and Sun Tzu is too intelligent to actually buy into the whole "they hate us for our freedom" bilge.
Quote:
Have you ever read Musashi? If not, perhaps you should. Giap wrote some pretty good stuff to. Peoples War , Peoples Army is very enlightening. Tsun Tsu is also a recommended read..The Art of War. There are many others as well. My opinions on warfare, and the manner in which it should be conducted, has been heavily influenced by these works of non fiction.
I don't take pleasure in reading about the destruction of lives, so my knowledge in this sphere is limited to a little Sun Tzu and Clausewitz in my teenage years. I am much more interested in basic philosophical questions about the moral validity of war than about the mechanics of destroying one's enemies. I am glad there are some people who make it their business to know such things, in case we are ever in a dire threat from a powerful enemy. But all our enemies since 1815 have been of our own choosing, one way or another.
OK, fair point. But these days the largest share of what styles itself the right is not anti-government or libertarian, but nationalist and militarist and reactionary. The talk radio types.
But any dissent should be considered negotiable? I remember something called the Reagan revolution, it wasn't members of parties that felt the other side was unAmerican, it was members of all parties saying this is what we have, this is what we can do and this is America. many people took that as a call to arms in protection of America and found their ways as Americans, many others found a different path but any and all were welcome. Why is it not like that anymore? Why is it that now "we may be fewer in numbers than ever before but we carry the message they're waiting for"... Why has that become a problem?
But any dissent should be considered negotiable? I remember something called the Reagan revolution, it wasn't members of parties that felt the other side was unAmerican, it was members of all parties saying this is what we have, this is what we can do and this is America. many people took that as a call to arms in protection of America and found their ways as Americans, many others found a different path but any and all were welcome. Why is it not like that anymore? Why is it that now "we may be fewer in numbers than ever before but we carry the message they're waiting for"...
I was 5 when Reagan was elected, I remember it happening but can't claim to be a great eyewitness to the political atmosphere of the time. But Reagan, despite his reputation, was NOT a warmongering cowboy. He managed to outplay the Soviets without involving this country in a major war. That in and of itself places him in a different echelon from the collection of Dr. Strangeloves and Gen. Rippers that comprise today's GOP. Yeah, he may have funded some of the nuttier mujaheddin and some other unpleasant folks, but everyone makes mistakes.
When you say any dissent is negotiable, are you talking about negotiable among rival factions on the right? If so, my answer is no. I'd rather spend the rest of my life rolling my eyes at the various stupidities of the left, than get in bed with the talk radio right. I can live with the top tax rate going up from 36% to 39%. I can live with national health care. I can live with politicians going too far rather than not far enough when it comes to environmental policy. But I can't live with amnesty for torturers. I can't live with politicians in charge who call every idea they don't like "socialist." I can't live with church freaks teaching their religion in my kids' science classes. I can't live with a crime policy whose objective is to lock up as many people as possible for as long as possible. And I sure as hell can't live with another war for the Israeli lobby every 10 or 15 years.
Ok, that's different. Fair enough. Everyone else on the pro-torture side appears not to get the distinction, but if you do, then while I may still not vote for you for president, we at least have common terms for discussion.
Just a minor quibble: we're not talking about the "battlefield", we're talking about Room 101 in the Ministry of Truth. Calling it "the battlefield", with all the exigencies that evokes, might be a tad misleading.
Well, if you are capable of identifying with them to that considerable degree, surely the thought might enter your brain at some point that they probably are not all wrong and we certainly are not all right. In other words, to ask the most important question about your enemy, which is why he is your enemy in the first place. And surely someone who can digest Gen. Giap and Sun Tzu is too intelligent to actually buy into the whole "they hate us for our freedom" bilge.
I don't take pleasure in reading about the destruction of lives, so my knowledge in this sphere is limited to a little Sun Tzu and Clausewitz in my teenage years. I am much more interested in basic philosophical questions about the moral validity of war than about the mechanics of destroying one's enemies. I am glad there are some people who make it their business to know such things, in case we are ever in a dire threat from a powerful enemy. But all our enemies since 1815 have been of our own choosing, one way or another.
The Art of War does touch upon 'moral validities' , but not in the context you are discussing. Musashi's Book of Five Rings also discusses this to some degree. But, understand, the Asian mind is a very systematic and practical machine. Rather than a view of 'morality' , such as you mention, their process deals more with the actual mental preparedness that is needed to suceed in combat or battle rather than searching for the reasons behind the actual need to fight. The 'cause' is secondary to the fact that the fight is going to happen, and one should take the road to victory rather than question the whys of being in the situation. Also understand that in the Asian mind (particularly the Japanese, so this is touched on more in Musashis book) that life and death are the same, this has been misinterpreted by westerners into thinking that they do not value life, erroneous, they just view it differently. Our current enemy, however , is not Oriental, and they do NOT value life. These radicals value death, and as long as they die killing their enemies, they believe that paradise awaits. Lol, they need no reason to hate us other than we do not share their beliefs. Our 'freedom' () has NOTHING to do with their hatred of us. They hate us simply because we exist. Whether we were meddling in their affairs or not, they would still hate us. That just gave them a good excuse to declare Jihad. Giaps musings are extremely relevent to our current sate of affairs in many ways. Unlike most Americans woud do, he studied our culture, and found ways to use our very Americanism against us. Just as our current enemy has done. Our apparent lack of realization that we are actuallly NOT the leaders in the world that we think we are just can't seem to sink in. Our policies fail, miserably, because our leaders can't think like anything but an American. And, just like Giap and Ho Chi Min did, our enemies exploit that narrow mindedness. Looking back at history, we havn't learned a thing, for such a supposedly 'enlightened' nation. Warfare has not changed other than the weapons with which it is fought. The basic purpose behind a war has, always and forever, been to win. When we question ourselves as to HOW we win,( in a 'moral' context') we have already lost. I watched the invasion of Iraq and cringed. It was a strategic blunder, done mainly to placate the howls for reprisal against an elusive enemy. Afganistan had strategic worth, but has been poorly executed wih no thought to how it will end. Our inteligence gathering methodology, which is now being decried as 'cruel and illegal' has yielded some high value targets, but we are fighting an idea. One with no moral scruples. So , this must either turn into a real war, or we need to pull back to a more stable ground and rethink our strategy. Preferably before we have reached the point of no return. With the Taliban knocking on the nuclear door in Pakistan, it may have gone to far already. Like it or not, hate the brutality of it or not, this is going to get a damn sight nastier than waterboarding.Is this country ready? . We could be, but I'm hesitant to get very confident.
Your relatively calm response is inspiring and I thank you in advance for not getting ugly like so many others. Yet, I expect you chose this scenario because it would seem heartless to answer in any way other than yes considering there are children involved.
Well I try and keep things a discussions, nothing worse than bunch of morons slinging mud.
The reason I chose that scenario is pretty simple, it very well may have played out with the people that were waterboarded. When you have in your possession someone that was as high up as some of the people that were waterboarded they will be in possession of huge amount of information some of which may have prevented 100's, 1000's .... oe ven millions of deaths.
Quote:
It is exactly what keeps this world from moving forward into greater understanding.
If you can convince them to leave me alone then I'll promise not to want to kil them. The reality is whether you are Christian, worship Kermit the Frog or even Muslim and don't subscribe to their doctrine you are the enemy and they have absolutely no qualms about killing you no matter who you are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. C'mon man, I'm saying how I , personally , feel warfare should be conducted. I never argued that these treaties and laws govern our troops on the battlefield, I'm saying that they should not. I'm giving MY opinion of these laws and treaties, not saying that they don't exist. By that same token, if the enemy is going to ignore, or is not governed by these laws and treaties, then they don't apply to our treatment of said enemy. Again, MY view. 
. You havn't 'proved' anything and I'm not trying to, I'm just saying how things would work if I were in command. 'Only an American would fail to notice that getting out is an option'.....OK if you say so. I prefer the option of smashing the enemy to a pile of goo, and impressing upon them that their campaign of terror against us will end in their utter annihilation. These are terms they can understand, lol, only a sterotypical American would fail to notice that this enemy does not think like an American, and that the best way for us to defeat them is for us to think like they do. Have you ever read Musashi? If not, perhaps you should. Giap wrote some pretty good stuff to. Peoples War , Peoples Army is very enlightening. Tsun Tsu is also a recommended read..The Art of War. There are many others as well. My opinions on warfare, and the manner in which it should be conducted, has been heavily influenced by these works of non fiction. This kind of stuff was required reading in the world I grew up in.
) has NOTHING to do with their hatred of us. They hate us simply because we exist. Whether we were meddling in their affairs or not, they would still hate us. That just gave them a good excuse to declare Jihad. Giaps musings are extremely relevent to our current sate of affairs in many ways. Unlike most Americans woud do, he studied our culture, and found ways to use our very Americanism against us. Just as our current enemy has done. Our apparent lack of realization that we are actuallly NOT the leaders in the world that we think we are just can't seem to sink in. Our policies fail, miserably, because our leaders can't think like anything but an American. And, just like Giap and Ho Chi Min did, our enemies exploit that narrow mindedness. Looking back at history, we havn't learned a thing, for such a supposedly 'enlightened' nation. Warfare has not changed other than the weapons with which it is fought. The basic purpose behind a war has, always and forever, been to win. When we question ourselves as to HOW we win,( in a 'moral' context') we have already lost. I watched the invasion of Iraq and cringed. It was a strategic blunder, done mainly to placate the howls for reprisal against an elusive enemy. Afganistan had strategic worth, but has been poorly executed wih no thought to how it will end. Our inteligence gathering methodology, which is now being decried as 'cruel and illegal' has yielded some high value targets, but we are fighting an idea. One with no moral scruples. So , this must either turn into a real war, or we need to pull back to a more stable ground and rethink our strategy. Preferably before we have reached the point of no return. With the Taliban knocking on the nuclear door in Pakistan, it may have gone to far already. Like it or not, hate the brutality of it or not, this is going to get a damn sight nastier than waterboarding.Is this country ready? 
. We could be, but I'm hesitant to get very confident.
