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.
That really doesn't mean I have more of a right to discuss this then other people here.
In all fairness the poster you quoted asked a valid question, "If you have lost somebody very close to you, what would you think?" I can tell you that if I lost my own brother in battle field, I don't know what I would do.
My brother is very close to me and he pretty much raised me and has always been my hero.
I remember on the day of 911, my first immediate reaction was, "Damn, I am so glad that my brother is out of the Marine Corps now and he doesn't have to fight anymore" Then my thought is immediately replaced by guilt.
I can tell you if I lost my brother in battle field, I don't know what I would have done. So I will never judge somebody who have lost loved ones in battle field. You don't know the pain and torment these people go through on daily basis when their loved ones are in body bags. People who are angry are in a lot of pain..
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 08-05-2014 at 02:58 PM..
Sigh. So why not just nuke the rest of the world? Why use anything else but nukes?
Don't be a fool. Think about things rationally. I do agree in some ways-we don't engage in war like we should. Rebuilding a country or nation building someone we've fought shouldn't be done. Torture however isn't a good way to prosecute a war. It gets mixed results, loses allies, and make you in the moral wrong. Thats bad for all sorts of reasons.
Even removing the moral component from it, torture is a bad idea.
I could care less about rationalization. That is the purview liars, crooks, thieves and cowards.
Your problem is that you are trying to bring a modicum of civility to the barbaric act of war. It allows you to feel better about your position and deal with the cognitive dissonance in your acknowledgement that war is necessary but only to a point that it doesn't offend your sensabilities.
Prolonging war so as to assuage your guilt about it is torture for your enemy, you and all the innocent civilians that will be killed because of your inability to do what is necessary to defeat your enemy quickly and decisively.
I could care less about rationalization. That is the purview liars, crooks, thieves and cowards.
Your problem is that you are trying to bring a modicum of civility to the barbaric act of war. It allows you to feel better about your position and deal with the cognitive dissonance in your acknowledgement that war is necessary but only to a point that it doesn't offend your sensabilities.
Prolonging war so as to assuage your guilt about it is torture for your enemy, you and all the innocent civilians that will be killed because of your inability to do what is necessary to defeat your enemy quickly and decisively.
The nuclear option is just that. See Truman.
Sorry no. Torture does not have good results, and it harms us even outside of the moral conversation. This is a fact, not a cognitive dissonance. I'm arguing it from your point of view because obviously morality and civility are not your strong points. Torture does not shorten a war, in fact it angers those who see their fight against us as a moral issue. Torturing people prolongs a war.
We've had the topic of "losing someone" and how it affects folks. What if instead of "losing someone" they were captured, tortured for a few years, and then killed. How do you think that works out? Theres two sides to this, and us torturing folks is hurting us more then it helps.
Your urge to help the enemy and prolong a war just so you can hurt people is a better example of cognitive dissonance. More people will be killed because we torture people then would be saved.
The torture "option" should be treated like the nuclear "option". Both are bad ideas that have a place in certain circumstances. None of which we have seen in my lifetime.
PS-im well aware of war being barbaric. Im not a moron. Little kids get blown up, etc etc.
I could care less about rationalization. That is the purview liars, crooks, thieves and cowards.
Your problem is that you are trying to bring a modicum of civility to the barbaric act of war. It allows you to feel better about your position and deal with the cognitive dissonance in your acknowledgement that war is necessary but only to a point that it doesn't offend your sensabilities.
Prolonging war so as to assuage your guilt about it is torture for your enemy, you and all the innocent civilians that will be killed because of your inability to do what is necessary to defeat your enemy quickly and decisively.
The nuclear option is just that. See Truman.
Translation: Let's become war criminals. Damn the Geneva convention!
I have. Two. I also have friends who are suffering from PTSD.
I still think torture is wrong. But I believe killing the enemies is 100% justified. For those who have lost friends in battle field, I won't judge them no matter what they believe or think.
I have lost 16 friends that I have flown with and taught... in one fare swoop....in direct support of what is and has been going on....
LOL, I'd pay $100 for you to be water boarded for 15 minutes.
I'll add in another $100.00. Lets see him man up.
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.
