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 have heard the story of Japanese soldiers who used waterboarding against US soldiers being executed for doing so. And while I don't support torture, I also don't support what I see as a political witch hunt nor do I believe that the nonuniformed terrorists we have at GITMO and perhaps elsewhere are entitled to the same treatment that legitimate enemy soldiers are. So I would like to settle the matter once and for all. I've searched the Internet for anything reliable on the subject and have only come up with editorial pieces from less than reliable sources. The question I am asking is, Were Japanese soldiers really executed for the act of waterboarding US soldiers? If so, were other actions also involved such as punitive amputations and summary executions, or was the crime that led to their execution waterboarding alone?
That is indeed a liberal lie. No one (not Japanese, Germans, or any one else) has ever been executed for waterboarding. Waterboarding is not torture, and never has been considered torture until the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006.
Prior to 2006, Congress, including the Democrats not only supported waterboarding terrorists, they also gave their approval to waterboard US citizens for more than 30 years between the 1960s and the 1990s.
Truly , in many instances, we do need to act as they do. Morality has nothing to do with it. While we do not see eye to eye on this, I do see your position, but my view remains unwavering.
War is a brutal business. If we are going to prevail against our enemy we must smash them to a pulp. That is the reality of war. If you read Nyguen Giaps book, Peoples War, Peoples Army, you will understand much better what I am trying to say. The very view you are advocating is the premise he used to defeat us in Viet Nam. The book outlines this step by step, blow by blow. Very enlightening reading. The very same thing is happening again.. Our enemy knows they have already won, it's just a matter of time. Unlike us, they are willing to do what it takes to win. They understand that many (very vocal) people in this country have no stomach for the brutallity of war. Especially a war like the one we are in, where the enemy is a wisp of smoke that cannot be directly engaged on a conventional battlefield in a straight up fight. Sound familiar? They are willing, able and ready to utilize vicious tactics knowing that the very notion of having to use those same tactics ourselves, in order to win, will cause a howl of outrage. This has been proven over and over again, and they aren't stupid. They will use this to their complete advantage and to our ultimate demise. They will avoid our strength and attack our weakness. They don't have to commit massive forces to do so either, they can get the job done in college classrooms all across our very own soil. Our own worse enemy is ourselves. Hang on to those 'moral standards'. They may be all you have left when it's all over, for all they will be worth.
What's worse is that those who protest treating these animals like the animals they are are only aiding and abetting the enemy.
Why do you think that I don't grasp that extremists would kill me to achieve their philosophy?
What you fail to grasp is that the principles and ideals that America espouses are supposed to be bigger than a single human life. When Americans abandon those principles and ideals, it doesn't matter how many American lives you saved. Abandon those principles and ideals, and the terrorists just won. It's the idea of America that is the real target of terrorism. The human toll is their means to an end.
Who says we abandon them. If we truly abandon them we'd treat our own people like terrorists. We'd treat our allies like terrorists. We'd treat innocents like terrorists.
By your own logic, anything we do other than capitulate and face Mecca five times a day angers them and we shouldn't do it.
Who says we abandon them. If we truly abandon them we'd treat our own people like terrorists. We'd treat our allies like terrorists. We'd treat innocents like terrorists.
By your own logic, anything we do other than capitulate and face Mecca five times a day angers them and we shouldn't do it.
Logic? The word, by definition, means that a lack of emotion be applied to any specific problem, in searching for the answer to said problem. Logic implies pure practicality. Thus, methods of war should be logical. When you factor in a 'moral standard' to a strategy of warfare, you have shackled your forces. Humanitarianism has no place in military matters, as applied to the enemy anyway. Our current enemy expects us to do just that, however. At least the brains of the outfit does. They fill their rank and file with propaganda that we are a merciless enemy that God wishes them to destroy, and promise great heavenly reward for perishing in the fight, all the while fully knowing that quite the opposite is true. That leaves us facing rabid and brutal zealots,who understand nothing but viciousness and blind dedication to our destruction, and offering them flowers in return. Pretty shrewd actually. So, what ,exactly, is the 'logic' that you would apply here? Clearly, it is true, that we do not understand this brand of logic.
Logic? The word, by definition, means that a lack of emotion be applied to any specific problem, in searching for the answer to said problem. Logic implies pure practicality. Thus, methods of war should be logical. When you factor in a 'moral standard' to a strategy of warfare, you have shackled your forces. Humanitarianism has no place in military matters, as applied to the enemy anyway. Our current enemy expects us to do just that, however. At least the brains of the outfit does. They fill their rank and file with propaganda that we are a merciless enemy that God wishes them to destroy, and promise great heavenly reward for perishing in the fight, all the while fully knowing that quite the opposite is true. That leaves us facing rabid and brutal zealots,who understand nothing but viciousness and blind dedication to our destruction, and offering them flowers in return. Pretty shrewd actually. So, what ,exactly, is the 'logic' that you would apply here? Clearly, it is true, that we do not understand this brand of logic.
Your argument is loaded with illogic.
If logic implies practicality, how exactly is torture practical?
The defenders of torture state that torture is supposed to be used to extract information from a prisoner in an efficient manner. They further qualify the use of torture that the information sought is vital and urgent.
Is this correct?
However, in practice, it's been shown that while torture induces prisoners to talk, that the information may just as likely be false as it is true. People being tortured will say what they think the torturers want to hear. They will say that Saddam Hussein shelters Al Qaeda even though that is not true. They will say anything. Torture produces product, but there is no quality control. That is the first inefficiency. If it is vital information, there has to be quality control.
The second inefficiency is the urgency. If you are trying to locate safe houses, or bank accounts, or code names linked to terrorists, the reality is that the terrorist organizations are designed to defend against information trails. Safe houses get moved, bank accounts are frequently changed, as are code names. Operational information is localized, hence the term terrorist cells. When a cell's security is jeopardized, the safeguards are implemented. The terrorist knows this, time is on his side. The longer he holds out, the less relevant his information becomes.
Your contention that humanitarian concerns have no place in warfare is illogical. Any activity that engages human beings implements protections for those human beings. Otherwise the activity is suicidal. Warfare is a human activity. We provide weapons and armor to the participants. We have rules of engagement. Moreover, warfare goes beyond the battlefield. Hence the expressions about losing the battle but winning the war. Human beings recognize that warfare is not just an exercise in logistics, it is an exercise in perception. Sun Tzu's book which you referred me to expressly addresses over and over how important the matter of perception is in warfare.
So logically, you have to consider the advantages AND the disadvantages of engaging in torture as an expedient in warfare. Your insistence on focusing solely on the advantages is illogical. Logic requires a pure assessment of both. The assessment of the emotional or moral costs is part of that pure assessment. Your dismissal of them is neither logical or practical, as both are deeply ingrained in the realities of warfare.
Last edited by DC at the Ridge; 05-12-2009 at 10:03 AM..
There was a Japanese officer that was found guilty and sentenced to 15 yrs hard labor. I see you still haven't learned to use google yet?
Yeah, but I can read an OP.
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.
. Our enemy knows they have already won, it's just a matter of time. Unlike us, they are willing to do what it takes to win. They understand that many (very vocal) people in this country have no stomach for the brutallity of war. Especially a war like the one we are in, where the enemy is a wisp of smoke that cannot be directly engaged on a conventional battlefield in a straight up fight. Sound familiar? They are willing, able and ready to utilize vicious tactics knowing that the very notion of having to use those same tactics ourselves, in order to win, will cause a howl of outrage. This has been proven over and over again, and they aren't stupid. They will use this to their complete advantage and to our ultimate demise. They will avoid our strength and attack our weakness. They don't have to commit massive forces to do so either, they can get the job done in college classrooms all across our very own soil. Our own worse enemy is ourselves. Hang on to those 'moral standards'. They may be all you have left when it's all over, for all they will be worth.
Logic? The word, by definition, means that a lack of emotion be applied to any specific problem, in searching for the answer to said problem. Logic implies pure practicality. Thus, methods of war should be logical. When you factor in a 'moral standard' to a strategy of warfare, you have shackled your forces. Humanitarianism has no place in military matters, as applied to the enemy anyway. Our current enemy expects us to do just that, however. At least the brains of the outfit does. They fill their rank and file with propaganda that we are a merciless enemy that God wishes them to destroy, and promise great heavenly reward for perishing in the fight, all the while fully knowing that quite the opposite is true. That leaves us facing rabid and brutal zealots,who understand nothing but viciousness and blind dedication to our destruction, and offering them flowers in return. Pretty shrewd actually. So, what ,exactly, is the 'logic' that you would apply here? Clearly, it is true, that we do not understand this brand of logic.
