Waterboarding: Do you support its use to get information?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Do you think the U.S. government is right/has a right to employ waterboarding as a technique to interogate suspects to get information they think (though do not know for sure) the person has that is important for their work?

Do you think it is torture? Is it a war crime? Should the U.S. have more respect for human rights to not employ such a technique?

If we view waterboarding as a form of torture when employed by other states, then shouldn't we be consistent and view it as such when our government officers employ it, and punish them accordingly for it -- as we have done or called for in the past when our citizens were waterboarded?

Does anyone have the inherent right protected by human rights to not be tortured? If so, do you accept that governments can over-ride human rights?

[Bones]

Write a letter to John McCain. He used to be a prisoner of war. Ask him about how his captors treated him, in regards to "Human Rights".

For that matter, ask anyone out there who has ever been a prisoner of war, and ask them about how he/she was treated in the regards to the "Geneva Convention", by his/her captors.

NBTP

[TheNoNamedOne]

NBTP, in the OP I am asking members here questions -- not John McCain. So, what is your answer to some of those questions. I want to know what YOU think.

I didn't put my answers because it would have trippled the OP size. After some weigh in, though, I will do so.

[ryukyuboi]

I believe McCain is against waterboarding. As such, I will trust his judgement on this issue.

[Asshat]

Can't this be a don't ask, don't tell issue? :) I don't support any kind of torture, but then again, war is war and some information is more valuable in terms of saving lives than the moral dilema involved with torturing a sworn enemy.

I don't buy the fact that America has always been the good guy. It seldom has, so the country morality factor doesn't apply to me.

I guess I have to say "yes."

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Stephen King sure has an opinion!:eek:
You know, this morning, the two big stories on CNN are Kanye West's mother, who died, apparently, after having some plastic surgery. The other big thing that's going on is whether or not this cop [Drew Peterson] killed his... wife. And meanwhile, you've got Pakistan in the midst of a real crisis, where these people have nuclear weapons that we helped them develop. You've got a guy in charge, who's basically declared himself the military strongman and is being supported by the Bush administration, whose raison d'etre for going into Iraq was to spread democracy in the world.

So you've got these things going on, which seem to me to be very substantive, that could affect all of us, and instead, you see a lot of this back-fence gossip. So I said something to the Nightline guy about waterboarding, and if the Bush administration didn't think it was torture, they ought to do some personal investigation. Someone in the Bush family should actually be waterboarded so they could report on it to George. I said, I didn't think he would do it, but I suggested Jenna be waterboarded and then she could talk about whether or not she thought it was torture. And then the guy from Nightline said, "Well, obviously you've not been watching World News Tonight with Charlie Gibson." But I do — I watch 'em all!
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1687229,00.html

[Asshat]

Stephen King sure has an opinion!:eek:

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1687229,00.html

Two different points there that I see. First off, the news reports....well, it's not up to me to decide what is "important" to the rest of the listeners, but I have to tell you that Pakistan (and other events) sure take precedence over the pollen count in Kansas, and which celebrity died.

The other point is that the waterboarding thing is a Bush blast. I agree that there is more to the issue than simply Bush Blasting- I mean in 200+ years, is this the first time the CIA has done some shady buisness to get some info? It stays alive because we want everyone to know how bad Bush is, not because we actually care about torturing someone a little bit to get information to save lives.

[okisteve]

http://www.mydamnchannel.com/channel.aspx?episode=163

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I mean in 200+ years, is this the first time the CIA has done some shady buisness to get some info? It stays alive because we want everyone to know how bad Bush is, not because we actually care about torturing someone a little bit to get information to save lives.
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~warcrime/Japan/Yokohama/Reviews/Yokohama_Review_Asano.htm
Seems the US used to care about torture.
In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.
"All of these trials elicited compelling descriptions of water torture from its victims, and resulted in severe punishment for its perpetrators," writes Evan Wallach in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Great quote, E.

btw, doesn't the Golden Rule apply to prisoners, too? I mean, isn't that why we have entered the Geneva Convention and hope that all countries, signatories to it or not, will uphold the principles of not torturing? Or was there an addendum to The Golden Rule that adds to it after the most well known part:

Do unto others, as you would have others do unto you.

[DougP]

The whole idea of having rules and proper etiquette in war is what really baffles me. So we are supposed to be so honorable and righteous as to engage in mortal combat and do so humanely and with the utmost correctness? If so, then why are we even having war in the first place? I thought war was a last resort when all diplomacy and intellectual dialog has failed.

[TheNoNamedOne]

It is Doug. But in regards to waterboarding we are no longer talking about a combatant or a suspect (who's guilt has not been proven) who poses an immediate threat any longer. They have become noncombatants. You are not suggesting that they should have no protections and that we should be able to resort to barbaric and horrific things to them, are you?

Yes, rules should be in place in war and the different dimensions related to it.

[Fonze]

Well if they were honorable fighters with countries then maybe yes but these are not regular soldiers. Im talking about insurgents from foriegn lands blowing up women and children. While i do believe we should be the better people where does the line stop. I read that it was torture to make them satand for long period sof time and other things like yelling at them.


REMEMBER THESE AT GUANTANAMO FOR THE MOST ARE THE WORST OF THE WORST HUMANS THAT THEMSELVES DO NOT FOLLOW RULES OF ENGAGEMENT.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Ok, well, I really don't want the discussion to go wide on "torture" in general because anything could be considered torture if the definitions are lose enough.

Let's deal with waterboarding. Are you ok with waterboarding, Fonze, and do not consider that torture? Or do you consider that torture?

[DougP]

It is Doug. But in regards to waterboarding we are no longer talking about a combatant or a suspect (who's guilt has not been proven) who poses an immediate threat any longer. They have become noncombatants. You are not suggesting that they should have no protections and that we should be able to resort to barbaric and horrific things to them, are you?

Yes, rules should be in place in war and the different dimensions related to it.

What I was getting at was the fact that adding "gentleman's" rules to war in general to encompass torture seems a bit like backwards thinking to me. Kind of a moot point. Like planning your next vacation while on your deathbed. Just like how people are pushing for a hasty withdrawal from Iraq before the region has been stabilized. I hear the same thing over and over again. We shouldn't have been there in the first place. Well I think the same applies to this. If we are discussing the atrocities related to war and think they are inhumane then maybe we shouldn't be going to war in the first place. Once we go to war all bets are off in my mind. You may disagree with me on that one but don't you think it could be avoided by not being in a war in the first place? Or is war truly inevitable and yet another preprogrammed part of our existence?

[DougP]

On the subject of water boarding it is a pretty mild form of interigation compared to some other practices.

[Fonze]

Ok, well, I really don't want the discussion to go wide on "torture" in general because anything could be considered torture if the definitions are lose enough.

Let's deal with waterboarding. Are you ok with waterboarding, Fonze, and do not consider that torture? Or do you consider that torture?

I think it is hard interrogation and read from many sources that the master mind of 9/11 gave up info and arrest were made by using this. I also feel bad caus ei like mccain and mccain see's this as unaccptable torture. I also dont think these pieces of shit are covered under the geneva convention. Like doug said there are way worse thing they could do that are considered torture.

So to answer your question I would have to say that for real soldiers than yes dont do it but for these animals, I would do worse. If they have better techniques that are more "civilized than use them but nothing is off the table especially for these guys.

So do i consider it torture yes.

[TheNoNamedOne]

On the subject of water boarding it is a pretty mild form of interigation compared to some other practices.

Mild? Have you ever experienced near drowning in a real way? Those who have experienced waterboarding have said it is unbelievably horrible in their description of it. And that is what it simulates -- drowning and the panicing fear of drowning.

I don't think comparing it to other horrible interrogation techniques (i.e. codeword for torture) when it sits within the group of horrible interrogation technique is very honest. I bet bamboo splints under the fingernails could also be described as mild interrogation compared to others further down on the spectrum.

[Fonze]

Mild? Have you ever experienced near drowning in a real way? Those who have experienced waterboarding have said it is unbelievably horrible in their description of it. .

And those that america has done it on were horrible people correct TP?

[DougP]

Mild? Have you ever experienced near drowning in a real way? Those who have experienced waterboarding have said it is unbelievably horrible in their description of it. And that is what it simulates -- drowning and the panicing fear of drowning.

I don't think comparing it to other horrible interrogation techniques (i.e. codeword for torture) when it sits within the group of horrible interrogation technique is very honest. I bet bamboo splints under the fingernails could also be described as mild interrogation compared to others further down on the spectrum.

Yes, Done the water boarding thing. It sucks. It really really sucks. But I'd rather do that then have my arms binded behind my back and rotated upwards. Dislocating a shoulder let alone both is very painful and having them relocated again and repeating the process for over 16 or so hours can be unpleasant from what I hear.

Based on that and many other forms of interrogation I'd say water boarding is mild.

[Go-Shay]

while waterboarding is very a harsh way to get information I don't think its torture. I do think the CIA needs to take more precautions on keeping their methods quiet. I'm sure there is allot worse that is, has, and will be done.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Yes, Done the water boarding thing. It sucks. It really really sucks. But I'd rather do that then have my arms binded behind my back and rotated upwards. Dislocating a shoulder let alone both is very painful and having them relocated again and repeating the process for over 16 or so hours can be unpleasant from what I hear.

Based on that and many other forms of interrogation I'd say water boarding is mild.

But you are offering a false dilemma in saying that it is one or the other of such in a situation where one could have their ruthers (which they can't -- hence its falsity). Point is, neither one does not have to be resorted to if we condemn such action.

[Fonze]

while waterboarding is very a harsh way to get information I don't think its torture. I do think the CIA needs to take more precautions on keeping their methods quiet. I'm sure there is allot worse that is, has, and will be done.

Exactly!

Now that this is out in the open im sure the chances of it being used has dimenished. I also read that it has only been used 4 times on the guantaanamo residents.

[DougP]

But you are offering a false dilemma in saying that it is one or the other of such in a situation where one could have their ruthers (which they can't -- hence its falsity). Point is, neither one does not have to be resorted to if we condemn such action.

I see your point. I agree. In fact I took it a step further by citing that if we didn't escalate things to a war situation than all of the above could be avoided. I was just explaining that I felt that out of the many forms of interrogation that water boarding was a more mild form. I was not suggesting that we should have to choose between the types of interrogation to pick the most suitable form. I'm not even saying I'm for any of these. Its a rough way to get answers but then again when your in war I feel its basically easy to see that you're now in a situation that couldn't be resolved more diplomatically. Thus there is an escalation of practices that occur to get results.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Fair enough, Doug. You seem to be saying that frustration at not having gotten the info or achieved victory leads to frustration and hence racheting things up to the next level -- as if that is human nature i.e. squeeze harder.

I agree. But that is exactly why we need rules and a set standard to guide us in not stepping over certain lines. Some ridicule that with the stuffy phrase, "gentlemens' war" or some other phrase like that, but escalation begets escalation and that could be a nightmare in this day and age. Hence, it serves everyone more to learn to deal with that frustration and to not release that with further escalation.

[DougP]

Fair enough, Doug. You seem to be saying that frustration at not having gotten the info or achieved victory leads to frustration and hence racheting things up to the next level -- as if that is human nature i.e. squeeze harder.

I agree. But that is exactly why we need rules and a set standard to guide us in not stepping over certain lines. Some ridicule that with the stuffy phrase, "gentlemens' war" or some other phrase like that, but escalation begets escalation and that could be a nightmare in this day and age. Hence, it serves everyone more to learn to deal with that frustration and to not release that with further escalation.

I can also agree with you on this one. Although things may graduate to the next level of severity I suppose we can't abandon all of our humanity. When leaders have failed to keep us on the diplomatic course others have to pick up the guidon and keep us just. Its sad really that we have to be reduced to justifying war practices instead of justifying war period. I think such effort would be of better use prefenting things like war from ever occurring.

[Fonze]

As i answered your question TP can you answer this. Are these people that commit horrible crimes against innocents and fight without uniforms actually protected by the rules of war?

[Fonze]

As i answered your question TP can you answer this. Are these people that commit horrible crimes against innocents and fight without uniforms actually protected by the rules of war?

Easy question TP no need to duck it.

[Asshat]

Easy question TP no need to duck it.

We honorable fighters only massacre villiages. Melai for example. And how many to we accidentally wipe out with faulty intell, errant weapons, or just plain screwups?

How many elected governments has the US government elliminated?

I agree with Doug on one of his comments. How can anyone be at war, and start making a bunch of rules?

All warriors kill women and children and non-combatants in and out of uniform. I don't view terrorists any differently than I view any other army. War is evil period. The goal is killing people.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I agree with Doug on one of his comments. How can anyone be at war, and start making a bunch of rules?

I do, too. But today's weaponry make it necessary that all out war doesn't commence from the beginning and that rulels should act as a brake to keep us from escalating. Of course during The Revolutionary War it was ludicrous for British forces to think that colonialists were going to fight according to their rulebook on the battlefield, but then those repercussions didn't mean escalating to WMD.

I am glad the rules of war today have evolved to not accept Mustard Gas, Anthrax Gas, etc... Of course a country could deploy them, but that escalation would rachet up to the next level. For the most part the world has been honoring the so-called rules against these weapons which are often nondiscriminating.

All warriors kill women and children and non-combatants in and out of uniform. I don't view terrorists any differently than I view any other army. War is evil period. The goal is killing people.

I tend to feel the same about the underlined, though I am kinda on the fence about it. I guess I could be swayed in viewing them as more wretched human beings if they target noncombatants. But I don't think they are more worthy of torture once they have become noncombatants after capture. Some here have posted the sentiment that these kinds of people are fair play for torture. That is what I cannot agree to.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Easy question TP no need to duck it.

Easy, Fonze. Don't get so unglued just because gratification isn't instant. You asked your question at 11:45 PM last night. It was late and besides this thread discussion I was going around to others as well. 24 hours is not so long to wait before you begin to accuse me of ducking something.

As i answered your question TP can you answer this. Are these people that commit horrible crimes against innocents and fight without uniforms actually protected by the rules of war?

Technically no, I would say. But am not certain. Perhaps a human rights lawyer would disagree and give a good argument that they are. Being human, I could suppose that a defense for them would lay with recent tradition in treatment of prisoners as acknowledged by states. So, if states do not explicitly come out and say "torture is an acceptable practice for those who are not combatants of a state," then they are implicitly acknowledging through a sense of shame as to what the world reaction would be if they did so. Intuition is guiding them. Why hide the policy if it seems to sit well with our humanity? I say because humanity judges it as false and unacceptable in the aggregate -- or perhaps our collective concience.

So, yes, they are protected through recent tradition and intuition.

There is also the ambiguous question of guilt, Fonze. The torturer was in all probability not there when the suspect was apprehended. Who is to say that some frustrated Sgt picked up a guy on the street out of frustration and sent him back to the rear for interrogation. The interrogator was not there at the scene of the bomb blast where this man was seen to be, but then if torture were permitted he would be tortured and then your whole question of "...these people that commit horrible crimes..." falls apart.

Who are "these people" whom is deposited in front of the office pogue torturer when their guilt has not been established through a court system and trial. In fact, it is the interrogation/torture which is seeking to establish guilt for conviction or intelligence. It is circular reasoning.

[Fonze]

We honorable fighters only massacre villiages. Melai for example. And how many to we accidentally wipe out with faulty intell, errant weapons, or just plain screwups?

How many elected governments has the US government elliminated?

I agree with Doug on one of his comments. How can anyone be at war, and start making a bunch of rules?

All warriors kill women and children and non-combatants in and out of uniform. I don't view terrorists any differently than I view any other army. War is evil period. The goal is killing people.

So you are saying that those few americans that commited horrible acts out of the millions that have served and did not are in the same boat as people who plant bombs in markets and kidnapp people to cut there heads off. Wow thats says alot about you. :)

Now I had friends and many Corpsmen that treated way way way more insurgents and iraqi soldiers and civilians than American soldiers yet some people only look at water boarding as Americas actions.

[Asshat]

So you are saying that those few americans that commited horrible acts out of the millions that have served and did not are in the same boat as people who plant bombs in markets and kidnapp people to cut there heads off. Wow thats says alot about you. :)

Now I had friends and many Corpsmen that treated way way way more insurgents and iraqi soldiers and civilians than American soldiers yet some people only look at water boarding as Americas actions.

Fonze, you can't choose to pick out a "few" Americans who did things wrong, then launch an indictment against all terrorists. It's either individuals, or it's a nation.

Despite your smiley face, I don't appreciate your "that says alot about you" comment. It is uncalled for.

Do a google search my friend. Look up what the US Government did to Guatamala. Look up what LBJ did in Vietnam, look up what Nixon did to stall the Paris Peace talks, the evidence is out there.

Waterboarding is all about political Bush bashing, as I have said before. I am quite sure that over the years, the US has had much more creative techniques than that to use. It's just the issue du jour against the current administration....nothing new.

[Fonze]

Okay then lets not talk about the past and speak on the present.

[Asshat]

Okay then lets not talk about the past and speak on the present.

More than 77,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since we went over to force democracy on them.

In a recent documentary, members of a reserve unit were chomping at the bit to go back to Iraq and avenge the deaths of their fallen. 3800 US troops have been killed, and over 28,000 have been wounded.

We could mention Abu Gharib too, and Rumsfelds tacit approval of torture and (forgot now) the memo from the General in charge that okay'd it.

[Fonze]

More than 77,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since we went over to force democracy on them.

In a recent documentary, members of a reserve unit were chomping at the bit to go back to Iraq and avenge the deaths of their fallen. 3800 US troops have been killed, and over 28,000 have been wounded.

We could mention Abu Gharib too, and Rumsfelds tacit approval of torture and (forgot now) the memo from the General in charge that okay'd it.

And you say it as if Americans killed all of them. Hopefully the numbers of dead iraqi's and attacks stay low and for a long time . You do remember the 400,000 plus iraqi mass graves found or dont you? Then you mention soldiers from a documentary. How many have served in Iraq and you bring a Staetement like that as to make it seem as they all feel this way.

Mention Abu Gharib , I think it was bad, but not as bad as the stuff people you say are equivalent to American service members and what they have done and continue to do. WOW.

[DougP]

The worst day in Abu Gharib under American control is far better than its best day under Saddam's. Not sure if they have any tapes floating around on the net of how things used to be over there before the war but it sure wasn't pretty.

More than 77,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since we went over to force democracy on them.

Yeah I would have to say that this does not solely rest on the shoulders of the US military. The insurgency has had a hand or two in this as well. And of course that is a small number, a drop in the bucket, compared to the number of innocent civilians killed deliberately under Saddam's rule. Not saying it makes it right. But it sure does pale in comparison. I don't know about you but some may actually argue that they have it better now then they did before. Some may and some may not.

[Asshat]

Yeah I would have to say that this does not solely rest on the shoulders of the US military. The insurgency has had a hand or two in this as well. And of course that is a small number, a drop in the bucket, compared to the number of innocent civilians killed deliberately under Saddam's rule. Not saying it makes it right. But it sure does pale in comparison. I don't know about you but some may actually argue that they have it better now then they did before. Some may and some may not.

Under Saddam, there was no insurgency. Sure, he was a despot. No doubt the Shia' have it better now than before...at least they have a voice. The Sunny have it worse, and the Kurds sort of broke even with Iran beating them on one side, and our ally Turkey beating them on the other.

But then (and this is important) why did the US choose to invade Iraq instead of a bunch of other countries currently engaging in genocide, mass murder, mass rape, etc?

[Asshat]

You do remember the 400,000 plus iraqi mass graves found or dont you?

No, not 400,000. That is a significant percentage of the total population.


Mention Abu Gharib , I think it was bad, but not as bad as the stuff people you say are equivalent to American service members and what they have done and continue to do. WOW.

I do not refer to the individual American fighter, nor do I refer to the individual terrorist.

Terrorism isn't some dispicable crime against humanity, it is a battle tactic a vastly out-numbered and out-gunned Army needs to use.

Should our enemy choose to engage us in UAV attacks with hellfire missiles directed via satalyte link? Should they launch their F-18's from their amada and direct precision-guided weapons at us?

[Go-Shay]

We are America we do no wrong. If we do than it is for the good of our bank account I mean country therefore it is not wrong. If you don't like it please let George know so he can send some more troops to better explain why we don't do any wrong. We are America

[DougP]

No, not 400,000. That is a significant percentage of the total population.




I do not refer to the individual American fighter, nor do I refer to the individual terrorist.

Terrorism isn't some dispicable crime against humanity, it is a battle tactic a vastly out-numbered and out-gunned Army needs to use.

Should our enemy choose to engage us in UAV attacks with hellfire missiles directed via satalyte link? Should they launch their F-18's from their amada and direct precision-guided weapons at us?

War is hell.:army: Best way to avoid topics like this even being up for discussion is to avoid war altogether. But,.... I don't see that happening.

[Asshat]

War is hell.:army: Best way to avoid topics like this even being up for discussion is to avoid war altogether. But,.... I don't see that happening.

Yeah...I was waiting for Fonze to show up today so I could pounce on him about that 60 Minutes show yesterday. Since the invasion, most of Iraq's Christians have either been killed or moved to Syria.

Now that's irony.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Actually, didn't Christians have it good under Saddam? I think it was on 60 Minutes a few years ago that showed how he supported many Christian churches with large sums of money.

[Asshat]

Actually, didn't Christians have it good under Saddam? I think it was on 60 Minutes a few years ago that showed how he supported many Christian churches with large sums of money.

Yes, they didn't get messed with at all. The show last night was so sad. I wish these chest thumping bible hugging pro-war Christians would have seen it.

They interviewed some Christians who had received death threats, interviewed a man whose kids were executed, showed churches with no one going....entire congregations gone.

[DougP]

It's too bad I missed it.. or rather don't think it was on Sky Pa.. could be wrong though.:) Did anyone tape it?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Yes, they didn't get messed with at all. The show last night was so sad. I wish these chest thumping bible hugging pro-war Christians would have seen it.

They interviewed some Christians who had received death threats, interviewed a man whose kids were executed, showed churches with no one going....entire congregations gone.

So basically, we screwed a good thing up for Christians in an Islamic country where they could hold jobs and worship without discrimination and their children could play outside.

Maybe it was God's will that they should suffer as did Christ so that we could get more oil so that our Christian churches could have lower heating bills here while our Christians worship in their churches (meaning in the U.S.). And besides, our large Christian families of 2.1 kids need nice SUVs to get to church in.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Maybe it was God's will that they should suffer as did Christ so that we could get more oil so that our Christian churches could have lower heating bills here while our Christians worship in their churches (meaning in the U.S.). And besides, our large Christian families of 2.1 kids need nice SUVs to get to church in.

Sheeeeeeesh, come on. Are you serious 'bout this one? If we're gonna preach about resisting unfair stereotypes, why not put thought into practice?

By the way, have you read Levin's "The Case for Torture"?? It's short and brilliant.

http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/torture.html

[TheNoNamedOne]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"][SIZE="3"]Sheeeeeeesh, come on. Are you serious 'bout this one?

C'mon, Ian! You are not one of those who needs one of those smileys for everytime someone employs sarcasm, are you? Just you knowing I am an atheist should tell you that that was sarcasm, not to mention just the whole wording style of it.

[Isaak Brodsky]

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yeaaaah.

you gotta check out Levin's essay when you have a chance. it's really good.

[kombu_kid]

And besides, our large Christian families of 2.1 kids

I'll bet any number over 0 is too large......:D Somethin' ta do wit dat ol' biya-lojakul carryin' capasatee deel.

[TheNoNamedOne]

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yeaaaah.

you gotta check out Levin's essay when you have a chance. it's really good.

Read it. Not convinced. Are you?

More specifically, are you for torture, Ian?

Are you a moral relativist? Are you a utilitarian?

[TheNoNamedOne]

I'll bet any number over 0 is too large......:D Somethin' ta do wit dat ol' biya-lojakul carryin' capasatee deel.

lol. Yeah, indeed.

Sometimes more simply called the "carrying capacity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity)." Check it out if you've never happened upon the term and science behind it before.

[Fonze]

uminchu i still believe it is very sad to hear you say that american service member are equal to terrorist. Now im not talking about ones who attack U.S troops because i can understand that those are tactics used by a smaller force. fine. But what about the ones that blow up children that accept candy from troops or ones that blow up markets and buses. Sad very sad.

Look up dead iraqis under saddam and youll see a number from 250,000 to 400,000 and thats not including the Iran iraq war or people dying of hunger. but you dont care about those numbers.


On the christian thing go ahead and try and pounce cause youll look stupid for it. Yes they might of had it nice but many others didn't. The irony is that the people that have killed or forced these people out are pieces of shit from a religion of peace.

[Asshat]

uminchu i still believe it is very sad to hear you say that american service member are equal to terrorist.

Well, to the people we are fighting they are equal aren't they?

And you changed the subject. One of the few Christian areas where Aramic was still spoken and gone for ever after America went in. Call it what you want, them's the facts. The Christians in Iraq flourished under Saddam.

It was only the Shia who did not.

[Fonze]

You still need to answer are those that kill women and children on purpose the same as soldiers of america?

[Asshat]

You still need to answer are those that kill women and children on purpose the same as soldiers of america?

I answered that countless times Fonze.

Terrorism is a battle tactic. It is the tactic a weaker opponent must use against a vastly superior one.

If a large and powerful country invaded my country, and the only way I could defend myself was terrorism, I would....as my forefathers did.

As far as the police terror tactics Saddam used, of course they were evil. But that isn't why America invaded.

[Fonze]

I answered that countless times Fonze.

Terrorism is a battle tactic. It is the tactic a weaker opponent must use against a vastly superior one.

If a large and powerful country invaded my country, and the only way I could defend myself was terrorism, I would....as my forefathers did.

As far as the police terror tactics Saddam used, of course they were evil. But that isn't why America invaded.

I wanted to say somthing mean but ill hold off. Apparently you didn't understand what i wrote. I understand when they use guerrilla or terrorist tactics against americans, but do you understand that when these people kill there own women and children they are not defending themselves anymore? So no you havent answered that specific one or if you did than its pretty sad answer. So i hope you understand what i am saying now.


America invaded for many reasons but you are and always will only look at one.

[Asshat]

but do you understand that when these people kill there own women and children they are not defending themselves anymore? So no you havent answered that specific one or if you did than its pretty sad answer. So i hope you understand what i am saying now.


America invaded for many reasons but you are and always will only look at one.

Ah- yes, of course Fonze. And that is the reason there have been recent successes in Iraq. Because the people are seeing the innocents get killed by the people we are fighting there. We are indeed the good guys, and now have better intell because the people there are tired of the murder.

That doesn't change the fact that America's reasoning was wrong, that it is wrong for Americans to torture prisoners, etc.

[Fonze]

Torture Them And Destroy The Tapes. :D.

Just the really bad ones.

[Asshat]

Torture Them And Destroy The Tapes. :D.

Just the really bad ones.

The thing about this issue (besides the fact that it is nothing new) is that it is easy to take the moral high ground from the safety of our computer desk and say how evil it is to torture for information.

Yet to be face to face with someone who has information that can save lives, and not get that information is a whole different thing.

And some people say take them to the US for their "due process." That sounds like the right thing to do too....untill their lawyer stands up and say's "my client is pleading the fifth ammendment on this issue."

[Fonze]

Very very true. This will be a bigger and more complex fight against terrorism than was expected i bet.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Trying to move in the right direction -- the direction the military already understands as right on this issue.

Senate panel makes second try at preventing waterboarding (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4751724)

The Senate Intelligence Committee voted Tuesday to limit CIA interrogators to techniques approved by the military, which would effectively bar them from waterboarding prisoners, congressional officials said.