BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Still can't...
80sU2isBest said:
Honestly? No, but it's not because of the war on terror.
deep said:
glad that you are losing faith
was it Katrina?
or
the national debt?
or
something else?
Maybe it was "religion of peace"deep said:
glad that you are losing faith
was it Katrina?
or
the national debt?
or
something else?
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Do we say screw international law?
diamond said:i thought g.w. held his own in the interview quite well
A_Wanderer said:Maybe it was "religion of peace"
Maybe it was not killing Zarqawi when the option was there.
Maybe it was failing to follow through in Fallujah earlier.
He may f### up but the Democrats hardly seem to be fielding.
A_Wanderer said:It is a mistake to think that just because people oppose Rumsfeld and Bush's handling of the war that they automatically oppose it, there is a section that not only wants to win but win decisively.
AEON said:
And that is what these pollsters are missing in their questions.
AEON said:
But I have a hard time seeing the dems win anything until the drop the radical left.
That would be loose-loose.Maybe it would be good if the dems win, then we would see some truly conservatice Republicans take it back.
diamond said:gw still won the interview.
AEON said:But I have a hard time seeing the dems win anything until the drop the radical left.
Very much Kofi Annan's mindset on Hezbollah kidknapping Israeli soldiers.PlaTheGreat said:
Who cares who started it? The whole point is to be the bigger person and stop doing it. You'd think that a President, a man of "honor" would put an end to it. Aside from finger pointing, Bush's entire attitude sucks throughout the video. He's acting like my dad when I confront him about something: defensive, overreacting and threatening.
Macfistowannabe said:Obviously this isn't the first time Matt Lauer made Katie Couric look like Ann Coulter.
Playing loud music in a cold room is not the moral equivalent of slicing off the hands of a terror suspect, nor is it the equivalent of Abu Ghraib.
If I were in his position and free to interrogate the President of the United States with my own personal biases, I would demand to know why the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay have more rights than our boys that are being held in shackles at Camp Pendleton.
If George Bush wasn't such a pawn, he wouldn't have let the left wing agitator in his office in the first place.
Irvine511 said:the specific technique that most are objecting to is waterboarding, and we're kidding ourselves if you think we don't outsource traditional torture to other nations.
Interesting.However, it is relatively difficult to aspirate a large amount of water since the lungs are higher than the mouth, and the victim is unlikely to actually die if this is done by skilled practitioners.
[...]
Notably, though, the revised manual does not restrict the practices of CIA personnel
On this I disagree. The enemy will be sadistic and vile regardless of how we treat terrorists and terror suspects.Irvine511 said:and it's a slippery slope. the moment you violate the Geneva Convention, the minute you violate the rules of the US military, you open the door for the sadists and you lose critical moral authority and you make it that much more likely that US troops will be treated very, very badly when captured by the enemy.
We're throwing money everywhere in order to abide by their religion. 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed himself said the detainees would be granted full Geneva conventions rights and access to a defense lawyer. They're getting three square meals a day - far too many if you ask me. So much for Big Dick Durbin and Amnesty International for comparing our military interrogators to Nazis and Soviets.Irvine511 said:how ON EARTH do the Gitmo detainees -- many of whom have yet to be charged with a crime -- have fewer rights than the Marines?
Macfistowannabe said:Interesting.
I could agree that Bush's verbal communication is at times confusing. But I don't see the how a "more compassionate war" is a more effective war.Irvine511 said:you did notice that the CIA is able to do this, and the military isn't, simply so the Bushies could say that they "don't torture" and they signed the McCain Amendment?
I've heard this statement more than once - about making our jobs harder. Just to be clear - how exactly? Because we're supposedly losing allies? The UN should know better that no country has given more lives to expand and protect the world's freedom than the United States. The irony seems to be that the war was marketed as a humanitarian war. I disagree. It's a war for the sake of our survival. With a humanitarian war, you could negotiate diplomacy for as long as you want. But when totalitarian bloodsuckers with a past history of invading free nations want nukes, we don't have time to piss off.Irvine511 said:i don't think i understand the question ... but you're taking an awfully rosey view of what has been going on, and you're also missing the point that torturing detainees (even if it isn't chopping off hands) makes our jobs harder, it makes it harder to win hearts and minds, it makes it harder for US troops to get crediblity in Baghdad, it makes it harder for the US to garner international support. it screws over our military and lowers our expectations for their behavior.
And what is so inhumane about playing loud music in a cold room? There's no question we have better values, unless of course you ask Rosie O'Donnel or someone who believes that the US should be disarmed of its nuclear weapons.Irvine511 said:what are we fighting for? are we not fighting for our way of life? do we not have better values? how better to demonstrate that our values are better than by treating prisoners humanely?
Not if you do it right. By using humane methods of gathering information, it accelerates our progress in the war, and it polishes our image as a nation. It seems you argue that the information terrorists give us is always wrong - and oddly enough this is coming from the "there are no absolutes" crowd.Irvine511 said:there's also the other point: torture does not work. a man who is being tortured will tell you anything to get you to stop. what happens? you get bad information.
Jesus was never a president, so it's hard to say.Irvine511 said:who would Jesus torture?
Proof of a superior society in warfare is the ability to know your enemy. Based on my own definition, I believe you are 100% correct in this comment.Irvine511 said:so let's prove we really are better than them...they've revealed themselves to be made of an ideology that belongs in the Middle Ages, and this has repulsed your average Muslim.
I find the comparisons with Soviet Russia unjustified. They started a holocaust with the KGB on their own civilian population which led to 30 million killings. We aren't playing man on the street to find Jihadists, as you seem to suggest.Irvine511 said:but they are acting like the KGB and the Strasi. and this is why the KGB and the Strasi could implement a reign of terror over the USSR and GDR populations, but never solve a freaking crime -- once you start to torture, the good people leave, the sadists take over, and people will tell you anything, especially what you want to hear, to get you to stop torturing.
I say go ahead and give him a lawyer, and a FAST, SPEEDY TRIAL. Give the Jihadists one half hour to defend themselves, give the prosecutors one half hour to state their case, and give the American people the justice to agree on a punishment that fits the crime. We're never going to get out of this war if we continue to try them as if they belong with our second-degree murderers in the general population.Irvine511 said:why are you so concerned that he not have a lawyer? why do you think that traditional US military interrogation techniques are inadequate to stop attacks or gain information? they've worked in the past, why do you not trust them now?
I continue to denounce what happened at Abu Ghraib. There are other methods that can be used in order to gain information that will allow us to track down more and more Jihadists. My preference is with loud music and cold rooms. I really don't prefer any such method that goes beyond that. I really hope I've made myself clear.Irvine511 said:or is this just a sick little maturbatory revenge fantasy you have? does it make you good knowing that they squirm? is it really just about revenge and bloodlust and sadism and not about actually protecting the US?
Macfistowannabe said:Obviously this isn't the first time Matt Lauer made Katie Couric look like Ann Coulter.