CHENEY FTFMFW!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

Maybe the US should develop a reciprocity doctrine. Whatever you do to us, we return in kind. Want to behead our reporters, we do they same to you. Dont want to allow our trade goods, lets have a talk about yours. Want to go on little rants to the UN, lets do some of our own.

Too bad none of that would even enter the messiah's mind. Someone might think he has America's interests before the worlds and that wouldnt set well with the Europeans he loves so much.

---

That would never happen simply because we rely on the rest of the world too much. It really has nothing to do with Obama, but more to do with our economic structure and pacts we've developed throughout history. China damn near owns America and there is nothing we can do about it. We rely so much on the rest of the world because we are a country of consumption and that means we have to use resources outside of our country. On top of that we spend more time getting in our own way more than other countries do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cjhutch

That would never happen simply because we rely on the rest of the world too much. It really has nothing to do with Obama, but more to do with our economic structure and pacts we've developed throughout history. China damn near owns America and there is nothing we can do about it. We rely so much on the rest of the world because we are a country of consumption and that means we have to use resources outside of our country. On top of that we spend more time getting in our own way more than other countries do.

---

We are a consumption based society because it is so much cheaper to produce overseas. We could very easily produce for ourselves though if need be.

Dont believe that propaganda that we need China. We dont need them at all and they rely on us to fund their economy and military, which is larger and spends more a year than we do when you compare them to the same pay structure. If the US quite buying from China today, their economy would crash and ours would most likely sky rocket after a short period of craziness. Prices on most trinkets would also go up, but that too would be short lived.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

Conjecture without proof

Only people at the top will ever know if it worked or not. Im sorry, but im all for torture , especially of terrorists, if it saves lives.

These arent soldiers from another country. They have no allegiance to anyone. They are mercenaries

---

im for torture even if it doesnt save lives if they are terrorists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

might as well use Wikipedia as a source, or Al Jazeehra

---

:thinking: Wikipedia and yahoo news are both reliable sources of information. I suppose you dont trust information from ACLU or AP even. Probably dont read the AJC either, since those are the outlets that those sites have been pulling their information from. You must get all your information from watching Hannity&Colmbs huh? LOL
:cheers:

waterboarding isnt torture. they are terrorists, who gives a fuck anyway. im all for torturing terrorists. they are not innocent people, or even people who were caught doing something like stealing. They are out to kill americans. period. who cares about their rights? are you serious? torture a terrorist to save the country... hmmm. nah. let the country go down. at least ppl will say we were the bigger person.

on top of it being against the law, inhumane, and all that shit, think about it. if someone was going to be endlessly tortured, on only the thought they MAY have info on terrorism strongholds, plans, etc. dont you think they would eventually give in and say whatever the hell the torturer wants to hear? basically, although it is partially effective, the intel obtained from torture is invalid because the poor motherfucker probably just said whatever he thought would make the torturing end. i dont necessarily give a fuck whether terrorists are tortured and geneva, but it isnt effective enough to make the decisions to send american troops to war over.

I don't have too much of an opinion on this for personal reasons but I will say this; the Geneva convention is in place for a reason, when we begin to abandon our core values as we have on this subject we stoop to the level of mercenaries as it was said earlier.

I challenge any of you for to look up al-Shaykh al-Libi, get a good understanding of the story and rationalize the information that comes from torture and the ramifications. Those who act pre-emptively on false intelligence should not be giving speeches on future diplomacy policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tony

Those who act pre-emptively on false intelligence should not be giving speeches on future diplomacy policy.

---

Thank you! He failed miserably as a vice president, his hands are DIRTY and he was MIA while VP.. He is a corrupt, immoral politician and he now goes around criticizing? It's just ironic, I really wish someone else would chime in, not this fat dumb fuck..

Iraq is also not part of "Operation Enduring Freedom".

pffft waterboarding being torture.. I would love to see the kind of torture others would do to our soldiers..

It pisses me off how we try to balance morality and right, when we are in a FUCKING WAR.. God damn, are we gonna have to start using non-lethal projectiles next? What people don't realize is that war is immoral, and that one does not go without the other.. Morals cause wars to be lost..

How can one justify not "torturing" an enemy, because it isn't "right" while sending missiles and killing innocent women and children?

The irony in all these debates is what kills me..

I thought it was completely asinine that he acted on false intelligence and had us invade Iraq and then has the audacity to criticize how this administration is running the show. YELLOW CAKE BITCHES! THEY GOT YELLOW CAKE!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrdrmchns

on top of it being against the law, inhumane, and all that shit, think about it. if someone was going to be endlessly tortured, on only the thought they MAY have info on terrorism strongholds, plans, etc. dont you think they would eventually give in and say whatever the hell the torturer wants to hear? basically, although it is partially effective, the intel obtained from torture is invalid because the poor motherfucker probably just said whatever he thought would make the torturing end. i dont necessarily give a fuck whether terrorists are tortured and geneva, but it isnt effective enough to make the decisions to send american troops to war over.

---

Actually torture is effective if properly used. That is beside the point though as torture hasnt been used against them. You can also read John McCain's book and see that properly used torture does, in fact, work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tony

I don't have too much of an opinion on this for personal reasons but I will say this; the Geneva convention is in place for a reason, when we begin to abandon our core values as we have on this subject we stoop to the level of mercenaries as it was said earlier.

---

Sometimes war requires the use of mercenaries. The US has used them throughout history, but VERY extensively in WWII where the OSS used the Mob to get men and info in and out of Sicily. Then again in China with the use of Chaing ka Sheck's troops. Also you have the Eagle Squadron flying in England, and the Flying Tigers in China. All of them were Mercenaries and were paid $500 for every kill they got on top of the $600 a month they were paid. Great money back in those days when a 1Lt made less than $200 a month in basic pay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frög

Thank you! He failed miserably as a vice president, his hands are DIRTY and he was MIA while VP.. He is a corrupt, immoral politician and he now goes around criticizing?

---

Do you say the same things about the current President? He was actually criticizing the very programs that he used to get his house in Chicago. He got the sweetheart loan deal, then paid about 20 cents on the dollar for a piece of property owned by his neighborhood, who happened to be the CEO of Countrywide Mortgage. A company he ignored when talking about the greed of loan companies.

Iraq is also not part of "Operation Enduring Freedom".[/quote]

Name 1 place where anyone said it was. It is actually "Iraqi Freedom".

to the OP, I will take Cheney over Biden any day of the week. Cheney isn't perfect but he has balls and a strong desire to keep this country safe at any price. What can you say about Biden ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

I would love to see all this proof that says we gained nothing from torture. That info cannot be an interview from a political appointee that owes their allegiance to the current administration either. They are obviously biased in their recollections.

---

I am referring to studies of torture and the information gained from it, not the testimony of any "political appointee". But since you asked:

http://wizbangblue.com/2009/05/13/fb...ness-video.php



The use of "ticking time bomb" scenarios... its a fallacy. These situations assume the interrogators know a plot in imminent. If the interrogators know a plot is imminent and they know a particular individual is involved, what else can be gained from torture? Is it really effective to torture someone who may not provide any valuable info at all?

The detainee has a great opportunity to plant disinformation. Also, once a terrorist involved with a plot who has key information is captured, why would the terrorists stick with the same plot? Common sense would dictate that the plot would be either scrapped or altered if it were compromised.

And furthermore, if these techniques are allowed to continue, if the United States does in fact decide that it is OK to torture, who is to say that a precedent might be set for the use of torture on American citizens? If the official state policy is that "the ends justify the means," why not? Our constitution protects us from "cruel and unusual punishment," but interrogation, punishment, and their definitions could be reconfigured through some "neo-Cheney-ism". Its best to do away with torture completely.

If you think totrure is OK because "everything changed after 9/11" then you are no better than the terrorists themselves. You are letting FEAR restructure your morals. Times like this test our resolve, show who we really are. Can we remain moral and humane when we are tested? If not, the terrorists have won.

This guy's article is a good summation of the arguments against torture and the ramifications of the use of torture:

A Question of Identity: The Use of
Torture in Asymmetric War

JOE SANTUCCI
School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama,
USA

Journal of Military Ethics,
Vol. 7, No. 1, 23
40, 2008

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?v...9h&AN=31730309

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Total_Blender

I am referring to studies of torture and the information gained from it, not the testimony of any "political appointee". But since you asked:

http://wizbangblue.com/2009/05/13/fb...ness-video.php



The use of "ticking time bomb" scenarios... its a fallacy. These situations assume the interrogators know a plot in imminent. If the interrogators know a plot is imminent and they know a particular individual is involved, what else can be gained from torture? Is it really effective to torture someone who may not provide any valuable info at all?

---

And according to the CIA director who was not part of the legalization of enhanced interrogations, it does work.

http://www.scottallan.com/2009/01/en...ques-work.html

Ignore everything but the portion quoted from ABC. I didnt even bother to read any of that because of the weakness of the source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Total_Blender

The detainee has a great opportunity to plant disinformation. Also, once a terrorist involved with a plot who has key information is captured, why would the terrorists stick with the same plot? Common sense would dictate that the plot would be either scrapped or altered if it were compromised.

---

You make it sound like terrorists have some sort of flexibility in their planning. They dont. They have a specific target and they will attack that target according to the plan. 9/11 was the exception, not the rule. Most terror attacks are carried out by people that have no knowledge of the reasoning or planning. Most would not even know who planned it to know if the operation is compromised. Dont believe 24, its only a TV show and the people actually committing terror attacks do not have that kind of organization.

I will agree that torture will not get you new info that cannot be otherwise confirmed, but it will get you info that can be confirmed, or to confirm info gained from other means. For example, you know a guy has access to money and you ask for the info for those bank accounts. He will not give it to you. You put some spiders in the room with him (a form of torture according to Obama) and he gives you some info. You go and check the info. If it pans out, you have info that can lead to a financier, or possibly even other cells. If not, you go back and give him a choice of giving up the correct info, or more severe interrogation methods.

And furthermore, if these techniques are allowed to continue, if the United States does in fact decide that it is OK to torture, who is to say that a precedent might be set for the use of torture on American citizens? [/quote]

Unless you were born yesterday, you would know that American prisoners have been tortured in every conflict since WWI. The Cuban rebels and those of several other small Bahamian countries during the Banana Wars between WWI and WWII, The Germans, the Japs, the Koreans, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, the Soviets, the Iraqis, Iranians. I could go on. Even if you want to call waterboarding torture, which it is not, it is still far lesser than the forms of torture used on Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Total_Blender

If the official state policy is that "the ends justify the means," why not? Our constitution protects us from "cruel and unusual punishment," but interrogation, punishment, and their definitions could be reconfigured through some "neo-Cheney-ism". Its best to do away with torture completely.

---

If some terrorists have to be a little uncomfortable to protect the US then oh well. I wont lose any sleep over it.

If you think totrure is OK because "everything changed after 9/11" then you are no better than the terrorists themselves. You are letting FEAR restructure your morals. Times like this test our resolve, show who we really are. Can we remain moral and humane when we are tested? If not, the terrorists have won.[/quote]

The only thing that changed after 9/11 is the fact that the US quit appeasing terrorists and letting them get away. We finally took the correct approach and quit treating them like terrorists and started to treat them like combatants. If we did that in '94, 9/11 would never have happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

. We finally took the correct approach and quit treating them like terrorists and started to treat them like combatants. If we did that in '94, 9/11 would never have happened.

---

"Treating them like combatants" would mean not torturing them, as torture is banned by the Geneva convention. So no, we are not treating them like combatants.

Torture does not imply death, but according to Cheney's memos "suffering "equivalent in intensity" to the pain of "organ failure ..... or even death." Waterboarding is meant to make the recipient think that they are drowning. The fact that the process isn't lethal is not important... the threat of death is there and thats what is important.

And since torture is "effective," I suppose all those false confessions John McCain signed in Vietnam are actually true.:screwy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Total_Blender

"Treating them like combatants" would mean not torturing them, as torture is banned by the Geneva convention. So no, we are not treating them like combatants.

---

Treating them like combatants means going after them militarily, not thourgh criminal law as we have done until 9/11. I guess I should have explianed myself better.

Torture does not imply death, but according to Cheney's memos "suffering "equivalent in intensity" to the pain of "organ failure ..... or even death." Waterboarding is meant to make the recipient think that they are drowning. The fact that the process isn't lethal is not important... the threat of death is there and thats what is important.[/quote]

There is no pain involved in water boarding. It is all mental. Would you be happier if we gave them everything they wanted and only asked them questions in a nice way? You obviously think that would be more effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Total_Blender

And since torture is "effective," I suppose all those false confessions John McCain signed in Vietnam are actually true.:screwy:

---

As I said, it has to be verifiable info. The questions asked by the Russians, though the Vietnamese, were not independently verifiable. The signed confessions is a PR thing, not an information thing. Confessions under torture mean nothing. Individual, verifiable pieces of info are a very different story. My little scenario is a use for enhanced interrogations. Reaching for random pieces of info does not.

America...
America...
America, FUCK YEAH!
Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah,
America, FUCK YEAH!
Freedom is the only way yeah,
Terrorist your game is through cause now you have to answer too,
America, FUCK YEAH!
So lick my butt, and suck on my balls,
America, FUCK YEAH!
What you going to do when we come for you now,
it’s the dream that we all share; it’s the hope for tomorrow

FUCK YEAH!

McDonalds, FUCK YEAH!
Wal-Mart, FUCK YEAH!
Torture, FUCK YEAH!
Baseball, FUCK YEAH!
NFL, FUCK, YEAH!
Rock and roll, FUCK YEAH!
Waterboarding, FUCK YEAH!
Slavery, FUCK YEAH!

FUCK YEAH!



.....just saying

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hotshot

:thinking: Wikipedia and yahoo news are both reliable sources of information. I suppose you dont trust information from ACLU or AP even. Probably dont read the AJC either, since those are the outlets that those sites have been pulling their information from. You must get all your information from watching Hannity&Colmbs huh? LOL
:cheers:

---

Wikipewdia has never been a reliable source for news or information considering people can go in and edit articals at will. I persoanlly perfer and AP because 9 times our of 10 they are not biased but more a median. As far as the the AJC time and time again they have proven to us that they can not report reliable facts and they streach the truth. I will provide links when I get home from work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eraser4g63

Wikipewdia has never been a reliable source for news or information considering people can go in and edit articals at will. I persoanlly perfer and AP because 9 times our of 10 they are not biased but more a median. As far as the the AJC time and time again they have proven to us that they can not report reliable facts and they streach the truth. I will provide links when I get home from work.

---

9 times out of 10, information from wikipedia is also sourced and cited.

DO you personaly check to see if those cites and quotes are correct before you use them? And 90% correct it pushing it, I cannot tell you how many times I have had to look up some information for work and it be completely off base or just plain wrong.