I'm reminded of that scene in "Saving Private Ryan" in which (about halfway through the movie) they're looking at a machine gun nest in a secluded field. Ed Burns' character states that they should go around the gun as it's "not part of their objective," and Tom Hanks' character fires back, "Our objective is to win the war!"

At the start of the Iraq war, I felt like Ed Burns: in terms of Iraq, I felt like we could've just "gone around," although I suppose that's debatable. I still do not agree with the war, our presence there, or the fact that our original objective (Osama) is still on the lamb, but I feel more like Tom Hanks at this point: just do whatever it takes to win the war. If torturing someone gets us a step closer to ending this war, then that's fine by me.

You show nothing BlueSky. You are full of yourself.

I've already been reasonable with you and said I would use smilies in the future when responding to your posts.

If your feelings felt slighted, and you need me to say I'm sorry, then I'm sorry.

But, I gotta say, with the inordinate amount of bitching that you continue to do about an innocuous and insignificant post, you definitely aren't going to get an approval of the dress from me.

Lighten up and let it go. We can still be friends. That's if you are willing to hug and make up. :p

It was a very good movie.

FUBAR

Quote:

At the start of the Iraq war, I felt like Ed Burns: in terms of Iraq, I felt like we could've just "gone around," although I suppose that's debatable. I still do not agree with the war, our presence there, or the fact that our original objective (Osama) is still on the lamb, but I feel more like Tom Hanks at this point: just do whatever it takes to win the war. If torturing someone gets us a step closer to ending this war, then that's fine by me.

You are correct and I agree with you. We already started the mission in Iraq and it needs to be completed.

I however am more disappointed with the Iraqi's, or more specifically, their politicians, than I am of ours.

The people we waterboarded seem to have been terrorists involved in planning attacks on civilians here in this country. Maybe Europe too.

I don't think we torture or even waterboard the low level dirtbags in Iraq. It's not official policy. If you think so, what gives you that idea?

Maybe the Iraqi government tortures some of them. If so, I'd say the Iraqis probably have a right to do something to at least some of the dirtbags that come from other countries into their country to kill both Iraqis, Americans, and allies.

Thanks.

I have absolutely no problem with this at all with the caveat that I still believe using these tactics should be handled with care. I don't have faith in our current government to utilize these tactics (torture and such) wisely. I doubt we will ever agree on that as we just see it differently.

My issue with this statement is that I think we are playing the wrong team altogether. The mistake has been made and we need to see it through, but I still can't see how Iraq has any bearing on our war on terror. Either way it's neither here nor there in regards to the subject of this thread.

I'll sum up my feelings and then I think I'm done with this one.

Is waterboarding a form of torture? Yes.

Do I condone it's use? Yes, but it needs to be used with extreme care and not overly abused.

Do I trust that our current government is using it with extreme care and not abusing it? No.

Thanks for a lively and in most cases a constructive "debate" on the subject.

I'm going to go look at the phat chicks thread now.

Exactly.

But let's put another spin on it. US soldiers drafted during WWII that became POWs in German and Japanese concentration camps. They didn't volunteer exactly. Is the US Government guilty of torturing them?

I don't disagree that waterboarding is a form of mild torture (far harsher forms exist), but it's not done on a whim so someone can get their jollies dunking the brown guy. Someone asked why would the CIA destroy the tapes? I'd respond and say they probably did it to avoid the witch hunt the nannies would wage to hang the perpetrators and their careers for something they were likely under order to do. Our military and CIA is doing this for a reason. I don't know how you could prove that it's saving lives.

I still stand by my assertions, however, that until we start televising our guys beheading these grubby little muslims, we're still taking a much higher road than our enemy. Unfortunately, you just can't satisfy everyone, and making this a political issue is ludicrous.

The trouble today is that EVERYTHING makes it to the media in some shape of form, and since this is sensational news at its best, of course the media is all over it. What you're not hearing about is how we dealt with enemy interrogations in wars past - popular wars that had the country's support, like WWII. You're foolish to think that we didn't engage in much more harsh forms of torture to get information then.

The media coverage and spin, and this notion of political correctness at any cost ensures the US will never win another war. We get attacked on our own soil by Al Queda, and we're more worried about dunking some asshole who's lucky he didn't just get shot on site than we are about gaining ground in the war on islamic extremists. Patriotism is never guilt free guys.

No, this is not war. The US hasn't been at war since 1947. This is just the US Executive playing with his big military dick.

Two thoughts. First, I think everyone missed this when I posted it a little while ago. At least no one commented on it. A couple days ago, I saw this interview on the Today show. It's a former CIA agent who used waterboarding. He talks about his feelings on its use and the authorization required to even have it as an option. Check it out...

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=5e5abc17-c215-4567-bc7 1-3749e5cd73bf

Secondly, I have a friend who is a Vietnam vet. He's really screwed up with PTSD, and he walks with a cane because of the damage done to his leg by a VC grenade. He was an interrogator in-field. The only time I have ever seen him get teary-eyed is when he spoke briefly about not being able to forgive himself for the things he did to other people. He described a few of them to me. Friends, let me tell you, waterboarding.... it's nothing. These people walk away without a scratch. What happened to those my friend interrogated.... terrifying. And that's the difference here. We don't do that crap anymore. They do. And then some. So is the US taking the higher road? Without a doubt. And again I say, if it's done with judiciousness, and only as authorized and only by those trained to do it, by all means, make it so. If it gets the information that ultimately saves lives, do it.

It also seems that too many people seem to forget things like the bogus and false media reports that US Soldiers were throwing the Koran down the toilet at GITMO.

That was a lie told by the media, and Muslims rioted in some countries. People lost their lives in places like Pakistan because media like Newsweek lied and had an extremely nefarious agenda.

No one talks about that.

You may not think that what's going on in Iraq is war, but you're not there getting shot at. And if you read my previous post, you'll see that I have a good friend who is a Vietnam vet. If you think for even one second that Vietnam was not a war, you must have your head crammed up Jane Fonda's butt. Just because it't not formally declared a war, it doesn't invalidate it as one. I dare you. Walk up to a Vietnam vet and tell them it wasn't a war. Walk up to a person who just spent 15 months kicking in doors in Baghdad and seeing his comrades get killed and maimed and tell them it isn't war. You'll end up with a U.S. issued combat boot broken off in your behind. Don't diss our men and women like that, man. It's not cool and it's not welcome.

Yes... You are correct Chris. But only half correct.

The United States can no longer declare war against another country. No war since WWII has been an "officially declared war".

Because of the UN Charter, there are legal technicalities that prevent us from outright declaring war against another country. We just don't do it and we won't do it.

What we can do, and what we have always done since signing the UN Charter is have Congress declare a resolution authorizing force.

But, we don't declare war anymore.

Most Americans are completely unaware of this fact.

More of your typical BS smokescreens because you can't or won't refute the views of those who disagree with you. You're pathetic, and you're among the very few who can't see it.

I'd say you would have made a great Nazi but you'd probably thank me for the compliment.

You are completely full of shit.

The fact that you are also calling me a Nazi is also very indicative of yourself.

I'm actually sorry that I ever apologized to you.

You are an asshole.

Tell that to the men and women over there.

That being said, waterboarding is the least of the shit we do. I sincerely doubt we don't torture prisoners. We like to think we take "the high road", so to speak, but I ain't buyin' it.

Not that I'm really against. You got a terrorist? Flush the Koran in front of his face. I don't care if his feelings get hurt. Fuck 'em.

It makes no difference that one naval officer is against waterboarding. There are many in the military who think waterboarding is a valuable tool in certain circumstances and should be used.

Waterboarding is a valuable tool. It is NOT torture and waterboarding HAS saved the lives of Americans.

You don't seem to care that it has saved people's lives.

You also haven't offered any suggestions on how to extract information from the most hardened terrorists without waterboarding. None of the anti-waterboarding people have offered a single suggestion.

The lives of American citizens is more important than any temporary discomfort of a terrorist.

I HAVE offered alternatives by stating in a previous post that I support any interrogation technique short of torture.

Waterboarding IS torture. That much is clear, and that's where we appear to disagree. As crazy as it seems, people like Senior Chief Nance and Senator McCain seem more credible as authorities on this than anyone on the Xterra Owners Club board.

The "saved lives" claim applies to any interrogation technique that yields useful information, so it's not like torture is unique in that way.

Can you categorically state that everybody the U.S. has ever tortured was a terrorist? If not, what about the ones that weren't?

What's the pro-waterboarding crowd's take on rendition?

In that my goal is always to avoid name-calling and stay on topic, I regret my previous Nazi reference. Even you aren't that bad.

These guys know torture. Maybe we should take some notes from them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZQI0Xm29To

Make them listen to "Christmas in Fallujah..." ?

If you support any interrogation short of torture, then you should support waterboarding because it IS NOT torture.

I haven't seen you offer any alternatives to waterboarding. How about some specific techniques. I don't see any of the anti-waterboarding people offering any techniques or methods. All they say is that waterboarding is torture.

I have also noticed that you throw around terms like "all the people the US has tortured". Who are these people? Name some names. Where is your proof that we "torture" people? Where is there any proof that we have "tortured" all those people you claim.

Claims like that are beyond irresponsible.

What is my position regarding rendition? If we have the correct target and the person is a confirmed terrorist, I support it. I supported the practice when the Clinton administration did it. I support this administration doing it, and I will support future administrations doing it.

Rendition is another topic where there has been a lot of false and irresponsible propaganda being thrown around. Even bullshit movies.

You can throw around all the names you want of people who do not support waterboarding. There are just as many people who do support waterboarding as a useful tool.

You think it is torture. I don't know why you would think that because it does not do any harm. Waterboarding is not torture.

Whether you think it is torture or not, it is completely irresponsible for politicians to try to outlaw it's use and remove it as a tool that can be used in some cases. That does nothing but weaken this country and give comfort to enemies.

Soooo...you're a better judge of what is and isn't torture than John McCain, a man who WAS tortured? Right, the same way you can fly an F-18 better than any Blue Angel pilot. Sorry, that just doesn't make sense.

You're naive to believe these extreme techniques have only been used on a few key prisoners. But again, I can't prove that's not the case, and you can't prove it is.

Problem - you aren't just hurting the feelings of the terrorist, you are insulting an entire religion when you do something like that. That insults a lot more people than you really want to piss of.

Let's put it this way - using some random examples -
Instead of calling Barry Bonds a lying cheater, you call all Black people lying cheaters.

Instead of calling Britney Spears a stupid drunken whore, you call all women stupid drunken whores.

Instead of calling Cardinal Law a supporter of Pedophilia, you call all Christians supporters of pedophilia.

Sure you've pissed off the person you wanted to, but now he's not the only one who wants to kick your ass.

Honestly, I don't want to piss of a billion people just to get information out of one terrorist. That makes Al Qaeda's recruit efforts much easier - kind of like Al Qaeda's 9/11 attacks made US military recruiting easier than now.

Do you see the connection?

Hey Madman, since you believe Waterboarding is not torture because you aren't killing or damaging the person, that means it's not torture ever unless you kill or damage someone.

So would you consider it torture to starve someone, but feed them just enough so they don't die, and force them to work without rest or food?
That's what happened to these people

Yet, you must not consider that torture because they weren't killed or damaged by being nearly starved and worked.
That sure looks like torture to me.

What color is the sky in your world, Madman? Physical damage is not the only criterion for what constitutes torture. If it does no harm and isn't torture, why does it make them talk? Maybe they're giggling with glee at how much fun it is and important info accidentally slips out...

Maybe it's not as bad as some other tortures... maybe it's torture-lite... but it's definitely torture.

That said, on to the second quote:

I think most people will disagree with you on this - but at least it is a more honest argument.

My problem with the argument that torture is okay because it saves lives is this:
A lot of Americans have this feeling that America (or at least the USA ) is a great country - that we're a "good" country and that we're the "good guys".

Maybe we're not... maybe we're no better than and no different from the "filthy ragheads" over there... but if we want to try to be the good guys and live up to this idyllic American image with waving flags, forefathers fighting for freedom and all that shit, we have to play by the good guy rulebook - and that means no torture no matter how many lives it might save.

Superman wins because he is smarter, faster, stronger, and braver - not because he hooks up car batteries to the Penguin's nipples

ah shit.. I messed up my superhero/villain pairing... oh well.

Bad example dude