THIS IS HOW THE SOUTH EXPRESSES ITS POLITICS!!!!
(Presumably written by Pamela Foster)
WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS?
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001? Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't. I don't care at all.
I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.
I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling!, slashed throat.
I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.
I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.
I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.
When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care.
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care.
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and ---- you guessed it, (I don't care!)
If you agree with this view point, pass this on to all your e-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior! If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button.
Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country.
HOW THE SOUTH EXPRESSES ITS POLITICS!
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
when i witness or experience any barbaric behavior, no matter how depraved - i, myself, should adopt the very same behavior and therefore, by necessity, embrace their ethics/philosophy/world view as superior to all others, superior to any i may have held previously, and take it as my own. and i have become them. and i'm not to care?
is it that simple and that clear? sounds nice, a hell of a lot easier than all that fuzzy-headed thinking i torture myself with. i suppose, though, that i'll just have to continue to endure all those bleeding-heart-pussy type monikers that come my way.
the only thing that seems to be missing from that list is that wich would result from the profferred thinking...death to america (!)
is it that simple and that clear? sounds nice, a hell of a lot easier than all that fuzzy-headed thinking i torture myself with. i suppose, though, that i'll just have to continue to endure all those bleeding-heart-pussy type monikers that come my way.
the only thing that seems to be missing from that list is that wich would result from the profferred thinking...death to america (!)
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Re: HOW THE SOUTH EXPRESSES ITS POLITICS!
[quote="rancerupp"]THIS IS HOW THE SOUTH EXPRESSES ITS POLITICS!!!!
(Presumably written by Pamela Foster)
WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS?
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001? Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't. I don't care at all.
I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.
I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling!, slashed throat.
I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.
I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.
I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.
When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care.
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care.
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and ---- you guessed it, (I don't care!)
If you agree with this view point, pass this on to all your e-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior! If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button.
Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country.[/quote]
That's a whole lot of "I don't care"--hard to take this enlightened individual very seriously.
marc
(Presumably written by Pamela Foster)
WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS?
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001? Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't. I don't care at all.
I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.
I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling!, slashed throat.
I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.
I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.
I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.
When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care.
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care.
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and ---- you guessed it, (I don't care!)
If you agree with this view point, pass this on to all your e-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior! If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button.
Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country.[/quote]
That's a whole lot of "I don't care"--hard to take this enlightened individual very seriously.
marc
here's a 'for instance':
in this forum, hugh (name and representations used without permission) has maintained the 'high road' in his responses to marko.
markemX, by contrast, chose to meet marco on his own ground (see, that was my judgement - pointedly different from that of others) and pull out all the stops.
regardless of whether anything has been accomplished by either, i would venture that the following would have some truth to it:
most of those who know hugh mainly by his postings would be willing to have him be a godparent to their child and raise that child in their absence - even those with radically different philosophical and political viewpoints.
markemX on the other hand...well, it's probable that even those who agreed with his politics would hesitate to acknowledge that they even knew him!
we, as a country and a people, who are arguably at the top of the heap in this world, are bound to be further ahead, even if simply in terms of our own self interests, by trying to NOT be seen around the world as MarkemX.
in this forum, hugh (name and representations used without permission) has maintained the 'high road' in his responses to marko.
markemX, by contrast, chose to meet marco on his own ground (see, that was my judgement - pointedly different from that of others) and pull out all the stops.
regardless of whether anything has been accomplished by either, i would venture that the following would have some truth to it:
most of those who know hugh mainly by his postings would be willing to have him be a godparent to their child and raise that child in their absence - even those with radically different philosophical and political viewpoints.
markemX on the other hand...well, it's probable that even those who agreed with his politics would hesitate to acknowledge that they even knew him!
we, as a country and a people, who are arguably at the top of the heap in this world, are bound to be further ahead, even if simply in terms of our own self interests, by trying to NOT be seen around the world as MarkemX.
HOW THE SOUTH EXPRESSES ITS POLITICS!
Sons of the South are disproportionately represented in the military,
and fortunately, most of them are not as invincibly ignorant as the
author of this shameful screed - or the butt-scratching, nose-picking
(same finger) inbred cretins who pass it along. To blame hundreds
of millions of Muslims for the actions of a fanatical few is stupid
as well as immoral - and to suppose that we can shoot, beat, or
humiliate them into submission is dangerous foolishness. It wouldn't
work on us and it won't work on them. Don't attribute your impious
barbarism to the rest of us. - Hugh McElrath (born and raised in
Kentucky)
and fortunately, most of them are not as invincibly ignorant as the
author of this shameful screed - or the butt-scratching, nose-picking
(same finger) inbred cretins who pass it along. To blame hundreds
of millions of Muslims for the actions of a fanatical few is stupid
as well as immoral - and to suppose that we can shoot, beat, or
humiliate them into submission is dangerous foolishness. It wouldn't
work on us and it won't work on them. Don't attribute your impious
barbarism to the rest of us. - Hugh McElrath (born and raised in
Kentucky)
HOW THE SOUTH EXPRESSES ITS POLITICS!
How little you know me: I have two sons (one, a Marine), but I am
just barely tolerating being a parent. And I cannot abide children
in packs (e.g. Boy Scout troops). Please no godchildren, foster
children or stray dogs. I will sell them to the gypsies to make stew!
- Hugh
just barely tolerating being a parent. And I cannot abide children
in packs (e.g. Boy Scout troops). Please no godchildren, foster
children or stray dogs. I will sell them to the gypsies to make stew!
- Hugh
-
Paul Tjaden
- Posts: 398
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:28 pm
You don't need to be from the deep south to be terminally stupid. I am currently in Wichita, Kansas to visit my ill sister and I have found deep wells of ignorance here where I find myself surrounded by "conservatives" who should more appropriately be classified as "extremists". Besides the Intelligent Design decision by the Kansas School Board that has made them the laughing stock of the world I found this jewel in the local paper this AM. It was in a column of phone and email messages received by the editor.
"I think President Bush should have the right to torture anyone he wants at any time and anywhere he feels necessary".
"I think President Bush should have the right to torture anyone he wants at any time and anywhere he feels necessary".
Just what moral values are we supporting here?
Could they be the republican base in all their family friendly values?
Just what is the value of revenge, torture and degradation?
There is nothing here that I would be proud to support. These views shame our country.
Joe
THIS IS HOW THE SOUTH EXPRESSES ITS POLITICS!!!!
(Presumably written by Pamela Foster)
WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS?
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001? Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't. I don't care at all.
I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.
I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling!, slashed throat.
I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.
I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.
I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.
When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care.
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care.
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and ---- you guessed it, (I don't care!)
If you agree with this view point, pass this on to all your e-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior! If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button.
Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country.
Could they be the republican base in all their family friendly values?
Just what is the value of revenge, torture and degradation?
There is nothing here that I would be proud to support. These views shame our country.
Joe
THIS IS HOW THE SOUTH EXPRESSES ITS POLITICS!!!!
(Presumably written by Pamela Foster)
WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS?
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001? Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't. I don't care at all.
I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.
I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling!, slashed throat.
I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.
I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.
I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.
When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care.
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care.
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and ---- you guessed it, (I don't care!)
If you agree with this view point, pass this on to all your e-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior! If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button.
Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country.
this 'discussion' brought me to an awareness that my professed patriotism may, indeed, be fact based.
i'm from pennsylvania, and although it's been 25 years since i last resided there, i felt a relief, a pride, that all of the intelligent designers in dover, pa. were summarily voted out of office at the first opportunity.
i hadn't really been fully aware that i still attached some of my self identity to the state of my birth, that i unconsciously related myself to the shame of what was going on there, about how the state was being viewed derisively by others outside its borders, that other people could readily separate that state from themselves and easily ridicule it and hold it in low regard.
and that's why this administrations distortion of what and who we are offends me so. for the very reason that i indeed identify myself with the country, its ideals and its history. i really don't like feeling like a stranger in my own land. and it makes me know that if i can get this pissed off at what i see as the wrongful wrecking of what i believe our country to be...well i suppose i can tell myself that , yeah, i rightfully consider myself patriotic.
i'm already uncomfortably self-conscious here, so whereas i was able to use the word patriotic...i can't do the standing tall, flag-waving, head held high thingy to any greater degree.
i'm from pennsylvania, and although it's been 25 years since i last resided there, i felt a relief, a pride, that all of the intelligent designers in dover, pa. were summarily voted out of office at the first opportunity.
i hadn't really been fully aware that i still attached some of my self identity to the state of my birth, that i unconsciously related myself to the shame of what was going on there, about how the state was being viewed derisively by others outside its borders, that other people could readily separate that state from themselves and easily ridicule it and hold it in low regard.
and that's why this administrations distortion of what and who we are offends me so. for the very reason that i indeed identify myself with the country, its ideals and its history. i really don't like feeling like a stranger in my own land. and it makes me know that if i can get this pissed off at what i see as the wrongful wrecking of what i believe our country to be...well i suppose i can tell myself that , yeah, i rightfully consider myself patriotic.
i'm already uncomfortably self-conscious here, so whereas i was able to use the word patriotic...i can't do the standing tall, flag-waving, head held high thingy to any greater degree.
McCain's campaign
John McCain, bless him, is leading the campaign to ban anything resembling torture from the interogation process. The white house is fighting it.
Since I don't remember his exact words I'll paraphrase it as close as I can: "Personally I'd like them to die a painful death for what they did to our country. But then I realized this wasn't about them, it's about us. I do not want the image of our country to be tarnished by the way we treat other human beings."
I don't care what party he's from, he's got my vote. He lost the presidential nomination by bucking the party line: if only all politicians on both sides had that integrity....
Since I don't remember his exact words I'll paraphrase it as close as I can: "Personally I'd like them to die a painful death for what they did to our country. But then I realized this wasn't about them, it's about us. I do not want the image of our country to be tarnished by the way we treat other human beings."
I don't care what party he's from, he's got my vote. He lost the presidential nomination by bucking the party line: if only all politicians on both sides had that integrity....
Brian Vant-Hull
I think most people would agree that a "true POW", as McCain was in Vietnam, should not be tortured (depending on how you define torture) under normal circumstances. The routine soldier who removes his uniform and does espionage activities may, and often is, treated as a spy, and not a routine soldier/POW.
The Geneva Convention accords "uniformed combatants" with POW protections. However, it does not confer these same protections to spies, mercenaries, or non-uniformed combatants (see articles 46 and 47). In fact, spies may be tortured and executed under the GC.
The question then becomes, what classification do you give to a Syrian, Yemeni, or Somali who is perpetrating acts of war (IED's, ambushes, etc), espionage, or sabotage in Iraq or Afghanistan? Are they to be treated as "uniformed soldiers" or as third party "non-uniformed" spies or mercenaries?
It sounds so enlightened and civilized to say that nobody should ever be tortured under any circumstances.....but most of us could envision circumstances where torture would indeed be necessary.
The obvious example is of a spy or terrorist caught in a major Metro area with a brief case nuke who reveals that there are two or three others about to detonate their nukes within the next hour in the same or other cities, but who refuses to give further information. What should we do to him? Remember, we only have an hour before those nukes detonate, killing millions.
The Lib, touchy-feely types (ie enlightened and civilized) would probably offer him coffee and doughnuts, ask him if he would like to call a lawyer or his family, and inquire/suggest if he was mistreated by those nasty arresting agents.
The "Southern" strategy would be to "aggressively interrogate" this terrorist so as to quickly obtain the necessary info to avoid the detonation and resulting deaths of millions, using all mean necessary, including torture....whatever it would take to obtain that info and save those lives.
By outlawing "torture" under all circumstances is sheer stupidity and confers undue protections to these terrorists that even the GC does not provide to spies and mercenaries.
By McCain calling for "no torture" is not leadership or integrity...it is simply political pandering and grandstanding. He knows that there are certain situations that absolutely REQUIRE torture, as exampled above.
Count me in with the southern boys and girls....treat this trash as the garbage that they are.....and as the GC allows. Those people who hate us are not going to start loving us because we treat their prisoners nicely. Get real.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm
Marco
The Geneva Convention accords "uniformed combatants" with POW protections. However, it does not confer these same protections to spies, mercenaries, or non-uniformed combatants (see articles 46 and 47). In fact, spies may be tortured and executed under the GC.
The question then becomes, what classification do you give to a Syrian, Yemeni, or Somali who is perpetrating acts of war (IED's, ambushes, etc), espionage, or sabotage in Iraq or Afghanistan? Are they to be treated as "uniformed soldiers" or as third party "non-uniformed" spies or mercenaries?
It sounds so enlightened and civilized to say that nobody should ever be tortured under any circumstances.....but most of us could envision circumstances where torture would indeed be necessary.
The obvious example is of a spy or terrorist caught in a major Metro area with a brief case nuke who reveals that there are two or three others about to detonate their nukes within the next hour in the same or other cities, but who refuses to give further information. What should we do to him? Remember, we only have an hour before those nukes detonate, killing millions.
The Lib, touchy-feely types (ie enlightened and civilized) would probably offer him coffee and doughnuts, ask him if he would like to call a lawyer or his family, and inquire/suggest if he was mistreated by those nasty arresting agents.
The "Southern" strategy would be to "aggressively interrogate" this terrorist so as to quickly obtain the necessary info to avoid the detonation and resulting deaths of millions, using all mean necessary, including torture....whatever it would take to obtain that info and save those lives.
By outlawing "torture" under all circumstances is sheer stupidity and confers undue protections to these terrorists that even the GC does not provide to spies and mercenaries.
By McCain calling for "no torture" is not leadership or integrity...it is simply political pandering and grandstanding. He knows that there are certain situations that absolutely REQUIRE torture, as exampled above.
Count me in with the southern boys and girls....treat this trash as the garbage that they are.....and as the GC allows. Those people who hate us are not going to start loving us because we treat their prisoners nicely. Get real.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm
Marco
HOW THE SOUTH EXPRESSES ITS POLITICS!
Most suicide terrorists do not know anything about other attacks. They are
pawns. Torture won't get anything because there is nothing to get.
Let us say that there are circumstances where torture is warranted, such as
the mastermind of those said bombings. If torture is allowed and legal,
then so be it. Then we need to know the rules, who, when, in what
circumstances should we expect someone to be tortured.
Many of us who no longer or never respected this administration are
frustrated with the duplicity. Bush tells an international audience that
the "U.S. Does Not Torture." Then Cheney openly lobbies for torture not to
be made illegal. If it isn't illegal, then we can and do torture. Bush
can't have it both ways. It reminds me of the Iraqi information officer who
kept saying that the US military wasn't outside of Baghdad. (Remember
laughing at him when he said Iraq didn't have WMDs? Oh, wait, he wasn't
lying.)
-Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 12:18 PM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: HOW THE SOUTH EXPRESSES ITS POLITICS!
I think most people would agree that a "true POW", as McCain was in Vietnam,
should not be tortured (depending on how you define torture) under normal
circumstances. The routine soldier who removes his uniform and does
espionage activities may, and often is, treated as a spy, and not a routine
soldier/POW.
The Geneva Convention accords "uniformed combatants" with POW protections.
However, it does not confer these same protections to spies, mercenaries, or
non-uniformed combatants (see articles 46 and 47). In fact, spies may be
tortured and executed under the GC.
The question then becomes, what classification do you give to a Syrian,
Yemeni, or Somali who is perpetrating acts of war (IED's, ambushes, etc),
espionage, or sabotage in Iraq or Afghanistan? Are they to be treated as
"uniformed soldiers" or as third party "non-uniformed" spies or mercenaries?
It sounds so enlightened and civilized to say that nobody should ever be
tortured under any circumstances.....but most of us could envision
circumstances where torture would indeed be necessary.
The obvious example is of a spy or terrorist caught in a major Metro area
with a brief case nuke who reveals that there are two or three others about
to detonate their nukes within the next hour in the same or other cities,
but who refuses to give further information. What should we do to him?
Remember, we only have an hour before those nukes detonate, killing
millions.
The Lib, touchy-feely types (ie enlightened and civilized) would probably
offer him coffee and doughnuts, ask him if he would like to call a lawyer or
his family, and inquire/suggest if he was mistreated by those nasty
arresting agents.
The "Southern" strategy would be to "aggressively interrogate" this
terrorist so as to quickly obtain the necessary info to avoid the
detonation and resulting deaths of millions, using all mean necessary,
including torture....whatever it would take to obtain that info and save
those lives.
By outlawing "torture" under all circumstances is sheer stupidity and
confers undue protections to these terrorists that even the GC does not
provide to spies and mercenaries.
By McCain calling for "no torture" is not leadership or integrity...it is
simply political pandering and grandstanding. He knows that there are
certain situations that absolutely REQUIRE torture, as exampled above.
Count me in with the southern boys and girls....treat this trash as the
garbage that they are.....and as the GC allows. Those people who hate us
are not going to start loving us because we treat their prisoners nicely.
Get real.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm
Marco
pawns. Torture won't get anything because there is nothing to get.
Let us say that there are circumstances where torture is warranted, such as
the mastermind of those said bombings. If torture is allowed and legal,
then so be it. Then we need to know the rules, who, when, in what
circumstances should we expect someone to be tortured.
Many of us who no longer or never respected this administration are
frustrated with the duplicity. Bush tells an international audience that
the "U.S. Does Not Torture." Then Cheney openly lobbies for torture not to
be made illegal. If it isn't illegal, then we can and do torture. Bush
can't have it both ways. It reminds me of the Iraqi information officer who
kept saying that the US military wasn't outside of Baghdad. (Remember
laughing at him when he said Iraq didn't have WMDs? Oh, wait, he wasn't
lying.)
-Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 12:18 PM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: HOW THE SOUTH EXPRESSES ITS POLITICS!
I think most people would agree that a "true POW", as McCain was in Vietnam,
should not be tortured (depending on how you define torture) under normal
circumstances. The routine soldier who removes his uniform and does
espionage activities may, and often is, treated as a spy, and not a routine
soldier/POW.
The Geneva Convention accords "uniformed combatants" with POW protections.
However, it does not confer these same protections to spies, mercenaries, or
non-uniformed combatants (see articles 46 and 47). In fact, spies may be
tortured and executed under the GC.
The question then becomes, what classification do you give to a Syrian,
Yemeni, or Somali who is perpetrating acts of war (IED's, ambushes, etc),
espionage, or sabotage in Iraq or Afghanistan? Are they to be treated as
"uniformed soldiers" or as third party "non-uniformed" spies or mercenaries?
It sounds so enlightened and civilized to say that nobody should ever be
tortured under any circumstances.....but most of us could envision
circumstances where torture would indeed be necessary.
The obvious example is of a spy or terrorist caught in a major Metro area
with a brief case nuke who reveals that there are two or three others about
to detonate their nukes within the next hour in the same or other cities,
but who refuses to give further information. What should we do to him?
Remember, we only have an hour before those nukes detonate, killing
millions.
The Lib, touchy-feely types (ie enlightened and civilized) would probably
offer him coffee and doughnuts, ask him if he would like to call a lawyer or
his family, and inquire/suggest if he was mistreated by those nasty
arresting agents.
The "Southern" strategy would be to "aggressively interrogate" this
terrorist so as to quickly obtain the necessary info to avoid the
detonation and resulting deaths of millions, using all mean necessary,
including torture....whatever it would take to obtain that info and save
those lives.
By outlawing "torture" under all circumstances is sheer stupidity and
confers undue protections to these terrorists that even the GC does not
provide to spies and mercenaries.
By McCain calling for "no torture" is not leadership or integrity...it is
simply political pandering and grandstanding. He knows that there are
certain situations that absolutely REQUIRE torture, as exampled above.
Count me in with the southern boys and girls....treat this trash as the
garbage that they are.....and as the GC allows. Those people who hate us
are not going to start loving us because we treat their prisoners nicely.
Get real.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm
Marco
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Once again I find it hard to disagree with Marco's logic.Marco Zee wrote:I think most people would agree that a "true POW", as McCain was in Vietnam, should not be tortured (depending on how you define torture) under normal circumstances. The routine soldier who removes his uniform and does espionage activities may, and often is, treated as a spy, and not a routine soldier/POW.
The Geneva Convention accords "uniformed combatants" with POW protections. However, it does not confer these same protections to spies, mercenaries, or non-uniformed combatants (see articles 46 and 47). In fact, spies may be tortured and executed under the GC.
The question then becomes, what classification do you give to a Syrian, Yemeni, or Somali who is perpetrating acts of war (IED's, ambushes, etc), espionage, or sabotage in Iraq or Afghanistan? Are they to be treated as "uniformed soldiers" or as third party "non-uniformed" spies or mercenaries?
It sounds so enlightened and civilized to say that nobody should ever be tortured under any circumstances.....but most of us could envision circumstances where torture would indeed be necessary.
The obvious example is of a spy or terrorist caught in a major Metro area with a brief case nuke who reveals that there are two or three others about to detonate their nukes within the next hour in the same or other cities, but who refuses to give further information. What should we do to him? Remember, we only have an hour before those nukes detonate, killing millions.
The Lib, touchy-feely types (ie enlightened and civilized) would probably offer him coffee and doughnuts, ask him if he would like to call a lawyer or his family, and inquire/suggest if he was mistreated by those nasty arresting agents.
The "Southern" strategy would be to "aggressively interrogate" this terrorist so as to quickly obtain the necessary info to avoid the detonation and resulting deaths of millions, using all mean necessary, including torture....whatever it would take to obtain that info and save those lives.
By outlawing "torture" under all circumstances is sheer stupidity and confers undue protections to these terrorists that even the GC does not provide to spies and mercenaries.
By McCain calling for "no torture" is not leadership or integrity...it is simply political pandering and grandstanding. He knows that there are certain situations that absolutely REQUIRE torture, as exampled above.
Count me in with the southern boys and girls....treat this trash as the garbage that they are.....and as the GC allows. Those people who hate us are not going to start loving us because we treat their prisoners nicely. Get real.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm
Marco
The real problem, of course, is how to best torture the information out of all the prisoners, since, as with Saddam, we do not have the luxury of assuming they have no information--even if they don't. (guilty till proven innocent, you know).
Adding to the problem is the nagging issue that if these prisoners have a somewhat favorable disposition towards blowing themselves up anyway, conventional torture could be just a walk in the park to them. What to do, what to do?
I think the answer is to hold them in isolation and force them to listen to and watch Bush speeches nonstop. I know this would make me want to blow my brains out, can't imagine any freakin four-i-ners lasting long.
marcoKillEmAll
PS--So, what are YOUR favorite torture techniques? Cutting off limbs? Electricity to the genitals? Of course, there's that other little problem of what's going to happen if one of our troops is taken prisoner.
HOW THE SOUTH EXPRESSES ITS POLITICS!
I doubt the Geneva Convention allows torture of spies - and anyway
we are signatories to an international treaty banning torture. Our
special forces skulk around hiding without easily identifiable
uniforms and killing from ambush - what's the moral distinction. To
the Muslims, these insurgents are freedom fighters against the Yankee
invaders. The British complained about Americans hiding behind trees
and wearing buckskin during the Revolutionary War. Now your lone
terrorist with sole knowledge of the locking code for the nuke under
the orphanage - is a classic ethics class problem. Issue is, will
you actually get anything usable out of him with torture? The
torture victim just wants the pain to stop, so he gives you an answer
- whatever answer he thinks you want to hear. Doesn't have to be
true. And how many of the detainees have such exquisite jewels of
intelligence? For the big fish, professional interrogators know how
to apply just a little stress (an uncomfortable chair and a bright
light) and use patience. You may not get the code in time to save
the orphans (you probably wouldn't have in any case) but whenever you
do break the guy, you'll be able to use what he knows. Anyway, the
issue before the Congress is not torture, but "aggressive
interrogation" or "cruel and inhumane treatment". As an alumnus of
the water board in POW training (if you are going to be aircrew you
have to take the course), I can say that it's not so bad, but I knew
that I was in a Navy training course and that they probably wouldn't
really drown me. Not so for a detainee. McCain's point is that,
especially after Abu Ghraib, we have lost all moral respectability
for our mistreatment of detainees and cannot go on record condoning
bad treatment. Moreover, it will go harder with future captured U.S.
servicemen if we do. The main problem is the ambiguity of the status
of detainees (POWs? criminals? Bush wants something in between...)
and the lack of consistent standards for their treatment. These are
serious issues of morality and statecraft and not to be decided by
cynical appeals to the xenophobic instincts of rednecks. - Hugh
we are signatories to an international treaty banning torture. Our
special forces skulk around hiding without easily identifiable
uniforms and killing from ambush - what's the moral distinction. To
the Muslims, these insurgents are freedom fighters against the Yankee
invaders. The British complained about Americans hiding behind trees
and wearing buckskin during the Revolutionary War. Now your lone
terrorist with sole knowledge of the locking code for the nuke under
the orphanage - is a classic ethics class problem. Issue is, will
you actually get anything usable out of him with torture? The
torture victim just wants the pain to stop, so he gives you an answer
- whatever answer he thinks you want to hear. Doesn't have to be
true. And how many of the detainees have such exquisite jewels of
intelligence? For the big fish, professional interrogators know how
to apply just a little stress (an uncomfortable chair and a bright
light) and use patience. You may not get the code in time to save
the orphans (you probably wouldn't have in any case) but whenever you
do break the guy, you'll be able to use what he knows. Anyway, the
issue before the Congress is not torture, but "aggressive
interrogation" or "cruel and inhumane treatment". As an alumnus of
the water board in POW training (if you are going to be aircrew you
have to take the course), I can say that it's not so bad, but I knew
that I was in a Navy training course and that they probably wouldn't
really drown me. Not so for a detainee. McCain's point is that,
especially after Abu Ghraib, we have lost all moral respectability
for our mistreatment of detainees and cannot go on record condoning
bad treatment. Moreover, it will go harder with future captured U.S.
servicemen if we do. The main problem is the ambiguity of the status
of detainees (POWs? criminals? Bush wants something in between...)
and the lack of consistent standards for their treatment. These are
serious issues of morality and statecraft and not to be decided by
cynical appeals to the xenophobic instincts of rednecks. - Hugh
MARCO WROTE:
The Geneva Convention accords "uniformed combatants" with POW protections.
However, it does not confer these same protections to spies, mercenaries, or
non-uniformed combatants (see articles 46 and 47). In fact, spies may be
tortured and executed under the GC.
JOE REPLIES: Just because the Geneva Conventions apply to "Uniformed Combatants" does to mean that Countries can torture and execute spies under the convention.
MARCO WROTE:
It sounds so enlightened and civilized to say that nobody should ever be
tortured under any circumstances.....but most of us could envision
circumstances where torture would indeed be necessary.
JOE REPLIES: Marco you and your conservative Republican friends may be able to rationalize circumstances where torture would "indeed be necessary", I however find absolutely no circumstance where torture is necessary or useful. It is a tactic of barbarians. Its acceptance as American policy violates the very foundations of our moral character as a country. SHAME SHAME SHAME ON YOU FOR TRYING TO JUSTIFY ITS USE BY AMERICANS AS AN INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY.
MARCO WROTE:
By McCain calling for "no torture" is not leadership or integrity...it is
simply political pandering and grandstanding. He knows that there are
certain situations that absolutely REQUIRE torture, as exampled above.
JOE WROTE: Your are so very wrong MARCO. John Mccain is showing leadership and integrity by calling for the no torture provision in the congress. It is George Bush and Dick Cheney who are not showing integrity and leadership. John McCain is ten times the man of integrity that George Bush is. He spent seven years in the Hanoi Hilton. Do you really think he feels the need to grandstand and pander for some popularity. GET REAL.
MARCO WROTE:
Count me in with the southern boys and girls....treat this trash as the
garbage that they are.....and as the GC allows. Those people who hate us
are not going to start loving us because we treat their prisoners nicely.
Get real.
JOE REPLIES:
The terrorists are trash and must be stopped but once they are prisoners they should be treated humainly and there should be no torture. As John McCain correctly says, it is not about the morals of the prisoners but about us and Americans and our values and respect for human life. It is about us not them.
George Bush and his political so called moral base has destroyed our countries moral standing in the world. WE AS AMERICANS NO LONGER HAVE THE MORAL HIGH GROUND IN THE WORLD. By condoning torture we join all the other tyrants of the world. We are just more self rightous than everyone else.
Have you noticed that there are no Prisoners of War in this war? Think about it. It is the first war where there are none.
Joe
From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 12:18 PM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: HOW THE SOUTH EXPRESSES ITS POLITICS!
I think most people would agree that a "true POW", as McCain was in Vietnam,
should not be tortured (depending on how you define torture) under normal
circumstances. The routine soldier who removes his uniform and does
espionage activities may, and often is, treated as a spy, and not a routine
soldier/POW.
The Geneva Convention accords "uniformed combatants" with POW protections.
However, it does not confer these same protections to spies, mercenaries, or
non-uniformed combatants (see articles 46 and 47). In fact, spies may be
tortured and executed under the GC.
The question then becomes, what classification do you give to a Syrian,
Yemeni, or Somali who is perpetrating acts of war (IED's, ambushes, etc),
espionage, or sabotage in Iraq or Afghanistan? Are they to be treated as
"uniformed soldiers" or as third party "non-uniformed" spies or mercenaries?
It sounds so enlightened and civilized to say that nobody should ever be
tortured under any circumstances.....but most of us could envision
circumstances where torture would indeed be necessary.
The obvious example is of a spy or terrorist caught in a major Metro area
with a brief case nuke who reveals that there are two or three others about
to detonate their nukes within the next hour in the same or other cities,
but who refuses to give further information. What should we do to him?
Remember, we only have an hour before those nukes detonate, killing
millions.
The Lib, touchy-feely types (ie enlightened and civilized) would probably
offer him coffee and doughnuts, ask him if he would like to call a lawyer or
his family, and inquire/suggest if he was mistreated by those nasty
arresting agents.
The "Southern" strategy would be to "aggressively interrogate" this
terrorist so as to quickly obtain the necessary info to avoid the
detonation and resulting deaths of millions, using all mean necessary,
including torture....whatever it would take to obtain that info and save
those lives.
By outlawing "torture" under all circumstances is sheer stupidity and
confers undue protections to these terrorists that even the GC does not
provide to spies and mercenaries.
By McCain calling for "no torture" is not leadership or integrity...it is
simply political pandering and grandstanding. He knows that there are
certain situations that absolutely REQUIRE torture, as exampled above.
Count me in with the southern boys and girls....treat this trash as the
garbage that they are.....and as the GC allows. Those people who hate us
are not going to start loving us because we treat their prisoners nicely.
Get real.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm
Marco
The Geneva Convention accords "uniformed combatants" with POW protections.
However, it does not confer these same protections to spies, mercenaries, or
non-uniformed combatants (see articles 46 and 47). In fact, spies may be
tortured and executed under the GC.
JOE REPLIES: Just because the Geneva Conventions apply to "Uniformed Combatants" does to mean that Countries can torture and execute spies under the convention.
MARCO WROTE:
It sounds so enlightened and civilized to say that nobody should ever be
tortured under any circumstances.....but most of us could envision
circumstances where torture would indeed be necessary.
JOE REPLIES: Marco you and your conservative Republican friends may be able to rationalize circumstances where torture would "indeed be necessary", I however find absolutely no circumstance where torture is necessary or useful. It is a tactic of barbarians. Its acceptance as American policy violates the very foundations of our moral character as a country. SHAME SHAME SHAME ON YOU FOR TRYING TO JUSTIFY ITS USE BY AMERICANS AS AN INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY.
MARCO WROTE:
By McCain calling for "no torture" is not leadership or integrity...it is
simply political pandering and grandstanding. He knows that there are
certain situations that absolutely REQUIRE torture, as exampled above.
JOE WROTE: Your are so very wrong MARCO. John Mccain is showing leadership and integrity by calling for the no torture provision in the congress. It is George Bush and Dick Cheney who are not showing integrity and leadership. John McCain is ten times the man of integrity that George Bush is. He spent seven years in the Hanoi Hilton. Do you really think he feels the need to grandstand and pander for some popularity. GET REAL.
MARCO WROTE:
Count me in with the southern boys and girls....treat this trash as the
garbage that they are.....and as the GC allows. Those people who hate us
are not going to start loving us because we treat their prisoners nicely.
Get real.
JOE REPLIES:
The terrorists are trash and must be stopped but once they are prisoners they should be treated humainly and there should be no torture. As John McCain correctly says, it is not about the morals of the prisoners but about us and Americans and our values and respect for human life. It is about us not them.
George Bush and his political so called moral base has destroyed our countries moral standing in the world. WE AS AMERICANS NO LONGER HAVE THE MORAL HIGH GROUND IN THE WORLD. By condoning torture we join all the other tyrants of the world. We are just more self rightous than everyone else.
Have you noticed that there are no Prisoners of War in this war? Think about it. It is the first war where there are none.
Joe
From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 12:18 PM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: HOW THE SOUTH EXPRESSES ITS POLITICS!
I think most people would agree that a "true POW", as McCain was in Vietnam,
should not be tortured (depending on how you define torture) under normal
circumstances. The routine soldier who removes his uniform and does
espionage activities may, and often is, treated as a spy, and not a routine
soldier/POW.
The Geneva Convention accords "uniformed combatants" with POW protections.
However, it does not confer these same protections to spies, mercenaries, or
non-uniformed combatants (see articles 46 and 47). In fact, spies may be
tortured and executed under the GC.
The question then becomes, what classification do you give to a Syrian,
Yemeni, or Somali who is perpetrating acts of war (IED's, ambushes, etc),
espionage, or sabotage in Iraq or Afghanistan? Are they to be treated as
"uniformed soldiers" or as third party "non-uniformed" spies or mercenaries?
It sounds so enlightened and civilized to say that nobody should ever be
tortured under any circumstances.....but most of us could envision
circumstances where torture would indeed be necessary.
The obvious example is of a spy or terrorist caught in a major Metro area
with a brief case nuke who reveals that there are two or three others about
to detonate their nukes within the next hour in the same or other cities,
but who refuses to give further information. What should we do to him?
Remember, we only have an hour before those nukes detonate, killing
millions.
The Lib, touchy-feely types (ie enlightened and civilized) would probably
offer him coffee and doughnuts, ask him if he would like to call a lawyer or
his family, and inquire/suggest if he was mistreated by those nasty
arresting agents.
The "Southern" strategy would be to "aggressively interrogate" this
terrorist so as to quickly obtain the necessary info to avoid the
detonation and resulting deaths of millions, using all mean necessary,
including torture....whatever it would take to obtain that info and save
those lives.
By outlawing "torture" under all circumstances is sheer stupidity and
confers undue protections to these terrorists that even the GC does not
provide to spies and mercenaries.
By McCain calling for "no torture" is not leadership or integrity...it is
simply political pandering and grandstanding. He knows that there are
certain situations that absolutely REQUIRE torture, as exampled above.
Count me in with the southern boys and girls....treat this trash as the
garbage that they are.....and as the GC allows. Those people who hate us
are not going to start loving us because we treat their prisoners nicely.
Get real.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm
Marco
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Well, what a coincidence--torture prisons uncovered all over Iraq run by Shia militias. Shining beacons of the spread of American democracy, no doubt. Geneva Convention? We don't need no stinkin' pansy-ass convention protecting girly-men. Inferior humans should be made into dogfood anyway, right?
MengeleMarco
MengeleMarco
Joe,
ALL NATIONS AND PEOPLES of the World should realize that if any nation wants to be our friend, we can be as nice, and understanding, and helpful as any ally imaginable.
But conversely, if nations or extremist groups wish to be our enemy and actively pursue our destruction, they should realize that nobody can be a bigger, meaner, nastier bunch of SOB's and "bring the pain" like the USA. Just ask Japan, who we nuked 60 years ago.....they have decided to be our friends, not our enemies. Good choice.
Let these Islamo-Fascists fear for their lives when they are captured and interrogated by the US. Excluding torture "under all circumstances" tells the terrorists that they have nothing to fear if captured.....not a good signal to send to these irrational fanatics.
SHAME SHAME SHAME on you for protecting, coddling, and encouraging these terrorists and thereby endangering our soldiers and civilians.
McCain is correct that Bush did not lie about pre-war intelligence, but he is dead wrong, in my opinion, about outlawing torture under all circumstances.
Marco
ALL NATIONS AND PEOPLES of the World should realize that if any nation wants to be our friend, we can be as nice, and understanding, and helpful as any ally imaginable.
But conversely, if nations or extremist groups wish to be our enemy and actively pursue our destruction, they should realize that nobody can be a bigger, meaner, nastier bunch of SOB's and "bring the pain" like the USA. Just ask Japan, who we nuked 60 years ago.....they have decided to be our friends, not our enemies. Good choice.
Let these Islamo-Fascists fear for their lives when they are captured and interrogated by the US. Excluding torture "under all circumstances" tells the terrorists that they have nothing to fear if captured.....not a good signal to send to these irrational fanatics.
SHAME SHAME SHAME on you for protecting, coddling, and encouraging these terrorists and thereby endangering our soldiers and civilians.
McCain is correct that Bush did not lie about pre-war intelligence, but he is dead wrong, in my opinion, about outlawing torture under all circumstances.
Marco
HOW THE SOUTH EXPRESSES ITS POLITICS!
Bush kept telling the Niger yellowcake fairytale after U.S. intel had
knocked it down: "British intel believes" i.e. I don't like the
answer my own intel gave me so I'm going to go shopping for an answer
I like. Lying, prevarication, mendacity, fibbing, telling stories...
Nuke 'em all, huh Marco? Works great if they hang together as a
disciplined nation at war, but it breaks down if you're just trying
to hit combatants. I've already written about why torture doesn't
work - this is not new social science, smart despots have known this
for centuries. You can't win hearts and minds on a platform of
"bombs, bullets, and torture". Abu Ghraib may have been the decisive
defeat for our efforts in Iraq. The only hope is to firmly repudiate
those methods. - Hugh
knocked it down: "British intel believes" i.e. I don't like the
answer my own intel gave me so I'm going to go shopping for an answer
I like. Lying, prevarication, mendacity, fibbing, telling stories...
Nuke 'em all, huh Marco? Works great if they hang together as a
disciplined nation at war, but it breaks down if you're just trying
to hit combatants. I've already written about why torture doesn't
work - this is not new social science, smart despots have known this
for centuries. You can't win hearts and minds on a platform of
"bombs, bullets, and torture". Abu Ghraib may have been the decisive
defeat for our efforts in Iraq. The only hope is to firmly repudiate
those methods. - Hugh
just curious, how tall are you ?Marco Zee wrote: they should realize that nobody can be a bigger, meaner, nastier bunch of SOB's and "bring the pain" like the USA. Just ask Japan, who we nuked 60 years ago...
i mean... are you a tall guy?
or ... you know ... a not so tall guy?
you know, ((((that napolean cliche thingy?))))
not that there's anything wrong about not being a tall guy...some of my best friends ...well if i actually had any friends... HEY! i've known short guys and i've liked them and they've all assurred me that they are ...you know, 'well endowed'.
and really, i'm tall and 'mine' really isn't all that big.
and i know lots of hot chicks who have been attracted to ...ya know - not so tall guys.
but...there DOES seem to be an issue of over-compensation or something going on here.
not to get too personal...but are you worried about something?
go ahead,
you know you can trust me.
what's this really all about?
NUKE THE BASTARDS !!! ???
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU !!!!
IS THIS JUST SCHTICK ?!
AM I SUPPOSED TO BE AMUSED ??? !!!
YOU ARE...
well, i really should stick to the issues and not get personal.
...sorry
Marco:
Your comments tell me there is a cancer in our American society destroying the moral integrety and values that this country was founded on. My fear is that the cancer has spread to a large number of people who would accept your sick logic and values for our country.
Joe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe,
ALL NATIONS AND PEOPLES of the World should realize that if any nation wants to be our friend, we can be as nice, and understanding, and helpful as any ally imaginable.
But conversely, if nations or extremist groups wish to be our enemy and actively pursue our destruction, they should realize that nobody can be a bigger, meaner, nastier bunch of SOB's and "bring the pain" like the USA. Just ask Japan, who we nuked 60 years ago.....they have decided to be our friends, not our enemies. Good choice.
Let these Islamo-Fascists fear for their lives when they are captured and interrogated by the US. Excluding torture "under all circumstances" tells the terrorists that they have nothing to fear if captured.....not a good signal to send to these irrational fanatics.
SHAME SHAME SHAME on you for protecting, coddling, and encouraging these terrorists and thereby endangering our soldiers and civilians.
McCain is correct that Bush did not lie about pre-war intelligence, but he is dead wrong, in my opinion, about outlawing torture under all circumstances.
Marco
Your comments tell me there is a cancer in our American society destroying the moral integrety and values that this country was founded on. My fear is that the cancer has spread to a large number of people who would accept your sick logic and values for our country.
Joe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe,
ALL NATIONS AND PEOPLES of the World should realize that if any nation wants to be our friend, we can be as nice, and understanding, and helpful as any ally imaginable.
But conversely, if nations or extremist groups wish to be our enemy and actively pursue our destruction, they should realize that nobody can be a bigger, meaner, nastier bunch of SOB's and "bring the pain" like the USA. Just ask Japan, who we nuked 60 years ago.....they have decided to be our friends, not our enemies. Good choice.
Let these Islamo-Fascists fear for their lives when they are captured and interrogated by the US. Excluding torture "under all circumstances" tells the terrorists that they have nothing to fear if captured.....not a good signal to send to these irrational fanatics.
SHAME SHAME SHAME on you for protecting, coddling, and encouraging these terrorists and thereby endangering our soldiers and civilians.
McCain is correct that Bush did not lie about pre-war intelligence, but he is dead wrong, in my opinion, about outlawing torture under all circumstances.
Marco
deveil wrote:
SFGJTT CPT ERT8Q Q83 M G POO !!!!!!!!!!
rest assured - anytime desperation raises its ugly- markemx will burst forth in a frothing...
nah, it's just that i owed one to marco, and i felt him reaching out, asking that i return the favor.
markemx is not returning
Marco Zee wrote:.....................deveil wrote:
oh share with me - share this wonderous moment by responding with something inane...predictable...totally pointless and incomprehensible. you've done it before! be generous!
deveil wrote:
i wouldn't call it your best effort - it seems to lack passion and bluster - but the compassion you show by trying to help out is certainly appreciated
Shocked Wink gary