19Skins72 Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 I think we face a barbaric enemy that willingly ignores all all known rules and laws of warfare agreed upon by civilized men. As such, I feel we are forced to fight them on their own terms in order to survive. I feel we must do so in clandestine fashion so as not assist the enemy in recruiting against us. I support everyone's right to despise waterboarding, but do point out the very thing that you despise has almost assuredly saved the lives of some of your countrymen. I do not support torture in any way, shape, or form against the armed forces or civilians of any Geneva convention signatory party (assuming they honor the intent/rules of the Geneva convention when dealing with other signatory parties.) In short, I may fear this administration for it's incompetence and corruption, but I fear the enemy far, far more for all that and then some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 If calling reality, fiction helps you sleep at night... Wow, you mean Jack Nicholson really is a Marine Colonel? (In which case, my point still stands: You're quoting, with admiration, a liar who's attempting to conceal the fact that he knowingly disobeyed orders, and caused the death of an American soldier, by framing a couple of E-4s for murder, and by wrapping himself in the flag and announcing that he's above the law because he's better than everybody else.) (Which, I guess, explains why his speech appeals to so many Tailgate posters.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 I do not support torture in any way, shape, or form against the armed forces or civilians of any Geneva convention signatory party (assuming they honor the intent/rules of the Geneva convention when dealing with other signatory parties.) Then you don't support the Geneva convention because the Geneva convention doesn't make any such distinction. It's a rule of conduct which applies to all signatory nations and applies whether or not the opponent entities signed or not. Not only do you not support the Geneva convention but you would having The United States break it's international agreements. Over the objection of our military. In short, I may fear this administration for it's incompetence and corruption, but I fear the enemy far, far more for all that and then some. You think this is a new debate. This isn't a new debate... This is a debate which has gone on since before the founding of the country.. Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety - 1759 http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 The rantings of a fictitional lunatic who conspired to kill his own soldier and justified his acts on the basis that he was above the law..... as he was actively trying to frame two other soldiers under his command for the murders.Thank you for putting the discussion and those doing the discussion in perspective. The ultra-conservative girl I work with has that monologue posted in her office, along with five pictures of Ronald Reagan (I'm not kidding), and she wears "Oliver North: American Hero" t-shirts while listening to all three ****ing hours of Rush Limbaugh a day. She's a walking, talking caricature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 The ultra-conservative girl I work with has that monologue posted in her office, along with five pictures of Ronald Reagan (I'm not kidding), and she wears "Oliver North: American Hero" t-shirts while listening to all three ****ing hours of Rush Limbaugh a day. She's a walking, talking caricature. That's actually pretty scary. It's okay to have a few conservative thoughts now and then, but you should never become a groupie or cultist. We should all burn inscents for her and pray for the mending of her kharmic soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 The ultra-conservative girl I work with has that monologue posted in her office, along with five pictures of Ronald Reagan (I'm not kidding), and she wears "Oliver North: American Hero" t-shirts while listening to all three ****ing hours of Rush Limbaugh a day. She's a walking, talking caricature. Dude that's great!!!.... Knowing your political leanings and knowing you are a very smart intelligent worldly guy..... Your girlfriend must be very hot!!.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Dude that's great!!!.... Knowing your political leanings and knowing you are a very smart intelligent worldly guy..... Your girlfriend must be very hot!!.. Well, she does have great knockers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Well, she does have great knockers. http://www.stackedandpacked.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Well, she does have great knockers. Every man has his price.. So tell me.. When you discuss political topics with her... do you just nod your head and agree with her? Do you quickly change the channel from sports talk radio to Rush when she walks in the door? Do you find yourself grimacing to cover yourself as she observes you reading politically centrist material? Do you mine extreeme skins for Sarge's and Mass Skins Fan's posts so you know what to say to her? Have you thougtht about purchasing a fire arm as a romantic prop? Or is she aware of the political compromises you've made to foster your "relationship"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 So. . . . did people miss this line??? In documents prepared for a military hearing at Guantanamo Bay, where he is still held, Abu Zubaida asserted that he was tortured by the CIA, and that he told his questioners whatever they wanted to hear to make the torture stop. He told them what they wanted to hear. . .whether true of not, he told them what they wanted to hear. Does anyone else not see the problem with this? The information you get in not reliable at all!!! He is telling them what they want to hear to stop the torture. . . Why can't people understand life isn't a 24 show, and when you torture someone, the information is 9 times out of 10 a wild goose chase. . .the other side of the argument . . ."yea, but that one time you could prevent a 9-11". . .is utter BS. We USED to hold ourselves accountable for our own actions. We USED to be the role model for a civilized nation. Now, because of actions like this, we are viewed throughout the world as we viewed the Stalinist USSR government. That is what we have become in the worlds eyes, and it will be the downfall of a great country if we don't rectify the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted December 11, 2007 Author Share Posted December 11, 2007 So. . . .did people miss this line??? He told them what they wanted to hear. . .whether true of not, he told them what they wanted to hear. Does anyone else not see the problem with this? The information you get in not reliable at all!!! He is telling them what they want to hear to stop the torture. . . Why can't people understand life isn't a 24 show, and when you torture someone, the information is 9 times out of 10 a wild goose chase. . .the other side of the argument . . ."yea, but that one time you could prevent a 9-11". . .is utter BS. . Here is the thing. This type of intelligence provided in stressful enviornments is cross checked and cross checked again. I.E only double sourced info goes up from OOs to CMOs and up the chain to intel consumers So if one guy says "we have a bomb on 7th street" in a stressful situation, its not going to make it very far unless guy number 2 says the same thing I used to, and still do think the same way you do Chom, that they will say whatever, but apparently that is not the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 http://www.stackedandpacked.com/ I miss G. Gordon Liddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Every man has his price.. So tell me.. When you discuss political topics with her... do you just nod your head and agree with her? Do you quickly change the channel from sports talk radio to Rush when she walks in the door? Do you find yourself grimacing to cover yourself as she observes you reading politically centrist material?Do you mine extreeme skins for Sarge's and Mass Skins Fan's posts so you know what to say to her? Have you thougtht about purchasing a fire arm as a romantic prop? Or is she aware of the political compromises you've made to foster your "relationship"? I also read a lot of Charles Krauthammer--gets me brownie points. Plus, I started smoking gigantic cigars. One of her favorite phrases: "Consensus is simply a lack of leadership." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 So if one guy says "we have a bomb on 7th street" in a stressful situation, its not going to make it very far unless guy number 2 says the same thing And how long do you think it would take me to get your confession to that bomb If I was using a rusty pliers on your toenails? You ever heard of a source named "curve ball". He wasn't tortured just a defector but I think the example further defines who has been in control of US intelligence. I think anybody who has read any of the many books on our lead up to the Iraq war.. "Huburis", "State of Denial", "Fiasco" or "The One Percent Doctrine" knows that single sources are not an exception to the rule with regards to US intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted December 11, 2007 Author Share Posted December 11, 2007 And how long do you think it would take me to get your confession to that bomb If I was using a rusty pliers on your toenails?You ever heard of a source named "curve ball". He wasn't tortured just a defector but I think the example further defines who has been in control of US intelligence. I think anybody who has read any of the many books on our lead up to the Iraq war.. "Huburis", "State of Denial", "Fiasco" or "The One Percent Doctrine" knows that single sources are not an exception to the rule with regards to US intelligence. I have read all of them, and been lucky enough to speak with members of the IC. I am sure you have also I for one believe that a good portion of the information we get through torture is bogus, and the whole practice is completely pointless. Those that know far more then I do disagree with me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 I also read a lot of Charles Krauthammer--gets me brownie points. Plus, I started smoking gigantic cigars.One of her favorite phrases: "Consensus is simply a lack of leadership." Headexplode's girl friend is into Bondage!!! I think there are definitely some up sides to completely compartmentalizing your intellect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 My point for bringing up the books was to show that information has many uses. The information we used from "cooperative" defectors was totally misleading. If you believe the intelligence community today, not that you have any reason to, it was known to be false when it was reported; and it still found it's way into the speeches and reasoning at the highest levels of our government. Handing a guy a pair of rusty pliers isn't just a poor way to gather information, it also could be a way for a guy to propagate his flawed understanding of the world. And one last thing for all the proponents of torture out there. Remember the headline in the Presidents Daily Briefing on intelligence from August 6, 2001. Do you really think the words would have been more convincing coming from a terrorist with bloody toes? I for one believe that a good portion of the information we get through torture is bogus, and the whole practice is completely pointless. Those that know far more then I do disagree with me And my point is as far as I can tell, those who know a lot more than you or I, don't disagree with us; and have said so publically. The folks who both champion the abusive tactics aren't the folks in the know. They aren't even interested in an honest public debate. That's why the legalize torture using the Washington two step. The condemn torture, while failing to define it adiquately enough to enforce. They outlaw torture while placing the torturers in the sole position to report the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19Skins72 Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Then you don't support the Geneva convention because the Geneva convention doesn't make any such distinction. It's a rule of conduct which applies to all signatory nations and applies whether or not the opponent entities signed or not.Not only do you not support the Geneva convention but you would having The United States break it's international agreements. Over the objection of our military...[/b] Thank you Captain Obvious. I think I was rather clear in saying what I did and did not support, but by all means, ramble on. You think this is a new debate. This isn't a new debate... This is a debate which has gone on since before the founding of the country..[/b] At no point did I suggest that I "think this is a new debate." Thanks for the redundant history lesson though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Thank you Captain Obvious. I think I was rather clear in saying what I did and did not support, but by all means, ramble on. You hedged, and worse your hedge was counter to what the Geneva Convention was all about... You specifically stated... I do not support torture in any way, shape, or form against the armed forces or civilians of any Geneva convention signatory party (assuming they honor the intent/rules of the Geneva convention when dealing with other signatory parties.) Which I... CAPTAIN OBBBBVIIIIOOOOOUUUS took to mean you only agreed to the Geneva convention for countries which both signed the treaty and adheared to it. Which if we followed your advice wouldn't include the United States... At no point did I suggest that I "think this is a new debate." Thanks for the redundant history lesson though. Then you are right. The only component of the discussion that is new is your ideas and councel on the matter.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.