WP: 2,688 Days

[Hubbs]

Do you believe President Obama would not take ANY action necessary to protect his family if they were in danger? Do you really believe that President Obama would not use waterboarding to prevent an imminent attack on American soil? If you answered yes to either you are not living in reality. You can talk "the long term cost is not worth the short term gain" all you want but it's not accurate.

The govt hasn't waterboarded 99.9 % of the people they capture. Theye waterboard terrorists who they are fairly certain know something that is vital to the security of the country. I'll take a 25% chance that the terrorist knows something and waterboard to prevent an imminent attack that could kill another 3,000 Americans. So would you, so would Obama, Generals Petereaus, Zinni, and Powell. They can say they wouldn't publicly all they want.

And what do you do with the other 75% afterward? I'm sure you don't have a problem with holding those who truly were terrorist masterminds in some godforsaken building until they die, but the ones that weren't? The ones who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or who were coerced into doing something for Al Queda in the first place? Do you ever let them go? Because if you do, they'll surely tell people they know what happened to them. Which spreads like wildfire. And it causes a whole lot more Muslims to be convinced that what the bin Ladens of the world tell them really is true, and that many more efforts to kill 3,000 Americans are needed.

Of course, if you keep them until they die, too, then you start to create a rapidly-growing number of people who close families and friends know they weren't actually some sort of terrorist leader, but were kidnapped by a few Delta Force guys who burst in at 3 AM. Those families and friends never see them again. This, too, spreads like wildfire. I don't need to repeat the rest, do I?

The only positive scenario, once we've captured a suspected terrorist for questioning, is that we treat them like human beings and release the ones who really don't seem to be involved in some plot to kill thousands of Americans. Because when they finally do get back home, and people ask them what happened, there's no self-reinforcing cycle. You don't create bunches of new terrorist supporters in your effort to thwart a single plot.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

And what do you do with the other 75% afterward? I'm sure you don't have a problem with holding those who truly were terrorist masterminds in some godforsaken building until they die, but the ones that weren't? The ones who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or who were coerced into doing something for Al Queda in the first place? Do you ever let them go? Because if you do, they'll surely tell people they know what happened to them. Which spreads like wildfire. And it causes a whole lot more Muslims to be convinced that what the bin Ladens of the world tell them really is true, and that many more efforts to kill 3,000 Americans are needed.

Of course, if you keep them until they die, too, then you start to create a rapidly-growing number of people who close families and friends know they weren't actually some sort of terrorist leader, but were kidnapped by a few Delta Force guys who burst in at 3 AM. Those families and friends never see them again. This, too, spreads like wildfire. I don't need to repeat the rest, do I?

The only positive scenario, once we've captured a suspected terrorist for questioning, is that we treat them like human beings and release the ones who really don't seem to be involved in some plot to kill thousands of Americans. Because when they finally do get back home, and people ask them what happened, there's no self-reinforcing cycle. You don't create bunches of new terrorist supporters in your effort to thwart a single plot.

As a compromise of torturing them, but not too bad, we should make them sleep in the same beds as their wives.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

Most of the reports are that waterboarding and torture did NOT get good intelligence, and that it was only after we stopped torturing and started "buddying up" to them that started to open to us.

The idea that torture works is a false premise. The use of torture can actually cause you to LOSE good intelligence. http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/etn/2008/alert/313/

in vietnam, the vietnamese would very successfully coerce the americans by doing the following:

first they would buddy up to one of the americans... be really nice to them.

then they would talk to them about the problems in their country... then they would get them to write out the problems in their own country... then they would eventually get them to write a letter and sign it detailing all the things that were wrong with their country.

then the vietnamese would read the letter to the other soldiers. now all of a sudden all the soldiers would suddenly hate the the one individual. he would look like a traitor and the only people that would be nice to him would be the vietnamese. isolation + contempt from one's own people is very powerful tool.

essentially, they would use psychology to turn people. there are more effective means to get information out of people.

[BigMike619]

Because if we don't, what makes us different from them?

do you really want to be different from them when at war with them?

I know that when I fight someone I dont follow ANY rules. You may not punch me in the nuts or poke me in the eye but if I am at a point where I can give you a kidney blow to slow you down and save myself some injury then I will do it.

[Hubbs]

do you really want to be different from them when at war with them?

I know that when I fight someone I dont follow ANY rules. You may not punch me in the nuts or poke me in the eye but if I am at a point where I can give you a kidney blow to slow you down and save myself some injury then I will do it.

You're right, WWII would have gone much better if, instead of merely rounding up Japanese folks and moving them to the middle of nowhere, we had gone all-out and gassed the sum****es. After all, any of the ones that were spies or saboteurs could have broken out and done their job. No rules when it comes to security, right?

[Popeman38]

in vietnam, the vietnamese would very successfully coerce the americans by doing the following:

first they would buddy up to one of the americans... be really nice to them.

then they would talk to them about the problems in their country... then they would get them to write out the problems in their own country... then they would eventually get them to write a letter and sign it detailing all the things that were wrong with their country.

then the vietnamese would read the letter to the other soldiers. now all of a sudden all the soldiers would suddenly hate the the one individual. he would look like a traitor and the only people that would be nice to him would be the vietnamese. isolation + contempt from one's own people is very powerful tool.

essentially, they would use psychology to turn people. there are more effective means to get information out of people.

Of course, these same Vietnamese would torture Americans to the brink of death, and sometimes push them over. Not to gain actionable intelligence, but simply to make adverse statements against the US govt. Or do you not believe the stories of John McCain? BTW, nice way to cherry pick one of the techniques used.

[Popeman38]

You're right, WWII would have gone much better if, instead of merely rounding up Japanese folks and moving them to the middle of nowhere, we had gone all-out and gassed the sum****es. After all, any of the ones that were spies or saboteurs could have broken out and done their job. No rules when it comes to security, right?

APPLE and ORANGES. Enemy combatants and the worst infringement of civil rights in the last century. No one will argue FDR was right. Of course, he is one of the most revered figures of the left. Wonder how history changes perspective? And if perhaps all the Bush hate just might look a little different in 100 years? Just sayin.

[Hubbs]

APPLE and ORANGES. Enemy combatants and the worst infringement of civil rights in the last century. No one will argue FDR was right. Of course, he is one of the most revered figures of the left. Wonder how history changes perspective? And if perhaps all the Bush hate just might look a little different in 100 years? Just sayin.

If you're bringing political "sides" into this, keep it to other folks. I have equal disdain for both parties. They're just competing circle-jerks.

And I wasn't necessarily saying that torture is like the Holocaust. Mike had said that he had "no rules" during war and that we should do whatever the other side does in the name of winning. If that's the case, then I want to know how he would have responded to America creating an Asian-American Holocaust in the name of internal security, since, you know, the Bad Guys were doing it, too.

[Popeman38]

And I wasn't necessarily saying that torture is like the Holocaust. Mike had said that he had "no rules" during war and that we should do whatever the other side does in the name of winning. If that's the case, then I want to know how he would have responded to America creating an Asian-American Holocaust in the name of internal security, since, you know, the Bad Guys were doing it, too.

We did. It was called Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And we carpet bombed Germany. For months.

[BigMike619]

We did. It was called Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And we carpet bombed Germany. For months.

we were carpet bombing in Vietnam in the beginning too.

[BigMike619]

You're right, WWII would have gone much better if, instead of merely rounding up Japanese folks and moving them to the middle of nowhere, we had gone all-out and gassed the sum****es. After all, any of the ones that were spies or saboteurs could have broken out and done their job. No rules when it comes to security, right?

yeah, thats what I said.

[PeterMP]

Do you believe President Obama would not take ANY action necessary to protect his family if they were in danger? Do you really believe that President Obama would not use waterboarding to prevent an imminent attack on American soil? If you answered yes to either you are not living in reality. You can talk "the long term cost is not worth the short term gain" all you want but it's not accurate.

The govt hasn't waterboarded 99.9 % of the people they capture. Theye waterboard terrorists who they are fairly certain know something that is vital to the security of the country. I'll take a 25% chance that the terrorist knows something and waterboard to prevent an imminent attack that could kill another 3,000 Americans. So would you, so would Obama, Generals Petereaus, Zinni, and Powell. They can say they wouldn't publicly all they want.

Well, that's a nice way to win an argument (telling the person what they (and other third person party people) would do). I'm not sure it is relevant to the discussion or is accurate, but hey.

[Hubbs]

We did. It was called Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And we carpet bombed Germany. For months.

What? Those were other countries' citizens. I'm talking about our own.

[Hubbs]

yeah, thats what I said.

But why would you oppose it? No rules, right? I thought you said that it was okay for us to do it if the other guys were doing it, too. Why doesn't that apply here?

[BigMike619]

But why would you oppose it? No rules, right? I thought you said that it was okay for us to do it if the other guys were doing it, too. Why doesn't that apply here?

Im not gonna get in to a back and forth with you dude. You wanna know how I feel read either this thread over or the Gitmo thread. I have explained my stance perfectly.

[Hubbs]

Im not gonna get in to a back and forth with you dude. You wanna know how I feel read either this thread over or the Gitmo thread. I have explained my stance perfectly.

I'm not at all saying that you're unclear in your stance - I think you've been very clear. But what part of your stance is in conflict with what I said?

[BigMike619]

I'm not at all saying that you're unclear in your stance - I think you've been very clear. But what part of your stance is in conflict with what I said?

rounding up all japanese/american people during WWII? I would have supported it in the beginning until we got a clear view on what was going on and who was who.

If they were still in camps like they are in Gitmo 8 years later with no charges brought on them then I do not support that.

[Hubbs]

rounding up all japanese/american people during WWII? I would have supported it in the beginning until we got a clear view on what was going on and who was who.

If they were still in camps like they are in Gitmo 8 years later with no charges brought on them then I do not support that.

Not rounding them up. Executing them en masse. After all, in the beginning, we had no idea how many of them could have been spies. Executing all Asian-Americans would have made us safer than simply keeping them in camps and hoping the bad ones wouldn't escape. And you said that you're perfectly fine with doing something that the other side does if it makes us safer. The other side tried to eliminate an entire race within its borders. Therefore, you wouldn't have had a problem with doing it too, right?

[Capt Rich Fla]

I'm sorry to come back to this thread, but I have to. We tried to wipe out an entire country of people in WWII. Now, we kick a guy in the balls an we want to prosecute an entire army. What gives?

[Hubbs]

I'm sorry to come back to this thread, but I have to. We tried to wipe out an entire country of people in WWII. Now, we kick a guy in the balls an we want to prosecute an entire army. What gives?

*raises eyebrow*

Exactly which country was this?

[BigMike619]

Not rounding them up. Executing them en masse. After all, in the beginning, we had no idea how many of them could have been spies. Executing all Asian-Americans would have made us safer than simply keeping them in camps and hoping the bad ones wouldn't escape. And you said that you're perfectly fine with doing something that the other side does if it makes us safer. The other side tried to eliminate an entire race within its borders. Therefore, you wouldn't have had a problem with doing it too, right?

did i ever say i was in favor of executing any of them or anyone period?

who really said that?

you need to swim to the shallow end because you are waaaay off the deep end.

[Heisenberg]

*raises eyebrow*

Exactly which country was this?

I'm assuming he's talking about Japan . . . and if he is he might want to go back and read a few history books . . .

. . . or maybe I should because none of the history books I read from 1st grade through senior year of college indicated that was a plan at any time.