Can you lick my hoop if I do?
Americans and Torture
- Thread starter MudGrrl
- Start date
Partsbaraism alert.
Not personally
.... But if it makes you feel better I'll get a priest and a congressman to come along to your demonstration of it.
So you can arrange it?
I just realised why rockwool has not posted in this thread...... It would be an elegant glasshouse. 
aww, c'mon; that was just part of the first couple of months of the world's "good will" we subsequently "squandered".HRW said:
it'll be half a decade next month, which is well before we "started creating terrorists by invading Iraq & torturing at abu-graib & camp x-ray"
you people are not thinking outside the box, getting the big picture here.
We are living in a new age, the way we play the game has changed, since the geneva convention was written how many decades ago. we must fight fire with fire.
im tired of the rest of the world looking at us and laughing. We need to be the bad a$$'s on the block again, maybe we need to drop a nuke on N. Korea/Iran to show we mean business.
You people are telling me we cant beat up a few Jihadist's for intel, after they murdered thousands of Americans.
You mean to tell the average Middle Eastern that they can't kill a few white men after we have killed (directly or indirectly) countless thousands of his countrymen? I'm not saying that I agree, but I understand.
Will you think the same once they push the button on a nuke smuggled in a major U.S. city? and the thousands from 9/11 become millions, we must do what we have to now to make sure this day never ever becomes a reality. I work in the intel world and believe me their is some scary stuff out their you will never ever ever know about.
That's exactly why they're laughing.
Actually rolling their eyes would be more accurate.
You probably don't see that though, being inside men frequently on fire island.
jeezus.....who let hannity in?
You guys are fvcked.
No wonder our intelligence sucks. They keep hiring illiterates.
Seriously.......you're under 20 aren't you?
changleen, lets make up a scenario just for the sake of it, to test how your position fares at borderline insanity situations.
lets say there is an 70% chance threatening razing a couple towns will effectively stop any future attack and deaths from happening on both sides
from an strictly utilitarian view..... would it be worth it???
a threat (if effective, nobody needs to die) worse than several thousand people death a year, every year, basically since the last 50 years???
So our intelligence organizations are so bad that we have to resort to torture and violation of our civil liberties?
1) Torture is PROVEN to not work. Said persons will say anything to escape additional torture.
2) Freedom = civil liberties (you know, the basic rights granted to each and every citizen)
Wtf mate?
I love the smell of genocide in the morning.
If you're totally crazy anyways, why not drop the nuke on Israel? Then you could hang out with Mel Gibson and give each other handjobs while talking about how cool you are...
israel got nukes too.
sad thing is, in the real world, things gotta break by the weakest link.
The surest way to be safe is to institute a police state. Is that what you are advocating?
In what crazy world is this where threatening violence against a group of people make things better? Do you watch the news?
Sorry, but your premise is basically ridiculous.
As we have seen, MAD worked quite well for a while, but that might have just been luck, and I personally don't much feel like re-entering such a situation.
However, in the Middle East as you appear to be talking about, it is the very thing you are suggesting which propagates violence.
If you really believe that is a threat, how about implementing searching of all cargo freighters entering the US? George doesn't seem too keen on that though. Is he really just a complete idiot or is the threat actually not that real? Or maybe it's just that the free flow of $$ > American lives?
one of the reasons societies invented governments, laws and punishment exists is because of that.
everyday, read a crapload of stuff on the subject. from the israeli perspective and the arab perspective... and it only gets me more convinced that they have irreconcileable differences.
you have MAD on one side... and many thousands of people dying per year consistenly over the last 50 years.
thats a nice pitfall on your morality that prefers the 2nd by default over the first.
thats a rather simplistic view of the middle east issue.
unilateral dissengatement and cease fires without warnings did nothing to improve the situation in the long run, other than giving terrorists time to re-group and re-inforcing their idea that their everyday violence is getting them somewhere.
in fact, i put 10 bucks on hezbollah not bugging israel for quite a while after the latest smackdown.
am pretty sure olmert´s not so subreptitious objective was to send a pretty believable threat to future events with that.
That's a pretty flimsy assumption, but let's say for the sake of argument that it is true.
Olmert now has threatened Hezbollah, and they have temporarily backed down. Have you actually gained anything? Whether they rise up and kill umpteen people today or tomorrow, does it make much difference? Have any of the problems actually been fixed, or simply deferred? Will that deferring cause the next retaliation to be worse because bad feelings are stewing?
Also, let's not forget that Olmert actually had to commit crimes against humanity in order to make the threat work well enough for what you are thinking is only a temporary reprieve. He had to become just as bad as Hezbollah, if not worse, in order to simply get a delay. Wow, that's some victory there. Yeah, we could go out and just start executing people at random, and it might give some people pause before they take up arms against us, but is it really worth it? Is the cost to our humanity and our morality really worth it?
So now you are equating the rule of law with threatening an entire population with collective punishment by death? Nice. What was that you were saying about morals?
I think maybe the politicians have the irreconcilable differences, not the people.
How did you get a 'preference' out of that? Alexis, the threat of collective punishment has been used and even carried out in the Israel/Palestinian situation and it has only served to perpetuate the violence. LAST WEEK Israel used tanks to shell the **** out of a village, killing many civilians and wounding many more, guess what? It just made the other side even more pissed! What part of that don't you get?
Which side are the terrorists Alexis? Seriously. The ones who reign death on entire villages? Until you can approach the problem without deeming one side 'evil' and the other 'good' you're never going to get anywhere.
"Smackdown"? You mean the one where Israel was forced to withdraw without achieving any of it's stated goals? All they did was kill a bunch of people, mostly completely innocent, and shocker of all shockers, now the entire population of Lebanon hates them rather than just Hezbollah members. Way to go.
That's why he was forced to apologise for the whole thing and his government nearly collapsed.
the rule of law is pretty much the monopoly of violence by a government that tells you "if you dont behave, i´ll pwn you!".
my extensiion is, the rule of "wars-you-start" should be "if you start a war and loose, accept that and stop pushing for a war you cant posibly win forever, otherwise dont bitch when you get bombed".
i´d think thats a fair and ethical behaviour for the loosing side that started a war.
the preferrence is that you wouldnt even think about giving the threat a shot... not even if it means it has a chance at saving lives in the end.
plus that part that thinks this will go on forever. it just wont.
thats pretty much how wars end, when one side cannot or isnt willing to fight anymore basically out of fear.
i dont see it either side under the romantic veil of "good" and "evil".
its just realism on what would be the "cheaper" answer. i dont think the israelis are "good", and because of that they should end up as "winnners".
i see it as "israel got so much muscle its wishful thinking to believe it will loose".
plus there is an ethical thing in my book that tells me "whoever start a war cant claim back looses derived from this war".
as long as they dont bug israel anymore, i´d say they achieved an objetive.
if that sets a precedent of how to olmert (and post--sharon israel) will deal with attacks... then that be achieving another objective too.
i honestly think those words are empty.
he knew what he was doing, and it was pretty obvious what he wanted to do.
and, realpolitik-ally, i dont find fault on his motives.
i think that you gotta make a first step before you walk a mile.
i think people gotta stop killing each other before they stop hating each other. you cant stop the hate when people get blown up everyday.
temporal peace (even if brought by sheer fear) might or might not evolve into definitive peace... but constant killings and bombs definately wont lead to definitive peace.
Alexis, pointing a gun at someone's head and threatening to pull the trigger won't induce peace either.
Besides, you are willing to condemn the Palestinians for small scale attacks, but unwilling to condemn Israelis for bulldozing houses and people. Who has to stop the killing, only one side? How does that achieve peace?
sometimes it does. and other times, its actually the only way to convince.
a proof it does not always not lead to peace is the eastern front on wwii.
of couse both sides have to stop the killings.
but i´ve seen israel stop the violence before, with jordan, egypt (even at the cost of the oil rich sinai). i dont find objectable to bulldoze a house rigged with explosives and booby traps from where a rocket came from. as i dont have many doubts as to where does this "circle" of violence starts.
I categorically reject that. We pulled the trigger. We didn't just threaten with the gun, we pulled the trigger too. Unless you are willing to pull the trigger, all bets are off.
It's a "circle" because it has no start. You can't pin all the blame on the Palestinians. Even if a Palestinian started the whole thing 60 years ago by throwing the first rock, what do the current participants know about it? It's moot now. What matters is finding a peaceful solution. You have to take that first step to walk a mile, and if you want your mile to be all violence, then threats and retaliations is a great way to achieve that. If you want that mile to end in peace, you have to start acting like a responsible person who actually wants to achieve peace.
No it's not.
Are you saying the only reason society doesn't descend into chaos is because people are afraid of the law? I totally disagree. Most people conduct their lives within the boundaries provided by laws because it's the sensible and constructive thing to do. Now when governments start acting outside those norms you get problems on a much larger scale, which are further amplified when bigger governments refuse to do anything about it.
So might is always right and the end justify the means?
I don't like the threat because it is a) Immoral and b) DOESN'T HAVE A SNOWBALLS CHANCE IN HELL!
And how is that ever going to happen in the ME? Alexis, the solution you are talking about is Genocide. Hope you're happy with that one.
The Americans and Soviets have both lost in conflicts against much smaller, weaker enemies. Your point is invalid.
So your definition of who started it is shared by everyone involved? No it's not. Therefore this is pointless line of argument.
What about Israel bugging them? Since the end of the Israel vs. Lebanon, only one side has flown jets over the other's terrtory, sent soldiers across the border to and killed the other's citizens. Seriously, get a grip.
He wanted to start a war so he could kill more of his enemies because he had failed to deal with them by talking? Yeah, what a hero. What an upstanding moral leader.
It is blatantly obvious that the only thing Olmert has achieved is to destabilise the region further and make future death more likely. He has devastated a previously growing economy and democracy. He has killed thousands of innocents. He is cvnt of the George Bush order.
This is why I love America and what it stands for. You crackheads can come on here and bitch about all this that you want to. The only reason this is possible is due to the men and women risking their lives for you. How many of you cracks have actually spent time in the military and somewhat have a gist of what is going on? Probably 1 or 2...most of you just listen to CNN and other jackbag news reports. Keep on arguing and debating. I think its funny to see how stupidity has evolved over the years.
I thought it was because Al Gore invented the intarweb for us. I did not know he risked his life to bring us this greatness.
And who else is risking their life for me? The troops? I would expect someone who could protect me might have to be a little closer than Iraq.
The ad hominem attacks are awesome. Name calling is what all the cool kids are doing today. I would love to stick around and compliment you on your awesome post, but I gotta run and meetup with my dealer as I am fresh out of rocks.
Hope he has some nice ones for me.BTW, This site is Kanukistani, so nothing to do with Bush's dumb overseas fantasies actually..
yes.No it's not.
there is a correlation between the how effective the rule of law is and the welfare and order in a society.
in societies where there is virtually no rule of law, you end up with mad max-like scenarios.
of course, totalitarian rule of law does means mayhem... but no rule of law is an almost guarantee of no chance of no-chaos.
i disagree here. i think people dont commit crimes basically because they know it will have adverse effects on themselves, like pound-in-the-ass prison or the electric chair.
for those who dont need threats to refrain from crime.. they are just becomes redundant. but that doesnt mean they arent effective for a portion of a society for whom other things mean squat.
most people dont make problems. but it doesnt matter, you just need a few to break all hell loose.
in the real world, yes. you can yell, cry and wave your arms like a maniac.. but it wont really take you anywhere. how would you enforce it with anything but more might?? plus that doesnt mean the "might who is right" is always mistaken.
the end justifies the means? well, if the death of 10 random people prevents the death of 20 random people.. then that would mean the end justified a mean.
shortly after the lebanon war nasrallah said "he would have considered not attacking israel if he had known israel would react like it did" kinda disproves that.
it isnt genocide if you dont kill anybody. and you dont have to kill anybody if you are convincing.
nope. people win the lottery every week.. that doesnt mean you will win the lottery next week.
complicity. i´d say you can hardly say there is no complicity between the palestinian government and the militants.
since israel didnt start the latest mess, i dont see why they dont have the right to keep things in check, even if that means stepping over the rights of the offender.
in my view, the guy started a war to show he wasnt going to take crap from hezbollah, and that israel wouldnt cave in to violence, and that the price to pay for violence will be high.
by doing so, there is a chance his actions will keep hezbollak from killing more israelis, and the IDF from engaging in more small and frequent low intensity but deadly ops. both things being the situation by default before this. at some point there is a chance the cost in lives could be lower than the situation by default. of course, that day is way closer from the israeli perspective.
i dont find taking that chance (for both sides) morally problematic.
Wouldnt implementing a legal torture procedure insure that we would be attacked in the near or far future? Never say never man. Did you play with little green army men up into high school or what? Your view is extremely shallow and completely unrealistic. Ill bet you were usually on the winning side of the army men battles werent you?
Yep Yep Yep You obviously havent payed much attention to the other bad a$$s that once ruled the population over the past, oh say 6000 years. They all eventually fell due to there own overly exuberant acts of arrogance which led them to there self inflicted demise. Kinda like the way you think about yourself and the rest of this country. Keep thinking like that, it has a real positive ending for sure
NO one is or will be attacking us for our personal beliefs or freewill. We will get attacked because of Wall Street and our inability to reason when setting a foot on foreign lands. I dont see any belief system battles between the free countries like Canada, New Zealand, or Australia and other opposing nations??? Do you?
Our military is in place to push agendas on foreign soils period. And Im sorry that you cant see that.
There is a correlation.
However the correlation in the very worst cases is still an effect on a small or normally tiny percentage of the total population, yet you wish to tar the entire society with the same brush? Let's see where that gets us.
In the Congo where ridiculous crazy bananas status has been achieved, around 3 million people have died in a the last 5 yrs of conflict in a nation of 65ish million. This death toll also includes all the dead soldiers from Angola, Eritraea (sic?), Zimbabwe, Namibia, Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi who have been effectively fighting over control of the Congo over this time, and who represent a good portion of the dead.
This is certainly not a thing that is in any way justified, nor should be in anyway ignored, but do you see what it means about the populations of even these 'most lawless' places?
80-90% of the people do not engage themselves in this chaotic lawlessness, yet you wish to 'solve' the problem by applying a treatment to the symptom rather than the problem, and worse than that to apply your 'cure' to the entire organism when only the foot is gangrenous.
All that happens as we have seen so many times in history is a large festering hatred and resentment is caused which rolls through the society of the criminalised, meaning the conflict drags on and on for years. What you are proposing is not a new idea, it is the typical reaction of the immature, desperate for an instant cure. It does not work. You must solve the root problem, or resort to genocide, which you seem to prefer.
Hand up RM member who are only holding back from killing and raping their next door neighbours (especially that juicy little 8 year old blonde) because they are afraid of getting caught?
So how did society start in the first place?
You just need a few to sort it out too. Yet the people who can make all the difference choose to let it roll on.
You seem to think rationality can only be enforced by might. Frankly you're just wrong. Most people I know have a brain.
Alexis, this is only true in a genuine 1/0, black white situation. However much you want it to be true, in the real world NO situation is like this. There is always a variety of possibilities and a variety of solutions. You cannot ever draw such a simplistic solution to a real world situation without excluding many possibilities. Only idiots would do this. "The end justifies the means" is a simplistic, morally repugnant, discredited child's 'solution' which will never pan out. It was the backbone of the actions of people like Hitler , Olmert and Bush. How much more evdence do you need that it will not work?
Thank you for pointing that out. It's truly frightening to me when people tell me that the only thing keeping them from killing and raping others is that they are scared of getting caught and prosecuted by god or the government.Hand up RM member who are only holding back from killing and raping their next door neighbours (especially that juicy little 8 year old blonde) because they are afraid of getting caught?
i never said that.
i never included myself in either category, not i did say the only thing that kept me from a killing spree is the government.
remember for a minute where i´m. i bet you i can get away with lots of nasty stuff i just dont do because i dont find appealling and i dont enjoy hurting people. but thats not the point here.
the point here is thats just me, and it might be you, might be changleen... but thats not how everybody is.
to generalize that or to be surprised not everyone agres, thats just a naive view of the world. as if you guys have never seen anything outside a scottsdale CC or loughton.
this is the kinda of faulty reasoning i´ve been seeing frequently in the last posts. funnily, its variations of the "if you dont support the troops you are anti-american", or the "if you support gay marriage you must be gay" discourse.
i dont think its about a normally tiny percentage of the total population that needs threats not to kill or steal. plus i think societies degenarate over time if you let them. so, even a tiny percentage today, will mean a majority tomorrow.
its a matter of incentives, rewards and punishment. thats among the only things i think are universal for human beings. yes, that pavlovian is my perseption of mankind.
can mean so many things. its irrelevant.
not enough guns or ammo, people getting better at taking cover, light sleepers, good hearted assasins who saw the light, crappy child soldiers with crappier shooting skills.
first, is not the entire organism. you dont need to wipe out ALL subsaharan africa, nor ALL the middle east. that could indeed be considered a "solution", although a silly expensive one.
the idea would be to get a solution for as "cheap" as possible. and for that you only can choose from what you have available.
solutions are to be weighted against reality... not against some dreamy perfect solution where nobody dies, or where all jews convert to islam or where all palestinians turn into christianity.
all other "better" solutions have proven ineffective (IMO, a lot of them, fundamentally flawed by idealizing involved parties as rational, intelligent beings with self-preservation instincts).
and all this keeps going on, and people keep dying... while you break your head trying to figure out a solution (as if it was a matter of inventing something never seen before) that fares well against a "perfect solution" to satisfy your "moral standard".
albeit in the long run your "better and moral solution" (assuming a BIG IF you even find one) could prove more expensive.
like i said. you dont actually need to resort to genocide. you didnt need a genocide of americans or soviets to pre-empt a preemptive strike that never happened!.
as we talk people are dying already. thats pretty much a cost you can chalk up to our inaction.
some root problems cannot be cured. some root problems propagate faster than you can cure them.
if you have gangrene on your arm, and here is me and somebody else arguing on whether we should amputate or not.. while you are rotting to death for months, everyday closer to septisemy.. wouldnt, in the long run, be "more expensive" that to just chopping your arm on the first day?.
i get what you are saying here is "no need to amputate, we can cure this" (although you´ve been trying "cures" for 50 years) . but you see... as you say that, people is continuously dying.
now you can chalk up those deaths to the costs of your defense. your position isnt as "moral" or "cheap" (in terms of human life) as you´d think it is.
its not the only one.Hand up RM member who are only holding back from killing and raping their next door neighbours (especially that juicy little 8 year old blonde) because they are afraid of getting caught?
So how did society start in the first place?
You just need a few to sort it out too. Yet the people who can make all the difference choose to let it roll on.
You seem to think rationality can only be enforced by might. Frankly you're just wrong. Most people I know have a brain.
Alexis, this is only true in a genuine 1/0, black white situation.
"most people you know have a brain". thats a problem right there. you seem to think because "most people YOU KNOW have a brain", then "most people MUST have a brain" must also hold true.
which isnt necesarilly true.
wait.. did you ramble on "simplistic" thoughts, "morally repugnant" ideas, bad logic and faulty reasoning... to finally say "It was the backbone of the actions of people like Hitler , Olmert and Bush. How much more evdence do you need that it will not work?".
what other myriad REALISTIC solutions have worked??
its been 50 years, and from you train of thought, besides a few hundred thousand dead people... we arent that far away from point zero.
on the other front, with egypt and jordan, a massive threat of violence among other things have worked wonders (by relative standards).