Real World Event Discussions
450 posts IS a worse crime than wanting to kill us .
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Friday, May 22, 2009 14:59
VIEWED: 29463
PAGE 26 of 46
Monday, May 4, 2009 7:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
For example, Saddam using torture is wrong, but it gets sanctioned by Bush?
There is a difference between the use of waterboarding...which simulates drowing...on three individuals and the systematic physical torture practiced in Iraq. Remember Saddam started as a torturer (kinda like Obama was a community organizer). It was his career path, he went to school for it. He did it well and it was his entry into govt service.
As for waterboarding...I suspect that we use harsher methods on our own soldiers undergoing their escape and capture training then we used on the enemy.
Quote:
For example, Saddam [allegedly] possessing weapons of mass destruction invaded by US, the country which possesses most of the worlds weapons of mass destruction.
The weapons are not evil by nature. We have them, they don't...that gives us the right and responsibility to keep it that way. We can trust ourselves with such power...we cannot trust them. Its why some very smart people are thinking very serious thoughts about how exactly they would bomb North Korea and Iran.
Absent the WMDs North Korea would be...Cuba. Without WMDs Iran would be...Iran of the '80s. In other words neither would be a credible military threat.
We have them, they don't is hardly fair...but its in the best interests of the United States, its allies, its enemies (whom we could wipe out if they had such weapons and used them), and the whole fracking world.
We have them, they don't. Might does not always make right...but it can, it has, and it does in this particular case.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, May 4, 2009 9:10 PM
Quote:
Remember Saddam started as a torturer (kinda like Obama was a community organizer).
Kinda like Dubya was a draft dodger and a drunk, and Reagan was just a horrible actor who was usually cast as dumber than a monkey.
Right?
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, May 4, 2009 9:12 PM
Quote:
We can trust ourselves with such power...
Several hundred thousand Japanese might disagree with you on that one...
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, May 5, 2009 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Several hundred thousand Japanese might disagree with you on that one...
You don't understand the Jananese at all.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, May 5, 2009 1:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Kinda like Dubya was a draft dodger and a drunk, and Reagan was just a horrible actor who was usually cast as dumber than a monkey.
Right?
Actually, I don't think comparing Saddam's early career as a torturer to being an actor or a figter pilot is a good comparison. I guess you don't consider torture to be that big of a deal.
I disagree with your characterization of Reagan and Bush. I've enjoyed every Ronald Reagan film I've ever seen. He was no Clint Eastwood (Space Cowboys) or John Wayne (The Conqueror...ie the one where I played Ghengis Khan), but his movies are all pretty good. Maybe they're not for you...but I've seen a lot of them and they're ok. He made some fine westerns and 'Hellcats of the Navy' is a damn good submarine movie.
As for President Bush...there is no evidence he was a drunk...only that he drank...and that's true of almost everybody.
Imagine...a fighter pilot who drinks...and he was a college student who liked beer...AND he was a Texan...what are the odds that someone with THAT background would drink a little now and then? Shocking.
Since Bush was in the service he could not and did not dodge the draft. One might take issue with the quality and quantity of his service, but much of those allegations are without evidence (at least without evidence that was manufactured prior to 2004 and the invention of the word processor).
Looking back...Eisenhower (Supreme Allied Commander), Kennedy (PT-109), LBJ (won a Silver Star in the Pacific), Nixon (naval logistical officer), Ford (gunnery and navigation officer on USS Monterey, a US carrier in the Pacific), Carter (engineer on subs), Reagan (rode horses, made movies), Bush (torpedo bomber pilot off the USS San Jacinto), and Bush (fighter pilot 147th Fighter Intercepter Group, Texas Air National Guard) ALL served in one form or another...
Obama and Clinton did NOT serve. I didn't serve either...Clinton dodged the draft...or at least edged his way to the side so as to not get hit. As for Obama and myself...the draft was not an issue.
I note for the record that many people think Reagan joined the service or was drafted to make movies during WW2. He was actually a commissioned Cavalry reserve office in 1937 and was activated in 1942. He did a lot of staff work...and made movies for the Army (there's a real compelling feature on the danger of VD I recommend to all of you).
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, May 5, 2009 1:40 PM
Quote:
Actually, I don't think comparing Saddam's early career as a torturer to being an actor or a figter pilot is a good comparison. I guess you don't consider torture to be that big of a deal.
Didn't you compare him to being a "community organizer"?
And aren't you the one who called torture nothing more than a little water and discomfort?
Kwicko was right - you ARE amazingly bad at arguing your point, considering that you call yourself a lawyer.
E
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, May 8, 2009 1:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
There is a difference between the use of waterboarding...which simulates drowing...on three individuals and the systematic physical torture practiced in Iraq. Remember Saddam started as a torturer (kinda like Obama was a community organizer). It was his career path, he went to school for it. He did it well and it was his entry into govt service.
As for waterboarding...I suspect that we use harsher methods on our own soldiers undergoing their escape and capture training then we used on the enemy.
Waterboarding is one of the methods approved by the Bush government. There is no evidence it was used on three individuals only. There is plenty of evidence that torture was widely sanctioned, given also that rendition was a policy.
Whether you can get your head around this or not, the main component of torture is psychological, and includes inducing fear of physical harm, death, harm to loved ones, humiliation etc. The whole act of torture aims to dehumanise the person being tortured, and a side effect is to dehumanise those who do it. Research has shown clearly that psychological torture alone such as isolation and sleep deprivation has significant long term affects on those who have had that inflicted upon them. Regardless of whether you think waterboarding is no big deal, its physical and psychological torture, as you would clearly understand if it happened to you.
Those countries that endorse torture always justify it as being in the best interest of the citizens, which is just a big of pile of bullshit when it happens in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the US.
Quote:
The weapons are not evil by nature. We have them, they don't...that gives us the right and responsibility to keep it that way.
Why does it give you that right?
Quote:
We can trust ourselves with such power...we cannot trust them.
Why are you to be trusted and they are not? Are you intrinsically good and they intrinsically evil? Are you immune from corruption, from hubris, from acting in an inhumane manner by your very nature of being American?
Quote:
We have them, they don't is hardly fair...but its in the best interests of the United States, its allies, its enemies (whom we could wipe out if they had such weapons and used them), and the whole fracking world.
Yeah your really selling the whole 'US has the right no one else does' NOT. Maybe other countries consider its in their best national interests to possess WMD. Maybe other nations see the US as evil and themselves as good, maybe they need to see the need to protect themselves from YOU. They'd probably argue the same points from the opposing view to determine that they DO need WMD. The argument sucks both ways.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, May 11, 2009 3:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Yeah your really selling the whole 'US has the right no one else does' NOT. Maybe other countries consider its in their best national interests to possess WMD. Maybe other nations see the US as evil and themselves as good, maybe they need to see the need to protect themselves from YOU. They'd probably argue the same points from the opposing view to determine that they DO need WMD. The argument sucks both ways.
The difference is that we have the weapons and they don't. So all their arguments don't amount to much.
WMDs are so destructive that we cannot trust them in the hands of those who would use them irresponsibly. Since we cannot uninvent them, the only way to be certain they will not be used against us or our interests and allies is to strictly control them.
I agree, other nations see this from a different perspective. But we got there first, we have them, they don't. They can either join us in consensus and agree not to develop the weapons...or they must submit to our will and determination that they will not be allowed to develop the weapons.
On this issue they are not our equals with the soveriegn power to act as they will...they must bow to our leadership and respect our power.
This power we have is the very reason we must have it and not allow them to share, its a lot of power. We have it and choose not to use it...we never used our might to conquer the world...never even tried, not even on Canada. Would Iran be so...restrained? We can't risk it.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, May 11, 2009 5:22 PM
Its funny, but the peeps who believe so strongly in the right to bear arms are often the one most worried about that paradigm extended internationally.
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, May 11, 2009 6:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Its funny, but the peeps who believe so strongly in the right to bear arms are often the one most worried about that paradigm extended internationally.
I have no problem with folks bearing all the arms they want. Iran wants tanks, fighter, rifles, bombs, sabres, elephants, etc...its all good.
Weapons of Mass Destruction are a different catagory.
I note for the record that all of a person's civil rights...even those expressly protected by the Constitution, can be limited under reasonable circustances given a "compelling national interest".
You can talk during the movie and you can carry a gun into the theater (given a permit and assuming the owner did not post a sign saying you can't) but you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater...you also can't carry a nuclear bomb into one. Thats a pretty reasonable position, even for a card carrying gun nut...like myself.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME