and once again, the broad brush of criticism comes out to paint a vague picture of assumptions.. sheesh, it's like a broken record..
right, because this country was founded on hugs and kisses, not bloodshed and violence.

 

[QUOTE=PHiZ
And what do we need answers too??? Where are the WMD? Where are your ties to Al Queda?? Why are you attacking american interests? We already have the answers to those questions.

Torture is not American, PERIOD![/QUOTE]


what i want answer to is how to solve the damn problem. it's too late to say we should have never went in there, cause we are there and now we have to deal with it. that's a whole other debate that took place last year. it's classic liberal thought to keep bashing something you can't control anymore than to look ahead and try to fix things going forward.

just remember your right to bash the gov't was giving to you cause people died for it.

 

The United States has always been very uncomfortable with that, because of the political nature of your chief executive. Because the President is only in term for four years, and because his party has to fight so hard to get there, the President's office is a very political, very partisan office and it has agendas that might or might not be more for the party's or for the individual's gain instead of the country's in general.

I get the feeling recently that the President is trying to act like the Queen...but he's not the Queen and the American electorate knows it.

The Queen does have the power to set aside a law if necessary. However, in that case, we know that we're dealing with someone who has nothing to gain, someone who is involved in no political party, someone who has a deeply rooted and sworn devotion to the constitution and to democracy, someone who essentially cannot be bribed. (How do you bribe someone who owns her own navy?)

I think that the biggest "imperial" presidents so far have probably been Johnson and Nixon.

The United States now, however, is facing a threat that is dissimilar to the other threats it has faced throughout history, and it will be interesting to see how the US Constitution fares in the struggle.

 

It appears I'm not going to be successful putting this in terms you can handle without using a crayola product, but I'll give a it a last shot.

Documents lead back to the executive branch detailing how it is acceptable to use , word for word mind you, forced nudity, aggressive dogs, and stress positions. And here we have prison guards going to court martial for doing these same things.

Right, I guess you're saying that since we killed and enslaved indians, chinese, blacks, and the irish for all those years, we should add arabs?

-PHiZ

 

[QUOTE=AccordSleeper]Well, a good first step in protecting ourselves and our vulnerable troops might be, oh I don't know, stop barging around like pig-headed assholes, and realize that our actions don't play well in the international arena of opinion.

Like blatantly ignoring the Geneva Conventions might be something to try and cut back on. It really doesn't lend itself to have dialog or relations with the rest of the world.

-PHiZ

 

:chuckles:
oh dear lord! forced nudity? aggressive dogs? stress positions? the horror! in the vast realm of torture, this is a joke. and do you know why, even if they were ordered to do so, these people are being court marshalled? because the US media and people like you are in an outrage, and demanding justice, even though they don't have the slightest clue.

if we start getting reports about our troops cutting prisoners' fingers off, breaking bones, burning them, goring them, maiming them, etc.. then come back and complain.
of course not. but sometimes, the only way out is through.

 

https://www.honda-acura.net/forums/s...d.php?t=144689

All I'm sayin is all

 

IBManInCamo

That asshole always goes and proves us liberals wrong, I hate it when he does that.



DOH!

-------------------------

Ok, here it goes, short and sweet - i need to go to the bathroom then get some lunch.

Torture has and will always be used. The geneva convention, which the U.S. never signed, and is a relic, while good on paper, isn't a reality.

Its some good guildlines to follow, but when you have a terrorist that knows important information that isn't willing to talk - would you rather him be scared for his life, but generally unharmed, or have 100+ people DIE.

All warring nations pretend to play by the rules, reality is, they dont.

Just remember 'All's fair in love and war'

==========

Do I condone torture? depends on what you consider torture, and it depends on the situation.

We don't waste time aggressivly interigating (threating to kill someone isn't torture IMO, pulling their fingernails out is) some field grunt - why? because its a waste of time and resources. We will aggressivly interrigate a general, or someone in a leadership position, because they probably know more than 100 other grunts combined.




War isn't cookie cutter perfect. Shit happens. It isn't always good.


I support this war and its cause.
nobody likes war, and if they do they are insane, or aren't in the service.