So Begins the Castration of the great US of A

[Farley4Fan]

The biggest one being the safety of the people.

Wrong. The biggest part of the Presidential oath is to uphold the Constitution.

That's right.  The president would even kill all 3,000,000 of us if not upholding the constitution is at stake, or so I hear. 

Westfall still thinks I liked one of the candidates this year.  Haha, nope.  Just the lesser of two evils as usual, right?  We're not so different, you and I, wf. 

Wf, you think Bush didn't tell the Arab people that he was on their side?  You mean, sacrificing 4,000 of his own troops just to get their country on track wasn't a strong enough message?  Or are you one of those guys that thinks we invaded the mid-east for oil?

This is what happened.  After 9/11, we wanted to go into Afghanistan first and foremost.  Bush figured that while we were in the area, we might as well take out a dictator and get a democracy going.  He stupidly underestimated how tough that it would be and how long it would take.  Now, we are stuck in Iraq so that the people can live in decent condition under a better government.  We should never leave something worse than how it was before we entered, should we?  Like it or not, we will leave it better than before.  There were obviously some mistakes along the way, some stupid, idiotic underestimations, and more - but it will be a better, safer place for the Iraqi people.  I hope you agree with me there.  We got sidetracked but it must be salvaged.

After 8 years of assuring the Iraqi people that we are on their side, some new guy coming and saying "WE GOT YOUR BACKS!"  probably isn't going to start a revolution of support for the U.S. in the mid-east.  The ones that care are going to think "we already knew that" and the ones that turn their shoulder to all things we say are going to just think we are lying.  A lot of their minds are set in stone and hopefully that will change when a democracy is formed in Iraq.

[Farley4Fan]

As for torture and interrogation we need to work our way up the ladder, and find a balance point, not tip it.

1st Step-Ask Nicely

if previous step was a failure

2nd Step-Ask with a mildly rude undertone

if previous step was a failure

3rd Step-Ask with a mean face!

if previous step was a failure

4th Step-Good cop bad cop (whoops, never mind!  That's not allowed right now, is it?  Not on Obama's watch!!)

if previous step was a failure

5th Step-Truth serum (repeat steps 1-4 with serum injected detainee if needed)

if previous step was a failure

6th Step-Mild forms of interrogation (maybe threaten)

if previous step was a failure

7th step-water boarding or other similarly leveled methods of interrogation

if previous step was a failure, then, too bad.  We don't use intense forms of torture in the U.S.


Of course, this little ladder I made should only be followed if it's a known terrorist with possibly life saving information tucked away in his noggin.   BUT ZOMGERZ HOW DOOO WE KNOW IF HE IS TERRORIST!?!  OMG LOLLZERZ!?!?  To that I say, shutup.  How do we know Osama is?  How about Abu, asbat, Muhammad, and other big namers?  Oh i don't know. 

Give them a quick trial.  I don't care.  Known terrorists should have the quickest possible trial if any lives are in danger.

[Spark Mandriller]

Why not use intense torture? If mild forms don't work, why wouldn't you escalate? It seems like the natural progression.

[Farley4Fan]

We are morally above using intense forms of torture.  By that I mean things like shoving razors under fingernails, sawing off limbs, you know, the things that are popular among terrorists to use.  I'm not into that, I don't think my country is.  The reason I made this thread was to bring up that we don't even support WATERBOARDING anymore.  Wtf?  It's really not bad.  Temporary mental effects, but that's exactly what you need for interrogation.  The methods that would give permanent pain both mentally and physically are methods we shouldn't go into.  And don't tell me waterboarding would cause mental damage permanently.  Haven't you gotten over almost drowning in the deep-end when you were little?

Of course this all depends on the detainee it's being used on and what we could possibly recieve from doing this.  Interrogation I mean.

[Spark Mandriller]

So, you support torturing people, but only a little bit? Why not go all the way? If it saves lives, why would you back out early?

You won't commit to torturing people so you can feel morally superior, but you're complaining that the US doesn't have balls anymore?

[Westfall]

Westfall still thinks I liked one of the candidates this year.  Haha, nope.  Just the lesser of two evils as usual, right?  We're not so different, you and I, wf.

No, no I don't. But continue your obnoxious babble.

So, you support torturing people, but only a little bit? Why not go all the way? If it saves lives, why would you back out early?

You won't commit to torturing people so you can feel morally superior, but you're complaining that the US doesn't have balls anymore?

Wait wait....he does commit to torturing people. In fact, this entire thread has been him contradicting himself. If you are a friend of torture, you lack plenty of morality. In fact, go back to your book of God. He condones torture too I suppose.

[Spark Mandriller]

Fully commit, then. I dunno, I'm sure you can work out what I meant.

[Master Raxor.]

I think torture (leading to death) should be used to bring pain to, and eventually kill stupid people.
They're painful to listen to, it's painful to try and read things they write/type, it's painful knowing they exist.
We need to give some of the pain back.

Papa Skull is up first.

[Spark Mandriller]

Whoa, watch out for the burn there Papa, it might cause you to lose consciousness.

[Farley4Fan]

Nerdiest fuckin insults ever seen by human eyes...

So, you support torturing people, but only a little bit? Why not go all the way? If it saves lives, why would you back out early?

You won't commit to torturing people so you can feel morally superior, but you're complaining that the US doesn't have balls anymore?

It seems you almost have a good point, Beetle.  There is a point that you should not cross.  There is a point where you cannot cross over.  The point that separates us from them.  The other side includes a loss of our humanity and makes us not much different from those which we torture.  Where that point is I'm not entirely sure as it's up for debate.  The meaning of this thread is that the point I speak of has dropped so significantly low that we aren't even allowed to waterboard a terrorist!  I think that tipping point is a bit higher than tricking terrorists into thinking they are drowning. 

Because we have set that so called tipping point so amazingly low, impossibly low, low enough to where our own people start to get hurt, French low (just kidding), I start to think we've lost our balls.  That's all I'm saying. 

You can debate all day over what is technically "defined" as torture but I think we all know in the back of our minds that waterboarding is the most humane form of intense interrogation, and if it's needed, we should use it.  That's it.  Unfortunately, the day has come where we've lost our will to do EVEN THAT.

[Spark Mandriller]

It seems you almost have a good point, Beetle.  There is a point that you should not cross.  There is a point where you cannot cross over.  The point that separates us from them.  The other side includes a loss of our humanity and makes us not much different from those which we torture. 

What a bitch you are. Won't even go all the way just so you can feel better about yourself. If you've already started torturing someone, why wouldn't you finish it? Because you only support nice torture?


You've got no right to talk about anyone's balls.

[Snakebit.]

The biggest one being the safety of the people.

Wrong. The biggest part of the Presidential oath is to uphold the Constitution.

That's right.  The president would even kill all 3,000,000 of us if not upholding the constitution is at stake, or so I hear. 

Westfall still thinks I liked one of the candidates this year.  Haha, nope.  Just the lesser of two evils as usual, right?  We're not so different, you and I, wf. 

Wf, you think Bush didn't tell the Arab people that he was on their side?  You mean, sacrificing 4,000 of his own troops just to get their country on track wasn't a strong enough message?  Or are you one of those guys that thinks we invaded the mid-east for oil?

This is what happened.  After 9/11, we wanted to go into Afghanistan first and foremost.  Bush figured that while we were in the area, we might as well take out a dictator and get a democracy going.  He stupidly underestimated how tough that it would be and how long it would take.  Now, we are stuck in Iraq so that the people can live in decent condition under a better government.  We should never leave something worse than how it was before we entered, should we?  Like it or not, we will leave it better than before.  There were obviously some mistakes along the way, some stupid, idiotic underestimations, and more - but it will be a better, safer place for the Iraqi people.  I hope you agree with me there.  We got sidetracked but it must be salvaged.

After 8 years of assuring the Iraqi people that we are on their side, some new guy coming and saying "WE GOT YOUR BACKS!"  probably isn't going to start a revolution of support for the U.S. in the mid-east.  The ones that care are going to think "we already knew that" and the ones that turn their shoulder to all things we say are going to just think we are lying.  A lot of their minds are set in stone and hopefully that will change when a democracy is formed in Iraq.

I don't know what kind of imformation you are geting but these 8 years were really bad for iraqies . The population says that they were living better during sadam reighn on tv , atleast what we get here .(Some german media - estonian media - russian media) Not to mention 1 500 000 civilians who died during the war or the insersion femine/bad water supply . Different social circumstances.

Only lately the incersion has quited down a bit but i doubt it is still far from being a good situation out there .

Well afganistan is a different story. It was always a  shit hole and i doubt that will change any time soon meaning that american policies there will fail. Bringing more troops won't get mr.terrorists out of their caves but providing them with internet - water supple - etc will. (My opinion)  But really america can't do everything for that country . Its like being forced to fully sponsor some shit hole what noone is willing to do.

[Farley4Fan]

It seems you almost have a good point, Beetle.  There is a point that you should not cross.  There is a point where you cannot cross over.  The point that separates us from them.  The other side includes a loss of our humanity and makes us not much different from those which we torture. 

What a bitch you are. Won't even go all the way just so you can feel better about yourself. If you've already started torturing someone, why wouldn't you finish it? Because you only support nice torture?


You've got no right to talk about anyone's balls.

If it's "Nice" torture then don't classify it as torture, DUH.  I should be able to have an opinion on different methods of interrogation, and I do, and I happen to find others more humane than the rest.  Why shouldn't I support those if they are used when they are necessary and on people that we know could give us important info?  WHY?  That's my question.  And what a bitch YOU are!  Maybe I don't support those other methods because I find them morally wrong and because other (better) methods work just as well? 

But again, this all depends on the type of info we think we can get.  If a terrorist is known to have the code to disarm a nuke placed in Central Park then we should most likely go as high up the ladder as needed. 

For the last freaking time, the whole point of this thread is how much the ends justify the means.  Lately, it's been NO means are supported no matter the ends.  THAT'S my point, argue that.  That's the issue, not what is classified as torture or not by the damned dictionary. 

[Farley4Fan]

The biggest one being the safety of the people.

Wrong. The biggest part of the Presidential oath is to uphold the Constitution.

That's right.  The president would even kill all 3,000,000 of us if not upholding the constitution is at stake, or so I hear. 

Westfall still thinks I liked one of the candidates this year.  Haha, nope.  Just the lesser of two evils as usual, right?  We're not so different, you and I, wf. 

Wf, you think Bush didn't tell the Arab people that he was on their side?  You mean, sacrificing 4,000 of his own troops just to get their country on track wasn't a strong enough message?  Or are you one of those guys that thinks we invaded the mid-east for oil?

This is what happened.  After 9/11, we wanted to go into Afghanistan first and foremost.  Bush figured that while we were in the area, we might as well take out a dictator and get a democracy going.  He stupidly underestimated how tough that it would be and how long it would take.  Now, we are stuck in Iraq so that the people can live in decent condition under a better government.  We should never leave something worse than how it was before we entered, should we?  Like it or not, we will leave it better than before.  There were obviously some mistakes along the way, some stupid, idiotic underestimations, and more - but it will be a better, safer place for the Iraqi people.  I hope you agree with me there.  We got sidetracked but it must be salvaged.

After 8 years of assuring the Iraqi people that we are on their side, some new guy coming and saying "WE GOT YOUR BACKS!"  probably isn't going to start a revolution of support for the U.S. in the mid-east.  The ones that care are going to think "we already knew that" and the ones that turn their shoulder to all things we say are going to just think we are lying.  A lot of their minds are set in stone and hopefully that will change when a democracy is formed in Iraq.

I don't know what kind of imformation you are geting but these 8 years were really bad for iraqies . The population says that they were living better during sadam reighn on tv , atleast what we get here .(Some german media - estonian media - russian media) Not to mention 1 500 000 civilians who died during the war or the insersion femine/bad water supply . Different social circumstances.

Only lately the incersion has quited down a bit but i doubt it is still far from being a good situation out there .

Well afganistan is a different story. It was always a  shit hole and i doubt that will change any time soon meaning that american policies there will fail. Bringing more troops won't get mr.terrorists out of their caves but providing them with internet - water supple - etc will. (My opinion)  But really america can't do everything for that country . Its like being forced to fully sponsor some shit hole what noone is willing to do.

LMAO!  I don't know what info YOU are getting but the overall opinion has been split down the middle.  Half support us being there, half are iffy or they don't want us there.  Obviously at least half of the people have better lives or are pretty optimistic that life will get better in the coming months.  Better than with Saddam.  You kidding me?  We aren't done yet, sooo, yeah.  They are rebuilding at a rapid rate and will (hopefully) be a fully functional democracy in the next few years.

The part I bolded, that's my point, and I agree.  But you'd be surprised at how good it is.  Baghdad is no longer a warzone.  The deadliest streets in the world now have flowers and paved roads.  Of course it's not all amazing and rainbow filled yet, never will be, but it's going to be much much better by the time we leave.  Only a few years ago I'd be agreeing with most of you, we weren't going to win the war by the look of it.  Now it's so blatantly obvious that it has turned around in a 180.  At this rate, we'll have a democracy, an ally in the mid-east, and hopefully stability in the coming years.  History will be nicer to Bush and this war than we all have been for the past half decade.

[Snakebit.]

The biggest one being the safety of the people.

Wrong. The biggest part of the Presidential oath is to uphold the Constitution.

That's right.  The president would even kill all 3,000,000 of us if not upholding the constitution is at stake, or so I hear. 

Westfall still thinks I liked one of the candidates this year.  Haha, nope.  Just the lesser of two evils as usual, right?  We're not so different, you and I, wf. 

Wf, you think Bush didn't tell the Arab people that he was on their side?  You mean, sacrificing 4,000 of his own troops just to get their country on track wasn't a strong enough message?  Or are you one of those guys that thinks we invaded the mid-east for oil?

This is what happened.  After 9/11, we wanted to go into Afghanistan first and foremost.  Bush figured that while we were in the area, we might as well take out a dictator and get a democracy going.  He stupidly underestimated how tough that it would be and how long it would take.  Now, we are stuck in Iraq so that the people can live in decent condition under a better government.  We should never leave something worse than how it was before we entered, should we?  Like it or not, we will leave it better than before.  There were obviously some mistakes along the way, some stupid, idiotic underestimations, and more - but it will be a better, safer place for the Iraqi people.  I hope you agree with me there.  We got sidetracked but it must be salvaged.

After 8 years of assuring the Iraqi people that we are on their side, some new guy coming and saying "WE GOT YOUR BACKS!"  probably isn't going to start a revolution of support for the U.S. in the mid-east.  The ones that care are going to think "we already knew that" and the ones that turn their shoulder to all things we say are going to just think we are lying.  A lot of their minds are set in stone and hopefully that will change when a democracy is formed in Iraq.

I don't know what kind of imformation you are geting but these 8 years were really bad for iraqies . The population says that they were living better during sadam reighn on tv , atleast what we get here .(Some german media - estonian media - russian media) Not to mention 1 500 000 civilians who died during the war or the insersion femine/bad water supply . Different social circumstances.

Only lately the incersion has quited down a bit but i doubt it is still far from being a good situation out there .

Well afganistan is a different story. It was always a  shit hole and i doubt that will change any time soon meaning that american policies there will fail. Bringing more troops won't get mr.terrorists out of their caves but providing them with internet - water supple - etc will. (My opinion)  But really america can't do everything for that country . Its like being forced to fully sponsor some shit hole what noone is willing to do.

LMAO!  I don't know what info YOU are getting but the overall opinion has been split down the middle.  Half support us being there, half are iffy or they don't want us there.  Obviously at least half of the people have better lives or are pretty optimistic that life will get better in the coming months.  Better than with Saddam.  You kidding me?  We aren't done yet, sooo, yeah.  They are rebuilding at a rapid rate and will (hopefully) be a fully functional democracy in the next few years.

The part I bolded, that's my point, and I agree.  But you'd be surprised at how good it is.  Baghdad is no longer a warzone.  The deadliest streets in the world now have flowers and paved roads.  Of course it's not all amazing and rainbow filled yet, never will be, but it's going to be much much better by the time we leave.  Only a few years ago I'd be agreeing with most of you, we weren't going to win the war by the look of it.  Now it's so blatantly obvious that it has turned around in a 180.  At this rate, we'll have a democracy, an ally in the mid-east, and hopefully stability in the coming years.  History will be nicer to Bush and this war than we all have been for the past half decade.

Think why sometimes. Baghdad wasn't a warzone before you invaded this country and now it is . It had stable institution to some extent but when you invaded / changed the goverment / removed the 'elite' class from power/ dissolved the army / removed a lot of officials from their posts / didn't mentain public order during first month while there was no police forces/army , you actually destroyed those institutions and caused a lot of civil unrest . You were warned before the war that you will need to mentain public order for some time atleast but noone in your goverment listened because they thought it would be the usuall pull-in/change goverment/pull-out scenario. America made Baghdad in to a war zone in the first place and you are also trying to fix it now . You reap what you saw to some extent.

Whole iraq wasn't a war zone when sadam was in power . Only a bit , the northern regions , because he wasn't liked by some 'tribal-political groups' for obvious reasons. But in general it was a safe place.

Now what happened during the invasion / after ? The institutions of power got destroyed , the army got dissolved , the police force is almost non-existant , american soldiers don't mentaion order . How do you think iraqies felt when all the country turned in to a massive riot / pillaging / robbing fest ? Not to mention 'friendly to non' incersensy . It wasn't there during Sadam time .

When i see iraqie people speak on television . NOTE : COMMON PEOPLE , not the damn prime minister/president (I don't rememmber who is their head of  state) , they say usually that Sadam was a 'small devil' but during the invasion he got replaced by the 'Big devil'.  Prolly some iranian influance there also.

Ofcourse the head of the state gonna say ' Look we got some problems but in general we are fine' . When its not the case. Same goes for Khamil Karzy  (The afghanian head of state.) He also says ' we got some probs but i think we are doing fine' but you know that they are not . WHy the hell they would need more troops if they are doing fine ? While the hell they only controll only 1/3 if not 1/4th of the country ? Why the hell drug production has increased during kharzy goverment a lot ? May be my defenition of 'doing fine' is different from others , but i don't think so .