Apparently we no longer support harsh methods of interrogation to be used on TERRORISTS? Hmmm, I think this actually all started back in the 70's. Back when the public saw what war could be they cut their balls off and started smoking weed and protesting. We've been too soft now for too long.
France loves us now? Wow, crazy. They should have loved us until the end of time after we bailed them out and saved them from total destruction. Nothing against the French, but really? Is this really our goal now here in America? To make the world love us? We'll sacrifice what we need to do in order to become what the world wants us to be? We've been castrated. This Obama guy does not help with the regrouping of our testicles and independence. Liberalism is borderline a disease for my nation.
Like it or not, America has NEVER been about doing what it's told to do because of friggin peer pressure. We do the right thing, the noble thing, the things that the countries who lack the brass would never do. We have our fair share of flaws but it's our will to fight and will to do right that makes us, no offense to any other countries, THE BEST. Lately we'd rather blend in with the crowd than set an example like we always have done. And that's bullcrap.
Obama won't even allow the good-cop-bad-cop routine because we HAVE to use the manual? For THESE GUYS? My bologna has a first name, it's O-B-A-M-A.
Discussion. Go.
Torturing any human being is wrong, as is capital punishment. Shouldn't the bible tell you that? BAD CHRISTIAN!
Torturing - bad
Harsh Methods of Interrogation (used on suspected terrorist, could save countless troop/civilian lives) - NOT BAD
There's a line. An obvious line. Driving razors under fingernails, beating, cutting, etc, that's torture. Water boarding? Are you serious? That's a method of interrogation, and is something that all of a sudden the American public is starting to frown upon-including our friggin president.
If you had a child, that child was kidnapped, and you had someone in your custody that possibly knew how to save your child, would you "water board" that person? If so, then you get my point. If not, you are not fit to have children or be in a position of power where protecting the people is the main objective.
Capital Punishment is bad? Is it really? Then boy oh boy, war regardless of objective, God would be strictly against. Killing Hitler, Saddam, Bin Laden, you really think God would disapprove? I beg to dif
Don't let this thread turn into the atheism vs deism thread. Not what I want to talk about. What I wish to talk about is how/why we've lost our brass.
If you can't make up charges after 7 years, and you keep the 'terrorists' away from the very legal base you're so proud of... (land of the free, innocent till proven guilty, a shitload of lawyers), basically denying them all human rights... I'm against.
US the best country? I'm not going to say who lives in the best country, but who are you to judge? USA has hardly contributed to stability. Guess who started off the economic crisis? American bankers. Guess who bailed them out? The US government.
Papa, did you vote in this past election? Are you of age?
You're the same irrational thought that has been plaguingvthis country for the past 8 years. Obama may not be the best option and we will all witness his presidential years, but it's better than any of the other options given. If McCain had won, we probably would've been way more fucked than we already are. Also, he's following the U.S. Constitution, unlike several who don't need to be named.... again.
Also, do you know what water boarding is? Apparently not. The act of making someone feel like they are drowning. Where's your rational thought now?
Obama haven't produced anything good yet . I don't think that simple closing of the Guantanamo base or whatever its called is a good idea . Its not that i am for 'torture' and 'hard investigation' but the problem is that its useful sometimes . In Juridical terminology there are things like The Scale Of Risk and The Scale of Importance .
That is one of the eternal questions in juridical practice . Should torture be allowed if it could get important information (Which could save people lives) This debate have been going for 100 years or more ........ And nobody still produced a good answer , so it just depends on your point of view.
Personally i think that torture is acceptable if it could save people BUT they have to be judged before that and torture should be ALLOWED BY THE COURT but its my personal opinion .
The problem in Guantanamo was that , that the goverment EXTRACTED INFORMATION WITHOUT JUDGING THEM . Thats one of the problems . You can't just take a random person of the street and start torturing him . Ofcaurse he will say anything you want after 2-3 months of constant torture or more.
I don't really understand American optimism about Obama . He isn't that different from Bush . He surely hasn't done anything better than Bush YeT. Bush wasn't that bad of a president , he just happened to be president in a very bad time for America . He didn't get elected on his first term to ' clean the 9/11 disaster. Every president is a hostage to events which happen in the world and they have to go with the flow .( I think your ex president Klinton said this and i am with him on this ) . His 2nd term was very inter connected with 9/11 and the so called 'war on terror' . Bush did one huge mistake thought . He didn't concentrate on Afghanistan that much and went to Iraq ( Which had it results by the way . The price of oil IS 40-50 dollars right now and that is not only because of the crisis and the price bubble exploding but also because of the opened Iraqi reserves ) . The most logical thing would be not to spread Democracy but to call it ' War on terror ' . He should have just came in Afganistan , replaced the goverment , bombed the shit out of Taliban + same thing in Iraq and quickly went home . His biggest mistake was to label his campaign 'to spread democracy' . If he hadn't done that he could just pull out quickly and all probably would be fine . Iraq at the least would have order right about now . Afganistan always have been a shit hole which nobody even came close to 'controlling' .
Bushes amendments to the constitution are also good. In my opinion . He tries to fight terror not only by external but also by internal affairs . He found several approaches to the problem .
Bushes invasion of Iraq WAS also a good thing to fight terrorism but he should have solved all the problems in Afganistan first and then go to Iraq . The problem is that Oil and Terrorism are connected NOT because America wants oil but because a BIG part of oil income goes to Fundamental Islamic organizations to fund their 'holy war'.
Logic is quite simple less price of oil ---> less income from oil ----> less funding for fundamental islamists AND it also helps with homeland economy growth which is ruined right now by GEC ( Global economical crisis ).
Bush also didn't get elected to fight the crisis . A lot of people call Bush ' the worst president in american history ' but i don't think so . First he got unlucky with 9/11 attack and than he got unlucky with the crisis . Don't say he could have prevented those because i doubt anyone could . Before 9/11 not many countries payed that much attention to terrorism and i doubt anyone of you guys knew anything about Al Qaida . The crisis is also a natural economical process. They happen from time to time because of a lot of different reasons. Economy can't always grove non-stop it has to shrink from time to time . ( readjusting itself a bit )
Now what Obama wants to do ? He wants to stop the crisis ( Which should end by itself in 1-2 years if no one tries to do anything and in about 9months or a year if somebody tries to do so .This is basic economical theory by the way . Well i might be wrong on the time frame.) The economy can't always shrink to it has to grow as well .
So Obama is a lucky fucker actually . First he uses how 'unpopular' Bush is with the people which gives him right now 87% support ? If i am not mistaking . Well his popularity will probably drop to 70-60 in next 1-2 years but when the crises ends it will go up to around 75-80 again and he will most likely win a 2nd term if he doesn't screw up something . ( Like for example the bail out on your auto makers which he HAS to do )
I don't give a flying shit how unlucky Bush got. It was his god damn job that he failed at miserably.
Quote from: Snakebit. on January 24, 2009, 05:28:08 PM
Obama haven't produced anything good yet . I don't think that simple closing of the Guantanamo base or whatever its called is a good idea . Its not that i am for 'torture' and 'hard investigation' but the problem is that its useful sometimes . In Juridical terminology there are things like The Scale Of Risk and The Scale of Importance .
That is one of the eternal questions in juridical practice . Should torture be allowed if it could get important information (Which could save people lives) This debate have been going for 100 years or more ........ And nobody still produced a good answer , so it just depends on your point of view.
Personally i think that torture is acceptable if it could save people BUT they have to be judged before that and torture should be ALLOWED BY THE COURT but its my personal opinion .
The problem in Guantanamo was that , that the goverment EXTRACTED INFORMATION WITHOUT JUDGING THEM . Thats one of the problems . You can't just take a random person of the street and start torturing him . Ofcaurse he will say anything you want after 2-3 months of constant torture or more.
I don't really understand American optimism about Obama . He isn't that different from Bush . He surely hasn't done anything better than Bush YeT. Bush wasn't that bad of a president , he just happened to be president in a very bad time for America . He didn't get elected on his first term to ' clean the 9/11 disaster. Every president is a hostage to events which happen in the world and they have to go with the flow .( I think your ex president Klinton said this and i am with him on this ) . His 2nd term was very inter connected with 9/11 and the so called 'war on terror' . Bush did one huge mistake thought . He didn't concentrate on Afghanistan that much and went to Iraq ( Which had it results by the way . The price of oil IS 40-50 dollars right now and that is not only because of the crisis and the price bubble exploding but also because of the opened Iraqi reserves ) . The most logical thing would be not to spread Democracy but to call it ' War on terror ' . He should have just came in Afganistan , replaced the goverment , bombed the shit out of Taliban + same thing in Iraq and quickly went home . His biggest mistake was to label his campaign 'to spread democracy' . If he hadn't done that he could just pull out quickly and all probably would be fine . Iraq at the least would have order right about now . Afganistan always have been a shit hole which nobody even came close to 'controlling' .
Bushes amendments to the constitution are also good. In my opinion . He tries to fight terror not only by external but also by internal affairs . He found several approaches to the problem .
Bushes invasion of Iraq WAS also a good thing to fight terrorism but he should have solved all the problems in Afganistan first and then go to Iraq . The problem is that Oil and Terrorism are connected NOT because America wants oil but because a BIG part of oil income goes to Fundamental Islamic organizations to fund their 'holy war'.
Logic is quite simple less price of oil ---> less income from oil ----> less funding for fundamental islamists AND it also helps with homeland economy growth which is ruined right now by GEC ( Global economical crisis ).
Bush also didn't get elected to fight the crisis . A lot of people call Bush ' the worst president in american history ' but i don't think so . First he got unlucky with 9/11 attack and than he got unlucky with the crisis . Don't say he could have prevented those because i doubt anyone could . Before 9/11 not many countries payed that much attention to terrorism and i doubt anyone of you guys knew anything about Al Qaida . The crisis is also a natural economical process. They happen from time to time because of a lot of different reasons. Economy can't always grove non-stop it has to shrink from time to time . ( readjusting itself a bit )
Now what Obama wants to do ? He wants to stop the crisis ( Which should end by itself in 1-2 years if no one tries to do anything and in about 9months or a year if somebody tries to do so .This is basic economical theory by the way . Well i might be wrong on the time frame.) The economy can't always shrink to it has to grow as well .
So Obama is a lucky fucker actually . First he uses how 'unpopular' Bush is with the people which gives him right now 87% support ? If i am not mistaking . Well his popularity will probably drop to 70-60 in next 1-2 years but when the crises ends it will go up to around 75-80 again and he will most likely win a 2nd term if he doesn't screw up something . ( Like for example the bail out on your auto makers which he HAS to do )
Very logical post. Except if they extracted info from them and skipped the court step, doesn't that mean we can tell who could have info or not? We saved lives, but they didn't have "rights", and people are concerned? What if it saved YOUR life? Not just you snakebit I'm talking to everyone here. How funny it is that an attack could have been prevented and saved your life, but those people who were quite possibly unknowingly SAVED could still be against those methods of interrogation. Ironic
Ion, it could have happened to anybody. In fact, he probably saved us from an actual depression. What if Gore was elected? The same thing probably would have happened, maybe even worse, maybe better, but who can tell? The drop of our economy was not solely Bush's fault, and the recovery of our economy won't be solely because of Obama.
Quote from: frvge on January 24, 2009, 11:29:54 AM
If you can't make up charges after 7 years, and you keep the 'terrorists' away from the very legal base you're so proud of... (land of the free, innocent till proven guilty, a shitload of lawyers), basically denying them all human rights... I'm against.
If they are found on the battlefield, and shooting at you, they are guilty. And don't think we're stupid. I'm sure we've developed ways to determine who is a terrorist or not that no court could ever decide. I'm sure we've made some mistakes, but I'm sure that it's also saved lives. If one Islamic man is mistaken for a terrorist and held captive for 2 years, but another Islamic man provided information that saved 10-20 lives, isn't that worth it to keep it going? How many lives should it cost in order to give the terrorists "their rights"? Hmmm?
Did you hear about that guy who convinced us that he wasn't a terrorist, so we let him go? He's in Yemen right now, and he's right back in the battlefield and high up on our wanted list. There really is NO WAY for a court to decide who is a radical Islam, is there? Of 250 men we let go, 60 men were seen back on the battlefield and either shot at us, were killed, or were captured AGAIN.
.
Quote from: Westfall on January 24, 2009, 05:22:39 PM
Papa, did you vote in this past election? Are you of age?
You're the same irrational thought that has been plaguingvthis country for the past 8 years. Obama may not be the best option and we will all witness his presidential years, but it's better than any of the other options given. If McCain had won, we probably would've been way more fucked than we already are. Also, he's following the U.S. Constitution, unlike several who don't need to be named.... again.
Also, do you know what water boarding is? Apparently not. The act of making someone feel like they are drowning. Where's your rational thought now?
Neither candidates were great, so who I voted for is irrelevant anyways. And no, the irrational thought pattern that has been plaguing this country is LIBERALISM. Don't you know how our country has shifted the last 8 years because of a constant hate of Bush? Liberals are taking advantage of this economic crises to stimulate their OWN agenda, and that pisses me off. But oh well, they've won this election. Congress, senate, WHITE HOUSE, liberally owned. Scary thought.
If water boarding saves lives, and is used on suspected terrorists, why are you against it? Yeah, sounds bad doesn't it? Sounds like torture, but it's really not. It's a method of interrogation, though harsh, it gets the job done with minimal pain and basically no long lasting mental effects. But all that the detainees go through, things like water boarding, is nothing compared to the pain the families of the dead soldiers and even civilians will go through. IT'S WORTH IT. If there was no info to get from them, if there were no lives to be saved, if there were no ends to justify the means, of course I'd be against it. Until then, I'll keep my balls quite in tact and attached.
nice topic btw, but i disagree. you contradict yourself in many ways, ill mention a few.
Quote from: Papa Skull on January 24, 2009, 06:53:23 AM
Like it or not, America has NEVER been about doing what it's told to do because of friggin peer pressure. We do the right thing [So um your saying that stupid war that leads to economic crisis was the right thing? and u wanted it to continue with Mccain?], the noble thing[...again... war is a noble thing? lol.], the things that the countries who lack the brass would never do. We have our fair share of flaws but it's our will to fight and will to do right that makes us, no offense to any other countries, THE BEST. Lately we'd rather blend in with the crowd than set an example[what do u even mean? lol, was making war setting an example? lol.] like we always have done[Dude do you even know history? The USA has always gone to war for economic interest, for power (not for saving lives like you believe) the US didnt enter the war after pearl harbor bombing, they were already in it making money out of it before that attack, by selling arms and food to other countries.]. And that's bullcrap. yes its bullshit for us do die because of some leaders greed. so fuck u. the economy was good enough, there was no real reason to go to war, bush just wanted to continue what his dad started, hes a stupid fuck.
Obama won't even allow the good-cop-bad-cop routine because we HAVE to use the manual? For THESE GUYS? My bologna has a first name, it's O-B-A-M-A.
Discussion. Go.
waterboarding IS torture.
um im against torture i guess but not against death penalty.
but i am against bush and mccain.
like westfall said, Obama is not gonna make miracles hes only human xD, but he was the better option!
How many days has Obama been president Snakebit? Case and point.
Papa, you're possibly the most irrational person to start such a topic. Waterboarding is torture, whether you like it or not. Terrorists do the shit they do until death. They would blow themselves up, so what makes you think anyhting would make them talk? To sink to their level is a whole different moral topic. Keep your conservative rationale. It will only fuck you over in the end, no pity from this side. Sorry fir no elaboration, but typing on this iTouch is rough.
Quote from: Snakebit. on January 24, 2009, 05:28:08 PM
I don't really understand American optimism about Obama . He isn't that different from Bush . He surely hasn't done anything better than Bush YeT.[well he just fuckin started dude hahah]
Bush didn't get elected on his first term to ' clean the 9/11 disaster.
Bush also didn't get elected to fight the crisis .[he started the crisis, he invested money that he did not have in a war that only he and his rich jewish friends wanted.]
why the fuck did he get elected then? because hes good for nothing? And actually if you remember, he did get elected because of the terrosism thing (911 mess) because thats the only thing he fucking blabed about, before/during his presidency haha.
So Obama is a lucky fucker actually . First he uses how 'unpopular' Bush is with the people which gives him right now 87% support ? If i am not mistaking . [well hell yes he did that to gain popularity because he knew it would work, and because hes also against all those dumb things bush did like most of us Americans are. another thing is that mccain accepted the fact that he was gonna continue with Bush's ideologies if he became president, so he himself lowered his own popularity.]
ok papaskull here u go
Method: a procedure, technique, or way of doing something, esp. in accordance with a definite plan: There are three possible methods of repairing this motor.
Interrogate: To examine by questioning formally or officially.
Torture: 1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
ok, you say its a "method of interrogation" that is incorrect because then your saying it is a "Technique for questioning formally more efficiently", but the definition of interrogation does not include the word pain anywhere in it; therefore, this not being a "method of interrogation".
now try "method of torture", it fits in. why? well because 'waterboarding' is a 'technique/way of inflicting pain as a means of getting a confession"
so this means waterboarding is torture. all i did was use analogies...
ok so now that u know why this is toture im gonna try to think why you thought it wasnt torture.
ok maybe because there is no blood? maybe because you think that water is harmless? well think again man, almost anything can be used to torture (yes anything even a fuckin banana [just think outside the box]). now think of this, do we humans have gills? no. can we breath under water? no.
do people suffer when they cant breath? yes. is it considered pain? yes.
Pain: 1. physical suffering or distress, as due to injury, illness, etc.
2. a distressing sensation in a particular part of the body: a back pain.
again, it fits in perfectly for "method of torture".
try and see how long u can hold ur breath (i estimate one minute max if ur not a swimmer) now imagin what it would feel like if you are forced to hold it for 2 minutes or more. the fear of dying would force you to fight for ur life hence confessing or saying whatever the person inflicting the torture wants to hear.
i hope this helps u.
Let's say that you get taken falsely papa. In the USA they can't torture you. But they still do. EVEN THOUGH WE AREN'T AND SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO.
Let's just use the good old constitution to decide what's right.
Quote from: Snakebit. on January 24, 2009, 05:28:08 PM
Obama haven't produced anything good yet . I don't think that simple closing of the Guantanamo base or whatever its called is a good idea . Its not that i am for 'torture' and 'hard investigation' but the problem is that its useful sometimes . In Juridical terminology there are things like The Scale Of Risk and The Scale of Importance .
That is one of the eternal questions in juridical practice . Should torture be allowed if it could get important information (Which could save people lives) This debate have been going for 100 years or more ........ And nobody still produced a good answer , so it just depends on your point of view.
Personally i think that torture is acceptable if it could save people BUT they have to be judged before that and torture should be ALLOWED BY THE COURT but its my personal opinion .
The problem in Guantanamo was that , that the goverment EXTRACTED INFORMATION WITHOUT JUDGING THEM . Thats one of the problems . You can't just take a random person of the street and start torturing him . Ofcaurse he will say anything you want after 2-3 months of constant torture or more.
I don't really understand American optimism about Obama . He isn't that different from Bush . He surely hasn't done anything better than Bush YeT. Bush wasn't that bad of a president , he just happened to be president in a very bad time for America . He didn't get elected on his first term to ' clean the 9/11 disaster. Every president is a hostage to events which happen in the world and they have to go with the flow .( I think your ex president Klinton said this and i am with him on this ) . His 2nd term was very inter connected with 9/11 and the so called 'war on terror' . Bush did one huge mistake thought . He didn't concentrate on Afghanistan that much and went to Iraq ( Which had it results by the way . The price of oil IS 40-50 dollars right now and that is not only because of the crisis and the price bubble exploding but also because of the opened Iraqi reserves ) . The most logical thing would be not to spread Democracy but to call it ' War on terror ' . He should have just came in Afganistan , replaced the goverment , bombed the shit out of Taliban + same thing in Iraq and quickly went home . His biggest mistake was to label his campaign 'to spread democracy' . If he hadn't done that he could just pull out quickly and all probably would be fine . Iraq at the least would have order right about now . Afganistan always have been a shit hole which nobody even came close to 'controlling' .
Bushes amendments to the constitution are also good. In my opinion . He tries to fight terror not only by external but also by internal affairs . He found several approaches to the problem .
Bushes invasion of Iraq WAS also a good thing to fight terrorism but he should have solved all the problems in Afganistan first and then go to Iraq . The problem is that Oil and Terrorism are connected NOT because America wants oil but because a BIG part of oil income goes to Fundamental Islamic organizations to fund their 'holy war'.
Logic is quite simple less price of oil ---> less income from oil ----> less funding for fundamental islamists AND it also helps with homeland economy growth which is ruined right now by GEC ( Global economical crisis ).
Bush also didn't get elected to fight the crisis . A lot of people call Bush ' the worst president in american history ' but i don't think so . First he got unlucky with 9/11 attack and than he got unlucky with the crisis . Don't say he could have prevented those because i doubt anyone could . Before 9/11 not many countries payed that much attention to terrorism and i doubt anyone of you guys knew anything about Al Qaida . The crisis is also a natural economical process. They happen from time to time because of a lot of different reasons. Economy can't always grove non-stop it has to shrink from time to time . ( readjusting itself a bit )
Now what Obama wants to do ? He wants to stop the crisis ( Which should end by itself in 1-2 years if no one tries to do anything and in about 9months or a year if somebody tries to do so .This is basic economical theory by the way . Well i might be wrong on the time frame.) The economy can't always shrink to it has to grow as well .
So Obama is a lucky fucker actually . First he uses how 'unpopular' Bush is with the people which gives him right now 87% support ? If i am not mistaking . Well his popularity will probably drop to 70-60 in next 1-2 years but when the crises ends it will go up to around 75-80 again and he will most likely win a 2nd term if he doesn't screw up something . ( Like for example the bail out on your auto makers which he HAS to do )
no
I won't get taken falsely because I have done nothing to make anyone else believe that I have interests in blowing up our troops or the bank down the street. I don't look up how to make bombs on the internet, I don't support terrorist groups, we take prisoners with reasonable suspicion. If you think that we are just taking random people out of the middle east then you are mistaken. Anyone that has done things like I just mentioned should be investigated, and if need be, killed or taken in for questioning. Depends on situation.
And yes, let's use the constitution. Sure. Give them a quick trial. How you will prove a terrorist's innocence is beyond me. But if it's obvious - detainee screaming death to America, praise bin laden, the whole shebang, skip the trial and question him.
Quote from: Roberto1223 on January 24, 2009, 08:28:12 PM
ok papaskull here u go
Method: a procedure, technique, or way of doing something, esp. in accordance with a definite plan: There are three possible methods of repairing this motor.
Interrogate: To examine by questioning formally or officially.
Torture: 1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
ok, you say its a "method of interrogation" that is incorrect because then your saying it is a "Technique for questioning formally more efficiently", but the definition of interrogation does not include the word pain anywhere in it; therefore, this not being a "method of interrogation".
now try "method of torture", it fits in. why? well because 'waterboarding' is a 'technique/way of inflicting pain as a means of getting a confession"
so this means waterboarding is torture. all i did was use analogies...
ok so now that u know why this is toture im gonna try to think why you thought it wasnt torture.
ok maybe because there is no blood? maybe because you think that water is harmless? well think again man, almost anything can be used to torture (yes anything even a fuckin banana [just think outside the box]). now think of this, do we humans have gills? no. can we breath under water? no.
do people suffer when they cant breath? yes. is it considered pain? yes.
Pain: 1. physical suffering or distress, as due to injury, illness, etc.
2. a distressing sensation in a particular part of the body: a back pain.
again, it fits in perfectly for "method of torture".
try and see how long u can hold ur breath (i estimate one minute max if ur not a swimmer) now imagin what it would feel like if you are forced to hold it for 2 minutes or more. the fear of dying would force you to fight for ur life hence confessing or saying whatever the person inflicting the torture wants to hear.
i hope this helps u.
Proves nothing, hahaha. Good try. Also, in your other post, you didn't show me 1 contradiction like you said it was full of them. You just stated your opinion on every sentence and didn't show me where I contradicted myself once. Another great try.
I said it was a harsh method of interrogation. And that's completely true. This is what I'm talking about when I say that America has been castrated. Sympothizing with terrorists? GOOD LORD. We aren't going to water board just an everyday Iraqi civilian that gives us a funny look, we have reasonable suspicion with the intent to SAVE LIVES through intense interrogation. "Oh, but No! Waaah! We can't make them think they are going to drown but really aren't going to! That's just cruel! Waaah!" What would end up happening, is MORE troops would die (without intelligence from detainees) and Bush would get blamed for more troop deaths! WTF! It's a circle and you can't have it both ways. Would you rather see American troops/people die, or would you rather see a terrorist with his head in a bucket? Choice is obvious so long as you got your balls and brain screwed on tight. Open your eyes.
Quote from: Westfall on January 24, 2009, 07:54:07 PM
How many days has Obama been president Snakebit? Case and point.
Papa, you're possibly the most irrational person to start such a topic. Waterboarding is torture, whether you like it or not. Terrorists do the shit they do until death. They would blow themselves up, so what makes you think anyhting would make them talk? To sink to their level is a whole different moral topic. Keep your conservative rationale. It will only fuck you over in the end, no pity from this side. Sorry fir no elaboration, but typing on this iTouch is rough.
So, you're saying that they won't talk? Water boarding is more effective than you believe, obviously. One reason you're against it is because you don't believe it's worth it? Okay, well you're wrong. Simply put. If it water boarding or any other similar method of interrogation has not provided us with any important info then why would we continue to do it? Hmm? Oh, that's right, because it has helped.
I think if there's one thing we've learned from the Flamethrower threads, Religion Debate and this topic is that you can argue all you like but Papa isn't going to take any comments on board at all.
I'm going to try and keep my contribution to this thread at this: Papaskull, you're mentally ill if you think people never get wrongly accused or suspected of terrorism, these people could be tortured and forced into false confessions even though they've done nothing wrong. Torture is torture, no matter who it is being performed on, just like killing a murderer for revenge is still murder.
Sinking to their level is not only questionable for countries as advanced as ours, but also a great demonstration of how blind people are into thinking they are safe in their own country. As Ion said, in america you cannot torture... but they still do, it's a bit Animal Farm-esque that everyone is equal, until we SUSPECT that they are a terrorist, either EVERYONE is equal, or they aren't.
It's also despicable that you call yourself religious and still believe this kind of stuff is acceptable for the reason that they have plotted to do the same against us, live in your delusions but either way, i'm pretty sure you'd go to hell for torturing someone, no matter who they may be.
I like you Papaskull, but when you debate you turn into a stereotypical American (i'll spare you the list).
Bai. ;D
Quote
Given the fog of propaganda surrounding the Guantanamo prisoners ââ,¬â€œwho Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once famously described as ââ,¬Å"the worst of the worstââ,¬Âââ,¬â€œ it may be surprising to learn that, according to the Pentagon itself, only 5 percent of all detainees at Guantanamo were ever apprehended by U.S. forces to begin with.
Why is that? Almost all of the detainees were turned over to American forces by foreigners, either with an ax to grind, or more often for a hefty bounty or reward. After U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan in late 2001, a reward of $5,000 or more was given to Pakistanis and Afghans for each detainee turned over.
While rewards can be a valuable law enforcement tool, they have never in the past absolved law enforcement authorities of the necessity of corroborating the information that motivated the reward. But the U.S. military accepted the uncorroborated allegations of the award claimants with little independent investigation.
So if I hate my Afghan neighbour and I point local law enforment to him claiming he's a terrorist, I get $5000 (thats a lot for an Afghan I think) and he's tortured for free in some prison far away. His crime? Nothing.
Quote from: Papa Skull on January 24, 2009, 07:31:00 PMIf water boarding saves lives, and is used on suspected terrorists, why are you against it? Yeah, sounds bad doesn't it? Sounds like torture, but it's really not. It's a method of interrogation, though harsh, it gets the job done with minimal pain and basically no long lasting mental effects. But all that the detainees go through, things like water boarding, is nothing compared to the pain the families of the dead soldiers and even civilians will go through. IT'S WORTH IT. If there was no info to get from them, if there were no lives to be saved, if there were no ends to justify the means, of course I'd be against it. Until then, I'll keep my balls quite in tact and attached.
Ah, you really are too funny. Try reading a single word about the psychological effects of mock executions.
Also, http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
it was signed by the US.
Quote from: Papa Skull on January 24, 2009, 06:53:23 AM
Like it or not, America has NEVER been about doing what it's told to do because of friggin peer pressure. We do the right thing, the noble thing, the things that the countries who lack the brass would never do.
Torture is right and noble?
Quote from: Papa Skull on January 24, 2009, 10:16:43 PM
I won't get taken falsely because I have done nothing to make anyone else believe that I have interests in blowing up our troops or the bank down the street. I don't look up how to make bombs on the internet, I don't support terrorist groups, we take prisoners with reasonable suspicion. If you think that we are just taking random people out of the middle east then you are mistaken. Anyone that has done things like I just mentioned should be investigated, and if need be, killed or taken in for questioning. Depends on situation.
You're being naive. You assume that everyone is good and perfect, and everything will run like it should. This is Earth. There are mistakes. Some people get put in there with no evidence against them. Some people are put in there because someone feels like abusing power. And guess what? No one can do anything.
Quote from: Papa Skull on January 24, 2009, 10:16:43 PM
And yes, let's use the constitution. Sure. Give them a quick trial. How you will prove a terrorist's innocence is beyond me. But if it's obvious - detainee screaming death to America, praise bin laden, the whole shebang, skip the trial and question him.
That's not proof. Proof is he put a bomb here, or attacked a guy there. All you have is circumstantial evidence. You're assuming that he did it, without even proving it. That's like saying that since you shouted at your girlfriend (or boyfriend), and she turned up dead 10 hours later, you did it, and you should be put in Guantanamo Bay.
Quote from: Papa Skull on January 24, 2009, 10:16:43 PM
I said it was a harsh method of interrogation. And that's completely true. This is what I'm talking about when I say that America has been castrated. Sympothizing with terrorists? GOOD LORD. We aren't going to water board just an everyday Iraqi civilian that gives us a funny look, we have reasonable suspicion with the intent to SAVE LIVES through intense interrogation. "Oh, but No! Waaah! We can't make them think they are going to drown but really aren't going to! That's just cruel! Waaah!" What would end up happening, is MORE troops would die (without intelligence from detainees) and Bush would get blamed for more troop deaths! WTF! It's a circle and you can't have it both ways. Would you rather see American troops/people die, or would you rather see a terrorist with his head in a bucket? Choice is obvious so long as you got your balls and brain screwed on tight. Open your eyes.
Ah but they do. Ever heard of suspected terrorists? You know what those are? They're people who are assumed to be terrorists. Assumed. And they get throw into Guantanamo Bay. Yes, that Iraqi citizen will get thrown in, if he so much as utters the word "bomb". And you can't say tortures harmless. They usually end up killing the tortured person anyways.
Quote from: Papa Skull on January 24, 2009, 10:16:43 PM
So, you're saying that they won't talk? Water boarding is more effective than you believe, obviously. One reason you're against it is because you don't believe it's worth it? Okay, well you're wrong. Simply put. If it water boarding or any other similar method of interrogation has not provided us with any important info then why would we continue to do it? Hmm? Oh, that's right, because it has helped.
But what it has done, is abused many innocent people, when peoples time could be better spent actually finding real terrorists. Remember, just because the government says it, doesn't mean its true. That just makes you a sheep. If you can prove that not one innocent person ended up in Guantanamo Bay, without saying that the government said they didn't, then you are correct in your opinion. Otherwise, whatever you say is without merit.
Quote from: Tidenburg on January 24, 2009, 11:47:05 PM
I think if there's one thing we've learned from the Flamethrower threads, Religion Debate and this topic is that you can argue all you like but Papa isn't going to take any comments on board at all.
Religion debate? No no no. Especially about things like the origin of our universe, I'm all ears. Please, spare me. Flamethrower debate? Hahaa, no. There were hardly any valid arguments at all, and by the time I got some, the thread was dead.
I'm going to try and keep my contribution to this thread at this: Papaskull, you're mentally ill if you think people never get wrongly accused or suspected of terrorism, these people could be tortured and forced into false confessions even though they've done nothing wrong. Torture is torture, no matter who it is being performed on, just like killing a murderer for revenge is still murder.
OF COURSE SOME HAVE. You do this A LOT Tidenburg. I say something, then you completely ignore or read over it, and blast me even though it's you who is at fault. I've said there have been mistakes, false accusations. Remember that? No, probably not, flew over your head. My question, more of a point, was when does it become worth it? If one person is falsely accused and tortured , but another is rightly accused and tortured, and the information recieved from him allows us to save 10, 15, maybe 20 lives - isn't that worth it? One man gets falsely tortured, although absolutely horrible, but the continuation of the program allows more lives to be saved. 10-20 lives a pop not worth it because one man is falsely accused and water boarded? No logic.
Sinking to their level is not only questionable for countries as advanced as ours, but also a great demonstration of how blind people are into thinking they are safe in their own country. As Ion said, in america you cannot torture... but they still do, it's a bit Animal Farm-esque that everyone is equal, until we SUSPECT that they are a terrorist, either EVERYONE is equal, or they aren't.
No, apparently, in America you can't harshly interrogate a suspected terrorist (remember, most of the time they aren't SUSPECTED FOR NOTHING buddy) and that's why we've been castrated. We care too much about the feelings of those who wish to do us harm. Appeasement. Like if we treat them better they'll treat us better, and that's BS. No one has anything to say about the "SUSPECTED" terrorists who return right back to the battlefield and kill us? No? No surprise there, you're all too busy caring about if 1 man gets falsely imprisoned or not.
It's also despicable that you call yourself religious and still believe this kind of stuff is acceptable for the reason that they have plotted to do the same against us, live in your delusions but either way, i'm pretty sure you'd go to hell for torturing someone, no matter who they may be.
For the reason that they have plotted to do the same against us? And I'm delusional? Wtf? It's would be despicable if a religious (or non-religious I don't give a shit) person would not torture in order to save innocent lives. It's like basic math. 1 wrong prevents 20 wrongs. SIMPLE. Duh. I think God would be pissed off if you'd rather not get important life saving info by WATER BOARDING someone. Back to what I said about water boarding for the sake of your kids, wouldn't you do it? What if your kids were in danger, and the only way to possibly save them was to water board some terrorist. Wouldn't you do it? That's the life of the president my friend, he must take care of his citizens like they are his children. Someone without the balls to interrogate a terrorist I DO NOT want to be my protector, nor should you.
I like you Papaskull, but when you debate you turn into a stereotypical American (i'll spare you the list).
stereotypical American. That's great. That's a problem right there with your logic. American=Ignorant. Bullshit. Anything different, or anything with a little more brass, run away you say. Are you from France? No, I don't want to drop to your level. I take it back.
Bai. ;D
QuoteBut Papa Skull you're mind is seriously fucked up if you don't think gay people should have the same rights as you
Remember this tidenburg? If there's one thing I've learned about Tidenburg it's that shit always goes over his head, then he tries to insult you even though you agree with what he said 100%.
<3 Burg
Yeah, and that's real fucking funny whoever tried to change the title of my thread. Real mature. Stay away from the discussion and take sniper shots, betcha feel real cool right now huh?
I love these kinds of heated discussions. Let's keep it going. All those who have an opinion, let's hear it. Even the pansy mod that thinks he's funny.
I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG
I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG
I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG
I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG
I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG
I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG
I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG
I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG
I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG
I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG
I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG
I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG
I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG
I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG
I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG
I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG
I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG
I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG
I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG
I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG
I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG
I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG
I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG
I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG
Intelligence should be better and more organized in the United States government. PERIOD. We shouldn't have to tortue people. When people are tortured they will confess to anything to stop the pain at that moment. Torture is wrong and im glad Obama is straighting things out.
Maybe the less violent we are and stop bullying everyone around the world the 'Great US of A' might just have a few less enemies. How do we tell countries to stop their violence when they observe us torturing prisoners?
And stop insulting people when they have rational arguements against your flame tantrums...
Actually, Bush castrasted America.
The United states economy is falling apart, America is at war with no possible conclusion in 2 different countries, the unemployment is higher then ever in sever decades, the Dollar is incredibly low in value, the deficit is astronomical.
The American Empire has fallen.
I think that is for the better interest of America.
Papa, what you may not be aware of is that for several decades USA has been trying to secure natural resources in South America and Africa. To secure these resources it has been installing puppet governments and training militias to deliberately make a country unstable so that American Corporations can steal the resources without any political intervention. Millions of people have been killed, even genocides as result of the American govt. manipulations.
Terrorism is a REACTION to this. The current generation of Terrorism is not a blind religious hatred against Democracy or Christianity, or even the American way of life. It is a revenge for what America has raped from weaker countries.
One of the few countries in the world not recognizing the International Court of Justice is the USA. Why? According to its definitions, Bush would be a war-criminal. I hope Obama will recognize it.
Quote from: Papa Skull on January 25, 2009, 02:22:28 AM
Quote from: Tidenburg on January 24, 2009, 11:47:05 PM
OF COURSE SOME HAVE. You do this A LOT Tidenburg. I say something, then you completely ignore or read over it, and blast me even though it's you who is at fault. I've said there have been mistakes, false accusations. Remember that? No, probably not, flew over your head. My question, more of a point, was when does it become worth it? If one person is falsely accused and tortured , but another is rightly accused and tortured, and the information recieved from him allows us to save 10, 15, maybe 20 lives - isn't that worth it? One man gets falsely tortured, although absolutely horrible, but the continuation of the program allows more lives to be saved. 10-20 lives a pop not worth it because one man is falsely accused and water boarded? No logic.
Actually, that wasn't intentional that I skipped over your posts, large walls of texts with no distinct paragraphs are a hugh no-no that I will not read, no matter who they are from. Torture makes over countries look down on yours, when you tell them to stop killing, all the while doing it yourself you seem hypocrytical anda re no better than them.
No, apparently, in America you can't harshly interrogate a suspected terrorist (remember, most of the time they aren't SUSPECTED FOR NOTHING buddy) and that's why we've been castrated. We care too much about the feelings of those who wish to do us harm. Appeasement. Like if we treat them better they'll treat us better, and that's BS. No one has anything to say about the "SUSPECTED" terrorists who return right back to the battlefield and kill us? No? No surprise there, you're all too busy caring about if 1 man gets falsely imprisoned or not.
It's not just the one innocent man, unlike you I see terrorists as people, even though they are a pathetic excuse for a person, they should still have the same rights as us all. I obviously don't care about they're "feelings" because i'm all for Capital punishment as soon as they are 100% solidly prooved guilty as soon as uncircumstancial evidence is put forward.
For the reason that they have plotted to do the same against us? And I'm delusional? Wtf? It's would be despicable if a religious (or non-religious I don't give a shit) person would not torture in order to save innocent lives. It's like basic math. 1 wrong prevents 20 wrongs. SIMPLE. Duh. I think God would be pissed off if you'd rather not get important life saving info by WATER BOARDING someone. Back to what I said about water boarding for the sake of your kids, wouldn't you do it? What if your kids were in danger, and the only way to possibly save them was to water board some terrorist. Wouldn't you do it? That's the life of the president my friend, he must take care of his citizens like they are his children. Someone without the balls to interrogate a terrorist I DO NOT want to be my protector, nor should you.
stereotypical American. That's great. That's a problem right there with your logic. American=Ignorant. Bullshit. Anything different, or anything with a little more brass, run away you say. Are you from France? No, I don't want to drop to your level. I take it back.
Actually the list would have been, thickheaded (not open to other's arguments), blindly religious, Arrogant, self-righteous (thinking your country is the best no matter what it does) and niave.
Bai. ;D
Quote from: goodkebab on January 25, 2009, 09:58:16 AM
Actually, Bush castrasted America.
The United states economy is falling apart, America is at war with no possible conclusion in 2 different countries, the unemployment is higher then ever in sever decades, the Dollar is incredibly low in value, the deficit is astronomical.
The American Empire has fallen.
I think that is for the better interest of America.
Papa, what you may not be aware of is that for several decades USA has been trying to secure natural resources in South America and Africa. To secure these resources it has been installing puppet governments and training militias to deliberately make a country unstable so that American Corporations can steal the resources without any political intervention. Millions of people have been killed, even genocides as result of the American govt. manipulations.
Terrorism is a REACTION to this. The current generation of Terrorism is not a blind religious hatred against Democracy or Christianity, or even the American way of life. It is a revenge for what America has raped from weaker countries.
goodkebab is enlightened :) , yes there are such things that goodkebab speak of like the Illuminati
and also the UnitedStated doesn't need the Federal reserve , they take your Money and make you pay tax you don't have to.
Why not protest if you don't like someone policies ? Or have America forgot how to protest ?
Watched a good movie on the topic lately . http://www.supernovatube.com/play.php?viewkey=832726ec7f2e16ecd76c
The purpose of this post is merely to fact check some of the inane babble going on in this thread (I bet I could find more, but I could only skim through some of it):
1. Papa, America was founded on the principles of classical liberalism. To claim that it is tearing the country apart shows a complete lack of understanding of the philosophy behind the creation of our government.
2. Papa, not every prisoner in GTMO was captured on a battlefield. In fact, some of the prisoners are U.S. citizens being denied Constitutional rights. To suggest that we should "skip this step" (referring to elminating due process) in order to "save lives" is illegal, contrary to our country's principles, and extremely dangerous.
3. Ion, the Constitution says nothing regarding whether these rights ought to extend to foreign citizens, enemy combatants, or POWs. In addition, a lot of the debate surrounding what to do with them arises from how we should classify the prisoners in GTMO. Up until the recent "war on terror," we have always fought battles against an enemy with a distinct organization comprised of identifiable members. Since a "terrorist" is not limited to one person, group, or organization, it creates a whole gray area which we have never dealt with before.
4. @All, the truth is, none of us know how prisoners at GTMO are treated (and if we did, we wouldn't be able to talk about it). To claim that they are or are not tortured is purely speculation.
5. Snakebit, Bush did not amend the Constitution. The President actually has no say in Constitutional amendments; they are drawn up by Congress, must be approved by a 2/3 vote in both houses, and must be ratified by 3/4 of the states' legislatures. Alternatively, the states can call a Constitutional Convention and draw up the amendment themselves with a 2/3 vote; however, none of the 27 amendments have been adopted in such a way.
6. Kebab, there has never been, nor is there now, an "American Empire;" therefore, it is impossible for one to have fallen.
7. Kebab, a low dollar is a good thing for domestic businesses. Of course foreign countries' presses (ie, Austria) are going to complain about such a thing due to their inability to compete in such a market.
8. Kebab, unemployment in Dec, 2008 was 7.2%, which is not higher than it has been in the "last sever [sic] decades." In fact, you only need to go back to 1993 to find unemployment being higher.
9. Kebab, we are in a recession, but the economy is not "falling apart." In fact, we are fairing much better in this period than most of western Europe.
10. Kebab, I can assure you that Hadjib in Iraq does not give two shits about any civil war in South America or Africa, and certainly not enough to blow himself up over it. It also doesn't help your argument that the vast majority of South America is Roman Catholic, which Islamic terrorists tend to disdain. Your claim that Islamic terrorism is arising from U.S. gov't manipulation in these regions is not only unsupported, but also completely illogical.
@Papa Skull:
Waterboarding is alright but torture isn't? First of all, waterboarding is torture. Secondly, you seem to be making a utilitarian argument: Waterboarding is permissible because it saves lives, thus helping more than hurting. Why, then, isn't torture allowed? If torture saves lives, why shouldn't we employ it? Really, who cares if some terrorist gets tortured?
If there's anything wrong with America, it's people like you.
Quote from: Dux on January 27, 2009, 02:45:22 AM
@Papa Skull:
Waterboarding is alright but torture isn't? First of all, waterboarding is torture. Secondly, you seem to be making a utilitarian argument: Waterboarding is permissible because it saves lives, thus helping more than hurting. Why, then, isn't torture allowed? If torture saves lives, why shouldn't we employ it? Really, who cares of some terrorist gets tortured?
If there's anything wrong with America, it's people like you.
ding ding ding.
dude papa. waterboarding is toture i already tried to explain why just by using definitions, i cannot make it more simple than that sorry man.
one day you'll get it though.
Spekkio . You might have misunderstood me a bit . I wasn't referring to the way , how those amendments were adapted . I was trying to say that at the least it is not bad that he is trying to fight terrorism by external and INTERNAL means. Yes i agree that he skipped normal legeslative procedure but in my opinion that was a good thing to do. It would take more time to pass those laws a lot more probably + i am not sure that they would pass in the congress .
Sometimes doing the right thing in politics / law somehow goes against the things that people want.
One of those examples that there is no state religion nowadays .We have free religion .
If the state says we are Orthodox Christians than the rest groups will feel unhappy about it and will probably protest and other way around . Sometimes to solve a problem you need to go against 'what the people want' because what people want is not ALWAYS correct.
Same goes about your ex president Klinton . He had used a lot of money to try to kill Bin Laden , he got close to it but didn't . A lot of his advisors criticized him for that but now we can see that it would be a lot better if he had actually spend more money and killed Bin Laden.
Those laws in the long run will probably prevent another 9/11 accident .
America is a civilized country.
Civilized countries should never use torture.
Quote from: Spekkio on January 27, 2009, 12:25:12 AM
The purpose of this post is merely to fact check some of the inane babble going on in this thread (I bet I could find more, but I could only skim through some of it):
1. Papa, America was founded on the principles of classical liberalism. To claim that it is tearing the country apart shows a complete lack of understanding of the philosophy behind the creation of our government.
Old Liberalism =/= Current Liberalism
Current liberalism is pushing for gigantic government lately, it's like they've got socialistic dreams in their back pockets. It's not exactly tearing the country apart, but it is a disease, and is currently NOT what America stands for.
2. Papa, not every prisoner in GTMO was captured on a battlefield. In fact, some of the prisoners are U.S. citizens being denied Constitutional rights. To suggest that we should "skip this step" (referring to elminating due process) in order to "save lives" is illegal, contrary to our country's principles, and extremely dangerous.
Then give them trials. I'm only suggesting skipping this step if they are not U.S. citizens AND if they ARE known terrorists. What good would a trial do for those known terrorists with all the evidence against them and NO evidence for them? Only reason skipping a trial would be acceptable in my opinion.
3. Ion, the Constitution says nothing regarding whether these rights ought to extend to foreign citizens, enemy combatants, or POWs. In addition, a lot of the debate surrounding what to do with them arises from how we should classify the prisoners in GTMO. Up until the recent "war on terror," we have always fought battles against an enemy with a distinct organization comprised of identifiable members. Since a "terrorist" is not limited to one person, group, or organization, it creates a whole gray area which we have never dealt with before.
I agree somewhat.
4. @All, the truth is, none of us know how prisoners at GTMO are treated (and if we did, we wouldn't be able to talk about it). To claim that they are or are not tortured is purely speculation.
Only somewhat true Spek. We do know that we are using water boarding against known terrorists, or suspected terrorists, and it has saved lives. We have seen videos, we have heard reports, we have a good idea about what goes on and unfortunately because of this, the recently castrated America wishes to close it down. Well, a bit more than half of it does.
5. Snakebit, Bush did not amend the Constitution. The President actually has no say in Constitutional amendments; they are drawn up by Congress, must be approved by a 2/3 vote in both houses, and must be ratified by 3/4 of the states' legislatures. Alternatively, the states can call a Constitutional Convention and draw up the amendment themselves with a 2/3 vote; however, none of the 27 amendments have been adopted in such a way.
6. Kebab, there has never been, nor is there now, an "American Empire;" therefore, it is impossible for one to have fallen.
Agree.
7. Kebab, a low dollar is a good thing for domestic businesses. Of course foreign countries' presses (ie, Austria) are going to complain about such a thing due to their inability to compete in such a market.
The dollar will rebound eventually.
8. Kebab, unemployment in Dec, 2008 was 7.2%, which is not higher than it has been in the "last sever [sic] decades." In fact, you only need to go back to 1993 to find unemployment being higher.
9. Kebab, we are in a recession, but the economy is not "falling apart." In fact, we are fairing much better in this period than most of western Europe.
Often overlooked. This is a world wide recession, which the world will recover from. To pin ALL of this on the former U.S. prez is next to crazy.
10. Kebab, I can assure you that Hadjib in Iraq does not give two shits about any civil war in South America or Africa, and certainly not enough to blow himself up over it. It also doesn't help your argument that the vast majority of South America is Roman Catholic, which Islamic terrorists tend to disdain. Your claim that Islamic terrorism is arising from U.S. gov't manipulation in these regions is not only unsupported, but also completely illogical.
Exactly what I was going to say.
Oh and I don't have a lot of time these days. If anyone's thinking I'm blowing off you're arguments then I'm not. Feel free to quote whatever post you want me to respond to and I'll try to get back in the discussion when I can.
Oh and one more thing before I split for the next day or two, Roberto and all, you'd rather honestly NOT waterboard someone because you think it falls under the "definition" of torture? Go with Webster not your brains I see. What webster won't tell you is that risking and probably losing countless innocent lives just to keep your quote "civilized manners" is not only stupid but levels beyond that. In this case, the ends justify the means. In fact, not wateboarding someone to save a life is uncivil. So, here is your choice plain and simple:
A) Saving Innocent lives (who knows how many) and sticking a terrorist's head in a bucket
or
B) Putting a detainee in your local prison for the rest of his life and not saving innocent lives (troops and civilians alike)
Choice is obvious. Apparently a terrorist's mental stability is more important than innocent lives. A terrorist, a mortal enemy of all things western like you and me, you'll sympathize for and probably kill your neighbor in the process. Be friggin proud.
/castration
Quote from: Papa Skull on January 30, 2009, 09:19:58 PM
Oh and one more thing before I split for the next day or two, Roberto and all, you'd rather honestly NOT waterboard someone because you think it falls under the "definition" of torture? Go with Webster not your brains I see. What webster won't tell you is that risking and probably losing countless innocent lives just to keep your quote "civilized manners" is not only stupid but levels beyond that. In this case, the ends justify the means. In fact, not wateboarding someone to save a life is uncivil. So, here is your choice plain and simple:
A) Saving Innocent lives (who knows how many) and sticking a terrorist's head in a bucket
or
B) Putting a detainee in your local prison for the rest of his life and not saving innocent lives (troops and civilians alike)
Choice is obvious. Apparently a terrorist's mental stability is more important than innocent lives. A terrorist, a mortal enemy of all things western like you and me, you'll sympathize for and probably kill your neighbor in the process. Be friggin proud.
/castration
Papa , how do you know for sure a person is a terrorist without a trial ? 'because it is obvious' That won't do , give me a clear way to differ a terrorist and a civilian in a war zone . How are you sure someone is a terrorist ?
Non-us citizens are scum ? They could be tortured and Us civilians can't ? Talk about double standards .
EDIT: I dont even feel like bringing back my old reply, as Papa Skull is on the loose again with his physcological warfare. If you say you shouldn't torture he will come up with something like: "What if if he knows where your loved one is whoes got kidnapped but won't say a thing".
I know...its not worth it.
Quote from: Papa Skull on January 30, 2009, 09:09:13 PM
Feel free to quote whatever post you want me to respond to and I'll try to get back in the discussion when I can.
Why would anyone want you to post more?
QuoteSpekkio . You might have misunderstood me a bit . I wasn't referring to the way , how those amendments were adapted . I was trying to say that at the least it is not bad that he is trying to fight terrorism by external and INTERNAL means. Yes i agree that he skipped normal legeslative procedure but in my opinion that was a good thing to do. It would take more time to pass those laws a lot more probably + i am not sure that they would pass in the congress .
I don't know if this is a language barrier at work, but the President cannot make laws, either. That is solely Congress's job. The President has the option to veto new laws, but Congress can then override said veto with a 2/3 majority.
QuoteOld Liberalism =/= Current Liberalism
Current liberalism is pushing for gigantic government lately, it's like they've got socialistic dreams in their back pockets. It's not exactly tearing the country apart, but it is a disease, and is currently NOT what America stands for.
The definition of liberal is not a socialist. You should take more care to use words that mean what you intend to state.
QuoteThen give them trials. I'm only suggesting skipping this step if they are not U.S. citizens AND if they ARE known terrorists. What good would a trial do for those known terrorists with all the evidence against them and NO evidence for them? Only reason skipping a trial would be acceptable in my opinion.
How does one become a "known terrorist?" Who decides this?
QuoteOnly somewhat true Spek. We do know that we are using water boarding against known terrorists, or suspected terrorists, and it has saved lives. We have seen videos, we have heard reports, we have a good idea about what goes on and unfortunately because of this, the recently castrated America wishes to close it down. Well, a bit more than half of it does.
Whether or not waterboarding is torture is debatable, and I have not seen any confirmed reports of waterboarding saving lives. I'm not saying it has happened one way or the other, mind you. It's just simply not made public, which was my original point.
Quote from: Snakebit. on January 30, 2009, 09:58:50 PM
Quote from: Papa Skull on January 30, 2009, 09:19:58 PM
Oh and one more thing before I split for the next day or two, Roberto and all, you'd rather honestly NOT waterboard someone because you think it falls under the "definition" of torture? Go with Webster not your brains I see. What webster won't tell you is that risking and probably losing countless innocent lives just to keep your quote "civilized manners" is not only stupid but levels beyond that. In this case, the ends justify the means. In fact, not wateboarding someone to save a life is uncivil. So, here is your choice plain and simple:
A) Saving Innocent lives (who knows how many) and sticking a terrorist's head in a bucket
or
B) Putting a detainee in your local prison for the rest of his life and not saving innocent lives (troops and civilians alike)
Choice is obvious. Apparently a terrorist's mental stability is more important than innocent lives. A terrorist, a mortal enemy of all things western like you and me, you'll sympathize for and probably kill your neighbor in the process. Be friggin proud.
/castration
Papa , how do you know for sure a person is a terrorist without a trial ? 'because it is obvious' That won't do , give me a clear way to differ a terrorist and a civilian in a war zone . How are you sure someone is a terrorist ?
I'm not the one that decides that. You know, there are people in gitmo that we KNOW (For sure, like a fact) are terrorists, KNOWN terrorists. Don't get this idea in your head that we are stupid and don't have ways of knowing who had/has plans to engage in terrorist activity.
There is some Grade A scum in there. Where will it go? U.S. soil? Hope we got max security for the rest of their lives.
Non-us citizens are scum ? They could be tortured and Us civilians can't ? Talk about double standards .
Where are you getting this? Of course not. In fact some of the detainees were u.s. citizens, and should get a trial. All I was saying was that if we've known of this terrorist for a long time, if we have intel, video, whatever, of that person committing or helping to engage in terrorist activity, why should a trial be given? There is no evidence for this person, and there is infinite against him/her. That's what I mean by obvious. They know why they are there. The terrorists I mean. They are going to wonder why they are let loose.
And still no one has anything to say about the 60-70 men that returned to the battlefield? No one? No surprise there.
And Lennard, I only ask that question because it's a good question. Still haven't gotten an answer. If it's such a BS thing to ask you then why won't you say why? It's fair. The job of the president is to protect the people, is it not? It's a parent's job to protect their children. It's not unfair to say that the president has to protect the people like they are his/her children, is it? So, I ask you, if you were president or a parent, would you use this technique of interrogation if it meant possibly saving the lives of your children/people? If not, you are not fit to be either one. That's what I'm saying. If you won't do your job because you sympathize for known terrorists then you should not have that job. Criticizing the president for doing what he deemed necessary to protect his people is ridiculous.
Spekkio, I said that liberals have socialist ideas in their back pockets and it's what they've been pushing for lately. It is not what they would have been pushing for originally. That's why I'm saying that current day libs is not old day libs.
i d k, i dont even feel like discussing this anymore. it feels pointless. none of us can do anything about it other than bitch about it.
papa skull you kinda sound like the old lady in the mccain campaing whom stated "obama is an arab, and a domestic terrorist".
if waterboarding really does save lives then the government will aprove it again, and you will prove us all wrong papaskull. until then, you are incorrect.
Papa, you're throwing two words over the same line, terrorists and known terrorists. There is a difference between "criminals" and know terrorists like Bin Laden.
You can't just point at someone and say: "You're a terrorist, now I can torture you". This has to be proven through a legal way.
So, no, I won't torture anyone, even if there are lives at stake. If I would get my hands on Bin Laden, at most I give him a smack at the head and deliver him to the local authorities, it would give me less problems anyway (you know that smacking a criminals head can get you jailtime overhere...).
I would do the same if I get my hands on a "kidnapper" of my children.
Torture is wrong in any occasion.
You have your answer, END
You'd give a little smack to the head to a kidnapper/possible killer of your children? What are they your adopted kids?
Maybe that's going a bit over the line but I can't believe it. What if you had the kidnapper of your children in your hands, and only he had the code to disarm the bomb strapped to their chests. Is not waterboarding someone sooo important that you'd kill your kids to keep your BS "moral values" in tact? I seriously doubt that in the heat of that moment that the first thing you think about is to not torture another human being. That's the life of the prez, my friend. There are things that you have to do but don't necessarily want to do, every single day. The criticism directed towards Bush for the methods of interrogation used at Gitmo is garbage, and unfortunately the American people are buying it.
We aren't just saying "you're a terrorist!" and commencing torture. If we believe that the waterboarding technique can save lives, by using it on KNOWN terrorists, what's the problem with that? Nowadays, even "torture" or the much more humane methods of "torture" (used on KNOWN terrorists like Bin Laden) are strictly off limits because we believe we are going above that. BS. The world sucks and sometimes you have to do sucky things to achieve a better result. That's what I'm saying, we're too afraid to do the hard thing to achieve a good thing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. We've got this idea that if we just stick to our "morality" then we'll all be O.K. and the world will cool down. Reality check needed - badly.
Look, I'm not saying we just go around and torture anybody who wails death to America. When it's necessary and being used on someone that we KNOW has information that could save lives, we should seek the most effective - but the most humane - form of interrogation. If that calls for waterboarding, so be it. However we shouldn't put the Webster Definition before our own people's safety. Lately, we've been doing things like that, and that's why I think we've lost our will to do almost anything here in America.
Quote from: Papa Skull on February 01, 2009, 12:54:02 AM
Quote from: Snakebit. on January 30, 2009, 09:58:50 PM
Quote from: Papa Skull on January 30, 2009, 09:19:58 PM
Oh and one more thing before I split for the next day or two, Roberto and all, you'd rather honestly NOT waterboard someone because you think it falls under the "definition" of torture? Go with Webster not your brains I see. What webster won't tell you is that risking and probably losing countless innocent lives just to keep your quote "civilized manners" is not only stupid but levels beyond that. In this case, the ends justify the means. In fact, not wateboarding someone to save a life is uncivil. So, here is your choice plain and simple:
A) Saving Innocent lives (who knows how many) and sticking a terrorist's head in a bucket
or
B) Putting a detainee in your local prison for the rest of his life and not saving innocent lives (troops and civilians alike)
Choice is obvious. Apparently a terrorist's mental stability is more important than innocent lives. A terrorist, a mortal enemy of all things western like you and me, you'll sympathize for and probably kill your neighbor in the process. Be friggin proud.
/castration
Papa , how do you know for sure a person is a terrorist without a trial ? 'because it is obvious' That won't do , give me a clear way to differ a terrorist and a civilian in a war zone . How are you sure someone is a terrorist ?
I'm not the one that decides that. You know, there are people in gitmo that we KNOW (For sure, like a fact) are terrorists, KNOWN terrorists. Don't get this idea in your head that we are stupid and don't have ways of knowing who had/has plans to engage in terrorist activity.
There is some Grade A scum in there. Where will it go? U.S. soil? Hope we got max security for the rest of their lives.
Non-us citizens are scum ? They could be tortured and Us civilians can't ? Talk about double standards .
Where are you getting this? Of course not. In fact some of the detainees were u.s. citizens, and should get a trial. All I was saying was that if we've known of this terrorist for a long time, if we have intel, video, whatever, of that person committing or helping to engage in terrorist activity, why should a trial be given? There is no evidence for this person, and there is infinite against him/her. That's what I mean by obvious. They know why they are there. The terrorists I mean. They are going to wonder why they are let loose.
And still no one has anything to say about the 60-70 men that returned to the battlefield? No one? No surprise there.
And Lennard, I only ask that question because it's a good question. Still haven't gotten an answer. If it's such a BS thing to ask you then why won't you say why? It's fair. The job of the president is to protect the people, is it not? It's a parent's job to protect their children. It's not unfair to say that the president has to protect the people like they are his/her children, is it? So, I ask you, if you were president or a parent, would you use this technique of interrogation if it meant possibly saving the lives of your children/people? If not, you are not fit to be either one. That's what I'm saying. If you won't do your job because you sympathize for known terrorists then you should not have that job. Criticizing the president for doing what he deemed necessary to protect his people is ridiculous.
Spekkio, I said that liberals have socialist ideas in their back pockets and it's what they've been pushing for lately. It is not what they would have been pushing for originally. That's why I'm saying that current day libs is not old day libs.
The question remains not answered ! How are you sure they a-grade scum ? Who decided they are ? How did you figure that out ? How did you make it sure for a FACT , they are terrorist ? Did you give them a trial ? Did they present any witnesses or evidence ? I am not saying your are stupid but 'thinking about something against the law is not a crime' but doing something against the law IS a crime. And you need evidence and witnesses to prove it . Without it being proved in court its not a fact.
If you have INFINITE evidence then go to court and PROVE they are terrorists . But if you don't then let them go. They are kept in Guantanamo because they don't have enough evidence to trial and convict them . That is the biggest problem .
Why do laws exist tell me papa skull ? Why should we break laws and NOT GO TO TRIAL/Court and just CONVICT someone and torture/kill him ? Does that sound like something barbaric and uncivilized ?
Geeez , you are right i just called you barbaric and uncivilized if you haven't understood that.
To Spekkio. May be i am just comparing my country presidential functions your country presidential functions. In my country (Estonia) has SOME [small] executive functions of the goverment. Yes he has the right to veto decisions but our parlament (your word for it is congress) can override his veto with 2/3 + 1 votes . But our president has under some conditions some abilities of the legislative branch . Its really hard to explain because i am kinda studying law so its easier for me to understand . And i think your president has those rights too. But ill try to explain it .
Our president and probably yours too (i am not sure) has the ability to issue bylaws . (Russian word for this is постановление and Estonian is määrus) I think that is the correct translation. There are 3 types of this bylaws and under some conditions they can take form of new law (Then again hard to explain. All 3 of those types are laws but word law in juridical practice has over 20 translations. This time i mean law as a written working law for example anything from your constitution. The right to live , the right to have a trial .... so on ) . If some part of our lives is badly regulated by laws/rights than the president can issue bylaws which will do that job but they then will take the form of laws.(if i am not mistaking it is called Praeter Legem Bylaw.) And i think , that is what Bush used for those laws to get passed. And if he did so then it is NOT anti-constitutional. (That is it in a nutshell )
Little copy paste to help you understand . To spekkio .
Regulations(Snakebits add regulation = bylaw in my translation) may be classified according to several principles. By their regulatory scope and connection with laws, regulations may be classified as intra legem, praeter legem or contra legem regulations. Intra legem regulations (Durchführungverordnungen) are legislative acts whereby the executive power is authorised to implement a law in force. Such regulations specify the rules for a law to be implemented and must be in conformity therewith. In theory, researchers are of the opinion that intra legem regulations may only specify the regulation of areas which are regulated by law.*10 Praeter legem regulations (gesetzesvertretende Verordnungen) are legislative acts governing areas which are unregulated by law. In this respect, such regulations substitute for laws. Contra legem regulations (gesetzesändernde Verordnungen) amend and repeal laws.
Source http://www.juridica.ee/international_en.php?document=en/international/1996/1/6175.ART.2.pub.php. Juridica international .Year 1996 . Page 3 paragraph 2.
One more edit. Again to make it easier to understand. If your president wanted to change something in the constitution then he would need 2/3 approval of the congress for his new law. But regulation is an another Akt . It is not a 'law' and your congress can not issue regulations by the way . So your president doesn't need 2/3 approval to issue regulations and as stated above SOME regulations can turn into new laws if some conditions are met . (If part of our society is not regulated/ badly regulated . This time it was about Terrorism , there were no laws before about terrorism so your president issued some regulations about it )
And one more thing. Our president has the ability to issue only praeter legem and intro legem regulations BUT he can't issue contra legem regulations {the ones that can CHANGE existing laws } and if Bush Changed something in the constitution that would be Anti-constitutional but if he just added new laws then it is not. May be president in America has the ability to issue Contra legem regulations i am not sure but i really doubt that.
QuoteThe question remains not answered ! How are you sure they a-grade scum ? Who decided they are ? How did you figure that out ? How did you make it sure for a FACT , they are terrorist ? Did you give them a trial ? Did they present any witnesses or evidence ? I am not saying your are stupid but 'thinking about something against the law is not a crime' but doing something against the law IS a crime. And you need evidence and witnesses to prove it . Without it being proved in court its not a fact.
It was answered. I'M NOT THE ONE THAT DECIDES IT. Intelligence decides it, multiple things do. By your logic, how do we know that OSAMA BIN LADEN IS A TERRORIST FOR SURE ZOMG!!?! There are people that we KNOW work for terrorist groups, like those on the al Qaeda list, because of assets on the ground/in the air/in the network. Whatever. We have way of finding these people, and we have ways of detaining these people, and we have ways of interrogating these people. Sure, there may be the occasional mistake of someone being put in Gitmo, but that is far outweighted by the intel we've gathered from the real ones. We HAVE evidence, the terrorists do not, and that's the only circumstance where I wouldn't care if a trial was skipped. Would we give a trial to Bin Laden? Probably not. Should you care? No.
QuoteIf you have INFINITE evidence then go to court and PROVE they are terrorists . But if you don't then let them go. They are kept in Guantanamo because they don't have enough evidence to trial and convict them . That is the biggest problem .
Haha really? They don't have enough evidence for those at Gitmo? Nope. There are some all-star big namers in Gitmo. Ones that even admit to engaging in terrorist activity. Whether it be helping the taliban/al qaeda, or being part of the taliban/al qaeda, a lot of them admit to it. There's evidence, and it's not even all the evidence we have.
QuoteWhy do laws exist tell me papa skull ? Why should we break laws and NOT GO TO TRIAL/Court and just CONVICT someone and torture/kill him ? Does that sound like something barbaric and uncivilized ?
Geeez , you are right i just called you barbaric and uncivilized if you haven't understood that.
The detainees aren't just "breaking laws". They have potentially life saving information, and you are basically killing innocent people by not acting fast and obtaining that information - so there you have it. You are breaking the law by letting someone die. Would you rather potentially kill someone just so that achmed can wait 6 months to be convicted/interrogated/killed/thrown right back in prison? Law has a place, but so does common sense. Save a life, give rights to a terrorists, your choice. Law, or common sense. Law exists so that those who abide by it are not punished and those who do not are. Law exists to keep peace and organization. You'll put a terrorists rights before somebody's life, obviously. That's a flaw, a heavy heavy flaw.
QuoteTo Spekkio. May be i am just comparing my country presidential functions your country presidential functions. In my country (Estonia) has SOME [small] executive functions of the goverment. Yes he has the right to veto decisions but our parlament (your word for it is congress) can override his veto with 2/3 + 1 votes . But our president has under some conditions some abilities of the legislative branch . Its really hard to explain because i am kinda studying law so its easier for me to understand . And i think your president has those rights too. But ill try to explain it .
I know about presidential functions and power. I also know about the responsibility the president takes when he assumes office. The biggest one being the safety of the people. If that can be helped and achieved by "robbing" a few terrorists of their "rights" then it's what will be done. The terrorists know why they are there. Don't make them look like victims. Terrorists are the victims nowadays, there's a big cut in the overall castration.
QuoteOur president and probably yours too (i am not sure) has the ability to issue bylaws . (Russian word for this is ÿþÃ'ÂÃ'‚ðýþòûõýøõ and Estonian is määrus) I think that is the correct translation. There are 3 types of this bylaws and under some conditions they can take form of new law (Then again hard to explain. All 3 of those types are laws but word law in juridical practice has over 20 translations. This time i mean law as a written working law for example anything from your constitution. The right to live , the right to have a trial .... so on ) . If some part of our lives is badly regulated by laws/rights than the president can issue bylaws which will do that job but they then will take the form of laws.(if i am not mistaking it is called Praeter Legem Bylaw.) And i think , that is what Bush used for those laws to get passed. And if he did so then it is NOT anti-constitutional. (That is it in a nutshell )
The right to live! There you go! There you have it! If someone's rights are possibly being infringed, their right to live, then we must do what is necessary to prevent that from happening. Right? Or is the right to a trial more important than the right to live? Hmm? The right to live is the basic right, THE right, the right to rule them all if you will. So someone's rights will be infringed either way in the situation we are in right now. Either the terrorists rights (right to a trial, keep in mind the terrorists technically should not have the same rights anyways), or the possible victim's rights (right to live). Which will it be? It's rather obvious to me if one of them has to be broken. All this little problem has been is a simple choice. It's all it boils down to.
Will you sympathize for the terrorists (the ones who would slit the throats of you and I given the chance), or willl you do what it takes (even waterboarding) to save the lives of people like you and I?
QuoteLittle copy paste to help you understand . To spekkio .
Regulations(Snakebits add regulation = bylaw in my translation) may be classified according to several principles. By their regulatory scope and connection with laws, regulations may be classified as intra legem, praeter legem or contra legem regulations. Intra legem regulations (Durchführungverordnungen) are legislative acts whereby the executive power is authorised to implement a law in force. Such regulations specify the rules for a law to be implemented and must be in conformity therewith. In theory, researchers are of the opinion that intra legem regulations may only specify the regulation of areas which are regulated by law.*10 Praeter legem regulations (gesetzesvertretende Verordnungen) are legislative acts governing areas which are unregulated by law. In this respect, such regulations substitute for laws. Contra legem regulations (gesetzesändernde Verordnungen) amend and repeal laws.
Source http://www.juridica.ee/international_en.php?document=en/international/1996/1/6175.ART.2.pub.php. Juridica international .Year 1996 . Page 3 paragraph 2.
One more edit. Again to make it easier to understand. If your president wanted to change something in the constitution then he would need 2/3 approval of the congress for his new law. But regulation is an another Akt . It is not a 'law' and your congress can not issue regulations by the way . So your president doesn't need 2/3 approval to issue regulations and as stated above SOME regulations can turn into new laws if some conditions are met . (If part of our society is not regulated/ badly regulated . This time it was about Terrorism , there were no laws before about terrorism so your president issued some regulations about it )
And one more thing. Our president has the ability to issue only praeter legem and intro legem regulations BUT he can't issue contra legem regulations {the ones that can CHANGE existing laws } and if Bush Changed something in the constitution that would be Anti-constitutional but if he just added new laws then it is not. May be president in America has the ability to issue Contra legem regulations i am not sure but i really doubt that.
Careful, by "removing rights," you are gnawing away the very basic fundamentals of your whole government and legal/judisical system. A very, very dangerious premise. Those fundamentals shouldn't be messed with. Not ever. Else there's no point in having them.
Quote from: Papa Skull on February 01, 2009, 08:04:17 PM
QuoteThe question remains not answered ! How are you sure they a-grade scum ? Who decided they are ? How did you figure that out ? How did you make it sure for a FACT , they are terrorist ? Did you give them a trial ? Did they present any witnesses or evidence ? I am not saying your are stupid but 'thinking about something against the law is not a crime' but doing something against the law IS a crime. And you need evidence and witnesses to prove it . Without it being proved in court its not a fact.
It was answered. I'M NOT THE ONE THAT DECIDES IT. Intelligence decides it, multiple things do. By your logic, how do we know that OSAMA BIN LADEN IS A TERRORIST FOR SURE ZOMG!!?! There are people that we KNOW work for terrorist groups, like those on the al Qaeda list, because of assets on the ground/in the air/in the network. Whatever. We have way of finding these people, and we have ways of detaining these people, and we have ways of interrogating these people. Sure, there may be the occasional mistake of someone being put in Gitmo, but that is far outweighted by the intel we've gathered from the real ones. We HAVE evidence, the terrorists do not, and that's the only circumstance where I wouldn't care if a trial was skipped. Would we give a trial to Bin Laden? Probably not. Should you care? No.
QuoteIf you have INFINITE evidence then go to court and PROVE they are terrorists . But if you don't then let them go. They are kept in Guantanamo because they don't have enough evidence to trial and convict them . That is the biggest problem .
Haha really? They don't have enough evidence for those at Gitmo? Nope. There are some all-star big namers in Gitmo. Ones that even admit to engaging in terrorist activity. Whether it be helping the taliban/al qaeda, or being part of the taliban/al qaeda, a lot of them admit to it. There's evidence, and it's not even all the evidence we have.
QuoteWhy do laws exist tell me papa skull ? Why should we break laws and NOT GO TO TRIAL/Court and just CONVICT someone and torture/kill him ? Does that sound like something barbaric and uncivilized ?
Geeez , you are right i just called you barbaric and uncivilized if you haven't understood that.
The detainees aren't just "breaking laws". They have potentially life saving information, and you are basically killing innocent people by not acting fast and obtaining that information - so there you have it. You are breaking the law by letting someone die. Would you rather potentially kill someone just so that achmed can wait 6 months to be convicted/interrogated/killed/thrown right back in prison? Law has a place, but so does common sense. Save a life, give rights to a terrorists, your choice. Law, or common sense. Law exists so that those who abide by it are not punished and those who do not are. Law exists to keep peace and organization. You'll put a terrorists rights before somebody's life, obviously. That's a flaw, a heavy heavy flaw.
QuoteTo Spekkio. May be i am just comparing my country presidential functions your country presidential functions. In my country (Estonia) has SOME [small] executive functions of the goverment. Yes he has the right to veto decisions but our parlament (your word for it is congress) can override his veto with 2/3 + 1 votes . But our president has under some conditions some abilities of the legislative branch . Its really hard to explain because i am kinda studying law so its easier for me to understand . And i think your president has those rights too. But ill try to explain it .
I know about presidential functions and power. I also know about the responsibility the president takes when he assumes office. The biggest one being the safety of the people. If that can be helped and achieved by "robbing" a few terrorists of their "rights" then it's what will be done. The terrorists know why they are there. Don't make them look like victims. Terrorists are the victims nowadays, there's a big cut in the overall castration.
QuoteOur president and probably yours too (i am not sure) has the ability to issue bylaws . (Russian word for this is постановление and Estonian is määrus) I think that is the correct translation. There are 3 types of this bylaws and under some conditions they can take form of new law (Then again hard to explain. All 3 of those types are laws but word law in juridical practice has over 20 translations. This time i mean law as a written working law for example anything from your constitution. The right to live , the right to have a trial .... so on ) . If some part of our lives is badly regulated by laws/rights than the president can issue bylaws which will do that job but they then will take the form of laws.(if i am not mistaking it is called Praeter Legem Bylaw.) And i think , that is what Bush used for those laws to get passed. And if he did so then it is NOT anti-constitutional. (That is it in a nutshell )
The right to live! There you go! There you have it! If someone's rights are possibly being infringed, their right to live, then we must do what is necessary to prevent that from happening. Right? Or is the right to a trial more important than the right to live? Hmm? The right to live is the basic right, THE right, the right to rule them all if you will. So someone's rights will be infringed either way in the situation we are in right now. Either the terrorists rights (right to a trial, keep in mind the terrorists technically should not have the same rights anyways), or the possible victim's rights (right to live). Which will it be? It's rather obvious to me if one of them has to be broken. All this little problem has been is a simple choice. It's all it boils down to.
Will you sympathize for the terrorists (the ones who would slit the throats of you and I given the chance), or willl you do what it takes (even waterboarding) to save the lives of people like you and I?
QuoteLittle copy paste to help you understand . To spekkio .
Regulations(Snakebits add regulation = bylaw in my translation) may be classified according to several principles. By their regulatory scope and connection with laws, regulations may be classified as intra legem, praeter legem or contra legem regulations. Intra legem regulations (Durchführungverordnungen) are legislative acts whereby the executive power is authorised to implement a law in force. Such regulations specify the rules for a law to be implemented and must be in conformity therewith. In theory, researchers are of the opinion that intra legem regulations may only specify the regulation of areas which are regulated by law.*10 Praeter legem regulations (gesetzesvertretende Verordnungen) are legislative acts governing areas which are unregulated by law. In this respect, such regulations substitute for laws. Contra legem regulations (gesetzesändernde Verordnungen) amend and repeal laws.
Source http://www.juridica.ee/international_en.php?document=en/international/1996/1/6175.ART.2.pub.php. Juridica international .Year 1996 . Page 3 paragraph 2.
One more edit. Again to make it easier to understand. If your president wanted to change something in the constitution then he would need 2/3 approval of the congress for his new law. But regulation is an another Akt . It is not a 'law' and your congress can not issue regulations by the way . So your president doesn't need 2/3 approval to issue regulations and as stated above SOME regulations can turn into new laws if some conditions are met . (If part of our society is not regulated/ badly regulated . This time it was about Terrorism , there were no laws before about terrorism so your president issued some regulations about it )
And one more thing. Our president has the ability to issue only praeter legem and intro legem regulations BUT he can't issue contra legem regulations {the ones that can CHANGE existing laws } and if Bush Changed something in the constitution that would be Anti-constitutional but if he just added new laws then it is not. May be president in America has the ability to issue Contra legem regulations i am not sure but i really doubt that.
Papa are you stupid or only pretending to be ? People ARE siting there because your country can't put them on trial because of the lack of evidence . Same goes to your special forces . They can't tell who is CLEARLY a terrorist and who is CLEARLY not a terrorist . Bin Laden is not siting in Guantanamo . There may be big names there but they STILL NEED A TRIAL . Your country has been preaching democracy/freedom of speech /equality/tolerance for the last 100 years BUT in the end you don't follow them . You are slowly degrading to the level of those terrorists who cut people heads off and then film it on tape saying 'hahahaha Alah Akbar hahahahaha' . Why should Iraqi citizens or citizens from afghanistan help you in your way of rebuilding THEIR country when you don't give a crap about their rights. Your only argument for the 4 pages was like . Come on , i know you will torture them because they MIGHT know something that will save lives.
Then how about i give you a counter argument . How would you feel if i wrote a letter to the fbi saying that you are a terrorist and you would be put in Guantanamo and get tortured ? Is that okay with you ?
Will you be displeased with that ? Or you ll say 'i am okay with that!' ..
Oh and by the way . Your not saving lives but not acting fast enough is wrong . You are torturing/ denying people human rights / may be even killing some . So i don't see hows that is better . Again better to save your own people and kill the big mean stranger. One or the other way there will be bad things happening for one of the sides. Again you are denying people human rights , but it is written in your constitution that you should not deny them + you also signed in under the Declaration of human rights made by UN.
You will give a trial to Bin Laden. He is a political figure . You gave a trial to Sadam Husein ? Yeah you did . You give trials to other bad bad bad people.
The right to live doesn't mean that you can torture/kill other people . The right to live means that your government respects human rights and follows them . It means that they won't kill their own people or any other people living on their own land without a CLEAR reason which is decided by COURT. {Death Penalty}.
Many terrorist slit other people's throats for a reason . Because they were driven to that point by historical and social circumstances. People don't kill other people without a reason and religion is just a way to justify their wrongdoings . Its almost the same as that Crime rate rises during the economical crisis.
QuoteOne more edit. Again to make it easier to understand. If your president wanted to change something in the constitution then he would need 2/3 approval of the congress for his new law. But regulation is an another Akt . It is not a 'law' and your congress can not issue regulations by the way . So your president doesn't need 2/3 approval to issue regulations and as stated above SOME regulations can turn into new laws if some conditions are met . (If part of our society is not regulated/ badly regulated . This time it was about Terrorism , there were no laws before about terrorism so your president issued some regulations about it )
This is incorrect. Our President does not have the power to issue "bylaws;" all the laws that are in effect today have been voted on and approved by a majority in Congress. The President can only act within the framework of the law, which was modified by Congress shortly after 9/11. Also, not all laws need a 2/3 vote to pass; the 2/3 rule is only in effect for overriding a Presidential veto and other special circumstances which escape me at this moment.
If the President acts outside of the law, he is subject to impeachment and, upon conviction, removal from office.
Quotekill the big mean stranger
Absolutely ridiculous. Terrorists aren't so mean are they? Nah, they're just some dudes that don't like us that much and so we should do whatever it takes to make sure they like us! Right? You think we got every single detainee at Gitmo just plain wrongly? Hahah, no, not at all. How about one of the key plotters of 9/11? He's there, but whoops! Our bad! We can't tell for sure, der der der, let's just let him go. The al Qaeda list? All wrong? We can't be so sure can we! Don't underestimate our intelligence assets. That's YOUR biggest flaw. Sure, there may be a few that we got out of a mistake, and that's why a trial should be given at least to those that we aren't so sure about. Even then, we must use caution.
QuoteMany terrorist slit other people's throats for a reason . Because they were driven to that point by historical and social circumstances. People don't kill other people without a reason and religion is just a way to justify their wrongdoings . Its almost the same as that Crime rate rises during the economical crisis.
And this... You call me stupid and then, this?! ahahaha.... People don't kill people without a reason? Are you implying that we did something to deserve 9/11? Did we do anything wrong prior to that other than support most of the mid-east's mortal enemy Israel? Well, we brought some freedom, liberated some countries, made a few mistakes along the way, but it doesn't matter because this is just what radicals are. Radical. They don't care about reason and don't think twice about why they do what they do. They just DO. There are a few phrases in the Quran that say "kill the infidel" (don't deny it) and so they do just that, try to kill the infidel. If we really wronged the middle eastern countries, and really did something to deserve their hatred (which is just religious craziness wrapped in a ball of jealousy and envy) then we'd have much more enemies there than just a few rebels killing in the name of Allah. Iran is really only our enemy because they think we've underestimated them and their power, and so they've been bred and forced to hate us. What I'm saying is that if we did something horrible, like nuke one of their cities or something, then it would be a world war and not a war on terror and radical islam.
It seems to me that you are thinking that terrorists are the victims, and we are the big mean aggressor. "People don't kill without reason", referring to terrorists as just "big mean strangers", what gives man? Don't be ridiculous. Terrorists are the victims? Exactly my point.
Quote from: Papa Skull on February 02, 2009, 06:23:58 AM
QuoteMany terrorist slit other people's throats for a reason . Because they were driven to that point by historical and social circumstances. People don't kill other people without a reason and religion is just a way to justify their wrongdoings . Its almost the same as that Crime rate rises during the economical crisis.
And this... You call me stupid and then, this?! ahahaha.... People don't kill people without a reason? Are you implying that we did something to deserve 9/11? Did we do anything wrong prior to that other than support most of the mid-east's mortal enemy Israel? Well, we brought some freedom, liberated some countries, made a few mistakes along the way, but it doesn't matter because this is just what radicals are. Radical. They don't care about reason and don't think twice about why they do what they do. They just DO. There are a few phrases in the Quran that say "kill the infidel" (don't deny it) and so they do just that, try to kill the infidel. If we really wronged the middle eastern countries, and really did something to deserve their hatred (which is just religious craziness wrapped in a ball of jealousy and envy) then we'd have much more enemies there than just a few rebels killing in the name of Allah. Iran is really only our enemy because they think we've underestimated them and their power, and so they've been bred and forced to hate us. What I'm saying is that if we did something horrible, like nuke one of their cities or something, then it would be a world war and not a war on terror and radical islam.
It seems to me that you are thinking that terrorists are the victims, and we are the big mean aggressor. "People don't kill without reason", referring to terrorists as just "big mean strangers", what gives man? Don't be ridiculous. Terrorists are the victims? Exactly my point.
Lol, try reading your own posts in the "I am an atheist" thread.
Quote from: Papa Skull on February 02, 2009, 06:23:58 AM
Quotekill the big mean stranger
Absolutely ridiculous. Terrorists aren't so mean are they? Nah, they're just some dudes that don't like us that much and so we should do whatever it takes to make sure they like us! Right? You think we got every single detainee at Gitmo just plain wrongly? Hahah, no, not at all. How about one of the key plotters of 9/11? He's there, but whoops! Our bad! We can't tell for sure, der der der, let's just let him go. The al Qaeda list? All wrong? We can't be so sure can we! Don't underestimate our intelligence assets. That's YOUR biggest flaw. Sure, there may be a few that we got out of a mistake, and that's why a trial should be given at least to those that we aren't so sure about. Even then, we must use caution.
QuoteMany terrorist slit other people's throats for a reason . Because they were driven to that point by historical and social circumstances. People don't kill other people without a reason and religion is just a way to justify their wrongdoings . Its almost the same as that Crime rate rises during the economical crisis.
And this... You call me stupid and then, this?! ahahaha.... People don't kill people without a reason? Are you implying that we did something to deserve 9/11? Did we do anything wrong prior to that other than support most of the mid-east's mortal enemy Israel? Well, we brought some freedom, liberated some countries, made a few mistakes along the way, but it doesn't matter because this is just what radicals are. Radical. They don't care about reason and don't think twice about why they do what they do. They just DO. There are a few phrases in the Quran that say "kill the infidel" (don't deny it) and so they do just that, try to kill the infidel. If we really wronged the middle eastern countries, and really did something to deserve their hatred (which is just religious craziness wrapped in a ball of jealousy and envy) then we'd have much more enemies there than just a few rebels killing in the name of Allah. Iran is really only our enemy because they think we've underestimated them and their power, and so they've been bred and forced to hate us. What I'm saying is that if we did something horrible, like nuke one of their cities or something, then it would be a world war and not a war on terror and radical islam.
It seems to me that you are thinking that terrorists are the victims, and we are the big mean aggressor. "People don't kill without reason", referring to terrorists as just "big mean strangers", what gives man? Don't be ridiculous. Terrorists are the victims? Exactly my point.
How can i reason with you ? You are just repeating the same thing over and over again. How are you sure they all are terrorist. You are innocent unless proven otherwise in the court . If you like that much that your special forces can label ANYONE without ANY EVIDENCE a terrorist and also DON'T need to go to court than go move to North Korea or China . Those governments will be happy to welcome you there.
Don't give me crap like there are all obviously Al Qaeda super stars there . 95% of them are not OBVIOUSLY SUPER STAR TERRORIST CELEBRITIES.
Said by papa skull : And this... You call me stupid and then, this?! ahahaha.... People don't kill people without a reason? Are you implying that we did something to deserve 9/11? Did we do anything wrong prior to that other than support most of the mid-east's mortal enemy Israel?
Answered by papa skull : Well, we brought some freedom, liberated some countries, made a few mistakes along the way, but it doesn't matter because this is just what radicals are.
Oh but it does matter.
Bringing freedom and ruining several countries along the way is very nice . Somalia is a prime example of that right now. Why is iran so pissed at you ? Oh hell i think an american sponsored coup in the 60's has something to do with that if i am not mistaking and a 'islamic revolution' in the 80's also didn't help you with your reputation in there. If you treat a country like crap don't expect it to treat you back nicely .
Its not just iran there are countries like Egypt which has similar things happening in them.
You support israel but why ? Israel was totally wrong about not letting palestinians build their own country. In 1917 the queen of the british empire signed a declaration of Belfore ( i think this is its name i don't rememmber) that promised the creation of both Jewish and Arabic countries but in 1947 (i think if i remember my history well) only a Jewish country was formed . Like what gives ? And for the time the Jews only said 'this is the territory given to us by god' (They returned back home after 2k years of traveling) But since i don't believe in god i found that version total and utter bullshit.)
Lately the process sped up a bit. But the country still isn't their . There is a difference between drawing a border between 2 places and creating full institutions of power , health care and wellfare.
And nope i don't support hamas terrorists . I Support the idea of the palestenian country being established but i don't support by which means hamas tries to do so.
Notice how mostly Arab populated countries are the ones to suffer ? And i guess arabs do have a reason to have a grudge against the Us.
QuoteNotice how mostly Arab populated countries are the ones to suffer ? And i guess arabs do have a reason to have a grudge against the Us.
Notice how Obama went to an Arab network to let the Muslim and Arab people know that they are no foes of the U.S. and that we want to work with them to weed out the group we are actually supposed to be looking for...Al Qaeda.
...but Papa is right, Obama was a bad idea................cuz Bush was awesome and McCain would've been wowzoarz.
Quote from: papaskullThe biggest one being the safety of the people.
Wrong. The biggest part of the Presidential oath is to uphold the Constitution.
Quote from: Westfall on February 03, 2009, 06:05:21 AM
QuoteNotice how mostly Arab populated countries are the ones to suffer ? And i guess arabs do have a reason to have a grudge against the Us.
Notice how Obama went to an Arab network to let the Muslim and Arab people know that they are no foes of the U.S. and that we want to work with them to weed out the group we are actually supposed to be looking for...Al Qaeda.
...but Papa is right, Obama was a bad idea................cuz Bush was awesome and McCain would've been wowzoarz.
Notice how we talked about prior 9/11 because he asked the reasons.
And i haven't heard about that by the way . Well thats a + for Obama then from me.
in the end, im pretty sure torture will still exist in like top secret operations that rely on it for the completion of an objective etc.
and this isnt jsut an assumption nor is it intuition, im saying this because its the reality. lol.
Quote from: Spekkio on February 03, 2009, 12:03:13 PM
Quote from: papaskullThe 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.
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.
Why not use intense torture? If mild forms don't work, why wouldn't you escalate? It seems like the natural progression.
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.
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?
Quote from: Papa Skull on February 09, 2009, 06:33:06 AM
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.
Quote from: HYPER STAG BEETLE on February 10, 2009, 12:12:29 AM
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.
Fully commit, then. I dunno, I'm sure you can work out what I meant.
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.
Whoa, watch out for the burn there Papa, it might cause you to lose consciousness.
Nerdiest fuckin insults ever seen by human eyes...
Quote from: HYPER STAG BEETLE on February 10, 2009, 12:12:29 AM
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.
Quote from: Papa Skull on February 10, 2009, 07:14:48 AM
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.
Quote from: Papa Skull on February 09, 2009, 06:33:06 AM
Quote from: Spekkio on February 03, 2009, 12:03:13 PM
Quote from: papaskullThe 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.
Quote from: HYPER STAG BEETLE on February 10, 2009, 07:28:06 AM
Quote from: Papa Skull on February 10, 2009, 07:14:48 AM
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.
Quote from: Snakebit. on February 10, 2009, 07:43:14 AM
Quote from: Papa Skull on February 09, 2009, 06:33:06 AM
Quote from: Spekkio on February 03, 2009, 12:03:13 PM
Quote from: papaskullThe 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.
Quote from: Papa Skull on February 10, 2009, 04:50:56 PM
Quote from: Snakebit. on February 10, 2009, 07:43:14 AM
Quote from: Papa Skull on February 09, 2009, 06:33:06 AM
Quote from: Spekkio on February 03, 2009, 12:03:13 PM
Quote from: papaskullThe 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 .
QuoteThink 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.
Uh well no kidding snakebit. Can't really be a warzone without any opposition. IT WAS A DICTATORSHIP. Iraq's better off with Saddam GONE, agree? If not, there is no hope for reasoning with you on this subject. Yes, there was stability with Saddam, but it was a terrible stability, and we are there to remove a dictator and bring forth (hopefully) a peaceful stability - a democracy. America did this this this and this and bla bla bla, WELL NO DUH. A lot of things have to be done to reboot a country. If there is no struggle there is no progress, and that's the cold hard truth. The basic resources are returning to major cities, violence is next to gone, a dictator (who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people) is GONE, and there is an infant democracy in the mid-east. It still needs our help to get going, and that's why we are there. It's a given that people have gone through tough times and will continue to go through hard times in Iraq, but this is a sacrifice made to ensure that future generations live better lives. And hey, we'll kill some terrorists while we're at it. Can you believe that some people are actually BITCHING that we are just forcing terrorists out of the country? Like it's anything to bitch about?
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.
Uhhm, yeah. Point? Think of it like this. There is a fat guy sitting on a box of kittens, slowly suffocating them. We come along to try and push the fatass of the box in order to free the cats, but unfortunately some die in the process of freeing the rest. It may have been safe for the kittens under the fatass, but they sure as hell didn't like not having any say.
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 .
A very sad and absolutely ridiculous attempt at a "point". Hey! Remember when France was taken over by Nazi's? There was no gunfire or wars going on! It was stable in France! Then Britain and America and the other allies came along and had the nerve to start a conflict! Can't believe them! Life was so much better for the French before we came huh!?!?!
Quit bitching and moaning about the problems occurring during the INITIAL INVASION. Jeez, I mean, what? It's been 6 YEARS now? Still stuck on the bad things from back then? They're being/been taken care of!
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.
HE SAID SHE SAID. Come on. I've seen people thrilled that Saddam was dead/out of power. He was just a small devil? Dude, get real. We will keep amazingly close tabs on Iraq, afterall, we are the ones that got them to this point. We'd be damned if we let it fall through the holes because some Iranian guy took over Iraq.
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
Afghanistan is a different story from Iraq. I shouldn't have to say that. It's quite obvious we're having problems in Afghanistan and sufficient GAINS in Iraq.
Quote from: Papa Skull on February 09, 2009, 06:33:06 AMThat'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.
You're being ridiculous. I didn't say that, nor do I think that. But that doesn't change the fact that your statement was wrong. This is the Presidential Oath of Office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Nowhere in there does it even mention the safety of the people.
This is my oath of office: "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
Again, my oath is to saving the Constitution, not to saving your ass.
minus the so help me God....we need to separate church and state....while i'm okay with the name being in the pledge of allegiance, it's more of a chant than a biblical oath.
Quote from: Papa Skull on February 12, 2009, 04:11:34 AM
Uh well no kidding snakebit. Can't really be a warzone without any opposition. IT WAS A DICTATORSHIP. Iraq's better off with Saddam GONE, agree? If not, there is no hope for reasoning with you on this subject. Yes, there was stability with Saddam, but it was a terrible stability, and we are there to remove a dictator and bring forth (hopefully) a peaceful stability - a democracy. America did this this this and this and bla bla bla, WELL NO DUH. A lot of things have to be done to reboot a country. If there is no struggle there is no progress, and that's the cold hard truth. The basic resources are returning to major cities, violence is next to gone, a dictator (who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people) is GONE, and there is an infant democracy in the mid-east. It still needs our help to get going, and that's why we are there. It's a given that people have gone through tough times and will continue to go through hard times in Iraq, but this is a sacrifice made to ensure that future generations live better lives. And hey, we'll kill some terrorists while we're at it. Can you believe that some people are actually BITCHING that we are just forcing terrorists out of the country? Like it's anything to bitch about?
You assume they are terrorists. And yet, they only exist because of the US.
Uhhm, yeah. Point? Think of it like this. There is a fat guy sitting on a box of kittens, slowly suffocating them. We come along to try and push the fatass of the box in order to free the cats, but unfortunately some die in the process of freeing the rest. It may have been safe for the kittens under the fatass, but they sure as hell didn't like not having any say.
No, it's more like this. America, being unaccepting of anything but their own culture, attempts to force they're government system by completely destroying the current one, and after serveral years of screwing around, sets up a half finished government.
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 .
A very sad and absolutely ridiculous attempt at a "point". Hey! Remember when France was taken over by Nazi's? There was no gunfire or wars going on! It was stable in France! Then Britain and America and the other allies came along and had the nerve to start a conflict! Can't believe them! Life was so much better for the French before we came huh!?!?!
Quit bitching and moaning about the problems occurring during the INITIAL INVASION. Jeez, I mean, what? It's been 6 YEARS now? Still stuck on the bad things from back then? They're being/been taken care of!
1. Really bad analogies. That was a full scale European civil war, while this is an uninvited invasion of a separate country. The major problem I'm seeing is that you thin they need your help, as if they can't help themselves.
2. Really? So there's law and order throughout the Middle-East?
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.
HE SAID SHE SAID. Come on. I've seen people thrilled that Saddam was dead/out of power. He was just a small devil? Dude, get real. We will keep amazingly close tabs on Iraq, afterall, we are the ones that got them to this point. We'd be damned if we let it fall through the holes because some Iranian guy took over Iraq.
People in American are thrilled. Saddam, regardless of his form of government, put his country first. Now the US have implemented a semi-colonial government that only serves to spread the influence of Capitalism.
Quick question, who was the better leader, Adolf Hitler, or any American president (You pick)?
Hitler, or Churchill?
Westfall, I'm agnostic, and I couldn't care less that "so help me God" is in either oath. If it is that important to someone, they can just choose not to say the last line. Just like you can choose not to say the "under God" part of the pledge (which I have done many times and no one's ever said a word to me about it).
Quote from: Papa Skull on February 12, 2009, 04:11:34 AM
QuoteThink 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.
Uh well no kidding snakebit. Can't really be a warzone without any opposition. IT WAS A DICTATORSHIP. Iraq's better off with Saddam GONE, agree? If not, there is no hope for reasoning with you on this subject. Yes, there was stability with Saddam, but it was a terrible stability, and we are there to remove a dictator and bring forth (hopefully) a peaceful stability - a democracy. America did this this this and this and bla bla bla, WELL NO DUH. A lot of things have to be done to reboot a country. If there is no struggle there is no progress, and that's the cold hard truth. The basic resources are returning to major cities, violence is next to gone, a dictator (who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people) is GONE, and there is an infant democracy in the mid-east. It still needs our help to get going, and that's why we are there. It's a given that people have gone through tough times and will continue to go through hard times in Iraq, but this is a sacrifice made to ensure that future generations live better lives. And hey, we'll kill some terrorists while we're at it. Can you believe that some people are actually BITCHING that we are just forcing terrorists out of the country? Like it's anything to bitch about?
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.
Uhhm, yeah. Point? Think of it like this. There is a fat guy sitting on a box of kittens, slowly suffocating them. We come along to try and push the fatass of the box in order to free the cats, but unfortunately some die in the process of freeing the rest. It may have been safe for the kittens under the fatass, but they sure as hell didn't like not having any say.
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 .
A very sad and absolutely ridiculous attempt at a "point". Hey! Remember when France was taken over by Nazi's? There was no gunfire or wars going on! It was stable in France! Then Britain and America and the other allies came along and had the nerve to start a conflict! Can't believe them! Life was so much better for the French before we came huh!?!?!
Quit bitching and moaning about the problems occurring during the INITIAL INVASION. Jeez, I mean, what? It's been 6 YEARS now? Still stuck on the bad things from back then? They're being/been taken care of!
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.
HE SAID SHE SAID. Come on. I've seen people thrilled that Saddam was dead/out of power. He was just a small devil? Dude, get real. We will keep amazingly close tabs on Iraq, afterall, we are the ones that got them to this point. We'd be damned if we let it fall through the holes because some Iranian guy took over Iraq.
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
Afghanistan is a different story from Iraq. I shouldn't have to say that. It's quite obvious we're having problems in Afghanistan and sufficient GAINS in Iraq.
Dictatorship isn't always bad . Like one great politician said. It doesn't matter what kind of government you have so long as the people live fine and are fine with it. Many dictators and Absolute Monarchs did great things for their countries and you can't deny that and saying that 'democracy' is the only 'true' way is wrong.
The cats analogy made me laugh . How many people did Sadam's genocide kill ? Well not more than you did with your invasion and inability to keep peace . He didn't kill more than 1 500 000 which you did with your bad planned invasion. Before doing something you need to think about what might happen and that is one thing your ex president Bush was really bad at. He didn't even try to think about the consequenses.
France example is bad. It was a World war which any side had the chance to loose. On the other hand you had no chance of loosing against iraq and your victory was predetermined long before the war started so you could have given a bit of thought 'what to do after the victory , which you didn't and that's why you payed the price'
Don't misinterpret my words. Its not he said she said. I told you not to listen to the head of state. Listen to what common people say on the news. The head of state won't admit his mistakes unless the situation is total crap.
And last but not least. You had NO CASUS BELI to invade iraq . A lot of people were against it and a lot of nations. Some countries vetoed the invasion of iraq in the UN but you invaded anyways. And invading someone without a Casus Beli is what 'Bad Countries' do but this time some Americans didn't seem to care about it or to see it . If any other country did that it would be politically lynched but you thought that 'we are America , since the end of the cold war , since our friends from the USSR are no longer here , we can do everything we want' but history has proven that this attitude was wrong.
P.s. Casus Beli - Roman words for 'Reason of the war' .Having no casus beli means that you had no Reason to start a war but started it anyways.
it's belli. Two l's. Neuter. Dativus.
Quote from: Spekkio on February 12, 2009, 05:41:42 PM
Westfall, I'm agnostic, and I couldn't care less that "so help me God" is in either oath. If it is that important to someone, they can just choose not to say the last line. Just like you can choose not to say the "under God" part of the pledge (which I have done many times and no one's ever said a word to me about it).
I agree and am too agnostic. However, leaving God to lead your duties in a higher office is basically leaving everything to chance. This country and many countries idolize the church, which is why it still to this day is so powerful. By connecting yourself to a god and letting it guide your journey because that's what the people want, well you see where I'm going with that. You know that I don't give a fuck about the words, but if its going to be something as official as a presidential oath and you have to serve your duties to the country...god isn't going to help you, so why should it be mentioned?
QuoteDictatorship isn't always bad . Like one great politician said. It doesn't matter what kind of government you have so long as the people live fine and are fine with it. Many dictators and Absolute Monarchs did great things for their countries and you can't deny that and saying that 'democracy' is the only 'true' way is wrong.
You do know that people hated Saddam, right? HATED, not disapprove or not support him, hated him. Imagine your child was taken because he spoke about your country's leader in a bad way, then he was killed because of it. Point being that they were not free, Iraq was a sideshow that took us away from our true mission, Afghanistan. Now that we're in the mess, we can't just up and leave, the people have to be put in a stable condition. Period.
The cats analogy made me laugh . How many people did Sadam's genocide kill ? Well not more than you did with your invasion and inability to keep peace . He didn't kill more than 1 500 000 which you did with your bad planned invasion. Before doing something you need to think about what might happen and that is one thing your ex president Bush was really bad at. He didn't even try to think about the consequenses.
It was kind of made to make you laugh. The piss-poor planning wasn't any fault of mine but the people in charge. Will it/should it make you hate America because our advisors' were not great? "Inabillity to keep peace" - well that's a laugh right there. Gimme a friggin break man. Oh yeah, we were supposed to just "KEEP THE PEACE" when we send an army into a dictator-led country. NO man. We weren't there to keep the peace. We WERE there to kick some ass, set up a democracy, and leave. That's it. Not my fault the president underestimated how hard it would be. I hope that you don't think that I am under the impression that we haven't made any mistakes during the war.
1 thing that really pisses me off about the people that are for just "pulling out" is that they are so hellbent on digging up the past. WHY DID WE GO IN THERE?!?! ZOMG!?! Not important right now, is it? What's important is leaving the country much more liberated than before, and much better than before. I do not think you disagree with me on this, but makes me wonder why you'd rather leave it NOW and risk losing everything and turning it into another Afghanistan.
France example is bad. It was a World war which any side had the chance to loose. On the other hand you had no chance of loosing against iraq and your victory was predetermined long before the war started so you could have given a bit of thought 'what to do after the victory , which you didn't and that's why you payed the price'
Oh was it? Well, it was also a joke. A joke to get you to maybe laugh a bit at your own arguments. Once America joined WW2, it was only a matter of time, btw. Do you recall what Churchill said when Pearl Harbor got attacked? That's getting off point though. The point is that whenever you send troops anywhere, things are going to get effed up, yet you act all surprised and pissy that America didn't "keep the peace" in a terribledictatorship. For supposedly "progressive" people like yourself you sure as hell LOVE to not care about the future of the war - you'd rather love to talk about the past.
Don't misinterpret my words. Its not he said she said. I told you not to listen to the head of state. Listen to what common people say on the news. The head of state won't admit his mistakes unless the situation is total crap.
YEAH! And what the common people say (in Iraq) is pretty split down the middle. Look at the suprisingly low amount of polls? Pretty half and half as of late. MUCH MUCH MUCH more optimistic than in 2003-04. I wouldn't say we were winning the war 6 years back, because we weren't. I'd agree. But now, right when that light at the end of the tunnel has turned into a beacon the size of the sun: "ABORT MISSION!" you say. Ridiculous.
And last but not least. You had NO CASUS BELI to invade iraq . A lot of people were against it and a lot of nations. Some countries vetoed the invasion of iraq in the UN but you invaded anyways. And invading someone without a Casus Beli is what 'Bad Countries' do but this time some Americans didn't seem to care about it or to see it . If any other country did that it would be politically lynched but you thought that 'we are America , since the end of the cold war , since our friends from the USSR are no longer here , we can do everything we want' but history has proven that this attitude was wrong.
We are a responsible country. Yes, there have been mistakes. Yes, we could have done things better. But at least we DID something. By responsible I mean that we won't just take over the country should we invade it with hopes to make a democracy, like say - Iran, the USSR, or NK.
P.s. Casus Beli - Roman words for 'Reason of the war' .Having no casus beli means that you had no Reason to start a war but started it anyways.
I know what it means. Apparently removing dictators, installing democracies, giving freedoms, etc. don't count as "casus beli's" anymore. And why? The ends don't justify the means? Surely people still recognize the importance of human rights. Don't you? We can't ask Saddam nicely.
Quote from: Westfall on February 13, 2009, 05:31:12 AMI agree and am too agnostic. However, leaving God to lead your duties in a higher office is basically leaving everything to chance. This country and many countries idolize the church, which is why it still to this day is so powerful. By connecting yourself to a god and letting it guide your journey because that's what the people want, well you see where I'm going with that. You know that I don't give a fuck about the words, but if its going to be something as official as a presidential oath and you have to serve your duties to the country...god isn't going to help you, so why should it be mentioned?
Because we live in a democracy in which the majority of the population believes that God is going to help them.
Quote from: Papa Skull on February 13, 2009, 06:00:40 AM
QuoteDictatorship isn't always bad . Like one great politician said. It doesn't matter what kind of government you have so long as the people live fine and are fine with it. Many dictators and Absolute Monarchs did great things for their countries and you can't deny that and saying that 'democracy' is the only 'true' way is wrong.
You do know that people hated Saddam, right? HATED, not disapprove or not support him, hated him. Imagine your child was taken because he spoke about your country's leader in a bad way, then he was killed because of it. Point being that they were not free, Iraq was a sideshow that took us away from our true mission, Afghanistan. Now that we're in the mess, we can't just up and leave, the people have to be put in a stable condition. Period.
The cats analogy made me laugh . How many people did Sadam's genocide kill ? Well not more than you did with your invasion and inability to keep peace . He didn't kill more than 1 500 000 which you did with your bad planned invasion. Before doing something you need to think about what might happen and that is one thing your ex president Bush was really bad at. He didn't even try to think about the consequenses.
It was kind of made to make you laugh. The piss-poor planning wasn't any fault of mine but the people in charge. Will it/should it make you hate America because our advisors' were not great? "Inabillity to keep peace" - well that's a laugh right there. Gimme a friggin break man. Oh yeah, we were supposed to just "KEEP THE PEACE" when we send an army into a dictator-led country. NO man. We weren't there to keep the peace. We WERE there to kick some ass, set up a democracy, and leave. That's it. Not my fault the president underestimated how hard it would be. I hope that you don't think that I am under the impression that we haven't made any mistakes during the war.
1 thing that really pisses me off about the people that are for just "pulling out" is that they are so hellbent on digging up the past. WHY DID WE GO IN THERE?!?! ZOMG!?! Not important right now, is it? What's important is leaving the country much more liberated than before, and much better than before. I do not think you disagree with me on this, but makes me wonder why you'd rather leave it NOW and risk losing everything and turning it into another Afghanistan.
France example is bad. It was a World war which any side had the chance to loose. On the other hand you had no chance of loosing against iraq and your victory was predetermined long before the war started so you could have given a bit of thought 'what to do after the victory , which you didn't and that's why you payed the price'
Oh was it? Well, it was also a joke. A joke to get you to maybe laugh a bit at your own arguments. Once America joined WW2, it was only a matter of time, btw. Do you recall what Churchill said when Pearl Harbor got attacked? That's getting off point though. The point is that whenever you send troops anywhere, things are going to get effed up, yet you act all surprised and pissy that America didn't "keep the peace" in a terribledictatorship. For supposedly "progressive" people like yourself you sure as hell LOVE to not care about the future of the war - you'd rather love to talk about the past.
Don't misinterpret my words. Its not he said she said. I told you not to listen to the head of state. Listen to what common people say on the news. The head of state won't admit his mistakes unless the situation is total crap.
YEAH! And what the common people say (in Iraq) is pretty split down the middle. Look at the suprisingly low amount of polls? Pretty half and half as of late. MUCH MUCH MUCH more optimistic than in 2003-04. I wouldn't say we were winning the war 6 years back, because we weren't. I'd agree. But now, right when that light at the end of the tunnel has turned into a beacon the size of the sun: "ABORT MISSION!" you say. Ridiculous.
And last but not least. You had NO CASUS BELI to invade iraq . A lot of people were against it and a lot of nations. Some countries vetoed the invasion of iraq in the UN but you invaded anyways. And invading someone without a Casus Beli is what 'Bad Countries' do but this time some Americans didn't seem to care about it or to see it . If any other country did that it would be politically lynched but you thought that 'we are America , since the end of the cold war , since our friends from the USSR are no longer here , we can do everything we want' but history has proven that this attitude was wrong.
We are a responsible country. Yes, there have been mistakes. Yes, we could have done things better. But at least we DID something. By responsible I mean that we won't just take over the country should we invade it with hopes to make a democracy, like say - Iran, the USSR, or NK.
P.s. Casus Beli - Roman words for 'Reason of the war' .Having no casus beli means that you had no Reason to start a war but started it anyways.
I know what it means. Apparently removing dictators, installing democracies, giving freedoms, etc. don't count as "casus beli's" anymore. And why? The ends don't justify the means? Surely people still recognize the importance of human rights. Don't you? We can't ask Saddam nicely.
The problem is that not all people hated Saddam. In any democratic country you have people for the rulling party and against it. There were a lot of people against Bush in america ? Weren't there.
Kicking ass , installing democracy and leaving is not a good thing. It doesn't matter that you brought the democracy if you fucked the country up. Isn't this the same as your torture argument ? You said 'WHO GIVES A DAMN ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION IF WE CAN SAVE SOME LIFES BY TORTURE' and i am saying right now 'WHO GIVES A DAMN ABOUT DEMOCRACY IF THE PEOPLE GONNA LIVE A FUCKED UP LIFE AND WORSE ONE AT THAT WITH 1500000 INNOCENT PEOPLE DIEING' . Your not using your head a bit , your contradicting yourself in 2 topics.
It was far from over when america joined the war. You played a significant part in the Second World War but don't mistake it with 'You won the war for us'. Do you think Britain , USSR , France , Poland didn't fight in the war at all or did nothing ? They were fighting in the war long before you joined in and have caused the Axis more casualties that you can possible imagine. More than you did a lot more. War is not decided by only Industrial production capacities.
Changing someones goverment , dictatorship etc etc HAS NEVER BEEN A CASUS BELLI. You don't understand what those words mean. You can't invade someone just because you don't like his country/regime. Oh wait you did try to give a casus belli . 'Weapons of mass destruction' but there were none in iraq.
I dwell on the past because you need to learn from your mistakes atleast a little. This is what i honestly think.
QuoteThe problem is that not all people hated Saddam. In any democratic country you have people for the rulling party and against it. There were a lot of people against Bush in america ? Weren't there.
First of all, there's only like a group of 1% that HATES Bush, and they are radical left wing idiots. The people that hated Saddam included the everyday Iraqi civilian. A very very good amount of them. We didn't just remove him because he was unpopular. We removed him because he was a dictator, and we all know they don't mix well with civil liberties and freedom + we all knew he was dangerous and killed his own people. Just keep on defending a man who murdered hundreds of thousands of people though. Then go on to tell me how wrong torture is, though he tortured his own people daily, and laughed at it. He was a douche, accept it.
QuoteKicking ass , installing democracy and leaving is not a good thing. It doesn't matter that you brought the democracy if you fucked the country up. Isn't this the same as your torture argument ? You said 'WHO GIVES A DAMN ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION IF WE CAN SAVE SOME LIFES BY TORTURE' and i am saying right now 'WHO GIVES A DAMN ABOUT DEMOCRACY IF THE PEOPLE GONNA LIVE A FUCKED UP LIFE AND WORSE ONE AT THAT WITH 1500000 INNOCENT PEOPLE DIEING' . Your not using your head a bit , your contradicting yourself in 2 topics.
You're looking at the situation incorrectly. Iraq was already effed up. Here's another analogy for you. You pop your shoulder out its socket. In order to get it back to normal and functional again, you have to endure the intense pain of popping it back in.
And the constitution comment. Nothing is guaranteed to most of them by the Constitution of the US. However, for the sake of it, a quick and speedy trial should be had. You got me all wrong apparently. And quit saying 1.5 mil like it was all America that killed them. Most of it was suicide bombing and terrorist actions. And with that, I'll point you back to the shoulder analogy. Living in a democracy is way better than living under Saddam's thumb. Just wait so you can see the difference in happiness for the citizens.
QuoteIt was far from over when america joined the war. You played a significant part in the Second World War but don't mistake it with 'You won the war for us'. Do you think Britain , USSR , France , Poland didn't fight in the war at all or did nothing ? They were fighting in the war long before you joined in and have caused the Axis more casualties that you can possible imagine. More than you did a lot more. War is not decided by only Industrial production capacities.
I know I know, I was only kidding. Remember when I said that "America/Britain/all other allies (Poland and Canada etc of course) had the nerve to invade France"? Of course I know we were only a big part of the puzzle. And funny you say 'not decided by industrial production capacities'. We supplied the allies with a lot, long before we joined the war. It was how we pleased both the anti-German people and the isolationists in our country.
QuoteChanging someones goverment , dictatorship etc etc HAS NEVER BEEN A CASUS BELLI. You don't understand what those words mean. You can't invade someone just because you don't like his country/regime. Oh wait you did try to give a casus belli . 'Weapons of mass destruction' but there were none in iraq.
It's still very possible that Saddam sent them to Syria. He said he had them, we thought he had them, that was just icing on the inevitable cake we needed to smush while in the area. But again, you are dwelling on a past that we can't learn from quite yet. We need to think about the future and how we will leave this mess better than the mess it was before we came in, and we're just about there.
QuoteI dwell on the past because you need to learn from your mistakes atleast a little. This is what i honestly think.
Snakebit, I completely agree. However, we can't apply the lessons we've learned from the mistakes of the invasion to the process of finishing or getting out. We will use what we've learned the NEXT time we invade a country. Start w/ more troops, don't underestimate the goal at hand, and get better intelligence. See what I'm saying? The lessons we learned do not apply right now, perhaps in the future.
Quote from: Papa Skull on February 13, 2009, 04:47:54 PM
QuoteThe problem is that not all people hated Saddam. In any democratic country you have people for the rulling party and against it. There were a lot of people against Bush in america ? Weren't there.
First of all, there's only like a group of 1% that HATES Bush, and they are radical left wing idiots. The people that hated Saddam included the everyday Iraqi civilian. A very very good amount of them. We didn't just remove him because he was unpopular. We removed him because he was a dictator, and we all know they don't mix well with civil liberties and freedom + we all knew he was dangerous and killed his own people. Just keep on defending a man who murdered hundreds of thousands of people though. Then go on to tell me how wrong torture is, though he tortured his own people daily, and laughed at it. He was a douche, accept it.
QuoteKicking ass , installing democracy and leaving is not a good thing. It doesn't matter that you brought the democracy if you fucked the country up. Isn't this the same as your torture argument ? You said 'WHO GIVES A DAMN ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION IF WE CAN SAVE SOME LIFES BY TORTURE' and i am saying right now 'WHO GIVES A DAMN ABOUT DEMOCRACY IF THE PEOPLE GONNA LIVE A FUCKED UP LIFE AND WORSE ONE AT THAT WITH 1500000 INNOCENT PEOPLE DIEING' . Your not using your head a bit , your contradicting yourself in 2 topics.
You're looking at the situation incorrectly. Iraq was already effed up. Here's another analogy for you. You pop your shoulder out its socket. In order to get it back to normal and functional again, you have to endure the intense pain of popping it back in.
And the constitution comment. Nothing is guaranteed to most of them by the Constitution of the US. However, for the sake of it, a quick and speedy trial should be had. You got me all wrong apparently. And quit saying 1.5 mil like it was all America that killed them. Most of it was suicide bombing and terrorist actions. And with that, I'll point you back to the shoulder analogy. Living in a democracy is way better than living under Saddam's thumb. Just wait so you can see the difference in happiness for the citizens.
QuoteIt was far from over when america joined the war. You played a significant part in the Second World War but don't mistake it with 'You won the war for us'. Do you think Britain , USSR , France , Poland didn't fight in the war at all or did nothing ? They were fighting in the war long before you joined in and have caused the Axis more casualties that you can possible imagine. More than you did a lot more. War is not decided by only Industrial production capacities.
I know I know, I was only kidding. Remember when I said that "America/Britain/all other allies (Poland and Canada etc of course) had the nerve to invade France"? Of course I know we were only a big part of the puzzle. And funny you say 'not decided by industrial production capacities'. We supplied the allies with a lot, long before we joined the war. It was how we pleased both the anti-German people and the isolationists in our country.
QuoteChanging someones goverment , dictatorship etc etc HAS NEVER BEEN A CASUS BELLI. You don't understand what those words mean. You can't invade someone just because you don't like his country/regime. Oh wait you did try to give a casus belli . 'Weapons of mass destruction' but there were none in iraq.
It's still very possible that Saddam sent them to Syria. He said he had them, we thought he had them, that was just icing on the inevitable cake we needed to smush while in the area. But again, you are dwelling on a past that we can't learn from quite yet. We need to think about the future and how we will leave this mess better than the mess it was before we came in, and we're just about there.
QuoteI dwell on the past because you need to learn from your mistakes atleast a little. This is what i honestly think.
Snakebit, I completely agree. However, we can't apply the lessons we've learned from the mistakes of the invasion to the process of finishing or getting out. We will use what we've learned the NEXT time we invade a country. Start w/ more troops, don't underestimate the goal at hand, and get better intelligence. See what I'm saying? The lessons we learned do not apply right now, perhaps in the future.
The problem is sadam killed thousand on the other hand your invasion killed one and a half million and ruined the country. I don't find it better than sadamS rule. Your 'coming to iraq' made a lot more problems that Saddams whole reign did.
About torture. I never said its bad . I said that the court must allow it . Make a procedure which you need to pass before you can torture someone. But torturing someone out of the blue is bull.
If you take your analogy about popping shoulders for iraq . Who was that popped their shoulder incorrectly in the first time ? Saddam was your friend and was put in power by Usa during the cold war.... Now you are causing even more pain to the country by just popping it out and in again by removing Saddam ? Do you really think that people are that helpless ? Saddam would die eventually and i doubt another Saddam would come.
I am saying that 1.5 million people wouldn't have died if you haven't invaded in the first place. Yes sadam killed a hundred thousand people once but its not like he does it every week or so . He did it once.....
You killed a lot more than him and i fail to see how is that making the country better ?
During saddam there were stable institutions of power and government . Out of fear perhaps. But it worked .
Now , can you say there are stable intitutions ? No , you can't.
I say that war isn't decided by industrial capacity alone. If it is decided by only industrial capacity . Do you think that if China invaded America right now , China would win ? It has more people and more 'production' Capacity . The industrial sector of china is larger and stronger than the american one right now.
1st time i hear the Syria thing. Come on , do you think your 'great cia , nsa or whatever' wouldn't notice Saddam moving 1000 tons of weapons of mass destruction to Syria . It takes a lot of time to do so and all eyes were on Iraq so i doubt he could have pulled it off.
Quote from: Spekkio on February 13, 2009, 12:41:32 PM
Quote from: Westfall on February 13, 2009, 05:31:12 AMI agree and am too agnostic. However, leaving God to lead your duties in a higher office is basically leaving everything to chance. This country and many countries idolize the church, which is why it still to this day is so powerful. By connecting yourself to a god and letting it guide your journey because that's what the people want, well you see where I'm going with that. You know that I don't give a fuck about the words, but if its going to be something as official as a presidential oath and you have to serve your duties to the country...god isn't going to help you, so why should it be mentioned?
Because we live in a democracy in which the majority of the population believes that God is going to help them.
Agreed.
If anything I've read 3 or 4 paragraphs of this whole thread and my post is most probably going to be ignored.
Curiosity time!
Did you know that from the 60's to the 80's Brazil was under a military dictature (a lot like the german and italian totalitarisms) supported by the US? People would disappear in the middle of the day and never would be heard of again because the government "thought" they were comunists. If I wanted I could ask the government to arrest and torture my neighbor saying he was a communist when, infact, he had only parked his car on my yard.
The country was wrecked and our inflation was above 2000%.
What does this have to do with this thread, Nasa and mickey mouse? Probably nothing..
Oh and Six Flags > Disney.
QuoteThe problem is sadam killed thousand on the other hand your invasion killed one and a half million and ruined the country. I don't find it better than sadamS rule. Your 'coming to iraq' made a lot more problems that Saddams whole reign did.
You aren't quite understanding. I do not argue that there were some harsh means, but what I want to see happen is the ends to exceed that. I want the ends to justify the means. The people against the war won't even let it get its ending, possibly a better ending than we could hope for, and then would bash the president for a disaster when the real disaster would be invading a country for nothing. What I'm saying is that this has to be for something. We can't allow the thousands of lives on our side and the countless innocent lives lost be for absolutely nothing, and that's what people amazingly want. They are under the impression that it's all for nothing, so they won't give it a chance. Even when that flag is waving "HEY! Hello? We are winning now! Iraq is basically free, we can leave quite soon, and it's almost a democracy! Hello?" But our ignorant castrated side goes Peewww!! and turns their backs.
We got our military in this mess, and we must let them do their job. Let them do their job so we can withdraw them with some decency. In my book you can only get decency for having the courage to see the damn job through. For having the brass to make sure that your buddy didn't die for nothing. We must leave Iraq better than how it was. It's now our responsibility and people would rather cut and run than face what we are already in.
QuoteAbout torture. I never said its bad . I said that the court must allow it . Make a procedure which you need to pass before you can torture someone. But torturing someone out of the blue is bull.
Respectable position. The torture I was talking about was the torture that Saddam inflicted. To everyday civilians, to his own troops, he tortured them if they looked at him with a cockeye, so yes as you put it "out of the blue". That's not allowed by the court. This was a complete and total dictatorship. Can you at least admit that the world's better off without him? Do we at least agree on that?
QuoteIf you take your analogy about popping shoulders for iraq . Who was that popped their shoulder incorrectly in the first time ? Saddam was your friend and was put in power by Usa during the cold war.... Now you are causing even more pain to the country by just popping it out and in again by removing Saddam ? Do you really think that people are that helpless ? Saddam would die eventually and i doubt another Saddam would come.
Of course I know that. We didn't quite know at the time he was so bad or that he would turn into what he did - so don't completely fault the U.S. for that. But let's continue that shoulder analogy. We attempted to pop the shoulder back in with Saddam, but didn't quite pop it in right, still a little loose - then eventually fell out of socket. We must try and pop it in once and for all. We can't just leave the shoulder out of socket. YES, the people are that helpless. The people are helpless under a dictator, you should know this. You doubt another Saddam would come? Really? So, let's wait 25 years until the sucker dies (all the while torturing/killing/smushing his people under his authority), then cross our fingers that another one doesn't show up? There are times when you can't afford to be patient and must act.
Could we have waited? Maybe. Should we have planned better? Absolutely. But this is all moot right now. We cannot learn from our mistakes yet. We cannot apply what we've learned to the current situation. What have learned? Plan better, get better intelligence, do not underestimate, etc. Now then, can we apply any of those things to the current situation that we are in? The cold hard answer to that, snakebit, is NO.
We are in a different situation. We are attempting to install a democracy in the middle east, something that has not been done before, but is looking very possible at the moment. As I put it before, that light at the end of the tunnel back in late 2003, is now a big shining beacon. It's so obvious we're just about done. We're keeping the peace (which is something you were all mad about), we are taking out terrorists (what's wrong with this?), we're making giant strides towards making a democracy in Iraq (not quite yet, but we're getting there), AND we are aware that it's almost time for us to leave.
QuoteI am saying that 1.5 million people wouldn't have died if you haven't invaded in the first place. Yes sadam killed a hundred thousand people once but its not like he does it every week or so . He did it once.....
You killed a lot more than him and i fail to see how is that making the country better ?
During saddam there were stable institutions of power and government . Out of fear perhaps. But it worked .
Now , can you say there are stable intitutions ? No , you can't.
Um, duh? And oh, he just did it once, therefore it's somewhat justified. Come on. THE GUY WAS EVIL. The guy is gone be happy. And do not just say "You killed a lot more than him". That's ridiculous. Most of it was done by terrorists. We're taking them out so this can't happen. And guess what? It's really not happening anymore. The military exceeded all expectations at lowering terrorist activity, did they not?
And you are still not understanding something. We didn't kill people so that it would be better. We unfortunately did kill people in the process of making it better. It was an unwanted side effect that happens in EVERY SINGLE WAR. What we are doing now is making sure that those 1.4 million civilians or whatever were not killed in vain or for no reason at all. A better living standard and a better country w/ more liberties and freedom NEEDS to come out of this. People are standing in our military's way of making this happen.
QuoteI say that war isn't decided by industrial capacity alone. If it is decided by only industrial capacity . Do you think that if China invaded America right now , China would win ? It has more people and more 'production' Capacity . The industrial sector of china is larger and stronger than the american one right now.
1st time i hear the Syria thing. Come on , do you think your 'great cia , nsa or whatever' wouldn't notice Saddam moving 1000 tons of weapons of mass destruction to Syria . It takes a lot of time to do so and all eyes were on Iraq so i doubt he could have pulled it off.
You aren't entirely understanding what I'm writing to you sometimes. This WW2 thing got us way off of what we are talking about. For what it's worth though, I do not think China could successfully invade the U.S.
About Syria, it's possible. There is evidence pointing towards it. And who said Saddam had 1000 tons of WMD's? Just said he had them. It's not like the truck wheeling them into Syria has a big red "WMD'S" sign on top of it. Maybe they slipped by. Maybe they didn't exist. Who knows? But who cares? We have a new mission. We'll learn from mistakes when we can apply them.
Quote
I want the ends to justify the means.
That's the opposite of the fundamental basis of the Western legal system.
With your reasoning, let's kill all newborn babies of groups that have percentually the most criminals.
The end (probably less criminals) justify the means, so it's ok.
Of course I'm exaggerating, but I want to show that it's really dangerous to switch between the two trains-of-thought.
Compare:
Anything I do to get to my goal is acceptable, as long as my goal is acceptable. (reasoning from the goal)
Anything is acceptable, as long as the means of getting there are acceptable. (reasoning from the actions).
For instance, Hitler's rise to power was acceptable. It was democratic.
Quote from: frvge on February 14, 2009, 11:25:53 AM
Quote
I want the ends to justify the means.
That's the opposite of the fundamental basis of the Western legal system.
With your reasoning, let's kill all newborn babies of groups that have percentually the most criminals.
The end (probably less criminals) justify the means, so it's ok.
Of course I'm exaggerating, but I want to show that it's really dangerous to switch between the two trains-of-thought.
Compare:
Anything I do to get to my goal is acceptable, as long as my goal is acceptable. (reasoning from the goal)
Anything is acceptable, as long as the means of getting there are acceptable. (reasoning from the actions).
For instance, Hitler's rise to power was acceptable. It was democratic.
Good post. Thats what i was trying to show papa but he seemed to ignore it all the time.
Simple. You put a democracy but you sacrifice the lives of 1 500 000 people in the process. Not even mentioning that saddam didn't do anything BAD . Yes he didn't . You had him pay for his murders by Desert Storm 1 . Desert storm 2 or whatever was it called was just what ? A war without a reason ?
Little example. If you capture a criminal , it doesn't matter for what crime , do you always kill the criminal ? It is more effective at decreasing crime levels than just tell him to sit in a jail + let him out in 1-30 years not to mention the money you spend on keeping him in there and things like that. But do we kill all criminals , heck we don't even kill 2% of them because death penalty is against our moral standarts in most countries ........
Quote from: frvge on February 14, 2009, 11:25:53 AM
Quote
I want the ends to justify the means.
That's the opposite of the fundamental basis of the Western legal system.
With your reasoning, let's kill all newborn babies of groups that have percentually the most criminals.
The end (probably less criminals) justify the means, so it's ok.
Of course I'm exaggerating, but I want to show that it's really dangerous to switch between the two trains-of-thought.
Compare:
Anything I do to get to my goal is acceptable, as long as my goal is acceptable. (reasoning from the goal)
Anything is acceptable, as long as the means of getting there are acceptable. (reasoning from the actions).
For instance, Hitler's rise to power was acceptable. It was democratic.
I'm not switching trains of thought for anything. Don't you get it? Those people DID get killed, we weren't sure that there would be that many, and so now we HAVE to do something to try and make it better for future Iraqi's. We didn't sit there and know that over a million innocents would die throughout the course of the war, so we obviously weren't weighing the lives lost to a democracy. How is it possible that before we started the war, we said "1.4 million will die, is a democracy worth it?" Wtf our advisors didn't even think we'd be there for a year. DUH.
We knew there would be some casualties, there are in every war, but to be perfectly honest with you democracy is a democracy. Freedom is freedom. Hundreds of millions died throughout the course of history so that we could have our freedoms. Do you think the ones who came up with the idea of civil liberties and democracy sat at a round table and went "Okay, there will be millions, maybe even close to a billion people that will die so that democracy can be a possible form of government. Is it worth it? ZOMG I DON'T KNOW!!!1" It's so obvious, and so true, that freedom isn't free.
This is what I'm saying. We went in, kicked ass, we took out a P.O.S. dictator, and unfortunately a lot of people died and the country turned into chaos. We said, "well shit, we have to do something for these people now." So here we are. Trying to attempt to right some of our wrongs and just trying to give better lives to people who have been living under the thumb of an a-hole. NOPE! NO! You say! We went into Iraq with selfish intentions LOLOMGZ! WE CAN'T STAY AND MAKE IT A DEMOCRACY OR EVEN TRY BECAUSE WE HAVE SUCH LOW EXPECTATIONS OF OURSELVES! WE SUCK! WE'RE SORRY WORLD! EUROPE ESPECIALLY! Why can't you just love us again France!? WHY? PLEASE!! We'll make you another Eiffel tower! Just please! Say you support America's intentions one more time, my love!
See, if you are ridiculous, then I can equal that ridiculousness or, on a rare occasion, surpass it. Frvge, you cannot realize how ridiculous America has been towards the war. Yes, we made mistakes, people died (like we're all surprised), and more. We cannot say that we support the spread of democracy and freedom, then when we try to do just that we go strictly against it because of a few frayed edges! We've gotten so high on ourselves, that we start to just sink everytime something goes a little bit wrong.
It's like if you had a straight A student, then the student got one or two C's, and you kick em out the door. Then the student comes back and says that he turned those C's into A+'s and you say that you frankly don't give a shit because of those "Horrible C's that will haunt us forever!" Get real man. Frvge, Snakebit, all who heavily oppose the Iraq war, you are being overexpecting parents that are stubborn and unopen to anything that would heal the wounds and promise future prosperity, all because of a few frayed edges and bumps along the road.QuoteGood post. Thats what i was trying to show papa but he seemed to ignore it all the time.
You're freaking kidding me. Ignore? If anything you ignored my responses towards it.
QuoteSimple. You put a democracy but you sacrifice the lives of 1 500 000 people in the process. Not even mentioning that saddam didn't do anything BAD . Yes he didn't . You had him pay for his murders by Desert Storm 1 . Desert storm 2 or whatever was it called was just what ? A war without a reason ?
No no no. You are not looking at the situation correctly. We went in with a democracy in mind, greatly underestimated it, people died, and now we still are trying to see it through. SET BACKS! Duh. It's a freaking war don't act like an idiot and go "well well umm people are dying waaahhh!!!" PEOPLE DIE IN WAR. People in today's world are so god damned spoiled that when they see hardship they go into the fetal position and suck thumbs. It's like the 60's. For God's sake dude if this is really all about the loss of lives then look at the facts. In the last few months, more people have died in just the 3 cities of Miami, Detroit, and Philadelphia than in the ENTIRE COUNTRY OF IRAQ. I thought there was a war going on in Iraq, right?! 3 supposedly civilized cities, or a "war tarnished" country? Any average Joe would pick the warzone of a country, right? You should be supporting the war because of the wonders we are working by preventing innocent deaths! Maybe we should apply these tactics all 'round the globe, right? Where's your support man?
And Snakebit you must realize you are heavily contradicting yourself buddy. You think we can make Saddam pay for killing people by having a war, yet you think we can't justify the killings of people with the installation of a friggin democracy. That's just damned stupid to be frank. We can make up for Saddam's killings by war, yet we can't make up for our own killings by going through a hellish war and giving them freedom? What the hell does it take? A sorry note to the PM? Jesus.
I don't want to do it, but, *facepalm.
QuoteLittle example. If you capture a criminal , it doesn't matter for what crime , do you always kill the criminal ? It is more effective at decreasing crime levels than just tell him to sit in a jail + let him out in 1-30 years not to mention the money you spend on keeping him in there and things like that. But do we kill all criminals , heck we don't even kill 2% of them because death penalty is against our moral standarts in most countries ........
Really does not pertain to what we are talking about.
Quote from: Papa Skull on February 15, 2009, 06:41:11 AM
Quote from: frvge on February 14, 2009, 11:25:53 AM
Quote
I want the ends to justify the means.
That's the opposite of the fundamental basis of the Western legal system.
With your reasoning, let's kill all newborn babies of groups that have percentually the most criminals.
The end (probably less criminals) justify the means, so it's ok.
Of course I'm exaggerating, but I want to show that it's really dangerous to switch between the two trains-of-thought.
Compare:
Anything I do to get to my goal is acceptable, as long as my goal is acceptable. (reasoning from the goal)
Anything is acceptable, as long as the means of getting there are acceptable. (reasoning from the actions).
For instance, Hitler's rise to power was acceptable. It was democratic.
I'm not switching trains of thought for anything. Don't you get it? Those people DID get killed, we weren't sure that there would be that many, and so now we HAVE to do something to try and make it better for future Iraqi's. We didn't sit there and know that over a million innocents would die throughout the course of the war, so we obviously weren't weighing the lives lost to a democracy. How is it possible that before we started the war, we said "1.4 million will die, is a democracy worth it?" Wtf our advisors didn't even think we'd be there for a year. DUH.
We knew there would be some casualties, there are in every war, but to be perfectly honest with you democracy is a democracy. Freedom is freedom. Hundreds of millions died throughout the course of history so that we could have our freedoms. Do you think the ones who came up with the idea of civil liberties and democracy sat at a round table and went "Okay, there will be millions, maybe even close to a billion people that will die so that democracy can be a possible form of government. Is it worth it? ZOMG I DON'T KNOW!!!1" It's so obvious, and so true, that freedom isn't free.
This is what I'm saying. We went in, kicked ass, we took out a P.O.S. dictator, and unfortunately a lot of people died and the country turned into chaos. We said, "well shit, we have to do something for these people now." So here we are. Trying to attempt to right some of our wrongs and just trying to give better lives to people who have been living under the thumb of an a-hole. NOPE! NO! You say! We went into Iraq with selfish intentions LOLOMGZ! WE CAN'T STAY AND MAKE IT A DEMOCRACY OR EVEN TRY BECAUSE WE HAVE SUCH LOW EXPECTATIONS OF OURSELVES! WE SUCK! WE'RE SORRY WORLD! EUROPE ESPECIALLY! Why can't you just love us again France!? WHY? PLEASE!! We'll make you another Eiffel tower! Just please! Say you support America's intentions one more time, my love!
See, if you are ridiculous, then I can equal that ridiculousness or, on a rare occasion, surpass it. Frvge, you cannot realize how ridiculous America has been towards the war. Yes, we made mistakes, people died (like we're all surprised), and more. We cannot say that we support the spread of democracy and freedom, then when we try to do just that we go strictly against it because of a few frayed edges! We've gotten so high on ourselves, that we start to just sink everytime something goes a little bit wrong. It's like if you had a straight A student, then the student got one or two C's, and you kick em out the door. Then the student comes back and says that he turned those C's into A+'s and you say that you frankly don't give a shit because of those "Horrible C's that will haunt us forever!" Get real man. Frvge, Snakebit, all who heavily oppose the Iraq war, you are being overexpecting parents that are stubborn and unopen to anything that would heal the wounds and promise future prosperity, all because of a few frayed edges and bumps along the road.
QuoteGood post. Thats what i was trying to show papa but he seemed to ignore it all the time.
You're freaking kidding me. Ignore? If anything you ignored my responses towards it.
QuoteSimple. You put a democracy but you sacrifice the lives of 1 500 000 people in the process. Not even mentioning that saddam didn't do anything BAD . Yes he didn't . You had him pay for his murders by Desert Storm 1 . Desert storm 2 or whatever was it called was just what ? A war without a reason ?
No no no. You are not looking at the situation correctly. We went in with a democracy in mind, greatly underestimated it, people died, and now we still are trying to see it through. SET BACKS! Duh. It's a freaking war don't act like an idiot and go "well well umm people are dying waaahhh!!!" PEOPLE DIE IN WAR. People in today's world are so god damned spoiled that when they see hardship they go into the fetal position and suck thumbs. It's like the 60's. For God's sake dude if this is really all about the loss of lives then look at the facts. In the last few months, more people have died in just the 3 cities of Miami, Detroit, and Philadelphia than in the ENTIRE COUNTRY OF IRAQ. I thought there was a war going on in Iraq, right?! 3 supposedly civilized cities, or a "war tarnished" country? Any average Joe would pick the warzone of a country, right? You should be supporting the war because of the wonders we are working by preventing innocent deaths! Maybe we should apply these tactics all 'round the globe, right? Where's your support man?
And Snakebit you must realize you are heavily contradicting yourself buddy. You think we can make Saddam pay for killing people by having a war, yet you think we can't justify the killings of people with the installation of a friggin democracy. That's just damned stupid to be frank. We can make up for Saddam's killings by war, yet we can't make up for our own killings by going through a hellish war and giving them freedom? What the hell does it take? A sorry note to the PM? Jesus.
I don't want to do it, but, *facepalm.
QuoteLittle example. If you capture a criminal , it doesn't matter for what crime , do you always kill the criminal ? It is more effective at decreasing crime levels than just tell him to sit in a jail + let him out in 1-30 years not to mention the money you spend on keeping him in there and things like that. But do we kill all criminals , heck we don't even kill 2% of them because death penalty is against our moral standarts in most countries ........
Really does not pertain to what we are talking about.
Did you smoke something while you were writing this ?
Papa said. 'Those people DID get killed, we weren't sure that there would be that many' Thats the whole point. Think about what could happen , its your god damn job if you are gonna do something do it right , don't do it completely wrong. You are payed to do your job and if you fail at doing it than you should get fired. But i didn't see anyone paying for miss managment of iraq and things like that. But i guess iraqies are happy with that , NOT.
Also said by PaPa. 'This is what I'm saying. We went in, kicked ass, we took out a P.O.S. dictator, and unfortunately a lot of people died and the country turned into chaos' Really unfortunate. Or not ? You also said : 'PEOPLE DIE IN WAR.' so i doubt you didn't think people will die so how can it be unfortunate ?
Papa said :Do you think the ones who came up with the idea of civil liberties and democracy sat at a round table and went "Okay, there will be millions, maybe even close to a billion people that will die so that democracy can be a possible form of government. Is it worth it?
Those people who made those ideas , thought that their ideas would be reached via a peaceful way or the development of civil society NOT BY SWITCHING A GOVERNMENT.
Again quoting papa : 'It's like if you had a straight A student, then the student got one or two C's, and you kick em out the door. Then the student comes back and says that he turned those C's into A+'s and you say that you frankly don't give a shit because of those "Horrible C's that will haunt us forever!" Get real man. Frvge, Snakebit, all who heavily oppose the Iraq war, you are being overexpecting parents that are stubborn and unopen to anything that would heal the wounds and promise future prosperity, all because of a few frayed edges and bumps along the road.'
Get of your high horse . America wasn't an A student not even close ?. I'd give america a big fat F or E for what they did in the last 12 years . Economy problems right now are your doing , iraq ruined is your doing , super duper budget deficit your doing ? And its not just the presidents fault but Americas as a whole.
Again said by papa : 'It's a freaking war don't act like an idiot and go "well well umm people are dying waaahhh!!!" PEOPLE DIE IN WAR.'
Yes they do but 1.5 million is overboard ?It was your job to keep the country peaceful after the war ended but you failed to do so. Your saying that in each war that many people die . Lets count a bit . Population of iraq 30 million , 1.5 million died . Hense 1.5/30 * 100% = 5% of population died.
How would you feel if someone invaded america and ( americas population is around 300 000 000 million people and someone would kill 5% percent of them ? ) 15 000 000 million would die ? Do you even understand how big of a number is 5% percent of population ?
last statement is blasphemous. You've clearly only been to Didnty, and not the surrounding parks.
Quote from: Westfall on February 15, 2009, 05:37:42 PM
last statement is blasphemous. You've clearly only been to Didnty, and not the surrounding parks.
Sorry , but what does Didnty mean ?
QuoteDid you smoke something while you were writing this ?
Oh the irony.
QuotePapa said. 'Those people DID get killed, we weren't sure that there would be that many' Thats the whole point. Think about what could happen , its your god damn job if you are gonna do something do it right , don't do it completely wrong. You are payed to do your job and if you fail at doing it than you should get fired. But i didn't see anyone paying for miss managment of iraq and things like that. But i guess iraqies are happy with that , NOT.
Stfu, now. You look like an IDIOT. You're still pathetically trying to make it seem like the U.S. military killed most of those people. PATHETIC. Snakebit, is democracy not worth a shit to you? Apparently there's some counter out there that gauges when freedom isn't worth it.
QuoteAlso said by PaPa. 'This is what I'm saying. We went in, kicked ass, we took out a P.O.S. dictator, and unfortunately a lot of people died and the country turned into chaos' Really unfortunate. Or not ? You also said : 'PEOPLE DIE IN WAR.' so i doubt you didn't think people will die so how can it be unfortunate ?
Wtf? One of the dumbest statements I've ever heard. :D Even if you expect some casualties it's still a sad thing. Ummm, not quite sure what to say to this other than remark about how stupid it is. All you can do is keep chugging on and finish the mission. A better life for future Iraqi's should be worth more to you than it seems like.
QuotePapa said :Do you think the ones who came up with the idea of civil liberties and democracy sat at a round table and went "Okay, there will be millions, maybe even close to a billion people that will die so that democracy can be a possible form of government. Is it worth it?
Those people who made those ideas , thought that their ideas would be reached via a peaceful way or the development of civil society NOT BY SWITCHING A GOVERNMENT.
Lol, so they underestimated the deaths as well then? They underestimated the things they'd have to endure to succeed their mission? MY POINT EXACTLY! But, they kept going, because they knew freedom is important. Let's follow their lead. Good try, come again soon.
QuoteAgain quoting papa : 'It's like if you had a straight A student, then the student got one or two C's, and you kick em out the door. Then the student comes back and says that he turned those C's into A+'s and you say that you frankly don't give a shit because of those "Horrible C's that will haunt us forever!" Get real man. Frvge, Snakebit, all who heavily oppose the Iraq war, you are being overexpecting parents that are stubborn and unopen to anything that would heal the wounds and promise future prosperity, all because of a few frayed edges and bumps along the road.'
Get of your high horse . America wasn't an A student not even close ?. I'd give america a big fat F or E for what they did in the last 12 years . Economy problems right now are your doing , iraq ruined is your doing , super duper budget deficit your doing ? And its not just the presidents fault but Americas as a whole.
There's your couple C's. MY POINT EXACTLY! Good try, come again. "Economy problems right now are your doing" - what the fuck is your point? "iraq ruined is your doing" - wtf is your point? That's why WE HAVE TO REBUILD IT! DERR ANYONE THERE!?!? Let's just go with your side and say that WE ruined Iraq. Okay. Now who's going to fix it? Iraqi's? No no no, we need to fix it at the very minimum, and install a democracy at best. Everyone's got problems. You'd rather play the friggin damn blame game then try to fix the EFFIN PROBLEM. You're like a child, snakebit! HE STARTED IT! IT WAS HIS FAULT! BLA BLA BLA! I'm the guy telling you to calm down and focus on the problem at hand, you'd rather blame and blame and blame.
QuoteAgain said by papa : 'It's a freaking war don't act like an idiot and go "well well umm people are dying waaahhh!!!" PEOPLE DIE IN WAR.'
Yes they do but 1.5 million is overboard ?It was your job to keep the country peaceful after the war ended but you failed to do so. Your saying that in each war that many people die . Lets count a bit . Population of iraq 30 million , 1.5 million died . Hense 1.5/30 * 100% = 5% of population died.
"Yes they do but" - lol "1.5 million is overboard" - I agree. How will we make up for it? By doing what you suggest and just up and leave? Hmm, oh yeah, that will solve that problem! It was our job to keep the country peaceful? WTF DID I JUST SAY TO YOU SNAKEBIT! The country is safer than just a handful of some of our more violent cities - is that peaceful enough for you? Terrorists are leaving, terrorists are dying, Iraq's army is becoming more successful at anti-terrorist operations, there is less violence in the country EVERY SINGLE FREAKING DAY, yet you say we "failed" to keep the peace or are "failing" to keep the peace? You, snakebit, are as blind as a damned bat.
QuoteHow would you feel if someone invaded america and ( americas population is around 300 000 000 million people and someone would kill 5% percent of them ? ) 15 000 000 million would die ? Do you even understand how big of a number is 5% percent of population ?
I would feel even worse if they effed my country and just left it for dead - on top of the deaths. You would as well. Don't deny that. I'm sure you'd want them to stick around and maybe fix some of their F ups. Oh, but the Iraqi's? No, they'd rather just have us turn things into chaos (as if that was our mission), and leave -according to you.
Papa my last post to you. I was stupid to even start arguing with you.
Said by papa. Stfu, now. You look like an IDIOT. You're still pathetically trying to make it seem like the U.S. military killed most of those people. PATHETIC. Snakebit, is democracy not worth a shit to you? Apparently there's some counter out there that gauges when freedom isn't worth it.
And who killed those people ? 'The terrorists' ? Oh come on , they weren't there before the invasion , they are the result of the invasion , you can't just say ' WE DIDN'T KILL THEM BECAUSE THE TERRORISTS DID'.
Come on its the same as saying ' I didn't kill him , i only hired the killer ' . And yes democracy is worth shit , if it isn't functioning properly and a lot of lives are sacrificed for it.
Said by papaskull . Wtf? One of the dumbest statements I've ever heard. Cheesy Even if you expect some casualties it's still a sad thing. Ummm, not quite sure what to say to this other than remark about how stupid it is. All you can do is keep chugging on and finish the mission. A better life for future Iraqi's should be worth more to you than it seems like.
I don't like to go into lingvistics because its a stupid argument but this time ill make an exeption.
Un + fortunate . Fortune = luck UN = negative meaning . Unlucky , how could you say they are unlucky deaths if you said that there are going to be deaths in the first place . Its wasn't by chance , that is why it can't be unlucky .
Said by papa skull . Lol, so they underestimated the deaths as well then? They underestimated the things they'd have to endure to succeed their mission? MY POINT EXACTLY! But, they kept going, because they knew freedom is important. Let's follow their lead. Good try, come again soon.
AT doing things there are usually moderate people and radicals . Well with democracy radicals seems to have triumphed .
Said by papa . There's your couple C's. MY POINT EXACTLY! Good try, come again. "Economy problems right now are your doing" - what the fuck is your point? "iraq ruined is your doing" - wtf is your point? That's why WE HAVE TO REBUILD IT! DERR ANYONE THERE!?!? Let's just go with your side and say that WE ruined Iraq. Okay. Now who's going to fix it? Iraqi's? No no no, we need to fix it at the very minimum, and install a democracy at best. Everyone's got problems. You'd rather play the friggin damn blame game then try to fix the EFFIN PROBLEM. You're like a child, snakebit! HE STARTED IT! IT WAS HIS FAULT! BLA BLA BLA! I'm the guy telling you to calm down and focus on the problem at hand, you'd rather blame and blame and blame.
So basicly when the nazis killed a lot of the jews , you would let them go if they payed some money in return and helped rebuild poland and other countries they ruined ? I guess the nazis would have been glad to hear that 60 years ago but they are dead for some reason and a lot of them got hanged ....... I wonder why. No i am not calling Americans nazis , but i am giving an analogy why should things like this be punished . DO you see someone exterminating people massively ( means several millions ) in consentration camps nowadays ? NO YOU DON'T. But i do see some countries invading others and ruining them.
Said by papa skull . "Yes they do but" - lol "1.5 million is overboard" - I agree. How will we make up for it? By doing what you suggest and just up and leave? Hmm, oh yeah, that will solve that problem! It was our job to keep the country peaceful? WTF DID I JUST SAY TO YOU SNAKEBIT! The country is safer than just a handful of some of our more violent cities - is that peaceful enough for you? Terrorists are leaving, terrorists are dying, Iraq's army is becoming more successful at anti-terrorist operations, there is less violence in the country EVERY SINGLE FREAKING DAY, yet you say we "failed" to keep the peace or are "failing" to keep the peace? You, snakebit, are as blind as a damned bat.
Yes you failed to keep peace and you are failing to do so . THere are still terrorists out there or anti-governmental forces ? If there are then you are still failing to keep the peace.
Said by papa: I would feel even worse if they effed my country and just left it for dead - on top of the deaths. You would as well. Don't deny that. I'm sure you'd want them to stick around and maybe fix some of their F ups. Oh, but the Iraqi's? No, they'd rather just have us turn things into chaos (as if that was our mission), and leave -according to you.
I agree that fixing is a good but do agree that ruining something that fixing it is not a proper way to do thing ?
P.s. Arguing with you is useless . Oh and please stop using insulting words and trying to make your argument sound ' strong ' . Also please don't use 'BLA BLA BLA' all the time , its annoying .
Little copy paste . A report by a political think tank based in Mumbai, India has calculated the peace dividend for the Middle East and consequently the economic cost of conflict in the region by country. According to the report, the opportunity cost of conflict for the region from 1991-2010 has been a whopping $12 trillion (12,000,000,000).Iraq has suffered the largest loss. Its GDP could have been more than 30 times its present size. If we measure Iraq's oopportunity loss since 1980, before the Iran Iraq war and the Persian Gulf War with Kuwait, the losses are even greater - Iraq's GDP could have been more than 50 times its projected GDP in 2010. In other words, had there been peace in Iraq, every Iraqi citizen would be earning over $9,600 instead of the $2,300 in 2010 .
A little graph .
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44549000/gif/_44549620_us_troop_death466x277.gif
Insurgency is like economy in a way . It has its peak points then it goes down then goes up again. DO you really think with oil prices at 45$ and not 150 like they were a year ago , the reconstruction will contrinue that well and insurgency will go down ? Iraq gets 66.8/114 (around 59%) of its GDP from oil export. So do some math. Perhaps its the reason you are pulling out ? Cause you know the situation will go to shit rather soon ? How can the insurgency rate go down during the times of economical crysis tell me ? It can only get worse...... Specially for iraq which was dependent on the oil prices which hit 10 year low ....... No money = no reconstructiong = less money in circulation = more unrest = more insurgency . Unemployment rate in iraq is around 20-30% with the crysis it will increase to 30-35 % if not 40 % and what do you think those unemployed and angry people will do ?
Iraqi Gdp growth.
Year GDP - real growth rate (%)
2000 13
2001 15
2002 -5.7
2003 -3
2004 -21.8 <---- (Remember the sabotage of production of oil in iraq ? well this is the year when it happened and look how it affected the gdp growth ? )
2005 52.3
2006 -3
2007 2.4
2008 5
Before 2002 the growth was 13-15 percent every year. After 9/11 new sanctions and look at the growth.
AFter invasion gdp -22% . Then +52.3 , the open reserves helped with that but does the oil money go to people ? NO IT DOESN'T it goes to the companies who own the fields. Only a part of it goes to the government. During saddam economy wasn't so dependant on oil because he couldn't sell it , the damn sanctions didn't allow him so he had to increase production capacities.... But after the invasion all production almost was destroyed so now the country is VERY DEPENDENT on oil.
This doesn't help too . Another copy paste : Exports have also fallen to about 1.7 million barrels per day from a peak of 2 million in mid 2008 as a result of run-down infrastructure.
Year 2009 expects a 35-38% drop in gdp .
Iraq's gdp in billions of dollars. (this is not nominal gdp, i didn't find nominal gdp graph.)
2002 59
2003 58
2004 37.92
2005 54.4
2006 94.1
2007 87.9
2008 100
35-38% drop means that there was almost 0%(perhaps 1% or 2% which is very low for a underdeveloped country like iraq) growth rate between 2002-2009.
That shows that the government of iraq IS NOT FUNCTIONING EFFECTIVELY.
As of today the iraqi budget has already been cut 2 times from i think 80 billion to around 60 or something around it...
And last do you know that iraq is in HUGE and i mean LITERALY HUGE DEBT. Info from 2004 study , it should be larger in 2008.
Iraq's public debt was estimated to be US$120.2 billion in nominal value as of the
end of 2004. The debt owed to Paris Club creditors as of December 31, 2004, was
estimated to be US$38.9 billion. The U.S. share of this amount is around $4 billion.
Non-Paris Club countries, mostly Persian Gulf countries, are owed around $60-$65
billion. The remaining debts are to private commercial creditors. Iraqi debt relief (both
Paris Club and non-Paris Club) is a high priority for both the President and Congress.
This report will discuss efforts to implement Iraqi debt relief, as well as efforts to
persuade non-Paris Club countries to forgive their Iraqi debts. It will also highlight
several policy concerns. This report will be updated as events warrant.
Comes from this : http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS21765.pdf
120 billion of debt . America forgave like 4.1 billion which iraq owned america in Paris club so it was like 116 billion in 2004. Now count a bit. Iraqi budget is 60 billion right now so what they gonna with that colossal debt ? And that is just PUBLIC SECTOR DEBT , who knows how much is private sector debt.
At Snakebit... Was trying to write Disney for GUI.LOL
At papa: quit preaching and go over to Iraq or Afghanistan and fight. Watch how fast you fuckin buckle.
Snakebit, I will respond to your nonsense later. I'll give a little piece of advice now though. This is what you DO NOT seem to understand. A democracy cannot be installed overnight and this was the greatest underestimation of the entire Bush admin, don't make the same idiotic mistake. It takes time, lives are lost along the way, and it ain't easy. So, my advice to you? Stfu, be patient, and watch the now PEACEFUL Iraq turn into a full fledged democracy in 10 years with us gone in just a few.
Westfall, I'll be in company of respectable men in the military as you'll strangely never find any atheists in the foxholes. Just a funny observation. You have to have some serious brass to look death and the face and say there is no God.
Quote from: Papa Skull on February 17, 2009, 07:17:57 AM
Snakebit, I will respond to your nonsense later. I'll give a little piece of advice now though. This is what you DO NOT seem to understand. A democracy cannot be installed overnight and this was the greatest underestimation of the entire Bush admin, don't make the same idiotic mistake. It takes time, lives are lost along the way, and it ain't easy. So, my advice to you? Stfu, be patient, and watch the now PEACEFUL Iraq turn into a full fledged democracy in 10 years with us gone in just a few.
Westfall, I'll be in company of respectable men in the military as you'll strangely never find any atheists in the foxholes. Just a funny observation. You have to have some serious brass to look death and the face and say there is no God.
I like the time and lives are lost thing . Who the hell even asked you to do so ???? Did the iraqies ask you guys ? Or did you guys decided on your own that iraqies wanna die for democracy ???
In 10 years iraq gonna be back to the good old islamic days of head choping and ethnic cleansing....
P.s. I think papa needs to die like a martier for the Church ? Can i just decide that on my own and hang you or give you some biblical death ? Will you like that ?
Oh yeah almost forgot. When the argument goes the wrong way for you papa , you start switching the topic a bit . Please don't do that.
You know what I'll just respond to it now since I won't have time later.
QuoteAnd who killed those people ? 'The terrorists' ? Oh come on , they weren't there before the invasion , they are the result of the invasion , you can't just say ' WE DIDN'T KILL THEM BECAUSE THE TERRORISTS DID'.
Come on its the same as saying ' I didn't kill him , i only hired the killer ' . And yes democracy is worth shit , if it isn't functioning properly and a lot of lives are sacrificed for it.
Maybe with the color red you will understand simple statements. One can only hope. This is what your thought process is like right now. Say you go into a bar. Someone hates you in the bar. That someone grabs a knife and stabs some innocent guy chugging a beer. Then, everyone blames YOU for walking into the bar. It's idiotic. And yeah, it's sad that those people have died. It truly is. Now what? What will we do? Leave? Let them rebuild their country? Even though we are now keeping the peace and there's an all time low of killings? We should just leave and let them rebuild it themselves? Let the now frail government to fall most likely into another dictatorship? Do you even know the repercussions of just LEAVING? We are now very important to the rebuilding of Iraq, I won't argue that we were important to a lot of its problems, but the thing is that we need to be there to help them rebuild. Fair enough? Can we at least both see that?
Democracy isn't worth it if it's not functioning properly and a lot of lives are sacrificed for it? Well, then wtf you just lost a whole entire heap of credibility with this statement, as if it wasn't shattered enough already lately. If its' not functioning properly, like at this very moment in Iraq, then let us FIX IT AND HELP IT ALONG THE WAY. If a lot of lives are sacrificed for it, then why when lives are not being lost anymore would we stop and let them have died for nothing? MAKES NO SENSE SNAKEBIT. Millions maybe a billion people have died for democracy - it was worth it. Your biggest flaw is your magnificent impatience and your inability to accept that good things come from struggle. To put it short and simple for you, NO PAIN NO GAIN. That's it. Time to put on the big boy pants and realize that people have to work and sacrifice for good things to come, the world doesn't just 'happen'! like magic.
QuoteI don't like to go into lingvistics because its a stupid argument but this time ill make an exeption.
Un + fortunate . Fortune = luck UN = negative meaning . Unlucky , how could you say they are unlucky deaths if you said that there are going to be deaths in the first place . Its wasn't by chance , that is why it can't be unlucky .
And here we go into the damned Webster definition AS ALWAYS with you people. You know what I mean by unfortunate. It's sad. It's unfortunate that some people have died in the process of cleaning up their country. Here's you worrying about definitions and skimming like a mad man through your dictionary but you're too blind to see a lot of things. There's an old saying. Something like the black and white of pages in the books may burn into your eyes, burn so that you're blind to the important things. I forgot how it went. But anyways, don't be stupid. I knew some people would die going into the war, DUH, it's unfortunate that more people than expected died. Is that good enough for you? Does that fit into the dictionary definitions well enough for you?
Said by papa skull . Lol, so they underestimated the deaths as well then? They underestimated the things they'd have to endure to succeed their mission? MY POINT EXACTLY! But, they kept going, because they knew freedom is important. Let's follow their lead. Good try, come again soon.
AT doing things there are usually moderate people and radicals . Well with democracy radicals seems to have triumphed .
Umm, k. First of all, does not address my comment at all. Like, at all. Second, 'radicals seems to have triumphed' in democracy? Then tell me, why around election time to people always lean towards the center on most issues? That's not radical at all. That's being the exact opposite of radical. You see, in working democracies, such as the one in the U.S., for the most part people do not like radicals.
Democracy is undoubtedly the best form of government. Not because it gives power to those in command, but because it takes it away. This is the perfect remedy for those in Iraq that have been suppressed for so long by an all powerful jerk-off. We can look back and hang our heads in sorrow for those lost. We can even look back and say, oh shit 1.4 million people died for this, but that's exactly why we cannot stop and say "WHOOPS! Ah shucks we hit the 1.5 mil number, looks like they all died for nothing! Oh well..." No. We have to keep going and finish the mission - helping Iraq (now really peaceful, you'd be surprised), and giving them a better form of government. Those are really just the same though.
You know snakebit it's really not hard to look at you and your words and think about what an impatient heartless asshole you sound like. I hope it's not you, I don't think it's you, but from your arguments it seems that you don't give a rat's ass about the quality of life that people have in the country of Iraq. Yeah, it got effed up, yeah people died, but that's why we can't do nothing. Duh. Isn't this obvious? And I'd be willing to bet that if I hadn't said what I'm about to say, you'd be saying I'm heartless because 'i dont care about the 1.4 mil people that died bla bla bla'. I'm sure you would. Let's turn that around and say that YOU don't care about the remaining millions that CURRENTLY live in Iraq. Of course I care about the lives lost, of course it's sad, now tell me your reasons for turning a blind eye to the living, and would be suffering, people of Iraq should we have just left halfway through our mission.
Should we have just showed up, killed Saddam, turned it into chaos and just left? Or should we finish our mission? Like it or not, our current mission is just and noble. This is what you don't get. WE ARE IN IRAQ! We can't take it back, we're already there, we must make the best of it. We have only 2 choices. Leave, or stay. Turn it into chaos, or help ensure future prosperity. You know, sometimes life is black and white. Sometimes the choices have obvious consequences. This is one of those times. If we leave now, we risk losing Iraq and sending them into a greater hole than they've been in for the last 20 years. If we leave now, we lose all the efforts and sacrifice made to help better a struggling country. If we stay now, we may lose some more lives, sure, but that's what it takes to help. It takes sacrifice, effort, time, money, but the result is much better than doing nothing. You see, I'm not the heartless one. One of us lacks the you know whats to get stuff done, don't be that guy. Nobody likes that guy. The guy who'd rather suck his thumb, sit in the corner, criticize people who take action, criticize any action taken, and hope that the world works itself out.
Quote from: Snakebit. on February 17, 2009, 07:19:55 AM
Quote from: Papa Skull on February 17, 2009, 07:17:57 AM
Snakebit, I will respond to your nonsense later. I'll give a little piece of advice now though. This is what you DO NOT seem to understand. A democracy cannot be installed overnight and this was the greatest underestimation of the entire Bush admin, don't make the same idiotic mistake. It takes time, lives are lost along the way, and it ain't easy. So, my advice to you? Stfu, be patient, and watch the now PEACEFUL Iraq turn into a full fledged democracy in 10 years with us gone in just a few.
Westfall, I'll be in company of respectable men in the military as you'll strangely never find any atheists in the foxholes. Just a funny observation. You have to have some serious brass to look death and the face and say there is no God.
I like the time and lives are lost thing . Who the hell even asked you to do so ???? Did the iraqies ask you guys ? Or did you guys decided on your own that iraqies wanna die for democracy ???
In 10 years iraq gonna be back to the good old islamic days of head choping and ethnic cleansing....
P.s. I think papa needs to die like a martier for the Church ? Can i just decide that on my own and hang you or give you some biblical death ? Will you like that ?
Oh yeah almost forgot. When the argument goes the wrong way for you papa , you start switching the topic a bit . Please don't do that.
You effing hypocrite. Instead of responding to my paragraph, point for point like any decent person would, YOU CHANGE THE FREAKING SUBJECT! You don't respond, maybe cuz you didn't want to, then you change the topic. Then later in your post, you have the damned gall to say that I change the subject? Hypocrite. Hypocrite. Hypocrite.
I'm just about done talking to you. You are really, really, really not worth it.
Lockage?
Quote from: Papa Skull on February 17, 2009, 07:17:57 AM
Westfall, I'll be in company of respectable men in the military as you'll strangely never find any atheists in the foxholes. Just a funny observation. You have to have some serious brass to look death and the face and say there is no God.
You do need to read more. Again, I'm agnostic.
I don't talk shit about any civilian in any uniform for one man's greed. Hence why everything with the war and your torture binges are bullshit.
you might as well lock it....
Quote from: frvge on February 17, 2009, 08:03:00 AM
Lockage?
Papa went bananas and started insulting everyone so i guess you should lock it scworld.
P.s. Arguing with papa is useless. I say A he says B , i say A he says C ....... . I am saying that there wouldn't be a serial killer sitting in a bar if it haven't been for you guys . You say that 'gee sorry he was sitting there because of us and killed a lot of people and now we need to fix that' but do you think you can revive people ??
Okay seriously my last post to PaPa.
You're a hypocrite and do not give good responses. Do not say that I change the topic, especially when you do. You've been acting incredibly ignorant to my posts and just revert back to the good ole "but but but if you didn't do this then bla bla bla waahhh"... THIS IS THE DEAL. WE ARE IN IRAQ. No taking that back. People died. No taking that back. It's about time for us to leave, regardless of your opinion on the initial mission, in the most productive and honorable way possible. The best way of leaving is not just simply LEAVING. Get it through your head. Revive people? Dude, you just don't get it. There is a day to mourn and a day to focus on the mission. It's a sad thing that many people have died in the process, but we can't just stop the mission especially when people STOP dying, that's idiotic. OH! People have died, but they aren't dying anymore, so SHUT IT DOWN! Derrr....
And why will this be your last post to me? I never change the topic. Such a bullshit claim. I would like to continue to have this conversation but only if you promise to try to understand basic sentences.
Westfall, I know you are agnostic. Never said you were atheist. I said there are strangely no atheists in the foxholes, which was just a poke at the atheists on the forum.
QuoteWestfall, I'll be in company of respectable men in the military as you'll strangely never find any atheists in the foxholes. Just a funny observation. You have to have some serious brass to look death and the face and say there is no God.
Uh, hey there... What would you know about the military and the people in it? What foxholes have you been in?
Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen come from all walks of life. You'll find a wide variety of viewpoints on any issue, just like you would with any other segment of the population. I can guaruntee you one thing, though: I bet most service members don't look highly upon fat (good thing you posted your pic on ubi forums!), self-righteous nerds who like to talk shit behind a computer, make blanket statements about their religious beliefs, and in the next breath pretend they are "one of them." Personally, I think it's detestable that you need to justify your views by stating that all troops agree with you just so that you feel like a tough guy. Crying for war while you eat cheezy poofs in your mom's basement doesn't make you tough; it makes you an idiot. I don't know where you got the idea that you're "in the company of respectable men in the military," since you're not in the military and you're not respectable.
Seriously, it's time for you to stfu.
Quote from: Spekkio on February 18, 2009, 04:24:35 AM
QuoteWestfall, I'll be in company of respectable men in the military as you'll strangely never find any atheists in the foxholes. Just a funny observation. You have to have some serious brass to look death and the face and say there is no God.
Uh, hey there... What would you know about the military and the people in it? What foxholes have you been in?
I can guaruntee you one thing: service members don't look highly upon fat (good thing you posted your pic on ubi forums!), self-righteous nerds who like to talk shit behind a computer, make blanket statements about them, and in the next breath pretend they are "one of them." Personally, I think it's detestable that you need to justify your views by stating that the military agrees with you just so that you feel like a tough guy. Crying for war while you eat cheezy poofs in your mom's basement doesn't make you tough; it makes you an idiot. I don't know where you got the idea that you're "in the company of respectable men in the military," since you're not in the military and you're not respectable.
Seriously, it's time for you to stfu.
QFW
Really, frvge, you may as well lock this.
To the peanut gallery that keeps arguing about Iraq and whatnot: I strongly suggest that you at least spend your time reading some more books about the subject, since people keep going in circles with emotional reactions to world events rather than facts. Or you can be like tough guy Papa Skull and tough it out in those foxholes.
Quote from: Spekkio on February 18, 2009, 04:24:35 AM
QuoteWestfall, I'll be in company of respectable men in the military as you'll strangely never find any atheists in the foxholes. Just a funny observation. You have to have some serious brass to look death and the face and say there is no God.
Uh, hey there... What would you know about the military and the people in it? What foxholes have you been in?
Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen come from all walks of life. You'll find a wide variety of viewpoints on any issue, just like you would with any other segment of the population. I can guaruntee you one thing, though: I bet most service members don't look highly upon fat (good thing you posted your pic on ubi forums!), self-righteous nerds who like to talk shit behind a computer, make blanket statements about their religious beliefs, and in the next breath pretend they are "one of them." Personally, I think it's detestable that you need to justify your views by stating that all troops agree with you just so that you feel like a tough guy. Crying for war while you eat cheezy poofs in your mom's basement doesn't make you tough; it makes you an idiot. I don't know where you got the idea that you're "in the company of respectable men in the military," since you're not in the military and you're not respectable.
Seriously, it's time for you to stfu.
Fat? Self righteous nerd? No. I'm the one talking shit through a forum? What are you doing at this moment? Come to think of it is IS the fat self righteous nerds who sit on the internet all day that for the most part criticize the military and their actions. No, I'm not a nerd.
I'm not the guy posting anime pictures like I'm all sweet and clever. I'm not the guy using the nerdiest forms of dissing someone, ala changing the title of my freaking thread using mod powers like I'm awesome, YOUR NERDS ARE ON THIS FORUM, but not in me man. I know the people in the military come from different backgrounds, that's obvious, but last time I checked there was an amazingly small number of atheists in the military, and by NO atheists in the foxholes this is what I meant by it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_no_atheists_in_foxholes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_no_atheists_in_foxholes)
Basically I was saying that when your ass is being pounded by mortar and your only protection is a .5 inch thick metal helmet, atheists start to think "oh shit, God, if you exist, please oh please save my ass". It was a little joke and no one got it. Not surprising though.
I respect you spekkio, and I respect you for your service, can't quite remember what it was (Navy?), but I don't appreciate you telling me what I am. The only self righteous ones here are the ones who care more about our image to the world than what we do to help other countries, I don't even need to name those people. I care about doing what is right. Not doing what others want me to do in fear of looking bad, THAT's self righteousness, that's the castration I'm speaking of.
I totally agree with you in one regard, I do not appreciate people talking bad about the military from the comfort of their armchair - especially when world of warcraft is in their face. Those are usually the ones that criticize, and those that will most likely never see combat.
Lock it up.
Quote from: Papa Skull on February 18, 2009, 07:06:39 AM
Quote from: Spekkio on February 18, 2009, 04:24:35 AM
QuoteWestfall, I'll be in company of respectable men in the military as you'll strangely never find any atheists in the foxholes. Just a funny observation. You have to have some serious brass to look death and the face and say there is no God.
Uh, hey there... What would you know about the military and the people in it? What foxholes have you been in?
Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen come from all walks of life. You'll find a wide variety of viewpoints on any issue, just like you would with any other segment of the population. I can guaruntee you one thing, though: I bet most service members don't look highly upon fat (good thing you posted your pic on ubi forums!), self-righteous nerds who like to talk shit behind a computer, make blanket statements about their religious beliefs, and in the next breath pretend they are "one of them." Personally, I think it's detestable that you need to justify your views by stating that all troops agree with you just so that you feel like a tough guy. Crying for war while you eat cheezy poofs in your mom's basement doesn't make you tough; it makes you an idiot. I don't know where you got the idea that you're "in the company of respectable men in the military," since you're not in the military and you're not respectable.
Seriously, it's time for you to stfu.
Fat? Self righteous nerd? No. I'm the one talking shit through a forum? What are you doing at this moment? Come to think of it is IS the fat self righteous nerds who sit on the internet all day that for the most part criticize the military and their actions. No, I'm not a nerd.
I'm not the guy posting anime pictures like I'm all sweet and clever. I'm not the guy using the nerdiest forms of dissing someone, ala changing the title of my freaking thread using mod powers like I'm awesome, YOUR NERDS ARE ON THIS FORUM, but not in me man. I know the people in the military come from different backgrounds, that's obvious, but last time I checked there was an amazingly small number of atheists in the military, and by NO atheists in the foxholes this is what I meant by it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_no_atheists_in_foxholes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_no_atheists_in_foxholes)
Basically I was saying that when your ass is being pounded by mortar and your only protection is a .5 inch thick metal helmet, atheists start to think "oh shit, God, if you exist, please oh please save my ass". It was a little joke and no one got it. Not surprising though.
I respect you spekkio, and I respect you for your service, can't quite remember what it was (Navy?), but I don't appreciate you telling me what I am. The only self righteous ones here are the ones who care more about our image to the world than what we do to help other countries, I don't even need to name those people. I care about doing what is right. Not doing what others want me to do in fear of looking bad, THAT's self righteousness, that's the castration I'm speaking of.
I totally agree with you in one regard, I do not appreciate people talking bad about the military from the comfort of their armchair - especially when world of warcraft is in their face. Those are usually the ones that criticize, and those that will most likely never see combat.
Lock it up.
Leaving the nerd argument aside . What sounds right to you , might not sound right to others . Each and every person has his own view of the world he lives in.
P.s. How is critisizing the army or the war in iraq is in any way connected to being a nerd ? So if you haven't served in iraq you can't critisize the war ? That is plain wrong i think.
Locked by request of topic starter.