KState1125 Wrote:

aTxTIGER Wrote:we dont have to fight like they do because we are america. we are better than them and the rule of law is a(not the only) main reason. we are better people than them, there is no debate on that. why let the rest of the world debate it if it isn needed based on the statements of even the commander on the ground. from what ive read, general petraeus is the perso we need there now. he seems like a pragmatist who understands what is going on and what needs to be done. lets just pray he can do it.

This coming from someone in the same group of those that are trying to take some of our freedoms away.

RebelKev Wrote:

aTxTIGER Wrote:we dont have to fight like they do because we are america. we are better than them and the rule of law is a(not the only) main reason. we are better people than them, there is no debate on that. why let the rest of the world debate it if it isn needed based on the statements of even the commander on the ground. from what ive read, general petraeus is the perso we need there now. he seems like a pragmatist who understands what is going on and what needs to be done. lets just pray he can do it.

Easy for you to say when you're not the one fighting them.

....just sayin'.

to kstate, i dont even understand your point? what group am I with?

to rebelkev, you do make a good point. im not the one fighting them, and i am very aware of the pressure that our troops would be under to save their friends. every army is going to torture, rape, loot, etc to some extent. doesnt make it right, but it doesnt make us a people, military, or a nation bad on a whole. at the same time, we have never made it our policy to torture. its a line that i think would be very harmful for our nation to cross. not just for our current conflict, but for the future of this nation as a free republic.

aTxTIGER Wrote:every army is going to torture, rape, loot, etc to some extent.

Ok, WTF does this statement mean? If anyone loots, tortures, or rapes in the US Military they are swiftly and justly prosecuted. HOWEVER, the media and the left is portraying the ENTIRE military as doing this, and it looks like you've bought it hook, line, and sinker.

THIS:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/200310...-6042r.htm

Is not torture, yet the press made him out to be a friggin' psycho. He should have been promoted 2 grades above to Brigadier General for placing the safety of his men above his own career.

I salute LTC West.

http://www.militarycorruption.com/LTCWest-1.htm


Another one, 1LT Ilario Pantano.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilario_Pantano

(No, I don't often use Wiki, as I think they're not a credible news source, but am doing so for expediency)

RebelKev Wrote:

aTxTIGER Wrote:every army is going to torture, rape, loot, etc to some extent.

Ok, WTF does this statement mean? If anyone loots, tortures, or rapes in the US Military they are swiftly and justly prosecuted. HOWEVER, the media and the left is portraying the ENTIRE military as doing this, and it looks like you've bought it hook, line, and sinker.

THIS:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/200310...-6042r.htm

Is not torture, yet the press made him out to be a friggin' psycho. He should have been promoted 2 grades above to Brigadier General for placing the safety of his men above his own career.

I salute LTC West.

http://www.militarycorruption.com/LTCWest-1.htm


Another one, 1LT Ilario Pantano.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilario_Pantano

(No, I don't often use Wiki, as I think they're not a credible news source, but am doing so for expediency)

what you stated is exactly what i meant by the statement. every army does it some extent, the difference is we have never sactioned it as a nation. we have prosecuted those responsible.

the example you used wouldnt be torture from what i just read based on our own federal law:

(2) 'severe mental pain or suffering' means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; © the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality


i dont see prolonged mental harm being used in this case. so yes i would agree with you. i like you rebelkev you make sense, but you do have bad habit of compartmentalizing those you disagree with. just because i think the legalization of torture by our nation is dangerous, doesnt mean i think every interrogation technique they use is torture. if i did, i would be machiavelli.....and im not talking about nikolai.

aTxTIGER Wrote:what you stated is exactly what i meant by the statement. every army does it some extent, the difference is we have never sactioned it as a nation. we have prosecuted those responsible.

You're not getting it. Our Army does not torture, rape, or loot. Certain individuals may, but when you blanket it like that you put us in the same category as the armies of Idi Amin, Pol Pot, and Josef Stalin. As for the two GI's mentioned, no, they did not rape, torture, or loot. What they did is protect their men. War is hell and we don't need some limp-dicked politicians that have never served redefining what torture is. Looting and raping are black and white. Torture seems to be one of those words that's constantly redefined due to someone's political agenda.

THIS is torture:

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/

Just scroll down to where it says "Know your enemy" on the left. The only reason I used Savage's site, even though you probably despise him, is because he's the only one with enough balls to post it in the "somewhat" mainstream. .....to include any other Right-Wing talk show host.

aTxTIGER Wrote:i dont see prolonged mental harm being used in this case. so yes i would agree with you.

Wow, you just rationalized his actions, but a few short posts back you said it was "all" torture and that there is no moral high ground. So, did you change your mind and reconsider your position or are you a hypocrite?

ugh, i said that particular instance isnt torture, however, thee have been incidents of torture. that cant be debated. while some here defend it, and some think everything is torture, i think that there are certain acts of torture that we have used, however, not every interrogation procedure is torture. scaring a guy senseless for a few minutes once without physical harm isnt torture....inducing hypothermia on a person is torture. there is a difference. is inducing hypothermia as bad as drilling a hole through a guy's body or any other type of Inquisition-type method our enemy uses? obviously not, but its still torture and still moral reprehensible and according to General Petraeus...unnecessary. that is what i meant in my first post.

rebelkev, we are saying the same thing, im just not explaining myself well enough. i was trying to say that every army has done those acts, however, we have never condoned those acts and prosecuted the individuals responsible. why should we have to morally rationalize federally condoned torture compared to those who are beneath us as people and a civilization. i would like to think that commanders on the ground in Iraq would know what is necessary for our troops and they seem to agree. i apologize for giving such a half-ass explination earlier.

aTxTIGER Wrote:i like you rebelkev you make sense, but you do have bad habit of compartmentalizing those you disagree with. just because i think the legalization of torture by our nation is dangerous, doesnt mean i think every interrogation technique they use is torture. if i did, i would be machiavelli.....and im not talking about nikolai.

BTW, I never addressed this. Dude, I like you too. There's not but about 3 people on this board that I wouldn't have a drink with. One is RobertN, because he thinks everything bad is because of this country. Two is EndZone, because I think he's the inverse of RobertN and I don't want to be judged as a heathen because I {gasp} drank a beer. Three UHMump because he thinks I'm a racist because I'm a conservative. I'd even drink with Mach. When he has a problem he ******* about the other party. He doesn't ***** about America.