Things are getting ugly

noseoil said:

Oil is not the problem,...

So really, this war is about sex,....
A little war is good for the planet. It removes some of the surplus population. It inspires art, music and weapons systems. Liberalism is, after all, a mental disorder.
What did they do to make us invade Iraq? What can they do to help us get more oil so we don't have to invade another country?
Please flame away, I just had my Nomex dry cleaned, my skin is getting thicker and I need comic relief to read at work.

Click to expand...

Perhaps we should open a Troglodyte topic, this would be a perfect "seed".

Really interesting . Do I sense some preoccupation with sex? Of course ... nothing is about morality, "the right thing to do", greed, avarice, Machiavellian politics, domination, the lust for power ... only sex. Spoken like a true Troglodyte!

Nah!

Equally interesting is the idea that "War is Good". Interesting - although clearly "beef by product."
I will suggest that technologically, more, FAR MORE, was accomplished as a result of Space Exploration Programs, than by ALL the wars that ever took place. And - "War is a good way to reduce the excess population"? How was it expressed by Nazi Germany (and I doubt I'll spell it correctly) - "Lebensraum"?

What are THEY going to do for us?? One question - why the hell SHOULD they do anything for us? Given the tone of your message, one question is unavoidable: "What's in it for them?"

And if you hold a so-called "Liberal Opinion" - you are victims of a "mental disorder"??? Crazy"??? Well - maybe ... Who once said that "All artists are crazy - It is a prerequisite to becoming an artist"
Given the actions of the so-called "sane" people running this government - this is a no-brainer choice - I'll choose Liberalism - and "crazy" ( I really want to be thought of as "Balanced") over pseudo-sanity.

Replied to in a moment of weakness.

Thanks Ed, someone needs to add balance here. I'm glad we can agree on this subject.

I promised myself I wasn't going to continue reading this thread because it was devolving into the usual s**t, but I feel compelled to add a few points of clarification to the "discussion."

Human nature keeps getting mentioned. There is nothing "natural" about human nature. Once one gets past pure animal instinct, human behavior is based upon learning and social conditioning. See the works of Camus and Sartre for a more in depth treatment of the subject. (Oh! I forgot they were French - never mind...)

Someone dusted off the old saw about returning Vietnam Vets being spat upon by "liberals" or, I assume, members of the Anti-war community. This never happened. A sociologist (Thomas Beamish) and an author (Jerry Lembcke - The Spitting Image) both investigated the claim seperately and could find no such incident. In fact, in the only incident they could find where a Vietnam Vet was maltreated by anyone, the perpetrators were members of the VFW. It's time this myth was put to bed.

And the old, "That's just the way things have always been, accept it"-type of argument carries no water. We are humans, dammit! Capable of rising above anything! If we had reconciled ourselves to the way things have always been, we'd all be sitting around in the dark after sunset (and I don't mean the darkroom) because, "It's always gotten dark at night, and there is nothing you can do about it. Just accept it." The torch, the candle, the lantern, the electric light would never have been invented. It's the choices we make, not the circumstances we find ourselves in, that define us - as individuals and as a species.

And before anyone hoists the label of "Liberal" upon my shoulders like it is an insult of the worst sort, I preemptively shrug it off. The only label I wear is "human being," and even that one is difficult to bear at times - it is humbling to reconcile myself to the fact that I belong to the same species that not only invented the Gas-Powered Leaf Blower, but will fight angrily for its right to use it.

Ed Wrote:

I will suggest that technologically, more, FAR MORE, was accomplished as a result of Space Exploration Programs, than by ALL the wars that ever took place

I would suggest that the "space race" was "war". Personally,I don't think that there is any doubt that most of mankinds technological advances were a result of a "race" for better and more deadly weaponry. I believe that the space race was just that. A way to understand and harness "space" to our own advantage.


Since this original thread started with the painting depicting the prison abuse. So essentially it all stated with the "concept" that the photos of the abuse were "unAmerican" or not what we want America to stand for, I would like to post a hypothetical question.

Within the context of the photos that were made public, the leash, the pile of nude bodies, the hooded figure on the box with fake wires attached, and the silly woman pointing at the nude male. With just this type and only this type of "mental coercion" would you be in favor of it in the following scenario.

If because of the information gained by this interrogation technique, your son/daughter would be alive and return home safely from Iraq, would you condone it. Without the information gained, they would be killed. Would you condone it.

Yes or no.

Yes use this treatment, my son/daughter returns home.
No, don't use this treatment, they come home in a box.

Just think about this and only this situation, in this hypothetical and what would you answer. Please don't cloud the issue with things like " yes but we didn't get information" or "these techniques don't work". Just stick to the hypothetical.

Just a mental exercise.


Michael McBlane

Are you saying the ends justifies the means? Well at least as long as an American is doing it? This is not meant to be an anti-American dig so don't even go there boys and girls.

Conservatives' penchant for trying to re-write history is comparable to Orwell's 1984 , very useful for controlling people's thoughts. As a veteran of Vietnam era ( luckily, stationed in Korea) I can remember some of the hatred expressed toward the returning veterans; but it was from the Right. They were accused of losing the war because they were on drugs. It was also the Right that initially opposed the Vietnam War Memorial.
This is a chickenhawk administration that is perfectly willing to send the sons & daughters of the middle & lower class to die for protection of their friends oil interests.

Blansky - YES!

Eric said:

Are you saying the ends justifies the means?

I'm not saying anything. It's a hypothetical question.

Throughout military history, captured enemies were pumped for information that would save the lives of the army doing the capturing.

Some were physically tortured and others had their minds "played with".

The hypothetical is just a question,-- in a war, and your son/daughters life would be saved by the information attained, by subjecting prisoners to the treatment shown in the 4 pictures. Would you be in favor or it.

Michael

Blansky, also yes

Blansky, the world isn't that black and white (and I don't mean the pictures). In the context of the question, yes I would trade mental abuse for a life. As a follow up to your question: whould you still choose this option if it meant that 2 captured American soldiers would be tortured and then beheaded as retribution for the mental torture in question 1?

Yes or no.

Yes use this treatment, my son/daughter returns home. Then someone else's son/daughter is tortured and then killed.

No, don't use this treatment, they come home in a box. But others are not killed and tortured.

Given that we don't know the way events will unfold it is a better to wage the war under a set of guidelines layed down by the world at large. By ignoring the Geneva Conventions we are excusing others to do the same.

You mean like Daniel Pearl? What was the justification for this beheading?

blansky said:

If because of the information gained by this interrogation technique, your son/daughter would be alive and return home safely from Iraq, would you condone it. Without the information gained, they would be killed. Would you condone it.

Yes or no.

Yes use this treatment, my son/daughter returns home.
No, don't use this treatment, they come home in a box.

Just think about this and only this situation, in this hypothetical and what would you answer. Please don't cloud the issue with things like " yes but we didn't get information" or "these techniques don't work". Just stick to the hypothetical.

Michael McBlane

Click to expand...

I should play your game?

Why not play mine:

*IF* we could eradicate all the sexual abuse of children by standing all the Roman Catholic Priests up against the wall and machine gunning them ... would you be in favor of it?

Yes or no?

This is merely hypothetical. so I (note 1) don't want any other answer. Just answer: YES or no?? No explanation, not what if ... JUST yes or no??

Note 1: *I* --- and no one else matters.

Is my question any more unfair - or less - than yours?

THINK - If anything becomes apparent after a study of the histories of war, it is that the side that treats their prisoners most humanely ALWAYS is the most successful. If you know of an exception, I'd like to hear it.

There is a story of an American OSS Officer who was captured at the end of the war. After the first day of German "questioning" (and the idea was that torture was an acceptable means for saving German lives), the installation where he was being held was ordered to surrender (or something like that) to the conquering Allied Forces.
The freed Allied officer confronted his "Interrogator" that morning. The first thing his torturer said was, "I know that you are going to kill me - but please don't kill my family".
The OSS Officer replied, "We aren't going to kill anyone - we are not Nazis."

A good "read" is "The Winter War", about the "first" Soviet-Finnish war taking place during World War II.

The Russian commanders had repeatedly warned their troops about the horrible treatment they would endure if captured by the "White Death", as they had come to call the Finns.
What they found was the polar opposite: The Finns treated the wounded from both sides according to severity; it was not uncommon for a Finnish doctor to treat a Russian prisoner before the Finnish wounded; they provided them with HOT food, a warm place to sleep; there were even accounts of the Finns taking them to Sauna, and furnishing them with Finnish vodka.

One of the Russians wrote about asking a Finnish Officer about their treatment as prisoners. The officer replied: "Yesterday, you were the enemy - it was our mission and duty to kill you. Today you are prisoners, and no longer enemy - you are simply human beings, and we will treat you as human beings."

Think of how effective that was - after being "repatriated", they had to return to a frozen hell, starving ... with officers that had very little regard at all for human life ordering them to die.

Yes ... "Messing with their heads". Think of the effect that had on Russian morale.

So ... pictures of what was happening in that Iraqi Prison. So what? - does anyone think that the Iraqis themselves did not know? It is not possible to hide injustice like that. How does one "cover up" storming a civilian house, carrying someone away, and denying any knowledge of what happened to them?

Wow, it's amazing that a hypothetical question would cause such an outburst.

As for the Catholic priests. Just the ones that did it?

Hypothetically?

Yes.

Now I "played" your game, so what is your answer to mine?


Michael

blansky said:

Wow, it's amazing that a hypothetical question would cause such an outburst.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but they're only hypothetical outburts!

Anything that hurts children is the worst crime in the world. So Ed, to play your game, YES!

I do not see how there can be any similarities between World War II combatants and the kind facing coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq - they do not interrogate - they behead; they do not take prisoners of war - they take civilians; they do not wear uniforms - they wear civilian clothes; they do not fight in the open - they hide in mosques and hospitals, they hide behind children; they do not throw grenades - they act as tourists and then blow themselves up around children.

It is naive to think that if the coalition forces were to follow in the footsteps of those gentlemen from WWII (and I believe that they do) that the Al-Qaeda forces and sympathisers will stop chaining the dead bodies of coalition soldiers to the back of their pick up trucks and dragging them all over town for all to cheer, that they will stop suicide bombings. WWII and Al-Qaeda - there is no correlation in my view.

Ed wrote:

THINK - If anything becomes apparent after a study of the histories of war, it is that the side that treats their prisoners most humanely ALWAYS is the most successful. If you know of an exception, I'd like to hear it.

Without having to think too hard, how about this one.

World War II --The Soviets/Russians.

Viet Nam Police action --- the North Vietnamese/Viet Cong



Michael

noseoil said:

You mean like Daniel Pearl? What was the justification for this beheading?

Click to expand...

I believe that was the perceived injustice of Israel and America towards the Palestinians. The root cause of that you could say is religion, or "my God is better than your God". This has been going on for a thousand years or more between Christians, Jews and Muslims.

blansky said:

Wow, it's amazing that a hypothetical question would cause such an outburst.

As for the Catholic priests. Just the ones that did it?

Hypothetically?

Yes.

Michael

Click to expand...

No!! Not "Just the ones who did it." I said ALL!

After all, it's only hypothetical.

If you choose to modify the terms of my question, is it all right for me to modify yours?

LG - My point exactly. Human nature has not and will not change. I stand by my opinion that this will never end. To view it as a "fixable" problem is extremely ignorant.

Hypothetical questions must have some basis in reality for them to be put forward - Blansky's question is plausible - i.e. will the practice of interrogating in such a manner depicted by the painting help in keeping alive coalition soldiers. It is likely that intelligence gathered in such a manner would result in preemptive strikes against suicide bombers etc. Similarly the hypothesis concerning increased grotesque beheading as a result of such tactics of interrogation continuing.

A hypothetical question that results in eliminating ALL catholic priests is just not plausible. It is fantastical! You might as well say that we should kill all moslems for Sept 11. Michael modified your question based on sensible realities - i.e. kill the bad eggs not the good ones.

Francesco said:

Blansky's question is plausible - i.e. will the practice of interrogating in such a manner depicted by the painting help in keeping alive coalition soldiers.

Click to expand...

If the question was, in fact that - "Do you think that interrogating in such manner will help in keeping coaltion slodiers alive?" I would have answered. That is not what was asked - the essence was, "Do you want our soldiers to die or not? Yes or no. If I had answered "no", I condone torture; if I answer "Yes" I am in favor of killing OUR troops.

Let me ask it a little more succinctly:

a. Do you condone torture?
b. Do you want our troops to die?

My answers:

A: No!!
B: No!!

I say that there are better ways of conducting this WAR, than by forcing, by torture, anyone to say what we want them to say. THAT is, inevitably, flawed intelligence.

A better way

Ed, you stated "I say that there are better ways of conducting this WAR" with respect to the gathering of intellegence. I am certainly interested in your input on this subject. Would you mind expanding on this theme?

Thanks, tim

I have never understood the war for oil analogy. if we want the oil why not just take it? We have the most powerful military in the world, we could wipe out the resistance against us with conventional weapons in a few days. Then again I agree that if the war is for oil why go to war at all. Why not just give Sadam his bag money like the French, Germans and Russians and keep the oil flowing. Sadam was a gangster and thug, with a primary interest in holding power and accumulating wealth. I don't think he gave a s**t about the Palestinians or anyone other arabs long as the dollars rolled in.

Why care about the people being tortured and murdered. We did nothing about Genocide in Rawanda, the UN stood by and did nothing to prevent it.
Why try to install a democratic governemnt. Le them have a civil war and kill each other in the thousands. Why leave US troops there in harms way untill that time.

After years of doing nothing about terrorism and appeasment we have paid a heavy price. There are those on the left who blame the US for 9/11 and said we got what we deserved. If we had never invaded Iraq they would be whinning about our efforts to democratize Afganistan. In thier fuzzy thinking if you try to understand the terrorists feelings, understand where they are coming from we could all get along.

But reality is different. The various terrorist groups have one agenda. To homogenize the middle east into a radical form of Islam which believes it is the duty of a husband to murder his wife if she commits adultery, Forbids women from having an education and forces upon men what they wear and how they should be groomed.
Extermination of the Jews would be a top priority, and they may tolerate Christians as long as they eventually convert to Islam. If you are Agnostic or atheist better plan on publically praying to Allah. Spreading this kind of hatred to the rest of the world is the final objective. And yet the left tolerates it and even embraces it all for political gain playing right into the terrorist's hands.

If we pull out of Iraq and Afganistan, quit supporting Isreal and quit propping up the Saudi royal family,it would not be enough. Attacks would continue because they believe they can control US foreign and domestic policy through violence and intimidation. Put liberals in control and they will simply accept the fact that terrorst attacks are going to be a way of life in the US.

Up to this point, the arguments in this were heated yes but certainly worth the read - I love a good debate. Namecalling is completely uncalled for. However, is this how this thread is going to be played? I alluded to a character from the movie Saving Private Ryan - Upham I believe was his name. An intellectual, a romantic (he could translate Edith Piaff singing Je ne regrette rien or some such song), but ultimately spineless and impotent. He does change though - but too little too late. Please no name calling.

"I can be thankful that he is as spineless and impotent as he is ignorant and cynical."

My, my, it seems both my libido and skeletal structure have been impuned in one complete thought. But what do you really mean? Name calling in an erudite forum?

Nuke the middle east? Only for their own good, not ours. "Hell yeah" and stop trying to make friends with me.