Thread: "The US Does Not Torture"

Let me just state that I rarely watch Fox (FNN), mainly because I only have so much time in a day. Plus, I get so burnt out from hearing politics all day long. So I can't really vouch for all of their programming. But I'd choose them over, say, ABC or NBC, as they seem to have some level of balance. Honestly, they all seem to be reading the same Associated Press crap releases. In other words, ready-made Liberal talking points.

But most of my news is sourced from Conservative talk radio, CNN and BBC. I only really watch Glenn Beck on HNN (and sometimes Nancy Grace, but she's so forceful that I tire of her quickly). And on Fox (FNN), I watch Sean Hannity sometimes. Usually, I just catch Hannity's radio show because Alan Combs (or is it Colmbs? Not sure now.) make me want to kill babies.

Now, I used to listen to both Conservation AND Liberal talk radio. There just aren't any Liberal talk shows on that I have access to anymore. I certainly saw eye to eye much more with the Conservatives stance though. I was a regular listener of Alan Combs' show, Barry Farber and a local Liberal, Nick Ashton (though I forget now which side of the fence Barry Farber was on. It's been so long). My point is simply that I didn't just choose my side on a whim. I gave both sides a very fair shake for several years.

As far as my local Fox affiliate (Fox 13) goes: they're a bunch of ass-kissing puppets whom I can't stand to watch. They seem to be involved in a lot of the same pandering as the other mainstream media outlets.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

(by HNN, do you mean "HeadlineNewsNetwork?")

Yes.

PS: My reference to "truth and balance" in my previous post is in reference to Conservative media in general because there isn't nearly as much right wing media as there is left-leaning.

Ok. Fair enough. And I think it is actually Alan Colmbs, I just wasn't sure on the spelling at the time, just the pronuncication. But to stay away from the network vs. network, I'll simply say that, if you listen to the media, continued to listen to both sides (whenever possible). I think it's dangerous to listen to only one side, and it's only when you listen, habitually, to both sides that you hear the faults of each.

And I can't stand Nancy Grace. Haha. She is (what they'd call in the movie industry as) an over-actor, and it gets on my nerves. Heh.

[Edit: I'm watching it now and it's actually Colmes. Go figure. Haha.]

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

So it is on sheer faith that you grant them the pardon to lie to the american people. It is a faith that their willingness to rationalize the lies only exists in matters of perceived national security. In a way, I understand where you are coming from - parents often lie to their children to "protect" them from certain things. But I'm also reminded of the movie "I, Robot" in which the robot mainframe designed to protect the humans realizes the self-destructive nature of the human race and figures its only way to protect humans from themselves is to keep them corraled as individuals and shut-off from the rest of the world.

With the election process being what it is today, are you saying that humans are smart enough to elect the person that is right to "protect them," but not smart enough to know what that person does? I disagree with that. How about the fact that those claiming they have been wrongly tortured are being denied the right to send the government to trial because the ensuing dialog in said trial could pose a "national security risk"? Is that something you condone? I'm an American citizen just like any other American citizen, though I'm probably less willing to bend over and take it from government (at their word), than many others. I was an "adventurous" teenager once, and I respect the right for some of our teens to go out and do some of the things that you and I as adults (or even parents) may not always agree with. It is a part of growing up and something that parents must learn to either safeguard against or deal with. But, when it comes to things like government-issued video cameras on every street corner, mandatory GPS chips in the public and things of that nature, there is a certain line that I'm not willing to condone crossing, even for national security. I am simply not that afraid. Like has been said, if one can give pardon to blantatly lying to the people of America for their "national security," one is giving pardon to the government to file any (possibly) malicious intent under "national security," and is basically saying that, as long as they can use that as their premise, any action can go unchecked, because it is "for the greater good."

No, it is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of support for an imperfect system that is the best of all possibilities. The people will retaliate when they find out a politician or group of politicians have gone too far or allowed too much. Of course that system is not completely dependable. What would be? But I do not agree that the public needs to know everything about what the military and DHS are doing.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I don't think anyone has implied that we need to know the missions or operations our soldiers are sent upon.

You did imply that when you said the government should not be allowed to withhold information or deceive. So did several others. The special forces example shows that sometimes it is necessary. That example encompasses a huge percentage of the special cases I am talking about.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

What may be in question are the moral ethics and humanitarian boundaries they are allowed to cross, to get the job done. Not everyone over on that side of the globe is our enemy, and I think that, in the name of war, many of us are granting our government too much authority to see them all as such. "Kill (or torture) them all, and let God sort them out" comes to mind.

I definitely have limits on what I think is acceptable in that area. I don't think we are treating the Middle East as our enemy. I think we are liberating it. We are treating the oppressors of the Middle East as enemies. And we are going through a whole lot of bullshit in order to make that happen when we could easily turn that part of the world into a sheet of glass. That is what Al Qaeda would do to us in two seconds if they could, and that is the sort of element we are fighting.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

But I do not agree that the public needs to know everything about what the military and DHS are doing.

Neither do I. But I don't agree that we need to be blatantly lied to.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You did imply that when you said the government should not be allowed to withhold information.

I don't remember saying that. Please highlight where I did.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I definitely have limits on what I think is acceptable in that area. I don't think we are treating the Middle East as our enemy. I think we are liberating it. We are treating the oppressors of the Middle East as enemies. And we are going through a whole lot of bullshit in order to make that happen when we could easily turn that part of the world into a sheet of glass. That is what Al Qaeda would do to us in two seconds if they could, and that is the sort of element we are fighting.

We don't really see eye to eye on the focus of Al-Qaeda. There have been reports of Al-Qaeda operatives denouncing the attacks on, say, innocent women and children, to make their point.

I could be wrong (and believe me, I'm open to it), but I believe there might be some distortion put out on the focus of Al Qaeda. And I could very easily be flamed for this, but I don't know that, if they had the means to, they would do something like drop a few dozen hydrogen bomb s on the US and wipe everyone out. I'm sure that goes against everything that everyone on your side of this conversation believes and, hell, it may be against objective logic, itself, but I'm just not too sure on that yet.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Neither do I. But I don't agree that we need to be blatantly lied to.

I don't remember saying that. Please highlight where I did.

Woops. Alric and Omnius Deus said that, not you. Sorry. You just think we should not be lied to, not that we should not have information kept from us. I see now.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

We don't really see eye to eye on the focus of Al-Qaeda. There have been reports of Al-Qaeda operatives denouncing the attacks on, say, innocent women and children, to make their point.

Any member of Al Qaeda who feels that way is in the wrong club. Why would they be members of an organization that has already done lots of that? Their leaders promote it and engage in it.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I could be wrong (and believe me, I'm open to it), but I believe there might be some distortion put out on the focus of Al Qaeda. And I could very easily be flamed for this, but I don't know that, if they had the means to, they would do something like drop a few dozen hydrogen bomb s on the US and wipe everyone out. I'm sure that goes against everything that everyone on your side of this conversation believes and, hell, it may be against objective logic, itself, but I'm just not too sure on that yet.

Their whole mission is to make Americans extinct.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=us

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=5&gl=us

My personal opinion is that Al Qaeda believes they could have a really huge amount of power to turn much of the world into an Islamic state if the United States did not exist. They despise us on many, many levels and want us to cease to exist. They are the Muslim version of Nazis.

Honestly, I see nothing in those articles but an acknowledgement of our occupation in the middle eastern nations and a subsequent feeling of (whether misguided or not) self-defense on the part of Al-Qaeda, in that they are only fighting for an end to our occupation. It is on this premise (as far as I see) that they have put out the call to "kill Americans wherever they lie." Were we not meddling in their affairs (again, I'm not saying whether we were "right" or "wrong" to do so), I do not see them as just some intrinsic faction that exists soley for our erradication. They (under the "authority" granted to them by their religion) seem to feel that they are acting on a level of self defense. We have been over there waging a decades-old campaign that has killed many of their civilians and (from their perspective) they are fighting back.
Misguided though they may or may not be, I'm still not convinced that this is just some faction that exists solely for the purpose for taking us out, or even spreading their religion internationally, by force, were it not for our occupation.

We base many of our actions on the concept of September 11th and feel that, since they were consciously able to kill 3,000 of us (and by interpretations of subsequent dialog), they exist only for the entire destruction of all people and things American. Is it impossible that 9/11 was a (albeit very grave) message of warning? If (think about this for a second) it was, and their main objective is simply to be left alone in their own world (at least, militarily), how would we know, now that we have spread the word among our nation that their only mission is to destroy is all, while we downplay the fact that most of their spite comes from our long-standing occupation of their land?

According to those articles, Al Qaeda calls for the killing of Americans wherever we are. Bin Laden has flat out declared it. One of those sources is PBS, which is is as liberal as it gets without just flat out lying. The articles don't focus on the reasons Al Qaeda hates us outside of our Middle East occupation, but the point is that Al Qaeda is not out to reason with us or to have debates among themselves about what types of Americans are fair game for being murdered. They want to kill Americans. And the response to Q2 in Bin Laden's letter shows that it is for reasons far beyond our Middle East occupation. They want to kill us, period, and their leader has declared that their war with us will last until we satisfy a very long list of extremely unrealistic demands.

Yeah, I understand that it can be interpreted this way, and I'm not saying that you're wrong. But, if it is our occupation that has driven them to this level of violence, then our occupation is something that we most seriously (re)consider. And, the way I see it (simply my interpretation so far), the answer to Q2 is more a "and while we're at it, here is a complete list of the initial beef we have with you" statement. Maybe it's a stretch for me to feel as such, but I'm not ruling it out (and, therefore, not basing any judgement on that alone), given all context of their belief to adhering(sp) strictly to their religion, which is supposed to be one of (unless provoked) peace, and from statements I've heard that have denounced the killing of innocent civilians in their campaign. I'm simply trying to take all things into account, not just what we are being lead to believe.

President Bush said "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Am I to believe that, since I don't agree with everything the Administration has been doing, I should feel like I should be looked at as a terrorist sympathizer, or that that statement to the American people might have been some over-the-top cowboy rhetoric that (while, possibly, well-intended) should not be taken completely literally? If the latter is the case, should we not be open to the possibility of Bin Laden's letter containing the same sort of propaganda?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Yeah, I understand that it can be interpreted this way, and I'm not saying that you're wrong. But, if it is our occupation that has driven them to this level of violence, then our occupation is something that we most seriously (re)consider. And, the way I see it (simply my interpretation so far), the answer to Q2 is more a "and while we're at it, here is a complete list of the initial beef we have with you" statement. Maybe it's a stretch for me to feel as such, but I'm not ruling it out (and, therefore, not basing any judgement on that alone), given all context of their belief to adhering(sp) strictly to their religion, which is supposed to be one of (unless provoked) peace, and from statements I've heard that have denounced the killing of innocent civilians in their campaign. I'm simply trying to take all things into account, not just what we are being lead to believe.

Al Qaeda has already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they target civilians, and their leader praised Allah because so many civilians were killed in the 9/11 attacks. I think we need to continue our Middle East occupation for a long time. If we withdrew, Bin Laden would call us a "paper tiger" just like he did when Clinton fled Somalia and really have a victory cry for recruiting terrorists. They would have orgasm producing confidence over that. I also think our Middle East activity is absolutely necessary for many other reasons.

I think you have good intentions and are clearly not one of the rabid leftists that is just looking for excuses to be hateful toward the Bush administration, but I don't agree with you on our Middle East policy and the nature of Islamofascism. I think we are dealing with something relentlessly hidesously evil that has to be destroyed.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

President Bush said "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Am I to believe that, since I don't agree with everything the Administration has been doing, I should feel like I should be looked at as a terrorist sympathizer, or that that statement to the American people might have been some over-the-top cowboy rhetoric that (while, possibly, well-intended) should not be taken completely literally? If the latter is the case, should we not be open to the possibility of Bin Laden's letter containing the same sort of propaganda?

I think Bush was talking to the leaders of nations when he said that. I don't think he meant that he would attack any country that does not support us. I am certain we don't have any plans of attacking France, for example, and I don't think he was trying to create the impression that we would. I think he was saying, "If you don't help us with this insane mess, screw you. Don't expect our help in the future."

I don't think Bin Laden was using mere propaganda in his answer to Q2. I know from many sources that that is the way Islamofascists really feel. Some Islamofascist governments kill homosexuals and adulterers and make women cover their entire bodies and forbid them from getting educations. The attitude is very real. Our free way of life is out of the question in their eyes, and they are very passionate about that. We make their blood boil by being so accepting of certain freedoms.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Al Qaeda has already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they target civilians, and their leader praised Allah because so many civilians were killed in the 9/11 attacks. I think we need to continue our Middle East occupation for a long time. If we withdrew, Bin Laden would call us a "paper tiger" just like he did when Clinton fled Somalia and really have a victory cry for recruiting terrorists. They would have orgasm producing confidence over that. I also think our Middle East activity is absolutely necessary for many other reasons.

Okay option 1. We leave and have a paper tiger call.

Option 2: We stay and continue to make ordinary citizens turn to terrorism.

I think you have good intentions and are clearly not one of the rabid leftists that is just looking for excuses to be hateful toward the Bush administration, but I don't agree with you on our Middle East policy and the nature of Islamofascism. I think we are dealing with something relentlessly hidesously evil that has to be destroyed.

We are, it's called the Federal Reserve and it's our motivation for being there.

No rabid leftist needs and excuse to hate Bush. He's using our money to fight a war in order to move American companies in to control that sector as well as force us to borrow money from the FR so we can end up owing international bankers every dime, plus interest.

Study some history for a change, what has generally been America's motivaton for war, democracy or money? If we add up every country we've ever invaded, we score a negative 50 in democracy.

Omnius Deus does have a point there. If my memory doesn't fail me, every military-driven nation-building effort undertaken since 1950 by the U.S. has failed because casualties and costs mounted without noticeable progress, and there have been many, regardless of the motivation for the war was. Each time the U.S. withdrew its forces, the situation left behind did not degenerate beyond the conditions that prevailed during the occupation. In some places, they improved.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Okay option 1. We leave and have a paper tiger call.

That would create a level of confidence so outrageous that it is out of the question. A much less publicized and important withdrawal is what gave Al Qaeda enough recruitment and decision confidence to commit 9/11.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Option 2: We stay and continue to make ordinary citizens turn to terrorism.

Nothing like what would be led to if we created the confidence booster resulting from our present withdrawal. Also, hope of a future of democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the Middle East (except Israel) would be dead forever.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

No rabid leftist needs and excuse to hate Bush. He's using our money to fight a war in order to move American companies in to control that sector as well as force us to borrow money from the FR so we can end up owing international bankers every dime, plus interest.

Rabid leftists are going to hate Bush no matter what he does, other than decide to be a poverty level Democrat and start talking about how much he hates the upper class.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Study some history for a change, what has generally been America's motivaton for war, democracy or money? If we add up every country we've ever invaded, we score a negative 50 in democracy.

How are Western Europe and Japan doing these days? Have Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union enjoyed new freedom in the past sixteen years? What about our own country? The freedom we fought for and earned for ourselves resulted in the wealthiest and most advanced nation in history, which became the world's greatest charity giver. Freedom is excellent for countries.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How are Western Europe and Japan doing these days? Have Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union enjoyed new freedom in the past sixteen years? What about our own country? The freedom we fought for and earned for ourselves resulted in the wealthiest and most advanced nation in history, which became the world's greatest charity giver. Freedom is excellent for countries.

Russia is about as free as China.

Perhaps a more relevant question is: How are Vietnam and South Korea today, decades after withdrawals that were supposed to lead to their being taken over by communists and tyrants? The wars that the U.S. waged in those countries seem most like the Iraq war.

They have become free states, and relatively prosperous too. Clearly, there is a reason for their success after the U.S. military could no longer provide security, and such historical incidents beg the question of whether the current war can be ended without the serious consequences that were envisioned by the supporters of those similar wars.

Originally Posted by Alric

Russia is about as free as China.

They are much freer than the Soviet Union. If we had written their constitution and stuck around for a while, they would be much better off.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Perhaps a more relevant question is: How are Vietnam and South Korea today, decades after withdrawals that were supposed to lead to their being taken over by communists and tyrants? The wars that the U.S. waged in those countries seem most like the Iraq war.

South Korea is well off because we finished the job there. South Vietnam is far worse off than it would have ended up if we had finished that job.

Thats open for debate. At this point of time it may just have well been a name change and nothing else. There really anything but free.

Originally Posted by Alric

Thats open for debate. At this point of time it may just have well been a name change and nothing else. There really anything but free.

I might agree if you are talking about South Vietnam. But South Korea is worlds better off than North Korea. I have relatives who have lived in South Korea. They would have never dreamed of stepping foot in North Korea.

You could also ask how was the Congo, Nicaragua, Chile, El Salvidor and Somalia doing after the US started screwing with their shit.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

You could also ask how was the Congo, Nicaragua, Chile, El Salvidor and Somalia doing after the US started screwing with their shit.

Bill Clinton withdrew from Somalia after about thirty seconds. All of those are good examples of why we need to continue efforts to the full extent and not play hit and run.

What would Vietnam look like if the U.S. had completed the job? What would make it so much better off? It developed into a secure, free nation, which was the sole reason for the occupation. Would the U.S. have remained in Vietnam to help it even after it was self-sufficient? Anyway, If we cannot sustain military action or another severe threat arises elsewhere, we may be forced to run against our will.

More significantly regarding hit-and-run wars, Gen. Wesley Clark(4-star retired general) wrote in his memoir A Time To Lead that he visited the pentagon and a classified memo was shown to him that indicated the administration planned to invade 7 countries in 5 years, one by one, in what can only be described as a hit-and-run strategy. He didn't read the memo, but it was a senior general that was indicating the strategy.

It's interesting, but of course it's clear why that strategy wasn't carried out. It presumed that democratic governments could be installed virtually overnight. It's still interesting that the same tactics used by Bill Clinton were considered.

Our presence in Somalia was there because the warlord had kicked out all international companies from the country and we came in there to get rid of him but ended up in a SNAFU, withdrawing was the wisest approach.

What would Vietnam look like if the U.S. had completed the job? What would make it so much better off? It developed into a secure, free nation, which was the sole reason for the occupation. Would the U.S. have remained in Vietnam to help it even after it was self-sufficient? Anyway, If we cannot sustain military action or another severe threat arises elsewhere, we may be forced to run against our will.

What was the cost of the American occupation of Vietnam?

3 Million civilan deaths, Hundreds of hectares forest destroyed-posioned by american airships.

Today their is an agent orange problem. Those that are being born are being born with handicaps such as retardation,deformities because of Agent Orange.

In canada there was a US testing facility there and a couple CDN Soldiers got exposed to it accidentally. They made an Uproar over this but in Vietnam thousands suffer silently, the US does very little or nothing to support these people they have maimed.

The amount of killings the US did to civilans in Vietnam is worse then any other genocide except for the holocuast ofcourse.

More significantly regarding hit-and-run wars, Gen. Wesley Clark(4-star retired general) wrote in his memoir A Time To Lead that he visited the pentagon and a classified memo was shown to him that indicated the administration planned to invade 7 countries in 5 years, one by one, in what can only be described as a hit-and-run strategy. He didn't read the memo, but it was a senior general that was indicating the strategy.

I'm curious what countries where on the list?

Iraq, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan, not necessarily in that order. I noticed that North Korea didn't make the list, which is odd all by itself.

The whole foundation of it all is that radical extremist Muslims are fighting a holy war. We may not be but that doesn't change the fact that they are. They know that we've got enough support that an all-out battle with us would mean suicide for them and their cause. Their intentions are to try to push us to a point where we blow up and unleash hell on them. That way, they have to green light to engage in full, no-holds-barred attacks without being viewed as anything other than "poor, innocent people trying to protect themselves". They want to look like they are the good guys. We are the roadblock to their global aspirations.

The radical movement has one major advantage over us: they are skillful masters at manipulating propaganda and media. How quickly we forget what they are really about. Don't listen to what they tell us: listen to what they tell their own people.