"The US Does Not Torture"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.D.735

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.

---

Such overthrows would be about taking financial and weapon power away from those governments, not to spread democracy overnight, though the seeds would be planted. Remember that the war in Iraq is about many things. Also, I don't trust the words of Author Wesley Clark. I have seen him interviewed a bunch of times, and he is a total politician. He has run for president, and I think he might even have a campaign going right now. What would he be doing revealing what was in a classified memo? How trustworthy would that be? So even if he is telling the truth, he has proven himself to be untrustworthy.

I am not a military strategist, but from what I can tell, Vietnam was not handled the right way. We should have never ever targeted civilians. We should have presented ourselves as liberators and tried to win over the public. Instead, we presented ourselves as terrorists and had the populations of North and South (not as much) Vietnam against us. I don't know much about what kind of country they turned out to be, but aren't they still under the rule of North Vietnam? The North is no longer a Soviet puppet, though I thought they were still communist. If South Vietnam is much bettter off, it is because the Soviet Union no longer works their strings. So interestingly, the Cold War that the Vietnam War was part of led to the improvements in South Vietnam. I am going to look more into this, but it looks like we might have finally won the Vietnam War after all this time. :) But much more importantly, we won the Cold War that it was part of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

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.

---

Withdrawing lit a superfire under Al Qaeda's ass and led to the 9/11 attacks. I am not sure we should have ever been there. I think it was Bill Clinton trying to look like a humanitarian, and when he saw that his political bullshit was about to backfire on his reputation, he pulled out. That's what kind of stuff you get when you put a used car salesman in the White House.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

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.

---

3 million? I thought it was 1 million. I have also read 2 million from very biased liberal sources. I guess it's uncertain. Any way, I have always been iffy on Vietnam. I definitely see the rationale behind the war. There was an argument with merit in support of it. However, I am not sure it was worth it. The main purpose of it was to show the Soviet Union just what kind of insanity we were willing to go through to stop the spread of communism. We wanted them to know that taking over countries via their puppets was going to be a million miles from a cake walk. I do believe we accomplished that. And we did end up winning the Cold War. However, I think there were better ways of handling the situation. For starters, we should have never targeted civilians the way we did. That was sick and counterproductive. We should have put a great deal of energy and resources into the assassination of Ho Chi Minh. We should have blown up every government building in Hanoi if we couldn't find him, but only after warning the civilians that we were going to. It should have been a war on the government and nobody else. I also have a major, major problem with the use of the draft for that war. I don't want anybody fighting for the country if they don't believe in the fight, especially if they are not cut out for fighting. Forcing every day Joe 18 year olds to go fight in a very gory war was extremely cruel and unnecessary. And I don't think bombing villages of families did a damn thing except create mass tragedy and rile up more opposition.

I think those lessons are what have us fighting the Iraq war the way it is being fought. If there is still an agent orange problem in Vietnam because of our use of it, we should be doing all we can to help the citizens there. We should also be sending secret missions into North Vietnam to rescue POW's. I am sure there are still a lot of our soldiers being held captive there. The Vietnam War sucked. Well really, all war sucks.

Quote:

---

3 million? I thought it was 1 million. I have also read 2 million from very biased liberal sources. I guess it's uncertain.

---

Well its hard to tell, because alot of the fighting was in the jungle as you know and to get accurate numbers is quite diffcult. The only statistic ive ever heard quoted before was 3 million though. but here is a Wiki page that gives several estimation for civilan and military deaths.

Also notice how it provides some information on those effected by Agent Orange.

But i can assure im not a liberal lol.

Im not american i dont call people Cons,LIbs or Neo cons or whatever names you guys like to use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bush

The U.S. does not torture.

---

But does it make it any better (or that statement any less deceitful) if we ship suspects off to the people that will do the torturing for us?

International Rendition

Extraordinary Rendition

There're just too many posts in this thread to read them all so I am going to jump in with a point that relates to some posts about 6 pages back. Namely, the dismissal of the idea that simply talking with a terrorist can reap any useful intelligence.

How do ordinary people become terrorists? They get talked into it. It is no stretch to say they can be talked out of it as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by little nemo

There're just too many posts in this thread to read them all so I am going to jump in with a point that relates to some posts about 6 pages back. Namely, the dismissal of the idea that simply talking with a terrorist can reap any useful intelligence.

How do ordinary people become terrorists? They get talked into it. It is no stretch to say they can be talked out of it as well.

---

Quote:

---

How do ordinary people become terrorists? They get talked into it. It is no stretch to say they can be talked out of it as well.

---

Perhaps but you are over simplifying...Its a gradual process that takes years of living and experences...

Nemo is oversimplifying very much. The answer isn't to try to convince one person. The problem is ingrained in their culture so the real solution is to influence their culture by showing them - as a whole - that there's a much better way to go about living in the global community.

To do that, there must be an active engagement diplomatically, socially, and economically, the goal being to befriend rather than antagonize their culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Although I'm no expert, I've read several accounts from interrogators, both current and former, that the most effective method is to gain the favor of the potential informant, by such ordinary means as conversation, having lunch with him, and interrogating him non-aggressively every day.

If one wants to get information quickly, to prevent an imminent attack, torture can provide information quickly, but it's a huge gamble that it will be accurate. If it isn't, the prisoner isn't likely to provide any reliable intelligence all, no matter what else is attempted.

The best information for preventing imminent attacks does not come from prisoners, but from civilians and informants sympathetic to us, who can provide reliable information and provide it quickly.

---

And if they've got the wrong guy?

Voting "No" in this poll means not thinking this is torture:

Spoiler for :

http://peacework.blogspot.com/upload...ure-715244.jpg

Spoiler for :

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/abughraib2.jpg

Spoiler for :

http://phillips.blogs.com/photos/unc...n_on_floor.jpg

Spoiler for :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/grap...16/wtort16.jpg

Spoiler for :

http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/I5628-2004May05.JPG

Yes, shocking photographs, that do not prove that this kind of behaviour is either common or reluctantly prevented in the US army, but they are still pictures of real people, in real pain. Claiming this is a 'rare occurrence' or something similar will not change what took place in Abu Ghraib.

The only reason people voted "No" on this poll, and I am glad to see only a few did, was because somehow they are biased. Or can those that do not think US soldiers have tortured assure me that if they had no knowledge of these photos, and thus did not know the people being subjected to these things are suspected terrorists, they would have said: "No, this doesn't look like torture."?

I highly doubt that anyone would not find this to be torture if he or she had no knowledge and bias before saying these photos (or hearing the stories from some released innocent people that undergone similar treatment).

You can not but admit that US soldiers have, at least in the past, seeing these photos, tortured people. Anyone who denies this, either has a very strange definition of torture, or is not thinking rationally but is acting on blind hate for anything their government has labelled "terrorist".

If I am mistaken, and the above does not depict torture, feel free to explain what the definition of torture is, exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neruo

Warning, shocking pictures.

---------------

Yes, shocking photographs, that do prove that this kind of behaviour is common or is reluctantly prevented in the US army, but they are still pictures of real people, in real pain. Claiming this is a 'rare occurrence' or something similar will not change what took place in Abu Ghraib.

---

I hope (and I think) you meant "...that do NOT prove..." because the offenders have already been punished for treating those people that way.

I call bullsh!t on that post because that only shows that some assholes are out there. It doesn't at all support your apparent implication that it's somehow a "method" that's sanctioned or supported by the US government. And yes, I know what you said but, the fact that you're trying to present that as evidence tells me you're trying to imply that it "obviously" means "the US does torture people".

So a some people are dickheads. That doesn't mean shit. It certainly doesn't mean that "the US tortures people". You might as well say "ugly people are murderers", just because a few have stepped over the line and have done things that aren't allowed or accepted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neruo

Spoiler for Warning, shocking pictures.:

Voting "No" in this poll means not thinking this is torture:


http://peacework.blogspot.com/upload...ure-715244.jpg

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/abughraib2.jpg

http://phillips.blogs.com/photos/unc...n_on_floor.jpg

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/grap...16/wtort16.jpg

http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/I5628-2004May05.JPG

Yes, shocking photographs, that do prove that this kind of behaviour is common or is reluctantly prevented in the US army, but they are still pictures of real people, in real pain. Claiming this is a 'rare occurrence' or something similar will not change what took place in Abu Ghraib.

The only reason people voted "No" on this poll, and I am glad to see only a few did, was because somehow they are biased. Or can those that do not think US soldiers have tortured assure me that if they had no knowledge of these photos, and thus did not know the people being subjected to these things are suspected terrorists, they would have said: "No, this doesn't look like torture."?

I highly doubt that anyone would not find this to be torture if he or she had no knowledge and bias before saying these photos (or hearing the stories from some released innocent people that undergone similar treatment).

You can not but admit that US soldiers have, at least in the past, seeing these photos, tortured people. Anyone who denies this, either has a very strange definition of torture, or is not thinking rationally but is acting on blind hate for anything their government has labelled "terrorist".

If I am mistaken, and the above does not depict torture, feel free to explain what the definition of torture is, exactly.

---

Those should at least be within spoiler brackets, by the forum's rules.

Though, i personally couldn't care less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

I hope (and I think) you meant "...that do NOT prove..." because the offenders have already been punished for treating those people that way.

---

Awh gosh dangit. I always check for this kind of HUGE mistakes that TOTALLY ruin the entire post, but sometimes they slip through, causing some huge contradictions . Of course I meant that it does Not prove it is found normal. (It just proved that it happened at least with a couple of prisoners).

Quote:

---

I call bullsh!t on that post because that only shows that some assholes are out there. It doesn't at all support your apparent implication that it's somehow a "method" that's sanctioned or supported by the US government. And yes, I know what you said but, the fact that you're trying to present that as evidence tells me you're trying to imply that it "obviously" means "the US does torture people".

---

lol. You "call bullshit" on my post?

Also, didn't I made clear enough that all I was doing was answering the question "Do You Feel the U.S. Tortures Enemy Combatants?". To that, I explained, the answer would have to be yes, since it has happened at least one time. (see pictures)

Quote:

---

So a some people are dickheads. That doesn't mean shit. It certainly doesn't mean that "the US tortures people". You might as well say "ugly people are murderers", just because a few have stepped over the line and have done things that aren't allowed or accepted.

---

Oh gosh, I didn't know people stopped being US citizens if they torture people. Or does the entire country need to do something before you can say: "the US torture people"?

Probably you meant to say the US government's policy doesn't approve of torture just because a few US individuals have tortured people. Well, even that can be debated. Some methods that go way to far, such as water boarding, haven't been forbidden or even criticized -to my knowledge- by the US government. And that certainly makes it look like they have ideas about torture that are not in line with the Geneva-agreements on human rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neruo

To that, I explained, the answer would have to be yes, since it has happened at least one time. (see pictures)

---

Then what a shitty way to over-generalise.
------------------------------------------
New poll:

Do you feel that redheads murder children?

X - Yes

... - No
---------------------------------------------

I saw a news story once where some red-haired lady killed her own child. Now that I understand your logic I can confidently choose "Yes, I feel that redheads murder children" because obviously red-haired people DO murder children.

Oh wait, that would be stupid of me because obviously one minute, rogue exception to the rule doesn't prove - or even begin to support - a damn thing.

Remember, one asshole doesn't represent the country. Just because some jerk does something doesn't mean "the country" does it.

The government has already admited to being allowed to use torture, and have said it can be useful. And they are always trying to change the definition od torture. So even though they say they dont really torture anyone its just a word game to them, and its pretty easy to see through.

Neruo, those pictures don't prove much that anyone with a basic understanding of the psychology of prisoner/captive relationship doesn't already understand. It was absolutely inevitable. When you put under-educated nineteen-year-olds in charge of prisoners, this is what happens. Unfortunately, the complete lack of even the most basic knowledge of psychology and human nature by the people in charge is what led to that embarrassing display.

Those are ameteurs; what do you think happens when the pros get a hold of them? That's right, they don't let pictures get out.

Some of us don't think the price is worth it.

It is inevitable to have not just extreme interrogation methods, but actually torture people, as it seems, purely for 'fun'? Ironically, it indeed was extremely predictable. If you give people control like that, as in Abu Graibh, they are bound to torture(, as in that famous university experiment that shows people go power-crazy quite quickly). However, doesn't it being predictable make it even more bad? Wasn't there someone that thought this through? Isn't there some council for human rights in the US army that warns and prevents such situations where people are extremely likely to torture and abuse other people?

Actually, you're right. It isn't the fault of those few rotten apples, it is the fault of their superiors placing them in situations -an uncontrolled dominant position over people they learned to hate ("terrorists")- that, according to modern psychology will make almost all apples go bad.

I would have to conclude the US army is responsible for torture by fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neruo

It is inevitable to have not just extreme interrogation methods, but actually torture people, as it seems, purely for 'fun'? Ironically, it indeed was extremely predictable. If you give people control like that, as in Abu Graibh, they are bound to torture(, as in that famous university experiment that shows people go power-crazy quite quickly). However, doesn't it being predictable make it even more bad? Wasn't there someone that thought this through? Isn't there some council for human rights in the US army that warns and prevents such situations where people are extremely likely to torture and abuse other people?

---

That's exactly what I'm talking about. So you know about this phenomenon, but the high-ranking officers in charge evidently never heard of it. I don't know the answer to that question, but evidently not. That's bad enough, but what's worse is the torture that is planned and approved of.

Just like any jail you have a boss who watches over everyone else. Seeing as how this is the military I find it hard to believe he didn't know. Infact I wouldn't be surprised if everyone there knew. The question is, is it the offically policy or was it the 'unoffical' policy to torture people. Of course the answer doesn't really matter since its exactly the same thing, and only said one way to cover the butts of higher ranking people when they get caught.

A few 19 year old idiots put some underwear on the heads of some terrorists. That does not mean Bush secretly has a pro-torture policy. The U.S. military is enormous. Some people are going to break rules.

And by the way, the terrorists can go screw themselves. I hope everybody agrees with me on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A few 19 year old idiots put some underwear on the heads of some terrorists. That does not mean Bush secretly has a pro-torture policy. The U.S. military is enormous. Some people are going to break rules.

And by the way, the terrorists can go screw themselves. I hope everybody agrees with me on that.

---

I disagree.

If someone thinks and acts differently compared to the so called "majority", regardless of materialistic moral values, that person should not be persecuted by judgement.

It is judgement that forces duality. You have to spite the face, if you cut off the nose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cloudWalker

I disagree.

If someone thinks and acts differently compared to the so called "majority", regardless of materialistic moral values, that person should not be persecuted by judgement.

It is judgement that forces duality. You have to spite the face, if you cut off the nose.

---

What does that point have to do with mine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

And by the way, the terrorists can go screw themselves. I hope everybody agrees with me on that.

---

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A few 19 year old idiots put some underwear on the heads of some terrorists. That does not mean Bush secretly has a pro-torture policy. The U.S. military is enormous. Some people are going to break rules.

---

It was the lack of leadership there that was the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

And by the way, the terrorists can go screw themselves. I hope everybody agrees with me on that.

---

If you mean the 911 terrorists, they were Egyptian and Saudi, not Iraqi.

One guy who had been in Abu Graib when Saddam was in power and then after the US invaded said it was better when Saddam was in power; at least they weren't naked.

*coughcoughOnce Againcough*

And to add to that:

Exporting Torture: US Rendition and European Outrage

U.S. Treatment of Terror Suspects and U.S.-EU Relations

CIA Chief Defends US Rendition, Detention Policies

I'm pretty sure the debate on whether or not the U.S. tortures (and by that, I do include "shipping people off of U.S. soil and/or taking enemy combatants that never touch the U.S., to places where it's reasonable to believe they will be tortured") has been, pretty much concluded. (Or, as to cover all my bases, there is much more supporting evidence for the argument that they do, than that they don't.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

And by the way, the terrorists can go screw themselves. I hope everybody agrees with me on that.

---

I definitely agree 100%. And to the "terrible" cases where a poor, helpless terrorist gets his jaw shattered or is forced to wear underwear on his head I say: "So fucking what. Sometimes people actually get what they deserve." They have no rights. They were dead to rights the moment they joined the wrong team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cloudWalker

I disagree.

---

So exactly what part of that do you disagree with? The "the terrorists can go screw themselves." part or the that "Some people are going to break rules."? Because honestly, to disagree with of those seems pretty darn ignorant. You'd have to purposely be wearing blinders.