• Lucytorial said on Feb 18, 2008....

  Very traumatic... the funny thing is D6 I wonder to myself if they the people doing this think it is torture or their sick way of justice????

• destinydiva said on Feb 18, 2008....

  omg ...  i couldnt watch...  I saw enough to get the general idea tho...  sickening world that we live in 

• stopmediabias said on Feb 18, 2008....

  Nasty....

  See, these guys don't seemed to versed on the Geneva conventions.  And we are the bad guys for waterboarding the same type of people who do this kind of crap.

• TinSoldier said on Feb 18, 2008....

  So the immoral actions of our enemies automatically absolve our own actions?

• stopmediabias said on Feb 18, 2008....

  No, what this does is it puts torture into context and shows how ridiculous the Liberal left is in their comparing the United States with Al Qaeda(in regards to torture).  A few minutes of simulated drowning due to a perceived threat to National Security doesn't throw us into the same realm as the scum in this video.

  It also shows how ridiculous the Geneva Conventions are which is a bunch of vague rules that everyone but the savages of the world follow.  The same savages that when captured want Geneva Convention protections.

   

• curmudgeon said on Feb 18, 2008....

  It doesn't matter whether they feel it's torture or justice. The point is that they treat fellow human beings (and very likely members of their own faith and culture) in such a cruel way while we are literally torturing ourselves over three (count 'em THREE) cases of subjecting people to 90 seconds or less of water up the nose.
  1. The UN will say nothing about what these people are doing. Neither will the UN do anything about it.
  2. The International Criminal Court will do nothing about this heinous crime.
  3. The Democrats will attempt to blame Bush for this act of barbarity.
  4. The leftist media will go on excoriating Bush, the intelligence community and everyone else they have a beef with while completely giving the terrorists a free pass.

  The choices in the struggle against terrorism are not between good and bad - they are between bad and worse. If waterboarding works, and a former interrogater has come out publicly to say that it has worked, then we ought not stop it if it will save American lives.

   

• silverwhisper said on Feb 19, 2008....

  smb, nobody's comparing the US to al qaeda.
  
  ed

• stopmediabias said on Feb 20, 2008....

  silver-You and and bloc have compared us to just about every terrible country or group that has ever tortured anyone.  You guys have dug a huge hole and I love it because your following the path of looking weak just like your Democrat friends in Congress.

  Curmudg-Brilliant!  Very well said.

• silverwhisper said on Feb 20, 2008....

  smb: really? where's your evidence? i've heard enough of your assertions now that i know that they generally require some measure of support. :>
  
  

  curmudgeon quoth:
  if waterboarding works, and a former interrogater has come out publicly to say that it has worked, then we ought not stop it if it will save american lives.

  
  then why hasn't that happened in the past 2 or so years ever? if it really did work, why not do exactly that? if that's the truth, why not say it?
  
  b/c that isn't what we get. what we get instead is mike mukasey's half-assed fumbling. even wingnut alberto gonzalez never said that and he's the biggest bush apologist on the planet outside of foxnews.
  
  ed

• stopmediabias said on Feb 20, 2008....

  Silver- I recall you agreeing with the cowardly Canadians who placed us on a list with people who actually torture.  And do you ever stop to think that maybe our enemies are listening to what we are saying?  Should we be talking about interrogation techniques or any asset in fighting these terrorists?  Obviously the traders and the extreme left in the drive-by media would say no. 
   
  Here we go with foxnews garbage again.  For someone that doesn't like to be called a Liberal you sure do wear it on your sleave.

• silverwhisper said on Feb 20, 2008....

  we're a nation that does torture. prisoners are under US government control. torture is applied. QED. it's very, very simple, smb.
  
  but that is not at all the same thing as comparing the US to al qaeda, and it's insultingly stupid for you to try to make the claim.
  
  fox"news" is garbage. remember them selling their souls for giuliani when he announced he was running? and what's happened now? :>
  
  ed

• stopmediabias said on Feb 21, 2008....

  "the fact is that the US government deserves the label:
  
  1. it's incontrovertible fact that the US uses waterboarding: the government has already stated that they do.
  2. it's incontrovertible fact that the practice of waterboarding historically was always seen as torture by the US government. we didn't like it when the vietnamese did it to our POWs.
  3. it's incontrovertible fact that prisoners--o, excuse me, i meant "unlawful combatants"--were subjected to waterboarding.
  ergo: the US government can and will torture people in its custody.
  the article adds that other nations on the list are israel, afghanistan, china, egypt, iran, saudi arabia, mexico and syria. obviously, the commander-in-chief spent too much time in the company of saudis: their bad habits must be rubbing off."

  These are your words Silver.  You're trying to cover your ass but you and Bloc are in deep.
  

• silverwhisper said on Feb 22, 2008....

  right, but remember your ridiculous assertion that i compared the US to al qaeda? that was either just plain wrong or a lie, and now that you see it, you're trying to backpedal furiously now.
  
  and yes, i said that the US conducts torture. i never said otherwise. but that is not at all the same thing as comparing us to iran or whoever, and if you think they are, you're not particularly bright.
  
  ed

• TinSoldier said on Feb 22, 2008....

  I think the point is that we anti-torture and anti-waterboarding types say that "the VC and the Japanese and other groups have used this method [waterboarding] and we have prosecuted them for it."
  
  So when we point out the hypocrisy in our use of the method then we are comparing us [the US] to the most vile of our enemies. QED.
  

• D6fer said on Feb 22, 2008....

  have we prosecuted others for waterboarding? Got any links?

• TinSoldier said on Feb 22, 2008....

  I'm taking ed's word (and others) on it, but I'll look it up quickly for you...
  
  Ah, here we go: ABC News.
  
  Yes, it is controversial. But here are some relevant quotes:
  
  
  According to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., himself a torture victim during the Vietnam War, the water board technique is a "very exquisite torture" that should be outlawed.
  
  
  
  "Torture is defined under the federal criminal code as the intentional infliction of severe mental pain or suffering," said John Sifton, an attorney and researcher with the organization Human Rights Watch. "That would include water boarding."
  
  
  (Which I've mentioned before with regards to the UN Convention Against Torture).
  
  
  "Even when you're fighting against belligerents who don't respect the laws of war, we are obliged to hold the laws of war," said Rejali. "And water torture is torture."
  
  
  The dancing around the issue that the government has done is a classic CYA maneuver. It really boils down to "we know that it's wrong, but we don't want anyone who did it to be punished for it."
  
  Is it equal to pouring gasoline on living people and setting them on fire? No, of course not. But we already know that we're better than that.
  
  Oh, and to answer your specific question:
  
  
  "The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.
  
  
  From this link:
  
  In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.
  
  
  And this:
  
  Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison.
  
  
  Do you want me to find more, or are we good?
  

• D6fer said on Feb 22, 2008....

  I still dont see where we specifically tried other coutries for waterboarding.....kind of vague.....only in the case of the sheriff....and that is apples and oranges

• TinSoldier said on Feb 22, 2008....

  Other countries? WTF are you talking about?

• D6fer said on Feb 22, 2008....

  I think the point is that we anti-torture and anti-waterboarding types say that "the VC and the Japanese and other groups have used this method [waterboarding] and we have prosecuted them for it."
  
  this is what you said.
  

• stopmediabias said on Feb 23, 2008....

  Silver-you're hilarious.  How many times has the Liberal left compared President Bush, Our Country, the war, to either the Nazis, Al Qaeda, Saddam etc...  Ted Kennedy saying Abu Graib has been re-opened under new managment. 

  So I'm "backpedaling furiously" oh no he's caught me in a lie:>

  "and yes, i said that the US conducts torture. i never said otherwise. but that is not at all the same thing as comparing us to iran or whoever, and if you think they are, you're not particularly bright."

  If you say "the US conducts torture" and you put us on a list with countries that torture people, you are making a comparison.  You aren't saying "the US uses controversial methods of interogation that some people believe is torture while others say it isn't."  You are saying we torture, just like Iran and Al Qaeda.

  
   

• stopmediabias said on Feb 23, 2008....

  Tin: This is where I have a problem with your argrument:

   Col. Keeley: And then did he take you back to your room? Navarro: When Yuki could not get anything out of me, he wanted the interpreter to place me down below. And I was told by Yuki to take off all my clothes, so what I did was to take off my clothes as ordered. I was ordered to lay on a bench and Yuki tied my feet, hands and neck to that bench, lying with my face upward. After I was tied to the bench, Yuki placed some cloth on my face. And then with water from the faucet, they poured on me until I became unconscious. He repeated that four or five times. You mean he brought water and poured water down your throat? No sir, on my face, until I became unconscious. We were lying that way, with some cloth on my face, and then Yuki poured water on my face continuously. "

  I see in this quote from your link a person who was waterboarded.  When we compare this to the three people we waterboarded I see completely different scenerios in different times under different circumstances.  How long was this guy waterboarded compared to our three?  Who supervised this?  Who monitored this?  Who gave the ok for this to happen? 

  Maybe I'm naive but 1to 2 minutes of waterboarding compared to what a half hour to an hour is far different, especially when the circumstances on our side are thousands of civilian and military lives at stake from an enemy that has no country, flag, uniform, etc.  

  "Torture is defined under the federal criminal code as the intentional infliction of severe mental pain or suffering," said John Sifton, an attorney and researcher with the organization Human Rights Watch. "That would include water boarding."

  an attorney from Human Rights Watch would think sitting across the room shooting squirts of water from a squirtgun is torture.  This is the huge problem with this debate.  How do you define what is "severe mental pain" when there are people like Sifton who would argue load music, slapping, yelling at, etc as severe mental pain? 

• TinSoldier said on Feb 23, 2008....

  D6 -- I meant individuals. Can you come up with an example of "prosecuting a country" for any kind of torture? That's why your question didn't make sense.
  
  SMB -- and so we're back into the same area of disagreement about the necessity, efficacy, and definitions of torture.
  
  One of the sites I linked to mention how waterboarding was more often used by countries who didn't want to use traditional forms of torture, and that the more brutal countries didn't bother with waterboarding because they had no problems using worse methods.
  
  *shrug*
  

• silverwhisper said on Feb 23, 2008....

  smb quoth:
  how many times has the liberal left compared president bush, our country, the war, to either the nazis, al qaeda, saddam etc...ted kennedy saying abu graib has been re-opened under new managment.

  
  i don't know, and i don't care: i haven't said those things. and yes, you most certainly are backpedaling furiously--be careful, you're likely to injure your calves if you keep it up, smb. :>
  
  

  smb asserted:
  if you say "the US conducts torture" and you put us on a list with countries that torture people, you are making a comparison. you aren't saying "the US uses controversial methods of interogation that some people believe is torture while others say it isn't." you are saying we torture, just like iran and al qaeda.

  
  no comparison is present, smb, despite your repeated assertions in the utter and complete absence of argumentation. the countries on the list all conduct torture. if that's the comparison you're talking about: yes, obviously, all countries are comparable in that some measure of torture is being conducted. in the US however we aren't in the habit of doing that, which is precisely why abu ghraib was such a shock to americans: we know that isn't the way our servicemen and women conduct themselves.
  
  but please, do try to extrapolate a very simple statement into something evil and scary. i'm sure it's bound to be very, very entertaining.
  
  ed

• stopmediabias said on Feb 25, 2008....

  Tin-I don't give shit about waterboarding, use it, don't use it.  Technically if we define torture the way Human Rights Watch does then every lawyer with a grudge against the U.S. (Lynn Stewart) will aledge every form of interogation is torture.

  Silver- What is wrong with you?

  I made a factual statement when I said: "silver-You and and bloc have compared us to just about every terrible country or group that has ever tortured anyone. "  Get over it.  All one needs to do is go to blocs site and read about torture.  Most of his links are from the lunatic fringe that hate America.  Since everytime bloc breaks wind you are there to tell everyone what he ate I assume you agree with him in his terrible comparisons.

   

• TinSoldier said on Feb 25, 2008....

  Right, SMB. Which is something that I've pointed out before.

• silverwhisper said on Feb 25, 2008....

  smb: what's wrong with me? that's the pot calling the kettle black if ever there was a case of it! what's wrong with your reading comprehension? since you don't get it: you're factually wrong in every regard.
  
  as usual.
  
  ed

• bloc said on Feb 26, 2008....

  I have never said that our torture is the same as al queda's torture. Such lies are typical smb.
  
  The fact is that we torture even by our own standards that have been in place for over 100 years. So if I believe that Canada was right for placing us on such a list it is not a comparison between us and Al Qaeda. This idea that our actions are perfectly OK because someone else has done something worse is nonsense, and a lesson most people learn in kindergarten. It isn't OK for me to steal because someone else murders.
  

• stopmediabias said on Feb 26, 2008....

  No lies here, go to your own site and read some of the shit you espouse.  And what is this with the Canadians?  Any half-assed American would say "fuck the the Canadians" and you guys are sniveling that they are right.  They aren't right and they are a disgrace.

  once again the "two wrongs don't make it right" 

  In my opinion when you say "Bush tortures people", it is far different from "Kalid Sheik Mohammed was waterboarded." 

   When you say KSM you put it into context with the real world.  KSM is a hardcore terrorist and no-one gives a shit if he is waterboarded or even tortured.  Outside of that if KSM is thick-skinned enough to saw someones head off then he can handle some simulated drowning. 

   

• bloc said on Feb 26, 2008....

  waterboarding is torture. We've always called it torture when done to americans. If Bush uses waterboarding it is still torture.
  
  If you want to argue that we need to torture people to be safe then be honest about it.
  
  Also, Bush has authorized far more than waterboarding. Induced hypothermia is another torture technique our government has used. Stress positions are another.
  
  This is an easy way to show that these are torture. Is it OK for other countries to use these techniques on capture americans?
  

• stopmediabias said on Feb 27, 2008....

  Waterboarding, induced hypothermia, stress postitions, oh my....

  We've been through all of this, and in the end all of this pussifying (Silver that is not a real word) of our military and intelligence agencies is just going to get more people killed.  If you seem to have a better idea on how to ring information out of a Jiadist in a short period of time I'd be interested in hearing it.

  "Is it OK for other countries to use these techniques on capture americans?"

  How many times are you going to ask this question?  Bloc listen:  We are the good guys.  No it is not OK for anyone to even fight with or capture an American because the people we fight are most of the time evil.  Do you think if Al Qaeda captures and American they are going to give them a Bible and three squares a day along with waterboarding, hyporthermia, and stress positions?  If they do it is not OK (the w-h-s), just like it is not OK to saw peoples heads off or set people on fire.  Bloc believe it or not, we are in the right here.

• silverwhisper said on Feb 27, 2008....

  smb quoth:
  we are the good guys. no it is not OK for anyone to even fight with or capture an american because the people we fight are most of the time evil.

  
  you really think that, don't you? so according to you, nothing the US ever does can ever possibly be morally wrong. wow.
  
  
  
  so about that part i italicized: what about when they aren't evil? what then?
  
  ed

• stopmediabias said on Feb 28, 2008....

  Silver-When do we ever go to war when the opposition is not soaked up to the neck in blood.  Our country is not perfect but at the same time we are and have been a major source of good in the world and an example for other countries to follow. 

  Morally wrong?  Are we going to go down the road of what is morally right and wrong in a war? 

• D6fer said on Feb 28, 2008....

  SMB.......this is like beating your head against a brick wall! They (Bloc, Ed, Kelly, etc) do not believe in war, so they try to undermine the effort any way they can. Even if it means taking a stance somewhat to the right of their true beliefs......it's not cool to actually spit on soldiers anymore, so they have to try and undermine the efforts of our nation under the guise of actually caring for it! he he he [puts on liberal spit-proof raincoat]

• TinSoldier said on Feb 28, 2008....

  Nothing like making an ad-hominem attack in the middle of a serious discussion instead of trying to understand your opponents' points of view.

• bloc said on Feb 28, 2008....

  "Silver-When do we ever go to war when the opposition is not soaked up to the neck in blood."
  
  The native americans.
  mexico
  the Philipines.
  vietnam (they wanted democracy and freedom from french colonialism. we fought to prevent democracy)
  I can go on, but you get the point.
  

• D6fer said on Feb 28, 2008....

  take it easy tin....it was a bit tongue and cheek there!

• stopmediabias said on Feb 29, 2008....

  D6-Scary isn't it....

  Bloc-good points, except for Vietnam, and how long do we have to feel guilty about the Native Americans?

• silverwhisper said on Feb 29, 2008....

  smb, don't try to backpedal and don't try the non sequitur game. you said yourself that the people we fight for the most part are evil. therefore, you raised the subject yourself. so what happens when the people we fight aren't evil? what does that make them, or us?
  
  d6: that wasn't tongue in cheek. you just can't handle anything that rises above the level of talk radio sound bites. i keep telling you, talk radio is harming your ability to conduct a real discussion. the tricks of talk radio hosts: cutting the mike, non sequiturs, etc, are all about undermining the other guy.
  
  ed

• D6fer said on Feb 29, 2008....

  btw tin.....why do I need to try and understand my opponents point of view, when I know they are wrong?
  
  There is no middle on issues....you have to agree with one side or the other.
  

• stopmediabias said on Mar 01, 2008....

  Silver-Your dwindling argument has come to the point we have compare what we do to what our enemies do in a war.  In WW2 we dropped napalm on Japan and killed 80,000 people when an entire city went up in flames.  Does that mean it's all right for Japan to the same to us?  Generally when the United States military is sent to war it is against very bad people.  I love my country and trust that what we do in world is the right thing.  You detest your country and think everything we do is either for power, greed, or some type of wierd bloodlust I'm really not sure. 
   
  Bottom line:    "Is it OK for other countries to use these techniques on capture americans?"  This is a stupid question because most of the time when an American is caught by an American enemy that enemy does every sort of unGodly thing we can only dredge up in movies like Hostel. 
   
  Now if a Native American captures a member of our Government that has information on the theft of more of their land and waterboarding that person will stop this theft, then I say YES waterboard that fucker :>
  

• TinSoldier said on Mar 01, 2008....

  btw tin.....why do I need to try and understand my opponents point of view, when I know they are wrong?
  
  There is no middle on issues....you have to agree with one side or the other.
  
  
  Then why bother discussing anything? If you are right, you are right and the other guy is wrong (although just as convinced of his rightness) and... there is no progress to be made.
  
  We might as well shut off our computers and go do something useful!
  

• D6fer said on Mar 01, 2008....

  It's a debate.....a battle.....you play to win! ;p

• silverwhisper said on Mar 02, 2008....

  smb bleated:
  your dwindling argument has come to the point we have compare what we do to what our enemies do in a war. in WW2 we dropped napalm on japan and killed 80,000 people when an entire city went up in flames. does that mean it's all right for japan to the same to us? generally when the united states military is sent to war it is against very bad people. i love my country and trust that what we do in world is the right thing. you detest your country and think everything we do is either for power, greed, or some type of wierd bloodlust i'm really not sure.

  
  napalm? you're arguing napalm when we nuked hiroshima and nagasaki? you really need to learn some history, smb. seriously, how old are you, roughly? b/c you sound like a teenager.
  
  and no, my point has remained precisely the same: the US is capable of being morally wrong, has been, is now about something or other i'm sure, and will be in the future, b/c any human leadership is fallible and imperfect. you however continue bleating on and on about random tangential issues while completely ignoring the question.
  
  if the US goes to war against another country (e.g., vietnam) and we are not morally in the right, what does that make us? what does that make the enemy?
  
  you can't answer that question, can you? you can't even imagine such a thing, can you?
  
  you aren't a patriot. you're a jingoist. you believe that so long as this country does it, it's more or less OK. i haven't encountered a single adult who's ever uttered such a blind admission of non-critical thinking in my life--and i've seen some pretty shocking examples of failure to think critically.
  
  ed

• D6fer said on Mar 02, 2008....

  jingoist.....a term created by an anti-american maybe?
  
  apparently....Teddy Roosevelt was accused of this from time to time....and had this to say:  "There is much talk about 'jingoism'. If by 'jingoism' they mean a policy in pursuance of which Americans will with resolution and common sense insist upon our rights being respected by foreign powers, then we are 'jingoes'."
  
  you go Teddy!
  

• silverwhisper said on Mar 02, 2008....

  well, here's an article from wikipedia about it. but if you prefer, here's one from merriam-webster, and another from dictionary.com.
  
  ed

• stopmediabias said on Mar 04, 2008....

  Tin-we Neo-cons have this delusional belief we can change people and bring them over to our side.  Even though it is delusional it does work sometimes.

  Silver- "sigh"  You should actually think before you go spouting off.  How many people were killed during Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  We dropped two bombs on them and killed way more than 80,000. 

  At one point in our history we dropped napalm on a city in Japan and due to the fact most of the homes are made of bamboo the entire city was burned.  Around 80,000 people were killed.  Just a wild guess will tell you what city.

  "and no, my point has remained precisely the same: the US is capable of being morally wrong, has been, is now about something or other i'm sure, and will be in the future, b/c any human leadership is fallible and imperfect. 

  I did not say our country is perfect and once again you ask and ask and you never answer.  

   if the US goes to war against another country (e.g., vietnam) and we are not morally in the right, what does that make us? what does that make the enemy?

  What is wrong with you?  What kind of ignoramous questions are these?  I'm not going to give you a history lesson (because I know it will do no good)but did you fucking forget over 50,000 Americans were killed in a war we had won.  But because of scumbag dare I say Liberals we rushed out and what was the result?  A pure slaughter.  All that blood is not on Conservative hands.  Morally right?  Do you really as a Liberal want to go down that road?  Did all those Americans die for immoral cause?  You should be ashamed.

  If you are going to sit back and accuse America of being the same as or less than the enemies we have fought in war then stick your thumb back in your mouth and slob up to Canada where they will wipe your ass for you because you don't belong here.  You and bloc have a stink on you with your hatred for the POTUS.

   

   

  
   

• bloc said on Mar 04, 2008....

  vietnam was being occupied by France. They wanted independence and demcracy, something that America should have supported. Instead we paid for 2/3s of the cost of the French war against the people of vietnam.
  
  Was that immoral, I think so.
  

• silverwhisper said on Mar 05, 2008....

  smb bleated:
  what is wrong with you? what kind of ignoramous questions are these? i'm not going to give you a history lesson (because i know it will do no good)but did you fucking forget over 50,000 americans were killed in a war we had won. but because of scumbag dare i say liberals we rushed out and what was the result? a pure slaughter. all that blood is not on conservative hands. morally right? do you really as a liberal want to go down that road? did all those americans die for immoral cause? you should be ashamed.

  
  pathetic, smb. all of this is a very clumsy evasion b/c you still can't answer the questions: when our enemy isn't evil, what does that make them when we go to war? what does it make us? and how do you define evil? for you, is it as superficial and meaningless as "anti-american"?
  
  this isn't talk radio, smb. quit taking your cues from it. IOW: just like the discussion about gay marriage, i've been making you my bitch again. you must like it though b/c you keep coming back for more, don't you? that must say something about you. i wonder what...
  
  

  smb also bleated:
  if you are going to sit back and accuse america of being the same as or less than the enemies we have fought in war then stick your thumb back in your mouth and slob up to canada where they will wipe your ass for you because you don't belong here. you and bloc have a stink on you with your hatred for the POTUS.

  
  neocon(vict)s are all the same: all sound, no bite. get back to me when you can address some points instead of your usual MO of making vacuous and brainless attacks.
  
  ed

• stopmediabias said on Mar 05, 2008....

  Bloc-we went into Vietnam backing the South against the communist North and the Vietcong.  This is after the French had all ready withdrawn.  I've worked side by side with men who would stick their fist in your face if you told them their cause in Vietnam was immoral.  We demmoralized and set-back the communist Vietcong during the Tet offensive in 1968 for years and the media portrayed it as an American loss.

  Silver-Can you answer just one question?  It's always the same, you repeat back what I say then make witty little insults. 

   "when our enemy isn't evil, what does that make them when we go to war? what does it make us? and how do you define evil? for you, is it as superficial and meaningless as "anti-american"?"

  You have yet to find a realistic enemy that didn't deserve what we gave them.  I don't know where you come up with the fact the Communist Vietcong were not evil.  I define evil in the actions bad people, Hitler, Stalin, Saddam,etc..the actions taken on by these people as whole and how these actions hurt the world is how I can say they are evil. 

  And what is this making you my bitch stuff?  I don't know how to tell you this Silver but I'm a straight married (to a female) male and don't really go that way.

   I also love how you slick right out of the debate.  You brought up the moral issue.  Tell me was it morally right to let the list of 30,000 South Vietnamese allies slip into communist hands because we rushed out of Vietnam?  Can you take a wild guess as to what happened to those 30,000 people? 
  

• silverwhisper said on Mar 05, 2008....

  ah, smb...you haven't asked me a question. if you feel that you have, i suggest going back and making sure you weren't actually addressing it to bloc instead.
  
  now, this bit of brainless knee-jerk reactionaryism: "you have yet to find a realistic enemy that didn't deserve what we gave them."...hoo boy, child, that's just plain sad. it was a simple enough question, smb: you said the people we fight are evil. not bad, not that they deserved to be fought: that they're evil. you know, cloven hooves, horns, pointy tail and all that. why are you backpedaling so furiously? don't try to change the subject. vietnam? don't make me laugh: we weren't there b/c we gave a damn about vietnam--it was the domino theory lie. we went in there to prop up a corrupt and doomed regime, smb. we meddled. just like we historically have done in the middle east.
  
  yes, i brought up the morality b/c the statement you made--which i quoted--is the stupidest thing i've seen a person say. ever.
  
  i use the expression "made you my bitch" b/c it seems that you think you can make personal attacks without regard to consequence. i thought that doing so might get your attention enough to make you understand that doing so merely detracts.
  
  ed

• stopmediabias said on Mar 05, 2008....

  Silver-sorry man but you're starting to come unhinged.

  "ah, smb...you haven't asked me a question."

  The last two sentences of my response are questions.

  ."...hoo boy, child, that's just plain sad. it was a simple enough question, smb: you said the people we fight are evil. not bad, not that they deserved to be fought: that they're evil. you know, cloven hooves, horns, pointy tail and all that. why are you backpedaling so furiously? don't try to change the subject. "

  You asked my how I defined evil and I responded.  I didn't say anything about cloven hooves , horns, or any of that.  Look at the people we have been at war with, find any group we have ever gone to war with where the cause was not just or for the right reason, regardless of what historically was the outcome.

  "vietnam? don't make me laugh: we weren't there b/c we gave a damn about vietnam--it was the domino theory lie. we went in there to prop up a corrupt and doomed regime, smb. we meddled. just like we historically have done in the middle east."

  This is cowardly bleeding heart drivel and you fucking know it. Nice of you to write off an entire war, a stain on everything we hold dear as a domino theory lie.  We've gone into the Middle East and liberated millions of people.  You and the rest of the wishwashy Jane Fonda-ites only seem to want to pound on your own country.  This is pretty sad. 

  "yes, i brought up the morality b/c the statement you made--which i quoted--is the stupidest thing i've seen a person say. ever"

  I thought it was bloc who wrote that. hmmm

  "i use the expression "made you my bitch" b/c it seems that you think you can make personal attacks without regard to consequence. i thought that doing so might get your attention enough to make you understand that doing so merely detracts."

  Bullshit, my personal attacks are only a result.  When you start with the insults then I start with the insults.  Stop running my country through a pile of Liberal shit and I'll stop being a prick.  See... I'm not hard to get along with. 

   

  
   

  
   

   

   

   

   

• silverwhisper said on Mar 05, 2008....

  smb: to me, those are rhetorical questions that don't require a response.
  
  

  look at the people we have been at war with, find any group we have ever gone to war with where the cause was not just or for the right reason, regardless of what historically was the outcome.

  
  really? what about the confederate states? the spanish-american war? and as i said: vietnam?
  
  

  nice of you to write off an entire war, a stain on everything we hold dear as a domino theory lie. we've gone into the middle east and liberated millions of people.

  
  domino theory was a lie. show me one case where it actually, honest-to-goodness happened. go ahead.
  
  and i was talking about iran. we didn't liberate a single blessed soul in iran. if anything, we did the opposite.
  
  

  when you start with the insults then i start with the insults. stop running my country through a pile of liberal shit and i'll stop being a prick. see...i'm not hard to get along with.

  
  so your morality only exists as a reaction to your environment rather than as a result of any firmly, deeply-held principles? that's sad.
  
  in case you haven't noticed, i'm an american too, so spare me the senseless flag-waving nonsense.
  
  o, one last thing: you aren't being a prick: you're being a bitch. :D what, you didn't see that coming?! :>
  
  ed

• TinSoldier said on Mar 05, 2008....

  domino theory was a lie. show me one case where it actually, honest-to-goodness happened. go ahead.
  
  
  I don't really think it was a lie myself, and despite some of the bad things that we did in Viet Nam in order to pursue our goals, I think that we -- as a nation, not some weird and shadowy cabal -- believed that we were helping the Vietnamese people and preventing the spread of communism.
  
  I know that this is a circular argument, but then so is yours -- the reason we don't have any cases where it actually honest-to-goodness happened (except China and North Korea and North Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos).
  
  Okay, maybe we do have cases. Hmm. Unless those were just coincidences.
  
  Interesting story -- we had some kind of psychological class today about "change" put on by some outside psychologist. My coworker (who is getting laid off in June) and I were discussing the class afterwards and she was skeptical like me. She said the biggest change in her life came when she escaped Viet Nam and came to this country not knowing the language or anything.
  
  My main point, of course, has to do with her choice of words ("escaped"). She gave up a lot to come here.
  

• bloc said on Mar 05, 2008....

  "believed that we were helping the Vietnamese people and preventing the spread of communism"
  
  Could this be a result of propaganda? I mean seriously, vietnam was occupied by the french. They were fighting for their independence and we paid for 2/3s of the french cost of war in order to prevent them from gaining their own independence. I'm sure many people thought that preventing them from having their independence was some how helping them, but you have to remember that the majority of americans believed that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Hm, smells like propaganda.
  
  It's amazingly ironic how smb is able to proudly talk about bringing independence to people int he middle east while in the exact same thread argue that preventing the vietnamese from having independence was a great thing.
  

• TinSoldier said on Mar 05, 2008....

  They were fighting for their independence and we paid for 2/3s of the french cost of war in order to prevent them from gaining their own independence. I'm sure many people thought that preventing them from having their independence was some how helping them,
  
  
  So all of the people who fled the country afterwards were evilly repressing the others? I find that difficult to believe.
  
  My point is twofold -- one, they didn't really have a choice of independence, although we (the US) should have given them one. Two, so we paid a lot of the French/South Vietnamese cost of the war and China and the USSR paid a lot of the North Vietnamese's cost of the war. Hmm.
  
  I still chalk it up to failed idealism on our part. And I am saddened by our letdown of the South Vietnamese forces after we withdrew.
  

• TinSoldier said on Mar 05, 2008....

  In the end, I should probably ask my friend (actually, I have many Vietnamese frineds and coworkers) about it, but I'm afraid that it would be a touchy subject.
  
  Maybe it's just "propaganda" that I've never met a pro-communist Vietnamese or Laotian or Cuban or a pro-Saddam Iraqi. But still. Maybe your mileage may vary.
  
  
  

• TinSoldier said on Mar 05, 2008....

  I should also mention that my friend often mentions moving back to Vietnam for her retirement, since it costs so much less to live there. And she is often critical of the American lifestyle.
  
  Her two children, the oldest of whom is learning to be a neurosurgeon and the youngest has been something of a delinquent, grew up in the US and she's still proud of them both.
  
  When she moves back she wants all of her friends to come visit her.
  

• bloc said on Mar 05, 2008....

  "So all of the people who fled the country afterwards were evilly repressing the others? I find that difficult to believe."
  
  this doesn't make since to me. Surely in any country there is a minority that strongly opposes those in power. It seems natural that many of this minority would flee.
  
  If you are suggesting that these people represent the majority of the vietnamese then I want whatever you're drinking.
  
  "Two, so we paid a lot of the French/South Vietnamese cost of the war and China and the USSR paid a lot of the North Vietnamese's cost of the war. Hmm."
  
  this is a bit disingenuous. Did the soviets and chinese send hundreds of thousands of troops?
  
  Let me see if I understand what you are saying. Two super powers using the full might of both of their militaries was unable to defeat a minority of poor third world country even with the help of the majority of the people in that third world country?
  
  Hm, I'm thinking you want to believe that we didn't invade a country to prevent an election and impose our will on the majority of another country. I'd like to believe that too, but I can't when I look at the facts at hand.
  
  In fact, we signed a treaty, after they defeated the french who were occupying their country, that we'd allow them an election in October I believe. We invaded once we realized that the election was going to be to our liking.
  
  Btw, most of this I learned through a history professor who was a vietnam vet. 82nd airborne.
  
  I'm endlessly amazed that smart well meaning people argue that we weren't fighting to prevent their independence when they were so clearly fighting an occupying force in the french. i mean, it seems endlessly contradictory. How can someone believe that we paid for 2/3s of the french war, which is undisputably a war to prevent their independence, and then suddenly after we do that the majority of the country is on our side when we invade. Really?
  

• D6fer said on Mar 05, 2008....

  I honestly think we were just trying to block the spread of communism.......the details are irrelevant.

• silverwhisper said on Mar 06, 2008....

  TS: i'd call china/north korea pretty debatable, i'm less certain re: laos & cambodia: convince me. i said domino theory was a lie. and it was, b/c it's predicated on the idea that communism will spread unchecked, like a virus, without any heed to the fact that in reality, communism is a very poor system of government.
  
  d6, you know the devil's in the details. :>
  
  ed

• TinSoldier said on Mar 06, 2008....

  Did the soviets and chinese send hundreds of thousands of troops?

  Actually as I was reading last night, Wikipedia said that over 300,000 Chinese troops served in Vietnam. However the North Vietnamese didn't fully trust them so they didn't get put into actualy combat. I am unable to verify this one way or the other though since that was the first that I'd heard of it.
   
  Russians had advisors in Vietnam, definitely. But they treated Vietnam much like we treated Afghanistan in the eighties. Provide material and advisement but no direct combat troops.
   
  ed, I'm not sure what I can say to convince you. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, no? After WWII communism seemed to be on the rise as they marched across Eastern Europe and tried to take over dozens of countries around the world.
   
  While we knew that communism was a bad system we had no idea that it would collapse under the weight of its own corruption and inefficiency. Not until 1989 or so.
   
  bloc, I disagree with you on the face of the evidence but you know, I don't know why I'm getting my panties in such a bind to argue these things. They're all water under the bridge.
   
  I really really need to stop arguing politics and the politics of history and who invaded whom and whatnot. On the one hand, I learn a thing or two here and there. On the other hand the confrontationalism of it all or the inability to make a valid point raises my blood pressure too much. Or takes up too much of my time. Or whatever.
   
  But that's not too likely I guess.

• bloc said on Mar 06, 2008....

  yeah, my blood pressure goes up too. Not so much with you, but with the others.
  
  @d6
  " I honestly think we were just trying to block the spread of communism.......the details are irrelevant."
  
  LOL, yeah those pesky details like democracy and self determination. Who cares if we invaded to stop democracy, they were going to vote in a way we didn't want. And we couldn't have that, pesky details.
  

• bloc said on Mar 06, 2008....

  @tin
  
  I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but it seems you're trying to convince yourself that what we did wasn't as bad as it actually was.
  

• TinSoldier said on Mar 06, 2008....

  If that is the idea that you got, then either I didn't express myself clearly enough or you weren't listening.
   
  That's okay, though. I am not the historian of record here and I shouldn't try to be.
   
  Talk to you later.

• stopmediabias said on Mar 06, 2008....

  Bloc-I'm having a hard time figuring out how you get we were trying to stop their independence.  After the French left the country it was on the brink of being taken over by the communists.  The Geneva Accords stated there would be elections in 1956 which would make the 17th parallel disappear and hopefully unify the country.  Sounds good but everyone including us knew this was a ploy by the communists to take the South. 
   
  We determined with the backing of many of the anti-communist elements to form an alternative to the communists in South Vietnam.  Communism back then was todays Radical Islam.   However wrong we were according to some we should have finished the job and we should not have let the media shape our foreign policy. 
   
    

• bloc said on Mar 06, 2008....

  we invaded to prevent the majority of veitnamese from having the government they wanted. Don't they have the right to choose communism if they want to?

• D6fer said on Mar 06, 2008....

  they were going to vote in a way we didn't want. And we couldn't have that, pesky details.
  
  Yeah those communist voting practices are so ethical and honest.....I'm sure it would have gone 99.99% to the victor!
  

• stopmediabias said on Mar 07, 2008....

  Bloc-You said we invaded to stop democracy
   
  It doesn't matter!  The whole premise of the debate is based on the fact that I believe we go to war for the right reasons which seperates us from our enemies.  You guys seem to have this notion of U.S. dominance that swoops in and unjustly bullies everyone around.  I think we deserve better than that considering the people we have taken off or help to take off this planet.  The Nazis, Saddam, etc..
   
  In a world of people being burned alive, heads sawed off, schools being attacked, our men are on the front lines and what do we here from you guys: waterboarding, stress positions, Bush tortures people!  Whether our actions in the use of waterboarding and other things is moral or right is a matter of debate but at the same time you guys need to get your priorities straight considering who gives you the freedoms you have.
   

• silverwhisper said on Mar 07, 2008....

  yet more blind partisan apologetics, smb. we went to war in vietnam for selfish reasons, as bloc already said.
  
  that doesn't mean we don't also do the right thing too, smb. you seem to think that it's all the one or the other. real life is more complex than that, though.
  
  ed

• bloc said on Mar 07, 2008....

  "considering who gives you the freedoms you have."
  
  This is interesting because one of my biggest complaints about Bush is that he is taking away many of our civil rights. He wants to have unchecked powers to do many unconstitutional things.
  
  Given that we both value freedom, I think my priorities are right.
  

• bloc said on Mar 07, 2008....

  @ed
  
  LOL, yeah with SMB's logic it's ok to have slaves, after all we got rid of Hitler so keeping slaves must be ok right?
  

• stopmediabias said on Mar 07, 2008....

   Silver-You don't even read what people write do you?  How does my last comment represent blind partisan apologetics?  bloc said we went into Vietnam to stop Democracy, which is so blatently ridiculous it is LOL funny.  I didn't pounce on that and publish it in a headline as probably one of the dare I say stupidest things ever said.  Every person in the world with 1/4th of brain says we went into Vietnam to stop communist expansion and you say we went in for selfish reasons?

  Bloc-As with your usual MO you take my comment completely out of context.  I pointing out that there are men and woman on the front trying to protect us from another 9/11 and you guys repeatedly accuse them of torture, mass murder, rape, terrorism, sexual assault, sodomy (oh wait...according Silver sodomy is all right, skip that one sorry,)  and a whole host of other things. 

   And by the way bloc you don't value freedom you shit all over it. 

• bloc said on Mar 07, 2008....

  I've shown pictures of prisoners being forced to sodomize themselves. I accuse people of torture when I believe they have committed torture. Why do you resort to such lame rhetorical tricks. If I accuse individual people of torture it does not mean that I am accusing all soldiers of torture. That's a profoundly stupid rhetorical trick considering that I still have family members and close friends who are in the military.
  
  Regarding vietnam, we signed a treaty to allow an election then invaded to prevent that election. That is preventing democracy.
  
  Regarding freedom, I seem to understand what freedom is and you don't. You are asking americans to give up their freedom when you demand that we Give  The President the authority to detain americans without due process, the authority to torture them, and the authority to break any law during a false war (a war on terror is not a real war). Freedom means that the President has to follow the law too.
  

• silverwhisper said on Mar 07, 2008....

  actually, i read what people write w/ a great deal more attention than you ever seem to do yourself, smb.
  
  it was selfish reasons: the domino theory was a lie. we didn't give a flying fig what happened to the vietnamese: we just wanted to stop communism.
  
  heh...i'm looking at the part of your comment directed at bloc: you're so very, very bitchy, smb! it's almost cute...sorta like when a puppy piddles on the floor before it's been properly housebroken.
  
  ed

• stopmediabias said on Mar 07, 2008....

  Bloc- fuck you....you posted dirty pictures that came from slime sites.  Do you actually believe we as policy force people to sodomize themselves.  Give it a rest!  I can find any number of pictures on the net and attach a headline to it.  Hide in a dark corner somewhere when the troops come home because what you have done is shamefull.  And don't try this "If I accuse individual people of torture it does not mean that I am accusing all soldiers of torture"  this is bullshit and you know it.  Your friends John Kerry("terrorising woman and children"), Barrack Obama("air-raiding villages"), Dick Durban (made a comparison to Pol Pot), Ted Kennedy ("Abu Graib opened under new managment") and you have run our soldiers and our country into the ground.

  both of you right now....Silver and Bloc whoever you are and where you live in this country, why don't we all get together.  I'll bring myself and a good number of American soldiers who just got back from Iraq as well as some members of our intelligence agencies along with some Vietnam vets.  Beforehand we'll let them read the garbage you have posted on your sites and the opinions you have supported from other garbage sites (crooksandliars, Huffington post) and you guys can defend what you have held as truth to them.

    How about it? 

• silverwhisper said on Mar 07, 2008....

  holy crap--smb is actually maynard! bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
  
  ed

• bloc said on Mar 07, 2008....

  the pictures didn't come from slime sites, they came from a US army run prison in Iraq. Where people were tortured in manners consistent with those authorized by the Bush administration. 

• silverwhisper said on Mar 07, 2008....

  perhaps smb is suggesting that the US army-run prison is a slime site?
  
  ed

• stopmediabias said on Mar 10, 2008....

  silver-yet again another candyass response...doesn't surprise me

• silverwhisper said on Mar 10, 2008....

  "candy ass"? omg, that's just plain pathetic!
  
  ed

Comment on "No dumbass....THIS is torture!"

Currently tagged	terrorism torture murder And Americans are bad Lefitst Loonies (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously