Adam Posted June 25, 2010 Posted June 25, 2010 I wouldn't say he is a one-trick pony. He's been a Congressman, Secretary of Defense and VP. If you've ever actually listened to a speech of his you would find him level headed and factual. All I stated was that he wasn't a blowhard and you're talking about collateral damage and cowards and changing the subject. So, in what way is Cheney a blowhard? Does he just shoot off his mouth and not back it up with action? Give me an example or two. He is the source of the term 'enhanced interrogation techniques.' If you are going to use torture to interrogate captives, then have the guts to call it that, instead of trying to claim some moral superiority. Politicians are supposed to come across as level headed- how do you think our current president got in office- aside from having the worst opponent since FrankenKerry.......
3rdnlng Posted June 25, 2010 Posted June 25, 2010 He is the source of the term 'enhanced interrogation techniques.' If you are going to use torture to interrogate captives, then have the guts to call it that, instead of trying to claim some moral superiority. Politicians are supposed to come across as level headed- how do you think our current president got in office- aside from having the worst opponent since FrankenKerry....... I guess its not torture if its routinely done to servicemen in training. If waterboarding (and I'm assuming that is what you are referring to) saves any of our citizens from any "man made disasters" then I'm all for it. I heard that it did. BTW, is this why he is a blowhard?
Adam Posted June 25, 2010 Posted June 25, 2010 I guess its not torture if its routinely done to servicemen in training. If waterboarding (and I'm assuming that is what you are referring to) saves any of our citizens from any "man made disasters" then I'm all for it. I heard that it did. BTW, is this why he is a blowhard? Someone who says one thing and does another is a blowhard. Not anymore than our current politicians, though, if that makes you feel any better. I answered your question, now find me a serviceman who is routinely waterboarded (not to mention the other things.) If you are going to do those things is one thing, but to try to put a soft, cuddly name on them is another. We don't have the moral high ground and haven't for a long time. We need to stop acting like we do. Personally, I am against torture, but war in stupid and calls for many horrible things.
Magox Posted June 26, 2010 Posted June 26, 2010 What you're essentially talking about here is an occupation. Take over the country village by village set up our own people and never leave. Because regardless of all te good will and happiness you create, once you leave that village, it goes right back to where it was. Just like Iraq right?
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted June 29, 2010 Posted June 29, 2010 Keep tabloid media away from military personell
Alaska Darin Posted June 29, 2010 Posted June 29, 2010 I guess its not torture if its routinely done to servicemen in training. If waterboarding (and I'm assuming that is what you are referring to) saves any of our citizens from any "man made disasters" then I'm all for it. I heard that it did. BTW, is this why he is a blowhard? Obviously, you've never had it done to you...
Adam Posted June 29, 2010 Posted June 29, 2010 Obviously, you've never had it done to you... While I actually am against the torture methods, I was trying to make a different point. If we torture them and it doesn't get out, fine. If it does, then ok- just say we tortured them- don't candy coat it, trying to play the good guy.
3rdnlng Posted June 29, 2010 Posted June 29, 2010 Obviously, you've never had it done to you... No I haven't had it done to me. I understand that it is used in training for some of the special forces like Seals, etc. I'm sure it is not pleasant, otherwise what would be the purpose of using it? My contention is that if it saves American lives-----do it!
Adam Posted June 29, 2010 Posted June 29, 2010 No I haven't had it done to me. I understand that it is used in training for some of the special forces like Seals, etc. I'm sure it is not pleasant, otherwise what would be the purpose of using it? My contention is that if it saves American lives-----do it! Would you be for nuking the middle east?
3rdnlng Posted June 29, 2010 Posted June 29, 2010 Would you be for nuking the middle east? Put it in context.
Adam Posted June 29, 2010 Posted June 29, 2010 Put it in context. You said if it can save Americans, you are all for it. Personally, I prefer the Petreus move in Afghanistan to using waterboarding. Persuading the enemy to join you is a very effective method and something he is very good at. I still shudder when I hear people saying that it was good that we did what we did in Japan with the bombs. People I have talked to in the military wouldn't go beyond using the word effective. Still, to people over here, it is like a video game, where kills are meaningless. We are no less violent or capable of doing evil than the people we fight against. Never ever forget that or you lose what you fight for. And for the record- not all of this is aimed at you
3rdnlng Posted June 29, 2010 Posted June 29, 2010 You said if it can save Americans, you are all for it. Personally, I prefer the Petreus move in Afghanistan to using waterboarding. Persuading the enemy to join you is a very effective method and something he is very good at. I still shudder when I hear people saying that it was good that we did what we did in Japan with the bombs. People I have talked to in the military wouldn't go beyond using the word effective. Still, to people over here, it is like a video game, where kills are meaningless. We are no less violent or capable of doing evil than the people we fight against. Never ever forget that or you lose what you fight for. And for the record- not all of this is aimed at you It better not all be aimed at me. Remember I'm the one accused of promoting torture and the use of nukes. All I've said is that if I thought a prisoner had knowledge of an upcoming terrorist attack I wouldn't hesitate to water board him. As far as Japan goes I would never say that it was a good thing to have nuked them. Effective is also the word I would have used. It came down to a choice of breaking their will or losing an incredible amount of US servicemen during an invasion of their home islands. Tough decision, but most likely the right one. Afterall, they were the aggressor. I asked you to put in context the reason I would use nukes in the Middle east or not. If you want my answer you'll have to do that rather than confuse the issue with talk about Afghanistan, Petreus and Japan.
Magox Posted June 29, 2010 Posted June 29, 2010 Nukes suck, I wish they never existed. Waterboarding on the other hand.......
/dev/null Posted June 29, 2010 Posted June 29, 2010 Nukes suck, I wish they never existed. Waterboarding on the other hand....... So you would have preferred a US invasion of Japan in 1945 from the south and a Soviet invasion from the north?
Magox Posted June 29, 2010 Posted June 29, 2010 So you would have preferred a US invasion of Japan in 1945 from the south and a Soviet invasion from the north? Nukes suck and I wish they never existed. I believe that sentence is pretty clear.
DrFishfinder Posted June 29, 2010 Posted June 29, 2010 While I actually am against the torture methods, I was trying to make a different point. If we torture them and it doesn't get out, fine. If it does, then ok- just say we tortured them- don't candy coat it, trying to play the good guy. Undocumented immigrants. Your position has been eliminated. Pre owned vehicle. Dysfunctional family. Deferred success. Custodial Engineer. The list of candy coated terms grow daily. What we are talking about here is not torture for sadistic pleasure, it is to extract information from people who have been deemed extremely dangerous and who would not provide needed information by any other means BUT enhanced interrogation techniques. I have no problem with those enhanced interrogation techniques or the name. Torture is watching the Bills lose 3-6 to Cleveland.
Alaska Darin Posted June 29, 2010 Posted June 29, 2010 No I haven't had it done to me. I understand that it is used in training for some of the special forces like Seals, etc. I'm sure it is not pleasant, otherwise what would be the purpose of using it? My contention is that if it saves American lives-----do it! It's a little more than "not pleasant". And the "contention that it could save American lives" is an awfully slippery slope. Try remembering you're a conservative that's against government oppression. That's supposed to be all the time, not just when it's convenient.
erynthered Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 It's a little more than "not pleasant". Would you do it to save American lives?
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 Nukes suck and I wish they never existed. I believe that sentence is pretty clear. Or TNT or machine guns. Lets go back to the good old days when we hacked our enemys to pieces. Dead is Dead, and I don't believe they care how they got that way.
Recommended Posts