Geoff Dickens noted that last weekend's CNBC's Tim Russert show featured NBC diplomatic correspondent Andrea Mitchell being anything but diplomatic in asserting that the Republican base is eagerly in favor of torture, and that conservative answers are not "thoughtful" answers. David Gregory said the Republicans will have to come around and propose a plan to withdraw from Iraq, to which Mitchell replied:
But you saw the way they responded to the hard questions about torture in the Republican debate in South Carolina. They came up with easy -- and hard-to-defend in a general election campaign -- answers. They just played to the base. They played to, 'Let's torture 'em! Let's-' I mean, they, they didn't say that literally, but that was the subliminal message, and also, 'Let's, you know, expand, double the size of Guantanamo,' said, said Mitt Romney. I mean they are absolutely not giving thoughtful answers, as you would suggest, on those tough questions.
Comments Policy
Candidates should demand Mitchell apology
June 9, 2007 - 20:27 ET by Gary HallThe Republican candidates for President should join together and demand an apology from Andrea Mitchell, whom by the way seems to be having a bit of a difficult time coming up with thoughful resonses, herself. Secondly, I'd suggest that a full page ad taken out in the New York Tims, by the base, demanding an apology from Ms. Mitchell, might have the needed effect.
Not understanding the difference between welcoming torture and the view that in extroadinary circumstances something other than, ""please, oh please tell us where you obtained the plastic explosives, or nerve gas," may be required to save thousands of lives is not an excuse for using your platform, Ms. Mitchell to spread your fear mongering.
I don't see much difference b
June 9, 2007 - 20:38 ET by balboaI don't see much difference between your two answers. The Repubs would welcome torture in a scenario where it was required to save thousands of lives.
Well, bal,Let's put the shoe
June 9, 2007 - 20:45 ET by BlondeWell, bal,
Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Your foot, to be specific.
You've been captured by Al-Q.
Our troops have captured someone whom we believe to have information on your location.
Do we torture them to get information that would lead to us rescuing you?
Or do we feed them sunshine and roses, and a clean Koran?
What say you now, Bal?
Torture, or not.
Your throat is the next one to be cut in this scenario.
Interrogate, sure. Torture? I
June 9, 2007 - 21:01 ET by balboaInterrogate, sure. Torture? If it's absolutely necessary, then yes. But we're talking about Mitchell's coverage of the Republicans, not me.
Okay, Bal,So you just said it
June 9, 2007 - 21:04 ET by BlondeOkay, Bal,
So you just said it was okay to "torture" to get one of our troops (or contractors) back, yes?
And I turned the argument around to you, not to Mitchell.
Which way are you going to play it Bal?
Okay, or not okay?
Regardless of what the liberal media would like to potray it in any way, shape, or form?
My initial statement had noth
June 9, 2007 - 21:10 ET by balboaMy initial statement had nothing to do with whether it was OK or not OK, merely commenting on Gary Hall's post.
Fine. We all get it.
June 9, 2007 - 21:12 ET by BlondeFine. We all get it.
Doubtful.
June 9, 2007 - 21:13 ET by balboaDoubtful.
Not "doubtful" at a
June 9, 2007 - 21:17 ET by BlondeNot "doubtful" at all.
When it comes to you...it's fine.
When it comes to National Security, you libs would choose to coddle the terrs.
There is no doubt in anyone's mind. None whatsoever.
Just want to make sure we're all clear on that one, bal.
Eh...I'm not much for coddlin
June 9, 2007 - 21:23 ET by balboaEh...I'm not much for coddling. We'll find out the rest some day I'm sure.
the rest of what?
June 9, 2007 - 21:34 ET by Pragmatic-Manthe rest of what? Please clarify.
Whether liberals, if in power
June 9, 2007 - 21:40 ET by balboaWhether liberals, if in power, will coddle the terrorists in one of these "ticking clock" situations.
thanks
June 9, 2007 - 21:42 ET by Pragmatic-ManGot it. Thanks.
Balboa,So tell me, since you
June 9, 2007 - 22:08 ET by BlondeBalboa,
So tell me, since you are fond of pointing out the "frivilous"....
Do you think the topic of torture is frivilous?
Or do you just believe Andrea's reference to it was?
Which is it?
balboa Says:
June 10, 2007 - 10:45 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsbalboa Says: Interrogate, sure. Torture? If it's absolutely necessary, then yes.
The problem here is the left considers any interrogation torture. To merely detain any enemy is torture. The left wants all prisoners from the battlefield to be brought before a court (with a taxpayer funded 'attorney in waiting' for each) immediately, and sentenced or freed (preferably the latter) immediately (and possibly rewarded with cash for their inconvenience).
D
A day without NewsBusters is like a day without sunshine.
YOur last point is VERY key.
June 10, 2007 - 11:45 ET by BDYOur last point is VERY key. WHen these guys are busted with smoking AK-47 and empty magazine in hand, the left wishes them to be made out to be victims of the big bad US Army.
We have detainees at Gitmo who now have lawyers who argue that the soldiers who captured these illegal combatants are actually the immoral ones, The AQ member just being an untrained (Compared to US troops - and therefore somehow more humane?) person caught up in the war as they sought to live the authentic islamic life. In fact, most are made out to be simple pilgrims walking in the uninhabited parts of the mountainous border region.
It is SOOOO bogus.
So how do you know he is Al Q
June 10, 2007 - 09:37 ET by well99So how do you know he is Al Queda?Do they wear a robe with a big AQ on it?Which methods were you going to use?The fish hook method?Very popular with the Gestapo against the Russians in WW2.Finger nails or toe nails?A car battery with wires connected to certain parts of the body?Or do you just start cutting digits off?
Now the big question.Now what if the guy you just tortured has no infomation.How long did you torture him to find that out.
June 10, 2007 - 09:53 ET by
So how do you know he is Al Q
June 10, 2007 - 09:54 ET bySo how do you know he is Al Queda that was an assumed premise
Which methods were you going to use that is up to you
Now back to the question you attempt to deflect, what if you capture a known upper-level Al Queda member in Bagdad; obviously he knows the location of safe-houses that are used by homicide bombers to kill innocent children. Do you allow children to be blown up or do you obtain information from the murderer?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
You remember in Basic/Boot th
June 10, 2007 - 10:17 ET by well99You remember in Basic/Boot the Geneva Convention.The one Drills kept harping on.Soldiers follow that if they dont they go to prison.Now if the civilian intelligence agencies want to water board him fine.But the military doesnt need to open up that can of worms.
Geneva covers uniformed comba
June 10, 2007 - 10:24 ET byGeneva covers uniformed combatants identified with a nation.
You let children die.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
So when you were in did they
June 10, 2007 - 10:31 ET by well99So when you were in did they teach you how to torture?
Who said i was in?Do you love
June 10, 2007 - 10:37 ET byWho said i was in?
Do you love the mothers crying over their children?
Do you enjoy the limbs blown across the room?
Do you avoid every question that disputes your position?
Now back to the question you attempt to deflect, what if you capture a known upper-level Al Queda member in Bagdad; obviously he knows the location of safe-houses that are used by homicide bombers to kill innocent children. Do you allow children to be blown up or do you obtain information from the murderer?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Just what I thought.No the qu
June 10, 2007 - 10:55 ET by well99Just what I thought.No the question is a Olbermann question.But if I knew for sure and there was no doubts.I would do it.I also know it would cost me time in prison.
Now if I knew you were capture and all I had to say is boo to get the info.I wouldnt.
Thank-you for your reply and
June 10, 2007 - 11:01 ET byThank-you for your reply and your warm thoughts
There are times which force us to act in ways contrary to our normal nature, I thank God I have not been put in that position, neither will I condemn out of hand those who have been.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Well99:You obviously got the
June 10, 2007 - 11:57 ET by BDWell99:
You obviously got the simple version of the Geneva Convention when you went through basic or AIT. Now lets us talk about the more advanced version.
Do you know what a Justifiable Repraisal is? It is a sanctioned event used to try and coerce your enemy to fight according to the rules as previously discussed.
For instance,:
Your enemy regularly tortures, then executes all soldiers from your side that fall into their hands.
Or your enemy rounds up fifty of your troops in a POW camp and executes them for no apparent legal manner.
Or your enemy rounds up 50 of your civilians and does the same.
In all of these cases the Justifiable repraisal would be to likewise execute a similar number in the same condition.
The Geneva Convention allows for such justifiable repraisals if the response is intended to cause your enemy to cease the illegal activity not in accordance witht he conventions and is proportionate.
It has been a while since my Command and General Staff Officers Course, but as I recall the US government still reserves the right to perform such repraisals but that the power to authorize is left in the executive branch of government.
In other words, President Bush could legally order the execution of a detainee for each US soldier captured, then executed by AQ and the Geneva Conventions would back him up.
So what is your problem?
Since I wasnt a officer I mis
June 10, 2007 - 12:37 ET by well99Since I wasnt a officer I missed Command and GSO Course.My point is that you just dont make decisions like that on your own.It doesnt come all nice and neat in package like that.That is why you have a chain of command.As you have pointed out the goverment makes that decision on reprisals.My problem is people being so blaise about the subject.On tv you may always know the bad guy and what he knows.This aint about TV.
Well99
June 10, 2007 - 12:51 ET byWell,
I don't think Blonde's original post you responded to was specific to the military. Rather it was a hypothetical. I don't think anyone is attempting to make the case that the troops have a moral obligation to use methods not condoned by the brass. Indeed many here have called for courts martial for those who take it on themselves.
Blonde is well able to speak for herself but i think she was showing the false motive implied in Andrea's statement They just played to the base. They played to, 'Let's torture 'em! Let's-' I mean, they, they didn't say that literally,
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
That is why I posted thisJune
June 10, 2007 - 13:41 ET by well99That is why I posted this
June 10, 2007 - 11:17
You remember in Basic/Boot the Geneva Convention.The one Drills kept harping on.Soldiers follow that if they dont they go to prison.
Now if the civilian intelligence agencies want to water board him fine.But the military doesnt need to open up that can of worms.
As far as Andrea I posted this last night
June 10, 2007 - 01:11
I know in my time in the Army torture was not allowed and I dont believed that has changed.There will always be a some that will violate it but if caught they get punished.It is a violation of the UCMJ.Those guilty will get the opportunity to make big rocks into little rocks.What really ticks me off is 3 soldiers over there were found tortured before being killed.The sewer sipping msm didnt spent squat for time on that.
As far as what Mitchell said it was a blantant lie.She should be sued by the candidates and members of the Republican party for slander.
Oh just a note I do know what it is like to see a mother cry at the loss of her children.
Oh just a note I do know what
June 10, 2007 - 14:04 ET byOh just a note I do know what it is like to see a mother cry at the loss of her children.
Then i apologize for my statement.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Bruce & well99,My origina
June 10, 2007 - 15:08 ET by BlondeBruce & well99,
My original response (and yes, it was a hypothetical point) was to balboa because I found his insouciance on this very serious topic to be gross in the extreme.
I don't see much difference between your two answers. The Repubs would welcome torture in a scenario where it was required to save thousands of lives.
I was particularly offended by "The Repubs would welcome torture".
My point was to put the shoe on the other foot, literally, I believe I even used that phrase.
And I got the liberal response I expected...as well as the usual deflection and dodging further down the thread.
But the point is that liberals in the media throw these type of accusations around all the time, while crying without end for the detained AQ's supposed deprivation. As far as I'm concerned, the terr's chose their particular path, let them suffer the consequences. They can stay locked up until they have their day of destiny with their mythical seventy virgins, as far as I'm concerned.
well99
June 10, 2007 - 11:58 ET by SportPoliticsThe best method is the waterboard for the bigshots. That broke KSM after 6 months of donuts and coddling didn't work.
He coughed up information we didn't have. That's how you KNOW it works. It's pretty simple - no blood comes from a turnip - but when you have a strategic piece of the blood cult, and the NEW never before known information flows and PANS OUT - then you have SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the waterboarding worked.
This was reported flat out more than once, and Tenet repeated it on his 60 minutes interview, and it was all over the news for a while- before McCain was used by the left to make false claims, and yes there were as false as they come.
A terorrist who has information we don't have can't tell us what we want to hear, because we don't know what we want to hear. The only way to prove what they say is to check it out. It's on so many detective and police shows, it's called a confession -- you know - not the kind in the booth with the Catholic Priest that libs want protected, or the kind where some ffreako spills their guts to their psychiatrist, but the kind where they give up info on fellow terrorists.
I have never heard something so stupid as " If you torture them they'll just tell you what you want to hear. "
They had better tell us a lot more than what we want to hear - they better tell us something WE DON'T KNOW.
If they do, it's a success, and we have had according to those in charge of it - THE MOST SUCCESS WITH THIS THAN ANYTHING ELSE...
Strangely enough the enemy knows more about themselves than we do. Imagine that you doofus ....
...saying the republicans wou
June 9, 2007 - 20:46 ET by bigtimer...saying the republicans would welcome torture is despicable boa...as it was meant to be....
Most humans do not welcome torture...
Having to inflict so-called torture such as water-boarding, which I personally do not consider torture...extreme fear yes...real excruciating torture no...to save thousands of lives or one American life is fine with me.
"Welcome" is a poor choice of
June 9, 2007 - 20:53 ET by balboa"Welcome" is a poor choice of words, as it implies they would take joy in torturing.
Well, that was a nice deflect
June 9, 2007 - 20:55 ET by BlondeWell, that was a nice deflection job.
Now answer my question, bal.
Thank you for that response
June 9, 2007 - 20:57 ET by bigtimerThank you for that response balboa.
OK, when a lib does this, we
June 9, 2007 - 21:03 ET by PeskyDaneOK, when a lib does this, we should all gather 'round for a group hug.
Bal,I've not had the best day
June 9, 2007 - 21:08 ET byBal,
I've not had the best day so maybe i'm jumpier than normal.
Balboa welcomes locking men up, taking away their belongings and having them raped. That's an equivalent statement to Andrea's. Of course i speak of how you would deal with child molesters, rapists, murderers etc. But, you notice, to support a penal system for the good of innocent public can be stated and twisted to make you sound sadistic. (which btw i don't believe) take this as an example i am not being personal just stating it that way cuz that's how Andrea the ?journalist? did it.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
the libs on torture
June 9, 2007 - 20:49 ET by Pragmatic-Manbalboa, would the liberals (as a generality) condone torture if they knew that the attained intel could save thousands? And where is the demarcation? Where do you (figurative you) draw the line where torture is allowed? Is it to save ten soldiers, a hundred civilians, maybe one high-value diplomat?
I pose the question because I believe there is too much ambiguity when it comes to the torture hot-button. One man's torture is another man's hardship, and one man's tolerance for human destruction is another man's genocide.
Not a rhetorical question, but not an attack either. Just a question.
<knock> <knock> H
June 9, 2007 - 20:51 ET by PeskyDane<knock> <knock> Hellooooo... McFly? Hello?
balboa
June 9, 2007 - 23:47 ET by SportPoliticsAndrea Mitchell has insinuated by her subliminal interpretation that the conservative base has a deep seated need to inflict pain on the enemy because of some desire for revenge and a sick accompanying enjoyment derived from it.
Certainly her point was to smear republicans, since she cannot help herself.
I agree with you, S-P. But
June 10, 2007 - 05:54 ET by GalvanicI agree with you, S-P. But rather than Gary's response (an apology from Mitchell), I think the best response for the Republicans is to deny her access to candidates and State Dept officials. This would roughly correspond to the Edwards-inspired Democratic boycott of the Fox News-Nevada Dems presidential candidates debate --- "If I think you're biased, I don't have to play with you."
Then, if NBC keeps Mitchell on that desk, they suffer from having lost access.
Play these networks against each other until unbiased coverage emerges.
I mean, they, they didn't say
June 9, 2007 - 20:30 ET by bigtimerI mean, they, they didn't say that literally,
No kidding Andrea....and the media says you are one of the best...surely they jest
Ooops..wait a second..you were, and are.... a role model for these newest little empty headed leftists pretend to be reporters because other people that mimic you say so...
Isn't that rich.
Btw....I say let's water-board anyone we think has information that has to do with the security and lives of Americans.
Torture...torture..torture...yeah Andrea, the conservatives just love torture..
It's been torture watching you for most of my news viewing life.
You on the left must be more worried than I thought, to start out this early with this trivial tripe that only your leftist ilk will buy anyway is pretty petty is it not?
Better go to plan B and move on with your next rocket science deduction that you think will hurt the party with an 'R' behind...go ahead and toss it there through the screen and see if that will stick anymore than your simple little mind thinks it will........Andrea
Let's torture 'em! Let's-'
June 9, 2007 - 20:35 ET by BlondeLet's torture 'em! Let's-' I mean, they, they didn't say that literally, but that was the subliminal message
Apparently, in her mind, conservatives are so dumb they need a blonde translator.
Sheesh, someone dig me out of this nightmare, please!
Well, Let's see what the resp
June 9, 2007 - 20:58 ET byWell,
Let's see what the response is from the politicians with a public voice on this. The insinuation that Gitmo is a torture chamber is absurd and this biased person mascarading as a journalist needs to be retired ASAP. This ticks me off no end. NBC needs to WAKE UP and soon, these libatards that condone such crap will be the reason for the next Global War.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
The media has been insinutati
June 9, 2007 - 21:08 ET by bigtimerEvening botg...
The media has been insinutating this since the beginning of Gitmo....
Nothing new here whatsoever...
Instead our side of the aisle has been intimidated by the media, held hearings, went down to investigate...blah blah blah...hence McCain and his buddy Graham caving and throw in along with Warner and other RINO's that helped create more problems with their little non-torture bill.
My point is ...you aren't going to hear diddle about this from any of our guys that attention on the airwaves, they only have on the RINO's that agree and bend to them....not the patriots that do speak against this, but it doesn't get media attention like Sessions, DeMint, and about thirty others in the Senate....I just can't think of their names at the moment.
It ticks me off to no end too....I am waiting patiently for a real conservative to come along and take them on....so far I hope it is Thompson.
Time will tell.
Thompson/Hunter 08'
Put 'em in a room full of pic
June 9, 2007 - 21:08 ET by iveseenitallPut 'em in a room full of pictures of Andrea Mitchell in different poses. Lock 'em in and throw away the key. Now that would be torture I condone.
NEVER, NEVER trust a liberal
isia...I say we have to give
June 9, 2007 - 21:20 ET by bigtimerisia...
I say we have to give em' a double-dose of torture......
Toss in Rosie pictures too and I am with ya all the way!
Islamic Jihad - pros and cons
June 9, 2007 - 21:05 ET by Pragmatic-ManThere are pros and cons to the current state of Islamic Jihad in the world.
Pro: not fighting under any particular nation's flag can let you sneak around the world much easier; riding under the cover of a religion gives you bunches of unearned immunity; difficult to discern who the enemy is since there is no uniform.
Cons: sorry but the Geneva convention just does not apply; any sovereign nation that harbors you becomes an enemy of the defending state; the innocents within the religion you have chosen for political cover will suffer from undue persecution.
So why is torture a question, since the enemy has chosen to pursue their war outside the constructs of the Geneva Convention?
Uhh- because it's a living breathing document ?
June 10, 2007 - 12:26 ET by SportPoliticsUhh- because it's a living breathing document...
And Bush tried to breathe fire into it ? lol
The art of lying is so perfected that they can snowball half the demos(911 conspiracists) and the other half will go along because it's a good attack.
When Bush had his rose garden debate and speech - the one where drunken giggler to IMUS stood up and whined and attacked over and over Bush said " This program is not going forward until you people(congress and their peace committees) decide what is allowed because our field agents aren't going to do something then later be told they broke some living breathing interpretation.
As far as I know the idiots in charge of pussyfooting and tree hugging banned waterboarding...taking away our best use tool for plot extraction. It was immensely stupid ans were very lucky that it was already used prior to that or we'd be in a big hurt from what has been reported. That of course doen't matter to "image first" partisans. It's a gigantic error, and I think it probably already cost some lives and has a good chance of costing a lot of lives in the future.
I cannot understand it. The democrats have us tied up in knots by their "psychological injury" babblings. They have gone too far and have gotten away with it over and over again.
I cannot even fathom how angry the people in the field are about this.
It's insidious because as Tenet said, tell us what we can do and we will do that, but we have to have the instructions and limits. Well, prior to 911 we had eyes on the ground on the target called Osama and the instructions and limits said " do not capture- do not kill- abort mission".
Yes, they ABORTED MISSION as ordered. That's what idiot democrats cannot understand. They believe something else. They believe everything is not enforced or it's all legal already or already being done so torture was endemic so they needed a new law so they could start arresting US field forces. Man, they are an enemy against us because they are so stupid.
How stupid do you have to be to do what Pelosi did going to Syria and telling Assad - "I wore my maple leaf headscarf in submission because I'm the mostliberated powerful woman in the USA - perhaps the world. I have cowered and humbled myself under you. By the way, Israel says it agrees to peace. We love you. Goodbye. "
I mean it's just amazing. Then Israel has to condemn their "foreign diplomat" - Pelosi - the submission idiot liberal who opened her yapper against USA orders outside her purvue and hugged a tree and LIED a peacenick screed, and of course was caught immediately, because she is soooooooo stupid and used to lying she just blabbed it out as usual....
What a goofball. Many I know are still very angry at her and say she should have been arrested the minute she hit the tarmac here in the USA. I don't know, maybe the CIA made her do it. I guess if the CIA made her do it, that's her only out.
They just played to the bas
June 9, 2007 - 21:08 ET by BondPlainBondThey just played to the base. They played to, 'Let's torture 'em! Let's-' I mean, they, they didn't say that literally, but that was the subliminal message...
Oh, yeah. I'll believe what nutjob Andrea Mitchell says without question.
Remind me... her credentials in subliminal messaging are... what?
*LOL*
Damn, these Liberal mind readers that know how each and every Conservative feels and believes is utterly amazing! Oh, that we all had those incredible powers of mind reading, huh?
Torture
June 9, 2007 - 21:33 ET by shawn228I will not mince words, I believe if we have "credible" intel on a individual or individuals, we should do whatever is necessary to obtain the information. However those pictures we saw a few yrs ago at Abu Garib clearly were not trying to obtain information but just mocking those individuals. Or how about those American solders that raped that little girl then shot her parents afterwards to cover up the evidence? This is a time of war and we use whatever is at our disposal to win, but taking away someones dignity just for kicks is not the American way.
Shawn,People screw up even th
June 9, 2007 - 21:43 ET byShawn,
People screw up even those under stress in wars. We have courts martial for that. The media magnification of Abu-G was also uncalled for especially when the same media buries the ACTUAL torture done by the terrorists. Yes i believe that cutting off heads with bread knives is torture
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
shawn, lets separate what is
June 9, 2007 - 21:50 ET by Conservative Voiceshawn, lets separate what is torture and what isn't ok? American soldiers who do crimes (such as the example you gave...raping a girl), are criminals, and are not doing their job...were they under orders to rape a little girl and then kill the parents? Come on, and to paint it as an official act of the military does a disservice to the military. Everything they do could be considered torture by the left...why that soldier in the attempt to kill the enemy succeeded to only wound him, that's torture!
Abu garib...I did not think that constitutes torture, that was part psychological warfare but mainly it was soldiers who weren't acting professional. But torture? Under orders did the Army rip off limbs? cut off heads? raped the enemies' daughters in front of them, throw the prisoners into shredders alive? Too many Americans haven't grown up..."Mom, don't make me do the dishes, its torture!" or "Wait, I can't go to the dance because I'm grounded...that's abuse!" The prisoners at Abu are well fed and we bend over backwards to do PC crap with them. Or "Mom, big bully put his underpants on my head at school...I was so embarrassed...sue the school for allowing such torture"
Oh Bingo CV...and kudos.I cal
June 9, 2007 - 21:56 ET by bigtimerOh Bingo CV...and kudos.
I call it out baby-fied society...or sissified.
Btw...to ad to your list,
You can also throw in ...Don't make me throw out the trash...my friends might see me...what will they think...
Hello bigtimer, so nice
June 9, 2007 - 22:23 ET by shawn228Hello bigtimer, so nice to see you. Was wondering when you were about to chime in. CV I would hope that the members of this site agree that even though you are very angry at the terrorist and they have just killed men you knew. Very angry I get it. Thats doe jusitfy breaking into some ones home, holding him down and let him watching his baby daughter getting raped right in front him, then killing him and his friends is in any way okay.
"you are very angry at
June 9, 2007 - 22:36 ET by Conservative Voice"you are very angry at the terrorists" Shawn buddy, where is the we in that sentence? And Shawn, who is saying it was justified? And Shawn, please stop comparing a few men's acts against the entire terrorists acts...WE frown on those kinds of acts, the terrorists celebrate the acts.
(BTW never heard this story of the rape, but I wouldn't make the claim that now we are no better than the terrorists even if the soldiers are guilty of the crime ).
I am saying i agree torture
June 9, 2007 - 22:45 ET by shawn228I am saying i agree torture when needed is necessary. I do not believe
in rubbing it in and having fun. I never once said you agree with what
they did, but the way what do you think on that issue?
See that is the problem Sha
June 9, 2007 - 22:49 ET by Conservative VoiceSee that is the problem Shawn...you equate with what they did as official acts of torture. I am against rape. I think prisoners should be treated with respect...but I wouldn't classify as torture. Rape is rape, and should be prosecuted...getting the prisoners naked and such the guards should of been talked to and reassigned, not thrown in military prison for years. And we should be condemning the terrorists as vile barbarians they are.
Then i guess we believe
June 9, 2007 - 22:56 ET by shawn228Then i guess we believe in the same things and no need to agrue about them.
Shawn buddy, how can you writ
June 9, 2007 - 22:46 ET byShawn buddy, how can you write this:
Thats doe jusitfy breaking into some ones home, holding him down and let him watching his baby daughter getting raped right in front him,
Right after CV wrote this:
soldiers who do crimes (such as the example you gave...raping a girl), are criminals, and are not doing their job...
????
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Botg I would hope you a
June 9, 2007 - 23:09 ET by shawn228Botg I would hope you agree with me that raping an infant girl in front her parents is somebody not doing their job? Ok botg since you say Liberals live in a fanasy world anyway right? Imiagine if you would, a world where Iraq invaded us and took away our nucleaur capability. The Evil demss are suicide bombing the Iraqi's occupation. Someone broke into your home, raped your child. How would that a feel? Hmmm what gives the right to better than them, other than logistics.
ShawnAre you trying to intent
June 9, 2007 - 23:16 ET byShawn
Are you trying to intentionally misunderstand? It's been told you repeatedly that crimes need to be dealt with AND THEY ARE via courts martial. No one here has defended crimes done by soldiers.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
And there you not answe
June 9, 2007 - 23:20 ET by shawn228And there you not answering the question and defleting it al Bush. do you denouce those crimes?. If you do then we are on the same page.
I'm not sure if you are accus
June 9, 2007 - 23:29 ET byI'm not sure if you are accusing Bush of some crimes? (that can't be it)
Or do you think that CV and I have not repeatedly denounced the crimes perpertrated by the rogue military members? Do you not know that a courts martial is an ARREST and trial? Anyone who calls for courts martial is calling for ARREST and trial. And you ask if we denounce crimes?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
botg
June 9, 2007 - 23:35 ET by shawn228Again Botg, please I beg you, do you denounce those crimes or not? Kind of funny how love to cheer SportsPolitics on when he is beating up on a troll, but now people are referrering to him as a troll because he is doing it to you. Yeah real........fair and balanced..
uhm, he just denounced them
June 9, 2007 - 23:38 ET by Pragmatic-ManUhm, Shawn, he just denounced them in the post that you replied to.
He did? I did no see th
June 10, 2007 - 00:17 ET by shawn228He did? I did no see that, while we are at it,what makes you think you are any better than an Iraqi botg
Shawn,If you refer to rape of
June 9, 2007 - 23:38 ET byShawn,
If you refer to rape of girls, what part of calling for the perps ARREST and TRIAL do you fail to understand as a denouncing of the crimes?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
The military code also deals
June 9, 2007 - 23:41 ET byThe military code also deals with the guards at Abu Garib and any troop stealing artifacts. I would stand by these law-enforcement efforts by the MPs.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Than i stand corrected,
June 9, 2007 - 23:49 ET by shawn228Than i stand corrected, i did see where denounced these crimes. so how about my original quesion about my fantasy world you be angry to a occuying nation that cannot bring your runnng water, peace the supermarket. Anyone one on this site that says Iraq is better off now is silly. Sadamm was a horribe dictator.the tortured his people. but there was a sense of order ,he hS 99.9 percent of he population. I would rather be lliving in a world where the government would torture me by random opposed to having suicide bombs, f 18's flying over your heard, missiles going into your house, when there was no WMD "lets not argue this one tonigiht please" This war was worth if insance. We are here now, there i nothing we can dog but it is not better off now than before.
Shawn,It's getting late, who'
June 9, 2007 - 23:53 ET byShawn,
It's getting late, who's building and who's bombing?
Also, can you spend a little more time checking your posts for spelling and clarity?
there i nothing we can dog ??????
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Lo, sorry botg, I was n
June 9, 2007 - 23:59 ET by shawn228Lo, sorry botg, I was never best speller but I have a bad cough and I had some very powerful cough sirup. Will try to be more precise.
DONWURRYABOUDITGood night
June 10, 2007 - 00:02 ET byDONWURRYABOUDIT
Good night
good night botg
June 10, 2007 - 00:25 ET by shawn228good night botg
Shawn, stop with the talkin
June 9, 2007 - 23:55 ET by Conservative VoiceShawn, stop with the talking points. Iraq is better off now then it ever was, because now the people have freedom. When the pilgrims landed in New York, even though they didn't have running water, sewage systems, and were starving they were rich...why? because they had freedom, and they thanked God for it. The people of Iraq were under a tyrant. Thousands of people died or were really tortured...the tyrant took pleasure in the torture and not only sanctioned it, celebrated it. No sir, the people of Iraq are far better off now then they ever have been.
it is absolutely better in Iraq
June 9, 2007 - 23:58 ET by Pragmatic-ManIt is absolutely better in Iraq now than before. Apply your metric to the first days of our own republic. It took a while to get the country aligned and running well. But after dislodging ourselves from the British Empire, we were free, and that freedom is still, today, the envy of the world. Why cannot we imagine that a free Iraq could one day be the envy of the Arab world? Right now, the best model for democracy in the middle east is Turkey. Without being an expert on Turkey, I can say that Iraq could even surpass Turkey if the government is kept as a secular entity.
But just because things are not as "comfortable" as they were for "some" of the Iraqi people now, as compared to before Saddam, we should not confuse this with the notion that things are "better". I feel like crap when the doctor does surgery, but hey, he just saved my life by cutting my gut open and removing that beer can I ate back in college. (it's late, the analogies are not going to be as good)
Sadam was tyrant but w
June 10, 2007 - 04:02 ET by shawn228Sadam was tyrant but what if we just let Hans Blix do his work. It was not like the Iraqis were in any hurry to kick us out of the country. Under Sadam even though it was tyranical, there was a sense of order. Over all you were not afraid of walking to your neighbors house or the store to get some milk without having to worry about a suicide bomber in the store. So a life i with suicide bombers or a life without suicide bombers......gee hard choice. We have spend countless billions of money "some unaccounted for." maybe countries like North Korea would have not have dared us to challenge them. They know our resources and military are stretced thin.
If we never invaded Iraq we would be better off financially and militarily. All those lives did not need to be lost because we were wrong about WMD. Ok what makes an Iraq's quality of life better now? The right to vote........it is a big accomplishment yes, but not worth the price that was paid. With all the killings going on and the terrorist all over the place. Yes terrorist are getting killed but is it really worth all this collertal damage? I'm sorry guys I agree we should leave until the job is done, but how can some of you think that we are better off now than before we went to war.
Because Iraqis have an opport
June 10, 2007 - 06:06 ET by GalvanicBecause Iraqis have an opportunity to determine their own future now, shawn228. Where would they be with Saddam, succeeded by the two brutal animals he raised as sons?
Regarding security, one could say that Nazi Germany was a nasty regime, but at least they enforced a secure environment. Of course, if you were a Jew, or a political opponent, or a neighboring country, you weren't safe. And so was the case for Saddam-ruled Iraq.
You're correct about the inherent danger places like Baghdad, but in most of the country, people are recovering with far less threat of violence. The Iraqi people are paying a huge price in life and limb, but they're paying it. Terrorism hasn't shut the country down, and that says something about their spirit and desires.
I can't predict where Iraq will be in 5 or 10 years, but the opportunity is there. It wasn't there before 2003.
botg solders are under
June 9, 2007 - 22:15 ET by shawn228botg solders are under stress I agree, they are away from their families and in a war that the majority of the public do not support at home. What all due respect, lets not bring up the Dems or Clinton K? Please? That is what this board is about 90 percent of the time. It must get tired even to you sometimes right?, No one disagrees with how bad the terrorist are. Botg that is why call them terrorist, The media don't report about how bad they are? Yes I agree that torture memo was never released. Other wise that we see how they blow up US solders every week, bombing children, using acid like bombs so they cause skin damage. I think people know precisely how bad terrorist are.
CV I believe in all forms of torture to get info including wakeboarding, I do not think that is any excuse to put a pile of naked men together, have someone point at your penis while someone else takes the picture, and Oh you jus might feel a litte different if that was the Holy Bible they spit on and flushed down the toilet wouldn't you?
How many times did you see th
June 9, 2007 - 22:27 ET byHow many times did you see the MSM broadcast the soldiers hanging on the bridge in Fallujah? Courts martial are the appropriate way to deal with criminals and it is what i mentioned. I did mention stress of war but did not mean it to excuse criminal behavior. How often does the MSM relate the fact that the terrorists hide in civilian populations which directly causes the collateral damage ie: death of non-combatants. Also many of the so-called innocents are directly aiding the terrorists so they are not always so innocent
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
First point: in a war that
June 9, 2007 - 22:31 ET by Conservative VoiceFirst point: in a war that the majority of the public do not support at home, and yet the majority wants us to win this war...both can't be true.
My beef though is calling the wrongful acts of Abu torture ( and no one flushed the Koran or spit on it, and if it was done it wasn't an order to do so )
We need to separate legal torture to get info, and acts of a few people in uniform who were acting on their own, and acts that do no harm... And as far as spitting on the Bible, what about those captured soldiers who had to profess Christianity to be false in order to be released? That has a more psychological effect wouldn't you say? Spitting on holy words is an act of I dare you to take me on act...demanding someone to give testimony of something they hold dear or they will die a cruel death is akin to raping the mind and soul.
All I am saying is separate what is genuine torture and what isn't. Pointing at some guys private parts though gross, isn't torture...especially when you compare their acts to ours and especially since we have put people in prison for years for pranks, and they glorify their abusers.
I am saying i agree tor
June 9, 2007 - 22:40 ET by shawn228I am saying i agree torture when needed is necessary. I do not believe in rubbing it in and having fun. I never once said you agree with what they did, but the way what do you think on that issue?