Probably the worst job in the Military at this point

[Fayd]

But it was the terrible Jew bankers that had ruined Germanys economy.

Blacks are not people like whites.

Native Americans are just stupid savages.

You see how easy it is to justify actions?

he's characterizing one person, you're attempting to draw that characterization to entire peoples. not a valid argument.

Part of the problem is we are on what the muslims consider holy land.

We are trespassing on their land. At least in their eyes.

they're trespassing on my holy land. funny how that works...3 different religions share a common ancestry, and a common location of "holy land".

 

[BoberFett]

I guessed wrong. I was going to say Commander-in-Chief.

 

[Texashiker]

he's characterizing one person, you're attempting to draw that characterization to entire peoples. not a valid argument.

We are categorizing groups of people.

Speak out against the US government and you are branded a terrorist.

Live a primitive lifestyle and do not want foreigners on your land, you are branded a terrorist.

 

[Agent11]

I would say latrine duty in some desert outpost in BFE Afghanistan during summer would be worse.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I guessed wrong. I was going to say Commander-in-Chief.

I wouldn't take that job on a silver platter since I'd have my soul to the devil to get it.

From my guy, Alexis de Tocqueville

“I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for superior men if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not run.”

 

[ichy]

We are categorizing groups of people.

Speak out against the US government and you are branded a terrorist.

Live a primitive lifestyle and do not want foreigners on your land, you are branded a terrorist.

Fly airliners into skyscrapers and you are branded a terrorist.

Shoot girls in the head because they're advocating for education and you're branded a terrorist.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Fly airliners into skyscrapers and you are branded a terrorist.

Shoot girls in the head because they're advocating for education and you're branded a terrorist.

Murder women and children with high-altitude drone strikes and you're branded a terrorist.

Oh wait...

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I think the fuel people have the worst job. Spend tons of time in fuel tanks reeking of jet fuel all the time.

 

[Fayd]

We are categorizing groups of people.

Speak out against the US government and you are branded a terrorist.

no, we're not categorizing groups of people. only you are attempting to do that, in order to steer a discussion down that path.

 

[Lemon law]

I think this an excellent thread, as be it resolved, it exposes the hypocrisies in the whole infinite detention arguments. And our world wide Geneva convention agreements about what is fair in love in war.

But this whole crapola of arresting what may well be innocent civilians, tossing them in jail, while throwing away the key is and always has been against the founding principles of the USA. At least for American citizens, the doctrine is and always has been, its legal,
to arrest anyone, even on whim or suspicions, but the arrested individual, has their 24 hour right in court, to challenge their detention, and the burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate there is a valid reason to detain them. As I also point out, it was a English pre-American revolution war colonial authority tactic, to simply arrest anyone vaguely suspected, toss them in jail, and never charge them or give them a day in court, that was a prime reason of why the English lost their American colonies.

But still its a far older human human question, does the means justify the ends? As I submit it never does. Despite the fact the human turds like Alan Desowitz, can clothe the argument in the same "the emperor wears no clothes", and unpriniples also found as Orwell prime points of animal farm and 1984.

All hail Alan Dersowitz, who manages to prove to himself, black is white, war is peace, and everyone has equal rights even though pig's like Alan have more rights, because the ends always justify the means.

And if the ends justify the means, Ossama Bin Laden and GWB are on exactly the same moral footing. As we can then resort, to a far older human principle that might makes right. And yah hooray, us Americans, mirror mirror on the wall must be the mighties and fairest of them all, in the whole of human history!!!

Which perfectly explains why might makes right, the ends justify the means, and losing quagmires that are bleeding the American economy dry in losing efforts , must become cheaper by the dozen. Just a few more trillion here, 3 trillion there, down losing ratholes, and we in the USA will finally manage to prove that might makes right, the end justifies the means, and black is white.

 

[chucky2]

What's ironic is that in Reality, might almost always does make right. It's just the US doesn't use its might to get what we consider right, we half ass to satisfy the delusional that we won't be too mighty, and end up get not getting anything right.

I'm glad to see LL you're coming around to a more realistic way of thinking, that the US should stop F'ing around when we go to war. :thumbsup:

Chuck

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

What's ironic is that in Reality, might almost always does make right. It's just the US doesn't use its might to get what we consider right, we half ass to satisfy the delusional that we won't be too mighty, and end up get not getting anything right.

I'm glad to see LL you're coming around to a more realistic way of thinking, that the US should stop F'ing around when we go to war. :thumbsup:

Chuck

That's an over simplistic way of looking at things. The wars we choose to go into simply aren't the wars you think they are. The solutions you want to shoehorn into them just create even more places were might is needed. We are capable of being overextended.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Kinda like we did with the native Americans, and blacks?

Kinda like what Germany did with the Jews?

Kinda like what Julius Caesar did with the Gauls?

Because it happening to someone else then its ok?

At what point do we stop justifying the slaughter/torture of people because of their race, religion or beliefs?

you can be goofy all you want! That does not change the fact that he is correct!!

 

[Darwin333]

If torture got valuable information out of dangerous terrorists then it was justified.

And here I was thinking that we were far more civilized than those we are "fighting".

And regardless, you will say anything if they torture you bad enough which is a really good reason that anything you say while being tortured should not be admissible in court.

 

[chucky2]

That's an over simplistic way of looking at things. The wars we choose to go into simply aren't the wars you think they are. The solutions you want to shoehorn into them just create even more places were might is needed. We are capable of being overextended.

It's not overly simplistic, it's the only way to go to war: With overwhelming force, manpower, and presense in the country we're choosing to war with.

Any time we have not done that, we've Failed. You cannot go half-assed, you need to go all in on your committment, or stay home. Thanks to media exposure, the US Public does not have the stomach for war. We'd be 1000x better off just bringing our folks home, and plunking them down on the souther border to stop the illegal invasion. At least we'd be accomplishing something positive for the US for once.

Chuck

 

[Darwin333]

We have a constitution that protects Americans and people on US soil. It was never meant to protect illegal combatants who plan acts of war against us from foreign countries.

So you whole heartily agree with the treatment of American prisoners, including the torture and beheadings they have endured?

 

[Darwin333]

Rules of war... enemy on the battlefield without a uniform, immediately execute them as a spy. Case closed.

Sure, but we didn't do that and not doing that doesn't automatically give us the right (morally or legally) to torture them. Period.

 

[Darwin333]

Fly airliners into skyscrapers and you are branded a terrorist.

Shoot girls in the head because they're advocating for education and you're branded a terrorist.

What would you call someone who tortured an innocent human being?

 

[chucky2]

What would you call someone who tortured an innocent human being?

Depends on the circumstances.

 

[Darwin333]

That's an over simplistic way of looking at things. The wars we choose to go into simply aren't the wars you think they are. The solutions you want to shoehorn into them just create even more places were might is needed. We are capable of being overextended.

I hate to say it but he is right. War is won when the enemy loses the will to fight and you achieve that by killing enough of the enemy and blowing up enough of their shit that they lose the will. All the "hearts and minds" bullshit is just that, bullshit.

 

[Darwin333]

Depends on the circumstances.

Really? So flying planes into a building killing thousands of innocent people might label you as a terrorist...... depending on the circumstances.... right?


Edit: Ok, I'll bite. Exactly what circumstances would you feel that it is ok to torture an innocent person?

 

[chucky2]

Really? So flying planes into a building killing thousands of innocent people might label you as a terrorist...... depending on the circumstances.... right?

From the perspective of those that did that, that was a viable course of action for them. Then again, killing thousands of people is slightly different than torturing someone, so not sure why you used that example.

 

[chucky2]

Edit: Ok, I'll bite. Exactly what circumstances would you feel that it is ok to torture an innocent person?

I'd only use it where the cost of it being found out and publicized was worth the potential information gained. Sad as it may be, saving the life of a soldier from torturing a person captured on the ground in that area, with the people doing the torture some amatuer squad folks, isn't a great enough gain of info vs. cost to US perception and precedent set.

I'm talking more like high value detainees who are laughing in the face of interrogators, or just playing them, and where we have credible information they know things that we think we need to know. In such a scenario, the torture (and make no PC excuse about it, it's torture) would be conducted in a controlled environment by skilled interrogators. Would I authorize someone in that situation being waterboarded? Yes. Would I have everyone going to GB waterboarded? No. Would I allow troops on the battlefield to waterboard someone? No. What if they did anyways? Punishment, but not excessive (no life in prison or some crazy sh1t).

IMO, you can't treat it lightly, but it shouldn't be completely off the table. If it's completely off the table publically but behind the scenes as I laid out it's being done EDIT: as need be, that's even better.

Chuck

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I hate to say it but he is right. War is won when the enemy loses the will to fight and you achieve that by killing enough of the enemy and blowing up enough of their shit that they lose the will. All the "hearts and minds" bullshit is just that, bullshit.

The only way to win that war in this world setting is to pull into your own country until such an opportunity exists for such a war. We smashed the Iraq army, their infrastructure, and their government. What were we supposed to do next? We won the war. Destroying cities after the armies already fell would have made us the enemy of the world. That's why you people that cry we just need to crush them all and then we'll win are idiots. We can destroy the army of any one country and occupy most countries. We could smash surface of the world. We can't take on the whole world in any sort of meaningful way though.

 

[Darwin333]

The only way to win that war in this world setting is to pull into your own country until such an opportunity exists for such a war. We smashed the Iraq army, their infrastructure, and their government. What were we supposed to do next? We won the war. Destroying cities after the armies already fell would have made us the enemy of the world. That's why you people that cry we just need to crush them all and then we'll win are idiots. We can destroy the army of any one country and occupy most countries. We could smash surface of the world. We can't take on the whole world in any sort of meaningful way though.

History and common sense prove me right. The enemy will not stop fighting until they lose the will to fight. As long as they have the will to fight, why would they stop? We are talking war here, the threat of death isn't good enough because its friggen war. So how else do you break the enemies will to fight other than the methods that have been successfully used for 1000s of years?