Torture in Iraq

It amuses me to be called arrogant by you - it does not bother me in the least - I have often been called that and/or a snob - which is a title often bestowed upon educated people - especially by those with a lesser one.

Yes - just like I stated - you are unfortunately completely incapable of nuanced thinking. BTW believing one is well traveled can be quite different to actually being well traveled - glad you think you are - it is of absolutely zero consequence to me.

Stick to your views - I luckily and happily have no one like you in my circle of friends and absolutely no patience with your opinions - nothing good, progressive or positive has ever been accomplished with the harshness and simplistic black and white views you have of world politics, foreign affairs and lack of compassion you so proudly flout.

I for one am going to take this day and have a special thought for everyone (civilains, soldiers of all nationalities, etc...) that have needlessly lost their lives.

So nothing of response to anything I said? First off, I'll sum up our two posts.

6thGen - "I believe that some things are always wrong."
Chickpea - "You are poorly educated and I'm fortunate that I don't know anyone like you."

First, I'd put my resume, from preschool to postgraduate education and my career since, up against anyone's. But that's not the point. I recognize that an education is not an end in itself, rather a means to an end.

Real quick, on this quote, "nothing good, progressive or positive has ever been accomplished with the harshness and simplistic black and white views you have of world politics, foreign affairs and lack of compassion you so proudly flout." You want to ask Reagan about that?

I've stated my position and I'll turn it over to you. When is targeting innocent civilians fair game? What nuance allows for converting others to their religion by the sword? I'm anxiously awaiting your travels and education to give me insight into that. I seriously want to hear this nuance. I'm open minded and all ears.

We all think it is tragic. But is it right or wrong as you say?
Believing in absolutes as you do , you should be able to answer that.


If you believe it is right, then explain to me how their loss of lives is any different than ours.

As far as hiding behind them as you say, couldn't Iraqis ask the same of you and others who support the invasion of their country. Are you not hiding behind bombs comfortably removed from any violence.

I'm waiting for your answer still.
Here is a link about some of those moderate muslim voices you seem to have trouble finding.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/05/29/malaysia.muslim.ap/index.html

We all think it is tragic. But is it right or wrong as you say?
Believing in absolutes as you do , you should be able to answer that.


If you believe it is right, then explain to me how their loss of lives is any different than ours.

As far as hiding behind them as you say, couldn't Iraqis ask the same of you and others who support the invasion of their country. Are you not hiding behind bombs comfortably removed from any violence.

John Stuart Mills said that "war is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.? The US, British and other forces have done their best to give the Iraqi citizens freedom, and some of them, along with many from other countries, are doing everything they can to thwart it.

I'm waiting for your answer still.
Here is a link about some of those moderate muslim voices you seem to have trouble finding.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/05/29/malaysia.muslim.ap/index.html

Give me a minute. Speaking of waiting, I've been waiting for days on your thoughts on what should happen to a person's possessions when they die in the thread with your name on it.

The US, British and other forces have done their best to give the Iraqi citizens freedom, and some of them, along with many from other countries, are doing everything they can to thwart it.

Bottom line on "giving" them freedom ... they don't want it, can't handle it, don't understand it, aren't ready for it, can't make use of it, have a different definition of it... something like that.

Did you ever try to give someone something they didn't want? Did you ever try to get someone to like you or love you, that just didn't? You can't make them, period. It ultimately hurts you more than it hurts, or helps, them.

Rancid,
You will never get a coherent answer, let alone a compassionate one. There will never be an ounce of understanding for other's views, let alone an attempt at being self analytical for fear of being perceived as being less patriotic - it is the childish attitude of "they hit us so we will hit them stronger and show them!!!"

I've never brought up patriotism, so I don't know where you are going there. And Bob, I've never said that everything is absolute, or everything is black and white. I've listed a few examples. And I've also said that converting others' religion by the sword is always wrong, so your comment that I am the pot in this case because I believe in certain absolutes is not only poorly grounded, it contradicts exactly what I posted in the thread to which you responded.

Bottom line on "giving" them freedom ... they don't want it, can't handle it, don't understand it, aren't ready for it, can't make use of it, have a different definition of it... something like that.

Did you ever try to give someone something they didn't want? Did you ever try to get someone to like you or love you, that just didn't? You can't make them, period. It ultimately hurts you more than it hurts, or helps, them.

I didn't support the war because it gave the Iraqis freedom, I supported it because it was to depose a regime that was actively threatening us and coddling terrorists. That is one reason I believe that this war had far more merit than the first invasion.

6th Gen, your posts are making me think a bit, especially about the terrorists being cowards. What comes to mind is that when a small group goes up against the USA in a war, they cannot fight on the terms of gentlemen. There is no competition. It would be like playing a game of chess, and the terrorists getting only one pawn to start the game, where the opponent gets the full field of pieces. The only way the terrorists have a chance a of winning is to position the pawn as close to the opponent's king as possible, then lighting the fuse blowing up all around himself, including himself.

I've never been of the belief that war should be fair. There are those that would find reasons why Dahmer did what he did, but that doesn't make murder and cannibalism any less despicable.

I've never been of the belief that war should be fair. There are those that would find reasons why Dahmer did what he did, but that doesn't make murder and cannibalism any less despicable.

You did earlier mention that the suicide bombers were cowards, and I read that as the suicide bombers are not fighting in a gentlemanly manner, on fair grounds. That might not be the intentions of the statement, but that is the way I read it.

When outnumbered at war, there are no rules. You do whatever it takes to "win" the battle. If someone, or some country, comes to my community, threatening the lives of my friends, neighbors, and family, you can be guaranteed that the first thing I will do is throw away the list of rules, including those about killing people. War is about killing. What does it matter if it is with bombs dropped from aircraft, many miles away, or suicide bombers on the front row? It is killing either way you look at it.

I am not for the mass killing, and I am not trying to justify anyone's actions in this war. I am just stating one way it could be viewed.

You did earlier mention that the suicide bombers were cowards, and I read that as the suicide bombers are not fighting in a gentlemanly manner, on fair grounds. That might not be the intentions of the statement, but that is the way I read it.

When outnumbered at war, there are no rules. You do whatever it takes to "win" the battle. If someone, or some country, comes to my community, threatening the lives of my friends, neighbors, and family, you can be guaranteed that the first thing I will do is throw away the list of rules, including those about killing people. War is about killing. What does it matter if it is with bombs dropped from aircraft, many miles away, or suicide bombers on the front row? It is killing either way you look at it.

I am not for the mass killing, and I am not trying to justify anyone's actions in this war. I am just stating one way it could be viewed.

I guess you could read it as not fighting as a gentleman, but I?m not asking them to don red coats and hire a drummer. I believe that dressing up as a civilian (or staging from a mosque for that matter) and targeting civilians, specifically women and children, is cowardly. If you want to mention camouflage, soldiers in camo do not depend on the goodwill and moral compass of their enemy to elude fire. As for war being killing, as I mentioned, war is tragic. However, the killing is not on the same parallel when targeting those that are not fighting. That is murder. It?s this country?s set of core values that condemns such, like we condemn and understand an arguably more nuanced difference of firing upon a citizen that was threatening when they are running away and firing on them when they are still posing a threat.

And I know that you are not for mass killing or justifying it, you?ve just given me a chance to clarify my opinion rather than disregarding taking the easy way out and avoiding discussion by disregarding it as uneducated, and myopic.

You did earlier mention that the suicide bombers were cowards, and I read that as the suicide bombers are not fighting in a gentlemanly manner, on fair grounds. That might not be the intentions of the statement, but that is the way I read it.

When outnumbered at war, there are no rules. You do whatever it takes to "win" the battle. If someone, or some country, comes to my community, threatening the lives of my friends, neighbors, and family, you can be guaranteed that the first thing I will do is throw away the list of rules, including those about killing people. War is about killing. What does it matter if it is with bombs dropped from aircraft, many miles away, or suicide bombers on the front row? It is killing either way you look at it.

I am not for the mass killing, and I am not trying to justify anyone's actions in this war. I am just stating one way it could be viewed.

The only difference is that many (if not most) of the 'fighters' strapping bombs on their belts or cars are not Iraqi and are doing it in the name of religion. I get the idea of defending the homeland (ala our own patriots inflicting damage to British regulars still fighting 'continental style')but the ability the radical Muslims have to instill so much hatred in their youth is disturbing.

The only difference is that many (if not most) of the 'fighters' strapping bombs on their belts or cars are not Iraqi and are doing it in the name of religion. I get the idea of defending the homeland (ala our own patriots inflicting damage to British regulars still fighting 'continental style')but the ability the radical Muslims have to instill so much hatred in their youth is disturbing.

Those people have been fighting over religion for thousands of years, and it seems a little crazy to me, too. I have an idea that we won't be changing that behavior, no matter how much we try to fight it. I agree that their ability to instill hatred in their youth is disturbing. We have seen similar behavior in other groups. Kids that age don't feel like they serve a purpose and living doesn't seem to be high on their list of things to do. Isn't there a company making "No Fear!" apparell? That is nothing like suicide bombing, but the message is very similar.

I liken the Shia vs Shiite conflict to Protestants vs. Catholics. Generations of killing people who share your basic beliefs and hard to stop because of all the built up anger and resentment, not to mention the political motivations of the neighboring countries to keep it fueled.

On a related note, could someone tell me if there has been a war in the last 50 years where the guerillas/guerilla style tactics lost? It always seemed to me to be a smart way to fight.

I liken the Shia vs Shiite conflict to Protestants vs. Catholics. Generations of killing people who share your basic beliefs and hard to stop because of all the built up anger and resentment, not to mention the political motivations of the neighboring countries to keep it fueled.

On a related note, could someone tell me if there has been a war in the last 50 years where the guerillas/guerilla style tactics lost? It always seemed to me to be a smart way to fight.

Desert Storm, but it is easy to bomb the hell out of a uniformed enemy from 30,000 feet and then overtake them. Perhaps the reason the guerilla style seems popular is that countries with legit militaries no longer wage war on each other.

Scooter, misread your question. Iraq attempted to fight 'traditionally' in Desert Storm. you bring up a good point.

I know I'm generalizing, but we used guerilla tactics against the British to win our country's freedom, the Resistance was key in defeating the Nazis, a major problem in Vietnam was guerilla warfare.....

It is hard for an organized military to fight guerillas because they have to follow Geneva convention or they are accused of human rights violations etc. and the media is no help either.

Other than nuclear or biological weapons, guerilla tactics like using suicide bombers, are the only thing that will stop a country like the USA. I don't want to give any terrorists ideas, but I can think of plenty of easy ways to shut down this country indefinitely, as long as a few people are willing to sacrifice their own lives in the process. When the person fighting against you has died, it is difficult to fight them in battle. I laugh at the US Citizens who hord all of the weapons in case they have to fight their gov't at some point in time. Can you see a small compound using their automatic weapons to take on the US Military? Apprarently, they haven't thought much about the history books, except the book including the US Constitution.

Yes, I give thanks daily that the terrorists are apparently stupid. They could have a field day just by reading some Tom Clancy books and copycatting.

And before someone jumps on me - I am NOT saying we will lose in Iraq becasue we are fighting guerillas, just exploring the idea of how warfare needs to adapt.

and targeting civilians, specifically women and children, is cowardly. If you want to mention camouflage, soldiers in camo do not depend on the goodwill and moral compass of their enemy to elude fire. As for war being killing, as I mentioned, war is tragic. However, the killing is not on the same parallel when targeting those that are not fighting. That is murder. It?s this country?s set of core values that condemns such, like we condemn and understand an arguably more nuanced difference of firing upon a citizen that was threatening when they are running away and firing on them when they are still posing a threat.

If this is the case, explain that to people from Nagasaki and Hiroshima. More moral relativism from you. You are doing a fine job of arguing against the absolutes you said you believe in.

I was going to let Chickpea, Bob, rancid or Mango bring it up, since it is a fair weapon in their quiver, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be considered as well. It was probably the toughest choice the leaders of this Republic have ever had to make, so it?s safe to say it?s nuanced to their taste. I believe we did the right thing, but I?m not sure I could say that if my signature was the one required executing the decision. I believe that on moral grounds we were within bounds, so I won?t argue based on the American and Japanese lives the drops saved. I believe we were within our bounds since the citizens were well warned, and we even fired a few warning shots in Nagasaki for those that believe the second drop was gratuitous. Japan was also waging total war, so the line between civilian and soldier was near indistinguishable. The targets were military in nature, even if there could have been a better military target than Hiroshima, I doubt there was one that could beat Nagasaki. Again, that decision was as gray as it gets, but I hope I?d have the fortitude to sign off on it if I were Truman, because I completely understand the argument against doing so.

If this is the case, explain that to people from Nagasaki and Hiroshima. More moral relativism from you. You are doing a fine job of arguing against the absolutes you said you believe in.

We are on the same page, if it is not obvious that I posted that before I saw this.

I was going to let Chickpea, Bob, rancid or Mango bring it up, since it is a fair weapon in their quiver, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be considered as well. It was probably the toughest choice the leaders of this Republic have ever had to make, so it?s safe to say it?s nuanced to their taste. I believe we did the right thing, but I?m not sure I could say that if my signature was the one required executing the decision. I believe that on moral grounds we were within bounds, so I won?t argue based on the American and Japanese lives the drops saved. I believe we were within our bounds since the citizens were well warned, and we even fired a few warning shots in Nagasaki for those that believe the second drop was gratuitous. Japan was also waging total war, so the line between civilian and soldier was near indistinguishable. The targets were military in nature, even if there could have been a better military target than Hiroshima, I doubt there was one that could beat Nagasaki. Again, that decision was as gray as it gets, but I hope I?d have the fortitude to sign off on it if I were Truman, because I completely understand the argument against doing so.

I disagree with your reasoning for it being morally correct, because they were warned. Yes, it probably saved many other lives, by dropping the bomb, than it actually killed, but tell that to the family members of those who innocently died. Using your reasoning, I guess Al Quida could also say that we were warned, but, IMO, that wouldn't make it right.

As for soldier and civilian being nearly indidstinguishable, if our enemy was invading our country, I think there would be many civilians taking up arms and wearing camo, and driving HUMMERS, making them nearly indistinguishable from the military. ;-)

And more than 50 years later people are still debating Hiroshioma and Nagasaki for those exact reasons. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no major bombings of a civilian population since.

:roll: I guess that depends on your definition of "major."



Thinking more about this comparison of Fat Man and Little Boy to our war with Iraq, I am not sure that we are saving more lives in the end, by killing so many innocent civilians in today's war. I guess that will also be debated for a long time, since it is unknown.

I disagree with your reasoning for it being morally correct, because they were warned. Yes, it probably saved many other lives, by dropping the bomb, than it actually killed, but tell that to the family members of those who innocently died. Using your reasoning, I guess Al Quida could also say that we were warned, but, IMO, that wouldn't make it right.

As for soldier and civilian being nearly indidstinguishable, if our enemy was invading our country, I think there would be many civilians taking up arms and wearing camo, and driving HUMMERS, making them nearly indistinguishable from the military. ;-)

I worded that poorly. I don?t believe that warning the Japanese made it morally correct, but I believe it mitigates what is morally lacking rather than justifies it. The primary moral reason mitigating the act was the fact that the targets did have military significance and secondary because Japan was engaged in total war. As scooterbug said, the fact that it is still debated to this day shows that as a culture we understand the significance and impact of the decision. Also, the fact that we look at it as wrong as a default position until proven acceptable emphasizes the difference between that and something like bombing civilian markets.

Also, I?m not arguing that dropping the bombs was morally acceptable because it saved lives, but I?m listing that as something to list in the pro category after the decision has been made based on something that fits within the core beliefs of what allows us to at least get some sleep at night.