Torture: Still doesn't work

[ElNono]

It would be valid if you vowed to kill me, ofcourse hyperbole withstanding, you ask the person if they mean what they say. Then you got to take them at their word.

In a civilized society, tho you wouldn't need that, you could just go to the cops. But if he shows up at your doorstep after being warned, you have every moral right to kill on the spot.

Why should I wait until he shows at my doorstep. Under your preemptive doctrine I should just go get him and kill him. See how stupid that is? Morality didn't even enter the picture.

[ElNono]

The only faulty mistake was that we occupied them and nation builded.

Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with removing a dictatorship that doesn't allow for individual and human rights. Any free country has the moral authority to remove said individual.

That was the story after the WMD weren't found and obviously, you can't turn around and say "sorry, bye" (lol yoni).

We invaded under the ruse that they had WMD that they didn't have. Faulty intelligence justifying a "preemptive attack". Don't take it from me, take it from Powell that had to go sell that BS to the UN.

[Yonivore]

That was the story after the WMD weren't found and obviously, you can't turn around and say "sorry, bye" (lol yoni).

We invaded under the ruse that they had WMD that they didn't have. Faulty intelligence justifying a "preemptive attack". Don't take it from me, take it from Powell that had to go sell that BS to the UN.

Have you read the AUMF in Iraq? I linked to it in an earlier post or in another thread.

[ElNono]

Have you read the AUMF in Iraq? I linked to it in an earlier post or in another thread.

Yes, I have. That was AFTER the UN didn't buy what Powell was selling. They were right.

[CuckingFunt]

All this assumes my chief concern is with heterosexuals being exposed to sexuals. It's not.

Why should sexuals be exposed to other sexuals. The military separates the sexes because of the problems sexual attraction causes. And, unless you're saying sexuals are different, in that respect, I don't see why they should be treated differently.

I think it is unfair to sexuals to force them to shower and bunk with other sexuals. It suggests they aren't as sexual a being as heterosexuals. That they aren't driven by the same natural urges, etc...

As far as the expense. DADT was a cheap solution. Bill Clinton recognized that.

Holy .

[Yonivore]

Yes, I have. That was AFTER the UN didn't buy what Powell was selling. They were right.

It was passed, overwhelmingly, by a bi-partisan Congress before Secretary Powell appeared before the UN and was based on several UNSC Resolutions, dating back to the cessation of hostilities in 1992.

[ElNono]

It was passed, overwhelmingly, by a bi-partisan Congress before Secretary Powell appeared before the UN and was based on several UNSC Resolutions, dating back to the cessation of hostilities in 1992.

And no new UN resolution authorizing the use of force, since the UN didn't buy what Powell was selling. Heck, Powell himself admitted later on he put up a dog and pony show on faulty intelligence. That's why the invasion was an unilateral operation from the US, UK, and two or three other ty countries.

[Yonivore]

And no new UN resolution authorizing the use of force, since the UN didn't buy what Powell was selling. Heck, Powell himself admitted later on he put up a dog and pony show on faulty intelligence. That's why the invasion was an unilateral operation from the US, UK, and two or three other ty countries.

It wasn't needed, there were at least three previous UNSC resolutions authorizing it. They were referenced in the AUMF in Iraq. You should read it sometime.

[ElNono]

It wasn't needed, there were at least three previous UNSC resolutions authorizing it. They were referenced in the AUMF in Iraq. You should read it sometime.

If it "wasn't needed" then Powell didn't need to go to the UN. The previous UNSC resolutions date back to Operation Desert Storm and allege a breach of the cease fire in place since 1991 (lol). Did you even read the AUMF?

[Yonivore]

If it "wasn't needed" then Powell didn't need to go to the UN.

Correct.

The previous UNSC resolutions date back to Operation Desert Storm and allege a breach of the cease fire in place since 1991 (lol).

Actually, all the UNSC resolutions don't address a breach; some, instead, authorize force in the event of a breach. There were over a dozen years of breaches on which to rely when choosing to employ the various authorizing passages from the various UNSC resolutions referenced.

Did you even read the AUMF?

Yep but, it's been awhile. I may do that.

[ElNono]

Actually, all the UNSC resolutions don't address a breach; some, instead, authorize force in the event of a breach. There were over a dozen years of breaches on which to rely when choosing to employ the various authorizing passages from the various UNSC resolutions referenced.

The reason Powell went to the UN was to get a new authorization for the use of force. It was denied.

After that fact, US and UK claimed a breach under UN Resolution 687 (1991), the cease-fire resolution from Operation Desert Storm, and conducted the hostilities under the guise they were continuing hostilities under UN Resolution 678 (1990) that authorized the use of force for Operation Desert Storm.

There, you don't need to read the AUMF now.

The two salient factors for invading Iraq at the time was the alleged possession of WMD and the alleged links to AQ. Both wrong, and both based on bad intel. Again, not my word, but Powell's.

The preemptive strike was a mistake and a waste of money and lives, which we're still paying.

[Yonivore]

The reason Powell went to the UN was to get a new authorization for the use of force. It was denied.

Obviously, it wasn't needed. And, frankly, if we had known how the UN Secretary General and many of our "ostensible" allies were violating the terms of the Oil For Food program, and allowing the Iraq Regime cir vent the spirit and word of most of those UNSC resolutions, we probably wouldn't have bothered.

After that fact, US and UK claimed a breach under UN Resolution 687 (1991), the cease-fire resolution from Operation Desert Storm, and conducted the hostilities under the guise they were continuing hostilities under UN Resolution 678 (1990) that authorized the use of force for Operation Desert Storm.

Cool by me.

There, you don't need to read the AUMF now.

The two salient factors for invading Iraq at the time was the alleged possession of WMD and the alleged links to AQ. Both wrong, and both based on bad intel. Again, not my word, but Powell's.

I disagree. There's a difference between what you see as a salient factor and the actual factors involved in the decisions to invade. But, if your simple mind won't let you see the issue was more complex than just WMD's, I'm okay with that.

Have fun with your anger.

The preemptive strike was a mistake and a waste of money and lives, which we're still paying.

I disagree.

[ElNono]

Obviously, it wasn't needed.

If it wasn't needed, he wouldn't have gone. But he did go.

I disagree. There's a difference between what you see as a salient factor and the actual factors involved in the decisions to invade.

They were certainly the salient factors. Again, not my word, but Powell's own admission, who went to sell exactly that to the UN on behalf of the administration at the time.

You can argue with Powell, who I suspect had a better idea what he was talking about than you ever did.

lol anger

[Yonivore]

If it wasn't needed, he wouldn't have gone. But he did go.

If it was needed we wouldn't have invaded. But, we did.

They were certainly the salient factors. Again, not my word, but Powell's own admission, who went to sell exactly that to the UN on behalf of the administration at the time.

You can argue with Powell, who I suspect had a better idea what he was talking about than you ever did.

I'm not the only person that disagrees with Powell. I'm okay with that.

lol anger

You're not angry about the invasion of Iraq?

[ElNono]

If it was needed we wouldn't have invaded. But, we did.

Not under the UN au es, and under false pretenses (IMO anyways).

You're not angry about the invasion of Iraq?

No, I'm sad that a bunch of families lost their relatives over bad intel and a ty "preemptive strike".

I think it's a situation to learn from so we don't make the same mistake in the future.

[Yonivore]

If I poured water over your feet and called it waterboarding, would that cons ute torture?

My point is, there is a wide variety of practices, used over time, that have been variously called waterboarding. Some versions are torture. I'm satisfied the Bush administration did due diligence and arrived as a reasonable conclusion this version did not cons ute torture.

No court has tried the question of whether or not the Bush administration's version of waterboarding cons uted torture. Period.

Ten pages ago, we were still on the OP topic...

[Yonivore]

Not under the UN au es, and under false pretenses (IMO anyways).

That's your opinion.

No, I'm sad that a bunch of families lost their relatives over bad intel and a ty "preemptive strike".

I'm sad too. Doesn't change my position the invasion of Iraq was a legitimate and necessary action.

I think it's a situation to learn from so we don't make the same mistake in the future.

I would hope our methods of intelligence gathering are always improving. Unfortunately, the Left wants to hogtie the government and shut down or, otherwise, interfere with intelligence gathering.

[ElNono]

That's your opinion.

Yep. No less valid than yours.

I would hope our methods of intelligence gathering are always improving. Unfortunately, the Left wants to hogtie the government and shut down or, otherwise, interfere with intelligence gathering.

The "left" can't take away what was never on the table. I'm glad that as a country we're still sane enough to call waterboarding what it is: torture.

[ChumpDumper]

Ten pages ago, we were still on the OP topic...

Too bad I showed several years ago that you are full of .

[mingus]

abortion = group of cells that aren't viable outside the human body

terrorists = human being

I don't think you will ever find a "liberal running to support terrorists", that is itself a ty strawman argument.

There is a difference between thinking that even terrorists might have rights and actively supporting their cause.

You do see the difference between the two, yes?

what does not being viable outside the human body have to do with anything? and group of cells? we're all a group of cells. who has authority over when to say life begins? it's an arbitrary dileanation. one day you are allowed to have an abortion, and the next day you're not...what happens biologically in that small frame of time to make an abortion illegal?

anways i don't want to sidetrack. i'll never be persuaded on the issue so long as i don't have a definite answer as to when life begins, so i'll just leave it at that. i wouldn't condone anything like that when i don't even know the implications of what it is i'm condoning.

"even terrorists have rights" -- but there are times in U.S. history where rights of people have been undermined. take Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 200,000 innocent died. people who have the potential to be responsible for or are witholding info on an event of catastrophic proprtions, a mass killing event, certain human rights laws have to change if doing so can protect a lot of innocent people in this country.

[LnGrrrR]

Maybe they should have saved their pennies before lifting DADT.

You know, the military isn't a business... they get their funds authorized from Congress. And I'm pretty sure that they're more concerned with spending money to get the mission accomplished, rather than build separate barracks for sexuals.

Would you say that to a heterosexual woman forced to bunk and shower with a bunch of heterosexual males? Get over it?

If the military required that of her, yes. She would just have to suck it up.

I disagree. I think it's only a matter of time before some modest sexual sues for separate facilities.
Then the real fun starts.

What "real fun"? The cours will decide if they have a legitimate complaint, and will force the military to accomodate them if they win. *shrug* The military has about 500 more pressing issues than whether or not gays can bunk with straights.

[LnGrrrR]

Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with removing a dictatorship that doesn't allow for individual and human rights. Any free country has the moral authority to remove said individual.

What about if there's no way to know whether another dictator will stand up? Should we just keep knocking down dictators every decade or so?

Also, why should it be our responsibility to knock down these dictators? If the people living there don't ask for our help, and they don't feel like knocking down these dictators themselves, should we take it upon ourselves anyway?

[Ignignokt]

What about if there's no way to know whether another dictator will stand up? Should we just keep knocking down dictators every decade or so?

Also, why should it be our responsibility to knock down these dictators? If the people living there don't ask for our help, and they don't feel like knocking down these dictators themselves, should we take it upon ourselves anyway?

I didn't introduce duty ethics aka deontology into this. I'm just saying, if a free country wants to invade a dictatorship, they have a right to. And if america becomes a dictatorship where we are no longer allowed to speak up and are shut out, a free country would have the right to invade us for whatever reason, because america under a dictatorship would not speak for me nor would it be legitimate.

[LnGrrrR]

I didn't introduce duty ethics aka deontology into this. I'm just saying, if a free country wants to invade a dictatorship, they have a right to. And if america becomes a dictatorship where we are no longer allowed to speak up and are shut out, a free country would have the right to invade us for whatever reason, because america under a dictatorship would not speak for me nor would it be legitimate.

I disagree that a free country has the right to invade a dictatorship. I would only agree that a free country has the right to invade a dictatorship if there was something occuring such as genocide, or if the population specifically requested our help. Any invasion/attack leads to innocent casualties. If we are going to invade, we would have to make sure the reason for invasion outweighed any potential innocent loss of life.

[LnGrrrR]

FWIW, my SERE training defines torture as:

the systematic application of mental or physical pain so intense as to cause loss of will or loss of consciousness each and every time it is applied by captors to meet their goals