Democratic Party Leader Says to Troops: You Lost the War

Rocketmantex, please warn before displaying such pictures.

This is the truth.


nearly choked on my apple and had to spit it out on my desk. Still coughing a bit..

Fortunately I missed the keyboard.

 

you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. either that or you are totally lying. you are going to need to provide a link showing that intelligence experts/officers think torture is useful. the dean of westpoint is against torture. colin powell is against it. EVERYTHING i have read has them saying it is harmful and not an effective or reliable way to gather info. again, show some proof to back up what you are saying. furthermore, 55% of the troops who have actually served are against torture. and you have the audacity to claim you are supporting them.

again, you are talking out your backside and have zero factual evidence to backup anything that you are spewing. i know that hillary, reid and pelosi are not well liked by the troops, but lets look at your god bush - only 35% of the troops who have served in iraq or afghanistan approve of bush's handling of the war. only 41% think we should have invaded in the first place. the fact that you think the military still supports your god bush just shows how out of touch you are.

 

So you support funding the troops, but you are the same guy that when we talk about a potential tax increase, you go berzerk.

You, in a realistic world, can't have one without the other. Seems to me that no matter what is done in Washington, you're going to b****.

 

.

best quote of the day.

And this can be applied to just about everyone

 

again, you are showing your total ignorance on the matter. the bush administration hired private contractors to carry out interrogations. in most instances, the military is working under these private contractors in the prisons like abu ghraib. ive posted several articles on this in other threads. the military, cia and other intelligence experts are all soundly against torture. but you know more than they do, huh texx?

again, you totally ignore the fact that your god bush is no more popular than the democrats with the military.

free your mind tradertexx!

 

jo mama, do you see a difference between torture and interrogations?

 

Deleted. I will try not to make fun of TJ anymore.

 

Obviously...it is trying to argue with somebody who is devoid of reason.

I assume that because those of us (unlike you) who live in this little place called reality realize that politicians of BOTH parties are going to be unwilling to cut domestic programs in favor of prosecuting a war that more than half of the voting populace believes is being mishandled. It's called political suicide.

Funny. I see people everyday that are making less money in this "boom" than they were before it started. Secondly, I know quite a few people who are intelligent and well educated who are not benefitting. As a small business owner, I can tell you that the Bush tax cut certainly is not a boom.

See above regarding cutting programs.

For the record, there is plenty of b****ing on both sides of the aisle.

The only thing I can smell right now is your unnecessary bile and the crap you are spewing.

 

yes i do - it is you who keeps saying that torture is a "loaded" term, yet refuses to provide your definition of it. torture has been defined by international and even u.s. authorities - the standards have been in place for a long time and were always abided by until torture-boy bush came along. im not saying isolated incidents didnt occur, but we never had a government openly persuing a policy of torture before.

my definition is based off of u.s. and international law and my own internal moral gage. how about you?

raping children qualifies as torture, imo.
shoving glo-sticks up dudes asses qualifies as torture, imo.
beating people until their organs fail qualifies as torture, imo.

 

first, you've never asked me to define it for you (if you did i never saw it). Second, i've talked about that issue before.

you can base your definition on us and int'l law but that doesnt mean its right. You can bend, twist and do whatever to make those laws fit a range of acts.

yeah, you laid out the obvious toruture methods. but talking about the obvious doesnt help. What important are the less obvious. Is soletary isolation torture?

aggressive questioning tactics and psychological 'mind-games' torture (like iran telling the brit lady that she was the only one there and the others have been sent home)?

is being naked torture?



also, i find you claiming that rape is endorsed is a skewed and cheap tactic.

 

i have asked you directly everytime you dismiss everything by saying torture is a "loaded" term - ive asked you at least 4 times and you have never responded. even now, you are refusing to give me your definition of torture. why?

funny, you are doing exactly what you say i am doing. my definition is based on international and u.s. law and my own internal moral compass - you are the one bending and twisting - seems that in your mind nothing qualifies as torture.

ignoring the facts doesnt help either.

no "soletary" isolation doesnt qualify as torture - aggressive questioning doesnt qualify as torture.

by u.s. and international law, yes. but when you start beating naked prisoners, forcing them to masturbate infront of each other, stacking them in naked pyramids, smearing feces all over their bodies than it does enter the realm of psychological/mental torture (by law).

bush's lawyers have argued that the president has the authority to sexually torture children. non-military interrogators have raped children and got off scott-free. i find your continuing denial of the facts to be a skewed and cheap tactic.

 

i've posted and explained how torture is a loaded term. I've also talked about the difficulties in classifying torture. the definition of torture is obvious (look it up), but its the interpretation which is difficult.

but i see that you have moral issues with these things as well you should. so what do you base your morals on?

Personally, i have no problems aggressive interrogations and in particular with nat'l security.

i've seen worse things happen during rush week in college. personally, i dont think these things are really that series. Sure, its sucks if it happens to you but is this really worth worldwide outcry? i dont think so.

show me some info what you are talking about.

based on your little description, the president has "authority" to do a ton of different things, but that doesnt men he supports them, like you seem to imply.

nonmilitary intorrogators have raped children and got of free? yes, im sure. im sure a lot of bad things have happened before.

 

That is from your cultural standpoint. It has an entirely different effect from a different culture.

But whether it occurred during a frat rush or not, doesn't change the fact that is against the law and considered torture in international relations.

 

Reid's actual quote --

Yeah!

That screams Reid believes the war is lost.

 

ive directly asked you several times and never gotten a response. even now, you wont provide your definition of torture.

not really - there are clear laws in place (international and u.s.). it is not difficult.

um, the same thing most people (including you) base their morals on - parents, church, upbringing, events that have happened to/effect you, what you see going on in the world.

the best ive ever gotten out of you is that what we are doing is not torture, but "aggressive interrogations". by international and u.s. law the bush administration perused a policy of torture and what we are doing is torture. your definition is obviously ALOT looser than international and u.s. law dictates, but that seems more like a personal issue on your part.

the fact that people like colin powell, the dean of westpoint, military and cia intelligence experts and 55% of the troops (i know how you hate polls though) are against torture means nothing to you?

fact - torture is not an effective way to gather intelligence
fact - 70-90% of the people we have detained in iraq have been totally innocent.

a frat-boy huh? that explains alot.

you have seen people forced to wear womens underwear, masturbate infront of each other and have feces rubbed all over their chests? during rush week? really? have you been in a naked pyramid too? did you get chemical glow sticks shoved up your butt too? really?

if you saw those things happen and you did nothing than you are guilty of criminal negligence. it is very "series". its not too late to do the right thing now - you seriously need to report this to the police. really.

i think the fact that you say it is not worth worldwide outcry speaks to your lack of morals.

i will be more than happy to. first, you need to provide me with your definition of what qualifies as torture, as ive asked of you multiple times. i have layed it out on several occasions and im always happy to provide the info again, but if you dont give me that courtesy why should i give it to you?

and to you its not a big deal and worth all the worldwide outcry - i think it is.

 

fair enough, but thats part of the underlying problem, the cultural standpoint argument and people's personal moral compasses. There is a point where you try to appease everyone and then you eliminate any effectiveness. believe me, im not advocating god awful tortures by any means but im also not looking to try to make everyone happy. i also think that there needs to be some clear distinctions to where such 'questionable' practices can be used. Obviously not to everyday joe schmos, but when it is clear that someone is dealing with a ruthless and dedicated person, known to have involvement in shady activities, then i think one should be allowed to tip toe on those gray areas of interrogation

just b/c they are laws does not mean they are right or that there isnt an exception...would you agree?

 

jo mama, i have discussed the issue. whether or not you saw it is a different story.

well of course people will say they are agaisnt torture, but again, thats a vague term. Do you not understand how certain words carry a stigma?

again, what kind of torture? Sure, beating someone will not yield a whole lot b/c eventually they will tell you anything.

But if its a form of psychological coercion (which may qualify as "torture" but in reality is not overtly bad) then it could prove very useful.

.

70-90% is a big range. But the question is..so? were all those people tortured? hell, i've been 'detained' by police and was innocent...what is that even suppose to mean.

.

actually i didnt say that. you assumed that. Just b/c i witnessed things doent mean i was part of them. you should work on your assumptions.

some of those, more or less. you dont even want to know what some guys on the baseball team did in high school. talk about torture.

.

give me a break with this moral supremecy act.

.

and the hypersynsitivity to yours. But i dont see you pursuing the greater crimes, only the ones of the current administration. seems like ulterior motives if you ask me...thats not very moral is it?

 

I think we need to be able to be a little bit flexible in our interrogation depending on culture. I don't just mean accomodating and bending over backwards to a suspect's culture. I mean we can use their cultural background to our advantage as well, but not to the point where it becomes torture.

It isn't that hard to have a slight variance on specific techniques.

Now, AG prison is a great example. More than half the innmates were let go because they weren't believed to be legit suspects. Furthermore there is no evidence we learned anything useful by the tactics used htere.

I don't believe that torture is ever acceptable under any circumstance. I can't remember if you were around under the ticking bomb scenario discussion we had or not.

But as for laws not always being correct I agree.