• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

John McCain CIA Torture Report Senate Speech

From the report : "Majid Khan’s ‘lunch tray’ consisting of hummus, pasta, with sauce, nuts and raisins was ‘pureed’ and rectally infused." That's not honorable. Thank God you're not an American.

I find it telling that in each comment you've directed my way you find a need to personally insult me for my views. Unfortunately, you're not alone in your style of debate.

I disagree with your position, however, as I said previously, you're entitled to your view. Have a good day.
 
So where do you stand on the RAF fire bombing of dresden in WW2 or the atom bomb drops on Japan?

Myh brother in law is British, and both of us are military history buffs, so we talk on military history stuff alot. I enjoy it because you get a somewhat different look at views of history than you get from Americans. And almost any time WW2 comes up in out talks, he mentions Dresden and he gets pissed. He is highly embarrassed that his home country was a major part of that, calling it "unnecessary and evil". It is kinda hard to disagree with that point of view. Hiroshima and Nagasaki where probably the same, though I think the case is less good for such. The sad truth however is that the targeting of civilians was done by every side on WW2, and I am thankful we have gotten better.

Sorry for the rambling answer, but that is just how my mind works sometimes. The more straightforward answer would be that targeting civilians is wrong, was wrong at the time, was done at the time, and I cannot change what was done back then, and it is hard to work up a whole lot of outrage for events 70 years done. Much like with the events in the report being discussed in this thread, I hope we learn and act better in the future.
 
Myh brother in law is British, and both of us are military history buffs, so we talk on military history stuff alot. I enjoy it because you get a somewhat different look at views of history than you get from Americans. And almost any time WW2 comes up in out talks, he mentions Dresden and he gets pissed. He is highly embarrassed that his home country was a major part of that, calling it "unnecessary and evil". It is kinda hard to disagree with that point of view. Hiroshima and Nagasaki where probably the same, though I think the case is less good for such. The sad truth however is that the targeting of civilians was done by every side on WW2, and I am thankful we have gotten better.

Sorry for the rambling answer, but that is just how my mind works sometimes. The more straightforward answer would be that targeting civilians is wrong, was wrong at the time, was done at the time, and I cannot change what was done back then, and it is hard to work up a whole lot of outrage for events 70 years done. Much like with the events in the report being discussed in this thread, I hope we learn and act better in the future.

Is there really a "right" way to conduct war? Should we ever even enter a war without the intent to win it outright? It's a little scary to me that if events occurred now similar to the 30s and 40s, we would not have anyone with the intestinal fortitude or resolve to actually end the war and if war is actually brought to our soil? Well God help us then if we're not permitted to do anything necessary to repel that.
 
Is there really a "right" way to conduct war?

Yes, there is. There are laws and rules in place for the conduct of war, and those involved in a war should be held to those rules.

Should we ever even enter a war without the intent to win it outright?
You do not need to violate the law to win a war.

It's a little scary to me that if events occurred now similar to the 30s and 40s, we would not have anyone with the intestinal fortitude or resolve to actually end the war and if war is actually brought to our soil? Well God help us then if we're not permitted to do anything necessary to repel that.

Niether the events mentioned in the post I replied to, nor the events that brought us to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq fit that description so I have no idea what point you think you are making.
 
Yes, there is. There are laws and rules in place for the conduct of war, and those involved in a war should be held to those rules.

I find this concept strange. You are trying to kill people in order to get your way on something, but as long as everyone obeys the agreed upon rules there's no problem? This is an absurd notion. To quote(or paraphrase if I'm rusty) Pirates of the Caribbean... "In a fair fight I would have killed you... Then that's not much incentive to fight fair, is it?" YOU ARE TRYING TO KILL PEOPLE, and THEY ARE TRYING TO KILL YOU!!! How can any discussion of war claim that killing with fire is worse than killing with bullets, or that you have to stop TRYING to kill the other person when they are disarmed, or honoring cease-fires etc.? This isn't a debate, it's WAR!
I remember a story I read about a "dishonorable" attack during a war in which the enemy attacked (and massacred) a British regiment who was unprepared because it was teatime and they were all having biscuits.
The only "right" way to wage war is to fight for righteous causes and protect those you are serving in the first place.
 
You quoted Rumsfeld on the afternoon of 9/11 and I answered that scenario. The level of evidence years later is irrelevant to the reaction of the Defense Secretary on the very day of the 9/11 attacks.

The neocons in the Bush administration were actively looking for a connection to Iraq, rather than following the evidence, and trying to formulate a basis for war immediately after the attacks.

Rumsfeld's 'How To Start' Memo:

Rumsfeld-Memo-HowStart.jpg
 
The neocons in the Bush administration were actively looking for a connection to Iraq, rather than following the evidence, and trying to formulate a basis for war immediately after the attacks.

Rumsfeld's 'How To Start' Memo:

Rumsfeld-Memo-HowStart.jpg

Your obsession with Rumsfeld and the boogieman under the bed is "darling".
 
Your obsession with Rumsfeld and the boogieman under the bed is "darling".

Says the guy who stills supports attacking the 'boogiemen' in Iraq as a valid and responsible reaction to 9/11. Yes, those were honorable actions of honorable men. Dismissed.
 
Says the guy who stills supports attacking the 'boogiemen' in Iraq as a valid and responsible reaction to 9/11. Yes, those were honorable actions of honorable men. Dismissed.

Not just honorable men, honorable women too - many in the Democrat Party.

But don't let me get in the way of your revisionist history lesson - it's quite entertaining.
 
Not just honorable men, honorable women too - many in the Democrat Party.

But don't let me get in the way of your revisionist history lesson - it's quite entertaining.

I'm not a Democrat, and any Democrat who fell for the Neocon Hustle wouldn't get my vote if I were an American. But then again, I have principles.
 
I'm not a Democrat, and any Democrat who fell for the Neocon Hustle wouldn't get my vote if I were an American. But then again, I have principles.

And I suppose your principles are different from other peoples' principles. It's what makes the world interesting.
 
Myh brother in law is British, and both of us are military history buffs, so we talk on military history stuff alot. I enjoy it because you get a somewhat different look at views of history than you get from Americans. And almost any time WW2 comes up in out talks, he mentions Dresden and he gets pissed. He is highly embarrassed that his home country was a major part of that, calling it "unnecessary and evil". It is kinda hard to disagree with that point of view. Hiroshima and Nagasaki where probably the same, though I think the case is less good for such. The sad truth however is that the targeting of civilians was done by every side on WW2, and I am thankful we have gotten better.

Sorry for the rambling answer, but that is just how my mind works sometimes. The more straightforward answer would be that targeting civilians is wrong, was wrong at the time, was done at the time, and I cannot change what was done back then, and it is hard to work up a whole lot of outrage for events 70 years done. Much like with the events in the report being discussed in this thread, I hope we learn and act better in the future.

Do you not feel though that their are some things that the civillian world are not supposed to know? I mean its been going on for thousands of years. You never hear about Roman soldiers burning and killing in Gaul, instead you hear about the battles and the bravery.
Will there not always be an element of war that will bring out the worst in people?
 
I'm not a Democrat, and any Democrat who fell for the Neocon Hustle wouldn't get my vote if I were an American. But then again, I have principles.

OK, so you won't fall for the Republican Neocon hustle. Will you fall for the Democratic Neoliberal hustle? That's what we will get if Hillary Clinton wins in 2016. The aims of Neocons and Neoliberals are the same, but the means of getting there are different. While Neocons want to bomb and invade the world into submission, Neoliberals want to use the banking system to starve the world into submission. Both philosophies are quite evil.
 
Do you not feel though that their are some things that the civillian world are not supposed to know? I mean its been going on for thousands of years. You never hear about Roman soldiers burning and killing in Gaul, instead you hear about the battles and the bravery.
Will there not always be an element of war that will bring out the worst in people?

The Romans burned, raped and slaughtered in Gaul. And the Roman sovereign knew about it. The sovereign should know everything or have access to it. This does not mean every detail. But it is absolutely necessary for protection of the citizenry in democracy for the citizens to know. How else can they be sure of the system of checks and balances?
 
Do you not feel though that their are some things that the civillian world are not supposed to know? I mean its been going on for thousands of years. You never hear about Roman soldiers burning and killing in Gaul, instead you hear about the battles and the bravery.

Civilians should know as much as they possibly can about war to my mind. Since the military serves the civilian people, civilians should at least know what it is that is being done for them.

Will there not always be an element of war that will bring out the worst in people?

Absolutely, and also that brings out the best. I am reading on the North Africa campaign right now, and while there where some pretty horrific things done by both sides, there was also some pretty wonderful things done, sometimes side by side. During Operation Reservist, allied soldiers desperately tried to swim to shore, and while some French troops tried to rescue those swimming, others where casually picking them off with rifle fire. During the North Africa campaign, Wehrmacht medics often braved fire to treat Allied soldiers. And so on and so forth. This does not excuse, legally nor morally, excesses committed during war. A large part of why there are laws for how war can be waged is to help push soldiers to overcome those negative impulses that they all at times might want to do. War without laws is an even uglier thing than war with laws.
 
My bet is all of those who are saying we should take the high ground and be the better people and all that bull**** live insulated from real harm. If I were in a position that my wife or kids were in danger I would do things to end it that would make people beg to die. We're not talking about people who commit petty crimes here, we are talking about people who plan and commit crimes against innocent people and are actually happy to die doing it. There is no reasoning with people like that. I don't much care what ethical standards armchair quarterbacks claim to have, I think in many cases they lack the backbone or the nerve to be close to real danger anyway. Most people are pretty soft. Personally I'm glad we have people like these interrogators and Chris Kyle to deal with these kind of enemies.
 
That is very close to Dershowitz's own answer.

I believe that Dershowitz wanted a court hearing before the torture began. Dershowitz's proposal wasn't great but it would be better than having virtually no oversight or consequences.

The problem with torture is that torturers start enjoying it and want to to use more extreme pain, and torture as many people as possible. I think there should be a bit more of a presumption of guilt when there is no question that the torture was committed by the people on trial. In other words, torture should remain illegal with the possibility of a torturer having a reasonable justification in rare cases. More like the way police officers are routinely taken off duty and their badge and weapon confiscated after they shoot someone, no matter the circumstances.
 
My bet is all of those who are saying we should take the high ground and be the better people and all that bull**** live insulated from real harm. If I were in a position that my wife or kids were in danger I would do things to end it that would make people beg to die. We're not talking about people who commit petty crimes here, we are talking about people who plan and commit crimes against innocent people and are actually happy to die doing it. There is no reasoning with people like that. I don't much care what ethical standards armchair quarterbacks claim to have, I think in many cases they lack the backbone or the nerve to be close to real danger anyway. Most people are pretty soft. Personally I'm glad we have people like these interrogators and Chris Kyle to deal with these kind of enemies.

My bet is you have no idea what you are talking about.

Use your head...for 'all of those who are saying we should take the high ground' to be true, then you are saying that every, single present or former member of the armed forces/police and fire departments 'live insulated from real harm'. Which is nonsense because I KNOW that not every one of them feels as you do.

Maybe, those that have seen the real world understand it better and realize that to act like those you hate makes you no better the those you hate.

I have been in a military, been in jail (non-military related) and 'been' several other things...and I KNOW that torture is wrong. And I also know that it is sometimes easier to let oneself take the easy way out - the lowlife way out.
And what separates the good from the bad, IMO, is the good choose not to give in to anger, rage, cruelty and dehumanization. And the bad do.

And the day the entire world believes as you do is the day I no longer want any part of this world.

'Better to be dead and cool, then alive and uncool'
 
Last edited:
My bet is you have no idea what you are talking about.

Use your head...for 'all of those who are saying we should take the high ground' to be true, then you are saying that every, single present or former member of the armed forces/police and fire departments 'live insulated from real harm'. Which is nonsense because I KNOW that not every one of them feels as you do.

Maybe, those that have seen the real world understand it better and realize that to act like those you hate makes you no better the those you hate.

I have been in a military, been in jail (non-military related) and 'been' several other things...and I KNOW that torture is wrong. And I also know that it is sometimes easier to let oneself take the easy way out - the lowlife way out.
And what separates the good from the bad, IMO, is the good choose not to give in to anger, rage, cruelty and dehumanization. And the bad do.

And the day the entire world believes as you do is the day I no longer want any part of this world.

'Better to be dead and cool, then alive and uncool'

Well as I've said I'm glad we have some people capable of doing the dirty work. I would much rather get information from these terrorists to prevent another attack than have to apologize to the families of the next victims because we wanted to make a show of being nicer than they are. The people being tortured for information would think nothing of doing the same to any of us just because we do not follow their religion. This is not a black and white world. Sometimes all the options are less than ideal. I suppose the guy in black in the beheading videos should be rehabilitated, right?
 
I do. I'm also curious about this arbitrary number thats been conjured up. What if it was just 10,000 lives or only 1 life? Would he still do it? Would you? Where is the invisible line you have to cross before you decide you have no scruples? Then there's the location of the bomb. Does the place or the nationality of the people who would be killed factor into the decision to abandon ones principles? Would he bother if the bomb were in Mecca or Tehran? Would you?

The number is one million precisely in order to provoke the question you posed: how many deaths make the question difficult? Location and nationality were selected to make the question real and accessible for Americans. And btw, there's an unexamined assumption lurking in your question. It's possible to make a strong case that the moral high ground is on the side of torturing one to save many.
 
so are we good to go with increased taxes and single payer, then? after all, terrorists and NYC nukes are the only alternative.

:roll:

I would favor single payer over ACA, but your post is otherwise irrational.
 
Back
Top Bottom