• 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!

U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanistan

Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

Being waterboarded during training is... TRAINING.

Being waterboarded in an effort to get info from you, is.... TORTURE.

Torture, including waterboarding is... ILLEGAL!

People have been tried and convicted of doing it. The USA prosecuted people for doing it. US citizens too!


To continually say it is not torture and not illegal is... well... ignorant. :2wave:



Torture is a buzz word people like you like to throw around in your anti-American tirades.


I feel so bad for them poor terrorists.

bit-tech.net | Guantanamo game announced


This one not only was released, then rejoined jihad, but now is helping develop a game. seems he survived "torture".... :roll:
 
Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

Really Sport so when I went thru SERE and was waterboard I was imaging it correct is that what you are telling me huh.
I'm having a very difficult time figuring out what your sentences mean. So I'm not sure what you are saying here? What is it that you say I'm claiming you imagined while you went through SERE training? :confused:

Second Waterboarding isn't illegal please show me where Congress has actually pass a Law and the President and the Supreme Court Signed off on it and then President signed off on it.[/QUOTE]
Waterboarding is a form of torture as recognized by the world community including the USA. Torture is illegal and therefore waterboarding is illegal. In fact we prosecuted military personnel during the Vietnam conflict for... you guessed it, waterboarding. Not to mention the people we executed after WWII for WATERBOARDING.
 
Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

I'm having a very difficult time figuring out what your sentences mean. So I'm not sure what you are saying here? What is it that you say I'm claiming you imagined while you went through SERE training? :confused:

Second Waterboarding isn't illegal please show me where Congress has actually pass a Law and the President and the Supreme Court Signed off on it and then President signed off on it.
Waterboarding is a form of torture as recognized by the world community including the USA. Torture is illegal and therefore waterboarding is illegal. In fact we prosecuted military personnel during the Vietnam conflict for... you guessed it, waterboarding. Not to mention the people we executed after WWII for WATERBOARDING.[/QUOTE]

Really? We executed people after world war 2 for waterboarding? I'm gonna call bull**** and ask for citations. Please present them now.
 
Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

First off lets take Somalia we were complaining back then to the Brasshats that we need to Body Armor hell there was even an investigation into why we sent combat troops in with out any body armor.
Really? Could you provide a link to that investigation?

In Haiti we had some Body Armor not much but their was a few units like 101st who had body Armor. but once again a post invasion reported was critical of no Body Armor which was sent to Congress.
Got a link to that report?

Bosnia, I think your slightly off here almost all US Army units had some sort of 1st Generation Body Armor but the stuff was/is crap and there was a complaint sent back to Congress about it.
What ground forces did we have in Bosnia? Got a link about this "reported"?

As for your question on who told the American Public the US military family way back in 1997 when the first reports came out about the lack of proper equipment being used by US Ground Force. Congress was told about this problem in 1993 thru 2000 and didn't do squat wonder why.
Because it was a republican congress? Just a guess... Got any links about these reports?

Yes your correct that their were allot of deaths but many of those deaths could have should have been avoided if the troops actually had the correct Body Armor unstead of the 40 Year Old Flack Jackets and if Congress had done it's job.[/QUOTE]
You mean the Republican Congress right? :rofl
Let's just reserve further comment until you fail to provide the requested evidence for your nonsense.
 
Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

Torture is a buzz word people like you like to throw around in your anti-American tirades.


I feel so bad for them poor terrorists.

bit-tech.net | Guantanamo game announced


This one not only was released, then rejoined jihad, but now is helping develop a game. seems he survived "torture".... :roll:

Enhanced Interrogation Techniques is a buzz word people like you created to make it seem like something other than torture is going on. THAT is anti-American.
 
Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

Enhanced Interrogation Techniques is a buzz word people like you created to make it seem like something other than torture is going on. THAT is anti-American.

It is the politically correct terminology of the right for what is torture.
 
Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

He is not, - by definition, - as a member of the USMC.

Not really up on military nick names, ehh? :roll:

He has not been accused of any doing which would point to him not to be a gentleman, which is the main obligation of a member of the club. You are. You have been demonstrating that you have no ability to be gentlemen. You belong to the club which has no obligations, responsibilities, dues or duties to carry on or pay for the country. A duel between 2 of you is impossible. You are void of duties, obligations and responsibilities by definition.

He acts like a chest thumping jar head so, I treat him as such. He says he is active duty yet, misstates unarguable facts re: the military in the same manner a Private would in trying to keep his nose firmly placed in his Top's butt.

One thing he does not need is you defending him. He certainly is capable of doing that himself. So, go bark up another tree.
 
Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

Really? We executed people after world war 2 for waterboarding? I'm gonna call bull**** and ask for citations. Please present them now.
I found this while looking for your "citation" and thought it apropos: :2wave:
Correction: U.S. actually did execute Japanese soldiers for waterboarding | Crooks and Liars

We made a mistake the other day when Paul Begala left Ari Fleischer dumbstruck by saying:

BEGALA: We -- our country executed Japanese soldiers who water- boarded American POWs. We executed them for the same crime that we are now committing ourselves. How do you defend that?

We chided Begala slightly because we thought he wasn't quite right on the facts:

Actually, Fleischer could have countered Begala by pointing out that we didn't actually execute the Japanese soldiers convicted of the war crime of waterboarding American prisoners -- we just sentenced them to 15 years' hard labor.

But now, Begala makes clear he knew whereof he spoke:

But I was not referring to Asano, nor was my source Sen. Kennedy. Instead I was referencing the statement of a different member of the Senate: John McCain. On November 29, 2007, Sen. McCain, while campaigning in St. Petersburg, Florida, said, "Following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding."

Sen. McCain was right and the National Review Online is wrong. Politifact, the St. Petersburg Times' truth-testing project (which this week was awarded a Pulitzer Prize), scrutinized Sen. McCain's statement and found it to be true. Here's the money quote from Politifact:

"McCain is referencing the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as 'water cure,' 'water torture' and 'waterboarding,' according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning." Politifact went on to report, "A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps."

The folks at Politifact interviewed R. John Pritchard, the author of The Tokyo War Crimes Trial: The Complete Transcripts of the Proceedings of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. They also interviewed Yuma Totani, history professor at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, and consulted the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, which published a law review article entitled, "Drop by Drop: Forgetting the History of Water Torture in U.S. Courts."

We apologize to Begala for the error.

We'll be waiting a long time, I expect, for all those right-wingers out there who claim waterboarding isn't torture to apologize to the world.
PolitiFact | History supports McCain's stance on waterboarding

Seems that original documents on the trials are difficult to find (I assume you looked and couldn't find them too which is why you suddenly ask for citations after 11 pages of discussion)

In a recent journal essay, Judge Evan Wallach, a member of the U.S. Court of International Trade and an adjunct professor in the law of war, writes that the testimony from American soldiers about this form of torture was gruesome and convincing. A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps.
[/quote]
I call bull**** on your bull****.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

With all the detailed and obvious malicious condescension, insult, and eagerness to provoke argument and rule infractions between the two of you (Slope and ADK), I bet you would see yourself as "victims" if I did my job against you, huh?

Just curious.

Is that some kind of a threat? Are you threatening to "report" us to the mods? OMG! :doh If that is what that intentionally vague question means... then be my guest. The mods will do their job.

If you mean something else then I invite you to either spit it out or pm me. I don't respond well to threats, regardless of your military status!

It seems to me that you can't stand being challenged for your inaccurate and biased comments. I suggest you get over it. People get called for their posts here all day every day. :roll:
 
Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

I found this while looking for your "citation" and thought it apropos: :2wave:

PolitiFact | History supports McCain's stance on waterboarding

Seems that original documents on the trials are difficult to find (I assume you looked and couldn't find them too which is why you suddenly ask for citations after 11 pages of discussion)
I call bull**** on your bull****.

Your own source says that waterboarding was among war crimes. Not the war crime they were convicted of.

So my call of bull**** on you stands.
 
Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

Torture is a buzz word people like you like to throw around in your anti-American tirades.


I feel so bad for them poor terrorists.

bit-tech.net | Guantanamo game announced


This one not only was released, then rejoined jihad, but now is helping develop a game. seems he survived "torture".... :roll:

I see nothing in that article that says this guy "rejoined the jihad". Could you help me here? :doh

"But no US or British soldiers get killed in [the game]. The only ones being killed are mercenaries. We have set it in January 2010 because that’s when we think the camp will be closed. We are making a statement. We did not want Guantanamo to be forgotten."

Begg, who was at Guantanamo for more than three years, has admitted he has a financial stake in the project but says his primary concern is ensuring a fair representation of the prisoners.

"I was put in solitary confinement with no access to the outside world and no explanation as to why I was being detained," Begg said. "My wife gave birth to my son six months after I was arrested and I saw him for the first time when he was three years old. It would be wrong to say I’m not angry but I’m willing to forgive 1000 times over."

"The only thing I am concerned about it making sure the game does not misrepresent the prisoners. This will not demean the reality of Guantanamo but it could bring those issues to people who would not usually think about it."

Well, this certainly goes to show that you should be very careful who you kidnap, imprison, rendition to GITMO and then torture! This guy looks to be innocent of all terrorist charges. After all, Bush let him go. Now, he is going to remind the world about what Bush, and the USA, did to him.

Do you still think it was it worth kidnapping and torturing this "innocent" man?
 
Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

"My wife gave birth to my son six months after I was arrested and I saw him for the first time when he was three years old. It would be wrong to say I’m not angry but I’m willing to forgive 1000 times over."

Oh i couldn't going through that, how horrible :(

He is a much better human being than i ever could be, i wouldn't be willing to forgive anyone who stopped me from seeing my child for years and tortured me o_O
 
Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

Is that some kind of a threat? Are you threatening to "report" us to the mods? OMG! :doh If that is what that intentionally vague question means... then be my guest. The mods will do their job.

If you mean something else then I invite you to either spit it out or pm me. I don't respond well to threats, regardless of your military status!

It seems to me that you can't stand being challenged for your inaccurate and biased comments. I suggest you get over it. People get called for their posts here all day every day. :roll:

He is a mod and WILL use his position.
 
Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

He is a mod and WILL use his position.

But not in any unfair way during a debate. He, unlike some, has integrity.
 
Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

But not in any unfair way during a debate. He, unlike some, has integrity.
I could prove you wrong but it would probably get me in trouble. PM me if you REALLY care, because I save my PMs for just such occasions.
 
Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

I could prove you wrong but it would probably get me in trouble. PM me if you REALLY care, because I save my PMs for just such occasions.

Yeah, as much as we dislike each other, please take this to heart...don't go discussing mod action in public because it can get you into serious trouble. A 6A infraction leads to an automatic suspension.
 
Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

I get a kick out of you, the way you turn every comment from a Dem re: support for the military, for YOU, into a bash on the Dems. I know you're out in the sun a lot but seriously, do you really believe Democrats don't want the best for our troops, for YOU?!?!?!

I know a Democrat and a Republican will care about the troop when it suits their politicial agenda. For example...did Republicans care how much damage they were doing to our defense by buying into the "utopia" idea after the Cold War by crushing the numbers in the military? Do you think Democrats cared when they continued this path while riding the backs of the under trained, ill equipped, and worn out military throughout the 90s from one crisis to the next? Did Democrats care to acknowledge the state the military was in come 2003 when Army soldiers were deploying to Iraq with duct tape on their NBC suits? But all of a sudden they cared about the troop when it came to the spectacular realization that the troops have never had body armor ever didn't they? Of course...they care because of "Iraq." They didn't care to worry over Afghsniatn, Bosnia, Somalia, Gulf War, etc. The truth is that if Iraq was the "people's" war, our politicians would not have cared what they could use to against other politicians.

Show me a politician who cares and I'll show you a politician full of ****. Or I'll a show you a politician who cares, but is completely too ignorant of military affairs to understand where his critiques and care should be focused.

You're probably also one of those jar/block heads...

This right here is exactly what I'm talking about. You behave childishly and insultingly post after post, then try to turn it around and accuse others because they defend themselves with a degree of greater decorum. Is this where I get to call you names? Maybe a "block head?" Of course, then it's all about how I'm supposed to be "setting the example" as you turn into the victim, right?
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

If you waterboard someone will you or will you not be prosecuted for it by either the military or the federal government?

I did answer and I did not dodge. Perhaps I need to be simpler. "I am in the military." This means that I am held to certain rules, which would see me prosecuted for such acts. "The CIA can do whatever it wants." This means that they are obligated to perfome certain acts beyond what the military man can do. And I know the argument you are attempting to make, which is why I moved on from it. But since you insist....just because the military can be prosecuted for it, doesn't mean the CIA can. The military can be prosecuted for adultery.....was Clinton?

This is the world we live in. Cold War spies and agents were interrogated which was above what the military can do. The roles are clear. The military is supposed to be the squeeky clean destroyer and killer with manners. The CIA is the spook world where spies, agents, and shadows are the necesary tools. In fact, when it came to interrogating some Somali thugs caught in a fight or while smuggling arms into the city, we handed them off to a European nation because they could do what we could not.



Really? That's how you view the laws we help write, agree to and become signatories to? So is it only our country that doesn't need to worry about international laws or are there others, in your opinion?

Well, I tend to read a lot of such things. And I constantly come to realizations that our international systems are outdated and inadequate for this time period. Some people simply don't know what they support as they jump to support whatever "their guy" in a business suit tells them.

It is entirely against the law to do anything to stop genocide in a "soveriegn" nation unless the UN approves it. However, it is also a matter of law that once the UN declares a genocide the international community is required to act. And of all the nations on earth, The U.S., along with the other Western Security members, is mentioned specifically as an obligatory duty. Therefore, when it came to genocide in Europe (Bosnia), the UN gave the Western powers permission to save people through force. When it came to genocide in Africa, the UN looked away.

But the internaitonal governing body called the UN is full of BS. "Clinton's war" in Kosovo was labeled illegal by the UN, despite the attempt to stop further genocide, because the UN didn't give permission.

Soveriegnty is also a con game. America is criticized for our dictator support during the Cold War, yet the UN and others looked away as we maintained a dictator in Iraq for twelve years while his people suffered UN sanctions. This was "legal." Despite flying our jets over his land, being deployed in "Kurdistan," and dictating his comings and goings, the idea of "soveriegnty" took on a special overlooked meaining as people looked away. Of course, when it came to Haiti's soveriegnty, the UN gave permission to ther U.S. to invade and re-establish that government after the people couped against their president. But "soveriegnty" as a matter of law mattered when it came time for America to be fed up with the UN containment mission of Saddam Hussien.

This leads to the question...."What is soveriegn, the nation or the individual?" According to the time period such laws were created, it was the king, czar, or kaiser that was ultimately placed above all else and protected. Their laws had everything to do with protecting the individual's right to do as he pleases to whoever he wants as long as he oppresses, tortures, or murders his own kind. Today, we live in a changed world where the people are soveriegn in most places, which lends to the credence that soveriegn attaches to borders. Yet, we also live in a world where tribes have been torn apart by unnatural borders and the European created third world borders are becoming more and more grey (Kurdistan, Somaliland, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.) Of course, even with this changed world, some people choose to make the soveriegn the dictator as if we still live in the 18th century all in a case to avoid responsibility and the right thing.

So what we have here is are international laws "legally" shoved aside when it comes to immediate security of American (Haiti) and European (Yugoslavia) vicinities, but "legal" strict adherence to code and law when it comes to Africa and the Middle East.

And torture? it was the West who decided what torture was to be defined as after the German scourge was slapped down. However, like so many international laws, re-interpretation as the scenarios change in an ever changing world is necessary. The fact that waterboarding is considered "torture" is a joke. The idea that our men will be treated better if we only butler our prisoners of war is a joke. We do not electrocute, bludgeon, drag, behead, or whip anybody. Yet our men, since we made "the" rules, have been subjected to such things from one culture or nation to another. Even when it came to waterboarding or slapping or pro-longed standing or sleep deprivation and any other nothing of a tactic, we introduced paperwork to declare openly these tactics to define perameters. I am so sick of seeing people whiine and complain about this crap as if we have beome the new Nazi human body burning scourge of the earth.

I find it pathetic how Americans jump on this global bandwagon specifically. With Germans burning and gassing millions of Europeans...the French publicly and brutally torturing hundreds of thousands of Algerians a decade later.....they assume to lead the voice of conscience for dimwitted Americans who want a few waterboarding cases to define us as torturous monsters.

Internaitonal laws is a matter of convenience. Always has been. With advances in science, we change the way we perform medically and mechanically. With advances in religious thought, we change our beliefs and tame our religions. With society's acceptances, we change social behavior. But when it comes to an ever changing world where borders are in question, governmental roles change, and enemy tactics change....this world is supposed to be stuck with the same 17th century laws when it suits the need of the apathetic and the irresponsible. It's like arguing that despite advances in the operating room, the techniques of our great grandfathers are best.

So, you ask me my opinion, which is always a mistake if you really don't want it, but it's merely an opinion that attempts to shove off the BS that covers the reality of our world. What is your opinion? To follow the favored politician's opinion or to see this world for what it is and stop using the media and other such BS story telling platforms to define reality?
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

Well, I tend to read a lot of such things. And I constantly come to realizations that our international systems are outdated and inadequate for this time period. Some people simply don't know what they support as they jump to support whatever "their guy" in a business suit tells them.

It is entirely against the law to do anything to stop genocide in a "soveriegn" nation unless the UN approves it. However, it is also a matter of law that once the UN declares a genocide the international community is required to act. And of all the nations on earth, The U.S., along with the other Western Security members, is mentioned specifically as an obligatory duty. Therefore, when it came to genocide in Europe (Bosnia), the UN gave the Western powers permission to save people through force. When it came to genocide in Africa, the UN looked away.

But the internaitonal governing body called the UN is full of BS. "Clinton's war" in Kosovo was labeled illegal by the UN, despite the attempt to stop further genocide, because the UN didn't give permission.

Soveriegnty is also a con game. America is criticized for our dictator support during the Cold War, yet the UN and others looked away as we maintained a dictator in Iraq for twelve years while his people suffered UN sanctions. This was "legal." Despite flying our jets over his land, being deployed in "Kurdistan," and dictating his comings and goings, the idea of "soveriegnty" took on a special overlooked meaining as people looked away. Of course, when it came to Haiti's soveriegnty, the UN gave permission to ther U.S. to invade and re-establish that government after the people couped against their president. But "soveriegnty" as a matter of law mattered when it came time for America to be fed up with the UN containment mission of Saddam Hussien.

This leads to the question...."What is soveriegn, the nation or the individual?" According to the time period such laws were created, it was the king, czar, or kaiser that was ultimately placed above all else and protected. Their laws had everything to do with protecting the individual's right to do as he pleases to whoever he wants as long as he oppresses, tortures, or murders his own kind. Today, we live in a changed world where the people are soveriegn in most places, which lends to the credence that soveriegn attaches to borders. Yet, we also live in a world where tribes have been torn apart by unnatural borders and the European created third world borders are becoming more and more grey (Kurdistan, Somaliland, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.) Of course, even with this changed world, some people choose to make the soveriegn the dictator as if we still live in the 18th century all in a case to avoid responsibility and the right thing.

So what we have here is are international laws "legally" shoved aside when it comes to immediate security of American (Haiti) and European (Yugoslavia) vicinities, but "legal" strict adherence to code and law when it comes to Africa and the Middle East.

And torture? it was the West who decided what torture was to be defined as after the German scourge was slapped down. However, like so many international laws, re-interpretation as the scenarios change in an ever changing world is necessary. The fact that waterboarding is considered "torture" is a joke. The idea that our men will be treated better if we only butler our prisoners of war is a joke. We do not electrocute, bludgeon, drag, behead, or whip anybody. Yet our men, since we made "the" rules, have been subjected to such things from one culture or nation to another. Even when it came to waterboarding or slapping or pro-longed standing or sleep deprivation and any other nothing of a tactic, we introduced paperwork to declare openly these tactics to define perameters. I am so sick of seeing people whiine and complain about this crap as if we have beome the new Nazi human body burning scourge of the earth.

I find it pathetic how Americans jump on this global bandwagon specifically. With Germans burning and gassing millions of Europeans...the French publicly and brutally torturing hundreds of thousands of Algerians a decade later.....they assume to lead the voice of conscience for dimwitted Americans who want a few waterboarding cases to define us as torturous monsters.

Internaitonal laws is a matter of convenience. Always has been. With advances in science, we change the way we perform medically and mechanically. With advances in religious thought, we change our beliefs and tame our religions. With society's acceptances, we change social behavior. But when it comes to an ever changing world where borders are in question, governmental roles change, and enemy tactics change....this world is supposed to be stuck with the same 17th century laws when it suits the need of the apathetic and the irresponsible. It's like arguing that despite advances in the operating room, the techniques of our great grandfathers are best.

So, you ask me my opinion, which is always a mistake if you really don't want it, but it's merely an opinion that attempts to shove off the BS that covers the reality of our world. What is your opinion? To follow the favored politician's opinion or to see this world for what it is and stop using the media and other such BS story telling platforms to define reality?

Very well-said.
 
Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

Very well-said.

It's never well enough for some. For some, the need to argue trumps actual discussion. ...but thanks for the compliment.
 
Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

Not really up on military nick names, ehh?


"Jar head" is a term of endearment used between Marines. Civillians haven't the right and often enough use it as insult. However, "block head" is not a matter of Marine nick name lore and is purely meant as insult. You may as well call me an idiot.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

It seems to me that you can't stand being challenged ......

I don't like condescending, provoking, and blatantly insultive indivuduals. You are all three.
 
Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

Right, because you have access to the truth while the media is just making **** up.

No. I have access to what everybody has access to....books. But most choose the media to mold and deliver their opinions for them.
 
Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

I did answer and I did not dodge. Perhaps I need to be simpler. "I am in the military." This means that I am held to certain rules, which would see me prosecuted for such acts. "The CIA can do whatever it wants." This means that they are obligated to perfome certain acts beyond what the military man can do. And I know the argument you are attempting to make, which is why I moved on from it. But since you insist....just because the military can be prosecuted for it, doesn't mean the CIA can. The military can be prosecuted for adultery.....was Clinton?

This is the world we live in. Cold War spies and agents were interrogated which was above what the military can do. The roles are clear. The military is supposed to be the squeeky clean destroyer and killer with manners. The CIA is the spook world where spies, agents, and shadows are the necesary tools. In fact, when it came to interrogating some Somali thugs caught in a fight or while smuggling arms into the city, we handed them off to a European nation because they could do what we could not.





Well, I tend to read a lot of such things. And I constantly come to realizations that our international systems are outdated and inadequate for this time period. Some people simply don't know what they support as they jump to support whatever "their guy" in a business suit tells them.

It is entirely against the law to do anything to stop genocide in a "soveriegn" nation unless the UN approves it. However, it is also a matter of law that once the UN declares a genocide the international community is required to act. And of all the nations on earth, The U.S., along with the other Western Security members, is mentioned specifically as an obligatory duty. Therefore, when it came to genocide in Europe (Bosnia), the UN gave the Western powers permission to save people through force. When it came to genocide in Africa, the UN looked away.

But the internaitonal governing body called the UN is full of BS. "Clinton's war" in Kosovo was labeled illegal by the UN, despite the attempt to stop further genocide, because the UN didn't give permission.

Soveriegnty is also a con game. America is criticized for our dictator support during the Cold War, yet the UN and others looked away as we maintained a dictator in Iraq for twelve years while his people suffered UN sanctions. This was "legal." Despite flying our jets over his land, being deployed in "Kurdistan," and dictating his comings and goings, the idea of "soveriegnty" took on a special overlooked meaining as people looked away. Of course, when it came to Haiti's soveriegnty, the UN gave permission to ther U.S. to invade and re-establish that government after the people couped against their president. But "soveriegnty" as a matter of law mattered when it came time for America to be fed up with the UN containment mission of Saddam Hussien.

This leads to the question...."What is soveriegn, the nation or the individual?" According to the time period such laws were created, it was the king, czar, or kaiser that was ultimately placed above all else and protected. Their laws had everything to do with protecting the individual's right to do as he pleases to whoever he wants as long as he oppresses, tortures, or murders his own kind. Today, we live in a changed world where the people are soveriegn in most places, which lends to the credence that soveriegn attaches to borders. Yet, we also live in a world where tribes have been torn apart by unnatural borders and the European created third world borders are becoming more and more grey (Kurdistan, Somaliland, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.) Of course, even with this changed world, some people choose to make the soveriegn the dictator as if we still live in the 18th century all in a case to avoid responsibility and the right thing.

So what we have here is are international laws "legally" shoved aside when it comes to immediate security of American (Haiti) and European (Yugoslavia) vicinities, but "legal" strict adherence to code and law when it comes to Africa and the Middle East.

And torture? it was the West who decided what torture was to be defined as after the German scourge was slapped down. However, like so many international laws, re-interpretation as the scenarios change in an ever changing world is necessary. The fact that waterboarding is considered "torture" is a joke. The idea that our men will be treated better if we only butler our prisoners of war is a joke. We do not electrocute, bludgeon, drag, behead, or whip anybody. Yet our men, since we made "the" rules, have been subjected to such things from one culture or nation to another. Even when it came to waterboarding or slapping or pro-longed standing or sleep deprivation and any other nothing of a tactic, we introduced paperwork to declare openly these tactics to define perameters. I am so sick of seeing people whiine and complain about this crap as if we have beome the new Nazi human body burning scourge of the earth.

I find it pathetic how Americans jump on this global bandwagon specifically. With Germans burning and gassing millions of Europeans...the French publicly and brutally torturing hundreds of thousands of Algerians a decade later.....they assume to lead the voice of conscience for dimwitted Americans who want a few waterboarding cases to define us as torturous monsters.

Internaitonal laws is a matter of convenience. Always has been. With advances in science, we change the way we perform medically and mechanically. With advances in religious thought, we change our beliefs and tame our religions. With society's acceptances, we change social behavior. But when it comes to an ever changing world where borders are in question, governmental roles change, and enemy tactics change....this world is supposed to be stuck with the same 17th century laws when it suits the need of the apathetic and the irresponsible. It's like arguing that despite advances in the operating room, the techniques of our great grandfathers are best.

So, you ask me my opinion, which is always a mistake if you really don't want it, but it's merely an opinion that attempts to shove off the BS that covers the reality of our world. What is your opinion? To follow the favored politician's opinion or to see this world for what it is and stop using the media and other such BS story telling platforms to define reality?
What a long winded and completely ignorant view of the world not to mention the myriad of specious arguments and sophistries proffered therein. Your view of the world is typical neocon. The biggest and baddest mother trucker on the block gets to set the rules and change them at a whim. There is no discussion to be had with you because you are incapable of looking at the world in any manner other than through the mind of a bully. The world is not black and white, good and evil. The world is shades and cracking skulls to get whatever you want is neanderthal at best.

But, let me say that I would rather have your type in subservient positions in the military where you can't do much harm, than to have you in a position to advance your barbaric view of the world. The military needs pitbulls and you couldn't do your job if you had a modern mentality. Semper Fi.
 
Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

What a long winded and completely ignorant view of the world not to mention the myriad of specious arguments and sophistries proffered therein. Your view of the world is typical neocon. The biggest and baddest mother trucker on the block gets to set the rules and change them at a whim. There is no discussion to be had with you because you are incapable of looking at the world in any manner other than through the mind of a bully. The world is not black and white, good and evil. The world is shades and cracking skulls to get whatever you want is neanderthal at best.

But, let me say that I would rather have your type in subservient positions in the military where you can't do much harm, than to have you in a position to advance your barbaric view of the world. The military needs pitbulls and you couldn't do your job if you had a modern mentality. Semper Fi.

How dare you? That was a pretty despicable thing to say. Just when I thought my opinion of you could not get any lower. :doh

But did you have anything to say about the points he made in his post or was this just a chance for you to ad hom the thread to death?
 
Back
Top Bottom