The bulls*** meter is on "tilt"

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Canned response? Please!, you have been like a broken record lately with your griping about the war and attacks on Bush. That is an agenda. Pretty much everyone on here has one and you are welcome to yours. You avoid discussing the fact that you quickly jumped to the worst possible conclusion to support your agenda by quibbling over the word agenda. Whatever.

No, it's only an agenda in your world full of scary bogeymen out to get conservatives. The real world affords people the ability to criticize administrations, politicians and governments when they make wrong decisions or lie to us or whatever without it being part of some grand plan or agenda to advance some hidden objective. You couldn't identify an "agenda" I have if I gave you all month because I don't have one. Just tossing around the word with no apparent understanding of what it means simply because you've noticed a couple of weeks of criticism doesn't make it so.

And I didn't jump to the worst possible conclusion. I read a very specific account of how this terrorist was injured. Based on that account, not only is it wrong to injure him in that way but it's the height of hubris to trumpet the surgery as some magnanimous act on our part. Furthermore, I have said at least twice now that IF the circumstances do turn out to be different, then I take back my remarks on this.

So I haven't avoided talking about anything. I don't know what posts you're reading but I'm beginning to feel like you need to post screenshots to make sure you're actually paying attention to what's been posted here. Your responses sound as if they are to someone not even in on this conversation.

You don't even know if something was wrong here.

I know the accounts as given and have offered caveats if evidence to the contrary is shown.

If the original note is legitimate (And I don't give a rats a$$ whether it is or not) then it doesn't seem like detainee #75 feels too unfairly treated.

Now this is just dumb. If the note isn't legit, then your contention that he doesn't feel unfairly treated vaporizes. Beyond that though, the guy is a barbarian from a barbarian culture. Anything short of cutting off his head is considered compassionate and upstanding. But barbarians are not the baseline for our morality.

So, you jump to the conclusion that our guys basically jumped on a defenseless prisoner and broke his back. If they did, I would quickly forgive them. Why? Because the stresses that this sort of service puts people under can lead to lapses in judgement that to me are very forgivable.

I'm sorry. I expect better from a country like ours. We're not Neanderthals. We're supposed to be civilized and decent. Pounding on defenseless prisoners is neither. I may "understand" the kinds of stresses, frustrations and so on cause a person in the heat of an argument to lash out and hit their spouse. But I don't excuse it. I'm not calling for it to be a capital crime, but civilized, decent people do have to know when to step back and look realistically at the situation and exercise some self-control.

I am just glad that I have never had to perform such duties as many of our soldiers have. Until I know for a fact what happened I will reserve judgment.

I'm glad I haven't either. But again, given the account we know right now, I can assess the rightness of it. If it turns out to be significantly different

I'm damn sure not going to jump on my high horse with some smart a$$ remark about torturing prisoners with a rolling eyes emoticon after it. To me it is opening fire. You can quibble that it is not opening fire if you must. Anyone can see that it is a pointed attack. Trounce the guys serving our country in your rush to lob another rock at the admin. Whatever floats your boat.

It was a smartass remark about Bush's insistence that we don't torture. The contortions this administration goes through to avoid admitting that we do indeed torture people is laughable to me. "Enhanced interrogation" and redefining techniques that we've called torture for decades...even prosecuted other countries for war crimes when they committed the exact same acts against us...it's just pitiful. So in seeing a situation where someone apparently jumped on an immobilized prisoner causing enough back injury to require surgery to prevent paralysis, while the administration uses the surgery to make itself look better, it just was another reminder of the spin cycle going on from the WH. And it drives me nuts.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Amazing that CCTAU still defends this. I mean...REALLY?!?!

Here we are not talking about anything except the article. CCTAU, do you defend the actions in question in this article?

Just this. Not some broad sweeping generalization of POW's or our treatment in the midst of battle. This article. I will wait for your response.

The actions in this article are being portrayed as the poor little muslim terrorist got beat up by the big ole bad soldier. We do not know that as fact. We do know that he sustained injuries due to being subdued. Hell Rodney King got the same thing. Were you in the camp that he did nothing wrong. I have a son in Afghanistan right now having to deal with the fallout of folks like you who take articles like this and automatically blame the soldiers. He has to deal with his buddies getting killed by these monsters and if they capture one, they have to do everything they can to keep them alive. If the little s*** dies, the soldier gets blamed for his death. All of this due to the reactions of people like you on how captives are treated. So see, this isn't just about this article and GITMO. It has far reaching implications that could cause my kid to think about the consequences of how to treat a captive in battle, causing him to make a mistake.

Every soldier has to deal with his buddies being killed in war. What make us better then them is that we don't do torture or do things like this. It is how our soldier's conduct themselves that seperates us from the barbarians and gives the rest of the world the example that American democracy is the right way.

Actions like this and torture make us no better than them.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Amazing that CCTAU still defends this. I mean...REALLY?!?!

Here we are not talking about anything except the article. CCTAU, do you defend the actions in question in this article?

Just this. Not some broad sweeping generalization of POW's or our treatment in the midst of battle. This article. I will wait for your response.

The actions in this article are being portrayed as the poor little muslim terrorist got beat up by the big ole bad soldier. We do not know that as fact. We do know that he sustained injuries due to being subdued. Hell Rodney King got the same thing. Were you in the camp that he did nothing wrong. I have a son in Afghanistan right now having to deal with the fallout of folks like you who take articles like this and automatically blame the soldiers. He has to deal with his buddies getting killed by these monsters and if they capture one, they have to do everything they can to keep them alive. If the little s*** dies, the soldier gets blamed for his death. All of this due to the reactions of people like you on how captives are treated. So see, this isn't just about this article and GITMO. It has far reaching implications that could cause my kid to think about the consequences of how to treat a captive in battle, causing him to make a mistake.

Every soldier has to deal with his buddies being killed in war. What make us better then them is that we don't do torture or do things like this. It is how our soldier's conduct themselves that seperates us from the barbarians and gives the rest of the world the example that American democracy is the right way.

Actions like this and torture make us no better than them.

See. You made my point. You and your ilk are ready to believe the piece of s*** terrorist over the soldier. Who is speaking for the soldier. You don't give a rat's ass about the truth. You are like one of those people who spit on the Nam vets when they returned.

And not every soldier has to deal with death...only the ones doing the killing for folks back home.

[tiger88 934]

Canned response? Please!, you have been like a broken record lately with your griping about the war and attacks on Bush. That is an agenda. Pretty much everyone on here has one and you are welcome to yours. You avoid discussing the fact that you quickly jumped to the worst possible conclusion to support your agenda by quibbling over the word agenda. Whatever.

No, it's only an agenda in your world full of scary bogeymen out to get conservatives. The real world affords people the ability to criticize administrations, politicians and governments when they make wrong decisions or lie to us or whatever without it being part of some grand plan or agenda to advance some hidden objective. You couldn't identify an "agenda" I have if I gave you all month because I don't have one. Just tossing around the word with no apparent understanding of what it means simply because you've noticed a couple of weeks of criticism doesn't make it so.

And I didn't jump to the worst possible conclusion. I read a very specific account of how this terrorist was injured. Based on that account, not only is it wrong to injure him in that way but it's the height of hubris to trumpet the surgery as some magnanimous act on our part. Furthermore, I have said at least twice now that IF the circumstances do turn out to be different, then I take back my remarks on this.

So I haven't avoided talking about anything. I don't know what posts you're reading but I'm beginning to feel like you need to post screenshots to make sure you're actually paying attention to what's been posted here. Your responses sound as if they are to someone not even in on this conversation.

You don't even know if something was wrong here.

I know the accounts as given and have offered caveats if evidence to the contrary is shown.

If the original note is legitimate (And I don't give a rats a$$ whether it is or not) then it doesn't seem like detainee #75 feels too unfairly treated.

Now this is just dumb. If the note isn't legit, then your contention that he doesn't feel unfairly treated vaporizes. Beyond that though, the guy is a barbarian from a barbarian culture. Anything short of cutting off his head is considered compassionate and upstanding. But barbarians are not the baseline for our morality.

So, you jump to the conclusion that our guys basically jumped on a defenseless prisoner and broke his back. If they did, I would quickly forgive them. Why? Because the stresses that this sort of service puts people under can lead to lapses in judgement that to me are very forgivable.

I'm sorry. I expect better from a country like ours. We're not Neanderthals. We're supposed to be civilized and decent. Pounding on defenseless prisoners is neither. I may "understand" the kinds of stresses, frustrations and so on cause a person in the heat of an argument to lash out and hit their spouse. But I don't excuse it. I'm not calling for it to be a capital crime, but civilized, decent people do have to know when to step back and look realistically at the situation and exercise some self-control.

I am just glad that I have never had to perform such duties as many of our soldiers have. Until I know for a fact what happened I will reserve judgment.

I'm glad I haven't either. But again, given the account we know right now, I can assess the rightness of it. If it turns out to be significantly different I'll admit so and move on.

I'm damn sure not going to jump on my high horse with some smart a$$ remark about torturing prisoners with a rolling eyes emoticon after it. To me it is opening fire. You can quibble that it is not opening fire if you must. Anyone can see that it is a pointed attack. Trounce the guys serving our country in your rush to lob another rock at the admin. Whatever floats your boat.

It was a smartass remark about Bush's insistence that we don't torture. The contortions this administration goes through to avoid admitting that we do indeed torture people is laughable to me. "Enhanced interrogation" and redefining techniques that we've called torture for decades...even prosecuted other countries for war crimes when they committed the exact same acts against us...it's just pitiful. So in seeing a situation where someone apparently jumped on an immobilized prisoner causing enough back injury to require surgery to prevent paralysis, while the administration uses the surgery to make itself look better, it just was another reminder of the spin cycle going on from the WH. And it drives me nuts.

I can tell its driving you nuts from your behavior. I could go on an endless argument here with you about semantics, but it would be a waste of time. I will say that your favorite response in any argument lately with anyone is to claim your opponent doesn't have a clue whats going on and are either incapable of interpreting posts or just aren't reading. I suppose that either everyone that you debate has some serious shortcomings or you do or both. Either way it is getting old. Of course your favorite tactic is the holier than thou approach, as it is here again.

It is clear to anyone who can impartially read this thread and others that you have an agenda against the admin. which you are fully entitled to rattle on about. It is also clear that you have jumped to the worst possible conclusion here to further that agenda and have done so based on two tiny little sentences without any defining information provided. You can spin it til x-mas and nothing will change that.

I'll say it again, and couldn't care less if you agree, if someone isn't willing to jump in and do the soldiers job, they shouldn't be so judgmental and critical. Why? Because no one has a freaking clue how they would behave in the same situation until they are there and faced with it. You can pontificate about how moral we are supposed to be if you like, I suppose it makes you feel better about yourself. Until the day you are there, doing that thankless job, you don't have a clue if you could do a "morally" better job.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I can tell its driving you nuts from your behavior.

It drives me more nuts because I campaigned for the guy in 2000, volunteering at the local headquarters in Nashville. I voted again for him in 2004. What I got wasn't what I voted for.

I could go on an endless argument here with you about semantics, but it would be a waste of time.

Probably.

I will say that your favorite response in any argument lately with anyone is to claim your opponent doesn't have a clue whats going on and are either incapable of interpreting posts or just aren't reading. I suppose that either everyone that you debate has some serious shortcomings or you do or both. Either way it is getting old. Of course your favorite tactic is the holier than thou approach, as it is here again.

It's not holier than thou to point out when someone is arguing against points that you never made. It's a basic tenet of debate and discussion. So when someone either exaggerates things I've said to extremes or starts ranting against things I never said simply to make my view look more extreme than it is, I will call them on it.

It is clear to anyone who can impartially read this thread and others that you have an agenda against the admin. which you are fully entitled to rattle on about.

This administration is a mixed bag. I don't have an agenda against it though, regardless of how clear you think it is. If we're talking about Bush as a person or as a husband or father, if we're talking about his view on tax cuts or on embryonic stem cell research or whatever's in his power regarding abortion, or his judicial and SCOTUS appointments, you will get a much different take on things from me. But if we're on the subject of us going to war in Iraq, how we've handled the war for most of the last 5 years, the spin used to sell the public on the war, the skyrocketing spending, the issue of torture and things like that, you'll get what you're hearing now.

I don't have some desire to take down the Bush admin. I will praise them where I think they are doing or have done well and I will criticize them when I think they aren't or haven't. That's being honest and calling a spade a spade, not having an agenda. An agenda is what I normally see around here and other places...Dems blindly castigating Bush for everything that's wrong on earth and Republicans blindly defending him no matter what he does.

It is also clear that you have jumped to the worst possible conclusion here to further that agenda and have done so based on two tiny little sentences without any defining information provided. You can spin it til x-mas and nothing will change that.

Again, I'm going on what I know right now and words like "immobilized" and "wrists cuffed to ankles" and "jumped on" are fairly well defined to me. Sullivan from my experience hasn't been one to just make things up from whole cloth so he has some credibility to me, though I've certainly disagreed with him on many issues. BUT, if details come out that paint a different picture, I take my argument back and will admit as such at that time.

I'll say it again, and couldn't care less if you agree, if someone isn't willing to jump in and do the soldiers job, they shouldn't be so judgmental and critical. Why? Because no one has a freaking clue how they would behave in the same situation until they are there and faced with it. You can pontificate about how moral we are supposed to be if you like, I suppose it makes you feel better about yourself. Until the day you are there, doing that thankless job, you don't have a clue if you could do a "morally" better job.

I've never had to care for an elderly parent with a debilitating terminal illness either, but I will say without hesitation that euthanizing them is morally wrong. I don't have to be a soldier to be able to identify right or wrong actions and neither do you. There are many occupations and plain old life situations that are incredibly stressful and push people to the limits of their patience and endurance. But we still hold to certain moral standards even in the midst of such situations. Plus, I've already said many times now that if the injury came in the course of trying to restrain the guy or while he was still a danger and you're trying to subdue him or in the course of trying to defend oneself or others that it's a completely different picture. I'm not viewing this nearly as rigidly as you're portraying...which is why I keep questioning whether you're reading my posts at all. I say things that address these kinds of things and you just zoom right past it as if I never said it.

[AuburnChopper1 0]

Sorry, been reading from a distance, cause frankly one side has been outed here, and it's been an interesting read...

I did find THIS sentence interesting....

I read a very specific account of how this terrorist was injured. Based on that account, not only is it wrong to injure him in that way but it's the height of hubris to trumpet the surgery as some magnanimous act on our part.

You called this guy a "terrorist"... I didn't know that everyone there was a "terrorist". Furthermore, I didn't know that if you KNEW he was deemed a "terrorist", that you'd support anything short of kicking his teeth through the back of his skull.

Guess not. Terrorists, deserving of love and compassion... because damnit.. they're people too. Got it. Forgive me, if I disagree as well.

As much propoganda and lying that comes from these "terrorists" in Gitmo, I have no problem with pumping out the propoganda ourselves, especially when we KNOW that we treat them a thousand times better than the head lopping goons they'd be if the tables were turned.

You two may now get back to your regularly scheduled debate.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Sorry, been reading from a distance, cause frankly one side has been outed here, and it's been an interesting read...

I did find THIS sentence interesting....

I read a very specific account of how this terrorist was injured. Based on that account, not only is it wrong to injure him in that way but it's the height of hubris to trumpet the surgery as some magnanimous act on our part.

You called this guy a "terrorist"... I didn't know that everyone there was a "terrorist". Furthermore, I didn't know that if you KNEW he was deemed a "terrorist", that you'd support anything short of kicking his teeth through the back of his skull.

Guess not. Terrorists, deserving of love and compassion... because damnit.. they're people too. Got it. Forgive me, if I disagree as well.

As much propoganda and lying that comes from these "terrorists" in Gitmo, I have no problem with pumping out the propoganda ourselves, especially when we KNOW that we treat them a thousand times better than the head lopping goons they'd be if the tables were turned.

You two may now get back to your regularly scheduled debate.

I don't know what discussion you're reading, but exactly who got "outed" here? And if it's me, what, pray tell, have I been "outed" as other than a guy who's sick and tired of the lies and half truths coming from people he voted for? It's one thing to hear it from the likes of the Clintons or Ted Kennedy or Daily Kos. But when the people you supported and believed in do it and do it to this degree, it tends to piss you off.

I called him a terrorist because he was brought up on charges for being one, not because everyone there is one. I have no idea how many there are actual terrorists or who just got caught in the net.

And again with the exaggerations. Where did I say "love and compassion?" You act as if I'm expecting us to give them cuddles and hugs and their own teddy bear to sleep with at night. I'm not saying to coddle them, I'm saying to treat them like we treat prisoners and suspects (or how we should treat prisoners and suspects) normally. Use enough force to get them under control, unable to escape and unable to hurt you or anyone else. We don't condone taking suspects and prisoners, shackling them up then proceeding to pound on them. That's all I'm saying here. We are a civilized society. We don't condone vigilante justice because we don't live in the wild, wild West. We are a nation of laws and even criminals receive a baseline level of decent treatment because we are better than they are. The further you go down the road of employing the tactics of your enemy, the more you become like him rather than like the person/nation you want to be or claim to be.

As far as comparing ourselves to "head lopping goons," that was answered already as well. I'd rather we not calibrate the moral compass with barbarians as the reference point. I believe we can do better than that and the vast majority of soldiers do just that. The bar is not just a little higher or somewhat higher, it's a lot higher. As that pertains to propaganda, I have no problem with touting the good. In fact, if we make it a point to actually BE truly good even down to the details, we don't need propaganda. All we have to do is tell the truth and it will be all the "propaganda" we'd ever need.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Ok, so you take the words (because I take them as not so much Sullivan's, but more than likely info fed to him by Kermit Roosevelt) of a lawyer that is defending people that are one notch down on the prison population food chain from pedophiles and rapists. It is propoganda from both sides. To compare the situation to torture is ludricrous.

I don't take umbrage with your problem with the administration. They have their issues.

Your throwaway "torture" comment at the end was the thing to which I took exception.

Understandable. I didn't mean for that to be taken as a broad slap at all soldiers. It was another slap at the spin machine coming out of the White House. But I can see how it could be taken that way and I apologize for that. As I said in the response to AC, I realize that the problems regarding torture and mistreatment of prisoners and such are the work of a small minority of our men and women in combat.

And even the ones that have done some of this stuff have been allowed and/or encouraged to engage in such acts in some instances by the administration.

[DKW 86 7,441]

You people have the luxury of sleeping under a blanket of freedom and then questioning the manner in which it is provided.

While not condoning this incident or any other, we are only getting a snippet of the situation on which to judge it. The adrenaline that was probably coursing through the veins of the soldier who committed the act, the act of the "victim" (in your jaded eyes) immediately prior to the incident and any other number of factors could have played into the final results, which, while groustesque and unimaginable in your mind, probably was not quite as cut and dried as some people would like for us to believe.

Do prisoners deserve to have their backs broken? Probably not. But until you walk a tour in the shoes of the MP's who serve at Gitmo, I find it very difficult for anyone to judge what happens based on a one sentence statement.

The world is not a simple place where one snapshot can tell the whole story, unless it is to the very simpleminded. People blessed with self awareness understand that there is no beginning nor end to our lives and the world as we know it. Everything can't be wrapped up in a neat box. There are real world incidents that happen and people make mistakes.

Now, if you are simply criticizing the way the feel good story was presented, I would agree a little more.

However, your "torture" comment at the end indicated that you were disgusted because some detainee, prisoner, and terrorist had his back broken. Again, sleep well under that blanket tonight...

Unless we are there or have conducted a lengthy investigation ourselves, I absloutely refuse to judge anyone in a combat situation, or even in a detainee situation. While we do not ever need to sound like the N Vietnamese, we dont have 1% of the info to judge this. Unless you are in combat or on the grounds, leave the men alone. You really dont know what could be happenining. It could be true. But we do not know what may have caused it. It might be political spin etc. These men and women are the best in our country with a very few rotten apples thrown in. Judging one idiot doesnt mean the rest endorse the behavior or would ever act that way themselves.

[tiger88 934]

Titan, I think we've both made our points. Not really interested in going back and forth anymore.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Titan, I think we've both made our points. Not really interested in going back and forth anymore.

'k

[Wishbone 0]

If these prisoners are not all executed then it will be a outrage. We should kill the enemy now while we have our hands on them.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

If these prisoners are not all executed then it will be a outrage. We should kill the enemy now while we have our hands on them.

You don't even know what each of them has or hasn't done individually, yet you want to execute them all. What the hell is wrong with you? If someone has done something that would be considered a capital offense, fine. If they are simply a captured soldier for the other side but can't be connected to any specific act of terrorism or murder or whatever, then we treat them just like any other POW or how we expect our POWs to be treated.

[Wishbone 0]

In a war you have to break a few omlets to make an egg. Unless they truly have some sort of conversion, (which I'm pretty certain they won't) I demand that none of them leave there alive.

I'm all for bringing the war to the people who support the terrorist fighters as well. If we waged total war we could have everything cleared up in no time. That was out policy in WW2 which was the last time we won anything.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

In a war you have to break a few omlets to make an egg.

Thank you Attila.

Unless they truly have some sort of conversion, (which I'm pretty certain they won't) I demand that none of them leave there alive.

Thank God we don't listen to the demands of someone who has your issues.

I'm all for bringing the war to the people who support the terrorist fighters as well. If we waged total war we could have everything cleared up in no time. That was out policy in WW2 which was the last time we won anything.

Yeah. Kill'em all, let God sort 'em out. Sorry, unless you want the judgment of God to come down on you, you don't kill indiscriminately even when you have just reasons to wage war.

[CCTAU 3,350]

If these prisoners are not all executed then it will be a outrage. We should kill the enemy now while we have our hands on them.

You don't even know what each of them has or hasn't done individually, yet you want to execute them all. What the hell is wrong with you? If someone has done something that would be considered a capital offense, fine. If they are simply a captured soldier for the other side but can't be connected to any specific act of terrorism or murder or whatever, then we treat them just like any other POW or how we expect our POWs to be treated.

Not that we should blindly kill them now, we have opened up this box. But I do not recall any of the detainees being caught in any kind of uniform. On the battlefield, if you do not wear a uniform but are engaged in some aspect of warfare, then you are a spie. Spies, historically have been shot on site, or killed in a very short and clean way. In one aspect, Wishbone is correct. WWII was the last time we conducted war in accordance to what war really is. And it's also the last time we won. Sad but true. We chose to detain these individuals, therefore, almost by default, giving them a claim to legitimacy as far as being a POW goes. But in reality, they should have been treated as spies and killed on site. Damn us for veering from the past rules.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

If these prisoners are not all executed then it will be a outrage. We should kill the enemy now while we have our hands on them.

You don't even know what each of them has or hasn't done individually, yet you want to execute them all. What the hell is wrong with you? If someone has done something that would be considered a capital offense, fine. If they are simply a captured soldier for the other side but can't be connected to any specific act of terrorism or murder or whatever, then we treat them just like any other POW or how we expect our POWs to be treated.

Not that we should blindly kill them now, we have opened up this box. But I do not recall any of the detainees being caught in any kind of uniform. On the battlefield, if you do not wear a uniform but are engaged in some aspect of warfare, then you are a spie. Spies, historically have been shot on site, or killed in a very short and clean way. In one aspect, Wishbone is correct. WWII was the last time we conducted war in accordance to what war really is. And it's also the last time we won. Sad but true. We chose to detain these individuals, therefore, almost by default, giving them a claim to legitimacy as far as being a POW goes. But in reality, they should have been treated as spies and killed on site. Damn us for veering from the past rules.

This enemy isn't the sort to spend money on uniforms, yet not having a uniform doesn't make them a spy. We knew what they were...they were soldiers for the Taliban or Al Qaida and we captured them as such. And we did so to hopefully extract information from them through interrogation. Dead men don't talk. And if the claims are to be believed, we've gotten some very helpful info from them that killing them obviously wouldn't have accomplished.

Look, don't get me wrong. I don't care about making them comfy or happy or coddled. But I do want to treat them like humans and like we want our enemies to treat our soldiers. That's always been a hallmark of the US military as well. We treated POW's differently because even if our enemies are savages, we are not. And it's been a calling card to the superiority of America for centuries.

[Wishbone 0]

Titan,

We firebombed countless cities in WW2 and dropped a couple of nukes on Japan. We easily killed over 1 million civilians.

you don't kill indiscriminately

We wouldn't be in this case. I'm just saying we kill as many of the enemy as possible. I didn't know that this was such a revolutionary concept. My policy is that the life of 1 American Soldier is worth more than an infinite number of lives of our enemies (including civilian supporters).

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Titan,

We firebombed countless cities in WW2 and dropped a couple of nukes on Japan. We easily killed over 1 million civilians.

you don't kill indiscriminately

We wouldn't be in this case. I'm just saying we kill as many of the enemy as possible. I didn't know that this was such a revolutionary concept. My policy is that the life of 1 American Soldier is worth more than an infinite number of lives of our enemies (including civilian supporters).

And we should not have firebombed cities and my views on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are fairly well known. The search function here will take you to the relevant threads.

You said we should have killed all of the enemy combatants we have at Gitmo, so I took that to be "killing indiscriminately" since we don't know who's guilty of what in all cases.

[TigerHeat 9]

You people have the luxury of sleeping under a blanket of freedom and then questioning the manner in which it is provided.

While not condoning this incident or any other, we are only getting a snippet of the situation on which to judge it. The adrenaline that was probably coursing through the veins of the soldier who committed the act, the act of the "victim" (in your jaded eyes) immediately prior to the incident and any other number of factors could have played into the final results, which, while groustesque and unimaginable in your mind, probably was not quite as cut and dried as some people would like for us to believe.

Do prisoners deserve to have their backs broken? Probably not. But until you walk a tour in the shoes of the MP's who serve at Gitmo, I find it very difficult for anyone to judge what happens based on a one sentence statement.

Not trying to be difficult here, but when you have a guy's wrists handcuffed to his ankles and he's immobilized, there's no excuse for jumping on his back, much less jumping on it to the point that a surgery to prevent paralysis was required. What threat was the guy at this point...that he could say mean things to you? Bite your ankles if you walked by?

The world is not a simple place where one snapshot can tell the whole story, unless it is to the very simpleminded. People blessed with self awareness understand that there is no beginning nor end to our lives and the world as we know it. Everything can't be wrapped up in a neat box. There are real world incidents that happen and people make mistakes.

Now, if you are simply criticizing the way the feel good story was presented, I would agree a little more.

Primarily, the propaganda mode, dishonest manner in which it was presented was the main point of me posting the article. You don't give yourself accolades for free surgery on detainees when the surgery was only needed because some guy couldn't keep his temper under control and you pounded on a guy that was already rendered immobile and not a threat anymore.

However, your "torture" comment at the end indicated that you were disgusted because some detainee, prisoner, and terrorist had his back broken. Again, sleep well under that blanket tonight...

I do take moral exception to torture and I believe I must do so because of what Scripture teaches. However, even I can see things in degrees. If a detainee had his back broken in the course of subduing him or someone trying to capture him or defend themselves, then that's his problem. When you have the guy under control and he can't even move, to jump on his back is asinine and cannot be excused by "people make mistakes."

Ummm, you guys did catch that the allegation (that the scoundrel's back was broken by being jumped on while hogtied by US troops) was made by his pro bono legal-professor lawyer and a gaggle of law students, right? What did you expect them to say? How much of that is true? I'd say, based on my own vast personal expertise in these matters, that the plaintiffs lawyer made up every word of it.

[TigerHeat 9]

Titan,

We firebombed countless cities in WW2 and dropped a couple of nukes on Japan. We easily killed over 1 million civilians.

you don't kill indiscriminately

We wouldn't be in this case. I'm just saying we kill as many of the enemy as possible. I didn't know that this was such a revolutionary concept. My policy is that the life of 1 American Soldier is worth more than an infinite number of lives of our enemies (including civilian supporters).

And we should not have firebombed cities and my views on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are fairly well known. The search function here will take you to the relevant threads.

You said we should have killed all of the enemy combatants we have at Gitmo, so I took that to be "killing indiscriminately" since we don't know who's guilty of what in all cases.

Wrong, Titan. We know that these guys carried arms against the United States. Guilty, and deserving of death on the battlefield.

Thank God we firebombed Nazi cities and nuked Imperial Japan. We won, they lost, I got to be born. War is hell.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Titan,

We firebombed countless cities in WW2 and dropped a couple of nukes on Japan. We easily killed over 1 million civilians.

you don't kill indiscriminately

We wouldn't be in this case. I'm just saying we kill as many of the enemy as possible. I didn't know that this was such a revolutionary concept. My policy is that the life of 1 American Soldier is worth more than an infinite number of lives of our enemies (including civilian supporters).

And we should not have firebombed cities and my views on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are fairly well known. The search function here will take you to the relevant threads.

You said we should have killed all of the enemy combatants we have at Gitmo, so I took that to be "killing indiscriminately" since we don't know who's guilty of what in all cases.

Wrong, Titan. We know that these guys carried arms against the United States. Guilty, and deserving of death on the battlefield.

Thank God we firebombed Nazi cities and nuked Imperial Japan. We won, they lost, I got to be born. War is hell.

War is hell, but even war has limits to the kinds of things decent, civilized countries can do. For centuries and even the earlier times in the US, the Just War Doctrine was implicitly understood to be a guiding principle in how to conduct a war without resorting to immoral means. I'm not going to rehash all the arguments from the earlier thread. If you're interested you can look it up. But suffice it to say that Japan was defeated even without the nukes and you'd have been born anyway.

And I'm sorry, but you're wrong. When you capture POWs you do not summarily execute them. Well, maybe if you're a Communist dictator you do, but not if you consider yourself to have any moral fiber whatsoever.

[TigerHeat 9]

Titan,

We firebombed countless cities in WW2 and dropped a couple of nukes on Japan. We easily killed over 1 million civilians.

you don't kill indiscriminately

We wouldn't be in this case. I'm just saying we kill as many of the enemy as possible. I didn't know that this was such a revolutionary concept. My policy is that the life of 1 American Soldier is worth more than an infinite number of lives of our enemies (including civilian supporters).

And we should not have firebombed cities and my views on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are fairly well known. The search function here will take you to the relevant threads.

You said we should have killed all of the enemy combatants we have at Gitmo, so I took that to be "killing indiscriminately" since we don't know who's guilty of what in all cases.

Wrong, Titan. We know that these guys carried arms against the United States. Guilty, and deserving of death on the battlefield.

Thank God we firebombed Nazi cities and nuked Imperial Japan. We won, they lost, I got to be born. War is hell.

War is hell, but even war has limits to the kinds of things decent, civilized countries can do. For centuries and even the earlier times in the US, the Just War Doctrine was implicitly understood to be a guiding principle in how to conduct a war without resorting to immoral means. I'm not going to rehash all the arguments from the earlier thread. If you're interested you can look it up. But suffice it to say that Japan was defeated even without the nukes and you'd have been born anyway.

And I'm sorry, but you're wrong. When you capture POWs you do not summarily execute them. Well, maybe if you're a Communist dictator you do, but not if you consider yourself to have any moral fiber whatsoever.

If my grandfather had been killed during the invasion of Japan I would never have been born.

I didn't say a thing about killing POW's. I said they should have been killed on the battlefield rather than captured. Heaps of their dead help our cause much better than one captured for information we can't obtain because of the left-wing Tortucrats crying every time they see a phone book.

Spare me the just war lectures and "look it up" crap. Very juvenile of you, Titan. Uncharacteristically so. I guarantee that I am at least as familiar with the moral, ethical and legal aspects of war as you, if not vastly moreso.

Thank God we're winning in spite of ourselves. If we had a competent enemy (instead of just a cruel and vicious enemy) we'd be in deep dung right now. In spite of it all, we have yet to endure the "storm of airplanes" or the Century of 9-11's and everything else the AQ crowd promised us. It has nothing to do with W, huh? He's just a gross incompetent. They quit on their own.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

If my grandfather had been killed during the invasion of Japan I would never have been born.

We had them choked off with a suffocating blockade and behind the scenes they were negotiating for surrender before the bombs were even dropped. Invasion was far from a certain necessity.

I didn't say a thing about killing POW's. I said they should have been killed on the battlefield rather than captured. Heaps of their dead help our cause much better than one captured for information we can't obtain because of the left-wing Tortucrats crying every time they see a phone book.

If they surrender on the battlefield, what were you proposing then, because that's what happened here.

Spare me the just war lectures and "look it up" crap. Very juvenile of you, Titan. Uncharacteristically so. I guarantee that I am at least as familiar with the moral, ethical and legal aspects of war as you, if not vastly moreso.

It's not a lecture. I'm just pointing out that what you're describing does not fit the parameters of Just War Doctrine no matter how big a shoehorn you're using. The "look it up" comment is because it was quite a lengthy and detailed discussion that doesn't need to be repeated here when you can click "Search" and type in a keyword like "Hiroshima" and my screenname and easily find the entire thread in question. If that's juvenile, tough noogies. I have stuff to do too.

Thank God we're winning in spite of ourselves. If we had a competent enemy (instead of just a cruel and vicious enemy) we'd be in deep dung right now. In spite of it all, we have yet to endure the "storm of airplanes" or the Century of 9-11's and everything else the AQ crowd promised us. It has nothing to do with W, huh? He's just a gross incompetent. They quit on their own.

Whatever. I haven't said W is a gross incompetent, I simply disagree with some of his decisions surrounding this war and have the temerity to actually say so even though I'm a conservative.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

But suffice it to say that Japan was defeated even without the nukes and you'd have been born anyway.

Quite a bit off the original subject, but now (and apparently in the past) you are questioning the way we won the eventual surrender of Japan?

Hindsight is a wonderful teacher. There is much to be learned from the events of the past and apparently much to be criticized.

Actually my views are shaped as much by the circumstances as relayed by the people in the know at that time as any hindsight. Don't be so dismissive. I don't just pop off on serious things like that without giving it a good bit of thought and reasonable amount of study.

You have done the country a disservice by not applying your apparent vastly superior ability to think along tactical and strategic lines to determine the best response in all situations.

It doesn't take a strategic genius to figure that vaporizing 200,000 civilians is not the best course of action, particularly when Mutually Assured Destruction wasn't even on the table. And I'm not saying anything that other military minds at the time weren't saying and said right in the aftermath. Don't act like I pulled this out of thin air.

This thread has gone from the absurb comparison of torture and the claims of some liberal lawyer that will do and say anything to win the release of his "client" to the second guessing of one of the greatest military victories in the history of mankind.

I didn't broach the subject of Hiroshima or the firebombing of Germany. I just gave a brief answer and referred him to the earlier thread. That said, as great a victory as it was, it doesn't mean that we always did the right thing morally in the conducting of that war and there is nothing unpatriotic or disrespectful about discussing that.

Since you apparently have all the answers, what should we do in Iraq today? Don't tell me we shouldn't have invaded. Your views on that are well documented. Tell me what the appropriate end to the sitaution as it exists today is.

The world anxiously awaits.

I get that you're out there in the thick of things and sensitive to any criticism of our government or military decisions. But this "do better or shut up" stuff is weak. I don't have to know exactly how to do this or that thing to know when something is not right. It's like earlier this week there was a story about a man that got hit by a car on a busy city street. The traffic camera shows people standing around looking and gawking but doing nothing for over a minute while he laid there. No one stopped traffic. No one knelt down to check on him and see if he was breathing or bleeding. Now, I'm no expert on exactly what to do medically for a guy like that. If I tried to do too much, I might exacerbate his injuries. But I do know that standing there like a moron isn't right when someone is dying in front of you. I know that the right thing to do would at least involve stopping or redirecting traffic so he doesn't get run over. I know that a person could at least check his pulse, see if he's bleeding badly and if I could slow or stop the bleeding long enough for paramedics to get there.

So don't give me the "you have all the answers so tell us exactly what to do" bull****. I don't have to know every perfect action to take to know some of the things that we shouldn't do. We shouldn't drop a nuke on Basra for instance. We shouldn't go house to house shooting civilians to get them to reveal where the terrorists are just to name a couple of examples. I'm not saying we are doing or have contemplated doing such things, just making the point that one doesn't have to have a comprehensive game plan to know some things are right and some things are immoral.

You're a smart guy, Randall. You know that these things can be discussed, dissected, debated and so on and being a soldier or a president or a cabinet member is not the prerequisite for doing so anymore than being a football coach is a prerequisite for discussing football around here. I get that this hits close to home for you, but as a thinking person that cares about this stuff from not only the perspective as an American, but also as a Christian, I'm going to talk about it. And we should talk about it, even if we end up having to say some things that might be tough for some to hear.