drmiler -

Torture "works" in the sense that individuals can be physically and psychologically "broken" but it rarely gives you the kind of intelligence that is timely or particularly useful. And very few have kind things to say about the North Vietnamese captors who tortured our troops.

ChristianDog and I are on the same page in that regard - we should hold ourselves to a higher standard, particularly when part of our reason for being in Iraq was to put an end to Saddam's torture chambers, not just replace them with our own. I'm ashamed as an American that that happened, even though I understand that what our troops did was nothing compared to what Saddam's thugs carried out routinely.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Reply #26 By: Daiwa - 11/14/2004 1:32:15 PM drmiler - Torture "works" in the sense that individuals can be physically and psychologically "broken" but it rarely gives you the kind of intelligence that is timely or particularly useful. And very few have kind things to say about the North Vietnamese captors who tortured our troops.

I wasn't saying that they would have kind things to say about them. I was using that as an example of tortures effects on an individual. Also depending on the type of torture (some people say that using drugs on an individual is a form of torture.) Intelligence *can* be both timely *and* useful. And yes we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. But talk to a CIA operative, they won't go along with our assesment

I know that some feel we are forced to fight with one hand tied behind our backs. And there may be some validity in that opinion, but if our ideals are worth fighting & dying for, they're worth living by. I know that may sound a little smarmy, but it works for me.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Besides, "Truth serum" is so much more effective.  Oh, and by the way, not that I advocate Torture, but some psychological ploys used by interogaters can fall under the umbrella of torture.  Locking someone in a room with no human contact, playing Britney Spears songs 24 hours a day, depriving the individual of sleep, etc.  Not, by a strict definition, torture, since it involves no physical contact between people, but I think a good case could be made that it is.

Cheers

Reply #29 By: jeblackstar - 11/15/2004 1:19:31 PM Besides, "Truth serum" is so much more effective. Oh, and by the way, not that I advocate Torture, but some psychological ploys used by interogaters can fall under the umbrella of torture. Locking someone in a room with no human contact, playing Britney Spears songs 24 hours a day, depriving the individual of sleep, etc. Not, by a strict definition, torture, since it involves no physical contact between people, but I think a good case could be made that it is.

Oh NO, NOT Brittany Spears!!!! Anything but that!

It amazes and saddens me that some people seem to shrug off what happened on 9/11.

Ohh, come on, you sound like too reasonable a person to get your undies all scrunched up like that. NO ONE is shrugging off 9/11, it was an act of war.

But terrorism has been a part of the world back to Biblical times. The powerful have tried, when they had a moral compass at least, to follow the rules of conduct for their times, but those with less power wage war through other means.

We hold most of the power and even more of the moral high ground, and we'll get them if we behave reasonably intelligently. No need to pretend our opponents are the worst the world has ever known. And no need to torture captives -- it only convinces the world that we are desperate, stupid, and not so much better than our opponents.

We still use the name for one of the oldest terrorist groups.  In fact, we use it as a common, not exactly everyday, but everyone knows it, word.  Gold star to the first person who can tell me what the name of the group was.

Cheers

Terrorism is not new. We used it in our own Revolutionary War, and it wasn't new then.

I never realized that the revolutionists went out killing innocent men, women, and children.

We still use the name for one of the oldest terrorist groups.  In fact, we use it as a common, not exactly everyday, but everyone knows it, word.  Gold star to the first person who can tell me what the name of the group was.

Ku Klux Klan?

assassin (from hassassan)?  or zealot?

I never realized that the revolutionists went out killing innocent men, women, and children

the point of terrorist strategy isnt to kill...its to scare so as to avoid killing (which is more labor-intensive).  in any event, im sure the tories (colonial loyalists) who were burned--or otherwise forced--outta their homes would have considered themselves victims of terrorism.  there is noone innocent..no not one.

the point of terrorist strategy isnt to kill...its to scare so as to avoid killing (which is more labor-intensive).

So, by killing innocent women and children, the terrorists hope to avoid killing?
When you think about it, the terrorists from the Middle East are completely justified. After all, the founding fathers (and even Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. to a certain extent) are terrorists. I like this broad definition of terrorist we use.

Messy

Reply By: jeblackstarPosted: Monday, November 15, 2004We still use the name for one of the oldest terrorist groups. In fact, we use it as a common, not exactly everyday, but everyone knows it, word. Gold star to the first person who can tell me what the name of the group was.

I'm curious about this one...
Did kingbee get it?


PS Terrorism is a war strategy. You can't wage a war against a war strategy.

..

KingBee gets the Gold star for today, thanks to everyone who played.

(It was Assassin)

Cheers

No one seems to have mentioned what I consider the bottom line...Sadam, while an evil dictator not unlike other evil dictators we support when it's in our vested interest, was NOT responsible for 9/11. The American people were bamboozled into rallying behind a war that exists for corporate interests and American global power. In our current goverment's cynical self interest we have effectively poisoned the worldwide view of this nation. This has not made us safe from terrorism. Quite the opposite, in fact. But, a select group of wealthy folks are gettin' wealthier, so all's well the end's well I suppose.

Reply #39 By: Oliver (Anonymous) - 11/17/2004 1:56:04 PM No one seems to have mentioned what I consider the bottom line...Sadam, while an evil dictator not unlike other evil dictators we support when it's in our vested interest, was NOT responsible for 9/11. The American people were bamboozled into rallying behind a war that exists for corporate interests and American global power. In our current goverment's cynical self interest we have effectively poisoned the worldwide view of this nation. This has not made us safe from terrorism. Quite the opposite, in fact. But, a select group of wealthy folks are gettin' wealthier, so all's well the end's well I suppose.

Everything in here is a tired old theme.

Indeed it is. I only wish it wasn't still relevant.

Reply #41 By: reddirty - 11/17/2004 2:38:51 PM Indeed it is. I only wish it wasn't still relevant

I don't believe it is. Do you honestly think we should have left the sanctions in place and Saddam in power? The oil sanctions were killing 5000-6000 children a month due to starvation from the sanctions.

The sanctions weakened the Iraqi people far more than it weakened Sadam's regime. In fact, the sanctions increased Sadam's grip by making the citezens of Iraq more reliant on the dictatorship in their state of desperation. A home brewed revolution which the U.S. could have supported as we commonly do in South American nations became impossible amidst the starvation created by the sanctions...and so the stage is set for our heroic entrance...

You'd do well to remember that it was Saddam who starved his people, not the sanctions. He (and others) ripped off billions from the Oil for Food fiasco. If he'd had his people's welfare at heart, he could have fed them.

Cheers,
Daiwa

You'd do well to remember that it was Saddam who starved his people, not the sanctions.

That's the way I see it.

I don't believe it is. Do you honestly think we should have left the sanctions in place and Saddam in power? The oil sanctions were killing 5000-6000 children a month due to starvation from the sanctions.

A. Prove that the sanctions were the cause of 5000 - 6000 childhood deaths a year.

Population in 2004 according to the CIA - 25,374,691 Link

Geograpic.com - 18,781,770 (July 1990), Link

More Bush Spin to make it seem like a good thing to do.

Are "a million innocent children...dying at this time...in Iraq" because of U.S. sanctions, as Osama bin Laden claimed in his October 7 videotaped message to the world? Has the United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) discovered that "at least 200 children are dying every day...as a direct result of sanctions," as advocacy journalist John Pilger maintains on his Web site? Is it official U.N. belief that 5,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 are dying each month due to its own policy, as writers of letters to virtually every U.S. newspaper have stated repeatedly during the past three years?

So, by killing innocent women and children, the terrorists hope to avoid killing? When you think about it, the terrorists from the Middle East are completely justified. After all, the founding fathers (and even Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. to a certain extent) are terrorists. I like this broad definition of terrorist we use.

terrorism is derived from which word?  name a war in which both sides didnt employ it.  bringing ghandi and mlk in as examples in this case is a good demonstration of why your invert-and-convolute strategy sometimes falls short of making your point or making sense. 

First of all the deaths are horrible. I am saddened by them. As I sit here looking at a picture of my own child on my desk, i think it's important to say that even one death is too many when it is your own child. These are not statistics we are tossing around but the deaths of innocents. May God hold them dear.

As far as the sanctions go, it is impossible to lay the blame of all those deaths soley and squarely on them. The country was destroyed by the first gulf war, and that attributed greatly to the suffering of the Iraqi people and the infant mortality rates. Also the Oil for Food Program was started in order to aid the Iraqi People, the program was at first limited, but those restrictions were soon lifted. This help some what, however greed soon ate up much of that aide as Saddam and others skimmed off the top, dipping deeper and deeper. Saddam also had huge reserves of money, and he did nothing to help his people. I think this is one aspect we can all agree on, Saddam had it in his power to help his people and chose not to. He could have met the worlds demands and ended the suffering, he did not. It was one of the reasons I supported the invasion. However, I don't think the situation has improved much, for the Iraqi people, I think it will in the future, if it is handled correctly. It hasn't been handled too effectively to date though.

Reply #49 By: Cappy1507 - 11/18/2004 12:28:04 AM First of all the deaths are horrible. I am saddened by them. As I sit here looking at a picture of my own child on my desk, i think it's important to say that even one death is too many when it is your own child. These are not statistics we are tossing around but the deaths of innocents. May God hold them dear. As far as the sanctions go, it is impossible to lay the blame of all those deaths soley and squarely on them. The country was destroyed by the first gulf war, and that attributed greatly to the suffering of the Iraqi people and the infant mortality rates. Also the Oil for Food Program was started in order to aid the Iraqi People, the program was at first limited, but those restrictions were soon lifted. This help some what, however greed soon ate up much of that aide as Saddam and others skimmed off the top, dipping deeper and deeper. Saddam also had huge reserves of money, and he did nothing to help his people. I think this is one aspect we can all agree on, Saddam had it in his power to help his people and chose not to. He could have met the worlds demands and ended the suffering, he did not. It was one of the reasons I supported the invasion. However, I don't think the situation has improved much, for the Iraqi people, I think it will in the future, if it is handled correctly. It hasn't been handled too effectively to date though.

I would have to agree with you 110% on that! Even 1 is to many. He should suffer the same fate that he consigned his people to.