Torture ? What torture ?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Sep 19 2006, 03:00 PM) [snapback]321771[/snapback]</div>

Actually its not altogether clear that Iran is building a nuclear weapons arsenal - that is just conjecture on the part of certain people. There is also a school of thought that reasons that Iran is facing a future energy shortfall (their major oilfields are in decline and they seem in no real hurry to use the latest tech to get the dregs out) and with their large (60+ million) population increasingly in need of electricity, nuclear energy is an appealing choice.

I am of the opinion that Iran and the US are natural allies and both countries need to move to some kind of detente. We did it with China & Russia and there is no reason other than pride not to do it with Iran. Turkey & Iran are better allies than Saudi. I think that Iran is silently pretty happy about us liberating Iraq from under Saddam.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Sep 19 2006, 03:11 PM) [snapback]321787[/snapback]</div>

R U Nuts - you honestly think a country sitting on the largest reserves of oil needs nuclear generated power? And if they did - why not buy a nuclear reactor from GE or Siemens, etc? Why are they building some of their facilities 200ft + UNDERGROUND if they intend it for peaceful purposes? Why did they stop repeatedly the UN IAE from instpections?? You honestly believe they are doing it for peaceful purposes?? Detent is IMPOSSIBLE with a culture that worships DEATH! Remember that. The Soviets loved living as much as we did - that is the ONLY reason detente worked - and there are enough instances when it almost did not. You want MORE nuclear weapons on this planet after we have spent the last two + decades destroying them. Are you crazy?? If you truly believe iran want nuclear technology to generate electrical power you have not inspected the facts completely. If you are of the belief that Iran deserves to be allowed to produce nuclear weapons - you are dangerous.

Your geopolitcal concepts are also wide of the mark as long as Yabadabadoo is in power there and they support terrorism - Hezbollah for one. Have you read what this nut has said REPEATEDLY about destroying Israel and the US? Iran will only be happy if people like you effect a US defeat and unconditional surrender (withdrawl) from Iraq - they will then march in and own almost 50% of the worlds oil supply.

Please tell me you are kidding - and this is just a joke - and I am over-reacting.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Sep 19 2006, 03:00 PM) [snapback]321771[/snapback]</div>

Yes they did - and it was a mistake we will all live with until it is overturned (like their recent Kelo decision). That is why Bush went to Congress so they can write the "rules of engagement" that we are to follow. It is useless using guidelines that predate the birth of OBL.

NoKo et al developed nukes on bj watch not Bush's. And the fact he did go to war will make them take notice.

I have a headache - this is enough for me to give up my beloved Prius - I am going to be guilty by association here. You would let Iran go nuclear???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Please say no - for my sanity - as a fellow prius owner - please - say you would prevent them from going nuclear....

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 19 2006, 02:56 PM) [snapback]321765[/snapback]</div>

you are too smart. run for office. go on the radio. publish your thoughts on a blog. spread the news. nothing personal - my head hurts now - sorry...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Sep 19 2006, 03:00 PM) [snapback]321772[/snapback]</div>

stop. stop. you are torturing me. in the love of God and the Geneva Conventions. stop.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 19 2006, 12:40 PM) [snapback]321802[/snapback]</div>

Come on David. Where did I even remotely infer that I approved of Iran going nuclear? I only explained why they are doing it, not expressed support for what they are doing.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Sep 19 2006, 12:11 PM) [snapback]321787[/snapback]</div>

The Mullahs who rule Iran are ecstatic that we knocked off two of their mortal enemies, the Sunni regimes in Afghanistan and Iran, and replaced the latter with a friendly (for them) Shiite dominated government. We made it just that much easier for Iran to achieve hegemony in the region. Someone in the incompetent and inept Bush administration should have foreseen that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Sep 18 2006, 07:15 PM) [snapback]321466[/snapback]</div>

I agree that we can't all seem to agree on a definition for "torture", but have you seen any pictures that would constitute "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment"?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(captain archer @ Sep 19 2006, 12:28 AM) [snapback]321532[/snapback]</div>

The Supreme Court might disagree with you. (They probably need some education on the constitution, though.) The law in current question is Common Article 3 of the Geneva convention, which the Supreme Court has ruled does apply, and the president now seems to agree. (Not that he really has a choice) BTW, I didn't see anyone saying that this is a law enforcement issue. One of many points you seem to have missed.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 19 2006, 05:31 AM) [snapback]321555[/snapback]</div>

Ya won me over. On to the beheading and booby trapping! Don't even bother with torture.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ditto @ Sep 19 2006, 11:32 AM) [snapback]321667[/snapback]</div>

Speak for yourself!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Sep 19 2006, 02:36 PM) [snapback]321875[/snapback]</div>

Now that was just mean.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Sep 19 2006, 10:46 AM) [snapback]321612[/snapback]</div>

Excuse me....no one has yet defined torture and I DO NOT accept that torture is universally known. Yes, some things would have universal agreement...others would not. I still say humiliation is NEVER TORTURE.

My "community" has had 27 years of my service and I will stand that up against ANYONE here. I have seen, dealt with, and cleaned up after the depravity of citizen against citizen......we still have nothing on the islamofascists.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 19 2006, 12:21 PM) [snapback]321661[/snapback]</div>

I'll keep asking until someone answers.....DEFINE TORTURE. I tried!!!!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pogo @ Sep 19 2006, 05:00 PM) [snapback]321851[/snapback]</div>

THANK YOU!!!! Great point. That wording is pathetic. Being placed out on the street naked would be humiliating to me....but there are tribes that still run around naked...would it be humiliating to them? My wife runs my house....would it be humiliating for a fundementalist christian to be ordered around by a woman?

These words need defining....and Bush wants that to happen.

BTW...intel to make our citizens and troops safe is worth ANY amount of humiliation or outrage on dignity..."sticks and stones may break my bones but WORDS will never hurt me."

 

Time to weigh in on this...

Just to make things clear, here is a link to a copy of article 3 of the Geneva convention http://www.wegoted.com/News/more.asp?ID=1747

Now as for the value of the intel we gain if we were to use torture, most sources say it's of little or no value because the person receiving it simply says what he thinks his captors want to hear. This has been confirmed by Sen. John McCain (POW 5 1/2 years North Vietnam) and This Guy who is a former CIA special agent who now has a talk show on a local radio station

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Sep 19 2006, 04:53 PM) [snapback]321845[/snapback]</div>

No problema. I am laser focused on Iran. My fear is that some or any Democrat wins in 2008 and the White House becomes an ally of Iran's nuclear program (unwittingly) and uses words instead of force to prevent them from becoming an uncontrollable NoKo.

IMO - everything else takes a second seat to this issue.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 20 2006, 07:12 AM) [snapback]322162[/snapback]</div>

That's a good point. Bush and Co. don't seem to care that North Korea is a nuclear power. And that's much closer to us than Iran.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 20 2006, 08:54 AM) [snapback]322170[/snapback]</div>

Which would be a greater threat to the United States, a nuclear NoKo or a nuclear Iran?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 20 2006, 10:04 AM) [snapback]322196[/snapback]</div>

Well, considering North Korea already is nuclear and test-fired 7 missiles in 2 days back in July ....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Sep 20 2006, 10:11 AM) [snapback]322199[/snapback]</div>

For the sake of argument - consider both to be nuclear armed - something that will probably happen if nothing is done in the next 6 to 24 months.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 20 2006, 09:13 AM) [snapback]322202[/snapback]</div>

Well, North Korea is closer by 2000 km. Both are terror states. The only thing is NoKo has nukes now. Iran may not have them in years.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 20 2006, 10:13 AM) [snapback]322202[/snapback]</div>

I should probably be working on getting our test server upgraded, but I'll play along for a few minutes.

North Korea is about 5400 miles from California, 4600 from Hawaii and 3500 from Anchorage. The western most edge of Iran is about 6300 miles from DC. On proximity alone, North Korea wins the award.

For sheer craziness, I think it's a wash. I think Kim Jong Il is actually crazier and most likely to launch an attack, but Ahmadinejad has access to a whole lotta radicals who'd love to attack us.

You say you're laser focused on Iran. Is that because they haven't become a direct threat yet and you don't want to see that? I can respect that. My question is, what in your mind makes them a bigger threat than N. Korea (edited by mod from Iran)? Believe it or not, I'm not trying to be snotty here. I'd love to hear your opinion.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 20 2006, 10:17 AM) [snapback]322205[/snapback]</div>

This is something I probably should have said above. Kim Jong Il has already threatened nuclear war if a preemptive strike is launched and warned that any sanctions against North Korea will be taken as a "declaration of war". This guy is, to quote Randle Patrick McMurphy, "The chief bull-goose loony".

Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, appears to be shrewder. He might, if he has the power, trump up a charge against Israel to justify attacking. But I don't think he'd do that because he'd have to know a good portion of the world (including the US) would turn his country into a parking lot.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Sep 20 2006, 10:38 AM) [snapback]322216[/snapback]</div>

NoKo is less of a threat being surrounded by countries who share a common belief that he should be kept on a short leash - the same countries have a long and distinguished history of warring with their neighbors and also have access to nuclear weapons which they would use without second thought. NoKo also is not as well connected to terror as Iran and has yet to state in public on the record numerous times its desire to destroy countries. Their culture also does not view death as a good thing or killing innocent people as Gods will. Thats all i have time for now.

 

He isn't the top power in Iran, though. The mullahs are. Remember it's a theocracy. So despite his posturing, they will have the final say in this area.

The hypothetical suitcase bomb. It's farther off than a working bomb. We had to made a bigger plane to carry our first ones. If someone did make one, and snuck it into the US. We can determine which reactor made the fuel, and probably on what day it was made. There likely isn't many reactors capable of making the fuel that we don't have a fingerprint for. So figuring out where to send the return gift would not be hard.

Since the "islamofacist" seems to be the focus. There are more muslams in either India or Russia than Iran. And we know they have working bombs. Why wouldn't Kim Jong use a suit case method if he wanted to hit us?

No Korea is also a threat because of the damage it could inflict on our trade partners in Asia. Yeah Iran can disrupt oil trade in the mideast, but most of our imported crude comes from Canada. Things would get expensive, but Wal-Mart will still have widgits.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(captain archer @ Sep 19 2006, 12:28 AM) [snapback]321532[/snapback]</div>

Oh really?

I'm probably a bit older than you and my "self education" dates back to the end of WWII (you can Google this for some background if it wasn't in your reading list) when we executed a fair number of Germans and Japanese for war crimes. We shot 'em dead. In many cases these weren't the actual low-level soldiers who did the acts but rather the top officers who "only" ordered them done.

Today I read in the LA Times that an 83 year old woman was just deported back to Germany for failing to disclose her background about being a guard dog handler at a German death camp (Ravensbruck, not that many have ever heard of the place.) The evidence suggests that she didn't take part in any actual killing but simply acted as a camp guard. So, then and now, it appears to be our government's policy to prosecute those who acted for their country, against us, in a barbaric fashion. Sounds OK to me.

But modern day apologists, of anything our leaders do, defend to the death our "right" to do whatever possible, anytime we like. (Well maybe not actually unto their own deaths. Most of them have zero military time where they might be put at risk for such actions. Talk is cheap.) The conclusion reached by even Republican senators who have such experience is that our savage treatment of prisoners invites such action upon our own. John McCain seems to have some relevent data on the subject. His "self education" is on the doctoral level. That big wuss Colin Powell had some ideas too.

Envision how enlistments will dry up even more when we explain to our new recruits that we've decided anything goes and they can expect the same if captured. We signed the Geneva Convention (which makes it a law, and constitutional) for ourselves, not as a friendly gesture to future enemies. (By the way, the Constitution isn't the only valid law in this country. If you really think it is, explain to the next cop that stops you for speeding that nothing in the Constitution mentions 65 mph. They need some laughs down at the station house.)

There are too many tough-talking punks running around this country who love to shout "Kill, nuke and torture" but would cry like a baby if they were, for example, locked into a little wooden box for an hour or so by guards wishing to make an "attitude adjustment." Been there, done that. Until you do, all such theory is BS. These loudmouths are the guys I throw in the "towell" for. I'm ashamed at how many Americans were never taught, or forgot, what this country stands for. It isn't, and never was, about winning at any cost. When will they ever learn.......