'Damn right' I personally ordered waterboarding: Bush

I thought everyone knew he was giving the OK. This is just a juicy topic that's going to sell books and make him money. I don't think the U.S would let the joke that is the UN prosecute him.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


In the end it's our responsibility to check the facts and make the right decision. We KNOW North Korea has nukes, and they make threats and we do nothing. I don't want to go to war, but we went to war with no proof in Iraq, so what gives?

Originally posted by DuceizBack
Wow
it's #ing war..

too many damn liberals
if world war 3 breaks out i hope all the liberals be quiet....

Of course, if liberals were to be quiet, it would make ww3 all the more likely to happen. During the event, if liberals were quiet, there'd be that much less information available for anybody that did actually survive to learn from in the hope it never happened again.
But hey, get that gingoism mojo working & then google "The Lost Generation of Europe" - see how much good it did them. Still, you're not buying it, are you? B/c, to your mind, I'm a "damn liberal"; you've already dehumanised me. So get a good grip on that mojo & rub it furiously as you join in the chant:
"We is good. You is bad.
Whatever you say, must be mad.
You is bad, so we wanna fight.
Whatever we do, must be right!"
Can I get a "huah!"?
(For the info of the rest of us, when I quoted the above, the expletive replaced by a # appeared in full [the F-word], which to me suggests that DiB either unthinkingly or deliberately flouted T&Cs - kind of typical of the mindset I've just outlined. "I dont care about the rules, I can do what I like. I dont even have to capitalise or use sentence structure, 'cause I is exceptional!")

reply to post by etshrtslr

I honestly don't even know where to begin with this piece of convoluted logic.

See, this is an eg of using a phrase to sound convincing without understanding what it means. There was nothing convoluted about my logic, I simply used a metaphor to illustrate it. If you cant grasp what such a simple metaphor means, thats not my fault. To recap: just b/c someone else may harm you for their own reasons, doesn't mean that its ok for me to harm you for mine & furthermore, if harming you was the sanctioned norm for a proven crime, that would be a totally different situation to doing it merely on suspicion. Just what is convoluted about that?

You sir are the one trying to limit the points of view on this thread by making it only about Bush and water-boarding

No I'm not. The OP opened the thread &, if I were to add every deed by US Presidents that I find disgusting as corollery to every sentence I uttered about Bush Jnr's actions (to comply with your position), not only would 99% of it be OT, but it'd take 5 posts to get 1 sentence completed - the mods wouldn't stand for it.

I'm just pointing out to those with any intellectual honesty that you certainly cant get upset over water-boarding some terrorist without getting equally upset over the policy of assassinating American citizens or as some other poster pointed out the fact the quran sanctions torture of infidels.

Yes & I am upset about those things too. They're just not the subject of this thread & attempting to justify 1 wrong by citing others is a logical fallacy.

Please apply your self righteous indignation with a little more consistency

See now this is another eg like the 1st sentence. There's nothing self-righteous or indignant about my position. Where I'm coming from is humbly standing on the shoulders of giants who pioneered morality throughout history & sickened that they're still ignored.

reply to post by Darkrunner


You cant say ANYTHING about WW2 apart from the fact that it was the only just war ever fought by Britain or America, and every other war has been pointless inflamatory, wasteful murderous and entirely without moral justification.
Fighting the Nazis was something that the world HAD to do , or be burned and murdered by xenophobic fundamentalists who's entire basis for thier activities was a belief that all but the so called "master race" must either serve the master race or die for refusing. The Nazis left my Grandfathers and thier generation no choice but to get thier hands dirty with the grime of battle. It was a righteous defence of the realm and the world , against a military machine which was actualy capable of taking over the world, an unprecedented and unrepeated threat. No other force before, or since then, has had the power, reach, and military ability required to ACTUALY achieve that, and if my grandfathers and thier fellows had not fought the Nazi machine, the world would be even closer to hell than it already is.
Do NOT mention WW2 in the same breath as these recent conflicts. To do so tarnishes the memory of those who fought impossible odds and won, in the name of freedom and equality many years ago, with the same brush as we paint the wanton pointless murder which we the west involve ourselves in today.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by Darkrunner

 

No other force before, or since then, has had the power, reach, and military ability required to ACTUALY achieve that, and if my grandfathers and thier fellows had not fought the Nazi machine, the world would be even closer to hell than it already is.
Do NOT mention WW2 in the same breath as these recent conflicts. To do so tarnishes the memory of those who fought impossible odds and won, in the name of freedom and equality many years ago, with the same brush as we paint the wanton pointless murder which we the west involve ourselves in today.

Saddam has been the only world leader that has lunched missles, not unlike the V-2 really, blindly into the cities of another nation. This Hitler want to be just had to go. And the guys that removed him did so in the same spirit as those that removed Hitler. And dont fool yourself if Hitler were around today you would be pleading his case.

Originally posted by sbc650mike
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

In the end it's our responsibility to check the facts and make the right decision. We KNOW North Korea has nukes, and they make threats and we do nothing. I don't want to go to war, but we went to war with no proof in Iraq, so what gives?

Well for one Iraq had already been of late very active against other nations around it, fired scuds into Israel, tried to take over an oil rich zone ect. No need in waiting for this guy to get nukes. Its good we tool him down when we did. Korea could be a problem but so far just run their face and fired off a few rounds at the moon and what not. Looking back we should have listened to Macarthur and pressed out advantage when we had it. Now we have a national political leader cult all nuked up.

reply to post by Logarock


If Hitler was around today, I would be doing what my grandfathers did about it. That would be getting elbow deep in Nazi innards without a single fleeting glimpse of remorse. However, comparing Hitler and Saddam, is not at all honest.
There are some very clear differences between Hitler and Saddam . First and foremost, is that during WW2 Hitler was in command of one of , if not the largest army and military organisation on the face of the planet, all marching under a banner of hate. He had invaded multiple nations, and was actualy in total control of most of Europe and even Africa, with strategicaly placed military assets endangering anything they got near.
Saddam on the other hand was NOT at the time of the begining of the war in Iraq, in control of much of anything outside his own borders ,apart from any secret service elements he may have had at his disposal. He certainly had NOT made inroads into global occupation, and even the suggestion that he was capable of anything like that is frankly idiocy and worthy of not a single bit of consideration.
Yes, he was capable of striking nations around him with weapons, but as the real intelligence on his military strength , equipment and so on says, he had NO capability to launch the devastating WMD which he was accused of carrying , he had NO capability to strike the western world with his military might, because as the war in Iraq showed, his military was , when compared to ours , weak and largely held together with fear and spit.
In short , he was nothing . He was mere dust on the wind of doom, unlike Hilter and the Nazis who were a genuine threat to every living being on this planet.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

"IF" means something. In hindsight was [waterboarding] a good idea? No, never argued it was. But at the time the decision was made, it probably seemed necessary to potentially save lives. And that's something I'm always in favor of.

Ok, another RL analogy. IDK what you look like, but I'm going with "average Jo/sephin/e" for the purposes of discussion. I'm a bit scary looking. I could do more to help that, but it makes the type of person who judges a book by its cover take themselves away from me, before I have to ask them to. In truth, for reasons I've alluded to above, I am capable of being dangerous, but I'm a man of peace, as it were. Still, since most of us are very un-self-aware, there are people who react to me as follows: they are scared; unconsciously, b/c they dont know why, & cant admit it to their insecure selves, they defend their fear with anger. They then get in my face about any old random thing that presents itself. This has led to me being attacked.
If I came to the USA, I'd know that many people there carry guns. If you & I were approaching each other, b/c of my previous experience of life, If you reached into a pocket, it'd be reasonable for me to assume that you could be about to pull a gun on me. @that time, I would have to make a decision that probably would seem necessary to potentially save my life. Are you "always in favour" of me delivering a 270 degree, full aerial, spinning back kick, with locked knee & landing my heel only, on the side of your neck (Think Chuck Norris & then think again - this maneuver could kill you outright, might leave you a quadraplegic, but would definitely end any threat from you (& put you in hospital) &, since just trying to knock you out might not work, leaving you able to shoot me, it'd be my best option, violence wise.)? Or should I consider my morals, deal with my fear & say, "Whoa, dude/tte!"?

reply to post by gandhi
Georgie Dubya probably didn't know what water boarding was,he thought it was something to do with taking the guy surfing???duh

reply to post by WhiteDevil013

In a perfect world, torture would be laughable, because it would be some mythological method that was never needed.

Now here we start to get to the core issue, imo. Centuries ago, we can easily imagine that people may have said a similar thing, like: "In a perfect world, dieu et mon droit would be laughable, because it would be some mythological method that was never needed."
However, here we are with habeus corpus, equality before the law (ish ), representative democracy (not that it works yet), & also, crucially, the ability to complain to each other about what we dont like & a greater ability to try to do something about it. How did all this change happen?
Did those people back then, labouring under the yoke of the divine right of kings, sit on their arses & wait for random changes to make things better? My understanding is that most of them did, which is why those that got up & said something like, "I know I cant make a perfect world, but this bit of imperfection right here & now is so wrong I'm not taking it sitting down any longer!" were persecuted, tortured & killed so often, without many people giving a crap. Still, some did. Eventually, they prevailed.
This is the essence of the flaw of conservative thinking (not the false dichotomy of con vs lib, the actual opposites of conservative vs radical):
IF NOTHING CHANGES, NOTHING CHANGES!
Dont we owe it to ourselves, our kids & our ancestors to try to change things for the better? They say "necessity is the mother of invention", so how about an easy way to get things to change for the better? Just stop doing what we know is wrong & let human ingenuity come up with an alternative?

Originally posted by IzzycomesinPeace
I'm just going to say the obvious here...because hey, why not?

I don't care who's doing the torturing... it needs to stop

Edit: I'd like to elaborate. Through out this post I've seen people trying to justify wrong actions because of other wrong actions. Here's the deal... if a government is doing wrong actions to stop wrong actions...that will cause more wrong actions. It's a cycle. So who is going to stop the violence? Our government? The middle east?... Probably no one because it seems like everybody doesn't get that more violence will not stop violence, it will cause more. That's it... I'm going to Antartica to live with the penguins... Away from all the violent dense people debating about what wrong action is justified by some else's wrong action.

My point? Torture, violence, and war is not justifying anybody...It's causing more innocent people to die. There is no such thing as protection in a hateful world. So stop pretending like what the government is doing is protecting us.

edit on 5-11-2010 by IzzycomesinPeace because: (no reason given)

In the case of Mr Bush it is facinating, even if one believes waterboarding is a bad thing to do, that Bush would be so hated for this and yet Saddam is a well known mass killer. The same calling for justice on Bush wish to defend the rights of Saddam and Iraq as a sovereign leader and state. If we are so gung ho to get Bush we should have no problem with unseating a man like Saddam. A man and his sons that had torture chambers of the worst sort.

We are going to put Bush to the fire over waterboarding? Then we should invade Iraq and dig up all the mass graves and help the people of Iraq deal with this Saddam. Oh no a man like Saddam would see how we carry out justice on our own and live in fear. Yep that would change his ways. Well it seems like the people of Iraq felt the best way to do this was with a rope around his neck.

Three cheers for Bush.

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by WhiteDevil013

 

In a perfect world, torture would be laughable, because it would be some mythological method that was never needed.

Now here we start to get to the core issue, imo. Centuries ago, we can easily imagine that people may have said a similar thing, like: "In a perfect world, dieu et mon droit would be laughable, because it would be some mythological method that was never needed."
This is the essence of the flaw of conservative thinking (not the false dichotomy of con vs lib, the actual opposites of conservative vs radical):
IF NOTHING CHANGES, NOTHING CHANGES!
Dont we owe it to ourselves, our kids & our ancestors to try to change things for the better? They say "necessity is the mother of invention", so how about an easy way to get things to change for the better? Just stop doing what we know is wrong & let human ingenuity come up with an alternative?

This point is valid as long as we add the caveat that many will not follow a good example. That weakness is often an invitation and that the nazis were just all about ingenuity.

Hay! Lets put out a bowl of food for Godzila and maybe he will chill out!

It was the sound of singing that stoped Godzilla in his tracks. The childrens choir singing Kumbaya cased the great beast to lay down and sleep a deep and peacefull sleep. But then Bill ruined it all by driving a great spike through the critters head.....I think this shows the essential flaw in liberal thinking (not the false dichotomy of con vs lib, but the actual opposites of reality vs utopistic dissidence):

Originally posted by sbc650mike
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

In the end it's our responsibility to check the facts and make the right decision. We KNOW North Korea has nukes, and they make threats and we do nothing. I don't want to go to war, but we went to war with no proof in Iraq, so what gives?

"No proof"???

We knew Iraq had weapons of mass destruction because we still held the Bill of Sale!!!!!!

Who do you think SOLD Iraq much of it's WMD?????

General George Sada, commander of the Iraqi Air Force testified that in the month leading up to the war much of the banned weapons made it's way to Syria on passenger aircraft that had all the seats removed. And other intelligence says much of this is buried in the sands in Syria.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
If anyone was shocked by this, that portion of the population needs to be strung up and shot for willful indifference , and utter stupidity.
George on the other hand... it should take him months to die... Hell , I would do the job if asked, and I would bring my own meals with me. Pro bono for the greater good.

Easy there Adolf.

Originally posted by Curiousisall

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And likewise, I'm going to state emphatically again. If I had reason to believe I could potentially save thousands of lives by waterboarding a terrorist then I'd do it. And not apologize for it. Even to save one single life I'd do it.

And again I am going to point out that we are not talking about you but we are actually talking about people that knew full well that torture was not going to save a damn person and did it anyway. I truly hope you can eventually come to see the difference.

Interesting, so why do we only "torture" for fun, (since we know both they have no information, and they'll never tell us the unknown information we know they don't possess to begin with by "torture") a few random terrorists and not everyone the State Department has a quarrel with?

He admits to "war crimes" and you guys don't march?
Lol...the USA could admit they put arson in your water and you wouldn't do anything but cry to ATS about it.

reply to post by DuceizBack


Did you mean Arsenic there? Arson isnt a poison, its an act of criminal destruction.
2nd Line

reply to post by Logarock


Im amazed you can throw that at me, baring in mind that Im not the fascist dictator who started a war with an entire ethnic group ! I think it was Bush that did that, and I cant be blamed for having the veiw that xenophobes and Nazis must be removed from the face of the earth for everyones saftey and moral health. Bush fits both those.

Originally posted by neonmeatdream

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by airspoon

 

"The method, which most describe as torture, has since been banned by the Justice Department."

"Since been" implies to me that at the time he approved it there was no Justice Department stance against the practice. hindsight is always 20/20, but I cannot affirm here that if faced with the same proposition from the CIA I wouldn't have agreed to it also.

If I were told lives could be saved by torturing a criminal, for the sake of the lives that could be saved I'd be inclined to do the same. But I admit that's conjecture at this point. I dunno, hard decision to make.

Being a part of "The Lord's Army", and I am being serious here, how does WWJD fit in to the picture? Would Jesus be there holding down the prisoner and pouring the water on his/her face? If you think yes, where in the NEW Testament would the character of Jesus support a yes opinion? Turning over the tables of the money changers at the Temple won't apply here. I would really like to get your take on this.

Poor example. Jesus as depicted in the Gospels could read the minds of men he encountered.