Thread: President Bush

Originally Posted by Decker

As far as torture goes, check out Egypt's history of torture:
Political detainees have been blindfolded, stripped of their clothes and suspended from their wrists, bound or handcuffed together, sometimes in contorted positions, from the tops of doors or from barred windows. Victims have described how they have been forced to lie on their backs, their hands and feet bound together, a chair forced up under their armpits, another keeping their knees apart to restrict the body's involuntary spasms as electric shocks were applied repeatedly to their nipples and genitals. Between torture sessions they have been made to stand in unnatural positions, often with arms and legs outstretched, for hours on end and beaten if they moved. Some have been sexually abused. In addition to physical torture, they have been threatened with murder and rape, told that they would become insane or sexually impotent as a result of their torture, and in some cases threatened that their wives would be tortured or raped in front of them. They have been placed in cells where they could hear the screams of others being tortured, and kept blindfolded throughout in order to prevent them from identifying their torturers. http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/...2569A6006018A0

Hooking genitals up to car batteries is what the mafia permits, not the USA. Those that support torture do not have dignity, honor or nobility. I can't say it any more plainly than that.

I read your little link. It talks about tortures done pre-1991. When were these US prisoners sent to Egypt? It states nothing about these detainees, but talks about prisoners scars that "could have" resulted from tortures. The doctors didn't actually say for sure, so their testimony would be considered inconclusive.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I think the members of this board, including myself, feel quite tortured that this thread is still going.

Then don't read it. j/k We're having a good clean discussion with no name calling. Besides, it's a good way for me to pass time.

Originally Posted by Decker

No honor. No dignity. But torture is entertaining. Anyway you assume the detainee is guilty and deserving of cruel and unusual punishment. All detainees are guilty until proven innocent. Torture is just another tool. This from a man of your advanced years and experience. tsk tsk.

You are in NO position to make character judgements about me. You have no idea who I am, where I've been or what I've done. Take your "tsk tsk" and shove it up your ass.

We were on battlefields. The enemy was shooting at us. We took them as prisoners. If you want to celebrate their innocence then by all means, do so. But you'll get no support from me.

Originally Posted by ALBOB

Colonel Thomas White. Upon learning that a detainee had knowledge of an impending strike against his troops, Colonel white held his service pistol next to the head of the detainee and demanded the info. The detainee remained silent. The Colonel then discharged his weapon inches from the detainees head, sending hot gasses all over his face. The Colonel again asked for information about the planned strike and was told the exact time and place. All the information proved to be accurate and saved the lives of at least two dozen American soldiers who were to patrol that area that morning.

P.S. Upon hearing about how the information was gathered a bunch of liberal pieces of shit decided to try to court martial Colonel White. He was within two years of retirement. His career is ruined and he may still lose his retirement.

I asked for it and got it. Thanks. Can you provide a link?....I'd like to see the facts. If, and that's a big 'if', that story is credible, it still does nothing to change the fact that state sanctioned torture is earmark of Nazis and Communists. What you mention is more akin to actions in the battlefield, i.e., war crimes. What we are looking at is state sanctioned torture. But I would still like to see that link nonetheless...you know, right-wingers tend provided absolutist pictures of events. There's always at least 2 sides to every story.

Originally Posted by dougnukem

I read your little link. It talks about tortures done pre-1991. When were these US prisoners sent to Egypt? It states nothing about these detainees, but talks about prisoners scars that "could have" resulted from tortures. The doctors didn't actually say for sure, so their testimony would be considered inconclusive.

You are correct, here's the proper link: http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2775

So we provide an all-expense paid trip to egypt for what reason again?

Originally Posted by Decker

You are correct, here's the proper link: http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2775

So we provide an all-expense paid trip to egypt for what reason again?

What else? The Great Pyramids of course!

To see the pyramids?

Originally Posted by ALBOB

You are in NO position to make character judgements about me. You have no idea who I am, where I've been or what I've done. Take your "tsk tsk" and shove it up your ass.

We were on battlefields. The enemy was shooting at us. We took them as prisoners. If you want to celebrate their innocence then by all means, do so. But you'll get no support from me.

Sorry ALBOB but when you support state sanctioned torture, (we were discussing the US shipping detainees to Egypt) such as the kind I alluded to in my comment, you are showing no dignity or honor or nobility.

I'm not railing on your battle field moment above at all b/c I don't know you or your history, nor is it germane to the topic at hand. which is Bush's approval of spying on US citizens. How in hell did we end up here?

Originally Posted by Decker

Sorry ALBOB but when you support state sanctioned torture, (we were discussing the US shipping detainees to Egypt) such as the kind I alluded to in my comment, you are showing no dignity or honor or nobility.

I'm not railing on your battle field moment above at all b/c I don't know you or your history, nor is it germane to the topic at hand. which is Bush's approval of spying on US citizens. How in hell did we end up here?

Prolly whitey.

Originally Posted by Decker

Sorry ALBOB but when you support state sanctioned torture, (we were discussing the US shipping detainees to Egypt) such as the kind I alluded to in my comment, you are showing no dignity or honor or nobility.

I'm not railing on your battle field moment above at all b/c I don't know you or your history, nor is it germane to the topic at hand. which is Bush's approval of spying on US citizens. How in hell did we end up here?

I believe you brought up torture at one point. Instigator!
Oh, btw, I read through some of the links through the one you just posted, funny stuff. Prisoners complaining about loud rap music. The best part was they knew the artists' names! Propaganda goes both ways.

[quote=Decker]Why don't you direct your attention to someone that was there:

Scot Ritter: It's not black-and-white, as some in the Bush administration make it appear. There's no doubt that Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the UN security council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability has been verifiably eliminated./quote]

First off, you need to pick a better source. Ritter is nothing more than a glory hound. After he resigned he flopped on his standed (ala, John Kerry) and said whatever it took to keep him in the lime light.

First he states "It's not black-and-white" then proceeds to say "Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations." Either Iraq has, or has not, mets it's obligations needed to prevent the return of the US and the end of the Saddam's government. That sounds black-and-white to me. After 12 year, many UN resolutions (ha!), he still had not met his obligations.

Originally Posted by Decker

The WMD inspectors weren't using magic, they were using science. That's anathema to most right-wingers, but it works.

I wasn't aware that claravoyance was a science. Since the inspectors were never allowed to see all of Iraq, when they needed to, how could they know for certain? The liberal definition of science is a little odd.

Originally Posted by Decker

Iraq was never a "threat" or "pressing problem" until Bush et al. invented the threat.

So, Saddam wasn't funding terrorists? Of course he wasn't. That wouldn't fit into the liberal world view where the only bad guy is the US.

As for the Egyptions torturing people: welcome to how the world really works. If the US played it the way liberal would like, we would end up being attacked and then they would stand around bitching about how the government failed to protect them. Liberal love to take the "moral high ground"...unless it costs them money or places them in harms way.

Originally Posted by Decker

You are correct, here's the proper link: http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2775

So we provide an all-expense paid trip to egypt for what reason again?

He finds that your link doesn't say what you purport that it does, so you produce another. I'm sure that you can a link stating that Iraq is populated with cuddly bears.

I followed your link and read the article. It references a "report" by a human rights group, to which it doesn't link. How convient. I'd like to see how this group created...I mean, found these facts.

Originally Posted by cfs3

First off, you need to pick a better source. Ritter is nothing more than a glory hound. After he resigned he flopped on his standed (ala, John Kerry) and said whatever it took to keep him in the lime light.

First he states "It's not black-and-white" then proceeds to say "Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations." Either Iraq has, or has not, mets it's obligations needed to prevent the return of the US and the end of the Saddam's government. That sounds black-and-white to me. After 12 year, many UN resolutions (ha!), he still had not met his obligations.

Wrong again. Iraq was grudginly meeting it obligations under UN requirements...but that's not fast enough so let's bomb the shit out of them...they are only Iraqis.
So Ritter is a 'glory hound' even though his work is proven credible. Well, how about these guys, are they 'glory hounds' too. Please read the following b/c it's a synopsis of the inspector's findings:

"I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward (BY BUSH)was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer." Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. "I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to CNN from IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria.
ElBaradei said he had been "pretty convinced" that Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which the IAEA dismantled in 1997.
Days before the fighting began, Vice President Dick Cheney weighed in with an opposing view.

"We believe [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong," Cheney said. "And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency in this kind of issue, especially where Iraq's concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what Saddam Hussein was doing."(VERY CREDIBLE, DON'T YOU THINK?)

Now, more than a year later, ElBaradei said, "I haven't seen anything on the ground at that time that supported Mr. Cheney's conclusion or statement, so -- and I thought to myself, well, history is going to be the judge." No evidence of a nuclear weapons program has been found so far. Blix said the Bush administration tended "to say that anything that was unaccounted for existed, whether it was sarin or mustard gas or anthrax."

Blix specifically faulted Powell, who told the U.N. Security Council about what he said was a site that held chemical weapons and decontamination trucks. "Our inspectors had been there, and they had taken a lot of samples, and there was no trace of any chemicals or biological things," Blix said. "And the trucks that we had seen were water trucks."

The most spectacular intelligence failure concerned a report by ElBaradei, who revealed that an alleged contract by Iraq with Niger to import uranium oxide was a forgery, Blix said.

"I think they (USA) lost their patience much too early," Blix said.
"I can see that they wanted to have a picture that was either black or white, and we presented a picture that had, you know, gray in it, as well," he said.

"We should not forget that," he said. "For a couple of months, their cooperation was not by any way transparent, for whatever reason."(SEE GRUDGINGLY)
ElBaradei said he hoped the past year's events have taught world leaders a valuable lesson.
"We learned from Iraq that an inspection takes time, that we should be patient, that an inspection can, in fact, work."

Originally Posted by cfs3

I wasn't aware that claravoyance was a science. Since the inspectors were never allowed to see all of Iraq, when they needed to, how could they know for certain? The liberal definition of science is a little odd.

The point is that they could not finish their inspections b/c Bush bombed the country. The inspectors were finding no evidence to support Bush's rationale for invasion so Bush just ordered the attack in spite of the evidence.

Originally Posted by cfs3

As for the Egyptions torturing people: welcome to how the world really works. If the US played it the way liberal would like, we would end up being attacked and then they would stand around bitching about how the government failed to protect them. Liberal love to take the "moral high ground"...unless it costs them money or places them in harms way.

I certainly agree. In fact let's take the children of the detainees and torture them until their parents talk--sexual torture, water boarding, elctro-shock etc. B/c, you know, since they are detainees by definition they are guilty and just chockfull of valid useful facts. And if that doesn't work let's workover their spouses or parents. You see, you think that torture is doing what it takes to get the job done. Torture is a path bullying cowards choose--Nazis/Commies/death squads. The only job your doing with torture is satisfying petty vindictive bloodlust regardless of facts/truth. To beat a monster you must become a monster?

Originally Posted by cfs3

He finds that your link doesn't say what you purport that it does, so you produce another. I'm sure that you can a link stating that Iraq is populated with cuddly bears.

I followed your link and read the article. It references a "report" by a human rights group, to which it doesn't link. How convient. I'd like to see how this group created...I mean, found these facts.

Why look at all. You just wrote that this (torture) is how the world works. Either it does or does not work that way. Egypt has a long standing reputation supporting torture. If my links are not good enough, then by all means, find your own, b/c you know how the real world works. Torture. Right? Would you support torture if proferred by Clinton? Reagan was not a supporter of the type of blackbag operations practiced by the Bush administration...his quotes re such practices, in reference to the SU, were all negative.

Cuddly bears. Ha good one. No, but I can find many many links supporting the assertion that GWB is a war criminal and, thanks to his recent foray into spying on americans, he is now in Nixon redux subject to more talk of impeachment.

Now come on, noone is insinuating that we torture everyone including children. Besides, you keep saying that the Nazis, and commies are the only ones who used torture. Do you honestly believe that to be true. Torture has been going on forever. Heck, if you're a Bible thumper, there is plenty of torture in it as well.

As far as the whoel debate about whether or not we should have waited to move in on Iraq and Saddam, it's retrospect. You can't really prove that it would have went smoothly if we didn't go the route we did. Nobody can predict the future, no matter how smart they claim to be. (ie UN Inspectors spouting there mouth off, like they are some kind of Psychic)

I think we should start a new thread, "What would Kerry do?" I mean, if Bush wasn't reelected, that's who would have been running the show, right? I figure you guys must think he would have done a hundred times better of a job. I mean, who better then a guy who changes his mind on a weekly basis? That's a leader I want leading me in the military, indecisive.

Originally Posted by Decker

Why look at all. You just wrote that this (torture) is how the world works. Either it does or does not work that way. Egypt has a long standing reputation supporting torture.

You're confusing task and it's application. Yes, torture does work, but I've yet to see definitive proof that the US is using it. I'm not saying the US does or doesn't, but the proof is lacking.

Originally Posted by cfs3

You're confusing task and it's application. Yes, torture does work, but I've yet to see definitive proof that the US is using it. I'm not saying the US does or doesn't, but the proof is lacking.

Don't worry, we torture ourselves first, to make sure that they work effectively. I just got done getting tortured. It was great.

Originally Posted by dougnukem

Now come on, noone is insinuating that we torture everyone including children. Besides, you keep saying that the Nazis, and commies are the only ones who used torture. Do you honestly believe that to be true. Torture has been going on forever. Heck, if you're a Bible thumper, there is plenty of torture in it as well.

As far as the whoel debate about whether or not we should have waited to move in on Iraq and Saddam, it's retrospect. You can't really prove that it would have went smoothly if we didn't go the route we did. Nobody can predict the future, no matter how smart they claim to be. (ie UN Inspectors spouting there mouth off, like they are some kind of Psychic)

I reference Nazis and Communists b/c they are most likely to be identified by anyone and they provide good examples of the evil they had done.

Reasonable conclusions based on valid evidence is really the only elightened way of proceeding through geopolitical relations. If you equate the inspectors's rational methodical scientific inquiry with divination...that's a mistake. The inspectors' use of scientific analysis and educated opinion was leading to the conclusion that Iraq had no WMD capabilities. They were confirming that Iraq was no threat to the USA.

Maybe I'm taking the wrong tact with this. Did Bush's saber rattling help Hussein decide to capitulate to WMD inspectors? I believe the answer is Yes. Did Bush goto far by initiating an invasion? Yes. War as a last resort means last resort.

Originally Posted by cfs3

You're confusing task and it's application. Yes, torture does work, but I've yet to see definitive proof that the US is using it. I'm not saying the US does or doesn't, but the proof is lacking.

I understand. It's just that the US is shipping detainees to Egypt for a reason. I haven't had time to research particular cases of torture yet...damn interruptions at work.

Originally Posted by Decker

Wrong again. Iraq was grudginly meeting it obligations under UN requirements...but that's not fast enough so let's bomb the shit out of them...they are only Iraqis.

"Fast enough"? It was twelve years! And only then because the US had already started to gear up for war. If the US didn't finish the war then I find it unlikely that Saddam would have complied. It was the US' move to finish the conflict that makes your half of the debate real.

Originally Posted by Decker

I certainly agree. In fact let's take the children of the detainees and torture them until their parents talk

Who said anything of the prisoner's children? We'er talking about the prisoner themselves. You're trying to combine war captives, terrorists, and innocent children. Nice try.

Originally Posted by Decker

To beat a monster you must become a monster?

No. Torturing a captive is leagues different from raping injured captives, beheading aid workers, and killing thousands of non-military related civilians. Let's assume for the moment that the US does, in fact, torture specific captives for information. A few out of how many captives? Every prisoern that the (Saddam's) Iraqis/terrorists get the hands on are tortured and often killed. And not all of their captives are combatants. The last round of kidnapping involved pro-Middle East/Anti-American people.

Originally Posted by Decker

I understand. It's just that the US is shipping detainees to Egypt for a reason. I haven't had time to research particular cases of torture yet...damn interruptions at work.

I feel your pain.

Honestly, I wouldn't put it past the US to do that. Hell, that's what I would do! And I assume that the US will, in some way, scratch Egypt's back.

Originally Posted by cfs3

"Fast enough"? It was twelve years! And only then because the US had already started to gear up for war. If the US didn't finish the war then I find it unlikely that Saddam would have complied. It was the US' move to finish the conflict that makes your half of the debate real.

Read my above post, I do agree w/ you that the saber-rattling worked. But by the same token, invasion was not warranted.

Originally Posted by cfs3

Who said anything of the prisoner's children? We'er talking about the prisoner themselves. You're trying to combine war captives, terrorists, and innocent children. Nice try.

My argument was a rhetorical device called the slippery slope argument. If you ok torture in one fashion, why not extend it to others...where do you stop with the barbarism?

Originally Posted by cfs3

No. Torturing a captive is leagues different from raping injured captives, beheading aid workers, and killing thousands of non-military related civilians. Let's assume for the moment that the US does, in fact, torture specific captives for information. A few out of how many captives? Every prisoern that the (Saddam's) Iraqis/terrorists get the hands on are tortured and often killed. And not all of their captives are combatants. The last round of kidnapping involved pro-Middle East/Anti-American people.

Some of those things you described are really war crimes. My response is, are we not that shining city on the hill? Do we not lead by example. Are we not the greatest nation on earth for a reason? Why? B/c we don't stoop to the level of our enemies. We've been kicking ass for over 200 years w/out taking on the hue of fascist torturers. Why start now?

Originally Posted by Decker

Read my above post, I do agree w/ you that the saber-rattling worked. But by the same token, invasion was not warranted.

The problem is that sabre-rattling did not work. It wasn't until the US committed to battle that Saddam changed his mind.

Originally Posted by Decker

My argument was a rhetorical device called the slippery slope argument. If you ok torture in one fashion, why not extend it to others...where do you stop with the barbarism?

This is why I like to debate with you. Not only do you bring of (generally accepted) facts, but you understand the mechinisms of debating as well. You are truly The Master Debator.

As for your point, the lines are to hard to find. We don't torture innocents, just to name one.

Originally Posted by Decker

Some of those things you described are really war crimes.

True, but when no one who plays the game plays by the rules, neither should you, not if you want to survive.

Originally Posted by Decker

My response is, are we not that shining city on the hill? Do we not lead by example. Are we not the greatest nation on earth for a reason?

Because we the least corrupted and the most generous. What has made the US "great" is it's people's hard work. The world respects power and money first and foremost. The idea of morals has little to do with it.

Originally Posted by Decker

Why? B/c we don't stoop to the level of our enemies. We've been kicking ass for over 200 years w/out taking on the hue of fascist torturers. Why start now?

The world has changed. The enemy has more opporotunities and better weapons and we have to change with it.

Originally Posted by Decker

Some of those things you described are really war crimes. My response is, are we not that shining city on the hill? Do we not lead by example. Are we not the greatest nation on earth for a reason? Why? B/c we don't stoop to the level of our enemies. We've been kicking ass for over 200 years w/out taking on the hue of fascist torturers. Why start now?

What makes you think that this is the only time that there might be torturing going on? The media will get people to believe anything if they talk about it enough.

Originally Posted by cfs3

The problem is that sabre-rattling did not work. It wasn't until the US committed to battle that Saddam changed his mind.

I disagree with you. It was after Bush threatened force that Hussein gave in and let the inspectors do their jobs. That was in late 2002. When the US committed to battle in early 2003, the inspectors were still hard at work and requesting more time but unfortuneately, they had to leave the country or get bombed.

Speaking of getting bombed, as always cfs3, it has been fun...It's Tuesday nite, the Socialist Rotaries are serving pretzels, caviar, and vodka...I'm off to adventure.

Originally Posted by dougnukem

What makes you think that this is the only time that there might be torturing going on? The media will get people to believe anything if they talk about it enough.

Yes, I am a media drone.

Originally Posted by Decker

Reasonable conclusions based on valid evidence is really the only elightened way of proceeding through geopolitical relations. If you equate the inspectors's rational methodical scientific inquiry with divination...that's a mistake. The inspectors' use of scientific analysis and educated opinion was leading to the conclusion that Iraq had no WMD capabilities. They were confirming that Iraq was no threat to the USA.

Maybe I'm taking the wrong tact with this. Did Bush's saber rattling help Hussein decide to capitulate to WMD inspectors? I believe the answer is Yes. Did Bush goto far by initiating an invasion? Yes. War as a last resort means last resort.

Saddam was giving the inspectors trouble long before Bush was around. He just happened to be the one who called Saddam out on it, unlike the wishy-washy UN. Besides, we gave Saddam a chance to willingly give up. He choose the hard way. Look where it got him, hiding in a hole in the ground, like the coward he truly is. Now he is playing to coward card again in court, refusing to take part in the revealing of the truth of his reign. The truth hurts.