As far as supporting the troops, there's no reason NOT to. It's not their fault that they're over there. They have a job to do no matter how they feel about the situation. I personally send little things to friends of mine over there. Maxim or FHM or just an email makes a difference. However, as it is, there is no way that those troops can come home any time soon. If we left now, Iraq would be a state of total anarchy. I have no idea what to do to fix it because there's not a lot you can do to fight hatred. Saddam was a really bad guy to have the position that he did. On the other hand, he was able to keep all the groups in check. That's better than what we've accomplished so far.

But in your statements you do not support what they are doing. Are you saying they are stupid and can not determine what they want to do. Or just saying they have no choice. From what I hear we have a 100% voluntary military. Even in when you have orders you can express you disapproval of them. You may be court-martialed for and re-assigned but you can still voice your opinion. The thing is it is rarely done because our men and women are proud to serve their country.

As far as Saddam keeping people in check. That is the most lame argument I have ever heard. You say you don't support torture but what do you think Saddam was doing. You have no idea what you are talking about on this matter so stop thinking through your leftist goggles and think for your self.

To Griffzan, Right on target.

You bring up a good point about the truth syrum. I don't know enough about it to say that it would or wouldn't work, although if it does work on its own, it would certainly be a good alternative to torturing anybody.

You're right about Saddam killing people and his next in line would probably kill people too. The thing is that I don't see that changing with a new government. Right now, the country is pretty much split up into three groups: Sunnis, Shiites, and terrorist cells. The Sunnis and the Shiites hate each other and are killing each other for power and out of spite right now. Neither group like the terrorists, so they're killing terrorists as well and the terrorists are defending themselves by killing everybody else. The Iraqi police are worthless because a lot of them have allegiance to the Sunnis or Shiites and the rest are too scared to do anything. So by taking out Saddam, what have we fixed? Not a whole lot. If a Sunni ends up in power, it will be the same situation but in reverse. If a Shiite ends up in power, it will be the same situation as it was with Saddam. The only difference that may happen once the Iraq is in a stable enough position to handle itself is that it would be a power shift. Different party in power causing the opposite oppression.

As far as supporting the troops, there's no reason NOT to. It's not their fault that they're over there. They have a job to do no matter how they feel about the situation. I personally send little things to friends of mine over there. Maxim or FHM or just an email makes a difference. However, as it is, there is no way that those troops can come home any time soon. If we left now, Iraq would be a state of total anarchy. I have no idea what to do to fix it because there's not a lot you can do to fight hatred. Saddam was a really bad guy to have the position that he did. On the other hand, he was able to keep all the groups in check. That's better than what we've accomplished so far.

Has anyone heard of sodium penithol (truth serum) if we are beating terrorists, which I pesonally could care less if we are and they truly are terrorists, then it would stand to reason that a little truth serum wouldn't hurt. Also seeing as spum is such a hardcore government activist (and I mean active in the government, no disrespect) that he wouldn't mind doing a little research on this and it's effectiveness in really getting the truth. In my opinion it seems if this is a viable resource then why complain if there are no side effects. Also me personally, I don't argue about anything unless I feel I'm 100% correct so although I'm not as knowing in government as many here my opinions are hard to sway, my step-Dad (who I consider my Dad) is an ex navy seal and a real hard ass who did his best to instill in me a sense of right and wrong and before I moved away he left me with a piece of advice that although you may not understand fully, is my one rule in life "What's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong, and you always stick up for what is right." Now what I see here is shades of gray, an issue that has many sides, I see the good that although a war (any war) is a bad thing, but a nessary evil, and if we never went over to Iraq that Saddam would still be in power implementing his law and crushing those who oppose it (free speech is one of the best thing about our country) and although so many have died during this war, if Saddam were to stay in power the next person to fill his shoes would be worse as he saw no penalties for the atrocities that were commited by Saddam, now we're over there and yes pretty much stuck until we fix the mess we made, at least enough so they can stand on their own. Now I also recall a time not so long ago where Bush's approval rating was pretty high, and now that things are rough and people are feeling the hurt at home not so many people are happy with the fact we're STILL there, as I said before I my not support the war but I will always support our troops. I can also say that when our troops see their own country protest a war with such vigor as is happening here in Mich, where not to long ago they where protesting at funerals, that strikes a cord and decreases morale. And when those same troops return to Iraq to fight a war it's addictive, the feeling that "Why am I here?" and they make mistakes and people die. I may not know alot about everything but one subject I'm an expert on is analizing people, why they do what they do, what led them to that action, what was going though their mind when they made that decision. Most people are content to do as their told by a higher up without question (hence religion) and until an outside force introduces doubt, in a soldiers life quiet times give time to reflect on their doubt and it festers, and turns to anger, self loathing, as well as hate due to the fact they feel they shouldn't be fighting anymore. And those thoughts suface all the time not just when they have a moment to refect... gets in the way of their training and like I said people die. I would like to offer a piece of advice on that note "Why not stop protesting, turn your efforts to making our own troops feel at home when their "at home" instead of the strangers in a strange land, because, trust me, all the protesting isn't going to stop the war it never has, we're there for the duration or until they can walk on their own feet."

Yeah, that and the fact that some people are willing to die for their secrets. No amount of torture will guarantee anything. False information is just as likely as good information. Take it from John McCain who has been in the situation. He's against it for similar reasons.

Originally Posted by spum

If you torture and beat an innocent man enough, they will give you made up information just to stop you from hitting them. There's nothing to gain my torturing anybody.

This is the only downfall to this type of information retrieval method. Same with the death penalty in court, it is possible to punish a truly innocent person.

Bill Laden? or Bin Bush?

Wow, you really misconstrued what I said. I never made a claim that Bin Laden was in the Clinton/Gore back pocket. I said that Bin Laden released a tape (which he did) stating that the 9/11 attacks were a response to the way people were treated during the Gulf war under Bush Sr. The symbol of Bush being elected to office is what gave the attack a go ahead. This tape has been lost in the political cloud of mudslinging that happens in our government between republicans and democrats.

One could assume that it is the fault of the Clinton/Gore administration that 9/11 was not prevented. I agree, that assumption could be made. On the other hand, there's no proof saying they were looking at documents saying that planes were going to be hijacked at this time on this day and these hijacked planes were going to be flown into buildings...like the Bush administration did. They had the information. They just did nothing about it. Torturing people is not going to cause the Bush administration or any future administration to use the information they have to stop an attack. However, the government (republican and democrat alike) have somehow convinced the majority that this is where the problem lies and that torturing people is the solution. The public forgot at some point that obtaining information is not the problem. The government at some point forgot that it is supposed to do what is in the best interest of the people instead of just staunchly disagreeing with the opposing party.

If Bush really was the man you say he is (living together in harmony and going to school on marshmallow clouds), then he would not have gone to Iraq. He would have gone to Pakistan or Iran or Lybia. Pakistan was harboring the terrorist that was responsible for the attack we were trying to rectify. Iran is a direct threat to Israel, one of our allies, because they have stated (yes, even before we invaded Iraq) that they are trying to obtain nuclear weapons. They have also stated that they hate Israel and have even denied its existence. It is a reasonable assumption that once Iran gets nuclear capability, Israel is going to have a major problem. Lybia was under a worse dictator than Saddam at the time, so if we were really just being humanistic, we would have gone after Moammer Khadafi instead. Or maybe we would be doing something about the situation in Darfur. Instead, we find ourselves in Iraq with no justifiable purpose in comparison to the ones listed above.

He has also started a war that we cannot win. You agreed with me on this in saying that terrorists are never going away. We will continue to dump money into this until our country either gets its head screwed on straight and puts more into prevention than elimination OR until we go bankrupt. If anything, Bush stands for the ability to burn money on ideas and ignore the discourse that comes from his opposition.

And again, I tell you to read a British history book. The Boston Tea Party was an act of aggression against the controlling government. That's an act of terrorism; not a response to it. Of course, if you're looking at it from the other side, it's a heroic story that helped our country gain its independence. It all depends on the political spin you wish to pay attention to.

P.S. In no way did that seem like an attack on me. It is a disgreement on a topic, nothing more. Nothing bad can happen from disagreeing, and I think that's a major part of moving forward in any venue of life. It's when people start agreeing wholeheartedly and nothing is challenged that problems develop. I might take it as an attack if you started delivering death threats or calling me names. Douche.

Originally Posted by spum

Another thing that seems to get lost in the cloud is that Osama Bin Laden released a tape 6 months or so after 9/11 that said that if Gore had been elected instead of Bush, the 9/11 attacks never would have happened. Bin Laden was bent out of shape over the way that his people had been treated during the original Gulf war and was retaliating. I have no idea how this statement from Bin Laden became awash and forgotten. It boggles my mind. In any case, it goes to prove what I said earlier. If you oppress violent minded people, they will act out against you. There's no stopping them. You can deal with governments either by warfare or discourse, but you can't stop the individual.

Read a British history book. This country was founded on terrorism. Our citizens acted out against the British government and killed British troops to get our independence. The Boston Tea Party should ring a bell. It's one more thing that makes the rest of the world scratch its collective head when it looks at what we're doing.

This will be my last post in this thread since I'm not certain that it is even possible to reason with Spum on this topic. This is not an attack on Spum but merely a response. I'm sure he's a very nice guy and if we could get the terrorists to believe as he does it would save us alot of anguish in this world, unfortunately I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

The quote above; "If Gore had been elected instead of Bush" suggests here that Spum is far more willing to trust Bin Laden than his own President. I suggest that it not only would have happened under Gore but it would have happened more than once in the past 5 years because of Gore's total lack of ability to lead and to care about anything besides the destruction of the planet due to greenhouse gases. The plans for this attack were devised during the Clinton/Gore administration, presented to Bin Laden and given the green light, a date was even set by him or one of his upper level minions. Spum is correct in stating that pieces of intelligence were gathered by our various intel agencies, what he's not apparently aware of is something devised by the Clinton/Gore administration referred to in many circles as the "Gorrelick Wall" which made it illegal for various intel agencies to share information with each other, so if the CIA had data showing the entrance of a terrorist coming into our country it was illegal for them to inform the FBI about it. I don't know the exact reasoning for the creation of this particular bit executive policy spearheaded by Janet Reno's Deputy attorney general Jamie Gorrelick but I reckon it had something to do with covering the Clinton's "posterior". So one could resonably assume that it is the fault of the Clinton/Gore administration that 9/11 was not prevented, however I will not put that on them because I don't believe that Bin Laden was in the Clinton/Gore back pocket, like Spum does. Bin Laden's goal has been the same as all militant Muslims throughout history, and that is the destruction of the infidels (USA, Israel, etc.) and the conversion of the masses to Islam or the oppression of those who do not convert.

When this fight is one day contained, because Spum is right in saying that the terrorists are never going to go away, Large thinkers like George W. Bush and Tony Blair will go down in the history books among the most forward thinking leaders of our time. Bush is a man who looks far beyond tomorrow or the next day (i.e. Clinton/Gore). He looks forward to a point in time where the world economies can work together, converse together, and live together without the imminent threats of the likes of the BinLadens, Hitlers, Ahmadinejads, Husseins, and the rest of the savages that inhabit our lands and inhibit our freedoms today.

With regard to your last paragraph above, this country was founded in RESPONSE to terrorism, NOT on the basis of it. Brits came here seeking a better life, a free life, not to be threatened by the terrorist rule of the British government back home. And they found it, established it, and turned it into the most prosperous, most powerful, most compassionate and influential Nations ever to be established.

If there's anyone here who concurs with me here, just give me some Dittos.

Signing Off,
Nags

We could do exactly what we did before. Use the intelligence that we have to stop terrorist attacks. The attacks on the twin towers were reported and could have been prevented, we just didn't take the preventative measures that we needed to in order to stop it. I remember first hearing that the government knew about it in advance about a month after 9/11. There was obviously nothing wrong the the information gathering part of the process; it was the plan of action part that fell short. Capturing and torturing terrorists is going to do nothing to help a plan of action. I mean...have you ever stopped to think about why we have knowledge that Osama Bin Laden is probably dead from tuberculosis but we still have no idea where he is? That doesn't really make sense to me. Why would we have any idea what his health would be like if we don't know where he is? And if we know his whereabouts enough to understand that he's at least unhealthy if not dead, why don't we move on it? We're not fighting terrorism. We're fighting in Iraq for...something. I don't even know why we're there.

The problem that people seem to forget is that you can't stop terrorism. There is simply nothing you can do. To fight terrorism is to fight oppression and anger. There will always people people that are angry about something, and there will always be oppression in the world. If an angry person is oppressed enough, he or she will act out. I'm not saying that we should roll over and let them do what they want; if someone is caught in the act, they should be dealt with. However, the direction our government has taken is the wrong one. The US government has started to oppress its own people by taking our rights away in the name of fighting terrorism. Mark another point for the terrorists. When we invaded Iraq, it was known that Osama Bin Laden (probably the most hated and wanted man in America at that point) was in Pakistan. Why didn't we try to deal with Pakistan to let us go in and take care of a problem? Or invade Pakistan as a retaliation of 9/11 for harboring the terrorist responsible for 9/11? Invading Iraq has done nothing towards terrorism except cloud our vision. Instead of going from point A to point B, we are taking a scenic route and hitting points C through P as well.

The world is not going to suddenly come together in a huge support group to fight terrorism. It's unrealistic. You'll notice that originally, almost the entire world was behind the United States when the 9/11 attacks took place. When we took the action that we did, our support started dropping rapidly to one or two countries. The only country that was supporting us in the long run (moral support, mind you) was England, and even they dropped out because of the backlash from English citizens.

As far as my dad being captured by terrorists...it simply won't happen. They have bigger fish to fry and easier targets. I have a few friends in the military that are serving in Iraq. If anything happened to one of them, I'd be sad and pissed off. I would be pissed off at whoever killed them, but I would also be pissed off at our government for putting them into that position for no reason. Our government and media is a terrorist's best friend. They are giving terrorists the attention they need in order to prove that terrorism works. They are showing terrorists that by doing what they're doing, they can have a public venue to express their ideas. I'm getting off track here. If a friend of mine were to die at the hands of a terrorist in Iraq, there is simply nothing that I can do. Nothing is going to stop these guys.

Another thing that seems to get lost in the cloud is that Osama Bin Laden released a tape 6 months or so after 9/11 that said that if Gore had been elected instead of Bush, the 9/11 attacks never would have happened. Bin Laden was bent out of shape over the way that his people had been treated during the original Gulf war and was retaliating. I have no idea how this statement from Bin Laden became awash and forgotten. It boggles my mind. In any case, it goes to prove what I said earlier. If you oppress violent minded people, they will act out against you. There's no stopping them. You can deal with governments either by warfare or discourse, but you can't stop the individual.

Read a British history book. This country was founded on terrorism. Our citizens acted out against the British government and killed British troops to get our independence. The Boston Tea Party should ring a bell. It's one more thing that makes the rest of the world scratch its collective head when it looks at what we're doing.

Also I would like to add that your Dad being a.... how'd you put it, a globally recognized geologist, seems to be just the person terrorists would like to get their hands on to squeeze what they want out of the U.S. and maybe (I'm not wishing anything bad on your family) if something were to happen to one of your family members your tune would change. The ends justify the means type of thing.

Since you seem like a intelligent person spum: what do you perpose be done to gain info that won't hurt the terrorists (that from my point of view you seem to want to shelter and protect) and stop the on going bombing, killing, and destruction of our planet? It's been awhile since a "We are the world" type of campain, but it seems to me that if we all ban together to get rid of terrorism somebodies going to die, as as far as I'm conserned, better them than me. Also I'm not saying I'm for the war and I don't support it, but I do support our troops.

If you torture and beat an innocent man enough, they will give you made up information just to stop you from hitting them. There's nothing to gain my torturing anybody.

If it takes some beating, or whatever torture methods to get a terrorist to spill the beans on another large scale 9/11 type attack, and that information actually prevents the incident, then personally, I don't see an issue in it.

I do understand that it's wrong, and I do believe it does make us stoop lower, but personally, if it works and it's the only way, so be it, we have a need to protect ourselves.

The press would have you believe that terrorists behead any of our people that they capture, but that simply isn't true. I remember reading an article on Yahoo news talking about a woman that was captured and let go. They had a first person account in which she talked about the way she was treated as well. So you're wrong when you say that they don't bother with negotiations. I'd point you in the direction of the article, but it was 2 or 3 months ago. You could probably dig it up if you wanted to.

As for torturing our enemies to get information...

It's awful and stupid. By coming out and saying that we're going to torture people to get the information we need, we are losing world legitimacy. We are no better than the terrorists we are trying to fight. It's childish to stoop to a level of someone below you, but that's exactly what we've done. We're stooping to their level, and by doing so, we are no better than they are. It also puts out troops into danger. While terrorists may not follow the geneva convention, other countries do. If our troops are captured now or in the future, other countries will note that we don't follow the geneva convention and do the same to our troops. Take it from John McCain, a republican supporter of the war that has been in the POW position. He's strongly against this move by the Bush administration for that very reason. Trying to justify torture with any reason disgusts me and makes me ashamed of my country.

As for global warming, it ISN'T a theory by politicians and hollywood types. You must have skimmed over the bit about my dad being a globally recognized geologist that has witnessed the research and come to his own conclusions about it. It's a natural cycle from the earth, and the planet is warming at a faster rate than it ever has before. Geologists don't know what the ceiling on the current warming cycle is going to be because it's higher than it's ever been. On the other hand, ice caps are not normal for the history of our planet. We're living in an odd environment. It's very possible that the earth is just going back to what's normal...no ice caps.

Originally Posted by spum

And what's up with this anti-terrorism bill? More like anti-civil-rights bill. Holy crap. Let's ignore the geneva convention and allow the torturing of whomever we see fit.

The USA adheres far closer to the geneva convention than virtually any other nation out there and certainly more so than any of our enemies. The terrorists (our enemies) modus operendi is to simply behead any of our people they capture, they don't really bother with negotiations. We are far more humane in our tactics to extract information. Interrogation is vital to winning a war such as this one we find ourselves in today. The practice aides in uncoverring the enemy's plans and infiltrating their ranks. The data collected is used, for instance, to stop a dirty bomb or suitcase bomb from going off in the town of one your loved ones, or mine for that matter. One of the reasons we are in this situation today is because of our lack of human intelligence on the ground in foreign governments and terrorist cells. It's dirty work, but to survive in a world where there exist people groups who's mission in life is to destroy you and your way of life, you gotta get in the mud with the pigs and outsmart them, whatever it takes.

Oh, and don't worry yourself over global warming. As much data that states that it is a problem is countered by as much or more data that proves that it isn't a problem. It's mostly a theory advanced by politicians and do-gooder hollywood types (Oprah, Titanic boy, etc).