On our TV last night--BBC2--was a documumentary titled 'We Have Ways of Making You Talk'.....It talked to torturers, people that had been tortured, and experiments that had been set up to test people regarding how they may sucumb to authority--being told to torture, and wearing uniforms and being afected by their sense of power over others. It was all really insightful!

The two main insights i got was when various talking said that they had given up RESPONSIBILITy for their OWN actions to a higher AUTHORITY. Thus they didn't have to THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

This all seriously opens up the can of worms regarding ourselves. And demands us question whethr we are obeying any authority blindly, without thinking for ourselves.
What do you think?

The two main insights i got was when various talking said that they had given up RESPONSIBILITy for their OWN actions to a higher AUTHORITY. Thus they didn't have to THINK FOR THEMSELVES.
...a mystical authority, perhaps...
Read Stanley Milgram's Obedience to Authority for a fascinating and frightening look at this.

if they're following orders, they have no other choice...
its orders, stupid. if they dont follow them, they'd probably be shot by thier commander for not following the orders.

Then I would shoot the commander before he shot me. If I'm going to die anyway knowing that what I'm told to do is wrong, then he's going with me!

but if you were ordered to, you would have a viable excuse to torture someone.

According to British military law a soldier has the duty to disobey an illegal order. That was why the General Staff refused to invade Iraq until the Attorney-General said [untruthfully, by the look of things] that it was legal.

illegal?
there are now rules in war!!
its total fucking war!
win at any and all costs...
world war 1 and 2 tought us this, and yet we still obey the swiss!!(geneva convention)

There always have been laws in warfare. the fact that people don't always obey lawss isn't an argument for abolishing law.

its...war, though.
why should there be laws of war?
i ignore such laws, and if i join the military, i dont give a shit if you're a civillian or not. if you're in my way, i'll kill you.
thats what is supposed to be: unrestricted, unmerciful, unfeeling, and indifferent.

have YOU ever been tortured Hapsburg?

There was nothing stated about a war only if torture should be done if ordered at anytime it would seem to me. There's no excuse to torture someone when you can administer a drug that will allow them to talk without hurting them. That wouldn't be torture but another way to get the truth. The drug wouldn't hurt the person or leave any residule side effects.

no, duendy, ive never been tortured.
i dont have any sympathy for my enemies, though.
so i don't care if one were to use torture of enemies of me.
not that you are an enemy, of course. i have nothing but respect for you.

cosmic, the thing is, the drug doesnt have the after-affect of rattling their nerves and scaring the fuck out of them.

hahhhh Hapsburg, your saying on one hand you would torture yet have respect for 'me' (i know you didn't mean you'd torture me.....achem, so you SAY)...reminded me of a bit of that aforementioned documentary.

It was a south african torturer--a white guy. he had told us that in his toruturing times he'd tortured to death 70, and torured 170 odd (he'd lost count).....He was talking about how he'd torture. and said one guy died in a certain way, and he had 'nothing but respect for him'.....well, if THAT's respect, what is ...torture and murder. you with me?

how can you respect ME Hapsburg, and yet feel it inyou that you could torture other members of the human race?...i am human

what i'm saying is is that you have to look at what you are saying. how can you even conCEIVE of EVER torturing another human being?...some of the tortuers last night claimed they'd had to be brainwashed before they could do it. yet here you are quite blatantly ready for the task. i find that very very VERY sad indeed.

WHY?

i never said i would torture "you"
you're assuming all this is directed at you, when i'm implying that i'd do whatever im told to do to an enemy. to someone who is an ally, or at least a neutral party, fuck no.
and in US, we have a slightly different miltary code. if dont do what you commander orders you to do, its insubordination, and you'll be arrested.
if im ordered to do something by a commander, ill do it, on risk of losing my career or my life.

noo, forget i mean you will torture me...please listen, for it might be hard to explain. i am HUMAN being. anyone you might torture in also a human being--do you agree?...so knowing, and feeling that, how could you even envisage torturing another human being, or animal?....you say cause the authority would demand it.
EXACTLY....reread first post of this thread, where i tell you THe two most startling linsight WHy people do torture and murder is blind alleginace to authority and not thinking for one's self. not taking responsibilty for you own action, because someone else claims to take that responsiblity......bringing me the image of the nazi who retorts why he's doing utter horror to other humans with "I am only doing my duty"

can you not see Hapsburg how wrong that is? how de-humanizing it is? how evil?

i can see what's wrong with it.
i just don't care about who is being interrogated.
if the authoroties are doing it, they probably have a good reason.
if they don't, why should i get involved.

i can see what's wrong with it.

d)))I assume you mean, you see what is wrong with torturing?

i just don't care about who is being interrogated.

d))what if it was you mum, dad, sister, brother, friend......?

if the authoroties are doing it, they probably have a good reason.

d))and what 'ggod reason' is there to torture someone? now you are contradicting what i think you meant by your first statement--that you can see it is wrong. so...which is it? think for yourself. which Is it?

if they don't, why should i get involved.

cause you are human with feelings.

i may be a human, and i may have feelings, but torture of people is one thing i choose not to get involved with.
why do you keep persisting with forcing me to believe your opinion.

i may be a human, and i may have feelings, but torture of people is one thing i choose not to get involved with.

d)))what do you mean? first you say one thing...then another. you are all over the place.
You began saying that you would torture if tole to....right?

why do you keep persisting with forcing me to believe your opinion.
am i forcing you? we are discussing. thats what this place is. if you dont want to, whay are you herer in the thread i have started called Torture. Obviously i am against it, and challenge people who are for it. which is what i am doing

im for it if it's useful.
torture for recreation is wrong.
thats my official stance.

im for it if it's useful.

d))define 'useful'

torture for recreation is wrong.

d))like in sado masochism? serial killing?

thats my official stance.

whose thinking for you, you or officaldom?

you're trying to confuse me, aren't you?

by useful, i mean if it benefits the government, the military, or whatsuch. like to pump information from a POW about important troop movements or suchthings.

by torture for recreation, i mean crazy-ass people who do it for...recreation or fun. Like the nazis, the french government, and the KGB. those nutters.

you're trying to confuse me, aren't you?

d)))dude...you dont need any help from me.......heh

by useful, i mean if it benefits the government, the military, or whatsuch. like to pump information from a POW about important troop movements or suchthings.

d)))So you would do it if told to? you have said yes, right? and that is what i am challnging. cause i am wanting you AND me to think for ourselves. and we cant do that if we obey authority blindly.
if authority says don't drive on the wrong side of the road, well we know that makes sense...true? But if 'he' says to torture someone, that can't be right, can it? I know you claim it is, but i dont. you also said in last post you can see it is 'wrong'. so thererf must be something in you who can see that, or why confess that?

by torture for recreation, i mean crazy-ass people who do it for...recreation or fun. Like the nazis, the french government, and the KGB. those nutters.

ahhh THEY are nutters now. careful, they may get you and torture you for being their enemy. how would you like that mr?....would you shout out against their inhumanity?

they nazis no longer exist as a powerful political entity. and you do agree that they were nutters?
The KGB no longer exists, since the USSR collapsed.

but, anyway. i agree with the authority when they do it for reasons of national security. if i have a choice, i wont physically participate.

...i agree with the authority when they do it for reasons of national security. if i have a choice, i wont physically participate.

When they come for you, you'll physically participate.

:m: Peace.

You know what's torture? Reading this bonfire of the inanities.

On topic -

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/relaged/970108prisonexp.html

Inspired by Milgram's obediance experiments.

I could be cliched and cite 'Eichmann in Jerusalem' (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140187650/qid=1112806613/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-3125435-3565707) but there you go.

"When they come for you, you'll physically participate."

In post-Patriot Act America, physical participation chooses you.

why are you trying to get me to think differently from my opinion? i dont want to.

The why are you here? Why do you express your opinions to us?

i dont know...
huh.
well, im outta torture thread.
too many anti-violence peoples at this thread.

Gah. People against violent means. What is the world coming to?

:m: Peace.

Let's get deeper into this issue instead of shooting biased opinions back and forth.
I think most of us can agree that torture is wrong, no matter what circumstance. But in the context that it's usually used, morality and humanity are not popular ideas. War, for example (which is the cause of most torture that we hear about) is not concerned with any individual's life or well-being. They determine land disputes and large-scale domestic security and national policies and probably other things. The actual causes aren't important here, except that they are BIG agendas, concerned with millions of people's lives. A person in the military is part of this agenda, fighting to achieve the nation's goals. In most cases, these agendas are idealized to all but those in the highest ranks, so many don't see the evils they are perpetrating.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, in times of war, people become more deluded, machine-like and easily controlled, because they trust their superiors and are loyal to their homeland. Even obvious evils like torture become much more likely, because people are already so dehumanized and desinsitized. Even outside of war, that's part of the military experience.
All of this doesn't justify torture, but it helps to explain why so many people can be duped into following orders to enact it.

But why just start with war and militarism. cant you see prime examples of us 'following authority' right now? when it is completely catastrophic for ALL life?

I think most of us can agree that torture is wrong, no matter what circumstance.

So if an al-Queda terrorist is caught and says he's just hidden a deadly virus and a nuclear dirty bomb in New York City somewhere, none of us would torture him to try to discover the location in order to save millions of innocent lives? Most of us actually agree that that torture is wrong? Really?

A person in the military is part of this agenda, fighting to achieve the nation's goals. In most cases, these agendas are idealized to all but those in the highest ranks, so many don't see the evils they are perpetrating.

So it's always "evils" that a nation is "perpetrating"? Why do you say that?

Baron Max

Baron Max...woulda LOVEd to have seen you on this programme i watched last night, which i had taped.

it was about 7 volunteers a mixture of ages, and white and Middle Eastern. They'd volunteered to take part on a simulated edxperience of what detainees go through in Guantanemo Bay!

apart from the Middles Easterers who had taken part to see and show what people like themselves are having to go through without even being charged with any offence!!!
The white people there--apart from one, were SO like you.

Well, dude, you should have seen what went on--and as you can imagine, they could do EXACTLY what goes on. the oldest--49 a few hours into the experiment became seriously hypthermc, puked etc and had to plead to be let out of th experiemnt. afterwards all his views had totally changed.......!

same with ALL the other whites. one said that what was being done to those people (and these people had only had to endure 37 hourse...not weeks, months, years)..would surely make them go crazy


what you do Baron is you justify all that evil, byt hysterically pinpointing one dramtic case. you are willing to dehumanize yourself and others for some bogyman.

and before you come back with some more torture-loving rhetoric Baron Max, answer me this simple question:

would YOU be prepared to volunteer for such as i have described above?

So if an al-Queda terrorist is caught and says he's just hidden a deadly virus and a nuclear dirty bomb in New York City somewhere, none of us would torture him to try to discover the location in order to save millions of innocent lives? Most of us actually agree that that torture is wrong? Really? Torturers and supporters of torture always cite an example like this. oddly enough, there has never been a real ase where it has happened. Someone who is willing to risk their life would almost certainly not succumb to torture in the time available if at all. Other techniques- moral persuasion for one- might work better.

what you do Baron is you justify all that evil, byt hysterically pinpointing one dramtic case.

But ye're doing exactly the same thing in the reverse ....ye're making a statement of absolutes ...I simply tried to point out that absolutes are not so simple as you make them out to be.

Absolutes are for philosophical discussions only and seldom occur in the real world of life, love and liberty. There's a difference and those who refuse to accept that are simply refusing to accept human nature. Oh, sure, for a silly, inconclusive philosophical discussion, but...?

Baron Max

Someone who is willing to risk their life would almost certainly not succumb to torture in the time available if at all.

So if it "almost" wouldn't work, you wouldn't even try? Is your "almost" that good? ...that absolute?

Torturers and supporters of torture always cite an example like this.

Well, when the "opposition" cites an absolute as he did, I tried to show that absolutes aren't always so simple. That was a good example ....and one that no one has refuted to this point.

....oddly enough, there has never been a real ase where it has happened.

So therefore, there never will be such a case????

Other techniques- moral persuasion for one- might work better.

And they "might" not!

See? Absolutes, either for or against, are nothing more than philosophical points of discussion, not for the real world of human endeavors, of human life. And to ignore human nature is to make those philosophical discussions nothing but idle pipe-dreams of Utopia and such. Worthless except for the fun of discussion.

Baron Max

So if it "almost" wouldn't work, you wouldn't even try? Is your "almost" that good? ...that absolute?Compared with other techniques which have been shown to wotk better [as in produce more reliable information more often], yes.



Well, when the "opposition" cites an absolute as he did, I tried to show that absolutes aren't always so simple. That was a good example ....and one that no one has refuted to this point.You also asserted a [hypothetical] absolute. Even further removed from reality.


So therefore, there never will be such a case???? Pretty good evidence against it. If something has never happened it is likely that it won't happen in the iommediate future.



And they "might" not! Again; past experience shows that they do.

See? Absolutes, either for or against, are nothing more than philosophical points of discussion, not for the real world of human endeavors, of human life. And to ignore human nature is to make those philosophical discussions nothing but idle pipe-dreams of Utopia and such. Worthless except for the fun of discussion.
The problem with your hypothesis is that you are ignoring human nature. The kind of people who would do that kind of thing tend to be blinkered, bigotted and fanatical with a desire for death. Just the people- apart from the ethics- that wouldn't mind being tortured

Baron Max, you have dodged the main question i asked you previously. I explained that i have recently seen a documentary where a group of volunteers many having exactly the same views as yourself about justification for torture TOTALLY CHANGED their views after the suffered just THIRTY SEVEN HOURS of a simulated version of what the people currently being held ILLEGALLY are going through for YEARS.

so i ask again. would YOU volunteer?

Duendy, my volunteering to be tortured has nothing to do with my views of torture. What kind of sick question is that? ...and more to the point, what possible good would it do one way or the other?

My main point is that absolutes are simply not justifiable in this world. You might think so, but an absolute can be refuted with just one simple example ...which I think I did, even if it was a highly unlikely scenario. In that regard, torture, like most anything else, can be justified in SOME cases. Therefore, to say torture is NEVER justified is erroneous, wrong!

Baron Max

Duendy, my volunteering to be tortured has nothing to do with my views of torture. What kind of sick question is that?

d)_))It is not sick. you VIEWS are sick though.

...and more to the point, what possible good would it do one way or the other?

d))errr they might CHANGE them!

My main point is that absolutes are simply not justifiable in this world. You might think so, but an absolute can be refuted with just one simple example ...which I think I did, even if it was a highly unlikely scenario. In that regard, torture, like most anything else, can be justified in SOME cases. Therefore, to say torture is NEVER justified is erroneous, wrong!

Baron Max

jezzzusa yu and your 'absolu--fukin-lutes, whatever they are.
have you not SEEN the disgustingly, obscence photographs of human being, naked, humiliated, degraded, tortured. Does that obscentity have no effect on you?? you are an ABSOLUTE disgrace!

Torture is something to be avoided at all cost, but I don't see why just because "I wouldn't like it to happen to me" means "I shouldn't use it on other people".

The feeling of compassion is a very strong feeling in most people - and I am no exception. But I fully acknowledge that it is just that - a feeling. I am prepared to take the pain when I put salt on a wound to disinfect it (in fact, when I know what's causing the pain and have no fear of being further damaged, it doesn't really cause that much discomfort) and this can also be applied to pain caused emotionally.

If you truly understand that emotional pain, 'right' and 'wrong' are just signals then you can bring your self to do some pretty terrible things for your own benefit.

Please don't judge me too quickly, I do believe that justice should be in place to protect members of our society (I won't do you, if you won't do me). Of course, if another society is unable to 'do us' then there is no reason to extend this nicety to them. Least of all for the sake of misunderstood compassion.

have you not SEEN the disgustingly, obscence photographs of human being, naked, humiliated, degraded, tortured. Does that obscentity have no effect on you??

Yeah, I saw those pictures. So what? Those people have no value to me, they're someone that I don't even know, why should I give a big rat's ass what happens to them? What ...am I supposed to have compassion for people just 'cause they look like they might by human? Why?

You seem to have so much compassion for humanity, why are you not overly wrought about the 8,000 kids that died today of EASILY CURED diseases? That's right, some 8,000 kids die every single day ...EVERY SINGLE DAY! Yet you're makin' a major issue out of "torturing" a few lousy prisoners. Wow!

If you want to exercise your compassion, pick something that really means something, not just what the media says you should be concerned about and shows you a few "oh, my god" pictures.

you are an ABSOLUTE disgrace!

If that means that I'm different from you, then thank you very much!

Baron Max

i just don't care about who is being interrogated.
if the authoroties are doing it, they probably have a good reason.
if they don't, why should i get involved.


This right here, is american patriotism, at its finest.

I think it's sad that you'd follow blindly without asking questions for yourself as to why someone would ask you to do such things. That is how war happens in the first place. People follow blindly, and fall for propaganda.

I think it's sad that you'd follow blindly without asking questions for yourself as to why someone would ask you to do such things. That is how war happens in the first place. People follow blindly, and fall for propaganda.

So why do you think we elect senators and representatives? You seem to be suggesting that the citizens should do all of that for themselves ...do away with the government officials altogether?! Or that we should elect them, but never listen to them or let them do their jobs?!

Baron Max

Since true democracy doesn't exist in this world personal responsibility is still of importance in dealings with 'your' government.

What ...am I supposed to have compassion for people just 'cause they look like they might by human? Why?
Why be in Iraq, then? Why not leave now? Oh, because we are supposed to help the Iraqi people? The people we tortured are the Iraqi people! What's that, tough love?

The people we tortured are the Iraqi people! What's that, tough love?

Yeah, but see, I don't think we "tortured" them! Even with all the pictures and bullshit commentary. I underwent much of the same "torture" in boot camp, for god's sake!! Torture? No, I don't think so ....well, maybe for a bunch of mamby-pamby, doo-gooder, wussies ...maybe!

Baron Max

You forget, BM, that there are also secret CIA run camps. If this is what the USA does in supposedly civilised detention centres, what do they do there? In fact, your own attitude suggests that your time in"boot camp" did you quite a bit of psychological damage, even though, presumably you were there voluntarily, and knwew the limits of what yopu chose to undergo.

...a mystical authority, perhaps...
Read Stanley Milgram's Obedience to Authority for a fascinating and frightening look at this.


Not really that frightening. Just shows how dumb the average middle aged american male is.

hmmmm...I suppose that is firghtning enough

As long as I'm not the one being tortured, I don't care, because it's not me being tortured.

You forget, BM, that there are also secret CIA run camps.

Well, if they're secret, how do you know about them?

Whenever anyone wants to scare the public, all they have to do is suggest "something" that the CIA is doing .....and the sheeple get all nervous and uptight. What a fuckin' joke!

...your own attitude suggests that your time in "boot camp" did you quite a bit of psychological damage,...

"Psychological damage"? What the fuck is that? ....LOL! How do you measure that? ...take out the brain and weigh it or something?! ...LOL!

Baron Max

As long as I'm not the one being tortured, I don't care, because it's not me being tortured.

Yes and that's true of most people. But the news media has made it fashionable and trendy to "care"! ...so being the good little followers that most people are, they pretend to "care" and pretend to be upset and worried.

What I find so interesting is that during any of the national/international disasters or conflicts or problems, the amount of dollars spent on entertainment in the US remains about the same. What does that tell you about how much people "care"?

During the tsunami disaster, when people were asked to give money, the dollars spent on entertainment actually went UP slightly! ....LOL! Oh, yeah, people "care" .......and to prove it, they just say so. ...LOL!!

Baron Max

I would make an exception for the BTK killer, he should have done to him what he did to others.

Well, if you can make an exception for one individual, then we can make exceptions to any individual, right? So, I agree, let's torture the BTK killer .....but then I want to add a couple of more people to the exception, okay? ;=)

Is the BTK killer worse the al-Zarquawi? Osama bin whats-his-name? Saddam Hussy? Mugabe?

My personal thought is that torture is okay for anyone and everyone! In the olden days, torture was good show for the people of the towns and villages ...sorta' like television and movies and video games are today, huh?

Baron Max

I would do it just for the justice of it, not to get any real information out of him. If people were honest about it, I could see doing the same to Osama or Zarquawi, but not to Saddam, since his exploits were largely with our blessings. All the underlings and people that were sold to us because of some unknown grudge someone had against them, and people we have no idea are innocent or guilty should all be treated fairly.

...people we have no idea are innocent or guilty should all be treated fairly.

I agree ....we should torture them all equally!

But like I said, if you can justify it for one person, someone can justify for others. I have no problem with it, I don't know the people and don't give one damned shit about 'em.

Baron Max

Well, if they're secret, how do you know about them? Because their existence is acknowledged, not where most of them are or much about exactly what they do. Given the CIA's record, if they keep quiet about something it's almost certainly unpleasant and probably loopy.



"Psychological damage"? What the fuck is that? ....LOL! How do you measure that? ...take out the brain and weigh it or something?! ...LOL!
No, just read what you write

Because their existence is acknowledged, ...

Then it isn't secret, is it?

Baron Max

The real purpose of the torture in Guantanimo, I'm beginning to realize, is not to get information at all. It is to establish a reputation about Guantanimo and other prisons so that we can threaten people with getting sent there. It's another psy-op. Maybe we really did abuse a couple prisoners as an experiment, but it only shows how desperate the administration is, and how stupid.

I agree ....we should torture them all equally!...
So if torture is OK, why did we invade Iraq again? You can't claim humanitarian reasons. You can't claim WMD's. You can't claim Al Quida. All there is is oil and army bases and Americans would not have bought that reason.

Because we could and we wanted to. Don't need no other reason (except to appease the liberal, doo-gooder, hypocrits who are able to enjoy the death of thousands every day without batting an eye!).

Baron Max

Thanks for admitting that. Now we all know the justification for Iraq was a big lie.

Thanks for admitting that. Now we all know the justification for Iraq was a big lie.

Yes, basing your opinion on a world event on the 'admission' of someone on a random forum with no actual involvement in the process you criticize is very very valid. Justification for war as presented to the public will always be skewed at least to some degree in order to maximize support.

First of all, that doesn't mean there are/were any lies involved. These people are generally very careful with parsing their statements because they must withstand massive strutiny by every asshat with a keyboard.

Further, you, nor any of your "I hate bush" compadres have been able to show a "lie". You simply bury yourselves in that montra, sticking to the most hateful interpretation of anything that comes from the administration.

Lastly, there are two far more important questions at hand:

Did the president take the US to war with the intention of protecting and promoting the interests of the American people or the institution of the USA?

And: Did/does the war work to protect or promote the American people or the institution of the USA?

Some people are so caught up in their superiority complex (feeling that they are smarter than the president, so fuck that moron) that they fail to remember the duty the President of the US is charged with, and to attempt to funnel events through the idea that the president was attempting to perform that duty - even if they disagree with the decisions.

Bah, like you give a damn about it. You seem only to care to promote that the adminstration is corrupt... or evil, or whatever as long as it's bad, and to bastardize any piece of information pertaining to them to justify that assumption.

How utterly corrupt.

Thanks for admitting that. Now we all know the justification for Iraq was a big lie.

Oooh, yeah, ...from now on, just call me the KING OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!! Thanks for the promotion, Spidergoat! ...LOL!

Baron Max, King of America!

Did the president take the US to war with the intention of protecting and promoting the interests of the American people or the institution of the USA?

And: Did/does the war work to protect or promote the American people or the institution of the USA?

Which war are you talking about? Afghanistan? Yes. Iraq? No.

This administration is corrupt, that is the main reason I'm so much against it. When Bush decided to invade Afghanistan (and Iraq for that matter), I was all for it. But the lie was Bush saying that all evidence points to Saddam having scary weapons that can threaten the United States. It turns out, anyone with a differing opinion about it was fired or smeared. Another lie is that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Another lie is that Saddam did not let UN weapons inspectors in. Another recent lie is that anyone involved in outing a CIA agent would be fired.

The president has revealed to me that he no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt. I really give a damn about our safety and the lives of our troops, something Bush has shown utter contempt for.

Did the president take the US to war with the intention of protecting and promoting the interests of the American people or the institution of the USA?

Yes! And the congress of the United States approved it!

And: Did/does the war work to protect or promote the American people or the institution of the USA?

That, of course, is a question that only history will answer. There are no ways to determine whether is did or didn't ...."if" scenarios are worthless (except for heated discussion at sciforums!).

Which war are you talking about? Afghanistan? Yes. Iraq? No.

I think they're the same war, aren't they? If they weren't before, they sure are now.

...all evidence points to Saddam having scary weapons that can threaten the United States.

That evidence was presented to the congress and they subsequently approved the war against Sadman Hussy in Iraq. If the evidence has proven inaccurate, then so be it ....but it WAS evidence at the time. And that's what sooooooooo many idiots can't seem to understand!!!

But also, now that we're IN the war, we can't just pull out like we did in Vietnam .....unless, of course, we're willing to allow thousands/millions be killed like what happened in Vietnam. We broke our promises to the South Vietnamese people and they died by the millions!! Is that what you want to happen again with the Iraqis?

Baron Max

But also, now that we're IN the war, we can't just pull out like we did in Vietnam .....unless, of course, we're willing to allow thousands/millions be killed like what happened in Vietnam. We broke our promises to the South Vietnamese people and they died by the millions!! Is that what you want to happen again with the Iraqis?

Baron Max

Haha, completely the oppocite happend you know. We fought the war primarily by killing South Vietnamese citizens to try to cull the overwhelming majority of communists out of their population. We massacred that nation, and by the time we pulled out the ARVN forces we left behind promptly retreated from every advance of the NVA and the country was united within months. American analysts were predicting doom and gloom, mass slaughters, entire villages killed off, but it never happened! A few executions of notable collaborators with the US, a few thousand intellectuals sent to re-education centers but no blood bath. They even gave us all our POW's back contrary to popular and missinformed movements that interpreted every American MIA as a POW we left behind.

(I've copied a little info that you might want to read ...please check it for accuracy, you'll be shocked and amazed.)

Why were we in vietnam?

Two reasons: We had a military alliance with them, that we were obligated to defend. Second, the idea of domino theory, that communism would spread beyond vietnam and threaten all of south east asia.

When the US pulled out of vietnam, close to 2 million people were slaughtered by the new regime and more than a million fled for their lives, by boat to safety in the west.

When the US pulled out, they abandoned the montagnards to the North Vietnamese, who committed the greatest acts of ethnic cleansing since the holocaust.

When the US pulled out the NVA supported the pathet Lao in Laos, which resulted in close to 750 000 deaths.

When the US pulled out, the communists crossed over into cambodia, eventually taking power and murdering 6 million people.

When the US pulled out, the communists crossed over into Thailand, sparking a civil war that raged for more than a decade and claimed a half million lives.

If the US had STAYED in Vietnam, these might have been prevented, it was the RIGHT, JUST AND MORAL act to stay. It was the WRONG, IMMORAL and UNJUST act to abandon the innocent to the hands of the bloodthirsty.

The same is true of Iraq.
_________________
Paul Morrison

That evidence was presented to the congress and they subsequently approved the war against Sadman Hussy in Iraq. If the evidence has proven inaccurate, then so be it ....but it WAS evidence at the time. And that's what sooooooooo many idiots can't seem to understand!!!

That's what YOU don't understand, it was DELIBERATELY inaccurate information. The INTELLIGENCE WAS FIXED AROUND THE POLICY, as the Downing Street memos now prove.

I think they're the same war, aren't they? If they weren't before, they sure are now.

They weren't the same war, but now the chaos in Iraq has made it the perfect training ground for Al Quida, and has radicalized many Iraqis who were not radical before. Much of the insurgency is just Iraqis fighting occupation, not the terrorists we were after. Bush forgot the lessons of Vietnam, namely that we need to use overwhelming force and have an exit strategy.

Oh...damn, I almost forgot, Bush weaseled his way out of going to Vietnam. Too bad, he could have learned something even his father knows, certainly Colin Powell knows, it's called the Powell Doctrine.

(I've copied a little info that you might want to read ...please check it for accuracy, you'll be shocked and amazed.)

Why were we in vietnam?
Two reasons: We had a military alliance with them, that we were obligated to defend. Second, the idea of domino theory, that communism would spread beyond vietnam and threaten all of south east asia.

As of 1945 we had an alliance with Ho Chi Minh. American diplomats were at the independence ceremony and American war plains flew overhead. Later as the cold war blocs were arranging themselves we realized that France was a more important allie than Vietnam, so we switched from backing Ho Chi Minh and the independence and unification of Vietnam, to backing the French colonialists in the first Indochina war. Our military alliance was first with the communist Vietminh, then with the French. No viable political body existed in the south for us to be allied with. When we took the war over completely from the French we violated international law by canceling an election in which the communist party would surly have won, and we installed our own ruler.

When the US pulled out of vietnam, close to 2 million people were slaughtered by the new regime and more than a million fled for their lives, by boat to safety in the west.
Again, such a slaughter was widely predicted but never occurred. It was one of the big surprises of the end of the war. Many did flee in anticipation of it.

When the US pulled out the NVA supported the pathet Lao in Laos, which resulted in close to 750 000 deaths.
The US supported a coup against the Laotian government leading to the instability that allowed the NVA backed pathet to take power

When the US pulled out, the communists crossed over into Cambodia, eventually taking power and murdering 6 million people.
There were already Cambodian communists in Cambodia who were active long before the war's end. A "crossover" as you characterize it did not happen, the United States did not seem concerned with fighting communism in Cambodia as the more unstable the Communist revolutionaries made that country the greater ease we could make incursions into that nation to fight the NVA.

When the US pulled out, the communists crossed over into Thailand, sparking a civil war that raged for more than a decade and claimed a half million lives.
Again this crossover model is inaccurate, and this war was backed by China not the NVA

If the US had STAYED in Vietnam, these might have been prevented, it was the RIGHT, JUST AND MORAL act to stay. It was the WRONG, IMMORAL and UNJUST act to abandon the innocent to the hands of the bloodthirsty.
These events were either tangentially related to Vietnam, or occurring amidst US involvement in Vietnam, not due to our withdrawal.

The same is true of Iraq.

With nothing but a straw man of Vietnam to draw this conclusion from I wouldn't be so confident. The bulk of my information comes from America’s Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950-1975 by George C. Herring fourth edition. I presume your's comes from Ideolougs who wish to missrepresent history in order to expediently make political points about the current war.

Okay, Spymoose, like everything else in the world, it's America's fault! Sorry ...just lost my head there for a while and let reality lead me astray.

Baron Max

US laws prohibiting torture were enacted to protect our own troops. Bush is putting our troops in more danger by trying to weasel out of these laws. Thankfully, there is no statute of limitations, and Bush, Gonzales, and the rest can get put on trial anytime. The death penalty is even possible for these criminals.

Yeah, ye're right, Spidergoat, I shoud have seen that. Gee, you're just about the smartest motherfucker I've ever run into. I mean, geez, you know everything that there is to know ....and probably some things on top of that. Hell, you must be about a thousand years old to have learned all that you know.

I'm gonna' start listenin' to you more .....might learn something before I die!

Baron Max

You might indeed. Spymoose seems to have demolished your Vietnam analogy. And if you have something to teach, please sort out where Spymoose's debunking is flawed, and maybe I'll learn something too.

Wesmorris asked 2 questions (but not to me). I think they should be answered.

I used to think that the Vietnam War was crazy idiocy. I mean, the whole idea of Communism spreading down from China to Australia like a disease seems ridiculous.

At the time though, I think it would have been very plausible. At the time, half of Europe was Communist. The Soviets had gobbled everything up, including half of Berlin! If Communism could do that, then surely it could infect Australia.

Posted by Baron Max:
Yeah, I saw those pictures. So what? Those people have no value to me, they're someone that I don't even know, why should I give a big rat's ass what happens to them? What ...am I supposed to have compassion for people just 'cause they look like they might by human? Why?

Because they are human, or even more simply, because they are alive. And if you are smart, you will see that self-preservation in the long run supports the idea that treating your enemies with the fairness you feel that you deserve not only allows you to keep true to your own ideals of what is "right", but also helps to secure your own safety if, at some point, the tables are turned.

Your safety from tortue come from mutual respect. By violating that respect, you are then the one endangering your own safety. Complete selfishness breeds altruism; only arrested selfishness breeds selfish action.

Or did the meaning behind the Golden Rule pass you by in childhood?


If you want to exercise your compassion, pick something that really means something, not just what the media says you should be concerned about and shows you a few "oh, my god" pictures.


Are you completely unaware of the actual torture that occured? Things from people being hung by the wrists from ceiling shackles for days, to continual beatings, to the death of two prisoners, for which two US Marines were court-martialed?

IMO, I don't think that the photos that were splashed across international newspapers were of subjects all that terrible. However, many people did. Esp. in those cultures where to be nude and seen nude by women actually has a chance to effect the cleanliness of your soul.
There are many things which you may consider horrid and aprehensible; should others be allowed to subject you to them simply because their culture doesn't see those things as bad? If the one subjecting doesn't see the problem, it is not torture?
Who gets the supreme authority to determine what is acceptable, and what isn't? Who gets to determine what is 'useful' information? Useful enough for justification?

The problem that I see with your stance on torture is that it only works from your perspective. Therefore, until you become God, it should not be imposed on everyone else.

You seem to have so much compassion for humanity, why are you not overly wrought about the 8,000 kids that died today of EASILY CURED diseases? That's right, some 8,000 kids die every single day ...EVERY SINGLE DAY! Yet you're makin' a major issue out of "torturing" a few lousy prisoners. Wow!
Child mortality is, IMO, a very large problem, a cause of great unuseful suffering. Work should be done to help these children and their families. However, that doesn't allow us the ease of ignoring all other problems until it is solved.
The world is not linear; to focus on one issue while ignoring all others is as much of a waste of time as doing no work at all.


edit: and what are your thoughts on things such as this:
http://www.junbish.org/afghan_probe_of_mass_graves.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/afgh-j17.shtml

why is this not a tpoic of discussion? Why do we rail about nude pictures while there appears to be real war crimes to uncover?