Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
We are starting to split hairs. Sadaam had WMD, he did not have nuclear weapons, but he was seeking to get or develop nuclear weapons.
|
Nope and nope. Saddam didn't have WMD, and he wasn't seeking to get or develop nuclear weapons. He had WMD like 15 years ago, but that's a BFD situation so far as the intelligence service is concerned.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I am no saint, I doubt Bush is. All I know is that there are laws that I would violate under certain circumstances, I think Bush would too. I would accept the consequences of my actions.
|
If you were to violate those laws, I would hope someone had the nuts to put you in prison. Bush is too much of a coward to go to prison, so he had Alby Gonzo (Bush can't remember his name) try to say that during war, the president has cart blanche over everything and can do anything he wants without fear of prosecution. He's a fucking coward.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
See the above, same answer. If I think a governing body is wrong on an issue, I would violate their law on that issue
under certain circumstances. On the issue of torture, if I thought torture could save the lives of people I care about, I would think about it first and then most likely do it.
|
You'd make a bad president and so does Bush. Maybe I should put it this way since you're dodging the issue
Torture: useful and necessary, or useless and unnecessary?
This is where you get stuck. Either you think Bush is right, and you prove that you're both wrong, or you disagree with the president torturing people and going against the UN.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I am not saying these things are easy and that I am not conflicted. War is ugly. I don't think we chose this war with our enemy, I think they chose us. Nor do I think you can fight a moral war, war means people die, get hurt, freedoms are take and property is destroyed. Some can pretend that we can fight a moral war or that this war is a choice, I won't and I realized that sometimes ugly things have to be done.
|
HAHAHAH. War is ugly? Why not nuke the entire middle east, then? Shit, why not destroy all land except North America, and invade and occupy Canada? War is ugly....yeesh. By that logic, you think 9/11 was fair. Killing civilians with civilian aircraft. It's war, and war is ugly.
We chose our enemy though decades of horrible actions taken by our government and corporations. They are retaliating. 9/11 was retaliation. The insurgency is retaliation. We started it. Anyone who says otherwise needs to do some reading. Interfering with other governments and people is our biggest and most destructive addiction, worse even than our oil addiction, and it's been responsible for the loss of countless lives over the past 50 years. We prop up the Saudis, we finance the Israelis, we slip some cash to Palestine, even. It's fucking stupid.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
The discussions on torture are always interesting to me because it seems like those most against torture see torture as something worse than taking a human life, is that true in your view?
|
Death = release. With torture, you're put through unimaginable pain with no possible way of knowing when it will end. Some people who are being released from Guantanamo (after their government fought for their release) have been there for years. Don't you think they would have welcomed death? Don't you think the suicide rate in the illegal prisons paints a clear picture?
Here's the bottom line: there is no excuse for torture, and those who torture are mentally ill.
I'll tell you what. I'll convert a teeter totter and bucket into a water-board, and, with your expressed permission, we can run a scientific experiment to see the subjective perception of torture vs. death.