Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
is this a fictional scenario?
if it isn't, i don't think you have the full story.
if it is a fictional scenario, then it gets derailed almost immediately because you introduce more information about the wife's politics than you provide about the action of your character in iraq, and by doing that turn this into a version of the old rightwing canard about the evil anti-war activists being mean to the returning vet, not understanding the realities of war, etc. in other words, if this is a fictional scenario, the way you write it makes it clear what you're really on about in this thread: you object to the imaginary actions of a straw man you've fashioned about people who oppose the war in iraq and are using the notion of torture to attempt to pose some question that may be deep and important to you, but which to me is neither.
if it's not a fictional scenario, then like i said you obviously don't have the whole story or chose not to include important information that explains the situation. commission or omission, it's hard to tell.
either way, if you'd spent as much attention setting up the situation in iraq as you did the red herring plotline about the poor victimized misunderstood but entirely abstract guy-who-comes-back-from-iraq as you did the wife's politics, maybe you'd get a better answer.
|
True story. And no here is no more to the story as I knew of him and I personally knew the wife (from some classes and such) before all this.
It wasn't she had another guy.
It wasn't that something over there affected his life negatively like oooo seeing people killed or maimed.
She simply believed that he was some monster simply because he withheld 1 day's rations on a POW. Even she has stated that she can understand why and that he was ordered to but it is torture and she cannot forgive him no matter how hard she tried.
What more of the story is here?
(BTW..... You can look from day 1 my views on he war have not changed at all.... I have been and continue to be against it. I do however support the troops and believe that if they are going to be there, then we need to do all we can for them to support them. I also believe that we need to support veterans here better. But then again I am a vet.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Causing severe pain or anguish. Withholding a day's rations would be considered torture if the prisoner has reason to believe his or her captors would go so far as starvation methods.
It is not that physiologically damaging, but it is a psychological assault. It is degrading and it raises the question of basic human rights. Though it might seem mild, withholding a day or more worth of rations would be a form of torture as this is the starvation threshold. Even if we would be reluctant to call it outright torture, it isn't a practice one should do if they wish to avoid violating human rights.
|
No, they put him in solitary and basically put him to bed. He had been warned to stop and refused.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
No, for three reasons. Any one of which is sufficient.
Torture is ridiculously ineffective. There are effective interrogation techniques, but torture really isn't one of them.
Torture corrupts the torturer and the tortured. People who torture become damaged, and if we have those with power becoming damaged, it fucks everyone.
It is evil.
|
I agree with this, as I have stated numerous times.... even if effective, chances are the others have changed the plans once that person was captured.
I just don't see the extreme on the low end. I can understand physical or psychological to the point where normal people would say, "That is just wrong".... Bu to make a punishment much like an a parent does to some kids (Go to bed without supper) is ridiculous and cheapens the argument against torture, to those it is ok with.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Moral of the story, marry a better woman, what a bitch.
|
Actually, other than that issue she has always seemed decent. I got along quite well with her. And she was in no way militant.... or I didn't see it in her.
Quote:
|
This thread is really quite silly.
|
I can agree with that when I see people being extremist on the safe side.
Quote:
If I knew innocent people were going to die and we had the said terrorist in custody I'd dip him in acid until he talked.
No one deserves to die for YOUR morals when it can be prevented. What you are saying is their lives are worth less to you then your own precious sense of self importance.
Life isn't a movie, its worse then any movie. In the last 100 years over 100 million people have been murdered by their own governments, and somewhere around that in wars. Your esthetic sense will have little impact in making it better.
|
I can acknowledge that as a good point.
I have a feeling as one poster said before, none of us truly know how we would react. It's great and feel good to say you would react what you deem moralistically correct. It's great and feel good to say what your friends want to hear so that you have their "respect" for not speaking your own mind.
But if put in the circumstance at the right time.... I doubt anyone except Jesus Christ (if he were to post here) would be able to truly answer that question the same as they do here.