http://fox.org/~vince/out/ralph_nose_2.gif
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"

So, if the US once ruled waterboarding a war crime once upon time, is it now no longer considered that because we're the people administering it or is 1947 too "pre-9/11" to understand?

More waterboarding history.

Wonder if it would help make illegal's in the US go home?

no, but i bet if you put a bullet in the skull of 1/3 illegals caught coming across and let the word get out, they'd quit coming.

Probably more than that get killed, maimed, or raped trying to get here as it is, so I bet you're wrong.

i think you exaggerate a bit, but let's pretend you are correct. you are saying that the illegals who make it this far only represent 2/3 of those that started the journey. ok. so if we take 1/3 that make it this far and put one in the back of the head that leaves only 43% of those that started the journey. Then you put an appropriate punishment in place for employers caught with illegal employees (such as the law recently passed in arizona). So now you have only a 43% chance of surviving your journey and will have a hard time finding a job once you arrive... my guess is you'd see a reduction in traffic.

Since you think I'm exaggerating, you might want to watch this film sometime:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/filmfest/slc/11032005.html

AmnestyUSA... now there's a credible source. Not.

i live not too far from the border and deal with illegals frequently. i'll listen to the first hand accounts rather than an agenda based documentary.

Random land mines would be much more effective. The Coyotes always lead. From what I have read one of those big fires in Southern Calf. exposed all their cover and it is going to be a lot harder to cross now. Maybe they need to have a few more controlled border fires.

Um, you can find the movie--"Wetback"--on imdb.com and amazon as well.

I can also find Mr. Magoo and Free Willy.

Srsly--you should check it out, and then make your judgment. It won't kill you, I promise.

That's nice, but they're not relevant to the topic at hand, are they.

Just because it's on the AI site does not mean anything other than AI endorses the film.

It's a documentary made by an independant production company. Unlike Mr Magoo and Free Willy of course.

The point is that the film is agenda driven. Biased. Not proof of anything.

All documentaries are agenda driven. I'll bet you paid plenty of attention to the ones about the holocaust, and maybe also the ones about how brilliant it is to be in Iraq at present...blah blah blah.

Maybe they should be showing it in their home countries and not ours, you would think it would discourage them.

I suggest you watch it first, and then post your comments.

Apparently they have been showing it in their own countries.

Doesn't seem to have changed much.

I am more interested in getting more people to join this:
http://www.minutemanproject.com/

Well I guess I could see a film about the poor Taliban and how they have been mistreated as well, but it really does not change how I feel about them.

Illegal's who travel that far to break into our border with some pie in the sky hope is doing nothing more than breaking our law. Why do you want them to ignore our laws?

You will realize the irony in your statement, after you watch the friggin' movie.

OK, I'll stop shilling it for now. I just couldn't resist after Merc's last comment.

Recent contributions of our illegal aliens:

http://www.minutemanproject.com/news...d=213&zoneid=1

http://www.minutemanproject.com/news...d=215&zoneid=1

http://www.minutemanproject.com/news...d=212&zoneid=1

http://www.minutemanproject.com/news...d=217&zoneid=1

Oh, but aren't they a biased source? As in, not proof of anything? :rolleyes:

No that source is totally biased. And I am freely willing to admit it. Biased against having illegal people enter our country as well as looking for ways to get control of the situation rather than putting heads in the sand and pretending that no problem exists.

Now you admit your sources are biased. ;)

Anyway, I agree there are huge problems that need to be fixed, but my perspective differs completely from yours, which I believe you're aware of.

I am. And I am going to call Amnesty USA becasue you are torturing me. :D

That's just your blood desperately trying to escape a tortured existence. It explains the red face and that throbbing neck vein.

that's not my neck vein...

Okay, I am such the third wheel here. tw, take my whip...please.

A throbbing penis? Well it is Halloween.

My mistake. TheMercenary does not have a vain boner in his body.

We claim to be a civilized society. To use torture for any purpose is to give up that civilization and become as barbaric as our adversaries. The entire Bill of Rights is being challenged now all on the grounds that circumstances allow the government to make new rules. No, the end doesn't justify the means. No, might doesn't make right. Just say no to what the Administration is doing.

Too many people here aren't interested in humanity's cause, which is democracy's cause, which is America's cause -- this is not open to rational dispute, after all -- winning.

Shame on all these people.

That's your opinion UG.

How would you know about my boner?

Which is why we continually pull out and never finish these messes we start. We can only win quickly by conducting the war to win. All war is barbaric. You must take the fight to the enemy in a manner he understands, if barbarism is the method, so be it.

Do you think we would have a better chance of winning this war if we beheaded the enemy and published videos of it? We could chain them to vehicles and drag them through the streets to make a point, just like they have been known to do. Would you support the military stooping to their level, kidnapping their families, and torturing them on television while demanding their surrender?

Why doesn't our military do these things if they are the methods required to win?

1) Yes. But I think if it were done in a clandestine manner it would be very effective.

2) I think you already know the answer to it.

Actually, I don't. What do you think it is?

Its because we need popular support and are expected to act justified and they don't. It would be like comparing a community known buisness owner who is in debt and a homeless man with no family in debt. The business man will not go to the extremes as the homeless man because he has much more to lose if caught while the homeless man probably doesn't have much if anything to lose, making him much more likely to go to dangerous extremes for the money.

If the United States starts torturing innocent people (*stands in front of Gitmo*) and we are found out, our support will plummet and people will very quickly turn against us while no one supports Al Qaeda so it doesn't matter what they do, everyone will still hate them.

Because the idea is not to become what we are fighting.
At least for those of us with ethics.
Also, at that point we have no right to complain about what they are doing to others in any way.

If the goal in all of this is to "win the war on terror" (essentially a war on a mindset, a fight against an idea), wouldn't it stand to reason that we would want to appear in a light that would sway those on the middle ground to support our goals, to change their minds and move them away from extremist groups? Would we really be able to do this if populations in the countries we occupy/have bases/have conflicts in knew we were beating people for information? While "win any way possible" logic says they should, since everyone but the enemy would obviously want us to win the war by any means possible to alleviate their suffering, I really don't think "Torturing in Support of Democracy" has a ring to it that will instill pride and gain the support of people in middle eastern nations. Knowing a knock could come at your door and you might be swept off to some camp and waterboarded for months while your family thinks you're dead thanks to misinformation is not going to be well received. Those actions are associated with oppressive, feared dictators, not democratic peace keepers.

...and torture will not remain secret if used, just as it has not in this war so far, nor in any other war. The worst atrocities committed against human beings, the war crimes the US stands against and actively wants to stop, have always managed to come to light at some point. Want to keep it all a secret? Kill your captors, including the innocent ones that didn't have the information you were looking for.

If the reason to torture is to support the war, to end it faster, and that the ends justify the means, then we really need to think ahead to what the supposed final goal of this set of conflicts is: to end terrorism and support democracy. If we're going to use force to do this, then we need to do it right. Just as our military has evolved to fight these new battles against people that are not members of any army, it absolutely must evolve further to look to the long term consequences of its actions, how those actions are received by the people they effect, and what the response will be.

You can torture for information you think might save a life, but no one should be surprised when the ranks of terrorists/anti-US groups swell when the news spreads that the coming liberators will beat to within an inch of your life to get at information if they think you have it.

Ali, just why do you suppose I might have it, hmm? :eyebrow:

I'm not hearing enough enthusiasm for breaking the undemocrats, wiping away their legacy of oppression. As you know, it's dishonest to say I'm talking about Republican Party members.

This was the spirit and tone of rhetoric also used by Hitler to subvert the German government. Hitler also insisted that he and his party were the only true patriotic Germans. If he was not posting a political agenda, then UG would have called them Democrats - not undemocrats. Honesty becomes a victim when political agendas are more important.

I think it's a matter of perspective as to what constitutes humanities cause. That's why I think your way is only your opinion. I'm sure others share it (your opinion), but your way of solving the worlds problems doesn't match other people's way of doing it.

Well UG is only 2 steps away from being a Nazi himself. What do you expect? lol

Ipse dixit, tw.

My spirit is to crush the Hitlers -- yours is to crush democracy -- and I applaud the wisdom of crushing and hanging Saddam before he was a Hitler-sized world problem. You don't see the Democrats being that wise, nor visibly desiring to. That is why I don't vote Democrat, and the last time I did was I don't know when in the previous century. They don't deserve any support.

Aliantha: Godwin's Law, darling!

From Wiki:

I think my statement was a valid comparison. :) I think you're misusing Godwins Law...darlink. ;)

If you disagree, I guess we could always have a poll?

Not remotely misusing it, nor remotely valid either, as I cannot honestly be mistaken for a Nazi by anyone with a knowledge of Nazism and the steps leading to it. And my remark was more in the nature of a caution than an accusation. Tw's flirting with crossing that line too, but that's typical tw: always he opposes the success of the Republic in foreign policy. Ask him sometime if he wants us to win this, for the global Functioning Economic Core or anything else. He's very uniform about supporting anti-democracy over democracy. It's profoundly xenophobic if not just plain bigoted. It amounts to "less than democracy is good enough for those foreigners." G. Zuss. This guy's got a very manifest totalitarian streak. It's enough to make me talk like the Pharisee did about the tax collector.

Well. I have some knowledge of the steps leading to Nazism and also of what constitutes nazism, and I'd say the comparison is valid.

UG, you only have a couple of themes.

The minor ones are cooking, language, drama, music. Minor not because these are unimportant human endeavors, but minor diversions from your major obsession: killing everyone who does not agree with you. I have to tell you, it's tiresome.

And you're such a pompous hypocrite about it. "I command you to be democratic or die." Look, friend, you don't speak for all humanity. Give it, and us, and yourself a rest.

UG has a dramtic flair for cooking human flesh with profane language? What kind of music goes with that?


Red wine or white?

we all have different views, now one can speak on anyone elses behalf

Actually, having experience of both democracy and nondemocracy, I do speak for all humanity, and you don't speak for anything human on this point, V. You should be the one giving it a rest. Don't defend the evilly indefensible unless it's your life's goal to get skinned for being a fascist sympathizer. No hypocrisy there, I assure you. The way you're using the word suggests you ought to repair to a dictionary and refamiliarize.

So far it doesn't sound like it. People trying to call me a Nazi are doing so from so acute an ignorance of Nazism as to astonish.

:mock:

I've got to say that he doesn't speak for me...but I suppose if he pointed a gun in my face or told me he was going to kill my children if I didn't go along with him I might let him think he could speak for me.

Nonsense. And on multiple levels.

what's nonsense?