Torture Won't Stop Terror

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The ACLU? Are you for real? The ACLU is preventing the screning of cargo at our ports and the screening of every item shipped via plane? You really are confused.

NO but they back measures that prevent authorities from doing their job to secure America. IE EG US telephone records.

For your information, such interceptions for national security are considered the norm in most 1st world nations.

But not the US - which is arguably THE first world nation.

[Risto 0]

Don't torture the terrorists just kill them

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The ACLU? Are you for real? The ACLU is preventing the screning of cargo at our ports and the screening of every item shipped via plane? You really are confused.

NO but they back measures that prevent authorities from doing their job to secure America. IE EG US telephone records.

Because you assume that those measures are essential to the task.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Don't torture the terrorists just kill them

Are you making the false assumption that any detainee is a bonifide terrorist? Do you even know how the detainees were taken into custody?

I'd love to see every yahoo who thinks along these lines witness what would happen if our government started conducting such roundups of Americans suspected of being involved in any terrorists organizations. Let's start with anyone living in the South who is white and displays the Confederate Flag - since the KKK and other White Supremists groups are the oldest American terrorists groups. Then let's start hangin 'em like Risto said.

[Marc and Olga 0]

how does knocking out Iraq do anything about extremists conducting acts of terrorism in the US?

It sets the foundations and the seeds for a stable democracy.

I am not surprised that so many liberals are against this war. American Liberals want freedom of speech etc but obviously only for themselves and not others.

PS By not agreeing with the removal of Saddam you are accepting the atrocities he committed against others, especially his suppresion of liberalism..

Really? Funny, I have never liked this war on Iraq but I also never liked Saddam. The reasons I did not like this war were several fold, including (but not limited to) not U.N. sanctioned(the U.N. inspectors, still in Iraq at the time, were pleading for more time to do their job), had LITTLE to do with the "war on terror", and I felt there were much more tyrranical governments that we should have been focusing on, of course the problem with the country I have in mind (North Korea) are, it has no oil and it is not in a primarily Muslim region of the world to provide a link to the so called terrorism.

Or, to use your logic, by supporting the "war on Iraq", you MUST support the atrocities of North Korea, which ALSO hates the USA and HAS nuclear capabilities NOW!

Now had Bush Sr. gone into Iraq and done this in the early '90's, I would have felt VERY different on the same war then but I also respect the decision to NOT "take out Saddam", I also happened to like THAT President Bush!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

how does knocking out Iraq do anything about extremists conducting acts of terrorism in the US?

It sets the foundations and the seeds for a stable democracy.

I am not surprised that so many liberals are against this war. American Liberals want freedom of speech etc but obviously only for themselves and not others.

PS By not agreeing with the removal of Saddam you are accepting the atrocities he committed against others, especially his suppresion of liberalism..

Really? Funny, I have never liked this war on Iraq but I also never liked Saddam. The reasons I did not like this war were several fold, including (but not limited to) not U.N. sanctioned(the U.N. inspectors, still in Iraq at the time, were pleading for more time to do their job), had LITTLE to do with the "war on terror", and I felt there were much more tyrranical governments that we should have been focusing on, of course the problem with the country I have in mind (North Korea) are, it has no oil and it is not in a primarily Muslim region of the world to provide a link to the so called terrorism.

Or, to use your logic, by supporting the "war on Iraq", you MUST support the atrocities of North Korea, which ALSO hates the USA and HAS nuclear capabilities NOW!

Now had Bush Sr. gone into Iraq and done this in the early '90's, I would have felt VERY different on the same war then but I also respect the decision to NOT "take out Saddam", I also happened to like THAT President Bush!

Marc, it's useless arguing with Infantile. He's an idiot ...don't waste your time.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Marc, it's useless arguing with Infantile. He's an idiot ...don't waste your time.

Ah - but aren't you forgetting that when you come from Australia (a country with the best standard of living in the world), with a Engineering and Business background, you automatically have a more relevant and 'in touch' opinion on Civil Liberties and international politics

Edited September 10, 2006 by erekose

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Marc, it's useless arguing with Infantile. He's an idiot ...don't waste your time.

Ah - but aren't you forgetting that when you come from Australia (a country with the best standard of living in the world), with a Engineering and Business background, you automatically have a more relevant and 'in touch' opinion on Civil Liberties and international politics

He sold me on his idiocy the day he stated that liberalism is communism is socialism. Perhaps he recently lost his marbles.

Edited September 10, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You're kidding, right? Can you come up with something relevant to the discussion?

oh well, it was an attack by iraq. sorry it don't fit your "criteria"

So, that 1987 incident is the justification for invading Iraq? That incident actually demonstrates the threat that Iraq posed to the US? Is that what you're saying?

you asked: has Iraq attacked the US

sorry if you don't like the answer

Well, it's not about my liking or disliking the response. It's about relevance. Obviously, the 1987 incident has absolutely no relevance when one discusses the unprovoked 2003 attack on that Iraq that lacked mandate, legal basis and legitimacy.

how does knocking out Iraq do anything about extremists conducting acts of terrorism in the US?

It sets the foundations and the seeds for a stable democracy.

Good One!

Thanks, I needed a good laugh badly.

Edited September 10, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Marc and Olga 0]

how does knocking out Iraq do anything about extremists conducting acts of terrorism in the US?

It sets the foundations and the seeds for a stable democracy.

I am not surprised that so many liberals are against this war. American Liberals want freedom of speech etc but obviously only for themselves and not others.

PS By not agreeing with the removal of Saddam you are accepting the atrocities he committed against others, especially his suppresion of liberalism..

Really? Funny, I have never liked this war on Iraq but I also never liked Saddam. The reasons I did not like this war were several fold, including (but not limited to) not U.N. sanctioned(the U.N. inspectors, still in Iraq at the time, were pleading for more time to do their job), had LITTLE to do with the "war on terror", and I felt there were much more tyrranical governments that we should have been focusing on, of course the problem with the country I have in mind (North Korea) are, it has no oil and it is not in a primarily Muslim region of the world to provide a link to the so called terrorism.

Or, to use your logic, by supporting the "war on Iraq", you MUST support the atrocities of North Korea, which ALSO hates the USA and HAS nuclear capabilities NOW!

Now had Bush Sr. gone into Iraq and done this in the early '90's, I would have felt VERY different on the same war then but I also respect the decision to NOT "take out Saddam", I also happened to like THAT President Bush!

Marc, it's useless arguing with Infantile. He's an idiot ...don't waste your time.

Yeah, I know but I just wanted to point out that I was against the War on Iraq AND did not "support" Saddam has he said "I" did!

Also despite my leaning towards the democrat views, I have liked republian presidents NAMED Bush! Though I wasn't too fond of THAT Bush's VP (whom I just learned the other day is a member of PNAC! )

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yeah, I know but I just wanted to point out that I was against the War on Iraq AND did not "support" Saddam has he said "I" did!

Also despite my leaning towards the democrat views, I have liked republian presidents NAMED Bush! Though I wasn't too fond of THAT Bush's VP (whom I just learned the other day is a member of PNAC! )

Not just the VP, but almost every significant cabinet member of the Bush Administration, which is in line with Bush's intolerance for anyone who isn't completely loyal to his policies.

Among it's members: (PNAC)

Elliott Abrams - National Security Council

Richard Armitage - Deputy Secretary of State

John R. Bolton - U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations

Richard Cheney - VP

Paula Dobriansky - Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs

Zalmay Khalilzad - U.S.Ambassador to Iraq

I. Lewis Libby - Chief of Staff for the Vice President

Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense

Paul Wolfowitz - President of the World Bank

Gary Bauer

William Bennett

Jeb Bush

Charles Krauthammer

William Kristol, a PNAC founder and chairman, editor of the Weekly Standard

Richard Perle

The PNAC has been the subject of considerable criticism and controversy, both among members of the left and right. Critics dispute the premise that American "world leadership" is desirable for the world or even for the United States itself. The PNAC's harshest critics claim it represents a disturbing step towards total world subjugation by America, motivated by an imperial and globalist agenda of global US military expansionism and dominance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_t...merican_Century

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yeah, I know but I just wanted to point out that I was against the War on Iraq AND did not "support" Saddam has he said "I" did!

How can that be? You're either with us or against us. The POTUS said so. It's all black and white, baby.