• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Bush admits to water-boarding and would do it again

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I recorded The HBO Bill Maher show last week and watched it last night. Van Jones was one of the panelists. Much like this article, he was outraged that Bush had admitted knowledge of this and that Bush would do it again.

Maybe I'm naive but I do think things like water-boarding do go on in war, but normally the president does not admit knowing or condone it.

Are you outraged or surprised that President Bush admitted this? Was he right or wrong to make such a statement?
Should water-boarding be completely off limits for use by our forces and agencies (CIA, FBI etc.)?


George W. Bush's casual acknowledgment Wednesday that he had Khalid Sheikh Mohammed waterboarded -- and would do it again -- has horrified some former military and intelligence officials who argue that the former president doesn't seem to understand the gravity of what he is admitting.

Waterboarding, a form of controlled drowning, is "unequivocably torture", said retired Brigadier General David R. Irvine, a former strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner of war interrogation and military law for 18 years.

"As a nation, we have historically prosecuted it as such, going back to the time of the Spanish-American War," Irvine said. "Moreover, it cannot be demonstrated that any use of waterboarding by U.S. personnel in recent years has saved a single American life."

Irvine told the Huffington Post that Bush doesn't appreciate how much harm his countenancing of torture has done to his country.

"Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," Bush told a Grand Rapids audience Wednesday, of the self-professed 9/11 mastermind. "I'd do it again to save lives."

But, Irvine said: "When he decided to do it the first time, he launched the nation down a disastrous road, and we will continue to pay dearly for the damage his decision has caused.

"We are seen by the rest of the world as having abandoned our commitment to international law. We have forfeited enormous amounts of moral leadership as the world's sole remaining superpower. And it puts American troops in greater danger -- and unnecessary danger."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/03/bushs-glib-waterboarding_n_599893.html
 

mak2

Active member
My thinking on this subject has changed over the years. I dont think any of our captured service members should be tortured or even made to listen to Barbra Striesand music. So if the prisioiners are detained and unarmed and unable to cause harm to our troops then no form of torture should be allowed, it becomes downright immoral.

If, on the other hand you are in active combat, people are dying and the guy you just captured knows where that sniper is that has you pinned down, torture away.
 

Dargo

Like a bad penny...
GOLD Site Supporter
My thinking on this subject has changed over the years. I dont think any of our captured service members should be tortured or even made to listen to Barbra Striesand music. So if the prisioiners are detained and unarmed and unable to cause harm to our troops then no form of torture should be allowed, it becomes downright immoral.

If, on the other hand you are in active combat, people are dying and the guy you just captured knows where that sniper is that has you pinned down, torture away.

That really is a tough subject. I've seen some of the methods the Muslim radicals have used for torture and it's sickening. What puzzles me is how the Islam extremists seem to think it's okay to take drills to prisoners, strip skin from them, pour acid on them etc., but think it's extreme if a U.S. soldier throws their Koran in the latrine or simply say they don't believe in Mohammad.

Waterboarding is more of a mental torture than physical. As part of training my son has been waterboarded many times. With techniques, you can work to where it is simply uncomfortable. Yes, I've been waterboarded at my request. I was honestly surprised at how fast your mind tells you that you're drowning. However, after just 3 times, I can see where such a method would become ineffective rather quickly.

Other methods of "torture" I've seen would make some of my college fraternity initiation seem like extreme torture. I don't think we should go Jack Bauer on them (I think I missed the series finale - bummer), but sometimes it is vital to get information from those you know possess information you must have to save lives.
 

Glink

Active member
Site Supporter
I guess GW doesn't plan any trips out of the country again.

I think GW does not give a good tinker's damn about what people think of his actions. He did what he thought was right; without a lot of hand ringing over the politics of it.

I applaud him for that.
 

Adillo303

Diesel Truck Fan
GOLD Site Supporter
Between waterboarding and having my family destroyed for someone else's cause it would not be a choice.

Sorry if I offend. I wan in NYC on 9/11 and thousands were pulverized so finely that there were no remains. These were not members of the military, there is just no justification for what was done.
 

mak2

Active member
I always hear, and actually I used to think like this too, but even if the other country (enemy) tortures everyone they capture, it does not make it any less morally reprehensible for us to do it.
 

Ross 650

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Howdy,
I admire G.W. for preventing another attack on U.S. soil. After 9/11, I dont care what methods are used on those mindless vermin. I think that the cost of a .45 round is about $.55. One round per animal would solve the problems. Why should we care what the cry babies think? If they intend to harm me or any other innocent American, in my mind they are a lower form of life and should be eliminated. I think that during war time with these inbreds that there should be no prisoners. Have a goodun!!!!
 

Big Dog

Large Member
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I always hear, and actually I used to think like this too, but even if the other country (enemy) tortures everyone they capture, it does not make it any less morally reprehensible for us to do it.

Mak, you can't win being a nice guy. No matter how "morally reprehensible" torture may be, the time for us to be moral is when the enemy becomes moral. We made the first move to be moral and it doesn't work, time to go back and wait for them to be the first nice guy. I say kick ass and what ever it takes to eliminate the enemy, collateral damage will happen, it's war!
 

mak2

Active member
If you are not an honorable person (warrior/country), you lost. Wether you lived through it or not. You cant really beleive you can throw away your sense of right and wrong because the bad guys did? Maybe we could get the guys from gitmo and string them up on a steel bridge in Ohio and set them on fire. They did it first.
 

loboloco

Well-known member
Sorry Mak, your thinking makes no sense to me. I firmly believe we should not fight unless we are willing to commit to total war. Absolute destruction of the enemy. In pursuit of this goal, there is nothing immoral reprehensible. Survival of our nation is a moral good. Total destruction or surrender of our enemies is morally good. Anything else is pissing in the wind and harmful to our survival.
The U.S. has always practiced some restraint against their enemies and has accepted unnecessary deaths of our soldiers and people as a consequence.
I would prefer a world in which any probable opponent was scared shitless to screw with us because of the consequences than the current contempt most of the world sees in our moral cowardice to do what is needed to defend ourselves.
 

mak2

Active member
I agree completely with your first 3 sentences. The 4th is crazy talk.

Would you kill an unarmed prisoner that presented no threat to you? Of course there are things a civilized country cant do in war.
 

loboloco

Well-known member
I agree completely with your first 3 sentences. The 4th is crazy talk.

Would you kill an unarmed prisoner that presented no threat to you? Of course there are things a civilized country cant do in war.
I would totally exterminate the opposition and would not have to worry about prisoners or their treatment. The only reason to take prisoners is to gain information you need. After that, I could care less what happens to them.
 

loboloco

Well-known member
define civilized.
you used it, you define it.
If we are willing to drop atomic weapons on cities, can anything less be considered morally reprehensible? If we are willing to use chemical warfare against our enemies is torture any worse?
I see no reason to restrain from behavior that actually benefits our intelligence and warfare capabilities.
 

mak2

Active member
you used it, you define it.
If we are willing to drop atomic weapons on cities, can anything less be considered morally reprehensible? If we are willing to use chemical warfare against our enemies is torture any worse?
I see no reason to restrain from behavior that actually benefits our intelligence and warfare capabilities.

The atomic bombs were dropped on an enemy with the means to resist, in an attempt to stop that resistance. Probably saved lives on both sides in the long run. I am not sure about chemical warfare, it is pretty impracticle anyway.
 

loboloco

Well-known member
The atomic bombs were dropped on an enemy with the means to resist, in an attempt to stop that resistance. Probably saved lives on both sides in the long run. I am not sure about chemical warfare, it is pretty impracticle anyway.
Napalm, Agent Orange, mustard gas. All of these have been used by the U.S. against enemies. You miss my point. Use of these weapons results in indescriminate destruction of soldiers and civilians alike. I actually advocate the use of such weapons. Believing their use in the best interests of my country, I will not hypocritically claim the use of lesser methods immoral.
 

mak2

Active member
It is not the weapons, the unethical part is killing or torturing an enemy without the means to resist. In the field, if he is armed and capable of defending himself, kill away. My point the entire time was the difference between an enemy iwth the means to resist and one in some sort of prision.
 

loboloco

Well-known member
It is not the weapons, the unethical part is killing or torturing an enemy without the means to resist. In the field, if he is armed and capable of defending himself, kill away. My point the entire time was the difference between an enemy iwth the means to resist and one in some sort of prision.
If he is an enemy there is no distinction. So mass murder is ethical, torture is not?
 

Dargo

Like a bad penny...
GOLD Site Supporter
It is not the weapons, the unethical part is killing or torturing an enemy without the means to resist. In the field, if he is armed and capable of defending himself, kill away. My point the entire time was the difference between an enemy iwth the means to resist and one in some sort of prision.

Tell me, do you agree with our soldiers unable to return fire when fired upon from a mosque or other "holy" Islam site?

I'll give you my answer; immediately call in an air strike and no more mosque. I don't care if it's 3000 years old. If they are firing RPG's at our troops from it's turret windows, it has become a fort in the field of battle and needs to be eliminated. I assure you that if we took that stance it wouldn't take long for the locals to begin killing the radicals as they tried to take over the mosques. Right now there is no real down side to letting them hide there and use them as sniper positions to pick off our troops. It's WAR! You hit my soldiers with a barrage of RPG's, I'm dropping a 20k MOAB on you.
 

mak2

Active member
If he is an enemy there is no distinction. So mass murder is ethical, torture is not?

there is no distinction between a POW and a combatant in the field?

And by the way, no mass murder is not ethical in any discussion. Sometimes casualities of war might be, but not mass murder.
 

loboloco

Well-known member
there is no distinction between a POW and a combatant in the field?

And by the way, no mass murder is not ethical in any discussion. Sometimes casualities of war might be, but not mass murder.

The dropping of atomic weapons on a city is mass murder. It was done to prevent the nearly certain deaths of millions of american soldiers, but it was dropped on unarmed cities with intent to kill the civilian populace. I think it was appropriate. And no, an enemy is an enemy armed or in a stockade. If he gets the chance he will kill you. I understand the U.S. position on POW's I just disagree with it.
 

mak2

Active member
cities are bombed cause they are economic and manufacturing centers, thus create the means to wage war. Not just to kill civilians, which wastes bombs and pisses people off.
 

Cowboy

Wait for it.
GOLD Site Supporter
It is not the weapons, the unethical part is killing or torturing an enemy without the means to resist. In the field, if he is armed and capable of defending himself, kill away. My point the entire time was the difference between an enemy iwth the means to resist and one in some sort of prision.


Just my opinion , but anyone that decides its right to plant roadside bombs , strap bombs on theirselves or family members Or bombs on planes , train stations or subways Not giving a damn who they kill . :hammer:

I suggest anyone caught & known to be a terrorist should have there arms & legs surgically amputed in a hospital type envirement so they dont catch no disease,s . That way they will cause no more harm to theirselfs or others . Then Asked what they know to gain intelligence . Then put them all back in the holes & caves they crawled out of , with plenty of food & water so they have a chance to survive unlike they give others & to just to give them time to think about what they have done . :biggrin:

Franklly I,m shocked at the way some of you others think . :whistling:
 
Top