George W Bush claims UK lives 'saved by waterboarding'

British lives were saved by the use of information obtained from terrorist suspects by "waterboarding", according to former US President George W Bush.

In his memoir, he said the simulated drowning technique had helped to break plots to attack Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf in London.

A Number 10 spokeswoman declined to comment directly on the claims but said it classed waterboarding as torture.

"We don't condone it [torture], nor do we ask others to do it on our behalf."

Mr Bush's memoir, Decision Points, is being serialised in the Times.

In an interview with the paper the former president said: "Three people were waterboarded and I believe that decision saved lives."

In his book, Mr Bush focuses on 14 major decisions of his life and presidency. He confirmed he had authorised the use of waterboarding to extract information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the al-Qaeda mastermind behind the 9/11 attack.[

Mr Bush tells the paper: "Damn right!

"We capture the guy, the chief operating officer of al-Qaeda, who kills 3,000 people. We felt he had the information about another attack.

"He says, 'I'll talk to you when I get my lawyer'. I say, 'What options are available and legal?'"

In the book, Mr Bush writes: "Their interrogations helped break up plots to attack American diplomatic facilities abroad, Heathrow airport and Canary Wharf in London, and multiple targets in the United States."

Mohammed was one of three al Qaeda suspects subjected to waterboarding, alongside Saudi Arabia-born Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

He endured the near-drowning technique as CIA agents tried to obtain information following his capture in Pakistan in March 2003.

Attacks on Heathrow, Big Ben and Canary Wharf were included in a detailed list of 31 plots Mohammed confessed to during a later hearing at Guantanamo Bay prison - where he remains.

He also admitted a role in the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings, an attack on a Kenyan hotel in the same year and the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan.

The UK government has said it "stands firmly against torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment," including waterboarding.

A spokeswoman said the prime minister had set out his views in a statement to Parliament in July and had set up the Gibson review to establish whether any intelligence officers had been aware information had been gained in this way.

Amnesty International said waterboarding was "absolutely prohibited under international law".

Amnety's UK director Kate Allen said Mr Bush's remarks were "self-serving and misguided", adding that any information extracted through torture was "notoriously unreliable and inadmissible".

Earlier former Labour chairman of the Commons intelligence and security committee Kim Howells told the BBC while he did not doubt the existence of plots, he doubted whether waterboarding provided information instrumental in preventing them coming to fruition.

He said the difficult issue was whether all the UK's intelligence partners had as scrupulous an attitude towards torture.

"We've just had what looks like a very valuable tip-off from Saudi Arabia. We get a huge amount of intelligence coming from Pakistan.

"These are countries where there's a very different attitude to the way in which prisoners are treated in their jails. Just as in China," he said.

Former Tory shadow home secretary David Davis said if a government comes by information that affects people's security, it had to be used.

He added: "What we shouldn't do, ever, is encourage it (torture)."

He said a large part of the false intelligence on WMD that led to the war in Iraq came from torture and illegal rendition.

"That's the problem - people under torture tell you what what you want to hear. Apart from being immoral, apart from destroying our standing in the world... it doesn't deliver."

In October, the head of MI6 Sir John Sawers said torture was "illegal and abhorrent under any circumstances and we have nothing whatsoever to do with it".

He outlined the "real, constant operational dilemmas" faced by his organisation in trying to avoid intelligence gathered by torture.

He said: "If we know or believe action by us will lead to torture taking place, we're required by UK and international law to avoid that action, and we do, even though that allows that terrorist activity to go ahead.


But he added: "Suppose we received credible intelligence that might save lives, here or abroad. We have a professional and moral duty to act on it. We will normally want to share it with those who can save those lives."

In Mr Bush's interview with The Times, the 64-year-old former president described his close relationship with Tony Blair, but was dismissive of public opinion in Britain about the war in Iraq.

"It doesn't matter how people perceive me in England. It just doesn't matter any more. And frankly, at times, it didn't matter then," he said.


Mr Bush said when Mr Blair faced a possible vote of no confidence in Parliament on the eve of war, he offered him the chance to opt out of sending British troops into Iraq.

However, Mr Blair told him: "I'm in. If it costs the government, fine."

Mr Bush said he still had "a sickening feeling" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But he defended his decision to invade Iraq, saying Iraqi citizens were better off without the former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the US was better off without Saddam pursuing biological or chemical weapons.

Mr Bush admits that he was shocked when no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

But asked, in an interview with NBC, if he ever considered apologising to Americans for that failure to find WMD, he said: "Apologising would basically say the decision was a wrong decision.

"And I don't believe it was the wrong decision."

And speaking about his absence from the media spotlight since leaving office until the publicity surrounding the publication of his book, he told NBC: "I just didn't want to get out there any more. I didn't want to get back into what I call 'the swamp'."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11715577

And here's a video of Christopher Hitchens being water-boarded:

I have a question for those who were against waterboarding;

If, for instance, the CIA didn't do any of that to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and it cost lives via a successful terror attack, then what? Of course, hindsight is always 20/20 as they say.

Personally, I have no use for people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed even breathing.

Torture is against the Geneva Convention. We as the free, civilised, democratic west ought to be setting an example.

There will always be better ways to defeat terrorism. This sort of thing only adds fuel to the fire.

I understand all of that but my question is a 'what if' type of question. If it saved, let's say, 3,000 lives.... is it worth it? Or do we not waterboard and risk hundreds or thousands dying?

Just being the devils advocate. But you don't believe in him either.

There always has to be another way than to break international law.

My position is that you never torture - under any circumstances.

Democrats torture me. Is their a lawsuit I can file somewhere?

TexasBlue wrote:Democrats torture me. Is their a lawsuit I can file somewhere?

Let's make that a class action lawsuit...

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:Democrats torture me. Is their a lawsuit I can file somewhere?

Let's make that a class action lawsuit...

What's your position?

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:Democrats torture me. Is their a lawsuit I can file somewhere?

Let's make that a class action lawsuit...

What's your position?

If the lawyers said it was legal and not torture under the law, then I'm going to go with them and not some talking head pundit or politician who will only seize on the issue for political purposes.

Our own special forces troops go through waterboarding as a part of their training. As for Christopher Hitchens claims of residual trauma to this day, I say he is being purposely melodramatic. I went through much more traumatic events in boot camp, and one of them resulted in a permanent disability for me.

I'm sorry, I know most here disagree with me, and that is fine, but I have been through some very harsh treatment in my day. And while waterboarding is definitely not a fun process I just cannot consider it torture. Torture is what Saddam and his sons had done to their enemies. Torture is something that causes permanent physical damage or even death. Waterboarding does neither of those.

Not a popular opinion I realize, but that is my honest position.

dblboggie wrote:

Our own special forces troops go through waterboarding as a part of their training. As for Christopher Hitchens claims of residual trauma to this day, I say he is being purposely melodramatic. I went through much more traumatic events in boot camp, and one of them resulted in a permanent disability for me.

Yet you signed up for that, those that were waterboarded didn't.

dblboggie wrote:If the lawyers said it was legal and not torture under the law, then I'm going to go with them and not some talking head pundit or politician who will only seize on the issue for political purposes.

Funny for somebody who is so paranoid about the government, you trust your officials so fully when it suits.

dblboggie wrote:Torture is something that causes permanent physical damage or even death. Waterboarding does neither of those.

The international law that your country signed up to, describes it as:

any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

BubbleBliss wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

Our own special forces troops go through waterboarding as a part of their training. As for Christopher Hitchens claims of residual trauma to this day, I say he is being purposely melodramatic. I went through much more traumatic events in boot camp, and one of them resulted in a permanent disability for me.

Yet you signed up for that, those that were waterboarded didn't.

I'm sorry but you are wrong Bubbles. Those who were waterboarded DID sign up for it when they took up arms and declared war on the West. They knew what the consequences could be in war... which includes their death in battle.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:If the lawyers said it was legal and not torture under the law, then I'm going to go with them and not some talking head pundit or politician who will only seize on the issue for political purposes.

Funny for somebody who is so paranoid about the government, you trust your officials so fully when it suits.

I trust no one in government fully. But the lawyers deciding on this point of law were not politicians. And their job was not deciding what taxes I would pay or what freedoms I would surrender so that government could grow. I save my concern for those politicians who are angling for my wallet and my life.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Torture is something that causes permanent physical damage or even death. Waterboarding does neither of those.

The international law that your country signed up to, describes it as:

any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

Good for that law. Perhaps we should un-sign. In fact, what we SHOULD do is demand a revision which states that a combatant force that routinely violates international law automatically forfeits any protection by that same law. This might encourage future terrorist forces to reconsider the wisdom of violating international law.

It is one thing to abide by international law when fighting an enemy who also respects that law. It is quite another thing to adhere to that law when your enemy does not, particularly when said adherence puts one at a disadvantage and endangers the lives of their soldiers.

Perhaps if we fought this enemy with the same ferocity with which they wage war, the war would end much more quickly. War is not supposed to be a surgical and civil affair. Trying to treat it as such completely defeats the intent of warfare. War is not medicine, and we should stop treating it as such because it only encourages the sort of urban terrorism that this enemy has chosen.

Now if this sounds callous and brutal, that is because that is what war is. War is SUPPOSED to be hell - it serves as a disincentive to wage it so readily. Weakness ALWAYS begets violence by those who don't share your civilized views Matt. And there are countless millions out there who don't share Western civilizations views on civilized warfare.

None of that is any excuse to act like animals. For somebody who champions Christianity as such a positive force, you forget to easily "live by the sword, die by the sword." No nation should be so willing to go to war and I think it should be seen as necessary but regretable.

And perhaps you should heed Gandhi's words "an eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind" when you advocate so willingly your desire for vengeance.

dblboggie wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

Our own special forces troops go through waterboarding as a part of their training. As for Christopher Hitchens claims of residual trauma to this day, I say he is being purposely melodramatic. I went through much more traumatic events in boot camp, and one of them resulted in a permanent disability for me.

Yet you signed up for that, those that were waterboarded didn't.

I'm sorry but you are wrong Bubbles. Those who were waterboarded DID sign up for it when they took up arms and declared war on the West. They knew what the consequences could be in war... which includes their death in battle.

That's assuming that no innocent civilians were waterboarded, which you can't assume is 100% accurate.

BubbleBliss wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

Our own special forces troops go through waterboarding as a part of their training. As for Christopher Hitchens claims of residual trauma to this day, I say he is being purposely melodramatic. I went through much more traumatic events in boot camp, and one of them resulted in a permanent disability for me.

Yet you signed up for that, those that were waterboarded didn't.

I'm sorry but you are wrong Bubbles. Those who were waterboarded DID sign up for it when they took up arms and declared war on the West. They knew what the consequences could be in war... which includes their death in battle.

That's assuming that no innocent civilians were waterboarded, which you can't assume is 100% accurate.

War is hell. It is supposed to be on purpose and a discouragement against so readily waging it.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:None of that is any excuse to act like animals.

Waterboarding 3 key war criminals is not acting like animals. Those waterboarded walked away with all their bits in place and functioning. We didn't drive bamboo shoots under their fingernails, we didn't brand them with hot irons or put out cigars on their bodies, we didn't cut of bits of their bodies a piece at a time, we didn't hang them upside down and beat the soles of their feet with iron rods, we didn't cut off their ears, noses, hands, feet, arms or legs or gouge out their eyes, we didn't electrocute them, beat them senselessly, break their bones, or place them on a rack until every joint was dislocated.

In fact, we subjected them to something we subject our own forces to. This is FAR from acting "like an animal." And our prisoners of war are treated FAR better than they are in the native countries. These prisoners get their own copy of a Qur'an, a prayer mat, appropriate head covering, 3 religiously appropriate meals a day, and free medical care. This is not "acting like an animal."

I would submit that all this hysteria over the waterboarding of three pieces of human trash is all out of proportion to the actual act - and is melodrama that only encourages our enemies who see this girlish hand-wringing as weakness and are laughing their asses off while plotting their next, completely illegal (under international law and just human decency) attack on the West in general and America in particular.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:For somebody who champions Christianity as such a positive force, you forget to easily "live by the sword, die by the sword."

First of all, we did not strike the first blow in this war. This war was declared on us more than 30 years ago, and it took the events of 9/11 to rouse America to take this war seriously and begin to fight back against a determined enemy. That can hardly be called "living by the sword" on our part. If one is "living by the sword" one doesn't wait 30+ years to finally fight back against an enemy who has openly declared war on one.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:No nation should be so willing to go to war and I think it should be seen as necessary but regretable.

And where in my post do you see a willingness to go to war? If anything, I am proposing the waging of a type of warfare that DISCOURAGES the waging of war. Did you even read my post? Because nothing here addresses any of my points.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:And perhaps you should heed Gandhi's words "an eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind" when you advocate so willingly your desire for vengeance.

Where on earth do you see me expressing a desire for vengeance??? Does no one read my fucking posts???

I am not suggesting "vengeance" or "an eye-for-an-eye." I am suggesting that we stop hand-cuffing our troops and putting them in harms way by waging war in such a way as benefits our enemy and prevents us from effectively prosecuting war against them.

Such a form of warfare does favor to no one and in fact encourages our enemies to continue their pursuit of war. If we do not understand our enemy, we are doomed to defeat.

America has a long tradition of treating former enemies with the utmost kindness - helping them to rebuild their countries devastated by war. That can hardly be called "an-eye-for-an-eye."

Honestly Matt, I don't know where you are coming from here. Read my post again. NONE of these points you have raised here address my post whatsoever.

You forget, I have a son and 2 nephews in this war. I would MUCH rather that it be over and done with. I am NO fan of war. But if we are going to go to war, then we should go to war and not play around with the lives of our soldiers in the interests of political-correctness or stupid politicians who only use that war as a means of gaining political advantage.

dblboggie wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:None of that is any excuse to act like animals.

Waterboarding 3 key war criminals is not acting like animals.

Ok... it is described as torture as per the definition I gave and that is against international law. Now, you can argue that you would like to withdraw from that so you can happily torture these people but until you do, you are breaking the international law that you signed up to.

dblboggie wrote:Those waterboarded walked away with all their bits in place and functioning. We didn't drive bamboo shoots under their fingernails, we didn't brand them with hot irons or put out cigars on their bodies, we didn't cut of bits of their bodies a piece at a time, we didn't hang them upside down and beat the soles of their feet with iron rods, we didn't cut off their ears, noses, hands, feet, arms or legs or gouge out their eyes, we didn't electrocute them, beat them senselessly, break their bones, or place them on a rack until every joint was dislocated.

Clearly you ignored the definition of "torture" I provided.

dblboggie wrote:In fact, we subjected them to something we subject our own forces to. This is FAR from acting "like an animal." And our prisoners of war are treated FAR better than they are in the native countries. These prisoners get their own copy of a Qur'an, a prayer mat, appropriate head covering, 3 religiously appropriate meals a day, and free medical care. This is not "acting like an animal."

But torturing them is and it is still against international law as defined by the definition of "torture" I gave.

dblboggie wrote:I would submit that all this hysteria over the waterboarding of three pieces of human trash is all out of proportion to the actual act - and is melodrama that only encourages our enemies who see this girlish hand-wringing as weakness and are laughing their asses off while plotting their next, completely illegal (under international law and just human decency) attack on the West in general and America in particular.

Can't you be bigger than these terrorist groups seeing as you live in a more developed country and really ought to know better? Or are you letting your disgust of Islam cloud your judgement?

dblboggie wrote:First of all, we did not strike the first blow in this war. This war was declared on us more than 30 years ago, and it took the events of 9/11 to rouse America to take this war seriously and begin to fight back against a determined enemy. That can hardly be called "living by the sword" on our part. If one is "living by the sword" one doesn't wait 30+ years to finally fight back against an enemy who has openly declared war on one.

Neither of our countries are completely innocent in leading to where we are today. Poor foreign policy since WWII, including the determination to see "enemies of democracy" everywhere has led to this situation.

dblboggie wrote:And where in my post do you see a willingness to go to war? If anything, I am proposing the waging of a type of warfare that DISCOURAGES the waging of war. Did you even read my post? Because nothing here addresses any of my points.

I seem to recall next door many references to "turning the entire middle east to glass" from you. I find it callous that you can so easily cast such judgement over an entire subcontinent because of a minority.

dblboggie wrote:Where on earth do you see me expressing a desire for vengeance??? Does no one read my fucking posts???

"Turn it to glass". The fact that you are so happy to torture these people against international law.

dblboggie wrote:I am not suggesting "vengeance" or "an eye-for-an-eye." I am suggesting that we stop hand-cuffing our troops and putting them in harms way by waging war in such a way as benefits our enemy and prevents us from effectively prosecuting war against them.

Screw international law? You want to make more enemies? Seriously, I have to ask myself whether you want the rest of the world to hate your country. Clearly people like Grubber next door do, because they get a kick out of your country being loathed so that you always have an enemy to focus on.

dblboggie wrote:America has a long tradition of treating former enemies with the utmost kindness - helping them to rebuild their countries devastated by war. That can hardly be called "an-eye-for-an-eye."

I know that and the western world knows that but third world countries with there lower living standards, lack of free access to information and lower levels of education aren't going to know that. They are only going to see what happens in front of their eyes and if your soldiers are breaking international law and being allowed to get away with it, the insurgents in those countries are going to play on that. That is why we in the west must adhere to international law and promote impeccable standards.

dblboggie wrote:You forget, I have a son and 2 nephews in this war. I would MUCH rather that it be over and done with. I am NO fan of war. But if we are going to go to war, then we should go to war and not play around with the lives of our soldiers in the interests of political-correctness or stupid politicians who only use that war as a means of gaining political advantage.

No I haven't forgotten but I find your posts a little too jingoistic for my tastes and in this issue, as with several others I could mention, you are letting your prejudices cloud your judgement.

On waterboarding:

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the subject on his/her back with the head inclined downwards. Water is then poured over the face into breathing passages, thus triggering the mammalian diving reflex causing the captive to experience the sensations of drowning.[1][2] In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex.[3] It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage and, if uninterrupted, death.[4] Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years.[5] The term waterboarding was coined in 2004.[6][7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

Certainly sounds like torture to me. And it can cause lasting physical and psychological damage - and even death.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:None of that is any excuse to act like animals.

Waterboarding 3 key war criminals is not acting like animals.

Ok... it is described as torture as per the definition I gave and that is against international law. Now, you can argue that you would like to withdraw from that so you can happily torture these people but until you do, you are breaking the international law that you signed up to.

First of all, no one is “happily” torturing anyone.

Secondly, as per the definition, giving a person a life sentence without possibility of parole could be easily classified as torture as it causes “severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,’ and it is “intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed...”

Under such a broad definition nearly anything could be called torture and the law is ludicrous on its face because of that. Small wonder Bush’s attorneys found waterboarding legal.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Those waterboarded walked away with all their bits in place and functioning. We didn't drive bamboo shoots under their fingernails, we didn't brand them with hot irons or put out cigars on their bodies, we didn't cut of bits of their bodies a piece at a time, we didn't hang them upside down and beat the soles of their feet with iron rods, we didn't cut off their ears, noses, hands, feet, arms or legs or gouge out their eyes, we didn't electrocute them, beat them senselessly, break their bones, or place them on a rack until every joint was dislocated.

Clearly you ignored the definition of "torture" I provided.

I did not ignore it, I disagree with it. It is a ridiculously broad definition under which even routine imprisonment could be successfully argued as torture.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:In fact, we subjected them to something we subject our own forces to. This is FAR from acting "like an animal." And our prisoners of war are treated FAR better than they are in the native countries. These prisoners get their own copy of a Qur'an, a prayer mat, appropriate head covering, 3 religiously appropriate meals a day, and free medical care. This is not "acting like an animal."

But torturing them is and it is still against international law as defined by the definition of "torture" I gave.

And yet again, my point stands, we were not “acting like an animal” as you so dramatically put it. We happen to disagree on the definition of torture. And it would appear that the lawyers that interpreted this “law” you keep referring to also disagreed with what could be called “torture.”

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I would submit that all this hysteria over the waterboarding of three pieces of human trash is all out of proportion to the actual act - and is melodrama that only encourages our enemies who see this girlish hand-wringing as weakness and are laughing their asses off while plotting their next, completely illegal (under international law and just human decency) attack on the West in general and America in particular.

Can't you be bigger than these terrorist groups seeing as you live in a more developed country and really ought to know better? Or are you letting your disgust of Islam cloud your judgement?

You are not getting the point here, clearly. It’s not about being “bigger than these terrorist groups” my friend. It’s about the messages one sends to them when we take a position that they perceive as weakness – a position that only encourages them to continue to wage a bloody war against the West. The enemy is studying us every day and through their eyes and their culture, what they see is weakness and a lack of resolve to do the hard things necessary to win this war in the long term. This gives them heart and drags the war on years longer than need be. We give them no reason not to fight.

What you suggest is that we overlook the very real and deadly consequences we accrue when we ignore how we are perceived by our enemies. How effective would such a strategy be on a live battlefield?

Honestly Matt, you are not thinking about this strategically! Have you never read Sun Tzu or Carl von Clausewitz? My position on this is not born out of a “disgust of Islam” as you suggest. In fact, I would submit that your passivism is clouding your judgment. One must be willing to look at the real facts on the ground, have a good knowledge of the enemy, their strengths, weaknesses, history and the cultural influences which informs their approach to war. The fact of the matter is, when all this is said and done, this enemy does not value compassion and mercy and views these things as a weakness to be exploited. And they have shown a great willingness to exploit those characteristics in the West by waging war from hospitals, mosques, schools, and crowed civilian neighborhoods which endanger our troops thanks to their ROI, and gives them the distinct advantage and allows them to drag this war out for years – or until the West gives up and leaves – which then leaves them free to pursue their true objectives.

You mistake confronting reality with callousness or a lack of compassion. But I would submit that not confronting reality is the least compassionate thing one could do.

Again, war is hell. It is supposed to be. The way we are waging war today is only drawing that hell out for an indefinite period and has done nothing to discourage our enemies from continuing to wage it. How compassionate is that?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:First of all, we did not strike the first blow in this war. This war was declared on us more than 30 years ago, and it took the events of 9/11 to rouse America to take this war seriously and begin to fight back against a determined enemy. That can hardly be called "living by the sword" on our part. If one is "living by the sword" one doesn't wait 30+ years to finally fight back against an enemy who has openly declared war on one.

Neither of our countries are completely innocent in leading to where we are today. Poor foreign policy since WWII, including the determination to see "enemies of democracy" everywhere has led to this situation.

I am not saying we are completely innocent, I am saying that the position I have taken at the start of this debate is not “living by the sword.”

And it was not a “determination to see ‘enemies of democracy’ everywhere” that has lead to this situation. If you will recall, this war was declared on us over 30 years ago. The events of 9/11 and the subsequent war in Afghanistan was not the result of a “determination to see ‘enemies of democracy’ everywhere.” The war Saddam launched against Kuwait and the war we waged against him was not the result of a “determination to see ‘enemies of democracy’ everywhere.” Saddam’s continued refusal to abide by the terms of the ceasefire for 12 years and the resumption of hostilities that culminated in was not the result of a “determination to see ‘enemies of democracy’ everywhere.”

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:And where in my post do you see a willingness to go to war? If anything, I am proposing the waging of a type of warfare that DISCOURAGES the waging of war. Did you even read my post? Because nothing here addresses any of my points.

I seem to recall next door many references to "turning the entire middle east to glass" from you. I find it callous that you can so easily cast such judgement over an entire subcontinent because of a minority.

The fact that you would take what was obvious hyperbole never intended as a serious position and then turn that out here shows you are not seriously debating me here. Did you really think that I would actually support the indiscriminate nuking of “an entire subcontinent” – really? Or are you simply using this to evade the finer points of war that I have been trying to make here... including the methods by which we interrogate illegal enemy combatants.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Where on earth do you see me expressing a desire for vengeance??? Does no one read my fucking posts???

"Turn it to glass". The fact that you are so happy to torture these people against international law.

Again, the fact that you would say I’m “happy” about so-called torture or that I’m out for “vengeance” shows that you are yourself engaging in hyperbole.

Let us debate this like serious adults.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I am not suggesting "vengeance" or "an eye-for-an-eye." I am suggesting that we stop hand-cuffing our troops and putting them in harms way by waging war in such a way as benefits our enemy and prevents us from effectively prosecuting war against them.

Screw international law? You want to make more enemies? Seriously, I have to ask myself whether you want the rest of the world to hate your country. Clearly people like Grubber next door do, because they get a kick out of your country being loathed so that you always have an enemy to focus on.

I’m repeating myself at this point, but I will say again that no matter WHAT we do in the prosecution of this war we will be hated by the enemy and the rest of the world that supports that enemy. If we are compassionate and caring, the enemy will hate us. If we are brutal and effective, the enemy will still hate us, but they will respect and fear us. THAT, my friend, is how you want your enemies to view you. You do not wage war to make friends – you wage war to WIN. There will be time enough for compassion once the war is won.

Since WWII the world has looked to America to do all the heavy lifting in any conflict around the world. And it would seem that no matter what we do, all that is returned is scorn, criticism and hatred from the very people who should be thanking us for our sacrifices. I take no pleasure in having the world’s enmity focused on America, but I cannot help but believe that this is not only undeserved, it has its genesis in petty jealousies. No nation is perfect, but America has been a force for a tremendous amount of good in the world and does not deserve, despite those imperfections, the scorn it is shown by international bodies like the UN (who welcomes dictators and tyrants), or other nations who have so benefited by American generosity and defense.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:America has a long tradition of treating former enemies with the utmost kindness - helping them to rebuild their countries devastated by war. That can hardly be called "an-eye-for-an-eye."

I know that and the western world knows that but third world countries with there lower living standards, lack of free access to information and lower levels of education aren't going to know that. They are only going to see what happens in front of their eyes and if your soldiers are breaking international law and being allowed to get away with it, the insurgents in those countries are going to play on that. That is why we in the west must adhere to international law and promote impeccable standards.

It does not matter what we do, the enemy is going easily propagandize these populations because they will NEVER see the good we do for the very reasons you cite. We can adhere to international law all day long and the enemy will only exploit that to drag that war out to the extreme detriment of the very people we are trying to help. It is naïve to think that it is only violations of international law that is driving our enemies in this fight.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:You forget, I have a son and 2 nephews in this war. I would MUCH rather that it be over and done with. I am NO fan of war. But if we are going to go to war, then we should go to war and not play around with the lives of our soldiers in the interests of political-correctness or stupid politicians who only use that war as a means of gaining political advantage.

No I haven't forgotten but I find your posts a little too jingoistic for my tastes and in this issue, as with several others I could mention, you are letting your prejudices cloud your judgement.

Jingoistic now??? Really??? For crying out loud Matt, let’s have a serious debate here already. I am suggesting that we rethink how we wage a war against an enemy who does not respect or abide by international law and rather uses it as a tool against their enemies to drag that war out to the detriment of all! How is that jingoism??? You know America isn’t the only country with soldiers in this war.

And my judgment is not clouded by prejudice, but is sharpened by a keen observation of the facts on the ground and a good knowledge of the enemy and of history.

dblboggie wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:None of that is any excuse to act like animals.

Waterboarding 3 key war criminals is not acting like animals.

Ok... it is described as torture as per the definition I gave and that is against international law. Now, you can argue that you would like to withdraw from that so you can happily torture these people but until you do, you are breaking the international law that you signed up to.

First of all, no one is “happily” torturing anyone.

Secondly, as per the definition, giving a person a life sentence without possibility of parole could be easily classified as torture as it causes “severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,’ and it is “intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed...”

Under such a broad definition nearly anything could be called torture and the law is ludicrous on its face because of that. Small wonder Bush’s attorneys found waterboarding legal.

That's the point to avoid the sort of loopholes you are trying to create here.

dblboggie wrote:And yet again, my point stands, we were not “acting like an animal” as you so dramatically put it. We happen to disagree on the definition of torture. And it would appear that the lawyers that interpreted this “law” you keep referring to also disagreed with what could be called “torture.”

Waterboarding fits that description and it is illegal under the law that both of our countries signed up to.

dblboggie wrote:You are not getting the point here, clearly. It’s not about being “bigger than these terrorist groups” my friend. It’s about the messages one sends to them when we take a position that they perceive as weakness – a position that only encourages them to continue to wage a bloody war against the West.

The end justifies the means for you, again? Torture is illegal under the international law that both of our countries signed up to. I'm sorry I have to keep repeating myself but it is an issue you keep trying to wriggle out of.

dblboggie wrote:What you suggest is that we overlook the very real and deadly consequences we accrue when we ignore how we are perceived by our enemies. How effective would such a strategy be on a live battlefield?

We are in this mess because of how the enemy perceive us, a brutal, cold money-obsessed inhumane set of nations who oppress Muslims because they are Muslims.

dblboggie wrote:Honestly Matt, you are not thinking about this strategically! Have you never read Sun Tzu or Carl von Clausewitz?

There is more to the problem than simply how we conduct ourselves in battle. Of course there is an element of jihad against the unbelievers regardless, and some misguided notion of revenge for the crusades but at the same time both of our countries have made some pretty big mistakes in how we have instilled and funded dictators in these countries. We need to recognise the problem we have created. "Hearts and minds" are not won by waving guns around.

dblboggie wrote:My position on this is not born out of a “disgust of Islam” as you suggest.

Considering your blatant attempts to whitewash Christianity as almost entirely good with a few rogue elements, Islam seems to get the opposite treatment. For you there seems to be nothing positive in the way you perceive it, that it is entirely bad. How is this not disgust?

dblboggie wrote:In fact, I would submit that your passivism is clouding your judgment.

I am not a pacifist otherwise I could not in good conscience do the job I am currently doing. If you read my post you will see that I said that war was "sometimes necessary and always regretful". I find something distasteful in the "do unto others before they do unto you" and the whole "they started it!" approach because ultimately both positions are destructive.

dblboggie wrote:when all this is said and done, this enemy does not value compassion and mercy and views these things as a weakness to be exploited. And they have shown a great willingness to exploit those characteristics in the West by waging war from hospitals, mosques, schools, and crowed civilian neighborhoods which endanger our troops thanks to their ROI, and gives them the distinct advantage and allows them to drag this war out for years – or until the West gives up and leaves – which then leaves them free to pursue their true objectives.

We must be better than that or we become as bad as them and then it becomes about two bullies slugging it out to find who is the bigger bully.

dblboggie wrote:You mistake confronting reality with callousness or a lack of compassion. But I would submit that not confronting reality is the least compassionate thing one could do.

No, I identify emotional argument for the destructive force that it is.

dblboggie wrote:Again, war is hell. It is supposed to be.

That isn't the point. The point is the international conventions that we signed up to.

dblboggie wrote:The way we are waging war today is only drawing that hell out for an indefinite period and has done nothing to discourage our enemies from continuing to wage it. How compassionate is that?

Because we signed up to international conventions on good conduct during war time.

dblboggie wrote:I am not saying we are completely innocent, I am saying that the position I have taken at the start of this debate is not “living by the sword.”

When you throw all standards out of the window, including international law and coventions about wartime conduct, you leave yourself open to a slippery slope. Where does it end if we, the enlightened west are not prepared to honour the international laws we created? Don't you see how destructive your position is.

dblboggie wrote:The war Saddam launched against Kuwait and the war we waged against him was not the result of a “determination to see ‘enemies of democracy’ everywhere.” Saddam’s continued refusal to abide by the terms of the ceasefire for 12 years and the resumption of hostilities that culminated in was not the result of a “determination to see ‘enemies of democracy’ everywhere.”

Personally I still agree that invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do, even if the war has been badly managed in so many ways. Iraq is a different kettle of fish. Our governments lied to us about WMDs, about Saddam's support for Al Qaeda and his ambitions for the middle east. Whitewash it all you like, but we went to war there on lies. The problem was created when Saddam was not removed from power 20 years ago. That was the mistake of the UN but two wrongs to not make a right.

dblboggie wrote:The fact that you would take what was obvious hyperbole never intended as a serious position and then turn that out here shows you are not seriously debating me here.

Perhaps it is my sense of humour, but I do not find hyperbole about nuclear attacks particularly amusing; if anything it is distasteful and even more so when it is suggested as the only answer to problems over a wide geographic area.

dblboggie wrote:Did you really think that I would actually support the indiscriminate nuking of “an entire subcontinent”

I don't know, you tell me. You suggested it several times.

dblboggie wrote:Again, the fact that you would say I’m “happy” about so-called torture or that I’m out for “vengeance” shows that you are yourself engaging in hyperbole.

You are happy to break international convention that both our countries signed up to because of a terrorist attack 9 years ago. You clearly dislike all muslims. Despite all of the attacks in this country by the IRA over decades I could never condone torture. Not just because it is illegal under international conventions, but because we ought to rise above our enemies in order to prove them wrong. But if you want to appear the bully and alienate practically everybody, then carry on. You will gain no sympathy from the international community when you are determined to push yourself as the bigger bully.

dblboggie wrote:I’m repeating myself at this point, but I will say again that no matter WHAT we do in the prosecution of this war we will be hated by the enemy and the rest of the world that supports that enemy. If we are compassionate and caring, the enemy will hate us. If we are brutal and effective, the enemy will still hate us, but they will respect and fear us. THAT, my friend, is how you want your enemies to view you.

I think Churchill would disagree. Fighting is only half the war.

dblboggie wrote:Since WWII the world has looked to America to do all the heavy lifting in any conflict around the world.

But your history has not been impeccable, and your steadfast refusal to acknowledge it is partly your undoing. "Might is right" and the associated pride has led to the downfall of so many dominant empires

dblboggie wrote:And it would seem that no matter what we do, all that is returned is scorn, criticism and hatred from the very people who should be thanking us for our sacrifices.

Yeah, that's part of the problem. When you say stuff like this, sounds as if you expect to be worshipped and for people to overlook your errors.

dblboggie wrote:I take no pleasure in having the world’s enmity focused on America, but I cannot help but believe that this is not only undeserved, it has its genesis in petty jealousies.

Of course. It is the same throughout history.

dblboggie wrote:No nation is perfect, but America has been a force for a tremendous amount of good in the world and does not deserve, despite those imperfections, the scorn it is shown by international bodies like the UN (who welcomes dictators and tyrants), or other nations who have so benefited by American generosity and defense.

So has your country and mine.

dblboggie wrote:It does not matter what we do, the enemy is going easily propagandize these populations because they will NEVER see the good we do for the very reasons you cite.

All the more reason to have the impeccable standards we have attempted to set down in the Geneva Convention and other international laws.

dblboggie wrote:We can adhere to international law all day long and the enemy will only exploit that to drag that war out to the extreme detriment of the very people we are trying to help. It is naïve to think that it is only violations of international law that is driving our enemies in this fight.

I disagree. The reason most people are drawn to Islamism is, yes partly because of their propaganda, but also because of things you have done. Afghanistan is a problem now because Bin Laden was funded and trained by your and our special forces to combat Soviet expansion. Fighting fire with fire and lo and behold, we got burnt. You must acknowledge these issues and put your hands up to them otherwise you will not be respected. Respect is earned not produced by waving guns at people.

dblboggie wrote:Jingoistic now??? Really??? For crying out loud Matt, let’s have a serious debate here already. I am suggesting that we rethink how we wage a war against an enemy who does not respect or abide by international law and rather uses it as a tool against their enemies to drag that war out to the detriment of all! How is that jingoism???

You seem to want your country to be perceived as a bully. You want to break international convention when it suits. Your overall attitude seems to be "we are America, we can do what we please". That is jingoistic and it is dangerous.

dblboggie wrote:And my judgment is not clouded by prejudice, but is sharpened by a keen observation of the facts on the ground and a good knowledge of the enemy and of history.

Yet whenever I bring up examples from history to support my point you say "oh I don't know anything about that" and fail to give your own examples.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:None of that is any excuse to act like animals.

Waterboarding 3 key war criminals is not acting like animals.

Ok... it is described as torture as per the definition I gave and that is against international law. Now, you can argue that you would like to withdraw from that so you can happily torture these people but until you do, you are breaking the international law that you signed up to.

First of all, no one is “happily” torturing anyone.

Secondly, as per the definition, giving a person a life sentence without possibility of parole could be easily classified as torture as it causes “severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,’ and it is “intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed...”

Under such a broad definition nearly anything could be called torture and the law is ludicrous on its face because of that. Small wonder Bush’s attorneys found waterboarding legal.

That's the point to avoid the sort of loopholes you are trying to create here.

Really? So the point is to create a definition so broad that any activity can be interpreted as torture by the international community? This sounds like its own loophole. It is insanity. Words MUST mean things, specific things. Creating a definition of torture that is so broad that literally any form of justice could be deemed torture is itself open to abuse.

As such, your justification for the broadness of that definition makes no logical sense.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:And yet again, my point stands, we were not “acting like an animal” as you so dramatically put it. We happen to disagree on the definition of torture. And it would appear that the lawyers that interpreted this “law” you keep referring to also disagreed with what could be called “torture.”

Waterboarding fits that description and it is illegal under the law that both of our countries signed up to.

Again, that is your interpretation, but that is all that it is, an interpretation.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:You are not getting the point here, clearly. It’s not about being “bigger than these terrorist groups” my friend. It’s about the messages one sends to them when we take a position that they perceive as weakness – a position that only encourages them to continue to wage a bloody war against the West.

The end justifies the means for you, again? Torture is illegal under the international law that both of our countries signed up to. I'm sorry I have to keep repeating myself but it is an issue you keep trying to wriggle out of.

And waterboarding is not, in my humble opinion, torture – and that is a point you keep ignoring by pointing to a “law” that could call any act of justice “torture.” I do not qualify as “torture” something we expose our own soldiers to. Is it unpleasant, does it cause distress, is it dangerous? Yes! So is fighting on the battlefield. So is boot camp. So is just going to jail, where one is exposed to all sorts of abuses by fellow prisoners. But, should we call it “torture?” NO!

I am not trying to “wriggle” out of anything. The law is flat-out defective, and it should be revisited and revised if people are going to try and classify waterboarding as torture.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:What you suggest is that we overlook the very real and deadly consequences we accrue when we ignore how we are perceived by our enemies. How effective would such a strategy be on a live battlefield?

We are in this mess because of how the enemy perceive us, a brutal, cold money-obsessed inhumane set of nations who oppress Muslims because they are Muslims.

You are quite wrong here. We are in this mess because fundamentalist Islamists have NEVER given up on accomplishing the commands of the Qur’an to ”Fight against them (unbelievers) until there is no dissension, and the religion is for Allah.” Fight until no other religion exists but Islam.” (2:193)

We ignore this simple truth at our own peril. Taking your tack has never resulted in eliminating or even quelling terrorism. The enemy perceives ANYONE who is not Muslim as evil and an enemy to be converted or vanquished. The quote above should make that all too clear. These other things you mention are mere justifications used by these fundamentalists to weaken Western resolve by making them feel guilty. These fundamentalists are extremely clever at the game of propaganda and are very much adept at exploiting what they perceive to be the weaknesses of Western societies.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Honestly Matt, you are not thinking about this strategically! Have you never read Sun Tzu or Carl von Clausewitz?

There is more to the problem than simply how we conduct ourselves in battle. Of course there is an element of jihad against the unbelievers regardless, and some misguided notion of revenge for the crusades but at the same time both of our countries have made some pretty big mistakes in how we have instilled and funded dictators in these countries. We need to recognise the problem we have created. "Hearts and minds" are not won by waving guns around.

Of course we have made mistakes; we will always make mistakes because we are only human. But the driving force behind fundamentalist Islamists has nothing to do with those mistakes. Yes, they have exploited those mistakes to their advantage, but if we do not realize exactly WHY they are at war against the West, we will continue to take actions out of guilt which do nothing to quell the violence, but will actually encourage an escalation of that violence.

What you suggest, a “hearts and minds” campaign will not change the minds of the fundamentalists. You could possibly argue that it might narrow their recruiting pool, but that would be contingent on that “hearts and minds” campaign being fairly represented to the target audiences. What channels of communication do these audiences utilize? The very same channels utilized by fundamentalist Islamists, who have in the past thwarted any such campaigns by propagandizing them.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:My position on this is not born out of a “disgust of Islam” as you suggest.

Considering your blatant attempts to whitewash Christianity as almost entirely good with a few rogue elements, Islam seems to get the opposite treatment. For you there seems to be nothing positive in the way you perceive it, that it is entirely bad. How is this not disgust?

Well, let us examine the record. How well has freedom faired under Islamist rule? Where do we find the vast majority of conflict and intolerance in the world today? Do we see Christians and Jews burning down or destroying mosques and killing Muslims in these countries that incorporate the Qur’an in their constitutions? In those countries that are majority Muslim, other religions are either barely tolerated, or are openly persecuted, if not by the government, then with government officials turning a blind eye toward fundamentalist’s attacks of those not Muslim. You know, if you are being honest about this, that in many of these Muslim countries, those of other religions are not treated with the same tolerance or given the same freedoms as Muslims have in the West.

And this is not disgust, this is just the truth. There are countless millions of Muslims living in relative peace and who want no truck with the fundamentalists within their religion, but sadly those moderates are not the Imams or the ones in power.

By the way, I have not characterized Christianity as “almost entirely good.” I have, in fact, spoken of the civilizing influences of religion at large in Western societies. And this would be true even in some Muslim countries. There are some largely peaceful Muslim countries out there after all. But these do not support a strict orthodox observance of the Qur’an and Sunnah.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:In fact, I would submit that your passivism is clouding your judgment.

I am not a pacifist otherwise I could not in good conscience do the job I am currently doing. If you read my post you will see that I said that war was "sometimes necessary and always regretful". I find something distasteful in the "do unto others before they do unto you" and the whole "they started it!" approach because ultimately both positions are destructive.

Well then I would submit that you find fighting an effective war distasteful. And truth be told, fighting ANY war is distasteful and a sad comment on human nature.

But if one must go to war, then one should do everything humanly possible to make it as short a war as possible, so as to limit human suffering and misery. The sooner a war is won and done, the sooner the humanitarian efforts can get underway to give a hand up to those who neither wanted the war, nor participated in it.

And the whole “they started it” thing is supposed to mean what? That it is childish to go to war against an enemy that has declared it against you and launched attacks against you? What, we should say “Look, I know you are killing our people and have declared war against us, but we’re not going to play that game, so go on and keep killing our people, but we’re not going do anything about it.”

They declared war against America and made it clear they were serious by killing hundreds of US citizens over 30 years. How long should we turn the other cheek? Till we have no cheeks left?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:when all this is said and done, this enemy does not value compassion and mercy and views these things as a weakness to be exploited. And they have shown a great willingness to exploit those characteristics in the West by waging war from hospitals, mosques, schools, and crowed civilian neighborhoods which endanger our troops thanks to their ROI, and gives them the distinct advantage and allows them to drag this war out for years – or until the West gives up and leaves – which then leaves them free to pursue their true objectives.

We must be better than that or we become as bad as them and then it becomes about two bullies slugging it out to find who is the bigger bully.

I am not saying this to be mean, but this is just naïve. War is ALWAYS about who can field the bigger, or more powerful force. War is all about FORCE! It is about killing the enemy in sufficient numbers as to FORCE surrender. War is ugly. It is among the worst manifestations of human nature. Yes, they are sometimes regrettably necessary. But when they are, we should wage them with the objective of winning decisively as quickly as possible.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:You mistake confronting reality with callousness or a lack of compassion. But I would submit that not confronting reality is the least compassionate thing one could do.

No, I identify emotional argument for the destructive force that it is.

In my view, the emotional argument being made here is yours. War is ALWAYS destructive. Hell, that is the job of soldiers, to “kill people and break stuff” to borrow a phrase from fellow soldiers in command. The emotional arguments are the purview of politicians, not soldiers.

My argument is quite simple and based in reality. If we are going to go to war, then we should go to war to win, and win as quickly as possible. There is no excuse that we are still at war 9 years later against an enemy force that is far inferior to ours. The only reason this is the current state of affairs is because we are fighting some clearly unworkable hybrid style of war which has only resulted in extending the misery of warfare for all sides.

How is that compassionate?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Again, war is hell. It is supposed to be.

That isn't the point. The point is the international conventions that we signed up to.

No, the point is that if we are going to go to war, then we should go to war to win, and quickly!

Yes, we have attempted to civilize war somewhat through these conventions, and in say WWII, both America and Germany (save that whole holocaust thing), treated each others prisoners in a civilized fashion, and neither side used WMD’s (gas). These sorts of conventions are a good thing, while not handcuffing either side from waging war.

What we have today must be seriously reviewed. It is not humane that a war go for almost a decade with no end in sight. Something is seriously amiss.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:The way we are waging war today is only drawing that hell out for an indefinite period and has done nothing to discourage our enemies from continuing to wage it. How compassionate is that?

Because we signed up to international conventions on good conduct during war time.

That does not answer my question.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I am not saying we are completely innocent, I am saying that the position I have taken at the start of this debate is not “living by the sword.”

When you throw all standards out of the window, including international law and coventions about wartime conduct, you leave yourself open to a slippery slope. Where does it end if we, the enlightened west are not prepared to honour the international laws we created? Don't you see how destructive your position is.

I am not talking about throwing all standards out the window. This sort of argument is called a black-or-white fallacy. You should know better. I have never advocated throwing “all standards out of the window.”

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:The war Saddam launched against Kuwait and the war we waged against him was not the result of a “determination to see ‘enemies of democracy’ everywhere.” Saddam’s continued refusal to abide by the terms of the ceasefire for 12 years and the resumption of hostilities that culminated in was not the result of a “determination to see ‘enemies of democracy’ everywhere.”

Personally I still agree that invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do, even if the war has been badly managed in so many ways. Iraq is a different kettle of fish. Our governments lied to us about WMDs, about Saddam's support for Al Qaeda and his ambitions for the middle east. Whitewash it all you like, but we went to war there on lies. The problem was created when Saddam was not removed from power 20 years ago. That was the mistake of the UN but two wrongs to not make a right.

That is not true. Every intelligence agency in the coalition said that Saddam had WMD’s. Saddam himself spent 12 years thwarting UN weapons inspectors, something an innocent person does not do. Saddam had ACTUALLY USED WMD’s against the Iranians and his own people. Now, what sort of conclusion would a sane person come to if push came to shove and you had to make a decision with imperfect and incomplete information (which, oh btw IS the job of any executive because one RARELY has all the information one would like) as to whether Saddam had WMD’s or not? You are the chief executive, you check off the list,

1. Used WMD’s multiple times...
2. Obviously had the knowledge and means of producing WMD’s...
3. Had a nuclear program (the Israelis bombed it)...
4. Had nuclear, biological and chemical precursors...
5. Had attacked 2 neighbors (Iran and Kuwait)...
6. Refused steadfastly to adhere to the UN conditions for the cease fire (transparent and complete dismantling of his WMD programs) and did everything he could to evade it...
7. Had at least 2 proven terrorist training camps in his country...
8. Had provided material support ($30,000) to the families of suicide bombers...

The official government policy for Iraq had been regime change since Bill Clinton made it so.

Now, in a world where terrorists would fly planes into buildings, followed by anthrax attacks of unknown origin, what would you do?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:The fact that you would take what was obvious hyperbole never intended as a serious position and then turn that out here shows you are not seriously debating me here.

Perhaps it is my sense of humour, but I do not find hyperbole about nuclear attacks particularly amusing; if anything it is distasteful and even more so when it is suggested as the only answer to problems over a wide geographic area.

To each their own I guess.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Did you really think that I would actually support the indiscriminate nuking of “an entire subcontinent”

I don't know, you tell me. You suggested it several times.

No, I would not.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Again, the fact that you would say I’m “happy” about so-called torture or that I’m out for “vengeance” shows that you are yourself engaging in hyperbole.

You are happy to break international convention that both our countries signed up to because of a terrorist attack 9 years ago. You clearly dislike all muslims. Despite all of the attacks in this country by the IRA over decades I could never condone torture. Not just because it is illegal under international conventions, but because we ought to rise above our enemies in order to prove them wrong. But if you want to appear the bully and alienate practically everybody, then carry on. You will gain no sympathy from the international community when you are determined to push yourself as the bigger bully.

Really? And just where have I said I dislike all Muslims? I will address the rest of your mistaken assumptions when you address this.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I’m repeating myself at this point, but I will say again that no matter WHAT we do in the prosecution of this war we will be hated by the enemy and the rest of the world that supports that enemy. If we are compassionate and caring, the enemy will hate us. If we are brutal and effective, the enemy will still hate us, but they will respect and fear us. THAT, my friend, is how you want your enemies to view you.

I think Churchill would disagree. Fighting is only half the war.

Oh really? Only half? And where did you come up with this formula?

It is certainly true that fighting is not all that war is. There are many things required including production capacity for the weapons of war, material to make those weapons, logistics to get weapons and troops where needed, intelligence on the enemy, strategies for dealing with the enemy, tactics for the battlefield, recruitment of those who will do the fighting, and funding all of these activities.

Is there something I’m leaving out?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Since WWII the world has looked to America to do all the heavy lifting in any conflict around the world.

But your history has not been impeccable, and your steadfast refusal to acknowledge it is partly your undoing. "Might is right" and the associated pride has led to the downfall of so many dominant empires

Nobody’s history has been impeccable. Where have I ever said otherwise? You are assuming facts not in evidence.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:And it would seem that no matter what we do, all that is returned is scorn, criticism and hatred from the very people who should be thanking us for our sacrifices.

Yeah, that's part of the problem. When you say stuff like this, sounds as if you expect to be worshipped and for people to overlook your errors.

No, I do not expect to be worshipped. But I also don’t expect to be constantly attacked and scorned either. If we make errors, fine, point them out. But it has gone well beyond that as you well know.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I take no pleasure in having the world’s enmity focused on America, but I cannot help but believe that this is not only undeserved, it has its genesis in petty jealousies.

Of course. It is the same throughout history.

Tis true indeed.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:No nation is perfect, but America has been a force for a tremendous amount of good in the world and does not deserve, despite those imperfections, the scorn it is shown by international bodies like the UN (who welcomes dictators and tyrants), or other nations who have so benefited by American generosity and defense.

So has your country and mine.

Again, no argument from me.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:It does not matter what we do, the enemy is going easily propagandize these populations because they will NEVER see the good we do for the very reasons you cite.

All the more reason to have the impeccable standards we have attempted to set down in the Geneva Convention and other international laws.

No, it is not all the more reason to have impeccable standards, because those standards will never been seen. The reason to have impeccable standards must not be based on placating others, but rather based on the reason that it is the right thing to do.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:We can adhere to international law all day long and the enemy will only exploit that to drag that war out to the extreme detriment of the very people we are trying to help. It is naïve to think that it is only violations of international law that is driving our enemies in this fight.

I disagree. The reason most people are drawn to Islamism is, yes partly because of their propaganda, but also because of things you have done. Afghanistan is a problem now because Bin Laden was funded and trained by your and our special forces to combat Soviet expansion. Fighting fire with fire and lo and behold, we got burnt. You must acknowledge these issues and put your hands up to them otherwise you will not be respected. Respect is earned not produced by waving guns at people.

You obviously do not understand the mindset of the enemy we face. Force and strength is all they respect.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Jingoistic now??? Really??? For crying out loud Matt, let’s have a serious debate here already. I am suggesting that we rethink how we wage a war against an enemy who does not respect or abide by international law and rather uses it as a tool against their enemies to drag that war out to the detriment of all! How is that jingoism???

You seem to want your country to be perceived as a bully. You want to break international convention when it suits. Your overall attitude seems to be "we are America, we can do what we please". That is jingoistic and it is dangerous.

First of all, you keep using this word bully. We are not children in a school yard. We are fighting a WAR!!! For crying out loud man, it is WAR!!! We are out to KILL the enemy, not shove them to the ground and take their lunch money.

And guess what, WAR IS DANGEROUS, and very hazardous to one’s health. You know what’s more dangerous? Fighting a war half-heartedly, THAT is more dangerous.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:And my judgment is not clouded by prejudice, but is sharpened by a keen observation of the facts on the ground and a good knowledge of the enemy and of history.

Yet whenever I bring up examples from history to support my point you say "oh I don't know anything about that" and fail to give your own examples.

What points from history have you brought up that support your point?

There is no justification for torturing other human beings. None. Nor is there any reason to suppose that there are any tangible benefits from carrying out such an activity.

War is hell. It is supposed to be on purpose and a discouragement against so readily waging it.

War is hell in its very nature - not by design to stop people from engaging in it. War is not, however, an excuse to abandon all pretence of civilisation, nor does it give any side carte blanche to ignore basic human rights.

Once you begin to consider morality an acceptable casualty of war, as collateral damage - then there's nothing left worth fighting for.

Fight fire with fire? You end up with nothing but scorched earth and burnt flesh.