Trump's vile candidacy is chemotherapy for the GOP

[alexava 6,977]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

Your last sentence reveals your need to educate yourself on this subject.

Indulging in emotional hypotheticals doesn't help.

I educated myself on alternative techniques and my opinion is the same. It depends on how critical time is and the degree of certainty you have that the person has the info. Jack Bauer the bastard! 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Perhaps we are all missing a larger point?  Maybe torture is less the question than, what is the real use, real nature, of war?

Is war suppose to be nice, neat, clean, with a sense of humanity?  Is war really an extension of diplomacy, politics, policing?

Perhaps we should examine the meanings of words, war and torture with context.  Perhaps, everyone is right and yet, everyone is wrong because, the discussion lacks requisite context.

IMHO, it's really more about defining war, in real terms and, in terms of our collective resolve.  And particularly in the terms of, not what will you send the children of others' to kill and die for but rather, what would you send your own children to kill and die for.  In my mind, we must truly believe that our sovereignty is at stake.  In my mind, you can not justify "war" as preemptively protecting sovereignty, only directly.  Going to war to, "prevent a war" seems absurd.  You can not get caught up in the, who was right, Chamberlain or Churchill.  World War II wasn't about that.  It was about Hitler and the Nazis and, the necessary resolve to defeat them.  Not the resolve of a single man, the resolve of many, many men and women.  That resolve could not be dictated, legislated, or manufactured.  

The issue isn't torture.  The real issue is going into Iraq for a fictional cause.  I doubt this conversation would occur otherwise.  And maybe in the proper context, Lyin' Weasel is more right than wrong?

 

[channonc 466]

After Torture, Ex-Detainee is Still Captive of "The Darkness"

[alexava 6,977]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

Perhaps we are all missing a larger point?  Maybe torture is less the question than, what is the real use, real nature, of war?

Is war suppose to be nice, neat, clean, with a sense of humanity?  Is war really an extension of diplomacy, politics, policing?

Perhaps we should examine the meanings of words, war and torture with context.  Perhaps, everyone is right and yet, everyone is wrong because, the discussion lacks requisite context.

IMHO, it's really more about defining war, in real terms and, in terms of our collective resolve.  And particularly in the terms of, not what will you send the children of others' to kill and die for but rather, what would you send your own children to kill and die for.  In my mind, we must truly believe that our sovereignty is at stake.  In my mind, you can not justify "war" as preemptively protecting sovereignty, only directly.  Going to war to, "prevent a war" seems absurd.  You can not get caught up in the, who was right, Chamberlain or Churchill.  World War II wasn't about that.  It was about Hitler and the Nazis and, the necessary resolve to defeat them.  Not the resolve of a single man, the resolve of many, many men and women.  That resolve could not be dictated, legislated, or manufactured.  

The issue isn't torture.  The real issue is going into Iraq for a fictional cause.  I doubt this conversation would occur otherwise.  And maybe in the proper context, Lyin' Weasel is more right than wrong?

 

Nice comments. I don't consider what we are doing now "war" or our actions under sanction of Geneva Rules... As we are opposing terror organizations rather than a state sponsored military. Although it may be because we toppled the sovereign military.......the more i type the more clear it becomes how absurd the Iraq invasion was.