Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You are proposing a rule. You can't ignore the practicalities. By saying "this is just theoretical" you are basically saying "OK, in real life, I'm full of shit and my theory sucks." That would be "backing off."

I would give you the ass toys, if I didn't think that was gross. I think it's good to explore.

I'm exploring the moral dillema. The morality should be determined first. Rules can come later.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm exploring the moral dillema. The morality should be determined first. Rules can come later.

OK, well, we have found that pretty much anything can be done to someone who is "guilty."

Now you need the rules as to determining "guilty" and how you deal with the whole escalation thing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Quagmire! No blood for oil! Democracy is a western construct, and it's racist for us to impose it on others!

Sorry I wasn't around today -- thanks for covering for me.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
if the insurgents capture an American soldier and he won't give up all the info he knows, it's OK to sodomize him?

Well, they'll chop off his head. where do you put that on your scale?

Look- this is my thread. The UN abdicated its duty. If not for the duty dodging, quite likely influenced by Iraq oil $$$, the untrained Nat. Guards that did most of this would be giving roofies to your sister back in Omaha. Where is the indignation over the UN and its role? Where is the recognition that Kerry was/is a fucking idiot for bringing up the UN as having a role in what WE should do?

We are not involved in a game here- this is struggle for the world our children will live in. Fringe- your great grand daughter- do you want her to go to school?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
We are not involved in a game here- this is struggle for the world our children will live in. Fringe- your great grand daughter- do you want her to go to school?

It's about your descendents -- and Eva's -- I'm not breeding.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It's about your descendents -- and Eva's -- I'm not breeding.

okay- when YOU retire- do you want to be able to take elder hostel courses or do you want that forbidden by mohammed???

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
okay- when YOU retire- do you want to be able to take elder hostel courses or do you want that forbidden by mohammed???

I plan to off myself at early signs of weakness. Which is why that "beheaded, or tortured?" question is not a good one to ask me.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I plan to off myself at early signs of weakness.

It pains me to say this, but I think lately you've been backing down and being too concilatory to the numb-brains on FB. I think you will come back, but be careful.

if Slave can show you said you want out once you've become weak, and he can get testimony you've been weak- well that'll be one dead sock right quick- and I cannot visit a board that has no fringey.

[Spanky]

Am I naive or is this not reasonable:

1) Rape of anyone is never acceptible in any circumstances.

2) Innocent people (non-combatants) should never be tortured.

3) Torture of prisoner combatants should be avoided whenever possible. The only possible excuse for torture is that the prisoner combatant has information that is needed immediately to prevent harm to fellow combatants or innocents and the information can only be obtained through torture.

4) If extrating information is necessary:

a) Drugs and trickory or other methods should be tried first. For example threatening to use violence or other stuff against their family. But under no circumstances should stuff like that ever happen.

b) If torture is used, the physical abuse should be kept to a minimum. In other words use sleep deprivation, ridicule and starvation.

These rules hold true no matter what the enemy is doing to our prisoners.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Spanky

These rules hold true no matter what the enemy is doing to our prisoners.

If its not part of a deal that we feel we can hold others to later, than this might be considered naive. Its one thing if you are saying this is the way things should be from a moral perspective, regardless of what the enemy is doing to our prisoners and regardless of conventions and treaties and what not. Its another if you are saying this is the way things would be if there were no treaties and our people were subjected to stuff like this.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The only possible excuse for torture is that the prisoner combatant has information that is needed immediately to prevent harm to fellow combatants or innocents and the information can only be obtained through torture.

Proponents of torture always say, well what if you needed to torture a terrorist to figure out where he had stashed a nuclear bomb that was about to kill thousands of people? The suggestion is that if torture is OK in those hypothetical circumstances, then the rest of the conversation is just a difficult exercise in line-drawing, but that the question of principle has been answered.

The thing is, people get tortured because we -- "we" in the sense of the people in whose name others are getting tortured in Iraq and around the world -- don't know enough, not because we have certainty that we'll learn something specific and necessary. Most of the people in Abu Ghraib were innocent, according to military sources. The torture happens because we don't know much about the insurgency (e.g.) and we're desperate to learn. These hypotheticals make for interesting recollections of the first year of law school (speaking of torture...), but they get the basic situation wrong.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Proponents of torture always say, well what if you needed to torture a terrorist to figure out where he had stashed a nuclear bomb that was about to kill thousands of people? The suggestion is that if torture is OK in those hypothetical circumstances, then the rest of the conversation is just a difficult exercise in line-drawing, but that the question of principle has been answered.

The thing is, people get tortured because we -- "we" in the sense of the people in whose name others are getting tortured in Iraq and around the world -- don't know enough, not because we have certainty that we'll learn something specific and necessary. Most of the people in Abu Ghraib were innocent, according to military sources. The torture happens because we don't know much about the insurgency (e.g.) and we're desperate to learn. These hypotheticals make for interesting recollections of the first year of law school (speaking of torture...), but they get the basis situation wrong.

you were the sock that was certain the oil for food scandal was made up by that one guy- right?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you were the sock that was certain the oil for food scandal was made up by that one guy- right?

If you're looking for scandals, we can't account for nearly $9 billion of the money allocated for Iraq, twice the money involved in Oil for Food.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
If you're looking for scandals, we can't account for nearly $9 billion of the money allocated for Iraq, twice the money involved in Oil for Food.

I've already won this fight once- so I'll just say:
1 tie the money to a high US government official, and show how it probably changed policy
and
2 show that we hid it for years-

(PS oil for food was more than that)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you were the sock that was certain the oil for food scandal was made up by that one guy- right?

It's nice to see you paying such close attention to my posts, but it would be more gratifying if you understood them.