Leaked U.S. documents

" @SeriouslyNow said:

" @MikeinSC:  No Mike, saying that the Middle East should die because they hold nothing of worth is racist.  You actually said that.  People can look it up if you haven't ninja edited it away already.  You're full of bombast and right wing crazy sentiment.  You do nothing to further your ideas with logic but rather only with rabid, senseless vitriol.  You are a racist and a pretty nasty person to boot. "

Feel free to list their value. Misogyny? Check. Lots of that. Tyrannical regimes? Check. Hitler levels of anti-Semitism? Check. Slaughtering homosexuals for being gay? Check. A non-existent scientific community? Check. A non-existent literary community? Check.  Total religious intolerance? Check. Abuse of children? Check.  So, please, what part of this is the one you feel is so vital to humanity? I want us to get off oil entirely so we can happily ignore that horrific place. No good comes out of the Middle East. No good has come out of there for centuries now. "

" @MikeinSC said:

" @SeriouslyNow said:

" @MikeinSC:  No Mike, saying that the Middle East should die because they hold nothing of worth is racist.  You actually said that.  People can look it up if you haven't ninja edited it away already.  You're full of bombast and right wing crazy sentiment.  You do nothing to further your ideas with logic but rather only with rabid, senseless vitriol.  You are a racist and a pretty nasty person to boot. "

Feel free to list their value. Misogyny? Check. Lots of that. Tyrannical regimes? Check. Hitler levels of anti-Semitism? Check. Slaughtering homosexuals for being gay? Check. A non-existent scientific community? Check. A non-existent literary community? Check.  Total religious intolerance? Check. Abuse of children? Check.  So, please, what part of this is the one you feel is so vital to humanity? I want us to get off oil entirely so we can happily ignore that horrific place. No good comes out of the Middle East. No good has come out of there for centuries now. "

90% of those can be aimed at the Catholic Church too.  Should all Catholics die as well?    Go away you racist, ignorant waste of human flesh. "

beej, tl;dr

beej, tl;dr

The way the media and the U.S. Government continues to draw attention to the matter makes me think that the leaks are some sort of propaganda on their behalf.

ugh, look at those savage brown people... they have no sense of moral decency or honor, unlike myself 
*supports committing acts of mass genocide. does not see the contradiction due to severe case of retardation* 

" @MikeinSC:  I said I was going to ignore you, and that's a good tactic on pointless arguments. But I cannot allow the level of bigotry you represent to go unresponded to. Tragedies occur because people like me choose to just ignore people who say the things you say. I now have multiple responses each of which is relatively fatal to the position you advocate.
Argument from Simplification
your entire argument concerning why middle eastern lives have no value rests on a generalization. Namely that all middle eastern people have no scientific value, are anti semites... so on and so forth. The problem is that not all of them are necessarily this way, allow me to illustrate. Iran has a nuclear program, do you really think that they just magicked  that out of thin air or that they somehow created that with no scientific system? They have universities in middle eastern countries, not all of them are great but then again in countries like afghanistan we played a huge part in destroying their society. Or to illustrate another example, there are middle eastern anti Semites, and there are american anti Semites. But not everyone in either culture is anti Semitic. You then turn your perception of a group in an area into a rule for everyone in that area. But since this generalization doesn't apply to everyone and you are using it as the basis for why they should be punished, you are fundamentally destroying any precepts of justice that America holds. To summarize you cannot base a course of action concerning an entire group based off of generalizations and expect those actions to be reasonable or just.
 
Hope for Reform
As someone else already noted we have to give these countries time to reform. Offering a helping hand could even speed this process along. Look at Iran in the last election, there was a serious push for a more open democratic system. If we act as a friend to democracy in middle eastern countries  we could see genuine improvement.  The solution you offer (killing everyone?) is not only not possible but it wouldn't solve anything. At this point on both a theoretical and practical ground we have no reason to engage in your activities.
 
Argument from Human Rights
You mention that you like freedom, and that others must not since they don't want it that badly. You then go on to argue that the U.S. has no obligation to uphold rights structure for foreigners, and that basically they don't have access to those rights that we have. I'll give you the best benefit of the doubt and assume that you're taking this from a Kantian model of rights (namely that all rights are contractual) This model poses 2 problems for your theory.
1) Even if we do accept Kants model of rights then the united states is still obligated via its signing of the UN declaration of human rights. Therefore the Kantian model you follow should encourage us to respect human rights across the world.
2) The philosophical tradition of the United States (the system that gives you the freedom that you enjoy) is founded off of the notion of inalienable human rights. Both Locke and Rousseau argue that we have rights that aren't derived from the state. As such the freedom of the type you like so much in the United States obligates us to ensuring that we don't violate the human rights of anyone. (this doesn't necessitate us taking the role of global police. It does, however, require that we respect human rights for everyone in our activities)   This notion of rights structures that allows for rights that we have by our nature of being alive is so integral to almost everything we do that your position is rendered literally unintelligible in the modern world.  The basic precepts that helped form modern liberal governments for the most part requires this notion of human rights. Therefore any discussion regarding any activity concerning those governments requires an a priori agreement on our fundamental value set. You have to be able to disprove the notion of human rights, or an obligation to them, before you can argue that the united states ought to order itself as if human rights didn't exist. Definitionally you've failed to prove this point therefore any attack you level on these grounds is missing that fundamental proof that there are no human rights. Even if you do prove that then you are a massive hypocrite for living in a government that respects them. (see the 14th amendment) "

Yawn. You lack the ability to refute an argument, so you simply cry and whine and hope somebody pities you. A weak strategy. It doesn't matter if anybody who isn't American dies to me. I'm American. I don't CARE about anybody else. If the Brits wish to live in a Fascist society, well, that's their decision. I wouldn't go that route...but, hey, not everybody can handle the concept of freedom.  See, beej, for example. Clearly incapable of independent thought.  " Yes Mr. highly strung dysfunctional racist fuckhead. "  In what way is calling our current error-in-chief a low-level functional retard racist? It's simply a statement of fact. He's inept. He doesn't know what he's doing and that is becoming more and more apparent to anybody paying attention for the last 2 years.  But, hey, crying "Racist" at all criticism of Obama has worked wonders for you thus far. Keep it up. I bet it will work eventually... "

Oh America, everytime I think you've hit the bottom of barrel, you dig further down. Classic.

" ugh, look at those savage brown people... they have no sense of moral decency or honor, unlike myself *supports committing acts of mass genocide. does not see the contradiction due to severe case of retardation*  "

" These people should be prosecuted/imprisoned. National security is at stake. "

" @Aus_azn said:

" These people should be prosecuted/imprisoned. National security is at stake. "

Yeah? Can you point out some of the ways U.S. security has been hurt by these leaks? If so, is that damage greater than the benefit of the American people knowing what is going on in their government? I doubt it.  "

" @ryanwho: if it's tabloid level gossip then it can't really hurt things can it? So then the weighing mechanism of security Vs. openness would still encourage the information to be released. "

" @SeriouslyNow said:

" Have none of you wikileaks naysayers ever heard of Watergate or the Iran Contra scandals? Wake the fuck up please. "

Feel free to list any actual crimes broken in Iran/Contra. You won't be able to do so.  And to those who wish to believe Wikileaks is some nice organization seeking only to reveal malfeasance...they left the NY Times out of the leaks because Julian was mad about a profile in the NYT. So, the arrogant little shit is a hypocrite about what he believes.  Also, anybody who feels that we should use diplomacy more...care to reveal how leaking everything said to us by others will achieve that? "

" @GIVEMEREPLAY said:

" @Aus_azn said:

" These people should be prosecuted/imprisoned. National security is at stake. "

Yeah? Can you point out some of the ways U.S. security has been hurt by these leaks? If so, is that damage greater than the benefit of the American people knowing what is going on in their government? I doubt it.  "

I don't really know what's so beneficial about tabloid level gossip. "

" @ryanwho said:

" @GIVEMEREPLAY said:

" @Aus_azn said:

" These people should be prosecuted/imprisoned. National security is at stake. "

Yeah? Can you point out some of the ways U.S. security has been hurt by these leaks? If so, is that damage greater than the benefit of the American people knowing what is going on in their government? I doubt it.  "

I don't really know what's so beneficial about tabloid level gossip. "

Who started this bullshit rumor that it's gossip? When's the last time you read a tabloid? I think the revelation that Turkey supported Al Qaeda and we supported the PKK is very important when deciding who to vote for. I would not be inclined to support a candidate who is friendly towards a regime that is propping up Al Qaeda, and it will help us to understand a bit better if Turkey suddenly gets pissed at us regarding the PKK.   How about the fact that the CIA pressured Germany not to prosecute their agents over the kidnapping and torture of an innocent man? This is gossip?   "

" @MikeinSC:  No Mike, saying that the Middle East should die because they hold nothing of worth is racist.  You actually said that.  People can look it up if you haven't ninja edited it away already.  You're full of bombast and right wing crazy sentiment.  You do nothing to further your ideas with logic but rather only with rabid, senseless vitriol.  You are a racist and a pretty nasty person to boot. "

Don't worry man. I don't know if ryanwho has just soured towards the forums (or life in general) but as of late he's resorted to trolling and posting rhetorical nonsense instead of posting well thought out responses as he used to do. We miss you ryanwho, hope you get well soon! "

" @lazyturtle:@Liono88:  We need things like this to keep our government honest.  If you look through history, it's filled with people finding out wrongs that the government does and bring them to light.  Without people like this, we wouldn't know about the Tuskegee Experiments, The Iran-Contra scandal, Watergate, Extraordinary Rendition, Waterboarding, Abuse of prisoners, abuses of the patriot act.  Like it or not, it's organizations like these that keep us from being the real totalitarian state that 1984 warned us about.  I will not be part of the United States of Eurasia. "

I'm an Australian and I find it very insulting that what seems to mostly be the Republicans (I think of war when I hear their name) wanting to imprison Assange, the head of Wikileaks, who happens to be from Townsville, just a bit north from Brisbane where I live. What has the man actually done wrong? I am under the impression that in your country you have something called "freedom of speech" as well as "freedom of information", though I guess these don't apply when something is released that shames the government and their piss poor antics. Instead of getting up Assange's ass for spreading the truth, I encourage Americans to support Assange and challenge their political party's views on the situation. I saw that dumb ass woman from Alaska (Palin I think he name is?) calling him a terrorist. Some people sure do throw around that term loosely... Anyways, something is seriously wrong with America if there are legit calls to do anything to Assange. He's a hero. Not a criminal. Amazing how some people think they can find a way to blur the line between the two.

" @MikeinSC said:

Yawn. You lack the ability to refute an argument, so you simply cry and whine and hope somebody pities you. A weak strategy. It doesn't matter if anybody who isn't American dies to me. I'm American. I don't CARE about anybody else. If the Brits wish to live in a Fascist society, well, that's their decision. I wouldn't go that route...but, hey, not everybody can handle the concept of freedom.  See, beej, for example. Clearly incapable of independent thought.  " Yes Mr. highly strung dysfunctional racist fuckhead. "  In what way is calling our current error-in-chief a low-level functional retard racist? It's simply a statement of fact. He's inept. He doesn't know what he's doing and that is becoming more and more apparent to anybody paying attention for the last 2 years.  But, hey, crying "Racist" at all criticism of Obama has worked wonders for you thus far. Keep it up. I bet it will work eventually... "

That's right just TL;DR after claiming I had no ability to refute what you had to say. Brilliant work good sir, you truly are an argumentative genius.  Man good thing the liberal lie machine fed me all of those arguments since I'm incapable of independent thought.  Let me tell you life is tough when you're a mindless automaton.  "

" @MikeinSC said:

" @SeriouslyNow said:

" Have none of you wikileaks naysayers ever heard of Watergate or the Iran Contra scandals? Wake the fuck up please. "

Feel free to list any actual crimes broken in Iran/Contra. You won't be able to do so.  And to those who wish to believe Wikileaks is some nice organization seeking only to reveal malfeasance...they left the NY Times out of the leaks because Julian was mad about a profile in the NYT. So, the arrogant little shit is a hypocrite about what he believes.  Also, anybody who feels that we should use diplomacy more...care to reveal how leaking everything said to us by others will achieve that? "

?  Reagan and his administration ILLEGALLY circumvented the Boland Amendment so that they could continue supporting the Nicaraguan Contras. This doesn't even take into account the straight up illegal shit they did in Nicaragua (ie. they were promoting and facilitating acts of terrorism against Nicaragua).  I honestly have a tough time believing you are really THAT naive. In fact I'm so convinced of this that I'm also equally convinced that you're just a US shill. Careful now, don't gag on your own flaccid cock when you try to speak. "

You know, beej, you are right. I was unfair to this long post. So, I will respond. You can continue to think whatever you wish of me, but since you did make a post with apparently sincere thought, I will respond in kind.
 
@beej said: 
 
 "
" @MikeinSC:  I said I was going to ignore you, and that's a good tactic on pointless arguments. But I cannot allow the level of bigotry you represent to go unresponded to. Tragedies occur because people like me choose to just ignore people who say the things you say. I now have multiple responses each of which is relatively fatal to the position you advocate.
Argument from Simplification
your entire argument concerning why middle eastern lives have no value rests on a generalization. Namely that all middle eastern people have no scientific value" , are anti semites... so on and so forth. The problem is that not all of them are necessarily this way, allow me to illustrate. Iran has a nuclear program, do you really think that they just magicked  that out of thin air or that they somehow created that with no scientific system? They have universities in middle eastern countries, not all of them are great but then again in countries like afghanistan we played a huge part in destroying their society. Or to illustrate another example, there are middle eastern anti Semites, and there are american anti Semites. But not everyone in either culture is anti Semitic. You then turn your perception of a group in an area into a rule for everyone in that area. But since this generalization doesn't apply to everyone and you are using it as the basis for why they should be punished, you are fundamentally destroying any precepts of justice that America holds. To summarize you cannot base a course of action concerning an entire group based off of generalizations and expect those actions to be reasonable or just."
 
It should be noted that there is an amazing lack of any cultural achievements listed here. Any scientific achievements. Any literary achievements. That other anti-Semites exist, in your eyes, somehow justifies the Middle East, where children are taught that Jews are sub-humans who should be killed. So, with the anti-Semites in America, where in America is this routinely taught? Because it sounds a lot like you're making a rather weak argument of cultural relativism, which is a wee bit sad. It's similar to saying that a jaywalker and mass murderer are comparable since, hey, both committed crimes. Noting that their cultural output for centuries is basically non-existent is simple reality. And until THEY decide they wish to fix it, it's not our issue. It's their problem. People noticing that the Arab states have decided to abandon thought, science, literature, even history is not racism. It's factual reality.
 
As for developing a nuclear program, money and theft can overcome many shortcomings. Can you list the Nobel Prizes in anything besides Peace (which is a joke award as is) Arabs have won? What part of your life, outside of oil, was inspired by the Middle East that has profound meaning in your life? It might not be POLITE to notice it, but it doesn't make it not so. And being polite tends to not be terribly synonymous with opening up society. We have basically propped up the Saud family for decades. Can you name the benefits that has given us? They export the single most evil strain of Islam (Wahhabism) out there all over the world.
 
And are you aware of the history of Afghanistan? To call them dysfunctional is an insult to dysfunctionality.
 
" Hope for Reform
As someone else already noted we have to give these countries time to reform. Offering a helping hand could even speed this process along. Look at Iran in the last election, there was a serious push for a more open democratic system. If we act as a friend to democracy in middle eastern countries  we could see genuine improvement.  The solution you offer (killing everyone?) is not only not possible but it wouldn't solve anything. At this point on both a theoretical and practical ground we have no reason to engage in your activities. "
 
Feel free to name how long one should wait? Their society has basically ceased to do anything for centuries now. Yes, the last Iran election had people asking for a more open society. And, wow, it certainly achieved a lot, didn't it? If they open up, then we can take them seriously. Until then, they are good for oil and we should ignore them as much as humanly possible.  They aren't friends, allies, or anybody besides suppliers of a commodity.
 
I don't advocate killing anybody and it's not an accurate statement of my beliefs (and I do not deny I caused the misbelief, so it's not a complaint). If they wish to kill one another, however, we should get out of the way and let them (in Iraq, we should've just sealed the borders and let the barbarians slaughter one another). Reagan's second most brilliant foreign policy move was making sure the Iran/Iraq War went on for 8 years. 
 
" Argument from Human Rights
You mention that you like freedom, and that others must not since they don't want it that badly. You then go on to argue that the U.S. has no obligation to uphold rights structure for foreigners, and that basically they don't have access to those rights that we have. I'll give you the best benefit of the doubt and assume that you're taking this from a Kantian model of rights (namely that all rights are contractual) This model poses 2 problems for your theory.
1) Even if we do accept Kants model of rights then the united states is still obligated via its signing of the UN declaration of human rights. Therefore the Kantian model you follow should encourage us to respect human rights across the world. "
 
If somebody doesn't qualify for POW status under the Geneva Conventions, which none of the Gitmo detainees do, we owe them little. We treat them humanely, mind you, but we don't have to. We opt to do so. It's not the job of America to protect the rights of Iranians --- that is the job of Iranians. I will happily put up the human rights record of the US in opposition to any other country on Earth. 
 
"
2) The philosophical tradition of the United States (the system that gives you the freedom that you enjoy) is founded off of the notion of inalienable human rights. Both Locke and Rousseau argue that we have rights that aren't derived from the state. As such the freedom of the type you like so much in the United States obligates us to ensuring that we don't violate the human rights of anyone. (this doesn't necessitate us taking the role of global police. It does, however, require that we respect human rights for everyone in our activities)   This notion of rights structures that allows for rights that we have by our nature of being alive is so integral to almost everything we do that your position is rendered literally unintelligible in the modern world.  The basic precepts that helped form modern liberal governments for the most part requires this notion of human rights. Therefore any discussion regarding any activity concerning those governments requires an a priori agreement on our fundamental value set. You have to be able to disprove the notion of human rights, or an obligation to them, before you can argue that the united states ought to order itself as if human rights didn't exist. Definitionally you've failed to prove this point therefore any attack you level on these grounds is missing that fundamental proof that there are no human rights. Even if you do prove that then you are a massive hypocrite for living in a government that respects them. (see the 14th amendment) ""
 
That'd be lovely. It's not realistic. Our concept of free speech, for example, is unheard of, apparently, in the vast majority of the world. Our support of people's self-defense is also not a common thing internationally. Which of OUR inalienable rights are to be provided to others? We treat people as humanely as possible, but in the end, in a conflict the captured don't always get kindness. We have not tortured anybody. Water boarding as we practice it, simply, is not torture. Is it uncomfortable? Absolutely. Miserable? Yup. Torture? No. 
 
Classical liberalism is dead outside of the US. I wish it weren't, but it is. 
 
I know you think I'm a dick.  Can't correct that. But I do appreciate a considerate response.

" @MikeinSC: So let me see if I understand this correctly, you not only didn't read what I had to say but you also know the contents of what I wrote. All of this without having read it, brilliant! So if there's no meaning to it then what exactly am I saying, how does what I say not apply, I go through a decent amount of effort applying my points to your own. To which your response was basically "nu-uh". "

" @OppressiveStink said:

" @lazyturtle:@Liono88:  We need things like this to keep our government honest.  If you look through history, it's filled with people finding out wrongs that the government does and bring them to light.  Without people like this, we wouldn't know about the Tuskegee Experiments, The Iran-Contra scandal, Watergate, Extraordinary Rendition, Waterboarding, Abuse of prisoners, abuses of the patriot act.  Like it or not, it's organizations like these that keep us from being the real totalitarian state that 1984 warned us about.  I will not be part of the United States of Eurasia. "

United States of Eurasia nice! "

" @RsistncE said:

" @MikeinSC said:

" @SeriouslyNow said:

" Have none of you wikileaks naysayers ever heard of Watergate or the Iran Contra scandals? Wake the fuck up please. "

Feel free to list any actual crimes broken in Iran/Contra. You won't be able to do so.  And to those who wish to believe Wikileaks is some nice organization seeking only to reveal malfeasance...they left the NY Times out of the leaks because Julian was mad about a profile in the NYT. So, the arrogant little shit is a hypocrite about what he believes.  Also, anybody who feels that we should use diplomacy more...care to reveal how leaking everything said to us by others will achieve that? "

?  Reagan and his administration ILLEGALLY circumvented the Boland Amendment so that they could continue supporting the Nicaraguan Contras. This doesn't even take into account the straight up illegal shit they did in Nicaragua (ie. they were promoting and facilitating acts of terrorism against Nicaragua).  I honestly have a tough time believing you are really THAT naive. In fact I'm so convinced of this that I'm also equally convinced that you're just a US shill. Careful now, don't gag on your own flaccid cock when you try to speak. "

Actually incorrect. The Boland Amendment forbade American money from being used to fund the Contras. That is the limit of what Congress can do in regards to foreign policy (that and ratifying treaties).   So, was any American money funneled to the Contras (who, mind you, were committing the crime of fighting Communist oppression --- an act the Democrats, who were TOTALLY opposed to Communism when it mattered, found unacceptable)?  Ironically, not a single American dollar was used at all. It was taken from Iran and given straight to the Contras. Like it or not, not a law was broken. MEANWHILE, the Democrats openly violated the Logan Act, which forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments, which Dems had done with the Communist Sandinista regime.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act  You might want to read up on it a bit more. "

" @SeriouslyNow said:

" @MikeinSC:  No Mike, saying that the Middle East should die because they hold nothing of worth is racist.  You actually said that.  People can look it up if you haven't ninja edited it away already.  You're full of bombast and right wing crazy sentiment.  You do nothing to further your ideas with logic but rather only with rabid, senseless vitriol.  You are a racist and a pretty nasty person to boot. "

Is someone a terrorist just because they're of Middle Eastern descent?  No.  Is someone a racist just because they're right wing?  No.  I'm not saying his comments aren't racist, just don't paint the entire right with such a broad brush, just as you don't like to see the entire Middle East painted with such a broad brush. "

i'm not a big supporter of any of the politiicians that may be referenced in those documents, but as an american i kinda feel it's irresponsible of wikileaks to release stuff like that.  Even if it is the business they're in.  Stuff like that going public puts all americans at greater risk for harm.  I would feel the same even if it were another country although my country's ethnocentrism would probably prevent me from ever hearing about it.

" You know, beej, you are right. I was unfair to this long post. So, I will respond. You can continue to think whatever you wish of me, but since you did make a post with apparently sincere thought, I will respond in kind.
 
@beej said: 
 
 "
" @MikeinSC:  I said I was going to ignore you, and that's a good tactic on pointless arguments. But I cannot allow the level of bigotry you represent to go unresponded to. Tragedies occur because people like me choose to just ignore people who say the things you say. I now have multiple responses each of which is relatively fatal to the position you advocate.
Argument from Simplification
your entire argument concerning why middle eastern lives have no value rests on a generalization. Namely that all middle eastern people have no scientific value" , are anti semites... so on and so forth. The problem is that not all of them are necessarily this way, allow me to illustrate. Iran has a nuclear program, do you really think that they just magicked  that out of thin air or that they somehow created that with no scientific system? They have universities in middle eastern countries, not all of them are great but then again in countries like afghanistan we played a huge part in destroying their society. Or to illustrate another example, there are middle eastern anti Semites, and there are american anti Semites. But not everyone in either culture is anti Semitic. You then turn your perception of a group in an area into a rule for everyone in that area. But since this generalization doesn't apply to everyone and you are using it as the basis for why they should be punished, you are fundamentally destroying any precepts of justice that America holds. To summarize you cannot base a course of action concerning an entire group based off of generalizations and expect those actions to be reasonable or just."
 
It should be noted that there is an amazing lack of any cultural achievements listed here. Any scientific achievements. Any literary achievements. That other anti-Semites exist, in your eyes, somehow justifies the Middle East, where children are taught that Jews are sub-humans who should be killed. So, with the anti-Semites in America, where in America is this routinely taught? Because it sounds a lot like you're making a rather weak argument of cultural relativism, which is a wee bit sad. It's similar to saying that a jaywalker and mass murderer are comparable since, hey, both committed crimes. Noting that their cultural output for centuries is basically non-existent is simple reality. And until THEY decide they wish to fix it, it's not our issue. It's their problem. People noticing that the Arab states have decided to abandon thought, science, literature, even history is not racism. It's factual reality.
 
As for developing a nuclear program, money and theft can overcome many shortcomings. Can you list the Nobel Prizes in anything besides Peace (which is a joke award as is) Arabs have won? What part of your life, outside of oil, was inspired by the Middle East that has profound meaning in your life? It might not be POLITE to notice it, but it doesn't make it not so. And being polite tends to not be terribly synonymous with opening up society. We have basically propped up the Saud family for decades. Can you name the benefits that has given us? They export the single most evil strain of Islam (Wahhabism) out there all over the world.
 
And are you aware of the history of Afghanistan? To call them dysfunctional is an insult to dysfunctionality.
 
" Hope for Reform
As someone else already noted we have to give these countries time to reform. Offering a helping hand could even speed this process along. Look at Iran in the last election, there was a serious push for a more open democratic system. If we act as a friend to democracy in middle eastern countries  we could see genuine improvement.  The solution you offer (killing everyone?) is not only not possible but it wouldn't solve anything. At this point on both a theoretical and practical ground we have no reason to engage in your activities. "
 
Feel free to name how long one should wait? Their society has basically ceased to do anything for centuries now. Yes, the last Iran election had people asking for a more open society. And, wow, it certainly achieved a lot, didn't it? If they open up, then we can take them seriously. Until then, they are good for oil and we should ignore them as much as humanly possible.  They aren't friends, allies, or anybody besides suppliers of a commodity.
 
I don't advocate killing anybody and it's not an accurate statement of my beliefs (and I do not deny I caused the misbelief, so it's not a complaint). If they wish to kill one another, however, we should get out of the way and let them (in Iraq, we should've just sealed the borders and let the barbarians slaughter one another). Reagan's second most brilliant foreign policy move was making sure the Iran/Iraq War went on for 8 years. 
 
" Argument from Human Rights
You mention that you like freedom, and that others must not since they don't want it that badly. You then go on to argue that the U.S. has no obligation to uphold rights structure for foreigners, and that basically they don't have access to those rights that we have. I'll give you the best benefit of the doubt and assume that you're taking this from a Kantian model of rights (namely that all rights are contractual) This model poses 2 problems for your theory.
1) Even if we do accept Kants model of rights then the united states is still obligated via its signing of the UN declaration of human rights. Therefore the Kantian model you follow should encourage us to respect human rights across the world. "
 
If somebody doesn't qualify for POW status under the Geneva Conventions, which none of the Gitmo detainees do, we owe them little. We treat them humanely, mind you, but we don't have to. We opt to do so. It's not the job of America to protect the rights of Iranians --- that is the job of Iranians. I will happily put up the human rights record of the US in opposition to any other country on Earth. 
 
"
2) The philosophical tradition of the United States (the system that gives you the freedom that you enjoy) is founded off of the notion of inalienable human rights. Both Locke and Rousseau argue that we have rights that aren't derived from the state. As such the freedom of the type you like so much in the United States obligates us to ensuring that we don't violate the human rights of anyone. (this doesn't necessitate us taking the role of global police. It does, however, require that we respect human rights for everyone in our activities)   This notion of rights structures that allows for rights that we have by our nature of being alive is so integral to almost everything we do that your position is rendered literally unintelligible in the modern world.  The basic precepts that helped form modern liberal governments for the most part requires this notion of human rights. Therefore any discussion regarding any activity concerning those governments requires an a priori agreement on our fundamental value set. You have to be able to disprove the notion of human rights, or an obligation to them, before you can argue that the united states ought to order itself as if human rights didn't exist. Definitionally you've failed to prove this point therefore any attack you level on these grounds is missing that fundamental proof that there are no human rights. Even if you do prove that then you are a massive hypocrite for living in a government that respects them. (see the 14th amendment) ""  That'd be lovely. It's not realistic. Our concept of free speech, for example, is unheard of, apparently, in the vast majority of the world. Our support of people's self-defense is also not a common thing internationally. Which of OUR inalienable rights are to be provided to others? We treat people as humanely as possible, but in the end, in a conflict the captured don't always get kindness. We have not tortured anybody. Water boarding as we practice it, simply, is not torture. Is it uncomfortable? Absolutely. Miserable? Yup. Torture? No.   Classical liberalism is dead outside of the US. I wish it weren't, but it is.   I know you think I'm a dick.  Can't correct that. But I do appreciate a considerate response. "

 Central Intelligence Agency

Depiction of waterboarding during protest demonstration

According to ABC News, former and current CIA officials have come forward to reveal details of interrogation techniques authorized in the CIA. These include:

1. Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes them
2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap to the face aimed at causing pain and triggering fear
3. Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the abdomen. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage
4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor, for more than 40 hours
5. Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius), while being regularly doused with cold water.
6. Waterboarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Material is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over them. Unavoidably, the gag reflexkicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt

I

 @MikeinSC: I'll avoid quoting for brevity
Simplification-While I appreciate that I can't list a litany of cultural works I can definitely state that I've read some excellent books coming out of turkey. I provided a few examples, and were this not week 10 of classes I'd be more than willing to do a little research into accomplishments.  That said I will still contend that even if they have achieved nothing, I still wish to accord them basic human value. 
With regards to cultural relativism, yes I do advocate that, but not in the form that you seem to be expecting. While I accept that culture influences operate differently people I also believe that we can condemn the bad. And I am condemning anti-Semitic thought, the thought/action that is, not the culture necessarily or everyone in it. I'm upset when I see people hating on jews, it's just that I like to reserve my disdain for this viewpoint to whoever is an anti Semite, not an entire group. I dislike the muslim anti Semite just as much as the American one. But what I don't want to do is spread that guilt evenly over an entire society. For one because it's unfair at best. But what's even more important is that when we do that we lessen the guilt of those who act anti Semitic,    the guilt should belong to them and them alone, not a more nebulous culture. Obviously I don't think that combating anti Semitic thought is something we can do militarily, but at the very least we should condemn that kind of behavior, let's exercise soft power in the middle east to encourage those who aren't anti Semitic.
With regards to listing achievements of the middle east, perhaps I can get back to you on this in a week and half. Things are stressful right now. As for the propping up of the Saudi royal family, I agree with you. It was a poor decision, in many ways we have meddled in the middle east in the wrong way. This is something I'd like to see change.
 
Reform-It may be a long wait, but I don't think it will be. The spread of an American ideologies via new information streams (the internet for example) is already having a profound impact on political culture in Iran for example. (I agree with you that the Iranian political culture is crap, I know Iranians who complained of the secret police who would arrest you for talking bad about the government) This is the beauty of the process though, we may be waiting as it were, but so long as we attempt to keep our own dealings on the level then we don't have to worry too much. Provide lucrative trade deals to countries that are moving rapidly down the path to democracy, encourage communication between americans and middle eastern people, and we may see some serious changes. Given that you basically advocate staying out of their affairs I doubt you can have much complaint with this plan. Democracy as an ideology is infectious, if we give it time, and support it where it grows things really can work out. 
I disagree with your point that we should ignore them, we should attempt to obviously avoid undue meddling within their state. Yet I truly believe that an open line of communication between the united states and other countries (be it on a citizen to citizen level, or intergovernmental) will best yield this change. We should obviously reserve super favorable treatment for democratic states that try to fairly operate within the international community, but we should also be willing to welcome middle eastern states to the international community provided they are willing to operate on more democratic principles. A fully isolationist stance risks alienating the middle east to the point that the anti western, anti democratic sentiment ends up stronger than ever. 
 
Rights- This is a value type argument. While obviously any person on our soil is granted some rights, I'm coming at this from the perspective that we ought to attempt to respect human rights in any way possible. In many ways this comes with hoping to see a middle eastern society that does it for themselves, but it also means we should be more open to asylum seekers for instance. In many way we have one of the more interesting takes on right structure in the world, and from a large view I am happy with how the United States views rights. (I don't like the waterboarding but this is completely secondary) This leads back to why I think that we should encourage systems in countries like Iran that protect human rights. I just want to do this in the most realistic way possible. 
 
As to what rights we want to ensure for others I would argue we should just look to Rawls (Let people set up how society orders itself based off of a few founding precepts of fairness) I'm not saying we should world police it up and go guns blazing into every country not respecting human rights. But what we should do is look at helping out fair democratic states as an international imperative of the united states.  Classical Liberalism doesn't have to be dead, the idea appeals to people, we just need to encourage cultural connections between citizens in middle eastern states and our own. It won't work for everyone (Bin Laden is a fucking dick for example) but it can work for many.
 
 
Basically this hope for change, and a belief in the rights of humans are why you SHOULD care. This caring obviously doesn't extend to engaging in stupid activities because of it we can still take a measured approach to ensuring it. But realistically it's sad that you see political systems that prevent people from accessing the human rights that both you and I agree are great. The systems for the most part are the problem, there's nothing endemic to Arab people that make them this way, we can both agree a system that represses the human rights of anyone sucks. Thus we both should CARE about Arabs.

" @MikeinSC: Interesting. The FIRST paragraph in the wikipedia page about the Iran-Contras says " President Ronald Reagan and other senior officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, the subject of an arms embargo." 
Then scrolling down a bit you can read 
"Several investigations ensued..(I'm not going to put all the text in here). In the end, 14 administration officials were indited, including then Secretary of Defense Casper Weingberger. 11 convictions resulted, some of which were vacated on appeal. The rest of those indicted or convicted were all pardoned in the final days of the George HW Bush presidency." 
 
Then scrolling down a bit to the Convictions, pardons and reinstatements section: 
"North was convicted on 3 counts, later vacated during an appeal." They were vacated because he had testified to congress under a condition of immunity. (last sentence is paraphrased) 
"John Poindexter: convicted of the following felonies: lying to congress, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and destruction of evidence." He had a similar sweetheart deal as North and was able to evade punishment. (last sentence is  paraphrased) 

They won the appeals based on the fact that testimony they had provided earlier was given under a condition of immunity. Oliver North and John Poindexter committed crimes. There were several others who also committed crimes, however Bush I pardoned them. The people around Reagan set the situation up so no evidence could be tied to him. 
 
So...despite what you say, CRIMES WERE COMMITTED. It doesn't matter if the money was American or funneled from somewhere else, they still conspired to break the law and break the embargo that we agreed to. They still altered and destroyed evidence.  Reagan was part of the conspiracy, thus a criminal. He simply got away with the crime.  
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair   So perhaps YOU want to do a little more reading.  "

" @MikeinSC said:

" You know, beej, you are right. I was unfair to this long post. So, I will respond. You can continue to think whatever you wish of me, but since you did make a post with apparently sincere thought, I will respond in kind.
 
@beej said: 
 
 "
" @MikeinSC:  I said I was going to ignore you, and that's a good tactic on pointless arguments. But I cannot allow the level of bigotry you represent to go unresponded to. Tragedies occur because people like me choose to just ignore people who say the things you say. I now have multiple responses each of which is relatively fatal to the position you advocate.
Argument from Simplification
your entire argument concerning why middle eastern lives have no value rests on a generalization. Namely that all middle eastern people have no scientific value" , are anti semites... so on and so forth. The problem is that not all of them are necessarily this way, allow me to illustrate. Iran has a nuclear program, do you really think that they just magicked  that out of thin air or that they somehow created that with no scientific system? They have universities in middle eastern countries, not all of them are great but then again in countries like afghanistan we played a huge part in destroying their society. Or to illustrate another example, there are middle eastern anti Semites, and there are american anti Semites. But not everyone in either culture is anti Semitic. You then turn your perception of a group in an area into a rule for everyone in that area. But since this generalization doesn't apply to everyone and you are using it as the basis for why they should be punished, you are fundamentally destroying any precepts of justice that America holds. To summarize you cannot base a course of action concerning an entire group based off of generalizations and expect those actions to be reasonable or just."
 
It should be noted that there is an amazing lack of any cultural achievements listed here. Any scientific achievements. Any literary achievements. That other anti-Semites exist, in your eyes, somehow justifies the Middle East, where children are taught that Jews are sub-humans who should be killed. So, with the anti-Semites in America, where in America is this routinely taught? Because it sounds a lot like you're making a rather weak argument of cultural relativism, which is a wee bit sad. It's similar to saying that a jaywalker and mass murderer are comparable since, hey, both committed crimes. Noting that their cultural output for centuries is basically non-existent is simple reality. And until THEY decide they wish to fix it, it's not our issue. It's their problem. People noticing that the Arab states have decided to abandon thought, science, literature, even history is not racism. It's factual reality.
 
As for developing a nuclear program, money and theft can overcome many shortcomings. Can you list the Nobel Prizes in anything besides Peace (which is a joke award as is) Arabs have won? What part of your life, outside of oil, was inspired by the Middle East that has profound meaning in your life? It might not be POLITE to notice it, but it doesn't make it not so. And being polite tends to not be terribly synonymous with opening up society. We have basically propped up the Saud family for decades. Can you name the benefits that has given us? They export the single most evil strain of Islam (Wahhabism) out there all over the world.
 
And are you aware of the history of Afghanistan? To call them dysfunctional is an insult to dysfunctionality.
 
" Hope for Reform
As someone else already noted we have to give these countries time to reform. Offering a helping hand could even speed this process along. Look at Iran in the last election, there was a serious push for a more open democratic system. If we act as a friend to democracy in middle eastern countries  we could see genuine improvement.  The solution you offer (killing everyone?) is not only not possible but it wouldn't solve anything. At this point on both a theoretical and practical ground we have no reason to engage in your activities. "
 
Feel free to name how long one should wait? Their society has basically ceased to do anything for centuries now. Yes, the last Iran election had people asking for a more open society. And, wow, it certainly achieved a lot, didn't it? If they open up, then we can take them seriously. Until then, they are good for oil and we should ignore them as much as humanly possible.  They aren't friends, allies, or anybody besides suppliers of a commodity.
 
I don't advocate killing anybody and it's not an accurate statement of my beliefs (and I do not deny I caused the misbelief, so it's not a complaint). If they wish to kill one another, however, we should get out of the way and let them (in Iraq, we should've just sealed the borders and let the barbarians slaughter one another). Reagan's second most brilliant foreign policy move was making sure the Iran/Iraq War went on for 8 years. 
 
" Argument from Human Rights
You mention that you like freedom, and that others must not since they don't want it that badly. You then go on to argue that the U.S. has no obligation to uphold rights structure for foreigners, and that basically they don't have access to those rights that we have. I'll give you the best benefit of the doubt and assume that you're taking this from a Kantian model of rights (namely that all rights are contractual) This model poses 2 problems for your theory.
1) Even if we do accept Kants model of rights then the united states is still obligated via its signing of the UN declaration of human rights. Therefore the Kantian model you follow should encourage us to respect human rights across the world. "
 
If somebody doesn't qualify for POW status under the Geneva Conventions, which none of the Gitmo detainees do, we owe them little. We treat them humanely, mind you, but we don't have to. We opt to do so. It's not the job of America to protect the rights of Iranians --- that is the job of Iranians. I will happily put up the human rights record of the US in opposition to any other country on Earth. 
 
"
2) The philosophical tradition of the United States (the system that gives you the freedom that you enjoy) is founded off of the notion of inalienable human rights. Both Locke and Rousseau argue that we have rights that aren't derived from the state. As such the freedom of the type you like so much in the United States obligates us to ensuring that we don't violate the human rights of anyone. (this doesn't necessitate us taking the role of global police. It does, however, require that we respect human rights for everyone in our activities)   This notion of rights structures that allows for rights that we have by our nature of being alive is so integral to almost everything we do that your position is rendered literally unintelligible in the modern world.  The basic precepts that helped form modern liberal governments for the most part requires this notion of human rights. Therefore any discussion regarding any activity concerning those governments requires an a priori agreement on our fundamental value set. You have to be able to disprove the notion of human rights, or an obligation to them, before you can argue that the united states ought to order itself as if human rights didn't exist. Definitionally you've failed to prove this point therefore any attack you level on these grounds is missing that fundamental proof that there are no human rights. Even if you do prove that then you are a massive hypocrite for living in a government that respects them. (see the 14th amendment) ""  That'd be lovely. It's not realistic. Our concept of free speech, for example, is unheard of, apparently, in the vast majority of the world. Our support of people's self-defense is also not a common thing internationally. Which of OUR inalienable rights are to be provided to others? We treat people as humanely as possible, but in the end, in a conflict the captured don't always get kindness. We have not tortured anybody. Water boarding as we practice it, simply, is not torture. Is it uncomfortable? Absolutely. Miserable? Yup. Torture? No.   Classical liberalism is dead outside of the US. I wish it weren't, but it is.   I know you think I'm a dick.  Can't correct that. But I do appreciate a considerate response. "

 
 
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!  I really had a laugh at this
 
The only people that think that waterboarding isn't torture is you and a select few in the military - your president thinks it it, the UN and EVERY ONE ELSE IN THE FUCKING WESTERN WORLD does too. 
 

 Central Intelligence Agency

Depiction of waterboarding during protest demonstration

According to ABC News, former and current CIA officials have come forward to reveal details of interrogation techniques authorized in the CIA. These include:

1. Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes them
2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap to the face aimed at causing pain and triggering fear
3. Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the abdomen. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage
4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor, for more than 40 hours
5. Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius), while being regularly doused with cold water.
6. Waterboarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Material is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over them. Unavoidably, the gag reflexkicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt

I

     so you think none of the above is humiliating, degrading and at the end of the day torture? Forcing an individual who's personal beliefs demand him not to be naked in front of others in the freezing cold not torture? Forced positioning?   It's amazing what scared, backward individuals can justify to protect their country - they'll become hypocrites and cowards. You can't champion yourselves as being the 'last bastion of freedom' on one had, while on the other illegally holding and torturing suspect terrorists................... "

" @hunkaburningluv said:

" @MikeinSC said:

" You know, beej, you are right. I was unfair to this long post. So, I will respond. You can continue to think whatever you wish of me, but since you did make a post with apparently sincere thought, I will respond in kind.
 
@beej said: 
 
 "
" @MikeinSC:  I said I was going to ignore you, and that's a good tactic on pointless arguments. But I cannot allow the level of bigotry you represent to go unresponded to. Tragedies occur because people like me choose to just ignore people who say the things you say. I now have multiple responses each of which is relatively fatal to the position you advocate.
Argument from Simplification
your entire argument concerning why middle eastern lives have no value rests on a generalization. Namely that all middle eastern people have no scientific value" , are anti semites... so on and so forth. The problem is that not all of them are necessarily this way, allow me to illustrate. Iran has a nuclear program, do you really think that they just magicked  that out of thin air or that they somehow created that with no scientific system? They have universities in middle eastern countries, not all of them are great but then again in countries like afghanistan we played a huge part in destroying their society. Or to illustrate another example, there are middle eastern anti Semites, and there are american anti Semites. But not everyone in either culture is anti Semitic. You then turn your perception of a group in an area into a rule for everyone in that area. But since this generalization doesn't apply to everyone and you are using it as the basis for why they should be punished, you are fundamentally destroying any precepts of justice that America holds. To summarize you cannot base a course of action concerning an entire group based off of generalizations and expect those actions to be reasonable or just."
 
It should be noted that there is an amazing lack of any cultural achievements listed here. Any scientific achievements. Any literary achievements. That other anti-Semites exist, in your eyes, somehow justifies the Middle East, where children are taught that Jews are sub-humans who should be killed. So, with the anti-Semites in America, where in America is this routinely taught? Because it sounds a lot like you're making a rather weak argument of cultural relativism, which is a wee bit sad. It's similar to saying that a jaywalker and mass murderer are comparable since, hey, both committed crimes. Noting that their cultural output for centuries is basically non-existent is simple reality. And until THEY decide they wish to fix it, it's not our issue. It's their problem. People noticing that the Arab states have decided to abandon thought, science, literature, even history is not racism. It's factual reality.
 
As for developing a nuclear program, money and theft can overcome many shortcomings. Can you list the Nobel Prizes in anything besides Peace (which is a joke award as is) Arabs have won? What part of your life, outside of oil, was inspired by the Middle East that has profound meaning in your life? It might not be POLITE to notice it, but it doesn't make it not so. And being polite tends to not be terribly synonymous with opening up society. We have basically propped up the Saud family for decades. Can you name the benefits that has given us? They export the single most evil strain of Islam (Wahhabism) out there all over the world.
 
And are you aware of the history of Afghanistan? To call them dysfunctional is an insult to dysfunctionality.
 
" Hope for Reform
As someone else already noted we have to give these countries time to reform. Offering a helping hand could even speed this process along. Look at Iran in the last election, there was a serious push for a more open democratic system. If we act as a friend to democracy in middle eastern countries  we could see genuine improvement.  The solution you offer (killing everyone?) is not only not possible but it wouldn't solve anything. At this point on both a theoretical and practical ground we have no reason to engage in your activities. "
 
Feel free to name how long one should wait? Their society has basically ceased to do anything for centuries now. Yes, the last Iran election had people asking for a more open society. And, wow, it certainly achieved a lot, didn't it? If they open up, then we can take them seriously. Until then, they are good for oil and we should ignore them as much as humanly possible.  They aren't friends, allies, or anybody besides suppliers of a commodity.
 
I don't advocate killing anybody and it's not an accurate statement of my beliefs (and I do not deny I caused the misbelief, so it's not a complaint). If they wish to kill one another, however, we should get out of the way and let them (in Iraq, we should've just sealed the borders and let the barbarians slaughter one another). Reagan's second most brilliant foreign policy move was making sure the Iran/Iraq War went on for 8 years. 
 
" Argument from Human Rights
You mention that you like freedom, and that others must not since they don't want it that badly. You then go on to argue that the U.S. has no obligation to uphold rights structure for foreigners, and that basically they don't have access to those rights that we have. I'll give you the best benefit of the doubt and assume that you're taking this from a Kantian model of rights (namely that all rights are contractual) This model poses 2 problems for your theory.
1) Even if we do accept Kants model of rights then the united states is still obligated via its signing of the UN declaration of human rights. Therefore the Kantian model you follow should encourage us to respect human rights across the world. "
 
If somebody doesn't qualify for POW status under the Geneva Conventions, which none of the Gitmo detainees do, we owe them little. We treat them humanely, mind you, but we don't have to. We opt to do so. It's not the job of America to protect the rights of Iranians --- that is the job of Iranians. I will happily put up the human rights record of the US in opposition to any other country on Earth. 
 
"
2) The philosophical tradition of the United States (the system that gives you the freedom that you enjoy) is founded off of the notion of inalienable human rights. Both Locke and Rousseau argue that we have rights that aren't derived from the state. As such the freedom of the type you like so much in the United States obligates us to ensuring that we don't violate the human rights of anyone. (this doesn't necessitate us taking the role of global police. It does, however, require that we respect human rights for everyone in our activities)   This notion of rights structures that allows for rights that we have by our nature of being alive is so integral to almost everything we do that your position is rendered literally unintelligible in the modern world.  The basic precepts that helped form modern liberal governments for the most part requires this notion of human rights. Therefore any discussion regarding any activity concerning those governments requires an a priori agreement on our fundamental value set. You have to be able to disprove the notion of human rights, or an obligation to them, before you can argue that the united states ought to order itself as if human rights didn't exist. Definitionally you've failed to prove this point therefore any attack you level on these grounds is missing that fundamental proof that there are no human rights. Even if you do prove that then you are a massive hypocrite for living in a government that respects them. (see the 14th amendment) ""  That'd be lovely. It's not realistic. Our concept of free speech, for example, is unheard of, apparently, in the vast majority of the world. Our support of people's self-defense is also not a common thing internationally. Which of OUR inalienable rights are to be provided to others? We treat people as humanely as possible, but in the end, in a conflict the captured don't always get kindness. We have not tortured anybody. Water boarding as we practice it, simply, is not torture. Is it uncomfortable? Absolutely. Miserable? Yup. Torture? No.   Classical liberalism is dead outside of the US. I wish it weren't, but it is.   I know you think I'm a dick.  Can't correct that. But I do appreciate a considerate response. "

 
 
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!  I really had a laugh at this
 
The only people that think that waterboarding isn't torture is you and a select few in the military - your president thinks it it, the UN and EVERY ONE ELSE IN THE FUCKING WESTERN WORLD does too. 
 

 Central Intelligence Agency

Depiction of waterboarding during protest demonstration

According to ABC News, former and current CIA officials have come forward to reveal details of interrogation techniques authorized in the CIA. These include:

1. Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes them
2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap to the face aimed at causing pain and triggering fear
3. Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the abdomen. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage
4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor, for more than 40 hours
5. Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius), while being regularly doused with cold water.
6. Waterboarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Material is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over them. Unavoidably, the gag reflexkicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt

I

     so you think none of the above is humiliating, degrading and at the end of the day torture? Forcing an individual who's personal beliefs demand him not to be naked in front of others in the freezing cold not torture? Forced positioning?   It's amazing what scared, backward individuals can justify to protect their country - they'll become hypocrites and cowards. You can't champion yourselves as being the 'last bastion of freedom' on one had, while on the other illegally holding and torturing suspect terrorists................... "

I absolutely do not feel it is torture. Our own troops undergo waterboarding during training. It couldn't be much further from torture.  They are let up and they have, well, zero lasting issues from it.   You know how it's not torture? Because attention whores will do it to show how bad it is. You don't see attention whores volunteering to be put on the rack. Or the iron maiden. Because those actually ARE torture. Nobody VOLUNTEERS to undergo actual torture. If you're a convict, guess what --- you don't get to do everything you want. If somebody's religious belief says they need to intake illegal drugs...their religious beliefs will be ignored. You mistake uncomfortable with torture which is an insult to actual victims of torture. "

" @Aus_azn said:

" These people should be prosecuted/imprisoned. National security is at stake. "

Sad.  Documents that actually reveal the inner workings of our government and pull back the facade of bullshit they pump out every day and your first instinct is  "Durr get them sons of bitches, that hurt out poor wittle government." "

" @MikeinSC said:

" @hunkaburningluv said:

" @MikeinSC said:

" You know, beej, you are right. I was unfair to this long post. So, I will respond. You can continue to think whatever you wish of me, but since you did make a post with apparently sincere thought, I will respond in kind.
 
@beej said: 
 
 "
" @MikeinSC:  I said I was going to ignore you, and that's a good tactic on pointless arguments. But I cannot allow the level of bigotry you represent to go unresponded to. Tragedies occur because people like me choose to just ignore people who say the things you say. I now have multiple responses each of which is relatively fatal to the position you advocate.
Argument from Simplification
your entire argument concerning why middle eastern lives have no value rests on a generalization. Namely that all middle eastern people have no scientific value" , are anti semites... so on and so forth. The problem is that not all of them are necessarily this way, allow me to illustrate. Iran has a nuclear program, do you really think that they just magicked  that out of thin air or that they somehow created that with no scientific system? They have universities in middle eastern countries, not all of them are great but then again in countries like afghanistan we played a huge part in destroying their society. Or to illustrate another example, there are middle eastern anti Semites, and there are american anti Semites. But not everyone in either culture is anti Semitic. You then turn your perception of a group in an area into a rule for everyone in that area. But since this generalization doesn't apply to everyone and you are using it as the basis for why they should be punished, you are fundamentally destroying any precepts of justice that America holds. To summarize you cannot base a course of action concerning an entire group based off of generalizations and expect those actions to be reasonable or just."
 
It should be noted that there is an amazing lack of any cultural achievements listed here. Any scientific achievements. Any literary achievements. That other anti-Semites exist, in your eyes, somehow justifies the Middle East, where children are taught that Jews are sub-humans who should be killed. So, with the anti-Semites in America, where in America is this routinely taught? Because it sounds a lot like you're making a rather weak argument of cultural relativism, which is a wee bit sad. It's similar to saying that a jaywalker and mass murderer are comparable since, hey, both committed crimes. Noting that their cultural output for centuries is basically non-existent is simple reality. And until THEY decide they wish to fix it, it's not our issue. It's their problem. People noticing that the Arab states have decided to abandon thought, science, literature, even history is not racism. It's factual reality.
 
As for developing a nuclear program, money and theft can overcome many shortcomings. Can you list the Nobel Prizes in anything besides Peace (which is a joke award as is) Arabs have won? What part of your life, outside of oil, was inspired by the Middle East that has profound meaning in your life? It might not be POLITE to notice it, but it doesn't make it not so. And being polite tends to not be terribly synonymous with opening up society. We have basically propped up the Saud family for decades. Can you name the benefits that has given us? They export the single most evil strain of Islam (Wahhabism) out there all over the world.
 
And are you aware of the history of Afghanistan? To call them dysfunctional is an insult to dysfunctionality.
 
" Hope for Reform
As someone else already noted we have to give these countries time to reform. Offering a helping hand could even speed this process along. Look at Iran in the last election, there was a serious push for a more open democratic system. If we act as a friend to democracy in middle eastern countries  we could see genuine improvement.  The solution you offer (killing everyone?) is not only not possible but it wouldn't solve anything. At this point on both a theoretical and practical ground we have no reason to engage in your activities. "
 
Feel free to name how long one should wait? Their society has basically ceased to do anything for centuries now. Yes, the last Iran election had people asking for a more open society. And, wow, it certainly achieved a lot, didn't it? If they open up, then we can take them seriously. Until then, they are good for oil and we should ignore them as much as humanly possible.  They aren't friends, allies, or anybody besides suppliers of a commodity.
 
I don't advocate killing anybody and it's not an accurate statement of my beliefs (and I do not deny I caused the misbelief, so it's not a complaint). If they wish to kill one another, however, we should get out of the way and let them (in Iraq, we should've just sealed the borders and let the barbarians slaughter one another). Reagan's second most brilliant foreign policy move was making sure the Iran/Iraq War went on for 8 years. 
 
" Argument from Human Rights
You mention that you like freedom, and that others must not since they don't want it that badly. You then go on to argue that the U.S. has no obligation to uphold rights structure for foreigners, and that basically they don't have access to those rights that we have. I'll give you the best benefit of the doubt and assume that you're taking this from a Kantian model of rights (namely that all rights are contractual) This model poses 2 problems for your theory.
1) Even if we do accept Kants model of rights then the united states is still obligated via its signing of the UN declaration of human rights. Therefore the Kantian model you follow should encourage us to respect human rights across the world. "
 
If somebody doesn't qualify for POW status under the Geneva Conventions, which none of the Gitmo detainees do, we owe them little. We treat them humanely, mind you, but we don't have to. We opt to do so. It's not the job of America to protect the rights of Iranians --- that is the job of Iranians. I will happily put up the human rights record of the US in opposition to any other country on Earth. 
 
"
2) The philosophical tradition of the United States (the system that gives you the freedom that you enjoy) is founded off of the notion of inalienable human rights. Both Locke and Rousseau argue that we have rights that aren't derived from the state. As such the freedom of the type you like so much in the United States obligates us to ensuring that we don't violate the human rights of anyone. (this doesn't necessitate us taking the role of global police. It does, however, require that we respect human rights for everyone in our activities)   This notion of rights structures that allows for rights that we have by our nature of being alive is so integral to almost everything we do that your position is rendered literally unintelligible in the modern world.  The basic precepts that helped form modern liberal governments for the most part requires this notion of human rights. Therefore any discussion regarding any activity concerning those governments requires an a priori agreement on our fundamental value set. You have to be able to disprove the notion of human rights, or an obligation to them, before you can argue that the united states ought to order itself as if human rights didn't exist. Definitionally you've failed to prove this point therefore any attack you level on these grounds is missing that fundamental proof that there are no human rights. Even if you do prove that then you are a massive hypocrite for living in a government that respects them. (see the 14th amendment) ""  That'd be lovely. It's not realistic. Our concept of free speech, for example, is unheard of, apparently, in the vast majority of the world. Our support of people's self-defense is also not a common thing internationally. Which of OUR inalienable rights are to be provided to others? We treat people as humanely as possible, but in the end, in a conflict the captured don't always get kindness. We have not tortured anybody. Water boarding as we practice it, simply, is not torture. Is it uncomfortable? Absolutely. Miserable? Yup. Torture? No.   Classical liberalism is dead outside of the US. I wish it weren't, but it is.   I know you think I'm a dick.  Can't correct that. But I do appreciate a considerate response. "

 
 
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!  I really had a laugh at this
 
The only people that think that waterboarding isn't torture is you and a select few in the military - your president thinks it it, the UN and EVERY ONE ELSE IN THE FUCKING WESTERN WORLD does too. 
 

 Central Intelligence Agency

Depiction of waterboarding during protest demonstration

According to ABC News, former and current CIA officials have come forward to reveal details of interrogation techniques authorized in the CIA. These include:

1. Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes them
2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap to the face aimed at causing pain and triggering fear
3. Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the abdomen. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage
4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor, for more than 40 hours
5. Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius), while being regularly doused with cold water.
6. Waterboarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Material is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over them. Unavoidably, the gag reflexkicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt

I

     so you think none of the above is humiliating, degrading and at the end of the day torture? Forcing an individual who's personal beliefs demand him not to be naked in front of others in the freezing cold not torture? Forced positioning?   It's amazing what scared, backward individuals can justify to protect their country - they'll become hypocrites and cowards. You can't champion yourselves as being the 'last bastion of freedom' on one had, while on the other illegally holding and torturing suspect terrorists................... "

I absolutely do not feel it is torture. Our own troops undergo waterboarding during training. It couldn't be much further from torture.  They are let up and they have, well, zero lasting issues from it.   You know how it's not torture? Because attention whores will do it to show how bad it is. You don't see attention whores volunteering to be put on the rack. Or the iron maiden. Because those actually ARE torture. Nobody VOLUNTEERS to undergo actual torture. If you're a convict, guess what --- you don't get to do everything you want. If somebody's religious belief says they need to intake illegal drugs...their religious beliefs will be ignored. You mistake uncomfortable with torture which is an insult to actual victims of torture. "

 Your opinions mean jack shit when even the UN, amnesty international, your OWN ALLIES state it's torture. The US is in the wrong on this one, but thank fuck some see sense your Gov "

" @MikeinSC: They were guilty of conspiracy to evade the US arms embargo.  Obviously because the President knew all about it nobody went to jail..North was the public scapegoat. More to the point, if there were no crimes in making the deals...why commit so many crimes to cover it all up?  "

" These people should be prosecuted/imprisoned. National security is at stake. "

" @hunkaburningluv said:

" @MikeinSC said:

" @hunkaburningluv said:

" @MikeinSC said:

" You know, beej, you are right. I was unfair to this long post. So, I will respond. You can continue to think whatever you wish of me, but since you did make a post with apparently sincere thought, I will respond in kind.
 
@beej said: 
 
 "
"

@MikeinSC:

  I said I was going to ignore you, and that's a good tactic on pointless arguments. But I cannot allow the level of bigotry you represent to go unresponded to. Tragedies occur because people like me choose to just ignore people who say the things you say. I now have multiple responses each of which is relatively fatal to the position you advocate.
Argument from Simplification
your entire argument concerning why middle eastern lives have no value rests on a generalization. Namely that all middle eastern people have no scientific value" , are anti semites... so on and so forth. The problem is that not all of them are necessarily this way, allow me to illustrate. Iran has a nuclear program, do you really think that they just magicked  that out of thin air or that they somehow created that with no scientific system? They have universities in middle eastern countries, not all of them are great but then again in countries like afghanistan we played a huge part in destroying their society. Or to illustrate another example, there are middle eastern anti Semites, and there are american anti Semites. But not everyone in either culture is anti Semitic. You then turn your perception of a group in an area into a rule for everyone in that area. But since this generalization doesn't apply to everyone and you are using it as the basis for why they should be punished, you are fundamentally destroying any precepts of justice that America holds. To summarize you cannot base a course of action concerning an entire group based off of generalizations and expect those actions to be reasonable or just."
 
It should be noted that there is an amazing lack of any cultural achievements listed here. Any scientific achievements. Any literary achievements. That other anti-Semites exist, in your eyes, somehow justifies the Middle East, where children are taught that Jews are sub-humans who should be killed. So, with the anti-Semites in America, where in America is this routinely taught? Because it sounds a lot like you're making a rather weak argument of cultural relativism, which is a wee bit sad. It's similar to saying that a jaywalker and mass murderer are comparable since, hey, both committed crimes. Noting that their cultural output for centuries is basically non-existent is simple reality. And until THEY decide they wish to fix it, it's not our issue. It's their problem. People noticing that the Arab states have decided to abandon thought, science, literature, even history is not racism. It's factual reality.
 
As for developing a nuclear program, money and theft can overcome many shortcomings. Can you list the Nobel Prizes in anything besides Peace (which is a joke award as is) Arabs have won? What part of your life, outside of oil, was inspired by the Middle East that has profound meaning in your life? It might not be POLITE to notice it, but it doesn't make it not so. And being polite tends to not be terribly synonymous with opening up society. We have basically propped up the Saud family for decades. Can you name the benefits that has given us? They export the single most evil strain of Islam (Wahhabism) out there all over the world.
 
And are you aware of the history of Afghanistan? To call them dysfunctional is an insult to dysfunctionality.
 
" Hope for Reform
As someone else already noted we have to give these countries time to reform. Offering a helping hand could even speed this process along. Look at Iran in the last election, there was a serious push for a more open democratic system. If we act as a friend to democracy in middle eastern countries  we could see genuine improvement.  The solution you offer (killing everyone?) is not only not possible but it wouldn't solve anything. At this point on both a theoretical and practical ground we have no reason to engage in your activities. "
 
Feel free to name how long one should wait? Their society has basically ceased to do anything for centuries now. Yes, the last Iran election had people asking for a more open society. And, wow, it certainly achieved a lot, didn't it? If they open up, then we can take them seriously. Until then, they are good for oil and we should ignore them as much as humanly possible.  They aren't friends, allies, or anybody besides suppliers of a commodity.
 
I don't advocate killing anybody and it's not an accurate statement of my beliefs (and I do not deny I caused the misbelief, so it's not a complaint). If they wish to kill one another, however, we should get out of the way and let them (in Iraq, we should've just sealed the borders and let the barbarians slaughter one another). Reagan's second most brilliant foreign policy move was making sure the Iran/Iraq War went on for 8 years. 
 
" Argument from Human Rights
You mention that you like freedom, and that others must not since they don't want it that badly. You then go on to argue that the U.S. has no obligation to uphold rights structure for foreigners, and that basically they don't have access to those rights that we have. I'll give you the best benefit of the doubt and assume that you're taking this from a Kantian model of rights (namely that all rights are contractual) This model poses 2 problems for your theory.
1) Even if we do accept Kants model of rights then the united states is still obligated via its signing of the UN declaration of human rights. Therefore the Kantian model you follow should encourage us to respect human rights across the world. "
 
If somebody doesn't qualify for POW status under the Geneva Conventions, which none of the Gitmo detainees do, we owe them little. We treat them humanely, mind you, but we don't have to. We opt to do so. It's not the job of America to protect the rights of Iranians --- that is the job of Iranians. I will happily put up the human rights record of the US in opposition to any other country on Earth. 
 
"
2) The philosophical tradition of the United States (the system that gives you the freedom that you enjoy) is founded off of the notion of inalienable human rights. Both Locke and Rousseau argue that we have rights that aren't derived from the state. As such the freedom of the type you like so much in the United States obligates us to ensuring that we don't violate the human rights of anyone. (this doesn't necessitate us taking the role of global police. It does, however, require that we respect human rights for everyone in our activities)   This notion of rights structures that allows for rights that we have by our nature of being alive is so integral to almost everything we do that your position is rendered literally unintelligible in the modern world.  The basic precepts that helped form modern liberal governments for the most part requires this notion of human rights. Therefore any discussion regarding any activity concerning those governments requires an a priori agreement on our fundamental value set. You have to be able to disprove the notion of human rights, or an obligation to them, before you can argue that the united states ought to order itself as if human rights didn't exist. Definitionally you've failed to prove this point therefore any attack you level on these grounds is missing that fundamental proof that there are no human rights. Even if you do prove that then you are a massive hypocrite for living in a government that respects them. (see the 14th amendment) ""  That'd be lovely. It's not realistic. Our concept of free speech, for example, is unheard of, apparently, in the vast majority of the world. Our support of people's self-defense is also not a common thing internationally. Which of OUR inalienable rights are to be provided to others? We treat people as humanely as possible, but in the end, in a conflict the captured don't always get kindness. We have not tortured anybody. Water boarding as we practice it, simply, is not torture. Is it uncomfortable? Absolutely. Miserable? Yup. Torture? No.   Classical liberalism is dead outside of the US. I wish it weren't, but it is.   I know you think I'm a dick.  Can't correct that. But I do appreciate a considerate response. "

 
 
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!  I really had a laugh at this
 
The only people that think that waterboarding isn't torture is you and a select few in the military - your president thinks it it, the UN and EVERY ONE ELSE IN THE FUCKING WESTERN WORLD does too. 
 

 Central Intelligence Agency

Depiction of waterboarding during protest demonstration

According to ABC News, former and current CIA officials have come forward to reveal details of interrogation techniques authorized in the CIA. These include:

1. Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes them
2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap to the face aimed at causing pain and triggering fear
3. Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the abdomen. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage
4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor, for more than 40 hours
5. Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius), while being regularly doused with cold water.
6. Waterboarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Material is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over them. Unavoidably, the gag reflexkicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt

I

     so you think none of the above is humiliating, degrading and at the end of the day torture? Forcing an individual who's personal beliefs demand him not to be naked in front of others in the freezing cold not torture? Forced positioning?   It's amazing what scared, backward individuals can justify to protect their country - they'll become hypocrites and cowards. You can't champion yourselves as being the 'last bastion of freedom' on one had, while on the other illegally holding and torturing suspect terrorists................... "

I absolutely do not feel it is torture. Our own troops undergo waterboarding during training. It couldn't be much further from torture.  They are let up and they have, well, zero lasting issues from it.   You know how it's not torture? Because attention whores will do it to show how bad it is. You don't see attention whores volunteering to be put on the rack. Or the iron maiden. Because those actually ARE torture. Nobody VOLUNTEERS to undergo actual torture. If you're a convict, guess what --- you don't get to do everything you want. If somebody's religious belief says they need to intake illegal drugs...their religious beliefs will be ignored. You mistake uncomfortable with torture which is an insult to actual victims of torture. "

 Your opinions mean jack shit when even the UN, amnesty international, your OWN ALLIES state it's torture. The US is in the wrong on this one, but thank fuck some see sense your Gov "

The only applicable law here is US law. And, no, it is not torture. Again, explain how something that causes absolutely no lasting injury at all can be considered torture? "

Do you think information about Kenya's leaders indiscriminately massacring it's civilians should be made public knowlege? Wikileaks thought so and they won an Amnesty Internation award for leaking that little tidbit. 
 
The leaks about North America does not endanger civilians, it endanger's corrupt politicians.

Ice Cube is pleased. 

" Did you see that the Dept. of Homeland Security wants Wikileaks to be listed as a terrorist organization so he can seize all assets and arrest all contributors?   We could do that..or you know..protect our secret documents with some sort of...I don't know..Department of Homeland Security... "

Spicy political gossip!

" @MikeinSC said:

" @hunkaburningluv said:

" @MikeinSC said:

" @hunkaburningluv said:

" @MikeinSC said:

" You know, beej, you are right. I was unfair to this long post. So, I will respond. You can continue to think whatever you wish of me, but since you did make a post with apparently sincere thought, I will respond in kind.
 

@beej

said: 
 
 "
"

@MikeinSC:

  I said I was going to ignore you, and that's a good tactic on pointless arguments. But I cannot allow the level of bigotry you represent to go unresponded to. Tragedies occur because people like me choose to just ignore people who say the things you say. I now have multiple responses each of which is relatively fatal to the position you advocate.
Argument from Simplification
your entire argument concerning why middle eastern lives have no value rests on a generalization. Namely that all middle eastern people have no scientific value" , are anti semites... so on and so forth. The problem is that not all of them are necessarily this way, allow me to illustrate. Iran has a nuclear program, do you really think that they just magicked  that out of thin air or that they somehow created that with no scientific system? They have universities in middle eastern countries, not all of them are great but then again in countries like afghanistan we played a huge part in destroying their society. Or to illustrate another example, there are middle eastern anti Semites, and there are american anti Semites. But not everyone in either culture is anti Semitic. You then turn your perception of a group in an area into a rule for everyone in that area. But since this generalization doesn't apply to everyone and you are using it as the basis for why they should be punished, you are fundamentally destroying any precepts of justice that America holds. To summarize you cannot base a course of action concerning an entire group based off of generalizations and expect those actions to be reasonable or just."
 
It should be noted that there is an amazing lack of any cultural achievements listed here. Any scientific achievements. Any literary achievements. That other anti-Semites exist, in your eyes, somehow justifies the Middle East, where children are taught that Jews are sub-humans who should be killed. So, with the anti-Semites in America, where in America is this routinely taught? Because it sounds a lot like you're making a rather weak argument of cultural relativism, which is a wee bit sad. It's similar to saying that a jaywalker and mass murderer are comparable since, hey, both committed crimes. Noting that their cultural output for centuries is basically non-existent is simple reality. And until THEY decide they wish to fix it, it's not our issue. It's their problem. People noticing that the Arab states have decided to abandon thought, science, literature, even history is not racism. It's factual reality.
 
As for developing a nuclear program, money and theft can overcome many shortcomings. Can you list the Nobel Prizes in anything besides Peace (which is a joke award as is) Arabs have won? What part of your life, outside of oil, was inspired by the Middle East that has profound meaning in your life? It might not be POLITE to notice it, but it doesn't make it not so. And being polite tends to not be terribly synonymous with opening up society. We have basically propped up the Saud family for decades. Can you name the benefits that has given us? They export the single most evil strain of Islam (Wahhabism) out there all over the world.
 
And are you aware of the history of Afghanistan? To call them dysfunctional is an insult to dysfunctionality.
 
" Hope for Reform
As someone else already noted we have to give these countries time to reform. Offering a helping hand could even speed this process along. Look at Iran in the last election, there was a serious push for a more open democratic system. If we act as a friend to democracy in middle eastern countries  we could see genuine improvement.  The solution you offer (killing everyone?) is not only not possible but it wouldn't solve anything. At this point on both a theoretical and practical ground we have no reason to engage in your activities. "
 
Feel free to name how long one should wait? Their society has basically ceased to do anything for centuries now. Yes, the last Iran election had people asking for a more open society. And, wow, it certainly achieved a lot, didn't it? If they open up, then we can take them seriously. Until then, they are good for oil and we should ignore them as much as humanly possible.  They aren't friends, allies, or anybody besides suppliers of a commodity.
 
I don't advocate killing anybody and it's not an accurate statement of my beliefs (and I do not deny I caused the misbelief, so it's not a complaint). If they wish to kill one another, however, we should get out of the way and let them (in Iraq, we should've just sealed the borders and let the barbarians slaughter one another). Reagan's second most brilliant foreign policy move was making sure the Iran/Iraq War went on for 8 years. 
 
" Argument from Human Rights
You mention that you like freedom, and that others must not since they don't want it that badly. You then go on to argue that the U.S. has no obligation to uphold rights structure for foreigners, and that basically they don't have access to those rights that we have. I'll give you the best benefit of the doubt and assume that you're taking this from a Kantian model of rights (namely that all rights are contractual) This model poses 2 problems for your theory.
1) Even if we do accept Kants model of rights then the united states is still obligated via its signing of the UN declaration of human rights. Therefore the Kantian model you follow should encourage us to respect human rights across the world. "
 
If somebody doesn't qualify for POW status under the Geneva Conventions, which none of the Gitmo detainees do, we owe them little. We treat them humanely, mind you, but we don't have to. We opt to do so. It's not the job of America to protect the rights of Iranians --- that is the job of Iranians. I will happily put up the human rights record of the US in opposition to any other country on Earth. 
 
"
2) The philosophical tradition of the United States (the system that gives you the freedom that you enjoy) is founded off of the notion of inalienable human rights. Both Locke and Rousseau argue that we have rights that aren't derived from the state. As such the freedom of the type you like so much in the United States obligates us to ensuring that we don't violate the human rights of anyone. (this doesn't necessitate us taking the role of global police. It does, however, require that we respect human rights for everyone in our activities)   This notion of rights structures that allows for rights that we have by our nature of being alive is so integral to almost everything we do that your position is rendered literally unintelligible in the modern world.  The basic precepts that helped form modern liberal governments for the most part requires this notion of human rights. Therefore any discussion regarding any activity concerning those governments requires an a priori agreement on our fundamental value set. You have to be able to disprove the notion of human rights, or an obligation to them, before you can argue that the united states ought to order itself as if human rights didn't exist. Definitionally you've failed to prove this point therefore any attack you level on these grounds is missing that fundamental proof that there are no human rights. Even if you do prove that then you are a massive hypocrite for living in a government that respects them. (see the 14th amendment) ""  That'd be lovely. It's not realistic. Our concept of free speech, for example, is unheard of, apparently, in the vast majority of the world. Our support of people's self-defense is also not a common thing internationally. Which of OUR inalienable rights are to be provided to others? We treat people as humanely as possible, but in the end, in a conflict the captured don't always get kindness. We have not tortured anybody. Water boarding as we practice it, simply, is not torture. Is it uncomfortable? Absolutely. Miserable? Yup. Torture? No.   Classical liberalism is dead outside of the US. I wish it weren't, but it is.   I know you think I'm a dick.  Can't correct that. But I do appreciate a considerate response. "

 
 
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!  I really had a laugh at this
 
The only people that think that waterboarding isn't torture is you and a select few in the military - your president thinks it it, the UN and EVERY ONE ELSE IN THE FUCKING WESTERN WORLD does too. 
 

 Central Intelligence Agency

Depiction of  waterboarding during protest demonstration

According to  ABC News, former and current CIA officials have come forward to reveal details of interrogation techniques authorized in the CIA. These include:

1. Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes them
2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap to the face aimed at causing pain and triggering fear
3. Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the  abdomen. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage
4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor, for more than 40 hours
5. Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius), while being regularly doused with cold water.
6. Waterboarding: The prisoner is bound to an  inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Material is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over them. Unavoidably, the  gag reflexkicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt

I

     so you think none of the above is humiliating, degrading and at the end of the day torture? Forcing an individual who's personal beliefs demand him not to be naked in front of others in the freezing cold not torture? Forced positioning?   It's amazing what scared, backward individuals can justify to protect their country - they'll become hypocrites and cowards. You can't champion yourselves as being the 'last bastion of freedom' on one had, while on the other illegally holding and torturing suspect terrorists................... "

I absolutely do not feel it is torture. Our own troops undergo waterboarding during training. It couldn't be much further from torture.  They are let up and they have, well, zero lasting issues from it.   You know how it's not torture? Because attention whores will do it to show how bad it is. You don't see attention whores volunteering to be put on the rack. Or the iron maiden. Because those actually ARE torture. Nobody VOLUNTEERS to undergo actual torture. If you're a convict, guess what --- you don't get to do everything you want. If somebody's religious belief says they need to intake illegal drugs...their religious beliefs will be ignored. You mistake uncomfortable with torture which is an insult to actual victims of torture. "

 Your opinions mean jack shit when even the UN, amnesty international, your OWN ALLIES state it's torture. The US is in the wrong on this one, but thank fuck some see sense your Gov "

The only applicable law here is US law. And, no, it is not torture. Again, explain how something that causes absolutely no lasting injury at all can be considered torture? "

  

  about halfway is what im posting this for. i think jesse ventura always nails it when it comes to torture. besides, he knows EXACTLY what he is talking about since he has experienced it for himself. they had to do it because its what the vietnamese did (Where do you think we learned it from? and then you sit here and think its okay to behave like our enemies)    btw you're logic is fucking retarded. i guess electrocuting should be allowed too since you can do it without causing lasting injuries.  "