kapkomet

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 24, 2009 -> 08:26 AM) So we can release this, but not the minutes from board meetings that Obama administration officials attended at the banks we are giving trillions of dollars to? What a joke. Going after Bush officials = Good for AmeriKKKa. Going after Obama officials = we need to protect the interests of AmeriKKKa after Bush destroyed it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 10:31 PM) More coming. The ACLU's lawsuits are paying off in droves. WOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOO! YES! A GREAT DAY FOR AMERIKKKA! HANG THE MOTHAFUKAS! And... AMERIKKKA's CHICKENS ARE COMIINNGG HHHHOMMMMMMMME TO ROOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSST. This is getting ridiculous.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 10:10 PM) The names of the people who did the torturing? Why was it "torture", Balta?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 09:01 PM) Not in the least. The specific documents that were released came out based on an FOIA act request by the ACLU and multiple court orders requiring their release. The only thing that was their decision is how much to attempt to redact, and if they redacted too much, they'd risk having another court order them to un-redact a good chunk. Oh, so our ACLU friends only wanted to know only "relevant" information so that they could go after Bush Administration people? How nice.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:46 PM) Class at 3:35. But I wouldn't mind. Damn it. (I'm just messin'...)

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:41 PM) Haha you're telling me weapons have become less lethal over time? You couldn't be more wrong. Recent wars are less deadly because they are coming nowhere near pre-1945 conflicts in scale and scope. Right, I understand that. But wars now also call for a hell of a lot less people because of the technologies involved.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:39 PM) lol, I know. I guess I keep repeating myself because I feel like a lot of Bush's big mistakes were interconnected. They were. He never got out of the "I'm going to blow s*** up and all is well" mentality until it was so unpopular that it didn't matter. With that said, I'm glad now that it's Obama's war (so to speak) it's all going well over there.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:35 PM) We've seen hegemonic instability since 1945 on a pretty huge level. In the past that would be enough for war, but a certain something has altered the playing field so durastically that major powers just will not fight each other. The one time they did America fired a war hero because it was so afraid of the conflict escalating. The system has gotten much more stable, especially since 1991. Wars have become less frequent and less deadly. That has nothing to do with nuclear deterrence. It has totally to do with technology.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:35 PM) The real damage didn't start until about mid-2003, that was all self-induced. Throughout most of 2002 everybody was still buying the BS, and they soured on it when we got there and didn't find anything. It was all a slow, painful fall downhill from there with a general election thrown in. You and I agreed many times that the Iraq handling was a debacle.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:32 PM) Yea, about 6-8 months. That's about right.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:31 PM) 1) Khomenei has been hugely against the development of nukes, much less using them. 2) Mahmoud is smart enough to know how far you can go before America gets angry enough to attack Candidates must be approved by a council of 12, the Ayatollah has no direct say in the Presidency. Holy f***, they have a better democracy then we do! Cheeeeeeeer-i-o!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:28 PM) You can't be serious here. That was like 1/100 of a percent of the population. Bush's popularity numbers, political capital, and leeway with Congress, went through the roof that day. Yes, for a very short time. It wasn't long before all the conspiracy bulls*** went through the roof. And without the political capital you speak of, Congress wouldn't have voted for Iraq. I understand that, but I also know for a fact that there were a lot of people very unhappy with Bush and that never, ever changed, 9/11 included. There's a lot of them here.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:28 PM) More than that, it depends on who you think is in charge of Iran's military. Iran's military is under the control of the Supreme Leader, not Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad does not control Iran's military. I don't think Make-Me-Ameany-jad says anything without the Supreme Leader knowing about it. Kind of like Robert Gibbs, eh, eh!!

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:25 PM) I don't really think so though. It's capabilities vs. intent. Do you assume that Iran wouldn't be deathly afraid of retaliation from Israel (or the US, or the UK, or France, or whomever)? lf, from what I understand, Make-Me-Ameany-Jad doesn't care because he thinks Israel's death will secure his place in heaven the moment he gets retaliated upon, at least that's how the "propoganda" material I remember goes.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:24 PM) So having a guy as a leader who believes he has to destroy the Jewish state in order to bring about the return of the last prophet doesn't factor in at all for you? Talk about a waste of time. If Iran got nukes, it would turn Israel into a glass parking lot and go celebrate. Of all of the nutjobs in the world, Iran's leader is the one I would say that would be willing to use nuclear weapons without a second thought. You're just being spewed propoganda. You must conform to the Barack H. Obama school of thinking. Now. Before it's too late.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:24 PM) Bush got a big, big reprieve from 9-11 though. Not really. I remember full well after 9-11 the "CONSPIRACY" nutjobs went crazy... and this was well before Iraq.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:17 PM) One of the biggest reasons why it wouldn't be necessarily bad if Iran got nuclear weapons. Iran is fairly ethnically diverse, but their constitution is fairly clear about equality between those groups. The CIA has actually tried to destabilize Iran by inciting ethnic tension, and it didn't work. Iran is a strong, democratic and stable country with a loudmouth president who knows better than to match his words with actions, there's not much to be worried about giving them nuclear weapons. Israel being the sole nuclear power in the region is pretty dangerous. The one deterrent they have against using them is losing the support of the United States. If Iran got nukes it would force peace talks on Israel across the board, a lot of concessions by both sides and a huge decrease in violence matched with an increase in diplomacy. The region is a mess, and giving the most established powers on both sides nukes will put everyone on their toes. Most of you are so programmed with the "axis of evil" drilled through your thick skulls that you can under no circumstances view the international system from the lens other than that of an American. It's really a waste of my time to even argue this point. MMMMMMMMkay. The world is just soooooo Cheeeeer-i-o! The laughable part of this is you are arguing with a guy who knows more on his pinky finger about this then you do (no, not me, I'm just an ignorant average "thick skull", but I guess that doesn't matter). And I know you know lf knows what he's talking about.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:01 PM) That's not how you said it in the post I was replying to. You said "Being nice got 3000 people killed". That implies that you're saying torturing someone could have stopped the attack that already happened that killed 3000 people. That is complete bullplop. No, that's not what I was implying, for the record. I was implying that ignoring the facts and not using the ability to gain intelligence is what killed 3,000 people. After the fact, you continue to use ways to get intelligence, and in fact it becomes more important so that it doesn't happen again.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 01:58 PM) I find it ironic that people living in the middle of nowhere, who have a 1 in a billion chance of getting killed in a terrorist attack, are more vocal about this than people in NY, LA, Chicago. I find this opinion exteremely moronic. I don't care where anyone lives... it's people that I care about. Apparently, you don't.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 01:55 PM) Oh that is complete bullplop. Being stupid, perhaps. Really? You know damn well that if we were to get hit sometime in the next 3 years, it's going to be because "George W. Bush was a facist asshole who "tortured"". It's as clear as day what this whole thing is setting up for. It's just like Obama going over to Europe, in front of the adoring French and saying "I'm not George W. Bush, I am Barack Hussein Obama, so love me". So, being "stupid" or "nice" or whatever adjective you want to use, it's the same damn thing.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 01:51 PM) Let's say that hypothetically torture was legal and constitutional, and we didn't have to worry about this whole debate here for a minute. "Torture" then should just be viewed as another interrogation technique. It shouldn't be looked at as the "nuclear option" or anything because it's not guaranteed to work. It doesn't work on everyone, in fact I'd say it doesn't work on the majority of people. For every 1 prisoner you get to break and start giving you good, accurate information, you probably have 2 or 3 that would just start making s*** up, curl up into the fetal position and cry, get on their knees and hug your calf and beg for mercy, and/or start mumbling Koranic verses. There are other methods that are just as effective or better, I mean you could even get a PS3 and start playing Killzone with them if that gets them to talk. You're only limited by your imagination, and the changes in direction don't necessarily have to be "harsher" to be effective. As I just said, IMO, the guidelines that were followed was not torture. It's a slippery slope, and there has to be lines, but to go back and prosecute on a straw man's argument is terrible judgement, IMO. If he doesn't want to adhere to these policies, that's his choice, and don't make it public just to scream about previous administration's "wrongs". Our country didn't used to work that way. Can we go back and prosecute FDR post-humoursly, pretty please? Come on.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 01:50 PM) So you're in favor of a fascist, socialist government having the right to torture? I mean that's what the Obama administration is right? Yes, except it's not "torture" if the guidelines that were followed are followed.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 01:47 PM) ^^ This It's a pretty common understanding that you (kap) jumped the shark several weeks back therefore "could" is unnecessary. And what's he done to prove me wrong? Nothing. I don't post quote after quote about what a dick he is, I just generalize. That's fine. Clearly, I am "wrong".

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 01:43 PM) It's actually somewhat remarkable to me that you bothered to post that after I already pointed out the flaw in it with my post before you. I will make it more clear. If you read both that full article, not just the part you want to hear but the full thing, the guy says...everything that was gotten out of the torture could have been gotten without it, the U.S. has been put in a worse position by the torture, and if he had the choice he would not have done it. This meshes EXACTLY with the FBI version I posted, which I pointed out. He says that a small bit of intelligence was obtained under duress. But both also state it could easily have been obtained without slamming the guy against the wall. Basically, if you actually read the things you're trying to cite, it makes a solid case that the FBI was close to the end of their interrogation of the guy, the Administration decided that it was time to get more, the FBI was ordered to stop, and the last few questions were answered while the CIA and the contractors were beating him senseless. They both say that any answers that were obtained under duress could have been obtained without the torture, and that it was totally unnecessary as a method of gathering intelligence in this case. Citing a case where the people doing the interrogation universally say the torture was unnecessary does not even remotely suggest that it was necessary. It suggests the exact opposite, and the very memo you're trying to cite undermines your entire case if you read the whole thing. It might be unneccessary. it might not be. You want to side on the fact that we should be nice to everyone and make it all rainbows and foo foo kissy kissy for these guys and we would/could get the same information. I want to side on the fact that we have 3,000 people dead, and I don't want it to happen again, so I don't want to take the chance that these perpetrators will know something that might save more thousands of lives. And that doesn't even take into account "what is torture", as that's a whole different argument. History shows us that "being nice" got us 3,000 people killed, so I think it makes little to no difference in these radical's eyes about what "interrogation methods" we use. Yet another strawman arguement from liberals including the Obama Adminisration.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 01:34 PM) lol, "could" It would take me way too much time to do it, since pretty much every damn speech there's a strawman about how America is at fault for all the world's current problems and George W. Bush was an asshole and he's so much better.