Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Are we impregnating or not? I mean, if we can sow our seed (literally) in the country we have taken over . . .

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

I dont' really see a difference between rape and beating someone senseless. They are both incredibly heinous actions.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Who are we, mere women, to suggest that time-honored traditions such as rape and pillage should be abandoned?

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

No, you misunderstand me. Innocents should never be beaten.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

If a women was known to have killed and had information that would prevent further killing, is raping her not a justifiable way to get the information? I don't see this moral delema (sp?) differently than if we substitute "beating" for "raping".

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

I know daddy is fighting with the insurgents, but I don't want to give information on him because, well, he's my daddy.

Am I raped or no?

And I'm still curious about your own sweet ass.

And, OK, so, if the insurgents capture an American soldier and he won't give up all the info he knows, it's OK to sodomize him?

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

No, assumng you are innocent.

I bet you are . . . .

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

answer the american soldier question, and how am I innocent if i have info that I won't give up?

and can we smash the testicles so as to cause immense pain and, as a side effect, prevent further breeding?

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Uh, who, exactly, is determining innocence and non-innocence?

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

BTW, if you're giving out choices, put me down for "beating."

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

The rules would apply equally to all sides.

Listen, I said I'm torn. But I find it hard to really draw lines when you are in an absolutely chaotic and possible immoral state of war, where the winner takes all.

I also think that there are utility arguments for the no-holds barred approach, assuming the techniques are actually effective - I've heard different accounts as to that.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

This is a hypothetical exercise. Don't bring practicality into it.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

So you are backing off? I look forward to films of American soldiers being sodomized.

I don't think it's fair of you to vent your self-hatred -- at what is really a natural curiousity you are feeling -- on those poor soldiers, though. I'm sure you would have no trouble picking up some toys to try things out in the privacy of your own home. Pay cash.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Backing off what.

And if you meant the above as some sort of dig, you should take your homophobia back to where you found it.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

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

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

ETA my ass toys. I think it would be gross to pass along used ass toys.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

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

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

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

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

More Good News From Iraq
 

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

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

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

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

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

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

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

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

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

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

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

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

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

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

I am confused
 

Am I naive or is this not reasonable:

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

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

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

4) If extrating information is necessary:

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

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

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

I am confused
 

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

I am confused
 

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

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

I am confused
 

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

I am confused
 

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

I am confused
 

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

(PS oil for food was more than that)

I am confused
 

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

Interesting Website
 

I saw the same set of platitudes on the new communist website.

Ad(howdy, comrade)der

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

It is quite disconcerting to agree with you completely.

There are elements of 2 of Not Bob's 3 possible scenarios. There is a large dash of Club's concern about units (reserves and active duty) performing missions for which they are not trained.

It is somewhat disheartening, because almost nothing will be done to address these issues (except to punish some individual miscreants who are too obvious, or go a bit too far, or who come to the attention of a superior (or a subordinate with lots of guts) who cares). It is almost random. Lord knows there is no political will to deal with it systemically.

Perhaps 5-10 years down the road, internal to the military, when officers who care take stock of the campaigns and draw "lessons learned" -- there will be chapters on the treatment of POWs and civilian detainees.

S_A_M

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

This has obviously been covered before, but not anywhere near as bad is you seem to think.

Which is not to say it wouldn't be bad, but you seem to have bought into some ridiculous doomsday conclusion to justify your position.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Morality in the abstract isn't.

S_A_M

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

I don't say this lightly, 'cause you are mostly a good guy, but you are a pig.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Yeah, I think I got suckered by those damn whining Kurds.

Well, you know, the ones that are left.

. . . .

Love the rewrite efforts! I give you three months before you're arguing that Saddam was really the last Great Arab Hope for peace in the ME.

I am confused
 

Understanding that (1) the circustances you describe in #3 are exceedingly rare and (2) any information you get from torture is almost certainly wrong, I don't disagree.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

yeah.. I'm all about revisionist history. Saddam rulz!!

Let's see though... 3,000+ died on 9/11... there have been three more such years since, so that means we are up to 12,000 total American civilians dead, right?

Look. If you believe that abstract idea of freedom is worth all costs - a defensible position - just make the argument. Pretending that Saddam was just waiting to kill off half the population of the planet if we didn't intervene is almost as stupid as insisting that he had weapons of mass destruction.

And again, don't get me wrong. I think there was a case to be made for invading Iraq. But I think the administration did the worst job imaginable of (1) making its case to our allies and (2) making a credible case.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

I found an old VHS tape from 2001 under my couch the other day. It had a bunch of shows from FoxNews on it. In one episode of Hannity & [his embalmed looking psyco-liberal freak co-host], Annie Coulter was on and said the following:

God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it! It's yours.

Right on Anne!

By the way, is it just me or would Hannity's ratings jump through the roof if he ditched that liberal dirtbag?

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Hmmm.

I said, how bad would it have been for Iraqis had SH continued on doing his thing.

You said "not anywhere near as bad is you seem to think. Which is not to say it wouldn't be bad, but you seem to have bought into some ridiculous doomsday conclusion to justify your position. "

Saddam was the prime motivating force behind about three million deaths in the past twenty years.

I'm trying to see where you could derive the logic to argue what you seem to be arguing, and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. It's not working.