treetopovskaya wrote:Blueskies wrote:I am being honest with you...I would not use any means necessary..that only cries out desperation in possibly being overpowered and defeated. Just like Tyson did in the analogy I mentioned..and also why people like the 9/11 terrorists resort to barbarism...they are uncivilized acts of desperation when they are overwhelmed with failure and defeat.....only barbaric people that are at a loss to come up with any other means to try to get what they want have to resort to "any means necessary". We were not "defeated" on 9/11 so we didn't have to..still don't have to resort to "any means necessary" to win in the end.treetopovskaya wrote:Eric wrote:Lula wrote: seems to be stories to contradict stories. some say it works, some say it doesn't. i'm on the "doesn't work" side. i would rather err on the side of caution. it is not a good thing for the u.s. to have blood on her hands, not as we hold ourselves as a pillar of morality amongst nations.
After pages of discussion, I definitely respect your opinion. I DO think it saved lives, but I understand if you don't want to even go down that road. And by the way..if I were President I couldn't order it....and probably couldn't execute if ordered to do it...but I want people in positions that are willing to do it if it saves life, because I don't want to feel like I did on 9-11 again. How's that for a hypocrite!?
there isn't a person here who wouldn't have gone through any means it took to wipe that from our history. if they deny it then they are not being honest.
Like I said...if Holyfield did the same would he have won in the end?..would he have come out of the fight with more or less respect then Tyson? Wouldn't he then be viewed as being on the same level as Tyson and lost respect too if he did the same in return or worse? See...that's what has happened to us when others around the world view US policy...the differences that are seen between what we say and what we do. How we put ourselves up as an example for others to follow. We have to practice what we preach and not resort to the same barbarism as our enemies.
We have to fight by our moral convictions or not fight at all...when we lose our convictions which we use as justifications we not only lose our standing...any respect we have...we also show our enemies that we have to resort to acts of desperation as well...which shows weakness. Something may be gained momentarily by resorting to " any" means but in the long run we will have lost much more then we gained...just like the terrorists will lose in the end by their tactics. We have to go with our convictions and hold to them...we have to use our heads and not just our fists.
so in your mind we shouldn't punish criminals because two wrongs don't make a right? so the guy who shot & murdered that women he met on craig's list... we shouldn't put him away or worse if he's found gulity because hey... 2 wrongs don't make a right.
your mike tyson/holyfield analogy makes no sense really. are you saying that america uses harsh means of interrogation because our enemies do more & worse? that if we didn't they would stop cutting off heads or never would have in the first place?
i guess i really don't give a poop if our gov might do something questionable if it's a last effort & saves innocent people. if 911 could have been stopped i wouldn't care much if they had to dunk some heads into water. a child crying because they lost a parent or both... or a terrorist having bad dreams... hmm... i would give that child back their childhood. fuck the terrorist... they can...
rot in hell.
Where in the world did you read into what I have said, that I don't think criminals should be punished???
There are ways to punish without resorting to doing the same things the criminal has done. By your standards you are saying that we should do the same things or worse to the criminals as they have done. Does that mean we should have chopped up, cooked and eaten Dahmer instead of sentencing him to prison??


To your second point about the Tyson analogy:
You need to stop a minute and go back and really read what I said. You are the one saying that " America uses harsh measures of interrogation because our enemies do more or worse" . Again,......
My point is that we should not resort to doing the same or worse...if we do we are seen just as uncivilized and barbaric as those we fight. Will the criminals still cut off peoples heads if we don't use torture on those we catch? Probably, yes.....but they will also still do it if we do torture those we catch...probably even increase their barbaristic tactics in retaliation to ours. We have to be smarter then our enemies and not sink down to barbaristic tactics in return.
We have to have justification for our reasons to fight and if we don't have some standards...some moral authority for fighting... then we become the same and our justification is lost....our standing in the world is lost. We should interrogate and fight with intelligence not torture...the terrorists use torture...torture is terrorism in every sense of the word..it's done to terrorize someone into capitulation..so if we use torture we become terrorists as well. We have to have right on our side...and the only way to keep it is not to resort to the same kinds of tactics as our enemies.