dbar

Perkasie, PA

#22 Feb 12, 2013
QuiteCrazy wrote:
<quoted text>
dbar honestly man if you were in a ring and the rules were drawn up out and clear but once you enter the ring the other guy does not comply. Are you going to honestly tell me your going to stand there with your arm behind your back and get your tush hacked off so you can later say.. I was right?? Cause he's going to win and at the end of the day, the victors write it as they like it.
you either have standards or you do not.
under your logic the US could firebomb every town and city in Afghanistan as we see fit.
or poison the water supplies of all the villages in disputed areas.
salt the earth with radioactive elements so that no one can live there for a thousand years.
shall we drop explosive toys for the children living in those areas to play with?
you have to draw the line somewhere.
on waterboarding the US drew a line quite some time ago.

QuiteCrazy

Quakertown, PA

#23 Feb 12, 2013
Good Grief dbar!

That's insane! BTW, not that it hasn't happened already.

Whether you like it or not historically the lines in war are always blurred and then lawyers try to "settle it." Look at the Nuremburg Trials...
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#24 Feb 12, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
when did i ever say drone strikes are moral?
i am making no moral judgement at all.
killing innocents via drone strikes is not moral.
as to striking in foreign countries well lets say that striking in France say would be a bad idea.
that is because the French could and would retaliate.
that unfortunately is how the world works, it is certainly not moral.
waterboarding however is not moral and illegal under military law and civilian law.
the effectiveness of waterboarding has many detractors.
the question is whether it works.
with waterboarding the subject will tell you anything you want to hear.
that is a big problem with torture aside from legal issues.
personally i could care less about the pain suffered by a terrorist.
getting false or invented information from torture accomplishes nothing.
if i get your point you feel that President Obama has the right to order drone strikes yet you try to equate that as being equal to waterboarding terrorists in a moral sense.
if you mean both are not moral i would agree.
you do not mention the "Bush doctrine" which opened the can of worms.
if a terrorist was known to be holed up somewhere and we knew it and President Obama failed to order a drone strike what would be your claim?
bin laden was in Pakistan, should the President have not ordered the strike?
from a legal point of view he attacked a country that we are not at war with.
Course i do not remember declaring war on Grenada either.
or the games played in Nicaragua.
quite a lot of covert action and killing of innocents.
those actions were both immoral.
i do not remember conservatives being outraged about the lack of morality in those two cases.
yet now they do?
why is that?
You are saying that killing people with drones, even innocent people, can be defended while waterboarding cannot. That sounds like a moral judgement to me. My position is that self-defense is justified, whether that's through enhanced interrogation techniques or drone attacks. My dad taught me that the best way to handle a bully is to put him down fast and don't let him get up. That's the way I feel about terrorists, there is no gray area when your life -or national security- is on the line.

As far as Conservatives go, most SUPPORT drone attacks and give Obama high marks for it. The opposition he's facing now is largely from Liberal, bleeding-heart Democrats. Republicans are just pointing out the hypocrisy. Like me, they would rather have waterboarding AND drones.

During the Bush era, waterboarding was judged to be legal by military and govt legal counsel, at least until Obama stopped it. Nobody went to jail for waterboarding anyone, and there are still people who claim that it was responsible for getting the name of the courier who led to the location of OBL.
Joe

Quakertown, PA

#25 Feb 12, 2013
We can all be grateful that waterboarding received ample press coverage and consequently questions about its use violating the Geneva Convention were raised. The vast majority of intelligence officers will agree that torturing a suspect leads to bad intelligence.

On the other hand, aside from a few major media sources, drone warfare has not received the in-depth coverage it deserves. Leaving the public either apathetic or confused about the Constitutional ramifications surrounding drones. No President should have a "kill-list" and the power to execute an American citizen without Du Process. Unfortunately the Obama Administration is guilty of this heinous act. But in general I believe the U.S. is opening a pandora's box with use the armed drones. It may take 10-15 years, but one day non-state actors hostile to the U.S. will gain this technology and employ it against U.S. targets.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#26 Feb 12, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
You are saying that killing people with drones, even innocent people, can be defended while waterboarding cannot. That sounds like a moral judgement to me. My position is that self-defense is justified, whether that's through enhanced interrogation techniques or drone attacks. My dad taught me that the best way to handle a bully is to put him down fast and don't let him get up. That's the way I feel about terrorists, there is no gray area when your life -or national security- is on the line.
As far as Conservatives go, most SUPPORT drone attacks and give Obama high marks for it. The opposition he's facing now is largely from Liberal, bleeding-heart Democrats. Republicans are just pointing out the hypocrisy. Like me, they would rather have waterboarding AND drones.
During the Bush era, waterboarding was judged to be legal by military and govt legal counsel, at least until Obama stopped it. Nobody went to jail for waterboarding anyone, and there are still people who claim that it was responsible for getting the name of the courier who led to the location of OBL.
no i am saying innocents getting killed by accident in a drone strike is something that happens.
not pretty not moral.
something that happens in war.
waterboarding is illegal.
by Convention and US law.
trying the tapdance that terrorists are not soldiers yet not civilians so anything goes is not supported by international law.
i suspect if a German war criminal tried to defend killing say Russian prisoners with the defense that Russia did not sign the Geneva conventions would cut no ice with the judges.
nor did it and the war criminals paid the price.

liberals are concerned with abuses in such Presidential power.
what happens when you get another Ruby ridge for example?
could the President simply order a drone strike or an airstrike for example?
aside from public opinion what controls would restrict such actions?
do you simply trust the motives of the President whoever that may be?
so the "bleeding hearts" have a point.
as to justifying torture the only ones to go to jail would be the interrogators themselves.
they have the "i was following orders" theme which did not work so well for the German war criminals.
the big fish are never charged unless you have a total defeat type war.
with the political ramifications of a trial it is no wonder that no charges have been made.
not to mention that from a national view most likely President Obama would have to issue a pardon for the same reason that President Ford did.

try

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_...

"The Bush administration told the CIA in 2002 that its interrogators working abroad would not violate U.S. prohibitions against torture unless they "have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering," according to a previously secret Justice Department memo released on 24 July 2008. The interrogator's "good faith" and "honest belief" that the interrogation will not cause such suffering protects the interrogator, the memo adds. "Because specific intent is an element of the offense, the absence of specific intent negates the charge of torture,"

if you really think that would fly in a trial well good luck to the defendant.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#27 Feb 12, 2013
QuiteCrazy wrote:
Good Grief dbar!
That's insane! BTW, not that it hasn't happened already.
Whether you like it or not historically the lines in war are always blurred and then lawyers try to "settle it." Look at the Nuremburg Trials...
and the precedents established by those trials only applied to the losers of that war.
the Allies committed war crimes as well.
QuiteCrazy

Quakertown, PA

#28 Feb 12, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
and the precedents established by those trials only applied to the losers of that war.
the Allies committed war crimes as well.
You realize you are using the same logic that Ramzi Yousef did? I purposely brought up the subject matter because you seem to sympathize with the views. Do you also sympathize with McViegh?
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#29 Feb 12, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>no i am saying innocents getting killed by accident in a drone strike is something that happens.
not pretty not moral.
something that happens in war.
waterboarding is illegal.
by Convention and US law.
trying the tapdance that terrorists are not soldiers yet not civilians so anything goes is not supported by international law.
i suspect if a German war criminal tried to defend killing say Russian prisoners with the defense that Russia did not sign the Geneva conventions would cut no ice with the judges.
nor did it and the war criminals paid the price.

liberals are concerned with abuses in such Presidential power.
what happens when you get another Ruby ridge for example?
could the President simply order a drone strike or an airstrike for example?
aside from public opinion what controls would restrict such actions?
do you simply trust the motives of the President whoever that may be?
so the "bleeding hearts" have a point.
as to justifying torture the only ones to go to jail would be the interrogators themselves.
they have the "i was following orders" theme which did not work so well for the German war criminals.
the big fish are never charged unless you have a total defeat type war.
with the political ramifications of a trial it is no wonder that no charges have been made.
not to mention that from a national view most likely President Obama would have to issue a pardon for the same reason that President Ford did.

try

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_...

"The Bush administration told the CIA in 2002 that its interrogators working abroad would not violate U.S. prohibitions against torture unless they "have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering," according to a previously secret Justice Department memo released on 24 July 2008. The interrogator's "good faith" and "honest belief" that the interrogation will not cause such suffering protects the interrogator, the memo adds. "Because specific intent is an element of the offense, the absence of specific intent negates the charge of torture,"

if you really think that would fly in a trial well good luck to the defendant.
Legal counsel under the Bush WH affirmed the legality of waterboarding, we are not yet under UN rule. If US laws were broken, where are the prosecutions? Will Peace-Prize winner Obama face war criminal charges for drone attacks like Dubya was threatened with for waterboarding? I hope not. Both actions are fully justifiable IMO.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#30 Feb 12, 2013
QuiteCrazy wrote:
<quoted text>
You realize you are using the same logic that Ramzi Yousef did? I purposely brought up the subject matter because you seem to sympathize with the views. Do you also sympathize with McViegh?
History is history.
i have no sympathy for terrorists or war criminals.
trying to say war crimes are allowed because our side did them is not logical.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#31 Feb 12, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
Legal counsel under the Bush WH affirmed the legality of waterboarding, we are not yet under UN rule. If US laws were broken, where are the prosecutions? Will Peace-Prize winner Obama face war criminal charges for drone attacks like Dubya was threatened with for waterboarding? I hope not. Both actions are fully justifiable IMO.
justifiable does not equate with legal.
German lawyers justified lots of things and were tried for those things.
you are running into the "might makes right" scenario.
note that it has no bearing on morality or legality
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#32 Feb 12, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>History is history.
i have no sympathy for terrorists or war criminals.
trying to say war crimes are allowed because our side did them is not logical.
Your definition of "war crimes" differs from mine. When you are fighting for survival, there are no rules. The ends justify the means and if one side follows the "rules" and the other doesn't, guess which side has the advantage?

If the colonists fought the Redcoats according to their rules, we'd still have British accents. Terrorists have no rules and our attempts to introduce them just show weakness. Just ask any veteran of the Iraq or Afghanistan campaigns how following "rules" cost American lives in trying to disarm insurgents and Taliban holed up in civilian residences.
QuiteCrazy

Quakertown, PA

#33 Feb 13, 2013
Thank you IQ! Thank goodness someone couldsay what I was trying to say. LOL

He's right! I completely agree with him there. That's what I'm saying dbar.

Well said IQ.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#34 Feb 13, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
Your definition of "war crimes" differs from mine. When you are fighting for survival, there are no rules. The ends justify the means and if one side follows the "rules" and the other doesn't, guess which side has the advantage?
If the colonists fought the Redcoats according to their rules, we'd still have British accents. Terrorists have no rules and our attempts to introduce them just show weakness. Just ask any veteran of the Iraq or Afghanistan campaigns how following "rules" cost American lives in trying to disarm insurgents and Taliban holed up in civilian residences.
so if survival is the question.
why has not the armed services done the following.

use nerve gas to remove the taliban holed up in civilian residences.
why risk our troops?
who cares about the civilians so tough luck for them--VX gas works pretty well in enclosed areas.
or
genocide--exterminate all people living in Afghanistan.
to use a slightly changed saying "the only good afghan is a dead afghan"
salt the land of Afghanistan with radioactive dust to make the area
deadly to any you miss.
in Iraq execute 1000 civilians for every US soldier killed.
increasing the number of civilians until all attacks on US personnel stop.
if that means 5000 or ten thousand so be it.

in the US since Americans on Arabic descent may be suspect or sympathetic to the plight of the people above --require all persons of Arabic descent to wear a badge on their clothing.
to make it easier to keep an eye on them make them all live in the same walled off areas.

it goes without saying that you ban them from all firearms.
you would have to have severe licensing for all other Americans to make sure you do not get any resales to them
removal from any travel on public transportation systems.
removal from any sensitive job say a worker at a chemical plant or a nuclear power plant,a railroad dispatcher etc etc

that is just some well known tactics used to eradicate or control a population.
the ends justify the means?
anything goes?

or are there certain things you do not pursue?

perhaps rules on the kind of warfare you wage?
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#35 Feb 13, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
so if survival is the question.
why has not the armed services done the following.
use nerve gas to remove the taliban holed up in civilian residences.
why risk our troops?
who cares about the civilians so tough luck for them--VX gas works pretty well in enclosed areas.
or
genocide--exterminate all people living in Afghanistan.
to use a slightly changed saying "the only good afghan is a dead afghan"
salt the land of Afghanistan with radioactive dust to make the area
deadly to any you miss.
in Iraq execute 1000 civilians for every US soldier killed.
increasing the number of civilians until all attacks on US personnel stop.
if that means 5000 or ten thousand so be it.
in the US since Americans on Arabic descent may be suspect or sympathetic to the plight of the people above --require all persons of Arabic descent to wear a badge on their clothing.
to make it easier to keep an eye on them make them all live in the same walled off areas.
it goes without saying that you ban them from all firearms.
you would have to have severe licensing for all other Americans to make sure you do not get any resales to them
removal from any travel on public transportation systems.
removal from any sensitive job say a worker at a chemical plant or a nuclear power plant,a railroad dispatcher etc etc
that is just some well known tactics used to eradicate or control a population.
the ends justify the means?
anything goes?
or are there certain things you do not pursue?
perhaps rules on the kind of warfare you wage?
When was I put in charge? Why are you asking me - if it were up to me, I'd do a lot of things differently. That being said, your use of absurd extremes is laughable. How about some SANE thinking? For example, American troops looking for armed Taliban have to announce themselves ahead of time before entering the house, giving the enemies time to hide their weapons or fire on the soldiers. According to you, it's either that or nerve gas. With those choices, I'd go with the VX gas every time.
QuiteCrazy

Quakertown, PA

#36 Feb 13, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
When was I put in charge? Why are you asking me - if it were up to me, I'd do a lot of things differently. That being said, your use of absurd extremes is laughable. How about some SANE thinking? For example, American troops looking for armed Taliban have to announce themselves ahead of time before entering the house, giving the enemies time to hide their weapons or fire on the soldiers. According to you, it's either that or nerve gas. With those choices, I'd go with the VX gas every time.
or... better yet just send in dbar to neutralize them.

:)
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#37 Feb 13, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
When was I put in charge? Why are you asking me - if it were up to me, I'd do a lot of things differently. That being said, your use of absurd extremes is laughable. How about some SANE thinking? For example, American troops looking for armed Taliban have to announce themselves ahead of time before entering the house, giving the enemies time to hide their weapons or fire on the soldiers. According to you, it's either that or nerve gas. With those choices, I'd go with the VX gas every time.
the difference between killing taliban with fire(napalm) and nerve agents(asphyxiation) is what?

shooting the taliban differs from fatally poisoning the water supply they drink from in what way?

by your definition of the rules (or lack of any rules)
either version of both scenarios accomplishes the same aim.
killing the enemy.
or is it different somehow?

try

http://news.lawreader.com/2006/11/15/us-force...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hadit...

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/53442904/2d-Marin...

"At its essence, what the rules of engagement say are that if you feel threatened by an enemy force or by an incident that's taking place in front of you, you are authorized to engage. And that hasn't changed."

doing a search i found no ROE that required US troops to announce themselves to the taliban.
perhaps you have seen one that i missed in my search.

" How does positive identification operate in a kinetic situation [such as clearing a house]?

When you're engaged in a firefight, a concept of positive identification, an awareness of the rules of engagement tend to fade. You're concerned with what's in front of you. You are acutely aware of the possibilities.

And if you see a fleeting target, you're going to fire on it. Now that doesn't mean that you are free to shoot anything and anyone that may appear during a firefight. But in a firefight, you don't have the luxury of considered thought. You don't have time for considered thought.

In a life-or-death action like that, you act and react. Now no one is going to, for example, turn and see a baby and say, "Oh, I think I'll shoot that child." It's conceivable that the child may be killed in the uncontrolled strobe-like melee of a firefight. But positive identification in a firefight -- you do the best you can."

so it seems the unit commanders tend to give the troops reasonable rules or guidelines.
do you believe the ROE examples listed are keeping the US forces from killing the enemy?
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#38 Feb 13, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
the difference between killing taliban with fire(napalm) and nerve agents(asphyxiation) is what?
shooting the taliban differs from fatally poisoning the water supply they drink from in what way?
by your definition of the rules (or lack of any rules)
either version of both scenarios accomplishes the same aim.
killing the enemy.
or is it different somehow?
try
http://news.lawreader.com/2006/11/15/us-force...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hadit...
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/53442904/2d-Marin...
"At its essence, what the rules of engagement say are that if you feel threatened by an enemy force or by an incident that's taking place in front of you, you are authorized to engage. And that hasn't changed."
doing a search i found no ROE that required US troops to announce themselves to the taliban.
perhaps you have seen one that i missed in my search.
" How does positive identification operate in a kinetic situation [such as clearing a house]?
When you're engaged in a firefight, a concept of positive identification, an awareness of the rules of engagement tend to fade. You're concerned with what's in front of you. You are acutely aware of the possibilities.
And if you see a fleeting target, you're going to fire on it. Now that doesn't mean that you are free to shoot anything and anyone that may appear during a firefight. But in a firefight, you don't have the luxury of considered thought. You don't have time for considered thought.
In a life-or-death action like that, you act and react. Now no one is going to, for example, turn and see a baby and say, "Oh, I think I'll shoot that child." It's conceivable that the child may be killed in the uncontrolled strobe-like melee of a firefight. But positive identification in a firefight -- you do the best you can."
so it seems the unit commanders tend to give the troops reasonable rules or guidelines.
do you believe the ROE examples listed are keeping the US forces from killing the enemy?
I'm not dismissing any weapons from consideration under the right circumstances, so your logic won't work with me. Like I said before, in a battle the person following the rules is at a disadvantage and likely to lose. That's why allowing only criminals to have assault weapons is a bad idea.

As far as clearing a house, I heard it from a returning soldier on a TV show who was talking about how Washington had issued orders to the field Generals that soldiers had to announce themselves before entering a suspected house, much like our domestic police do. This was to appease the Afghan govt who was angry over civilian casualties. The soldier said it was a point of amusement with the local Taliban. I don't have a source right now, but I can try to find it when I have the time. To DC, we're not a war with the Taliban, we're at war for the "hearts and minds" of the Afghani's. We should have left that hell hole a long time ago, IMO.
It has long outlived its usefulness.
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#40 Feb 14, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
the difference between killing taliban with fire(napalm) and nerve agents(asphyxiation) is what?
shooting the taliban differs from fatally poisoning the water supply they drink from in what way?
by your definition of the rules (or lack of any rules)
either version of both scenarios accomplishes the same aim.
killing the enemy.
or is it different somehow?
try
http://news.lawreader.com/2006/11/15/us-force...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hadit...
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/53442904/2d-Marin...
"At its essence, what the rules of engagement say are that if you feel threatened by an enemy force or by an incident that's taking place in front of you, you are authorized to engage. And that hasn't changed."
doing a search i found no ROE that required US troops to announce themselves to the taliban.
perhaps you have seen one that i missed in my search.
" How does positive identification operate in a kinetic situation [such as clearing a house]?
When you're engaged in a firefight, a concept of positive identification, an awareness of the rules of engagement tend to fade. You're concerned with what's in front of you. You are acutely aware of the possibilities.
And if you see a fleeting target, you're going to fire on it. Now that doesn't mean that you are free to shoot anything and anyone that may appear during a firefight. But in a firefight, you don't have the luxury of considered thought. You don't have time for considered thought.
In a life-or-death action like that, you act and react. Now no one is going to, for example, turn and see a baby and say, "Oh, I think I'll shoot that child." It's conceivable that the child may be killed in the uncontrolled strobe-like melee of a firefight. But positive identification in a firefight -- you do the best you can."
so it seems the unit commanders tend to give the troops reasonable rules or guidelines.
do you believe the ROE examples listed are keeping the US forces from killing the enemy?
I posted at least 4 sources in reply to this RoE question last night and my post disappeared. I will try to recreate it and repost it at some point today. Ugh!
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#41 Feb 14, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
I posted at least 4 sources in reply to this RoE question last night and my post disappeared. I will try to recreate it and repost it at some point today. Ugh!
i have had that happen myself.
usually after you write out a long answer with several sources it messes up.
i usually copy my reply before hitting the post comment button.
it does get annoying
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#42 Feb 14, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
i have had that happen myself.
usually after you write out a long answer with several sources it messes up.
i usually copy my reply before hitting the post comment button.
it does get annoying
This was pretty much the gist of it:

While the story I related on Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan was anecdotal, I was able to find a number of sources that point out how our military activities are hampered by rules coming down from Washington to the field generals designed to appease the Afghan government at the risk of American lives. Here are a few with some outside sources cited (parenthetical expressions are mine):

1. No night or surprise searches.(We wouldn’t want to disturb the Taliban’s beauty sleep.)
2. Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.(So they can hide their weapons or alert their Taliban guests)
3. ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches.(Because we know they won’t turn on our troops and shoot them in the back, don’t we?)
4. U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.(Who knows? They could just be playing with those automatic weapons)
5. U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.(You can recognize the Taliban among them by the buttons they wear proclaiming,“I’m Taliban and I’m Proud!”)
6. Only women can search women.(“Hey, that woman has a fuse coming out of her…”)
7. Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid.(After all, we wouldn’t want them to miss the results of their efforts now, would we?”

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/...

http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/blog/post/2009/...

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/i...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Coopersburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Staats - Chellew Debate Oct. 20, 7pm Qtown Mich... 8 hr HuggyBear 36
Methadone clinic (Feb '13) 11 hr Monica mehalshick 27
I'm an idiot, please help me decipher and under... 12 hr dbar 36
What Should the U.S. Do About ISIS? 12 hr dbar 58
Memories of Quakertown (Jan '10) Wed Tom 750
Why vote for Craig Staats? Oct 21 StaatsisaMistake 99
Change in bus times Oct 20 Meh 2

Coopersburg News Video

Coopersburg Dating
Find my Match

Coopersburg Jobs

Coopersburg People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Coopersburg News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Coopersburg

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]