I don't really agree on adding waterboarding and other such stuff, but Trump does make a good point about combating ISIS.

I don't really agree on adding waterboarding and other such stuff, but Trump does make a good point about combating ISIS.

I love waterboarding.

Its when we baptise terrorists with freedom.

I think he real question about the waterboarding is not so much as to weather it is ethical as the question is whether it is effective.

I have heard many reports that waterboarding, and torture in general, does not produce reliable intelligence. Now if that is the case then water boarding should be banned as it serves no real benefit.

If you are going to argue for water boarding, you first need to make the case that it works, otherwise the whole ethical question dumb.

I think he real question about the waterboarding is not so much as to weather it is ethical as the question is whether it is effective.

I have heard many reports that waterboarding, and torture in general, does not produce reliable intelligence. Now if that is the case then water boarding should be banned as it serves no real benefit.

If you are going to argue for water boarding, you first need to make the case that it works, otherwise the whole ethical question dumb.

I think they should ban beheadings, burning people alive and flying jets into buildings.

Wars are not won by being politically correct.

They are won by ruthlessly exterminating the enemy.

Wars are not won by being politically correct.

They are won by ruthlessly exterminating the enemy.

Exactly.

The problem with our country is that we haven't declared total war since WWII, with a little bit taking place in Vietnam before the libs ruined everything.

No prisoners,
No Mercy.


One of the most influential things I saw in the military was that to this day, people in Afghanistan still fear Ghengis Khan. Why? Because he is the only conqueror to ever defeat the people of Afghanistan, a task that Alexander the Great, the Persian Empire, The Roman Empire, The British Empire, Soviets and Americans all failed to do.

How did he do this? When they refused to submit, he slaughtered millions of them. MILLIONS.

In fact, there are civilizations that many people don't know about because Ghengis Khan wiped them out. All that remains are bits and pieces of history that survived in other cultures.



I always believed in Reagan's philosophy of "Peace through Strength". The problem is that no one respects Americas strength anymore.

Maybe its time they get a refresher course.

Exactly.

The problem with our country is that we haven't declared total war since WWII, with a little bit taking place in Vietnam before the libs ruined everything.

No prisoners,
No Mercy.

One of the most influential things I saw in the military was that to this day, people in Afghanistan still fear Ghengis Khan. Why? Because he is the only conqueror to ever defeat the people of Afghanistan, a task that Alexander the Great, the Persian Empire, The Roman Empire, The British Empire, Soviets and Americans all failed to do.

How did he do this? When they refused to submit, he slaughtered millions of them. MILLIONS.

In fact, there are civilizations that many people don't know about because Ghengis Khan wiped them out. All that remains are bits and pieces of history that survived in other cultures.

I always believed in Reagan's philosophy of "Peace through Strength". The problem is that no one respects Americas strength anymore.

Maybe its time they get a refresher course.

I think that is a very dangerous idea and it goes against the fundamental foundation of our country.

Do you know what no prisoners, no mercy gets us? It gets us more hardened enemies, it gets more enemy sympathizers and combatants, it gets us less support, and it takes away our moral high ground. If you want to slaughter everyone in our enemies zone then we are left morally bankrupt

If you truly believed this mentality then you would do away with the 4th amendment. No mercy for criminals or their family, cops search what they want when they want. Cops find one burglary suspect who won't give the name of the other burglary suspect? Beat the crap out of them right? That is your logic.

Now don't get me wrong, saying please to our enemies shouldn't be our new battle tactic but the mentality you propose leads to a very dangerous slippery slope. It could also end up creating more enemies than it destroys.

If we are going to use a form of torture we need to be able to show it actually works otherwise we have no justification for doing it. Reports show that it has failed to yield good intelligence so what point is there in continuing to do it? If waterboarding doesn't work the it is purely torture with no justification. If we have a form of enhanced interrogation that is ethically gray, first we must prove it works then we can talk about ethical question.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/09/waterboarding-ksm/20151103/

What we did to Japan after they bombed Pearl Harbor



What happened after that...

What we did to Japan after they bombed Pearl Harbor


What happened after that...

Are you willing to throw out the constitution as well in the name of means justify the ends?

Are you willing to throw out the constitution as well in the name of means justify the ends?

We still had the Constitution when the Japanese surrendered.

We still had the Constitution when the Japanese surrendered.

We also had it when we locked up thousands of Japanese Americans without good cause. Didn't stop us.

If fighting a war means no mercy then that means the same against any enemies at home right? Whether real or suspected?

We also had it when we locked up thousands of Japanese Americans without good cause. Didn't stop us.

If fighting a war means no mercy then that means the same against any enemies at home right? Whether real or suspected?

Different procedures. The Japanese didn't declare a war before they bombed Pearl Harbor. If you are referring to the Muslim population in America, what were the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11, who is ISIS made of, and the majority of Philippine insurgents based upon? Is there a large scale Muslim led movement to fight ISIS? Are good, peaceful Muslims saying , "hey Daesh/ISIS we're going to kick your asses because you guys are making the rest of us Muslims look bad."
The Constitution is a good framework to rely on - I never said to get rid of it.

Nothing is absolute in war. War is when we stop communicating. It is chaotic. It is the end of negotiating/talks. It is when we revert to our primal instinct of eliminating our threat. Threat to our existence. Threat to our security. Threat to our lands.

Waterboarding does not produce intelligence. If you don't know what I mean by that, you need to go back to school.

While you are second guessing about what actions are just from the perspective of a Westerner, our enemies are doing this

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4030583977001/warning-extremely-graphic-video-isis-burns-hostage-alive/?#sp=show-clips



How can you come to terms with people like that? Shall we incarcerate them? Oh we already did that at Guantanemo, and when we let them out; they went back to doing what they want to do.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/12/ex-guantanamo-detainee-now-an-al-qaeda-leader-in-yemen.php

After the attacks on 9/11/2001 we struck in Afghanistan. What did that do? Encourage foreign fighters. After we nuked Japan twice did anyone else jump in the fray?

If you walk tall, carry a big stick and not use it; you mind as well carry a cardboard cut out of the stick.

Different procedures. The Japanese didn't declare a war before they bombed Pearl Harbor. If you are referring to the Muslim population in America, what were the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11, who is ISIS made of, and the majority of Philippine insurgents based upon? Is there a large scale Muslim led movement to fight ISIS? Are good, peaceful Muslims saying , "hey Daesh/ISIS we're going to kick your asses because you guys are making the rest of us Muslims look bad."
The Constitution is a good framework to rely on - I never said to get rid of it.

Nothing is absolute in war. War is when we stop communicating. It is chaotic. It is the end of negotiating/talks. It is when we revert to our primal instinct of eliminating our threat. Threat to our existence. Threat to our security. Threat to our lands.

Waterboarding does not produce intelligence. If you don't know what I mean by that, you need to go back to school.

And where do you draw the line? If soldiers can use any means necessary, why can't the police? Look how bad Chicago is with the gang killings, can cops start using drones to blowing up houses full of gang members?

If using the big stick is what we really need then shall we get rid of all rules of combat? How about we rape the family members of terrorist to really show them who is boss. Women, children, etc. Castrate all of the men and boys so they cannot reproduce as well.

If waterboarding does not produce/yield/bring forth actionable intelligence then we have no business doing it.

If we capture them then yes we put them in a prison of some sort. Give them a trial then execution if their actions warrant it.

Actually we won WW2 without resorting to torture. Or am I wrong in thinking that?

You can be powerful, but not a barbarian.

I am very concerned this torture thing can and will be used against political dissent back in America. Pandora's Box once opened.

We want a strong libertarian nation, not a strong totalitarian nation.

I think that is a very dangerous idea and it goes against the fundamental foundation of our country.

Do you know what no prisoners, no mercy gets us? It gets us more hardened enemies, it gets more enemy sympathizers and combatants, it gets us less support, and it takes away our moral high ground. If you want to slaughter everyone in our enemies zone then we are left morally bankrupt

If you truly believed this mentality then you would do away with the 4th amendment. No mercy for criminals or their family, cops search what they want when they want. Cops find one burglary suspect who won't give the name of the other burglary suspect? Beat the crap out of them right? That is your logic.

Now don't get me wrong, saying please to our enemies shouldn't be our new battle tactic but the mentality you propose leads to a very dangerous slippery slope. It could also end up creating more enemies than it destroys.

If we are going to use a form of torture we need to be able to show it actually works otherwise we have no justification for doing it. Reports show that it has failed to yield good intelligence so what point is there in continuing to do it? If waterboarding doesn't work the it is purely torture with no justification. If we have a form of enhanced interrogation that is ethically gray, first we must prove it works then we can talk about ethical question.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/09/waterboarding-ksm/20151103/

That's funny....I don't see Germany or Japan doing what middle easterners are doing to us, and we literally destroyed their entire countries.

And yes, we should have the option for total war. Either submit or we destroy everything in our path, period. Not sure if you had the intestinal fortitude to actually go into combat during the war on terror, because if you did you would understand why our modern approach to war does nothing but put service members in harms way, and bolsters the enemies resolve because they know we won't retaliate withe extreme prejudice.

And I don't see why you are applying 4th amendment rights to foreigners. Citizens of other countries are not entitled to US constitutional rights, so your point makes no sense. You are attempting to justify your point by going off on a random tangent that has nothing to do with what Trump is talking about, which tends to be what people who will vote for Hillary tend to do.

Actually we won WW2 without resorting to torture. Or am I wrong in thinking that?

You can be powerful, but not a barbarian.

I am very concerned this torture thing can and will be used against political dissent back in America. Pandora's Box once opened.

We want a strong libertarian nation, not a strong totalitarian nation.

We won WWII through aggressive action and total war, not through pansy ass diplomacy.

Diplomacy only works if the other side is willing to negotiate. Without that, the process is pointless.

As Ren pointed out, Japan refused to negotiate or surrender until we shove (2) nukes up their ass, and now they are one of our best allies because after we destroyed them, we helped them rebuild. This approach of slash, burn, rebuild isn't some crazy idea. Kamehameha did the same thing when he conquered the islands, destroying Maui and O'ahu before coming back and helping them rebuild under his rule. Same approach worked during WWII, same approach could have worked in every conflict since WWII. The problem is that we have these bleeding heart idiots that have never served and would never serve dictating how we should conduct military operations, which in turn does nothing but make it harder for our military and easier for the enemy.

War should be a last resort, but if you are going to war, allow us to conduct war. Diplomacy is for politicians, war is for the military.

And a Libertarian government is the government we want, but don't deserve. Until we can purge the liberal filth that is polluting our society and destroying the morals and principles that helped make America great, maybe a totalitarian government is the government we deserve. Maybe we need to go to that extreme for people to start caring and to take a stand. But I won't hold my breath though.

We won WWII through aggressive action and total war, not through pansy ass diplomacy.

 

Absolutely correct. In fact Neville Chamberlain's diplomatic appeasement is what led to WWII. Had Hitler been stopped then it would have been a footnote in history of a regional conflict.

Appeasement merely emboldens the aggressor.

That's funny....I don't see Germany or Japan doing what middle easterners are doing to us, and we literally destroyed their entire countries.

And yes, we should have the option for total war. Either submit or we destroy everything in our path, period. Not sure if you had the intestinal fortitude to actually go into combat during the war on terror, because if you did you would understand why our modern approach to war does nothing but put service members in harms way, and bolsters the enemies resolve because they know we won't retaliate withe extreme prejudice.

And I don't see why you are applying 4th amendment rights to foreigners. Citizens of other countries are not entitled to US constitutional rights, so your point makes no sense. You are attempting to justify your point by going off on a random tangent that has nothing to do with what Trump is talking about, which tends to be what people who will vote for Hillary tend to do.

Japan and Germany were a different type of enemy. They were an enemy based on a country, not an ideology. They were an enemy with uniforms and clearer battle lines. In WW2, we didn't have smart bombs, stealth technology, or satellites. This is a different war in a different time with a different type of enemy.

The argument of "well we did it in the past and it worked fine" is about as thoughtless as can be. We also did slavery in the past, perhaps we should apply your logic to that too?

You are operating on assumptions, specifically the assumption that a ruthless war will scare people out of fighting. How do you know it won't just make them fight harder? How do you know if won't just make them have more recruits? I think your premise is flawed, especially when dealing with an enemy of this type.

The bill of rights recognizes what are supposed to be innate human rights, they could be said to exist even if there was no amendment guaranteeing it. Having said that, this means we, as the leader of the free world, needs to abide by the ideals which make us great. Either we are moral and strong, or the whole greatest nation is a facade.  The supreme court did rule that the prisoners in Guantanamo do have the right to due process. Again, this is because we are, or at least try to be, a just nation, and try to prevent the innocent from being killed.
Or do you operate under the belief that the right to free speech exists only because it is written on paper?

Do you believe the phrase that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to jail? (in general)

Absolutely correct. In fact Neville Chamberlain's diplomatic appeasement is what led to WWII. Had Hitler been stopped then it would have been a footnote in history of a regional conflict.

Appeasement merely emboldens the aggressor.

Refraining from carpet bombing civilians ≠ appeasement.
Refraining from torture that does not produce actionable intelligence ≠ appeasement.