Was the usage of torture foreseeable?

[Elfdart]

The Nuremburg Trials are only the most famous trials in human history. For you to pretend that what happened is some sort of arcane knowledge is cretinous.

You seem to belive that because justice isn't perfect, why bother? Well, why bother with any law? If some people manage to escape justice, it means the whole thing is a joke, right? You try to make it sound oh-so-cynical and unsentimental, but you're actually just making an infantile argument.

[Aaron]

As far as I’m concerned, the giving of funds to suicide bombers was a calculated effort to prolong and expand the Infitada on Saddam’s part. It’s one example of the fact that he’s still capable of causing us trouble. And, as September 11 and modern terrorism prove, a small infusion of time and funds can cause big, big problems.

You and I are in complete agreement here.

Considering that Iraq and most other Arab countries attacked them repeatedly, I wonder why. There’s more than enough blame to go around, but to suggest that Israel did it blindly rather than in preemptive self-defense – no matter who started the original trouble in the Holy Land – is just stupid.

The way you talk, moreover, it’s as if you think Israeli soldiers line up babies and shoot them for fun. That’s one of the reasons I don’t even get into debates on Israel on my college campus. You’re either an AIPAC pawn who regurgitates crap about how all Palestinians are born wearing bomb belts, or a diehard “Free Palestine” moron who thinks all Israelis carry score cards showing how many innocent Palestinians they’ve killed on the way to work.

I can't agee with their decision to attack Osirak unless there was definative evidence that Iraq was going to use their potential nukes against Israel. The Israeli's have nuclear weapons, so why can't Arab nations have them to defend against Israel. I see that the USA has learned it's present stance on WMD's from it's little brother Israel, namely "we can have them but you can't, because your Arabs".

I never said that Israeli troops shoot babies for fun, and I certainly don't appreciate the statement. I think that there's plenty of blame to go around in this situation, but I think that the Israeli's need to be the "bigger" man and solve this problem. They have the means to stop the "troubles" by giving the Palestinians the homeland they deserve, but they can't see past the hate. I don't blame the Israeli troops for this, they are simply the tool of an oppressive government.

[Vympel]

LIAR. These are your words:

Hey, idiot, YOU lied about the article by saying they were comparing. They were not. They were referring. Regardless, you have yet to provide any reasoning to delineate the methods and competence of those idiots and their debacle in Iraq and those scum in Chile.

You insinuated that Chile?s military intelligence was just like America?s in Iraq. That?s a comparison, nitwit.

In terms of methods and competence, yes. In terms of acceptability, not so much.

And obviously, they let it get too far? What you?re doing here is advocating a black-and-white fallacy by suggesting that all torture will inevitably kill victims.

No, I'm presenting it as *one of* the reasons it's a bad fucking idea.

The Arab world is already convinced we torture the prisoners we take. Do you honestly believe that they will assume we?re treating Osama according to the Geneva Conventions regardless of whether we actually put him in a five star hotel or a hole in the ground?

Oh right, the ENTIRE Arab world is convinced that the USA is a bunch of scum and has no interest in practicing what it preaches, so we might as well just live down to their expectations. And you think this sort of attitude is a proper foundation for eliminating terrorism? Are you SERIOUS?

?Propaganda line?? It?s true, you fucking retard. The United States goes to great lengths to reduce the possibility of civilian casualties during operations.

What, because they say so? I see no reason to believe that the US has any more interest in putting itself out to prevent civilian deaths (see: the countless Iraqis shot dead at checkpoints because they didn't understand what non-Arabic speaking US troops were saying, or the numerous Kosovo debacles, or the Iraq debacles, or anything else) than any other military. Their PGMs make the deaths of civilians less *likely*, that's all. That's merely a natural result of technological superiority. They're still perfectly willing to fire a HARM into a resident area if there's a radar placed there, for example. Any military would do the same.

Furthermore, attempting to compare ? and we?ve already established that that?s exactly what you attempted to do, but nice backpedal anyway ? Chile?s military intelligence arm, known for its often senseless and uncontrolled brutality, to that of the United States ? where incidents like that at Abu Ghraib are cause for shakeups, prosecution, and reorganization ? is simply misleading.

AGAIN: *you* brought about the comparison issue with your misrepresenation of the article.

2- METHODS AND COMPETENCE. Punsihment of this behavior is irrelevant to the issue- Abu Ghraib has displayed the exact same kind of senseless brutality as you assign to Chile, and your no-fact indignation has no bearing on the argument.

But they obviously ? by your own admission ? gave roles to military police, who were apparently supposed to ?prepare? the prisoners in question. That shouldn?t be happening.

Thank you for evading the point, which is that these interrogators were INCOMPETENT.

And, frankly, given the much smaller scale the torturing of only high leadership in very specific circumstances (when they haven?t said anything else), the affair is going to be far easier to control.

Oh bullshit. It's ALREADY prohibited conduct across the board, but bizarrely, and you think simply allowing them to do it in limited circumstances will somehow make this conduct easily regulated.

And this is only possible if torture occurs? Spare me

This is the LAST time I'm going to say it, you repetetive, stawman-erecting moron- what part of "more unreliable than other methods" do you fail to understand? It is a fucking GIVEN that it's possible in other circumstances, but it is MOST possible when it comes to torture

Every fucking piece of data that the U.S. military comes across in Iraq has to be catalogued and cross-checked. That?s why there?s such a fucking massive back-up.

I'll repeat the question, moron: substantiate your reasoning that with every possible piece of information a terrorist throws out there, they'll instantly have the information on hand to determine it true or false.

Yet again you ignore the holes you punch in your own fucking argument. ?Well, obviously, only torture will yield questionable data? is what your argument boils down to. Did you even stop to think that your criticism of my position is equally applicable to yours?

Cram your bullfuck strawman up your arse. You've been peddling these incessant black and white fallcies and strawmen throughout the debate, and, in typical form, simply repeat the accusations of the other side, but surprise surprise, not backing it up. Let's see:

1. "It's either torture, or being nice!"
2. "You only think torture yields questionable data!"
3. "You think they instantly act on information recieved!"

Over and over and over and over.

I'll repeat, it's not a question of getting, as you fucking amazingly put it, getting a SEAL team to spring into action, it's about the complete intelligence picture and the liklihood of tainting the record. Which, depiste a LITANY of continuos embarassments since at LEAST 2002, you totally ignore.

Look above: we know it works, and we know that the American public wouldn?t be enraged by the revelation that Osama bin Laden had been subject to torture. Furthermore, the Arab world already expects that we torture prisoners ? in part thanks to Abu Ghraib. Hence the public relations consequences have by and large already come to pass outside the U.S.

"The shit's been done, so no point turning back, might as go all the way!"

WTF? Did it occur to you that if proper punishments are meted out to these idiots, it might salvage the situation?

So you?re telling me that as long as it?s by ?uninvasive means,? we can act on any information that comes out of a mindfuck session at once? Moron. DO YOU NOT SEE THAT THE SAME PROBLEM OF FILTERING DATA APPLIES REGARDLESS OF WHETHER TORTURE IS USED?

Who said ANYTHING, EVER, about immediately acting on it? Huh? Who? Where?

And there?s a falsehood if ever I saw one. The proper cost-benefit analysis takes into account global reverberations of various actions as a matter of course.

Oh right, which you are of course showing a superb job of displaying in this thread

1. *Assume* the American public will automatically tolerate the torture of all "high level" terrorists. Problems in defining "terrorist" ignored.

2. *Assume* that since the entire Arab World must hate us already, that we might as well live down to their expectations and act as they expect us to. How this is supposed to provide a solid foundation for the US' stated mission in Iraq in "transforming the Middle East", god only knows. Unless you're a fucking dolt and think the Shah of Iran model of international relations is a stable foundation upon which to place your security

3. *Assume* US allies (including both Muslim/Arab and European countries) will wholeheartedley approve of these methods.

4. *Assume* that torture of only "high level" terrorists (again noting problems with how high level and terrorist are to be defined) will somehow be easy to regulate, never mind that blanket illegality of this sort of treatment has not stopped widespread reported in Iraq or elsewhere. By what logic allowing it and then regulating it is supposed to improve the situation is left to the imagination.

And all these arse-umptions for what? Put simply, you predicate your entire advocacy of this pure barbarism so that you can walk away from an interrogation with something. Never mind that it's the most unreliable kind of information you can illicit from an interrogation. Never mind that the very fact it was spoken will enter the intelligence record in relation to whatever matter it is, in totality, and will thereby reduce the reliability of the entire record, leading quite possibly to bad decisions based on bad intelligence down the road. And how do you respond to this?

5. *Assume* (AGAIN!) that the US intelligence apparatus has the omnipotent power to magically 'check' all information and throw out bad information like some sort of supreme arbiter of truth, never mind that the goddman Field Manual for the US military in relation to this matter makes no such claims.

It was always under-handed things once in a while. If you want to argue that doing bad things every minute of every day is a reasonable way to advance U.S. interests, you need to offer examples.

No, it was do "anything"- with examples listed of what anything was, as the quote displayed shows. "Underhanded" is an entirely different kettle of fish.

No, you moron. As long as the results are fucking positive. And they aren?t positive ? obviously ? in every single version of your strawman yet.

Please post every version of my strawman, since you pulled out some fucking nonsense about Canada from god knows where, and that's it. I quoted you in response to a straightforward question, and you can't handle it without equivocating and screaming strawman.

If Russian engineers were milling around Iraq as late as 2001, that rather puts a damper on your picture of effective sanctions, now doesn?t it?

ROFL *sigh* Ow, my splitting sides. You're just repeating your inane Chinese engineers bullshit again- 2 years past it's use by date. It wasn't significant then and it isn't significant now. Why don't you all inform us as to the critical advances that these alleged Russian engineers gave to Iraq's fearsome WMD complex, idiot (if this pathetically sourced allegation is even true, of course)?

Frankly, only someone as drop-dead too-stupid-to-live as you could seriously even entertain for 2 seconds the notions that sanctions weren't effective- especially this year. Their complete and utter success in keeping Iraq toothless in all departments is a matter of public fucking record.

What were the circumstances of the pre-ISG search?

Just behind advancing forces.

And are all 120 of the depots in question certainly located between Kuwait and Baghdad, on the route taken by invading U.S. forces?

Probably not. Now, explain why WMDs would not be placed along the path of invading forces.

As for Kay, his argument conveniently neglects to place attention on the matter of whether Saddam was still hiding items from the 1998 inspections or before.

He already addressed that when he quit.

The report argues that torture is a ?poor? tool.

*sigh*

Field Manual. Not report. As in: the product of countless years of military experience codified in a reference for the entire military to follow as a matter of procedure. And it argues exactly what I quoted, not that it's just "poor".

But we have already agreed on this. The question is whether it is a useless tool ? and the answer is clearly no, since it?s been used elsewhere with positive results.

1 or even several instances of positive results are not good enough to establish it as a carte blanche tool to use in "limited circumstances" where the chances of these actually being policed are low and the chances of "encroachment" are high.

Furthermore, the report cites moral and legal concerns as the key problems in the use of torture ? and we already know that while the torture of men like Osama bin Laden will turn heads, it won?t initiate a massive public outcry.

No, the report first and foremost cites that it is not necessary and that other methods yield superior quality of information, according to "experience".

[Thinkmarble]

Prisoners in Afgahnistan were murdered by american soldiers, that's a fact.

In how many instances? Were these scattered occurrences, or have we Abu Ghriab-type situations across the board?

Systematic abbuse took place.


3 people died in custody, 2 of them were ruled homicide.

And just to repeat myself.
Your claim that the german federal intelligence agency ( Bundesnachrichtendienst, short BND) was of the opinion that Sadam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction in 2003/2002 is false.
The BND was of o the opinion that he did not possess any WMD nor carrier systems in 2003/2002.

Not according to this:

The British, French and German intelligence services shared information with the United States, but none of them challenged the conventional wisdom that Saddam was hiding chemical and biological weapons and wanted to restart his nuclear program.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/7819429.htm

I trust german members of parliament who received briefing by the BND as well as german news papers going back to leaked informations more then your site.

[Darth Wong]

And of course, Wong strawmans and misrepresents the whole thing.

First of all, my argument was that it’s standard procedure to kill wild/zoo animals that bite, regardless of whether they did so on purpose. If you actually go back to the Baghdad tiger thread, somebody else posted an example of that – which Wong and others as usual ignored – near the end of the discussion.

Yeah, that's right. In order to prove that all animals in all environments are always killed if they bite as per "standard procedure" (which you can't find documented anywhere), all you need to do is produce an example of one animal somewhere being killed after he bites. I see you're just as much of an idiot as ever, Kast.

Secondly, I never said the tiger bit because of stress; that was merely an element others added to the argument to better defame me. I pointed out that the tiger was more dangerous than normal anyway – because of stress.

Yes of course, everyone misinterpreted your brilliant posts. We're all in a grand conspiracy to defame you, you're being unfairly persecuted, yadda yadda yadda. Gotcha.

[Elfdart]

It's kind of funny. Out of the millions of people worldwide who have bben tortured, Axis Kast can name only a few cases when something "usefull" has come from it.

Looks like torture is about as reliable as police psychics.

[Axis Kast]

The Nuremburg Trials are only the most famous trials in human history. For you to pretend that what happened is some sort of arcane knowledge is cretinous.

No, you fucking moron. I am saying that I never actually went into who was accused of, tried for, and convicted of what. As far as I was concerned, the Nuremburg Trials were principally about the Holocaust and shooting of civilians or surrendering Allied troops.

You seem to belive that because justice isn't perfect, why bother? Well, why bother with any law? If some people manage to escape justice, it means the whole thing is a joke, right? You try to make it sound oh-so-cynical and unsentimental, but you're actually just making an infantile argument

In the international community? That’s exactly how I feel. Because somebody will always take advantage of you if they can. It’s a cutthroat environment. Law is only good after the fact. The particular fates of the leaders I’ve noted say a great deal about how we deal with the justice you claim binds us all together and forms an absolutely imperative element in international relations: it’s an outgrowth of power.

I can't agee with their decision to attack Osirak unless there was definative evidence that Iraq was going to use their potential nukes against Israel. The Israeli's have nuclear weapons, so why can't Arab nations have them to defend against Israel. I see that the USA has learned it's present stance on WMD's from it's little brother Israel, namely "we can have them but you can't, because your Arabs".

This is precisely what I mean when I say that morals should never get in the way of policy-making.

Why would an Israeli politician or commander ever conscience the acquisition of nuclear weapons by enemies that have attacked them in the past if they can possibly help it? Because it’s only right that everybody be permitted to access technology on an equal basis? You’ll find that Israel doesn’t give a flying fuck about it – just like you admit the U.S. doesn’t. And if one doesn’t give a flying fuck, it’s dangerous for anyone to give a flying fuck.

I never said that Israeli troops shoot babies for fun, and I certainly don't appreciate the statement. I think that there's plenty of blame to go around in this situation, but I think that the Israeli's need to be the "bigger" man and solve this problem. They have the means to stop the "troubles" by giving the Palestinians the homeland they deserve, but they can't see past the hate. I don't blame the Israeli troops for this, they are simply the tool of an oppressive government.

My point was that you’ve thrown in jibes about Israel every chance you’ve gotten so far – whether you realize it or not.

As for Wong and Vympel, I’m done arguing. It’s absolutely useless to attempt to deal with people who refuse to stop twisting what I say to fit their own little fantasies.

Thinkmarble – if you say that the German government made statements to the contrary of what was reported in the article I posted, provide a link.

[Elfdart]

Kast, if you didn't know what you were talking about, why do you pop off on the subject? How much effort does it take to do a Google search under "Nazi war crimes"? You made a definitive statement -not, "I don't think anyone was convicted for wars of aggression...". I'm surprised nobody else called bullshit on your claims.

Another bullshit assertion:

Many of the fighters rounded up in Afghanistan and Iraq are not covered by the Geneva Conventions? Either you have never read them or you should try a career in proctology, because you're pulling things out of your ass.

The Third Geneva Convention makes clear that until a prisoner is determined, by a competent tribunal, to fall outside the protection of the convention (he is found to be a spy, bandit, mercenary, saboteur -or a civilian, in which case he would fall under the Fourth Convention), that prisoner is to be treated as a POW.

I'd like to see your philosophy applied to cannibalism: "We shouldn't alloy codes of conduct to prevent us from obtaining such a valuable source of protein."

[Aaron]

This is precisely what I mean when I say that morals should never get in the way of policy-making.

Why would an Israeli politician or commander ever conscience the acquisition of nuclear weapons by enemies that have attacked them in the past if they can possibly help it? Because it’s only right that everybody be permitted to access technology on an equal basis? You’ll find that Israel doesn’t give a flying fuck about it – just like you admit the U.S. doesn’t. And if one doesn’t give a flying fuck, it’s dangerous for anyone to give a flying fuck.

Well it would seem that we're back to morallity again. Iraq has never attacked Israel and geography dictates that they probably never would. Israel had no basis for the attack on Osirak and their reasoning for the attack is complete hipocrasy. I consider it dangerous that some of nations of the world refuse to consider morality when making their decisons. In fact lately it seems that both Israel and the USA only consider their own racism when making decisions.

My point was that you’ve thrown in jibes about Israel every chance you’ve gotten so far – whether you realize it or not.

Thats because I consider both the USA and Israel to be morally bankrupt nations.

[Elfdart]

I disagree Cpl, if Iraq were populated by white Methodists, Bush & Co. would fuck them over just as hard. Bush gloated and yukked it up over the freakshow execution of Karla Tucker -even mimicking her pleas for mercy.

[Aaron]

I disagree Cpl, if Iraq were populated by white Methodists, Bush & Co. would fuck them over just as hard. Bush gloated and yukked it up over the freakshow execution of Karla Tucker -even mimicking her pleas for mercy.

Ok but what exactly do you disagrree about? I'm sure regardless of who populated Iraq that Bush would fuck them over, it seems to be the way he operates. What gets me is that the people that they've picked to run Iraq are just as morally bankrupt and unethical as Bush and Co. are. You'd think that if they were going to rebuild a country that they'd try and do it right.

[Elfdart]

I disagreed with you about Bush's agenda being racist. If there's oil, loot and pillage to be had, the Bush-Cheney junta will fuck them (no matter what "race" they are) eight ways from Sunday.

As for the people who Dubya picked, they are there to help Bush, not Iraq. In fact, they are there to help Bush help himself to Iraq's assets (which like torture is a violation of the Geneva Conventions). Besides, what does any sensible person think of people who would turn against their own nation and collaborate with a foreign occupier? Everyone knows you can't trust a traitor.

By the way, this reminds me. When reporters pointed out to Dubya that "privitizing" (i.e. looting) Iraqi assets was against international law, he said "I guess I'll have to consult an international lawyer." With a commander-in-chief who flouts the law (GC included), it's a foregone conclusion that his underlings would condone the cornholing of POWs. As the Greeks say: "A fish rots head first."

[Aaron]

I disagreed with you about Bush's agenda being racist. If there's oil, loot and pillage to be had, the Bush-Cheney junta will fuck them (no matter what "race" they are) eight ways from Sunday.

I think thats a valid point. But I think that the Iraqi's being Arabs add's icing to their cake. After Sept 11 all Arabs are being protrayed as evil, so fucking them over is patriotic.

As for the people who Dubya picked, they are there to help Bush, not Iraq. In fact, they are there to help Bush help himself to Iraq's assets (which like torture is a violation of the Geneva Conventions). Besides, what does any sensible person think of people who would turn against their own nation and collaborate with a foreign occupier? Everyone knows you can't trust a traitor.

Exactly, the people on this "governing council" are all exiles who helped the invasion in some way. The sold their country down the river to get in power, and obviously aren't afraid to use their influence to get more. I'm sure that once democracy gets off the ground in Iraq that the people will vote them out real quick, and probably vote the fundie's in.

By the way, this reminds me. When reporters pointed out to Dubya that "privitizing" (i.e. looting) Iraqi assets was against international law, he said "I guess I'll have to consult an international lawyer." With a commander-in-chief who flouts the law (GC included), it's a foregone conclusion that his underlings would condone the cornholing of POWs. As the Greeks say: "A fish rots head first."

Yep it's a forgone conclusion that Bush doesn't care about legalities. He invaded Iraq in defiance of international law, and his minions approved the breaching of international conventions on the treatment of POW's. So it's safe to say that he just doesn't care, and if the boss doesn't then why should the employees?

[Patrick Degan]

Can someone explain this Tiger Defence that they keep accusing Axis Kast of employing.

A while ago some US soldiers were stumbling drunkenly around the Baghdad zoo when one of them thought he would stick his arm in the tiger cage for fun. Naturally, the tiger bit his arm off. His friend promptly shot the tiger dead.

I say "Naturally" in bold-face because according to Kast, this was not natural behaviour. He claimed that a normal tiger would not do this, and that this particular tiger had obviously gone psychotic because of "stress". You see, according to him, the psychological trauma of US occupation made it a threat to mankind (as if it was a housepet before), so it was the right thing to do to put down this now-dangerous predator in order to defend mankind. The fact that similar attacks in other zoos by idiots climbing barriers or entering cages are not always punished by executing the animal (because it was only behaving naturally; there's that word again) did not seem to impact on his thinking at all.

To quote Chris Rock: "That tiger didn't go nuts, that tiger went tiger."

[Vympel]

To quote Chris Rock: "That tiger didn't go nuts, that tiger went tiger."

*Chris Rock pretending to be a tiger riding a bicycle*

"Man I'm a crazy Tiger ..."

I still found Bigger and Blacker to be superior though- too much "alright, because it's all white" in this one.

[Patrick Degan]

I see Comical Axi's headlong flight from truths too terrible for him to bear continues apace.

Legality is an outgrowth of victory. The strong impose the legal terms on the weak. Nothing provides for this vaunted legality of yours but imposition from one upon another.

Wrong again, shitwit. Law exists quite apart from dictatorial force majeur and binds both victor and vanquished. This is one reason why the Allies went with our way of hanging only those Nazis responsible for Nazi Germany's atrocities and not Stalin's suggested way of simply shooting 50,000 Germans.

Yes, you'll "entertain the notion". The problem is that you refuse to entertain any other notion while proudly trumpeting the one notion you do entertain.

I refuse to entertain any other notion than stomping all over people indiscriminately? Last time I checked, the costs outweigh the benefits in that situation. Assuming there are benefits at all.

So says the advocate of "Might Makes Right" and the use of torture as needed. Can't you keep track of your own arguments or do you imagine that you can simply lie your way out of your own position at this late date?

And exactly what other forms of decision-making are there, Deegan? You tell me.

The history of the world over the last sixty years provides that answer.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I’ve accused you of playing “Hulk SMASH” politics?

Nice little out of context quote. We were addressing the fact of your ridiculous strawman version of my arguments.

Oh, we're not going to have to argue this bullshit yet again, are we? The rest of the world's intelligence services —that is those that hadn't been politically compromised— did not support the absolute assertions Bush and Blair spun as justifications for the late war, and the results of the UNSCOM, UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections contradicted the entire picture of Saddam as the huge threat which he was made out to be by Bush. The only reason "regime change" by invasion was "felt necessary to ensure our security" was because Bush and his puppeteers refused to consider any other course of action, nevermind that twelve years of sanctions had kept Saddam Hussein in the box and neutralised.

Just how many times do you want to get beaten up over the same issues?

We’re talking prior to Hans Blix (not that I put any stock in his findings anyway, which no matter how you spin the situation or upon whom you lay the blame for it, were cut short by the war itself).

That you refuse to put stock in facts inconvenient to you is of no consequence as to the accuracy of those facts. Denial does not a rebuttal make. And what Saddam may have had prior to the 1991 war has little if any bearing as to what he had prior to the most recent war —which was nothing.

The fact of the matter is that before we even set foot in Iraq, Germany and France were in concurrance about what we expected to find there. And still, politicians in Paris and Berlin refused to consider war.

Because A) their intel did not state as absolute certainty the existence of Saddam's alleged vast WMD arsenal (neither did the CIA's own briefings), and B) they refused to consider war because the threat did not justify a war.

And you might take notice that our own search is far from over: the ISG under Charles Duelfer recently castigates David Kay for a poor search.

Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

Not to mention that the Sarin shell incident suggests that Saddam apparently never marked – or remarked into anonymity – some of his chemical weaponry. In those conventional depots you claimed didn’t need searching, mind you.

How predictable. How totally, pathetically predictable. The discovery of one shell with sarin which was long past its use-by date and inert and is in all likelihood a leftover from the Iran/Iraq war is zero proof of a vast hidden WMD arsenal. You'll have to do better than that.

More bullshit. Clinton wasn't the one who ignored eight months of intel warnings about the Al-Qaeda plot or went fishing despite being handed a PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S." As for what Clinton did do against terrorism, well:

Do you have any idea how many “imminent threat” papers come through the CIA and similar agencies on a daily basis? That we missed one of those warnings shouldn’t be a great surprise, considering the sheer quantity of data we analyze on a daily basis.

The same bullshit excuse trumpted by the entire Bush Apologia Corps. This wasn't a matter of something being "missed", shitwit —it's a matter of Bush going fishing after being handed that PDB with a title even a halfwit should have realised was important to merit serious attention instead of taking off for the bass pond.

Too bad the record says you're a liar.

So you’re trying to prove to me that Clinton kept up his commitment to effectively counter terrorism by failing to push for anything more than a minor cruise missile strike on individual camps in Afghanistan?

Nice way of ignoring the entire record of Clinton antiterror activities as well as the fact that there was no credible case for invading Afganistan in 1998 nor any chance of getting Pakistani cooperation or even permission to overfly their airspace with our bombers to support an invasion of a wholly landlocked country —which requires getting the aforementioned cooperation from said county's neighbours for use of bases and airspace.

Is your argument going to be that Clinton is a failure because he refused to undertake a risky operation which made no military sense at the time?

He never saw fit to punish the Taliban at all. Forget full-scale invasions; Clinton didn’t even bomb any of their defense ministry buildings or threaten their government with any form of even limited reprisal.

What "defence ministry buildings"? And what government? The Taliban barely constituted a government of any sort, and bombing empty ministry buildings would have accomplished exactly zero results. Clinton cut off all U.S. aid to Afganistan of any sort, whereas Bush gave the Taliban $43 million in 2001.

It’s also interesting that a suspect in the 1993 bombings (linked to al-Qaeda) was living in Baghdad.

Which means exactly dick. The alleged Saddam/Al-Qaeda links have already disproven beyond reasonable doubt.

Oh really? Have we had many dictators in the last twenty years or so who've wracked up casualty figures in the dozens of millions? None? Thought so.

Why twenty years? The Geneva Convention was signed in the late ‘40s. Since then, we’ve been witness to such lovely dictators as Stalin, Franco, Salazar, Pinochet, the Brazilian and Argentine juntas, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, Chiang Kai-Shek for that matter, Moboutu Sese-Seko, the Rwandan killings, a certain individual named Idi Amin, another certain individual named Robert Mugabe, the National Party government in South Africa, the regime of Ho Chih Minh (and those in South Vietnam as well), Kim Jong-Il’s North Korea, and one in Rumania run by Chauchescieu.

All of their atrocities together, barring Stalin and Mao, wouldn't add up to the casualty count racked up by Hitler. Brutal as they've been, the post-World War II dictators have confined their atrocities to within their own borders. No dictator since Hitler has attempted to extend such murderous aggression to that scale beyond his own borders since 1945.

The only reason it becomes "inevitable" is when policies are shaped to make it inevitable. These things do not happen in a vacuum, shitwit.

And I think that policies like that will always be around. That’s not sanction, you fucking moron – that’s pessimism. Is that a crime in your book now, too?

Hmm... The argument you've been advancing has been "Might Makes Right is the way of the world; always has been, always will be." Well, let's play a little word-substitution game, shall we:

"Slavery is the way of the world; always has been, always will be."

"Genocide is the way of the world; always has been, always will be."

"Human sacrifice to the Gods is the way of the world; always has been, always will be."

The results of World War II, and that of world history in general over the past two centuries, reject the notion that things that "always are always will be". Neither are we arguing as to whether your attitude is a crime but rather whether it is rational. And now, your backpedal to pessimism on your part is just another way by you of attempting to evade the implications of your position.

When did I say that we should torture every prisoner we put our hands on, you fucking liar?

I never said you said that, shitwit. And it was you who defended torture as legitimate:

Second, I expect the U.S. military to use torture. There are people who are paid to pull out other men's fingernails in every country. Frankly, we sometimes need them.

Too late to try to lie your way out of your own arguments now. Far too late.

Appeal to Popularity Fallacy and Appeal to Motive Fallacy in the same idiotic statement. How efficent of you.

Did you, or did you not ignore Andrew’s declaration that he shared the same opinion regarding morality as I did?

Which makes your position anymore legitimate how, exactly...?

Did you or did you not attempt to argue that pessimism equated to toleration?

No, you did:

Second, I expect the U.S. military to use torture. There are people who are paid to pull out other men's fingernails in every country. Frankly, we sometimes need them.

[Axis Kast]

Kendall - Iraq sent troops to fight in the wars just after Israel declared its own independance.

[Axis Kast]

Wait, no. Excuse me. Iraq sent troops to fight in the Six-Day War as part of a pan-Arab coalition. Geography limited the number of troops they could send, but not participation in and of itself.

Israel had every reason to fear Iraq's acquisition of nuclear capabilities.

I also challenge your argument that Israel would never permit an Arab nation to possess nuclear arms. It's quite likely that were the Shah still around - and had he managed to push his own nuclear program like, say, South Africa or even Israel -, that the U.S. would have stayed Tel Aviv's hand.

[Elfdart]

Iran is not an Arab country, numbnuts.

[Axis Kast]

Ah, true that.

Although it generally falls among the nations hostile to Israel in that region, all others being Arab.

[Aaron]

Wait, no. Excuse me. Iraq sent troops to fight in the Six-Day War as part of a pan-Arab coalition. Geography limited the number of troops they could send, but not participation in and of itself.

Israel had every reason to fear Iraq's acquisition of nuclear capabilities.

I also challenge your argument that Israel would never permit an Arab nation to possess nuclear arms. It's quite likely that were the Shah still around - and had he managed to push his own nuclear program like, say, South Africa or even Israel -, that the U.S. would have stayed Tel Aviv's hand.

Ok I'll accept that Iraq posed a limited threat to Israel.

I never said that Israel would not accept nuclear weapons in Arab hands. Although I agree that they probalbly never would. I don't know about the Shah was he pro-Israel?

[Darth Wong]

Israel had every reason to fear Iraq's acquisition of nuclear capabilities.

And every other nation in the region had reason to fear Israel's acquisition of nuclear capabilities. So what?

[Axis Kast]

Ok I'll accept that Iraq posed a limited threat to Israel.

I never said that Israel would not accept nuclear weapons in Arab hands. Although I agree that they probalbly never would. I don't know about the Shah was he pro-Israel?

I'm uncertain of where the Shah's sympathies lay vis-a-vis Israel, although he was certainly no figure of great stature in the Arab world. I'm sure the U.S. put some restraint on any Iranian position when it came to the "Israeli question."

And every other nation in the region had reason to fear Israel's acquisition of nuclear capabilities. So what?

So, Wong, the suggestion that Israel might bombed Osirak without fear that Iraq would have done something with is misguided.

[Elfdart]

The Iranians under the Shah weren't anti-Israel. They weren't pro-Israel either. That changed when the mullahs came to power and they needed parts for their US-made weapons (which Carter and Reagan cut off). During the Iran-Iraq war, Teheran was rather friendly toward Tel Aviv because of their mutual dislike for the Arabs.

Both leaned on Reagan to not sell AWACS to Saudi Arabia. Iran by taking hostages and bartering them and Israel by buying or bullying members of Congress. Crackpot congressmen like "B-1" Bob Dornan sang the praises of both Likkud and the mullahs.

I don't thing the US should seek to emulate either country, whether it comes to ethnic cleansing, religious persecution, torture or anything else.