Need help debating a conservative(s)

[Count Dooku]

It's a local car forum, and there are the vast majority of the people there think the Iraq War (the current one) was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm much better when it comes to creationists...Any help is greatly appreciated. Pointers on how to debate, what to say in a given situation, correction of factual errors, and anything else is more than welcome. I'd also like your response to the guy(s) here.

He is in quotes, and my response is directly below.

I said, put yourself in that situation, then come talk. You can not possibly know what goes on during war time unless you have first hand experience with war. So am i incorrect in thinking you have never been directly involved in any kind of war?

That is correct. That I have not directly experienced what goes on is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

People dont like to know what goes on over there, why do you think the news never shows war coverage anymore? people like to just sit back and enjoy their freedom pretending that decisions dont have to be made on a daily basis to protect our freedom, only to have people protest you and spit in your face when you come home.

Protest you? People protest FOR you to keep YOU from harm's way. They are protesting a bad decision.

Funny, you didnt answer the hypothetical situation.....hmmm. Let me make it more clear, if you could save American lives by "playing loud music", turning the heat off, and tying someone to a chair that makes them uncomfortable, WOULD YOU?

Yes, I'm going to dodge the question - do you think someone who believes the more they get tortured the more glory they earn in the eyes of god is going to give up any information?

Keep in mind that the definition of torture has changed, read about some of the horror stories from the earlier wars, and compare them to what the news article said.

Who has changed the definition, and for what reason?

Like i said in the last argument that took place a few moths ago, i believe in fighting fair, fighting civil, and playing by the rules. But, we are no longer fighting "normal" enemies. We are not fighting a uniformed army. The armies no longer come out to face the opposing force, they hide in their own villages and cities. They wait for us, rules like the Geneva convention dont apply to this type of "war", at least not to them, when they behead innocent people.

We should play by the rules, until someone breaks them, once the rules are broken, what do you do? Do you keep playing by the same rules? Its the old saying that there will always be crime because cops have a strict guideline to follow that criminals dont have to follow.

Therein lies the real problem. When you start torturing detainees, you bring on revenge attacks by the enemy combatants still in the field. Worse yet, you set the bar even lower for when American troops are captured, putting them in even greater danger.

His response consisted of Aristotle quotes, but he babbled on about how the only thing being done with regard to torture was playing loud music and turning down the temperature in a detainee's cell...Someone else came to his aid with the following:

If I knew I could obtain information that could save the lives of countless Americans then I'd personally torture these terrorists who target civilians and who's religious beliefs afford them the ability to do so. Once the information is obtained and deemed useful I'd send these terrorists straight to hell, one way ticket. 1HotLS1 is a classic liberal, didn't you realize that with the whole gay marriage prop issue? Of course she has no first hand knowledge, thank god they don't allow women in combat! My own personal opinion, they should drop all these liberals into iraq and pull the military out! Lets see what kind of job they can do. Furthermore this country was attacked because of Clinton's policies, and LS1 Bird knows it. Notice that it has yet to be attacked since, obviously Bush did something right! I'm sure your opinion would change if it was your wife or child in the receiving end of a suicide attack! I just love the fact that Iran's president can't wait for Obama to take office!

To which, I responded with:

If I knew I could obtain information that could save the lives of countless Americans then I'd personally torture these terrorists who target civilians and who's religious beliefs afford them the ability to do so. Once the information is obtained and deemed useful I'd send these terrorists straight to hell, one way ticket. 1HotLS1 is a classic liberal, didn't you realize that with the whole gay marriage prop issue? Of course she has no first hand knowledge, thank god they don't allow women in combat!

Did you just call me a chick?

My own personal opinion, they should drop all these liberals into iraq and pull the military out!

How long are you going to wipe the Iraqi's ass? You do realize that the Iraqi government isn't going to spend any time or money (of which they have both) if we're spoon feeding them everything they need to survive. Iraq, right now, is a 35 year old virgin living at home who doesn't know how to make breakfast. Unless you push Iraq, it won't do any of what you want it to.

Lets see what kind of job they can do.

So, the fact that you and I have a difference of opinion on how to achieve lasting victory in the country means what?

Furthermore this country was attacked because of Clinton's policies, and LS1 Bird knows it. Notice that it has yet to be attacked since, obviously Bush did something right! I'm sure your opinion would change if it was your wife or child in the receiving end of a suicide attack!

Without coment, and would like help responding to that.

I just love the fact that Iran's president can't wait for Obama to take office!

Again, without comment.

[Samuel]

I said, put yourself in that situation, then come talk. You can not possibly know what goes on during war time unless you have first hand experience with war. So am i incorrect in thinking you have never been directly involved in any kind of war?

So the war protestors for Vietnam had no idea what they were talking about... even though they were right.

Funny, you didnt answer the hypothetical situation.....hmmm. Let me make it more clear, if you could save American lives by "playing loud music", turning the heat off, and tying someone to a chair that makes them uncomfortable, WOULD YOU?

Slippery slope... soon enough water boarding is okay.

Keep in mind that the definition of torture has changed, read about some of the horror stories from the earlier wars, and compare them to what the news article said.

That is only because the interwar period braught a new wave of barbarism. Prior to it, civilized nations didn't do torture.

Like i said in the last argument that took place a few moths ago, i believe in fighting fair, fighting civil, and playing by the rules. But, we are no longer fighting "normal" enemies. We are not fighting a uniformed army. The armies no longer come out to face the opposing force, they hide in their own villages and cities. They wait for us, rules like the Geneva convention dont apply to this type of "war", at least not to them, when they behead innocent people.

We should play by the rules, until someone breaks them, once the rules are broken, what do you do? Do you keep playing by the same rules? Its the old saying that there will always be crime because cops have a strict guideline to follow that criminals dont have to follow.

Actually they are covered by the Geneva Convention. And if they break the rules, we can try them for it.

If I knew I could obtain information that could save the lives of countless Americans then I'd personally torture these terrorists who target civilians and who's religious beliefs afford them the ability to do so. Once the information is obtained and deemed useful I'd send these terrorists straight to hell, one way ticket.

Right, all the terrorist are acting for Islam. And not because they don't like people invading their country.

Additionally, torture simply doesn't work, a point that flies over this guys head.

1HotLS1 is a classic liberal, didn't you realize that with the whole gay marriage prop issue?

Yes, liberty, equality and fraternity is classic liberalism.

Of course she has no first hand knowledge, thank god they don't allow women in combat!

10% of the military is female. I don't know if they let them in combat brnches, but sometimes the combat comes to them.

My own personal opinion, they should drop all these liberals into iraq and pull the military out! Lets see what kind of job they can do.

Well, since they insist we leave, I'm thinking they would leave.

Furthermore this country was attacked because of Clinton's policies, and LS1 Bird knows it.

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/chronology.html

Notice that it has yet to be attacked since, obviously Bush did something right!

Yeah- he got all the terrorist attacks to move overseas.

I'm sure your opinion would change if it was your wife or child in the receiving end of a suicide attack!

The 9/11 widows refute that.

I just love the fact that Iran's president can't wait for Obama to take office!

And Al-Queda wanted McCain to win. Of course, the reason Iran wants Obama is he isn't a warmongering nut who will flatten their country.

[Pablo Sanchez]

I said, put yourself in that situation, then come talk. You can not possibly know what goes on during war time unless you have first hand experience with war. So am i incorrect in thinking you have never been directly involved in any kind of war?

You don't have to be in a car accident to know that car accidents are bad.

People dont like to know what goes on over there, why do you think the news never shows war coverage anymore? people like to just sit back and enjoy their freedom pretending that decisions dont have to be made on a daily basis to protect our freedom, only to have people protest you and spit in your face when you come home.

Who's getting spit on? The public's respect for the armed forces is probably the greatest it has ever been. This is a fantasy.

Funny, you didnt answer the hypothetical situation.....hmmm. Let me make it more clear, if you could save American lives by "playing loud music", turning the heat off, and tying someone to a chair that makes them uncomfortable, WOULD YOU?

1. He begins with the assumption that the detainee is withholding information that could save American lives, so it bears pointing out that many of the people detained by the US, even for extended periods, were innocent or otherwise had no access to important information.
2. He couches the description of the torture in the most misleading terms possible. Being subjected to stress positions, cold, and loud music do not sound bad because most people have never been forced to withstand them for extended periods. Relatively minor forces applied over a great length of time can be torturous. You can stand walking around in a T-shirt when it's 50 degrees out for a few minutes, sure, but let's say you were an Arab man acclimated to much higher temperatures, and you're forced to lay on a concrete floor for a day or two at 50 degrees. You're going to be a complete wreck.

Keep in mind that the definition of torture has changed, read about some of the horror stories from the earlier wars, and compare them to what the news article said.

Knowing to which news article he is referring would help at this point.

We should play by the rules, until someone breaks them, once the rules are broken, what do you do? Do you keep playing by the same rules?

Ask him for proof that the Bush counter-terrorism methods of quasi-legal detention, rendition, and torture have achieved results measurably superior to British use of traditional police tactics since the 7/7 attacks. The British have had good results without breaking their own laws.

Aside from the usual "torture information is no good" argument, you can point out that use of torture damages humint efforts. Informants living in Arab and Muslim communities can be a critical resource in foiling terror plots, but they are less likely to provide us with good information if they know we are torturing people.

The second poster you quoted is not worth replying to and actually goes a long way towards demonstrating that the entire forum you're talking about isn't worth it.

[Count Dooku]

I read the responses yesterday shortly after they were posted, but wanted to take some time to internalize them. Both were great

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090114/ap_ ... mo_torture

Above is the link that started the thread, and below is the post made by the topic starter:

Thank you Mr. President. It's not like we didn't already know this, but hearing your own officials owning up to it is telling. Of all your failings over the past eight years, this one is the most offensive to a proud ten-year USAF veteran like myself. I remember an America that was better than this, and I'm looking forward to returning to those days. Enjoy your retirement ... I know I and about 6 Billion other people are really looking forward to it.

It's basically me and this guy against the rest of the forum in this matter. There were three of us fighting/debating the rest of these guys in the prop 8 thread. I can't even begin to tell you how many fallacies per post the pro-prop 8 people had in their thread. They thought a legit argument was, 'if gays can get married, than whey can't brothers get married?'. There was TONS of religious nonsense there as well.

[Count Dooku]

The only other person on the forum who doesn't love Bush posted this:

Not only does it make our current President every bit as disgusting as the ilk he claims to hate, it also subjects our own troops to even more danger. And anyone that knows anything about interrogation knows that any information you get via torture is nearly always false. Did it prevent any deaths? Hard to say since the absence of something does not prove anything. What we do know is he sold America's soul in the process.

All this talk about "Well, he kept us safe" since 9/11 is only pertinent if one is also willing to concede that Clinton kept us safe for the same period of time (1993-2000) following the first WTC attack. Did Clinton authorize torture? No, he did something better - He actually caught and imprisoned the people that planned the attack. Shame GWB couldn't manage that despite all the illegal activity and tarnished reputation.

Only two more days ... Good riddance Mr. President.

Mike

To which, someone responded with this:

Clinton had a chance to capture osama and he didnt, enough said on that. Clinton minimized our military. Clinton had to worry about one conflict, Somalia, and we saw how he handled that. You cant keep trying to compare the 2 presidents, one dealt with massive terrorist attacks and 2 wars, clinton had to worry about where to get his next blowjob.

Absolutely mind boggling...

[Samuel]

Clinton had a chance to capture osama and he didnt, enough said on that.

And GW, with complete and total domestic and foreign support... failed to do this.

Clinton minimized our military.

Someone else can get the facts. I'd point out that Clinton managed to fight terrorism without resorting to large scale military expenditure.

Clinton had to worry about one conflict, Somalia, and we saw how he handled that.

Yeah, because Yugoslavia, an actual shooting war, the one where we practiced nation building, doesn't count. Additionally, there was the peacekeeping operations in Haiti, Iraq (no fly zones and the like), Afghanistan (just bombing of two terrorist camps) and some work in East Timor.

Funny fact- we didn't lose in Somalia. We handled it well except for alienating the natives a bit. The "catastrophere" of Black Hawk down was a military victory- US dead were in the tens, while Somali dead were in the thousands. Of course, civilians hit in the crossfire added to the number. It was only a problem because it was a PR disaster, not because it was anything near a defeat. We could have won except the American people didn't want conflict and Clinton was a slave to the pools. The Republicans spent this time... arguing against the wars and wanting the troops recalled.

You cant keep trying to compare the 2 presidents, one dealt with massive terrorist attacks and 2 wars, clinton had to worry about where to get his next blowjob.

Yeah, it isn't like he started office in a recession, we had a crime wave, we had to deal with the collapse of the USSR and the integration of Eastern Europe into the world economy or anything else.

As for two wars, troops were involved in Iraq and Yugoslavia for most of Clinton's Presidency and the attack on the WTC was considered a big attack, with the Oklahoma City bombing getting the Major status.

[Samuel]

Seriously, this is pathetic. These people lived through the Clinton years- how come they don't remember it? Come on- I didn't make ten till 99 and I remember Yugoslavia!

I had look up the rest, but where were these people? Living in holes?

[Count Dooku]

Good response Samuel. If I make a retort to that post, I may use something along those lines. This, from one of the REALLY right wing nuts, went like this:

Syria offered to hand over Bin Laden several times while they had him in custody and Clinton didn't accept. Ignorance is bliss, I guess. He caught all the people in Mogadishu, too, didn't he? Oh, wait. I guess not.

Ignorance is bliss for some people.

He was responding to someone saying President Clinton went after the people who actually attacked the U.S., rather than Bush's epic Iraq disaster.

[Samuel]

Syria offered to hand over Bin Laden several times while they had him in custody and Clinton didn't accept. Ignorance is bliss, I guess. He caught all the people in Mogadishu, too, didn't he? Oh, wait. I guess not.

Ignorance is bliss for some people.

Syria hates the US. I rather doubt they would simply turn over Bin Ladin. You see, we back Israel, whom they have been at war with more times than a man can readily count.

Is there a reputible source?

[Count Dooku]

Syria offered to hand over Bin Laden several times while they had him in custody and Clinton didn't accept. Ignorance is bliss, I guess. He caught all the people in Mogadishu, too, didn't he? Oh, wait. I guess not.

Ignorance is bliss for some people.

Syria hates the US. I rather doubt they would simply turn over Bin Ladin. You see, we back Israel, whom they have been at war with more times than a man can readily count.

Is there a reputible source?

He gave no source. I quoted you exactly what he wrote. I did a quick search on Google before I posted it here, and the only thing I found was a document written by someone who claimed to be a former government official...but in one paragraph, Obama Bin Laden is capitalized that way, and in the next, it's capitalized Obama bin Laden...and the document was supposedly a CIA report...dubious, at best.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Seriously, this is pathetic. These people lived through the Clinton years- how come they don't remember it? Come on- I didn't make ten till 99 and I remember Yugoslavia!

I had look up the rest, but where were these people? Living in holes?

Frankly, the right wing was living on a different planet during the Clinton years. You're talking about the height of black helicopter paranoia and the militia movements, a time when people were claiming that during his governorship Clinton had run a drug cartel in Little Rock and ordered the murder of dozens of people.

Here's something about the claim that Clinton passed on capturing bin Laden. First off, it was Sudan, not Syria, and it probably never happened. Whee!