IceFire

Yeah, I think this is pretty stupid, and ridiculous. But at the same time, it's pointless, and harmless. I guess just a way for us to blow off steam at the French. On the other hand, I see no point in boycotting French products. It's stupid and petty. Remember, the French people, and French vendors arn't the French government. Why harm the people? Sure they are being stubborn and stupid, but does it really matter what the French's opinion is anyways? I mean why is everyone making such a big deal about it? Personally, I like French cheese. If I see some, I wouln't hesitate to buy it because I want to punish some French farmer. Jeez.

You completely forget to take into consideration that CT and military teams make a point to NOT TO pick up enemy weapons. Booby traps and coding aside. How do you know the terrorist has properly cleaned it, that it the sights are accurate? You don't. It is a very hazardous thing by picking up and trying to use a weapon that you just found. They are not relyable. Plus, it's not professional.

Denoir was Special Forces? Well that makes 2 Spec Ops soldiers we've had on the forums. USSoldier11B too.

Can you really swim 2 kilometers? Must be really hard.

Ok, it's not torture in the classical sense, and it gets the info. Great. I have no problem with it. Anyways, how do they manage to even pour water down your throat with a sock in your mouth? And can't you just refuse to swallow? And how does it make you pass out?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mr. Snrub @ Mar. 10 2003,04:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Mar. 10 2003,12:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I do not wish these things upon ANYONE, but in wartime, somethings NEED to be done inorder to SAVE your countrymens lives in the future, and to save your own.<span id='postcolor'> Huh? Bit a contradiction you've got yourself there... Anway, yes, I agree that things must be done in order to protect the lives of innocent citizens (from my country or any other) - things other than torture. Legitimate intelligence collection, beefing up domestic security and multi-lateral cooperation against terrorism spring to mind.<span id='postcolor'> Ok, there is no contradiciton. You people just need to fully understand what I mean.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Mar. 10 2003,04:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, apparently a whole bunch of you misunderstood me.<span id='postcolor'> Oh we understand all right. And thats why we are so disgusted.<span id='postcolor'> So then you're saying that you are against torture against enemy combattants, even if it would greatly influence the outcome of a war, save many many more lives, and the good of the state? You mean to say you would not sacrifice one enemy POW to save many innocents?? Than in that case, you are worse than anyone who would torture to get that information that could save lives because you would be willing to give up an opportunity to save innocents.

I don't think any of you are making a distinction between torture to get valuable information, and torture just for the hell of it. Torturing is inherently NOT a good thing which is why it WOULD be wrong to do it WITHOUT a purpose. I am talking about torture for a purpose. For the purpose for a war, for national security, for SAVING LIVES.

I understand that all these things I am saying are HORRIBLE things. WAR IS A HORRIBLE THING. With war comes HORRIBLE things that MUST be done in order to win. I do not wish these things upon ANYONE, but in wartime, somethings NEED to be done inorder to SAVE your countrymens lives in the future, and to save your own.

Ok, apparently a whole bunch of you misunderstood me. I don't condone practices such as whole scale slaughter such as what the Nazi's did or what N.Korea is doing. I Made it clear that I was referring to war time against "enemies" or enemy combattants. Â People, I can't stress enough to fully read and understand WHAT I AM POSTING before assuming you try to understand WHAT I MEAN. Oh, and Badgerboy, ofcourse some POW would disagree with me. Â He was a recipient of torture. Â He's going to have heavy emotional hangups. Â But if the information we get from torturing an enemy POW could be invaluable in saving hundreds of innocent lives.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Llauma @ Mar. 10 2003,02:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Mar. 10 2003,01:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can never trust the enemy to follow any conventions. Â Never expect them to. Â It's ok to be pleasantly surprised if they do. Â That's just another advantage to YOU. "All goes/All's fair in love and war". "Trying to control a war is like trying to control a hurricane" "May the best man win" If I were in a war, I would certainly do WHATEVER it took to get out alive. I just think that trying to apply RULES of WAR is inherently against the nature of war and what the soldier is trying to accomplish. "War conventions", They're just a psychological mind state that contradicts the laws of survival. Remember, There's nothing more absolute in life than love, war, and death.<span id='postcolor'> I'm trying to undertand how you think but I can't... You have indeed a mind of a very sick person. I have never seen such a naive and narrow minded person. War is not chaos.. It's always controlled by some men.<span id='postcolor'> Excuse me, I have the mind of a very sick person???? I would like to know how you justify that comment because I take offense to that. I am not sick, and you should certainly not make that judgement after only reading a few posts from me in one thread. I am just a patriot who is wants to see our country secure. These terrorists that we capture are clearly our enemies, and would be willing to kill you, me all our families for their cause. I see NO harm in harming them to win a war against terrorists and safegaurd the state. You be damn careful before calling someone "sick, naive, and narrow minded". War is not chaos.. It's always controlled by some men. Tell that to the soldiers in the wars. Or try reading some accounts of soldiers.

You can never trust the enemy to follow any conventions. Â Never expect them to. Â It's ok to be pleasantly surprised if they do. Â That's just another advantage to YOU. "All goes/All's fair in love and war". "Trying to control a war is like trying to control a hurricane" "May the best man win" If I were in a war, I would certainly do WHATEVER it took to get out alive. I just think that trying to apply RULES of WAR is inherently against the nature of war and what the soldier is trying to accomplish. "War conventions", They're just a psychological mind state that contradicts the laws of survival. Remember, There's nothing more absolute in life than love, war, and death.

Well I hope you atleast read the rest of my post to understand why I said that.

I am giving my opinion here. Sure, the rule can say what the rule wants to say. In my opinion, we should completely withdraw from the Geneva conventions and any other warfare rules. When you have DECLARED WAR on a country. Â All bets are off. May the best man win. Â Atleast that's how it should be. Â It's unnatural to have to figure out the best way to win, and then make sure you follow by the rule too at the same time. It goes against the nature of war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 10 2003,01:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Mar. 10 2003,00:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't "condemn" any of our enemies actions. They have the right to do those things. We have the right to despise and hate them.(I know I do) There are no "levels" here as you stated. Â We are their enemies, and they are our enemies. Â Â It is our mutual goals to get at eachother and eventually someone will win. We will do whatever it takes to find and eradicate these bastards.<span id='postcolor'> That`s just sick!! Noone has a right to torture anyone. As if war would be an excuse to loose all humanity! You state that total destruction of your enemy is your target. From the way your post is written I guess it doesn`t matter how to achieve this "eradicating of bastards". I can only repeat myself regarding rules of war, engagement and the Geneva conventions (which are happily kicked into the dust by the USA). Any civilized state should be able to fight it`s armed conflicts according to rules that lead to less unnecessary suffering. I was soldier and will be again (if I succeed in my test as sergeant-wannabe) and I sure would kill for my country and to defend my people. But I`d never torture or kill anyone who surrendered himself to me or who was captured unable to fight further. I`m only doing my job as a soldier if I destroy the enemies ability to do me harm. At the point when a enemy surrenders himself, no matter in what way, I become responsible for his life. So I`ll see that he gets medical aid, food and shelter. And I will deal with him as human being, because he`s also only doing the same task as I do, only on the other side. And I`m pretty sure that 70-85% of the afghans taken to Guantanamo are only afghans that fought against invasors of their homecountry. Only a little part of them will be AQ or highranking Taliban. So they most of them are POW under the protection of human rights and the Geneva convention, but the US denies them that. You can see the amount of civilisation a state has in the way a state deals with it`s prisoners. The USA is currently betraying all of it`s shiny ideals, that`s a sad thing. The land of the free is no more.<span id='postcolor'> Fallen Palladin, I don't think it is "pleasurable" to torture anyone or that it is a GOOD thing. I am saying that just as a soldier kills an enemy if need be, we should be able to torture the enemy if need be(not just for the hell of it, but if he has information that we could use). After all, he IS the enemy.

Oh, and Balchiow, and as for US thinking about being superior to other nations. Well you are the one harping on how us "Western civilized countries" should know better. That's an air of superiority if I've ever seen it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 10 2003,00:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I will be back later if you wish to counter my agrument. <span id='postcolor'> Which argument ? Sorry I miss to see ANY point in your post. I only see ignorance, a false attitude towards life and other human beeings. That´s all I can see.<span id='postcolor'> How am I displaying a false attitude towards other human beings? I CLEARLY STATED that I felt a country must do what it feels is right for the state, and it's citizens. We have a right to torture enemy soldiers just as they have the right to torture our soldiers. We can respond just as they have the same right. Remember, All's fair in love and war. A state has a right to soveregnity.

No, I suggest you REREAD what I said. I said that there are NO "levels", as you put it and that any method that any state uses to gaurd it's own national interests is justifiable. We have the right to act for our own interests just as they also have that right. Where did I ever state that I thought our own American lives were "SUPERIOR" to other nations?? I only meant that we should LOOK OUT for our own interests. Now, I must go get a haircut. I will be back later if you wish to counter my agrument.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 10 2003,00:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The use of torture for whatever reasons is sick, disturbing and not fitting the human rights. Therefore I condemn any torture methods, physical or mental ones. Any CIVILIZED western or eastern or whatever nation should NOT use torture as a reliable source of information. You know people who are tortured will tell you whatever YOU would like to hear. If it is the truth is doubtable. To justify torture is the sickest thing I can think of or do you want to see your girlfriend raped in front of your eyes tied to a chair with blank wires on it to give you some electrical satisfaction cause someone thinks that you know something that he wants to know ? Sick. Nothing else than sick. If you try to justify torture with higher motives you are lying. You are levelling at the terrorists you condamn if you use THEIR methods. So what makes you different to famous torturers of the 3rd Reich for example ? Nothing. Everyone who justifies torture is in one barrel with all the "famouse" torturers the planet has seen till today. The US should especially know about the problem when it comes to police work. There have been several death sentences that based on torture and were wrong. This has been proven.<span id='postcolor'> I don't "condemn" any of our enemies actions. They have the right to do those things. We have the right to despise and hate them.(I know I do) There are no "levels" here as you stated. We are their enemies, and they are our enemies. It is our mutual goals to get at eachother and eventually someone will win. We will do whatever it takes to find and eradicate these bastards.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frizbee @ Mar. 09 2003,23:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Physical torture (ie. Being punched or kicked, withdrawing ESSENTIAL medications, needles under the nails, wet towel over the head etc.) is wrong no matter who it is done by. Phsycological interrogation techniques (Sleep deprivation, continual repetition of the same questions until the interview is a blur) is however alright. Making someone exhausted, and asking them questions they have already answered correctly makes their tired mind confused, and they are then more likely to give the required information. Also, I believe the use of SOME drugs to get answers is alright, depending on who it is used on, and why. For example, some car thief off the street getting given mind altering drugs for information on who his gang members are, is stupid and wrong. Using them on a senior terrorist who would have information of other terrorists, planned bombings and support networks however is alright, as it would save the lives of thousands perhaps hundreds of thousands of people. As you can see, I disagree with the physical torture of anyone, but at least you know the U.S. wouldn't torture innocent people. Those people are terrorists and murderers. Iraq simply tortures whoever they feel like. Innocent or not.<span id='postcolor'> I stated that torture for NATIONAL DEFENSE OR FOR THE GOOD OF THE STATE. This philosophy comes from the inherent belief that each state has the right to soveriegnty. As for torturing your own citizens, that's a completely different thing. And Warin, if Iraq were to torture some our our men, we would have the right to vilify or react to that however we deem appropriate. That doesn't mean we can't do the same to their captured soldiers or terrorists. Again, all states have the right to soveriegnty.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Mar. 09 2003,22:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Raise your hand if you think U.S. authorities did not use torture... Â Â did you have your hand up??? Â interrogation = torture, no matter what the tactics, to get people like that to talk it's only torture that will work. Narcotics, or sadistic treatment, no difference.<span id='postcolor'> What's your point? I think it is already accepted that we do and did use torture to get information from the enemy.

Technically it isn't really an argument to start a war with Iraq. Our reasons to go into Irak is because they are in possesion of weapons of mass destruction that could be used against us. All that about him murdering his people and torture are just side points used to help convince people that we should go along with the war.

Yes. Â Every country has the right to do what it feels is necessary in self defense, or national security. Irak has that right, but we ALSO have the right to respond however we feel is necessary. So Irak had really better watch what they try.

Personally I welcome the news. It's about time we quit with all the beaurocratic nonsense, and did what we need to do to defend our country. If it means torture, fine. Â Just don't be stupid enough to get caught(that seems to be our shortcoming). I believe a nation has a right, and duty to do whatever it feels necessary to protect the state. Â Even if it means being rutheless. Â As long as you are deceptive in your methods so it doesn't come to the public eye.

Hi all, I have a gift cetrificate for $70 to use at circuit city. What should I buy? I mean in the terms of games, or such. Has anyone heard of the game called "The Thing"? I've seen it in stores. Is it realistic? Looks good.