digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at flickr.com

Why Bush's Waterboarding Veto is a Good Thing [PIC]

flickr.com — "The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror -- the CIA program to detain and question key terrorist leaders and operatives," - President George W. Bush explains why he vetoed the bill outlawing CIA waterboarding. Well now at lease we can do the same to him.... legally.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • rsampaio, on 03/09/2008, -27/+501I'm surprised this dude is still alive.
    • ennTOXX, on 03/09/2008, -8/+16Of course he is, that is, if he still pays his taxes. Well, that would just make him a customer & we all know that the customer is always right... :||
      • theeasyone, on 03/09/2008, -2/+1Like other people are saying, this guy is my new hero!
    • Sil369, on 03/09/2008, -12/+24Who? the protest sign holder?
      • hakz, on 03/09/2008, -22/+22no, the one in the car.

        /sarcasm
        • source1984, on 03/09/2008, -13/+8why the hell was this dugg down??? this was funny as hell.
        • Managua8Green, on 03/09/2008, -10/+4your sexy ass is fine and funny as hell, but I'm not going to digg you up based soley on these characteristics.
    • DestroyFascism, on 03/09/2008, -1/+13He has a nice angle though.
    • Smills, on 03/09/2008, -21/+9Are you kidding? With what he is doing to America he probably has a whole bunch of Koreans protecting him without his knowledge (or maybe with).
      • Smills, on 03/09/2008, -4/+15Sigh, I thought you meant Bush. I am very tired. Just interpret the above comment as if it is Bush I am talking about. Or bury it. Whatever floats your boat.
    • Unreal595, on 03/09/2008, -11/+4This was taken while he was protesting. Who knows what happened afterward...
    • naterpoke, on 03/09/2008, -12/+2lol@ diabetes
    • DamnLogins, on 03/09/2008, -11/+41HOW TO WIN A GUERRILLA WAR AGAINST THE USA

      1. Bide your time until a weak, wing-nut is president
      2. Commit the nastiest crime you can with the resources available
      3. Wait until said wing-nut retaliates and takes freedoms from US citizens, destroys the US economy and makes the US hated by most of the world including their traditional friends
      4. ???
      5. Prophet!
    • error792, on 03/09/2008, -2/+19He wouldn't be killed, only tortured. Excuse me, I mean "questioned by advanced means".
    • Gamer2k4, on 03/09/2008, -3/+9Yeah, it's not like we have the freedom of speech or anything.

      (And don't tell me that people aren't allow to protest. They are, as long as they're not disruptive.)
      • therightclique, on 03/09/2008, -2/+1yeah, but it is 100% illegal to make a threat on the president, even if it is a joke.
        • powatom, on 03/09/2008, -0/+5Telling someone to ask the CIA to waterboard Bush is not a threat.
      • trotskyist, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3*whoosh*
    • lukemandese, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1How do we know he's still alive?
    • PixelMagic, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Why? We live an a fair, balanced, and free country.
    • aabernathy, on 03/10/2008, -0/+0yeah... he looks like a pretty big tool to me.
  • JimmySpaza, on 03/09/2008, -103/+33Think Bush is a liar?

    http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
    • JeffreyLloyd, on 03/09/2008, -11/+33ah, facts, nooooo!
    • Genshinx, on 03/09/2008, -12/+57Anyone that still has to "think" about that question is an idiot.
      • pyro789x, on 03/09/2008, -1/+12So once you come to a conclusion you should never stop to question your conclusion once you receive new information? You're just as bad as all the rest of them, except you happened to fall on the right side of the argument this time, by luck or by chance. We should never discourage people from critical thinking, no matter how obvious your side of the argument should seem to you.
        • Corrosionx, on 03/09/2008, -8/+2After 8 years of lies, I think it's safe to assume that even if he's telling the truth, we don't give a ***** about what he says.
          • pyro789x, on 03/09/2008, -1/+7Ad hominem. The truth coming from the wrong person is not the truth.
          • Corrosionx, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1When it comes to George Bush (or politicians in general), you can safely assume they are always lying.
          • Corrosionx, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1Furthermore, I didn't say it wasn't the truth because it was George Bush saying it, I said we don't give a ***** about what Bush says.
    • Magillicutti, on 03/09/2008, -8/+37Yes, I do. I don't see the connection between your question and the link you provided though. Career politicians are just plain evil no matter what party and we shouldn't let them divide the country.
    • haydesigner, on 03/09/2008, -9/+40JimmySpaza, a republican apologist, posted a link to a page titled:
      "Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction"

      Somehow, in his deluded mind, he thinks this makes Bush a paragon of virtue.
      • Delphium226, on 03/09/2008, -7/+18Spaza alleges that he disagrees with Bush (if you press him on it), but you'll never find expounding on that. No, he'd rather bash Dems, who it turns out, have been right on a few things and lied to about a few other things.
        He is a blind partisan and immune to logic.
        • FatherVic, on 03/09/2008, -13/+4But can you refute the facts he has posted, or is it all about personal attacks?
          • Delphium226, on 03/09/2008, -2/+6I'll happily refute facts when I think it'll result in a meaningful conversation. Look back in my or his posting history and you'll find he goes, conveniently, quiet when pressed on certain issues for which he has no refutation. But that's pretty much par for the course with right-wingers, rationalize with them and their 'arguments' disappear like the morning mists.

            The quotes from Clinton are good, history now shows that Saddam was contained, the weapons inspectors confirmed it, the sabre rattling worked.

            The quotes from Dems post 9/11, well, can you say 'cherry picked intelligence'? You would make all the incorrect decisions if the facts presented to you were all cherry picked as well. The Dems, contrary to republican ***** and immature name-calling like 'appeaser', were quite happy to pursue Saddam when presented with these so-called 'facts' it was only when the inaccuracy of those 'facts' started to surface and the complete and
            utter incompetence revealed by the Bush administration in it's execution of the war effort that questions began to be asked.

            It is a patriots job to question, it is a parrots job to repeat ***** taught to it without question. Which are you?
      • bsmang, on 03/09/2008, -3/+9And he just doesn't give up... Maybe he'll shut up after we get a democratic president because he'll just be too disgusted to speak at all?
    • biotch, on 03/09/2008, -7/+19Aha but the vast majority of those quotes come from intel that Bush provided which as we know now was selectively filtered to support Bush's claims about Iraq WMDs.
    • billyjack1958, on 03/09/2008, -17/+8Status quo....Bush, Clinton, Bush Clinton.....think people! Status quo in 2008 USA = Cllinton, Obama, and McCain, et al. They all three support the Thought Crime Prevention Bill....they all three voted yesterday to give Social Security to Illegals.....they all three appear on Judicial Watch's latest list of "Most Corrupt Politicians".... they all three support amnesty for corporate violators of the Constitution....they are all three members of the CFR.....they all three have questionable lobbyist and special interest donations in their campaign coffers.....they all three hold organizational memberships contrary to the mission of our great republic......it's too long of a list for this lil space. My point is, any vote not cast for Ron Paul will be a vote cast for the status quo. Do the research...prove me wrong....and yes, that's a challenge.
      • supbabys, on 03/09/2008, -5/+4Pretty.......... clever how.............. you managed to...................................... weasel Ron Paul into your contrived argument! Also, ELLIPSES ELLIPSES ELLIPSES.
        • brycelb, on 03/09/2008, -2/+3Once I saw Status quo if figured it was a delusional RP post and stopped reading. I'm glad you made me take a second look because that was hilarious.
      • Magnus150, on 03/09/2008, -2/+4I'm surprised....how...these RP...posts...still exist. It may have....been a good...run...but cain is...the nomin,.ee
    • fourcorners, on 03/09/2008, -2/+15Typical new breed of republican, toe the line, deflect and never take responsibility for the actions of those in your own. Quotes are so much more damning than actions these days but that link is still meaningless without seeing what Bill Clinton would have done if put in Bush's place. Hillary Clinton and some other Democrats are getting backlash in part for she believing Bush and following in his footsteps or at very least not putting up a fight. Where were the republican figure heads support for Ron Paul he needed to get mainstream credibility? The Republican party has slowly lost its way over the years becoming some sort of Frankenstein with it's sensationalistic news pundits and big government stance, it's sad. I used to be split between the two party's on issues but Republicans as of late are giving me less and less of a reason to consider them.
    • Myztry, on 03/09/2008, -2/+15I think it's sick when the only country to have deployed WOMD and who has the largest stockpile is invading countries on the basis of that very pretense. Sort of like a Pagan going on a witch hunt.
    • macweirdo42, on 03/09/2008, -5/+13So, because Democrats can be retards, too, this absolves Bush of any wrongdoings? Gee, I never thought about it like that! Tell me, do body counts just give you a raging hard-on, or what?
    • enki25, on 03/09/2008, -5/+6Say you buy a car that turns out to be a lemon. You bought it because the slick talking salesman really sold you on its virtues. After you find out you got played, you go back to the lot to get your money back and the salesman puts up a video of you talking about how great you thought the car was before you bought it.

      See? Proof the salesman was telling the truth!

      ***** retard JimmySpaza. Go suck a dick.
    • DoctorGlass, on 03/09/2008, -2/+3looks like a real academic source you've found there....
    • ovgreenman, on 03/09/2008, -2/+3Why yes. Yes I do think that Bush is a liar. Bush is a big fat drunken liar, Cheney is a liar, George H. W. Bush is a liar, and Reagan was a liar. The biggest liar of them all, though, is George "Warmonger" Bush, with Richard Nixon as a close second.
      The Republican Party has cornered the market on flaming pants.
    • chrishavel, on 03/09/2008, -1/+6Wow. You're missing the obvious here. I'll explain using small words. Saddam had WMD 10-20 years ago. Had. You'll see quotes talking about them. After decade plus of inspections and disarmament, he didn't have them anymore. The only people who said he still had them were lying, and the liars mostly worked for Bush. People who believed the lies talked about Saddam and his fictional WMD. You see those quotes, too. Are we clear? Good. Here's a cookie. Now go away.
    • kronso23, on 03/09/2008, -0/+4Mate, this just proves that all those people you quoted are liars too.
    • bluezinc, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1No way! Democrats also lie?!
      IMPOSSIBLE I TELL YOU!!

      PS: Everyone in congress believed what they were told and the Democrats didn't want to oppose a war that ended up going well, so they supported it. Unfortunately, it went badly and now they've all got to pay for their decisions.
  • coffee200am, on 03/09/2008, -35/+1He's about to get run over by the Toyota...or Nissan...
  • 8EHiND, on 03/09/2008, -29/+3ninjas... assemble
  • DiggLive, on 03/09/2008, -59/+24Let's waterboard Hillary until she quits the race.
    • brownr21, on 03/09/2008, -6/+2I lol'd
    • NightVortez, on 03/09/2008, -5/+5Seems like fascism to me, torture the opposition, you people make me sick.
      • aukxsona, on 03/09/2008, -1/+7Our government says it's ok, so why not?
      • bluezinc, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2It's also a digg comment, not official doctrine. Chill out.
    • Outdoor83, on 03/09/2008, -2/+4This comment has been dugg down. My faith in Digg has been leveled up.
  • h0ser, on 03/09/2008, -18/+347i think everyone in the world just wants the US to mind their own business. Is that too much to ask for?
    • THE4IRON, on 03/09/2008, -4/+48Hell no, we must free them all!!

      /sarcasm
      • jdfoxmd, on 03/09/2008, -11/+7They only want us to mind our own business till they end up needing us. They want us to mind our own business but they also want us to help with AIDS relief in Africa or stand up for human rights in China. Isolationism is no way to behave as a nation especially one which stands for freedom and democracy.
        • rhoffer21, on 03/09/2008, -2/+10Conquest is also no way to behave.
        • iticu, on 03/09/2008, -4/+6Yeah, because the only cure to aids is shooting people!
          The biggest joke of all is that most Americans believe the world wants them to start unneeded wars.
          • aliengoods, on 03/09/2008, -0/+7Most Americans don't believe that. They just don't care if the government starts unneeded wars, sadly.
        • karolisonline, on 03/09/2008, -3/+3nobody wants Your help. it just a bubble your are living in. who needs you? russia? europe? china? japan? canada? well maybe canada.. but it isn't whole world. and don't start with WW2 thing because if you wouldn't helped germans with money, oil additions, ibm and all that kind of stuff, we wouldn't need your help at that time.
      • joebaloney, on 03/09/2008, -0/+14Well, yeah because we pretend to do the right thing when oil is involved, but when the right thing needs doing for real in a place like say, Africa, all of a sudden we are nowhere to be found.
        I think people want us to either do what we say or own up to what we are actually doing. Including me.
    • jetboyterp, on 03/09/2008, -27/+7You're right! Bring back Saddam, he only killed his own people! None of our business!
      • JustFender, on 03/09/2008, -2/+18well i seem to remember, when it was your last elections, loads of the English and others sent you letters asking you not to vote for bush and what not, and you all got into a little tantrum over it because it was none of our business who you voted for in your country etc. etc. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vot ... is the best link i can find, my point is, if the brits had decided to "liberate" America instead of sending letters, would you still think its right because of the wars and ***** bush has started? or would you think it was none of the brits business and they should've left it alone
        • blate, on 03/09/2008, -1/+7It's only invasive if it happens to us
        • jetboyterp, on 03/09/2008, -14/+4So Bush started "wars and *****"? How did Bush do that? Feel free to come here to the US, and look around. You won't find mass graves...and so far as I know, we have no plans to invade our neighbors. You may have wanted to trust Saddam, take him at his word. But in a post 9/11 world, there's no more "wait and see"...The same goes for Iran, a nation which cannot be allowed to acquire nukes.
          • fyngyrz, on 03/09/2008, -1/+7The graves of the masses we have killed, and continue to kill, are (most recently) in Iraq and Afghanistan. This, mind you, after a bunch of Saudi Arabians flew into one of our buildings. Still, I presume your contention is that as long as the people we kill aren't in our own country, then we're not to be considered out of line by anyone, eh?
          • JustFender, on 03/09/2008, -0/+5....ok, but which would you choose Britain invading America and killing loads (seeing as its not a war according to you) or them keeping their nose out of it?
          • iticu, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Because it's not a war if it doesn;t affect you!
            ***** world is going to burn because of this type of ignorance.
        • acitcratnA, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3I don't think Britain would have stood a chance. But please, do send more letters.
        • rhoffer21, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1no, we dont invade our neighbors. We give weapons to Colombia and let them do it for us.
        • aukxsona, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Ah, but you see the election was STOLEN. Die Bold stole it. So ya know it's not really our fault. We have no real vote.
      • macweirdo42, on 03/09/2008, -3/+18Hey, moron! We didn't go into Iraq to "liberate" it! My God, there should be a law that anyone stupid enough to buy Bush's lies should be dragged out in the street and shot. When we went in, it was all because of non-existent WMDs. It was only after we found out that there weren't any WMDs (amazing how that worked, considering there was no evidence for them in the first place) that suddenly, the administration did a 180 and started blabbering about how we went to Iraq to liberate the people.

        Besides, how many oppressive regimes are there out there? Why pick just one?
        • jetboyterp, on 03/09/2008, -12/+2Hey, moron! Google "Clinton Iraq 1998"...
          • macweirdo42, on 03/09/2008, -1/+10Why? What the hell could Clinton possibly have to do with the fact that Bush blatantly lied to us? I am addressing the current president - the one who started this damn war. Nothing Clinton did in 1998 could possibly have anything to do with the fact that five years later, Bush purposely misled the American people so that he could start an unnecessary war that has cost thousands of American lives, and countless Iraqi lives. Need I even mention the fact that there is no end in sight, because geniuses that they were, they didn't even bother coming up with an exit strategy before we went in.

            The really sad part is that the lies and the blundering were apparent before the war even started. The WMD intel was questionable at best, and it was painfully obvious that Bush had no plans for anything - it's like he thought the country would magically rebuild itself or something. I don't know how he got away with it at all, other than jerks like you who, even before the war started, called us unpatriotic traitors for objecting to it.
          • blazes816, on 03/09/2008, -5/+2Bush didn't lie about WMDs in Iraq, he was wrong. jetboyterp is saying that Clinton also said that there were WMDs in Iraq. Hell, even Gore said Bush Sr. was an idiot because he didn't go into Iraq.
          • rhoffer21, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3It has been proven that the CIA lied and Bush lied about Iraq having WMDs when they said they did. Perhaps they had them in 98, but not in 02. And as far as I remember....Bush Sr. DID go into Iraq. Please make more nonsense up please.
          • jetboyterp, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1@rhoffer...

            Proven?? That Bush (and the CIA too!) lied about WMD?? Show me...And if Saddam had them in 98 (as you agree) but not in 02, what happened to them? All Saddam had to do...re: UN res. 1441...was show how and where the WMD were destroyed. Saddam did not do that.

            And Bush Sr. went into Iraq to force them out of Kuwait.
          • macweirdo42, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Bush Sr. received a lot of criticism for not taking Saddam out. Personally, I agree with his decision - he laid down a plan of what he was going to do about the Iraq situation, and he followed through. We were there to resolve the Kuwait situation, and that was it.

            Bush Jr., though, just went in blindly - no plan, no strategy, no clearly-defined goals... Look, okay, politicians in general tend to be idiots. Attacking one doesn't make up for the sins of another.
          • jetboyterp, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1@macweirdo42...

            Bush Sr. received SOME criticism for not taking out Saddam, but you're right...that wasn't the goal. But Bush Jr. DID meet his goal too...to take out Saddam, his sons, and his Baathist regime. That war was over rather quickly. What happened, was that the insurgency would come after, and last this long. That was underestimated. And that insurgency is supplied and funded by states like Iran and Syria...so that makes them even more difficult to eradicate. But things are getting much better in Iraq. You should read Michael Yon on the web. First-hand accounts of what's happening in Iraq. Stuff you don't see in the MSM.
          • blazes816, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1@rhoffer http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tz0sldWzYnY
        • adrianmonk, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2I think you're right. I don't think we went in to liberate it. But I don't think we went in for several of the reasons others claim either, like for control of oil production or to build up Bush's ego by doing what his father couldn't.

          Instead, I think the motivator was fear. Fear has been a major cause of many of the darker chapters of US history: the Cold War, McCarthyism, the WWI internment of loyal US citizens of Japanese ethnicity, and racial separatism and discrimination.

          Evidence of WMD in Iraq existed before 9/11 (during Clinton's presidency), but the stuff was gone by the time of 9/11, so the decision to invade wasn't justified. But Saddam Hussein had interfered with UN investigators, which raises suspicions in a mind controlled by fear.

          Bush's major failing as President has not been greedy (although he is greedy), but fear. And the reason he has gotten reelected is that many voters share the same fear that he does. And, the reason he got support for the war from Congress is that they shared the same fear at one time.

          I bring this up because I think if we are going to correct a mistake, we need to know what the mistake really was. As long as we don't see that what we need to be attacking is irrational, disproportionate fear, we won't really solve the problem.
        • jetboyterp, on 03/09/2008, -4/+2Because, if you know anything, Clinton said exactly the same thing regarding Saddam, Iraq, and WMD. So if you're saying Bush lied, then Clinton lied too, before Bush ever came to office. And, after the end of the year, when we have a new prez, I hope you don't bring up Bush in any argument at all...since he won't be the "current president"...
          • macweirdo42, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Clinton didn't use the lie as a pretext for invasion. BIG FREAKIN' DIFFERENCE THERE! I still don't see what Clinton has to do with it. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference what he said. Do you understand? We invaded a country. We're now going to be occupying it for God-knows-how-long, causing untold numbers of problems. My issue here is that Clinton is completely irrelevant to the current situation. He didn't cause any of this. It was ALL Bush's doing.
      • DoobieMan714, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2Actually, even though what Hussein did was wrong, we don't really have business in what other leaders are doing to their people, are we supposed to be the police of the world? We have our own problems to worry about. Lets figure out our government first before worry about others.
        • blazes816, on 03/09/2008, -2/+2We are not the world police, but do you really want to sit by and let leaders do whatever they want to their people? Did you want Hitler to be left alone to do what he wanted with HIS jews, gays, etc?
        • BFisch06, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Maybe we are the police of the world, considering the UN does *****.
          • iticu, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Liberate the Chinese, most of Africa, Cuba and all those places if you consider yourself the "world police".

            If not stop pretending you're invading and killing thousands of people for nothing but your corporate interests.
        • rhoffer21, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1blaze816 i think we need to worry about our own dictator that kills his own people. Do you want Bush to be left alone to do what he wants to do with HIS people that love the constitution and freedom?
          • blazes816, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1No, but not because it's Bush. I don't want any leader to be able to do what they want with their people. But if I had to pick someone to, Bush would be a lot higher up on the list than any liberal, socialist, communist, or dictator.

            And no, Bush is NOT a dictator.
      • Pritchard, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Yeah! Let's do the job for him instead :D
      • oxdeltaxo, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1It was far too wasteful to free a country as unforgiving as iraq.
    • L4WL3RS34L, on 03/09/2008, -13/+10After WWII, Europe was in such a ***** that the US became the world superpower. The US is kind of forced into not minding their own business, but they pushed it a little too far when they wanted to invade Iraq for oil. Actually they pushed it too far when they elected Bush for president.
      • gibson85, on 03/09/2008, -0/+9we didnt, gore actually won the popular vote.
        • DoctorGlass, on 03/09/2008, -1/+3true, but we let the coup happen.
          • aliengoods, on 03/09/2008, -0/+7We would've stopped it but Friends was nearing its last season and we were on the edge of our seats.
          • virtualball, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1It's so sad because it's so true....
      • Dennis88, on 03/09/2008, -2/+5In what was was the US "forced" into not minding their own business? Just because you are the most powerful country does not give you the right to start imposing your rules on the rest of the world.
    • ruddy, on 03/09/2008, -13/+4what if we "minded our own business" during WWII? what if the union "minded their own business" during the civil war period? not that I agree with the iraqi war (i don't), sometimes you have to do whats right, even if that means war. you know the dems were the biggest bitches when it came to freeing blacks right?
      • mcmlxxii, on 03/09/2008, -1/+7You did "mind your own business" until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941.
        • lionsmc, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1yeah if "mind your own business" means giving billions of dollars and tons of weapons to England (which has never been paid back)
    • Spoomeister, on 03/09/2008, -3/+4Hard for us to mind our own business when so much of our business (and our debt) is overseas.
      • iticu, on 03/09/2008, -0/+6And the main reason you have debt is because you didn;t mind your own buisness in the first place.

        See the circle?
        • Spoomeister, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Forgive the debt and we take the troops home, and then Iraq, Rwanda, Somalia and a bazillion other places can take care of themselves. Circle gone.
    • walkea1, on 03/09/2008, -4/+8We tried minding our business between the two world wars, but that didn't work out at all! And that was before the world was anywhere as global as it is today. What we need is to make better foreign policy decisions, not become isolationist.
    • kylejn, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2Is that too much to ask? Apparently so.
    • Zasz, on 03/09/2008, -7/+2Buried for being false. I'm pretty sure many people in Africa are grateful for our billions of dollars of AIDS relief.
      • DeepFriedFetus, on 03/09/2008, -0/+10And I'm sure they're even more grateful when the relief is stolen and used for genocide.
      • thallium205, on 03/09/2008, -0/+4Yes I'm sure a native wheat farmer in Africa is thrilled when FREE premium wheat from the United States enters the marketplace.
    • tracywood, on 03/09/2008, -2/+4You sir are an isolationist. It's beliefs like this that lead to Hitler and Nazi Germany.

      /sarcasm
    • BluesFan, on 03/09/2008, -0/+8Don't worry soon the U.S economy will be so bad that they will fall from super power status or at the very least won't be able to afford going to war anymore.
      • loveandrockets, on 03/09/2008, -0/+4Exactly.
        I can just imagine that's how the Iraq war is going to end. China will call in all their debts and the US will be instantly broke. They tell the US soldiers in Iraq there is no more money and they have to find their own way home. The soldiers begin a mass exodus to Kuwait. And then it becomes like "The Road Warrior" in the Middle East desert. Gangs of soldiers fighting for gas or a ride home.
    • virtualball, on 03/09/2008, -3/+4You want us to mind our own business, but when Germany comes and causes a mass genocide, don't come crawling back! :)
      • ilves7, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3You confuse minding your own business and not helping when asked. Butting in when you're not welcome is not the same thing as helping when asked.
    • exgop, on 03/09/2008, -2/+1Then have the President of Iran stop saying every other day Iran will destroy America. I would be all for minding my own business then
      • MH94, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Is that the newest made up rumor for going into Iran? If so, then I guess I'm falling behind.
    • tripzero, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Yes, let's build a great big wall around the United States and keep foreign trade out! We'll call it the "great wall of America".
  • panzer919, on 03/09/2008, -16/+75This guy is my new hero!
    • chamberlanderic, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2should start a webpage dedicated to this philosopher
  • Jaliyl, on 03/09/2008, -31/+3EPIC WIN!!!!!!11!1!one!!eleventy!!!!!
  • doyoulikeworms, on 03/09/2008, -13/+132That sign is so full of ownage.
    • EwMo, on 03/09/2008, -3/+3but not pwnage, because someone's trying to trademark that...
    • taffyhealscrowd, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1How do you make a comment like that and live with yourself?
  • liquidmetalband, on 03/09/2008, -13/+2Haha
  • fxu1989, on 03/09/2008, -19/+5*waits for the comment: Two wrongs don't make a right.*

    ⌐_⌐
  • g4nj4m4n, on 03/09/2008, -14/+0would be very nice for teh summ3r!
  • flip2trip, on 03/09/2008, -39/+6This is exactly what I expect from a neo-lib, espousing peace while promoting violence. (note sign in background)
    • haydesigner, on 03/09/2008, -2/+18How is impeaching violent?
      • Ridgedog, on 03/09/2008, -14/+1You idiot. The sign in the back is about peace, foreground: violence.
        • Hazed2008, on 03/09/2008, -3/+1Wow anyone on here who makes sense is getting buried while a moron like haydesigner who can't even understand signs is getting dugg up.
          • dunk71, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2I think you'll find that careful examination of the image, cross referenced with the comments here, will show haydesigner is being sarcastic and making a valid point against a reactionary comment submitted by flip2trip. Which is why, so far, no one is digging your comment either.
          • Ridgedog, on 03/10/2008, -1/+0I gleaned two things from your explanation
            1. you have no ***** idea that haydesigner only got dug up because he was, however idiotically, on the anti-bush bandwagon. and
            2. you're smart, or at least you imagine that you are, which is why you left a long convoluted message jumping on the same bandwagon as the other douchebag SIMPLY for the sake of diggs.
          • dunk71, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1@Ridgedog:
            1. Your opinion is as valid as mine, but I think you're wrong.
            2. I don't give a ***** if I get diggs, and I don't think I'm particularly smart (check my comment history and you'll see I've said some real dumb things), but if you think that my message was long and convoluted, and that having a different opinion to someone else is jumping on a bandwagon, then your idea of smart might be a little easier target to hit than mine.
    • bsmang, on 03/09/2008, -1/+3I think he means waterbboarding bush is violent. But the way I see it, not ALL violence is bad... Upwards of 99% is but some small amount will probably always be necessary (unfortunately).
    • proton, on 03/09/2008, -2/+36Bush says waterboarding isn't violent.
    • dunk71, on 03/09/2008, -0/+18Firstly, the other sign is being held by someone else. Secondly, you obviously don't understand sarcasm when you see it.
    • enki25, on 03/09/2008, -1/+9This is exactly what one would expect from a fundie conservative: a complete lack of any measurable sense of humor.
    • moolaismyfriend, on 03/09/2008, -0/+5Don't you have a public bathroom you need to go have sex in with another man while your family stays home and watches fox news tell them a marriage between two consenting adults will destroy the fabric of the American family because they are of the same gender?
    • ilves7, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3If you actually thought he was supporting violence you don't have an ounce of intelligence in your head. He is obviously making a satirical comment about the legalization of water boarding and how its supposedly not a bad thing nor torture according to the adminstration, so therefore it should be good to use on the President as well.
      • enki25, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2I think an important part of being a republican is pretending to be retarded to make points. Of course, in some cases, the behavior may not be entirely artificial.
  • pigfister, on 03/09/2008, -7/+29Fake war on Terror to justify control: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2081592330 ...
    • FatherVic, on 03/09/2008, -7/+1Just like the escalation of the cold war by JFK or the war on poverty by fdr...
      same song, different singer...
    • jdmzpf, on 03/09/2008, -7/+1Sometimes people like you make me sick. There are real and legitimate threats to America in this world. If you think we are fighting "fake" wars for fun your just ignorant. SO many people in this world hate us, and would give their lives knowing they hurt us. Saying this I am against waterboarding and torture in general (But wouldn't mind seeing Bush get water-boarded for a bit)
      • Textzilla, on 03/09/2008, -1/+0There are extremist anti-Americans within America itself, and there always will be mad people willing to resort to suicide to inflict damage on others. Now, generalizing an entire foreign nation into that category of extremist suicidal murderers is over-exaggerating and propelled forward with only the justification brought forward thanks to the attacks on 9/11. Can you really tell me that a few Muslims in a cave planned and carried out the largest attack on the United States ever and then decided to chill out for over 6 years? Don't try and ***** that the Patriot Act and warantless wire-tapping are the reason for the lack of attacks, because we'd see our president proudly pull out his dick and request we put his balls on our chin if there was an obvious threat to this nation and he was able to stop it through his illegal spying on Americans. What you say about terrorists willing to hurt Americans you cannot prove for yourself. Have you met these people? Have you seen thousands of them rallying and burning American flags? No, you personally have not, but you are led to believe that what you see on Fox News and CNN is basically true evidence before your eyes. Everything you know is taught to you by someone else, in most cases your precious TV, and do you really find it so outrageous that they twist and manipulate reality to justify their completely baseless, harmful actions? Thousands of young Americans are dying for no reason thousands of miles from their families, and it's sickening.
    • fhornplayer, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Isn't that exactly what was happening in 1984? Create an endless war against an obscure enemy, call anti-war protesters unpatriotic, illegally monitor citizens? Does anyone else see the U.S. slowly becoming Oceania?
  • bsmang, on 03/09/2008, -7/+63Does that mean we can waterboard anyone we want (hint, hint) and if they happen to die, then it just gets written off as an accident?
  • LeeSoong, on 03/09/2008, -1/+19Well, at least the International Courts are not asking about all the other
    interrogation 'techniques' used after the water boarding.

    Geez, it's so very messy - someone get a bucket, a shovel, a mop, and hose down these rooms before the smell attracts the flies and crows . . .
  • chops76, on 03/09/2008, -15/+30America...***** YEAH!
    • LovelyNeko, on 03/09/2008, -4/+1HOORAAAAAAAAAAAH ***** YEAH!
    • moolaismyfriend, on 03/09/2008, -0/+5Coming again to save the motha-***** day, YAY!
    • NightVortez, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Freedom is the only way yeah, terrorists your game is through cause now you have to answer to America...***** YEAH!
    • plunderbunny, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1So lick my butt and suck on my balls!
  • adml_shake, on 03/09/2008, -1/+29I think the guy behind him needs to fill in that "for" a little bit more. If I was driving by that would be very confusing.
  • payasoron, on 03/09/2008, -25/+1Tree Huggers!
  • Joest23, on 03/09/2008, -5/+13Bush, Cheney and Rove should ALL be on trial for all of the crimes they committed. I don't give a ***** about the other people. As long as those three fry, I'm happy.
    • EwMo, on 03/09/2008, -0/+5Haha are you kidding? In reality it will be those three who either plead out or just flat out arent prosecuted. Welcome to the American Justice System
    • kronso23, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Those three are merely puppets. The Federal Reserve and private interests such as oil companies and government contractors are the masterminds behind the iraq war.

      Watch the movie "Iraq for Sale: The war profiteers." You can watch it for free on google video. Another good movie for the conspiracy theorist: http://zeitgeistmovie.com
    • aabernathy, on 03/10/2008, -0/+0I'm assuming you failed government class in college?
  • yojiffyskippy, on 03/09/2008, -15/+4Hypocrite.
  • mindbullets, on 03/09/2008, -15/+5This picture proves that even the redneck nascar fans are sick of Bush's *****.
  • SebK666, on 03/09/2008, -7/+31President Bush's veto will be one of the most shameful acts of his presidency.
    • adrianmonk, on 03/09/2008, -1/+10Although... not as shameful as actually allowing the waterboarding in the first place.
      • SebK666, on 03/09/2008, -0/+6Indeed. We live in a sad world. "Man is a wolf to man"
        • gavin100, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1yeh thats true...But I hope we have the biggest wolf with biggest teeth.
    • DeepFriedFetus, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Does anyone remember the whole Iraq thing...
  • NasKa, on 03/09/2008, -1/+12I want to honk.
  • mikephimikephi, on 03/09/2008, -3/+73As a signatory of the Geneva Convention, it shouldn't matter if Bush vetoed this or not.
    His word games over POW and Enemy Combatant are clearly ***** and the Supreme Court should
    rule accordingly.
    • TonyLocNE, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1"clearly *****" -yes
      "should rule accordingly" -never going to happen again
    • DoctorGlass, on 03/09/2008, -1/+0the geneva convention on the prevention and punishment of genocide has very little authority in the united states. the only reason the united states finally ratified it (in 1986) was because the UN agreed on a provision that means no American can be punished under the convention without the prior consent of the US government.
  • kayakertim, on 03/09/2008, -26/+3When one of those Islamic terrorists impose their Neanderthal Sharia law in your country, when they blow up your children, stone your women and slit your throats you will be begging for the opportunity to water-board these scum of the earth. Get real and stop living in a Kumbaya fantasy world!
    • Whackly, on 03/09/2008, -1/+19Oh yeah. We're totally at risk of that happening.
    • Chocobot, on 03/09/2008, -2/+7Digging this up so everyone can see this dumbass comment.
    • Acewrap, on 03/09/2008, -0/+9Why are you such a coward? Why do you think that the people (not the government) would allow this to happen?
    • nicksauce, on 03/09/2008, -0/+16How about you get real and stop living in George Bush's fantasy world.
    • pintomp3, on 03/09/2008, -0/+10right, let's base our laws on the bible instead.
      http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
    • enki25, on 03/09/2008, -1/+6Grow some balls loser. We didn't do this when there was a fascist army close to taking over the world 50 years ago. There's no reason for us to throw away our principles now, simply because you're scared of a few homeless fundamentalists in the middle east who have it out for us.
      • antwan17, on 03/09/2008, -0/+5Not only did you not do it, you executed Japanese military officers for doing it to U.S. P.O.W.'s. Their defense? We were trying to discover information about the possible use of W.M.D's on our country. Now that sounds kinda familiar, of course the difference is you guys actually had and used W.M.D's on their country.
    • Pritchard, on 03/09/2008, -0/+4They'd have to get here first. Most of these are considered 3rd World Countries. They hardly managed to blow up a building with planes let alone take over our nation. Even the world powers would have hell trying that. And if they were powerful enough to do that, this would never have happened, because the USA wouldn't have meddled so severely in the foreign affairs of a nation they knew could actually hit them back.

      I wouldn't want to waterboard them. No. I'd probably want to gather intelligence and kill the people responsible. Hopefully before or after those immediate actions, we can prevent anyone from wanting to do this to us again.
  • thefurball, on 03/09/2008, -2/+39Hmm. Whenever I hear the term 'waterboarding' I think it sounds like an alternate name for surfing. The reality is somewhat more sinister.
  • bramcracka, on 03/09/2008, -17/+2its ether we can help prevent terrorist attacks by getting the information we need to know about them by waterboarding the terrorist or we stop waterboarding them and then never get the intelligence we need to figure out there plans and then we can be on our way to another 9/11. hmmm, i think i know which one i would pick.
    • dildoolielly, on 03/09/2008, -1/+13Aren't you supposed to be in Church?

    • Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 03/09/2008, -2/+7In the words of Jean Luc Picard, "If we are going to be damned, lets be damned for who we really are". The United States of America is fighting terrorists because of what they represent. They shout 'death to America' and destroy our buildings, and they torture by cutting off prisoners heads with handsaws. And we say it is our duty to stop them. So we shout 'death to al-qaeda, we destroy their cities, we kill ten times as many of their civilians as they have done to us. And then we torture them to get them to say exactly what we want them to say. Even though more people have died by our hands, we are still doing the right thing because 'we're the good guys'. And all they wanted was for us to keep our 'western' civilization out of their society.

      Apparently, that was too much to ask.

      Yes bramcracka, I think I know which one I would choose too.
    • enki25, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2Well that's because you're part of the conservatives with down syndrome demographic. These techniques don't help us get information, they help us get confessions (that in most cases are not legitimate). Confessions don't help stop attacks, they help justify administration policies.
    • Pritchard, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Yeah. Alright. Well in that case, waterboard away. Also, I think the only way to tell spies from normal citizens is to electroshock them. The normal citizens will scream, while the spies will not, because they have been trained to resist torture. I think I'd definitely want to be tortured if it kept me out of harms way!
    • orellius, on 03/09/2008, -0/+0Who chooses whom gets waterboarded? What if the waterboarding is done to an innocent person? What if it is applied to airport security? Would you feel safe that the person holding the power to waterboard will not do it to you? Also as a last note, remember that one of the reasons the U.S invaded Sadam Hussein is because he used torture.
  • Muss, on 03/09/2008, -8/+2Nice molestache!
  • a55h4t, on 03/09/2008, -6/+1O RLY!?!?!?
  • dannyboy3020, on 03/09/2008, -16/+2This man is a hypocrite. Obviously, he is against waterboarding, yet he wants it done on Bush.

    You CANNOT have it both ways. Either you are against using it on ANYONE, or you are for it.

    You cannot pick and choose who you want to use it on and say that you are against waterboarding.
    • farTart, on 03/09/2008, -1/+10Get a dictionary and go look up the word "sarcasm". Then smile and get on with your life ffs...
    • enki25, on 03/09/2008, -3/+1This is why that gay Fox News comedy show failed so spectacularly. You people are missing parts of their brains that would give you a sense of humor. He's pointing out how ridiculous Bush's veto is you moron!
  • dildoolielly, on 03/09/2008, -6/+24Jobs In The USA Experiencing Growth
    under Bush:

    napalm manufacturer,
    body-bag manufacturer,
    meth manufacturer,
    interogator,
    torturer,
    body-outline chalk drawer
    NSA wire-monkey.
    Hamburger "manufacturer"

    ...more when I have time
    • Texmurphy01, on 03/09/2008, -2/+9After Katrina I think professional mopper
  • uziko, on 03/09/2008, -9/+8Hey people are you ***** idiots. Waterboarding is not legal and never was. Waterboarding is a aggravated assault which is a felony. Just because a person is in police custody does not mean that the police can assault the prisoners. The people who have waterboarded other people and will do so in the future are criminal felons. The whole veto a ban on waterboarding a big ***** joke just to make idiots like you believe that it is legal in the first place, and you are eating it up.
    • goon5000, on 03/09/2008, -5/+1I'd risk going to jail to waterboard your pansy ass. The whole veto thing is a ploy by the dems to make Bush look like a torturer, and you know it. Don't front.
      • Nth3nSum, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3So then why didn't he sign it into law? Seems easy enough to avoid such a sinister trap by the evil Dems doesn't it?

        Take your head out of the Iraqi sand man. The USA tortures captured prisoners. Legal or not the President and his cabinet approve of torture.
    • enki25, on 03/09/2008, -0/+7Um, that's one of the whole reasons people are so upset at Bush, because he made it legal with his signing statements. This veto prevented legislation from overruling his executive order.
    • EwMo, on 03/09/2008, -2/+0Thank you for notifying me that I am a ***** idiot, I was wondering if I had become one yet. Also, the eloquence that you used in saying that (the words "*****" and 'idiot" are so intelligent, especially when used together, and obviously completely necessary in getting your point across) was quite admirable.
    • ovgreenman, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1The law is different for military operations than for police procedures.

      Thank you for your uneducated namecalling, though. Very entertaining.
    • jagedlion, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1ovgreenman really has you. Aside from starting out alienating anyone who would listen to you, you are also plainly wrong, or right, but talking about something entirely unrelated, your choice. The reason its questionable is that the people being subject are not us citizens in the vast majority and those who might have been are branded are enemy combatants. There are a lot of things you can do to enemy combatants that you can't do to US citizens. You can talk about the geneva convention, but let us be honest. Just about every country that has been in a military anything since the signing of the geneva convention has broken the geneva convention in as many ways as they can without outrage. For example, when my dad was a medic in the military he was told not to wear his arm band into battle because they shot at the medics (geneva convention says no shooting at medics http://www.hrweb.org/legal/geneva1.html#Article%20 ... )
      • pkonink, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1You are correct, however, if we allow as a matter of policy the use torture to gain information from non-citizens then when will eventually we need to set policy to allow torture of citizens? Perhaps traitors or sympathizers - they are enemy combatants I assume. And what about that animal liberation front or earth first "terrorist?" The value of the destroyed property and lost business they cause I think is fairly sizable (especially if you pad the books) - why not torture them? Labeling anyone involved with drugs a "terrorist" by government agents and officials has also become very fashionable the past few years - why not torture them to find out where that hidden field of Maui Wowee is?
        It is a slope I do not care to go down and for me a very clear and definite line in the sand.
        I think it also highlights how I feel we should use our superpower status while we have it. As a "beacon of light" rather than a "world police." That is, we should lead the world by our honor, integrity and compassion, not by our sheer military muscle and will to use it to protect our interests. Good leaders aren't made by alienating their followers. And without a good leader you cannot have a cohesive society.
  • JMIJohnny, on 03/09/2008, -19/+6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _________
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./ It's a trap!
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _,,,--~~~~~~~~--,_ . . . . ._________/
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ : : : :::: :::: :: : : : : :º ‘-, . . /. . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ :: : : :::: :::: :::: :::: : : :o : ‘-, . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ :: ::: :: : : :: :::: :::: :: : : : : :O ‘-, . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ : :: :: :: :: :: : : : : : , : : :º :::: :::: ::’; . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . .,-‘ / / : :: :: :: :: : : :::: :::-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ; . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . /,-‘,’ :: : : : : : : : : :: :: :: : ‘-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;| . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . /,’,-‘ :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : ::_,-~~,_’-, ;; ;; ;; ;; | . . . . . . .
    . . . . . _/ :,’ :/ :: :: :: : : :: :: _,-‘/ : ,-‘;’-‘’’’’~-, ;; ;; ;;,’ . . . . . . . .
    . . . ,-‘ / : : : : : : ,-‘’’ : : :,--‘’ :|| /,-‘-‘--‘’’__,’’’ ;; ;,-‘ . . . . . . . .
    . . . :/,, : : : _,-‘ --,,_ : : : ||/ /,-‘-‘x### :: ;;/ . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . / /---‘’’’ : # : : : : : | | : (O##º : :/ /-‘’ . . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . /,’____ : : ‘-# : , : : : : ‘-,___,-‘,-`-,, . . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . ‘ ) : : : :’’’’--,,--,,,,,,¯ :: ::--,,_’’-,,’’’¯ :’- :’-, . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . .) : : : : : : ,, : ‘’’’~~~~’ :: :: :: :’’’’’¯ :: ,-‘ :,/ . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . .,/ /|| | :/ / : : : : : : : ,’-, :: :: :: :: ::,--‘’ :,-‘ . . . . . . . .
    . . . . .’| |/ ‘/ / :: :_--,, : , | )’; :: :: :: :,-‘’ : ,-‘ : : : , . . . . . . .
    . . . ./¯ :| | : |/ :: ::----, :/ :|/ :: :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : ‘’-,,_ . . . .
    . . ..| : : :/ ‘’-(, :: :: :: ‘’’’’~,,,,,’’ :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : : : :,-‘’’ . . . .
    . ,-‘ : : : | : : ‘’) : : :¯’’’’~-,: : ,--‘’’ : :,-‘’ : : : : : : : : : ,-‘ :¯’’’’’-,_ .
    ./ : : : : :’-, :: | :: :: :: _,,-‘’’’¯ : ,--‘’ : : : : : : : : : : : / : : : : : : :’’-,
    / : : : : : -, :¯’’’’’’’’’’’¯ : : _,,-~’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : :| : : : : : : : : :
    : : : : : : : :¯’’~~~~~~’’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : | : : : : : : : : :
  • coyote1284, on 03/09/2008, -9/+4*facepalm* I brave the down digging I am about to receive, but how exactly does the veto of a bill to make waterboarding illegal, which was already illegal in the first place, make waterboarding legal? Maybe I should present a bill that makes eating babies illegal and then say anyone who doesn't support my bill a baby eater and eating babies is now legal. *sigh* Digg, do your worst.
    • enki25, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2It's because of the legal cloud around Bush's executive orders. The admin claims anything they say is by definition legal, even if existing laws disagree. They had to veto this bill because it would have given room for the Supreme Court to argue that the admin is trying to have it both ways (because this would have been a bill this admin signed after signing executive orders allowing torture).
      So yeah, this doesn't "make torture legal" technically, it just prevents the existing laws from being reaffirmed.
    • adrianmonk, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2It doesn't make it legal. But Bush contends that it is legal, so I think the point of the sign is that if you follow Bush's reasoning, then it would be legal to waterboard Bush. The sign is trying to point out the absurdity of Bush's position by taking it to its logical conclusion. It also raises the question of how Bush would feel if the shoe were on the other foot.
    • tgunner, on 03/09/2008, -1/+6I dugg you down for asking for it like a bitch. Shame, as it was a good comment.
  • rrstuv, on 03/09/2008, -17/+3I have to agree with thirteen. George W. Bush does suck as a President. But the world is an harsh place. Our enemies

    are plenty. Without these tools and programs we can't "compete" at a global scale with others. Our enemies will use

    whatever torture methods they want, no consideration whatsoever for human rights. So you say, well u cant fight fire

    with fire. The alternative is rather grim.



    Water boarding is pretty bad, yes. It is immoral and wrong , yes. But imagine, just for a moment, that we have

    captured someone we suspect to be a terrorist. They possibly have information that we need. And yes, it is a

    possibility they are innocent and unaware.



    All the torture techniques from before, like water boarding, are unavailable. What do you do?



    You say to the suspect, "Oh well, guess your free to go Mr.X. Have a great day". Heck no. You keep trying right? Well

    what if he refuses to tell you anything? Do you give up?



    [As an aside, consider that the psychologists working for the intelligence agency were given an ultimatum from the

    American Psychology association, to abandon extreme torture techniques or have their licenses revoked. Guess what

    happened? The CIA said, we can hire them as analysts/specialists, but they will continue to play the role of

    psychologists.]



    What happened to the needs of the many outweighing those of the few? What happened to this country accepting

    responsibility? Ask not what your country can do for you. . . . Right?

    Well it seems that everyone has become too sensitive, and too selfish. Seriously people, without discrimination,

    without profiling, police work is impossible, investigations cannot progress.Manipulating suspects works, and

    water boarding is an extreme form of bending of the wrist.



    Now consider this: From all the C.I.A.'s work, you only ever know of their failures. Their successes are never known.

    They do not declare their successes, "Woohoo, we beat terrorism again today America.". No you sleep at home, not

    having to worry about where your food will come from tomorrow, or where the gas that goes in your car will come from,

    the car that gets you to work, your kids to school. And if it wasn't there tomorrow, u wouldn't care how u got it, u would

    just want it. You would not like being cold or hungry. Now imagine that at the scale of a country, a country like

    ours. Where everyone needs food, gas, warmth among other things. War is about microchips, gas and toaster ovens. So

    the next time you feel bad about water boarding, think that without it you could be hungry, cold or even dead.



    And please do feel free to comment on this.
    • sule, on 03/09/2008, -1/+7this is the biggest load of crap i've read in a long time
    • DoobieMan714, on 03/09/2008, -0/+4First off, what the ***** was that horse *****. Second, did you like copy some poor kids high school essay and paste it into digg, i mean come on who the ***** spaces things that much.
    • rowjimmy, on 03/09/2008, -1/+4show me evidence that torture works. even that it slightly works. because the FACT of the matter is - it doesn't.
      i'd rather go "cold and hungry" than live in a country that acts like a throwback to imperial Britain. because i wouldn't be cold or hungry for long, when the rest of the world except a tiny tiny minority would start supporting said non-warmongering country and we would be able to enter a fair and equal global economy. the ***** line that "if we didn't attack these terrorists, they'd attack us" is propaganda at its finest - the only reason terrorism hasn't been squelched in all but a few super extremist cases is because we keep killing people and putting them in situations where they have nothing to live for anyway, and where they see the only way to maybe give their children a chance is to blow themselves up for a "cause". if we behaved civilly, i'd venture to guess that most people would too - sure, there will always be a few nutjobs but they couldn't do nearly as much damage as warmongering politicians can.
    • crashfive, on 03/09/2008, -4/+0I was glad to see someone point this out so now I don't have to but I would like to add.... For all of those opposed to these kind of "tortures" I ask what would you want done if it was discovered that a group of terrorist were holding your family, wife, child, mother, father, brother or sister hostage and they were able to capture one of them. Would you rather they politely ask where they are holding your relative? Or would you rather they do whatever it takes to get the answers they need to find your relatives?
      • DeepFriedFetus, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3When does that EVER happen you dumb piece of monkey *****?! Grow a ***** brain, asshat!
      • enki25, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Doing it yourself is different than making it legal to be done by the government. Besides, if you really wanted info you wouldn't torture, all it does in encourage the person being tortured to tell you what you want to hear. Bad information will cost you the lives of your family members in the same way no information will.
    • enki25, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3I would respond, but I don't feel like starting from square 1. If you can't format text there's obviously a lot you still have to learn.
    • jotjot, on 03/09/2008, -0/+21. The world is a harsh place, our enemies are plenty.
      Yes, the world is a harsh place and we have plenty of "enemies". "Enemies" we made due to our screwed up foreign policies. I echo the point of Ron Paul on this, the reason why they hate use is because we are there. Imagine if Iranians or Koreans are building a base in your own neighborhood right now, what would you do? The reason why they hate us is because we are in their soil, and they see this as invasion. They don't hate us because we love freedom and liberty. I think we have more to fear from our own government and politicians like Bush than any other "terrorist" out there. The "war on terrorism" is the biggest propaganda. The government is waging a war on your liberties right now, trampling your Constitutional rights as Americans. This "war on terrorism" is costing you your liberties.

      2. Water boarding is immoral and wrong (but it's necessary). The needs of many outweigh the few.
      If you believe its immoral and wrong, then why do you even impose it? So based on that statement you can also make it fit for the reasons of "slavery". This point does not make sense.

      3. War is about microchips, gas and toaster ovens. So the next time you feel bad about water boarding, think that without it you could be hungry, cold or even dead.
      No. Without water boarding I won't go hungry.
      • rrstuv, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1Also, I'd like to address that I had to save the whole thing in word, and it was auto formatted.

        I'm glad you wrote so neatly in response to what I wrote. Thank you.

        You are absolutely right about it being our fault. Without us exploiting them, corrupting their countries and killing their people they would have little to no reason to retaliate. But change is slow. Sure you can change policies, and try to make amends. You can help build them schools and so on. But all this costs money. I doubt that any person would rather see an Afghan child go to school rather than their own child. Now apply that across the border. It will take time to make amends. Progress will be slow, but in the meantime we still need to protect ourselves. Sure maybe Bush had no intentions of helping those people.

        In extreme cases, where life matters , the use of torture to extract information is justifiable.Slavery is not, so I don't understand what you mean.

        Well perhaps you won't go hungry, but consider if your infant was hungry or cold, what would you do? You take care of it, tend to its needs, at almost any cost. That is the kind of pressure the government is subject to. Water boarding might not help you save 2.75$ on your next order at MacDonald's or Walmart, but it does help us garner bargaining chips at the international trades tables.

        Ideally, one would want everything to be open and happy. But I don't think that's possible for a long time.
    • dkern, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1The world is a harsh place because of England, America, China and Russia. The rest of the world is just trying to stay alive and survive the insatiable appetites of the super-powers. Can't blame people for trying to survive, protect and defend themselves.

      The cruelest, most sadistic and evil torture techniques came from China- just an fyi.
    • nokuku4u, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Imagine just for a second that we waterboarded your family... "oops not a terrorist"...
  • laserpig, on 03/09/2008, -4/+6That man is AWESOME.

    I am so forwarding this.
  • Bracholi, on 03/09/2008, -9/+2Waterboarding terrorists is a terrible thing. Why is it okay to waterboard the innocent terrorists? All they've done wrong is made plans to destroy the US entirely, enslaving the survivors under Sharia law... no harmful intentions there...

    I'd be all for maintain the higher standards the US is held to in matters of war... but the problem with those standards is... No one else follows them. The only people that actually care whether the US waterboards, or even uses any other form of barbaric maiming tortures on, all live in the US. They live comfortable lives. They make millions a year, or even billions but more rarely so, and preach humble living and socialism/communism to the masses. They have armed guards and many personally owned weapons for their self-defense but find that the common peasant is a loaded cannon just waiting to explode, so they preach to ban guns, and to have you rely on the government/law enforcement save you.

    Here's a giant newsflash on that front by the way. Your local police department is NOT expected to save your life. When a doped up thug decides to rob you so they can get their next fix, and end up killing you when your only fault was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, do you see in the newspaper "Police fail to save life!!!" No... You see "Tragedy on 3rd street, Unarmed civilian (sheepie) found shot dead in street" somewhere in the article it'll mention that police responded to the shooting call as reported by Quicky Mart employee Stan Nobody. "I didn't see the perp, all I heard was a gunshot and when I went outside to check found Ms. Unarmed Civilian, lying there *sniffle* dead."

    Don't be a victim, get a gun.
    • hurt911gen, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2I agree. Being helpless never saved anyone; fighting back has.
    • c89a, on 03/09/2008, -5/+1"innocent terrorists".....wtf, since when has there been any terrorists that are innocent? if they are a terrorist, they then cause terror, which would no longer make them innocent
  • wolfwood24, on 03/09/2008, -8/+0waterbording has its uses if someone wont give you the info you need but its only usefull in those curtin instenses though not all the time.
  • 4d669, on 03/09/2008, -1/+29According to the Patriot Act it would be legal to give that guy a life sentence with no right to trial.

    ENJOY THE POLICE STATE!
  • SabrinaHeaven, on 03/09/2008, -11/+2If that sign isn't illegal, somebody should look into the law. You can't have screwball protesters advocating violence against the President.
    • guestaccount, on 03/09/2008, -1/+3STFU
    • LovelyNeko, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1GTFO
    • SabrinaHeaven, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1You represent your cause well.
    • DeepFriedFetus, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2Yes you can. You know what that's called? Free speech. Maybe you forgot - we used to have free speech. But our "president" took that away. Remember that? When people could freely express their ideas without being persecuted and spied on? It's a possibility that you can't violently threaten the president in protest. However, George Bush is not a president. He is a tyrannical oligarch.
      • SabrinaHeaven, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1This is exactly the kind of raving lunacy that leads to domestic terrorism.
        • Akufen, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Actually, he was spot on, and you don't seem to have clue.
    • NightVortez, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Totally, they should put a black bag over his face right away and take him away as a traitor, correct?
    • nokuku4u, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1If waterboarding is violence..why is it legal?
  • ironpirate, on 03/09/2008, -6/+1Peace man, its the only way to go until you get killed
  • theredwhyno, on 03/09/2008, -1/+3'Valuable tool' my ass. i can't wait for this guy to go packing from the White House. Hell, i'll even volunteer to help him drag out the boxes...
  • rrstuv, on 03/09/2008, -6/+0Lol, sorry Sule and doobieman i had to save this message in word, because i made a mistake, n i guess it formatted stuff on its own.

    And your venture to guessing that if we were all civil so would our enemies, or moreover we would have none is a bit far fetched but not impossible. It will take a long time before people hate us, and by then the USA will probably no longer exist. What you speak of is a world where no one hates anyone else, and that everyone has forgiven everyone else. I just have to say that people don't work like that, and thus the world does not work like that.

    One has to consider extreme cases like those brought up by crashfive or myself, where consider it is close to you, then would you be so hospitable and ethically guided? I doubt anyone would, most people may not have the will power to push the envelope so far, but you would want an answer, a solution.

    OK, sure our government exploited, corrupted their countries, killed their people but was it you? They retaliate because it does work. Terrorism is by definition "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies...". And what happens if what they want from us we cannot give? Violence ensues and moral and ethical guidelines are thrown out the window, on both sides of the confrontation.

    And for all those who say I would rather go hungry and be cold than torture some poor sap, I say try not eating for a day, or don't wear a jacket to work on a cold day. You will find it hard to justify it if there is little reason opposing it. It would be silly to do that, but you would not like it. Or if you yourself are so strong willed, imagine if your infant is hungry and cold? What would happen then? For almost any parent out there, they would do anything for their child.

    You cannot simply press one button and "poof!", change has arrived. Being a President, one cannot "build Rome in day". By that I mean, you cannot expect radical sweeping change overnight. It will take decades to make peace with out enemies. But throughout those years, we will continue to function and unfortunate for all who oppose it, at extremely high costs around the globe.
    • PDAIsAOk, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Im hoping your highschool english teacher gave you a bad grade for that paper
      • rrstuv, on 03/09/2008, -0/+0we're just chatting here on digg? If i wrote a paper about this, id prob get waterboarded. LMAO
  • Niubai, on 03/09/2008, -4/+8Try to argue with a north-american about war, torture, terrorism, nukes and it's relations is the same thing that try to argue with a German about Beer, an Italian about Pizza or a Brazilian about Football. You guys are hors concours in the subject, hats off.
    • PDAIsAOk, on 03/09/2008, -2/+1Brazilians don't play football they play futbol, and PIzza is an italian food but it's not THAT big of a deal in Italy the way it is in America. And historically I think every one of these countries can attest to some war, torture, and terrorism.
      • Niubai, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1In fact, the name of the sport in Portuguese (both Brazilian and European) is "futebol", you missed an "e". Regarding the pizza in Italy, well, I don't know, I don't live in Italy, but I really thought Italians love pizza and pasta in general. My grandparents were Italians and they sure loved pizza. I love pizza and pasta too.
  • rrstuv, on 03/09/2008, -4/+3Niubai, I am Canadian and I oppose war, and nukes, and wish there was no terrorism. But wishing it doesn't make it so. The system in place now sucks, but change is slow. But rest assured that things do change, and suffering does not go wasted.
    • Namaha, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Rrstuv, I hit the reply button to reply to a post.
  • rrstuv, on 03/09/2008, -3/+0Without us exploiting them, corrupting their countries and killing their people they would have little to no reason to retaliate. But change is slow. Sure you can change policies, and try to make amends. You can help build them schools and so on. But all this costs money. I doubt that any person would rather see an Afghan child go to school rather than their own child. Now apply that across the border. It will take time to make amends. Progress will be slow, but in the meantime we still need to protect ourselves. Sure maybe Bush had no intentions of helping those people.

    In extreme cases, where life matters , the use of torture to extract information is justifiable.Slavery is not, so I don't understand what you mean.

    Well perhaps you won't go hungry, but consider if your infant was hungry or cold, what would you do? You take care of it, tend to its needs, at almost any cost. That is the kind of pressure the government is subject to. Water boarding might not help you save 2.75$ on your next order at MacDonald's or Walmart, but it does help us garner bargaining chips at the international trades tables.

    Ideally, one would want everything to be open and happy. But I don't think that's possible for a long time.
    • sule, on 03/09/2008, -0/+0so your justifying the use of torture b/c you think that change is required to be slow, and think that is okay b/c the torture is happening to others and not you or your countrymen?

      justify one act of violence and you justify them all
  • muskateer, on 03/09/2008, -2/+5I think allowing waterboarding is a tragic mistake. What we do to people we think are the enemy will give the enemy the same right to do it to our citizens or our troops. I believe that is why the geneva convention took place in the first place.
    • rhoffer21, on 03/09/2008, -0/+4We put many japanese to death for waterboarding people during WWII
    • reaper527, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1does the reverse hold true? if we do to them what they do to us and call it fair game, we have no limitations.
  • mcsenget, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2What's the word on private citizens waterboarding? It's legal, right?
    • kfed2, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Only the government gets the privilege of waterboarding - that is what keeps the people safe. You can't trust Citizens with the same privileges that you can trust the government.
  • kfed2, on 03/09/2008, -2/+1Torture was largely given up in Europe during the Middle Ages as a tool for information extraction, not because people decided it was mean, but because it did not produce reliable information. Don't forget - Iraq had weapons of mass destruction according to torture evidence. How many people got killed BECAUSE we tortured??
    Hanns-Joachim Schraff was the greatest German interrogator in world war 2. He worked primarily on captured US airmen and he was so respected for ability to extract secrets that he was dubbed “The Master” by his peers. What vicious tactics did he use to get this information? What horrific torment did he inflict on US airmen? Kindness and a respect for human dignity.
    Schraff correctly realized that only a bare fraction of captured enemies would have information of immediate tactical use. And it is highly unlikely that one could extract that information in time to use it. So torturing an enemy to get the “whole story” would be a waste of time. Additionally it would run the risk of getting false information from the prisoner.
    Instead, he did everything in his power to help the captives feel relaxed and safe. He would have long talks with the captives and discuss philosophy or some other seemingly safe topic for a prisoner to discuss. All the while, he was collecting bits and pieces of information that he would assemble and use to support the German war effort. Their best interrogator, and he never had to raise his voice.
    As a result, after the war Schraff wasn’t tried for war crimes. Instead he was invited to the US to speak to the military about his interrogation techniques. These techniques have come to be used by trained interrogators worldwide.
    If you are being tortured, you can reason that you really have no incentive to tell what you know. The torturer will not know if/when you have told the truth, and he will not know that you have no remaining information of value. You will not get relief by telling your torturer what you know.
    In WWII and many other conflicts, enemy troops happily surrendered to the US. They wound NOT surrender to the Russians during WWII because the Russians abused their POWs, and many 100's of Russiand died because of their torture. We lose a HUGE tactical weapon if we become a nation that tortures
    Besides, If we do it to them, they are almost certainly doing it to our people. Don't torture unless you want your captured buddies to be tortured. I feel terrible for what this has done to our troops.
    • dkern, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1You are an epic imbecile. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction that were not purchsed from anyone other than the USA and England. Grow up.
      • sule, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1u didn't read his full post, did you?
        • kfed2, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1It is weird when someone replies to you ranting and raving about how you should have their position, when you already do. I was called an "epic imbecile" by somebody who either cannot or did not take the time to know what they are replying to. Reported as offensive for juvenile insults.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.