Which is worse.....
 

Waterboarding of suspected terrorists to gain information on any future attacks planned ?

OR

Drone attacks that kill and maim civilians ?

I suppose the answer is the waterboarding since we dont hear about the deaths and injuries due to drone attacks.



PS: This is not a crititicsm of the policies but of the press !

To me it does not matter. They both have their respective intents and uses
 

and I do support using them both to accomplish the mission.
We are so civilized today, our hypocracy leads some to be more concerned about collatoral damage than the accomplishing of the mission. Just look back at history and view the civilian casualty figures on any war you want to put up on the screen. The historical numbers were/are staggering.

I am not saying I condone it...like it or not during wartime, in war torn areas, people get killed. The outcome of previous conflicts in history would have been affected if our so called standards of humanity used today were in place then.

In today's world the USA is at a distinct disadvantage with it's pre-occupation for noting and distinguishing who or what was killed. The enemy knows it and uses it to their advantage.

And the most significant impact of today's special interest groups getting the media and then the politicians in the fray is.....almost eliminating our troops ability to win....and of course increasing the number of our troops killed as a result of un-neccessarily prolonged conflict.

We establish the rules of conflict the way we think it should be played and wind up being the only one that follows them....to a fault.

btk

BTK...I agree with you !!!

My point was the crying and gnashing of teeth over waterboarding and how inhumane we were being, but nothing said much about the drones !

End of point !

Got it. This forum is not shy of outspoken and opinionated
 

participants, however, I am always amazed when something notably controversial i.e. your comparison of the two. Or just simply any commentary about controversial means/methods to an end....protecting this great country and the lives of those who do it for us every day.
Such a shame to miss an opportunity to stand and be counted, regardless where a person favors an issue or not.


btk

You are right, and there should be more responses. But perhaps people read your post and didn't need to elaborate any further because it was how they felt.
By the way, good post and I agree.

I am going to make a confession that I hope isn't misinterpreted or misunderstood. When I read Bucco's post, I thought, 'well, I don't like either choice......but.....I'd say use either one to protect America from anyone who wants to impose their will against us and hurt our citizens.'

I thought it was sorta like the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" and was afraid all the liberals would jump on any answer that was given and distort the point of his post. I thought (wrongly, I realize now) that I'd wait to see replies and study what was said before I answered.

Rules of War have always confused me. I don't mean the rules themselves. Just the concept of having rules. I understand the creation of the Red Cross and having other countries who aren't so humane agreeing to humane treatment of prisoners, those wounded on battlefields, et al. But rules on how to kill people or get important information to save lives leaves my head spinning.

Maybe I over analyze things and read too much. Maybe it is because I'm a woman. Don't get me wrong. I grew up with four brothers. Although none of them were hunters, each of us grew up learning to shoot various weapons. My 91 year old father was a sharp shooter. I was taught to respect every "gun" as if it is loaded and to never to point a gun at someone unless you mean to kill them.

To not use every means possible to protect yourself against someone trying to hurt you just confuses me. Sorry to ramble.

All's fair in love or war
 

Trying to win a war with your hands tied behind your back is not very wise. I personally think that our enemies scoff at the notion of "waterboarding". Barbarians only understand real physical torture. They will slice and dice and use any imaginable torture for their means and when they are done with you,
beheading or your body dragged and hung to rot is not unusual.
Sorry to be so graphic but sometimes you need to see the whole picture of war when discussing torture or killing techniques which this thread is about.

All I can say is that we are fools to play by some contrived international rules when our enemy has no intention to follow suit.

Which is worse
 

Which is worse? The taste of defeat which lingers forever. Our country's military leaders and those of the FBI and CIA and any other operative organization need to do whatever is necessary to keep harm from coming to the American people and our property.......PERIOD!

Both are bad
 

But not as bad as telling the enemy they are entitled to a lawyer before we waterboard them.

What it all boils down to is this.

We called waterboarding a war crime when the Japanese did in in World War 2.

Apparently now the rules are changed and a war crime is no longer a war crime.

You are joking, right? I am currently reading "With The Old Breed" by E. B. Sledge. If the Japanese did use waterboarding during WWII, it would be the most humane act they ever did. They were very brutal and barbaric and showed no mercy with their prisoners. I suggest you do some actual reading from war veteran who experienced the Japanese hospitality during wartime.

Especially read the parts where they came across dead American soldiers in caves, whose bodies were mutilated slowly from many hours of mutilated torture.

djplong, I'm just curious about your source for your comment, "We called waterboarding a war crime when the Japanese did in in World War 2."

Again, let me make my point...during the campaign there was much ado ON THIS FORUM as well as in the media about waterboarding and how our country does not do such cruel things. It was posted here in very emotional ways.

Our country is now killing many innocent citizens and children with the drones YET...there is no such out cry....absolutely nothing on here condemning the practice nor much at all in the media,

Again...I am NOT condoning either or condemning either...just wonder where all those who were outraged about waterboarding disappeared to.

Now, in reading you post, DJPLONG, you ignored the drone part of the thread and honed in on only the waterboarding which is making my point. You obviously do not see anything wrong with winning a war with the drones but are outraged by the waterboarding !!!!!

Thanks Bucco for bringing me back to the point of your question. Sorry for assisting in taking it in a different direction with a question to djplong he probably won't answer anyway.

Right or wrong, the liberal media went after the Bush administration and everything they did concerning the war in Iraq and any terrorists policies. They just don't seem to do that with Obama.

Bucco - I was responding to a post and the only thing I'm guilty of is contributing to the topic drift. I've made no comment on drones for a few reasons, not the least of which is that I haven't really chased down details like what percentage of drone attacks are hitting civilians, how band (in general) are the casualties, are they from Taliban using human shields, etc. While I have opinions on the drones, I don't yet have a *really informed* opinion, to tell the truth.