Jon Stewart lays the smack down on Obama and exposes all the promises he hasn't kept

[raptor]

raptor should move to france.



/justsayin

Oh man, if I'm not goose-stepping to the right-wing drum of this board surely I don't belong here!

[sgreger1]

Yea. He told Bill O' Reilly tonight he would still vote for Obama over
McCain if he had it to do over again.

I would vote for Obama over Mccain if I had to do it over again too. No joke, I don't like Obama, but truthfully he is a better candidate than Mccain. Mccain is a fake republican, more left than Obama on some issues, and changes his mind to whichever way the wind blows. Obama was the better choice unfortunately.

[sgreger1]

As the most powerful country in the world, we should take the honorable route and minimize civilian casualties and mistreatment of POWs. That gives us the moral upper hand. What you've managed to do is downplay torture to making enemy POWs "uncomfortable" when obviously that's not what's happening, while taking a stance against waterboarding being torture, and then justify the whole charade because "our enemy fights unconventional war, therefore geneva conventions don't apply to us, boo hoo let's kill more plebs/torture ununiformed jihadists". The same sort of logic where people get their panties in a knot because they know someone (possibly) exploits a system so it's ok that they do too.

As the most powerfull country in the world, we do make the greatest attempt out of any nation to reduce civilian casualties, and have been amazingly, historically successfull. This war has been fought with the lowest casualty rates for out troops, and the lowest civilian deaths we've seen for a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time, despite being one of the longest running wars of the last century. I can't explain to you how much the army goes out of the way to not hurt civilians. As for POW's, we abide by all international laws and treat our POW's better than most any POW's in any war ever.


We have taken the moral high ground as high as we can, but we are not willing to accept defeat just to take the high ground. If a man had your daughter with a gun to her head, would you take the moral high ground and not resort to beating him up or possibly killing him in order to save her? Would you let your own die to take the moral high ground? This is the situation we are in. American lives mean nothing to you, and the only thing you care about are the very people who would kill you before you had a chance to complain about the geneva conventions. It's nice to sit behind a computer and talk about "the moral high ground", but when you spend all day in the ****ing desert getting shot at and blown up for 15 straight ****ing months, you start to not give a **** about the moral high ground, because reality hits you in the face with the fact that these people WILL kill you, and they WILL NOT feel bad about it. It's survival, plain and simple. If human intel gets shut off because we decide to take the moral high ground, people ****ing die. And seeing as this is a war, the object of the exercise is to make the other side die, not to sit their with your hands tied and wait for someone to come slaughter you so that you can go to heaven and say "Yay for me, I took the high ground!"


I don't agree with this war at all but if we are going to be there we need to be looking after our own, and trying to reduce civilian casualties as much as possible since they didn't sign up for the fight. But in war people die, i'm no too worried about a little water.


And I say "uncomfortable" because people like you have changed the definition of torture to the stupid bullshit we see today. Leaving the lights on at night time is "torture" now, being in too cold a room is "torture" now, having smoke blown in your face is "torture".

Sit back, stfu, and let people who have some idea of how the world works handle this. Everything is not like it is in your comfortable house. Out there in the desert people will die if intel is not constantly being collected. It's not about moral high ground, being the bigger man, or any other bullshit. It's about staying alive.

[truthwolf1]

good yucks!

[CoderGuy]

Yea. He told Bill O' Reilly tonight he would still vote for Obama over
McCain if he had it to do over again.

I don't think that is because he likes Obama more, I think it was because he didn't like Palin. He likes McCain but "couldn't" vote for him.

[Joe234]

John Stewart is the man:

Yea. He told Bill O' Reilly tonight he would still vote for Obama over
McCain if he had it to do over again.

[bipolarbear1968]

[bipolarbear1968]

[bipolarbear1968]

[Owens187]

raptor should move to france.



/justsayin

[raptor]

As the most powerful country in the world, we should take the honorable route and minimize civilian casualties and mistreatment of POWs. That gives us the moral upper hand. What you've managed to do is downplay torture to making enemy POWs "uncomfortable" when obviously that's not what's happening, while taking a stance against waterboarding being torture, and then justify the whole charade because "our enemy fights unconventional war, therefore geneva conventions don't apply to us, boo hoo let's kill more plebs/torture ununiformed jihadists". The same sort of logic where people get their panties in a knot because they know someone (possibly) exploits a system so it's ok that they do too.

[sgreger1]

I suggest you read up on international law concerning POWs.

I am well aware of the stupid laws that no one follows. Riddle me this, do insurgents follow by these laws? Is beheading a proper treatment of a POW? Oh wait, they are enemy combatants in an insurgency, the geneva conventions only recognizes rules for two countries formally at war, and in both the iraq and afghanistan wars we did no such torture to any uniformed troops. So much for laws i guess.


I suggest you do some reading on recognizing how things are in the real world.

[raptor]

I suggest you read up on international law concerning POWs.

[sgreger1]

Yes, we should stoop down to their level by justifying torture like waterboarding and razors on scrotums.

Note that I never said anything about razors other than condemning that practice. But hey, maybe your right, why should we stoop down to their level by killing people in a war. I mean it's murder afterall, right? We should no longer stoop to their barbaric level of using guns to kill people during a war anyways, it's 2010 now, let's just sit here with our legs crossed and sing songs to each other. No reason to stoop to their level, aka "win the war", just to save America lives.


I am glad we don't have people like that coordinating our combat forces. Let's not forget what we are talking about here: war. War condones the killing of others to obtain victory. All sides accept this as reasonable. If the baseline expectation is that killing is justified, than exactly how is making people uncormfortable not justified or somehow more inhumane? A rag over your face and a glass of water is worse than a 50 cal ripping up your city block, or a JDAM going off at the capitol? Because I don't see anyone calling guns and bombs some inhumane practice which we "shouldn't stoop to" in order to win.



Thanks.

[raptor]

It is not about whether it is pleasant or not. It is not designed to be pleasant. It is designed to (in theory) make bad people start to wonder if giving up their life is worth their cause, and hope that they break and tell you something that you didn't know before. I don't understand, do you expect them to just give up intel? What is your plan for winning a war against a people who have no rules, and swear allegiance to no country. We go over and above any other country with how we treat people, and we do it with pride, but we will not allow ourselves to suffer defeat so we could say we took the high road.

Yes, we should stoop down to their level by justifying torture like waterboarding and razors on scrotums.