Should anyone in the USA be prosecuted for torture?

[Texas]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

1) Burden of Proof.

2) Negative Proof.

You just lost on two counts. Actually, several more, but I don't see why I should spend any more time on you.

Will the Guardian do as a source?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/no...secondworldwar

Quote:

The British government operated a secret torture centre during the second world war to extract information and confessions from German prisoners, according to official papers which have been unearthed by the Guardian.
More than 3,000 prisoners passed through the centre, where many were systematically beaten, deprived of sleep, forced to stand still for more than 24 hours at a time and threatened with execution or unnecessary surgery

.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Texas

Will the Guardian do as a source?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/no...secondworldwar


.

When did I say Britain, or the Allies in general? I made it quite clear that I was referring to the United States.

I'm quite saddened to hear about this, though.

I'm not sure why you responded to my post where I was pointing out the fallacy of the statement "You can't prove they didn't", in particular. But I'm more than willing to overlook that.

[Texas]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

When did I say Britain, or the Allies in general? I made it quite clear that I was referring to the United States.

I'm quite saddened to hear about this, though.

I'm not sure why you responded to my post where I was pointing out the fallacy of the statement "You can't prove they didn't", in particular. But I'm more than willing to overlook that.

http://hnn.us/articles/30624.html

Quote:

Concerning the second and third classifications of Nazi POWs, some are more skeptical of the treatment these POWs received. In 1989, a Canadian novelist by the name of Jacques Bacque wrote Other Losses, which contained accusations against General Eisenhower in this regard. Bacque argued that Eisenhower’s misdeeds led to the starvation of "over 800,000, almost certainly over 800,000 and quite possibly a million" German POWs. Bacque claimed that Einsehower nefariously got around the Geneva Conventions by changing the status of the Germans prisoners from "Prisoner of War" to "Disarmed Enemy Combatant." Since, according to the Geneva Conventions, POWs are to be fed military rations while there are much more relaxed standards for feeding "Disarmed Enemy Combatants," Bacque alleged that Eisenhower himself was to blame, even citing one instance of Eisenhower turning away a train full of food from entering a Nazi camp

[Lonewulf]

Huh. So they changed the name from POW, and used this to justify atrocities. Sounds familiar! Redefine your terms, and use it to justify wrongdoing.

Sad. I guess the more things change...

So, do you think that this swayed the course of the war? Or that such actions were justified?

[Texas]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Huh. So they changed the name from POW, and used this to justify atrocities. Sounds familiar! Redefine your terms, and use it to justify wrongdoing.

Sad. I guess the more things change...

So, do you think that this swayed the course of the war? Or that such actions were justified?

You asked for examples of WW2 torture I gave them to you. War is hell and it always will be.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Texas

You asked for examples of WW2 torture I gave them to you.

I was bringing such a thing up to make an overall point, in case you didn't notice. I recommend you read all of my posts, and not just take a few tidbits here and there.

And this is assuming that your source is absolutely reliable.

I do find it interesting that other countries were cracked down on for torturing our POWs, but we seem to feel that its justified when we do it ourselves. What does that tell you about us?

Quote:

War is hell and it always will be.

So this justifies the actions done during it? Torture is justified because "war is hell"?

[Texas]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I was bringing such a thing up to make an overall point, in case you didn't notice. I recommend you read all of my posts, and not just take a few tidbits here and there.



So this justifies the actions done during it? Torture is justified because "war is hell"?

If that's so, why not just bomb Mecha and Medina? War is hell, so let's bring hell on earth.

War is not a sporting event. You can play a baseball game and lose and go home and play the next day. In war you win or you lose and the penalty for losing is death. As someone pointed out, you live in a fantasy Utopia. That is not an option for those charged with winning a war. War is all or nothing.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Texas

War is not a sporting event. You can play a baseball game and lose and go home and play the next day. In war you win or you lose and the penalty for losing is death.

So we do whatever we can, at all costs, no matter if it destroys any and all American values or our own laws. And we can, and should hide this as much as possible, because we don't want the world to see our actions, or our own citizens to recognize what we did as wrong. We should then accuse other countries of doing what we ourselves did, and demand an international court of justice to find them guilty of war crimes, even though we do not want them to try ourselves.

And to your mind, this is how it should be?

Quote:

As someone pointed out, you live in a fantasy Utopia.

And you saying this does not impress me any more. I can say that Drysdale's living in a fantasy Utopia because we're supposed to "trust the courts to do the right thing", without any transparency, and to just trust that they would never ever torture an innocent person (because courts are more likely to not find innocent men guilty if they aren't run with full transparency and with fairness in mind).

You live in a "We can and should do Whatever We Want" fantasyland, without recognizing any other alternatives or thinking that anything YOU want to do is the Only and True Way. Sadly, this is how groupthink tends to work as well, and why rational men can make irrational decisions.

Quote:

That is not an option for those charged with winning a war. War is all or nothing.

So do whatever we want, and hide what we can, because we know that it's right?

So you're stating that if we did not starve these German prisoners, we would have lost the war? That it was absolutely necessary? This is your position, is it not?

But tell me! Since you're such a good mouthpiece for Drysdale, perhaps you can tell me where this imminent Muslim invasion into the United States will take place? Perhaps you can tell me how it's going to go down? This obviously is the opposite of living in a Utopia, according to you two, so tell me how this claim makes any sense outside of your own heads?

[Texas]

Quote:

=Lonewulf;4629920]So we do whatever we can, at all costs, no matter if it destroys any and all American values or our own laws. And we can, and should hide this as much as possible, because we don't want the world to see our false actions, or our own citizens to recognize what we did as wrong.

American values mean nothing if you lose the war. The reason some things are hidden is to allow those like you to feel good about yourself while hard men do YOUR dirty work.

Quote:

And you saying this does not impress me any more. You live in a "We can do Whatever We Want" fantasyland, without recognizing any other alternatives or thinking that anything YOU want to do is the Only and True Way.

I live in a world that has thousands of people dying daily because of the same people we are fighting against. So yes we should use every tool we have to defeat them.

Quote:

So you're stating that if we did not starve these German prisoners, we would have lost the war? This is your position, is it not?

No the object was to make damn sure, once and for all, no German government would ever have the will to try to conquer the world again. The same reasoning goes for the Japanese and the nuclear attacks.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Texas

American values mean nothing if you lose the war. The reason some things are hidden is to allow those like you to feel good about yourself while hard men do YOUR dirty work.

American values mean nothing if you get rid of them to win the war, either.

And like I said, the ends only justify the means if you can demonstrate that those means were the only alternative. You're free to prove me wrong on that point, though.

Quote:

I live in a world that has thousands of people dying daily because of the same people we are fighting against. So yes we should use every tool we have to defeat them.

No matter how many innocents get hurt.

But tell me! How many more are you saving by torturing? Can you give me any rational numbers, or do I just take your word on it because you're imminently wiser than me just because you say so?

Here's a question: Is torture the only interrogation technique around? Why or why not?

Are there any problems with torture? Anything that actually experts have said about the problems of torture? I can cite quite a few criticisms, but I'm sure that, since you're so much wiser than me, you know of all of this, right?

Quote:

No the object was to make damn sure, once and for all, no German government would ever have the will to try to conquer the world again.

What, really? Starve a bunch of soldiers to "make sure no German government would ever have the will..."?

Wow. How amazingly moronic. I'm glad you aren't in charge.

Quote:

The same reasoning goes for the Japanese and the nuclear attacks.

Uhm, no. That was to stop the war with the least amount of losses possible. Not to make sure "that no Japanese government would ever do that again". Do you really assume that some people around a table said, "We have to make sure the Japanese government will NEVER attack us again!", and someone else said, "I know! Let's drop the atom bombs! There's no other reason to, but it'll make damn sure that Japan and similar countries will never attack us again!"

Sorry, but thanks for playing. You just showed complete ignorance of history. You can play later after some studying, though.

[Texas]

Quote:

=Lonewulf;4629950]American values mean nothing if you get rid of them to win the war, either.

Tell that to the Japanese Americans that FDR interned. Your naivete is scary.

Quote:

.

But tell me! How many more are you saving by torturing? Can you give me any rational numbers, or do I just take your word on it because you're imminently wiser than me just because you say so?

We don't know since all Obama released were the top secret documents discussing the techniques to be used. He didn't release what the results of those interrogations were. Doesn't that appear strange to you?

Quote:

Here's a question: Is torture the only interrogation technique around? Why or why not?

When nothing else works the yes and that is what the memos are all about, the subject was not cooperating using standard methods.

Quote:

Are there any problems with torture? Anything that actually experts have said about the problems of torture? I can cite quite a few criticisms, but I'm sure that, since you're so much wiser than me, you know of all of this, right?

You can cite all you want but when it comes to extracting information that can be verified then yes it works. That is far different than trying to force a confession to a crime just to get the process to stop.

Quote:

What, really? Starve a bunch of soldiers to "make sure no German government would ever have the will..."?

Wow. How amazingly moronic. I'm glad you aren't in charge.

Tell that to Ike the Supreme allied commander of WW2. I will not second guess the man that won the war.

Quote:

Uhm, no. That was to stop the war with the least amount of losses possible. Not to make sure "that no Japanese government would ever do that again". Do you really assume that some people around a table said, "We have to make sure the Japanese government will NEVER attack us again!", and someone else said, "I know! Let's drop the atom bombs! There's no other reason to, but it'll make damn sure that Japan and similar countries will never attack us again!"

The Japanese have not fired a shot in anger since then so you may want to be careful about telling others to learn their history.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Texas

Tell that to the Japanese Americans that FDR interned. Your naivete is scary.

Yes, I would. That's not seen as a very justifiable decision. It's rather telling that you think it is, though.

Neither did Jefferson, another "Utopian" in your view, I think, think that similar internment during his times were justified.

But I'm sure you think Jefferson was just a silly idealist too.

Quote:

Tell that to Ike the Supreme allied commander of WW2. I will not second guess the man that won the war.

I will, even if I were to assume your source was correct. According to what I'm reading, it is very dubious. But you buy it hook, line, and sinker simply because it justifies your beliefs that you already hold.

Typical.

Well, as long as we're following the word of mythical figures, I kind of like Hercules. I won't question someone that went through those seven labors! So I'm gonna go ahead and tear up a castle and kill people randomly 'cause he's kind of cool.

Quote:

The Japanese have not fired a shot in anger since then so you may want to be careful about telling others to learn their history.

So you really, honestly believe that we dropped the bombs to "keep the Japanese in line", and the only thing keeping them back is fear.

Wow.

Like I said, how can I argue with such an alien psychology?

I bet when you imagine Japan, you imagine a bunch of buck-toothed, narrow-eyed eeeevil monsters that are just waiting to pounce on America, but cower in fear at our atomic might. Yes, that's the Japan of today!

There was no other reasons to drop those bombs, nope! Just to put the Fear of God into them! It wasn't to, you know, attempt to prevent as many losses on either side as possible, because a land war would have taken up lots of resources and human lives, and fire bombings were having no effect. NONONONO, Lonewulf is a Utopian, he can't possibly understand it! It's to put the fear of God into them, no other reason whatsoever!

And Lonewulf the Utopian is the one that doesn't understand his history. Because Japan isn't shooting at us, and the only reason why MUST be because of the bombs! Not because they're actually benefiting, economically and socially, through a rather close alliance with western civilizations in the modern world.

No no no, they're a bunch of Yellow Demons just waiting to pounce, but too afraid to!

*blargh*

I suppose this is what happens to that peculiar brand of Southerner that doesn't bother to actually go out into the world and explore outside of his strange little world.

[Cobalt]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

If I were A.G., I'd conduct a full-scale investigation of the numerous allegations (and admissions) of torture and charge the operatives who did the dirty work and everyone in the chain of command (all the way up to Dubya) who either issued such orders or were effectively in command.

Great! That's what SHOULD happen. So far though everyone's just kind of standing around going "rabble rabble rabble."

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Surely you're not saying these things didn't happen?

Boy, if I did say that, I must have been really high.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Cheney and company have admitted to at least some types of torture. They just tried to change the rules to say that what they did doesn't fulfill the definition of torture even though, as I've shown, it most certainly does.

Who's definition do you want to follow then?

[Texas]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Quote:

Yes, I would. That's not seen as a very justifiable decision. It's rather telling that you think it is, though.

Then why did FDR make that decision? Here's a hint, as on 911 we were the victim of a sneak attack and he knew that all out war was the only answer.

Quote:

So you really, honestly believe that we dropped the bombs to "keep the Japanese in line", and the only thing keeping them back is fear.

Wow.

Like I said, how can I argue with such an alien psychology?

All that is holding them back is that they were so completely and totally defeated that they lost all appetite for war. Look at Japan's history prior to WW2. It was the most warlike country in Asia.

Quote:

I bet when you imagine Japan, you imagine a bunch of buck-toothed, narrow-eyed eeeevil monsters that are just waiting to pounce on America, but cower in fear at our atomic might. Yes, that's the Japan of today!

There was no other reasons to drop those bombs, nope! Just to put the Fear of God into them! It wasn't to, you know, attempt to prevent as many losses on either side as possible, because a land war would have taken up lots of resources and human lives, and fire bombings were having no effect. NONONONO, Lonewulf is a Utopian, he can't possibly understand it! It's to put the fear of God into them, no other reason whatsoever!

*blargh*

That is just blather so no response is required.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Texas

Then why did FDR make that decision? Here's a hint, as on 911 we were the victim of a sneak attack and he knew that all out war was the only answer.

Right, so lock up as many Japanese as possible, just based on their race, and nothing else at all, and then sit high and pretty! Nothing questionable about that at all.

I'm sure Jefferson would approve! Well, except for the fact that he didn't really approve of a similar thing being done to the French, right?

Quote:

All that is holding them back is that they were so completely and totally defeated that they lost all appetite for war.

Right right, we keep hearing what it's like in your strange little world.

[Texas]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

So you really, honestly believe that we dropped the bombs to "keep the Japanese in line", and the only thing keeping them back is fear.

Wow.

Like I said, how can I argue with such an alien psychology?

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_...ice_of_targets

Quote:

The goal of the weapon was to convince Japan to surrender unconditionally in accordance with the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. The Target Committee stated that "It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value."[13]

[Lonewulf]

Yes. To get them to surrender unconditionally. Because if they didn't surrender, troops would die, and a land war would be far more costly, in lives and equipment (on both sides) than dropping the bombs. D'uh. That was my position from the beginning. Fire bombings were also ineffective, and every other version of conventional weaponry that we had at the time.

You were the one who was making the "Keep Them From Ever Attacking Us Ever Again And Put The Fear of God in Themlol" argument, which your link does not support. Nice try, though. I give you a C for effort.

[Lonewulf]

Anyone remember when Texas linked this, and has used it as the mainstay of his arguments? http://hnn.us/articles/30624.html

Yeah, here's the wikipedia article on the book it's based on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Losses

Notice the Criticisms page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_L...f_Other_Losses

Note the quote from Stephen Ambrose:

Quote:

Mr. Bacque is wrong on every major charge and nearly all his minor ones. Eisenhower was not a Hitler, he did not run death camps, German prisoners did not die by the hundreds of thousands, there was a severe food shortage in 1945, there was nothing sinister or secret about the "disarmed enemy forces" designation or about the column "other losses." Mr. Bacque's "missing million" were old men and young boys in the Volkssturm (People's Militia) released without formal discharge and transfers of POWs to other allies control areas. Maj. Ruediger Overmans of the German Office of Military History in Freiburg who wrote the final volume of the official German history of the war estimated that the total death by all causes of German prisoners in American hands could not have been greater than 56,000 approximately 1% of the over 5,000,000 German POWs in Allied hands exclusive of the Soviets. Eisenhower's calculations as to how many people he would be required to feed in occupied Germany in 1945-46 were too low and he had been asking for more food shipments since February 1945. He had badly underestimated the number of German soldiers surrendering to the Western Allies; more than five million, instead of the anticipated three million as German soldiers crossed the Elbe River to escape the Russians. So too with German civilians - about 13 million altogether crossing the Elbe to escape the Russians, and the number of slave laborers and displaced persons liberated was almost 8 million instead of the 5 million expected. In short, Eisenhower faced shortages even before he learned that there were at least 17 million more people to feed in Germany than he had expected not to mention all of the other countries in war ravaged Europe, the Philippines, Okinawa and Japan. All Europe went on rations for the next three years, including Britain, until the food crisis was over.[28]

But it justified Texas' argument, so it must have been trustworthy! I'd trust old Ike, even if it's based on a book that's probably completely wrong! Good ol' Ike.

So not only did Ike NOT starve prisoners, but he actually ASKED FOR MORE FOOD SHIPMENTS when he realized he didn't have enough. Good think Ike can teach us all a little about humanity... except maybe Texas, he's probably unteachable at this point.

Too bad "Realists" seem to not like reality so much when it comes to justifying their viewpoints.

Another quote:

Quote:

It is not necessary to review here Bacque's extravagant statistical claims which are the heart of his conspiracy theory. The eight scholars who gathered in New Orleans and contributed to Eisenhower and the German POWs: Facts against Falsehood (1992) refuted Bacque's wily misinterpretations of statistics and oral history evidence in detail. Numerous reviews of the book written by the top talent in the military history profession such as John Keegan and Russel Weigley were persuaded by the findings of the book. These findings have since been further solidified by detailed case studies on individual American POW camps in Germany hastily built at the end of the war like Christof Strauss's exhaustive Heidelberg dissertation on the POW and internment in the Heilbronn camp.

The mountain of evidence has been building that Bacque's charge of the "missing million" supposedly perishing in the American (and French) POW camps in Germany and France is based on completely faulty interpretation of statistical data. There was never any serious disagreement that the German POWs were treated badly by the U.S. Army and suffered egregiously in these camps in the first weeks after the end of the war. That the chaos of the war's end would also produce potentially mismatches and errors in record keeping should surprise no one either. But there was NO AMERICAN POLICY to starve them to death as Bacque asserts and NO COVER UP either after the war. No question about it, there were individual American camp guards who took revenge on German POWs based on their hatred of the Nazis.

Want to keep pushing this Conspiracy Theory for America, Texas, we can go onto the CT forums. Looks like this belongs there.

And, to add to the amusement (which I've been building up for my own guilty pleasure, I admit), it's not even a plausable conspiracy theory. Notice!:

Quote:

Overmans states that, comporting with the most basic matters of common sense, "if indeed 726,000 soldiers had died in the American camps (Bacque's number excluding those who supposedly died in French custody or after discharge), what became of the bodies?"[40] Given that the Rheinwiesenlager stretched along 200 kilometers of the Rhine river, "Bacque's 726,000 dead would mean roughly 3,600 dead per kilometer or 5,800 per mile -- better than one corpse per foot. Yet despite the widespread construction work carried out after the war, not a single one of these legion of dead was found."[40]

Villa states that, by Bacque's reasoning, George C. Marshall, who gave SHAEF as much or more attention to detail than did Eisenhower, would be similarly guitly, perhaps more so under his reasoning, though "Bacque" who cares little for exploring the context, does not even raise the question."[41] Villa states that "It is a virtual impossibility that Eisenhower could have executed an extermination policy on his own" and "a near absolute impossibility that Marshall would not have noticed it, let alone that he would ever have tolerated it" and "what about the scores of officers and millions of soldiers who served under Eisenhower?"[42]

A million dead bodies would be pretty hard to conceal. Most of the masters of genocide (Hitler, Stalin, etc.) have been relatively ineffective at it, given how many tend to uncover them. Why would Ike suddenly be a master of it and manage to keep it a secret from all levels of the command chain, only to be uncovered recently?

And not only that, but this was concealed to the point where we would only find out about it recently! Yet, according to Texas, this was all done to "keep Germany from ever doing such a thing again". Yessiree... the SECRET murder of a "missing" million people who's bodies were never uncovered or found was done to "teach Germany a lesson" and keep them from wanting to dominate the world again (because killing 1 million people would SO convince Germany not to do that). Much like a father can spank the voo-doo doll of his son in private and never tell the son to "teach him a lesson". Makes total sense!

Because, you know, humiliating Germany had worked SO well after WWI, right?

Also, the Apollo Moon Landing was a hoax, Britain bribed Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, aliens kidnapped Elvis, and Area 51 has a UFO.

[Texas]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Anyone remember when Texas linked this, and has used it as the mainstay of his arguments? http://hnn.us/articles/30624.html

Yeah, here's the wikipedia article on the book it's based on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Losses

Notice the Criticisms page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_L...f_Other_Losses

Note the quote from Stephen Ambrose:



But it justified Texas' argument, so it must have been trustworthy! I'd trust old Ike, even if it's based on a book that's probably completely wrong! Good ol' Ike.

So not only did Ike NOT starve prisoners, but he actually ASKED FOR MORE FOOD SHIPMENTS when he realized he didn't have enough. Good think Ike can teach us all a little about humanity... except maybe Texas, he's probably unteachable at this point.

Too bad "Realists" seem to not like reality so much when it comes to justifying their viewpoints.

Another quote:



Want to keep pushing this Conspiracy Theory for America, Texas, we can go onto the CT forums. Looks like this belongs there.

I can go all night.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_...r#World_War_II

Quote:

Eisenhower served as Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army from 1945–48.


Eisenhower as General of the Army.
The Supreme Commanders on June 5, 1945 in Berlin: Bernard Montgomery, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Georgy Zhukov and Jean de Lattre de Tassigny.Following the German unconditional surrender on May 8, 1945, Eisenhower was appointed Military Governor of the U.S. Occupation Zone, based in Frankfurt am Main. Germany was divided into four Occupation Zones, one each for the U.S., Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. Upon full discovery of the death camps that were part of the Final Solution (Holocaust), he ordered camera crews to comprehensively document evidence of the atrocity for use in the war crimes tribunals. He made the decision to reclassify German prisoners of war (POWs) in U.S. custody as Disarmed Enemy Forces (DEFs), thus depriving them of the protection of the Geneva convention. As DEFs, their food rations could be lowered and they could be compelled to serve as unfree labor (see Rheinwiesenlager). Eisenhower was an early supporter of the Morgenthau Plan to permanently remove Germany's industrial capacity to wage future wars. In November 1945 he approved the distribution of 1000 free copies of Morgenthau's book Germany is Our Problem, which promoted and described the plan in detail, to American military officials in occupied Germany. Historian Stephen Ambrose draws the conclusion that, despite Eisenhower's later claims the act was not an endorsement of the Morgenthau plan, Eisenhower both approved of the plan and had previously given Morgenthau at least some of his ideas about how Germany should be treated.[36] He also incorporated officials from Morgenthau's Treasury into the army of occupation. These were commonly called "Morgenthau boys" for their zeal in interpreting the occupation directive JCS 1067, which had been heavily influenced by Morgenthau and his plan, as strictly as possible.[37]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan

Quote:

The Morgenthau Plan was a plan for the occupation of Germany after World War II that advocated measures intended to remove Germany's ability to wage war. It was proposed by and subsequently named after Henry Morgenthau, Jr., United States Secretary of the Treasury.

In the original proposal this was to be achieved in three main steps.

Germany was to be partitioned into two independent states.
Germany's main centers of mining and industry, including the Saar area, the Ruhr area and Upper Silesia were to be internationalized or annexed by neighboring nations.
All heavy industry was to be dismantled or otherwise destroyed.


In 1945 the German Red Cross was dissolved[11][12] , and the International Red Cross and other international relief agencies were kept from helping ethnic Germans through strict controls on supplies and on travel.[13] The few agencies permitted to operate within Germany, such as the indigenous Caritas Verband, were not allowed to use imported supplies. When the Vatican attempted to transmit food supplies from Chile to German infants[14] the U.S. State Department forbade it.[15] In early October 1945 the UK government privately acknowledged in a cabinet meeting that, German civilian adult death rates had risen to four times the pre-war levels and death rates amongst the German children had risen by 10 times the pre-war levels

[Texas]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Yes. To get them to surrender unconditionally. Because if they didn't surrender, troops would die, and a land war would be far more costly, in lives and equipment (on both sides) than dropping the bombs. D'uh. That was my position from the beginning. Fire bombings were also ineffective, and every other version of conventional weaponry that we had at the time.

You were the one who was making the "Keep Them From Ever Attacking Us Ever Again And Put The Fear of God in Themlol" argument, which your link does not support. Nice try, though. I give you a C for effort.

You are amazingly obtuse. There was NO mention of lessening troop deaths in the targeting discussions as the following top secret document shows:

http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html

Quote:

A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.

[Lonewulf]

Assuming that everything in here is absolutely, 100% correct (because we know all Wikipedia articles are, especially those without apparent citations)... which I WILL be looking into, with the help of a historian friend of mine... (yeah, because who would ever question a Wikipedia article?)

I don't see anything about these alleged 1 million people that starved. Are you retracting that statement and admitting your error, or are you dishonestly chugging along and thinking you can get away with lying?

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Texas

You are amazingly obtuse. There was NO mention of lessening troop deaths in the targeting discussions as the following top secret document shows:

http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html

Ah, I see. So we didn't care about the troops. All of the arguments that everyone has ever made about the bombs having been dropped, all lies. It was done to Put The Fear of God into them, and the only reason the Japanese are completely peaceful is because of total and complete fear of us.

The "psychological impact" has nothing to do with the impact in getting them to surrender, so we would stop losing ships and stop losing men. It has to do with everything you want it to be, and you're not reading anything into it. Instead, I'm the one that's obtuse, because I actually care about history and have studied these things in a context in which I was not looking to satisfy my own ego.

Right.

I'm going to go play my videogames. You have fun in your world, okay?

[Lonewulf]

EDIT: Whoops, I mixed some stuff up. Need to edit this. My mistake.

[Texas]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Assuming that everything in here is absolutely, 100% correct (because we know all Wikipedia articles are, especially those without apparent citations)... which I WILL be looking into, with the help of a historian friend of mine... (yeah, because who would ever question a Wikipedia article?)

I don't see anything about these alleged 1 million people that starved. Are you retracting that statement and admitting your error, or are you dishonestly chugging along and thinking you can get away with lying?

I didn't claim that Ike starved anyone. I stated that he did not treat German POWs as POWs and he didn't. He used them as forced labor and he reclassified them to avoid Geneva convention protections. He also showed very little mercy to the German population. A position I applaud given their history, like Japan, of being prone to world conquest. It is no accident that both Germany and Japan have not been involved in any aggressive act since the end of WW2. In war you had better be damn sure you win convincingly and completely using every tool legal or not to do it.

[Lonewulf]

This is what Texas quoted:

Quote:

Concerning the second and third classifications of Nazi POWs, some are more skeptical of the treatment these POWs received. In 1989, a Canadian novelist by the name of Jacques Bacque wrote Other Losses, which contained accusations against General Eisenhower in this regard. Bacque argued that Eisenhower’s misdeeds led to the starvation of "over 800,000, almost certainly over 800,000 and quite possibly a million" German POWs. Bacque claimed that Einsehower nefariously got around the Geneva Conventions by changing the status of the Germans prisoners from "Prisoner of War" to "Disarmed Enemy Combatant." Since, according to the Geneva Conventions, POWs are to be fed military rations while there are much more relaxed standards for feeding "Disarmed Enemy Combatants," Bacque alleged that Eisenhower himself was to blame, even citing one instance of Eisenhower turning away a train full of food from entering a Nazi camp

Texas claims that he didn't argue that Ike starved anyone. Yet he quotes this article, Post #163

And he claims I'm obtuse?

[Texas]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I'm going to go play my videogames.

That is just sad. I know understand what I am dealing with. Have fun.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Texas

That is just sad.

What? That I play videogames?

Wow, I didn't realize that it took that much. I play Legend of Zelda! I play EVE! Wooooo... the Boogey Game is going to get you!

I find it hilarious that you think that you can suddenly understand my character in a different fashion by just knowing that I play videogames... You seem to think that gamers are some minority group. Talk about living in your own little world, but we had established that already.

Quote:

I know understand what I am dealing with.

Well, I "know" understand what I've been dealing with ever since you opened your mouth from the beginning of this discussion to defend some guy that thinks that the MUSLIMS ARE GOING TO INVADE SOON! So yeah.

Quote:

Have fun.

Thank you.

By the way. Quoting an article in which it states that around 800,000 German POVs were starved by Ike, then claiming that you never claimed that Ike did that? Then stating that the only reason to starve all those people is to prevent the Germans from ever attacking anyone again, before saying you never claimed that? Not seen as very thorough in Historical circles. Just to let you know.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Texas

I didn't claim that Ike starved anyone.

Texas says this, Post #184.


Post #169, last quote of mine:

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

So you're stating that if we did not starve these German prisoners, we would have lost the war? This is your position, is it not?

Texas said:

Originally Posted by Texas

No the object was to make damn sure, once and for all, no German government would ever have the will to try to conquer the world again. The same reasoning goes for the Japanese and the nuclear attacks.

For someone not claiming that Ike starved anyone, you're pretty good at acting like you think he did...

[Texas]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Texas says this, Post #184.


Post #169, last quote of mine:



Texas said:



For someone not claiming that Ike starved anyone, you're pretty good at acting like you think he did...

Go back up the thread and look at the portion I bolded. I didn't even notice the accusation of starvation and had I done so I would not have linked it. Ike's reclassification of POWs and using them as forced labor is well established and that was what I was searching for.

[DC]

its is extremly disgusting to see the extremists justify TORTURE....
some US American citizens are really trying to justify TORTURE.....
it wasnt enough to that they used guantanamo to lock up people for years without a trial, just based on suspicion of a potential terrorist.

and when im not mistaken Texas even belives in God and Jesus and all that crazy stuff..... How extremly can they stretch the bible?

Torture.....

[Oliver]

This is some seriously disgusting **** I stopped to read after a pretty short while :

An 18-page memo [PDF], dated August 1, 2002
from Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.

A 46-page memo [PDF], dated May 10, 2005
from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.

A 20-page memo [PDF], dated May 10, 2005
from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.

A 40-page memo [PDF], dated May 30, 2005
from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.

[Drysdale]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

How do you know that?

From wirereports.

In Iraq a child was in the backseat of a rigged car to get past the checkpoint.

In Israel mothers will walk into stores,restaurants etc with their children and detonate explosives.

If you're that far out of the loop I'm not wasting my time.

[Drysdale]

Extremists?

LOL, ok.

The bottom line is it works. If it did'nt it would'nt have been done for centuries.
When the other side starts playing by the rules than we can also.

If you have no weapon and high morals but your enemy has no morals and a gun who has the power there?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Cobalt

Great! That's what SHOULD happen. So far though everyone's just kind of standing around going "rabble rabble rabble."

You're wrong on that. I've written a letter to Obama and it's going out in today's mail. PDA and other organizations are also trying to pressure Obama to re-examine the issue. (In fact, something I heard in the news yesterday makes me think he's leaving the option on the table to have some sort of accounting for these crimes.)

I'm not sure why a forum discussion on this topic irritates you so much. What exactly do you think a discussion of this type is supposed to accomplish?

Quote:

Who's [sic] definition do you want to follow then?

The legal one. That's the thing about laws: you can't just make up your own version of them--especially if that version contradicts the established law--and operate based on that.

Originally Posted by Drysdale

From wirereports.

In Iraq a child was in the backseat of a rigged car to get past the checkpoint.

In Israel mothers will walk into stores,restaurants etc with their children and detonate explosives.

If you're that far out of the loop I'm not wasting my time.

I'm pointing out that when you've got a prisoner suspected of doing something, you don't KNOW you've got the right guy. The guy you have could be completely unrelated to terrorist activity. If you torture him, he will certainly say whatever he thinks you want to hear to make it stop. (You can get people to confess to having had congress with demons and all sorts of nonsense by torturing them!)

So now, you're the bad guy who's torturing an innocent person AND you've got worthless information. (And worse, in many case you'll never know whether the person you've tortured is the right guy or whether the information you get is any good.)

Please read the links I posted earlier. There's the account of Dilawar, for example.

ETA: Oh wait--you're always certain you got the right guy because you got his name from someone else you tortured!

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I'm pointing out that when you've got a prisoner suspected of doing something, you don't KNOW you've got the right guy. The guy you have could be completely unrelated to terrorist activity. If you torture him, he will certainly say whatever he thinks you want to hear to make it stop. (You can get people to confess to having had congress with demons and all sorts of nonsense by torturing them!)

Well, torture has been used for thousands of years, so it MUST be reliable!

Every witch that confessed? Guilty! Women that have sex with demons and bear their offspring? OBVIOUSLY guilty. If it didn't work, they wouldn't have used it! D'uh!

We should re-adopt the ways of the Spanish Inquisition. Inquisitions have been used for centuries, so obviously they're a good way of doing things.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Drysdale

The bottom line is it works. If it did'nt [sic] it would'nt [sic] have been done for centuries.

First of all, the fact that something has been done for centuries does NOT mean "it works" or is right. That's the favorite cant of New Age woo-woos.

Second, it doesn't work. The information you get from torture is not in itself reliable. Also, by practicing torture you guarantee that when our operatives are caught, they will be similarly mistreated.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Well, torture has been used for thousands of years, so it MUST be reliable!

Every witch that confessed? Guilty! Women that have sex with demons and bear their offspring? OBVIOUSLY guilty. If it didn't work, they wouldn't have used it! D'uh!

I was thinking along similar lines.

The Inquisition worked very well didn't it? The Church never had any problems with heresies or schisms or Protestants or any of that. Why you hardly hear anything from the Muslims these days at all! Yup--it worked all right.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

find it interesting that other countries were cracked down on for torturing our POWs, but we seem to feel that its justified when we do it ourselves. What does that tell you about us?

Those other countries actually tortured prisoners. None of this "he threw a cockroach into my cell and gave me the vapors" definition of torture.

[WildCat]

Ah, I see Lonewulf has already addressed this, deleted.

[Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Well, torture has been used for thousands of years, so it MUST be reliable!

Every witch that confessed? Guilty! Women that have sex with demons and bear their offspring? OBVIOUSLY guilty. If it didn't work, they wouldn't have used it! D'uh!

We should re-adopt the ways of the Spanish Inquisition. Inquisitions have been used for centuries, so obviously they're a good way of doing things.

Yea, piling rocks on top of someone and stretching them on the rack is really comparable to waterboarding and playing loud music and bugs etc.

Geez,