jump to last post 1-20 of 20 discussions (213 posts)

Enhanced Interrogation

  1. 0
    Longhunterposted 5 years ago

    Would you or would you not use enhanced interrogation methods to get information to bring about the safe return of a loved one?

    1. 0
      Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This forum is not to try to solicit ideas on HOW to torcher someone but a forum on whether you would use it or not.

      Love is a powerful emotion.

      Would it effect your choice whether or not to cross that line?

    2. Uninvited Writer profile image84
      Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The better question is would it work? I am not convinced that torture works. I spent most of my life supporting the goals of Amnesty International and am horrified that the West now thinks it's okay to torture.

      1. 0
        Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        In some cases it would and in others it wouldn't. I realize that. What I want to know is would you (meaning people here on HubPages) cross that line? Could you do it to save a loved one?

        1. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And sleep soundly afterwards

    3. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Torture me and I'd tell you anything that I thought you wanted to hear, it probably wouldn't be the truth, but I wouldn't care.

      1. 0
        Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That's the same thing I would do, John, but I was more interested in how you would handle it if one of your loved one's life was in danger. Would you cross that line to get the info needed to get them back?

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I think I did answer you, maybe a little subtly, but the answer is there.
          There is little chance that you would actually get the information that you needed.

          1. 0
            Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            There's always that chance you wouldn't get the info. Or would you? That's the "what if."

    4. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You mean torture?

      1. 0
        Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm glad you joined in, Mr. Deeds.

        Yes, I mean torture. Would you cross that line to save a loved one?

    5. Sourpuss profile image60
      Sourpussposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No.
      Once you become a demon, there is no going back.

      1. 0
        Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Really? You're already a Sourpuss so what's the problem with being a demon?

        You would actually let a loved one die rather than torture someone?

        Just making sure.

        1. Sourpuss profile image60
          Sourpussposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, once you turn to the dark side, what is your life worth?

          btw--next time you complain about someone insulting you or being snide, I will laugh.

          1. American View profile image60
            American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yea, like you are real civil

            1. lovemychris profile image81
              lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I didn't see Sourpuss personally attack you, but you attacked her from her first post!

              and yet, she is gone, and you remain.....free speech?
              Nah, not really. Freedom of speech being taken away by liberals? Nah, just the opposite!

              1. American View profile image60
                American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                LMC,

                Sorry you feel that way, but I never called sourpuss names, cuss to other hubbers, or even make threats like sourpuss did.(I did not know sourpuss was a she) I debated and made sacastic remarks like I always do. And I disagree with your freedom of speech comment only because I have had several forums and hubs censored.

                1. lovemychris profile image81
                  lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You are Longhunter?

                  1. 0
                    Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    LMC, American View is not Longhunter. I am the one and only. If I remember correctly, Sourpuss, true to her name began attacking me. I simply replied.

                    I sincerely hope Sourpuss is NOT gone as her "unusual and eclectic" words only serve to prove many of my points about Liberals.

                    If you have a bone to pick with Longhunter, you need only to look here. I'm just a message away when you need a kind word to boost your day. All you have to do is ask.

                  2. American View profile image60
                    American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    LMC,

                    Besides, Long has been here much longer than I have been here

                2. 0
                  Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Hey, American View, does it scare you in the least that LMC thinks we're one and the same? Perhaps Sourpuss is LMC's alter ego.

                  1. American View profile image60
                    American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Not at all, she was just asking. LMC was Sourpuss. I was suprised when she said it was obvious. Ir wasn't to me. LMC is more civil than Sour was,like I said, she is spirited.

                    LMC,

                    I decide to go back and look at the first time I spoke to Sour, I did not attack. I gave the facts as to the Congresmans visits to Israel as Sour was inaccurate as to the acutal lenghts of those visits and did not know that democrats went too.

              2. American View profile image60
                American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                By the way, I just checked and Sourpuss has not gone away, the profile is still there. Maybe you should go back and read some of Sourpuss postings. I do have a question, how would you know what my first post to sourpuss was?? Are you Sourpuss?

                1. lovemychris profile image81
                  lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Wasn't it obvious? And Sourpuss has been permanently banned.

                  Even though I see plenty here who just use the forums....

                  And I see plenty worse than SP around here too....

                  And do you know who Slimy is?

                  Slimy is the little worm companion of Oscar the Grouch on Sesame Street.
                  When SP said "don't go there, Slimy is very loyal", or whatever....that was not a threat!

                  I swear, I feel like there are a bunch of people who report everytime I open my mouth. It's a very chilling feeling....and it is nothing like freedom at all.

                  1. American View profile image60
                    American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    LMC,

                    I understood the slimy comment and thought it was funny. However I never report anyone, you and I have had this discussion before, but I can lay odds on who I think it was.. I like you have been kicked out several times, once because I said to someone to stop whinning. HP said "whinning"was a personal attack. Meanwhile in the previous post there was a real threat against me and that person has not missed a day, maybe I should have reported him, but like you I believe in free speech. I have even had several hubs censored, one because they found I used 2 words that were in a website. I am serious, I still have the email from HP. We do not have to agree, but we should  be able to debate. Otherwise why did they put forums on this site? Wonder why SP is still there, they usually remove the person the ban or kick off permanently.

          2. 0
            Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Sourpuss, just one more reason why I'm glad we're not related. One of many.

            Once again, thanks for the laugh. Your immaturity knows no bounds and is always good for a laugh.

            1. lovemychris profile image81
              lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Is that an attack? Or an insult? Is there a difference?
              Either way, it's personal.

              1. 0
                Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                LMC, my words to Sourpusswere not an attack nor insult. Just stating the honest truth. As to the difference, might I suggest a couple of quick Google searches to qwench your thirst for knowledge.

                While Sourpuss's words are always good for a laugh, they have an air of immaturity as if she's speaking like a character of some sort, a persona, shall we say. Perhaps slipping into another character on Sesame Street. At least I would hope so given some of her words were just this side of jibberish in some cases.

                Since I don't know Sourpuss personally, there is nothing personal in my words in return. She might very well be a highly educated individual. However, her words on here led me to believe otherwise. And I can assure you, it was NOT I who reported her. I've never reported anyone on HubPages as I've never felt the slightest need to do so.

                1. 0
                  Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  LMC, now that I know you were Sourpuss and you know I'm not American View, perhaps you and I can debate the issues sometime. I look forward to that chance.

                  So you say you wouldn't torture. I'm not speaking of torture done by governments like Evan does. I mean it's you and the guy you knows has info on the whereabouts of one of your loved ones who's been kidnapped. Would you then use torture to get that info?

                2. lovemychris profile image81
                  lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, saying that she's a joke is a personal attack as far as I'm concerned.
                  But it's good to know you aren't the report-nanny.

                  1. 0
                    Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Lets just say it was hard to take Sourpuss seriously and what she wrote was a joke in that it made me laugh. Fair enough?

                    And, no, I won't report anyone on here due to a little thing called free speech. People may not always agree with me but, as long as they don't start cussing me, there won't be a problem. Besides, this site wouldn't be any fun if we all agreed.

    6. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes.

      1. 0
        Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Nice, simple answer, Mason. Thanks.

    7. 0
      Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, I would and did in my former line of work.  In the case of a kidnaopped person including a child, you do not worry about what is right or wrong but simply saving a life and if the person you are forcing to give you info is responsible to some extent for the loss of the person you are trying to rescue then I say anything goes…

  2. 2uesday profile image90
    2uesdayposted 5 years ago

    Is enhanced interrogation a 'polite way' of saying torture? If not not sure what else it could mean.

    1. 0
      Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It's the politically correct term for it I would say.

      Again, I want to get input from a broad section of people (Hubbers) on how they would handle a situation like this. Would your love of that person make you cross that line?

      I'm not looking for ideas on HOW, just IF it was your loved one being held.

      1. handymanbill profile image61
        handymanbillposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        politically correct that is one of this country's biggest problem s But to make it more simple Heck YES

      2. 0
        Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        right or wrong goes out the window, especially if it was a loved one....people who say they would not use enhanced techniques or torchure have never been in that situation as when you are... nothing else matters....its like the fog of war....

  3. 0
    Emile Rposted 5 years ago

    It would depend on the situation. But, if I knew for sure that the person I was interrogating was directly involved and responsible; I probably would.

  4. Greek One profile image79
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    You are not talking about one's wife making one watch countless hours of Jersey Shore, are you?

    1. 0
      Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Eeew, that is cruel and unusual punishment. Personally, I'd rather have my nails pulled out than to watch that show.

      1. Greek One profile image79
        Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        .... and yet all throughout North America, men have been subjected to this crime against humanity, in the hopes they will walk out of the room and cut the grass

        1. 0
          Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hmmm, watch Jersey Shore or mow the grass in typical Tennessee heat - 98 degrees and 80% humidity. Yeah, I'd mow the grass.

    2. uncorrectedvision profile image59
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Isn't that universal grounds for annulment?  Can one actually understand a complex relationship like marriage let alone enter into one with a clear understanding of the commitment, let alone the sacrament of Holy Matrimony - for Catholic women who make their husbands watch Jersey Shore.

      The only reality TV I ever see is on "The Soup," on the E-Network.

  5. Evan G Rogers profile image84
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    It's not "enhanced interrogation".

    It's TORTURE.

    It's wrong.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7RXTWMi … re=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkj9pjx3H0

    http://current.com/shows/vanguard/76347 … oarded.htm

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11715577

    The entire Bush presidency -- and Obama has not changed a damned thing -- should be killed.

    1. 0
      Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you for your answer, Evan.

    2. 0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm curious. If that family member was a five year old child. You knew they were being abused. Would that change your answer? The circumstances would determine your reaction. We all want to be as civilized as possible, but how much would you allow an innocent to endure just to think you had the moral high ground?

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        They're attacking us because we've been over there for about a century killing their families.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I wholeheartedly 100% agree with you that Bush's approval of torture was wrong. The whole thing sickens me. The Bush administration appeared to think random people pulled in and waterboarded or held without trial for years would produce intelligence. I personally think he should have been handed over to the World Court and charged with crimes against humanity.

          Of course saying America has been in the Middle East for a century killing them is quite a stretch. You appear to be rewriting history.

          Is that what this thread is about? I didn't see it that way. But, I guess torture is in the eye of the beholder. I say I would torture someone who had a child of mine, but there are  still a lot of things I wouldn't stoop to do

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            We forced them out of their homes back in the early '50s, and things went down hill from there.

            So, how about if I change my "over a century" to "at the absolute least 61 years ago"

            EDIT: actually, our intervention into the Middle East dates all the back to -- AT LEAST -- our entry into WWI, in 1917. Our entry to the war led to the Treaty of Versailles. This agreement led the winners carve up the middle east like a pie, thus ripping families and communities apart at the whims of European warlords.

            1. American View profile image60
              American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Again, cite a source where we invaded the middle east in 1950. Does that help you?

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Irani … 7%C3%A9tat

                "The 1953 Iranian coup d'etat (known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup[1]) was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States under the name TPAJAX Project."

                This was probably in your textbooks in high school...so... I'm surprised you needed a citation.

                1. American View profile image60
                  American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Once more spelling champ(typical move of those who try to deflect) Cite a source where we invaded the middle east. Backing a political movement is not invading. Supplying weapons is not invading.

                  1. TMMason profile image74
                    TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    And what do they call what Obama is doing in Egypt and Libya? It is only attacking if the Right does it. Obama and his croonies are tearing the Middle Easty apart to place thier Muslim kith and kin in power, the Muslim Brotherhood. So here is to 100 more years of BS ISalmic slaughtering of all... thank to the American Left.

        2. uncorrectedvision profile image59
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So how does that explain the 7 other centuries of Muslim invasions and slaughters of non-Muslims every where else in the world?  Americans would have to institute an organized extermination to catch up to Muslim slaughter of Muslims in the past century.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Replace the word "muslim" with "European", and the word "7" with "countless".

            pwnt.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You are aware of the difference between European and Muslim?

              1. American View profile image60
                American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No he does not

    3. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Evan,

      do not give a political answer. Based on your picture, you have a very attractive wife who, I will guess here in case she makes you watch Jersey shore, is a very nice person. Are you saying you would not cross the line to get her back if she was kidnapped?

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The reason we "need" to torture these people is because we've been over there murdering their families since the early half of this century (probably earlier).

        Don't twist it - there's a reason why these people attack us.

        1. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Evan,

          Sorry, but it is you that is twissting it and avoiding the question.The topic is

          "Would you or would you not use enhanced interrogation methods to get information to bring about the safe return of a loved one"?

          Notice it says loved one. Not "these people" as you put it. Not " the entire Bush presidency" In fact the Bush name is not anywhare in the topic. But you chose to drag it in. I guess we now know the answer, you would not lift a finger to save your loved one. Glad I am not in your family

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No one is going to do that kind of stuff to me/us if we just keep to our own devices.

            If a maniac chooses to do something horrible to me/us, then I would expect justice to prevail. Juries, innocence until proven guilty.

            Justice need not entail torture.

            1. American View profile image60
              American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Really, that was an extremly nieve statement. People are kidnapped or taken hostage everyday here and abroad. You know that. So as I said earlier, glad I am not in your family. Wonder how they feel knowing you would not lift a finger to help them?

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                naive.

                People are taken hostage - usually there's a thing called "motive" related to crimes.

                I think the only person who would have a motive to kidnap my wife right now would be you because you want to see me get angry.

                Justice need not entail torture.

                1. TMMason profile image74
                  TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  But this isn't about justice, Evan... it is about getting something you need from someone.

                  The justice comes after, when you cap him in the head for taking your loved one.

                  And you seem to be under the impression that no psychos would take your family just for fun.

                  I think you should look at the case in Con where they killed the guys wife and daughters.... what was their motive?

                2. American View profile image60
                  American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  TMM,

                  You are wasting your time, he has no clue

                  1. recommend1 profile image70
                    recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No - you have no human ethics or morals worth the name if you support torture and other such blatant abuses of human rights.  You also have no moral ground to stand upon to criticise other nations about their human rights - and when the crap hits the fan some years down the line and your troops are suffering 'enhanced interrogation' you can have no complaint.

                  2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No clue?

                    here's a clue for ya, JACK!

                    (VIEWER BEWARE: THIS ACTUALLY SHOWS WHAT TORTURE LOOKS LIKE)
                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7iDZnkn1xo

                    Here's some info about Unit 731.
                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu7GMMIfvoo

                    Here's some Libya torture documentation
                    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14671954

                    Here's the US torturing people - real footage -- the victim dies from the torture live on film. Viewer beware.
                    http://ma-tvideo.france2.fr/video/iLyROoafMm7K.html

                    I haven't ever been tortured. But I've watched some videos.

                    Have you?

                  3. 0
                    Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    American View, I don't think it's that Evan has no clue. He just didn't read the entire beginning post before going on a political rant.

                    We have, however, learned some very useful info about Evan.

                    1. He would not use torture to save the life of even his wife. His answer to that direct scenario - "Justice need not entail torture." I bet that gives his wife a warm, fuzzy feeling.

                    2. He would avoid the draft if called to defend and fight for his country - You're darn right I would dodge a draft. If I were to ever be drafted, I would refuse to go. I'm not going to die for some politician's power grab.

                    and

                    3. He doesn't read the entire beginning post and instead goes into a frenzied political rant in an effort to try to prove he knows everything there is to know on a subject EXCEPT HOW TO READ THE ENTIRE QUESTION FIRST.

                    That's all I need to know. How about you, American View?

    4. 0
      Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Evan, I purposely avoided giving any type of a scenario except that the person has info to bring about the safe return of a loved one. I wanted you to think about YOUR love ones.

      This is not about what may or may not have been done by our government. It about you and lets say the guy who has info about your abducted wife's location.

      Respectfully, given that scenario, would you torture that person to get that information?

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Justice need not entail torture.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Evan, you may have some batty ideas but on basic humanity you are 100%, OK guy?

          1. recommend1 profile image70
            recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I will second this comment big_smile

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            My "batty" ideas lead me to this conclusion - people own their bodies, and I can't justify doing these sorts of things to them without their consent.

            The only POSSIBLE exception would be if we could prove 1,000% that the individual DEFINITELY knew where the kidnapped person was located AND they had a hand in the kidnapping. Then we could actually begin discussing how to get the info.

            But, once again, Justice need not entail torture.

            1. American View profile image60
              American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              HOLY COW STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!!! Evan has changed his mind. Suddenly he is willing to talk about it. Earlier there was no way he would even consider it, justice would take care of it he said. Why the change Evan, a family member see you would not lift a finger to help them

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I don't really consider that a change in opinion. The individual would have to go through a trial and be found guilty of all that I demanded, and then we would begin to discuss the possibility of torture.

                I never said I would agree to it - I wouldn't.

                I merely said we'd consider it at that point.

                I wouldn't ever demand, or encourage torture.

                1. American View profile image60
                  American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Typical double talk "I Will not agree to it but will consider it at that point"
                  "I wouldn't ever demand, or encourage torture." but you would consider it. I think we need a score card for this one

        2. 0
          Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "Justice need not entail torture."

          Thank you and I'm sure that makes your wife sleep better at night.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And I'm sure that your desire to rip people's fingernails from their hands helps your wife sleep at night.

            Don't patronize me. You're talking about willfully inflicting pain on people.

            "Hey, this guy MIGHT know something that I THINK they MIGHT know!! Let's f**king pour acid on his face until he tells me what I want to hear!! HER DER!!"

  6. Reality Bytes profile image92
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    If someone threatened a family member and I knew the person had information relevant to their safety.

    I would obtain that information without regret!

    i would not even have a problem with completely exterminating the threat itself.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What if the reason they threatened your family was because you killed theirs?

      1. Sourpuss profile image60
        Sourpussposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Or stole your land, imprisoned your son and hung him from a steel bar.

        Would you allow that to happen to you?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          WHAT IF SOMEONE DROPPED A NUKE ON YOUR GRANDMOTHER?!!?!?

          WOULD YOU TORTURE THEM THEN!?!?

          Justice need not entail torture.

          1. American View profile image60
            American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Thats a differant scenerio. There is a difference between revenge and getting a loved one back, Guess you did not know that

      2. Reality Bytes profile image92
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That would not happen. the only harm I would do to others would be strictly in defense of my family or myself.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Your tax dollars have been subsidizing middle eastern funeral homes for almost a century now.

          1. American View profile image60
            American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Cite a source of a USA attack on Middle eastern soil in 1900.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Oops, my earlier answer was wrong -- not the one on this thread, but the one that I typed earlier.

              Change my previous "for at least 61 years" to "at the very least 94 years".

              Woodrow Wilson's entry into WWI, 1917, led directly to the Treaty of Versailles allowed the French and British to carve up the Middle East like a pie.

              http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/powell-jim5.html

              1. American View profile image60
                American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I ask for a source, you send a self serving summary about a book someone is selling. But even at that, there is not anything in there that says"the US invaded any of the middle eastern countries" Sounds to me even by your sentence, that France and the UK invaded the middle east, but not the US. So once more, back you statement, show a source where we invaded a middle eastern country in 1950 or earlier.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  dude, in 1917 the US went ball's deep into WWI.

                  IT ended with Wilson writing the Treaty of Versailles.

                  This treaty let the European powers carve up the Middle East as they saw fit.

                  This is middle school history that I'm explaining to you, here.

                  1. American View profile image60
                    American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry, you must have failed Middle school. The authors were Woodrow Wilson (President of the U.S.A), Georges Clemenceau (President of France), and David Lloyd George (Prime Minister of Britain).

                    And as said before, show me where in the treaty is says "divide the middle east. Here is the divide

                    Germany′s borders in 1919 had been established nearly 50 years earlier, at the country′s official establishment in 1871. Territory and cities in the region had changed hands repeatedly for centuries, including at various times being owned by the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Poland, and Kingdom of Lithuania. However, Germany laid claim to lands and cities that it viewed as historically "Germanic" centuries before Germany′s establishment as a country in 1871. Other countries disputed Germany′s claim to this territory. In the peace treaty, Germany agreed to return disputed lands and cities to various countries.

                    Germany was compelled to yield control of its colonies, and would also lose a number of European territories. The province of West Prussia would be ceded to the restored Poland, thereby granting it access to the Baltic Sea via the "Polish Corridor" which Prussia had annexed in the Partitions of Poland. This turned East Prussia into an exclave, separated from mainland Germany.
                    Alsace and much of Lorraine—both originally German-speaking territories—were part of France, having been annexed by France′s King Louis XIV who desired the Rhine as a "natural border". After approximately 200 years of French rule, Alsace and the German-speaking part of Lorraine were ceded to Germany in 1871 under the Treaty of Frankfurt. In 1919, both regions were returned to France.
                    Northern Schleswig was returned to Denmark following a plebiscite on February 14, 1920 (area 3,984 km², 163,600 inhabitants (1920)). Central Schleswig, including the city of Flensburg, opted to remain German in a separate referendum on 14 March 1920.
                    Most of the Prussian provinces of Province of Posen (now Poznan) and of West Prussia which Prussia had annexed in the Partitions of Poland (1772–1795) were ceded to Poland (area 53,800 km², 4,224,000 inhabitants (1931)) without a plebiscite. Most of the Province of Posen had already come under Polish control during the Greater Poland Uprising of 1918–1919.
                    The Hultschin area of Upper Silesia was transferred to Czechoslovakia (area 316 or 333 km², 49,000 inhabitants) without a plebiscite.
                    The eastern part of Upper Silesia was assigned to Poland, as in the Upper Silesia plebiscite inhabitants of about 45% of communities voted for this (with general results of 717,122 votes being cast for Germany and 483,514 for Poland).
                    The area of Eupen-Malmedy was given to Belgium. An opportunity was given to the population to "protest" against the transfer by signing a register, which gathered few signatures. The Vennbahn railway was also transferred to Belgium.
                    The area of Soldau in East Prussia, an important railway junction on the Warsaw–Danzig route, was transferred to Poland without a plebiscite (area 492 km²).[14]
                    The northern part of East Prussia known as the "Memelland" or Memel Territory was placed under the control of France and was later annexed by Lithuania.
                    From the eastern part of West Prussia and the southern part of East Prussia, after the East Prussian plebiscite a small area was ceded to Poland.
                    The Territory of the Saar Basin was to be under the control of the League of Nations for 15 years, after which a plebiscite between France and Germany, was to decide to which country it would belong. During this time, coal would be sent to France. The region was then called the Saargebiet (German: "Saar Area") and was formed from southern parts of the German Rhine Province and western parts of the Bavarian Palatinate under the "Saar statute" of the Versailles Treaty of 28. 6. 1919 (Article 45–50).
                    The strategically important port of Danzig with the delta of the Vistula River on the Baltic Sea was separated from Germany as the Freie Stadt Danzig (Free City of Danzig).
                    Austria was forbidden from merging with Germany.
                    In article 22, German colonies were divided between Belgium, Great Britain, and certain British Dominions, France, and Japan with the determination not to see any of them returned to Germany — a guarantee secured by Article 119.[15]
                    In Africa, Britain and France divided German Kamerun (Cameroons) and Togoland. Belgium gained Ruanda-Urundi in northwestern German East Africa, the United Kingdom obtained by far the greater landmass of this colony, thus gaining the "missing link" in the chain of British possessions stretching from South Africa to Egypt (Cape to Cairo), Portugal received the Kionga Triangle, a sliver of German East Africa. German South West Africa was mandated to the Union of South Africa.[16]
                    In the Pacific, Japan gained Germany’s islands north of the equator (the Marshall Islands, the Carolines, the Marianas, the Palau Islands) and Kiautschou in China. German Samoa was assigned to New Zealand; German New Guinea, the Bismarck Archipelago and Nauru[17] to Australia as mandatory.[

              2. American View profile image60
                American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The Treaty of Versailles was one of the peace treaties at the end of World War I. It ended the state of war between Germany and the Allied Powers. It was signed on June 28, 1919, exactly five years after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The other Central Powers on the German side of World War I were dealt with in separate treaties.[1] Although the armistice signed on November 11, 1918 ended the actual fighting, it took six months of negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference to conclude the peace treaty. The treaty was registered by the Secretariat of the League of Nations on October 21, 1919, and was printed in The League of Nations Treaty Series.

                Of the many provisions in the treaty, one of the most important and controversial required Germany to accept responsibility for causing the war (along with Austria and Hungary, according to the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye and the Treaty of Trianon) and, under the terms of articles 231–248 (later known as the War Guilt clauses), to disarm, make substantial territorial concessions and pay heavy reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. The total cost of these reparations was assessed at 132 billion Marks (then $31.4 billion, £6.6 billion) in 1921 which is roughly equivalent to US $442 billion and UK £217 billion in 2011, a sum that many economists at the time, notably John Maynard Keynes, deemed to be excessive and counterproductive and would have taken Germany until 1988 to pay.[2][3] The final payments ended up being made on October 4, 2010,[4] the 20th anniversary of German reunification, and some 92 years after the end of the war for which they were exacted.[5] The Treaty was undermined by subsequent events starting as early as 1932 and was widely flouted by the mid-1930s.[6]

                The result of these competing and sometimes conflicting goals among the victors was compromise that left none contented: Germany was not pacified or conciliated, nor permanently weakened. This would prove to be a factor leading to later conflicts, notably and directly World War II.[7]


                Learn the truth about what you cited. Read here about the treaty and all that applied. You will find the words "middle east" does not evist here anywhere.

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

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Here we go:

                  (1) http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500803_162- … 00803.html

                  "The people dividing up the Middle East were there; the people being divided up were not. It was if there were a lot of individuals with their noses pressed against the window, who could only watch as their part of the world was being carved apart and reassembled.

                  Ibn Saud, the ruler of what was effectively Saudi Arabia, although it wasn't called that until later, wasn't invited.

                  The Vietnamese, the Koreans, many representatives from the Balkans were all absent. None of the Palestinian Arabs were there.

                  The roots of disenfranchised people in the Middle East have gone back at least 100 years, Al-Qaeda has roots in the tribal warfare of the time. But in those days, there was no way to project their frustrations and failures beyond the Middle East region. That's what's different today, they can project their frustrations, often violently, onto the rest of the world."

                  "Iraq at the time was a collection of nomadic tribes, each with different religious sects and national backgrounds. The peacemakers wanted a single, unifed nation that Britain could use as a transit route to India, where they had a huge economic stake. And so they were forced to band together into a single, dysfunctional country.

                  Feisal ibn Hussein, a Bedouin prince of Arabia and descendent of the Prophet Muhammad, was at Versailles. What he wanted for his region was a collection of individual states. He told the diplomats, Look, America has 48 states and is one nation, why can't we have one community and six or eight states? His region wasn't made up of nations at that point, it was part of the Ottomon Empire, which was breaking up.

                  Once they created Iraq, they had no one to rule it, so they took Feisal. He was brought to Iraq and crowned the first king of Iraq, in what was like a comic opera in Baghdad, worthy of Gilbert & Sullivan, with a brass band playing "God Save the Queen." And for the first half of the 1920s, the British took an enormous beating there, people didn't' like the idea that there were British troops there. Sound familiar? So Churchill pulled everybody out. "

                  (2) http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home … es-do.html

                  "Last night I talked about 1919 and the Treaty of Versailles. As we discussed, it created nation-states where there had historically been none. But what does all of this mean for us now?"

                  (3) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/520589/posts

                  read it.

                  ... ugh, screw this.

                  Google "treaty of versailles middle east" and read for yourself. I can't baby you.

                  1. TMMason profile image74
                    TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I believe the Ottoman Empire was there and they claimed ownership of the middle-East.

                    So they were represented, by their caliph.

                    You do know that the Ottoman Empire was the saet of the Caliphate till about 1927? they were represented by thier lawful ruler under the quran.

                  2. American View profile image60
                    American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    WoW evan,

                    You got me now with such credible sources. Lets see the first one was an interview or a book report of an author pushing his book, the second and third were extreme left bloggers who are against the wars in the Mid east they just say anything, as evident if you took a minute to read their other blogs. Real credible.

                    Baby me, I showed you the actual treaty, you did not get the authors right, or anything else you claimed about it. I am not the baby here

          2. Reality Bytes profile image92
            Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The OP's question was more personal then what the Government has been doing.  It asked what you would do to save a family member.

  7. RavenBiker profile image60
    RavenBikerposted 5 years ago

    The Nazi's performed many "medical" procedures during the Holocaust and found beneficial results that medicine could use today.  Should doctors and researchers use this information?  I have the same resounding "No" as I do for torture because torture is the same in my eyes as the Nazi experiements.

    Performing torture is lowering yourself to the level of your enemies and makes you no different than them, no more human than them and no more righteous.  In fact, it's giving in to them.  An d I understand that evidence has been found that information from torture is wholly unreliable. And my loved ones know my opinion and hope they feel the same way about me if the tables where turned against me.

  8. uncorrectedvision profile image59
    uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago

    As for the idea of enhanced interrogation.  If my loved ones were at risk, I would prefer to handle that myself - personally.

  9. Repairguy47 profile image61
    Repairguy47posted 5 years ago

    I believe I would actually take the Israeli approach. If they harm any one of my loved ones then I would harm 100 of theirs.

    1. recommend1 profile image70
      recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And this way of thinking is why Israel has more than a fifty-fifty chance of ending up a smoking hole in the ground !  It is the opposite of humanity and progress.

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, being Jews in a Muslim world makes those odds even steeper.

  10. recommend1 profile image70
    recommend1posted 5 years ago

    Enhanced interrogation is cynical word manipulation by the US to assist their routine torturing of 'suspects' avoiding prosecution in the International courts.  Along with the other war crimes of the US, such as dropping nearly 2 million metric tonnes of bombs on Laos (without declaring war or even admitting they were doing it for years).  When economics force a climb-down from the arrogant bullying position of the US all these issues will come back to haunt the soldiers and politicians who have to deal with it.  If others come to get their revenge on the basis of 100 for 1 you have nothing to complain about and no recourse to the justice that you have trampled.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed.

      Once again - click on the countless links I've posted on this site to see what torture is.

      Viewer beware - you will actually see torture.

  11. Evan G Rogers profile image84
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    UN demands Obama is breaking the law for not arresting Bush's torturers.

    http://rt.com/news/un-top-torture-inves … -at-obama/

    1. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And Obama the State Dept and Democrats are not breaking any laws starting wars all throughout the middle east? Fomenting revolution in foriegn nations is perfectly legal eh?

      Huh! What a laugh.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Dude, you know damned well that I'm against all these wars.

        You're preaching to the choir, but calling the choir wrong.

    2. handymanbill profile image61
      handymanbillposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Humm and wasn't one of Barack Obama promises that he was going to close down Guantanamo Bay?  What happened to that.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The Liberals forgot.

  12. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    I'm opposed to torture, the death penalty, and late-term abortion - all for the same reason. I highly value human life, and they all go against my Christian beliefs.

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with you, torture, the death penalty, euthanasia and abortion all work against my Catholic pro-life understanding.  That having been said, I will ask no man to sin for me.  If someone held my family and taking a knife to them would free my family than I would not hesitate nor stop, except to wash my hands, until they were freed.  I would not, however, countenance the State ever doing anything so brutal and I would willingly pay the legal consequence for my personal action.

      1. recommend1 profile image70
        recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        This gets to the centre of it I think -- torture of any kind is wrong and regressive behaviour, BUT, to put it in company with a threat to immediate loved ones creates a dichotomy (two wrongs don't make a right).

        To be responsible is the key point, if you torture somebody (because you think you must) then you should be ready and willing to receive appropriate punishment.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And you should have the courage to not request an intermediary do it for you. Just as I would not seek the murder of a stranger, I would not seek his torture, either.

          That all changes when that stranger poses a threat to my loved ones or my country.

          1. recommend1 profile image70
            recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Then you should seek the immediate trial of those guys who carried out torture at Guantanemo, the entire Bush administration and all the other cowards in-between for starters.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Only if one concludes that water boarding and sleep deprivation are torture.  I do not.

              1. recommend1 profile image70
                recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Well - I do and most of the civilized world agrees with me.

                And it is not possible or useful to try and define degrees of acceptable torture as everyone will conclude differently.  If you water-boarded my wife I would happily cut every finger off your hands that touched her.  And so it goes on.

  13. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "How do you change the mind of someone who was raised on lies?" You can't. The right wing is so utterly and completely moronic, that it might be said that there is no hope for humanity whatsoever.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Just want to jab the left here:

      Why aren't you guys demanding that Obama release the torture files, or arrest those that tortured during the Bush years?

      Both sides are evil, and Obama has yet to keep a single foreign policy promise that he campaigned on (at least, the major ones).

      1. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Where were you? he did it in the first 100 days he was in office.

      2. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        DiD you not find it odd that there was no major blow back after they were? Perhaps it is because many like you made much about nothing.

      3. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Shortly after files were then released. CIA Director Leon Panetta was all for it despite taking heat for possibly releasing national security secrets along with them. He made all CIA personel available for questioning. Guessed you missed the boat. Maybe you need to go to National archives and read them. Nothing like staying on top of something then commenting on something you do not even know the facts on. Typical

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'm still looking for the info - can't seem to find it.

          I did find this: http://www.aladin0.wrlc.org/gsdl/collec … ture.shtml

          1. American View profile image60
            American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Evan,

            Honestly, I read them many years ago, but once something is in the national archives, it is there forever. The site you just showed tells you they were released. I hope you do find them. it is a long read, there are a lot of files and documents. I do believe you see it was blown out of proportion by the media. I am not saying you will change your mind, it will not. There are a few reports in there naming the torture technique to get certian information.

            It is also revealing on who knew what and when. People who spoke out against it and said they never knew.

  14. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Everyone can say what they want... when it happens and you are in the midst of it and your family is in danger.... you may be very suprised at the lengths you would go to save them.

    You can all deny it... but I think at least half of those adverse to it would jump right in and start snapping fingers, legs, arms, cutting, chopping... yup very surprised.

  15. 0
    Longhunterposted 5 years ago

    EVAN G. ROGERS,

    The original question was:

    Would you or would you not use enhanced interrogation methods to get information to bring about the safe return of a loved one?

    The next time you see a forum you wish to comment on, perhaps it would do some good for you to READ THE ACTUAL QUESTION as this one had NOTHING to do with political torture but rather what you would do to bring about the safe return of a loved one.

    Save your political rants for the appropriate places. This forum WAS NOT the appropriate place for another one of your psycho babble political rants.

    Thank you for your cooperation now and in the future.

    Sincerely, Longhunter

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I read the question, I answered it, and I went deeper.

      I reminded those who said that torture is AOK in their books as to what torture looks like.

      I also reminded everyone about the flaws in the question: there's no way to prove that the person knows what you want them to know.

      And I then discussed how those uncertainties pretty much just show that those who are pro-torture are really just masochists.

      1. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Evan,

        I apperciate your answer but again you miss the point. It is not about books, or flaws, or masochists, it is about what you would do for family. My views on what the government did or will do in the future are not relevant. But if someone had my kid, there is no doubt what I would do.

      2. Reality Bytes profile image92
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Actually they would be Sadists.


        Masochists want the pain.

        1. maven101 profile image77
          maven101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The word torture is thrown around a lot and quite recklessly. Until Abu Ghraib, torture was, you know, actually torturing people. Post Abu Ghraib the definition was twisted by liberals and the media to cover just about any treatment of prisoners that they didn't agree with. Remember with Enhanced Interrogation we were never talking about breaking knee caps, car battery shocks or the pulling off of finger-nails in dirty cells. In regards to CIA interrogations we were talking about cold rooms, stress positions, sleep deprivation and SIMULATED drowning. All performed under the supervision of highly trained physicians in a clinical environment. Remember that these are the very same techniques that we subject our OWN soldiers to during advanced SERE training. I don't believe IE techniques used by the US were torture by any classical definition of the word.

          It's funny that the bleeding hearts complaining against IE actually made it worse for these guys by pushing them out of the humane arms of the CIA and into third world torture chambers where they had to say good bye to sleep deprivation, bad rock music and top flight medical care and hello to beatings, amputations, mutilation and a almost certainly a violent death.

          I said funny instead of ironic because when you are talking about bleeding heart liberals pushing terrorists away from the US and the humane rule of law and into third world prisons to be tortured - you kind of have to chuckle...

          1. lovemychris profile image81
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            There was alot more than that going on.
            Didn't you see those pictures? Men with electrodes hooked up to their fingertips?
            Naked men lying in piles.
            Vicious dogs attacking them.
            Cigarette burns all over their bodies.
            Men and women told of being raped.
            Young boys told of being raped.
            Beatings, deaths, made to stand in human sewer water.....

            You have bought the "official" story, as you did about 9/11.

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The people who said the same thing you just said -- "waterboarding isn't really torture" -- and then proceeded to agree to be waterboarded IMMEDIATELY CHANGED THEIR MINDS AND BEGAN SPEAKING AGAINST THE TORTURE.

            Their flip-flops were caught on film. The links are in this forum somewhere.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Right-o.

          Let the screams of the tortured help the sadists sleep.

          1. Reality Bytes profile image92
            Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            As the pacifist lays there dying in a pool of his own blood because he did not have the intestinal fortitude to fight back!

          2. uncorrectedvision profile image59
            uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Soundly, thank you.

  16. Evan G Rogers profile image84
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    It turns out that Torture likely didn't even help track down Bin Laden.

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/politi … 029602.php

    Oh well, I hope you all enjoy the screams of those unjustly mutilated using your tax dollars for the joy of those in charge.

    Or, put another "non-political" way -- I hope you all enjoy mutilating the innocent when there are alternatives to finding the information you seek.

    I'm done with this. Torture is wrong, no matter the instance.

    I can't believe the crap I'm getting on this forum for defending humanity. Good bye, and may the screams aide you all in sleep.

    1. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Evan,

      I would not say you are getting crap. You went off topic. We just have a different view of things than you. If you choose to not do anything to help you loved one, that is up to you. Your views of torture are yours as well, but you do not seem care about others views. You just denounced everyone and went off. So we all reponded back defending our positions. I guess we all got a little heated over the topic. I do appologixe if any of my comments hurt, they were meant to be sarcastic, but they can be taken the wrong way sometimes

      I will admit I stoped reading this article whan I got here

      "And Panetta’s correspondence bolster’s McCain’s judgment. Indeed, the CIA director makes clear that “no detainee in CIA custody revealed the facilitator/courier’s full true name or specific whereabouts. This information was discovered through other intelligence means.”

      When you find those files and read them, you will see that statment is false. One of the reasons some were against the release was because information like what was recieved would be a tip off to terrorists about how much we knew and did not know. That was a prime example. If Bin Laden aver found out that we were tracking the courrier, that man would have been killed and Bin Laden might still be free today.

    2. 0
      Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Evan,

      Defending humanity? What about the defense of your wife, supposedly the single most important person in your life? You would have her die rather than do everything possible to get her back?

      And you think the people on here who would use torture are less than human? UNBELIEVABLE!!! I personally would loose every moral and ethic I had to get my wife back alive and gladly suffer the consequences afterward.

      You CAN believe the crap you're getting in this forum because, as the one who started it, I don't like the fact you high jacked it for yet another one of your ridiculous, sanctimonious, pompous, political, psycho rants. Yeah, I think I covered it and managed to not use a single cuss word, unlike the F-BOMB you dropped in one of your posts on MY forum.

      You seem like an intelligent guy, Evan, but it's completely lost in your over zealous rants. Get a grip and try to focus past something more than Ron Paul talking points.

      See you in the forums.

      1. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Long,

        A very well thought out response.

  17. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Let me get this right....

    Cuss words = bad.
    "ridiculous, sanctimonious, pompous, political, psycho rants." = OK?

    Not in my book.

    That is the difference between left an right in a nutshell!

    That is why Howard Stern is off commercial radio, but Russsshhhhhh is still there!


    LaMerica

    1. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      LMC

      I do agree about freedom to cuss, but i think the context of it is importan. I did not see Evans F bomb, or if I did I do not remember it. But we should be civil even in cussing

      1. lovemychris profile image81
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Do you think Longhunter was civil to Evan?

        1. 0
          Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          American View and LMC, I'm by no means a saint and I've dropped a few cuss words here myself but never the F-Bomb. There's just somethings you don't do.

          LMC, was I civil to Evan? In your opinion, probably not. Was he civil to me? You probably don't care but, no, I don't think so. A bit of double standard? In my opinion, yes.

          This forum WAS NOT about political torture and I tried to keep it on subject. It didn't happen resulting in my post to Evan. No regrets and I'd do it again.

    2. 0
      Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ridiculous, sanctimonious, pompous, political, psycho rants aren't curse words, LMC, and you know it.

      I have no doubt if I high jacked one of your forums for one of my rants, you'd be screaming bloody murder and you know it.

      I tried to bring the forum and Evan back on subject but he continued. Then he dropped the F-Bomb. Not acceptable.

      Again, if that had been me on one of your forums, you'd be screaming bloody murder and you know it.

      You nor Evan may not like me. You two may not like what I profess to stand for. We may not see eye to eye on too many things but I can assure you I would never disrespect you or Evan in that way. At the very least, I expect no less in return.

      Good evening.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Guess I'll be gone for a few more days - see y'all!

        1. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Evan,

          I do not think so. I know I do not turn people in and I do not think long does, and I am sure LMC does not either. Unless Hp does not agree with what we all say to each other, there should be no issue. Hell, you and I battled before and I have no issue with it

        2. 0
          Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Evan,

          If you mean on vacation, have a good one.

          If you mean from HubPages, it won't be from me turning you in and I'll speak up FOR you if HubPages did try to ban you.

          I believe in free speech, Evan, but I also believe in keeping forums on point. Again, I will do NOTHING to get you banned and would protest any effort to do so.

          We may not agree but we're still Americans and free speech is still part of our Constitution. That's all I need to know.

      2. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        LMC,

        I may not be the best person to answer that right now as I have Evan not being very civil in another thread with me.

        I think they both gave it to each other, However, I did go back and read some of this. The first contact between the two, long thanked him. The next time Long was sticking up for Evan becasue I said evan did not have a clue. The next time Evan began to ratch it up. It got worse from there

        I think they just need to agree to disagree. Long is right. We all may not agree, if we did this forum place would not be interesting.

  18. 0
    Longhunterposted 5 years ago

    LMC,

    Let me make something perfectly clear. I will be doing NOTHING to get Evan banned and would protest any effort to do so. I have never and would never do so - period - with anyone.

    That's not my style.

  19. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Actually, my point was that some people see swearing as uncivil behavior, but insults and really degrading words as ok. This seems to be the the view of  Christian Fundies. This is why I brought up Howard Stern and Russsshhhhhh Limbaugh-Talent on Loan from God.

    People got all upset with Howard over words like poopoo farts t*ts  *ss, but Russshhhhhh spouts such viciou hatred evey day, and they never complain about him.

    That's what I see as the double standard.

    1. 0
      Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You specifically pointed out my words - ridiculous, sanctimonious, pompous, political, psycho rants - in reference to my post to Evan. These are words I used to DESCRIBE Evan's behavior here on this forum. None of them were insulting or swear words with the exception of possibly "psycho" but, you have to admit, when he gets started, he gets more than a little "psycho" in his presentation. Passion is one thing. Going off the deep end in a whole other direction is another.

      As for Stern and Rush, this forum is about whether or not a person would use torture to gain the safe release of a loved one.

      1. lovemychris profile image81
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        As far as I'm concerned, that was a personal attack. You can say it was innocent. I disagree.
        People use all kinds of clever tricks to insult people here, so they don't get busted.

        But anyone with half a brain can see a personal attack.

        See, if I had said, "You have half a brain", that could get me banned. But if I say, "Anyone who makes that comment has half a brain"...It's safe. But we all can see the insult anyway!

        1. 0
          Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If something like "You have half a brain" could get you banned, half the Hubbers on here would be gone, including you and I.

          Anytime you're in a forum situation, things are going to be said in the heat of the moment but as long as it doesn't become abusive over time or threatening, I think it's all part of the deal. Sort of like, if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

          I've taken a look at some forums on here where I could have added to the conversation but things were already heated so I decided to stay out. To me, it's simple. If you get into a forum where people are disagreeing, you better expect a certain amount of abuse if you contribute. Especially ones dealing with politics and religion.

          1. lovemychris profile image81
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            But they say the only thing that gets you banned is a PERSONAL ATTACK...and that is not true!

            1. 0
              Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Perhaps the moderators read the entire forum to discern the context in which the post was made then decide. I mean that would be the fair way to do it.

              However it's done, my goal was to keep this particular forum on track and I don't think anyone, including myself, received a personal attack.

  20. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    Going back to the OP , Yes ! I believe that the evil factions  of this world and many many countries are just that ,evil. "Enhanced interogation" , lets call it what it is "torture" . Do we torture, yes ! Have we always, Yes! Only a fool plays by rules that would dissallow it! Our problem in America ; not enough people realize the threat or the consequences of doing nothing about these threats! I truely believe the idealism of  peace time breeds idiots when it comes to pacification! Hey I know : lets group hug the enemy , that will cure all the evils. Everyone here ,would believe in torture if it were a matter of a family members life at stake, and here's one better , if you don't I dont want to know you!!

 
working