Bin Laden: How Did It Begin


I think that taking a suspected criminal into custody and slamming his fingers in th desk drawer to find out who the murderer is is okay.

I think that keeping a suspected terrorist awake for 48 hours in order to get him to tell me where the other terrorists are is is okay to.

The Left doesn’t.

Whatever.

The latest fabrication of the Left is Rumsfeld and his “view” that enhanced interrogation methods don’t work.

Let’s see what he says:

Sounds like Rumsfeld is clear.

“Unquestionably it works … It produced an enormous amount of very very valuable intelligence information.”

I’m not sayin’ – I’m just sayin’

Advertisements
40 comments
  1. nickgb said:

    I think that taking a suspected criminal into custody and slamming his fingers in th desk drawer to find out who the murderer is is okay.
    I can only hope this is a joke that just didn’t come across right.

    • pino said:

      I can only hope this is a joke that just didn’t come across right.

      Nope.

      When we catch a drug dealer and are looking for his boss drug dealer, I’m okay with some rough methods of interrogation. In a similar vein, I’m alright with letting a dog bark at captured terrorists in order to get them to tell us where the boss terrorist is.

      • dedc79 said:

        are there any divine rights in play here?

      • pino said:

        are there any divine rights in play here?

        I suspect you are hung up on the whole “Divine: aspect of divine rights. I acknowledge that the same concept is valid for Natural Rights in the event we are dealing with a non-believer.

        And yes, personal Liberty is taken into account. Withholding knowledge of the whereabouts of a “drug dealer” can be seen to be infringing upon the Liberty of other folks.

  2. Henry said:

    There are three issues here. The first is whether “enhanced interrogation methods” work better than sending a suspected criminal on a fun filled trip to Disney World. The answer is yes. Nobody likes repeated and sever pain or discomfort. They will often crack. True there are exceptions. Some people will never speak, and some will provide false information. We can NOT say that enhanced interrogation methods ALWAY work, but they do often work.

    The second issue is whether it is morally acceptable to use enhanced interrogation methods for suspects of serious crimes. We are not talking about the police beating a “law abiding” citizen to near death because that person failed to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. We all know that there are crimes of different severities. For crimes against society that are so atrocious that even Charles Manson would flinched a bit, I believe it is morally acceptable to us force to retrieve information.

    The third concern with enhanced interrogation methods is whether they are wise to use. Here is where we need to give the most thought. If a middle aged white man with no special religious or ethnic ideology opens fire on students at a college stadium and kills hundreds, we are likely safe in using extreme force to get information about his accomplices. Nobody is going to whine and complain about a white guy being roughed up. Okay, some will complain, but not nearly as many or as vocally as if the suspect was a person of color or a woman, or a (fill in the blank). As long as foreign extremists are unable to point to the suspected criminal as a martyr, we can use extreme techniques with our OWN citizens. What we CAN NOT do is use “enhanced interrogation methods” on foreigners. They will use it as an excuse to do far worse to Americans that they pickup in their countries. This was, and I assume still is, the main objections of John McCain to any form of torture of political prisoners.

    In my book, the bottom line is this. If you live a mostly honest life and stay away from bad folks, you deserve to be treated with dignity and respect by our government. If you live a sleaze life filled with corruption and deceit, you better watch out or get out of this country fast.

    • nickgb said:

      Why are people so averse to treating everyone with dignity and respect? What is the fixation on the right with treating “humanity” as a privilege and not a right?

      We don’t torture people, regardless of how bad they are. We don’t beat confessions out of criminals, no matter how sure we are that they are guilty. This is why we’re better than “they” are. And yet the right wants us to descend into barbarism for shits and giggles.

      • With respect, I have met and spoken with a number of military from a General to Special Forces on down, and while they may love to “blow $hit up” they hardly fit the description of descending into barbarism for “shits and giggles”. Is there a “criminal” element in the military that does? Human nature would indicate yes, that a small population of any group is criminal, but I think it’s hardly the norm in spite of the fact that they carry guns and are trained to kill. Their ultimate goal is to save lives and keep our way of life safe. We want to sit here and tell them that we know how to do that better than they do.

        Also, everyone gets to judge this morality from a distance. Sure, we may opt NOT to torture some unknown human being off in some jail somewhere and that’s perfectly understandable. I wouldn’t vote for it on a whim, either. Have a guy in your house with a gun to your kid’s head ready to pull the trigger, and you happen to get ahold of a weapon while his back’s turned, however, and I’m going to guess that even the most law-abiding Liberal will turn into a barbaric savage in that moment and all the rules of morality go right out the window.

        More to the issue at hand, however, are you saying that if it was 9/11, and the first plane had hit, and you had one of the suspects in custody who kept saying another plane was imminent, you’re going to let him sit in his cell, or “lawyer up” and take the 5th, and/or worry about his sensitivities and watch the second plane happen?

        We prefer as a public to not know the “gory details” regarding a lot about what we do and enjoy. That’s largely how we get the freedom and way of life we have – other people do the dirty work, and ultimately, we’re glad for it.

        Is the fact that Chinese workers commit suicide in iPod plants really keeping most of us from buying one? So then why are these military actions any different when their goal is not just to give us a new toy, but actually prevent civilian deaths and save lives? I say best for the government to just keep the mass public in the dark and do what needs to be done. That way, publicly we can say we hate it but privately we’ll be ultimately thankful that it’s there.

      • Actually, enhanced interrogation methods are not torture. If they are, the U.S. military does far worse things to its own soldiers during training.

      • pino said:

        Why are people so averse to treating everyone with dignity and respect?

        Dignity and respect are fluid conditions. The level of dignity and respect you get from an individual changes as your inputs change. Less dignity and respect from me to you, the less of the same in return.

        This is Man Law 101.

        What is the fixation on the right with treating “humanity” as a privilege and not a right?

        It is a right. However, it’s a right that you can wave.

        We don’t torture people, regardless of how bad they are.

        Sadly, we do. The treatment of some prisoners by some guards at Abu Ghraibe was clearly torture. A better statement is that we don’t WANT our folks to torture.

        And yet the right wants us to descend into barbarism for shits and giggles.

        I think it is far more barbaric to forgo enhanced techniques [not torture in Pino’s book] and rather offer the bastard a cigarette and cup of coffee while we’re searching for the terrorist. In some sick and twisted way, we’re spiting ourselves for the sake of some false honor.

        At some point, the question must be asked: “Who must do the hard things?”

        — He who can.

  3. Add “putting a fuzzy caterpillar on them and telling them it’s poisonous”, and “making them converse with a woman on their period” to the EIT list that’s “inhumane”.

    There’s a movie out called “Unthinkable” which explores the torture subject quite well. She’s the anti-torture, by the book agent competing with Samuel L. Jackson’s character who’s her foil in almost every way.

    I heard an interesting point on Fox last night re: the torture issue. I can’t recall who made it but it essentially was that waterboarding wasn’t meant to get good intelligence (directly). It was meant more to break the individual down to where they’d stop lying.

    I do believe that morally, our institutions must hold themselves to a higher moral standard. I don’t, therefore, believe in torture as standard operating procedure. Unofficially, however, after watching that movie, I have to be honest and admit that I sided with Jackson and his logic towards the end (not all of his behaviors, mind you), and that in dire situations we must exhaust any and all options to get the intelligence that we need to save lives.

    As much as I can understand the left’s position on “torture” and waterboarding, until I hear otherwise from people who are on the front lines of counter-terrorism and intelligence, and on the front-lines of warfare, I regrettably believe that waterboarding remains a necessary tool to have in our arsenal. Like Jackson says in the movie, “They have to THINK that we’ll stop at nothing to get this information.” I suggest the movie for anyone who hasn’t seen it. Light on explicit ideologies, and seems to paint a more real picture of what happens “on the ground” than a movie like “Rendition” does.

  4. I have to be honest and admit that I sided with Jackson and his logic towards the end (not all of his behaviors, mind you), and that in dire situations we must exhaust any and all options to get the intelligence that we need to save lives.(vern)

    Really, really?? I guess the actions you were concerned with was slitting the throat of his wife? Or was it threatening to kill his children? I would imagine all the beatings and other shit was ok though, right?

    • “Slitting the throat of his wife?” Of course not. You’re building up a straw man around an argument that I didn’t make (that it was OK) and you clearly didn’t read what I said. I said I sided with his LOGIC – that the person he was dealing with had to THINK he was going to go all the way. I stated just as clearly that I didn’t agree with what he did.

      And as for his “beatings” and your moral highground here, I put the original question i asked to all of us once again: what would you stop at doing to someone if you had certainty that there were the lives of your loved ones at stake? In a serious situation where time was of the essence, I think any male in here (and even female, if Carrie Moss’s character is accurate) wouldn’t hesitate to take a pipe to someone’s head BEFORE they actually caused harm to the people they cared about. Admit to that, and one must admit to pre-emptive violence to achieve a greater goal.

      • pino said:

        what would you stop at doing to someone if you had certainty that there were the lives of your loved ones at stake?

        This is my covenant to all ya’ll.

        If anyone holds the well being of my loved one is his hands; I’ll do anything and everything to prevent harm. AND I think that’s moral.

        Whatever and however that philosophy plays out in international politics is whatever it is.

  5. Moe said:

    Whatever we think about using torture in an extraordinary situation, the fact that it publicly became the official policy of the United States bothers me greatly. I remember in the early Gitmo days how the professional military fought against using torture, how it was against the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In truth, I’m sure torture has been used over the years. It was illegal to do so and some got away with it and some didn’t. But it was illegal – it was not an officially sanctioned policy.

    I don’t buy the excuse that ‘these bad guys are worse than yesterday’s bad guys”. After all, they wanted to wipe us out with nuclear weapons.

    As for lowering the bar to allow polilce to do it, you really don’t want to live in that country pino, do you?

    I note George Washington’s advisory to his troops :

    “Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” – George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775…

    • Moe, I think it all boils down to what one considers torture.

      Insult slaps and waterboarding do not cause permanent harm, and I don’t believe they are torture. It is all a matter of definitions.

      • I think “torture” is forcing our troops to comply with p.c. ROE’s and policy’s that have nothing to do with fighting or winning a war. These terrorists would twist the heads off babies, but heaven forbid we’re making them uncomfortable in prison. Our own domestic prisoners get it worse.

      • Moe said:

        Guys, you know I”m not suggesting coddling our enemies. But, civilian that I am, I’m a citizen too and what we do in war is my business. I’ actually less concerned with what we actually do than I am about what the world sees us doing.

        Yeah, some of these jidhadists would snap heads off babies and any soldier present would pull a weapon and shoot him dead and that’s okay with me. That’s probably okay with every single person everywhere. But waterboarding someone because we think he’s a jihadist? Sorry. When I wsa growing up it was called the ‘Chinese water torture’. It was widely known by American soliders in Korea. The Chinese used it on captured allied soldiers. It was also a favorite in the inquisition. It’s purpose is to inflict harm, not to get informatqion.

        Vern – what’s an ROE? And if our own domestic prisoners get it worse, that’s not a justification, that’s our failulre.

      • Moe,

        I disagree with your contention that waterboarding’s intention is solely to inflict harm. It’s intention is to inflict discomfort solely as a means to get information.

        I think things need to start with a clear definition of torture. If an interrogation method inflicts permanent physical or psychological harm and it is not inflicted solely to gain information, then it is torture. I do not believe waterboarding fits this definition.

      • Moe said:

        Then maybe Sean we need a new word. Torture by definition is – first – inflicting pain for pain’s sake or revenge or to extract information. The dictionaries I checked put the purpose of extracting information third after purposes of inflicting pain, seeking revenge. Also mentioned is extreme cruelty.

        Torture is I assume a last resort. Trusting that it works better or even as well as other methods of gathering intelligence or information? Do you believe that to be true? Did we learn by the way that the info on the courier that came from Gitmo was gotten under torture? Or exactly what that info was?

      • Moe,

        The media reports that we got info from the courier through torture, but it is hard to tell what that means. For instance, the media reports waterboarding as torture when I do not believe it is.

        My guess is that we got the information via waterboarding (unless someone else conducted the interrogations).

    • pino said:

      I note George Washington’s advisory to his troops :

      Remember, this statement was made during a time when warring units stood in line, wearing uniforms and offering surrender and aid when ask. Quarter was given, the white flag was respected. Women and children were protected.

      In short, rules of engagement were in play.

      There is no such expectation here with these folks.

      It is all a matter of definitions.

      Well said!

      • Moe said:

        The American colonists, except the uniformed elite with George Washington, were a ragtag bunch of farmers who basically fought a guerilla war. Rules of engagement were not the rule.

        True, they’re not the rule for today’s enemies either, but we should be honest about who we were. Washington was an amazing commander and managed to reach many of those citizen soldiers and bring htem into the fight, under his rules. But even Washington didn’t fight much ‘in lines’. He was a big fan of guerilla war. The Americans knew their territory and the British, who WERE trying to fight conventional war, did not.

        But yes, they absolutelyl did honor the white flag and they did try to protect the non fighters. In the Civil War 80 years later, we were not nearly as honorable as Washington was. Odd.

  6. Admit to that, and one must admit to pre-emptive violence to achieve a greater goal.(Vern)

    When it comes to the greater goal there is always a reason for violence, what type just depends on which side youre on. You need look no further than SLJ’s character to see what it does to the giver to.

    • “When it comes to the greater goal there is always a reason for violence, what type just depends on which side youre on. You need look no further than SLJ’s character to see what it does to the giver to.”
      Absolutely. I haven’t been in a fist fight since my teens, and apart from a hand-me-down rifle on the farm I’ve never owned a gun, so I’m hardly the violent type and even cringed when SLJ was drilling teeth (just cringed again!)

      I guess my questions are two:
      1) do we have to go that far?
      2) If we do, is it better to know that we are (i.e. make it official policy), or better to just keep it covert?

      Using the 9/11 example I brought up, there are those, I know, that still wouldn’t go against their moral code and would let the guy lawyer up out of principle. I can fully appreciate that and respect that even if I wouldn’t agree. I’m just wondering, though, if we can have it both ways? Can we not go all “medieval” on these guys and still win? Based on human nature alone, I have my doubts. Plus, I don’t think I can have any real sort of context if I’m not on the front lines and dealing with these terrorists face-to-face.

  7. Vern

    I guess we need to determine what a terrorist is, for real that is. For some people, terrorist is akin to freedom fighter. I think maybe, just maybe if we looked at our behaviours as a whole we might get a better response from the so called “terrorists” than torture ever would. If not, why not just nuke em?

    • Moe said:

      Titfortat: In the 1980’s when we supported the Taliban and the fledgling Al Quaeda in Afghanistan against the Soviets, we did in fact call them ‘freedom fighter’.

      • Moe said:

        fighterS

      • Moe

        Most people dont want to know about our “history” with certain regimes. Its so much easier to make them all out to be the big bad boogeymen. Colonialism and Imperialism are not too welcome unless you try to pass it off as Democracy. 😉

  8. “maybe if we looked at our behaviours as a whole we might get a better response from the so called “terrorists” than torture ever would”
    We’ll have to disagree there. Their hate exists at a religious level, not a geographic or legal one where “freedom” is concerned.

    As for definitions, I think anyone that wants all non-Muslims dead as a matter of religious zealotry is a terrorist. Anybody who wants to crash a plane into a building, blow up an airplane with their shoe or their underwear, or blow up a train and those who idolize, train, finance and support them are all one in the same.

  9. Vern

    Ok, so what about drones that kill innocent civilians, along with the terrorists, would that be considered terrorism? I know if I was on the receiving end of that it wouldnt be too hard strapping bombs on my chest. In fact, if most of one’s oppression came from a leader that was propped up by a world power would it be unusual to hate them and the world power that supported it? Also, would they be wrong for hating and then perpetrating their own violence? It is not a simple question, just like torture it is possible to find the reasons for violence on both sides.

    • Absolutely not. Drones kill civilians because terrorists consider women and children to be cheaper than bunkers or bulletproof vests, and dead ones as great PR to rally more terrorists to their cause. The minute terrorists choose an actual battlefield to fight on or fortress to fight from where no women and children exist, I’m sure our military will be happy to engage them there.

      Second, can I understand anti-American sentiment? Yes I can, but here’s the thing: I can be completely against Sharia law and radical Islamic practices, and yet I STILL don’t wish them all dead. They think the opposite. No matter how they may try and understand our way of life (they don’t), they still want us all – women and children included – dead.

      You seem to try and make the argument that we’re just as bad as they are, that if you were in their situation you’d quite possibly be a suicide bomber as well. I don’t believe that for a second. Based on your compassion, I think you value life over death. Their radical culture values the opposite, and unlike our ways, their way to a “good” death is to kill innocents. I don’t think you could ever see yourself in a situation where you wouldn’t care, or would actually hope, to care women and children. They deliberately and specifically direct their hatred and death-wishes towards innocents, either of their own people or ours. It’s cowardly, psychotic, and to me, indefensible. You’re saying we’re supposed to understand them, and sympathize with them? I say bullshit. I ask what they do to deserve that understanding and sympathy. They lose any and all understanding from me and any shred of sympathy that might go with it the minute they brainwash their children that killing Jews is OK or martyrdom is OK, or they strap a bomb to their chest or their ass trying to kill innocent civilians. Their metric of success is how many innocents they kill. Ours is just the opposite, so respectfully I don’t see where the left’s sympathy for these people truly comes from, except for perhaps some sense of misplaced guilt.

      • Moe said:

        Vern – no one was hiding behind women or children in Baghdad in ’03. We just bombed the hell out of a major metropolitain area. And it had nothing at all to do with Islam.

        [ I can be completely against Sharia law and radical Islamic practices, and yet I STILL don’t wish them all dead. They think the opposite. No matter how they may try and understand our way of life (they don’t), they still want us all – women and children included – dead. ]

        Honestly, I think that’s an absurd statement. It’s so overly generalized – there are SOME who want us dead. ALL??? Saying that makes it harder to tell the real fanatics, the dangerous ones, from the modern Muslims.

        Of coruse there are plenty of modern Muslims too who want to hurt us, but it’s not because of Sharia. It’s because they have more worldly gripes against us.

  10. Based on your compassion, I think you value life over death. (Vern)

    Maybe, but you so miss the point. The point being, compassion is a luxury when you make the rules. We dont know poverty and despair and violence and degradation on the level that many of these so called terrorists do. Its easy for me to have the moral advantage because I dont SUFFER like they do. I also get to play on the winning team…………consistently. Im not left by the way, in fact I am neither. I agree with both sides on many issues. Ask yourself this, if you cant win a convential war how do you bring the fight to your enemy?

    • That poverty does not come from us, and furthermore, no amount of it can drive someone to want to kill females and children of their own kind. There are dozens of cultures who are poor that aren’t suicide bombers, who live in similar conditions of violence or worse (Darfur, Sierra Leone, etc.) and still don’t think killing innocents is the glorious, pious thing to do no matter how poor one is.

      Despair and degradation, however, happens on a spiritual/religious level, and is not at all inflicted by us. Their religious leaders tell them they are hopeless, that they are sinners, that they are unworthy, and the only way to have hope is to kill innocents. Not only that, the more, the better. That is where the difference lies, and why I disagree with your statement that we somehow play any significant role in the so-called “suffering” they believe they endure. Only radical religious thinking causes a suffering so deep to make one feel their only outlet is a death which causes thousands of deaths of innocent people along with it. That, I believe, is the suffering you’re referring to and the fact is it comes from their own political and religious leaders, not us. The left, however (not necessarily you), see US as the main cause of that despair, and that emotional/spiritual/financial poverty, and I wholeheartedly disagree.

      As proof, I offer the uprisings in Egypt, Yemen, Libya, etc.. These people are finally realizing (or becoming organized/strong enough) to attack a system and ideology that leaves them oppressed while their leaders bask in luxury, and uses their citizens’ lives carelessly to achieve their own twisted political ends. THOSE are the freedom fighters, not insurgents coming from in from other countries to gain religious glory by killing both Americans and their own people who support them.

      Ask yourself this, if you cant win a conventional war how do you bring the fight to your enemy?”
      I’d first ask why we can’t win a conventional war, and suggest our rules of engagement are too limiting. Second, I’d ask why we don’t do more to help these uprisings overthrow their oppressive leaders. Even if not overtly, then covertly? It appears that we’re pulling out of supporting Libya’s rebels, like we did after we asked Saddam’s rebels to stand up and fight and we’d back them, or like we did the first time we helped Afghanistan beat the Soviets. This goes back to our original debate, but I believe our own desire for political correctness does more harm than good in any conflict we try and win.

      We’re trying to stomp out the radical aspect of a religion where the very act of trying to stomp it out feeds it. I think this radical thinking needs to be asphyxiated culturally at the same time, but unfortunately I don’t think we see enough Muslims (at home or abroad) doing enough to publicly denounce such a twisted misrepresentation of their religion to make that happen, either. If we’re to win a war like this it has to be fought on all fronts, including their own people speaking out against the fringe who are so f–ked in the head. That’s how we take it to them, but it’s still not happening. Just my thoughts.

  11. I’d ask why we don’t do more to help these uprisings overthrow their oppressive leaders.(Vern)

    Do you ever wonder if the oppressive leaders are actually there because of some of our “interests”. I suggest a book called “American Raj” by Eric Margolis. Very informative.

    • I don’t wonder at all. 🙂 American Raj, Confessions of an Economic Hitman, etc. This goes back to my original point, however. In order for us to have the standard of life that we have there are times when we need to act in our own self-interests, and that often means ensuring that governments are US-friendly. Ideally, we’d want those to be win-win situations, but both life and nature doesn’t always work that way. The fact that we demand iPads under $1,500 means that ultimately we must care less about a third-world country’s wages than a third-world country government or citizenry does. Same with oil.

      I’m not saying I enjoy this or don’t feel like a lot of times what we’re doing is “sinful”, but life’s also about tough choices. It’s not like if we didn’t prop up a government in Afghanistan that they wouldn’t be in bed with someone else. They’d be in tight with the Russians, or the French, just as Hussein was behind the UN’s back during “Oil for Food” (ironically, back-door dealing with members of the UNSC itself.) If these countries have to be in bed with somebody, I say it should be our government and our companies because we’re simply the best and most humane choice out there amongst the rest, and our own self-interests get served as well.

      Do we think Sudan’s getting a great deal under China’s “rule”? Do we think the Russians would be treating the Afghan people any better? Or quite frankly, how about the Afghans or Iraqis under their own rule? They’re still throwing acid in kids’ faces and chopping off peoples’ heads in the streets. They were third-world before we ever got there for a reason and they’ve all shown they don’t do very well with self-governance. Sure, big corporate greed and ugly politics show the darker side of humanity and exploit this, but if that’s always going to be there, then I think our “darker side” is far better than any other country’s “good side” on most days. Eventually I imagine these guys could run their own countries without us or another super-power’s “help” (i.e. help on the one hand, exploitation on the other), but life’s too short. Do you really want to be spending $10 a gallon while some backwards-ass country spends the next 300 years bringing itself out of the dark ages?

      We could be better in a lot of ways as a government, but we also could be better as people first. I think the military, government, etc. make easy targets for people as projections of our own guilt over that fact when on the one hand we love our cheap oil and LCD TV’s, and on the other, we see others get screwed because of it.

      • Moe said:

        Vern – I just hate it when you go all rational on me. You speak to the hard truths. I speak to the soft ones. I think we both speak some truth.

      • We could be better in a lot of ways as a government, but we also could be better as people first. I think the military, government, etc. make easy targets for people as projections of our own guilt over that fact when on the one hand we love our cheap oil and LCD TV’s, and on the other, we see others get screwed because of it.(vern)

        You hit the nail on the head. You do know why we prop up certain leaders is because they can do what our laws dont allow us to do. That is why places like Guatanamo are not on American soil.

      • pino said:

        You hit the nail on the head.

        Before our factories were opened in China, hundreds of millions of people were living in bone crushing poverty. As had their ancestors for generations; hundreds of years. There was no hope that tomorrow’s generation would have it any better.

        Then came our factories.

        And for the first time in the history of time, the kids of peasant farmers earned money. Enough money to do things that no one could have dreamed of before.

        Imagine if we discovered Atlantis. And the Atlantisians were far more advanced than we were. And they offered us jobs that paid $500,000 a year. In an office that served breakfast at your desk and lunch in an atrium complete with a choir of golden harpers. Doctors and dentists on site; child care too. AND you only had to work fo 30 hours per week. Fridays – ? Free massage.

        Then imagine some fool Leftist organization in Atlantis objected to these working conditions. After all, in Atlantis, they only work 20 hours per week. They make $900,000 per year. They’re picked up in limos from their homes and have personal medical attendants at their beck and call. Why, the life of the typical Atlantisian is far and away better off than the exploitative conditions that they are forcing us normal humans to work under. Imagine if those Leftists actually got their way and forced Atlantis to stop hiring us.

        If it were me; I’d kindly tell those Leftists to leave me the hell alone. I can decide if I wanna work t what ever compensation I’m able to get.

        You do know why we prop up certain leaders is because they can do what our laws dont allow us to do.

        If the propping up of those governments is an issue, we could solve the problem by changing our laws. It doesn’t seem that the current set of laws is stopping us from doing what every single one of us knows has to happen.

      • Vern – I just hate it when you go all rational on me. You speak to the hard truths. I speak to the soft ones. I think we both speak some truth.”
        Haha! I can do that sometimes. 🙂 I always appreciate your truths, Moe! I don’t know if I’m “right”, I just don’t think we’re as much of the enemy as some people (not necessarily you, or anyone here) make us out to be, especially when compared to terrorists. I don’t believe we’re as much to blame for terrorist actions as some people like to think.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: