Disclaimer

..if you are easily offended or don't appreciate the semi-god like versatility of the word "fuck" you may want to stop now.


Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Water Torture and Foreign Policy

DISCLAIMER: My normal disclaimer applies. If you're easily offended by the more colorful side of language be warned that I "color" outside the lines rather dramatically. If you're offended by religious comment, political ranting, creative insulting, wake up with your panties in a bunch, or get wrapped up in language instead of looking at the point you may want to stop now. Additionally, this is the opinion of the author and ONLY the author. It does NOT represent the Marine Corps, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, the U.S. Government or any other official statement. It is simply the opinion of a fairly disgruntled author.


Prior to reading my rant I need you to read two articles:


John McCain hits GOP Hopefuls Over Waterboarding


GOP Field Unveils Disturbing Foreign Policy Platforms

Did you read them? Are you disgusted? Is your mind blown? 


WTF?!?!?! What the fucking fuck is wrong with these people? 


Read this: 
UN Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment of Punishment

Let me point out the most important part of that one, simply: "Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."


I also want to point out that on the bottom of this document it doesn't state when the U.S. signed this document, we did though, on April 18, 1988. So by international fucking law that we signed we are fucking obligated NOT to torture.


Now allow me to explain what these candidates are referring to as "Waterboarding". Before I do that this is what waterboarding AKA Chinese water torture really is. It's when you strap someone down and repetitively drop a single drop of water on their head. The victim cannot move out of the way and this elicits a physiological response due to the psychological distress of the situation. Thanks to Mythbusters you can watch that shit HERE. After watching that if you don't think it's torture I challenge you to do it in a controlled environment just like in the video and see how the fuck you feel. 


Now the waterboarding that the candidates are referring to is actual water torture, not the Chinese derivative but true unadulterated water torture. This is where they strap a person to a board rigged up like a see-saw with say a bath tub at one end. They then lift the persons feet up forcing the head under the water and hold them there until they're basically seizing in their constraints and push the feet down to bring the head out of the water just before actual drowning commences. This is referred to as simulated drowning. You can also achieve this effect by strapping a person down putting their head in a C-collar which is attached to the board and pouring MASS QUANTITIES of water over their face so they can't fucking breathe. Either way the reaction is the body thinks it's drowning and it causes fucking psychological and physiological havoc on the individual. Referring to our UN definition which the U.S. agreed with by signature how is the fuck is that NOT torture?


This method is NOT an "enhanced interrogation technique", it IS torture. If you want to see an excellent example of an enhance interrogation technique watch Criminal Minds Season 2 Episode 10. Yes, I know it's Hollywood but it is a great example. Gideon pulled a Jedi Mind Fuck on this guy by using media as well as his lack of perception of time and found out what was going to happen. This technique takes a lot of work and practice and can be extremely effective. However, it does not produce instant results. It takes time. Water torture will have the Pope swearing he's fucking Jewish in a day. Yeah, it's effective, but you aren't going to get anything worth while out of it.


If you support these Candidates, which by most articles is all of them except Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, you are supporting TORTURE. So you may want to rethink your position.


The bottom line is this. The United States is supposed to set an example for the world. We are supposed to adhere to the laws that we uphold and enforce to the rest of the world. If we reinstate these ILLEGAL practices then we are no better than the people we are punishing for the same thing. This is not a case of "Do as I say, not as I do". This is a case of set the example for others to emulate which is a key point of leadership.


Let's move on to some of their other foreign policy platforms shall we?


China. According to several of these candidates they basically want to rake China over the coals. Think about that for just a second. China owns a gratuitous amount of our national debt. So if we take an extremely hard line on China who is to say that they won't raise the interest rates on said debt? Raise those interest rates too much and we may default on our loans. Anyone paying attention to what's happening in Greece right now and Europe as a whole? People, this could catastrophically affect our economy. You think it's bad now? Holy shit, just imagine if our economy collapsed because of our foreign policy towards China. This is not how we should do business. This China thing is a mess that we got ourselves into and restricts our ability to deal with them to an extent. Basically, we made the bed and now we have to lay in it. When it comes to China, we have to think about the repercussions of our economy. I'm not even going to go into the trade issues and supply and demand scenario's that could blow up either. Just think about where most of our debt is. Seriously.


National Security. Along the lines of the torture issue many republicans think Obama has been weak on National Security. Now keep in mind, I'm not an Obamamaniac. I never drank the Kool-Aid and I'm really hard pressed to be impressed with the majority of his Presidency because I think he's spineless when it comes to dealing with Congress. I digress. Obama has had some success in this venture. Under his leadership we found and killed Osama bin Laden. We've taken out key leaders of terrorist groups. Drone strikes have increased dramatically (although I think that's bad for business). There are numerous things he's done that have increased our National Security so I can't agree with their assessment that he is "weak" in this area. With that being said, he has also violated international law and national laws for that matter. Killing Osama, oops, we kinda said fuck you to Pakistan's national sovereignty. Illegal. Drone strikes in areas that we haven't declared war on. Illegal. Remember that American citizen who was abroad supporting Jihad against America? Obama authorized his assassination without any sort of due process. This is illegal both internationally and nationally. Oops. However, these were risks that he was willing to take in the name of "National Security". Riddle me this. If these candidates think that this is a weak stance on National Security, what do they plan on doing if they are elected? Really? Fucking digest the question. That, my loyal readers, scares the ever living shit out of me. 


Ron Paul's Stance: America did this to Itself. I have news for you. He is absolutely, 100%, undeniably correct in his statements. I have said this numerous times myself. Our past foreign policies have pissed people off. You can only push people so far before they retaliate. And they DID. Please take the time before the elections to read "Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden". This will open your eyes to how our foreign policy affects others. It will also open your eyes to where this Jihadist movement came from and what it's goals are. Taking down America by any means possible includes our economic stability. Look what's happened with two major wars going on at the same time. The money that has been spent on unnecessary military action. The fact that we put ourselves in a position to be attacked. Since 2003 we have not taken the fight to the enemy, we took the target to the terrorist. 


The big one: Iran and Nuclear Weapons. The answer is not bombing. We cannot afford another war. We cannot control every aspect of every country. We should partner with the United Nations and work diplomatically. Will it keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon? It may, it may not. However, sometimes you have accept that you can't stop everything that you don't like. I don't want to see Iran with a nuke, but if it happens we adjust and get them on board with the international treaties. I worry about the proliferation of nuclear weapons because Iran supports Hezbollah and Hamas. The thing you have to remember is what happens to Iran if they use a Nuclear Weapon in any way, shape, or form? There is a good chance the rest of the world will retaliate. There is a chance that Iran will cease to exist if this happens. They know and understand this. Here is the thing you have to consider. The powerhouse in the Middle East is Israel. Since their inception they have been running around the Middle East basically unchecked. They also have Nuclear Weapons. So from Iran's stand point if they also have Nuclear Weapons they could potentially put Israel in check and gain a better position for Lebanon and Palestinians. This isn't rocket science nor is it nuclear science. It's world politics and having a nuclear weapon is an equalizer in many countries eyes. Look at the cold war. The U.S. and the USSR both had nuclear weapons and neither one used them because of the ramifications of doing so. Look at India and Pakistan, they have nukes and it controls the extent of their actions. Iranian leadership may be a little crazy at times but these guys aren't complete idiots. They know if they do become a nuclear power that they've gained some leverage on the world stage but if they literally use that leverage then they'll get hammered. The thing is, beyond the threat of nuclear proliferation many politicians view this as a threat to how well we can influence Middle Eastern affairs. If you're gang in the neighborhood is the only one with guns you'll run the neighborhood. If a rival gang obtains guns, well, the balance of power changes. It is literally as simple as that. But bombing the crap out of Iran won't fix the problem, it'll make it worse.


These are all just my thoughts and opinions. You can agree or disagree with any or all of them. However, as we go through primaries and come up to elections these are extremely important topics that you have to pay attention to and consider. The wrong choice could have catastrophic consequences for our country.


The Senator

2 comments:

  1. "If these candidates think that this is a weak stance on National Security, what do they plan on doing if they are elected? Really? Fucking digest the question. That, my loyal readers, scares the ever living shit out of me. "

    This is pure gold, sir.

    ReplyDelete