Would you support any methods of interrogation used by US forces and approved by FDR during WWII to be used today?
Why or why not?
2007-01-05 05:08:07 · 10 answers · asked by American citizen and taxpayer 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
We didn't win the 2nd World War until we decided to get as down and dirty as the enemy. We started winning when we did such things as the carpet bombing of Dresden, and the A-bombs over Nagasaki and Hiroshima. These were not popular moves but they were winning moves. Still today, people criticize the decision to A-bomb Japan, yet a little known fact was that Japan was getting ready to do the same thing to the US.
That's right, The Japanese had a WMD and were planning an attack on the US. The fact that we were a couple of weeks earlier in dropping our bomb, made the difference between success and failure. Had we waited, there was an outside possibility that Japan would have beat us to the punch.
Having said that, I believe that ruthlessness sells. It's expedient, it has the potential of saving lives, it can help us know what our adversaries are up to, hell, we might even discover where the treasure is buried!
2007-01-05 08:39:20 · answer #1 · answered by briang731/ bvincent 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yea, and I also support the fact that we didn't tell everyone what we were doing. Once upon a time, there was such a thing as national security that was everyone's responsibility - including the press. You could be charged with treason for giving away such details.
2007-01-05 13:16:12 · answer #2 · answered by Sloopy 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not exactly sure what you are referring to, but I am sure the US uses many unique methods to interrogate the enemy. They are just not publicized.
2007-01-05 13:11:28 · answer #3 · answered by Chicken Jones 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would support them, because they are harsher than the ones we are allowed to use now...but I could tell you every Liberal would be crying for these scum if it happened...but what most fail to realize that most of the people we capture are considered under the Geneva Convention as Illegal Combatants, which are not covered under the Geneva Convention...
2007-01-05 13:18:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Arabs and Muslims are not people, just like Russians and Japanese once used to not be people. So it is okay not to treat them like people, because they are not people.
Someday Arabs and Muslims will be people again, once we have beaten them into submission... like the Russians and Japanese.
There used to be a saying, the ends do not justify the means.. Well, the days of realpolitik are over, and America now goes by PRINCIPLES, and that principle is, treat people how we need to treat them. As we hurt and humiliate them, their weak spirits will break and they will know that we are better than them, and they will stop hating us, and so will their friends and loved ones.
It isn't wrong if we don't *feel* like it is wrong.
2007-01-05 13:27:22 · answer #5 · answered by romulusnr 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well i agree with sean hannitys views on handling terrorist interrogation. Terrorists are scum we dont have to treat them like people.
2007-01-05 13:13:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes.The information gleaned from these dirtballs has the potential to save lives.
2007-01-05 13:12:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Terrorists should not be given Geneva rights.
2007-01-05 13:15:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
we should use more tortures methods. were to soft on them. i would use more force and punishment and more tortures. back in viet nam, these little critters were as tough as nails. damn them! they laugh in your face.
2007-01-05 13:20:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes
we need the informations
2007-01-05 15:57:27 · answer #10 · answered by Peiper 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋