jcd11235

Your theory that the claims are made as propaganda is not reasonable. Too many of those making claims of torture being ineffective are making those claims due to their dismay of the use of torture by the US and their contractors. Yes, due strictly to your semantics based counter arguments. Have you any links to support that assertion? I've never seen any evidence of that being true. If you're so confident, I'm sure you can search the internet to find experienced interrogators with numerous success stories of obtaining reliable information under torture. In light of the numerous links to credible sources regarding the effectiveness of different interrogation methods thus far presented in this thread, why haven't you produced them already? There might be a pin cushion in a mechanic's toolbox, but that doesn't make it useful for anything. The experts disagree with you. What makes you think you know more about interrogation than those who have many years of experience. But those methods have a high success rate (Up to 90%, according to one of the sources). Why would we abandon them simply because the success rate is not 100%? I haven't been keeping track, but I'm sure it has occurred many, many times. That in no way means that torture would work in such cases. Have you not read any of the links that have been thus far provided? Here's a few from nerdgirl's posts (reposted w/o her permission): … torture -- by hands American or foreign -- is rarely ever useful or necessary. …despite the complexities and difficulties of dealing with an enemy from such a hostile and alien culture, some American interrogators consistently managed to extract useful information from prisoners. The successful interrogators all had one thing in common in the way they approached their subject. They were nice to them. The torture of suspects [at Abu Ghraib] did not lead to any useful intelligence information being extracted … The abusers couldn't even use the old 'ends justify the means' argument, because in the end there was nothing to show but a tremendous propaganda defeat for the United States. … the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. If you are looking for a source that clearly states "Of x interrogations that did not involve torture, y resulted in obtaining accurate information from the detainee. Of n interrogations that involved torture, z resulted in obtaining accurate information from the detainee.", good luck finding it. I seriously doubt such a document exists, regardless of its conclusions. The closest you are likely to come is the US Army Field Manual, quoted above, as its conclusions are most likely based on statistical evidence. On the other hand, if you examine the opinions of experienced, professional interrogators, their informed opinions appear to consistently favor humane treatment as the overwhelmingly more effective method. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Yes. The question is, by what metrics do we define that contraction? Do we use nominal growth or real growth? It's quite possible for the former to be positive while the latter is negative. At the end of the day, from the consumers' perspective, only the real growth matters. That's what affects the thickness of their wallets and the balance of their bank accounts. It's not uncommon for a recession to be over before it is ever officially recognized. It matters very little what the official definition is. If the people generally find their incomes to less purchasing power, official recession or not, the effects are the same. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

What does the price of oil have to do with it? We broke it, it's our responsibility to make amends. If I were to be convicted of vandalizing an Apple store, should I excused from paying for the damages due to Apple experiencing increasing profits? Is Ambassador Crocker insinuating that rising fuel costs are a direct result of the US led invasion of Iraq? Is there any reason to believe that fuel prices would not have increased had our CinC not made the ill-advised decision to invade the country? I don't think they should be responsible for anything beyond their previous expenses (those incurred at a rate equivalent to Saddam's government). We broke it, we bought it. As a US taxpayer, I don't like that. However, we chose to invade. Innocent civilian lives were lost, and infrastructure was destroyed. We caused the lack of security. We caused the destabilization. We necessitated the transition costs. We need to be responsible for our actions. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I've walked on water many times, usually when it is really freakin' cold outside. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Oh, c'mon, Doc. If we can't argue about religion on the internet does life even have a purpose any longer? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Well, that's ok...it puts me in line with other military "failures", like George S. Patton and Norman Schwartzkopf. I see little similarity in your proposed strategies and those implemented by either Gen. Patton or Gen. Schwartzkopf. Specifically, Nuclear bombs were not dropped on Iraq during Desert Storm, and POW's were treated humanely. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Atheism is not a religion. Why is that so difficult for so many people to comprehend? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

This is a great example of imprecise usage of the term evidence. Here is an example of imprecise usage of reason and logic. Incorrect. Belief, in and of itself, does not make something true. Just because someone believes in an absolute truth, that does not mean someone who doesn't hold a similar belief is wrong. Before that conclusion could be logically and reasonably reached, it must first be demonstrated that there actually is an absolute truth. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's not something I'm inclined to share on an internet forum. I'm not seeking approval, validation, or to recruit other people to believe as I do. My beliefs are between me and, for lack of a better word, God. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Of course it didn't, because it wasn't addressed at you. It was a snide comment because he implied that those who disagreed with him were wrong, yet no credible evidence of the existence of a supernatural deity has been offered, so for Christians to claim atheists are wrong is wholly without merit. I suspect the holier than though types will disagree, as usual. The losing side of the debate was meant generally. This is by no means the first time that a Christian has claimed evidence of the truth of their faith, been called on it, and been unable to come up with any. In this particular case, the debate was lost long before the snide comment was made. Interesting that you should consider smug those who base their conclusions on observable evidence and well documented history rather than a piece of literature written 1800+ years ago. Sounds like a very reasonable standard to me (them, not you). Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I would start here, and decide what features you need, what features you might want, and what features would be a waste of your hard earned cash. I personally know very little about them. One thing I would look for is high resolution, since I loathe pixelated images. Of course, your intended use is also an important consideration. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Largely because I agree with the points they are making. Perhaps they could use a bit more tact when making them, but there is certainly value to the substance of their message. Incidentally, I'm not an atheist; I simply don't believe in deities or intervening supernatural powers. My assumption was that you are. Sure you are. You're unique, just like 6.2 billion other people on this planet. That's a good thing. It's great that you found something that you feel gives your life meaning. It really is. What I get bothered by, and I'm sure the same thing bothers many atheists, is the active sharing. Christianity is not a mystery to me. I've been exposed to it all my life. If it provides sufficient answers to your questions, that's great; I'm happy for you. It doesn't provide sufficient answers to mine. Maybe what is sufficient for you is not sufficient for me, or maybe we are simply seeking answers to different questions. Either way, Christianity does not offer the Truth I seek. That doesn't make me any better or worse than a Christian any more than the Pope is any better or worse than the Dalai Lama. Were you aware that Eastern religions have their own version of the golden rule? It's very similar to the Christian version, but the subtle difference is of the utmost importance. Do not do unto others what you would not want them to do unto you. I typically do not share my beliefs with Christians because I don't want them to share their beliefs with me. I don't know if you read the metaphor I previously posted in this or the other atheist thread. I intentionally left off part of it. I'll repeat full version here: Religion is like a mountain. There are many paths up the mountain, but they all reach the same summit. When we find ourselves trying to convince others that our path is the best path, that indicates we've left our path and are no longer ascending towards the summit. Jesus said: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. (Matthew 6:5-6) For those who don't believe, but want to, when the time is right for them, they will see your happiness and seek from you the secrets to that happiness. You believe in the divine power of your Lord; I'm certain that you can understand that when that time comes, he will make you, or someone like you, available to help those particular persons in need. If everything has a purpose and is a creation of a Divine Creator, then it is not unreasonable to believe that the Monte Carlo Method is not necessary in order to put you in touch with those in need of your help. When they are ready for your help, your paths will cross and they will let you know of their need. Sometimes it can be very difficult indeed. That is one of the reasons that we should be careful to use words precisely, especially words that many people hold dear and take to heart, words like evidence and proof, among many others. Because I do not believe in any deities, most Christians would consider me an atheist. That doesn't bother me much, as I have great respect for many atheists. What does bother me is when atheists are told that they are wrong because they do not place their faith in a particular god or deity. There is no justification for such accusations, except for the accusers to be seen by others in their worship. A true Christian would be wrong to make such accusations. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It is because of snide comments like these that many Christians find themselves at the losing end of intellectual debates about religion. If they dropped the holier than thou attitude they would find that most atheists are passive in their non-belief. They don't care that someone is a Christian. But when some Christians take it upon themselves to point out how Christianity is right, and everything non-Christian is wrong, they open themselves up to justified criticisms. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

"That'd be the government, Bob" Fed.gov received twice the amount of money in gas taxes that those EEEEVIL oil companies did in profits. http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1139.html You are confusing revenue with profit. How large was the government's budget surplus last year? How large is it anticipated to be this year? FYI, those gas taxes go primarily to build and maintain roads. It's not as though tax revenue just goes into the personal bank accounts of Congressmen. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's because you keep snipping the relevance away when your point is countered or answering a question would expose the inconsistency of your logic. It's clear from your views that you are not "as humane as the next guy". It's unfortunate that you do not understand military leadership and strategy with such a history. Yes, I agree. Victory should come quickly and with a minimal loss of life on either side. Here's where your strategy goes wrong. That would be a very bad idea, unless the goal is to motivate the rest of the world the rise up and extinguish us. Personally I don't find that to be a desirable political end state. We could drop a fey nukes on NYC to take care of their jaywalking problem, too, huh? Your strategy is not only doomed to failure, but also demonstrates extreme naivety about the world in general. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I've never seen it. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I generally am not a big fan of perfect grammar and certainly don't follow all the rules in an informal setting. (I do despise terrible grammar by native speakers, but I usually give a lot of slack to people who speak and write English as a second language.) In fact, I've actively resisted learning formal rules since about the seventh grade. However, on rare occasions, just to prove to myself that I still can … Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

"I've been kicked off better dropzones than this." – more than a few skydivers Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I agree that some medians are an un-utilized growing space for biofuel production, especially for grasses to produce cellulose. I also think there should be an easy way to efficiently obtain and process lawn clippings for ethanol production. I don't think either action would make a big dent in the growing demand for biofuel crops, but both could contribute, provided marginal cost could be kept sufficiently low. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I love how you've chosen to not quote the relevant parts of my post so that you can completely misrepresent what I've written. It's even funnier how you accuse me of ignoring what you say, despite the fact that I addressed each of your points directly, with the relevant parts of your post quoted for context. Classic. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It's bad form to tell people how to respond, especially when you do so without using proper markup. So why are you arguing so vehemently with those who also claim the opposite? Actually, if you reread the previous posts and links, particularly those posted by nerdgirl, you will find at least to sources claiming or logically implying that torture has yielded no useful information. Gen. Powell also didn't mention in his letter to McCain that the food in the White House is better than MRE's. Does that mean that MRE's are actually better than food served in the White House? That's the same logical process you have used. You've come to an illogical conclusion. The statistical evidence favors humane treatment. Some with experience claim no useful information has been obtained via torture. In lieu of a laboratory test in controlled conditions, we have to rely on the statistics. I guess I'm going to have to ask you to clearly state your point. (That would be an appropriate use of bold type) Every time your apparent point is countered, you seem to claim that that wasn't your point. Why would we go from the more effective method to a lesser effective method, especially when the lesser effective method is illegal? As an aside, I recognize that some of our troops and/or agents have utilized torture, and I hope that they eventually stand before an international court for their crimes. Easy enough: Given: A = B Therefore when A != B, some A = C is not a logical conclusion. (Hint: A represents successful interrogation methods; B represents humane interrogation techniques, and C represents torture.) I didn't say that. However, those with experience have claimed there is little to no value in torture. To paraphrase Gen. Moran, all of his interrogators that obtained useful information did so by being nice. I cannot say that torture has never provided useful information. What I can say is that, based on the evidence we have, the likelihood of success via torture is too low to make it a viable option, especially since it violates international law. It's like playing Lotto to ensure you retire wealthy. The probability of success are non-zero, but so close to zero as to be dismissed as zero. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Are you referring to the use of the Oxford comma in sentence ten? It's correct either way, but in that case, the comma helps clarify the sentence. However, sentences 3, 4, 6, and 10 are sentence fragments. Sometimes you do. If the sentence contains two or more independent clauses, then they should be separated by a comma and a coordinating conjunction. Example: Packing is fairly easy, but it can be frustrating to learn. Commas can also be used following the next to last item in a list. Example: The colors of his canopy are green, red, and yellow. In this case, the last comma in the sentence is sometimes referred to as an Oxford comma and is sometimes not used. There is valid reasoning for both methods, but writers should be consistent. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

iPod Shuffle If you get something else, I would highly recommend that you get something that plays AAC (Advanced Audio Codec) files in addition to MP3 files. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I just checked, and my student ID is sufficient for purposes of voting. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I will assume from your continued avoidance of answering the question that you agree that, by your standards, US civilians are legitimate targets for our enemies. Highly unlikely. Quite the opposite is far more probable. Sun Tzu's strategies and tactics are largely timeless. Certainly today's equipment is different from in his time, but he doesn't focus on equipment and equipment related strategy. He focuses on confronting an enemy and accomplishing a mission as quickly and for the lowest cost possible, with the best possible political end state. Those goals have not changed even today. See this Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing as an example of views of general and staff officers: STRENGTHENING NATIONAL SECURITY THROUGH SMART POWER– A MILITARY PERSPECTIVE. (note that the hearing begins at the 18:00 mark) Witnesses Gen. Anthony Zinni, USMC (Ret.) and Admiral Leighton W. Smith, Jr., USN (Ret.) represent a group of 52 generals and admirals. The views they present are quite consistent with the teachings of Sun Tzu. They are also essentially opposite of your views. I am quite certain they are far more competent than you on the topics of military leadership and the War On Terror, so I'm inclined to dismiss your proposals as ineffective and based on ignorance (i.e. lack of knowledge and understanding) of military matters. It is naive to believe that the performance of general officer commanders are judged only subjectively. Was the mission accomplished? At what cost was it accomplished, both in terms of money and resources, as well as in terms of lives lost? Was the political end state that which was desired? How long did it take? These are largely, albeit not totally, quantifiable metrics. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!