In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
re: a couple posts up Because of stupid legislative policies; and people allowing things to be inserted when they aren't relevant to the larger bill. I'd be in favor of changing the rules so that can't be done; and make things be separated when they don't have any need to be together. One of quite a number of process changes I'd push for if I were in congress.
I agree on giving back most of DC to the states (iirc it was Maryland AND Virginia) DC was never supposed to have a significant population, it was just meant to be where the government itself was, so it wasn't in a state. There's really no need for most of it to be in federal lands when it's people's residences and generic businesses..
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) described the tactics used by CIA post-9/11 as "torture" during a Wednesday speech.
Breitbart's Charlie Spiering asked Cruz about the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture.
"Do you think that what occurred after 9/11 hurt our moral authority?" Spiering asked.
Cruz reponded by criticizing the release of the report as political and condemning the harsh interrogation tactics CIA agents used on detainees.
"We saw the release of a partisan report from Democrats in the Senate, 6000 pages, that presented a biased view of what our intelligence officers did in the aftermath of 9/11. And that weakened our nation. It endangered Americans across the globe and the risk of retaliation of violence is real," Cruz said after a Heritage Foundation speech.
"But even more broadly it demonstrates an approach that has characterized this administration for 6 years, which is everything, everything, everything is George W. Bush’s fault. Enough already with blaming George W. Bush for every failure of this administration," he continued.
But then Cruz clarified that he does not support the tactics used by the CIA described in the report.
"And let me be clear, torture is wrong, unambiguously. Period. The end. Civilized nations do not engage in torture and Congress has rightly acted to make absolutely clear that the United States will not engage in torture," he said.
Breaking: House has delayed the vote on the Omnibus Bill. Boehner does not have the votes Republican or Democrat to get it passed, this is after the Senate barely managed to pass it.
I'm amazed, and frankly scared over the speed at which this discussion has changed. All this talk about the usefulness of the information or how saying it out loud weakens your nation. You intelligence organization tortured people, lied about it and is now trying to defend it.
Hello?
Do you not understand how big of a deal that is?
As I said before, how do you know that right now there is no someone being tortures by the CIA somewhere in the world? It seems they already lied once to a president about what they did, they already lied, hacked and undermines a committee investigating them. Can you honestly say with reasonable certainty that this isn't still happening?
That should be obvious. Even the article Danglars links provides no real evidence, only a bald assertion that "torture works sometimes." Of course all the evidence is classified. Of course. We are just supposed to trust the torturers.
I don't know if you actually care if it works or not, whether or not that would change your opinion. For a lot of the people I talk to, it's a moral and legal argument for no and never. I think the Senate democrat hatchet job is testimony itself that they're scared to let the full story out--otherwise they'd have invited Republicans and interviewed scores of people. Leaders like Nancy Pelosi were briefed on these methods from the get-go (waterboarding in particular), and this is their save-face moment. Right before they lose the majority in the Senate, make a name for themselves and throw the intelligence community under the bus.
If they had cared enough to interview,
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation of terrorists, prepared only by the Democratic majority staff, is a missed opportunity to deliver a serious and balanced study of an important public policy question. The committee has given us instead a one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation—essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America after the 9/11 attacks. [...]
First, its claim that the CIA’s interrogation program was ineffective in producing intelligence that helped us disrupt, capture, or kill terrorists is just not accurate. The program was invaluable in three critical ways:
• It led to the capture of senior al Qaeda operatives, thereby removing them from the battlefield.
• It led to the disruption of terrorist plots and prevented mass casualty attacks, saving American and Allied lives.
• It added enormously to what we knew about al Qaeda as an organization and therefore informed our approaches on how best to attack, thwart and degrade it. [...]
The removal of these senior al Qaeda operatives saved thousands of lives because it ended their plotting. KSM, alone, was working on multiple plots when he was captured.
Here’s an example of how the interrogation program actually worked to disrupt terrorist plotting. Without revealing to KSM that Hambali had been captured, we asked him who might take over in the event that Hambali was no longer around. KSM pointed to Hambali’s brother Rusman Gunawan. We then found Gunawan, and information from him resulted in the takedown of a 17-member Southeast Asian cell that Gunawan had recruited for a “second wave,” 9/11-style attack on the U.S. West Coast, in all likelihood using aircraft again to attack buildings. Had that attack occurred, the nightmare of 9/11 would have been repeated.
Read the link to see the whole post and who collaborated on writing it. It saved thousands of American lives and prevented another attack. In the interests of historical accuracy, read into what was done with spies and false-uniform enemies in WW2, and spies and deserters in the civil war. I hear the calls for a new kind of warfare, but let's not forget how brutal war is and how many American soldiers are counting on intelligence that hardened Al-Qaeda terrorists won't willingly give up.
Saying it saved any lives is conjecture and pretty poor one that you(and the article) make. "Had the attack occured" is pretty poor argument. Had I had a billion dollars ...
Though as you note efficacy of torture is quite irrelevant for a lot of people in this circumstance. Fighting inefficient terrorist groups is not a reason to resort to torture, they are not a threat of any significant magnitude. Taboo on torture has more benefits for society than any benefits the torture can bring in current circumstances.
Fair point I think, but it's pretty hard to gauge the usefulness of our intelligence gathering when a big portion of it was to prevent attacks. If it succeeds and stops attacks then your point can be made and if it fails and doesn't find any info about attacks your point can be made as well. How are we really supposed to judge the effectiveness of defensive intelligence gathering?
Homer: The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm. Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Thank you, honey. Lisa: By your logic, I could claim this rock keeps tigers away. Homer: Oh, how does it work? Lisa: It doesn't work. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: It's just a stupid rock. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around here, do you? Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
Now replace Homer with Republicans defending the CIA torture, Lisa with the psychiatrists and rock with deep anal fisting.
Just realized that Democrats and Conservatives are aligned to oppose this bill. The Left against gutting of Financial Reform, the Right by acceptation of amnesty. Add tot eh fact that the White House is behind Boehner in support of the bill that makes every GOP who votes in favor voting for Obama. Then there are the Blue Dogs and Moderates that lost and will be replaced by Far Right Conservatives. Who won't support any of this when they arrive in DC.
That should be obvious. Even the article Danglars links provides no real evidence, only a bald assertion that "torture works sometimes." Of course all the evidence is classified. Of course. We are just supposed to trust the torturers.
I don't know if you actually care if it works or not, whether or not that would change your opinion. For a lot of the people I talk to, it's a moral and legal argument for no and never. I think the Senate democrat hatchet job is testimony itself that they're scared to let the full story out--otherwise they'd have invited Republicans and interviewed scores of people. Leaders like Nancy Pelosi were briefed on these methods from the get-go (waterboarding in particular), and this is their save-face moment. Right before they lose the majority in the Senate, make a name for themselves and throw the intelligence community under the bus.
If they had cared enough to interview,
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation of terrorists, prepared only by the Democratic majority staff, is a missed opportunity to deliver a serious and balanced study of an important public policy question. The committee has given us instead a one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation—essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America after the 9/11 attacks. [...]
First, its claim that the CIA’s interrogation program was ineffective in producing intelligence that helped us disrupt, capture, or kill terrorists is just not accurate. The program was invaluable in three critical ways:
• It led to the capture of senior al Qaeda operatives, thereby removing them from the battlefield.
• It led to the disruption of terrorist plots and prevented mass casualty attacks, saving American and Allied lives.
• It added enormously to what we knew about al Qaeda as an organization and therefore informed our approaches on how best to attack, thwart and degrade it. [...]
The removal of these senior al Qaeda operatives saved thousands of lives because it ended their plotting. KSM, alone, was working on multiple plots when he was captured.
Here’s an example of how the interrogation program actually worked to disrupt terrorist plotting. Without revealing to KSM that Hambali had been captured, we asked him who might take over in the event that Hambali was no longer around. KSM pointed to Hambali’s brother Rusman Gunawan. We then found Gunawan, and information from him resulted in the takedown of a 17-member Southeast Asian cell that Gunawan had recruited for a “second wave,” 9/11-style attack on the U.S. West Coast, in all likelihood using aircraft again to attack buildings. Had that attack occurred, the nightmare of 9/11 would have been repeated.
Read the link to see the whole post and who collaborated on writing it. It saved thousands of American lives and prevented another attack. In the interests of historical accuracy, read into what was done with spies and false-uniform enemies in WW2, and spies and deserters in the civil war. I hear the calls for a new kind of warfare, but let's not forget how brutal war is and how many American soldiers are counting on intelligence that hardened Al-Qaeda terrorists won't willingly give up.
Saying it saved any lives is conjecture and pretty poor one that you(and the article) make. "Had the attack occured" is pretty poor argument. Had I had a billion dollars ...
Though as you note efficacy of torture is quite irrelevant for a lot of people in this circumstance. Fighting inefficient terrorist groups is not a reason to resort to torture, they are not a threat of any significant magnitude. Taboo on torture has more benefits for society than any benefits the torture can bring in current circumstances.
Fair point I think, but it's pretty hard to gauge the usefulness of our intelligence gathering when a big portion of it was to prevent attacks. If it succeeds and stops attacks then your point can be made and if it fails and doesn't find any info about attacks your point can be made as well. How are we really supposed to judge the effectiveness of defensive intelligence gathering?
Homer: The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm. Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Thank you, honey. Lisa: By your logic, I could claim this rock keeps tigers away. Homer: Oh, how does it work? Lisa: It doesn't work. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: It's just a stupid rock. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around here, do you? Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
Now replace Homer with Republicans defending the CIA torture, Lisa with the psychiatrists and rock with deep anal fisting.
This response is better and more appropriate than any I could have possibly imagined.
I find it sad that the argumentation revolves around the utility of torture in the first place. How about the argument that for a country that holds itself to higher standards than say, Iran or North Korea, torture might be off table on principle?. Because how you treat your enemies is pretty much one of the things that distinguishes the good guys from the bad guys?
On December 12 2014 05:55 Nyxisto wrote: I find it sad that the argumentation revolves around the utility of torture in the first place. How about the argument that for a country that holds itself to higher standards than say, Iran or North Korea, torture might be off table on principle?. Because how you treat your enemies is pretty much one of the things that distinguishes the good guys from the bad guys?
Not really. If the enemy treated capture soldiers nicely we'd still consider them the enemy. Perhaps there'd be some mutual respect, but who is good and who is bad is all in relation to your allegiances, not to morals.
That's just useless moral relativism.On what basis do you form allegiances if not on what you consider to be just or unjust? If you think torture is no problem you can as well stop fighting terrorists because there's not much difference ideologically anyway.
"But even more broadly it demonstrates an approach that has characterized this administration for 6 years, which is everything, everything, everything is George W. Bush’s fault. Enough already with blaming George W. Bush for every failure of this administration,"
Seriously... Like he's not making a joke there? I don't know if there was video but he can't actually be serious with that?
That should be obvious. Even the article Danglars links provides no real evidence, only a bald assertion that "torture works sometimes." Of course all the evidence is classified. Of course. We are just supposed to trust the torturers.
I don't know if you actually care if it works or not, whether or not that would change your opinion. For a lot of the people I talk to, it's a moral and legal argument for no and never. I think the Senate democrat hatchet job is testimony itself that they're scared to let the full story out--otherwise they'd have invited Republicans and interviewed scores of people. Leaders like Nancy Pelosi were briefed on these methods from the get-go (waterboarding in particular), and this is their save-face moment. Right before they lose the majority in the Senate, make a name for themselves and throw the intelligence community under the bus.
If they had cared enough to interview,
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation of terrorists, prepared only by the Democratic majority staff, is a missed opportunity to deliver a serious and balanced study of an important public policy question. The committee has given us instead a one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation—essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America after the 9/11 attacks. [...]
First, its claim that the CIA’s interrogation program was ineffective in producing intelligence that helped us disrupt, capture, or kill terrorists is just not accurate. The program was invaluable in three critical ways:
• It led to the capture of senior al Qaeda operatives, thereby removing them from the battlefield.
• It led to the disruption of terrorist plots and prevented mass casualty attacks, saving American and Allied lives.
• It added enormously to what we knew about al Qaeda as an organization and therefore informed our approaches on how best to attack, thwart and degrade it. [...]
The removal of these senior al Qaeda operatives saved thousands of lives because it ended their plotting. KSM, alone, was working on multiple plots when he was captured.
Here’s an example of how the interrogation program actually worked to disrupt terrorist plotting. Without revealing to KSM that Hambali had been captured, we asked him who might take over in the event that Hambali was no longer around. KSM pointed to Hambali’s brother Rusman Gunawan. We then found Gunawan, and information from him resulted in the takedown of a 17-member Southeast Asian cell that Gunawan had recruited for a “second wave,” 9/11-style attack on the U.S. West Coast, in all likelihood using aircraft again to attack buildings. Had that attack occurred, the nightmare of 9/11 would have been repeated.
Read the link to see the whole post and who collaborated on writing it. It saved thousands of American lives and prevented another attack. In the interests of historical accuracy, read into what was done with spies and false-uniform enemies in WW2, and spies and deserters in the civil war. I hear the calls for a new kind of warfare, but let's not forget how brutal war is and how many American soldiers are counting on intelligence that hardened Al-Qaeda terrorists won't willingly give up.
Much of the discourse in the media since the announcement of the report's release has been about whether torture is effective, that is whether it produced accurate and actionable information. But it's simply a shouting match of, "yes it is" and "no it isn't," with much of the "yes it is" coming from people who are highly invested in finding a rationalization for the abuses that have occurred in the last 12 years.
Those bullet points are completely unsubstantiated. In a court room they would be labeled hearsay and inadmissible. Unless the CIA is willing to point to specific torture victims and the specific information they yielded upon the use of torture, the argument is completely moot. So far, even the page you linked which you claim provides evidence of torture's efficacy, is nothing but an unsubstantiated assertion from those whose reputation, and conscience, depends on the seemingly manufactured justification they are offering.
Another important factor to consider, which has not been discussed much at all, is how much torture yields nothing, or worse, false actionable information. Even if there is a kernel of truth to the assertions that KSM was found through torture (leaving aside for the moment whether he would have been found without the use of torture) how many people were tortured before one provided an accurate piece of information that led to KSM? Without these details efficacy can't really be evaluated.
Don't lead with the ad hominem, it doesn't suit you. If you want to talk about CIA torture and not interview a single agent or agency head, then that's you sitting with your head in the sand. You claim investment in rationalization to back up singing la-la-la over their every word. If Senate democrats actually wanted truth and not a hatchet piece, they could've invited republicans and conducted interviews instead of selectively releasing communiques.
I welcome a thorough report to justify the bullet points--simply because political points are all people are interested in right now. Feinsteins scored some points at the intelligence communities expense.
I hope we get a real look at the total actionable information in the years following 9/11 that was gleaned by interrogators using water boarding (and the others listed). Disruption of active terror plots and cells is pretty damn interesting information. If Republicans act diligently, we could be looking at details on methods used and plots dismantled and disrupted, and high profile terrorists found and captured or killed. Right now all we got is political theatre and showing a tree without the forest. So yes, let's see how often nothing was yielded using which techniques and have the testimony of the people doing the interrogations.
That should be obvious. Even the article Danglars links provides no real evidence, only a bald assertion that "torture works sometimes." Of course all the evidence is classified. Of course. We are just supposed to trust the torturers.
I don't know if you actually care if it works or not, whether or not that would change your opinion. For a lot of the people I talk to, it's a moral and legal argument for no and never. I think the Senate democrat hatchet job is testimony itself that they're scared to let the full story out--otherwise they'd have invited Republicans and interviewed scores of people. Leaders like Nancy Pelosi were briefed on these methods from the get-go (waterboarding in particular), and this is their save-face moment. Right before they lose the majority in the Senate, make a name for themselves and throw the intelligence community under the bus.
If they had cared enough to interview,
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation of terrorists, prepared only by the Democratic majority staff, is a missed opportunity to deliver a serious and balanced study of an important public policy question. The committee has given us instead a one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation—essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America after the 9/11 attacks. [...]
First, its claim that the CIA’s interrogation program was ineffective in producing intelligence that helped us disrupt, capture, or kill terrorists is just not accurate. The program was invaluable in three critical ways:
• It led to the capture of senior al Qaeda operatives, thereby removing them from the battlefield.
• It led to the disruption of terrorist plots and prevented mass casualty attacks, saving American and Allied lives.
• It added enormously to what we knew about al Qaeda as an organization and therefore informed our approaches on how best to attack, thwart and degrade it. [...]
The removal of these senior al Qaeda operatives saved thousands of lives because it ended their plotting. KSM, alone, was working on multiple plots when he was captured.
Here’s an example of how the interrogation program actually worked to disrupt terrorist plotting. Without revealing to KSM that Hambali had been captured, we asked him who might take over in the event that Hambali was no longer around. KSM pointed to Hambali’s brother Rusman Gunawan. We then found Gunawan, and information from him resulted in the takedown of a 17-member Southeast Asian cell that Gunawan had recruited for a “second wave,” 9/11-style attack on the U.S. West Coast, in all likelihood using aircraft again to attack buildings. Had that attack occurred, the nightmare of 9/11 would have been repeated.
Read the link to see the whole post and who collaborated on writing it. It saved thousands of American lives and prevented another attack. In the interests of historical accuracy, read into what was done with spies and false-uniform enemies in WW2, and spies and deserters in the civil war. I hear the calls for a new kind of warfare, but let's not forget how brutal war is and how many American soldiers are counting on intelligence that hardened Al-Qaeda terrorists won't willingly give up.
Much of the discourse in the media since the announcement of the report's release has been about whether torture is effective, that is whether it produced accurate and actionable information. But it's simply a shouting match of, "yes it is" and "no it isn't," with much of the "yes it is" coming from people who are highly invested in finding a rationalization for the abuses that have occurred in the last 12 years.
Those bullet points are completely unsubstantiated. In a court room they would be labeled hearsay and inadmissible. Unless the CIA is willing to point to specific torture victims and the specific information they yielded upon the use of torture, the argument is completely moot. So far, even the page you linked which you claim provides evidence of torture's efficacy, is nothing but an unsubstantiated assertion from those whose reputation, and conscience, depends on the seemingly manufactured justification they are offering.
Another important factor to consider, which has not been discussed much at all, is how much torture yields nothing, or worse, false actionable information. Even if there is a kernel of truth to the assertions that KSM was found through torture (leaving aside for the moment whether he would have been found without the use of torture) how many people were tortured before one provided an accurate piece of information that led to KSM? Without these details efficacy can't really be evaluated.
Don't lead with the ad hominem, it doesn't suit you. If you want to talk about CIA torture and not interview a single agent or agency head, then that's you sitting with your head in the sand.
Yes. What would be better than interviewing agents. I guess some kind of paper record of what the agents actually wrote to their bosses back when they werent worried about being on trial or something. But that would insane. Looking up a treasure trove of internal CIA emails and then using the ability known as 'reading' to 'comprehend' what the agents were thinking? MADNESS.
Read the link to see the whole post and who collaborated on writing it. It saved thousands of American lives and prevented another attack. .
Three political hacks who repeatedly applied pressure on CIA field operatives to generate more torture related material, one of whom should be on trial for perjury, as evidenced in the CIA Inspector General's report? But lets read into it a bit more:
The removal of these senior al Qaeda operatives saved thousands of lives because it ended their plotting. KSM, alone, was working on multiple plots when he was captured.
Yep. All a Qaeda related terrorism ended in 2002 when all these gentlemen they enjoyed anally fisting were removed from the battlefield. Bravo.
Hmm a report by political hacks and a response from political hacks. I guess you really just like one group of them a lot more--maybe they send you Christmas cards? In the Bush years there were numerous bipartisan intelligence briefings, and a full investigation would be needed into what was and was not revealed in them. Perhaps you can wrap your mind around how lunatic it is to ask for a fast-paced increase in our knowledge of the men behind these attacks, approve of the methods, and then about-face a few election cycles later to look all righteous in the media. If that was the case, your gripe is with elected representatives that knowlingly approved and consented to interrogation means.
Maybe you can also realize that not every takedown is a guarantee of stopping all of it forever. This isn't a futuristic utopian omnipotent cartoon agency. America's enemies didn't throw in the towel (as I guess you naively thought must be the case in anti-terrorism, from what you just wrote?)
On December 12 2014 05:55 Nyxisto wrote: I find it sad that the argumentation revolves around the utility of torture in the first place. How about the argument that for a country that holds itself to higher standards than say, Iran or North Korea, torture might be off table on principle?. Because how you treat your enemies is pretty much one of the things that distinguishes the good guys from the bad guys?
Enemies that hide amongst the civilian population afford themselves less protections than POWs from warring nations. This is akin to spies and other enemy infiltrators being shot instead of imprisoned and cared for. We had the power to turn large swaths of host countries for terrorists into nuclear dead zones. That didn't happen, not did we respond with beheadings (of course, I gather there are those in this thread that think sleep deprivation and naked conditions is morally equivalent to beheading). It's honestly a very selective comparison saying America is now somehow just as bad morally.
there are undeniable facts in this "report made by partisan hacks"... how can you brush that away like that, with a straight face nonetheless?
the US government ordered torturing and lied about it, and not to look completely bad they lawyered a lot to make torture into EIT.
that you need someone who lived through a very similar kind of hell to tell you that's wrong, from the same party even, says a lot.
not listening to the man a whole different level of wtf. and like really, wtf is going on here. how about some personal responsibility. man up to your fuck up. take the shit. then move on and work towards becoming awesome again.
On December 12 2014 05:55 Nyxisto wrote: I find it sad that the argumentation revolves around the utility of torture in the first place. How about the argument that for a country that holds itself to higher standards than say, Iran or North Korea, torture might be off table on principle?. Because how you treat your enemies is pretty much one of the things that distinguishes the good guys from the bad guys?
Enemies that hide amongst the civilian population afford themselves less protections than POWs from warring nations. This is akin to spies and other enemy infiltrators being shot instead of imprisoned and cared for. We had the power to turn large swaths of host countries for terrorists into nuclear dead zones. That didn't happen, not did we respond with beheadings (of course, I gather there are those in this thread that think sleep deprivation and naked conditions is morally equivalent to beheading). It's honestly a very selective comparison saying America is now somehow just as bad morally.
The point is Western society/civilization originally used to be all about the fact that there is a certain amount of human dignity that every individual possesses and that you do not take away no matter what happens. This is not just romantic nonsense but actually what made our societies work really well. Torture in a way is even worse than beheading, because you're not just killing someone, but you're also degrading them to an unbelievable degree. It's not just America that is guilty of this of course.
On December 12 2014 05:55 Nyxisto wrote: I find it sad that the argumentation revolves around the utility of torture in the first place. How about the argument that for a country that holds itself to higher standards than say, Iran or North Korea, torture might be off table on principle?. Because how you treat your enemies is pretty much one of the things that distinguishes the good guys from the bad guys?
Enemies that hide amongst the civilian population afford themselves less protections than POWs from warring nations. This is akin to spies and other enemy infiltrators being shot instead of imprisoned and cared for. We had the power to turn large swaths of host countries for terrorists into nuclear dead zones. That didn't happen, not did we respond with beheadings (of course, I gather there are those in this thread that think sleep deprivation and naked conditions is morally equivalent to beheading). It's honestly a very selective comparison saying America is now somehow just as bad morally.
So your argument is that since you did not yet reach middle-ages kind of morality yet, so all is ok ? Took western civilization a lot of lives and suffering to escape that hole, good on US to lead us back to that awesome age back.
And yes people are selective. If you actually counted lives and suffering caused by either entity in international arena, Al Qaeda comes as much lesser evil.
EPT
