Do you agree or disagree with Dr. Carson's response regarding waterboarding techniques in the 1st Republican Debates?

I am glad I can agree with a liberal on this issue. I am a staunch conservative who believes in the separation of church and state. I think Dr Carson is a sincere man and I think he would work hard to make sure everyone keeps their constitutional rights that protect our freedoms. I prefer a person with religious beliefs in charge because the religious view that all people have inalienable human rights cannot exist in a secular world view. If a person charged with protecting our rights doesn't believe in their inalienable source, I don't see how they could make it a priority to protect such rights.

SrA Art Siatkowsky, I am only a social liberal who believes that no one chooses their sexual orientation or to be transgender. I know this because I had a gay brother (he commited suicide because of it), I have a gay sister (she is an ordained minister who was scared half to death when she realized she was gay) and a gay son. My son says that if there was a pill he could take to be straight he would be first in line...
As for my political affiliation, I am a very conservative republican. I am also spiritual with a strong sense of right and wrong and good and evil. I just find organized religion to be intolerable of other religions and the cause of too many wars and atrocities in the name of God.

COL Ted Mc
Fair enough Sir,
However, what Dr. Carson is saying is that there is no way to have a politically correct war (and win) and therefore we should be trying to stay out of war in the first place. However, if we are going to go to war, the intent is to kill the enemy, and bureaucratic red tape just makes that task more difficult, and so the President should instead give the mission and allow the military to do their job, rather than sideline quarterbacking every decision they make. I can't say that I disagree. If we catch Bin Laden's aid, it's our job to find out where Bin Laden is, kill him and save innocent lives. Three hots and a cot aren't going to get that done. IMO.

SPC(P) (Join to see) - Spec; I may be "old school" but I simply don't understand the term "politically correct war". Equally, as ground forces, I can't help but agree that we should stay out of every war we possibly can while still maintaining our ethical standards. [Staying out of WWII simply because the Nazis weren't attacking America directly and didn't have the logistical capacity to do so and thereby watching the rest of the world enslaved (but still making money off selling war materials to everyone in sight) never did strike me as a "Great Idea".]

Executive branch and Legislative branch "micromanaging" of American wars has a long and respectable history in the US and didn't start with Vietnam.

You may be right that "three hots and a cot" aren't going to produce "instant intelligence" but equally torture isn't going to produce anything other that whatever the victim thinks will stop the torture. On top of that, the odds that any information like the specific location of a specific person is going to be valuable after 72 hours are pretty damn slim.

COL Ted Mc
You have good points. I think what he means by politically correct wars, is the idea war needs to be 'fair'. War is war, and if you are going to go, you go all in. I think that is the point that he was driving for. You use the technology you have at your disposal, you use the techniques you have at your disposal when applicable, and you provide the military with the means and ability to finish their job in the quickest, most efficient way possible, or you don't go.

SPC(P) (Join to see) - Anyone who thinks that ANY war is "fair" is so far out of touch with reality as to rank as a positive danger.

I guess that Dr. Carson would not agree that "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you would like to have or the army you will have some day.". On the other hand "going all in" can have a variety of meanings ranging all the way up to "Well, the simple thing to do is to kill every man, woman, child, dog, cat, horse, cow, and pig. That way we are sure of getting ALL of 'the bad guys'.".

This discussion reminded me of the words of an old friend "It has been said that "Officers add 'tone' to warfare.". This is not true. Officers SET THE TONE for warfare. Stupid officers tend to produce stupid warfare. Arrogant officers tend to produce arrogant warfare. Brutal officers tend to produce brutal warfare. Inhumane officers tend to produce inhumane warfare. None of those are desirable outcomes and the only valid pre-battle prayer is "Keep my soldiers safe and give them victory. Give our opponents defeat with honor and dignity.". Should the prayer be granted, then you will not be faced with an implacable foe and be able to live with your conscience. Should the prayer NOT be granted, then you won't be around to worry about it. ".