closing gitmo....

[manu1959]

ok.....when he closes it.....

what do you do with the prisoners....

are we really going to try them all in us courts......200 people.....

[Little-Acorn]

ok.....when he closes it.....

what do you do with the prisoners....

are we really going to try them all in us courts......200 people.....

We should start by callong the WOT what it is: a war. (Most accurate title I've heard so far, is "The war by terrorists against us".) Then we should declare those people Prisoners of War, and treat them accordingly, as described by the Geneva Convention. This would include:

1.) Keeping them prisoner until hostilities cease.
2.) No torture (we already follow this rule perfectly). Interrogations, including long ones, are OK.
3.) People found engaging in hostile acts against us, without uniforms, will be summarily executed in the field as spies.
4.) People without uniforms found engaging in hostile acts against civilians of either side, will be summarily executed in the field.
5.) People WITH uniforms found engaging in hostile acts against civilians of either side, will be duly tried and punished appropriately.

...plus more as called out in the Geneva Convention.

I'd suggest to the people who oppose us, that they declare allegiance to one or more countries, enlist in that country's armed forces, and put on a uniform. If they don't, points 3 and 4 above, apply.

If the terrorists start wishing they could go back to Gitmo instead, tough luck. They had that chance, and they (and their supporters) blew it.

[5stringJeff]

I agree, we should treat our POWs in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

[Abbey Marie]

I'd suggest to the people who oppose us, that they declare allegiance to one or more countries, enlist in that country's armed forces, and put on a uniform. If they don't, points 3 and 4 above, apply.

Good suggestion, L-A.

[My Winter Storm]

Those who haven't been charged can be set free. Charges should have been laid in the time they have been there. For those who have been chanrged, yes, send them to trial. America arrested them, America locked them up, America can give them all a fair trial.

[Nukeman]

Those who haven't been charged can be set free. Charges should have been laid in the time they have been there. For those who have been chanrged, yes, send them to trial. America arrested them, America locked them up, America can give them all a fair trial.

These individuals really are not "prisoners" they are terrorist!!! They were CAPTURED red handed in the act of inflicting damage, death, and destruction to US soldiers, allies, and equipment. They did not have any distinctive military markings, uniforms, or hiarchy in there command structure. Thus they were not soldiers!!!

For your information the ones that have been set free went back to performing terrorist activities almost immediatley...

So tell me what should we do with individuals that have NO regard for human life, have no problem killing civilians (women and children), these guys are just trash plain and simple and as such they should be properly disposed of.... Given the chance they definitly would not hesitate to put a bullet in your head or for that matter cut it off to prove a point. If all else failed they would just blow up your cafe or schoolbus to make a point as well....

[Gaffer]

Those who haven't been charged can be set free. Charges should have been laid in the time they have been there. For those who have been chanrged, yes, send them to trial. America arrested them, America locked them up, America can give them all a fair trial.

How about they get released and sent to live with you?

[Monkeybone]

How about they get released and sent to live with you?

LOL. i like how you have a side calling for the shut down of Gitmo, yet when asked if they will house them in their states, they act surprised that you would even dream of putting them there in their home state. then where ppl? then where?

if they put them in prinsons, most would have to be in isolation, think what some of the prisoners might do to them if they found out who they were.

[April15]

From the words on this board about California it should be apparent that they belong here!

[PostmodernProphet]

From the words on this board about California it should be apparent that they belong here!

hypocrite!.....you're supposed to be against torture......

[FSUK]

The gitmo is a complex debate, im sure many of the prisoners have commited terror related crimes, however, they should be tried in the countries in which they were captured. It makes no sense sending them to the US for trial. But, tell me how can these people get a fair trial?

[April15]

hypocrite!.....you're supposed to be against torture......Busted! Damn your good!

[Kathianne]

The gitmo is a complex debate, im sure many of the prisoners have commited terror related crimes, however, they should be tried in the countries in which they were captured. It makes no sense sending them to the US for trial. But, tell me how can these people get a fair trial?

With very few exceptions, I think they should be sent back to their countries of origin. We should stop trying to figure out how they'll be treated. Then Gitmo may close.

[FSUK]

With very few exceptions, I think they should be sent back to their countries of origin. We should stop trying to figure out how they'll be treated. Then Gitmo may close.

Yes, i guess that is a good suggestion. Out of curiousity how many prisoners are held at gitmo?

[hjmick]

Out of curiousity how many prisoners are held at gitmo?

According to CNN, about 245. Twenty-one of them have been charged with crimes, and 60 others have been cleared for release, but no country has agreed to take them.

[manu1959]

Yes, i guess that is a good suggestion. Out of curiousity how many prisoners are held at gitmo?

approximately 200 from the reports i have heard.....and no one wants these spies back

[Kathianne]

Yes, i guess that is a good suggestion. Out of curiousity how many prisoners are held at gitmo?

LOL! For most of them, sure death, cool on my take. Glad to know you agree. It's been the hang up for nearly a year and a half. I'm forwarding this to Obama, let's hope he sees your commitment!

[DragonStryk72]

These individuals really are not "prisoners" they are terrorist!!! They were CAPTURED red handed in the act of inflicting damage, death, and destruction to US soldiers, allies, and equipment. They did not have any distinctive military markings, uniforms, or hiarchy in there command structure. Thus they were not soldiers!!!

For your information the ones that have been set free went back to performing terrorist activities almost immediatley...

So tell me what should we do with individuals that have NO regard for human life, have no problem killing civilians (women and children), these guys are just trash plain and simple and as such they should be properly disposed of.... Given the chance they definitly would not hesitate to put a bullet in your head or for that matter cut it off to prove a point. If all else failed they would just blow up your cafe or schoolbus to make a point as well....

All the more reason to accord ourselves in a better, more civil manner than they would. I detest what terrorists stand for, they take that which is good, and should be bringing people, and turn it into a message of hate.

As stated previously, the GC should be applied, let's go at this like we have better morals and ethics than they do, cause let's face it, we do, beyond which, they can't win anyway, so there's no real point in fighting dirty aside from petty vengeance.

[DragonStryk72]

According to CNN, about 245. Twenty-one of them have been charged with crimes, and 60 others have been cleared for release, but no country has agreed to take them.

that 60? They can just be put back where they came from, really. I mean, seriously, it seems simple enough. Also if they got cleared of crimes, then I'd see no issue if they wish to become citizens. They'd likely pass on it, given their experience thus far, but the offer should still be put out there.

so, if my math's right, about 164 people are basically just sitting in detention without any sort of charges against them. Now, let's be optimistic, and say that only 1% are being wrongfully imprisoned, or about 1-2 people. What's happening is that those one or two, the 164, along with the other 60 that are still being held until a country will take them, are being used as poster boys for the various terror groups that hate the US (which seems to be pretty much all of them.). My idea here is to kill them with kindness, set

Personally, if we were to take them on as probationary citizens, I'd say send them to Texas or here to Virginia. In either state, you have enough civilian armament to take care of them should they decide to start any shit, though Texas still has us beat on that count. Plus Texas is the closest to the climate they're most used to, so that works as well.

[Classact]

Here are a couple good articles on the subject http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0122/p01s01-usgn.html and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7843056.stm

[manu1959]

so let me see if i have this right....obama is going to close gitmo and do what exactly with the 245 spies.....we are still at war.....still capturing spies....

where exactly does he propose to house these folks....

[PostmodernProphet]

mini-gitmos.......

[Classact]

I'd scoop up the whole thing and float it over to Haiti where the US federal court had no jurisdiction. Then in a year or so move it to Dominican Republic and then lease the island of Monserraut http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Montserrat+(island) and make a semi permanent jail, drop guilty detainees in the active volcano. Buy up all the rights for area maps to pay for the moves.

Build one of those floating cities that's self contained that moves around constantly, that would keep the press busy explaining where these dudes have been held.

[Monkeybone]

just saw on the ticker at lunch that one of the freed Gitmo guys is suing the US for unlawful detainment. i will try to find an article.

[Immanuel]

Okay, as much as I am opposed to the detainment of innocent people and the torture of any human being, I must say I don't understand the order to close the prison and just what exactly President Obama is intending to do.

What does he plan to do with the prison? Return it to Cuba?

What does he plan on doing with the detainees? Give them a trial, convict the guilty and free the innocent?

Is he doing this solely because of the reputation of the prison? Has he actually thought out what the next steps of this are and the next steps of the war?

I have always protested that the detainees should be given trials and allowed to prove their innocence, but this doesn't make any sense to me at all. Rather hasty if you ask me.

Immie

[manu1959]

Okay, as much as I am opposed to the detainment of innocent people and the torture of any human being, I must say I don't understand the order to close the prison and just what exactly President Obama is intending to do.

What does he plan to do with the prison? Return it to Cuba?

What does he plan on doing with the detainees? Give them a trial, convict the guilty and free the innocent?

Is he doing this solely because of the reputation of the prison? Has he actually thought out what the next steps of this are and the next steps of the war?

I have always protested that the detainees should be given trials and allowed to prove their innocence, but this doesn't make any sense to me at all. Rather hasty if you ask me.

Immie


spies are normaly shot....pow's are held till the war ends.....neither gets a trial.....

[Immanuel]

spies are normaly shot....pow's are held till the war ends.....neither gets a trial.....

Granted in a conventional war. The detainees have not been accused of being spies nor has there been a shred of evidence that any of them have participated in the war. They are citizens of Iraq who were picked up Willy Nilly (some because neighbors looking for a reward turned them in) and hauled off to a foreign country.

If these people were spies then shoot them upon capture and prove it when an inquiry comes up. If they are prisoners of war, then they should have been declared so and afforded rights under the Geneva Convention.

As it is these are people without a face or a voice who are being held indefinitely without any real hope. I'm all for holding those that are enemies of our country, but I am against the idea of holding innocent people... even one innocent person.

Immie

[Gaffer]

Gee what do you do with a bunch of poor innocent fellows who were just picked up off the street and locked up in a strange land? The countries they came from don't want them back or have death warrants waiting for them. The innocents is just reeking off them to be sure.

15 are chinese and will be put to death immediately upon their return. Hmmm do I really have to think about what to do with these guys?

Does anyone believe that a guy captured on a battle field in Afghan with weapons and ammo was just an innocent bystander. If you do I have some desert property in Florida to sell you.

Now that the messiah is in charge of Gitmo the only thing that will change will be the reporting on what goes on there. In other words, the lies stop. The media accomplished their mission.

[Gaffer]

Granted in a conventional war. The detainees have not been accused of being spies nor has there been a shred of evidence that any of them have participated in the war. They are citizens of Iraq who were picked up Willy Nilly (some because neighbors looking for a reward turned them in) and hauled off to a foreign country.

If these people were spies then shoot them upon capture and prove it when an inquiry comes up. If they are prisoners of war, then they should have been declared so and afforded rights under the Geneva Convention.

As it is these are people without a face or a voice who are being held indefinitely without any real hope. I'm all for holding those that are enemies of our country, but I am against the idea of holding innocent people... even one innocent person.

Immie

For your information, most of the prisoners at Gitmo come from Afghan, not Iraq. They end up there when they are affiliated with AQ and are high ranking. The lower ranking guys are dealt with in country. And most often they are foreigners to the country they are captured in.

[Immanuel]

Does anyone believe that a guy captured on a battle field in Afghan with weapons and ammo was just an innocent bystander. If you do I have some desert property in Florida to sell you.



Well, I may be wrong on this and possibly naive as well, but I thought everyone in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran etc ran around with weapons and ammo just to stay alive.

Immie

[Immanuel]

For your information, most of the prisoners at Gitmo come from Afghan, not Iraq. They end up there when they are affiliated with AQ and are high ranking. The lower ranking guys are dealt with in country. And most often they are foreigners to the country they are captured in.

So says... who?

Immie

[manu1959]

Granted in a conventional war. The detainees have not been accused of being spies nor has there been a shred of evidence that any of them have participated in the war. They are citizens of Iraq who were picked up Willy Nilly (some because neighbors looking for a reward turned them in) and hauled off to a foreign country.

If these people were spies then shoot them upon capture and prove it when an inquiry comes up. If they are prisoners of war, then they should have been declared so and afforded rights under the Geneva Convention.

As it is these are people without a face or a voice who are being held indefinitely without any real hope. I'm all for holding those that are enemies of our country, but I am against the idea of holding innocent people... even one innocent person.

Immie

to say they were picked up willy nilly is a bit disengenous......we are still at war so they are still being held.....if they declare they are from a country and out of uniform they can be shot as spies....if they declare they are from a country then they are eligible for the geneva convention....so they....by their own actions have placed themselves in limbo.....as far as i can tell as the "pows" are determined to be innocent they are being released those that are guilty are being held until the war is over....as for their treatment overall it appears they are being treated well .....

i am interested to see if obama retruns to clintons rendition scheme.....we are still at war and we are still capturing folks....

[Immanuel]

to say they were picked up willy nilly is a bit disengenous......we are still at war so they are still being held.....if they declare they are from a country and out of uniform they can be shot as spies....if they declare they are from a country then they are eligible for the geneva convention....so they....by their own actions have placed themselves in limbo.....as far as i can tell as the "pows" are determined to be innocent they are being released those that are guilty are being held until the war is over....as for their treatment overall it appears they are being treated well .....

i am interested to see if obama retruns to clintons rendition scheme.....we are still at war and we are still capturing folks....

Well, my major problem, is in how they are determined to be POW's. I lost trust in the honesty of President Bush. That is a shame, but it happened. For all we know these people could be American supporters. When the "powers that be" are the sole determining factors as to whether someone is allowed to live or not, I get nervous. Piss off the wrong man, and your life is over. Get in the way of the wrong man and life ends.

Gaffer says that most of the detainees are high level AQ operatives. If that is the case, then there should be no problem proving it in a trial. That is all I ask. Give the innocent people a chance to prove they are innocent rather than locking them up until hell freezes over... and make no mistake, that is when the terrorists will cease hostilities and not before. That is when this war will truly be over.

Immie

[Gaffer]

So says... who?

Immie

So says the military. Most of those in Gitmo have been there since well before the Iraq invasion. A few have been added from pakistan. The average mo on the street is of no interest to the military or the CIA. And they don't walk down the street snatching up anybody with a gun. They have caught them in combat areas with cell phones, laptops, radio's, maps and instructions. Someone like that knows something. He's worth taking back for serious questioning. If he appears to be high value he goes to Gitmo.

The media would have you believe that these are just innocent husbands and fathers taken from their families, who are sitting home at the supper table wondering about their loved ones. It ain't true.

[PostmodernProphet]

They are citizens of Iraq who were picked up Willy Nilly (some because neighbors looking for a reward turned them in) and hauled off to a foreign country.

......Immie: victim of liberal disinformation campaign......be gentle.....

[Immanuel]

......Immie: victim of liberal disinformation campaign......be gentle.....

Thanks for your care and concern! :)

Actually, more of a victim of believing that we should do what is right regardless of who is wrong.

Immie

[PostmodernProphet]

so, for this guy who wants capital punishment, so he can be a martyr....and who shouts "death to the infidels" at his hearing.....we should believe he was falsely accused by his neighbor because he played his stereo too loud late at night?......we aren't talking about people who were falsely accused, Immie....we can all agree to let them go.....but we both know we have to do SOMETHING with the ones who were correctly accused....and "feel-good" liberal blathering doesn't change that......

[Immanuel]

so, for this guy who wants capital punishment, so he can be a martyr....and who shouts "death to the infidels" at his hearing.....we should believe he was falsely accused by his neighbor because he played his stereo too loud late at night?......we aren't talking about people who were falsely accused, Immie....we can all agree to let them go.....but we both know we have to do SOMETHING with the ones who were correctly accused....and "feel-good" liberal blathering doesn't change that......

Then give them proper trials and let those who are found innocent go. What is wrong with that? These people will never get trials because the witnesses (if there are any) will never testify for or against them, so instead, they simply rot in jail and maybe if they behave themselves and don't look cross-eyed at one of their jailers, in other words they kowtow to their captors, somebody will say, that they are not terrorists and if they are lucky when they are old and decrepit, they might just go back to their wives and children.

If, as Gaffer says, they are AQ operatives then it should be damned easy to bring out the evidence against them and bring them to justice. Sounds good to me. But, when the government locks them up, and says, "we know they are terrorists because they didn't come running up to our soldiers thanking them for bringing freedom to Iraq", that just doesn't cut it. Just because they are not thrilled that American Soldiers have invaded and occupied their land does not mean they are terrorists. If Russia were to invade America, I sure wouldn't walk up to them and slap them on the back thanking them. Would you? At the very least when their tanks went rolling by, I would be showing them a single finger salute.

I guess in Russian eyes that would make me a terrorist too.

Immie
Immie

[Mr. P]

Then give them proper trials and let those who are found innocent go. What is wrong with that? These people will never get trials because the witnesses (if there are any) will never testify for or against them, so instead, they simply rot in jail and maybe if they behave themselves and don't look cross-eyed at one of their jailers, in other words they kowtow to their captors, somebody will say, that they are not terrorists and if they are lucky when they are old and decrepit, they might just go back to their wives and children.

If, as Gaffer says, they are AQ operatives then it should be damned easy to bring out the evidence against them and bring them to justice. Sounds good to me. But, when the government locks them up, and says, "we know they are terrorists because they didn't come running up to our soldiers thanking them for bringing freedom to Iraq", that just doesn't cut it. Just because they are not thrilled that American Soldiers have invaded and occupied their land does not mean they are terrorists. If Russia were to invade America, I sure wouldn't walk up to them and slap them on the back thanking them. Would you? At the very least when their tanks went rolling by, I would be showing them a single finger salute.

I guess in Russian eyes that would make me a terrorist too.

Immie
Immie

A very poor choice of a weapon, Immie.:poke:

[PostmodernProphet]

Then give them proper trials and let those who are found innocent go. What is wrong with that?
what's wrong is that you are trying to pretend that soldiers are trained police officers....their job is to kill the people trying to kill them, not preserve evidence and act as witnesses in trials.....no prisoner of any war has ever been given a "proper" trial and what reason do you have to demand they are entitled to it now?......


But, when the government locks them up, and says, "we know they are terrorists because they didn't come running up to our soldiers thanking them for bringing freedom to Iraq", that just doesn't cut it.

I find it amazing that you can say that as if you actually think it happens.....that's really fucked up, if you think that about your own country......and quite frankly, I think it says more about you than it does America....

[manu1959]

Well, my major problem, is in how they are determined to be POW's. I lost trust in the honesty of President Bush. That is a shame, but it happened. For all we know these people could be American supporters. When the "powers that be" are the sole determining factors as to whether someone is allowed to live or not, I get nervous. Piss off the wrong man, and your life is over. Get in the way of the wrong man and life ends.

Gaffer says that most of the detainees are high level AQ operatives. If that is the case, then there should be no problem proving it in a trial. That is all I ask. Give the innocent people a chance to prove they are innocent rather than locking them up until hell freezes over... and make no mistake, that is when the terrorists will cease hostilities and not before. That is when this war will truly be over.

Immie

the military has been releasing people they have found to be innocent over the past 7 years.......at least the bush admin opened a prison....clinton sent them to other countries to "secret" prisons.....as far as i know "POW" are not entitled to a trial....

[Kathianne]

Just saying:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/14/gitmo.detainees/index.html


Pentagon: Ex-Gitmo detainees resume terror acts

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Dozens of suspected terrorists released by the United States from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are believed to have returned to terrorism activities, according to the Pentagon.

Since 2002, 61 former detainees have committed or are suspected to have committed attacks after being released from the detention camp, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said at a briefing Tuesday.

The number is up since the Pentagon's last report in March 2008 when officials said 37 former detainees had been suspected of returning to the battlefield since 2002.

Since 2007, more than 100 detainees were released, significantly more than in previous years, according to Pentagon officials.

According to the statistics, of the 61 former detainees that are believed to have returned to fighting, 18 have been officially confirmed while 43 are suspected, Morrell said.

The 18 were confirmed through intelligence, photographs, fingerprints and other information, Morrell said.

Of the 43 other detainees suspected of taking part in terrorist attacks, only "plausible reporting" on their activities indicated some kind of involvement, according to Morrell....

[manu1959]

Just saying:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/14/gitmo.detainees/index.html

see what a moron bush is ...he released all the guilty ones and kept all the innocent ones......thank god obama is president now.....

[DragonStryk72]

Gee what do you do with a bunch of poor innocent fellows who were just picked up off the street and locked up in a strange land? The countries they came from don't want them back or have death warrants waiting for them. The innocents is just reeking off them to be sure.

15 are chinese and will be put to death immediately upon their return. Hmmm do I really have to think about what to do with these guys?

Does anyone believe that a guy captured on a battle field in Afghan with weapons and ammo was just an innocent bystander. If you do I have some desert property in Florida to sell you.

Now that the messiah is in charge of Gitmo the only thing that will change will be the reporting on what goes on there. In other words, the lies stop. The media accomplished their mission.

So, um, Gaff, speaking as a soldier, let's say that Iraq and Afghanistan decided we were a rogue nation, and that our leader was a tyrant, then, while UN told them repeatedly not to, they both jumped, destroying every bit of infrastructure we had, then, in the aftermath, fired the entire standing army, navy, and air force. After this, the Mexicans and Canadians decided our land would be a wonderful place to have a war, with now four groups, only one of which wears a uniform of any kind, running around shooting people, you're telling me you wouldn't be armed? I don't care if it was a bow and arrow, I am hauling something that can kill from distance in that atmosphere.

[DragonStryk72]

see what a moron bush is ...he released all the guilty ones and kept all the innocent ones......thank god obama is president now.....

no shit, you mean people illegally snatched up from their homes, held without bail, charges being laid, or even so much as the ability to say, "I didn't do it", while be waterboarded, and otherwise fucked with for a year or so, might not like the people who did it?

[bullypulpit]

ok.....when he closes it.....

what do you do with the prisoners....

are we really going to try them all in us courts......200 people.....

The cases are going to be reviewed...you know, to find out who really needs to be there and who doesn't. Then military courts-martial, under the UCMJ , for those who should be looked at more closely. The legal requirements will be satisfied, justice served and a huge step taken in restoring America's reputation, regardless of the verdicts.

[Kathianne]

see what a moron bush is ...he released all the guilty ones and kept all the innocent ones......thank god obama is president now.....

Yeah, another example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/world/middleeast/23yemen.html?_r=1

Looks like decisions on who and what are not going to be any easier for President Obama than they were for President Bush:


January 23, 2009
Freed by U.S., Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief

By ROBERT F. WORTH
BEIRUT, Lebanon — The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year.

The militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, is suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen’s capital, Sana, in September. He was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen.

His status was announced in an Internet statement by the militant group and was confirmed by an American counterterrorism official....

[PostmodernProphet]

no shit, you mean people illegally snatched up from their homes, held without bail, charges being laid, or even so much as the ability to say, "I didn't do it", while be waterboarded, and otherwise fucked with for a year or so, might not like the people who did it?

it's always the strawman argument.....why do you assume the people in gitmo are innocent bystanders to violence.....just once, how about telling us what you plan on doing with the real bastards.......

[Gaffer]

So, um, Gaff, speaking as a soldier, let's say that Iraq and Afghanistan decided we were a rogue nation, and that our leader was a tyrant, then, while UN told them repeatedly not to, they both jumped, destroying every bit of infrastructure we had, then, in the aftermath, fired the entire standing army, navy, and air force. After this, the Mexicans and Canadians decided our land would be a wonderful place to have a war, with now four groups, only one of which wears a uniform of any kind, running around shooting people, you're telling me you wouldn't be armed? I don't care if it was a bow and arrow, I am hauling something that can kill from distance in that atmosphere.

I can speak as a combat vet because I am. As for the invasions. Afghan had no infrastructure. iraq had a dictator who's only interest in infrastructure was to keep his military going and supply his palaces.

Where do you get I wouldn't be armed in a conflict in the US? Did you mix up a couple of posts? If I need a weapon I will acquire one.

[Classact]

Obama should have issued two Executives Orders if he choose to do one on GITMO the other should be to DOD to take no prisoners. GITMO is just a name for a prison, what's the name of the prison for the prisoner taken today and what's the difference?

I can understand needing a year to sort out GITMO but not having a policy to put in place on day one ... there is no excuse.

[Immanuel]

I find it amazing that you can say that as if you actually think it happens.....that's really fucked up, if you think that about your own country......and quite frankly, I think it says more about you than it does America....

You find it amazing that I believe that all life is important even the lives of prisoners of war? If they were actually afforded that title? That in itself is amazing.

Why shouldn't I say that like I actually think it happened? I do not believe that the men in power; GWB, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld etc. really gave a rat's ass about the people of the Middle East. They haven't treated the people of the Middle East like human beings at all. They have treated Muslims as if every single one of them is a terrorist just waiting to strap on a bomb and blow as many Jews and Christians to hell as they can. All that talk about bringing freedom to Iraq was hogwash.

It has been evident that you and many on the right worshiped President Bush. I did not. As far as I was concerned he WAS the lessor of two evils. He attempted to shred the Constitution throughout both terms and they sure as hell did not value human life. America is worse off today than we were eight years ago and we have the Bush Admin and no one else to thank for it.

That is not a reflection of America. It is a reflection of the people that we allowed to attain power.

And what does it say about me? It says I have a heart and care about the lives of all human beings, not just the unborn. A human life, even the life of a muslim, is more valuable than anything on Earth. Unfortunately some people think only American lives matter while others think only the lives of those who have travelled down the birth canal matter.

And if you think it says more about me that it does America then I'm damned glad you at least are listening. When people believe that their country is doing things wrong they should have the right to stand up and say so even if they are wrong. They should feel free to speak out in desent. They should feel safe enough to stand up and say something like the lives of children waiting to exit the womb take precedence over the desires of a mother who for one reason or another wants to end that life even if saying so is not politically correct!

I'M DAMNED GLAD I LIVE IN A COUNTRY WHERE I CAN STAND UP AND SAY THAT WHAT WE ARE DOING IS WRONG

Thank God I live in a place where I am not forced to agree with you or anyone else!

Immie

[PostmodernProphet]

You find it amazing that I believe that all life is important even the lives of prisoners of war?

???....you must be reading some post other than the one I wrote......


They have treated Muslims as if every single one of them is a terrorist

????...and you must be reading everything differently than the way it happened.....do you lay in bed and imagine this shit and then wake up and believe it's really true?.....that's really fucked up.....



That is not a reflection of America.

you're right....it's a reflection of your distorted imagination....



Thank God I live in a place where I am not forced to agree with you or anyone else!

I agree.....but it doesn't change the fact you are wrong......and ridiculously so.....so, you have the right to stand up and say it, and I have the right to stand up, shrug my shoulders, and say, "why does Immie have such a fucked up perspective on what happened in the last eight years"......

[manu1959]

The cases are going to be reviewed...you know, to find out who really needs to be there and who doesn't. Then military courts-martial, under the UCMJ , for those who should be looked at more closely. The legal requirements will be satisfied, justice served and a huge step taken in restoring America's reputation, regardless of the verdicts.

uhhhhhhhhhhh that is what the bush admin was doing.....

anyway, where do you plan to house the guilty and what do you plan to do with those you capture while obama continues to wage war in iraq and when he escalates the war in afganistan....

[PostmodernProphet]

uhhhhhhhhhhh that is what the bush admin was doing.....

anyway, where do you plan to house the guilty and what do you plan to do with those you capture while obama continues to wage war in iraq and when he escalates the war in afganistan....

that's the question they are afraid to answer, Manu.....and apparently I don't rep enough....I STILL can't give you rep till I spread it around.....

[Immanuel]

I agree.....but it doesn't change the fact you are wrong......and ridiculously so.....so, you have the right to stand up and say it, and I have the right to stand up, shrug my shoulders, and say, "why does Immie have such a fucked up perspective on what happened in the last eight years"......

Such a f'ed up perspective of what your god did to America over the past eight years? You worshiped him. He could do no wrong in your eyes. That was what was f'ed up, my friend. I've watched what has happened to America over the last eight years and I can tell you that I have been around long enough to know that America was at one time a very good country, respectable in so many ways. We've lost that respect and deservedly so thanks to George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Your god did nothing except tear up the Constitutional protections that the founding fathers designed to protect people from him. He did nothing at all. He treated human beings like they were toys on a play battlefield. If anything, that is what is f'ed up, my friend.

George W. Bush was a complete failure as President. One of the worst in history and people like you make him out to be a god. Everyone thinks Jimmy Carter was the worst in modern history. As far as I am concerned Jimmy Carter was a Royal Flush compared to George Bush's pair of deuces despite the economic disaster we were in under Carter's term. George Bush and Dick Cheney should be ashamed of themselves. They disgraced America.

Unfortunately, though, it sounds like I am placing all the blame on the Bush Administration and that is not at all fair as it is both parties that have disgraced us. Both the Republicans and the Democrats who run this nation put us in this position. Congress is just as guilty as the Bush Administration.

I'm sorry that you don't agree with me as I have always respected your opinion, but in this instance you have refused to remove the blinders that you donned for the Republican Party. You have not stepped back and taken a look at what has been done to America in the eyes of the world not just the Middle East. Once again we have been humiliated in a war that should never have been fought as a conventional war. Once again we have disgraced ourselves by chasing after bands of hoods who don't fight wars the way we think they should be fought. We walked, strike that, ran back into another Viet Nam. Nam was a lesson we should have learned the first time. Well, many of us did, but apparently George W. Bush didn't learn the lesson. And people like you have cheered him on for 7 1/2 years!

Fighting terrorism was a damned good idea. Fighting non-aggressive muslims in their own back yards was idiotic at the very least. We went to Nam and tried to take on an enemy that didn't wear uniforms and looked like the people of the area. We couldn't tell the good guys from the bad guys and we came out of Nam like a puppy with its tail between its legs. We're in the same damned position in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we're going to come home the same damned way. It won't be Barack Obama's fault either. You simply cannot fight a war, a just war, which is the only kind of war I would consider supporting, when you can't tell if that guy walking down the street is a good guy or a bad guy. You either have to shoot to kill or let him approach you to check out who he is (good or bad) and pray to God that he doesn't push the button while he is in range of you. It is just plain f'ing ludicrous!

Regardless of what George Bush has told you, we are not fighting terrorists. We are fighting the people of Iraq and Afghanistan who get in our way. We don't know who the enemy is for crying out loud. So we end up killing and capturing people who don't follow our orders to the T. Then we declare them to be terrorist. That makes the body count of terrorists pretty damned good. Every foreigner that dies is automatically a terrorist because the good guys never shoot innocent bystanders. The dead sure as hell can't prove that they weren't terrorists.

That's bullshit. We're the invaders and we insist that everyone there welcome us with open arms or risk being on the business end of an M-16. That's incredibly f'ed up! It is also extremely arrogant. No wonder they don't like us. I despise arrogant people... probably because they remind me of me. ;) That is most likely why they hate us as well.

As for our soldiers, I pray for them every day. They are doing the best they can in a God awful situation. They are there to fight terrorists and that is what they are doing, but they are also put in the unenviable position of having to be judge and jury and quite possibly executioner in many situations. They are there to protect us who live in their homeland from the next terrorist attack which we all believe may come. But in the meantime, they cannot be sure whether or not the young man they have in their sights is a terrorist.

God help them.

Call my view of where we are today and what has happened over the last eight years f'ed up if you want, but I remember a time when Americans could hold their heads up proudly and say that we are proud of what our country has done for the rest of the world. I'm not so certain that most of those who don't worship George W. Bush and the ground he walks on can stand as proudly as we used to. That, my friend is entirely f'ed up.

Immie

[manu1959]

hate to tell you but all it took was a raghead and 20 guys ...... they knew our own press and the raddical fringes would rip this place apart .....

[PostmodernProphet]

Such a f'ed up perspective of what your god did to America over the past eight years? You worshiped him.

sorry, Immie....but if you really think any of that is true, you're a fucking idiot...

[Psychoblues]

Immie is not an idiot, pimp. But it is encouraging, at least to me, that you think he is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


sorry, Immie....but if you really think any of that is true, you're a fucking idiot...

You used to be such an entertainment?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Why did you turn so much into a drama queen?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!

Need some cheese with that whine?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

ok.....when he closes it.....

what do you do with the prisoners....

are we really going to try them all in us courts......200 people.....

I guess this means Pres Obama is going to try and move their trials to the civilian courts.

It means that Pres Obama views this as a civilian law enforcement matter (like Biill Clinton did) and not a matter of national defense and terrorism is not an act of war

[bullypulpit]

uhhhhhhhhhhh that is what the bush admin was doing.....

anyway, where do you plan to house the guilty and what do you plan to do with those you capture while obama continues to wage war in iraq and when he escalates the war in afganistan....

Not so much...Being more interested in show trials than in the guilt or innocence of the defendants, they botched that job too.

As for housing detainees...there are numerous brigs and detention facilities run by the US military.

[red states rule]

Not so much...Being more interested in show trials than in the guilt or innocence of the defendants, they botched that job too.

As for housing detainees...there are numerous brigs and detention facilities run by the US military.

On the one hand, libs worry about fair trials for terrorists picked up on the battlefield - while demanding Pres Bush and VP Cheney be tossed in jail for what they think are war crimes

The liberal thought process is something to behold :laugh2:

[bullypulpit]

On the one hand, libs worry about fair trials for terrorists picked up on the battlefield - while demanding Pres Bush and VP Cheney be tossed in jail for what they think are war crimes

The liberal thought process is something to behold :laugh2:

No, they should have a fair trial as well...whether it be in the US or at the Hague. Let the evidence speak for itself...Or are you too worried that the evidence against them is so damning as to be incontrovertible?

If Bush and Cheney have the courage of their convictions, they should not fear the outcome. But they don't...And they do.

[red states rule]

No, they should have a fair trial as well...whether it be in the US or at the Hague. Let the evidence speak for itself...Or are you too worried that the evidence against them is so damning as to be incontrovertible?

If Bush and Cheney have the courage of their convictions, they should not fear the outcome. But they don't...And they do.

So much for bipartisanship and working together eh BP?

At least one liberal admits there is nothing worng with a show trial or witchhunt when it comes to Pres Bush and VP Cheney

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=21027

[PostmodernProphet]

Immie is not an idiot, pimp. But it is encouraging, at least to me, that you think he is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I can only think of a couple of options....either he believes what he posted, and is an idiot, or he posted it without believing it, in which case he would be a liar.....

[red states rule]

With all the hate that the left has rained on Pres Bush, VP Cheney, and Gov Palin, there are precious few liberals left who have any moral authority to comment on human decency.

[Bonnie]

The gitmo is a complex debate, im sure many of the prisoners have commited terror related crimes, however, they should be tried in the countries in which they were captured. It makes no sense sending them to the US for trial. But, tell me how can these people get a fair trial?

Problem with that is most are from Yemen, and the Yemen governing body has already stated they don't want them back.

[red states rule]

Botom line is, these terrorists are not common criminals they are enemy combatants and they don't get the same rights as a theif or murderer that is an American citizen

Tserrorist are motivated mostly by religious ideaology, rather than nationalism. They are recruited by clerics who preach it as a religious duty to the muslim masses, simply hoping that seeds of jihad they preach each week simply take root in a few of those listening over time.

All of the US laws, and giving them US Constitutional rights, will not change this.

[Bonnie]

No, they should have a fair trial as well...whether it be in the US or at the Hague. Let the evidence speak for itself...Or are you too worried that the evidence against them is so damning as to be incontrovertible?

If Bush and Cheney have the courage of their convictions, they should not fear the outcome. But they don't...And they do.

Yes
Bully afterall they are all just innocent goat herders that got swooped down on by our evil troops:poke:

You are funny ;)

[red states rule]

Yes
Bully afterall they are all just innocent goat herders that got swooped down on by our evil troops:poke:

You are funny ;)

I think BP So wants detectives, CSI, Prosecutors on the battlefield

[Bonnie]

I think BP So wants detectives, CSI, Prosecutors on the battlefield

Not sure of the practicality of that BUT it would make for some great reality TV:thumb:

[red states rule]

Not sure of the practicality of that BUT it would make for some great reality TV:thumb:

Bpnnie, the way BP wants to grant them US Constitutional rights - why not have them on the battlefield?

Getting witnesses to testify against throath slitters will be as much fun as testifying against the Mafia.

and then the left would then tell us how the terrorists were abused as a child :laugh2:

[Bonnie]

Bpnnie, the way BP wants to grant them US Constitutional rights - why not have them on the battlefield?

Getting witnesses to testify against throath slitters will be as much fun as testifying against the Mafia.

and then the left would then tell us how the terrorists were abused as a child :laugh2:

:laugh2: Yes..the reality is the constitution allows for no such "rights"...In truth what he can't admit to is that HE disagrees with that (which is his right to do so), however that does not change the fact of what is written.

[red states rule]

:laugh2: Yes..the reality is the constitution allows for no such "rights"...In truth what he can't admit to is that HE disagrees with that (which is his right to do so), however that does not change the fact of what is written.

Who is going to pay for all the cost bringing these criminals to trial Bonnie?

I believe Pres Obama thinks this country has enough money for everyone except the millions of americans that have to pay the bill.

[Bonnie]

Who is going to pay for all the cost bringing these criminals to trial Bonnie?

I believe Pres Obama thinks this country has enough money for everyone except the millions of americans that have to pay the bill.

Bully can fork over the dough:coffee: He's a rich liberal wracked with guilt no??

[red states rule]

Bully can fork over the dough:coffee: He's a rich liberal wracked with guilt no??

Bonnie, libs like BP only use OPM - Other People's Money. He would never use his own money to finance his desired government programs and activities

Why give the terrorists the satisfaction of OJ-style show trials? They are not US citizens and should not be afforded such rights.

[Bonnie]

Bonnie, libs like BP only use OPM - Other People's Money. He would never use his own money to finance his desired government programs and activities

Why give the terrorists the satisfaction of OJ-style show trials? They are not US citizens and should not be afforded such rights.


I agree...It's fun pointing out the absurdity of it though :beer:

[red states rule]

I agree...It's fun pointing out the absurdity of it though :beer:

It won't be easy, but we can win this war the same way we won WW2.

That is by killing or imprisoning the enemy and continuing to kill or imprison him him until they are either all dead or locked up and the few that remain figure out that if they don't surrender we will kill or imprison them all.

Meanwhile bleeding hearts like BP will be screaming about their "rights" and how America is the bad guy in all this

[Bonnie]

It won't be easy, but we can win this war the same way we won WW2.

That is by killing or imprisoning the enemy and continuing to kill or imprison him him until they are either all dead or locked up and the few that remain figure out that if they don't surrender we will kill or imprison them all.

Meanwhile bleeding hearts like BP will be screaming about their "rights" and how America is the bad guy in all this

Roosevelt and Truman had no qualms about that!!

[red states rule]

Roosevelt and Truman had no qualms about that!!

They understood war is a bloody business and "staying on the moral highground" will not win it.

It is best left to the professionals who are fighting it not the criminal courts, lawyers, and bleeding heart liberals

[Classact]

No, they should have a fair trial as well...whether it be in the US or at the Hague. Let the evidence speak for itself...Or are you too worried that the evidence against them is so damning as to be incontrovertible?

If Bush and Cheney have the courage of their convictions, they should not fear the outcome. But they don't...And they do.What would make you think a military trial wouldn't be fair? US service members get them every day around the world.

[red states rule]

What would make you think a military trial wouldn't be fair? US service members get them every day around the world.

The ONLY laws that apply are NOT laws at all -- they're the Geneva Conventions.

And, according to those International treaty agreements, any person caught firing on another nation's uniformed military, while himself NOT wearing a uniform and NOT fighting for any recognized government which has formally declared war -- especially if caught using civilian installations and civilian citizens as a human shield -- is an "UNLAWFUL COMBATANT" -- a pirate and a thug -- subject to trial and execution by a military tribunal at any time, either immediately upon capture or later, at the convenience of the MILITARY.

[Classact]

The ONLY laws that apply are NOT laws at all -- they're the Geneva Conventions.

And, according to those International treaty agreements, any person caught firing on another nation's uniformed military, while himself NOT wearing a uniform and NOT fighting for any recognized government which has formally declared war -- especially if caught using civilian installations and civilian citizens as a human shield -- is an "UNLAWFUL COMBATANT" -- a pirate and a thug -- subject to trial and execution by a military tribunal at any time, either immediately upon capture or later, at the convenience of the MILITARY.The GC and the International Laws and Customs of War clearly state exactly what you just said. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!

[red states rule]

The GC and the International Laws and Customs of War clearly state exactly what you just said. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!

To liberals it's just a common criminal that kills close to 3,000 Americans in one criminal act

[johnney]

Meanwhile bleeding hearts like BP will be screaming about their "rights" and how America is the bad guy in all this

they dont have rights. and we will always be the bad guys to the tools out there.

[Immanuel]

I can only think of a couple of options....either he believes what he posted, and is an idiot, or he posted it without believing it, in which case he would be a liar.....

I fully believe that GWB is a royal F' up.

I fully believe you worship the man.

I fully believe that America has suffered tremendously in the last eight years at the hands of that man.

I fully believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are Viet Nam revisited.

The fact that you still think GWB is a god deserving of your ass kissing makes you an idiot, not me.

Immie

[PostmodernProphet]

I fully believe that GWB is a royal F' up.

I fully believe you worship the man.

I fully believe that America has suffered tremendously in the last eight years at the hands of that man.

I fully believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are Viet Nam revisited.

The fact that you still think GWB is a god deserving of your ass kissing makes you an idiot, not me.

Immie

no, the fact you think I do is what makes you a fucking idiot.....in the past I thought there was reason to bother reading your posts.....you are on the edge of causing me to change that opinion......

[PostmodernProphet]

well, the Iraqis have come forward and bailed Obama out.....now we know where to put the gitmo detainees.....


Baghdad - Iraq will reopen the notorious Abu Ghraib prison next month, but it's getting a facelift and a new name, a senior justice official said on Saturday.

The announcement comes as the US military has begun handing over detainees in its custody to the Iraqis under a new security agreement.

The renovated facility will be called Baghdad's Central Prison because the name Abu Ghraib has left a "bitter feeling inside Iraqis' hearts", deputy justice minister Busho Ibrahim said.

Abu Ghraib, which was a torture center under Saddam Hussein and later came to symbolise American mistreatment of some prisoners captured in Iraq, has been closed since 2006.

The prison will house 3 500 inmates when it reopens in mid-February and will have a capacity for about 15 000 by the end of this year, Ibrahim told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

He said the facility will be operated according to international standards.

I wonder if Obama will appreciate the irony?.......moving them from a place where there WAS no abuse to......

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2458574,00.html

[Bonnie]

I fully believe that GWB is a royal F' up.

I fully believe you worship the man.

I fully believe that America has suffered tremendously in the last eight years at the hands of that man.

I fully believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are Viet Nam revisited.

The fact that you still think GWB is a god deserving of your ass kissing makes you an idiot, not me.

Immie

Immie I appreciate the fact that you revere god as do I but if for some reason you think Obama is a blessing to any of us you may want to look at what the implications of The Freedom of Choice Act are all about..There is NOTHING Godly about any of it.

Secondly Bush whether you agree with his foreign policy or not has kept our country safe for most of the 8 years he was in office and that I THANK GOD FOR!!!!

If the terrorist animals hit us again nothing else will matter, not the economy, not the UN, not so called global warming, nothing!!!

[Immanuel]

Immie I appreciate the fact that you revere god as do I but if for some reason you think Obama is a blessing to any of us you may want to look at what the implications of The Freedom of Choice Act are all about..There is NOTHING Godly about any of it.

Secondly Bush whether you agree with his foreign policy or not has kept our country safe for most of the 8 years he was in office and that I THANK GOD FOR!!!!

If the terrorist animals hit us again nothing else will matter, not the economy, not the UN, not so called global warming, nothing!!!

Bonnie,

I do not believe that Obama is going to be any kind of a blessing to this country. I don't believe you were posting much during the campaign but basically, I was saying that regardless of who wins this election we were going to be in a world of hurt.

Neither political party gives a damned about anything except for power and money. If at the end of President Obama's term we are better off than we are today, that will be great. Much of the trouble we are in now is not President Bush's fault. The economy, for instance, fluctuates all the time and is only partially affected by the policies of the President. In fact, some of the downturn from last year, can even be attributed to President Obama since investors worried about the direction he would take the country.

I blame President Bush for the the "disaster" the war turned out to be. I blame him for the terrible reputation we have as a nation today compared to eight years ago. And yet, I don't blame only him, as it was not solely his fault. Congress has to step up and realize that they played their hands in this as well.

Generally, speaking, I am just plain disgusted with where America is today. It makes me want to cry... but then, I'm a guy and guys can't cry. :D


Posted by PMP

no, the fact you think I do is what makes you a fucking idiot

Well, I sort of sent you an apology via PM but I suppose the better way to deal with this is to apologize publicly.

I'm sorry you took it that way as I was attempting to get your attention with what I was trying to say. I was not trying to say you did not worship God. However, it did come out that I was saying you woship Bush rather than God. You know there are grades of worship. You can worship God and idolize Marilyn Monroe, James Dean or Dolly Parton etc. It was the latter kind of worship that I meant. However, it did not come across that way so let me apologize because it was not a tactic that I should have used. I was attempting to state that you need to step back and take a good look at where George Bush has left this country. An unbiased one.

I apologize because it was not appropriate for me to even imply that you did not worship God but rather George Bush.

If this sounds like a Democrat, "I apologize that you took it that way", please rest assured it is not intended to be. I'm sorry that I implied you worship George Bush as your God.

Immie

[red states rule]

Immie, you are a nice guy - but you can't worry about these terrorists. many that have ben released from GITMO have went back to their terrorist wat=ys and innocent people have died

And as far as the "horrible" tereatment the terrorists live in and subjected to:

Radio personality and chairman of Move America Forward, Melanie Morgan, has recently returned from a Christmas visit to the controversial Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- telling Newsmax that the American people have been lied to about how the terror war detainees being held there are treated.

“I saw that there were a lot of attorneys and big mouths in this country who are trying to describe hideous conditions at Gitmo,” she says. “That is simply not the case. Those people are lying to the American people.”

Morgan, who began her career reporting on the 1983 Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks bombing, where 241 Marines were killed, goes on to describe what she discovered during her three-day visit.

“The terrorists at Gitmo are given more religious consideration than our troops are,” Morgan explains. “They have six meal plans every day that they can choose from. At the beginning of the week on Monday they describe what kind of foods that they would like. If the fresh fruit is bruised, they are allowed to return it for a higher quality fruit.

“They live in air conditioned state of the art buildings,” she adds. “In fact, in one of variants of ‘compliance’ centers (what the lockups are called), the most dangerous terrorists in the world are kept in a facility that was built modularly based on the facility in Terre Haute, Indiana.

“So, there is a communication center in the middle, and the inmates are kept in rooms that form a spoke around there. They are allowed to shower every single day for 15 minutes. They have more exercise and recreational time than American school children do.

“In fact, the lowest security inmates are allowed 14 hours a day outside of their cell. They are taught English. They are allowed to read from six newspapers a day. They have painted arrows on the concrete floors pointing to Mecca so that the radical Muslims can pray five times a day.”

But there is more to the coddling the prisoners receive, according to Morgan, who is the co-author of “American Mourning,” a book that criticized anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan,

“These guys have movie night six nights a week and they get popcorn,” Morgan explains by way of setting up an anecdote about detainee behavior.

“They got real mad once about six months ago because they saw an American woman who wasn’t properly covered up on one of the TV shows that they were watching, and they rioted and busted up the TV.

“So what was their punishment for doing this? Well, the American military, actually the U.S. taxpayers, bought them a brand new big screen plasma TV that they now have under Plexiglas so that they can’t break it.”

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/melanie_morgan_gitmo/2008/12/31/166911.html

[Immanuel]

My Dear Friend RSR,

I did not read the article you posted, because basically, I know what it says.

Rest assured, I don't care one bit about the terrorists. What I am concerned about is who we are as a nation. It is not so much even as our reputation around the world, but rather our internal (not eternal, internal) souls. We have prided ourselves in fighting for what is right and fighting just wars. A war on terrorism can only remain just if it is that and only that. When you are fighting a "just war" and it begins to kill innocent bystanders and you write their lives off as "collateral damage" then you are no longer fighting the "just war".

I am completely behind our battle against radical Islam and terrorism. However, I am opposed to taking the war to the streets of Baghdad and Kabul where innocent men, women and children could be maimed, captured or killed. There must be another way to fight terrorism! You are going to ask me, "what would you do differently, genius?" and I can't answer that, but I can say, I would not consider any plan that needlessly endangered innocent people.

I am also concerned about the dismantling of our Bill of Rights. Those rights were written by our founding fathers to insure that the government could never become a dictatorship. The right wing argument today is, "what rights have you lost". That is not the issue. The issue is what rights are now endangered.

It is my belief that George Bush hurt this country by his policies. That is not to say that Al Gore or John Kerry would have done a better job, but today, America is not the same as it was 28 years ago when Ronald Reagun was inaugerated. We are no longer a nation that can claim to be better than the rest.

Immie

[red states rule]

My Dear Friend RSR,

I did not read the article you posted, because basically, I know what it says.

Rest assured, I don't care one bit about the terrorists. What I am concerned about is who we are as a nation. It is not so much even as our reputation around the world, but rather our internal (not eternal, internal) souls. We have prided ourselves in fighting for what is right and fighting just wars. A war on terrorism can only remain just if it is that and only that. When you are fighting a "just war" and it begins to kill innocent bystanders and you write their lives off as "collateral damage" then you are no longer fighting the "just war".

I am completely behind our battle against radical Islam and terrorism. However, I am opposed to taking the war to the streets of Baghdad and Kabul where innocent men, women and children could be maimed, captured or killed. There must be another way to fight terrorism! You are going to ask me, "what would you do differently, genius?" and I can't answer that, but I can say, I would not consider any plan that needlessly endangered innocent people.

I am also concerned about the dismantling of our Bill of Rights. Those rights were written by our founding fathers to insure that the government could never become a dictatorship. The right wing argument today is, "what rights have you lost". That is not the issue. The issue is what rights are now endangered.

It is my belief that George Bush hurt this country by his policies. That is not to say that Al Gore or John Kerry would have done a better job, but today, America is not the same as it was 28 years ago when Ronald Reagun was inaugerated. We are no longer a nation that can claim to be better than the rest.

Immie


Immie, using your logic then the US neevr would have bombed Berlin or Japan in WWII

So what is torture to you?

Yelling? Loud music? Sleep deprivation?

How would you get the info that has already stopped attacks and saved lives

War is a dirty and bloody business Immie. Wars are not won by woorying about the comfort of the terrorists. Our military does all they can to ensure innocents are not harmed - it is the terrorists who have no prblem slaughtering as many as innocent people as possible

[Immanuel]

Immie, using your logic then the US neevr would have bombed Berlin or Japan in WWII

So what is torture to you?

Yelling? Loud music? Sleep deprivation?

How would you get the info that has already stopped attacks and saved lives

War is a dirty and bloody business Immie. Wars are not won by woorying about the comfort of the terrorists. Our military does all they can to ensure innocents are not harmed - it is the terrorists who have no prblem slaughtering as many as innocent people as possible

No, RSR, WWII was a different issue all together. We were defending against the aggressors in that war. We were not the aggressors. At least, that is how history tells the story.

In Iraq/Afghanistan we are taking the battle to the streets of these countries yet we don't even know who are the bad guys. The same thing happend in Nam.

Your questions about what is torture. First of all, I don't believe we have discussed torture in this thread, but once again, I don't care about the terrorsts, I care about innocent victims of the war. If you have a known terrorist then I'm not so concerned about waterboarding etc. But, I want real assurances that the detainees are known terrorists not just victims of over aggressive tactics by our military. As for the so called info that you mention, the information that has been attained would have come from a terrorists... then again, what information was attained? Was it accurate or was it simply an accusation made on an innocent man's neighbor in order to stop the torture? Did we act on that information on the "testimony of one witness" or did we corroberate the testimony before we acted?

I fully believe that our military does the best it can to avoid "collateral damage"... that does not excuse the maiming of one innocent child or the killing of one innocent child's innocent parents. War is hell. You have that right. That doesn't mean that we should simply accept the destruction of human lives.

Immie

[red states rule]

No, RSR, WWII was a different issue all together. We were defending against the aggressors in that war. We were not the aggressors. At least, that is how history tells the story.

In Iraq/Afghanistan we are taking the battle to the streets of these countries yet we don't even know who are the bad guys. The same thing happend in Nam.

Your questions about what is torture. First of all, I don't believe we have discussed torture in this thread, but once again, I don't care about the terrorsts, I care about innocent victims of the war. If you have a known terrorist then I'm not so concerned about waterboarding etc. But, I want real assurances that the detainees are known terrorists not just victims of over aggressive tactics by our military. As for the so called info that you mention, the information that has been attained would have come from a terrorists... then again, what information was attained? Was it accurate or was it simply an accusation made on an innocent man's neighbor in order to stop the torture? Did we act on that information on the "testimony of one witness" or did we corroberate the testimony before we acted?

I fully believe that our military does the best it can to avoid "collateral damage"... that does not excuse the maiming of one innocent child or the killing of one innocent child's innocent parents. War is hell. You have that right. That doesn't mean that we should simply accept the destruction of human lives.

Immie

Immie, if you are really worried about innocent people being harmed or killed in this war -then your anger should be directed at the terrorists

Once agin, for some reason, to many people think our troops go around killing innocent people. The WWII example is perfect in this debate. There is no difference. Our enemies his among civilians, stashed weapons and built military outposts around civilians thinking they would not be attacked

Once again Immie, ABC ran the story when the three terrorists were waterboarded they gave up names, dates, and places that stopped atacks. Again only three terrorists were ever waterboarded - and as far as I know they were fine afterwards. It is not like we took their heads off with a hacksaw like they do

[Immanuel]

Immie, if you are really worried about innocent people being harmed or killed in this war -then your anger should be directed at the terrorists

What makes you think I am not angry with the terrorists?


Once agin, for some reason, to many people think our troops go around killing innocent people. The WWII example is perfect in this debate. There is no difference. Our enemies his among civilians, stashed weapons and built military outposts around civilians thinking they would not be attacked

I know full well our soldiers are doing the best they can. The problem is not with our soldiers, but rather the way this war is being waged. We don't know who the enemy is. They are cowards hiding out amongst the innocent. We have the best intelligence services in the world and a military that can be anywhere on the face of the planet in a matter of an hour or so even quicker in most cases. There is absolutely no reason to endanger innocent lives and his own by having Pfc John Smith roaming the streets of Baghdad with a target on his back just daring a terrorist to take a pot shot at him. The war could be presecuted much more efficiently using our intelligence and quick strikes when a terrorist peeks his cowardly head out of his cave.


Once again Immie, ABC ran the story when the three terrorists were waterboarded they gave up names, dates, and places that stopped atacks. Again only three terrorists were ever waterboarded - and as far as I know they were fine afterwards. It is not like we took their heads off with a hacksaw like they do

Only three? You are positive of this? Funny, you take ABC's word on this when you accuse them of being part of the liberal media and you refuse to believe anything else they say.

Only three? You know this because the Bush Administration assured ABC that is all there was? Wasn't it Donald Rumsfeld that told us only three? Hmm, I guess I have to believe him because he is a Republican.

Names, dates and places that stopped attacks? You know this how? The events didn't happen? Maybe they weren't ever going to happen? Maybe they were? Who really knows? Maybe they didn't stop anything but the Bush Admin wants you to think they did. After all, they have to justify themselves or the Democrats will go after them later.

Immie

[red states rule]

What makes you think I am not angry with the terrorists?



I know full well our soldiers are doing the best they can. The problem is not with our soldiers, but rather the way this war is being waged. We don't know who the enemy is. They are cowards hiding out amongst the innocent. We have the best intelligence services in the world and a military that can be anywhere on the face of the planet in a matter of an hour or so even quicker in most cases. There is absolutely no reason to endanger innocent lives and his own by having Pfc John Smith roaming the streets of Baghdad with a target on his back just daring a terrorist to take a pot shot at him. The war could be presecuted much more efficiently using our intelligence and quick strikes when a terrorist peeks his cowardly head out of his cave.



Only three? You are positive of this? Funny, you take ABC's word on this when you accuse them of being part of the liberal media and you refuse to believe anything else they say.

Only three? You know this because the Bush Administration assured ABC that is all there was? Wasn't it Donald Rumsfeld that told us only three? Hmm, I guess I have to believe him because he is a Republican.

Names, dates and places that stopped attacks? You know this how? The events didn't happen? Maybe they weren't ever going to happen? Maybe they were? Who really knows? Maybe they didn't stop anything but the Bush Admin wants you to think they did. After all, they have to justify themselves or the Democrats will go after them later.

Immie

So Immie how would you fight the terrorists? Treat it like a crime as Bill Clinton did? Go to the UN and have the Security Council issue stern warnings? Have the World Court issus arrest warrents?

As far as the waterboarding this link made BP flee his own thread because he could not find anything that prved the story wrong

Look at the date of the story Immie, and it is based on previous reports that prved waterboarding was not a common interrogation method as the left wanted us to believe


Exclusive: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CIA

November 02, 2007 1:25 PM

For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director.

Officials told ABC News on Sept. 14 that the controversial interrogation technique, in which a suspect has water poured over his mouth and nose to stimulate a drowning reflex as shown in the above demonstration, had been banned by the CIA director at the recommendation of his deputy, Steve Kappes.

Hayden sought and received approval from the White House to remove waterboarding from the list of approved interrogation techniques first authorized by a presidential finding in 2002.

The officials say the decision was made sometime last year but has never been publicly disclosed by the CIA.

One U.S. intelligence official said, "It would be wrong to assume that the program of the past moved into the future unchanged."

A CIA spokesman said, as a matter of policy, he would decline to comment on interrogation techniques, "which have been and continue to be lawful," he said.

The practice of waterboarding has been branded as "torture" by human rights groups and a number of leading U.S. officials, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., because it amounted to a "mock execution."

It has been at the center of the debate that threatens to derail the confirmation of President George Bush's attorney general nominee, Michael Mukasey.

As a result of Hayden's decision, officials say, the most extreme technique left available to CIA interrogators would be what is termed "longtime standing," which includes exhaustion and sleep deprivation with prisoners forced to stand handcuffed, with their feet shackled to the floor.

The most effective use of waterboarding, according to current and former CIA officials, was in breaking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, known as KSM, who subsequently confessed to a number of ongoing plots against the United States.

A senior CIA official said KSM later admitted it was only because of the waterboarding that he talked.

Ultimately, KSM took responsibility for the 9/ll attacks and virtually all other al Qaeda terror strikes, including the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

"KSM lasted the longest under waterboarding, about a minute and a half, but once he broke, it never had to be used again," said a former CIA official familiar with KSM's case.

ABC News first reported on waterboarding in November 2005 as part of a George Polk Award-winning series of reports on the agency and its practices. In that report, CIA sources outlined for ABC News a list of harsh interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration in a "Presidential Finding," which authorized the use of the techniques on a narrow range of "high-value" targets.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html

[red states rule]

What makes you think I am not angry with the terrorists?



I know full well our soldiers are doing the best they can. The problem is not with our soldiers, but rather the way this war is being waged. We don't know who the enemy is. They are cowards hiding out amongst the innocent. We have the best intelligence services in the world and a military that can be anywhere on the face of the planet in a matter of an hour or so even quicker in most cases. There is absolutely no reason to endanger innocent lives and his own by having Pfc John Smith roaming the streets of Baghdad with a target on his back just daring a terrorist to take a pot shot at him. The war could be presecuted much more efficiently using our intelligence and quick strikes when a terrorist peeks his cowardly head out of his cave.



Only three? You are positive of this? Funny, you take ABC's word on this when you accuse them of being part of the liberal media and you refuse to believe anything else they say.

Only three? You know this because the Bush Administration assured ABC that is all there was? Wasn't it Donald Rumsfeld that told us only three? Hmm, I guess I have to believe him because he is a Republican.

Names, dates and places that stopped attacks? You know this how? The events didn't happen? Maybe they weren't ever going to happen? Maybe they were? Who really knows? Maybe they didn't stop anything but the Bush Admin wants you to think they did. After all, they have to justify themselves or the Democrats will go after them later.

Immie

So Immie how would you fight the terrorists? Treat it like a crime as Bill Clinton did? Go to the UN and have the Security Council issue stern warnings? Have the World Court issue warrents?

As far as the waterboarding this link made BP flee his own thread because he could not find anything that proved the story wrong

Look at the date of the story Immie, and it is based on previous reports that proved waterboarding was not a common interrogation method as the left wanted us to believe


Exclusive: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CIA

November 02, 2007 1:25 PM

For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director.

Officials told ABC News on Sept. 14 that the controversial interrogation technique, in which a suspect has water poured over his mouth and nose to stimulate a drowning reflex as shown in the above demonstration, had been banned by the CIA director at the recommendation of his deputy, Steve Kappes.

Hayden sought and received approval from the White House to remove waterboarding from the list of approved interrogation techniques first authorized by a presidential finding in 2002.

The officials say the decision was made sometime last year but has never been publicly disclosed by the CIA.

One U.S. intelligence official said, "It would be wrong to assume that the program of the past moved into the future unchanged."

A CIA spokesman said, as a matter of policy, he would decline to comment on interrogation techniques, "which have been and continue to be lawful," he said.

The practice of waterboarding has been branded as "torture" by human rights groups and a number of leading U.S. officials, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., because it amounted to a "mock execution."

It has been at the center of the debate that threatens to derail the confirmation of President George Bush's attorney general nominee, Michael Mukasey.

As a result of Hayden's decision, officials say, the most extreme technique left available to CIA interrogators would be what is termed "longtime standing," which includes exhaustion and sleep deprivation with prisoners forced to stand handcuffed, with their feet shackled to the floor.

The most effective use of waterboarding, according to current and former CIA officials, was in breaking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, known as KSM, who subsequently confessed to a number of ongoing plots against the United States.

A senior CIA official said KSM later admitted it was only because of the waterboarding that he talked.

Ultimately, KSM took responsibility for the 9/ll attacks and virtually all other al Qaeda terror strikes, including the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

"KSM lasted the longest under waterboarding, about a minute and a half, but once he broke, it never had to be used again," said a former CIA official familiar with KSM's case.

ABC News first reported on waterboarding in November 2005 as part of a George Polk Award-winning series of reports on the agency and its practices. In that report, CIA sources outlined for ABC News a list of harsh interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration in a "Presidential Finding," which authorized the use of the techniques on a narrow range of "high-value" targets.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html

[Immanuel]

So Immie how would you fight the terrorists? Treat it like a crime as Bill Clinton did? Go to the UN and have the Security Council issue stern warnings? Have the World Court issue warrents?

As far as the waterboarding this link made BP flee his own thread because he could not find anything that proved the story wrong

Look at the date of the story Immie, and it is based on previous reports that proved waterboarding was not a common interrogation method as the left wanted us to believe



How would I fight this war?

I'd pull our soldiers out of the streets of Iraq/Afghanistan. I'd put soldiers (marines) in areas surrounding the bastards. I'd infiltrate the terrorists groupw with intelligence officers and the minute I found a cell or a training camp, I'd take it out. I'd let the world know under no uncertain terms that if we discover a terrorist camp anywhere in the world that even hints of threatening the U.S. we are taking it out even if it means invading the UK.

They would not know we were coming until the terrorists were dead in their caves.

Under no circumstances, would I end the war, but I would not leave my soldiers to play moving targets for terrorist and thus endangering innocent lives.

Immie

[red states rule]

How would I fight this war?

I'd pull our soldiers out of the streets of Iraq/Afghanistan. I'd put soldiers (marines) in areas surrounding the bastards. I'd infiltrate the terrorists groupw with intelligence officers and the minute I found a cell or a training camp, I'd take it out. I'd let the world know under no uncertain terms that if we discover a terrorist camp anywhere in the world that even hints of threatening the U.S. we are taking it out even if it means invading the UK.

They would not know we were coming until the terrorists were dead in their caves.

Under no circumstances, would I end the war, but I would not leave my soldiers to play moving targets for terrorist and thus endangering innocent lives.

Immie

Immie, based on how the liberal media is covering Iraq you have your wish

The US military have beaten the terrorists - why do you think you never see or hear anything about Iraq

Read this if you want to see how US troops deaths are at an all time low


Silent Success: Nov. US Troop Deaths from Hostile Action in Iraq Tie All-Time Low; Afghanistan Improving
By Tom Blumer (Bio | Archive)
December 2, 2008 - 20:44 ET

How can you tell that the news from Iraq about American casualties continues to be good? You barely hear about it.

It would be better to report no deaths, of course. But according to icasualities.org, 17 US soldiers died in Iraq during November. Only seven of those deaths were the result of hostile enemy action, tying an all-time low:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/12/02/silent-success-nov-us-hostile-action-deaths-iraq-tie-all-time-low-afghan

[Immanuel]

Immie, based on how the liberal media is covering Iraq you have your wish

The US military have beaten the terrorists - why do you think you never see or hear anything about Iraq

I beg to differ with you. There is no way to tell that we have beaten the terrorists. Have we won because there have been no attacks? Is every terrorist dead? How will we ever know that we have killed every terrorist? They crawl back into their holes and wait for the right timing.

We will never, ever know that we have won. There is no way to know. The day after we declare victory they can strike again. How do we win?

Immie

[red states rule]

I beg to differ with you. There is no way to tell that we have beaten the terrorists. Have we won because there have been no attacks? Is every terrorist dead? How will we ever know that we have killed every terrorist? They crawl back into their holes and wait for the right timing.

We will never, ever know that we have won. There is no way to know. The day after we declare victory they can strike again. How do we win?

Immie

Immie, the fact that ABC, CBS, and NBC have all pulled their reporters tells me the US have indeed won the fight

If not, they would be there telling us all about it as often as they could

[Gaffer]

Immie, I will explain something to you based on real experience on my part. The islamist use the same strategy that was used by the VC/NVA. They hide among civilians. They store their weapons and equipment among civilians. They use the deaths of civilians for propaganda purposes. If there are not enough dead civilians in the action they make sure the numbers are increased.

The US troops are not walking in the streets with a target on their back. They are doing patrols that spot potential and real threats that you can't see if you don't have someone there looking. In some cases they go out to purposely draw fire in order to identify positions.

You never win a war or anything else by sitting back and defending. You go where the enemy is in force and destroy him. It works the same way with the police. A known drug house or criminal operation will get raided based on intelligence reports. Sometimes these places contain innocent people. The police have to work at getting the criminals with minimum injury to the innocent people. The big difference is that the police are on their home turf and have plenty of time. The military is dealing with time constraints and a larger area with much larger caliber weapons. While the police will deal with one event one a rare basis, the military is dealing with many events daily.

Iraq is winding down. We will be out of there soon. The mission has been accomplished regardless of the left and the media. What iraq does with it is still to be seen. Al queda, the libs and the media have lost in iraq. And I do lump them all together.

Afghan is a NATO operation. It will drag on for a long time because not everyone is committed to winning there. And we are fight 100% muslims there. The only way to really end it is to go into pakistan and clean them all out. Then go after iran.

The way to win awar is to take the fight to the enemy and make him defend. Make his country suffer the horrors of war. Make his people suffer. The lessons of WW2 were not learned. You raze the country of your enemy and rebuild it the way you want it to be.

[Immanuel]

Immie, the fact that ABC, CBS, and NBC have all pulled their reporters tells me the US have indeed won the fight

If not, they would be there telling us all about it as often as they could

See, that is where we disagree. All it means is that the terrorists have crawled back in their holes, maybe to lick their wounds, and are waiting for the proper time to strike again.

You simply cannot claim victory because they are not as active today as they were six months ago. Drop your guard and they will likely hit again. It is obvious that the strategy of IED bombings is not working. IEDs are not going to defeat us. They may have changed strategy. Maybe it is time we changed ours.

Then again, we never should have tried fighting it like a conventional war in the first place.

Immie

[Immanuel]

Immie, I will explain something to you based on real experience on my part. The islamist use the same strategy that was used by the VC/NVA. They hide among civilians. They store their weapons and equipment among civilians. They use the deaths of civilians for propaganda purposes. If there are not enough dead civilians in the action they make sure the numbers are increased.

The US troops are not walking in the streets with a target on their back. They are doing patrols that spot potential and real threats that you can't see if you don't have someone there looking. In some cases they go out to purposely draw fire in order to identify positions.

You never win a war or anything else by sitting back and defending. You go where the enemy is in force and destroy him. It works the same way with the police. A known drug house or criminal operation will get raided based on intelligence reports. Sometimes these places contain innocent people. The police have to work at getting the criminals with minimum injury to the innocent people. The big difference is that the police are on their home turf and have plenty of time. The military is dealing with time constraints and a larger area with much larger caliber weapons. While the police will deal with one event one a rare basis, the military is dealing with many events daily.

Iraq is winding down. We will be out of there soon. The mission has been accomplished regardless of the left and the media. What iraq does with it is still to be seen. Al queda, the libs and the media have lost in iraq. And I do lump them all together.

Afghan is a NATO operation. It will drag on for a long time because not everyone is committed to winning there. And we are fight 100% muslims there. The only way to really end it is to go into pakistan and clean them all out. Then go after iran.

The way to win awar is to take the fight to the enemy and make him defend. Make his country suffer the horrors of war. Make his people suffer. The lessons of WW2 were not learned. You raze the country of your enemy and rebuild it the way you want it to be.

Gaffer,

I'd like to say that I agree the war is winding down. I simply don't believe it. Yes, Iraq is similar to Nam. We left Nam humiliated. I fear we will do the same in Iraq.

It is not possible to know that we have finished off the terrorists.

I have no problem taking the war to them, but not at the expense of innocent lives if we can avoid it at all.

Sorry, for the short reply but I need to run for a couple of hours.

Immie

[red states rule]

See, that is where we disagree. All it means is that the terrorists have crawled back in their holes, maybe to lick their wounds, and are waiting for the proper time to strike again.

You simply cannot claim victory because they are not as active today as they were six months ago. Drop your guard and they will likely hit again. It is obvious that the strategy of IED bombings is not working. IEDs are not going to defeat us. They may have changed strategy. Maybe it is time we changed ours.

Then again, we never should have tried fighting it like a conventional war in the first place.

Immie

Seems to me, the left and Pres Obama want to do exactly what the terrorists want them to do - if you are correct Immie

When OBL publicly says Iraq is now the front in their war on the US - what would you have us do?

If you and the left had there way, the surge never would have happened and Harry Ried would have been correct when he sneered "this war is lost"

[Abbey Marie]

Immie, I want to give you credit for consistency. You care about people from pre-birth to death, without much exception. Many people (I won't label them; we all know who they are) who seem to care deeply about terrorists and death-row prisoners, have no feeling whatsoever for those murdered in the holocaust that is abortion today.

[red states rule]

Immie, I want to give you credit for consistency. You care about people from pre-birth to death, without much exception. Many people (I won't label them; we all know who they are) who seem to care deeply about terrorists and death-row prisoners, have no feeling whatsoever for those murdered in the holocaust that is abortion today.

and Nancy Pelosi said fewer babies is good for the US economy. That is why more tax money is going for abortions

Pelosi: Birth control will boost economy
Argues fewer people stimulates economy by cutting cost to state, federal government


Posted: January 26, 2009
10:22 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

In an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., defended huge sums of money for "family planning services" tucked into President Obama's proposed economic stimulus package, claiming contraception will reduce government costs.

"Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services," Stephanopoulos asked Pelosi, "how is that stimulus?"

"Well, the family planning services reduce cost," Pelosi answered. "They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those – one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

Stephanopoulos immediately gave Pelosi, herself the mother of five children and grandmother to seven, the opportunity to retract a suggestion that it would help the economy if the government spent millions to help people stop having babies.

"So no apologies for that?" Stephanopoulos asked.

"No apologies," Pelosi answered. "No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87161

[Immanuel]

Gaffer,

I'd like to say that I agree the war is winding down. I simply don't believe it. Yes, Iraq is similar to Nam. We left Nam humiliated. I fear we will do the same in Iraq.

It is not possible to know that we have finished off the terrorists.

I have no problem taking the war to them, but not at the expense of innocent lives if we can avoid it at all.

Sorry, for the short reply but I need to run for a couple of hours.

Immie

Sorry Gaffer, my time ran out, but I wanted to add to this post.

Yes, in many ways the War on Terrorism is very much like Vietnam but there is one major difference that I see. I may be wrong on this, but I don't think I am.

In Vietnam the VC were fighting for land. They wanted to control South Vietnam and they were not going anywhere. They fought from the jungles and villages of Vietnam and when things got hot they slunk back into the jungles and disappeared. The VC weren't threatening our homes. They were fighting at home. The only things they wanted was to control Vietnam and for us to go home.

That is not necessarily the case in the WOT. These people don't care about the land. They aren't afraid of us moving in and taking over the land. The only thing they want... is as many of us dead as possible. They don't have to live in Iraq. They can and will come here when it is convenient for them. They could be your next door neighbor right now and we would not know it until it was too late. They are more than happy if we believe they are all bottled up in the Middle East cowering in their caves praying we won't find them today. In the meantime they could be basking in the sun at Daytona Beach or freezing in chilly New York City or living it up in Monte Carlo.

Take the fight to them? How? Not by locking your troops up in Baghdad, that is for sure.



Seems to me, the left and Pres Obama want to do exactly what the terrorists want them to do - if you are correct Immie

When OBL publicly says Iraq is now the front in their war on the US - what would you have us do?

If you and the left had there way, the surge never would have happened and Harry Ried would have been correct when he sneered "this war is lost"

OBL publicly says Iraq is now the front in the war on the US? Wouldn't you say that if you had the U.S. playing into your hands by corralling the American Forces in Iraq, fighting an unseen enemy? Fighting people you don't give a crap about?

You believe what OBL says? Misinformation is a great tool in war.


Immie, I want to give you credit for consistency. You care about people from pre-birth to death, without much exception. Many people (I won't label them; we all know who they are) who seem to care deeply about terrorists and death-row prisoners, have no feeling whatsoever for those murdered in the holocaust that is abortion today.

Thank you Abbey, but some who knew my old stance on the death sentence might argue with you on that. :poke:

Not that I am opposed to the death sentence per se but rather that I insist that it be used only in the most obvious and heinous crimes.

Immie

[red states rule]

Immie, OBL boasted Iraq was the main front at the same time the liberal media were telling us nearly night how many of our troops were killed in Iraq on that day

Once the surge started, the US turned the tables on OBL, AQ, the Dems, and the liberal media

Since we have destroyed AQ, and are turning more and more sections of Iraq over to the Oraq government - you do not hear much out of the same folks who were once constantly telling us everything that was going on in Iraq

I wonder why?

[Immanuel]

Immie, OBL boasted Iraq was the main front at the same time the liberal media were telling us nearly night how many of our troops were killed in Iraq on that day

Once the surge started, the US turned the tables on OBL, AQ, the Dems, and the liberal media

Since we have destroyed AQ, and are turning more and more sections of Iraq over to the Oraq government - you do not hear much out of the same folks who were once constantly telling us everything that was going on in Iraq

I wonder why?

Destroyed AQ?

I wonder if OBL would laugh if he saw that statement tonight? Maybe die laughing?

Immie

[DragonStryk72]

it's always the strawman argument.....why do you assume the people in gitmo are innocent bystanders to violence.....just once, how about telling us what you plan on doing with the real bastards.......

That's just it. the majority, by the article, have never even been charged with anything. You pulling them for what, owning guns while their neighborhoods are being shot up? We don't know, we can't know, because there's been no accountability, none. We're not calling them spies, insurgents, traitors, or even jaywalkers.

The REAL bastards are already being tried, again, as per the article. So what are you going to do with all the guys who actually should be free? How do you take back what was done to them?

[DragonStryk72]

I can speak as a combat vet because I am. As for the invasions. Afghan had no infrastructure. iraq had a dictator who's only interest in infrastructure was to keep his military going and supply his palaces.

Where do you get I wouldn't be armed in a conflict in the US? Did you mix up a couple of posts? If I need a weapon I will acquire one.

Does anyone believe that a guy captured on a battle field in Afghan with weapons and ammo was just an innocent bystander.

This quote here seems to state that they have no right to have weapons to defend their own homes with. The battlefield isn't the middle of the desert, it's people's homes. Hell, even in Nam, the majority of battle was in the jungles, but that's not the case here. We have no ability to tell apart the armed guerilla fighter, and the guy who has been looted 3-4 times who is trying to stop the fifth.

You wouldn't hesitate to arm up at that point, beg, borrow or steal (This includes grabbing, say, a weapon found on a dead enemy, or even a dead US soldier. You might feel bad for him, but you're not passing up the gun.) as needs be.

[Abbey Marie]

...
Thank you Abbey, but some who knew my old stance on the death sentence might argue with you on that. :poke:

Not that I am opposed to the death sentence per se but rather that I insist that it be used only in the most obvious and heinous crimes.

Immie

That's no problem. Most rational people recognize exceptions to rules. Most people would agree to a couple of exceptions to a ban on abortion, like the life of the mother, or rape.

[bullypulpit]

Does anyone believe that a guy captured on a battle field in Afghan with weapons and ammo was just an innocent bystander.

This quote here seems to state that they have no right to have weapons to defend their own homes with. The battlefield isn't the middle of the desert, it's people's homes. Hell, even in Nam, the majority of battle was in the jungles, but that's not the case here. We have no ability to tell apart the armed guerilla fighter, and the guy who has been looted 3-4 times who is trying to stop the fifth.

You wouldn't hesitate to arm up at that point, beg, borrow or steal (This includes grabbing, say, a weapon found on a dead enemy, or even a dead US soldier. You might feel bad for him, but you're not passing up the gun.) as needs be.

Indeed, given that most people in Afghanistan carry weapons and ammo is no sign of terrorist intent. Following that logic, anyone here in the US who keeps and/or carries weapons is equally guilty of terrorist intent.

But more to the point of the thread, what're they gonna do with the detainees at GITMO? Well, there's a ranch near Crawford, Texas that has alot of brush to be cleared, and the Bush's are certain to need gardeners at their new home in Dallas. In all seriousness though, their are enough super-max prisons to absorb them, and one they're in a super-max, they'll be crying to go back to GITMO. It's not like they'll be in jail with Otis in Mayberry, with Barney Fife as their jailor.

[red states rule]

Indeed, given that most people in Afghanistan carry weapons and ammo is no sign of terrorist intent. Following that logic, anyone here in the US who keeps and/or carries weapons is equally guilty of terrorist intent.

But more to the point of the thread, what're they gonna do with the detainees at GITMO? Well, there's a ranch near Crawford, Texas that has alot of brush to be cleared, and the Bush's are certain to need gardeners at their new home in Dallas. In all seriousness though, their are enough super-max prisons to absorb them, and one they're in a super-max, they'll be crying to go back to GITMO. It's not like they'll be in jail with Otis in Mayberry, with Barney Fife as their jailor.

Oh yea BP, they are innocent bystanders - like this guy


Freed by the U.S., Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief

By ROBERT F. WORTH
Published: January 22, 2009
BEIRUT, Lebanon — The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year

The militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, is suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen’s capital, Sana, in September. He was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen.

His status was announced in an Internet statement by the militant group and was confirmed by an American counterterrorism official.

“They’re one and the same guy,” said the official, who insisted on anonymity because he was discussing an intelligence analysis. “He returned to Saudi Arabia in 2007, but his movements to Yemen remain unclear.”

The development came as Republican legislators criticized the plan to close the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, detention camp in the absence of any measures for dealing with current detainees. But it also helps explain why the new administration wants to move cautiously, taking time to work out a plan to cope with the complications.

Almost half the camp’s remaining detainees are Yemenis, and efforts to repatriate them depend in part on the creation of a Yemeni rehabilitation program — partly financed by the United States — similar to the Saudi one. Saudi Arabia has claimed that no graduate of its program has returned to terrorism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/world/middleeast/23yemen.html?_r=3

[Immanuel]

That's just it. the majority, by the article, have never even been charged with anything. You pulling them for what, owning guns while their neighborhoods are being shot up? We don't know, we can't know, because there's been no accountability, none. We're not calling them spies, insurgents, traitors, or even jaywalkers.

The REAL bastards are already being tried, again, as per the article. So what are you going to do with all the guys who actually should be free? How do you take back what was done to them?


Indeed, given that most people in Afghanistan carry weapons and ammo is no sign of terrorist intent. Following that logic, anyone here in the US who keeps and/or carries weapons is equally guilty of terrorist intent.

But more to the point of the thread, what're they gonna do with the detainees at GITMO? Well, there's a ranch near Crawford, Texas that has alot of brush to be cleared, and the Bush's are certain to need gardeners at their new home in Dallas. In all seriousness though, their are enough super-max prisons to absorb them, and one they're in a super-max, they'll be crying to go back to GITMO. It's not like they'll be in jail with Otis in Mayberry, with Barney Fife as their jailor.

Oh man, I thought I was the only rational person that was contrarian to the PC (Politically Conservative) crowd on this issue! Okay, well, BP is questionable on the being rational part! ;) But it is good to know that I am not the only insane one. :D

Immie

DS I tried to rep ya, but I have to spread it around.

[red states rule]

Oh man, I thought I was the only rational person that was contrarian to the PC (Politically Conservative) crowd on this issue! Okay, well, BP is questionable on the being rational part! ;) But it is good to know that I am not the only insane one. :D

Immie

DS I tried to rep ya, but I have to spread it around.

And alot of you have the same thought process as Keith Olbermann

It is all the falut of the US and Pres Bush - not the fault of the terrorists



Olbermann Suggests Gitmo Inspired Innocent Ex-Detainee to Become Al-Qaeda Leader
By Brad Wilmouth (Bio | Archive)
January 26, 2009 - 21:22 ET

If we are to believe Keith Olbermann’s latest wild theory, an innocent, mild mannered furniture salesman and humanitarian from Riyadh may have been inspired to become an al-Qaeda leader because he was falsely imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, courtesy of Olbermann’s favorite target, the Bush administration, who "created [his] reason for hating us."

Even for Keith Olbermann, this takes the cake, and makes you wonder if the rumors are true that the MSNBC host doesn’t really believe half of what he says, but only recites his rants and conspiracy theories for ratings. In light of reports that a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, Said Ali al-Shihri, who was released in 2007 and has now become an al-Qaeda leader in Yemen believed responsible for a September embassy bombing, Olbermann seemed to seriously suggest that al-Shihri may have been an innocent man when he was first jailed at Gitmo, and then became a terrorist leader as a result of his imprisonment. The Countdown host plugged the story before a commercial break: "But perhaps the real question is: Since we never tried him, never found him guilty, and the Bush administration set him free, what if he wasn’t a terrorist in the first place but we turned him into one by sending him to Gitmo?"

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2009/01/26/olbermann-suggests-gitmo-inspired-innocent-ex-detainee-become-al-qaed

[Immanuel]

And alot of you have the same thought process as Keith Olbermann

It is all the falut of the US and Pres Bush - not the fault of the terrorists



Oh RSR, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

I have not blamed the U.S. I simply believe that the way we are waging this war is wrong, even foolish, not that we should not be waging the war against terrorism. What don't you understand about poor methodology?

You will not find one post coming from me that says we should not be fighting terrorists. You will find plenty that says we should be using different tactics than we are using.

Immie

[red states rule]

Oh RSR, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

I have not blamed the U.S. I simply believe that the way we are waging this war is wrong, even foolish, not that we should not be waging the war against terrorism. What don't you understand about poor methodology?

You will not find one post coming from me that says we should not be fighting terrorists. You will find plenty that says we should be using different tactics than we are using.

Immie

Immie, did I mention any names? I am pointing out the usual excuses some give for terrorists wanting to kill us - it is our fault they hate us

[moderate democrat]

Immie, did I mention any names? I am pointing out the usual excuses some give for terrorists wanting to kill us - it is our fault they hate us

I would think that, by saying "A lot of YOU" while quoting a post from Immie, the implication is clear that you were speaking about him.

[red states rule]

I would think that, by saying "A lot of YOU" while quoting a post from Immie, the implication is clear that you were speaking about him.

As usual you were wrong

However, I was thinking about you

[moderate democrat]

so when you quote me in post #121, and then use the word "you", it refers to the guy you quoted, but when you quote Immie in post #117, and then use the word "you", it does NOT refer to the guy you quoted?

I see.

[Immanuel]

Immie, did I mention any names? I am pointing out the usual excuses some give for terrorists wanting to kill us - it is our fault they hate us


I would think that, by saying "A lot of YOU" while quoting a post from Immie, the implication is clear that you were speaking about him.

That was how I took it.

Immie

[red states rule]

so when you quote me in post #121, and then use the word "you", it refers to the guy you quoted, but when you quote Immie in post #117, and then use the word "you", it does NOT refer to the guy you quoted?

I see.

Logic never was one of your traits - Immie and I have had civil discussions and nothing has changed

You on the otherhand are still the same. A defeatest and appeaser. Party before all else

[moderate democrat]

That was how I took it.

Immie

that is how anyone with more than a third grade level of understanding of the english language would take it as well. The pronoun "you" had to refer to someone, and, after quoting you, the implication that he was referring to you is undeniable.

[red states rule]

That was how I took it.

Immie

It was not directed at you Immie

We have our differences but unlike others, you have not blamed the US for being attacked - or made excuses as to why they hate us

Some folks like Moderate Democrat must have a guilty conscience

[Immanuel]

It was not directed at you Immie

We have our differences but unlike others, you have not blamed the US for being attacked - or made excuses as to why they hate us

Some folks like Moderate Democrat must have a guilty conscience

Even if it was directed at me, I did not take offense at it. Do not worry about it. I looked at it like this, if you directed it at me then you simply did not understand where I am coming from which means I still have not made myself clear.

M.D. is right though, it certainly appeared you were putting me in that category.

Immie

[red states rule]

Even if it was directed at me, I did not take offense at it. Do not worry about it. I looked at it like this, if you directed it at me then you simply did not understand where I am coming from which means I still have not made myself clear.

M.D. is right though, it certainly appeared you were putting me in that category.

Immie

I do not want you to think it was directed at you. As I said, we have always had civil discussions - but MD (aka MFM) is trying to stir things up

[Immanuel]

Well, I would be thrilled if MFM were back.

You know he and I have always been friends even when we don't see eye to eye. But, you need to quit being so paranoid about every new liberal on site being MFM, although with this one, I wondered! :laugh2:

Immie

[red states rule]

Well, I would be thrilled if MFM were back.

You know he and I have always been friends even when we don't see eye to eye. But, you need to quit being so paranoid about every new liberal on site being MFM, although with this one, I wondered! :laugh2:

Immie

Immie, he IS back

Moderate Democrat IS MFM

Not paranoid at all Immie. MD showed up right after MFM's name was changed to "retiredman"

It is a long story Immie - but I am correct

[Gaffer]

One of the common misconceptions the left has is that Vietnam was a terrible defeat for the US and that iraq is another Vietnam. First of all the US had won the war in Vietnam by 1972. We were withdrawing because the north was defeated on the battle field. It was turned over to the South Vietnamese. The dem congress then voted to cut all funding and aid to South Vietnam. Effectively leaving them helpless. The north then invaded in 1975 and easily defeated the, basically, unarmed south causing the infamous US withdrawl of the US embassy personnel. The US military was never defeated, they were ordered out. The dem congress was defeated and showed their true colors along with the media.

As a comparison to Vietnam iraq compares in a few ways. First is the media representation of what is happening. They do every thing they can to make it look bad and destroy the morale of the citizens and the troops. They learned how to do this in Vietnam and it continues to this day. Then there is the dem congress who will do and say anything to get power over the people. At the first opportunity they will sell out iraq by cutting funding and withdrawing troops. Look for a resurgence of AQ there soon. iran will also be moving on iraq with the dem blessing very soon after the troops are removed.

DS: Most of the fighting in the jungles of the central highlands was with north vietnamese troops. The VC used the villages. They used them a lot. The NVA and VC took control of villages by beheading the village leaders and the educated people in them. They then made the village store weapons and equipment and provide food. When we moved into the area they hid among the people and fired on us to create as much havoc as possible and use any civilian casualties as propaganda. Sound familiar? It's an old communist tactic the muslims have expanded on.

The only aspects of similarity between Vietnam and iraq are the media and dems tactics. A repeat of history that is going to cost America a lot more than it's honor.

[moderate democrat]

Immie, he IS back

Moderate Democrat IS MFM

Not paranoid at all Immie. MD showed up right after MFM's name was changed to "retiredman"

It is a long story Immie - but I am correct


I most definitely am not this fellow MFM.

[red states rule]

I most definitely am not this fellow MFM.

I wil put this as tactfully as I can

You are a liar

[moderate democrat]

I wil put this as tactfully as I can

You are a liar

you are incorrect, but I really have no desire to argue with you about it.

[red states rule]

you are incorrect, but I really have no desire to argue with you about it.

Fine, I will drop the matter. I know the truth V :laugh2:

[Yurt]

I most definitely am not this fellow MFM.

:lol:

[moderate democrat]

:lol:

I will say the same thing to you that I said to red states rule... you are wrong, but I have no desire to spend any time arguing with you about it. If you want to discuss issues with me, that would be nice. If not... that's up to you.

[Yurt]

I will say the same thing to you that I said to red states rule... you are wrong, but I have no desire to spend any time arguing with you about it. If you want to discuss issues with me, that would be nice. If not... that's up to you.

whatever, i know the truth, but it really doesn't matter...carry on

[Immanuel]

One of the common misconceptions the left has is that Vietnam was a terrible defeat for the US and that iraq is another Vietnam. First of all the US had won the war in Vietnam by 1972. We were withdrawing because the north was defeated on the battle field. It was turned over to the South Vietnamese. The dem congress then voted to cut all funding and aid to South Vietnam. Effectively leaving them helpless. The north then invaded in 1975 and easily defeated the, basically, unarmed south causing the infamous US withdrawl of the US embassy personnel. The US military was never defeated, they were ordered out. The dem congress was defeated and showed their true colors along with the media.

As a comparison to Vietnam iraq compares in a few ways. First is the media representation of what is happening. They do every thing they can to make it look bad and destroy the morale of the citizens and the troops. They learned how to do this in Vietnam and it continues to this day. Then there is the dem congress who will do and say anything to get power over the people. At the first opportunity they will sell out iraq by cutting funding and withdrawing troops. Look for a resurgence of AQ there soon. iran will also be moving on iraq with the dem blessing very soon after the troops are removed.

DS: Most of the fighting in the jungles of the central highlands was with north vietnamese troops. The VC used the villages. They used them a lot. The NVA and VC took control of villages by beheading the village leaders and the educated people in them. They then made the village store weapons and equipment and provide food. When we moved into the area they hid among the people and fired on us to create as much havoc as possible and use any civilian casualties as propaganda. Sound familiar? It's an old communist tactic the muslims have expanded on.

The only aspects of similarity between Vietnam and iraq are the media and dems tactics. A repeat of history that is going to cost America a lot more than it's honor.


Gaffer,

I completely agree with you here. The U.S. Military will not be defeated by the terrorists. I don't even think the terrorists are foolish enough to think they can win that battle and as you say, the reason we left Vietnam humiliated was because of the politicians (well you said dems) I will stick to it being politicians in this discussion because that is the appropriate term for the situation in Iraq. We will eventually come home defeated because of the poor planning involved in waging this particular war.

The military is not threatened here, but as I have been trying to say all along, we will come home in the same manner as we did from Nam due to the screw up of the politicians. Now, I ask you, who has the major responsibility if this is the case?

They should have learned from Nam. They didn't.

Immie

[manu1959]

Gaffer,

I completely agree with you here. The U.S. Military will not be defeated by the terrorists. I don't even think the terrorists are foolish enough to think they can win that battle and as you say, the reason we left Vietnam humiliated was because of the politicians (well you said dems) I will stick to it being politicians in this discussion because that is the appropriate term for the situation in Iraq. We will eventually come home defeated because of the poor planning involved in waging this particular war.

The military is not threatened here, but as I have been trying to say all along, we will come home in the same manner as we did from Nam due to the screw up of the politicians. Now, I ask you, who has the major responsibility if this is the case?

They should have learned from Nam. They didn't.

Immie

our troops are not comming home....they are relocating to afganistan and there will still be military bases in iraq....same as there are bases in germany, spain, italy, england, japan, saudi, uae....etc etc etc.....

[Immanuel]

our troops are not comming home....they are relocating to afganistan and there will still be military bases in iraq....same as there are bases in germany, spain, italy, england, japan, saudi, uae....etc etc etc.....

Well, all I can say is that you have more faith in our politicians than I do. I hate to say this, but I am almost certain we will come home embarassed when this is said and done. I still say this war was poorly waged from the beginning.

Also, was that occupation and nation building the original intent of this war or was it the elimination of terrorism?

Immie

[manu1959]

Well, all I can say is that you have more faith in our politicians than I do. I hate to say this, but I am almost certain we will come home embarassed when this is said and done. I still say this war was poorly waged from the beginning.

Also, was that occupation and nation building the original intent of this war or was it the elimination of terrorism?

Immie

the original intent of the war in afganistan was to chase the 911 crowd.....which became a staging area for the invasion of iraq to enforce the 18 un resolutions and the violation of the cease fire from gulf war i and of course remove the infamous wmd threat......

obama has stated numerous times that he plans on withdrawing from iraq....i can assure you a us military base will remain......and he has also stated he would redeploy troops to afganistan....he never says bring all the troops home.....

[Yurt]

the original intent of the war in afganistan was to chase the 911 crowd.....which became a staging area for the invasion of iraq to enforce the 18 un resolutions and the violation of the cease fire from gulf war i and of course remove the infamous wmd threat......

obama has stated numerous times that he plans on withdrawing from iraq....i can assure you a us military base will remain......and he has also stated he would redeploy troops to afganistan....he never says bring all the troops home.....

i thought he said during the campaign, at least at one point, that he would remove all troops from iraq.

[manu1959]

i thought he said during the campaign, at least at one point, that he would remove all troops from iraq.

missed that if he did ..... i always heard the word "redeploy" ..... people assume he means to the us .... at least mccain was honest and said we would be there for 100 years ..... because we will be .... we have been in germany and japan for 60....

[Immanuel]

missed that if he did ..... i always heard the word "redeploy" ..... people assume he means to the us .... at least mccain was honest and said we would be there for 100 years ..... because we will be .... we have been in germany and japan for 60....

Are we still in Nam? Vietnam more closely relates to Iraq than the others.

Immie

[Gaffer]

Gaffer,

I completely agree with you here. The U.S. Military will not be defeated by the terrorists. I don't even think the terrorists are foolish enough to think they can win that battle and as you say, the reason we left Vietnam humiliated was because of the politicians (well you said dems) I will stick to it being politicians in this discussion because that is the appropriate term for the situation in Iraq. We will eventually come home defeated because of the poor planning involved in waging this particular war.

The military is not threatened here, but as I have been trying to say all along, we will come home in the same manner as we did from Nam due to the screw up of the politicians. Now, I ask you, who has the major responsibility if this is the case?

They should have learned from Nam. They didn't.

Immie

The dem controlled congress of the early 70's was the cause of South Vietnam's fall. The very guys that started and increased the troop numbers turned from supporting and funding the war to being against it. All for political purposes. All politicians are scum, but these guys went well beyond the call of scummery. They cut off ALL aid to the south. And when Ford went to them to get aid for the south they refused him.

There were no US fighting forces in Vietnam when it fell. The imprisonments and executions began. Cambodia went down next. Millions died. Millions more were tortured and starved. The dem congress can be very proud of their efforts. Many of them are still in congress today. And they have been working hard to attain the same victory in iraq and afghan. The media shares the same bloody hands.

Vietnam was the direct result of dems in power and their desire to keep that power. If the country has a different mindset they set the media to work to change that mind set. They have the control they have been wanting now and they will NEVER give it up again. Welcome to the USSA.

[Immanuel]

The dem controlled congress of the early 70's was the cause of South Vietnam's fall. The very guys that started and increased the troop numbers turned from supporting and funding the war to being against it. All for political purposes. All politicians are scum, but these guys went well beyond the call of scummery. They cut off ALL aid to the south. And when Ford went to them to get aid for the south they refused him.

There were no US fighting forces in Vietnam when it fell. The imprisonments and executions began. Cambodia went down next. Millions died. Millions more were tortured and starved. The dem congress can be very proud of their efforts. Many of them are still in congress today. And they have been working hard to attain the same victory in iraq and afghan. The media shares the same bloody hands.

Vietnam was the direct result of dems in power and their desire to keep that power. If the country has a different mindset they set the media to work to change that mind set. They have the control they have been wanting now and they will NEVER give it up again. Welcome to the USSA.

Okay, then how is what I have said wrong? Based on you post (#102) it seems and others, it seems that you think that my assessment of the final outcome of this war is wrong. Yet, you seem to be stating exactly what I have been saying although maybe with more authority and first hand knowledge. We're going to lose because the politicians have screwed up and will screw up in the end.

On the one hand it seems that you agree with me, yet on the other it seems you think I am wrong.

Immie

[Gaffer]

Okay, then how is what I have said wrong? Based on you post (#102) it seems and others, it seems that you think that my assessment of the final outcome of this war is wrong. Yet, you seem to be stating exactly what I have been saying although maybe with more authority and first hand knowledge. We're going to lose because the politicians have screwed up and will screw up in the end.

On the one hand it seems that you agree with me, yet on the other it seems you think I am wrong.

Immie

I guess it was the way you worded it. The fact is there were two wars in Vietnam. The first involved us. We won. The north was defeated. We withdrew, the south began to rebuild. Two years later, with the aid of the soviets and our congress the north started a new war. The south promptly lost. The idea that we were humiliated is what the media has spread around and everyone accepts. That was not the case. The embassy evacuation is what is always shown as the great American defeat. It was simply the removal of the last American representatives and non-combat people before the arrival of the NVA. The NVA even stopped a few miles from the embassy to allow for the final evacuation to be completed.

As I say it's in the wording. Your tending to word it as you have heard it from the media for the last 40 years and that gets me every time I read something like that. It's not that your wrong. It's that the media has fed you a lot of bullshit which you didn't filter, even though you try to filter out the crap.

The actions in iraq take place mostly in the cities among lots of civilians. Actions in Vietnam took place mostly in the country side and in small villages. The only similarities are in congress and the media who are using the same tactics they did back then. The actual war effort was not screwed up by politicians, it was by rumsfeld. But most of the politicians are doing everything they can to undermine the war effort.

After the troops are mostly withdrawn watch the move in congress to cut off all aid to iraq. It will be the next step.

[manu1959]

After the troops are mostly withdrawn watch the move in congress to cut off all aid to iraq. It will be the next step.

ask the Kurds about it ..... or the rawandans ...... or the somalis ....

[bullypulpit]

Oh yea BP, they are innocent bystanders - like this guy


Freed by the U.S., Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief

By ROBERT F. WORTH
Published: January 22, 2009
BEIRUT, Lebanon — The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year

The militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, is suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen’s capital, Sana, in September. He was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen.

His status was announced in an Internet statement by the militant group and was confirmed by an American counterterrorism official.

“They’re one and the same guy,” said the official, who insisted on anonymity because he was discussing an intelligence analysis. “He returned to Saudi Arabia in 2007, but his movements to Yemen remain unclear.”

The development came as Republican legislators criticized the plan to close the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, detention camp in the absence of any measures for dealing with current detainees. But it also helps explain why the new administration wants to move cautiously, taking time to work out a plan to cope with the complications.

Almost half the camp’s remaining detainees are Yemenis, and efforts to repatriate them depend in part on the creation of a Yemeni rehabilitation program — partly financed by the United States — similar to the Saudi one. Saudi Arabia has claimed that no graduate of its program has returned to terrorism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/world/middleeast/23yemen.html?_r=3

So why'd the Bush administration cut him loose?

[red states rule]

So why'd the Bush administration cut him loose?

"lack of evidence", or to protect his "rights"

The same reasons Obama will let them all go someday

[manu1959]

So why'd the Bush administration cut him loose?

same reason carter cut ayers crowd loose...............