Recommended course of action

[red states rule]

and the lives that the enron collapse ruined

They are still alive - we pulled the results of the UN Oil for Food out of the mass graves

 

[Rosotar]

They are still alive - we pulled the results of the UN Oil for Food out of the mass graves

It's interesting that you're so upset by oil for food but you're not even slightly bothered by Haliburton's war profiteering and all the other graft associated with this "reconstruction" of Iraq.

Here's a tip for ya. Dick Cheney and a bunch of other rich Republicans have gotten a lot richer off the deaths of half a million Iraqis and nearly four thousand U.S. soldiers.

Speaking of corruption.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's interesting that you're so upset by oil for food but you're not even slightly bothered by Haliburton's war profiteering and all the other graft associated with this "reconstruction" of Iraq.

Here's a tip for ya. Dick Cheney and a bunch of other rich Republicans have gotten a lot richer off the deaths of half a million Iraqis and nearly four thousand U.S. soldiers.

Speaking of corruption.

An outright LIE. Cheney has NO IDEA where his investments are or with whom AND as a matter of fact he specifically made it so after a set amount of profit each year the rest if any goes not to him but to charities. President Bush also has no idea where his investments are or with whom.

I blasted RSR for claiming the Clintons knew where their investments were and were being two faced. I notice you can not do the same.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's interesting that you're so upset by oil for food but you're not even slightly bothered by Haliburton's war profiteering and all the other graft associated with this "reconstruction" of Iraq.

Here's a tip for ya. Dick Cheney and a bunch of other rich Republicans have gotten a lot richer off the deaths of half a million Iraqis and nearly four thousand U.S. soldiers.

Speaking of corruption.

A link for you....

http://www.factcheck.org/kerry_ad_falsely_accuses_cheney_on_halliburton.html

This was the easiest to find, I am sure if you really were interested you could have fact checked your false accusation.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And just to be clear the following applies to Factcheck.org.....


Factcheck.org is a "nonpartisan, nonprofit, 'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics." It is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania and "accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals."

 

[pegwinn]

It doesn't say treat them fairly. It says the rights of fair and regular trial. That is...a fair and speedy trial.

That is your interpretation and you are welcome to it. However, since the period isn't specified by the text, it is open to interpretation by those holding them. IMO so long as they are living and breathing, being fed regularly, not being brutalized, etc, then they have no beef.

And no...I don't think that is the only alternative. Try them, sentence them, or if there is no evidence against them let them go.

I personally don't have a problem with that in a philosophical way. Reality forces us to admit that anyone taken on the battlefield or in a hostile area unfortunately is a threat even if you cannot prove it in a court of law. Something caused them to be captured. Releasing them for "lack of evidence" poses a potential threat to our people. Even if not tried, convicted, then executed; I'd have to recommend holding them until we leave the area. Otherwise pragmatism demands that they be shot.

Go pull a cows \!/ over yer head and get a bull to fuck some sense into ya, Chocolate Soldier.

You can keep your homoerotic fantasy life to yourself twink. If you keep sending your sexual fantasies over the net, sooner or later someone will track you down and take you up on them. I know you like me, but you'll just have to get over it. I am not gay, into animals, or fake aussies who think jabberwocky is intelligent discussion.

And just to be clear the following applies to Factcheck.org.....


Factcheck.org is a "nonpartisan, nonprofit, 'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics." It is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania and "accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals."

Guns, Guns, Guns..... You know that telling the truth, and using non partisan sources to do it will only enrage the kiddies. .

 

[Larkinn]

That is your interpretation and you are welcome to it. However, since the period isn't specified by the text, it is open to interpretation by those holding them. IMO so long as they are living and breathing, being fed regularly, not being brutalized, etc, then they have no beef.

It is very much a stretch to consider 4 years a "fair and regular trial".

Reality forces us to admit that anyone taken on the battlefield or in a hostile area unfortunately is a threat even if you cannot prove it in a court of law. Something caused them to be captured. Releasing them for "lack of evidence" poses a potential threat to our people. Even if not tried, convicted, then executed; I'd have to recommend holding them until we leave the area. Otherwise pragmatism demands that they be shot.

Everything poses a potential threat to our people. Guantanamo Bay is a PR nightmare and has done much more to harm America than to help it. The US cannot handle this WoT alone, and it needs other countries to help. The more we alienate them by engaging in these tactics, the worse off we will be.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well except for that tiny point that MORE Countries DO support us then oppose us. But hey do not let facts get in your way.

 

[maineman]

Well except for that tiny point that MORE Countries DO support us then oppose us. But hey do not let facts get in your way.

a link to that "poll" result will never be forthcoming. guaran-fucking-teed.

 

[pegwinn]

It is very much a stretch to consider 4 years a "fair and regular trial".

[Fair Enough. Of course I think it is a stretch to consider conferring the same rights, privileges, and procedures as we give to US Citizens and criminal court.

Everything poses a potential threat to our people.

Um Hmmm, and Operational Risk Management (ORM) is the process to negate or reduce the risk to the lowest level whereby you can still accomplish the mission. In this case, it is a risk we can virtually eliminate simply by not releasing them until hostilities have ceased.

Guantanamo Bay is a PR nightmare and has done much more to harm America than to help it.

I don't buy that. The overwhelming majority of Americans, let alone others, are apathetic to the details. They, by and large, are more concerned with getting on with the business of life, liberty, and the pursuit of bread and circuses. Even though we disagree here, you and I (as well as the rest of the message board community) are the exception to the rule.

The US cannot handle this WoT alone, and it needs other countries to help.

Actually we don't. If we applied the same mindset and tactics used to win WWII or the Civil War, we would not need anyone to help. The only reason we "need" anyone is that we have created a paradigm whereby we are convinced that if we are not the most popular, most loved, and most revered we must be wrong.

The more we alienate them by engaging in these tactics, the worse off we will be.

I don't think so. I think that as we progress thru the years there will be a great forgetting. Look at France today. IN Y2K+4 they were reviled by most Americans. Today, people shrug. Too many people want our money to alienate us for long. Business trumps politics when looking at the global picture.

Not bad. Disagreement and no flames.... good job

 

[Larkinn]

Well except for that tiny point that MORE Countries DO support us then oppose us. But hey do not let facts get in your way.

Yeah, actually, I'd like a link to this. Not that it has anything at all to do with what I said, but I'm curious to know if this assertion is true.

 

[dilloduck]

It is very much a stretch to consider 4 years a "fair and regular trial".



Everything poses a potential threat to our people. Guantanamo Bay is a PR nightmare and has done much more to harm America than to help it. The US cannot handle this WoT alone, and it needs other countries to help. The more we alienate them by engaging in these tactics, the worse off we will be.

What tactics do you prefer ?

 

[Larkinn]

[Fair Enough. Of course I think it is a stretch to consider conferring the same rights, privileges, and procedures as we give to US Citizens and criminal court.

I don't know. I do think it is a stretch as well, but to be honest at this point I distrust the Bush administration so much that I don't trust them to set up a different court system.

I don't buy that. The overwhelming majority of Americans, let alone others, are apathetic to the details.

Europe, AI, HRW, the UN, and various HR organizations around the world are not apathetic to the details. Americans are apathetic, but it has severely hurt our image abroad. This is in part why you've seen a rise in anti-Americanism in the past 4 years. Its not just because of the Iraq war, it is other actions associated with the WoT. We took a BIG PR hit with pretty much everyone in Australia by holding David Hicks. A big enough one that it looks like Howard might get voted out in the next election, in part because of his support for the war and the whole Hicks incident. Other countries are generally less apathetic than we are, and really, if Australia held a US citizen for 4 years with no trial, there would definitely be a public outcry in the states.

Actually we don't. If we applied the same mindset and tactics used to win WWII or the Civil War, we would not need anyone to help. The only reason we "need" anyone is that we have created a paradigm whereby we are convinced that if we are not the most popular, most loved, and most revered we must be wrong.

If we applied the same mindset and tactics used to win WWII or the civl war, we would quickly find ourself an isolationist nation. It would have worldwide repercussions and would probably cause an Islamic revolt in Pakistan. And as for invading them, it is simply not a reality to wage that kind of war against a state with nuclear weapons. We have already destabilized Musharraf quite a bit...using those type of tactics would cause a revolution in that country.

I don't think so. I think that as we progress thru the years there will be a great forgetting. Look at France today. IN Y2K+4 they were reviled by most Americans. Today, people shrug. Too many people want our money to alienate us for long. Business trumps politics when looking at the global picture.

I do not think that business will trump us massacring a segment of the population. Europe will take action against us, and if they don't, their politicians will be voted out of office.

Not bad. Disagreement and no flames.... good job

Shut up Nazi fuckwit.

On a more serious note...there is no reason to flame you. I don't flame based on people disagreeing with me, I flame based on their idiocy. You disagree me on probably everything politically, but you are not stupid.

 

[Larkinn]

What tactics do you prefer ?

Don't hold people for years with no trial. Don't torture, or come anywhere close to torture. Treat them as human beings. Give them rights under the GC. Allow the ICRC to come in. Allow them access to lawyers. Thats just the things I can come up with off the top of my head.

 

[pegwinn]

Don't hold people for years with no trial. Don't torture, or come anywhere close to torture. Treat them as human beings. Give them rights under the GC. Allow the ICRC to come in. Allow them access to lawyers. Thats just the things I can come up with off the top of my head.

If you give them rights via the GC then they become POW's and are held for the duration without trial which negates the need for lawyers. Currently the conditions at GITMO as reported via the TV news are superior to the POW Camps established in the USA for the Nazi's captured during WWII. Considering the projections on how long the WOT will go, conferring POW status is, in effect, a life sentence w/o parole.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you give them rights via the GC then they become POW's and are held for the duration without trial which negates the need for lawyers. Currently the conditions at GITMO as reported via the TV news are superior to the POW Camps established in the USA for the Nazi's captured during WWII. Considering the projections on how long the WOT will go, conferring POW status is, in effect, a life sentence w/o parole.

Now do not point out the obvious flaws in the whines from the left.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In the WOT we have the support of all of Europe, including France, Spain and even Belgium. That includes Eastern Europe. It includes a few middle eastern Countries and Russia, Japan and China.

Care to name any important countries that DO NOT support the war on terror?

You made the claim we are losing allies in the WOT because of Gitmo, provide evidence. Notice I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking you to prove a statement you made.

Now if you REALLY meant the Iraq war, we still have more countries SAYING they support us then do not. In Europe only Belgium, France and Spain do not support Iraq, Germany supports it with training outside Iraq. All of eastern Europe has supported it from the get go, as did Italy, Britain and initially Spain. Japan supported it, as did most of Central America and the Philippines.

So you lose on your actual claim and you lose on what I am sure you REALLY meant also.

 

[Larkinn]

Now do not point out the obvious flaws in the whines from the left.

You know it would make you seem less like a douche if you didn't simultaneously post in some threads whining about other people posting just insults, and here with posts that are just insult.

In the WOT we have the support of all of Europe, including France, Spain and even Belgium. That includes Eastern Europe. It includes a few middle eastern Countries and Russia, Japan and China.

Yes and support in all of these countries is waning. Oh, except Russia, China, and some of the Eastern European countries. They love the WoT, it allows them an excuse to crack down on dissidents in their own country.

Care to name any important countries that DO NOT support the war on terror?

So now its important countries, eh?

You made the claim we are losing allies in the WOT because of Gitmo, provide evidence. Notice I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking you to prove a statement you made.

Actually I said losing support. There is a difference.

Now if you REALLY meant the Iraq war, we still have more countries SAYING they support us then do not. In Europe only Belgium, France and Spain do not support Iraq, Germany supports it with training outside Iraq. All of eastern Europe has supported it from the get go, as did Italy, Britain and initially Spain. Japan supported it, as did most of Central America and the Philippines.

No, I meant WoT. Although I suppose Iraq is part of the WoT according to you, so it really falls under it, doesnt it?

So you lose on your actual claim and you lose on what I am sure you REALLY meant also.

Considering all you've done is ask me to provide evidence and responded to claims I didn't make, I fail to see how I've lost anything. But feel free to respond to what I DID say...that is that the US is losing support for the WoT.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You know it would make you seem less like a douche if you didn't simultaneously post in some threads whining about other people posting just insults, and here with posts that are just insult.



Yes and support in all of these countries is waning. Oh, except Russia, China, and some of the Eastern European countries. They love the WoT, it allows them an excuse to crack down on dissidents in their own country.



So now its important countries, eh?



Actually I said losing support. There is a difference.



No, I meant WoT. Although I suppose Iraq is part of the WoT according to you, so it really falls under it, doesnt it?



Considering all you've done is ask me to provide evidence and responded to claims I didn't make, I fail to see how I've lost anything. But feel free to respond to what I DID say...that is that the US is losing support for the WoT.

Evidence please.... you have made a statement of fact, back it up. It really is simple.

 

[Larkinn]

Evidence please.... you have made a statement of fact, back it up. It really is simple.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3795

The most recent Pew poll from June 2006 indicates that while anti-Americanism waned somewhat in 2005 due to U.S. aid relief efforts after the Asian tsunami, the U.S.-led war on terror remained a wedge issue not only in the Muslim majority countries but also among U.S. allies like Japan. Majority support for the war on terror exists in just two countries: Russia and India. Majority publics in 10 of the 14 countries surveyed said that the Iraq War was responsible for making the world a more dangerous place. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have received widespread public attention outside the United States, particularly in Western Europe and Japan. Both serve as indicators of America's declining commitment to the rule of law and human rights, making it all the more difficult for America to present itself as the great liberator in Iraq against all those “propaganda machines.”