Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: OzmO on February 02, 2007, 02:04:52 PM
-
What's your solution?
Should we gut it out?
Can we gut it out?
Should we cut our loses?
Should we increase our invovlement?
Can we win?
Should we abandon the people(iraqis) who are fighting with us?
What is your prediction of what will happen in Iraq?
-
American will leave because of a lack of will. Not because it isn't winnable.
America will spend even more money on defense to protect themselves from a more dangerous world, because they have lost influence.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm)
I wouldn't want to see that happen though. America must help Iraq embrace freedom and not violence and the media must do a much better job reporting the successes. I mean quite a bit of Iraq military control has already been turned back over to the Iraqis.
I think giving Iraq set targets will help. That is how they managed to get the constitution and the second election through.
Also something has to be done to stop the meddling of Iran with Al Sadr.
-
American will leave because of a lack of will. Not because it isn't winnable.
you are exactly right joker.
Americans have no fortitude these days. Some don't anyway, and they are very vocal about it.
-
you are exactly right joker.
Americans have no fortitude these days. Some don't anyway, and they are very vocal about it.
The Japanese thought the very same thnig in 1941
but this is a little different
-
we will pull out within a year, iraq will be plunged into a full blown civil war with constant violence for up to a decade or more. the whole operation will prove to have been a total fuckup due to cosmically uncomprehensibly piss poor planning and strategy.
-
we will pull out within a year, iraq will be plunged into a full blown civil war with constant violence for up to a decade or more. the whole operation will prove to have been a total fuckup due to cosmically uncomprehensibly piss poor planning and strategy.
Piss poor planning and stategy from our beloved pres. >:(
-
We're losing beacuse people at home don't have the fortitude?
that's a f'cking excuse.
Don't blame the military planners who have intentionally tied your hands so the war would go four years to a stalemate (so that pipeline could get built).
We (the amer. public) support you 1000% and want you home alive. We've written you a blank check in terms of men and money for 4 years. If you're losing, it ain't cause of us. it's cause your handlers aren't giving you the resources or strategy.
Of course, once you realize the strategy IS going according to plan - stalemate for 8 years then bail to guard the pipeline - you'll stop blaming the American people, and start looking at the REASONS you're failing on the field.
-
We're losing beacuse people at home don't have the fortitude?
that's a f'cking excuse.
Don't blame the military planners who have intentionally tied your hands so the war would go four years to a stalemate (so that pipeline could get built).
We (the amer. public) support you 1000% and want you home alive. We've written you a blank check in terms of men and money for 4 years. If you're losing, it ain't cause of us. it's cause your handlers aren't giving you the resources or strategy.
Of course, once you realize the strategy IS going according to plan - stalemate for 8 years then bail to guard the pipeline - you'll stop blaming the American people, and start looking at the REASONS you're failing on the field.
why does the war in iraq need to be a stalemate for us to build a pipeline in afghanistan?
-
why does the war in iraq need to be a stalemate for us to build a pipeline in afghanistan?
we're going to put iraqi oil into that pipeline too and move it all to the persian gulf.
-
i hope your right 240
in any event, muslims killin each other--pretty much the status quo for the past several hundrend years at least
-
we will pull out within a year, iraq will be plunged into a full blown civil war with constant violence for up to a decade or more. the whole operation will prove to have been a total fuckup due to cosmically uncomprehensibly piss poor planning and strategy.
The best we can pray for is Iran taking Iraq under its wing. Think about it, they're both Shia countries and Iran wouldn't be doing anything the US isn't already doing. This will happen, but only if the US doesn't turn around and start a war with Iran.
Americans have no fortitude these days. Some don't anyway, and they are very vocal about it.
So Americans don't have any balls because they disapprove of the Iraq debacle? Oh brother.. ::)
-
The best we can pray for is Iran taking Iraq under its wing. Think about it, they're both Shia countries and Iran wouldn't be doing anything the US isn't already doing. This will happen, but only if the US doesn't turn around and start a war with Iran.
So Americans don't have any balls because they disapprove of the Iraq debacle? Oh brother.. ::)
I was thinking same, about both points.
many Americans were not for the war, remember it was an excuse to pre-emptively go in because Iraq had WMD's...we were all for it...then the truth comes out, plus the fact that we were not asked by the Iraqi people to go in. No one tried to overthrow Saddam.
See a pattern here: Korea, Americans go in without being asked, Korea is now N. and S. Korea
Vietnam, Am's go in after France without being asked, Vietnam is now N. and S. Vietnam
Iraq, Am's go in without being asked, what next.....????????
-
See a pattern here: Korea, Americans go in without being asked, Korea is now N. and S. Korea
Vietnam, Am's go in after France without being asked, Vietnam is now N. and S. Vietnam
Iraq, Am's go in without being asked, what next.....????????
Iraq might be split into three different countries. What a fucking mess!
-
you are exactly right joker.
Americans have no fortitude these days. Some don't anyway, and they are very vocal about it.
This is just about spot on. Supporting us has nothing to do with the will to win. Its national will and pride and we seem to have found other interests.
-
This is just about spot on. Supporting us has nothing to do with the will to win. Its national will and pride and we seem to have found other interests.
Oh brother... ::)
-
Dude come on..we lack the will to win....its just not in us. Not anymore...This isn't 1941...folks are different. Besides the reasons for this part of the war are muddled at best. In my opinion regardless we have to win..u can't crush a country and then leav chaos..on many levels that would be a disaster. I think the average American is just not interested.
-
America lives in the now, not the maybe or the tomorrow. We wanted to invade when we thirsted for blood from 9/11 and when we heard saddam had WMD's and was a threat, naturally fucking liberals fucked us and we wouldn't allow our trained military to fight like we should, and got stuck there for too long and now (again) liberals are fucking us by telling us constantly on tv that the war is bad and unjust blah blah blah. Liberalism is a mental disorder, plain and simple.
-
What leads the damm headlines..Lindsey Lohan and her damm drug issues or some BS dispute between Trump and Rosie. If Iraq is on Tv, it has become a vehicle for the dems to bash Bush. They could care less about the "troops". We have become a means to their end..more power.
-
America lives in the now, not the maybe or the tomorrow. We wanted to invade when we thirsted for blood from 9/11 and when we heard saddam had WMD's and was a threat, naturally fucking liberals fucked us and we wouldn't allow our trained military to fight like we should, and got stuck there for too long and now (again) liberals are fucking us by telling us constantly on tv that the war is bad and unjust blah blah blah. Liberalism is a mental disorder, plain and simple.
Liberals - who didn't have any power in congress and had nothing at all to do with the military decisions - fucked us in Iraq?
Damn, talk about placing blame.
The military planners fucked you. Please quit bitching and blaming those people with anti-war opinions. What, if you FELT better you'd FIGHT better? Give me a break. You do your job. period. If 200 americans, or 200 million americans, disagree with the war, who gives a rats ass?
you have a job to do. they support YOU, they don't support bush. Do your job and PLEASE stop blaming meessage board discussions for the US' inability to beat Iraq.
-
Liberals - who didn't have any power in congress and had nothing at all to do with the military decisions - fucked us in Iraq?
Damn, talk about placing blame.
The military planners fucked you. Please quit bitching and blaming those people with anti-war opinions. What, if you FELT better you'd FIGHT better? Give me a break. You do your job. period. If 200 americans, or 200 million americans, disagree with the war, who gives a rats ass?
you have a job to do. they support YOU, they don't support bush. Do your job and PLEASE stop blaming meessage board discussions for the US' inability to beat Iraq.
We're at war with Iraq, are we? Get a clue.
-
We're at war with Iraq, are we? Get a clue.
Huh?
We have not defeated Iraq yet. I do not understand your statement.
-
Huh?
We have not defeated Iraq yet. I do not understand your statement.
Gee, you are lost. We're not at war with Iraq, my friend. In case you haven't noticed, they have their own constitution and democratic process.
-
Gee, you are lost. We're not at war with Iraq, my friend. In case you haven't noticed, they have their own constitution and democratic process.
We're at war IN iraq, but not WITH Iraq? The same could be said for every war. But who gives a shit. man you like to waste time with word games.
Yes we are fighting groups on both sides plus demons in the govt, but yes, they have the puppet regime elected from the group of handpicked US candidates.
-
We're at war IN iraq, but not WITH Iraq? The same could be said for every war. But who gives a shit. man you like to waste time with word games.
Yes we are fighting groups on both sides plus demons in the govt, but yes, they have the puppet regime elected from the group of handpicked US candidates.
Er, okay. How about you just admit you're wrong on this one, alright?
-
Er, okay. How about you just admit you're wrong on this one, alright?
ok youre right, i worded it incorrectly when correctly making my point.
I forgot we're playing for points here. What's the score now, and when do I get my getbig check?
-
Huh?
We have not defeated Iraq yet. I do not understand your statement.
We've borken Iraq, fractionalized it, and we can't fix it. Saddam had the shit held together, and then the US comes along and TELLS people that Democracy is best for them. If they wanted Democracy they would have overthorwn the government.
Meanwhile there is a genocide going on Sudan. Hmmm, African coutry or Oil rich country, what is your pick?
Seems like a moralist uber-Christian President decided to pick 2 of the 7 deadly sins (greed and glottony) and has gotten us in rut.
Will to win? Win what? What is the goal? Is the goal forcing our lifestyle upon others, a lifestyle where our young female stars don't even wear underwear? If anything we should be looking at other cutlures and and countries and focusing on having the Will of getting our country back on track.
-
Saddam had the shit held together,
ohh, dear lord.
::)
We've borken Iraq,
???
in case you haven't picked up a newspaper lately, 90% of Iraq is doing well.
Baghdad is a mess.
choose your words properly.
-
in case you haven't picked up a newspaper lately, 90% of Iraq is doing well.
Baghdad is a mess.
choose your words properly.
mighty,
why do you believe that the US military, the best on earth with the most resources and best soldiers, has LOST CONTROL of baghdad? Remember that in 2003/4, it was WAY safer than it is today.
Some believe military resources were re-rerouted to create an insurgenecy - not enough to beat us - but just enough to ensure we were NEEDED there another 6 years to build that pipeline.
What do you believe?
-
ohh, dear lord.
::)
???
in case you haven't picked up a newspaper lately, 90% of Iraq is doing well.
Baghdad is a mess.
choose your words properly.
Do you deny that Saddam kept iraq togehter? Any insurgents or threats to his power would be crushed (were) and shot by a firing squad. He after all was tyrant, and very bad man, who kept his power for what 25+ years. He knew his people, knew how to crush their will and any insurgency that started would have been nipped in the bud.
90% really? yeah, How much of the 90% of the countries is inhabitated by people? 90% includes mountains, deserts, and plains. Mikey, you choose your words wisely. 90% doesn't mean jack, if the majority of the population lives in Baghdad and surrounding cities.
Over 1/3 of Iraq was a no-fly zone, with Am military aircraft doing fly overs. Yet, if he had WMD, don't you think they would have spotted the development before hand
-
mighty,
why do you believe that the US military, the best on earth with the most resources and best soldiers, has LOST CONTROL of baghdad? Remember that in 2003/4, it was WAY safer than it is today.
just like you, all i can do is speculate. i'm not a top general in the army, i don't know all the intell reports, i don't sit in on the presidential security briefings. so all i can do is watch CREDIBLE news sources then make my judgements.
we are fighting more than Saddam loyalist. iranians are flooding the city with islamic fanatics loaded with weapons and just enough brain skills to make a bomb.
they have overwelmed the security, US and Iraqi, in that city.
that's what i think is happening
Some believe military resources were re-rerouted to create an insurgenecy - not enough to beat us - but just enough to ensure we were NEEDED there another 6 years to build that pipeline.
What do you believe?
i believe that you believe it.
i choose not to believe every hypothetical scenario thrown at me about why we are there or why we maintain to be there.
i'm not saying you are right or wrong.
but what i don't believe is that the US is purposely causing innocent deaths so something can get built.
i'll leave that to bush hating, anti-military, CT believing, 'let's stick daisies in our gun barrels and leave the world alone' nut jobs.
-
just like you, all i can do is speculate. i'm not a top general in the army, i don't know all the intell reports, i don't sit in on the presidential security briefings. so all i can do is watch CREDIBLE news sources then make my judgements.
we are fighting more than Saddam loyalist. iranians are flooding the city with islamic fanatics loaded with weapons and just enough brain skills to make a bomb.
they have overwelmed the security, US and Iraqi, in that city.
that's what i think is happening
i believe that you believe it.
i choose not to believe every hypothetical scenario thrown at me about why we are there or why we maintain to be there.
i'm not saying you are right or wrong.
but what i don't believe is that the US is purposely causing innocent deaths so something can get built.
i'll leave that to bush hating, anti-military, CT believing, 'let's stick daisies in our gun barrels and leave the world alone' nut jobs.
I agree with this.
-
just like you, all i can do is speculate. i'm not a top general in the army, i don't know all the intell reports, i don't sit in on the presidential security briefings. so all i can do is watch CREDIBLE news sources then make my judgements.
we are fighting more than Saddam loyalist. iranians are flooding the city with islamic fanatics loaded with weapons and just enough brain skills to make a bomb.
they have overwelmed the security, US and Iraqi, in that city.
that's what i think is happening
i believe that you believe it.
i choose not to believe every hypothetical scenario thrown at me about why we are there or why we maintain to be there.
i'm not saying you are right or wrong.
but what i don't believe is that the US is purposely causing innocent deaths so something can get built.
i'll leave that to bush hating, anti-military, CT believing, 'let's stick daisies in our gun barrels and leave the world alone' nut jobs.
I'm all for putting in 300k men and crushing them to fiberglass. What I'm NOT for, is putting in 21,500, a simple 15% increase to keep up with the 15% rise in estimated jihadists in 2007.
If we know tactics and troop numbers aren't working, when are we only putting in enough men to maintain that same troop ratio? ;)
Think about it. It's a maintenance war. Status quo. Keep it the same. Gates/Bush want 92k more troops over the next 5 years. 15% maintenance levels.
They won't win, and they won't lose. They'll stalemate til the pipeline is built, then they'll suddenly leave. Watch and see.
-
Think about it. It's a maintenance war. Status quo. Keep it the same. Gates/Bush want 92k more troops over the next 5 years. 15% maintenance levels.
He didn't ask to increase the size of our presence in Iraq by 92,000, he asked to increase the size of active duty Army and Marines by 92,000.
-
He didn't ask to increase the size of our presence in Iraq by 92,000, he asked to increase the size of active duty Army and Marines by 92,000.
What number do you believe we will add over the next 5 years then? :)
BB, can you please explain the rationale for the 21,500 number? It matches the insurgent growth. The old ratio didn't work for 4 years. Can you tell us why 21,500 was anything BUT a maintenance level?
-
What number do you believe we will add over the next 5 years then? :)
BB, can you please explain the rationale for the 21,500 number? It matches the insurgent growth. The old ratio didn't work for 4 years. Can you tell us why 21,500 was anything BUT a maintenance level?
I don't know what number we will add, I was just clarifying a factual inaccuracy that you have repeated several times. You're misstating what Bush said about the increase of our military force. He did not say we are increasing the size of our force in Iraq by 92,000. His comments were limited the overall number of active duty Army and Marines.
-
I don't know what number we will add, I was just clarifying a factual inaccuracy that you have repeated several times. You're misstating what Bush said about the increase of our military force. He did not say we are increasing the size of our force in Iraq by 92,000. His comments were limited the overall number of active duty Army and Marines.
92,500 / 5 = 18,500 additional per year
18,500 a year, divided by the generous 80/20 iraq/elsewhere clip = 15k a year.
It's an insurgency matching program, I reckon.
-
92,500 / 5 = 18,500 additional per year
18,500 a year, divided by the generous 80/20 iraq/elsewhere clip = 15k a year.
It's an insurgency matching program, I reckon.
Possibly. But I doubt it's that simple. I reckon the Army and Marines gave Bush the 92,000 number based on the overall needs of each service.
-
Possibly. But I doubt it's that simple. I reckon the Army and Marines gave Bush the 92,000 number based on the overall needs of each service.
it's very fluid. I know we're pulling men out of Afghanistan at the moment (great idea!) to deal with Iraq. And you have to wonder what about the 5000 men on each of the two carriers floating outside of Iran at the moment. Surely they could be doing more than engaging in the dick measuring contest with adhemidjhad.
-
I reckon the Army and Marines gave Bush the 92,000 number based on the overall needs of each service.
correct. the needs of the service to match the 15% annual growth clip they don't talk about.
It's happening in Afgh. and it's happening in Iraq. i bet in another year, everyone will be asking about it. "Just why are we using stalemate maintenance level of forces in both countries?". I just love to do trend analysis on numbers and I really believe that's the goal: Stall til the pipeline is done, then leave. And I don't disagree with that strategy lol... I just wish we could *stall* on the outlands of the cities and keep more troops alive. The drawback to this, is that IF al-maliki DOES fix things, we will be shown the door. Then it's REALLY hard to stay and finish the pipeline.
Simply put, if you wanted to stay and build a pipeline, is there ANY other way you would do it? lol.. Stall. It's the answer. And it's what we're doing.
-
If we know tactics and troop numbers aren't working, when are we only putting in enough men to maintain that same troop ratio? ;)
tactics have changed. it will take some time for them to work.
sometimes, the glass IS half full.
Think about it. It's a maintenance war. Status quo. Keep it the same. Gates/Bush want 92k more troops over the next 5 years. 15% maintenance levels.
They won't win, and they won't lose. They'll stalemate til the pipeline is built, then they'll suddenly leave. Watch and see.
all of that is your opinion. none of it is correct.
only history will show if you're right.
it's very fluid. I know we're pulling men out of Afghanistan at the moment (great idea!) to deal with Iraq. And you have to wonder what about the 5000 men on each of the two carriers floating outside of Iran at the moment. Surely they could be doing more than engaging in the dick measuring contest with adhemidjhad.
240, what do you think the US should do with Iran??
you may have stated this before, but humor me for right now.
-
tactics have changed. it will take some time for them to work.
Isn't this Bush's SEVENTH initiative over there? All have been remarkably similar. Win an area, leave or standby as the bugs return, then repeat. There's a darn good reason that generals and folks from both parties have demanded Bush either move it to 300k troops, or gradually move out of the cities. Cause they know the score. It's a stall war. i know it sucks, cause you're there, and to think your position is to 'hurry up and wait' really sucks when being shot at.
all of that is your opinion. none of it is correct.
only history will show if you're right.
The history of the last 3.5 years shows I am, so far. Until Bush shifts troop numbers significantly, nothing will change.
240, what do you think the US should do with Iran??
you may have stated this before, but humor me for right now.
iran only started their nuke program after being labeled in the Axis of evil, and after we took out their neighbors on either side. That oil HAS to flow thru them, and they know it ;)
Iran has asked, no, BEGGED, for talks. They don't want war. They're rich and they have a great deal to lose in an inevitable conclusion (adhmedijahad hanging, of course). They've asked for talks. We've said "no talks till all your nukes (your only means of deterring a US invasion) are gone".
If they agreed to immediately drop all nuke programs, let 1000 UN and US inspectors have freereign to all facilities to ensure compliance, then we agree not to invade them. period. Reasonable?
(Of course this will never happen. We WILL invade iran based upon the new dossier the WH says is coming out this week which will prove Iran is doing terror and should justify the attack on them. It's inevitable. Afghan and iraqi oil will meet iranian oil in the middle and flow into US ships in the persian gulf. it's necessary for our stability, of course. But to paint it with an honorable or compassionat brush is BS. It's self-preservation thru resource acquisition. most ppl just don't have the stomach to admit it)
-
America lives in the now, not the maybe or the tomorrow. We wanted to invade when we thirsted for blood from 9/11 and when we heard saddam had WMD's and was a threat, naturally fucking liberals fucked us and we wouldn't allow our trained military to fight like we should, and got stuck there for too long and now (again) liberals are fucking us by telling us constantly on tv that the war is bad and unjust blah blah blah. Liberalism is a mental disorder, plain and simple.
KLIBERALS THIS LIBERAL THAT.. OH BROTHER..
ONE THINGS FOR SURE IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE WILL TO SUPPORT A MEANINGLESS WAR THAT'S COSTING US LIVES AND TAX PAYER MONEY.
HAVE A NICE DAY!
-
If they agreed to immediately drop all nuke programs, let 1000 UN and US inspectors have freereign to all facilities to ensure compliance, then we agree not to invade them. period. Reasonable?
they have already said they will not stop their nuke program. 10 times at least.
ok then, what do you do now??
they want to destroy israel and the US. i have read that many times. you know it's true.
so, do you continue to talk?? come on.
invade them?? heck no. we bomb the ever-lovin s**t out of them.
and PS...i have never read or even heard that iran is "begging to talk" with the US.
prove me wrong
-
so, do you continue to talk?? come on.
invade them?? heck no. we bomb the ever-lovin s**t out of them.
While allowing for the possibility that you could remain this contemptuous of the value of human life [you are at least still paying lip service to the idea that Iranian civilians are human beings, I hope] after actually seeing a bombing victim, I'm willing to bet that you've never witnessed a single military casualty of any kind.
Which would make your hockey-bleachers cheerleading for indiscriminate slaughter on the exact level of a schoolyard bully burning ants to death with a magnifying glass.
Hope this helps.
-
While allowing for the possibility that you could remain this contemptuous of the value of human life [you are at least still paying lip service to the idea that Iranian civilians are human beings, I hope] after actually seeing a bombing victim, I'm willing to bet that you've never witnessed a single military casualty of any kind.
Which would make your hockey-bleachers cheerleading for indiscriminate slaughter on the exact level of a schoolyard bully burning ants to death with a magnifying glass.
Hope this helps.
war ain't pretty bro. i'm more concerned with american civilians. if you live in america, you should be too.
where in any of my statements did i say kill iranian civilians anyway?? please show me.
by your words i'm guessing if the US left the world alone we would all leave in peace??
bleeding hearts........pffft!!
-
where in any of my statements did i say kill iranian civilians anyway?? please show me.
Your exact words were "bomb the ever-lovin s**t out of them".
That sure sounded like "carpet-bomb the towel heads back to the Stone Age and let Allah sort them out".
But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you, credulous in the face of military boasting about "surgical strikes" and what-not, had in mind only the vaporizing of the top-secret underground bunkers where Iranian scientists are, by universal consensus, a decade away from making even a single damp-squib of a bomb like the North Koreans set off.
Then we'll need to introduce you to a scientific concept called "fallout". To explain this in terms that even a bloodthirsty moron might understand: when nuclear material is blown up, the nuclear stuff clings to the dirt that got sucked up into the atmosphere by the explosion. That dirt gets wafted whichever the way the wind is blowing and usually ends up falling on people who really wanted nothing to do with any of this to begin with. Those people get really sick and die slow painful deaths.
Now I'm going to challenge you to imagine that one of the people spending their final moments retching in agony is not some dirty brown-skinned camel jockey with a name you can't pronounce - but rather someone you really care about. Your mom, your kid brother, your training partner - whoever. I'm guessing you would be pretty mad at the country who did this to them. You might be so mad that you'd be willing to blow yourself up just for the opportunity of killing some of them in revenge.
Starting to see how it works? We indiscriminately kill a bunch of them, and then their surviving brothers get mad and try to kill us. Then we kill a larger number of them, and their surviving brothers get even madder at us... and so on. Bad times.
So how about this for thinking outside the box? We stop killing them. We just pack up all our sh!t and go home. [It would be nice if we left them a big check to cover all the stuff we broke - but frankly, with $8 trillion in debt, we can't afford it.] They'll probably spend a few years killing each other over who is the truer prophet of Allah and general pissed-offedness - but we recognize that we don't have a dog in that fight, so we stay out of it.
What's the downside?
Careful now! If you say anything about oil, you're tacitly admitting that the whole slaughter was about oil to begin with!
Of course, it was all about oil to begin with. So where does that leave us now? Well, we're pretty well fu#ked with the oil starting to run out anyway. But instead of fu#king ourselves even harder by wasting our money on bombs and making everyone hate us in the process, what if we spent that money adapting to what the world is going to be like when there isn't any oil left to fight over?
I won't lie to you: that world is going to be a lot less entertaining. But it has one critical feature that our present world does not.
A future.
-
Damn, ribo. I truly enjoy your posts and would love to see your insight here more!!
-
Damn, ribo. I truly enjoy your posts and would love to see your insight here more!!
What insight?? He obviously lives in la-la land.
Let's say that you really get your way and we destroy all our nuclear weapons and stick daisies in our gun barrels and sit around with some white wine and cheese and pat ourselves on the back, so proud of what we've done for world peace.
Let's say that we cut the military budget to just enough to keep the National Guard on hand to help out with floods and fires.
Let's say that we close down our military bases all over the world and bring the troops home, increase our foreign aid and drop all the trade sanctions against everybody. I suppose that in your fantasy world this would create a utopian world where everybody would live in peace. After all, the great monster, the United States of America, the cause of all the world's trouble would have disbanded it's horrible military and certainly all the other countries of the world would follow suit. After all, they only arm themselves to defend their countries from the mean old U.S.A.
Let's say you had your way, what would become of this country?
No future.
Dude, it would be nice to live in you world but it doesn't exist.
-
Yeah, but you didn't answer this:
What's the downside?
Careful now! If you say anything about oil, you're tacitly admitting that the whole slaughter was about oil to begin with!
-
Let's say that we close down our military bases all over the world and bring the troops home, increase our foreign aid and drop all the trade sanctions against everybody. I suppose that in your fantasy world this would create a utopian world where everybody would live in peace.
Not necessarily.
But, since it's never been tried, we can at least say that it's never been disproven in practice.
As opposed to the fantasies of the neofascists [i.e. "they'll greet us as liberators"] - which have been disproven in practice.
-
Not necessarily.
But, since it's never been tried, we can at least say that it's never been disproven in practice.
As opposed to the fantasies of the neofascists [i.e. "they'll greet us as liberators"] - which have been disproven in practice.
So your plan is to retreat and hide, then see what happens? And you believe this has never been put into practice before?
-
So your plan is to retreat and hide, then see what happens? And you believe this has never been put into practice before?
Well, let's see...
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II - by William Blum
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. China - 1945 to 1960s: Was Mao Tse-tung just paranoid?
2. Italy - 1947-1948: Free elections, Hollywood style
3. Greece - 1947 to early 1950s: From cradle of democracy to client state
4. The Philippines - 1940s and 1950s: America's oldest colony
5. Korea - 1945-1953: Was it all that it appeared to be?
6. Albania - 1949-1953: The proper English spy
7. Eastern Europe - 1948-1956: Operation Splinter Factor
8. Germany - 1950s: Everything from juvenile delinquency to terrorism
9. Iran - 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings
10. Guatemala - 1953-1954: While the world watched
11. Costa Rica - Mid-1950s: Trying to topple an ally - Part 1
12. Syria - 1956-1957: Purchasing a new government
13. Middle East - 1957-1958: The Eisenhower Doctrine claims another backyard for America
14. Indonesia - 1957-1958: War and pornography
15. Western Europe - 1950s and 1960s: Fronts within fronts within fronts
16. British Guiana - 1953-1964: The CIA's international labor mafia
17. Soviet Union - Late 1940s to 1960s: From spy planes to book publishing
18. Italy - 1950s to 1970s: Supporting the Cardinal's orphans and techno-fascism
19. Vietnam - 1950-1973: The Hearts and Minds Circus
20. Cambodia - 1955-1973: Prince Sihanouk walks the high-wire of neutralism
21. Laos - 1957-1973: L'Armée Clandestine
22. Haiti - 1959-1963: The Marines land, again
23. Guatemala - 1960: One good coup deserves another
24. France/Algeria - 1960s: L'état, c'est la CIA
25. Ecuador - 1960-1963: A text book of dirty tricks
26. The Congo - 1960-1964: The assassination of Patrice Lumumba
27. Brazil - 1961-1964: Introducing the marvelous new world of death squads
28. Peru - 1960-1965: Fort Bragg moves to the jungle
29. Dominican Republic - 1960-1966: Saving democracy from communism by getting rid of democracy
30. Cuba - 1959 to 1980s: The unforgivable revolution
31. Indonesia - 1965: Liquidating President Sukarno ... and 500,000 others
East Timor - 1975: And 200,000 more
32. Ghana - 1966: Kwame Nkrumah steps out of line
33. Uruguay - 1964-1970: Torture -- as American as apple pie
34. Chile - 1964-1973: A hammer and sickle stamped on your child's forehead
35. Greece - 1964-1974: "Fuck your Parliament and your Constitution," said
the President of the United States
36. Bolivia - 1964-1975: Tracking down Che Guevara in the land of coup d'etat
37. Guatemala - 1962 to 1980s: A less publicized "final solution"
38. Costa Rica - 1970-1971: Trying to topple an ally -- Part 2
39. Iraq - 1972-1975: Covert action should not be confused with missionary work
40. Australia - 1973-1975: Another free election bites the dust
41. Angola - 1975 to 1980s: The Great Powers Poker Game
42. Zaire - 1975-1978: Mobutu and the CIA, a marriage made in heaven
43. Jamaica - 1976-1980: Kissinger's ultimatum
44. Seychelles - 1979-1981: Yet another area of great strategic importance
45. Grenada - 1979-1984: Lying -- one of the few growth industries in Washington
46. Morocco - 1983: A video nasty
47. Suriname - 1982-1984: Once again, the Cuban bogeyman
48. Libya - 1981-1989: Ronald Reagan meets his match
49. Nicaragua - 1981-1990: Destabilization in slow motion
50. Panama - 1969-1991: Double-crossing our drug supplier
51. Bulgaria 1990/Albania 1991: Teaching communists what democracy is all about
52. Iraq - 1990-1991: Desert holocaust
53. Afghanistan - 1979-1992: America's Jihad
54. El Salvador - 1980-1994: Human rights, Washington style
55. Haiti - 1986-1994: Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?
56. The American Empire - 1992 to present
Nope, not lately!
Hope this helps.
-
Well, let's see...
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II - by William Blum
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. China - 1945 to 1960s: Was Mao Tse-tung just paranoid?
2. Italy - 1947-1948: Free elections, Hollywood style
3. Greece - 1947 to early 1950s: From cradle of democracy to client state
4. The Philippines - 1940s and 1950s: America's oldest colony
5. Korea - 1945-1953: Was it all that it appeared to be?
6. Albania - 1949-1953: The proper English spy
7. Eastern Europe - 1948-1956: Operation Splinter Factor
8. Germany - 1950s: Everything from juvenile delinquency to terrorism
9. Iran - 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings
10. Guatemala - 1953-1954: While the world watched
11. Costa Rica - Mid-1950s: Trying to topple an ally - Part 1
12. Syria - 1956-1957: Purchasing a new government
13. Middle East - 1957-1958: The Eisenhower Doctrine claims another backyard for America
14. Indonesia - 1957-1958: War and pornography
15. Western Europe - 1950s and 1960s: Fronts within fronts within fronts
16. British Guiana - 1953-1964: The CIA's international labor mafia
17. Soviet Union - Late 1940s to 1960s: From spy planes to book publishing
18. Italy - 1950s to 1970s: Supporting the Cardinal's orphans and techno-fascism
19. Vietnam - 1950-1973: The Hearts and Minds Circus
20. Cambodia - 1955-1973: Prince Sihanouk walks the high-wire of neutralism
21. Laos - 1957-1973: L'Armée Clandestine
22. Haiti - 1959-1963: The Marines land, again
23. Guatemala - 1960: One good coup deserves another
24. France/Algeria - 1960s: L'état, c'est la CIA
25. Ecuador - 1960-1963: A text book of dirty tricks
26. The Congo - 1960-1964: The assassination of Patrice Lumumba
27. Brazil - 1961-1964: Introducing the marvelous new world of death squads
28. Peru - 1960-1965: Fort Bragg moves to the jungle
29. Dominican Republic - 1960-1966: Saving democracy from communism by getting rid of democracy
30. Cuba - 1959 to 1980s: The unforgivable revolution
31. Indonesia - 1965: Liquidating President Sukarno ... and 500,000 others
East Timor - 1975: And 200,000 more
32. Ghana - 1966: Kwame Nkrumah steps out of line
33. Uruguay - 1964-1970: Torture -- as American as apple pie
34. Chile - 1964-1973: A hammer and sickle stamped on your child's forehead
35. Greece - 1964-1974: "f**k your Parliament and your Constitution," said
the President of the United States
36. Bolivia - 1964-1975: Tracking down Che Guevara in the land of coup d'etat
37. Guatemala - 1962 to 1980s: A less publicized "final solution"
38. Costa Rica - 1970-1971: Trying to topple an ally -- Part 2
39. Iraq - 1972-1975: Covert action should not be confused with missionary work
40. Australia - 1973-1975: Another free election bites the dust
41. Angola - 1975 to 1980s: The Great Powers Poker Game
42. Zaire - 1975-1978: Mobutu and the CIA, a marriage made in heaven
43. Jamaica - 1976-1980: Kissinger's ultimatum
44. Seychelles - 1979-1981: Yet another area of great strategic importance
45. Grenada - 1979-1984: Lying -- one of the few growth industries in Washington
46. Morocco - 1983: A video nasty
47. Suriname - 1982-1984: Once again, the Cuban bogeyman
48. Libya - 1981-1989: Ronald Reagan meets his match
49. Nicaragua - 1981-1990: Destabilization in slow motion
50. Panama - 1969-1991: Double-crossing our drug supplier
51. Bulgaria 1990/Albania 1991: Teaching communists what democracy is all about
52. Iraq - 1990-1991: Desert holocaust
53. Afghanistan - 1979-1992: America's Jihad
54. El Salvador - 1980-1994: Human rights, Washington style
55. Haiti - 1986-1994: Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?
56. The American Empire - 1992 to present
Nope, not lately!
Hope this helps.
Good to see your plan of response here is to post long and boring lists of poorly researched information. Notice I didn't say the US was the nation retreating, which seems to be a cause close to your heart.
-
Notice I didn't say the US was the nation retreating, which seems to be a cause close to your heart.
The ersatz machismo of the right-wing [so compatible with the ersatz machismo of bodybuilding, I guess] never fails to amuse me. I take it I'm supposed to be stung by the accusation that I endorse retreat? As if this impugns my virility in some way? ::)
Since you appear to have a comic book-level view of the conflict [i.e. "America good! Towelheads bad!"], I'll tell you a story about Alan Moore. Someone asked if he planned to sue DC Comics over the way they screwed him over on Watchmen. His sage reply was "When you discover you're standing in a pile of sh!t, you don't stamp on the sh!t to punish it. You step out of it as quickly as you can."
In this metaphor, the presence of American troops in Iraq - fanning the flames of fanaticism with every innocent house they barge into, creating a new suicide bomber with ever child they blow up - is our country standing in a big stinking pile of sh!t. My solution is to, yes, retreat our foot out of this pile of sh!t. Yours, I guess, is to "surge" by grinding our heel deeper into it.
Perhaps bellicose stupidity is the cause close to your heart.
-
The ersatz machismo of the right-wing [so compatible with the ersatz machismo of bodybuilding, I guess] never fails to amuse me. I take it I'm supposed to be stung by the accusation that I endorse retreat? As if this impugns my virility in some way? ::)
Since you appear to have a comic book-level view of the conflict [i.e. "America good! Towelheads bad!"], I'll tell you a story about Alan Moore. Someone asked if he planned to sue DC Comics over the way they screwed him over on Watchmen. His sage reply was "When you discover you're standing in a pile of sh!t, you don't stamp on the sh!t to punish it. You step out of it as quickly as you can."
In this metaphor, the presence of American troops in Iraq - fanning the flames of fanaticism with every innocent house they barge into, creating a new suicide bomber with ever child they blow up - is our country standing in a big stinking pile of sh!t. My solution is to, yes, retreat our foot out of this pile of sh!t. Yours, I guess, is to "surge" by grinding our heel deeper into it.
Perhaps bellicose stupidity is the cause close to your heart.
First, you incorrectly label me as 'Right-Wing', as if you can categorise my statement as such and dismiss it as mere rhetoric. I am not, but if you understood the definition of such a title, and then did a little reading of my posts, you would identify this easily. Perhaps you were too busy writing incomprehensible nonsense, as above (‘ersatz machismo’? Where did you learn to write?). Then, you agree that you endorse retreat, thus allowing this entire board to recognise you as a coward, a supporter of terrorism, and devotee to defeat for your own nation’s forces in Iraq.
You then tell a completely irrelevant tale about a comic book and try to tie this into your limited understanding of a conflict that escapes you both mentally and geographically. Please try and understand the difference between a war against terrorists, and a war against the Iraqi people, whose noble plight against that which you define them as being is something which again manages to elude you.
To end your barrage of meaningless, ill-composed diatribe, you conclude that the coalition’s departure from Iraq would result in an estoppel of the discernable level of terror that is occurring in this region currently. You should then be easily able to note the Iraq you characterise here was, in fact, a paradise as you surely fantasise it was under Saddam’s rule. The sorry reality, for you, is that Iraq was ruled by one of the most brutal tyrants of our generation, who gladly sat watch over a nation that purposefully erased the lives of hundreds and thousands of innocents. You, of course, would prefer to pretend such people, and such scenarios, are nothing more than a figment of your already significant imagination.
You are morally bankrupt, and an attempted intellectual blowhard.
-
This is just about spot on. Supporting us has nothing to do with the will to win. Its national will and pride and we seem to have found other interests.
Pride? It isn't a bar fight.Wars should not be fought over "pride". You enlisted in the service,I assume,to protect YOUR country...not Iraq.
-
you agree that you endorse retreat, thus allowing this entire board to recognise you as a coward, a supporter of terrorism, and devotee to defeat for your own nation’s forces in Iraq.
Coming after that, your categorization of me as a "blowhard" was especially amusing. :)
We both condemn terrorism. The only difference between us is that I think people with brown skin count and you don't.
Number of civilians killed by Osama bin Laden: less than 3,000
Number of civilians killed by George W. Bush: at least 55,000
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
We also agree on this: Hussein was a nasty piece of work. Geez, the guy tortured people. Though at least his goons were smart enough not to photograph themselves at work...
(http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/images/abu.ghraib.jpg)
And you're absolutely right on the central point: I want us to lose. Did you think I would deny it - or be embarrassed by the accusation? Far from it.
You see: we're the bad guys. I know that flies in the face of everything you were taught in school - and everything you hear on FOX News. But once you learn some history and start thinking for yourself, there's no other conclusion you can reach.
We did this...
(http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2003/05/269439.jpg)
So we could drive around in these...
(http://www.avonhill.com/thumbnails/sport_utility/2002_Ford_Excursion.jpeg)
You're god-damned right I want us to lose.
-
Coming after that, your categorization of me as a "blowhard" was especially amusing. :)
We both condemn terrorism. The only difference between us is that I think people with brown skin count and you don't.
Number of civilians killed by Osama bin Laden: less than 3,000
Number of civilians killed by George W. Bush: at least 55,000
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
We also agree on this: Hussein was a nasty piece of work. Geez, the guy tortured people. Though at least his goons were smart enough not to photograph themselves at work...
(http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/images/abu.ghraib.jpg)
And you're absolutely right on the central point: I want us to lose. Did you think I would deny it - or be embarrassed by the accusation? Far from it.
You see: we're the bad guys. I know that flies in the face of everything you were taught in school - and everything you hear on FOX News. But once you learn some history and start thinking for yourself, there's no other conclusion you can reach.
We did this...
(http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2003/05/269439.jpg)
So we could drive around in these...
(http://www.avonhill.com/thumbnails/sport_utility/2002_Ford_Excursion.jpeg)
You're god-damned right I want us to lose.
Glad we cleared that up. You're inaccurate, a coward and pathetic.
-
You're inaccurate, a coward and pathetic.
Gee, don't get your panties in a bunch, BRUCE. [Hadn't figured out the Caps Lock key back when you made your Getbig account? Or is it an acronym of some sort? ;D]
I'm intellectually bankrupt, remember? My ideas can't harm you! ;D
Your ideas, unfortunately, are harming quite a lot of people - including the American soldiers whose welfare you to profess to be so concerned with.
(http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-06/28/xin_170603281136077126129.jpg)
[Lucky for that soldier he only lost his legs rather than his life. Bush doesn't go to military funerals.]
-
Gee, don't get your panties in a bunch, BRUCE. [Hadn't figured out the Caps Lock key back when you made your Getbig account? Or is it an acronym of some sort? ;D]
I'm intellectually bankrupt, remember? My ideas can't harm you! ;D
Your ideas, unfortunately, are harming quite a lot of people - including the American soldiers whose welfare you to profess to be so concerned with.
(http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-06/28/xin_170603281136077126129.jpg)
[Lucky for that soldier he only lost his legs rather than his life. I hear Bush doesn't go to military funerals.]
No, you see, I'd rather use a moniker far more relevant like 'ribonucleic', which is in no way a self-serving attempt to make yourself appear intellectual. No, you'd have no use for such things, not with research such as above - stating that GWB is personally responsible for an amount of deaths that, for the majority, are attributable to terror attacks.
Why on earth would you desire to make the US seem evil? Oh, that's right:
And you're absolutely right on the central point: I want us to lose. Did you think I would deny it - or be embarrassed by the accusation? Far from it.
You're god-damned right I want us to lose.
No partisanship in that, then.
-
Why on earth would you desire to make the US seem evil?
Yeah, I should probably give up on that. It'll never work.
(http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Abu-Ghraib-Prison-Photos11jun04p12.jpg)
(http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Abu-Ghraib-Prison-Photos11jun04p13.jpg)
(http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Abu-Ghraib-Prison-Photos11jun04p04.jpg)
(http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Abu-Ghraib-Prison-Photos11jun04p05.jpg)
(http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Abu-Ghraib-Prison-Photos11jun04p08.jpg)
(http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Abu-Ghraib-Prison-Photos11jun04p09.jpg)
(http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Abu-Ghraib-Prison-Photos11jun04p10.jpg)
(http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Abu-Ghraib-Prison-Photos11jun04p11.jpg)
-
Yeah, I should probably give up on that. It'll never work.
Poor terrorists :(
-
Poor terrorists :(
Clearly, you've dispensed with pre-9/11 ideas like "proof". But admittedly, you do have the law on your side now. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 makes it very clear: When W says you're a terrorist, you're a terrorist. End of discussion.
I might even embrace the idea of being spared so much legal paperwork, were it not for the fact that W's statements - how can I put this tactfully? - aren't always borne out. You know: stuff like "Saddam was connected to 9/11", "Saddam has WMDs", "I'm not getting rid of Donald Rumsfeld", etc.
But since you're on the side of the fighting men [though apparently not to the point of volunteering to be one of them - what was that you were saying about cowardice earlier?] and I'm not, I would at least expect you to denounce the events at Abu Ghraib as being a stain on the honor of the service, blah blah blah - not to mention a provocation for the enemy to treat our prisoners with equal savagery.
I guess you just get off on torture. Just like your beloved President, now that I think of it - who whiled away his boyhood days in Kennebunkport blowing up frogs with firecrackers.
-
The best we can pray for is Iran taking Iraq under its wing. Think about it, they're both Shia countries and Iran wouldn't be doing anything the US isn't already doing. This will happen, but only if the US doesn't turn around and start a war with Iran.
So Americans don't have any balls because they disapprove of the Iraq debacle? Oh brother.. ::)
Won't be that simple CJ. The Saudis have already stated "They will AGGRESSIVELY back the Sunnis, if the US pulls out", ...and then there are the Kurds who want their own state. It's a colossal mess the likes of which will not be solved quickly or easily. It has the potential to spread to the entire region, ...which would sodomize the US and infact global economies like nothing we have ever seen in the past.
It could even lead to scenarios like this:
(http://platinum.funpic.org/images/ffi-cartoon.gif)
-
Damn, ribo. I truly enjoy your posts and would love to see your insight here more!!
{BLUSH} Not only am I embarrased to say I'm turning into a ditto-head, ...I'm turning into a 240 ditto head! :P
Wow Ribo... and to think they had the audacity to call Reagan the great communicator? He had nothing on you! :)
-
what did they ever do to that chic anyway? The young army girl that was in trouble for the humiliation of the prisoners?
-
what did they ever do to that chic anyway?
Same thing that happens in every war. The enlisted personnel got sent to prison and the senior officers were passed over for promotion.
-
Clearly, you've dispensed with pre-9/11 ideas like "proof". But admittedly, you do have the law on your side now. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 makes it very clear: When W says you're a terrorist, you're a terrorist. End of discussion.
Is that the end of discussion? Why don't you quote the specific provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that "makes it very clear: When W says you're a terrorist, you're a terrorist." I'm specifically referring to the portion that applies to American citizens, since you did not distinguish between Americans and foreign terrorists. I'd love to further discuss this "end of discussion" topic. :)
-
we will stay...and we will stay for good..we HAVE to now..disguise it with whatever political stance ya wanna..
the alternative would be unthinkable..
we've made sure of that..
-
Why don't you quote the specific provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that "makes it very clear: When W says you're a terrorist, you're a terrorist." I'm specifically referring to the portion that applies to American citizens
S.3930.ENR (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
Sec. 948a. Definitions
(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--
`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
Hope this helps.
-
S.3930.ENR (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
Sec. 948a. Definitions
(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--
`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
Hope this helps.
Actually it doesn't help. Now quote the definition of "alien" and the purpose of the Act in section 948b.
-
the plot thickens!
-
***CRICKETS***
-
Actually it doesn't help. Now quote the definition of "alien" and the purpose of the Act in section 948b.
Yeah, somehow I didn't think you'd get the point. :)
Some armed soldiers break into your house tonight with automatic weapons and tie a black hood over your head. When you try to ask what's going on, you're tasered until you shut up. You're driven somewhere, put on a plane, and flown away.
24 hours later, the hood is taken off. Blinking painfully at the light, you see that you're handcuffed to a chair in a windowless interrogation room. When you ask where you are, a man in a military uniform says that you've been declared an alien unlawful enemy combatant by a competent tribunal as established by the Military Commissions Act of 2006. And now you're going to tell him about the Al Qaeda plot or be introduced to the waterboard over there in the corner.
The situation is not quite as entertaining as it was when you saw something like it on 24. But you're not completely panicked yet. You're an American, after all - you have rights! So you tell him not only are you not a member of Al Qaeda, you're an American citizen - and therefore have the right to have your case presented in a court of law.
"American citizen, huh?" The man in the military uniform laughs a rich, Rush Limbaugh kind of laugh. Then he leans down to your face and hisses two words: "Prove it."
Hmm. Well, that may prove a bit difficult. You don't even know what country you're in - let alone the phone number of public defender's office. So you explain that, if he'll kindly just uncuff you, you're sure you'll be able to prove to his satisfaction that you're a 100% FOX News-watching patriotic American like himself.
Having been forewarned against this kind of crafty Muslim treachery, the interrogator instead signals two burly colleagues. They strap you to the board, put the bag over your head, and start filling it with water. Just like it said on the Internet, your will to resist is broken in seconds. Between your choking and gagging, you tearfully beg for your life - insisting that you don't know anything about Al Qaeda except what Bill O'Reilly said in the No-Spin Zone.
Maybe you don't, the interrogator wonders to himself. After all, the only evidence against you came in an anonymous call from a Florida pay-phone - from some guy who would only identify himself with the code name "240". [It's always funny until someone gets hurt! ;D] But acting on the 1% Principle enshrined by his Commander In Chief, he won't take any chances. There's a clock ticking somewhere! So he continues waterboarding you. And as you sh!t youself in terror, you decide: F#ck Cheney, this sure feels like torture to me...
.
.
.
LOL! Absurd psychobabble! This could never happen to you! The purpose of the Military Commissions Act is to go after the bad guys! You know: the "worst of the worst" we keep in "Club Gitmo" - hahaha! [All but the ones we released after a few years when we decided they were just schmucks who had been handed over to us by Afghan warlords in exchange for a bounty. They're, uh... back with their families now.]
-
Wow. That is one of the poorest smoke screen's I've seen in a while. Let me help you out my friend. You didn't quote the definition of "alien" or the purpose in section 948b, because it blows up your claim that Bush can use the Act against American citizens. Here is the language:
"ALIEN--The term 'alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States."
Section 948a(3).
"PURPOSE--This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission."
Section 948b(a) (emphasis added).
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf
Now, I'll wait for your explanation of how this Act can be used against American citizens, when the plain language expressly excludes American citizens (rather than a made up hypothetical).
[insert Jeopardy music here] :)
Oh, and class will resume AFTER the Super Bowl. :)
-
Now, I'll wait for your explanation of how this Act can be used against American citizens, when the plain language expressly excludes American citizens (rather than a made up hypothetical).
Nothing hypothetical about it. An American citizen - seized on American soil - has already been detained and tortured for 3 years while the government fought tooth-and-nail to deny him the right to appear in court.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html
Oh, yeah - you'll love this part... When the government avoided a likely defeat at the Supreme Court by grudgingly bringing a case against him, their charges include none of the serious allegations they had spent those 3 years using to justify their detainment of him.
The Act is just a legal framework for letting Bush get away with it again in the future.
Now, I'll wait for your explanation of how Padilla didn't deserve to be heard in court because "he's a terrorist". ::)
-
Nothing hypothetical about it. An American citizen - seized on American soil - has already been detained and tortured for 3 years while the government fought tooth-and-nail to deny him the right to appear in court.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html
Oh, yeah - you'll love this part... When the government avoided a likely defeat at the Supreme Court by grudgingly bringing a case against him, their charges include none of the serious allegations they had spent those 3 years using to justify their detainment of him.
The Act is just a legal framework for letting Bush get away with it again in the future.
Now, I'll wait for your explanation of how Padilla didn't deserve to be heard in court because "he's a terrorist". ::)
So in support of your claim that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 applies to American citizens, you cite someone who was detained three years BEFORE the Act was passed? BUZZZZZZ! Try again. :D
Don't dig a deeper hole dude. If you're being intellectually honest you will admit the plain language of the Act applies to aliens, who are explicitly defined to exclude American citizens.
"ALIEN--The term 'alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States."
Section 948a(3).
"PURPOSE--This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission."
Section 948b(a) (emphasis added).
You still haven't explained how the preceding language of the Act applies to American citizens.
[clock ticking]
-
Yeah, somehow I didn't think you'd get the point. :)
Some armed soldiers break into your house tonight with automatic weapons and tie a black hood over your head. When you try to ask what's going on, you're tasered until you shut up. You're driven somewhere, put on a plane, and flown away.
24 hours later, the hood is taken off. Blinking painfully at the light, you see that you're handcuffed to a chair in a windowless interrogation room. When you ask where you are, a man in a military uniform says that you've been declared an alien unlawful enemy combatant by a competent tribunal as established by the Military Commissions Act of 2006. And now you're going to tell him about the Al Qaeda plot or be introduced to the waterboard over there in the corner.
The situation is not quite as entertaining as it was when you saw something like it on 24. But you're not completely panicked yet. You're an American, after all - you have rights! So you tell him not only are you not a member of Al Qaeda, you're an American citizen - and therefore have the right to have your case presented in a court of law.
"American citizen, huh?" The man in the military uniform laughs a rich, Rush Limbaugh kind of laugh. Then he leans down to your face and hisses two words: "Prove it."
Hmm. Well, that may prove a bit difficult. You don't even know what country you're in - let alone the phone number of public defender's office. So you explain that, if he'll kindly just uncuff you, you're sure you'll be able to prove to his satisfaction that you're a 100% FOX News-watching patriotic American like himself.
Having been forewarned against this kind of crafty Muslim treachery, the interrogator instead signals two burly colleagues. They strap you to the board, put the bag over your head, and start filling it with water. Just like it said on the Internet, your will to resist is broken in seconds. Between your choking and gagging, you tearfully beg for your life - insisting that you don't know anything about Al Qaeda except what Bill O'Reilly said in the No-Spin Zone.
Maybe you don't, the interrogator wonders to himself. After all, the only evidence against you came in an anonymous call from a Florida pay-phone - from some guy who would only identify himself with the code name "240". [It's always funny until someone gets hurt! ;D] But acting on the 1% Principle enshrined by his Commander In Chief, he won't take any chances. There's a clock ticking somewhere! So he continues waterboarding you. And as you sh!t youself in terror, you decide: F#ck Cheney, this sure feels like torture to me...
.
.
.
LOL! Absurd psychobabble! This could never happen to you! The purpose of the Military Commissions Act is to go after the bad guys! You know: the "worst of the worst" we keep in "Club Gitmo" - hahaha! [All but the ones we released after a few years when we decided they were just schmucks who had been handed over to us by Afghan warlords in exchange for a bounty. They're, uh... back with their families now.]
Great Post!
-
So in support of your claim that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 applies to American citizens, you cite someone who was detained three years BEFORE the Act was passed? BUZZZZZZ! Try again. :D
Don't dig a deeper hole dude. If you're being intellectually honest you will admit the plain language of the Act applies to aliens, who are explicitly defined to exclude American citizens.
"ALIEN--The term 'alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States."
Section 948a(3).
"PURPOSE--This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission."
Section 948b(a) (emphasis added).
You still haven't explained how the preceding language of the Act applies to American citizens.
[clock ticking]
Padilla is an American citizen picked up in a Chicago airport.
Do you even get CNN? Do you know which channel FOX is? Do you know where Chicago is?
-
"ALIEN--The term 'alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States."
Section 948a(3).
"PURPOSE--This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission."
Section 948b(a) (emphasis added).
You still haven't explained how the preceding language of the Act applies to American citizens.
[clock ticking]
Jose was an american citizen who's been held without trial.
Not an alien...
tick...
tock...
-
So in support of your claim that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 applies to American citizens, you cite someone who was detained three years BEFORE the Act was passed? BUZZZZZZ! Try again. :D
I'll try to keep this simple for you...
Alien unlawful enemy combatants are denied habeas corpus.
So an American citizen detained as an alien unlawful enemy combatant - either through malice or incompetence - will then have no means of establishing his citizenship to assert habeas corpus rights.
Hope this helps. :)
Oh, by the way, Attorney General Gonzales asserts that the Constitution does not guarantee anyone habeas corpus rights.
-
Padilla is an American citizen picked up in a Chicago airport.
Do you even get CNN? Do you know which channel FOX is? Do you know where Chicago is?
More dumb questions from 240. ::)
-
Jose was an american citizen who's been held without trial.
Not an alien...
tick...
tock...
Geeze Louise. He wasn't held under a law that hadn't been passed yet. It's disturbing that I even have to explain that you.
-
Geeze Louise. He wasn't held under a law that hadn't been passed yet.
We await your citation of the law that authorized his detention without charge for 3 years.
-
I'll try to keep this simple for you...
Alien unlawful enemy combatants are denied habeas corpus.
So an American citizen detained as an alien unlawful enemy combatant - either through malice or incompetence - will then have no means of establishing his citizenship to assert habeas corpus rights.
Hope this helps. :)
Oh, by the way, Attorney General Gonzales asserts that the Constitution does not guarantee anyone habeas corpus rights.
Good grief. I can't believe I'm actually having this discussion. An "alien" is not an American citizen under section 948a(3).
"ALIEN--The term 'alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States."
Section 948a(3).
So a person born in this country could be arrested under the Military Commissions Act and, despite the plain language of section 948a(3), would not be able to provide a birth certificate or social security card, etc. showing they are actually an American citizen? How ridiculous is that? I guess about as silly as the claim by you and 240 that a law passed in 2006 was used to detain someone in 2003. LOL . . . . .
[Sigh] I give up already. :-\
-
So a person born in this country could be arrested under the Military Commissions Act and, despite the plain language of section 948a(3), would not be able to provide a birth certificate or social security card, etc. showing they are actually an American citizen?
That would be the birth certificate and Social Security card that the men who abducted you were thoughtful enough to give you time to collect before flying you out of the country to their undisclosed prison? ::)
And you still seem to be having a hard time with this "malice" idea. You're too young to remember Nixon's "Enemies List" perhaps?
-
That would be the birth certificate and Social Security card that the men who abducted you were thoughtful enough to give you time to collect before flying you out of the country to their undisclosed prison? ::)
And you still seem to be having a hard time with this "malice" idea. You're too young to remember Nixon's "Enemies List" perhaps?
LOL . . . . Wait . . . . Will the men be wearing black uniforms and flying in a black helicopter? LOL . . . . Better yet, will they use a law that will be passed sometime in 2010 to detain me?
This is rich . . . . LOL. . . . Thanks for starting my day with smile. I love this board. ;D
-
Will the men be wearing black uniforms and flying in a black helicopter?
Sometimes they wear airport security uniforms. :)
"A Canadian citizen who was detained last year at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York as a suspected terrorist said Tuesday he was secretly deported to Syria and endured 10 months of torture in a Syrian prison."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A522-2003Nov4¬Found=true
But don't you worry about that, Bum. You're white, I take it.
-
Sometimes they wear airport security uniforms. :)
"A Canadian citizen who was detained last year at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York as a suspected terrorist said Tuesday he was secretly deported to Syria and endured 10 months of torture in a Syrian prison."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A522-2003Nov4¬Found=true
But don't you worry about that, Bum. You're white, I take it.
Ribo you're not unlike many people in this country. You have to put people in a box for your own comfort level: liberal, conservative, white, black, straight, homosexual, etc. You need it so you can whip out your canned views of how that group thinks and acts. And when you don't have that information, you make ASSumptions, e.g., "You're white, I take it." I'll never tell. I'd rather make it more difficult for you to put me in a box. :)
Try thinking outside the box. It's refreshing.
-
You have to put people in a box for your own comfort level: liberal, conservative, white, black, straight, homosexual, etc.
Don't forget "black-helicopter paranoid". :)
-
Don't forget "black-helicopter paranoid". :)
Right. And "making up statutory language to support an abjectly false claim about the Military Commissions Act." :)
-
Beach,
he just showed that Padilla, an American citizen, was held for 3 years without trial, where no law allowed for it.
It gave you a chuckle and a great start to your day?
Sounds like Ribo loves the constitution and defend it, while you could care less. You laughed at an American citizen being denied his rights illegally. DId you laugh on 911 too? I just want to know which events which violate our rights you enjoy, and which you dislike. Where is your line?
-
Beach,
he just showed that Padilla, an American citizen, was held for 3 years without trial, where no law allowed for it.
It gave you a chuckle and a great start to your day?
Sounds like Ribo loves the constitution and defend it, while you could care less. You laughed at an American citizen being denied his rights illegally. DId you laugh on 911 too? I just want to know which events which violate our rights you enjoy, and which you dislike. Where is your line?
You both said Padilla was held under the provisions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which wasn't passed till three years after he was supposedly detained. THAT gives me a chuckle. I'm laughing at YOU (and Ribo). ;D
-
You both said Padilla was held under the provisions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which wasn't passed till three years after he was supposedly detained. THAT gives me a chuckle. I'm laughing at YOU (and Ribo). ;D
And what is your take on an American being held for 3 years with no trial in 2001?
-
And what is your take on an American being held for 3 years with no trial in 2001?
Obviously terrible, but don't try and change the subject. You and Ribo made a cockamamie argument.
-
Obviously terrible, but don't try and change the subject. You and Ribo made a cockamamie argument.
You agree it was terrible back then.
But you believe it's "okay" today.
So, when Bush makes a law saying it's okay, it moves from "terrible" to "it makes me chuckle?"
-
You agree it was terrible back then.
But you believe it's "okay" today.
So, when Bush makes a law saying it's okay, it moves from "terrible" to "it makes me chuckle?"
::)
"ALIEN--The term 'alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States."
Section 948a(3).
"PURPOSE--This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission."
Section 948b(a) (emphasis added).
-
::)
"ALIEN--The term 'alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States."
Section 948a(3).
"PURPOSE--This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission."
Section 948b(a) (emphasis added).
So you're okay with the US Govt torturing people who are not US citizens then?
-
So you're okay with the US Govt torturing people who are not US citizens then?
Bwahahahahaha!!! Changing the subject again. LOL. 240, it is obvious that when you have to argue the cold hard facts your brain gets tied in knots.
Hey, so did they like show Padilla a draft of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and tell him that was the basis for his detention? LOL . . . .
-
" Iraqi Interior Ministry estimates 1,000 killed in one week"
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/04/iraq.main/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Proportional to their population, that's the equivalent of 11,000 people being killed here.
Yes, great things are happening in Iraq... ::)
-
history might repeat itself
"General Giap, Commander of the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong, was interviewed by a Newsweek reporter. He told the reporter that after TET (1968), the Viet Cong were no longer usable, and the North Vietnamese Army would take years to rebuild, and would not be able to mount another offensive. The TET offensive of 1968 was an absolute failure for the North. They lost over 70,000 soldiers and Viet Cong. He stated that it was only the protests in the United States that gave him hope. He stated that he soon realized he didn't have to win, just hold on longer than the American people. The South Vietnamese Government collapsed after the United States Congress cut off all funding. The United States Military won every single battle, but the media and the politicians lost the war."
-
" Iraqi Interior Ministry estimates 1,000 killed in one week"
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/04/iraq.main/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Proportional to their population, that's the equivalent of 11,000 people being killed here.
Yes, great things are happening in Iraq... ::)
wow. muslims are killing each other. what else is new
-
American will leave because of a lack of will. Not because it isn't winnable.
America will spend even more money on defense to protect themselves from a more dangerous world, because they have lost influence.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm)
I wouldn't want to see that happen though. America must help Iraq embrace freedom and not violence and the media must do a much better job reporting the successes. I mean quite a bit of Iraq military control has already been turned back over to the Iraqis.
I think giving Iraq set targets will help. That is how they managed to get the constitution and the second election through.
Also something has to be done to stop the meddling of Iran with Al Sadr.
Piss Poor argument bub...blame the people for lack of fortitude when they have been lied to for almost 6 years from this administration and it's administration..they should play the music to the benny hill show when they show these shitheads on tv.
-
American will leave because of a lack of will. Not because it isn't winnable.
How many years should Americans give "will"?
It's been nearly 6 years now.
Do we give it 10? 20? 40 years of our soldiers dying before we re-think things?
-
How many years should Americans give "will"?
It's been nearly 6 years now.
Do we give it 10? 20? 40 years of our soldiers dying before we re-think things?
We're still in Okinawa, aren't we? So, 61 years and counting... :)
-
We're still in Okinawa, aren't we? So, 61 years and counting... :)
we're gonna win the thing too, dammit!
-
We're still in Okinawa, aren't we? So, 61 years and counting... :)
There's only one cave left still occupied there...... ;)
-
I wouldn't want to see that happen though. America must help Iraq embrace freedom and not violence and the media must do a much better job reporting the successes. I mean quite a bit of Iraq military control has already been turned back over to the Iraqis.
Let them discover the ideas of John Locke and other western ideals on their own. You and I don't need to tell them what the hell to do or think, especially when you consider our invasion of their land was unjustifiable to begin with. That is hypocrisy.
-
There's only one cave left still occupied there...... ;)
Oh, there's plenty of occupying going on...
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9603/okinawa_rape/
Winning hearts and minds. >:(
-
Oh, there's plenty of occupying going on...
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9603/okinawa_rape/
Winning hearts and minds. >:(
Yep they've wanted us out of there for quite some time. We probably will eventually as technolgy allows us to project power from farther distances.
The reality is, however, violent crimes come with a large group of people. This rape case is not significant other than the negative publicity created from the circumstances of military personal in a country where they aren't wanted.
-
This rape case is not significant other than the negative publicity created from the circumstances of military personal in a country where they aren't wanted.
Well, that and the light sentences.
-
Well, that and the light sentences.
If you look at large chunk of rape convictions and the corresponding punishments you'll find many got off lightly. (i'm certainly not say they should have got off lightly)
I'm not trying to spin this, I'm just trying ot put it in it's proper perspective.