|
|
 |
|
#61
09-19-2006, 05:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I remember at the time when I heard they were talking about going into Iraq, I was kind of surprised. I totally understood them going into Afghanistan and I totally favored that. I didn't know why they wanted to go into Iraq but I figured they must know what they're doing. I figured that they must know something that I don't know. It turns out that they didn't. 
|
|
#62
09-19-2006, 05:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Same guy who lead the Fed interference in a family matter during a time of crisis, by passed Florida law and made it federal. Same guy. Guess he can't bring "flag burning", gay marriage, or any other diversions to current issues before the senate, and the election is coming in 49 days... guess he's got to do something.
|
|
#63
09-19-2006, 05:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
http://www.facebook.com/cajungator26
|
|
#64
09-19-2006, 05:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
http://www.facebook.com/cajungator26
|
|
#65
09-19-2006, 05:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
There were a lot of outsiders from Syria, Iran, etc who did not want us to suceed in Iraq. They were helping with the insurgency. These outsiders don't have the best interest of Iraq at heart. They don't want Iraq to be free. They don't want there to be free elections. What are we doing that's bad over there? We want to get the hell out of there. We want the people to be able to have free elections and be free. The vast majority of people there want the same thing. It's not like we're trying to force them to do something that they don't want to do. The vast majority of people there want to have free elections and they want to be free. Under Saddam they had no freedom. If you spoke about Saddam they would kill you.
|
|
#66
09-19-2006, 05:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#67
09-19-2006, 05:24 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
And lets not turn on the spin machine. We didnt go there to provide freedom to the Iraqi people. Our main purposes for war, as outlined to congress and the UN were because of the non-existant wmds and the non-existant ties to Al Qaeda. Now, the oil and the reconstruction money had NOTHING to do with it  .
|
|
#68
09-19-2006, 05:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Since we are playing hypotheticals, lets just say the country became nuclear (which is way far from reality but regardless). In order to be a threat the US, do you realize what type of technology goes into an ICBM? They couldnt even hit Israel right with scuds and they arent that far away. How would you expect them to deliver said missile ten thousand miles away and have it work once it got here? And they are going to develop this type of technology in the dark under US surveillance and what would stop the US from bombing any reactor that was developed anyway? We owned the skies over there didnt we? Wmd's were always a smokescreen.
|
|
#69
09-19-2006, 05:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#70
09-19-2006, 05:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A few questions:
1. Did the USA supply weapons of mass destruction to Saddam during the conflict between Iraq and Iran during the 80's? 2. Did he use those weapons on the Kurds before or after a CIA sponsored insurrection had been initiated by the Kurds and failed to be supported by the USA? 3. Were there UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq (Hans Blix), two containment no-fly zones prior to the presentation of "yellow cake" theory to both the UN (48 hour ultimatum) via Colin Powell and to the American people via GWB in his "State of the Union" address? 4. Are there current plans for four major military bases to be located in Iraq? 5. Is there interest in using Iraqui natural resources (oil) to repay the costs of the "liberation"? 6. Are there any connections between Halliburton (no bid contract), Brown Kellog and Root, and the Bush administration? 7. Have detainees been treated "fairly" or has there been a suspension of "habias corpus" for those "enemy combatants"? Thanks in advance for answering these questions. I have a few more that I'll post later.
|
|
#71
09-19-2006, 06:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
2. I think it was after but I'm not sure. 3. I'm not sure I understand this whole question. With regard to the part about inspectors, Saddam would go back and forth. He wasn't cooperating with the inspectors. He was playing a lot of cat and mouse games. Once he saw that we were serious and we were going to invade, then he became more cooperative. So the answer is "yes" that I think there were inspectors there at the time, but that's irrelevant because much of the time leading up to that time, Saddam had not been cooperating with the inspectors. I don't understand your question about the "no-fly" zone. I do know that Saddam had been firing on our planes there for several years. 4. I don't know if there are plans for military bases. It would not surprise me if there were. We have bases in the countries of several of our allies. 5. Yes, but thanks to the insurgency attacking the pipelines, the oil is not producing all that much revenue. 6. I don't know who Brown Kellog and Root are. I think a big company like Haliburton has ties to politicians in both parties. Cheney used to work there. 7. I don't know what your definition of "fairly" is. I don't know if you are referring to the prisoners at Gutanomo or where. The prisoners at Guantanomo are interrogated very aggresively. All types of techniques including sleep deprivation and things like that are used. The prisoners are certainly treated far worse than they would be if they were being held in jail in America. In America, they read you Miranda rights. On the other hand, these prisoners are being treated a helluva lot better than they would be if we sent them back to their own countries. Do you know what they would do to them at the prisons in Egypt or Saudi Arabia?If we sent them there, they would wish they were back at Guantanomo. With regard to the "habeus corpus" thing, I think that a judge just ruled that we can't contiue with the current practices at Guantanomo. But that doesn't mean anything. Every legal scholar that I've listened to both liberal and conservative said the judge's ruling has little or no basis in law and will surely be overturned.. they said the judge's rling was titally partisan and the arguments she made were very poor. Last edited by Rupert Pupkin : 09-19-2006 at 06:21 PM.
|
|
#72
09-19-2006, 06:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#73
09-19-2006, 06:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The answers are easily found. In a way, it seems that our country wouldn't be in the situation that it's currently facing had not those that brought them to the fore been branded as "unpatriotic". At this point in time, since I've used up most of the plastic sheeting and duct tape that I bought a few years ago, and since we've had the "regime change" and "mission accomplished" on the flight deck of the Abraham Lincoln, and there are no WMD's...only a few questions remain. One is: Have the actions initated by the administration created more or fewer terrorists? Follow up: Are American citzens "safer" now?
|
|
#74
09-19-2006, 07:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
altho it is generally believed we are safer, many don't feel safer....law of averages and all that....after all, one has to believe that eventually a plan will come to fruition.
as for iraq and wmd's...i think they had them, and we knew they had them, because we gave them to them. or gave them the know-how. also, don't forget that saddam gassed the kurds--altho poison gas isn't nuclear, it most definitely has been considered a wmd.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#75
09-19-2006, 07:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You are correct that the US supplied Saddam with wmd's. They were obsolete as the "shelf life" is limited. They had been dismantled, and Saddam was "bluffing" to the UN inspectors, as he didn't wish to admit "powerlessness". Yes, he used them against the Kurds. The Kurds had initiated an insurrection on assurances of CIA support. The US "left them out to dry". Israel took out the only nuclear power plant during the 80's. There was no "yellow cake" from Niger, no centrifuge tubes. Now, I'll post an article regarding the need for clarification of treatment of prisoners. DTS
|
|
#76
09-19-2006, 07:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bush's Paltry Excuse for Subverting Geneva Convention
by Robert S. Rivkin President Bush claims to be worried that our CIA interrogators are confused by the rules that govern them. This claim is hogwash. While addressing the post-Hamdan v. Rumsfeld battle going on in the Senate over the U.S.’s treaty obligation to adhere to the terms of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, President Bush claimed at Friday’s press conference that all he is seeking to do in his proposed legislation is to define the Article’s “vague” provisions. He said, “the standards are so vague that our professionals won’t be able to carry forward the [interrogation] program, because they don’t want to be tried as war criminals. They don’t want to break the law.” Providing a congressionally-approved, American definition of Common Article 3 would supposedly provide CIA interrogators of terror suspects with clear guidelines as to which interrogation techniques are legal and which are illegal. Sounds simple and straightforward -- but is it? A prohibition contained in Common Article 3 (which is enforceable criminally through the 1996 War Crimes Act which Bush seeks to change) forbids “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” Clearly, many of the nauseating abuses committed by Americans at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere (stripping detainees naked, dousing them with cold water, bombarding them with loud music for hours, putting them in stress positions, depriving them of sleep and light) would constitute violations of Common Article 3. Those military members who have been prosecuted, however, were charged in military courts under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Some of the UCMJ’s provisions are just as vague as those of Common Article 3 – if not more so. For example, the UCMJ’s Article 93 makes it a crime to engage in “cruelty, oppression or maltreatment” of a subordinate. Is “cruelty, oppression or maltreatment” less vague than “humiliating and degrading treatment”? The Manual for Courts-Martial, the official guide used by all military lawyers to implement the UCMJ, does list specific acts which could constitute violations of Article 93 or other articles of the UCMJ. These sample charges are known as “specifications.” The Manual makes clear that a military accused can be charged with a specification which is not listed. If an accused claims that a new specification does not amount to a violation of an article (such as 93), his lawyer could make that argument to the court, and if necessary, to the appellate military courts. That is the way our system works, because it is impossible to describe in advance all the permutations of bad behavior that humans are capable of that are sufficiently evil to be deemed criminal. Other articles of the UCMJ that are even more vague than Article 93 are 133 and 134. Article 133 prohibits “conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.” Article 134, long known as “the devil’s article” because it has been used for several decades to punish behavior that was undefined in advance, makes criminal “all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces” and “all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.” The appellate courts have upheld these articles against challenges by defense lawyers that they were “unconstitutionally vague.” During the President’s press conference, it would have been reasonable to expect at least one White House press corps reporter to ask Bush why Common Article 3 was deemed by him to be too vague -- while the UCMJ Article 134 was not. Not a single reporter posed the question. The Bush Administration’s real agenda likely has at least three goals: first, to allow CIA interrogators to continue to engage in “soft torture,” so long as it doesn’t “shock the conscience”; second, to provide immunity for all those interrogators, civilian and military, who committed outrages upon detainees’ personal dignity and engaged in humiliating and degrading treatment in the past few years; and third, to give congressionally-granted immunity to senior Bush Administration officials for their having encouraged field operatives to inflict degrading treatment and outright torture in the past. Myriads of articles have been published about the notorious “Torture Memo” of August 1, 2002, and others, which defined torture so narrowly as to “legalize” what most people and nations would regard as torture. These law-twisting memos, bitterly contested at the time by the Judge Advocates General of our Armed Forces as violating our most noble traditions, told President Bush exactly what he wanted to hear – that he and he alone, could decide what interrogation methods may be used in the “war on terror.” Even after the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld buried their arguments in justification of the tyrannical (“unitary”) Presidency, Bush’s operatives continue to push for congressional approval to water down established international standards. If Bush’s version of interrogation rules and military tribunals (including use of coerced and secret evidence) becomes law, not only will U.S. soldiers be put at greater risk of torture by other countries; the U.S.’s reputation in the world will be further diminished, and the moral high ground will be gone forever. Robert S. Rivkin, author of GI Rights and Army Justice, is a San Francisco-based writer and lawyer who specialized in military law for many years.
|
|
#77
09-19-2006, 07:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
By the same token, I still think we are safer here in the US. You may think it is paradoxical that I think that more terrorists have been created yet I still think we are safer, but I can explain why I think this. I basically think that there are definitely more angry Muslims in the Middle East right now than there were a few years ago. However, just because you have some angry people in the streets in the Middle East, that doesn't necessarily put us at greater risk. Most of these people don't have the means to hurt us. A guy like Bin Laden can hurt us because he has the money, his group is well organized, etc. I think the biggest threat to us was always from someone like Bin Laden. But I think that all the things we've done since 9/11 like improving and totally revamping our intelligence(CIA, FBI, informants, etc.), being more careful who we give visas to, putting Bin Laden on the run, and all the other things we've done have made us safer. Although we may not be safer from small isolated attacks from lone people acting on their own such as the guy who shot a few people at the ticket counter at Los Angels Airport. We actually are probably at greater risk when it comes to lone people acting out on their own.
|
|
#78
09-19-2006, 07:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#79
09-19-2006, 08:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I'm gratified that you and I are exchanging "meaningful questions". I'm also thrilled that you and I agree on some issues. In answer to your question, I'd be in support of one life being saved, let alone 1,000 if done within non-torturous techniques. That includes ALL humans, not only Americans. The USA continues to set the model for the rest of the world. I agree with Senator McCain regarding the preservation of "moral high ground". DTS
|
|
#80
09-19-2006, 08:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I wish it wasn't so. I have no plans to travel abroad. As far as safety in the US, many places are unprotected, unfortunately. Chemical plants, port facilities, water supplies, power grids... Sad situation. We are very vulnerable, and I truely wish it wasn't so.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
