37 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
So far as I know President Obama has never been to Benghazi.
What do you think he should do Tony? Start Iraq War Three? Iraq War 2 turned out so wonderfully. Me I'd trade another couple of hostages. They're due to be released at the end of the year anyway (unless you can explain to me under what legal pretext the United States can retain them forever. It's not like they're going to change their minds or anything.
What I hate is the detention of the Muslim Uighurs (originally from Mongolia), who were not terrorists but refugees from Chinese oppression, do not threaten the United States and got caught up and sent to Gitmo for some reason. Mind you, if I'd been stuck in Gitmo for 7 years fore no apparent reason, my feelings about the US would be pretty negative.
Only a liberal with no knowledge
would make an assumed statement like 'they're due to be released at the end of the year anyway', Rob.....POW's are only released after a war ENDS with a clear winner/loser agreement situation. These guys in Gitmo have never been POW's....they've been 'enemy combatants' and are NOT entitled to release since WE may not be at war (which we never were in the first place) anymore....but the AQ and Taliban still ARE. No winner/loser agreement/pact to end a war.....no releases.
I think you'll find that the end of this year is the "end"
of American mission and that 2016 is the end of all American involvement. I'm assuming nothing, I am repeating what has been widely reported in several different media outlets.
" Obama recently announced his plan to pull out all but 9,800 American troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, effectively ending the thirteen-year war. According to international law, an active conflict is defined by the intensity of fighting and the organization of the fighters. The vague wording of the law, coupled with the fact that a small U.S. presence will remain in Afghanistan, offers a potential legal loophole in which the conflict could be defined as ongoing after 2014. But it's a weak argument, and there is serious political incentive to declare an end to the war. The straightforward interpretation of international law is that the end of the war means the end of Guantanamo, a promise that defined Obama's 2008 campaign. The actual interpretation is sure to be hazier."
" The third Geneva Convention allows states that are engaged in an armed conflict to take their enemies as prisoners and hold them without charge. The original intention of this provision was actually humanitarian; better to detain the enemy than kill them. But this law is now the crux of the legal justification to indefinitely detain the remaining 149 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. However, international law also requires states to release and repatriate prisoners "without delay after the cessation of active hostilities," unless they are convicted of criminal activity."
The final pull out of the last American troops is scheduled for December 2016.
Are you telling me you want to continue this war, which is longer than any war in US history?
I didn't insult you Tony, I asked you questions about your beliefs. I didn't call you a Conservative Know-Nothing not least because I think you know a great deal, but may be a bit misled by the side you favour. I've got at least half a PhD and about half a dissertation in American History of Foreign Relations interrupted by a severe illness. However you are correct about one thing. I am an unashamed Roosevelt Liberal who believes it is the American government's duty to protect the American people from enemies foreign and domestic. Domestic enemies are wealthy tax evaders who try to buy elections, Spendthrift Republicans who ring up more debt than anyone in history like Reagan and then Bush Jr, Corporations who avoid taxes and outsource American jobs and try to buy elections, and Congressmen and Senators who block legislation and attempt to undermine the President. Air quality and water quality and food safety and drug safety and work safety and product safety and gun safety are all crucial. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness was the promise. Not the ability to defraud your neighbours by avoiding contributing your share to the cost of a government which helps everybody. You probably don't believe any of that, but what Libertarians really believe in is Anarchy. The best armed and luckiest person wins.
When we went to war
against terror, Rob, it was announced early on by our President that this would not be 'an in and out' type of conflict. He specifically said that it would last for a long, long time because there were so many areas of conflict across the world that it wasn't just our country at risk on an every day basis. Most of the rest of the world agreed. The fact that we had more resources to fight with than the rest of them was a given and accepted by our citizens. The fact that you would even ASK me if I want it to continue is asinine.....I would love to see it all come to a screeching halt like it did during other wars we were involved with, but that's not reality because even if WE stop fighting at our end, doesn't mean those who raged war against us in the first place agree to an end to it. No matter how much you wish it to be so just because BO says it's over, it isn't.
And your sources for this being the end of a war regarding prisoners at Gitmo are wrong.....they were never classified as POW's. They are enemy combatants and are not afforded the luxury of being treated as POW's, especially since the war is not and won't be over even in Dec of 2016. We will have to wait to see which one of us is correct about this rather than argue about it right now since it's a moot point, unless BO again breaks the law by EO and releases them all ahead of time. And if he does that, it won't be because he believes as you do, it will be entirely for political reasons to say he fulfilled his commitment to close Gitmo....and he won't care about the consequences of that action any more than he did when he traded, unilaterally and without Congressional notification, the "Taliban 5" two weeks ago.
As for your list of liberal domestic 'enemies'......let's go over it one by one.
You obviously don't see Dems with deep pockets such as Soros, Buffet, et al as wealthy tax evaders who try to buy elections, so that's pretty much a dumb as dirt argument since you refuse to ever put any of them into the same category as Republicans that you accuse daily of the same deeds.
History and the public records have trashed your "spendthrift Republicans who right up more debt than anyone in history like Reagan and Bush, Jr." to hell and back. BO has put us into debt that is deeper than ALL previous presidents before him and he did it in an extremely short period of time and continues to do so, even with Republicans who tried to work out deals to cut that debt. The ONLY thing that cut anything during his tenure was sequestration, which was forced upon BO (even tho HE was the one who came up with it as a blackmail strategy) and the Dems because BO didn't believe the Republicans would have the courage to do it. He had promised to cut the deficit in half while campaigning in 2008.....then immediately doubled or more that deficit for three years in a row. When the deficit DID get cut in half, it was HIS deficit and still hasn't come down to the same level as Bush had when he left office, and it ONLY got cut because of sequester. BO had NOTHING to do with it, even though he will take the credit for it.
As for blocking legislation....BO and Harry Reid (and Pelosi before Boehner) are the biggest blockers of that, Rob. Before a bill in the House even reaches Reid in the Senate, BO has threatened to veto more bills than any other president in history....which gives Reid permission to pocket those bills and never bring them up for a vote. If bills pass in the Senate, BO would be embarrassed into having to sign them if he realizes that his own Dem controlled Senate ever agreed with a Republican. But his own Dems are now battling against him.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.....doesn't guarantee anyone a free ride on the backs of the rest of the citizens, Rob. The Pursuit of Happiness literally means the Pursuit of Opportunity to go after your OWN self-reliance. It's not and never has been a ticket to a welfare life with others supporting you. Liberty......we haven't got much of that left thanks to big government. It started pretty much with your FDR progressive crap who carried the ideas of Woodrow Wilson farther than could have been believed and FDR used the war to pull it all off when he convinced people he felt so badly for them that he 'just had to do something' to help them. That was the foot in the door...and although Republicans over the years went along to get along and should be ashamed for it, Reagan began the pushback because of the disaster that Carter was......but then Republicans lost their spines again.
Until now.....establishment Republicans are slowly being pushed out of the way by more Conservative Republicans, and they deserve to be pushed out. When you have over 500 so called 'representatives' of the people completely IGNORING those people and a President who literally thumbs his nose at those people AND his own Congress AND the very laws he's supposed to enforce, those PEOPLE are showing they have had enough. We have ended up with government agencies and representatives who are convinced they are too big to fail because they haven't been held accountable....but they're wrong.
RE: breaks the law by EO and releases them all ahead of time
"Ahead of time"?
When is that time?.....When they are dead?
Can you tell me when "the law" says the Gitmo "enemy combatants" are required to be released?
Perhaps the next President would be really grateful IF he/she didn't have to be concerned about the goings on at Gitmo. And potential Presidential candidates are secretly thanking Obama for taking care of that problem.
it was announced early on by our President that this would not be 'an in and out' type of conflict.
It was for some...even under the pervue of the President that said " this would not be 'an in and out' type of conflict."
PS...some use EOs others use
You are missing the point, JP
Those black sites weren't started illegally.....but were closed down due to public pressure. Public pressure hasn't meant a thing to THIS president as he continues to do as he pleases.
As for enemy combatants being held at Gitmo....they will be released or detained as their trials finally come up next year. BO doesn't want trials to take place....his singular goal has been to empty Gitmo, even with all the expenses spent on it to make those prisoners more comfortable than any other prison in the USA, and he'll do it on his own as usual.
I noticed you didn't dispute my other 'charges' in my response to Rob. This is typical of you.....find one sentence out of many and hone in on it since you can't find good arguments for anything else.
RE: they will be released or detained as their trials final
pot and kettle
"I respond to ONE sentence/subject...and YOU respond with everything from soup to nuts...That's how you roll. "
Yeah, and the subject is about contractors under attack in Iraq and you're blathering on about Gitmo. Oh my, does your tender heart extend to those in Gitmo for their safe haven there while ignoring the plight of Americans in Iraq? Need a moment? Need a hankie??
RE: and the subject is about contractors
and the subject is about contractors under attack in Iraq
In the OP Yes....you are correct.....Unfortunately FOR YOU....I responded to Toni H.....the phrase also missing from HER posts were "contractors under attack in Iraq"
She wanted to talk about Gitmo(and a bunch of other things)...I chose Gitmo...You don't....HO HUM.
You don't like what I said about treating people fairly...even after they've committed OR are believed to have committed a crime?
THAT'S not very Christian of you. Perhaps IF you ONLY read/post in SE WHILE you are attending your religious services....you'll be more forgiving/understanding/tolerant. Got a tablet you can bring with you?
I notice you didn't find it necessary to comment on Tonis posting habits. I guess she is the lucky one...not suffering The Wrath Of James.
Believe me, crybaby,
I would rather face James' wrath than the habitual crap from you and Rob and Josh.....I think three on one is plenty, thank you.
Carry on with your boo-hooing
He's the one passing out crying towels
RE: I think three on one
Oh Please!! You, and James Denison and Steven Haninger
and Tony Holmes are intimidated by us three??!! What a joke. And apparently you can't count either not that it's a surprise. Talk about crybabies. There are others here who are far closer to your point of view, but at least have manners, and therefore aren't listed.
There's an old English phrase which seems very appropriate here. "Get stuffed!"
RE: three on one is plenty,
If "the three" didn't respond to your posts...you would have NO responses.....Get in the wayback machine and check and see who responds to your posts.
Josh is almost never responding now to your posts...so really there is only 2....So enjoy it while it lasts.
When we stop responding...you'll be talking to yourself.
I wasn't crybabying JP
I was making fun of you for crying about James not coming at me....I get enough from you three but I don't complain about it to another member like you did.
RE: but I don't complain about it
but I don't complain about it to another member like you did.
What's YOUR problem?....
I wasn't complaining TO YOU, OR about you.
I notice you didn't find it necessary to comment on Tonis posting habits.
No Toni, you're missing the point, which is that the US
has thrown away most of its dignity and credibility as a civilized nation through the use of torture, and the use of black prisons, and the use of Syria for example to torture people before it dissolved into Civil War. The US grabbed a Canadian and shipped him to Syria where he was tortured for an extended period before they actually believed he was telling the truth that he was not connected to terrorists.
What you choose not to recognize is that the rules are different for the United States, or used to be. The US used to adhere to a better standard of conduct in conflicts. They had managed to claw their way back from the damage done to US credibility by the Viet Nam War, and My Lai, but this has put us deeper in the dumper than even My Lai, not least because drone strikes have destroyed wedding feasts and the people there, and at least one soldier went crazy and shot a dozen or more people for no reason, non-combattants.
Just because there isn't an outright explicit ban in International Law, (which virtually nobody at this Forum recognizes as valid anyway) doesn't mean that what we've been doing isn't wrong. Torture is wrong, calling it something else doesn't make it right, it merely makes us liars as well as torturers. You tell the lies the Bush Administration did, and nobody will trust you for decades if then. But of course you Conservatives think the rest of the world doesn't matter, and are all weak and effete. And I think that the US has joined the litany of barbaric regimes. Not quite as barbaric as the Islamic Extremists, but that used to be what divided us from them. We didn't murder innocents much, and we didn't tell lies at the UN and everywhere else, and we didn't go into a country and remain there for decades since the time of the Spanish American War when the rules were different.
Enjoy the fall out from Bush's stupidity and your own closed minds. And don't whine when nobody trusts you and further 9/11's occur, as they will. You've only screwed yourselves and your children and their children.
Hey, you, this isn't about Gitmo
Your selectivity is astonishing.
Sheldon Adelson, The Koch Brothers, Harold Simmons, Peter Thiel, Julian Robertson, Foster Friess, Frank Vandersloot, Bob Perry, William Dore, Paul Singer, Bill and Richard Marriott, all gave more than a million dollars to the GOP, but the real money is buried in the Super PACs who don't release their donors names.
Try this list. http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php
Soros comes second on that list. Of the 100 people listed, 69 are Republican contributors, 31 are Democratic.
Or this https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php These are Institutional contributions.
I didn't read the entire article this time but you'll notice the Republican donors predominate.
Obama was left with his hands tied by the 10 year Tax Cut Bush passed, and a totally uncooperative Senate and two years later an uncooperative Congress. Obama was left to pay out all the Money Bush committed to bail out Wall Street (and without any restrictions on what it was used for, so some went on multi million dollar bonuses, and million dollar parties).
Why is it that Conservatives think all they have to do to deflect criticism is to wave George Soros name?
Name another 3, or 10, or 69 as I have done.
Right off the top I gave you 11 names from the last Presidential Election who donated more than a million to GOP candidates, and that doesn't count Club for Growth, or Americans for Prosperity or Karl Rove's Crossroads or all the other Super Pacs funnelling money to the GOP, both to candidates at the Federal and State level, and the Presidential campaign. And did George Soros donate 93 million dollars as we know the Adelson's did? Such a wonderfully selective way of looking at things. You remind me of George Orwell's, "Four legs good, Two legs bad." From the way you talk anyone who contributes to the Democratic Party is un-American , a crypto-Socialist and is trying to buy the government. We have seen particularly during the Bush 2 years just how much access and how many contracts Republican donors get. We certainly haven't seen that sort of access or that sort of cronyism in the Obama White House, but then, Obama isn't attached to any donor like Halliburton the way Bush was.
Please note that list above only includes one donor to Democratic candidates.
Barack Obama has been unusual in the amount of money he has been able to raise, and most of it has come from small donations. Yes there are some traditional big donors to the Democratic Party, but they are far fewer than big business, big banking, big investment houses, and big real estate. What's his face Perry from Texas is a big time real estate developer and has already donated over 2 million to the Republicans for the November election.
So how long is long enough to keep those people in Gitmo? How long do you want to continue to pay for them and their food and their shelter and their health care. The Bush Justice Department (remember Gonzalez?) created the concept of Enemy Combattants to avoid the Geneva Convention. It was chicanery then, and it's chicanery now. You can't just trample on treaties or international agreements which the nation has solemnly agreed to observe without it coming back to bite you.
But of course this is all a waste of effort on my part. Your mind has been made up for the last 30 years, and entertaining contrary ideas, however true, will be much too much effort. And another sheep will happily be sheared by the GOP for the benefit of the 1%. Hope you enjoy being butt surfed by the rich.
If the men at gitmo are not POWs,
then it would be illegal to hold them without charges for this many years.
That debate was over years ago,
As enemy combatants status, they CAN be held until trials are held or they are investigated and allowed to be let go based on recommendations of various US agencies.
How long can they be held - until death?
We don't care about that in regard to this matter
because it doesn't have anything to do with what's going on in Iraq. Consult a map, locate Cuba, compare that to the distance from Iraq. Look at the pictures of muslims held in Gitmo and how healthy they are, the worst is getting a forced bath once in awhile. Compare that to contractors who are in Iraq doing a job and under attack by the same sort of desert jackals as currently sit in Gitmo. OH, yes, let's weep for the Gitmo creeps while pretending that justifies these attacks in Iraq. The fact that we didn't destroy those who are now in Gitmo and captured them instead speaks to our mercy toward enemies, even as bad and hateful as those are.
Mongolia?!!!~! More misdirection?!!!
Can you ever stay on subject? Will you ever cease to misdirect? Have you EVER heard of a "rescue operation" that didn't involve a full war?! why are you even on this planet?!! You don't need to be in Gitmo for your feelings against the USA to be "pretty negative" which means you are worse off in having less excuse for the hate you harbor. Americans are under attack and all you can think about is some Muslims sitting in a safe environment getting fat on American food at American expense who still hate us and would gladly kill as many more American as they could, when they were able to again.
Well there was the raid on Entebbe by the Israeli's but with
your Anti-Semitism it doesn't surprise me that slipped your mind. And of course there was the rescue mission in Mogadishu which resulted in the Black Hawk Down incident. We weren't at war then, and there was the sad debacle of Desert One and the attempted rescue of the Embassy hostages in Teheran.
And I was imparting information, not misdirection. If you are labouring under Attention Deficit Disorder and can't keep the main thrust of the argument separate from the information parts I'm sorry for you, but I won't change my way of expressing myself for you or anyone else. So fold it 5 ways and put it in your usual repository. It seems to be where you think.
I wasn't talkign about just "any" country
but about MY country doing a rescue operation. Now since you seem to be laboring under Subject Deficit Disorder and can't stay on the main discussion, I feel sorry for your insufficienies, but don't change your ways on my account, everyone should experience it. We are all aware of your Anti-Americanism, so no big surprise.
From that article it seems the Iraqi Airforce (thanks to the training they got from the USA before they left probably) is doing quite well to evacuate those guys.
Somehow moreover I fail to see the relation between an attack at USA embassy (where it can be discussed if the USA should have had better protection operational) and a sudden advance of armed forces taking hold of some cities (where it's clear that the USA could have done nothing to prevent it).
The story updated since the OP
and is not the original content of the link.
civil war in Iraq
and the contractors caught in the middle. Meanwhile others are obsessed with Gitmo.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)