| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Honor Vietnam Vets?
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:02:48 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:20:36 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 02:16:51 -0500, wrote: There was a good reason why we used Gitmo and once Obama got inside the tent, he couldn't come up with a better idea. He is CnC and he could close the prison at Gitmo with a stroke of the pen. He just doesn't know how do deal with the "detainees". So far, virtually every one we have released, turned up back on the battlefield fighting us. The only mistake B/C made is we should have instituted the Obama policy and not taken any prisoners. Just kill them. I am OK with that. Untrue. He's been trying to close it in a responsible fashion But you notice we are not taking prisoners now. ?? You're claiming we don't take people prisoners?????? I haven't heard about any, have you? Where are they keeping them? I guess you don't watch the news very often. People are being captures all over. We're not putting them in indefinite detention if that's what you mean... beyond Due Process. Where are they? No idea. Not in Gitmo thanks to Obama. detainees we released turned to terrorism thanks to Bush putting them there in the first place. Many of them didn't deserve to be there, and they were radicalized because of it. Some were basically children. Sure, we needed Gitmo like another hole in the head. How old do you have to be to be a terrorist? 14-15? I agree we should have just asked them a few questions and thrown them out the door of the helicopter before they got back to the base Ah.. the humanitarian in you. That's gross. I guess killing them all on site may be more humanitarian. Drones do not take prisoners and that is how we are waging the war now. Here come the drones.... whoosh... Keep talking about them... maybe one will show up. Why don't you tell us again about throwing people out of helicopters. There's never been a successful escape from a super max prison. Many terrorists are already in them. We don't need Gitmo, but try telling that to the wackos who don't want them on our "soil." That is not the issue. Because these people were taken in combat we do not usually have the chain of evidence to prosecute this in a US court. Actually, it is the issue. If we hadn't tortured them, we would have a chain of evidence. In any case, they could be held in humane conditions. We really only waterboarded a couple of guys, in spite of all the hype. The problem is that we did not build a chain of evidence before we took these people. (no Miranda, probable cause etc) They were taken as combatants in a war zone. Yes, in spite of all the hype. So, I guess just torturing a few people, well that's ok? The fact is that there are other ways people were tortured, but I guess you don't remember Abu Ghraib. |
Honor Vietnam Vets?
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:32:26 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:36:13 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:02:48 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:20:36 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 02:16:51 -0500, wrote: There was a good reason why we used Gitmo and once Obama got inside the tent, he couldn't come up with a better idea. He is CnC and he could close the prison at Gitmo with a stroke of the pen. He just doesn't know how do deal with the "detainees". So far, virtually every one we have released, turned up back on the battlefield fighting us. The only mistake B/C made is we should have instituted the Obama policy and not taken any prisoners. Just kill them. I am OK with that. Untrue. He's been trying to close it in a responsible fashion But you notice we are not taking prisoners now. ?? You're claiming we don't take people prisoners?????? I haven't heard about any, have you? Where are they keeping them? I guess you don't watch the news very often. People are being captures all over. We're not putting them in indefinite detention if that's what you mean... beyond Due Process. Where are they? No idea. Not in Gitmo thanks to Obama. Yes, in spite of all the hype. So, I guess just torturing a few people, well that's ok? The fact is that there are other ways people were tortured, but I guess you don't remember Abu Ghraib. Maybe you should be more curious where the prisoners are. Do you really think Karzai's goons are just putting panties on people's heads or even waterboarding them when they want information. Those people understand what torture really is. Since we don't really acknowledge these prisoners even exist, they do not have to live through the interrogation. Google up "extraordinary rendition" and get back to me. Maybe you should be more curious about getting to the bottom of the serial liars Bush/Cheney. They screwed over the American people over the course of two terms. Of course, it's Obama's fault or Clinton's or Carters. Certainly not the laissez faire nonsense that was promoted by Reagan and the Bushs. |
Honor Vietnam Vets?
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:55:03 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:59:41 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:32:26 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:36:13 -0800, wrote: Yes, in spite of all the hype. So, I guess just torturing a few people, well that's ok? The fact is that there are other ways people were tortured, but I guess you don't remember Abu Ghraib. Maybe you should be more curious where the prisoners are. Do you really think Karzai's goons are just putting panties on people's heads or even waterboarding them when they want information. Those people understand what torture really is. Since we don't really acknowledge these prisoners even exist, they do not have to live through the interrogation. Google up "extraordinary rendition" and get back to me. Maybe you should be more curious about getting to the bottom of the serial liars Bush/Cheney. They screwed over the American people over the course of two terms. Of course, it's Obama's fault or Clinton's or Carters. Certainly not the laissez faire nonsense that was promoted by Reagan and the Bushs. You want to talk about Bush and Reagan but Clinton and Carter are off limits. That's Bull**** What would you like to talk about re them? Under Clinton, the economy was booming, despite the "higher taxes." Under Carter, the economy was terrible, and he didn't act as presidential as he should have. He did get lots and lots of good things through Congress. It is also ancient history. What are we doing right now? What will we do tomorrow? That is far more important. The fact remain the US is not taking prisoners right now. We may have Karzai's goons doing it but you can't seem to cite any we have now. Did you ever look up that rendition thing? Uh huh. It's ancient history, until you bring up Reagan? Isn't Clinton/Carter ancient history, or are they fair game? Try to be consistent. Obama has traded patrols out into the countryside and capturing prisoners for just killing them in place with drones as the US policy. It is certainly safer for the US troops but it is not good for our reputation in the region or the world. Our reputation was destroyed by Bush. It's much better now, but I didn't think you cared, so why are you bringing it up? It is also not really very effective. We are just at war with their birth rate at this point. (Actually what McCrystal said before he was fired). We are killing "terrorists" who were babies when 9-11 happened. What McCrystal said was to undermine his boss. He got fired for that. |
Honor Vietnam Vets?
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 16:54:57 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:58:47 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:55:03 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:59:41 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:32:26 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:36:13 -0800, wrote: Yes, in spite of all the hype. So, I guess just torturing a few people, well that's ok? The fact is that there are other ways people were tortured, but I guess you don't remember Abu Ghraib. Maybe you should be more curious where the prisoners are. Do you really think Karzai's goons are just putting panties on people's heads or even waterboarding them when they want information. Those people understand what torture really is. Since we don't really acknowledge these prisoners even exist, they do not have to live through the interrogation. Google up "extraordinary rendition" and get back to me. Maybe you should be more curious about getting to the bottom of the serial liars Bush/Cheney. They screwed over the American people over the course of two terms. Of course, it's Obama's fault or Clinton's or Carters. Certainly not the laissez faire nonsense that was promoted by Reagan and the Bushs. You want to talk about Bush and Reagan but Clinton and Carter are off limits. That's Bull**** What would you like to talk about re them? Under Clinton, the economy was booming, despite the "higher taxes." Under Carter, the economy was terrible, and he didn't act as presidential as he should have. He did get lots and lots of good things through Congress. It is also ancient history. What are we doing right now? What will we do tomorrow? That is far more important. The fact remain the US is not taking prisoners right now. We may have Karzai's goons doing it but you can't seem to cite any we have now. Did you ever look up that rendition thing? Uh huh. It's ancient history, until you bring up Reagan? Isn't Clinton/Carter ancient history, or are they fair game? Try to be consistent. I didn't bring up Reagan, you did. Obama has traded patrols out into the countryside and capturing prisoners for just killing them in place with drones as the US policy. It is certainly safer for the US troops but it is not good for our reputation in the region or the world. Our reputation was destroyed by Bush. It's much better now, but I didn't think you cared, so why are you bringing it up? Obama is not improving that, in fact our approval in Afghanistan is lower now than it was with Bush. It is also not really very effective. We are just at war with their birth rate at this point. (Actually what McCrystal said before he was fired). We are killing "terrorists" who were babies when 9-11 happened. What McCrystal said was to undermine his boss. He got fired for that. That was not what he said that got him fired. He said the president was clueless and referred to the VP as "Bite Me" among other things. I still don't see what he said that was wrong. |
Honor Vietnam Vets?
On 2/1/11 4:54 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:58:47 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:55:03 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:59:41 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:32:26 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:36:13 -0800, wrote: Yes, in spite of all the hype. So, I guess just torturing a few people, well that's ok? The fact is that there are other ways people were tortured, but I guess you don't remember Abu Ghraib. Maybe you should be more curious where the prisoners are. Do you really think Karzai's goons are just putting panties on people's heads or even waterboarding them when they want information. Those people understand what torture really is. Since we don't really acknowledge these prisoners even exist, they do not have to live through the interrogation. Google up "extraordinary rendition" and get back to me. Maybe you should be more curious about getting to the bottom of the serial liars Bush/Cheney. They screwed over the American people over the course of two terms. Of course, it's Obama's fault or Clinton's or Carters. Certainly not the laissez faire nonsense that was promoted by Reagan and the Bushs. You want to talk about Bush and Reagan but Clinton and Carter are off limits. That's Bull**** What would you like to talk about re them? Under Clinton, the economy was booming, despite the "higher taxes." Under Carter, the economy was terrible, and he didn't act as presidential as he should have. He did get lots and lots of good things through Congress. It is also ancient history. What are we doing right now? What will we do tomorrow? That is far more important. The fact remain the US is not taking prisoners right now. We may have Karzai's goons doing it but you can't seem to cite any we have now. Did you ever look up that rendition thing? Uh huh. It's ancient history, until you bring up Reagan? Isn't Clinton/Carter ancient history, or are they fair game? Try to be consistent. I didn't bring up Reagan, you did. Obama has traded patrols out into the countryside and capturing prisoners for just killing them in place with drones as the US policy. It is certainly safer for the US troops but it is not good for our reputation in the region or the world. Our reputation was destroyed by Bush. It's much better now, but I didn't think you cared, so why are you bringing it up? Obama is not improving that, in fact our approval in Afghanistan is lower now than it was with Bush. It is also not really very effective. We are just at war with their birth rate at this point. (Actually what McCrystal said before he was fired). We are killing "terrorists" who were babies when 9-11 happened. What McCrystal said was to undermine his boss. He got fired for that. That was not what he said that got him fired. He said the president was clueless and referred to the VP as "Bite Me" among other things. Makes you wonder how the asshole ever became a general officer. |
Honor Vietnam Vets?
"John H" wrote in message
... On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 16:54:57 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:58:47 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:55:03 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:59:41 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:32:26 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:36:13 -0800, wrote: Yes, in spite of all the hype. So, I guess just torturing a few people, well that's ok? The fact is that there are other ways people were tortured, but I guess you don't remember Abu Ghraib. Maybe you should be more curious where the prisoners are. Do you really think Karzai's goons are just putting panties on people's heads or even waterboarding them when they want information. Those people understand what torture really is. Since we don't really acknowledge these prisoners even exist, they do not have to live through the interrogation. Google up "extraordinary rendition" and get back to me. Maybe you should be more curious about getting to the bottom of the serial liars Bush/Cheney. They screwed over the American people over the course of two terms. Of course, it's Obama's fault or Clinton's or Carters. Certainly not the laissez faire nonsense that was promoted by Reagan and the Bushs. You want to talk about Bush and Reagan but Clinton and Carter are off limits. That's Bull**** What would you like to talk about re them? Under Clinton, the economy was booming, despite the "higher taxes." Under Carter, the economy was terrible, and he didn't act as presidential as he should have. He did get lots and lots of good things through Congress. It is also ancient history. What are we doing right now? What will we do tomorrow? That is far more important. The fact remain the US is not taking prisoners right now. We may have Karzai's goons doing it but you can't seem to cite any we have now. Did you ever look up that rendition thing? Uh huh. It's ancient history, until you bring up Reagan? Isn't Clinton/Carter ancient history, or are they fair game? Try to be consistent. I didn't bring up Reagan, you did. Obama has traded patrols out into the countryside and capturing prisoners for just killing them in place with drones as the US policy. It is certainly safer for the US troops but it is not good for our reputation in the region or the world. Our reputation was destroyed by Bush. It's much better now, but I didn't think you cared, so why are you bringing it up? Obama is not improving that, in fact our approval in Afghanistan is lower now than it was with Bush. It is also not really very effective. We are just at war with their birth rate at this point. (Actually what McCrystal said before he was fired). We are killing "terrorists" who were babies when 9-11 happened. What McCrystal said was to undermine his boss. He got fired for that. That was not what he said that got him fired. He said the president was clueless and referred to the VP as "Bite Me" among other things. I still don't see what he said that was wrong. Obama fired him to save face. -- Ziggy® |
Honor Vietnam Vets?
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 16:54:57 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:58:47 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:55:03 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:59:41 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:32:26 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:36:13 -0800, wrote: Yes, in spite of all the hype. So, I guess just torturing a few people, well that's ok? The fact is that there are other ways people were tortured, but I guess you don't remember Abu Ghraib. Maybe you should be more curious where the prisoners are. Do you really think Karzai's goons are just putting panties on people's heads or even waterboarding them when they want information. Those people understand what torture really is. Since we don't really acknowledge these prisoners even exist, they do not have to live through the interrogation. Google up "extraordinary rendition" and get back to me. Maybe you should be more curious about getting to the bottom of the serial liars Bush/Cheney. They screwed over the American people over the course of two terms. Of course, it's Obama's fault or Clinton's or Carters. Certainly not the laissez faire nonsense that was promoted by Reagan and the Bushs. You want to talk about Bush and Reagan but Clinton and Carter are off limits. That's Bull**** What would you like to talk about re them? Under Clinton, the economy was booming, despite the "higher taxes." Under Carter, the economy was terrible, and he didn't act as presidential as he should have. He did get lots and lots of good things through Congress. It is also ancient history. What are we doing right now? What will we do tomorrow? That is far more important. The fact remain the US is not taking prisoners right now. We may have Karzai's goons doing it but you can't seem to cite any we have now. Did you ever look up that rendition thing? Uh huh. It's ancient history, until you bring up Reagan? Isn't Clinton/Carter ancient history, or are they fair game? Try to be consistent. I didn't bring up Reagan, you did. Obama has traded patrols out into the countryside and capturing prisoners for just killing them in place with drones as the US policy. It is certainly safer for the US troops but it is not good for our reputation in the region or the world. Our reputation was destroyed by Bush. It's much better now, but I didn't think you cared, so why are you bringing it up? Obama is not improving that, in fact our approval in Afghanistan is lower now than it was with Bush. If we had concentrated on Afg. to begin with, this wouldn't be a problem. It is also not really very effective. We are just at war with their birth rate at this point. (Actually what McCrystal said before he was fired). We are killing "terrorists" who were babies when 9-11 happened. What McCrystal said was to undermine his boss. He got fired for that. That was not what he said that got him fired. He said the president was clueless and referred to the VP as "Bite Me" among other things. So, that's not undermining his boss?????????? What do you call it? |
Honor Vietnam Vets?
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:04:04 -0500, John H
wrote: On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 16:54:57 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:58:47 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:55:03 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:59:41 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:32:26 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:36:13 -0800, wrote: Yes, in spite of all the hype. So, I guess just torturing a few people, well that's ok? The fact is that there are other ways people were tortured, but I guess you don't remember Abu Ghraib. Maybe you should be more curious where the prisoners are. Do you really think Karzai's goons are just putting panties on people's heads or even waterboarding them when they want information. Those people understand what torture really is. Since we don't really acknowledge these prisoners even exist, they do not have to live through the interrogation. Google up "extraordinary rendition" and get back to me. Maybe you should be more curious about getting to the bottom of the serial liars Bush/Cheney. They screwed over the American people over the course of two terms. Of course, it's Obama's fault or Clinton's or Carters. Certainly not the laissez faire nonsense that was promoted by Reagan and the Bushs. You want to talk about Bush and Reagan but Clinton and Carter are off limits. That's Bull**** What would you like to talk about re them? Under Clinton, the economy was booming, despite the "higher taxes." Under Carter, the economy was terrible, and he didn't act as presidential as he should have. He did get lots and lots of good things through Congress. It is also ancient history. What are we doing right now? What will we do tomorrow? That is far more important. The fact remain the US is not taking prisoners right now. We may have Karzai's goons doing it but you can't seem to cite any we have now. Did you ever look up that rendition thing? Uh huh. It's ancient history, until you bring up Reagan? Isn't Clinton/Carter ancient history, or are they fair game? Try to be consistent. I didn't bring up Reagan, you did. Obama has traded patrols out into the countryside and capturing prisoners for just killing them in place with drones as the US policy. It is certainly safer for the US troops but it is not good for our reputation in the region or the world. Our reputation was destroyed by Bush. It's much better now, but I didn't think you cared, so why are you bringing it up? Obama is not improving that, in fact our approval in Afghanistan is lower now than it was with Bush. It is also not really very effective. We are just at war with their birth rate at this point. (Actually what McCrystal said before he was fired). We are killing "terrorists" who were babies when 9-11 happened. What McCrystal said was to undermine his boss. He got fired for that. That was not what he said that got him fired. He said the president was clueless and referred to the VP as "Bite Me" among other things. I still don't see what he said that was wrong. Yes, that's really clear. |
Honor Vietnam Vets?
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:25:28 -0500, Harryk
wrote: On 2/1/11 4:54 PM, wrote: On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:58:47 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:55:03 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:59:41 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:32:26 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:36:13 -0800, wrote: Yes, in spite of all the hype. So, I guess just torturing a few people, well that's ok? The fact is that there are other ways people were tortured, but I guess you don't remember Abu Ghraib. Maybe you should be more curious where the prisoners are. Do you really think Karzai's goons are just putting panties on people's heads or even waterboarding them when they want information. Those people understand what torture really is. Since we don't really acknowledge these prisoners even exist, they do not have to live through the interrogation. Google up "extraordinary rendition" and get back to me. Maybe you should be more curious about getting to the bottom of the serial liars Bush/Cheney. They screwed over the American people over the course of two terms. Of course, it's Obama's fault or Clinton's or Carters. Certainly not the laissez faire nonsense that was promoted by Reagan and the Bushs. You want to talk about Bush and Reagan but Clinton and Carter are off limits. That's Bull**** What would you like to talk about re them? Under Clinton, the economy was booming, despite the "higher taxes." Under Carter, the economy was terrible, and he didn't act as presidential as he should have. He did get lots and lots of good things through Congress. It is also ancient history. What are we doing right now? What will we do tomorrow? That is far more important. The fact remain the US is not taking prisoners right now. We may have Karzai's goons doing it but you can't seem to cite any we have now. Did you ever look up that rendition thing? Uh huh. It's ancient history, until you bring up Reagan? Isn't Clinton/Carter ancient history, or are they fair game? Try to be consistent. I didn't bring up Reagan, you did. Obama has traded patrols out into the countryside and capturing prisoners for just killing them in place with drones as the US policy. It is certainly safer for the US troops but it is not good for our reputation in the region or the world. Our reputation was destroyed by Bush. It's much better now, but I didn't think you cared, so why are you bringing it up? Obama is not improving that, in fact our approval in Afghanistan is lower now than it was with Bush. It is also not really very effective. We are just at war with their birth rate at this point. (Actually what McCrystal said before he was fired). We are killing "terrorists" who were babies when 9-11 happened. What McCrystal said was to undermine his boss. He got fired for that. That was not what he said that got him fired. He said the president was clueless and referred to the VP as "Bite Me" among other things. Makes you wonder how the asshole ever became a general officer. He forgot about the chain of command. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:13 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com