On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:44:21 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


What's interesting is that some here feel more concern over the treatment
of enemy combatants, and the rights of enemy prisoners than they are for
our own soldiers.

Dave, you are making the assumption that all detainees are
enemy combatants. They are not. Many are innocent citizens who were in
the wrong place at the wrong time. Even the government admits to this,
and has started to release many of those detainees.


I find it bordering on insanity, that at a time of war, there are people
looking to sue our leaders for the conduct of the war, and are also
seeking to criminally prosecute some of our soldiers for "murder" when
they are actively fighting an enemy. I mean, it's the job of soldiers to
kill the enemy. Duh!

Kill the enemy, yes, torture, rape, and murder, no. I am quite
sympathetic to the soldier in the field, who has to make an instant
decision. I would generally give that soldier the benefit of any doubt,
but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about
soldiers, in a relatively secure facility, abusing those placed in their
charge.

In case you haven't noticed, this bungling administration has made a
problem for itself. What to do with all those detainees in Guantanamo?
They don't have the evidence to charge them with any crime, so the plan is
to ship them off to countries that don't care about any rule of law. Just
lovely, they are hoping to sweep their incompetence under the rug.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4340921.stm


It's like living in an episode of the Twilight Zone..........

You might consider, how we treat our captives, reflects on us. Are we
civilized, or barbarians?

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:32:44 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

Do you believe that child participants in a war should be treated any
differently than their adult counterparts?

I would expect, all detainees to be treated according to the law. Guilty
until proven innocent just doesn't work here.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:21:57 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:32:44 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

Do you believe that child participants in a war should be treated any
differently than their adult counterparts?

I would expect, all detainees to be treated according to the law. Guilty
until proven innocent just doesn't work here.

This is a war. The people who are taken prisoner should be lucky they
weren't shot dead instead.

Dave

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:20:21 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:44:21 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


What's interesting is that some here feel more concern over the treatment
of enemy combatants, and the rights of enemy prisoners than they are for
our own soldiers.

Dave, you are making the assumption that all detainees are
enemy combatants. They are not. Many are innocent citizens who were in
the wrong place at the wrong time. Even the government admits to this,
and has started to release many of those detainees.

Based on what factual reports? Sure, in the act of waging war, a few
innocents are likely to be taken in error. But normally this is a
small minority of cases. If you have any facts that indicate
otherwise, please provide them.


I find it bordering on insanity, that at a time of war, there are people
looking to sue our leaders for the conduct of the war, and are also
seeking to criminally prosecute some of our soldiers for "murder" when
they are actively fighting an enemy. I mean, it's the job of soldiers to
kill the enemy. Duh!

Kill the enemy, yes, torture, rape, and murder, no.

So killing is less objectionable to torture?

Besides, where are the facts to back up that any prisoners were truly
"tortured" (Which means acts that go beyond simple humiliation),
raped, or "murdered" (Wait, I though it was ok to kill the enemy?).


I am quite
sympathetic to the soldier in the field, who has to make an instant
decision. I would generally give that soldier the benefit of any doubt,
but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about
soldiers, in a relatively secure facility, abusing those placed in their
charge.

Since all we have are biased reports trying to serve their respective
agendas, I'd say we really know very little factual information on
what actually happened.


In case you haven't noticed, this bungling administration has made a
problem for itself. What to do with all those detainees in Guantanamo?
They don't have the evidence to charge them with any crime, so the plan is
to ship them off to countries that don't care about any rule of law. Just
lovely, they are hoping to sweep their incompetence under the rug.

How is the shipping of criminal detainees back to their countries of
origin, an example of "bungling"?




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4340921.stm


It's like living in an episode of the Twilight Zone..........

You might consider, how we treat our captives, reflects on us. Are we
civilized, or barbarians?

We're not the ones cutting off people's heads and dragging the bodies
through the streets and hanging them up for all to see.

And you have to consider that what was reported on what we "allegedly"
did, was exaggerated for propaganda purposes. So far there is little
hard evidence that anyone other than a few renegade officers did
anything inappropriate considering the nature of this war, and the
tactics needed to gain valuable information.

Physical torture is probably not something to be proud of. But
psychological "conditioning" is perfectly ok in my book, if it leads
to gaining information which either helps us achieve our objective or
prevents our troops from being killed.

Dave

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:35:18 -0500, HarryKrause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:21:57 -0500, thunder
wrote:


On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:32:44 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


Do you believe that child participants in a war should be treated any
differently than their adult counterparts?

I would expect, all detainees to be treated according to the law. Guilty
until proven innocent just doesn't work here.


This is a war. The people who are taken prisoner should be lucky they
weren't shot dead instead.

Dave



*This* is not a war. We invaded a country that did nothing towards us
that warranted it, we "defeated" its crappy armed forces in short order,
and we continue to occupy that country, taking hits and passing them out.

What *this* is a b.s. excuse for a war, perpetrated on a pack of lies.


You are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it seems to be.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:35:18 -0500, HarryKrause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:21:57 -0500, thunder
wrote:


On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:32:44 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


Do you believe that child participants in a war should be treated any
differently than their adult counterparts?

I would expect, all detainees to be treated according to the law.
Guilty
until proven innocent just doesn't work here.


This is a war. The people who are taken prisoner should be lucky they
weren't shot dead instead.

Dave



*This* is not a war. We invaded a country that did nothing towards us
that warranted it, we "defeated" its crappy armed forces in short order,
and we continue to occupy that country, taking hits and passing them out.

What *this* is a b.s. excuse for a war, perpetrated on a pack of lies.


You are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it seems to be.

Do you think it would make Krause happy if we said we were just doing what
the Syrian's have done in Lebanon? We occupied Iraq to prevent a Civil War
and we are putting people sympathetic to us in the new government we formed.

*This* is not a war. We invaded a country that did nothing towards us
that warranted it, we "defeated" its crappy armed forces in short order,
and we continue to occupy that country, taking hits and passing them out.

What *this* is a b.s. excuse for a war, perpetrated on a pack of lies.


Dave Hall wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it seems to be.


What's wrong with the above statements? Minus the invective (which you
certainly indulge in yourself) it is 100% accurate.

We invaded Iraq.

What were the reasons? WMDs? Fallacious from the git-go. Involvement
with the Sept 11th attack? Cooperation with Al-Queda? Equally
fallacious. The UN resolutions about disarming? Iraq offered proof that
they *had* disarmed, which turned out to be correct, but rejected by the
Bush Administration with *no* attempt at diplomacy... nor was there any
serious attempt at getting UN backing to "enforce" this resolution.

Them's the facts.

We defeated Iraq's armed forces, deposed it's gov't, and are still
occupying the country. There was a *lot* of advice given the Bushies
about what the aftermath of the invasion would be like, all of it
ignored, all of it depressingly accurate... in fact Rumsfeld was even
disengenuous enough to insist (self-contradictorily in the way
ubiquitous among Bushies) that the advice was wrong and he never got it
anyway... and that our Commander-In-Chief insisted almost 2 years and
1200 deaths ago that 'major combat operations are over"...

Them's the facts.

DSK

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:45:32 -0500, DSK wrote:

*This* is not a war. We invaded a country that did nothing towards us
that warranted it, we "defeated" its crappy armed forces in short order,
and we continue to occupy that country, taking hits and passing them out.

What *this* is a b.s. excuse for a war, perpetrated on a pack of lies.


Dave Hall wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it seems to be.


What's wrong with the above statements? Minus the invective (which you
certainly indulge in yourself) it is 100% accurate.

We invaded Iraq.

What were the reasons? WMDs? Fallacious from the git-go. Involvement
with the Sept 11th attack? Cooperation with Al-Queda? Equally
fallacious. The UN resolutions about disarming? Iraq offered proof that
they *had* disarmed, which turned out to be correct, but rejected by the
Bush Administration with *no* attempt at diplomacy... nor was there any
serious attempt at getting UN backing to "enforce" this resolution.

Them's the facts.

No, they're not. The fact that WMD were not YET found does not mean
that they were never there. No one ever said that Iraq was directly
involved in 9/11. But they do have contacts with terrorists. The fact
that Iraq disregarded UN resolutions (which they signed to end the
Gulf war) put them in default, and subjected them to a resolution of
that war.

Diplomacy ended when Saddam threw the weapons inspectors out in 1998.

Those are the facts.


We defeated Iraq's armed forces, deposed it's gov't, and are still
occupying the country. There was a *lot* of advice given the Bushies
about what the aftermath of the invasion would be like, all of it
ignored, all of it depressingly accurate... in fact Rumsfeld was even
disengenuous enough to insist (self-contradictorily in the way
ubiquitous among Bushies) that the advice was wrong and he never got it
anyway... and that our Commander-In-Chief insisted almost 2 years and
1200 deaths ago that 'major combat operations are over"...

Them's the facts.

Those are distortions. At the core is factual information. The
conclusions based on them are disingenuous.

No one said that this war would be easy or short. The fact that it's
still going on is not an indication of failure. We spent more time
rebuilding Germany and Japan after WWII.

THOSE are the facts.


Dave

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:53:00 -0500, HarryKrause
wrote:

DSK wrote:
*This* is not a war. We invaded a country that did nothing towards us
that warranted it, we "defeated" its crappy armed forces in short
order, and we continue to occupy that country, taking hits and
passing them out.

What *this* is a b.s. excuse for a war, perpetrated on a pack of lies.



Dave Hall wrote:

You are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it seems to be.


What's wrong with the above statements? Minus the invective (which you
certainly indulge in yourself) it is 100% accurate.

We invaded Iraq.

What were the reasons? WMDs? Fallacious from the git-go. Involvement
with the Sept 11th attack? Cooperation with Al-Queda? Equally
fallacious. The UN resolutions about disarming? Iraq offered proof that
they *had* disarmed, which turned out to be correct, but rejected by the
Bush Administration with *no* attempt at diplomacy... nor was there any
serious attempt at getting UN backing to "enforce" this resolution.

Them's the facts.

We defeated Iraq's armed forces, deposed it's gov't, and are still
occupying the country. There was a *lot* of advice given the Bushies
about what the aftermath of the invasion would be like, all of it
ignored, all of it depressingly accurate... in fact Rumsfeld was even
disengenuous enough to insist (self-contradictorily in the way
ubiquitous among Bushies) that the advice was wrong and he never got it
anyway... and that our Commander-In-Chief insisted almost 2 years and
1200 deaths ago that 'major combat operations are over"...

Them's the facts.

DSK



According to Bert Robbins, we invaded Iraq to prevent a civil war there.
That's apparently the latest excuse.

That's not why we went there. But it's part of the reason why we're
still there.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:45:32 -0500, DSK wrote:


*This* is not a war. We invaded a country that did nothing towards us
that warranted it, we "defeated" its crappy armed forces in short order,
and we continue to occupy that country, taking hits and passing them out.

What *this* is a b.s. excuse for a war, perpetrated on a pack of lies.

Dave Hall wrote:

You are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it seems to be.


What's wrong with the above statements? Minus the invective (which you
certainly indulge in yourself) it is 100% accurate.

We invaded Iraq.

What were the reasons? WMDs? Fallacious from the git-go. Involvement
with the Sept 11th attack? Cooperation with Al-Queda? Equally
fallacious. The UN resolutions about disarming? Iraq offered proof that
they *had* disarmed, which turned out to be correct, but rejected by the
Bush Administration with *no* attempt at diplomacy... nor was there any
serious attempt at getting UN backing to "enforce" this resolution.

Them's the facts.

per the neo-con textbook


No, they're not. The fact that WMD were not YET found does not mean
that they were never there.

We know they were there because we sold them to them. the fact that
they were deteriorated beyond use is immaterial (I'm talking Chemical
weapons)

No one ever said that Iraq was directly
involved in 9/11. But they do have contacts with terrorists.

And there's a picture of Chaney shaking hands with Saddam -- so
following your logic, WE had contact with terrorists also

The fact
that Iraq disregarded UN resolutions (which they signed to end the
Gulf war) put them in default, and subjected them to a resolution of
that war.

In which case the UN should be fighting the war.

Diplomacy ended when Saddam threw the weapons inspectors out in 1998.

Umm -- The inspectors were back. The US advised them to leave prior to
the bombing.

Those are the facts.
Per the neo-con textbook


We defeated Iraq's armed forces, deposed it's gov't, and are still
occupying the country. There was a *lot* of advice given the Bushies
about what the aftermath of the invasion would be like, all of it
ignored, all of it depressingly accurate... in fact Rumsfeld was even
disengenuous enough to insist (self-contradictorily in the way
ubiquitous among Bushies) that the advice was wrong and he never got it
anyway... and that our Commander-In-Chief insisted almost 2 years and
1200 deaths ago that 'major combat operations are over"...

Them's the facts.

Per the neo-con textbook


Those are distortions. At the core is factual information. The
conclusions based on them are disingenuous.

No one said that this war would be easy or short.

"We will be greeted with cheers and flowers" Rummy said he had plenty
of troops. The "election" was delayed a year to try to settle things down.

The fact that it's
still going on is not an indication of failure. We spent more time
rebuilding Germany and Japan after WWII.

Rebuilding is about as far away from fighting insurgents as I can imagine.

THOSE are the facts as recorded by history!

THOSE are the facts.


Dave