PDA

View Full Version : Closure of Guantanamo


Tyburn
01-22-2009, 08:28 PM
It has to be said Bush had already begun to proccess prisoners and indeed return several home. I think this plan is adequet, I love the way he's put a deadline on it. THATS interesting


Barack Obama has ordered that the controversial Guantanamo prison centre be closed within one year.

The US president has also put a halt to harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects at the Cuban base.

The camp, opened under the Bush administration and where 250 inmates have spent years without trial, is widely felt to have damaged America's moral standing in the world.

The executive order to shut the prison, which was established after the September 11, 2001, attacks amid Mr Bush's 'war on terror', fulfils a promise Mr Obama made during his campaign.

At a signing ceremony in the Oval Office, he said: 'The message that we are sending around the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly.

'We are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals,' he said.

The US wants to try about 80 of the prisoners on terrorism charges. It has cleared 50 other detainees for release but cannot return them to their home countries because of the risk they could be tortured or persecuted there.

Last month, Portugal's foreign minister urged other Europeans to take in Guantanamo prisoners, saying such a move could make it easier for Mr Obama to close the prison. Switzerland and Ireland have said they are open to taking in prisoners.

NateR
01-22-2009, 08:51 PM
I think this is a HUGE mistake.

rearnakedchoke
01-22-2009, 09:15 PM
I think this is a HUGE mistake.

I really don't think it is a bad idea .. what is there about 5-600 prisoners? are keeping them in gitmo really going to make a difference? send them to switzerland and get it over with .. use the resources for something better ... most of these guys will probably never go back as soldiers and the ones that are stupid enough to will either be killed in battle and probably won't have any impact on strikes against the west ... but you may be right ... imagine the fall out that would happen if another attack on US soil occurs and it turns out that the mastermind was a released gitmo prisoner ... i don't think it would happen, but you never know ... i just think the US should not bother with these pawns and worry about the masterminds ..

Tyburn
01-22-2009, 09:22 PM
I really don't think it is a bad idea .. what is there about 5-600 prisoners? are keeping them in gitmo really going to make a difference? send them to switzerland and get it over with .. use the resources for something better ... most of these guys will probably never go back as soldiers and the ones that are stupid enough to will either be killed in battle and probably won't have any impact on strikes against the west ... but you may be right ... imagine the fall out that would happen if another attack on US soil occurs and it turns out that the mastermind was a released gitmo prisoner ... i don't think it would happen, but you never know ... i just think the US should not bother with these pawns and worry about the masterminds ..
it says there are only 250 of them.

The point is, you cant detain someone without a free trial. Especially in America where you are innocent until proven guilty...thats half the reason why Guantanamo isnt actually in the United States but on Cuba.

Bush had already pledged to close it, and had already set up trials. However, I dont think the United States needs to bear any responsibliities for what happens to them if they go home. Thats surely not Americas concern is it, nor fault if something happens to them back home. Neither should they be throwing inmates at Europe.

IF they have wrongly imprisoned someone for years and made it impossible for them to go home, they oughta be brought into the United States...after all, if innocent, its the US Governments fault and not theres.

Spiritwalker
01-22-2009, 09:23 PM
I think this is a HUGE mistake.

100% agreement!!!

Tyburn
01-22-2009, 09:25 PM
100% agreement!!!
So whats your plan of action? Keep them all without Trial? Thats not very American...I suppose you could quickly set up a Trial and inprison them all that way, but thats not in the interests of Freedom.

Did you not know Bush was trying to shut it down aswell?

mikthehick
01-22-2009, 09:33 PM
My dad just emailed me saying a few are probably going to Hawaii (no idea why there), but hell at this rate, anything is possible....:blink:

edit: my dad just said he was kidding cuz that is where Mr. O. is from. I'm mad at my dad right now....

Tyburn
01-22-2009, 09:36 PM
My dad just emailed me saying a few are probably going to Hawaii (no idea why there), but hell at this rate, anything is possible....:blink:
:blink: I thought this was gonna take a year...I didnt think they were just shutting the doors and letting everyone go. I mean there surely does have to at least BE a trial for each! :blink:

Moose
01-23-2009, 04:21 AM
This sends a clear message to the rest of the world, and to our own citizenry. It must happen.

kyle
01-23-2009, 04:47 AM
This is a big mistake and i really dont care how or what kind of interrogation tactics we use to get information from these SOB's....In America you are innocent until proven guilty but 1st their not Americans 2nd their not held in America 3rd they don't go by the>>>>>>Geneva convention <<<<<< so any BS you give me about them being held by Americans and so on and so on is out the door. These people are there for a reason.

They should not close the prison i don't care if there's only a 100 prisoners in there. We need to have a place to keep them locked up. I really can care less if they ever get a trial they can rot behind bars for all i care When that place close's they will transfer some terrorist to other prisons but they will let some go. Sorry if I seem a little disgruntled today but this is a touchy subject for me as you all know.

Neezar
01-23-2009, 04:54 AM
I really don't think it is a bad idea .. what is there about 5-600 prisoners? are keeping them in gitmo really going to make a difference? send them to switzerland and get it over with .. use the resources for something better ... most of these guys will probably never go back as soldiers and the ones that are stupid enough to will either be killed in battle and probably won't have any impact on strikes against the west ... but you may be right ... imagine the fall out that would happen if another attack on US soil occurs and it turns out that the mastermind was a released gitmo prisoner ... i don't think it would happen, but you never know ... i just think the US should not bother with these pawns and worry about the masterminds ..

I heard on the radio tonight that 61% of released terrorists prisoners have been proven to go back into terrorism. Now add how many we can't prove but suspect. Now add how many that we haven't located or have no clue what they are doing now or where they are.

I could not bring myself to believe that someone who has sacrificed their lives for 'their cause' would not get out and go straight back into it. If they did then wouldn't it have all been in vain? :unsure:

I think this is a terrible idea. You can't try these people in American/public courts. Think of the secret intelligence that would possibly have to be revealed. Not to mention that these aren't your ordinary crimes where you have evidence that would fall into our guidelines of your straightforward criminal cases. It would be a fiasco/diasaster. By the time you got all the kinks worked out they would all be free on technicalities.

NateR
01-23-2009, 04:57 AM
So whats your plan of action? Keep them all without Trial? Thats not very American...I suppose you could quickly set up a Trial and inprison them all that way, but thats not in the interests of Freedom.

Did you not know Bush was trying to shut it down aswell?

These are prisoners of war, not common criminals. It's a different thing. They can't be tried by a jury of their peers, because their peers hate America and have no respect for our laws. America's justice system only applies to American citizens, because only American citizens are subject to American law. You need to start being a little more nationalistic in your thinking, because I can guarantee these terrorists are. We're not a one-world government yet. We will be when the Anti-Christ takes over and let's hope that's not anytime soon.

These are very dangerous men who have every intention of carrying out more attacks and killing more Americans. If we let them go, they're just going to go back to committing acts of terrorism against the US.

That's why closing Gitmo down prematurely is a very bad idea, because you're just sending enemy combatants back out onto the battlefield. POW camps have existed in every war, and that's all this place is. Anyone with a basic knowledge of world history would know that, unless they've been brainwashed by the silly liberal rhetoric that's been infecting our news media over the last 7 years.

Seriously, sometimes I wonder if the left-wing liberals are in league with the terrorists with the way they fight for the rights of terrorists while trying to strip American citizens of our basic Constitutional rights.

Moose
01-23-2009, 04:58 AM
Here's my problem with it, and when I say "my problem" I mean, a lot of people's:

Since October 7, 2001, when the current war in Afghanistan began, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge. As of May 2008, approximately 270 detainees remain. More than a fifth are cleared for release but must nevertheless remain indefinitely because countries are reluctant to accept them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp

Either someone screwing the pooch as far as prosecution goes, or we're detaining people unlawfully. Something had to give.

atomdanger
01-23-2009, 05:10 AM
*Shrug*

It should be illegal to hold somebody forever without bringing them to trial,
its BS what we're doing, he don't even have anything on a lot of these guys.

That doesn't mean they aren't guilty, but we can't play unfair then be pissed when other people play unfair,
we should be treating them fair, and charging them and putting them on trial,
or letting them go.

What happened to lead by example?
I feel like the US is more of a "Do as a say not as a I do" country lately.

que
01-23-2009, 09:35 AM
obama just accomplished in his first week of presidency what bush should have done 8 years ago. things are looking good thus far.

Tyburn
01-23-2009, 01:34 PM
This is a big mistake and i really dont care how or what kind of interrogation tactics we use to get information from these SOB's....In America you are innocent until proven guilty but 1st their not Americans 2nd their not held in America 3rd they don't go by the>>>>>>Geneva convention <<<<<< so any BS you give me about them being held by Americans and so on and so on is out the door. These people are there for a reason.

They should not close the prison i don't care if there's only a 100 prisoners in there. We need to have a place to keep them locked up. I really can care less if they ever get a trial they can rot behind bars for all i care When that place close's they will transfer some terrorist to other prisons but they will let some go. Sorry if I seem a little disgruntled today but this is a touchy subject for me as you all know.

I thought they were held at a Military base...even if its off US mainland, a Base is still classified as an Embassy...ergo it is US soil....I guess maybe not if they have decomissioned it though....and the Staff opporating the facility ARE American...ergo it doesnt matter who they are holding, if they mean what they say about Freedom, and the are law abiding, then they will hold dear exactly the same sentiments as if Guantanamo was in a Suberb of the Capital.

Its alright letting people rot behind bars if they are guilty, but without a trial how do you know there ARE guilty?

As for interrogation techniques...I assure you whatever Obama says, the waterboarding and stuff will continue, and it must continue, and all other governments will do it in order to protect the masses. Its sometimes the only way to extract information. Thats just a signal that its going back underground so the senior officials can stop admitting they do it :laugh:

Tyburn
01-23-2009, 01:43 PM
1)

These are prisoners of war, not common criminals. It's a different thing. They can't be tried by a jury of their peers, because their peers hate America and have no respect for our laws.

2) America's justice system only applies to American citizens, because only American citizens are subject to American law. You need to start being a little more nationalistic in your thinking, because I can guarantee these terrorists are. We're not a one-world government yet. We will be when the Anti-Christ takes over and let's hope that's not anytime soon.

3) These are very dangerous men who have every intention of carrying out more attacks and killing more Americans. If we let them go, they're just going to go back to committing acts of terrorism against the US.

4) That's why closing Gitmo down prematurely is a very bad idea, because you're just sending enemy combatants back out onto the battlefield. POW camps have existed in every war, and that's all this place is. Anyone with a basic knowledge of world history would know that, unless they've been brainwashed by the silly liberal rhetoric that's been infecting our news media over the last 7 years.

Seriously, sometimes I wonder if the left-wing liberals are in league with the terrorists with the way they fight for the rights of terrorists while trying to strip American citizens of our basic Constitutional rights.
1) Then try them infront of a Military Hearing

2) Untrue, if I break the Law in America on my next States Tour I would be tried as an American unless my Country extradites me...I'm also free from British Law whilst in the United States...which means potentially I could hold a Firearm and avoid a 15 year prison Sentance

I dont plan on doing either :laugh:

3) You cant imprison people on the potential of them doing something they havent yet done. If they havent DONE a crime, they cant be Punished. Its the job of your Law Enforcers to try them if the do a Crime, and your Military and secret Service to stop them if they plan it.

At any rate, you still need a trial to proove they had the potential and were actively plotting.

4) Even in that situation, the people were tried...we dont STILL have Germans locked up from the Second World War awaiting Trial now do we?? Do you :huh: :laugh:

Its only premature if you let them all go with no Trial. You should put them on Trial...and this isnt even a Liberal policy...the Republican President STARTED the proceedure of closing this camp...if you have a bone to pick about this, its with President Bush because all Obama is doing is continuing a proceedure already happening.

Did you realize that? are you gonna level the same charge of co-conspiracy at the last Republican Government that you mention again the Liberals? :huh:

Spiritwalker
01-23-2009, 08:35 PM
These are very dangerous men who have every intention of carrying out more attacks and killing more Americans. If we let them go, they're just going to go back to committing acts of terrorism against the US.

That's why closing Gitmo down prematurely is a very bad idea, because you're just sending enemy combatants back out onto the battlefield. POW camps have existed in every war, and that's all this place is. Anyone with a basic knowledge of world history would know that, unless they've been brainwashed by the silly liberal rhetoric that's been infecting our news media over the last 7 years.


Prophetic much?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/23/gitmo.detainee/index.html

Detainee went from Gitmo to al Qaeda, official says

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Saudi national released from U.S. detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in September 2007 is believed to be a key leader in al Qaeda's operations in Yemen, according to a U.S. counterterrorism official.

The Defense Department recently estimated that more than 60 terrorists released from Guantanamo may have returned to the battlefield.

According to the counterterrorism official, freed detainee Ali al-Shiri traveled to Yemen after being released to Saudi Arabia and may have been involved in recent al Qaeda attacks in Yemen, including a car bombing outside the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa last year that killed nearly a dozen people.

"He is one of a handful of al Qaeda deputies in Yemen," the official said. "He is one of the top terrorists."

His title is deputy and senior operations commander, the source said.

According to the magazine Sada al-Malahem, or The Echo of the Epics, published by al Qaeda in Yemen, al-Shiri attended a media session in which Yemen commander Abu Baseer was interviewed.

The magazine identified al-Shiri as Baseer's deputy commander and quoted Baseer as announcing that al Qaeda's operations in Yemen and Saudi Arabia have been combined to become al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula.

The magazine noted that al-Shiri was released from Guantanamo more than 10 months ago.

He fled a Saudi jihadi re-education program, where he went after his release, a Saudi source told CNN's Nic Robertson.

President Obama on Thursday signed an order mandating that the Guantanamo Bay prison be closed within the year. What to do with the detainees has been a hotly debated topic.

The issue of freed detainees engaging in terrorism is one concern. Another is housing them in prisons inside the United States. Video Watch experts debate the Guantanamo dilemma »

Rep. Bill Young, R-Florida, said he has "quite a bit of anxiety" about the possibility of transferring detainees

"Number one, they're dangerous," Young said. "Secondly, once they become present in the United States, what is their legal status? What is their constitutional status? I worry about that, because I don't want them to have the same constitutional rights that you and I have. They're our enemy."

Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo facility received immediate backing from his general election opponent, Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain.

McCain, in a joint statement with South Carolina GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, said he supported Obama's decision to "begin a process that will, we hope, lead to the resolution of all cases of Guantanamo detainees."

But Thursday night on CNN's "Larry King Live," McCain said the new president may have been hasty in the decision and should have taken the time to consider everything associated with closing the camp before forcing himself into a timetable.

Specifically, McCain said he thought Obama needed to consider what would happen to the prisoners held at Guantanamo before ordering the facility to be closed.

"So, the easy part, in all due respect, is to say we're going to close Guantanamo," McCain said. "Then I think I would have said where they were going to be taken. Because you're going to run into a NIMBY [not in my backyard] problem here in the United States of America." Video Watch what may happen to Guantanamo's inmates »

Asked about that issue Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, "We have developed some options in terms of how many we think could be returned to other countries to take them. That diplomatic initiative has not started. That will await work in carrying out the executive order."

"We have identified a number of possible prisons here in the United States" that could take the detainees. However, Gates added, "I've heard from members of Congress [representing] where all those prisons are located. Their enthusiasm is limited."

Tyburn
01-23-2009, 08:45 PM
Has anyone considered the possibility that treating someone innocent in the manner they treat people at Guantanamo, might actually CAUSE someone to want revenge on the host nation?

Supposing you were innocent, locked up for years without a trial and treated badly...when you got out...would you not feel angry and upset? Angry and upset enough to do the very crimes you were falsly imprisoned for out of spite and revenge.

You talk of prophecy..but the last thing you want to do is treat an innocent so badly as a prisoner of war, you turn him into an enemy when he leaves.

:huh:

NateR
01-23-2009, 08:53 PM
we dont STILL have Germans locked up from the Second World War awaiting Trial now do we?? Do you :huh: :laugh:

Well, WW2 ended and the Third Reich collapsed over half a century ago. Our war against Al Qaeda is still going on. And I can almost guarantee that, barring any sort of prisoner trade, none of those German and Nazi POW's were released until Germany surrendered.

Once Iraq and Afghanistan are stabilized and Al Qaeda is completely destroyed, then we can let those men go back to their countries of origin. Until then, releasing them early would just be proof of Obama's incompetence when it comes to warfare and national security. Hopefully, he's not dumb enough to actually do that.

Again, my issue with Left-Wing Liberal nuts is that they will fight tooth and nail for the rights of these terrorists and fully support releasing them back into the wild to kill more American soldiers on the battlefield or civilians through acts of terror. Unfortunately, President Bush was bowing to political pressure to close down Gitmo because of the Left-Wing nutjobs, who have nothing but hatred for America (just like the terrorists).

Spiritwalker
01-23-2009, 08:54 PM
*Shrug*

It should be illegal to hold somebody forever without bringing them to trial,

It is in Amercia. They are not in Amercia, not are they Amercians. They are not afforded our rights.


its BS what we're doing, he don't even have anything on a lot of these guys.


[QUOTE]


What happened to lead by example?
I feel like the US is more of a "Do as a say not as a I do" country lately.

We lead by example, and many contries that are scared to stand up on their own.. hate us.

We become isolationists again and we have a WW issue again.

NateR
01-23-2009, 08:54 PM
Has anyone considered the possibility that treating someone innocent in the manner they treat people at Guantanamo, might actually CAUSE someone to want revenge on the host nation?

Supposing you were innocent, locked up for years without a trial and treated badly...when you got out...would you not feel angry and upset? Angry and upset enough to do the very crimes you were falsly imprisoned for out of spite and revenge.

You talk of prophecy..but the last thing you want to do is treat an innocent so badly as a prisoner of war, you turn him into an enemy when he leaves.

:huh:

Again, they're prisoners of war, they don't get out until the war is over.

atomdanger
01-23-2009, 08:58 PM
It is in Amercia. They are not in Amercia, not are they Amercians. They are not afforded our rights.

its BS what we're doing, he don't even have anything on a lot of these guys.

We lead by example, and many contries that are scared to stand up on their own.. hate us.

We become isolationists again and we have a WW issue again.

We do not lead by example, we don't want others to act as we do,
we want them to act as we say.

And your point about them not being American, I pose this question.
Would you be OK with other countries snatching up our citizens/soldiers over there and treating them however they wanted?
Probably not, you would probably be outraged,
but they would by your logic not be due to any rights.

atomdanger
01-23-2009, 08:59 PM
Again, they're prisoners of war, they don't get out until the war is over.

So, by this thinking...

You're ok with them keeping US Soldiers until the war is over?

NateR
01-23-2009, 09:00 PM
Prophetic much?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/23/gitmo.detainee/index.html

Detainee went from Gitmo to al Qaeda, official says

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Saudi national released from U.S. detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in September 2007 is believed to be a key leader in al Qaeda's operations in Yemen, according to a U.S. counterterrorism official.

The Defense Department recently estimated that more than 60 terrorists released from Guantanamo may have returned to the battlefield.

According to the counterterrorism official, freed detainee Ali al-Shiri traveled to Yemen after being released to Saudi Arabia and may have been involved in recent al Qaeda attacks in Yemen, including a car bombing outside the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa last year that killed nearly a dozen people.

"He is one of a handful of al Qaeda deputies in Yemen," the official said. "He is one of the top terrorists."

His title is deputy and senior operations commander, the source said.

According to the magazine Sada al-Malahem, or The Echo of the Epics, published by al Qaeda in Yemen, al-Shiri attended a media session in which Yemen commander Abu Baseer was interviewed.

The magazine identified al-Shiri as Baseer's deputy commander and quoted Baseer as announcing that al Qaeda's operations in Yemen and Saudi Arabia have been combined to become al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula.

The magazine noted that al-Shiri was released from Guantanamo more than 10 months ago.

He fled a Saudi jihadi re-education program, where he went after his release, a Saudi source told CNN's Nic Robertson.

President Obama on Thursday signed an order mandating that the Guantanamo Bay prison be closed within the year. What to do with the detainees has been a hotly debated topic.

The issue of freed detainees engaging in terrorism is one concern. Another is housing them in prisons inside the United States. Video Watch experts debate the Guantanamo dilemma »

Rep. Bill Young, R-Florida, said he has "quite a bit of anxiety" about the possibility of transferring detainees

"Number one, they're dangerous," Young said. "Secondly, once they become present in the United States, what is their legal status? What is their constitutional status? I worry about that, because I don't want them to have the same constitutional rights that you and I have. They're our enemy."

Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo facility received immediate backing from his general election opponent, Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain.

McCain, in a joint statement with South Carolina GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, said he supported Obama's decision to "begin a process that will, we hope, lead to the resolution of all cases of Guantanamo detainees."

But Thursday night on CNN's "Larry King Live," McCain said the new president may have been hasty in the decision and should have taken the time to consider everything associated with closing the camp before forcing himself into a timetable.

Specifically, McCain said he thought Obama needed to consider what would happen to the prisoners held at Guantanamo before ordering the facility to be closed.

"So, the easy part, in all due respect, is to say we're going to close Guantanamo," McCain said. "Then I think I would have said where they were going to be taken. Because you're going to run into a NIMBY [not in my backyard] problem here in the United States of America." Video Watch what may happen to Guantanamo's inmates »

Asked about that issue Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, "We have developed some options in terms of how many we think could be returned to other countries to take them. That diplomatic initiative has not started. That will await work in carrying out the executive order."

"We have identified a number of possible prisons here in the United States" that could take the detainees. However, Gates added, "I've heard from members of Congress [representing] where all those prisons are located. Their enthusiasm is limited."

Many people assume that these are just innocent bystanders who were rounded up off the street and locked up in prison by the evil Americans. That couldn't be more false, these were combatants who were found on the battlefield and have every intention of killing Americans. We keep them because they are useful, we can get information out of them. Information that saves the lives of American troops and civilians. If they were completely oblivious and innocent of the charges, then they would be useless for information and we would have no reason to detain them.

Llamafighter
01-23-2009, 09:02 PM
These are prisoners of war, not common criminals. It's a different thing. They can't be tried by a jury of their peers, because their peers hate America and have no respect for our laws. America's justice system only applies to American citizens, because only American citizens are subject to American law. You need to start being a little more nationalistic in your thinking, because I can guarantee these terrorists are. We're not a one-world government yet. We will be when the Anti-Christ takes over and let's hope that's not anytime soon.

These are very dangerous men who have every intention of carrying out more attacks and killing more Americans. If we let them go, they're just going to go back to committing acts of terrorism against the US.

That's why closing Gitmo down prematurely is a very bad idea, because you're just sending enemy combatants back out onto the battlefield. POW camps have existed in every war, and that's all this place is. Anyone with a basic knowledge of world history would know that, unless they've been brainwashed by the silly liberal rhetoric that's been infecting our news media over the last 7 years.

Seriously, sometimes I wonder if the left-wing liberals are in league with the terrorists with the way they fight for the rights of terrorists while trying to strip American citizens of our basic Constitutional rights.


That isn't a fair statement...just sayin'
Nobody's fighting for the terrorists rights! As a member of the United Nations we have to show them that we're playing by the rules. Rules, that both Democrats and Republicans put into place.
Now I'm as leary of this decision to close Gitmo as much as anyone, but I'd like to see how it plays out IN THE NEXT YEAR (as is the timeline).
It doesn't seem to me that they're handing each inmate a gun and letting them out the front doors.

A new yorker who's brother was killed on 9/11 was attending the trials of several of the guys accussed of plotting hte attacks. They all three admitted guilt, that they were proud of it, and said they would do it a million times over. When this order passed down the trial was froze. That disturbs me a little bit, but there are good men and women figuring this all out and I have to have faith that they'll take care of it.

NateR
01-23-2009, 09:05 PM
So, by this thinking...

You're ok with them keeping US Soldiers until the war is over?

Not really, only as long as it takes for us to break in, kill all of their guards, and rescue our soldiers.

This is warfare where might makes right. If you're not aggressive and strong, then you're doomed to lose.

Tyburn
01-23-2009, 09:06 PM
Well, WW2 ended and the Third Reich collapsed over half a century ago. Our war against Al Qaeda is still going on. And I can almost guarantee that, barring any sort of prisoner trade, none of those German and Nazi POW's were released until Germany surrendered.

Once Iraq and Afghanistan are stabilized and Al Qaeda is completely destroyed, then we can let those men go back to their countries of origin. Until then, releasing them early would just be proof of Obama's incompetence when it comes to warfare and national security. Hopefully, he's not dumb enough to actually do that.

Again, my issue with Left-Wing Liberal nuts is that they will fight tooth and nail for the rights of these terrorists and fully support releasing them back into the wild to kill more American soldiers on the battlefield or civilians through acts of terror. Unfortunately, President Bush was bowing to political pressure to close down Gitmo because of the Left-Wing nutjobs, who have nothing but hatred for America (just like the terrorists).

AQ is a world wide network, even once Afghanistan and Iraq are stabalized...the war will never be over...because war on extremism and terrorism isnt something that began in 2001...its something thats been going on since Civilization began...sooo since the war will never be over...what do you do...because these are Prisoners of an unending war...you cant wait til the war is over the release them.

Bush doesnt bow to political pressure! if he did you'd have been out from Iraq some years ago! what makes you think Guantanamo is the result of left-wing lobbies...can you be more specific? :huh:

County Mike
01-23-2009, 09:07 PM
Solution: From now on, take no prisoners!

NateR
01-23-2009, 09:08 PM
That isn't a fair statement...just sayin'
Nobody's fighting for the terrorists rights! As a member of the United Nations we have to show them that we're playing by the rules. Rules, that both Democrats and Republicans put into place.
Now I'm as leary of this decision to close Gitmo as much as anyone, but I'd like to see how it plays out IN THE NEXT YEAR (as is the timeline).
It doesn't seem to me that they're handing each inmate a gun and letting them out the front doors.

A new yorker who's brother was killed on 9/11 was attending the trials of several of the guys accussed of plotting hte attacks. They all three admitted guilt, that they were proud of it, and said they would do it a million times over. When this order passed down the trial was froze. That disturbs me a little bit, but there are good men and women figuring this all out and I have to have faith that they'll take care of it.

I'm not talking about Democrats and I'm not talking about Liberals. I'm talking about the Left-Wing Liberal extremists in the Democratic party. So this doesn't apply to the average "center-right" or "center-left" Democrat.

Mac
01-23-2009, 09:10 PM
Solution: From now on, take no prisoners!
Bingo!

Llamafighter
01-23-2009, 09:11 PM
I'm not talking about Democrats and I'm not talking about Liberals. I'm talking about the Left-Wing Liberal extremists in the Democratic party. So this doesn't apply to the average "center-right" or "center-left" Democrat.

I thought that was just your nickname for anyone belonging to the democratic party. My apologies:wink:

In that case you're probably right!

Tyburn
01-23-2009, 09:13 PM
Not really, only as long as it takes for us to break in, kill all of their guards, and rescue our soldiers.

This is warfare where might makes right. If you're not aggressive and strong, then you're doomed to lose.
Might never makes right.

Dont pretend this is modern day warfare...because its not. These people arent an attacking nation, they are a network of individuals, you are at war with nobody and everybody all at once...and you wouldnt condone them breaking in and killing your guards would you?

Lead by example. Just because your enemies do not have any moral decency does not mean you have to stoop to their lows.

Forget being Aggressive and Strong...you dont even know "who" you are fighting, thats the whole problem. This isnt cannon fodder warfare...this is use your intelligence warfare...you have to be smarter then them, more on the ball the them...or else you will be doomed to fighting regiemes that sponcer terrorism...rather then the terrorists themselves...as we have seen with two wars...thats not the way to go...this is NOT conventional warfare...well...it is once you try and invade a country to reach a few individuals

This isnt about mighty armies Nathan...its about a few indidivual people. The worst terrorist attack wasnt through an army...it was through a small number of men.

atomdanger
01-23-2009, 09:16 PM
Not really, only as long as it takes for us to break in, kill all of their guards, and rescue our soldiers.

This is warfare where might makes right. If you're not aggressive and strong, then you're doomed to lose.


I am fine with that, but I just don't like it when people pretend we are a bunch of saints.

A big part of me believes we should stop at nothing to defend our country,
the other part feels bad for people. I get a little torn, but in the end I want my son to be safe and our country to be safe.

Tyburn
01-23-2009, 09:18 PM
I am fine with that, but I just don't like it when people pretend we are a bunch of saints.
I think most of you are :) but thats just my opinion.

I think those who honnestly understand and belief in the principles that America stands for, really do epitomize a nation under GOD.

I think lots of Americans havent got a clue about the above though...but they are still American...sooo I let them off :laugh: :ashamed:

kyle
01-23-2009, 09:52 PM
I thought they were held at a Military base...even if its off US mainland, a Base is still classified as an Embassy...ergo it is US soil....I guess maybe not if they have decomissioned it though....and the Staff opporating the facility ARE American...ergo it doesnt matter who they are holding, if they mean what they say about Freedom, and the are law abiding, then they will hold dear exactly the same sentiments as if Guantanamo was in a Suberb of the Capital.

Its alright letting people rot behind bars if they are guilty, but without a trial how do you know there ARE guilty?


OK now this is getting ridiculous!!! IF there at GITMO there their for a reason. Do you know how many POW we catch a year just in IRAQ alone. When I was there last time I remembered my company (which is less than only 100 soldier) caught some 300 detainees in a week. now most of them got let go because we did not have enough evidence on them to hold them but we kept a lot that we had stuff on, and sent them down to abu ghraib. Now there suppose to do trials down there but i really dont know what happen to them but what i do know is less Americans died because we keep these terrorist off the streets.

I do believe in whats fair and we should give these guys a trial, but do you think they will get a fair trial? It would have to be held by NATO or some outside party. At the same time we cant just release them to society so they can go back to there ways. So if they sit a few more years i wont really care because like i said these guys dont play by the rules of war ie Geneva Convention last time i checked these terrorist cut Americans heads off if they catch one of us. And quit listening to all the bias bulls$%t media. The media has always been liberal and will always be liberal. They can tell the public the tooth fairy is real and they would believe them :laugh:

Tyburn
01-23-2009, 10:44 PM
OK now this is getting ridiculous!!! IF there at GITMO there their for a reason. Do you know how many POW we catch a year just in IRAQ alone. When I was there last time I remembered my company (which is less than only 100 soldier) caught some 300 detainees in a week. now most of them got let go because we did not have enough evidence on them to hold them but we kept a lot that we had stuff on, and sent them down to abu ghraib. Now there suppose to do trials down there but i really dont know what happen to them but what i do know is less Americans died because we keep these terrorist off the streets.

I do believe in whats fair and we should give these guys a trial, but do you think they will get a fair trial? It would have to be held by NATO or some outside party. At the same time we cant just release them to society so they can go back to there ways. So if they sit a few more years i wont really care because like i said these guys dont play by the rules of war ie Geneva Convention last time i checked these terrorist cut Americans heads off if they catch one of us. And quit listening to all the bias bulls$%t media. The media has always been liberal and will always be liberal. They can tell the public the tooth fairy is real and they would believe them :laugh:

Whats wrong with an American Trial? I dont think there is a conflict of interest with Americans Judging Terrorists...If they do a Trial and are found guilty then fair enough...what I dont like is storing them WITHOUT trial.

I dont think you need involve NATO or the United Nations...because these peoples are charged specifically with Terrorism on the United States...Ergo, its a matter for the United States to Judge...I'm obviously talking about a Military Hearing rather then a Traditional Court of Law.

Also...I think if found guilty they should be executed. Treason is a very serious offense, and Terrorism, is a type of Treachery against some form of power one oughta respect.

So I think they should catch them, try them...and if needs be execute them. Forget Storing them and maltreating them in Guantanamo...Prisoners should be kept as little time as possible. If the are innocent let them go, if they are guilty Execute them...how difficult is thatto figure out?

...and I think that the United States alone has the right to try her own prisoners under her own law, in anyway she sees fit. Dont misread me as someone who is soft on Terrorists and criminals. Quite apart...I'm a supporter of Capital Punishment, and minimal appeals... But what I dont go in for is keeping them indefinately in somekinda War criminal zoo.

I tell you who could try them if the United States wont...Cuba is in the Gulf, why dont you try them under the Carrabean Court of Appeals. They will hang them for you :laugh:

Its all in my Screen-name. Tyburn was a place of execution for over 600 yearshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_sM86GnH7A

kyle
01-23-2009, 11:48 PM
Whats wrong with an American Trial? I dont think there is a conflict of interest with Americans Judging Terrorists...If they do a Trial and are found guilty then fair enough...what I dont like is storing them WITHOUT trial.

I dont think you need involve NATO or the United Nations...because these peoples are charged specifically with Terrorism on the United States...Ergo, its a matter for the United States to Judge...I'm obviously talking about a Military Hearing rather then a Traditional Court of Law.

Also...I think if found guilty they should be executed. Treason is a very serious offense, and Terrorism, is a type of Treachery against some form of power one oughta respect.

So I think they should catch them, try them...and if needs be execute them. Forget Storing them and maltreating them in Guantanamo...Prisoners should be kept as little time as possible. If the are innocent let them go, if they are guilty Execute them...how difficult is thatto figure out?

...and I think that the United States alone has the right to try her own prisoners under her own law, in anyway she sees fit. Dont misread me as someone who is soft on Terrorists and criminals. Quite apart...I'm a supporter of Capital Punishment, and minimal appeals... But what I dont go in for is keeping them indefinately in somekinda War criminal zoo.

I tell you who could try them if the United States wont...Cuba is in the Gulf, why dont you try them under the Carrabean Court of Appeals. They will hang them for you :laugh:

Its all in my Screen-name. Tyburn was a place of execution for over 600 yearshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_sM86GnH7A

OK Dave your absolutely right try them here in America, Better yet put me on the jury :laugh: I promise i will be fair. there's really only 1 way they could be tried by our country that I can see and that being in federal court since there being tried for crimes against the united states. Now NATO and the UN can and should get involved in this, in fact There helping us in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan but not in Iraq. So they should start helping us get these trials under way. Everyone wants to criticize the war or the prisons or how there treated but know one wants to offer suggestion to make things better.

matthughesfan21
01-23-2009, 11:55 PM
I don't agree with the decision to release them, but I sort of agree with the decision to close Gitmo, it has way to much popularity that I believe is altering how effective it is...we should seperate them and detain them in other camps with less media attention

Tyburn
01-24-2009, 12:07 AM
OK Dave your absolutely right try them here in America, Better yet put me on the jury :laugh: I promise i will be fair. there's really only 1 way they could be tried by our country that I can see and that being in federal court since there being tried for crimes against the united states. Now NATO and the UN can and should get involved in this, in fact There helping us in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan but not in Iraq. So they should start helping us get these trials under way. Everyone wants to criticize the war or the prisons or how there treated but know one wants to offer suggestion to make things better.
Well the United Nations has a court...but the problem there might be that they strictly abide by protocol. It will depend on where you got your criminals as to whether they can try them

For example...you will note that Sadam was not tried by International Law...I dont know if the United Nations CAN get involved in trying any criminals from Iraq, because the United Nations did not sanction the invasion until after it was completed.

Now I'm sure they can do it with Afghanistan prisoners...but honnestly...it takes a bloody age to process all those people through the Court system.

I OFTEN make suggestions, but I have realized that Americans often dont like people poking into their business...they are american Prisoners...how would you feel if a European found one of your prisoners innocent and let him go? Do you follow.

But as I understand it they ARE processing them, and they will then either be sending them to prisons in the United States, or other Nations whether incarcerated or not. Your Capital Punishment System is far to slow...they would die of old age after conviction before sentance was carried out...We dont even have a bloody capital punishment system anymore.

Btw...I didnt say you couldnt treat prisoners badly...I said they needed to be found guilty in a trial first. Prison would be a whole different system if I could reform it LOL. Firstly...once imprisoned and having been found guilty, you would lose certain rights because you have violated the law..if you dont follow the law, you have no right to appeal to it as a basis to help you out. ONE Appeal...and if thats still guilty then execution. None of the humaine stuff..you dont do to murderers what you do to beloved pets. Hang them. Thats what you do with them. Public, as a deterent...and in England...where prisons are over populated...I would not have anyone person spending Life in the country. I'd decomission a warship, and anchor it in the North Sea...they can live out there life there...and if it happens to accidently stray into other powers waters and accidently be sunk...would be a terrible shame.

Sentance lengths would MEAN the length...a Life is LIFE...not 25 years, halves and out before 15. Criminals are not citizens, because they have removed themself from the covering of the law...BUT...they are not criminals until they have been through a Trial.

Thats the ONLY bone I have with Guantanamo.

btw...did you watch the Tyburn video...its kewl aint it :laugh:

NateR
01-24-2009, 01:17 AM
Nobody cares about the UN's "authority," they have no real power. If the US left, the United Nations would implode.

What it boils down to is people need to understand that we're at war. You don't win a war by respecting the civil rights of your enemies. Even Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War. Habeas corpus prevents prisoners from being unlawfully detained. Why did Lincoln allow for the unlawful imprisonment of Southern soldiers? Because he wanted to win the war, of course!

We need to have the same attitude if we plan to win the War on Terror.

KevinD
01-24-2009, 02:20 AM
I am all for whatever it takes to win the war on terror. I don't want to know about the specifics, but I just want us to be as safe as possible. If that means "getting" info from these whack jobs then so be it. if it saves lives let the CIA or whoever do what they got to do. These terrorists don't play by any rules. In order for the benefit of the good we may need to get a little dirty.

Spiritwalker
01-24-2009, 03:04 AM
Many people assume that these are just innocent bystanders who were rounded up off the street and locked up in prison by the evil Americans. That couldn't be more false, these were combatants who were found on the battlefield and have every intention of killing Americans. We keep them because they are useful, we can get information out of them. Information that saves the lives of American troops and civilians. If they were completely oblivious and innocent of the charges, then they would be useless for information and we would have no reason to detain them.


Dude.. I completely, totally, 100% agree with you!


I don't get it. You seem to push back at a lot I say that we actually agree on.

NateR
01-24-2009, 03:36 AM
Dude.. I completely, totally, 100% agree with you!


I don't get it. You seem to push back at a lot I say that we actually agree on.

I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying. Does it seem like I'm deliberately trying to disagree with you, even though we agree on an issue?

Bonnie
01-24-2009, 05:11 AM
I saw the story Spirit posted on Headline news earlier today and they said how many of those released so far had gone back to their terrorist groups (no surprise).

We ought to find a way to "tag" the bastards. You know how they place tags under the hides of cattle and pets. Why not put them to sleep and tag them with individual id#s that we can track. I know some of you may think that's a crazy idea, but they do that with cell phone towers/pings and GPS, and, as stated above, look at the info they can fit on a miniscule computer chip. So, all you computer geniuses on this board, why don't you get to work! :wink:

Who knows, maybe someone out there has already thought of this and is developing something as we speak. :ninja:

Tyburn
01-24-2009, 12:33 PM
Nobody cares about the UN's "authority," they have no real power. If the US left, the United Nations would implode.

What it boils down to is people need to understand that we're at war. You don't win a war by respecting the civil rights of your enemies. Even Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War. Habeas corpus prevents prisoners from being unlawfully detained. Why did Lincoln allow for the unlawful imprisonment of Southern soldiers? Because he wanted to win the war, of course!

We need to have the same attitude if we plan to win the War on Terror.
Excuse me...but without the rest of the world you will never win this war. Its a permanet ongoing thing anyway...like I pointed out, there will always be extremists and terrorists.

The United Nations would do fine without the United States...it would probably move to Central Europe where the Court of Appeals and the Human Rights Courts are...incase you hadnt realized...The United States pretty much ignored the United Nations ever since it violated International Law...You only eve use it when you dont want to actually mount a campaign...for example...you dont really want to invade Palastine...soo you turn to the United Nations...but it doesnt fool the rest of the world into believing that The United States actually values the UN at all. Look at Lebannon, that was another place. Rather then punish Israel when she steps out of line, you leave it to the United Nations....You kinda cant have it both ways...if you dont respect and use the UN in times of strife...why do you expect them to help you or listen to you at all?

In a Consortium it doesnt work when one person out of a number of equals says "I know what is right and I'm doing it whether you listen to me or not" and then when a Allied Force (like Israel) gets into trouble (Like Leb or Pal) go running to the Consortium and say "I really think we should work together to tackle the issue of Terrorism here" That is EXACTLY what the Bush Administration have bassically done...and they wonder why some Europeans do not understand America.

Now the United Nations later sanctioned the Iraqi war in terms of clear-up opporations...but you need to be fully aware that its not just American Forces who are in that war...its a number of Countries...when will America start to LISTEN to her Allies, when she wants to do something OUTSIDE her jurisdiction? Because with friends there is mutual respect...sometimes the way some of you speak about the rest of the world...countries that have breeched international Law on your behalf, countries whose forces have also perished..it feels more like abuse then friendship. You dont tell your friends you love them...when honnestly you dont care about their views or how they feel.

The Good thing about Barack Obama is he has pledged to listen. He may not aggree with world opinion, and he may not follow it...but at least he will hear us out before he plunges headlong into something. That I can respect. I can respect a person who listens to me and dissagrees...but I pisses me off if someone just flat out ignores my views...then comes to me for help and support later.

Besides...if you read what I Put...I said I DONT think that any insitution outside of the U.S should try its own Prisoners of War...They ARENT European Prisoners...they are American Prisoners...ergo YOU should put them on Trial..and YOU should hand out the punishment...and you'll notice that I reccomended Death as a suitable and fitting punishment....not permanent detention.

Neezar
01-24-2009, 04:37 PM
In a Consortium it doesnt work when one person out of a number of equals says "I know what is right and I'm doing it whether you listen to me or not" and then when a Allied Force (like Israel) gets into trouble (Like Leb or Pal) go running to the Consortium and say "I really think we should work together to tackle the issue of Terrorism here" That is EXACTLY what the Bush Administration have bassically done...and they wonder why some Europeans do not understand America.

Now the United Nations later sanctioned the Iraqi war in terms of clear-up opporations...but you need to be fully aware that its not just American Forces who are in that war...its a number of Countries...when will America start to LISTEN to her Allies, when she wants to do something OUTSIDE her jurisdiction? Because with friends there is mutual respect...sometimes the way some of you speak about the rest of the world...countries that have breeched international Law on your behalf, countries whose forces have also perished..it feels more like abuse then friendship. You dont tell your friends you love them...when honnestly you dont care about their views or how they feel.



Dave, it never ceases to amaze me how you can spin such a huge web of crap. You can't run a country (nor a business) the way you handle personal friendships. Find a boss who tries to make himself an equal or tries to be friends with or please everyone and you will find a business in decline. You must have a leader, and we were put in that role and we did a fine job, IMO.






The Good thing about Barack Obama is he has pledged to listen. :laugh: He may not aggree with world opinion, and he may not follow it...but at least he will hear us out before he plunges headlong into something. That I can respect. I can respect a person who listens to me and dissagrees...but I pisses me off if someone just flat out ignores my views...then comes to me for help and support later.



I must have missed that pledge. :laugh:


Dave, can you answer a question for me? Where does Obama stand on the Israel issue right now?

Spiritwalker
01-24-2009, 08:48 PM
I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying. Does it seem like I'm deliberately trying to disagree with you, even though we agree on an issue?


Maybe it's your/my writing style.. maybe I am a sensitive baby... we have "Clashed" like this before.

I could be taking it wrong... I post things that in general aggree with your post.. or you me, but it get the "talked down up" feeling..

I don't know. Maybe this would have been a better thing to PM about.

No offense.

matthughesfan21
01-24-2009, 09:02 PM
I saw the story Spirit posted on Headline news earlier today and they said how many of those released so far had gone back to their terrorist groups (no surprise).

We ought to find a way to "tag" the bastards. You know how they place tags under the hides of cattle and pets. Why not put them to sleep and tag them with individual id#s that we can track. I know some of you may think that's a crazy idea, but they do that with cell phone towers/pings and GPS, and, as stated above, look at the info they can fit on a miniscule computer chip. So, all you computer geniuses on this board, why don't you get to work! :wink:

Who knows, maybe someone out there has already thought of this and is developing something as we speak. :ninja:
that is actually i pretty good idea, i don't know how expensive it would be, but it does seem like it could help possibly lead us to more terrorist headquarters, it could allow us to not only track them, but also find more

Spiritwalker
01-24-2009, 09:08 PM
Nothing but love fer ya guy.. but....

WTF are you talking about?

Without the US, the UN would do what they always do.. ask "big brother"..
Iseral is BIG deal. I would love to go and take over the whole place, then I could visit it without fear of dying. But the whole world has an interest in that area. Just about every religion references back to this area. If we went in to make the place safe for the people, even the people we made safe, would hate us. The UN acts on the will of the assembled nations... If we want to do something that other nations will hate us for.. we get UN sanctions.

Which International Law was broken? Be very specific. Do your research on this one.

As far as the prisoners.. it's a good thing we didn't go running of to The Hague or our gallows.. or killing them out right.. turns out there are some that were innocent.. I would like to see the ones that are part of the plots against America have their brians sucked dry of any information and then made to rot in a cell with nothing but pictures of PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T EVEN CARE.. people who couldn't point the middle east on a globe.. but were killed to make a statement.

We the UN Sanctions against Iraq were failing.. we said "enough".. DIE.

Fine with me.

Barak.. is Captian Picard.. _ Klingons show up.. "Hey guys.. let's go talk about this...".. as the Klingons keep getting closer and closer..

Bush is Kirk .. "Klingons??? Here?? F'ing Fire Phasers.."

And the UN complains ... and says let's talk... as the Klingons pull back the other fist.




Excuse me...but without the rest of the world you will never win this war. Its a permanet ongoing thing anyway...like I pointed out, there will always be extremists and terrorists.

The United Nations would do fine without the United States...it would probably move to Central Europe where the Court of Appeals and the Human Rights Courts are...incase you hadnt realized...The United States pretty much ignored the United Nations ever since it violated International Law...You only eve use it when you dont want to actually mount a campaign...for example...you dont really want to invade Palastine...soo you turn to the United Nations...but it doesnt fool the rest of the world into believing that The United States actually values the UN at all. Look at Lebannon, that was another place. Rather then punish Israel when she steps out of line, you leave it to the United Nations....You kinda cant have it both ways...if you dont respect and use the UN in times of strife...why do you expect them to help you or listen to you at all?

In a Consortium it doesnt work when one person out of a number of equals says "I know what is right and I'm doing it whether you listen to me or not" and then when a Allied Force (like Israel) gets into trouble (Like Leb or Pal) go running to the Consortium and say "I really think we should work together to tackle the issue of Terrorism here" That is EXACTLY what the Bush Administration have bassically done...and they wonder why some Europeans do not understand America.

Now the United Nations later sanctioned the Iraqi war in terms of clear-up opporations...but you need to be fully aware that its not just American Forces who are in that war...its a number of Countries...when will America start to LISTEN to her Allies, when she wants to do something OUTSIDE her jurisdiction? Because with friends there is mutual respect...sometimes the way some of you speak about the rest of the world...countries that have breeched international Law on your behalf, countries whose forces have also perished..it feels more like abuse then friendship. You dont tell your friends you love them...when honnestly you dont care about their views or how they feel.

The Good thing about Barack Obama is he has pledged to listen. He may not aggree with world opinion, and he may not follow it...but at least he will hear us out before he plunges headlong into something. That I can respect. I can respect a person who listens to me and dissagrees...but I pisses me off if someone just flat out ignores my views...then comes to me for help and support later.

Besides...if you read what I Put...I said I DONT think that any insitution outside of the U.S should try its own Prisoners of War...They ARENT European Prisoners...they are American Prisoners...ergo YOU should put them on Trial..and YOU should hand out the punishment...and you'll notice that I reccomended Death as a suitable and fitting punishment....not permanent detention.

NateR
01-24-2009, 09:30 PM
Excuse me...but without the rest of the world you will never win this war. Its a permanet ongoing thing anyway...like I pointed out, there will always be extremists and terrorists.

The United Nations would do fine without the United States...it would probably move to Central Europe where the Court of Appeals and the Human Rights Courts are...incase you hadnt realized...The United States pretty much ignored the United Nations ever since it violated International Law...You only eve use it when you dont want to actually mount a campaign...for example...you dont really want to invade Palastine...soo you turn to the United Nations...but it doesnt fool the rest of the world into believing that The United States actually values the UN at all. Look at Lebannon, that was another place. Rather then punish Israel when she steps out of line, you leave it to the United Nations....You kinda cant have it both ways...if you dont respect and use the UN in times of strife...why do you expect them to help you or listen to you at all?

In a Consortium it doesnt work when one person out of a number of equals says "I know what is right and I'm doing it whether you listen to me or not" and then when a Allied Force (like Israel) gets into trouble (Like Leb or Pal) go running to the Consortium and say "I really think we should work together to tackle the issue of Terrorism here" That is EXACTLY what the Bush Administration have bassically done...and they wonder why some Europeans do not understand America.

Now the United Nations later sanctioned the Iraqi war in terms of clear-up opporations...but you need to be fully aware that its not just American Forces who are in that war...its a number of Countries...when will America start to LISTEN to her Allies, when she wants to do something OUTSIDE her jurisdiction? Because with friends there is mutual respect...sometimes the way some of you speak about the rest of the world...countries that have breeched international Law on your behalf, countries whose forces have also perished..it feels more like abuse then friendship. You dont tell your friends you love them...when honnestly you dont care about their views or how they feel.

The Good thing about Barack Obama is he has pledged to listen. He may not aggree with world opinion, and he may not follow it...but at least he will hear us out before he plunges headlong into something. That I can respect. I can respect a person who listens to me and dissagrees...but I pisses me off if someone just flat out ignores my views...then comes to me for help and support later.

Besides...if you read what I Put...I said I DONT think that any insitution outside of the U.S should try its own Prisoners of War...They ARENT European Prisoners...they are American Prisoners...ergo YOU should put them on Trial..and YOU should hand out the punishment...and you'll notice that I reccomended Death as a suitable and fitting punishment....not permanent detention.

Dave, you're going to find that very few American citizens recognize the UN's "authority." Anyone can say, "Hey, we're in charge now, you need to listen to us;" but if they don't display any kind of real leadership, then their authority is empty and meaningless. The UN has proven itself to be a society of endless debaters who never resolve anything and can best be described as a "pooling of ignorance." They have no real power.

America is a sovereign nation, we won our war of independence over 2 centuries ago and broke all allegiances and loyalties to Europe.

The simple fact is that the UN is powerless without the United States and they need us much more than we need them.

mikthehick
01-24-2009, 11:58 PM
Excuse me...but without the rest of the world you will never win this war. Its a permanet ongoing thing anyway...like I pointed out, there will always be extremists and terrorists.


The Good thing about Barack Obama is he has pledged to listen. He may not aggree with world opinion, and he may not follow it...but at least he will hear us out before he plunges headlong into something. That I can respect. I can respect a person who listens to me and dissagrees...but I pisses me off if someone just flat out ignores my views...then comes to me for help and support later.



Dave, I'm going to apologize ahead of time to ya, so I'm sorry, but this blind statement really pisses me off, where you said that the US won't win against the terrorists...that is a really pessimistic attitude and shows that you are making blanket opinion statements without really knowing the facts. Not that I know all the facts, but I know people who do, and they give me the impression the small steps go a long way in this global effort to rid the world of terrorists.

Terrorism goes back decades, centuries and milennia, all it really means is unlawful acts of violence and war. There have been extremists and fundamentalists in almost every society. This is true, but the of the more than a billion Muslim worshipers in this world, only a couple percentage points are considered 'fundamentalist'. These small factions have lofty goals, believing they were sent by God (Allah) to cleanse the world of western civilization, the US being a dominant target.

I cannot tell you what it's like to experience terrorism in your city--there aren't really any words to describe the fear that the enemy uses against you. When the twin towers fell, the plane crashed in Pennsylvania, and the other plane hit the Pentagon, America was forever changed. More people died on September 11 (2998) than in the Pearl Harbor attacks (~2400) on December 7, 1941. If I remember correctly from history class, the US was trying to remain neutral in the Second World War--but when you mess with this country, America is not going to just sit back and take it, they are going to fight back. Well, I'm sorry, but Mr. Bin Laden and his bastard troop did a doozey when they launched the attacks on 9/11....at first, hearing of friends and family who were either killed, injured, or not able to get in contact with was unbearable....then after a couple days, the denial set in. A few days later, bargaining and then finally, acceptance, and a harsh realization that the US couldn't just sit back and let this happen.

That's when the gov't got to work and started the work in Afghanistan. I'm not going to comment on the 2003 invasion of Iraq b/c that is in it's closure stage now and everything is doing well. One of our own forum members did tremendous work over there, and aside from some factions of fundamentals, the future for Iraq looks much better than it did 6 years ago under the Hussein regime.

There is much work to be done in Afghanistan. It's going to take long hours of strategic counterintelligence strategy and outsmarting the Taliban and Al-Queda networks to get to the bottom of the situation. I truly believe that with the right work done, the US can defeat the Bin Laden network. Persistence pays off....if they didn't believe they could defeat them, they wouldn't be signing up the US military for 6 month and longer deployments. My buddy Dan Miller is slated to go over there this spring, and his orders don't even have a length on them yet.

I'm not at all straying from the seriousness of the situation, and I truly am grateful for the other nations that are helping the cause over there, including England's and our European allies. I just am extremely passionate about this because

1) I have a heart for Muslims in the middle eastern nations--and praying for the many who have to worship Jesus underground for fear they will be killed if discovered
2) In my first week of college in September 2001, my Pakistan: Islamic Frontier class was transformed into a huge discussion about the Bin Laden network and what needed to happen, and i made a few friends who were Muslims, and they explained to me that their religion was extremely peaceful, and that fundamentalists exist in every religious faction (just think of some Christian or Morman factions....)
3) this is the most important, but people very near and dear to me are overseas or have been. Yall know a couple from here on the forums, but also my cousin works as a US Marine in Embassies, my buddy Dan from above--a US Marine, and my dad, who served in the Beriut-Grenada insurgences of 1983-84, a Meditteranean peacekeeping mission in 1985-87, Desert Shield and Desert Storm in 1990 and 1991, and a few other floats here and there. Over all, he was overseas or away from our house for over 12 years of his 20 in the service, my other cousin, another US Marine who was called 'back' to the service after getting out after 5 years of active duty service, and finally my little brother, who is due to be commissioned into the army as an officer next year in 2010. He yearns for the time he can spend overseas and serve his country because he wants to and because it's the right thing to do.

I have a maximum respect and high regard for anyone who serves overseas. This stuff just hits home whenever people talk about it, for me personally anyway. I'll never have to go over seas in a war zone because the remarkable women and men who serve over there fight for my freedom every day--and i mean military as well as civilians and contractors.

Anyway, I'm done now, I just wrote a thesis like you do Dave! Sorry about that, and you are still a cool dude, even if Barack Obama didn't say that :tongue0011:

Tyburn
01-25-2009, 11:29 PM
Dave, you're going to find that very few American citizens recognize the UN's "authority." Anyone can say, "Hey, we're in charge now, you need to listen to us;" but if they don't display any kind of real leadership, then their authority is empty and meaningless. The UN has proven itself to be a society of endless debaters who never resolve anything and can best be described as a "pooling of ignorance." They have no real power.

America is a sovereign nation, we won our war of independence over 2 centuries ago and broke all allegiances and loyalties to Europe.

The simple fact is that the UN is powerless without the United States and they need us much more than we need them.
You are ONLY soverign INSIDE yourself...

You are NOT soverign over ANY other Nation.

The United Nations is made up of MANY Nations Denise...why would we be powerless without you? China...Russia...are not exactly walk-overs...neither incase you hadnt realized are France, Germany, Britain....WHO do you think your allies are exactly?

So you DONT have Soverignty outside of your own governance...anymore then you own your next door neighbours house! You dont own the bloody street because you have your own soverignty!!

You are a House on the Street, next to other Houses...if only you had more direct boarders with other nations rather then the sea you would have learned VERY quickly. In Europe, we Need to work together, because over thousands of years disputes have been settled by might. You all live in a continent too far away from any other nations to realize that sometimes you dont have control OUTSIDE your nation. You have a placid and dignified Canada to the North, minute Island Nations in the gulf, and a third world Mexico to your south.

Do you know how many times England has been invaded in the past 2K????

Neezar
01-25-2009, 11:41 PM
Dave, you're going to find that very few American citizens recognize the UN's "authority." Anyone can say, "Hey, we're in charge now, you need to listen to us;" but if they don't display any kind of real leadership, then their authority is empty and meaningless. The UN has proven itself to be a society of endless debaters who never resolve anything and can best be described as a "pooling of ignorance." They have no real power.

America is a sovereign nation, we won our war of independence over 2 centuries ago and broke all allegiances and loyalties to Europe.

The simple fact is that the UN is powerless without the United States and they need us much more than we need them.



You are ONLY soverign INSIDE yourself...

You are NOT soverign over ANY other Nation.

The United Nations is made up of MANY Nations Denise...:huh: why would we be powerless without you? China...Russia...are not exactly walk-overs...neither incase you hadnt realized are France, Germany, Britain....WHO do you think your allies are exactly?

So you DONT have Soverignty outside of your own governance...anymore then you own your next door neighbours house! You dont own the bloody street because you have your own soverignty!!

You are a House on the Street, next to other Houses...if only you had more direct boarders with other nations rather then the sea you would have learned VERY quickly. In Europe, we Need to work together, because over thousands of years disputes have been settled by might. You all live in a continent too far away from any other nations to realize that sometimes you dont have control OUTSIDE your nation. You have a placid and dignified Canada to the North, minute Island Nations in the gulf, and a third world Mexico to your south.

Do you know how many times England has been invaded in the past 2K????


Oops!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Tyburn
01-25-2009, 11:48 PM
Dave, I'm going to apologize ahead of time to ya, so I'm sorry, but this blind statement really pisses me off, where you said that the US won't win against the terrorists...that is a really pessimistic attitude and shows that you are making blanket opinion statements without really knowing the facts. Not that I know all the facts, but I know people who do, and they give me the impression the small steps go a long way in this global effort to rid the world of terrorists.

Terrorism goes back decades, centuries and milennia, all it really means is unlawful acts of violence and war. There have been extremists and fundamentalists in almost every society. This is true, but the of the more than a billion Muslim worshipers in this world, only a couple percentage points are considered 'fundamentalist'. These small factions have lofty goals, believing they were sent by God (Allah) to cleanse the world of western civilization, the US being a dominant target.

I cannot tell you what it's like to experience terrorism in your city--there aren't really any words to describe the fear that the enemy uses against you. When the twin towers fell, the plane crashed in Pennsylvania, and the other plane hit the Pentagon, America was forever changed. More people died on September 11 (2998) than in the Pearl Harbor attacks (~2400) on December 7, 1941. If I remember correctly from history class, the US was trying to remain neutral in the Second World War--but when you mess with this country, America is not going to just sit back and take it, they are going to fight back. Well, I'm sorry, but Mr. Bin Laden and his bastard troop did a doozey when they launched the attacks on 9/11....at first, hearing of friends and family who were either killed, injured, or not able to get in contact with was unbearable....then after a couple days, the denial set in. A few days later, bargaining and then finally, acceptance, and a harsh realization that the US couldn't just sit back and let this happen.

That's when the gov't got to work and started the work in Afghanistan. I'm not going to comment on the 2003 invasion of Iraq b/c that is in it's closure stage now and everything is doing well. One of our own forum members did tremendous work over there, and aside from some factions of fundamentals, the future for Iraq looks much better than it did 6 years ago under the Hussein regime.

There is much work to be done in Afghanistan. It's going to take long hours of strategic counterintelligence strategy and outsmarting the Taliban and Al-Queda networks to get to the bottom of the situation. I truly believe that with the right work done, the US can defeat the Bin Laden network. Persistence pays off....if they didn't believe they could defeat them, they wouldn't be signing up the US military for 6 month and longer deployments. My buddy Dan Miller is slated to go over there this spring, and his orders don't even have a length on them yet.

I'm not at all straying from the seriousness of the situation, and I truly am grateful for the other nations that are helping the cause over there, including England's and our European allies. I just am extremely passionate about this because

1) I have a heart for Muslims in the middle eastern nations--and praying for the many who have to worship Jesus underground for fear they will be killed if discovered
2) In my first week of college in September 2001, my Pakistan: Islamic Frontier class was transformed into a huge discussion about the Bin Laden network and what needed to happen, and i made a few friends who were Muslims, and they explained to me that their religion was extremely peaceful, and that fundamentalists exist in every religious faction (just think of some Christian or Morman factions....)
3) this is the most important, but people very near and dear to me are overseas or have been. Yall know a couple from here on the forums, but also my cousin works as a US Marine in Embassies, my buddy Dan from above--a US Marine, and my dad, who served in the Beriut-Grenada insurgences of 1983-84, a Meditteranean peacekeeping mission in 1985-87, Desert Shield and Desert Storm in 1990 and 1991, and a few other floats here and there. Over all, he was overseas or away from our house for over 12 years of his 20 in the service, my other cousin, another US Marine who was called 'back' to the service after getting out after 5 years of active duty service, and finally my little brother, who is due to be commissioned into the army as an officer next year in 2010. He yearns for the time he can spend overseas and serve his country because he wants to and because it's the right thing to do.

I have a maximum respect and high regard for anyone who serves overseas. This stuff just hits home whenever people talk about it, for me personally anyway. I'll never have to go over seas in a war zone because the remarkable women and men who serve over there fight for my freedom every day--and i mean military as well as civilians and contractors.

Anyway, I'm done now, I just wrote a thesis like you do Dave! Sorry about that, and you are still a cool dude, even if Barack Obama didn't say that :tongue0011:

Kim, this is a fallen world. Its full of sin...Acts of Terrorism will NEVER stop...Whilst people are unique, they will always dissagree, when they dissagree enough, they will always act. Now even if Iraq and Afghanistan are eventually finished...what about the Terrorists in every other nation of the world? and when you've irradicated terrorism in the whole world...it will grow back.

This is a never-ending war, because you arent fighting a country, or a people...your fighting an ideology that I believe is directly connected to sin...that of people who dissagree and are not afraid to force their side.

Kim...I HAVE experienced Terrorism in my city. Moreover I should have been killed by the Tavastock Bus Bomber. Let me explain. On the 7th July 2005, the Islamists targetted England...they bombed us because we supported you! They split up on the London underground, four of them...One detonated at Edgewear Road Tube Station, quite a major station, thankfully in the open air. One of them detonated in the middle of a tube between Russel Square and Kings Cross...perhaps the ultimate target for a bomb...the third detonated in Liverpool Street Station...Liverpool street was less the ten mins walk from Saint Paul's Cathedral.

Now, on a day off, suffering from depression I would rise very early and travel by Bus or Tube to Russel Square. I would go to The University of London Union in Bloomsbury...I would get there when the pool opened for a swim, and I would leave during the morning rush hour (I was up early because I couldnt sleep)

One of the Bombers momentarily had a crisis of confidence, and instead of going wherever he was supposed to go...probably victoria or waterloo...He boarded a bus and went through bloomsbury (the heart of the University quarter) He detonated his bomb VERY close to where I should have been. its quite possible I would even have caught that bus moments before the bomb went off. It was the right time, and it was going in the right direction.

At last moment I changed my day off to shift swap with someone at work. I was at the Cathedral when the Bomb went off. Now...a Black Christian woman was abord the bus, and when it went off she was splattered all over the walls of the courtyard. Her parents were interviewed and do you know what they said? They said they forgave the Bombers who violently murdered their child. That could...and should have been me...if I hadnt of shift swapped.

I appreciate the troops, and I have islamic friends aswell because I lived at the time of 9/11 in an Islamic Majority City called Bradford, when I was in University...but you HAVE to understand...even IF all the troops come home...their work on Terrorism is NEVER completed...there will always be some bastard who wants to hurt other people

you cant lock people up without trial and say when that kinda war is over, they will be tried! Because...those trials wouldnt start til you no longer needed a Military...do you EVER forsee a time when Someone like Boomer isnt needed to defend your country??

Your country will always be threatened, you will always need your Troops...the eradication of Terrorism will not finish until the coming of Christ...you CANT keep prisoners locked up that long without Trial :laugh:

(incidently, the bombers tried again later in the month, the same MO, three trains and a bus...all the bombs apparently went off, but the cell seemed to be a set of copycat killers who didnt know how to properly construct the bombs...noone was killed..not even the would-be-bombers!)

Tyburn
01-25-2009, 11:49 PM
Oops!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
:laugh: yes....we've been here before :laugh:

I still love you Denise...sorry if I'm sometimes rude...:unsure-1:

matthughesfan21
01-26-2009, 12:05 AM
You are ONLY soverign INSIDE yourself...

You are NOT soverign over ANY other Nation.

The United Nations is made up of MANY Nations Denise...why would we be powerless without you? China...Russia...are not exactly walk-overs...neither incase you hadnt realized are France, Germany, Britain....WHO do you think your allies are exactly?

So you DONT have Soverignty outside of your own governance...anymore then you own your next door neighbours house! You dont own the bloody street because you have your own soverignty!!

You are a House on the Street, next to other Houses...if only you had more direct boarders with other nations rather then the sea you would have learned VERY quickly. In Europe, we Need to work together, because over thousands of years disputes have been settled by might. You all live in a continent too far away from any other nations to realize that sometimes you dont have control OUTSIDE your nation. You have a placid and dignified Canada to the North, minute Island Nations in the gulf, and a third world Mexico to your south.

Do you know how many times England has been invaded in the past 2K????haha france



http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/blog/French.gif

Tyburn
01-26-2009, 12:10 AM
haha france



http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/blog/French.gif
:unsure-1:

Well they are good on the drawing board...just...not in the air :laugh: