| In the first case to review the government's secret evidence for holding a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a federal appeals court found that accusations against a Muslim from western China held for more than six years were based on bare and unverifiable claims. The unclassified parts of the decision were released on Monday. With some derision for the Bush administration's arguments, a three-judge panel said the government contended that its accusations against the detainee should be accepted as true because they had been repeated in at least three secret documents. The court compared that to the absurd declaration of a character in the Lewis Carroll poem "The Hunting of the Snark": "I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true." [...] The court said the classified evidence supporting the Pentagon's claims included assertions that events had "reportedly" occurred and that the connections were "said to" exist, without providing information about the source of such information. "Those bare facts," the decision said, "cannot sustain the determination that Parhat is an enemy combatant." Some lawyers said the ruling highlighted the difficulties they saw in civilian judges reviewing Guantanamo cases. [...] The decision was written by Judge Merrick B. Garland, an appointee of President Bill Clinton. It was joined by Chief Judge Sentelle, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, and Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a 2005 appointee of President Bush. |
guess the system works.
Well, after six years of someone's life has been stolen from them.
No big deal though. Hurrah for the system!!
It would not be strange to find his body on the battlefeild later , it has happened fifty times already.
I really like better, treating the captured as POWs they would all get their lives back at the end of the conflict , we would not need to keep any of them.
I really like better, treating the captured as POWs they would all get their lives back at the end of the conflict , we would not need to keep any of them.
But then they cannot be interrogated. All that loud music, sleep deprivation and water boarding would be off limits, at least as I understand the matter. You willing to give that up?
As criminal offenders we can interrogate them this way?
At least this man got his life back.
The same can't be said for victims of terror.
Would you have the authorities do nothing?
No, nothing changes.
When the enemy is met on the feild the first shot counts most , I think our guys are going to go to war and have to read a Miranda warning to peoiple who willbe shootinmg more than listening.
When the enemy is met on the feild the first shot counts most , I think our guys are going to go to war and have to read a Miranda warning to peoiple who willbe shootinmg more than listening.
You're assuming all detainees are captured on the battlefield. That is an incorrect assumption.
Late last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the military had improperly labeled Huzaifa Parhat, a Chinese Muslim, as an enemy combatant. The court said Parhat deserved a new hearing or should be released. But the court deftly avoided saying where he should be released ? an indication that the courts expect the executive branch to wrestle with that decision.
Glenn Sulmasy, a national security fellow at Harvard University, said if the matter remains in the hands of civilian courts, there is an element of truth to the White House warning that detainees could be released in the United States. But he said that while it's possible, it's not probable.
Are you assumeing that none of them are?
You're assuming all detainees are captured on the battlefield. That is an incorrect assumption.
Are you assumeing that none of them are?
So you shouldn't be assumeing so much about my assumptions.
So you shouldn't be assumeing so much about my assumptions.
Plane, most of what you seem to talk about, regarding this and similar topics, is capturing people on the battlefield and how 50 released detainees have returned to the battlefield. (I still have yet to see any evidence for that last one.) And you ridiculed the notion of detainees having any rights by talking about soldiers reading Miranda rights on the battlefield. You seem, so far as I can tell, to give no acknowledgment that many of the detainees are not captured on the battlefield. So I'm not assuming anything. I made a reasonable conclusion based on your comments.
If they are not dangerous we don't need to capture them at all.
If 400 have been released and about fifty have been killed in fighting
If they are not dangerous we don't need to capture them at all.
So then do you advocate the government having solid and undeniable proof to present in court that someone is guilty of supporting terrorism before taking the person into custody? I would be surprised if you do.
No I am starting to think that we shouldn't do anything at all, you are perfectly right , if we leave them alone there is no wy they can kill so many of us that we can't just ignore them.
Okay, Plane, you know full well I am not and have not advocated that we do nothing.
No I am starting to think that we shouldn't do anything at all, you are perfectly right , if we leave them alone there is no wy they can kill so many of us that we can't just ignore them.
Okay, Plane, you know full well I am not and have not advocated that we do nothing. We have had that discussion before, you and I. So I'll see if I can put this in terms you might be willing to understand. Stick it in your eye.
remind us. what is it exactly that you advocate we do?
Doing nothing at all has a lot of advantage over doing something that won't work at all.
I recommended that we basically hunt down the people who have actually done something to us, leave them no ground to hide in, go after their persons, their property and even their families if necessary.
remind us. what is it exactly that you advocate we do?
I recommended that we basically hunt down the people who have actually done something to us, leave them no ground to hide in, go after their persons, their property and even their families if necessary. It would get us the people responsible without a lot of scooping up random people and holding them indefinitely. It will show the people responsible as weak and unable to protect their lives and their honor. It would narrow our efforts to straightforward goals with clearly defined ends rather than leaving us looking like a bully trying to control everything.
Sounds like the Bush program.
What is the diffrent part?
So you are in favor of invading Pakistan?
Sounds like the Bush program.
What is the diffrent part?
Sounds like the Bush program.
The hell it does, unless the Bush program is even more poorly executed than I could possibly imagine.
What is the diffrent part?
The part where we don't preemptively go to war with Iraq, at least not before we have finished in Afghanistan would be a big difference. The part where we focus on capturing people who have actually done something to attack us rather than scooping up hundreds of people from their homes and other non-battlefield locations and attempting to keep them in prison indefinitely, that would be another big difference. In other words, nearly every part of my plan would be different. Why do I even need to explain that?
"I recommended that we basically hunt down the people who have actually done something to us, leave them no ground to hide in, go after their persons, their property and even their families if necessary. It would get us the people responsible without a lot of scooping up random people and holding them indefinitely. It will show the people responsible as weak and unable to protect their lives and their honor. It would narrow our efforts to straightforward goals with clearly defined ends rather than leaving us looking like a bully trying to control everything."
And I don't know whjat part of that Bush didn't do.
Doesn't hunting them down mean hunting them down, and if that means crossing national borders so be it?
Why the conditionals?
And I don't know whjat part of that Bush didn't do.
I don't think that there has been a special effort to persecute the familys of terrorists , but otherwise every item on the list has been addressed.
100% free of error?
And I don't know whjat part of that Bush didn't do.
Um, looks like pretty much all of it.
And I don't know whjat part of that Bush didn't do.
Then provide evidence to me how he accomplished these things. And no, the Iraq war is not one of them.
Ahem. I do not favor spreading our military efforts so far that they become weak and ineffective.
For every terrorist that has been killed in Iraq, three more arose to take his place.
Accomplished?
Like finished?
Do you think that there is a way to finish?
We already have troops in Afghanistan. On the very border where Osama is believed to be entrenched. Why not send them across? Or is it a bit more complicated than that.
Last I checked, the troops in Afghanistan were still kinda busy. So what part of sending troops into Pakistan isn't spreading out our forces more? And no, it really doesn't seem that complicated to me at all.
Yeah i heard that. And the people they are fighting are being reinforced and resupplied via Pakistan, the same area in which Osama is residing, so why not chase them back and take the battle to them?
That was what you said your wish was. To take the battle to those that attacked us.
Go ahead and try being more specific , I wouldn't mind that.
Accomplished?
Like finished?
Do you think that there is a way to finish?
In other words, you're going to assert "And I don't know whjat part of that Bush didn't do" but you cannot actually show me evidence that he has accomplished any of it. So he hasn't done any of it. He's done something else, and you want to claim it's the same as what I said. Why? Presumably to pull the old "you don't know what you're talking about" routine. But I don't believe that is really working out for you. I suggest you try a different tactic.
For every terrorist that has been killed in Iraq, three more arose to take his place.
Nope , Al Queda is shrunken from attrition.
It grew like Kudzu while it received benign neglect , if they had never attacked us enough to get us to respond it would still be growing.
=========================
Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the invasion. Saddam would not allow them.
I said terrorists, not Al Qaeda, anyway.
Go ahead and try being more specific , I wouldn't mind that.
Parcheesi in a box. You said, "And I don't know whjat part of that Bush didn't do." So either you can show me where Bush did what I suggested, or you cannot. Apparently you cannot, or would not need to be tap dancing right now.
It sounds like a grand plan. And if we were not in Iraq, or ending our presence in Iraq, I might be more inclined to approve.
Ok lets see....
I recommended that we basically hunt down the people who have actually done something to us,
(This is the first part of the attack on Afganistan and has been constant ever since)
leave them no ground to hide in,
(except where American authoritys are not welcome?)
go after their persons, their property and even their families if necessary.
(Ok takeing hostages is new , but arresting as many as we can find and freezeing the assets of every contributor is underway.)
It would get us the people responsible without a lot of scooping up random people and holding them indefinitely.
(I thoughtr you wanted the familys?How do you spot them better? )
It will show the people responsible as weak and unable to protect their lives and their honor.
(Good good.....how does Bush disagree with this?)
It would narrow our efforts to straightforward goals with clearly defined ends rather than leaving us looking like a bully trying to control everything.
(What no nation building? If you leave a power vacuum you will be invited back a few years later.)
Hey, you gave an almost perfect succinct discription of the Bush program , and aside from the hostage takeing , you assert that Bush isn't doing any of it.
How did I wind up with the burden of proof?
QuoteIt sounds like a grand plan. And if we were not in Iraq, or ending our presence in Iraq, I might be more inclined to approve.
But we are in Iraq. Have been for awhile. But we have been in Afghanistan longer. And it is that mission that is charged with tracking down Osama,
If i understand you correctly, you are saying we shouldn't go into Pakistan because we don't have the troop strength. I think it is more complicated than that as it could completely destabilize an unstable country and the reward is not worth the risk.
I get that you're trying to imply that my suggestion for what we could do is somehow naive or unrealistic. But it isn't. I'm not saying what I suggest would be easy at all. I know what many of the problems would be. One of them would be convincing people who think like you do that full scale war is not the best way to address the problem.
What i do think is that even with special ops troops chasing the Taliban and Al Queda into Pakistan a whole new can of worms would open up,
And i doubt the incursions would be able to be kept covert because there are just too many unnamed high level sources and Seymour Hirshes who would blow the lid on the operations for political gain and Pakistan would be forced to respond unfavorably in order to save face.
Yes. Wholly unlike the (sarcasm ahead) problem free program we have in place now.
QuoteYes. Wholly unlike the (sarcasm ahead) problem free program we have in place now.
My bad. I thought you were interested in discussing solutions.
QuoteYes. Wholly unlike the (sarcasm ahead) problem free program we have in place now.
My bad. I thought you were interested in discussing solutions.
I'm sorry. Where did i criticize you in this thread?
Wow, an apology.
Poppys arn't a sideshow , they are financeing.
Ok lets see....
I recommended that we basically hunt down the people who have actually done something to us,
(This is the first part of the attack on Afganistan and has been constant ever since)
Yes, and now we seem engaged in stamping out poppy fields. I doubt the effectiveness of this in hunting down terrorists.
You seem to be vague on this , are you thinking that leaveing Saddam alone on his Iraq throne would have produced no hideing place for terrorists? Saddam had terrorists under his roof and could have made room for more. Packistan will be a lot tougher than Iraq when we fight there , better to start with the easyer ones .
leave them no ground to hide in,
(except where American authoritys are not welcome?)
Not what I said. But I see you have no evidence of Bush doing this.
You are confuseing me a lot here on this one , you would arrest people more effectively how and discern the proper ones better how? I really can't see how you have a gripe to make on the ehnergy expended or the direction of it , our FBI CIA and Armed Forces have arrested everyone that MIGHT be a problem and let most of them go again . I don't think you have a better methjod in mind , but if you do go on and mention it.
go after their persons, their property and even their families if necessary.
(Ok takeing hostages is new , but arresting as many as we can find and freezeing the assets of every contributor is underway.)
But we're not arresting as many as we can find. That is part of the problem. We're simply arresting anyone accused of terrorism, scooping people and trying to hold them indefinitely regardless of whether they are terrorists or not. This is not the way to slow down terrorist recruiting. Saying we're arresting as many as we can find is sort of like you being arrested for child molestation because some person with a grudge against you merely accused you to the police and then saying "well the police are just arresting all the child molesters they can find". That is so completely not what we're doing.
No, there is not any randomness now , and I havent seen you mention a better method of finding thed proper people to arrest yet. Arresting the suspects mothers woould cause the mother of all Habeas Corpus problems wouldn't it?
It would get us the people responsible without a lot of scooping up random people and holding them indefinitely.
(I thoughtr you wanted the familys?How do you spot them better? )
Perhaps you are overlooking the word random.
George Bush has over seen the shooting dead of about half of the Al Queda membership , I have to suppose that a lot of desertion is going on , I still think that your assertion is made first and is unsupported , especially by facts.
It will show the people responsible as weak and unable to protect their lives and their honor.
(Good good.....how does Bush disagree with this?)
What the frell does agreeing have to do with it? Your job is to show me that he's done it. You said he did, so show me.
It would narrow our efforts to straightforward goals with clearly defined ends rather than leaving us looking like a bully trying to control everything.
(What no nation building? If you leave a power vacuum you will be invited back a few years later.)
Who said we had to leave a power vacuum? But no, no nation building. I'm not talking about going to war with each country where terrorists hide. (We would have to make war on ourselves.) I'm talking about simply going after the people who have attacked us.
Your comments lead me to think you're not really paying attention to what I said. You seem to be basing your counterargument more on your own assumptions that on what I said.
What was the total number of members of Al Qaeda in Sept. 2001?
I'm sorry. Where did i criticize you in this thread?
Does the criticism not start with "So you are in favor of invading Pakistan?"
Poppys arn't a sideshow , they are financeing.
You seem to be vague on this
are you thinking that leaveing Saddam alone on his Iraq throne would have produced no hideing place for terrorists? Saddam had terrorists under his roof and could have made room for more. Packistan will be a lot tougher than Iraq when we fight there , better to start with the easyer ones .
You are confuseing me a lot here on this one
you would arrest people more effectively how and discern the proper ones better how? I really can't see how you have a gripe to make on the ehnergy expended or the direction of it , our FBI CIA and Armed Forces have arrested everyone that MIGHT be a problem and let most of them go again . I don't think you have a better methjod in mind , but if you do go on and mention it.
No, there is not any randomness now
George Bush has over seen the shooting dead of about half of the Al Queda membership , I have to suppose that a lot of desertion is going on , I still think that your assertion is made first and is unsupported , especially by facts.
QuoteYour comments lead me to think you're not really paying attention to what I said. You seem to be basing your counterargument more on your own assumptions that on what I said.
Without Nation building you do leave a power vacuum , this follows naturally , and the winner of the resulting struggle being reasonable or freindly would be miraculous. Far better to do a bit of nation building than to leave a mess that would invite us back to fight again later.
I don't think you are paying attention to what you have been saying, I can only spot two minor differences between your proposals and the actual program of the administration. You would like to invade Packistan instead of takeing advantage of Packistani co-operation and you would leave Saddam alive and in controll .
Then you would go after familys of suspects , what ,more than the suspects themselves?
After Al Queda decided to fight us alongside the remnant forces of Saddan and the Insurgents we had a hard time for a space of four years, give or take , but what about your suggestion would have been easyer or better?
QuoteDoes the criticism not start with "So you are in favor of invading Pakistan?"
No That was a question seeking clarification.
Criticism would look something like this:
You resort to sarcasm when you run out of arguments.
See the difference?
Again: we do eventually get to, "I think it is more complicated than that as it could completely destabilize an unstable country and the reward is not worth the risk." Is that not the point of questioning me about Pakistan?
Yes, in and of itself, "So you are in favor of invading Pakistan?" is a question for clarification. But I was fairly certain when you started there that eventually we would get to the "I think it is more complicated than that as it could completely destabilize an unstable country and the reward is not worth the risk" point.
Once a point is clarified it is not criticism to offer my own thoughts about that point. Whether you see it coming or not.
Heh. Whatever.
Rather than rounding up everyone who might be a problem, a practice that if used by police would be roundly and properly condemned, I suggest that we establish investigations and evidence to determine who the proper suspects are before we arrest them. I'm not saying it would be 100% foolproof. Obviously it would not be. But it would be better.[/color]
George Bush has over seen the shooting dead of about half of the Al Queda membership , I have to suppose that a lot of desertion is going on , I still think that your assertion is made first and is unsupported , especially by facts.
I have no idea what assertion that is. But again, you made the assertion that he has done it, so supporting that assertion is up to you.
So you concede that point?
I can imagine the scene if a team of investigators went to Tora Bora and started investigateing , without any military involvement. You are being very unspecific so do not complain that I am finning in the blanks.
As I see it yuou are gripeing that it was not done in a way that would have been stupid or impossible to do.
Did I really make the assertion that Bush has done well ,and very nearly what you want ,before you asserted that he had done poorly and that your idea was better?
I don't see your ideas being specific enough for you to complain about my assumptions, not diffrent enough from the Bush plan to justify gripeing and where ever there is a real diffrence it involves impossibility enough to inspire levity.
Your assertion that Bush did not do well needs some better support .
Your idea that only the truely guilty shoud be arrested is extremely impossible , even in a peacefull American city , let alone in highly unfrendly territiory occupied by an unfreindly army.
Your idea of going against the familys of the guilty is interesting , but jibes poorly with your support of Habies Corpus rights. Comitted Martyers might not worry about Grandma going to heaven early , what would we be doing with Grandma to make her give junior up any way?
Freezeing the assets and tracking the assets we know is happening because the NYTimes told us all about the secret program to follow the money , halting it in mid stroke , do you suppose you could get press co-operation for your program better?
Any how to summerise I consider your assertion that it is poorly donme to be previous and completely unsupported
I consider your suggestions redundant to programs already underway with the exception of a couple of impossibilitys.
Also I am haveing fun, you are good at this and I don't know if I will ever pin you down to specifics.
I could. And I have. If you're not going to pay attention, repeating myself would be pointless.
Could you tell me what I have misconstrued and assumed?
I have no intention of repeating everything we've just been over. Start at reply #28 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=6629.msg67502#msg67502), then go ahead and ask some questions based on what I said and not on your assumptions.
What are you really advocateing minus my mistakes?
Attacking Al Queda in Iraq was going after the People that attacked us .
If you have twenty reasons is only one of them the truth?QuoteAttacking Al Queda in Iraq was going after the People that attacked us .
Is that why we invaded Iraq?
I thought it was WMD, mushroom clouds, mobile chemical weapons labs, etc, etc, etc...
Or in later versions, to bring democracy to the Iraqi people...
If you have twenty reasons is only one of them the truth?
No one has claimed otherwise
QuoteNo one has claimed otherwise
You know that's a lie.
Ooook
"I recommended that we basically hunt down the people who have actually done something to us,"
President Bush has done this in spades. In hindsight it might be pointed out one or another thing that could have been done better choices made diffrently , but hindsight is an unfair advantage. Attacking Al Queda in Iraq was going after the People that attacked us .
Allowing for the advantage of hindsight what could you have done better?
Don't say not invadeing Iraq , because you also said "leave them no ground to hide in," which I assume means leave them no ground to hide in, don't say No I don't mean invadeing Packistan , Phillipines , Saudi Arabia etc. because you have also said " leave no hideing places" which I assume means "leave them no ground to hide in,".
In reply 15 you said "You're assuming all detainees are captured on the battlefield. That is an incorrect assumption."
This is an incorrect assumption on your part, I already knew that many of those picked up were picked up from police work , I already knew that most of the battlefeild captures were left in local prisons .
But while you advocate makeing all captures from police work only --- wait is that an assumption?
Since you advocate useing Armed forces in co-ordination with police work -- I gotta assume it is one or the other.
Either you advocate doing something innefective or you advocate doing the Bush program.
Depending on which you mean .
QuoteAttacking Al Queda in Iraq was going after the People that attacked us .
Is that why we invaded Iraq?
When I said "hunt down the people who have actually done something to us" you quite apparently assumed that means hunting down the whole of al-Qaeda. Here is a clue: that is not what it means. What my plan would have done better is focus in accomplishing a specific goal of capturing or killing those who were responsible for the attack on us, rather than start up a scatter shot war on a concept that we apply to anyone we please.
And I have to say that I don't understand your assumption, because I don't know what part of "people who have actually done something to us" is unclear.[/color]
[/quotte]
Aaah that is much more clear, you want to pick up only the individuals that actually have carried out an operation or pulled a trigger?
That is not the Bush plan at all. President Bush tried to smash the organisation , freeze their funding and deny them places to hide or train. The programs of the past had a lot of success at locateing guilty individuals and bringing them to trial , so your suggestion is to return to the most effectivce policys we had in the years leading up to the 9-11 event. No invasions , no disruptions of sponsor nations , no breaking up of the main organisation or killing of their leadership.
It seems that you are reccomending all the things that 9-11 proved the effectiveness of.
Had 9-11 never happened, there was NO WAY the Congress would have approved a preemptive war, and NO WAY even 30% of the people would have stood for it.
Had 9-11 never happened, there was NO WAY the Congress would have approved a preemptive war, and NO WAY even 30% of the people would have stood for it.
That strikes me as accurate.
----------------------------------------
And because of this, the Iraq invasion was a direct result of 9-11, even though not one of the terrorists had any links to Iran.
QuoteNo one has claimed otherwise
You know that's a lie. At the time, the biggest excuse given was WMD. Condibird even mentioned the spectre of a mushroom cloud rising from a terrorist bomb. Powell, bless his poor, trusting heart, stood up in front of the world and pointed out 'mobile chemical labs'. Cheney, at one point, even claimed we knew exactly where the WMDs were.
Aaah that is much more clear, you want to pick up only the individuals that actually have carried out an operation or pulled a trigger?
That is not the Bush plan at all.
It seems that you are reccomending all the things that 9-11 proved the effectiveness of.
Aaah that is much more clear, you want to pick up only the individuals that actually have carried out an operation or pulled a trigger?
So "people who have actually done something to us" was not clear?
That is not the Bush plan at all.
Finally.
It seems that you are recommending all the things that 9-11 proved the effectiveness of.
No, not really, but if that helps you sleep at night, then you go with that.
No, I don't think he does. Sirs has listened to his own rhetoric for so long now.......that he's gone WMDdeaf.
QuoteNo, I don't think he does. Sirs has listened to his own rhetoric for so long now.......that he's gone WMDdeaf.
I think you're right, despite his assertion that 'Xo is nearly always referencing a WMD that could be launched from Iraq, by Iraq, that would decimate the U.S., as per the Bush administration' (I've long known he feels he has the ability to read minds). I think he's repeated the administration's and his own bullshit for so long that he can no longer believe anything else. To do so would be to admit he was wrong, and complicit in the murders of over 4000 American troops who swore to protect and defend the United States, but instead were ordered to illegally invade another sovereign country simply because our president wanted to be a war president, and because the leader of the other country threatened to kill his pa. But mostly he'd have to admit he was wrong.
QuoteNo, I don't think he does. Sirs has listened to his own rhetoric for so long now.......that he's gone WMDdeaf.
I think you're right, despite his assertion that 'Xo is nearly always referencing a WMD that could be launched from Iraq, by Iraq, that would decimate the U.S., as per the Bush administration' (I've long known he feels he has the ability to read minds). I think he's repeated the administration's and his own bullshit for so long that he can no longer believe anything else. To do so would be to admit he was wrong, and complicit in the murders of over 4000 American troops who swore to protect and defend the United States, but instead were ordered to illegally invade another sovereign country simply because our president wanted to be a war president, and because the leader of the other country threatened to kill his pa. But mostly he'd have to admit he was wrong.
He couldn't use it; anyone he might want to sell it to could probably never get it out of the country with the restrictions we had imposed;
QuoteNo, I don't think he does. Sirs has listened to his own rhetoric for so long now.......that he's gone WMDdeaf.
I think you're right, despite his assertion that 'Xo is nearly always referencing a WMD that could be launched from Iraq, by Iraq, that would decimate the U.S., as per the Bush administration' (I've long known he feels he has the ability to read minds). I think he's repeated the administration's and his own bullshit for so long that he can no longer believe anything else.
QuoteNo, I don't think he does. Sirs has listened to his own rhetoric for so long now.......that he's gone WMDdeaf.
I think you're right, despite his assertion that 'Xo is nearly always referencing a WMD that could be launched from Iraq, by Iraq, that would decimate the U.S., as per the Bush administration' (I've long known he feels he has the ability to read minds). I think he's repeated the administration's and his own bullshit for so long that he can no longer believe anything else.
LOL.....As opposed to repeating the DNC/MoveOn BS, that despite ZIP quotes in context, that it's always been about an imminent attack with multiple nukes, that Mission Accomplished meant we're done, time to go home, that Saddam was behind 911. Just not possible for folks like yourself to believe anything else, is it
oy
Boy, I could sure say the same, Cynthia. Talk about ironic
umm.......riiiiiiiight ::)
You'll never know how right I am, Sirs. But, of course someone like you has no idea of what goes on in the world of education on the ground floor of PS's. . . .and of course, you would say such a thing. ;) I just chuckle. Go ahead and try to keep up. Yah..ummm right....and all that D'oh Oy
You'll never know how right I am, Sirs. But, of course someone like you has no idea of what goes on in the world of education on the ground floor of PS's. . . .and of course, you would say such a thing. ;) I just chuckle. Go ahead and try to keep up. Yah..ummm right....and all that D'oh Oy
See what I mean? Do you ever read what you write? You're absolute right?....based on.....how apparently absolutely right you are? Damn logic, damn common sense, damn any and all facts to the contrary, you have to be right. It's stunning how you will decry anyone who dares criticize education and they not be a teacher, but you, never having stepped into a military zone, or have any shred of experience working with military actions, or executive actions, are just .... right. It's amazing this level of disconnect you're currently displaying, Cynthia. Really. That's not an "attack" either, that's just the plain truth, regarding this issue
Sirs, really---- no matter how you spin the constrast of battle field vs the "other battle field" (the front lines of the public education arena) you still have no idea the truth of either. I do have a truth of the latter "field".
I see you only have experience with helping folks heal broken bones and such. Hey, maybe you could work at helping the veteran heal from the battles of war, eh?
Sirs, really---- no matter how you spin the constrast of battle field vs the "other battle field" (the front lines of the public education arena) you still have no idea the truth of either. I do have a truth of the latter "field".
What truth?? You have DNC propogandized spin and gross distortion of fact is what you "have", as it relates to the war in Iraq. Now look, it's ok to disagree with the war. It's ok to think we shouldn't have gone in, in the 1st place. It's ok to not like Bush. I have no problem with that, what-so-ever. But use legitimate reasons to support such a position. Trying to claim that Bush "lied us into war", while everyone else on this globe simply "got it wrong" is the height of BDS. I have FACTS on my side, I have INTEL on my side, I have official investigative conclusions on my side. I have common sense, on my side. All those combined make coming to a deductive truth, quite easyI see you only have experience with helping folks heal broken bones and such. Hey, maybe you could work at helping the veteran heal from the battles of war, eh?
Absolutely. Though your apparent gross lack of compassion for the veteren stands out a little bit with your effort to take a dig at me
Have you ever been a teacher in the public schools?
How convenient, indeed. You have no idea, Sirs of the issue at hand.
I will never respect your viewpoint...or BT's. . .
There is no way you will understand without being a teacher in the classroom. My argument has only been about that arena and the effect it has had on children, directly.
Keep up your spin. You do that with a curl. It will never hold water for me. Never.
What was he supposed to do with it? He couldn't use it; anyone he might want to sell it to could probably never get it out of the country with the restrictions we had imposed; and giving it or selling it to us would have been seen as caving in to us.
He may have been waiting for a chance to use it, but obviously we were never going to give him that chance.
Make all the excuses you want for Bush, he was still wrong.
As opposed to repeating the DNC/MoveOn BS, that despite ZIP quotes in context, that it's always been about an imminent attack with multiple nukes, that Mission Accomplished meant we're done, time to go home, that Saddam was behind 911. Just not possible for folks like yourself to believe anything else, is it
QuoteAs opposed to repeating the DNC/MoveOn BS, that despite ZIP quotes in context, that it's always been about an imminent attack with multiple nukes, that Mission Accomplished meant we're done, time to go home, that Saddam was behind 911. Just not possible for folks like yourself to believe anything else, is it
Sorry, wrong again. Unlike some, I don't check in with any political party or hack group to see what I am supposed to think about the issues, large or small. I have a rather large list of news and information sources I read regularly, I compare notes and make up my own mind
Not really, I was against invading Iraq from day one. I knew that Cheney, Condibird and Juniorbush were lying like rugs, and were all hirelings of Big Oil
I am afaraid I did assume faslely that you could not mean arresting triggermen only , I must be giveing your thinking to much credit for being thought out.
Again, the double standard on grand display......rabid anti-Bush opinions and baldfaced lies about Bush lies are the supposed product of thoughtful well reasoned, fully researched observations & readings, but such opinions that are not in agreement must, by design, be directly attributed to neocons & Bush, with no thought what-so-ever
QuoteAgain, the double standard on grand display......rabid anti-Bush opinions and baldfaced lies about Bush lies are the supposed product of thoughtful well reasoned, fully researched observations & readings, but such opinions that are not in agreement must, by design, be directly attributed to neocons & Bush, with no thought what-so-ever
I don't think I have ever assigned such motives to you.
You are free to draw your own conclusions, and I can respect the fact that they differ from mine. Where you run into trouble with me is belittling mine and my thought processes with comments like 'reasonable people think this' or 'logical people think like this', somehow hinting that I am unreasonable or illogical, or otherwise insulting my intelligence.
QuoteAgain, the double standard on grand display......rabid anti-Bush opinions and baldfaced lies about Bush lies are the supposed product of thoughtful well reasoned, fully researched observations & readings, but such opinions that are not in agreement must, by design, be directly attributed to neocons & Bush, with no thought what-so-ever
I don't think I have ever assigned such motives to you. You are free to draw your own conclusions, and I can respect the fact that they differ from mine. Where you run into trouble with me is belittling mine and my thought processes with comments like 'reasonable people think this' or 'logical people think like this', somehow hinting that I am unreasonable or illogical, or otherwise insulting my intelligence. Then I have no qualms bringing out the fireworks. You have the very bad habit of speaking down to others and taking a superior tone rather than stopping to think that it is entirely possible to consider the facts and information available and come to entirely different conclusions than your own. And for that, I generally ignore you. You've pulled that shit so many times, you're not worth the trouble anymore.
I am afaraid I did assume faslely that you could not mean arresting triggermen only , I must be giveing your thinking to much credit for being thought out.
Either that or I seem to have given you too much credit. Your oversimplification of everything makes this conversation ridiculous.
YES!!!!! Finally, someone sets this guy straight....d'oh well, maybe....he's never going to stop belittling others, so the ignore button is the only thing left. Sirs Tactics: Without fact. (ignoring of course facts presented) Without argument worth a damn. (pure opinion) Always, however, a clear patronizing tone and word. Geeezzzus....
YES!!!!! Finally, someone sets this guy straight....d'oh well, maybe....he's never going to stop belittling others, so the ignore button is the only thing left. Sirs Tactics: Without fact. (ignoring of course facts presented) Without argument worth a damn. (pure opinion) Always, however, a clear patronizing tone and word. Geeezzzus....
Amazing, someone who truely dislikes my criticizing them, agreeing with someone who truely dislikes my criticising them. Must have also missed the part where despite your obnoxious transition as a MM parrot, I still respect you and your POV.
Go figure
Just stick with your ideas, facts and points to prove...and stop making others out to be "lesser than".
And I have no problem with people who disagree with the president, or with going to war, or with me. Where you run into trouble is belittling the common sense of believing the overwhelming intel that nearly every leader believed
...and literally demeaning those that actually support the notion that a free and democratic Iraq is a good thing...
...anyone that supports what common sense also supported. It was common sense to believe that Saddam, left completely unfettered by inspectors, would be indeed restocking his WMD stockpiles. The intel simply validated such. It was common sense to believe that terrorists who perpetrated 911, would also love to get their hands on some of Saddam's WMD. It was common sense to believe that terrorists and Saddam could actually work out arrangements against a common enemy, the U.S. Intel simply reinforced the direct and indirect ties that Iraq had with Islamic terrorists. Yet when that point is brought up, you get all defensive, claiming some personal insult and attack. Yea, the intel got it wrong, but at the time, it was supposedly a "slam dunk", AND it was common sense to think so as well
...rationally minded folks, allowing a predisposition of being opposed to war and/or to Bush, completely mucking up that rational thought process. Basically seeing what they want to see, and damn any facts to the contrary...
My issues with you are in the paragraph above, though again, I don't recall even you conceding anything even remotely (+) about Bush & the war.
Sirs general attitude is that he gets the truth straight from the Prime Mover and therefore we should prostrate ourselves at his feet. If we don't do this and disagree with him, he likes to do prickster stuff like the legendary,
"Bzzz... WRONG!""
This naturally convinces everyone that they are indeed wrong, having lost a round in the sirs' Questionman Challenge.
This naturally convinces everyone that they are indeed wrong, having lost a round in the sirs' Questionman Challenge.
Sirs general attitude is that he gets the truth straight from the Prime Mover and therefore we should prostrate ourselves at his feet. If we don't do this and disagree with him, he likes to do prickster stuff like the legendary,
"Bzzz... WRONG!""
This naturally convinces everyone that they are indeed wrong, having lost a round in the sirs' Questionman Challenge.
Sirs needs to keep the "personal attack door" shut and allow his "point window" to remain open.
We would all breathe better that way.
I like the Bush plans because it is very hard on the terrorists
I don't like the ways you would depart from it because it would make the terrorists job easy.
Many of the things you suggest are already in process but the diffrences you want are all things that have been tried and found wanting.
I like the Bush plans because it is very hard on the terrorists
I don't believe you.
[/quote ]
It can't work to round up the triggermen and leave the organisation that produced them un harmed.
Draining the swamp that produced the mosquitos gets rid of more moskitos than developing a reliable slapping tecnique.
True nothing we could have done or can do will eliminate the threat entirely , but thjat doesn't mean we should not reduce it the maximum we can.
You don't beleive I like the Bush plan?
Exactly what I'd like to do.
the Bush plan , which maximises harm to the organisation , much more than simply prosicuteing the ones you can track down after they have already shot someone.
but something less doesn't work ,we found by trying less ,so we have to return to draining the swamp or putting up with a lot of moskitoes.
the Bush plan , which maximises harm to the organisation , much more than simply prosicuteing the ones you can track down after they have already shot someone.
This has not been demonstrated.
If Juniorbush had actually had half a brain, he would have persisted in Afghanistan until the Taliban was totally gone. Invading Iraq was a blunder, the biggest perhaps ever made by a US president.
QuoteIf Juniorbush had actually had half a brain, he would have persisted in Afghanistan until the Taliban was totally gone. Invading Iraq was a blunder, the biggest perhaps ever made by a US president.
As the drawdown continues in Iraq I'm sure a urge is on the horizon for Afghanistan.
Back by popular demand, so to speak.
QuoteIf Juniorbush had actually had half a brain, he would have persisted in Afghanistan until the Taliban was totally gone. Invading Iraq was a blunder, the biggest perhaps ever made by a US president.
As the drawdown continues in Iraq I'm sure a urge is on the horizon for Afghanistan.
Back by popular demand, so to speak.
But is there popular support for it now?
The presence or absence of popular support makes the difference in how many men we must provide to counter.
================================================
It does?
What is needed is to include this with the withdrawal from Iraq, and inform the public what needs to be done in Afghanistan, how long and how big a force is required.
Luckily the new president will be more credible than Juniorbush.
Brought back, not by popular demand, but by a demand that is long overdue.
We are at a stage in this "war" situation where we have to borrow troops from Iraq to fight in Afghanistan. That is the result of poor planning on the part of the US. ie. Bush and his own team.
QuoteBrought back, not by popular demand, but by a demand that is long overdue.
We are at a stage in this "war" situation where we have to borrow troops from Iraq to fight in Afghanistan. That is the result of poor planning on the part of the US. ie. Bush and his own team.
Perhaps i misunderstood you. Were you not in favor of fighting the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan? If memory serves Bear and Prince have never had a problem with us being there.
So with calls for a new surge in Afghanistan being heard and implemented i don't foresee any objections from those who disagree with a position in Iraq. Because it is a popular demand from the US population.
True, but, I strongly believe that we should have fought in Afghanistan ONLY.
On the contrary the course of recent history seems to have proven it quite well.
QuoteBrought back, not by popular demand, but by a demand that is long overdue.
We are at a stage in this "war" situation where we have to borrow troops from Iraq to fight in Afghanistan. That is the result of poor planning on the part of the US. ie. Bush and his own team.
Perhaps i misunderstood you. Were you not in favor of fighting the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan? If memory serves Bear and Prince have never had a problem with us being there.
So with calls for a new surge in Afghanistan being heard and implemented i don't foresee any objections from those who disagree with a position in Iraq. Because it is a popular demand from the US population.
True, but, I strongly believe that we should have fought in Afghanistan ONLY.
On the contrary the course of recent history seems to have proven it quite well.
Not that I can see. Again, we've provided recruitment tools and a training ground. We have not acquired Osama bin Laden. Al-Qaeda still functions and is possibly growing. So, no, that "the Bush plan [...] maximises harm to the organisation" has not been proven at all.
To address the rest of your post, I would only end up repeating myself. And I really don't feel like doing that today.
If memory serves Bear and Prince have never had a problem with us being there.
What would be the point of chaseing them entirely out of Afganistan?QuoteIf memory serves Bear and Prince have never had a problem with us being there.
The only problem I have had with the US having troops in Afghanistan is that our beloved something-or-other-in chief didn't leave enough of them there long enough to finish the job properly. Would have saved a lot of grief if he had.
I think common sense, Xo, produces the context that in time, our troops may only be in Afghanistan ::)
I think common sense, Xo, produces the context that in time, our troops may only be in Afghanistan ::)
But, that is not what I said, Sirs. Indeed, I meant that we SHOULD HAVE set forces into Afghanistan from the getgo.
Sure, in time, we will get our way, but too little too late, sadly.
I don't know why you can't see it
the FBI and CIA had success after success going after individuals who were brought to trial , but the concept of law enforcement is a flawed way to conduct a war.
"Yes, we all know what you said." I think common sense, Xo, produces the context that in time, our troops may only be in Afghanistan"I think common sense, Xo, produces the context that in time, our troops may only be in Afghanistan ::)
But, that is not what I said, Sirs. Indeed, I meant that we SHOULD HAVE set forces into Afghanistan from the getgo.
Yes, we all know what you said. Bt simply implied you may still get your wish with troops eventually only being in Afghanistan. Or do you not want them there either, now?Sure, in time, we will get our way, but too little too late, sadly.
Well, that's 1 viewpoint. I personally am glad to see how effective the surge has been...so much so that Obama has had to do a complete 180 in his rhetoric, and had to scrap his original position regarding the surge, from his website. Gotta love that conviction
The war should have been focused in the Afghani arena. .....AND--- AND, hey perhaps Obama would have been caught by now.
QuoteThe war should have been focused in the Afghani arena. .....AND--- AND, hey perhaps Obama would have been caught by now.
You meant Osama, I presume. And to capture Osama means going into Pakistan, which i also assume you are advocating.
Then again maybe not. Hard to tell sometimes.
"Yes, we all know what you said." I think common sense, Xo, produces the context that in time, our troops may only be in Afghanistan"
First of all, Sirs, who are the "we"zzy Froggies in your pocket?
You're a bit patronizin', with all due respect.... . ( :(So much for cleaning your slate.)
I personally am glad to see how effective the surge has been...so much so that Obama has had to do a complete 180 in his rhetoric, and had to scrap his original position regarding the surge, from his website. Gotta love that conviction."
The war should have been focused in the Afghani arena. .....AND--- AND, hey perhaps Obama would have been caught by now. DO Ya THink??
What would be the point of chaseing them entirely out of Afganistan?
"Yes, we all know what you said." I think common sense, Xo, produces the context that in time, our troops may only be in Afghanistan"
First of all, Sirs, who are the "we"zzy Froggies in your pocket?
What??You're a bit patronizin', with all due respect.... . ( :(So much for cleaning your slate.)
So much for giving me a gentle reminder vs imediately getting snide :-\
I personally am glad to see how effective the surge has been...so much so that Obama has had to do a complete 180 in his rhetoric, and had to scrap his original position regarding the surge, from his website. Gotta love that conviction."
The war should have been focused in the Afghani arena. .....AND--- AND, hey perhaps Obama would have been caught by now. DO Ya THink??
I think Michele caught Obama, But more to the point, Obama's rhetoric and website had made it clear that the surge would do nothing, and would more than likely make things substantially worse in Iraq. I even heard him claim how any military leader would tell you the same, something along those lines. He was about as wrong as wrong can be. In fact most got it wrong. Want to know who pegged the surge as would work? Yep, McCain. One of the few who actually got it right. But do you see any MSM coverage referencing that fact? Nooooooooo, Obama's their man. And his upcoming trip over there (ABOUT TIME, by the way), is nothing more than some pre-presidential photo-op blitz. Picture after picture of his standing next to various leaders and commanders....probably with a fireplace in the backkground, and him wearing his Flag pin. All made ripe for consumer consumption, courtesy of the MSM and press secretaries, Couric, Williams, and Company
LOL...slip....I have advocated thatwe invade Afghanistan from the getgo. Not invade Iraq.My points with regard to this issue have been clear from the getgo, as well, BT.
The means necessary .....finishing the hunt for Osama is key, yes. So, we find our lame ducks and put them in a row...those ducks that are still willing to fight. Sure, at this point, any sort of aggression/military option on the table that is clear and intelligent, works for me as long as we can find the terrorist who started this whole war----Bin Laden
Well, at least Cynthia is clear that this is a war
Well, at least Cynthia is clear that this is a war
Oh boy....can't seem to get away here. Ok....I am clear that it is a war, but Sirs, it could have been planned a hell of a lot better.
QuoteWhat would be the point of chaseing them entirely out of Afganistan?
Gee, Plane, is that what I said?
http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=46305 (http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=46305)
The number of terror attacks has increased from 969 in 2006 to 1,127 last year, and the number of people killed, injured or kidnapped as the result of terrorism rose from 3,557 in 2006 to 4,673 in 2007. These are grim statistics. The Taliban operations have become increasingly aggressive and sophisticated, and their ability to obtain al Qaeda support and recruit soldiers from the Taliban base of rural Pashtuns appear to be undiminished. It is also being alleged that the Taliban are funding their terror activities with money from supporters in neighbouring Pakistan, from narcotics trafficking and kidnappings (which has increased in recent weeks).
Grim,indeed.
Oh , I missed it where you posted that attacking in Afganistan would never have been enough , because there were large elements of Al Queda outside of Afganistan in the first place.
What we have is fewer troops, MORE TROOPS,, MORE TROOPS.
Well, at least Cynthia is clear that this is a war
Well, at least Cynthia is clear that this is a war
Oh boy....can't seem to get away here. Ok....I am clear that it is a war, but Sirs, it could have been planned a hell of a lot better.
Show me a war that's been run perfectly......or even well. A point that's been made thru the ages of warfare
QuoteLOL...slip....I have advocated thatwe invade Afghanistan from the getgo. Not invade Iraq.My points with regard to this issue have been clear from the getgo, as well, BT.
Actually you aren't being clear. Should we go into Pakistan in pursuit of Osama or not? That being the justification for going in Afghanistan in the first place.
So again, are you advocating that we finish the mission by whatever means necessary?
Ok....I am clear that it is a war, but Sirs, it could have been planned a hell of a lot better.
Show me a war that's been run perfectly......or even well. A point that's been made thru the ages of warfare
Sirs, I will do my darndest to show you a war that is/was run perfectly....but, of course, I aint gunna find one.
This is not your average warfare of the ages. This was Bush deciding to fight the wrong enemy.
Like Xavier posted earlier..and it's a good point.
What we have is fewer troops, MORE TROOPS,, MORE TROOPS.
QuoteOh , I missed it where you posted that attacking in Afganistan would never have been enough , because there were large elements of Al Queda outside of Afganistan in the first place.
No, you missed the part where I said "...our beloved something-or-other-in chief didn't leave enough of them there long enough to finish the job properly." You didn't even ask for clarification as to what I thought finishing the job properly might mean before you jumped in asking what would be the point in chasing them entirely out of Afghanistan.
But it is a war.....you've conceded that point. Or are you taking that back, as well, now? Just because you don't agree with it, nor think it should have been fought, it is a war, and as such, is going to have episodes of poor planning and performing, like all wars do
Okay, Plane, here you go...
Rather than cutting back in Afghanistan to waste our time invading a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on us, we should have kept after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Bush should have kept his promise to keep after Bin Laden, who was responsible for 9-11, rather than wasting time on Saddam, who wasn't. We could have put many more troops into Afghanistan and pursued Al Qaeda there to the gates of hell if need be. If they ran across the border to Pakistan, we could have given Musharraf X amount of time to catch them and turn them over to us, or kill them, or we would go in after them. Why worry about upsetting Musharraf, our 'great ally in the war against terror', if he is so ineffective he can't control his own border anyway?
Ah, you ask, what about Al Qaeda in Iraq...
Here's the answer to that one - Al Qaeda wasn't active in Iraq under Saddam. They weren't active there until we removed Saddam from power and screwed up our invasion enough to leave a power vacuum for them to become active in. The only reason we're fighting them there is because we gave them the wide open opportunity to come in there.
Now if any of that is unclear to you or you have a question, just ask. Quit trying to play Sirs and tell me what I'm thinking.
There was good reason to remove Saddam from power without consideration of Al Queda at all it was a good thing to do when compared with the other choices availible. If you ever stopped a burgulary would you disarm the Burgular and send him home?
We stopped Saddam from his takover of Kuait , but Saddam would have come back and taken it again in the future as soon as he had built himself up to the point he could defy us .
I consider it most likely that Saddam would get into more fights and spend his money on causeing trouble as long as he lasted...
...so it is good that he is gone.
Should we have known that we would have troubble with Al Quieda in Iraq once Saddam was gone? How should we have guessed?
Quote
We stopped Saddam from his takover of Kuait , but Saddam would have come back and taken it again in the future as soon as he had built himself up to the point he could defy us .
I consider it most likely that Saddam would get into more fights and spend his money on causeing trouble as long as he lasted...
......................................................................................
I keep seeing that used as a justification for the invasion, and I still believe it is wrong.
...that he was actually able to restart any of his weapons programs and refused to stop when he got caught at it, then we might have had a valid pretext for an invasion.
Now let me ask you a question - why do you suppose we did not completely finish the job in Afghanistan, then put as much time and effort into rebuilding their country as we have in Iraq (which, by the way, was supposed to pay for its own rebuilding with oil revenues).
The number and location of bases should be entirely up to the Iraqis.
How would any base in Iraq be so out of the way so as to be useless? Iraq is not a large country.
Why should Iraqis have any US bases at all if they do not want them?
Should the US be forced to grant bases to other countries? A nation is sovereign over its own territory, or it is a colony.