How Do We "Win" a War on Terror? - Page 37 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Honus · #**541** 09-07-2006, 04:57 PM

Bush's position is foolish and revolting. Of course the United States should treat its prisoners with dignity. Why? We're the United fricking States for God's sake. If we are unwilling to adhere to the Geneva Conventions, what can we expect for Americans imprisoned abroad? That part of his speech looks like it was written by Alberto Gonzales who has the incredible distinction of making John Aschroft look reasonable by comparison.

aklim · #**542** 09-07-2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Bush's position is foolish and revolting. Of course the United States should treat its prisoners with dignity. Why? We're the United fricking States for God's sake.

If we are unwilling to adhere to the Geneva Conventions, what can we expect for Americans imprisoned abroad? That part of his speech looks like it was written by Alberto Gonzales who has the incredible distinction of making John Aschroft look reasonable by comparison.

That's an answer? Sounds like Mom saying "Just because" or "Because I said so."

Good question. I guess the answer is "About what we are getting". How are our people treated in those areas? Please tell me. Not talking about Britain or what not. How about we treat them as they treat us since they are telling us that is how they want to be treated.

Honus · #**543** 09-07-2006, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

...John Murtha and many other democrats, 106 to be exact in the house, have claimed that if we pull out of Iraq then the terrorism will decrease. In other words, if we leave [them alone] things will calm down...

Why do you always do this "in other words" stuff? Why not just stick with what people say instead of always adding your spin?

Quote:

Our presence excacerbates the enemy. Of course it does, that is why they are the enemy and we are fighting them - they don't like freedom. This is similar to claiming that US forces stationed in Britain during WWII annoyed the Germans and if we would only pull those forces out then the Germans would stop what they were doing.

There is some merit to what you say. Murtha disagrees. He hasn't convinced me, but he knows a lot more about it than I do and we should listen to him.

Quote:

......What Murtha and 106 democrats, one Senator and the head of the DNC (all of whom are in positions of authority) directly propose is surrender which is worse than appeasement...

No matter how many times you claim they said that, it just isn't true. They have a different way of fighting terror. They do not want to surrender.

Honus · #**544** 09-07-2006, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

That's an answer? Sounds like Mom saying "Just because" or "Because I said so."

My answer was a short-hand way of saying that the greatest country on Earth conducts itself in a morally upright and courageous manner. We have nothing to fear from affording due process and otherwise treating the scum of the Earth with dignity.

Quote:

Good question. I guess the answer is "About what we are getting". How are our people treated in those areas? Please tell me. Not talking about Britain or what not. How about we treat them as they treat us since they are telling us that is how they want to be treated.

I don't know the answer to your question. Someone like Senator McCain would probably say that our people get treated poorly. He would also say that it is important that the United States do better.

peragro · #**545** 09-07-2006, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Why do you always do this "in other words" stuff? Why not just stick with what people say instead of always adding your spin?

I said things in my own words. You pointed out that my statement was not accurate with respect to democratic leaders in positions of authority. I proved with factual information that they had in fact suggested those very things. And my summation was accurate. I factually tied the intent of what they propose to exactly what I said. It's a written record in the Library of Congress. If you would care to explain how what it was that they said meant anything different than what they said please do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

There is some merit to what you say. Murtha disagrees. He hasn't convinced me, but he knows a lot more about it than I do and we should listen to him.No matter how many times you claim they said that, it just isn't true. They have a different way of fighting terror. They do not want to surrender.

I guess the French had a different way of fighting the Germans, both times.

Most of us agree, that way of fighting is often and historically called surrender.

peragro · #**546** 09-07-2006, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

My answer was a short-hand way of saying that the greatest country on Earth conducts itself in a morally upright and courageous manner. We have nothing to fear from affording due process and otherwise treating the scum of the Earth with dignity.I don't know the answer to your question. Someone like Senator McCain would probably say that our people get treated poorly. He would also say that it is important that the United States do better.

Funny you should bring up McCain... Also from the speech yesterday:

Quote:

I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it -- and I will not authorize it. Last year, my administration worked with Senator John McCain, and I signed into law the Detainee Treatment Act, which established the legal standard for treatment of detainees wherever they are held. I support this act. And as we implement this law, our government will continue to use every lawful method to obtain intelligence that can protect innocent people, and stop another attack like the one we experienced on September the 11th, 2001.

We're not talking about torture. We're talking about methods that is are less severe than what we subject our own troops to during POW training, thanks to Vietnam.

The subject at hand is the prisoners "dignity" and "humiliation". Those two things mean little to nothing when comparing a person who is guilty of murder and is trying to do so again to an innocent person's life.

Is it that you find the murder of innocents on par with placing panties on the murderers head? Both are guilty of war crimes???

Botnst · #**547** 09-07-2006, 07:02 PM

Let's compare prisoner treatment at the worst that we know. For the USA it's probably Abu Graib, in which people mistreated prisoners in a way that only the most heinous fraternity hazing approaches. Their genitalia was laughed at, for God's sake! Dogs barked at them! They were posed nekkid as jaybirds!

Now let's compare that with how Al Qaeda treats prisoners.

Bot

Plantman · #**548** 09-07-2006, 08:21 PM

I wasn't around but I'm willing to bet all the money Bot has given me from his oil fields that the the press didn't have as much access to ALL of the things that they cover now.

Or maybe it's jus that technology has made the world smaller.....

Who gives a flying fock what they do to a terrorist?

I am reading a book about terrorism called "Shadow war" by Richard Minitzer.

I have only gone thru a chapter or so but he says that the only reason we have not been attacked more is because we are keeping the terrorists on the run in other parts of the world.

He claims that after every recent terror attack, USS cols, subway in England, Spain. They rounded up suspects quickily, and did what was needed to be done to ascertain information that stopped further attacks.

Interesting reading so far.

.02

Wife'scar · #**549** 09-07-2006, 09:24 PM

When your religion requires you to kill anyone who does not believe as you do, and you are willing to sacrifice yourself and become a human bomb, in their view that leave you with two choices, you either accept Islam as your own, or die.

What part of that is it that some of you do not understand?

How many U.S. held prisioners heads have been cut off and video taped to prove it?

How many times has the U.S. said the total destruction of a country and killing of all the population is our goal?

What contributions to world society have they made, how many times have they helped another country in any way except to provide weapons?

If they hate us and our way of life so much why are ther so many Muslims living in the U.S.?

Fight them in their backyard or ours, I perfer theirs....

cmac2012 · #**550** 09-07-2006, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

The reason I went to such extreme is that any foreign involvement allows people/trade/interests to be jacked with by radical muslim terrorists and thus leaves us vulnerable.

It is impracticle, to say the least, to cut off all foreign involvement. Despite your feelings towards the oil economy, it is equally impracticle to stop that anytime in the next 50 years.

With those two givens any solution to the Islamic terrorist problem cannot involve the isolationism that you promote. This was obvious several decades ago.

The cat is now out of the bag. Discussing how to put it back in the bag or how it got out of the bag are really luxuries that we don't have. The cat must now be dealt with. Do we kill it? Declaw it? Train it to be a nice pussy? How will it react to those methods?

What is your solution based upon the contraints placed upon this country and others by the real world?

It will take some time for their wounded pride to be salved. Just human nature. At this point, a very small minority of them want to come over here and do damage. Law enforcement is doing a good job keeping them at bay now. Attempting to wipe them out will only create more as we can see from the debacle that is Iraq.

We were terrified of China getting the bomb too. If we bomb Iran in hopes of taking out their nuke capacity, I think we'll delay it at best. Doing so will only increase the chance that Pakistan or even China or Russia will supply some terrorist with a nuke anyway.

Accurately finding underground sites is hard enough, let alone destroying them.

One thing that will not work is acting like tens of thousands of civilian losses on their side is an acceptable price to pay for a feeling of enhanced security on our part.

cmac2012 · #**551** 09-07-2006, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

Let's take an example, shall we?

Iraq:

There are roughly 150000 US soldiers there. Each has one gun, for the sake of argument.

Do you really think they are aiming at the 12,000,000 that voted in the last election?

When 60+% of the country turns out to vote at risk of death or injury to do so, doesn't that kinda indicate that they support the election process and what it stands for?

Mr. literal strikes again. I meant "use force" to put the country on a new footing, obfuscation man.

peragro · #**552** 09-07-2006, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

It will take some time for their wounded pride to be salved. Just human nature. At this point, a very small minority of them want to come over here and do damage. Law enforcement is doing a good job keeping them at bay now. Attempting to wipe them out will only create more as we can see from the debacle that is Iraq.

We were terrified of China getting the bomb too. If we bomb Iran in hopes of taking out their nuke capacity, I think we'll delay it at best. Doing so will only increase the chance that Pakistan or even China or Russia will supply some terrorist with a nuke anyway.

Accurately finding underground sites is hard enough, let alone destroying them.

One thing that will not work is acting like tens of thousands of civilian losses on their side is an acceptable price to pay for a feeling of enhanced security on our part.

So your solution is that we treat what is going on in the world as a police matter or a crime rather than a war?

Honus · #**553** 09-07-2006, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

I said things in my own words. You pointed out that my statement was not accurate with respect to democratic leaders in positions of authority. I proved with factual information that they had in fact suggested those very things. And my summation was accurate. I factually tied the intent of what they propose to exactly what I said. It's a written record in the Library of Congress. If you would care to explain how what it was that they said meant anything different than what they said please do.

I already said that your factual recitation was accurate, why do you bring up the Library of Congress thing?

The problem isn't that you have an inaccurate factual basis. The problem is that your basis is incomplete. You still have not cited one syllable from a Democrat calling for appeasement, surrender, or anthing like that. You have cited statements by Democrats who think that the fight would go better if we pulled out of Iraq, but that is not the same as calling for surrender. Not even close.

peragro · #**554** 09-07-2006, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Mr. literal strikes again. I meant "use force" to put the country on a new footing, obfuscation man.

Yes, we used force to put Iraq on a new footing. 12 million iraqi voters seemed to take advantage of that.

You imply that we have the entire country at the point of a gun when I know, cause you just said it, that the terrorist force is small but able to do a great deal of damage.

peragro · #**555** 09-07-2006, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I already said that your factual recitation was accurate, why do you bring up the Library of Congress thing?

The problem isn't that you have an inaccurate factual basis. The problem is that your basis is incomplete. You still have not cited one syllable from a Democrat calling for appeasement, surrender, or anthing like that. You have cited statements by Democrats who think that the fight would go better if we pulled out of Iraq, but that is not the same as calling for surrender. Not even close.

If you can't see it then I'm not going to convince you. Seems like a lot of other folks here can see it though.