ProudAmerican
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2005
- Messages
- 2,694
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The Butcher said:If that German wore the uniform of civil or lawful enforcement, and was representing the country of Germany, it can be deduced that the country itself either supports this action or does not care enough about it until brought public to deal with it. Fail at making analogies much?
What you just did was take one quote out of context...Here's the whole thing again...The Butcher said:If that German wore the uniform of civil or lawful enforcement, and was representing the country of Germany, it can be deduced that the country itself either supports this action or does not care enough about it until brought public to deal with it. Fail at making analogies much?
Taken in full, you're answer is equvalent to MAYBE 1% of what I was offering...cnredd said:Why did you use the abominations of a few individuals as proof that the "United States of America" is guilty?...
If you were shot by a German, do you blame all Germans?....
If you were mugged by a Latino, do you blame all Latinos?...
The population of the United States military is over two million...
Why did you just convict them all?...:roll:
Billo_Really said:If were not torturing people, then why won't we let the UN see the detainees at GITMO? Because there's something there we don't want them to see.
To prove to the world beyond a reasonable doubt that we are not torturing people. They let the Red Cross see them because they have a policy of keeping their reports private. I think we need a little transparency here. If they don't, then they obviously have something to hide.Originally posted by Cherokee:
Why should we?
The Red Cross has seen them so what the point?
Billo_Really said:To prove to the world beyond a reasonable doubt that we are not torturing people. They let the Red Cross see them because they have a policy of keeping their reports private. I think we need a little transparency here. If they don't, then they obviously have something to hide.
The only security risk is the possibility that the word will get out that we are abusing prisoners. This is bullshit! You don't hold people without charges. You don't kidnap people from other countries and then send them places to be tortured. These are Crimes against Humanity.Originally posted by Cherokee:
You have to look at the security risks of allowing any
Jack and Jane from the UN inside.
The Red Cross has seen them.
That’s all we have to allow.
Billo_Really said:The only security risk is the possibility that the word will get out that we are abusing prisoners. This is bullshit! You don't hold people without charges. You don't kidnap people from other countries and then send them places to be tortured. These are Crimes against Humanity.
That's the thing. Many of them were not taken on the battlefield. Many were arrested in other nations and turned over to the US. There are reports that 70% of the people being held are not related to terrorist cells in any way. And we have released a bunch of them. One guy was sent to Siria to be tortured for 8 months. Then was released. No charges were ever filed. You don't have a problem with that?Originally posted by Cherokee:
We are talking about people taken in a war zone right?
When do you need permission to hold any enemy combatants? What should we do with them? Free them?
Which is it billo abuse or torturing?
And you know whats going on? How?
I'll fight terrorism by reporting any crime to the AHJ. But I will not give up one Constitutional right to fight this bullshit war on terror.
ProudAmerican said:prisoners of war are not afforded the rights under our constitution. and the war on terror is no more a bullshit war than WWII was.
ProudAmerican said:prisoners of war are not afforded the rights under our constitution. and the war on terror is no more a bullshit war than WWII was.
Davo said:2005 Poll for War in Iraq
in WWII....55% of Americans didnt belive you should have stayed out...during WWII....100,000s didnt protest in the streets. In WWII kids of all ages volunteered and didnt oppose any restriction imposed by the goverment because they were united against the Japs and Nazis...the big difference is...this time it was the U.S. who attacked...this time there was no aggravation from another nation. This time you went against the will of the U.N. security council(even though it didnt exist in WWII it still counts) This time you were weighed....and found wanting.
ProudAmerican said:a pointless post. or at least, had nothing to do with the post you were responding to.
and your assertion that there was no aggravation from another nation is completely false.
vandree said:Today the Government has agreed to release all the Abu Ghraib pictures and video.
Yes, some of the people responsible for the abuse have been convicted, however those who are in higher positions and allowed the abuse to happen and closed their eyes are still there. The fact that so many pictures and videos of abuse (or in other words evidence of crime) were taken is proof that the soldiers were not afraid of being punished. After all who is so stupid of taking a picture of himself while committing a crime?
I saw one of them shows. This guy was robbing a store with a bag over his head. Trouble was, it was a clear plastic bag!Originally posted by pacridge:
Well, I have seen a show called "World's Dumbest Criminals" it's full of people video taping themselves doing legal stuff.
Billo_Really]That's the thing. Many of them were not taken on the battlefield. Many were arrested in other nations and turned over to the US. There are reports that 70% of the people being held are not related to terrorist cells in any way.
And we have released a bunch of them. One guy was sent to Siria to be tortured for 8 months. Then was released. No charges were ever filed. You don't have a problem with that?
If we charge them of crimes, give them due process of law, and find them guilty, of coarse they shouldn't be going anywhere. At that point, they got what they deserve. But holding people indefinately without due process, we don't know who they are. We could be holding people that are completely innocent of any wrongdoing. Which then makes this whole thing a travesty of justice. And the principles this country was founded on were designed to prevent such a thing.
I'll fight terrorism by reporting any crime to the AHJ. But I will not give up one Constitutional right to fight this bullshit war on terror.
Davo said:Iraq attacked the US? And no it wasnt a pointless post. You tried to compare WWII to Iraq...the last one being a bs war...the first one being a fight for freedom.Where are the WMDs?
ProudAmerican said:yes. Iraq fired on our pilots consistently.
and as far as how many Americans dissagreed with WWII as compared to the Iraq war, we didnt have a rabid liberal media trying to controll public opinion back then.
and how can you say the Iraq war isnt a fight for freedom? thats just nonsense.
of course it is.The Gulf War isnt a "freedom war".
no, I havent. And even if this were true, freedom doesnt come overnight. it never has. It takes TIME.Have you noticed that the Iraqi people have it worse off today then 3 years ago?
Their neighbourghoods are battlefields while yours is the location for a block party.
How has your freedom gotten any worse and theirs any better?
Iraq fired on your planes? Proof?
So have Sudanese militias, the Russian army, Cuba and you havent started a war with any of them.
Really you can do better then..."We were spying on them...and they shot at us."
Davo said:Iraq fired on your planes? Proof? So have Sudanese militias, the Russian army, Cuba and you havent started a war with any of them. Really you can do better then..."We were spying on them...and they shot at us."
Following Operation Provide Comfort, the United States continued to watch over the northern skies with the launching of Operation Northern Watch on January 1st, 1997. Operation Northern Watch continued to provide air security to the Kurdish population in the north. American, British, and Turkish aircraft, continuously maintaining the integrity of the NFZ, received anti-aircraft fire almost daily. The operation ran until its conclusion on May 1st, 2003.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones
Davo said:Iraq attacked the US? And no it wasnt a pointless post. You tried to compare WWII to Iraq...the last one being a bs war...the first one being a fight for freedom.Where are the WMDs?
"ODD" being the operative word.Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
Where are the WMDs?" Is a straw man arugment, there were 20 odd reasons given for the war in Iraq.
He fired on our planes because we were...Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
Do you know what the Iraq no fly zone is? It was a precondition of not taking Saddam out in 1990 that he would abide by the resolutions of the U.N., he fired on our planes within the Iraq no fly zone, he violated the resolutions.
Are you saying they don't have a right to defend themselves?BOMBING THE S.H.I.T OUT OF HIM!
Billo_Really said:He fired on our planes because we were...Are you saying they don't have a right to defend themselves?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?