• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What are we doing?

Against people who would rather die, than submit to Western ways, I think it would be most productive to fund independence movements that promote democracy. Democracy always works better when the revolution comes from within. It takes more time, but in the long run is the best solution. Instead of making them adapt to our ways, let's fund and support movements within to overthrow evil governments.
 
MikeyC said:
Against people who would rather die, than submit to Western ways, I think it would be most productive to fund independence movements that promote democracy. Democracy always works better when the revolution comes from within. It takes more time, but in the long run is the best solution. Instead of making them adapt to our ways, let's fund and support movements within to overthrow evil governments.
Oh, I agree, but I am just saying it isn't the only way. That is what I was saying.
 
GySgt said:
And who cares about ******* off the Middle East?
Ideology and Democracy is the only fix.
So ideology must be changed. Yet, you don't see ******* people off as an obstacle to persuasion.
 
GySgt said:
Again with the dramatics? Your "freedoms" are just fine. Iraq is more about protecting your house and family from airplanes crashing into it. I guess as long as your house continues to stand and your family is unharmed, it shouldn't matter what happens to some one else. :roll:


The war in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with protecting anybody anywhere. You seem to be a little bit confused here. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 it is time to stop pretending that the war in Iraq has anything to do with the war on terrorism. As a matter of fact can you come up with an example of 1 terrorist attack for which an Iraqi was responsible?
Terrorism was unknown in Iraq during Saddam's regime.

It started here: 1949

Terrorism has been around a lot longer.


Ideology and Democracy is the only fix.

Not if it is imposed on them and is not their choice. There is another fix:
"While people may hate us for all sorts of reasons, the primary motivation they have for wanting to kill us is that we have taken certain specific actions that they find intolerable. Stop doing what they find absolutely intolerable and they'll stop blowing us up." http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb50.pdf

if you have the time to read it, it is ery interesting)
 
Imposed democracy is not really democracy. I believe that true democracy comes from within, just like in the United States. I love that the US tries to spread freedom, but I think efforts would be best spent in getting democracy from within.
 
ShamMol said:
Yet when liberals say they want to change the idealogy and the first step to that is understanding the region, we are attacked as being sympathetic and wanting to give them therapy.
Actually, I don't attack the liberal position of diplomacy and I am a pretty conservative thinker, but, we must back up that diplomacy with force at the moment IMO, I know people will ask "How do you propose to do that?" which I simply reply, capture or kill the cancerous element of that region and nullify their threat, while we are doing that, establish liberty in the region which is adaptable to it's way of life and make sure that the good people of that region are respected, empowered, protected, and most importantly represented. All of this however, will require us to get a little dirty in the process(use of force).
So, are we right?
Partially, yes, but both sides have a little bit of right and wrong in this particular situation.
I don't think Democracy is the only fix (considering we aren't even in a democracy as it should be...we are in a Republic), there are other options.
I do, no, we aren't a pure democracy, because of the size of this nation and the number of people within it's borders a pure democracy couldn't work, so we elect people who will (hopefully) represent our needs and rights as per our way of life, the same can be accomplished in the Middle East but we must aid in it.
The problem is that the people don't feel opressed and a lot of them believe that as you put it "BS" due to their strong religious beliefs. How do you propose we change those views.
The polls are changing quickly in that area, now that many areas are experiencing real freedom, many are coming around to the realization that they were oppressed and now want to do what it takes to continue this newfound liberty, there are those, however that liked the old way, but that will exist for generations and they are quickly becoming a minority.
 
MikeyC said:
Against people who would rather die, than submit to Western ways, I think it would be most productive to fund independence movements that promote democracy. Democracy always works better when the revolution comes from within. It takes more time, but in the long run is the best solution. Instead of making them adapt to our ways, let's fund and support movements within to overthrow evil governments.
For the most part, that statement is accurate, the thing that I think back on is the simple fact that close to 60% of the Iraqi people voted in the new election, this dwarfed our numbers which in this election were large compared to previous years. What scares me about this is that we have had freedom and liberty for so long that we take it for granted, the Iraqi people risked death to vote and we won't even wake up 30min earlier to get one in. I don't know, it seems, to get back on topic, that the majority in Afghanistan and Iraq at least want this.
 
"Exactly, and through our support of Israel we've alienated the entire middle east."

Too bad. Ally means something to America. We don't just turn our backs because we are afraid of the big bad Muslim. Why can't you condemn their behavior, instead of trying to hug their self-inflicted pain? Oh yeah...it's our fault.

"Terrorism has been around a lot longer."

It doesn't really matter when terrorism started does it? For us it started with 1949.

"The war in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with protecting anybody anywhere. You seem to be a little bit confused here. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 it is time to stop pretending that the war in Iraq has anything to do with the war on terrorism. As a matter of fact can you come up with an example of 1 terrorist attack for which an Iraqi was responsible?
Terrorism was unknown in Iraq during Saddam's regime."


What the hell is wrong with you? The attackers of 9/11 did not come from Iraq. Did you think you were spreading some enlightenment? No ****! The entire Middle East is a breeding ground for terrorism - and yes, even in Iraq. Every Dictator and rent-a-cleric is guilty of it. Oppression is what led up to 9/11. The War on Terror is not just about 9/11. It is about the entire region. What good does it do to arrest the drug dealer when the drug lords are still running around creating more? It's you that don't get it and are confused. Most of us knew this before 9/11, but what did the military know.
Iraqi's don't deserve to live like you? They don't deserve to achieve what you were born with? This is more of that liberal hypocracy I speak of. You are all about human rights, but that arguement goes right out of the window with regards to Iraqis. And by the way, have you ever been taken into a rape room and abused by soldiers because your father couldn't pay his taxes or didn't have enough photos of Saddam in the house? Have you ever witnesses beheadings of people that showed the slightest disrespect towards anyone in authority? Some people would call that terrorism. The new leader of Iran is right now preaching hatred to America and creating more terrorists through his clerics and their perversions of their Koran. You think it's because of Iraq? This crap has gone on for decades. Ask the hostages from Iran if they think Iran's leader liked America before 9/11?

"Imposed democracy is not really democracy. I believe that true democracy comes from within, just like in the United States. I love that the US tries to spread freedom, but I think efforts would be best spent in getting democracy from within."

This is true, however it's hard to stand up against your government if it means that you and your family will perish by your own country's military for opening their mouths. We have to chop the heads off. We did that in Iraq. If American civillians will allow Iraq to have a chance and they succeed, Iranians and Syrians will simply come across the border to experience a life they won't otherwise get. Change had to be sparked. Without us in Iraq, it would not have happened. The proof is everywhere that these people want this change. Everytime one of their fellow Muslims murder 30 of their people, their resolve to create their new government strengthens. They are Iraq's enemy too. Most of our intel comes from the people in the towns, villages, and cities. Of course, you won't hear that from the media. Good news doesn't sell papers.
 
YOu know, nobody is justifying Saddam Hussein's cruelty and megalomaniac behavior, but truth is there was no terrorism (except as you pointed out Saddam's actions) in Iraq before the war. Now it is a different story. I noticed you couldn't come up withg any example of a terrorist attack where an Iraqi was involved....


Oppression is what led up to 9/11.

Oppression by who? I take it you did not read the paper

Iraqi's don't deserve to live like you?

They deserve to choose to live the way they want to.
 
GySgt said:
Iraqi's don't deserve to live like you?
I think they do, and tear up at the sight of their sacrifice to become more, that being a free and autonomous republic or whatever THEY choose.
They don't deserve to achieve what you were born with?
The sad thing is, most of us don't take the time to think about what we have and I firmly believe this is what all humans want.
We have to chop the heads off. We did that in Iraq. If American civillians will allow Iraq to have a chance and they succeed, Iranians and Syrians will simply come across the border to experience a life they won't otherwise get. Change had to be sparked.
Amen! That is exactly what we see in every free society, in fact, we have quite a few middle easterners in the U.S. that came here in search of a better life because of what we stand for and are some of the most productive of our citizens, I guess it's easier to roll up the shirtsleeves when you are given a chance after being denied for so long, maybe we need to take a lesson from these great American imports.
Without us in Iraq, it would not have happened.
No question.
The proof is everywhere that these people want this change. Everytime one of their fellow Muslims murder 30 of their people, their resolve to create their new government strengthens.
I remember reading a news piece awhile back that Iraqi women took down a few of the insurgents because they were tired of the indiscriminate violence being reaped upon the region, this tells me they want to secure their peace.
Good news doesn't sell papers.
That reminds me of the song "Dirty Laundry" by Don Henly, it's a funny song, but so accurate that it scares me. Bad news certainly travels the fastest and sells the most.
 
GySgt said:
The proof is everywhere that these people want this change. Everytime one of their fellow Muslims murder 30 of their people, their resolve to create their new government strengthens.
Then how come so many groups in Iraq want separate regions that are autonomous from the other regions like the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the South? These groups do not want one Iraq, they want their own country.
Secular Shiites in Iraq Seek Autonomy in Oil-Rich South

By EDWARD WONG
Published: June 30, 2005 - NY Times

BASRA, Iraq, June 27 - With the Aug. 15 deadline for writing a new constitution bearing down, a cadre of powerful, mostly secular Shiite politicians is pushing for the creation of an autonomous region in the oil-rich south of Iraq, posing a direct challenge to the nation's central authority.

Bakr al-Yasseen is a leading organizer of a campaign for a federal, autonomous structure for Basra.

The politicians argue that the long-impoverished south has never gotten its fair share of the country's oil money, even though the bulk of Iraqi oil reserves lie near Basra, at the head of the Persian Gulf. They also say they cannot trust anyone holding power in Baghdad because of the decades of harsh oppression under the Sunni Arab government of Saddam Hussein.

"We want to destroy the central system that connects the entire country to the capital," said Bakr al-Yasseen, a former foe of Mr. Hussein who spent years in exile in Syria. He is one of the chief organizers of the autonomy campaign, which is supported by Ahmad Chalabi, the one-time Pentagon favorite and scion of a prominent Shiite family from the south, among others.

Mr. Yasseen, who has ties to Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi president and a Kurd, is demanding for the south the same broad powers that the Kurds now have, including an independent parliament, ministries and regional military force.

The Kurds have long demanded a strong measure of autonomy in a future Iraqi state. But the issue of an autonomous south is new, and complicates the already heated discussions on federalism in the new constitution. The religious Shiite parties and the Sunni Arabs have generally opposed Kurdish autonomy, but the emergence of a southern drive for greater regional independence could lend important support to the Kurds' quest.

Here in Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, banners have appeared on the streets in recent weeks calling for an autonomous region similar to Iraqi Kurdistan. Academics and local politicians are holding meetings at night to try to define their demands. Some are talking on the phone to members of the constitutional committee in Baghdad on an almost daily basis.

While religious Shiite parties now dominate the national government, many people here fear that the parties may not adequately defend the rights of the south and worry about the rise of another authoritarian government, perhaps a conservative Islamic one.

"There's no democracy in Iraq," Mr. Yasseen said, expressing the deep suspicions of moderate and secular Shiites. "Anyone who says there's democracy has a little Saddam in his head. He wants to become a Saddam."

Mr. Chalabi and Sheik Abdul Kareem al-Muhammadawi, a prominent member of the National Assembly, are planning to propose a regional vote on the question of southern autonomy in October, at the same time as a national referendum on the constitution, said Ali Faisal al-Lami, an aide to both politicians. Mr. Chalabi comes from the southern city of Nasiriya, and though he is distrusted by many Iraqis, he could use his family and political ties to wield considerable influence in an autonomous south.

The advocates of autonomy say that while the south has 80 to 90 percent of Iraq's oil reserves, the country's only ports and its richest date palm groves, the neglect under Mr. Hussein's rule is painfully evident: many of the avenues here resemble garbage dumps, open sewage floods some streets, and shantytowns dot the landscape. The south should have partial or full control over how its oil wealth and other income are distributed, the federalists say.

Mr. Yasseen recently sent a letter to the National Assembly demanding that it begin discussing the possibility of southern autonomy. Dozens of Kurdish legislators the letter, forcing the issue to the table.

"I support a real region in the south," said Abdul Khalik Zengana, a senior official in the Kurdistan Democratic Party, one of the two main Kurdish parties. "That will help our interests, and it will help to enhance federalism in Iraq. We bless this step. But we also think southern federalism should be decided on by a referendum of people in the south."
Source & the rest of the story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/international/middleeast/30basra.html?

My point is that it's not as simple as saying that most Iraqis want this or that because in truth Iraq is a nation created in the 20th Century by the British Empire, who did so haphazardly without the smarts to consider that they were trying to unite different sects of people who did not want to be united....sound familiar? I read some of these posts and can't help but think that some of you really believe that America has a right to dictate to other countries our tenets. While that might seem to be noble and in our best interests in truth it is beyond the scope of our legal powers. We are not the sovereign ruler of Iraq or any other nation and we do not have the right to IMPOSE our philosophy on any other nation, period. Being an imperialist is Un-American, and it only puts all of us in greater danger.

The macho we will get them before they get us mentality is a sure bet to create more terrorism, not to prevent it.
 
Kelzie said:
So if a person is released from prison and commits another crime, we shouldn't allow prisoners to have a trial and we should torture the ones in prison?
What are you claiming as torture! NOTHING! By the way many Representatives have visited the Gitmo, and confirmed that their wasn't any torture! What more could you ask for?

(Sarcasticly speaking)
Do you want us to give the complementary guns when we release them too! Or how about a free flight to known trouble points in Iraq. Or how about they can have direct phone calls to their leaders. Last but not least, how about we put chocholates on their pillows, and give them a morning call telling them to get up out of bed.
 
26 X World Champs, Then how come so many groups in Iraq want separate regions that are autonomous from the other regions like the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the South? These groups do not want one Iraq, they want their own country.
Because their a melting pot of many different ideas of how iraq should be run, not to mention how many different religions. Iraq should not end up like Korea and Russia. Splitting a country only makes it more hostile. It should be united like Berlin, so they dont have to have wars for many years only to end up at peace with each other.
 
stsburns said:
What are you claiming as torture! NOTHING! By the way many Representatives have visited the Gitmo, and confirmed that their wasn't any torture! What more could you ask for?
Prove it! Prove there's never been torture @ Gitmo AND prove that many representatives visited there and then said there's never been torture? Many means MANY more than 2,3,4 or 5.....Many means 50, 75 or 100.

Anyone can write false truths, but only some of us can prove that what we write is the truth.
 
stsburns said:
What are you claiming as torture! NOTHING! By the way many Representatives have visited the Gitmo, and confirmed that their wasn't any torture! What more could you ask for?

(Sarcasticly speaking)
Do you want us to give the complementary guns when we release them too! Or how about a free flight to known trouble points in Iraq. Or how about they can have direct phone calls to their leaders. Last but not least, how about we put chocholates on their pillows, and give them a morning call telling them to get up out of bed.

So, I just want to get what you're saying straight...

1. There were no FBI documents detailing torture.
2. Even if there was FBI documents detailing torture, it's incorrect.
3. Even if there was FBI documents detailing torture, and it wasn't incorrect, what was happening at Gitmo wasn't real torture.
4. Even if there was FBI documents detailing torture, and it wasn't incorrect, and they really were torturing people at Gitmo, it doesn't matter because they are guilty of terrorism.
5. Even if there was FBI documents detailing torture, and it wasn't incorrect, and they really were torturing people at Gitmo, and they have no evidence that they are holding terrorists, it's still okay because one guy, ONE guy later attacked US troops.

And I really don't think that they are going to be torturing people to put on a show for the representatives that were there to check for torture.
 
Kelzie said:
So, I just want to get what you're saying straight...

1. There were no FBI documents detailing torture.
2. Even if there was FBI documents detailing torture, it's incorrect.
3. Even if there was FBI documents detailing torture, and it wasn't incorrect, what was happening at Gitmo wasn't real torture.
4. Even if there was FBI documents detailing torture, and it wasn't incorrect, and they really were torturing people at Gitmo, it doesn't matter because they are guilty of terrorism.
5. Even if there was FBI documents detailing torture, and it wasn't incorrect, and they really were torturing people at Gitmo, and they have no evidence that they are holding terrorists, it's still okay because one guy, ONE guy later attacked US troops.

And I really don't think that they are going to be torturing people to put on a show for the representatives that were there to check for torture.

Kind of strange isn't it. You can't prove something isn't happening by opening the door and saying "see no torture here." Doesn't prove anything. Look at the FBI memos. Do people seriously believe the FBI has some ax to grind or reason to make this stuff up?
 
Kelzie, So, I just want to get what you're saying straight...
You missed the point entirely.

1. There were no FBI documents detailing torture.
2. Even if there was FBI documents detailing torture, it's incorrect.
3. Even if there was FBI documents detailing torture, and it wasn't incorrect, what was happening at Gitmo wasn't real torture.
4. Even if there was FBI documents detailing torture, and it wasn't incorrect, and they really were torturing people at Gitmo, it doesn't matter because they are guilty of terrorism.
5. Even if there was FBI documents detailing torture, and it wasn't incorrect, and they really were torturing people at Gitmo, and they have no evidence that they are holding terrorists, it's still okay because one guy, ONE guy later attacked US troops.
I don't remember qouting FBI, I was talking about the people you voted into office? Yet you still have'nt proved your point?
And I really don't think that they are going to be torturing people to put on a show for the representatives that were there to check for torture.
So you think it was a setup. But either way your going to confuse "Gitmo" with "Nazi camps", which there is a big differences between them.

Nazi camps
Gitmo

Nazi=death
Gitmo=
American military has intentionally used psychological and sometimes physical coercion "tantamount to torture" :spin: on prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. http: //www.leanleft.com/archives/003901.html]Gitmo
So do you have better methods you would like to discuss?
 
stsburns said:
So you think it was a setup. But either way your going to confuse "Gitmo" with "Nazi camps", which there is a big differences between them.

Nazi=death
Gitmo=

I understand that you may have a problem with such comparisons. While I believe that the alleged actions of the marines at Guantanamo Bay are far too timid for the likes of Nazis, they are far too brutal for men like United States Marines or any one representing America. I believe that was the aim of Senator Durbin's remarks.

So do you have better methods you would like to discuss?

Establishing repor between Marines(or any American for that matter) and detainees. Give them trials. Educate them. Give incentives and rewards for getting educated. Show them what Americans are like up close and personal and show them that we are not evil and that we are not their enemy. It will take longer of course, but such actions will live up to and further our reputation. If we are the Good Guys, we must prove it.
 
Kelzie said:
So, I just want to get what you're saying straight...

1. There were no FBI documents detailing torture.
2. Even if there was FBI documents detailing torture, it's incorrect.
This type of logic is illogical. To hint or suggest that the FBI is lying about Americans torturing people is simply, wrong.
Kelzie said:
3. Even if there was FBI documents detailing torture, and it wasn't incorrect, what was happening at Gitmo wasn't real torture.
Again, this is silly. To think that a civilian knows anything about what really happened there, meaning to dispute what the FBI says doesn't make any sense at all.
Kelzie said:
4. Even if there was FBI documents detailing torture, and it wasn't incorrect, and they really were torturing people at Gitmo, it doesn't matter because they are guilty of terrorism.
Following this type of thinking would mean that we, as Americans should lower our national standards and become evil. In the part of America that I live in people do not tolerate torturing anyone for any reason. Not only is it morally bankrupt, but at the end of the day it accomplishes nothing since people will say anything that their captors want to hear to get them to stop torturing them. This is FACT.
Kelzie said:
5. Even if there was FBI documents detailing torture, and it wasn't incorrect, and they really were torturing people at Gitmo, and they have no evidence that they are holding terrorists, it's still okay because one guy, ONE guy later attacked US troops.
I don't understand, sorry. Ever consider that he had a grudge to bear against America for the way he was treated at Gitmo?
 
"Establishing repor between Marines(or any American for that matter) and detainees. Give them trials. Educate them. Give incentives and rewards for getting educated. Show them what Americans are like up close and personal and show them that we are not evil and that we are not their enemy."

Are you kidding? Do you realize that you just hit the nail on the head? This is what our techniques entail. Almost exactly. This isn't the American justice system. If we know a man is a murderer, rapists, kidnapper, or anything, but have no proof, we let them go to prey on the next unsuspecting victim. We don't have to do that with known terrorists. The behavior of our Prison Guards in America would fall more into your definitions of "torture". How often do you speak of what goes on in there? - or is bashing your own military's treatment on America's enemies seem more nobler to you? The "standards" of the military (marines especially) are higher than civillians. Let's not talk about standards

Out of all of the representation and officials that went down there, only a few have negative things to say and one of them broke down into tears for the crap he was spewing on national TV. Even the FBI has members who are anti-President Bush that would exxagerate or imply things other than the truth. Others have never been faced with real hardship and don't know how to define what they saw. Members of the FBI are civillians. Most people don't know what it takes to do the job. Give it a rest.
 
Well said Gunny. It is easy for people to be a critic from their computers. Judge, and jury without knowing all the facts. I have faith in our service men and women, and thank every one of them for what they are doing for the Iraqi's. They will celebrate an Independence day as we do all because of folks like you.
 
Unforuteately it'll probably take a generation in Iraq for them to truly appreciate and propser under their new freedoms, because the freedoms came from an outside force, not an inside force. As Squawker said, we should have faith in our service people because they are the greatest supporters of freedom. Allegations have been made against them from news articles written in the US. I won't believe anyone is guilty until proof is given and ruled on by a judge...
 
MikeyC.....YOU GOT IT! That's the spirit. It will take time for what we did with Iraq to shine. The success will not be immediate. Just the taste of having a voting voice in their country will ensure their children have a steady course. All those adults have their children in mind and are very much aware of the life they want them to have. In many ways, we've already won. We just have to get through this rough time. The Middle East has had it's spark of change. Whether or not they embrace the change, will determine what kind of people they truly are.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
Are you kidding? Do you realize that you just hit the nail on the head? This is what our techniques entail. Almost exactly. This isn't the American justice system. If we know a man is a murderer, rapists, kidnapper, or anything, but have no proof, we let them go to prey on the next unsuspecting victim. We don't have to do that with known terrorists.

YES, WE DO. Give them a trial. How can you think that because they are charged with different crime that they are less deserving of a trial. I understand that this isn't the American justice system, but these people deserve a trial.

The behavior of our Prison Guards in America would fall more into your definitions of "torture". How often do you speak of what goes on in there?

Prisons are underfunded, prison guards are underpaid, prisons are overcrowded, prisoners deserve trials etc. There aren't many that argue against such things. It doesn't make for an interesting conversation.

- or is bashing your own military's treatment on America's enemies seem more nobler to you? The "standards" of the military (marines especially) are higher than civillians. Let's not talk about standards

It seems far more nobler as a matter of fact. My own military's treatment of someone who wants me dead is very important to me. I believe that if these allegations are true, that this detainment system is just as backwards as our war. It is concerning. We should not be pulling out the worst in these men, with anything like torture or abuse or anything.

Out of all of the representation and officials that went down there, only a few have negative things to say and one of them broke down into tears for the crap he was spewing on national TV. Even the FBI has members who are anti-President Bush that would exxagerate or imply things other than the truth. Others have never been faced with real hardship and don't know how to define what they saw. Members of the FBI are civillians. Most people don't know what it takes to do the job. Give it a rest.

Honestly, I couldn't care less what it takes to do the job. If you can't/won't/don't do it, don't join. Do you really believe that an FBI agent would falsely corrupt reports because he doesn't like W? In my opinion, someone like that is as much deserving of a trial as Gitmo detainee.
 
Last edited:
26 X World Champs said:
This type of logic is illogical. To hint or suggest that the FBI is lying about Americans torturing people is simply, wrong.

Again, this is silly. To think that a civilian knows anything about what really happened there, meaning to dispute what the FBI says doesn't make any sense at all.

Following this type of thinking would mean that we, as Americans should lower our national standards and become evil. In the part of America that I live in people do not tolerate torturing anyone for any reason. Not only is it morally bankrupt, but at the end of the day it accomplishes nothing since people will say anything that their captors want to hear to get them to stop torturing them. This is FACT.

I don't understand, sorry. Ever consider that he had a grudge to bear against America for the way he was treated at Gitmo?

I was making a point about how illogical that argument was. Evidently I failed to get the point across to some. :mrgreen: Just for the record, I agree with you.
 
Back
Top Bottom