Gitmo and GoDaddy: Changing one man's mind on torture.

[fredster]

Dexter,

What is your military training and background?

Are you a war historian and know the details of the Vietnam war?

[TOK]

These guys don't care about a headline saying 50 insurgents were killed, or that a top Al-Quaida operative was killed at the Syrian border. They also don't care that there haven't been ANY terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, even though those scumbags said we'd be swimming in rivers of our own blood.

Drew pegged it. They spout veiws but lack perspective. If we didn't push into the Middle East and a bomb went off at a college campus in Massachussets, MrC would be blaming Bush for that. Nobody is changing anyones mind here. I'm going to try my best to just ignore this nonsense.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

These guys don't care about a headline saying 50 insurgents were killed, or that a top Al-Quaida operative was killed at the Syrian border. They also don't care that there haven't been ANY terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, even though those scumbags said we'd be swimming in rivers of our own blood.

Killing 50 insurgents isn't productive if we are creating thousands more every day by our perceived imperialist actions in Iraq, and catching one dude who can easily be replaced isn't going to stop Al Qaeda. Also, you seem to still think Iraq had something to do with 9-11, which has not been born out by facts. Unfortunately, the man truly responsible for 9-11, Bin Laden, is still running free, and the man in charge here, Bush, has seem to forgotten all about him.

Drew pegged it. They spout veiws but lack perspective.

"We" just have a different perspective than you.

Nobody is changing anyones mind here. I'm going to try my best to just ignore this nonsense.

I thought you said that already?

mrC

[TOK]

These guys don't care about a headline saying 50 insurgents were killed, or that a top Al-Quaida operative was killed at the Syrian border. They also don't care that there haven't been ANY terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, even though those scumbags said we'd be swimming in rivers of our own blood.

Killing 50 insurgents isn't productive if we are creating thousands more every day by our perceived imperialist actions in Iraq, and catching one dude who can easily be replaced isn't going to stop Al Qaeda. Also, you seem to still think Iraq had something to do with 9-11, which has not been born out by facts. Unfortunately, the man truly responsible for 9-11, Bin Laden, is still running free, and the man in charge here, Bush, has seem to forgotten all about him.

Drew pegged it. They spout veiws but lack perspective.

"We" just have a different perspective than you.

Nobody is changing anyones mind here. I'm going to try my best to just ignore this nonsense.

I thought you said that already?

mrC

We're in Afghanistan. It's a network of mountains and caves, very difficult to search. He's protected by a very organized underground network of assistants.
There is actually no real proof that he is even alive or in any kind of condition to lead or mastermind other attacks. There is less news out of Afghanistan, and I think that is a good thing. What do you suggest we do?
We're not neccessarily creating new insurgents, they're just flooding into one place. They danced in the streets when the WTC was attacked, we didn't create that. Look, I'll admit that Iraq is a quagmire and we should have pushed harder on Afghanistan, but the proximity of these places and the unsecured borders makes the area very unlike somewhere that has a defined ocean border or a guarded border like North America.

Stop replying directly to my messages, and I'll go away, I swear.
I'm in this now, but I'm going to try to stay out of new threads. Maybe we could both turn over a new leaf and you could post something about games in one of the other forums? 

[fredster]

"catching one dude who can easily be replaced isn't going to stop Al Qaeda"

So there is a link, huh?  Now Al Qaeda is in Iraq.

There didn't have to be a link to 9/11 for us to take out Saddam.  That wasn't the premise of the war.  WMD and his assistance to the palestinian terrorists was enough.  The link between Iraq and Atta was just icing on the cake. 

Forget that all of the congress overwhelmingly approved the war act to go there.  I guess the senate intell committee (with Kerry on it) must be useless, so they shouldn't have them anymore.

[Dexter]

We're not neccessarily creating new insurgents, they're just flooding into one place. They danced in the streets when the WTC was attacked, we didn't create that.

Thats right, the US is killing women and children but not turning their husbands/fathers into insurgents. Dear oh dear

[fredster]

Prove that Dexter

[TOK]

Iraqi's are doing most of the civilian killing, unfortunately.
You know it's not US troops driving into the city and detonating cars full of explosives, right?

Not that I totally disagree with the premise that we'll get blamed for it. We are there, and it's just one more reason to hate us. That area is not going to be stable for 10 years. I have a buddy that has been in the reserves since the early 90's and not seen any action. He's over there now. It's bad.

[markrvp]

We're not neccessarily creating new insurgents, they're just flooding into one place. They danced in the streets when the WTC was attacked, we didn't create that.

Thats right, the US is killing women and children but not turning their husbands/fathers into insurgents. Dear oh dear

[patrickl]

Trying to stabilize the political climate in the Middle East will benefit the whole world, unless you prefer chaos.

[fredster]

That's just it. The US is responsible for creating the chaos there.

And how did we do that? By giving them money? By protecting Kuwait? Exactly how did we do that?

Going to war doesn't always solve a problem.

Didn't Chamberland say that right before the Nazi's attacked?  Worked great then didn't it? 

Going to war on terrorists does exactly the same. You create a thousandfold of the original number of terrorists.

Really. Worked pretty good to stop them in every other war we had.

[SirPeale]

You're all forgetting one thing: a woman can have huge boobs, but if they're a funky shape, it kind of ruins the whole deal.

Saw this picture of this woman once who had twisted hers into a pretzel of types.  Not what I'm looking for.

[patrickl]

Going to war doesn't always solve a problem.

Didn't Chamberland say that right before the Nazi's attacked?

[markrvp]

The first gulf war created Osama bin laden. Does that name ring a bell? Not really my point (cause that war indeed solved a conflict to a certain extent) , but it does illustrate how a war can create terrorists.

Actually Colonel Oliver North had already alerted our Congress to Bin Laden's threat during the Reagan presidency.  Congress' lack of action 18 years ago was a mistake.  He should have been taken out a long time ago.  He was not "created" during the Gulf War.

[DrewKaree]

Thats right, the US is killing women and children but not turning their husbands/fathers into insurgents. Dear oh dear 

What about the terrorists you commonly mislabel as insurgents?  Do those middle-eastern terrorists who are killing women, children and elderly....are the middle-eastern terrorists keeping their mssion alive by killing women, children and elderly of middle-eastern descent?

The women, children and elderly being killed now are being killed by the middle-eastern terrorists coming to the area to fight the Americans.  They are killing the women, children and elderly knowing that people such as yourself have no interest in acknowledging it, as you yourself continue to ignore the point, because it doesn't fit in nicely with your "America is wrong" mantra.

Women, children and the elderly are still being killed, but it's being done by the people you seem to think are their "countrymen". 

Your unbiased media seems to have done a good job helping you form a bias Dexter.

Can you point us to your unbiased media writing, producing or publishing a story about the good America has and is doing in Iraq?  Can you point us to your unbiased media writing, producing or publishing a story about the Iraqi's who welcome our involvement in their country?  They exist out there, and if your media sources were as unbiased as you say they are, surely you can point to where these things are done.  I'm interested, because it seems either they DON'T do these things, which would demonstrate the bias you claim doesn't exist, or they DO do these things, and they truly ARE unbiased. 

Your "Americans are killing women and children" rant is most tiresome precisely because you fall all over yourself to point it out, while your continued silence on the middle-eastern terrorists who do this leads me to believe you think it's ok, "just as long as it ain't those evil 'mercans".

Why do you continue to ignore the point? 

[TOK]

The people that became Osama bin Ladens crew were given weapons and training by the United States when Russia was trying to occupy Afghanistan. That was at the end of the Cold War, and we had a vested interest in seeing Russia fail in Afghanistan (which they did). The people we called Freedom Fighters when Reagan was in office are now called Insurgents.

Thats the problem with helping anyone in the Middle East. You give them a hand up and 10 years later you're trying to beat them back down.

[namzep]

Edit: Actually, I don't want to get into any of this.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Edit: Actually, I don't want to get into any of this.

Funniest thing I've ever read on this forum!! ROFL.

[patrickl]

The first gulf war created Osama bin laden. Does that name ring a bell? Not really my point (cause that war indeed solved a conflict to a certain extent) , but it does illustrate how a war can create terrorists.

Actually Colonel Oliver North had already alerted our Congress to Bin Laden's threat during the Reagan presidency.

[fredster]

Patrickl,

We really didn't have a choice in NOT working through Gulf War 1 did we?  What was the alternative?  Do you think "negotiation" would have made Saddam back off? Do you really think that?

Well he stated in an interview he decided he wanted to "hurt" the US after the US troops came to Saudia Arabia.

And other psychos have voices in their head.  So what?  Do you in your personal life cowtow to nut cases? It has nothing to do with anything.  Maybe if we didn't go, he may have said he wanted to "hurt" us because of "bay watch"?

Missed the word "always" did ya? A single example of succes does not prove a general statement like that.

And saying "Going to war doesn't always solve a problem." isn't a "general" statement?  Simplistic and naive too.

The "chimp in charge" (that's what CIC stands for?) made the same mistake.

I guess it's a matter of definition. One man's mistake is another man's helluva good idea.  If you were in charge then you could decide. Fortunately, you aren't.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

What was the alternative?

[patrickl]

Missed the word "always" did ya? A single example of succes does not prove a general statement like that.

And saying "Going to war doesn't always solve a problem." isn't a "general" statement?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I wonder if even Bush himself believes in his war enough to ask the American people in his upcoming speech Tues night to help defend freedom by enlisting in the Armed Forces?

I'm betting he doesn't. Instead, look for more of the same platitudinous B.S. we've heard over and over again since "Mission Accomplished". (ie: Spreading Freedom, Freedom Is On The March, Defending Liberty, Defeating Tyranny, Liberty Liberty Freedom Tyranny, Saddam Tortured His People, Look At The Purple Fingers, We've Turned A Corner, blah...blah...blah)


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

We really didn't have a choice in NOT working through Gulf War 1 did we?

[TOK]

Haven't there been libs on here saying he attacked Iraq and captured Sadaam just to finish what his father started?

With the Bush Sr. comments, that logic sure doesn't add up. If anything, it sounds like Sr. would have tried talking him out of it.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Haven't there been libs on here saying he attacked Iraq and captured Sadaam just to finish what his father started?

With the Bush Sr. comments, that logic sure doesn't add up. If anything, it sounds like Sr. would have tried talking him out of it.

There isn't really a disconnect between the words Sr. spoke and the idea that Dubya wanted to outshine his father and simply ignored his advice. These two notions can coexist peacefully.

Reading through a little of Dubya's early history (before politics), it's pretty easy to believe he has a complex about proving himself to his dad.

[fredster]

MrC,

I'm sure you'd like to break everything the President does down into some kind of simplistic stimulus/response to prove to yourself he's the CIC that Patrickl called him.

Don't forget that at the start of the war well over 85% of the people of the US supported it.  It was overwhelmingly approved by the joint houses of congress, etc.  Last time I checked, the President doesn't have the power to declare war, the congress holds that card.  It wasn't ONE man or ONE idea.  It was a lot of people involved.  Kerry voted for it didn't he?

I wonder if even Bush himself believes in his war enough to ask the American people in his upcoming speech Tues night to help defend freedom by enlisting in the Armed Forces?

I bet he does. 

Just because these people are a political dynasty, doesn't mean they're above petty squabbling, avarice and/or any other human failings we mere mortals suffer.

Yeah we know that.  Ask Mrs. Clinton about Monica.

Patrickl,

So, I only need to give a single negative example and my statement is proven. There are actually lots of examples where the war didn't end so well. If "they" had remembered that at the time then maybe now we didn't have to add this latest Iraq invasion to that long list of failures.

I'm a little confused as to what has actually "failed".  What has failed?  Is Saddam still in power?  Is there no government in Iraq? Are the people starving? What exactly has gone wrong in your opinion? 

There are lots of people turning out from other countries trying to disstablize the government.  Looks like they are trying, but it doesn't seem to be having major success.  We haven't abandoned any city or withdrew to some line.  We lost more people in one day in WWII and in Vietnam than we have in the entire campaign.   Bush didn't say it would be easy.  He said that in his speech after 9/11 that the road would be hard.

Since we invade Iraq, Lybia gave up it's weapon's program, Syria pulled out of Lebannon, Saudi Arabia held some free elections, Egypt is going to hold free elections.

Iraq held a free election (look at the purple fingers) and Afghanistan held it's first free election in written history.

So, where's the failure here? Just because we have nutcases blowing things up it's a failure?  As long as there are religious zealots willing to blow themselves up we should stop, is that what you are saying?  We should just back off and let them do whatever they want?

Abandon Israel?  Bow down to the fanatics because it's hard to stop them?  Let Saddam take Kuwait and the middle east just melt down anyway the wind blows? 

Peace at any cost?

Talk about simplistic.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I'm sure you'd like to break everything the President does down into some kind of simplistic stimulus/response...

...

Yeah we know that.  Ask Mrs. Clinton about Monica.

Do as you say, not as you do I suppose.

Don't forget that at the start of the war well over 85% of the people of the US supported it. 

Yeah, well....now they don't. If you're trumpeting the idea that 85% of the people supporting something makes it right, then what do these new numbers tell you?

• Some 53% of people surveyed say the United States made a mistake going to war in Iraq in March 2003, according to an AP-Ipsos poll released Friday [Link]
• 65% of Republicans, 81% of Independents and 87% of Democrats do not believe the insurgency in Iraq is weakening. [Link]
• Bush's Job Approval ratings are the lowest he's faced during his presidency. [link]

It was overwhelmingly approved by the joint houses of congress, etc.  Last time I checked, the President doesn't have the power to declare war, the congress holds that card.  It wasn't ONE man or ONE idea.  It was a lot of people involved.  Kerry voted for it didn't he?

Apparently all based on evidence that was fixed to push forward Bush's agenda. The Downing Street Memo is still floating around the capitol, so, ya' know...if it turns out that this administration knowingly stretched the credibility of non-existent evidence in an attempt to get the vote to go to war, that may change the equation a little.

I wonder if even Bush himself believes in his war enough to ask the American people in his upcoming speech Tues night to help defend freedom by enlisting in the Armed Forces?

I bet he does. 

We shall see. How much you want to wager? I'll say $100 he doesn't specifically ask civilians to enlist in support of the War in Iraq...(ie: "go march down to the local recruitment center and sign up to help fight in Iraq!") ....I'm good for it.


mrC

[fredster]

Yeah, well....now they don't

Now's a little late, isn't it? 

Apparently all based on evidence that was fixed to push forward Bush's agenda. The Downing Street Memo is still floating around the capitol, so, ya' know...if it turns out that this administration knowingly stretched the credibility of non-existent evidence in an attempt to get the vote to go to war, that may change the equation a little.

  Dude, there were probes and probes into this in London, and the Blair Administration was cleared of the very same charges you level at Bush.  Forget it, it's old news.  I read these memos.  It's a tactical approach to the media.  It's a policy outline.  It is nothing, absolutely nothing.

Do as you say, not as you do I suppose.

Exactly.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Yeah, well....now they don't

Now's a little late, isn't it?

Not really, given we should have never been there in the first place. The public seems to be awakening to that fact, as well as to the fact that they were bamboozled. So maybe it'd be a "little late" if things were going as was promised, and people suddenly changed their minds. But that isn't quite the case if the administration wasn't giving it to them straight from the beginning.

Dude, there were probes and probes into this in London, and the Blair Administration was cleared of the very same charges you level at Bush.

This is simply not true. Blair's gauntlet through the Memos has only just begun. So far, he has paid dearly in the elections, losing his party a historic amount of seats in parliament. He still has his job, but that might soon be remedied as new revelations are leaked.

Forget it, it's old news.  I read these memos.  It's a tactical approach to the media.  It's a policy outline.  It is nothing, absolutely nothing.

You think it's nothing, I think it's just the beginning. Remember, even Watergate started not with a roar, but a whimper. The memos will be making their appearance on the floor of the house tomorrow, prompted by a 560,000 petition asking for further investigation into the allegations made in the memo. Which are "minutes" really, not memos, meaning two things...one, they are a factual account of the meetings between British and American officials and two, they are admissible in court as evidence. Memos are not. Furthermore, other memos supporting the original minutes have been leaked, so I think it's safe to say we haven't heard the last of this issue. Much to your chagrin.

Do as you say, not as you do I suppose.

Exactly.

Spoken like a true fascist.


Btw, I guess you didn't want to put your money where your mouth is, eh?
mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

Do as you say, not as you do I suppose.

If you did anything, you'd understand and say nothing.

But you enjoying doing nothing, and saying anything I suppose.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Do as you say, not as you do I suppose.

If you did anything, you'd understand and say nothing.

But you enjoying doing nothing, and saying anything I suppose.

About as well spoken as anything else you've ever said.

mrC
P.S. Dartful, can you slow down on your posts, please. My Dartful Dodger Decoder Ring hasn't come in the mail yet...so I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.

[DrewKaree]

How much you want to wager? I'll say $100 he doesn't specifically ask civilians to enlist in support of the War in Iraq...(ie: "go march down to the local recruitment center and sign up to help fight in Iraq!") ....

I'm good for it.

I've learned never to bet with or trust a guy who says "I'm good for it" after asking for advice regarding possible bankruptcy.  Prodding Fredster to bet with you may make you feel better, but I'm betting a stump would know better than to make a bet with you.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

How much you want to wager? I'll say $100 he doesn't specifically ask civilians to enlist in support of the War in Iraq...(ie: "go march down to the local recruitment center and sign up to help fight in Iraq!") ....

I'm good for it.

I've learned never to bet with or trust a guy who says "I'm good for it" after asking for advice regarding possible bankruptcy.  Prodding Fredster to bet with you may make you feel better, but I'm betting a stump would know better than to make a bet with you.

Did I ask you?

I thought a stump would know better than to vote for Bush, but that didn't stop you, did it?


mrC

[DrewKaree]

Did I ask you?

I didn't know this was a "mother-may-I" type of forum.  If those are the rules, I hereby state that I never am asking you anything, and that you should always keep your opinions to yourself, no matter the relevance your points may bring to the thread (in your mind), and all future postings by yourself to me must be addresses to "Sir Bootylicious" before I might consider replying to. 

What's next?  "Drew, I'm rubber and you're glue...."?  Or are you going to talk about how there's small genitalia somewhere you've got to comment on....or perhaps you're gonna swear at me.  Whatever shall I do at the hands of such treatment?

If you're such a shrinking violet, play nice in the sandbox so the other kids named Sadaam won't be mean to you and will do what you want them to.

[Dartful Dodger]

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say yet.

I understand what you are saying.

That is how I know you are wrong.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I didn't know this was a "mother-may-I" type of forum. 

Either he believes in this war, and his commander-in-chief enough to put his money where his mouth is, or he doesn't.

Btw, fredster said "I bet he does"...so in all actuality, I'm taking him up on his own challenge. So butt out.

Or are you going to talk about how there's small genitalia somewhere you've got to comment on....or perhaps you're gonna swear at me.

Cracks me up how you presume to speak for everyone on your side. TOK didn't seem to be as bothered by my joke as you are? Is there something you want to tell us?

Whatever shall I do at the hands of such treatment?

Hide behind snarky sarcasm and numerous smiley faces?

Aw, I think I guessed right.


mrC

[DrewKaree]

Btw, fredster said "I bet he does"...so in all actuality, I'm taking him up on his own challenge. So butt out.

I didn't know this was a "mother-may-I" type of forum. 

Since you're acting as if it is, I've got to refer you to my rules regarding "butting out".  Is there a problem with me commenting on the foolishness of believing "you're good for it"?  Asking people to "butt out" regarding your comments on a public forum?  Methinks you'd be well served to follow the "...than open your mouth and remove all doubt" adage.  When did you suddenly become MrCwitIt? 

Cracks me up how you presume to speak for everyone on your side. TOK didn't seem to be as bothered by my joke as you are? Is there something you want to tell us?

Yes, there is.  As with stocks, your past performance isn't necessarily an indicator of future actions (but it certainly IS a fairly good bet that you'll revert to the actions that "work" for you.  I fail to see how you twisted that into me "speaking for everyone on my side", but you certainly HAVE seemed to speak TO everyone on my side that way.  I was just trying to guess what way you were going to go.

Hide behind snarky sarcasm and numerous smiley faces?

If you consider sitting here taking a "beating" at your hands to be "hiding", I guess I'm guilty as charged.  Maybe I should ask you to butt out of the "making fun of Drew" game.  Nah.  You're almost out of material.  I'm sticking around until all that's left is my gun/car compensating for some phallic item you can dream up.


Oh, before I forget, here's the daily Kool-Aid dose from my NeoCon Zionist master, Glenn Beck. 

Should we accept Dick Durbin's so called "apology" and let him off the hook for comparing our fighting men and women Nazis? Click to hear Glenn's comments.  Windows Media Player required

There.  Something you can comment on....and I can request that you "butt out" of it.  Don't reply about that link there. 

[DrewKaree]

....and you may call me "Sir Bootylicious"

[patrickl]

Patrickl,

So, I only need to give a single negative example and my statement is proven. There are actually lots of examples where the war didn't end so well. If "they" had remembered that at the time then maybe now we didn't have to add this latest Iraq invasion to that long list of failures.

I'm a little confused as to what has actually "failed".