O/T: It won't go away by itself. (Verrry scary political)

Page 7 of 8  
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Bill Clinton used the US Military more times than any other US President. Furthermore he of his government failed to support that Military. You only have to look to BLACKHAWK DOWN to see positive evidence. It took the military of other countries to rescue the survivors of the downed helicopter. The SECDEF refused to permit the commanding general in Somolia to deploy armored vehicles in protection of US Soldiers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Lets not forget that Clinton started the Rendition Program.
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Which has nothing to do with the relative powers of the Congress and the President regarding war-making. But there WAS the Sudanese aspirin factory business...
Still, a lot of wars are started by falsehoods, misrepresentations, and the like. The Spanish-American war was started by the false claim that the Battleship Maine was blown up by Spanish do-bads. The American Second War of Independence (referred to in the south as "The Recent Unplesantness") was excited on a lot of false information. Germany invaded Poland under the fabricated notion of Polish aggression.
No, starting wars under false pretenses has a long and glorious history. Starting a war based on lies is, in the grand scheme, no biggie. If you need a war, one reason's as good as another.
And we need a war every ten to fifteen years to keep the tip of the spear sharp. Would anyone enlist in the military if there were no chance of a shooting conflict? (Would anyone want to be a firefighter if there were no fires?) In the current situation, I don't think there's a commander, from sergeant to 4-star, that hasn't led men in combat. That's what you call polishing the sharpened tip. It'll be a long time before anybody challenges our ground forces.
Now I, personally, have killed my small share of the enemies of this great republic (and I wasn't even in a combat command!). It makes one a better person by showing you just how precious a life really is (yours, not theirs).
You may disagree, but in the fullness of time one day you'll say: Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you, By the livin' Gawd that made you, You're a better man than I am, HeyBub.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am of the opinion that GW actually believed what he was saying. That would make him foolish, misguided, and wrong, but not a liar. I also believe that he wanted to invade Iraq from his first day in office.
When 9/11 and the intelligence community served up the excuse, he went for it. He wanted to believe the evidence of WMDs and discounted the evidence to the contrary. It's called cognitive dissonance. We all do it.
-- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Douglas Johnson" wrote:

You mean as in "... You messed with my daddy, now it's my turn".
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
A number of years ago, Bush was on tv answering some reporters questions and said "Sadam tried to kill my daddy". IMHO thats why we went to Iraq, revenge.
Jim in Milwaukee
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...and that is all W has ever been trying to do, to please his daddy, and pearl-wearing pit-bull of a mother.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

...and that is all W has ever been trying to do, to please his daddy, and pearl-wearing pit-bull of a mother.
I tend to doubt that as "Daddy" pulled the troops out rather than going into Iraq. He knew that it would turn out badly if they went in. The kid found out the old man was right.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim in Milwaukee wrote:

Good a reason as any. Remember, WWI began because somebody's son was killed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Timbo Daneliuk thrives on it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Eh? No. From the 3rd Geneva Convention that specifically addresses prisoners of war:
"Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
[...]
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. "
Many of the Gitmo residents probably fall under (2) or (6). Notice no uniform is required under (2), just a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance". Perhaps "Taliban Local Chapter 135"?
No identification of any kind is required under (6).
I can find nothing in the 4th Geneva convention that addresses legal or illegal combatants at all.
By the way, all four Geneva Conventions were passed on 12 August 1949. They address different related topics.
See http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/genevaconventions
-- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Douglas Johnson wrote:

My mistake. The 3rd Geneva Convention is correct. "Lawful enemy combatant" is defined in the Military Commissions Act and tracks exactly the definitions given in the 3rd Convention. By extension, those not qualifying under the 3rd Convention or the Military Commissions Act as "lawful" enemy combatants must, perforce, be "unlawful" enemy combatants.
You are correct also in my misuse of the word "uniform," when distinctive emblem is the standard. But (6) doesn't really apply to al Queda operatives from Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and other places scooped up while fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Aside from the fact that the Military Commissions Act has been overturned by the Supreme Court, it only tracks the first two definitions of prisoner of war in the 3rd Geneva Convention and ignores the remaining four. I suspect this was deliberate because, especially the sixth definition would protect many of the "unlawful" enemy combatants.
It is also defines any member of Al Queda or the Taliban as unlawful in spite of the fact that they are likely to be covered under the second definition.

Indeed, unless they have "inhabited" the area for some time before the invasion. The sixth definition is clearly set up to protect locals who say "This is MY home and you're not taking it." I agree.
-- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Your irony is well-taken. Coercive techniques COULD have produced the results you complain about but I have yet to hear anyone, pro or con, suggest that was the case.
There is one case where a goblin (forget his name, Ramsey al BoomBoom or something) was turned over to the Egyptians, they got information implicating Iraq in this and that, and that information was offered by the CIA as an excuse for invasion. But WE didn't remove the fingers, the Egyptians did.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And ditto heads and rap music and nails on a chalkboard.

I have no reason to believe he was speaking for anyone other than himself.

This seems to be a common misunderstanding. The 3rd Geneva Convention defines prisoner of war and the required treatment of them. A uniform is not required to be a prisoner of war. The term "unlawful enemy combatant" is never used.
The 4th Geneva Convention specifies the treatment of ALL persons in occupied territory. The UN Convention Against Torture prohibits torture on all persons. (So do the 3rd and 4th Geneva Conventions.)
The UN Convention Against Torture does permit pain to be inflicted incidental to legal processes. So you can shoot them, you can't torture them.
Disclaimer: I am not an international lawyer. I'm not any kind of lawyer. What I am saying comes from a plain English reading of the original documents.
-- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Douglas Johnson wrote:

I shall go back and reread them ... this is not quite my recollection of their usual meaning ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Any B.J.s in the White House during the Bushwhacker's time there that we should also look into ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
President Obama looking forward isn't a bad thing...I just wish someone would shut Cheney up....how much more of an arrogant prick can this guy be? At least Bush crawled back under his rock and hopefully will stay there. If the average person wants to do something, boycotting fox "news" and its advertisers is a good place to start. They are dangerous to the health of this country, spreading lies, fear and hatred in support of far right extremists and corporate greed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
tom tom wrote:

Good point. We can all watch MSNBC. We all know that they are never opinionated. They would never be one sided.
Also, good point about Cheney. We can't have private citizens speaking their minds. It's that damned 1st Amendment thing. Can't permit that. We can't disagree with the leaders in power. That, of course, would be treason.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
tom tom wrote:

Say what you will, Bush is and was a class act. I do not recall him ever saying once that any of the then-current problems stemmed from failings of the Clinton administration. Obama, in his speech Thursday, made reference to the problems he inherited, by one count, twenty-eight times.
As time goes on, Obama will continue to experience "reality-checks" and concede that, in many cases, the Bush policies were actually as good as could be expected. We've already seen reversals from Obama's campaign rhetoric when faced with some intractable problems.
* Military tribunals * Closing Gitmo * Gays in the military * Detainee pictures * Retain large troop presence in Iraq
He HAS kept his campaign promises on:
* Stem cell research
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.