ViperPilot

It's just offensive when you lightheartedly say that a government's policies are worse than a terrorist's bomb. Nothing is worse than the planned killing of innocent people. Nothing. Something is just wrong if you have more of a problem with Bush's or Blair's ideas than you do with Al Qaeda's actions/goals.

Bill, absolutely no one said anything about torture being ok. mr2mk1g just assumed that's what he meant by "what would you do..." So no, NO ONE is "going on about how it's ok to torture people". You're right, everyone wants to put their own spin on this, just make sure you're looking inward as well as outward. I try to keep myself in check too, everyone should.

I'll take that. I guess that statement had too much rage in it at the time to make that point. But yes, I do think that's the real goal. I guess you could consider their means as just smaller goals on the road to the big goal...spreading Islam.

Your both right. There are cells all over the world. Basically, this plan was perfected a year ago (just throwing out a number). Then updated as need be. However, it all comes down to a phone call. This same attack could not have happened today, but the cell would be just as ready in a week, or a month, or a year from now. That's one of the reason's it's so damn hard to stop these guys. However, the real reason for why they happened today could be either the olympics or G8. Aggie's right in that they were just waiting for a call, but either one of you could be right as to the reason they got that call.

Innocent people have been murdered this morning and yet people still find time, and feel it's relevant, to complain about a couple administrations...unbelievable. Who's the greatest threat? Well, gee, I'd say the asshole murderers who's sole goal is to kill as many innocent people as possible. But no, you don't like Blair or Bush and their War on Terror ideas, of which you take no part in I'm sure. Hell, no sweat off your back. Why's it your's or anyone else's problem that innocent people are dying, and are in great danger of terrorism every day? Well, I'm damn glad I chose to do something about it, and I'm glad I have a lot of friends that made that choice. Well, off to try and stop crap like this from happening while 1,000's of people sit on their useless asses and do nothing to help...or even worse, hinder the effort. Sorry bout that, just really pissed off right now. p.s. Everyone please feel free to continue the mundane complaining about our government heads...the toll's only up to 45 brits anyhow. Not like they're important....right?

Well, Saddam declared war on democracy years ago by laughing at sanctions, laughing at humanity, funding terrorism and WMD research meant specifically to harm democratic countries, etc. He funded weapons research to specifically hurt our allies and in his hopes, the US. He may have not said the words, "declare war," but he did declare it through his actions. We could have sat back and said, "Hitler's far away, he's not directly hurting us now, what would waiting a little hurt?" Well, those exact words have been used repeatedly to describe Iraq. Well, waiting would mean more death and maybe more horrible attacks against the US. Both dictators declared war one way or another, it's just that everyone is fine with responding to one, but not so fine with responding to the other.

hahahahaha....I love that first one!

Then by that statement you are also completely against the European theatre in WWII. Let's go back to Billvon in 1939 - "If Hitler had attacked us (say, if he bombed New York) I would have been all for not only killing him and his military leaders but taking over Germany permanently. That didn't happen." Well, Hitler didn't attack us. So, by your statement above, you would also be against our operations against the Germans. However, I assume you are glad we did what we did in WWII. It was the right thing to do, agreed? So, why the vast problem with Iraq? Hitler didn't attack, we attacked him b/c we felt the need. Saddam didn't attack us, we attacked him b/c we felt the need. There is no difference in the two operations based on this line of thinking.

AQ has an equally large presence in Iraq, if not larger. Arghanistan has proven to be a great success story. We went in, ousted the Taliban, and now the country is free. It has had free elections and now a democratically elected government. AQ has been diminished there, but obviously not wiped out, as there are still a lot there. But, at least their numbers have been decreased. Now, we are trying to do the same thing in Iraq. Iraq has had free elections and now a democratically elected government. Iraq is the same situtation as Afghanistan...we need to create democracy in order to keep the world safer and to help the people of the country. I meant that the main push of it all had been done. It's no secret that we're still there fighting. Just, the brunt of it all has been done. Yes it is rare. That's why we need more. It is EXTREMELY important to breed democracy in the Middle East because it promotes freedom and safety throughout the world, in addition to providing a much harder location for terrorists to "exist." Terrorism is much much harder to operate out of a democratic country than it is out of a dictatorship. The more democratic countries in the Middle East, the less places there are for AQ and others to exist easily. Not to mention one more democracy means one more country that won't have a national aim of attacking us or Europe (which is a much larger possibliity with a dictatorship). We get 10-20% (20% is probably way too high) of our oil from the Middle East, it's been that way forever. Most of our oil comes from Latin America, with some coming from West Africa and old Soviet states. It's not OPEC that's screwing us, it's people like Chavez of Venezuela. The argument that we went to war for oil is completely baseless and nothing more than a blind excuse to riticule President Bush. Many Democrats have even admitted that.

Well the GC does not say that if the guy shoots at you, you must automatically consider him an EPW if he is captured. Maybe it should, but it doesn't. They don't need to be wearing uniforms at all like us, they just have to be wearing some sort of uniform. Street clothes do not count. Basically, they are not "playing" by the rules of warfare by not wearing uniforms. This is a rule of warfare b/c it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, at times to distinguish between the enemy and civilians. That is against the rules. Thus since they refuse to follow the rules, they do not receive the rights of the GC. That's just what the whole uniform thing is talking about. Yes it does, but the GC states that the same conditions (i.e. uniform, having a command structure, following the rules of warfare, etc.) still apply to resistance forces. There are camps in Afghanistan, but they are mostly run by the Afghans now. We have relatively little control over those (at least for a while now). Much more is controlled by them now; it is their country. We still operate over there, but it's becoming more of an advisory role (i.e. we go out on joint missions with the Afghans, much like Iraq is doing right now).

I see your point Alias. However, I think Iraq fits in as one of the many pieces in the War on Terror as a grounds for a new democracy in a region ripe with terrorists (and by region, I obviously mean the Middle East). Helping establish a working democracy in the region will help us in the long run in the War on Terror. And on the plus side, we're helping millions of innocent people who led terribly burdened lives before we came. I agree that our enemy is everywhere, and thus we must operate everywhere, it's just that the war is in Iraq right now. Afghanistan has been done. Iraq is now, what's next? What should be next in the War on Terror? We all have our opinions on that, but what's best for America, who knows right now. But don't worry about the Spec Ops community...they're EVERYWHERE.

The war on terror is in many places, and just for now, it's not in the US. That's what we should be happy about. It's a lot better to fight terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, etc. than it is in Florida. Would you agree with that?

Haha, I actually did enjoy reading that bill. Creative and good. However, the point I think Cavuto was trying to make is not about the Dems and GOP arguing back and forth, but about our patience as a country. Yes, I think Bush may have promoted the idea to the American people that the brunt of the war would be over sooner, he thought so. However, he didn't say we'd be out of Iraq in six weeks. He knew from the get go that it'd be a long, hard push. Maybe he was wrong on the lenght of the brunt of war, but as far as the amount of time we are in that country, that was never said to be only 6 weeks. Cavuto wonders what would have happened had we had the attitude we do today about yesterday's wars. I'm saddened by 2000 dead Americans, it's horrible. But what would the people of today say about WWII, where 300,000 American soldiers were killed and the same amount injured. 2,000 seems so small compared to that, yet people go insane. The point is, the media focuses so much on the negatives, that the population do not see the positives. When there wasn't media like this back in the day, people were more patient and willing to let the terrible course or war run for the greater good in the end. Maybe this attitude was just of that time period, or maybe this attitude was because of the lack of massive negative news that we see today.

But if you were the CIA, would you keep the correct N-number on there?

Here's a great piece by Cavuto on this topic. It's just good food for thought. Just read it, think about it. What if.... ---------------------------------------------- The Will to Win Monday, June 27, 2005 By Neil Cavuto I wonder what would have happened if there were television crews at Valley Forge when Washington's troops were freezing and the British were winning. Or when Union troops were getting their butts kicked in battle after battle, month after month, in the early days of the Civil War. Or in the many months after Pearl Harbor was attacked and the Japanese were scoring one victory after another in the Pacific. What if cameras were there and the relentless headlines were everywhere? What would we make of the casualty counts, the losing battles and the hopeless reports? What would we have done? Would we second-guess Washington? Or Lincoln? Or Roosevelt? Probably. I don't know. But this much I do know: History would be very different. Maybe the public appetite for bad news at the time would have trumped the record of good news that came after that time. Maybe we would have quit, stopped, put down our arms and moved on. I suspect we'd still be under British rule, or a divided nation after a Civil War, or a losing nation after a World War. Thank God we were patient then. I wonder if we're patient now. Then we didn't have the luxury of journalists second-guessing soldiers. Now I wonder whether our soldiers worry we're second-guessing something else: their mission. I have no doubt we can win this war. I have serious doubts whether some in the media even want us to. ----------------------------------

Just to add a good quote that goes along with the above: "the War on Terror takes many forms in many places. We should be grateful that right now it's in "that" place [Iraq] and not here in "this" place." Well, a lot of people don't like the war, but isn't it better to be fighting them over there and not at the Baltimore docks, Central Park, Wrigley Field, etc? The point is, AQ hates us with a passion. They WILL fight us one way or the other. So, if we don't bring the fight to them on foreign grounds, they will bring the fight to us on domestic grounds. So take your pick, Iraq or your front porch. Which is it?

Been gone for a while...Zenister, sorry I doubted your experience with chain of command. Obviously you do know something having sat in on flag level meetings. . True, I'll give you that. However, when Bush asked, "are there WMD's in Iraq?" or "are WMDs a viable reason for war?" It was the CIA who said yes to those questions. So, Bush wanted that answer, ok. But, it still doesn't mean that he falsified intel reports to back it up. He wanted that answer, the CIA gave it to him, he went with that answer. However, it is not his fault, even if he got the answer he wanted, that the CIA bullshitted intel reports to support that intel. It is their fault, not Bush's. That's all I'm trying to say. Ok, so we've established Bush wanted Saddam removed. Well guess what, I WANTED Saddam removed years ago, in fact, millions of people did. He was a shitbag and half, killed his own people repeatedly, used rape armies like they were water, and on top of his sadistic rule over his people/country, he was funding weapons research, with some being conducted by "private" companies within Iraq. That was proven by the interrogation of a captured Iraqi scientists a few months into the war. He was a huge threat to his own people, and he was an indirect threat to the rest of the world because of his massive funding to WMD research, which he knew would be used by terrorists and also did it b/c of future prospects for his own use. So, WMD's weren't found in Iraq when we went in. Well what do you expect when Saddam had 10+ years of warning to get rid of them? I'm not saying WMD's was the right reason to go to war, but saving that country from tyranny and cutting off the massive amounts of funding Saddam was giving to WMD research and procurement is a good reason. Not to mention helping the Iraqis produce a free democracy in that region of the world is extremely beneficial to the stability of the region and the overall conquering of terrorism. Well, we would have lost many many more innocent Iraqi people to a scumbag regime. We would have lost the ability to stop even more money going to WMD research. Had we waited longer, perhaps Saddam would have finally procured WMDs and used them. He had the ability and DID fire several SCUD missiles into Israel...that was 1990. So, what did he have in 2002? Well, you may think Iraq was still sitting in the "stone age" with weapons technology, but if they could fire SCUDs at Israel back then, you can be certain that he had better capability in 2002-03. So, who knows what could have happened if we waited, who knows? He cannot be considered confined and contained when he still is slaughtering innocent people, ordering rampant rapes, and massively funding WMD research and terrorism. Yes, other people fund it, I agree. But, Saddam was a MAJOR contributor. He made others look like pocket change. So with that amount of money flowing from him, he needed to be stopped before he continued this practice and the practices mentioned above.

Is there anywhere in the GC that says captured persons are AUTOMATICALLY under the GC until proven not by a tribunal? I don't know, that's why I'm asking. However, I would say this is not the case since these captured persons right off the bat do not meet the criteria of "recognizable signs/uniforms." They wear "street clothes" if you will. They look just like the guy selling fruit in the market, just that they have a rifle under their clothes and are just looking for the next person to shoot. So, based on this fact, they wouldn't fall under the GC. I don't think the GC states that they must have a tribunal to declare them not POWs in a case where they don't meet certain conditions of the GC right off the bat. Well, good to be back...

I don't think they should, but will they, heck yeah. It's human nature to do what's in your best interest, especially if it involves money. We're a greedy breed by nature, and that's why we have these problems. However, are you willing to pay $4,000 for a computer when right now you could buy the same one for $400? Those are just random numbers I chose, but just trying to illustrate the point. We want more jobs, we don't like outsourcing, but yet we can't live without it. It's almost a necessary evil. I don't like it anymore than you, but would I really say, "sure, stop outsourcing, even if it means my next pair of tennis shoes costs $300." Well, I probably wouldn't be inclined to truthfully make that statement, would you?

Well several senators, including 6 democrats, and numerous journalists toured it a few days ago and were very impressed. Why are people so hell bent on labeling American soldiers and intelligence agency employees as terrible people? Is it so hard to believe that overall, most are good people? Sure there are the bad apples, and they have and will be delt with. Saying Gitmo is doing well, even with those words coming from several sentators who were against it at first, is not propganda. Amnesty International and places like that have no basis for their claims about Gitmo except their disdain for this administration. When proof was brought that certain interrogaters were breaking rules, they were delt with, as they should be. Just remember, no one is claiming Gitmo to be perfect, but don't accuse the workers there of being total bastards just because of what some lunatic organization says or the mere fact that Bush is president.

Well, I did just give you Article 4 of the Geneva Convention that provides evidence that the US can legally hold the detainees there because they do not legally fall under the Geneva Convention. But I guess it's not evidence unless it supports your side. I didn't just make that crap up, go look at it for yourself. You can argue with me, but you can't argue with hard fact, in this case, a direct copy of the Geneva Convention. Legally, it does not. They are clearly not under the GC, thus they don't get benefit of the doubt. Is that morally right...that's up for debate. But it is absolutely legally right. Well who cares what their opinion is? They're not there, they have no idea. And secondly, this is America, we don't just let foreigners tell us what to do. No I'm not being a hardheaded maniac; do you think it's all good if your neighbor tells you how to live your life and what you're doing right and wrong. Would you honestly go through life doing everything to appease your neighbor? No, you would not. This is the exact same relationship with the US and ICRC, Amnesty International, etc. We can't just be pushed around by the opinions of our neighbors.

You are making dangerous assumptions. I do not condone the torture of human beigns, no matter what pieces of s**t they are. I support Gitmo because we need to detain dangerous men in this world. I also support interrogators being punished for wrong doings against prisoners. I expect humane and fair treatment of all prisoners. Yet, I still support Gitmo. But of course if you'd rather release men back into the world who would slit yours, your parents', and your dog's throats given the chance, then by all means, protest for their release. Now as for the ones who are there innocently, well then I hope they get the heck out of there real soon. It's a shame they're there for them, but for all the bad ones, I'm glad they're there.

We support every one of those. Please tell me how my buddies and I do not meet those requirements? A. All of us are part of a command structure. I report to a superior, he reports to a superior, etc. B. We wear uniforms, easily recognized. C. We carry our weapons openly. They are not concealed under clothing. D. We abide by the laws of war, ALWAYS. So again, how do we not meet the above criteria?

Well sorry, I suppose a contractor would have more experience than me. Who am I to say anything about the inner workings of the military, after all, I only am a member. The argument made earlier was that Bush compiled this intel report, or purposely directed the compiling of bad intel. I know he can ask the intel communities questions, but the point is, did he ask questions and say "give me the answers I want, even if it's a complete lie." Well this is possible, I'm not saying it's not. But I am saying, don't accuse Bush of this unless you have proof that he did so. You think it's hard for me to believe Bush did this, well you're being very hypocritical because you find it hard to believe that Bush may have just been handed bad intel which was born because of CIA screwups. You need to learn to give a little to get a little. I will support the idea that it's possible that Bush could have directly demanded BS intel to support his theory. But you need to support the idea that the CIA could have just screwed up and gave Bush bad intel. Again, show us proof that Bush did this, and you'll have me, Ron, and everyone else on the bandwagon for impeachment. But until then, don't make baseless attacks on individuals.

Well you obviously don't read what I write. I answered this by telling you Congress, NSA and the President. That's who the Director reports to. You think it's slanted, that's fine. You originally argued that Bush was the one who compiled this intel. I ask for proof of this and for the second time you just ignore my request. You think the intel was bull, that's fine, but do not make accusations that Bush created this intel w/o having proof of such. Now, give me the proof that BUSH MADE THIS INTEL, or stop nagging me with your little "duped" spiel. Make an argument with proof, or don't make one at all.