Gravitymaster 0 #26 September 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteCould, would, might....Please show me where it has happened. OTOH there have been terrorists released from Gitmo who killed American Military once they returned to their home countries. As soon as we start treating them like the enemy they are and quit worrying about their "rights" the sooner we can get this war over with.. Well, that's a big assumption, isn't it. Apparently a whole lot of them turned out NOT to be enemies at all (at least, they weren't until we imprisoned them). It's attitudes like yours that are the root cause of our total lack of success in accomplishing the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. The greatest military the world has ever seen is being embarrassed by a rag-tag bunch of "insurgents". That indicates to me that our civilian leaders have been totally incompetent in defining the mission, purpose and strategy. Nope it's attitudes like yours that prevented us from doing what was needed to be done in both Vietnam and Iraq. This would have all been over but for Bush, who I fault, for caving in to the politically correct. The Military's job is to go in and kick butt. When they are allowed to do it, they are very effective. When they are asked to be polically correct social workers, we lose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #27 September 14, 2006 >Oh yes, yes we need the ACLU to protect us from a secretive govt. The Bush administration, through its disdain for the constitution, has (sadly) created a greater need for organizations like that. It would be nice if we didn't need the ACLU, because then we wouldn't have to put up with the seedier side of such an organization (which it certainly has.) But we live with the government we have, not the government we wish we had (to paraphrase one of the people that got us into these messes.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #28 September 14, 2006 >Nope it's attitudes like yours that prevented us from doing what >was needed to be done in both Vietnam and Iraq. Which would have been to kill everyone? So far we've killed around 40,000 innocent people. Would killing 100,000 innocent people equal "doing what needed to be done?" How about 500,000? A million? Ten million? At what point does "taking the gloves off" give you enough bodies to claim victory? The Bush administration got everything it wanted before the invasion. It got congressional and popular support. (By lying, but that's another story.) It got its coalition. It ignored the UN, and was thus not 'hampered' by their desire for negotiation to precede war. The quagmire in Iraq is 100% their doing. Heck, several anti-war types (myself included) warned that there was going to be significant resistance, that Iraq could descend into a civil war, that it wasn't going to be a cakewalk. We were ridiculed and called traitors. Now right wingers are engaged in a desperate struggle to blame someone else for getting exactly what they asked for - a war. Some are even blaming the minority party for it! One hopes that the people who supported the war have the integrity to admit that they wanted this war in all its bloody glory, and take responsibility for where their desires have taken us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #29 September 14, 2006 Quote>Nope it's attitudes like yours that prevented us from doing what >was needed to be done in both Vietnam and Iraq. QuoteWhich would have been to kill everyone? So far we've killed around 40,000 innocent people. Would killing 100,000 innocent people equal "doing what needed to be done?" How about 500,000? A million? Ten million? At what point does "taking the gloves off" give you enough bodies to claim victory? The Bush administration got everything it wanted before the invasion. It got congressional and popular support. (By lying, but that's another story.) It got its coalition. It ignored the UN, and was thus not 'hampered' by their desire for negotiation to precede war. The quagmire in Iraq is 100% their doing. Heck, several anti-war types (myself included) warned that there was going to be significant resistance, that Iraq could descend into a civil war, that it wasn't going to be a cakewalk. We were ridiculed and called traitors. I don't disagree with much of what you are saying. I have criticized Bush plenty for going in with too few troops. Had we gone in with a lot more, this war would have ended by now due to an overwhelming force and fewer innocent people would have died. By dragging this out, more US troops and innocent Iraqi's have died. QuoteNow right wingers are engaged in a desperate struggle to blame someone else for getting exactly what they asked for - a war. Some are even blaming the minority party for it! One hopes that the people who supported the war have the integrity to admit that they wanted this war in all its bloody glory, and take responsibility for where their desires have taken us. Not this one. Learn the difference between hindsight and insight and get back to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #30 September 14, 2006 >Learn the difference between hindsight and insight and get back to me. Easy. Insight is having a good idea what will happen before it happens; hindsight is knowing what one _should_ have done after the fact. Insight: Iraq will become a quagmire unless we plan for what happens after Hussein is overthrown. Hindsight: Gee, I guess we should have had a plan for what happened after we overthrew Hussein. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #31 September 14, 2006 Quote>Learn the difference between hindsight and insight and get back to me. Easy. Insight is having a good idea what will happen before it happens; hindsight is knowing what one _should_ have done after the fact. Insight: Iraq will become a quagmire unless we plan for what happens after Hussein is overthrown. Hindsight: Gee, I guess we should have had a plan for what happened after we overthrew Hussein. I think they had a plan initially, for what they wanted to do when SH was gone. I think they just got sidetracked into the politically correct BS and lost focus on winning the war first. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freethefly 6 #32 September 14, 2006 QuoteHad we gone in with a lot more, this war would have ended by now due to an overwhelming force and fewer innocent people would have died. Had they'd stayed the course in Afghanistan instead of diverting resources to invade a country that poised no threat... As it is now (and has been since the start) there is an overwhelming force in Iraq compared to the number of insurgents (does anyone really know the number of insurgents?). Recent reports are showing that a good number of American trained Iraqi forces are also responsible for the greatly increasing violence. Face it, this is a lost cause (if it ever were a cause at all). The M.E. is even more unstable than ever before. Not because of the insurgents but, because of a poorly planned(?) invasion. Because of an arrogant administration that has failed 100% at home and abroad. This administration is responsible for each and every death. They are sending people into a meat grinder and urging that we stay the course. When staying the course comprise of only feeding the grinder it is foolish to not pull back to find a new path. Merely sending more to die for the arrogance of an ineffective president will not bring this to an end. Merely sending more at the beginning would not had been anymore effective and we would had still been where we are now - stuck fighting an ideology that is growing in numbers."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #33 September 14, 2006 Quote I was wondering the samething in concern of merc operations such as Blackwater. Is the execution of mercenaries justified, considering that they fight only for the pay? If a mercenary kills an civilian during a firefight should that person be tried under the laws of the country the killing took place? Should the legal combatants be placed in harms way to rescue mercs? Should mercs be placed on trial in the US or any other country considering that they are, more than less, killers for hire? If those in Gitmo are in fact mercs and not legal combatants, then they got what they were paid for. If they are not mercs then they should be treated as defined by the Geneva Convention. Art. 47. Mercenaries 1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. 2. A mercenary is any person who: (a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces. The point is that Blackwater and the like are not hired to supplement troops on the battlefield, they are hired for security duty for individuals. While you may call them 'mercenaries' so that you can fantasize about them being put in front of a court, they are not.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #34 September 14, 2006 QuoteQuote>Learn the difference between hindsight and insight and get back to me. Easy. Insight is having a good idea what will happen before it happens; hindsight is knowing what one _should_ have done after the fact. Insight: Iraq will become a quagmire unless we plan for what happens after Hussein is overthrown. Hindsight: Gee, I guess we should have had a plan for what happened after we overthrew Hussein. I think they had a plan initially, for what they wanted to do when SH was gone. I think they just got sidetracked into the politically correct BS and lost focus on winning the war first. no actually they didnt.. do some research.. in fact you'll find a thread here that has a link to the records of meetings where our incompetent civilian leadership THREATENED Military officers for ATTEMPTING to plan for what their Clear Expertise and Experience KNEW would happen... but of course the Political Necessity to 'sell it to the people as quick and easy' outweighed the Military Necessity to plan for the realities of war...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #35 September 14, 2006 Do you have a link? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #36 September 14, 2006 yea its the latest "WhyTF is this fool still in his position" thread on Rumsfield.. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2429350;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #37 September 14, 2006 Quoteyea its the latest "WhyTF is this fool still in his position" thread on Rumsfield.. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2429350;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread OK I know what you are referring to now. It isn't clear that there was no post war plan for Iraq. My understanding is that Rumsfeld didn't want anyone discussing it because a publication of a post-war plan would be viewed as a "war for oil" plan if and when it appeared on the front page of the NYT or WaPo. Just because one General who was in charge of the Transportation Corps. comes forward and says there was no plan isn't proof there wasn't. It only means he wasn't included. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #38 September 14, 2006 QuoteQuote>Learn the difference between hindsight and insight and get back to me. Easy. Insight is having a good idea what will happen before it happens; hindsight is knowing what one _should_ have done after the fact. Insight: Iraq will become a quagmire unless we plan for what happens after Hussein is overthrown. Hindsight: Gee, I guess we should have had a plan for what happened after we overthrew Hussein. I think they had a plan initially, for what they wanted to do when SH was gone. I think they just got sidetracked into the politically correct BS and lost focus on winning the war first. Nonsense - in their arrogance they ignored their generals' advice, and had no workable plan for what to do after "Mission Accomplished". Bush had stated that he wanted to be a "War President", and lied his way to becoming one. Unfortunately for all of us, he is an incompetent one.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #39 September 14, 2006 >I think they had a plan initially, for what they wanted to do when SH was gone. --------------------- Army general says Rumsfeld refused to plan for post-war Iraq Daily Press (Newport News, Va.) FORT EUSTIS, Va. - Long before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists to develop plans for securing a post-war Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday. In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a post-war plan. ---------------------- I think it might be time to stop defending these people. All they can offer us is more non-planning, more torture, more death and more defeat. They're not going to change; they've said so themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #40 September 14, 2006 QuoteQuote Oh! Since Gitmo is US soil, international law doesn't apply, so no need to comply with the Geneva Convention. well, the Geneva Convention protections would not apply to members of Al Quaeda, regardless. You're missing the point. Active al Qa'eda members are either: a. Entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention, or b. Subject to substantive and procedural due process of law as criminal defendants under one or more nations' civilian criminal laws. As I said above, there is no third category, nor is there a non-category. You're a combatant or you're a criminal defendant. Sometimes, you're both. But you are NEVER neither - as long as genuine rule of law exists and is adhered to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Remster 24 #41 September 14, 2006 Quoteas long as genuine rule of law exists and is adhered to. Oh ! Look ! Loophole ! kinda...Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #42 September 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteas long as genuine rule of law exists and is adhered to. Oh ! Look ! Loophole ! kinda... It is a part of the acceptance of the rule of law that the courts will be able to exercise jurisdiction over the executive. Otherwise the conduct of the executive is not defined and restrained by law. It is because of that principle, that the USA, deliberately seeking to put the detainees beyond the reach of the law in Guantanamo Bay, is so shocking an affront to the principles of democracy. Charles Falconer, the Lord Chancellor of the UK, member of Tony Blair's cabinet. And that is the official position of the US's closest ally.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freethefly 6 #43 September 14, 2006 QuoteThe point is that Blackwater and the like are not hired to supplement troops on the battlefield, they are hired for security duty for individuals. While you may call them 'mercenaries' so that you can fantasize about them being put in front of a court, they are not. They are in fact a corporate mecenary organization. Do a little research. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=10353 And then there is Zapata Engineering http://judicial-inc.biz/Mercs_ambush_marines_supplement.htm"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #44 September 14, 2006 QuoteAs I said above, there is no third category, nor is there a non-category. You're a combatant or you're a criminal defendant. Sometimes, you're both. But you are NEVER neither - as long as genuine rule of law exists and is adhered to. There is a third option.. just shoot all the AQ members you encounter trying to kill Americans... Edited to add.. let them die in flames horribly like their victims.. in fact that is a good way to exterminate them once they are found guilty of being AQ... a death by fire and crushing like the innocent americans they murdered. They have stated that we are guilty of being Americans and need to die for that crime.... Return the favor.. you dont have to deal with all this long term storage of fanatics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #45 September 14, 2006 QuoteCould, would, might....Please show me where it has happened. They interviewed one this morning on NPR, one of the Brits who were tortured in Afghanistan and kept for three years without charge. I think there's a followup tomorrow. The guy's promoting a book on the subject, hence the airtime. Or, from AI, When Maher Arar arrived at John F. Kennedy airport in New York City on Sept. 26, 2002, he had no idea his life was about to be radically changed. Arar, a 31-year-old computer consultant and Canadian citizen, was en route from Zurich to Montreal to attend to business following a family vacation in Tunisia, according to a lawsuit he filed against U.S. officials in 2004. He was standing in line waiting to pass immigration inspection when an immigration officer asked him to step aside to answer some questions. As FBI agents, immigration officials and NYPD officers questioned Arar, he asked to consult an attorney. U.S. officials told Arar that only U.S. citizens had the right to a lawyer and locked him up in the Metropolitan Detention Center in New York City, where he endured more interrogation about his friends, the mosques he attended, his letters and e-mails. U.S. officials then demanded that he "voluntarily" agree to be sent to Syria, where he was born, instead of home to Canada (Arar holds dual citizenship). Arar refused, according to Amnesty International, explaining that he was afraid he would be tortured in Syria for not completing his military service. After more than a week in detention, U.S. authorities determined that Arar was "inadmissible" to the United States based on secret evidence and notified him that he would be deported to Syria. They took him to New Jersey in the middle of the night and loaded him onto a small plane that stopped in Washington, D.C., and then Rome before proceeding to Jordan. Local authorities in Jordan chained and beat Arar, bundled him in a van and drove him across the border to Syria, where Arar was beaten with electrical cables, interrogated about his acquaintances and beliefs, and kept in a tiny cell for months at a time. "I first thought they would keep me in that place, which I now call the grave, for a short period so that they could put pressure on me," Arar told AI. "But I was kept in that dark and filthy cell for about 10 months and 10 days. That was torture." After three consecutive days of beating and interrogation, he said, "I could not take the pain any more and I falsely confessed of having been to Afghanistan." After the Canadian government intervened, Syrian authorities released him in October 2003 — more than one year after his ill-fated attempt to change planes in New York City — with an acknowledgment that there was no evidence that he was ever involved in terrorism. http://www.amnestyusa.org/magazine/fall_2006/dirty_secrets/ OTOH there have been terrorists released from Gitmo who killed American Military once they returned to their home countries. As soon as we start treating them like the enemy they are and quit worrying about their "rights" the sooner we can get this war over with. Every war we have fought in the last century that we worried about the enemies "rights" we have lost. Every war we have fought as a war, we have won. Prisoners should be treated as Prisioners of War, kept in confinement until the war is over, and dealt with at the appropriate time. If it's going to take redefining prisoners rights, then so be it. This is a different type of war than those of the past and appropriate changes should be made if that's what's necessary. As soon as the pro-war types finally admit that their actions in fighting this "war" are creating more enemies than they're destroying THEN we might make some progress. We are pissing on everthing that this country is supposed to stand for while simultaneously saying that we should be a model for the rest of the world. The whole notion of a "war on terror" is just plain stupid and is completely unwinnable. You might as well declare it a "war on anger". Like I pointed out before, this administration's strategy basically boils down to the notion that "the beatings will continue until morale improves". That's funny when it's on a T-shirt, but not when it's an official foreign policy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #46 September 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote>Learn the difference between hindsight and insight and get back to me. Easy. Insight is having a good idea what will happen before it happens; hindsight is knowing what one _should_ have done after the fact. Insight: Iraq will become a quagmire unless we plan for what happens after Hussein is overthrown. Hindsight: Gee, I guess we should have had a plan for what happened after we overthrew Hussein. I think they had a plan initially, for what they wanted to do when SH was gone. I think they just got sidetracked into the politically correct BS and lost focus on winning the war first. Nonsense - in their arrogance they ignored their generals' advice, and had no workable plan for what to do after "Mission Accomplished". Bush had stated that he wanted to be a "War President", and lied his way to becoming one. Unfortunately for all of us, he is an incompetent one. Rubbish. There were a few Generals who were against the war and many who were for it including Powell. Nice hindsight, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #47 September 14, 2006 >Nice hindsight, though. Kallend's been saying that since before we invaded. You may want to consult a dictionary for the definition of "hindsight." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #48 September 14, 2006 Nice rant even though it has nothing to do with the discussion. We were talkin about the ACLU and the rights of American Citizens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #49 September 14, 2006 QuoteNice rant even though it has nothing to do with the discussion. We were talkin about the ACLU and the rights of American Citizens. Did I jump threads again? Sorry. All this defending of the indefensible sounds the same. Ok, Padilla then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #50 September 14, 2006 Quote>Nice hindsight, though. Kallend's been saying that since before we invaded. You may want to consult a dictionary for the definition of "hindsight." And you might try reading what was written. I'm talking about looking back now (hindsight) and declaring that because a few Generals were against it then, that they somehow had some kind of mystical powers to predict the future (insight). Anyone can find dissent anytime a decision is made. I's a pretty cheesey tactic to then go back and blame the person who was charged with making a decision and attack them by claiming, based on the dissent by calling them stupid. 2 more words for you to look up. Criticism and belittlement Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 2,400 #30 September 14, 2006 >Learn the difference between hindsight and insight and get back to me. Easy. Insight is having a good idea what will happen before it happens; hindsight is knowing what one _should_ have done after the fact. Insight: Iraq will become a quagmire unless we plan for what happens after Hussein is overthrown. Hindsight: Gee, I guess we should have had a plan for what happened after we overthrew Hussein. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #31 September 14, 2006 Quote>Learn the difference between hindsight and insight and get back to me. Easy. Insight is having a good idea what will happen before it happens; hindsight is knowing what one _should_ have done after the fact. Insight: Iraq will become a quagmire unless we plan for what happens after Hussein is overthrown. Hindsight: Gee, I guess we should have had a plan for what happened after we overthrew Hussein. I think they had a plan initially, for what they wanted to do when SH was gone. I think they just got sidetracked into the politically correct BS and lost focus on winning the war first. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #32 September 14, 2006 QuoteHad we gone in with a lot more, this war would have ended by now due to an overwhelming force and fewer innocent people would have died. Had they'd stayed the course in Afghanistan instead of diverting resources to invade a country that poised no threat... As it is now (and has been since the start) there is an overwhelming force in Iraq compared to the number of insurgents (does anyone really know the number of insurgents?). Recent reports are showing that a good number of American trained Iraqi forces are also responsible for the greatly increasing violence. Face it, this is a lost cause (if it ever were a cause at all). The M.E. is even more unstable than ever before. Not because of the insurgents but, because of a poorly planned(?) invasion. Because of an arrogant administration that has failed 100% at home and abroad. This administration is responsible for each and every death. They are sending people into a meat grinder and urging that we stay the course. When staying the course comprise of only feeding the grinder it is foolish to not pull back to find a new path. Merely sending more to die for the arrogance of an ineffective president will not bring this to an end. Merely sending more at the beginning would not had been anymore effective and we would had still been where we are now - stuck fighting an ideology that is growing in numbers."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #33 September 14, 2006 Quote I was wondering the samething in concern of merc operations such as Blackwater. Is the execution of mercenaries justified, considering that they fight only for the pay? If a mercenary kills an civilian during a firefight should that person be tried under the laws of the country the killing took place? Should the legal combatants be placed in harms way to rescue mercs? Should mercs be placed on trial in the US or any other country considering that they are, more than less, killers for hire? If those in Gitmo are in fact mercs and not legal combatants, then they got what they were paid for. If they are not mercs then they should be treated as defined by the Geneva Convention. Art. 47. Mercenaries 1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. 2. A mercenary is any person who: (a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces. The point is that Blackwater and the like are not hired to supplement troops on the battlefield, they are hired for security duty for individuals. While you may call them 'mercenaries' so that you can fantasize about them being put in front of a court, they are not.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #34 September 14, 2006 QuoteQuote>Learn the difference between hindsight and insight and get back to me. Easy. Insight is having a good idea what will happen before it happens; hindsight is knowing what one _should_ have done after the fact. Insight: Iraq will become a quagmire unless we plan for what happens after Hussein is overthrown. Hindsight: Gee, I guess we should have had a plan for what happened after we overthrew Hussein. I think they had a plan initially, for what they wanted to do when SH was gone. I think they just got sidetracked into the politically correct BS and lost focus on winning the war first. no actually they didnt.. do some research.. in fact you'll find a thread here that has a link to the records of meetings where our incompetent civilian leadership THREATENED Military officers for ATTEMPTING to plan for what their Clear Expertise and Experience KNEW would happen... but of course the Political Necessity to 'sell it to the people as quick and easy' outweighed the Military Necessity to plan for the realities of war...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #35 September 14, 2006 Do you have a link? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #36 September 14, 2006 yea its the latest "WhyTF is this fool still in his position" thread on Rumsfield.. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2429350;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #37 September 14, 2006 Quoteyea its the latest "WhyTF is this fool still in his position" thread on Rumsfield.. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2429350;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread OK I know what you are referring to now. It isn't clear that there was no post war plan for Iraq. My understanding is that Rumsfeld didn't want anyone discussing it because a publication of a post-war plan would be viewed as a "war for oil" plan if and when it appeared on the front page of the NYT or WaPo. Just because one General who was in charge of the Transportation Corps. comes forward and says there was no plan isn't proof there wasn't. It only means he wasn't included. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #38 September 14, 2006 QuoteQuote>Learn the difference between hindsight and insight and get back to me. Easy. Insight is having a good idea what will happen before it happens; hindsight is knowing what one _should_ have done after the fact. Insight: Iraq will become a quagmire unless we plan for what happens after Hussein is overthrown. Hindsight: Gee, I guess we should have had a plan for what happened after we overthrew Hussein. I think they had a plan initially, for what they wanted to do when SH was gone. I think they just got sidetracked into the politically correct BS and lost focus on winning the war first. Nonsense - in their arrogance they ignored their generals' advice, and had no workable plan for what to do after "Mission Accomplished". Bush had stated that he wanted to be a "War President", and lied his way to becoming one. Unfortunately for all of us, he is an incompetent one.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #39 September 14, 2006 >I think they had a plan initially, for what they wanted to do when SH was gone. --------------------- Army general says Rumsfeld refused to plan for post-war Iraq Daily Press (Newport News, Va.) FORT EUSTIS, Va. - Long before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists to develop plans for securing a post-war Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday. In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a post-war plan. ---------------------- I think it might be time to stop defending these people. All they can offer us is more non-planning, more torture, more death and more defeat. They're not going to change; they've said so themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #40 September 14, 2006 QuoteQuote Oh! Since Gitmo is US soil, international law doesn't apply, so no need to comply with the Geneva Convention. well, the Geneva Convention protections would not apply to members of Al Quaeda, regardless. You're missing the point. Active al Qa'eda members are either: a. Entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention, or b. Subject to substantive and procedural due process of law as criminal defendants under one or more nations' civilian criminal laws. As I said above, there is no third category, nor is there a non-category. You're a combatant or you're a criminal defendant. Sometimes, you're both. But you are NEVER neither - as long as genuine rule of law exists and is adhered to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #41 September 14, 2006 Quoteas long as genuine rule of law exists and is adhered to. Oh ! Look ! Loophole ! kinda...Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #42 September 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteas long as genuine rule of law exists and is adhered to. Oh ! Look ! Loophole ! kinda... It is a part of the acceptance of the rule of law that the courts will be able to exercise jurisdiction over the executive. Otherwise the conduct of the executive is not defined and restrained by law. It is because of that principle, that the USA, deliberately seeking to put the detainees beyond the reach of the law in Guantanamo Bay, is so shocking an affront to the principles of democracy. Charles Falconer, the Lord Chancellor of the UK, member of Tony Blair's cabinet. And that is the official position of the US's closest ally.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #43 September 14, 2006 QuoteThe point is that Blackwater and the like are not hired to supplement troops on the battlefield, they are hired for security duty for individuals. While you may call them 'mercenaries' so that you can fantasize about them being put in front of a court, they are not. They are in fact a corporate mecenary organization. Do a little research. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=10353 And then there is Zapata Engineering http://judicial-inc.biz/Mercs_ambush_marines_supplement.htm"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #44 September 14, 2006 QuoteAs I said above, there is no third category, nor is there a non-category. You're a combatant or you're a criminal defendant. Sometimes, you're both. But you are NEVER neither - as long as genuine rule of law exists and is adhered to. There is a third option.. just shoot all the AQ members you encounter trying to kill Americans... Edited to add.. let them die in flames horribly like their victims.. in fact that is a good way to exterminate them once they are found guilty of being AQ... a death by fire and crushing like the innocent americans they murdered. They have stated that we are guilty of being Americans and need to die for that crime.... Return the favor.. you dont have to deal with all this long term storage of fanatics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #45 September 14, 2006 QuoteCould, would, might....Please show me where it has happened. They interviewed one this morning on NPR, one of the Brits who were tortured in Afghanistan and kept for three years without charge. I think there's a followup tomorrow. The guy's promoting a book on the subject, hence the airtime. Or, from AI, When Maher Arar arrived at John F. Kennedy airport in New York City on Sept. 26, 2002, he had no idea his life was about to be radically changed. Arar, a 31-year-old computer consultant and Canadian citizen, was en route from Zurich to Montreal to attend to business following a family vacation in Tunisia, according to a lawsuit he filed against U.S. officials in 2004. He was standing in line waiting to pass immigration inspection when an immigration officer asked him to step aside to answer some questions. As FBI agents, immigration officials and NYPD officers questioned Arar, he asked to consult an attorney. U.S. officials told Arar that only U.S. citizens had the right to a lawyer and locked him up in the Metropolitan Detention Center in New York City, where he endured more interrogation about his friends, the mosques he attended, his letters and e-mails. U.S. officials then demanded that he "voluntarily" agree to be sent to Syria, where he was born, instead of home to Canada (Arar holds dual citizenship). Arar refused, according to Amnesty International, explaining that he was afraid he would be tortured in Syria for not completing his military service. After more than a week in detention, U.S. authorities determined that Arar was "inadmissible" to the United States based on secret evidence and notified him that he would be deported to Syria. They took him to New Jersey in the middle of the night and loaded him onto a small plane that stopped in Washington, D.C., and then Rome before proceeding to Jordan. Local authorities in Jordan chained and beat Arar, bundled him in a van and drove him across the border to Syria, where Arar was beaten with electrical cables, interrogated about his acquaintances and beliefs, and kept in a tiny cell for months at a time. "I first thought they would keep me in that place, which I now call the grave, for a short period so that they could put pressure on me," Arar told AI. "But I was kept in that dark and filthy cell for about 10 months and 10 days. That was torture." After three consecutive days of beating and interrogation, he said, "I could not take the pain any more and I falsely confessed of having been to Afghanistan." After the Canadian government intervened, Syrian authorities released him in October 2003 — more than one year after his ill-fated attempt to change planes in New York City — with an acknowledgment that there was no evidence that he was ever involved in terrorism. http://www.amnestyusa.org/magazine/fall_2006/dirty_secrets/ OTOH there have been terrorists released from Gitmo who killed American Military once they returned to their home countries. As soon as we start treating them like the enemy they are and quit worrying about their "rights" the sooner we can get this war over with. Every war we have fought in the last century that we worried about the enemies "rights" we have lost. Every war we have fought as a war, we have won. Prisoners should be treated as Prisioners of War, kept in confinement until the war is over, and dealt with at the appropriate time. If it's going to take redefining prisoners rights, then so be it. This is a different type of war than those of the past and appropriate changes should be made if that's what's necessary. As soon as the pro-war types finally admit that their actions in fighting this "war" are creating more enemies than they're destroying THEN we might make some progress. We are pissing on everthing that this country is supposed to stand for while simultaneously saying that we should be a model for the rest of the world. The whole notion of a "war on terror" is just plain stupid and is completely unwinnable. You might as well declare it a "war on anger". Like I pointed out before, this administration's strategy basically boils down to the notion that "the beatings will continue until morale improves". That's funny when it's on a T-shirt, but not when it's an official foreign policy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #46 September 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote>Learn the difference between hindsight and insight and get back to me. Easy. Insight is having a good idea what will happen before it happens; hindsight is knowing what one _should_ have done after the fact. Insight: Iraq will become a quagmire unless we plan for what happens after Hussein is overthrown. Hindsight: Gee, I guess we should have had a plan for what happened after we overthrew Hussein. I think they had a plan initially, for what they wanted to do when SH was gone. I think they just got sidetracked into the politically correct BS and lost focus on winning the war first. Nonsense - in their arrogance they ignored their generals' advice, and had no workable plan for what to do after "Mission Accomplished". Bush had stated that he wanted to be a "War President", and lied his way to becoming one. Unfortunately for all of us, he is an incompetent one. Rubbish. There were a few Generals who were against the war and many who were for it including Powell. Nice hindsight, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #47 September 14, 2006 >Nice hindsight, though. Kallend's been saying that since before we invaded. You may want to consult a dictionary for the definition of "hindsight." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #48 September 14, 2006 Nice rant even though it has nothing to do with the discussion. We were talkin about the ACLU and the rights of American Citizens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #49 September 14, 2006 QuoteNice rant even though it has nothing to do with the discussion. We were talkin about the ACLU and the rights of American Citizens. Did I jump threads again? Sorry. All this defending of the indefensible sounds the same. Ok, Padilla then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #50 September 14, 2006 Quote>Nice hindsight, though. Kallend's been saying that since before we invaded. You may want to consult a dictionary for the definition of "hindsight." And you might try reading what was written. I'm talking about looking back now (hindsight) and declaring that because a few Generals were against it then, that they somehow had some kind of mystical powers to predict the future (insight). Anyone can find dissent anytime a decision is made. I's a pretty cheesey tactic to then go back and blame the person who was charged with making a decision and attack them by claiming, based on the dissent by calling them stupid. 2 more words for you to look up. Criticism and belittlement Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
