Gitmo, Cuba

[Aimster]

Inspired by another thread.

There is a poll

 

[Sinsear]

I will reiterate my support for the detention facility at Club Gitmo.

 

[Rainsford]

The question is a little vague. I'm not opposed to holding prisoners, I'm just opposed to the manner in which they are being held. A sustained, long term, global police action needs to have some basic principles for holding suspected terrorists. In a "war without end", simply holding people until the end of time is unacceptable, they should have at least some basic rights to challenge their detention in an unbiased court. I am also opposed to, under any circumstances, torturing detainees.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
I will reiterate my support for the detention facility at Club Gitmo.

And i will reiterate my disgust for you and everyone like you along with my disgust for the politics needed to stage such a thing as Gitmo.

It's disgusting, those who don't see that should be the ones sent there first because they are definently the enemies of a free society.

 

[Pabster]

Yeah, perhaps OP should add "Gitmo, as currently running".

And I support it absolutely.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Inspired by another thread.

There is a poll

Add English, against it and you'll get one vote there.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
The question is a little vague. I'm not opposed to holding prisoners, I'm just opposed to the manner in which they are being held. A sustained, long term, global police action needs to have some basic principles for holding suspected terrorists. In a "war without end", simply holding people until the end of time is unacceptable, they should have at least some basic rights to challenge their detention in an unbiased court. I am also opposed to, under any circumstances, torturing detainees.

There is a reason for its location.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Sinsear
I will reiterate my support for the detention facility at Club Gitmo.

And i will reiterate my disgust for you and everyone like you along with my disgust for the politics needed to stage such a thing as Gitmo.

It's disgusting, those who don't see that should be the ones sent there first because they are definently the enemies of a free society.

Come up with a better way otherwise...you know.

Leave it in place.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
I will reiterate my support for the detention facility at Club Gitmo.

I will express my support for the detention of Sinsear, Pabster and others who fail to oppose wrongs to others.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Sinsear
I will reiterate my support for the detention facility at Club Gitmo.

I will express my support for the detention of Sinsear, Pabster and others who fail to oppose wrongs to others.

Mamby pamby.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Sinsear
I will reiterate my support for the detention facility at Club Gitmo.

I will express my support for the detention of Sinsear, Pabster and others who fail to oppose wrongs to others.

Mamby pamby.

Excuse me? What the hell are you trying to say, I suspect the answer is "nothing, as usual"?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Sinsear
I will reiterate my support for the detention facility at Club Gitmo.

I will express my support for the detention of Sinsear, Pabster and others who fail to oppose wrongs to others.

Maybe you have a spare room or two are your place for this wonderful people?

 

[ProfJohn]

We should archive all these Democrat vs. Republican polls that are floating around and re-run them about six months after a Democrat President takes over and decides that keeping Gitmo open is our best long term option.

It is real easy to make statements opposing Gitmo when you don?t have to deal with the consequences of your statements.

It is the same thing we are seeing with the Iraq war, all the Democrat candidates were voting to end the war and war funding, but when asked if we will still be in Iraq at the end of their first term they all waffle.

 

[ProfJohn]

BTW anyone know how many former Gitmo residents have been picked up again by US or allied forces for further terrorist acts?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Sinsear
I will reiterate my support for the detention facility at Club Gitmo.

I will express my support for the detention of Sinsear, Pabster and others who fail to oppose wrongs to others.

Mamby pamby.

Excuse me? What the hell are you trying to say, I suspect the answer is "nothing, as usual"?

did you say something? :laugh:

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We should archive all these Democrat vs. Republican polls that are floating around and re-run them about six months after a Democrat President takes over and decides that keeping Gitmo open is our best long term option.

It is real easy to make statements opposing Gitmo when you don?t have to deal with the consequences of your statements.

It is the same thing we are seeing with the Iraq war, all the Democrat candidates were voting to end the war and war funding, but when asked if we will still be in Iraq at the end of their first term they all waffle.

You are the most daft person on this board by far.

Democrats never voted FOR war, they voted for the use of force IF NECESSARY, they did not vote for war funding, they voted for supplies for the soldiers who are there already, they have NO means of getting them home and so they need to see to it that soldiers get their equipment.

This is politics and you are a politician, i despise everything about it and i despise everything about you, things like loyalty and honor is nothing that you know of.

 

[FoBoT]

they need more waterboarding , otherwise, i give them a B+

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
the need more waterboarding , otherwise, i give them a B+

For some reason people believe that waterboarding is the only torture these prisoners are subjected to, this is very far from the truth.

It's one of the worst though, and it's not different from other suffocation techniques, you an do it at home, try to last more than 45 seconds, because that is standard and most don't.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
You are the most daft person on this board by far.

Democrats never voted FOR war, they voted for the use of force IF NECESSARY, they did not vote for war funding, they voted for supplies for the soldiers who are there already, they have NO means of getting them home and so they need to see to it that soldiers get their equipment.

This is politics and you are a politician, i despise everything about it and i despise everything about you, things like loyalty and honor is nothing that you know of.

Nice use of revisionist history to defend your political allies.

Can someone find for me the first time someone used the ?It wasn?t a vote for war, it was a vote to use force if necessary? argument? I am guessing that phrase did not come along until long after the war had started. Everyone knew that we were heading towards war. Go back and read the statements by the Democrats from that time frame. They weren?t talking about the use of diplomacy and sanctions, they were beating the drums as much as anyone else.

A lot of Democrats were making the ?if necessary? comments when making speeches prior to the war. But the use of the ?I didn?t vote for the war, I voted to encourage more diplomacy? thing is a rather recent invention by people like Hillary as a way to excuse her vote.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
You are the most daft person on this board by far.

Democrats never voted FOR war, they voted for the use of force IF NECESSARY, they did not vote for war funding, they voted for supplies for the soldiers who are there already, they have NO means of getting them home and so they need to see to it that soldiers get their equipment.

This is politics and you are a politician, i despise everything about it and i despise everything about you, things like loyalty and honor is nothing that you know of.

Nice use of revisionist history to defend your political allies.

Can someone find for me the first time someone used the ?It wasn?t a vote for war, it was a vote to use force if necessary? argument? I am guessing that phrase did not come along until long after the war had started. Everyone knew that we were heading towards war. Go back and read the statements by the Democrats from that time frame. They weren?t talking about the use of diplomacy and sanctions, they were beating the drums as much as anyone else.

A lot of Democrats were making the ?if necessary? comments when making speeches prior to the war. But the use of the ?I didn?t vote for the war, I voted to encourage more diplomacy? thing is a rather recent invention by people like Hillary as a way to excuse her vote.

Well, check what they voted for, that is enough.

None of them were presented with a vote to go to war and that is really the point.

I won't excuse anyone from anything, certainly not Hillary or any congress since i'm not even American, but to state that they voted FOR going to war is just plain wrong and you know that.

You're a sick little piece of shit, you'd follow GW to the death even if it meant securing a dictatorship, i've met severeal people like you in Iraq and Afghanistan, you are all pathetic small minded people to me, you can't see that somewhere beyond all the BS there is a solution and that is why no one will ever find the solution, because of twirps like you.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
You're a sick little piece of shit, you'd follow GW to the death even if it meant securing a dictatorship, i've met severeal people like you in Iraq and Afghanistan, you are all pathetic small minded people to me, you can't see that somewhere beyond all the BS there is a solution and that is why no one will ever find the solution, because of twirps like you.

Why do you feel the need to end nearly every post of yours with a personal insult?

It is really pathetic.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
You're a sick little piece of shit, you'd follow GW to the death even if it meant securing a dictatorship, i've met severeal people like you in Iraq and Afghanistan, you are all pathetic small minded people to me, you can't see that somewhere beyond all the BS there is a solution and that is why no one will ever find the solution, because of twirps like you.

Why do you feel the need to end nearly every post of yours with a personal insult?

It is really pathetic.

Because i rarely respond to anyone unless i fucking disagree with them, there is no discussion to be had with you, you haven't even got a mind of your own, you have to check what the GOP has to say so you know what to fucking think.

I'm fairly sure even the most conservative members can agree with me on that.

I really don't like your kind and while i'm sorry that you have to take the heat for the lot of you you surely deserve every bit of it.


And as i've said before, i'm not a fucking politician like you are so i don't play nice and i don't give a fuck what you or anyone else thinks, i speak my mind and that is it.

 

[ProfJohn]

I am not a politician either. But there is a thing called reasonable discourse and that is why most of us are here.

To state our opinion and hear the opinions of others, even those we disagree with.

People like you with your petty insults and crude language ruin it for everyone though.
You are really a sad little man if you think your insults have any real meaning to them. All they do is illustrate your inability to phrase a persuasive argument.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am not a politician either. But there is a thing called reasonable discourse and that is why most of us are here.

To state our opinion and hear the opinions of others, even those we disagree with.

People like you with your petty insults and crude language ruin it for everyone though.
You are really a sad little man if you think your insults have any real meaning to them. All they do is illustrate your inability to phrase a persuasive argument.

*sigh*

Either you don't read my posts or you just choose to respond to something else.

You want civil discourse, ok, see i'm not as stupid as you might think i am

You never do anything, do you, i mean, you have ideas but you never do anything about them, you hang on to the coattails of the GOP and that is it with you, all they do is fine by you is it not, i have yet to see one single post where you did anything but blast the other side or promote your own side which is always the GOP.

So let's discuss this without insults, according to international law Gitmo prisoners are part of an illegal program, they are tortured and the establishment does not follow international laws.

While you may not be a politician (i highly doubt that though) you sure do speak as one, you avoid the questions like a professional and you spread the propaganda better than Stalin ever did.

Of course, in your favor, Stalin never had access to the internet (Gore hadn't invented it yet see).

I'm going to ask something of you though, that you stop being such a fucked up little twirp that has nothing but good to say for one side and nothing but hatred or the other and then, maybe then you and me can have reasoned discussion. ok?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
You are the most daft person on this board by far.

I have to defend PJ on that one - he's the most some things, but not the most daft.

Democrats never voted FOR war, they voted for the use of force IF NECESSARY, they did not vote for war funding, they voted for supplies for the soldiers who are there already, they have NO means of getting them home and so they need to see to it that soldiers get their equipment.

This is politics and you are a politician, i despise everything about it and i despise everything about you, things like loyalty and honor is nothing that you know of.

Nice use of revisionist history to defend your political allies.

Can someone find for me the first time someone used the ?It wasn?t a vote for war, it was a vote to use force if necessary? argument? I am guessing that phrase did not come along until long after the war had started. Everyone knew that we were heading towards war. Go back and read the statements by the Democrats from that time frame. They weren?t talking about the use of diplomacy and sanctions, they were beating the drums as much as anyone else.

A lot of Democrats were making the ?if necessary? comments when making speeches prior to the war. But the use of the ?I didn?t vote for the war, I voted to encourage more diplomacy? thing is a rather recent invention by people like Hillary as a way to excuse her vote.

PJ, it's too much to read you accusing someone who is accurately reporting the history of 'historical revisionism', followed by your "guessing" what happened - and revisionism.

You need read no further than John Kerry's detailed, careful speech with his vote to see the actual history, how the democrats were taking Bush at his word, skeptically, that this was not a vote for war - Bush himself said that, to try to deny the doves any argument against voting for it.

Bush said the purpose was to get the UN inspectors back in - and had Bush let them finish, he'd have had a good policy, but he didn't, he ordered them OUT and invaded.