Guantanamo conditions 'worsening'

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
"areas under gang control" is just an example of how exaggerated your whole positon was, there is no area under "control" of gangs, if anything gangs have gotten to be less of a problem in the past 2 decades, compton, watts, inglewood in S central LA are a walk in the park compared to mid 90's.

Either you are not old enough to remember, or you don't know the city well enough to know what to expect, either that or your sources are total BS, from seeing the rest of your post sounds like you are just parroting right wing hate-radio, lay off that overhyped stuff, it's total overblown crap for ratings among paranoid white males.

Before Katrina hit New Orleans was on track to have 300+ murders.
Read it for yourself
Here is a city falling apart at the seems.

Why do liberals always attack Bush for what is going on in Gitmo, but never seem to attack the leadership in New Orleans? hmmmm

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
"areas under gang control" is just an example of how exaggerated your whole positon was, there is no area under "control" of gangs, if anything gangs have gotten to be less of a problem in the past 2 decades, compton, watts, inglewood in S central LA are a walk in the park compared to mid 90's.

Either you are not old enough to remember, or you don't know the city well enough to know what to expect, either that or your sources are total BS, from seeing the rest of your post sounds like you are just parroting right wing hate-radio, lay off that overhyped stuff, it's total overblown crap for ratings among paranoid white males.

Before Katrina hit New Orleans was on track to have 300+ murders.
Read it for yourself
Here is a city falling apart at the seems.

Why do liberals always attack Bush for what is going on in Gitmo, but never seem to attack the leadership in New Orleans? hmmmm

Still a numbers game? You're so short-sighted, it's painful.

Indefinite detention of detainees without any legal process...that's the problem.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
"areas under gang control" is just an example of how exaggerated your whole positon was, there is no area under "control" of gangs, if anything gangs have gotten to be less of a problem in the past 2 decades, compton, watts, inglewood in S central LA are a walk in the park compared to mid 90's.

Either you are not old enough to remember, or you don't know the city well enough to know what to expect, either that or your sources are total BS, from seeing the rest of your post sounds like you are just parroting right wing hate-radio, lay off that overhyped stuff, it's total overblown crap for ratings among paranoid white males.

Before Katrina hit New Orleans was on track to have 300+ murders.
Read it for yourself
Here is a city falling apart at the seems.

Why do liberals always attack Bush for what is going on in Gitmo, but never seem to attack the leadership in New Orleans? hmmmm

Well that's the difference between failure to act and taking actions that make things worse. Neither is really great, but while I might not like the lack of leadership in making certain big cities safer, I sure as hell have more of a problem with the people actually doing the killing, you know what I mean?

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: chucky2
No Rainsford, he said liberals are femanized (that I don't really agree with, although I would say it's less prevalent in conservatives), and that they have battered womans syndrome when it comes to real enemies (that I would tend to agree with).

Chuck

Bullshit. Even if I had been living a cave and wasn't aware that the right treats "feminine" like the worst possible trait a person (male or female) can have like it's 1860 or something, only a functional illiterate constructs a sentence like he did and doesn't mean what I said he meant. Conservative speech is filled with "liberals are feminine" kinds of phrases, and the only reason that works is because of how the target audience (other conservatives) views women in the first place.

I think it's a stupid ass debate, but I suppose that's what you get when you involve folks like you and Butterbean in it...garbage in, garbage out. But what really concerns me isn't how you perceive weakness in dealing with "real enemies", it's how you perceive strength. In your worldview, the important thing isn't to HAVE a strong response, it's to have the IMAGE of strength...in other words, a real fight against a real enemy is all about political theater, the conflict will presumably take care of itself. So you support nonsensical ideas because that's what Real Men do, while things that actually might help are rejected out of hand because they don't convey the appropriate levels of manliness. That's why you guys almost always support torturing and imprisoning random guys without actually bothering to try them to find out if they might be actual bad guys, yet you make very little noise about actually dealing with the repressive regimes that create the actual terrorists in the first place...perhaps because you appreciate how countries like Saudi Arabia treat women. Who knows, whatever the case, it seems a lot like the global war on terror is less about, you know, fighting terrorism and more about a chance for conservatives to (a little defensively, if you ask me) prove to the rest of us how manly you all are.

As for which side is more "feminine", I couldn't really say. On the other hand, I have my doubts that manliness is really the pickup truck commercial you righties seem to think it is...and you'd seem a lot more secure in your manhood if you didn't go around talking about it all the time. Like the saying goes, the guy who goes around calling everyone else gay is probably in the closet himself.

While that was an very coherant post, it was outstandingly wrong, especially when you kept making references "you" "You' 'you". First, I have no problem with women. I cannot imagine where you found me saying or insinuating that, but I don't. Second, I have no problem with my manliness. I like manly things...if you don't, that's fine, here in the US, that's allowed. Really it sounds to me like you actually might have some internal problems yourself, but I'm not a shrink, so I won't go there.

I agree with the threat of force being much better than using force....the problem is, you have to use force every once in a while or folks don't take you seriously. Witness Saddam and 14 UN resolutions - if he took the UN seriously, it wouldn't have taken but 1, maybe 2. It's like telling a misbehaving kid Please don't do that, Please don't do that, Please don't do that, Please don't do that, Please don't....you get the picture? Sooner or later, you stop asking, and you start paddling. Amazingly, when you start applying direct consequences to bad actions, those people take notice.

This goes for the guilty in Gitmo.
Unfortunately it goes for some innocents in Gitmo.
It goes for insurgents in Iraq.
It goes for us in Iraq (from an insurgent POV).
It goes for Israeli's (from a ME muslim POV).
It goes for Palestinians.

...and, I still think you're wrong on the sentence, despite your nicely worded diatribe.

Chuck

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Saddam killed a lot of dissenters, but that percentage (in comparison to Iraq's population) was VASTLY smaller than the percentage of Iraqis that now suffer from lack of electricity, increases in cost of living, and decreases in public safety. At minimum, 60,000 dead Iraqi civilians in 4 years, and likely more; Saddam never killed that fast.

ummmm Sorry, but you are very wrong

The Anfal campaign began in 1986 and lasted until 1989, (3 years)and was headed by Ali Hasan al-Majid, a cousin of the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The Anfal campaign included the use of ground offensives, aerial bombing, systematic destruction of settlements, mass deportation, concentration camps, firing squads, and chemical warfare, which earned al-Majid the nickname of "Chemical Ali".

Thousands of civilians were killed during chemical and conventional bombardments stretching from the spring of 1987 through the fall of 1988. The attacks were part of a long-standing campaign that destroyed almost every Kurdish village in a vast areas of northern Iraq -- along with a centuries-old way of life -- and displaced at least a million of the country's estimated 3.5 million Kurdish population. [1]

Independent sources estimate 50,000 to more than 100,000 deaths; the Kurds claim about 182,000 people were killed.

Three years and 50,000 to 100,000 dead... I think this proves your line about Saddam is 100% incorrect.

BTW just to be clear, every one of these people deserves some sort of trial. Certainly not in civilian courts, but some type of military tribunal fitting with their status as non-Americans accused of crimes against Americans. Once they are found guilty you can lock them up for the rest of their lives.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Indefinite detention of detainees without any legal process...that's the problem.

It's only a problem for the innocent there...however many that is...

..the rest there are getting better treatment that our captured forces in Iraq. I'm pretty sure I haven't seen any beheading stories coming from out of Gitmo....

Chuck

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
"areas under gang control" is just an example of how exaggerated your whole positon was, there is no area under "control" of gangs, if anything gangs have gotten to be less of a problem in the past 2 decades, compton, watts, inglewood in S central LA are a walk in the park compared to mid 90's.

Either you are not old enough to remember, or you don't know the city well enough to know what to expect, either that or your sources are total BS, from seeing the rest of your post sounds like you are just parroting right wing hate-radio, lay off that overhyped stuff, it's total overblown crap for ratings among paranoid white males.

Before Katrina hit New Orleans was on track to have 300+ murders.
Read it for yourself
Here is a city falling apart at the seems.

Why do liberals always attack Bush for what is going on in Gitmo, but never seem to attack the leadership in New Orleans? hmmmm

Honestly.

You rightys just confuse the bejesus out of me.

You want to take away social programs in the US while at the same time you have no problem helping out the people of another country who probably could care less about the US.

So why do you care about other countries so much but not raise a stink about what is going on in your backyard?

This is coming from a "Flaming" liberal. I could care less about other people in other countries. Just send a care package if they are thankful send some more. But we are supporting almost supporting their whole infrastructure.

Why don't you raise a stink about working for a better US than other countries?

 

[judasmachine]

My only thoughts are: Give them a trial and hang em, or lock em up, or hit em with a brick, but give them the trial. Sooner or later someone is going to start kidnapping americans and cutting their heads off on tv simply to protest the treatment of their people................ oh wait it's already going on. This all leaves the question, "Why are we not trying them (well the other 305)?"

This waiting and pussyfooting around would never fly here in Texas! (aka Saudi Arabia's rival in the Death Race.) Give the trial, and then give them what they deserve. Hell you guy seem so dead set on killing, why take prisoners in the first place? Why not just shoot them on the battlefield? You can't observe one part of the Geneva Convention and just ignore the rest and not expect people to come asking questions.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: outriding

Honestly.

You rightys just confuse the bejesus out of me.

You want to take away social programs in the US while at the same time you have no problem helping out the people of another country who probably could care less about the US.

So why do you care about other countries so much but not raise a stink about what is going on in your backyard?

This is coming from a "Flaming" liberal. I could care less about other people in other countries. Just send a care package if they are thankful send some more. But we are supporting almost supporting their whole infrastructure.

Why don't you raise a stink about working for a better US than other countries?

Probably because we just toppled the regime there and it's our responsibility to make sure the country can function before leaving it...

...and probably the other reason is that here in the US, people aren't living in a society that's in turmoil (unless you count New Orleans or bad spots in cities), so the people here can earn themselves a living just fine. Work hard, and earn your living...everyone else that's made it (excluding the rich boys and girls) has had to.

Chuck

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: outriding

Honestly.

You rightys just confuse the bejesus out of me.

You want to take away social programs in the US while at the same time you have no problem helping out the people of another country who probably could care less about the US.

So why do you care about other countries so much but not raise a stink about what is going on in your backyard?

This is coming from a "Flaming" liberal. I could care less about other people in other countries. Just send a care package if they are thankful send some more. But we are supporting almost supporting their whole infrastructure.

Why don't you raise a stink about working for a better US than other countries?

Probably because we just toppled the regime there and it's our responsibility to make sure the country can function before leaving it...

...and probably the other reason is that here in the US, people aren't living in a society that's in turmoil (unless you count New Orleans or bad spots in cities), so the people here can earn themselves a living just fine. Work hard, and earn your living...everyone else that's made it (excluding the rich boys and girls) has had to.

Chuck

It is a regime that the US created in the first place. And I never thought it was a good idea anyways. Bush and Co sat there and handed out the koolaide and you drank from it. There was never a exit plan. If there was a good exit plan then I would agree with you. But in reality the only exit plan was "the people will greet flowers".

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: outriding

It is a regime that the US created in the first place. And I never thought it was a good idea anyways. Bush and Co sat there and handed out the koolaide and you drank from it. There was never a exit plan. If there was a good exit plan then I would agree with you. But in reality the only exit plan was "the people will greet flowers".

And we took it down, glad you didn't think he was a good idea...

Uh, the exit plan is to setup a stable government, and leave...same as it always was. Is it going as great as we hoped? No. Will it get better or worse? Who knows, probably 65/35 for worse. If it fails, really the world will dislike us no worse than they do now. If it succeeds, then maybe the ME can start joining the rest of the world, and fanaticism will decrease/won't be tolerated in that region...

Chuck