Question: Is anyone else DEPRESSED about our voting choices this year?

[DragonMasterAlex]

Why should they be charged with ANYTHING for Guantanamo or Abu Grahib? The people who COMMITTED the crimes in Abu Grahib are the ones who should be (and ARE!) being charged. That's the appropriate action.

As for Guantanimo, I'm sorry but I see no problem with holding suspected terrorists indefinitely while investigations are performed.

Jason

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I find it laughable at best that people like you want to punish Bush for "Crimes against humanity" when you didn't say a WORD while Saddam was feeding people into the plastic chipper, nor do you rant and rave against Kim Jong Il's slave labor camps in North Korea.

You're a hypocrite and have no credibility whatsoever.

Jason

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

I am not depressed. I am hopefull that we will get the piece of sh1t and his cronies out of the white house and hopefully on trial for the crimes against humanity that were commited under their watch.

...oh, and I already voted.

Maybe you should do a little more searching to see my rants before bush's excelent adventure in iraq. You will see that i ranted against sadam, but that I also ranted against the continuing retarded US folicy that put people like Sadam in power in the first place, supplied him with new weapons, technology and inteligence.

So, now care to discuss why Bush, Rumsfeld and the rest of them should be charged with war crimes for what happened at Abu Gharid and other prisons as well as for what happens at Guantanamo?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Haha, that's really humorous, but no, I'm so far from being a conservative, much less a "NeoCon", it's almost silly. I rather consider myself to be a Classical Liberal in the tradition of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, et al.

Do you believe these wise men would have approved of OIF, as you implicitly have? Here's a hint: "America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit. " - John Quincy Adams

As for Guantanimo, I'm sorry but I see no problem with holding suspected terrorists indefinitely while investigations are performed.

You're insane if you think the Founding Fathers would have approved of this.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I haven't seen any *Official* numbers on the number of civilians killed in Iraq, but while I am *sorry* about that, I also recognize that it's an inevitable fact of war. I might also point out that our "Friends" the Russians sold Saddam jammers to ENSURE that our bombs fell on Civilian targets instead of their intended Military targets. I think that stands for a bit of responsibility as well, if you're looking to dole out blame.

That aside, given that Saddam is known to have tortured, murdered and wrongfully imprisoned thousands upon thousands of Iraqi men, women and children EVERY YEAR, I'd be willing to bet money that we've *saved* more lives in the long term than we've inadvertently caused through war actions. Remember, it wasn't just Saddam who was a mass murder, his sons were as well, by some accounts even more so, and were in line to continue the carnage well beyond the natural death of Saddam.

I hate war as much as anyone; I know it's awful and painful and far too much innocence is lost in its waging. But if the choice is between standing back and watching a genocidal maniac murder people by the thousands or risk some casualties in the cause of deposing him, I think the risk is well worth it.

Jason

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Actually, I think DragonMaster has a valid point. There is a fair bit of hypocrisy there.

I don't agree at all. Being against the war does not equate to being pro-oppressive dictatorship, and though I don't share IM's desire to see President Bush tried for war crimes, I don't see it as incongruous or hypocritical to call for one's own leader to be brought to justice, over another nation's leader (particularly since we are all collectively financing the OIF flight of fancy through hundreds of billions of tax dollars).

In any case, if, as DM is implying, the war was justified as a way of protecting the Iraqi people, that strikes me as a hollow rationale considering the number of Iraqi civilians we've killed in the process, and the way we are even now sitting idly by during the Darfour genocide.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Genx87

I'm depressed that Bush is a choice. 300 million people and he makes it to the top? Grats to having a famous name and daddy.

Things could be worse. We could have somebody like you running the country.

As for the vote. I havent been a big fan of Bush even before 2000. But he IMO is a hell of alot better than the slick talking used car salesman who is running from the other side. Plans and beliefs is all he can come up with. Nothing tangible at all.

What were your posts/thoughts before the DNC? Were any of the D's, iyo, worthy?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Actually, during the Revolutionary war there were MANY British soldiers taken captive, not charged with anything, and held until the war resolved. I'm quite sure they would have found it acceptable under extreme circumstances, and make no mistake, we are smack in the middle of an extreme circumstance.

Oh, and you'll have to tell me: What is OIF? I apologize, but it's been a busy day and I haven't had nearly enough coffee

Jason

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Haha, that's really humorous, but no, I'm so far from being a conservative, much less a "NeoCon", it's almost silly. I rather consider myself to be a Classical Liberal in the tradition of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, et al.

Do you believe these wise men would have approved of OIF, as you implicitly have? Here's a hint: "America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit. " - John Quincy Adams

As for Guantanimo, I'm sorry but I see no problem with holding suspected terrorists indefinitely while investigations are performed.

You're insane if you think the Founding Fathers would have approved of this.

 

[Feldenak]

Dragonguy....OIF = Operation Iraqi Freedom

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Actually, during the Revolutionary war there were MANY British soldiers taken captive, not charged with anything, and held until the war resolved. I'm quite sure they would have found it acceptable under extreme circumstances, and make no mistake, we are smack in the middle of an extreme circumstance.

Soooooo . . . when is the war "resolved"? These people (most of whom are not "terrorists," but routine Afghani soldiers who, in typical Afghani fashion, took up Kalashnikovs in support of the group who paid them, in this case the Taliban) have been in US custody for 3 years without being charged with crimes, being given the opportunity to talk to lawyers, or, in accordance with the Geneva Convention, released. The Founding Fathers, who you profess to admire, thought it was kind of a big deal to have a speedy and public trial, hence the Sixth Amendment, but it sounds to me as though you must have a different version of the Bill of Rights than the one I've always studied.

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Why should they be charged with ANYTHING for Guantanamo or Abu Grahib? The people who COMMITTED the crimes in Abu Grahib are the ones who should be (and ARE!) being charged. That's the appropriate action.

As for Guantanimo, I'm sorry but I see no problem with holding suspected terrorists indefinitely while investigations are performed.

Jason

They should be charged because they are the ones in power and ultimatly responsible for the actions of their subordinates. Any way you look at it they are responsible:
- if they knew about it and ordered such actions to take place, then they are directly responsible
- if they knew about it but did nothing to stop it, they are just as responsible as those soldiers doing the torturing
- if they didn't know about it, then they were incompetent and negletfull in letting such things happen.

As for your last line about Guantanamo, Don Vito has already replied to it.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

You're missing an important part with regard to the Bill of Rights and the right to Due Process:

They apply to AMERICAN CITIZENS and are *NOT* required by law to be applied to non citizens.

Additionally, whether the soldiers in the G-Bay are just "guys getting paid" or not is irrelevant. The fact is that they were working for the Taliban and are therefore part of the problem. They MUST be dealt with one way or the other.

As for "when is the war resolved," I'm not convinced that anyone can answer that question with any credibility whatsoever at this point. It's simply too early in the scenario to understand the whole big picture, and unlike a lot of other people I'm unable to summon the arrogance or delusion that I have more or better information than the president has or that I am in a better position to make those decisions.

Jason

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Actually, during the Revolutionary war there were MANY British soldiers taken captive, not charged with anything, and held until the war resolved. I'm quite sure they would have found it acceptable under extreme circumstances, and make no mistake, we are smack in the middle of an extreme circumstance.

Soooooo . . . when is the war "resolved"? These people (most of whom are not "terrorists," but routine Afghani soldiers who, in typical Afghani fashion, took up Kalashnikovs in support of the group who paid them, in this case the Taliban) have been in US custody for 3 years without being charged with crimes, being given the opportunity to talk to lawyers, or, in accordance with the Geneva Convention, released. The Founding Fathers, who you profess to admire, thought it was kind of a big deal to have a speedy and public trial, hence the Sixth Amendment, but it sounds to me as though you must have a different version of the Bill of Rights than the one I've always studied.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Ah, OK, cool. Thanks for that

Well, let's just hope that, long term, it actually ends up BEING Iraqi Freedom, and that it spreads like a virulent disease through the middle east, overthrowing the savage and ridiculous Religious ideology that's left that part of the world a bloodbath for far too long!

Jason

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Dragonguy....OIF = Operation Iraqi Freedom