Inside Account of Gitmo and Extraordinary Rendition

you believed Sean Penn wrt WMD.

 

Touche'

DD

 

My goodness you're dense sometimes DaDakota.

So your "solution" is to either follow the Geneva Conventions, or "wipe them out".

Point 1: The USA cannot arbitrarily decide when to follow or not follow the Geneva Conventions.
Point 2: "Wiping them out" is advocating that we sink to the lowest common denominator; it is not a solution but rather a forfeiting of moral compass that no doubt will encourage that the cycle you lament continues. It is the hypocritical answer of the ignorant and fearful man incapable of thinking past the warped ideology of "us vs. them".


My solution, you ask? I suggest that you stop making stupid posts.

 

Rhad,

If you want to have a conversation, try to refrain from calling a contrary opinion holder "dense".....it weakens your position considerably.

Now, what I am saying is that you can't win a war by going at it half assed, my solution would have been not to enter said war in the first place.

We should never have gone to Iraq, and we should have focused more with the international community on building Afganastan up, instead we did neither.

Regarding Gitmo, I don't think taking prisoners or enemy combatants was ever going to work out, and if you do take them, letting the world know about it or letting them go is not going to end well either.

So, either you kill them, or you don't take the prisoners at all.......I am glad I don't have to decide which.

Regarding your point 1 and point 2, look at history, we have done exactly both.....and as recent as 65 years ago, give or take.

DD

 

Only if inaccurate. And I am not.

Thank you, that is far preferable to "kill em' all".

Ummmm, there is the obvious third choice, take prisoners but DON'T TORTURE THEM. If you don't want your arguments referred to as "dense", I recommend you improve them. Sheesh...

Far more recent than that. But regardless here we are at the ol' "well we've broken laws and treaties before, that's just how we roll" argument. Sigh...

I stand by my solution.

 

imo, that is a false choice. taking prisoners is a part of war...its the whole torture thing that is the problem.

 

My solution is to stop p***y footing around making war with a bunch of poorly educated, low income grunts who are willing to die and be replaced by the next one in line and start targeting regimes that sponsor this nonsense.

 

Which ones would you have in mind?

 

Saudi, Syria, Iran to start with.

 

You are far from accurate, just a bit whiny.

It is not about what we have done before it is about winning, if you want to win, you have to get your hands dirty, you have to take the enemies will to fight away, and that means killing more of them than you...a LOT more of them.

Otherwise there is no reason to go to war, can't win a war where you just hit a building with a predator missile, that just creates more folks that want to hurt you with collatoral damage.

If you want to win, see Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki....that is how you win a war.....you gotta get dirty.....very dirty, and if you are not willing to do that...don't go to war.

If you want to fight a targeted campaign, assassination is the way to go, not war...

DD

 

Nice job glossing over the "what to do with prisoners" concept that began this little sojourn, DaDakota.

Standard DaDakota "debate" technique:

Say dumb things
Get exposed
Change topic
.
.
.
Profit?

 

What to do with them? That is not what this thread is about it is about one guys version of what happened there.

Personally, I am appalled at the stuff going on there, and to let it fester is stupid.

I don't think the army should have taken them in the first place.....the enemy would not have taken prisoners, they would have executed them....

DD

 

You are ridiculous.

Let's go on....

Right, because just blindly "wiping them out" is not appalling at all!

Round and round and round and round and round...

Enough already.

 

LOL - no, you are .....

Sure it is, never said it wasn't but letting them into the public to fester is a bad idea too.....I don't have a workable answer, do you?

Again, not saying I would do it, but killing them does solve the problem...and it is what the enemy would do to our prisoners.

Yeah, whatever, thanks for playing.

DD

 

Man, you are a demented individual.

 

Nah, just looking at it in a clinical manner......

DD

 

He's not demented. He would have to understand what he is saying and why he is saying it to be demented. As it is, he's just blathering about like some teenager who knows about an issue and senses some of the more salient aspects of it, but lacks the capacity to fully comprehend it or the experience to form a coherent opinion about it. Naturally, this does not stop the teenager from interjecting, much like our dear DaDakota.

 

and you think we should lower ourselves to their standards? dont you see how the united states loses its moral high ground on the international stage when its own government authorized and carries out torture?

also, many like to claim that we are a 'christian' nation - how can anyone who claims to be a christian be an advocate of torture? the "they do it to us" line just doesnt cut the mustard.

 

DaDakota's false dichotomy - which, of course, he won't acknowledge - makes this point moot. Accordingly, I have decided to disengage and I would recommend you do the same.

 

I don't believe you can take the moral high ground if you are fighting to win a war. Sure you can have better propaganda, but there really is no high ground.

How do you do that when innocents are killed every single day? What moral high ground is there to take?

I am sorry it is a controversial view, but if you are going to fight a war, IMO, you have to fight it to win, and that means saying "Screw the moral high ground"....

If you are not prepared to do that, then don't fight the war....(my position).

DD