Gitmo remains open

[AVGWarhawk]

Dems shot it down:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7633754&page=1

Obama needs to come up with a better plan then just closing Gitmo and hoping for the best.

[CaptainHaplo]

Well done to those Dems who opposed this without a process in place that retains those in custody in a safe manner. Yes - more Rep's against it as well, but it takes more cahoonas to stand against a leader in your own party than it does to stand against an ideological opponent. Give credit where credit is due, well done to those Dems.

[SteamWake]

Dems shot it down:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7633754&page=1

Obama needs to come up with a better plan then just closing Gitmo and hoping for the best.

Well it sounded good at the time and thats what counted. :stare:

[AVGWarhawk]

Well it sounded good at the time and thats what counted. :stare:

Right now it would not sound so good after and the continuing Pelosi debacle with calling the CIA a bunch of liars.

Hi, the CIA is a bunch of liars who lied to Congress(not sure what the CIA would get out of lying) and we want to plant the terrorists in your backyard! Happy Wednesday! :salute:

[Skybird]

And more scratches in the varnish.

Now this no-win-situation is the result of trying to bypass the legal system during the Bush era.

The only thing that really angers me here is that there have been demands that european nations should take in these prisoners that america refuses to let onto its soil. Very nice, thank you but not thanks at all.

There have been prisoners who have been relased, and of these some obviously have been innocent. I expect that amongst those still there also are some innocent ones. A possible move will be to move the prisoners away from Guantanamo, to Baghram (Afghanistan), where again it wouldn't be needed to prove their guilt according to usual legal standards. Indeed, for these people, Baghram would be even worse.

If Obama does not solve this issue after all those promises, it will backfire against America's reputation again for a second time, and this time twice as hard than under Bush.

[AVGWarhawk]

And more scratches in the varnish.


Not at all, there needs to be a reasonable plan. There is no plan at all.

Now this no-win-situation is the result of trying to bypass the legal system during the Bush era.


Hardly, just stating to close it down without a plan was not to bright and from the looks of it...Congress agrees it was not to bright to state that.

The only thing that really angers me here is that there have been demands that european nations should take in these prisoners that america refuses to let onto its soil. Very nice, thank you but not thanks at all.


I missed that one...can you provide a link?


There have been prisoners who have been relased, and of these some obviously have been innocent. I expect that amongst those still there also are some innocent ones. A possible move will be to move the prisoners away from Guantanamo, to Baghram (Afghanistan), where again it wouldn't be needed to prove their guilt according to usual legal standards. Indeed, for these people, Baghram would be even worse.

If Obama does not solve this issue after all those promises, it will backfire against America's reputation again for a second time, and this time twice as hard than under Bush.

Some innocents still left? Perhaps. So instead of Baghram we should send them to say, the Bahamas? Much nicer there. Three hots and a cot near the beach? Sweet! Anything else?

[nikimcbee]

Hope...change....



I say we sell them to the Mossad. They would have fun with them.:yeah:

[Skybird]

Hardly, just stating to close it down without a plan was not to bright and from the looks of it...Congress agrees it was not to bright to state that.

It was not bright from the very beginning to create a legal vacuum.


I missed that one...can you provide a link?
Media and press throughout Europe. Germany. Britain. Italy. Spain. Don't tell me that US media ignored it that completely so that you never took note of it.


Some innocents still left? Perhaps. So instead of Baghram we should send them to say, the Bahamas? Much nicer there. Three hots and a cot near the beach? Sweet! Anything else?
Save your sarcasm for making yourself happy in lonely moments. It is a principle in any legal system worth the name that guilt must be proven instead of just being claimed, and that this must be acchieved within a reasonable timeframe and by procedural rules countercontrolled by independent and/or public institutions. If you will to skip that, you are not any better than the GeStapo, who acted the very same way like you, and even did so on basis of formally more valid laws than Bush did when chosing that mistaken path that now your country is rightfully attacked for. Not too mention that you open gate, door and window for a culture of diffamation replacing laws and justice, and a culture of mobs in the street lynching people arbitrarily. Evidence for guilt is no longer needed if the public accepts that just the claim for somebody being guilty is enough. that is totally unacceptable.

Bring the prisoners to court, and make them subject to your regular, publicly known laws. That alone is acceptable. anything else is in no way different than the legal system in the GDR, in Saddam's Iraq, or in any other tyranny on the planet - you are not any different to them.

Note that in earlier threads I did not oppose things like torture or imprisonment of terrorists in priciple. I just insist on this being done on basis of public consensus and according changes to existing laws being made, and this still being open to countercontrol by the system of checks and balance that are the very and totally indispensable basis of any national community worth to be desacribed as being just, and democratic.

And please nobody here now distracting again by telling me that America is not a democracy but a republic. It is a democratic republic - or is it a republic like North Korea? China? GDR? If america by design and intention was not meant to be a democratic state, then the term obviously has no more any meaning.

[AVGWarhawk]

You last 4 paragraphs make me chuckle Skybird....I'm sure you are aware of the pot calling he kettle black?

[Skybird]

Again, keep your sarcasm for yourself. Trying to make fun of others does not hide your lack of arguments. If you accept your nation to behave like any given tyranny in some banana republic, do not wonder that you get compared to that. Arbitrary justice is when the legal system is beyond control and observation, and not basing on known and commonly accepted law. That also is one of the most common characteristic of injust regimes and dictatorships.

And that is what is the case in Guantanamo. From the very beginning.

[AVGWarhawk]

What sarcasm? You of all people in the country you are in have the colossal gaul to bring up Gestopos? You can hardly compare the two friend. 250 would be terrorists do not compare friend. Also, what argument? I started no argument. That is your modus operandi. Furthermore, you have a nasty habit of typing things like this:


who acted the very same way like you,


Like who? Me? If so, how so? If you meant Americans in general, state as thus. I personally did not lock up 250 terrorists and sit for years waiting on something to do with them.

What is this?


than Bush did when chosing that mistaken path that now your country is rightfully attacked for.



We are rightfully attacked for? Please, what Skybird logic would state we were rightfully attacked?

Note that in earlier threads I did not oppose things like torture or imprisonment of terrorists in priciple

Note, I do not spend my days reading and living by every word typed by Skybird. To be honest Skybird, I ignore your diatribes for the most part. So, whatever you said in some thread in the GT forums was more than likely glanced over and forgotten. Not to be smug Skybird but the book writting posts get to be a bit much.

[Onkel Neal]

Well it sounded good at the time and thats what counted. :stare:


:har:

[Jimbuna]

Hope...change....



I say we sell them to the Mossad. They would have fun with them.:yeah:

That would be one good idea.

Seriously though......If there is no contingency plan in place around deportation or whatever, you may well find they go underground, regroup and start committing atrocities in your backyard.

[Skybird]

What sarcasm? You of all people in the country you are in have the colossal gaul to bring up Gestopos? You can hardly compare the two friend.
If you accept arbitrary justice beyond our civilisational standards of checks and balances, what makes you different from the GeStapo then, hm? You defend to use the methods they used, but do not want to be compared to them, eh? At least that can be understood. Who would like to be compared to them... Set your justice system back on track regarding the issue discussed here, like it is America'S claim to be a shining example for the rule of law and justice and democratic checks and balances indeed, and the comparsion to tyrannies, banana-republics and GeStapo will end. Behave like these, and get rightfully compared to them.

Simple.

[AngusJS]

Hope...change....



I say we sell them to the Mossad. They would have fun with them.:yeah:

You do know there are innocent men being held in Guantanamo, right? Or do you not care about injustice as long as it's not happening to you?

[AVGWarhawk]

If you accept arbitrary justice beyond our civilisational standards of checks and balances, what makes you different from the GeStapo then, hm? You defend to use the methods they used, but do not want to be compared to them, eh? At least that can be understood. Who would like to be compared to them... Set your justice system back on track regarding the issue discussed here, like it is America'S claim to be a shining example for the rule of law and justice and democratic checks and balances indeed, and the comparsion to tyrannies, banana-republics and GeStapo will end. Behave like these, and get rightfully compared to them.

Simple.

You missed the entire idea of the post Skybird. First, Obama just got handed his 'NO' we do not agree on just closing this down without a plan and the 11 million is not coming until a plan is created and approved. Second, Congress is looking and listening after all. They are just not making rash decisions(as this one was by Obama). Obama needs a plan first before going in head-long saying the base will close.

Jim summed it up very well here:

Seriously though......If there is no contingency plan in place around deportation or whatever, you may well find they go underground, regroup and start committing atrocities in your backyard.

Steamwake was correct here:


Well it sounded good at the time and thats what counted



You went off on some dissertation that we are nothing more than the Gestopo. You chalked it up as a no win situation because of Bush era laws. Well, here you are incorrect, Obama can win....think of a plan first! That is all the Congress asked. Laws, Constitution, they all have been taking a piss on both for years now. What is the difference today? Furthermore, I did not read one article were European countries were afraid Obama would send these detainees to their countries. I would think that would be darn smug of Obama and to say the least, ballsy? If such articles do exist, it was nothing more than a ploy to sell a few papers. Non-the-less, Gitmo will be addressed but it needs to be address carefully.

[Skybird]

AVG,

This snappy comment of yours was what got me started, until then I had no problem here:

Some innocents still left? Perhaps. So instead of Baghram we should send them to say, the Bahamas? Much nicer there. Three hots and a cot near the beach? Sweet! Anything else?

I even agree on the lack of plan. Hell, I even said weeks ago that Obama will soon find out that the legal intricacies of this are much bigger than he seemed to have realised back then. The way guantanamo camp was created, simply bypassing a valid legal basis since there was none available, necessarily must cause nothing but troubles and complicated consequences. And now that becomes obvious.

Washington demanded Germany to take in 10 Chinese prisoners recently, and although Germany in principle agreed to that (I do not know why, since if the people are no threat, as Washington claimed, I see no reason why they should not be allowed into the US), after being handed over the case documentation the inteiror ministre rejected to let them in, saying that Washington withholds vital key information about the men'S past. You see, even now Washington plays hide and seek and tries to avoid to put the cards on the table.

And Europe should solve home-made american problems by accepting people that america claims to be too dangerous to let them into the US?

Ignoring the difference between claim and evidence here.

Italy, Britain and Spain have been asked to accept certain prisoners, too. Other european countries signalled acceptance to do so, but now have fallen silent over that. It is felt that Washington does not negotiate the issue honestly and openly. - Which probably already is "plan B".

[AVGWarhawk]

As you know the world community is not chummy with the US as a result of Bush era dealings. I would think the last thing Obama would recommend is these detainees go to a European country. At any rate, today Cheney and Obama will be speaking. Both will speak of terrorism. Obama will speak of ineffectual anti-terrorism during the Bush years and of course Cheney will defend what he calls stopping another 9/11. If this does really interest you keep an eye on your news media and see what is said.

Gitmo will be addressed in due time.

[nikimcbee]

I thought of how we could solve this: Lobotomies for all of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0aNILW6ILk


Then, they can spread their ideas all they want. I'll even pitch in some tax dollars to clean up the drool; they'll be as passive as pussycats.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCUmINGae44

[Skybird]

We tried such things over here some time ago. The concept turned against us - though in a different way than expected.

[kranz]

sure it is still open-there is no better place to waterboard people, oh, I meant to "secure your country"

[AVGWarhawk]

sure it is still open-there is no better place to waterboard people, oh, I meant to "secure your country"

Hey, how is the US hardware on Polish soil pointing at Russia doing for you? Oh, never mind I guess we are good on securing your country. :hmmm:

[kranz]

c'mon, you promised to send Patriots-sth like 2 cars with all necessary gear and today I've read that "US gov. has NOT decided yet about the sending date". Besides-"pointing at Russia"? If this is irony I don't get it tbh and if not it shouldn't point there.:06:I think that if we want to speak about USA-Poland cooperation CIA prisons are easier compared to Gitmo than "the shield". At least you didn't try to deny the fact of tortures being done there.

[AVGWarhawk]

At least you did your very best at dancing around missiles stamped USA across the tail section that seem to have taken residence in your country.


Poland to obtain U.S. patriot missiles: FM
www.chinaview.cn (http://www.chinaview.cn/index.htm) http://imgs.xinhuanet.com/icon/2006english/2007korea/space.gif 2009-05-22 04:33:15 http://imgs.xinhuanet.com/icon/2006english/xiao.jpg (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-05/22/content_11415765.htm#)http://imgs.xinhuanet.com/icon/2006english/2007korea/space.gif http://imgs.xinhuanet.com/icon/2006english/da.jpg (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-05/22/content_11415765.htm#)http://imgs.xinhuanet.com/icon/2006english/2007korea/space.gif Print (javascript:doPrint();)



WARSAW, May 21 (Xinhua) -- An annex to a Polish-U.S. agreement on a U.S. anti-missile shield in Poland concerning the installation of Patriot missiles on Polish territory will be fulfilled regardless of decisions on the shield itself, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said on Thursday.
Speaking after a meeting of foreign ministers from the Visegrad Group countries and Sweden, Sikorski said that the agreement, signed last year by himself and then U.S. State Secretary Condoleezza Rice, stated clearly that the installation of Patriot missiles in Poland would begin this year with the aim of forming a permanent missile base by 2012.
"So their installation will be quite in keeping with what we signed. All the signals we have received from the U.S. indicate that the U.S. administration will keep to the annex on Patriots regardless of what it decides about the shield," the foreign minister was quoted as saying by Polish news agency PAP.
Earlier Thursday, Poland's Deputy Defense Minister Stanislaw Komorowski told the daily Financial Times that Polish-U.S. talks on the Patriot installations were progressing well and should result in the stationing of 196 missiles and 100-110 U.S. troops in Poland by the end of this year.
Under the Polish-U.S. accord signed last year, 10 ground base interceptors are to be installed in Redzikowo, northern Poland, as part of a larger missile defense system that would include a radar system in the Czech Republic.
Russia objects to the anti-missile shield plan, warning that it will deploy a short-range missile system in its Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad bordering Poland, in response to the U.S. plan to set up a missile shield in Poland. U.S. President Barack Obama has said he supports missile defense in principle but wants to make sure the system is reliable and does not detract from other security priorities. Poland asked for the Patriot unit after Russia condemned the missile shield plan as a threat to Russia.



Have a great day kranz and most of all, have a secure day! :yeah:

[Frame57]

Torture is tooooo good a treatment for these vermin in dirty nightshirts.

[OneToughHerring]

Man just assassinate Obama already.

[AVGWarhawk]

Man just assassinate Obama already.


That is not necessary. Some of the things he is undoing that was Bushs doing my not be the best path to take....specifically if he is making snap decisions without any forethought to how it will be accomplished. I would venture to guess that even those that support Obama without question are questioning this move to have terrorists on US soil. As we can see from yesterdays news, terrorist still operate here. Yesterday two attacks for prevented. Car bombs and rocket launchers that were to be used to shoot down military aircraft. Terrorism is still a problem. This did not change when Obama took office. If even his staunchest supporters (Congress) put the brakes on this....obviously there is more to the story.

[Platapus]

Man just assassinate Obama already.

Please don't post things like that. As an American I find that very offensive.

[Jimbuna]

No wonder this place gets nicknamed the snakepit :o

Might be time to buy some popcorn :hmmm:

[heartc]

Damn, I keep watching the "John McCain Nomination speech" and keep thinking what the hell went wrong and why didn't they elect him (yes, I know that's a politician speaking but so is Obama).

Well, no, in reality, I know what went wrong. It is hard to understand, but only when using common sense. When being aware of the "sense" that is en vogue today, it is easy to see. It's the same thing that went wrong when I walked through the central station and a hippie couple that made itself comfortable in a place where dogs usually take a piss, and who made a totally stoned but friendly impression otherwise called me "baby killer" (hey, remember that was the curse word for the evil Americans when they bombed Vietnam - they should have called me Nazi or something instead) because I wore uniform.

Too many people are stoned these days, even when they do not look like it. That's why John McCain, even though he actually, and proof-positively, put money where his mouth was for your country in the past, and under negligence of his own safety and health, did not become president. He made way too much sense (but also ran a poorly designed election campaign in some respects), something a lot of people these days cannot ever deal with. Part of that was that he didn't give a damn about those who hate your country. Because those who hate your country don't give a damn about you either, as you can see time and again, including in this thread. But that was too hard to understand for many of the electorate it seems. They thought that with the friendly, decent and elobarate manner of Mr. Obama (not that McCain lacked in any of this), all the world will suddenly love America and forgive her "sins". Just as them hippies / moonbats love each other (as long as you aren't an entrepreneur, Christian, or Jew, of course). But nope, that's not gonna happen. See, the Polish guy above still hates you. What have you ever done to Poland? Nothing. It's just about barking where people know they can bark without having to fear consequences. Bark against Russia - not so good. Bark against the US: Very good, very easy, and you'll win publicity and "intellectual" contests as well as "bravery" points in addition. Because America is so evil, didn't you know?

Yeah, that country that did put an end to continued, centuries-old, inter-European feuds and warfare by establishing and securing a unified Western Europe after WWII, who OPPOSED destroying the central European power of Germany TWO times after TWO world wars, and instead allowed a stable Europe to emerge even when the first try went wrong and ended in WWII -

That country which might arguably have more raw military power than any other nation before, but does not abuse that power in the manner it could, but instead propagates the ideas and ideals of freedom and democracy so that even old arch enemies like France and Germany, after two World Wars, do finally live in peace next to each other -

That country that used its power to fight the communist threat in Asia, where it rescued at least South Korea from it, so that in the future they could run good business with them instead of the South Koreans dieing from famine like in the Northern Commie paradise -

That country that was so evil that it toppled an Arabian dictator who used nerve gass on his own population (and whose being-in-power ironically was blamed on the US before, too) and that country being now busy fighting maniacs that blow themselves up in busy market places, amongst their own people -

Yes, let's fight that "evil America" and let's feel so good about ourselves for being so brave to post Anti-American **** on internet forums and say "OIL, OIL, OIL, HALLIBURTON, DICK CHENEY, 9/11 was an inside job" blablabla like some offensive dreg that is suffering from serious brain retrogression.

Oh yeah. How much BETTER the world would be if there only wouldn't be "AmeriKKKa"! Only Russia and China for Europe to worry about (oh, and itself)! What a wonderfull world, surely! In fact, Russia would have its Western border at the English Channel, but WHO CARES???

P.S. While this post in the beginning might seem like "Anti-Obama", it is not meant as approval of the crap "One Tough Herring" wrote above in any way whatsoever. You know, many of the European press and people were - and somewhat still are - cynically speculating that you guys will shoot your President, because you are evil and racist after all. Now they have a hard time to understand why that didn't happen yet and secretly hope that it will.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes heartc...I often wonder how and why America became or was selected to be the world police. America is damned is she does and damned if she does'nt. It is a no win situation no matter what America does. Shooting Obama is not the answer. Smart decision making without being rash or off the cuff is in order.

[mr chris]

Yes heartc...I often wonder how and why America became or was selected to be the world police. America is damned is she does and damned if she does'nt. It is a no win situation no matter what America does..

Very true.

Shame but it is what you get for being the so called arsenal of democracy im afraid. Half the world want to be your friend the other half want to shoot missiles at you. Not a easy position to be in.

The Fact is the USA will be the world's policeman until the other member country's of the UN and NATO start to fully fulfil there obligations to the world.

[OneToughHerring]

Please don't post things like that. As an American I find that very offensive.

Good thing you're ok with what Frame57 wrote above me.

[AVGWarhawk]

Very true.

Shame but it is what you get for being the so called arsenal of democracy im afraid. Half the world want to be your friend the other half want to shoot missiles at you. Not a easy position to be in.

The Fact is the USA will be the world's policeman until the other member country's of the UN and NATO start to fully fulfil there obligations to the world.


I think some of the world policeman stuff is really just another way of looking out for our own best interest in some instances.

[mr chris]

I think some of the world policeman stuff is really just another way of looking out for our own best interest in some instances.

Maybe. Also maybe your former Government pushed your interests a little too far.

But it does not mean that other NATO and UN members can shirk there responsibility's.

[Platapus]

Good thing you're ok with what Frame57 wrote above me.


I disagree with what Frame57 wrote. However, I don't find his opinion offensive.

As an American, I take any threat to assassinate our President seriously and fail to recognize humour or sarcasm with such statements.

However you are entitled to your opinion, hence why I asked politely that you not make such comments.

You are, of course, free to disregard my polite request and continue making threats against our President on this forum.

[OneToughHerring]

I disagree with what Frame57 wrote. However, I don't find his opinion offensive.

As an American, I take any threat to assassinate our President seriously and fail to recognize humour or sarcasm with such statements.

However you are entitled to your opinion, hence why I asked politely that you not make such comments.

You are, of course, free to disregard my polite request and continue making threats against our President on this forum.

Well I take offence in the US policy of killing and murdering and torturing and detaining thousands and thousands of people. By pure mathematics the president is just one person and according to your logic somehow values more than an average person, especially if the average person happens to be an Arab/Muslim/non-American.

The way I see it presidents are the only people who should be killed in a war, just send a sniper to take them out. That way the fewest amount of people die in the end.

[CaptainHaplo]

Well I take offence in the US policy of killing and murdering and torturing and detaining thousands and thousands of people

Hmmm - so your ok with it when its any other country doing it right? After all - Saddam was doing it to his own people. Your ok with it when its these same lunatics (that even the Dems are saying are extremely dangerous and shouldn't be on our soil) are blowing up Israelis, or normal Afghanis, or Iraqis? They are out there plotting to kill not just Americans or Jews, but any NON-MUSLIM OR MUSLIM that doesn't conform to their specific, hate twisted thoughts on religious correctness. Your neighbor, your family members, maybe even you - would end up on the list of people they want to kill because your some kind of infidel.

And for the record - we didn't torture, kill or murder thousands and thousands of people. There were specific approved cases where enhanced techniques (aka torture) were used, and they were very limited actually. The others that are public were actually soldiers on their own hook being dumba$$e$ in many of the cases.

There have been a few deaths - but if I am correct, its like way less than 100 of all those in custody. Count that against the 5000+ we lost due to islamic extremism that is pursued by those we detain.

[OneToughHerring]

Gitmo is not the only prison of it's type around, and it's certainly not the only place where detained have died under shady circumstances due to orders from the US. Plenty of that stuff going on under US and coalition forces in Iraq and also under the new Iraqi military trained and commanded by the US. Plenty of extraordinary renditions have taken place and transported people to places where torture etc. is legal. Even Israeli torture experts have lend their hand in providing knowledge about how to torture Muslims. So it's not like the US is just guilty of Gitmo, the US is guilty of plenty of 'little mishaps' like it.

[SteamWake]

Man just assassinate Obama already.


Oh my gawd please dont look who the back up is ... Biden and Pelosi :oops:

[Platapus]

Oh my gawd please dont look who the back up is ... Biden and Pelosi :oops:

Well it would not be Pelosi, it would be who ever Biden selects as his VP.

[Frame57]

I invite you to read Richard Marcinko's Facebook and read his note on "Ethics on terrorism" and you will get an education. There is quite a difference between a suggestion of assassinating POTUS and what should be done with terrorist. I do not think the geneva discourse should apply to these gutter leaches. It is also fair game to go after those that sympathize and aid their cause. Nothing but complete eradication is the solution.:salute:

[Platapus]

It is also fair game to go after those that sympathize and aid their cause. Nothing but complete eradication is the solution.:salute:

I am sure Usama Bin Laden would agree with this philosophy.

[Skybird]

I am sure Usama Bin Laden would agree with this philosophy.
This tries to appear as an argument, but not only is none, but is even a backfiring argument - in support of what Frame suggested, and to do so before Osama can spread this philosphy for the sake of his own cause.

[SteamWake]

He's dead Jim :cool:

Usama I mean.

[Frame57]

Muslim extremist seem to want to convert the world or die... I just do not see what beheading Danny Pearl and the rest has to do with "a just cause", nor the suicide bombings, nor the many other bombings of Aircraft and other targets. War sucks and innocent lives will be affected. They are the casualties of war. When we go to war we target the group, civilians are not on the list and in fact are to be protected unless they aid the enemy. The extremist Muslim have and will target anybody including women and children. It is a war against extremist fanatical religion, not a countries military by any means. Psychological warefare must be implimented. The rest of the Muslim world should man up and demand a refromation of their religion. Else, only one solution is viable and that is utter extinction. Play nice on the planet or you will leave it...

[CaptainHaplo]

Gitmo is not the only prison of it's type around, and it's certainly not the only place where detained have died under shady circumstances due to orders from the US. Plenty of that stuff going on under US and coalition forces in Iraq and also under the new Iraqi military trained and commanded by the US. Plenty of extraordinary renditions have taken place and transported people to places where torture etc. is legal. Even Israeli torture experts have lend their hand in providing knowledge about how to torture Muslims. So it's not like the US is just guilty of Gitmo, the US is guilty of plenty of 'little mishaps' like it.

Ahh now we are getting somewhere....

First off - how bout some reputable links to back up all that? Or are you in the habit of throwing out accusations just because they sound good to your "America is evil!" ears?

Second - ohhh its those Israelis involved too - America and its Zionistic ties right? Lets tie the two together and foment even more ill will, regardless of the lack of reality on the claim. But if we are all that evil - do we need help to come up with ways to "torture muslims"? If I recall, a few wars back we did stuff like coat bullets with pig fat and made that fact public..... I guess psycological warfare is torture too though huh?

And isn't it odd, your all over the "wrongdoing" of America - but not one word for the facts of what terrorists do in the world. Not one condemnation for those that do such things from you. Nope, the bad people are those who are the targets of terrorists.

If there had been, I would ask you then how you think animals that masquerade as humans should be dealt with. Because to slice off the head of a screaming man, over religion - and gloat - isn't human. To be willing to kill innocent children because they aren't YOUR kind on muslim, or because they have jewish blood, means you have lost your humanity.

But since there is no condemnation in you for those that commit such acts, but there is for the COUNTRY where a few people went too far in a few cases, there isn't much point asking, because you have already showed your answer.

So I will ask this instead. I don't know if you have kids or not - so pretend you do if you dont. They are outside, and you have a rabid dog attacking them. You have the means - via gun - to stop it. But to do so, you have to kill the dog. Or let it maim and probably kill your child. What do you do?

I guess maybe you want to talk to it - explain that its behavior isn't right and it has to behave? Its sick in the head - its rabid - it won't respond. You can take your choice - do nothing, or put a stop to it.

Terrorism is a rabid dog....

Its time to put it down - and sometimes the methods are not that pleasant.

[Jimbuna]

:rock::rock::rock:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

In my opinion, there's no real clean way in this situation, from whichever side you approach it. On one hand, you can argue that people do need to be detained and questioned extensively, when sufficient evidence can be gathered to show that it would be worthwhile, whereas on the other hand, you can argue that Guantanamo's reputation is a rather large cloud on the worlds perception of the United States.

Hey, you could always do what we do here, and just let them run around doing what they do. :88)

[OneToughHerring]

First off - how bout some reputable links to back up all that? Or are you in the habit of throwing out accusations just because they sound good to your "America is evil!" ears?

How about you provide me with links that prove that the whole Iraq, Afghanistan and US's global terror wars have been worth it and not a genocide in progress.

Second - ohhh its those Israelis involved too - America and its Zionistic ties right? Lets tie the two together and foment even more ill will, regardless of the lack of reality on the claim. But if we are all that evil - do we need help to come up with ways to "torture muslims"? If I recall, a few wars back we did stuff like coat bullets with pig fat and made that fact public..... I guess psycological warfare is torture too though huh?

Americans get really uppity when somebody brings up the fact that Americans are infact dying for Israel, and paying all of Israel's bills. So I can sort of understand your state of irateness concerning the whole Israel-issue.

And isn't it odd, your all over the "wrongdoing" of America - but not one word for the facts of what terrorists do in the world. Not one condemnation for those that do such things from you. Nope, the bad people are those who are the targets of terrorists.

Meaning you want me to go over to Afghanistan to kill inncent sheep farmers for the US? No thanks. I already have a buddy over there, as an officer, and what he's told me hasn't really made me feel sorry for the fact that I'm not over there.

If there had been, I would ask you then how you think animals that masquerade as humans should be dealt with. Because to slice off the head of a screaming man, over religion - and gloat - isn't human. To be willing to kill innocent children because they aren't YOUR kind on muslim, or because they have jewish blood, means you have lost your humanity.

You mean how to deal with Americans? Well make them pay for their crimes, it really is that simple. So an Arab or Muslim life is less valuable then an American life, this is what you are saying, right?

But since there is no condemnation in you for those that commit such acts, but there is for the COUNTRY where a few people went too far in a few cases, there isn't much point asking, because you have already showed your answer.

Hmmh? Sounds like you've hit the Bud Light a little too hard there.

So I will ask this instead. I don't know if you have kids or not - so pretend you do if you dont. They are outside, and you have a rabid dog attacking them. You have the means - via gun - to stop it. But to do so, you have to kill the dog. Or let it maim and probably kill your child. What do you do?

Oh, how nice. Equating the civilian casualties of the present day US-wars with rabid dogs.

I guess maybe you want to talk to it - explain that its behavior isn't right and it has to behave? Its sick in the head - its rabid - it won't respond. You can take your choice - do nothing, or put a stop to it.

Terrorism is a rabid dog....

Its time to put it down - and sometimes the methods are not that pleasant.

So...you would torture the rabid dog?

[Skybird]

In my opinion, there's no real clean way in this situation, from whichever side you approach it. On one hand, you can argue that people do need to be detained and questioned extensively, when sufficient evidence can be gathered to show that it would be worthwhile, whereas on the other hand, you can argue that Guantanamo's reputation is a rather large cloud on the worlds perception of the United States.


Bring them to regular public court. Now.

Years and years of making their cases a safe win for the state attorney, should be enough. That is the only clean solution left now that does not blindly compromise security interests. I do not rule out torture in every case. I cannot - not despite ethical reasons, but because of ethical reason. But I rule out torturing people for years and years, and holding them prisoners for one or two decades without being able to put a case together that is solid enough to bring it to court. Locking people away forever, just because a claim is made that they are guilty, and that maybe they will do in the next ten years what they did not in the past ten years: confess? If torture is implied too long, then you indeed increase the risk that in the end they just tell you what you want to hear and what they think will ease the pain for them. also, there must be a public consensus and a valid legal form for imposing torture, a law and a supervising board to minitor that it is not imposed arbitrarily, so that it does not become a regular tool for ordinary law enforcement and normal criminal investigation. If a society does not will to do accept that, and prefers defencelessness even in the face of it's worst enemies, then - well, then this certainly is a society that I would not want to defend by taking risks myself anmyore, becasue I do not see why somebody should will to take risks and expose himself to fanger, if his defence is in place of people who do not will to take that risk themselves but expect others to take the risk for them. fighting for people that are weak, that is okay, and most often it is noble. Fighting for people that are egoists, or cowards, or do not want to make their hands dirty - is not worth it.

Too many illusions about the nature of anti-terror-operations. we want the defence of the West being done in shiny armour, with glorious fanfares and no blood being shed, not even a drop of sweat on our civilisational facade. fight in a distinguished manner, with 5 o'clock tea in your hand and nipping some mints. Taking the fameeand glory of victory, but doing it without effort, stylish, in a telegenic manner - that's what is wanted. And that'S why we do not get our acts together. We use information being won in Baghram and Guantanamo, Germans do it, the Brits do it, the French, everybody. And when the microphones are swiotched off, some people in office may whisper that they are so happy that the stupid Amerians are dojng the dirty part of the business, and how to win voters by pointing fingers at the Yanks.

All what nI want is that we become honest and clear about the way we fight terorrism, and that it gets put into a legal framework again. We need to understand that a higher form of civilisational standards not necessarily can always be defended against non-civilisation by ust being civilised only. Guantanamo is beyond such a legal framework. The legal basis needs to be expanded, and very carefully so, so that anti-terror tools do not become tool of rgular, normal standard law enforcement. Crime and terror are two totally different things. right now, guantanamo is just a random system of arbitrary justice, and it is beyond supervision and countercontrol, thus it is not to be considered as legitimised in any way. This has to be changed.

[CaptainHaplo]

How about you provide me with links that prove that the whole Iraq, Afghanistan and US's global terror wars have been worth it and not a genocide in progress.

See, thats the key - YOU made accusations that fit your anti-american, green with envy bias. So its up to you to show that those accusations are factual. Its YOUR role to prove it, not mine to disprove it. The reason you don't care to - is because you can't. That's how intelligent discourse works, each side demonstrates their points with fact. Sorry your not happy with being shown to be full of it. But hey, at least you can still spew your anti-american sentiments, just don't be suprised if we fail to take you seriously.... :doh:

Americans get really uppity when somebody brings up the fact that Americans are infact dying for Israel, and paying all of Israel's bills. So I can sort of understand your state of irateness concerning the whole Israel-issue.

Again you swing - and miss. You made an accusation that we requested Israeli help to "torture muslims". Show the proof - or is this just more of your baseless propaganda? *You don't have to answer that - its rhetorical and we all know the answer anyways* :D

Meaning you want me to go over to Afghanistan to kill inncent sheep farmers for the US? No thanks. I already have a buddy over there, as an officer, and what he's told me hasn't really made me feel sorry for the fact that I'm not over there.

Talk about missing the point! But then - when your intent on doing so I guess thats not hard to do is it. Let me spell it out - your saying that actions like the beheading of Daniel Pearl were perfectly ok (and apparently not torture either), but us killing those who would kill us if they could is somehow wrong. Well, they say ignorance is bliss, at least your happy.

You mean how to deal with Americans? Well make them pay for their crimes, it really is that simple. So an Arab or Muslim life is less valuable then an American life, this is what you are saying, right?

Well - at least your consistent in jumping around and throwing out accusations that have no basis in fact. I did not say an arab or muslim life is less valuable than an american one. You imputed that to this arguement based on your own ill-informed and erroneous thought processes. I have said in the past that this is a war of "us" vs "them" - and the them are not all muslims or all arabs, but those who are beholden to hatred of any that do not follow their own dogma. Now if you want to say thats all muslims - then thats your beef - not mine. Your refusal to condemn the torture and murder of people like Daniel Pearl, like innocent arabs in the middle east (and not just in pakistan,afghanistan and iraq either) - like schoolchildren of ANY race or religion - commmitted by other arabs and muslims, demonstrates that you feel SOME muslim life is in fact above all else - "other" muslims, infidels of any race, etc. And that is where you lose the last shred of credibility you might have had.

Hmmh? Sounds like you've hit the Bud Light a little too hard there.

Again your lack of knowledge shows through. Not all Americans are beer swilling, drunk rednecks. I don't drink alcohol at all, thank you. Perhaps you should put down your crack pipe and get educated before you make sweeping (and incorrect) generalizations or accusations without knowledge.

Oh, how nice. Equating the civilian casualties of the present day US-wars with rabid dogs.

No - that would be the terrorists I was discussing, not the innocent. Though your demented view probably isn't capable of that realization....

So...you would torture the rabid dog?

Torture it - what would be the point? However you forget these "rabid dogs" have the minds, though not the humanity, of humans. Thus, they may have information that would be valuable to stopping the spread - or the attacks - of other rabid dogs. And to get that - some measures before you terminate them for the good of society is warranted. I know you can't understand that - because your stance is that they are doing nothing wrong by killing the innocent.

How is the weather there in La-La land? Don't worry though, there is hope that someone with common sense will save you from yourself.

[SUBMAN1]

Just shoot them. If they were enemy combatants outside of uniform then the Geneva convention states the only right they have is a firing squad. Nothing else.

The US is being humanitarian by allowing them to live. Skybird will still criticize it however.

-S

[Platapus]

Just shoot them. If they were enemy combatants outside of uniform then the Geneva convention states the only right they have is a firing squad. Nothing else.


-S


Got a citation for that? It does not seem to appear in any copy of the Geneva Conventions I have.

[Skybird]

Again you swing - and miss. You made an accusation that we requested Israeli help to "torture muslims".

Of course i would only be surprised if one has not taken the one or other advise from Israeli interrogation experts, since they are known to be experts indeed. The Israeli connection has to be expected. However, what worries me much more than this were recent reports that showed that the Pentagon hired civil contractors from private business who recommended und supervised torture-interrogations. It was reported in British and German papers. It was also reported that these civilians were the source of the idea to start waterboarding, and recommended the technique.

I do not know what is more frightening here: that we are in a situation were we probably cannot avoid to make use of such tools in some cases - or that we leave our dirty businesses to private enterprise - as if mercenary companies would not already be far too much. That torture experts are on offer from private companies, is an indicator that something serious is going terribly wrong.

We have had centuries of history in europe of mercenary armies fighting wars. For very good reason we moved beyond them and towards national standing armies. Not only showed they to be inferior on many later occasions in the Franco-Italian wars, but they were also very treacherous to their masters, and their leaders had a tendency to favour war over peace, for it was their business. Such armies prolongued quite some wars in Europe.

Outsourcing military operations as well as military logistics to private companies may be nice for finances, nevertheless it was one of the Pentagon's worst ideas since WWII. It erodes the independence of the government's decision making regarding questions of war and peace. And that should make every citizens private alarm lights to blink in red - and that of the troops as well. The sleaze of politicians and private business lobbyists already is bad enough, especially in the amerian defence industry. As everybody knows, Eisenhower warned of this in a gloomy forseeing of events.

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird, I don't doubt that there was some communication with MANY foreign intel services on how best to extract information. That would be a reasonable and responsible action so that all options are on the table and the proper one chosen.

The accusation is however that we specifically asked for assistance from a government in how to "torture" muslims.

Trying to find effective means to acquire intelligence is one thing.

Saying we sent a note, or made a phone call, going "Hey, jewish pals of ours, we got some muslim arabs over here, whats the best way to skin em and keep em alive so we get to hear their screams?" is quite another.

The challenge to the poster was - show me some documentation where we asked "for help to torture a muslim".

Oh - and I agree - the use of civilians in merc roles does hold some dangers, though it has some advantages was well. Its not something that should be outlawed I don't think, but it should be carefully monitored.

[Skybird]

Relax, CaptainHaplo, on this issue, and considering your comments, I am by far more on your side than I am against what you say. We agree to a much greater degree here than we disagree on details.

Which is quite often the case, I noted. ;)

Maybe we focus on different details of interest at times, by that giving the impression to disagree completely. But to conclude like that would not reach far enough.

[OneToughHerring]

See, thats the key - YOU made accusations that fit your anti-american, green with envy bias. So its up to you to show that those accusations are factual. Its YOUR role to prove it, not mine to disprove it. The reason you don't care to - is because you can't. That's how intelligent discourse works, each side demonstrates their points with fact. Sorry your not happy with being shown to be full of it. But hey, at least you can still spew your anti-american sentiments, just don't be suprised if we fail to take you seriously.... :doh:

No, it's the Americans who started the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the global terror war, it's up to them to provide the evidence for those wars.

Again you swing - and miss. You made an accusation that we requested Israeli help to "torture muslims". Show the proof - or is this just more of your baseless propaganda? *You don't have to answer that - its rhetorical and we all know the answer anyways* :DJanis Karpinski met an Israeli at Abu Ghraib, and there is other evidence as well. No independent investigation yet into the matter but I'm pretty sure there will be one once the smoke has settled. Too late though, as always.

So you are ok with the US paying for Israel's military and then fighting their wars while at the same time turning a blind eye to the atrocities of Israel?

Talk about missing the point! But then - when your intent on doing so I guess thats not hard to do is it. Let me spell it out - your saying that actions like the beheading of Daniel Pearl were perfectly ok (and apparently not torture either), but us killing those who would kill us if they could is somehow wrong. Well, they say ignorance is bliss, at least your happy.I'd say both are wrong but the beheading was a response to more than one death done by the US. So by pure mathematics, it's not as clear as you seem to think it is.

Well - at least your consistent in jumping around and throwing out accusations that have no basis in fact. I did not say an arab or muslim life is less valuable than an american one. You imputed that to this arguement based on your own ill-informed and erroneous thought processes. I have said in the past that this is a war of "us" vs "them" - and the them are not all muslims or all arabs, but those who are beholden to hatred of any that do not follow their own dogma. Now if you want to say thats all muslims - then thats your beef - not mine. Your refusal to condemn the torture and murder of people like Daniel Pearl, like innocent arabs in the middle east (and not just in pakistan,afghanistan and iraq either) - like schoolchildren of ANY race or religion - commmitted by other arabs and muslims, demonstrates that you feel SOME muslim life is in fact above all else - "other" muslims, infidels of any race, etc. And that is where you lose the last shred of credibility you might have had. Yes but it is the US that is guilty of the wars. Are you saying it would be ok for some country to invade the US if they claimed that they were "acting responsibly" etc. bull****? You seem to think the US is guilty of absolutely nothing and that even genocidal crimes by the US can be defended by being a response to one or two deaths.

Again your lack of knowledge shows through. Not all Americans are beer swilling, drunk rednecks. I don't drink alcohol at all, thank you. Perhaps you should put down your crack pipe and get educated before you make sweeping (and incorrect) generalizations or accusations without knowledge.Crack use is almost non-existant in Finland, you're trying to smear us with the defaults of your own country. Please don't do that ever again in any shape or form.

No - that would be the terrorists I was discussing, not the innocent. Though your demented view probably isn't capable of that realization.... Then why are you only killing and torturing the innocents?

Torture it - what would be the point? However you forget these "rabid dogs" have the minds, though not the humanity, of humans. Thus, they may have information that would be valuable to stopping the spread - or the attacks - of other rabid dogs. And to get that - some measures before you terminate them for the good of society is warranted. I know you can't understand that - because your stance is that they are doing nothing wrong by killing the innocent.

How is the weather there in La-La land? Don't worry though, there is hope that someone with common sense will save you from yourself.Well I'm sure you'll find the logic in torturing a rabid dog, that's your speciality isn't it.

[CaptainHaplo]

No, it's the Americans who started the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the global terror war, it's up to them to provide the evidence for those wars.

No - it was you that made the initial accusation. What your trying to do is steer away from your accusation as you cannot back it up.

Janis Karpinski met an Israeli at Abu Ghraib, and there is other evidence as well. No independent investigation yet into the matter but I'm pretty sure there will be one once the smoke has settled. Too late though, as always.

So you are ok with the US paying for Israel's military and then fighting their wars while at the same time turning a blind eye to the atrocities of Israel?

I never said that we didn't consult with other intelligence services. Your claim was that we asked Israel for help to "torture muslims". Show me some form of documentation were we asked for help specifically to "torture muslims". You can't. Thus your point is invalid.

Also note how you then again change tack to try and make it about the "atrocities of Israel" - which have nothing to do with the point you were trying to make, other than you feel a need to bash yet another group you don't like.

I'd say both are wrong but the beheading was a response to more than one death done by the US. So by pure mathematics, it's not as clear as you seem to think it is.

2,974 - thats the number or deaths that just a few extremists caused on 9/11. If your going to make this about body count - then lets deal with facts. What is the civilian death toll in the "war on terror" attributable to the US - vs the civilian death toll attributable to the terrorists that exists in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq? The facts do not support your arguement - because the extremists have caused far greater death of innocents than the US has. You see, its not us that blows up the police stations, its not us that blows up the markets - its the extremists that do. Its not our explosives - its theirs. So try as you might, your attempt at propaganda is failing badly. We build schools, water treatment plants, housing - and extremists blow them up, along with the innocents around. They blow up police stations filled with Iraqi men who are there to protect their fellow citizens - all in the name of hate. Funny - you don't see the "evil Americans" doing that now do ya. Sure, we have made some errors - I am not above admitting that, but sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. Iraq and Afghanistan both have an ELECTED government that answers to ITS people - and that is something that the islamic extremists cannot deal with - and apparently neither can you. To claim that the butchering of innocents is in some form acceptable because we dared to answer those who would attack us, shows how far in error your thinking is.

Yes but it is the US that is guilty of the wars. Are you saying it would be ok for some country to invade the US if they claimed that they were "acting responsibly" etc. bull****? You seem to think the US is guilty of absolutely nothing and that even genocidal crimes by the US can be defended by being a response to one or two deaths.

Actually your showing more ignorance here. Iraq was a perfectly legitimate war based solely on the fact that Saddam Hussein violated the cease fire he signed by firing on our forces - repeatedly. Afghanistan was given a choice, turn over Bin Laden or face the consequences. They chose the latter - and here you are complaining over the FACT that they are now the first country in history to be bombed OUT of the stone age and into more modern times. As for it being a response to "one or two deaths" - try 2,974 deaths - plus the thousands who suffer from the aftermath - plus the MILLIONS who have suffered economically.

Crack use is almost non-existant in Finland, you're trying to smear us with the defaults of your own country. Please don't do that ever again in any shape or form.

Its called sarcasm - and perhaps you need to consider what your going to take offense to when you decide to "smear" another persons country with blantently false statements that you choose to run from when given a chance to prove them. You seem fine with throwing stuff out there and hoping it sticks, but boy, you sure can't take it all that well can ya?

Then why are you only killing and torturing the innocents?

Again - where do you get this stuff? We are the ones setting of bombs in the markets or at the doors of police stations where people are going to get jobs and protect their society? I guess the fact that these people have a say in their lives now means they deserve to be blown to bits, and the freedom they have is all our fault so their murderers can kill them with a clean conscience? Yea ok - you'd probably make a good defense attorney for murderers. "Really yur honer, its not his fault he sliced of the man's head as the man gurgled and screamed. Its the fault of those evil americans who dared to give people a say in their lives, when we all know it should be up to the hard line extremist clerics and mullahs to define what everyone should and shouldnt do. Besides, he was an infidel and as such doesnt really count as a person anyway."

Seriously - you need some help.......... If I didn't know better I would say your related to Tribesman.....

[CastleBravo]

Does the Geneva Convention allow the trial of battlefirld combatants in the courts of nations at war with said combatants? Does the US State Secrets Privilege Laws allow trials? A few questions.

[Platapus]

Does the Geneva Convention allow the trial of battlefirld combatants in the courts of nations at war with said combatants? Does the US State Secrets Privilege Laws allow trials? A few questions.


From the Third Geneva Convention, Section 2, article 82 paragraph 1

A prisoner of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations and orders in force in the armed forces of the Detaining Power; the Detaining Power shall be justified in taking judicial or disciplinary measures in respect of any offence committed by a prisoner of war against such laws, regulations or orders. However, no proceedings or punishments contrary to the provisions of this Chapter shall be allowed.


Under Executive Order 12958 Federal Judges are authorized to examine pertinent classified information in camera during trials.

Does this answer your questions? It is a most interesting subject.

[OneToughHerring]

No - it was you that made the initial accusation. What your trying to do is steer away from your accusation as you cannot back it up.

Yes but it was the US who started the multitude of wars, they have to provide evidence for them.

I never said that we didn't consult with other intelligence services. Your claim was that we asked Israel for help to "torture muslims". Show me some form of documentation were we asked for help specifically to "torture muslims". You can't. Thus your point is invalid. It's the same thing, consulting them and asking for help. What were the Israelis doing there then? What types of methods has Israel used against detained Palestinians?

Also note how you then again change tack to try and make it about the "atrocities of Israel" - which have nothing to do with the point you were trying to make, other than you feel a need to bash yet another group you don't like.Abu Ghraib and also Gitmo were based on the tried and tested methods the Israelis have used against Palestinians. I don't really care what you think about the matter.

2,974 - thats the number or deaths that just a few extremists caused on 9/11. If your going to make this about body count - then lets deal with facts. What is the civilian death toll in the "war on terror" attributable to the US - vs the civilian death toll attributable to the terrorists that exists in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq? The facts do not support your arguement - because the extremists have caused far greater death of innocents than the US has. You see, its not us that blows up the police stations, its not us that blows up the markets - its the extremists that do. Its not our explosives - its theirs. So try as you might, your attempt at propaganda is failing badly. We build schools, water treatment plants, housing - and extremists blow them up, along with the innocents around. They blow up police stations filled with Iraqi men who are there to protect their fellow citizens - all in the name of hate. Funny - you don't see the "evil Americans" doing that now do ya. Sure, we have made some errors - I am not above admitting that, but sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. Iraq and Afghanistan both have an ELECTED government that answers to ITS people - and that is something that the islamic extremists cannot deal with - and apparently neither can you. To claim that the butchering of innocents is in some form acceptable because we dared to answer those who would attack us, shows how far in error your thinking is.So if another country would attack the USA and have control of the media and make claims about the Americans killing civilians, it should be accepted as facts? You see, I don't believe in the US media anymore, they've just lied about too many things and are wholly unable, and probably will always be, to criticise the US military and their foreign politics in any way.

But if we're looking at the roots of the conflict then we have to go further down the road then just 9/11. Iran, the shah, the Soviet-Afghan conflict, the First Persian Gulf war, US and Israeli presence in the Middle-East for decades, etc. The ~2900 deaths which were mostly due to a shoddily built US building collapsing is small potatoes in comparison to all that. I think it's high time to start building proper buildings in the US, ones that actually last what they are supposed to last. Same goes for all US infrastructure such as roads, bridges. etc.

Actually your showing more ignorance here. Iraq was a perfectly legitimate war based solely on the fact that Saddam Hussein violated the cease fire he signed by firing on our forces - repeatedly. Afghanistan was given a choice, turn over Bin Laden or face the consequences. They chose the latter - and here you are complaining over the FACT that they are now the first country in history to be bombed OUT of the stone age and into more modern times. As for it being a response to "one or two deaths" - try 2,974 deaths - plus the thousands who suffer from the aftermath - plus the MILLIONS who have suffered economically. The war in Afghanistan is just sort of gaining strenght and will continue into the far future, and is most likely pretty much unwinnable for the US. As is Iraq, all it takes is one flame up and it's back to square one for them too. Of course when US troops have been withdrawn so that it would take a whole new war to go back in. That's your victory?

Iraq and Afghanistan are big countries and even by the most conservative estimates the US war in Iraq has caused about 1 mil. + excess deaths. Most likely in the same category for Afghanistan too. There is no easy or 'innocent' way to invade and take over a country, in many ways it has been as bad as it can ever be. The US hasn't put pretty much any money into the actual rebuilding of Iraq, let alone Afghanistan. So, remind me again, why am I supposed to think the wars are any kind of successes? Or was the whole point of the wars to just cause lots of deaths, 9/11 many times over, against the civilian populations of two countries that had very little if anything to do with it?

Its called sarcasm - and perhaps you need to consider what your going to take offense to when you decide to "smear" another persons country with blantently false statements that you choose to run from when given a chance to prove them. You seem fine with throwing stuff out there and hoping it sticks, but boy, you sure can't take it all that well can ya?So if I accuse you of being a drug addict then that's sarcasm in your opinion? You have a pretty messed up idea of what sarcasm is.

Again - where do you get this stuff? We are the ones setting of bombs in the markets or at the doors of police stations where people are going to get jobs and protect their society? I guess the fact that these people have a say in their lives now means they deserve to be blown to bits, and the freedom they have is all our fault so their murderers can kill them with a clean conscience? Yea ok - you'd probably make a good defense attorney for murderers. "Really yur honer, its not his fault he sliced of the man's head as the man gurgled and screamed. Its the fault of those evil americans who dared to give people a say in their lives, when we all know it should be up to the hard line extremist clerics and mullahs to define what everyone should and shouldnt do. Besides, he was an infidel and as such doesnt really count as a person anyway."

Seriously - you need some help.......... If I didn't know better I would say your related to Tribesman.....Oh, more ad hominem. You're just not very good at thinking are you?