|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790 |
Quote:
POW's have no rights under the Geneva convention? Give me a break. These are not the actions of a country that recognizes "unailenable rights"
That is not what he said, nor is it our policy. You are not a "prisoner of war" if you are caught as an enemy combatant. If you do not where the uniform of your country, you are not a prisoner of war. We executed men in the German army who were in this country during WWII, who were attempting sabotage. It was legal then, and still legal.
All these gripes about Gitmo me off. Most of the people there were picked up because they were fighting with, or were known terrorists. I think for now on we should just kill them on the spot. To hell with them.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253 |
Quote:
Quote:
POW's have no rights under the Geneva convention? Give me a break. These are not the actions of a country that recognizes "unailenable rights"
That is not what he said, nor is it our policy. You are not a "prisoner of war" if you are caught as an enemy combatant. If you do not where the uniform of your country, you are not a prisoner of war. We executed men in the German army who were in this country during WWII, who were attempting sabotage. It was legal then, and still legal.
All these gripes about Gitmo me off. Most of the people there were picked up because they were fighting with, or were known terrorists. I think for now on we should just kill them on the spot. To hell with them.
Whack em all and tell the bleeding hearts they were trying to escape.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Quote:
And Dems , please don't act like you give a crap about our military. Believe me most of them know what you really think. They might miss their next paycheck because of the crooked Dems in congress.
Don't you dare say Democrats don't give a crap about the military. You couldn't have that more wrong.
P.S. I don't identify as a Democrat or a Republican...all I want is this broken system fixed. Where people and companies are held accountable for corruption, where lobbyists don't write policy, where the COMMON PEOPLE actually have their voices heard. Not the richest of the rich or the poorest of the poor, but the middle class. Where we're not afraid to negotiate with our enemies first, but are still not afraid to blow them off the face of the earth. Where we put our country first when it comes to investments in infrastructure, technology, jobs, etc. Where we give incentives to invest in alternative energy sources and research instead of letting big oil receive record profits.
In the end, the middle class is what is going to suffer from this tug of war...neither party has the middle class in mind, nor do they really give a flip about my generation.
Why do I like Obama? He may end up being full of hot air afterall (but his record sure doesn't show that), but dammit, he's not afraid to say what everyone is thinking: Washington needs change on both wings. He doesn't take a dime from lobbyists which IMO is a HUGE sign of character. Most of all, he genuinely focuses on the young and the middle class, something that has been ignored under this administration.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
You say you want accountability for corruption. You say Obama's record doesn't show he is full of hot air. Yet his record DOES show that. Wright and Byars....and even his wife's comments about this country....they have ALL been dismissed and excused by Obama. Why do you choose to ignore that he has shown if you are a special interest to him, he will defend you until it comes to the point that it hurts him with his goals? I guess love is blind.  Democrats care about the military? When is that, exactly? When they are wanting to cut the defense budget or when they use them as a political tool? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 81
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 81 |
Quote:
You say you want accountability for corruption. You say Obama's record doesn't show he is full of hot air. Yet his record DOES show that. Wright and Byars....and even his wife's comments about this country....they have ALL been dismissed and excused by Obama. Why do you choose to ignore that he has shown if you are a special interest to him, he will defend you until it comes to the point that it hurts him with his goals? I guess love is blind.
Democrats care about the military? When is that, exactly? When they are wanting to cut the defense budget or when they use them as a political tool?
The only time they've ever wanted to cut spending.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
No, there's a difference. They want to funnel the money to other programs, not cut spending. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 81
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 81 |
Good point. Both parties can go (censored) themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Who represents old, corrupt politics who have been part of this system for years now? (Hillary, McCain)
Who is the least of the evils, and actually has a message of hope and change to a broken, corrupt government?
If there were better choices, I'd certainly vote for them...but this is what we got. A Republican who I honestly respected the hell out of until he fell into the party line, a Democrat who is nothing like her more moderate husband in a time where our nation prospered unlike any point in its history (and quite frankly it's been proven she's a liar and a sham on her campaign trail), and then you have someone who actually WANTS to unite the country.
I think I'll take the united message.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Quote:
Good point. Both parties can go (censored) themselves.
That's the point I'm trying to make! But we're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Anyone who thinks politics in this country is "just fine" is delusional.
This is why our system is broken.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
LOL, you do realize that McCain says he wants to unite the country, too right? So Obama says he wants to unite the country (while defending a divisive racist for 20 years until he dipped in the polls....an old political trick you claim you don't want around anymore) and you swallow the line hook, line, and sinker.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Quote:
LOL, you do realize that McCain says he wants to unite the country, too right? So Obama says he wants to unite the country (while defending a divisive racist for 20 years until he dipped in the polls....an old political trick you claim you don't want around anymore) and you swallow the line hook, line, and sinker.
Obama's mom is white, so I hardly think he has an agenda against "the white man."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
Great reply. There are facts here, Ammo, that you are ignoring. Obama's spiritual leader for TWENTY YEARS has beepn spewing DIVISIVE and RACIST remarks. Obama DEFENDED him up until a couple of weeks ago. Wouldn't a man that wanted "unity" have held the man that was his spiritual leader ACCOUNTABLE for his words? Wouldn't he have held a man that was involved in TERROISM (Byars) accountable for his words and actions? You see, you claim you back him because, in part, that you want accountability and unification. Obama's record CLEARLY shows that while he pays lip service to both, he will defend those that are against it until it's politically prudent to denounce them. Even when you are shown the facts, your (weak) reply is that his mama was white so he didn't really do these things?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,654
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,654 |
Quote:
Quote:
POW's have no rights under the Geneva convention? Give me a break. These are not the actions of a country that recognizes "unailenable rights"
That is not what he said, nor is it our policy. You are not a "prisoner of war" if you are caught as an enemy combatant. If you do not where the uniform of your country, you are not a prisoner of war. We executed men in the German army who were in this country during WWII, who were attempting sabotage. It was legal then, and still legal.
All these gripes about Gitmo me off. Most of the people there were picked up because they were fighting with, or were known terrorists. I think for now on we should just kill them on the spot. To hell with them.
I'm sorry, I forget that the Bush administration does not refer to those at Gitmo as POW's they are detainees because as terrorists, they have "given up" their rights to have representation by their country of citizenship. Yet we can hold them in jail without any due process... nice. We invade a foriegn land take prisoners (or detainees) and then put them into purgatory.
I readily admit that the Geneva convention is a set of rules for those who want to play nice at war, if there is such a thing.
When you act like your adversaries, you become them.
But when you hear rumblings of how other countries despise the fact that the US is contradictory in terms of its stated position versus its actions, and how we are disliked by other countries for our heavy handed foreign policy, accept that there is some fire behind the smoldering tempers of others.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790 |
Quote:
A Republican who I honestly respected the hell out of until he fell into the party line
Like wanting to drill in ANWAR, keeping Gitmo open, allowing water boarding for the highest tier of terrorist who may have secrets that can save thousands of lives, Backing Bush 100% on the war in Iraq...Oh, wait, he is against all of these things, especially the last one. He has ripped apart members of the Bush adm. for not handling the war right from the get go. He backs the war, but not the way we have gone about it. His plan is much different then Bush's has been in the past.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800 |
Obama is no better then Bush, sure he wants us to pull troops out of Iraq, thats so we have enough troops to go battle the Jungaweed, a war he thinks is more important. They all have agendas, and right now all suck and thats why I will vote for the lesser of the evils, and that candidate isn't coming from the democratic party.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Quote:
Obama is no better then Bush, sure he wants us to pull troops out of Iraq, thats so we have enough troops to go battle the Jungaweed, a war he thinks is more important. They all have agendas, and right now all suck and thats why I will vote for the lesser of the evils, and that candidate isn't coming from the democratic party.
So...Bush is one of the worst Presidents in history...yet people STILL want to vote Republican and think the Republican candidate is the lesser of two evils...
I'll never understand at all...the political pendulum has swung toward the right for too long, it's time for it to swing left again. When it swings too far to the left, I'll advocate it to swing back to the right again.
Last edited by Ammo; 05/26/08 10:37 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800 |
It's called checks and balances. Learn it and maybe you will comprehend why you don't want things one sided.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Quote:
It's called checks and balances. Learn it and maybe you will comprehend why you don't want things one sided.
I know my checks and balances. That's 5th grade stuff.
This is a different spin on checks and balances but here are my thoughts on this...The Republicans were in sole power for too long. Now it's time for sole Democrat control to balance that act and undo some of the damage done from having one group in sole power for so long.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790 |
Quote:
Quote:
It's called checks and balances. Learn it and maybe you will comprehend why you don't want things one sided.
I know my checks and balances. That's 5th grade stuff.
This is a different spin on checks and balances but here are my thoughts on this...The Republicans were in sole power for too long. Now it's time for sole Democrat control to balance that act and undo some of the damage done from having one group in sole power for so long.
Tell me how many years the Republicans had control of Congress and the White House.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253 |
Quote:
The world will be a better place when Bush is gone.
Sometimes I can't believe the IDIOCY of our country to elect him to a second term.
He was despised before 9/11...9/11 saved him...and he still won by the skin of his teeth in '04, only to get buried again.
What does that say?
Bush is one of the worst Presidents of all-time. We have serious repairing to do. I almost feel like apologizing to the rest of the world because we had so many IDIOTS who re-elected that moron...the world hated him and we thumbed our nose at the rest of the world.
The world likes Obama...will we tell the rest of the world to screw off again? I sure as hell hope not.
Ammo you just called a lot of Americans idiots who voted with their heads instead of what their Daddys tell them to do. Most of the Republicans I know are hard working family types and for some yuppie pisant with ZERO life exsperience to call them idiots is very wrong.
I got a little angrywhen I said the Dems don't care about the military. Matter of fact many middle of road do care its their left leaning politicians and libs like you and your Daddy. If you cared about the military why in hell would you vote for Obama or Hillary. And as for that post thanking the military ( I think it was you that started it) for myself being ex-military ( others may feel differently ) stick it. I would rather see folks vote for a party that doesn't vote against every pay raise or Military bill that goes up. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
No one voting for George W. Bush the second time around was using their heads.
I don't really think that's an offensive thing to say, because just about everyone who did realizes that it was a mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,654
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,654 |
Quote:
If you cared about the military why in hell would you vote for Obama or Hillary. And as for that post thanking the military ( I think it was you that started it) for myself being ex-military ( others may feel differently ) stick it. I would rather see folks vote for a party that doesn't vote against every pay raise or Military bill that goes up.
1) A vote for Obama or Hillary is to end this ill concieved war and the 4000+ American casualties. Reason enough for me.
2) Bush has vowed to veto, and McCain took a creative leave of absence (although on the record as against) the Webb GI bill.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800 |
He didn't start the thread you mentioned, but I do think it is absurd for him to chime in with his daddy's opinion, since if his dad wanted to give his opinion, he would be a registered member of this or any message board for that matter. Give him some slack, since he is still wet behind the ears, even though he doesn't know of what he speaks, in time when he has his own bills to pay maybe he'll be able to grasp what is going on, but right now his points can't be taken seriously since he's not an active member of society. Maybe someday he will be, but that day isn't today.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800 |
A vote for Obama just sends us to a different war. He wants the USA to battle the Jungaweed, and that holds less merit then us occupying Iraq right now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,426
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,426 |
The fact that somewhere along the line Republicans were able to label Democrats as not supporting the military amuses me. I find it odd that leaving soldiers in Iraq for "up to 100 years" is supporting them, rather than getting them home. I find it odd that the party that won't pay for proper equipment for the troops is the party that supports them. And... Quote:
yuppie pisant with ZERO life exsperience to call them idiots is very wrong.
Really? Are we back in 1963 or something? The fact that there are those who won't see the good that is/can be done with either ideology is idiotic. Also, I like yuppies. Yuppies tend to be people that can see things larger than just themselves. They tend to be big picture thinkers who can see outside of their own realm of experience. And for you to reject a group of people like that, for thinking outside themselves, is extremely close-minded and short-sided.
[color:"green"] "World domination has encountered a momentary setback. Please talk amongst yourselves." Get Fuzzy[/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800 |
Obama is just as big a war monger as Bush but some people are blinded by such facts. So now he wants to invade Africa and Pakistan, which country is next on his agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
2) Bush has vowed to veto, and McCain took a creative leave of absence (although on the record as against) the Webb GI bill.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4652517&page=1
McCain also has his name on a bill that provides better assistance to GIs and their families, which allowed spouses of currently serving military personnel to use their GI Bill funds to attend colleges in their communities.
This bill was a farce. It was a veiled attempt to get some political advantage by saying that Republicans voted against providing military personnel with benefits. It is a slap in the face of the service personnel and reeks of dishonesty. No matter, it will be shredded by the GOPs 527 machine.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800 |
Quote:
McCain also has his name on a bill that provides better assistance to GIs and their families, which allowed spouses of currently serving military personnel to use their GI Bill funds to attend colleges in their communities.
This is only happening in the Army. No other service has adapted to this program, still a nice gesture but isn't held by all branches.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,426
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,426 |
Quote:
Obama wants to send the military into Pakistan.
Wait, so you mean Obama wants to track down and capture Bin Laden instead of continuing an exercise of futility in Iraq?!?! The nerve!!!
Honestly, I'm not honestly for invading Pakistan by any means, but it'd be the same war that we actually started in trying to capture Bin Laden instead of this little trek off of our actual purpose.
[color:"green"] "World domination has encountered a momentary setback. Please talk amongst yourselves." Get Fuzzy[/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800 |
Don't forget Africa, it is another place Obama thinks we need to place our troops.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,654
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,654 |
Quote:
Quote:
1) A vote for Obama or Hillary is to end this ill concieved war and the 4000+ American casualties. Reason enough for me.
Obama wants to send the military into Pakistan.
I have no problem in getting Bin Ladin. Something that Bush has not been able to do in 7 years.
Remember his comments at the WTC, where he vowed to gett those responsible regardless of their location.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800 |
Obama wants troops in Africa, can you explain that logic? We have a stranglehold on Pakistan right now, there is no feasible reason to invade them. I like how the dems are ignoring Obama wanting troops in Africa to fight the Jungaweed, Why are you guys justifying that stance?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,426
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,426 |
He's willing to put some troops there, as part of a UN force to stop the genocide going on in the country. I see a slight difference there, IMO. However, his statements tend to lead more toward giving aide and logistical assistance before troop commitments. Quote:
Obama believes the United States needs to lead the world in ending this genocide, including by imposing much tougher sanctions that target Sudan's oil revenue, implementing and helping to enforce a no-fly zone, and engaging in more intense, effective diplomacy to develop a political road map to peace. The international community must, over the Sudanese regime's protests, deploy a large, capable UN-led and UN-funded force with a robust enforcement mandate to stop the killings.
BarackObama.com
[color:"green"] "World domination has encountered a momentary setback. Please talk amongst yourselves." Get Fuzzy[/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800 |
He wants troops in Dafur to fight the jungaweed. He stated that from his mouth on Oprah. His website might word it differently but his plan came straight from his mouth. With or without the UN, he plans on putting troops in Africa to fight a war that suits his needs. Now he's flip flopping, if you believe his website, I am just going by what came out of his mouth. Ignorance is bliss. He's a war monger just as much as Bush, but only to suit his needs. No difference.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790 |
Quote:
I have no problem in getting Bin Ladin. Something that Bush has not been able to do in 7 years.
So you want us to invade another country, that happens to be our ally? Do you want to be sure Bin Ladin is there first?
Bush has been blasted by those of you on the left for attacking countries with Al Qeda terrorist hiding within there borders, even though those countries give us no help. It is however, ok to attack an ally of ours if we think they aren't helping us enough? How is this different then you're with us or against us?
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800 |
A Question, if we all knew how bad the jungaweed are, why hasn't the UN already placed troops there? Simple, no one cares unless we do, if not this wouldn't be a problem and the UN wouldn't be considered a joke. If Obama was president and the UN declined troops to Dafur, were still going in. Obama has his mind made up no matter on what the UN thinks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,426
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,426 |
Its humorous that you think that if the US opted to become involved in Darfur the UN wouldn't jump to the cause as well. That would actually be a cause that pretty much the entire UN would be behind, and not just the selected countries that we can largely control...
By the way, if you want a perspective on this I would heavily recommend Samantha Power's A Problem From Hell. Really great read, IMO, on genocide. She was an adviser to Obama before her "monster" comment and for a dry topic, its a very good read.
[color:"green"] "World domination has encountered a momentary setback. Please talk amongst yourselves." Get Fuzzy[/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790 |
If it stops a genocide I would support it. My question is, once we oust them, do we stay until things are stable? Or do we cut and run like in Somalia and what Obama wants to do in Iraq?
I know you have someone close to you in Iraq. What does that person think is the right thing to do, and why?
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800 |
It's humorous that the all mighty UN has to wait for us to take measures in our own hands, because they can't handle the issue without us. Again were going to be the scapegoat if things go wrong. Fact is Obama is ready to put troops in harms way to benefit his own beliefs, and that isn't right.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum R U sure you want change???
|
|
