Welcome to PatsFans.com

Why close a prison camp in WARTIME?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Gumby, Feb 16, 2006.

  1. Gumby

    Gumby Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    #11 Jersey

    The UN wants us to close the camp at Gitmo and let all the little osamas free.

    Did Al Qaida send their surrender terms to Al Jazeera and I missed it?

    I mean I know I get wrapped up at work for weeks at a time and dont read news; but I thought I would have heard that.


    But I guess this just points out that the rest of the world doesnt treat our declaration of war any more seriously than the democrat party does.

    But we are at war; and so long as a war is being prosecuted you dont close your 'prisoner of war' camps nor your 'enemy combatant' camps. Hell, Russia kept their German prisoners from WWII until 1952 or 55. Germany had to have special negotiations to get the 5,000 or so who survived from about a half million back.

    Some of these countries complaining about us holding prisoners captured on a battlefield arrest their own citizens without a trial and disappear them. But hypocrisy is nothing new at UN.
  2. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    What makes you say we are at war? There has been no "declaration of war". We don't behave as if we are at war either domestically or internationally other than building bases and fending off insurgent combatants.

    I do respect your referring to the "enemy" as combatants, when most other pro-war people tend to call anyone with a gun who isn't a Yank or Brit a "terrorist". At least you recognoze they are really combatants and are a threat to our troops in Iraq.
  3. Gumby

    Gumby Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    #11 Jersey

    you obviously dont understand the definition of the word 'combatant' in militay legal terminology. my paraphrasing below:

    It means someone not deserving of Geneva Convention protections who is fighting against you.

    A terrorist is a 'combatant in a peacetime environment who generally targets civilians without warning'.

    These guys are mostly terrorist thugs; although some do qualify as pure 'enemy combatants' and a limited few actually qualify as 'prisoners of war' (i.e. Saddam Hussein and a limited few others)
  4. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Can you verify that everyone at Gitmo is a combatant? Is it on the Defense Department website?
  5. dryheat44

    dryheat44 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,369
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +78 / 2 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    Here's my take FWIW. Some of those held in Gitmo are enemy fighters. A large percentage are not, but were rounded up on suspicion on having Al Qaeda ties.

    The first should have been shot dead in combat, the second should be released. Any intelligence they are going to give has already been obtained. A reasonable time by any definition for holding suspects has passed, and we should know if they are enemy or not. If they are, kill them. If not, release them.

    Then close Gitmo, and in the future do it right, kill the enemy. And don't arrest those who we don't know are the enemy.
  6. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    A killed enemy can provide a whole lot less intelligence information than a live one can. And soldiers in a combat zone don't "arrest" anyone, they capture prisoners. A small semantic difference, perhaps, but I think it's a clue to your thinking. If you think of the Gitmo prisoners as POWs, perhaps it might help a little bit. POWs get released when the war is over -- it's their bad luck that their compatriots have no intention of stopping any attacks until they are all captured or dead. But it's their good fortune that they ended up at Gitmo rather than about anywhere else on the planet.
  7. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,663
    Likes Received:
    155
    Ratings:
    +482 / 1 / -9

    Instead of worrying about Gitmo why isn't the Sleazy little Smirking Weasle Crook Koffi Annan trying to stop the Rampaging Muslim Savages that are going insane over a "Cartoon"?

    Hollywood:
    After the Far Left Liberal Democratic Party allows the "Muslim Religion" to occupy and Take Over the United States Of America among the first people to DIE at the hands of the Religious Muslims will be the "Hollywood Wife Swappers" the very people that assisted them in their "War On Christianity"

    The chickens will come home to roost for Penn, Baldwin, Striesand and GANG.
  8. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Because it's easier to complain to us than it is to actually do anything.
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2006
  9. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,663
    Likes Received:
    155
    Ratings:
    +482 / 1 / -9

    Koffi Crook Annan wants every country on the planet to run to him and get his permission before they go to the bathroom.

    GW Bush will never kiss Koffi's or the UN's A-s for anything.

    The next "Bomber" to hit America is probably sitting in Gitmo right now waiting for Koffi to get him released.
  10. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,774
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +170 / 4 / -4

    Do you have any evidence that Annan isn't trying to stop the cartoon riots? Certainly, if statements have been aimed at that? What else do you think he should do? Did you want the UN to come into America in the 60s when we had riots? C'mon, bluetalon and harry, are you advocating more power to Kofi Annan? Do you think he should call out the troops?
  11. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,663
    Likes Received:
    155
    Ratings:
    +482 / 1 / -9

    The cartoon riots are alittle different than the "Burn your own house down riots" of the 60s.

    Those morons in the UN couldn't do anything anyway, I wouldn't let the UN protect my cat.

    Things will be coming to a head soon anyway with Muslims, the countries they are trashing will get sick of their religious sh!t and start Machine Gunning them.
  12. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    How's Kofi doing with the Darfur situation Patters?

    You cant honestly think the UN is NOT an impotent body can you?

    And Dryheat, what kind of insight do you have that you believe that MOST of the Gitmo prisoners are not Al-Qaeda or Taliban fighters? Did you believe Algore's speech in Saudi where he claimed we were rounding up Muslims off the streets for no reason in this country and putting them in "deplorable conditions"?
  13. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,663
    Likes Received:
    155
    Ratings:
    +482 / 1 / -9

    Al Gore belongs in Gitmo.
  14. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I'd be interested in any evidence that he is actually accomplishing anything in quelling the riots.

    The UN hasn't accomplished anything involving military competence since the Korean War. When the PLO was in Lebenon and launching attacks into Israel, there were UN "peacekeeping" forces actually on the border. Not only did they do nothing to stop any attacks on Israel, when Israel had had enough and started moving forces north, they gave those UN peacekeepers a half hour to move... and they did. After the major fighting was finished in Iraq, the UN moved into an office in Baghdad... but one bomb (ONE BOMB!!!) had them running all the way to Crete. Futility neither breeds respect nor deserves to be sustained.

    I think it's the height of foolishness to expect that Kofi or anyone else at the UN is going to actually accomplish anything difficult. I'm absolutely serious when I say that he's on us about Gitmo because it's easier than being on Iran about nukes or rioting Muslims about death threats.

    If I had my druthers about Kofi and the UN, I would allow another country to host them for the next half century, I would stop all funding to the UN, and withdraw the United States from everything except the Security Council, with instructions to the ambassador to vote no on everything except for things that are of obvious benefit to us. (Anyone worried about funding could encourage the UN to use stolen oil-for-food money to run their programs for the next few years.)


    Regarding what to do about the riots, I am of two minds. One possibility is to create a bunch more cartoons like that, then air drop them into the riot zones. The other is to just blast the place. We spent all that money developing the MOAB -- what's the point if we never get to use it? Seriously, the rioters are the same ilk as those who strung up American bodies in Falujah and danced, and those who celebrated in the streets after 9/11. Frankly, I am not concerned with stopping any riots. That's a job for their local governments.
  15. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,774
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +170 / 4 / -4

    The UN, like the Congress, is only as effective as its members. Obviously, with some issues the UN cannot be effective, because even the major powers don't agree. Has the U.S. called on the UN to get involved in ending the cartoon riots? Now, as far as the UN's role, it sort of works like a consulting company. They do a lot of behind the scenes work and only get credit if the project is a failure. If the project is a success the individual governments take the lion's share of the credit. That said, the list of UN accomplishments is quite long: ranging from fighting disease to promoting human rights to creating a vehicle through which opposing sides can communicate.

    This is a link to a UN list of accomplishments, which might prove enlightening if you're not pulled by the nose by your right-wing leaders:

    http://www.una-usadanecounty.org/about/index.php?category_id=1550

    As far as your reasoning regarding the cartoons, such as air dropping them, that's the exact same reasoning that Al Qaida is using in Iraq. They want to keep stirring things up so the Americans keep coming and they can keep killing. This is the problem we have right now: on both sides, the right-wing is trying to solve problems the only way they know how -- war and violence. Guess what, bluetalon, the righties always wear themselves down enough so that the liberals take over and clean up the mess. But, the terrible loss of life, well that falls on Al Qaida's shoulders, but some of the blame also falls on Bush's shoulders, too.
  16. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Until you get specific about which terrible loss of life you're refering to, I'm not going to join you in attributing any blame to Bush. He might be deserving of some, but blanket statements don't cut it. Regarding your stereotyping of us right-wingers, many in the middle and certainly those of us on the right don't see things the way you see them, so you can't just make statements like that and assume they're going to have any impact.


    Have you even read the things on that list at that link? I particularly like number eight:
    8. Has helped minimize the threat of a nuclear war by inspecting nuclear reactors in 90.(SIC)
    We all know how well that has turned out.

    I looked down that entire list, and there is nothing on it (NOTHING) that hasn't been done using some other means, or can't be done as well or better by other organizations for a fraction of the cost. The UN is the most bumbling, slow, and inefficient way of doing anything. Can you imagine how many more people would be reached if Doctors Without Borders got the UN's funding for innoculations and other medical treatment? They probably wouldn't take sexual advantage of the people they are going to help, either.
  17. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Why should the UN focus on rioting in individual countries? Like BT said, thats up to the individual government's police forces. Much like this country with Watts, the LA Riots etc.... its OUR job to deal with the rioting, not the UN.

    The UN should be focused on THREE major issues right now;

    1. The inhumanities going on in Darfur, Sudan

    2. Iran's budding Nuclear weapons program

    3. Its leaders' complacency/involvement in the Iraq Oil-for-food scandal.
  18. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,361
    Likes Received:
    488
    Ratings:
    +1,182 / 15 / -11

    Disable Jersey

    1. Wrong. Liberals and the UN like to TALK about the misery of people of color, like in Dafur, but ACTING would drive them into hissey fits. Were the UN worth one dime, they'd act in Dafur.

    2. As to Iran, the UN never acts in these instances (exception: Corean War when the Russkies took a hike & the Security Council for once showed some sack)

    3, Oil for Food is a major scandal but the liberal press dwells on stuff like Enron except that it's no fun anymore now that the bleeping perps were brought to trial.
  19. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    You're on to something here. I think many liberals can't distinguish between words and action, which would explain why they're always so pumped whenever they get an agreement on something, like a 17th UN resolution.
  20. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,361
    Likes Received:
    488
    Ratings:
    +1,182 / 15 / -11

    Disable Jersey

    So, just how many UN resolutions with the 'Line of Death' were issued before we 'rushed to war' as the DNC synchophants here used to sound byte?

    Sorta proves the case that the UN does absolutely nothing.

    Rwanda

    Dafur

    Kosovo (well, up until the US and Clinton 'unilaterally' intervened at 15,000 feet)

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>