(06-03-2014 11:31 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Killing prisoners without a trial is murder...plain and simple...we're supposed to be better than that.
We must stop being 'team America, world police'

But they aren't prisoners in the criminal justice sense, and we aren't policemen.

War is played by different rules, under international law. You kill people without trials all over the place. Trying to apply criminal justice standards in an environment where there is no subpoena power or other tools to gather evidence is an exercise on futility and stupidity.

We like to think of ourselves as the good guys who play by the rules. But we're still killing people, so it's hard to say we're really good, and in our quest for "goodness" we self-impose restrictions not required by the rules, and those self-imposed restrictions create quagmires that probably kill more people than would have been killed if we had gone in hard and fast in the first place, and absolutely kill more of our own people.

It's time to quit kidding ourselves that we are somehow the "good guys" in this. There are no good guys in war. We're supposedly going to shoot our way into their country and then succeed because we're going to make them like us? Really? Seriously?

For once, let's go to war to win, and drop all this "holier than thou" crap. We're not going to worry about whether you like us or not, we're just going to make damned sure that you 1) don't want us ever to come back, and 2) understand that the way to make us not come back is to behave.

We'd have to do it once. It would shock hell out of everybody, there'd be more casualties up front, but they'd be theirs, not ours, and in the end the total casualties would be down. We might have to do it one more time, because some wouldn't get the message. But after that, nada.

And if we are not prepared to go to war that way, then the military solution is the wrong one.

(06-03-2014 01:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 11:31 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Killing prisoners without a trial is murder...plain and simple...we're supposed to be better than that.
We must stop being 'team America, world police'

But they aren't prisoners in the criminal justice sense, and we aren't policemen.

War is played by different rules, under international law. You kill people without trials all over the place. Trying to apply criminal justice standards in an environment where there is no subpoena power or other tools to gather evidence is an exercise on futility and stupidity.

We like to think of ourselves as the good guys who play by the rules. But we're still killing people, so it's hard to say we're really good, and in our quest for "goodness" we self-impose restrictions not required by the rules, and those self-imposed restrictions create quagmires that probably kill more people than would have been killed if we had gone in hard and fast in the first place, and absolutely kill more of our own people.

It's time to quit kidding ourselves that we are somehow the "good guys" in this. There are no good guys in war. We're supposedly going to shoot our way into their country and then succeed because we're going to make them like us? Really? Seriously?

For once, let's go to war to win, and drop all this "holier than thou" crap. We're not going to worry about whether you like us or not, we're just going to make damned sure that you 1) don't want us ever to come back, and 2) understand that the way to make us not come back is to behave.

We'd have to do it once. It would shock hell out of everybody, there'd be more casualties up front, but they'd be theirs, not ours, and in the end the total casualties would be down. We might have to do it one more time, because some wouldn't get the message. But after that, nada.

And if we are not prepared to go to war that way, then the military solution is the wrong one.

I agree with you 100% but in this day and age where everything is on TV we would never get away with it.

Isn't that why we were unsuccessful in Vietnam? Because people finally got a glimpse of war and realized that it wasn't a game of cowboys and indians?

(06-03-2014 01:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I agree with you 100% but in this day and age where everything is on TV we would never get away with it.
Isn't that why we were unsuccessful in Vietnam? Because people finally got a glimpse of war and realized that it wasn't a game of cowboys and indians?

We'll never get away with it without a CinC who has the cojones to pull it off. Go to the UN, give a speech, say this is how it's going to be. We're going to back out of your internal affairs, and in exchange we're going to promise that if you f**k with us, we're going to blow your a** away. And I'd probably use those exact words, just to give the translators some grief. Then if anybody tests you, waste them.

We were unsuccessful in Vietnam, IMO and I was there, because our leaders in Washington thought it was a game of cowboys and indians.

(06-03-2014 01:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 11:31 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Killing prisoners without a trial is murder...plain and simple...we're supposed to be better than that.
We must stop being 'team America, world police'

But they aren't prisoners in the criminal justice sense, and we aren't policemen.

War is played by different rules, under international law. You kill people without trials all over the place. Trying to apply criminal justice standards in an environment where there is no subpoena power or other tools to gather evidence is an exercise on futility and stupidity.

We like to think of ourselves as the good guys who play by the rules. But we're still killing people, so it's hard to say we're really good, and in our quest for "goodness" we self-impose restrictions not required by the rules, and those self-imposed restrictions create quagmires that probably kill more people than would have been killed if we had gone in hard and fast in the first place, and absolutely kill more of our own people.

It's time to quit kidding ourselves that we are somehow the "good guys" in this. There are no good guys in war. We're supposedly going to shoot our way into their country and then succeed because we're going to make them like us? Really? Seriously?

For once, let's go to war to win, and drop all this "holier than thou" crap. We're not going to worry about whether you like us or not, we're just going to make damned sure that you 1) don't want us ever to come back, and 2) understand that the way to make us not come back is to behave.

We'd have to do it once. It would shock hell out of everybody, there'd be more casualties up front, but they'd be theirs, not ours, and in the end the total casualties would be down. We might have to do it one more time, because some wouldn't get the message. But after that, nada.

And if we are not prepared to go to war that way, then the military solution is the wrong one.

I'm not talking killing someone on a battlefield...we took them as prisoners...they deserve a trial.

(06-03-2014 01:44 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I'm not talking killing someone on a battlefield...we took them as prisoners...they deserve a trial.

Actually, no, they don't.

(06-03-2014 01:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 01:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 11:31 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Killing prisoners without a trial is murder...plain and simple...we're supposed to be better than that.
We must stop being 'team America, world police'

But they aren't prisoners in the criminal justice sense, and we aren't policemen.

War is played by different rules, under international law. You kill people without trials all over the place. Trying to apply criminal justice standards in an environment where there is no subpoena power or other tools to gather evidence is an exercise on futility and stupidity.

We like to think of ourselves as the good guys who play by the rules. But we're still killing people, so it's hard to say we're really good, and in our quest for "goodness" we self-impose restrictions not required by the rules, and those self-imposed restrictions create quagmires that probably kill more people than would have been killed if we had gone in hard and fast in the first place, and absolutely kill more of our own people.

It's time to quit kidding ourselves that we are somehow the "good guys" in this. There are no good guys in war. We're supposedly going to shoot our way into their country and then succeed because we're going to make them like us? Really? Seriously?

For once, let's go to war to win, and drop all this "holier than thou" crap. We're not going to worry about whether you like us or not, we're just going to make damned sure that you 1) don't want us ever to come back, and 2) understand that the way to make us not come back is to behave.

We'd have to do it once. It would shock hell out of everybody, there'd be more casualties up front, but they'd be theirs, not ours, and in the end the total casualties would be down. We might have to do it one more time, because some wouldn't get the message. But after that, nada.

And if we are not prepared to go to war that way, then the military solution is the wrong one.

I agree with you 100% but in this day and age where everything is on TV we would never get away with it.

Isn't that why we were unsuccessful in Vietnam? Because people finally got a glimpse of war and realized that it wasn't a game of cowboys and indians?

God, you're a certifiable moron.

You think the MILLIONS that served in WWII thought it was a "game"? The women who lost their husbands, mother's who lost their sons, often more than one? Those who had to go to work driving nails or tending hospital beds in foreign lands?

What world do you even live in? You repeatedly make this claim to be a teacher of history, yet seem to have absolutely NO grasp of History itself.

My dad lost his only Brother, my Uncle I'd never meet, a Fighter pilot that flew alongside HW Bush. He still went off a few days after his SEVENTEENTH birthday to enlist in the Navy himself. Yes, they were taking 17 yo children at that point.

Had the "game" gone on much longer he likely would have been involved in a ground invasion of Japan itself. My Grandmother would probably have lost BOTH her sons, like thousands of other Mothers and Fathers did.

Dangerous stuff that "cowboys and Indians"...We lost nearly half a million young men and women and had over a million total casualties in your game...

Wow.

(06-03-2014 01:44 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I'm not talking killing someone on a battlefield...we took them as prisoners...they deserve a trial.

Terrorist are essentially non declared combatants, i.e. spies. Espionage has always occupied the gray area between pure military and standard civilian prosecution. Killing them, detailing them or releasing them are all viable options in this case.

Personally, I would have preferred they had be killed on sight and avoided this current situation of long term detainment of lack of prosecution.

(06-03-2014 01:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I agree with you 100% but in this day and age where everything is on TV we would never get away with it.

Isn't that why we were unsuccessful in Vietnam? Because people finally got a glimpse of war and realized that it wasn't a game of cowboys and indians?

The reasons for 'losing' Vietnam was because politically the US was not allowed to do what it would take to win; invade North Vietnam.

(06-03-2014 01:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 01:44 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I'm not talking killing someone on a battlefield...we took them as prisoners...they deserve a trial.

Actually, no, they don't.

That's not an America I want ANY part of...

(06-03-2014 02:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 01:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 01:44 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I'm not talking killing someone on a battlefield...we took them as prisoners...they deserve a trial.

Actually, no, they don't.

That's not an America I want ANY part of...

Do you agree with the assassination of OBL who never got a trial and wasn't a combatant when he was off'ed.

(06-03-2014 02:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 01:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 01:44 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I'm not talking killing someone on a battlefield...we took them as prisoners...they deserve a trial.

Actually, no, they don't.

That's not an America I want ANY part of...

That's international law. That's a world that you ARE part of. And so far, I don't see that you have any other choice.

(06-03-2014 02:22 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 02:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 01:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 01:44 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I'm not talking killing someone on a battlefield...we took them as prisoners...they deserve a trial.

Actually, no, they don't.

That's not an America I want ANY part of...

Do you agree with the assassination of OBL who never got a trial and wasn't a combatant when he was off'ed.

No...I don't condone any assassination.

(06-03-2014 02:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 02:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 01:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 01:44 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I'm not talking killing someone on a battlefield...we took them as prisoners...they deserve a trial.

Actually, no, they don't.

That's not an America I want ANY part of...

That's international law. That's a world that you ARE part of. And so far, I don't see that you have any other choice.

I don't have to like it.

(06-03-2014 02:24 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 02:22 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 02:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 01:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 01:44 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I'm not talking killing someone on a battlefield...we took them as prisoners...they deserve a trial.

Actually, no, they don't.

That's not an America I want ANY part of...

Do you agree with the assassination of OBL who never got a trial and wasn't a combatant when he was off'ed.

No...I don't condone any assassination.

If you don't mind me asking, why not?

(06-03-2014 02:35 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 02:24 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 02:22 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 02:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 01:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Actually, no, they don't.

That's not an America I want ANY part of...

Do you agree with the assassination of OBL who never got a trial and wasn't a combatant when he was off'ed.

No...I don't condone any assassination.

If you don't mind me asking, why not?

It's fine...I view it like executions...I don't believe the State has the right to take a life.

Of course, self defense is different...police killing an armed suspect trying to harm them...a soldier killing someone trying to kill him.

(06-03-2014 02:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 01:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 01:44 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I'm not talking killing someone on a battlefield...we took them as prisoners...they deserve a trial.

Actually, no, they don't.

That's not an America I want ANY part of...

So, clearly you oppose zerO's "enhanced" use of drones, right?

(06-03-2014 02:42 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 02:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 01:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 01:44 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I'm not talking killing someone on a battlefield...we took them as prisoners...they deserve a trial.

Actually, no, they don't.

That's not an America I want ANY part of...

So, clearly you oppose zerO's "enhanced" use of drones, right?

I don't mind using drones for surveillance...but believe it not, I don't always agree with Obama.

(06-03-2014 11:29 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 11:20 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 11:03 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 09:21 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Furthermore, when this piece of shiit deserted, he no longer held the status of "soldier" although the Army upgraded his rank TWICE after his desertion and capture.

When was he court marshalled? If he wasn't, he's still a soldier...

*martialed

Any soldier that deserts and goes to the enemy is no longer a soldier.

Wait, why are you even defending this? Do you not care that the law was blatantly broken to release 5 major terrorists???

I'm saying if there is true evidence, he should be court-martialed...until that point, he's an innocent soldier.

The law was not broken as the signing statement for that 30 day notice law makes exceptions for extraordinary circumstances...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_sta...statements

Signing statement is NOT law. It wasn't then - it isn't now. I don't care what he stated when he signed the bill. The LAW says that he must give 30 days notice to congress, and he did not. Why is no one able to counter this point?

Convenient to overlook?

(06-03-2014 02:49 PM)MonarchManiac Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 11:29 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 11:20 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 11:03 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 09:21 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Furthermore, when this piece of shiit deserted, he no longer held the status of "soldier" although the Army upgraded his rank TWICE after his desertion and capture.

When was he court marshalled? If he wasn't, he's still a soldier...

*martialed

Any soldier that deserts and goes to the enemy is no longer a soldier.

Wait, why are you even defending this? Do you not care that the law was blatantly broken to release 5 major terrorists???

I'm saying if there is true evidence, he should be court-martialed...until that point, he's an innocent soldier.

The law was not broken as the signing statement for that 30 day notice law makes exceptions for extraordinary circumstances...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_sta...statements

Signing statement is NOT law. It wasn't then - it isn't now. I don't care what he stated when he signed the bill. The LAW says that he must give 30 days notice to congress, and he did not. Why is no one able to counter this point?

Convenient to overlook?

Clinton and Bush used them...a lot...precedent set.

(06-03-2014 02:49 PM)MonarchManiac Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 11:29 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 11:20 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 11:03 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 09:21 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Furthermore, when this piece of shiit deserted, he no longer held the status of "soldier" although the Army upgraded his rank TWICE after his desertion and capture.

When was he court marshalled? If he wasn't, he's still a soldier...

*martialed

Any soldier that deserts and goes to the enemy is no longer a soldier.

Wait, why are you even defending this? Do you not care that the law was blatantly broken to release 5 major terrorists???

I'm saying if there is true evidence, he should be court-martialed...until that point, he's an innocent soldier.

The law was not broken as the signing statement for that 30 day notice law makes exceptions for extraordinary circumstances...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_sta...statements

Signing statement is NOT law. It wasn't then - it isn't now. I don't care what he stated when he signed the bill. The LAW says that he must give 30 days notice to congress, and he did not. Why is no one able to counter this point?

Convenient to overlook?

Now THAT is a reason to look into this. I have no problems with that.