(06-03-2014 10:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bottom line:

There should never have been any Gitmo releases.
Because there should never have been a Gitmo.
Because nobody who ended up in Gitmo should have been allowed to live long enough to require Gitmo to house them.
And yes, we would have been in full compliance with the Geneva Conventions had we handled it that way.

Folks, I hate to break the news to you, but war is a nasty business. If we don't kill them, they're going to kill us. The only appropriate approach is to kill them until they get tired of dying. That's pretty nasty. That's why we should not go to war often, and only as a last resort. Once we approach one or at most two wars that way, we won't have to fight any more. Because nobody wants to take on the US functioning in that mode.

If we're not willing to try them for a crime...they should be released.

Line 'em up at Gitmo and let them take a swim in the Gulf of Mexico/Atlantic Ocean, if they're feeling lucky and don't like it where they are.

I'm sick of this dribble of removal of bad dudes from Gitmo, due to a complicit POTUS doing what he does.

(06-03-2014 11:04 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 10:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bottom line:

There should never have been any Gitmo releases.
Because there should never have been a Gitmo.
Because nobody who ended up in Gitmo should have been allowed to live long enough to require Gitmo to house them.
And yes, we would have been in full compliance with the Geneva Conventions had we handled it that way.

Folks, I hate to break the news to you, but war is a nasty business. If we don't kill them, they're going to kill us. The only appropriate approach is to kill them until they get tired of dying. That's pretty nasty. That's why we should not go to war often, and only as a last resort. Once we approach one or at most two wars that way, we won't have to fight any more. Because nobody wants to take on the US functioning in that mode.

If we're not willing to try them for a crime...they should be released.

As usual OWL is RIGHT and our darling U of Memphis is WRONG.

(06-03-2014 11:07 AM)tigertom Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 11:04 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 10:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bottom line:

There should never have been any Gitmo releases.
Because there should never have been a Gitmo.
Because nobody who ended up in Gitmo should have been allowed to live long enough to require Gitmo to house them.
And yes, we would have been in full compliance with the Geneva Conventions had we handled it that way.

Folks, I hate to break the news to you, but war is a nasty business. If we don't kill them, they're going to kill us. The only appropriate approach is to kill them until they get tired of dying. That's pretty nasty. That's why we should not go to war often, and only as a last resort. Once we approach one or at most two wars that way, we won't have to fight any more. Because nobody wants to take on the US functioning in that mode.

If we're not willing to try them for a crime...they should be released.

As usual OWL is RIGHT and our darling U of Memphis is WRONG.

lol, that's a lovely opinion there...worth no more or less than mine.

At this point, 10+ years later, if we can't make a case against these gitmo prisoners, why should we continue to house and feed them and contradict our own Constitution?

(06-03-2014 10:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bottom line:

There should never have been any Gitmo releases.
Because there should never have been a Gitmo.
Because nobody who ended up in Gitmo should have been allowed to live long enough to require Gitmo to house them.
And yes, we would have been in full compliance with the Geneva Conventions had we handled it that way.

Folks, I hate to break the news to you, but war is a nasty business. If we don't kill them, they're going to kill us. The only appropriate approach is to kill them until they get tired of dying. That's pretty nasty. That's why we should not go to war often, and only as a last resort. Once we approach one or at most two wars that way, we won't have to fight any more. Because nobody wants to take on the US functioning in that mode.

Said like a man that led us to victory a while back... GENERAL CURTIS LeMAY, USAF(SAC) AND BEFORE THAT The U.S.ARMY AIR CORPS.
"When you kill enough of them, they quit fighting".

Yes it is still true today.

(06-03-2014 10:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Keeping prisoners in prison without charging them with a crime goes against everything that is American.

Not in war.
The rules of war are very clear.
One, if you capture enemy combatants, you hold them until the war is over. You are legally entitled to keep them from returning to the battlefield against you. And if you are uncertain, you get to hold them.
Two, if those enemy combatants are not in enemy uniforms, they are spies and can be shot on the spot.

How would you try an enemy combatant with the war going on? The evidence you need to convict may be in the hands of the other side, and you don't have subpoena power.

(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???

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

(06-03-2014 10:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bottom line:
There should never have been any Gitmo releases.
Because there should never have been a Gitmo.
Because nobody who ended up in Gitmo should have been allowed to live long enough to require Gitmo to house them.
And yes, we would have been in full compliance with the Geneva Conventions had we handled it that way.
Folks, I hate to break the news to you, but war is a nasty business. If we don't kill them, they're going to kill us. The only appropriate approach is to kill them until they get tired of dying. That's pretty nasty. That's why we should not go to war often, and only as a last resort. Once we approach one or at most two wars that way, we won't have to fight any more. Because nobody wants to take on the US functioning in that mode.

Said like a man that led us to victory a while back... GENERAL CURTIS LeMAY, USAF(SAC) AND BEFORE THAT The U.S.ARMY AIR CORPS.
"When you kill enough of them, they quit fighting".
Yes it is still true today.

The problem is that we don't have the guts to do it that way, but we still want to micromanage everything.

There are two and only two viable options:
1. Grow a pair; or
2. Forget micromanaging the world.

I actually favor both. Stay out of stuff that isn't ours, and if and when we do get dragged in despite that, make everybody sorry they brought us in. Once or twice like that, and they'll leave us alone. They leave us alone, we leave them alone, sounds to me like a good deal.

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

(06-03-2014 10:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bottom line:

There should never have been any Gitmo releases.
Because there should never have been a Gitmo.
Because nobody who ended up in Gitmo should have been allowed to live long enough to require Gitmo to house them.
And yes, we would have been in full compliance with the Geneva Conventions had we handled it that way.

Folks, I hate to break the news to you, but war is a nasty business. If we don't kill them, they're going to kill us. The only appropriate approach is to kill them until they get tired of dying. That's pretty nasty. That's why we should not go to war often, and only as a last resort. Once we approach one or at most two wars that way, we won't have to fight any more. Because nobody wants to take on the US functioning in that mode.

Said like a man that led us to victory a while back... GENERAL CURTIS LeMAY, USAF(SAC) AND BEFORE THAT The U.S.ARMY AIR CORPS.
"When you kill enough of them, they quit fighting".

Yes it is still true today.

Killing to a liberal, is killing with kindness... It just doesn't work like the tradition, old-fashioned killing. They all think everybody can be friends. Those on the right understand that those people will hate us and kill us at any given moment regardless of how kind we are to them.

(06-03-2014 08:54 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Given he didn't send any help at all to those under attack in Benghazi and has lied about what happened since. Obama is one sorry ass human being.

It's only seems sickening to you because you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

Stevens was basically dead before help arrived. Bergdahl had been captive for years.

And you're also totally ignoring the CIA rescue team that rescued the surviving Americans from the Benghazi compound. You know the team that suffered 2 fatalities doing so?

Quote:According to previous accounts by U.S. officials, the attacks began at approximately 9:40 p.m., and the CIA team arrived roughly 25 minutes into the attack.

None of those who testified would say they believed the ambassador or the others could have been saved had they arrived any faster, according to two officials, who also were briefed on the testimony. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the closed testimony publicly.

When the seven CIA employees reached the diplomatic compound, they fought their way in and found the five State Department security personnel who had taken shelter in various parts of the compound.

They found computer specialist Smith, dead from smoke inhalation, but couldn't find Stevens and decided to fall back to the CIA annex, because the crowd was building outside again, Westmoreland and the other officials said.

Stevens was found in a safe room and taken by Libyan civilians to a nearby hospital, but he died from smoke inhalation.

CIA BENGHAZI TEAM CLASH LED TO 'STAND DOWN' REPORT

Stop believing the lies your media is telling you.

(06-03-2014 11:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

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

(06-03-2014 10:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bottom line:
There should never have been any Gitmo releases.
Because there should never have been a Gitmo.
Because nobody who ended up in Gitmo should have been allowed to live long enough to require Gitmo to house them.
And yes, we would have been in full compliance with the Geneva Conventions had we handled it that way.
Folks, I hate to break the news to you, but war is a nasty business. If we don't kill them, they're going to kill us. The only appropriate approach is to kill them until they get tired of dying. That's pretty nasty. That's why we should not go to war often, and only as a last resort. Once we approach one or at most two wars that way, we won't have to fight any more. Because nobody wants to take on the US functioning in that mode.

Said like a man that led us to victory a while back... GENERAL CURTIS LeMAY, USAF(SAC) AND BEFORE THAT The U.S.ARMY AIR CORPS.
"When you kill enough of them, they quit fighting".
Yes it is still true today.

The problem is that we don't have the guts to do it that way, but we still want to micromanage everything.

There are two and only two viable options:
1. Grow a pair; or
2. Forget micromanaging the world.

I actually favor both. Stay out of stuff that isn't ours, and if and when we do get dragged in despite that, make everybody sorry they brought us in. Once or twice like that, and they'll leave us alone. They leave us alone, we leave them alone, sounds to me like a good deal.

I second that motion.

(06-03-2014 11:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

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

(06-03-2014 10:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bottom line:
There should never have been any Gitmo releases.
Because there should never have been a Gitmo.
Because nobody who ended up in Gitmo should have been allowed to live long enough to require Gitmo to house them.
And yes, we would have been in full compliance with the Geneva Conventions had we handled it that way.
Folks, I hate to break the news to you, but war is a nasty business. If we don't kill them, they're going to kill us. The only appropriate approach is to kill them until they get tired of dying. That's pretty nasty. That's why we should not go to war often, and only as a last resort. Once we approach one or at most two wars that way, we won't have to fight any more. Because nobody wants to take on the US functioning in that mode.

Said like a man that led us to victory a while back... GENERAL CURTIS LeMAY, USAF(SAC) AND BEFORE THAT The U.S.ARMY AIR CORPS.
"When you kill enough of them, they quit fighting".
Yes it is still true today.

The problem is that we don't have the guts to do it that way, but we still want to micromanage everything.

There are two and only two viable options:
1. Grow a pair; or
2. Forget micromanaging the world.

I actually favor both. Stay out of stuff that isn't ours, and if and when we do get dragged in despite that, make everybody sorry they brought us in. Once or twice like that, and they'll leave us alone. They leave us alone, we leave them alone, sounds to me like a good deal.

But isn't that exactly what happened before WWI and WWII?

(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

(06-03-2014 11:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

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

(06-03-2014 10:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bottom line:
There should never have been any Gitmo releases.
Because there should never have been a Gitmo.
Because nobody who ended up in Gitmo should have been allowed to live long enough to require Gitmo to house them.
And yes, we would have been in full compliance with the Geneva Conventions had we handled it that way.
Folks, I hate to break the news to you, but war is a nasty business. If we don't kill them, they're going to kill us. The only appropriate approach is to kill them until they get tired of dying. That's pretty nasty. That's why we should not go to war often, and only as a last resort. Once we approach one or at most two wars that way, we won't have to fight any more. Because nobody wants to take on the US functioning in that mode.

Said like a man that led us to victory a while back... GENERAL CURTIS LeMAY, USAF(SAC) AND BEFORE THAT The U.S.ARMY AIR CORPS.
"When you kill enough of them, they quit fighting".
Yes it is still true today.

The problem is that we don't have the guts to do it that way, but we still want to micromanage everything.

There are two and only two viable options:
1. Grow a pair; or
2. Forget micromanaging the world.

I actually favor both. Stay out of stuff that isn't ours, and if and when we do get dragged in despite that, make everybody sorry they brought us in. Once or twice like that, and they'll leave us alone. They leave us alone, we leave them alone, sounds to me like a good deal.

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'

(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???

Because in America, we rule by facts. And you sir, don't have all of them. Neither do I.

(06-03-2014 11:27 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 11:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

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

(06-03-2014 10:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bottom line:
There should never have been any Gitmo releases.
Because there should never have been a Gitmo.
Because nobody who ended up in Gitmo should have been allowed to live long enough to require Gitmo to house them.
And yes, we would have been in full compliance with the Geneva Conventions had we handled it that way.
Folks, I hate to break the news to you, but war is a nasty business. If we don't kill them, they're going to kill us. The only appropriate approach is to kill them until they get tired of dying. That's pretty nasty. That's why we should not go to war often, and only as a last resort. Once we approach one or at most two wars that way, we won't have to fight any more. Because nobody wants to take on the US functioning in that mode.

Said like a man that led us to victory a while back... GENERAL CURTIS LeMAY, USAF(SAC) AND BEFORE THAT The U.S.ARMY AIR CORPS.
"When you kill enough of them, they quit fighting".
Yes it is still true today.

The problem is that we don't have the guts to do it that way, but we still want to micromanage everything.

There are two and only two viable options:
1. Grow a pair; or
2. Forget micromanaging the world.

I actually favor both. Stay out of stuff that isn't ours, and if and when we do get dragged in despite that, make everybody sorry they brought us in. Once or twice like that, and they'll leave us alone. They leave us alone, we leave them alone, sounds to me like a good deal.

But isn't that exactly what happened before WWI and WWII?

If we had stayed the hell out of the first one?...there would not have been a second one. We got suckered and the world payed the price. WWI should have just played out without us being involved.

(06-03-2014 11:27 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 11:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The problem is that we don't have the guts to do it that way, but we still want to micromanage everything.
There are two and only two viable options:
1. Grow a pair; or
2. Forget micromanaging the world.
I actually favor both. Stay out of stuff that isn't ours, and if and when we do get dragged in despite that, make everybody sorry they brought us in. Once or twice like that, and they'll leave us alone. They leave us alone, we leave them alone, sounds to me like a good deal.

But isn't that exactly what happened before WWI and WWII?

No, not the same.
But who attacked us in WWI that has attacked us since?
And who attacked us in WWII that has attacked us since?

Nobody attacked us in WWI until the Germans sank the Lusitania, and they haven't attacked us since.
Japan attacked us in WWII, after being on our side in WWI, and they haven't attacked us since.
Russia and China were our enemies after WWII, but they were on our side in WWII.
Since WWII it's been us sticking our noses in other people's business, not the other way around. We've been fighting wars that we didn't intend to win, and they haven't ended well.

9/11 is arguably an exception. We were clearly attacked. But that was also arguably nothing more than a response to our attempts at micromanaging the Middle East.

(06-03-2014 11:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 11:27 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 11:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The problem is that we don't have the guts to do it that way, but we still want to micromanage everything.
There are two and only two viable options:
1. Grow a pair; or
2. Forget micromanaging the world.
I actually favor both. Stay out of stuff that isn't ours, and if and when we do get dragged in despite that, make everybody sorry they brought us in. Once or twice like that, and they'll leave us alone. They leave us alone, we leave them alone, sounds to me like a good deal.

But isn't that exactly what happened before WWI and WWII?

And who attacked us in WWI that has attacked us since?
And who attacked us in WWII that has attacked us since?

Nobody attacked us in WWI until the Germans sank the Lusitania, and they haven't attacked us since.
Japan attacked us in WWII, after being on our side in WWI, and they haven't attacked us since.
Russia and China were our enemies after WWII, but they were on our side in WWII.
Since WWII it's been us sticking our noses in other people's business, not the other way around. We've been fighting wars that we didn't intend to win, and they haven't ended well.

9/11 is arguably an exception. We were clearly attacked. But that was also arguably nothing more than a response to our attempts at micromanaging the Middle East.

I agree with your statement 100%

But couldn't it also be said that the reason why WW! and WW!! got so ugly is because we were slow to respond?

Republicans would say we have to be proactive rather than reactive.

(06-03-2014 11:33 AM)Redwingtom 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???

Because in America, we rule by facts. And you sir, don't have all of them. Neither do I.

So you and Memphis still don't think the release of 5 terrorists were a bad idea, I see. And having 5 years to go through Congress for a 30 day period wasn't enough time, it had to be done immediately, I see. Just another "Nothing to see here" scenario by our resident lefties.