Let me say a few things here...

It makes me sick to hear people talk to me about terrorists having rights. The liberals sound like terrorist defense lawyers.

First things first....the right to life, liberty, and persuit of happiness is in the AMERICAN constitution....i never saw any worldwide constitution saying this.

And more importantly.....these terrorists are TRYING TO TAKE AWAY our life and liberty(and the third one too). So for the Libs to defend the terrorists and claim that they have rights is disgusting. Why should we give them what they are trying to take away?

We shouldn't

Maybe, just maybe, they're saying that people we take into custody have rights, at least until we can prove that they're terrorists.

Originally posted by Decka
Let me say a few things here...So for the Libs to defend the terrorists and claim that they have rights is disgusting.


The small groups in other countries are rank amateurs at waging terror, in comparison to Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush and the mighty multi-trillion dollar$$$$$$$$$$$$ nuclear warmachine they direct.

The global champions of terrorism are here among us; the die-hard Rightwing faction in America....... in that they are staunch supporters of the number one exporter of terrorism worldwide, the current ultra-RightWing government right here in this country.

Originally posted by Decka
First things first....the right to life, liberty, and persuit of happiness is in the AMERICAN constitution....i never saw any worldwide constitution saying this.

And more importantly.....these terrorists are TRYING TO TAKE AWAY our life and liberty(and the third one too). So for the Libs to defend the terrorists and claim that they have rights is disgusting. Why should we give them what they are trying to take away?
If we try to deny them rights, we are no better than they are. Every accused, even the worst of terrorists like bin Laden, should be given due process of law. And no cruel nor unusual punishments inflicted. Revenge is a dangerous game to play, especially with the current Middle Eastern attitude. Mistreat alleged terrorists we have in prison, and you will get backlash. More and more terrorists will take their place. Treat them as they should be treated (as any other accused criminal, then once convicted, as any other felon) and perhaps the backlash will be lessened.

Freethinker,

What in the sam hell do you SMOKE to come up with posts like the one above accusing several American Presidents of leading a nuclear terror machine? If it's pot, then I change my mind about legalizing it.

Using the simplest possible words, I'll try to explain. America is mighty, but, we constantly strive to make the world a better, more secure place.

Give the U.S. the power it has, and it does its best to do the greatest good possible. Give the terrorists box cutters (BOX CUTTERS!), and they hijack aircraft and fly them into skyscrapers. Do you not have the slightest inkling of an idea which group is more trustworthy, now?

Giving terrorist rights? Baloney! I'm sorry (no I'm not) but people who have dedicated their lives to destroying the civilized world with any means they can come up with don't deserve the rights and protections we here in the U.S. give our citizens who are accused of crimes. Beginning with the fact they aren't U.S. citizens nor are they soldiers in the first place.


Also, I don't believe in the bunk that mistreating/killing terrorists will only cause more people to take up the terrorism cause. What's the slogan? Become a terrorist and get dead? I don't think that will recruit very many people.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Give the terrorists box cutters (BOX CUTTERS!), and they hijack aircraft and fly them into skyscrapers. Do you not have the slightest inkling of an idea which group is more trustworthy, now?

Of the two groups you are contrasting, I know which one has killed more people, bombed more countries, overthrown more political leaders, caused the deaths of more civilians and devastated more infrastructure.

And not just *more*, but more by several orders of magnitude.

I also know ---in light of the facts enumerated above-- which one I consider more anti-human, more treacherous and more dangerous to the continued survival of the human race.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
If we try to deny them rights, we are no better than they are. Every accused, even the worst of terrorists like bin Laden, should be given due process of law. And no cruel nor unusual punishments inflicted. Revenge is a dangerous game to play, especially with the current Middle Eastern attitude. Mistreat alleged terrorists we have in prison, and you will get backlash. More and more terrorists will take their place. Treat them as they should be treated (as any other accused criminal, then once convicted, as any other felon) and perhaps the backlash will be lessened.

I agree...
We become NO better then the terrorists if we don't give them rights.

Darth, I think you should read Borg's post over again.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Giving terrorist rights? Baloney! I'm sorry (no I'm not) but people who have dedicated their lives to destroying the civilized world with any means they can come up with don't deserve the rights and protections we here in the U.S. give our citizens who are accused of crimes. Beginning with the fact they aren't U.S. citizens nor are they soldiers in the first place.
It's still basic human rights. Due process. What possible harm could it do?
Also, I don't believe in the bunk that mistreating/killing terrorists will only cause more people to take up the terrorism cause. What's the slogan? Become a terrorist and get dead? I don't think that will recruit very many people.
Look up the term "martyr". And the slogan? "This great man and servant of Allah died for a just cause, and is in heaven with his virgins now. Shouldn't you be?" The weak-minded are easily swayed by such things.

Thank you dose,

I'm well aware of Borg's post having read it. Seeing as how they are not American citizen, we don't have to read them the miranda rights or give them the right to a lawyer or the one phone call. Seeing as how terrorists don't wear uniforms, don't themselves follow the Geneva conventions, engage in tactics that are utterly deplorable, and have no rights recongnized by any international organization, the U.S. has no bounds to treat them as prisoners of war. Terrorists are not enemy combatants, they are immoral criminals whose only goal in life is to hurt and kill as many innocent people as possible. I'm not worried about how they are treated. My position would be different were we at war with another country and captured uniformed enemy prisoners who were fighting for their country.


Borg's thesis was that if the United States does not treat suspected terrorists with the rights accorded to P.O.W.s by the Geneva convention, then the U.S. is no better than the terrorists we are supposed to be fighting. I think some discretion is called for when deciding who gets treated according to P.O.W. status, and who does not. The U.S. doesn't lose face when it treats terrorists the way they deserved to be treated.

Borg,

Due process? Yes, the U.S. needs to make sure terror suspects are indeed terrorists. That's all. Once that is done, then they can rot in gitmo. Terrorists don't deserve the rights given to American citizens, nor do they deserve the protections of the Geneva Convention.


And about the weak minded people easily swayed into "martyrdom." Do you really want those people in the gene pool in the first place? I don't buy the idea that killing terrorists will breed more of them. The Mafia has a code of silence enforced by death. You squeal to the authorities, you get killed. It's very hard to get witnesses to any action the mafia decides to take. There's a lesson in that. If someone engages in terrorist activities and just gets dead, not too many others will join.

I dont buy the bunk....

OD and freethinker and libs want to GIVE them rights......do they deserve it? What have they done to deserve the generosity of being covered by Geneva or American rights??? Why should we do them a favor?

They are assaulting our constitution, therefore they don't apply. I agree that if this were a nation vs. nation conflict, then i'd EXPECT us to treat POW's with full rights. But terrorists are cowards, they stand for nothing and you can't find them. They want to DESTROY our way of life, so why should we give them the fruit of our lifestyle when all they want is to destroy it?

I hear you guys always complaining about lives being lost, well GIVING terrorists all these rights actually kills american soldiers. If we get info from these cowards, then we can save lives, because knowledge is power, and if you know info on whereabouts and future plans.....bingo, you save lives.

I cannot beleive you'd be willing to sacrafice american progress and soldier's lives in the name of being politically correct. I'd gladly be no "better" then they are if it means us ending this war quicker and saving troops. Normally i'd want to win the right way, but when you are fighting cowards like these terrorists, they don't deserve respect from us.....and they'll use any leniency to their advantage. Then while you guys sit around feeling good about yourselves because we "did the right thing",we will not make progress and lose american troops. The fact that you are okay with that is disgusting....

Originally posted by Decka
I dont buy the bunk....

OD and freethinker and libs want to GIVE them rights......Normally i'd want to win the right way, but when you are fighting cowards like these terrorists, they don't deserve respect from us.

Tell me Decka.....which group is more "cowardly"???

Those who commit suicide to make a small dent in the fortress of the forces they are fighting against??

...or those who sit in comfort thousands of miles from any hint of conflict and direct their multi-million dollar fighter aircraft to drop bombs, knowing that innocent people ---many times more people than terrorists who highjack airplanes have ever killed-- will die because of those bombs being dropped??

Originally posted by Decka
The fact that you are okay with that is disgusting....

While I find it sickening that you refer to one group (although i amnot defending their actions) as "cowards" while championing an even more calculating and murderous regime.

Originally posted by Overdose
I agree...
We become NO better then the terrorists if we don't give them rights.


I have to agree w/darth..They are not soldiers, they are terrorists and w/o rights..
I applaud the sense of decency shown by those that try to uphold the geneva convention but I would find that a hard pill to swallow when dealing w/these animals.
We changed after the 9/11 attacks. Around the world attitudes changed the way people view others different then themselves.
I don't agree w/the way we were munipulated into invading Iraq by our own Government.
The Iraqis resent our presence. We are an occupying force w/out a way out.
Hostility should be expected.
But at what cost?
I know this position may start to sound cold and even ruthless but I feel it may be time to respond in kind.
It is common procedure not to negotiate w/kidnappers but what if the next time they request we release some of their terrorist comrades we do so. Over a mosque or public arena from a chopper at about 1000 feet.
The next time they behead a hostage, we behead a dozen.
Let them embrace Allah or whatever new world order they seek.

Seriously we need a new strategy..
Sweep up the mess we've made so far and get the hell out.

Yeah I know I'm all wrong but this whole thankless scenario pisses me off.
I blame Dubya almost as much as a suicide bomber.
In my mind they both kill.

Thinker,

Tell me, what is worse. Invading a country to remove a despotic dictator who has filled mass graves and torture chamber with his fellow countrymen or knowing that such abuses are going on and doing nothing.

I'm not all that thrilled that the slaughter went on in Rwanda and all the U.N. did was hold meetings and discuss the problem. An attempt was made to ease the suffering of Iraqis with the oil for food program and it became a cash cow for the French, Saddam and the U.N and the very people who this program was supposed to benefit wound up being S.O.L.

You say our attack killed innocent people, and no doubt that is true, but I like less the very idea of doing nothing. At least by removing the likes of Saddam, there is hope that the world would be better place. Which is better than no hope at all, which is exactly what the Iraqi and the Aghanis would have faced had the U.S. bowed to the wishes of the world.

Out of curiosity, if we have a prisoner that we *think* might be a terrorist, but we're not sure, should they be accorded the same rights we give to other prisoners?

Here is my opinion in a nutshell:

I see many of you saying we don’t need to give them rights, freedoms, and what not. But, isn’t this what America stands for? We even give murderers rights, and due process. We do what is morally correct, because we are and always will be America.

Let me remind of you something. During World War II, we had German POW’s in our prisons. Our people suffered. We gave the German Nazis, full course meals, and proper conditions…while our citizens survived on almost no food (for it was going towards the prisons) And we can hold our heads up high and say, we are America…and we hold ourselves to a higher standard…we pride ourselves in always doing what is correct. We fed Nazis (who killed over 6millon Jews) better then we did our own people, because we are the greatest country in the world and we will always do what is correct.

Yes, these people want to “destroy” our lives and lifestyle. Yes, they hate everything about us. And what better way for them to win, if we sink below our American standards. If we start to act like them, and not the very people they came to kill (true Americans). Because if we do so, then they truly have won.

Did the Nazis follow the Geneva Convention? Did the Japanese? No, none of them did. Where they American citizens? No. But they were treated correctly anyway, because we always do what is correct. We can show the world that not only did we win these wars, we won them with pride. We didn’t do what the Germans and Japanese did. We didn’t abuse our POW’s, we gave them better treatment then even our own people at points. And that is what made the world respect us.

And now you fucking right-wing republicans want to take away what has made us so great…how dare you.

Do you not realize that it only recruits more terrorists when we sink down to their level? Honestly, catch a clue.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Thinker,

Tell me, what is worse. Invading a country to remove a despotic dictator who has filled mass graves and torture chamber with his fellow countrymen or knowing that such abuses are going on and doing nothing.

I'd say that in that scenario, doing nothing is worse. Definitely.

Of course, I am not aware of any country having carried out such an invasion.

The only thing that comes to mind from the recent past is where one country [the US] trumped up a great deal of false intelligence and lies and used it as an excuse to invade a country and take control of it's massive oil reserves. The fact that a dictator there happened to have previously filled mass graves and torture chambers with his fellow countrymen had nothing whatsoever to do with said invasion, as evidenced by that fact that the invading country [the US] was instrumental in helping said dictator [Hussein] fill those graves and those torture chambers but a few years ago when Hussein was on very friendly terms with this government under Reagan/Bush. The motivation THEN for aiding said dictator was --exactly as it is now in attacking said dictator-- continued massive profits for the American Corporate sector.



[i]Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
I like less the very idea of doing nothing. At least by removing the likes of Saddam, there is hope that the world would be better place. Which is better than no hope at all, which is exactly what the Iraqi and the Aghanis would have faced had the U.S. bowed to the wishes of the world.

Ahhh....how pleasant.

To cast the US in the role of the savior of the Iraqi people, riding in on a white horse to make their world a better place........a characterization so grotesque in its absurdity that it would be comical if not for the fact that we know that only a couple of U.S. Presidential Administration ago, the same country that you NOW cast as savior is the SAME country that approved the SALE of chemical and biological materiel TO Saddam Hussein which he USED to construct the chemical weaponry that he used to murder people in the country for which you are now so fraught with concern.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Tell me Decka.....which group is more "cowardly"???

Those who commit suicide to make a small dent in the fortress of the forces they are fighting against??

...or those who sit in comfort thousands of miles from any hint of conflict and direct their multi-million dollar fighter aircraft to drop bombs, knowing that innocent people ---many times more people than terrorists who highjack airplanes have ever killed-- will die because of those bombs being dropped??


You missed the point Thinker......this isn't about the method of fighting....its about hiding in caves and not standing up as a force like the terrorists do. We are america, they know where america is, they can attack america whenever they want. Terrorists dont have a land, they dont have a nation, they hide. Thats why they are cowards. They dont try to become better, they only try to make others worse. So Yes they are cowards....

I see what you are saying OD....you want to take the high road...and i would agree with you most of the time. But terrorists will take full advantage of leniency.....let me ask you a question OD. Would you rather....

A. Stoop below our "level" and have the war be over faster

or...

B. Remain on the high road and keep fighting and loosing soldiers?

the choice is yours, i say its obvious.



And a few other things....why is it so bad when we "stoop to their level"...when they STARTED the level lol. Fight fire with fire...if they play dirty, we're gonna have to get our knees muddy a little bit too.

And id like to see you prove the "stooping to their level=more terrorists" claim....very vague and sounds iffy.

Originally posted by Overdose


We gave the German Nazis, full course meals, and proper conditions…while our citizens survived on almost no food (for it was going towards the prisons)

"American authorities took only the most visibly rabid Nazis, a total of only 4,500 by 1945, and interned them at Alva, Oklahoma, while the most visibly anti-Nazis, 3,300 total, were shipped to Fort Devens, Massachusetts and Camp Campbell, Kentucky." (http://uboat.net/men/pow/pow_in_america_processing.htm)


Let me get this right. Two hundred million people got "almost no food"in order to feed 7,800 Nazis? Man, those Nazis must have been bloated.

Originally posted by Brooks
Let me get this right. Two hundred million people got "almost no food"in order to feed 7,800 Nazis? Man, those Nazis must have been bloated.
Ever come to think we were already at a very hard shortcomings of food, because of the war effort and how much food had to be shipped off to our men in uniform? I guess you didn't take that into account. Our citizens were already scarce for food, and the people in those states, did not get sufficient food because of those camps.

Originally posted by Decka
But terrorists will take full advantage of leniency
How? We capture them, give them a fair trial, and convict them of all the crimes they committed. Is it that hard?

Originally posted by Decka
A. Stoop below our "level" and have the war be over faster
or...
B. Remain on the high road and keep fighting and loosing soldiers?
Stooping below our level will create more terrorists.

Originally posted by Decka
And a few other things....why is it so bad when we "stoop to their level"...when they STARTED the level lol.
Ummm, we are fighting them because of the level they started, so if we stooped to their level we would be hypocritical? We wouldn't have a reason to fight them, because we would be acting just like them. Seriously, read what you are saying...and please, look closely at it.

Originally posted by Decka
And id like to see you prove the "stooping to their level=more terrorists" claim....very vague and sounds iffy.
God damn, Decka. I posted a Pentagon Report that showed we are fighting this war in Iraq incorrectly, and how the way we are managing this war is creating more terrorists. Go find the thread yourself, I’m sick of having to do your homework.

Originally posted by Overdose
Ever come to think we were already at a very hard shortcomings of food, because of the war effort and how much food had to be shipped off to our men in uniform? I guess you didn't take that into account. Our citizens were already scarce for food, and the people in those states, did not get sufficient food because of those camps.


Sorry, I was responding to the guy who wrote "our citizens survived on almost no food (for it was going towards the prisons)". Oh wait, that was you.

Do you really think that .000039% of the population (Nazi POWs) had an impact on the rest?

Originally posted by Brooks
Sorry, I was responding to the guy who wrote "our citizens survived on almost no food (for it was going towards the prisons)". Oh wait, that was you.
I guess I need to clarify, since your brain can’t comprehend much. The “our citizens” was in reference to the towns that held these prisoners (those citizens)

Oooohhh, now I get it. The people in the rest of the country got food, but the breadbasket wasn't able to ship it off to Oklahoma, Massachussetts and Kentucky. Okay.

I'm not usually one of the people that asks for a source, but this I gotta see.

Originally posted by Brooks
Oooohhh, now I get it. The people in the rest of the country got food, but the breadbasket wasn't able to ship it off to Oklahoma, Massachussetts and Kentucky. Okay.

I'm not usually one of the people that asks for a source, but this I gotta see.

Brooks, as of right now I’m in the middle of writing an essay for English class…so I’m not willing to go search the internet for your link you want.

But this still does not get away from the point I was trying to make. We have treated our POW’s with care. We gave them food, shelter, and clothing. We respected them, even though they were our enemy. We took care of them, and followed the Geneva Convention. The Germans, and Japanese didn’t follow the Geneva Convention, but we still treated them with those rules, even though they didn’t do that for our POW’s. Proving that we hold ourselves to a higher standard then our enemies.

Did the Nazis follow the Geneva Convention? Did the Japanese? No, none of them did. Where they American citizens? No. But they were treated correctly anyway, because we always do what is correct. We can show the world that not only did we win these wars, we won them with pride. We didn’t do what the Germans and Japanese did. We didn’t abuse our POW’s, we gave them better treatment then even our own people at points. And that is what made the world respect us.

And that is WHAT I’M TRYING TO GET AT in this debate. We have to give the terrorists full rights, and treat them correctly or else we will sink down to their level.

The point you are trying to argue is so small, compared to the bigger picture I’m trying to paint.

Originally posted by Overdose

Stooping below our level will create more terrorists.


You never answered the question......option A or option B

Originally posted by Decka
You never answered the question......option A or option B
Because the question isn't realistic.

Originally posted by Overdose
And that is WHAT I’M TRYING TO GET AT in this debate. We have to give the terrorists full rights, and treat them correctly or else we will sink down to their level.

The point you are trying to argue is so small, compared to the bigger picture I’m trying to paint.

I actually agree with your original point, but I can't get past it being reinforced with questionable facts.

You're one of the smart guys around here. To make a cooking analogy, you're one of the top chefs on this board, but if there are just two little turds in the stew, I can't eat the stew.

I'll read you macro instead of micro from now on.

Originally posted by Brooks
I actually agree with your original point, but I can't get past it being reinforced with questionable facts.
I'm glad you agree with the original point.

Originally posted by Brooks
To make a cooking analogy, you're one of the top chefs on this board, but if there are just two little turds in the stew, I can't eat the stew.
Okay, since you agree with the main point...I'll talk more about the other small point I was trying to convey.

I wasn't 100% correct on that analogy. But this is what happened.

The German soldiers in our prisons ate better food and more food then what our people ate. Yes, I was incorrect in saying our citizens had "almost no food". But the Germans did indeed get better food and more food then what our citizens were given because of the Geneva Convention and the war efforts that made us not produce as much food for out citizens and more for our soldiers in uniform. The Geneva Convention has strict rules on how much food our POW’s are given, and was usually more then what our citizens were given. I know I exaggerated, but it still does explain the point more with this analogy. How we always do what is right, no matter what.

Basically, I don't have a link to give. I saw it on the History Channel, and my mother also heard something of the sort. So that is what I'm basing this on. Weather it's true or not, it really does not matter.

You know the point I was trying to make, and you I guess agree with it. So, I hope we don't have to debate this pointless point anymore.

Originally posted by Overdose
I'm glad you agree with the original point.

You know the point I was trying to make, and you I guess agree with it. So, I hope we don't have to debate this pointless point anymore.

Yeah, we finally agreed on something and I squandered it by getting petty with the small stuff.

sorry, but i have to agree with darth on this one.
these monsters weren't worried about the americans' rights when they drove planes into our buildings. they weren't concerned with whether or not these innocent people were being treated humanely; they thought of nothing but wreaking havok and pain on the citizens of this country. sorry, but my sympathy for these animals is gone. i say we put their asses on a plane and ram it into the side of a mountain or something. they want to meet their god so bad; let's help send them off.

Originally posted by jennygadling
these monsters weren't worried about the americans' rights when they drove planes into our buildings.
Yes. And that is what separates us from them. That is what makes us good and them evil. We give evil people rights, because we are good. They kill people for no good reason, and give no one rights. If we want to continue being on the “good” side, we cannot act in any way like them.

Originally posted by jennygadling
i say we put their asses on a plane and ram it into the side of a mountain or something.
Ever heard “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind” by Gandhi?

Originally posted by Overdose
Yes. And that is what separates us from them. That is what makes us good and them evil. We give evil people rights, because we are good. They kill people for no good reason, and give no one rights. If we want to continue being on the “good” side, we cannot act in any way like them.


i don't necessarily think that's one of our stronger points. we go out of our way to ensure the accused person's rights, and in the process we forget that the victims' rights have been taken away.

Originally posted by jennygadling
i don't necessarily think that's one of our stronger points. we go out of our way to ensure the accused person's rights, and in the process we forget that the victims' rights have been taken away.
Yeah, so you think it's okay to act just like them?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Originally posted by Overdose
Yeah, so you think it's okay to act just like them?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

OD, you know i love you. you're great!
however, i think you give these killers way to much consideration. doesn't our loyalty lie with our brothers and sisters, those who were killed viciously and those of us left here to fight for them?
no, two wrongs do not make a right. i'm not suggesting we kill their innocent civilians; i'm saying that we do not owe the monsters who killed THOUSANDS of mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, and children JACK.

Originally posted by jennygadling
we go out of our way to ensure the accused person's rights, and in the process we forget that the victims' rights have been taken away.

?!?!?

In your worldview, if the accused person is granted legal rights, it TAKES AWAY whatever rights the victim possessed?!?!

I've seen people before with a very binary --**there's nothing except black and white**-- way of looking at the world, but the example you give us here is simply incredible.

That sort if thinking is unfathomable to me.

Originally posted by Freethinker
?!?!?

In your worldview, if the accused person is granted legal rights, it TAKES AWAY whatever rights the victim possessed?!?!

I've seen people before with a very binary --**there's nothing except black and white**-- way of looking at the world, but the example you give us here is simply incredible.

That sort if thinking is unfathomable to me.

not at all. i think we tend to dwell on the accused rights so much that we forget how that person took away the rights of the victim. that's all. what about them?

Originally posted by jennygadling
i think we tend to dwell on the accused rights so much that we forget how that person took away the rights of the victim. that's all. what about them?

The accused person may have caused harm to the victim in some way, but they did not **take away** that person's rights.

Not in any sense of the word.

I still cannot fathom how you think in that way.

Originally posted by Freethinker
The accused person may have caused harm to the victim in some way, but they did not **take away** that person's rights.

Not in any sense of the word.

I still cannot fathom how you think in that way.

you don't think that a killer has taken away his victim's right to LIFE, liberty, and the persuit of happiness? i don't see how you can NOT think that way!

Originally posted by jennygadling
however, i think you give these killers way to much consideration.
Shouldn't we give every life consideration?

Originally posted by jennygadling
doesn't our loyalty lie with our brothers and sisters, those who were killed viciously and those of us left here to fight for them?
Those brothers and sisters are fighting for freedom, equal rights, and everything that makes our country the greatest country on the planet. If we are to kill the terrorists without giving them due process, it would basically be a slap in the face to the men and women who were fighting for those rights.

Originally posted by jennygadling
no, two wrongs do not make a right. i'm not suggesting we kill their innocent civilians; i'm saying that we do not owe the monsters who killed THOUSANDS of mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, and children JACK.
Okay...to be honest, if we give them a fair trial they will be convicted and sentenced to death no matter what. So why does it hurt to give them equal rights? We are being the true Americans we have always been, doing what is morally correct, which is giving them equal rights. It's not as if us giving them due process will save them from getting what they deserve.

you don't think? why is it that murderers are guaranteed 3 meals a day, have a roof over their heads, even have cable tv while we have innocent children living on the streets, going hungry? how is it fair that these terrorists are living, being protected by the very people they set out to destroy, while thousands of children became orphans because of them?

and just for the record, no i don't think that EVERY life deserves the same consideration. when someone (like these terrorists) choose to take a life, then i don't believe they should be regarded the same way. that may sound cold, but i truly feel that way.

Originally posted by jennygadling
i'm saying that we do not owe the monsters who killed THOUSANDS of mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, and children JACK.

What about the monsters in THIS country who --prior to Sept 11, 2001-- had implimented political policies that resulted in the deaths of THOUSANDS of mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, and children in Iraq?

You know; those same ultra-Conservative *monsters* that you come here every every day to either applaud, defend or make excuses for.

______________________________

The reelection of a diseased individual like George W. Bush--deranged, sadistic and sociopathic--only speaks to the advanced diseased state of the capitalist class that vomited him up as their leader. Bush, who has spent his life plundering and looting the public for private enrichment, and running companies into the ground while he lined his pockets, is a fitting personification of the capitalist class he represents; a predatory crew of superrich exploiters forced to employ gangster methods to reverse the decline of long-term profits.

Originally posted by jennygadling
you don't think? why is it that murderers are guaranteed 3 meals a day, have a roof over their heads, even have cable tv while we have innocent children living on the streets, going hungry? how is it fair that these terrorists are living, being protected by the very people they set out to destroy, while thousands of children became orphans because of them?
Most of them get the death penalty.

Originally posted by Freethinker
What about the monsters in THIS country who --prior to Sept 11, 2001-- had implimented political policies that resulted in the deaths of THOUSANDS of mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, and children in Iraq?

You know; those same ultra-Conservative *monsters* that you come here every every day to either applaud, defend or make excuses for.


id say flying a plane into an all-civilian tower to kill thousands is worse than our politicians making decisions that cause civilian deaths.

Originally posted by Overdose
Most of them get the death penalty.

but how much time do they get? most sit there for years; hell, some sit for decades! they sit there through the appeals process, exhausting every measure they can, until their date with death comes along. during which time we have to treat them fairly? why? the people who they've murdered didn't get an extra second. i'm sure the families would've liked to spend one more day with them. but nobody asked them. they didn't have a choice. why should we have to guarantee these monsters fair and humane treatment?

Originally posted by jennygadling
but how much time do they get? most sit there for years; hell, some sit for decades! they sit there through the appeals process, exhausting every measure they can, until their date with death comes along. during which time we have to treat them fairly? why? the people who they've murdered didn't get an extra second. i'm sure the families would've liked to spend one more day with them. but nobody asked them. they didn't have a choice. why should we have to guarantee these monsters fair and humane treatment?
Innocent until proven guilty.

And also...

What if we convict the wrong terrorist, and he is sentenced to death? What if the terrorist is actually innocent?

Originally posted by Overdose
Shouldn't we give every life consideration?

Man you are really on the soapbox today.
and btw..why do you leave all that stuff at the end of each post ? takes up space..

back to point..
If we continue to turn the other cheek, we will continue to get slapped.
I don't feel we can give the terrorists any special consideration w/o gambling on our safety and security.
They view our compassion for others as a weakness and another reason to further their endeavor.
They have set the stage and paid for a ticket; I suggest we punch it :hitout:
and close the show.

and that's why i'm not saying to execute someone immediately after their conviction. all i'm saying is, as in the case of these terrorists we have in custody, we know they're connected with the sept.11th attacks. they show no remorse, no concern for the innocent lives they helped take away. i don't think we should concern ourselves with making sure they're comfy and content.

Originally posted by jim's op/ed
Man you are really on the soapbox today.
Okay….

Originally posted by jim's op/ed
and btw..why do you leave all that stuff at the end of each post ? takes up space..
Good, I hope it does take up space.

Originally posted by jim's op/ed
They have set the stage and paid for a ticket; I suggest we punch it :hitout:
and close the show.
What?

Originally posted by jennygadling
and that's why i'm not saying to execute someone immediately after their conviction. all i'm saying is, as in the case of these terrorists we have in custody, we know they're connected with the sept.11th attacks. they show no remorse, no concern for the innocent lives they helped take away. i don't think we should concern ourselves with making sure they're comfy and content.
Okay…but we should still give them due process.

Originally posted by Overdose

And that is WHAT I’M TRYING TO GET AT in this debate. We have to give the terrorists full rights, and treat them correctly or else we will sink down to their level.


I dont think so....we won't be sinking to their level.

Their level is killing innocent civilians, their level is public be-headings. I havnt seen any of our guys cutting iraqi heads off over there. We make a guy stand up a bit(which was probably the WORST of it all)..and you guys are all in a fuss...but you dont even care about them beheading our soldiers. We aren't killing them by using intimidation and force to get information, it should be EXPECTED.

They don't deserve our rights, but we can give them some....just dont let rights get in the way of getting information from them and saving our own countries lives.

Originally posted by Decka
I dont think so....we won't be sinking to their level.
Really? Isn’t killing just killing, no matter how you do it?

Originally posted by Decka
Their level is killing innocent civilians, their level is public be-headings.
No, we won’t be killing them by be-heading them, you’re correct. Although, most terrorists don’t be-head their victims…it happens, but not very often. You just hear about those more often because it’s more shocking.

Originally posted by Decka
I havnt seen any of our guys cutting iraqi heads off over there.
Your point? Most terrorists don’t cut heads off their victims. I believe we’ve heard of 2 or 3 cases of that occurring in the past 2 years. And when you compare that to the thousands and thousands of terrorist attacks, it isn’t really relevant.

Originally posted by Decka
We make a guy stand up a bit(which was probably the WORST of it all)..and you guys are all in a fuss...
Why are the republicans on this forum so stupid in terms of the prisoner abuse scandal? You are a moron Decka, is you think that’s all we made them do. Even Darth admits that deaths were reported from our prisons. We attacked them with dogs, made them bleed all over the ground, and we in some cases killed them. THINK AGAIN, DECKA.

Originally posted by Decka
They don't deserve our rights
Then the terrorists have won. They are fighting against us because of the rights we have, and the freedoms we have…so if we give them none, then they have truly won.

You are innocent until proven guilty, Decka.

okay.....just dont bitch anymore about people dying, because the reason they ARE dying is because we don't have info on the where-abouts of these terrorists.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Originally posted by Decka
okay.....just dont bitch anymore about people dying, because the reason they ARE dying is because we don't have info on the where-abouts of these terrorists.

Abusing terrorists does not get information. But I’d like to see proof of this. Because I read a study awhile ago that said that abusing terrorists does the opposite. That since they are being abused, they just tell you what they think you want to hear, instead of the truth. So prove me otherwise.

talk to police investigators on that one

it works more times than not id say.....if they feed us "what we want to hear" and then its a bunch of BS....then they are in even more crap. Thats why people normally tell the truth

Originally posted by Decka
talk to police investigators on that one
Wait, the police take people and beat them on the ground and sometimes kill them to get information out of them?

Moussaoui (sp?) is referred to as the 20th highjacker. Some say that the attacks took place in September because he was arrested in August.

Od, don't you wish we did all we could to him in August 2001 to find out what he knew? In the real world, outside of classrooms and this forum, don't you think it would have been worth it?

if it would've saved one life, it would've been worth it.

Originally posted by Brooks
Moussaoui (sp?) is referred to as the 20th highjacker. Some say that the attacks took place in September because he was arrested in November.

Od, don't you wish we did all we could to him in August 2001 to find out what he knew? In the real world, outside of classrooms and this forum, don't you think it would have been worth it?

Can you be sure that abusing him would have worked?

all i'm saying is, as in the case of these terrorists we have in custody, we know they're connected with the sept.11th attacks.
Why? Because John Ashcroft told you so? Call me old fashioned, but I prefer the old judge and jury routine.

There is a huge difference between a terrorist and an accused terrorist and it seems that only Lionel and OD are aware of this.

Accused people have rights, even accused non-Americans.

Originally posted by Decka
id say flying a plane into an all-civilian tower to kill thousands is worse than our politicians making decisions that cause civilian deaths.

Of course.

When the political leaders here ---thru sanctions, or bombing, or supporting a murderous despot-- cause the deaths a few thousand or a few hundred thousands of those dusky hued and inconsequential "wrong god" people who live in one of those strange foreign nations far across the sea, it's not that bad a thing.

When people in those countries who resent their fellow citizens being killed retaliate by highjacking planes and killing a fraction of that number here in the U.S. , they're "evil terrorists".

Originally posted by Overdose
Innocent until proven guilty.

And also...

What if we convict the wrong terrorist, and he is sentenced to death? What if the terrorist is actually innocent?

Good point but alot of IFS.

The hardest decision w/the death penalty is "what if" some new evidence, some dna or something else comes forward too late.
Another problem is the covert activities as suggested on another thread here; Shadow Prisons. A place to hold those in secret until they get answers they want.
Unfortunately "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't play out in the real world. The accused is held in custody, then has to prove innocence. Not the other way around.

There are no simple answers to these moral dilemmas.
When we are under attack by radical factions/terrorists; I will trade their rights knowing it will save other victims and deal w/any guilt feelings later.
All the maybes and what ifs..

Originally posted by jim's op/ed
The hardest decision w/the death penalty is "what if" some new evidence, some dna or something else comes forward too late.
Another problem is the covert activities as suggested on another thread here; Shadow Prisons. A place to hold those in secret until they get answers they want.
Unfortunately "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't play out in the real world. The accused is held in custody, then has to prove innocence. Not the other way around.
Giving them a trail is a better way to know if they are guilty, then giving them no trial at all. At least this way we can kill the terrorist, and know he is 99.9% guilty, because we had the trial. If we didn’t have the trial at all, then we wouldn’t be very sure at all.

Originally posted by jim's op/ed
There are no simple answers to these moral dilemmas.
When we are under attack by radical factions/terrorists; I will trade their rights knowing it will save other victims and deal w/any guilt feelings later.
All the maybes and what ifs..
Trade in their rights, and you become un-American.

Originally posted by jim's op/ed

There are no simple answers to these moral dilemmas.
When we are under attack by radical factions/terrorists; I will trade their rights knowing it will save other victims and deal w/any guilt feelings later.

If there is a **radical** and anti-democratic faction in this debate, it is the one that favors denying an accused person fair and just treatment under the law.

I don't care WHAT a human being is accused of, they deserve to be judged fairly and to be represented competently..........no wonder the rest of the world despises and distrusts the U.S., when a sizeable number of it's citizenry --as evidenced by several replies on the subject to these boards-- are willing to suspend or ignore the **innocent until proven guilty** principle of jurisprudence that has been in place since the inception of the nation; a principle that used to be regarded as part of the bedrock that the American sysytem of government rests upon.

Statements like the following ---

The Neocon faction is methodically trying to eviscerate the remnants of every last morsel of good in our country and our democratic system, and the Conservative folks who support these demented, predatory death-dealers will no doubt go down in history as by far the most misled and gullible partisans of modern times.

-- are probably viewed as too extreme by many people.

Yet the inate truth of that statement is revealed by the fact that so many RightWingers in this country freely admit to a --"Screw giving them a fair trial. I don't care about due process, I just want to execute those evil terrorists" -- mindset.

darth, you've hit the nail on the head. that's my position, the point i've been trying to make all along. our loyalty should be to our fellow americans, not those who've pledged to destroy them.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Of course.

When the political leaders here ---thru sanctions, or bombing, or supporting a murderous despot-- cause the deaths a few thousand or a few hundred thousands of those dusky hued and inconsequential "wrong god" people who live in one of those strange foreign nations far across the sea, it's not that bad a thing.

When people in those countries who resent their fellow citizens being killed retaliate by highjacking planes and killing a fraction of that number here in the U.S. , they're "evil terrorists".

Now wait a minute.....there IS a difference, its called intent. Any time a civilian dies over there, from an unfortunate accident with a bomb or what not, we arent TRYING to kill the civilian. They just got in the way of us trying to protect ourselves.

The terrorists INTENT are to kill civilians....big difference there buddy.

And again you have to KNOW that your vision of everyone around the world holding hands and singing "kum-by-yah" won't work. People die in today's world. Im not comfortable with it, but i accept it as the way the world works, you obviously don't.

Your arguement just doesn't hold up very well in reality. Lets say our nation is represented by a football team...as is iraq, and our football team goes 18-0 and a bunch of people go professional and have all types of oppurtunities...while the iraqi team goes 0-18. Both teams "played hard"...both teams "fought", but some people JUST PLAY ON THE WRONG TEAM...if there are bombs flying into your country, you have to be kinda stubborn to stay. after all, we are in a war, how dare we attack places that we are at war with......

Very nice utopian theories Freethinker....but they just dont work in reality my friend

Originally posted by Overdose
Can you be sure that abusing him would have worked?

Despite what you've said, there are ABSOLUTELY ways of getting people to talk. So do you think it would have been worth "questioning" Moussaoui in August of 2001?

Originally posted by Decka
Now wait a minute.....there IS a difference, its called intent. Any time a civilian dies over there, from an unfortunate accident with a bomb or what not, we arent TRYING to kill the civilian. They just got in the way of us trying to protect ourselves.

Protect ourselves?!?!?!

This country has no business BEING IN another country like Iraq, much less dropping bombs on it.

Originally posted by Decka
The terrorists INTENT are to kill civilians....big difference there buddy.

The difference is that an attack like 9-11 was in retaliation for things this country had perpetrated on the people in the Middle East and for many tens of thousands of people dying there because of US policies. Yes, the terrorists intended to kill people....while the American Corporatists ---the people who pull the strings in this government-- simply have the attitude that we will exert our will militarily on other countries, and when people are inevitably killed in that process it's just their tough luck for standing in the way of Gorporate profits.

Either way the result is the same; people are killed.......the motive of the terrorists being resistance to aggression on the part of the US and the agenda of the American Corporate State being an imperialist policy of control of oil resources and continued massive profits with the accompanying attitude that "who gives a fuck how many die in the process".

Originally posted by Decka
And again you have to KNOW that your vision of everyone around the world holding hands and singing "kum-by-yah" won't work.

What i *know* is that I have no such vision.

Originally posted by Decka
People die in today's world. Im not comfortable with it, but i accept it as the way the world works, you obviously don't.

Sorry...i'm never going to "accept" that people in positions of power in this country ---Big Business power and political power--- are going to bring about the deaths of untold thousands of people in other countries in MY name for no other reason than increasing their already immense wealth.

Originally posted by Decka
Very nice utopian theories Freethinker....but they just dont work in reality my friend

I have not said anything that reflects a *utopian* vision.

Originally posted by Overdose
Okay...to be honest, if we give them a fair trial they will be convicted and sentenced to death no matter what. So why does it hurt to give them equal rights? We are being the true Americans we have always been, doing what is morally correct, which is giving them equal rights. It's not as if us giving them due process will save them from getting what they deserve.

Ok Ok..The Humanitarian of week award goes to OD..
Go around back bend over and pick up your prize..
Reality will be along shortly and give you a swift kick in the ass.

Ok Ok I kid the Humanitarian of the week.
There is something to be said for moral fiber.
I just hope when the naivety wears thin and reality sets in your code is not lost.

I do realize that my approach to handling the terrorists are maybe wrong, morally.

I get the impression their culture and state of mind views our kindness as weakness and I don't like the idea of our people being the victims.
It has been said Muslims by definition can't be terrorists.
The problem not the religion of Islam but the totalitarian ideology of Islamism.
Islam is deeply political and pushes its adherents to hold power; and once Muslims do gain power, they feel a strong impetus to apply the laws of Islam, containing elements that can justify conquest, theocracy, and intolerance.
Militant Islam (or Islamism—same thing)is faith turned into ideology, and radical ideology at that is a distortion of Islam so extreme, so radical, and so megalomaniacal as to constitute something new.
It is an Islamic-flavored version of radical utopianism.
Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and all must be considered potential killers.
Islamists have a virulent attitude toward non-Muslims and have committed at least eight lethal attacks on the soil of the United States prior to 9/11.

Don't take anything for granted and don't turn your back because the show ain't over.
These Zealots won't sleep untill the infidels of the West are dead.

Originally posted by Freethinker
The difference is that an attack like 9-11 was in retaliation for things this country had perpetrated on the people in the Middle East and for many tens of thousands of people dying there because of US policies. Yes, the terrorists intended to kill people....while the American Corporatists ---the people who pull the strings in this government-- simply have the attitude that we will exert our will militarily on other countries, and when people are inevitably killed in that process it's just their tough luck for standing in the way of Gorporate profits.

Either way the result is the same; people are killed.......the motive of the terrorists being resistance to aggression on the part of the US and the agenda of the American Corporate State being an imperialist policy of control of oil resources and continued massive profits with the accompanying attitude that "who gives a fuck how many die in the process".
Truly a sad state of affairs when a person who resides in America can harbor such distain for his own country. You sound like a fucking well-spoken terrorist, ninny - all bark, packing a pathetic bite. Go wrap a towel around your pointy-head and fight for them, you bastard.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Sorry...i'm never going to "accept" that people in positions of power in this country ---Big Business power and political power--- are going to bring about the deaths of untold thousands of people in other countries in MY name for no other reason than increasing their already immense wealth.
And given your mindset, you'll never have money OR power, so just relax, and let the people with a set of balls and a fair amount of gumption get shit done. You remind me of certain professors I had in college: The kind of affected know-it-alls, that actually believed that they were in a position of superiority because of a title. The sad thing is, those were the people for whom I felt sorriest - individuals who didn't actually DO anything, but believed they knew how to do EVERYTHING and solve every problem.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Truly a sad state of affairs when a person who resides in America can harbor such distain for his own country.

Truly sad when a person with the ability to access the internet is so purposely ignorant of what his political leaders are perpetrating and so willfully blind to their imperialist aims and their murderous drive for global control.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
You sound like a fucking well-spoken terrorist, ninny - all bark, packing a pathetic bite. Go wrap a towel around your pointy-head and fight for them, you bastard.

Translated into non-bullshit:--- "I'm sorry, but I simply cannot address the issue you've raised and still remain loyal to the GOP-supported mantra of 'America Right 'er Wrong! Luv it 'er leave it!" Instead, I'll just cover my eyes and wave my flag and pretend everything my government does is honorable and kind, thus maintaining face while dodging the embarrassment of having to defend the despicable actions of the political leaders in question."

Originally posted by Freethinker
Truly sad when a person with the ability to access the internet is so purposely ignorant of what his political leaders are perpetrating and so willfully blind to their imperialist aims and their murderous drive for global control.
I think we're viewing the same thing very differently, FT. What you see as wrong, I see as necessary to maintain wealth and install a peaceful government. If you truly wanted peace, then you'd work for justice. The whole Middle Eastern region has been at war with itself since the dawn of recorded time, and collectively, they have a resource that we not only discovered, but also developed the means for tapping. We've made their respective dictators, ambassadors, and governments extremely wealthy and they've elected to distribute their money in an abysmal fashion. This is not our fault, for if these countries didn't have oil, what would they export? How would they feed their people? When radical assholes threaten our way of life by infringing on our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then they've signed a death warrant, and you can guarantee it's going to be enforced by Uncle Sam.

Sorry, but we're not all ready to have our progress limited to living in solitude when it fits the utopian definition you have for maintaining peace with no action. We're not going to change our lifestyles for them...we buy their oil, and will continue to do so until its no longer a viable option. If they don't like it, then tough shit. The world runs on the commodity, and we're not ready to settle for living in huts while having to defecate on newspapers to appease the idea of backwards progress. We'll do whatever it takes to stay on top, and if you don't like it, oh well...move elsewhere.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I think we're viewing the same thing very differently, FT. What you see as wrong, I see as necessary to maintain wealth and install a peace government.

It comes down to this;

That **maintenance of our wealth** that you talk about is being secured thru our government sending military force in to bomb other countries and other people into submission.

Innocent people are being killed by the thousands so the the oil-hungry US can continue it vaunted ""Amuuuurcian Way 'O Life"".

Your position is seemingly one of--"Fuck 'em. We gotta have a free flowing supply of Oil to keep our wheels turning and to continue living in the wealthy manner we're to which we're accustomed ".

My position is -- "It's wrong that thousands of people in other countries have to die just so we in America can enjoy continued wealth and an extravagant wasteful lifestyle".

I can respect that, but you have to realize that in one hand you have reality, and in the other you have wishful thinking. If it weren't us doing what we do, someone else would. I know it doesn't seem fair, but it's life. Corporate interests have given you everything you have - a home, a car, a job, and a life free of poverty. Instead of fighting the system, what's wrong with climbing aboard and working it to your advantage?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I can respect that, but you have to realize that in one hand you have reality, and in the other you have wishful thinking. If it weren't us doing what we do, someone else would.

Respectfully, i disagree.

For one, no one else in the world has the absolutely overwhelming superiority of force afforded by a multi-trillion dollar nuclear military machine that is kept running in top form by the infusion of nearly a half a TRILLION taxdollars every year.

And secondly, I say to you in all seriousness that I do not think that any other organized group on the planet---that is to say, a group that is in complete control of a huge military that is capable of exerting their will on other nations--- is as cold-blooded, as power hungry and as murderously calculating as the Corporatist cabal that controls America.

Free, I agree that our abiding interest in the Middle East is oil. In the sense that the world needs oil to run and without it most of the world would grind to a halt. But if you believe our interest in oil is that we control it, wouldn't we have just stayed in Kuwait in 1991. That would have been really easy. Kuwait had no military and we were already there.

Originally posted by Freethinker

And secondly, I say to you in all seriousness that I do not think that any other organized group on the planet---that is to say, a group that is in complete control of a huge military that is capable of exerting their will on other nations....

Those capabilities don't describe any nation, including our own.

Originally posted by Brooks
Those capabilities don't describe any nation, including our own.

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!

You do not agree that the US military is so powerful that it can defeat/obliterate/subdue any one of the other nations in the world in a fight, and force them to submit?!?!?!

I do not believe that you mean that.

Originally posted by Freethinker
?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!

You do not agree that the US military is so powerful that it can defeat/obliterate/subdue any one of the other nations in the world in a fight, and force them to submit?!?!?!

I do not believe that you mean that.

I do mean it. And according to you we're not even winning in Iraq. So now you think we could "defeat/obliterate/subdue" China?

We can blow up the world a hundred times over. We have the technology to kill every bit of life on the planet and keep it dead for centuries. That's not the question. Very few of these young chicken-hawks care to remember what happened to us in Vietnam and that it could happen in Iraq as well. Destroying and occupying are two different things. IF things really get nasty over there then the 130 k troops on the ground will not be nearly enough. Not by a long shot. And I sincerely doubt Georgie-boy has the political capital to start up a Vietnam-style draft under the current situation.

Everyone scoffed when Howard Dean said we were no safer when Saddam was caught, but, in hindsight, Dean was right. We are no safer now. In fact, we face a far more dangerous enemy. We have been incredibly insensitive to the locals there and incredibly stupid when it comes to waging this war on terror. We should have finished what we started in Afghanistan (up to and including snuffing Bin Laden), held the free elections, and turned over power. This would have served as a model for what our intentions would be elsewhere in the region.

Trouble is we have very little credibility left in that region. Bin Laden has been warning of an American oil grab since before 2000 and most Iraqis think that's the only reason we are there. So do a lot of Americans as well....

Originally posted by Brooks
I do mean it. And according to you we're not even winning in Iraq.

I have never said that the US is not "winning" in Iraq.....i have no idea if we're "winning" there or not because i don't know what exactly would be considered a "win". We're killing thousands of people there and have destroyed many thousands of buildings......on the other hand, we've done a tremendous job of protecting all the machinery that the oil flows thru.......just a coincidence, i'm sure.

I DO know that we have subdued the nation of Iraq and have it under control.

Originally posted by Brooks
So now you think we could "defeat/obliterate/subdue" China?

Yes.....a fraction of the tens of thousands of nuclear weapons the US possesses would obliterate China ........but the main point here is that any of the Middle Eastern nations we're currently concerned with could certainly be subdued or conquered by the US, with or without using the massive nuclear arsenal at Bush's disposal.

Originally posted by fluffernutter
We can blow up the world a hundred times over. We have the technology to kill every bit of life on the planet and keep it dead for centuries. That's not the question..... Destroying and occupying are two different things. IF things really get nasty over there then the 130 k troops on the ground will not be nearly enough. Not by a long shot.

Exactly my point, articulated better. There are few countries we can "defeat/obliterate/subdue". Two out of three, maybe, but that's it.

"Boy, I wish we had one of those dooms day devices." --Gen. 'Buck' Turgidson