Bush never lied to us

[carolaa]

Saddam was not a straight shooter.

Saddam was our friend until he stopped being our puppet.

[carolaa]

the US has not assassinated the head of state of another nation.

You might find "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins to be a fascinating read if you believe this.

[carolaa]

Obama is saying that the US should kill or assassinate Osama but that if we caught Osama, he should have access to the US court system. Does that make sense?

Ralph Nader says those types should be brought before an international tribunal, like Nuremburg. That makes more sense to me.

[carolaa]

WW2 is the final argument of the boosters of the Iraq war. The difference is that Saddam was not actively expansionary and invading other countries, and hadn't been for a decade, whereas both Hitler and Tojo were actively invading other countries. Hence the Iraq war was pre-emptive and WW2 was not. False parallels make bad arguments.

Do you feel that a better parallel would be Vietnam?

[Neil D]

If after the US tried to assassinate the head of state of China, it become known and the US population re-elected the same government with the same policies which continued to plan how to attack China using WMDs, then yes, I would say China would be justified in attacking or invading the US in order to protect themselves from an attack.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

So, the economic policies of the US over the previous 30 years... is not justification of their actions of use of WMDs????

No. The economic policies of one nation are not justification of another nation to use WMDs against them. Absolutely not! Given that reasoning, the US would be justified in nuking Europe because of what the Euro is doing to the dollar. Since the economic policies of Europe are hurting the US, we can blow them up with nuclear weapons, right? Of course not!!!

Quote:

justifiable assassination is still assassination....whether in a time of war or not.

Well it is kind of like saying vehicular homicide is still homicide regardless if there was a drunk driver involved or not. True. A military assassination and a political assassination are both defined as assassination in the dictionary but they are far from being the same. The US has an official policy of not targeting heads of state for assassination although the policy does not apply if we are engaged in armed hostilities against the head of state's nation. It is not fair or helpful to equate the two as being the same.

In this discussion we are talking about the fact that Saddam attempted to assassinate President G.H.W. Bush while he was on a visit to Kuwait. This was after he had left office and Saddam had signed a cease-fire. Hostilities were over. Who on this board wants to claim that killing Saddam's sons during a military operation was no different than Saddam trying to kill President G.H.W. Bush? One was an attempted political assassination and the other was a military operation during hostilities.

Quote:

They were sons of a king.

No. They were sons of a president. An elected president. Are Barbara and Jenna royalty too?

[Bravus]

One tiny journey into convoluted logic, more for the fun of it than anything else.

Shane said 'assassinations of leaders in war are not counted as assassinations'. Redwood and others have tried to justify the Iraq war by saying 'America was still at war from the first Gulf War in the early '90s because that war never ended'. Ergo, Iraq's (alleged) attempted assassination of George HW Bush was not really an assassination.

[Dr. Shane]

Except that it took place during a cease-fire, which, I suspect, would have been a violation of the cease-fire.

[carolaa]

This is a general comment. What scares me is all the innocent people in Guantanamo and other torture prisons that we are turning into militants because of the way we are treating them. I don't know how anyone could think this was a good idea.

[Dr. Shane]

I am not aware of any that have been in Guantanamo have been found innocent. I know a lot have been released but I am not aware that any of them were considered innocent.

I am against torture but not imprisoning enemy combatants found on the battle field. I believe they are entitled to a trial but not with full rights as US citizens. Illegal immigrants coming across the border do not even get that. Our we going to grant more rights to enemy combatants who were actively engaged in trying to kill our soldiers than to illegal immigrants just trying to make a living for their family? The illegal immigrants are entitled to a legal hearing by the INS. Enemy combatants should be entitled to a military tribunal.

[LifeHiscost]

WW2 is the final argument of the boosters of the Iraq war. The difference is that Saddam was not actively expansionary and invading other countries, and hadn't been for a decade, whereas both Hitler and Tojo were actively invading other countries. Hence the Iraq war was pre-emptive and WW2 was not. False parallels make bad arguments.

I guess that "little incident" with Kuwait and it's scorched earth policy when he couldn't keep what he had expanded into, was just to prove what? The best indicator of what a person will do in the future can be seen by what he has been willing to do in the past. Of course that can be a flexible conclusion when they have been soundly thrashed.

AAAnd, the United States is the only country ever to use atomic weapons against an opposing force, although some would argue it would be better to allow the grunts die by the hundreds until enough time had passed to reach the millions of lives it would have cost, over a period of years, to fight a land war.

[carolaa]

I am not aware of any that have been in Guantanamo have been found innocent. I know a lot have been released but I am not aware that any of them were considered innocent.

I don't know how you feel about the McClatchy newspaper, but there are a ton of articles about this on their website.

[Dr. Shane]

It is simply a high statement to claim there are or have been innocent people in Guantanamo. The people there have been arrested on the battlefield. One can make a good argument that they should be afforded all the privileges the Geneva Convention grants POWs because that is what they are. But to say they are innocent? Were American GIs that were taken POW by Germany, Japan, Vietnam, etc innocent? They were POWs. I guess there may have been charges of war crimes against some but POWs are POWs.

Well, we can say they are not POWs but are terrorist suspects. OK, now, since they are suspects, they are entitled to a trial. Maybe they will be found not guilty of being terrorists. Seems to get really mucky and gray.

People captured on the battlefield actively fighting against our troops. POWs? Terrorist suspects? Geneva Convention rights? Constitutional rights? It doesn't look like the questions have easy answers.

[carolaa]

It is simply a high statement to claim there are or have been innocent people in Guantanamo. The people there have been arrested on the battlefield. One can make a good argument that they should be afforded all the privileges the Geneva Convention grants POWs because that is what they are. But to say they are innocent? Were American GIs that were taken POW by Germany, Japan, Vietnam, etc innocent? They were POWs. I guess there may have been charges of war crimes against some but POWs are POWs.

Well, we can say they are not POWs but are terrorist suspects. OK, now, since they are suspects, they are entitled to a trial. Maybe they will be found not guilty of being terrorists. Seems to get really mucky and gray.

People captured on the battlefield actively fighting against our troops. POWs? Terrorist suspects? Geneva Convention rights? Constitutional rights? It doesn't look like the questions have easy answers.

How about just some human rights. That would be a switch.

Yup, it's a big mess because Bush has called it a war when it suited his purposes to do so. He is the one who has really muddied the waters here. I mean, who are we at war with? If Iraq, then why are we holding so many prisoners from many other countries? If the war is with Al-Quaida, then what are we doing in Iraq? If the war is on terror, then it can't technically be a war because the enemy is too vague. A war has rules, which we (who declared the war) are not following, so it must not be a war. It's all nebulous.

What do you mean the prisoners were picked up on the battlefield? What battlefield? They were not soldiers.

Some of the prisoners at Guantanamo have been released because they could not find anything to charge them with - they were presumably innocent. Others are still waiting to be charged with something, and meanwhile they are being tortured. It seems only logical to think that there are more who are not guilty of anything.

And we have other similar prisons besides Guantanamo. In Afghanistan it was discovered many of the prisoners who were tortured (some to death) were innocent. Turns out people from rival tribes were turning people in so they could collect reward money from us. And we didn't bother to confirm accusations before torturing them.

Now Bush has to make sure all the prisoners are charged with something, because not only will it look bad for him if they are never charged (after being held for 6 years), but we will be releasing people who might have been our allies but are now more than happy to help our enemies.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

How about just some human rights.

From what I understand, the Red Cross is allowed into these prisons to assure their human rights are not being violated. I believe many of the violations that have been discovered have been reported by the Red Cross.

Quote:

it's a big mess because Bush has called it a war

Twice President Bush went before Congress under the War Powers Act of 1973 and asked for the authority to use force. Twice Congress granted him authority to use force. That is in essence how the US Congress declares war since 1973. This was not a run off to war like President Truman or President Johnson did with Korea and Vietnam respectively.

Quote:

who are we at war with?

Radical Islamic terrorists. I think that is pretty clear. In fact, President Bush has went to great lengths to show we are not at war with mainstream Muslims. We are fighting against the radicals and they drew first blood.

Quote:

If Iraq, then why are we holding so many prisoners from many other countries?

Iraqi prisoners are kept in Iraq.

Quote:

If the war is with Al-Quaida, then what are we doing in Iraq?

Iraq was giving safe harbor to al-quaida prior to the invasion. Intelligence also told us they had WMDs and were planning to attack the US with them.

Quote:

If the war is on terror, then it can't technically be a war because the enemy is too vague.

When Congress authorizes the use of force under the War Powers Act of 1973, it is a war. Our men and women are not overseas writing out parking tickets.

Quote:

What do you mean the prisoners were picked up on the battlefield? What battlefield? They were not soldiers.

They were not uniformed soldiers but they were actively fighting against US troops. Many came from Afghanistan where there are very real battles. I believe four were killed just today.

Quote:

Some of the prisoners at Guantanamo have been released because they could not find anything to charge them with - they were presumably innocent.

That is not correct. They were released because the authorities did not believe the prisoners had anything more of value to tell us and that they didn't pose a significant terror threat if released. More than one which was released has returned to fight with either insurgents in Iraq or the Taliban in Afghanistan. None were presumed innocent.

Quote:

In Afghanistan it was discovered many of the prisoners who were tortured (some to death) were innocent.

I cannot address the prisoners being tortured in Afghanistan. I have not seen any of that reported. There have been innocent people captured and held there. Only the most serious terrorist suspects are transferred to Guantanamo. It is not unlikely that some prisoners captured and held in Afghanistan have been innocent. It is quite unlikely that many transferred to Guantanamo have been innocent.

Quote:

Now Bush has to make sure all the prisoners are charged with something

Prisoners captured on the battlefield can be sent to prisons in ally countries so they never come under the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court.

[Robert]

Iraq was giving safe harbor to al-quaida prior to the invasion. Intelligence also told us they had WMDs and were planning to attack the US with them.

Rev 13:11 Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. 12 He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed....

The United States, under President Bush's command, is becoming more like the beast found in Rev 13. This preemptive strike on Iraq has taken us down a road from which we will never recover.

Note verse 11 says that it looks Christ like, but in reality it speaks as a dragon. It looks righteous, but it is self-righteous. The things she does look outwardly good, but they are done selfishly. Hence it is just another world power under the banner of the god of this world.

Rob

[carolaa]

Intelligence also told us they had WMDs and were planning to attack the US with them.

Quote:

What do you mean the prisoners were picked up on the battlefield? What battlefield? They were not soldiers.

They were not uniformed soldiers but they were actively fighting against US troops.

Quote:

Now Bush has to make sure all the prisoners are charged with something

Prisoners captured on the battlefield can be sent to prisons in ally countries so they never come under the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court.

Intelligence was conflicted, and Bush purposely manipulated it to depict the story he wanted us - as well as Congress and the U.N. - to hear. If you don't know that, then you haven't read the timelines. Just browse any search engine for Iraq war timeline and you'll have several to choose from.

I think the idea that all the prisoners were actively fighting against our troops is simply an assumption. And since most of them have not been charged with a crime, but are only suspects, it is quite a gross assumption.

I'm pretty confident Bush will not allow the prisoners to be tried in another country. We'll see. But I seriously doubt it, because he will want to be in control of it and make sure they are found guilty so he won't lose face.

[carolaa]

Twice President Bush went before Congress under the War Powers Act of 1973 and asked for the authority to use force. Twice Congress granted him authority to use force. That is in essence how the US Congress declares war since 1973.

But have we officially declared war on a country or a group? I don't think this is a war. It is an occupation. And it is based on lies.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

This preemptive strike on Iraq has taken us down a road from which we will never recover.

As a student of history I believe the Indian Wars, The Spanish-American War and our involvement in WW1 were more grievous and more reflective of America as the lamb-like beast than the Iraq War has been.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Just browse any search engine for Iraq war timeline and you'll have several to choose from.

That sounds like a very unreliable way of getting factual information.

Quote:

I'm pretty confident Bush will not allow the prisoners to be tried in another country.

Saddam Hussein was tried in another country!!! In fact, all the prisoners captured in Iraq are tried there in Iraq. Not all prisoners captured in Afghanistan go to Guantanamo. Only a few do. We have been sending prisoners to other countries for some time already. We will continue to do so. Some of those countries practice torture so the US Supreme Court decision will likely result in more prisoners being tortured than before.

Quote:

Intelligence was conflicted, and Bush purposely manipulated

Intelligence was conflicted because Saddam was talking out of both sides of his mouth. Saddam is the one responsible for the intelligence being conflicted. The idea that Bush purposely manipulated the intelligence is a left-wing talking point. It is something the left-wing hopes that by repeating over and over again will become accepted as fact. Nonetheless, it is only the opinion of the liberal left who has never agreed with Bush on the War on Terror from the beginning.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

But have we officially declared war on a country or a group?

Yes! According to the War Powers Act of 1973, we have declared war. The first time authority to use force was granted to President Bush it was against those responsible for 9/11. The second time the authority to use force was granted to President Bush it was to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Two authorizations to use force against two enemies.

[carolaa]

Quote:

Just browse any search engine for Iraq war timeline and you'll have several to choose from.

That sounds like a very unreliable way of getting factual information.

Saddam Hussein was tried in another country!!!

Intelligence was conflicted because Saddam was talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Hmm, the timelines pretty much say the same thing. You'd think Bush would be quick to put out a better one if he could. What would you consider a reliable source of information?

What prison was Saddam held in? I was referring to Guantanamo, because that's where W will lose the most face if they are not found guilty.

So because Saddam was smart enough to keep everyone guessing means we had grounds to attack with no proof - not to mention evidence to the contrary? Iraq was a distraction. W wanted Iraq long before 911. He purposely distracted the country from Al-Quaida to get into Iraq.

If Guantanamo is for the "worst of the worst," why have children been held there?

[carolaa]

Quote:

But have we officially declared war on a country or a group?

Yes! According to the War Powers Act of 1973, we have declared war. The first time authority to use force was granted to President Bush it was against those responsible for 9/11. The second time the authority to use force was granted to President Bush it was to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Two authorizations to use force against two enemies.

So who exactly have we officially declared war against?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Iraq was a distraction. W wanted Iraq long before 911.

These are liberal talking points & every old ones. I expect a little more in a discussion than the regurgitation of old talking points.

Quote:

If Guantanamo is for the "worst of the worst," why have children been held there?

Children are terrorists too. It reminds me of a song that Sting sang during the Cold War about the Russians. In that song the lyrics said "I hope the Russians live their children too." Basically his point was that our only hope to avoid nuclear war was if the Russians loved their children like those of us in the west love our children. Well, they did and nuclear war was avoided. Radial Islamics are another story. They don't love their children like we love ours. When one of their children dies in war or blows himself up they celebrate and have a party.

[Dr. Shane]

So who exactly have we officially declared war against?