Quoting:
...at least Bush has the balls to defend our country after an attack..
End Quote

Oh come on...  ::)
Attacking a country half way around the world that can't even adequately defend itself is hardly self defence!

Quoting:
Clinton got away with so much...at least Bush has the balls to defend our country after an attack..way to go in '93 bill....probably lost his to monica..and that makes him SUCH a cool prez...right?  NOT!
End Quote

Defending our country against who? If he really wanted to go after the perpetrators of 9/11, he should have looked at Saudi Arabia. Going after the Taliban in Afganistan was Understandable but not going after Iraq. Dubya used 9/11 as an excuse to insure his buddies got the oil that is there. NOTHING MORE! So now he is in deep doodoo and needs help. Unfortuately, this farce that he has caused will increase terrorist acts rather then stop them.



Cat

Quoting:

Oh come on...  ::)
Attacking a country half way around the world that can't even adequately defend itself is hardly self defence!
End Quote

Our leader spits on compromise
His shining light doth hurt thine eyes
Did he who made the lamb make thee
Are we so blind we cannot see
Our leader tell us what you know,
Yet our former "Leader" took the the "Blow"
Showing his morals sunk so low,
And some people liked the clinton show,
Clinton was bad for this country...that I Know....

(And in his last act he set criminals free)  ::)

No More Words from me on this...enjoy...life's too short

Quoting:

Defending our country against who? If he really wanted to go after the perpetrators of 9/11, he should have looked at Saudi Arabia.
End Quote

Well, look how active the Taliban has been in Iraq.  Between the operatives killed and captured, the training camps discovered, and the intelligence links, it is hard to deny that the Taliban and the Iraq government were working together.

With Saudi Arabia, the support may come from individuals, but the Government itself is against them.  Osama can't return without hiding because his own government wants him dead.

ANd I am sure if you ask the Iraqi people if they are happier, a vast majority will say yes.  After seeing the TENS OF THOUSANDS of bodies in mass graves, the huge number of families that can now come forward to tell about missing family members, the murderderd Kurds, and the multi-billion dollar palaces that Saddam lived in while his people starved.

Destroying the Saddam reign had less to do with Osama, and more to do with enforcing UN resolutions and ending the reign of an insane dictator.

ANd let's not forget Scott "Spike" Speicher.  US Navy Pilot shot down in 1991, and even though there is lots of proof that Iraq took him prisoner, he was not released after the 91 gulf war, and his whereabouts are still unknown.

ALthough if they can ever do DNA testing on the bodies in the mass graves, his will probably be among them.  Iraq was not well known for following the Genneva Convention in the treatment of it's prisoners.

Quoting:
ANd let's not forget Scott "Spike" Speicher.  US Navy Pilot shot down in 1991, and even though there is lots of proof that Iraq took him prisoner, he was not released after the 91 gulf war, and his whereabouts are still unknown.
End Quote

The US government can share the blame for that.  They have an atrocious history when it comes to MIA's.

On a side note, maybe we can gang up on the North Korean's and Iran before it's too late.

Quoting:
All hail Bush one of the best presidents ever!!

Reasons to Love GW Bush:

1. He loves America and only wants the best for it.

2. He has dealt with a buttload of problems very well.

3. He is our country's greatest defender

4. He is against Gay Marriage

Reasons to Hate GW Bush:

1. He loves Himself and only wants the best for him.  ::)

2. He has dealt with a buttload of problems very "badly" ::)

3. He is our country's greatest defender "a war maniac" :P

4. He is against Gay Marriage "How horrible! ::)"

My point is it is all a matter of opinion. I believe in the reasons to like GW Bush, because they are true and align with my beliefs. I'm sure his critics will agree with reasons to hate him.

Everybody will look back on all this and realize that Bush was a fanastic president. There is soon to be an announcement on Weapons of Mass Destruction (They have them)

Also.. Who else would you vote for?? Just whatever Democrat pokes his weasely head out?? I've watched the Democrat debates and all of the canidates are the same, Losers... They all debated about one thing mainly. They all want Mexicans to have more rights, like making it easier for illeagal immigrants to get a drivers license and so forth. They are going for the Hispanic vote.

End Quote

You forgot a few reasons to hate the Bush:

He is a cocaine sniffing, draft dodging, lying hypocrit.  He is attacking working people (new rules on overtime), destroying the environment (new "Clean Air Act" rules, new forestry rules that will only benefit his rich cronies).  

As to WMDs, the last I read, they DIDN'T have them.  The ones that were "missing" were never their in the first place because records were falsified to show more than they had during the period before the disamament.

Quoting:


You forgot a few reasons to hate the Bush:

He is a cocaine sniffing, draft dodging, lying hypocrit.  He is attacking working people (new rules on overtime), destroying the environment (new "Clean Air Act" rules, new forestry rules that will only benefit his rich cronies).  

As to WMDs, the last I read, they DIDN'T have them.  The ones that were "missing" were never their in the first place because records were falsified to show more than they had during the period before the disamament.
End Quote

First, the cocaine allegations were NEVER proven.  Although Bill Clinton claimed that he did smoke marijuanna.  So what is the difference (that is how SOME people think of drugs, I am 100% anti drug)

Draft dodging?  He JOINED the national guard!!!!  I am sure that if you accuse our Guardsmen serving in the Middle East right now if they are "draft dodgers", they would spit in your face.

As for overtime regulations, that is still largely a STATE issue.  THe Fed sets minimum regulations, it is then up to each state to set their own regulations.  And in fact, most states do just that.  I now live in ALabama, where the minimum is much lower then it was in California.  Then again, it costs less to live out here then it does there.  If you do not like the regulations where you live, complain to your state legislature.  THey do not HAVE to go by the Federal limits, and for a lot of states, it would be counterproductive to have to follow regulations that are much higher then they currently are.

And as for "destroying the environment", he simply rolled back rules that President Clinton placed into effect by executive order on his last day in office.  For one, there was no legislative oversight in those orders, and may not be COnstitutionally legal.  FOr another, if those were so important, why did Clinton wait till his LAST day in office to sign them?  If they were so critical, COngress would have voted on them and it would have been a LAW.  Or better yet, sign them much earlier in his term, so they could not have been rolled-back so easily.

As for WMD, the entire issue was Saddam's blocking of UN inspections, and the refusal to follow UN resolution (firing on UN planes in the no-fly zones, human rights issues, smuggeling of oil, and the tens of thousands of his own people that he has killed.

Not found any weapons of mass destruction?  How about Saddam and his 2 insane sons?  In 1988, Saddam bragged about having killed over 50,000 OF HIS OWN PEOPLE!  That was 15 years ago.  Look up IRAQ and GENOCIDE in any search engine.

Quoting:


First, the cocaine allegations were NEVER proven.  Although Bill Clinton claimed that he did smoke marijuanna.  So what is the difference (that is how SOME people think of drugs, I am 100% anti drug)

Draft dodging?  He JOINED the national guard!!!!  I am sure that if you accuse our Guardsmen serving in the Middle East right now if they are "draft dodgers", they would spit in your face.

As for overtime regulations, that is still largely a STATE issue.  THe Fed sets minimum regulations, it is then up to each state to set their own regulations.  And in fact, most states do just that.  I now live in ALabama, where the minimum is much lower then it was in California.  Then again, it costs less to live out here then it does there.  If you do not like the regulations where you live, complain to your state legislature.  THey do not HAVE to go by the Federal limits, and for a lot of states, it would be counterproductive to have to follow regulations that are much higher then they currently are.

And as for "destroying the environment", he simply rolled back rules that President Clinton placed into effect by executive order on his last day in office.  For one, there was no legislative oversight in those orders, and may not be COnstitutionally legal.  FOr another, if those were so important, why did Clinton wait till his LAST day in office to sign them?  If they were so critical, COngress would have voted on them and it would have been a LAW.  Or better yet, sign them much earlier in his term, so they could not have been rolled-back so easily.

As for WMD, the entire issue was Saddam's blocking of UN inspections, and the refusal to follow UN resolution (firing on UN planes in the no-fly zones, human rights issues, smuggeling of oil, and the tens of thousands of his own people that he has killed.

Not found any weapons of mass destruction?  How about Saddam and his 2 insane sons?  In 1988, Saddam bragged about having killed over 50,000 OF HIS OWN PEOPLE!  That was 15 years ago.  Look up IRAQ and GENOCIDE in any search engine.


End Quote

What ^ Said.....take THAT all you Hollywierd Liberals!

Quoting:
As for WMD, the entire issue was Saddam's blocking of UN inspections, and the refusal to follow UN resolution (firing on UN planes in the no-fly zones, human rights issues, smuggeling of oil, and the tens of thousands of his own people that he has killed.
End Quote

Firstly, Saddam allowed inspectors in, it was the US that held them back immediately before they invaded.
Secondly, the no-fly zones were a US/UK venture, not sanctioned by the UN.  They had no basis in international law and there is no reason why Iraq shouldn't defend itself from a foreign aggressor!
No fly zones

Quoting:

What ^ Said.....take THAT all you Hollywierd Liberals!
End Quote

I will have you know, not EVERYBODY that lives or works in Hollyweird is a liberal.

Until March of this year, I lived and worked in Hollywood.  And although I have dabbled in acting several times over the years, I am a computer technician by profession.

I guess the biggest difference between myself and most "Hollywood" types is that I react from thought and reflection, not from passion and "knee-jerk reflex".

I do not see things as Liberal-Conservative.  I react as I see things best for the common people.  So many in that town are driven by wanting to be popular, by doing things that they THINK would be best for their careers.

But once again, some people in entertainment may surprise you sometimes with their reactions.  Jimmy Hendrix was a Vietnam supporter until his handlers told him he should oppose the war.  He had even VOLUNTEERED to join the US Army.  And not only did he join the Army, but the 101st Airborn Division.  He served honerably and did something like 25 jumps until an injury forced him out of the service.

And even in this current conflict, Brittney Spears has come out in support of President Bush.  However, we will see how firm that conviction is after her handlers and some of her fans bash her a bit for that.

THen again, look at what happened to the Dixie CHicks when they spoke badly against President Bush.

Quoting:

Firstly, Saddam allowed inspectors in, it was the US that held them back immediately before they invaded.
Secondly, the no-fly zones were a US/UK venture, not sanctioned by the UN.  They had no basis in international law and there is no reason why Iraq shouldn't defend itself from a foreign aggressor!
No fly zones
End Quote

Iraq impeeded the investigation at every turn.  Even Mr. Glick, the head of the UN Inspection team admitted to that fact.  As a term of the 1991 cease fire agreement that Iraq signed, they promised "free access".  That was why the inspecters were pulled out when Clinton was President.  This year, the inspectors were not pulled out, they were simply warned that hostilities were iminent, and they pulled out on their own.

And the no fly zones were also part of the cease fire agreement in 1991 that Iraq agreed to.  This was to protect others from Saddam's agression.  THe no-fly zone covered the Southern part of Iraq to protect Saudi Arabia and Quwait, and the Northern part of Iraq to protect HIS OWN PEOPLE from his insanity.

Interesting how Iraq started 2 wars (Iran and Quwait) and killed tens of thousands of his own people, and *WE* are the "agressor".

And for those who forget some things, our involvement goes way back.  In 1987 during the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq started to shoot ANY oil tanker in the gulf (which is Piracy, and illegal).  We went in with warships to protect Quwait tankers by reflagging them as US ships.  Does anybody else remember the USS Stark?

BTW, I did read that little blurb you posted.  One thing I noticed is that they claim that the illegal no-fly zone was
turned into a more agressive operation in 1998.  Now if I remember correctly, that is when Mr. Bill was undergoing impeachment for Cigar-gate.  Strange how so many supported that action, but oppose one that actually accomplished something and saved countless Iraqi lives.

Quoting:
The US government can share the blame for that.  They have an atrocious history when it comes to MIA's.

On a side note, maybe we can gang up on the North Korean's and Iran before it's too late.
End Quote

I can speak personally on this matter.  And the claim that the US has an attrocious history is so very VERY wrong.

THe US is a signatory to the Geneva Convention.  We stand by the laws of land warfare very seriously.  We treat our POWs very fairly and humanely.  THe problem is when we get into conflict with nations that do not give a rat's behind about international law and human decency.

I spent 10 years as a US Marine infantryman.  We were trained in how to care for prisoners, and to recover our fallen comrades at almost any cost.  Look at the Chosin Resevoir for proof on that aspect.

The problems with POW's started in Vietnam.  That country has an attrocious history of NOT following the Geneva conventions.  This goes back even before our involvement in Vietnam.

During their fight against the French, Vietnam took 39,888 prisoners.  Of that number, 29,954 were not returned.  This is a staggering number of people, and the Vietnam government still denies ever having them.

And this is not all past history.  In 1975, the North captured 2 South Korean government officials.  They were held for 5 YEARS, until they were released in 1980.  ANd amazingly to this day, Vietnam still denies that they were ever held prisoner!

http://www.nationalalliance.org/ovrvw12.htm

Vietnam did not care about the prisoners they held, and would deny having many of them even when proof was shown to them.  This is not the fault of the US Government, it is their fault.

Saddam's reign acted in the same manner, both in their war with Iran, their war with Quwait, and the prisoners during the Gulf war.  There are still a large number of Quwati citizens missing that Saddam denied ever having held.  Even though their families were present when they were taken prisoner by Iraqi soldiers.

During the cease fire agreement, Iraq agreed to release everybody captured.  Unfortuniately, this was not done.  But I see this as the fault of Iraq, not of the US Government.

As for Iran, they have been largely passive for the last 10 years.  While they do give support to Hammas, it is not the level of support they once gave, and they are making moves in a more civilized direction.

And for North Korea, they suffer from poor credibility.

They signed an agreement with President Clinton to halt their Nuclear programs in exchange for oil and food.  Since then, they have blatently cancelled their own agreement, and resumed their program.

I agree that something needs to be done with North Korea, and that is being worked on now.  But at the moment, it is hoped that this can be resolved diplomatically, without the need for military action.

One reason for this is that technically, North and South Korea are still involved in a war dating back 50 years.  This is currently the longest standing cease fire, but a state of war still exists.  One of the largest fears is that if it escallates, North Korea may use any Nuclear arms it possesses to attack Seoul or some other South Korean city, and that is to be avoided at all costs.

Quoting:
THe US is a signatory to the Geneva Convention.  We stand by the laws of land warfare very seriously.  We treat our POWs very fairly and humanely. End Quote

Err..Guantanamo bay?
POWs still held, 2 years after the war ended.
POWs threatened with military courts and execution for fighting for their country!
Heads shaved (a deliberate attempt to humiliate muslims) and at least 2 POWs were tortured to death in Afghanistan by US forces.
POWs (and Iraqi casualties) displayed on TV.
I think you should go and read the Geneva convention one more time.

Quoting:

Err..Guantanamo bay?
POWs still held, 2 years after the war ended.
POWs threatened with military courts and execution for fighting for their country!
Heads shaved (a deliberate attempt to humiliate muslims) and at least 2 POWs were tortured to death in Afghanistan by US forces.
POWs (and Iraqi casualties) displayed on TV.
I think you should go and read the Geneva convention one more time.
End Quote

For one, those are not POW's, they are war criminals.

POW's are defined as uniform soldiers of a nation fighting in a region of conflict.  The term for non-uniformed soldiers in a war zone in civilian clothing is "spy", and spies are NOT covered by the geneva convention.

The Taliban being held in Cuba are NOT enemy soldiers.  They were NOT fighting for Afganistan.  They were fighting for their own organization (NOT a government) from bases IN Afganistan.  That is a very large difference.

The AL-Queda being held were *NOT* fighting for THEIR country.  Last time I looked, Osama is from Saudi Arabia.  That does NOT make Afganistan his country.  I am not so ignorant as to place ANYBODY from the Middle East, nor anybody who is Islamic as being from the same country.

Military Tribunal courts are a long held fact, and is perfectly legal.  It was done after WWII in Germany and Japan.  It was also done in the US by President Roosevelt against German spies captured here in the US.

Head shaved...  did they have head lice when they were captured?  COnsidering how they were living and the conditions they were in, I would not be surprised if this was done for hygene resons.

Tortured to death by US forces?  Other then propaganda, I have never heard of this.  As a former US Marine, if I was ever ordered to do anything like that, I would have refused and reported whoever ordered me to do that to higher authority.  I do not deny that this may have happened, but as in any conflict, some individuals get out of control.  But you talk about 2 prisoners tortured, and Afganistan has a long history of brutal torture against prisoners they take.  Ask the Brittish and Soviets about that.

POWs showed on TV...  that is not illegal nessicarily.  In fact, showing them can be considered as following the Geneva convention as to disclosure of POWs.  It is illegal to single out individual prisoners or individuals.  Showing a group of prisoners is perfectly legal.  Concentrating on one and having him give statements is illegal.

And here is a question:  Is Johnny Walker a POW?  He was an American Citizen, working as a part of a terrorist organization, operating in Afganistan.  He was *NOT* a part of the Afgan army.

And as I am writing this, it is 2 years ago today that the Towers fell.  So unless you know of combatants captured BEFORE 11 September 2001, none are being held for "over 2 years", unless you are talking about Zacharis Musoui.

Quoting:
For one, those are not POW's, they are war criminals.
End Quote

This opening line pretty much sums it up.
In my country, along with all other 'civilised' countries, we have rule of law.  This means that these men are innocent until proved guilty in a fair trial.
If these men are accused of crimes, they should be tried in a civil court.

Quoting:
POW's are defined as uniform soldiers of a nation fighting in a region of conflict.  The term for non-uniformed soldiers in a war zone in civilian clothing is "spy", and spies are NOT covered by the geneva convention.
End Quote

These soldiers were wearing the uniform appropriate to the region, the Geneva convention allows for this.

Quoting:
Military Tribunal courts are a long held fact, and is perfectly legal.  It was done after WWII in Germany and Japan.  It was also done in the US by President Roosevelt against German spies captured here in the US.
End Quote

The tribunals you refer to differ in one important fact.  They were held in public.
Closed trials with a judge who is bound to obey the orders of the Commander in chief is NOT a fair trial.  This is, in fact, the very reason these prisoners are being held in Cuba and not the US.  Even US law does not allow the treatment they are recieving.

Quoting:
Tortured to death by US forces?  Other then propaganda, I have never heard of this.  As a former US Marine, if I was ever ordered to do anything like that, I would have refused and reported whoever ordered me to do that to higher authority.  I do not deny that this may have happened, but as in any conflict, some individuals get out of control.  But you talk about 2 prisoners tortured, and Afganistan has a long history of brutal torture against prisoners they take.  Ask the Brittish and Soviets about that.
End Quote

In Afghanistan, 2 POWs died after interrogation and the (US) coroner recorded a verdict of homicide.
This was reported in the UK by the BBC.

Quoting:
And as I am writing this, it is 2 years ago today that the Towers fell.
End Quote

My mistake!

Quoting:

This opening line pretty much sums it up.
In my country, along with all other 'civilised' countries, we have rule of law.  This means that these men are innocent until proved guilty in a fair trial.
End Quote

And once again, the prisoners being held are NOT POWs.  They were NOT fighting for the nation of Afganistan.  They were not part of the Afgan army nor any branch of it's armed forces.  Such organizations are NOT covered by the Geneva convention.  By definition, they are treated by international convention as spies.  And spies have no rights under Geneva nor any other convention.

And if I remember right, the UK has done similar detentions against members of the IRA.  Being a member of the Provisional Wing can get you arrested, wether you have comitted a crime or not, membership is enough for arrest and detainment.  I seem to remember that is part of why Bobby Sands killed himself in a hunger strike in the 1980's.

Quoting:
If these men are accused of crimes, they should be tried in a civil court.
End Quote

Why?  They are not being held for civil crimes.  They are being held for being illegal combatants and members of a terrorist organization.

Civil court is not designed to handle this type of subject.  Since they were not in the US, US law does not apply.  What we are going off of is international law.  According to such law, these people are "spies", and have no rights other then what the imprisoning country chooses to give them.

Spies have no rights.  It would be legal to sumarrily execute them if we wished.  In the USSR, North Korea, China, Iraq, and many other countries that happened (and still happens) all the time.  I simply do not understand why all the fuss about "rights", when by international law, they have none to start with.  That they are being treated humanely (and fed all the Fruit Loops they want), we are already going beyond what is required of us.

Even the Red Cross and Red Crescent has admitted that we are treating them humanely.

Quoting:
These soldiers were wearing the uniform appropriate to the region, the Geneva convention allows for this.
End Quote

Actually, they were NOT soldiers.  They were non-national combatants, and were NOT soldiers of the Afgan army.  And the Geneva Convention does not cover them.  If they were Afgan Army members who were in such attire for reasons other then infiltration or hiding in civilian areas (such as not enough uniforms), they would be covered.  If they were Afgan soldiers useing civilian clothes to infiltrate or to hide, they are considered spies.

Quoting:

The tribunals you refer to differ in one important fact.  They were held in public.
Closed trials with a judge who is bound to obey the orders of the Commander in chief is NOT a fair trial.  This is, in fact, the very reason these prisoners are being held in Cuba and not the US.  Even US law does not allow the treatment they are recieving.
End Quote

Well, since we have not had any tribunals yet at all, this is largely a mute point in my view.  The US Government has yet to even decide how they will continue with them.  Until some decision is reached, this should probably he held back on.  For all we know, they may end up being turned over to the Haige, or Saudi Arabia, or even back to Afganistan.

And a military court is not held to obey the orders of the Commander In Chief.  Having been a member of the Military, I can tell you that they are sworn to uphold the law.  If you look, many times US military courts have gone AGAINST what higher commanders wanted.  A Military court is no different.  Otherwise, everybody so tried would be found guilty every time.  Also said military court would be held Unconstitutional here in the US, and that has not happened.

A bit of history here on US Military Courts.  In the 1800's, a US Navy Ship had a mutiny.  During the trial, the sailors complained that their main cause was poor and insuficient rations.  Other then the 2 ringleaders, the rest of the crew was exonerated, and laws went into effect (enacted by Congress) to regulate the minimum ration for members of the US Navy.  That is why in the US armed services, the Navy and Marines are served Butter in mess halls, while the Army and Air Force eat margarine.  This is because Congress so ordered it.  If the Court back then did what the Navy wanted, all of the crew would have been executed for mutiny.  But they did what was LEGAL, not what the higher authority WANTED.

Quoting:

In Afghanistan, 2 POWs died after interrogation and the (US) coroner recorded a verdict of homicide.
This was reported in the UK by the BBC.
End Quote

Well, that is once again not saying much.  "Homocide" simply means that the person was killed by another person.  Here in the US, a criminal shot and killed by a police officer is still classified as a "Homocide".  Even if the criminal shot and wounded the police officer first, it is STILL a "Homocide".  Without knowing any other details, it is hard for me to comment on this any further.

I have to admit, I know a lot more about these subjects then most common people.  As a former Marine, we are well trained in the behaviors under the Geneva Convention.  We also very strictly adhere to those rules.  In addition to being an amature historian and political scientist, I see much deeper into the issues then what is on the surface.

In short, members of the Taliban are not being held in Cuba.  Even those in civilian clothes, they are considered "Soldiers" because they were fighting for the government of Afganistan at the time.  It is only members of Al-Queda that are being held.  They were NOT part of the Afgan army at any time.

And what else do we do with them now?  Simply release them?  Return them to their home countries?  Return them to Afganistan?  Those being held are now pariahs, and if any of those are done, they will more then likely be bodies in the dirt in short order.  Holding them till trial is the most humane thing I can think of.

As for the wrong date, that is not a big deal.  :)  We all make mistakes, and no harm was done.