I wonder how Americans would feel if their soldiers were kept like the Al Qaeda POW's

[Roland]

Mike:

"The real security concern is the rather huge stocks of weapons piled up by the Taleban and al Qaeda for their purposes, which will be accessible once the borders return to their traditional state of total porosity."

That is a potential problem, but so is the potential for say the ISI returning to (if it ever abandoned) its merry way of stuffing terrorists for kashmir, who are of course interlinked with all kinds of groups....

What I wonder: Porosity - I doubt it is so much different now, apart from the Pakistanis looking important; huge stocks - what of that is useful for terrorists; and accessibility - will inevitably depend on the Karsai government grip to power....

[Roland]

Re: More proof that Chrissie acts real dumb...

Chrissiemausi!

"I often find it interseting that you euros dislike Bush so strongly, what is this based on?"

He's dumb as ****. But dislike... I find him highly amusing, but can't listen to his drivel for more than a minute.

"he's republican, he must be bad"

I couldn't care less about that. Democrats are just Republicans with a donkey. Or are Reps Dems with an Elephant ? Well, doesn't matter.

"No, I said that."

Your reading comprehension problem is hurting you again.

"And I'm also aware who this fellow was"

I thought so. You are an intelligent and knowledgable person when you do not act as a total dumbass.

"Can you explain... how these individuals could possibly be innocent?"

Innocent of what ? Bring a charge, first. If they are guilty, convict them. It's Rule of Law and Court of Law - not Rule of Chris and Court of Chris.

"Nice try sonny, but as usual, your an amature."

Mine an amature. You king of Bathroom plumbing ? LOL.

"I couldn't understand why you wrote this the first time, and it still doesn't make sense."

Giving in to terrorists by renouncing our principles is defeat. You give in on first hit. Therefore, defeatist. Double standards, handing propaganda ammunition to the enemy is another one of your "strengths".

"Unlike you and a lot of others, I said how this would go from the begining, and it hasd gone this way."

Unlike me, hmm ? Ok, Mr reading comprehension problem. Show me where I said the actually chosen strategy would fail. And considering your reading comprehension problem, do not use my arguments against a full scale ground invasion - that's a completely different issue. Getting hooked up in a military nightmare and lighting a bonfire under a geopolitical powderkeg for no reason would have been extremely dumb - and I stick to that view.

"Why don't you tell us how this war has no chance of being won again?"

If you talk about Afghansitan and want to dig it up, as one example, I talked to Derek (or DanS) about the tribal frictions in the Taliban, about the potential to bribe off local commanders as the Taliban did when they captured Masar-i-Sharif from Dostom, etc etc.... again, I said it's not a sunday walk, and I said don't try to occupy the whole country with US (or western) troops. But when you want to act dumb, you can act incredibly dumb. Congratulation.

"I said from the start we would win."

Maybe you should learn to differentiate between winning a battle, winning a war and winning the peace.

"I still think your a jack-ass, BTW."

Well, that's the difference. I think you're just acting as a jackass.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Roland
Mike:

"The real security concern is the rather huge stocks of weapons piled up by the Taleban and al Qaeda for their purposes, which will be accessible once the borders return to their traditional state of total porosity."

That is a potential problem, but so is the potential for say the ISI returning to (if it ever abandoned) its merry way of stuffing terrorists for kashmir, who are of course interlinked with all kinds of groups....

What I wonder: Porosity - I doubt it is so much different now, apart from the Pakistanis looking important; huge stocks - what of that is useful for terrorists; and accessibility - will inevitably depend on the Karsai government grip to power....

Winter + AC-130 Spectres + MH-53J Pave Low + FLIR equipped drones is what I'm counting on as the reduction in border porosity. In those areas where we know al Qaeda is likely to try to boogie, it's dangerous to move, especially this time of year. I don't count on the Pakistanis for anything but luck - they're army isn't the best, putting it mildly, and they don't have near the strength available to manage that border, even if they had the will.

Most of the weapons stocks aren't particularly useful for terrorists, but they are useful for destabilizing the country, if not taking major portions of it into Somaliaesque anarchy. Terrorists to be effective on a large scale need safe havens. My preference is we do this job right, and don't have to come back in the same role in the future.

The Karsai government (or any Afghan government) will only have tenuous control of the country - most everything depends on the friendliness, apathy, or antipathy of the hundreds of tribal and village leaders - modern, functional central government in that part of the world is mostly illusory.

[Chris 62]

Still no answer from clueless Joe Rollie...

Originally posted by Roland
He's dumb as ****. But dislike... I find him highly amusing, but can't listen to his drivel for more than a minute.

Interesting , that you call him dumb, yet he is smart enough to run major corporations and get himself elected president.

Yet, in your opinion, he's a dumb as ****.

You still can't give a reason, only the same opinion.

Do you have a real reason?

I couldn't care less about that. Democrats are just Republicans with a donkey. Or are Reps Dems with an Elephant ? Well, doesn't matter.

I'm sure your completley indifferent to the whole matter, so that can only mean it's the fact that they are Americans that irks you.

Your reading comprehension problem is hurting you again.

Actually, your convaluted attempts to extrapolate a thesis based on the thinest of evidence is at fault, but it hardly surprizes me.

I thought so. You are an intelligent and knowledgable person when you do not act as a total dumbass.

What a backhanded compliment, but I'll return the favor:
You seem fairly knowledgeable when you don't cloud your judgement with minutia, and cloud your reason from seeing common sense.

Innocent of what ? Bring a charge, first. If they are guilty, convict them. It's Rule of Law and Court of Law - not Rule of Chris and Court of Chris.

Or a court of Roland or a law code of Roland.

Mine an amature. You king of Bathroom plumbing ?

Don't know a thing about it, never did.

Giving in to terrorists by renouncing our principles is defeat.

Your attempting to place your morality on me, that was an error from the first, I'm far more pragmatic, when I see an enemy, I kill him if he tries to kill me, I don't try to worry about his motivations, he has already shown me that my ways mean nothing to him, and that he would attempt to use my own law against me.
Only naieve idealists would fail to see this.

You give in on first hit. Therefore, defeatist.

In just recent terms, let's see...WTC in early 90s, Suadi buildings, African embassies, USS Cole, and now WTC II, all by these fellows, hardly "first hit".

Double standards, handing propaganda ammunition to the enemy is another one of your "strengths".

How little you understand them
Every time you go on about the rule of law, they laugh, it is another victory for them.
Every speach made calling for "humane" treatment (And I knew it was from the first, before I posted, we always behave according to treaty, but the same reactionary fools here still had to question, because they learn nothing and remain clueless) is another victory for them, they scoff at your morals, to them it is weakness, but you don't see it.

Unlike me, hmm ? Ok, Mr reading comprehension problem. Show me where I said the actually chosen strategy would fail. And considering your reading comprehension problem, do not use my arguments against a full scale ground invasion - that's a completely different issue. Getting hooked up in a military nightmare and lighting a bonfire under a geopolitical powderkeg for no reason would have been extremely dumb - and I stick to that view.

Nice attempt at weasaling out, but it avails you not.
To many of you have no concept of military operations, or the effectivness of direct action, you bury yourselves in rules and procedures adnausium till nothing gets done, as thus defeat your own purpose.

If you talk about Afghansitan and want to dig it up, as one example, I talked to Derek (or DanS) about the tribal frictions in the Taliban, about the potential to bribe off local commanders as the Taliban did when they captured Masar-i-Sharif from Dostom, etc etc.... again, I said it's not a sunday walk, and I said don't try to occupy the whole country with US (or western) troops. But when you want to act dumb, you can act incredibly dumb. Congratulation.

Ha Ha, yet another attempt to escape the hook, but you can't, can you?

Maybe you should learn to differentiate between winning a battle, winning a war and winning the peace.

Knowing your objective is the key to battle.
That objective was to destroy the El-Quida network in Afghanistan, and end Taliban rule there.
Mission accomplished on both counts.
The next phase is to continue to pressure all terror states.

Well, that's the difference. I think you're just acting as a jackass.

No Roland, you don't agree with direct action, your to interested in the rule of law for that.

Like most people in your vocation, you have forgotten the true purpose of law is justice, to punish the guilty and protect the innocent, it's not the process that matters, it's the results that are important, and that is lost!
Current leagal codes in the USA favor the guilty so heavily that almost anyone can get away with anything if they have enough money.
Look at the OJ case, they had motive, DNA evidence, the accused had no aliby, yet he walked.

This won't happen with these clowns.

[Immortal Wombat]

Re: Still no answer from clueless Joe Rollie...

Originally posted by Chris 62
Interesting , that you call him dumb, yet he is smart enough to run major corporations and get himself elected president.

Yet, in your opinion, he's a dumb as ****.

You still can't give a reason, only the same opinion.

Do you have a real reason?

I'd find a whole site of similar quotes, but off the top of my head:

Bushism
More and more of our imports are coming from abroad.

Genius that man.

[DinoDoc]

Re: Re: Still no answer from clueless Joe Rollie...

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Genius that man.

Far be it from me to defend any politician, but are funny quotes a fair basis to judge intelligence by?

[TCO]

I really don't have the time to read through all this to sift out the relevant nuggets of info. Just wondered:

Is there any serious prisoner abuse that's occurred? (What?) Or is this just a chance to troll and get huffy/puffy?

FYI: My USNA team-mate was a POW in Iraq. He was tortured (rape, beatings, etc.) during captivity. I really doubt that our prisoners are being treated this way--and I wonder if those who are all huffy/puffy would be up in arms about US troops being mistreated--or if this is just one more chance to make snide snipes at the big guy on the block (USA).

[Immortal Wombat]

Perhaps not, but it takes a special kind of politician to be quite so ineloquant.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by GP
Is there any serious prisoner abuse that's occurred? (What?) Or is this just a chance to troll and get huffy/puffy?

It was a no go for the trolls from the start, Navy.
The "charges" were a joke, as the red cross had to admit.

Just another knee-jerk anti-USA thread, same as always.

FYI: My USNA team-mate was a POW in Iraq. He was tortured (rape, beatings, etc.) during captivity. I really doubt that our prisoners are being treated this way--and I wonder if those who are all huffy/puffy would be up in arms about US troops being mistreated--or if this is just one more chance to make snide snipes at the big guy on the block (USA).

Some might be concerned, but I would bet you would get a lot of "he/she deserved it" comments.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Looks just like the way the North Vietnamese and North Koreans treated your airmen. I now assume you thought that was okay.

Are you for real, dude?* Their is no evidence that our treatment of Taliban has involved the brutal torture that Saijan, McCain andDenton endured.


*Don't you ever feel like having an intelligent conversation instead of trolling? Just curious...

[Roland]

Mike:

"Winter + AC-130 Spectres + MH-53J Pave Low + FLIR equipped drones is what I'm counting on as the reduction in border porosity."

Well depends on what you want to transport. Some men with light arms, sure, but as you say: "Most of the weapons stocks aren't particularly useful for terrorists".

"but they are useful for destabilizing the country"

True, but disarmament is illusionary anyway.

"most everything depends on the friendliness, apathy, or antipathy of the hundreds of tribal and village leaders"

Sounds exactly like the internal workings of our conservative party.

GP:

Hey, where have you been ?

"Is there any serious prisoner abuse that's occurred?"

No evidence for it. It was a silly PR move to show those fotos from the arrival, but the (maybe exaggerated) safety precautions for the flight can't be called abuse. And of course it's a troll, just look what Horsie had to say when I asked twice what exactly he complains about: nil. The only point one could have is the classic sense deprivation, but again, no sign this is going on on the base.

Now, from the leftist aussie troll to the rightist yankee troll:

"Do you have a real reason?"

For dubya ? I have no sympathy for daddy's kid being made President by daddy's friends. He has nothing to show on his own. His rhetoric is that of a ******. He has no political agenda apart from doing some owed favours.

"What a backhanded compliment"

I mean it.

"Or a court of Roland or a law code of Roland."

Try something better than the "Iz not! You are!".

"...that he would attempt to use my own law against me."

The law is the same for all. But if you want to be pragmatic, fine. From the pragmatist angle, what you suggest is extremely dumb.

"How little you understand them. Every time you go on about the rule of law, they laugh, it is another victory for them."

Who is "them" ? And departing from the rule of law is their victory. I don't care about a laughing Islamist.

"they scoff at your morals, to them it is weakness, but you don't see it."

Weakness ? Fine. If it were so, I wouldn't care. I won't let ethics being dictated by terrorists. But it isn't in the first place.

To anyone in the islamic world who hasn't their heads full of islamist ****, we need to show that we stick to the rules we propagate. For the islamists - when we react like you want, we show them they can dictate the agenda. It's an old terrorist game - push the state ever further, try to escalate. You want to go into the trap with flying flags. You do away with the rules, you want a war without bounds? Fine. But then don't complain when ever more see terrorism as a legitimate weapon against the US or the West in general.

"Nice attempt at weasaling out, but it avails you not."

Typical Chris. Make a false claim, with a lot of huffin' and puffin', and attack the correction with more hot air. What are you going to make up next ? That I've been a cheerleader for the "new economy" ?

Now, if I understand the forum hickup consequences correctly, some of those post sept 11 threads should be archived and come back online. I suggest we take a look then.

"No Roland, you don't agree with direct action, your to interested in the rule of law for that."

Which is why I think the right to self defense perfectly covers US action in Afghanistan ? Yeah Chris. Sure.

"Current leagal codes in the USA favor the guilty so heavily that almost anyone can get away with anything if they have enough money."

US law has a tendency to turn trials into a farce, but when the stakes are high enough and your prosecutors and judges pull themselves together, they can do a proper trial. See WTC attack 1.

[DanS]

..

If nothing else, Roland has been consistent.

He recognized the US right to self defense, including Bush's more broadly defined war on terrorism. Thought military action in Afghanistan would be ineffective. Has generally thought that the US action wrt its detainees was legally defensible.

Roland is a skeptic on military action, especially American military action, but he is no lefty handwringer. I can't tell whether his skepticism is from his military service, reasoned pacificism (no principled pacificism that I have detected), or a combination of both. But he most often suggests inaction, which has been seen as a weakness by some here.

edit: I went on to do a more complete psychoanalysis of Roland (), but on second thought don't think it's fair to do it in this thread...

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Roland
Now, from the leftist aussie troll to the rightist yankee troll:

Hardly, lest i remind you who fired the first volly.

For dubya ? I have no sympathy for daddy's kid being made President by daddy's friends. He has nothing to show on his own. His rhetoric is that of a ******. He has no political agenda apart from doing some owed favours.

I would have to search long and hard for a larger mis-interpretaion of Bush then this.
The people of the USA elect officals, not cronies.
Many in this country had enough of the Clinton era and wanted change, many wanted more of the same, so a very close election ensued.
His agenda has been simple, lower taxes to help people keep more of the money they earn, and to reduce government size and spending (this is almost impossible in a two party system where the majority party, the democrats, don't agree).
The war on terrorism was thrust upon him, and his policy has been direct and uncompromising, hardly rhetoric.

I mean it.

So did I.

Try something better than the "Iz not! You are!".

Not needed, since it refutes your line of argument 100%

The law is the same for all. But if you want to be pragmatic, fine. From the pragmatist angle, what you suggest is extremely dumb.

In your opinion.

Who is "them" ? And departing from the rule of law is their victory. I don't care about a laughing Islamist.

As far as world opinion goes, it's the name of the game.
The USA's fair wheather allies are always looking for a way out, and doing what is right is far more important then worring about what Paris, Berlin, or anywhere else thinks of it.

Weakness ? Fine. If it were so, I wouldn't care. I won't let ethics being dictated by terrorists. But it isn't in the first place.

In all out war (and this, make no mistake, this is them or us). ethics often must be put aside or the war may be lost.
Allied bombing in WWII was morally unethical, yet a key ingrediant to victory. War is a dirty buisness, trying to fight it by a rule book when the other guy refuses will surely lead to defeat (Just look at Vietnam for an example of trying to fight by rules and worring about foriegn (non-USA) opinion is a recipe for disaster).

To anyone in the islamic world who hasn't their heads full of islamist ****, we need to show that we stick to the rules we propagate.

Wasted effort, a fanatic won't listen.

For the islamists - when we react like you want, we show them they can dictate the agenda.

Hardly.
We show them their is a terrible price to pay for their behavior, and that ultimatly, they will be defeated and their cause will end in failure.

It's an old terrorist game - push the state ever further, try to escalate. You want to go into the trap with flying flags.

Your speaking of insurgency, and let me tell you, you have this dead wrong. The last thirty years or so, people have gotten it into their heads that these little gurilla wars are unwinable by larger forces, simply not the case. Outside agencies must sustain the smaller side, this is the true lesson, this supply conduit must be cut.

You do away with the rules, you want a war without bounds? Fine. But then don't complain when ever more see terrorism as a legitimate weapon against the US or the West in general.

Your living in a fool's paradise.
They will do whatever they can, wherever they can, right now.
It isn't going to escalate, it's already reached maximum level.

Typical Chris. Make a false claim, with a lot of huffin' and puffin', and attack the correction with more hot air. What are you going to make up next ? That I've been a cheerleader for the "new economy" ?

Heard it all before.

Now, if I understand the forum hickup consequences correctly, some of those post sept 11 threads should be archived and come back online. I suggest we take a look then.

Go right ahead, as if i had something to fear from that.

Which is why I think the right to self defense perfectly covers US action in Afghanistan ? Yeah Chris. Sure.

Is that where the enemy is?
Is the governing body shielding that enemy?
You know perfectly weel USA action was both correct and justified.

US law has a tendency to turn trials into a farce, but when the stakes are high enough and your prosecutors and judges pull themselves together, they can do a proper trial. See WTC attack 1.

A matter of scope.
The circus has already begun, the Walker family is claiming that their son was denied a lawyer, and wouldn't hurt a fly.
At least six attorneys have rushed to take the case.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
And these self-proclaimed bad boys are not POWs to anyone who counts -

They are POWs to everybody who knows about International Law if that counts.

For the simple reason they got caught in an international conflict. If they get caught in an international conflict, they are, by International Law, either POWs or Civilians. There is no third status. Even if they were proven war criminals -which they aren´t, only suspects- they would still be POWs. You all -except Horse- contribute to the cliche of Americans neither knowing nor caring about International Law.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
For the simple reason they got caught in an international conflict.

*Pssst* You might try reading the thread before making such a presumptuous statement.