Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 45
  1. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #1  
    Flip Flop!! Flip Flop!!! I voted for the war before I vetoed it!

    Source: CBS News

    Senate Approves $50B More For Wars

    WASHINGTON, Oct. 7, 2005

    CBS/AP) The Senate on Friday approved giving President Bush $50 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and U.S. military efforts against terrorism, money that would push total spending for the operations beyond $350 billion.

    In a 97-0 vote, the GOP-controlled Senate signed off on the money as part of a $445 billion military spending bill for the budget year that began Oct. 1.

    But CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss reports the bill also includes a provision, adopted by an overwhelming vote, to prevent abuse of detainees and sets standards for the taking and interrogation of prisoners in Iraq, Guantanamo or anywhere else.

    The White House insists that is none of Congress' business and threatens to veto the entire spending bill if that stays in after negotiations with the House.

    -snip-
    Who the hell does he think he is, a dictator?(Look at bold)
  2. #2  
    An unattributed inflammatory quote in a CBS article. Bill Burkett must have got a new job.

    Those senators are going to look mighty foolish if/when a subway train blows up in NYC.
  3. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Flip Flop!! Flip Flop!!! I voted for the war before I vetoed it!



    Who the hell does he think he is, a dictator?(Look at bold)
    Which branch of government has oversight over the military?
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Which branch of government has oversight over the military?
    LOL, yeah but who appropriates the money for the military.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    An unattributed inflammatory quote in a CBS article. Bill Burkett must have got a new job.

    Those senators are going to look mighty foolish if/when a subway train blows up in NYC.
    It's a matter of living up to our own expecations of ourselves and our country, particularly in it's influence over the rest of the world.
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    It's a matter of living up to our own expecations of ourselves and our country, particularly in it's influence over the rest of the world.
    It's a matter of national survival, and the senate just turned their head away from the ugly business at hand.

    The "Rules" have been well established for a long time. Those rules were written for a game far different than the one we're playing now, and the stakes have never been higher.

    One of the best tools an interrogator has is a state of mind referred to as "capture shock". Being taken, by force, is very traumatic for all but the most hardened Jihadi. How much comfort do you think they get from positively KNOWING that they may be a bit uncomfortable, but they'll never be harmed while in US custody? I have a friend that spent hundreds of hours "in the booth" with hardcore Jihadis outside of Fallujah last November. Many just smirked at him and remained silent because of our public flaggelation over Abu Ghraib. They knew our rules of interrogation as well as our guys.

    What I would have preferred to see was a public DOD directive...not political grandstanding by the "greatest legislative body in the world". What a demonstration of weakness.
  7. #7  
    I vote this thread "stupid thread of the day".

    nrg, why don't you throw in "President Bush hates blacks, latinos, muslims, etc"?
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    It's a matter of national survival, and the senate just turned their head away from the ugly business at hand.

    The "Rules" have been well established for a long time. Those rules were written for a game far different than the one we're playing now, and the stakes have never been higher.

    One of the best tools an interrogator has is a state of mind referred to as "capture shock". Being taken, by force, is very traumatic for all but the most hardened Jihadi. How much comfort do you think they get from positively KNOWING that they may be a bit uncomfortable, but they'll never be harmed while in US custody? I have a friend that spent hundreds of hours "in the booth" with hardcore Jihadis outside of Fallujah last November. Many just smirked at him and remained silent because of our public flaggelation over Abu Ghraib. They knew our rules of interrogation as well as our guys.

    What I would have preferred to see was a public DOD directive...not political grandstanding by the "greatest legislative body in the world". What a demonstration of weakness.
    Yea, this is so much more a threat than the axis powers in the 40's.

    Maybe we should intern all muslim americans?

    The senate legislation has logic and purpose behind it. I'm sorry you're so caught up in the great "threat" that you can't see that.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Flip Flop!! Flip Flop!!! I voted for the war before I vetoed it!



    Who the hell does he think he is, a dictator?(Look at bold)
    Hey NRG.....

    I don't believe the President thinks he is a "dictator". I believe he thinks he is doing a job that the American terrorist loving Democrats refuse to do.

    You obviously titled your thread after what Al Gore said recently. Is Al Gore your HERO?

    The supposed torture at Abugrave, you may be refering to, is nothing compared to what the non-humans did to some Americans over there.

    Chuck
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    Hey NRG.....

    I don't believe the President thinks he is a "dictator". I believe he thinks he is doing a job that the American terrorist loving Democrats refuse to do.

    You obviously titled your thread after what Al Gore said recently. Is Al Gore your HERO?

    The supposed torture at Abugrave, you may be refering to, is nothing compared to what the non-humans did to some Americans over there.

    Chuck


    "non-humans"? Do you even know to whom you're referring? And for your future reference, it's "Abu Ghraib".
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yea, this is so much more a threat than the axis powers in the 40's.

    Maybe we should intern all muslim americans?

    The senate legislation has logic and purpose behind it. I'm sorry you're so caught up in the great "threat" that you can't see that.
    Jeez! I wasn't aware that the Axis powers in WWII had launched several attacks on American soil. I had NO IDEA that 60 years ago WMD were available to non-state actors. Imagine my shock to learn that all of the screeching Jihadi mullahs I've seen really don't mean what they say.

    What do you think the "logic and purpose" was behind this grandstanding play? Do you really think ANYONE in the radical muslim world will see this as yet another sign of weakness?

    And, in keeping with my policy of answering your questions, regardless of how ridiculous they are, no, I don't think we sould intern muslim Americans.

    Everytime I worry that the Repubs may be screwed in 06 and 08 I read one of your posts and realize that all will be OK.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Jeez! I wasn't aware that the Axis powers in WWII had launched several attacks on American soil. I had NO IDEA that 60 years ago WMD were available to non-state actors. Imagine my shock to learn that all of the screeching Jihadi mullahs I've seen really don't mean what they say.

    What do you think the "logic and purpose" was behind this grandstanding play? Do you really think ANYONE in the radical muslim world will see this as yet another sign of weakness?

    And, in keeping with my policy of answering your questions, regardless of how ridiculous they are, no, I don't think we sould intern muslim Americans.

    Everytime I worry that the Repubs may be screwed in 06 and 08 I read one of your posts and realize that all will be OK.

    And everytime a radical muslim read your posts, they know they'll have an easier time molding new members to their cause.

    What happens everytime evidence of this torture/abuse is released to the world's view?

    "It is indispensable to our success in this war that our servicemen and women know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to their country they are never expected to forget that they are Americans, the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should govern their own affairs and their relations with others -- even our enemies." Senator John McCain
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yea, this is so much more a threat than the axis powers in the 40's.

    Maybe we should intern all muslim americans?

    The senate legislation has logic and purpose behind it. I'm sorry you're so caught up in the great "threat" that you can't see that.
    Thomas I agree....there have been threats just as big as we are facing now...and that is the point. The threat we are facing now is just as big as axis powers in the 40's. But with some major differences. For example, we know that Berlin is the Capital of Germany. We knew if we take Berlin, we win the war. Where is the capital of AQ? Is it even important? If so, how do we find out?

    If someone knew where OBL was or what city was planned for a nuke attack and he also knew that if they know we cannot even play loud music because Americans would cry foul and Cruel and Unusual Punishment....how much incentive would they have to talk?

    I agree that there needs to limits established, but cries from the Left I feel have gone to the extremes of other end of the spectrum.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas


    "non-humans"? Do you even know to whom you're referring? And for your future reference, it's "Abu Ghraib".
    The non-human reference to "over there" is Iraq and Afganistan. Not Abu Ghraib.

    I should have been clear on the geographical location to my non-human reference.

    Oh, and thanks for the correct spelling of Abu Ghraib....
    Chuck
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Thomas I agree....there have been threats just as big as we are facing now...and that is the point. The threat we are facing now is just as big as axis powers in the 40's. But with some major differences. For example, we know that Berlin is the Capital of Germany. We knew if we take Berlin, we win the war. Where is the capital of AQ? Is it even important? If so, how do we find out?

    If someone knew where OBL was or what city was planned for a nuke attack and he also knew that if they know we cannot even play loud music because Americans would cry foul and Cruel and Unusual Punishment....how much incentive would they have to talk?

    I agree that there needs to limits established, but cries from the Left I feel have gone to the extremes of other end of the spectrum.
    That's why we use intelligence, not torture. And reminder, Iraq had nothing to do with AQ.
  16. #16  
    Three different discussions going here:

    Q1. How should we treat the enemey?
    Q2. Who determines how we treat the enemy?
    Q3. How (do) we communicate how we treat the enemy?

    A1. We should love them, yet restrain them from doing further harm using a force that equals {their determination + 1}
    A2. That is the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch (hence POTUS is dubbed "Commander in Chief")
    A3. Only in our actions should the enemy become aware of the extent our resolve
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    The non-human reference to "over there" is Iraq and Afganistan. Not Abu Ghraib.

    I should have been clear on the geographical location to my non-human reference.

    Oh, and thanks for the correct spelling of Abu Ghraib....
    Chuck
    Ok, so which people in those geographic locations are you referring to as "non-human"?
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    And everytime a radical muslim read your posts, they know they'll have an easier time molding new members to their cause.

    What happens everytime evidence of this torture/abuse is released to the world's view?

    "It is indispensable to our success in this war that our servicemen and women know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to their country they are never expected to forget that they are Americans, the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should govern their own affairs and their relations with others -- even our enemies." Senator John McCain
    Again you ask questions, but won't answer them. A remarkable display of intellectual dishonesty. Consistent, if nothing else.

    McCain really must think someone other than the media pays attention to what he says. The servicemen KNOW the rules. They have been long established. People have broken them. People are in jail. I don't understand what, other than scoring political points in some obscure system only he understands, he thinks he has accomplished by doing this.

    Someone earlier mentioned that the Executive branch "owns" the military, but the legislative appropriates the funds. The legislative branch also writes the laws that governs the military.
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    That's why we use intelligence, not torture.
    As we all know intel is simply someone's best guess from incomplete data. A great tool, but it appears that you feel it is reliable enough to be the ONLY tool available to secure our nation against enemy threats.

    The second point is a matter of diffinition. For example I would not complain about playing loud music for extended periods of time to secure information about Seattle being nuked. But I would be concerned if we were shoving bambo splitters up their fingernails, tying their teeth to the back of a jeep and dragging them until their teeth were pulled out, or making them watch as their wives and daughters were raped by appointed rapists. This is not a yes or no answer but defining and enforcing the range of the spectrum.
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Ok, so which people in those geographic locations are you referring to as "non-human"?
    The answer should be obvious. Since it is not, the non-humans would be the "Terrorists" in Iraq and Afganistan.

    Am I being politically incorrect according to the Democrat thought manual?

    Chuck
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions