ParanoiA

And that's kind of what I mean. It's difficult to see the good guys and bad guys in real life. Usually they're both a little of both. Like you said, self serving. Same with the current middle east conflict and America. We're all serving our own interests. That's why I don't understand why the middle east gets excuses manufactured for them and America isn't allowed any excuses. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that when everyone is serving their own interests, they despise the more successful at it? Kind of like how rich people are not trusted and are despised by the masses...even though they're just looking out for their own interests - not targeting someone else's... Sorry, but I can't help but to see the class envy we experience between the rich, middle class and poor - on the global scale as well.

I agree on the whole persia thing actually. But there's nothing dignified about being a proud racist. That's more disgusting than the hollywood spin on 300. That said, I'm really sick of hollywood distorting the truth to make things supposedly more "interesting" or easier to follow who's wearing the white hat and who's wearing the black one. Wouldn't it be more interesting to tell the story as accurately as possible? And imagine the turmoil trying to figure out who's really right and wrong in a given conflict. Far more interesting - but not cookie cutter black and white like hollywood prefers...

Well, they're quite dignified in how they oppress women and endorse racism and hatred. The KKK has a lot to learn from them... Yes, let's hope they capture sailors and free them over and over again. Obviously no one is going to hurt them for kidnapping folks - just as long as they hand them back after a few days of humiliation and PR advancement. Honestly, I'm glad it ended without those sailors getting hurt - if it still ends that way. But I'm not glad Iran is given a free pass. This is a dangerous trend that will no doubt look great in the beginning but will lead to terrible consequences down the line. I'm afraid the democrats love this kind of approach and are going to echo an even more soft sided appeasement to terrorism and terror sponsor states. This will look and feel great to them. Then after a few years we'll reap what we've sewn. Terror recruitment will be as high as it is now if not higher as their cause gains legitimacy. With that will come more terrorism since we've shown no gumption for force or time, but rather laying down and "understanding" them. The grand pendulum swings from one end to the other...never resting in the middle.

I do actually. Frequently I switch sides for the sake of argument and poke things a little. I didn't get my opinion from the news. I didn't get it from Rush. I didn't get it from any prepackaged opinion piece, but rather by asking questions and reading. I don't think my country is the man in the white hat, believe me, we make plenty of mistakes and I don't agree with half of Bush's decisions. But the lengths at which we are blamed for everything from terrorism to hurricanes, I can't get to it. It's prejudice, to me, the international attitude on america. It has been for decades, long before terrorism reached us.

I agree. I don't like or agree with any of those things either. But they happened. Now what? Give up and say oh well, I guess they win? Can't trust anybody so just lie down and relax and let whatever happens happen? Yes they have a point of view. Shit man, they've got several great points in their POV in my mind. But none of it condones murdering masses of innocent people. Dude, I have good reasons to be pissed off at my government and corporate business, which I feel is selling america out and eventually lead to our demise - but I don't bomb people over it. You're not supposed to target innocent people - that line is supposed to be ugly and unacceptable by all with no excuses.

The CIA. The Military. GWB. Whatever the hell they want. It doesn't have to make sense to get support from anti-american factions all over the globe. They can just create a situation, like with the British hostages, and use nonsensical, disingenuous arguments to validate their actions. "We have evidence to support terrorist activities by the american military on the Iranian public" or whatever and use that to play up to the anti-american fad going around. If those were american military hostages, it would already be happening. They'd compare it to gitmo and make up a bunch of BS to stir the pot. And I doubt we'd be doing very well with it. International opinion matters, and right now we're being raked over the coals. That can only hurt us. That's all this really boils down to and is the only thing I agree with JohnB and Cuthber about. We need to make a show out of gitmo and broadcast our presence in Iraq on TV. Show the whole world exactly how it all looks. Our new process of dealing with combatants deserves to have to prove itself to us and the international community as well. Just my opinion...

Are you serious? You don't think it would be dumb to automatically blame the Saudis without investigation because the hijackers were of that nationality? And you're judging America about due process??? Wow...yeah I'm quite honored to be an American at this point, where we actually investigate and look for facts before accusing people and launching invasions, rather than jumping to conclusions based on shallow, thoughtless deductions of nationality. If that was Osama's plan, you fell for it hook, line and sinker. Good thing we actually look into these things... Yeah, this is another "insinuation" argument I guess. The courts did their job and governments talked, made agreements and you're off on another bash america tangent. I don't know anything about this, as I freely admit no judgment or knowledge of what happened in those courts. Do you? I prefer to make judgments based on facts and logic. Not insinuation and mindless distrust of those I'm prejudiced against.... And you still have not addressed 95% of my previous post.

If I'm reading that right, Hicks will spend 9 months in an Australian prison. 9 months for an enemy combatant. Most of his fellow combatants were killed, by the thousands. How is 9 months worse than death? The taliban protected and supported terrorists - directly the ones responsible for 9/11. That's material support. I have no issues with that. Why do you?

JohnB, I think you may be dellusional at this point. We don't offer habeas corpus on the battlefield. We don't do due process in warfare. That doesn't mean that all democratic countries that go to war are now hypocrites. War is force. Period. When you go to war, you're forcing your will onto someone else. There is NOTHING democratic about that. All of your arguments are built around the "technicality" that we haven't formally decalred war - which hasn't been done since WWII. So, apparently we've murdered thousands of people, presumed their guilt without ANY due process whatsoever in Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf war...etc. And - so have they. By your arguments, we were not given ANY due process during those conflicts - nor this current one. Everyone in this mess is NOT following due process of any kind. You only seem to be obsessed with those we didn't kill. You don't seem to care about the lack of due process concerning the dead ones. So if we killed them all would you feel better? And here, you're preaching to the choir. That's the argument I just used on you. You have presumed to know that Hicks is just a twit. I presume nothing - good or bad. Let the courts figure it out. They will presume him innocent, and then prove his guilt. What the hell do either one of us know in order to even have an opinion? You only know what you've been told from biased storytellers - you call them news media, I call them what they are. It's so sad that you still insist on judging people absent due process. The "state" presumes his innocence, because the burden of proof of guilt is on them. The rest of us shouldn't be judging by what the news says. We all do it anyway, but it's wrong. And that's why we have courts. Usually this is an argument used to defend someone against a lynching. I find it odd that no one sees the sense in protecting the opposite - assuming their innocence for reasons just as stupid as presuming their guilt. We haven't strayed at all. We still presume innocence until proven guilty. We still fight international conflicts with ZERO regard to the laws of our homeland. I don't know anyone who doesn't...

I feel sooooo much better now. Yes I see where the US military is adhering to basic human rights principles. Well you're missing the obvious. If you're at the point you're willing to torture somebody, then why would you provide any recourse for that somebody? They're obviously bad enough to have all of their basic human rights erased and abused, physically and mentally, for information. I say torture never should be signed into law in any form. Rather, be used discretely like it has in the past. The only thing you know about this dude is what the media has told you. The whole point of having courts where due process takes place is so people like you can't judge someone based on incorrect facts and biased storytelling. How can you be so sure he is just a twit?

Because it's not a war. It's a forced regime change with military order. We must actually see it differently or else we'd bomb the cities like we did in WWII in Germany and Japan. I'm not arguing for the entire array of civil rights, seeing as how we're not even in our own country in which to grant such rights, but our actions over there are how they see us. Period. Right or wrong, actions speak louder than words and we should go to some trouble to weed out any innocents and process as many guilty as possible. So you don't believe this "new" process should be obligated to prove itself - prove it is just and due process is present? I think the onus is on us... Well, but he makes a good point though. We're basically declaring groups as terrorists, which we feel strongly about and have evidence that we believe is quite sound. But other nations can do the same thing - nations like Iran, Syria, and etc. They could declare certain groups terrorists as well, and of course we'll be as suspicious of their evidence as they are of ours. They could use our own logic against us and at least fuel world opinion and support and wouldn't the anti-american crowd love that?? Yeah, what's up with the pacifism? I understand resisting the battle urge, but some of these folks just seem like masochists. Or, maybe they feel guilty about being in an advanced, modern country under a government that doesn't choose guns over food. Yeah, I don't believe any country treats enemy combatants like that. If we went that far and turned gitmo into a circus of lawyers and media, they'd complain that we're making a mockery of ourselves and complain about bringing our american laws to foreign soil and blah blah blah... We need to process those people and act like we give a damn with a ton of camera work. If we're going to fight against propaganda, let's use our assets, our advantage...technology. That ought to be a fight we can win. Look at the sheeple here in america...

Hmm..let's see... We capture some enemy combatants, instead of shooting them like the others and assume they're a threat. We don't parade them around anywhere - unless you're going to continue to milk the same cow over and over again....which shouldn't matter anyway since OUR government doesn't condone it, but rather admits mistakes and punishes for it. But, Iran is far more ethical than us right? Do you admire terrorism on the west? By your posts, you seem to be charged up by slamming "the west"...

But your argument doesn't hold water since the same can be said of food, tv, video games, alcohol...anything can be abused and does inevitably hurt others, but we don't make it illegal because of it. We hold those people accountable for themselves. I don't believe it's consistent with the core theme of freedom that's supposed to be present in the constitution. Do you have any idea how many working fathers, husbands are doing years in prison, ruined family's - broken homes - all because they like to smoke pot after work? There is no reason you need sugar. There is no reason you need table salt. There is no reason you need TV, or to gamble, or Fatty foods...Since when do you find yourself so important that you should decide what people "need"?

See, I agree with that. But reading in between the lines is just as irresponsible and inaccurate as anything coming out of the machine. Actions speak louder than words. And I also subscribe to a little saying..."You're never as bad as they say you're bad, and you're never as good as they say you're good". That's held true any time I've been able to test it...

I'm not a conservative though. I'm a little left and a little right - not a fence sitter either. More socially liberal and fiscally conservative - libertarian basically. I guess I don't see the characterization as an insult but rather as fact. The democrats haven't put forth any counter terrorist efforts. I'm asking why, basically. Is it just no big deal? Like I said before, I can accept that. The Tree confirmed that and notice I didn't jump on his case at all about it. I expect the negative responses however. But I'm not looking for a partisan battle. No really I'm not...quit laughing... I really thought we'd be talking about apathy and terrorism for the most part.

Man, I just can't agree more. People I work with, people with college degrees, none of them seem to critically think anything at all. Everything is single layer thought.

Actually it's quite appropriate. There are varying degrees of liberals and such, but left leaning folk tend to all line up on this one. Major strawman. And you're busted for not reading my whole post. I never said the republican ideas were good. And I never promoted testosterone - geez, how obvious and shallow that would be. Busted, again, for not reading my post. I never said you should go with bad ideas. I didn't criticize the left for "criticizing ideas" - I'm criticizing the left about NOT COMING UP WITH ANY. I don't have a problem with shooting down bad republican ideas - shit, keep up the good work! I'm talking about why don't they come up with ideas of their own? Why is it always the republicans pushing some kind of counter terrorism effort? <---- That's what this thread is about. Not the criticism stuff.

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm calling them all crazies. I don't mean that at all. Their culture is far more intense with religion and is more strictly adhered to. They are far more willing to die for supposed religious principles than the majority of the nations in the world, if it came down to it. I don't think it's too far fetched to believe they can be manipulated into risking nuclear destruction. The germans were romanced similarly and without near the religious devotion in play.

I can only give you reassurance that America is no more perfect than any other nation. We make good decisions and bad ones. But our effects are far more reaching because we are a superpower. So yes, the only reason we're hated, but not Italy, is because we're a superpower and they are not. Wait and see how China's popularity drops when they become the next one. Now, proxy wars suck, but perhaps better than the soviet middle east? I'm thinking stopping communist expansion is a good idea when their leader bangs on a podium and vows for your destruction. Particularly after the global humanitarian cost of Hitler. I guess it's easy to judge people from the comfort of 2007, 20 years after the threat was resolved. We endorse every nation on the damn planet - including Israel - and excluding hostile states. Israel gets more attention because everybody keeps screwing with them. Sounds reasonable to me. I don't apologize. First gulf war? Everyone hates us for liberating Kuwait? Yeah, I'm not sorry about that one either. If you're refering to whether to take out Saddam, I don't believe that was our decision to make, but I'm not sure. The situation with the Kurds was horrible, definitely our fault, and is the reason why I throw my hands up about everybody arguing to get out of Iraq regardless of the state of affairs. Yeah, I know most of the countries in the world hate us. I'm sorry they expect perfection and don't get it. I'm sorry they don't realize that most international issues don't have a perfect solution. That most of the time, the best solution still has negative consequences for someone down the line.

If the mortgage lenders and irresponsible home buyers are commiting the crime and doing the time, then why do we need to step in? Limiting the number of sub prime loans is an infringement on freedom. Just like listening in on international communications...or domestic spying. I can even point to an actual loss of freedom with that kind of regulation. I'd rather see a notification requirement type of regulation. Some kind of plain english directive that requires a separate document with bold print "This is a subprime loan with an interest rate that will fluctuate after two years - your payment can go up or down based on this rate." Or, perhaps even better, require folks to qualify for subprime loans at higher interest rates. For example, if they're trying to get a subprime loan at 5%, then require the borrower to qualify for the payments with an interest rate of 7 or 8%. Loans are not done based on monthly payments, so I'm not sure how that would work out. But it would make more sense, to me, for the buyer to have to qualify for the "extreme" payment. That's the payments that get them in trouble and foreclosed. Yes, that would be an infringement on freedom to some extent, but more practical and more sensitive to the actual problem. Subprime loans are not the problem...subprime loans to the wrong people is the problem.

And to be honest, I would expect our leaders to pay lip service to that fact in the international arena. But realistically, I have no issues with the hypocrisy label. We know our intent. And despite our lack of credibility in the international view, I know we are not an imperialist nation that beats on the weak. That's propaganda and oversimplification. And to bring another dynamic into view - since we are the superpower, we are the proverbial "big guy" to bring down. Everybody's got our number. Rewind 10 years and nothing is any different. If anything, the world's superpowers need the biggest armies, weaponry and so forth since they're to blame for everyone's problems and are envied - we call it hated. I'd love to be wrong. Has there ever been a superpower the whole world loved?

This BS confession, manipulation and sick exploitation of these prisoners really has me steaming this morning. I guess it's good I'm not running the show because I would have already ordered an invasion at this point. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262643,00.html I'm not sure that there shouldn't be an immediate military response. It's supposed to be all for one and one for all and they are disgracing those people - making them say shit that for one, isn't true, and for two, has nothing to do with this seizure. This is an act of war and they should be rescued militarily.

The congress and senate. We have a 3 teir system, and the president does not hold all of the power - by design. They have no problem pushing through non-binding resolutions on Iraq (even if they are to get vetoed) so why not resolutions on counter terrorism? There's no difference and that's no excuse. That is a terrific point. You are correct that the republicans didn't have a supportive bone in their body when all this first came up. Party politics and ousting the president (clinton) was their only priority. (I think they were just jealous because they didn't get a bj from an intern). Clinton did recognize the threat' date=' and I don't blame him for a thing. It would be easy to blame Osama's freedom on him, but that's hind sight 20/20 kind of stuff and I don't believe in that kind of witchhunt. On a side note, I like to point to that same administration and the media coverage at that same time, in which american policy to remove Saddam was born and WMD's were believed to exist in Iraq - all before GWB. The media was all over Clinton about not acting on the WMD threat in Iraq. Funny how they turned on GWB when he [i']did[/i]. Very true. Bush's campaign promises included dealing with Iraq - due to American policy established by the Clinton administration and, probably, revenge for dad - which I'm not against by the way since he was a president. But terrorism was ignored. But that doesn't really answer my questions in that quote. Surely highly paid politicians aren't going to use Bush as an excuse not to pursue counter terrorism measures. That's a lame excuse not to do your job. I hear this alot, but all they've done is rearranged their location. Think about it. If you create a "hot spot" for terrorism, then you know where they are - they concentrate and focus on an area that isn't the US. If you don't, then they're spread out all over the place and quiet and you're left to believe everything is ok. Until 9/12... Or, you can look at it like "let's fight and get it over with". Create a hot spot and fight it out. Instead of letting them fester in the 4 corners of the earth, indefinitely attacking for years and years and years... Yes, recruitment is fueled by fighting them like this. Just like when you finally stand up to the Bully and hit him back, it pisses him off even more. That doesn't mean you're on the wrong track. Or maybe all that is BS - it certainly is open for tons of criticism. But personal contempt for a bad plan is partisan, in my opinion. Particularly since no plan by anyone else has ever worked against this enemy - none. And it still is no reason not to pursue counter terrorism ideas.

Well that was the joke. I wanted to use a smiley, but I thought it would ruin the effect. I don't think you're liberal at all. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You make some good points, but I don't think they'll flinch in at least selling the nuclear material, which is fear enough, imo.