The Republican Thread

[DukeNukeEm]

Did the CIA gets disbanded and I missed it? Because I believe we are doing exactly what you are talking about in Pakistan as we speak.

No coincidence that I fear Pakistan more than Venezuela, Cuba and Iran combined.

[southsider2k5]

No coincidence that I fear Pakistan more than Venezuela, Cuba and Iran combined.

 

They are the ones who currently have nuclear bombs, all though it won't be too much longer for Iran.

[DukeNukeEm]

They are the ones who currently have nuclear bombs, all though it won't be too much longer for Iran.

I'm not sure Iran is as close as people say, even so there is almost no chance they'd ever use them. It would be a nice balance of power for the middle east, I kinda hope they do get them to bring some stability to the region.

[kapkomet]

I'm not sure Iran is as close as people say, even so there is almost no chance they'd ever use them. It would be a nice balance of power for the middle east, I kinda hope they do get them to bring some stability to the region.

 

This is comedy.

 

[Balta1701]

I'm not sure Iran is as close as people say, even so there is almost no chance they'd ever use them. It would be a nice balance of power for the middle east, I kinda hope they do get them to bring some stability to the region.

There are zero situations which are made better by the presence of additional nuclear armed countries.

[kapkomet]

There are zero situations which are made better by the presence of additional nuclear armed countries.

I wholeheartedly agree. Man, the Cubs have to have won the World Series because I've agreed with both you and BS today, despite the grumblings earlier in this thread.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

That was 1973. 40 years of peace between Egypt and Israel requires more than a 20 day war that was shut down by the UN.

The UN did not stop that war. Israel kicking ass, again, stopped that war.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm not sure Iran is as close as people say, even so there is almost no chance they'd ever use them. It would be a nice balance of power for the middle east, I kinda hope they do get them to bring some stability to the region.

Wow.

 

[BearSox]

Here's what kinda pisses me off about the whole thing. Cheney keeps saying "but look what info it got us". So, basically, he is saying the ends justify the means, which is NOT what we stand for as a country. We are against torture... no matter what the results. So, for Chaney to say what he is saying, says he doesnt give a rats ass about the constitution, the Geneva conventions, or the rights of humans. As long as we get what we want, the rules be damned.

Apparently, what we did to the terrorists is basically the same stuff we do to some of our own soldiers for training. So, how can that be qualified as torture, unless you want to say joining the armed services is torture.

 

Also, the terrorists don't apply to the Ganeva conventions, and this s*** isn't even mentioned in the constitution. Also, now instead of bringing terrorists for intel, soldiers are just going to shoot to kill now. If we can't get any vital info out of them, and if we arrest them, all that's gonna happen is the possibility of them being released.

[BearSox]

How many people in U.S. history have died from terrorism on our soil? Torturing will only recruit more extremists to want to do more harm to us.

Letting the terrorists know how soft we are on them when they are captured will only convince more people to join these groups because even if they are caught, they are gonna be treated like the common thief instead of the terrorists they are.

 

If anything, torture keeps people from joining these groups because of the fear of getting caught.

Edited April 23, 2009 by BearSox

[BearSox]

They should have a trial and execution on the place they stand when they are captured.

amen.

[ThunderBolt]

I tend to ask myself two basic questions about the "torture" of known terrorists.

1) Is it fatal?

2) Does it work?

If the first answer is no, and the second is yes, then go for it.

IF they have a plan to blow me all to hell (not sexually) then i want that information.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Thunderbolt

[BearSox]

Sure we did. Ask my native american friends about that one.

You forget that native americans, or as I like to call them Indians, were some of the most savage people that ever walked the earth. They killed and scalped pioneers for the fun of it. I'm not saying we were innocent in all of this, but they weren't the little innocent native americans that people try to make them out to be today.

[BearSox]

We did imprison the Japanese during WW2

It was unfair but they weren't treated horribly, and guess who was the president at that time... FDR, a liberal socialist very much like Obama. At least FDR was tough on the people who wanted to harm us, Obama would rather talk it out.

[Balta1701]

It was unfair but they weren't treated horribly, and guess who was the president at that time... FDR, a liberal socialist very much like Obama. At least FDR was tough on the people who wanted to harm us, Obama would rather talk it out.

So your logic is that FDR was a better president than Obama because he took a couple hundred thousand American citizens and detained them without cause?

[BearSox]

um yea. A lot of the $h*t that has happened int he middle east does have roots in American involvement.

We trained them to fight off the communist movement. Not to kill us and innocent people. It backfired, but you can't seriously blame America for what they have used it for. They used the training and equipment we provided them for evil, not good.

[BearSox]

So your logic is that FDR was a better president than Obama because he took a couple hundred thousand American citizens and detained them without cause?

Where did I say that? FDR was better because he had a much stronger foreign policy where he was not trying to play kissy face with our enemies.

 

Also, what do you think of Lincoln for suspending Habeus Corpus?

[kapkomet]

You forget that native americans, or as I like to call them Indians, were some of the most savage people that ever walked the earth. They killed and scalped pioneers for the fun of it. I'm not saying we were innocent in all of this, but they weren't the little innocent native americans that people try to make them out to be today.

Ok, and they did nothing until we savaged the s*** out of them.

 

 

[kapkomet]

So your logic is that FDR was a better president than Obama because he took a couple hundred thousand American citizens and detained them without cause?

So your logic is that it's ok to completely turn your back on a country in a time where there are radicals that want to kill thousands of Americans?

 

The logic BearSox uses says that at least they gave a damn about American interests.

 

[BearSox]

Ok, and they did nothing until we savaged the s*** out of them.

Like I said, we're not innocent, but neither are they. It's a sad time in America to look back on, along with slavery.

 

But I just can't stand when people make the Indians out to be a completely harmless and innocent group that did no wrong.

[kapkomet]

Like I said, we're not innocent, but neither are they. It's a sad time in America to look back on, along with slavery.

 

But I just can't stand when people make the Indians out to be a completely harmless and innocent group that did no wrong.

I hear you - it's actually somewhat the same arguement that lasted 5 pages today. Apparantly the terrorists have done nothing wrong except to threaten America, and since it was only a threat, we were supposed to become their best friends. I completely understand. With that said, Indians were defending their land... so I can't blame them.

[southsideirish71]

I'm not sure Iran is as close as people say, even so there is almost no chance they'd ever use them. It would be a nice balance of power for the middle east, I kinda hope they do get them to bring some stability to the region.

 

You hope that Iran gets nuclear weapons? Whatever you are drinking, put it down.

Edited April 23, 2009 by southsideirish71

[Balta1701]

Also, what do you think of Lincoln for suspending Habeus Corpus?

The constitution explicitly states:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

The Supreme Court has, as far as I can tell, never actually decided whether Lincoln or the Congress's actions actually passed Constitutional muster. I'd lean towards saying it does. However, the employment of the suspension was in many cases disastrous, as authorities used their newfound power to summarily round up anyone they found troublesome. That is of course the problem...without the writ, there's no one to judge whether or not detentions are appropriate...and so there's no reason not to detain people.

[BearSox]

Okay, another quick question..... why does it make sense to then go after the Bush administration for torture techniques which weren't even covered in the constitution?

 

Since we are already investigating the Bush amdinistration, why not go back to the 1860's and investigate Lincoln then?

 

I think my point is that it's one thing to disagree with torture, but it really makes no sense to go back and try to prosecute those you disagree with. And at first, Obama was right by saying Bush advisers would not be investigated, but now he suddenly jumped to the other side a day later? My big question is, what made Obama change his mind... Did he wake up with a change of heart, or was there someone else who convinced him otherwise?

[kapkomet]

The constitution explicitly states:

 

The Supreme Court has, as far as I can tell, never actually decided whether Lincoln or the Congress's actions actually passed Constitutional muster. I'd lean towards saying it does. However, the employment of the suspension was in many cases disastrous, as authorities used their newfound power to summarily round up anyone they found troublesome. That is of course the problem...without the writ, there's no one to judge whether or not detentions are appropriate...and so there's no reason not to detain people.

The court ruled that Congress must authorize the suspension, except in dire circumstances. They did just that after the decision was handed down. You know, for the good of the Union.