RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........

RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Owner59 -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 8:28:43 PM)
Well if it`s on google,.......[8\|]

kdsub -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 8:32:33 PM)
There is no sense in fighting if there is no difference between you and the enemy...what the hell would you be fighting for? Ideals are everything…sure you can survive without ideals but you will have no soul Butch

BamaD -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 8:35:03 PM)
The treaties we have signed on the treatment of prisoners of war cover only people captured in uniform representing their country. Those people caught out of uniform clandestinly fighting a war have no rights.

Owner59 -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 9:16:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The treaties we have signed on the treatment of prisoners of war cover only people captured in uniform representing their country. Those people caught out of uniform clandestinly fighting a war have no rights. Says who? Show where in the treaties, this is. I`m starting to understand all the heat and smoke generated by the bushies early on, over exempting the US from treaties and international law tribunals. They were planing to break international law and the treaties we`re a signature to. The Constitution specifically says we`re bound by the treaties we sign.By Constitutional law,there`s no picking and choosing what agreements we keep and which ones we toss. As far as as the civilized world is concerned,bush and Augusto Pinochet have in common,torture regimes. They aren`t going to be a generous and as charitable as bush`s supporters are and aren`t going to drop it . Are any neo-cons aware that there is an investigation currently going on? The head investigator is British and was interviewed on NPR recently.He said he`s only in the investigative stages right now,but would file charges if he found admissible evidence

devotedinSD -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 9:25:33 PM)
It's an ethical question and I agree with him.

DarkSteven -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 9:45:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The treaties we have signed on the treatment of prisoners of war cover only people captured in uniform representing their country. Those people caught out of uniform clandestinly fighting a war have no rights. Not even the Bush administration was THAT extreme. The Bushies made the argument that, for the reasons given above as well as the fact that they were held on non-US soil in Cuba, no existing body of law covered them. Therefore, rendition on non-US soil, etc., was legal. However, the Bushies NEVER stated that the internees had no rights. Their view was that the amount of rights they had was subject to an entirely new body of law that they made up as they went along.

Owner59 -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 10:00:27 PM)
Let Arlen Specter ,The SCOTUS and the Constitution,...educate us. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY5BwMjpUOI

spartansub -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/26/2009 1:45:41 AM)
I agree wholeheartedly with the President's statement. On the surface it may seem idealistic and naive, but as a general statement I agree with it 100%. For the readers, I have both a D and R after my name, or neither, depending on your point of view. I originally voted for Bush, and voted for him the 2nd time even though I had my reservations. To my dismay, I continued to see his administration trample on parts of our constitution, dance around what the majority of people consider torture for enemy combatants, and generally make me regret that I voted for him. I believe that our actions should express our ideals and represent what we, as Americans, believe. I also believe there are rarely black and white situations, but that the more grey a situation appears, the more slippery the slope becomes, until the difference between us and the side that we're fighting against appears indistinguishable. I'm sure the Nazi officers at Nuremburg were surprised when their defense of " I was following orders" was thrown back at them, with the court citing the requirement for a higher ethical and moral ground. Accordingly, I believe if we justify our actions based on the righteousness of it but we compromise our ideals, principles, or morals, then we are no better than our opponent. I have high hopes for our new President. I like most of what I've heard and seen so far. I can't imagine him doing worse than his predecessor. I'm sure there are some who won't agree with what I've just written and will be compelled to say so. That's OK - I'm a big boy and can take it. I can also learn from both substantive rebuttals as well as the other kind. quote: ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57 quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Both Carter and Clinton came in talking about how "moral" our forgien policy would be. To prove it they blinded our intellegence comunity and persuaded our enemies that we would not fight back if attacked. This is what scares me about Obama's stance on morality. Besides POWs have no constitutional rights, check any war we or anyone else has fought. "Homeland was repeatedly discussed from May to August" "you acknowledged that al-queda cells were in the United States" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIpEwGmSsmM Aug 6,2001 PDB -----"bin-laden determined to attack in the United States" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Then that clown made her Secretary of State ! Talk about rewarding failure!!!! Imagine our enemies thinking,"we just successfully attacked them and the stooge who drooped the ball got a promotion and pay raise". What better way to say,"attack us"? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Any examples of how Carter or Clinton "blinded our intelligence community". And when Clinton sent Cruse Missiles deep into Afghanistan to takeout bin-laden,what did the republicans do? They cheered" No war for Monica!No war for Monica! I couldn`t think of a better way to tell our enemies to attack us.As soon as a dem POTUS takes action,republicans respond by trying to stop him!! History`s a bitch,isn`t it?[:D] WOW are you really that ignorant , or just so anti W , that you cannot or will not do any research to find the truth? I typed this in on google "Clinton blinds intel agency" and there was 185 k responses. but according to you they DONT exists. thats ok keep on living in your foggy world , where only if you have a D after your name your right and if you have a R after the name their are a NAZI, its your mind set that this country is such a mess, your a partizan HACK.

corysub -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/26/2009 5:07:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: corysub Sorry, but it's not even a decision to think about for me. Then why start it? What was my full quote, Kitten? It's a thread for open and, at times, passionate, discussion of views. Thought that was one of the reasons we come here....It's all good!

slvemike4u -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/26/2009 2:29:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The treaties we have signed on the treatment of prisoners of war cover only people captured in uniform representing their country. Those people caught out of uniform clandestinly fighting a war have no rights. This country is founded upon the principal of inalianable rights.Are you suggesting America now only extends due process where convienant.....and ignores it where it is problematic ?

Irishknight -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/26/2009 2:49:31 PM)
I thought inalienable meant that we didn't extend rights to those from other planets. Damn!

slvemike4u -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/26/2009 2:53:06 PM)
That wasn't fair IK.....

corysub -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/26/2009 4:23:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou quote: ORIGINAL: corysub “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals,” President Obama, Inaugural Address I agree with the statement, but must point out, Obama thus far has little to stand on in terms of guarding our "ideals". I mean, he did vote to give the financials billions of dollars, and a large fraction of all that money siphoned to the financials is a cunt hair away from literal giving. So, is that an "ideal", I don't think so. So my question to Mr Obama, if he was here would be what exactly are these "ideals" as he understands them to be. Because it seems to me many of his "ideals" are a 180 degrees from what mine are. In the case of torturing people, I agree with banning that, and think that is pretty much a standard belief amongst most of the population, outside of idiotic 24 scenarios. There are pardon powers for those situations anyway. Thus legalizing it, isn't really necessary, or condoning it outside of 1000000 to 1 scenarios. Overall, so far and I agree he's not been in office long enough to lay a final verdict, but to me he's speaking of his "ideals" not necessarily the ideas this country has historically stood for. However, I do agree in a general sense that sacrificing your values for safety is the definition of a coward, and is the excuse used for doing all kinds of horrific things to others, be that financial, war, or social. I agree, the man has only been in office a week and I don't think it is constructive to replay the primary race. I do think he is in for a surprise when Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid teach the young man "who's your daddy". As far as sacrificing "values" for safety being cowardice I am not suggesting such a thing. Fighting another soldier who put up a good fight and doesn't really want to be there any more than you or me, and I would give the guy a chance if he wanted to surrender. I believe their is honor in the men on both sides just doing their jobs. However, if it ever was my choice in treatment of a terrorist who was trained to blend into a crowd and kill innocent people or plant IED's...screw honor and values...and empty a magazine into the guy. If he was a guy that might have information that would save my soldiers or civilians I guess we would have to read him his Miranda rights.....I wonder, how about the "rights" of all those innocent men, women and children killed by these bastards involved in jihad That is my basic problem with Obama Administration. They think of the folk down in Gitmo as criminals with rights equal to American citizens and don't seem to understand the deadly war being waged by Islamic radicals world-wide. Even their own countries don't want them back. Someone here had suggested one of the island possessions we have in the Pacific..that makes a lot of sense to me to be the next Gitmo...and there will be another Gitmo!.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125