Well, if he holds them as PoW’s can’t he hold them without trial until the war with our enemies is over?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
This could have been written by Professor X. The dragging up of America’s racist past, empty-headed moral equivalence, etc. It even ended with the same faux moral outrage.
[/quote]
Well it was written by me. Me and the Prof tend to agree on most things political. Besides that, maybe he’s one of the only ones that realizes that history, as a whole, ties together in very intricate ways. Which means that you guys can’t just claim that this country is faultless in what it does- we have done terrible things, terrible things that still, at times, tear the country apart.
So it’s to keep the doe eyed America worshiping conservatives in line.
I often argue on what I believe America should be. The nation formed in response to British abuses of power should not be… well, abusing its power.
That’s not to say that this country hasn’t done terrible things in it’s (sometimes recent) past. You neocons seem to often forget that.
Blah blah blah. And conservatives all look like Wilford Brimley. Take your bullshit stereotyping (if it can even be called that) somewhere else.
I read more than I can say. You’ve proved that you’re the kind that either talks to trees or holds the book upside down. Whatever works for you bro.
[quote]
You probably have no kids, and plainly don’t care whether or not they’re sucked into a garbage disposal, so why would you care what happened at Beslan?
“Grind a fool in a mortar and pestle with grain, yet still his folly will not leave him.” [/quote]
Again, I’m not saying I won’t read it. I just didn’t agree with his pretenses for recommending it to me, as if that would instantly change my world view and turn me into an American flag wrapped martyr like some of you are.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
What? Liberal? Or vulgar?
[/quote]
I was thinking uncivil but vulgar works.
Go Irish!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, if he holds them as PoW’s can’t he hold them without trial until the war with our enemies is over? [/quote]
No, because nouns never die.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, if he holds them as PoW’s can’t he hold them without trial until the war with our enemies is over?
No, because nouns never die.
[/quote]
Eh?
[quote]Christine wrote:
Go Irish![/quote]
Irish has a cheerleader! Will you wear one of those cute little outfits and stay after for ‘parking lot duty’?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, if he holds them as PoW’s can’t he hold them without trial until the war with our enemies is over?
No, because nouns never die.
Eh?[/quote]
“Terror”
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I think you give them a trial, and determine the appropriate sentence and put them in a maximum security prison. If they’re to be put to death, then do it. But I don’t trust any government, including ours, to operate secret prisons.[/quote]
You have offered no solution at all - what goes into a trial, Irish? Evidentiary hearing to even see if a trial is warranted? What kind evidence can be offered by the prosecution?
If the captured says anything after being detained, does the exclusionary rule apply?
There are hundreds of unsettled questions that “give 'em a trial” doesn’t answer - and we haven’t gotten any further toward a solution.
Again, the same old, same old. Glib and snarky statements that are treated as foregone, obvious conclusions - “give 'em a trial, duh” - accomplish nothing in the real world of having to wage a war and handle the captured in asymmetric warfare.
Are you serious? You didn’t propose anything.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Well it was written by me. Me and the Prof tend to agree on most things political. Besides that, maybe he’s one of the only ones that realizes that history, as a whole, ties together in very intricate ways.[/quote]
Be serious - that was the dumbest thing written on this thread.
Setting aside Professor X’s limitations, the Left seems impossibly immune to the lessons of history, we see it over and over in their naive approaches to policy and war.
The problem is, no one is claiming what you say they are claiming. No one is suggesting America is “faultless” - but America and its leaders at times have been faced with horrible choices…again, not between good and bad, but between bad and worse. FDR did, so did Lincoln.
Making the best choice out of a set of bad ones isn’t proof of evil.
[quote]Again, I’m not saying I won’t read it. I just didn’t agree with his pretenses for recommending it to me, as if that would instantly change my world view and turn me into an American flag wrapped martyr like some of you are.
[/quote]
I don’t see any martyrs here - what I see are folks that realize war is governed by the lowest common denominator any of the players choose, and onc made, hard choices have to be made in order to win.
You haven’t offered lesson one to mitigate this problem - you are merely peddling the utopian line wrapped in a predictable race/class/gender packaging that is somehow supposed to present a message that “since America has been bad in the past, it should be nicer in war to its enemies”.
Thank goodness Lincoln thought the opposite of you and your ilk.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, if he holds them as PoW’s can’t he hold them without trial until the war with our enemies is over?
No, because nouns never die.
Eh?
“Terror”[/quote]
Then I guess Terrorism is the wrong way to fight your enemy.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
The Indians were allowed to be butchered like cattle.[/quote]
And this is always a treat when presented as an argument.
Before, after and during the existence of Europeans on North American soil, guess what Indians did to other Indians?
They butchered them like cattle. They ruthlessly slaughtered one another in the name of blood feuds, territory control, and general rivalry.
The “noble savage” approach to history is nothing but failed hackery - and a word of advice, Irish: when it comes to history, read the whole story, don’t just stop where you want or where your tenured professor told you to when spoonfeeding you how awful the West was/is.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
1000rippedbuff wrote:
The research hasn’t been done on stem cells due to it being illegal. The uses are not entirely known yet.
Absolutely untrue. It’s perfectly legal - you just couldn’t get federal funding for it and the venture capitalists didn’t want to fund it because it hasn’t shown any promise.
We already use ASCs to treat more than 70 diseases. ESCs: zero. If the technology had any promise, it would have produced something already.
http://www.fumento.com/weblog/archives/stem_cells/index.html[/quote]
You’re making the fundamental pseudo-economist mistake of equating science and technology. These are not the same thing. Nobody funds science (basic research into how the world/universe works) except philanthropists and governments.
Technology is the application of science to useful things. This is something venture capitalists might fund since it produces 5-10year results.
Science produces 50-100year results. It is something society needs to fund it we’re going to continue to grow in the long term.
Yes you could eliminate state (federal) science budgets without anyone noticing. That’s the point though, no-one would notice ever. New technologies would dry up completely over a 10-50 year period. We would cease to grow and develop.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, if he holds them as PoW’s can’t he hold them without trial until the war with our enemies is over?
No, because nouns never die.
Eh?
“Terror”
Then I guess Terrorism is the wrong way to fight your enemy.[/quote]
My turn:
Eh?
Wasn’t the implication that we can’t hold our enemies as PoW’s until hostilities cease?
[quote]Christine wrote:
Go Irish![/quote]
Go Thunderbolt!
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Well it was written by me. Me and the Prof tend to agree on most things political. Besides that, maybe he’s one of the only ones that realizes that history, as a whole, ties together in very intricate ways.
Be serious - that was the dumbest thing written on this thread.
Setting aside Professor X’s limitations, the Left seems impossibly immune to the lessons of history, we see it over and over in their naive approaches to policy and war.
Which means that you guys can’t just claim that this country is faultless in what it does- we have done terrible things, terrible things that still, at times, tear the country apart.
The problem is, no one is claiming what you say they are claiming. No one is suggesting America is “faultless” - but America and its leaders at times have been faced with horrible choices…again, not between good and bad, but between bad and worse. FDR did, so did Lincoln.
Making the best choice out of a set of bad ones isn’t proof of evil.
Again, I’m not saying I won’t read it. I just didn’t agree with his pretenses for recommending it to me, as if that would instantly change my world view and turn me into an American flag wrapped martyr like some of you are.
I don’t see any martyrs here - what I see are folks that realize war is governed by the lowest common denominator any of the players choose, and onc made, hard choices have to be made in order to win.
You haven’t offered lesson one to mitigate this problem - you are merely peddling the utopian line wrapped in a predictable race/class/gender packaging that is somehow supposed to present a message that “since America has been bad in the past, it should be nicer in war to its enemies”.
Thank goodness Lincoln thought the opposite of you and your ilk.[/quote]
Irish will now find it easier to take a shit. LMOA!!!
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
JD430 wrote:
Irish,
I lurk here a lot but don’t post too much. I often can’t figure why you need to come on here and behave the way you do. Since that is beside the point…
What? Liberal? Or vulgar?
Your concerns are not without validity(although some of your historical perspective is warped). Like I said, I wrestled with them and came to the conclusion that this particular enemy carries a unique ideology, comes from a terribly dangerous, broken culture and is capable of such great violence, that rules I would not support under any other circumstances are acceptable against them. You don’t agree with that.
I still cant see how the atrocities committed against the native peoples here have anything to do with fellow citizens being gassed in a subway or worse?
Just showing that this enemy is no more brutal than any other enemy of any other nation in the history of the world.
People make it out like the Muslims that hate us are going to end the world, when in reality they are nothing in comparison to the threat that America faced down with the Soviets over the second half of the century.
So I often find it funny when people feel that America needs to become a massive police/military state in order to defend itself against sand sucking, dirt poor Muslims. This is a fight for that the CIA and FBI can and will fight.
No sense smashing heads over it further.
And “terror at beslan” is an incredible book on a lot of levels. I would rethink putting it in the list.
LIke I said, I never said that I wouldn’t read it. I just don’t agree with someone recommending it because it shows the brutality of the Muslims, and that it’s SO much different than ANYTHING the world has EVER seen- in effect, they’re using it as permission for whatever view they have, and the course of action they feel should be taken. [/quote]
Terrorists (certainly those that attain nuclear capabilities) are a bigger threat than the Russians ever were. They are crazy and the normal rules of warfare don’t apply. They don’t care about retaliation. At least we had Detente on our side throughout the Cold War.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Again, the same old, same old. Glib and snarky statements that are treated as foregone, obvious conclusions - “give 'em a trial, duh” - accomplish nothing in the real world of having to wage a war and handle the captured in asymmetric warfare. [/quote]
As opposed to the same old, same old usage of the term “war” for political purposes?
I am not someone who thinks national security doesn’t take precedent over the ‘rights’ of foreigners if it comes down to it.
But I would like to hear what danger people think a measure of due process imposes. You really think terrorists are going to slip through the cracks if there’s a hearing to determine whether they are in fact terrorists rather than just seizing people with no oversight and holding them until and unless you decide to release them? With no standards to guide the decision? I don’t think so. I think there would be an ample showing that these people were terrorists.