• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Petraeus Endorses Obama's Plans To Close GITMO, End Torture

Moon said:
We do, actually.



Link
Click to expand...

And if our soldiers commit a crime over there in Afghanistan, do we turn them over to that country for prosecution like we do with Japan or South Korea? No.
 
TheNextEra said:
And if our soldiers commit a crime over there in Afghanistan, do we turn them over to that country for prosecution like we do with Japan? No.
Click to expand...

We don't turn them over to Japaness Govn either if it's a major crime they are sent back tot he States to stand trial, if its say a traffic violation then they must appear in local court with their Commanding Officer.

Have you ever been station in Japan ??????
 
TheNextEra said:
And if our soldiers commit a crime over there in Afghanistan, do we turn them over to that country for prosecution like we do with Japan or South Korea? No.
Click to expand...

I posted about the SOFA agreed to in Iraq, so I'm not sure what Afghanistan has to do with it. Besides, the SOFA for each country varies in the details, such as what happens to US military personnel should they be accused of a crime. And we don't always turn soldiers over to the Japanese or Korean governments.
 
Scorpion89 said:
We don't turn them over to Japaness Govn either if it's a major crime they are sent back tot he States to stand trial, if its say a traffic violation then they must appear in local court with their Commanding Officer.

Have you ever been station in Japan ??????
Click to expand...

That wasn't always the case when I was stationed at Kadena on Okinawa. There were three US military members turned over to the Japanese for trial when they raped a 12 year old girl.
 
Moon said:
That wasn't always the case when I was stationed at Kadena on Okinawa. There were three US military members turned over to the Japanese for trial when they raped a 12 year old girl.
Click to expand...

I recall that but weren't they sent back because their Civilian Lawyer said that they couldn't get a fair trail in Japan.
 
Scorpion89 said:
I recall that but weren't they sent back because their Civilian Lawyer said that they couldn't get a fair trail in Japan.
Click to expand...

They were tried and convicted and last I heard were serving their sentences in a Japanese prison.
 
Lerxst said:
The reality is that at least he is trying. His original projections for pulling out may have been far too aggressive for the reality of the situation, but he is working towards that goal in earnest. And that is what is important. He's trying to get us out of there as quickly and responsibly as he can.

Nobody is making any case of importance over whether or not he actually makes his 18 month time line. No plan survives contact with the enemy.
Click to expand...

Obama's campaign rhetoric was clearly pandering to his Left wing supporters who want us out regardless of the situation on the ground; and because of his lack of experience and ignorance, he made promises he now cannot keep.

Obama's plans for Iraq, Afghanistan and closing of Guantanamo mirror Bush’s and it is not by accident; this is just an uninformed Obama getting slapped with the REALITY of being President, nothing more or less.

Bush never intended to keep us there forever; that lie was just the typical farcical rhetoric from Democrats we are growing accustomed to; much like the farcical rhetoric of how we were losing in Iraq and Afghanistan or the equally asinine notion that the USA illegally tortures its detainees.
 
Lerxst said:
Nobody is making any case of importance over whether or not he actually makes his 18 month time line. No plan survives contact with the enemy.
Click to expand...
I dont recall you being this generous with GWB...?
 
Lerxst said:
Why would I be? Bush knowingly started out with an abortion of a plan and just continued to push it.
Click to expand...
Of course. Silly me.
Because, you know, that's SO much better than starting out with an abortion of a plan, created from partisan campaign promises made with the sole objective of getting elected, with no idea whatsoever if they could be implemented.
:roll:
 
Lerxst said:
Quoted for truth.

The rest I'll let you argue with yourself on.
Click to expand...
Sure you will -- because you know you cannot defend your blatant partisanship.
 
Goobieman said:
Sure you will -- because you know you cannot defend your blatant partisanship.
Click to expand...

HAA!~! :rofl

Sorry, but from just the brief time I've been here, the "blatant partisan" in this exchange is obvious.

And it ain't Lerxst, my friend. ;)
 
Glinda said:
HAA!~! :rofl

Sorry, but from just the brief time I've been here, the "blatant partisan" in this exchange is obvious.

And it ain't Lerxst, my friend. ;)
Click to expand...
I'm sorry -- did you want to actually address the issue here, or did you want to continue to reveal your own partisan-based bigotry?

Because, really, is there any reasron to expect you'd see it any other way?

Now then... tell me how it is that The Obama deserves the pass Lerxst gives Him, based on the idea that "no plan survives contact with the enemy', whereas GWB does not.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Now then... tell me how it is that The Obama deserves the pass Lerxst gives Him, based on the idea that "no plan survises contact with the enemy:, whereas GWB does not.
Click to expand...

I suppose you'd have to ask Lerxst. *shrug*

As for your partisanship, you outed yourself by your use of such phrases as "Bush Derangement Syndrome" and "The Obama."
 
Glinda said:
I suppose you'd have to ask Lerxst. *shrug*
Click to expand...
So, rather than discuss the issue, you're here simply to attack me.

OK then - let me know when you post something worth reading.
 
Goobieman said:
I dont recall you being this generous with GWB...?
Click to expand...

Because Bush's admin planned for the invasion to end with the troops dodging flowers and hugs from the Iraqi's in Baghdad. Not IEDs and rocket launchers.

If Bush would have went into this expecting the unstable country to not fully embrace Democracy as the next coming of Christ the outcome may have been different.
 
Gibberish said:
Because Bush's admin planned for the invasion to end with the troops dodging flowers and hugs from the Iraqi's in Baghdad. Not IEDs and rocket launchers.
Click to expand...
I believe the effective response to that is:
"No plan survives contact with the enemy"
So... what's your point?
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
The point is the Bush didn't plan for an enemy to exist.
Click to expand...
Ok... and The Obama?
What did He not plan for, and how is that sufficiently different to as to give Him an excuse?
 
Lerxst said:
Why would I be? Bush knowingly started out with an abortion of a plan and just continued to push it.
Click to expand...

...because you say so. You continue to confuse substance and facts for personal opinion and hyperbole. I am hardly surprised by this level of denial.
 
Gibberish said:
Because Bush's admin planned for the invasion to end with the troops dodging flowers and hugs from the Iraqi's in Baghdad. Not IEDs and rocket launchers.

If Bush would have went into this expecting the unstable country to not fully embrace Democracy as the next coming of Christ the outcome may have been different.
Click to expand...

...because you say so. You continue to confuse substance and facts for personal opinion and hyperbole as Lerxst does. I am hardly surprised by this level of denial.
 
Truth Detector said:
...because you say so. You continue to confuse substance and facts for personal opinion and hyperbole as Lerxst does. I am hardly surprised by this level of denial.
Click to expand...

What substance and facts am I confusing?
 
Goobieman said:
Ok... and The Obama?
What did He not plan for, and how is that sufficiently different to as to give Him an excuse?
Click to expand...

He didn't plan for it to rain skittles?? what does it matter what he doesn't plan for? It matters what he does plan for and that his plan is realistic.

Bush planned to be greeted as liberators, for flowers and champagne to fill the streets, and to experience no more then a few months of conflict. This is backed by comments made by himself and his admin and the fact that his admin believed we could successfully invade, topple the government, control anarchy, and rebuild a country of 31 million with a minimal number of forces and equipment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom