• 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!

George W Bush claims UK lives 'saved by waterboarding'

Harshaw said:
Then you're saying he's an enemy soldier engaging in a war. Like I said, you apparently want it all possible ways.
Click to expand...

Engaging in war is not terrorism. How do you not get that?

Eighty Deuce said:
Do you have a clue ? What do you not understand ? In legal terms, he was an illegal combatant by more than one reference in the Geneva Conventions. We do not need some nice folder to file him in, as a "terrorist", or "murderer", etc. We have full authority to try him by hasty tribunal and execute him of we choose to. Or we can grant him a full civil trial. The choice is at our pleasure. He has no standing as an enemy combatant.

By Geneva Convention and all recognized rules of war, American soldiers in uniform are legal combatants. Capable of criminal acts, the deliberate killing of civilians, etc., for sure, and they have to be dealt with when they happen. "Acts or terror", that being the targeting of civilian populations and assets so as to compel surrender, occur in modern war. Dropping buzz bombs on London. Bombing Dresden. Hiroshima. But there are still distinctions to be had. Distinctions that make one legal or illegal as a combatant. Its in our laws and treaties. Hasan was not in a gray area. Nor are such as KSM.
Click to expand...

Please show me where I said we didn't have the right to put him on trial, or that whether or not he's a terrorist at all changes his impending trial. He committed crimes that I hope he gets executed for, but none of those crimes fit the definition of terrorism.

Jeffrey Dahmer (sp?) is a lunatic who killed people and ate them, but I would object to somebody calling him a carjacker because he didn't steal cars.

edit: whoah. Thread moved fast since last I was here.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
So tell me exactly what Bush should have done to prevent 9/11 which happened 8 months after he took office? Bush didn't ignore the problem thus the commission he established to study the issue. Clinton PDB of 12/04/1998 actually came to fruition a little less than 3 years later so tell me what Clinton did to bolster airline security? Easy to blame Bush but hard for you to recognize that Clinton could have prevented it. That is typical partisan bs.
Click to expand...
Who said Clinton didn't prevent it, it didn't happen during his presidency. It happened during BUSH.
 
pbrauer said:
Who said Clinton didn't prevent it, it didn't happen during his presidency. It happened during BUSH.
Click to expand...

So what exactly should Bush have done in the 8 months he was in office that Clinton didn't do in the two years after the PDB?
 
Conservative said:
In times of War the CIC is responsible to do whatever is necessary to save American lives. President Bush authorized Waterboarding of THREE high ranking al Qaeda including the Mastermind of 9/11 that led to the capture of high valued targets. Attornies told him it was legal and he did his job. God Bless President Bush. It really is too bad that liberals are so naive that they don't understand the enemy we face, those that cut off heads and blow up buildings with no regard to innocent lives.
Click to expand...

What's especially duplicitous is in how Liberals speak openly, and louder than anyone about GWB, and his evil ways. However, I'm not convinced in the slightest that should Obama have made the same decisions under the same circumstances, whether this would all be academic to them. :)

Plus, I ask all of them just how their morality would endure the test where perhaps their own daughter, or son was at immanent risk by a terrorist but if we just tortured the little bastard a bit, we'd uncover the whole plot, and many lives including their own offspring would be saved? For me, sorry, it's a no brainer. It's just the parental instincts in me I guess. Much like if someone was threatening me or my family in my space, I have the legal right to blow his mother ****ing head off. Seems a little more extreme than forcing someone to drink a little water no and again.. :)

Makes me laugh at the stupidity of the left, and just how ****ing dangerous they and the likes of Obama really are to our real safety!


Pathetic!


Tim-
 
pbrauer said:
Who said Clinton didn't prevent it, it didn't happen during his presidency. It happened during BUSH.
Click to expand...

In fact the first attack on US soil by Muslim terrorists, and on the World Trade Center as well, occurred during the Clinton administration.

Perhaps you could explain what Bill Clinton did following the first attack, to prevent the second attack
 
Grant said:
In fact the first attack on US soil by Muslim terrorists, and on the World Trade Center as well, occurred during the Clinton administration.

Perhaps you could explain what Bill Clinton did following the first attack, to prevent the second attack
Click to expand...

He fired a missle at an old abandoned factory in the Sudan.. :)


Tim-
 
pbrauer said:
Who said Clinton didn't prevent it, it didn't happen during his presidency. It happened during BUSH.
Click to expand...

Is that a willful ignorance of the facts, or do you really not know ? Lemme help you. 1993, the First World Trade Center bombing. Bin Laden was the money behind it, and KSM the coordinator. Do those names ring a bell ? Perhaps you can research yourself from there forward as to our history in what we did, and did not do, with those two either on, or off, our radar. W was not sworn in as President for another 8 years, if that helps you ;)

Now, can you now contribute to the conversation in a more insightful manner, or is sniping as good as it gets ?
 
Grant said:
In fact the first attack on US soil by Muslim terrorists, and on the World Trade Center as well, occurred during the Clinton administration.

Perhaps you could explain what Bill Clinton did following the first attack, to prevent the second attack
Click to expand...


A few blocks from my old loft in Brooklyn:

Brooklyn Bomb Plot- Arab Bombers Foiled in Park Slope
Sheik-190.jpg
He looks pretty good in a prison uniform don't he?
 
pbrauer said:
The only thing torturing does is make people say what ever you want them to say. Ask John McCain about that.
Click to expand...

Yes, and sometimes you want them to say where they placed that IED...
 
Hicup said:
He fired a missle at an old abandoned factory in the Sudan.. :)


Tim-
Click to expand...

Fineman says Mr. Bush briefed them on plans for action against the terrorists and said, "“When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It’s going to be decisive.”
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
he'd look better at room temperature. :prof
Click to expand...


Quite true, I use to live within walking distance from that Mosque when I was at Pratt. There was some freakky people around that shopping mall.
 
Deuce said:
Engaging in war is not terrorism. How do you not get that?
Click to expand...

Just a deflection from my point.

If he's "engaging in war," then he's an enemy soldier. Nothing else he could be. Yet you go hysterical over the idea that you're calling him that.
 
Harshaw said:
Just a deflection from my point.

If he's "engaging in war," then he's an enemy soldier. Nothing else he could be. Yet you go hysterical over the idea that you're calling him that.
Click to expand...

Wait, you think I have a problem with calling him an enemy?

Where did you get that idea?
 
j-mac said:
So are you saying that you are ideologically driven?
Click to expand...

J, no where did I say that. I even gave a republican example that doesn't bother me. Why do you do this?



Justification is something that is human nature. I am sure that many feel that boosting the deficit nearly four times that of any other President for what you yourself term as a "short term" fix is equally disturbing. BTW, can you point to any documentation of torture other than the three men that were water boarded in GITMO that was excused by Bush or his administration?
Click to expand...

You're fudging your numbers, likely gathered from a unreputable source, just as Obama did, doesn't help your case. But sure, we all pick what we see as important. Those who don't see torture as important probably don't enter in this discussion much.

Also, it doesn't matter if he excused one, three or a million. Once you excuse, you've excused tortured. And we did quite a bit of torture, some where people died before we stepped forward and held anyone accountable.

No, that is not quite true is it now? In fact, he touted this as a fix that would keep unemployment under 8% did he not? In fact did he not say that this stimulus was needed to keep America from falling into depression? And then splayed out the spending of this for two years hoping that the fix would hit in time for this election cycle? That's short sighted, not short term is it not?
Click to expand...

Keeping was short term, not long term. He was wrong or failed, however you want to look at it. But it was ashort term attempt and not a long term one. Like all presidents, as they don't control the economy, he was hoping the economy would imporve while he was helping in the short term.


That's a shame. If there were only something that Academia could do themselves to stave off the pain to students. Oh, I see you named only the students, will the staff suffer as well?
Click to expand...

Yes, we will. We'll increase work loard for less pay. Classrooms will be larger. Some programs will be done away with despite demand, this means lost jobs. But students will suffer more. They will incure more debt. Tuition will be higher. Programs and classes will not be available for them. In short, everything will be more difficult.


Again, not a fix then is it? More a band aid, and a Trillion dollar one at that.....I don't know about you, but that isn't what America thought they were getting.

j-mac
Click to expand...

I never claimed it was a fix. I said jobs were saved, and clarified for you in the short term. I can't say what America thought. After all, too many, including some conservatives here, think the government controls the economy, meaning government is the answer (that makes me laugh). I only know the circles I run in did not think the stimulus was anything more than a short term aid.
 
Deuce said:
I was reacting to you saying I was defending him, not reacting to you calling him an enemy. How is that not obvious!?
Click to expand...

Because characterizing him as an enemy soldier fighting a war IS defending him. How is THAT not obvious? :shock:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom