• 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!

Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns

Henry David said:
Please note post #65 by Hard Truth.

Keep in mind sir, please, that we are committing military aggression in Asia. That is WE ARE NOT engaged in a legitimate declared war. We ARE engaged in international criminal actions.
Click to expand...

Who are we supposed to declare war against?
 
Grant said:
Who are we supposed to declare war against?
Click to expand...

I think that is the point. There is no country that can be invaded and occupied that addresses our problem.
 
j-mac said:
"The Authorization for Use of Military Force [1] is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001."


Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Just a note: that is not a declaration of war. Nor equal to one.
 
LowDown said:
Not at all. Quite the opposite. But US prosecutors are not even alledging that these men were going to attack the US.

Just one more way that the Obama administration is expanding executive powers. If Bush were doing this civil libertarians, the press, and the Democrats would be screaming bloody murder.
Click to expand...

Bush sent 200,000 troops on a wild goose chase in hell. Over 4000 of them died, more than in 911.
And over 150,000 Iraqis died also. What exactly was their crime again?
That why Bush can't travel to many countries. They want to try him for "bloody murder".
 
Boo Radley said:
I think that is the point. There is no country that can be invaded and occupied that addresses our problem.
Click to expand...

It is not a problem unless you make it one.

Allowing terrorist groups to attack the US without consequence would certainly not work either, and it doesn't make sense that only one side should follow the Geneva Conventions.

It might be better to declare war on any country which harbors terrorists, as George Bush intimated, if that is the choice of the people. But of course they would also have to follow through with any threats and actually attack any of those backward terrorist countries.

This guy has the right attitude on how to respond to Iran, for example.

BEST SPEECH OF 2012! (BILL WHITTLE) - YouTube
 
Boo Radley said:
Just a note: that is not a declaration of war. Nor equal to one.
Click to expand...

It certainly allows the President to use all force as he feels is necessary. Why do you believe it was passed and to what end?
 
iguanaman said:
Bush sent 200,000 troops on a wild goose chase in hell. Over 4000 of them died, more than in 911.
And over 150,000 Iraqis died also. What exactly was their crime again?
That why Bush can't travel to many countries. They want to try him for "bloody murder".
Click to expand...

Who was mainly responsible for murdering the Iraqi people?

Do you really believe it was the Americans and their allies?
 
LowDown said:
The Administration has resisted putting any more terrorists in Gitmo, so the alternatives become killing them outright, as in drone attacks, or rendition.
Click to expand...

Do you think that's why drone strikes occur? What in the ****?
 
Grant said:
It is not a problem unless you make it one.

Allowing terrorist groups to attack the US without consequence would certainly not work either, and it doesn't make sense that only one side should follow the Geneva Conventions.

It might be better to declare war on any country which harbors terrorists, as George Bush intimated, if that is the choice of the people. But of course they would also have to follow through with any threats and actually attack any of those backward terrorist countries.

This guy has the right attitude on how to respond to Iran, for example.

BEST SPEECH OF 2012! (BILL WHITTLE) - YouTube
Click to expand...

No said no consequences for those who attacked us. I said you can't combat them effectively invading nations.
 
Grant said:
It certainly allows the President to use all force as he feels is necessary. Why do you believe it was passed and to what end?
Click to expand...

Which s a mistake no matter who s president. War should be declared if you're going to war.
 
Grant said:
Who was mainly responsible for murdering the Iraqi people?

Do you really believe it was the Americans and their allies?
Click to expand...

No of course not. All we had were pea shooters and spit balls. Those 4000 Americans died from hangnails.
 
Boo Radley said:
No said no consequences for those who attacked us. I said you can't combat them effectively invading nations.
Click to expand...

I saw what you said.

How would you intend to defend the US, for example, against terrorist attacks.

Did you listen to the speech and the response regarding terrorism?
 
iguanaman said:
No of course not. All we had were pea shooters and spit balls. Those 4000 Americans died from hangnails.
Click to expand...

If you don't know who killed most of the Iraqis, and why the war took so long, just say so.
 
Grant said:
I saw what you said.

How would you intend to defend the US, for example, against terrorist attacks.

Did you listen to the speech and the response regarding terrorism?
Click to expand...

Go after actual terrorist. You might review what happen with Ireland and the British after the British learned their overt force lesson.
 
Boo Radley said:
Go after actual terrorist. You might review what happen with Ireland and the British after the British learned their overt force lesson.
Click to expand...

They were local, not international, and confined largely to one area.

It seems you haven't given this mush thought.
 
Grant said:
Who would you have declared war against?
Click to expand...

Al Qeada. Quietly. Hit them before they know we've woken up. Build coalitions quietly. Squeeze them with new partnerships. Minimalize their appeal by making a better argument.
 
Grant said:
They were local, not international, and confined largely to one area.

It seems you haven't given this mush thought.
Click to expand...
Same process could have been adopted and modified.
 
Grant said:
If you don't know who killed most of the Iraqis, and why the war took so long, just say so.
Click to expand...

The war took so long because we had no clue what we were getting into. "Democracy is messy" is not a plan.
The Iraqi's killed each other because we had no plan or means to control them. We killed Iraqi's because they were trying to kill us for invading their country.
All that died are on our ticket. We invaded them for no reason.
 
Boo Radley said:
Al Qeada. Quietly. Hit them before they know we've woken up. Build coalitions quietly. Squeeze them with new partnerships. Minimalize their appeal by making a better argument.
Click to expand...

Isn't the War on terror already a war on Al Qaeda? And of course George Bush said in his New York speech much of the war would be done surreptitiously.

It seems that the US, under this administration anyway, is not doing much to win the hearts and minds of terrorists. The Taliban will naturally re-assume power in Afghanistan, the Islamists are taking over the Middle East, and major parts of Asia and Africa. Under Obama the US is only on the retreat.
 
iguanaman said:
The war took so long because we had no clue what we were getting into. "Democracy is messy" is not a plan.
Click to expand...

Whoever claimed that "Democracy is messy" is a plan? Are you just making things up as you go along?

The Iraqi's killed each other because we had no plan or means to control them.
Click to expand...

The islamists wanted power, not democracy, and fought against it. Naturally they will now take power there.

We killed Iraqi's because they were trying to kill us for invading their country.
Click to expand...

Really? Who told you that?
All that died are on our ticket. We invaded them for no reason.
Click to expand...

Amazing! You have been wrong in every response.
 
Grant said:
The islamists wanted power, not democracy, and fought against it. Naturally they will now take power there.
Click to expand...

Ah... yeah some to be sure.

But this shows you just how little you actually know about Islam, the middle east and the Iraq conflict.

Much like Yugoslavia under Tito, Iraq had different sects in the country that hated each other to a deadly extent, but Saddam kept them in check with a brutal regime...

Now I'm not saying they were good leaders but when their iron fist was taken away, the Sunni's went after the Shias and vice versa and that's what cost so many lives in the same way the Serbs went after the Muslims etc.
 
Grant said:
Isn't the War on terror already a war on Al Qaeda? And of course George Bush said in his New York speech much of the war would be done surreptitiously.

It seems that the US, under this administration anyway, is not doing much to win the hearts and minds of terrorists. The Taliban will naturally re-assume power in Afghanistan, the Islamists are taking over the Middle East, and major parts of Asia and Africa. Under Obama the US is only on the retreat.
Click to expand...

No. Much of it was apparently against Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11 and arguably made this country less safe.
 
Grant said:
Whoever claimed that "Democracy is messy" is a plan? Are you just making things up as you go along?



The islamists wanted power, not democracy, and fought against it. Naturally they will now take power there.



Really? Who told you that?


Amazing! You have been wrong in every response.
Click to expand...

Not as wrong as Cheney when he claimed we would be "greeted as liberators". That was rich
It was Rummy who coined that phrase "Democracy is messy" when asked why looters were destroying ancient 3000 year old artifacts along with everything else that wasn't tied down while we sat by and watched.
The Iraqi's got their "democracy" and voted for a Shiite theocracy allied with our worst enemy Iran. Democracy is messy alright.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom