• 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!

Kerry: 'Offensive' to leave an American behind

What do you know about the 'moderate' Taliban? How do they differ from the regular Taliban?

Al Qaeda supports the Taliban, as well as many other terrorist groups throughout the world who do not refer to themselves as Al Qaeda but assume different names. Taliban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's uncertain how many islamist terrorist groups there are throughout the world but it seems that Al Qaeda (The Base) has influence in all of them.

You obviously need to spend a little more time studying the middle east before you start trying to debate the politics of it. Al Qaeda is a radical organization that is not confined to a certain boundary. By and large the Taliban are confined to the southern region of Afghanistan. Not every person in the Taliban is a radical terrorist. There are absolutely some of the Taliban that are much more moderate than others. The reason that the US targeted the Taliban was because they were harboring Al Qaeda. As for your last line....that is just plain silly. What are you basing that generalization on? The fact that Al Qaeda is loosely translated to the "base"? LOl.....seriously?
 
If Romney was President, he would be getting props from GOPs for the Nobel Peace Prize for Bergdahl's release.
I'm reminded of today's meeting between the Pope, Israel and the Palestinians.
Seems Israel's been okay trading over 1,000 Palestinians in the past, and the GOP got lots of love from Netanyahu in the 2012 election .

Romney is a business man. He knows a stupid trade when he sees one. This was a stupid trade.
 
Romney is a business man. He knows a stupid trade when he sees one. This was a stupid trade.

Since these guys were going back to Afghanistan anyway, it seems like a highly lucrative trade.
 
Huh. People still think that swift boat stuff was true.
 
Romney also said he wished he "could have been over there" with the guys, referring to the Vietnam soldiers, in 2010.
It's one thing to dodge the draft like Clinton, it's entirely another to dodge like the chickenhawk cowards Romney, Quayle, Limbaugh, Nugent.
Not to mention Bush and Cheney--quick to send others to die in a way they refused to serve.
Romney is a business man. He knows a stupid trade when he sees one. This was a stupid trade.
You seem to think this world is black-and-white Maenad.
Ask Nixon when you see him how he liked being handed Vietnam by LBJ.
Which Republicans went after Ford in 1975 and prevented further military aid to Vietnam?

And who was responsible for the attack on the civilian airport yesterday in Karachi, Pakistan?
Most people with reasoning skills understand that "bring it on" was the single dumbest thing Bush could have ever said .
 
Romney also said he wished he "could have been over there" with the guys, referring to the Vietnam soldiers, in 2010.
It's one thing to dodge the draft like Clinton, it's entirely another to dodge like the chickenhawk cowards Romney, Quayle, Limbaugh, Nugent.
Not to mention Bush and Cheney--quick to send others to die in a way they refused to serve.

You seem to think this world is black-and-white Maenad.
Ask Nixon when you see him how he liked being handed Vietnam by LBJ.
Which Republicans went after Ford in 1975 and prevented further military aid to Vietnam?

And who was responsible for the attack on the civilian airport yesterday in Karachi, Pakistan?
Most people with reasoning skills understand that "bring it on" was the single dumbest thing Bush could have ever said .

Good heavenly days! Why on earth would you think I will run in to Nixon? He doesn't frequent my neighborhood.

Ask Obama about terrorist attacks the world over. I'm sure he has something to dish up on Pakistan. Islamic terrorism has gotten MUCH much worse on his watch.
 
OK MUBMNUT, here is the answer to your question:

• In April 1965, Romney registered with the Selective Service but was not considered readily available for military service until December 1970. When he became eligible for military service in 1970, he drew a high number in the annual draft lottery and at that time no one drawing higher than 195 was drafted.

Romney and the Military



Eventually, like 16 million other young men of that era, Mr. Cheney sought deferments. By the time he turned 26 in January 1967 and was no longer eligible for the draft, he had asked for and received five deferments, four because he was a student and one for being a new father.

Cheney&#39 - s Five Draft Deferments During the Vietnam Era Emerge as a Campaign Issue - NYTimes.com

After receiving his degree, Quayle joined the Indiana Army National Guard and served from 1969–1975,

Dan Quayle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nugent has denied this claim, stating that he dodged the draft by enrolling at Oakland Community College to get a student deferment. However, his Selective Service classification record shows ratings of 1-Y and 4-F for 1969 and 1972 respectively, indicating ineligibility for military service under established physical, mental, or moral standards, rather than student deferment

Ted Nugent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

George W. Bush joined the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group of the Texas Air National Guard on May 27, 1968, during the Vietnam War

George W. Bush military service controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not even mentioning Limbaugh because he isn't a politician. He is an entertainer.

Every last one of these types of military service were perfectly acceptable. As were the college deferments, and getting married and having children. College deferments were routine, and many many people went to college to avoid the draft, that is how the colleges of the last 40 years became overrun with flaming liberal professors. They enrolled in school and stayed there until the war was over. Most of them were too hairy and nasty smelling to find a woman who would have a baby for them. The National Guard is also a perfectly acceptable means of military service, unless you would suggest that the Guard be disbanded during times of war, which would be patently stupid, since their function is different than the infantry to begin with. Just because someone wasn't in the infantry does not mean they didn't serve honorable in t he military.
 
Last edited:
Huh. People still think that swift boat stuff was true.

Thank God for the Swift Boaters they were instrumental in getting the traitor defeated in 2008. God bless them for their service to this country.
 
Thank God for the Swift Boaters they were instrumental in getting the traitor defeated in 2008. God bless them for their service to this country.

You are aware, are you not, NP that the swift-boat liars have been completely discredited. They have admitted that they were lies and nothing more than a political smear to sway an election. They disgraced the military with their lies. Sad that you still support them in spite of this.
 
If Romney was President, he would be getting props from GOPs for the Nobel Peace Prize for Bergdahl's release.
I'm reminded of today's meeting between the Pope, Israel and the Palestinians.
Seems Israel's been okay trading over 1,000 Palestinians in the past, and the GOP got lots of love from Netanyahu in the 2012 election .

Romney would have listened to the generals, the CIA, etc and would not have released such nasty characters for the sake of freeing a deserter.
 
You are aware, are you not, NP that the swift-boat liars have been completely discredited. They have admitted that they were lies and nothing more than a political smear to sway an election. They disgraced the military with their lies. Sad that you still support them in spite of this.

So Kerry was in Cambodia in 68 and Kerry never testified before Congress (Winter Soldier), never met with the enemy (North Vietnamese government) in Paris, Kerry's first Purple Heart wasn't self inflicted, and that signature of Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman on Kerry's Navy discharge certificate is really John Lennon's.
 
"Dear Colonel Holmes,

I am sorry to be so long in writing. I know I promised to let you hear from me at least once a month, and from now on you will, but I have had to have some time to think about this first letter. Almost daily since my return to England I have thought about writing, about what I want to and ought to say. First, I want to thank you, not just for saving me from the draft, but for being so kind and decent to me last summer, when I was as low as I have ever been. One thing which made the bond we struck in good faith somewhat palatable to me was my high regard for you personally. In retrospect, it seems that the admiration might not have been mutual had you known a little more about me, about my political beliefs and activities. At least you might have thought me more fit for the draft than for ROTC. Let me try to explain.

As you know, I worked for two years in a very minor position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I did it for the experience and the salary, but also for the opportunity, however small, of working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Vietnam. I did not take the matter lightly, but studied it carefully, and there was a time when not many people had more information about Vietnam at hand than I did. I have written and spoken and marched against the war. One of the national organizers of the Vietnam Moratorium is a close friend of mine. After I left Arkansas last summer, I went to Washington to work in the national headquarters of the Moratorium, then to England to organize the Americans here for demonstrations here October 15th and November 16th.

Interlocked with the war is the draft issue, which I did not begin to consider separately until early 1968. For a law seminar at Georgetown I wrote a paper on the legal arguments for and against allowing, within the Selective Service System, the classification of selective conscientious objection, for those opposed to participation in a particular war, not simply to, quote, participation in war in any form, end quote. From my work I came to believe that the draft system itself is illegitimate. No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war which, in any case, does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the nation.

The draft was justified in World War II because the life of the people collectively was at stake. Individuals had to fight if the nation was to survive, for the lives of their countrymen and their way of life. Vietnam is no such case. Nor was Korea, an example where, in my opinion, certain military action was justified but the draft was not, for the reasons stated above.

Because of my opposition to the draft and the war, I am in great sympathy with those who are not willing to fight, kill, and maybe die for their country, that is, the particular policy of a particular government, right or wrong. Two of my friends at Oxford are conscientious objectors. I wrote a letter of recommendation for one of them to his Mississippi draft board, a letter which I am more proud of than anything else I wrote at Oxford last year. One of my roommates is a draft resister who is possibly under indictment and may never be able to go home again. He is one of the bravest, best men I know. His country needs men like him more than they know. That he is considered a criminal is an obscenity.

The decision not to be a resister and the related subsequent decisions were the most difficult of my life. I decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for one reason: to maintain my political viability within the system. For years I have worked to prepare myself for a political life characterized by both practical political ability and concern for rapid social progress. It is a life I still feel compelled to try to lead. I do not think our system of government is by definition corrupt, however dangerous and inadequate it has been in recent years (the society may be corrupt, but that is not the same thing, and if that is true we are all finished anyway).

When the draft came, despite political convictions, I was having a hard time facing the prospect of fighting a war I had been fighting against, and that is why I contacted you. ROTC was the one way left in which I could possibly, but not positively, avoid both Vietnam and resistance. Going on with my education, even coming back to England, played no part in my decision to join ROTC. I am back here, and would have been at Arkansas Law School, because there is nothing else I can do. In fact, I would like to have been able to take a year out perhaps to teach in a small college or work on some community action project and in the process to decide whether to attend law school or graduate school and how to be putting what I have learned to use. But the particulars of my personal life are not nearly as important to me as the principles involved.

After I signed the ROTC letter of intent I began to wonder whether the compromise I had made with myself was not more objectionable than the draft would have been, because I had no interest in the ROTC program in itself and all I seemed to have done was to protect myself from physical harm. Also, I began to think I had deceived you, not by lies - there were none - but by failing to tell you all the things I'm writing now. I doubt that I had the mental coherence to articulate them then. At that time, after we had made our agreement and you had sent my 1 - D deferment to my draft board, the anguish and loss of self-regard and self-confidence really set in. I hardly slept for weeks and kept going by eating compulsively and reading until exhaustion brought sleep. Finally on September 12th, I stayed up all night writing a letter to the chairman of my draft board, saying basically what is in the preceding paragraph, thanking him for trying to help me in a case where he really couldn't, and stating that I couldn't do the ROTC after all and would he please draft me as soon as possible.

I never mailed the letter, but I did carry it on me every day until I got on the plane to return to England. I didn't mail the letter because I didn't see, in the end, how my going in the Army and maybe going to Vietnam would achieve anything except a feeling that I had punished myself and gotten what I deserved. So I came back to England to try to make something of this second year of my Rhodes scholarship.

And that is where I am now, writing to you because you have been good to me and have a right to know what I think and feel. I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give. To many of us, it is no longer clear what is service and what is disservice, or if it is clear, the conclusion is likely to be illegal. Forgive the length of this letter. There was much to say. There is still a lot to be said, but it can wait. Please say hello to Colonel Jones for me. Merry Christmas.

Sincerely,

Bill Clinton"

Bill Clinton's Draft Letter | The Clinton Years | FRONTLINE | PBS
 
Yes but releasing these guys instead of waiting for a complete surrender and withdrawal by us increases the chances of our guys getting killed. Oh and make no mistake about it Obama is surrendering to his radical Muslim buddies.

:lamo:lamo:lamo

It's hard to argue with your lack of sanity.
 
If Romney was President, he would be getting props from GOPs for the Nobel Peace Prize for Bergdahl's release.
I'm reminded of today's meeting between the Pope, Israel and the Palestinians.
Seems Israel's been okay trading over 1,000 Palestinians in the past, and the GOP got lots of love from Netanyahu in the 2012 election .

you have no proof of that.
 
I thought a person was innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

Deserter Bergdahl will be subject to a court martial....not civil court.
 
Comparing uniformed military personnel to terrorists that surround themselves with innocents? That's hardly what I'd call an apples to apples comparison.

You really should learn a bit more about WWII, then...because there were tens of thousands of partisans in that war on either front. Partisans would not wear uniforms, but they were crucial for the war effort. In fact, thousands of the partisans who stayed in the Pripyat marshes were Soviet soldiers who escaped capture by the advancing Wehrmacht.

Again, a terrorist is not defined by a uniform or the lack thereof. The Sunni army advancing on Baghdad right now is in every way an army...except that they don't have uniforms.

When their countries of their origin don't even want the Gitmo guys back? I think their

Doesn't matter - they're cleared to leave, and there's no good reason to keep spending our tax dollars on them.

Meh. What do you do with someone you don't dare release? Someone who's very likely to go off and kill innocent people? Aren't they typically incarcerated for life? Yeah, I'd like to see the military tribunals actually sentence them to life.

And what if we cannot PROVE that they are guilty? Or are you of the opinion that it doesn't matter whether or not they're guilty, that we should just imprison them for life anyway? Is this the kind of America we want to see?

No one's doing this to these countries. That's a straw man argument. In fact, we have left them to run and organize their own country as they

AFTER we invaded them and destroyed their national infrastructure. Oh, wait, I forgot - only Americans are ever patriotic, and anybody who gets invaded by America should just smile and be grateful even when their family or friends have been killed....

Depends. If the guys that were being held were the most murderous scurge, I don't think anyone would raise arms to get them back. Do note, their countries of their origins don't even want them back. That's how much trouble these guys caused.

Doesn't matter. We are holding them WITHOUT TRIAL. That, sir, is wrong - it goes against everything America has eve stood for.

Didn't seem like we were occupiers how our troops were greeted during the Iraq invasion.

Yes, and when they started to see what a mess we made of things by destroying their national infrastructure, how they no longer had reliable electricity and water like they did under Saddam, how their streets were no longer safe as they (usually) were under Saddam (as long as one didn't fall afoul of Saddam)...then they started turning against us and seeing us as occupiers of their nation.

The fallacy here is the continued belief that it's a law enforcement situation, when it's already escalated to a military one. Even the FBI wouldn't be able to handle this situation, so it's a military situation. Well beyond law enforcement.

Problem is, we're not even giving them a MILITARY trial...and the ones who are cleared to leave are NOT subject to trial.

Just as long as it's not your Grandmother? I acknowledge that it is against the character of the nation, however, it would seem that it's the best choice of a variety of very bad choices. You know. Hard choices made by a president during difficult and ground breaking times.

We know that when we release people - including those who committed murder, manslaughter, child abuse, rape, etc. - from jail, they MIGHT reoffend. Your logic would require that we would NEVER release anyone from jail.
 
We know that when we release people - including those who committed murder, manslaughter, child abuse, rape, etc. - from jail, they MIGHT reoffend. Your logic would require that we would NEVER release anyone from jail.
And if terrorists who have devoted their lives to the death of the Great Satan, and are willing to die for the advancement of fundamental Islam, "re-offend", what form do you think this might take?
 
Re: Kerry: 'Offensive' to leave an American behind (1 of 2)

You really should learn a bit more about WWII, then...because there were tens of thousands of partisans in that war on either front. Partisans would not wear uniforms, but they were crucial for the war effort. In fact, thousands of the partisans who stayed in the Pripyat marshes were Soviet soldiers who escaped capture by the advancing Wehrmacht.

I don't see why you are introducing this history fact other than deflecting from your position that these Islamic terrorists are on the same legal footing as uniformed military personnel from a recognized nation. The terrorists are not uniformed military personnel nor from a recognized nation, cannot be defined as an 'army' as such, and are not entitled to be treated that way, nor do they behave in the same way.

Show me military personnel that routinely strap explosives on their bodies and explode themselves in the midst of innocent civilians at market doing their shopping. Cast them as military, as an army, is foolish, misleading and completely incorrect and completely inaccurate, beyond an army being a group of armed people.

Again, a terrorist is not defined by a uniform or the lack thereof. The Sunni army advancing on Baghdad right now is in every way an army...except that they don't have uniforms.

See above.

Doesn't matter - they're cleared to leave, and there's no good reason to keep spending our tax dollars on them.

And what if we cannot PROVE that they are guilty? Or are you of the opinion that it doesn't matter whether or not they're guilty, that we should just imprison them for life anyway? Is this the kind of America we want to see?

AFTER we invaded them and destroyed their national infrastructure. Oh, wait, I forgot - only Americans are ever patriotic, and anybody who gets invaded by America should just smile and be grateful even when their family or friends have been killed....

Just noise.

Doesn't matter. We are holding them WITHOUT TRIAL. That, sir, is wrong - it goes against everything America has eve stood for.

So the solution is to let them all go? The solution, last that I recall, was that they were going to receive military tribunals. Where does that stand, as I admit I've not heard anything on this recently.

Yes, and when they started to see what a mess we made of things by destroying their national infrastructure, how they no longer had reliable electricity and water like they did under Saddam, how their streets were no longer safe as they (usually) were under Saddam (as long as one didn't fall afoul of Saddam)...then they started turning against us and seeing us as occupiers of their nation.

So you are saying that the people would have been better off under a repressive, oppressive, brutal regime?

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was known for its severe violations of human rights. Secret police, torture, mass murder, rape, deportations, forced disappearances, assassinations, chemical warfare, and the destruction of southern Iraq's marshes were some of the methods the country's Ba'athist government used to maintain control. The total number of deaths related to torture and murder during this period are unknown. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued regular reports of widespread imprisonment and torture.
Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A strange position to take.

Problem is, we're not even giving them a MILITARY trial...and the ones who are cleared to leave are NOT subject to trial.

We know that when we release people - including those who committed murder, manslaughter, child abuse, rape, etc. - from jail, they MIGHT reoffend. Your logic would require that we would NEVER release anyone from jail.

True. Recidivism rate of US felons is far higher than the recidivism rate experienced with the Gitmo guys. But that's only one part of the calculus that needs to be applied. The other is the number of people injured and maimed, as is the advantages the terrorists gain with the release, as is the greater prevalence of terrorist acts likely with their release vs. their continued detention.
 
Re: Kerry: 'Offensive' to leave an American behind (2 of 2)

The terrorists, being international in nature, as well as their unique low conflict level of engagement have forced the community of nations into a new, and previously undefined part of the international legal system, or so it would seem.

In the international community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. Usage of the term has also been criticized for its frequent undue equating with Islamism or jihadism, while ignoring non-Islamic organizations or individuals.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4]
[/SUP]
Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are of course entitled to your opinion, regardless of how wrong, incorrect, unfounded, I might believe it to be. I really don't think that the terrorists, through their behaviors, methods and operations, really are entitled to the same legal standing nor the same respect as do military personnel.

Having no internationally agreed upon legal definition for the terrorists, no internationally agreed upon legal standing for them or their crimes against humanity, seems a pretty weak foundation on which to base your argument, unless it's just an emotional appeal, such as your post exhibits.

No, Gitmo is not the 'best' solution, but the international legal system doesn't have any better ones. An imperfect solution to new and difficult situation in an imperfect world. But frankly, it would seem to be the best that we have at this time.
 
If they are an illegal immigrant they are automatically guilty of a crime.

Try finding, rounding up, and forcing 11 million illegals across the border. Good luck with that.

Just look at it as another stimulus bill, or a few days holiday for the first family. That's $3 million a day.

Oh, isn't THAT snappy - makes it all so, so reasonable to keep men imprisoned when they've already been told they can leave, and so, so, reasonable to keep spending our taxpayer dollars to keep them fed, sheltered, and clothed.

And when the Obama family takes a vacation for a couple weeks, that's a national scandal...but when Dubya and his family stayed away from the White House for nearly a THIRD of the eight years he spent in office...*crickets*.

But I get it - if the black guy in the white house does something other than die, it must be wrong because anything he does other than die must be part of a socialistnazicommunist plot to DESTROY America!!!!

It's the mad Mullahs who are doing the radicalization of young men, the promise of 72 virgins being just one example, but it seems many Americans have been propagandized as well.

And this excuses our keeping 79 men imprisoned after they've already been declared that they are okay to go home...how?
 
Back
Top Bottom