• 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!

Secret Joint Raid Captures Taliban’s Top Commander

Deuce said:
Everyone has rights. The US Constitution does not exclusively apply to citizens. Courts have repeatedly upheld that these are rules the US government must abide by, period.

On the battlefield you get to shoot people. Once they're in custody you have rules that must be followed.
Click to expand...

That's why this guy should be squeezed, then iced. Problem solved.
 
texmaster said:
Too bad under Obama he has the right to remain silent :roll:
Click to expand...

Obama's made it explicitly clear that the rights you're referring to don't automatically inhere for those detained on the battlefield.

WillRockwell said:
So I guess its pure accident that he is having victories in Afg far beyond anything Bush accomplished in 8 years? Because he doesn't have a clue about military matters right? And he's just lucky that the troop casualties in Iraq have dropped to almost zero, because he just doesn't understand the military, right?
Click to expand...

Are you actually arguing that Iraq has gotten safer because of Obama? Jesus christ. Here's the fatality numbers:

iCasualties | OIF | Iraq | Fatalities By Month

Bush's last 6 months are absolutely indistinguishable from Obama's first 6 months. The reduced fatalities and increased stability are 100% due to the stabilization and withdrawal plan that Bush set in motion and that Obama continued.

As to increased successes in Afgh. - you're right, things have gotten better there, and Obama deserves much credit for deciding to send the necessary troops to allow that to happen. I think you're being a bit biased to claim that Obama is having successes beyond what Bush had, given that the surge could never have happened without the framework that was already in place. War, like the economy, is not a month to month who's better than who issue.

texmaster said:
No, I'm right. Obama has promised civilian rights to terrorists.
Click to expand...

No, he absolutely has not. He has explicitly stated otherwise in numerous court filings which have reiterated Bush administration policy toward detainees.

The fact that he decided to give some rights to some terrorists does not mean that he gave them all to all.

texmaster said:
Oh groan. Boy I wish you would do the smallest bit of research before posting this tired liberal argument.

We had not received the Supreme Court's ruling when the 20th hijacker and Richard Reed were charged. We have that ability now under the law to use military tribunals for enemy combatants.
Click to expand...

You're actually arguing that Bush wanted to detain and hold these people, but couldn't because he was waiting for a Supreme Court ruling? That is a gross misunderstanding of what happened.
 
WillRockwell said:
So I guess its pure accident that he is having victories in Afg far beyond anything Bush accomplished in 8 years? Because he doesn't have a clue about military matters right? And he's just lucky that the troop casualties in Iraq have dropped to almost zero, because he just doesn't understand the military, right?
Click to expand...

Which of PBO's policies have caused anything in Iraq? We'll be waiting.
 
Just checking....has Obama had the man Mirandized yet? When will his trial in New York happen?
 
WillRockwell said:
So I guess its pure accident that he is having victories in Afg far beyond anything Bush accomplished in 8 years? Because he doesn't have a clue about military matters right? And he's just lucky that the troop casualties in Iraq have dropped to almost zero, because he just doesn't understand the military, right?
Click to expand...

Wow. I didn't think it was possible, but I've finally found a post containing so much false spin my monitor has a hole in it.

Troop surge in Iraq, that both Obama and Biden opposed, succeeded, and now both O'biden and Bama are claiming full credit for the victory Bush wrought in Iraq by using that very same surge. And you're hauling their freight like a good little boy.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
The article said that the CIA and ISI captured a Taliban leader. What did Barack Obama do, exactly?

Hell, maybe he did do something (I don't know) but I'm not sure what it could be. Since you seem to want to give him credit, I was wondering what you were wanting to give him credit for. Do you not know?
Click to expand...

Well, what should the Messiah get credit for?

Waiting four months to decide to give the generals only three quarters of the troops they requested, and still failing to define what "victory" means in the context of Afghanistan?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Well, what should the Messiah get credit for?

Waiting four months to decide to give the generals only three quarters of the troops they requested, and still failing to define what "victory" means in the context of Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

Don't know. Like I said, maybe he did do something worthy of praise, I'd just like to know what it is, exactly.

Either way, I hope he's ignoring that little leftist voice in his head and letting the ISI work their magic on this puss-bag...
 
this is a positive headline for obama, his first in months

still, there are several very large problems, politically

this capture came as the result of obama's semi-secret and pointedly problematic presence in pakistan

problematic in islamabad, in waziristan, in peoria

the peculiarity of the problem is---the ENEMY are mostly in pakistan

but obama's ESCALATION is entirely in afghanistan

the SUCCESS or failure of OBAMA's policy in the theater is, no exaggeration, MORE dependent on the energy and efficacy of zardari than anything obama can do about things

there's that FUNDAMENTAL incoherence in obama's strategy

and just wait til mom and pop at home learn that their boys and girls are getting killed in the mountains above the moon operating under RULES OF ENGAGEMENT written by a bunch of MONTESSORI's, or something

our soldiers have to WARN targeted regions before moving in

we have to watch houses for 72 hours before we're allowed to act

nite raids and surprise searches are outta bounds

and the one that's really got our spc's and lance corporals complaining is the caveat that they can't shoot anyone who's not, at that moment, aiming a gun at him or her

that is, in marjah men are shooting at our heroes, then "dropping their guns into ditches before walking away to melt among civilians"

http://www.captainsjournal.com/category/rules-of-engagement/

and there's nothing we can do about it, according to the ROE

anyway, just wait til MOM hears this

MOM runs this country

if you want to understand america, always ask yourself, what would MOM say?

obama's in the wrong country, that's what

our chances of long term success in the theater are very dubious (ask gorbachev)

casualties already are DOUBLE under obama compared to 08

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan]United States Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


and we're operating over there like a bunch of doctor feelgood self esteem coordinators

at least politically, that's how it's gonna play down

just wait til the folks find out
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom