• 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!

United Nations: U.S. Operation Of Gitmo Is ‘Clear Breach Of International Law’

What is GITMO about?


  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .
Fortunately I do not need to. It is defined already.

Delawar was not an unlawful combatant. He was the victim of a murder.

But you see, you miss the point. He was not the only one we've msitakenly took. That's why laws are important. Just saying you can do anything because everyone is evil opens the door to do evil.
 
You said you were happy to stop national socialism in WWII. Since fascism was a big part of that war I wanted to see if you were as consistent with fighting and defeating of fascist movements. Islam and its fascists are as dangerous and national socialists and Italian fascists.

Murdering Delawar, despite the allegations of people trying to cover their crime, was not and is not US policy. I know that you believe that it is.

I have no trouble with war, when neccessary. Iraq was not necessary and was not to stop anything really. Instead, it helped our enemies.

But, what we are debating is torture.
 
I have no trouble with war, when neccessary. Iraq was not necessary and was not to stop anything really. Instead, it helped our enemies.

But, what we are debating is torture.
I thought it was Guantanamo.

Iraq was defying the no-fly zone. Hussein did not live up to the cease-fire agreement. Technically we just continued Gulf War I when he failed to meet his obligations.

We shall have to agree to disagree.
 
I have no trouble with war, when neccessary. Iraq was not necessary and was not to stop anything really. Instead, it helped our enemies.
Only a fool believes that. We have roughly 25 million free Iraqis as a counterpoise to an Islamofascist state, Iran. If the one term Marxist had been a strategist he could have brokered an arrangement where we kept large forces in Iraq in the north and southeast parts of Iraq to counter Iran. But he is a community organizer, a rabble rouser, an agitator. He is not a deep thinker.
 
Only a fool believes that. We have roughly 25 million free Iraqis as a counterpoise to an Islamofascist state, Iran. If the one term Marxist had been a strategist he could have brokered an arrangement where we kept large forces in Iraq in the north and southeast parts of Iraq to counter Iran. But he is a community organizer, a rabble rouser, an agitator. He is not a deep thinker.

Avoidance tactic #63.

No, Iraq was meaningless. Almost as meaningless as you incessent inability to know the definitions of words. You really should learn what a Marxist really is.

:coffeepap
 
I thought it was Guantanamo.

Iraq was defying the no-fly zone. Hussein did not live up to the cease-fire agreement. Technically we just continued Gulf War I when he failed to meet his obligations.

We shall have to agree to disagree.

A no fly zone whose legality itself was being questioned. But that is neither here nor there. The fact remains he was Iraq was a UN effort and not soley a US effort. Only the UN could sanction action. Also, Iraq did not met the level of threat that justified the expendature. Iraq cost us far more, on all fronts, than we gained.
 
WOWWW! Such ad obvious strawman. I'm impressed at that boldness with which you throw that out.

I'm sorry, but torturing and killing innocent taxi drivers does not fight Islamofascist, or anything else for that matter. All it does is destroy our world standing, lower us closer to their level, and weaken all moral authority that we have.
If he was indeed innocent__IF?__Then he is what the military calls collateral damage.

It is WAR and unfortunately that's the nature of the beast, so man up and deal with it.
 
If he was indeed innocent__IF?__Then he is what the military calls collateral damage.

It is WAR and unfortunately that's the nature of the beast, so man up and deal with it.

That is, indeed, the nature of war, and has been ever since Og knocked Grog on the head and took over his cave.

So, what's up with all the nonsense about fighting for someone else's freedom, or winning hearts and minds?
 
If he was indeed innocent__IF?__Then he is what the military calls collateral damage.

It is WAR and unfortunately that's the nature of the beast, so man up and deal with it.

He was. the people who tortured him admit that. And you seem awful cavalier about the suffering of someone else. I wonder how forgiving you would be if it were you or a loved one?

But let's step back for a minute. I've given you the literature, and verifiable examples of where it's gone wrong. Outside of your belief, or maybe because someone told you it worked, can you give me as much as I've given you? You know, something clear and verifiable?
 
Either we are part of the U.N. and care what it thinks or not. I am certainly tired of politician saying we need to enforce U.N. resolutions as a reason to justify wars we want to fight while saying the U.N. is threatening our government and we should ignore it when it points out what we do wrong.
 
That is, indeed, the nature of war, and has been ever since Og knocked Grog on the head and took over his cave.

So, what's up with all the nonsense about fighting for someone else's freedom, or winning hearts and minds?
It's political rhetoric to calm the critics of the war for which I am one, although it does't work on me.

If these people would protest the war itself rather than it's dynamics, we could share some common ground.
 
It's political rhetoric to calm the critics of the war for which I am one, although it does't work on me.

If these people would protest the war itself rather than it's dynamics, we could share some common ground.

Both deserve criticism. It is not either or.
 
It's political rhetoric to calm the critics of the war for which I am one, although it does't work on me.

If these people would protest the war itself rather than it's dynamics, we could share some common ground.

I will ask you also. Why would giving them a trial be so difficult/objectionable that you would prefer to kill innocent people? Organised crime in the U.S has killed far more people, and yet even during the 1930s they where still even trials before being killed. Christ even Eichmann got a fair trial, why don't these people deserve one?
 
These detainees are prisoners of war.
The war must be settled and the prisoners returned to their native land.
No trials.
 
I still dont know why Obama doesnt do the smart thing...transfer all the prisoners at GITMO to the black ops prisons at Bagram. Everyone would be happy.
 
I still dont know why Obama doesnt do the smart thing...transfer all the prisoners at GITMO to the black ops prisons at Bagram. Everyone would be happy.

Yeah, no one would protest that :bs
 
Yeah, no one would protest that :bs
I doubt they would actually. Out of sight, out of mind. Its not as if the people protesting actually give a **** about the people held in GITMO and its damn sure not like they are protesting Obama's use of black ops prisons. As soon as Obama acted, the message would be...why...they HAD to be transferred to preserve the worlds security from the dangerous criminals Bush has made them.
 
These detainees are prisoners of war.
The war must be settled and the prisoners returned to their native land.
No trials.

They may be de facto prisoners of war, but they aren't called that. The government made up a new name, "enemy combatants", meaning that they aren't covered by the Geneva Accords.
 
Last edited:
They may be de facto prisoners of war, but they aren't called that. The government made up a new name, "enemy combatants", meaning that they aren't covered by the Geneva Accords.

To be fair, our gov't didn't anticipate having to fight an enemy that wasn't a formally part of an established nation state. It was relatively unprecedented. If there was a precedent for it, please inform me of it and I will admit my ignorance of it.
 
Though the point that everyone seems to be missing is that alot of them are neither, because they are in fact completely innocent

Guantánamo leaks lift lid on world's most controversial prison | World news | The Guardian
Unfortunately, this is what happens when one or both sides resorts to guerrilla warfare. Guerrillas are typically supported by the local population and are inter-mixed with them, in affect using the population as camouflage to hide their movements and supply lines. There is an intrinsic downside to this kind of warfare, which you've just pointed out. Sometimes "innocent" people are mistaken as hostiles, though one must also ask, "Who is innocent in such a war?" When the population at large allows the guerrillas to operate in their neighborhoods, does this not make them culpable as well?


Mind you, I did not support the war in Iraq so don't bother slamming me with the anti-Iraq arguments. It was flawed from the get-go and we've known it since Bush Sr decided Baghdad wasn't worth the price of a decade-long war. He listened to his generals, I wish his son had done the same.

To be fair, our gov't didn't anticipate having to fight an enemy that wasn't a formally part of an established nation state. It was relatively unprecedented. If there was a precedent for it, please inform me of it and I will admit my ignorance of it.
Vietnam
 
Back
Top Bottom