President Bush/Other leaders discussion

[Urumii-Previously ThePresident]

Thought I'd start a thread about this where it belongs, commence discussion now.

I would like this discussion to be as calm as possible. I want people to express their opinions safely, but respectfully. Lamron, it isn't required but if someone gets out of hand I would appreciate it if you deleted their post altogether. So if someone feels like yanking their hair out, please just give it an hour and come back when you have cooled down to a safe temperature. Republicans, democrats, greens, independents, whatever you are, please participate. Thank you.

[desmo2]

The debate is already raging in the "FEMA trailers trashed" thread. Since it is a political topic, the debate is appropriate there. I really don't think we need to rehash it all again in a seperate thread.

[Lamron]

The "FEMA" thread was originally about welfare and wandered off topic from there. So a new thread is fine. As long as the discussions remain moderately civil, I'll let them continue. I don't ever delete anyone's post unless it violates our Terms Of Service with the host.

I would suggest that we pick individual issues to discuss instead of people. Almost everyone has done at least a couple of good things and a few things that we absolutely hate. Arguing about their overall worth as a person will go nowhere but circles.

So, The_President, pick a narrowly defined issue and will go from there. Tell us why and what you believe about it. LOL I'm sure you'll learned by now if its based on vague feelings instead of demonstrable facts, several people will jump in to dissect it! But that's good. Anything true and right can stand up to scrutiny in the full light of day.

I do appreciate you and Vinsanity staying involved in these discussions where you might feel that you are in a "hostile environment" with our predominantly Conservative group.

[vinsanity]

This IS a hostile environment for those who do not label themselves conservatives

Nonetheless I am going nowhere unless banned form being here

Consevative by majority or not... the game play here is outstanding. I would never hold that against any of you

[michiganmilitia]

Awww... Gee Vin! I thought for sure you were gonna start lashing out! lol

But I have to agree... the community and game play here is better than anywhere I've ever seen. Why would anybody ever willingly leave? (key word is "willingly" lol)

[Death's Shadow]

I'm not leaving unless Lam comes to my house and pries my cold dead fingers off the keyboard. LOL

I love LP and these forums.


I can honestly say I enjoy talking to all you fine people no matter the political view. Have a good one. Catch you in game.

[Urumii-Previously ThePresident]

I'll do a little research to get all the facts straight, because I am not gonna get everything correct here.

But maybe someone knows what I'm talking about and I won't even have to spend the time proving something that isn't true.

I think it was a year ago or so, John McCain was trying to pass a bill further tightening the difinition of war crimes. So for lack of political correctness, Bush went oh crap that means I'm in trouble. So in a bill he was proposing, along with many many other things there was a little thing in there saying he was excused from all previous war crimes outlined in the other bill.

If nobody has any clue what I'm talking about, and think I might be living my life in Silly's alternate reality, give me a day and I will find a few articles.

[Lamron]

I'm not familiar with the bill you're talking about, but now you've got me curious. McCain is usually pretty good on supporting the war, but wrong on everything else. Defining what a "war crime" is an issue independant of whether the war itself is justified or not, so you may have picked a pretty good topic for discussion.

[Urumii-Previously ThePresident]

Ok, here is a link to an article I found. I haven't done any research for the credibility of the site. I will add more articles to this list, and might take some out as I find more informative ones, and more credible ones.

www.commondreams.org/views06/0905-32.htm

EDIT: My mom and dad have both said they remember hearing about this on MPR and NPR (Minnesota, and National Public Radio) awhile ago. They said they have never heard anything about it since. So I don't know any more than what I remember and what is in the above article.

[I...Died...Again!!!]

If only everyone would adhere to the laws set forth by the GC and NATO. We are one of the few( if not the only) country to follow such rules.

[Death's Shadow]

here I'll stir that pot. LOL

NATO should be disbanded, we waste more money supporting that organization than the benefits gleaned from membership with them.. They are no longer serving the purpose for which they were created. Instead we have corruption. ( oil for food better known as oil for money under the table).

I agree we are one of the few that follow the rules. Problem is the enemy does not. So we need to trash the ROE and kick some butt.

[Sgt_Blueberry]

The Bush legislation unfairly exempts high government officials from the very war crimes charges they are leveling against lowly "grunts."

Since the start of the Iraq War there have been more than thirty prosecutions under the military law that prohibits war crimes, with many more pending. But they have all prosecuted low-level military personnel. Gutting the War Crimes Act would leave the military "bad apples" at the bottom subject to prosecution but would let the civilian "bad apples" at the top evade all responsibility.


The above was taken from the article that Pres mentions. It is my opinion that there should be no such thing as war crimes. I believe that all resources should be used (including torture) to reveal and stop any future terrorist attack in any part of the world. WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK?

[RedRock]

thepresident said:

....My mom and dad have both said they remember hearing about this on MPR and NPR (Minnesota, and National Public Radio) awhile ago.

Before I go read that story, I can tell you that your first mistake is listening to "XPR" (anything Public Radio) as it's all leftist propaganda masquerading as intellectual news. Period.

[Rubble]

Take away war crimes and we'll have much worse versions of particular forms of weaponry used in WW1 and before it. Specifically, chemical and biological weapons. Even in Mediviel times armies would sometimes catapult plague-infected corpses over castle wars in a siege. Not good for civilians.

Neighter was chemical warfare in WW1. Belgian and French farmers are still finding unexploded mustard and chlorine gas shells buried in their fields. From a war that occurred over 90 years ago! We have to think about the future as well as the present when dealing with the consequences of warfare on civilian life. Conventional bullets and explosives are more than good enough for the task at hand, and don't have such the lasting impact on societies that nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons do.

[RedRock]

The article the_pres gave us is biased against Bush and attempts to attack Bush by making the center of the story an unproven supposition that Bush wants to protect himself and other top officials at the expense of grunts, and the story also takes the viewpoint that any treatment of prisoners beyond confinement is wrong, immoral, unethical, and illegal. The War Crimes Act of 1996 (a U.S. law) that Bush is supposedly afraid of was originally passed to protect US soldiers, not enemies, and it was amended in 1997 to add US Citizens (non-combatants) to the protections. However, as with many laws, there are sometimes unforeseen consequences, such as the very real threat that US soldiers, from the privates up to the generals, and elected and appointed officials in charge of them, being charged in international courts with crimes and with the US (the deep pocket here) being sued for Billions of Dollars, because of some raghead suicide bomber wannabe being embarrassed by his treatment in US detention and some liberal anti-American lawyers (about 90% of trial lawyers in the US, including Pretty Boy Edwards) more than willing to handle the cases. The article also oversimplifies the Supreme Court decision that is interpreted as affirming that Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to non-combatants as regards "inhumane" treatment. It was reported widely on all national news media (I recall it) after that decision that President Bush was asking Congress to define the status of the non-combatant detainees, to pass a law authorizing him to handle the detainees as he, as Commander in Chief, saw fit, as what the Supreme Court had done was to say that Pres. Bush's executive order declaring the non-combatants not covered by the Geneva Convention was incorrect and that Congress needed to fix the technical problem. Now that is a far cry from the referenced emotion-laden biased report painting the President as a coward and someone who wants to torture "innocents" at a distance by flagrant disobedience to the law.

For a more in depth discussion of the same situation that The_Pres gave us, but without the anti-Bush heavy bias, check out this story:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/27/AR2006072701908_pf.html

I myself am sick of the US bending over backward to be so so nice and proper and take it in the rear all the time from the sickos of the world who obey no law and feel free to attack us anywhere physically, financially, and mentally, with their willing accomplices the US Democratic Party and the mainstream US news and entertainment media right there holding us back and urging them on. I have no problem with "rough interrogation" techniques (yes, please put me in women's undergarments, oh how cruel!) and even outright torture of our enemies if, in the best judgment of trained, prepared, and informed officers and soldiers "on the scene" that's what's needed to stop attacks, save American and innocent civilian lives, and end the war sooner. I have no problem with assassination of foreign officers and officials and their families toward the same goal, just as I have no problem with nuking Baghdad, Tehran, etc. if we need to. NO, I would NOT rather be killed than to "stoop to that level." What is at stake here is the continued existence of the only truly free country in the world and in history. What, do you think the nukes in Japan were falling only on enemy soldiers and war equipment? War is hell, but it is necessary at times, and we should do everything we can to keep the US supreme and free.