Posted on 06/13/2004 6:09:20 PM PDT by ejdrapes
the Red Cross is now also calling for Saddam to be freed because we haven't charged him with anything.
Bump for Truth
And thus starts the 2004 presidential campaign, with all of it's BS.
These prisoners weren't treated roughly enough, IMHO......
Those who vote for someone other than him deserve what they get. The problem is the rest of us would suffer as well. We must not let them betray America from within. We must win this war.
Only if the American voters have a death wish. The Democrats made a tactical descision to be "anti-war". They are mistaking this current conflict with Viet Nam, where when we pulled out, only the South Vietnamese paid a price.
Pulling out of Afghanistan and/or Iraq will not end the war. Remember, the middle east terrorist have been at war with the West for many years, it is only recently that we have begun to treat it as a war, and not as a law enforcement issue.
If the main stream media and the left do succeed and Kerry is elected, we will pay a much greater price in blood and money then if President Bush was allowed to finish what we have started.
"IF" this does cost the President the election then America deserves what she gets.
"Those who vote for someone other than him deserve what they get. The problem is the rest of us would suffer as well. We must not let them betray America from within. We must win this war."
There was a day in which I would have agreed with you, however, after the Clinton years I came to understand "faith" and who is ultimately in control. Those who voted, and continue to support Clintons have not got their justice yet, that special day is yet ahead.
The real question is why we didn't open the gates of hell on these evil men. Oh, we did worst. We put panities on their heads. Yawn.
“The Red Cross has become a partisan organization.”
The Red Cross is desperate to gets its dirty hands on the oil money in the mid-east. I feel they have been unfairly siding with terrorist and feeding anti-American sediment worldwide with reports of U.S. abuses.
The simple fact is; US soldiers dressed terrorist up in women’s underwear and took pictures of it. They probably got good information and took it to the next step (nude photos). Big deal! They might of got information that saved a US soldiers life.
Humiliated yes, Tortured to death no!
Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com
If it turns out that Rumsfeld or Myers, or Bush approved these tactics how do they defend approving something they've now condemed?
No, it does matter a great deal, because how you answer that question will determine whether or not we will be effective in getting good intel out of these scum or not.
The problem is that the press is equating solitary confinement with feeding people into shredders.
If you look at what the "human rights" lawyers claim is legal, our troops would have to read these guys there rights and arrange an attorney for them, which is simply lunacy.
The President needs to step up to the plate and state clearly what was approved and what was not, and make it clear that what went on at Abu Ghraib was not approved by anyone, while leaving the door open for coercive techniques to be used when appropriate.
That's a tough policy to enunciate, but it's the correct one. It's also an open question as to whether or not it can be made loud enough to be heard above the gibbering chorus of left-o-babble bleating about "torture".
what tactics? the use of dogs, are you saying that Rumsfeld/Sanchez should have banned the use of dogs? sleep deprivation, we have to make sure the prisoners get 8 hours of restful sleep now?
You are accepting the media definition of "torture". I'm not.
The humilation tactics - the photos of the human pyramids, the dog leashes, the panties on the head, although they don't rise to the level of torture in my mind, should not have occured simply as a matter of military discipline and maturity, which those soldiers did not uphold.
I don't recall Bush every apologizing for prisoner "torture", just their "treatment". there is a big difference, but the media wants to morph that all into one.
Dude, what's with the tiny font? Some of us have poor vision. If you expect everyone to read your posts, they ought to be legible.
The fact is the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to fighters who a) are not fighting for a Nation b) people who target civilians, and randomly at that. We fall into a trap if we give these savages the rights that they deny us in their war against civilization.
And evidently, we don't want the world to view us in this light, or we wouldn't be trying to distance ourselves from it. If we're only doing these types of things because our survival depends on it, why are we distancing ourselves from the actions, saying that they're shameful? Why can't we assert our superiority here?
What I'd like to know, is whose idea was it to photograph all this stuff? That is one of the warfare tactics sure to go down in History as the left of the bellcurve brigade stuff. What a bunch of idiots.
are the soldiers being prosecuted for using dogs and not letting the prisoners get enough sleep? are they being prosecuted for hooding them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.