Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

NEW GITMO MEDICAL REPORT: MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
JMO



Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So let me see, you want to invade another country, call it a war, put on trial anyone from that country who shoots at the invading army and still call it a war.

Seems to me like you want to have your cake, lock it up for an indeterminate time without charge, torture it and then eat it.


Either it is a war or it isn't. If the opposition are commiting a criminal act by shooting at an invading army then it ceases to be a war.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JMO wrote:

Seems to me like you want to have your cake, lock it up for an indeterminate time without charge, torture it and then eat it.


Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
yawarakaijin



Joined: 08 Aug 2006

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Joo, I know you have your beliefs but you stance on this is entirely unsuppourtable. Prove to me that the entire country of Iraq were members of Al-qaeda and you have my backing, but come on man.

The United States INVADED Iraq plain and simple. Anyone in the Iraqi military at the time was honour bound to fight and resist. I would also argue that any civilian would have had the right to join the insurgency. Whether you like agree with their aims or not, whether you think your country is doing the right thing or not, this whole "give up their war" spiel is absolutely ridiculous.


Answer this please.

The following people would have the right to shoot as US forces, yes or no.


1.) Members of the Iraqi military. (during the initial invasion)

2.) Disbanded members of the Iraqi military who have decided to fight a guerrila war against the US.

3.) Shiittes who saw their entire families slaughtered by Hussein after Bush#1 called for an uprising and then totally abandoned them to Saddams army. (sh#t, I know I would have an axe to grind after that one)

4.) Any father, brother,uncle, cousin who had family members killed by American forces. ( Oh, but they didn't mean to kill them or we are the good guys doesn't cut it. )

5.) Any Sunni that had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, who had seen his family slaughtered by Shiite militias. Let's face it, the destabilization caused by the invasion led to the power vaccum which allows these militias to operate.

If any one of these situations were to pertain to ANY American, I hardly doubt you would be asking JIM BOB to lay down his weapon and "give up his war".


Last edited by yawarakaijin on Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee



Joined: 25 May 2003

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="JMO"]S
Quote:
o let me see, you want to invade another country, call it a war, put on trial anyone from that country who shoots at the invading army and still call it a war
.

Well cause the helped the people who hit the US. YOu seem to forget that.
[quote]

Quote:

Either it is a war or it isn't. If the opposition are commiting a criminal act by shooting at an invading army then it ceases to be a war.


It is a war but anyone who also helps AQ is also a criminal . That is hwy they are enemy combatants.


You insist on only two categories when in fact those in Gitmo fit in a third.

As I said anyone who took a shot at US soldier ought to be charged with attempted murder.

Defending AQ is not a legimate act.

As I said the US system as it is wasn't up to dealing with AQ and the evidence is that the US could not convict Bin Laden in a US court and so he was allowed to go free.

That was a failed system at it is unreasonable to demand that the US use a system that failed to protect US national security during war.

Especially from anyone who doesn't think that 9-11 is really evidence that the enemy intends to attack within the US .

"There was something like only only one attack"

Even that fact was wrong.

I get the impression that all this concern for Gitmo prisoners is by people who really just they want enemies of the US to free cause they don't want to see the US win.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JMO



Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You cannot invade a country, then claim that everyone within that country that fires upon you is a criminal. You say all these men in these prisons are AQ but you cannot prove this. neither do you want to. You just want to hold anyone you consider to be an enemy without trial.

By your logic, after pearl harbor any japanese soldier who fired on a US soldier is a criminal. Really this is either a war or it isn't. Until you can prove that all them men being held in those prisons are AQ you do not have a point. Of course to prove that, they would have to go to trial. There is no third category in between criminal and enemy combatant...you cannot make new classifications to abuse people's rights.

Quote:
Especially from anyone who doesn't think that 9-11 is really evidence that the enemy intends to attack within the US .

"There was something like only only one attack"




How many attacks have there been on US soil? How many americans in america have dies from terrorism? Lets do a little math.



Quote:
I get the impression that all this concern for Gitmo prisoners is by people who really just they want enemies of the US to free cause they don't want to see the US win.


Yea concern for people's basic rights is completely opposite to the american ideal...wow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee



Joined: 25 May 2003

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="JMO"]
Quote:
You cannot invade a country, then claim that everyone within that country that fires upon you is a criminal. You say all these men in these prisons are AQ but you cannot prove this. neither do you want to. You just want to hold anyone you consider to be an enemy without trial.



Anyone who fights for the Taliban and AQ is a criminal.

There war is evil.



Quote:
By your logic, after pearl harbor any japanese soldier who fired on a US soldier is a criminal. Really this is either a war or it isn't. Until you can prove that all them men being held in those prisons are AQ you do not have a point. Of course to prove that, they would have to go to trial. There is no third category in between criminal and enemy combatant...you cannot make new classifications to abuse people's rights.


No Japan was a country they have a home address.

There is a third catgory the US has it now and the US also had it in WWII.

Stoping the US from destorying AQ is not a legitimate cause.


Quote:
How many attacks have there been on US soil? How many americans in america have dies from terrorism? Lets do a little math.


One was enough.






Quote:
Yea concern for people's basic rights is completely opposite to the american ideal...wow.




Concern about those who support AQ is not more important than US national security. US national security comes before all else.

Fixing the system that was not good enough to get Bin Laden comes first.

I don't know all the circumstances of all those at Gitmo but what was a mideasterner doing in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban?

anyway the US really needs to get the miltary trials going. That way the the enemy combatants.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JMO



Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
No Japan was a country they have a home address



So is Iraq and Afghanistan. Is an Iraqi or afghani entitled to fight against the US invaders?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
yawarakaijin



Joined: 08 Aug 2006

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No answers Joo?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee



Joined: 25 May 2003

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JMO wrote:
Quote:
No Japan was a country they have a home address



So is Iraq and Afghanistan. Is an Iraqi or afghani entitled to fight against the US invaders?


Not if they are protecting Al Qaeda , the Bathists or the Khomeni followers.

But in Iraq the insurgents are fighting to get the US out they are fighting to conquer the nation of Iraq.

They have every right in the world to ask for independence but they won't cause their region has no oil.

But if one of the regions of Iraq wants independence and doesn't want US troops there then they have a legitmate claim. If they try to conquer the whole country then they don't.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message