It was implied and you knew how people would read it. After all swop Mexicans for Arabs in that line and it would no longer have any relevance to this thread at all.
Printable View
It was implied and you knew how people would read it. After all swop Mexicans for Arabs in that line and it would no longer have any relevance to this thread at all.
Goofball,
Im happy with the kill ratio.Quote:
1) They don't have to travel all the way to the U.S. to kill Americans anymore, they can do it from the comfort of their own homes now.
A lot.Quote:
2) How many civilians had their heads cut off on TV before you invaded Iraq?
Sure I knew how some of you would read it - but again what was stated, you played into your own insecurities and made an assumption about what you thought I meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
The majority of the terrorists that flew the planes into the buildings crossed into the United States by illegal means.
Im happy with the kill ratio.
General Westmoreland speaks again~:rolleyes:
Oh well another 3 released from Gitmo , once again 3 people who were not captured in Afghanistan , were not illegal combatants and were not charged with anything at all after years of illegal detention .
well it seems that not everyone understands that the United States Military does not track kill ratios any longerQuote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Got a link.Quote:
Oh well another 3 released from Gitmo , once again 3 people who were not captured in Afghanistan , were not illegal combatants and were not charged with anything at all after years of illegal detention .
well it seems that not everyone understands that the United States Military does not track kill ratios any longer
Is that because kill ratios are pretty meaningless ? Tell General panzer .
Got a link.
Nope it was one of the news pop ups .
I thought it might be in the Bahrain media as it quoted two ministers from there and it meant that half of their citizens detained at Gitmo are now released , but no luck so far .
Come on Red, the statement of PanzerJager speaks by itself. I hope you're not trying to defend it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Notice how Tribesman responded to my comment. Does that sound like a response to someone who was agreeing with Panzwer's statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
But in simple terms - no I wasn't defending his statement - just stating that the military no longer tracks kill ratios because they are not an effective means of judging how the force is doing in the overall scheme of things - its only good for seeing how a particlur operation went. Futhermore Kill ratios are not important for an unconventional war.
The last part; "Further, kill ratios are not important for an unconventional war."Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Sound at all familiar? It is the exact same statement used by Westmoreland to justify his policy in 'nam in 1966, before the S__t hit the fan.
Well, it has hit the fan again. Due to the causes of our (USA) previous FUBAR - arrogance, ignorance and ego's run amock in a situation they did not have the inteligence (well, they had the real CIA info, but chose to ignore it. And, the military intelligence; which they opted to retire the offending officers for showing them - but, they weren't bright enough to realize the quagmire they were drawing us into. Or, they didn't care).
As to the original premise of the CIA running an illegal (by U.S. law - prior ro Cheney, Wolfowitz and gang) network of prisons, it is fact. It is noted, it is.
Pity of it all is that there are those still attempting to justify an illegal war. One created by an administration so caught up in the past, they can't see the present - let alone the future.
My nephew just got back from "there". My son is just got "there" (as a hired gun), and my niece's husband is in a hospital because of "there" (lucked out, only lost his foot).
Justifying an unjust and ill needed war, is like proclaiming ones self a warmonger. Which is fine; given the proper circumstance one could accuse me of such. But, to preclude the evidence of the issue by saying that we are doing things within International Law? Well, what planet are we talking about? Surely, you don't mean Earth. Or, do you?~;p
No, the implication was clear and any other possibility renders the statement meaningless. You are generally a sensible man, but you back-pedal too much which hurts your argument as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
LOL - not at all - but you will only see what you want to see in the words used.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
Not my problem at all.
Oh boy here we go again with the rethoric of the far far left that is Kafir.Quote:
Originally Posted by KafirChobee
Not at all - Westmoreland wanted to know the kill ration because of the politics involved. Who actually ordered the information to be gathered can be debated - my bet is on a certain democratic president.Quote:
Sound at all familiar? It is the exact same statement used by Westmoreland to justify his policy in 'nam in 1966, before the S__t hit the fan.
Now multiple histories will back this up - but here is some that are the web - take them with a grain of salt though because we all know how truthful information is on the web - kind of like your statement here is "truthful"
http://www.trincoll.edu/classes/hist300/westmore.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by link
http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-Viet2.htmlQuote:
Thus, the administration escalated in response to North Vietnamese actions. Its objective was to inflict a level of pain on the North Vietnamese that was sufficient to make them bargain in earnest. Thus Vietnam became a war of attrition. Johnson would regularly characterize his decisions as taking the middle ground. He would not "pull out" as the "doves" and "nervous Nellies" suggested nor would he go "all out" as the "hawkish" military advisors recommended.
Fighting a war with limited and political objectives had an added liability. It was difficult to define and convey the idea of "progress" to the public. There were few set piece or conventional battles and American objectives were not defined in geographical terms (e.g., Berlin and Tokyo). Instead, the administration was forced to create and essentially sell indicators of progress to the public. Herein lies the origin of such commonly used terms as "pacification zones" and "kill ratios."
If you want more - feel free to ask - but point your finger at the democratic party which was in control of Washington D.C. at the time.
You just can't help yourself can you?Quote:
Well, it has hit the fan again. Due to the causes of our (USA) previous FUBAR - arrogance, ignorance and ego's run amock in a situation they did not have the inteligence (well, they had the real CIA info, but chose to ignore it. And, the military intelligence; which they opted to retire the offending officers for showing them - but, they weren't bright enough to realize the quagmire they were drawing us into. Or, they didn't care).
You might want to check on the definition of illegal - it seem the United States Congress authorized the use of force. Oh wait their all corrupt politians except for the democratic party - to bad they also voted for the most part in favor of using force against Iraq.Quote:
As to the original premise of the CIA running an illegal (by U.S. law - prior ro Cheney, Wolfowitz and gang) network of prisons, it is fact. It is noted, it is.
Pity of it all is that there are those still attempting to justify an illegal war. One created by an administration so caught up in the past, they can't see the present - let alone the future.
:bow:Quote:
My nephew just got back from "there". My son is just got "there" (as a hired gun), and my niece's husband is in a hospital because of "there" (lucked out, only lost his foot).
Maybe we live on the same full of hyprocrisy planet.Quote:
Justifying an unjust and ill needed war, is like proclaiming ones self a warmonger. Which is fine; given the proper circumstance one could accuse me of such. But, to preclude the evidence of the issue by saying that we are doing things within International Law? Well, what planet are we talking about? Surely, you don't mean Earth. Or, do you?~;p
I was refering to the numbers of enemy casualties versus the number of allied casualties the military gives after combat engagements. Sorry for the confusion.Quote:
well it seems that not everyone understands that the United States Military does not track kill ratios any longer
How are civilian casualites counted ? Points for both sides ? :hide:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
A bit more proof that people should be wary of a government that isn't transparent; or the State entirely, but there’s no need to get started on that topic, not the time or the place.
Quote:
Powell's ex-aide speaks of torture 'cabal'
Last Updated Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:37:53 EST
CBC News
A former top official in the Bush administration is making new allegations that Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved the use of torture against al-Qaeda suspects and other foreign-held prisoners.
"They began to authorize procedures in the armed forces that led to, in my view, what we've seen," said Col. Larry Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to former secretary of state Colin Powell.
Wilkerson claims that Cheney and Rumsfeld formed what he called a "cabal" – a small secret group within the administration that tacitly approved torture.
According to a report published in the Washington Post this week, much of the alleged torture may be taking place in a number of covert Central Intelligence Agency prisons called "black sites."
Several of them are allegedly located in Eastern Europe, where they are used to house and interrogate al-Qaeda suspects.
Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter said that if the Washington Post story is true, the existence of the prisons is a disgrace.
"It's an abomination," he said. "It's a discredit to our country; it's an embarrassment to our country, and it's a direct violation of the fact that America in the past has been looked upon as a champion of human rights."
The Bush administration declined to either confirm or deny the existence of secret CIA prisons around the world. It has also repeated its claim that it does not condone torture.
Excuse me but torture was always legal, for what I know, as long as you didn't hold the suspect for too long, didn't cause him much pain (physical or psicological) or didn't cause him permanent damage. But in any case, yes a terrible thing indeed.Quote:
A former top official in the Bush administration is making new allegations that Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved the use of torture against al-Qaeda suspects and other foreign-held prisoners.
Like I've said before.Quote:
"It's an abomination," he said. "It's a discredit to our country; it's an embarrassment to our country, and it's a direct violation of the fact that America in the past has been looked upon as a champion of human rights."
Of course they declined. How would they reveal "state's secret's"? This is just so hilarious. It was supposed on the begining of the formation of USA country and every other now liberal, that it accepted the republican or democratic form of government. It's supposed that the state is an instrument, not an allmighty lord that dicides what the citizens should know and what no, they must say everything, secrets only lead to loose of control and tryrany.Quote:
The Bush administration declined to either confirm or deny the existence of secret CIA prisons around the world. It has also repeated its claim that it does not condone torture.
I know what you meant, but this is a case where you have to be careful with English.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
[B]Originally Posted by Goofball
1) They don't have to travel all the way to the U.S. to kill Americans anymore, they can do it from the comfort of their own homes now.
Originally Posted by Redleg
Hyperbole - there are reports of arabs attempting to get into the United States illegally.
Goofball is talking about terrorists, your response is arabs have been attempting to get into the United States illegally. Unfortunately what you have accidentally done is made an implicit statement that Arabs are terrorists.
"Hyperbole - there are reports of arab terrorists attempting to get into the United States illegally." - This would be a more accurate statement of your intent I believe.
Then select your words more carefully so that they may show what you actually mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I think we should approach all arguements with charity... I should have pointed out that I understood the intent and was making a grammar correction not believing that Redleg thought that all Arabs are terrorists.
As it stands my intent and my statement confused the issue by not being more inline with each other.
IMDHO Red would make a great backroom moderator. :bow:
~:grouphug: ~:cheers:
You mean because he dislike Arabs ??? ~:joker: ~D ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Just to make it clear for all - I have absolutely nothing against any group. Each individual is judged by their own behavior and merits as far as I am concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
Now continue with the debate about how wrong the CIA is to be holding people against international law.
Don't let the little side bar distract from the main issue.
:knight:
Not at all, I love to argue politics and religion just to argue them. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Why do you think I avoid being a backroom mod. ~D ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
For that exact same reason maybe (in my sarcastic voice) ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Not true Redleg. I can give at least one group...... ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Isn't it here we will hear your: What international law??:hide:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Ah! Lectures on the nature and response to terrorism from a yank to a brit... heheheh.. It's like listening to a young child endearingly give instructions on how daddy should fix the car. We humour, we nod, we chuckle with pride at how far junior is progressing.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Come back in 20 years when you actually know something son ~;)
And they are not a group of people now are they? So in the essence of this discussion the statement is true. Now if the communists and athiest aggitators want to begin let them. But normally I respond with rudeness when the individual first used rudness - So again in essence of what I stated the statement is true. But believe what you wish. It makes no difference in the scheme of things of this world.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
[/quote]Quote:
Isn't it here we will hear your: What international law??:hide:
True what international law - (sarcasm on)the only law that matters that they might be breaking is some United States Laws.(Sarcasm off) Which happen to also coincide with a few International Laws.
I just wanted to point out that you actually have some biased opinions on some groups, I even share them in some cases...... ~:grouphug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
So is God also under US law ?? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
Nope - try reading what the Constitution and the laws actually state sometime.Quote:
So is God also under US law ?? ~;)
~:joker: