rumsfeld out...
#61
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Intimidator SS
Nahhh...
1994 Texas Gubernatorial (that means Governor, idiot) Election - Nope.
1998 Texas Gubernatorial (that means Governor, idiot) Election - Nope.
2000 Presidential Election - Nope.
2004 Presidential Election - Nope.
Even your brother thinks you should zip it:
#63
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,018
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hawgs
Tell me what race he lost then.
1994 Texas Gubernatorial (that means Governor, idiot) Election - Nope.
1998 Texas Gubernatorial (that means Governor, idiot) Election - Nope.
2000 Presidential Election - Nope.
2004 Presidential Election - Nope.
1994 Texas Gubernatorial (that means Governor, idiot) Election - Nope.
1998 Texas Gubernatorial (that means Governor, idiot) Election - Nope.
2000 Presidential Election - Nope.
2004 Presidential Election - Nope.
Anyways, I wasn't talking about from 1994 to 2004, but the big defeat that happened a couple of days ago.
Let me guess...you are a Republican?
Funny pic!
Last edited by Intimidator SS; 11-10-2006 at 11:20 AM.
#64
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Intimidator SS
Anybody can make mistakes.
Anyways, I wasn't talking about from 1994 to 2004, but the one that happened a couple of days ago.
Let me guess...you are a Republican?
Funny pic!
Anyways, I wasn't talking about from 1994 to 2004, but the one that happened a couple of days ago.
Let me guess...you are a Republican?
Funny pic!
You don't know what Republican means. Me answering that wouldn't help you at all.
#65
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,018
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hawgs
Wow, you know less about politics then I thought. Presidents do not run in the mid term elections... hence the name mid term (meaning "in the middle of his term"). This election was for the Congress, not for the Presidenency. President Bush wasn't part of this election.
You don't know what Republican means. Me answering that wouldn't help you at all.
You don't know what Republican means. Me answering that wouldn't help you at all.
Have a good one!
#66
Originally Posted by Intimidator SS
Damn, you did understand my point, but you make it very difficult and try to turn things around, Republicans (G.W.Bush is one of them as far as I know, isn't he?) LOST and get over it dude!
Have a good one!
Have a good one!
#72
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: DFW
Posts: 1,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Intimidator SS
Here we go, another Republican...
#73
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ft. Carson, Colorado Springs
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JayBird-Ws6
I think Rumsfeld should still be in office, but I am still in the army. I have been deployed, and he took good care of us.
#75
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Not Austin, Texas
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Parker TX
Out of curiousity, why are you posting in this thread?!
Originally Posted by Intimidator SS
#76
TECH Addict
iTrader: (2)
Please don't take this as a flame or a put-down, it's not intended that way....these are simply observations that I have made, which happen to be backed up with facts
This much is obvious, on both accounts...read further to find out why the first point is true. the second point is true simply because of the fact that you made this post in the first place
actually, it does protect them (in most cases)....the Geneva Conventions protect any human being, as long as their enemy (us, in this case...) is one of the nations who have adopted the Geneva Conventions, and are themselves bound by their decrees. The only time they would not be protected is if the terrorists were not human beings (not to be mistaken for "not acting like human beings), or if the power they were fighting were also not bound by the Geneva Conventions:
So regardless of the fact that they are not wearing a uniform, or hiding among civilians, or beheading people and blowing people/places up, as long as the power that they are fighting (us) is bound by the Geneva Conventions, so are they protected by it. true enough, these are despicable acts, and makes them one of the lowest forms of human life, but the fact remains that they 1) are still human, and 2) are protected by the G.C.'s in this instance. we may not (and many, including myself, DON'T) like it, but that doesn't change the facts.
after reading the rest of what i've posted above, it seems that although what you posted may be "common sense" among many people, it doesn't necessarily make it true, or fact
don't get me wrong, i'm no tree-hugging liberal (in fact, i usually tend to stay out of political discussions altogether, but i will occasionally speak up and correct someone when they're wrong, and i know they're wrong)...however, the fact remains that if we simply decide to throw the Geneva Conventions out the window anytime it's convenient for us, and engage in acts that are strictly and explicitly prohibited by those conventions, we basically become no better than our enemy...and that's what they want to happen. they want to take us out of our natural element, so to speak, and cause us to erode our own moral values. for us to truly gain victory over them, we not only have to prevail on the battlefield, but also prevail in a moral sense by keeping our own values alive, and not stoop to their level of thinking. it may be difficult, but we are Americans, and i know we can do it
Originally Posted by TWS
...My 11 years of service don't make me an expert on international politics or warfare... but they do make me opinionated.
Originally Posted by TWS
The Geneva Convention does NOT apply to terrorists, or even the insurgents in Iraq. They do not wear a uniform. They are not fighting openly, rather they hide among women, children and the general population. They do not abide by the Geneva Convention themselves. Kidnapping and beheading people on video tape or planting bombs in crowded markets does not entitle them to any respect, much less protection under a convention that they do not adhere to themselves.
Originally Posted by Quoted From Convention III: Part I, Article 2, Paragraph 3
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
Originally Posted by TWS
I am continually amazed that the far left in America cannot recognize the common sense of what I just wrote above.
don't get me wrong, i'm no tree-hugging liberal (in fact, i usually tend to stay out of political discussions altogether, but i will occasionally speak up and correct someone when they're wrong, and i know they're wrong)...however, the fact remains that if we simply decide to throw the Geneva Conventions out the window anytime it's convenient for us, and engage in acts that are strictly and explicitly prohibited by those conventions, we basically become no better than our enemy...and that's what they want to happen. they want to take us out of our natural element, so to speak, and cause us to erode our own moral values. for us to truly gain victory over them, we not only have to prevail on the battlefield, but also prevail in a moral sense by keeping our own values alive, and not stoop to their level of thinking. it may be difficult, but we are Americans, and i know we can do it
Last edited by 02Z28LS1; 11-11-2006 at 05:59 AM.
#77
Banned
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Desoto, Tx
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 02Z28LS1
not stoop to their level of thinking. it may be difficult, but we are Americans, and i know we can do it
You have to be a wolf to catch a wolf. We know who is on the right side. Having said that, lets not bring up who is "right" or wrong. Remember, we did not launch an act of war whatsoever on these people.
Furthermore, when did everyone decide to get the wild hair up their *** to be AGAINST the war? **** me running, the weeks following the 9/11 attacks ALL Americans demanded action and would be kidding themselves to think otherwise, but obviously were not willing to accept the collateral damage that follows with a war, more specifically a war against extremists. Extremists with no specific uniform or face. Extremists who hate us for being free to live the American dream of watching ****, driving inefficient vehicles, drinking excessively, and to believe whatever religon (or no religion at all) we choose. But as the war goes on now, our own foolish pride, the pride that made us "invulnerable" and thought that NOBODY had the ***** to attack the good ol'e U.S. of A. has backfired once again in our face by thinking that NOBODY would DIE and NOBODY would be wounded from a war we have waged on worldwide terror that ensued after that awful day. The only thing we have to blame is ourselves and our foolish pride and that my friends is sad.
Blake
Last edited by I <3 80057; 11-11-2006 at 08:46 AM.
#78
TECH Addict
iTrader: (2)
Originally Posted by I <3 80057
If we would have stooped to their level of thinking, 9/11 would never had happend. I forgot which cabinet member of the armed forces mentioned the "failure of imagination" on our part. The failure to imagine that planes could have been used as a weapon to take them (the twin towers, pentagon) down. He is absolutely right.
You have to be a wolf to catch a wolf. We know who is on the right side. Having said that, lets not bring up who is "right" or wrong. Remember, we did not launch an act of war whatsoever on these people.
Furthermore, when did everyone decide to get the wild hair up their *** to be AGAINST the war? **** me running, the weeks following the 9/11 attacks ALL Americans demanded action and would be kidding themselves to think otherwise, but obviously were not willing to accept the collateral damage that follows with a war, more specifically a war against extremists. Extremists with no specific uniform or face. Extremists who hate us for being free to live the American dream of watching ****, driving inefficient vehicles, drinking excessively, and to believe whatever religon (or no religion at all) we choose. But as the war goes on now, our own foolish pride, the pride that made us "invulnerable" and thought that NOBODY had the ***** to attack the good ol'e U.S. of A. has backfired once again in our face by thinking that NOBODY would DIE and NOBODY would be wounded from a war we have waged on worldwide terror that ensued after that awful day. The only thing we have to blame is ourselves and our foolish pride and that my friends is sad.
Blake
You have to be a wolf to catch a wolf. We know who is on the right side. Having said that, lets not bring up who is "right" or wrong. Remember, we did not launch an act of war whatsoever on these people.
Furthermore, when did everyone decide to get the wild hair up their *** to be AGAINST the war? **** me running, the weeks following the 9/11 attacks ALL Americans demanded action and would be kidding themselves to think otherwise, but obviously were not willing to accept the collateral damage that follows with a war, more specifically a war against extremists. Extremists with no specific uniform or face. Extremists who hate us for being free to live the American dream of watching ****, driving inefficient vehicles, drinking excessively, and to believe whatever religon (or no religion at all) we choose. But as the war goes on now, our own foolish pride, the pride that made us "invulnerable" and thought that NOBODY had the ***** to attack the good ol'e U.S. of A. has backfired once again in our face by thinking that NOBODY would DIE and NOBODY would be wounded from a war we have waged on worldwide terror that ensued after that awful day. The only thing we have to blame is ourselves and our foolish pride and that my friends is sad.
Blake
going a bit overboard for what i said there, aren't you?
when i said that we shouldn't stoop to their level, i meant on a permanent basis, the way they do. those ******* (the extremists, that is) wake up every single day thinking of how to kill & terrorize people. trying to imagine what they would do and the way they think is completely different from continuously thinking of new & different ways of killing thousands of innocent people the way they did on 9/11.
and to say that 9/11 would have never happened...well, we'll never really know for sure, will we? because what's done is done, and can't be undone. but it is my belief that with enough determination, the enemy will always come up with some new idea or tactic that their opponent has not yet thought of, and use that against them, so it is more or less inevitable that it was going to happen, and likewise, other new things will likely happen again before it's all said & done. the real test is to see how we react when it happens, and take (legal) measures to insure that it never happens again. that includes NOT imprisoning people for years with no charges, and NOT torturing people while in captivity, because then we would be no better than they are.
#79
10 Second Club
iTrader: (63)
Originally Posted by 02Z28LS1
Please don't take this as a flame or a put-down, it's not intended that way....these are simply observations that I have made, which happen to be backed up with facts
This much is obvious, on both accounts...read further to find out why the first point is true. the second point is true simply because of the fact that you made this post in the first place
actually, it does protect them (in most cases)....the Geneva Conventions protect any human being, as long as their enemy (us, in this case...) is one of the nations who have adopted the Geneva Conventions, and are themselves bound by their decrees. The only time they would not be protected is if the terrorists were not human beings (not to be mistaken for "not acting like human beings), or if the power they were fighting were also not bound by the Geneva Conventions:
So regardless of the fact that they are not wearing a uniform, or hiding among civilians, or beheading people and blowing people/places up, as long as the power that they are fighting (us) is bound by the Geneva Conventions, so are they protected by it. true enough, these are despicable acts, and makes them one of the lowest forms of human life, but the fact remains that they 1) are still human, and 2) are protected by the G.C.'s in this instance. we may not (and many, including myself, DON'T) like it, but that doesn't change the facts.
after reading the rest of what i've posted above, it seems that although what you posted may be "common sense" among many people, it doesn't necessarily make it true, or fact
don't get me wrong, i'm no tree-hugging liberal (in fact, i usually tend to stay out of political discussions altogether, but i will occasionally speak up and correct someone when they're wrong, and i know they're wrong)...however, the fact remains that if we simply decide to throw the Geneva Conventions out the window anytime it's convenient for us, and engage in acts that are strictly and explicitly prohibited by those conventions, we basically become no better than our enemy...and that's what they want to happen. they want to take us out of our natural element, so to speak, and cause us to erode our own moral values. for us to truly gain victory over them, we not only have to prevail on the battlefield, but also prevail in a moral sense by keeping our own values alive, and not stoop to their level of thinking. it may be difficult, but we are Americans, and i know we can do it
This much is obvious, on both accounts...read further to find out why the first point is true. the second point is true simply because of the fact that you made this post in the first place
actually, it does protect them (in most cases)....the Geneva Conventions protect any human being, as long as their enemy (us, in this case...) is one of the nations who have adopted the Geneva Conventions, and are themselves bound by their decrees. The only time they would not be protected is if the terrorists were not human beings (not to be mistaken for "not acting like human beings), or if the power they were fighting were also not bound by the Geneva Conventions:
So regardless of the fact that they are not wearing a uniform, or hiding among civilians, or beheading people and blowing people/places up, as long as the power that they are fighting (us) is bound by the Geneva Conventions, so are they protected by it. true enough, these are despicable acts, and makes them one of the lowest forms of human life, but the fact remains that they 1) are still human, and 2) are protected by the G.C.'s in this instance. we may not (and many, including myself, DON'T) like it, but that doesn't change the facts.
after reading the rest of what i've posted above, it seems that although what you posted may be "common sense" among many people, it doesn't necessarily make it true, or fact
don't get me wrong, i'm no tree-hugging liberal (in fact, i usually tend to stay out of political discussions altogether, but i will occasionally speak up and correct someone when they're wrong, and i know they're wrong)...however, the fact remains that if we simply decide to throw the Geneva Conventions out the window anytime it's convenient for us, and engage in acts that are strictly and explicitly prohibited by those conventions, we basically become no better than our enemy...and that's what they want to happen. they want to take us out of our natural element, so to speak, and cause us to erode our own moral values. for us to truly gain victory over them, we not only have to prevail on the battlefield, but also prevail in a moral sense by keeping our own values alive, and not stoop to their level of thinking. it may be difficult, but we are Americans, and i know we can do it
1. I'll ignore the semi-personal attack. I was trying to keep things a little light-hearted with my first line, and you thought you could sound clever using it against me.
2. Before I show that you are WRONG, I want to point out one important thing: I agree with you that we must take a higher moral path than that of our enemies. That has always been the American way. And guess what? We ARE doing it. Do you think Nick Berg and any of the others that insurgents have kidnapped or captured got treated anywhere near as well as the Gitmo detainees? If you do, think again. We got our national panties in a bunch over the abuse of detainees at Abu Graib prison. I was VERY disappointed in the stupid soldiers who did that. I wish like hell they had not. They lost their professionalism and I agree with the fact that some of them have been on trial and punished. It WAS a black eye for our military and for our country. But guess what? There are some college fraternities that haze almost that hard!! That was NOTHING compared to what was done to detainees at the exact same prison under Saddam's regime.
3. OK, here is a direct quote from the actual text of the Geneva Conventions.
Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
See, dude? The insurgents/terrorists in Iraq do not fullfill b, c, or d. They are ILLEGAL COMBATANTS and do not qualify for the Geneva Convention. I already said that when I posted that those who do not abide by it, do not benefit from it, but you "knew" so much that I had to look up the actual conventions' text and quote it here.
Later
#80
Banned
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Desoto, Tx
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 02Z28LS1
trying to imagine what they would do and the way they think is completely different from continuously thinking of new & different ways of killing thousands of innocent people the way they did on 9/11
I know what you meant, and I agree completely, but it is our own ignorance and pride that enabled us to be attacked successfully. So no, you would be incorrect to say I have gone overboard with what you said.
No, 9/11 would NOT have happend. The London bombings were foiled. Other plots were and have been foiled along with new ideas of killing people.
Last edited by I <3 80057; 11-11-2006 at 06:24 PM.