[Akalabeth Angel]

Not sure why ye hearties are gettin' upset now anyway, this 'ere were bein' news like 2 months ago when he announced it in whatever room holds yer constitution.  

EDIT - oh sorry, 4 months ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbslm1h8xjI (May 21st)

[karajorma]

Then we're annoyed cause he managed to keep it under the radar while idiots where going on about Death Panels instead. Not that the Republicans could raise a complaint about this without looking like hypocrites.

I'm hugely disappointed in Obama for this. But I suppose in a way this is good, we have proof that the problem the liberals had with Gitmo was Gitmo and not just that Bush did it. Cause when a Democrat does it everyone who complained about Gitmo raises exactly the same complaints.

am English and therefore have no interest / bearing on this topic

IIRC at least 3 people in Gitmo were British. So were several who were released after the Americans figured out that they weren't actually terrorists and they'd been imprisoning and torturing people who simply had the misfortune of being in Afghanistan at the wrong time.

[Bobboau]

the conservative complaint would go something along the lines of "when we did this... and now..."

[Nuke]

People voted for Obama not really knowing what they were doing. He's not a revolutionary, he's like any modern politician, a slightly different shade of grey. In the past there might have been (bigger) differences between parties and candidates but not anymoar.


Still better than Sarah Palin.

* Nuke riflebutts snail in the face ropes  him it and drags him it from the back of the 4x4 with the 12 inch lift kit, big tires and confederate flag mudflaps while hunting for baby seals and drinking moonshine

[mxlm]

I'd rather have a bumbling politician, at least then you know he's honest.

No you don't. Bumbling and mendacity are hardly mutually exclusive. The Bush admin bumbled a lot, but it still managed to convince quite a few Americans that Iraq had some sort of role in the 9/11 attacks. Without ever, quite, explicitly saying so, too.

[Akalabeth Angel]

I'd rather have a bumbling politician, at least then you know he's honest.

No you don't. Bumbling and mendacity are hardly mutually exclusive. The Bush admin bumbled a lot, but it still managed to convince quite a few Americans that Iraq had some sort of role in the 9/11 attacks. Without ever, quite, explicitly saying so, too.

I was thinking more of Jean Chretien.

[karajorma]

the conservative complaint would go something along the lines of "when we did this... and now..."

And now we complain just as bitterly about Obama making the same dick move.

[Liberator]

IMO, stick the creeps in General Population at San Quentin...problem solved.

[karajorma]

IMO, stick the creeps in General Population at San Quentin...problem solved.

Yeah, let's not worry about a trial or any of that sort of thing. Let's just let them get murdered. I'm sure the founding fathers would have loved that.

[Liberator]

That's the thing, they're being held not because they might be innocent but because they're intelligence assets.  Which exhausted of intel or not, they're too dangerous to let go free.  They're captivity is NOT a law enforcement issue.  Terrorism isn't a law enforcement issue either.  In my world, we'd be down 2 fairly large countries with a 3rd be ground under the boot heel of every bomber I could muster for high altitude bombardment.  But no, we're gonna be civilized and not blow them back into the stone age.  The attitude of most of the worlds leaders concerning Iran and other nations who would make the world tremble reminds me of Chamberlain right before The Blitz.  These are not people who will be swayed by a handshake and a smile or trade embargos.

[Wobble73]

IMO, stick the creeps in General Population at San Quentin...problem solved.

Yeah, let's not worry about a trial or any of that sort of thing. Let's just let them get murdered. I'm sure the founding fathers would have loved that.

Heh! I thought he was saying, stick the politicians in San Quentin! LOL

[zookeeper]

That's the thing, they're being held not because they might be innocent but because they're intelligence assets.  Which exhausted of intel or not, they're too dangerous to let go free.

Clearly they're not, because otherwise the people who decided to intentionally and systematically start putting them in a situation where the right thing to do is to set them free wouldn't have done that. If anyone with half a brain knew that person x was too dangerous to let go free, they wouldn't make sure that person x ends up in a situation where the right thing to do is to have them set free, but instead would, for example, put them in a situation where the right thing to do is to have them be locked up.

[Liberator]

IMO, stick the creeps in General Population at San Quentin...problem solved.

Yeah, let's not worry about a trial or any of that sort of thing. Let's just let them get murdered. I'm sure the founding fathers would have loved that.

Heh! I thought he was saying, stick the politicians in San Quentin! LOL

That'd work to.  It's really too bad we can't lock up Politicians for being greedy, self-serving scumbags.  OH WAIT!  Anti-Corruption laws!

[karajorma]

In my world, we'd be down 2 fairly large countries with a 3rd be ground under the boot heel of every bomber I could muster for high altitude bombardment.  But no, we're gonna be civilized and not blow them back into the stone age.

Always nice to see a Christian attitude towards the mass slaughter of women and children.

[jr2]

In my world, we'd be down 2 fairly large countries with a 3rd be ground under the boot heel of every bomber I could muster for high altitude bombardment.  But no, we're gonna be civilized and not blow them back into the stone age.

Always nice to see a Christian attitude towards the mass slaughter of women and children.

Well we didn't do that... we instead tried to snag some of the more probable terrorists and remove them from causing harm.  And we didn't just level Afghanistan, we tried to liberate it.  Same in Iraq.  Now Iran, who has the same nasty habits towards its citizens (sometimes), doesn't like the idea of dictatorships falling.  Who knows, their people might get some rather uncomfortable ideas.  So they support terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Simple self-preservation.  Except I would rather just take the government of Iran out, too.  xP  People say we're not the police force of the world... well I for one think that if you make a consistent habit of torturing or killing your citizens without a way to remove the government responsible by the citizens' own hand, the neighborly thing to do would be to remove said government for the citizens.  For obvious reasons, said governments are not very keen about that idea.

UN sanctions etc would work except those in power still have enough power and luxury that they just don't care and the only ones hurt by that are their citizens...

Well, thoughts?

[zookeeper]

In my world, we'd be down 2 fairly large countries with a 3rd be ground under the boot heel of every bomber I could muster for high altitude bombardment.  But no, we're gonna be civilized and not blow them back into the stone age.

Always nice to see a Christian attitude towards the mass slaughter of women and children.

Well we didn't do that... we instead tried to snag some of the more probable terrorists and remove them from causing harm.  And we didn't just level Afghanistan, we tried to liberate it.  Same in Iraq.  Now Iran, who has the same nasty habits towards its citizens (sometimes), doesn't like the idea of dictatorships falling.  Who knows, their people might get some rather uncomfortable ideas.  So they support terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Simple self-preservation.  Except I would rather just take the government of Iran out, too.  xP  People say we're not the police force of the world... well I for one think that if you make a consistent habit of torturing or killing your citizens without a way to remove the government responsible by the citizens' own hand, the neighborly thing to do would be to remove said government for the citizens.  For obvious reasons, said governments are not very keen about that idea.

UN sanctions etc would work except those in power still have enough power and luxury that they just don't care and the only ones hurt by that are their citizens...

Well, thoughts?

Well, sure: that actually has nothing to do with what you wrote it as a reply to.

[Liberator]

People say, we don't want you to be the police of the world, then some problem comes up and it's "Oh, the US will handle it for us!"

Which is it people?

Also, how long do you turn the other cheek?  Do you fight or run away before or after the assailant has taken the dagger he had behind his back and planted it firmly into your heart or your gut?

[StarSlayer]

People say, we don't want you to be the police of the world, then some problem comes up and it's "Oh, the US will handle it for us!"

Which is it people?

Also, how long do you turn the other cheek?  Do you fight or run away before or after the assailant has taken the dagger he had behind his back and planted it firmly into your heart or your gut?

So you going to enlist in the Corps to carry out this massive campaign to crush other nations or is it somebody else's sons and daughters need to die for your blood lust?

[karajorma]

Well we didn't do that... we instead tried to snag some of the more probable terrorists and remove them from causing harm.  And we didn't just level Afghanistan, we tried to liberate it.

From the people you spent years arming and supporting in the 80s.

Same in Iraq.

From the person you armed and supported in the 80s.

Now Iran

Fair enough, America didn't support them (and only moderately armed them) but the current Iranian government is in power following American meddling in the whole matter of the Shah.

Are you noticing a pattern yet?

who has the same nasty habits towards its citizens (sometimes), doesn't like the idea of dictatorships falling.  Who knows, their people might get some rather uncomfortable ideas.  So they support terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Simple self-preservation.

Sorry but there is nothing simple about it. You may wish to claim it is simple in order to justify sabre-rattling but that certainly doesn't make it so. And if you want to talk about supporting terrorism, try starting with America's long involvement with terrorists and terrorist organisations before you start pointing fingers.

Except I would rather just take the government of Iran out, too.  xP  People say we're not the police force of the world... well I for one think that if you make a consistent habit of torturing or killing your citizens without a way to remove the government responsible by the citizens' own hand, the neighborly thing to do would be to remove said government for the citizens.  For obvious reasons, said governments are not very keen about that idea.

Fine. Start with Saudi Arabia though. Or Kuwait. Or any other country that tortures its citizens.

Why are we only hearing about Iran? Could it simply be that despite not being much worse than the other countries I mention Iran isn't an ally of America?

[zookeeper]

People say, we don't want you to be the police of the world, then some problem comes up and it's "Oh, the US will handle it for us!"

Which is it people?

Also, how long do you turn the other cheek?  Do you fight or run away before or after the assailant has taken the dagger he had behind his back and planted it firmly into your heart or your gut?

I don't understand who you're talking to and what concrete real-life situation this assailant metaphor is supposed to reflect. Please, could you clarify both points a bit?