KrustyKidd

They could not accept it as the Arabs, by their flat out refusal nullified the plan. Hence, there was nothing to accept. They did however, approve it in principal until that refusal. Global Security Israeli War of Independence

So true. He's holding back on the two state issue unlike his predecessors so when he comes out with it, he comes off like he's made a giant move forward without even making a step. Makes Obama look good, Abbas goes back and now has more political power and he doesn't have to do a dam thing.

Wow. I'm not sure what to say about this unbelievable perversion of historic fact. When you actually read up on it and discover that reality is quite opposite, will your viewpoint change or, did you try to change historic reality to fit your preconceived viewpoint?

Smallc Many great things and some bad things you mean. Smallc We may think he thinks however, nothing he has thought has yet transformed into anything real. It is all still hope and change. Smallc I hope it will begin soon as there are fifty some odd Islamic nations we need to respond to this speech with action of some kind. I don't believe so. I believe this is a meeting to prop Egypt up along with Israeli concessions (one of which is Netanyahu to convert back to the two state solution which is nothing new yet a huge move for him) and so make some illusion of progress with an Egyptian and Saudi signature on it. The other will be a Syrian agreement followed shortly afterwards despite the sanctions but, because of the Saudi rewards. JerrySeinfeld Bush was very sucessful and, the time is growing short for Mr Obama to pull the rabbit out of his ass.

I lean right on most things and while I noted that while he did appoligise on his last tour he certainly did not in this speech. If anything, it seemed he took deliberate care not to. As a side note, I origionally thought it was a very good speech which masked the continuation of the Bush policies which he is certainly doing however, after much reflection, the place, content and emphasis led me to believe it is a strategic volly designed to alienate Iran by building a sort of political EU around Egypt with the peace process as a cornerstone. We shall see what happens after Mubarak and Netanyahu visit Washinton later this month.

If I remember right he addressed that saying he was checking on the status of one of the girls and walked into one of the back rooms, didn't see them and capped the guy prior to looking in the other room(s). Also, when I said 'chased' possibly I should have said followed. Also, never seeing the vid myself or the guy, I've only hard him and he sounds a bit retarded as his speech is slow and weird if that makes a difference.

As Spock said in one of the Star Trek movies 'Only Nixon could go to China' it seems only Obama could go to Cairo. A very good speech with continuity from the Bush era however, Obama delivered it with his usual fine style which made it appear new and exciting like an historic era had suddenly just opened between east and west which it just may have. Some points are that it was directed to the people of the Muslim World and while speaking of freedom, that freedom is unlikely to be as enthusiastically embraced by the usual oppressive rulers/regimes that oversee the people. However, it is the people whom provide the Qutbist groups their recruits so, while real change may not occur on the street, attitudes may. As the head of CAIR remarked, he may have done more to defeat Al Qaseda in this one speech than Bush did in eight years. The Palestinian Israeli portion was also the same as the Bush plan however, delivered with charisma and promise as well as the 'hope and change' thing he has going. The two sate solution plan however ......... here he says that settlements have to stop now. Makes sense to me in Canada but, when coupled with his outreached hand to Iran saying he will allow them to have nuclear power just alienated every Israeli and made this process a stall. A fine quote He was received extremely well, now, what is he going to do for a followup or, is the followup going to be ours (west and east) together?

Heard an interview with the guy and his lawyer and the story goes............ Guy is messed up and just had surgery and can hardly move. Gets robbed and shoots one masked guy (has no idea of how old they are). Chass other guy out the store. Returns and hears screaming from gal in back room, figures one of the gals is down and wants to check but .......... can't leav potentially lethal robber able to inflict harm on floor and, can't kick or hit with a club as he is messed up so, does the next best thing (in his mind) and caps the guy a few times to be sure. Ends up one gal was screaming to freind who was in shock from being ini panic on the floor in one of the back rooms. Cops come, sure, it's murder. But with a story so they charge him and free he is waiting to tell his story. From this, I get two morals; 1. Don't rob stores. 2. If working in a store, have a really big gun so when you drll 'em, nothing is left so going back is not necessary.

Interesting. The others and I had taken sides on the aspect of choice as per the detainees and now, you enter and add to the strength of my argument by stating that indeed, the choice was there for the detainees to talk but, some feel there should have been more time allocated. I don't know whether to thank you for taking my side or to address the expanded argument. Let me know. Obama Reserves right to Torture Obama has yet to clarify his position other than to allow the world to hang on his press secretaries ominous words of 'everything he needs to do to keep this country safe.' Bush gave authorization for the FBI to use their methods as well. You know, the ones you agree with. Why do you think he simply didn't tell them to torture the poor saps to start with? Could it be that the FBI and the CIA have totally different roles and goals? Bet you don't know what the big difference between their missions are do you as that would explain the different interrogation methods.

I doubt that however, they are afforded every opportunity to talk. Explain all they know to prove they know nothing and then, have what they have told be corraborated to ensure it is accurate information. In the case of KSM, he simply repeated the 'we will find out' when asked what attacks were in the planning. So, to simply say you do not know anything is not proof of any kind. You have to answer some detailed questions to explain why you were in a given place at a certain time, associating with certain people yet, had no knowledge of anything that was happening and then, have much of that information verified.

And the actual reasons for Bush spearheading the action was the Clinton era policy towards Iraq stating that Regime Change was the US official policy, the 2002 NIE, fourteen UN resolutions, authorization by Congress and umpteen ceasefire conditions broken by Iraq, not Cheney's suspicion.

Specify what part of my contention that both I and Canadien agree with is ridiculous. He and I both agree that prisoners are given the option to talk prior to enhanced interrogation and thus, when they do not, have made a conscious decision to undergo this action, prefering it to talking.

We? Seems to me that the problem is theirs and 'we' can only try to help.As for the leaders, like leaders everywhere, they pay attention to what keeps them iin power, not what makes sense or, will benefit their countries in the long term. If they cannot come to grips with that then it matters not who we send.

Yep. Not much is going to change with Obama. And Obama will do the same when it comes down to it so, nothing changes. He still retains the option of enhanced interrogation as he won't come out and say he will not allow it. Why is that?

No, the black Hanson was never president.

Democrats Supported CIA's 'Enhanced Interrogation' Techniques, Says House GOP Leader

Now that we agree with each other that the detainees are afforded the opportunity to cooperate prior to undergoing enhanced interrogation, and, by their non cooperation basically volunteer for stronger methods, we can move onto other matters.

President Warren Harding. Although Coolidge, Jackson and Lincoln also were thought to be black. Well, part black just as Obama is anyhow.

One only need to look at the recent election of the second black US president to see how things have changed beyond slavery times. In any case, your analogy is a poor one as slavery was the law of the land at one time and judges of those times upheld the law of those times. If you remember, a war was fought which changed this, not judges.

Not quite the end as they certainly had a rational choice rather than a 'lose/lose jump off the cliff or get a bullet to the head' decision (or, a burn to death or jump off the WTC one). It was to accept traditional means and cooperate or, undergo enhanced interrogation. Just as the subject of the OP made a conscious decision volunteered, they also chose to undergo the enhanced interrogation.

The sole issue is that it was the policy of the US at that time and was endorsed by Congress and the Senate in that certain types of prisoners were subject to enhanced interrogation if they were found to be uncooperative using traditional means. The prisoners (three of them) were afforded opportunity to avoid this action and decided not to take advantage of this and, were subsequently waterboarded. Kalid Sheikh Mohammed could have avoided being waterboarded if he simply came out and said he knew of the plot to take out the Brooklyn Bridge from the start and, followed it up with admission and details of bombing the Library Tower in LA. Instead, he decided, not the CIA but he decided, that he did not wish to cooperate. Hence, he volunteered to ensure he became a candidate for a legal process. Now, what is very silly is how you equate this legal proceedure administered by a government and controlled by SOPs and overseen by doctors and trained administrators with the subject being able to, at a moments notice, to have it cease by becoming cooperative, to a woman being raped.

The examples you gave are all illegal and yes, acts such as those above probably were legal in Viet Nam and Nazi Germany but then again, we're not talking about Nazi Germany here are we?

True Bubber however, to openly admit that she feels her race and gender is better at making decisions than white guys is somewhat specifically beyond a subconscious experience sum don't you think ? Maybe we need some white guys to come and say they can make better decisions than Mexican Housewives or a black guy to say that Nappy Headed Lolitas make poor decisons. That would give us a lot more diversity in the Supreme Court according to your rationale.

Actually one example of something legal such as enhanced interrogation would be a start rather than these illegal acts you speak of.

Oh, and the Al Qaeda guys really wanted to be running a conveinience store in Islamabadd rather than be swept up in anti Western battles? Pay your mortgage or lose your house. If you don't pay, you volunteered to lose it as the opportunity to not lose it was there. When they have two choices and they choose enhanced interrogation over the other possibility then they volunteer. Other options available to them were to talk and show they were dealing in truth as information could be cooberated with others and verified and thus, eliminate the discomfort our poor conservative talk show host had to go through.