DogOnPorch Posted October 14, 2013 Report Share Posted October 14, 2013 I believe he does not mean on the ground in the conventional sense. North Viet-Nam did invade Laos, Cambodia and South Viet-Nam. But, that's okay... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted October 14, 2013 Report Share Posted October 14, 2013 (edited) North Viet-Nam did invade Laos, Cambodia and South Viet-Nam. But, that's okay... No one said it was ok. But then....you already knew that. Edited October 14, 2013 by bleeding heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 14, 2013 Report Share Posted October 14, 2013 No one said it was ok. But then....you already knew that. You're the one connecting 'invaded' with 'Viet-Nam'. Why did US troops deploy to Indochina? Don't say 'Gulf of Tonkin'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 14, 2013 Report Share Posted October 14, 2013 Hint.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted October 14, 2013 Report Share Posted October 14, 2013 Because of the super scaaarrrry "domino theory." Oh, and because they were degenerate morons, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted October 14, 2013 Report Share Posted October 14, 2013 Yes Care got your point on that one and I know you know what I am going to answer. Yes I support what the US Supreme Court, British and Australian high courts said, that it was illegal and not a proper way to conduct the law. I actually support the US Armed Forces JAG office and its criticism of the mercenaries and contractors hired by the CIA and Haliburton who operated in Iraq outside the law. I support the internal military legal systems of the British, Australian, Israeli, US, Dutch, Polish, German and Canadian armed forces. I believe they have proven they have held their soldiers accountable for excessive force. Rue, as you surely already know and even know that I know you know, we are in agreement on most points. The USA is not a "rogue state" but it could do better. And by doing better we mean doing better at stopping terrorist attacks and winning the war on terror - a long-term war that is fought with military hardware and tactics but more so with intelligence and ideas. That said, and here is where I admit fully to you I am conflicted- if you ask am I one of those Canadians who believes OmarKadr should be released? My answer would be no. I believe he is an unrepentant terrorist who if released will return to terrorism. How much time should he do? I believe the problem is when conventional armed forces have to deal with terrorists who hide behind the cover of civilians, civilians can be hurt and killed through excessive force. It is what terrorists set out to do, create civilian deaths to create a media propoganda advantage. Yes, media propaganda advantage is part of the ideological war. IMO, the GW Bush administration royally squandered its ideological advantage as it repeated all 11 of "McNamara's 11 lessons from Vietnam". Do you think that military/terrorist threat that is supposedly neutralized by keeping Khadr locked up was/would be worth all the damage caused by the "media propaganda advantage" that resulted from his detention? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 14, 2013 Report Share Posted October 14, 2013 ...Yes, media propaganda advantage is part of the ideological war. IMO, the GW Bush administration royally squandered its ideological advantage as it repeated all 11 of "McNamara's 11 lessons from Vietnam". GW Bush didn't need an "ideological advantage" against terrorists and terrorism.....neither did/does Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, or Obama. Winning "hearts and minds" is best left to Jimmy Carter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 14, 2013 Report Share Posted October 14, 2013 Because of the super scaaarrrry "domino theory." Oh, and because they were degenerate morons, of course. Incorrect. Communist forces attacked and killed US personnel working at Bien Hoa airbase near Saigon. This brought the 1st Marines to Da Nang and other points in SVN to guard the bases. The new stage of the war grew from there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 14, 2013 Report Share Posted October 14, 2013 GW Bush didn't need an "ideological advantage" against terrorists and terrorism.....neither did/does Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, or Obama. Winning "hearts and minds" is best left to Jimmy Carter. Maybe, but according to your own intellgence agencies Bush also got absolutely no results, or even made the problem worse and harder to solve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted October 14, 2013 Report Share Posted October 14, 2013 GW Bush didn't need an "ideological advantage" against terrorists and terrorism.....neither did/does Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, or Obama. Winning "hearts and minds" is best left to Jimmy Carter. Long time no talk... Well he certainly didn't think he needed it. Neither did your leaders during 'Nam. At least someone learned something: Lesson 9: "We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community." And by the way - Bush Sr. wrote the book on multinational cooperation in Desert Storm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted October 14, 2013 Report Share Posted October 14, 2013 (edited) GW Bush didn't need an "ideological advantage" against terrorists and terrorism.....neither did/does Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, or Obama. Winning "hearts and minds" is best left to Jimmy Carter. I don't think George Bush made any decisions. I believe they were all made by Chaney and Rumsfeld. Rue, as you surely already know and even know that I know you know, we are in agreement on most points. The USA is not a "rogue state" but it could do better. And by doing better we mean doing better at stopping terrorist attacks and winning the war on terror - a long-term war that is fought with military hardware and tactics but more so with intelligence and ideas. How much time should he do? Yes, media propaganda advantage is part of the ideological war. IMO, the GW Bush administration royally squandered its ideological advantage as it repeated all 11 of "McNamara's 11 lessons from Vietnam". Do you think that military/terrorist threat that is supposedly neutralized by keeping Khadr locked up was/would be worth all the damage caused by the "media propaganda advantage" that resulted from his detention? Well the problem with keeping enemy combatants in POW camps is that yes they have to be released when hostilities are said to end so how do you know in the case of Afghanistan? Afghanistan never declared a war against an enemy state and this is not technically an enemy soldier. This is an armed combatant who was a member of a terrorist cell that did not follow any international convention. It would be my contention this individual renounced his Canadian citizenship by doing what he did and should not be allowed back in Canada and after the hostilities cease, be left to the Afghanis to decide what to do with. Now some would argue but at the time of his detention he was a minor, 15 to be exact which under Canadian law means he is treated as a Youth Offender. I argue no only in Canada. For those who argue he had no free will and he was under the captive mind control of his father, I would argue since his father was his guardian and chose to bring him to Afghanistan and adopt that lifestyle, his father renounced his citizenship as his legal guardian. I have a major problem bring Kadr back to Canada. He has remained unrepentant, so has his family. They all remain terrorist extremist in political ideology and laugh at this country collecting welfare from it. I say seize their property, deport them back to Egypt where they came from the entire family. Not nice? Why do we owe citizenship to people who openly spit on it and all it stands for? Surely we have the right to take it away from people who openly indicate they came here to ridicule it and take advantage of it to enable themselves to be terrorists and operate from safe shelter. That said, I get your points and I told you I am the first to admit I don't like breaking fundamental precepts of law at all but on the other hand I am not interested in protecting Kadr for any reason. I think a delicate balancing act must be done. In Kadr's case I do believe anyone giving him sympathy would have no matter what decision any government would have made about him. You can see for example from the responses of Dre there are Canadians who are in denial that terrorism even exists and they look at Kadrs as freedom fighters. The absurdity is a man like Kadr would kill Dre first. They laugh at our soft sheltered apologists who think they are their friends and allied with them. I have sat across from some of these people. They only understand one thing-kill or be killed. The putzes that want to join marches to support them are the very people they are fighting against. It is the Dre's of the world they laugh at and think makes our society weak and hopeless. Do I think we all need to turn into cold emotionless sob's.No not you and me, but yes, small commando units that can take the fight to them on their turf and no I am not anxious to have them released back into our society. No I do not want Kadr walking the streets with his ideology and desire to kill us all which is exactly what he said when interviewed. This is no poor misunderstood boy. This is someone who has no interest in living unless he dies and takes people out with him. Then again I think Karla Hamolka belongs in prison for life. So what do I know.. Edited October 14, 2013 by Rue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 14, 2013 Report Share Posted October 14, 2013 I don't think George Bush made any decisions. I believe they were all made by Chaney and Rumsfeld. From what I gather he went off the wagon and was drunk through most of the war hiding his booze binges. Even if that was true (it's not)...who picked Dick Cheney to be his running mate ? Cheney was timid during the Gulf War with Bush Sr.....Dubya...not so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 14, 2013 Report Share Posted October 14, 2013 I don't think George Bush made any decisions. I believe they were all made by Chaney and Rumsfeld. Well the problem with keeping enemy combatants in POW camps is that yes they have to be released when hostilities are said to end? So you ask how long? It is not like conventional was is it. Afghanistan never declared a war against an enemy state and this is not technically an enemy soldier. This is an armed combatant who was a member of a terrorist cell that did not follow any international convention. It would be my contention this individual renounced his Canadian citizenship by doing what he did and should not be allowed back in Canada and after the hostilities cease, be left to the Afghanis to decide what to do with. Now some would argue but at the time of his detention he was a minor, 15 to be exact which under Canadian law means he is treated as a Youth Offender. I argue no only in Canada. For those who argue he had no free will and he was under the captive mind control of his father, I would argue since his father was his guardian and chose to bring him to Afghanistan and adopt that lifestyle, his father renounced his citizenship as his legal guardian. I have a major problem bring Kadr back to Canada. He has remained unrepentant, so has his family. They all remain terrorist extremist in political ideology and laugh at this country collecting welfare from it. I say seize their property, deport them back to Egypt where they came from the entire family. Not nice? Why do we owe citizenship to people who openly spit on it and all it stands for? Surely we have the right to take it away from people who openly indicate they came here to ridicule it and taek advantage of it to enable themselves to be terrorists and operate from safe shelter. That said, I get your points and I told you I am the first to admit I don't like breaking fundamental precepts of law at all but on the other hand I am not interested in protecting Kadr for any reason. I think a delicate balancing act must be done. In Kadr's case I do believe anyone giving him sympathy would have no matter what decision any government would have made about him. You can see for example from the responses of Dre there are Canadians who are in denial that terrorism even exists and they look at Kadrs as freedom fighters. The absurdity is a man like Kadr would kill Dre first. They laugh at our soft sheltered apologists who think they are their friends and allied with them. I have sat across from some of these people. They only understand one thing-kill or be killed. The putzes that want to join marches to support them are the very people they are fighting against. It is the Dre's of the world they laugh at and think makes our society weak and hopeless. Do I think we all need to turn into cold emotionless sob's.No not you and me, but yes, small commando units that can take the fight to them on their turf and no I am not anxious to have them released back into our society. No I do not want Kadr walking the streets with his ideology and desire to kill us all which is exactly what he said when interviewed. This is no poor misunderstood boy. This is someone who has no interest in living unless he dies and takes people out with him. Then again I think Karla Hamolka belongs in prison for life. So what do I know.. I never said terrorism doesnt exist. Its existed for thousands of years, and will exist for thousands to come. What I said is that its a statistic non-factor, and that our disproportionate kneejerk reaction to it actually poses a lot more danger to ourselves than terrorism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 14, 2013 Report Share Posted October 14, 2013 I never said terrorism doesnt exist. Its existed for thousands of years, and will exist for thousands to come. What I said is that its a statistic non-factor, and that our disproportionate kneejerk reaction to it actually poses a lot more danger to ourselves than terrorism. You do realize that for the individual, statistics go out the window once you actually are caught-up in a terrorist incident. [Scene: A hijacked airliner.] Passenger 1: OMG...a hijacking! Passenger 2: You're over-reacting. The chances of this happening are slim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 14, 2013 Report Share Posted October 14, 2013 You do realize that for the individual, statistics go out the window once you actually are caught-up in a terrorist incident. [Scene: A hijacked airliner.] Passenger 1: OMG...a hijacking! Passenger 2: You're over-reacting. The chances of this happening are slim. So true. The chances of a lot of things happening are slim, but that doesn't mean we dismiss them and do nothing; and I would wager that the chances of an act of terrorism occurring would be higher if we weren't taking steps to prevent it. Case in point. Hijackings. If there were no security measures, methinks there might be more of them occurring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted October 15, 2013 Report Share Posted October 15, 2013 (edited) You do realize that for the individual, statistics go out the window once you actually are caught-up in a terrorist incident. [Scene: A hijacked airliner.] Passenger 1: OMG...a hijacking! Passenger 2: You're over-reacting. The chances of this happening are slim. Ok, but in spite of "good intentions", many of the things that the US has done have INCREASED the odds of future terrorist attacks. Edited October 15, 2013 by carepov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 15, 2013 Report Share Posted October 15, 2013 You do realize that for the individual, statistics go out the window once you actually are caught-up in a terrorist incident. Oh absolutely! The guy who gets struck by lightening isnt comforted by the slim odds either. I get that. Thats why emotional crimes like terrorism make it hard to do a rational threat assessment and response. People get dumb with anger and fear and thats when theres a real danger of being subject to massive scams like the GWOT... which has resulted in the siezure of trillions of dollars from US tax payers and killed more Americans than 911, and by most accounts been completely ineffective at reducing the threat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 15, 2013 Report Share Posted October 15, 2013 Maybe, but according to your own intellgence agencies Bush also got absolutely no results, or even made the problem worse and harder to solve.Winning hearts and minds didn't work out too well for the "boat people." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 15, 2013 Report Share Posted October 15, 2013 No I do not want Kadr walking the streets with his ideology and desire to kill us all which is exactly what he said when interviewed. This is no poor misunderstood boy. This is someone who has no interest in living unless he dies and takes people out with him. Huh? Where do you get this stuff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 15, 2013 Report Share Posted October 15, 2013 You do realize that for the individual, statistics go out the window once you actually are caught-up in a terrorist incident. [Scene: A hijacked airliner.] Passenger 1: OMG...a hijacking! Passenger 2: You're over-reacting. The chances of this happening are slim. The risk is the same. The statistics stand. Obviously one getting caught up in an attack may think otherwise. This might be a problem if you were living in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan ect .. but here in Canada or the US? Quite slim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted October 15, 2013 Report Share Posted October 15, 2013 It's a silly argument, and those indulging in it know it is a silly argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 15, 2013 Report Share Posted October 15, 2013 It's a silly argument, and those indulging in it know it is a silly argument. Never been a 'victim' of terrorism, I gather? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 15, 2013 Report Share Posted October 15, 2013 Never been a 'victim' of terrorism, I gather? Only from the government, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted October 15, 2013 Report Share Posted October 15, 2013 Never been a 'victim' of terrorism, I gather? Yes, keep trying to "gather," and eventually you might come up with something. I wish you only the best of luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted October 15, 2013 Report Share Posted October 15, 2013 I think a delicate balancing act must be done. Sure, but you did not answer my question. Was Khadr worth it? Is he such a big threat that he warants all the division in our society? All the resources wasted? All the media propaganda advantage given to the enemy? No I do not want Kadr walking the streets with his ideology and desire to kill us all which is exactly what he said when interviewed. This is no poor misunderstood boy. This is someone who has no interest in living unless he dies and takes people out with him. Like eyeball asked above: wtf??? Where do you get this from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.