The PC War Against the CP....

Gaffer said:
The prisoners in Gitmo and other places are there more for information purposes than humanitarian purposes. Though once there they are watched over by the bleeding hearts who want to give them constitutional rights even tho they are not Americans. In past wars just due to how they are dressed and acting they would not have survived to make it back to the prison camps. They release certain prisoners who promise not to fight any more and the same ones are captured or killed in actions against our troops. we need a little more barbarism in our dealings with these fools.

You are real quick to jump on Dxie and anyone else that doesn't think like you as to their military service or lack of and call them cowards that run from military service when you know nothing about them. There are a lot of good patriotic peole out there that have never served in the military. If you don't like what he has to say then counter it with facts or your opinion of why you think he's wrong. Not go after his lack of military experience. And I never once saw a post where Dixie called anyone that served a coward.

your the one bringing up peoples lack of service like its a special deal that you have the only right to talk about military actions and that those who didn't serve have no right to do so. Why don't you try explaining why some idea can't work instead of degrading someones lack of service. You have the experience use it.
Click to expand...

but gaffer, IF WE are fighting for ''rights'' that we feel we deserve and need to ''protect'' for ourselves thus ''war'' with others over them, and have also come to expect these rights for ourselves as humans... could we NOT expect and offer these same ''rights'' as Americans, to ALL others, regardless of their obedience to it or not? Do we believe in the Bill of Rights because it is ONLY meant for us?

it is hypocritical to our own constitution imo, to hold a detainee indefinately, without a hearing and without charging them, and without giving them the right to defend themselves before a jury...

the writ of habeas corpus is so important to freedom and justice, that it is THE ONLY RIGHT that is mentioned in our great constitution TWICE, as a protection.

it was and is also hypocritical to approve of ''torture'' when we have signed an agreement that says that we won't do it and we don't want it done to us BECAUSE it is INHUMANE. treaties are constitutionally binding, not there to reinterpret and rewrite the rules midstream ...with no other parties involved, which is what has happened, again, imo.

care
 
it is hypocritical to our own constitution imo, to hold a detainee indefinately, without a hearing and without charging them, and without giving them the right to defend themselves before a jury...

the writ of habeas corpus is so important to freedom and justice, that it is THE ONLY RIGHT that is mentioned in our great constitution TWICE, as a protection.


Too bad you weren't around during the Civil War to protest Abe Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus.

it was and is also hypocritical to approve of ''torture'' when we have signed an agreement that says that we won't do it and we don't want it done to us BECAUSE it is INHUMANE.

Too bad you weren't around to protest FDR's inceneration of Dresden or Truman's obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Thanks for brilliantly demonstrating the point of this thread!
 
Dixie said:
it is hypocritical to our own constitution imo, to hold a detainee indefinately, without a hearing and without charging them, and without giving them the right to defend themselves before a jury...

the writ of habeas corpus is so important to freedom and justice, that it is THE ONLY RIGHT that is mentioned in our great constitution TWICE, as a protection.


Too bad you weren't around during the Civil War to protest Abe Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus.

it was and is also hypocritical to approve of ''torture'' when we have signed an agreement that says that we won't do it and we don't want it done to us BECAUSE it is INHUMANE.

Too bad you weren't around to protest FDR's inceneration of Dresden or Truman's obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Thanks for brilliantly demonstrating the point of this thread!
Click to expand...

just because someone has jumped over the bridge's side before does not mean you should do it also. two wrongs DO NOT make it right.

you are suppose to learn from history and mistakes and change for the BETTER, not use mistakes to JUSTIFY making them again!

what the heck were YOU TAUGHT when you were growing up for goodness sakes dixie?

care
 
Care4all said:
just because someone has jumped over the bridge's side before does not mean you should do it also. two wrongs DO NOT make it right.

you are suppose to learn from history and mistakes and change for the BETTER, not use mistakes to JUSTIFY making them again!

what the heck were YOU TAUGHT when you were growing up for goodness sakes dixie?

care
Click to expand...

Oh yes... "Two wrongs don't make a right!" ...."Turn the other cheek!" ..."We are better than that!" ...."We have become more civilized!" ..."Learn from your mistakes!" ...blah blah blah....

More Politically Correct bullshit to throw out there, whilst discussing the proper strategy for WINNING a WAR! Is it any wonder you people can't be taken seriously on matters of national security? Instead of debating what we should do with the "detainees", they should be making good use of themselves as fertilizer for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and we shouldn't even be concerned with them at this late date. If this were ANY other war in our history, that would be the case. But since we live in a PC society, and our president is up to his nuts in political correctness as well, we have to put up with idiots like you, telling us how to get our asses handed to us in war. It's incredible!
 
Instead of debating what we should do with the "detainees", they should be making good use of themselves as fertilizer for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and we shouldn't even be concerned with them at this late date.

Nicely done.

However, No american president has ever had the policy to murder and incinerate prisoners or detainees.
 
the fertilizer bit is certainly more appropriate for the Third Reich than for the United States..... but it's Dixie....does anyone expect intellectual honesty or intellectual ANYTHING from him?
 
Dixie, I remember when the polls started going south for Bush on the abu ghraib scandal, you managed to feign some crocodile tears and claim you were against sexual abuse of detainees.

Yet, here you say they should be incinerated and turned into fertizler.

Question: Which time were you telling the truth?
 
When the Vietnam war ended. We had a military victory. For all their efforts the NVA could not beat our military.
//

What you been smokin ? Our govt never set out to win. I was there.
 
Cypress said:
Instead of debating what we should do with the "detainees", they should be making good use of themselves as fertilizer for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and we shouldn't even be concerned with them at this late date.

Nicely done.

However, No american president has ever had the policy to murder and incinerate prisoners or detainees.
Click to expand...

Exactly, which is why most wars involved presidentially ordered carpet bombing and completely burning or nuking entire cities, there were very few people left to deal with, as prisoners. It's part of the problem with our PC War... we are capturing and holding them instead of killing them, and you idiots want to give them Constitutional rights. My argument is, they should be dead and forgotten, not sitting in a jail cell awaiting an ACLU lawyer!
 
It's not PC to refrain from murdering or torturing detainees. Its the law.

A law signed by Ronald Reagan: the "International Ban on Cruel, Inhumane, and Abusive Treatment" of prisoners, detainees, and other human beings.
 
Cypress said:
It's not PC to refrain from murdering or torturing detainees. Its the law.

A law signed by Ronald Reagan: the "International Ban on Cruel, Inhumane, and Abusive Treatment" of prisoners, detainees, and other human beings.
Click to expand...


Hey dumb shit... how many times do I have to make the same point, before it makes it's way into your ignorant head? For the THIRD time, the problem IS the prisoners! If this were ANY OTHER WAR we've EVER fought, we would NOT have these people locked up in Gitmo, they would be D-E-A-D! Got it?

Of course, you are abso-fucking-loutely RIGHT, it IS the LAW that we treat these people with all the dignity and humanity we can muster! THAT is the POINT! THAT is why they should be DEAD! If we weren't so concerned with fighting PC War, these people would not be an issue, because they would have never existed, they would have died in the first round of carpet bombing and fire-storming! We wouldn't be debating what to do about the nut in Iran, if anything, we'd be discussing how to get the oil out of a middle east nuclear waste dump covered in glass.
 
Dixie said:
Hey dumb shit... how many times do I have to make the same point, before it makes it's way into your ignorant head? For the THIRD time, the problem IS the prisoners! If this were ANY OTHER WAR we've EVER fought, we would NOT have these people locked up in Gitmo, they would be D-E-A-D! Got it?

Of course, you are abso-fucking-loutely RIGHT, it IS the LAW that we treat these people with all the dignity and humanity we can muster! THAT is the POINT! THAT is why they should be DEAD! If we weren't so concerned with fighting PC War, these people would not be an issue, because they would have never existed, they would have died in the first round of carpet bombing and fire-storming! We wouldn't be debating what to do about the nut in Iran, if anything, we'd be discussing how to get the oil out of a middle east nuclear waste dump covered in glass.
Click to expand...

Perhaps your not even aware that many, perhpas most, of the detainess in Gitmo weren't picked up "on the battlefield", but were picked up in nations were not even "at war" with? The CIA is rendering people picked up in africa, europe, and southeast asia to gitmo.

So how would they have been "killed" on the battlefield?
 
Hey dumb shit... how many times do I have to make the same point, before it makes it's way into your ignorant head? For the THIRD time, the problem IS the prisoners! If this were ANY OTHER WAR we've EVER fought, we would NOT have these people locked up in Gitmo, they would be D-E-A-D! Got it?
//
So we never had POW camps Dixie ? Wow!
 
Dixie said:
Oh yes... "Two wrongs don't make a right!" ...."Turn the other cheek!" ..."We are better than that!" ...."We have become more civilized!" ..."Learn from your mistakes!" ...blah blah blah....

More Politically Correct bullshit to throw out there, whilst discussing the proper strategy for WINNING a WAR! Is it any wonder you people can't be taken seriously on matters of national security? Instead of debating what we should do with the "detainees", they should be making good use of themselves as fertilizer for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and we shouldn't even be concerned with them at this late date. If this were ANY other war in our history, that would be the case. But since we live in a PC society, and our president is up to his nuts in political correctness as well, we have to put up with idiots like you, telling us how to get our asses handed to us in war. It's incredible!
Click to expand...

If this were ANY other true war, and handled properly, it would be over already...WW2 was what 2 and half years?

this is a never ending fight against an ideology, not even a country or a person but a war against Terrorism crapola, like the war on drugs that will go NOWHERE until we look at the WHOLE PICTURE dixie...

And locking someone up without charging them is not necessary...if they are terrorists trying to kill us, then we should be able to present such a case before a judge or military commission. If they are POW's then they are due their Geneva convention rights too..

This President and Donald Rumsfeld as his advisor has made one mistake after another fighting this war on terror that they claim they are fighting and the operation freedom in Iraq...personally, I and many others including many republicans in office, think it is time for Rumsfeld to go...

we need some fresh thinking and some fresh blood to do it...imo.

We won the war in Iraq already, now you are hanging on in Iraq to lose that win we already had....

no one is talking leaving the area completely, we just are saying we need to change our course from what we have been doing, because it is not working well....

maybe it is time to make three Iraqi states with one federal government...?
 
And locking someone up without charging them is not necessary...if they are terrorists trying to kill us, then we should be able to present such a case before a judge or military commission. If they are POW's then they are due their Geneva convention rights too..

And if we did like Patton, McArthur, Grant, and other great generals, they wouldn't be an issue because they would be pushing up daisies right now. That IS my point!
 
all three of those generals took PLENTY of prisoners in battle. Dixie's ignorance about warfare is astounding.

and his arrogance is nauseating.
 
By 'politically correct war' Dixie is lamenting the US not acting more like her enemies.

Dixie, long known as someone in favour of terrorism (commited on our behest), now wishes the US to act like its enemies, murdering and kidnapping etc etc

If the US acts like its enemies, where is the difference between you?

What makes the US any better than those it opposes?

Why shouldn't the rest of the world turn on the US?

Truth is, Dixie is a first-class fuck-wit and thankfully too dim to enter into politics to enact his barbarity.
 
Last edited:
all three of those generals took PLENTY of prisoners in battle. Dixie's ignorance about warfare is astounding.

Typical of someone who wouldn't dream of stepping onto a battlefield...

He seems to think soldiers are little more than hired murderers...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top