Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
RestonLass
()
Date: August 03, 2009 09:14AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/02/AR2009080202183.html?hpid=topnews
Officials said administration planners looking for one site for the facility have focused on the military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and a state maximum-security prison in Standish, Mich., that is scheduled to be closed.
====
As long as they've been detained, if they weren't a threat before, they sure are now. Maybe it would be in the best interest of everyone if the military had an "accident" while they transferring the detainees and then it would all be done with.
Officials said administration planners looking for one site for the facility have focused on the military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and a state maximum-security prison in Standish, Mich., that is scheduled to be closed.
====
As long as they've been detained, if they weren't a threat before, they sure are now. Maybe it would be in the best interest of everyone if the military had an "accident" while they transferring the detainees and then it would all be done with.
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: August 03, 2009 10:05AM
RestonLass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As long as they've been detained, if they weren't
> a threat before, they sure are now. Maybe it
> would be in the best interest of everyone if the
> military had an "accident" while they transferring
> the detainees and then it would all be done with.
Yes. I fully support a government that can arrest anyone on vague terror-related charges, hold them as long as they want without a trial, and then kill them and make it look like an accident as they're transferring them to another prison, where they'll more than likely be detained indefinitely without a trial.
FUCK the Constitution!
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> As long as they've been detained, if they weren't
> a threat before, they sure are now. Maybe it
> would be in the best interest of everyone if the
> military had an "accident" while they transferring
> the detainees and then it would all be done with.
Yes. I fully support a government that can arrest anyone on vague terror-related charges, hold them as long as they want without a trial, and then kill them and make it look like an accident as they're transferring them to another prison, where they'll more than likely be detained indefinitely without a trial.
FUCK the Constitution!
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
Warhawk
()
Date: August 03, 2009 10:22AM
MrMephisto Wrote:
> FUCK the Constitution!
Look everyone - it's Dick Cheney!
__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.
> FUCK the Constitution!
Look everyone - it's Dick Cheney!
__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
RestonLass
()
Date: August 03, 2009 11:46AM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RestonLass Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As long as they've been detained, if they
> weren't
> > a threat before, they sure are now. Maybe it
> > would be in the best interest of everyone if
> the
> > military had an "accident" while they
> transferring
> > the detainees and then it would all be done
> with.
>
> Yes. I fully support a government that can arrest
> anyone on vague terror-related charges, hold them
> as long as they want without a trial, and then
> kill them and make it look like an accident as
> they're transferring them to another prison, where
> they'll more than likely be detained indefinitely
> without a trial.
>
> FUCK the Constitution!
You're right, we should have killed them over there before they were transported to sunny Cuba
-------------------------------------------------------
> RestonLass Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As long as they've been detained, if they
> weren't
> > a threat before, they sure are now. Maybe it
> > would be in the best interest of everyone if
> the
> > military had an "accident" while they
> transferring
> > the detainees and then it would all be done
> with.
>
> Yes. I fully support a government that can arrest
> anyone on vague terror-related charges, hold them
> as long as they want without a trial, and then
> kill them and make it look like an accident as
> they're transferring them to another prison, where
> they'll more than likely be detained indefinitely
> without a trial.
>
> FUCK the Constitution!
You're right, we should have killed them over there before they were transported to sunny Cuba
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: August 03, 2009 11:47AM
RestonLass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > RestonLass Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > As long as they've been detained, if they
> > weren't
> > > a threat before, they sure are now. Maybe it
> > > would be in the best interest of everyone if
> > the
> > > military had an "accident" while they
> > transferring
> > > the detainees and then it would all be done
> > with.
> >
> > Yes. I fully support a government that can
> arrest
> > anyone on vague terror-related charges, hold
> them
> > as long as they want without a trial, and then
> > kill them and make it look like an accident as
> > they're transferring them to another prison,
> where
> > they'll more than likely be detained
> indefinitely
> > without a trial.
> >
> > FUCK the Constitution!
>
> You're right, we should have killed them over
> there before they were transported to sunny Cuba
Now you're thinking. Killing an enemy combatant is much better than throwing a POW into a prison for years without a trial, like we're North Korea or something.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > RestonLass Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > As long as they've been detained, if they
> > weren't
> > > a threat before, they sure are now. Maybe it
> > > would be in the best interest of everyone if
> > the
> > > military had an "accident" while they
> > transferring
> > > the detainees and then it would all be done
> > with.
> >
> > Yes. I fully support a government that can
> arrest
> > anyone on vague terror-related charges, hold
> them
> > as long as they want without a trial, and then
> > kill them and make it look like an accident as
> > they're transferring them to another prison,
> where
> > they'll more than likely be detained
> indefinitely
> > without a trial.
> >
> > FUCK the Constitution!
>
> You're right, we should have killed them over
> there before they were transported to sunny Cuba
Now you're thinking. Killing an enemy combatant is much better than throwing a POW into a prison for years without a trial, like we're North Korea or something.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: August 03, 2009 12:23PM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RestonLass Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> >
> > You're right, we should have killed them over
> > there before they were transported to sunny
> Cuba
>
> Now you're thinking. Killing an enemy combatant
> is much better than throwing a POW into a prison
> for years without a trial, like we're North Korea
> or something.
Then they would have been reported as civilian deaths.
-------------------------------------------------------
> RestonLass Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> >
> > You're right, we should have killed them over
> > there before they were transported to sunny
> Cuba
>
> Now you're thinking. Killing an enemy combatant
> is much better than throwing a POW into a prison
> for years without a trial, like we're North Korea
> or something.
Then they would have been reported as civilian deaths.
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: August 03, 2009 12:36PM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > RestonLass Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > >
> > > You're right, we should have killed them over
> > > there before they were transported to sunny
> > Cuba
> >
> > Now you're thinking. Killing an enemy
> combatant
> > is much better than throwing a POW into a
> prison
> > for years without a trial, like we're North
> Korea
> > or something.
>
> Then they would have been reported as civilian
> deaths.
Yeah, but most Americans don't have a problem with civilian deaths, as most of them were probably America-hating terrorist commies anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > RestonLass Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > >
> > > You're right, we should have killed them over
> > > there before they were transported to sunny
> > Cuba
> >
> > Now you're thinking. Killing an enemy
> combatant
> > is much better than throwing a POW into a
> prison
> > for years without a trial, like we're North
> Korea
> > or something.
>
> Then they would have been reported as civilian
> deaths.
Yeah, but most Americans don't have a problem with civilian deaths, as most of them were probably America-hating terrorist commies anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: August 03, 2009 12:37PM
Just sayin... :)
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: August 03, 2009 12:43PM
The idea that having these people on American soil is going to somehow cause the streets to run red with the blue-eyed, blonde-haired Christian blood of our American sons and daughters is laughable at best, and dangerously stupid at worst.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: August 03, 2009 12:54PM
You know what I am more concerned about - is the press turning them into martyrs for their suffering. One thing you can say about Gitmo - good or bad - it is a controlled environment.
I don't think they pose a threat from a local violence point of view. The media though will love having "less rigid" access to these folks.
My main beef with Gitmo is that they needed to have a formal "judicial" process in place up front to look at the evidence for holding these folks, and if they didn't have enough information to believe they would be of value for interrogation, move them to other facilities within 90 days or something. Maybe recruit a cadre/mix of civilian and military lawyers to at least keep the system honest.
*Shrug*
I still think San Quentin would work for the feds :) And it would help California with their budget issues :)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2009 12:55PM by Registered Voter.
I don't think they pose a threat from a local violence point of view. The media though will love having "less rigid" access to these folks.
My main beef with Gitmo is that they needed to have a formal "judicial" process in place up front to look at the evidence for holding these folks, and if they didn't have enough information to believe they would be of value for interrogation, move them to other facilities within 90 days or something. Maybe recruit a cadre/mix of civilian and military lawyers to at least keep the system honest.
*Shrug*
I still think San Quentin would work for the feds :) And it would help California with their budget issues :)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2009 12:55PM by Registered Voter.
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
TheMeeper
()
Date: August 03, 2009 01:00PM
Most of the dummies who worry about the threat of having these "terrorists" on US soil don't realize that there are far more dangerous people on the streets of DC, NY, LA, etc.
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The idea that having these people on American soil
> is going to somehow cause the streets to run red
> with the blue-eyed, blonde-haired Christian blood
> of our American sons and daughters is laughable at
> best, and dangerously stupid at worst.
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The idea that having these people on American soil
> is going to somehow cause the streets to run red
> with the blue-eyed, blonde-haired Christian blood
> of our American sons and daughters is laughable at
> best, and dangerously stupid at worst.
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: August 03, 2009 01:10PM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RestonLass Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > MrMephisto Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > RestonLass Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > As long as they've been detained, if they
> > > weren't
> > > > a threat before, they sure are now. Maybe
> it
> > > > would be in the best interest of everyone
> if
> > > the
> > > > military had an "accident" while they
> > > transferring
> > > > the detainees and then it would all be done
> > > with.
> > >
> > > Yes. I fully support a government that can
> > arrest
> > > anyone on vague terror-related charges, hold
> > them
> > > as long as they want without a trial, and
> then
> > > kill them and make it look like an accident
> as
> > > they're transferring them to another prison,
> > where
> > > they'll more than likely be detained
> > indefinitely
> > > without a trial.
> > >
> > > FUCK the Constitution!
> >
> > You're right, we should have killed them over
> > there before they were transported to sunny
> Cuba
>
> Now you're thinking. Killing an enemy combatant
> is much better than throwing a POW into a prison
> for years without a trial, like we're North Korea
> or something.
Well...that certainly is the tactic we've accused the Taliban and Al Queda of promoting. I guess we are nobetter then them after all.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
-------------------------------------------------------
> RestonLass Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > MrMephisto Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > RestonLass Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > As long as they've been detained, if they
> > > weren't
> > > > a threat before, they sure are now. Maybe
> it
> > > > would be in the best interest of everyone
> if
> > > the
> > > > military had an "accident" while they
> > > transferring
> > > > the detainees and then it would all be done
> > > with.
> > >
> > > Yes. I fully support a government that can
> > arrest
> > > anyone on vague terror-related charges, hold
> > them
> > > as long as they want without a trial, and
> then
> > > kill them and make it look like an accident
> as
> > > they're transferring them to another prison,
> > where
> > > they'll more than likely be detained
> > indefinitely
> > > without a trial.
> > >
> > > FUCK the Constitution!
> >
> > You're right, we should have killed them over
> > there before they were transported to sunny
> Cuba
>
> Now you're thinking. Killing an enemy combatant
> is much better than throwing a POW into a prison
> for years without a trial, like we're North Korea
> or something.
Well...that certainly is the tactic we've accused the Taliban and Al Queda of promoting. I guess we are nobetter then them after all.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: August 03, 2009 01:10PM
TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most of the dummies who worry about the threat of
> having these "terrorists" on US soil don't realize
> that there are far more dangerous people on the
> streets of DC, NY, LA, etc.
>
>
>
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The idea that having these people on American
> soil
> > is going to somehow cause the streets to run
> red
> > with the blue-eyed, blonde-haired Christian
> blood
> > of our American sons and daughters is laughable
> at
> > best, and dangerously stupid at worst.
+1..the entire issue is a joke.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most of the dummies who worry about the threat of
> having these "terrorists" on US soil don't realize
> that there are far more dangerous people on the
> streets of DC, NY, LA, etc.
>
>
>
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The idea that having these people on American
> soil
> > is going to somehow cause the streets to run
> red
> > with the blue-eyed, blonde-haired Christian
> blood
> > of our American sons and daughters is laughable
> at
> > best, and dangerously stupid at worst.
+1..the entire issue is a joke.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: August 03, 2009 01:14PM
Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well...that certainly is the tactic we've accused
> the Taliban and Al Queda of promoting. I guess we
> are nobetter then them after all.
The only thing we have on them is technology.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well...that certainly is the tactic we've accused
> the Taliban and Al Queda of promoting. I guess we
> are nobetter then them after all.
The only thing we have on them is technology.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: August 03, 2009 01:34PM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well...that certainly is the tactic we've
> accused
> > the Taliban and Al Queda of promoting. I guess
> we
> > are nobetter then them after all.
>
> The only thing we have on them is technology.
You are correct to a point..we certainly are capable of any cruelty they are capable of...but there is one difference. We respect the rule of law. Without that, you are right and the principles this country were founded on are over...but we arent there yet.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2009 01:35PM by Vince(1).
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well...that certainly is the tactic we've
> accused
> > the Taliban and Al Queda of promoting. I guess
> we
> > are nobetter then them after all.
>
> The only thing we have on them is technology.
You are correct to a point..we certainly are capable of any cruelty they are capable of...but there is one difference. We respect the rule of law. Without that, you are right and the principles this country were founded on are over...but we arent there yet.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2009 01:35PM by Vince(1).
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: August 03, 2009 01:39PM
Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are correct to a point..we certainly are
> capable of any cruelty they are capable of...but
> there is one difference. We respect the rule of
> law. Without that, you are right and the
> principles this country were founded on are
> over...but we arent there yet.
We respect the rule of law when people are watching. If we can get away with it, don't think for a second we'll hesitate to do so.
Look at all of the drone strikes in Pakistan. Their sovereign government doesn't want us interfering, but we do so anyway when we can get away with it.
Accounts from front-line soldiers indicate that war is still hell, and rules are only followed when someone's watching.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are correct to a point..we certainly are
> capable of any cruelty they are capable of...but
> there is one difference. We respect the rule of
> law. Without that, you are right and the
> principles this country were founded on are
> over...but we arent there yet.
We respect the rule of law when people are watching. If we can get away with it, don't think for a second we'll hesitate to do so.
Look at all of the drone strikes in Pakistan. Their sovereign government doesn't want us interfering, but we do so anyway when we can get away with it.
Accounts from front-line soldiers indicate that war is still hell, and rules are only followed when someone's watching.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: August 03, 2009 01:41PM
Yeah, Obama has really changed the war hasn't he?
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: August 03, 2009 01:47PM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, Obama has really changed the war hasn't he?
To be fair, which politician would?
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, Obama has really changed the war hasn't he?
To be fair, which politician would?
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: August 03, 2009 02:06PM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah, Obama has really changed the war hasn't
> he?
>
> To be fair, which politician would?
Exactly. But people believed him. That was quite a sell job on his part.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah, Obama has really changed the war hasn't
> he?
>
> To be fair, which politician would?
Exactly. But people believed him. That was quite a sell job on his part.
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
ยง
()
Date: August 03, 2009 02:19PM
Hey, I like Obama.
He makes my portfolio rise. No pun intended.
He makes my portfolio rise. No pun intended.
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
Gravis
()
Date: August 03, 2009 05:04PM
Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well...that certainly is the tactic we've accused
> the Taliban and Al Queda of promoting. I guess we
> are nobetter then them after all.
vince, sometimes i worry that you actually believe everything you post.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well...that certainly is the tactic we've accused
> the Taliban and Al Queda of promoting. I guess we
> are nobetter then them after all.
vince, sometimes i worry that you actually believe everything you post.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: August 03, 2009 05:48PM
Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well...that certainly is the tactic we've
> accused
> > the Taliban and Al Queda of promoting. I guess
> we
> > are nobetter then them after all.
>
> vince, sometimes i worry that you actually believe
> everything you post.
When's the next beheading?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well...that certainly is the tactic we've
> accused
> > the Taliban and Al Queda of promoting. I guess
> we
> > are nobetter then them after all.
>
> vince, sometimes i worry that you actually believe
> everything you post.
When's the next beheading?
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
Thurston Moore
()
Date: August 03, 2009 10:03PM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, Obama has really changed the war hasn't he?
Actually, the war has changed. I'm not sure whether Obama had any part in it. Well, at the very least, the general he appointed changed it, so there must be some amount of Obama's doing in it.
The soldiers in Afghanistan are now ordered to avoid using air strikes and artillery against targets that may contain or be near civilians, even if that means allowing the enemy a chance to escape.
While I agree with the sentiment, I also think it's funny how we claim we learned lessons from Vietnam, but we've done nothing but repeat the same mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Almost in the same order, like there's a "how to fuck up an occupation and unsuccessfully deal with insurgency, to prolong the conflict for maximum defense contractor profits" handbook or something.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2009 10:04PM by Thurston Moore.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, Obama has really changed the war hasn't he?
Actually, the war has changed. I'm not sure whether Obama had any part in it. Well, at the very least, the general he appointed changed it, so there must be some amount of Obama's doing in it.
The soldiers in Afghanistan are now ordered to avoid using air strikes and artillery against targets that may contain or be near civilians, even if that means allowing the enemy a chance to escape.
While I agree with the sentiment, I also think it's funny how we claim we learned lessons from Vietnam, but we've done nothing but repeat the same mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Almost in the same order, like there's a "how to fuck up an occupation and unsuccessfully deal with insurgency, to prolong the conflict for maximum defense contractor profits" handbook or something.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2009 10:04PM by Thurston Moore.
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: August 03, 2009 10:31PM
You know - this almost feels like a Vietnam moment.
Kennedy (and then LBJ) got us into Vietnam, and kept increasing commitments, then Nixon comes in and says he will get us out. Then he proceeds to step up bombing runs in the background while saying he is pulling out the troops. I know it is not quite parallel, but it sure feels like a deja vu moment. It really is too bad Bush didn't seal the deal with Afghanistan and get it over with - in the intervening years other governments and folks not wanting us to succeed in the region have been focusing resources there.
You start putting limits on the ability of the military to take out their targets (especially today with GPS and laser guided munitions) and nothing good can come of it.
Kennedy (and then LBJ) got us into Vietnam, and kept increasing commitments, then Nixon comes in and says he will get us out. Then he proceeds to step up bombing runs in the background while saying he is pulling out the troops. I know it is not quite parallel, but it sure feels like a deja vu moment. It really is too bad Bush didn't seal the deal with Afghanistan and get it over with - in the intervening years other governments and folks not wanting us to succeed in the region have been focusing resources there.
You start putting limits on the ability of the military to take out their targets (especially today with GPS and laser guided munitions) and nothing good can come of it.
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
Thurston Moore
()
Date: August 03, 2009 10:59PM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know - this almost feels like a Vietnam
> moment.
>
> Kennedy (and then LBJ) got us into Vietnam, and
> kept increasing commitments,
I know that it is the conventional wisdom that Kennedy got us into Vietnam, but he really didn't.
We had advisers in Vietnam during Eisenhower's term and Truman's term. Kennedy was even wavering about having them there. Johnson went full bore as soon as he became president after Kennedy's assassination and sent full combat divisions in, basically starting full scale warfare. (after a rubber dinghy shot at a steel-hulled cruiser, that is, in the gulf of tonkin.)
When the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, in 1954 by the Viet Minh, we already had about 1,500 or so "advisers" from the Air Force, alone, helping the french maintain, and even flying in some cases, our fighter and bomber aircraft. We had many more special forces and conventional forces advisers assisting the french and vietnamese forces.
The air force dates their involvement in Vietnam to the summer of 1950.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O126-VietnamWarUSAirOpertnsnTh.html
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know - this almost feels like a Vietnam
> moment.
>
> Kennedy (and then LBJ) got us into Vietnam, and
> kept increasing commitments,
I know that it is the conventional wisdom that Kennedy got us into Vietnam, but he really didn't.
We had advisers in Vietnam during Eisenhower's term and Truman's term. Kennedy was even wavering about having them there. Johnson went full bore as soon as he became president after Kennedy's assassination and sent full combat divisions in, basically starting full scale warfare. (after a rubber dinghy shot at a steel-hulled cruiser, that is, in the gulf of tonkin.)
When the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, in 1954 by the Viet Minh, we already had about 1,500 or so "advisers" from the Air Force, alone, helping the french maintain, and even flying in some cases, our fighter and bomber aircraft. We had many more special forces and conventional forces advisers assisting the french and vietnamese forces.
The air force dates their involvement in Vietnam to the summer of 1950.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O126-VietnamWarUSAirOpertnsnTh.html
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
fairfaxdude
()
Date: August 03, 2009 11:22PM
Yanno, Thursty and RV, you two have an inane ability to derail these threads AND bore the shit out of me at the same time. Are your PMs broken?
______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.
______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: August 03, 2009 11:24PM
I blame Mephisto...
:)
:)
Re: Obama wants to transfer some Gitmo detainees to KS and MI
Posted by:
Thurston Moore
()
Date: August 04, 2009 12:09AM
fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yanno, Thursty and RV, you two have an inane
> ability to derail these threads AND bore the shit
> out of me at the same time. Are your PMs broken?
It's not like we started talking about how a bird was going to steal my eyeball.
We are discussing, in the linear progression of this thread, about Obama and the paralells to Vietnam, then to the origins of that mistake that it appears we are embarking on once again.
Yes, not exactly about Gitmo, but still slightly relevant in a general discussion that has many points of view.
We're at least sticking to the same genre, at least.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yanno, Thursty and RV, you two have an inane
> ability to derail these threads AND bore the shit
> out of me at the same time. Are your PMs broken?
It's not like we started talking about how a bird was going to steal my eyeball.
We are discussing, in the linear progression of this thread, about Obama and the paralells to Vietnam, then to the origins of that mistake that it appears we are embarking on once again.
Yes, not exactly about Gitmo, but still slightly relevant in a general discussion that has many points of view.
We're at least sticking to the same genre, at least.