BrainKing - Discussion boards (Politics)

I see, Bush is a war criminal because because when he killed women and children he was the President longer. But If you're new at the Presidency, you can kill innocent women and children and get a pass.

So how long can Obama be responsible for the killing of innocent women and children before he can be accused of war crimes? He's killed 5 so far (according to liberal logic) so how long can this go on before people on the left start to call him on it?

25. January 2009, 04:32:39

Modified by Papa Zoom (25. January 2009, 04:33:27)

I wonder if the liberals in congress will now call for an investigation of the Obama administration for war crimes? (much like they are trying to do for the Bush administration)

Or will the incident below just be ignored because they will either link it to Bush or just excuse it away. After all, women and children were killed and Obama is the Commander in Chief? Any liberals care to comment?

KABUL, Afghanistan - The U.S. coalition in Afghanistan opened an investigation into an overnight raid early Saturday that American commanders say killed 15 armed militants but that two Afghan officials say killed 11 civilians.

A detailed U.S. statement said multiple teams of militants fired on the coalition forces during a raid against a Taliban commander early Saturday in the eastern province of Laghman. The U.S. said a woman carrying a rocket-propelled grenade was among the 15 killed.

"We know the people who were killed were shooting at us," said Col. Greg Julian, the top U.S. spokesman in Afghanistan. "The people who were killed today were running around, maneuvering against our forces, and we killed them."

But Sayed Ahmad Safi, the spokesman for Laghman's governor, said that government intelligence reports indicated 11 of the dead were civilians, including three children and two females. Two of the dead were militants, he said.

25. January 2009, 01:24:01

Atlas Shrugged: From Fiction to Fact

Subject: Government isn't the solution, they are the problem. More is coming

24. January 2009, 05:31:01

awesome

Subject: Re:

Bernice:

the torturing seemed to have worked

24. January 2009, 05:29:12

Subject: Re:

Bernice: We had a dog like that too. Refused to pee outside when it rained. And I live in a State where it rains all winter ! lol

I wonder if the dog in question will go to a shrink?

24. January 2009, 05:26:04

Subject: Re:

Artful Dodger: I have a similar dog...Bear is a shih-tzu....he is depressed at the moment because he had to have a bath today LOL.....he HATES water....he won't even go outside for a pee if it is raining....

but clinically depressed? hahahahaha

24. January 2009, 04:56:53

Subject: Re:

Bernice: The headline cracks me up. How does a poodle get depressed? Poodle:" I'm feeling kinda down today. I didn't get my doggie treat like I'm supposed to. I think I'll bite Chirac."

24. January 2009, 04:53:29

Subject: Re:

Artful Dodger: ROFL.....

24. January 2009, 04:34:07

Former French President Chirac hospitalised after mauling by his clinically depressed poodle

a clinically depressed poodle?

24. January 2009, 02:39:37

Subject: Re:

Bernice: Interesting. Hard to now what to believe. Here's another story. From Fox. lol http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262960,00.html

and

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261542,00.html

And Kevin McCullough calls Daivd Hicks a "dunderhead." What was he doing in Afganistan? Don't know but I wasn't there. But Davie was. And it's unlikely he was just there for an afternoon stroll. It makes more sense that he was aiding the enemy. http://kevinmccullough.townhall.com/blog/2007/2007/04/page5

24. January 2009, 02:08:24

Bwild

well the women lippers arent so pleased with their president....they want more women to men ratio in the Obama regime! what ever happened to "the right person for the right job"?

24. January 2009, 01:13:41

Because I know you can't believe everything you read, I have no idea if this is true, but.....?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/David-Hicks-affidavit/2004/12/10/1102625527396.html

24. January 2009, 00:51:45

BadBoy7

Subject: Re:

Modified by BadBoy7 (24. January 2009, 01:15:51)

Artful Dodger: I know u prefer lighted matches stuck under ur toe nails

24. January 2009, 00:39:05

Subject: Re:

Bernice: If true it's an injustice. But terrorists don't wear name tags so I give the benefit of the doubt to the US. As for "torture" if they had to eat my cooking they could call it torture. I don't know what people mean when they say "torture." I always think of ripping out fingernails or slicing off fingers. Loud music just doesn't seem to be so bad. My kids listened to loud music all the time. Yes it was torture for me but not on the level of having my skin peeled off my body or my fingernails yanked out.

24. January 2009, 00:35:26

Subject: Re: I couldn't resist,fair and balanced?

Jim Dandy: Two things: first, that is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time. No one does it better than John. Second, isolated clips don't mean much in a larger context. You know what you get with Rush and you know what you get with Hannity. So those aren't good examples. OTOH, there were some soundbites that truly had my head shaking.

A few months ago Chris Wallace chewed out the hosts of a daytime Fox show (not sure which one) for "bashing" Obama. Some of those shows do that or at least, have done that. When the hard news programs go that direction, I'll switch the channel.

That said, I highly recommend the clip. You will get a huge laugh out of it. Somehow John Stewart is able to make Fox always look bad and in some cases I find it difficult to disagree with his assessment.

My favorite is the question about the second swearing in: Obama didn't have his hand on the Bible. So is he really the president.

Duh, it's the Chief Justice swearing Obama in. The dudes the president already.

24. January 2009, 00:14:56

Modified by Bernice (24. January 2009, 00:17:27)

australia had a man released and he returned (David Hicks) went to jail for about 6-9 months in low security and is now a model citizen, has gone back to university and is leading a normal life......he WAS a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time..........I havent googled him but feel free to do so. I think he converted to become a muslim and this is what "buried " him so to speak.....he also was tortured in Guantanamo Bay, altho the USA deny that fact, but..................?

24. January 2009, 00:07:12

Subject: Re: You mean like accidentally going into Iraq during a war????

Artful Dodger:

is Obama more concerned with the reputation of the US (closing Gitmo will go a long way in improving our image) or about keeping our country safe?

I think it is both....I think he announced the closing to make everyone feel good about the US, but he left himself some wiggle room by stating that it would be done in accordance with national security and other concerns....

23. January 2009, 23:52:49

The Col

http://crooksandliars.com/media/play/wmv/7168/25441

Subject: I couldn't resist,fair and balanced?

23. January 2009, 23:51:45

Subject: You mean like accidentally going into Iraq during a war????

Czuch: Good point. I don't know that I've ever gotten a good explanation on this one. I think the entire situation is far more complex than most of us realize.

Not sure where I heard this but the question was asked, is Obama more concerned with the reputation of the US (closing Gitmo will go a long way in improving our image) or about keeping our country safe?

I do know of former terriorists that are no longer committing acts of terror but are in fact, exposing Islam as a religion of hate and intolerance. But these terrorists weren't changed because of some government program. They found a greater reason to abondon Islam and embrace a belief that makes far more sense to them. ;)

23. January 2009, 23:45:45

Subject: Re: Closing Gitmo

coan.net: Well, the Bush administration has already released many of the gitmo prisoners, the ones who were the least threats, and many of them have gone back to their old ways already...

also, why would they release some, and then still keep others who were "just in the wrong place at the wrong time"????

Anyway, I dont buy that either, really, just in the wrong place at the wrong time??? You mean like accidentally going into Iraq during a war????

23. January 2009, 22:43:41

Subject: Re: here's one

Charles Martel: Excellent example of the problems the US will face if they release any detainee.

23. January 2009, 22:40:19

tyyy

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/23/mideast/detainee.1-414168.php

Subject: here's one

23. January 2009, 22:39:48

Subject: Re: Closing Gitmo

Jim Dandy: I'm sure I will have plenty of opportunity to do just that. I'll just pretend he is Bush making the decisions and ask myself what the liberal left would say, and then I go from there.

23. January 2009, 22:35:12

The Col

Subject: Re: Closing Gitmo

Artful Dodger: It will give you more credability when you pounce on his policies later

23. January 2009, 22:27:15

Subject: Re: Closing Gitmo

Jim Dandy: See, I'm not totally unreasonable.

23. January 2009, 22:26:15

The Col

Subject: Re: Closing Gitmo

Artful Dodger: I second that emotion

23. January 2009, 22:00:58

Subject: Re: Closing Gitmo

coan.net: You may well be right. It will be interesting to see how this plays out now that Obama is in charge. I have confidence that he will take into consideration the ongoing threat against the US. I don't expect Obama to cave in to radical pressures but to do what is both right and in the best interest of the security of the US. I know that Obama favors closing Gitmo in large part because of the negative view the world has on the US for what they percieve as injustices at Gitmo. Even if none of what's percieved were true, perception is a large part of their reality and Obama is dedicated to changing the world's opinion on the US. That is a good thing if properly balanced with the realities of the kind of enemy we have detained.

23. January 2009, 19:50:27

coan.net

Subject: Closing Gitmo

This is one of the examples of a bad situation that has happened (Gitmo has held without trial - some people for over 5 years.. some as long as 7 or 8 years)

The extreme answer is to close gitmo.

The CORRECT answer would be process the captured in a TIMELY MANOR and deal with them.

Some of the men held at Gitmo was just in the wrong place at the wrong time - they are not a threat (well were not - maybe now since they have been held in the same areas as extremist for the past many years.. enough to probable get a little brainwashed and pissed at the US for such a long detainment).

Anyway, for some even, the US wants to release them and send them back home, but their home country will not accept them. And who would want to accept someone who 5-8 years ago was not a threat, but again - has been held in close contact with extremist who may have altered their view?

Anyway, this situation is something that should have been solved MANY years ago. It is a shame that Bush let it go this long and made it a problem that Obama will have to sort out. I think "Closing" was too harsh of a direction to go - where as "dealing & processing ALL people held within 6 months" would have been a MUCH better way to go.

... and then if there are extremist which are too "bad" to do anything with, they can stay at Gitmo - but others who are not will hopefully be finally released.

But what do I know - I've only said for the past 4 years they needed to do something with the people being held and not just hold them indefinitely.

23. January 2009, 17:55:04

Subject: Re:

Czuch: I know that there have been some terrorists released and they went back to their terrorist activities and killed Americans. I'll see if I can find any specifics on that. This idea of a trial by civil court is terribly misguided. They were caputured on the battlefield, good enough for me.

23. January 2009, 14:59:27

Subject: Re:

Artful Dodger:

Do people really think that putting terrorists into the general population is a good idea?

I dont think that is ever going to happen....

But what is going to happen is a good question? If they are brought into this country, from what I hear, they will suddenly gain all the rights that every citizen has? That means a trial, and from what I have heard again, it seems like we do not have much in the way of actual courtroom type evidence against most of them.... so they end up just being released and exported????

23. January 2009, 06:41:54

Subject: Re:

Bernice: Most of us will live in peace (your country for example) because we see great value in it. And many see the value in helping other nations that aren't as fortunate as ours. Bush, love him or hate him, has done more for Africa than any other individual human being, living or dead.

I like the thing Obama has said so far. And for the most part, he's gotten right to work and kept up with his promises during the campaign. I don't doubt that he will continue that trend. But reality has a way of altering our priorities and only time will tell what the next 100 days will reveal. The direction of the Obama administration will be seen more clearly by then.

For example, Obama is closing Gitmo. But so far, he has no plan other than saying he will close it. His administration will "study" the logistics of closing the facility and look at available options and create a plan from there. So if one wanted to be picky, he's made a decision to close Gitmo with no plan in place of how that closing will proceed and no plan on what to do with all the inmates.

I agree with on conservative commentator who said put them all in Florida, right next to some of those hollywood hotshots that kept calling for Gitmos close. I say open a new facility right in their neighborhood. Then they can put on benefit concerts for them.

Do people really think that putting terrorists into the general population is a good idea? How long will it take before a couple of big burly inmates knock off a few of them former Gitmo inmates?

23. January 2009, 06:25:09

Subject: Re:

Artful Dodger: agreed on the They want what they want and if they don't get it, they will kill others, and peace in the world??, never has been and probably never will be.

23. January 2009, 06:07:03

Subject: Re:

Bernice: Obama has some good ideas on foreign relations but he will soon find out that the Islamic terrorists are a different breed and death to them is the ultimate way to serve their god. They want what they want and if they don't get it, they will kill others. Then when they get what they want, they will settle on their next target. They want world domination ultimately. And killing everyone that stands in their way tops their list of things to do. I hope Obama can deal with them effectively but I suspect that nothing will work in the long run. When in the history of the world has the world ever been at peace?

23. January 2009, 06:01:55

Modified by Bernice (23. January 2009, 06:02:57)

I personally think Australia should be so thankful (not because of Bush)...even with our "alliance" with the USA there hasn't been an attack and we thought we would be in line for one or more for sure.....we surely are a lucky country :)

23. January 2009, 05:54:03

Subject: Re:

Bernice:Yeah, they loved Bush in the beginning too. I suspect this administration will be different. Obama knows how to adapt to the political climate and he already has. When in Chicago, do as is expected. Check out the landscape and play according to the rules.

Bush was very different. He didn't care what the world thought of him personally. His goal was to secure the US from further terrorist attacks. And he did just that. No domestic attacks and for that, the American people can thank him.

23. January 2009, 05:49:01

it is all good here LOL....they have showed him re-taking the oath time and time again so we are in no doubt as to who is pres. LOL

He is getting a great reception from the australian people, because Bush was so hated, but saying that it is still early days isn't it.

23. January 2009, 05:45:48

Subject: Re:

Bernice:So what is the news your way regarding the Obama election?

23. January 2009, 05:45:06

ah dear....it is good to see you all so GAY, oh and happy too ROFLMBO

23. January 2009, 05:33:25

I think likely the board moderator would have stepped in before things got too heated. A little heat in a debate is good for the blood.

As for personal attacks, hmmmm, I have no idea what is meant by that and I'm not going to try to read minds.

23. January 2009, 04:59:46

anastasia

Subject: Re: Personal attacks.

Czuch: I think they maybe just wanted us to KNOW they were peeping toms...I mean watching us...I MEAN moderating us....from a distance * sings that last part to you guys like Bette Midler*

23. January 2009, 04:51:32

Subject: Re: Personal attacks.

Vikings:

remember what it was like before globs?)

hahhhah, yeah it was really fun .....

23. January 2009, 04:48:48

Subject: Re: Personal attacks.

Vikings: WOW!!! Third most read board??? And those losers on gen chat said we would be a dead board... hahahah

Anywho, just dont start to over moderate, and I dont care, i see the point so far, but you know me.. I will protect free speech to thew hilt, but right now i dont see anybody getting victimized to the point where globals need to... but anyway, i think the message has been load and clear..

23. January 2009, 04:43:07

Vikings

Subject: Re: Personal attacks.

Czuch: First of all, he didn't upstage me, I had to go and give my support to China at Wallyworld.(there now it is on topic)
second, this is the third most read board right now
third, all public boards are monitored as close as possible to stop mainly flaming from escalating and crossing over to other boards (remember what it was like before globs?)

23. January 2009, 04:36:02

Subject: Re: Personal attacks.

Vikings: well, my first inclination.. is yes, but then i remember that i forgot that you are a global now too!!!

So now I wonder why Rod had to upsatge you???

hhahahah just kidding!!!!

Point is, even though this is a public board, there is a very small percentage of people here who actaully read here, much less post, so who is being protected, isnt that the real reason to moderate?

23. January 2009, 04:30:55

anastasia

Subject: Re: Personal attacks.

Vikings: LMAO!

23. January 2009, 04:28:13

Vikings

Subject: Re: Personal attacks.

Modified by Vikings (23. January 2009, 04:29:40)

anastasia:

23. January 2009, 04:25:13

anastasia