Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Tartışma komitesi listesi
Bu komiteye yazı yazma izniniz yok. Bu komiteye yazabilmek için minimum üyelik seviyesi Brain Piyonu.
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.
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.
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.
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????
Konu: 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. ;)
Konu: 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....
(sakla) If you want to greet someone in their native language try our Player's Dictionary, in the "more about languages" link under the flags. (pauloaguia) (Bütün ipuçlarını göster)