[MSO]

I highly doubt Obama is 10x smarter than I.

[futureMACH1racer]

I really do hope so, because if he is only 9x times smarter we're fucked.

[vfast]

I never saw the problem with the place..it treats them like criminals,keeps them from the US...

[futureMACH1racer]

I agree with you Vfast.

[MSO]

The only problem I have with that place is breaking the Geneva convention.

I could care less if they keep criminals there, but if the leader of the free world isn't exactly practicing freedom... that's kinda bad.

I don't know whether to make heads or tails of this situation, conservative fear mongers are crying because the people in that prison will get out and blow up the world, and liberal crybabies are crying because people are being tortured.

[vfast]

I say lets let them move in with those liberals

[klouierocks]

why should we give them more rights then the Geneva Convention gives them? Because last time I checked they are not uniformed soldiers thus making said convention a useless piece of paper regarding them.

[futureMACH1racer]

Once again I agree Vfast.

[WAR-PARTY]

Two Words; Shoot Them

[ReverendDexter]

Originally Posted by klouierocks why should we give them more rights then the Geneva Convention gives them? Because last time I checked they are not uniformed soldiers thus making said convention a useless piece of paper regarding them.

It's not an issue of *more* rights than the Geneva convention dictates, but making sure that they *are* getting those rights in the first place.

In terms of not being a uniformed soldier, I have a few issues with this:
1)What determines a uniform? Is it how they identify themselves when captured? Is it the clothing that they wear? How is this any different from how we as Americans fought off the British in the Revolutionary War? We didn't follow the rules of war for that time period because if we did we would've lost our ass. I think we can all agree that if the terrorist organizations fought by what we consider to be proper rules of war, this wouldn't have even been a scuffle for our military.
2)In making this statement, are we saying that a civilian has less rights than a soldier?
3)In making this statement, are we going against our own founding documents wherein EVERY man has certain unalienable rights, not just American citizens, and not just innocents?

[MSO]

Originally Posted by ReverendDexter It's not an issue of *more* rights than the Geneva convention dictates, but making sure that they *are* getting those rights in the first place. In terms of not being a uniformed soldier, I have a few issues with this: 1)What determines a uniform? Is it how they identify themselves when captured? Is it the clothing that they wear? How is this any different from how we as Americans fought off the British in the Revolutionary War? We didn't follow the rules of war for that time period because if we did we would've lost our ass. I think we can all agree that if the terrorist organizations fought by what we consider to be proper rules of war, this wouldn't have even been a scuffle for our military. 2)In making this statement, are we saying that a civilian has less rights than a soldier? 3)In making this statement, are we going against our own founding documents wherein EVERY man has certain unalienable rights, not just American citizens, and not just innocents?

Not to mention torture, especially if the people might genuinely not know anything.

I don't know about you, but if someone came to my house, took me to Cuba, tortured me relentlessly for hours a day for months a year and refused to tell me what I did or are being charged with, while asking me questions about shit I don't understand, I'd be pretty pissed.

[klouierocks]

^uniformed soldiers

terrorist douchebags ^
and back when did not follow the rules of war we didn't kill children

[MSO]

Originally Posted by klouierocks and back when did not follow the rules of war we didn't kill children

what about when we exterminated entire races of native americans?

Trail of Tears anyone?

[vfast]

man your stretching it thin

[MSO]

Originally Posted by vfast man your stretching it thin

its ok, it can hold up to a gallon of water

[ReverendDexter]

Originally Posted by klouierocks and back when did not follow the rules of war we didn't kill children

No, but the rules of war in the mid-late 1700s were such that the two armies would be lined up facing eachother, usually in big open fields. Also, you were always supposed to only shoot the enlisted, and leave officers alone (or at least for last). We didn't play that game, we wore camouflage, hid behind trees, and shot rank first. We'd hit and move - typical guerilla tactics that were learned from the native americans.

And we've killed LOTS of children. I can't think of a war we've been in that we haven't killed children!

It's WAR. You do what you have to do to win. If we miscalculate a bombing target and take out an elementary school or a mosque instead of a troop garrison, oh well, at least it wasn't our kids that died.

Personally I don't agree with war, but if we're gonna do it, let's not pussyfoot around about it. Go in, get the job done, and get out. Kill the people that need to be dead and move on with our lives. If we can't justify killing their babies, we can't justify a war.