You may be asked to reset your password when you try to login. This is part of a system update and is genuine, so it's safe to go ahead and do that. If you no longer have access to the email address you used to register, please email us at [email protected] rather than creating a new account. Apologies for the inconvenience.

Now children are held prisoners in Guantanamo Bay

124»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Since you obviously choose to be willingly blind to your own oversight of Bush/Cheney's own abuses and corruptions why dont we point out a few of those for you Greeny.

    Misuse of defense budgets:

    The largest increase in the US defence budget in over 20 years with significant contracts going to Carlyle Group of which Daddy has been a long running member of the board and a grossly over paid promoter of foreign arms sales deals that do not discriminate between stable democratically elected governments and repressive dictatorial/autocratic regimes that Bush Jr. simultaneously paints to the American public as enemies of freedom and democracy.

    Further Pentagon contract money that has gone to Haliburton which continues to pay off Cheney under his deferred settlement arrangement.

    Corporate corruption:

    Going back into Bush's pre-Presidential life (since you bring up the ultimately dismissed and laughable Whitewater claims)...

    Harken Energy of which Bush was a member of the auditing board and which was found to have cooked the books just after Bush sold all his shares at market highs. Later claiming to have no indication of any accounting indiscretions despite his prominent role in the very committee charged with financial auditing.

    Then there is the Ranger's stadium deal in which Bush used his political connections to have a significant portion of privately owned land claimed by the state on behalf of his partners with well below market value remuneration being paid to the family which owned the land. By any measure a well known case of crony capitalism.

    Thinly veiled bribes:

    The well known business association between not only the House of Saud but the Bin Laden family as well. Token investment opportunities in the US provided to selected sons of Saudi princes in exchange for lucrative arms and industry deals in Saudi Arabia for which the Bush family has received princely sums in kickbacks.

    Yes Greeny you can paint Clinton/Gore with all the right wing vitriole you can muster and belittle yourself in the process by ignoring the even more accomplished corruption and abuse of political power by the current batch of long time manipulaters which you adore so fervently.

    As you are wont to say all too often... perhaps you should go and do some research for a change. You just might educate yourself so that your future remarks are less transparently ingenuine.

    Truth is all you ever demonstrate here is contention and disagreement for its own sake. You rarely support any claim to insight (and apparently you think you know everything about everything) with any supporting references and yet routinely suggest that everyone else is in the wrong. Except of course the odd gun toting rah rah redneck who may come along to cheer your cause occasionally.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine

    Yes Greeny you can paint Clinton/Gore with all the right wing vitriole you can muster and belittle yourself in the process by ignoring the even more accomplished corruption and abuse of political power by the current batch of long time manipulaters which you adore so fervently.

    Amusing how you are so unwilling to admit to the acts that Clinton and Gore committed. Corruption and Treason. But that's OK by you, isn't it?

    The voters chose, and it wasn't your boy. And last year showed it wasn't a fluke. Might as well get used to it, Clandestine. Your idea of politics isn't too popular in the States these days (maybe the electorate have finally figured out that the left don't really have anything for them except empty promises and a belief that they {the left} are smarter than everyone else).

    The funniest thing is watching you pour your socialist vitriole that "capitalism is bad", "big business is evil", etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    I've noticed you like Dictionary.com.

    I suggest you buy a decent dictionary.

    Oxford are good for British English. Webster's for American English.

    From Websters:

    Technicality - a detail meaningful only to a specialist.

    Since law is obviously of interest to lawyers, I'd say it is safe to say they are the specialists in this particular field.

    As for the details we've been discussing, obviously they are meaningful to you (are you a lawyer?) and to me (a soldier). I am not a specialist in this field, but the details are meaningful to me and my ilk. Therefore, not a technicality.

    Have a nice day. Kindly take Logic 101 before bothering to try to make an argument.

    You're purposefully misunderstanding here.

    I'm assuming that from the explanation in this post, you do accept the point I'm making, but are disagreeing on the definition of technicality, which can obviously mean different things to different people.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by carlito
    You're purposefully misunderstanding here.

    I'm assuming that from the explanation in this post, you do accept the point I'm making, but are disagreeing on the definition of technicality, which can obviously mean different things to different people.

    I guess I should suggest a course in linguistics to go along with the logic course. :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    1)In other words, self-interest?
    2)So, when one of those individuals of your race choosing to kill another, which is the more valuable?

    3)And if that "another" is you?

    4)Defending a nation doesn't make one a soldier.

    1)Yes
    2) if individuals are trying to kill one another then they are still of worth as a human being. Saying you forfeit your right to humanity because you tried to kill someone would make all soldiers in combat inhuman, are you a human greeny?
    The person trying to kill someone should be controlled, but with respect to their natural rights as a human being.

    3) Then I would kill to defend myself. But only if it was them or me.

    4) So the americans who rose up against the english wren't soldiers and should have had no rights if captured? (P.S I know that they were tortured/killed if captured)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Indeed Symbeline, in today's world under the Bush doctrine, the colonial militiamen would have been at best unlawful combatants and at worst terrorists. But don't expect a duly conditioned soldier like Greeny to ever aknowledge that.

    He gets off on merely disagreeing with anything anyone who opposes his warmongering ilk has to say regardless of whether he truly knows anything about it or not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Since the militia did wear uniforms (as did most of the men who fought for the colonies, with a few exceptions who were generally hanged outright), under today's rules, they would be lawful combatants. Unfortunate that Clandestine has so little knowledge of US history. Simbelyne cannot be expected to be familiar with anything but the myths (facts - the Continentals did not generally fight from behind trees or by ambush, they fought using the same tactics as the British Army, and both the Continental Army and the militia wore uniforms, although those uniforms might have only consisted of a hat, a sash or a tunic...often in very bad condition).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    Since the militia did wear uniforms (as did most of the men who fought for the colonies, with a few exceptions who were generally hanged outright), under today's rules, they would be lawful combatants. Unfortunate that Clandestine has so little knowledge of US history. Simbelyne cannot be expected to be familiar with anything but the myths (the Continentals did not generally fight from behind trees or by ambush, they fought using the same tactics as the British Army, and both the Continental Army and the militia wore uniforms, altough those uniforms might have only consisted of a hat, a sash or a tunic...often in very bad condition).

    So a hat, sash or tunic on a Taliban soldier is somehow different?

    P.S i'm not actually forgetting letters in words, my keyboard is on the way out!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Simbelyne

    2) if individuals are trying to kill one another then they are still of worth as a human being.

    Why?

    3) Then I would kill to defend myself. But only if it was them or me.

    But isn't that failing to respect their life?

    The hat, sash or tunic must be uniform and distinctive (an identifiable marking). Those Taliban who wore such (consistent to the Taliban Army) are soldiers. Those who did not are illegal combatants.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    1)Why?
    2)But isn't that failing to respect their life?

    1)Because they could still contribute. You are a soldier? Do you think what you do makes you worthless as a human being?

    2) Yes it is. But faced with me or him, realistically it would be him. But only as the very last resort.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Simbelyne
    1)Because they could still contribute. You are a soldier? Do you think what you do makes you worthless as a human being?

    2) Yes it is. But faced with me or him, realistically it would be him. But only as the very last resort.

    What about someone who can't, or won't contribute?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    What about someone who can't, or won't contribute?

    Your not answering my question;

    You as a soldier, have to try to kill people, does that make your life worthless?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Simbelyne
    Your not answering my question;

    You as a soldier, have to try to kill people, does that make your life worthless?

    I don't subscribe to your views of the world. I believe killing is sometimes necessary and right.
Sign In or Register to comment.