If you take it in the most literal sense of the word it is.
Kangaroo court? Really?
Laughable.
Why is it Democrats read Republican as literal as then can, but when it comes to themselves they write and spin volumes out of one simple word?
The fact that it works makes it right. Sorry if that’s too blunt. I may not have avoided trigger words.
They wouldn’t be there to begin with if it weren’t for Obama (his voters) and the policy to get us all out.
Was it a mistake to do that? I don’t hear many saying it wasn’t.
If that’s your side’s selling point, awesome and good luck!
“Donald Trump is great because he speaks plainly about what he means”
“Don’t listen to what Donald Trump actually said - you can’t take him literally”
But he speaks from his Heart…!
*
*
Oh. Wow. Never mind…
The Bone backlash already happened, after people went through his Reddit comment history.
I find it hard to trust anyone who claims to be still “undecided”. Gotta be kidding, you have a hard time choosing between acne and smallpox? Lot of times, seems to me, its a pretense of objectivity and intelligence. Partisans are stupid therefore non-partisans are smart. You can’t make up your mind, ask me, be glad to help.
You mean the George W. Bush policy Obama implemented?
No it does not work. The CIA has admitted they got no useful information from torture. And Israel’s tactics have not solved the conflict there or prevented infantida’s being renewed again and again. So in what sense of the word do war crimes “work” ? They don’t.
No you absolutely do not get to rewrite history like this. The rise of ISIS is a direct result of Bush lying about WMD’s to start the war in Iraq and then invading the country with no plan to stabilise it afterwards. He ignored the advise of his own generals who told him this would create a use power vacuum. Obama inherited the mess and the Iraqi government refused to sign a status of forces argreement. Here we are.
Yes actually I think informing people of the real actual risks of terrorism and putting things in perspective is a pretty good selling point. Better than being a coward who makes all their decisions in fear from an overblown bogeyman.
Thankfully your side is going to lose on November 9th and lose big so your disgusting views on war crimes and ignorance about history will be just the powerless voice of a loser.
Just to add on, it was Bush who agreed to the Status Of Forces Agreement which set the withdrawal timetable. Obama tried to get an extension of the SOFA but the Iraqis were unable to grant U.S. troops immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law, which was obviously a very emotional issue with the Iraqis due to how the Bush Administration had conducted the occupation.
Hewey, I reiterate coremelt’s words: no, you absolutely do not get to rewrite history here.
Welcome to the Dope. We argue facts and logic. We aren’t like those newspaper reporters who gussy up some nothingburger story with comments about its ‘optics.’
I’ve never heard one of these history re-writers explain exactly what would have McCain done differently to prevent the rise of ISIS if he had won in 2008? Would he have kept US troops in Iraq without a Status of Forces agreement? Or would he have invaded Iraq again and forced them to accept a new SOFA?
Nope, he would have followed the time table for withdrawal, because it was BUSH’s timetable.
And just for fun, Trump was once in favor of just getting out of Iraq in the same manner he now criticizes.
And there’s even a video.
Help with what?
And while I’m on the subject, do you ever make a point or stand on anything? I see you mock and ridicule posts (24/7… do you have a job?), but I never see you post a position you take.
Lameness.
That is the most shallow, uninformed/ill-informed opinion on a matter I think I’ve ever read.
Nah, you just Pravda it whenever you can. Ie the state sanctioned rhetoric.
Cite (one of many; that’s just the first I grabbed.)
Enhanced interrogation techniques produced either faulty intelligence (because people lied to get the pain to stop) or no useful information at all. On what basis do you claim to know ever so much more than Congress or the people who interrogate for a living?
[QUOTE=Mark Fallon, ex-NCIS]
As special agent in charge of the criminal investigation task force with investigators and intelligence personnel at Guantánamo Bay, Afghanistan, and Iraq, I was privy to the information provided by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I was aware of no valuable information that came from waterboarding.
[/QUOTE]
How very sweet! Its a dreary and grey day here, but you are like a butterfly of joy, alighting on my shoulder and whispering a really good dirty joke in my ear! Flutter away now, dear one, on your mission to spread happiness!
Looking at history I’m more convinced now that Torture is useful all right, but for a reprehensible government. Then as now torture is not much used to get information but to instill fear in others and to find false evidence to support the bad choices of a bad government.
HeweyLogan is wrong by thinking that it works where it should count, if it did then it would follow that the medieval and modern age torturers of witches got valid evidence that witches had the power to fly and the power to control disease and connections with the devil.
No one thinks nowadays that they found the truth, what they found many times was that the valuable property of the falsely accused did go to the church and the government back then, they likely had other reasons to do the torturing rather than looking for the devil. Finding “evidence” that gives the easily impressed that the rulers were doing a great job was a tool to convince many to not complain about the bad decisions and acts of their reprehensible government.
Just about what Bush the lesser did indeed.
HeweyLogan, you must not hang out here much, if you’ve never seen elucidator take a stand on anything.
I think this pins down the problem right there. That can’t be a shallow opinion, because it’s not an opinion at all. It’s fact. Being able to tell the difference is kind of essential.
And, just to add on a little more…What exactly would have been a better plan in Iraq? I imagine that lots of U.S. troops could have delayed the rise of ISIS had they stayed longer but how long would the U.S. have had to stay there in order to prevent the situation? The real problem was the power vacuum that the Bush invasion created and the (predictable) shortsightedness of someone like al-Maliki and the other Shiites in making the situation in Iraq sufficiently intolerable for the Sunnis that ISIS could take root as a viable alternative to the Iraqi government.
And, just to pre-emptively deal with what seems likely to be the next line of attack here (and get sorta meta- on you)…
Here Hillary Clinton told the truth about her Iraq war vote., by the way, is a good article on Clinton’s vote for the Bush’s authority for war with Iraq. I do think her vote was a mistake but I also have a hard time with people simply calling the vote a vote to go to war with Iraq since, if you take the Bush Administration’s word at the time, was advertised as the best way to get Saddam Hussein to comply with inspections and hence avoid a war with Iraq.
As I recall, many of us who opposed this authorization were basically in the position of arguing that we simply didn’t trust Bush with such authority, which is the sort of thing that is a lot easier to say about the U.S. President when you are an average citizen than when you are a U.S. Senator. Basically, a vote against this resolution could be pretty easily characterized as a vote that you trusted Saddam Hussein more than you trusted George W. Bush, which certainly turned out in retrospect (and to some at the time!) to be the correct call, but I can understand how it was not an easy call for someone in her position to make.
Something to remember is that Pence also voted for the war along with Trump surrogate Jack Kingston(often seen on CNN ripping Hillary for voting for the war).
Trump even said on TV that Pence gets a pass for voting for the war as he’s entitled to make a mistake now and then.
You don’t get to make a statement like that on this forum and not back it up with anything. So please give me an example where the CIA has said they got useful intelligence from torture? And please give me an example of a conflict which has been solved once and for all by war crimes, specifically torture, and targeting civilians?
Here I’ll do your work for you. Julius Caesar pacified Gaul by cutting off the right hand of every able bodied male after a battle and then setting them free across the rest of Gaul as an example. And the British colony in Tasmania ended the conflict with local aboriginal people by killing every single one of them, except a handful that they kept under confinement on an island.
Either one of those sound like the sort of options we should be pursuing? Why don’t you tell us what you really have in mind?