posted
Come on Snow. Stop with the grade school insults. You will find that most on this board are intelligent people who are able to discuss, with respect, the events of the day.
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Snowspot: Whistle me all you want, that won't change anything I say. All I said is he doesn't know what he's talking about... which you (anonymous), seem to have proven yourself.
lol @ whistling (?!)
No actually you said
quote:Are you Alberto Gonzalez? Haha.. what a joke. You're talking semantics!?! So what if they aren't a US citizen? Whats if you're in a different country and they will torture you because you aren't their citizen? Do you have no foresight? You should be ashamed. Ashamed. People used to look at America and think we were the good guys, people willing to subvert their values and morals because of their irrational fear cowards. You ARE A COWARD. You know why Saddam Hussein killed so many people? He was AFRAID. He Feared his citizens and the only way to combat that was terrorizing them. It's the same approach you're advocating.
I just quoted the wrong passage in my post.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Snowspot, if you're interested in being taken seriously by anyone here, it might be helpful for you to spend a little while reading over some of the debate threads on the Books Food Film and Culture forum (the "other side of the river", so to speak). All places online aren't alike, and approaches to debate that are preferred in one place may not be successful in another place.
In fact, it occurs to me that not taking the time to come to know a place before taking a role in it, failing to respect that place's culture, assuming that one's own perspective is more accurate and one's perception more acute that those of the people native to that culture is exactly the sort of approach that people often identify as "imperialistic" when describing the US's interactions with other countries. Don't be what you despise, eh?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think you need to be the Attorney General to acknowledge that certain rights accorded to our citizens under the Constitution are in fact guaranteed only for our citizens.
Yes, everyone knows that the Constitution only applies to white male citizens. That's why slavery was constitutional back then, and that's why torturing non-citizens is constitutional now.
Or you may believe as I do, that slavery had always been unconstitutional, and that denying habeas corpus to non-citizens is likewise unconstitutional now.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aris, are you seriously going to claim that all the rights in the U.S. Constitution are legally extended to non-citizens? Because that's a losing argument.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Snowspot, "whistling" a post indicates bringing it to the attention of a moderator by means of the "report post" icon (which looks like a whistle) at the bottom of each post.
Your posts are a bit over the line in regard to personal attacks. I try to grant a little leniency here and there, especially on more controversial topics and with long-term members (as a consequence of their investment in the community, not just because they've been here longer, and because it's usually the rare exception rather than the rule), but the rules are still there.
Personal attacks on other members aren't acceptable. Argue their points/positions/logic/premises, but don't attack the person, please. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're stupid, or ignorant, or blind, or a coward. Just ease back on the throttle a little bit, ok? Thanks.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Aris, are you seriously going to claim that all the rights in the U.S. Constitution are legally extended to non-citizens? Because that's a losing argument.
All of the rights are not extended. But the right to not be tortured by agents of the US government is extended to non-citizens, by the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, etc.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fine fine, I got to harsh I'll admit But still to deny the Geneva Convention and act as if JUST because you are not American, we don't mind torturing you. I just don't know how you can have this logic..
The US doesn't get to break international laws just because we can. Still can't believe some of you endorse torture o_o
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I laughed at "whistling" because they have that on every message board and it's called a TOS violation.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I guess it just seemed like people were saying it's ok as long as it's not against American citizens.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: I did say people that believe torture should be used should be tortured. If only to show them how much torture hurts... cause then they wouldn't allow it to be done to people
This is perfect logic. And people who are abused children NEVER wind up being abusive parents themselves. Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: We must not forget that, in our own history, torture has led to the admission of people to being witches and having enchanted others with their powers
quote: most of the middle east is not a threat. They can't launch a full-scale invasion against us. There is an entire ocean between us,
Maybe I missed this part, but what branch of the military did you serve in again? Have you ever been 90 yards away from an Iranian Kaman? Do you even know what an Iranian Kaman is? And out of curiosity, concerning that "entire ocean" that is between us, do you think an ocean intrinsically makes the middle east "not a threat", or perhaps is there some other factor at work here that you might be missing?
quote: if anything, they could pull of a few 9/11 style attacks...
How many friends and family members did you lose on 9/11? I mean, to be so flippant about it, you must have some kind of emotional credentials to stand on.
By the way, these are not rhetorical questions, Uncle Dave wants answers.
quote: What are people so terrified of? The boogie man? Please, the bad man with a turban is coming (lol).
Laugh Out Loud? Really? I would venture that Marcus Luttrell would have some choice words for you on that one. Go ahead, Google it, I'll wait...
quote: can they bring nukes here? No.
Your grasp of current nuclear technology and terrorist threats is appalling.
quote: Terror isn't going to stop just because we want it to,
Finally something we agree on. You are right, terror is NOT going to stop just because we want it to. We MUST take an active role in the destruction of terrorist cells, the punishment of captured terrorists, the cutting off of terror funding, and the protection of our own citizens and our allies and interests, here and abroad.
quote:in fact, we're causing terror by pissing so many people off.
I often blame myself for the actions of psychopathic religious fanatics who have declared that they will convert or kill everyone on earth. Sometimes I also blame myself for the movie Delta Farce, even though I had nothing to do with that eggregious offense either.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: All of that applies, to an even greater degree, to your make-nice approach to interrogation.
Applies? Perhaps. "To a greater degree"? Not a given. And aside from the numerous arguments against torture outside of the strictly intel standpoint (that it damages a country's moral authority, that it gives other countries including enemies carte blanche to treat prisoners inhumanely, and so on), I can't help but point out that generous treatment of a prisoner who has given information that proves inaccurate can be withdrawn; it's much harder to change the nature of your relationship with a prisoner who has undergone torture and given false intel.
quote:it is debateable whether or not the Constitution applies only to US citizens or not.
If we get to thinking that there's a double standard in humane conduct, one that applies to us and one that applies to those not fortunate enough to be born on U.S. soil, then God help us. To do so is as much as to imply that there are two degrees of humanity.
quote:And let's be clear, the comparison between WWII and the current so-called 'War on Terror' is murky at best.
Not that it seems to prevent certain hotheads from enlessly bringing up facile comparisons to Neville Chamberlain.
Nor prevented the U.S. from attempting to use conventional military tactics against an unconventional enemy.
Pardon my digression.
quote: German, Japanese, and Italian soldiers did not have nearly the ideological foundation to resist making friends with Americans as do the current 'residents' down in Cuba. [/QB]
It's difficult to really understand what goes into creating the mindset of an enemy, and there's always holes in an analogy that compares a historical enemy with a modern one. But having seen some of the propoganda of Nazi Germany, and historical accounts of the successes of the kamikazi pilots, I'd hesitate to imply that the fanatacism of our current foes is somehow greater than what has been faced before. It's nearly a given that when someone claims "no one has ever faced something like this before", it's hyperbole.
Snowspot? When you call someone an idiot, ignorant, and so on, you are not inviting them to reasoned discourse. And when you throw around general dismissals like "you make me laugh" and "you guys are silly", whether people have tried to engage your comments reasonably or not, you reinforce the notion that you're not here to talk, but to goad.
If you're here to talk, then welcome; be aware that what you write is not implying this is the case. Passion is understandable, but insulting language makes those who disagree with you angry and those who agree with you wince because they fear their point of view will be associated with your words.
...And if you're not here to talk, please... I'm asking nicely... Leave?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Barack's adherence to the idea of troop withdrawal is about the only thing left that makes me wince at the idea of him being president. All of the other things I disagree with him about are... well, not small, but I think that the healing he represents is worth more at this point in our country's existence than the possibility of restricting abortion rights.
Barack puts withdrawal from Iraq as his first topic when he advertises. I just don't think it's going to be as easy as he seems to think it will be. I think that it may even be necessary to establish a permanent American military base on Iraqi soil.
These are not things that the US public probably wants to hear. But I think it's necessary that we consider them. I don't want us pulling out of Iraq only to watch the government be retaken by scoundrels or jihaddists. Yes-- this might be imperialism. We are definitely sticking our whole hand into Iraq's sovereignty pie.
Nontheless-- despite my misgivings about this and other issues, Barack's still my man. National healing is more important, I think, than staying in Iraq.
I think when either Democrat, Hillary or Obama, get into the White House they're going to come to a compromise position. Republicans for the war seem to be represented by "we'll be there for a 100 years" McCain. On the other side Hillary is saying that withdrawel dates aren't dates for surrender, they're warnings that we won't be there forever and they should get their house in order so long as we're there to hold the front door open for them. A lot of experts, including the Iraq Study Group, said that giving them a due date is one of the best tools we have for nudging them to clean up their act.
If the current regime there can't get it done, they should be replaced. If we can't do that, then why are American taxpayers financing Iraq's civil war?
When Obama gets into office, his focus will be on getting us out as quickly as possible, on holding people accountable. He'll meet with foreign leaders to hammer out deals and with Iraq's government to tell them to hurry up and get it done. Like I've said before, it's carrot and stick. I don't think on day one he'll start drawing down the troops. I think, if a year from now the situation is in the same tenuous hold on stability that we have today (which I'd be surprised to see), then he'll say "Okay, we've got your back, get this done because those troops are leaving in a year."
Maliki will either get it done, or he won't, and then Obama will have to find a way to get out and still protect whatever people we leave behind. But we have way too many problems at home that are outweighing THEIR problem over there.
I'm wondering if Obama might even have some pull with the UN that Bush didn't. Clearly Bush has nearly zero credibility with the rest of the world right now. Obama could come in and say "look, the last guy really messed this up, but I want to do the right thing. But we can't stay forever, so help me, and help Iraq." And some of them might go for it. Doubtful, but maybe. Certainly he'd have a better chance than the current guy.
My only real concern about leaving is the civilian casualties. I wonder how much worse it could get, since under our "protection" hundreds of thousands have still been killed, and murders and kidnappings are still common place even post surge. But I worry about the descent into an all out civil war that might claim more of their lives. I'd like to see perhaps a small force of ground troops, an armored regiment or two, a few cav regiments for quick strike capability, and an air wing to stick around to make sure there aren't any wholesale slaughters. They'd be there for humanitarian purposes, and to give the Iranians some pause about just unapologetically spilling across the border. The Fifth Fleet is still based in Bahrain, so, they'd be there for backup too.
I hate to say it, but, I think Obama and Clinton both know that. I think they both know that troops will remain in theater for a few years, and that there's no way they'll all be out before their first term is up. Especially Hillary knows that, being on the armed services committee. She has a lot of defense experience compared to Barack. I think they are saying they we'll be out in a year as pandering to the left and disenchanted voters in the center. And I think you'll notice that unless they are asked, they aren't talking about it very much, no one really is at the moment. It'll become a much bigger issue when the General election comes to town.
I'm not even sure what McCain's position on Iraq is, now that I think about it, other than the fact that he thinks we'll be there until long after I'm dead.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: if anything, they could pull of a few 9/11 style attacks...
How many friends and family members did you lose on 9/11? I mean, to be so flippant about it, you must have some kind of emotional credentials to stand on.
By the way, these are not rhetorical questions, Uncle Dave wants answers.
The death toll from 9/11 was large but insignificant in the long run (an order of magnitude times smaller than the number of people we lose in car accidents each year). The real problems with 9/11 were the emotional distress and economic problems that it caused.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: if anything, they could pull of a few 9/11 style attacks...
How many friends and family members did you lose on 9/11? I mean, to be so flippant about it, you must have some kind of emotional credentials to stand on.
By the way, these are not rhetorical questions, Uncle Dave wants answers.
quote: What are people so terrified of? The boogie man? Please, the bad man with a turban is coming (lol).
Laugh Out Loud? Really? I would venture that Marcus Luttrell would have some choice words for you on that one. Go ahead, Google it, I'll wait...
quote: can they bring nukes here? No.
Your grasp of current nuclear technology and terrorist threats is appalling.
quote: Terror isn't going to stop just because we want it to,
Finally something we agree on. You are right, terror is NOT going to stop just because we want it to. We MUST take an active role in the destruction of terrorist cells, the punishment of captured terrorists, the cutting off of terror funding, and the protection of our own citizens and our allies and interests, here and abroad.
quote:in fact, we're causing terror by pissing so many people off.
I often blame myself for the actions of psychopathic religious fanatics who have declared that they will convert or kill everyone on earth. Sometimes I also blame myself for the movie Delta Farce, even though I had nothing to do with that eggregious offense either.
I'll try as best I can to respond to these, it's really hard to respond when you segment your answers a million times
1. How many people do I know who died in 9/11, none. How many Iraqi's do you know? They seem like a faceless group of non-humans to you, you act like US lives are the only ones that matter. Like another poster said, there are not two levels of humanity, if you're appauled by my casual use of '9/11 style' maybe you should think about how many of Iraqi's have died because of your fear?
2. Could you explain your grasp of nuclear technology? IF we are in such a dire situation, how is it that the only attack after 9/11 was anthrax, which actually was found to come from our own department of defense? You do know the anthrax attacks were faked right? Go look at Google, the strains sent to famous americans were the same developed by US government scientists. Why? To make the public afraid enough to pass legislation that would, otherwise, not pass. It worked.. and I can't believe we have people like you still afraid of the communist threat of the atomic bomb o_o
We aren't even fighting an organized military and we have people thinking we're going to be nuked. lmao. I live in NYC, so I of all people should be afraid.. but I can't say I really care. Of course I don't want to die, who does... but its either going to happen or not. Security is never 100%, you'll never always be protected, just get used to it, it's the real world. Think of how it is for the Iraqi's.
He was the only one that survived, he's a great soldier, no doubt about that...
None of those people were in the US, thus we put ourselves in danger even attacking them. One seal survived... and we killed hundreds of people that will be replaced with hundreds more that hate us for killing the earlier group. Maybe we should stop going to places and killing people in their own land? I dunno, where's Osama exactly? Since when did Saddam become more important than him? You want to basically irradicate an entire population because of what they might "think" about doing to Americans. Really disturbing stuff.
People also seem to forget that almost all the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, an "ally" in the region.
4. lol. Yes, terror won't stop. Want to know something else? Terror is a word. It can mean anything that frightens people. Terror is happening all the time! Quick, lets kill everyone! Terror is going to happen!!!! This seems to be the sort of mindset you follow. I'm more afraid of losing my rights than some stranger blowing me up.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: The death toll from 9/11 was large but insignificant in the long run (an order of magnitude times smaller than the number of people we lose in car accidents each year).
The mind boggles. I don't think you can (or should) separate the deaths from the context.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The mind boggles. I don't think you can (or should) separate the deaths from the context.
It looks to me like he was doing the opposite, that he was putting the deaths in context.
The death toll on 9/11 was terrible. It's terrible whenever anyone dies. But, in the grand scheme of things, it was no where near large enouh to constitute a threat to the country.
Most of the damage to America from 9/11 was done through people's reactions to the event, especially that of the Bush administration. Which, ironically, came about in part because of the hyping of this as a terrible threat to our country.
---
Edit: These are serious issues that should be seen as what they are and not dealt in in simplistic catch-phrases and blind fear.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: The death toll from 9/11 was large but insignificant in the long run (an order of magnitude times smaller than the number of people we lose in car accidents each year).
The mind boggles. I don't think you can (or should) separate the deaths from the context.
I just wanted to point out that there is more to the war than saving American lives. Spending 1 or 2 trillion dollars to save 3000 lives every decade or so would be ridiculously inefficient.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: I just wanted to point out that there is more to the war than saving American lives. Spending 1 or 2 trillion dollars to save 3000 lives every decade or so would be ridiculously inefficient.
Are you saying that 3000 lives are not worth 1 or 2 trillion dollars?
Or are you ascribing ulterior (and sinister) motives to the present administration?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It looks to me like he was doing the opposite, that he was putting the deaths in context.
The death toll on 9/11 was terrible. It's terrible whenever anyone dies. But, in the grand scheme of things, it was no where near large enouh to constitute a threat to the country.
3000 people in a nation of...what, 40 million? Isn't a lot. But the context (which was removed by Threads) is what is significant to the issue at hand. The context is what informs opinion that those particular deaths signaled a threat to the country. (Really, the bombing of the Cole should have warned us.)
quote: Most of the damage to America from 9/11 was done through people's reactions to the event, especially that of the Bush administration. Which, ironically, came about in part because of the hyping of this as a terrible threat to our country.
Al-Queda proved itself to be a credible threat to America's safety through their actions on 9/11. Are you saying that Al-Queda isn't (or wasn't) a threat?
I do not see the Bush administration as being a greater threat to America than Al-Queda. (For one thing, I can actually spell "Bush administration." I think I'm spelling Al-Queda wrong. That makes them more evil.)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Al-Queda proved itself to be a credible threat to America's safety through their actions on 9/11
No, they didn't. They proved they were a threat to some Americans. They killed what is, when taken in context, a relatively small number of people. And that was their best attack.
Right now, America is in a weaker state than it was prior to the attacks.
Our military is not as strong or as capable of dealing with situations.
Our international reputation and the regard that other countries have for us is much worse.
Domestically, we have acrimonious divisions, we have betrayed our ideals, and we have a great deal of distrust for even basic honesty for our government.
To me, this counts as damage to the country, but it didn't come from the Al Queda attacks.
They killed some people and damaged or destroyed some property. Not great, but it actually increased America's power in that it made the country more unified and raised international regard and desire for cooperation with us.
It was people's reactions, especially that of the Bush administration, that led to the damages I listed above.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Are you saying that 3000 lives are not worth 1 or 2 trillion dollars?
Yes when considering how many more lives could have been potentially saved by investing that money elsewhere (there's no evidence that we even have saved any American lives in the long run).
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Or are you ascribing ulterior (and sinister) motives to the present administration?
No. I'm saying that saving American lives is a poor justification for the war given the enormous cost. Saving Iraqi lives isn't a good justification either given the cost and the fact that hundreds of thousands have already died as a result of our invasion (not always as a direct result of our troops though).
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:America is in a weaker state than it was prior to the attacks.
I don't know that this is so. I think, at the least, we're aware of the threat of stateless terrorism.
Can you qualify the term "weak?" With the exception of having some cold shoulders turned toward us on the international stage, I don't see that we ARE "weaker."
quote: Our military is not as strong or as capable of dealing with situations.
I don't know that this is true, either. What do you mean by 'strong' and 'capable' and 'situations?'
The experience gained by soldiers in tours of Afghanistan/Iraq would, I think, make them stronger and more capable in dealing with situations of similar types.
quote: Our international reputation and the regard that other countries have for us is much worse.
All right.
quote: Domestically, we have acrimonious divisions
True. I don't think we're (that is-- the people. Not the media, or public figures) that acrimonious about the war, though.
quote:we have betrayed our ideals
I've heard this before, but I don't buy it. I haven't betrayed my ideals; I may have been fooled into accepting things that I wouldn't normally have accepted if I'd had all the facts. But that's not the same as betraying one's ideals.
quote: and we have a great deal of distrust for even basic honesty for our government.
Well, speak for yourself. I tend to think that Nixon destroyed most of the trust we had in our government's honesty.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The experience gained by soldiers in tours of Afghanistan/Iraq would, I think, make them stronger and more capable in dealing with situations of similar types.
The ones who are in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't available to deal with other situations.
In addition, we've used up our troops - not just the ones who have died or been injured. They're not machines. People have a limited amount of time that they can spend in combat operations. Your three-tour veteran isn't going back to heavy action.
Recruitment (as well as retention) is way down, even though they've been dropping their standards.
A vast amount of material has been used. We've spent enormous amount of money.
---
What was the damage that Al Queda did to America that compares to this and the other things I mentioned, Scott?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom's comment got me thinking about a question I read in an article over at overcomingbias.com. The question posed was along the lines of would you pay 1 billion dollars for a 0.000001% chance of saving someone's life? If not (and this is my wording) then how can we claim, as an absolute, that no amount of money is ever worth a human life? Surely there is some point at which you would pay money to have a chance at saving someone's life. The above question establishes an upper bound on that amount.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Kind of old but things haven't gotten any better, whenever they want to make things look good, they just lower their standards.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Er... according to the article I linked, things HAVE definitely, quantitatively, gotten "better."
EDIT: "Better" being defined as 'reaching established goals.' For that matter, recruiting goals didn't change that much from 2005 to 2006-- but the armed forces met those goals despite a shortfall from the year before.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe the recruitment goals were met, but at the cost of lowered standards involving criminal records, gang affiliation, education, etc. I just saw a report on crime where police officers were complaining that gangs were using military tactics and weapons, due to training gang members received in the US military.
As far as retention goals, they can't be compared to previous years because of stop-loss and similar programs that really make a mockery of the concept of the volunteer army.
Also, the $1-2 trillion dollars is in response to losing 3000 lives, not to save them.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just saw a report on crime where police officers were complaining that gangs were using military tactics and weapons, due to training gang members received in the US military.
I wonder how widespread this practice is. Do you have any links to this information, Morbo?
quote:Maybe the recruitment goals were met, but at the cost of lowered standards involving criminal records, gang affiliation, education, etc.
Morbo, here is a link (with numbers) that kind of offsets your opinion:
You seem to imply that the 6k+ deficit was made up entirely by hoodlums. Maybe I'm reading you wrong. In any case, that's not nearly correct according to the linked article.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I don't have a link. It was a recent documentary on gangs on cable, A&E or Bravo.
According to your link, to make recruiting quotas the Army almost doubled the number of low-aptitude recruits (according to a test). And increased the number of waivers for moral reasons (crimes).
Isn't that what I said? Aside from my mention of gangs, which my recollection is went from a policy of no active gang members to some allowed.
edit: I see I mentioned education earlier instead of aptitude.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the section that refutes your assertion, Morbo:
quote:About 17 percent of the first-time recruits, or about 13,600, were accepted under waivers for various medical, moral or criminal problems, including misdemeanor arrests or drunk driving. That is a slight increase from last year, the Army said.
Of those accepted under waivers, more than half were for “moral” reasons, mostly misdemeanor arrests. Thirty-eight percent were for medical reasons and 7 percent were drug and alcohol problems, including those who may have failed a drug test or acknowledged they had used drugs.
The Army said the waiver process recognizes that people can overcome past mistakes and become law abiding citizens.
Additionally, the new lowered standards were just implemented this past year (2006). If I understand the way things work, you go to basic for 6 weeks; then you are on active duty for at least two years.
Given that information, your assertion that gang members are sliding in under the Army's new lowered standards and then coming out to train their peeps doesn't quite jive. There hasn't been enough time yet for you to credibly make this assertion.
NOW-- it's certainly possible that gang members are using training they received from the Army-- but chances are they weren't recruited under the new lower standards.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Because that same trillion dollars could be used to save/improve far more than 3,000 lives. If we had nothing else to spend a trillion dollars on, perhaps the equation would be different.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree that the standards were lowered in 2006. Here's an article dating back to 2006 about lowered standards. A quote about gangs using military tactics and weapons:
quote: Last month, the Sun-Times reported that a gang member facing federal charges of murder and robbery enlisted in the Marine Corps "while he was free on bond -- and was preparing to ship out to boot camp when Marine officials recently discovered he was under indictment." While this recruit was eventually booted from the Corps, a Milwaukee police detective and Army veteran, who serves on the federal drug and gang task force that arrested the would-be Marine, noted that other "gang-bangers are going over to Iraq and sending weapons back ... gang members are getting access to military training and weapons."
It's possible that increased interest among gangs (including Aryan nation skinheads) is more important to this disturbing trend than lowered standards. Gang members try to hide their gang membership to get in and stay in the Army. But they can't hide their arrest record, which is where the waiver policies help them.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The following videos CREATED my perspective on the topic of "The value of human life". They have quite literally changed my view of the world. The beauty of them is that they are based on irrefutable mathematics. These are not opinions. The information itself is not particularly open for debate. The effects are subject only to speculation, as they are unavoidable.
Linked below are parts 1, 2, and 3 of an 8 part video of a mathematical presentation by one Dr. Bartlett. The video is a basic outline of the effects of Exponential Growth on the population, and on resources. Part 1 starts off a bit slow, but please realize that he's merely putting the subject into context. I only link the first 3 parts as they are the most related to the subject at hand. The remaining 5 are equally interesting, but are not as relevant. If you make it through these, then you will be smarter for it.
posted
That the army is coming close to meeting recruitment goals has to do with lowering standards, and offering ridiculous sums of money to keep people in and to get new ones. I've read at least a dozen stories in the last six months about how commanders in the war are worried about losing experience sargeants, whose experience in running units is critical. They're leaving in droves.
To cover some of the issues at hand, let me just ask Scott: Say I bite and say that yes, Al Qaeda was a threat...how does that follow that we should attack Iraq? Al Qaeda was not in collusion with Saddam, in fact they were largely enemies, because Saddam was far too moderate for Al Qaeda's taste. They were based in Afghanistan, Iran and funded by Saudi Arabia. Well we got one out of three, we docked one of theirs allowance, and perhaps the biggest offender of the three? We just signed a $20 billion arms deal to sell them advanced weapons, and we send them hundreds of billions of dollars for oil. And somehow in there your argument is that attacking Iraq was the best choice? Ridiculous.
I think by most definitions we ARE militarily weaker than before the war started. Equipment has been destroyed and has to be replaced. I don't know how you could spin that as not weaker. We have less vehicles and less planes to mount defenses and attacks. I think by the very nature of the definition, we're weaker because of it. A lot of our troops are battle hardened, but they are also on the way out, and aren't reupping. And the ones that are coming home are coming back with severe mental issues that will take billions of dollars to treat for years to come. And having those troops tied up in Iraq DOES make us weaker. If there is a conflict anywhere else in the world, we are unable to respond to it. If we're attacked at home, we have a National Guard that is tired, undermanned and underequipped to deal with it. It means other nations can act more boldly without fear of any retribution, as right now the only thing we could do would be airstrikes. If that.
3,000 people were killed on September 11th. It was tragic. Our initial response was probably good: Attack Afghanistan, the nation that more than any other openly harbors these guys. Our second response had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The best second move we could have made would've been an international coalition to solve the Israel/Palestine problem. It was the best chance we would have had to do so, and in the face of an attack, to turn from anger to compassion would've been an incredible thing to do. After that we could have run the table in the Middle East.
Instead we're bogged down by debt, with a flailing economy, thousands more dread, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, with a battered army tied up in a quagmire that leading Republicans say could last decades. Even after the surge Iraq is a powder keg, maybe even more so now that we've armed and fed the Sunnis with cash and legitimacy. I really don't get how anyone could argue we're better off now than we were before the war.
That trillion dollars would've been better spent creating a universal healthcare system if you want to look directly at lives saved, or on a dozen other programs that would've fixed domestic problems, or maybe spent on renewable energy so we can stop sending our cash to Saudi Arabia, the guys who actually bred and funded the 9/11 attackers.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The experience gained by soldiers in tours of Afghanistan/Iraq would, I think, make them stronger and more capable in dealing with situations of similar types.
The ones who are in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't available to deal with other situations.
Especially those that are severly wounded or dead.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But they can't hide their arrest record, which is where the waiver policies help them.
I don't think that's implied any link I posted. Where are you getting the information that states that the army is allowing known, criminal gang bangers to be recruited?
Lyrhawn:
I don't have a problem with most of what you posted, other than to assert that I'd like to see data on it. Six stories from commanders in Iraq isn't data; recruitment and retaining numbers from the Pentagon is.
Also-- I don't know that solving the Israeli-Palestine conflict would help. I tend to think it would make Israel more secure, but wouldn't do much to take the burr out of Bin Laden's gums.
quote:Instead we're bogged down by debt, with a flailing economy
Like I told Snow above-- there are a lot of factors involved. War's one of them, but perhaps not the preeminent one.
quote: yes, Al Qaeda was a threat...how does that follow that we should attack Iraq?
I never said it did. Did you think I held that position?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
But still to deny the Geneva Convention and act as if JUST because you are not American, we don't mind torturing you. I just don't know how you can have this logic..![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
