[typoon]

"I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history." -John Kerry

I'm glad Cheney is attacking Kerry's call for 'more sensitive' war More "sensitve" War on Terror? How can there be a more sensitive war on terror? Maybe if we are nice to them they will stop hating us.

When will the dems see that fighting radical islamists is NOT about being more sensitive or going at it like a law enforcement issue.

[BRussell]

Here's another quote:

Precisely because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence. Our goal is to patiently build the momentum of freedom, not create resentment for America itself. We pursue our goals; we will listen to others; we want strong friends to join us, not weak neighbors to dominate. In all our dealings with other nations, we will display the modesty of true confidence and strength.

[djohnson]

sensitive war

That is funny! So Kerry is against brutal war yet for sensitive war?

[zigzag]

The intent is clear, but from a political standpoint it was a poor choice of words, and I'm not surprised that Cheney is jumping all over it. It plays right into the whole masculine/feminine dichotomy that exists between the Republicans and the Democrats.

As for the law enforcement thing, it seems to me that all or most of the arrests that have been made are a result of plain old intelligence and aggressive law enforcement measures. Had the resources that went into Iraq been reallocated, who knows what we might have accomplished by now. I'm not certain of the answer but neither do I think we should dismiss the law enforcement approach so easily.

[voodoo]

The War on Terror is a policy, an idea NOT an actual WAR.

[mo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Here's another quote:

That sounds like a little like the guy quoted below. Can you guess who he is?

"If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us; if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we've got to be humble, and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. ...

"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it's got to be. We can help. And maybe it's just our difference in government, the way we view government. I mean I want to empower people. I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do. I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you."

Whatever happened to this guy, anyway?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by mo:
That sounds like a little like the guy quoted below. Can you guess who he is?

"If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us; if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we've got to be humble, and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. ...

"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it's got to be. We can help. And maybe it's just our difference in government, the way we view government. I mean I want to empower people. I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do. I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you."

Whatever happened to this guy, anyway?

Geroge H. W. Bush had his moments and his talents. Foreign policy was certainly one of them.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by mo:
That sounds like a little like the guy quoted below. Can you guess who he is?

The funny thing is, I think he really believes that. I just don't think he's a strong enough leader to have resisted some of the sillier forces in his administration. I'm sure every administration has its hawks pushing for military ventures all over the place. He just didn't have enough experience or wisdom, or something, to make sure his own views guided policy.

[mo]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Geroge H. W. Bush had his moments and his talents. Foreign policy was certainly one of them.

Hey, you're just one middle initial away from the answer. That quote was from October 2000.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by mo:
Hey, you're just one middle initial away from the answer. That quote was from October 2000.

And mine was form March 2001.

[mo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
And mine was form March 2001.

I miss that guy. Did he go into another line of work or something?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by mo:
Hey, you're just one middle initial away from the answer. That quote was from October 2000.

Ugh well - they are both called George Bush ain't they? Easy to confuse.

[mo]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Ugh well - they are both called George Bush ain't they? Easy to confuse.

Oh sure, absolutely. I think he used to sound more like his dad, emphasizing prudence and humility and whatnot.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by voodoo:
The War on Terror is a policy, an idea NOT an actual WAR.

No son, it is indeed a war.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by PacHead:
No son, it is indeed a war.

Like the War on Drugs? You can't have a war on sentiment or inanimate objects. What a silly thing. Who are you fighting, where do they come from, what nation, who is their leader, what countries have they taken over, how big is their army, what is their flag like??? etc.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by typoon:
How can there be a more sensitive war on terror? Maybe if we are nice to them they will stop hating us.

Perish the thought!

[PacHead]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Like the War on Drugs? You can't have a war on sentiment or inanimate objects. What a silly thing. Who are you fighting, where do they come from, what nation, who is their leader, what countries have they taken over, how big is their army, what is their flag like??? etc.

You are correct in that the War on Terror™ could have been more apropriately named. I have said the exact same thing before, a long time ago. We are fighting islamic extremists, terrorists etc. - - - - - Those are the ones that want us dead, so we'll just have to accomodate them first. It is worldwide, and no country is immune, and we will hunt them down from the south pole to the north pole, and everywhere else inbetween.

[CreepingDeth]

I thought he just said he was for the war?

[smacintush]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Perish the thought!

That tactic would work with rational people like…oh…MOST of the world.

When you deal with extremists, the only way to satisfy them is to give up your own principles. But hey, bypassing their principles to make themselves look good is what liberals do best.

[tie]

Originally posted by smacintush:
That tactic would work with rational people like…oh…MOST of the world.

When you deal with extremists, the only way to satisfy them is to give up your own principles. But hey, bypassing their principles to make themselves look good is what liberals do best.

What exactly are you talking about? Did you read BRussell's post?

[smacintush]

Originally posted by tie:
What exactly are you talking about? Did you read BRussell's post?

I was responding to eklipse, who was responding to the FIRST post. What are YOU talking about?

[UR-20]

Originally posted by typoon:
"I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history." -John Kerry

My view of this quote is he's saying it's better to go in to a combat situation with at least a few allies. On definitions of "Sensitive" is: Readily altered by the action of an agent: film that is sensitive to light. Which could mean to be easily adaptive.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by UR-20:
My view of this quote is he's saying it's better to go in to a combat situation with at least a few allies.

We have quite a few allies with us in Iraq, so who is he referring to ? Germany ? France ?

If that is the case, he is dumber than I thought.

[CreepingDeth]

What next? Release the terrorists from Cuba? Fraud.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
What next? Release the terrorists from Cuba? Fraud.

Well, we are moving towards giving some of them fair trials (you know, those things that are guaranteed in the Constitution) so we can determine whether we keep them there or release them. Or would you rather we continue to hold people who may or may not be guilty of any crime because you've already made up your mind that they're all terrorists and should rot in there forever?

[CreepingDeth]

When the **** did the Constitution apply to people outside the US? I think they were talking about us, not enemy comatants. But since the army has to issue the F Class Field Action Lawter™ (complete with pre-made lawsuits), I don't know how we're gonna be as effective.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by typoon:
"I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history." -John Kerry

I'm glad Cheney is attacking Kerry's call for 'more sensitive' war More "sensitve" War on Terror? How can there be a more sensitive war on terror? Maybe if we are nice to them they will stop hating us.

When will the dems see that fighting radical islamists is NOT about being more sensitive or going at it like a law enforcement issue.

I think the statement by Kerry makes a lot of sense. Cheney is done like dirt. Only dyed in the wool neonazicons listen to his blather like the ones here on this board. Nothing would ever change their minds. Kerry is very intelligent and maybe he talks above a lot of people's heads so they really don't get the drift of what he says. Maybe he should dumb himself down to Shrubbies level a tad. He may have pulled a bushism and really meant sensible. But all in all very honest statement.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
When the **** did the Constitution apply to people outside the US? I think they were talking about us, not enemy comatants. But since the army has to issue the F Class Field Action Lawter™ (complete with pre-made lawsuits), I don't know how we're gonna be as effective.

I don't like this whole "enemy combatants" term. Why aren't they called POWs? After all, this is apparently a WAR on terror. Is it so the administration can pussyfoot around the Geneva Convention? Besides, the Constitution may not apply to people outside the US, but I don't see why that prevents us from at least showing the decency to give these people a trial instead of just keeping them in cages for eternity. As the United States, we're supposed to project the image of being a strong, democratic, and fair nation, one that is above the petty, cowardly violence shown by the terrorists. How do our actions in Guantanamo Bay support this image?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
I don't like this whole "enemy combatants" term. Why aren't they called POWs?

Search the forum and you will find extensive discussions of why. The short answer is they aren't POWs because they don't meet the definition set out in the Third Geneva Convention.

Here is the key part:

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, incuding those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) that of carrying arms openly;

(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Art, 4.

At a minimum, al Queda terrorists fail parts b, c, and d. They might also fail a. Thus, they are not POWs, but they are combatants.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Search the forum and you will find extensive discussions of why. The short answer is they aren't POWs because they don't meet the definition set out in the Third Geneva Convention.

Here is the key part:


Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Art, 4.

At a minimum, al Queda terrorists fail parts b, c, and d. They might also fail a. Thus, they are not POWs, but they are combatants.

Yep, terrorists are definitely not a legitimate army. If they are, let us know which country/countries they represent and we'll flatten them.

[CreepingDeth]

Bingo. The Geneva Convetion is almost worthless when fighting something other that a European-style war. We have to deal with the little asses in many countries. Their only allegiance is toward Allah.
Anyway, it was writen by cheese eating Europeans long ago. It is pointless now. It's like having the Queensbury Rules for war.

[tie]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
Well, we are moving towards giving some of them fair trials (you know, those things that are guaranteed in the Constitution) so we can determine whether we keep them there or release them. Or would you rather we continue to hold people who may or may not be guilty of any crime because you've already made up your mind that they're all terrorists and should rot in there forever?

They are terrorists by definition since they are in Guantanamo.