For those that...

Raees wrote: [
We said, PD! I would put Gitmo, and the fact we're still in Afghanistan as things I'm not happy about. Gitmo is a no win. If Obama shuts it down and lets the "prisoners" go who haven't been charged with anything, he'll get blasted by the right. He keeps it open, they blast him anyway. I think the answer is to let the prisoners die of old age.

The case against Gitmo is that it is a recruiting tool for terrorists. The case for is that they will go back to killing if we release them and all you see is petty partisan talking points. Typical.

Raees wrote:

plaidvillain wrote: *It seems the OP has more interest in finding out what Obama supporters dislike about him than the original question posited...in my opinion, Obama has done some amazing things (by the way, all this 'he didn't do anything when he had the House and Senate' is total propaganda BS...they passed a ton of good legislation during those few months...you can't fix ALL of the Republican blunders overnight), and Obama has fallen short on some of my expectations: to date, not one banker has had to answer for the massive fraud swindled against the American people - you wanna talk 'wealth redistribution'?..a huge chunk of our nation's wealth was just 'redistributed' to a few wallets. Obama's handling of this has been the biggest disappointment to me, but certainly not enough of a disappointment to make me shoot myself in the foot by allowing the Republicans another chance at eliminating the middle class.

We said, PD! I would put Gitmo, and the fact we're still in Afghanistan as things I'm not happy about. Gitmo is a no win. If Obama shuts it down and lets the "prisoners" go who haven't been charged with anything, he'll get blasted by the right. He keeps it open, they blast him anyway. I think the answer is to let the prisoners die of old age.

Why would Obama or anyone on the left be concerned about being bashed by the right? The fact is, Gitmo is the best solution for terrorist storage. It's best for us and it's best for them. We already know what happens when we release them, they end up killing or attempting to kill. And the ONLY reason he gets bashed for not closing it down is because he was naive enough to make that promise before he knew what the fuck he was talking about. Just like the deficit he said he'd cut in half and then just increased it.
Now he seems to think he can fix the economy by taking from the productive and then redistribute it through the most inefficient way possible. He should be promoting unicorn farms next.

I don't know, what would you do if you were held for a decade as a prisoner, with no trial? Of course they're going to go out and seek revenge. I would, too.

Raees wrote: I don't know, what would you do if you were held for a decade as a prisoner, with no trial? Of course they're going to go out and seek revenge. I would, too.

You mean like the POW's from Vietnam, some were held as long as 7 years or more. Most had no trial, were tortured, to the point some died. When released they did not go out and attempt to get revenge.

No, I don't mean like POW's from Vietnam. But thanks for playing.

I can think of one immediate difference between Vietnam POWs and Gitmo detainees: the Gitmo detainees believe in their war as God's will. I don't presume to know how a former Vietnam POW would feel about the Vietnam War, but I doubt they believed it was God's will. Most Vietnam vets I've spoken with felt it wasn't their war to fight, and didn't want to be there at all (they served their tours honorably, but didn't necessarilly believe in the war).

Considering that difference, seems a Gitmo detainee would be more motivated in their crusade. Contrast to the American POW who is maybe simply happy to be able to go home, get away from a war that isn't theirs, and get back to their lives. What does the Gitmo detainee have to go home to?

I don't know the best way to handle the Gitmo detainees. Personally, I think they should be charged and tried. If we can't put together a case against them, what right do we have to detain them? I would expect that it would be very very few that we couldn't successfully prosecute. At least then we would maintain our honor as a nation of laws, with the best judicial system in the world.

plaidvillain\n

I can think of one immediate difference between Vietnam POWs and Gitmo detainees: the Gitmo detainees believe in their war as God's will. I don't presume to know how a former Vietnam POW would feel about the Vietnam War, but I doubt they believed it was God's will. Most Vietnam vets I've spoken with felt it wasn't their war to fight, and didn't want to be there at all (they served their tours honorably, but didn't necessarilly believe in the war).

Considering that difference, seems a Gitmo detainee would be more motivated in their crusade. Contrast to the American POW who is maybe simply happy to be able to go home, get away from a war that isn't theirs, and get back to their lives. What does the Gitmo detainee have to go home to?

I don't know the best way to handle the Gitmo detainees. Personally, I think they should be charged and tried. If we can't put together a case against them, what right do we have to detain them? I would expect that it would be very very few that we couldn't successfully prosecute. At least then we would maintain our honor as a nation of laws, with the best judicial system in the world.[/quote]
....and execute them accordingly. Thank you......good day.

Jekyll wrote:

plaidvillain wrote: I can think of one immediate difference between Vietnam POWs and Gitmo detainees: the Gitmo detainees believe in their war as God's will. I don't presume to know how a former Vietnam POW would feel about the Vietnam War, but I doubt they believed it was God's will. Most Vietnam vets I've spoken with felt it wasn't their war to fight, and didn't want to be there at all (they served their tours honorably, but didn't necessarilly believe in the war).

Considering that difference, seems a Gitmo detainee would be more motivated in their crusade. Contrast to the American POW who is maybe simply happy to be able to go home, get away from a war that isn't theirs, and get back to their lives. What does the Gitmo detainee have to go home to?

I don't know the best way to handle the Gitmo detainees. Personally, I think they should be charged and tried. If we can't put together a case against them, what right do we have to detain them? I would expect that it would be very very few that we couldn't successfully prosecute. At least then we would maintain our honor as a nation of laws, with the best judicial system in the world.[/quote]
....and execute them accordingly. Thank you......good day.

Exactly!!!

But sadly they would never be executed and most likely returned to their country only to be more dangerous and kill more Americans. How do you gather evidence for a trial other than the word of our military who say "this man was caught on the battle field with a weapon trying too kill us". With a good lawyer, he would be released because he could have just been hunting lizards or other desert varmits. And if they were found guilty in a US civilian court, we'd probabbly spend twice as much on securiing them and they would not have that nice soccer field to play on.

Bottom line is they should be greatful that they didn't get their heads blown off or thoats cut like they do to us.

could always put them in a dingy with 1 bottle of water and tell em That way to _________

Jekyll wrote: Considering that difference, seems a Gitmo detainee would be more motivated in their crusade. Contrast to the American POW who is maybe simply happy to be able to go home, get away from a war that isn't theirs, and get back to their lives. What does the Gitmo detainee have to go home to?

The major difference between a Gitmo detainee and a Vietnam POW is the Gitmo detainee was defending their country against foreign invaders on their own soil. Vietnam POW's were captured fighting on Vietnam soil -- not their own. Since Vietnam POW's were not from Vietnam, they would have little interest in going back to Vietnam to exact justice.

You can't compare then as apples to apples.