Staredit Network

The soldiers in question were Northern Alliance (Afghani) troops.

yea, but soldiers aren't allowed to pillage any way. They got to go through screens and shit and get checked before they get back on a plane to come home.

Well I just feel that we are giving them security for a couple years. Think about it, they get 3 meals every day (many didn't eat for days in the desert), shelter, bath twice a week. Conditions to us may look inhuman, but the way most were living in the middle east was far worst. Alot of men didn't take showers/baths for long periods of time in the desert.

Plus they are use to the desert heat and also they have bed and sheets to sit on and ALOT of ventilation in their cells. Its not like an oven for the terrorists.

If the commanding officer says they can pillage, they can. And, they could send the stuff home through the mail.

The people who didn't get much to eat, that were in the desert, are used to the shit.

They may be use to the desert heat but if this quote: is true, then there is no way possible they could stand the heat in that. 150+ heat? No way man....

Whoa, whoa, whoa, keep on the topic.

Bush's collective actions, not just No Child Left Behind, all contributed to America's current process of talent deprivation. Forget money being diverted from Smart to Stupid, schools are getting less money overall because of gazillions of dollars spent in the Middle East. Somehow the government thinks staying in Iraq longer will make the world approve its actions more. Mm, what do you know, the stupid turns stupider.

I think leaving Iraq now, before making sure everything is stable, is worse than actually going there in the first place. If you are going to screw up a country, take out the leader and put in place a democracy, you are going to have to stay there for a while.

I didn't know if it was billion or trillion (probably the latter), so I went with gazillion. Lol.

For the love of god, I never said we should torture the terrorists. At least without a fair trial. Read what I type people, READ WHAT I TYPE.

I mean, I even pointed out the difference between the words tortue and violent interrogation. Why does everyone think torture just means a violent way of interrogation?

So don't include my name in that list.

Dude, with torture, you cannot have a fair trial. Torture is where you just go ahead, and give massive amounts of pain to the enemy, just to figure out what you want!

There is no "fair" in torture.

WOW!!! you must be the most ignorant bunch of kids i have ever seen.

First, Clinton, he did go to war(Somalia). We did absolutely nothing there, it was a mini vietnam, we went in, lost a few soldiers and left like nothing ever happened. Clintons action in Somalia was nothing compared to his inaction in Rwanda. He had jsut lost several points in the opnion polls after somalia, and couldn't risk another military disaster, so he just sat back and watched as the Interhamwe slaughtered nearly 1 million innocent civilians in the worst attempted genocide since the holocaust. Still we sat back and did nothing.
The war in Iraq was a neccessary war, Clinton may be willing to sit back and watch as innocent people are killed, Bush was not willing, Saddam has killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq, he had weapons of mass destruction (i know what you are thinking, no he didn't have nukes, but nukes are not the only weapon capable of killing millions, we found a warehouse that stored thousands upon thousands of gallons of Sarin gas, the nerve agent that killed several people and severally wounded dozens more when a tablespoon of it was released in a subway in Japan). Saddam was a threat to Iraqis, and to the US. Why are we still there you ask? The job isn't done yet, i happen to have a few friends, and a couple uncles that are in Iraq as we speak, and i have heard first hand that the people there thank god for what we did. The media will only show you the horrors of war, that is where they get their ratings, they will not show the triumphs, the millions of people freed from tyranny who will soon be able to lead their lives without fear, without the constant threat of being imprisoned or killed for nothing at all. Those people deserved a better life, and soon they will have it, thanks to the brave soldiers that are giving their lives for freedom. You sit in your computer chair playing Starcraft all day, taking your freedom for granted, our soldiers, and our president are out there protecting your freedom, and you have nothing good to say about them? I feel pity for you.

Now as far as the economy goes, Clinton did absolutely nothing. He just happened to be in office during one of the largest economic booms of all time, he had absolutely nothing to do with the tech industry(which drove the boom) he just sat back, and acted like he was doing something.

Taxes...i heard someone up there complaining about the tax cuts for the rich. Do you realise that currently the top 10% wealthiest people in the country contribute 90% of the tax money to the government! Is that fair, is it fair to say, hey you are smarter and better at what you do than the average guy, you work harder, and do more with your life, so you owe us more money. Besides, it is basic economics, what do the wealthy do with their money? they invest it, in order to make more money. however, a sideeffect of them making more money, is more jobs, and more money in the economy. It is a trickle down effect, you cut the taxes of the wealthy, and all the sudden there are more jobs out there, and more money to be had for the working class, which then, a good chunk of it, goes back to the government through taxes.

Bush is a fairly good president, who has morals and trys to do what is right, however he is just a man like you or I and he is fallible.

BTW i am a senior in college majoring in Economics and Business, and unlike most of you, i am informed about how the world works. Before you get on some forums and flame our president, please try to have some working knowledge of the country, and the current world situation, and make an intelligible arguement.

Dubya is finishing what his father started. That's a fact.

Ok, if Clinton just "happened" to have been President when America was doing good anyway, then good for him. Dubya, on the other hand... while you could say that 9/11 had nothing to do with him being president (thought many obviously do claim that Gore would not have brought this upon the U.S., though that cannot be proven), his actions that followed did divert funds from important areas in America to the "War on Terrorism" in the Middle East.

The Middle East still has terrorists now, and many countries around the world no longer support the actions of the U.S., could you really say that these coincidentally happened when Bush is president? It'd be the same as saying a burnt match was coincidentally found at the site of an arson.

Huh? With torture, you can not have a fair trial? People get tortured in prisons all the time, and they DID have a fair trial before they went there.

People, must I use the dictionary AGAIN on the word torture? If you're questioning my meaning of it, then you're questioning the dictionary's meaning of it. Kell, you just did what I've proven wrong earlier.

Interrogation and Torture are NOT THE SAME THING.

You guys mean using torture as a WAY of interrogation. As a way to coerce someone to do something. Yes, THAT'S wrong, I never disagreed on that. Unless there is bomb about to go off 10-20 min, then that's your only choice. And that is ULTRA rare. Sometimes you can't be a robot, and follow all the rules all the time. Torture is kinda grey, it's not 100% black and white.

fred, you try to prove a point, and completely discredit yourself by using a scenario that doesn't fit at all.

Clinton's economics was a coincidence, he did nothing, and it happened. the war on terror is not, Bush acted. you are comparing apples to oranges, comparing one mans actions to anothers inactions doesn't work at all.

Your whole thing about there still being terrorists, of course there is, you expect them to be gone in a day? these things take time, i can assure you that there are less now than 2 years ago, and they are less organized. all central terrorist organizations leaders are in hiding, not able to comunicate freely with the terror cells.

Other countries don't like us now? them, i don't care about germany or those pussies over in france, i could care less what they think about me and my president. they don't matter at all, the UN is a corrupt pile of crap, Kofi Annan is the most ignorant UN secretary-general in decades....

The torture in prisons is just a way of refering to it. It means either for coercion or punishment, but they are referring to it in the way of coercion, which is most common. You should think from context how they are talking about it before you reply to make them seem stupid. Torture as punishment is usually just called... well, punishment. There is no torture in United States prisons, only abuse. Torture probably would and does go on in other countries. They are referring to torture as getting captured, and just getting put through torture to release information.

That was what I said... -.- "Ok, if Clinton just 'happened' to have been President when America was doing good anyway, then good for him." The quotation marks I used (single quotes here) were from me quoting you, not suggesting that Clinton's actions directly contributed to the rising of the economy.
I don't see how your metaphor disproves my point.
Remember that terrorists don't spawn out of nowhere. Their idea comes from oppression, and, while their method is both ineffective and costs innocent lives, you cannot suggest that just because the U.S. broke up the current terrorist network that future ones would not be provoked into being.
Your question suggests that there are no countries that dislikes the U.S., yet your following statement listed two. Nevertheless, the world isn't just America alone, there are others here as well. Play nice.

ADDITION:

Ok, assume there are 100 people, the top 10% wealthy have 1 million dollar each, and the bottom 90% have 10K dollars each. They're all charged 5% tax. The wealthy will pay $50K each and the bottom will pay $500 each. The top will pay $500K total and the bottom will pay $45K total. 90% of the total is $490.5K, just about what the top paid. Now, obviously this demonstration has been greatly exaggerated to show the effect, but the point is the same: the wealthy still have a hell lot more money left over.

This turned from a topic about President Bush to a topic about tortune and Iraq, please try to get back on track, lol.

Exactly, that's why I was trying to point out to them that interrogation and torture are not the exact same thing. Torture could also be used as just a punishment. But DT made it sound like torture is 100% bad, and that we should never use it what so ever. If you look at the old replies, I basically said the same thing before. But DT at the time didn't really listen to me.

Allow me to show you why this arguement began:











I should've just said, do you mean coercing? Or punishment? (He obviously meant coercing) But like a dumbass, I didn't. So the arguement kept going on without any complete clarification of what side of the word torture he was using.





And I didn't even hear a, "my bad. My mistake. I didn't specify the word torture enough." Cause I'm admiting I'm wrong on not asking earlier, but he never admited he was wrong on not specifying wether it was punishment or coercing. And when people don't admit their wrong, when I know their wrong, it kinda gets me mad. The rest of it, from what I can tell right now, is just a big misunderstanding on my stance.

That should clear up my side of the torture arguement. I'm not gonna reply back on it, unless someone really pushes me.

Most of you guys seem to watch too many movies. Not all torture is chaining a guy to a wall and wipping him or electicuting him. America has more person methods that would be torture to that individual but not torture to us.

If you people are soo angry about the tax cuts they why don't you donate to the government? EH??? theres no one stopping you. If rich people don't like the tax cuts then they could just write up a fatty check and hand it over/or mail it over the government, or a department. If you want to pay higher taxes theres nothing stopping you from donating to the government. Hey!!! They need it.

just a suggestion....

oh ya..... heres proof that there was WMDs used in THIS Iraqi war
http://www.ngwrc.org/index.cfm?Page=Article&ID=861

55% of VOTING Americans. I'm not sure what the figure is, but a great deal of registered voters and qualified people don't vote.

Yeah. It's very fair. We have, in exchange for freedom, a responsibility to our government, and that's to help pay its bills. If we're more capable at helping pay it's bills, then we have a responsibility to do that. Unless you want me to believe that the poor should shoulder that burden? That Bill Gates can't throw the gov't a little more money cuz it will make him a pauper? I mean really, were the rich starving before the tax cuts?



There will always be terrorists, it's not exactly something you can stop. The cells you're referring to can be shut down but it's not like new ones won't crop up, even if it's somewhere else. People have this nasty habit of hating each other, you see. And when they have no other means, nothing to lose, they strap on bombs and blow shit up.

More later...

you can't speak FOR them. And if you are angry about the tax cuts then why don't you donate money to the government? Or how about your family donate money to the government?

You do realize that the economies of both of the countries you just mentioned are nearly 100% dependant on the US right? There is no threat of other countries causing the US economy to crash, simply because, if it does, the entire world falls into the deepest depression you can imagine. The world depends on us, and we depend on them, economically speaking, there is no threat here. Politically they can off, i don't care what schroeder or chirac think about the US and what we are doing. Oh and, i never mentioned the EU either, good work directing a comment at me and not even mentioning anything i was talking about smart guy.

I am glad to see that you are angry because i am sure you are some lazy piece of shit that isn't willing to go out and better your life. You believe that since you only make 15k a year working a Mcdonalds, the people with real jobs should pay to support your lazy ass. When i graduate and am making a decent living, i don't want to pay 50% of my income so that you can sit around and complain all day about how much this country sucks, while you leach off the successful. You want to live in a country where you can do this, move to Canada or Norway, then tell me how much you enjoy forking over 75% of what you earn to the government.