Guantanamo judge drops charges against 15 year old

[Phoenix_UK]

American pilots blow up British tanks killing crew:
America refuses to charge American pilots with... anything. Boo hoo its an accident.

Teenage Non-American soldier blows up American sergeant in a combat situation:
America charges enemy combatant with murder.

mmm that wholesome creamy justice.

TBH the stench of hypocrisy and purile bullshit surrounding this entire war on terror will linger around America for decades, possibly even longer.
No sane person believes that the attacks on the US were remotely justified, but the response has been frankly ludicrous.

[Zakharra]

TBH the stench of hypocrisy and purile bullshit surrounding this entire war on terror will linger around America for decades, possibly even longer.
No sane person believes that the attacks on the US were remotely justified, but the response has been frankly ludicrous.

What do you think the response should have been, then??

[Phoenix_UK]

The attack on Afghanistan was necessary, the bloody stupid invasion of Iraq was not. I cannot believe people have forgotten the whole "They have WMD's" reason for that invasion in the first place.

Trying to make the world a safer place by removing Saddam i can understand, but that wasn't the reason we went to war, according to Bush anyway.

The arrest and containment of POW's is necessary, the reclassification of them as illegal combatants as a way to sidestep the Geneva convention allowing for intimidation mistreatment and torture... well that speaks for itself.

Fight a war if you must, but don't expect much respect from your allies if you simply throw out the rules you agreed to.

Lets hope all those tasty oil supplies are worth it eh?

[sgould72]

What do you think the response should have been, then??

Attacking Afganistan was justified by 9/11. Attacking Iraq was not. The 120,000 - 150,000 troops that Bush has had in the desert for the past 4 years should have been in the mountains instead. Maybe by now we would have something other than 3000 dead troops to go with our 3000 dead civilians to show for the effort. (no, that's not a dig on the troops. its a dig on their boss) Like...I don't know...bin Ladin's head on a pike? Pakistan has been unwilling/unable to go into its tribal border areas where we think bin Ladin is hiding and we have given them a pass. Sounds like a good spot to start dropping off our troops to me. Instead we have a god-awful mess that is our fault and was entirely avoidable...not to mention predictable.

Bottom line...what should the response have been? We should have gone after the people responsible and stayed on them like flies on sh*t, and stayed away from those who had nothing to do with it. This whole thing is as absurd as if we had attacked Guatemala in retaliation for the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.

[Lusipher]

Gitmo will supposedly be closed soon so hopefully you dorks will shut up

[sgould72]

Don't hold your breath.

[Jeppan]

[This whole thing is as absurd as if we had attacked Guatemala

The US did in fact incite a civil war in Guatemala. A war that last 40 years with millions of dead indigenous people.

Why weren´t the people responsible for this put to trial? Are not everyone equal under the law?

(Sgould, yes I know this was snatched out of context)

[Stormseeker]

*shakes head* there you go with the shotgun blast again. lol i swear that your using a triple 0't snagging hook with a 8oz sinker.

[ç i p h é r]

American pilots blow up British tanks killing crew:
America refuses to charge American pilots with... anything. Boo hoo its an accident.

Teenage Non-American soldier blows up American sergeant in a combat situation:
America charges enemy combatant with murder.

mmm that wholesome creamy justice.

You're certainly not dispensing justice by comparing these two scenarios superficially. It's a cute retort though.

Lets hope all those tasty oil supplies are worth it eh?

So you think the war was just about the oil? Why would we need to start a war to get it? Was our supply at risk? Would starting a war in that region LOWER prices? Doesn't instability and uncertainty always drive prices HIGHER? Haven't our refineries been at capacity for a number of years now? Even with Iraqi oil output much lower today than at prewar levels?

Here's what I suggest. If you want to end any and all dependence on oil, don't waste your time standing in the streets waving silly banners or getting worked up over conspiracies. Just change your consumption habits and things will change. It's as simple as that, but it's also a lot easier said than done, which is why I suppose many people just like to tell others to change their consumption habits but don't change their own.

[NickD]

Doesn't instability and uncertainty always drive prices HIGHER?

That certainly has helped out the people controlling the oil, hasn't it? You know, Bush's friends. Dick's old company Halliburton hasn't done so bad out of it as well.

[ç i p h é r]

So you're arguing that we went to war to drive UP the price of oil, not to get our hands on it? The only problem there is that it's not in America's best interests to do that. It'll hurt the world's economy. It'll hurt our economy. It'll put people out of jobs. And of course, it'll cost American lives.

Now it is widely viewed that one of Bush Sr's biggest mistakes during his one and only term was ignoring a flagging economy. That that cost him any chance at a second term. So would a career politician sacrifice the pinnacle of his career, sacrifice his countrymen, sacrifice his morals, and continue a dubious legacy for his family just to help his friends make a buck? I find that too difficult to believe especially when Haliburton et al are already making money hand over fist. The supply of refined oil is the real problem, not the supply of crude and a war doesn't fix that.

[NickD]

So you're arguing that we went to war to drive UP the price of oil, not to get our hands on it? The only problem there is that it's not in America's best interests to do that. It'll hurt the world's economy. It'll hurt our economy. It'll put people out of jobs. And of course, it'll cost American lives.

It may not be in America's best interests, but it certainly was in your president's and his contributors' best interests. If you're happy to believe that your president cares about you more than he cares about himself... Well, that's your decision. It's possible you're right, but it certainly doesn't look that way from the outside.

[Mulu]

My underlying point is that if you are an honest to goodness human rights advocate, you would be just as concerned about the abuses under the Clinton administration

Well, comparing Clinton abuses to Bush is like comparing shoplifting to genocide.

The scale of the abuse is irrelevant when you argue on such a basis.

No, scale matters a *lot* when you're talking about abuse. A little is bad, a lot is a crime against humanity.

Of particular note, his statement that the Clinton administration rejected all opportunities to kill Bin Laden that his group identified. The destruction of the WTC and all the lives lost on 9/11 squarely fall on the shoulders of the Clinton administration, if you believe Mr Sheuer.

I don't; his claims have been debunked. Note the date on that article. 2004... seriously. We've learned a lot since then.

p.p.s. Incidentally, since the Clinton administration had already crossed the ethical line in approving the rendition program, it is not inconceivable to think that they might have expanded the scale and scope of the program as well in a post 9/11 world, if their term had coincided with that tragedy.

Hard to say. Even if it was expanded, I suspect those getting rounded up would have a lot more indicia of guilt, and wouldn't have all their rights suspended. Again, scale matters. Besides, 9/11 would *never* have happened on Clinton's watch. He was very aware of the threat and would have put all services on high alert after getting the memo on Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Gore explained the details of the predicatable response quite well awhile back, and based it on prior responses. Bush's response was absolutely null.

So you think the war was just about the oil?

Of course it was. We don't send 150,000 troops into African nations.

Why would we need to start a war to get it? Was our supply at risk?

Our supply is always at risk. Oil is a long term strategic resource, as you well know.

Would starting a war in that region LOWER prices?

That was one of many justifications put out by propaganda artists. Here, I have a great quote:

The greatest thing to come out of this [the war in Iraq] for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country.

Just change your consumption habits and things will change.

Most of us blue folk already live low impact lifestyles. But you red folk keep buying Hummers. It's going to take a lot more than voluteerism to change our oil needs. It's going to require strong policies that punish using gas hogs and reward installing solar panels on your home. A lot.

So you're arguing that we went to war to drive UP the price of oil, not to get our hands on it? The only problem there is that it's not in America's best interests to do that. It'll hurt the world's economy. It'll hurt our economy. It'll put people out of jobs. And of course, it'll cost American lives.

It may not be in America's best interests, but it certainly was in your president's and his contributors' best interests. If you're happy to believe that your president cares about you more than he cares about himself... Well, that's your decision. It's possible you're right, but it certainly doesn't look that way from the outside.

And Bingo was his Name-O. Though in fact the goal was to get ahold of the oil *and* drive up the price. Halliburton only succeeded halfway on this one, but give it time. The number one priority of the Administration in Iraq right now is passing the PSA for oil production, one that is strangely not very beneficial to Iraq but would make the oil companies involved very very happy.

[Zakharra]

Most of us blue folk already live low impact lifestyles. But you red folk keep buying Hummers. It's going to take a lot more than voluteerism to change our oil needs. It's going to require strong policies that punish using gas hogs and reward installing solar panels on your home. A lot.

Point in fact, a hummer is less damaging to the enviroment than a hybrid or electric car. If you take the process of manufacturing the parts, shipping of said parts, manufacturing the vehical and the cost of it's use over it's projected lifetime, including fuel, oil and maintinance. I'll try to find the article. Those nickel batteries are murder to make and ship.

[Edit:I found a few. Wether you accept their accuracy is up to you.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/06 ... e_wo_1.php
http://www.myautocar.com/community/blog ... Id=I0MjwgM

[ç i p h é r]

It may not be in America's best interests, but it certainly was in your president's and his contributors' best interests. If you're happy to believe that your president cares about you more than he cares about himself... Well, that's your decision. It's possible you're right, but it certainly doesn't look that way from the outside.

I generally have a low opinion of politicians and certainly don't think they care more about the laymen than themselves. But the current situation is NOT good for this President or his family legacy. Knowingly going into Iraq on a trumped up WMD charge is the equivalent to committing presidential suicide. Has there been a single President of a coalition nation that has not paid a political price for Iraq...? In what way has this been good for G. Bush or his family?