abneo3sierra

"humane torture" IS an oxymoron Ken, but those are your words, not mine, I never called it torture. By the same token..is it torture to put someone in prison who has killed someone else? You are depriving them of their ability to move around freely,that could be considered torturous. This is the point I am making. The other poster above who mentioned that our duty is taking care of civilians, again has reading comprehension difficulty, as that had nothing to do with it, and I even agreed above that civilians should NOT be in Guantanamo. But people who are active combatants, are NOT, by definition, civilians. Neither are people who actively are plotting to conduct attacks. Anyone outside of these groups,as I said above, I agree with you on,they should not be in Guantanamo.

I agree with you bigduke. For the record, I don't think we belong in Afghanistan anyway. I think we could have bombed bin Laden,even come back and done again many times if we kept missing him,and still,would have spent less money and lives,than we have spent in a 10 yr long war where nobody wants to do what is required to win it..ie..fight it 100%. The Afghan people are very good(mostly)..it is a shame that most of them have never really known what "peace" even was,between the Soviet invasion, and the American one.

Sorry to everyone else in this post..that dude just never can talk without trying to make it personal,can never talk about issues,can never comprehend conversation, or anything. It is the last time I ever will reply to the sorry &^%$ but I am sorry to do it here.

F- You Jon..oh,I meant "friend you" on facebook.. Learn to F'n read..or maybe,just simply comprehend... Nowhere was our UCMJ violated ;lawyers, whose job is to decide these things,cleared EVERYTHING that happened there. Do not waste your useless breath trying to understand how actual fighting armies work. And, for the record, again,my post was civil, until your a$$ brought out personal attacks again.

I still regret the use of the word "torture" to explain processes that we also endure as soldiers in training. Loud music preventing sleep..hell, in high school I loved that.."waterboarding"? we do in training, and even then,has only been used a handful of times in 10 yrs. "Rights"? they were(most of them) combatants out of uniform, by Geneva Convention, allowed to be shot summarily. Heaven forbid the other side has to obey the GC rules. All that said though, I really wish we would just have shot them in the beginning, in combat...saved a lot of taxpayer money for the meals,free healthcare,satellite TV,libraries,workout facilities,etc. The one part I do agree with you guys on though, is that ,IMO, nobody who was NOT a combatant,ever should have been sent there.

I would still suggest that spending a few days at Guantanamo would very quickly change the minds of at least most of its opponents. The prison is much better than any prisons in the USA, for certain,and better than prisons I have seen in Europe, as well..not sure about Australia, have ever seen prisons there, but in a "motel-like" atmosphere, Guantanamo definitely would at least compete. In the US and it's allies, there are probably half of the general (law abiding) populations who live in worse conditions, than those present at Guantanamo. The reasons for placing prisoners there, had nothing to do with gathering of intelligence in the beginning, but rather a secure US base, without having to convince civilians to put them in prisons near the civilians' homes. The reason (primary) that Guantanamo has still not closed? Because no civilans want these people in their neighborhood..protests in the cities around several of the prisons where the Obama administration planned to transfer them, took place at the first whiff of possibility that terrorists were going to be living nearby. For all of the talk, no US ally wants them transferred to THEIR care, either, so, they are left in Guantanamo.

I will think it is fair when they also put up the list of those killed by the Taliban and al Qaeda..but probably too difficult to make a list that long.

Aff.. I think ( I hope ) that the argument being made was that if one was legal, the other should be as well. If on the other hand, the argument is that because alcohol is worse, marijuana is ok...then I agree with you that would be a rather foolish way to look at it.

pretty sure i agree with that Michael,that is probably the key. If you have an "addictive" personality, no matter the drug you choose, you WILL be ruined by it.

Yes, did not mean to put unfair in quotation marks, just was not sure if it was the word I was looking for. As for damage, I do not think that marijuana causes life/death type of damage, at least directly, while both tobacco, and alcohol, do. However, I have also seen far too many people too content to just do nothing in their life,while smoking it, so I would say that its particular damage is more specifically in destroying one's sense of ambition and responsibility. That said, though, as long as the people smoking it, are not then trying to live off of MY work, I have no problem with it. That cannot be said for a lot of them though, as out of the ..probably 12 people I know for certain who smoke it, 9 still live at home,depending upon their parents to support their lives, and the other three work near the poverty line, because they can never get a decent job,can never concentrate, etc. Not to mention the soldiers from a particular NATO ally I have worked with, who were quite incompetent in general,mostly because of that particular habit. All of that said though, I am also sure that somewhere out there, are people who can smoke it,without letting it affect their life so much.

I think that the argument that alcohol does more damage, is valid, but is also not a good argument in favor of pot..both pretty well cause problems..however, the fact that alcohol is legal,while pot is not, is a bit "unfair", I agree. My only guess why this may be so, is that it is probably easier for governments to regulate alcohol producing companies(ie..tax them :-) ) while people can grow marijuana in their yards, and thus "cheat" the government out of its taxes...however, in my view, even if unable to tax the product, government could probably save a lot of its money (saving money is the same as earning it) by not having to enforce this particular law. I would argue that it would NOT stop the drug wars in, for example, Mexico,however, as legal or not, they would still be fighting over the market here...though it MAY slow it down, as people here would be allowed to grow their own,also.

nox.. even while I think that it IS harmful, also, like you, because of observing people who have smoked it,and cannot really manage to do anything productive for half the day after smoking it, because of it(or, at least, that is the excuse they use lol) But even feeling it is harmful, I am with you, I think people should have the right to do, to their own selves, whatever they want, harmful or not. There is a pretty good argument to be made that marijuana is either "just as harmful" or, perhaps even "less harmful" than many other , quite legal habits, such as alcohol and tobacco products.

It's a good film.

haha, you must have served, Aff.. : )

According to that chart,for the Australians, the pay is pretty comparable, at least at the grade I looked at.

Did not know Australians paid that much...wow..still, that said, there really IS no price worth life..therefore,even paid 10x the salary, if we did not believe we were doing something that matters, we would not do it..what is the difference between dying with money, or without, in the end lol. I do follow your argument on morality..I guess the best way to say my view though, is that the reasons a person makes good choices, are probably less important than the fact he/she does make them. If someone wants to tell me a potato in their yard, is telling them to be a better human being, I will be happy they are listening to the potato. The central tenet of the Christian faith, at least (again, simply being the one I am most familiar with, I am sure it is a basic part of all faiths) is what God called the "Greatest Commandment" ie.."Love the Lord..with all they heart, and love thy neighbor as thyself" ..however many times it has been mis-followed through history..and I know, this is many times..it is a tenet that, if actually followed, would make everyone a better person, as we all love ourselves, so the world would then be filled with everyone obviously caring more for everyone else. Probably impossible lol, but a worthy goal, I believe.

However, by that same argument, Iraqi oil, both before, and after the war, does not make up any but a negligible amount of oil imported into the USA. As for the French, again, not sure if I believe it..there is an online newspaper called the EUtimes.net, which I am not at all sure I believe, but they have run several stories about the French cutting a deal for Libyan oil, then supporting the rebels in hopes of getting a better deal..probably about as truthful,or untruthful,as the Americans going to war for Iraqi oil, at least.

Not at all..it's historical. What I want to know, as a only recent immigrant(relatively speaking..30 yrs lol ) to the US..is...why couldn't we just let them keep New York...I'm just sayin....??? haha.

Diesel, I am not sure if I believe oil was the reason for the war, but I would not be THAT surprised, either...if so,however, we got screwed..we did not get any oil. There interestingly is alot of talk of Libyan oil being the reason France and UK are so hot to topple that government..so, I would not doubt these reports too much, though I would not believe them just because they are written in a newspaper, either. I am not much of a follower of British politics, but I do know the "Guardian" is / was not a fan of Tony Blair.

I agree Diesel, no matter the party, they will always accept even the most unbelievable things, if it helps them, and will always refuse to accept even the most logical things, if the other party thought of it first.

Well..smoking it is harmful to your brain cells lol..so this should not be a "too big" surprise.

US service personnel do not ship our vehicles to our postings in Europe, at least none I ever met, nor myself, did this. The rest of what you write here, however, on the Texas vehicle, is a logical possibility. As to the al Qaeda..Bush's administration, for some reason, mostly seemed to want to minimize the entire thing..WE know that there were not "Ansar al Islam" camps in southwestern Iraq, they are in an entirely different area of the nation, along the Iranian borderlands, and somewhat along the Kurdish/northern areas...thus,mostly in the exact opposite area of the country where the camps were overrun. Whatever his reasons, the General you referred to,also repeatedly denied/minimalized the presence of foreign fighters in general, in Iraq, yet despite this, those of us on the ground, repeatedly engaged groups of them,mostly Iranian, but also Saudi,Pakistani,etc. Perhaps his view from far away was somewhat different, as is yours.

I love toast, but I think it may have fallen some out of favor in the rush to cut carbs and butter...still...nothing like a warm slice of buttered toast though... As for age..my mother still has one in her kitchen that she got probably 15 yrs ago..I am not sure how often it is used anymore, but is is at least "occasionally" and still works well...just that nice touch of golden brown...damn..making myself hungry here...

The Ansar al Islam camps were/are different than the al Qaeda camps, I know this, I know that you know this, but you are trying to make it appear that they were somehow "confused" for each other, to create a causus belli. They were not. Both groups use different wording,different lettering, different everything, and the camps we overran in the beginning were al Qaeda, not Ansar al Islam. Ansar al Islam was based along the northern Iraq/Iran border, where our units were far to the west and south of that, and the bases/camps overrun were in the first hours of the sweep north, quite far from their territory as well. I was not trying to create a misty conspiracy here, I mentioned it because that was, to the front line troops, and to the intelligence units who followed, the most likely explanation. edit: Also, as a side note...you yourself said only one was found, yet then you said it is common,that most vehicles have foreign registrations. While these two contradict each other..if so common,why only one found with these plates? Also, not sure where you heard that is common, as it is actually somewhat rare, being, as you said, only one having been found, in all of Iraq, at one of these camps. If you were a terrorist, who wanted a vehicle to use as a bomb, you would want that vehicle to "blend in" and Texas vehicle tags, in Iraq, would NOT blend in.

The camps in the western desert were overrun and uncovered in the initial charge. "Al Qaeda in Iraq" came later, as an organization. As to the registration, that is also possible, as mentioned, there is really no way to know what it's intent was. However, there were training manuals on infiltrating the US southern border, etc, which, when taken as pieces of a picture,instead of an entire picture themselves, this can be analyzed as one possible "worst case" situation.