Detainee Bill

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by USNA69, Sep 22, 2006.

  1. USNA69

    USNA69 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,771
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you feel that Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner's victory, with ex-Secretary Powell's assistance, over the White House to refuse to allow the Geneva Convention waivers was a positve or a negative for our fighting soldiers, sailors, and airmen?
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2006
  2. ChipAyten

    ChipAyten Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    0
    No I dont think captured terrorists are nor should be protected under the geneva convention. The convention applies to soldiers (name,rank,serial #)of an established nation in times of declared war between two countries. All it does is give these terrorists another chance to go out there and kill more of our uniformed men & women.
     
  3. Zaphod

    Zaphod Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    4
    Preach it, brother.

    Besides, as if the terrorists are going to respect the GC if they capture our troops, with or without this agreement! :rolleyes:

    Further proof that we are more worried about offending the sensibilities of people we shouldn't give a damn about than we are about WINNING THE DAMNED WAR.
     
  4. USNA69

    USNA69 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,771
    Likes Received:
    0
    What we have is the current and near-current Republican civilain leadership with the most military experience and insight. One is a retired 3rd generation Naval Officer who was tortured as a POW in North Vietnam. Another is presently a reserve Air Force Office. Another a past Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and past Secretary of State. Last but no means least, a combat Marine Officer, past Secretary of the Navy, and Chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee. Truly a formidable group which, with their history, has to have the interest of the American fighting man at heart. To go against the leadership of the Republican Party at a time when it can least afford it, speaks deeply of their commitments. I cannot imagine how one could say that "they are more worried about offending the sensibilities of people" they "shouldn't give a damn about than" they "are about WINNING THE DAMNED WAR". That is a very serious accusation against a very esteemed group of American heros.
     
  5. Zaphod

    Zaphod Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    4
    Just because you served doesn't give you immunity from criticism later. Murtha served, and I think he should be stood up before a squad of Marines and shot for treason.

    You're right: McCain was REALLY tortured. As such, he should damned well know that we haven't even come close to torturing anyone. I also find it the hight of disgusting that this bunch of "heros" somehow seem to be able to draw a moral equivalency between our enemies and us. We don't behead our enemies. We don't hijack planes full of civilians and fly them into buildings full of civilians. We don't shoot kneeling women in the back of the head because they were out of the house alone. We don't declare holy war against the Pope because he quoted someone. We don't riot over a cartoon. We don't drag the bodies of our enemies through the streets and spit on their corpses while our women scream "LULULULULULULULULU!".

    We are NOTHING like our enemy, and would STILL be nothing like our enemy even if we WERE torturing prisoners for legitimate intel. The question, "Well, how can we expect our enemies to treat us well if we don't treat them well?" Excuse me? We feed them, house them, give them Korans, don't disturb them during prayers, and point them toward Mecca. What do we get for our troubles? Our troops are mutilated and hung from bridges. Yeah, being nice sure won us a lot. :rolleyes:

    They are playing politics, pure and simple, and their past military record, no matter how worthy of praise, doesn't change that. I fail to see how having "the interests of the American fighting man at heart" means that we grant Geneva Convention rights to terrorists who don't deserve them. How does that help our troops, other than making them a laughingstock to our enemies?

    There is one and only one way to win a war, and that is to destroy the enemy and shatter his will to resist. You don't do it by codling him or treating him by rules he will use against you. You do it by beating him so soundly that he looks upon you in sheer terror and realizes that he never should have fought you in the first place. Once you reach that point, THEN you can build him back up at your leisure. You would think that a bunch of guys with that much military experience would be able to grasp such a basic concept. I'm glad we didn't fight WWII this way. We'd all be speaking German or Japanese.


    ETA: I seem to recall the esteemed Senator McCain saying to Al Qaeda after 9/11, "May God have mercy on you, because we sure won't." One of those bastions of nobility in the death camp known as Guantanamo just happens to be the guy who MASTERMINDED 9/11. It would seem that the esteemed senator's memory is pretty short. :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2006
  6. USNA69

    USNA69 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,771
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the face of draft-dodging Air National Guard members and I-got-my-doctorate-just-didn't-feel-like-doing-my-dissertation grad students, it is truly heartening to see that we have leadership commited to the long term welfare of the American fighting man, who realize that the Geneva Convention is not a spigot that we can turn on and off with a whim, as we see fit, to meet our narrowly perceived needs of the moment. We, as a nation, can stand tall and tell the world we abide by the prescribed ethics of modern warfare. In future conflicts, our enemies will not be able to drag our airmen through the streets, humiliating them, with the excuse that the US does not abide by the Geneva Convention.
     
  7. Zaphod

    Zaphod Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    4
    What good does that do us if we lose?

    No, they'll just do it anyway no matter how we interpret Geneva, which is why I find the idea that applying Geneva to terrorists is a means of protecting the welfare of Americans in uniform such a laughable proposition.

    It certainly didn't stop the Vietnamese, now did it?

    And spare me the tired cliches used against the President and others. Do you actually think HE is trying to make things WORSE for our troops? C'mon, man. You're smarter than that.
     
  8. USNA69

    USNA69 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,771
    Likes Received:
    0
    "And spare me the tired cliches used against the President and others. Do you actually think HE is trying to make things WORSE for our troops? C'mon, man. You're smarter than that."

    No, I don't think he is trying to make things WORSE. Unfortunately, I don't think he cares. The point I was making with this post is, thank God, I can go to bed tonight knowing that some of our leadership is trying to make things better for our troops who go in harm's way on a daily basis.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2006
  9. Zaphod

    Zaphod Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    4
    You are grossly mistaken. I mean BAD. :frown:
     
  10. USNA69

    USNA69 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,771
    Likes Received:
    0
    Should I take the effort to delineate the lack of support for our wounded soldiers, the lack of equipment to fight properly, the overextension of our fighting forces attempting to contain a civil war that any well-informed 8th grader would have predicted, and forgetting the war on terrorism to go off on a tangent that only he can explain, you would only state that I was an uninformed victim of the liberal press. It isn't worth the effort. This is not a political forum. It is a Service Academy forum where I was attempting to point out to concerned parents that their sons and daughters who will someday be fighting for our great country are being protected by some of our more esteemed leadership. If you feel that this is detrimental to some perceived short term goal, that is your prerogative.Why don't we agree to disagree?
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2006
  11. Zaphod

    Zaphod Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    4
    I never said he was perfect. You and I can both point out mistakes that have been made. That does not translate into not caring. That leap IS something the media would take, though.

    If anything, I can accuse the President of ALSO caring more about what the rest of the world thinks than of getting the job DONE already and getting our troops out. I still remember the opening night in Afghanistan when we were dropping food. :confused:

    I fail to see how protecting terrorists in any way protects our troops.

    Detrimental? Since when is a pasionate, respectful discussion between folks with a stake in the matter detrimental? Not in my book, my friend. I have never doubted that you want the best for this country, which is not something I can say for others on the other side of the political aisle (not that I place you on either side, BTW).

    You have no ire from me, my friend. At the risk of sounding patronizing, I have come to have a great deal of respect for you (or at least as much as one can have while having a virtual discourse). While I may disagree with some of your views, your presentation of them make me at least stop and consider "What if he's right?". That is also more than I can say for others.

    Besides, we're both Ringknockers who want the best for our home, and aren't out playing games about it. That transcends politics. :smile:

    And since you're my senior, I'll add a respectful "sir" to the end. :smile:
     
  12. USNA69

    USNA69 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,771
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I fail to see how protecting terrorists in any way protects our troops."

    Adherence to Geneva Convention should not be considered protecting terrorists. Your use of the word "protecting" infers that things are indeed happening, torture perhaps, from which the GC would protect them. Again, the use of torture other than to gain immediate tactical information is a highly debatable issue. Do you want to torture to gain information or simply, in a very personal and sadistic manner, show an individual human being that we can beat him to the ground and slowly grind him into the dirt?
    What I am saying is that strict adherance to the GC may give future enemies pause before they abuse our future prisoners. If our more humane treatment of prisoners in this war prevents just one downed airman from being dragged through the streets of some third world country, humiliated and beaten, I feel that our three distinguished Senators have done their job. This was the reason they did it, not to cow tow to some segment of the population inflamed by misinformation from our liberal press.



    "Detrimental? Since when is a pasionate, respectful discussion between folks with a stake in the matter detrimental?"

    I am refering to our on-again-off-again adherence to the Geneva Convention being detrimental, not our very spirited lively debate which I do enjoy, by the way.


    "You have no ire from me, my friend."
    And none from me to you. With the exception of an occassional too personal statement on my perceived beliefs and knowledge, which I know is your style and comes with the pleasure of debating you, I truly enjoy our little cyber discussions. I believe that we are both too entrenched to change each others minds but that shouldn't prevent an endeavor to try.

    Yes, we're both ringknockers, but I attended when there was a plebe year.:shake:
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2006
  13. kp2001

    kp2001 USMMA Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,153
    Likes Received:
    113
    I have to disagree with you greatly here. I'm not sure where you get your information on how the wounded soldiers are treated, but I have first-hand knowlege which I will delineate at the bottom. These soldiers get incredible support, the military in fact has now opened an incredible Amputee center in San Antonio, and the support given at Walter Reed for amputees should make it an amputee center as well. The psych programs at WRAMC and NNMC are incredible as well, holding on (not necessarily as inpatients) to soldiers for sometimes over two years before they are released from active duty service. While being treated at Walter Reed these soldiers when well enough to not need inpatient care are put up at a hotel on post with their family members who were most likely flown free of charge.

    Once well enough to only need rehab or minimal care they can go home and after being discharged from the military can get care in the VA system. This sure doesn't sound like a lack of support for our wounded soldiers.

    As to my first-hand experience here are the military hospitals I have worked at in the last 1.5 yrs: Walter Reed AMC, National Naval MC, NMC Portsmouth, Wright-Patterson AFB, Madigan AMC, Pensacola NMC, and Tripler AMC.
     
  14. Zaphod

    Zaphod Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    4
    Yeah, but it wasn't real like mine. :biggrin:
     
  15. USNA69

    USNA69 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,771
    Likes Received:
    0
    kp2001,
    I, in no way intended to imply that our military personnel were not receiving the best care possible. You have described thoroughly the superb treatment they are receiving, up to, and including the extra two years that they are held on active duty. Is the reason for this perhaps that the VA is incapable of receiving them, that the military has a larger budget and can "find" funds more easily to support this effort?

    Please allow me to digress. I, along with several other Naval Officer retirees, journeyed to SC for the Republican primary to work for Senator McCain. The opposing camp, coming off a bitter defeat in NH, knew that SC was a must win state. I witnessed personally the most atrocious untruthful smear campaign that has ever been. I cannot think of another description than that I despised what I saw. One of the many smears was the parading on local TV of a marginal Vietnam War vet, Thomas Burch, who had previously smeared the first President Bush (I assume the family differences were mended). Burch denounced vehemency McCain's support of the American veteran, that he had come home and forgotten them. There was absolutely no reason to suspect this smear was any more truthful than any of the others. If you want to read more, Google "John McCain 2000 SC primary" which I did to get the Vietnam Vet's name. It still appalls me. With this reality in the back of my mind, I have always been overly critical of any White House announcements concerning Veterans. The annual White House budge proposals have been almost comical in their ignorant and. in my opinion, disgraceful messages they are conveying to our Veterans. Are not our waiting lines of eligible veterans getting longer and longer so the VA can scrape and borrow to support the current influx of Iraqi veterans, Has not or is not a secondary care facility being built to accomodate amputee rehabilitation, entirely with privately donated money (a disgraceful message being sent to our troops), and has psychiatric funding not been cut to prevent the proper care of our returning soldiers? White House actions send a signal, to me, unfathonable in sustaining a long-term professional viable military force.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2006

Share This Page