Reply With Quote
Then tell us what would have happened, Yoni?
Enlighten me on my premature death and how it occured. I'll get a snack, sit back and anxiously await for the information on how Mr. Bush saved our lives. Please be specific.
I think that if we hadn't had this President in office at this time, there may not have been a successor or, at the very least, we'd of been in much, much worse shape than his successor will find things on January 21, 2009.
Then tell us what would have happened, Yoni?
Enlighten me on my premature death and how it occured. I'll get a snack, sit back and anxiously await for the information on how Mr. Bush saved our lives. Please be specific.
It would all be speculative. And, who said you'd be dead? Maybe you'd just be a Dhimmi.
But, instead, I think I'll wait for the answer from all those who have said Al Gore or John Kerry would have done things better to be specific on exactly what they would have (or would not have) done differently than President Bush.
Enjoy your snack.
Yoni plays the "mushroom cloud" BS, as if dubya were only impediment possible against OBL nuking the USA into the stone age. you ing, ridiculous, risible fool.
dubya will actually be leaving the world and USA in much worse shape when he leaves office, by his own murderous, deceitful choices.
I don't think I've ever seen Yoni dodge and backtrack like this before.
Cool, new experience for you. You're welcome.
Now, define "dodge" and "backtrack," in the context of my posts. And, please, be specific.
"Without Bush there may not have been a successor"
I asked for more, you left the plate empty. I just want to know why you might believe this statement. I'm not trying to insult you by asking for clarification. I'm genuinely interested in why you believe this.
And the Dimm-o-craps answer to all our problems.Yoni plays the "mushroom cloud" BS, as if dubya were only impediment possible against OBL nuking the USA into the stone age. you ing, ridiculous, risible fool.
dubya will actually be leaving the world and USA in much worse shape when he leaves office, by his own murderous, deceitful choices.
"it's bushs fault". And also your answer.
Damn I love it when the village idiots come out
to play.
Simple answer. Bush did something about
Americans being attacked and killed. What has
your party done or would do. Cut and run, is
the only answer I have heard. Oh, yes, one of
your idols said re-deploy to Okinawa. Yeah,
some really smart people in the dimm-o-craps.
I bet Yoni is really proud of the way you murdered his statement.
Don't let this person speak for you. You deserve better.
Xray, I don't have a party. But feel free to label me. I'm not at all bothered by the way you think about things.
You haven't been paying attention.
September 25, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Do Unto Your Enemy...
By PAUL RIECKHOFF
IN 2002, I attended the Infantry Officer Basic Course at Fort Benning, Ga. At “the Schoolhouse,” every new Army infantry officer spent six months studying the basics of his craft, including the rules of war.
I remember a seasoned senior officer explaining the importance of the Geneva Conventions. He said, “When an enemy fighter knows he’ll be treated well by United States forces if he is captured, he is more likely to give up.”
A year later on the streets of Baghdad, I saw countless insurgents surrender when faced with the prospect of a hot meal, a pack of cigarettes and air-conditioning. America’s moral integrity was the single most important weapon my platoon had on the streets of Iraq. It saved innumerable lives, encouraged cooperation with our allies and deterred Iraqis from joining the growing insurgency.
But those days are over. America’s moral standing has eroded, thanks to its flawed rationale for war and scandals like Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and Haditha. The last thing we can afford now is to leave Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions open to reinterpretation, as President Bush proposed to do and can still do under the compromise bill that emerged last week.
Blurring the lines on the letter of Article 3 — it governs the treatment of prisoners of war, prohibiting “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment” — will only make our troops’ tough fight even tougher. It will undermine the power of all the Geneva Conventions, immediately endanger American troops captured by the enemy and create a powerful recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.
But the fight over Article 3 concerns not only Al Qaeda and the war in Iraq. It also affects future wars, because when we lower the bar for the treatment of our prisoners, other countries feel justified in doing the same. Four years ago in Liberia, in an attempt to preserve his corrupt authority, President Charles Taylor adopted the Bush administration’s phrase “unlawful combatants” to describe prisoners he wished to try outside of civilian courts. Today Mr. Taylor stands before The Hague accused of war crimes.
It is not hard to imagine that one of our Special Forces soldiers might one day be captured by Iranian forces while investigating a potential nuclear weapons program. What is to stop that soldier from being water-boarded, locked in a cold room for days without sleep as Iranian pop music blares all around him — and finally sentenced to die without a fair trial or the right to see the evidence against him?
If America continues to erode the meaning of the Geneva Conventions, we will cede the ground upon which to prosecute dictators and warlords. We will also become unable to protect our troops if they are perceived as being no more bound by the rule of law than dictators and warlords themselves.
The question facing America is not whether to continue fighting our enemies in Iraq and beyond but how to do it best. My soldiers and I learned the hard way that policy at the point of a gun cannot, by itself, create democracy. The success of America’s fight against terrorism depends more on the strength of its moral integrity than on troop numbers in Iraq or the flexibility of interrogation options.
Several Republican combat veterans, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Senators Lindsay Graham, John McCain and John Warner, have recognized that the president’s stance on Article 3 is a threat to our troops and to our interests. It would be insulting for the president to assume he knows more about war than they do.
But the compromise the president struck with the senators last week leaves the most significant questions unresolved. The veterans must hold their ground — and the White House must recognize that our troops need all the moral authority they can get.
Paul Rieckhoff,the executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, isthe author of “Chasing Ghosts: A Soldier’s Fight for America From Baghdad to Washington.”
===============
Dammit to , where the are all these pro-terrorist traitors like Rieckhoff coming from?
This from someone who blames Clinton for everything.
Has Bush done anything wrong in the 6 years since he has been president?
As wrong as it is for Democrats to blame Bush for everything, it is equally wrong to blame him for nothing, is it not?
haha this is the funniest post. I guess Saddam would have sent his WMDs to anihilate the US.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
