George W. Bush: The Official Thread

[Demogoblin]

This is a thread meant for the discussion of former President George W. Bush. His policies. His actions in office. And post-presidency.

During his visit to Israel's Holocaust memorial, Bush said the U.S. should have bombed the Auschwitz death camp to end the extermination of Jews there, a rare acknowledgment from a U.S. leader on an issue that has stirred deep controversy for decades.

The Allies had detailed reports about Auschwitz during the war from Polish partisans and escaped prisoners. But they chose not to bomb the camp, the rail lines leading to it, or any of the other Nazi death camps, preferring instead to focus all resources on the broader military effort.

Between 1.1 million and 1.5 million people were murdered at the infamous camp in Poland.

Bush twice had tears in his eyes during an hour-long tour of the museum, said Yad Vashem's chairman, Avner Shalev, who guided Bush through the exhibits.

Upon viewing an aerial shot of Auschwitz, taken during the war by U.S. forces, Bush called the ruling not to bomb it "complex." He then called over Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to discuss President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's decision, clearly pondering the options before rendering an opinion of his own, Shalev told the Associated Press.

"We should have bombed it," Bush said, according to Shalev.

Tom Segev, a leading Israeli scholar of the Holocaust, said the Bush comment, which appeared spontaneous, marked the first time an American president had made this acknowledgment.

"It is clear now that the U.S. knew a lot about it," he said. "It's possible that bombing at least the railway to the camps may have saved the lives of the Jews of Hungary. They were the very last ones who were sent to Auschwitz at a time when everybody knew what was going on."

Bush, making the most extensive Mideast trip of his presidency, was accompanied on his tour of the museum by a small party that included Rice, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Israeli President Shimon Peres.

At the compound, overlooking a forest on Jerusalem's outskirts, Bush visited a memorial to the 1.5 million Jewish children killed in the Holocaust, featuring six candles reflected 1.5 million times in a hall of mirrors.

At the site's Hall of Remembrance, he heard a cantor chant a Jewish prayer for the dead. There, Bush, wearing a yarmulke, placed a red-white-and-blue wreath on a stone slab that covers ashes of Holocaust victims taken from six extermination camps. He also lit a torch memorializing the victims.

"I was most impressed that people in the face of horror and evil would not forsake their God. In the face of unspeakable crimes against humanity, brave souls — young and old — stood strong for what they believe," Bush said.

"I wish as many people as possible would come to this place. It is a sobering reminder that evil exists, and a call that when evil exists we must resist it," he said.

The memorial was closed to the public and under heavy guard Friday, with armed soldiers standing on top of some of the site's monuments and a police helicopter and surveillance blimp hovering in the air overhead.

It was Bush's second visit to the Holocaust memorial, a regular stop on the visits of foreign dignitaries. His first was in 1998, as governor of Texas. The last sitting U.S. president to visit was Bill Clinton in 1994.

In the memorial's visitors' book, the president wrote simply, "God bless Israel, George Bush."

Shalev then presented Bush with illustrations of the Bible drawn by the Jewish artist Carol Deutsch, who perished in the Holocaust.

Deutsch created the works while in hiding from the Nazis in Belgium. He was informed upon, and died in 1944 in the Buchenwald camp. After the war, his daughter Ingrid discovered that the Nazis had confiscated their furniture and valuables but had left behind a single item: a meticulously crafted wooden box adorned with a Star of David and a seven-branched menorah, containing a collection of 99 of the artist's illustrations of biblical scenes.

The originals are on display at Yad Vashem. The memorial recently decided to produce a special series of 500 replicas, the first of which was presented to Bush.

Debbie Deutsch-Berman, a Yad Vashem employee whose grandfather was Deutsch's brother, said she was proud that Bush would be given her relative's artwork.

"These are not just his paintings, they are his legacy, and the fact that they survived shows that as much as our enemies tried to destroy the ideas that these paintings embody, they failed," she said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,321932,00.html

What do you think? Should we have bombed the Nazi death camps during WW2? Would it really have saved any lives or would we have just done the Nazi's work for them by doing so?

I can sympathize with the gut reaction to end the Holocaust and save innocent lives, but it was war. Ending the deadliest war in history had to be the priority. Bombing the camps would have only delayed the end and cost more lives.

[Malice]

Honestly its a tough one...I dont know how I would have handled it...

[DeaDheaD]

Why are they even asking him about what he would do?

[Malice]

Why are they even asking him about what he would do?

Another interesting question

[DeaDheaD]

Another interesting question
It just seems like, and I know it was a horrible thing that happenned, but its not like Bush(even if he had an intelligent alternative) could really do anything about it now.

[Gilpesh]

Why are they even asking him about what he would do?

I get the impression that no one did. He just went off.

[DeaDheaD]

I get the impression that no one did. He just went off.
Sounds like our President :up: :csad:

[Gilpesh]

Sounds like our President :up: :csad:

If you've seen American Dreamz, it is like when Dennis Quaid as the president (an obvious knock at the current one) loses his earpiece and has to think of things to say for himself...

[Superman79]

From the article it seemed he was asking more about bombing the RR Tracks as opposed to the camps themselves...and honestly, bombing the tracks MIGHT have helped cut down on the executions at the camps...its actually a pretty reasonable idea.

[Superman]

From the article it seemed he was asking more about bombing the RR Tracks as opposed to the camps themselves...and honestly, bombing the tracks MIGHT have helped cut down on the executions at the camps...its actually a pretty reasonable idea.Bombing the tracks I wouldn't have a problem with but bombing the camp it's self might not be such a good ideal. It seems to me that killing everyone in the camps would defeat the purpose of helping the prisoners.

Then again, This is Bush talking. He likes to bomb things.:whatever:

[The Senator]

I would agree with bombing the tracks leading to Auschwitz and other concentration camps. Looking back, I'm surprised we didn't do that-- though really, it's over with, and there's nothing that can be done about the outcome of that stain on humanity's track record.

[Addendum]

From the article it seemed he was asking more about bombing the RR Tracks as opposed to the camps themselves...and honestly, bombing the tracks MIGHT have helped cut down on the executions at the camps...its actually a pretty reasonable idea.

I agree, but then I wonder about the accuracy of the bombing runs.

[Superman79]

I agree, but then I wonder about the accuracy of the bombing runs.


True. But at the same time, you wouldn't have to bomb the tracks immediately adjacent to the camp, you could alway bomb a mile/half mile out or so...and still cut off the train movement. Just a thought

[Addendum]

But how many rail lines were in place in the countries the Nazis controlled? Did the aerial photography taken at the time provide conclusive proof that the rail lines going to those camps were death camps and not POW camps?

[Kel]

Some of the main air campaigns in WWII were to bomb railroad tracks that were major runs for deploying troops, and sending in supplies......they could have easily bombed the tracks away from the camps thus slowing down the ability to move masses of people.

[Addendum]

I'm aware of that. But was there anything in the aerial photography of the camps, if they were taken, that showed that they were death camps and not POW camps?

[zanos]

I'm so glad Bush has graced everyone with his knowledge of military tactics.

[cookiva]

Bomb WHAAA? Yeah, lets go ahead and finish the Nazi's job for them by killing the jews.

I understand the tracks, but seriously, this is sad....

[xwolverine2]

im with bush on this one.......

they shouldve bombed the tracks... doesnt take a genious to figure that out... no pun intended

[cookiva]

Would you bomb the camp, Xwolvie?

[xwolverine2]

the tracks leading to them..........

read the article

[Addendum]

A link to an aerial photograph of what was later determined to be Birkenau.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:May311944_auschwitz.jpg

From the summary in the link: "The initial photographic analysts missed the significance of the photograph; it was identified in the late 1970s and analyzed by the CIA in 1978 (the labels are from that analysis)."

If the arrows and captions were removed from the picture, and you just saw the original photograph that military analysts saw in 1944, how would you have known that that wasn't a POW camp, but Birkenau?

[cookiva]

the tracks leading to them..........

read the article

I did read it. I read the entire article, and before he says one word about tracks, he said "We should have bombed "it"". Now, lets think about this. He hasnt talked about the tracks yet, but saying we should have bombed it. Pretty sure that means the camp....

Read the article.

[Harlekin]

Eh, ending the war was definitely the greater priority.

[Mr Sparkle]

ha.
yeah, maybe just letting more than a marginal number of refugees into the country would've also worked there George.

[Orko Is King]

The track bombings would've been OK, but bombing the actual camps is...retarded.

[Dr. Watson]

ha.
yeah, maybe just letting more than a marginal number of refugees into the country would've also worked there George.

:up: Agreed. And all of the Allies were guilty of that one.

[bored]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,321932,00.html

What do you think? Should we have bombed the Nazi death camps during WW2? Would it really have saved any lives or would we have just done the Nazi's work for them by doing so?

I can sympathize with the gut reaction to end the Holocaust and save innocent lives, but it was war. Ending the deadliest war in history had to be the priority. Bombing the camps would have only delayed the end and cost more lives.


Bombing the railroads, and then sending in forces to liberate the camps would have been better. Outright bombing of the camps would have, I think, been problematic.

[Addendum]

Especially since outright bombing the camps would have killed more prisoners than Nazis

[kronos251]

Bombing the tracks - certainly.

Eliminate the water supply, food supply, arms supply - all having to do with means of transportation.

Bombing the camp? Perhaps eliminating the point of destination where the innocent people are being shipped to would alleviate the problem. "A lot of people would die, if it was bombed." I say a lot of people *were* already dying.

That must be stopped.

Its like amputating a leg to keep the infection from spreading. Of course, if ever Auschwitz is out, where would the Nazis send the remaining Jews then? To another camp? It is difficult to build another camp on account of the number of people they're sending, the cost that entails it, etc.

It may sound callous, but to prevent further deaths, you must eliminate the lair(s) where death is being festered.

[Sun_Down]

Bombing the tracks - certainly.


Eliminate the water supply, food supply, arms supply - all having to do with means of transportation.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

Bombing the camp? Perhaps eliminating the point of destination where the innocent people are being shipped to would alleviate the problem. "A lot of people would die, if it was bombed." I say a lot of people *were* already dying.

That must be stopped.

Its like amputating a leg to keep the infection from spreading. Of course, if ever Auschwitz is out, where would the Nazis send the remaining Jews then? To another camp? It is difficult to build another camp on account of the number of people they're sending, the cost that entails it, etc.

It may sound callous, but to prevent further deaths, you must eliminate the lair(s) where death is being festered.

You lose me here.

For one thing, you're basically saying that all the people at that camp were, for all intents and purposes, dead. And sure, there were plenty of people who were beyond help, but the vast, vast majority could have survived. So counting them out seems not only cruel, but plainly inaccurate.

Secondly, if we destroyed the camp, they could have easily sent the rest of the Jews to other camps (it's not like they were concerned about their living conditions) or simply executed them. To believe that destroying Auschwitz would end the concentration camp problem is a bit naive, IMO.

[Addendum]

Bombing the camp? Perhaps eliminating the point of destination where the innocent people are being shipped to would alleviate the problem. "A lot of people would die, if it was bombed." I say a lot of people *were* already dying.


You missed the part where I said that if the camps were bombed, more prisoners would die than Nazis.

Just like in any prisoner of war camp, or stepping outside war and using jails as another example, the number of prisoners far outnumbers the number of guards.

[zanos]

You missed the part where I said that if the camps were bombed, more prisoners would die than Nazis.

Just like in any prisoner of war camp, or stepping outside war and using jails as another example, the number of prisoners far outnumbers the number of guards.

I just want to play a little devils advocate for Bush. It's really irrelevant who's in the camp when the bombs land on them. The point of bombing the camp is to destroy it to save the jews.

[kronos251]

You lose me here.

For one thing, you're basically saying that all the people at that camp were, for all intents and purposes, dead.

Nope, I did not say that.

I said people were dying, and hundreds of thousands more of them are being sent in. Something must be done. I'll explain how and why.

And sure, there were plenty of people who were beyond help, but the vast, vast majority could have survived. So counting them out seems not only cruel, but plainly inaccurate. Exactly.

Secondly, if we destroyed the camp, they could have easily sent the rest of the Jews to other camps (it's not like they were concerned about their living conditions) or simply executed them. To believe that destroying Auschwitz would end the concentration camp problem is a bit naive, IMO.True, but apparently I did not say anything about eliminating Auschwitz would "end the concentration camp problem" altogether. Yes, there were hundreds of camps dotted all over Europe; Dachau for example was built as early as 1933 - All the more reason why taking a stand against a major edifice - a planned and invested fortification at that - would be an initially debilitating drawback for the enemy. It would be a good first step in addressing the concentration camp problem, instead of leaving it untouched on the strategic map.

Originally posted by Addendum
You missed the part where I said that if the camps were bombed, more prisoners would die than Nazis.

Just like in any prisoner of war camp, or stepping outside war and using jails as another example, the number of prisoners far outnumbers the number of guards.To answer your and Sundown's concerns, I specifically did not mention "Outright" bombing the camp. I agee with the idea, however, to a certain extent. If information was available to the Allies, perhaps sending troops into the camps, at the same time evacuating those whoever can be evacuated, then - *only* then - can the camp be systematically bombed, ie. military offices, cafeterias, arms reservoir, etc. Otherwise, what's the point of knowing such information, if you will just leave a lair that can be accessed to and can be fully functional again within a month.? Why go all the way on the railroads, yet not touch one iota of Points A and B?

Another question that should be asked is why the issue of concentration camps was not addressed at all in the first place. When did the Allies know about these Nazi factories of death? After the liberation of the Belsen camp(1945)? Friends of my father who were stationed in Europe were shocked at the horrors that took place, and regretted that it should have been addressed earlier.

How early is "earlier" then? Germany founded six large concentration camps for "undesirables" even before the war - Dachau (1933), and then Sachsenhausen (1936), Buchenwald (1937), Flossenbürg (1938), Mauthausen (1938) and Ravensbrück (1939) - and the SS started using the camps for forced labor in 1938. (Mauthausen was in Austria; the other five camps were in Germany.) I read in one article that "American newspapers and magazines reported the existence of concentration camps in early 1933," when Dachau opened. Way before Auschwitz was established (1941). So why wasn't it dealt with?

One of the problems at that time was the term "concentration camp" did not hold the same gravity or austerity as it holds today. From the Boer War in 1899-1902 until World War II, a "concentration camp" was simply another word for an "internment camp", used to hold civilians, such as the Japanese internment camps.

It is sad that a certain preconception of a word can change so horribly.
Originally posted by zanos
The point of bombing the camp is to destroy it to save the jews.If however it comes to that, The meaning of sacrificing the few for the many is yet again, sadly, underlined.

[Addendum]

The reason The Allies didn't know is because how do you determine from an aerial picture that you're looking at a death camp?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/May311944_auschwitz.jpg

When this picture was taken, there was no caption that said "Birkenau Extermination Complex", there were no helpful looking arrows that pointed at the dorms, there were no pointy captions that pointed at the execution area, the trenches, and the smoke coming from the crematorium. It wasn't until the 70s that the CIA identified it and later analyzed it, which is why you have the helpful information on the picture.

The fact that the world had never before seen or comprehended building a facility designed solely for the purpose of killing those a government branded "undesirable", the fact that the Nazis built their facilities to look like a prisoner of war camp not just on the ground but also from the air, shows that no one had any basis of knowledge to know what to look for in trying to point out a death camp.

[Addendum]

The point of bombing the camp is to destroy it to save the jews.

So to save the jews who are dying at the camps, we drop bombs on them :huh:

[kronos251]

The reason The Allies didn't know is because how do you determine from an aerial picture that you're looking at a death camp?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/May311944_auschwitz.jpg

When this picture was taken, there was no caption that said "Birkenau Extermination Complex", there were no helpful looking arrows that pointed at the dorms, there were no pointy captions that pointed at the execution area, the trenches, and the smoke coming from the crematorium. It wasn't until the 70s that the CIA identified it and later analyzed it, which is why you have the helpful information on the picture.

The fact that the world had never before seen or comprehended building a facility designed solely for the purpose of killing those a government branded "undesirable", the fact that the Nazis built their facilities to look like a prisoner of war camp not just on the ground but also from the air, shows that no one had any basis of knowledge to know what to look for in trying to point out a death camp.


The Allies of course did not have any (confirmed) information about the existence of mass genocide inside these buildings; And that is regrettably understandable - - even the photograph above was taken by accident.

But, as I said if information was available to them by then, a certain and decisive course of action is inevitable. And although there weren't any pointy or helpful captions then, atleast there should have been some sort of investigation or questions raised.

But what's done is done. :/ The Holocaust of the Jews led to the independence of Israel (1948), as approved by the League of Nations, thus giving the Jewish people "a national home", or a piece of contested land as we see in the Middle East.


Originally posted by Addendum
So to save the jews who are dying at the camps, we drop bombs on them :huh:In order to save the millions and millions of other Jews who were still on the outside, who were detained inside towns and cities, who were to be continually shipped into many major extermination camps, remove one of the major extermination camps. Take away the place where the enemy prides himself in cooping them up. Remove the source and destination. Remove points A and B. And...
Originally posted by kronos251
If however it comes to that, The meaning of sacrificing the few for the many is yet again, sadly, underlined.

[Harlekin]

It would've solved nothing. The Nazis would've just executed any Jews they couldn't dump in other camps.

[kronos251]

It would've solved nothing. The Nazis would've just executed any Jews they couldn't dump in other camps.

True, more or less the Nazis would've done just that. But where? The purpose of the camps was to hide whatever mass genocide, or any bizarre experiments happening from the German public.

Yes, certain initial aspects of Nazi persecution of Jews and other opponents were common knowledge in Germany. Thus, for example, everyone knew about the Boycott of April 1, 1933, the Laws of April, and the Nuremberg Laws, because they were fully publicized. Plus the fact that offenders were often publicly punished and shamed. The same holds true for subsequent anti-Jewish measures: Kristallnacht (The Night of the Broken Glass) was a public pogrom, carried out in full view of the entire population. While information on the concentration camps was not publicized, a great deal of information was available to the German public, and the treatment of the inmates was generally known, although exact details were not easily obtained.
As for the implementation of the "Final Solution" and the murder of other undesirable elements, the situation was very different. The Nazis attempted to keep the murders a secret and, therefore, took precautionary measures to ensure that they would not be publicized. Their efforts, however, were only partially successful. Thus, for example, public protests by various clergymen led to the halt of their euthanasia program in August 1941. These protests were obviously the result of the fact that many persons were aware that the Nazis were killing the mentally ill in special institutions.

As far as the German Jews were concerned, it was common knowledge in Germany that they had disappeared after having been sent to the East. It was not exactly clear to large segments of the German population what had happened to them. On the other hand, there were thousands upon thousands of Germans who participated in and/or witnessed the implementation of the "Final Solution" either as members of the SS, the Einsatzgruppen - death camp or concentration camp guards - police in occupied Europe, or with the Wehrmacht. But for the general populace, it is more or less unclear whether they approved of the camps.


To go back to the topic, as I said, take away Auschwitz or any major extermination camp, and the enemy would not be so certain as to how and where to dump the remaining Jews, without answering to the German public.

[Harlekin]

Dude, that's easy. Blow up a few trains, say the Allies did it.

[Iceburgeruk]

Its all a mute point though because it is a guy living now sayiong he would have bombed the tracks. I mean we can`t challenge him on that because we can`t make him do it due to the problems of time travel.

I mean i could claim that i would have stopped the black death spreading to europe. It is a broad claim to make me look better and no-one can go against me on the point becuase there is no way of ascertaining whether i actually would have in the situation.

[04nbod]

I'm sorry but from my understanding the US just didn't care. They were too busy racing the soviets to Berlin. Of course that was after the war was effectively won. I'd say bombing the railways from the ghettos to the camps would have been the right thing to do but it risked the guards in the camps slaughtering everyone as a last defiance and we know many people did get out alive.

[kronos251]

Dude, that's easy. Blow up a few trains, say the Allies did it.
Aww, not as easy as that, man.. Alright, Lets say on a hypothetical situation, the Allies do bomb the camp and the railroads, thus the Germans consequently stuff the remaining 1,000,000 (and counting) Jews who are still on the outside in "a few trains", and blow them up sky high - supposing those 1,000,000++ bodies do fit inside the compartments of those trains....

And then the Nazis with their propaganda will tell the German public that the Allies bombed those said trains.

Not entirely feasible though. First off, Germany was running on a war economy, where every little thing was set on a limited time and budget, and importance on frugality in terms of food, water, gas, and natural materials (ie metal on ammo, bunkers, trains, tanks) were constantly stressed. In fact the German economy was in a state of collapse in late 1944/early 1945 due to infrastructure damage and logistics, and moreover the failure of supply of raw materials. So when a suggestion such as bombing those Jews on trains on railroads comes to mind, it may be easy when it comes to getting rid of the Jews, but not so easy - in fact worrisome - when it comes to burning a hole in the Third Reich's pocket. So not only will they be willing to expend the Jews, they'll also be saying goodbye to limited natural resources already on hand, such as the gasoline, dynamite, gun powder, or whatever is used to ignite and incinerate 1,000,000++ bodies encaged in thick iron.

Secondly, and most importantly, Allied aerial bombardment meant the war is reaching home, reaching the centers of industrial production. Thus the Nazis are in danger of losing their most critical natural resource: their people. They cannot afford to lose the morale of the German people. The public expects them to win the war, and defend their backyard, plus the Nazi territories with German aerial dogfighters with Iron Crosses that they are supremely proud of. The German populace expect nothing less.

[kronos251]

I'm sorry but from my understanding the US just didn't care. They were too busy racing the soviets to Berlin. Of course that was after the war was effectively won.
Partially and unfortunately true. the US - and so did many Allied nations - did not have any (confirmed) information regarding the concentration camps before Belsen, 1945.

Of course during a world war, almost all countries halt immigration, hence rejecting Jewish refugees and other Nazi political opponents seeking asylum and therefore they could've been a great source of information on those camps.

Its all a mute point though because it is a guy living now sayiong he would have bombed the tracks. I mean we can`t challenge him on that because we can`t make him do it due to the problems of time travel.
Agreed.

[Red Mask]

Moot point, not 'mute'. And I agree.

[spideyboy_1111]

i think it depends one WHEN we bombed it.. if we bombed it late in the game.. most of the survivors would have been killed... if we bombed it early, we would have killed alot (possibly even blamed for it) but saved more lives

[Harlekin]

Aww, not as easy as that, man.. Alright, Lets say on a hypothetical situation, the Allies do bomb the camp and the railroads, thus the Germans consequently stuff the remaining 1,000,000 (and counting) Jews who are still on the outside in "a few trains", and blow them up sky high - supposing those 1,000,000++ bodies do fit inside the compartments of those trains....

And then the Nazis with their propaganda will tell the German public that the Allies bombed those said trains.

Not entirely feasible though. First off, Germany was running on a war economy, where every little thing was set on a limited time and budget, and importance on frugality in terms of food, water, gas, and natural materials (ie metal on ammo, bunkers, trains, tanks) were constantly stressed. In fact the German economy was in a state of collapse in late 1944/early 1945 due to infrastructure damage and logistics, and moreover the failure of supply of raw materials. So when a suggestion such as bombing those Jews on trains on railroads comes to mind, it may be easy when it comes to getting rid of the Jews, but not so easy - in fact worrisome - when it comes to burning a hole in the Third Reich's pocket. So not only will they be willing to expend the Jews, they'll also be saying goodbye to limited natural resources already on hand, such as the gasoline, dynamite, gun powder, or whatever is used to ignite and incinerate 1,000,000++ bodies encaged in thick iron.

Secondly, and most importantly, Allied aerial bombardment meant the war is reaching home, reaching the centers of industrial production. Thus the Nazis are in danger of losing their most critical natural resource: their people. They cannot afford to lose the morale of the German people. The public expects them to win the war, and defend their backyard, plus the Nazi territories with German aerial dogfighters with Iron Crosses that they are supremely proud of. The German populace expect nothing less.
Excellent points. Guess they'd just have to shoot them then. Bullets are relatively cheap, and considering the mass graves that are sometimes still being discovered today, I really don't think it would've been that hard to cover that up.

[kronos251]

Excellent points. Guess they'd just have to shoot them then. Bullets are relatively cheap, and considering the mass graves that are sometimes still being discovered today, I really don't think it would've been that hard to cover that up.
Yes it struck me why the Nazis didn't just put one bullet per head - Lower costs, maintenance, doesn't take up too much time, can bury the bodies at night when aerial surveillance is at its most vulnerable... But considering how much the majority of the Germans despised the Jews, I guess their own "national pride" dictated them that they really did want to make the Jews suffer ignominously, to the point many are reduced to ashes.

i think it depends one WHEN we bombed it.. if we bombed it late in the game.. most of the survivors would have been killed... if we bombed it early, we would have killed alot (possibly even blamed for it) but saved more lives
That's a good point you raised. Time is certainly one of the deciding factors.

[MaskedManJRK]

Eh, ending the war was definitely the greater priority.

You would think that, you Nazi bastard, you. :oldrazz:

Yes it struck me why the Nazis didn't just put one bullet per head - Lower costs, maintenance, doesn't take up too much time, can bury the bodies at night when aerial surveillance is at its most vulnerable... But considering how much the majority of the Germans despised the Jews, I guess their own "national pride" dictated them that they really did want to make the Jews suffer ignominously, to the point many are reduced to ashes.

If I remember correctly--the majority of the camps were not extermination camps, but work camps. It was less "making them suffer" and more using a group of people they found inhuman to do the manufacturing jobs and the like. So, it would have been cheaper to kill them in the short-term, but it probably helped them to use them as labor.

As for us bombing the camps--again, I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that most of the soldiers and the like knew about them. Before the war was over, they thought they were just helping out the Allies with the Nazis so that they can then take out the Japanese. It wasn't until they got into Germany and saw the camps that they knew what they were doing.

[kronos251]

If I remember correctly--the majority of the camps were not extermination camps, but work camps. It was less "making them suffer" and more using a group of people they found inhuman to do the manufacturing jobs and the like. So, it would have been cheaper to kill them in the short-term, but it probably helped them to use them as labor.

True, there were : forced labor camps, transit camps, prisoner-of-war camps, and of course the extermination or death camps, and concentration camps. And although you're right - those who were unfit for manual labor were exterminated and those who weren't were ..."spared" - what I meant earlier by "making them suffer" was just that. The living conditions of all camps were brutal.

(Yes it struck me why the Nazis didn't just put one bullet per head - Lower costs, maintenance, doesn't take up too much time, can bury the bodies at night when aerial surveillance is at its most vulnerable...)
I forget that I didn't quite consider this:

In fact, in the beginning of the systematic mass murder of Jews (around 1941), Nazis used mobile killing squads, the Einsatzgruppen, which consisted of four units of between 500 and 900 men each which followed the invading German troops into the Soviet Union. By the time Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, ordered a halt to the shooting in the fall of 1942, they had murdered approximately 1,500,000 Jews. The death camps proved to be a better, faster, less personal method for killing Jews, one that would spare the shooters, not the victims, emotional anguish.


As for us bombing the camps--again, I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that most of the soldiers and the like knew about them. Before the war was over, they thought they were just helping out the Allies with the Nazis so that they can then take out the Japanese. It wasn't until they got into Germany and saw the camps that they knew what they were doing.
(edit.)

[Mrh7448]

As usual it's easy to say in hindsight what should have been done, not so much when you are going through the circumstances.

There was a full blown war going on I would think that if they had the information they did what they thought was best to end the war and Hitler's control which was probably the priority at that time, not to mention this was a broad thing fighting in Asia etc.

Not saying the decision was right or wrong, just that it's easy to make judgments now on those of the past.

Don't forget no matter what the information was they had there were a lot of people who just didn't believe that is true or it was faulty intelligence. I mean really it's easy for us to think that it could happen now, it's happened so many times but at that time, more innocent times.

[kronos251]

As usual it's easy to say in hindsight what should have been done, not so much when you are going through the circumstances.

There was a full blown war going on I would think that if they had the information they did what they thought was best to end the war and Hitler's control which was probably the priority at that time, not to mention this was a broad thing fighting in Asia etc.

Not saying the decision was right or wrong, just that it's easy to make judgments now on those of the past.

Don't forget no matter what the information was they had there were a lot of people who just didn't believe that is true or it was faulty intelligence. I mean really it's easy for us to think that it could happen now, it's happened so many times but at that time, more innocent times.
Yes, and like I said in another thread, it was a different time. Quite a different country altogether.



As for us bombing the camps--again, I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that most of the soldiers and the like knew about them. Before the war was over, they thought they were just helping out the Allies with the Nazis so that they can then take out the Japanese. It wasn't until they got into Germany and saw the camps that they knew what they were doing.
I understand and very well agree with you that the US was compelled to resolve the Pacific theater, as it was divided to two fronts.

In the first place, what the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor officially inducted the United States into the Second World War, so in essence, the US really had more of a personal score to settle with the Japs, rather than the Germans, hence the controversy between Truman and MacArthur and the intricate use of the A-bomb, not to mention the untimely passing of FDR (April, 1945), whose command was terribly needed.

Though it is not so certain whether or not the US had confirmed intelligence regarding those camps at the time, it is now, sadly, a moot point. It should not allow history to repeat itself, however, as millions had paid for it with their lives.

[StorminNorman]

This is a thread meant for the discussion of George W. Bush. His policies. His actions in office. And post-presidency.


Bob Geldof in Rwanda gives Bush his props

KIGALI, RWANDA -- Bob Geldof has parachuted into the White House travel pool here in Rwanda, and will join us on the flight from Air Force One to Ghana tonight.

He's going to interview President Bush for Time magazine and several European outlets, such as Liberacion, about aid to Africa for HIV/AIDS, malaria, and business development.

Mr. Geldof is an Irish rock and roll singer and longtime social activist who has helped, along with U2 rocker Bono, raise awareness about need in Africa. His most well known achievement is organizing the Live Aid concert in 1985, which raised money for debt relief for poor African countries.

But Mr. Geldof has remained closely engaged with African affairs since then, and he spoke off the cuff to reporters today who were waiting for a press conference with Mr. Bush and Rwandan President Paul Kagame.

Mr. Geldof praised Mr. Bush for his work in delivering billions to fight disease and poverty in Africa, and blasted the U.S. press for ignoring the achievement.

Mr. Bush, said Mr. Geldof, "has done more than any other president so far."

"This is the triumph of American policy really," he said. "It was probably unexpected of the man. It was expected of the nation, but not of the man, but both rose to the occasion."

"What's in it for [Mr. Bush]? Absolutely nothing," Mr. Geldof said.

Mr. Geldof said that the president has failed "to articulate this to Americans" but said he is also "pissed off" at the press for their failure to report on this good news story.

"You guys didn't pay attention," Geldof said to a group of reporters from all the major newspapers.

Bush administration officials, incidentally, have also been quite displeased with some of the press coverage on this trip that they have viewed as overly negative and ignoring their achievements.


— Jon Ward, White House correspondent, The Washington Times

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/fishwrap/2008/02/bob_geldof_in_rwanda.html

[The Senator]

Very few things have impressed me about the Bush administration. In fact, I hate just about every policy initiative he's pushed for since he took office.

That said, his policies towards Africa are some of the few things I can actually praise him for.

[Matt]

It doesn't matter now. Bush's legacy is tied to the Iraq War. If he focused more on things like this, he would be remembered for handling 9/11 well and being a philantropist. As it is...he will be remembered for the cluster **** that is Iraq.

[StorminNorman]

It doesn't matter now. Bush's legacy is tied to the Iraq War. If he focused more on things like this, he would be remembered for handling 9/11 well and being a philantropist. As it is...he will be remembered for the cluster **** that is Iraq.

Ironically Attacks in Baghdad have fallen 80%

[bunk]

What's ironic about that?

[Matt]

Mostly that it doesn't matter at this point. You know the episode of Family Guy where "democracy finally gets to Iraq?" That could happen tomorrow and most people would still consider the war a failure.

[rdh007]

I suppose his Africa policies don't suck.

[StorminNorman]

Mostly that it doesn't matter at this point. You know the episode of Family Guy where "democracy finally gets to Iraq?" That could happen tomorrow and most people would still consider the war a failure.

That I agree with.

Most people are idiots :(

[Superman4ever]

Just to put things in perspective. A rock star praises Bush and he's somehow credible in saying "Bush has done more for blah, blah". A myriad of celebrities, for years now have denounced the War in Iraq, human rights violations committed by our military, the destruction of our constitution, rights and Habeas Corpus, speak out against the crisis in Darfur and their denounced propagandist for left-elitist drivel and they should shut up about things they don't know and get back to acting/singing/directing?

Hm.

[bunk]

I don't really think most people care about democracy in Iraq that much anyway. They care about blood and treasure. Americans don't give a **** about Iraqis in general. If Iraqis suddenly had democracy tomorrow, we'd still be there to "fight terrorism" anyway. It was never about bringing democracy to Iraq, it was about capturing Saddam and his WMD's. That's the ironic part actually. The fact that our original objective in bringing down Saddam was accomplished. So in that sense it wasn't a failure.

[StorminNorman]

Just to put things in perspective. A rock star praises Bush and he's somehow credible in saying "Bush has done more for blah, blah". A myriad of celebrities, for years now have denounced the War in Iraq, human rights violations committed by our military, the destruction of our constitution, rights and Habeas Corpus, speak out against the crisis in Darfur and their denounced propagandist for left-elitist drivel and they should shut up about things they don't know and get back to acting/singing/directing?

Hm.

The fact it IS a rock star praising BUSH DOES make it credible.

This isn't some diplomat trying to benefit from kissing up to Bush. This isn't some Conservative member of Congress. This is a liberal rock star who has been very active in helping Africa.

He has no agenda to praise Bush and all the reason to bash him.

[Superman4ever]

The fact it IS a rock star praising BUSH DOES make it credible.

This isn't some diplomat trying to benefit from kissing up to Bush. This isn't some Conservative member of Congress. This is a liberal rock star who has been very active in helping Africa.

He has no agenda to praise Bush and all the reason to bash him.

And anyone who criticizes Bush has an agenda? That is incredibly warped logic.

For over 6 years celebrities have been screaming against his policies and they've been branded anti-American, stupid and unpatriotic, but this guy says Bush's cool and all of a sudden celebrities are credible again and are without agenda?

He has no agenda, huh? Raising awareness, funds are not agenda?

[Memphis Slim]

The fact it IS a rock star praising BUSH DOES make it credible.

This isn't some diplomat trying to benefit from kissing up to Bush. This isn't some Conservative member of Congress. This is a liberal rock star who has been very active in helping Africa.

He has no agenda to praise Bush and all the reason to bash him.
too true.........

[StorminNorman]

And anyone who criticizes Bush has an agenda? That is incredibly warped logic.

For over 6 years celebrities have been screaming against his policies and they've been branded anti-American, stupid and unpatriotic, but this guy says Bush's cool and all of a sudden celebrities are credible again and are without agenda?

He has no agenda, huh? Raising awareness, funds are not agenda?

No - not anyone who criticizes Bush has an agenda.

Many that DO criticize Bush DO have an agenda though. Though that is the case with most critics of Presidents.

Almost all vocal Hollywood celebrities are incredibly liberal. That is no well kept secret. When a celebrity criticizes a Repulbican it makes no splash - just like when a Gun Lobbiest makes a comment criticizing a Democrat it makes no splash. It is expected.

For this liberal celebrity to praise Bush, it IS significant.

He would be able to create and fuel more awareness and funds if he criticized Bush for not providing enough.

Again - this guy's message IS credible.

[hippie_hunter]

It's good to see that Bush has done something good, but the world in general still doesn't give two s**ts about Africa. And his legacy will be tied down to his mismanagement of Iraq, unlawful expansion of executive power, allowing the erosion of civil rights, and the partisan hackery between him and the Democrats. Not the things he has done right (like his handling of 9/11, providing more aid to Africa, increased funding for NASA, etc.)

[StorminNorman]

It's good to see that Bush has done something good, but the world in general still doesn't give two s**ts about Africa. And his legacy will be tied down to his mismanagement of Iraq, unlawful expansion of executive power, allowing the erosion of civil rights, and the partisan hackery between him and the Democrats. Not the things he has done right (like his handling of 9/11, providing more aid to Africa, increased funding for NASA, etc.)

If the Surge continues to work and Iraq turns around, people will overlook many of the negatives and he will have a Truman-like legacy.

That being said Truman > Bush x10

[The Chairman]

This is about the only thing I respect Bush for. His efforts on this issue have been excellent.

Geldof, however, is not the first liberal celebrity to point this out. In the Vanity Fair issue dedicated to Africa, they went into detail about how successful his efforts were and how it was the Silver Lining in his presidency. Matt Damon stated in his interview that he loved what Bush had done and said he greatly supported the PEPFAR policy (I think that's what it's called.) Bono has been kissing Bush's ass for years.

[MaskedManJRK]

Well, a broken clock is right twice a day...:o

[CorpusBlack]

It doesn't matter now. Bush's legacy is tied to the Iraq War. If he focused more on things like this, he would be remembered for handling 9/11 well and being a philantropist. As it is...he will be remembered for the cluster **** that is Iraq.

Agreed fine sir. :up:

[The Senator]

And anyone who criticizes Bush has an agenda? That is incredibly warped logic.

For over 6 years celebrities have been screaming against his policies and they've been branded anti-American, stupid and unpatriotic, but this guy says Bush's cool and all of a sudden celebrities are credible again and are without agenda?

He has no agenda, huh? Raising awareness, funds are not agenda?

There's a difference between Sean Penn and Tim Robbins screaming about how the Bush administration is a bunch of crooked murderers who bathe in the blood of innocent children, and an independent rock star separated from the U.S. political culture who is driven by one cause and one cause alone. Bono has never endorsed a Presidential candidate, and he's never supported a U.S. political party... he said in 2004 that he supported both Kerry and Bush because they had sound policies towards Africa. He's a one-issue kind of guy, who knows about poverty and AIDS in Africa. He has credible influence in this topic; for Christ's sake, he's been up for a Nobel Peace Prize for the past three years for his work. Getting praise by a man at the forefront of a non-partisan issue is worth more to me than being the subject of resounding, metaphor-laced tirades by some of the most arrogant actors in all of Hollywood.

And I'm saying this as someone who hates George W. Bush with a passion...

[CorpusBlack]

There's a difference between Sean Penn and Tim Robbins screaming about how the Bush administration is a bunch of crooked murderers who bathe in the blood of innocent children, and an independent rock star separated from the U.S. political culture who is driven by one cause and one cause alone. Bono has never endorsed a Presidential candidate, and he's never supported a U.S. political party... he said in 2004 that he supported both Kerry and Bush because they had sound policies towards Africa. He's a one-issue kind of guy, who knows about poverty and AIDS in Africa. He has credible influence in this topic; for Christ's sake, he's been up for a Nobel Peace Prize for the past three years for his work. Getting praise by a man at the forefront of a non-partisan issue is worth more to me than being the subject of resounding, metaphor-laced tirades by some of the most arrogant actors in all of Hollywood.

And I'm saying this as someone who hates George W. Bush with a passion...

:up: Well said jman and I agree with you.

[SuBe]

There's a difference between Sean Penn and Tim Robbins screaming about how the Bush administration is a bunch of crooked murderers who bathe in the blood of innocent children, and an independent rock star separated from the U.S. political culture who is driven by one cause and one cause alone. Bono has never endorsed a Presidential candidate, and he's never supported a U.S. political party... he said in 2004 that he supported both Kerry and Bush because they had sound policies towards Africa. He's a one-issue kind of guy, who knows about poverty and AIDS in Africa. He has credible influence in this topic; for Christ's sake, he's been up for a Nobel Peace Prize for the past three years for his work. Getting praise by a man at the forefront of a non-partisan issue is worth more to me than being the subject of resounding, metaphor-laced tirades by some of the most arrogant actors in all of Hollywood.

And I'm saying this as someone who hates George W. Bush with a passion...
Wow, I never knew you had it in you, JMan.:yay:

Good Post!

[rdh007]

There's a difference between Sean Penn and Tim Robbins screaming about how the Bush administration is a bunch of crooked murderers who bathe in the blood of innocent children, and an independent rock star separated from the U.S. political culture who is driven by one cause and one cause alone. Bono has never endorsed a Presidential candidate, and he's never supported a U.S. political party... he said in 2004 that he supported both Kerry and Bush because they had sound policies towards Africa. He's a one-issue kind of guy, who knows about poverty and AIDS in Africa. He has credible influence in this topic; for Christ's sake, he's been up for a Nobel Peace Prize for the past three years for his work. Getting praise by a man at the forefront of a non-partisan issue is worth more to me than being the subject of resounding, metaphor-laced tirades by some of the most arrogant actors in all of Hollywood.

And I'm saying this as someone who hates George W. Bush with a passion...

I wonder what Robert Geldof and Paul Hewson would think about the legislation Obama co-sponsored that is mentioned in the other thread?

[The Senator]

I wonder what Robert Geldof and Paul Hewson would think about the legislation Obama co-sponsored that is mentioned in the other thread?

Chances are, Bono would support it.

That doesn't mean I have to agree with him on it.

[Genesis 1.0]

That I agree with.

Most people are idiots :(

To be fair, alot of them are but I don't think that touches this issue.

Bush has done alot of things, the vast majority of these things are viewed as either wrong or misguided, so of course that outweighs anything else done correctly in the Court of Public Opinion. Making decisions of that magnitiude come with consequences just as massive, which is why he finds himself in the predicament he's in now.

He's obviously looking for a Truman-esque vindication beyond his Presidency.

[StorminNorman]

To be fair, alot of them are but I don't think that touches this issue.

Bush has done alot of things, the vast majority of these things are viewed as either wrong or misguided, so of course that outweighs anything else done correctly in the Court of Public Opinion. Making decisions of that magnitiude come with consequences just as massive, which is why he finds himself in the predicament he's in now.

He's obviously looking for a Truman-esque vindication beyond his Presidency.

I agree with about everything you said.

[Arkady Rossovich]

It doesn't matter now. Bush's legacy is tied to the Iraq War. If he focused more on things like this, he would be remembered for handling 9/11 well and being a philantropist. As it is...he will be remembered for the cluster **** that is Iraq.

Indeed. No matter what he does to try and change his fate,he did not change his father's poor Presidental term and cursed himself to be perhaps the worst President in American history.

:boba:

[StorminNorman]

Indeed. No matter what he does to try and change his fate,he did not change his father's poor Presidental term and cursed himself to be perhaps the worst President in American history.

:boba:

No.

[The Senator]

Indeed. No matter what he does to try and change his fate,he did not change his father's poor Presidental term and cursed himself to be perhaps the worst President in American history.

:boba:

He'll be regarded as one of the worst presidents, maybe around Nixon's numbers, but he won't be regarded as the worst president or even close. At least, not by Presidential scholars, who rank the Presidents every three years, I think.

[StorminNorman]

Nixon was the greatest, most hated President ever :(

[rdh007]

Nixon was a liberal by today's standards. :(

I think history will be kinder to Bush than the present, but I agree with jmanspice, he'll probably be considered much like Nixon. One big screw up that overshadows a very lackluster presidency.

[The Senator]

Nixon was the greatest, most hated President ever :(

Aside from the whole Watergate thing, Nixon is one of my favorite presidents.

[MaskedManJRK]

Nixon was the greatest, most hated President ever :(

Seriously?

From what I've seen, he was one of the most corrupt Presidents in US history. The only thing he did remotely right was his handling of the Vietnam war, and that was only because he actually let the military handle the day-to-day things, unlike Johnson. But anyone with common sense that isn't Johnson could do that.

What did he do that made him so great?

[StorminNorman]

Seriously?

From what I've seen, he was one of the most corrupt Presidents in US history. The only thing he did remotely right was his handling of the Vietnam war, and that was only because he actually let the military handle the day-to-day things, unlike Johnson. But anyone with common sense that isn't Johnson could do that.

What did he do that made him so great?

He reached out to China and created the basis of our relationship today.

He also provided sufficient aid to Israel during the Yom Kippur war.

Of course he did have on of the most brilliant minds in modern history to help with foreign relations.

He also did a good job overseeing the integration of U.S. schools.

He tried to implement policy that would of required all employers to purchase health care for their workers.

And then Watergate.

That being said - Nixon is easily one of my top five favorite Presidents of all time and my second favorite historical figure.

Alexander Hamilton is too cool for school.

[The Senator]

Seriously?

From what I've seen, he was one of the most corrupt Presidents in US history. The only thing he did remotely right was his handling of the Vietnam war, and that was only because he actually let the military handle the day-to-day things, unlike Johnson. But anyone with common sense that isn't Johnson could do that.

What did he do that made him so great?

-He opened trade between the U.S. and China
-He created the EPA
-He set the stepping stones for affirmative action
-He was the first President to call for significant school integration
-He initiated detente, which was a "pause" in tensions during the Cold War
-He was the first President to work towards nuclear disarmament
-He expanded social security and Medicare while simultaneously offering tax cuts to all Americans
-He was the first President to push for a mandate which would require all employers to provide health insurance to their employees
-Not only that, he was the first President to call for national health care

Nixon was groundbreaking both diplomatically and socially, but Watergate completely shrouded the political legacy he left behind...

[The Senator]

^^Basically everything Norman said.

[The Chairman]

Nixon wanted to make the Work Week four days long instead of five! Those bastards in Congress made him resign before he got the chance!

In all seriousnous, Watergate aside, Nixon was not by any means a bad president. In fact, he was rather great.

[CorpusBlack]

He reached out to China and created the basis of our relationship today.

He also provided sufficient aid to Israel during the Yom Kippur war.

Of course he did have on of the most brilliant minds in modern history to help with foreign relations.

He also did a good job overseeing the integration of U.S. schools.

He tried to implement policy that would of required all employers to purchase health care for their workers.

And then Watergate.

That being said - Nixon is easily one of my top five favorite Presidents of all time and my second favorite historical figure.

Alexander Hamilton is too cool for school.

Well said SN. :up:

[CorpusBlack]

Nixon wanted to make the Work Week four days long instead of five! Those bastards in Congress made him resign before he got the chance!

Damn it! Life would've been so much more awesome.

[StorminNorman]

Take away Watergate - Nixon is the best President since Teddy Roosevelt.

Of course you can't take away Watergate...

I would argue that I would take Nixon over Bill Clinton. I find him almost as corrupt and not nearly as good.

[The Senator]

Take away Watergate - Nixon is the best President since Teddy Roosevelt.

Of course you can't take away Watergate...

I would argue that I would take Nixon over Bill Clinton. I find him almost as corrupt and not nearly as good.

I would agree with that, too. BJs aside, there are a lot of Clinton initiatives which I dislike, such as DOMA, DADT, and NAFTA, to name a few.

The fact that Nixon was an economic conservative who was able to cut taxes across the board while maintaining a status as a "social liberal" is also incredibly appealing, considering that's where I am politically. Everything about him was so unique, from his potty mouth to his religion (he was a Quaker!). Too bad Watergate crapped all over him.

[MaskedManJRK]

Okay, point taken, but it's still hard for me to think highly of someone who so tried to corrupt the system in such a horrendeous way.

[StorminNorman]

I would agree with that, too. BJs aside, there are a lot of Clinton initiatives which I dislike, such as DOMA, DADT, and NAFTA, to name a few.

I am not even considering Monica.

I am talking about Clinton selling pardons, selling nights in the Lincoln bedroom, travel gate, Whitewater, etc. etc. etc.

[The Chairman]

Agreed. I'm sick of Clinton being seen as The Latter Day Saint Of The Democratic Party. I know people who'd take Bush over Clinton.

[StorminNorman]

Okay, point taken, but it's still hard for me to think highly of someone who so tried to corrupt the system in such a horrendeous way.

Nobodies perfect

[rdh007]

Since TR? Evidently FDR and Truman (back to back nonetheless) never happened. Truman is my personal favorite.

Also, I consider Clinton better than Nixon due to the eight years of relative peace and prosperity. Though I consider Nixon better than Reagan.

[The Chairman]

FDR is my personal fave.

[The Senator]

Since TR? Evidently FDR and Truman (back to back nonetheless) never happened. Truman is my personal favorite.

Here's my top 10 list

-Truman
-Lincoln
-FDR
-Teddy
-Nixon
-Eisenhower
-LBJ
-Jefferson
-Polk
-Jackson

[rdh007]

^Fair enough.

[The Senator]

Agreed. I'm sick of Clinton being seen as The Latter Day Saint Of The Democratic Party. I know people who'd take Bush over Clinton.

Unfortunately Clinton's all we've had as of late. The last real Democrat was LBJ, and he, like Nixon, is shrouded in controversy due that whole Vietnam thing. Carter was a wuss, and Clinton's policies were questionable to say the least. As a homosexual, it's hard to imagine that it was a Democrat who is responsible for most of the modern-day oppression us gays have been trying to reverse.

But I like his wife :O

[StorminNorman]

Since TR? Evidently FDR and Truman (back to back nonetheless) never happened. Truman is my personal favorite.

Also, I consider Clinton better than Nixon due to the eight years of relative peace and prosperity. Though I consider Nixon better than Reagan.

I love Truman but I dislike FDR with great passion.

[StorminNorman]

Here's my top 10 list

-Truman
-Lincoln
-FDR
-Teddy
-Nixon
-Eisenhower
-LBJ
-Jefferson
-Polk
-Jackson

Taking away the Watergate:

Washington
Lincoln
Teddy
Nixon
Truman
Eisenhower
Reagan
Q. Adams
Monroe
Jefferson

[SuBe]

Since TR? Evidently FDR and Truman (back to back nonetheless) never happened. Truman is my personal favorite.

Also, I consider Clinton better than Nixon due to the eight years of relative peace and prosperity. Though I consider Nixon better than Reagan.
What about the WTC Bombings in 1993 that we really never investigated, or the USS Cole, or all the Other Embassy Bombings?

[hippie_hunter]

I love Truman but I dislike FDR with great passion.

FDR did what was necessary for the time of the Great Depression. The primary point of the New Deal in my opinion, was to help those who were suffering from the faultering economy.

Would they work in a different situation? No, and it's evident that there are aspects of the New Deal which have become relics today (such as Social Security).

But with his leadership for the Great Depression and World War II, FDR deserves a spot in the top 10.

[hippie_hunter]

Indeed. No matter what he does to try and change his fate,he did not change his father's poor Presidental term and cursed himself to be perhaps the worst President in American history.

:boba:

Yet again you spout off crap you don't know what you're talking about.

Bush was a bad President but there are those who are far worse than him.

James Buchanan allowed the Civil War to happen. Herbert Hoover did absolutely nothing to help those suffering from the Great Depression. Andrew Johnson tried to destroy Reconstruction. Warren Harding did absoutely nothing, had an extremely corrupt Administration. Franklin Pierce and John Tyler are traitors who supported the Confederacy. Jimmy Carter was an inept President, despite his excellent post-Presidency career. Despite being a great President, Richard Nixon is a criminal. And JFK is the most overrated President in history.

[hippie_hunter]

-He opened trade between the U.S. and China
-He created the EPA
-He set the stepping stones for affirmative action
-He was the first President to call for significant school integration
-He initiated detente, which was a "pause" in tensions during the Cold War
-He was the first President to work towards nuclear disarmament
-He expanded social security and Medicare while simultaneously offering tax cuts to all Americans
-He was the first President to push for a mandate which would require all employers to provide health insurance to their employees
-Not only that, he was the first President to call for national health care

Nixon was groundbreaking both diplomatically and socially, but Watergate completely shrouded the political legacy he left behind...

Despite the fact that Nixon is a criminal, I can't help but pitty the man simply because of the wonders the man did for this nation.

[hippie_hunter]

Here's my top 10 list

-Truman
-Lincoln
-FDR
-Teddy
-Nixon
-Eisenhower
-LBJ
-Jefferson
-Polk
-Jackson

I think LBJ doesn't deserve to be on the list for fully escallating the Vietnam War on what has been proven to be an outright lie (Gulf of Tonkin).

And Jackson shouldn't be on there for him being responsible for the deaths of 5,000 Native Americans and forcing them off their land with his Indian Removal Act.

Minus those two I'd agree with that list.

[StorminNorman]

FDR did what was necessary for the time of the Great Depression. The primary point of the New Deal in my opinion, was to help those who were suffering from the faultering economy.

Would they work in a different situation? No, and it's evident that there are aspects of the New Deal which have become relics today (such as Social Security).

But with his leadership for the Great Depression and World War II, FDR deserves a spot in the top 10.

The New Deal did little to stimulate the economy and made citizens dependent on their government which goes against the basic principals of the founding fathers.

While his leadership in WWII is commendable, I don't see anything he did to be different from anything any other President would of done.

In fact if one believes the idea that FDR had prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor, would could say that does a bit to damage his image.

[StorminNorman]

Yet again you spout off crap you don't know what you're talking about.

Bush was a bad President but there are those who are far worse than him.

James Buchanan allowed the Civil War to happen. Herbert Hoover did absolutely nothing to help those suffering from the Great Depression. Andrew Johnson tried to destroy Reconstruction. Warren Harding did absoutely nothing, had an extremely corrupt Administration. Franklin Pierce and John Tyler are traitors who supported the Confederacy. Jimmy Carter was an inept President, despite his excellent post-Presidency career. Despite being a great President, Richard Nixon is a criminal. And JFK is the most overrated President in history.

Don't forget General Grant who was a corrupt drunk.

That won re-election in spite of everyone knowing he was a...corrupt drunk.

[StorminNorman]

Has anyone seen Stone's NIXON?

I bought it last thursday and have been finding time in my schedule to watch the near 4 hour film.

[Addendum]

I kinda remember the commercials for it, but it didn't really appeal to me.

[The Senator]

Has anyone seen Stone's NIXON?

I bought it last thursday and have been finding time in my schedule to watch the near 4 hour film.

It's fairly good, though Stone exaggerates a whole bunch of **** and tries to make Nixon look as if he was mentally insane towards the end of his presidency.

[rdh007]

In fairness, being President can probably do that to you.

[YsoSerious]

...and that's a sad statement.

[The Senator]

In fairness, being President can probably do that to you.

Except I've read three Nixon biographies and no history of mental illness was reported in either one of them...

[Superman]

Most people are idiots :( That's the first thing you've ever said that I can't argue with.:csad:

[StorminNorman]

That's the first thing you've ever said that I can't argue with.:csad:

Lets build on that :heart:

[jaguarr]

This is a thread meant for the discussion of George W. Bush. His policies. His actions in office. And post-presidency.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aBjr65bpoMUk&refer=us

Bush Says Companies Need the Protection of the Wiretapping Law
By Holly Rosenkrantz
Feb. 23 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=George+W.+Bush&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) called on Congress to quickly pass wiretapping legislation when it returns from a recess on Feb. 25, saying that telecommunications companies need the law to help the government monitor foreign terrorists.
``The House's refusal to act is undermining our ability to get cooperation from private companies, and that undermines our effort to protect us from terrorist attacks,'' Bush said in his weekly radio address, the second week in a row he has discussed the issue.
The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives has balked at passing a Bush-backed bill that would give telecommunications companies such as AT&T Inc. protection from privacy lawsuits for helping the administration conduct wiretapping without warrants.
The bill, approved by the Senate, would extend the spying authority for six years. The prior law expired Feb. 16 after Bush said he wouldn't sign a brief extension while the House debated the issue.
Democrats argued the law's expiration wouldn't hobble surveillance of foreign-based terrorists or other enemies, since orders issued to telephone companies under the law remain in effect for a year.
Bush, in his radio address, said lawmakers who oppose the legislation are favoring trial lawyers over national security. ``Terrorists are planning the next attack on America,'' Bush said. ``To protect America from such attacks, we must protect our telecommunications companies from abusive lawsuits.''
Intelligence Lost
The Bush administration told Congress yesterday that the U.S. has lost intelligence about terrorists, and some telephone companies have reduced cooperation on intercepting phone calls and e-mails in the week since the wiretapping law expired.
Some carriers cut back their cooperation because of uncertainty created by the end of legal protection, Attorney General Michael Mukasey (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Michael+Mukasey&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) and National Intelligence Director J. Michael McConnell (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Michael+McConnell&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) said in a letter to Representative Silvestre Reyes (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Silvestre%0AReyes&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), a Texas Democrat and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.










I really dislike this piece of legislation and hope it stays dead.



jag

[The Senator]

I disagree with giving the telecomm agency retroactive immunity, but I wholeheartedly believe we should continue warranted wiretapping.

[jaguarr]

Warranted wiretapping has always been there for the Feds to use when they need it. Giving them cart blanche to just wiretap whoever the hell they want, whenever the hell they want is ridiculous, though.

jag

[MaskedManJRK]

Yeah, the issue has become extremely partisaned, really. To some, if you don't agree with the administration's plan, well, you OBVIOIUSLY must be a commie pinko homosexual terrorist. :o

If they just fixed whatever problems there were and get quicker warrants and had someone overseeing it to make sure it's not abused, it wouldn't be an issue. But they just want to completely destroy the system to listen in to people's phone calls.

If it's broke--FIX IT, don't abandon it.

[Matt]

Does anyone else find it scary that corporations are recieving more rights than individuals?

[BMM]

Does anyone else find it scary that corporations are recieving more rights than individuals?

I was just thinking the same thing.

[jaguarr]

Does anyone else find it scary that corporations are recieving more rights than individuals?


Absolutely. The catering that the Bush Administration has done to corporations and big business has been horribly disgusting to me and this is yet another example of it. Big business drives policy in this country, now. They pretty much write most of the legislation and policy that gets pumped through the government and none of it is designed to do anything but maximize their profits, regardless of whether it hurts regular Americans or not. This is yet another example of the government trying to give corporations special rights in return for helping them exercise even more control over the general populace. Disgusting.

jag

[demento]

Bob Geldof writes for Time about his visit to Africa with the president. He makes some interesting observations, especially on the contrary nature of Bush's world view. Check it out:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1717934,00.html

[jaguarr]

I gave the president my book. He raised an eyebrow. "Who wrote this for ya, Geldof?" he said without looking up from the cover. Very dry. "Who will you get to read it for you, Mr. President?" I replied. No response.

:funny:

jag

[Dark Vigilante]

It wasn't awkward. It wasn't uncomfortable. He is convinced, like Tony Blair, that he made the right decision. "I'm comfortable with that decision," he says. But he can't be. The laws of unintended consequences would determine that. At one point I suggest that he will never be given credit for good policies, like those here in Africa, because many people view him "as a walking crime against humanity." He looks very hurt by that. And I'm sorry I said it, because he's a very likable fellow.

For once...in my whole life...I actually felt pity for President Bush.

It is sad, when you think about it. This guy thinks he's doing God's will, and its so twisted that you cant help but feel bad for him.

[demento]

:funny:

jag
Sir Bob sure has a pair of big shiny ones, don't he? :woot:

[Memphis Slim]

Bush explains veto of waterboarding bill
By JENNIFER LOVEN,
Associated Press Writer2 hours, 17 minutes ago



President Bush said Saturday he vetoed legislation that would ban the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods such as waterboarding to break suspected terrorists because it would end practices that have prevented attacks.

"The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror," Bush said in his weekly radio address taped for broadcast Saturday. "So today I vetoed it," Bush said. The bill provides guidelines for intelligence activities for the year and includes the interrogation requirement. It passed the House in December and the Senate last month.

"This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe," the president said.
Supporters of the legislation say it would preserve the United States' ability to collect critical intelligence and raise country's moral standing abroad.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress would work to override Bush's veto next week. "In the final analysis, our ability to lead the world will depend not only on our military might, but on our moral authority," said Pelosi, D-Calif.
But based on the margin of passage in each chamber, it would be difficult for the Democratic-controlled Congress to turn back the veto. It takes a two-thirds majority, and the House vote was 222-199 and the Senate's was 51-45.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Bush often warns against ignoring the advice of U.S. commanders on the ground in Iraq. Yet the president has rejected the Army Field Manual, which recognizes that harsh interrogation tactics elicit unreliable information, said Reid, D-Nev.
"Democrats will continue working to reverse the damage President Bush has caused to our standing in the world," Reid said.
Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch, said Bush "will go down in history as the torture president" for defying Congress and allowing the CIA to use interrogation techniques "that any reasonable observer would call torture."

"The Bush administration continues to insist that CIA and other nonmilitary interrogators are not bound by the military rules and has reportedly given CIA interrogators the green light to use a range of so-called 'enhanced' interrogation techniques, including prolonged sleep deprivation, painful stress positions, and exposure to extreme cold," Daskal said. "Although waterboarding is not currently approved for use by the CIA, Attorney General Michael Mukasey has refused to take it off the table for the future."

The intelligence bill would limit CIA interrogators to the 19 techniques allowed for use by military questioners. The Army field manual in 2006 banned using methods such as waterboarding or sensory deprivation on uncooperative prisoners.

Bush said the CIA must retain use of "specialized interrogation procedures" that the military does not need. The military methods are designed for questioning "lawful combatants captured on the battlefield," while intelligence professionals are dealing with "hardened terrorists" who have been trained to resist the techniques in the Army manual, the president said.

"We created alternative procedures to question the most dangerous al-Qaida operatives, particularly those who might have knowledge of attacks planned on our homeland," Bush said. "If we were to shut down this program and restrict the CIA to methods in the field manual, we could lose vital information from senior al-Qaida terrorists, and that could cost American lives."

The 19 interrogation techniques include the "good cop/bad cop" routine; making prisoners think they are in another country's custody; and separating a prisoner from others for up to 30 days.

Among the techniques the field manual prohibits are:
_hooding prisoners or putting duct tape across their eyes.
_stripping prisoners naked.

_forcing prisoners to perform or mimic sexual acts.
_beating, burning or physically hurting them in other ways.
_subjecting prisoners to hypothermia or mock executions.
It does not allow food, water and medical treatment to be withheld. Dogs may not be used in any aspect of interrogation.
But waterboarding is the most high-profile and contentious method in question.

It involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning. It has been traced back hundreds of years to the Spanish Inquisition and is condemned by nations around the world and human rights organizations as torture.

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 includes a provision barring cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment for all detainees, including CIA prisoners, in U.S. custody. Many people believe that covers waterboarding.
There are concerns that the use of waterboarding would undermine the U.S. human rights efforts overseas and could place Americans at greater risk of being tortured when captured.

The military specifically prohibited waterboarding in 2006. The CIA also prohibited the practice in 2006 and says it has not been used since three prisoners encountered it in 2003.

But the administration has refused to rule definitively on whether it is torture. Bush has said many times that his administration does not torture.
The White House says waterboarding remains among the interrogation methods potentially available to the CIA. "Because the danger remains, we need to ensure our intelligence officials have all the tools they need to stop the terrorists," Bush said.


__________________________________________________ __________

It has not been taken off the table because it works. Simple as that. :dry:

Why do we care about terrorist more than we care about our children and nation?

[Genesis 1.0]

This is definitely a slippery slope, but I'd say that I agree with the basic sentiment in this article. I really don't see it as wise to handcuff our agents when the self-same actions have prevented possible attacks from coming to fruition.

At the same time, you have to draw that line in the sand somewhere.

[Memphis Slim]

The line is pretty clear for me.

US or THEM.


I choose "us".

[SentinelMind]

^Memphis...2 questions...

1)do you think waterboarding is torture?

2) do you support torture?

[Docker2.0]

I actually think torture is ok if they do it to us........................which you know they do since they be-head innocent civilians. As much as I can't stand Bush, I agree with him on this. If you don't do this, sooner or later, you'll be seeing car bombs going off frequently in your city or neighborhood...............like the idiot in NYC on the bike.

[hippie_hunter]

Bush's views on torture have shamed this nation greatly. The United States is supposed to be the defender of human rights, not an abuser. And this makes us look as bad as them. We're supposed to have the moral high ground, but this makes us dirty.

[Darkly Dexter]

^^^ of course he does...

He is insane.

[Darkly Dexter]

Bush's views on torture have shamed this nation greatly. The United States is supposed to be the defender of human rights, not an abuser. And this makes us look as bad as them. We're supposed to have the moral high ground, but this makes us dirty.


Totally. You can't call yourself a democratic country if you don't respect the most basic human rights.

[Memphis Slim]

^Memphis...2 questions...

1)do you think waterboarding is torture?

2) do you support torture?

2 questions for you....


1. Will you do what is necessary to protect your family?

2. Why do killers get so much sympathy from you guys?

[hippie_hunter]

2 questions for you....


1. Will you do what is necessary to protect your family?

2. Why do killers get so much sympathy from you guys?

1. How does torture protect our families?

2. They don't get our sympathy. We're saying that we shouldn't be doing the same things they do and shame ourselves with it.

[Franklin Richards]

Let's just round up all the Non Americans and put them in gas chambers. I mean... It's us or them.


:doom: :doom: :doom:

[Memphis Slim]

1. How does torture protect our families?

2. They don't get our sympathy. We're saying that we shouldn't be doing the same things they do and shame ourselves with it.


1. We get information to stop bigger threats. If it didn't work they'd stop doing it.

2. Terrorists see kindness as weakness. You're banking on them thinking like you do. NEWS FLASH: THEY DON'T! The real shame would to ask nicely and get nothing, then watch another major American city (maybe yours) go down. If the terrorist shoot you, you don't give them options.

[brobdingnag]

Totally. You can't call yourself a democratic country if you don't respect the most basic human rights.

Sure you can. Democracy is a form of government. Torture is an action. The two have no relationship at all. They are simply not related.

[Addendum]

In 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk. He was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2006/10/05/PH2006100500898.jpg

The above photo was taken during the Vietnam war. The American soldiers were waterboarding a North Vietnamese POW. One month later they were court-martialled and thrown out of the Army.

Acting head of the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, Steven Bradbury, testified on 2-14-2008 that: "There has been no determination by the Justice Department that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law"

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/02/waterboarding-not-authorized-under.php


The President has no damn clue what he's talking about

[hippie_hunter]

Sure you can. Democracy is a form of government. Torture is an action. The two have no relationship at all. They are simply not related.

Democracy requires the respect of human rights in order to be properly functional.

[Matt]

I personally support Dershowitz's idea of a torture WARRANT.

[Matt]

Also, changing the name of this thread as the title is entirely biased and really does not reflect the article or nature of discussion in the thread and in turn will only lead to flame wars.

[SentinelMind]

2 questions for you....


1. Will you do what is necessary to protect your family?

2. Why do killers get so much sympathy from you guys?

I'll answer your questions...and i hope in return you'll answer mine....

1. I would do what is necessary to protect my family. I think fighting in self-defense is protected in a court-of-law. Do I think the federal government should torture prisoners and subject them to treatment that have killed people....and thus show what we do to prisoners we hold captive....no I do not.

2. Killers don't get sympathy from me. I just think having values to respect certain level of human rights and international law allows the United States of America to shine as a beacon of democracy and human decency to the world. We need to demonstrate that our values and respect for human dignity is better than our enemy's, regardless of what they do. I don't agree with the argument that because our enemy is shameless and has no dignity that our military should act the same way.

[The Chairman]

I'll restate my feelings from the other thread:


While I do think we should do what we can to keep our country safe, we also need to draw a line. Torture is illegal, and it shouldn't be done. And while we probably have prevented attacks as Bush said, I would like to think it was due to the intelligence of our own protection agencies rather than us violating human rights issues. And in a way, torture can be even more devastating because of its pyschological events. A person probably won't be able to comprehend the details of a potential terrorist attack after being tortured to in an unprecedented extreme.

Just my views.

[redfirebird2008]

The Torture Party strikes again. :woot:

[jaguarr]

I would like to waterboard Bush.

jag

[Arkady Rossovich]

I would like to waterboard Bush.

jag

After all he has done..in a way he does deserve it himself.

Bush's views on torture have shamed this nation greatly. The United States is supposed to be the defender of human rights, not an abuser. And this makes us look as bad as them. We're supposed to have the moral high ground, but this makes us dirty.

That's right. America is meant to say that this is bad,not do it them selfs. It goes to show that Bush is doing this,and is shaming everyone.

[Iron Fist]

Bush is a moron, I mean what kind of President laughs at the fact that gas prices have gone up? For all he's done Bush can be described in many words, but for me, he's nothing but a criminal.

[Memphis Slim]

In 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk. He was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.



So..... it "does" work!!! :wow:

That's why we should keep it.

[Memphis Slim]

Water boarding is the least of the interrogation techniques..........


The Hanoi Hilton was depicted in the eponymous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eponym) 1987 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987) Hollywood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood) movie The Hanoi Hilton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hanoi_Hilton_%28film%29).

Only part of the prison exists today as a museum. Most of it was demolished during the construction of a high rise that now occupies most of the site. The interrogation room where many newly captured Americans were questioned (notorious among former prisoners as the "blue room") is now made up to look like a very comfortable, if spartan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconic_phrase), barracks-style room. Displays in the room claim that Americans were treated well and not harmed. Former prisoners' published memoirs and oral histories broadcast on C-SPAN identify the room (and other nearby locales) as the site of numerous acts of torture. Murder, beatings, broken bones, teeth and eardrums, dislocated limbs, starvation, serving of food contaminated with human and animal feces and medical neglect of infections and tropical disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease) are matter-of-fact details revealed in famous accounts by McCain, Denton, Alvarez, Day, Risner, Stockdale, Johnson and dozens of others.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/26/Hilton_hn.jpg/220px-Hilton_hn.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hilton_hn.jpg) [/URL]
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hanoi_Tower&action=edit&redlink=1"]Hanoi Tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hilton_hn.jpg) (built on the land of the infamous prison "Hanoi Hilton")



There is now a Hilton Hotel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilton_Hotel) in Hanoi, called the Hilton Hanoi Opera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilton_Hanoi_Opera) Hotel, which opened in 1999. It was built decades after the Vietnam War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) was over, but Hilton carefully avoided reusing the dreaded name Hanoi Hilton.

__________________________________________________ _____

So please....cry me a river for these terrorist thugs who get boarded. I want information. And if we ain't doing that Hanoi Hilton stuff, get over it. :yay:

[The Senator]

Water boarding is the least of the interrogation techniques..........


The Hanoi Hilton was depicted in the eponymous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eponym) 1987 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987) Hollywood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood) movie The Hanoi Hilton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hanoi_Hilton_%28film%29).

Only part of the prison exists today as a museum. Most of it was demolished during the construction of a high rise that now occupies most of the site. The interrogation room where many newly captured Americans were questioned (notorious among former prisoners as the "blue room") is now made up to look like a very comfortable, if spartan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconic_phrase), barracks-style room. Displays in the room claim that Americans were treated well and not harmed. Former prisoners' published memoirs and oral histories broadcast on C-SPAN identify the room (and other nearby locales) as the site of numerous acts of torture. Murder, beatings, broken bones, teeth and eardrums, dislocated limbs, starvation, serving of food contaminated with human and animal feces and medical neglect of infections and tropical disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease) are matter-of-fact details revealed in famous accounts by McCain, Denton, Alvarez, Day, Risner, Stockdale, Johnson and dozens of others.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/26/Hilton_hn.jpg/220px-Hilton_hn.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hilton_hn.jpg) [/URL]
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hanoi_Tower&action=edit&redlink=1"]Hanoi Tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hilton_hn.jpg) (built on the land of the infamous prison "Hanoi Hilton")



There is now a Hilton Hotel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilton_Hotel) in Hanoi, called the Hilton Hanoi Opera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilton_Hanoi_Opera) Hotel, which opened in 1999. It was built decades after the Vietnam War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) was over, but Hilton carefully avoided reusing the dreaded name Hanoi Hilton.

__________________________________________________ _____

So please....cry me a river for these terrorist thugs who get boarded. I want information. And if we ain't doing that Hanoi Hilton stuff, get over it. :yay:

This exactly why we shouldn't engage in torture, especially if we're going to use it as an instrument of vengeance more than anything. Not only that, but we're stooping to these guys' levels by engaging in such acts. Sure, now it's only waterboarding. But who's to say it'll stop there? What if waterboarding becomes ineffective? What if we have to start breaking bones, smashing teeth or shoving bamboo shoots in their fingernails to get them talk?

This makes us no better than the terrorists who engage in far more brutal activities.

[Marx]

What exactly is the difference between this torture veto thread and the Discussion: Torture thread?

[brobdingnag]

This exactly why we shouldn't engage in torture, especially if we're going to use it as an instrument of vengeance more than anything. Not only that, but we're stooping to these guys' levels by engaging in such acts. Sure, now it's only waterboarding. But who's to say it'll stop there? What if waterboarding becomes ineffective? What if we have to start breaking bones, smashing teeth or shoving bamboo shoots in their fingernails to get them talk?

This makes us no better than the terrorists who engage in far more brutal activities.

The funny thing is that if there were a democrat in office doing exactly the same thing there wouldn't be a peep about it.

[The Senator]

The funny thing is that if there were a democrat in office doing exactly the same thing there wouldn't be a peep about it.

No, that's entirely untrue. I am against torture and human rights violations under all circumstances. These violations know no party, Republican or Democrat; they know no country of origin, United States or Iraq; and they shouldn't tolerated at all, regardless of who is doing or receiving the act of torture. These practices are flat out disgusting and inhumane, and I refuse to support them.

[brobdingnag]

No, that's entirely untrue. I am against torture and human rights violations under all circumstances. These violations know no party, Republican or Democrat; they know no country of origin, United States or Iraq; and they shouldn't tolerated at all, regardless of who is doing or receiving the act of torture. These practices are flat out disgusting and inhumane, and I refuse to support them.

I disagree. I believe that democrats and liberals do not really care about this issue and only use it as political weapons.

[The Senator]

I disagree. I believe that democrats and liberals do not really care about his issue and only use it as political weapons.

Then you're completely blind then, when you have someone as active a Democrat as myself speaking out against it. I have Democratic constituents call into my office everyday concerned that their Democratic Senator or Congressman or Presidential candidate of choice will support these practices. If one of my candidates came out and said that they supported waterboarding, I would certainly question whether or not I would support them. I am strongly opposed to this issue, and like I said, to me, it knows no party whatsoever.

[brobdingnag]

Then you're completely blind then,.

Isn't that a personal attack?

[The Senator]

Isn't that a personal attack?

No, it's pointing out a damn fact, when I've said it flat out to you, twice now, that I oppose it regardless of the political party wishing to perform the act. You're ignoring what I've said, and posting baseless claims when I've refuted you time and time again.

[Addendum]

So..... it "does" work!!! :wow:

That's why we should keep it.

It said that he would talk. It doesn't say what he said, it doesn't say if what he said was true.

Your entire point about waterboarding is that in some fictional reality, that what is said by torture will prevent some attack. However, there is no proof that torture gets people to "tell the truth".

[rdh007]

I'm against waterboarding and other such techniques only in that I don't want those things to happen to Americans. If we do it, it gives free reign to everyone else (legit governments) to do it back.

[brobdingnag]

No, it's pointing out a damn fact, when I've said it flat out to you, twice now, that I oppose it regardless of the political party wishing to perform the act. You're ignoring what I've said, and posting baseless claims when I've refuted you time and time again.

We'll you have certainly posted your opinion, but your opinion is not fact. You are not the democratic party, nor are you liberals in general. My opinion is that liberals and democrats in general are more interested in political power than national security.

[Addendum]

And your opinion isn't fact, nor is it an original one.

[The Senator]

We'll you have certainly posted your opinion, but your opinion is not fact. You are not the democratic party, nor are you liberals in general. My opinion is that liberals and democrats in general are more interested in political power than national security.

I get dozens of calls a day on this topic in my office. People who are right-most Democrats; people who are left-most Democrats-- most of the people who call my office are Democrats, and they're concerned that their Democratic rep will support it. This issue extends beyond party.

[brobdingnag]

I get dozens of calls a day on this topic in my office. People who are right-most Democrats; people who are left-most Democrats-- most of the people who call my office are Democrats, and they're concerned that their Democratic rep will support it. This issue extends beyond party.

But then I don't know what you are saying to be true. A cast of anonymous supporting characters is easily invented isn't it? But lets assume it is true. So what? There are what 150 + million liberals and democrats in the country? You have 12 people calling you.

[The Senator]

But then I don't know what you are saying to be true. A cast of anonymous supporting characters is easily invented isn't it? But lets assume it is true. So what? There are what 150 + million liberals and democrats in the country? You have 12 people calling you.

Yeah, that cast is easily invented. Just like your military credentials. For all I know, you're probably some couch potato who thinks playing SOCOM all day qualifies you as a military expert.

[brobdingnag]

Yeah, that cast is easily invented. Just like your military credentials. For all I know, you're probably some couch potato who thinks playing SOCOM all day qualifies you as a military expert.

Agreed. So now we are back to our personal opinions. Yours is that liberals and democrats care about national security and mine is that they do not. I pay attention to people's actions, not their words. And in my opinion liberals and democrats actions since 9/11 at a minimum frame them as terrorist sympathizers. If that doesn't include you, you are free to say so but that doesn't change my mind about the left in general. In my opinion the left and the right in the US simply cannot coexist any longer. Quite frankly I think the US should be broken up along ideological lines into two or more countries. Hopefully that will happen by a vote but if it takes a civil war then I think it is better that it happen than we continue to have to countries split down the middle as the US is now.

[Addendum]

How are "liberals and democrats" "terrorist sympathizers"? Because they don't follow lock step with what the administration says? Because they question some of the policies of the government? Because they have the gall to disagree?

[Darthphere]

^Memphis...2 questions...

1)do you think waterboarding is torture?

2) do you support torture?

Hey Slim, how about answering the man's questions.

[brobdingnag]

How are "liberals and democrats" "terrorist sympathizers"? Because they don't follow lock step with what the administration says? Because they question some of the policies of the government? Because they have the gall to disagree?

No, because they are do not want a secure border, they want terrorists to have jury trials in the hopes of protecting them, they want to limit the ability of our intelligence agencies to protect us, they bomb US recruiting stations, they call themselves "human shields" and try to interfere in our military operations, they call our military men and women unwelcome intruders in their cities, etc. These things are not simple disagreement they are treason.

[The Senator]

No, because they are do not want a secure border, they want terrorists to have jury trials in the hopes of protecting them, they want to limit the ability of our intelligence agencies to protect us, they bomb US recruiting stations, they call themselves "human shields" and try to interfere in our military operations, they call our military men and women unwelcome intruders in their cities, etc. These things are not simple disagreement they are treason.

I'm tired of arguing with you, because everything you say is so outlandishly false that even if I were to argue with you, you'd call me a "terrorist sympathizer" and would continue to peg policy disagreements as an excuse for treasonous activities. Thank you for proving that the illogical, senseless, fear-mongering right-wing attack machine still exists :up:

[The Chairman]

No, because they are do not want a secure border, they want terrorists to have jury trials in the hopes of protecting them, they want to limit the ability of our intelligence agencies to protect us, they bomb US recruiting stations, they call themselves "human shields" and try to interfere in our military operations, they call our military men and women unwelcome intruders in their cities, etc. These things are not simple disagreement they are treason.

That's the far left whackjobs. With the exception of Harry Reid calling the troops cowards, not one Democrat has undermined the troops in anyway. They don't want to protect terrorists, but they are required to ensure them to a fair trail. If monsters like Charles Manson can get one, so can terrorists. You're generalizing and are as bad as those who paint conservatives as religious fanatic whackjobs who love wars.

And Obama wants to secure the borders.

[The Senator]

Agreed. So now we are back to our personal opinions. Yours is that liberals and democrats care about national security and mine is that they do not. I pay attention to people's actions, not their words. And in my opinion liberals and democrats actions since 9/11 at a minimum frame them as terrorist sympathizers. If that doesn't include you, you are free to say so but that doesn't change my mind about the left in general. In my opinion the left and the right in the US simply cannot coexist any longer. Quite frankly I think the US should be broken up along ideological lines into two or more countries. Hopefully that will happen by a vote but if it takes a civil war then I think it is better that it happen than we continue to have to countries split down the middle as the US is now.

And the left-leaning country would be more safe. Why? Because the right-leaning country would do everything it can to provoke the terrorists into attacking them. It's like messing with an alligator, you know. Yeah, we're humans, we're more powerful, we can overtake them. But we should be smart enough not to walk up to it and smack it in the snout, otherwise we're dead. That's what your right-wing country would keep on doing. You'd keep building bases where they're unwanted; you'd keep policing states that don't want to be policed; and you'd keep orchestrating wars so you can look all high and mighty.

But really... why am I arguing this? :huh:

[brobdingnag]

That's the far left whackjobs. With the exception of Harry Reid calling the troops cowards, not one Democrat has undermined the troops in anyway.

And Obama wants to secure the borders.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Voting not to fund the war after it was started includes about 90% of democrats. That alone puts them firmly on the side of the enemy.

[brobdingnag]

And the left-leaning country would be more safe. Why? Because the right-leaning country would do everything it can to provoke the terrorists into attacking them. It's like messing with an alligator, you know. Yeah, we're humans, we're more powerful, we can overtake them. But we should be smart enough not to walk up to it and smack it in the snout, otherwise we're dead. That's what your right-wing country would keep on doing. You'd keep building bases where they're unwanted; you'd keep policing states that don't want to be policed; and you'd keep orchestrating wars so you can look all high and mighty.

But really... why am I arguing this? :huh:

Wouldn't you like to be rid of people like me? Wouldn't much rather have a country that runs itself more closely to the way you would like it run? Think of the socialist utopia you could create without people like me ruining it!

[Marx]

And the left-leaning country would be more safe. Why? Because the right-leaning country would do everything it can to provoke the terrorists into attacking them. It's like messing with an alligator, you know. Yeah, we're humans, we're more powerful, we can overtake them. But we should be smart enough not to walk up to it and smack it in the snout, otherwise we're dead. That's what your right-wing country would keep on doing. You'd keep building bases where they're unwanted; you'd keep policing states that don't want to be policed; and you'd keep orchestrating wars so you can look all high and mighty.

But really... why am I arguing this? :huh:

I've given up arguing with some, there's no point.

[brobdingnag]

I've given up arguing with some, there's no point.

Giving up and liberalism, it's like cheese and crackers.

[The Chairman]

When did the Dems cut funding? I know liberals such as myself, who, while in full disagreement towards the war, fully support the troops and think they should 100 % make sure their safe. Stop it with your little generalization and grow up.

[The Chairman]

Giving up and liberalism, it's like cheese and crackers.

Stupidity and modern day conservatism share a similar relationship.

[Marx]

Giving up and liberalism, it's like cheese and crackers.

When did the Dems cut funding? I know liberals such as myself, who, while in full disagreement towards the war, fully support the troops and think they should 100 % make sure their safe. Stop it with your little generalization and grow up.

Stupidity and modern day conservatism share a similar relationship.

The thread I started on this same exact topic was hijacked by this nonsense too. I'm not sure about the Dems funding cutoff, I'll have to look it up, I can't remember at the moment.

[brobdingnag]

Stop it with your little generalization and grow up.

Uh oh, that looks like a personal attack. As far as democrats are concerned they attempted to cut funding to force a withdrawal from Iraq but failed.

[brobdingnag]

When did the Dems cut funding? I know liberals such as myself, who, while in full disagreement towards the war, fully support the troops and think they should 100 % make sure their safe. Stop it with your little generalization and grow up.

The thread I started on this same exact topic was hijacked by this nonsense too. I'm not sure about the Dems funding cutoff, I'll have to look it up, I can't remember at the moment.

Your definition of hijacking is when someone disagrees with you.

[Matt]

Brobdingnag, I am only going to say this once. Either debate like an adult or leave the political forum. Every post you make seems to be a shot at liberals as opposed to making actual arguments. If you keep this up, I will consider it trolling and ensure your account is unable to enter the political forum of this board. Capici?

[ShadowBoxing]

In all seriousness, Bush was just concerned that this ban would totally ruin his trip to "Ragin' Waters" this summer.

[The Chairman]

Uh oh, that looks like a personal attack. As far as democrats are concerned they attempted to cut funding to force a withdrawal from Iraq but failed.

You attacked first. And at least I put up an argument.

[brobdingnag]

Brobdingnag, I am only going to say this once. Either debate like an adult or leave the political forum. Every post you make seems to be a shot at liberals as opposed to making actual arguments. If you keep this up, I will consider it trolling and ensure your account is unable to enter the political forum of this board. Capici?

The real reason you are going to ban me is because this is a liberal board. So you might as well do it because we both know that conservative opinions are not allowed.

[The Chairman]

The real reason you are going to ban me is because this is a liberal board. So you might as well do it because we both know that conservative opinions are not allowed.

Then Memphis Slim would've been out of here a long time ago, as would Moviefan2k4, who doesn't post here anymore and never voiced his political views anyway.

You don't state opinions, you don't back up your points, you don't provide the impetus for an intelligent argument. You throw out biased, offensive and unwarranted generalizations towards an opposing political spectrum and nothing more. At least Slim provides sources for his arguments, superhumanly biased as they may be.

There are many conservative - or, to be more accurate, conservative leaning - posters on these boards. StorminNorman, hippie hunter, and even Matt, though a Democrat, have fairly conservative views in comparison to the more liberal members of the Hype. (I myself have a fair bit of conservatism in me thanks to my dad.) They provide logical arguments, back up their points, don't insult others and are just in general much more knowledgable than you come across as.

[Matt]

The real reason you are going to ban me is because this is a liberal board. So you might as well do it because we both know that conservative opinions are not allowed.

SHH is based out of Texas. Malice is conservative, Immortalfire, conservative, Hippie_Hunter, yep. Kel, fiscally conservative. In fact, I am really the only outspoken liberal moderator and even I will admit to leaning towards being more fiscally conservative than anything else and am only really liberal in social and foreign aspects and worker's rights. The rest of the staff is politically apathetic or just does not talk politics it in public. So yeah, its really not. Just state your opinion like an adult and you will have no trouble. Continue to troll and you and your other account will be banned.

[brobdingnag]

Then Memphis Slim would've been out of here a long time ago, as would Moviefan2k4, who doesn't post here anymore and never voiced his political views anyway.

You don't state opinions, you don't back up your points, you don't provide the impetus for an intelligent argument. You throw out biased, offensive and unwarranted generalizations towards an opposing political spectrum and nothing more. At least Slim provides sources for his arguments, superhumanly biased as they may be.

There are many conservative - or, to be more accurate, conservative leaning - posters on these boards. StorminNorman, hippie hunter, and even Matt, though a Democrat, have fairly conservative views in comparison to the more liberal members of the Hype. They provide logical arguments, back up their points, don't insult others and are just in general much more knowledgable than you come across as.

No, you are simply ignoring the facts I have put out there.

[The Chairman]

SHH is based out of Texas. Malice is conservative, Immortalfire, conservative, Hippie_Hunter, yep. Kel, fiscally conservative. In fact, I am really the only outspoken liberal moderator and even I will admit to leaning towards being more fiscally conservative than anything else and am only really liberal in social and foreign aspects and worker's rights. The rest of the staff is politically apathetic or just does not talk politics it in public. So yeah, its really not. Just state your opinion like an adult and you will have no trouble. Continue to troll and you and your other account will be banned.

Forgot about Immortalfire.

[brobdingnag]

SHH is based out of Texas. Malice is conservative, Immortalfire, conservative, Hippie_Hunter, yep. Kel, fiscally conservative. In fact, I am really the only outspoken liberal moderator and even I will admit to leaning towards being more fiscally conservative than anything else and am only really liberal in social and foreign aspects and worker's rights. The rest of the staff is politically apathetic or just does not talk politics it in public. So yeah, its really not. Just state your opinion like an adult and you will have no trouble. Continue to troll and you and your other account will be banned.

Uh I only have one account and I have not trolled at all. Saying I think that liberals are intent on undermining our security is a valid opinion that I have backed up in this forum.

[Showtime]

The real reason you are going to ban me is because this is a liberal board. So you might as well do it because we both know that conservative opinions are not allowed.

Your opinion seems to be more anti-liberal than pro-conservative. There is a difference.

[Matt]

Forgot about Immortalfire.

SHH is based out of Texas. Malice is conservative, Immortalfire, conservative, Hippie_Hunter, yep. Kel, fiscally conservative. In fact, I am really the only outspoken liberal moderator and even I will admit to leaning towards being more fiscally conservative than anything else and am only really liberal in social and foreign aspects and worker's rights. The rest of the staff is politically apathetic or just does not talk politics it in public. So yeah, its really not. Just state your opinion like an adult and you will have no trouble. Continue to troll and you and your other account will be banned.

:huh:

[Showtime]

The other immortalfire.

[The Chairman]

No, you are simply ignoring the facts I have put out there.

What facts? You threw out a bunch of either inane generalities or briefly and poorly summarized events perpetrated by far left lunatics who don't represent the Democrats any more accurately than guys like Pat Robertson and Anne Coulter represent the Republicans. What facts did you present us? At least Slim provides articles (again, the bias alert level is at Orange, but it's something).

[Matt]

Uh I only have one account and I have not trolled at all.

We both know that isn't true. And yes, you have. When you continuously insult other users based on their political affiliation in various threads (often driving them off topic) while posting nothing to back up your claim, you have trolled. Straighten up, NOW. One more word on this matter out of you and you're gone.

[The Chairman]

:huh:

I meant in my post before yours. Forgot about Kel, too. What about DBella? She also moderates these forums. Don't really know her views.

[brobdingnag]

We both know that isn't true. And yes, you have. When you continuously insult other users based on their political affiliation in various threads (often driving them off topic) while posting nothing to back up your claim, you have trolled. Straighten up, NOW. One more word on this matter out of you and you're gone.

I do not have another account.

[Matt]

I meant in my post before yours. Forgot about Kel, too. What about DBella? She also moderates these forums. Don't really know her views.

I think she likes it that way. Allows her to be a nonpartisan, unbiased, observer.

[Matt]

I do not have another account.

What part of not another word on the matter did you not understand. Take a couple days off. Use them to read up on how to discuss something as opposed to just insulting liberals to support your stance like a common troll.

[The Chairman]

I think she likes it that way. Allows her to be a nonpartisan, unbiased, observer.

Ah.

There are some far lefties, here, to be sure. Gotta balance the spectrum.

[Addendum]

No, because they are do not want a secure border
Like a fence or wall along the US-Mexican border will stop people from crossing and the country will be secure. There was a similar thing in Berlin from 1961 to 1989 called "The Berlin Wall". There were 5,000 illegal crossings from East Berlin to West Berlin. A fence or wall will not prohibit people from crossing a border.

jury trials in the hopes of protecting them
After World War 2, instead of simply killing the prominent members of the Nazi Party in Germany, the Allies had trials in Nuremburg from 1945 to 1949. Unlike the victims of the Nazis, the Allies would follow the rule of law so there would be no mistaking the difference between the Allies and the Nazis.

they want to limit the ability of our intelligence agencies to protect us

Despite the temper tantrums of Bush and some neo-cons, the ability to gather intelligence is not diminished because Congress did not grant retroactive immunity to the telecommunications industry that monitored everything domestic (every email you sent, every bid you placed on ebay, every time you visited a porn site) on the basis that the terrorists would be dumb enough to not use a secure server, the FISA courts are still in place. There is not a backlog of cases or requests in the FISA courts so the agencies can obtain their warrants through it. If they need it urgently, they can obtain a retroactive request 3 days after they start. The law that Congress didn't renew is still active for another calendar year.

they bomb US recruiting stations

Provide proof to back up this claim.

Here's an article from Fox News "Law Enforcement: No Link Between Letter Sent to Congress, Times Square Bombing" (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335828,00.html)

they call themselves "human shields" and try to interfere in our military operations

Key word bolded there is try. None of the places the "Human shield action to Iraq" went to were destroyed. The group didn't make a dent in march to the invasion. The media gave nothing but scorn and mockery to the group as a majority of them left Iraq because of "safety reasons". So there nothing to get worked up about over a failed plan.

they call our military men and women unwelcome intruders in their cities

The first amendment protects speech, even the kind you disagree with. While I disagree with most of everything you claim about torture, I would fight to the death to protect your right to say it.

These things are not simple disagreement they are treason.

From Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained."

None of what you claimed meets the definition of treason.

[The Chairman]

Also, as to why the Hype may "seem" to be liberally biased:

Most of the posters here are under 30 (I'm 17), and anyone under that age range is generally liberal or at the very least leaning towards the left. Very rarely do you find someone in this age range leaning towards the right. StorminNorman is for sure an exception, and I think hippie_hunter is as well.

[Addendum]

I lean left or right or not at all depending on the issue.

[Darkly Dexter]

I'll answer your questions...and i hope in return you'll answer mine....

1. I would do what is necessary to protect my family. I think fighting in self-defense is protected in a court-of-law. Do I think the federal government should torture prisoners and subject them to treatment that have killed people....and thus show what we do to prisoners we hold captive....no I do not.

2. Killers don't get sympathy from me. I just think having values to respect certain level of human rights and international law allows the United States of America to shine as a beacon of democracy and human decency to the world. We need to demonstrate that our values and respect for human dignity is better than our enemy's, regardless of what they do. I don't agree with the argument that because our enemy is shameless and has no dignity that our military should act the same way.

Ditto. :up:

[Addendum]

First rule of the fanatic: When you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy.

[Nivek]

I'm a firm believer that our government should be able to torture people if we have to protect our peoples lives if it comes down to it. It's something that should be behind closed doors, and we should never, ever, hear about it. Just like when we assassinate people, or steal secrets from other countries.

However, I'm a firm believer that our leaders are retarded to keep drawing attention to the topic by NOT banning waterboarding. Is Bush that misinformed? Does he not understand the best way to keep something secret, is to not act like it exists? Did he not get the Memo? Does this guy read ANY memo's?

Gotta love Bush himself is destroying the Republican Party. He's soo screwing McCain's chances by doing this. McCain, who used to be very anti-torture (being tortured by our enemies for years should do that), has to support every bonehead decision El Presidente', including vetoing something that should look like a no-brainer. "Here, I sign this Law banning Waterboarding by the U.S. Goverment. Now John McCain doesn't have to get this thrown in his face all through the Election and look like a Hypocritical Flip Flopper". No, instead we have the current president and the guy who just got the knod who are having a quiet I screw you/Dont screw me or I'll screw you war going on behind the scenes. McCain needs to step up and not support the current President if he has any hope to win in November. If Not, he's just leaving it open to Obama.

[jaguarr]

Like a fence or wall along the US-Mexican border will stop people from crossing and the country will be secure. There was a similar thing in Berlin from 1961 to 1989 called "The Berlin Wall". There were 5,000 illegal crossings from East Berlin to West Berlin. A fence or wall will not prohibit people from crossing a border.


After World War 2, instead of simply killing the prominent members of the Nazi Party in Germany, the Allies had trials in Nuremburg from 1945 to 1949. Unlike the victims of the Nazis, the Allies would follow the rule of law so there would be no mistaking the difference between the Allies and the Nazis.



Despite the temper tantrums of Bush and some neo-cons, the ability to gather intelligence is not diminished because Congress did not grant retroactive immunity to the telecommunications industry that monitored everything domestic (every email you sent, every bid you placed on ebay, every time you visited a porn site) on the basis that the terrorists would be dumb enough to not use a secure server, the FISA courts are still in place. There is not a backlog of cases or requests in the FISA courts so the agencies can obtain their warrants through it. If they need it urgently, they can obtain a retroactive request 3 days after they start. The law that Congress didn't renew is still active for another calendar year.



Provide proof to back up this claim.

Here's an article from Fox News "Law Enforcement: No Link Between Letter Sent to Congress, Times Square Bombing" (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335828,00.html)



Key word bolded there is try. None of the places the "Human shield action to Iraq" went to were destroyed. The group didn't make a dent in march to the invasion. The media gave nothing but scorn and mockery to the group as a majority of them left Iraq because of "safety reasons". So there nothing to get worked up about over a failed plan.



The first amendment protects speech, even the kind you disagree with. While I disagree with most of everything you claim about torture, I would fight to the death to protect your right to say it.



From Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained."

None of what you claimed meets the definition of treason.

Wow. Savage owning, Addy. :up:

jag

[Franklin Richards]

The government has been torturing people in Gitmo since the war started and we still don't have Osama Bin Laden. Throwing ethics aside, it still doesn't work.

"Torture has never been a reliable means of extracting information. It is ultimately self-defeating as a means of control. One wonders why it is still practiced."

---Jean Luc Picard. :D


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[hippie_hunter]

So..... it "does" work!!! :wow:

That's why we should keep it.

Even if it does work, isn't it hypocritical that we've charged our enemies for doing it to us in World War II and soldiers for doing it in the Vietnam War, yet now we tolerate it?

[Arc-Light]

Bush explains veto of waterboarding bill
By JENNIFER LOVEN,
Associated Press Writer2 hours, 17 minutes ago



President Bush said Saturday he vetoed legislation that would ban the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods such as waterboarding to break suspected terrorists because it would end practices that have prevented attacks.

"The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror," Bush said in his weekly radio address taped for broadcast Saturday. "So today I vetoed it," Bush said. The bill provides guidelines for intelligence activities for the year and includes the interrogation requirement. It passed the House in December and the Senate last month.

"This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe," the president said.
Supporters of the legislation say it would preserve the United States' ability to collect critical intelligence and raise country's moral standing abroad.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress would work to override Bush's veto next week. "In the final analysis, our ability to lead the world will depend not only on our military might, but on our moral authority," said Pelosi, D-Calif.
But based on the margin of passage in each chamber, it would be difficult for the Democratic-controlled Congress to turn back the veto. It takes a two-thirds majority, and the House vote was 222-199 and the Senate's was 51-45.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Bush often warns against ignoring the advice of U.S. commanders on the ground in Iraq. Yet the president has rejected the Army Field Manual, which recognizes that harsh interrogation tactics elicit unreliable information, said Reid, D-Nev.
"Democrats will continue working to reverse the damage President Bush has caused to our standing in the world," Reid said.
Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch, said Bush "will go down in history as the torture president" for defying Congress and allowing the CIA to use interrogation techniques "that any reasonable observer would call torture."

"The Bush administration continues to insist that CIA and other nonmilitary interrogators are not bound by the military rules and has reportedly given CIA interrogators the green light to use a range of so-called 'enhanced' interrogation techniques, including prolonged sleep deprivation, painful stress positions, and exposure to extreme cold," Daskal said. "Although waterboarding is not currently approved for use by the CIA, Attorney General Michael Mukasey has refused to take it off the table for the future."

The intelligence bill would limit CIA interrogators to the 19 techniques allowed for use by military questioners. The Army field manual in 2006 banned using methods such as waterboarding or sensory deprivation on uncooperative prisoners.

Bush said the CIA must retain use of "specialized interrogation procedures" that the military does not need. The military methods are designed for questioning "lawful combatants captured on the battlefield," while intelligence professionals are dealing with "hardened terrorists" who have been trained to resist the techniques in the Army manual, the president said.

"We created alternative procedures to question the most dangerous al-Qaida operatives, particularly those who might have knowledge of attacks planned on our homeland," Bush said. "If we were to shut down this program and restrict the CIA to methods in the field manual, we could lose vital information from senior al-Qaida terrorists, and that could cost American lives."

The 19 interrogation techniques include the "good cop/bad cop" routine; making prisoners think they are in another country's custody; and separating a prisoner from others for up to 30 days.

Among the techniques the field manual prohibits are:
_hooding prisoners or putting duct tape across their eyes.
_stripping prisoners naked.

_forcing prisoners to perform or mimic sexual acts.
_beating, burning or physically hurting them in other ways.
_subjecting prisoners to hypothermia or mock executions.
It does not allow food, water and medical treatment to be withheld. Dogs may not be used in any aspect of interrogation.
But waterboarding is the most high-profile and contentious method in question.

It involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning. It has been traced back hundreds of years to the Spanish Inquisition and is condemned by nations around the world and human rights organizations as torture.

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 includes a provision barring cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment for all detainees, including CIA prisoners, in U.S. custody. Many people believe that covers waterboarding.
There are concerns that the use of waterboarding would undermine the U.S. human rights efforts overseas and could place Americans at greater risk of being tortured when captured.

The military specifically prohibited waterboarding in 2006. The CIA also prohibited the practice in 2006 and says it has not been used since three prisoners encountered it in 2003.

But the administration has refused to rule definitively on whether it is torture. Bush has said many times that his administration does not torture.
The White House says waterboarding remains among the interrogation methods potentially available to the CIA. "Because the danger remains, we need to ensure our intelligence officials have all the tools they need to stop the terrorists," Bush said.


__________________________________________________ __________

It has not been taken off the table because it works. Simple as that. :dry:

Why do we care about terrorist more than we care about our children and nation?


Hmm you call yourself a Christan man huh, well slick what would Jesus do, what would Jesus think of this hmmmmmmm, think real hard before you answer.

[Addendum]

Hmm you call yourself a Christan man huh, well slick what would Jesus do, what would Jesus think of this hmmmmmmm, think real hard before you answer.

http://www.politicalfrenzy.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/dana-perino.jpg
The president was concerned with some comments made by some "former religious teachers" and those people in question should...watch their goddamn ****ing mouths.

Apologies to Aaron McGruder.

[UltimateJustin]

We should only torture fools who arent a part of a nation's army. Ya hearrd?

[Addendum]

We should only torture fools who arent a part of a nation's army. Ya hearrd?

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html) Ya hearrd?

[UltimateJustin]

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html) Ya hearrd?
Actually, I hadn't.

:stark

[Addendum]

Wow. Savage owning, Addy. :up:

jag

Thanks :bow:

[Carcharodon]

The line is pretty clear for me.

US or THEM.


I choose "us"....and that's why you're such a good Christian. :up:

[CorpusBlack]

"Torture has never been a reliable means of extracting information. It is ultimately self-defeating as a means of control. One wonders why it is still practiced."

---Jean Luc Picard. :D


:thing: :doom: :thing:

:up:

[Memphis Slim]

Then Memphis Slim would've been out of here a long time ago, as would Moviefan2k4, who doesn't post here anymore and never voiced his political views anyway.

You don't state opinions, you don't back up your points, you don't provide the impetus for an intelligent argument. You throw out biased, offensive and unwarranted generalizations towards an opposing political spectrum and nothing more. At least Slim provides sources for his arguments, superhumanly biased as they may be.

There are many conservative - or, to be more accurate, conservative leaning - posters on these boards. StorminNorman, hippie hunter, and even Matt, though a Democrat, have fairly conservative views in comparison to the more liberal members of the Hype. (I myself have a fair bit of conservatism in me thanks to my dad.) They provide logical arguments, back up their points, don't insult others and are just in general much more knowledgable than you come across as.


Please! I've been put on punishment for much less than the barbs you guys hurl at me on a regular basis. Conservative views are not wanted on these boards and you know it.

[Memphis Slim]

Your opinion seems to be more anti-liberal than pro-conservative. There is a difference.

And the other way around is different?

You guys are very "anti-conservative". I seen post that say "I wish Bush was tortured". What is that? No one says a word.

And if you are anti-conservative, SO WHAT!?? You have a right to feel that way! Just stop abusing your powers and let people speak their minds. When you don't have an answer is when it seems that the hammer comes down.

[Mr Sparkle]

And the other way around is different?

You guys are very "anti-conservative". I seen post that say "I wish Bush was tortured". What is that? No one says a word.

And if you are anti-conservative, SO WHAT!?? You have a right to feel that way! Just stop abusing your powers and let people speak their minds. When you don't have an answer is when it seems that the hammer comes down.

uh....you haven't answered a question posed to you in the first page of the thread you made.


^Memphis...2 questions...

1)do you think waterboarding is torture?

2) do you support torture?

I guess it's you who " doesn't have any answers" :cwink:

[lazur]

Bush's views on torture have shamed this nation greatly. The United States is supposed to be the defender of human rights, not an abuser. And this makes us look as bad as them. We're supposed to have the moral high ground, but this makes us dirty.

The fault here rests with the media. Our government utilizes tactics in order to get information vital to the security of the U.S. and its people. You question 'methods' because the media lately likes to target Bush and co. because they disagree with the War. Fine, but be prepared for the amount of damage this will cause in the future.

It's none of the media's business what 'methods' are being used to get life and death information out of MURDERERS who want us all dead. I'm SICK of the media using its 'political' view to reveal information that compromises the security of our country JUST because they don't like our current President. It's outlandish and it's traitorous.

I say water board them, snip off their nuts and then shoot them in the head after they've revealed what we need to know. They're a waste of human skin and air to begin with.

High morale ground. I wonder how many people in the WTC thought as you do before an airplane came crashing through their buildings. Ask Daniel Pearl's widow what she thinks of 'high morale ground' and 'waterboarding' after one of these animals sawed her husband's head off.

[Carcharodon]

The fault here rests with the media. Our government utilizes tactics in order to get information vital to the security of the U.S. and its people. You question 'methods' because the media lately likes to target Bush and co. because they disagree with the War. Fine, but be prepared for the amount of damage this will cause in the future.

It's none of the media's business what 'methods' are being used to get life and death information out of MURDERERS who want us all dead. I'm SICK of the media using its 'political' view to reveal information that compromises the security of our country JUST because they don't like our current President. It's outlandish and it's traitorous.

I say water board them, snip off their nuts and then shoot them in the head after they've revealed what we need to know. They're a waste of human skin and air to begin with.

High morale ground. I wonder how many people in the WTC thought as you do before an airplane came crashing through their buildings. Ask Daniel Pearl's widow what she thinks of 'high morale ground' and 'waterboarding' after one of these animals sawed her husband's head off.If I recall correctly...you're a Christian, aren't you? Or am I mistaken?

[Paradoxium]

Wish you can water board Bush?

Bush is ex-military right? He probably got water boarded during training anyways... so its not like he doesn't know how it feels like.....

[hippie_hunter]

The fault here rests with the media. Our government utilizes tactics in order to get information vital to the security of the U.S. and its people. You question 'methods' because the media lately likes to target Bush and co. because they disagree with the War. Fine, but be prepared for the amount of damage this will cause in the future.

It's none of the media's business what 'methods' are being used to get life and death information out of MURDERERS who want us all dead. I'm SICK of the media using its 'political' view to reveal information that compromises the security of our country JUST because they don't like our current President. It's outlandish and it's traitorous.

I say water board them, snip off their nuts and then shoot them in the head after they've revealed what we need to know. They're a waste of human skin and air to begin with.

High morale ground. I wonder how many people in the WTC thought as you do before an airplane came crashing through their buildings. Ask Daniel Pearl's widow what she thinks of 'high morale ground' and 'waterboarding' after one of these animals sawed her husband's head off.

I completely agree with you that terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and whatnot are wastes of human life and are nothing but pathetic cowardly dogs but that still does not give the United States the right to abuse human rights which are protected in the Constitution.

We are supposed to be the beacon of the free world. The defender of human rights. The shining example of democracy. We can't be none of these when we commit attrocities such as this, even if they do (and I would agree to some extent that they do) deserve it.

It isn't the media's fault for this. They aren't the ones forcing the Bush Administration to do this so they can have something to complain about. What we have here is a Presidential administration that thinks it's above the laws that are specifically stated in the Constitution (unwarranted searches, torture, no respect for due process, no respect for a speedy trial by jury, no respect for equal protection of the law, etc.)

[BlackLantern]

If the government is going to torture people at least have the good sense to keep it quiet

[Mr Sparkle]

The fault here rests with the media. Our government utilizes tactics in order to get information vital to the security of the U.S. and its people. You question 'methods' because the media lately likes to target Bush and co. because they disagree with the War. Fine, but be prepared for the amount of damage this will cause in the future.

The media doesn't "disagree with the war" as they were the strongest tool the Bush admin. had to sell the idea of the Iraq war.

It's none of the media's business what 'methods' are being used to get life and death information out of MURDERERS who want us all dead. I'm SICK of the media using its 'political' view to reveal information that compromises the security of our country JUST because they don't like our current President. It's outlandish and it's traitorous.

it's outlandish that your country invaded another for violating UN resolutions BY violating a US resolution.
it's ridiculous that another motive cited was human rights violations.
see, you can't know that a guy named ahmed is a MURDERER or privvy to information.
that's the problem.


I say water board them, snip off their nuts and then shoot them in the head after they've revealed what we need to know. They're a waste of human skin and air to begin with.

wow....



High morale ground. I wonder how many people in the WTC thought as you do before an airplane came crashing through their buildings. Ask Daniel Pearl's widow what she thinks of 'high morale ground' and 'waterboarding' after one of these animals sawed her husband's head off.

well, I don't know if people thought about high ground in moral ffairs.
but I can picture someone flying the planes into the towers thinking:
"They're a waste of human skin and air to begin with" and then "alahu ahkbar"

or something like that.

[bell110]

The funny thing is that if there were a democrat in office doing exactly the same thing there wouldn't be a peep about it.

Are you kidding. If a democratic president did this, the republicans would have a field day. Fox News would have headlines saying that the president is pro-torture. We wouldn't hear the end of it.

The fault here rests with the media. Our government utilizes tactics in order to get information vital to the security of the U.S. and its people. You question 'methods' because the media lately likes to target Bush and co. because they disagree with the War. Fine, but be prepared for the amount of damage this will cause in the future.

It's none of the media's business what 'methods' are being used to get life and death information out of MURDERERS who want us all dead. I'm SICK of the media using its 'political' view to reveal information that compromises the security of our country JUST because they don't like our current President. It's outlandish and it's traitorous.

I say water board them, snip off their nuts and then shoot them in the head after they've revealed what we need to know. They're a waste of human skin and air to begin with.

High morale ground. I wonder how many people in the WTC thought as you do before an airplane came crashing through their buildings. Ask Daniel Pearl's widow what she thinks of 'high morale ground' and 'waterboarding' after one of these animals sawed her husband's head off.

I wonder if you are a fan of Joesph McCarthy?

[Mr Sparkle]

Are you kidding. If a democratic president did this, the republicans would have a field day. Fox News would have headlines saying that the president is pro-torture. We wouldn't hear the end of it.


people forget the reaction that the GOP had when Clinton had similar ideas.
hell, Bush ran on a no foreign intervention platform.
in 2000.

[hippie_hunter]

And the other way around is different?

You guys are very "anti-conservative". I seen post that say "I wish Bush was tortured". What is that? No one says a word.

And if you are anti-conservative, SO WHAT!?? You have a right to feel that way! Just stop abusing your powers and let people speak their minds. When you don't have an answer is when it seems that the hammer comes down.

The mods aren't abusing there powers here in the very least. There's a difference between being anti-liberal/anti-conservative and the stupid posts brobdingnag has been posting.

He has posted nothing but baseless and blatantly false attacks on liberals here. We're not attempting to shut him up because he's a conservative, we just find his baseless attacks to be incredibly annoying. They're the equivalent to trolling.

If someone going to post on a politics forum that has no political affiliation they're pretty much going to have to tolerate the fact that there are different views out there in the world. This isn't a liberal forum and this isn't a conservative forum so making baseless and false attacks on someone of the opposite spectrum should not be tolerated here.

So as I said, we're not abusing our powers. We just don't tolerate brobdingnag's trolling.

[lazur]

I completely agree with you that terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and whatnot are wastes of human life and are nothing but pathetic cowardly dogs but that still does not give the United States the right to abuse human rights which are protected in the Constitution.

We are supposed to be the beacon of the free world. The defender of human rights. The shining example of democracy. We can't be none of these when we commit attrocities such as this, even if they do (and I would agree to some extent that they do) deserve it.

It isn't the media's fault for this. They aren't the ones forcing the Bush Administration to do this so they can have something to complain about. What we have here is a Presidential administration that thinks it's above the laws that are specifically stated in the Constitution (unwarranted searches, torture, no respect for due process, no respect for a speedy trial by jury, no respect for equal protection of the law, etc.)

Umm, sorry, but I truly believe that in order for any government to be effective at protecting its people, there are certain things its people must not be told.

Our media makes a HABIT (including the conservative Fox News Channel) of 'whistle blowing' on information EVERY DAY that compromises national security.

It's ridiculous. Do you really think we weren't 'waterboarding' and using other 'tactics' during wartime 20, 50 or 100 years ago? What do you think the people of the U.S. were more concerned with - 'torturing' enemies bent on killing us, or protecting their country from harm?

Gee, I know, that's a tough one...

[lazur]

The media doesn't "disagree with the war" as they were the strongest tool the Bush admin. had to sell the idea of the Iraq war.

Bush didn't 'sell' anything except his idea of what the truth was. In hindsight, maybe a bad call. In all honesty, we won't know for 20 years if the war in Iraq has worked.

it's outlandish that your country invaded another for violating UN resolutions BY violating a US resolution.
it's ridiculous that another motive cited was human rights violations.
see, you can't know that a guy named ahmed is a MURDERER or privvy to information.
that's the problem.

A UN resolution is a UN resolution is a UN resolution, irrespective of who introduced it.

wow....

Yep, I'm an unapologetic, ruthless bastard when it comes to ending the lives of murdering criminals.

well, I don't know if people thought about high ground in moral ffairs.
but I can picture someone flying the planes into the towers thinking:
"They're a waste of human skin and air to begin with" and then "alahu ahkbar"

or something like that.

That may be how YOU feel, which wouldn't at all surprise me in the least.

[hippie_hunter]

Umm, sorry, but I truly believe that in order for any government to be effective at protecting its people, there are certain things its people must not be told.
Oh I agree that some things must not be told in the name of national security, but illegal tactics should never be condoned at all.

Our media makes a HABIT (including the conservative Fox News Channel) of 'whistle blowing' on information EVERY DAY that compromises national security.
I agree that the media has does such a thing (not just the US media, but all over the world). But it is still not the media's fault that the Bush Administration uses tactics that are specifically stated to be illegal within the Constitution. There are other methods to try and prevent terrorist attacks such as warranted wiretaps and searches, other interrogation methods, surveillance methods, spying, etc.

It's ridiculous. Do you really think we weren't 'waterboarding' and using other 'tactics' during wartime 20, 50 or 100 years ago?
Just because it was done before doesn't make it legal.

You're right that we have used waterboarding before. We used it in the Vietnam War. We used it in the Philippine-American War. It was used against our troops by the Japanese in World War II. And you know what? We punished those who did so. Even 100 years ago.

What do you think the people of the U.S. were more concerned with - 'torturing' enemies bent on killing us, or protecting their country from harm?
"Even when you're fighting against belligerents who don't respect the laws of war, we are obliged to hold the laws of war," - Darius Rejali (political science professor at Reed College)

[kane9321]

I dont know what to think about this one

[bell110]

Bush didn't 'sell' anything except his idea of what the truth was. In hindsight, maybe a bad call. In all honesty, we won't know for 20 years if the war in Iraq has worked.



A UN resolution is a UN resolution is a UN resolution, irrespective of who introduced it.



Yep, I'm an unapologetic, ruthless bastard when it comes to ending the lives of murdering criminals.



That may be how YOU feel, which wouldn't at all surprise me in the least.

Since you think on the same level as the terrorists, maybe you should be arrested indefinately and waterboarded. :cwink:

And personally, I believe that the government keeping things secret is a bigger threat to my safety than anything a terrorist could do.

[Mr Sparkle]

Bush didn't 'sell' anything except his idea of what the truth was. In hindsight, maybe a bad call. In all honesty, we won't know for 20 years if the war in Iraq has worked.

you're welcomed to believe that.
even though, the idea that the Admin. was trying to link Saddam to 9-11 is pretty well known.

A UN resolution is a UN resolution is a UN resolution, irrespective of who introduced it.

and Irony is Ironic regardless if a person misses the Ironic-y-ness.


Yep, I'm an unapologetic, ruthless bastard when it comes to ending the lives of murdering criminals.

just make sure that they ARE murdering criminals.
because, if you pay rival sects to rat on each other, well, the intel is bound to be less than objective.



That may be how YOU feel, which wouldn't at all surprise me in the least.

explain this to me.
how do I feel? and why wouldn't it surprise you?

[lazur]

"Even when you're fighting against belligerents who don't respect the laws of war, we are obliged to hold the laws of war," - Darius Rejali (political science professor at Reed College)

Please explain to me how non-uniformed terrorists who are not a part of any country's organized military qualify for Geneva Convention treatment.

Thanks.

[lazur]

Since you think on the same level as the terrorists, maybe you should be arrested indefinately and waterboarded. :cwink:

And personally, I believe that the government keeping things secret is a bigger threat to my safety than anything a terrorist could do.

So according to you, all military strategic planning should be made public knowledge.

Good thing your opinion doesn't mean squat.

[hippie_hunter]

Please explain to me how non-uniformed terrorists who are not a part of any country's organized military qualify for Geneva Convention treatment.

Thanks.

Technically they really don't apply to the Geneva Convention, but that doesn't give us the excuse to commit torture on them. It's called ethics and morality, something the United States should be upholding.

[Addendum]

Please explain to me how non-uniformed terrorists who are not a part of any country's organized military qualify for Geneva Convention treatment.

Thanks.

Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949." Specifically, the ruling says that Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention was violated.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_05_184/

You're welcome.

[bell110]

So according to you, all military strategic planning should be made public knowledge.

Good thing your opinion doesn't mean squat.

Not all. But the people deserve to know what the government is up too so we can protect ourselves.

[jaguarr]

If we resort to the same tactics as our enemies then we are no better than them and can no longer claim any sort of moral high ground.

jag

[Memphis Slim]

Addendum:
Like a fence or wall along the US-Mexican border will stop people from crossing and the country will be secure. There was a similar thing in Berlin from 1961 to 1989 called "The Berlin Wall". There were 5,000 illegal crossings from East Berlin to West Berlin. A fence or wall will not prohibit people from crossing a border.




The Customs and Border Protection estimates that 500,000 illegal immigrants successfully cross the border into the United States every year.


I'll take 5000 any time. We need a wall. A big wall.

[Addendum]

"A wall" will not stop people from crossing. There's also an issue of private property since not all the land along the Mexican border is government owned.

[Franklin Richards]

The GOP is such a paradox. They don't want illegal immigrants in the country and yet they don't want them to be citizens because they would have to pay them minimum wage.

:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Addendum]

Nor does the government consistently enforce the immigration laws currently on the books, or make the border patrol more appealing to prospective employees, thereby increasing the agents along the borders.