I think it shows a weakness, that we aren't going to do anything extreme, to protect ourselves in the future.
**broken link removed**
Finally got around to reading a little on this big Obama announcement last week. Thought it kind of strange, and a little curious about his motives. I find hard to believe that anyone would consider interrogations of suspected terrorist, only months after the 9/11 attack, wouldn't include some form of torture. Sounds pretty mild, compared to the beheading videos on the internet.
Anyway, the torture started int 2002, ended in 2005, and now being made public 4 years later. Is it to show the world, that Americans really are horrible, devious people? Like we aren't hated and mistrusted enough. I imagine the government is involved in much worse things. We have a lot of other problems domestically, and abroad, can't see how this is going to help. The bill for investigating and maybe prosecuting those involved is going to be quite high, doubt it will amount to much in the end.
I don't believe for a moment the the world leaders are going to view this as a positive thing, our new president is going to put an end to all the under-hand activities in America... Yeah, right, like every other government on the planet doesn't have their own little dirty secret projects. I think it shows a weakness, that we aren't going to do anything extreme, to protect ourselves in the future. I also believe it's a huge smoke-screen, to take our attention away from something big and painful coming soon. Wonder what he plans to slip past the American people, during this side-show act.
So something like invading another country is not extreme?
???
I don't know about you, but I'm not particularily worried this is going to overshadow that.
I find hard to believe that anyone would consider interrogations of suspected terrorist, only months after the 9/11 attack, wouldn't include some form of torture. Sounds pretty mild, compared to the beheading videos on the internet.
Invading Iraq wasn't done for the best of reasons, but Sadam was such a fine leader either. He refused to comply with weapons inspections, nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Iraq was/is a strong military position in the Middle East, pretty much divides the region. I think that was the main reason for getting involved. Lord help those people, when Obama pulls out the troops, next couple of years. Don't see it happening though, still too unstable, and will revert back to the way it was, most likely worse.
Never cared for Obama. Didn't seem to have much of a past, but spent over $700 million on his campaign, basically somebody bought him the White House. Most of the others didn't spend half of that. So far he's been handing out billions of dollars, but not doing much pay the bill, or anything to make money, very little to save, just more spending.
Anyway, I tend to equate 'interrogation' with torture, just can't imagine getting and information, just by asking politely. I don't know how the chose the detainees as terrorists, and not common citizens. But I do know, that we did have any more 9/11 attacks. Nearly 4,000 people died in just a few hours, don't know the numbers for the London subway attack, or the train in Spain, but seemed to have ended.
From them stories I read, the Waterboarding thing ended in 2005, why bring it up now? Those involved, aren't in office anymore. Wasn't any mention of torture related deaths.
There were people held there for 3 to 4 years for having the same name as a suspected AQ member.
Not I. have you forgotten why the US invaded Afghanistan?I'm actually talking about Afghanistan...has everyone forgotten about that?
The War in Afghanistan, which began on October 7, 2001 as the U.S. military operation Operation Enduring Freedom, was launched by the United States with the United Kingdom in response to the September 11 attacks. The stated purpose of the invasion was to capture Osama bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbor to al-Qaeda. The United States' Bush Doctrine stated that, as policy, it would not distinguish between al-Qaeda and nations that harbor them.
So wouldn't it seem that the US was defending itself when it invaded Afghanistan more than when it was invading Iraq? It seemed odd to me that when I referred to the US invading another country to defend itself, Iraq came up before Afghanistan.
Can you reword as that does not make sense. People assume Iraq as it is more in the public eye.
So what is the point?
I'm saying that I think the invasion of Afghanistant was a better example of the UNited States defending itself than Iraq public eye or not, because to be honest I'm not entirely sure of the reason behind Iraq. Yes, there are a a few reasons that can be given, but I'm referring to the actual motivation behind it, not after the fact reasons. Regardless of the reasons now, it seems to me that there might have been better planning if those were the same reasons to begin with, which I'm under the impression that they're not.
I'm not entirely sure what you are implying by refering to the Monroe Doctrine. When did I say I was against the Invasion of Iraq? X being a better example of something, does not equate Y being invalid...poorly planned/executed maybe.
EDITED BECAUSE IT DIDNT MAKE SENSE:
So wouldn't it seem that the invasion of Afghanistan was a better example of the US defending itself rather than the invasion of Iraq? It seemed odd to me that when I referred to the US invading another country to defend itself, Iraq came up before Afghanistan.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?