Pasquinade said:
Dear Sir Evil,
Point 1. How do we know that these people are terrorists? They haven't been charged with anything, the British "terrorist" suspects that had been in Guantanemo Bay were released, sent back to the UK and not charged with anything at all and they were alleged terrorists according to the US!
So, let me see, when we cannot prove they are terrorists they are sent home, those that are POWs are kept, unless they are deemed not dangerous and those too are sent home (so that they can appear on TV and spread hearsay, like the whole Koran story... the original "witness" that reported it now says he NEVER SAW SUCH A THING, only heard it), after all of that, the Red Cross has kept close watch over how we treat the POWs, and the only report we find is that a book was mistreated....
Yet, you actually are attempting to say that we are holding people that we shouldn't. They are POWs, they get released when the war is over or when they are deemed as no longer dangerous to the war effort. That is what a POW is, you take a combatant prisoner and keep them out of the war until it is over or there is a prisoner exchange. It is even "legal" per treaties signed long ago.
Point 2. After all the talk about WMD's, Colin Powell's impassioned speech to the UN and much searching nothing was found, not a single thing. It was also banded around that Saddam was supporting terrorists which was not proved and has in fact been discounted by both US and International Intelligence agencies, can I respecfully draw your attention to the fact that the US Government actively supported known terrorists ie: The Contra's in South America, so that's a case of double standards then? Also one final point, I have served in both the US and British military and the "kick ass" mentality that permeates through the US military is to be quite honest ineffective in dealing with combat situations, one only has to look at how many British casualties so far and how many American, quite a difference I believe. We have had many years of dealing with terrorists (The IRA) and our experience shows in the way that we deal with indiginous people to win hearts and minds, not kick ass and take names.
Now this one simply shows that you cannot read english and I am wasting calories typing this that I could use for better things, like scratching. Several people, including me, already responded to the Ol' WMD argument taken from talking points from at least half a year ago.
As for the "supporting terrorists", that was policy of the State Dept. to insure "stability" over the human rights so that our companies could do business in the region. We found ourselves in bed with some of the worst, and we should not be proud of it, look what it brought upon ourselves.... *hint: 9/11*.
A drastic change in foreign policy was not only called for but entirely necessary. The US must realize that keeping allies like Saddam and the Taliban was a mistake and one of the very reasons that the Terrorists attacked us and stop such activity and work to end all threats directly, not through old, and proven ineffective, State Dept. policies.
Because all I'm reading is your opinion, and quite frankly I don't think anybody on this board except maybe a couple but I won't mention any names, really gives a f@ck what your opinion is!
