Just Curious if anyone else is angry over this?

    • Gold Top Dog

    Cita
    Do you guys think that the US withdrawing from Korea and

    Slight correction, if you don't mind. We have never withdrawn from Korea. We still have a standing rotation of 30,000 troops there.

    And for the time being, we may be doing so in Iraq. As much as I want us to be out of there, we may have to stay until Iraq is strong enough to stand on it's own. And I understand a little bit about the military mindset, though I have never served. I grew up around those in the military, including some in special forces. Part of my work ethic is based on that. Primarily:

    Accomplish the objective regardless of obstacles. (Think about that one for a moment. That is the core of my work ethic. At work, the boss doesn't hear from me why something can't be done. He only hears from me when it is done.) If we have a job to do in Iraq, we will finish it regardless of hindrances or obstacles. Mean what you say and say what you mean.

    The only easy day was yesterday. That means there are challenges today and there are new challenges everyday and we can never rest on our laurels.

    It pays to be a winner. Self-explanatory.

    Second place is first place for losers. If it comes to deciding how the world is going to be, I would rather it be us. Others will try to do the same. In the nation of Islam, all non-believers are infidels. All infidels must die. BTW, that's in the Koran, I didn't make that up. So, others already have the idea that they should decide how the world should be and some of it runs counter to what we think. So, let us not be second place.

    Lest anyone think I am xenophobic against other cultures, I am not. I happen to like baba genoush. My first wife had friends who were Saudi Arabian. From them, she learned a recipe. Bake an eggplant. Scoop the innards into a large bowl. Add the juice of one lime and four heaping tablespoons of tahini butter (it looks like peanut butter) and mix well. Serve in pita bread or unleavened bread. Quite tasty and vegan, if that is important to a person. She had a boyfriend who was a jordanian national here as a student and was a traditional muslim. And nearly killed her over a little argument. And stalked her, even after she married her first husband. She finally confronted him and told him to go and look up the marriage license in records building downtown. Once he saw she was married, he left her alone forever. In his mind, women are property and you never trespass the property of another man. So, that's where I get some of my knowledge of traditional muslim culture. And no, he wasn't a terrorist, even though he terrorized her. He was average, actually.

    So, take that and multiply it at least ten times and you may understand the mindset of a fundamentalist islamic terrorist. They would rather die and take you with them than lose an argument, whatever the argument, whether it be the Gaza Strip or our support of Israel or how late to stay at a friend's party (which nearly cost my first wife her life.)

    So, how does one deal with a mentality that sees death as a reward (from the words of Osam bin Laden, himself) in trying to foil their strategies? Other than Degriego's piquant humor, no one has yet to determine what was the initial reason for some of the detainees being held. There has to be a reason and it has to be more than just knowing that the language of Iran is called Farsi. On the one hand, I would like to see the charges laid out. On the other hand, how long is it necessary to try and squeeze blood out of a turnip or water out of stone?

    As for why I think a dead terrorist is a good terrorist, let me 'splain something.

    My DW's daughter was adopted to a family in New Jersey in 1973. The daughter's brother in that family worked in Manhattan in a little building next to Tower I of the WTC. He was there on that day. When the first plane crashed, he heard the noise. He finally made it outside to see what the noise was all about. The headless body of a woman landed approximately 5 feet from him, having fallen from Tower I. In a state of shock, he picked up the lady and started carrying her towards to harbor. That's where first aid is likely to arrive. Trapped in Manhattan, he was there for the second plane into Tower II. He saw all of it. Me, I was in a 4 foot deep trench setting pipe for branch feeders on Castle Hill Elementary School in Carrollton, Texas. He was right in the middle of it.

    Within a day or two, he transferred to Colorado. Born and raised jewish, he converted to methodist and became a minister and moved to Jarkata. The other side of the world. He didn't just lose a day's work. He lost everything he ever was. To this day, he will not live in New York City, his favorite city. So, while I wasn't there, I feel a connection with him and a sorrow for what he lost and what might have been. He seems happy now and adjusted in his new life.

    After 9-11, I looked at what it took to enlist and I was too old. A few years later, they raised the enlistement age and I was still too old. Now, I'm really too old. But I would do what it takes to ensure that such a thing never takes place here, again. I just happen to have a different method than the president. He wants to do it the legal way, in spite of the debate over whether or not detainees can challenge their detainment. My way is much quicker. And not prone to be accepted by the public at large. But that's what happens when you consider what's past the end of your street and out of the reach of the street light. Dangerous things that have to be dealt with immediately.

    Case in point. In 2005, DW and I flew up to Princeton, New Jersey to see her daughter get married. I was a bit on edge but it was not about being 30,000 feet in the air. It was the ghosts of 9-11. I comforted myself with the knowledge of my fighting ability. If anyone got up on that plane and even looked cross-eyed, I would see to it personally that they left in a body bag and I would walk off the plane after a beautiful landing. Forget not the lesson of the passengers of the flight that went down in Pennsylvania. They couldn't save themselves but they save you and me.

    Anyway, off the soap box, for now.

     

    • Gold Top Dog

     

    Ron I think I love you!

    ron2
    piquant

    except for these words you use which I have to look up.

     

  • having an agreeably pungent taste
  • engagingly stimulating or provocative; "a piquant wit"; "salty language"
  • engaging: attracting or delighting; "an engaging frankness"; "a piquant face with large appealing eyes"
    wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

     

  • Spicy or sharp in flavor.
    www.recipegoldmine.com/glossary/glossaryP.html

     

  • A term which generally means a tangy flavor.
    southernfood.about.com/library/info/bld_p.htm

     

  • Descriptive term for a sharp tasting cheese.
    www.e-cookbooks.net/cheese.htm

     

  • A secondary coffee taste sensation characterized by a predominantly sweet, prickling sensation at the tip of the tongue. Caused by a higher-than-normal percentage of acids actually sweet to the taste instead of sour. Typified by a Kenya AA coffee
  • were you calling me a cheese?

     

     No seriously, I loved your post, and I love the way it is written, I am envious of your ability to capture your thoughts and feelings this way. I tend to just come across as a butthead.  Great post

     

    • Gold Top Dog

    dgriego

    were you calling me a cheese?

    I am sure you would be a fine cheese, full of character and flavor, going quite well with a Beringer's Cabernet Sauvingnon (my favorite wine in both type and vintner). But I was describing your sharp and appropos humor. I have heard someone use "piquant" in reference to a well-turned phrase or even a bon mot. (Sorry, had to do it again.)

    dgriego
    and I love the way it is written, I am envious of your ability to capture your thoughts and feelings this way.

    I have my moments, now and then.

     

    • Gold Top Dog

     

    Yes, I do love you.

     

     Please remind me of that if you ever need to.

     

    LOL when I first read it I was thinking it meant "stinky".

    • Gold Top Dog

    fuzzy_dogs_mom

    snownose
    ..

    Also, the middle east needs to be stabilized....ever heard of strategic military bases?

    And why is it our responsibility to run around the world stabilizing everyone else? Oh wait!  I know!  It's because we've done such a grand job solving all our own problems.

    Joyce

     

    Actually Iraq WAS stable. WE destabilized it. Still waiting for someone to explain how we're going to win a war by long term occupation of a country when our very presence there is fueling the fire. We say we only want to help, and yet we build permanent military bases and an embassy comparable in size and grandeur to the Vatican. No, the fact that they have natural resources that we want to get our grubby little hands on is totally beside the point. Totally. Confused

    Some interesting reading - Afghanistan to Iraq: Connecting the Dots With Oil http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/47489/

    Not that anyone will read it. Wink BUT if you REALLY want to learn something interesting, (and just in case you still think the Iraq war had diddly squat to do with fighting terrorism) google the Project for a New American Century. Read who they are, and what their mission is, in their own words, on their very own website. Hint: You'll see familiar names like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and other current and former Bush Administration officials along with a who's who of Republican leaders, including Jeb Bush, the brother of the president.

    BTW snownose, is there something wrong with your computer? All those extra periods between your sentences are really distracting.
     

    • Gold Top Dog

     Here is an update on this topic. Now we have brought Bin Laden and the possiblilty of him going to trial for his crimes into the picture.

     

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obama_advisers_say_bin_laden_c.html

    http://www.examiner.com/a-1445814~Obama_advisers_say_bin_Laden_can_appeal_to_U_S__courts.html

     

     Now that really will upset me. Osama getting off on a technicality?

     Those of you who applaud this move (the supreme courts ruling), do you still think it's a good thing if applied to Osama?

    • Gold Top Dog

    Just because somebody is allowed to appeal, that doesn't mean the appeal is going to be granted.  Serial killers appeal all the time but they still stay behind bars.

    Joyce

    • Gold Top Dog

    snownose
    ......he stands for absolutely nothing except for raising taxes, and we know where that will end up.....a fast and sure way of shutting down an economy.......example Michigan.......

     

    Well then I guess you'd be surprised to know that you'd pay less under the Obama Tax Plan than you would under the McCain Tax Plan. There was a side by side comparison across the various tax brackets in the San Francisco Chronicle last weekend, and typically of Republicans, McCain's plan benefits the wealthiest Americans (is that you?), with minimal cuts for the unwashed masses, and Obama's plan benefits the middle class and lower income Americans. I will likely pay more in taxes than I do now if Obama is president, but I'm okay with that.

    And I guess lower taxes will be my consolation prize if I have to suffer through 4 more years of Republican rule...................................................

    • Gold Top Dog

    Cassidys Mom

    snownose
    ......he stands for absolutely nothing except for raising taxes, and we know where that will end up.....a fast and sure way of shutting down an economy.......example Michigan.......

     

    Well then I guess you'd be surprised to know that you'd pay less under the Obama Tax Plan than you would under the McCain Tax Plan. There was a side by side comparison across the various tax brackets in the San Francisco Chronicle last weekend, and typically of Republicans, McCain's plan benefits the wealthiest Americans (is that you?), with minimal cuts for the unwashed masses, and Obama's plan benefits the middle class and lower income Americans. I will likely pay more in taxes than I do now if Obama is president, but I'm okay with that.

    And I guess lower taxes will be my consolation prize if I have to suffer through 4 more years of Republican rule...................................................

    See, I can look beyond the average tax payer and realize how some tax hikes on small businesses and other important entities can affect the economy.........something to check out.....

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/11/mccain_calls_obama_tax_plan_a_threat_to_all_americans/

    BTW, I am sorry you feel distracted by my posting style.....I know it's a bad habit of mine....but, you really don't have to read my posts....

    • Gold Top Dog

    Cassidys Mom
    Actually Iraq WAS stable. WE destabilized it. Still waiting for someone to explain how we're going to win a war by long term occupation of a country when our very presence there is fueling the fire. We say we only want to help, and yet we build permanent military bases and an embassy comparable in size and grandeur to the Vatican. No, the fact that they have natural resources that we want to get our grubby little hands on is totally beside the point. Totally. Confused

     

    OMG......LOL.....did you have access to tv radio and internet in the 90s? You remember "Desert Shield".....yeah, Iraq was stable....hehe...and even after that the UN was wrestling with Hussein through Clinton's terms.........please, get out of the dark and turn on the light.....

    • Gold Top Dog

    fuzzy_dogs_mom

    True.  I'm smart  enough to realize we need to take care of our own problems and keep our noses out the rest of the worlds business. This constant need to butt in to every other country's business I'm sure has gone a long way to making us so loved around the world. Every other country does NOT want to do everything OUR WAY and we shouldn't be suggesting that they should.

    Joyce

    The thing is, everyone says America is bad for not minding our own business, but how can we not intervene in other countries at times? We are by far the most powerful country and thus an obvious target for terorrist attacks. Would you really want a president that waits until an "enemy" has already attacked until he/she "protects" us? Fine, let's forget about the rest of the world and only do things for ourselves. But *wait* - then all the other countries will call us selfish, saying we have the resources and intelligence to do worthwhile things other places, and we're not. How are we supposed to find some perfect balance?

    The one thing that surprises me is people act like the U.S. is such a rare form in that the nation is so intrusive and butting in everyone else's business, yet look at history! There has always been a superpower getting in the midst of everyone else's affairs...Rome....England.....Germany, etc. It's not just the U.S. and our alleged "selfishness" - it's the way things work in the world.

    • Gold Top Dog

    snownose
    .........please, get out of the dark and turn on the light.....

    Honey, I live in California - we've got PLENTY of light here! Oh, and I'm 49 - do I get extra brownie points for life experience?

    • Gold Top Dog

    Cassidys Mom
     Honey, I live in California - we've got PLENTY of light here! Oh, and I'm 49 - do I get extra brownie points for life experience?

     

     I will award you ten extra brownie points, one for living in California and 9 for being 49!! Big Smile

     

    • Gold Top Dog

    dgriego

    Cassidys Mom
     Honey, I live in California - we've got PLENTY of light here! Oh, and I'm 49 - do I get extra brownie points for life experience?

     

     I will award you ten extra brownie points, one for living in California and 9 for being 49!! Big Smile

    Woohoo!!!

    • Gold Top Dog

    I am sure no one will believe the below description of life at Guantanamo Bay, but it sure does not sound as dismal as some of our citizen prisons. Also I think this article says about what I think of the courts ruling but in a polite manner. No one has yet said anything about whether they feel Osama Bin Laden should have access to the full rights given by our highest court. Is he also innocent until proven guilty? Shall we buy him an 800$ suit to wear to his hearing?

    Here is the link to the story. For the record I think I am going to buy this ladies book about Gitmo.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0620gitmojun20,0,4323258.story

     

    Supreme Court ruling puts soldiers at great risk

    When Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts was confirmed, he told the U.S. Senate that justices should act like umpires. They should call the balls and the strikes but shouldn't step up to bat. A majority of the court, led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ignored Roberts' advice and suited up. But they're not playing baseball. They're suiting up to run America's war.

    The court has decided to grant constitutional rights to detainees held in Guantanamo Bay. Now detainees can challenge their detention before U.S. judges in U.S. courts. Because Kennedy says so, military commanders must justify battlefield captures and prove to a U.S. judge that decisions they made on the ground—in a faraway land during a battle—were justified. Kennedy admits that the court has not done this before and that there is no case precedent.

    Not only does this decision come out of left field (remember that during World War II the United States held 400,000 prisoners of war on U.S. soil without granting them access to U.S. courts) but, tragically, their decision puts American troops at risk and will lead to more U.S. deaths on the battlefield because it makes it more difficult for soldiers to detain the enemy.

    What's more, the court has no reason to step in. Under current rules, detainees held in Guantanamo Bay receive more rights than POWs under the Geneva Conventions. Roberts, in his dissent, called existing military procedures "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."

    As a JAG officer (a lawyer) in the Army Reserves, I have been deployed three times in the global war on terror. I was a legal adviser in Guantanamo Bay and a prosecutor at the Office of Military Commissions. I have seen the procedures that Roberts discusses—and the conditions at Guantanamo Bay—firsthand. The U.S. military gives all detainees in Guantanamo Bay elaborate proceedings where they can call and cross-examine witnesses and rebut the evidence against them. They are even assigned a personal representative to help them through the process. The military affords all detainees these procedural rights, even those captured in battle with AK-47s in their hands. Under the Geneva Conventions, POWs have fewer rights. They receive a brief hearing with no lawyer and no personal representative.

    And what happens when the U.S. decides that a detainee is an enemy combatant? The detainee stays at Guantanamo Bay. But the digs aren't bad. Detainees enjoy up to 12 hours of recreation time a day where they can play sports like Ping-Pong, basketball and soccer. They can work out in the exercise room, take various classes, garden, watch videos and go to the library. They are guaranteed eight hours of sleep every night and 20 minutes of uninterrupted prayer time five times a day. Guards can't interrupt detainees during prayer times, even if they're not praying.

    The existing procedures (the ones the Supreme Court thinks are deficient) are so generous that the military paroles hundreds of suspected terrorist detainees back to the battlefield, although no international law, including the Geneva Conventions, requires it. At least 5 to 10 percent of those released re-enter the fight and put soldiers' and civilians' lives at risk. One killed a judge who was leaving a mosque in Afghanistan; another went back to fighting the U.S. and assumed leadership of an Al Qaeda-aligned militant faction in Pakistan; and, most recently, a released detainee became a suicide bomber.

    The problem isn't that the U.S. is releasing too few detainees—it is releasing too many. Even Kennedy seems afraid to let these detainees loose. His opinion says that a remedy for violating their constitutional rights might be conditional release—or no release at all.

    Australian detainee David Hicks wore an $800 Brooks Brothers suit to his trial in Guantanamo Bay, paid for by the U.S. government. Hopefully, the government will rethink that practice when it hauls 200-plus detainees from Guantanamo Bay into the U.S. for their hearings. It is a strange and perverse system that awards terrorists who attack the U.S. with constitutional rights and a better wardrobe.

    Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissent, chastises the Supreme Court for warping our Constitution and blatantly misconstruing case precedent. But his last sentence is the most poignant: "The nation will live to regret what the court has done today."

    Army Maj. Kyndra Rotunda was a legal adviser in Gitmo and a prosecutor at the Office of Military Commissions. She is the author of "Honor Bound: Inside the Guantanamo Trials."