US Claims World Is Safer Because War On Terror

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Nationalism is by far the most dangerous thing......You believe the US is better then everyone else........

Nationalism is NOT Nazionalist. I never said the US is better than everyone, we are just on top. Its upto the good people to do the right thing. Defeating terrorism is the right thing to do in the world today and to that end we do what we must.

That nationalism pride isnt your conscience speaking, thats your emotions.

You are mistaken, it is not some an "emotional attachment", it is duty. I believe America is the greatest nation in the world and that is my right. I cannot say the same for any other nation but that is not to say that I will stop other nationals form having similar feelings, that is their right!
Nationalism is not something negative or evil, such ideas are misconceptions.

If a couple jews HAD crashed a plane into a building, does that make anything after that right?

Its wouldnt be right but it would make some sense. That doesnt mean we are doing the same thing to these terrorists. They are treated with more provisions than most of the people in any fedral prison. Had these terrorists been locked up in a federal prision I can assure you that they wouldnt last a week.

Yet I wonder if you ever look in hind sight. over 100,000 dead iraqis...still worth the cause? Do around 3000 american lives justify all the death?

Well the last time America lost 3000 odd people was in Pearl Harbor and we repsonded with a war that destroied an empire and 2 atom bombs. Going by that measure I would say that the US has been quite lenient this time.

Originally posted by IAF101
Nationalism is NOT Nazionalist. I never said the US is better than everyone, we are just on top. Its upto the good people to do the right thing. Defeating terrorism is the right thing to do in the world today and to that end we do what we must.

Nationalism is making you think your better then others, plain and simple. You are creating an us verse them mentality, leading to further to dehumanization followed by much worse. It is the first step in being able to get people fighting. We aren't better, just on top...care to tell me what the difference is? Its up to the good people to do the right thing and stop killing innocent people. You cant defeat terrorism, because terrorism exists in the mind. Anybody can suddenly become a terrorist, no amount of killing can stop it. You want a war against al qaeda, thats different. War On Terror is war on an idea.

You are mistaken, it is not some an "emotional attachment", it is duty. I believe America is the greatest nation in the world and that is my right. I cannot say the same for any other nation but that is not to say that I will stop other nationals form having similar feelings, that is their right!
Nationalism is not something negative or evil, such ideas are misconceptions.

Its an emotional attachment. Defending you country is your duty. Saying you above other countries is not your duty. America may be the best place to live, doesn't mean that you have any right to do ANYTHING outside the US. Nationalism creates an Us verse them mentality, that is evil. It keeps people fighting.

Its wouldnt be right but it would make some sense. That doesnt mean we are doing the same thing to these terrorists. They are treated with more provisions than most of the people in any fedral prison. Had these terrorists been locked up in a federal prision I can assure you that they wouldnt last a week.

terrorist and murderers are the same thing, so I cant figure out for the life of me why you treat them different.

Well the last time America lost 3000 odd people was in Pearl Harbor and we repsonded with a war that destroied an empire and 2 atom bombs. Going by that measure I would say that the US has been quite lenient this time.

Yes but it was also a nation called japan, not a hand full of murderers from various places in the mideast. These people weren't part of a nations army like the japan kamikazies were. These were rouge criminals who were mass murderers. Terrorist is just a term to use your emotions for their personal gain. we invaded two countries based on some rouge criminals actions, hardly lenient.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Once again, I ask you, "Why did NATO bomb Serbia" if the KLA were terrorists?

Do you not know the ridiculously obvious answer to this question? Why do you think they attacked Serbia? Because NATO wanted to kill civilians and support the terrorists ? Is this your naive interpretation ?
Go look up any decent reference to the Kosovo campaign and you will find the answers(you know ethnic cleansing, genocide and all that jazz!). KLA was a terrorist organisation that carried out terrorist activities and attacks in the Yougoslav state under the pretext of freedom. The Serbs obviously werent going to stand for this and the rest is history.

Despite that handy universal declaration you quoted. Despite the Geneva Convention and despite your own constitutional guarantee to a speedy and fair trial.

I suggest you read the Geneva convention carefully and tell me where does it state that illegal combatants are entitled to anything ? Again I repeat the US constitution is for US citizens ONLY and playing upon semantics doesnt impress anybody.
Your argument has already been discussed on ATS numerous times and has been proved numerous times to be falacious.

Like the US constitution.

US citizens only......

Really, then why were all the Brits being held at Camp X-ray released?

Because they were not terrorists.

Uh-huh, so far I'm not being blinded by insight, but I will point out the language used says "people", not "citizens".

The Blind can never be blinded
people? You think that means everybody ? Is that a product of rational thought or are you just banging on the keyboard ? Must I really answer this ??

Which any number of NRA gun-nuts on this site say are constitutionally illegal because the Second Amendment has no restrictions.

You are free to believe whom you want but here in the US the laws are made by Congress. Anyway as you are not a US citizen you would never have this privelege of the Second amendment anyways!

Not discussing statutes, discussing the Constitution.

Then you should understand what you'r discussing about without wallowing in ignorance and resorting to semantic frivolity.

All arms are of a military nature, generally.

Stepping over the verbosity, all arms are not of military nature. That is an ignorant premise that you make. Let me take your own example: DAvid was part of no army, he was rearing sheep, so the sling he used wouldnt be of military nature. Similarly you have brass knuckles, sawed shotguns, etc. Moreover the military nature described in the US constitution is not as vauge or ignorant as you but rather refers to the military concept of "to bear arms". (which for a so called English teacher shouldnt be a problem to understand if one truly knew English! )

Care to show me which part of the Second Amendment makes that legal? I once again point you to the language: "...shall not be infringed." You just described a whole host of infringements.

You understand the words "well regulated militia" dont you ? Also the right isnt "infringed" when it is Regulated. Unlike your naive interpretaion of the Second amendment, the US constitution is a holistic document, hence the 9th amendment. Taking one amendment and beating it about is foolish.
Furthermore, the US supreme court nor Congress has found any of the laws drafted by the Fedral and state governments to "infringe" on the Second Amendment. What you have discerned about the second amendment is the product of your own myopic understanding of the law.

HE contained in a hand grenade is "arms"..

Wrong, these are not covered under the "right to bear arms" in the 2nd amendment. In fact it has nothing to do with the type of arms at all.

...shall not be infringed.

Read Constitution.....

Wrong. Under the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by the US constitution, the burden of proof is with the prosecution.

You are not a citzen of the US nor is this a court of law. The US military that acts as the prosecution has its proof. I have to provide nothing to you. You are totally and absolutely responsible for your ignorance.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

And yet you still dont get it ??
OH and another thing, sarcastic sardonic or wry all mean the same thing. I suggest that you find a better dictionary next time( English teacher ?), might I recommend AHD.....

wry

adj 1: sarcastic or mocking; "dry humor"; "an ironic remark often conveys an intended meaning obliquely"; "an ironic novel"; "an ironical smile"; "with a wry Scottish wit" [syn: dry, ironic, ironical] 2: bent to one side; "a wry neck" 3: disdainfully or ironically humorous; scornful and mocking; "his rebellion is the bitter, sardonic laughter of all great satirists"- Frank Schoenberner; "a wry pleasure to be...reminded of all that one is missing"- Irwin Edman [syn: sardonic]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

This has everything to do with the topic, it goes to background (to quote every US legal drama I've ever seen) and demonstrates US myopia.

What that we did what was right to defeat Communism ?

It was best for the free world for the democratically-elected government of Chile to be replaced in a coup by a military dictatorship that kidnapped, tortured and murdered its own citizens?

You mean a Socialist party that came in and hijacked US comapnies in Chile while driving the Chilean economy into the ground all the while bankrolled by the USSR? Chile nearly in a state of civil war it was propitious to have a Liberal dictator than a facist or communist dictator. The events that followed were a matter of regret and it was in the end the US and the free world that sought his arrest for torture. Also it was Pinochet that actually brought back democracy to Chile despite being a dictator.

Sadly these vital details are of little importance when one needs to carry out their Anti-American hyperbole.

Who said anything about the USSR? Remember that bit about the developing world?

Ah, so its selective memory is it or is it plain denial ??
Remember that bit of the world that had around 10,000 nuclear weapons aimed at Europe and the rest of the free world that we brought to its knees ? No ??

Where you propped up all those dictators .....

Blah, blah, cry me a ocean ! Off on some other bit of arcane are we, this time to turkey and helping poor kurds... what next Ethiopia, Somalia, Cambodia....
Will you claim that Pol Pot was an undercover CIA operative next?
Apparently an idealist in an ivory tower. No, everything is not black and white and neither are all the roses red. People do what they must when the must.

The US has singularly failed to understand the terrorists and so will continue to fight them in the most inappropriate way possible.

I am sure Nick berg and Margret Hassan had a "deeper understanding" with these terrorists! The kind you espouse.....

IAF explain how the US beat communism...funny in school they taught us it fell apart on itself not the US brought it down single handed.

Originally posted by IAF101

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Once again, I ask you, "Why did NATO bomb Serbia" if the KLA were terrorists?

KLA was a terrorist organisation that carried out terrorist activities and attacks in the Yougoslav state under the pretext of freedom. The Serbs obviously werent going to stand for this and the rest is history.

So NATO chose to support the terrorists?

Despite that handy universal declaration you quoted. Despite the Geneva Convention and despite your own constitutional guarantee to a speedy and fair trial.

I suggest you read the Geneva convention carefully and tell me where does it state that illegal combatants are entitled to anything ?..Your argument has already been discussed on ATS numerous times and has been proved numerous times to be falacious.

I suggest you read the Geneva convention. Who were the illegal combatants in Afghanistan? The representatives of the central government? Or the invading forces? Were the Taliban's forces dressed in US uniforms? What makes them illegal combatants? Were the Maquis wearing military uniforms or civilian clothes? What made them legal forces?

Really, then why were all the Brits being held at Camp X-ray released?

Because they were not terrorists.

Then why were they transported to Cuba and held there without charge?

Which any number of NRA gun-nuts on this site say are constitutionally illegal because the Second Amendment has no restrictions.

You are free to believe whom you want but here in the US the laws are made by Congress. Anyway as you are not a US citizen you would never have this privelege of the Second amendment anyways!

Not discussing statutes, discussing the Constitution.

Then you should understand what you'r discussing about without wallowing in ignorance and resorting to semantic frivolity.

Statutes, constitution. Two totally separate things. One cannot be had without the other, but the other can be had without the one. Find out which is which and which one is more important. Then type again.

All arms are of a military nature, generally.

Stepping over the verbosity, all arms are not of military nature. That is an ignorant premise that you make. Let me take your own example: DAvid was part of no army, he was rearing sheep

Suggest you study a little about the ancient kingdom of Judah.

so the sling he used wouldnt be of military nature.

Unless you carry it into battle against the invading Philistines and also happen to be a part of the JDF.

Similarly you have brass knuckles, sawed shotguns, etc.

Hmm, gunpowder projectile weapons are not military in nature?

Moreover the military nature described in the US constitution is not as vauge or ignorant as you but rather refers to the military concept of "to bear arms". (which for a so called English teacher shouldnt be a problem to understand if one truly knew English!

)

I'd quote the ammendment again, but there really is no point. I would just ask you to find the word "military" anywhere in it quoted adjacently to the word "arms".

Care to show me which part of the Second Amendment makes that legal? I once again point you to the language: "...shall not be infringed." You just described a whole host of infringements.

You understand the words "well regulated militia" dont you ?

Perhaps you couldn't see the bold...

Also the right isnt "infringed" when it is Regulated.

The militia is regulated, not the right to bear arms.

HE contained in a hand grenade is "arms"..

Wrong, these are not covered under the "right to bear arms" in the 2nd amendment. In fact it has nothing to do with the type of arms at all.

It was a relatively simple statement: "HE contained in a hand grenade is "arms"". It is also completely correct. It IS "arms". Once again, there is no mention of classification in the 2nd Amendment.

...shall not be infringed.

Read Constitution.....

Wrong. Under the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by the US constitution, the burden of proof is with the prosecution.

You are not a citzen of the US nor is this a court of law.

Then what right do you have to detain and try foreigners who have committed no crime on US soil?

The US military that acts as the prosecution has its proof.

Where? Let's see it. If they have proof why hasn't he come to trial yet?

I have to provide nothing to you. You are totally and absolutely responsible for your ignorance.

You're making the case pal. You made the accusations. You provide the proof.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

And yet you still dont get it ??

OH and another thing, sarcastic sardonic or wry all mean the same thing. I suggest that you find a better dictionary next time( English teacher ?), might I recommend AHD.....

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Try the OED.

Sarcastic, sardonic and wry do not all mean the same thing. If they did we wouldn't have them all. Each meaning is similar but not the same. They give nuance to the language, carry degrees of meaning different to each other. Why do you think legal documents are written so carefully? That you are willing to stand up and in print declare that three words are exaclty alike tells me that you are not an English teacher.

It was best for the free world for the democratically-elected government of Chile to be replaced in a coup by a military dictatorship that kidnapped, tortured and murdered its own citizens?

You mean a Socialist party that came in and hijacked US comapnies in Chile while driving the Chilean economy into the ground all the while bankrolled by the USSR?

Immaterial. It was democratically-elected.

Chile nearly in a state of civil war it was propitious to have a Liberal dictator than a facist or communist dictator. The events that followed were a matter of regret and it was in the end the US and the free world that sought his arrest for torture. Also it was Pinochet that actually brought back democracy to Chile despite being a dictator.

Please read your words again.

Sadly these vital details are of little importance when one needs to carry out their Anti-American hyperbole.

Oh, and read them again as well. Then tell me which part the US had in bringing Pinochet to trial.

Who said anything about the USSR? Remember that bit about the developing world?

Ah, so its selective memory is it or is it plain denial ??
Remember that bit of the world that had around 10,000 nuclear weapons aimed at Europe and the rest of the free world that we brought to its knees ? No ??

Stick to the topic. But if you must step outside, what about the thousands of missiles the US and its allies had (and have) pointed at the USSR? Where is the difference?

Where you propped up all those dictators .....

Blah, blah, cry me a ocean ! Off on some other bit of arcane are we, this time to turkey and helping poor kurds... what next Ethiopia, Somalia, Cambodia....
Will you claim that Pol Pot was an undercover CIA operative next?
Apparently an idealist in an ivory tower. No, everything is not black and white and neither are all the roses red. People do what they must when the must.

"People do what they must, when they must." I couldn't have said it better. Perhaps you had now better apply that thinking to people who are not "our" people.

The US has singularly failed to understand the terrorists and so will continue to fight them in the most inappropriate way possible.

I am sure Nick berg and Margret Hassan had a "deeper understanding" with these terrorists! The kind you espouse.....

I bring you back to your previous statement. Had you bothered to do a little due diligence and try for a little understanding there would have been no Nick Berg or Margaret Hassan. Margaret Hassan in particular is dead only because of US policy.

So tell me how the world is safer for Margaret Hassan because of the War on Terror(tm). Please.

An aid worker with 30 years in country, fluent in the language, married to a local and a decade as country director of her NGO. A decade in which she had carried out her work uninterrupted, until the US rolled into town.

Please tell me how the US made the world safer for her.

That you think her death has nothing to do with US policy is what is worthy of a That you think I'm suggesting we need to hug Islamists and "give peace a chance" is worthy of a

Try understanding these words: "...so will continue to fight them in the most inappropriate way possible." When you finally cotton on to what that means you will have made the first step.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
So NATO chose to support the terrorists?

Nato chose to support peace, peace from both sides. You would know that had you actually followed the series of events that led to the war.

I suggest you read the Geneva convention. Who were the illegal combatants in Afghanistan? The representatives of the central government? Or the invading forces? Were the Taliban's forces dressed in US uniforms? What makes them illegal combatants? Were the Maquis wearing military uniforms or civilian clothes? What made them legal forces?

I’ve actually read the Convention and also the Convention of War and there is NO place where it talks of granting any amnesty to illegal combatants. In fact the US(and many other nations) while signing the Convention said that if its enemies do not abide by the conventions it would not be bound by those conventions. Obviously you havent read it so this would be news to you!  The rest of the trivia has been dealt with extensively on ATS, might I introduce you to the SEARCH feature on ATS…..

Then why were they transported to Cuba and held there without charge?

They were detained in Cuba under suspicion of terrorism(which is legal!). Their case was processed and they were found to be ‘safe’.

Statutes, constitution. Two totally separate things…...

A simple “I have nothing to say…” would have sufficed

Suggest you study a little about the ancient kingdom of Judah.

Apparently your studies in English have left out the Story of David and Goliath! For the ignorant, David was shepherd boy who was asked by his father to check up on his brothers and upon reaching the army he proceeded to fell Goliath. Sling here is clearly a “non-miliatary” weapon(to the reasonable!). Nevertheless during the formation of the Bill of Rights, the authors of the bill used contemporary English of the time to state the rights of all Americans and thus employed the term “bear arms”. After professing some competence in English I find it hard to believe that one would have a ‘problem’ understanding, but then again..

Unless you carry it into battle against the invading Philistines….

Samuel 21 ??

Hmm, gunpowder projectile weapons are not military in nature?

Well surprisingly, there is general consensus in the military world that carry sawed-off shotguns and the like are of little use in killing an enemy 200 yards away! If you consider the Lupara to be “military” then that’s a different issue….

I would just ask you to find the word "military" anywhere in it quoted adjacently to the word "arms".

Apparently for a self professed “english teacher” you have a great difficulty in understanding that the US constitution and the Bill of Rights in particular are holistic in nature and the term “bear arms”.

The militia is regulated, not the right to bear arms.

Another common misconception, the second clause is dependent on the first not the other way around. A regulated militia would have stipulated weapons to carry.

It was a relatively simple statement: "HE contained in a hand grenade is "arms"". It is also completely correct. It IS "arms". Once again, there is no mention of classification in the 2nd Amendment.

Wrong(it’s a simple word!). The BoR says “ bear arms” which has a totally different meaning than just ‘arms’. Come on you’re an English teacher or so you claim at least.

Then what right do you have to detain and try foreigners who have committed no crime on US soil?

They have been detained as illegal combatants on a battlefield (Conventions of War!) and are therefore detained accordingly, had they commited a crime in the US they would have been tried in the local courts as “terrorists”, like the “shoe bomber”.

Where? Let's see it. If they have proof why hasn't he come to trial yet?

Are you by any chance the judge who is going to try them or do you belong the Department of Defenses dealing with this matter ? No ? In that case you will have to wait just like the rest of the public to hear the prosecution and its evidence. This is again subject to the fact that they decide to release these to the public.

You're making the case pal. You made the accusations. You provide the proof.

I’ve made no case nor any accusations. I merely state facts and the official position.

Sarcastic, sardonic and wry do not all mean the same thing. If they did we wouldn't have them all.

Lol, so we havent heard of synonyms have we ?? Isnt that a necessary requirement to major in English ? Maybe not! BTW, I never said that they were “exactly” the same, just that they were the same.

Immaterial. It was democratically-elected.

Why is that ? Hitler was elected democratically also. Do you endorse his leadership as well ??

Please read your words again.

I did, so what ???

Then tell me which part the US had in bringing Pinochet to trial.

Oh, you know that insignificant part where they sought to try him in Chile in their own courts and him being wanted for “crimes against humanity”.

what about the thousands of missiles the US and its allies had (and have) pointed at the USSR? Where is the difference?

We WON

"People do what they must, when they must." I couldn't have said it better. Perhaps you had now better apply that thinking to people who are not "our" people.

Well you should be able to say it better, after all you’re supposed to be an English teacher, is it not ? Small talk aside, it applies to everybody just like it does to America. America does what it has to, when it has to and that is with respect to the environment it has to face, guided by American principles and values. Sometimes the US supports a dictator and sometimes we endorse pacifists, it’s the larger picture that we take into consideration and do what we must.

Had you bothered to do a little due diligence and try for a little understanding there would have been no Nick Berg or Margaret Hassan.

Shouting form the ramparts of our Ivory tower again are we ? You mean understanding like Margaret Hassan ? Guess what happens, you help them for 30 years and then they chop your head off! Does the US want that? NO ! I’d rather chop their heads off now and not have to bother for the next 30 decades, but that’s just me
Speaking of due diligence, the US told Saddam that he could surrender and he and his sons had to leave the country to avoid the war. Peace was prophetically “given a chance” but it had to turn out as it has.
BTW is it grammatically right to say “do a little due diligence” but hey, I’m no English teacher !

Margaret Hassan in particular is dead only because of US policy.

Don’t tell me that Margaret Hassan was killed because they thought she was a “ US spy” when she had been in the country for 30 years ! It’s naïve to believe that, but I pose no restrictions on you !
The fact is, the US fights to bring people; like those who killed her, to justice and as long as they continue to kill such innocent people, the US will be steadfast in its determination to bring these terrorists to justice not because we want to but because we have to, we do what we must!
........

[edit on 29-6-2006 by IAF101]

^^^^^...

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIVPlease tell me how the US made the world safer for her.

Tell me how her work has made the world a safer place ? It’s all subjective, she was there in her own volition to help Iraqis through her NGO, was fully aware that it was a war torn region and accepted the consequences. The US is also there to help the Iraqis transition from tyranny to a democratic system. Our work just as noble or as humanitarian as Margaret Hassan’s is for those sections of society that choose peace and prosperity. Just like the US, Margaret Hassan also faces opposition to her work and in this way both Margaret Hassan’s work and the US mission in Iraq have a common aim, to bring a change for the better.

Try understanding these words: "...so will continue to fight them in the most inappropriate way possible." When you finally cotton on to what that means you will have made the first step.

Try understanding these words?? Cotton on to ?? Anyway…..
What is the appropriate way? The Margaret Hassan approach? Who is to say what is and what isnt the “right” approach ? As I’ve said before, America does what it must !

IAF

Originally posted by IAF101

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Margaret Hassan in particular is dead only because of US policy.

Don’t tell me that Margaret Hassan was killed because they thought she was a “ US spy” when she had been in the country for 30 years ! It’s naïve to believe that, but I pose no restrictions on you !

No. Margaret Hassan was killed because you invaded Iraq.

No invasion, no dead Margaret Hassan.

I was hoping that you would be able to see that without me having to carve it in stone ten feet high, but apparently your myopia is incurable, even with the advances modern medicine has made lately.

Originally posted by IAF101

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
I suggest you read the Geneva convention. ...What makes them illegal combatants? Were the Maquis wearing military uniforms or civilian clothes? What made them legal forces?

I’ve actually read the Convention and also the Convention of War and there is NO place where it talks of granting any amnesty to illegal combatants.

"What makes them illegal combatants?"

Statutes, constitution. Two totally separate things…...

A simple “I have nothing to say…” would have sufficed

A simple check of the dictionary once in a while would save you from ignorance, occasionally.

Suggest you study a little about the ancient kingdom of Judah.

Apparently your studies in English have left out the Story of David and Goliath! For the ignorant,

Tell us who "Tall Saul" was...

Sarcastic, sardonic and wry do not all mean the same thing. If they did we wouldn't have them all.

Lol, so we havent heard of synonyms have we ?? Isnt that a necessary requirement to major in English ? Maybe not! BTW, I never said that they were “exactly” the same, just that they were the same.

Synonyms, where words have similar meanings. Know what "similar" means?

Immaterial. It was democratically-elected.

Why is that ? Hitler was elected democratically also. Do you endorse his leadership as well ??

So, who needs to study how a parliamentary system, such as the Weimar Republic, works? Hitler was an elected MP. He was not elected Prime Minister or President, he was not elected Fuhrer. Joe McCarthy was also elected.

Please read your words again.

I did, so what ???

The point is a little further down.

Then tell me which part the US had in bringing Pinochet to trial.

Oh, you know that insignificant part where they sought to try him in Chile in their own courts and him being wanted for “crimes against humanity”.

"Then tell me which part the US had in bringing Pinochet to trial." (This is getting a little tiring, having to remind you of what I ACTUALLY said.

what about the thousands of missiles the US and its allies had (and have) pointed at the USSR? Where is the difference?

We WON

Ahh, so that's all that makes your missiles less dangerous and threatening than theirs...

"People do what they must, when they must." I couldn't have said it better. Perhaps you had now better apply that thinking to people who are not "our" people.

Well you should be able to say it better, after all you’re supposed to be an English teacher, is it not ? Small talk aside,

Yes, I've noticed that. All you can do is talk small. Define irony: a person attampting to win an argument by belittling another through the admission of his own inadequacy.

*here it is, refer earlier*

You have the most amazing ability to write the opposing argument without it ever occurring to you that you are doing so.

Sometimes the US supports a dictator and sometimes we endorse pacifists, it’s the larger picture that we take into consideration and do what we must.

Tell that to the 30,000 kidnap and torture victims in Chile.

Had you bothered to do a little due diligence and try for a little understanding there would have been no Nick Berg or Margaret Hassan.

Shouting form the ramparts of our Ivory tower again are we ?..

Do we need the rest? Suffice it to say, you once again have failed to understand what you have read.

As for due diligince, how's the search those WMDs Saddam had going?

BTW is it grammatically right to say “do a little due diligence” but hey, I’m no English teacher !

Really, one wouldn't have known after your earlier appraisal of my English. Oh, and while we're at it, it is common to say "gramattically correct" and a question usually has a "?" at the end of it, but, hey, I'm only an English teacher.

the US will be steadfast in its determination to bring these terrorists to justice not because we want to but because we have to, we do what we must!

Rah, rah, "Oh, say, can you see..." Hallelujah, Praise the Lord and sing Hail to the Cheif...*yawn*...

US Guantanamo tribunals 'illegal'

Many Guantanamo detainees have been held for years
The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Bush administration does not have the authority to try terrorism suspects by military tribunal.

www.news.bbc.co.uk...

Tell me, how's that reading of the convention going?

"The procedures adopted to try Hamdan also violate the Geneva Conventions," the justices said.

Originally posted by IAF101
“ bear arms” which has a totally different meaning than just ‘arms’. Come on you’re an English teacher or so you claim at least.

I just can't let this one pass, it's just too *juvenile s'n-word'* good not to comment on *juvenile s'n-word'*.

Yes, "bear arms" and "arms" are quite different.

Strictly speaking a bear doesn't actually have "arms", it has "limbs". A bear walks on all fours, but can stand upright on two, so its forelimbs have to do double duty. Primates, large and small, also walk on all four (including humans at an early developmental stage). However, primates forelimbs are specifically developed to operate "hands" and "fingers", moreover, homo sapiens has "arms" because they do single duty after the age of 1 (approx).

*juvenile s'n-word'*