Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: tejek who wrote (160500)	2/10/2003 5:48:24 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) of 1577248

At least one general said these guys were nothing but guys who got hijacked by the Taliban. How many despotic regimes don't force people to fight for them. If we can be really sure that some Afghanis where forced in to it and are apparently not terrorist types of violent fundmentalists maybe we can consider letting some go esp. if the situation in Afghanistan improves, but I think no Al-Qaeda should be let go, and the Taleban soldiers only if it can be really solidly determined that they where unwilling. When there is any doubt (and more often then not there is) I think we have to lean on the side of not releasing them. Also its quite possible we might release them in to Afghan custudy only to see them abused or killed... Now I remember why Rumsfield did not want to call them POWs and comply with the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention calls for them to be tried by a court of law. unhchr.ch I can't load your link. If that is true then the Geneva convention is rutinely violated not just by the "barbaric countries" but by almost anyone at war. Certainly we didn't put the Nazi's and North Koreans, and Chinese and Vietnamese Communists that we captured on trial. I did find this link - www1.umn.edu I didn't read the whole thing but I searched for "trial" and only found statements relating to the rights of a POW when they are put on trial for crimes. (Their detention as a POW is not considered punishment for a crime). Acting in our country's best interests does not mean that people have to be treated badly or inhumanely. You seem to think one follows the other. I don't think that we are treating prisoners inhumanely nor do I think that doing so is in our nations interests. I also don't think your comment is relevant to my original statement as my original statement about acting in our best interest was not about prisoners but rather about potentially invading Iraq. ----- Tim -"We didn't sign a ceasefire agreement or other treaty obliging us to get rid of our WMD. Also there is the purely practical self interest of the US at stake. I see nothing wrong with acting in that self interest esp. when it is also reduces the threat to other countries." Ted - That's why need to get the conservatives out of the gov't as much as possible Tim- You didn't address the first issue. And if you think that you need to get conservatives out of the government because they act in our countries self interest, either as a general principle or as a response to a potential WMD threat, I suggest to liberals that they stay quiet about it. Saying "We should not act in our countries self interest", or "we should put the concerns of other countries ahead of our self interest when dealing with potential new nuclear powers", isn't the way to attract a lot of voters." Message 18561665

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next