That wasn't my argument........I said there were some similarities.
That was what you said at first. Later when I said "painting them as being anything like the nazis is without justification", and you replied "Yes, that's what the Germans said when Hitler was taking the Jews." So it was your argument, even if it wasn't your original argument or the argument you consider most important.
Let me make this easy for you Tim, Bush and his cronies are a negative force.......I don't care if you want to call them Nazis, Communists or daisies. That's your choice.
I have shown you but I believe your partisanship prevents you from admitting there is any significance to them.
I think your partisanship causes you to see significance to them.
Your statement makes no sense......rethink it and get back to me.
Commander-in-Chief means you are commander of the all the military forces for the US. The military's actions reflect back on the president. He is responsible for those actions. That does not mean he is put in jail. It does mean he must take responsibility for whatever crimes his troops commit and act accordingly.
Crimes where committed by members of the military under Clinton, and Bush Sr. and Reagan, and Carter, and Ford, and Nixon, and Johnson... Does that make all of these presidents criminals?
I said he was responsible, not a criminal. And the extent of the war crimes under Bush is much greater than it was under those other presidents you mention.
They are internment camps........they are worse then our prisons because up til recently, the inmates had no legal recourse.
Prisoners captured in war normally don't have legal recourse. Can you imagine trying to hold trials for all the German and Japanese prisoners in WWII, or the Chinese and Korean prisoners in Korea? If there is reason to hold people after the cessation of hostilities then there will be the need for some form of trial, either in Iraqi or Afghani courts, or a US military tribunal, or some sort of civilian trial, or potentially (but not likely) some form of international trial.
They have rights under the Geneva Conventions of which we are signatory. Those rights were not followed.
The only differences with the Hilter camps is that there has been no killing [as far as I know] and that the torture is more mental than physical. Furthermore, I understand they are fed regularly.
You miss the important difference of why the people where rounded up. They where not arrested for being part of an ethnic or religious group, they where detained as being enemies in war. They where detained for their actions and their plans, not their religious beliefs or ancestry.
You think only Jews were in Hitler's death camps. You are a bit naive.
Because conditions were worse at Auschwitz does not make these places acceptable.
Arguing that they were not anything like Auschwitz isn't saying that they are acceptable, although in this case they are if they are run correctly, beyond acceptable they are necessary. The alternative would be to take no prisoners and just shoot everyone you think is an enemy.
Or treat your prisoners in accordance with Geneva Conventions of which we are a signatory.
After WW II, most of us learned that internment camps are not a good idea. Apparently, the Bushies missed or ignored that lesson......that is worrisome.
Not only are these places not like Auschwitz they aren't even like the American internment camps in WWII. Then we rounded up people because they where Japanese (even if they where American citizens). We aren't rounding up people because they are Muslim, or Arab, or whatever.
They are much worse than our Japanese internment camps.
Re: FL being rife with voter fraud
Yes, there was......I posted articles discussing it within the past month.
Yes a lot of people have written about it. That doesn't change the fact that there is no solid evidence that FL was rife with voter fraud or that the voting fraud in FL was unusually high.
Yes, there is........I have posted documented proof......stop lying.
That is an immature perspective that has no place in foreign diplomacy. Collaboration means compromise, not veto.
You collaborate with people who have the same ideas and goals.
You collaborate with your allies. Bush refused to do that because he is incapable of compromise.......negative, immature people usually can't get along with other people.
ted |
