Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (17538)	1/29/2002 7:14:25 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi CobaltBlue; By comparing how we are treating the detainees to "Andersonville, the Bataan Death March, the Hanoi Hilton", you're not likely to generate a lot of sympathy for your point. I don't think we're getting a 43% death rate, as was the overall rate during the American revolution, or even as high as the 14% rate of the Civil War: geocities.com It's arguable that the South during the Civil War didn't have nearly enough resources (mostly farming manpower, I suppose) to adequately feed all those prisoners. When nations blockade food from each other (which is pretty much universal in war, if it can be done effectively. For example, we did just that to Japan in WW2, Germany in both wars, and Iraq currently), they can hardly expect their PoWs to be better fed than the starving enemy civilians. What should be done under that circumstance is that a neutral nation should be contracted with to hold the captured combatants for the duration. Maybe we're illegally using the detainees to build bridges out of bamboo over the River Kwai, but I haven't seen any photographic proof. Similarly, we're not forcing them to walk without food or water in the heat of the Philippines until they drop, and then bayoneting them. I guess we're probably torturing them until they make statements against Al Qaeda as happened during Vietnam. -- Carl

To: Ilaine who wrote (17538)	1/29/2002 11:14:15 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

My god CB... I'm not suggesting we mistreat these thugs (and they are thugs, imo).. And there is NO EVIDENCE that they are being mistreated. Given the heinous nature of the crimes they and their associates committed against not only the US, but the Afghani people, they are definitely getting better than they deserve. And like serial murderers who stalk and kill innocent women receiving life imprisonment rather than death, they have no right to complain when they failed to grant that same right to the victims of their crimes. All that I'm saying is that giving them their freedom would present a clear and present danger to EVERY nation. Without some evidence that they have renounced their terrorist views and the use of violence to pursue their political or religious goals, I'm all for keeping them locked up for life. Their psychology, particularly their ruthless disregard for non-combatants and stated desire to target and kill all Americans, rank them right up their with serial killers. They are predators, and we are the prey. They will kill us if we give them the opportunity. Ignoring that reality is not going to make it go away. Hawk

To: Ilaine who wrote (17538)	1/31/2002 5:56:34 AM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

We are Not Them. We are not the Bad Guys. You forgot to click your heels together & repeat it three times, Dorothy. <GG> Maybe some people think it would be fun to be a Bad Guy and mistreat prisoners. Though we are progressing, I'm quite certain that we have, in many US prisons. My own Christmas wish was for peace on earth, good will to men, and to personally strangle Osama bin Laden until his eyeballs popped out. When I told this to my husband, he suggested torturing him first. Nope. Not OK. I'm not certain I see the distinction between your wish and torture. I think OBL serving a life sentence would be an excellent choice, if he had the right Bunkie.