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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (363097)	12/16/2007 5:24:15 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586427

The Founding Fathers that Bruce is so fond of citing didn't believe we should have a standing army. I agree with them. I think we could easily get by with a beefed up National Guard. Who's really going to attack us? The Canadians? The Mexicans? Anyone else would have a foolish task that would be bound to fail, just from simple logistics and American gun ownership.

To: combjelly who wrote (363097)	12/16/2007 9:23:01 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586427

<iHowever, it is hardly a universal characteristic of liberals that they are anti-recruiting. Why don't some speak up when other liberals try to keep ROTC out of colleges? "We have a pretty good idea. " There are over 300 at gitmo. We know for certain about a few. And despite that, we have only one conviction, and that was a plea bargain. We have good ideas of most of them. The fact that we've relesed so many without trials shows that we aren't into simply holding innocent people. We've erred on the side of leniency because some of those released returned to fight us in Afghanistan. ----------------------------------- Re. Joanthan Idema was one guy. BTW how did he come to be arrested? Seems the US received exactly one prisoner from him and that one was quickly cleared and released. Why are liberals so eager to believe the worst of the US? -------------------------------------- "The folks at Gitmo are treated very humanely." Except for the torture, that is true. They aren't being tortured. How long does it take to question someone? How long it takes is irrelevant to the issue of POW status. As POW's aren't supposed to be questioned beyond name, rank, serial number. The answer to your question is tt can take a long time. I understand new information is being obtained all the time. They learn one thing about the people someone has known, then learn more from elsewhere and go back and question about a new aspect to learn more. Like putting together a puzzle. "Hood says interrogators are focusing their efforts on about one-quarter of the prisoners, who have what he calls "high intelligence value." The question that often comes up is what possible relevant information a detainee could have after four years of incarceration. Hood says you'd be surprised. "I'm not telling you that some critical piece of information that we gathered today, or this week -- or even this month -- is going to be essential in preventing some terrorist attack, some place in the world," he says. But the information being gathered helps shed light on how terrorist organizations operate -- " how they recruit, how they move around the globe, how they're financed, how they command and control operations," he says. " npr.org ----------------------------------- Some of those people have been there since the war. How long are we going to hold them? After 6 years, how much relevant intelligence can they provide? I answered the If releasing them will present new terrorist threats to the US, we should never release them. Do you think we should release people who are likely to take part in future terror attacks? ---------------------------------- As I understand it they have to be members or supporters of Al Qaeda or the Taliban." There is no such requirement. That is the definition the administration uses. "He was believed to be close to developing nukes. " By some. They made a brilliant call, didn't they? Kenneth Pollack said so and he had pretty good credentials. "Kenneth Michael Pollack (born 1966) is a noted former CIA intelligence analyst and expert on Middle East politics and military analysis. He has served on the National Security Council staff and has written several articles and books on related topics. Kenneth Pollack was educated at Yale University, earning a B.A. in 1988. He went on to MIT, where he earned a Ph.D. in 1996. In government, Kenneth Pollack has served in a variety of roles. From 1988 until 1995, he was analyst on Iraqi and Iranian military issues for the Central Intelligence Agency. He spent a year as Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs with the United States National Security Council. In 1999, he rejoined the NSC as the Director for Persian Gulf Affairs. He also served two stints as a professor with the National Defense University." ------------------------------------- Developing nuclear weapons isn't easy. And, without testing is, not a slam dunk. Just look at the test by NK.* Nevertheless, the weapons are so dangerous, the threat needs to be taken seriously, not dismissed cavalierly as liberals are wont to do. ------------------------------ "The poeple in that era had no idea they were in a different era than any other." Sure they did, although they might not have named it that way. They knew that, instead of quietly accepting what the monarchs and the church said, they could and did openly discuss and question. You make it sound like they were rebels against "the church". They weren't. In the Declaration of Independence they wrote they declared that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. Not something a bunch of secular free thinkers would say.